The classic detective story trope is that of 'Good Cop, Bad Cop'. Here in the book of 2 Kings there are instead cycles of Good King, Bad King. It covers several generations and decades of history of two nations (Israel and Judah). But for many kings, all we get is a paragraph as epitaph, containing bulletpoints of their deeds and a thumbs up or down from God. The good kings, including Jehu, Hezekiah and Josiah, bring the nation to repentance and cut back at the idolatry in the nation. The bad kings either simply continue what their 'bad' fathers did, or seek out new ways to displease God, like setting up new altars to idols and the gods of the surrounding peoples. And in the end, the bad outweighed the good, and God's judgement on his people finally came, and first Israel and then Judah were taken into captivity and exile.
See, here's my problem: How do we faithfully interpret this? By this I mean many of the history books in general, but particularly thinking of Jehu tricking and slaughtering the prophets of Baal (2 Kings 10), which is followed by the Lord's proclamation 'you have done well in carrying out what is right in my eyes'.
For a start, we could say it's just a story of what happened long ago. And if it's just 'what happened' then it transfers just facts, with no need for action or response. But then 1 What is it doing in the Bible? and 2 We could follow that reasoning and ignore pretty much everything else in the Bible (and every other book we've ever read).
At the other end of the spectrum is the reasoning that the story is an example and we should do the same. So it becomes ludicrously specific and thus impractical - OK, next time I happen to find myself in the position of king over an ancient Middle Eastern nation, I'll be sure to destroy all the idols and altars I can lay my hands on. But since we'll never be royals (roooyals), we again reject any sort of action. So we take a step back from the context, and conclude that OK, I need to burn down that Buddhist temple just down the block from my house. I'm sure that you will reject that conclusion, on any number of grounds, including that I can't picture Jesus doing that. And since I call myself a follower of Jesus and not a follower of Jehu, that's pretty important.
What then, do we split God up into Good God, Bad God, the nasty Old Testament God of Judgement and the nice New Testament God of Grace? Is God schizophrenic? The problem is that this leads us to ignore most of the Bible (OT is approximately 80% of the text), and gives us a too convenient excuse to ignore the bits that we don't like.
Maybe we can simply say that the moral of the story is Be Good. That makes sense; be good and God will be happy, don't be bad because that will make God angry. But I'm dissatisfied with that. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it's lacking. The moral Be Good I can get from practically anywhere; a school assembly, a fortune cookie, a bedtime story. Any religion will tell you to Be Good, with only superficial differences between what 'good' is. I don't need the Bible to tell me to Be Good. Doesn't it seem reasonable that, assuming that the God of the Bible is the true God, his word is somehow distinctive and different to the rest?
Surely we know from our view of the world that Be Good doesn't work? Being Good doesn't guarantee reward in this lifetime. Be Good (good enough to get into heaven) doesn't bring hope to people struggling with guilt and shame. Nor does Being Good trick God into letting us into heaven. Christianity is not about Being Good, nor following XYZ rules, but about the love and grace of God. Our reasoning and formulae fall short when we are met with the grace of God.
So then, in light of these pitfalls and blind alleys, how do we interpret scripture?
I want an interpretation that is faithful to: The God revealed through the whole scope of scripture. The revelation of God personified in Jesus Christ and his life and teachings. The cross of Christ, and the grace it brings. The context of the original text, and the context of my active interpretation.
Bullet points to make my emphasis clear: God - all scripture. Jesus - the person (embodiment of God), +action, +teaching. Cross - grace. Context - Then, now.
And permeating and enabling all of this is the Spirit of God.
Paul writes to the Corinthians about the history of the people of Israel. Look at the kings who followed idols, and were led into exile. "These things took place as examples for us, so that we might not desire evil as they did... they were written down for our instruction... Therefore flee from idolatry." 1 Cor 10: 6, 11, 14 (and you may want to check for yourself if I've done a legitimate cherry picking of verses). The picture is of life in the middle, with temptations all around. Paul's question is why would you go there? Why would you follow these other paths, when you know where they lead? Why would you follow these paths away from the centre, where you have found freedom?
It's a similar picture with interpreting scripture. In the middle, there's this big area of freedom, of grace, of questions and tensions, where we can wrestle with things, and disagree and get confused and frustrated. But around the edges there are many paths which lead away from truth and away from grace. Why would we follow these dead ends?
Now obviously I've merely touched the tip of the iceberg of approximately 79 different tangents. So there's plenty of room for refinement, expansion, clarification, discussion and disagreement in this centre space.
No comments:
Post a Comment