Changing the Bible?
Occasionally we will respond to a post, blog, or question someone has. This week Jacob found an article that needed a Biblical response.
You can read the original article here, or continue reading to see the parts of the article that Jacob is responding to. If you have any questions send them to redeemingfamily@gmail.com for an answer.
To give a brief overview, the above-mentioned post is speaking about changing the Bible. His premise is that Jesus changed the Bible, therefore there are things that can be truer than scripture. As a Pastor, he is pondering the question of what he would change in the Bible and how would it look if we changed scripture.
There is much to think about and respond to here for those of us who are servants of the Lord in the preaching ministry. The author of the article states
"Although it makes me uncomfortable, I can’t get away from the nagging feeling that Jesus is appealing to a truth that is higher and deeper and, dare I say, truer, than scripture. My evangelical and inerrantist roots cringe at putting those last three words together: “truer than scripture.” And yet it’s there in black and white that, in service of some deeper truth, Jesus does make a significant change to scripture.”
This individual displays gross negligence in hermeneutical awareness. Christ fulfilled the law, he didn't change it. Quibbling over words says some, essential distinctions say I. The deeper truth is covenantal fulfillment of God's promise, rather than....something, whatever this gentleman is proposing.
“As a pastor in the 21st century, I find myself asking a critical question about Jesus’s handling of the Shema: Do we get to change scripture like he did?”
Again, I would say Jesus didn't change scripture. There was nothing wrong with the Shema to demand a shift, rebranding, or distance from the Shema. Jesus here extends and furthers (towards an eschatological goal) the law. He's preparing and signaling a tie back into Jeremiah 31, connecting how he will fulfill the requirements of the Old Covenant and establish the fuller New Covenant. Does this author think that the same God-man who said Matthew 5:18, meant to "change" the law?
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), Mt 5:17–20)
Then the writer continues -
“Each day I try to follow Jesus (and encourage others to do so) and that means trying to do the things he did.”
Pretty sloppy here. I'm with the writer in that we seek to follow the Lord Jesus, but we can never replicate or duplicate his specific works accomplished in his offices of prophet, priest, and king. If by "trying to do the things he did" the author means to follow God's Word, I agree. Yet we can only follow Jesus in this manner as we see the original intended message through a thorough exegesis of the passage. To change a text from its original intended meaning isn't something we should do, lest we tread into the practices of the serpent in Genesis 3. If by this the author intends that we in some way fulfill scripture in the way Jesus did, again we are not capable of such a task as Christ alone was the perfect, final, ultimate fulfillment of prophet, priest, and king.
One robust example comes immediately to mind. Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz has done this as well as anyone in her simple, artful, and profound renaming of ‘the kingdom of God’ as ‘the kindom of God.’ By changing a single letter in the English she shifts away from both patriarchy and militarism towards a familial image that captures and enhances the communal aspect of Jesus’s original teaching.
I think this gentleman would greatly benefit from a lengthy study on the topic of translating philosophies. While various approaches aim to hit some level of dynamic equivalence, or conversational presentation using lingua franca of the day, to say that "Jesus didn't mean Kingdom" when the text we have received clearly states such (καὶ λέγων· Μετανοεῖτε, ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν. Michael W. Holmes, The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Lexham Press; Society of Biblical Literature, 2011–2013), Mt 3:2.) is to move beyond questions of translation and into questions of extensive hermeneutical interpretation. "Kindom" is not a faithful lexical representation of "kingdom" in any way shape or form, nor does it have ground to stand on as being a more common linguistic feature today (I must be missing out on all the Gen Zers and TikTokers speaking of their Kindom clans on World of Warcraft, and their clash of Kindoms on their phones).
This piece also shows a woeful misunderstanding of a completed canon. This is besides any argument for continuations or cessations of apostolic gifts. This is just regarding the canon as it stood completed. Just because Christ expanded, and extended pieces of the Old Covenant in his teaching and establishing the New Covenant, doesn't mean we are to then extend or expand beyond the parameters Christ has laid out.
Several of the action points suggested by the author are not biblically rooted at all in any way that historic Christians would recognize, or many of our living brothers and sisters across the planet would recognize. Just.....really....strange. Then the author continues to go off the deep end with perversions of the trinity, and with suggesting (a relatively newish cult) a "red letter"-esque approach to reading the NT.
Also, as a final point, it is a confessional issue (at least for us in the CRCNA) that the Belgic states Hebrews was written by Paul. We can have some scholarly academic discussions on the merits or demerits of that, but this author is advocating for teaching/preaching specific points. We can't say that Hebrews was written by a woman and remain in harmony with our confessions - one or the other has got to change.
This is just a weird piece overall to come from someone of a confessionally reformed position. I think this is enough of the internet today for me. To quote Monty Python - let us not go to the internet, tis a silly place.
Posts You May Enjoy
