.gif)
A while back, I wrote about the need for Biblical interpretation, and used The U.S. Constitution as an example. Here’s a snippet:
“The United States Constitution was written 223 years ago (I confess, I had to look that up). It was written in English. It is fairly short – seven articles and twenty-seven amendments. You can easily get through it in an afternoon. It is the shortest constitution still in use by a modern nation (thanks, Wikipedia). It is one genre – a legal document. Its language is purposely straightforward - meant to be clear and easy to interpret. It is the supreme law of the United States.
Yet…
As the supreme law of the United States, it requires interpretation. We have nine people whose only job is to interpret those seven articles and twenty-seven amendments. And we don’t let just anybody do that job. We prefer to have people who have experience with law to interpret the supreme law of the land.
Now think about this:
The books that make up the Bible were written somewhere between 3000 to 2000 years ago. They were written in Hebrew and Greek (and a little Aramaic). It is composed of 66 books (more if you are Catholic), of varying genres, including historical narrative, legal material, parables, poetry, prophecy (a much misunderstood genre), letters, gospels, and one apocalypse (the most misunderstood genre of all). And believers assert that through this book it is possible to hear the eternal message of God Himself, the supreme Guide to human life.
Can you see how it might require interpretation? Life isn’t as simple as “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it,” anyway, but especially so if you haven’t understood what the Bible says in the first place.”
With that said, there is another correspondence between the constitution and the Bible. But first, an observation.
There are two groups of people that talk about the Bible as though God sat down at a typewriter and said “Lo, I shall write The Book of Everything,” and then, as one of my professors used to say, threw it down from heaven and knocked a monk off a donkey.
The first group are (usually) well-meaning Christians who approach the Bible that way because they believe it to be the inspired word of God, and believe that is the only faithful way to manifest that belief. The second group are atheists and agnostics. Both see the Bible as speaking with one voice, the first as proof of the will of God on any given issue, the latter as proof that evil and idiocy march about in the world under the mask of being the will of God.
The trouble with both views is that the Bible is more complex than that. But first, the constitution.
In their wisdom, the forefathers planned a system for amending the supreme law of the land. They were smart enough to know that they didn’t know everything, and couldn’t predict the future. So they came up with a way for succeeding generations to alter the supreme law of the land, while still holding to the basic framework of what had gone before – in this case, representative democracy.
And, get this. Unlike most national constitutions, when an amendment is made, the original text is not changed. The 18th amendment (alcohol bad!) is still in the constitution. It is superceded by the 21st amendment, but not cut out. There are other examples we could find, but that’s the easiest, most familiar one. Why do we do it that way? To remind us where we came from? To remind us who we were? To remind us of what we thought was a good idea at the time?
I propose to you that the Bible contains within itself a form of amendment. Take, for example, the Levitical law, the popular whipping boy for atheist and agnostic observers of the Bible. This is the nuts and bolts of the covenant with Israel. The supreme law of the land. And then there’s the prophets. Leviticus makes a BIG deal about the Sabbath day, festivals, and all kinds of offerings. Then Amos comes along and says (speaking on behalf of God) “I hate, I reject your festivals, nor do I delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer up to Me burnt offerings and grain offerings; I will not accept them…But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.” (Amos 5:22, 24)
Both Leviticus and Amos are answering the question “What does God require of us?” They give different, but related answers. Amos doesn’t suggest that God wants to abolish Jewish festivals – but he suggests that there are things that God desires more. The supreme law is re-interpreted, while still holding to the basic framework of what had gone before.
And for Christians, things really get interesting in the New Testament. The Word becomes flesh, and starts amending things left and right like some sort of super-prophet. “Moses said this, but I say…” and all sorts of other disturbing things. Flipping over the tables in the temple was an acted-out amendment (You won’t need THIS old dump anymore!) Quite scandalous – but always maintaining the basic framework, and leaving the original text in place.
A very old Christian heresy was that there was the mean old God of the Old Testament and the nice God of the New. Jesus, the walking Amendment, doesn’t let us do that. Jesus came, He said, not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. Jesus is the climax of the story that God has been telling from the beginning (and before the beginning). His story is the story of Israel. And Israel’s story is the story of God in the world. And both stories still matter. But not all pieces of the whole still hold the same authority over the people of God that they once might have - because of the amendments.
As much as we might like it to be, for whatever reason, the Bible is not a one-shot, one-size fits all document. It is complex and involved – like the God we believe speaks through it.
