How Did Jesus Read The Bible?

[Robert F. Smith]

One of the most capable and provocative scholars within evangelicalism, Pete Enns (author of The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It), recently wrote a blog on how to read the Bible:

 

Pete Enns, “3 Ways Jesus Read the Bible That Evangelicals Are Told Not to Do,” Huffington Post, Sept 30, 2014, online at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pete-enns/3-ways-jesus-read-the-bib_b_5902534.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592  ,

 

Can we Mormons learn something from the ways in which Jesus Himself read and interpreted His Bible (OT)?  Or is Professor Pete Enns off base?

 

[JAHS]

Since He was essentially the author of the whole thing (OT) did He really need to read and interpret it?

[will227457]

Since He was essentially the author of the whole thing (OT) did He really need to read and interpret it?

Yes, see Isaiah 28:10...

[Boanerges]

Since He was essentially the author of the whole thing (OT) did He really need to read and interpret it?

 

Actually, except for the Ten Commandments it doesn't appear that He wrote any of it.

[3DOP]

Robert, I appreciate the idea you raise. I have spoken in recent threads about the need to understand the Old Testament according to how Christ and the New Testament Apostles seemed to understand it. I certainly acknowledge the necessity of understanding Scripture the way Jesus and His Apostles did. So I agree with the idea. But I have some criticism of the article.

 

1) Jesus reads the Scripture as a Jew?

 

---Yeah, He was Jewish, but that isn't what makes His interpretation authoritative. He also read the Scripture as God's Son. Presumably some illumination comes with that prerogative that would allow Him to see beyond any limitations that might be imposed by His ethnic background.

 

2) Jesus felt he could "pick and choose" what parts of the Old Testament were valid and which weren't.

 

---Again, as God's Son, He wasn't groping in doubt waiting for some feeling to overtake him about whether we can now eat ham or whether divorce and remarriage is okay. I don't like the wording of that at all. Of course all religious communties discriminate according to presupposed principles as to what disciplines and precepts of the Old Testament are intended to carry over. As a Catholic, I have a clear conscience about the fact that I have never offered a turtle dove for my first born son. I have a guilty conscience when I use language that approaches "taking the name of the Lord in vain". It would be a mistake for any of the faithful of any religious community to rationalize that since Jesus "felt he could pick and choose" that individual believers, breaking from principles they have implicitly accepted as members of a religious community, likewise have the insight or the authority to "pick and choose" there way through the Bible, that the Son of God had.    

Edited October 1, 2014 by 3DOP

[EllenMaksoud]

 

One of the most capable and provocative scholars within evangelicalism, Pete Enns (author of The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It), recently wrote a blog on how to read the Bible:

 

Pete Enns, “3 Ways Jesus Read the Bible That Evangelicals Are Told Not to Do,” Huffington Post, Sept 30, 2014, online at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pete-enns/3-ways-jesus-read-the-bib_b_5902534.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592  ,

 

Can we Mormons learn something from the ways in which Jesus Himself read and interpreted His Bible (OT)?  Or is Professor Pete Enns off base?

 

WHAT ?  There was no Bible when Jesus lived ! They had the Pentateuch and that is it. Jesus did not write any of the Bible. Four of the Gospels were circulating in the 1st and 2nd Centuries according to Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Early_Church. Actually, according to this link, none of the process of canonization is as I was taught.

 

Of Surprise to me, is that it also treats The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints with more respect than I have seen other places.

[Robert F. Smith]

Since He was essentially the author of the whole thing (OT) did He really need to read and interpret it?

I suppose that one could claim also that Jesus wrote the New Testament, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the D&C.  One could even claim that he delivers all LDS Conference addresses, writes all the Church manuals, etc., but would any of that make sense?  Is that how we understand the word "author"?

[Flyonthewall]

Robert, I appreciate the idea you raise. I have spoken in recent threads about the need to understand the Old Testament according to how Christ and the New Testament Apostles seemed to understand it. I certainly acknowledge the necessity of understanding Scripture the way Jesus and His Apostles did. So I agree with the idea. But I have some criticism of the article.

 

1) Jesus reads the Scripture as a Jew?

 

---Yeah, He was Jewish, but that isn't what makes His interpretation authoritative. He also read the Scripture as God's Son. Presumably some illumination comes with that prerogative that would allow Him to see beyond any limitations that might be imposed by His ethnic background.

Agreed. He read with the understanding of a Jew but elaborated on what was written. He brought meaning to the words on the paper that may have been overlooked or lost.

 

2) Jesus felt he could "pick and choose" what parts of the Old Testament were valid and which weren't.

 

---Again, as God's Son, He wasn't groping in doubt waiting for some feeling to overtake him about whether we can now eat ham or whether divorce and remarriage is okay. I don't like the wording of that at all. Of course all religious communties discriminate according to presupposed principles as to what disciplines and precepts of the Old Testament are intended to carry over. As a Catholic, I have a clear conscience about the fact that I have never offered a turtle dove for my first born son. I have a guilty conscience when I use language that approaches "taking the name of the Lord in vain". It would be a mistake for any of the faithful of any religious community to rationalize that since Jesus "felt he could pick and choose" that individual believers, breaking from principles they have implicitly accepted as members of a religious community, likewise have the insight or the authority to "pick and choose" there way through the Bible, that the Son of God had.

I don't see it as Jesus picking and choosing what was valid, but the example given was Jesus fulfilling the scriptures of implementing a new higher law in the place of the Mosaic law.

Jesus did not invalidate any of the OT, but used it to support what He was doing and saying.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert, I appreciate the idea you raise. I have spoken in recent threads about the need to understand the Old Testament according to how Christ and the New Testament Apostles seemed to understand it. I certainly acknowledge the necessity of understanding Scripture the way Jesus and His Apostles did. So I agree with the idea. But I have some criticism of the article.

 

1) Jesus reads the Scripture as a Jew?

 

---Yeah, He was Jewish, but that isn't what makes His interpretation authoritative. He also read the Scripture as God's Son. Presumably some illumination comes with that prerogative that would allow Him to see beyond any limitations that might be imposed by His ethnic background.

 

2) Jesus felt he could "pick and choose" what parts of the Old Testament were valid and which weren't.

 

---Again, as God's Son, He wasn't groping in doubt waiting for some feeling to overtake him about whether we can now eat ham or whether divorce and remarriage is okay. I don't like the wording of that at all. Of course all religious communties discriminate according to presupposed principles as to what disciplines and precepts of the Old Testament are intended to carry over. As a Catholic, I have a clear conscience about the fact that I have never offered a turtle dove for my first born son. I have a guilty conscience when I use language that approaches "taking the name of the Lord in vain". It would be a mistake for any of the faithful of any religious community to rationalize that since Jesus "felt he could pick and choose" that individual believers, breaking from principles they have implicitly accepted as members of a religious community, likewise have the insight or the authority to "pick and choose" there way through the Bible, that the Son of God had.    

Yes, Rory, His authority certainly carries a lot of weight, even though the NT text itself (including Jesus' words) is written down later and then mediated by others.

 

We need to look closely at what actually goes on in the NT.  For example, in Matthew 15:8-9 ∥Isaiah 29:13, we find Matthew reading against both the Greek and Hebrew versions (LXX and MT) of the OT.  A similar problem exists in the Hebrews 13:20 version of Isaiah 63:11, in which both LXX and MT have separate versions from each other and from the Letter to the Hebrews.  Compare, for example,

 

Hebrews 2:13 (∥II Nephi 18:7) ∥Isaiah 8:17 (LXX) ∥II Samuel 22:3

Hebrews 8:10 ∥10:16 ∥Jeremiah 38:33 (LXX)

Hebrews 12:12 ∥Isaiah 35:3 (LXX), etc.

 

In many cases, these are among “the tradition of the elders” (Matt 15:2) which form what the Rabbis saw as the Oral Law handed down from the time of Moses.  Some of that vaunted “tradition of the elders” inhabits passages of the Aramaic targumim, the translations of the Hebrew Old Testament into Aramaic, departing from both the Massoretic Hebrew (MT) and Septuagint Greek (LXX) traditions.  Thus, there is likely strong reason for Frank Moore Cross Jr. to suggest that an “Old Palestinian version of Isaiah” was used by Matthew at 15:8-9.  Indeed, Craig Evans has supplied us with a nice sampling of just such likely textual sources:

 

Matt 5:12, 23:37, Luke 6:23,13:34  Jesus follows a tradition found in the targumic version of Isaiah 28:11

Matt 13:17, Luke 10:24  Jesus follows a tradition found in the targumic version of Isaiah 48:6

Matt 26:52  Jesus follows a tradition found in the targumic version of Isaiah 50:11

Mark 1:15, Matt 4:17  Jesus follows a tradition found in the targumic version of Isa 52:7

Mark 4:11-12  Jesus here follows a tradition found in the targumic version of Isa 6:9-10

Mark 8:31  Jesus follows a tradition found in the targumic version of Hosea 6:2

Mark 9:47-48  Jesus alludes to a tradition of “Gehenna” found in targum Isaiah 66:24

Mark 12:1-9  Jesus alludes to a tradition of “sanctuary” and “altar” found in targum Isaiah 5:1-7

Luke 6:36 (Q), Matt 5:48  Jesus used a midrashic expansion of a tradition found in targum Pseudo-Jonathan Lev 22:28

Luke 10:9  Jesus follows a tradition found in targum Pseudo-Jonathan Deut 34:6 – man & woman joined together by God

Luke 10:24, Matt 13:17  Jesus follows a tradition found in targum Isa 48:6

Luke 10:25-28  Jesus follows traditions found in midrash Sipra Lev §193; Damascus Document A, 3:15-20; and targums Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan Lev 18:5

John 1:1,3  John here following a tradition found in targum Neofiti Gen 1:1

John 12:41  Jesus quoting from a tradition found in targum Isaiah 6:1 “I saw the glory of the Lord”

 

Not only does this tell us that Jesus likely delivered all his comments and homilies in Aramaic, but that he and his disciples were intimately familiar with rabbinic interpretation, and frequently read the Hebrew Bible accordingly.  That is, if we have a faithful record of what actually took place in those Gospel accounts -- some claim that all the Gospels are much later documents composed by and for the Church, as traditions and not eyewitness accounts.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Guest]

One of the most capable and provocative scholars within evangelicalism, Pete Enns (author of The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It), recently wrote a blog on how to read the Bible:

 

Pete Enns, “3 Ways Jesus Read the Bible That Evangelicals Are Told Not to Do,” Huffington Post, Sept 30, 2014, online at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pete-enns/3-ways-jesus-read-the-bib_b_5902534.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592  ,

 

Can we Mormons learn something from the ways in which Jesus Himself read and interpreted His Bible (OT)?  Or is Professor Pete Enns off base?

Christ did not read it, he just recalled the words that he gave to the OT Prophets.

[Robert F. Smith]

Christ did not read it, he just recalled the words that he gave to the OT Prophets.

Maybe he had total recall, PaPa.  However, he read  the words in the Isaiah Scroll in the Nazareth Synagogue:

 

Luke4:

16 ¶ And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

[strappinglad]

Robert, who would have been in the synagogue to hear Jesus ? Would it have been a mixed crowd or only the priests?

[Carebear0411]

Robert, I appreciate the idea you raise. I have spoken in recent threads about the need to understand the Old Testament according to how Christ and the New Testament Apostles seemed to understand it. I certainly acknowledge the necessity of understanding Scripture the way Jesus and His Apostles did. So I agree with the idea. But I have some criticism of the article.

 

1) Jesus reads the Scripture as a Jew?

 

---Yeah, He was Jewish, but that isn't what makes His interpretation authoritative. He also read the Scripture as God's Son. Presumably some illumination comes with that prerogative that would allow Him to see beyond any limitations that might be imposed by His ethnic background.

 

2) Jesus felt he could "pick and choose" what parts of the Old Testament were valid and which weren't.

 

---Again, as God's Son, He wasn't groping in doubt waiting for some feeling to overtake him about whether we can now eat ham or whether divorce and remarriage is okay. I don't like the wording of that at all. Of course all religious communties discriminate according to presupposed principles as to what disciplines and precepts of the Old Testament are intended to carry over. As a Catholic, I have a clear conscience about the fact that I have never offered a turtle dove for my first born son. I have a guilty conscience when I use language that approaches "taking the name of the Lord in vain". It would be a mistake for any of the faithful of any religious community to rationalize that since Jesus "felt he could pick and choose" that individual believers, breaking from principles they have implicitly accepted as members of a religious community, likewise have the insight or the authority to "pick and choose" there way through the Bible, that the Son of God had.

This is why having modern revelation is so very vital. Especially with all the newer versions of the Bible that change nuances of the scripture just enough to bring about a whole new interpretation. It is also why the Book of Mormon was reserved, set apart and consecrated for these last days. By listening to modern day prophets and using the B of M as a second witness of the Testaments, we can gain a very clear and strong understanding of all scripture.

Christ had his direct relationship with The Father to guide His

reading of scripture. We have The Holy Ghost and prophets to guide us. Nothing beats a direct relationship with God, but since none of us can claim to be His only begotten, having the HG and prophets is a nice alternative .

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert, who would have been in the synagogue to hear Jesus ? Would it have been a mixed crowd or only the priests?

Every Jewish male 13 years of age and over, with women only permitted in a separate section.

 

Have you ever been to a synagogue service, strappinglad?  Try it sometime.  They would welcome you.

[JAHS]

I suppose that one could claim also that Jesus wrote the New Testament, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the D&C.  One could even claim that he delivers all LDS Conference addresses, writes all the Church manuals, etc., but would any of that make sense?  Is that how we understand the word "author"?

 

It just seems to me that since he is the God of this earth He would be able to repeat or at least understand and interpret correctly anything that His prophets had written down.

[Robert F. Smith]

It just seems to me that since he is the God of this earth He would be able to repeat or at least understand and interpret correctly anything that His prophets had written down.

Good point.

[halconero]

Robert, who would have been in the synagogue to hear Jesus ? Would it have been a mixed crowd or only the priests?

 

If it was in Galilee the likelihood of there being priests in attendance is very low. In Judea the chance would have been greater, but the priestly class wasn't into the whole synagogue scene the way other social groups (pharisees, scribes, etc) were.

[halconero]

I'll be honest, having read the article and having reflected on my past conversations with non-apostolic, and/or Evangelical Protestants I believe that the concept of authority still weighs deeply on their minds. Despite the insistence on the part of many on a non-hierarchical priesthood of all believers, wherein the authority and spirit of revelation of Joe Bob from Texas is just as strong as Paul the apostle, they would be extremely uncomfortable if the former extrapolated from older scripture and preached that extrapolation as authoritative, while Paul did that all the time. In all the times I've pressed them for answer as to whether or not a resurrected apostle of old, or a still-alive one such as John the Beloved should assume general leadership over all the churches they tend to get uncomfortable. On the one hand, they'll preach that the apostles were just great missionaries, and ecclesiastical equals just spreading the word, and that any living follower of Christ can do the things they did. On the other hand they'll declare their teachings as special (i.e. scriptural) and inviolate.

 

It may be a simplistic view, but I honestly don't understand how the non-hierarchical priesthood of all believers doctrine can coincide with a "perfect, unchangeable" closed-canon view of the Bible. This article is a symptom of that. Many want their Jesus (and his disciples) to be authoritative in the interpretation, development, or revelation of scripture, they also claim the same status as believers, yet forbid the development of said interpretation, development, or revelation on scriptures as something heretical.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

One of the most capable and provocative scholars within evangelicalism, Pete Enns (author of The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It), recently wrote a blog on how to read the Bible:

 

Pete Enns, “3 Ways Jesus Read the Bible That Evangelicals Are Told Not to Do,” Huffington Post, Sept 30, 2014, online at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pete-enns/3-ways-jesus-read-the-bib_b_5902534.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592  ,

 

Can we Mormons learn something from the ways in which Jesus Himself read and interpreted His Bible (OT)?  Or is Professor Pete Enns off base?

 

I read part of the article it is indeed interesting and what I think is interesting is that I think the LDS do a fair job at reading it like Jesus did. The real problem, though that seems to me is, who is authorized to read it like Jesus did? Lay members? I think you might get into trouble doing that. I think this is a great artilce that could be used to show why prophets are so important.