Galatians 3:15-16 “Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed He does not say, 'And to seeds,' as referring to many, but rather to one, 'And to your seed,' that is, Christ.”
Paul opens the section by highlighting just how important it is to take a covenant with God seriously. He takes it so seriously that he is willing to base an argument on a precise grammatical point, namely the singularity of the word “seed.” And at a glance, the Holy Spirit is quite clever at foreshadowing. The author of Genesis somehow knew to use the singular of 'seed' so that people would one day realize that all nations will be blessed not through the Jews as a group, but through Jesus in particular.
With this in mind, it's quite deflating to look back at what Genesis says. Paul is not clearly referring to any one particular verse, so a broad view will be necessary. In most of the relevant places in Genesis, the phrase is translated in the NASB as “Abraham's descendants.” In Hebrew or other English translations, the clash isn't quite so strong. In Hebrew, the same word would have been used regardless of whether singular or plural is intended – context must be used to determine if it is singular or plural, just like the English phrases “Abraham's offspring” or “Abraham's seed.” The NASB translators thought it was plural, as would any reasonable person reading God's promise to Abraham in context. Some of the particular verses I'm referring to are:
Genesis 12:7 “The LORD appeared to Abram and said 'To your descendants I will give this land' So he built an altar there to the LORD who had appeared to him.”
Genesis 13:15-16 “for all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever. I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth, so that if anyone can number the dust of the earth, then your descendants can also be numbered.”
Genesis 15:5 “And He took him outside and said, 'Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them' And He said to him, 'So shall your descendants be.'”
Genesis 15:13 “God said to Abram, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years.”
Genesis 17:5-7 “No longer shall your name be called Abram, But your name shall be Abraham; For I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings will come forth from you. I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you.”
The contexts of “descendant” are being given land, as the dust of the earth, as the stars of heaven, enslaved for four hundred years, and multitude of nations throughout generations. This is my case for Genesis' seed being plural – I challenge those who disagree to find a verse to support the singularity of Genesis' seed.
As far as I can tell, this is completely fatal to the more conservative definitions of biblical inerrancy. Paul starts by instructing us to take the covenant seriously. He then bases an entire theological argument off a grammatical point, when the grammatical point is demonstrably false using purely biblical evidence. If this isn't an incorrect statement, just how wrong must a statement be before being considered actually wrong? The problem isn't that Abraham's promise was plural and Christ is singular – analogies are flexible things. The problem is that Paul said the promise is singular and it's not.
Premise 1. In Genesis, seed is plural.
Premise 2. Paul says that seed in Genesis is singular and not plural.
Premise 3. Singular is not plural.
Therefore, Paul was wrong.
I don't see how you can get much purer of a syllogism than this. However, much can be said in defense of more moderate views of inspiration, or at least, the competency of Paul.
My first impression after looking back at Genesis was to think Paul was a complete hack who barely knew the story of Abraham or at least didn't bother to read it again while composing his letter. But this opposite side of a pendulum swing is as poorly supported by the text as the view of full inerrancy.
Galatians 3:29 “And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.” Here, Paul refers to the exact same promise within the exact same chapter, and this time lets “seeds” be plural to refer to the entire church! If 3:16 was a sly maneuver, he wouldn't have highlighted it by using the word “seeds” again. It couldn't have been an honest mistake due to ignorance or forgetfulness of Genesis, because he expresses his knowledge of the plurality of seeds. Whatever, Paul was doing, it looks like it was intentional and that he wanted his readers to see what he did. This is consistent with neither being a mistake nor deception.
Apparently, this kind of thing was kosher back then, or so the apologetic defense goes. The fact that the same word is used for plural and singular invited a sort of grammatical flexibility, even when the entire context shows that the grammar was not actually flexible when read by modern minds (i.e. people trying to figure out what it actually says.) Peter Enns makes a strong case for this in Inspiration and Incarnation using extra-biblical texts to support the claim that Paul's hermeneutics would have been seen as acceptable in the first century. Thus, if an orthodox Jew read this in the first century and was unconvinced, he would not call foul over Paul's grammar, but would argue against the conclusion along different lines. So viewing Galatians as its original audience would have viewed it, Paul did not make a mistake. And if you believe Paul was inspired, and the central message of the Bible is Christ, you have reason to trust his conclusions even while expressing skepticism of how he gets there.
After this point, evangelical scholars and I diverge. The irony of reading Galatians as its original audience would is that to do so requires the understanding that Paul did not read Genesis as its original audience would. That's just fine for a scholar studying a secular document, but it's quite problematic for maintaining a level of biblical trustworthiness. All biblical interpretation, and hence essentially all Christian doctrines, rest on how the Bible is to be read. The Bible doesn't tell its readers to begin the interpretation process by reading it as its original audience would – evangelicals only do so because it is so transparently obvious that when reading a book you should try to determine what the author meant.
Paul's hermeneutics undercut this assumption underlying all biblical interpretation.
If it's obvious that Christians should seek to know what the original biblical authors meant, then it's obvious that Paul's approach was wrong. If it's not obvious, then the Bible has become so relativized that it's difficult to use as a guide to anything. This would imply the consistency of “Isaiah didn't mean X” and “from Isaiah we know X is true.”
The more serious problem is that when Paul is given so much latitude, it's hard to not justify giving the same latitude to other people. (There is a grain of reality in the coming comparison. But please note that it's meant to be an analogy, not an accurate depiction of the contents of the Koran, Islam, or the seventh century. A religious studies scholar could probably find a real example – I'm making one up.) The “Koran” argues that John 14:16's predictions of sending “another Comforter” means Muhammad. Thus, the Bible foretold the coming of Muhammad. Christians reply that's not what Jesus was talking about – Jesus was talking about the Holy Spirit, as evidenced by the other things Jesus said about the Helper that are not consistent with the Helper being Muhammad. Muslims then recognizes that to argue Jesus was talking about Muhammad is grammatically indefensible through looking at John alone. However, this is what people in the seventh century really thought about John. It was common practice for people in the seventh century to take a series of vague prophecies and accept the pieces that fit while discarding the one's that didn't. The Muslim recognizes the weakness of such reasoning in the “Koran” when viewed by twenty-first century eyes, but you have to look at it in the context of its culture, when that would have been acceptable reasoning. Also, the “Koran” is inspired by Allah, so that means the conclusions are still true.
The Christian response would not be to check out if that's how they really thought in the seventh century. The Christian response would be that if the words in John don't predict Muhammad now, and the words of John didn't predict Muhammad in the first century, then the words in John didn't predict Muhammad in the seventh century either. The argument puts Christians in the exact same situation with respect to Islam that Jews are in now with respect to Christianity. Christians ask Jews to believe that Christianity is the correct strain of Judaism when the Bible clearly uses the Jewish Scriptures to say things that they don't really say when read in context. The Muslim is asking to Christian to believe Islam is the true strain of Christianity based on readings of Christians' Scriptures which make it say things that it clearly doesn't say when read in context. To reject the Muslim's argument and accept Paul's argument is a double standard.
It's possible to rationally believe without seeing the work of God in some of the following: the writing of the Bible, the influence of the Bible, the person of Jesus, evidence for the Resurrection, fulfilled prophecy, creation/science, the power of prayer, the testimony of the church, personal religious experiences, etc. But to believe without seeing the work of God in any of these is highly determined ignorance. Galatians 3 goes a long way toward removing the work of God in writing the Bible from the list of possible places to find a reason to believe and placing it on the list of reasons to disbelieve.
Showing posts with label OT/NT clash. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OT/NT clash. Show all posts
Friday, November 7, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
The Logic of Paul: I Timothy 2
Instead of continuing with the reasons that pushed me from disillusioned Christian to unbelief, I'm going back to a factor that brought me to disillusionment in the first place. The one goes all the way back to ninth grade when I memorized I Timothy 2 for Bible quizzing.
First, I would like to draw a distinction between two easily confused words: irrational, and non-rational. By non-rational I just mean anything that isn't logic. By irrational, I mean things that try to make sense and fail. “I believe in the Trinity” is non-rational. “I'm convinced the Trinity makes perfect sense” is irrational. While there are of course problems with being non-rational, I should note that to begin thinking one must make the non-rational assumption that one is capable of thinking and logic is in some sense true – non-rationality is often necessary. Of course, I consider “more” non-rationality to be bad, but that's not what I'm going after here. I'm going after irrationality in Paul. In the context of instructions on worship, he writes
I Timothy 2:11-14 “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”
I'll suppose for the sake of argument that Paul's command for women not to speak or have authority over a man [in church] is not unfair and merely critique the logic behind the command. If Paul had just said “do it this way, because I'm Paul, and God is speaking through me – do what God says” as he does in I Corinthians 15:34-37, this would be non-rational. (This is a rational argument for why you should obey, but a non-rational argument for why is it commanded.) This would cause all the usual gender role issues, but I wouldn't have had this particular problem with the chapter.
The problem here is that Paul tries to explain the rationality of the instruction, and it doesn't work. His first reason given is that Adam was formed first. What does that have to do with anything? In the second creation account at least, animals were formed before Eve, but this would make a horrible first step in arguing that animals should rule over women. 35-year-old women were formed before 34-year-old men, but seniority still makes for a poor argument that the latter should not be permitted to have authority over the former. Even this seniority argument is better than Paul's because at least the person who is older was actually formed first. Women alive today were not formed after men who are alive today. At best, Adam having been formed first justifies why Adam should be over Eve, not why men should be over women.
The second reason Paul gives is that Eve was the one who was deceived. This is a very strange accusation. Paul is implying that Adam wasn't deceived, or was at least less deceived than Eve. If they both sinned, this would mean that Eve's sin had more to do with being innocently wrong, whereas Adam's sin had more to do with willfully choosing wrong in the face of knowing what was right. If Eve was the one who was deceived, does this not mean Adam's sin was the greater one? I'd prefer a leader who is sometimes wrong to a leader who sees the right thing to do and doesn't do it.
Next, Eve wasn't deceived in Genesis 3. She knew what God said and chose to disobey – she even recites her specific instructions right before sinning. The only talk of deception is in her excuse – which should be taken with more than a grain of salt, even when assuming Genesis is inerrant.
(Update, 11/1/08: As has been pointed out to me, Eve was deceived. A recap should be 1) Eve understands what actions are sin. 2) The snake deceives her into thinking that sin pays. 3) Eve sins knowing full well she is sinning but while deceived into thinking the results will be favorable.)
Furthermore, Paul doesn't even mention that fact that Adam had anything to do with what went wrong. He talks of Eve being deceived and becoming a sinner and just leaves it at that – as if Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden due to Eve's sin alone. Genesis 3 provides a different picture. Eve eats the fruit, brings it to Adam, and only after they both eat does the narrator tell us their eyes were opened. Adam ate the fruit before Eve's eyes were opened – it's like Genesis is going out of its way to make them share the blame. But Paul merely takes up Adam's banner of “blame the woman.” From this perspective, “Eve was the one who is deceived” is a perfectly logical accusation. It's her fault. Paul argues as ifEve's “I was tricked” and Adam's “stupid woman” excuse is correct. If I believed Genesis and was still deciding about I Timothy, I might reject I Timothy for this reason.
Perhaps Paul is not trying to make his own argument regarding the reason for gender roles, but is merely referring back to Eve's curse in Genesis 3:16. If so, this is quite a clumsy reference. Also notice that this curse is Adam over Eve. Taking this to husband over wives is not explicit, but is one reasonable interpretation. Paul takes this one step further by saying men over women. Furthermore, men could be over women without revoking women's right to speak. Elders are over younger men and yet younger men still get to talk. What is his justification? He merely fakes an answer by giving the justification for the lesser command of Adam over Eve.
In a similar passage, I Corinthians 14:34-35, Paul gives another reason “The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.”Where in the Law does it say women are to be silent?
(Update, 11/21: As has been pointed out to me, "as the Law also says" likely refers to "subject themselves" and not also to being silent. Genesis 3 is part of the Law, and "he shall rule over you" is close enough to "subject themselves" that my criticism is not justified.)
Why not just say “thus sayeth the Lord” in I Timothy 2? That's really all that's going on anyway. Why must Paul use irrational arguments to try and defend the rationality of his view of gender roles?
First, I would like to draw a distinction between two easily confused words: irrational, and non-rational. By non-rational I just mean anything that isn't logic. By irrational, I mean things that try to make sense and fail. “I believe in the Trinity” is non-rational. “I'm convinced the Trinity makes perfect sense” is irrational. While there are of course problems with being non-rational, I should note that to begin thinking one must make the non-rational assumption that one is capable of thinking and logic is in some sense true – non-rationality is often necessary. Of course, I consider “more” non-rationality to be bad, but that's not what I'm going after here. I'm going after irrationality in Paul. In the context of instructions on worship, he writes
I Timothy 2:11-14 “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”
I'll suppose for the sake of argument that Paul's command for women not to speak or have authority over a man [in church] is not unfair and merely critique the logic behind the command. If Paul had just said “do it this way, because I'm Paul, and God is speaking through me – do what God says” as he does in I Corinthians 15:34-37, this would be non-rational. (This is a rational argument for why you should obey, but a non-rational argument for why is it commanded.) This would cause all the usual gender role issues, but I wouldn't have had this particular problem with the chapter.
The problem here is that Paul tries to explain the rationality of the instruction, and it doesn't work. His first reason given is that Adam was formed first. What does that have to do with anything? In the second creation account at least, animals were formed before Eve, but this would make a horrible first step in arguing that animals should rule over women. 35-year-old women were formed before 34-year-old men, but seniority still makes for a poor argument that the latter should not be permitted to have authority over the former. Even this seniority argument is better than Paul's because at least the person who is older was actually formed first. Women alive today were not formed after men who are alive today. At best, Adam having been formed first justifies why Adam should be over Eve, not why men should be over women.
The second reason Paul gives is that Eve was the one who was deceived. This is a very strange accusation. Paul is implying that Adam wasn't deceived, or was at least less deceived than Eve. If they both sinned, this would mean that Eve's sin had more to do with being innocently wrong, whereas Adam's sin had more to do with willfully choosing wrong in the face of knowing what was right. If Eve was the one who was deceived, does this not mean Adam's sin was the greater one? I'd prefer a leader who is sometimes wrong to a leader who sees the right thing to do and doesn't do it.
(Update, 11/1/08: As has been pointed out to me, Eve was deceived. A recap should be 1) Eve understands what actions are sin. 2) The snake deceives her into thinking that sin pays. 3) Eve sins knowing full well she is sinning but while deceived into thinking the results will be favorable.)
Furthermore, Paul doesn't even mention that fact that Adam had anything to do with what went wrong. He talks of Eve being deceived and becoming a sinner and just leaves it at that – as if Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden due to Eve's sin alone. Genesis 3 provides a different picture. Eve eats the fruit, brings it to Adam, and only after they both eat does the narrator tell us their eyes were opened. Adam ate the fruit before Eve's eyes were opened – it's like Genesis is going out of its way to make them share the blame. But Paul merely takes up Adam's banner of “blame the woman.” From this perspective, “Eve was the one who is deceived” is a perfectly logical accusation. It's her fault. Paul argues as if
Perhaps Paul is not trying to make his own argument regarding the reason for gender roles, but is merely referring back to Eve's curse in Genesis 3:16. If so, this is quite a clumsy reference. Also notice that this curse is Adam over Eve. Taking this to husband over wives is not explicit, but is one reasonable interpretation. Paul takes this one step further by saying men over women. Furthermore, men could be over women without revoking women's right to speak. Elders are over younger men and yet younger men still get to talk. What is his justification? He merely fakes an answer by giving the justification for the lesser command of Adam over Eve.
In a similar passage, I Corinthians 14:34-35, Paul gives another reason “The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.”
(Update, 11/21: As has been pointed out to me, "as the Law also says" likely refers to "subject themselves" and not also to being silent. Genesis 3 is part of the Law, and "he shall rule over you" is close enough to "subject themselves" that my criticism is not justified.)
Why not just say “thus sayeth the Lord” in I Timothy 2? That's really all that's going on anyway. Why must Paul use irrational arguments to try and defend the rationality of his view of gender roles?
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Matthew, the Colt, and the Donkey
Matthew 21:2-5: “[Jesus said] to them, 'Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied there and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to Me. If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, 'The Lord has need of them,' and immediately he will send them.' This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:
'SAY TO THE DAUGHTER OF ZION, 'BEHOLD YOUR KING IS COMING TO YOU, GENTLE, AND MOUNTED ON A DONKEY, EVEN ON A COLT, THE FOAL OF A BEAST OF BURDEN.''”
The first thing to notice is that Matthew is telling us about a colt and donkey, while Zechariah 9:9 mentions a colt and donkey as well. That's probably not a coincidence.
However, Zechariah was actually talking about one animal, not two. The first part of the prophecy shares the surprise that their king would ride a mere donkey rather than a horse. In the second part, the word “even” is adding to this surprise; the extra detail of its age makes it even less majestic.
The authors of Mark, Luke, and John seem to have figured this out, as all three refer to the one animal on which Jesus rode. Mark 11:2-7 and Luke 19:30-35 say it was a colt. John 12:14-15 says Jesus found a “little donkey” and then paraphrases Zechariah 9:9 to say that a donkey's colt was to be ridden. This is a double affirmation, as John used little donkey and donkey's colt interchangeably, and also thought that a paraphrase of Zechariah involving one animal was accurate.
So if Zechariah was talking about one animal, and it's not a coincidence that both he and Matthew mention a colt and donkey, what are the alternatives?
One possibility is that the author of Matthew was intentionally describing Palm Sunday in a way that made Jesus look like a fulfillment of prophecy as much as possible. He wanted people to believe that Jesus fulfilled prophecies, and this was more important to him than limiting the details of his story to things that actually happened. The beginning of Matthew is already sufficient to reveal that convincing people was more important than not saying false things about the OT. Here, I'm suggesting that convincing people was also more important than not saying false things about the events in Jesus' life.
Another possible source of the story is poor reasoning that does not involve intentional deception. Suppose Jesus actually rode on a colt, and an early Christian heard this story. But then they looked at Zechariah, and mistakenly thought that it spoke of two animals. Here's their train of thought: “Zechariah is true, Zechariah prophesied about a colt and a donkey, therefore Jesus' triumphal entry involved both a colt and a donkey.” And so when the story was retold, a second animal was added. With this possibility, the person who made up the detail sincerely believes it to be true, and the author of Matthew need not be the one who misunderstand Zechariah.
This is a concern whenever a prophecy's fulfillment is only reported by people who were already certain that the prophecy was true. The prophecy itself is enough to convince a true believer that its fulfillment occurred. This results in a story that the teller honestly believes, despite that fact that they observed nothing.
'SAY TO THE DAUGHTER OF ZION, 'BEHOLD YOUR KING IS COMING TO YOU, GENTLE, AND MOUNTED ON A DONKEY, EVEN ON A COLT, THE FOAL OF A BEAST OF BURDEN.''”
The first thing to notice is that Matthew is telling us about a colt and donkey, while Zechariah 9:9 mentions a colt and donkey as well. That's probably not a coincidence.
However, Zechariah was actually talking about one animal, not two. The first part of the prophecy shares the surprise that their king would ride a mere donkey rather than a horse. In the second part, the word “even” is adding to this surprise; the extra detail of its age makes it even less majestic.
The authors of Mark, Luke, and John seem to have figured this out, as all three refer to the one animal on which Jesus rode. Mark 11:2-7 and Luke 19:30-35 say it was a colt. John 12:14-15 says Jesus found a “little donkey” and then paraphrases Zechariah 9:9 to say that a donkey's colt was to be ridden. This is a double affirmation, as John used little donkey and donkey's colt interchangeably, and also thought that a paraphrase of Zechariah involving one animal was accurate.
So if Zechariah was talking about one animal, and it's not a coincidence that both he and Matthew mention a colt and donkey, what are the alternatives?
One possibility is that the author of Matthew was intentionally describing Palm Sunday in a way that made Jesus look like a fulfillment of prophecy as much as possible. He wanted people to believe that Jesus fulfilled prophecies, and this was more important to him than limiting the details of his story to things that actually happened. The beginning of Matthew is already sufficient to reveal that convincing people was more important than not saying false things about the OT. Here, I'm suggesting that convincing people was also more important than not saying false things about the events in Jesus' life.
Another possible source of the story is poor reasoning that does not involve intentional deception. Suppose Jesus actually rode on a colt, and an early Christian heard this story. But then they looked at Zechariah, and mistakenly thought that it spoke of two animals. Here's their train of thought: “Zechariah is true, Zechariah prophesied about a colt and a donkey, therefore Jesus' triumphal entry involved both a colt and a donkey.” And so when the story was retold, a second animal was added. With this possibility, the person who made up the detail sincerely believes it to be true, and the author of Matthew need not be the one who misunderstand Zechariah.
This is a concern whenever a prophecy's fulfillment is only reported by people who were already certain that the prophecy was true. The prophecy itself is enough to convince a true believer that its fulfillment occurred. This results in a story that the teller honestly believes, despite that fact that they observed nothing.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Matthew and the OT (one more problem)
In my earlier post I missed the clearest case of an error on the part of Matthew.
Matthew 27:9-10 “Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: 'AND THEY TOOK THE THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER, THE PRICE OF THE ONE WHOSE PRICE HAD BEEN SET by the sons of Israel;
AND THEY GAVE THEM FOR THE POTTER'S FIELD, AS THE LORD DIRECTED ME.'”
The closest thing we have to this is in the OT is Jeremiah 11:12-13 “I said to them, 'If it is good in your sight, give me my wages; but if not, never mind!' So they weighed out thirty shekels of silver as my wages. Then the LORD said to me, 'Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them.' So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the LORD.”
This is quite a loose quotation, and there is no reason to think that that it's a prophesy at all. But it does at least answer the question of what Matthew is talking about. The verses talk about thirty shekels of silver as being the price of the Lord, so it seems that the question of where it comes from is answered.
However, before this problem is declared solved, I should mention that I lied. The OT verses I quoted are not Jeremiah 11:12-13. They are Zechariah 11:12-13.
One proposed solution to other OT quotations that don't line up is the Holy Spirit. Perhaps He was telling Matthew insights into the meaning of the OT that were not necessarily clear in the OT alone. This verse makes it clear that Matthew was just wrong.
Matthew 27:9-10 “Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: 'AND THEY TOOK THE THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER, THE PRICE OF THE ONE WHOSE PRICE HAD BEEN SET by the sons of Israel;
AND THEY GAVE THEM FOR THE POTTER'S FIELD, AS THE LORD DIRECTED ME.'”
The closest thing we have to this is in the OT is Jeremiah 11:12-13 “I said to them, 'If it is good in your sight, give me my wages; but if not, never mind!' So they weighed out thirty shekels of silver as my wages. Then the LORD said to me, 'Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them.' So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the LORD.”
This is quite a loose quotation, and there is no reason to think that that it's a prophesy at all. But it does at least answer the question of what Matthew is talking about. The verses talk about thirty shekels of silver as being the price of the Lord, so it seems that the question of where it comes from is answered.
However, before this problem is declared solved, I should mention that I lied. The OT verses I quoted are not Jeremiah 11:12-13. They are Zechariah 11:12-13.
One proposed solution to other OT quotations that don't line up is the Holy Spirit. Perhaps He was telling Matthew insights into the meaning of the OT that were not necessarily clear in the OT alone. This verse makes it clear that Matthew was just wrong.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Matthew vs. The Old Testament
One defense of Christianity is that it spread even in an environment that was ignorant to Old Testament prophecy.
I will argue that ignorance of the Old Testament makes one more open to Christianity. Of course, I'm not making a universal statement, and I'm not claiming the converse that Christians are ignorant of the OT. I'm evaluating the strength of the case made in the NT that the OT predicted Jesus' life and concluding that it is so bad, that the NT would be more likely to cause someone to accept Jesus if they had never read the OT.
Matt. 1:1-17 (genealogies)
Matthew's genealogies contain gaps when compared to the OT. The apologists answer is that Matthew was being loose with “father of” (compare to “Jesus son of David”) but was instead going for something numerological with the 14-14-14 pattern. That's reasonable so far. But when you count the names, you get 41, not 42 = 14 +14 + 14. And it's not a matter of counting grandfather-father-son as two or three generations – this alternate method of counting would give 40. When the genealogies are supposedly fixed around a numerological point, having the wrong number is quite an error. That's even an embarrassing mistake for a book written by a person without the Holy Spirit.
If you've never read the OT, I Chronicles 3:11-12 in particular, no explanation is needed. “Joram the father of Uzziah;” how complicated could it be? The idea that Matthew is neither inspired, nor particularly good, is a conclusion more true to the text than the one offered by apologists.
I learned about this a couple years ago. Less than a month after, Matthew 1 came up in a missions class I was taking called Perspectives. The missionary was talking about how different cultures view the Bible differently. There was one tribe with which the missionaries were getting nowhere for quite a while. Then one day he read the genealogies of Matthew to the natives. Their reaction was something like, “What? You mean they kept track of every single ancestor for all that time? Jesus was real!” And so the entire tribe converted.
While most of the room was no doubt praising the wisdom of the Holy Spirit for writing the Bible in such a way that all nations could come to believe, my thoughts were far different. What would I do if I was that missionary? Would I tell them that we know for certain that names are missing, and “father of” doesn't really mean “father of”? How long would I wait to translate I Chronicles? My emotions won the day, so I praised God and tried not to think. Emotions fade, but reasons never go away.
Matt. 1:23 “BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US.” (BibleGateway's NASB uses all caps for OT quotation – that's not me shouting.)
is quoting
Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.”
Picky details: when did Mary, or anyone else, call his name Immanuel? Half the prophecy only happens in quotation of the prophecy. The other half, that the mother will be a virgin, is unclear in Isaiah.
More relevant details: Isaiah 7:16 makes it clear that it's supposed to be fulfilled in the time of Isaiah's listeners. “For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.” As the king of Israel and the king of Assyria were dreaded by Judah, it is quite clear that Isaiah 7 is talking about kings in the present, thus events in the not-too-distant future.
Matt. 2:5-6 “They said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea; for this is what has been written by the prophet:
AND YOU, BETHLEHEM, LAND OF JUDAH,
ARE BY NO MEANS LEAST AMONG THE LEADERS OF JUDAH;
FOR OUT OF YOU SHALL COME FORTH A RULER
WHO WILL SHEPHERD MY PEOPLE ISRAEL.'"”
is (mis)quoting
Micah 5:2 “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel”
In Micah, it looks like Bethlehem Ephrathah (not to be confused with Bethlehem) is a clan, not a town. Also, it does not say “Messiah,” but “ruler.” What will this ruler do? Micah 5:5-6 answers this question; he will defeat the Assyrians. If Micah 5 is Messianic, it's hard to blame the Jews for expecting the Messiah to be a military leader.
This problem is a double problem (although the second is only a problem if the first is as well.) According to Matthew, when the chief priests and scribes were asked where the King of the Jews would be born, they answered Bethlehem. Thus, Matthew claims that not only can we see the prophecy of the Messiah being born in Bethlehem when looking back, but we can also see it looking forward. We have copies of Micah, so we know that it could not have been seen looking forward. This not only means Matthew misused Micah, but it also means that the story of the magi looks fictitious for purely biblical reasons, or at least the detail about how they found out that Bethlehem was the destination.
Matt. 2:15 “This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON."”
is quoting Hosea 11:1, which is talking about Israel's escape from Egypt.
Matt. 2:17-18 “Then what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled:
"A VOICE WAS HEARD IN RAMAH,
WEEPING AND GREAT MOURNING,
RACHEL WEEPING FOR HER CHILDREN;
AND SHE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED,
BECAUSE THEY WERE NO MORE."”
is quoting Jeremiah 31:15, which is describing events that Jeremiah saw.
Matt. 2:23 “This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene."”
Where? Remember that the point I'm arguing is not merely that the NT is wrong, but also that the NT's case that the OT foresaw the NT is strongest when viewed by someone who hasn't read the OT.
Matt 8:17 “[Jesus' healing of the sick] was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."”
is quoting
Isaiah 53:4's: “Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried;”
Isaiah 53:4 says he is suffering for us, while Matthew's paraphrase sounds like Jesus is taking away the suffering and no one is suffering in our place. Had Matthew argued that Isaiah 53 foresaw the NT's theology of the significance of the crucification, he would have had a better case. Matthew did not make this case.
Matt. 13:35 “I WILL UTTER THINGS HIDDEN SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD”
misquotes Psalm 78:2 “I will utter dark sayings of old.” Matthew sounds like new revelation, while Psalms sounds like repetition of things known for a long time.
The people who should be most moved by the elucidation of prophecy are the people most familiar with the OT prophecy, the Jews. The Jew mostly reject the NT then and now. Looking at the arguments made by Matthew, it is easy to see why. The people most likely to be convinced by Matthew's claims of prophecy are the people who don't bother to look up the OT verses, and just take Matthew's word for it.
Here, I have heard a couple different Christian answers. Matthew was using either Midrash or Pesher (I don't remember which), a contemporary hermeneutic, and thus Matthew should be interpreted as the original audience would have in light of this hermeneutic. This doesn't answer the objection at all. That's like saying that parts of the Bible were written at a time when people didn't care what was true, thus parts of the Bible express an indifference to the truth. It certainly explains why the Bible looks like a work of man, but it doesn't explain how God fits in. Meanwhile, the alternative view that the Bible is a work of man that is not terribly good is quite consistent with what I see.
The other answer is that the OT was making dual prophecies, or prophecies in situations where the original author didn't know he was prophesying. But should not words be taken to mean what the speaker intended when the intent is clear? Also, the explanation just does not make sense when you look back at what the prophecies actually said. The clearest problem is in Isaiah 7:14-16. The prophecies is not just vague words that fits around multiple situations. They are clear, and clearly not about Jesus. “Two meanings” is a cop-out for not liking the one clear meaning. They could be less clear and still sufficiently clear to be valid proof-texts for major pieces of doctrine.
I will argue that ignorance of the Old Testament makes one more open to Christianity. Of course, I'm not making a universal statement, and I'm not claiming the converse that Christians are ignorant of the OT. I'm evaluating the strength of the case made in the NT that the OT predicted Jesus' life and concluding that it is so bad, that the NT would be more likely to cause someone to accept Jesus if they had never read the OT.
Matt. 1:1-17 (genealogies)
Matthew's genealogies contain gaps when compared to the OT. The apologists answer is that Matthew was being loose with “father of” (compare to “Jesus son of David”) but was instead going for something numerological with the 14-14-14 pattern. That's reasonable so far. But when you count the names, you get 41, not 42 = 14 +14 + 14. And it's not a matter of counting grandfather-father-son as two or three generations – this alternate method of counting would give 40. When the genealogies are supposedly fixed around a numerological point, having the wrong number is quite an error. That's even an embarrassing mistake for a book written by a person without the Holy Spirit.
If you've never read the OT, I Chronicles 3:11-12 in particular, no explanation is needed. “Joram the father of Uzziah;” how complicated could it be? The idea that Matthew is neither inspired, nor particularly good, is a conclusion more true to the text than the one offered by apologists.
I learned about this a couple years ago. Less than a month after, Matthew 1 came up in a missions class I was taking called Perspectives. The missionary was talking about how different cultures view the Bible differently. There was one tribe with which the missionaries were getting nowhere for quite a while. Then one day he read the genealogies of Matthew to the natives. Their reaction was something like, “What? You mean they kept track of every single ancestor for all that time? Jesus was real!” And so the entire tribe converted.
While most of the room was no doubt praising the wisdom of the Holy Spirit for writing the Bible in such a way that all nations could come to believe, my thoughts were far different. What would I do if I was that missionary? Would I tell them that we know for certain that names are missing, and “father of” doesn't really mean “father of”? How long would I wait to translate I Chronicles? My emotions won the day, so I praised God and tried not to think. Emotions fade, but reasons never go away.
Matt. 1:23 “BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US.” (BibleGateway's NASB uses all caps for OT quotation – that's not me shouting.)
is quoting
Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.”
Picky details: when did Mary, or anyone else, call his name Immanuel? Half the prophecy only happens in quotation of the prophecy. The other half, that the mother will be a virgin, is unclear in Isaiah.
More relevant details: Isaiah 7:16 makes it clear that it's supposed to be fulfilled in the time of Isaiah's listeners. “For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.” As the king of Israel and the king of Assyria were dreaded by Judah, it is quite clear that Isaiah 7 is talking about kings in the present, thus events in the not-too-distant future.
Matt. 2:5-6 “They said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea; for this is what has been written by the prophet:
AND YOU, BETHLEHEM, LAND OF JUDAH,
ARE BY NO MEANS LEAST AMONG THE LEADERS OF JUDAH;
FOR OUT OF YOU SHALL COME FORTH A RULER
WHO WILL SHEPHERD MY PEOPLE ISRAEL.'"”
is (mis)quoting
Micah 5:2 “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel”
In Micah, it looks like Bethlehem Ephrathah (not to be confused with Bethlehem) is a clan, not a town. Also, it does not say “Messiah,” but “ruler.” What will this ruler do? Micah 5:5-6 answers this question; he will defeat the Assyrians. If Micah 5 is Messianic, it's hard to blame the Jews for expecting the Messiah to be a military leader.
This problem is a double problem (although the second is only a problem if the first is as well.) According to Matthew, when the chief priests and scribes were asked where the King of the Jews would be born, they answered Bethlehem. Thus, Matthew claims that not only can we see the prophecy of the Messiah being born in Bethlehem when looking back, but we can also see it looking forward. We have copies of Micah, so we know that it could not have been seen looking forward. This not only means Matthew misused Micah, but it also means that the story of the magi looks fictitious for purely biblical reasons, or at least the detail about how they found out that Bethlehem was the destination.
Matt. 2:15 “This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON."”
is quoting Hosea 11:1, which is talking about Israel's escape from Egypt.
Matt. 2:17-18 “Then what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled:
"A VOICE WAS HEARD IN RAMAH,
WEEPING AND GREAT MOURNING,
RACHEL WEEPING FOR HER CHILDREN;
AND SHE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED,
BECAUSE THEY WERE NO MORE."”
is quoting Jeremiah 31:15, which is describing events that Jeremiah saw.
Matt. 2:23 “This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene."”
Where? Remember that the point I'm arguing is not merely that the NT is wrong, but also that the NT's case that the OT foresaw the NT is strongest when viewed by someone who hasn't read the OT.
Matt 8:17 “[Jesus' healing of the sick] was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."”
is quoting
Isaiah 53:4's: “Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried;”
Isaiah 53:4 says he is suffering for us, while Matthew's paraphrase sounds like Jesus is taking away the suffering and no one is suffering in our place. Had Matthew argued that Isaiah 53 foresaw the NT's theology of the significance of the crucification, he would have had a better case. Matthew did not make this case.
Matt. 13:35 “I WILL UTTER THINGS HIDDEN SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD”
misquotes Psalm 78:2 “I will utter dark sayings of old.” Matthew sounds like new revelation, while Psalms sounds like repetition of things known for a long time.
The people who should be most moved by the elucidation of prophecy are the people most familiar with the OT prophecy, the Jews. The Jew mostly reject the NT then and now. Looking at the arguments made by Matthew, it is easy to see why. The people most likely to be convinced by Matthew's claims of prophecy are the people who don't bother to look up the OT verses, and just take Matthew's word for it.
Here, I have heard a couple different Christian answers. Matthew was using either Midrash or Pesher (I don't remember which), a contemporary hermeneutic, and thus Matthew should be interpreted as the original audience would have in light of this hermeneutic. This doesn't answer the objection at all. That's like saying that parts of the Bible were written at a time when people didn't care what was true, thus parts of the Bible express an indifference to the truth. It certainly explains why the Bible looks like a work of man, but it doesn't explain how God fits in. Meanwhile, the alternative view that the Bible is a work of man that is not terribly good is quite consistent with what I see.
The other answer is that the OT was making dual prophecies, or prophecies in situations where the original author didn't know he was prophesying. But should not words be taken to mean what the speaker intended when the intent is clear? Also, the explanation just does not make sense when you look back at what the prophecies actually said. The clearest problem is in Isaiah 7:14-16. The prophecies is not just vague words that fits around multiple situations. They are clear, and clearly not about Jesus. “Two meanings” is a cop-out for not liking the one clear meaning. They could be less clear and still sufficiently clear to be valid proof-texts for major pieces of doctrine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)