There are portions of Scripture that we understand differently because of the first coming of Jesus Christ. We read Gen. 3.15 where the seed of a woman will crush the head of the serpent differently than prior generation after prior generation of Hebrew/Jewish readers. We do the same with “the prophet” like Moses predicted in Deut. 18.15-19. We read the Suffering Servant passages of the Book of Isaiah differently. Why? Because God’s apocalyptic inbreaking in the person of Christ made better sense of the imagery and the poetry of it all.
There are still dozens of passages of Scripture—from the prophets to the gospels to the Apocalypse—where we debate over what it means and what it meant and whether any of it matters. Many conclude Scripture is misguided and that God has not spoken to us there. How can God speak in such confusion?
Maybe we should give Scripture the “eschatological” benefit of the doubt. It seems many Christians prefer to denigrate the Scripture to a merely human product because some passages remain cryptic and unclear and therefore they “must be” erroneous. But what if God has not unraveled portions of Scripture due to His sovereign purposes? What if there are passages that lead us to scratch our head in confusion just like many passages in the Hebrew Scripture did to Israel (and some still do to Jews and Christians alike) because God will speak through them at the opportune time?
Maybe we, the church, need to rethink how quick we are to discard and disregard portions of Scripture due to their mysterious nature when instead we should let it criticize and concern us? What if there is a reason why some passages give us the angst of unknowing? What if God uses these passages as much as he uses Jn. 3.16 (a passage we think we understand now, but nothing like we will understand at the Parousia).
It is easy to criticize Scripture when we do not comprehend what is going on with a given text and when it seems to be misguided. But we may miss the opportunity to let the Spirit create in us a holy, discomforting expectation. Maybe we should trust God, as lover of our souls, as one who has sent us a letter that says some concerning things, yet in whom we must trust to explain those things when He reveals Himself fully to us. To do this is to make a theological assumption that God is going to let us see Him in Christ. We look through a glass darkly now, but that doesn’t mean God is gone or His Word has mislead us.
the archives near Emmaus 
Yes, Brian. We should be willing to be perplexed, without despairing about being perplexed (2 Corinthians 4:8).
Brian,
I’m very sympathetic to this. But the question I have here is this, what if, even if we were to regard some portion of scripture as ‘human product’ we recognize it has something to teach us? For instance when we read of God’s command to destroy the Canaanites do we have to read it as God (Onto-theologically speaking) as giving this command? If we follow Origen’s allegorical reading do we make scripture erroneous? If we read this as Israel’s understanding and justification of the genocide only and not as the triune God’s actual command to the Israelites do we make scripture erroneous?
While we acknowledge the scriptures to be written, in a very real way, by both God and men do we necessarily make them erroneous when we make a conclusion that the scriptures are about both God and man?
@Dan: This has been part of the concern that I have been expressing. Why are we justified in saying God did not do that but that he did send Jesus to exemplify his love. What is our methodological justification for saying God spoke truthfully here through Scripture but there the human grid prevented the truthfulness of God.
Now as regards the genocide there may be more ways of reconciling the theology of the canon where we have a God who condemns a whole nation, and a God who sends Jesus Christ, without falling into a semi-Marcionism.
For example:
(1) Some think it is true that God said this, but that it is ANE language for “devastate them in war and do not give them a chance”. Yes, it says women and children, but that would be hyperbolic. I have seen this argued and I am sympathetic to it.
(2) It is simply hyperbolic. God did demand war but God’s command in human language must not be understood as a literal word-for-word description of what God wanted. It would be a hyperbolic way of saying “make sure you do not let them have an opportunity to defeat you. Utterly overcome them.”
(3) The view where I have less sympathy is that it is God acting in his foreknowledge knowing that if this nation or that nation rise up again they will destroy Israel through whom God is bringing his Messiah to save the world. It is not that God would ever command such devastation otherwise except that he knew these particular pagan groups were corrupt beyond redemption and that if they did not disappear from the earth they would rise up again to bring their wickedness upon Israel herself. Again, I think (1) and (2) make better sense.
But if we say, “No, no, we must read this as a literal word-for-word command and there is no way God could say such a thing so Scripture must be wrong” it seems to me that we have gone too far and we lack theological imagination.
Brian,
What’s a little semi-Marcionism between friends? 🙂
“What is our methodological justification for saying God spoke truthfully here through Scripture but there the human grid prevented the truthfulness of God.”
As an old college professor was fond of saying, “The only formative answer to this question is Jesus Christ.”I think the gospel narrative is our hermeneutic and I think here I’m following in the tradition of Paul. Paul’s use of the Hebrew Bible in his letters is highly idiosyncratic transforming the meanings of texts in light of the gospel. Jesus makes a similar move regarding divorce when he explains that Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. This is, strictly speaking, saying that the scriptures were untrustworthy in revealing the will of God. If we see things that run contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, if we see things which run contrary to his life, death, and resurrection I think we can safely assume that we are looking at something which does not accurately reflect God.
@Dan: While I agree 100% that a Christological reading is primary it seems we will depart regarding what that means. The Pauline Christ represents a God who does judge the wicked. The Christ of the Apocalypse functions as this God’s representative at the eschatological judgment. In the gospels we do not have a Christ who does not represent a God who judges the wicked, but who at that place in history showed the other side of God: one whose mercy goes on and on and on as long as possible until wickedness must be stopped. God’s love is displayed not in his refusal to judge human evils through Christ but in his patience in waiting so that humanity can repent. So while we agree there we seem to see Christ differently to some extent.
When Christ supersedes Moses this does not say that Scripture is untrusthworthy. It does say Scripture accommodates humanity as God sometimes accommodates humanity. It does say that Moses’ revelation is temporal and inferior to Christ’s. It does not say that Moses was not led by God to give such a command when he did. These are two different conclusions.
Dan,
To echo and further what Brian just said, I’d like to offer a different opinion in regards to Matthew 19, where Jesus, in your estimation, declares the scriptures to be untrustworthy in revealing the will of God. William Webb, in “Slaves, Women & Homosexuals,” suggests that Scripture has a multilevel ethic, such that not everything within Scripture reflects the same level of ethical development. He suggests that, “many aspects of the biblical text were not written to establish a utopian society with complete justice and equity.”
When we see a text that does not condemn slavery, but rather allows for it, we read that with a cultural ethic regarding slavery that is more advanced than that of the Bible! To declare this scripture to be an inaccurate reflection of God is not technically incorrect, since it is not a complete or full picture of God’s attitude towards slavery. However, this approach also ignores the redemptive movement of God’s commands regarding slavery compared to the culture in which those commands were received.
Fortunately, we are not restricted to a choice between abandoning the truth of God’s Word or accepting in isolation each and every biblical statement as an absolute and ultimate reflection of the character of God.
This is what Thielman refers to as the nearness and otherness of God as we seek to understand the Holy Writ.
@Luke: I enjoyed Webb’s book and his approach was very thought-provoking (and made sense).
@T.C.: That is a good way to describe it.
@Brian: This is a great post. It is something I have been thinking about, although not with much clarity, while going through this Genesis-Song of Solomon class. I’m not sure what I think about it. Although I know I do need to attempt to come to some educated conclusion.
I certainly don’t believe we should just overlook the scriptures that make us uncomfortable. However, I have no way of taking the idea any further at the moment.
@Brian
I’ve only just started reading it, but it’s been the same way for me so far.
@Josh: I have been thinking about it for years! I recommend reading Vanhoozer while in your MDIV. He has shaken my thinking a lot.
A few years ago I lived in a town that had a county-wide Easter egg hunt. I was responsible, with one other person, for hiding one egg. Find the egg and win $500. Each day we presented the public with a clue we had written to assist people in their search. Our riddles were met with some active imaginations and sometimes wild interpretations. It was only after the egg was found that the clues/riddles began to make sense. So why did we write them? I believe they did assist people in their search, but the main reason was to keep them looking with eager expectation.