Barefoot Blog


Bible Study and Certainty

In my view, the demand for certainty has likely caused more pain and suffering, more confusion and disillusion, than any other single assumption in the study of the Scriptures.

The opposite of certainty is subjectivity. Those who fear the loss of total certainty, must not allow themselves to conclude that if the accounts of the events in Scripture are not absolutely certain, they must be a total fabrication. A total fabrication of events is not what we are reading in the Scriptures. It is a limited, value-based, and biased personal understanding of the events that took place.

While I do not agree the events were fabricated, I also disagree with those who approach biblical studies with the attitude that in them they will find pure objectivity. In the New Testament, we learn of the actual events as they most probably occurred through the perspective of “insiders” whose concern for precision will vary from our own.

The notion that certainty and complete objectivity may be obtained in any study, including biblical studies, is a modern myth. Yes, Paul wrote to Timothy with these words: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” (2Ti 3:16) It’s important for us to acknowledge however, that Paul was referring to Old Testament texts. He did not boast of his own letters, even if succeeding generations of believers have properly understood them to be “God-breathed.”

I welcome the evaluative process, measuring the probability that the events occurred as they are presented to us in the New Testament. The value of a thorough historical study, making use of extra-biblical materials, helps us fill out the story with details of the social and religious setting, which is not necessarily found in the Bible alone.

We should approach the Scriptures with humility, recognizing that they are not what we want them to be. Instead, they are what they are and they point us to Jesus Christ.

Comments Off


The Importance of the Book of Acts

The Book of Acts is obviously Luke’s continuing historical account transitioning from the story of Jesus to the story of the Church. What’s somewhat surprising is the necessity to foster a theological perspective, or rather a missiological perspective, as you read the chronology of the early witnesses of the Good News to the Gentile nations. The fact is we would not be able to understand the rest of the New Testament without the Book of Acts.

Luke & Acts are primarily historical documents in nature. It is not a pure history. It comes from a limited perspective of what occurred in and outside the community of believers, which expanded throughout the Roman Empire. It should not discourage us to know that we will not find a purely objective history. It is value-based, biased, and a limited view of the events.

Our study of the Scriptures requires respect; no method of study will “correspond precisely to the conviction that the New Testament… comprises the Scriptures of the Christian Church.” (Achtemeier, Green, and Thompson: 12)

By having respect, I mean that we should employ a “critical openness” posture, listening respectfully and responding thoughtfully. We should examine the literary and historical nature of the documents, and at the same time understand their importance shaping the faith and conduct of communities of Christ followers through the centuries and in many cultures.

Comments Off


DEMYSTIFYING REVELATION (Part 1 of 5)

The Book of Revelation is a unique New Testament apocalypse, often mistaken as a “mystery” to be decoded. Revelation has been dramatically portrayed in recent years as a predictive timeline of the end of the world. Apocalyptic literature has predicted the coming of the Messiah for centuries, before and after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The central message of Revelation, however, is not predictive. Rather than seek a timeline of eschatological events, Revelation confirms that the “great turning point” in history has already occurred. Revelation is a testimony of Jesus’ resurrection and sovereignty, which is “the spirit of prophecy” (Rev. 19:10). Prophecy is not primarily intended to predict future events. It is for the “upbuilding and encouragement and consolation” of the church (1 Cor. 14:3-4). John’s prophecy is exposing false teachings and denouncing idolatry, which result in the abuse of authority in every sphere of human society. This message to “seven churches” at the end of the first century is written as a warning to evoke a particular response, to “repent.”
The book of Revelation is an encouragement to the churches to “return” (Rev. 2:5), to “obey” (Rev. 3:3), to “beware” (Rev. 2:10), to “wake up” (Rev. 3:2-3), to “hold fast” (Rev. 3:11), to “listen” and to “open the door” (Rev. 3:20) in response to Jesus. While unveiling the glory and majesty of the risen “King of the nations” (Rev. 15:3) to his readers, John reveals Jesus’ hope for “the rest of humankind” (Rev. 9:20), that through the times of “wrath” (Rev. 16:1), all would have opportunity to repent. Revelation is demystified when we read it essentially as a prophecy, encouraging churches to be faithful to the testimony of Jesus, his incarnation, his leadership, and his promise for all humanity.

See more at http://johnthenry.wordpress.com
The Book of Revelation is a unique New Testament apocalypse, often mistaken as a “mystery” to be decoded. Revelation has been dramatically portrayed in recent years as a predictive timeline of the end of the world. Apocalyptic literature has predicted the coming of the Messiah for centuries, before and after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The central message of Revelation, however, is not predictive. Rather than to present a timeline of eschatological events, Revelation confirms that the “great turning point” in history has already occurred. Revelation is a testimony of Jesus’ resurrection and sovereignty, which is “the spirit of prophecy” (Rev. 19:10). Prophecy is not primarily intended to predict future events. It is for the “upbuilding and encouragement and consolation” of the church (1 Cor. 14:3-4). John’s prophecy is exposing false teachings and denouncing idolatry, which result in the abuse of authority in every sphere of human society. This message to “seven churches” at the end of the first century is written as a warning to evoke a particular response, to “repent.”
The book of Revelation is an encouragement to the churches to “return” (Rev. 2:5), to “obey” (Rev. 3:3), to “beware” (Rev. 2:10), to “wake up” (Rev. 3:2-3), to “hold fast” (Rev. 3:11), to “listen” and to “open the door” (Rev. 3:20) in response to Jesus. While unveiling the glory and majesty of the risen “King of the nations” (Rev. 15:3) to his readers, John reveals Jesus’ hope for “the rest of humankind” (Rev. 9:20), that through the times of “wrath” (Rev. 16:1), all would have opportunity to repent. Revelation is demystified when we read it essentially as a prophecy, encouraging churches to be faithful to the testimony of Jesus, his incarnation, his leadership, and his promise for all humanity.

Comments Off


Dance of Authorship

The authors of the four Gospels are not yet verified. This fact does not affect my understanding of the nature of the New Testament. We should not, however, be content to accept a “good guess,” blindly accepting tradition. Important questions are raised because none of the authors ascribed their names to their accounts.

Watching, and then participating, in this dance between faith and reason is captivating. That the sources are a multitude of witnesses, even if anonymous witnesses, attests to their reliability. Still, there are many who would not question, perhaps fearing their own faith would collapse like a house of cards.

Questioning authorship helps us see important issues we might otherwise have missed. Such questions, asked sincerely, should enhance the validity and the message of the Gospel story, which is ultimately pointing to the cross.

Certainly the Gospel writers grasped the meaning of the message, which is the message of self-denying love. This is difficult to understand in our modern cult of celebrity, however it may explain why the authors did not claim authorship.

All our questioning should lead us to the lesson of self-denial. We should let the text be what it is, rather than trying to make it what we wish it were.

The demand for certainty seems to have left some with no other option than to build their theological house with wood, hay, and straw. Living in such a “house” would be stifling; one would be afraid to move, let alone dance in that house.

Comments Off


Concluding Thoughts on Culture and the NT (Part 5 of 5)

Understanding González’ paradigms of culture helps us understand Paul, who reconciled his identity as a Mestizos. González’ paradigms help us understand why Paul stood so strongly against those who preached a “different gospel” (Gal. 1:6 NIV) which throughout history has fragmented, marginalized, exiled, and made aliens. These paradigms help us interpret how God is at work among people in the margins or between cultures. The paradigm of solidarity helps us see in the Scriptures and throughout history the need for give-and-take dialog between cultures and the need for proper engagement within culture. As González relates, “The most exciting things have happened, not at the traditional centers of the life of the church, but at the edges.” The disarming of principalities and powers occurs as we participate with God in the example of Pentecost through which God’s Spirit inaugurates the character of openness to outsiders. Interpretation of the New Testament, without attention to the influences of culture, may lead to alienation and distort the message, however the Bible will always affirm the purpose of God, directing the readers’ understanding to the call of the new community of Jesus’ followers to open their hearts to every culture to become One New Humanity.

Comments Off


Culture & the New Testament (1 of 5)

Two forlorn Jewish disciples met a stranger as they were leaving Jerusalem, the center of their world. After hearing them explain that their teacher, Jesus of Nazareth, had been crucified, the “uninformed” stranger responded, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” (Luke 24:25-26 NIV) The resurrected Jesus explained what was plainly written in the Scriptures concerning himself. Luke’s gospel concludes with Jesus’ statement that, “Repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:47 NIV)

How can this message of Jesus be pronounced “to all nations” if the Jewish people, centered within the context of a national expectation of the coming Messiah, failed to recognize him? If his disciples who walked with him and heard his teaching had failed to understand, what were the implications for the apostles who began to preach the gospel to different cultures? How do different contexts, and different centers of cultural understanding, effect the interpretation of the message? What must we therefore understand about the role of culture in the understanding of the New Testament? After feigning a continued journey, Jesus sat to break bread with his fellow travelers. In an instant his identity was revealed and he left those two disciples with hearts ablaze and compelled to go tell somebody.

In his book, Santa Biblia: The Bible through Hispanic Eyes, Justo González offers helpful insights for Biblical interpretation through cultural paradigms of marginality, poverty, mestizaje and mulatez, exile and aliens, and solidarity. Making use of these paradigms, I will argue that the reinterpretation of the apostle Paul’s identity, the misinterpretation of the gospel message across cultures over the centuries, and the challenge Paul presents to the Church to disarm principalities and powers over cultures are all necessary to overcome the temptation to confuse the message of the gospel. Understanding the role of culture is essential to understanding the New Testament and therefore the mission of the Church.

(This is the first of five posts on this topic. Look for the next in a few days.)

Comments Off