It
is now widely known that the New Testament misuses the Old Testament. The
literal account that Jesus was simply following a script laid out for him in
prophecy and foreshadowing is just about incomprehensible to anyone interested
in a coherent and unified account. What this means is that we can either conclude
that the writers of the New Testament were incompetent, they simply did realize
that they were reading the Old Testament wrong. They were corrupt, they were
intentionally twisting scripture to suit their needs at the time. Or they
already believed as they were writing that literalism was not the correct
interpretation for understanding something that comes from God. They felt justified in symbolically reinterpreting the prophets to align with what they rightly believed "came from God".
Here
are a few examples that are pretty conclusive. Isaiah 7:14 says how a virgin
will be with child. Christians love to cite this verse because it proves how
Jesus' birth was prophetically foretold, but it is known that this
claim cannot be made. Here's why.
In
Hebrew there is a specific word for "virgin". The word is, bethoolaw,
and it is translated to virgin almost
fifty times in the Old Testament. The
word in Isaiah 7:14 is not
bethoolaw. It is
almah which could
mean virgin, but is only translated that way exclusively for the Isaiah
passage. In every other instance of the Bible the word is translated as maiden,
or girl. So why does Isaiah say "virgin"? A few hundred years before
the New Testament was written the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew to
Greek. The Greek word "
parthenos" was inserted into the Isaiah
passage. This word means virgin, but it is more accurately translated as a girl
who qualifies for marriage. Thus, this word was put into the Isaiah narrative
because of the inherent tension that would be seen as God's presence existing
with a girl who's innocence has been lost, or possibly violated.
The
idea of Immaculate Conception was completely contrived when it comes to what
the Old Testament says. Even if Jesus was born of a virgin, this passage in the
Old Testament is not a prophetic prediction of it.
There's
more. By just examining the portion of Matthew which refers to the birth of
Jesus we can see more examples like the Isaiah 7:14 one. In Matthew 2:6 the
author quotes Micah 5:2 to show how the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. But
the Messiah in Micah is not the Messiah Matthew writes about. It is generally
accepted that even in the Old Testament there are various "messiahs"
depicted that are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but are nonetheless unique
to themselves. Micah depicts an avenger for Israel who will lead a successful
military campaign to rid the land of its enemies. Was Jesus this military
leader? No. Then why did Matthew use this verse?
In
Matthew 2:18 Herod kills all the boys in Bethlehem, and the author uses a verse
from Jeremiah 31:15 to show the prophetic connection between the two events,
but we know that this allusion could not be literally predictive. In Jeremiah
31:15 it laments how Rachel is weeping for her children. This verse is
referring to the lost children of the exile, not to a massacre that would occur
hundreds of years later. Why, then, did Matthew use this verse?
Just
the same, in Matthew 2:15 Joseph takes Jesus and Mary to Egypt to live in peace
while Herod hunts for them. Once Herod dies they are able to return, and then
the author makes an allusion to Hosea 11:1 to show how Jesus' life correlates
to Old Testament prophecy. But there is no prediction in Hosea 11:1 of a
messiah coming from Egypt. Israel is called "God's son" in this
passage. It is an allegory to Israel's apostasy and God's faithfulness. Knowing
this, why did Matthew use this verse?
Fundamentalists
have come up with an interesting idea. It is called double prophecy. Double
prophecy is just like it sounds it is one prophetic utterance which can be
applied to two different scenarios. This enables the sense of literalism in
scripture (which conforms to my previous examples of using symbolism to maintain literalism). But this is no different then dispensations, harmonies, or Oral
Torah. It is the same inevitable outcome of trying to apply a literal
understanding to the Word of God; extra-biblical tools must be developed to
buffer or mediate the interpretation of scripture. At no point does any
prophet claim that his "predictions" will come to pass twice! Such
an idea undermines prophecy, instead of bolstering it. Imagine a prophet who's
predictions will come to pass an infinite number of times? If we can increase
the power of prophecy by multiplying the number of times it can be applied to
certain events then it would make sense that the ultimate or best prophecy
would be one that applies to everything, at all times, and in all
circumstances. Thus, the difference between the best prophecy and no prophecy
is indistinguishable. When we go down the road of multiplying our difficulties
instead of simplifying them.
Clearly,
the author of Matthew was not transcribing dual prophecy in the Old Testament.
But if he was not reciting what was literal, then what was he doing? Why was he
doing it? I highly doubt that the author of Matthew believed that Jesus was
simply following a script that was laid out for him in Old Testament prophecy.
Considering that every prophecy was misinterpreted in Matthew to apply to Jesus
we can either conclude that the author of Matthew was twisting scripture or
that the early view of scripture was so different from literalism that it
allowed for a certain elasticity to exist in how it was applied.
But
if we allow for this elasticity to exist in our understanding of the Bible and
how it was formed then we have no certainty that it was actually faithfully
compiled. If the author of Matthew was not recording literal prophecies that
applied to Jesus then the distinction between Matthew twisting scripture and
Matthew reinterpreting scripture cannot be found in the text itself. Thus the
problem of the Bible does not seem to be solved in the Bible, or in the
formation of the Bible.
Literalism
offers no key, or any help in solving its own problems. It only serves to
multiply difficulties in order to preserve and maintain its existence. Such a
phenomenon is expected to exist for any system seeking to gain power and
control, which is not a negative or blameworthy attribute. All thriving
organisms must survive through the acquisition of power and control. Thus, it is
not unexpected for a religious system to want to promote and adhere to a
literalism within its dogmatic ranks. So while literalism has an advantage on
an organizational level, the problems with literalism cannot be avoided on a
personal level. The intellectual merits of literalism are dismal, and it's
service is to increase cognitive dissonance in its adherents rather then
eliminate it.
The
fact that ancient believers accommodated to their environment to protect their
literalism indicates that their belief in literalism was simply taken for
granted. They were not being literal for the sake of being literal. If they were they would not need to make accommodations. All such accommodations would be seen as a compromise. But they worked through their literalism as though it were something that could change at any moment. If our religious faith was the result of the literal events described
in our Bible then it would be impossible to hold to such a faith in good
conscience. The Bible in its Jewish heritage, in its New Testament formation,
and it its canonization stands opposed to literalism in all its stages. But yet
the phenomenon persists.
III
- Lonely Scriptura
Christianity
has taken many forms. It is an ever changing system. How can such a dynamic
system maintain itself under a uniform dogma. The Bible has endured through the
ages as the normative standard for Christian belief. This much is true. So if
we are unable to see Christian fundamentalism as essential to the Christian
faith, then perhaps it is simply one of the adaptable forms to which Christianity
has taken in its environment through the ages. This seems counter-intuitive since what would
appear to be the most fundamental to Christianity would be the essence of
fundamentalism, but try as we might and this conclusion cannot be backed.
Whether
or not fundamentalism can tie its roots to the history and principles of the
Christian faith is still to be seen. I think it has been well established how difficult that would be, but one thing is almost unanimously agreed upon by
both fundamentalists and progressives and that is the pivotal significance of
the Reformation.
Two
things happened during the renaissance and Enlightenment that would forever
change the face of Christianity and make it something that could never go back
to the way it used to be. The first is the printing press and the second is the
democratic system. The Reformation in many ways came to capitalize on both.
Only
educated people used to be able to read the Bible, and among those only those
in authority were permitted to do so. The Bible was a communal or tribal book.
It existed for the betterment of the Christian faith, and that was it. It was
not subject to criticism or debate. Its words were taught in a church, and its
meaning derived from a uniform magesterium. A person could not hear a message
in church feel uncomfortable about it and go do his own study in the Bible
about it.
The
Church, or to put more aptly, the authorities in the Church had no
accountability, and this is not to say that this meant they were rotten or
corrupt, but rather that no intellectual accountability existed for the Church
as to what it was teaching or on how it was interpreting the Bible. The Church
has always had some variety as to how interpreting the Bible played out. But
there was always conformity to an established authority.
This
all changed when one man began reading the Bible for what it actually said (supposedly).
Whether or not we can ask the question if the Bible was ever meant to be read
by individuals who had the right and desire to choose for themselves what the
correct interpretation of Scripture was is pointless to consider. We cannot go
back. What was once interpreted to be a liturgical book for a conclave of
believers that submitted themselves to an established authority, was now and
forever after going to be a book interpreted by individuals who would believe
that no authority was established in itself.
If
literalism is to be the correct interpretation of the Bible then it cannot be
on the basis of why it was ever accepted in the past, before the Reformation.
Literalism in a liturgical context served many ends that edified the church as
a whole without any of them necessarily being the critical interpretation to
edify an individuals intellect. The preservation of tradition, the communal
narrative, or the solidarity of man were all reasons in a liturgical context to
promote and represent literalism in a pre-critical society.
But
as we have seen both literalism and symbolism can serve the needs of a corrupt
power base. And this seems to have been the condition of things just before the
Reformation. It cannot be considered a strength for the case of literalism that
Martin Luther read the Bible and discovered the corruption of the Church. For
Martin Luther was not a proponent of literalism when it came to Biblical
interpretation. Luther picked and choose just as much as any other power system
put in place of interpreting the Bible. He most certainly preferred the Pauline
Epistles and in his own soteriology ignored many passages in the Gospels, like
Jesus' teachings on works, and wanted to remove the book of James from the New
Testament, all together.
Thus,
the Reformation was consistent with the age before it that a theological
principle was required to guide biblical interpretation. It was not a movement
to put literalism back in its rightful place, it was a revival of what the
correct theological orientation was for a Christians life. It was a
revitalization of Biblical thought and study, and it was an empowering vision
that gave the individual Christian the ability to hear from God through his
private reading of scripture. The last thing it was, was proof that literalism
is the correct and authentic interpretation of the Bible.
In
many ways the Reformation led to the near debasement of all religious and
spiritual interpretations of the Bible through the establishment of liberal
Protestantism. Sola Scriptura had a monumental impact on the Christian world,
and it was not entirely considered what the fallout of this belief might bring
about. Using the Bible as the only normative authority for Christian belief and
practice is in many ways a good thing, but it is not without its side effects.
In extremists circles sola scriptura has the effect of creating isolated and
narrow minded communities. In academic circles sola scriptura removes the
authority of the Bible from the Church and breeds an ideological distortion of
the religious life. This is exactly what happened during the Enlightenment in
Europe.
When
Protestantism took root in Europe the academy took after the study of the Bible
apart from any church authority, like Luther himself had done, and the layman
became more easily drawn to literal extremism. This divide grew and became too
disparate to reconcile. When this happened a clear tension occurred between the
Church and the College. In 1860 a monumental work was written called
"Essays and Reviews" which encapsulated the modern Biblical critique.
In this work such things as miracles were rejected and revelation was seen in
an evolutionary perspective. The work itself was very intriguing, but as you
can imagine it flew in the face of what had become the common understanding of
what Christianity represented. Over time this tension spread to America, and in
the beginning of the twentieth century a series of some 90 essays were written
in response to the spread of liberal Protestantism and higher criticism in
Biblical interpretation. These volumes of essays were called, "The
Fundamentals", and it is ground zero for fundamentalism as we know it
today.
In
these essays such ideas like evolution and socialism were deemed sinful and
wrong. But what is most important to understand that despite it's claim in its
namesake there was nothing "fundamental" about fundamentalism. The
spirituality which has now taken root in American culture was nothing but a
byproduct of religious development in the West. Their ideas and systems are
just as contrived and invented as their liberal counter-parts. Thus,
fundamentalism without liberal Protestantism is senseless. It is a reactionary
belief system that only exists to ensure that another more
"dangerous" system isn't allowed to exist.
This
is one of the most important things to understand about Christian
fundamentalism. Read very carefully these next few lines. Christian
fundamentalism needs an opponent in order to exist. It did not arise in itself
to exist in the landscape of faith. Spiritual men did not receive a revelation
that fundamentalism is the right orientation of faith. In no religion did this
ever happen. Fundamentalism only arose to protect or preserve that sense of
faith that some in power felt was threatened. Without the threat,
fundamentalism is not needed.
Consider
what this might mean. Whether or not fundamentalism arose out of a genuine
threat to the faith the reality is that as a collective organism fundamentalism
now relies on the existence of threats in order to maintain its own survival.
Whether or not the conditions which brought about fundamentalism were worthy of
such a reaction the fact of its existence cannot be denied. If one's survival
is only guaranteed through threats then such an organism will ensure that
threats exist, even if they must be manufactured or contrived.
The
problem with the "Solas" is that their arrangement sets ones up for
ultimate disappointment, and for the existence of the liberal and conservative extremes on either side. Of the five solas four of them exist in the abstract.
Sola fide, sole gratia, sola Christus, and sola Deo gloria are all abstract
ideas that have no real concrete reality in the here and now. A person can
affirm all these "solas" with ease, but sola scriptura is something
we can measure, investigate, and even replace should another come along. The
first four are theological propositions, but the fifth is a hermenuetical one.
Sola scriptura is categorically different then the other solas, but it is
treated as though it were not. In this sense the Bible is truly alone. But what
happens in "sola scriptura" is rather the opposite of what is
supposed to happen for an inspired text. Inspiration should move us to accept the authority that God gives His Church and it should move us to develop the needed theological ideas which underpin it, sola scripture taken concretely bypasses this altogether.
The
Bible is an invitation to relate to God. It's exclusivity is not a tenet of
faith, but rather a demonstration of its own inspired message. A Christian does
not rely only the Bible because he must, by obligation of tradition, but
because he could possibly think of no other book to relate to God with. When we
reify the inspiration of the Bible, through sola scriptura, we turn God's invitation into a Law, and
what was once a mode of relationship becomes a cause for estrangement. The
Bible ends up all alone.
when it doesn't make sense". There comes a point in a Christians life when they have to make a very
important decision. What happens when the Bible doesn't make sense? Christian
fundamentalists are in a fight for their life to make sure that at all costs
the Bible wins when this question is asked. In their zeal to defend the Bible
they completely miss the point. I remember one of my old fundamentalists
pastors, who was a pretty cool guy, said, "People will fight like the
devil for the things of God." It was a rather uncharacteristic moment for
him, but this was a pretty wise statement, unfortunately I think it applied to
him a couple of times when it came to understanding the Bible.
