Haven’t We Evolved Beyond the Bible?

Many people believe the Bible is a liability for Christians and the world. The Bible invites people to give religious sanction violence, prejudice, and tribalism. People should just leave the book behind, like a vestigial structure whose utility was questionable but today is a clear hindrance to our future evolution as a civilization and a species.

Jesus, especially in the canon of popular opinion which rarely bothers to consult the Christian canonical record, seems inclusive (nice to women, quiet about gays, gracious towards social outcasts), non-violent (except towards money changers tables and fig trees), loving (turn the other cheek, walk the extra mile, love your enemies) and giving (feeding the 5,000, eat my body, drink my blood).

The Problem of Hebrew God

Those who tend to promote this position most often point to the Old Testament. Here the God of the Hebrews sends an angel to kill the first born of Egypt, sends pestilence to cull the disobedient desert wanderers in their 40 years of generational genocide, commands the annihilation of the inhabitants of Jericho and Canaanites in general, and employs the likes of Assyrians and Babylonians to judge his own people. Clearly this god doesn’t respect human life as much as we like to think we do.

The New Testament Keeps Finding Itself in the Old

If you want Jesus, but you don’t want the Hebrew god, the problem you have is that Jesus, and his earliest followers clearly imagined they saw Jesus in the Old Testament. This tradition clearly goes back to the earliest records we have of what Christians did. Christians started doing this, and they just never stopped.

What this really involves is a way of thinking about Jesus and the rest of history. We giggle at finding Jesus in a grilled cheese sandwich, and we are interested in the ways communities find Jesus and God speaking to them, but this is not a joke or a game for those of us who ponder the ramifications of statements like “all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”.

Handel’s Messiah

Handel’s Messiah has become a favorite Christmas classic and anyone paying attention will note that the words all come from the King James Bible, and they begin with Old Testament passages that they are connecting with Jesus.

The God Who Authors History Likes to Riff

Behind these Jesus sightings is of course the assumption and assertion that history has an author, that Jesus existed before Mary’s pregnancy, and that the Lord likes to riff.

Here’s an nice tutorial on what a riff is. 

What the Old Testament then offers is an authoritative score for the religion that not only asserts this rather musical metaphor but greatly expands the contextuality through which it is played.

Unlike an image on a grilled cheese sandwich which tends to reduce Jesus to an amusement, this Old Testament riffing tends to locate Jesus among us in some meaningful and powerful ways.

Non-Contextual Spirituality

Isaiah 7 and 8 deal with a dark time in the history of the divided kingdom. The Assyrians to the north are expanding their influence and the kingdoms of Israel and Syria are threatened. A new king on Judah, Ahaz has taken command and he is not on board with Israel and Syria to his north. He had asked the help of the Assyrians in dealing with a Philistine threat, and the Assyrians complied. Now Israel and Syria want to pressure Judah into an alliance with them to contain Assyrian aggression to the south. Israel and Syria are attempting to make an offer that Judah can’t refused, by threatening Judah to either join with their side or be attacked by both of them.

Ahaz now has a choice to make. Either he can join with Israel and Syria, and become an enemy of Assyria, he can try to do nothing and hope to outlast the conflict, or he can try to reach a bargain with Assyria against Israel and Syria.

The prophet Isaiah comes to Ahaz and asks that he not put his trust in any of the surrounding kingdoms, but that he put his trust in the LORD.

Ahaz, however, has had a rather pragmatic approach to religion. He’s been a religious consumer, looking for spiritual allies who can offer him what he most wants, affluence and success. He doesn’t want to limit his options, so he doesn’t want to necessarily offend the Yhwh believers in his nation, but he’s been impressed by the results that the surrounding nations have had with their gods, especially the gods of Assyria.

If the question on your mind towards your gods is “what have you done for me lately”, Yhwh really hasn’t been on his game since the golden age of David and Solomon. The Assyrian dieties and religion, however, are demonstrating their effectiveness to Ahaz by Assyria’s geo-political success.

Ahaz’ definition of the “good” in the spiritual realm is “that which can get me what I want”. He is a spiritual consumer.

Isaiah’s Invitation

Not withstanding Ahaz’ spiritual track record the LORD sends Isaiah to Ahaz with a generous invitation. “Have you considered asking me? Ask me for a sign and I will give it to you.”

Ahaz demurs. He’s a politician after all, and politicians are skilled in not accepting invitations in a way that tries to offend no one. Sometimes, however, not accepting a gift is offensive enough, and the LORD and Isaiah take the hint.

The Lord offers a freebie to Ahaz, nevertheless, and suggests that Israel and Syria will be taken down by Assyria, but what’s more, God is going to do something dramatic and important that will capture the attention of the world. There will be proof of it in his time, a mother naming her son Immanuel, but it will not be exhausted by his circumstances.

The Prophet’s Dilemma

Isaiah, however, will be a perpetual loser in his mission, as most of the prophets had been and would be. What he told the king would be disregarded, and most of what Isaiah would say seemed like foolishness. How could one trust in Yhwh when Assyria was devouring nations? Ahaz seemed utterly pragmatic and realistic. The old god of their ancestors wasn’t a force to be recogned with on the geo-political stage. Assyria was who had the power and therefore who must have had the greatest spiritual mojo.

In 8:11 The LORD attempts to console and encourage Isaiah. He continues to speak of someone who is to come. He will be a sanctuary. He will be a person people trip over. He will be a snare. Unlike Isaiah who is simply dismissed, this one to come will be a game changer.

Everyone will say “get a better prophet, get better divination, find better insider information so that the kings and the people can chart their own course guided by the stars that they imagine define success and value.

The LORD says that someone is coming who will change everything. He will sit on David’s throne, and he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

What Good is God? 

Any reader of Isaiah’s situation and then reading the text through the eyes of the early church, and Handel’s work will say “what good did this do for Isaiah and Ahaz?”

We know the history of Ahaz. He would side with Assyria, and Assyria as predicted would lay waste to Israel and Syria that were threatening Judah, but Judah would not be an “ally” of Assyria, but a vassal.

Ahaz was of course a shrewd political operative and he would visit his hero, Tiglath-pileser III in Damascus (the capital of Syria) after he had conquered it, and duplicate the Assyrian altar and religion for himself. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery after all. Ahaz will also sacrifice a son of his on an altar.

How would any of this had any advantage for Isaiah? God tells Isaiah stuff, some of it matters in his day, but most of it is just kind of a wash. So a great rule would emerge, what good would that do for Isaiah living under pragmatic king Ahaz?

I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob

In Matthew 22 Jesus gets into a squabble with some Sadducees over the practicality of the Jewish belief in the resurrection of the dead. It’s a far fetched story about a poor woman who gets passed along among seven brothers, each on in turn dying. Who would she be married to in the resurrection?

Jesus notes that it’s a silly story but then makes this comment. “You don’t know the scriptures or the power of God”. He proceeds to say something truly alarming. He notes that Yhwh spoke to Moses about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the present tense, as if they were not dead. “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”

Isaiah receives these words about a coming king who will change everything, and we see this word as being useless for Isaiah because of his death. If we see this message, however, through Jesus’ eyes, these words bring hope to an Isaiah that is dead to the world, but alive to him. Dead Isaiah will receive hope and will receive the promise.

The Definition of Pragmatism

Having a judgment on an event always requires a point of view.

From the point of view of Ahaz (at least through the story we have of him) what Isaiah had to offer was worthless and pointless. Ahaz figured he had the world figured out just fine, and the Assyrians were the best route for him to get what he wanted, even perhaps at the cost of his son.

From the point of view of Isaiah events with Ahaz weren’t so rosy. He could see in the interaction that he had little power in the royal court. He could also see that Ahaz would be a pagan king on Israel’s thrown and would lead towards the continued adoption and promotion of Assyrian religion in his realm. Israel, Syria and even Assyria should not be the center of attention, it should be Yhwh.

Now we can look back on the incident and arrive at our own conclusions. Ahaz hold no political power over us. Isaiah has more capital in our economy, given his connection with an OT book. Tiglath-Pilesar III is just a name of a dead king of an ancient empire who will be less known even than minor king Ahaz.

Historians can speculate what would have happened if Ahaz had accepted Isaiah’s invitation. Would it have been disastrous for the southern kingdom? Such questions are fun to play with, but all they are is play. Our ability to postulate what would have been should be sobered by our obvious limitations in predicting what will be, even with the vast advantage to present information over what we could know about the past.

Since each of us gets to play this game because each of us has a point of view, who in this story would you rather be? Which side would you rather stand upon?

To sweeten the pot I’ll thrown another element into it. If the resurrection if Jesus is real, giving credence both to what Jesus says about the scriptures and what Jesus says about the power of God, how does the story of Isaiah and Ahaz look different to you know? Don’t you somehow, through your imagination enter into the story and cheer for Isaiah and say “Ahaz, don’t be a fool, side with Isaiah and this promised king even if he hasn’t show up yet and won’t come in time to bail you out of this political mess?!”

Don’t we imagine that Isaiah somehow, after his death, saw this coming king and is worshiping him now? Don’t we imagine that the resurrected Isaiah will feel greatly satisfied in doing what he did, rather that following contemporary conventional wisdom by kissing up to Assyria and offering his sons on altars outside of Jerusalem?

Jesus, Time and the Old Testament

What Jesus does with this little trick is insert himself into a thousand different times and places within the Old Testament, and the church follows right along. Suddenly there is a new point of view through which the stories and characters of the ancient book are judged. Now Ahaz looks not like a shrewd pragmatist who is willing to pay a heavy price to insure his political success, but rather short sighted, unimaginative, unfaithful son of David that corrupts his nation and makes them slaves to a pagan empire once more, temporarily undoing the deliverance brought about by Moses.

Jesus is now seen as an actor on the geo-political stage that had been gone over 700 years before he was born. Jesus is now seen as a king, to whom Isaiah was faithful, and Ahaz unfaithful.

Jesus and Time Today

The same trick brings Jesus into our conversations today. We, however, have some advantage over what Isaiah had, in that we have the Old and New Testament, but we live within some of the same anxieties. How do we know what is right?

This is exactly where the concern about the Bible is raised. From our point of view many of the judgments made by many in the Bible seem sketchy or just plain wrong. Doesn’t continuing to embrace the Bible make us vulnerable to the mistakes of the past?

Yes, but it also affords us a perspective informed by thousands of years of choosing and conversation over these matters. What Isaiah brought to the table helped him resist the temptations that Ahaz succumbed to. Ahaz’ judgment from his point of view seemed absolutely valid and correct.

Having the benefit of the Old and New Testaments, as well as thousands of years of dialogue and processing from thousands of others through the course of the church, while not taking away our need to choose and the difficulty of making decisions in our circumstances, they do offer us a lot of perspective and a lot of self-criticism.

What We Need For Courage

It is almost always easiest to do the expedient. For Ahaz the expedient was capitulation to Assyria and her gods. What afforded Isaiah the courage the challenge the king was what had happened before hand and the hope that was offered for the future. What we hear from Jesus and receive from the accounts of his resurrection greatly magnifies the evidence to believe what he said and trust him towards the future despite present expedience. Through our imagination we are drawn to a point of view that elevates us beyond the expedient and invites us to witness the decisions we make today from a perspective of security and victory.

Look at the work of Martin Luther King Jr. The expedient was to surrender to what looked pragmatic to him at the time. It would be no mystery that the work he was doing might cost him his life, yet he undertook it.

Look at the work of Martin Luther. Similarly the expedience would invite him to not challenge the power of the church and that following the path he had undertaken might cost him his life, yet he undertook it.

What is required for us to be courageous in all the right ways is the knowledge that we work between two advents. The first in which Jesus came, suffered, died and rose again, validating his presence in all of history. The second in which a different point of view from all temporary expedience affords us a generosity to do what is right even though it may cost us our lives in large and small ways.

Will we have the courage to do what is right, as informed by this long history of Jesus’ presence?