From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Subject: Re: How is it possible to read the Word of God?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 13:05:05 GMT
Summary: reinforces my point
Keywords: hermeneutics, doubt, reading

In article <1992Apr5.234431.2180@hellgate.utah.edu>, jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:

> >	  read the words of scripture as "oracles" from God, without their
> >	  being the words of human beings like ourselves, then I claim
> >	  that they would be TOTALLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE.  An "utterance" by
> >	  God in mimicry of human writing must of its nature be *beyond*
> >	  human comprehension, and hence irrelevant to us as human beings.

> Does this account for the reason behind God's utterance?  One should
> rather assume that God, cognizant of our inability to comprehend His
> ways, will act in such a way that his pronunciations are rendered in a
> form usable to those to whom He speaks, for to do otherwise defeats
> the purpose for which the utterance was made.

My complaint is with those who try to insulate the words of scripture
from human language, with its inherent ambiguities and difficulties.

If one takes scripture as inspired, then certainly one also assumes
that God contrives that human beings, reading the words of other human
beings concerning God, will indeed be led into true, or truer, under-
standing -- or at least to the ultimate working out of the divine will.
As Isaiah puts it:

	For as rain and snow fall from the heavens 
	    and return not again, but water the earth,
	Bringing forth life and giving growth,
	    seed for sowing and bread for eating,
	So is my word that goes forth from my mouth;
	    it will not return to me empty;
	But it will accomplish that which I have purposed,
	    and prosper in that for which I sent it.

But the "word" that goes forth from the "mouth" of God is not a
human word.  Even when a prophet says "thus saith the Lord..."
the (literal) words are the words of the prophet, speaking what
the prophet "hears" from God.  God's purposes are at work in those
words -- but the working is THROUGH human language, and we are at
all times constrained in our *verbal* religion to the limits of
our languages.   (We are similarly constrained in all our OTHER
interactions with God and with other people to the limits of our
humanity; it is, I would claim, *because* of those limits that
God must become human for humanity to be ABLE properly to inter-
act with God.

What we *cannot* do with scriptural language is set it aside and
manipulate as if it were a "divine artifact" independent of human
purposes and uses of language.  When we say "God said ..." -- even
when the saying is one of Jesus' -- whatever truth there may be in
our statement, it is NOT a truth divorced from ORDINARY language,
and OUR purposes and uses of that language.  And it is particularly
specious to take ONE human construction of that language and pretend
that it has a divine status that other constructions do not.  This
does not mean that all interpretations and constructions are "equally
good" -- but it DOES mean that our only tools for disambiguating and
understanding the language of scripture are THE SAME as the ones we
use in everyday interaction with our fellow human beings -- and we
should know by now how fraught with pitfalls and problems that is!
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		   "Oh, stand, stand at the window,
					As the tears scald and start;
mls@usl.com			   You shall love your crooked neighbor
standard disclaimer			With your crooked heart."