The Word of God?
The Word of God is synonymous with the Bible for most Christians today, but that isn’t how it began. As William Schniedewind demonstrates in How the Bible Became a Book,
in the biblical literature prior to Chronicles “the word of Yahweh” has little or nothing to do with written documents. Neither is the expression “the word of the Lord” used to refer to the Ten Commandments or the Law of Moses. The term instead applies to the oral proclamation of the prophets.An intriguing illustration of this can be found in Jeremiah 8:7-9. The text speaks of those who have rejected the word of the Lord (v.9) in the same breath as “the lying pen of the scribes” (v.8). Jeremiah was bemoaning the fruits of literacy: authority was shifting from oral tradition to the written word. Where should authority lie, with the text or teacher? Schniedewind observes: "Once authority resides in the text, the teacher can be dismissed..." It is only in the late book of Chronicles that torah is understood as the written word rather than the oral word spoken through the prophets.
Even the word “prophecy” (nevu’ah) is a late innovation. It hadn’t been needed until the textualization process was well advanced, but once the word of Yahweh was understood as corresponding to the Pentateuch, a new term was needed for the proclamation of the prophets.
The growing authority of the text, which advanced along with the growth of literacy, put paid to the ability of opinionated individuals to rise up and speak as God’s mouthpiece: the prophets disappear from Israel. Their niche is filled in part by apocalyptic speculation with a focus on the future rather than the needs of the moment. Amos’ cry for justice in the here-and-now is drowned out by Daniel’s lurid fantasies of the future.
The word of the Lord is still spoken by troublesome individuals who speak fearlessly, but rarely by religious professionals: priest and prophet rarely complement each other. Interestingly, Jesus was remembered “as one having authority”, not like the scribes of his day (Matthew 7:28). In fact, it’s remarkable how little exegesis Jesus seemed to bother with. Needless to say, he wasn’t popular with the clergy of his day either. In Matthew's "great commission" (28:18-20) Jesus passes his authority on to his disciples, he does not infuse it into a text. Even Paul, that prolific letter writer, stresses that he was called to preach: he makes no claims for his writings.
To tie oneself up in knots over the interpretation of obscure passages has nothing in common with the genius of Israel’s faith in its formative period, or of Jesus for that matter. That’s not to say that scholars shouldn’t dig deep to understand them, or that Christians shouldn’t respect them as markers on the road taken and a source for reflection and inspiration. But to regard them with idolatrous “bible-believing” superstition - in effect a paper pope - is likely to miss the whole point. If we’re busy attempting to distill precise doctrine from ancient text, chances are we’ll miss hearing the authentic word of the Lord that engages us in everyday life.
Gavin Rumney
6 comments:
Pr 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Mt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
While not disagreeing with the sentiment of this post, it is a sort of post that may be employed, think especially the ministry, to keep one majoring in the minors.
Heb 5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
Heb 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
Heb 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
Heb 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
Heb 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
Heb 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
Roy Gane supplies an interesting analogy:
"The basic of salvation are so simple that a little child can grasp them. But God has revealed much more for those who want to "go on to maturity" (Heb 6:1; RSV). The details are for our benefit. They not only show us more clearly how we are saved, they teach us what God is like. If we want to spend eternity with God, it is a good idea to get acquainted with Him now as much as possible.
"Details are important to relationships. When I was dating Connie, the young woman who later became my wife, I wanted to know everything I could about her. I was interested in her childhood, family, friends, values, plans, habits, talents, and the way she treated people. Nothing was unimportant. Everything was fascinating. I find the same to be true of what I learn about God" (Altar Call, p.31).
Roy Gane had the great blessing of studying biblical Hebrew under Jacob Milgrom:
"As Milgrom guided his students in unfolding the text, I progressively came to grasp his main point. The dynamic worship system of ancient Israel encapsulates profound theological meaning. Furthermore, although relationships with the New Testament were not under discussion, a new world of understanding opened up to vastly enrich and nuance my Christian understanding of God's character and the way he interacts with and restores faulty human beings like me" (Roy Gane, Leviticus, Numbers, NIVAC, p.15).
Anon @ 1:56. Roy Gane is a Seventh Day Adventist scholar. I would not touch his writings for anything other than compare/contrast false doctrines vs. orthodox Christianity. Miles and miles apart. Somehow, he fell through the cracks and was included in a Bible commentary written by Christians. SDAs are a very clever spiritual counterfeit, that can be extremely hard to discern unless you really grasp their lingo. They use the same Christian-ese terms of orthodoxy, but mean something vastly different. I would not suggest people read his writings unless they are firmly grounded in hermeneutics, well read of church fathers, at least some Greek/Hebrew and are a mature believer.
Hi, DW
I am aware that Roy Gane is a Seventh Day Adventist. This does not put me off from reading his books. I have I a number, including "Cult and Character - Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy" and "Old Testament Laws for Christians".
He did not fall through the cracks, as he is an able Old Testament expositor and well recognized as such.
"Altar Call" is a good introduction to God's sacrificial system. Unfortunately the downside to this book is his promotion of certain SDA teachings at the end.
One plus, he keeps the Sabbath as per Ex 20 & Dt 5; one negative, if he holds to SDA teachings, he believes in a Trinity.
Below is from "Jesus Christ, the Purification Offering and the Millennium".
While theory 1 is from Roy Gane, I prefer Gung Yul Kim's theory - though each has its strengths and weaknesses:
The sanctuary is defiled by certain sin and certain ritual impurities. Two leading theories on how the defilement takes place are noted. 'Theory 1' posits a combination of 'aerial,' and 'direct contact' defilement through blood manipulation; while 'Theory 2 has only 'aerial' defilement.
Lev 5:9a And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar;...
Lev 16:19 And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.
Roy Gane, "Cult and Character - Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy" argues for 'Theory 1' and Gung Yul Kim, "The hattat ritual and the Day of Atonement in the Book of Leviticus" - his PhD dissertation - argues for 'Theory 2'. The difference between the two theories may be summed up on a ritual activity premise:
"F. Staal explains the variability of relationship between actions and meanings: the activity itself has no inherent meaning, but it can carry meaning that is assigned to it from a source such as culture of religious authority...
"Recognizing that ritual actions have no inherent meaning aid ritual analysis ... by keeping us from unjustifiably importing meaning from one context to another because we incorrectly assume that the functions of identical actions must be the same. For example, we should not import the meaning of one sevenfold sprinkling of blood (Lev 16:14-16) or another (v.19) from the special Day of Atonement context to Lev 4, assuming that in the latter passage the same kind of activity must also purge or reconsecrate part of the sanctuary. In fact, we will find that it serves another function in Lev 4" (Roy Gane, pp.5-6).
"... the idea must be refused that the 'sprinkling' of blood is performed to remove the offerer's sin by transferring it to the sanctuary in Leviticus 4, whereas the same activity is to purge the sancta of sin in Leviticus 16.
"... a ritual activity cannot have a directly opposite function in the same ritual system... If the function of the hattat blood is to purge the sancta in Leviticus 8 and 16, it must be so in Leviticus 4-5..." (Gyung Yul Kim," pp.284, 322).
'Theory 1' argues that blood manipulation transfers atoned sin and ritual impurity from human-beings to the sanctuary throughout the year. 'Theory 2' argues that blood manipulation purges the sanctuary from aerial defilement of sins and ritual impurity that are atoned for during the year.
Lev 16:33a And he shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary and ... the tabernacle of meeting and for the altar...
Both theories have the sanctuary 'cleansed' on the Day of Atonement/Purgation. What is 'cleansed' depends on the role of blood manipulation during the year. 'Direct' contact defilement has more defilement purged from the sanctuary than 'aerial' defilement, the latter sees only wanton sin and unconscious/unknown sin not remedied through the year purged from the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement.
I have missed Gavin's voice. It is good to see it here again, and I give it a hearty "Amen!"
Superb article. This blog should have more Gavin Rumney and less of the usual.
Nobody even knows what God's word is. Nobody really knows whether to follow the bible or not, who really wrote the books in the bible, or which books belong in the bible. What is the supposed word of God? What ever the "Dave Packs" of some past era supposedly said it is.
What a pile of confusion.
God is not the author of confusion. Satan is.
Clearly, Christianity is a religion of Satan.
Post a Comment