As I thought about this week’s lesson in relationship to last week’s lesson, I began to wonder what kind of response Jesus would receive on our current social climate. I mean, if Jesus were to bring a great crowd together and say, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves, take up their cross and follow me. If anyone wants to save their life, they will lose it; and if anyone loses their life for my sake and the sake of the Gospel, they will find it. For what does it profit a man to gain the entire world but lose his soul? Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels,” what do you think people would do?
Honestly, I think the reaction would be very, very diverse. People would have all sorts of reactions. You would have those who would hear what Jesus said and think He was crazy–they would scratch their heads in bewilderment because they have never been taught that denial of self is a manner of life. For many in our society have been taught to embrace themselves just the way they are, and there is a strong thread which runs through our society that says, “Do not do anything to crush another person’s ego. For the crushing of egos is the worst thing we can do to a person. Let people be free to express themselves and be who they consider themselves to be without fear.” Another group might hear Jesus’ words and believe they actually are accomplishing them in full. They will latch on and believe they indeed have denied themselves; they are carrying their crosses; they are following Jesus, and it is the rest of the world with the problem. Everyone else needs to become just like them or Jesus will be ashamed of those heathen and send them to hell. Others might hear Jesus and seek clarification from religious authorities. “What does this man mean?” they would ask. Then, depending upon how the religious leader interpreted the words, they might agree with Jesus or they might not. Again, others might simply look at Jesus and say, “That’s just your opinion. There are others who teach a very different understanding, and if this works for you, fine. It doesn’t work for me, so I will find someone who teaches me what I think works. Our current society and culture is so very diverse that the reactions to such a teaching would be just as diverse; just as messy, and no one would agree on the significance of that teaching.
I would like to submit to you this morning that it wasn’t all that different in the ancient world when Jesus actually made this proclamation. For you see, the Roman Empire was a very, very diverse place. Roads had been built throughout the empire making travel relatively easy for that time and place. People from various cultures were meeting and coming into contact regularly. Rome had established a wide list of accepted religions–generally one’s that didn’t cause sedition–embracing religious pluralism. As long as people submitted to Roman rule, things were okay.
Now, let’s bring things down even further to Israel and what was happening amongst the Jews. The Jews themselves were broken down into different factions. There were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, the Zealots, the chief priests and the scribes. All of these constituted different veins of thought within the religion. Each had particular teachings, and the groups argued amongst themselves. Not only this: at the time Jesus spoke these words, it was the height of the Rabbinical tradition. What does that mean? Well, there were teachers, rabbis, who were teaching all throughout Israel. These men would gather students and teach those students their understanding of the Law. The rabbis taught very, very diverse things, and we actually have some of those teachings recorded in the Mishnah and Talmud–a body of Jewish literature interpreting the Jewish Bible. So, it was not uncommon for people to argue about scripture by saying, “Rabbi so and so said this, but Rabbi so and so said this. The Pharisees say this. The Sadducees say this.” and so on and so forth.
I hope that you can see at this point a very muddy puddle of understanding. I hope that you can see that things were not clear cut by any means when it came to understanding what religious faith and belief was all about. While there was indeed some general agreement about certain aspects of faith–as I said last time, those who believed that there was going to be a Messiah had three agreed upon points–there was no such thing as a broad overwhelming consensus. People were essentially free to choose the teaching that best meshed with their own understandings.
I think there were those among Jesus’ followers who might have thought to do just this thing. After Jesus told them to deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow Him, I can imagine they very much wondered if they were following the right Rabbi. After Jesus taught them that He must be handed over to the elders, chief priests, and the scribes, to suffer many things, to die, and on the third day rise, I can imagine them thinking they had hooked up with a crazy man. For it was unheard of that the Messiah would suffer. It was unheard of that there would be an individual resurrection apart from the final resurrection, and there were even many Jews who did not believe in a final resurrection! As one of my commentaries said, the disciples had no categories to even begin to make these things fit! And so, I think, there was an awful temptation to abandon Jesus and find someone who would make more sense–at least to their ears.
Which is where our lesson for today comes into play. Mark chapter 9 begins with the following teaching by Jesus, “Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.” Now, there are some who think that Jesus’ statement here is wrong because obviously, when we look around our world, we do not see the perfect kingdom of God established. We don’t see peace and harmony and a new heaven and a new earth. Jesus must have been mistaken because all of those who were around Him when He spoke these words are now dead. However, you’ve got to put this statement in context. You have to put it into the midst of what Mark is communicating to us, and Mark is setting us up to see a vision of that Kingdom–a vision that will take place on a high mountain, which is where we are taken.
Jesus takes Peter, James and John to the top of a high mountain, and when they get to the top, Jesus is radically changed before them. Jesus’ clothes become dazzling white–whiter than any sort of bleach. Imagine that advertising campaign–Clorox Bleach, not quite like Jesus, but pretty darn close! Following on the footsteps of Mark’s report that Jesus called Himself the “Son of Man” it is not a stretch to once again see that the Scriptures from Daniel are being fulfilled. As Craig Evans says in the Word Biblical Commentary, “Mark’s depiction of Jesus is also reminiscent of Daniel’s vision of the “Ancient of Days,” whose “clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool” (Dan 7:9) The one “like a son of man” approaches the Ancient of Days (i.e. God) and receives authority and kingdom. Perhaps in his transformation we should understand Jesus, as the “son of man” in the presence of the Ancient of Days, has taken on some of God’s characteristics (much as Moses’ face began to shine with God’s glory).”
We are then told that Moses and Elijah come and stand with Jesus. These are two momentous figures from the Old Testament. There is no shortage of disagreement about what they represent. For our purposes this morning, let’s just leave it at the place of an awestruck experience–the getting to see heroes of the faith. Peter is overwhelmed. He doesn’t know what to say because he is so awestruck, so he blurts out, “Lord, it’s good for us to be here. Let us build three tabernacles. One for you. One for Moses, and one for Elijah.” Now, this statement isn’t as dumb as one might expect. It totally makes sense, but it is the wrong statement. You see, Peter was still transfixed upon Jesus as the powerful Messiah instead of the suffering servant. As William Lane says in his commentary, “Peter is anxious to find the fulfillment of the promised glory now, prior to the sufferings Jesus had announced as necessary.” Peter sees the three booths as God dwelling once again with the people of Israel with Moses, Elijah, and now Jesus. It makes sense, but it is the wrong thought.
And that thought is rebuked by the arrival of another party. We are told that a cloud envelopes the mountaintop. Let me read to you what Mark Edwards says about this because it is extremely helpful. “According to Mark, the cloud “enveloped” or overshadowed (Gk episkiazein) them. This verb occurs only rarely in the Greek Bible, but it is used in Exod. 40:35 to describe the cloud that filled the tabernacle with the glory of God and in 1 Kings 8:10-11 to describe the cloud filling Solomon’s temple...The cloud is the impregnating presence of God, symbolizing that in Jesus, even more than in the tabernacle of old, God dwells bodily with humanity.”
This affirmation that God dwells bodily with humanity is solidified with the statement from the cloud, “THIS IS MY SON, THE BELOVED, LISTEN TO HIM!” Suddenly, when the disciples looked around after this statement, they saw only Jesus. Twofold thing here: God affirms that the disciples should listen to Jesus. The absence of Moses and Elijah passes along the message: don’t listen to Moses. Don’t listen to Elijah. Listen to Jesus. The focus is on Jesus. The message issues forth from Jesus. The message is Jesus. Listen to Him! Period. Drop the mic and leave. Listen to Jesus.
Now, I could go further with this text and go through the remaining teaching by Jesus, but let me simply say two things before addressing what I started my sermon off with. First, Jesus tells the disciples not to tell anyone with a qualifier: until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead. Jesus didn’t want Peter, James and John caught up in the moment proclaiming Jesus as the Messiah when they still didn’t understand fully what that meant. Peter already showed once again that he had no clue about the suffering servant and the cross. Jesus still needed to open their eyes. Secondly, Jesus then teaches them and clarifies Elijah’s role and links John the Baptist to Elijah. This is a teaching moment by Jesus, and I apologize for giving it only a cursory comment. However, we need to move on to some very weighty things–things of massive importance in our culture and society.
For the transfiguration of Jesus brings out two very important things that we have to grasp as the church. First, God’s instruction from the cloud. “Listen to Him!” Listen to Jesus. Keep your focus on Jesus. It almost pains me to say this to you, but I have to. When it comes to the Christian faith; when it comes to trying to figure out what things are all about, do not listen to me. I wish I didn’t have to say that, but it’s true. Don’t listen to me. Don’t listen to Joel Osteen or Ed Young. Don’t listen to the Pope or the Bishop. We are not the ones you are following. We are not the ones who understand God most fully. We are not the ones who understand Christianity most fully. We are all sinful, broken, people who are deeply affected by our own assumptions and biases. When we preach and teach, our own sinfulness clouds our ability to grasp and to proclaim the Law and the Gospel. It is my job, and the job of anyone who preaches and teaches to get you to Jesus. It is the job of the Church to proclaim Jesus and Him crucified. It is the job of the Church to say, “Listen to Jesus!”
Ah, but that raises another important point. How do I know what Jesus says? We don’t have clouds enveloping us with God’s voice telling us to listen to Jesus. We don’t have Jesus walking next to us bodily explaining Scripture to us and helping us understand the world around us. We don’t have the luxury of having Jesus videotaped or audiotaped. We have a book. A very old book. A book that we do not have any of the original copies of the text. A book that is written in two “dead” languages. A book that some say is embellished–that has undergone much editing and is more the stuff of legend than it is reality. How can we be certain Jesus said and did what is recorded in this book?
The question really is one of credibility. Do you trust the accounts written in the Bible? Do you trust the witnesses who first recorded what is included in Scripture, and do you trust the process of how things were handed down? You see, the Christian faith is a historical faith. It is built upon historical events. Historical events aren’t like scientific experiments. You cannot replicate them. You are literally forced to choose whether or not you believe the witness of those who report them. For instance, I can report to you this morning that Wednesday night, there was a small group of us who gathered to hear a presentation of what it was like to care for an aging parent given by James and Karen Tiner. Now, you weren’t there. You don’t know if it happened or not. You have my report. Am I trustworthy? That is the question. There were other witnesses to the event. You could talk to them as well. You have to judge if they are trustworthy. If things fit in a coherent picture, and they help explain why there were cars up here at the church on Wednesday, why the lights were on from 6 to about 8, and so on and so forth, you can conclude that, yes, I am a credible witness. Yes, this makes sense. Yes, indeed there was a group that met to hear a presentation by James and Karen Tiner. You didn’t scientifically prove it. You relied upon eyewitness testimony that you deemed credible.
There are some very good arguments that indeed present the Bible as such credible testimony. There are some very good historical reasons to accept the Bible as credible testimony like: the Bible is written closer to the events surrounding Jesus than is the histories we have written about Alexander the Great. Did you know that one? It’s true. There are others as well. I do not have time to go into them this morning, but the question still comes down to you this morning. Do you trust the witness of Scripture? Do you trust this witness that has been handed down to you through the generations?
And if you trust this witness, then you can indeed listen to Jesus. You can indeed hear His words. You can indeed know of His actions. You can indeed come to know Him and what He teaches. And you can know why you should listen to Him. In the myriads of voices that swirl around our culture, that try to tell you how to live and what to do, His voice will stand alone. His voice will carry more weight because as you come to know Him, you will see that His is the only voice who truly knows who you are. His is the only voice who truly knows deep down your true identity–all of the good things about you, and all of the bad. He alone knows the recess of your heart where your fear and anxiety and selfishness dwell. He knows your motives and motivations. He knows your flaws and failings, and He doesn’t let you try to hide them or escape them. He forces you to stand before Him fully known and fully vulnerable. And if you know yourself as you should, this should terrify you.
But instead of condemning you, He loves you. He stretches out His arms and dies for you when you don’t deserve it. He does not falsely tell you you are okay just the way you are. He doesn’t mandate that you change to satisfy Him. Instead, He dies for you and invites you to die to yourself. He invites you to take up your cross and meet Him at the place where He poured out Himself for you. He invites you to look at the cross where He showed the greatest love possible.
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that all those who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world but that the world might be saved through Him.
Jesus did not come into the world to condemn you, but to save you. And He did. On the cross. As he died for you. Certainly a good reason to listen to Him. Amen.
Showing posts with label eyewitness testimony. Show all posts
Showing posts with label eyewitness testimony. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Is the New Testament Reliable?
Last week's series of posts left off at a crucial point: is the Bible reliable? Specifically, I would like to deal with the New Testament. As I have studied and read and contemplated many philosophical/theological/scientific points and arguments, I believe the lynch pin in the whole ordeal is Jesus.
If Jesus really was raised from the dead, then that historical phenomenon changes everything. If Jesus was who He claimed He was, well, that adds another dimension. There are those who scoff at Jesus and the claims of the resurrection. Rightfully so. We are even told by St. Paul in scripture that the idea of the resurrection was foolishness and a stumbling block to many even in the ancient world. Dead men don't just come back to life--especially those who had been crucified by the Romans. You see, the Romans had a 100% success rate of death by crucifixion. Once you were nailed to a cross, you were a goner. Plain and simple.
But one can even doubt the historical veracity of the crucifixion or the historical veracity of Jesus Himself by simply saying the Bible stories about Jesus were simply made up--lies--inventions of various communities or people who were starting a new religion. These things are actually floating around, and some have gained quite a bit of steam. Richard Dawkins even casts doubt on Jesus as a historical figure in his book The God Delusion.
Yet, there are really no serious ancient historians who doubt the existence of Jesus. None. Nearly all regard Him as a historical figure. Why? Frankly speaking, we have more evidence for Jesus than we have for folks like Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great.
There have been several lectures I have watched on YouTube from many experts in the field. Below are several videos. Nearly all of them are over an hour long. If you are truly interested in the evidence, I invite you to watch them and judge for yourself:
These four videos are thorough with their presentation of the evidence regarding Jesus. They also make a strong case for the reliability of the New Testament especially the Gospels. A very detailed approach to the reliability of the Gospels comes from Richard Bauckham in his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: the Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Bauckham is thorough--very, very thorough.
Mind you, none of these folks gives absolute proof that the New Testament is 100% accurate, but they are saying, quite frankly, that by the tools of ancient history, the Gospels are reliable. They can be defined as ancient biography based upon the testimony of eyewitnesses to the events surrounding the life of Jesus of Nazareth.
Eyewitness testimony is not without its faults. It does not capture every detail of an event, and our brains tend to remember only certain points. However, there is something quite interesting about eyewitness testimony--it begs to be accepted as long as the witness is deemed credible. (The credibility of the eyewitnesses is dealt with very strongly, I think, by the videos.) I mean, as I have pointed out in a sermon illustration before--if you are on a date with your significant other, and she outlines her day for you. If you respond, "That sounds great, honey, but do you have any corroborating evidence to back up your assertions?", then your night is going to go downhill very, very fast.
If indeed the New Testament is reliable and we can get a sense of Jesus through those writings, then we must deal with two important claims: Jesus was raised from the dead, and Jesus claimed to be God.
Time demands me to stop today. Tomorrow is another day.
If Jesus really was raised from the dead, then that historical phenomenon changes everything. If Jesus was who He claimed He was, well, that adds another dimension. There are those who scoff at Jesus and the claims of the resurrection. Rightfully so. We are even told by St. Paul in scripture that the idea of the resurrection was foolishness and a stumbling block to many even in the ancient world. Dead men don't just come back to life--especially those who had been crucified by the Romans. You see, the Romans had a 100% success rate of death by crucifixion. Once you were nailed to a cross, you were a goner. Plain and simple.
But one can even doubt the historical veracity of the crucifixion or the historical veracity of Jesus Himself by simply saying the Bible stories about Jesus were simply made up--lies--inventions of various communities or people who were starting a new religion. These things are actually floating around, and some have gained quite a bit of steam. Richard Dawkins even casts doubt on Jesus as a historical figure in his book The God Delusion.
Yet, there are really no serious ancient historians who doubt the existence of Jesus. None. Nearly all regard Him as a historical figure. Why? Frankly speaking, we have more evidence for Jesus than we have for folks like Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great.
There have been several lectures I have watched on YouTube from many experts in the field. Below are several videos. Nearly all of them are over an hour long. If you are truly interested in the evidence, I invite you to watch them and judge for yourself:
Mind you, none of these folks gives absolute proof that the New Testament is 100% accurate, but they are saying, quite frankly, that by the tools of ancient history, the Gospels are reliable. They can be defined as ancient biography based upon the testimony of eyewitnesses to the events surrounding the life of Jesus of Nazareth.
Eyewitness testimony is not without its faults. It does not capture every detail of an event, and our brains tend to remember only certain points. However, there is something quite interesting about eyewitness testimony--it begs to be accepted as long as the witness is deemed credible. (The credibility of the eyewitnesses is dealt with very strongly, I think, by the videos.) I mean, as I have pointed out in a sermon illustration before--if you are on a date with your significant other, and she outlines her day for you. If you respond, "That sounds great, honey, but do you have any corroborating evidence to back up your assertions?", then your night is going to go downhill very, very fast.
If indeed the New Testament is reliable and we can get a sense of Jesus through those writings, then we must deal with two important claims: Jesus was raised from the dead, and Jesus claimed to be God.
Time demands me to stop today. Tomorrow is another day.
Monday, March 3, 2014
How Do You Know Christianity is True?
A brilliant magician was performing on an ocean liner. But every time he did a trick, the Captain's parrot would yell, "It's a trick. He's a phony. That's not magic." Then one evening during a storm, the ship sank while the magician was performing. The parrot and the magician ended up in the same lifeboat. For several days they just glared at each other, neither saying a word to the other. Finally the parrot said, "OK, I give up. What did you do with the ship?"
Funny enough, the parrot had a problem. The parrot couldn’t distinguish between what was real and what was fantasy. The parrot couldn’t distinguish between what was truly an act and the tragedy that had befallen the ship. Sometimes, I wonder if we don’t have the same problem. Why do I say that?
How do you know Christianity is true?
Perhaps you have never thought about that question. Perhaps you have simply assumed its truth as something taught to you by your parents, Sunday School teachers, pastors, or other such authority figures. Perhaps you have simply been raised as a Christian and so the question has never bothered you. Perhaps you simply haven’t taken or haven’t had the time to deeply reflect upon this faith you have come to participate in this morning. Perhaps you are one of those sitting out there who has had such doubts as you have run into more and more people who have become a part of the fastest growing religious group in our nation: the nones–but you have been afraid to voice your doubts for fear that someone will be disappointed in you or that someone will automatically condemn you to hell. The reasons may be many and varied, but this morning I want to put it front and center in our conversation.
How do you know Christianity is true?
On the one hand, you may simply answer: I know it is true because I have felt a deep, personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. I know it’s true because it helps me order my life; it makes everything fit; or as C.S. Lewis once said, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” For some of us, the answer is as plain as this. Yet, in our world today, this point of view is often rebutted by someone saying, “Well, that’s fine for you. What is truth for you isn’t necessarily truth for me. What works for you doesn’t necessarily work for me. Truth is relative.”
And their rebuttal works...IF, if mind you, truth is simply something that works. If truth is simply a way of making sense of the world, then there are myriads of ways of making sense out of life. Who is to say which one is right and which one is wrong? But what if truth isn’t simply something that works? What if truth isn’t just something that gives a person a frame of reference? I mean, we do know that certain frames of reference are better than others, do we not? We know that Mother Teresa’s way of looking at the world is better than those who flew their planes into the world trade centers, do we not? We know the liberties we experience in this nation are better than the brutality experienced by people in dictatorships, do we not? If we begin making such claims, then we are appealing to a higher truth.
And how do we come to know that higher truth? How do we know we simply haven’t created it on our own? Let’s try to work our way through this just a little bit this morning. Mind you, I don’t quite to pin everything down in 15 minutes or so, but I want to begin making a case for the truth of Christianity–a truth you can understand and begin to share with those who offer their doubts.
We will begin with the opening statement of our second lesson this morning from 2 Peter chapter 1 verse 16, “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty.”
Stop right here a moment and process this statement. The author of this book, who Christian tradition attributes to St. Peter is blunt. “We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Apparently, there were those who were spreading this thought regarding Christianity. There were those who believed that the whole shebang was completely and totally made up. There are those who adamantly say this about Christianity today, so really, as the Church, we are not facing anything we haven’t faced before. Peter doesn’t mince words, he draws a line in the sand and says, “Nope. This isn’t some kind of cleverly devised myth.” What does he appeal to next?
Again, listen to this carefully, “we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, ‘This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.’ 18We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed.”
We were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ majesty. We heard the voice on the mountaintop. We were there watching this all transpire.
Now, we need to deviate for just a moment. Some scholars have often said that the way the Bible developed is that over a span of decades, people started telling stories. Those stories became embellished as folks told of Jesus’ words and deeds. As time passed, it was thought it would be a good idea to write the stories down and what got written down was the embellished tales and not any sort of historical truth. The myth was written; the truth was lost. This train of thought assumes a couple of things: it assumes that the stories about Jesus were written long after his original followers had died off, and it assumes there were no checks and balances going on in the early Christian movement. It assumes that the eyewitness testimony of the disciples was less important than the embellishment. I think their assumptions are wrong. I’m not the only one. Why is this important?
As people we are geared to accept and trust the eyewitness accounts of people–unless we have a good reason to distrust those accounts. What do I mean by that? Well, let’s say you are having dinner one evening with your significant other. You arrive at a restaurant and are making pleasant conversation. Your significant other begins telling you about her day. She says, “I had a very productive day. I went to work and managed to handle several important cases in a matter of hours. I counseled a couple of junior employees and they are better equipped to handle their jobs. After work, I enjoyed a brisk work out at the gym and am feeling fantastic.”
Would you then look at your significant other and say, “Sounds interesting, but do you have any evidence to back your assertions up?”
How do you think the rest of your evening is going to go?
We are programmed to accept eyewitness testimony unless we have a good reason to distrust it–the person who tells us is found to be a liar; we discover evidence to the contrary; we find others who testify a different set of events.
2 Peter 1:16 is an intriguing piece of scripture as it claims to be eyewitness testimony to the transfiguration. Peter claims to have been there, seen that, and now we have to decide whether or not to trust the account. “We did not follow any cleverly devised myths.”
Let me take just a moment to say a word about this before trying to bring everything together. We know how many world religions got their start. We know what most of them teach. Islam started when the Muhammed wrote down the Koran. Buddhism started when Siddartha Guatama wrote down the eight fold path. Mormonism started with Joseph Smith wrote down some intranslatable tablets. In every one of these religions, the founders wrote down what it means to get into God’s good graces. In every one of these religions, it’s about what I have to do to attain salvation. In every one of the world’s major religions, it is up to us as humans to appease God by our actions and our beliefs. In every one of the world’s other major religions, God asks for obedience before showing mercy. Each of the religions is cleverly devised to show this axiom. Only Christianity is different. Only Christianity begins with God coming down and bestowing grace and then asking us for obedience. Only Christianity has God dying for the sake of humanity, offering us His love, and then asking for obedience. One could call this clever, but one could also say this represents a radical departure from human understanding. One could say this represents a tectonic shift in an understanding about God and God’s love. And it all centers around Jesus.
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that all those who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world but so that the world may be saved through Him.
How do we know this to be true? First off, it’s based on eyewitness testimony, and I do not think we have had anything which has shown this testimony to be absolutely untrustworthy. Second, Christianity presents such a radical departure from the norm, that it could not have been devised by human thought, but it had to come from outside of ourselves. It is the only faith that does not have humankind work its way to God, but has God work His way to humankind. “We do not follow cleverly devised myths.” We follow Christ, and we seek to Live His Word Daily. Amen.
Funny enough, the parrot had a problem. The parrot couldn’t distinguish between what was real and what was fantasy. The parrot couldn’t distinguish between what was truly an act and the tragedy that had befallen the ship. Sometimes, I wonder if we don’t have the same problem. Why do I say that?
How do you know Christianity is true?
Perhaps you have never thought about that question. Perhaps you have simply assumed its truth as something taught to you by your parents, Sunday School teachers, pastors, or other such authority figures. Perhaps you have simply been raised as a Christian and so the question has never bothered you. Perhaps you simply haven’t taken or haven’t had the time to deeply reflect upon this faith you have come to participate in this morning. Perhaps you are one of those sitting out there who has had such doubts as you have run into more and more people who have become a part of the fastest growing religious group in our nation: the nones–but you have been afraid to voice your doubts for fear that someone will be disappointed in you or that someone will automatically condemn you to hell. The reasons may be many and varied, but this morning I want to put it front and center in our conversation.
How do you know Christianity is true?
On the one hand, you may simply answer: I know it is true because I have felt a deep, personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. I know it’s true because it helps me order my life; it makes everything fit; or as C.S. Lewis once said, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” For some of us, the answer is as plain as this. Yet, in our world today, this point of view is often rebutted by someone saying, “Well, that’s fine for you. What is truth for you isn’t necessarily truth for me. What works for you doesn’t necessarily work for me. Truth is relative.”
And their rebuttal works...IF, if mind you, truth is simply something that works. If truth is simply a way of making sense of the world, then there are myriads of ways of making sense out of life. Who is to say which one is right and which one is wrong? But what if truth isn’t simply something that works? What if truth isn’t just something that gives a person a frame of reference? I mean, we do know that certain frames of reference are better than others, do we not? We know that Mother Teresa’s way of looking at the world is better than those who flew their planes into the world trade centers, do we not? We know the liberties we experience in this nation are better than the brutality experienced by people in dictatorships, do we not? If we begin making such claims, then we are appealing to a higher truth.
And how do we come to know that higher truth? How do we know we simply haven’t created it on our own? Let’s try to work our way through this just a little bit this morning. Mind you, I don’t quite to pin everything down in 15 minutes or so, but I want to begin making a case for the truth of Christianity–a truth you can understand and begin to share with those who offer their doubts.
We will begin with the opening statement of our second lesson this morning from 2 Peter chapter 1 verse 16, “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty.”
Stop right here a moment and process this statement. The author of this book, who Christian tradition attributes to St. Peter is blunt. “We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Apparently, there were those who were spreading this thought regarding Christianity. There were those who believed that the whole shebang was completely and totally made up. There are those who adamantly say this about Christianity today, so really, as the Church, we are not facing anything we haven’t faced before. Peter doesn’t mince words, he draws a line in the sand and says, “Nope. This isn’t some kind of cleverly devised myth.” What does he appeal to next?
Again, listen to this carefully, “we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, ‘This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.’ 18We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed.”
We were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ majesty. We heard the voice on the mountaintop. We were there watching this all transpire.
Now, we need to deviate for just a moment. Some scholars have often said that the way the Bible developed is that over a span of decades, people started telling stories. Those stories became embellished as folks told of Jesus’ words and deeds. As time passed, it was thought it would be a good idea to write the stories down and what got written down was the embellished tales and not any sort of historical truth. The myth was written; the truth was lost. This train of thought assumes a couple of things: it assumes that the stories about Jesus were written long after his original followers had died off, and it assumes there were no checks and balances going on in the early Christian movement. It assumes that the eyewitness testimony of the disciples was less important than the embellishment. I think their assumptions are wrong. I’m not the only one. Why is this important?
As people we are geared to accept and trust the eyewitness accounts of people–unless we have a good reason to distrust those accounts. What do I mean by that? Well, let’s say you are having dinner one evening with your significant other. You arrive at a restaurant and are making pleasant conversation. Your significant other begins telling you about her day. She says, “I had a very productive day. I went to work and managed to handle several important cases in a matter of hours. I counseled a couple of junior employees and they are better equipped to handle their jobs. After work, I enjoyed a brisk work out at the gym and am feeling fantastic.”
Would you then look at your significant other and say, “Sounds interesting, but do you have any evidence to back your assertions up?”
How do you think the rest of your evening is going to go?
We are programmed to accept eyewitness testimony unless we have a good reason to distrust it–the person who tells us is found to be a liar; we discover evidence to the contrary; we find others who testify a different set of events.
2 Peter 1:16 is an intriguing piece of scripture as it claims to be eyewitness testimony to the transfiguration. Peter claims to have been there, seen that, and now we have to decide whether or not to trust the account. “We did not follow any cleverly devised myths.”
Let me take just a moment to say a word about this before trying to bring everything together. We know how many world religions got their start. We know what most of them teach. Islam started when the Muhammed wrote down the Koran. Buddhism started when Siddartha Guatama wrote down the eight fold path. Mormonism started with Joseph Smith wrote down some intranslatable tablets. In every one of these religions, the founders wrote down what it means to get into God’s good graces. In every one of these religions, it’s about what I have to do to attain salvation. In every one of the world’s major religions, it is up to us as humans to appease God by our actions and our beliefs. In every one of the world’s other major religions, God asks for obedience before showing mercy. Each of the religions is cleverly devised to show this axiom. Only Christianity is different. Only Christianity begins with God coming down and bestowing grace and then asking us for obedience. Only Christianity has God dying for the sake of humanity, offering us His love, and then asking for obedience. One could call this clever, but one could also say this represents a radical departure from human understanding. One could say this represents a tectonic shift in an understanding about God and God’s love. And it all centers around Jesus.
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that all those who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world but so that the world may be saved through Him.
How do we know this to be true? First off, it’s based on eyewitness testimony, and I do not think we have had anything which has shown this testimony to be absolutely untrustworthy. Second, Christianity presents such a radical departure from the norm, that it could not have been devised by human thought, but it had to come from outside of ourselves. It is the only faith that does not have humankind work its way to God, but has God work His way to humankind. “We do not follow cleverly devised myths.” We follow Christ, and we seek to Live His Word Daily. Amen.
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Interpreting the Bible Part 3
The Emergence of Another Way
Recently, I have come across in my reading another set of assumptions which I believe is more faithful as we deal with the interpretation of scripture. It is what I call the hermeneutic of trust. Much of my thinking has come as a result of reading Scottish scholar, Richard Bauckham’s book: Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Accounts. Bauckham argues that the gospels are not to be seen as recorded ancient history. They do not fall into that category of literature. Instead, they are to be seen as ancient biographies. The rules for writing such literature differed a bit from historical accounts, but there are some important things of note regarding the writing of such literature:
A. The writers of such biographies believed in the importance of being as close to the subject of the biography as possible. Fourth or fifth hand information was not considered acceptable.
B. The Gospels were probably written 35-50 years after the death of Jesus. Eyewitnesses would still have been alive. The authors would have known this. Luke admits so in his introduction. He also admits to consulting with them. The hermeneutic of suspicion relies on the assumption eyewitness testimonies were unimportant to the people writing the gospels–Bauckham, and others, argue vehemently otherwise.
C. Bauckham believes the gospel writers–Matthew, Mark, and Luke–gave us clues as to who their main eyewitnesses were:
Mark: the apostle Peter.
Matthew: Mark’s account + the disciple Matthew
Luke: Mark’s account + several women disciples
D. Bauckham believes John was written by an eyewitness to the events of Jesus’ life, and the author is the beloved disciple as named in the work.
There are issues with viewing the gospels as eyewitness accounts-namely, eyewitnesses don’t exactly get their stories completely straight at times. Details vary. Sometimes people see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. Other times, they interpret events instead of simply reporting them. Yet, Bauckham actually deals with many such objections in his book, and I will not go into those now.
What I want to delve into is approaching the gospels as eyewitness testimony. For testimony demands an element of trust as one approaches it. For instance, if you sit down at the dinner table with your spouse and he/she tells you, “I had a good day at work. I finished up a major project.” And you respond, “Do you have any corroborating evidence?” You will probably have a rough evening.
Testimony demands to be trusted unless a witness is shown to be untrustworthy. The ultimate question one must ask in this vein of thought is whether or not the gospels as we have them are in fact, trustworthy. Of course, I say they are.
If we take this track for interpretation, there then is little mystery as to why the early church accepted the four canonical gospels despite their varying claims. As with eyewitness accounts of an event, some witnesses remember certain details while omitting others. Some eyewitnesses add some interpretive thoughts (John is especially guilty of this). Some say the red car ran the light while others say the blue one did–yet no one disputes the crash!
The early church believed one could take the four gospels in their totality to understand and get a full picture of who Jesus was. They did not make distinctions based upon “what Matthew’s Jesus said” or “what John’s Jesus said or what “the Lukan community said” or what the “Markan community said.” They were comfortable with the differences and the interpretations of events trusting the testimony of the witnesses. Should we be any different? That is the important question governing each of these modes of interpretation.
Recently, I have come across in my reading another set of assumptions which I believe is more faithful as we deal with the interpretation of scripture. It is what I call the hermeneutic of trust. Much of my thinking has come as a result of reading Scottish scholar, Richard Bauckham’s book: Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Accounts. Bauckham argues that the gospels are not to be seen as recorded ancient history. They do not fall into that category of literature. Instead, they are to be seen as ancient biographies. The rules for writing such literature differed a bit from historical accounts, but there are some important things of note regarding the writing of such literature:
A. The writers of such biographies believed in the importance of being as close to the subject of the biography as possible. Fourth or fifth hand information was not considered acceptable.
B. The Gospels were probably written 35-50 years after the death of Jesus. Eyewitnesses would still have been alive. The authors would have known this. Luke admits so in his introduction. He also admits to consulting with them. The hermeneutic of suspicion relies on the assumption eyewitness testimonies were unimportant to the people writing the gospels–Bauckham, and others, argue vehemently otherwise.
C. Bauckham believes the gospel writers–Matthew, Mark, and Luke–gave us clues as to who their main eyewitnesses were:
Mark: the apostle Peter.
Matthew: Mark’s account + the disciple Matthew
Luke: Mark’s account + several women disciples
D. Bauckham believes John was written by an eyewitness to the events of Jesus’ life, and the author is the beloved disciple as named in the work.
There are issues with viewing the gospels as eyewitness accounts-namely, eyewitnesses don’t exactly get their stories completely straight at times. Details vary. Sometimes people see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. Other times, they interpret events instead of simply reporting them. Yet, Bauckham actually deals with many such objections in his book, and I will not go into those now.
What I want to delve into is approaching the gospels as eyewitness testimony. For testimony demands an element of trust as one approaches it. For instance, if you sit down at the dinner table with your spouse and he/she tells you, “I had a good day at work. I finished up a major project.” And you respond, “Do you have any corroborating evidence?” You will probably have a rough evening.
Testimony demands to be trusted unless a witness is shown to be untrustworthy. The ultimate question one must ask in this vein of thought is whether or not the gospels as we have them are in fact, trustworthy. Of course, I say they are.
If we take this track for interpretation, there then is little mystery as to why the early church accepted the four canonical gospels despite their varying claims. As with eyewitness accounts of an event, some witnesses remember certain details while omitting others. Some eyewitnesses add some interpretive thoughts (John is especially guilty of this). Some say the red car ran the light while others say the blue one did–yet no one disputes the crash!
The early church believed one could take the four gospels in their totality to understand and get a full picture of who Jesus was. They did not make distinctions based upon “what Matthew’s Jesus said” or “what John’s Jesus said or what “the Lukan community said” or what the “Markan community said.” They were comfortable with the differences and the interpretations of events trusting the testimony of the witnesses. Should we be any different? That is the important question governing each of these modes of interpretation.
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Testimony Versus Historicity
In this and other cases, including the Gospels, testimony asks to be trusted. It does not consist in the presentation of evidence and argument for what only the witness, the involved insider, can tell us. In all cases, including even the law courts, testimony can be checked and assessed in appropriate ways but nevertheless has to be trusted. In the unique events we are considering, this is all the more true. To insist, with some Gospel critics, that the historicity of each and every Gospel periscope must be established, one by one, with arguments for each, is not to recognize testimony for what it necessarily is. It is to suppose that we can extract individual facts from testimony and build our own reconstruction of events that is no longer dependent upon the witness. It is to refuse that privileged access to truth that precisely participant testimony can give us. Ancient historiography rightly valued such testimony as essential to good history...
--Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony p. 502
Yes.
Bauckham has definitively destroyed the underlying assumptions for the quests of the Historical Jesus by rightly defining the Gospels not as history or mythology, but as stories based upon eyewitness testimony (Mark, Matthew, Luke) and by an eyewitness (John).
I am in agreement with Timothy Keller that this book will take a number of years to infiltrate current biblical scholarship, and it will be a new generation of biblical scholars who will carry this torch as it (hopefully) blossoms into a roaring fire. Yeah, it's that good.
It stands in sharp contrast to those who have undertaken the quest for the "historical Jesus." Those who undertake this task approach the gospel narratives with a skeptical nature--that they are narratives which include embellishment and perspectives of communities of faith instead of the reports of individual, eyewitness testimony. The task of the person/scholar searching for the "historical" Jesus is to wade through the mud and the muck in order to find the true jewels or authentic sayings and deeds of Jesus.
This Jesus historian then must reconstruct Jesus based upon those nuggets. So, you have a book like Marcus Borg's Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time and The God We Never Knew. In each of these books, Borg reconstructs Jesus and God giving us a picture of a Jesus we never knew and a God we never knew.
Well...
Of course we never knew THAT Jesus and THAT God. They are Borg's reconstructions of Jesus and God. As such, they are Borg's Jesus and Borg's God not the God of scripture.
Plenty of folks have met Jesus through the Gospel accounts. Plenty of folks have met God through the biblical account, but they haven't met Borg's God and Borg's Jesus for obvious reasons.
Yet, Borg and others like him have garnered a hefty following in certain Christian circles. It's not surprising. (See: How Do Bad Ideas Continue to Stick Around)
Bauckham turns the tables and argues quite successfully that the Gospels demand to be approached with trust instead of skepticism--just as a person approaches another's testimony with trust unless given a reason to the contrary. Changing the assumption of how one approaches these documents changes the game--completely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)