A few years ago my pastor did a series of sermons on the poetic books. It was during this time that I was forced to think about the reality that Scripture’s truthfulness is often found in its acceptance of both/and rather than either/or. Let me explain.
If one reads the Book of Proverbs one gets the idea that Scripture indicates that if someone lives by these proverbs that life will be good. If someone seeks wisdom they will avoid the pit falls that entrap the foolish. Yet when we flip to the Book of Ecclesiastes we discover “vanity, vanity, all is vanity!” Even the good person ends up dead in the grave. Then if we go to the Book of Job it becomes even more complicated: So we have a Satan, angels, and God as active agents? Where is that in the presentation given by the Book of Proverbs???
Some read Scripture and this tension is overwhelming. But I think this is a misreading of Scripture. Scripture’s truthfulness is not limited to some sort of depositing of theological data. It is not a decision between one person saying “5 + 5 = 10” and someone else saying “no, 5 + 5 = 12”. Life is more complicated and complex than that.
So Scripture’s truthfulness is often found in its both/and. Is it true that the person who seeks to live wise will have a better life. Yes, unless a, b, c, or d. Is it true that life is meaningless and that we all go to the grave to die? Yes, unless a, b, c, or d. In other words Scripture makes absolute statements that do not seek to answer the “what if’s” or the “what abouts”.
In doing this Scripture often is truer to life than any text on philosophy. If a person obeys God they will have a good life and a better life than the fool….unless Satan and God have a cosmic wager! If a person seeks life’s best they will often find that they die like the rest….unless God sends his Son to provide resurrecting life through his Spirit!
This is not contradiction. This is 3D. This is multidimensional. The canon creates a choir of voices. If we only heard the voice of the Preacher in Ecclesiastes this would not be true to life. If we only heard the voice of the wise father in Proverbs this would not be true to life. If we assumed that everything good and evil is the result of cosmic duals between God and Satan like Job this would not be true to life. But together (!) it is true to life.
Scripture’s both/and is often missed by both fundamentalist type readers and those reacting to fundamentalist type readers. But if we think of the canon more as a choir than a book of propositions we will realize it is telling us the truth of God’s world like no other book.
the archives near Emmaus 
Brian, I’m really interested in this thread here and would like to pull on it a little bit. The way I’m reading you here is that no single verse, chapter, or book of the Bible is ‘true’ but that scripture is only ‘true’ in it’s fullness in, I assume, the Protestant Cannon.
If this is true then would the scriptures not have been ‘true’ before the entire choir was assembled? Would the Tanakh then, not be ‘true’? If we added voices to the choir would it not be ‘true’? Would the Roman Catholic, Eastern & Oriental Orthodox scriptures not be ‘true’? Would the King James bible itself, used by Mormons, cease to be true in a Mormon context?
@Dan: I wouldn’t say that no portion of Scripture is true except the canon, but I would say Scripture is true because of its canonical status and intertextual reliance. I know this is only a slight nuance, but I think it is an important one. I don’t want to be misunderstood as saying that Scripture is inherently untruthful without the canon, but rather than the truthfulness is established because of its place in the canon.
In other words, no one voice can tell the full truth. It can be “truthful”, but we need more than one voice for truth to be established.
For instance, I think both James and Paul are truthful in their works-faith statements, but truth arises when we hear them in concert.
As regards TaNaKh it would be true, but it would not be able to tell us all the truth we need. This is not uncommon in Christian theology. We have been calling it “progressive revelation” for some time now.
While I obviously assume the Protestant canon being an evangelical I wouldn’t say that the Orthodox, Catholic, Coptic, or other variations of the canon are not truthful. I wouldn’t see those books as authentically canonical, but I don’t think they necessarily hinder those groups from truth.
Brian,
Thanks for the response. You’re making a distinction here that I follow but don’t quite understand between ‘truth’ and ‘truthful’.
Not to sound too much like Pilate but, “What is ‘truth’?” It seems you are using this in a very particular way beyond, for instance, the fact that squirrels exist is true.
What is ‘truthful’? Again I sense a specialized sense here beyond, for instance, the fact that he was truthful when he said he was at the arcade.
An example might help. Let’s say I’m shipwrecked. And along with myself a copy of Ecclesiastes washed up on a desert island. Would I have in this book something that was truth or truthful or both? In what way?
Same scenario but a copy of the New International Version instead of just Ecclesiastes. Would I have something that is true or truthful or both? In what way?
Same scenario but with this:
http://www.amazon.com/LDS-Scriptures-Doctrine-Covenants-Burgundy/dp/B004M5NDTY/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1297792240&sr=8-8
Would I have something that is true or truthful or both? In what way?
@Dan: Let’s note the analogy that I used in this post. I read the Book of Proverbs as a book of proverbial wisdom that claims that if Wisdom’s words are followed the follower will avoid the heartache and devastation of foolish living. That is truthful and this claim is truthful, but there are times when there is an addition x factor that the author of proverbs has not taken into consideration that can derail the applicability of these various proverbs to certain lives. In other words, the Book of Proverbs presents the general rule that if you follow wisdom you will live a good life. It does not stop to ask if this is still true when A, B, C, or D occur.
The Book of Job provides a scenario that shows an exception to the general rule of the Book of Proverbs: What is God and Satan wage a cosmic bet? It does not matter is Job lived by wise principles, there is another factor in play: God, angels, demons, and other people can interrupt things causing the Book of Proverbs to appear untruthful to the person who tries to live wisely yet finds their life is a disaster.
The Book of Ecclesiastes provides another angle that we find is true to our experience. There are people who seem to live horrible lives who are successful; there are people who live “wise” lives who are buried by unforeseen circumstances. If we read the Book of Ecclesiastes alone we can say, “Yes, I have seen this type of scenario. I have seen many lives wasted. I have seen good people buried by bad circumstances. This is so true to life!” But we know this is not the whole story. It is not true of everyone and every life even though it is true.
When we read these poetic books together we get a vision of life that is holistic. If we just read Proverbs we may think something is wrong when we are trying to live in wisdom yet our child dies or we lose our job. If we Job alone we may fear that our every decision will be overrun by God, angels, demons, and other people. If we read Ecclesiastes alone we may become nihilistic. But together, we see these harmonized voice show the truth that life is more complex than any one of these three books would indicate if read alone.
Well said, Brian. Yet the suggestion from the pulpit is often unsettling for those who have lived their lives in black and white or 2D. Though we come to see this clearly, the loving pastor tenderly leads his flock to these waters rather than diving in. I remember how several in my care (including my wife) thought I had fallen into the pit of liberalism and denial of the Bible’s truth when I suggested that the book of Job had more the feel of a text written for drama than a narrative in the classic biography. Trust that you will experience discerning grace as you seek to translate such thoughts from your mind to those who sit and eat at your table each week.
@Clayton: Wise words of advice. I can see how this could cause many problems for people who have a high-view of Scripture, but a very particular understanding of how that works.
I think this is where the power of living out and being drawn into the narrative of the Bible helps. There seems to be two extremes in Christian preaching / believing. They being propositional truth and principals to live by…
Propositional truth causes frustration when the pastor tells someone who is struggling with addiction that the Bible says don’t do it. Another preacher will say; from this passage we find 3, 4, 10 principals that will help us to succeed and we have a crisis of faith when they don’t work.
We find that when we are drawn into the narrative of life; we learn that crap happens and we don’t have to have the answers; but in-spite of what is going on; God is for us. Scripture never promises us an easy life; it does promise us that God will walk through life with us.
@Craig: In some sense that reflects Vanhoozer’s thesis that Scripture should be seen as the dramatic “script” that guide our reenacting. So Scripture is not like text book full of facts (though it is factual), but it is narrative intended to provoke us to action in the same story of Scripture.
Nice thoughts, Brian. Very nice…
Brian,
What you are saying resonates with me deeply. Most of me wants to agree with you completely, but one question is being raised up as I think about what you have said. Maybe this is going a different direction, or there is some way you see this fitting in with what you are talking about. Here it is:
What about the Word of God Himself? Was He “the truth”, or was he “truthful”? Can he stand alone as the truth, or is He dependent on the rest of the scriptures? As “one voice”, can He stand alone as “the truth”?
I am sure that there are acceptable ways to understand these questions, and I am very interested to hear what you have to say…
Brian LePort said:
. . . Scripture’s both/and is often missed by both fundamentalist type readers and those reacting to fundamentalist type readers.
Wouldn’t you say that those reacting to fundamentalist type readers are just as fundamentalist type themselves? I would 🙂 . I don’t buy that more sophisticated PR labeling of post-Liberal, anymore than do I buy the label of post-Modern for neo-Modernists 😉 .
Btw, I totally agree with your point; it seems linked to a certain discussion you had elsewhere on Ecclesiastes 😉 .
@Daniel: Thanks!
@Brian: Very interesting question. It made me sit and think. Let me toss this back and you tell me what you think of it. As I ponder Lk. 24 (after which this blog was created) it seems to me that Jesus speaks of himself as embodying all of Torah. He gives it the fullest meaning in his person. So in a sense I would say he stands alone as “the Truth” because he encapsulates the truthfulness of Scripture.
The OT aiming forward; the NT reflecting backward. Christ always in the middle as the center of theological reflection.
So for Proverbs he perfects it as the perfect voice of incarnate Wisdom. For Ecclesiastes he provides an alternative to nihilism “under the sun” by being “the resurrection and the life”, yet he also confirms within himself the truthfulness of the Preacher for those who reject him as the Light. For Job he is the man in conflict between God and Satan, par excellence (the wilderness temptation comes to mind).
@Bobby: Indeed, it is like that discussion! Obviously my interlocutor wasn’t as convincing in my mind as he was in his own. 😉
@Brian,
Yeah, we seem to have the same mind on this; because your interlocutor wasn’t convincing in my mind either, at least as he was to himself 🙂 .
OK…
I appreciate all that you said Brian; and again I don’t see anywhere that I would necessarily disagree with you. But I’m still not sure that my problem has been solved. I’ve been wresting with this all night and still am not sure.
Let me press this a little further (and think out loud). Jesus Christ is the Word of God; the truth. He must be able to stand alone, as “one voice”, and still be “the truth”. Yet we only know Him (the truth), through the choir of voices singing to us in the scriptures. So, technically, we do not have access to this “one voice”, except as it is in the form of the testimony of the entire choir singing together. From this perspective, the scriptures, as a whole, are the definition of truth, and thus define, for us, who Jesus Christ is. Each book plays a crucial role, and should even one book go missing, we would not have the whole of truth, nor be able to understand Jesus Christ in His fullness.
Yet, I think we also want to say that Jesus Christ “re-defines” books of the OT in ways that we would not have understood unless we look back through the lens of the Christ event (not meaning to say that the books would have been unable to stand on their own). And, we have already said, more or less, that the NT alone, w/o the OT, is insufficient to explain the truth. So then, we do not have Christ w/o both the OT and the NT, but we cannot fully understand the OT apart from Christ. To say that we must use the NT to interpret the OT, besides creating a canon within the canon, also seems insufficient when we equate “truth” with the entirety of the scriptures. Is “half of Christ” sufficient to re-interpret the OT; which we need in order to understand Christ in the first place?
I don’t know if my problem has been stated clearly enough. Or maybe I’m missing something obvious…
Brian,
I want to add this to what I wrote above because I think that it might help to clarify my problem a little more.
I want to know what we mean when we say that Jesus is the truth. I have 3 questions. Is Jesus the truth in light of…
1) the OT interpreted without error?
2) the historical context into which He was incarnated?
3)nothing at all; since he stands alone as the truth, independent of scripture of historical context? I think that it is important to answer “yes” to all three of these questions; but yet it seems to me, that by answering yes to even one of the questions, I am forced to (logically) reject the other 2.
For instance, if 1 is true, then historical context is insignificant, and Jesus cannot stand alone as truth, being dependent upon the OT. If 2 is true, then the scriptures are not sufficient to “encapsulate” truth, and Jesus cannot stand alone, because He is dependant of historical context. If 3 is true, then both the OT and historical context are insignificant.
I am trying to figure out if there is any way to answer in the affirmative to any one of these questions, without implicitly rejecting the others.
@Brian: I continue to think over what you are saying. One thing we want to avoid is stretching the word “truth” too far. For instance, we do not find in Jesus E = MC2 (though we might if we read the Epistle to the Colossians a certain way!), nor do we say Jesus is 5 + 5 = 10. So whatever we are saying about Jesus being the “Truth” incarnate must be nuanced a bit. There must be a specific sense in which Jesus as the Truth makes sense of all other truth but not in such a way that we overextend the meaning of the word.
As regards the OT it is truth, but I must be careful to note that it is not sufficient outside of Christ. If it doesn’t point toward Christ it looses its truthfulness. If Christ’s life, death, burial, and resurrection does not unfold the the truthfulness of the OT then it sits as an arrow pointing into a fog with no known object to provide any definition. This is the difference between how unbelieving Israel read/reads Scripture and how Christians read it. The OT is true in that it points the right direction, and it testifies toward the right person, but its truth is incomplete without Christ.
As concerns the historical context this is tricky because I am not sure what is meant. Jesus as the embodiment of truth, his actions, his fulfilling of the OT, his death, burial, resurrection and New Covenant establishing actions are all truth coming from his person, but the context doesn’t have to be truthful. Pilate could stand “next to the truth and not see it” as U2 sings.
So let me see if I can answer these questions. First, I do think Jesus is “the Truth” as the incarnate Son of God who introduces us to the Triune God. Second, I think the truthfulness of the OT, and the NT, is secondary truth in that it “testifies of me” as Jesus said. Third, I think the interplay between the OT pointing toward Christ and Christ pointing back toward the OT only shows that the choir sings truthful songs, but we can really understand from our angle what that truth is until we see Jesus. Fourth, and finally, even now, even with a full canon, even with a first advent, we have truth but we understand it in part. As Paul said, we see through a glass darkly. The truth is there but our ability to comprehend it is limited.
I don’t know if this is helpful or not.
Brian,
I absolutely agree with your first paragraph. We do not want to overextend the meaning of the word “truth”. For clarification, I wasn’t trying to say that the historical context itself had to be truthful, but rather, that we can’t understand what it means for Christ to be the truth w/o understanding the historical context in which “the truth” was spoken. Does that help to clarify what I meant?
As for the rest of what you said, it was helpful; but I still have some questions (if you don’t mind attempting to answer them). You made a distinction between primary and secondary truth. Does this mean that you take a position similar to Barth (the words on the pages are not the Word of God)? The scriptures testify to God’s revelation, but are not that revelation itself? Next, since we cannot understand the truthfulness of the OT apart from Christ, can we still affirm that it was, in any sense, truthful to those who read it before Christ came? If so, how, and in what way?
@Brian: I would make the clarification that Christ is the “Word of God” and that Scripture is the “word of God”. I would be influenced by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews who wrote, “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son…” (1.1-2a). Scripture is the “word of God” because the triune God meets us there by his Spirit and it is the chosen locus where he meets his people through history, but Christ is the “Word of God” in a definitive sense in that he is the perfect expression of God, he is the express image, he is one with the Father, he is the giver of the Spirit.
Scripture is always truthful, but it doesn’t always tell us God’s “ought”. It tells us the story of Abraham, but Abraham is not our perfect expression though it tells us the truth about him and how God interacted with him. David is not our perfect expression though it tells us the truth about him and how God interacted with him. But in Christ we are not only told about how God interacts with history’s drama, but what it looks like when he takes center stage. Jesus is God’s “ought” in the middle of Scripture’s narrative.
Without Christ we can affirm Scripture as truth. We can say it tells true history, it provides true principle, the Law truthfully reflected God’s will for Israel in his covenant with them at that time and place. But that being said, it is like reading a book without the last chapter. We can’t “get it” without Christ. Christ is the book ends!
Finally, as far as Christ in his historical context I want to say “yes” and “no”. I think what God wanted us to know about Christ is the theological interpretation that Scripture provides for us. Let me explain it this way:
In history, Jesus of Nazareth was a messianic contender who was crucified on Calvary by the joint effort of Jewish and Roman leaders. He was taken down. He was buried. His followers testify to seeing him rise from the dead. Historically this says a lot, but not enough.
When we read the canonical gospels we gain theological explanation. Jesus was the Messiah. He is the Son of God. He is one with the Father and Spirit. He was crucified for our sins. He was the “Lamb of God” who took away the sins of the whole world. He was buried where he descended into the grave to set the captives free. He did resurrect by the Spirit as an act of enthronement. He ascended into heaven.
History tells us something; theology tells us more.
Thanks for taking the time to interact with me Brian. Your responses have been helpful, and I will continue to think through these things. 🙂
@Brian: Thank you as well!