Paul didn't write Hebrews. Also, there are not 66 books in the OT, haha. *embarassed.
Okay, so we have shown that the Bible is a product of its time period, and because the nature of History is that it isolates meaning in the moment of the birth of the text, we cannot read it very well in our own period. Subsequent interpretations of that text are all re-contextualizations of the text according to our contemporary culture, and also, these interpretations are relative to one another; not one has supreme authority over one another. Jon Levenson says its better,
"There is no communication that is altogether outside culture (even if it mediates universal truth), and no culture that is outside history (even if it mediates a timeless reality)." (111, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism)
This is an immediate problem. How does our recontextualization of thie Bible make it any more true than the various interpretations that preceded us? Isn't our own contextualization relative then? (It is)
To elaborate, also now, on the figure of Jesus. How limited was Jesus? Was he limited in his knowledge while he was on earth? Exactly what of his nature was "emptied out?" (Philippians 2)
I suggest that Jesus had emptied himself out fully of his divinity.
1) Theologically, he did not know the future outside the scope of his human ministry. (Mark 13:32) Only the Father knows. Therefore, he does not know the eschaton. Also, Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. He believed in the urgency of his call, and believed that the kingdom of God would come very soon. He did not know it would take more than 2000 years (and growing) for the coming of the Kingdom in consummate power. The book of Revelation also confirms this, since the author(s) believed that the kingdom would come very soon since the Beast (666) was referring to Nero, and the Kingdom would come very soon (Rev 22:20). Also, he clearly states that he could do nothing without the Father; he does only what the father is doing (John 5:19), and not what he himself is doing. He emptied himself fully. Every miraculous deed that he did, he did it by his father's power, not his own, because, he had emptied himself of his divinity when he incarnated, and with it, historical knowledge.
2) Historically, he is limited, by his very nature of being man, not "transcendent man" because there is no such thing and a transcendent man is not a man at all, but "fully man" as dogma accords, and therefore restricted by the time and culture that he had lived. He was a second-temple itinerant miracle-working rabbi, perhaps in the Pharisaic tradition (despite the bad press in the NT). He was not the first and not the last (of figures like himself). Indeed, he fits the character of many other "messiahs" or miracle workers at the time - Honi the circle drawer, Simon the magician, the "Egyptian", Simon Bar Kochba, and more - they were all said to be able to do miraculous deeds, or magical, or Messiahs. Late second temple period was in ferment, not "theologically" or spiritually dead. If you deny that he was a situated-man, or only half-way situated, you are denying the full humanity of Jesus.
So, what did this time period dictate? Jews knew of course that the events in the OT "actually" happened, in the literal sense of the word. Mosaic authorship was not doubted, and if it was, it was grounds for excommunication from the synagogue. Of course Jesus would have believed that the OT was historically true because the culture at that time believed in it. He spoke with authority about it, and that attested to his power, but whether the historical question of "did it actually happen" probably never flitted through his mind, because these are the questions posed by the modern age of historical criticism and not of Second Temple Judaism. Jesus, because he was a Second-Temple Jew, did not have access to higher-criticism and also, because he had to become a man situated in a certain time and culture in order to be fully man, he did not know or care about historical problems, and historiography. Simply, those categories of thinking had not even been invented yet.
Did he have other avenues of knowledge? Yes; he knows what is "in man" their thoughts and he knows the impending crucifixion and coming glory. But, did he know world history? All of it? Probably not. (I would say, definitely not). Did Jesus (the man) know the rise of China in 21st century history? the apartheid in South Africa? the ancient myths of the Inuits in Alaska? No, no, and no. How could he? Or more importantly, why would he care? He had a sole mission, that was to save his people, not to worry about world history.
So should the fact that Jesus believed in the OT as historical truth affect if we believe it or not? No, because he was a man of that time; when he assumed into heaven, though, is another story.
Ultimately, the big problem is that if you adopt Jesus' worldview, you must adopt his entire worldview. You cannot know the world was round, that there are stars beyond sight, quantum physics and the like, because Jesus the man did not know it. So what exactly did Jesus believe? Well, the scholars have a field day on this question...
coming up, some good news...
2 comments:
Jesus may not have known the day and hour that heaven and earth will pass away, but he didn't speak with any authority on the subject except to say that not even he knows.
Everything with which he spoke with authority, I believe to be true. Does this mean I take Genesis 1 to be literal? I don't know, Jesus didn't speak specifically about that subject. And even though Jesus spoke of David and Abiathar in his rebuttal to the pharisees about the Sabbath, that doesn't confirm their existence, since you might argue that he was merely playing to the pharisee's beliefs to make a point. It's curious, because a lot of the times, he says "Have you never read ..." rather than saying "this happened, therefore...". So he never claims that anything happened literally. And yet he esteems the text. So I don't know if all the OT is literal, but I know I should respect it, and I know it's worth my while to read it.
As for what Jesus did know, he may not have known the details, but he understood everything that mattered. He may not have known about the atomic structure of dirt, but he understood in an overarching sense the way the universe operated, it's relation to heaven, how it is held together under the Father's power. More importantly, he understood that through faith, everything we know today about the universe can be violated. Knowing this, he performed miracles, etc.
But he also knew more than any human could know (by virtue of his relationship with the Father). Jesus specifically warned the Jews not to resist the Romans, and he foretold the fall of the temple that came about from such resistance (something no human could have known, and definitely outside his lifetime). He felt the weight of sin and suffering for which he was dying (future and present), so he may even have "known" about China in the 21st century, etc, but not in the way we think we "know" things. Did he have details running around in his head? Probably not, but he definitely had a clear overarching picture of what was going on and his place in all of this. So to me, the details of what he did not know doesn't affect anything he said. He knew what mattered, and I do not think he was misguided in any way (not knowing certain details did not affect affect the validity of any of his statements).
Random questions:
1) Even the bible is a product of its time period, I'm not sure that's such a big problem? An eskimo in Alaska, having never seen sheep, can certainly take the time to learn about sheep and shepherds in order to understand certain analogies? Just like you can take the time to learn about Nero? And who's to say God can't use dated texts to speak to us. And who's to say multiple interpretations are a bad thing?
2) Good news = you're dating someone?
Yes, what's the good news?!? :)
Post a Comment