[Vision2020] Bible 101 for Mr. Stile
Nick Gier
ngier@uidaho.edu
Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:45:23 -0800
--Boundary_(ID_urL2/NUr9WE1z8st3nLCqA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Mr. Stile:
Having you been taking scholarship lessons from Doug Wilson? It certainly=20
looks as if you have!
In the piece that follows, I=92ll be defending the comments that my friend=
=20
Stan Thomas made at the Feb. 7 panel =93Slavery as It Wasn=92t.=94 Stan=
gave a=20
very accurate account of the history of American fundamentalism and its=20
distorted view of traditional orthodox Christianity.
Before I forget it, at the end I=92ve also replied to Jim Wilson=92s=
reference=20
to the Servant Songs of Isaiah in his letter to the editor (Feb. 24)=20
praising Mel Gibson=92s =93The Passion of the Christ.=94 The essence of my=
=20
remarks is that these famous passages most likely refer to the sufferings=20
of Israel and not to any one future individual.
In what follows I=92ll be taking entire sections from chapters 6 and 8 of my=
=20
book =93God, Reason, and the Evangelicals,=94 and I=92ll begin with some=20
epigraphs from the chapter. (Excerpts from the book will not be indented.)=
=20
For footnotes you will have to refer to my book directly. By the way, I=20
now have the copyright to this book, so most of the chapters will soon be=20
on my website at www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre.htm.
When discrepancies occur in the Holy Scripture, and we cannot harmonize=20
them, let them pass. It does not endanger the articles of the Christian=
faith.
--Martin Luther
The Bible does not give us a doctrine of its own inspiration and authority=
=20
that answers all the various questions we might like to ask. Its witness=20
on this subject is unsystematic and somewhat fragmentary and enables us to=
=20
reach important but modest conclusions.
--Clark H. Pinnock, leading conservative=20
evangelical theologian
In the last analysis the inerrancy theory is a logical deduction not well=20
supported exegetically. Those who press it hard are elevating reason over=
=20
Scripture....
--Pinnock
In order to avoid imputing error to the Bible, fundamentalists twist and=20
turn back and forward between literal and nonliteral...exegesis....The=20
typical conservative evangelical exegesis is literal, but only up to a=20
point: when the point is reached where literal interpretation would make=20
the Bible appear 'wrong,' a sudden switch to nonliteral interpretation is=20
made. James Barr, expert on the fundamentalist movement
The authors... are right about the Bible being a perfect book but are wrong=
=20
in the way they define perfection....They are defining perfect the way a=20
mathematician or scientist would define it; they are not defining perfect=20
the way the cross of Jesus Christ defines it.
--Robert M. Smith=92s review of God=92s=
Inerrant Word
The idea of the detailed inerrancy of scripture as the Wilsonites=
=20
and many others preach it is a fairly recent phenomenon. Generally=20
speaking, with the rise of modern science, the scientific paradigm of truth=
=20
became more and more prominent. Unfortunately, some Christians, feeling=20
threatened by all the new uncertainties, thought that by taking a=20
=93scientific=94 approach to the Bible they could have a bigger Truth and=20
science claimed to have. In my book I call this =93evangelical=
rationalism,=94=20
and it is essentially intellectually fraudulent.
When Stile claims that his position is the one of the historic=20
church, he does not know what he=92s talking about. Most of the early=
Church=20
fathers read most biblical stories as allegories. The biblical writers=20
themselves have very little concern for textual accuracy, sometimes using=20
Old Testament paraphrases from the Jewish Targums and bad translations from=
=20
the Septuagint (the best example is Is. 7:14 in the KJV).
Stile references 2 Tim. 3:16 underneath his signature as if this=20
passage, without commentary or interpretation, proves the points he is=20
making. Here is what I discovered and concluded about 2 Tim. 3:16.
The Bible's divine inspiration is supported by a single passage from 2=20
Timothy: "...from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred=20
writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in=20
Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God (theopneutos, lit.=20
"God-breathed") and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction,=20
and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete,=20
equipped for every good work" (3:15-17). If Paul is the author of this=20
passage (as most evangelicals believe), no Christian could have read any of=
=20
the New Testament books from childhood. Given this evangelical assumption,=
=20
the inescapable conclusion is that only the Old Testament is being labeled=
=20
"God-breathed."
Nowhere in the authentic Pauline letters is there a hint that there is=20
other scriptural authority besides the Old Testament. For Paul the gospel=
=20
of Christ is spoken, not written. For example, when Paul speaks of the=20
divine word (logos) in 1 Thes. 2:13, it is clear that he is talking about=20
the gospel he is proclaiming, certainly not his own writing. Indeed, it is=
=20
very doubtful whether Paul intended his private letters to have scriptural=
=20
status. As F. G. Bratton, states: "That this correspondence was to=20
become...an integral part of the new Bible called the New Testament...would=
=20
have been news to Paul himself. Such an idea was far from his mind. He=20
was writing personal letters to certain people, and if he had been able to=
=20
visit them in person, he would not have written them."
Most scholars believe that 1 and 2 Timothy were written long after=
=20
Paul's time, perhaps as late as 140 C.E. If this is the case, then it=20
would have been possible for Christians to have read some of the Pauline=20
epistles and gospels in their formative years. Indeed, many scholars=20
believe that the writer of 1 Tim. 5:18 must be quoting from Luke's=20
gospel. For Paul to have written this, we would have to assume that he had=
=20
access to the same early sources as Luke did. There is no evidence,=20
however, that he did. By the time the so-called pastoral epistles were=20
written, the New Testament canon was already in formation. Hence, we find=
=20
that in 2 Peter 3:16 Paul's letters are on a par with inspired=20
scripture. This is highly unlikely if the apostle Peter was the author of=
=20
this work. (Even Calvin believed that he was not.) Again, it is better,=20
for many more reasons than this one, to place the Petrine letters in the=20
early second century.
Even if Paul wrote 2 Tim. 3:16, there is nothing there which explicitly=20
supports the detailed inerrancy of modern evangelicalism. Scripture is=20
supposed "to instruct us for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus"; it=20
says nothing about instructing us in history, geography, or the natural=20
sciences. Following our earlier discussion of logos in Chapter One [of=20
God, Reason, and the Evangelicals], one could say that just as logos is=20
primarily life, divine inspiration is to be interpreted in the same=20
way. For Christians God's Word is not a gnostic but a life-giving gospel.
Finally, from a strictly philosophical standpoint, there is something=20
fundamentally suspect about the argument using 2 Timothy. The Christian is=
=20
essentially saying that the Bible is inspired because it says that it is=20
inspired. The error here is both circular reasoning and the informal=20
fallacy of irrelevance (i.e., appeal to authority). Without external=20
support, the doctrine of divine inspiration is valid only for those=20
believers who hold it as an article of faith. The attempt to prove=20
inspiration by empirical verification is pseudoscientific and rationalistic=
=20
in the worst way.
For Calvin=92s and Luther=92s views on the authority of scripture you=
=20
should check that section of my book. But here is a little more on Luther:
In his Bible scholarship Luther was sensitive to the historical-critical=20
method, which had just begun to be used. He questioned the traditional=20
authorship of Genesis, Ecclesiastes, and Jude; he doubted the canonicity of=
=20
Esther, Hebrew, James and Revelation; he talked about "error" in the=20
prophets; and he pointed out historical discrepancies in Kings and=
Chronicles.
Luther called James "that epistle of straw," and it is obvious that=20
Luther's antipathy to this book was because of its strong "works"=20
doctrine. Problems like these with the biblical text did not bother=20
Luther, because he was not a protofundamentalist. He states: "When=20
discrepancies occur in the Holy Scripture, and we cannot harmonize them,=20
let them pass. It does not endanger the articles of the Christian faith."
In Chapter 8 of my book I discuss the main Christological titles=20
used by orthodox Christianity and conclude that all of them have been=20
misinterpreted. Here, especially for Jim Wilson, is the section on the=20
Suffering Servant.
The identity of the Servant in Second Isaiah has occupied scores of=20
scholars for many decades. The proposed candidates are legion: the=20
Servant is Israel as a whole, a saintly remnant, an ideal nation of the=20
future, a past historical figure (Moses, Cyrus, Isaiah himself), a future=20
historical figure (Jesus favored here of course), and finally, an ideal=20
figure. Again we find ourselves in the precarious position of drawing=20
theological implications from ancient and obscure poetry.
In his Anchor Bible commentary John L. McKenzie summarily rejects the=20
Christian interpretation of the Servant Songs and favors the ideal figure=20
with a corporate personality. Such a view would include the ideas of=20
individual and group as well as past, present, and future events. McKenzie=
=20
admits that his theory does not explain the references to the vicarious=20
atonement and resurrection of the Servant; but as far as I know, no other=20
theory does this either, not even the Christian view.
If one reads Isaiah 52-53 in context, the first conclusion one must draw is=
=20
that the Suffering Servant is not the Messiah. The author has already=20
declared that Cyrus is the Lord's "anointed" (45:1). (Nowhere do we read=20
that the Servant is "anointed.") Even though this messiahship is different=
=20
in crucial respects--Cyrus is a non-Israelite and he does not "know"=20
Yahweh--it would seem strange for Deutero-Isaiah to have proclaimed two=20
messiahs. Later Jewish prophets and the tradition as a whole did not link=20
the Servant with the Messiah. Indeed, later prophets without exception=20
ignored the Servant. As John McKenzie states: "The Servant is clearly not=
=20
the King-Messiah; his mission is not conceived in this way, and the images=
=20
are not the same. Whether Isaiah meant to replace the King-Messiah by the=
=20
Servant is not explicit, but it is hinted."
There is one Jewish commentary on Isaiah which does link the Servant and=20
the Messiah. This is the =93Targum of Jonathan,=94 which, although the MS.=
=20
dates from the 5th Century C.E., may reflect a much earlier tradition. The=
=20
Targum does identify the Servant with the Messiah, but imputes all=20
suffering to either Israel or the Gentiles:
Then shall the glory of all the kingdoms be despised
and come to an end; they shall be infirm and sick
even as a man of sorrows and as one destined for
sicknesses...they shall be despised and of no account.
Then he shall pray on behalf of our transgressions
and our iniquities shall be pardoned for his sake,
though we were accounted smitten, stricken
before the Lord, and afflicted.
It is clear that it is the people as a whole who suffer--they are the=20
Suffering Servant--not the Messiah.
Close scrutiny of the Servant passages reveals that the Servant cannot be=20
Jesus, if we are to read scripture as the evangelicals want us to. Jesus=20
was not disfigured beyond human recognition (52:14). Jesus was not "one=20
from whom men hide their faces" (53:3). Jesus was not "stricken, smitten=20
by God" (53:4), unless we accept Green's untraditional notion that God was=
=20
crushed in the Crucifixion. Jesus did open his mouth; the servant does not=
=20
(53:7). Jesus answered, albeit briefly, questions at his trial. During=20
his passion he spoke to the "daughters of Jerusalem" (Lk. 23:28), to the=20
good robber, to his mother, to John, and the people in general. Jesus was=
=20
not buried in a felon's grave (53:9), but allegedly in a rich man's tomb.=20
The Servant's days are prolonged (53:10), but Jesus' days are not. If this=
=20
means earthly days, as the phrase is commonly taken, then it cannot apply=20
to Jesus.
In her book =93Jesus and the Servant=94 Morna Hooker has shown that=
vicarious=20
atonement by a single individual for all people was alien to the Hebrew=20
mind. The idea of the corporate personality was embedded in the Hebrew=20
mentality. The Old Testament writers switch from the singular to the=20
plural and vice versa with the greatest of ease, even within the space of=20
two verses (e.g., Hos. 11:1-2). Hooker's comparative study of Jeremiah,=20
Ezekiel, and Deutero-Isaiah shows similar themes and a theology that tends=
=20
to support the corporate understanding of redemption. The suffering=20
appears to be in the past and therefore represents the suffering of Israel,=
=20
not some future suffering figure. Within the context of Isaiah's=20
universalism (the nations are speaking at the be=ADginning of Is. 53),=
Hooker=20
identifies the Servant as suffering Israel, atoning for the sins of=20
all. (The Targum of Jonathan mentioned above confirms that this was a=20
general Jewish belief.)
Like most biblical interpretations, there are certain weaknesses in both=20
Hooker's and McKenzie's accounts. The principal one is that the people of=
=20
Israel could not serve as a literal sacrifice ('asham). First, the 'asham=
=20
had to be spotless and without blemish; and second, the 'asham, at least=20
according to Hebrew practices, could not be a human being or group of human=
=20
beings. This is a serious hermeneutical problem, but it also poses a=20
challenge, at least on the point of human sacrifice, to the orthodox=20
interpretation of the Servant. Conservative commentators do have grounds=20
to speak of the resurrection of the Servant (cf. 53:9-10), but this again=20
might be seen as the revival of Israel itself.
In this section I have shown that the traditional interpretation that the=20
Suffering Servant foreshadows Jesus, let alone the Messiah, is not=20
supported. As we look back at the entire discussion of christological=20
titles, we find that none of them are compatible with Old Testament=20
understanding or expectation, except perhaps the adoptionistic reading of=20
"Son of God." Evangelical D. H. Wallace honestly recognizes that messianic=
=20
expectations were "diffuse"; that there were no clear connections between=20
Messiah, Suffering Servant, and Son of Man; and that Jesus avoided the=20
title Messiah because of its political implications. The traditional=20
connections between the Old and New Testaments are therefore considerably
Nicholas F. Gier
Professor Emeritus, Department of Philosophy, University of Idaho
1037 Colt Rd., Moscow, ID 83843
http://users.moscow.com/ngier/home/index.htm
208-883-3360/882-9212/FAX 885-8950
President, Idaho Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO
www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/ift/index.htm=
--Boundary_(ID_urL2/NUr9WE1z8st3nLCqA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<font face=3D"Courier New, Courier" size=3D1>Dear Mr. Stile:<br><br>
Having you been taking scholarship lessons from Doug Wilson? It certainly
looks as if you have! <br><br>
In the piece that follows, I=92ll be defending the comments that my friend
Stan Thomas made at the Feb. 7 panel =93Slavery as It Wasn=92t.=94 Sta=
n
gave a very accurate account of the history of American fundamentalism
and its distorted view of traditional orthodox Christianity.<br><br>
Before I forget it, at the end I=92ve also replied to Jim Wilson=92s
reference to the Servant Songs of Isaiah in his letter to the editor
(Feb. 24) praising Mel Gibson=92s =93The Passion of the Christ.=94 The
essence of my remarks is that these famous passages most likely refer to
the sufferings of Israel and not to any one future individual. <br><br>
In what follows I=92ll be taking entire sections from chapters 6 and 8 of
my book =93God, Reason, and the Evangelicals,=94 and I=92ll begin with some
epigraphs from the chapter. (Excerpts from the book will not be
indented.) For footnotes you will have to refer to my book
directly. By the way, I now have the copyright to this book, so
most of the chapters will soon be on my website at
<a href=3D"http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre.htm"=
eudora=3D"autourl">www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre.htm</a>.<br><br>
When discrepancies occur in the Holy Scripture, and we cannot harmonize
them, let them pass. It does not endanger the articles of the
Christian faith.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> =
</x-tab><x-tab> &=
nbsp; </x-tab><x-tab> &n=
bsp; </x-tab>--Martin
Luther<br><br>
The Bible does not give us a doctrine of its own inspiration and
authority that answers all the various questions we might like to
ask. Its witness on this subject is unsystematic and somewhat
fragmentary and enables us to reach important but modest
conclusions.<br>
&nbs=
p;
<x-tab> </x-tab>--Clark H.
Pinnock, leading conservative evangelical theologian<br><br>
In the last analysis the inerrancy theory is a logical deduction not well
supported exegetically. Those who press it hard are elevating
reason over Scripture....<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> =
</x-tab><x-tab> &=
nbsp; </x-tab><x-tab> &n=
bsp; </x-tab>--Pinnock<br><br>
In order to avoid imputing error to the Bible, fundamentalists twist and
turn back and forward between literal and nonliteral...exegesis....The
typical conservative evangelical exegesis is literal, but only up to a
point: when the point is reached where literal interpretation would
make the Bible appear 'wrong,' a sudden switch to nonliteral
interpretation is made. James Barr, expert on the fundamentalist
movement<br><br>
The authors... are right about the Bible being a perfect book but are
wrong in the way they define perfection....They are defining perfect the
way a mathematician or scientist would define it; they are not defining
perfect the way the cross of Jesus Christ defines it.<br>
&nbs=
p; &n=
bsp;
--Robert M. Smith=92s review of God=92s Inerrant Word<br><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>The idea
of the detailed inerrancy of scripture as the Wilsonites and many others
preach it is a fairly recent phenomenon. Generally speaking, with
the rise of modern science, the scientific paradigm of truth became more
and more prominent. Unfortunately, some Christians, feeling
threatened by all the new uncertainties, thought that by taking a
=93scientific=94 approach to the Bible they could have a bigger Truth and
science claimed to have. In my book I call this =93evangelical
rationalism,=94 and it is essentially intellectually fraudulent.<br><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>When Stile
claims that his position is the one of the historic church, he does not
know what he=92s talking about. Most of the early Church fathers read
most biblical stories as allegories. The biblical writers
themselves have very little concern for textual accuracy, sometimes using
Old Testament paraphrases from the Jewish Targums and bad translations
from the Septuagint (the best example is Is. 7:14 in the KJV).<br><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Stile
references 2 Tim. 3:16 underneath his signature as if this passage,
without commentary or interpretation, proves the points he is
making. Here is what I discovered and concluded about 2 Tim.
3:16.<br><br>
The Bible's divine inspiration is supported by a single passage from 2
Timothy: "...from childhood you have been acquainted with the
sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through
faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God
(theopneutos, lit. "God-breathed") and profitable for teaching,
for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the
man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work"
(3:15-17). If Paul is the author of this passage (as most
evangelicals believe), no Christian could have read any of the New
Testament books from childhood. Given this evangelical assumption,
the inescapable conclusion is that only the Old Testament is being
labeled
"God-breathed."<x-tab> </x-tab><br><b=
r>
Nowhere in the authentic Pauline letters is there a hint that there is
other scriptural authority besides the Old Testament. For Paul the
gospel of Christ is spoken, not written. For example, when Paul
speaks of the divine word (logos) in 1 Thes. 2:13, it is clear that he is
talking about the gospel he is proclaiming, certainly not his own
writing. Indeed, it is very doubtful whether Paul intended his
private letters to have scriptural status. As F. G. Bratton,
states: "That this correspondence was to become...an integral
part of the new Bible called the New Testament...would have been news to
Paul himself. Such an idea was far from his mind. He was
writing personal letters to certain people, and if he had been able to
visit them in person, he would not have written them."<br><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Most scholars
believe that 1 and 2 Timothy were written long after Paul's time, perhaps
as late as 140 C.E. If this is the case, then it would have been
possible for Christians to have read some of the Pauline epistles and
gospels in their formative years. Indeed, many scholars believe
that the writer of 1 Tim. 5:18 must be quoting from Luke's gospel.
For Paul to have written this, we would have to assume that he had access
to the same early sources as Luke did. There is no evidence,
however, that he did. By the time the so-called pastoral epistles
were written, the New Testament canon was already in formation.
Hence, we find that in 2 Peter 3:16 Paul's letters are on a par with
inspired scripture. This is highly unlikely if the apostle Peter
was the author of this work. (Even Calvin believed that he was
not.) Again, it is better, for many more reasons than this one, to
place the Petrine letters in the early second century. <br><br>
Even if Paul wrote 2 Tim. 3:16, there is nothing there which explicitly
supports the detailed inerrancy of modern evangelicalism. Scripture
is supposed "to instruct us for salvation through faith in Christ
Jesus"; it says nothing about instructing us in history, geography,
or the natural sciences. Following our earlier discussion of logos
in Chapter One [of God, Reason, and the Evangelicals], one could say that
just as logos is primarily life, divine inspiration is to be interpreted
in the same way. For Christians God's Word is not a gnostic but a
life-giving gospel.<br><br>
Finally, from a strictly philosophical standpoint, there is something
fundamentally suspect about the argument using 2 Timothy. The Christian
is essentially saying that the Bible is inspired because it says that it
is inspired. The error here is both circular reasoning and the
informal fallacy of irrelevance (i.e., appeal to authority).
Without external support, the doctrine of divine inspiration is valid
only for those believers who hold it as an article of faith. The attempt
to prove inspiration by empirical verification is pseudoscientific and
rationalistic in the worst way. <br>
<br>
For Calvin=92s and Luther=92s views on the authorit=
y
of scripture you should check that section of my book. But here is
a little more on Luther:<br>
<br>
In his Bible scholarship Luther was sensitive to the historical-critical
method, which had just begun to be used. He questioned the
traditional authorship of Genesis, Ecclesiastes, and Jude; he doubted the
canonicity of Esther, Hebrew, James and Revelation; he talked about
"error" in the prophets; and he pointed out historical
discrepancies in Kings and Chronicles. <br><br>
Luther called James "that epistle of straw," and it is obvious
that Luther's antipathy to this book was because of its strong
"works" doctrine. Problems like these with the biblical
text did not bother Luther, because he was not a
protofundamentalist. He states: "When discrepancies
occur in the Holy Scripture, and we cannot harmonize them, let them
pass. It does not endanger the articles of the Christian
faith."<br><br>
In Chapter 8 of my book I discuss the main
Christological titles used by orthodox Christianity and conclude that all
of them have been misinterpreted. Here, especially for Jim Wilson,
is the section on the Suffering Servant.<br><br>
The identity of the Servant in Second Isaiah has occupied scores of
scholars for many decades. The proposed candidates are
legion: the Servant is Israel as a whole, a saintly remnant, an
ideal nation of the future, a past historical figure (Moses, Cyrus,
Isaiah himself), a future historical figure (Jesus favored here of
course), and finally, an ideal figure. Again we find ourselves in
the precarious position of drawing theological implications from ancient
and obscure poetry. <br><br>
In his Anchor Bible commentary John L. McKenzie summarily rejects the
Christian interpretation of the Servant Songs and favors the ideal figure
with a corporate personality. Such a view would include the ideas
of individual and group as well as past, present, and future
events. McKenzie admits that his theory does not explain the
references to the vicarious atonement and resurrection of the Servant;
but as far as I know, no other theory does this either, not even the
Christian view.<br><br>
If one reads Isaiah 52-53 in context, the first conclusion one must draw
is that the Suffering Servant is not the Messiah. The author has already
declared that Cyrus is the Lord's "anointed" (45:1).
(Nowhere do we read that the Servant is "anointed.") Even
though this messiahship is different in crucial respects--Cyrus is a
non-Israelite and he does not "know" Yahweh--it would seem
strange for Deutero-Isaiah to have proclaimed two messiahs. Later Jewish
prophets and the tradition as a whole did not link the Servant with the
Messiah. Indeed, later prophets without exception ignored the
Servant. As John McKenzie states: "The Servant is
clearly not the King-Messiah; his mission is not conceived in this way,
and the images are not the same. Whether Isaiah meant to replace
the King-Messiah by the Servant is not explicit, but it is
hinted."<br>
<br>
There is one Jewish commentary on Isaiah which does link the Servant and
the Messiah. This is the =93Targum of Jonathan,=94 which, although the
MS. dates from the 5th Century C.E., may reflect a much earlier
tradition. The Targum does identify the Servant with the Messiah,
but imputes all suffering to either Israel or the Gentiles:<br><br>
Then shall the glory of all the kingdoms
be despised<br>
and come to an end; they shall be infirm
and sick<br>
even as a man of sorrows and as one
destined for<br>
sicknesses...they shall be despised and of
no account. <br>
Then he shall pray on behalf of our
transgressions <br>
and our iniquities shall be pardoned for
his sake, <br>
though we were accounted smitten, stricken
<br>
before the Lord, and afflicted.<br><br>
It is clear that it is the people as a whole who suffer--they are the
Suffering Servant--not the Messiah.<br><br>
Close scrutiny of the Servant passages reveals that the Servant cannot be
Jesus, if we are to read scripture as the evangelicals want us to.
Jesus was not disfigured beyond human recognition (52:14). Jesus
was not "one from whom men hide their faces" (53:3).
Jesus was not "stricken, smitten by God" (53:4), unless we
accept Green's untraditional notion that God was crushed in the
Crucifixion. Jesus did open his mouth; the servant does not
(53:7). Jesus answered, albeit briefly, questions at his
trial. During his passion he spoke to the "daughters of
Jerusalem" (Lk. 23:28), to the good robber, to his mother, to John,
and the people in general. Jesus was not buried in a felon's grave
(53:9), but allegedly in a rich man's tomb. The Servant's days are
prolonged (53:10), but Jesus' days are not. If this means earthly
days, as the phrase is commonly taken, then it cannot apply to Jesus.
<br>
<br>
In her book =93Jesus and the Servant=94 Morna Hooker has shown that vicariou=
s
atonement by a single individual for all people was alien to the Hebrew
mind. The idea of the corporate personality was embedded in the
Hebrew mentality. The Old Testament writers switch from the
singular to the plural and vice versa with the greatest of ease, even
within the space of two verses (e.g., Hos. 11:1-2). Hooker's
comparative study of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Deutero-Isaiah shows similar
themes and a theology that tends to support the corporate understanding
of redemption. The suffering appears to be in the past and
therefore represents the suffering of Israel, not some future suffering
figure. Within the context of Isaiah's universalism (the nations
are speaking at the be=ADginning of Is. 53), Hooker identifies the Servant
as suffering Israel, atoning for the sins of all. (The Targum of
Jonathan mentioned above confirms that this was a general Jewish belief.)
<br>
<br>
Like most biblical interpretations, there are certain weaknesses in both
Hooker's and McKenzie's accounts. The principal one is that the
people of Israel could not serve as a literal sacrifice ('asham).
First, the 'asham had to be spotless and without blemish; and second, the
'asham, at least according to Hebrew practices, could not be a human
being or group of human beings. This is a serious hermeneutical
problem, but it also poses a challenge, at least on the point of human
sacrifice, to the orthodox interpretation of the Servant.
Conservative commentators do have grounds to speak of the resurrection of
the Servant (cf. 53:9-10), but this again might be seen as the revival of
Israel itself.<br><br>
In this section I have shown that the traditional interpretation that the
Suffering Servant foreshadows Jesus, let alone the Messiah, is not
supported. As we look back at the entire discussion of
christological titles, we find that none of them are compatible with Old
Testament understanding or expectation, except perhaps the adoptionistic
reading of "Son of God." Evangelical D. H. Wallace
honestly recognizes that messianic expectations were "diffuse";
that there were no clear connections between Messiah, Suffering Servant,
and Son of Man; and that Jesus avoided the title Messiah because of its
political implications. The traditional connections between the Old
and New Testaments are therefore considerably <br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
Nicholas F. Gier<br>
Professor Emeritus, Department of Philosophy, University of Idaho<br>
1037 Colt Rd., Moscow, ID 83843<br>
<a href=3D"http://users.moscow.com/ngier/home/index.htm"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://users.moscow.com/ngier/home/index.htm</a><br>
208-883-3360/882-9212/FAX 885-8950<br>
President, Idaho Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/ift/index.htm" eudora=3D"autour=
l">www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/ift/index.htm</a></html>
--Boundary_(ID_urL2/NUr9WE1z8st3nLCqA)--