Laws of the Israelites

[Paidion]

Hi P Simmond (Paul? Peter? Pat? If you feel comfortable revealing your first name, we would be happy to know it)

I have really been learning a lot from Derek Flood's book, "Disarming Scripture." It really makes sense out of the way Jesus and Paul both quote the Old Testament, but NEVER the violent parts such as God punishing people by killing them or ordering the Israelites to exterminate the people of other nations.

A wonderful example of this [Paul disarming texts] is found in 1 Cor 15 where he writes that "The last enemy to be destroyed is death" (1 Cor 15:26). Paul then quotes the familiar line "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?" and declares that "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 15:55-57). As Paul is using it, the phrase, "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death is your sting?" is addressing a defeated death: "Where is your sting now, O death? For you have been defeated by Christ!" But take a look at the original passage in Hosea that Paul is quoting from:
Shall I ransom them from the
power of Sheol [the grave]? Shall I redeem
them from Death?
O death where are your
plagues? O Sheol [grave], where is
your destruction?

Compassion is hidden from my
eyes. (Hos 13:14 NRSV)

The sense here is the opposite of what Paul is saying. It is inviting death to come and destroy Israel in punishment.

"Disarming Scripture," Chapter 3, words in braces above are mine.

Brother Simmond, I highly recommend your reading this book. It may help you to crystallize some of your recent thoughts.

[dizerner]

The sense here is the opposite of what Paul is saying. It is inviting death to come and destroy Israel in punishment.

That's very interesting but I don't think the sense is exactly opposite. Paul isn't saying that death has no sting, is he? (No, he's not.) He's saying that Christ is a "Hilasterion," a mercy seat that is a place of propitiation because judgment took place there. Death still stung, it stung to the last drop of judgment as Christ pressed the winepress of the wrath of God. It is like the verse:

Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast.

We hide in Christ, or we take it ourselves. This is Gospel Paul preached, and it accords with OT holiness and judgment.

[dizerner]

dizerner, I appreciate your gracious reply, your reasoning, and your cautions. Just out of curiosity, when you say the Bible is inspired does that necessitate inerrancy for you? (By "inerrancy" I mean no factual errors in the original manuscripts.)

I'm aware I think of most if not all Bible discrepancies. A lot can be interpretational, but some can definitely simply be factual mistakes. I do think the "autographs" or original manuscripts would have a lot less mistakes than we have (mostly small transcription errors), but that's not what I mean by inspiration (I should have made that clearer). It's weird of course, once you admit factual mistakes, to feel where do you draw the line. It's not the same thing if the amount of Solomon's horses in his stable were not exactly accurately recorded and were say, 4,354 rather than 3,000 horses, compared to an idea that, for example, Moses was an entirely made up character who never did anything recorded about him. But my idea of inspiration is that the very words of Scripture are spirit and life, they are spiritual, a lamp unto our feet, and a guide into right spiritual beliefs, as well as spiritual food and drink to the soul. This is why I always spend more time reading the Bible itself than other books or commentaries on it (I do read other books and commentaries—but never more overall time than straight reading the Scripture). But as for factual accuracies and errors, I believe in the main and bulk the stories as recorded are true, but I do allow for human error in recording and transcription. I rely on the Spirit to convey the gist of what actually happened and what I need from it. So, no, I don't obsess over proving every little jot and tittle is exactly correct (I don't think that's even what Christ meant by that phrase, but rather the unforgiving perfection of the nature of God's holiness). I believe the miracles actually happened, and the main gist of what people actually said and did is more or less recorded (for example in the Gospels we get the same sayings of Jesus coming out slightly differently in each). Early chapters in Genesis are the hardest and that makes sense since they record the oldest history. For example, all this current obsessing over Noah's ark seems irrelevant to me, when the main idea was that Noah obeyed God and escaped a judgment on the world, even if every single extant animal was not in his boat, or the flood didn't cover the entire world (only from his perspective it seemed so). So that's a nuanced view of inspiration that doesn't focus on what I think is the fleshly idea of perfection, but still a high view of the accuracy (not perfect but accurate), and an even higher view of the spiritual truth it conveys (perfect by the Spirit).

[psimmond]

Hey Paidion,
I've spent some time at Flood's blog and I think the idea of a multivocal OT and a trajectory that needs to guide how we read is very interesting. I also hope to be seriously challenged in those areas where I can see Flood's views are quite different from mine. I'm hoping his book employs serious exegesis and scholarship. Most books I read disappoint me.
~Peter

Dizerner,
Now that I hear how you view inspiration, I see that our views are closer than I thought.

It's weird of course, once you admit factual mistakes, to feel where do you draw the line.

Exactly...

[willowtree]

dizerner, I appreciate your gracious reply, your reasoning, and your cautions. Just out of curiosity, when you say the Bible is inspired does that necessitate inerrancy for you? (By "inerrancy" I mean no factual errors in the original manuscripts.)

I belong to a denomination that does not have an article of faith mentioning inerrancy. It does believe in inspiration, and states that we believe in 'plenary inspiration'. Plenary meaning ' taken as a whole'. This allows for some passages that are less 'inspired' than others, like the genealogical listings, to remain alongside others that boldly proclaim the message of salvation. As a whole the Bible is inspired.

I have not heard the subject of inerrancy debated. But I have scratched my head about it, asking myself three questions. 1. What does it prove? - we certainly have no MSS that are 'inerrant' at least as far as I know, so we have to do the best with what we have. And why would we invent things to believe in that cannot be ultimately proven, that serves no useful redemptive purpose, when we have a hard enough job trying to get people to believe in what will get them saved? 2. If we were to discover a new scroll that appeared to be in very good shape, and appeared to be 'correct' in its grammar and text, what proof would we apply to this scroll to say that at last, this is an 'inerrant' original? And 3. What would we then do to insure that this newly found scroll did not become another icon (e.g. shroud of Turin), worshipped for its material substance instead of the message it represented?

I believe the inspiration of scripture is a dynamic of the word of God. It was inspired by the Holy Spirit in the hearts and minds of those who wrote it, and it is no less inspired when those who read it find it speaking directly to their present life situation. The Holy Spirit who inspired the writers also inspires the truth to those who read it.

I like Paul's concept about this kind of thing ' we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us. (2Cor 4:7).

Graeme

[dizerner]

Now that I hear how you view inspiration, I see that our views are closer than I thought.

It's weird of course, once you admit factual mistakes, to feel where do you draw the line.

Exactly...

I still think there is a big difference between someone who thinks inspiration means the bible is >95% true to someone who might think it's 30-40% true.

[robbyyoung]

It's amazing how we attempt to analyze God from a source, supposedly from Him, we cannot trust. This source (written record) claims He's all powerful, and yet fails in perserving a written record, His record, that should not fall short of perfection. Well, this may seem to be the case for those outside the original audience, for indeed, they (original audience) did receive the uncorrupted truth. However, what about us? We are left to quibble over foriegn languages of suspect copies of said testimony, with nothing to validate 1000s of years of said testimony. When did God ever operate outside of prophets, who spoke the language of the audience, if He had something to say?

We must do the best we can with what we have.

God Bless.

[psimmond]

robbyyoung wrote: We must do the best we can with what we have.

Probably everybody on this forum would agree with that sentence.

dizerner wrote: I still think there is a big difference between someone who thinks inspiration means the bible is >95% true to someone who might think it's 30-40% true.

Sure. But unless we're an inerrantist (100%er), we need to be careful how we judge those who score a few percentage points lower than we do. (Of course, we can still disagree and debate as we "do the best we can with what we have.")

[Paidion]

Paul isn't saying that death has no sting, is he? (No, he's not.) He's saying that Christ is a "Hilasterion," a mercy seat that is a place of propitiation because judgment took place there. Death still stung, it stung to the last drop of judgment as Christ pressed the winepress of the wrath of God.

I am greatly surprised, Dizerner, that you understand the passage this way. I have never known anyone else to so understand it. Consider it in its context:

Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed—in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory. O Death, where is your sting? O Grave, where is your victory?" (1 Cor 15:51-55)

Is Paul not saying that when Christ comes, we will be raised from the dead, and become immortal, so that death is defeated, and will have no sting or victory over us any more?

[Homer]

2 Timothy 3:16 (NASB)

16. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

2 Peter 1:20-21 (NASB)

20. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21. for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.


The above scriptures clearly inform us of God's involvement in the writing of the scriptures. Admittedly they say nothing of the possibility of minor errors such as are seen in some instances. However, who can believe (except a skeptic) that there are errors of any significance given God's involvement?

It may be surprising that I acknowledge there may be minor errors in the copies we have, but this is to be expected, especially given that we have no original autographs. In fact, I think it is a mistake to argue for no mistakes whatsoever because this leads to unnecessary arguing over trivialities.

Having said that I think it is an enormous mistake to believe the Old Testament paints a false picture of the character of God. I see no reason, reading Jesus' words or those of the Apostles, to think the God of the Old Testament is any different than the God pictured in the new. And I do not know of any case where Jesus or the Apostles regarded the Old Testament as having pictured God falsely.

As far as the killing of children at God's direction, why is that so troubling? Don't we all die of sickness if not by accident or violence? And didn't death come as a result of the curse from God? And how is it worse for a child to die quickly by violence as opposed to a slow and painful death from disease? Certainly God can prevent the latter in any case He chooses. And believing as I do the child goes to be with God.

Complaints are expressed because some Christians see God's hand in September 11, a tsunami, or other disaster. He is at least responsible in that He could have prevented the disaster but chose not to. "Not a sparrow falls except for the Father".

I reject Calvinism but there is much to be said regarding God's sovereignty. As the old song says "I'm sure He has His say".