God is Greater than the Bible!
Back in 2013, Peter Enns penned a post titled God is Bigger than the Bible. It was a reaction to the growing awareness among Biblical scholars that our concepts regarding the God of the Bible have evolved over the many millennia in which people have been thinking, talking, and writing about him. Enns concluded: "Studying the Bible and Israel’s past is a regular reminder to me that my object of trust is God, not the Bible. That’s not knocking the Bible. It’s acknowledging that the Bible–even where it talks about God–is not a heavenly tablet dropped from heaven, but a relentlessly contextual collection of ancient literature that takes wisdom and patience to handle well." He went on to say that "God is bigger than the Bible–and frankly, I see Jesus in the Gospels already sounding that note when he began reshaping common views of God based on Israel’s traditions..."
Indeed, the very concept of Divine revelation implies that mankind is reliant on God in part (or in whole) for our understanding of him. In other words, our limitations in this respect are implicit in the way that the Bible informs us that God's message was imparted to humanity. Moreover, the whole notion of Divine revelation suggests that there is so much more that hasn't yet been revealed to us. Finally, the revelations which we refer to as Scripture suggest that God is greater than our ability to comprehend him, and that creation itself has much to reveal to us about his greatness and plans. Hence, there is so much more to God than what is revealed about him in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures!
This notion that God is so much greater than anything we can imagine is backed up in the pages of the Bible. Scripture informs us that God told Samuel that God doesn't see things in the superficial way that we do (I Samuel 16:7) - suggesting a much deeper insight into things than we are even capable of! Paul told the Romans that the earth and sky reveal God's hidden qualities, power, and nature (Romans 1:20). His words harkened back to what David had written in a psalm many years before that. David wrote: "When I look at the night sky and see the work of your fingers — the moon and the stars you set in place — what are mere mortals that you should think about them, human beings that you should care for them?" (Psalm 8:3-4) Hence, we see in David's awe, and what Paul wrote to the saints at Rome, that God's creation has much to reveal to us about him - much more than the words in any book could ever impart to our understanding of him!
Likewise, God knows that humans understand things by comparing and contrasting them with other things (after all, God created the human mind). Hence, the question he asked of us through the prophet Isaiah is particularly meaningful in this context. We read there: "To whom will you compare me? Who is my equal?" (Isaiah 46:5) In other words, God is beyond anything that we might compare him to within our reality - the realm that we inhabit. This, in turn, causes us to wonder about God's reality - the realm that he inhabits, and we remember what Solomon said about the temple which he had constructed for God. He said: "even the highest heavens cannot contain you. How much less this Temple I have built!" (I Kings 8:27) Indeed, this verse represents the entire theme of this blog - that God cannot be contained - NOT by a building or a book!
Indeed, when we consider what John said about his account of Christ's life, we see the absolute absurdity of the notion that any book could do complete justice to the subject of God (even one that is inspired by God). He wrote: "The disciples saw Jesus do many other miraculous signs in addition to the ones recorded in this book." (John 20:30) At the conclusion of his account, John repeated that Jesus had done many other works that were not included in his account and noted that "If they were all written down, I suppose the whole world could not contain the books that would be written." (John 21:25) And, finally, the notion that our present understanding of God and his will is imperfect (I Corinthians 13:9-12) suggests that God has more to reveal to us! In other words, the Bible must be regarded as imperfect and incomplete in terms of what is revealed there about God and his will.
In Isaiah, we read: "I am the Lord, and there is no other; There is no God besides Me." (Isaiah 45:5) Indeed, the language here harkens back to the language of God's fundamental law as outlined in the Ten Commandments. We read there: "You must not have any other god but me." (Exodus 20:3) Hence, even a book that reflects God's will and character is NOT God, and the only sensible conclusion that we can reach is that God is greater than the Bible!
Lonnie Hendrix
37 comments:
Strawman argument Henrix to seperate the Bible which is God's word from God himself. Ridiculous. It would be like separating you from this blog. The Bible is a living book not a emotional manual that can be avoided when it suits you.
The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever. Isaiha 40:6
All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be throughly equipped for every good work. 2 Tim 3:16-17
He replied, Blessed rarther are those who hear the word of God and obey it. Luke 11:28
Your word is a lamp gor my feet, a light on my path. Psalm 119
There's a certain vagueness in this post, enabling many rabbit holes for debate. But what strikes me is the authors non comprehension of concepts. Concepts, even right ones, leaves allowance for
not knowing all the fine details. Hence the fundamentals of fields such as astronomy, physics and psychology are well understood. but all the details are not. Which is why researchers are still studying these topics. The same with the bible. All the fundamentals, together with much detail is given by God. but not all the fine detail. Which is why self help books are still being written and read worldwide.
The bible points this out in Proverbs 25:2 "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the honor of kings to search out a matter."
There is sufficient information in the bible about God, His will, and the requirements for salvation.
That illustration perfectly encapsulates how Bob Thiel, David Pack, and Gerald Flurry depict Christ. These guys use the Bible to fit their interpretations instead of being Christ-centric.
Ha! That cartoon perfectly describes the protestant churches.
Miller:
A crucial point well presented. I think that you will find the response from the Armstrongist quarter a little alarming. This blog published an article I wrote about God's transcendence, and I thought, naively, that most readers, including Armstrongists, would find it uplifting. But the Armstrongists were livid. The lesson to me was that Armstrongists have a limited, anthropomorphic view of God with which they are quite happy. God in a bottle in their hip pocket. Rolling the Armstrongist viewpoints, expressed in the responses to my post, into one statement:
"We can understand God, otherwise, what would be the use in believing in him and following him. God is pretty much like a man - only stronger and eternal. In fact, one day we will be God just as he is."
This homespun belief is what really underlies all of their majestic praise in the opening and closing prayers at Sabbath services. It would be a blasphemous lèse-majesté if it were not for the fact that this view is born of a naiveté that is almost painful to witness.
It raises questions that always seem to hover, like a dismal gray cloud, around any interaction that one has with Armstrongists: What God do they really believe in? Why is their God so much smaller and less capable than the Christian God? A mystery of the ages.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
When you stray from the Bible conception you are making a new God that is not the God of the Bible.
Anonymous 4/10 @ 1:32,
For the sake of argument, let's ignore all of the human authors of Scripture for a moment and focus on God as the author of the Bible. Are you suggesting that the Bible is synonymous with God because he's the author of it? I am the author of my blog and this post, but they are NOT synonymous with me - they don't even represent ALL of my thinking on the narrow subject of theology! Moreover, if we allow for the contributions of others, the distinction between me and what I've written becomes even more distinct. Finally, none of the scriptures which you cited in your comment are contradicted by the thesis of this post!
Anonymous 4/10 @ 4:17,
Your statement that concepts allow "for not knowing all the fine details" supports the thesis of this post - that there are a great many details about God and his plans that are NOT included in the Bible! Also, the scripture you cited (Proverbs 25:2) demonstrates that it is God's prerogative to conceal and/or reveal. Finally, NOTHING in this post contradicts the statement that "There is sufficient information in the bible about God, His will, and the requirements for salvation."
Anonymous 4/10 @ 5:28,
Exactly! I love the cartoon. John's Gospel clearly identifies Jesus Christ as the Logos - the embodiment/representation of God and his message. Christ said that he and the Father were one, and that anyone who had seen him had seen the Father. Paul told the Colossians that the fullness of God resided in Christ. Likewise, the author of the epistle to the Hebrews stated that God has spoken to us through his Son, and that he reflected God's glory and person. Hence, from a Scriptural perspective, Christ is clearly regarded as being superior to the written word as a representation of God and his message.
NeoDromos characterized the ACOG view of God as:
"We can understand God, otherwise, what would be the use in believing in him and following him. God is pretty much like a man - only stronger and eternal. In fact, one day we will be God just as he is."
But isn't it true that even ACOG members acknowledge 1 Corinthians 13:12? God has the power to reveal Himself to us, but if we presume to be able to understand Him fully, aren't we making a mockery of Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 13:12? If you take the Bible as God's word, He makes it plain that we only see Him "dimly" at present.
Have you ever had a dog as a pet? Your dog cannot understand your humanness, but the two of you can nevertheless have a mutually loving relationship, because your dog engages in what we might call kynikomorphism; seeing other intelligences around him as if they were dog intelligences. You are much more than your dog realizes, and some of the things you do will seem incomprehensible or even miraculous to your dog, as they don't fit within the paradigms of dog intelligence.
But you are not a dog, and God is not a man. Except that because Jesus WAS a man, that gulf has been bridged, even though we cannot humanly conceive of the fullness of what God the Father is or means or does.
Neo,
Thanks, I liked your analogy about Armstrongists putting God in a bottle and carrying him around in their hip pocket. And I agree with you about the fact that their belief in "The Incredible Human Potential" motivates their view of God as a superman. Mankind's potential is incredible, and we are made a part of his family as a consequence of what Jesus Christ has done for us. They simply cannot allow, however, that God will always be God - ALWAYS superior to us. In other words, our real potential isn't good enough for them (and I seem to recall another entity that we are told had that same problem).
Armstrongites are Armstrongites because they believe that they have "the truth" on every possible subject, delivered or revealed to them by a quasi-Biblical figure, "God's Apostle". They revere Herbert W. Armstrong the way he taught them to revere him, taking every word the man spoke as if it had come directly from Jesus Christ. Logic, additional facts, and even the moral failings of their Apostle have proven to be totally ineffective in educating them out of that mindset.
Having said that, I'm sure that I'm not the only one around here who finds the writings of Lonnie and NEO to be enlightening and profitable. The indoctrinated culties amongst us never will. I imagine that when Jesus begins to reteach all of us, there will be people who respond with "But that's not what Mr. Armstrong said," That is to say, that most likely they will recognize HWA as the ultimate authority even above Jesus when presented with correction. It's just a shame!
"....we see the absolute absurdity of the notion that any book could do complete justice to the subject of God (even one that is inspired by God)."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Bible, in its original text, DOES complete justice to the subject of God. Now, who is absurd?
Your God is who you obey and believe. YHWH is the Rabbinical establishment that fabricated the Bible. Stop worshiping the Rabbis.
Anonymous said,
I imagine that when Jesus begins to reteach all of us, there will be people who respond with "But that's not what Mr. Armstrong said," That is to say, that most likely they will recognize HWA as the ultimate authority even above Jesus when presented with correction. It's just a shame!
Oh, come on! When ALL of us are "retaught", including Herbie and his cult followers, we will be trembling with our eyes wide open after knowing what death was like. We will be more receptive in our next chance at life than we ever were in this one. Then and only then will we know the TRUTH, the WAY, and the LIFE. Even the "ordained ministers", in real denial, will insist they are farmers and always have been farmers!
"Reteach all of us?"
I don't need any reteaching. The truth is out there if one is willing to put out the effort. Needing to be retaught is the old church line that members are children who cannot discern truth, and therefore need the AC big people to tell them what to believe. Today, most members are elderly, and should have out grown this nonsense.
Sure, God is far greater than the Bible and we see Him dimly now. Still, God chose to give us the Bible through inspiring the writers. Anything compared to God diminishes to insignificance which is exactly why we shouldn’t make the comparison.
Sure, God is far greater than the Bible and we see Him dimly now. Still, God chose to give us the Bible through inspiring the writers. Anything compared to God diminishes to insignificance which is exactly why we shouldn’t make the comparison.
Sure, God is far greater than the Bible and we see Him dimly now. Still, God chose to give us the Bible through inspiring the writers. Anything compared to God diminishes to insignificance which is exactly why we shouldn’t make the comparison.
Sure, God is far greater than the Bible and we see Him dimly now. Still, God chose to give us the Bible through inspiring the writers. Anything compared to God diminishes to insignificance which is exactly why we shouldn’t make the comparison.
"Next chance at life"??
Don't you think that it would be nice never to have lived? You wouldn't even know the difference. It would all just be blissful nothingness. Most of the world population lives horrible lives under cruel dictators, in poverty, illness, malnutrition, in war, with no chance of improving their lot in life. I'm kind of like the Sadducees in that I like living a principled life, but believe that there is no afterlife. Honestly, that gives me great comfort to know that when it's over, it's over.
Enjoyable discussion. I have no faith myself; I hang around here (and in other places where the subject comes up) because the various ideas about who or what created the universe and maintains it are fascinating.
My favorite is the idea of the immanent deity as held by Hasidic Jews. The rabbi I first heard it from explained that the very first command: "Let there be light" was not a one-time event like turning on a switch. It was the first instant of a creative act G-d (writing out the name in full is taboo to Hasidim) has been performing steadily ever since. If he ever stopped willing us and our universe into existence, we would all wink out at once.
This idea is not the same as pantheism. Even though this creator god permeates creation throughout, he transcends it. It is a manifestation of him, who is unimaginably more vast.
Obviously, as an unbeliever, I am not trying to convert anybody to this belief. But you have to admit it is an attractive view.
I don't need any reteaching. The truth is out there if one is willing to put out the effort. Needing to be retaught is the old church line that members are children who cannot discern truth, and therefore need the AC big people to tell them what to believe. Today, most members are elderly, and should have out grown this nonsense.
What arrogance and ignorance! Of course, the "AC big people" will need more reteaching than most ordinary church members, but we ALL are severely limited in how much truth we can absorb in 70-100 years of mortal life. If our current level of understanding is sufficient to encompass eternity, eternity is going to be a crushingly dull experience.
"...Armstrongists have a limited, anthropomorphic view of God with which they are quite happy. "
Lonnie, you're projecting again.
I think that what you have described is panentheism. Check it out at Wikipedia. It is different from pantheism.
This blog is nothing but projecting.
"...Armstrongists have a limited, anthropomorphic view of God with which they are quite happy. "
I tend to agree. "In God's image" was always presented as "physical likeness" not spiritual.
A PT or GN article looked at some poetic imagery involving the senses to "show" that God must have a physical nose, ears, eyes. Another announced a baptism with the verse "rejoicing in Heaven when a sinner repents" and pondered on what kind of wine God would be drinking to celebrate.
Anonymous 4/11 @ 5:25,
That quote was from Neo, but he's absolutely right!
Anonymous said: "The Bible, in its original text, DOES complete justice to the subject of God." And where may we find those original texts? Ah, yes, they no longer exist! Hence, by your own standard, the manuscripts which we currently possess do not do complete justice to the subject of God! For myself, it appears to be self-evident that NO manuscript can or ever has done justice to the subject of God!
BB,
The statement "God is greater than the Bible" is necessary because of the bibliolatry exhibited by most Fundamentalists. Their notions of equivalency (as evidenced by some of the commentary here) makes the contrast necessary.
4.45 AM
All the fundamentals of Christianity are known, but not all the details.
Ee are not limited in understanding the fundamentals in our finite lifespans. In fact, God will not allow anyone into His kingdom who do not grasp and accept fundamental Christian truths.
All contemporary Christianity is tainted with Pharisaic morality to some extent. So any "reteaching" will be limited to fine tuning.
By the way, in case anyone is wondering, the "BB" who commented above is not me!
BB
By the way, in case anyone is wondering, the "Byker Bob" who commented above is not me! But, I can aspire to such.
Well, got my hopes up.
Byker Bob,
It's good to have you back - even if it's only to deny being responsible for BB's post!
Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.
The COG mindset doesn't think much of Jesus as the way since they view Jesus as an insufficient savior and prefer to work to save themselves.
Jesus does not equate to the truth to COGers who extoll the law and the writings of HWA as the truth that turns them on.
Therefore, the COG mindset cannot conceive of Jesus being sufficient for life, much less, eternal life.
The COGs don't find it to be worthwhile to spend eternity glorifying Jesus, as they prefer to be worshipped as God for eternity.
John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Bwahaha
Anonymous 1:43 wrote, "YHWH is the Rabbinical establishment that fabricated the Bible."
I think what you are saying is that god is a cynical fabrication of a group of rabbis somewhere back in history. And by worshipping god, one is inadvertently worshipping these rabbis. That is a novel idea and I see you have provided no support for it. Rabbis came on the scene beginning around the Second Century BCE. YHWH was well established in Israel long before that. You comment seems to be a random shot in the dark.
YHWH was well established in Israel long before that.
As was Asherah. Unfortunately, the Rabbis exiled Asherah in order to entrench their new patriarchal cult, inspired by their contact with Babylonian religion.
While you are correct in dating for rabbis, the term "Rabbinical Judaism" often encompasses a larger period going all the way back to the initial Babylonian exile (there is a reason for that, but too lengthy to include here).
What I think our "friend" refers to here is the concept that prior to Nebuchadnezzar's depradations, much of the populace of the former kingdoms seem to have not been strict monotheists in service to YHWH. Ultimately, when they were given the chance to return to their land under the Persians, the prevailing view of thought amomg those who chose to return had shifted to "YHWH only", marking a radical change in their history and thought. It is that school of thought that gave us much of the Bible, according to this notion.
Post a Comment