- Peshat (פְּשָׁט) — "plain" ("simple") or the direct meaning.
- Remez (רֶמֶז) — "hints" or the deep (allegoric: hidden or symbolic) meaning beyond just the literal sense.
- Derash (דְּרַשׁ) — from Hebrew darash: "inquire" ("seek") — the comparative (midrashic) meaning, as given through similar occurrences.
- Sod (סוֹד) (pronounced with a long O as in 'morning') — "secret" ("mystery") or the mystical meaning, as given through inspiration or revelation. (Wikipedia)
Are we not able to evolve and progress without the Word? If God stopped speaking to mankind shortly after his chat with John the Revelator then what about democracy, universal human rights, the free market, modern science, and other modern man-made systems? Are these doomed to failure because God did not speak of these in his book? I know some apologetics like to say that science, democracy, and other modern inventions are found in the book but this is eisegesis. If we are to truly follow what God says in the Bible and exclude everything else we would find ourselves incompatible with the 21st century: Christian women would have little to no rights, Christian children would be centuries behind other children in math and science, and Christians would form communities closed off to outsiders. I'm not out to bash Christianity but if you are to believe the Bible is the ONLY thing one should believe, uphold, and teach to future generations then eventually this form of Christianity will die out. (I have yet to read Why Christianity Must Change or Die by Bishop Spong but I'm assuming some of this is in his book.)
So why would God (however you may describe the word God) limit revelation to a single book? I believe that God is constantly being revealed to every person, every second of every day everywhere.
77 Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained.
Split a piece of wood; I am there.
Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."
Gospel of Thomas, Logia 77
I can not envision that the universe as the creative force would stop creating, breathing, speaking, is-ing. How can one be in a relationship with Jesus Christ if only one person is doing the speaking? You can try to rationalize God's silence, in the personal relationship which many Christians claim to have, anyway you want but I know that if I gave my wife the silent treatment we'd be off to marriage counseling in a week. Without constant contact, interaction, and communion with one another we can't grow or evolve to meet our true potential, which is why this phase strikes me as odd. How do Christians balance the personal relationship they claim to have with God while claiming revelation has been closed for centuries?
3 comments:
It seems to me that the Bible has been interpreted and reinterpreted to accomodate the advance of knowledge. Some even see a precise correspondence between the Mosaic account of creation and modern science - despite the fact it never seemed obvious in days of old. I think this constant reinterpretation is what takes the place of additional revelation. And I think it is silly.
For a tribe to stay together, they need a banner, a building, a book or something they share as a sign. Inventing Pardes as a way to keep the book but allow variations in interpretation is clever. As you hint, the next better step is to allow text from other traditions (secular and sacred). And the final best step (most difficult for most), is stop claiming that a god speaks through your approved texts -- admit that it is people. Making something sacred is making it out of bounds for real doubt, dialogue and change.
@Sabio
Nail on the head! Exactly. But then the question arises what do we consider sacred, if anything at all? Or do we put everything into question thereby accepting the impermanence of our universe? Although I can accept it, this seems too chaotic for most people who yearn for stable ground.
Post a Comment