No Private Interpretation VIII. Using the tools.

It has often bothered me as I have watched young people from Christian homes come to the university and loose their faith. I argued earlier that the Church has many times been too defensive and failed to “truth proof” our young people. I want to finish this series of posts on Biblical interpretation to show how the tools I am suggesting can be used to refute one of the more serious underminings that occur at the University and even in the “Church”. The deceptions can be subtle, since many of those who advocate them are fully sincere. Sincerely wrong, fully sincere but, in my opinion, deceived.

Much modern scholarship has anti supernatural presuppositions. It permeates everything from Science to Philosophy to Psychology to Sociology to Religious Studies etc. etc. For the most part, this is the right thing, but not if you are wanting to investigate the supernatural. So the starting point of much of these studies is the assumption that miracles simply don't happen. So when investigating a miracle “we must find an alternative explanation”. This presupposition must not be questioned, and anyway it is “obvious”, because you cannot explain miracles by Science (but see “I know too much Science to believe in God” June 2010). They don't tell you this is an underlying presupposition though, in fact they many not even know it. But as I have argued earlier all world views are held by faith (see “The faith of the atheist” July 2010). These anti supernatural presuppositions permeate not only University scholarship, but also many Seminaries and even Bible Schools. It all becomes very confusing when the “Church” is saying these things. We must not close our eyes to the existence of what, for what of a better phrase we could call “unbelieving believers”. It should not really surprise us, since we live in a culture of unbelief and 1. Even Jesus could do no mighty works because of unbelief (Mark 6:5), and 2. When the scriptures tell us not to be conformed to the World (Romans 12:1,2) it clearly implies that even the Church is in danger of doing just that!

Some of the stuff that comes even out of our seminaries then, can come across something like this. “Do you mean to tell me that you believe that God really parted the Red sea (Exodus 14:21). They will then tell you as “fact” that the Red sea is really the reed see, and it was 2 inches deep. How God managed to drown the whole of the Egyptian army in 2 inches of water is a bit of a mystery, but if you don't believe miracles can happen, then you have to come up with some other explanation. As I said earlier, its easier to believe that God can perform miracles when you have seen them and even been used to perform them in Jesus' name!

But I want to suggest that the central issue in the “miracle or not miracle” debate is resurrection. If you can disprove the resurrection, you have essentially demolished New Testament Christianity. One unbelieving explanation, with its accompanying interpretation of the Bible, might declare that the “resurrection” talked about in the Bible is not a resurrection of the body, but of the spirit. The “spirit of what Jesus said and did lived on”. What happened (in this explanation of things) is that the boys invented the story of the resurrection because they wanted to continue the cushy lifestyle they had enjoyed with Jesus. They carried on, the explanation continues, in the spirit of what had gone before. So the resurrection was not literal at all. It becomes difficult when such opinions come from a pulpit, claim to be what the Scripture is actually saying, and declare this to be the essence of Christianity.

This is just one of many theories put forward to explain away New Testament Christianity. Another is the so called “swoon” theory, that is Jesus did not really die, but fainted. But none of the suggested theories fit the facts. Concerning the swoon theory, we are asked to believe after the sever flogging Jesus received at the hands of the Romans (See Mel Gibson's “The passion of the Christ”), after the exhausting agony on the cross, after all the loss of blood and being laid in a dank tomb for three days, He suddenly revived, rolled away the huge stone from the mouth of His grave, overcame the guards put there to ensure the disciples would not steal the body, and appeared as the Lord of life. All in the natural. It takes more faith to believe that theory than to believe in the resurrection!

Concerning the “cushy life theory”, we are in fact asked to believe that with the possible exception of John all the boys were willing to die for this lie. Some cushy life! And these were the same boys who ran from the garden at the arrest, and who denied and even swore that they did not even know Jesus. These were the same boys who changed from a bunch of unlearned cowards into a band of bold evangelists who would defy death and arrest, and could speak eloquently enough to confound the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:13, 19). What was it that changed them? The best explanation, however unlikely it may seem to a skeptical world whose views as I have pointed out before are also based on faith, is that the story about Jesus rising from the dead is true.

But the main reason for bringing all of this up here, is to illustrate the tools of interpretation I have been advocating. In particular let us ask, “Is a spiritual resurrection a valid interpretation of the Scriptures?”
Our tools remember are the various expressions of the believing community across time and geography, with the primary documentation being the Bible. All the rest has to do with making sure we have correctly understood.

It has been said and it is true that the Bible is its own best interpreter. What do the Scriptures have to say about this question? Firstly Jesus really was dead. In John 19:34 we read that after the soldier pierced His side, blood and water poured out. I am told that the separation of blood and water is strong medical evidence of death. The empty tomb (John 20:5) shows the body was gone. In order to calm the boys (for they initially thought He was a ghost) Jesus asked for and ate a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb (Luke 24:42,43). Thomas who was absent at that time declares that “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.” When he is later convinced, he falls down and declares that Jesus is “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:24,25). The fact mentioned earlier that, with the possible exception of John, the disciples all died for their faith, is strong evidence that they were really convinced of that to which they testified, and which formed the basis of the Apostolic teaching (i.e. Acts 2:22-32, 42). That this is how the early church understood the resurrection is confirmed by the early church fathers (Google “early church fathers”), and in fact down through history by the fruit of transformed and transforming lives in those who embrace this truth. No that the resurrection was a “spiritual resurrection” fits none of the facts, and we must reject it as a possible interpretation/explanation of New Testament Christianity.

I earlier raised the question do I take the Bible literally? Well many parts I do. Do I take the part about the resurrection literally? I answer a resounding yes. I see the fruit in my own life, of what I have believed (I am not claiming that that I have arrived. If you think I am bad now, you should have seen be before the Lord started working on me!). I see the fruit of this faith in the lives of others who similarly believe and surrender and so begun the process of being transformed. I see the fruit of revival down through history as things like the abolition of slavery, of child labour and the like that followed revival. I see the fruit that remains even in our post Christian era, as we still value justice and equity and freedom, even the freedom to disagree (though we are rapidly loosing this!). So we can have confidence that we are on the right tack because “By their fruit you will know them” (Matthew 7:20).

Many who reject Christianity fail to realize (or refuse to recognize, as they reinterpret history in terms of their presuppositions) this legacy and the positive influence of the Bible on our Justice systems, and many other places, for example in the positive gains of the Women's movement that have their genesis in the (ahead of His time) way that Jesus dealt with the fairer sex. After all in Christ there is neither "slave nor free, nor is there male and female..."(Galatians 3:28).

I close this month's posts with the Gospel invitation. He who has ears to hear, let him hear, she who has eyes to see let her see and understand. If the son shall set you free you will be free indeed. But he who sins is the slave thereof. We are here to choose our eternal destiny. And we choose it by receiving or not what Jesus did for us at the Cross. God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to eternal life (John 1:11; 3:16-21). Make no mistake about it, we do choose. The choice to put it off is a choice, the choice to ignore it all, is a choice. The Bible tells us to “Choose you this day whom you will serve”. But like Israel of old this generation has “made a lie our refuge, and falsehood our hiding place” (Isaiah 28:15). But as for me and as many as will follow, we will serve the Lord! (Joshua 24:15). So what does He require, what must we do to work the works of God? "This is the work of God that you believe in Him (i.e. Jesus) whom He has sent” (John 6:28, 29), for “without faith, it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11:6).

Have you received Christ as your Lord and Saviour? If not will you do it now? Just ask Him into your life, surrender it all to Him, and you will enter the Kingdom. You will not regret it. I would love to hear that you have, or to speak more with you. My email is at the top of the blog. May the Lord bless you.