Friday, 04 May 2012
-
When Scripture Gets Scripture Wrong
By Nic Don at
TheopoliticalI became a believer and began reading the Bible not long before I turned eighteen. It didn’t take long before I recognized that the writers of the New Testament often seemed to be reading a different Old Testament than I was. The gospels or epistles would cite a passage, and like an earnest first-time Bible student, I would look it up, expecting to find basically what the New Testament author said I’d find, but with more detail.
Instead, I often found completely different wording, sometimes completely unrelated or completely opposite what the New Testament author is saying. Other times the quote is correct but lifted completely out of context, the very next verse modifies the meaning. Other times the quote is correct but the original author is clearly referring to something that had already happened or was currently on-going.
When I went to university and began working on my theology and then my literature degrees, I learned the categories of explanation for this. Ancient readers understood texts differently than moderns do; employed different techniques of persuasion or explication. The writers of what became the New Testament looked for the sensus plenior, or fuller meaning, of the Judaic texts. Further, the first category of cases is easily accounted for when you realize the history of transmission. By the time the New Testament was composed, the Old Testament had been translated into Greek, and the Greek and Hebrew versions stood side-by-side, complementing each other. Often writers would draw on a nuance of the Greek text to make their point, while the Hebrew said something quite different. English-speaking pastors do this with translations of the Bible constantly.
But there is one category of scriptural misuse that still gets my attention, and that’s when the Christian writers seem to deliberately misuse passages from the Hebrew scriptures. Sometimes the writers draw the opposite meaning from a passage from the original author. Kenneth Bailey, in his must-read Jesus Through Middle-Eastern Eyes, observes that Jesus leaves two crucial verses out of his quotation from Isaiah.
In the gospel of Luke, Jesus begins his public ministry by teaching in a local synagogue (a practice often open to itinerant lay preachers, as it were). It’s unclear whether he chose the passage, or whether the synagogues were already following a lectionary by this point, but Jesus read from Isaiah:
The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.But Jesus angered the gathered crowd by omitting what history shows us was their favorite part of the passage, which goes on to say, “to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort those who mourn.” Luke records that they were so angered by this omission, and perhaps his self-designation as a prophet, that they attempted to put him to death.
Of course, the passage does not say so clearly that this is why the crowd was angered, which has left the story somewhat bewildering to anyone not as familiar with the Isaiah passage as Jesus and his audience were. It was subversive, the same way removing “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance is subversive.
But there are broader examples. One of the most commonly cited psalms is Psalm 110. This is an enthronement psalm that proclaims:
The Lord says to my lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”2 The Lord will extend your mighty scepter from Zion, saying,
“Rule in the midst of your enemies!”
3 Your troops will be willing
on your day of battle.
Arrayed in holy splendor,
your young men will come to you
like dew from the morning’s womb.4 The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek. ”The Gospels, the book of Acts and the book of Hebrews make frequent use of this psalm, but consistently skip over verses 2 and 3, which are never alluded to, even where verses 1 and 4 are used together. This leads D. Stephen Long to point out that “Sometimes doctrine arises as much from what we must forget as what we affirm.”
What this demonstrates is that the way Christ conquers his enemies and is enthroned is both similar to and different from what the psalmist intended. Christ has conquered and is victorious, but he has not conquered as one who has “led forces on the holy mountains.” That theme from Psalm 110:3 disappears. He has conquered as a priest offering sacrifice, and that sacrifice is his own blood.
In the end, when scripture gets scripture wrong, it often gets it more right.
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: theopolitical
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 65 Views: 0 53742 Comments: 0 894 View all posts by theopolitical
Comments (15)
Ah, sensus plenior. That brings back memories.
Excellent article.
Good thoughts! One thing we sometimes forget is that those who were authorized by the Lord to speak in His behalf to His church could speak new doctrine, not just rehash the old doctrine. If they chose to use verses that the people were familiar with to help explain the doctrine, then they were teaching His will from a different perspective and in a different context than the verses were originally given. They were authorized to act in the Lord's name to expand upon what may have been the original intent, to both clarify it and make it more applicable in the current setting.
If there were those with that authority on the earth today, and it is my belief there are, then they could speak in the same way, amplifying, expanding, and making ancient doctrine applicable in a modern world, as well as giving new doctrine. I am grateful that Jesus both lives and speaks today.
"Good thoughts! One
thing we sometimes forget is that those who were authorized by the Lord
to speak in His behalf to His church could speak new doctrine, not just
rehash the old doctrine. If they chose to use verses that the people
were familiar with to help explain the doctrine, then they were teaching
His will from a different perspective and in a different context than
the verses were originally given. They were authorized to act in the
Lord's name to expand upon what may have been the original intent, to
both clarify it and make it more applicable in the current setting.
If
there were those with that authority on the earth today, and it is my
belief there are, then they could speak in the same way, amplifying,
expanding, and making ancient doctrine applicable in a modern world, as
well as giving new doctrine. I am grateful that Jesus both lives and
speaks today."
lomal@xanga has written my thoughts, exactly!
Brilliant!! Enjoyed reading that.
To believe that you speak to God or that God "authorizes you to speak for him and reinterpret the scriptures in order to conform to modern society is a sure sign of mental illness and furhter proof that Christianity really is a cult.
I'm a little dumbfounded. Sorry, but that is not very well done. You are setting yourself up for failure, especially with a title like this. Scripture gets scripture wrong? Or maybe you're just missing something. I read this blog and was stunned that someone could actually think this in good conscience.
For example, Isaiah 53 is, to me, one of the most obvious chapters about Christ in the whole old testament, though the entire chapter is not quoted in the New Testament, only parts. Sometimes the whole isn't necessary.
Are we not forgetting, as far as Psalm 110 goes, that Christ is going to return and slay all of his enemies?
I'm a bit confused and disappointed.
Authentic Christian doctrine cannot "arise as much from what we must forget as what we affirm,” as D. Stephen Long says.
Such teaching is the gravest of heresies because Christian doctrine comes from Christ not from what human beings forget or remember.
There are at least two places in the New Testament where Jesus actually, verbally spells out the meaning of Scripture to his disciples:
1. The book of Hebrews
2. The Road to Emmaus
Those verbal teachings of Jesus on what the scripture actually meant were kept by the Church ever since.
When I was studying for a Masters degree at a Catholic university we were trained to think with the mind of the Church along with all the other doctrinal and philosophical instruction.
The mind of the Church never forgets or remembers like the human mind does. The mind of the Church is always open to the Holy Spirit and thus open to authentic instruction.
If you take this approach to Scripture, then why should you bother to trust any of it at all? How then is believing in Jesus Christ any different than believing in Buddha or Muhammad or Oprah or whoever? When we read in the Bible that Jesus says HE is the way, the truth, and the life, why should we believe it? When we read that God set forth Jesus Christ as the propitiation for sin, why should we believe it?
The truths of God are shown to us by the Holy Spirit of God alone (I Cor. 1-2), who is the Spirit of truth. God's wisdom is higher than ours. As we read the Scripture, there are precepts and teachings which will chafe us and do not make sense to our fleshly reasoning, nonetheless, we need to accept them by faith, rather than putting ourselves in the place of God. And we can trust that God will impart to His own children a love for His truth (II Thes. 2:9-11).
Let us take heed, lest we harden our hearts and fall into the position of Israel...
Isaiah 29:10 For the LORD has poured out upon you
a spirit of deep sleep,
and has closed your eyes (the prophets),
and covered your heads (the seers).
11 And the vision of all this has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed. When men give it to one who can read, saying, “Read this,” he says, “I cannot, for it is sealed.” 12 And when they give the book to one who cannot read, saying, “Read this,” he says, “I cannot read.”
13 And the Lord said:
“Because this people draw near with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
while their hearts are far from me,
and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men,
14 therefore, behold, I will again
do wonderful things with this people,
with wonder upon wonder;
and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish,
and the discernment of their discerning men shall be hidden.”
Let us humble ourselves and pray for grace so we might be like little children.. Luke 18:17 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.
We need to TREMBLE at God's Word and not to TRIFLE with it...
Isaiah 66
1 Thus says the LORD:
“Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool;
what is the house that you would build for me,
and what is the place of my rest?
2 All these things my hand has made,
and so all these things came to be,
declares the LORD.
But this is the one to whom I will look:
he who is humble and contrite in spirit
and trembles at my word.
3 “He who slaughters an ox is like one who kills a man;
he who sacrifices a lamb, like one who breaks a dog's neck;
he who presents a grain offering, like one who offers pig's blood;
he who makes a memorial offering of frankincense, like one who blesses an idol.
These have chosen their own ways,
and their soul delights in their abominations;
4 I also will choose harsh treatment for them
and bring their fears upon them,
because when I called, no one answered,
when I spoke they did not listen;
but they did what was evil in my eyes
and chose that in which I did not delight.”
The church's mind? Be patient with me, for I've never pretended to be a scholar. But so much has been taken out of it's Greek context since 1611, when Rome took charge of the sacred texts, that I wonder what actually is true. I've never had ill feelings towards the Jews for being involved in Christ's death, but, historically, for decades before his arrival many Jewish men had proclaimed themselves the Messiah, and the Jews had basically ignored and or laughed at them. None had been put to death for making that claim. So it makes me question so much of how the story is actually told. Culturally back then slavery was the norm, and women could not speak in public, or go out in public without someone else being with them. We've lived to see slavery in our lifetimes, at least me, and yet we had a war over that issue that concerned so called Christians. So now, women in the church is this huge issue, when Christ never made it one, only Paul, during one of his sermons, yet we interpret that to mean women are still second class citizens. So, with fundamentalist groups, why is every word literal sans Greek, and every thought literal since we as a world community and as a nation have changed so much concerning out treatment of others?
@naphtali_deer@xanga -
Nowhere does the Bible say it's translation is perfect, if that is what you are implying. I think we should be careful in limiting God to rehashing old scriptures, when He is perfectly capable of revealing new ones. Frankly, while God's way is clearly above ours, an all powerful God would not create a stumbling block such as making His principles impossible to fathom.
if it's not written in the king's english it's from the devil! the devil!
@Endersig@xanga - actually it says it on the last page in the margins...I just wrote it in
"Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period" - Richard Longenecker
"A Commentray of the New Testament use of the Old Testament" -eds. D.A. Carson and G.K. Beale
The exegetical methods of Christ and the apostles thereafter are similar to their Jewish contemporaries (i.e. the Qumran community).