Adding to Scripture

"Precisely because these texts have been read and preached as holy Scripture for two thousand years, all kinds of misunderstandings have crept in, which have then been enshrined in church tradition." (The Challenge of Jesus by N.T. Wright, p.27)

This is one of the most important lessons conservative evangelicals need to learn.  They seem to believe they have the ability to take the Bible at "face value" and come away with all sorts of absolute truths.  They would certainly not appreciate the accusation that they are "adding to Scripture," but that's one way of describing the person who cannot see past his or her prejudices, presuppositions, and collected traditional interpretations.

Here is the example that Wright provides:

"Martin Luther rightly reacted against the medieval translation of metanoeite as paenitentiam agere ("do penance") and insisted that the word referred originally to the "repentance" that takes place deep within the human heart, not in the outward actions prescribed as a quasi-punishment.  He could not know that this reading would be used, in turn, to support an individualistic and pietistic reading of Jesus' command to repent, which does no justice at all to the meaning of the word in the first century." (Ibid.)

This is the problem with those who hold to a rigid Calvinism, for example.  Not only are they missing the important Reformation call of semper reformanda (always reforming), but they may be falling into the error of misinterpreting Calvin's (or Luther's or Zwingli's) interpretation.  How would they do that?  By not understanding those interpretations in their context.  By viewing those interpretations from a late Modern perspective, not taking into account the differing subjectivity that comes with that perspective.

"Jesus was summoning his hearers to give up their whole way of life. their national and social agendas, and to trust him for a different agenda, a different set of goals.  This of course included a change of heart, but went far beyond it." (Ibid.)

The above quote goes to the heart of the subject that N.T. Wright addresses in The Challenge of Jesus.  What exactly was Jesus' mission on earth?  Was it to save peoples' souls?  Or did it go beyond that?  What was the immediate affect on the world of that time?  All of these questions, and others, are thoughtfully addressed from an historical perspective in the book.

Comments

[Kevin Johnson]

Great stuff...we need this sort of analysis.

[Goyo in Nicaragua]

"What exactly was Jesus' mission on earth?"

I think we're going to see a lot of new discussion on this question between the emergents and the more traditional evangelicals in the days to come. The evangelical answer for so long has been "to secure salvation" but this sole position is being seriously and effectively challenged. One of the first (and best IMHO, and not counting Karl Barth) was Dallas Willard's "The Divine Conspiracy." Prof. Willard, while not discounting the salvific nature of Jesus' death and resurrection, effectively points out that His life was important too. He refers to Christians who only value Jesus for His death as "Vampire Christians" who are only out for His blood.

Following the life example of Jesus would probably get you kicked out of most churches. Ironic, ain't it?

[Aaron O.]

Great thoughts. Thanks!