Apparently, that’s the going argument among many professing Christians. They say, “The Bible is not the full revelation of God. Jesus is!”
Sounds good, right?
This approach could be described as a “Christ-centered hermeneutic,” meaning that we should read Scripture through the lens of Christ. To which I wholly agree. But then there’s the Red-Letter Christian camp which takes this a step further by emphasizing the words of Christ (those highlighted in red) above other Scripture, at least when they’re not debating which words deserve to be Christ’s. Like the Jesus Seminar, “a group of self-described scholars who have determined Jesus probably only said 20% of the quotes attributed to him by Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John.”
So not only does Jesus trump Scripture, for some, we must decide which Scriptures attributed to Jesus trump other Scriptures.
Whew!
Anyway, this sentiment is really popular nowadays. Take for instance this comment I recently found on Facebook in a thread about the dangers of “biblicism,” being too literal in our reading of the Bible:
Once again, “hold[ing] everything up to the light of Christ” is a very sound means of biblical interpretation. It’s the first half of that perspective that is troubling, the one which suggests that “the most important question we can ask is not ‘is there Biblical support for this…'”
And this is where I find the “Jesus Trumps the Bible” crowd a bit rickety.
Of course we must concede that some people DO miss Jesus for the Scriptures. To the religious authorities of His day, Christ said:
“You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me” (Jn. 5:39 NIV).
Some missed the Word for the words. They deified Scripture, elevating it above the Person who actually spoke it. As some do today. But if you look carefully, that verse actually affirms the authority of Scripture for “it is Scripture that testifies of Him.” And since the New Testament had yet to be written, Jesus could only be talking about the Old, the non-red letter edition. So while Christ IS charging them to interpret Scripture through the revelation of Himself, He is not downgrading that revelation as secondary to Him. In fact, He is elevating it.
Suggesting that Jesus trumps Scripture still requires an interpretation of Scripture and the Jesus found in it. And therein lies the rub. Having a Christ-centered hermeneutic is great… provided that the Christ you’re centered on is the biblical one.
And this is the problem I have with the “Jesus trumps the Bible” perspective. By placing Jesus AGAINST Scripture we can conveniently minimize the Scripture we disagree with. If we’re honest, some of the most difficult and troubling parts of the Bible are the words of Jesus Himself. By staunchly proclaiming that “The Bible is the not the full revelation of God. Jesus is!” not only to we diminish the Scripture He said testified of Him, we conveniently limit the Jesus of Scripture to a god of our own making.
I will confess to being in a bit of a struggle with all this myself right now. There are chunks of the Old Testament I’ve always had massive difficulty with (condemning a woman to marry her rapist? really?) and while I have been able to set them aside for many years, it is much harder to do when my kids are turning their backs because of such things and I have no answer for them. Or at least, not answers that are strong enough to satisfy. And yet I can not deny the reality of God and Jesus in my life. So I am trying to find an acceptable model for Biblical interpretation that can account both for the repeated brutality found in the Pentateuch and the God whose love walked all the way to Calvary. You are quite right that Jesus did not just dismiss the Old Testament, and I have always been very ill at ease with those who did so. And yet… It is unsettling.
Janet, a great deal of what you might be referring to has underpinnings in the culture of the ancient world which was so different from what we know. It’s hard for us to separate ourselves from our culture, informed by Christ and His command for love of neighbors and enemies alike, and what the ancient world knew. Take the “marrying your rapist” issue. In those days, marriage was arranged, at best. Sometimes, as is recorded in Judges, men simply took women. The worst thing for a woman was to be “taken” and then abandoned. No other man would consider marrying her after some other man had slept with her. Her only hope for protection and provision, then, was for a man to not abandon her. Rather than this law of God punishing women for being raped, it was actually a protection for her, especially because the law was designed to warn as much as it was to punish. So men in the Israelite community knew that if the took a woman and had sex with her, they’d have to marry her.
Our problem today is looking at the Old Testament as if the events took place in a culture like ours. Part of why it’s important to study Scripture is to understand the context in which these passages were written.
If I might be so bold, I think the acceptable model for Biblical interpretation is the Bible itself. Taken as a whole, the entire book holds together, centered on the theme of God’s work to create and redeem Humankind. In addition, Scripture often offers commentary on Scripture. So when it comes to the Levitical laws, it’s helpful to read with Jesus said about His fulfillment of the Law or to read what Paul said about the Law being a tutor.
Then too, if God says in Scripture that He is just and holy and good, we can interpret what He does in light of those facts He revealed about Himself. If something doesn’t seem to us to be just or holy or good, we can be sure our perspective is off because a holy God wouldn’t lie.
And lying, I think, is what this “Christ over the Bible” way of looking at things is all about. Satan called God a liar to Eve, and he continues to portray Him in that same vein to this very day.
Becky
Hi,
I think we all need to be careful of the world’s interpretations vs what the Bible actually says. I believe that the Bible is the inerrant words of God Himself, given to mankind through His Holy Spirit. We as Christians cannot follow blindly, but become disciples of Christ by reading and studying the Word. Yes, it takes effort, but we risk being blindsided and pulled away by those who really don’t understand the Word. We need to be smarter than them!
This link may help you with the passage that you find troubling:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Deuteronomy-22-28-29-marry-rapist.html
Blessings to you.
Very VERY good Mike. Of course I agree.
I’ve been thinking that for a long time. I didn’t know it was cool, and I’ve only begun to be influenced by all the various progressive-like Evangelical bloggers recently. But I was always confused about both Jesus and the Bible being called the Word of God — both with the same capital-letter reverence.
The way the Bible is referred in my own Baptist background strongly evokes Trinitarian imagery too me. The Bible is the Word of God; Jesus Christ is the Word of God. Reading the words of the Bible is like interacting with Christ. The Bible represents Christ to us, almost like an avatar. The logical next step is to say that the Bible is one-in-essence with Jesus Christ. And I’m pretty sure that that’s idolatry.
The parallels with the Trinity are clear. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God. The Son was the full revelation and essence of the Father, so that seeing the Son is the same seeing the Father. The Holy Spirit represents the Father and the Son to us in the absence of the physical presence of the Son.
So, if the Bible shares one essence with God the Son, then the Bible is part of the Trinity, which of course would be a Quadrinity.
I’ve recently talked to my pastor about this, and I don’t think I was ever able to make him understand how I see a rivalry between Christ and the Bible. He seemed to use the same title for Christ and the Bible almost unconsciously. It reminded me of the way a Catholic guy I knew talked about Jesus being present with him in the Mass.
I think the Mass really represents Christ to many Catholics, and as long as they are only mindful of Christ and not worshipping the physical elements, I don’t think they’re committing idoltry. Since my discussion with my pastor, I now extend the same belief to Evangelicals concerning the Bible. If calling the Bible the Word of God only helps them worship the Incarnate Son, they are not committing idolatry. However, I’m sure it’s possible worship the Bible in a legalist and idolatrous way. (Just as some Catholics really are idolatrous.)
Bainespal, it’s not evangelicals who call the Bible the word of God—it’s the Bible that does so. See for example Matt. 15:6: “And by this you invalidated the word of God [referring to the Torah] for the sake of your tradition.” Other places use the term is used to mean the gospel, the preaching of the apostles, the words Jesus spoke, the prophecy John received, prophecy in the Old Testament, and more.
But the real issue is that the Bible came from the Holy Spirit. I do think some parts of Christendom give the Holy Spirit short shrift—except by valuing the Bible, we are valuing the Holy Spirit.
Also, I maintain that anyone who “worships” the Bible, hasn’t read it or read it with understanding and obedience. It’s from the Bible that we learn Jesus is who He is and how we must come to God through Him. Holding the Bible up as a means to reconciliation with God is a violation of the Bible!
Becky
I went and read that guy’s blog you linked to, about Jesus trumping the Bible. He compared two passages and took them at face value. No reading in context, no delving deeper, not interpreting scripture with scripture. No example of the law vs grace? No discussion of how the man gathering sticks willfully broke the law, while the men trying to be healed were actively seeking Jesus?
As I study the Bible, Jesus is all through the Old Testament. (Theophanies like the Angel of The Lord at Jericho, who Joshua had to bow to. That wasn’t just an angel.) Just as God the Father is throughout the New Testament. This movement to disunite Jesus from the Godhead is disturbing.
Great comment, Kessie. I just read today about Abraham pleading with the LORD about saving Sodom (to which the LORD agreed at every turn, by the way). Except, who Abraham was pleading with was a man he’d just served a meal to. The other two “men” with Him were identified as angels. So how can we see this physical manifestation of God as any other than the pre-incarnate Christ?
I think separating Christ from the Godhead, which usually carries with it some indictment of the “wrathful God of the Old Testament” is indeed dangerous. It also shows a lack of knowledge of Scripture which, as you say, shows the Father present in the New Testament and the Son present in the Old. Through all of Scripture also is the Holy Spirit, inspiring and filling and guiding.
Becky
Hi Mike,
I agree with you that Jesus cannot and should not be separated from the Old Testament. It is ludicrous, when He not only made appearances (as Kessie stated) but also that all prophetic Scriptures point to His coming. The temple setup itself reveals everything that Christ would do on the cross; that is why the curtain separating the Holy of Holies from the rest of the temple was rent from top to bottom when Christ died. Therefore, Christ validates the Scriptures, as the Scriptures validate Christ. Their authority and His authority are one and the same.
The unbelieving Jews of Jesus’ day had created a Messiah of their own making, what he would be like and do for them, hence they could not see the Truth standing before them. I agree this current movement is just that, to create a Jesus that man wants him to be, based on man’s interpretation, not God’s. This is dangerous, cult-like thinking.
The question then becomes – in whose authority do you place your trust? Some dude with a”new interpretation” or Scripture, the Holy Spirit and the true Christ?
Thanks Mike. Spot on as usual. :c)
This discussion opens a real can of worms, but excellent job dealing with the core issues, particularly how tough the words of Jesus can be — great point. But at the risk of sounding metaphysical, Christians do not and should not have a relationship with a book, but with a Living Person. What I mean by that is the Trinity is not God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Scripture, as you will find among the majority of Calvinists if they are honest and some modern bibliolaters. So yes, I can see the concern of the “Jesus trumps scripture” camp. But my question to them is, and this balances my assertion made above about the Christian’s relationship, WHICH “jesus” are we speaking of? The Gnostic Jesus who was a man upon whom the heavenly “christ” came? The Arian jesus and the word of faith jesus, who is g-d’s first created being? The jesus of Mormonism, who is but one of many gods? The Docetic jesus, who only appeared to be human? The Word of God — the Scriptures — tells us who the real Jesus is. (John 1:1, John 1:14 amid many, many others). The whole counsel of God tells us who Jesus is. Behind this “Jesus trumps scripture” is the original lie, the first recorded words of Satan: “Did God REALLY say?” This camp is asking that question re whatever is not the actual words of Jesus. It won’t be long before they begin “trumping” some words of Jesus over others. Wait for it. Watch for it. It may already be happening. In the end their “jesus” will be the heteron “jesus” of which Paul warns us in Galatians chapter 1. I’m not going where that one leads.
Why Lord WHY!!!
@bainespal
Man you have just brought up and drilled into THE controversy of the 20th century. It would take me 2 hours at least to do half justice to the meaty set of theological and their commensurate biblically informed philosophical topics touched by what you’ve said.
As for the RC mass? Please hear the to this day binding declaration of the 16th century Council of TRENT in opposition to the reformation.
“CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be ANATHEMA.”
There ARE proper orthodox answers to your questions.
Absolutely fabulous responses here! I started my comment and then got a phone call for a half hour and finished and sent it without knowing these were here. Great answers.
Any move away from respect for the entire Bible towards a respect for the historical Jesus is a move in the right direction. The Old Testament is an albatross around the neck of Christianity. At least with the historical Jesus, minus all the superstitious stories about miracles and such, we have a man of reasonably high moral character from whom we can learn a few valuable lessons.
Gary, the “historical Jesus” is the one who performed miracles, validated the Old Testament, and claimed to be much more than a “high moral character.” Of course, you are free to deny those things. But that’s the Jesus of history. Not sure what sources you are relying on.
Mike, been following you for a while and appreciate the sensitive balance you presented to this most controversial topic.
It caught a central nerve with me as I am currently writing a book titled, “The Daughter’s Blood and How the World Began”, where my central agenda is to show how Satan found the concept of “Canonicity” and a “Book” or “Orthodoxy” to provide the perfect hiding place for the Christ.
I marvel how many times in a debate folks use Paul or Moses to “balance” out a statement by Christ.
While I fully agree that the Scriptures reveal Christ, I don’t think you can reverse engineer Christ into the scriptures. The incredible difficulty in the language used to reconcile an unchanging God between the Old and New Testament, is just that, -incredible. It almost completely blurs the distinction between our hermeneutic and the Muslims’ whose embarrassing passages in the Koran establish their error.
To humanly decide what belongs in the canon and what doesn’t, really translates into God’s mouth being under human control. To then in turn establish each passage as equally inspired introduces profound relativism, (e.g. when everything is absolute, nothing is) at best, and unbelief at worst, along with a dangerous amount of human deification.
Although I consider the “red letter” distinction to be too simplistic, I do take a strong view that God set out to “insert” a “Person” rather than a book, into the human story.
In this regard I consider myself rather pragmatic as I consider that most of what plagues Christianity today is an overly academic hermeneutic blinding the stark beauty and simplicity of Christ. As an example; in my culture, “conservative anabaptist”, family trees are beautiful examples of God’s original design in human flourishing, e.g. divorce and remarriage is practically absent. In this culture, there is a clear commitment to a Christocentric hermeneutic.
Contrast that with most of reformed denominations whose biblical hermeneutic is unmatched in academic sophistication. Their family trees have more divorce and remarriage than many secular cultures around the globe.
It seems to me that Satan has been able to shield the birthplace of humanity from the power of the Gospel. That is a huge win for him.
What do you think about these reflections, if you care?
Really appreciate what you have to say about this subject, Mike…
It seems appropriate for now, especially given the recent Gungor controversy. Even though the main focus of the controversy is their view on Young Earth Creationism, their blog posts regarding their thoughts point towards a belief in Jesus trumping the scripture.
Jesus was always ‘quoting the prophets’, so honoring them – we too should treat ‘all’ of the prophets’ words with the same regard.
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” (2 Tim. 3:16)
It says ‘all’ scripture. I suppose that one could argue what is meant by scripture but God covered that problem when he instituted the interpreting rule that not only proves divine inspiration but settles all arguments regarding interpretation. God is faithful and would not have left us to figure it out by ourselves because for certain we would get it wrong.
As to any kind of literalness, or not, we just have to ask one question – “Why did God give Moses ‘two’ tables of stone?”
I’m not asking it to be smart or difficult, it’s just that all Christians should know the answer because it’s fundamental to proper interpretation of the scriptures.
I don’t have my Holy Bible in front of me at the moment to tell you which gospel it is in, but, didn’t Jesus Christ say that He came not to replace the law, but, that He came to fulfill the law? Also, unfortunately many Christians are blind to who Jesus Christ is. Just as blind as the world. God Jesus Christ Holy Spirit are all one. So God is God, God is Jesus Christ, God is Holy Spirit.
and,
nobody can change the Truth.