As much as I'd like to copy the entire thing and dig into it, that is just too much of a task. I do want to focus on one part of this rough draft and point out some concerns, and suggest that if I can find this many issues in one small section, that it's reasonable to suspect that the rest of the effort might rasie similar issues.
I'm not going to copy the extensive color code system, when this one line will suffice.
"Jesus' words that are directly about wealth and/or poverty in Bright Green."
This section, while short opens up lots of issues.
"The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread.”
Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone.’” [simple living, reliance upon God]"
I'll start with the obvious. Satan, doesn't offer Jesus bread in order to satisfy His physical hunger, Satan attempts to taunt Jesus into transforming stones into bread. Jesus is being asked to use His power over the physical realm to engage in an essentially selfish act. Let's be clear, if this was merely the offer of bread, what's the big deal? How is that temptation? But to try to taunt Jesus into an act of selfishness, that's a whole other level, or so it seems to me.
This raises a series of sub questions, that seem appropriate here.
Is the text referring to a literal Satan and a literal Jesus?
Does Jesus actually have the ability/power to transform stones into bread?"
Do these two actually literally see "all the kingdoms of the world" and ascend to the highest point of the literal temple?
Those asked, back to the text.
Jesus answers "It is written...". Where is it written? Why is the fact that it is written important? Why doesn't Jesus just say "I'm not hungry."?
The answer is, it's written in Deuteronomy 8:3.
" And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live."
This text also raises questions.
If God is full of concern for those who hunger, why would He cause His people hunger? The text suggests that He does so to prove a point. But isn't that cruel? Or is the point being made important enough to justify something that seems extreme in order to make the point?
Back to Luke, Dan writes, "Other translations do not include that line in Luke, because, the translators say, the oldest and most reliable texts do not include the line."
Clearly the first problem is that Jesus is quoting Deuteronomy, and as such it seems reasonable that His listeners would have been familiar with the entire verse. The reality is that the "older text", Deuteronomy, does include those words. So, more questions.
Was Jesus quoting Deuteronomy?
If so, then why?
Or, was Jesus ignorant of the Deuteronomy text?
Now this from Dan.
" I am just embracing a common sense and fairly literal read on a text. For instance, in the story about the temptation of Jesus, supposedly Satan is offering Jesus literal bread to take care of his little hunger."
Yet the literal text does not literally say that. It literally says "...tell this stone to become bread...", which is literally different from Dan's characterization.
Again, from Dan.
"For instance, let's just take the "humans should not live by bread alone," text. I'm saying that the teaching there is that we should place our trust in God and not wealth. The point is Simplicity, and relying upon God and not wealth. Do you think that's NOT the point of that particular part of the text?"
Yet nowhere in the text is that either explicit or implicit. Jesus is asked to "prove" that He is "the Son of God", that's the context. To simply reduce it to Jesus was hungry, ignores both the text and the context.
No, I do not think that the point of the story has anything to do with material wealth. However, I'm not the one making sweeping claims about the intended content of Jesus words. What i think isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not your take lines up with what the author intended and what Jesus intended.
"I would rather say that the whole story about the temptation is about relying upon God and not wealth or power. This is Central to the teaching of Grace as found throughout Jesus teachings. Do you disagree?"
I really don't care what you "would rather say", that really has little or no impact on the reality of the text. It's clear that you "would rather say" many things that don;t line up with either the plain meaning of the text, or with much of the commentaries written about the text. This seems to be exactly your point. It's all about what you "would rather" things mean than about finding out what they actually mean.
I'll return to an earlier quite from Dan. "...Other translations do not include that line in Luke,". I'll note here that his lack of noting what translation(s) he's using is potentially problematic in multiple ways. I'll also ignore the fact that the implication is that the Luke version is superior to Matthew. But I'll leave that aside and instead look at some actual other translations of the passage in Luke.
KJV21
And Jesus answered him, saying, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.’”
And Jesus answered unto him, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone.
Jesus replied to him, “It is written and forever remains written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”
And Jesus replied to him, It is written, Man shall not live and be sustained by (on) bread alone but by every word and expression of God.
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
But Jesus answered him, “It is written: Man must not live on bread alone.”
Jesus replied, “It’s written, People won’t live only by bread.”
Yeshua answered him, “The Tanakh says, ‘Man does not live on bread alone.’”
Jesus answered, “The Scriptures say, ‘No one can live only on food.’”
And Jesus answered unto him saying, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
And Jesus responded to him, “It has been written [in Deut 8:3] that ‘Mankind shall not live on bread alone’”.
And Jesus answered him: It is written, that Man liveth not by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Jesus answered, “The Scriptures say, ‘It is not just bread that keeps people alive.’”
Jesus answered him, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.’”
And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”
And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”
Jesus answered, “It is written in the Scriptures: ‘A person does not live on bread alone [Deut. 8:3].’”
But Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread only, but by every word of God.
Jesus answered him, “Scripture says, ‘A person cannot live on bread alone.’”
But Jesus answered, “The scripture says, ‘Human beings cannot live on bread alone.’”
But Jesus answered him, “It is written: Man must not live on bread alone.”
Jesus answered, “It is written in the Scriptures: ‘A person does not live only by eating bread.’”
Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘One must not live on bread alone, but on every word of God.’”
Jesus answered, “The scripture says, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God’.”
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
And Jesus replied to him, “It is written, ‘Man will not live on bread alone.’”
But Jesus replied, “It is written in the Scriptures, ‘Other things in life are much more important than bread!’”
Jesus answered by quoting Deuteronomy: “It takes more than bread to really live.”
Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.’”
And Jesus answered him, · “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’” ·
Yeshua answered him, “Scripture says, ‘A person cannot live on bread alone.’”
Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘One does not live by bread alone.’”
And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone.’”
Jesus answered, “It is written in the Scriptures: ‘A person does not live on bread alone.’”
Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man does not live by bread alone.’”
Jesus answered, “It is written, ‘Man must not live only on bread.’ ” (Deuteronomy 8:3)
Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone.’”
Jesus answered, ‘It is written: “Man shall not live on bread alone.”’
But Jesus answered him, saying, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.’ ”
Jesus said to him, “It is written, ‘Man is not to live by bread alone.’”
But Jesus told him, “No! The Scriptures say, ‘People do not live by bread alone.’”
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written: Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘One does not live by bread alone.’”
Jesus answered him, ‘It is written, “One does not live by bread alone.”’
Jesus answered him, ‘It is written, “One does not live by bread alone.”’
Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘One does not live by bread alone.’”
‘It is written,’ replied Jesus, ‘ “It takes more than bread to keep you alive.” ’
And
Rebbe Melech HaMoshiach answered Hasatan, It has been written, LO AL
HALECHEM LVADOH YCHE-YEH HAADAM, (Not by bread alone will man live Dt
8:3).
Jesus
replied, “I will not! For it is written in the Scriptures, ‘Life does
not come only from eating bread but from God. Life flows from every
revelation from his mouth.’”
But Jesus answered him, saying, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread only, but by every word of God.’”
And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”
And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”
Yeshua answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”
Jesus: It is written in the Hebrew Scriptures, “People need more than bread to live.”
Jesus answered him, saying, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.’”Deuteronomy 8:3
Jesus answered him, `The holy writings say, "Man cannot live on bread only." '
And Jesus answered to him, It is written, That a man liveth not in bread alone, but in every word of God.
And Jesus answered him, saying, `It hath been written, that, not on bread only shall man live, but on every saying of God.'
I could have cherry picked out the ones that agree with Dan, but didn't because the fact that the totality of his comment is that only the KJV uses the second phrase, is gloriously proven false. Of course, the apparent fact the He is quoting Deuteronomy probably makes the second phrase redundant.
29 comments:
In preparation for your predictable response, I’ve done just that.
I’ll just point out that your last comment seemingly contradicts your assertion made in your case explanation of the light green highlighted phrase.
You see when you use words like “directly about” that you’ve “rightly characterized”, that doesn’t speak to you offering opinions.
It’s interesting that what you take from me pointing out the obvious problems and questions your hunches raise as “sniping”.
Just asked my son, who just graduated with a degree in ministry, and has spent more time studying scripture academically than Dan or me. His response was that suggesting that this passage is about physical hunger, wealth or “simple living” is ridiculous.
Not claiming any special authority here, just a more knowledgeable resource.
Craig, I'm not going to carry on a conversation in two places. In spite of your inability to even recognize SLAVERY as a great evil, I was willing to allow you to post comments on topic there. But empty headed sniping and not engaging in two way conversation will not be allowed.
I will address one or two points here, but then I'm done, because my conservation is happening at my blog on this point. You said...
"Satan, doesn't offer Jesus bread in order to satisfy His physical hunger, Satan attempts to taunt Jesus into transforming stones into bread."
Jesus was LITERALLY HUNGRY. Satan was tempting with with the lure of LITERAL BREAD to literally satisfy that literal hunger. Now, I am totally fine with the suggestion that Satan in this story was trying to lure Jesus into playing games with him in making this bread magically appear, but that does not change the reality that, in this story as it happens, he is literally using Jesus literal hunger to get him to conjure up magic bread to satisfy that hunger. To say that it isn't happening is to ignore the clear and direct meaning of the text.
Do you recognize that reality?
Also, whether or not I believe that this was an actual conversation between "the devil" and Jesus is besides the point. I don't, because I don't find that it makes sense in this context - why would an almighty, all-knowing God-man knowingly enter into a literal conversation with a literal devil? It reads much more like a metaphorical story-telling device than a literal story, because taking it literally just undermines the point, it seems to me.
But having said that, it is irrelevant. I'm not dealing with the literality of the story, I'm dealing with The Story As It Is Told and looking for the lessons being taught in that story.
As to the "only in the King James," yes, I was mistaken. My point was that, of the main common translations of the Bible (or at least the main ones that I've seen in my 50 years reading the Bible), the KJV is the only one that contains that extra phrase. I'm glad to admit that the "Darby" and "DRA" versions also have it, and maybe some others. That was not my point and I'm sorry if I was less than clear.
But all of that still misses the point, which was that the extra KJV/Darby line makes no difference to the point I'm making.
If you want to engage in conversation where you actually answer questions, you remain welcome.
“I believe I’ve answered every question you’ve asked in this thread despite your continued refusal to reciprocate to many questions I’ve asked. I’ll note the number of unanswered questions on this topic on your side of things.
Your lengthy response only makes the issue less clear, and is complete bereft of any direct scriptural support, nor any solid reasons to dismiss the doctrine of salvation you so blithely write off. It’s simply an overly complex, meandering, statement of the doctrine of your opinion.
I’m not suggesting that you don’t hold your opinions, just that you stop imputing authority to your opinions by your selective use of capital letters.“
Dan
I’ve answered that question at least twice. If your going to invoke your random delete rule, it’d help to not delete me over questions I’ve answered multiple times.
I agree that people can always find multiple meanings in any text, but if those meanings aren’t supported by the text or the context and those meanings raise questions that aren’t answered, then it seems reasonable to suspect that the meaning is being imposed on the text, rather than the other way around.
As you pointed out. You’ve only chosen to reference “scholars” who already share your point of view. Essentially using a set of interpretive lenses that conform to your previous biases. Instead of holding your opinions up to a broader range of viewpoints that might make for a more fully orbed conclusion.
Feo,
I’m not going to post your comment for the obvious reasons. But just do you know. Dan is the one making the point you are criticizing, not me.
Ched Myers...
"Ched holds a B.A. in Philosophy from the University of California at Berkeley (1978) and an M.A. in New Testament Studies from the Graduate Theological Union (1984)...
Myers has written/co-written ten books on various theological/biblical treatises and authored numerous articles.
https://chedmyers.org/ched-myers-life-and-activism/
I see your your young man and raise you a man with a lifetime of reading and thinking on the topic. Get out beyond your little conservative evangelical circles, and encourage your son to do the same. Congratulations on his graduation.
“In spite of your inability to even recognize SLAVERY as a great evil,”
Yet, the reality is that I have done so numerous times. This is one of your tropes that you somehow need to be “true” no matter what reality and facts say. This post is not about slavery, and your tactic of changing the subject is getting old.
I realize that your first alleged answer to one of my questions doesn’t answer the question and simply draws attention to other questions you’ve dodged.
I pulled the quote earlier when you were quite clear that you were taking the Luke 4 passage literally. Now, when it’s convenient you claim otherwise.
In all of that I actually think you revealed the answer I was looking for.
The reason why there’s no conversation at your blog is that you’re deleting my comments and lying about the contents. That’s why I set this up. It’s the only place where a two way conversation will be allowed and protected.
Oh, that and Feo’s lies don’t get posted here.
Wow Dan you post one guy from whom you don’t actually cite anything specific, who’s academic credentials are from around 40 years ago. But nothings happened since 1984, right.
But thank you for making my point. You cite one fringe author with whom you already agree. Bold move. I guess putting your theories up against people who don’t agree with you is just too much trouble.
By all means. Cite his voluminous wisdom about Luke 4:4. I’ll wait .
Feo, Judy because you don’t read doesn’t give you an excuse to exercise your over abundance of pride.
Look, if you want to measure theological penis size, compare with Dan. He’s the one who’s position you’ve criticized.
Dan,
I know you need an excuse for deleting. But I’ve answered your questions both here and elsewhere. I’ve not been uncivil, as if you’re in any position to complain about uncivil behavior.
Again, yes you are. I’ve literally written an entire post and asked you numerous questions to get you to clarify. So, if you’re interested in my answer it’s readily available to you.
It’s interesting that you chide me because I haven’t read any of your pet writers, while you solely rely on people who agree with you. Now, you haven’t actually cited anything those writers have provided that specifically demonstrates that your opinion on Luke 4:4 is correct. Once more you trot out the double standard by chiding me for something you won’t do yourself.
I know you claim that you read all sorts of “conservative writers 30-40 years ago and that you’ve dismissed them as all wrong in your mind, blah, blsh, blah. Your problem is that your confused about what I’m doing. I’m trying to point out problems in your theological construct. I’m trying to ask questions to understand where you’re coming from. You somehow confuse that with my staking my own position. The problem is I haven’t because unless you can offer something concrete, there’s no point in my offering a counter. Even if I did, your history suggests that you wouldn’t bother to prove my position wrong.
I’m back to my earlier comment that it was probably a mistake to put this out when it clearly isn’t anywhere near a finished product.
But hey, according to Feo if you don’t measure up to his prideful recitation of virtues, you should fold.
Dan,
I have to pay you one compliment. You’ve stopped the childish trope of criticizing people for typos and the results of autocorrect.
At one point, I thought those sorts of things were important and pointed them out. Then I realized that it happens to everyone and it’s not worth the time, and it’s childish.
Other Christian wise ones who have spoken on wealth and poverty as it is found rampant in the Bible... And yes, they HAVE been writing for decades on the topic. That is a good thing, not a sign of being out of date. I don't know what your criticism of Myers because he's been writing since the 1980s is supposed to mean... Other wise ones to read.
How much Walter Brueggemann have you read?
https://www.ncronline.org/books/2017/08/biblical-paradigm-liberation
How about Oscar Romero, a man who laid down his life literally for and with the poor?
https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Oscar-Romero-Stood-Up-for-the-Poor-F3JL5QUATJ
How about Glenn Stassen, read him any?
https://pietistschoolman.com/2014/10/07/glen-stassen-living-the-sermon-on-the-mount-g-w-carlson/
Any of the anabaptists?
Who have you read talking about poverty and wealth and the Bible OUTSIDE of conservative circles?
I’ve read quite a bit out of my circle. Speaking of anabaptists I’ve read quite a bit of Greg Boyd after spending some time with him, among others.
But, please feel free to make unfounded assumptions. Especially when it moves the conversation away from areas where you’d rather not go.
Like addressing this issues I’ve raised with your pronouncement about Luke 4:4.
I’ll let you in on a secret. I chose that one of multiple options to focus on because it’s short, simple, and pretty straightforward. You even claimed to have taken it literally until you changed your mind.
So instead of focusing on one specific text Luke 4:4, you’re trying to go all sorts of different directions instead of focusing.
I have to ask mystic, what does Dan gain by introducing all sorts of extraneous tangents to this conversation.
I won’t delete you, because I don’t, but I’m going to simply point out your failures to engage with the one specific verse in question.
Since you’re so obsessed with anabaptists, I reached out to Boyd to ask if he’s written anything regarding Luke 4:4. I figure that as an active theology professor and anabaptist he’d be a good source.
I want to summarize what I see as the differences between the two positions.
Dan seems to be saying that “the gospel” is primarily a temporal, physical, message to the poor and downtrodden that life on earth is going to be materially improved.
The other side isn’t denying that care for “the least of these” isn’t an integral, important part of the gospel. It’s suggesting a broader gospel that focuses on both the spiritual as well as the temporal,.
The fact that the notion of a gospel that goes beyond the temporal is somehow a controversial position seems odd.
I'm not sure if or how much I care to involve myself in this latest Scriptural debate. Like you, I quickly saw all manner of problems with Dan's analysis. That's not a surprise given his history of poor and/or self-serving understanding. What it comes down to is that he WANTS the Gospel to be about "the poor and the marginalized" over those who are neither. I maintain that much of Christ's references to the poor are more about concern for those who treat them badly...not the poor themselves. If those who treat the poor badly repent, the poor benefit as a result.
Worse than that is the presumption of the poverty making people more holy, in that Dan's position implies that. It suggests that Christ's call to repent of sinfulness somehow isn't as much required of the poor who are oppressed and marginalized. It's really rather absurd.
And again, where Dan sees "simple living", I see merely the message that one's concern should first be the will of God, regardless of one's income level or ambition in the world. Wealth creation does not require putting God second. Concern for wealth is not something with which only the wealthy struggle. Indeed, it is of great concern for many, if not most, who are not wealthy. Not having "two masters" is NOT a call for "simple living", but simply a call to make God one's priority.
Now that I've moved the distraction comments where they belong, we can keep this focused.
Post a Comment