Stories - God's medium for self-revelation

Fokkelman (1999:19), a specialist in the analysis of biblical narratives, notes that, “What we have to learn is to read these stories according to their own rules and conventions, in an attitude of respect, and maintaining an open mind as long as possible". A number of issues comes to light from his observation. It is all about how we need to approach Scripture.

In the first place, we need to consider the type of literature (genre) we are reading. If we are dealing with narratives, we need to read them as narratives. We need to establish the rules they are written by. You cannot understand (analyse) Rugby if you do not understand Rugby rules or by applying Soccer rules. The text should thus determine how we read it.

Another, very important issue, has to do with the attitude we approach the text with. We are dealing, after all, with God’s Word. Even if one does not share this believe it should still be dealt with honourably. Respect is also shown when one respect the rules and convention that governs the part of the Bible we are dealing with, allowing it to communicate its message. In other words, we should be careful that we do not read our ideas into the text. By not considering the genre and its rules and conventions, this can easily happen.

Lastly, contrary to common thinking, we need to approach the Bible with an open mind. If we truly respect the Bible as God’s Word, we cannot allow our preconceived ideas (or presuppositions) to override what the text wants to communicate. Sometimes the text communicates, as I have shown earlier, a different message than what we think is true. The question then is whether we will ‘override’ the text or whether we will let the text change our ideas. We all approach the Bible with our own presuppositions (we cannot escape it), but will we allow Scripture to question those ideas and make amendments when and where necessary?

It is interesting, though, that Fokkelman qualifies or limits the idea of an open mind. Having an open mind does not mean we accept everything or just go with the flow. No, we maintain an open mind as long as possible – as far as the Bible allows us.

The question, in terms of my thesis, is therefore, whether we have an option other than to deal with the text as literature. This means that when we get to the biblical narratives that we need to also deal with God in a literary way. Coming to think of it, about two thirds of the Bible consists of stories and God plays a huge part in most, if not all, of them. It then seems stories are God’s medium of choice to reveal himself to us. Maybe we should take them more serious for what they are and how they function.

God in Stories

As I noted in my previous article, we do not read the front page of the newspaper in the same way we read the cartoons or sport pages. We also do not read a scientific book in the same manner than a storybook. The first wants to convey ‘objective’ facts whereas the second wants to involve and draw the reader in to a world created by the author of the narrative.

So, when we read any part of the Bible, we first have to ask ourselves what type of literature (genre) we are dealing with. Each genre should be read according to its own rules and conventions. Human (2003:271) emphasises the fact that the Bible consists of numerous literary genres and “Each [genre] expresses the truth in a different way. These genres are not interpreted in the same way. Cognizance is therefore expected from the reader to read literary types in a differentiated manner” [my translation]. The interpreter should thus not only be able to identify a passage’s genre but also know which ‘keys’ unlocks the particular genre (Human 2011:70).

When we read a Psalm we should understand how poetry works in order appreciate what the psalmist wanted to communicate. When we read narratives, we need to understand how stories work in order to comprehend what the author’s purpose was in telling the story. In the end, we want to know what the message of a particular passage is because we believe it to be God’s Word. If we read a narrative passage as if it is systematic theology we might end up missing the message (God’s) altogether. Priority should be given to what the text wants to communicate with due consideration to the rules and conventions of the genre one is dealing with (Gorman 2009:84).

Should we agree with this, does it then mean that we can / should read the first number of books of the bible (and the New Testament) as we would read any other story? Is it then possible to come to a better understanding of who and how God is by accepting that he is pretty much portrayed as a character in a story?

God and Stories

When we think about the God of the Bible, we are confronted with at least two major issues (see my previous blogs): the one being the perceived contradiction between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. The other would be the conflict between the narrator’s portrayal of God and readers’ theology. These issues are not to be taken lightly, as the way God is perceived to be (the kind of God we believe in) not only have a huge influence on believers’ faith and practise, but believers might end up believing in an altogether different God than the one we meet in the Bible.

The reality is that the text of the Old Testament, at least, does not deal with God, or theology, in a systematic manner. The fact is that most of the Old Testament consists of narratives – stories. What we know about God and his actions (who and how he is), we derive from these stories. And, as Wenham (1987:144) says, “…theological systematization is hardly the concern of the biblical narrators”. The authors of the Old Testament narratives did not intend to write theology. They wrote down the stories about God’s journey with his people that were passed down from generation to generation.

When we read the paper, we read the front page in a different way than the cartoons or sport pages. When we read the Bible, we need to distinguish the different types of literature. We cannot read narratives in the same way we read the Psalms or Paul’s letters. Different genres have different rules by which they are written and by which they should be interpreted.

As Fokkelman (1999:19) says, “What we have to learn is to read these stories according to their own rules and conventions, in an attitude of respect, and maintaining an open mind as long as possible."

'High' view of God (5) - Divine accommodation

One way one may try to deal with the ‘conflict’ between theology and text is to harmonise, or align, the text with one’s theology. That means that we are subjecting the Bible to our theology, giving a higher priority to our theology that is supposed to be based on Scripture.

Another way theologians tried to deal with this difficult issue is to ascribe the difference between text and theology to “Divine Accommodation”. Faced with the idea of the omniscient and immutable God ‘repenting’ (again Genesis 6:6), Calvin wrote that, “repentance cannot take place in God…. Certainly God is not sorrowful or sad; but remains for ever like himself in his celestial and happy repose…”. The only way to explain this apparent ‘oxymoron’, is to conclude that the incomprehensible God have to ‘speak our language’ (accommodate us) in order to be understood. Calvin continues by stating:

For since we cannot comprehend him as he is, it is necessary that, for our sake, he should, in a certain sense, transform himself…yet, because it cannot otherwise be known how great is God’s hatred and detestation of sin, therefore the Spirit accommodates himself to our capacity. [my emphasis]

Following Calvin line of reasoning, Matthew Henry (1994) explains the issue we are faced with in Genesis 6 as follows:

These are expressions after the manner of men, and must be understood so as not to reflect upon the honour of God’s immutability or felicity. This language does not imply any passion or uneasiness in God (nothing can create disturbance to the Eternal Mind), but it expresses his just and holy displeasure against sin and sinners, against sin as odious to his holiness and against sinners as obnoxious to his justice.

These explanations sound credible. However, we believe that God revealed himself to us through Scripture. Why would Scripture then reveal God in a way that he is not and how are we to decide whether this revelation renders a true image of who and how God is or is not?

As I mentioned before, this theology is based on a “Greek philosophical god-concept” by which “certain requirements or characteristics of ‘the divine’ gradually became general in the early church” (König 1978:73). The most prominent of these were “the dignum deo that was appropriated to God”. The idea of the dignum deo could not accommodate any form of anthropomorphism of God. Any idea of God having a body, being emotional or being able to change, was outright rejected. By implication, a worldview that is essentially foreign to Scripture have been superimposed on the text and took priority over what the text itself wants to communicate. Thus, while affirming a high regard of Scripture in theory, in practice, the Bible became subject to the reader’s own preconceived ideas. While advocating a high view of God and his Word, an image of God is created that is not based on Scripture.

'High' view of God (4) - Harmonising the text

Genesis 6:6 is a good example of the problem many readers of the Old Testament experience. It eliminates the disparity between the theology (how they believe God is supposed to be / ‘high’ view of God) of many believers and how God is actually portrayed by the text.

The idea of an unchanging and omniscient God, for example, does not agree with a God who “regrets” and who is “grieved” (Gen 6:6). Translating the Hebrew terms for regret (וַיִּנָּחֶם) and grieved (וַיִּתְעַצֵּב) have been a contentious issue for both theologians and translators for centuries. This verse already caused problems for translators of the Old Testament in the 3^rd century BC. When the Jews translated the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) into Greek, it was theological impossible for them to translate the above terms with their Greek equivalent. To overcome this problem, they ‘harmonised’ the narrator’s intention with their theology and rendered it with the Greek terms meaning, “and he thought about it deeply” (Septuagint Gen 6:6).

Before frowning upon the Jews, we should acknowledge that it is a normal tendency. Van Selms (1984:106) is correct when he states, “Vertalingen trachen altijd de levende God in overeenstemming met hun godsbeeld te brengen” (Translations always try to bring the living God in alignment with their view of God [my translation]).

Without underestimating the difficulties faced by translators, this is a clear example where the meaning of the text, or the narrator's intend, became subject to the theology of the time. I also do not want to play down the importance of good theology. Without good theology, it is too easy to go about God’s word superficially. As my Theology lecturer once stated, “The task of Theology is to make the preaching of the Word of God as difficult as necessary”.

Theology helps us think deeper, clearer, and more nuanced about Scripture. When faced with these issues, the question is, however, which should get the higher priority – my 'high' view of God (theology) or Scripture?

'High' view of God (3)

Before we get to the issue of Genesis 6, we might have to ask where these ‘attributes’ come from. In general, we do not have a problem with these concepts. It will be very easy to back all of them up from the Bible as Systematic Theologians have done. So what is the problem then? According to König (1978:73), this theology is based upon a “Greek philosophical god-concept” by which “certain requirements or characteristics of ‘the divine’ gradually became general in the early church.” According to the Greek philosophers, gods need to fulfill certain requirements to be truly god. For example, if a god is not able to do everything at any time, he cannot really be god. Thus, when we talk about God as being almighty, we have an idea of God being able to do anything at any time. The question is whether the Bible means the same thing when it refers to God being almighty.

Already in the Middle Ages, philosophers questioned the idea of God being omnipotent with a sort of a tongue in the cheek question that became known as the omnipotent paradox. One of the questions being asked is whether an omnipotent (almighty) being can create a stone heavy enough that he cannot pick it up. You work it out.

In terms of the Bible, we should start by saying that God can and will only do what he wants. We are in no position to tell God what he can and cannot do. Secondly, there are many examples of God limiting himself in terms of what he will and will not do. See Genesis 9:8-17, for example. Thirdly, when we consider the Old Testament narrative of God’s journey with his people, it is clear that God’s plan with and for his people are many times frustrated by them – mere human beings. Surely, God could turn them into puppets to act out his will, but because he is more interested in relationship than puppets, he is willing to walk with them even though they (like us) go against his will. Therefore, when we consider the attributes of God, we will have to ask ourselves what we mean by them. Is what we understand by them filled with a philosophical or a biblical view of God? It is very easy to superimpose a worldview that is essentially foreign to Scripture and let that worldview take priority over what the Bible itself wants to communicate.

What we do know, talking about the omnipotence of God, is that in the end, God will fulfill his plan to bring everything together under Christ (Eph 1:9-10). He is on his way to fulfill his purpose with creation and in a certain sense, he already did it in Christ. Whether everything works out according to plan in the meantime is another question.

Thus, while advocating a high view of God we can easily create an image of God that is not based on Scripture. When we consider the attributes of God we need to ask ourselves whether, what we understand by them, is based on what the Bible means by them.