"I am willing to run the risk of being wrong about Jesus."

Even though I've self-identified as a Christians for 41 plus years, and served as a pastor for 35 or so years, I still have a lot of questions and doubts (many yet unanswered) about the God, Jesus and the Bible. People might ask me, why then are you still a Christian? Aren't faith and doubt in opposition to one another? After 41 plus years, shouldn't you have found the answers to your questions and resolved your doubts? How could you possibly lead and shepherd others in "the faith" if you have been uncertain about "many" things.

It all comes back, each and every day, to why I chose to become a follower of Jesus in the first place. I was drawn to the person of Jesus as he is depicted in the Gospels. I fell in love with the story of Jesus: the Word who become flesh, was born in a barn, lived as a carpenter's son, spent about three years in active ministry preaching the "good news" of the kingdom of God and ultimately submitting to death on a cross but being raised to live again and lead his people from the side of the throne of God. In spite of my questions and doubts, I still love that story and I choose each and every day to believe that it is true enough that I will allow his life to be my example, and his teachings to be my guide.

What it comes down to for me is that faith is about making choices. When I was an atheist, my choice was to believe that there wasn't enough evidence to trust that God existed. I chose to believe that there was enough evidence to believe that the cosmos could be explained as an accident of science (physics, biology and chemistry combined). I won't go into all that happened to cause me to look at other so-called evidence, but the bottom line is this: I read about and chose to trust the story of Jesus, and I choose each and every day to continue to do so.

I was listening recently, during a very difficult and physically painful period of time, to a podcast where Rachel Held Evans (RHE) was being interviewed. She, like me, has lots of questions and doubts about the Christian faith. So she was asked, "Why, then, are you still a Christian?" I love her answer, and I am appropriating it as my own. She said, “The story of Jesus is a story I am willing to risk being wrong about. I get that I might be wrong about this…but the story is still so compelling.”

I get that many have chosen not to trust the story of Jesus as told in the Gospel accounts, and as referenced in the other NT books. And I respect each person's right to make their own decisions about what and who they believe. For me, the story of Jesus (or "the gospel of Jesus") is so compelling that I want to embrace it and strive to live it out in my daily life, to the best of my ability. And I, too, am willing to run the risk of being wrong. That's why I became a Christian and will remain a Christian for the remainder of my life.

(The RHE podcast - https://www.nomadpodcast.co.uk/rachel-held-evans-loving-th…/)

(A short interview with RHE - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch4YlC_3tPY)

"Before Abraham was born, I am." (John 8:58)

For all my fellow Christian "Bible nerds" out there, recently someone asked me about Jesus' use of certain "I am" statements in the Gospel accounts. My effort to respond resulted in some thoughts about the relationship between the OT and the NT, ancient translations and the interplay between biblical Hebrew, Koine Greek and spoken Aramaic. Such a simple phrase in Greek - ἐγώ εἰμι - so many possibilities and so many implications.

Part 1 - My initial response...

The phrase "ἐγώ εἰμι” is found 38 times in the gospel accounts. How it is best understood and thus translated depends on the context and the interpretation of the translators. In Mark 6:50, I think the choice that all the translations I am aware of, “It is I” while not a literal translation, is probably the sense. He’s not trying in the context (IMO) to declare his divinity, but rather letting his disciples know that the one approaching them on the water was not a ghost, but it was he, that is the living, breathing, person they knew…Jesus. A literal (i.e., word for word) translation is not always the best translation. Even in Mark 14:62, I don’t think Jesus is trying to usurp the Greek form of the Hebrew YHWH, but rather he’s answering, directly, their question, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” He responds by saying, “I am (i.e., the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” Without further study, I think the use of "ἐγώ εἰμι” to obviously cause people to recall Exodus 3:14 is found only in a few passages, and maybe even only one e.g., John 8:58. My opinion.

Part 2 - My follow up response...

One other thing I’d say is that the Greek version of Exodus 3:14-15 is quite confusing to me.

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם, I think, literally translates as “And God said to Moses, I am who I am. So say to the sons of Israel, ‘I am sent me to you.’” Translators and biblical scholars disagree as to how best to translate אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה (I am or I will be?).

The Greek translation of the Hebrew text reads: καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν· καὶ εἶπεν Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ Ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς., which literally translates something like, “And God said to Moses, “I am the one who is. And thus speak to the sons of Israel, ‘The one who is has sent me to you.”

When it comes to the name, “Yahweh” (יְהוָ֞ה), the Greek translation always (as far as I know) uses “Lord” (κύριος), which is the very common term meaning “lord, master, sir, etc.”.

So when it comes to the Greek New Testament (John 8:58, etc.), Jesus says "ἐγὼ εἰμί” (I am), whereas God told Moses to tell the Israelites, "Ὁ ὢν” (the one who is). It is my opinion that it wasn’t only that Jesus said “I am”, but rather that he said “before Abraham was born, I am”. So, while it might have been his effort to connect “I am” to “the one who is”, I think it wasn’t just that which set off the Jews, but rather that he was claiming pre-existence, i.e., his eternal existence.

Also, note the parallelism of Exodus 3:14-15.

• (v. 14) “Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘I am has sent me to you.’ ” 
• (v. 15) “Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’" 

Thus the author of Exodus quotes God as equating “I am” with “Yahweh, the God of your ancestors”. In the Greek translation, Ὁ ὢν is equated with "Κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν”

I realized as I was responding to this question that this is a complex issue as we’re dealing with two languages, both ancient, both dead. Plus, if you understand that the Jews of the first century spoke to each other in Aramaic, then our Greek NT quotations of Jesus are not direct quotations, but translations. So now you’ve got three languages involved.

For me, then, the most convincing reasons to believe that Jesus’ statement in John 8:58 is to be understood as the evangelist's claim of Jesus' divinity is how he reports the Jews' reaction, "So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple” (v. 59). Compare that response to John 10:30–32, "The Father and I are one.” The Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus replied, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God.” In John 8, the evangelist records that the Jews picked up stones to throw at him because they understood him to be making himself to be God.

If I Do Not Have Love...

Yesterday, I listened to the last Bible for Normal People (B4NP) podcast for 2018 with Peter Enns and Jared Byas. They reviewed the year and shared what they learned and/or were reminded of as they interviewed a variety of guests: authors, pastors, rabbis, biblical scholars and professors at Christian and Jewish seminaries and secular universities.

The overall purpose of the podcast is to explore possible answers to two questions: (1) What is the Bible? and (2) What do we do with the Bible? The standard (yet simplified) fundamentalist and/or conservative evangelical response to these questions is, in my experience, best expressed by the following statement found in The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy: "Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives" (emphasis is mine). 

Yet, many people who, upon a close reading of Scripture, find this position untenable, both intellectually and in practice, still see the Bible as a vital part of God's revelation of himself and his will. They believe that God communicated with, and through, finite and fallen human beings who lived in ancient times and specific cultures. The title of Kenton L. Sparks' book, God's Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship, sums up the understanding of more and more believers who are confronted by the confusing and often contradictory diversity found within the books of the Bible. Peter Enns' book, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament attempts to use the analogy of Jesus' incarnation to explain how the Bible is book of divine and human origin. 

I have listened to almost all of the episodes in the B4NP podcasts. This last one reminded me of a few things that are vitally important (IMO) for me to remember so that I can reflect on my own life and doctrine. First, I need to remember that how I view the Bible is very dependent on my culture, socio-economic situation, academic exposure, language and my personal experiences with religious beliefs and practices. 

Second, whatever my view of the Bible, reading and striving to understand its message, requires various levels of interpretation. In fact, the translations I read (in my native language) are, in and of themselves, interpretations on the part of the translators. Even though I am able to dig into the biblical texts in their original languages, I still have to interpret what those ancient words meant in the cultural contexts in which they were written before I can understand what the Bible means to me in the present world. That really involves several levels of interpretation. 

Third, I need to remember that I can never be absolutely sure that my personal interpretations are 100% accurate with respect to what the biblical writers were originally striving to communicate. However, I truly believe that my God is "big enough" that it's OK as I try my best to get it as "right" as I possibly can and as I strive to live according to my convictions, while at the same time remaining open to learning from others who see and interpret the texts differently than I do.

Fourth, I don't have to reflect very long to see in my own life, how easy it is for me to "weaponize" the Bible. Sadly, I remember too many times where I used proof texts that seemingly supported my interpretations in order to attack, accuse and belittle those with whom I disagreed. Hopefully, prayerfully, that is in my past!

Fifth, I was reminded that while what I believe is very important (i.e., "correct doctrine"), how I live out what I claim to believe is at least equally important (and, IMO, probably more so). Jesus is quoted as saying, "By their fruit you will recognize them (i.e., false teachers)." Paul teaches us that those who live according to the Spirit will consistently demonstrate the Spirit's fruit in their lives (i.e., "love, joy, peace, patience," etc) and will resist the deeds of the flesh (which include, "hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions, envying," etc.). So what if I believe the "right" doctrine but I am belligerent, unkind, and even hostile in my expressions of what I believe. Why can't I disagree and even debate without attacking the person, judging and negatively categorizing those whose understandings of all things biblical differ from my own?

Sixth, I was reminded that historically, starting not very long after the death and resurrection of Jesus, there were differing opinions, doctrinal understandings and religious practices about which the early Christians discussed, debated, argued and (sadly) even divided. Even within the NT texts there are examples of individual and collective disagreements that were not entirely resolved. In this context of differences and disagreement Paul wrote: "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but I do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so that I can remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I give over my body in order to boast, but do not have love, I receive no benefit." What benefit is there to having the "right" beliefs and religious practices, but not having love? There is no benefit to me, nor am I of benefit to others.

And finally for me, as I read "God's word in human words" (i.e., the Bible), I need to understand that it often presents the ideal faith and practice. The reality, however, also revealed in the Bible and via extra-biblical documents and archaeological discoveries, is that real faith and practice rarely measure up to the ideal. This was as true for the ancient Israelites and early Christians as it is true for Jews and Christians of all ages, past, present and future. Thank God for his patience, persistence and ultimately for his grace, as my own faith and practice rarely live up to my understanding of the ideal. Who I am is who I am and it is often not what I want to be. I believe that God is big enough to get that and yet still love and accept me.

I am looking forward to reading, upon publication in 2019, Peter Enns' newest book, How the Bible Actually Works. As he states in a recent email message, he wrote this book for the frustrated Christian, the barely Christian and the formerly Christian, i.e, those for whom the so-called "orthodox" beliefs and practices do not make sense intellectually and/or in practice.

Thank you, Peter and Jared, for the reminders and for the perspectives you have introduced to me. You have given me the words that help me understand what has been going on for me for most of the last fifteen years.  

Dear reader, if any of this resonates with you, here are the resources I've referenced in this post, for your further study and reflection:

• Sparks, Kenton L. God's Word in Human Words. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008.
• Enns, Peter. Inspiration and Incarnation. Baker Publishing, 2015.
• Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy: https://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1.pdf
• The Bible for Normal People podcast: 72: https://thebiblefornormalpeople.podbean.com/e/episode-72-pete-jared-season-2-retrospective/

A More Christlike God?

The real challenge presented by the Gospel writers is whether or not I believe their witness that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Once I accept that these accounts accurately represented Jesus' deeds and words, and thus commit to following him, I believe the next challenge is this: Do I really believe that Jesus is God in human form, so that Jesus' reveals the nature of God, as completely as I can grasp the divine nature? Will I allow Jesus to be the lens through whom I see God's other revelations of his nature (i.e., via creation and the Hebrew Bible)?

Before you answer "Yes, of course," think about this -- What do you do when these other revelations conflict with, and even contradict, who God is as revealed via Jesus' words and deeds? I mean, how does God's commanding and/or condoning violence, murder and genocide in the Hebrew Bible, not overtly contradict the "turn the other cheek," "do not resist an evil person," and "love your neighbour as yourself" Jesus' teaching and example?

As someone who professes to believe that Jesus is God in the flesh, in the last several years, I decided that will no longer ignore this contradiction. I choose to believe in the God whom Jesus reveals, the God who loves, forgives, supports, understands, patiently endures and desire all people to be saved. I choose to reject any portrayal of a god who is vengeful, spiteful, violent, is guilty of ethnic profiling and who approves of those who are.

So what am I going to do with those portions of the Bible (mostly the Old Testament, but not exclusively), that present a god whose nature is in direct opposition to Jesus' divine nature? That, in a nutshell, explains my scholarly/academic investigations over the last several years and the faith journey that I am presently navigating.

A book, written by Bradley Jersak (from Abbotsford, BC) to which I was recently introduced, is now part of that intellectual and faith inquiry. I've recently posted a couple of quotes from the Preface and Chapter 1 on my personal Facebook page, and I include those below. I love the title, because I want to believe in "A More Christlike God" and "A More Beautiful Gospel." I will post other quotes and thoughts from this book over the next few days/weeks.

Just thought I'd update the readers of my blog (and my Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/thejesuschallenge/) on the direction in which my current journey is heading. Please feel free to post comments, send me an email or message. My only request is that all our honest interactions remain exceedingly respectful. Thank you.

“Of course, the answers I suggest may leave many ‘What about this?’ questions unanswered. There will be no pretense of neat bows on tidy, gift-wrapped packages. I’d rather be suggestive and provocative than pose as the latest expert who wants to indoctrinate you. I’m speaking as a witness to what I’ve seen and heard—not as a judge with a final verdict; or as a lawyer trying to make his case; or as a defendant taking the stand. For the reader who wants to go deeper—to test and weigh the truth of these proposals—the points I’ll raise do appear in more thorough academic studies elsewhere. Solid, Christ-centered theologians are addressing the array of dilemmas we’ll look at. I’ll occasionally direct readers to their works. But for those whose lives don’t allow time to wade through molasses-thick masterpieces, this summary snapshot says, “We hear your questions. No, you’re not crazy. You’re not a heretic for asking. We’re working on it.” This is an update on what that labor is producing.”

"What the church at large needs more than anything—and what the world is more than ready for—is a more Christlike God and, by extension, a more Christlike church (because we mimic what we worship)."

Where Rhetoric Instills Fear, Respectful Dialogue Creates Safety

There is a recent The Gospel Coalition (TGC) blog post titled, 3 Beliefs Some Progressive Christians and Atheists Share, which for me is deeply problematic (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/3-beliefs-progressive-christians-atheists-share/). 

It is problematic not only in content, but even more so in the rhetoric used to make its argument. Sadly, it is an approach that I have used in the past, sometimes consciously, but probably most of the time, unconsciously. The latter may be also true for the author of this TGC article. Nonetheless, it is an approach that puts those with whom we disagree on the defensive, backs them into a corner and forces them to choose to fight back, remain silent or leave the field of battle in defeat. It is an either/or, dualistic approach to theological argumentation that leaves most non-Christians feeling justified in their rejection of the Christian religion. Why? Because it is an approach that lacks humility, compassion, curiosity and respectful engagement toward those with whom we disagree. 

Essentially, this article makes the case for the inevitable erosion of one's faith, when one steps outside the camp of conservative evangelical/fundamentalist doctrine. It paints the picture of such a step (or misstep) which conscious or unconsciously is likely to lead ultimately to the complete loss of faith and to a life of secular humanism. This logically false rhetorical device, known as "slippery slope," forms the foundation of the argument. 

The article, as the title suggests, lists and briefly elaborates on 3 beliefs that "some" progressive Christians share with atheists: 1) a belief that the Bible is unreliable; 2) a belief that the problem of evil is unresolvable; 3) a belief in a culture-adapting morality. The problem of slippery slope is that as soon as one or more of these beliefs is embraced the person who does so is ultimately doomed to become an atheist, probably sooner rather than later, unless at some point he/she comes back to safe and secure nest of fundamentalist/conservative evangelical doctrine. 

As Peter Enns points out in his response, The Gospel Coalition Doesn't Really Get Progressive Christianity and Atheism (https://peteenns.com/the-tgc-doesnt-really-get-progressive-christianity-and-atheism/), the argument is based on some very problematic premises: 1) that there is a proven and inevitable trajectory from progressive Christianity to atheism; 2) that fundamentalism accurately and completely represents historic Christianity; and 3) that evangelical faith is intellectually robust; that is, tried and found true by all intellectually honest truth seekers. Enns does a really thorough job of dismantling the article as he exposes its weaknesses, misunderstandings and misrepresentations. I would encourage you to listen to the podcast or read the transcript. All I can say is that I wholeheartedly agree. 

As much as there is an pretence of compassion towards those who reject fundamentalist theology, it is only that, pretence. There is no substance. Why do I say that? How can I make such a strong claim? Here is the introduction and the concluding statements in the author's own words (emphasis is mine): 

"These are the words former Christian minister Bart Campolo recalls speaking to his famous evangelist father, Tony Campolo, after leaving the faith of his youth. He explained that his journey to secular humanism was a 30-year process of passing through every stage of heresy. In other words, his theology “progressed” from conservative to liberal to entirely secular."

"After all, the contemporary views that many people call “progressive” aren’t progressive anyway: they’re very old, echoes of that primordial question, “Did God really say?” (Gen. 3:1), signs of the most wicked rebellion imaginable. And we all know where that ends up."

The introduction equates the progression of conservative to liberal (i.e., progressive) with "stages of heresy." The conclusion is even more strongly stated, that "progressive" isn't progressive, but rather it is kin to the serpent's lie in the garden of Eden, and it is the "most wicked rebellion imaginable." And, of course, "we all know where that ends up." It is very clear that this author and the TGC, is intolerant of anything that isn't pure fundamentalist "truth." They believe fundamentalism replicates "historic Christianity" and thus any deviation from their definition of "narrow road" is one small, but certain, step on the way to hell. 

What is completely lacking in this article is any hint of respectful curiosity and/or compassion for those with whom the author disagrees. It's not the disagreement that's the problem. True "historic Christianity" was actually quite diverse, characterized by much disagreement. So maybe, just maybe, progressive Christians have what they believe to be very good reasons for rejecting fundamentalist doctrine. Instead, throughout the article, what is implied or even stated is that progressive motivation is one of comfort, ease, peace of mind and/or weakness of faith. Secondly, there is no hint of self-evaluation or acceptance of any responsibility. Thus the article lacks any sense of humility. But perhaps, just perhaps, fundamentalism itself might be at least part of the reason why people chose to leave.  

The lessons to be learned from this article, however, are not just for the author and TGC to learn, but for all of us to take heed of.  Every one of us needs to be more compassionate and curious, even if in the end we don’t agree. We need to stop labelling, pigeon-holing, attacking and condemning. Rather, we are called to do to others what we would want them to do to us. That's the Jesus way! We need to love other, not in word or in speech, but in deed and in truth. As the author correctly states, we should create safe places for people to bring up their doubts, questions, concerns, etc. However, that is not the same thing as actually creating that space through the practice of compassionate, humble curiosity and respectful dialogue. And in fact, the author, by means of this article, does the exact opposite – she creates a danger zone! 

No one individual, no one group, no one denomination, has the corner on truth. If the Bible is, in any sense, the word of God, then it runs deep and challenges our human intellects to stay open to the leading of God's Spirit, through prayerful study, and respectful dialogue. It is the challenge of the Bible for us to live out and teach our convictions, but at the same time to acknowledge that not any of us is master theologian or an expert in Christian discipleship. Rather, we are each life-long students who are always trying to better understand God's will and more consistently, but yet imperfectly, put it into practice in our lives. 

But don't take my word for it. These are my conclusions. Read the article. Then listen to Peter Enns' podcast (or read the transcript) and come to your own conclusions.

A New Lens on the Bible (2)

Adrienne Brenner's first point (in the previous blog post) is "Sometimes we're only taking the Bible seriously when we're not taking it literally." Peter Enns, author of several books that deal with the literary and inspirational nature of the Bible, agrees.

The rationale for such a statement is that a good portion of the biblical texts were written in a genre that was never meant to be understood literally. Therefore, to read these texts literally will result in a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what its authors and/or editors were trying to communicate. In other words, reading each biblical text in a way that is consistent with its specific genre is what taking the Bible seriously demands.

A genre is a category of literature identified by form, content, and style. Genres allow literary critics and studies to classify compositions within the larger canon of literature. Genre is derived from the French word meaning "kind" or "type." We must read and understand any literature according to the "rules" that govern its genre. For example, we would not read poetry in the same way we would read a biography or a newspaper article.

The literary texts which comprise the Bible represent many different genres, sometimes even within the context of the same text. For example, the book of Exodus is made up of the genres of prose, poetry and law, to name only the main ones. Within the vast array of biblical texts, we would not read the book of Revelation or the last six chapters of Daniel in the same way as the Gospel of Luke or Leviticus or Proverbs. 

The bottom line is that a significant portion of the texts found in the Bible are written in genres that are not meant to be taken literally. A good example, familiar to most Bible readers, is found in the parables of Jesus as recorded mainly in the Synoptic Gospels (e.g., Matthew, Mark and Luke). Parable was the main genre Jesus used when teaching both the crowds and his disciples (Matthew 13:34). If we try to understand them literally, we would be confused and probably miss the point(s) that Jesus was trying to make. This is evidenced by the many times that either the crowds and/or the disciples did not understand the point of a particular parable (Matthew 13:36). Such figurative language as used in the parables, in poetic texts and in apocalyptic texts, is not to be read and interpreted literally. "It means what it says" does not apply to non-literal genres.

So both Brenner and Enns are trying to tell us that we are only taking the Bible seriously when we accept the reality of various genres in the biblical texts and thus read and strive to understand each text according to the "rules" or "principles" that govern its genre. Let's consider a portion of biblical text that is highly debated as to its genre and thus its interpretation: Genesis 1–11.

Does taking Genesis 1–11 seriously mean that it is to be read as literal history, and as scientifically and geographically accurate in every respect?  Most conservative evangelicals and virtually all fundamentalists insist that to not read these chapters as the literal account of God's creation of the universe and mankind's first several centuries of existence, is to do misunderstand and to misrepresent the biblical text. However, some serious problems arise when we take these chapters as literal historical account.  A literal understanding results in contradictions that must be reconciled and involves clear conflicts with accepted scientific and geographic knowledge that cannot be ignored.

However, when we compare much of the content of these opening chapters with the literature of the ancient Near East, (e.g., Egyptian and Mesopotamian), one easily recognizes many striking similarities which clearly indicate that these stories were transmitted as mythical accounts. While the Israelite authors made significant changes to the earlier written texts of neighbouring cultures, the genre is obviously the same. What the authors/editors of the final form of Genesis did was to shift from a polytheistic to a monotheistic perspective in order to give credit to their God alone. For them, the gods of the all other civilizations were either irrelevant or non-existent. Yahweh is the only true God, the creator, sustainer and Lord of the universe.

It is important to understand that "myth" does necessarily mean false. Even in modern usage of the word, the idea that myth is "an unfounded or false notion" is only one possible definition. The definition that best conforms to the ancient understanding of myth is "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon." The Koine Greek word (μῦθος = mythos) from which our English word "myth" comes means "a speech, word, saying; a story; a true narrative; a fiction, a fable or invention, a falsehood." When used in the New Testament, one must read the word in its context to determine which definition of "myth" is under consideration.

I am trying here to dispel the basic idea we have that "myth" equals something false or contrived with evil intent to lead people away from truth and faith in the God of the Bible. A myth is a story that can communicate truth or falsehood. Aesop's fables were not true (historically or scientifically), but they are intended to communicate relational and ethical truth. The stories that the authors of Genesis used in its first eleven chapters were designed to communicate truth and to demonstrate some of the differences between their God and the gods of other ancient Near East civilizations. 

Yet, if we insist on reading these stories as historically, scientifically and geographical accurate depictions of the creation of the universe and the earliest centuries of human experience, we are forced to defend the indefensible. That is, a literal understanding of these chapters forces us to be hermeneutical illusionists in order to explain away internal contradictions. As well, a literal interpretation results in a worldview that is in direct conflict with accepted historical, scientific and geographic knowledge. Worse yet, we will miss the greater theological, spiritual and ethical truths the authors were trying to communicate.

If we take the Bible seriously then we will acknowledge that significant portions of the biblical texts are written in genres that were never meant to be read and understood literally.  For further study:

• "Reading Genesis Well: Navigating History, Poetry, Science, and Truth in Genesis 1–11" by C. John Collins.
• "Origins: The Ancient Impact and Modern Implications of Genesis 1–11" by Douglas Jacoby and Paul Copan.
• "The Lost World of Genesis One" by John H. Walton.

A New Lens on the Bible

It has been a month since I have posted a blog, in large part due to the fact that I'm experiencing the effects of a severe back injure. With the pain, the medication, the immobility and disfunction that I'm experiencing it has been really hard to focus and produce many coherent thoughts. However, I'm have a day or two of some relief and I just had to pass on to you the link for a brief video by one of my favourite Old Testament/Hebrew Bible scholars, Peter Enns.

What Peter Enns and Adrienne Brenner have put into words is one of the best summaries yet brief explanations of the "new lens" through which I have been seeing the Bible over the last 15 years, but that has truly sharpened my focus in the last 5 years. 

If you watch the video (less than 15 minutes) and read the brief commentary in this post, you may not agree, but you'll have a better grasp on what is a growing scholarly (and popular) perspective regarding the nature of the Bible and thus how we should read/study it. For this practical realist, Enns and Brenner have concisely put into words, the lens through which I have been reading/studying all things biblical. 

Here is the link to the video:

https://www.patreon.com/posts/looking-at-bible-22901776?utm_medium=post_notification_email&utm_source=post_link&utm_campaign=patron_engagement&token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJyZWRpc19rZXkiOiJpbnN0YW50LWFjY2VzczplZGMxMzA2Yi1mZDY1LTQ1OTEtYjQzMi05ZWRjNGM4MmQ3NzMifQ.3XPKMCpbidFrUBjed2RQIFjL1HPxlFNx13h8o8tsgr8

Here are the points that Adrienne Brenner made to Peter Enns: 

1. Sometimes we’re only taking the Bible seriously when we’re not taking it literally. 
2. It is a human book, and the stories reflect people’s understandings of God in their time and culture.
3. Biblical scholarship, archeology, and the study of ancient cultures can help illuminate the historical and cultural context for Scripture. It can also help us understand how, when, and by whom different books of the Bible were written.
4. The Bible isn’t inerrant. It contains contradictions, and that’s okay. The Bible represents the diverse perspectives of its authors over centuries.
5. The Bible must be interpreted, and there isn’t one “true” way to read it. Jewish and Christian traditions have a long history of diverse interpretations that we can learn from.

Here is the comment that I posted after watching the video:

"After 25 years of defending the "inerrancy" of the Bible, two of the points you make in this video served primarily as my "ah-ha moments" and created a new lens through which I now see the Bible. First was "the developmental nature of the OT," how it grew over time via redaction until it reached its "final forms" during the post-exilic period. Second was acceptance of the humanness of the biblical text as an expression of the Israelites' changing and "growing" understanding of who God is and how he works in human affairs. Thanks to you and others like yourself,  my new lens has brought so much joy and freedom and anticipation to my ongoing study of these incredible texts."

Here are some books that have helped reform and reshape the lens through which I see the Bible: 

• Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns
• The Bible Tells Me So by Peter Enns
• God's Word in Human Words by Kenton Sparks
• Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliot Friedman
• How the Bible Became a Book by William Schniedewind