This next step in biblical interpretation challenges us to see the Bible as a whole, in addition to being familiar with its individual parts. There are certain assumptions that one can question in this principle. However, there are certain things that cannot be denied when one reads the Bible in its entirety.
This principle states that "The Bible comes from God and possesses unity of design and purpose (Northeast Bible Institute, Biblical Hermeneutics. Greenlane, P.A.: n.p., n.d.,p.1) By this affirmation, I am saying that the Bible is not the mere product of the human mind. The interaction of the divine and the human spirits produced the writing of the Scriptures. In spite of the diversity which exists, there is an underlying unity which becomes apparent to the reader of Scripture. Unless one is dismissing the Bible merely as a literary document, one should approach the Scriptures with the assumption that they are inspired by God, and that the writers were expressing the mind of God in their writings. If one can accept this assumption, then there is very little difficulty in accepting the basic unity of this body of writing (Carmona, p. 34).
I invite you, the reader to challenge the assumptions of the inspiration and underlying unity of Scripture. If you can provide reasons for not working with those set of assumptions, then we have grounds for a great dialogue. Please contribute your "two cents."
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Two thoughts here: First, early Christians had the responsibility to determine which books were authentic and worthy of inclusion in the Bible. To this day there is controversy over the decisions made. Second, different parts of the Bible seem inconsistent and hard to unify.
ReplyDeleteGary Dudley
Bro. Gary: You have introduced the issue of the canon. While that is a valid issue, I'm
ReplyDeletenot sure it comes into play on this discussion. I would like to know which other parts of the Bible seem inconsistent and "hard to unify."
Brother Juan, for example, Joshua 6: 15-21 and Matthew 5: 38-48.
ReplyDeleteBro. Gary: Thanks so much for this input. I'm not sure that there is a contrast or contradiction between the two passages. I'm inclined to think (just my opinion) that what Jesus is doing in Matthew 5:38-48 is invalidating, not the law itself, but rather the accretions to the law, which were made by the rabbis of the post-exilic period, and which were upheld in Jesus's time by the Pharisees. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteBro. Juan, I don't understand. In the Joshua passage, are not the precise instructions of God followed? These instructions include the killing of old and young (including children I presume) of an enemy in a defensive posture in order to take their land and possessions. What law would allow this? And in the Matthew passage, does not Jesus (God) command love of enemies?
ReplyDeleteBro. Gary: You bring up an excellent point! As I reviewed the Joshua passage, one of two possible things came to my mind. One was that God, through the mediation of human action, was once again carrying out what happened during the time of the Flood, i.e. destruction of people because of sin. Some may want to argue that the children of Jericho, the old and infirm, and the animals were innocent, so that they should not have been subject to this cruelty. In the Flood narrative, I'm sure that there were innocent children, elderly and sick people, and animals, who supposedly have no consciousness of sin, and yet were destroyed. It appears that in Old Testament theology, the notion of "corporate personality" prevails, i.e. that it is not a question of individual guilt, but rather the sin of a people as a whole. But then again, the saving of Rahab, who was not only a member of this community, but also a prostitute, points to the grace and mercy of God in the midst of destruction, because of her attempt to do something good. Quite honestly, this whole scenario that you present is a conundrum. The other thing that occurs to me, is that there is a gap between what Yahweh said to Joshua on the one hand, and on the other, the commands that Joshua gave to the people. Is it possible that Joshua took it upon himself to go over and beyond what Yahweh had commanded him? Regarding the issue of loving one's enemies, such as what we find in the Matthew passage, at the risk of sounding like a biblical "literalist," I'm not sure that love is tantamount to toleration of sin. God loved the people who were destroyed during the Flood, but yet allowed or brought about their destruction. God loved the people of Israel, but yet allowed them to be taken captive to Babylon for seventy years. God loved the Jewish people in Jesus's time, but yet allowed their city and temple to be destroyed for a second time. Is it possible that the evangelical cliche of God "loving the sinner, but hating the sin," is at work here, and a possible bridge between the Joshua passage and the Matthew passage? Thank you for making us think critically and analytically. I'm not sure that my attempts to respond to the complex situations that you pose, are successful, but at the very least, you have generated a very good dialogue that I hope others will feel stimulated to participate in. Grace and peace.
ReplyDeleteBro. Juan, thank you for your thoughtful response. You have given me much to think about.
ReplyDeleteAnd thank you Bro. Gary for your consistent and faithful participation. I really appreciate your efforts at keeping these talks alive.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible tells one story: the redemption of all creation.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much Dr. Kisner
Delete