Scripture Through the Ages

I recently finished a monster of a book by theologian N. T. Wright, entitled Jesus and the Victory of God, an exhaustive analysis of the three synoptic gospels, examining not only their veracity, but the likely meaning of Jesus' statements within them, as well as the possible symbolic meaning of his actions. Wright comes to the conclusion that virtually everything Jesus says and does in these gospels is in the mode of a "warning prophet", like Isaiah or Jeremiah, telling Israel about its misdeeds and warning of a great calamity should these behaviors not be corrected. This is put up against many contemporary (and some less contemporary) writers and theologians who have interpreted these passages in a much more universal sense. For instance, whereas most modern-day preachers take on the prodigal son parable as a story of God's infinite love for us, no matter how much we might screw up, Wright sees it as an allegory for Israel's exile, return, and renewal, even in the face of objections from those who remained. Wright points out the parallels between the the younger son engaging in riotous living, and as a consequence being forced to feed pigs to survive, and Israel engaging in Pagan worship rites, and as a result being carried off to Babylon as slaves, in many cases being forced to work with pigs, clearly a taboo profession among the Jewish people. The older brother, who objects to the celebration being held for the younger is, according to Wright, analogous to the Jews who stayed behind.

After devoting an entire chapter to this parable, Wright goes on to analyze quite a few other saying, parables, and actions of Jesus in a similar light. He envisions the Sermon on the Mount as a re-imagining of Leviticus; Jesus ascending the mount of Olives and weeping over the future destruction of Jerusalem as similar to Isaiah going naked, or Jeremiah smashing a pot; and the Pharisees as the wicked tenants in another well-known parable. In other words, Wright sees Jesus' ministry as set entirely within his time, and firmly within the Jewish context. For instance, he points to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70 by the Romans as likely what Jesus was talking about when he referred to "the Day of the Lord", on the day about which Jesus says, "For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren and the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’", whereas most modern-day analyses I've seen hold to the idea that the passage refers to what is often called "the end-times". Whether you take one view or the other, it's clearly, at this point, not an idea one can just take for granted.

Now, regardless where one stands on the issue of how much can really be known about the historicity of the bible (and I find Wright's methods and arguments quite convincing), it poses the question: how, in the modern day, are we to read scripture? Clearly, we are not the people to whom Jesus made these statements specifically. On the other side, even if you do take a more universal view of Jesus' words (or believe that he had an eye toward the future as opposed to just his audience), one still has to admit the he spoke them to an audience of people with very different priorities, understandings, and issues than we have in the present day, and out of that audience was born a movement that would eventually become the church as we know it today.

Personally, I think that the scriptures must, in fact, be read both ways (and Wright echoes this sentiment, at least in passing - he seems to assume it as a given. After all, if Jesus' ministry were meant only for the people of his time, then it's safe to assume modern day preachers would all be out of a job). Despite its certain relevance to the present day, I still think an historical reading of scripture is essential, especially, for instance, when it comes to prophecy. As Wright's book makes clear, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that most of the events prophesied by Jesus in the bible already happened (except for that whole coming again in judgment of both the living and the dead bit), and that therefore sitting around trying to read into current events as signifying the end times is more than a little useless. For instance, as Wright points out, the passage where Jesus mentions "the Son of Man coming on a cloud" can be just as easily read (Wright states that in fact it's the most likely interpretation) as Jesus returning FROM Earth TO Heaven, thus prophesying his eventual ascension, and not the inverse, as is commonly thought.

I would also argue that historical readings of scripture, even when they somehow seem less relevant to the present day, can inform modern readings. Take, for instance, the parable of the seed. Wright takes this parable to mean that in fact the seed which falls on good soil is Jesus himself, and the seeds falling in other, less fruitful areas as the prophets who came before him, which actually gives this parable a much more hopeful quality than might other interpretations.

I've chosen to focus this post more on the historical end of the debate mainly because it's what I've been reading about, but in no way do I think that it's more important than the timeless truths to be found in the bible as well. The historical view merely lends yet another dimension to what already are vast, complex truths.