Christianity is often depicted as a ‘religion of the book’, however, this view is deeply problematic since the Book itself states that the ultimate unavailing of God’s self is to be seen in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is immensely important for a number of reasons, one of them being our interpretation of Scripture itself since it offers us a hermeneutical key for how to unlock the meaning of Scripture as a whole. Let me explain this a bit more thorough. If we take the author of the gospel of John seriously, then we are forced to conclude that ‘no one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known’ (Joh 1.18). From this follows that any image of who God is presented throughout Scripture that contradicts God’s self-revelation in and through Jesus Christ must be considered as a wrongful depiction, and the same is obviously true of any doctrinal statement. To conclude this brief thought I would like to say that Christianity is not a ‘religion of the book’, it is the ‘religion of Christ’. This doesn’t diminish the fact that our understanding of who God is can be derived from Scripture since it gives us the most comprehensive picture of Christ, but as I have pointed out, Scripture must be read through the lens given to us by Scripture itself.
26 Comments
Post a comment
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
- 120425–George Hach’s Inner Discipline’s Journal–Thursday | George Hach's Blog
- The Crown of Thorns « Freestyle Christianity
Hmmmm…I’m pretty sure that I’m not understanding you here.
I don’t know that I’ve ever heard or characterized Christianity as a “Religion of the Book”, though I remember being impressed in my World Religion class that Muhammad clearly protected Christians as people “of the Book” in the Quran.
This post seems to put the Source over the Message…am I right in this?
It might depend on what context one lives in, but I’m quite used to hearing people talk about the ‘religions of the book’, that is Judaism, Christianity and Islam. But if you compare Christianity with Islam, you will find that muslims makes claims that Christians doesn’t, or as I explain, at least shouldn’t. But fundamentalist Christians do make claims of ‘the infallible Word of God’, hence the post. Are we on the same page?
Ok. Following.
Perfect.
Good stuff. I’ve been conversing with a Muslim friend and he attempts to discredit Christianity by pointing out discrepancies in the synoptics. This is a deal breaker for him because for him, religion consists of reading and understanding a book. Christianity didn’t start with a book but with a message. When Paul uses the phrase “word of God,” he never means 66 books of the Bible because 27 of them had yet to be written or canonized and 39 were scarcely available. He means the simple gospel message which he states in just two verses – 1 Cor. 15:3-4.
So, I guess I’ve just sort of written my own post here but thanks for your thoughts.
There is no Christ without the book. It is not like we have historical sources of Jesus, his miracles, and his teachings. Are you saying that everything should be filtered through the lens of the four gospels? The structure and practices of the church are based on Paul’s, rather than Jesus’ teachings. What of those. I’m not sure how you would go about using Christ as the hermeneutic in practical terms, since we need some kind of hermeneutic to understand Christ.
This comment makes me a bit confused and I think that you have misunderstood the post. Maybe you will understand me better if you read my previous posts on hermeneutics.
Let me just say that my claim isn’t that we can perceive Christ objectively. Absolutely not! We must use our hermeneutical methods to reach conclusions on what he did, what he preached, what it meant, and so on. But that’s not the issue I adress in this post, rather I presuppose that we should always think critically on these matters. What I present in this post is simply a conclusion that derives from such a study of the Scripture.
Here’s a different take on the religion of “the Book” (the Holy Scriptures which “make us wise unto salvation”) from the Thirsty Theologian’s blog: http://thirstytheologian.com/ I think some of these more mature theologians of Reformed Protestantism have a better understanding of what’s at stake when the Divine inspiration of Scripture is questioned. All of the mainline churches are in the mess they are because the authority of the Bible was undermined (doubt – “Hast God said…?” – the serpent in the Garden). I know that’s true in my tradition, the Anglican (US -Episcopal Church, T.E.C.) Church.
Our experience with the person of Christ is synonymous with our experience with him in the reading of the Word of God. The “subjective” spiritual encounter with God and our study of the Bible are complimentary (not opposed) means of understanding and relating to the Holy One. Some more good resources on this can be had by searching articles available free on-line from the Trinitarian Bible Society (Bible translators & distributors). My 2 pence (cents) for what it’s worth. Not much, I know.
I don’t deny all claims you make in this comment and I don’t know if I should interpret that which you write as if you believe that I do. Anyway, you keep coming back to the issue of Scriptural inspiration and authority. I’m not arguing against you on that point but I think that we understand the meaning of these claims differently. So, to make this conversation a bit more interesting, why don’t you explain to me what you mean when you say that the Bible is inspired by God and that we should read it as such. It would also be helpful if you could explain to my why you believe what you believe about the Bible.
Oops! Here’s the post from Iain Murray, “Pentecost Today?”, that I intended to link: http://www.thirstytheologian.com/2012/04/25/the_foundation_removed.php
This might be of help: “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
from II Peter 1:19-21 via http://www.youversion.com See also these good passages: Romans 15:4 and Acts 17:1
The Bereans “…were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” Acts 17:11
That’s what I think we ought to do.
I already know that you can quote the Bible, but you haven’t answered my questions, not even close. I have done this many times with people and it doesn’t really amount to anything because you will just keep saying ‘the Bible says so’ but that’s not a good enough answer. I have written about the dangers of this approach before but to state it shortly again, this type of unreasoned understanding of Scripture leads to oppression. Of course the slave owners understood the Bible to support them in what they were doing, hence I say ‘what about the perspectives of the slaves?’ Of course John Piper understand Christianity to have a ‘masculine feel’… This is why I wrote this post, because if Jesus is understood as the ‘hermeneutical key’, then it’s impossible to defend any discrimination whatsoever. But since rich, western, white men have used power and force to defended their right to be the true interpreters–the one voice of Scripture–all other people have been discriminated.
It seems like big parts of Christianity claims that revelation started with the word of God (small w, that is Scriptures). Truth is that it started and continues with the Word of God (big W, that is Christ). Christ is called both the Word of God (The Logos, cataphatic revelation ) and the Wisdom of God (Sophia, apophatic revelation/mystery) and I believe that holy (whole) things (scriptures/sacraments) can only be recieved by holy (whole) people. We all know that that only One is Holy (Whole, without sin), that is Christ. So to understand His Word (to understand Him) we must use Him or rather be joined with Him, nothing or no one else will suffice in understanding His will. We can read His words becuase they are revelaed to us in a cataphatic manner but if we ignore Christ (the “hermeneutical key”) we will never have the Wisdom to know what they mean. How do we join Christ? He says it Himself (in Scriptures
– Follow me!
An astute observation. I think what confuses some people is the distinction between hermeneutics and exegesis. Before we can determine the contemporary — and the personal — relevance of scripture, we must discover scripture’s original, intended meaning. Only then will we have the proper context to understand scripture as Jesus would have us understand scripture. And yes, we should try to understand scripture as Jesus wants us to understand.
Does understanding scripture mean we only consider Jesus’ words significant. NO! Because all scripture is God inspired, all scripture provides us Jesus’ thoughts. That is, even though Jesus did not write the Bible, because He inspired it, we can rightly view Jesus is the author of the entire Bible.
Therefore, once we properly understand a passage’s original, intended meaning, it is perfectly proper to ask ourselves what understanding Jesus would want us gain from that passage. What does that passage tell us about Him? How can our understanding of that passage help us to better follow His example?
Reading the replies, I’m confused. If the holy text is to be interpreted through the ideology of a christ does it mean that god himself was not capable of delivering the message? The dichotomy between much of the Buddhist like message of Jesus and the god of Abraham is no small matter.
Indeed, we have many sources of information about religion in the time before Jesus and much of it would lead one to believe that the stories in the Christian holy texts are plagiarisms. This is problematic in that using the books as ‘the’ source of wisdom leads to abuse and oppression. It troubles me that some think Jesus as perfect and the offspring of a god through a virgin birth and all the other things that just about every other saviour figure from every other false religion did in those times. Basically the scriptures are telling us that Jesus is a plagiarism. Paul didn’t so much preach about Jesus as he preached about his version of being good and then using the Jesus story for authentication and authority.
Using the message of Jesus as a lens to view the rest of the holy texts can only lead one to believe that his supposed father is not the all good, all powerful, all knowing paragon of virtue that some try to tell us he was. If you read the books cover to cover the story basically shows us that Yahweh has more in common with Judge Dread than the meek mannered Jesus.
There is cause to believe that Yahweh was the god of war in the Jewish pantheon who had a wife, leaving Jesus to be a love child. I just can’t see how the Buddhist like message of Jesus gives you any good view of Yahweh or the rest of the Christian holy texts.
Yahweh failed to make good humans, failed to protect them from satan, failed to keep satan under control, failed to intervene appropriately in the lives of men so had to kill all life on the planet to cleanse it of sin, then failed to pick the right people to repopulate the earth. Yahweh even persecuted a faithful follower on the whim of a wager with satan. The old testament is a litany of Yahweh’s failures. Jesus would simply be one more on a long list of them. Clearly the holy texts are not good enough to further the whims of this god because through all history men have jumped at the chance to tell the story more correctly than all that have come before them… and your all powerful god lets them. Perhaps Yahweh is not so powerful, wise, or loving.
Sounds Lutheran so I like it!
What’s sad here is you do not seem to realize Jesus of the NT, is the same God of the OT! When you submit he is mild mannered in the NT, you over look that He is the same God as the one mentioned in OT. He is the same yesterday, today and forever! You should realize that God “did not strike first” the story of Noah and the Ark, God gave them 120 years in which to repent!
What do you mean when you say that God is the same yesterday, today and forever?
Jesus, Holy Spirit, Father Ie … God is one and the same! You do not have God one without the other. He nor his actions will change from yesterday, today and forever!
Well, I don’t agree with you and I would claim that this is not an understanding that derives from the Bible. Rather it is what you get when you read the Bible from an ancient greek philosophical perspective. I find this God you propose quite unsympathetic since, for example, a God who doesn’t change cannot morn with those who suffer or be angry with those who sin against other people. And I have no idea how you could explain the incarnation while maintaining your idea that God is this static being who doesn’t change. I could go on but I think that I have said enough.
I might ask who do you think John 1:1 refers to?
This is exactly what I’m talking about. John 1.1 does not support your claim unless you read it through a lens provided by greek philosophy, in this case Heraclitus. But don’t confuse the use of greek as a language with ontotheology because that would mean to ignore the fact that Jesus was a Jew.