New Voice Media | Associated Baptist Press
     
 
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Home arrow Opinion arrow Opinion: Was Jesus a racist?
 
Opinion: Was Jesus a racist? Print E-mail
By Miguel De La Torre   
Monday, February 23, 2009

Miguel De La Torre
(ABP) -- Our faith tells us that anyone can come to Jesus. The evangelistic message is that Jesus will turn no one away. We can come just as we are, ill and diseased. All who seek healing will find salvation and liberation in the arms of Jesus, for his unconditional love accepts everyone -- regardless of their race or ethnicity.

Or does it? Matthew 15:21-28 recounts the story of a Canaanite woman who came to Jesus desperately seeking a healing for her daughter.

The Canaanites during Jesus' time were seen by Jews as being a mixed race of inferior people, much in the same way that some Euro-Americans view Hispanics today, specifically the undocumented. The Canaanites of old -- like Latino/as of our time -- did not belong. They were no better than "dogs."

For this reason Jesus' response to the Canaanite woman is troublesome. When she appealed to Jesus to heal her sick child, our Lord responded by saying: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. It is not good to take the bread of the children and throw it to the dogs."

No matter how much I try to redeem the text, I cannot ignore the fact that Jesus called this woman of color a dog! I am forced to ask the uncomfortable question: Was Jesus a racist?

In this story, I find myself relating more with the Canaanite woman than with Jesus.

When Arizona recently passed Proposition 200, a template for subsequent legislation throughout the country that restricts or denies medical and other services to immigrants who lack documentation, I was reminded that we are the dogs of society.

When congressman and former presidential candidate Tom Tancredo states that Hispanics are "coming to kill you, and you, and me, and my children and my grandchildren," I am reminded that we are the dogs of society.

When Latina/os are more likely than the general population to lack basic health coverage, less likely to receive preventive medical examinations, and less likely to receive early prenatal care, I am reminded that we are the dogs of society.

And when Latino/as are more likely to live with pollution, exposing them to greater health risks, I am reminded that we are the dogs of society.

In the fullness of Jesus' divinity, he had to learn how to be fully human. His family and culture were responsible for teaching him how to walk, how to talk, and how to be potty-trained.

He also learned about the superiority of Judaism and the inferiority of non-Jews, in the very same way that today there are those within the dominant culture who are taught America is No. 1 

For some, this superiority takes on a racial component where European descent makes one more advanced than does Hispanic ancestry. The minority who insist on voicing their superiority can easily be dismissed as racist and thus ignored.

However, there remains an unexamined majority who are complicit with social structures that -- whether they like it or not -- are racist in their favor. They may not go to the extreme, like Jesus did, in refusing a medical healing to a woman of color while calling her a dog; nevertheless, the inherent racism in the medical establishment accomplishes the same goal without having to overtly refuse a healing or call people of color dogs.

Latino/as as today's dogs is evident in a quality of health care that ranges from poor to non-existent.

Nevertheless, for Christians, the imago Dei finds its fullest expression in the personhood of Jesus as he turned many "rules" upside down. This is a truth that even Jesus, in his full humanity, had to learn.

To deny this woman a healing and call her a dog reveals the racism his culture taught him. But Jesus, unlike so many within the dominant social structure of today, was willing to hear the words of this woman of color, and learn from her.

And thanks to her, Jesus' ministry was radically changed. The Canaanite woman responded by saying, "For even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the table of their masters."

Her remark shocked Jesus into realizing that faith was not contingent on a person's ethnicity. In fact, Jesus had to admit that this was a woman of great faith.

This woman of color had to cross the "border" demarcated by Jesus' culture. But she crosses this border not to worship her oppressor (Jesus), but to demand an equal place at the table of the Lord. She demands to be treated as an equal.

It matters little if she belongs. It matters less if she has proper documentation. Her daughter was sick and because of her humanity, she was entitled to a healing. She was more than the dog he called her.

Up to this point, the gospel message was exclusively for the Jews. In Matthew 10:5, Jesus sends his 12 disciples on their first missionary venture. He clearly instructs them, "Do not turn your steps into other nations, nor into Samaritan cities, rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Yet five chapters later, Jesus encounters the Canaanite woman who existed on the margins of his society. She challenged Jesus with the good news that healing was not the exclusive property of one ethnic group. Instead, healing should be available to all who come.

Jesus learned something about his mission from this woman of color. How do we know this? By the end of his ministry when he gives the Great Commission, he commands his followers to go out to all nations, not just the people of Israel.

Now, if Jesus is willing to learn something from the margins of society, from those who he was taught were his inferiors, no better than dogs, shouldn't Euro-Americans who call themselves his disciples today be willing to do likewise?

-30-

-- Miguel De La Torre is associate professor of social ethics at the Iliff School of Theology in Denver.

 

 





Reddit!Del.icio.us!Google!Live!Facebook!Slashdot!Technorati!StumbleUpon!Spurl!Newsvine!Blinklist!Furl!Fark!Yahoo!Ma.gnolia!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites!
Comments (50)Add Comment
Amazingly distorted theology
written by Dr. J, February 23, 2009
Jesus was perfect! He was not a racist! He was not shocked by the response of the canaanite. Your theology is reprehensible. Your articles should not be distributed by any Christian publisher. It is hard for me to respond to this theologically dishonest trash in a reasonable manner. You can say anything you want about right wing Christians, but you have no right to accuse our Lord of racism. Disgusting.
Also, because Christians in the US believe in upholding the law it does not make them racist. Your woe-is-me article is narcist. Those who enter the US legally have every opportunity afforded natural born citizens.
Thank you Dr. J
written by tenor1, February 23, 2009
De La Torre has been breathing that thin Denver air again. His thesis and the whole piece is patently ridiculous. His aim is to call white, Anglo, Euro Christian conservatives bigots and racists, one and all. Why didn't he just say it instead of dragging Jesus Christ into the gutter with this crazy analogy.
man overboard
written by JPowers524, February 23, 2009
"To deny this woman a healing and call her a dog reveals the racism his culture taught him. But Jesus, unlike so many within the dominant social structure of today, was willing to hear the words of this woman of color, and learn from her.
And thanks to her, Jesus' ministry was radically changed"

Well, I think you have officially crossed the line with this one...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but racism could essentially be a "sin", and you have implied Jesus was racist, therefore saying Jesus has sinned, and this woman taught Him a valuable lesson... Jesus sinned? Yep, most definitely crossed the line there I think sir.
...
written by robertangison, February 23, 2009
What a poorly presented and hermeneutically myopic piece.

I've defended ABPNews to many friends and colleagues who have belittled it and tried to decry the leadership. This is, however, inexecusable.

Her remark shocked Jesus into realizing that faith was not contingent on a person's ethnicity. In fact, Jesus had to admit that this was a woman of great faith.

This suggestion here is a straight-faced denial of Christ's divinity. It is also awfully close to heterodoxy. Jesus did not need any person to "teach" Him or help "reveal" the things of mankind to Him. Racism is sin. Suggesting Christ had indulged in such a practice is simply poor hermeneutics.

While we all clearly don't share the same liberationist critique that the author holds, I doubt heavily that most liberationists would offer such a twisted view of Christology.

The necessary response here is a retraction and apology from the editors of this site. You have done a disservice to Christianity and the God whom you serve in ministry.

I cannot defend this site again until that happens.

Regretfully,
Robert Angison
Jesus The Racist Sinner...
written by Clayton, February 23, 2009
I am completely shocked that you would call Jesus a racist and that Christians are not leading the way to create social equality. I am sitting her in complete shock that this could be published. You have called Jesus a sinner...If this does not alarm you it should. We have the Associated Baptist Press allowing a guy to call Jesus a racist. What in the world is going on here? That this woman had to teach Jesus a lesson, wow...wow...wow...
Christless
written by Broadman, February 24, 2009
"In this story, I find myself relating more with the Canaanite woman than with Jesus."

I agree. You are apparently a thorough-going pagan who has no relationship with Jesus. Your attempt to be theologically cute is blasphemy. Nor is it clever, as you deconstructionists are constantly aspiring to be (at the expense of the truth). Pitiful reasoning skills. In other words, you are an uninspired hack.

ABP, you bemoan your budget cuts. Here is how to say some money. Fire your editor for allowing such twaddle to ever see the light of day.
...
written by tmmkenya, February 24, 2009
Her daughter was sick and because of her humanity, she was entitled to a healing. She was more than the dog he called her."

The idea that we are entitled to anything from God has gotten many folks in trouble for eternity. We are created in the image of God but sin has marred us to something far less that a dog.
...
written by tmmkenya, February 24, 2009
BTW, I am new to ABP. Granted, this piece is bad theology at best, but if this guy can get printed, it shows that we are in the latter times and that some are falling "away from the faith." It does make me wonder where the editor of ABP is coming from.
We are ALL dogs before the holiness of God
written by TheATrain33, February 24, 2009
If only you would set aside your proud victim's mentality and examine the text humbly, you would have seen that Jesus is the paragon of virtue, and because of His great love, he brought this wonderful Canaanite woman (through her faith) to recognition of where all of humanity stands before God.

Jesus didn't learn from the woman - the woman learned from Jesus!

You said, "I find myself relating more with the Canaanite woman than with Jesus." So should we all! We are all dogs before the holiness of God! God doesn't look at our skin to see whether it is "colored" or not. He looks at the heart and sees it blackened with sin! We deserve nothing from Him!

Because of His great love, He extended the scope of salvation to this Canaanite woman, testing her faith and bringing her into humble understanding of humanity's position before the face of God.

"Have mercy on me!" she demands, and Jesus is silent.
"Help me!" she repeats, and He points out that fallen humanity (i.e. dogs) are in no position to demand anything of God.
"Give this lowly dog the crumbs from your table, master," she finally concedes, recognizing her lowly position (which she shares with all of humanity, not because of her ethnic origin, but because of her inborn sin).
But because she humbled herself, Jesus did not give her mere scraps, but blessed her mightily.

In your rush to associate with the Canaanite woman, you are still demanding things of God. Yet unlike the woman, you have failed to humble yourself before God as she did. Instead, you have fallen into bitterness, anger, and regrettably, blasphemy.

Let us thank God that in His wisdom, He does not grant us what we demand of Him. Let us pray to God that He forgive us our pride and blasphemy. Let us embrace God and put our hands to the building of His kingdom, not its dismantling.

Soli Deo gloria.
Could Be More Nuanced
written by oeytg, February 24, 2009
The writer makes some good points, but he could have been more nuanced and avoided heterodox implications. Jesus was sinless. I believe He was being ironic in calling the Canaanite woman a "dog." He was demonstrating the weakness of ethnocentrism. Jesus came first to save Israel, His own race, and then the Gentiles.
We cannot have a two-tiered society. Persons in the USA, regardless of their legal status, have a right to health care and education. There is a need for immigration reform. Illegal immigrants come to the US to do work that legal citizens are unwilling to do. If you were born in Latin America, would you not wish to enjoy the benefits that Americans do? There were no restrictions on immigration from Europe until the 1920s, yet the rights of Native Americans, Latinos, Asians and African Americans were severely restricted. Jesus teaches us to love our neighbors as ourselves. His example of being a good neighbor was that of the Good Samaritan, not that of the two self-righteous religious persons.
Thank you
written by AEssick, February 24, 2009
Dr. De La Torre,

Thank you for your words. It is often difficult to simply listen to someone whose reading of Scripture is so very different from our own without biting back, name-calling, or attempting to shame that person, as is evidenced by some of the above comments. I would like to thank you for making your points about hispanics being viewed as the dogs of society. I can pride myself in thinking that I am not outright racist, but when I honestly examine myself and my gut reactions, there is a little ethno-centrism lurking here and there. The best way to weed it out is to value the person calling you on it, which is why I appreciate articles like this one.

I may not have called Jesus an outright racist, but I do think Jesus was not born with all the knowledge he needed in his brain (that is, the baby Jesus probably did not already know how to fish or swim or how to even speak theologically when he was lying in the manger). And God's self-limitation makes us a little uncomfortable, especially when we think that the child Jesus had to learn how to play nice with others and share. Where do we draw the line with whether Jesus learned improper behavior? I don't know, but Jesus did call a woman a dog. I am not calling Jesus a sinner, but I do think Jesus could learn even when he was an adult. That is not heresy, it is a fully realized humanity in Jesus. The flashy title "Was Jesus a Racist?" got lots of people to read the article, which I think was your intention. That Jesus was deeply affected by this woman illustrates something else we all need to know about being the "perfect human": we were made to rub off on each other. And Jesus helped to show us the way here, too. So thank you, Dr. De La Torre, for rubbing off on us. We need this in the Christian family.
Sincerely,
AEssick
...
written by mightyfowl, February 24, 2009
Jesus was no racist, and anyone who hints at ANY pejorative term relative to Him ought to strongly consider taking it back.

As I understand it, the word Jesus used for "dogs" was "young puppy", which seems a bit different from calling someone simply a "dog". Also, He said (check Mark 7:27) that He was to feed the children FIRST (in time, place, order or importance). I can think of no other reason for saying that, than that the dogs were to be fed later.

Looks to me like a clear exposition of the gospel's being "..for the Jew first, then the Greek".

And illegal aliens don't "lack documentation". They broke our laws and entered our country illegally, and are staying here illegally. Excusing that is like excusing driving 100 mph in a school zone because, well, they can't stop EVERYBODY, you know.....

I've sort of been a defender of ABP around our SBC church. That may have to change.
CBF shows its true colors again!
written by Ken, February 24, 2009
I was a pastor in Missouri for eleven years. During that time, a man named Roger Moran was mailing us pastors information about the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. He claimed the organization was infested with liberalism. He was denounced as a liar, and some CBF leaders in Missouri even threatened to sue him for libel.

I decided to do some research on my own. I discovered that some CBF leaders are ambivalent about homosexuality, and some even affirm it. I discovered that some CBF leaders deny that Jesus is the only way to God. Last summer, CBF's annual meeting featured a speaker that denied the deity of Christ. Now we have a writer on a CBF-related website claiming that Jesus was a racist and a sinner.

Just think: this is the kind of "diversity" CBF leaders wanted to foist on the Southern Baptist Convention! Thank God for Paige Patterson, Adrian Rogers, W.A. Criswell, Paul Pressler, Roger Moran, and others who were willing to blow the whistle on these characters.
De la Torres' reading seems to follow the text better
written by Leland, February 24, 2009
De la Torres' reading has a certain eisegetical content, to which some of the prior commenters react vociferously in the negative because it clashes with their own eisegesis. That's how it looks to me anyway. Eisegesis is often the factor that gives scripture its greatest power. The value of, say, "Go Down Moses" and any number of other spirituals of the mid-1800s, lies primarily in the way the Spirit of God spoke to the people who sang them through an eisegetical method. The anecdote about the Canaanite woman whose kid was sick is no worse an analogy to an undocumented (whether criminally or by accident) Latina with a sick kid. I'm not sure I see her demanding equality, but I certainly don't see her as shrinking on theological grounds from talking back to Jesus in order to get her needs met. Personally I'm in favor of laissez faire migration, I'm definitely not a nationalist (I think nationalism and many forms of patriotism are just as sinful, and in the same way really, as racism), but regardless of one's position on immigration law I can't see how you can deny kids health care based on their parents' paperwork status and call yourself a loyal follower of Jesus.

I'm going to have to subscribe to your paper, I guess, to make up for one of these other brethren who are canceling...
Leland
written by Ken, February 24, 2009
"Eisegesis gives scripture its greatest power"? Where did you hear that nonsense? I grant some commentators may react negatively to eisegesis because it "conflicts with their own eisegesis", but most react negatively to it because it is a bad hermeneutic. Eisegesis most certainly does not give Scripture "its greatest power." It twists Scripture to make it say whatever someone wants it to say.
Wow
written by Dr. J, February 24, 2009
It is so good to know that there are readers of ABP who think this guy's article is heresy. How is it ABP allowed this to get published? Is the editor so fond of the left wing- give citizenship to illegals- that he or she is willing to allow heresy?
I am no longer an SBCer because of the denomination's desire to control individual churches and its unbiblical chauvenism. But (because of this article and others) it is easy to see how current SBCers would think CBFers hold to flawed theology. I am not a CBFer either. In fact, I have little use for denominations. And Ken, Moran has almost single-handedly ruined the MBC.
Dr. J
written by Ken, February 24, 2009
You are incorrect when you say the SBC wants to control individual churches. Local churches are still autonomous, but the SBC has always had the right to define which churches will and will not be accepted for membership.

As for the SBC's "unbiblical chauvenism", we have already debated that issue, and you did not make a very good case for your own stance on that issue.

Finally, Roger Moran has not "single-handedly ruined the MBC." I was there for eleven years. Had it not been for Roger, the vast majority of Bible-believing churches would have already pulled out of the MBC. He convinced them that they could change things, and they did. It's true that some liberal churches have pulled out of the MBC, but their loss has had a negligible impact.

I realize some new controversies have arisen in Missouri in the last few years, but it's unfair to blame it all on Roger. Personally, I think there's blame to go around. Be that as it may, the MBC seems to be on the road to reconciliation.

My point is, Roger was absolutely right about the CBF. You acknowledged as much yourself. He was right because he did his homework. Perhaps you should do your homework before you make such melodramatic accusations.
Ken
written by Leland, February 24, 2009
"Eisegesis gives scripture its greatest power"? Where did you hear that nonsense? I grant some commentators may react negatively to eisegesis because it "conflicts with their own eisegesis", but most react negatively to it because it is a bad hermeneutic. Eisegesis most certainly does not give Scripture "its greatest power." It twists Scripture to make it say whatever someone wants it to say.

If one uses eisegesis to twist Scripture to make it say whatever you want it to, that's overdoing it and will not be helpful, but on the other hand if you don't let the Spirit speak to you where you are, who you are, and where you've come from, in which case it may say something entirely unconnected (except on a superficial verbal level, perhaps) with what sound exegesis will say it means, then imho you'll miss more than half of what the Spirit may have for you in it. As for where I got this notion, well, I thought it up, leaning on my own understanding. (tic) But seriously, I am rather heterodox and so it doesn't surprise me when I am in the minority on a board like this on a topic like this. But you know, you did misconstrue what I said. I very carefully said
Eisegesis is often the factor that gives scripture its greatest power.
but you made it out that I had said
"Eisegesis gives scripture its greatest power"? At least give me an ellipsis! :) The waffly "is often the factor that" was at least half the import of my statement. I don't think any scripture has one and only one correct interpretation, nor will you find me making many other unqualified assertions about it, no matter how unqualified I may be... ;-)
Heck, I even think the Timothy bit about the inspiration of "all scripture" applies to non-Christian scripture. Or rather, may apply. I'm not trying to tie the hands of God here. I'm not seminary-trained (nor a college graduate), so it may be I've missed some critical piece where scripture dictates hermeneutics. I don't see that, and where scripture engages in hermeneutics I see a variety of approaches, including some rather eisegetical ones that are filled with the power of God.

Anyhow, I enjoyed de la Torres's piece, and found myself closer to agreeing with his take that to agreeing with most of the commenters, which is why I decided to register and post. I'd also just heard CBF was cutting support for ABP, which is why I volunteered my willingness to subscribe for my (ABC) church, where I am the lowly webmaster.
Leland
written by Ken, February 25, 2009
Eisegesis, by definition, is where reads his/her own thoughts into Scripture instead of trying to determine what the original writer was actually saying. Thus, by definition, it is a bad hermeneutic. True, many Christians are guilty of it, but it is a fault we should try to overcome rather than indulge.

It's no use trying to spiritualize such methods. If the Holy Spirit inspired the Scriptures, then He has already spoken through them. The task of exegesis is to determine what the Holy Spirit was saying through the writers.

Your method sounds terribly subjective (which is a nice way of saying you seem to be making Scripture say what you want it to say). You claim you thought up this method, but then you talk about how the Holy Spirit speaks to you through Scripture. If this method is your own creation, how do you know it's the Holy Spirit who is speaking to you?

I'm not sure what you mean by "non-Christian scripture." You'll have to elaborate on that.
...
written by MrMerlin777, February 25, 2009
One word,

BLASPHEMY!
Ken,
written by Leland, February 25, 2009
Eisegesis, by definition, is where reads his/her own thoughts into Scripture instead of trying to determine what the original writer was actually saying. Thus, by definition, it is a bad hermeneutic. True, many Christians are guilty of it, but it is a fault we should try to overcome rather than indulge.
I am not urging the adoption of eisegesis "instead of" exegesis. I'm saying both are legitimate. And it sure looks to me like there are many places in the New Testament where, particularly in lining up prophetic foreshadowings of the Christ, the human authors employed it (without admixture of error, of course) in their treatment of the Tanakh. I think without it Ethiopia might not even be a Christian country. ;-)

As far as "non-Christian scriptures", I think the Holy Spirit can speak through most anything, doesn't even have to be writing. But there is a NT example of what I'm talking about in Acts, at 17:28; of course you don't have to read it the way I do, but that's the way I read it.
If the Holy Spirit inspired the Scriptures, then He has already spoken through them. The task of exegesis is to determine what the Holy Spirit was saying through the writers. ... If this [eisegesis-incorporating] method is your own creation, how do you know it's the Holy Spirit who is speaking to you?
I would hold that the work of the Holy Spirit in Scripture is at both ends, at the inspiration of the writer and at the inspiration of the hearer/reader. If I leave off the latter part I am left with a truncation of the inspired Word of God.

As for how I know the Holy Spirit speaks to me when S/He does (the S/He is exegetically motivated, btw), I'm not always sure (and even when I'm sure I'm not always right). I follow Luther in this, I guess, and try to sin boldly yet have faith still more boldly.

BTW, aside to Mr.Merlin777, are you saying Ken, or I, or de la Torres, or who is blaspheming?
Leland
written by Ken, February 25, 2009
If the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible, then He is not going to contradict Himself. You seem more interested in imposing your own views on the Bible than allowing the Holy Spirit or anybody else to speak to you. Quite frankly, I doubt you even know what you believe.


Ken, I don't think I said
written by Leland, February 25, 2009
the Holy Spirit would contradict Hyrrh/Hymnself. All I know is God intervened in my life salvifically, and I trust that God will not switch directions midstream. That sounds to me more like an agreement with your position than a disagreement, but it doesn't much matter. God will save us both, especially in light of our shared profession of faith in Christ Jesus.

I was intrigued by the title of one of De la Torres's forthcoming books, Out of the Shadows into the Light: Struggling with the Sin of Heterosexuality. I imagine many of the commenters here wouldn't even knowingly get within a block of such a title, but I'm looking forward to it. But that would be for another day...
Leland
written by Ken, February 25, 2009
"God will save us both, especially in light of our shared profession of faith in Christ Jesus."

But how do you know that? Because the Holy Spirit told you? Apart from the written Word of God, your concept of the Holy Spirit is purely subjective. The same problem arises, by definition, with this whole issue of eisegesis, since eisegesis is a purely subjective process.
melodramatic accusations
written by Dr. J, February 25, 2009
I made no accusations. I spoke truth. But Ken, you missed my point. How one interprets the Scripture should not divide us. Prior to the 20th century it was not an issue. It is just a way for the devil to hurt the Lord's ministry. If you are honest with yourself, you know the Lord would be disappointed with the actions of Baptists in Missouri.I don't get it. How can you defend division among christians on the basis of how they read and believe scripture? The Lord said the greatest commandment is to love Him and the 2nd is to love our neighbor. I'm don't see- even if I literally interpret the scripture- love you neighbor only if he interprets scripture your way. I have thought about this issue for years. It is tough for me to know what I know about Jesus and justify the hateful actions of Southern Baptists. I used to be SBC. But I had to leave because of my simple belief in the Lord and His commandments.
The arguments you employ to justify Moran and his followers actions are tired old justifications. The arguments are not scripturally based. I have spent years studying and experiencing the happenings in Missouri. They are a disgrace to the Gospel. So what if Moran was right about CBF. Does that give him and you the right, under our Lord, to criticize, demean, and try to destroy other Christians? Tell me the Lord is proud of those actions. Tell me they fit with Jesus commands. Be honest with yourself. Nothing you say will change my belief in Jesus commands. Actually I am interpreting His commands literally. Why don't you guys try some of your own medicine. Also, how do you literally interpret the Galatians passage in which Paul states- quite literally- that we Christians should not take other Christians to civil courts? Perhaps you need to interpret that passage figuratively.
Ken,
written by Leland, February 26, 2009
when I read the Bible, time and again I read of people being called by God to go beyond what their Bible told them. That is, itself, one of the recurrent messages of the Bible. God has saved me, and is saving me, and will save me, and saves me, not my concept of God. To hope to be saved by one's concept of God would be a truly amazing bit of hubristic eisegesis, I think. That is not my hope.
Leland
written by Ken, February 26, 2009
What can we know of God beyond what He has revealed in His Word, the Bible? The Bible is our standard of truth and falsehood (2 Tim. 3:16), and when you start making it say what we want it to say, you are treading on very dangerous ground. It's not sufficient to say the Holy Spirit will guide you, because not all of your thoughts and concepts are of the Holy Spirit (1 John 4:1).

In a sense, your "concept of God" does indeed save you. There is an intellectual aspect to salvation. You must know certain things about Jesus, and you must know them correctly (Romans 10:9; 1 John 5:1; 1, 11-13). If a person does not have some grasp of these concepts, how can he/she be saved? (Romans 10:14). Your "God vs. concept of God" dichotomy is little more than a word game.

I also don't know what you mean by this business of "going beyond" the Bible. Perhaps you should go back and read Revelation 22:18-19.
...
written by pjerwin, February 26, 2009
I STILL can't believe this is a seminary professor.
See also
written by Leland, February 26, 2009
Just a note to point out there is also a thread on this over at BaptistLife.com.
Well, Ken,
written by Leland, February 26, 2009
I don't think 2 Tim. 3:16 says what you think it does. You insert a clause that appears to read "and nothing else". In KJV that verse reads "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:", yet you add to it in spite of the passage you point out to me in Revelation! And you appear to have a particular canon in mind. Indeed, when you cite Rev. 22 you seem to assume that the "this book" John refers to is the Bible it's bound at the end of. The Bible does not specify its own canon. (Or at least, no one has yet shown me that it does.) I can't see any particularly strong reason to assume that "all scripture" in 2 Tim. refers to (and only to) the 66-book Protestant Bible, nor any reason to think that "this book" in Revelation 22 refers to anything beyond John's Apocalypse. I am not convinced that (whether Paul, or deutero-Paul, or whoever realized it or not) "all scripture" doesn't include, at least potentially, writings of Ellen White, the prayers of Bahá'ulláh, the Tripitaka, the third Sura, or even the Seven Aphorisms of Bonum (though I have some doubts about all of these). I know this is a bit far afield from the question of whether Jesus was a racist, and I apologize for the drift. But of course if it's necessary to point me back at an appropriate set of propositions for my salvation, then it's worth it. Blessed be, as the Wiccans say...
Sorry, I meant
written by Leland, February 27, 2009
Summum, not Bonum ;-)
Leland
written by Ken, February 27, 2009
Our whole debate has been over whether eisegesis is a good method for interpreting Scripture. Your last post pretty much proved my point. I rest my case.
P.S. to Leland
written by Ken, February 27, 2009
I said in my last post that I rest my case. I feel compelled to retract that statement for a moment and add a couple of other comments.

Let me give you an illustration of the problem with your subjective (and inaccurate) concept of the Holy Spirit. Cecil Sherman, the founding coordinator of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, once affirmed those who might be led of the Holy Spirit to reject the virgin birth (I don't remember his exact words, but he said something along those lines). However, Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. Thus, we must come to one of the following conclusions:

1. The Holy Spirit contradicts Himself.
2. The Holy Spirit did not inspire Scripture, or at least the part that teaches the virgin birth.
3. The Holy Spirit will not lead anyone to disbelieve in the virgin birth, and anyone who does not believe in the virgin birth is not following the Holy Spirit.

In other words, if the Holy Spirit inspired Scripture, then He will not lead anyone to any conclusion that are contrary to Scripture.

We have been arguing over whether eisegesis is a sound way to approach Scripture. I think you have pretty well proven it is not. Of course, my position presupposes that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. It is quite apparent that you do not share that presupposition, so we are arguing on two different wavelengths. Thus, any further debate on this matter is a waste of time.
I think you're right about one thing ;-)
written by Leland, February 27, 2009
... to wit, "we are arguing on two different wavelengths"! I would be interested in further information from you as to how you arrive at the "scripture" [à la 2 Tim 3:16] = "the 66-book canon aka the Bible, or at least the original manuscripts thereof", and how you arrive at "this book" [à la Rev. 22:18] = "the 66-book canon aka the Bible". Both of these equations strike me as highly eisegetical, and also as ubiquitous among those who argue on your wavelength. I realize I am not likely to change your mind on them, but I am very much interested in what scriptural support you would adduce for them. Since you appear to oppose eisegesis and to support logical argumentation at least where the Holy Spirit is concerned, I assume you have some logical and/or exegetical support for these tenets. Toss me a little and I'll let you go...
Leland
written by Ken, February 27, 2009
As I said, my position presupposes that Scripture is the infallible Word of God. Earlier you seemed to share that presupposition, but it is quite obvious that you do not.

The canon of Scripture was settled long ago. Contrary to what you might have read in "The DaVinci Code", the question was not decided by the Council of Nicea. Most of the New Testament canon was in place by the early second century. The Old Testament canon was established much earlier (most Jews in Jesus' day did not accept the Apocrypha as canonical. They used the same 39 books we did.

I repeat, my argument for exegesis begins with the presupposition that the Bible is the Word of God. If the Bible as just another book, as you evidently believe, then the whole question of eisegesis vs. exegesis becomes moot.
Well, Ken,
written by Leland, February 27, 2009
I agree that we're talking with such different frames of reference that we're not going to convince each other of anything, but I must repeat that is seems to me that exegesis does not support the notion that when Paul (or whoever) wrote 2 Timothy he meant "the 66-book Bible" when he wrote "all scripture", nor do I see any reason to imagine (let alone posit) that John of Patmos meant "the Bible" when he wrote "this book". It seems highly probable to me (exegetically, not eisegetically) that Paul meant at least roughly "the Old Testament", I would agree probably not including most of the Apocrypha, but that's not entirely clear to me. It seems from what I can glean of the theological history of the times likely that the precise canon of the Tanakh (and particularly of the Ketuvim) was settled after Paul wrote (and quite likely that some of the Apocryphal books were excluded precisely because they were so popular with Christians, e.g. Sirach or Tobit, and/or because they were not PC vis-à-vis Rome, e.g. I Maccabees). Remember that pre-70 the party of Zadok didn't even accept the Neviim as Scripture, nor do the Samaritans to this day as I understand it. Our common notions of what "the Jews" accept as scripture (or even as law) are heavily colored not only by the polemistic POVs of much of the NT and by the rabbinical codifications that took place in the Talmudic academies especially after 70, and in fact probably after the hypothetical date of Jamnia (i.e. probably not only after Paul, but after Patmos). I suppose I should read The Davinci Code so I'll know what exactly it is that I'm assumed to imagine. ;-) I'm inclined to go with Neusner's impression that in the first and second centuries a strict canon of scripture was not a tenet of Judaism. Indeed, it seems to me unlikely that such a concept would have predated the codex, and it also seems likely that "canon" is more a Christian than a Jewish notion. But this is neither here nor there. I still can't see how you can read either Paul or John that way with any degree of exegetical seriousness, but I don't see any likelihood that you'll give me what I'm asking for. Maybe a lurker could jump in and explain it to me, but barring that, I guess I'll have to go back to my home forums. And make a note to self to send in a subscription to ABP... I appreciate your efforts, Ken.
...
written by Ken, February 27, 2009
I advise you to do a little more research, because much of what you said is just plain incorrect. Exactly what Apocryphal books were "popular among Christians"? The early church fathers generally regarded the Apocrypha as uninspired. The Hebrew scriptures also excluded them. The Septuagint included them, but they were still the subject of much debate among Hellenistic Jews.

I agree that Paul had primarily in mind the Old Testament when he wrote 2 Timothy 3:16 (which would have included the first eleven chapters of Genesis). Nevertheless, what he said can also be applied to the New Testament if the New Testament is divinely inspired.

Herein lies the real issue: is the Bible the Word of God or is it not? If it is not the Word of God, then I fail to see how you can claim to believe in Jesus or the Holy Spirit or anything else. If it is the Word of God, then any teaching that contradicts the Bible is not of God.

I wasn't necessarily accusing you of getting your beliefs from "The DaVinci Code" (hence my deliberate use of the words "might have"). I did want to head off that argument, just in case. Some people have the idea that a group of bishops sat down and decided what books would be included in the New Testament, and that simply isn't the way it happened. Most of the New Testament books, including the Pauline Epistles, were accepted early. If you don't believe me, read the writings of the early church fathers.

This began as a debate over how to interpret Scripture, but you have changed the subject to the very nature of Scripture. I would be interested in knowing exactly what you do believe. Do you consider yourself a Christian? Why? Where do you get all your talk about Jesus and the Holy Spirit if you think the Bible is so flawed? I really don't know where you're coming from on these issues.

Hi again, Ken,
written by Leland, February 28, 2009
and thanks for the comments. I'm going to put a link to this conversation in my blog, and if you want to go there to reply to this I would welcome it, since as you note it is a bit off the original topic of De la Torre's exposition of the passage. To answer briefly (yeah, sure! ;-)):

What Paul wrote about "all scripture" can be true not only of the OT and the NT, but of any other writings God breathes through. The fact that the canon he had in mind did not include his own second letter to Timothy doesn't make it untrue, but does call up the question of the nature and extent of the canon, if there is one. For most Baptists this is a closed question, regardless of whether the final cut was defined by consensus or by some episcopal cabal in Nicaea. I have read enough of the history (poorly documented as it is) of the formation and closing of the canon (both OT and NT) and of the status of the deuterocanonicals in various Christian churches not to accept as given your assurance that this is a given. If nothing else, the fact that the preponderance of Christians in the world today work from a Bible that contains these books (or some of them; the selection varies a bit) is a sufficient cause, I think, to leave the matter on the table. (Also, the King James lectern Bible that graces the communion table in my Baptist church contains the Apocrypha! I have actually led Bible studies on a couple of passages from it, including the Song of the Three Hebrew Children.)

Did I say something to suggest I thought Paul would exclude Genesis 1-11 from his dictum?

I was raised Baptist, so it is not surprising (at least, not to me) that I should, in some manner or other, believe in Jesus, and not too surprising that that belief should have taken root when I was as yet too young to receive my belief through the reading of the Bible. The notion that reading the Bible (or having it read to one) is the only way to acquire faith in Jesus is just ridiculous, to my mind. Look in the Gospels. Which of the apostles, which of the women who went to the tomb, which of the people who received miraculous cures at the hands of Jesus and his disciples... which of these people came to faith in Jesus through reading the Bible?? The Bible's great, and God does breathe through it (including the first eleven chapters!) and people do acquire faith, or at least strengthen and focus the faith they already have acquired, by reading it. But the Word became flesh—not text—and dwelt among us. In my case, I came back to my faith in Jesus through a series of numinous encounters mostly related to my sobering up in the context of Fremont Hall (an AA fellowship in Seattle), in one of the most powerful of which a bottle of Almadén Mountain Chablis played a role in some ways analogous to Moses' "burning bush"; in some ways only, it's not a pure type. Almost six years later, I finally admitted to myself that I was a Christian, and should be baptized and join a local church, through reading Hans Küng's The Church. It is the Word that speaks through the books, not the books themselves (spirit vs letter, Pauline again, and yes, I know that's not exactly what he meant by it) that I try to be most interested in. I'm fond of Akenson, fwiw.
Thank god for Miguel de la Torre
written by Former Hope Student, March 02, 2009
Just as I did many years ago walking from class on 8th Street back to my dorm hearing my classmates collectively beat their chests with their theological conclusions based rarely on analytical thought but instead on raw emotion, I am reminded why Dr. de la Torre does what he does.

I can only hope that one or two of you take seriously the task of becoming critical of your faith and your god. But, as I see here, most of you will merely dismiss out of hand any writing that challenges your worldview.

It is a shame that so many "christians" ignore modern-day prophets.
Consider this...
written by JDog, March 02, 2009
For all of you who mentioned that Jesus didn't need to learn anything because he knew everything already? Then what gives with Luke 2:52: "Jesus grew in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man."

Odd. And then there's that statement in which Jesus says, "Why do you call me good? There is no one good but one: God."

Also, why did ABP publish this article? Let's consider:
1. There is no need for a news source to feel threatened by views not shared by a majority of people, since other viewpoints are not always intended to threaten whatever it is people are so afraid of giving up. (But "it's the Gospel," you say; God can stick up for himself and for His Word, thank you very much. He doesn't need your name-calling to validate His Truth).

2. Christians shouldn't censor something just because it may ruffle feathers.

3. A majority of Christians don't believe in any of that "politically correct" jargon anyway, so why make Jesus out to be politically correct also when it comes to ethnic conflict in his upbringing? (I hear that all the time, especially when it comes to how we speak about women: "We don't need to be politically correct when you're telling the truth!" But make Jesus politically incorrect, and everyone thinks it's heresy!).

4 Not everyone sees things the way you do. Personally, I get bored when I read things with which I agree. Why even read stuff I agree with? Only to stroke my ego and affirm that I am in fact a know-it-all?

And why are readers so threatened by this article to say it's heresy, even though it may in fact be heretical? Is it because you feel proud for stating the obvious, I guess.

Maybe I shouldn't read the Bible. If preachers have all the answers since so many of these questions (like the text under scrutiny, which Dr. J. has yet to give an opinion on) figured out, then I don't really need to read the Bible, or use my imagination when I do so, or study Scripures--much less be inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Gideons should close shop, too, I presume.

It's amazing that people get so excited about an op-ed. That's what it is folks, an "opinion" piece. Just don't read it if you're offended. Go sing Kumbaya or something in your perfect, comfortable, controllable, and predictable little corner of the universe.

Nice try, Leland
written by Ken, March 03, 2009
"Did I say something to suggest I thought Paul would exclude Genesis 1-11 from his dictum?"

No, you didn't. I added that comment for "Dr. J's" benefit. He and I have been having a little along those lines.

"The notion that reading the Bible (or having it read to one) is the only way to acquire faith in Jesus is just ridiculous, to my mind."

Is that so? Then what other basis do you have for faith in Jesus?

"Which of the apostles, which of the women who went to the tomb, which of the people who received miraculous cures at the hands of Jesus and his disciples... which of these people came to faith in Jesus through reading the Bible??"

How do you know there were any apostle? How do you know women went to the tomb? How do you know there was an empty tomb? How do you know Jesus miraculously cured people? How do you know Jesus had any disciples? Let's all say it together: "BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO!"

Thus, your whole argument collapses under its own weight.
JDog
written by Ken, March 03, 2009
"Christians shouldn't censor something just because it may ruffle feathers."

Why not? Both Christian and secular publishers do it all the time. I daresay that ABP isn't as committed to "diversity" as they'd like to have you believe. How many articles do they publish that espouse a conservative viewpoint? Like most liberal publishers, their idea of "freedom" seems to extend only to the politically correct.

That's beside the point. The real question is, why should a Christian publisher give place to blatant heresy? Is there no other place where this sort of garbage can be published? I believe in the First Amendment, and I believe De La Torre has the right to express his own viewpoint. However, nothing in the First Amendment requires a Christian publisher to dignify such rubbish, and ABP has done itself no credit by publishing this article.
Op-eds
written by Joe, March 05, 2009
I could not help but to write an op-ed of my own about this article:

http://www.baptistspirituality.com/?p=64

Blessings!
Whew
written by robber, March 05, 2009
There isn't much else I can add that hasn't already been said. I'm calling the ABP out on this, on my blogs, social networks, etc. This isn't just someone's opinion, it's poison, and I won't put up with it. The ABP has the right to print it, but I have the right to call them out.
a clue?
written by robber, March 09, 2009
honestly, I really should have better things to do with my life than stress out over this guy. however I did notice this on forums.baptistlife.com

http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=14555

I'm thinking this could explain a lot about what troubles Mr. De La Torre. after spending time trashing this guy, I feel like I should actually be praying for him. I think more than anything I'm aggravated at ABP not so much Mr. De La Torre. I just know none of my children will ever attend the school where he "teaches."
Out of context or not?
written by jg, March 20, 2009
It seems to me everyone skipped over the words of Jesus in this article. Was he misquoted or taken out of context?

"And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs."

At least make the feeble argument that Jesus was testing the woman, but to otherwise deny Jesus' opinion here of who is worthy of "Christian" charity and who is not is beyond the pale.
Dr. J
written by Ken, March 21, 2009
"How one interprets the Scripture should not divide us. Prior to the 20th century it was not an issue."

Excuse me??? I think you should go back and review your church history.

"The arguments you employ to justify Moran and his followers actions are tired old justifications. The arguments are not scripturally based."

Roger told the truth. What's so unscriptural about that?

"I made no accusations. I spoke truth."

No, you did not. You accused Roger Moran of "singlehandedly" destroying the MBC. The MBC is still very much alive. Granted, there has been some division among the members, but it is very simplistic to blame it all on Roger. Having served on the MBC Executive Board for two years, I think I'm in a position to know the facts.

"Also, how do you literally interpret the Galatians passage in which Paul states- quite literally- that we Christians should not take other Christians to civil courts?"

The relevant passage is in First Corinthians, not Galatians. I've answered that question on another thread, which you either have not read or have ignored. Jesus said if a Christian sins against you and refuses to repent, you are no longer required to treat him as a Christian. The MBC tried to settle the legal dispute out of court, and the trustees of the renegade agencies refused. Thus, to borrow a phrase from Jesus, the MBC is suing "publicans and Gentiles", not fellow Christians.
Truth hurts...
written by unorthodoxology, March 30, 2009
What great courage to publish something so heretical -- and true -- in a publication like this. It is something my blog communities have discussed before, but I don't often see someone taking a stand like this. Thanks.


...
written by fingerscaraballo, September 16, 2009
Be for real this is a text that was written by man & you guys take as Scripture they couldn't even get the genealogy of christ right and they were supposed to have been there with him and taught by him ( don't try to say that Im ignorant on bible issues cause Im not ) the new testament and part of the old are not inspired as jeremiah said, you say you are wise and the law is with you lo in vain the pen of the scribes has made it in to a lie ( Koine Greek fisherman speaking the language of the learned ) please
...
written by fingerscaraballo, September 16, 2009
Your proof is FAITH mine is FACTS

Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the ABP News. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.
Write comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
busy
 
< Prev   Next >
Copyright © 2007-2010 Associated Baptist Press, All Rights Reserved.