Re: Biblical Interpretation Reconsidered

Josh,

    I hold to the mystery of the Incarnation, that Christ was fully divine
*and fully human*, and I believe that as the fully human, historical Jesus
of Nazareth, whose life on earth was limited to a certain time, place, and
culture, he shared our human mind, and also the human knowledge of his
culture. I account for this theologically, based on the statement of the
author of Hebrews that Jesus *was in every respect like us*, even to being
tempted, but without sin (cf. 4:15). Also, on the "kenosis" passage in
Phil. 2:5-11, in which Christ is said to have "emptied himself" (Greek
'ekenosen') of divinity and taken the form of a (human) servant. I think
this important theological revelation is often overlooked.

    Now, if the Christ shared our human nature, it means that he shared our
human limitations of knowledge; as a Baptist minister friend of mine once
put it, "He didn't know Einstein's theory of relativity from day one." He
would know and understand his and his peoples' Scripture as they would; and
while he might disagree with other teachers in interpreting specific
passages, it stands to reason that he would have accepted the tradition, for
example, that Moses is responsible for the Torah. Why should anyone assume
otherwise? He was not the Docetic (Gnostic) God walking around in what
appeared to be a human body. That the human Jesus of Nazareth accepted
understandings of Scripture that have changed since his time does not make
him either a liar or a deceiver, any more than it would make the Holy Spirit
a liar for inspiring the author of Genesis 1 to use the cosmology of his own
time and not our more accurate cosmology. I think the kind of problem you
are wrestling with is exascerbated by Christians who emphasize the divinity
of the Christ at the expense of the humanity, and assume that when John in
his gospel writes that Jesus knew all things, that that statment is to be
taken literally and absolutely, without considering context or that the
writer might be using the commonly used (in the Bible) rhetorical
commonplace of hyperbole.

    All of us to some degree or another have to wrestle with the terrible
literal-mindedness of our age.

Hope this helps,
Grace and peace,
Bob Schneider

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gough, Joshua" <xzg3@cdc.gov>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 1:11 PM
Subject: RE: Biblical Interpretation Reconsidered

> Hello, I've been lurking on this list for some time, but follow some of
> the threads with interest. I've gathered that there is no shortage of
> controversy on just about every possible subject discussed! This comment
> below confuses me. If Jesus were God as well as human, then why would he
> believe something that is not true, regardless of what was written in
> scripture? And if he didn't believe it, why would he perpetuate it?
>
> I've been in conversations lately with people who say the Christ story
> is all just that, a story that builds upon previous stories, like Lord
> of the Rings and The Matrix are stories that in fact use messianic
> elements of the Christ story, but are themselves admittedly stories. I
> don't really have the type of knowledge to refute that. Then, I see all
> the controversies about literalism, authorship, doctrines, tithing,
> abuses, etc...It's all very complex. While I cannot deny that reading
> the words of scripture and Jesus have had a profound affect on me, what
> is there that differentiates this from the affects that reading and
> following other sound advice would bring? I think his words are the
> soundest advice and wisest I've ever read, but how am I to know whether
> he was real, was God, etc, and not just as others say a fantasy
> creation. If people call into question authorship of verses, literalism
> of accounts, etc, how am I to defend a supposedly now outmoded belief in
> a literal resurrection, upon which the entire faith truly rests?
> Lunatic, Liar, Lord, or well-written mythical hero?
>
> Still seeking,
> Josh
>
> >> 3d, Jesus' citations of OT texts in general have to be seen in
> light
> >>of the
> >>kenotic aspect of the Incarnation. If he was fully human in the
> context
> >>of 1st century
> >>Judaism then it is not surprising that he would have had beliefs about
> the
> >>authorship &
> >>nature of the Hebrew scriptures typical of that culture. But
> Mk.12:36,
> >>e.g., shouldn't
> >>be taken as proof that David actually wrote Ps.110.
> >>
> >> Shalom,
> >> George
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>George L. Murphy
> >>gmurphy@raex.com
> >>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
Received on Fri Dec 19 16:35:46 2003