From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com
Date: Fri Sep 20 2002 - 14:22:08 EDT
In the textbook the instructor used for the class, the
scholars had this to say
Which Interpretation [parable or history wkd] Is Correct?
No simple solution exists. The larger issue of our
understanding of biblical inspiration will vitally affect
our decision. Those who adopt the historical interpretation
must recognize that fully satisfactory answers to the questions
raised are not available. Selection of parabolic or
religious-fiction interpretation necessitates coming to
grips both with the extraordinary encounter with the fish
(not a common episode as we usually find in parables) and
with Jesus' use of Jonah in the Gospels. Those who
subscribe to the authority of the Lord's words must
study them carefully. They involve a reinterpretation
of the basic story. Jonah was swallowed by the fish in
order to rescue him from drowning and to bring him back
to land. Jesus was playing off the contemporary Jewish
understanding in giving it a negative force. Was he
echoing a popular story, as a preacher might by referring
to an incident from Pilgrim's Progress?
The motivation for one's choice of interpretation is
important. If one decides on the parabolic or symbolic
interpretation solely because the miraculous element is
offensive, then the decision is based on a modern a
priori conclusion which, contrary to the biblical
position, rejects God's supernatural intervention
in history. Yet it is entirely possible to decide
on grounds of literary form and content that the book
is intended as a sort of parable.
A firm principle in biblical study is that, even in
a clearly historical passage, the theological message
is more important than historical details. The Bible
was not written to satisfy curiosity about peoples and
events in the ancient Near East. It was inspired by
God's spirit, with doctrinal, spiritual, and moral
intent. As part of the biblical canon, Jonah must
be studied with primary attention to the theological
message....
[Lasor, Hubbard, Bush. Old Testament Survey. (W.B. Eerdmans,
1996, Grand Rapids). p. 386]
Maybe it can still be argued that there are different kinds
of Baptists or something. Anyway, whereas they take no firm
position on whether the text is to be read as a parable or
as a historical narrative, they point out clear problems with
a historic position.
It's not obvious. It might pay to take a seminary
course (or two) and find out what they really have
to say before climbing on the soapbox and hollering
foul.
by Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 20 2002 - 21:08:12 EDT