I found this particular Rob Bell video interesting. Some might be encouraged that he openly affirms the doctrine of the trinity (there are a number of people who still think Bell does not by taking his words out of context in Velvet Elvis - see previous post on Bell)
My concern and question is, does he force a trinitarian perspective into the context of Genesis 1?
-j
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
He absolutely forces a Trinitarian viewpoint on Genesis 1 in a completely unwarranted way.
One of the major reasons is that the term "word" does not occur in the verses he quoted (Gen 1.1-5). The tangentially related verb for speak (dvr) is not even present, which might have mandated seeing the term word (dvr) somewhere in there.
But it's not there, which makes Rob's reading of the text absolutely horrible. This type of reading actually undercuts the doctrine of the Trinity for many people because they see Christians, like Rob, attempting to make the text say something that is simply does not say. There are many verses in Scripture which speak of the Trinity. We should focus on those and not screw around with God's word and try to make it say something that is simply does not say.
Good point. The English reader can assume dabar is in the text and it is not.
Because God does speak and give beginning to light, and because the Logos is repeatedly ascribed the creation role in the NT, it's not hard to understand why many in church history suggest that canonically something Trinitarian is going on here.
But Bell can surely pick better texts. I for one am thankful to see he is Trinitarian.
I agree with Dr. Horrell, it is very encouraging to see that Bell is Trinitarian even if he does force the issue in this example. Bell definitely causes you to be rooted in a true knowledge of scripture, otherwise he can take you down some very interesting paths.
I have really enjoyed the conversations and discussions on this blog.
I think we are far too worried about "pressing" a Trinitarian perspective onto the Old Testament. Perhaps we should not in the first reading, but the New Testament has told us that it is through God the Word that God created (1 Cor 8:6). Perhaps it would not convince a Jewish person to be Trinitarian, but the Trinity is involved with Creation and it is Christian to find the Trinity there.
Why do we all have this idol of the "historical/grammatical method" that we worship and make sacrifices of our Christian understanding of Scripture to? Again, we may want to merely use this method for a first reading, but in history, the vast majority of the Christian reading of Old Testament has allowed finding new meanings in the text in light of the new revelation in Christ and the NT.
@Jared: I would not disagree with a canonical (Childs, Barr, Sailhamer) or a theological (von Rad, Goldingay, Waltke) reading of the text as a secondary or Christian reading.
But that conversation is altogether different than what Bell is doing by saying that there is something present ('word') that is actually not present in the text.
A Christian (secondary, theological, canonical) reading should enlighten our understanding of the text, not force us to add something to the text that isn't there.
And I'm not a fan of grammatical-historical as much as I am of historical-critical which then leads me to a literary reading which then leads me to a canonical reading which then leads me to a Christian, or Christotelic, reading. But we can have a hermeneutical discussion at some other point.
art - Thank you once again for your thoughtful insight. I appreciate your points and discussion immensely.
I would have to agree with you in that Bell's reading here is off. It was a bit frustrating when I realized what direction he was going with the text merely because I just didn't see it in the language.
Dr. Horrell - Your addition is also a useful point in pointing out that a canonical reading might imply a Trinitarian theology. If I understand Jared right, I think further expands on this concept. But I might be off there.
Brent - Thanks for your interaction. Bell affirms more than most give him credit, sometimes it just takes a lot of reading to finally understand what he is getting at.
Jared - I appreciate your interaction with us here. I agree with you that sometimes we can be worried about pressing the Trinity into the OT. This is frustrating, especially when it fleshed out as it is here. However, we might be amiss if we neglect any reference to it. As Dr. Horrell suggested, there are better OT Trinitarian texts.
You also made this comment -
"Why do we all have this idol of the "historical/grammatical method" that we worship and make sacrifices of our Christian understanding of Scripture to?"
Could you explain a little further what you mean here? I would agree with Art that this seems to be a different thing altogether than what Rob is doing here. But I would like to hear further what you mean regarding the de-emphasis on the "grammatical/historical" method. Especially if that entails, as you put it "pressing", things into the OT text that are not grammatically there. Which seems to be something you have already suggested we should not do.
Or did I miss something? I may have, these are busy times.
I think people get too freaked out by what Origen did, finding analogies and a deeper spiritual meaning in the text. He probably overdid it, but to disallow any other interpretation other than what is in the original meaning of the grammar is to interpret the Bible in a manner it does not limit itself to and NT authors do not limit themselves to.
I suppose the most glaring example I would think of would be Matt 2:15. There Matthew says that Jesus fulfilled the Scripture Hos 11:1 - “Out of Egypt I have called my son.” Problem is, historically grammatically Hosea is NOT talking about the Messiah but talking about Israel explicitly. If you asked Hosea, he would not say he was writing about the Messiah. Matthew would have failed his modern evangelical prophecy class! That is until you allow that there is a deeper spiritual meaning (by the divine author) that Christ is the true Israel and Christ’s obedience is total where Israel’s was deficient. There are tons of other examples such as Paul saying the Rock that Moses struck for water in the desert was Christ (1 Cor 10:4). If the apostles were following the historical-grammatical or the historical-critical method they would have never made those claims. I think there is potential for us to follow the apostles’ example (seeing, for example, Joseph as a type, or seeing Jonah’s prayer in Jonah 2 as Christ’s prayer), but with great caution. That said, I don’t think the word “word” in Gen 1:3 must be there in order to imply that God the Word was the agent of creation and a true meaning of “God said.” I don’t like Rob Bell on MANY other things, but here I think he did a fine job using NT apostolic-esque hermeneutics on Genesis 1. Now, I will definitely not put that on my Trinitarian final, but that doesn’t mean I don’t believe it! A look at this is chapter 4 of “Incarnation and Inspiration” by Peter Enns, if you want a smarter presentation of what the apostles are doing with the OT text.
Post a Comment