Acts 9:36 in Historical-Metaphorical Perspective

[Howard509]

Marcus Borg defines his approach to the Bible as 'historical-metaphorical'. 'Historical' is what a passage meant in its original historical context, according to its author and the people who first read it. 'Metaphorical' refers to the moral and spiritual meaning of the text beyond its literal factuality.

Throughout most of church history, it's often been the more-than-literal, more-than-factual meaning of Scripture that mattered most. In order to live the message of Scripture, one must apply its meaning to daily life instead of just focusing on whether a particular event occurred two thousand years ago.

In this short video, Borg explains the historical-metaphorical approach:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK5N-t9f8io

As an example, let's read Acts 9:36 through a historical-metaphorical lens.

36 At Joppa there was a certain disciple named Tabitha, which is translated Dorcas. This woman was full of good works and charitable deeds which she did. 37 But it happened in those days that she became sick and died. When they had washed her, they laid her in an upper room. 38 And since Lydda was near Joppa, and the disciples had heard that Peter was there, they sent two men to him, imploring him not to delay in coming to them. 39 Then Peter arose and went with them. When he had come, they brought him to the upper room. And all the widows stood by him weeping, showing the tunics and garments which Dorcas had made while she was with them. 40 But Peter put them all out, and knelt down and prayed. And turning to the body he said, “Tabitha, arise.” And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up. 41 Then he gave her his hand and lifted her up; and when he had called the saints and widows, he presented her alive.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...3&version=NKJV

Tabitha rose from the dead in answer to Peter's prayer. If we focus exclusively on the literal meaning of this event, we risk missing its relevance to our present lives. Acts is our only source for this miracle, and we can't travel back in time to see if it literally occurred. What is its meaning beyond literal factuality?

Tabitha "was full of good works and charitable deeds which she did." I take from this verse that if you perform charitable deeds, God will reward them by raising you on the last day. Contrary to Rev. Billy Bob, this theme runs throughout the New Testament. (John 5:29, Matt 25:31–46, etc.)

"All the widows stood by him weeping" for Tabitha. I take from this verse that the true Christian life is a life of significance. Those you impacted will remember you when you're gone. Your death will be mourned and yet they will look back and give glory to God for the life that you lived. Make your life count.

If we focus exclusively on the literal event, on whether or not Peter had the power to raise Tabitha from the dead, we'll lose sight of these meanings for us today. Roman Catholics might use it as evidence for the primacy of Peter, and Rev. Billy Bob might raid the local morgue for cadavers to perform magic on.

In no way have I denied the literal meaning of this story. Instead of arguing about whether it happened or not, please let it change your life today. Are you performing charitable deeds for which your Father in heaven will reward you? Are you living a life of enough significance that anyone should weep if you died?

[Mark Fish]

Might there be also a third approach - prophetic or personal prophetic. I don't mean prophetic in the sense of predicting future events but more of a personal prophesy in that one may find deep personal meaning applicable to their life or psyche - much like a Rorschach. I think this is different than metaphorical meaning in that it may not be generally applied but specific to the reader in a deep personal sense. I have encountered such scriptures in my life that were shockingly personal and my response was "How could this be!? - something written 2000 years ago reveals my face!?".

[Porter Doran]

Such rubbish. Post-modernists are such cowards -- never will one face down the modernist core beliefs (in this case that God can work no extraordinary work) but will merely prat and pirouette atop them.

[John Tracey]

Something I find interesting in Acts 9 is the acknowledgment of a woman disciple.

[Porter Doran]

Originally Posted by John Tracey

Something I find interesting in Acts 9 is the acknowledgment of a woman disciple.

How is that novel? From the start, Jesus is reported as having had many women followers (even his patrons are reported as being women), and women followers are mentioned all through the Acts and Letters.

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by Porter Doran

Such rubbish. Post-modernists are such cowards -- never will one face down the modernist core beliefs (in this case that God can work no extraordinary work) but will merely prat and pirouette atop them.

Is Marcus Borg a post-modernist?

[Porter Doran]

Obviously.

Who isn't?

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by Porter Doran

Obviously.

Who isn't?

I don't get is I guess. In studying history the defining of different thought and culture eras has always seemed like bullshit to me, mainly because I don't understand it though. Particularly modernism and post-modernism.

[Porter Doran]

Postmodernisms have no unifying characteristic, really, beyond each rather showily failing to outwit Modernism.

[Porter Doran]

Meanwhile, Modernism was the cold and relentless overthrow of the universe then known -- God, church, sensibility, metaphysics, sentiment, truth, good, reason; its paladins maneuvered with unprecedented precision, when they could, but were not opposed to simple brute force.

[Pigmalia]

The books of the Bible were written by man not God.
Words are not things, they are symbols used to convey meaning.
To properly understand a passage or book we must put out effort to reach the best approximation possible of the author's meaning.
Context is often a very key element in grasping the meaning of the author.
The author is telling you something specific, try and understand the author.
As you come to understand the passage you have to decide whether you find the author reliable and whether you believe what the author is saying is true.

Did Jesus do miracles, was he the Son of God, did he rise from the dead, is he able to forgive sin, did he promise salvation to man?

Borg and Crossan answer NO to all those questions. They very clearly find the New Testament authors to be untruthful in their most significant claims, they believe that these authors conspired to present testimony regarding Jesus that was false and misleading regarding their most important claims. They see Jesus as a profoundly interesting ordinary person whose leading followers afterward invented a religion nearly out of whole cloth.

Essentially Borg reduces Jesus to a figure of no more importance that MLK or Ghandi. He can do that if he wants, but is rather silly to try and argue that somehow it's Christianity. It's very much a rejection of the Jesus presented in the NT.

[Pigmalia]

There's good indication that the Gospel of John was the first book of the NT written. Regardless, it's quite clear from reading it that if there was nothing divine about Jesus that the author had to be an outright liar, the claims are too bold, too significant, and interwoven throughout nearly every element of John's Gospel.

[Porter Doran]

I can't utter enough hurrahs, reading your post, Pigmalia.

Those who read about truth will never come to it. (Those who read about any primary source must remain ignorant of it.)

[John Tracey]

I have just watched Borg and Crossan's DVD entitled "eclipse of empire". I am very impressed by it and do not see any justification for Pigmalia's condemnation of them.

There are many issues raised in the video but one that is very well covered is the question of whether Jesus is the son of God. Crossan shows his tour group, and the camera, ancient stone inscriptions on temples to Caesar Augustus that pre-date Jesus. Augustus is praised as the son of god and saviour of the world. The assertion of the radical sovereignty of Jesus is the reason why Jesus was called the son of God - as a direct challenge to Caesar's authority.


Crossan powerfully shows an ancient arch, I think at Ephesis, where Paul would have certainly walked under and read the very same inscription that Crossan points out to his tourists - an inscription praising Caesar as divine and the son of god. This would certainly have been on Pauls mind when he wrote his letters.

It should also be noted, although this is not in the video, that Jesus never referred to himself as the son of god but rather the son of man. He is the son of his ancestors David and Abraham.

The notion of son of god is a product of the hellenic deities - the gods that the Hebrews were told to reject - and has nothing to do with the kingdom of god in which we are all sons and daughters of god.

So, given the imperial meaning of "son of god" and Jesus' own self description as son of man, I do not think Borg andd Crossan can be easily dismissed.

What they and the progressive christianity movement challenge is the Roman Creeds, not the bible. They look at the bible directly without trying to make it fit into the creeds of the empire.

This is a matter of loyalty to the text of the bible and not post-modernism. The progressive christianity movement certainly encompasses a post modern model in that it does not prescribe any orthodoxy and respects the diversity of beliefs. But the key issue is how we read the bible - on its own terms with the benefit of scholarly exploration or through the lens of Roman creeds?

I have some concerns about the progressive christianity movement in that it is a predominantly a wealthy and confortable movement that has not managed to connect with the poor and oppressed. But I do not think they can be faulted for biblical scholarship.

And Porter,

Jesus certainly had many followers including women but do you know any other place where a woman is referred to as a disciple? I believe Paul does but I cant remember where.

The gospels indicate an exclusive group of men which has been the justification for church patriarchy. Tabitha blows the patriarchy theory out of the water which I do think is quite novel.

[edamos]

Clearly there is in Borg's and Crossan's writing something very divine about Jesus. It his response to God and his embodiment of the divine way through that response. His divine important is rooted in his humanity. His humanity is transformed through his responding to God into something very large and bright, and he becomes the Human One. This Son of God has to remain human and responsive and obedient, even fallible at times in order to be the Son of God. Through his life lived, he becomes much larger, he becomes and is the Human One, the Son of Man, and even the Son of God. Not everything is just preordained and fixed in time. It is rooted in life and his and our response to God. His human life lived in direct relationship to God is the source of his divine importance. This way that he embodied should not be seen as a something above and beyond our humanity. It is within us also.

[edamos]

I think this kind of view has direct implications on how we view the future and our role in being responsible in partnership with God for that future.

[Porter Doran]

Originally Posted by edamos

... and he becomes the Human One. ...

Are you even listening to yourself?

[Porter Doran]

Originally Posted by John Tracey

... do not see any justification for Pigmalia's condemnation of them.

I think the word you are hunting for is "critique".

Crossan powerfully shows an ancient arch ...

Did he flex while he showed it?

Jesus never referred to himself as the son of god ...

Bullshit. Jesus calls himself the Son of God five times (and implies it many more times), and the Gospels (yes, including Mark) refer to him as the Son of God twenty-eight times.

The notion of son of god is a product of the hellenic deities - the gods that the Hebrews were told to reject - and has nothing to do with the kingdom of god in which we are all sons and daughters of god.

Your paragraph is self-contradicting: that the Hebrews rejected the idea of offspring of God as idolatry, yet that integral to their belief is offspring of God.

What they and the progressive christianity movement challenge is the Roman Creeds, not the bible. They look at the bible directly without trying to make it fit into the creeds of the empire.

And yet it is the text itself that they distort and dismiss. No one in this thread has pled for the creeds. The creeds are nowhere under discussion.

This is a matter of loyalty to the text of the bible ...

Again: How could this be, when it is the text in parts they dislike that they despise and defy?

Jesus certainly had many followers including women but do you know any other place where a woman is referred to as a disciple? I believe Paul does but I cant remember where.

I hope that your Bible knowledge is not all on a level to conflate "apostle" and "disciple".

[John Tracey]

Porter,

Jesus does answer yes when asked by others (Satan, Herod and Pharisees) if his is the son of god. This is his assertion of sovereignty over and above the Caesar. This is the charge leveled against him that lead to his execution.

However When Jesus speaks of himself he always uses the term son of man.

The closest he comes to calling himself the son of god is John 5:25 where is says at some time in the future people will hear the voice of the son of god but in vs 27 he still identifies himself as the son of man.

A quick count indicates the term son of man is used 83 times in the gospels and always by Jesus.

As for contradictions, I assume you can tell the difference between the concept son of god as described in Romans 8 and the Roman imperial notion of son of god.

Romans 8
14 "because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God"

19 "The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed".

Caesar Augustus was called "son of the divine one" and "saviour of the world".

The biblical notion of son of god and the empire's notion of son of god are not the same thing and therefore there is no contradiction in what I said.

[Porter Doran]

Originally Posted by John Tracey

Jesus does answer yes when asked by others (Satan, Herod and Pharisees) if his is the son of god.

No, he did not answer yes in those cases. He answered such questions parabolically.

However When Jesus speaks of himself he always uses the term son of man.

No. Again, five times he called himself the son of God, and much oftener he implies it e.g. with longer descriptives.

The fact that you have got these two kinds of situation straight backward impels me to invite you to read more Scripture.

As for contradictions, I assume you can tell the difference between the concept son of god as described in Romans 8 and the Roman imperial notion of son of god.

Of course I can. It is your post that dedicates half its length to pretending it cannot.

The biblical notion of son of god and the empire's notion of son of god are not the same thing ...

I am glad you are coming around. I eagerly await a fuller denunciation of this Mr. Crossan's preposterousness, from you.

[John Tracey]

Porter,

Where are the 5 times Jesus calls himself son of god?

Your comment about Crossan and Borg in respect to this is absurd. I can only assume you have not seen or read what they say and are instead relying on a malicious caricature by which to judge them.

[Pigmalia]

There's no maliciousness in what we're saying. We have been making a series of factual statements, that in all likelihood Borg and Crossan would not find offensive. The following is from the Jesus Seminar and makes their approach to the NT quite clear:

The Jesus Seminar is a group of about 150 individuals, including scholars with advanced degrees in biblical studies, religious studies or related fields as well as published authors who are notable in the field of religion, founded in 1985 by the late Robert Funk and John Dominic Crossan under the auspices of the Westar Institute. One of the most active groups in biblical criticism, the seminar uses votes with colored beads to decide their collective view of the historicity of Jesus, specifically what he may or may not have said and done as a historical figure. In addition, the seminar popularizes the quest for the historical Jesus. The public is welcome to attend the twice-yearly meetings. They produced new translations of the New Testament and apocrypha to use as textual sources. They published their results in three reports The Five Gospels (1993), The Acts of Jesus (1998), and The Gospel of Jesus (1999). They also run a series of lectures and workshops in various U.S. cities.
The seminar's reconstruction of the historical Jesus portrays him as an itinerant Hellenistic Jewish sage who did not die as a substitute for sinners nor rise from the dead, but preached a "social gospel" in startling parables and aphorisms. An iconoclast, Jesus broke with established Jewish theological dogmas and social conventions both in his teachings and behaviors, often by turning common-sense ideas upside down, confounding the expectations of his audience: He preached of "Heaven's imperial rule" (traditionally translated as "Kingdom of God") as being already present but unseen; he depicts God as a loving father; he fraternizes with outsiders and criticizes insiders.
The seminar treats the gospels as historical artifacts, representing not only some of Jesus' actual words and deeds but also the inventions and elaborations of the early Christian community and of the gospel authors. The fellows placed the burden of proof on those who advocate any passage's historicity. Unconcerned with canonical boundaries, they asserted that the Gospel of Thomas may have more authentic material than the Gospel of John.
While analyzing the gospels as fallible human creations is a standard historical-critical method, the seminar's premise that Jesus did not hold an apocalyptic world view is controversial. Rather than revealing an apocalyptic eschatology, which instructs his disciples to prepare for the end of the world, the fellows argue that the authentic words of Jesus indicate that he preached a sapiential eschatology, which encourages all of God's children to repair the world.

I'm not saying you can't agree with Borg-Crossan, but you shouldn't have any allusions regarding it reducing Jesus to merely a man, this view contradicts the testimony of the NT authors.

John 8:37"I know that you are Abraham's descendants; yet you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. 38"I speak the things which I have seen with My Father; therefore you also do the things which you heard from "your father."
39They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father " Jesus said to them, If you are Abraham's children, do the deeds of Abraham.
40"But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do.
41"You are doing the deeds of your father " They said to Him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God."
42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.
43"Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word.
44"You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
45"But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.
46"Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me?
47"He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God."
48" The Jews answered and said to Him, "Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?"
49Jesus answered, "I do not have a demon; but I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me.
50"But I do not seek My glory; there is One who seeks and judges.
51"Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death."
52" The Jews said to Him, "Now we know that You have a demon Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, 'If anyone keeps My word, he will never taste of death.'
53"Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?"
54Jesus answered, If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, 'He is our God';
55and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His word.
56"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."
57"So the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?"
58Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM"
59Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.

I think his audience understood quite clearly what he meant.

[John Tracey]

Hello Pigmalia,

The Jesus seminar is a collection of biblical scholars with diverse opinions. It is wrong to ascribe any particular theology to it. Even Borg and Crossan have very different ideas. Crossan is much more revolutionary and Borg is a wishy washy liberal.

I have seen a video where Borg explains the colour coding system and he is most insistant that it not be read as a gauge of the accuracy of the text. They make no claim to decide whether Jesus said or did not say anything. What the colour coding represents is the level of consensus amongst the scholars involved. A "grey" passage could well represent divergent hard line opinions rather than a consensus of its ambiguity.

All the Jesus seminar claims to do is ask the questions.

This bit is what I say, I have no idea what Borg and Crossan would say.

Look at the greek word for father used in all those references that you posted. In most instances the word is ancestor. (I haven't checked your references but in the whole of the NT that is the case).

Sometimes Jesus refers to Abba father in which there is no ambiguity that he is talking to his heavenly father. Abba is not a childish "daddy" term as I was told in sunday school. It is the sacred ancient name for the unnamable god.

Mathew 1.1, the very first verse of the new testament, states that Jesus is the son of David, Son of Abraham.

When Jesus says " If you are Abraham's children, do the deeds of Abraham." He is not disasociating himself from Abraham but affirming the covenant of his, and their, father Abraham. It is Abrahams covenant into which we gentiles are welcomed by the blood of Jesus. Abraham is our father too!

So, if as I suggest, when Jesus is talkiing about his father we cannot be clear as to whether he is talking about Joseph, David or Abraham. For example "My fathers house has many mansions" is not necessarily talking about pie in the sky when we die but could well be (I think he was) talking about "The city of David" which is the kings burial area on the temple mount. Mt. Zion, the place where Abraham's covenant was made and where king David is buried can indeed be considered "my father's house" in terms of Matthew 1:1.

I suggest this understanding would be closer to what the ancient Jewish people would understand when Jesus talked about his father and their shared parentage in Father Abraham.

I believe that in the consciousness of first century tribal Hebrews there was not a distinction between "the will of my Father Abraham". The will of my father David" or the will of the creator god - the elohim of the old testament.

1 John 5:7 "For there are three that testify: 8the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

This is the real trinity. 1/ the spirit - the elohim 2/ The water - sacred Jordan river, the earth itself and 3/ The blood - the indigenous bloodline of Jesus as son of David and Abraham.

These are the three elements of Abrahams covenant. This is how Jesus' audience would have interpreted him.

[Porter Doran]

John, my opinion of this Crossan derived entirely from your description of him (which I've been discussing all this time) as provocatively asserting that "the Son of God" is a nonvalid and pagan concept. I do not understand why you can address Crossan's claim with enthusiasm, as a topic of discussion, but when I address his claim with doubts from Scripture, it is not discussion but a personal attack on him. Shall I ask you if he's ever bought you lunch because you agree with him? To me that would make as much sense as what you've asked me in your last post to me. Or shall you and I both limit our remarks only to the topic and the scriptural facts? I would prefer that, myself, and intend to.

Now, Jesus's references to his Father in heaven are ubiquitous, and God's references to him as only son are unambiguous. Meanwhile, the evangelist narrators are both exhaustive and clear on his divine and earthly nature. Only scholars who reject the Scriptures in their present form can entertain Jesus-not-God theories such as the one you are promoting. This is a simple and straightforward observation to anyone who has familiarized himself with the Gospels.

Your bringing forward e.g. Jesus's human heritage as though it ought to surprise us (your reference to Mat. chap. 1), as well as your various mis-citations of the Gospels (who said "son of God", how, and when), forces me to wonder if you are one who has so familiarized himself.

[John Tracey]

Porter,

You said "Bullshit. Jesus calls himself the Son of God five times".

I am still waiting for you to say what these 5 times are.