There is no doubt that visiting Turkey is really cool. I would love to check out the ancient ruins and take lots of photos for my desktop. But if that makes the Bible “come alive” for me then I’ve been doing something wrong.
Contact with the history of the Bible may seem to accentuate the text—and it indeed helps people. But there is a potential expense too great to risk. All the searching in history to vivify the Holy Scripture may actually blur what the Holy Scripture actually is. Yes, a document written in history. Yes, a document written by humans who lived in that history. But more than anything, the revelation of God. This Book is an action, the work of the triune God to reveal himself and reconcile a people for his own.
The greatest barrier between us and this Book is not the history and culture that separate us from its human authors, but the heart of darkness that separates us from its divine author. We need faith more than understanding the geographical layout of Asia Minor. We come to the Holy Scripture in need of an illumining work, not a historicizing one.
I think I disagree. One of the primary distinctives the Bible has over other faith literature is that it’s claims can be proven or dis-proven. So when Paul claims Christians are to be pitied if Christ wasn’t crucified and raised, we can look into history and examine if Christ really did rise (The Bible being a most excellent historical reference, but archaeological sites have a significant place too). To separate the Bible from its context is to remove it from the reality in which it is grounded.
I want to avoid the separation of our faith with reality. Our observations in the world should (and do) align with the teaching of Scripture. When they don’t, a careful examination should be given to both our observations, and our understanding of the Scriptures.
Hey Scott, thanks for commenting. I will ramble a few comments back and try to think together with you on this one.
“One of the primary distinctives the Bible has over other faith literature is that it’s claims can be proven or dis-proven.”
Some of the Bible’s claims are historically verifiable, but not all. The message of Scripture is to be received by faith first and foremost. The only reason we seek validation as we do is because of the Enlightenment’s influence and the default of suspicion that Descartes handed off to us. But we can apply the scientific method to the gospel but so far.
“To separate the Bible from its context is to remove it from the reality in which it is grounded.”
Yes and no. I do not want to separate the Bible from its context at all. That is actually what I think historical studies does! The real context of the Bible is not historical so much as it is God’s action in the world. The context of the Bible is God’s economy of salvation—the story of him revealing himself to humans for the purpose of their salvation. Now, that action occurs in history, yes. But it transcends history and historical experience in the scheme of God to man, Creator to creature.
“Our observations in the world should (and do) align with the teaching of Scripture. ”
The problem here is that when we let our observations of the world ante up our understanding of Scripture then we are letting our reason set the rules and not God’s revelation. The revelation of God does not owe our observation/reason anything. The primary attitude in faith is not rationalism, but humility. Our reason must be submitted to God, and if it is not, he will take us there (for example, the Trinity). And this is not something we should apologize for.
There is nothing in the world that can be validated to the point of 100% certainty. Every position is a faith position when we get down to it. Even the work of ‘validation’ is guided by belief. Descartes tried to doubt it all and came down to himself, “I think therefore I am.” The only thing that makes doubt or investigation possible is faith in the thing doubting and investigating.
Grace to you in Christ!
Pingback: Historical Studies and Our Interpretation of Scripture « Reading to Walk …
Hm, it sounds like (from this and your newest post) that you mean something different than me when we talk about historical studies. Are you referring to some specific method or philosophy?
I don’t understand how actions which occur in history transcend history. If they happened there, what else can we say about them?
As far as Descartes, I agree it has shaped my attitude. I work in the sciences, so observation rules my everyday. But it seems like Descartes’ main flaw is the starting point, not the method. If we start with God as the origin and beginning/source of all knowledge, then observation sees what He has revealed. Observation doesn’t have to assume things that are unseen don’t exist, or are see-able at all.
I don’t want to come across as diminishing the Bible. If we assume (start with, believe, have faith in, etc.) God, then the Bible becomes the testing ground for all observation, not what is being tested.
By ‘transcend history’ I mean things that are not bound to historical, cultural experience. We read the Bible to behold the revelation of God, not to investigate the historical experience of Israel’s worship.
“If we assume (start with, believe, have faith in, etc.) God, then the Bible becomes the testing ground for all observation, not what is being tested.”
The main thing that I am resisting is a method that puts our reason above revelation. That is why I resist historical, critical approaches to the Bible.
Good discussion. This is helpful for me. Thanks for commenting.