Presupposed Clarity
A few days ago, I was walking down the street and was approached by an older woman who, very pleasantly I might add, handed me a small folded piece of paper. "God bless you," she said as she then turned her attention to the person walking behind me.
So far as being handed something by someone, it was perhaps one of the nicer ones I have experienced. No plea, no questions.
But as I read the paper she handed me, I found that I suddenly had a whole raft of questions.
The piece of paper was a "Personal Invitation...to you." It was "From, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd."
Ok.
So I read on. And in reading on I became aware of the fact that had I not already had a background in the Christian faith, I would possibly have been very confused or bewildered by the passages on the inside of the folded paper.
For example, the first part of the paper read as follows:
"...who is called [apparently this is supposed to follow the opening line about Jesus being the Good Shepherd] "The Word of God": John chapter 1: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men...That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world...and the Word was made flesh...' This happened when God fulfilled His promise: 'Behold, a virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.' Matthew 1:23."
Let's start with the fact that the author of this little piece of paper makes tremendous assumptions about the reader. First, the assumption is made that you know what "John chapter 1" means. And don't say that everyone knows what that means. They don't. Who is John? Chapter 1? And why doesn't the passage quoted say that Jesus was called the "word of God"? The passage says that the "Word was God" but does not call Jesus the Word of God. Semantics? Perhaps.
The second assumption, though, is that this chapter from John happened "when God fulfilled His promise." as found in Matthew 1:23.
So why doesn't Matthew say that the virgin born child was the Word of God? That would certainly make things much more clear.
And that was when I realized that the next few paragraphs were overburdened by a cacophony of scriptural citations that were strung together to make particular points. Most of which were that you have to repent and believe in the Lord and that there is no work you can do to merit salvation. It concludes with a prayer from 2nd Peter and then tells the reader that all the scriptures quoted (13 in all) came from the "King James Bible, which God has honored for 400 years: you are safe with the King James Bible."
Apparently to prove that point, the author of this little piece of paper writes, "Let the Lord Jesus Christ, The Word of God, show you why [this statement immediately follows the statement about being safe with the KJV]. 'If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.' James 1:5"
I don't quite follow how this passage (and the underlined words are underlined on the paper - I just kept them there to provide an accurate copy) somehow proves the safety of the KJV. Nor do I think that this passage was to be understood as Jesus speaking.
But, then again, I am making an interpretation of the passage that the author does not. For the author, it is the unstated premise that the Bible is the Word of God and therefore it is Jesus. And even if it isn't Jesus speaking directly, it is Jesus speaking.
That is an interpretive apologetic that I, personally, do not share. But even if I did, this particular piece of paper does not make that assumption clear.
Now, what I found so troubling is the fact that this small piece of paper had to cite so many different passages from the Bible (Old and New Testaments) to make its points and arguments. Because what that suggests to me is that there is no one place to find these ideas. If Jesus were called the word of God, then where is the passage? If all of these ideas are found in the Bible, why is it that sentences have to be strung together to make the point?
It seems to me that what we have to admit is that to make many of the claims for Christianity, we have to piece it together from multiple places. No problem if you view the Bible as a collective whole that requires each piece to fit into a larger idea, like a jigsaw. This is called Canonical Criticism, which views the Bible as a whole to frame and form particular ideas. But that point of view tends to overlook the fact that before there was a Bible, some of these passages stood alone and were interpreted without other scripture. For example, the Gospel of Matthew was written around 20 years before the Gospel of John. So if John's statement about Jesus being the Word of God fulfills what was said in Matthew, why didn't Matthew say it? Because for Matthew, that idea wasn't the point.
And it also seems to me to be a very strange thing to claim that God has honored the King James Bible "for 400 years." While I am no mathematician, I do know that there were Christians prior to 1617 (and, by the way, the King James was first printed in 1611). Was the Bible they read (perhaps The Great Bible of 1539 or The Bishop's Bible of 1568) somehow not honored by God? And what of scriptures in Greek, Hebrew, or Latin? Were they not honored by God?
Perhaps I was reading too much into this little piece of paper. But the woman that handed it to me did so with kind sincerity, so I read it over. I don't begrudge the woman at all. But I doubt she has the same concerns I do after reading it. Probably because for her the passages are self-evident proofs of the truth.
I am not as persuaded.
So far as being handed something by someone, it was perhaps one of the nicer ones I have experienced. No plea, no questions.
But as I read the paper she handed me, I found that I suddenly had a whole raft of questions.
The piece of paper was a "Personal Invitation...to you." It was "From, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd."
Ok.
So I read on. And in reading on I became aware of the fact that had I not already had a background in the Christian faith, I would possibly have been very confused or bewildered by the passages on the inside of the folded paper.
For example, the first part of the paper read as follows:
"...who is called [apparently this is supposed to follow the opening line about Jesus being the Good Shepherd] "The Word of God": John chapter 1: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men...That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world...and the Word was made flesh...' This happened when God fulfilled His promise: 'Behold, a virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.' Matthew 1:23."
Let's start with the fact that the author of this little piece of paper makes tremendous assumptions about the reader. First, the assumption is made that you know what "John chapter 1" means. And don't say that everyone knows what that means. They don't. Who is John? Chapter 1? And why doesn't the passage quoted say that Jesus was called the "word of God"? The passage says that the "Word was God" but does not call Jesus the Word of God. Semantics? Perhaps.
The second assumption, though, is that this chapter from John happened "when God fulfilled His promise." as found in Matthew 1:23.
So why doesn't Matthew say that the virgin born child was the Word of God? That would certainly make things much more clear.
And that was when I realized that the next few paragraphs were overburdened by a cacophony of scriptural citations that were strung together to make particular points. Most of which were that you have to repent and believe in the Lord and that there is no work you can do to merit salvation. It concludes with a prayer from 2nd Peter and then tells the reader that all the scriptures quoted (13 in all) came from the "King James Bible, which God has honored for 400 years: you are safe with the King James Bible."
Apparently to prove that point, the author of this little piece of paper writes, "Let the Lord Jesus Christ, The Word of God, show you why [this statement immediately follows the statement about being safe with the KJV]. 'If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.' James 1:5"
I don't quite follow how this passage (and the underlined words are underlined on the paper - I just kept them there to provide an accurate copy) somehow proves the safety of the KJV. Nor do I think that this passage was to be understood as Jesus speaking.
But, then again, I am making an interpretation of the passage that the author does not. For the author, it is the unstated premise that the Bible is the Word of God and therefore it is Jesus. And even if it isn't Jesus speaking directly, it is Jesus speaking.
That is an interpretive apologetic that I, personally, do not share. But even if I did, this particular piece of paper does not make that assumption clear.
Now, what I found so troubling is the fact that this small piece of paper had to cite so many different passages from the Bible (Old and New Testaments) to make its points and arguments. Because what that suggests to me is that there is no one place to find these ideas. If Jesus were called the word of God, then where is the passage? If all of these ideas are found in the Bible, why is it that sentences have to be strung together to make the point?
It seems to me that what we have to admit is that to make many of the claims for Christianity, we have to piece it together from multiple places. No problem if you view the Bible as a collective whole that requires each piece to fit into a larger idea, like a jigsaw. This is called Canonical Criticism, which views the Bible as a whole to frame and form particular ideas. But that point of view tends to overlook the fact that before there was a Bible, some of these passages stood alone and were interpreted without other scripture. For example, the Gospel of Matthew was written around 20 years before the Gospel of John. So if John's statement about Jesus being the Word of God fulfills what was said in Matthew, why didn't Matthew say it? Because for Matthew, that idea wasn't the point.
And it also seems to me to be a very strange thing to claim that God has honored the King James Bible "for 400 years." While I am no mathematician, I do know that there were Christians prior to 1617 (and, by the way, the King James was first printed in 1611). Was the Bible they read (perhaps The Great Bible of 1539 or The Bishop's Bible of 1568) somehow not honored by God? And what of scriptures in Greek, Hebrew, or Latin? Were they not honored by God?
Perhaps I was reading too much into this little piece of paper. But the woman that handed it to me did so with kind sincerity, so I read it over. I don't begrudge the woman at all. But I doubt she has the same concerns I do after reading it. Probably because for her the passages are self-evident proofs of the truth.
I am not as persuaded.
Comments
Post a Comment