"People of Athens!"
“If the historical
basis on which the supposed revelation [the Bible] rested was false, then why
should we give any special credence to the ideas resting on that basis?” Can anyone trust a historically false document to be theologically accurate?
In veiwing this question it reminded me of the following....A child and mother are sitting outside and
hear the distant thunder. In curiosity
the child ask, “Mother what’s thunder?”
The mother’s response is sincere and confident. “The god’s are playing!” She shares with her child an elaborate story
where the two laugh and continue their day each coming up with a funny way to
explain thunder. Yet in the context of
ancient culture, the story of rain and thunder may have turned into a
claim. If a Canaanite child asked his or
her mother “Why do we not hear the thunder and see the rain in the
summer?” The response would be an
elaborate story of Baal, the god of rain, becoming prisoner to the god of the
netherworld Mot! When the rains came in
the winter/spring, Baal was released, thus bringing to all man life and
fertility. This myth would be a claim
for the people in expressing their belief and ideas of the makeup of the world. The word claim is defined as to assert or
maintain as a fact.[i]
If one makes the assertion of the absence of Baal in the summer and Baal’s
reemergence in the spring, then the claim must be backed up and fact given to
explain these forces which are not seen.
This goes back to the difference between
Greek thought and Hebrew thought. The
Greeks believed “that there must be a single unifying principle in the cosmos”.
[ii] Thus reality is based on observable
causes. They believed that these causes
and effects were discoverable through rational thought.[iii] These ideas created the “polyverse” in which
the Greeks lived and thus allowing Paul thousands of years later to make to the
statement at the Areopagus , “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are
very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of
worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you
are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to
proclaim to you.”[iv] The Hebrews on the other hand explained
reality based on the claim that there was a God who was the creator of
all. God revealed himself to humans
primarily in the context of their unique experiences in space and time.[v] His interaction with man was based on the
obedience or disobedience that proclaimed His will for mankind.
If the Bible was seen as a historical false
document, the theology and doctrine of the Christian worldview would be in
question. If one makes the claim that
the Bible, or in this case the Old Testament is historically false in its claim,
then one must support this claim with evidence.
When Paul stood before the Areopagus in Acts 17 he brought into context
the reality of a living God who could only be explained through intervening
with man through Christ. If Paul did not
trust the history of the Old Testament and the prophecies given of a coming Messiah
during his time in history, why would he use it at all? For Paul, Old Testament history shaped his theological
argument proclaiming that throughout history God had set into motion an
opportunity to enter into a relationship with Him through Christ. In our culture today if man can contest the
Old Testament, then man will not have to fret about the validity of Christ and a
Christian worldview. Man would create
their own stories as they see fit, with no accountability to a living God.
[i]
Dictionary.com
[ii] Oswalt,
John. The Bible among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature?
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009. Pg 21
[iii] Oswalt,
John. The Bible among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature?
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009. Pg 21
[iv]
NIV Acts 17:22-23
[v] Oswalt,
John. The Bible among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature?
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009. Pg 23
Comments
Post a Comment