>We need to address how we read the Bible. There is a whole study of how we interact with and interpret texts – it’s called Hermeneutics. Many of us (most? ) are taught one way to read the Bible – that can be devotionally, ‘literally’ * or allegorically, etc.
There are many ways of reading the Bible – I am not going to pretend that every way is good or that any interpretation is equally valid, helpful, or faithful. This is why we need to talk about how we read the Bible.
Last week we talked about Jesus and Rome – pigs and water. [link here]
I would like to try and build on that for our conversation here.
Jews
One of the truly horrific aspects of Christian History is the anti-Semitism that has plagued the Church
for 1900 years. It started early on in the 2nd century** and it peaked in the Holocaust of WWII. There is no way to escape the incriminating evidence of nearly two millennia but I would like to address something rather odd in the argument that lies behind it.
The Jews did not kill Jesus. This accusation that ‘the Jews killed Jesus’ has been around for 1800 years. It is ridiculous.
Let’s be clear about two things:
- Jesus laid down his life willingly. In that sense no one killed Jesus. In John 10: 17-18 Jesus says “ The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
- If anyone did kill Jesus (which we already established that they did not) it would be the Italians. Romans are the one who nailed Jesus to the cross! The Italians killed Jesus (if anyone did).
So the question has to be asked: why have the Italians not come under condemnation and persecution for the death of Jesus? The answers to that are revealing.
The seat of Catholic power (the Vatican) is in Rome… said another way – those who are in power are in charge of the narrative
It is difficult to punish descendants for the actions of previous generations. (unless they participate in the same oppressive activities)
The reason that the Italians get off scott-free tells me something. It tells me that Jesus and the Bible have almost nothing to do with the treatment of the Jews in Church History. This is one of those cases where we do what we would have done anyway and just find Bible verses to hide behind.
Hindus
Whenever other religions come up in conversation, somebody will invariably go immediately to John 14:6 where Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Now, I love this verse as much as the next choir-boy [I have written about it multiple times] but there are a couple of things that need to be addressed before it is applied thickly to whatever religious wall we are erecting.
Jesus probably did not know about Hindus and definitely did not know about Muslims***. Therefore we can say with a fair amount of confidence that Jesus was not – in any way – commenting on whether Hindus or Muslims had a relationship with God.
Look – Jesus was not commenting on Hindus or Muslims! He was making a positive statement about the potential of having a certain caliber of relationship with God – he was not saying something negative about Hindus or Muslims … ALL that I am saying is that you can NOT use John 14:6 for a proof-text of something that Jesus was absolutely NOT addressing.
Go back and read the story in context. Ask yourself “what was Jesus saying – what was he talking about”. Then draw a circle around it and on the other side of that circle write “everything else” and that is what Jesus is NOT addressing in John 14:6.
Black Women
There is no easy way for me to ease into this. There is no clever anecdote for me to wade into the subject, so just let me spit it out.
Times have changed… things are different … and we need to learn to listen.
Now, we can all agree that the Copernican Revolution affected the way that everyone – even modern Christians – see the universe (cosmos). Then there is the influence of people like Newton who deeply impacted our understanding of the world and how it works. Said another way …
between the Telescope and the Microscope we know that the world works very differently than those who wrote the Bible thought that it did.
And that is ok! We are fine. Faith is still possible and the church is still intact. We can deal with new realities and we can adjust to new information.
All of this is to say that we know that the world works differently and we admit that things are different than they were when the Bible was written. This is why it is so important that we listen to people when they talk to us about the impact that the Bible has had on them and their communities.
When women talk about passages in the Bible that have been oppressive or hurtful to them…we need to listen.
When African-Americans talk about passages in the Bible that validate or at least assume slavery… we need to listen.
They are telling us something. They are telling us that the world is not the same as it was in the 1st Century and though it may be less ‘scientific’ than the microscope or telescope – it is not less profound, impactful or true.
I have lots to say about how Paul was (in my opinion) a voice of liberation and progressive freedom in his day. But what I have to say about Paul in the 1st century is not as important as what black women may have to say about the impact of those same passages in the 21st century.
* we have discussed over & over again how no one actually reads the Bible literally.
** there are many scholars who say that it started in the Apostolic age already in the 1st century.
*** Islam started in the 7th century.
February 22, 2011 at 2:07 pm
>I think you are overstating what Jesus didn't say when he said, "no one comes to the Father but through me." If Jesus said, "I am the way…no one comes to the Father but by me" can we conclude then that He couldn't have been talking about Islam or Hinduism just because he didn't know about those specific cases and mention them specifically by name?Are you saying that we have to interpret Jesus' words like this: "In this location and time I am the way, the truth, and the life…"? Which would imply, "But over there (India) or tomorrow I'm not the way nor am I the truth nor am I the life. In fact, lots of people will get to the Father apart from me"If we accept the caveat, "Jesus didn't know about…." then can we really say that anything he said is important for us? What of anything that Jesus said can we then accept in the "modern" era?
February 22, 2011 at 2:36 pm
>I agree that we need to better understand the first century if we are to better interpret the Bible. The slavery that is mentioned in the New Testament is not a result one race forcibly subjugating another for their own selfish benefit. In other words it was not the slavery that existed in the 17-19 centuries. That type of slave trade was denounced in 1 Tim. 1:10.New Testament slavery was the result of people not paying what they (or their parent, or spouse)owed, and it was usually temporary, until the debt was paid off.
February 22, 2011 at 2:53 pm
>@ Ike, you have to understand that this verse occurs in context. In fact, it is an answer to a question, asked by Thomas. The question is NOT "What about people of other religions?," it turns out the question is actually about the apostles and what they're going to do when Jesus goes away. Thomas is asking a selfish question about his own fate and the fate of the apostles. He is asking for a plan, for instructions. Jesus is saying in this verse, "I'm not going to give you a plan to show you the way, I AM the way. I am not going to tell you truth, I AM the truth. I am not going to give you a path to the light, I AM the light. You aren't going to get to God through plans, or rules or instructions, you're going to get to to God through Me, through what I am going to do." Go look it up. Look at the discussion that immediately precedes this statement by Jesus. This verse has been taken out of context and used as ammunition against people of other beliefs, when in fact, Jesus is giving information pertinent to the community of believers!
February 22, 2011 at 3:31 pm
>Ike – SO glad you wrote in. I just want to point out two things about your 'are you saying we need to interpret Jesus this way' question. 1) we are interpreting. That can not be overstated. This is essential because the words of Jesus are not addressing the exact issues in our modern world that we are facing. The answer is not to our exact question – so we MUST translate. It is not a direct 1:1 relationship between the text and our modern world. 2) I am not saying something that Jesus does not say – I am not saying that tomorrow this will not be true or that over there this is not true. I am saying the opposite. After Jesus' servant activities of John 13 he answers a specific question – and Sam has this one right. Jesus is talking about he possibility of having a caliber of intimate relationship like he has. He is not talking about Muslims or Hindus.We have to be careful using Jesus words when he is answering a specific question to answer other questions that he would not have been attempting to answer. We must resist making Universal and Total what was specific and contextual.
February 22, 2011 at 3:36 pm
>R.E. asked on Facebook " Any thoughts on Peter's address in Acts 2, specifically v 36? "This Jesus, whom you crucified." This is one of those verses I find a bit difficult."I am so glad that you brought this up! That is the exact verse that I was thinking of! Think about it. Peter is saying this to the EXACT people responsible – not later generations and NOT to all of the Jewish people everywhere for all time. One generation in one location.It was very precise and not to be taken as a general thought with Universal lessons in it. This can be very dangerous and the exact type of thought that has resulted in the way that Church history has gone.Plus – we KNOW that Peter was ranting and that AS a Hebrew he was speaking to Hebrews about their role – BUT why do the Italians get off scott-free? Seriously. IF what Peter is doing is the kind of blame that this has been used for over the centuries… why does blame not also fall on the Italians? ;)it is inconsistent is my point – and thus is is faulty logic.R.E. later pointed out that "By the way, Peter does put the blame on Gentiles as well back in v 23."
February 22, 2011 at 4:36 pm
>First, @ Sam, Thanks for pointing out the context, always important.Second, Jesus usually responds to questions and queries in ways that are hugely broader than the inquirer ever imagined. He elaborates in incredible ways that punch open questions the way a kick through a door opens up a whole other room. So, while context is important when we interpret, one cannot always rely on the immediate context to limit what Jesus is implying.In the context Thomas is talking about where Jesus is going and we see from Jesus' answer that he talking about going to the Father and then coming back. He's talking about "going to the other side," if you will.Third, "Going to the other side" is a huge issue in all religions. It's huger than the question Thomas posited. It's probably the main issue in most religions. So I don't think it is inappropriate to interpret John's account of this conversation as saying something about other faiths as a means to "get to the father."fourth, let me say that we shouldn't dismiss interpretations of Jesus' sayings with the argument "Jesus didn't know about…" For example it was said that Jesus didn't know about Islam, therefore Jesus' statement couldn't possibly be about that.I just think it is a lame argument It's just as lame as saying "Jesus was never married so he can't teach about marriage." I believe that the source of his teaching comes from outside of himself. His teaching is inspired. Furthermore, we make analogies all the time between Jesus' teachings and modern issues.Fifth, it is said that Jesus' statement is a positive one. But when Jesus elaborates saying "No one…but" he himself is also making a emphatic negative statement. What did John mean by including that?Sixth, I think we can extrapolate guilt for Jesus' death to others beyond the original perpetrators. For example, I'm guilty. I hold myself personally responsible.
February 22, 2011 at 8:21 pm
>I get what you are saying. I see what you are up… but I think that you are making a mistake by jumping around. I will give you two examples. – Thomas asks about 'the other side' but Jesus' answer is about having a relationship with Abba. Is that now, on 'this side' ? I would say yes. I think that Thomas was asking one thing – thinking that he knew how it all worked…but Jesus takes it in a different direction. You are reading into it something that may not be there.- You jumped the gun when you talked about John saying something about other faiths being a 'way to the other side'. That is NOT what I am saying. I am saying the opposite: that because Jesus is not talking about other faiths , that we should be cautious about saying that verse is about how other faiths are NOT ways to the other side. John is not affirming other religions with this verse and we can not disregard them with this verse. IT IS NOT WHAT THE VERSE IS ABOUT ;)This is the danger with being so comfortable with our Interpretation of the text that we begin to think they are the Meaning of the text.
February 22, 2011 at 8:28 pm
>What I think is so interesting that even today, alleged Christians have sought to blame a people group for the crucifixion. Isn't the crucifixion something to be celebrated? Why would we begrudge a group of people for something which we interpret to be the ultimate gift to humanity? Why do the Italians get off scott-free? It's simple really. Jews are different from Gentiles. What is different is threatening. I hate and fear what threatens me and those who do not live life according to the same guidelines. The Jews stick out like a sore thumb in my society, I fear and hate them, but I claim to be a Christian, so I have to back up my feelings with religious argument. Oh hey, the Jews happened to be the puppet masters behind Jesus's death, therefor, it is acceptable to persecute Jewish people. What is so baffling about this concept is it ignores a few big facts: 1) Jesus was a Jew 2) John, Peter, Paul, and all the other apostles pretty much were Jews 3) The first generation of the Christian church was predominantly made up of Jewish converts (Christianity is referred to by some historians as a "Jewish Mystery Cult" for the first few centuries of its existence) 4) Using scripture as justification to hate a group of people is essentially negating the purpose of scripture.Now to Ike, you may be right that Jesus often said things that had much broader meaning than their face value, or to address issues the inquirer never even thought of. BUT there are so many things that Jesus comes out and says in black and white terms, about how we are supposed to treat each other. This verse in John is pretty much the only verse that is EVER applied to discussions of pluralism or issues of other religious beliefs, and it has to be taken out of its context. We have to rely on arguments like, "Jesus usually responds to questions and queries in ways that are hugely broader than the inquirer ever imagined…" we are relying on a broad interpretation to a specific question which pretty much ignores things like: "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. Blessed are the peacemakers,for they will be called children of God…"What is so interesting here is that Jesus isn't saying "Blessed are those who believe in me and only me," He is talking about 1)people who seek righteousness 2)the merciful (being merciful is independent of your religious views) 3)the pure in heart and 4) peacemakers (NOT Bible-thumpers)
February 23, 2011 at 3:55 am
>John 14:6 is part of the on-going theme throughout the gospels that Jesus came to reveal the Father. It is not contained simply in the context of Thomas' question. In other words "No one comes to the Father execept through me" is not just the answer to the question posed by Thomas.Actually, I think a thorough study of the gospels bares out the intent of the incarnation was to reveal to a religious people (jews) that their concept of the Father was skewed. Jesus is saying over and over again, "What is the Father like? Look at me and you will know." Interestingly enough I agree with Brand New Day's conclusion put not with the road he took to get there.There is no chance Jesus is saying, "I don't reveal myself to Hindus and Muslims. I don't work to bring Hindus and Muslims into the family of the redeemed." In fact, the witness of Scripture is just the opposite – "In the last days I will pour out my spirit on all flesh". This includes Muslim and Hindu flesh. Go figure.Where I think our present day hermeneutic breaks down is when we repeat the same mistake as the 1st century Jews and create and us and them.
February 23, 2011 at 4:07 am
>"But what I have to say about Paul in the 1st century is not as important as what black women may have to say about the impact of those same passages in the 21st century."I am not sure I want to make suffering the prerequisite for hermeneutic authority. You may want to rethink this statment.
February 23, 2011 at 4:15 am
>;) I am OK that it is more important to hear from people that have been affected BY a passage of scripture than it is to hear what I have to say ABOUT that passage of scripture. That sits OK with me. I understand that there may be some qualifiers in place like "in certain situations" or "from particular perspectives" but overall… I am OK saying that. It is more right than it is wrong 🙂
February 23, 2011 at 4:40 am
>I should have mentioned – it's not about suffering. That has nothing do with it. (or little)It has more do with the fact that 100 years ago a black women could not sit beside me getting a degree in Theology. 200 years ago this was unimaginable. SO, we have been missing her voice. We have lots of some voices on record and not very many of other voices… the discussion has been lacking (shall we say).
February 23, 2011 at 5:09 pm
>I had this same convo about John 14:6… it's not meant to be exclusionary and this blows the minds of so many Christians when I say it. It totally changes the idea of what missions is about… As far as women, I read a great book by Loren Cunningham, the guy who founded YWAM about women called "Why Not Women" and it deals a lot with the subject of women and their capacity in the community.
February 23, 2011 at 5:21 pm
>I had NO idea that would be a good book… I just went and read the review and I am encouraged. I know people who would read that book 🙂 thank you.
February 24, 2011 at 1:30 am
>I love the perspective that "the discussion has been lacking"…so is it fair to say "the discussion to date has not been without value…but it can be even more rich if we don't continue to silence those we have kept on the fringes for so long"? It may not be universally true, but I can generally learn from the perspective of another (even if I am unable to fully agree with them).
February 24, 2011 at 5:28 am
>Regarding John 14 – If Jesus IS talking about how things play out after we die (and I think that's a possibility, but if so it's one of multiple layers of meaning) – we ought to be careful of reading it through a lens that understands the afterlife in a very narrow and specific way. I think most often people are putting the dominant Evangelical view of heaven and hell onto this passage – and that view probably ought to be challenged, since Jesus isn't nearly as clear about what happens when we die as we'd like. In other passages he points out that people who do things in his name but don't know him are cast out, and then another time, people who do things but don't recognize him are the sheep at his right hand. It's a giant mess, but we inherit a viewpoint and then sift every verse through it – in light of that understanding of the afterlife, OF COURSE John 14 is talking about Hindus. But that presupposed understanding is, itself suspect.
February 24, 2011 at 6:19 am
>OK. Interesting. Ya… I guess so 😉 if one were to take it that way…How about this: Thomas was asking about "where you are going". Thomas would not have had the concept of the after-life that we have. He was a first century Hebrew. So Jesus says 'it's not about the way to where I am going – I am the way'. Jesus is clearly not talking about "life after you die". When Jesus says "no one comes to the Father" – IF we think that the Father lives in heaven (3 tiered Universe) , then we think that Jesus is talking about Heaven only he is saying 'the father" . So the Father = heaven.But I don't believe that ANY of that is what is going on in that passage. :)Tell me what you think about these 4 ideas:- the word Hindu does not appear in the Bible. So the Bible has nothing to say about Hindus. We INTERPRET things that are in the Bible and APPLY them to Hindus. -as a 1st century Hebrew, Thomas was not asking about our concept of heaven.- Jesus was not talking about "life after you die"- Jesus was talking about a KIND of relationship with God (the way he had) before you die. It was an invitation to a caliber of connection with God that is only found in Jesus' way (servanthood) and Jesus' life (that reconciled all things to God – Colossians 1:20, Romans 5:10, 1 Cor. 5:18)
February 24, 2011 at 6:29 am
>Someone asked me a question on FaceBook and I have been working on a response. Let me throw it out here first:When he says “I am the way” in John 14 – that Jesus’ way is the humility that we see in John 13 (washing the disciples’ feet) When he says “I am the truth” – that Jesus in the revelation of God.When he says “I am the life” that it is Jesus’ life that reconciles ALL things to God.Colossians 1:20 “and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.”Romans 5:10 “For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!”2 Corinthians 5:18 " All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation"When he says “no one comes to the Father but through me” – he is saying 'everyone who comes to God comes through me'. Jesus reconciled ALL things to God.It’s just an idea.