(Today’s sample is a couple of short items from Gospel Red Herring: Spiritualizing the Text.)
Hebrews 7:1-2
If you read this and the following passage literally, you cannot possibly comprehend where the author is going with this concept. While he doesn’t so much spiritualize the quote from the Old Testament, he uses it in a way that requires we spiritualize his own writing. It’s not that he takes off in strange and unjustified paths with such a limited amount of information about Melchizedek, or that he brings in all sorts of undocumented Jewish traditions, but that he engages in Hebrew hyperbole to good effect.
It’s not that Melchizedek was some kind of holy avatar who had no family background, but that it didn’t matter. His priesthood was not hereditary as under the Law of Moses, but was by faith according to the same standard of personal faith Abraham claimed. Thus, his role was timeless, since it was anchored outside this realm of existence (see verse 21). Few people understand this is precisely how David was able to touch the Ark of the Covenant without dying; he was also participating in this covenant of faith. Notice that the roles of king and priest are combined in the role held by Abraham, Melchizedek, David and Jesus. A few are called to such service and it’s not hard for those so served to recognize it.
But the point here is the masterful spiritualizing of the text the author shows us.
James 2:23
Most Christians fail to realize that James was hammering the Jewish Christians who clung to Pharisaical Hellenism. When some other writers says that we are justified by faith, it’s a reference to commitment that results in action. James points that out from the other direction. The faith of Abraham was not theoretical.
He quotes from Genesis 15:6 where God approves of Abraham’s faith because Abraham acted on it. In Abraham’s world, there was no such concept of objective truth. You could not call it “faith” if you weren’t faithful. Only among the Hellenized Jewish rabbis of Jesus’ time did we see the silly semantic wrangling suggesting that you could call something “faith” as a theoretical concept devoid of action. The whole business of semantic analysis is foreign to Hebrew thinking, but became a trademark of Judaism after the introduction of Greek analytical philosophy. We owe it to James for pointing out so bluntly how Hellenism disemboweled Hebrew religion. Legalistic literalism is a failure.
“…In Abraham’s world, there was no such concept of objective truth. You could not call it “faith” if you weren’t faithful. Only among the Hellenized Jewish rabbis of Jesus’ time did we see the silly semantic wrangling suggesting that you could call something “faith” as a theoretical concept devoid of action…”
Modern Christians apply the word “faith” in a similar fashion, but predicated on different traditional assumptions. It bypasses the trust factor that is so evident in the lives of those who exemplify reckless abandon in their walk with God. “My faith” is reckoned by many as the doctrine of their particular local church, denomination or personal beliefs in the aggregate. Faith is not a communal adherence to accepted theology, but is evidenced by an individual’s trust in God’s specific requests, requirements and revelations to them individually, not corporately. Faith is synonymous with trust and works are the requisite and visible outcomes of that trusting obedience.
You may consider the following as nearing the precipice of heresy, but I assure you I will not take that leap. So much of what we consider faith is indeed faith, but it is the faith of others; especially the Biblical authors and examples. It’s part of what I perceive as “Spiritual Plagiarism”; the stealing of the words and spiritual walk of those found in the Scriptures and making them our own as if we had the same intimate relationship with God as they did. The basis of this is far more complex than can be addressed as it relates to faith and in all probability would necessitate a new posting topic due to the foundational sensitivity of the premise. A simple example would be; God considered David the “Apple of His eye”. Some have stated after reading that specific passage, “God has told me I am the apple of His eye.”
I would be to differ, He indicated that David was the apple of His eye and that is cemented in the very text of Scriptures. That was the outcome of David’s faith; what is the outcome of your faith? I would not presume to steal David’s reputation, nor his faith’s outcome.
David, we can steal your words, but we cannot steal your heart.
The Voice of God is continually speaking.
I suppose it would make some folks upset, but I’m not sure that would earn the label of “heresy.” There’s a lot of that in the name-it-and-claim-it populist branch of religion, and it resembles someone trying to hijack an airliner when they can’t even ride a bike.
“… it resembles someone trying to hijack an airliner when they can’t even ride a bike.”
So, this is exactly how I feel when responding to one of your posts, and I’m not even in the “name-it” and “claim-it” clans peppering Christianity. The wilderness has left my throat parched; my executive and communication skills are as dry as Ezekiel’s desert bones at the present…I do see an oasis shimmering on the horizon. So, perhaps I will walk along the edge of that precipice and entice you into jumping off with me, or at least in keeping me from committing spiritual suicide.
The heresy I was referring to is directly related to Christianities “golden calf”; the Word of God (It has many golden calfs, but I desire to melt this one first). It’s how the Sacred Scriptures are interpreted that allows for Christians to exhibit ecolalia and spiritual plagiarism resulting in poor outcomes in their testimony of Christ. It actually retards experiential faith and is inherently self-limiting by “it’s God’s Word” assumptions…to be continued.
Do you have an applicable post for me to mediate on before I incur the wrath of the faithful?
Again, relax Bro.; you’re safe here. I’ve long debunked the notion that our Bible is a book of magic incantations, along with the idea that God’s Laws are anything like Western legislation. I’ve also pointedly chewed through the phrase “propositional truth” more than once. Your comments are enriching, so keep at it. As for suggesting specific posts: I’ve posted something virtually every day since starting almost six years ago. I can hardly recall which one covers what concepts. If you’ve read more than three of my didactic books you probably have seen most of it already.
@enoch1970 – For what it’s worth, I too find your comments enriching. Please keep contributing!