This is the first in a series of posts, which will probably span the next few weeks and months. It is an extended effort at apologetics.
Part 1: The Limitations of Apologetics, and, Why Most Apologetics Sucks
a. A Caveat
The first thing that I want to establish is that apologetics is a work of theology and philosophy. Both theology and philosophy are fields that, for the most part, do not allow much certainty. Proving things in science is relatively simple. You create theories to explain phenomenon and then test those theories to see if they can hold up to extreme scrutiny. This process is simply awesome, because it allows us to gain some level of certainty about a range of issues. But those issues are not all inclusive. There are some issues that are just not in the purview of science and cannot have the scientific method applied to them.
Deductive reasoning allows us a similar level of certainty as does mathematics. But again, these aren't universally applicable. Even in the case of strict deduction, one cannot attain certainty unless one has all true premises and a valid argument. Validity is easy to check. True premises often are not. Most premises are to one degree or another controversial. In those fields where strict deductive reasoning do not apply or where it's conclusions are questionable (and it usually is), and we can't apply science, we have to make due with more halting and imprecise processes of reasoning. You may be able to form beliefs based on some real processes, but they will not give you the certainty that science or strict deductive reasoning does. There are some who will take issue with this attitude. They will insist that only science can give us beliefs that can be rationally held, or knowledge at all. This is, ironically enough, pretty easy to prove false. Take the proposition: "only science can bring us knowledge". Well, do you KNOW this? How do you know it? It isn't science, there is no experiment one could do to falsify the statement. On it's face it can't meet it's own standard of evidence and so cannot be known to be true.
Of course one doesn't need fancy turns of logic to see that what I am saying here is true. There are a plethora of issues where different sides give equally good reasons for believing what they do. In politics, in ethics, in philosophy and elsewhere, the general standard by which one judges whether a belief is reasonable or not is not whether the belief can be proven true in a scientific or strict deductive sense, but whether one can make a strong case in one direction or another.
So in what is to follow, that is what I intend to do. I do not think what I will say on these matters is completely unassailable. There may be good objections. But I do not think the objections are obviously superior to the case I make here or to the counter-objections that could be raised. This caveat, this moment of awareness, brings me to my second point in this section....
b. On Why Most Apologetics Sucks
The first reason most apologetics sucks is it doesn't take account of my point in (a). Most apologists aim too high, they aim for a goal that could never be reached in almost any area of life. They use reasoning that seems to be, by all objective standards, what I called above 'halting and imprecise'. Religious apologists usually make a pretense to a level of knowledge that is reserved only for areas like math, science and those few deductive arguments that command almost universal rational assent. Apologists make arguments that could give some reason to believe in God. But they act like they have given a proof, as in some absolute certain ground for belief, that God exists, or that Jesus is God, etc. This pretense is easy to spot, and gives most apologists, who I think are sincere, an air of unreliability. They act like the proposition that God exists is obviously true and that only a sinner or moron could fail to see it. But nothing they say gives them reason for that kind of confidence.
The second reason that the apologetics projects of most people is rather less than satisfying is that most apologetics seems completely disconnected from the way most people's religious and spiritual lives works. People start from some fact about the world and then reason to the conclusion that there must be a God. They use the fact that the universe had a starting point, for instance, as a piece of data that proves that someone must have initiated the universal process. Or they point to the order in the universe and reason their must be an orderer. Now some of these efforts, taken not as proofs but as incomplete and limited arguments do have some weight behind them. They are not simple and obvious fallacies. But they bare little resemblance to the reasons most people have for believing in God. For most people, most of the time, religion is a matter of experience, and encounter, and relationship. People shy away from this kind of defense because they fear the subjectivity of human experience. There is no way, though, to escape from such experience. It is the locus of most people's beliefs.
c. Is There Any Good Stuff Out There?
In a word, yes, there are some great apologists out there and some great books I highly recommend. And I will be relying heavily on all of them to help make my case here. But their approaches are not simple or for the weak of mind. They realize the depth of the subject they tackle and the importance to share one's personal experiences with others if any kind of real progress is to be made. One of the books, MYSTERY WITHOUT MAGIC, by Russell Pregeant, spends the first 100 pages or so talking about the nature of human experience. The conclusion that it makes sense, perhaps the most sense, to believe in God isn't even established until halfway through the book. That is why it is hard to imagine trying to engage in apologetics in some kind of classic debate forum. In good apologetics, the very nature of human experience or human knowing has to be fully examined before the reasons for belief can be grasped. This series of blog posts will be an attempt to give as bare bones an argument as is possible, from this experiential kind of approach.
For those who are interested in good works of apologetics, I suggest: MYSTERY WITHOUT MAGIC by Russell Pregeant, A RUMOR OF ANGELS by Peter Berger. For those who have a stronger background in philosphy, I'd add Alvin Plantinga's WARRANTED CHRISTIAN BELIEF and Alfred N Whitehead's RELIGION IN THE MAKING. And with that nod to the shoulders upon which I stand done, I look forward to getting deeper into this subject over the next few weeks.
Monday, December 17, 2012
The Challenge of a Christic Worldview
Christ must be the center of not only our world but our worldview. The man Jesus, and the truth of the Incarnation must tie everything together. It must help us make sense of every aspect of our experienced world: from the deepest emotional realizations to the most banal scientific fact, from the smallest swirling atom to the most immense spinning galaxy. Christ is what ties it all together. This quest must be one the whole church undertakes. We have to start the work of worldview building again, testifying to the truth we have experienced through that process. That is the witnessing work we need to be engaged in.
And this cannot take place in the ivory tower away from the life of everyday people. It must be the work of the church, not only the seminary. It is the community's experience we are trying to tie to the new growing scientific, ethical and philosophical awareness. The compartmentalization of theological worldview building to a select few academics is the great failure of modern mainline Protestantism.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
On The Meaning of Worship
Read: John 13:1-17
It often strikes me that Christians in general fail to appreciate the full ramifications of God's Incarnation in the man Jesus. One area in which I find this reflection lacking is in the meaning and purpose of worship. Most people think of worship as a kind of automatic response to the glory and majesty of God. God is so great, on this view, that He commands our worshipful response.
I think there is truth in this attitude, but it brings up some problems, including the argument from autonomy. But more precisely, I think Jesus forces us to rethinks what worship is all about. The John passage illustrates the point I want to make. Jesus is a statement from God. The message must be understood in the New Testament juxtaposition between Christ and Caesar.
The Gospels say to us, " The world finds God in the halls of power, in fame, in money and control. But the world is wrong. God is found in an ordinary family in a backwater town, in the Suffering Love of the Crucified Carpenter."
In John God In A Man takes the lowest position possible. In all of our lives, as we cram for power and control, for recognition, for 'the top', we all make a pretense to godhood. The irony is that in this quest we leave Godhood behind. For it is not found in power and control, but in vulnerability and self-emptying. It is not at the height, but in the depths.
On this view, worship is about imitation of God. It is returning to God the attitude of service and respect He gives to us. We drop to our knees, and there find God. Through worship God shapes to be more like Him and helps us find the Ultimate Power, which is paradoxically found only in radical vulnerability. That's a different understanding of worship, and also changes our concept of WORTHINESS of worship. On this view, both become consonant with Jesus actions in John 13. But it is something that I think escapes most people, even most Christians.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
The Problem Is Not In Our Laws, It Is In Ourselves
The talking heads are already exploiting this tragedy for a political agenda. Oh how easy it would be if some simple piece of legislation was the answer. But the guns, my friends, are not the problem. Switzerland has comparable gun ownership without the same level of gun-related deaths. No, the problem is not the gun laws, not in my opinion. I think the real problem is what I saw on the 6:00 news. A relentless focus on every detail of the event. A sensationalization, a morbid festival. In a society bereft of a sense of transcendent meaning, meaning is found by influencing HUMAN history. This is a consequence of what Victor Frankl called the 'existential vacuum'. These people want to make a mark, and that they get what they want.
The change that needs to take place is not legal, it is cultural. People who do positive things must be given the attention. Good must be spotlighted, not evil. WE are the problem. It is the problem highlighted by the "self-destructive man" in the film WAKING LIFE: "A self-destructive man feels completely alienated, utterly alone. He's an outsider to the human community. He thinks to himself, "I must be insane." What he fails to realize is that society has, just as he does, a vested interest in considerable losses and catastrophes. These wars, famines, floods and quakes meet well-defined needs. Man wants chaos. In fact, he's gotta have it. Depression, strife, riots, murder, all this dread. We're irresistibly drawn to that almost orgiastic state created out of death and destruction. It's in all of us. We revel in it. Sure, the media tries to put a sad face on these things, painting them up as great human tragedies. But we all know the function of the media has never been to eliminate the evils of the world, no. Their job is to persuade us to accept those evils and get used to living with them. The powers that be want us to be passive observers."
This destructive need is what I would call a symptom of original sin. The only cure I see is if we become something totally new, if we finally take the idea of Suffering Love as Ultimate Reality seriously. The Gospels are the only thing that can blow this thing sky high. But until that happens the media showing a little restraint may be a good idea.
The Argument From Evil
When I heard about the school shooting, I felt a pang of despair and faithlessness. Then clear as day I heard a quote from the film DUSK TIL DAWN (edited for inappropriate content): "[I never thought much of God] until those creatures came into this room. I know for sure that those creatures are demons from hell. And if there is a hell, and those things are from it, then there's gotta be a Heaven, there's gotta be."
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
The Two Views
Read: Genesis 1:1-2:4a
Genesis 2:4b-25
There are two main views on the nature of God and His relationship with the world that run throughout scripture. The Bible is not primarily one, but two, stories of God that have been interwoven together. These views compete and continue to compete to this day. Most people live their lives in both visions, bouncing from one to another back and forth without any real integration or, for that matter, reflection.
You see these two views right in the first two versions of the Creation Story. People have known for a long time, since before Jesus' time, that Genesis retells the story of Creation in two vastly different ways. In Genesis 1, man is the last creation of God (1:24-27), and is the crowning of the creation of the world. Man is the telos, or goal, toward with creation has been moving in the preceding verses. The creation of plants and animals precedes mankind (e.g., 1:11). What's more in Genesis 1 God creates by divine fiat. He doesn't in any way have to act to create things, rather, He simply commands things into existence. God's control over, and knowledge of, His creation is complete and absolute. Everything that happens is according to His will, and the entire outplaying of history is the outplaying of the divine plan of God. This is one of the primary threads that runs throughout the Bible. Everything that happens is taken to be the Will of God, and all events whether good or evil are the results of His divine plan, and so must be brought into line with an understanding that preserves the our vision of a perfect God.
This view is behind Joseph's proclamation that his brothers' evil towards him was really an outplaying of God's divine plan (Genesis 50:20), in the proclamation in Deuteronomy that God always intended Israel to have a king (17:14-2), in the proclamation of Job's friends that Job is responsible for his suffering (see: Book of Job), or in the prophets' proclamation to Israel that her oppression was the result of the idolatry of her people. And on, and on in the Bible, over and over we see a God who is changeless, who is in absolute control of all that happens, and who has a complete and total understanding of the world He has created.
The second view of God begins in the Second Creation Story, found mostly in Genesis chapter 2. There God's main reason for creation is not mankind, but His Garden (2:5). Plants, not humans, are God's main goal in creation. Water and mankind are created so that God can have this garden of a world (2:6-7). And man is created not by divine fiat, but by God getting His hands dirty (2:7). Plants are created after, not before, people here. What's more, God doesn't seem to fully understand what it is He has created, in the case of humans. He first tries to solve the problem of human loneliness by creating animals (2:18-2-0). He is 'experimenting' with His new creation, and trying to figure how best to deal with it.
The creation of mankind is an ongoing process from that time forward. God walks with Adam, but Adam falls. God fears the consequences of Adam eating from the Tree of Life (Genesis 3:22), and so expels him from the garden. But he remains in communion with Adam, as he sews clothes to protect both Adam and Eve (3:21). He becomes something of a voice in the sky, but as the result of this new relationship Cain kills Abel (Genesis 4), then God withdraws from the world and gives rulership to angels, who then are corrupted by mankind, and fall (Genesis 6). Then God floods the earth, having regretted his decision to make man at all (Genesis 6:6). After the flood, God realizes that man is inherently sinful, and so must be dealt with accordingly (8:21).
On this view, creation didn't end with Genesis. It is an ongoing process, that continues with the confusion of languages, and the on to the creation of a particular people, through which God will repair the world. This is a view of God needing other people, as He needed a helper before He could create a garden. It a view of God creating in and through another, and often doing battle against forces of evil that oppose him. This is the view that animates 1 Samuel when it proclaims that God never wanted Israel to have a king, and when God changes His mind on the matter in response to the prayers of the people (1 Samuel 8). This is the view that allows Jeremiah to say that God never imagined that children would be sacrificed by Israel (Jeremiah 7:31), that allows the Psalmist to suggest that the innocent suffer because God sleeps (Psalm 44:14-27) or another Psalmist to proclaim the problems of the world are the result of lesser divine beings that God is going to have to replace (Psalm 82). And this is what allows Daniel, in opposition to the prophets, to proclaim that it was demonic beings, and not God, that animated the great empires of the world when they oppressed Israel (Daniel 7).
The point is of all this is: there are not one, but two primary views of God in the Bible. In one God is not only all-mighty, but all-controlling. In the other God is a being that lives in and with other beings, and all that kind of relationship entails. One is not trapped by one view or the other. Some synthesis may be possible. In fact, it may be that Christ came to finally bring these two views of God together once and for all. This kind of synthesis may be what is behind John the Revelator's vision of Christ as the Lamb with seven horns that looks like it had been slain (Revelation 5), or that this Lamb was "Slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8).
Either way, one must, in the final analysis, ask how one is going to judge and analyze the events of life in this world. Are we doing to attribute EVERYTHING that happens to God, or will we proclaim that there are forces that God either does not or cannot completely control, at least not without giving up the very love that is his substance and being? The consequences for this on one's theology and relationship with God are huge. I know which way I tend. But when I tend that way, don't claim that I'm being unbiblical in my vision of God.
Genesis 2:4b-25
There are two main views on the nature of God and His relationship with the world that run throughout scripture. The Bible is not primarily one, but two, stories of God that have been interwoven together. These views compete and continue to compete to this day. Most people live their lives in both visions, bouncing from one to another back and forth without any real integration or, for that matter, reflection.
You see these two views right in the first two versions of the Creation Story. People have known for a long time, since before Jesus' time, that Genesis retells the story of Creation in two vastly different ways. In Genesis 1, man is the last creation of God (1:24-27), and is the crowning of the creation of the world. Man is the telos, or goal, toward with creation has been moving in the preceding verses. The creation of plants and animals precedes mankind (e.g., 1:11). What's more in Genesis 1 God creates by divine fiat. He doesn't in any way have to act to create things, rather, He simply commands things into existence. God's control over, and knowledge of, His creation is complete and absolute. Everything that happens is according to His will, and the entire outplaying of history is the outplaying of the divine plan of God. This is one of the primary threads that runs throughout the Bible. Everything that happens is taken to be the Will of God, and all events whether good or evil are the results of His divine plan, and so must be brought into line with an understanding that preserves the our vision of a perfect God.
This view is behind Joseph's proclamation that his brothers' evil towards him was really an outplaying of God's divine plan (Genesis 50:20), in the proclamation in Deuteronomy that God always intended Israel to have a king (17:14-2), in the proclamation of Job's friends that Job is responsible for his suffering (see: Book of Job), or in the prophets' proclamation to Israel that her oppression was the result of the idolatry of her people. And on, and on in the Bible, over and over we see a God who is changeless, who is in absolute control of all that happens, and who has a complete and total understanding of the world He has created.
The second view of God begins in the Second Creation Story, found mostly in Genesis chapter 2. There God's main reason for creation is not mankind, but His Garden (2:5). Plants, not humans, are God's main goal in creation. Water and mankind are created so that God can have this garden of a world (2:6-7). And man is created not by divine fiat, but by God getting His hands dirty (2:7). Plants are created after, not before, people here. What's more, God doesn't seem to fully understand what it is He has created, in the case of humans. He first tries to solve the problem of human loneliness by creating animals (2:18-2-0). He is 'experimenting' with His new creation, and trying to figure how best to deal with it.
The creation of mankind is an ongoing process from that time forward. God walks with Adam, but Adam falls. God fears the consequences of Adam eating from the Tree of Life (Genesis 3:22), and so expels him from the garden. But he remains in communion with Adam, as he sews clothes to protect both Adam and Eve (3:21). He becomes something of a voice in the sky, but as the result of this new relationship Cain kills Abel (Genesis 4), then God withdraws from the world and gives rulership to angels, who then are corrupted by mankind, and fall (Genesis 6). Then God floods the earth, having regretted his decision to make man at all (Genesis 6:6). After the flood, God realizes that man is inherently sinful, and so must be dealt with accordingly (8:21).
On this view, creation didn't end with Genesis. It is an ongoing process, that continues with the confusion of languages, and the on to the creation of a particular people, through which God will repair the world. This is a view of God needing other people, as He needed a helper before He could create a garden. It a view of God creating in and through another, and often doing battle against forces of evil that oppose him. This is the view that animates 1 Samuel when it proclaims that God never wanted Israel to have a king, and when God changes His mind on the matter in response to the prayers of the people (1 Samuel 8). This is the view that allows Jeremiah to say that God never imagined that children would be sacrificed by Israel (Jeremiah 7:31), that allows the Psalmist to suggest that the innocent suffer because God sleeps (Psalm 44:14-27) or another Psalmist to proclaim the problems of the world are the result of lesser divine beings that God is going to have to replace (Psalm 82). And this is what allows Daniel, in opposition to the prophets, to proclaim that it was demonic beings, and not God, that animated the great empires of the world when they oppressed Israel (Daniel 7).
The point is of all this is: there are not one, but two primary views of God in the Bible. In one God is not only all-mighty, but all-controlling. In the other God is a being that lives in and with other beings, and all that kind of relationship entails. One is not trapped by one view or the other. Some synthesis may be possible. In fact, it may be that Christ came to finally bring these two views of God together once and for all. This kind of synthesis may be what is behind John the Revelator's vision of Christ as the Lamb with seven horns that looks like it had been slain (Revelation 5), or that this Lamb was "Slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8).
Either way, one must, in the final analysis, ask how one is going to judge and analyze the events of life in this world. Are we doing to attribute EVERYTHING that happens to God, or will we proclaim that there are forces that God either does not or cannot completely control, at least not without giving up the very love that is his substance and being? The consequences for this on one's theology and relationship with God are huge. I know which way I tend. But when I tend that way, don't claim that I'm being unbiblical in my vision of God.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
The True Vs The False Prophet
Deuteronomy 18:19-22
I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”
21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.
Jeremiah 28:1-9 In the fifth month of that same year, the fourth year, early in the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, the prophet Hananiah son of Azzur, who was from Gibeon, said to me in the house of the Lord in the presence of the priests and all the people: 2 “This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: ‘I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon. 3 Within two years I will bring back to this place all the articles of the Lord’s house that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon removed from here and took to Babylon. 4 I will also bring back to this place Jehoiachin[a] son of Jehoiakim king of Judah and all the other exiles from Judah who went to Babylon,’ declares the Lord, ‘for I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon.’” 5 Then the prophet Jeremiah replied to the prophet Hananiah before the priests and all the people who were standing in the house of the Lord. 6 He said, “Amen! May the Lord do so! May the Lord fulfill the words you have prophesied by bringing the articles of the Lord’s house and all the exiles back to this place from Babylon. 7 Nevertheless, listen to what I have to say in your hearing and in the hearing of all the people: 8 From early times the prophets who preceded you and me have prophesied war, disaster and plague against many countries and great kingdoms. 9 But the prophet who prophesies peace will be recognized as one truly sent by the Lord only if his prediction comes true.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These two passages deal with an important issue in some parts of the Bible: who is the true prophet? The position of prophet was an amorphous one. There is some indication that the royal court had prophets who worked for it. The role of prophet was, at least sometimes, an official one, much like that of priest. But there were other people who became prophets through less official means. They simply had a call from God, and started to speak in his name. Amos is probably the most famous example (see: Amos 1:1-2) Problems arose because sometimes prophets' contradicted one another. The Jeremiah passage quoted above may be the most famous example of this. So how do we know the true prophet from the false prophet?
Deuteronomy gives a fairly straightforward answer: if a prophet makes a prediction and it comes true, then that prophet is really speaking for God. If it does not come true, then he is not speaking for God. In point of fact, though, many prophets spend very little time actually talking about the future. Most of the prophets comment more on what is immediately going on around them, then making predictions about what is to come. Putting that aside, though, Deuteronomy gives us a simple and easy answer to the problem of true prophecy.
Interestingly enough, when Jeremiah wrestles with this question, the answer he gives is significantly different from the one given in Deuteronomy. The context for the passage is straightforward and clear, which is rare in the Book of Jeremiah. Jeremiah has been wearing a yoke like a dumb beast, to symbolize the success of Babylon over Judah, and the need for Judah to accept the burden of subjugation. But Hananiah breaks the yoke, and proclaims that God has told HIM that the lesser exile (which has already occurred by this point) will end early, and that Judah will not long be under Babylon's thumb. Jeremiah is taken aback. He says in essence "wow, the way you talk sounds just like the God I hear all the time. I hope you are right and I am wrong." Then Jeremiah takes up the issue of false verses true prophecy. He says that there are two kinds of prophets: prophets that tell you what you don't want to hear, and prophets that tell you what you want to hear. The Deuteronomy rule, that a prophecy must come true, only applies to prophets of good news. In other words, anyone who tells you what you don't want to hear, always speaks for God. But the person who says what you like to hear must be right, or they don't speak for God at all.
So what you have here, simply put, is a Biblical contradiction. Jeremiah and the Deuteronomy passage are inconsistent with each other. They cannot both be true. In the end, there are only a few ways to get around this. One is to prejudice the discussion by denying a straightforward reading of the Jeremiah text. But the text isn't hard to understand, anyone can read it and see what is being talked about. A second position, and one that I think has merit, is to see in the Bible an evolution of this doctrine or idea. Jeremiah could in essence be saying 'the Deuteronomy passage is right, but incomplete, yes a prophecy has to come true, but only for the prophet or peace, the prophet who brings moral discomfort always speaks for God, no matter what.' On this view, our understanding of God evolves as the Bible moves along. When Moses is speaking, he is speaking only what he has gleaned from God at that time. Jeremiah, who has the advantage of living among a people who have known God a lot longer, has a clearer view of God's message on the matter.
It would be like the connection between Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. Yes, in a sense, Einstein contradicted Newton. But in another sense, he was simply another evolutionary step along a path that began with Newton. It isn't like Newtonian physics has no validity any more, it is just incomplete.
Another more radical view, is that Deuteronomy, long held to be written by Moses, is actually a later reworking of words Moses actually said, and so it contains later reflection. Many Biblical scholars date Deuteronomy around 700 BC, and hold it to be just this kind of reworking. On this view, both Deuteronomy and Jeremiah are speaking about the same time period. Jeremiah is criticizing the Deuteronomic view as incomplete. They are two different reflections upon the implications of what God has revealed to the Israelite people. On this view, Deuteronomy and Jeremiah are arguing against one another, in a process of dialogue and critique. God reveals, man writes and reflects. These reflections are different. It then becomes incumbent on us to choose which view is more likely correct.
Either the evolutionary view or the dialectic view may be right. The first has the "advantage" of kind of imposing one particular answer on us. It makes sense to choose in the direction of the later evolution of doctrine. Either way, the Jeremiah view makes the most sense to me. The prophets main role, as I read it, is to confront mankind with a God whose goodness so transcends our own, that all human goodness are but 'filthy rags' by comparison. It is to confront us with the reality of God, a reality before which we can only respond in the words of Job's contrition "God I have uttered things too wonderful for myself, that I understood not, and wherefore I abhor myself in dust, and ashes" (42:3,6). Any word that strikes us down, that cruses our ego, that threatens us with the Truth of what is Ultimately Real and Good, is a prophetic word for us. It is truth no matter the packaging. All other truths must be subject to the test of predictive efficacy. But those truths that bring us into contact with the reality of God point beyond the mere content of their prediction. They are the very substance of truth, not merely signposts on the path.
Jeremiah 28:1-9 In the fifth month of that same year, the fourth year, early in the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, the prophet Hananiah son of Azzur, who was from Gibeon, said to me in the house of the Lord in the presence of the priests and all the people: 2 “This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: ‘I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon. 3 Within two years I will bring back to this place all the articles of the Lord’s house that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon removed from here and took to Babylon. 4 I will also bring back to this place Jehoiachin[a] son of Jehoiakim king of Judah and all the other exiles from Judah who went to Babylon,’ declares the Lord, ‘for I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon.’” 5 Then the prophet Jeremiah replied to the prophet Hananiah before the priests and all the people who were standing in the house of the Lord. 6 He said, “Amen! May the Lord do so! May the Lord fulfill the words you have prophesied by bringing the articles of the Lord’s house and all the exiles back to this place from Babylon. 7 Nevertheless, listen to what I have to say in your hearing and in the hearing of all the people: 8 From early times the prophets who preceded you and me have prophesied war, disaster and plague against many countries and great kingdoms. 9 But the prophet who prophesies peace will be recognized as one truly sent by the Lord only if his prediction comes true.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These two passages deal with an important issue in some parts of the Bible: who is the true prophet? The position of prophet was an amorphous one. There is some indication that the royal court had prophets who worked for it. The role of prophet was, at least sometimes, an official one, much like that of priest. But there were other people who became prophets through less official means. They simply had a call from God, and started to speak in his name. Amos is probably the most famous example (see: Amos 1:1-2) Problems arose because sometimes prophets' contradicted one another. The Jeremiah passage quoted above may be the most famous example of this. So how do we know the true prophet from the false prophet?
Deuteronomy gives a fairly straightforward answer: if a prophet makes a prediction and it comes true, then that prophet is really speaking for God. If it does not come true, then he is not speaking for God. In point of fact, though, many prophets spend very little time actually talking about the future. Most of the prophets comment more on what is immediately going on around them, then making predictions about what is to come. Putting that aside, though, Deuteronomy gives us a simple and easy answer to the problem of true prophecy.
Interestingly enough, when Jeremiah wrestles with this question, the answer he gives is significantly different from the one given in Deuteronomy. The context for the passage is straightforward and clear, which is rare in the Book of Jeremiah. Jeremiah has been wearing a yoke like a dumb beast, to symbolize the success of Babylon over Judah, and the need for Judah to accept the burden of subjugation. But Hananiah breaks the yoke, and proclaims that God has told HIM that the lesser exile (which has already occurred by this point) will end early, and that Judah will not long be under Babylon's thumb. Jeremiah is taken aback. He says in essence "wow, the way you talk sounds just like the God I hear all the time. I hope you are right and I am wrong." Then Jeremiah takes up the issue of false verses true prophecy. He says that there are two kinds of prophets: prophets that tell you what you don't want to hear, and prophets that tell you what you want to hear. The Deuteronomy rule, that a prophecy must come true, only applies to prophets of good news. In other words, anyone who tells you what you don't want to hear, always speaks for God. But the person who says what you like to hear must be right, or they don't speak for God at all.
So what you have here, simply put, is a Biblical contradiction. Jeremiah and the Deuteronomy passage are inconsistent with each other. They cannot both be true. In the end, there are only a few ways to get around this. One is to prejudice the discussion by denying a straightforward reading of the Jeremiah text. But the text isn't hard to understand, anyone can read it and see what is being talked about. A second position, and one that I think has merit, is to see in the Bible an evolution of this doctrine or idea. Jeremiah could in essence be saying 'the Deuteronomy passage is right, but incomplete, yes a prophecy has to come true, but only for the prophet or peace, the prophet who brings moral discomfort always speaks for God, no matter what.' On this view, our understanding of God evolves as the Bible moves along. When Moses is speaking, he is speaking only what he has gleaned from God at that time. Jeremiah, who has the advantage of living among a people who have known God a lot longer, has a clearer view of God's message on the matter.
It would be like the connection between Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. Yes, in a sense, Einstein contradicted Newton. But in another sense, he was simply another evolutionary step along a path that began with Newton. It isn't like Newtonian physics has no validity any more, it is just incomplete.
Another more radical view, is that Deuteronomy, long held to be written by Moses, is actually a later reworking of words Moses actually said, and so it contains later reflection. Many Biblical scholars date Deuteronomy around 700 BC, and hold it to be just this kind of reworking. On this view, both Deuteronomy and Jeremiah are speaking about the same time period. Jeremiah is criticizing the Deuteronomic view as incomplete. They are two different reflections upon the implications of what God has revealed to the Israelite people. On this view, Deuteronomy and Jeremiah are arguing against one another, in a process of dialogue and critique. God reveals, man writes and reflects. These reflections are different. It then becomes incumbent on us to choose which view is more likely correct.
Either the evolutionary view or the dialectic view may be right. The first has the "advantage" of kind of imposing one particular answer on us. It makes sense to choose in the direction of the later evolution of doctrine. Either way, the Jeremiah view makes the most sense to me. The prophets main role, as I read it, is to confront mankind with a God whose goodness so transcends our own, that all human goodness are but 'filthy rags' by comparison. It is to confront us with the reality of God, a reality before which we can only respond in the words of Job's contrition "God I have uttered things too wonderful for myself, that I understood not, and wherefore I abhor myself in dust, and ashes" (42:3,6). Any word that strikes us down, that cruses our ego, that threatens us with the Truth of what is Ultimately Real and Good, is a prophetic word for us. It is truth no matter the packaging. All other truths must be subject to the test of predictive efficacy. But those truths that bring us into contact with the reality of God point beyond the mere content of their prediction. They are the very substance of truth, not merely signposts on the path.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)