Why are Christians always explaining why Genesis must be taken literally,[1] but the Sermon on the Mount musn’t be.[2]?
[1] http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp
[2] E.g., http://members.datafast.net.au/sggram/f557.htm
About Me
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(51)
-
▼
July
(11)
- Modern legalism:You have heard that it was said, '...
- Why are Christians always explaining why Genesis m...
- The grounds of forgiveness -Can anyone give me a g...
- Holiness and sinAnother reason we often have troub...
- Response to Jeff regarding sin continued...My unde...
- Open letter to Jeff and people who find Christiani...
- What's the big deal about sin?Two recent comments ...
- Why is God hiding?Many of the most difficult quest...
- Modern legalisms:You have heard it said “Jesus doe...
- One verse captures the essences of the Sermon on t...
- I vehemently opposed blogging until 7 a.m. this mo...
-
▼
July
(11)
Blinks
- Amazing Grace: faith and art
- Between Two Worlds
- Chrisendom
- Conviction of Things Not Seen (Spirituality made practical)
- Cost of Discipleship (An Orthodox twist)
- The Davy Tales
- Get Religion, religion in the press
- Katie Beaton's Comics
- The Lange Family
- Less than the Least(Evangelical law professors)
- Marks of Authentic Mission
- My writing
- Myopic Pilgrim (This AmeriChristian Life, hosted by Ira Jack)
- N State Travellers
- Of First Importance (Quotes on the Gospel)
- Opinions Nobody Asked For
- Smlwoman's Weblog
- Ugly Evangelical
- What Would People Think? (If They Knew I Was a Liberal Jesus Freak)
5 comments:
Funny. I've been wanting to blog about my doubts on Adam & Eve, the Flood, maybe even the Exodus. Do they have to be literal, perfectly accurate historical accounts? If so, then science seems far from trustworthy. If not, when do we transition from myth to reality? The judges? The kings? The phophets? Jesus?
Basically, I believe that through good faith interpretation of the Bible we can discover the meaning that God wants us to understand.
I don't know the precise moment that you go from a looser understanding to a literal one. But, for example, I think it's very defensible to explain why the accounts of Jesus are intended to be taken literally, while the Nephilem and the Tower of Babyl your less certain (literally) about.
My favorite moment in interpretive history is when the disciples ask Jesus about Elijah. They say, according to Isaiah, Elijah must come before the Messiah. And if so if Jesus, you're the Messiah, then where's Elijah. Jesus responds, "John the Baptist is Elijah, if you will accept it." (Matt. 11:14).
This is remarkable. There's not indication that John was actually Elijah in disguise, returned from heaven in a chariot of fire. John's name was not Elijah. John himself even denied being Elijah! But Jesus says that that's him, that's Elijah, that's the guy Isaiah said was coming, "Meet Elijah, er, John."
Can't you picture an unwitting Evangelical literalist telling Jesus that he was wrong?
I just cite this example to show that the meaning of the Bible may be a bit more fluid than a literalistic hermeneutic might allow.
I like Matthew telling us that Jesus going to and coming out of Egypt fufilled the prophecy "Out of Egypt I called my son." In the context of the prophecy (Hosea 11:1, I think, but don't hold me to it), it does not seem to have a prophetic tone, and is obviously referring to the nation of Israel.
If I didn't know better, I'd say Matthew invented a prophecy to make Jesus look like the son of God.
The fear is summed up in the question "Where do you stop?" If the this part of the Bible doesn't have to be taken literally then what stops people from picking and choosing what literal and not. Once that happens, our theological foundation begins to crumble. Chaos will reign. Dogs and cats living together...
http://jackswords.com/
But I think there is a real danger in deciding where, if at all to stop. If we extend the uncertainty to the entire book, what do we have? A myth, no more factual than those of Zeus and Prometheus. And "if Jesus is not raised from the dead (in fact, not in story alone) then we are to be pitied above all men."
Perhaps part of the Genesis/SoM dichotomy is that the first is regarded as an argument about historical fact, whereas the second is regarded as an argument about interpretation. If we allow that Jesus really did say the things attributed to him in Matthew, then the reliability of the Bible is not the issue. If you take the account of creation to mean not at all what it says, then you are questioning the reliability of the account - whether the Bible is even true.
Post a Comment