During the recent SEC Championship, Tebow wore John 16:33 which reads (Jesus is here speaking):

I have said this to you, so that in me you may have peace. In the world you face persecution. But take courage; I have conquered the world!’  (New Revised Standard Version)

This could be construed somewhat ironically as Alabama proceeded to beat the snot out of Florida.  (Who’s conquering whom we might ask?).

But I thought we’d have a little theological reflection time.

Now before diving in, I need to take a little detour.  Last time I did this kind of thing, specifically on the Gospel of John, I generated some controversy (perhaps not unlike Tebow’s Biblical quotations) and some misunderstanding.  That post dealt with the famous water turned wine story (only found in John’s Gospel btw) where I said that it should not be read as “literally” suggesting a miraculous suspension of the laws of nature.  I took some good-natured ribbing for that statement.  [Jaybird still references it].

I should have said the story should not be construed/understood literalistcally.  The “literal” or “plain-sense” language of the story is symbolic.  So the “symbolic” reading I was giving was in fact “literal”, making me a “literalist”….while those who understand it to be about an actual event where Jesus actually did do such and such are literalistic.

Here’s why this distinction matters.  If I said, “I can already hear the howls of people when I make the literalistic/literal distinction”, you would (correctly) understand me to be saying something like:  I can already predict what (some) people are going to say about this thing I just wrote.

That understanding would be the “literal” or plain-sense meaning of what I meant.  Literalistically, someone would (incorrectly) understand to me to hear actual words coming through the walls or telepathically or something.

Applied to The Bible what this means is that a literal (as plain-sense) interpretation takes into account the differences between different literary genres.  Different genres open up/reveal different worlds or world-constructions.  Within those worlds, different norms, styles, and logic apply.

One of the many literary forms in The Bible is poetry.  Take The Psalms.  When a Psalm says, “All the day long I cry unto you O Lord” we literally (qua plain sense) take it to mean something like, “this is a persistent theme of prayer.”  Or it’s something “weighing” on the person.  Weighing is in quotes there because it shows us that metaphor is intrinsic to “literal” language.  We don’t speak except with metaphor (or in metaphor or through metaphor….all those being metaphors).

Literalistically, All Day Long I cry unto You, becomes someone, rather thick-headedly, saying 24 hours a day this person was yelling.

This same basic principle applies to Law Codes, Apocalyptic, Prophetic Sayings, Gospels, Epistles (Letters), and all the various other genres of The Bible.

This neat picture can be complicated by the fact that what is “plain sense” is (in part) culturally shaped.  i.e. I have no idea if someone raised in Swahili language-culture would make of my “howling” reference.  This especially comes into play relative to The Bible as it comes from a set of cultures and languages very different (though ultimately influential upon) our own culture.

Now back to our friend Tim Tebow.  Tebow is an Evangelical Christian.  [Read more →]

The section Andrew highlights:

RD: Okay, do you believe Jesus turned water into wine?

HH: Yes.

RD: You seriously do?

HH: Yes.

RD: You actually think that Jesus got water, and made all those molecules turn into wine?

HH: Yes.

RD: My God.

HH: Yes. My God, actually, not yours. But let me…

RD: I’ve realized the kind of person I’m dealing with now.

–

Notice that both of the men assume the same meaning for the story–namely that the story hinges on whether Jesus actually (i.e. read literally concretely) turned water into wine.  Hewitt for, Dawkins against.

It would help of course in these debates if people actually knew what the story itself is trying to say instead of foisting their useless modern conceptions about the real and truth onto the story.  The story itself you see has no real relevance in this discussion–it might as well be any story.  The story functions just as an opening for them to have their pre-determined ideological fight.

The key there is Dawkins’ notion of the molecules of the water turning into wine.  There was no understanding of molecules in the ancient world, nor is the Biblical text’s interest in what we would call science.  So the imposition of this modern mode of thinking onto the text does serious violence to the story.  It doesn’t help of course that Hugh Hewitt (God help us) is here supposed to represent the religious point of view and ignorantly is just as stupid (nay more so) in his inability to see the text on its own grounds, instead of trying to fundamentalistically make The Bible into the source of all scientific knowledge.  HH might in that endeavor want to consult St. Augustine who wrote in the 5th century (i.e. a long fracking time ago) that if science comes up with a different naturalistic account of the world than the Bible offers, then you go with the science (WITH THE SCIENCE) and read The Bible for other arenas of truth (e.g. moral, spiritual, cosmological).

Deep breath.

This isn’t common practice here at the League, but a gentleman (or gentle-lady) may at time find the need to avail himself of some Biblical exegesis, particularly with reference to this story, so here goes.

For those playing along at home, the story in question is found in Ch. 2 of The Gospel of John.  If you don’t have a Bible at home, you can go to this site type in the appropriate coordinates and voila the Wedding at Cana (i.e. The Water into Wine story).  I believe the translation on this site is from the New Revised Standard Version.

The thing about the Gospel of John (if I can call it that) is that it is built on its densely layered and cross-fibrous symbolic world.  It employs the repetition of certain key words to create an inner (“secret” “esoteric”) meaning.  None of which has to do with whether or not Jesus actually literally turned water into wine.

Ch. 1 of the Gospel of John starts with a story of The Word pre-existing the creation of the universe coming down from heaven and taking flesh.  Jesus in just the first chapter is called the fulfillment of the Law and Prophets, the Messiah, and the Son of God.  So we aren’t from the get go in the world of normal sense perception and discourse.  It’s symbol world.

Ch. 2 then picks up with the first “sign” (or revealing act) of Jesus.  Notice Jesus performs signs not miracles in the Gospel of John.  There are a number of them–the final and most important one being the ’sign’ of his crucified body paradoxically glorified hanging between heaven and earth. The Gospel of John plays up the double meaning of being “raised up”–i.e. raised up on the cross to be murdered and raised up to the Divine Life. Signs are symbols that become means for a discourse/teaching moment.  They are not miracles and therefore not in the classic David Humean cum Richard Dawkins strain of “whether or not miracles transverse the laws of nature” which we see in the quotation above.

Of course you wouldn’t actually know this unless you studied the text in detail.  Something I can guarantee you Dawkins and Hewitt have not done.

Anyway so with that background in mind Ch. 2 verse 1: [Read more →]