Reading Through Job

I've been reading through Job (the OT Bible book) again both individually and with the family. I'm always struck by how theologically correct Job's three friends are. They have a much more biblical view than most of today's Christians seem to have! However, they are nonetheless to be justly blamed for their mistakes in regards to their handling of Job's situation. We must handle God's truth carefully and not assume all suffering is directly the result of punishment to the sufferer. Job is good for reading and meditation.

Biblical Literalist?

I lifted the bulk of this post from a response comment I made to a facebook post.  I have changed it somewhat to reflect the fact that for the purposes of this blog post it's not being addressed to a particular person or situation.  In any case, after I typed out my long response in regards to a particular situation, I decided that my thoughts about the subject in general were worth using in a blog post.  As always, comments are welcome.  Enjoy.

"Literal" is such a slippery word when used in the context of hermeneutics. This is why I tend not to use it. A good question to ask someone when they ask if you interpret the Bible "literally" would be "what do you mean by 'literally' and 'literal interpretation?'"

For instance, am I a Biblical Literalist? Some might say in a knee-jerk fashion that I am.  However, when the Bible describes God in a way that mentions his "feathers" or "wings" do I think he is literally a bird? No. The same thing goes for Jesus referring to himself as the "door" and the "Good Shepherd." Do I think he is wooden and has a doorknob? No. Do I think that his occupation was being a shepherd? No. He was a carpenter. Passages in Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation (and other like-literature) can be problematic if one takes a literal, wooden meaning. Here is a modern example: Did the weatherman actually say the sun would "rise" at such and such a time? Doesn't he know the Earth revolves around the sun? We understand that he knows the Earth revolves around the sun and that the sun doesn't actually "rise" above the horizon of a stationary Earth - and we understand that he was using a common idiom. We don't accuse him of being "anti-science" or of being some sort of idiot. Much of the imaginative imagery in Revelation is taken directly from Daniel (not me, but the Book of Daniel). The Book of Daniel is a book that combines historical narrative with the apocalyptic - though the two genres are easily distinguished within the book. If one does not have knowledge of the Old Testament, but simply reads the New, and reads Revelation, they would be inclined to take all the dragons, bowls, beasts, etc. in a literal fashion and would miss the message that John was trying to communicate.

The big question to ask about the Old Testament (and the Bible in general) is what the author of the passage or book in question was trying to communicate. Just like today, in the ancient Near East there were several literary genres, including Narrative, History, Poetry, and Prophetic/Apocalyptic. If we're able to reasonably accurately identify which genre the passage or book in question belongs to, then we can start to discover what the author was trying to communicate. If a book or passage bears the hallmarks of belonging to the "History" genre, it would make sense to interpret it as such - and not as only metaphor or poetry. The same thing goes for the other genres. Sometimes finding the correct genre is a little difficult (e.g. Job and Jonah.) However, if we find something that is obviously written in such a way that indicates it belongs to the Historical or Narrative genre, yet we simply don't want to believe its content, then we are showing our modernistic prejudice. If something is written as History, I take it as History, even if it may be tough to swallow. Strange things happen - especially if the omnipotent God is in control of events.

So, recognizing the genre is important, but so is taking the text seriously and being consistent is important as well. Many will look to the NT Gospels for their info about Jesus and claim to believe it, but they will disregard much or the OT or the writings traditionally attributed to Moses - which includes Genesis. However, the NT Gospel of John records Jesus as saying to the scribes and pharisees: "Do not think that I will accuse you to my Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words."(?) John 5:45-47
In other words, in the narrative genre, Jesus essentially says that one should believe Moses (The first five books of the Bible) if he is to believe in Him (Jesus).  That's worth thinking about.

Petty Pet Peeves and Annoyances Part 2

I felt like adding another five.

1. Someone tailgating me when I'm already doing 70mph in the "slow" lane.
2. An overweight person with an overweight dog telling me that my perfectly-formed purebred Saluki is too skinny.  
3. Unleashed dogs of unknown temperament running and walking about, barking at and often running up to us while I'm walking (leashed) my Saluki.
4. Dog owners who go into slow-motion or total inactivity when they should be calling off their dog or grabbing their dog.
5. Long goodbyes when I'd like them too be short.   

That should do it for now.  I just felt like sharing!