I just finished reading The Human Faces of God
This is a dangerous book… My favorite kind.
I don’t think I have ever agreed and disagreed with one book so much. I am a book scribbler and judge the worth of a book by how much I scribble in it. There are scribbles on almost every paragraph of this book.
But my scribbles are inconsistent. On one page, I crossed out an entire section, and scribble “NO! NO! NO!” all over the page. But on the very next page, I underlined and starred half of it, with “YES! YES! YES!” written in the margin.
And I’m not schizophrenic. That’s just the way this book is. It is the most troubling and helpful book I have read in a very long time.
What is the book about?
Well, the subtitle gives a hint: The Human Faces of God
Whoa! For someone who received all of his education at some of the leading “Inerrantist” schools in the country, I found the book incredibly challenging. The good thing is that I had already been somewhat primed for this in my series on Bibliology where I questioned and challenged everything I had been taught about Inerrancy and Inspiration.
Book Summary
Chapters 1-3 reveal in stark reality the difficulties with the doctrine of inerrancy. In these chapters he shows why Scripture is not divine inerrant Word of God, and argues that such a view is impossible if we deal seriously and literally with the text, the way we all claim to do. Furthermore, he argues that the view of inerrancy is detrimental to our spiritual growth as followers of Jesus.
Then, chapters 4-9, Thom Stark digs a giant hole under all of us who believe in inerrancy. And I’ll be honest. I don’t have answers to most of the issues he raises. In chapter 4, he shows fairly convincingly that early Israelite religion was polytheistic. Chapter 5 makes you cringe with the clear explanation of several Old Testament passages where Yahweh clearly seems to be calling for human sacrifice. Then there is chapter 6, which talks about the genocides in Scripture, all of which were undertaken at God’s command. Chapter 7 deals with a famous textual issue of whether David actually killed Goliath or not (cf. 2 Sam 21:19), and chapter 8 makes the case that Jesus was wrong in many of His predictions about the future.
After having dug this huge hole beneath our feet, Stark then builds a little footbridge across it in chapter 10, by showing that even if the Bible is full of errors, it can still be used as an authoritative tool for learning about ourselves and God.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
There is way too much that is helpful and difficult about this book to survey it all here. Let me just give a few points.
I agree with Thom Stark’s contention that “the Bible is an argument — with itself” (p. 1). I do believe that there are competing views in Scripture about God, sin, salvation, and the role of the people of God in history. I am not sure I would call these “contradictions” but rather, “differing perspectives.” Nevertheless, he makes a good point: the Bible does not speak with a unified single voice, but rather a choir (or cacophony, depending on your mood) of voices.
I take exception with Thom Stark on several of his points. I don’t hold to the JEDP theory of the Pentateuch (he appears to hold to a form of it), and I believe that the books of the Bible were written by who they say they were. I also tend to believe that with lots of study, thinking, and research, most “errors” in the Bible are actually due to our failure to understand what was written. However, my greatest area of disagreement is with chapter 8, where he argues that Jesus was wrong about His predictions of the future. I just cannot agree with some of these points, and despite Thom Stark’s claim to the contrary, I do think he reveals an antisupernaturalist bent in his approach to Scripture.
I do agree (I think), that some of what is done in Scripture according to the instructions of God may not have actually been according to the instructions of God. But again, I am not sure this counts as an error. Scripture can still be an inerrant record of what people actually thought God was telling them to do, even if He didn’t tell them to do it. God could have made sure that this was accurately recorded, not so that we could copy and emulate what was done, but so that we could learn from it and avoid it ourselves.
Maybe this isn’t all the far from the point of Thom Stark. In the end, he argues that even though the Bible has errors, this makes it more valuable, rather than less. Rather than setting us loose in a sea of uncertainty and relativism, the Bible becomes a book which spurs imagination, dialogue, critical thinking, discernment, reason, intelligence, compassion, justice, and mercy. The Bible becomes a book through which God can speak to us, revealing to us all our tendencies for evil, especially the tendency for doing evil in the name of God.
I cannot decide if this book should go on my “Burning Books” list. It will certainly set your mind and heart on fire, but you may also want to set the book on fire. For me, as I read it, I frequently felt despair setting in. I had no answers for the arguments he was making. In many places, his logic was clear, but I hated where it was leading. But I will also admit that when I finally got to the end of the book, I wept. This wasn’t necessarily because I agreed with the conclusions, but because he provided a way of escape. The tension that was built throughout the entire book melted away. I saw how one could abandon inerrancy, but still hold to Scripture as the inspiring Word of God.
I still have question and issues with much of what Thom Stark wrote, but at least I see that there is a way to deal with the problems of the text without being set adrift at sea without an anchor (p. 240).
In the end, if you think you can take the risk, I highly recommend The Human Faces of God
Thom Stark is a very smart guy and a good writer. However, his fundamental error is that he does not look at the Bible through the eyes of Jesus.
The purpose of the Bible is not to teach about the Canaanites, or even about the Israelites. It is to teach about Jesus Christ.
Jesus, unlike Thom, believed that the Bible was completely trustworthy. Jesus was absolutely correct in all his predictions of the future. Thom does not understand that the Second Coming of Christ occurred long ago – just when Jesus said it would.
If you want to understand the Bible, read it through Jesus’ eyes – not Thom’s.
Mike,
Have you read this book by Thom Stark? It sounds like you are familiar with his writings.
Regarding Jesus’ predictions of the future, I think I agree with you. I would rather say that we have misunderstood what Jesus predicted than say that Jesus was wrong in His predictions.
Jeremy, I have not read the entire book (Thom’s wordy), but I have read other writings of his and I have interacted with him on other web sites.
My belief that Jesus Christ Has Already Come Again is based on my conviction that Jesus Christ cannot be wrong about anything. He is faithful and true. And, oh, how I want to know Him better!
Mike, if Jesus truly came again, what about all the prophecies in Zechariah, Zephaniah, Isaiah and Jeremiah that were not fulfilled? And he said he would return in the same way he left….
How about Jeremiah 50 & 51? If he came in 70 AD, he REALLY messed up
Ant Writes,
All the Scriptures testify about Christ, and there are no unfulfilled prophecies (All Bible Prophecy Has Been Fulfilled in Christ).
Jesus did return in the same way He left. He had ascended into heaven out of the apostles’ sight. None of them saw Him seated at the right hand of the Father. They had to accept that fact by faith that He was fulfilling the Scriptures – Psalm 110:1, specifically. He returned in the same way – that is, out of sight – and we accept that fact by faith in the Scriptures. Without faith, it is impossible to please God.
Jesus did not come in 70 AD, but He did come not too many years after that. In 70 AD Jerusalem was destroyed, and in Matthew 24 Jesus was warning that His disciples should not stay there when that time came. Jesus made clear that things would continue to get worse even after that, but that eventually those days would be cut short. That’s when Jesus would come, before that generation passed away (Matthew 24:34 “This generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”)
The Lord did not mess up. He does not know how to mess up. He only knows how to be true to His word.
Blessed be the name of Jesus Christ our ever-present Lord.
Mike,
I am not sure I have ever heard this view before.
In what year do you think he came after AD 70, and what evidence do you have to support it?
Jeremy,
I learned this view from reading the Bible. I have nowhere else to point you.
I am not able to pinpoint a year, but as for evidence I have written a biblical explanation titled Whatever Became of Jesus Christ? which makes the case for the coming of the kingdom of God on the timetable laid down in the New Testament.
The most important point I want to make is that Jesus was absolutely right in everything He said. People who say that He erroneously expected the coming of the kingdom in that generation are underestimating Him. He is Lord and He has made no mistakes.
Mike
I went and looked through your book briefly. I have several books in line right now that I must read, and so couldn’t give it the time it deserves.
Can you summarize it in a paragraph so I can get the gist?
I just don’t understand your view. You think Jesus returned physically to earth sometime after AD 70? If so, do you think He is he still walking around?
Jeremy, here is a one-page summary of the book. It will also address your questions.
Jeremy, you and your readers might also be interested in the 19th-century book The Parousia by James Stuart Russell because it demonstrates that I am not first to say, nor am I unique in saying, that the Second Coming is accomplished fact.
@Mike, while it’s true that Russell doesn’t deny a physical resurrection and he doesn’t deny an end of sufferering, he may be more orthodox than our friend Bauckham. Bt what about Acts 1:9-11? And to say Satan is bound contradicts plain observation! But the reviews from Evangelicals of this book may make me read it thoroughly
Ant Writes,
I have only read Russell’s outline so I’m not familiar with the specifics in his book.
As for Acts 1:9-11, I spoke to that above in an earlier response to you. However, I’ll add that it is because His return would be invisible that the angel asked rhetorically, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky?” Just as they didn’t see Him physically when He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, they would not see Him physically when He came in glory. Therefore, it would be pointless to look into the sky. Odd that people still do it.
Satan still has power today, but he’s been thrown out of heaven and exercises his control of the world from the earth. “Do not love the world, nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in Him.”
I see the plain meaning of Acts 1:11 as saying he will come back the same way he left….in the sky. Russell was the firs person to change the plain meaning of that, Irenaeus said in Against Heresies “nowing Jesus Christ to be one and the same, to whom the gates of heaven were opened, because of His taking upon him flesh; who shall also come in the same flesh in which he suffered, revealing the glory of the Father”
Irenaeus is not Scripture.
@Mike you should read “Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions” by Rich Pratt available here http://thegospelcoalition.org/resources/a/Historical-Contingencies-and-Biblical-Predictions
that chalenges all of Russells claims
I searched and find no references to Russell in the paper.
You’re right, Iranaeus is NOT scripture, but he lived around 110 AD.so he was a contemporary of the things that would have happened, no? Josephus didn’t mention anything either, but he did mention that Nicodemus was the richest Christian in Jerusalem before the Siege.
The church was in a state of disarray (“many antichrists have arisen”). Jesus and the apostles had prophesied of apostasy that would prevail in the church. The apostles were being martyred, leaving false teachers even more opportunity to rise. The messages to the seven churches in Revelation 2-3 give a picture of great upheaval. Jesus has said it was a time of tribulation such as the world had never seen. When Jesus returned, therefore, it would only have been noticed by the pure of heart – and there’s no telling how few of those there were at the time.
Just one more thing. Ultimately I believe Russell was the first to start the preterist “movement” and even though ge book is thick and filled w/ scripture references, he has written a clever ruse, and without the Holy Spirit guiding us, we can fall for it too. The book is thick and impressive, and while i don’t deny partial preterism, I believe Russell is no different that the founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses..Charles Russell. They are so similar, it’s uncanny
I have not studied Russell and I am not commending him or condemning him. Nor have I studied preterism. I’m only pointing out that it is not unprecedented for someone to say that the Lord kept His word and returned when He said He would.
Are we saying that no one saw the physical body of Jesus ascend? Are we saying that the physical body of Jesus later descended? Where is he now? Santa Monica? Do you have an address/phone number? I need to write him a letter, the gospel of Ed!
Just kidding! Jesus has not come back yet. The Catholics think he comes back every Sunday, in a non-bloody manner. The Mormons think he came back too. The Jehovah’s Witnesses thinks he came back invisibly, spiritually about 100 years ago. The 7th Day Adventists kept re-inventing a date of his physical return. Finally, they gave up. Harold Camping did the math, and you know them engineers are great at math, and after he was wrong, several times, he spiritualized it. Come on guys. He has not come back yet. When he comes back, we will all know it. There won’t be speculation. He comes back in bodily form.
Edward, you have two problems.
1) You have all the statements by Jesus and His apostles that the time of His coming was then near (“at hand,” “this generation,” “it is the last hour,” and so on). You are saying, in effect, that you think they were wrong.
2) You are fleshly minded. This was a big problem for many in the New Testament church. Paul and others worked hard to get believers to think in spiritual, not fleshly, terms. If the end game was to have Jesus reign in a fleshly body, He could have taken David’s throne in Jerusalem and avoided the crucifixion.
Mike,
They “Fleshly” saw Jesus ascend, we will fleshly see Jesus return.
There is nothing to spiritualize here.
David’s Throne is a spiritual, as David reflects the Father, as Solomon reflects the son.
Ed,
I agree with you that the apostles physically saw Jesus ascend from earth. However, note that Acts 1:9 then says “a cloud received Him out of their sight.” Note “out of their sight.” They did not see Him physically after that. Therefore, they did not see Him physically enter heaven and sit down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Note that in Matthew 24:64 Jesus to those present at His trial “you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” “Sitting at the right hand” was a reference to Ps 110: and “coming on the clouds of heaven” was a reference to Dan 7:13. Note that Jesus said “see” applying to both parts of the statement. Thus, He “spiritualized” it (to use your term) – not me.
Why do you expect to see Him physically come on the clouds if you can’t see Him physically sitting at the right hand of God?
1 Corinthians 10:1
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
1 Thessalonians 4:17
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air
And finally:
Revelation 1:7
Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
Every eye shall see him. All kindreds of Israel? No, of the Earth.
Just to break the ice with a little humor,
An old man comes to an old woman at a bus stop. The old man asks the old woman if she believes in the hereafter. She said, yes, of course.
He then states, good, then you know what I am here after.
You didn’t address the “seeing” of Matthew 26:64. Don’t you “see” what Jesus meant?
Jesus clearly stated that he did NOT know the time of the end, but “the father only”.
Stark dishonestly tries to skip over this, as he does when he misrepsents scriptures that he says god wants human sacrifice.
The bible recognizes that people engaged in such behavior, but it does not follow that God wanted that behavior.
Stark is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing who wants to destroy Christianity. Note that he tag teams with the Anti Christinas John Loftus…Loftus even advertises Starks book ON HIS SITE>
Loftus would not do that if he thought this book led to a “better understanding of Christianity”.
Who ya all kiddin?
Morrison,
Have you read the book?
When you ask, “Who ya all kiddin?” what do you mean? This is a review of a challenging book, not a ringing endorsement of everything Stark says. And even though I disagree with much of what he writes, I also believe that he says much that we do not have adequate answers for.
Jeremy, your response to Morrison impressed upon me that you are eager to hear from someone else who has read Thom’s book – not just people who disagree with his thesis. Therefore, I’m going to read it and respond with my own review. Here is the first installment. I welcome your interaction as well as Thom’s.
I subscribe to your blog, and will make sure I read your posts. If I had the time, i would review each chapter as well, as there is so much in each chapter that deserves careful consideration and critique.
Mike,
I don’t “see” the word “seeing” in Matthew 26:64, but I do “see” the word “see” in Matthew 26:64.
But I do have to admit that I do not know what they saw. But this much I do know, that at that time of Matthew 26:64, Jesus had not yet ascended in a resurrected “eternal” body yet.
But when he did ascend up in his new resurrected eternal body, they were told that he would come back in like manner, and everyone will see it.
But…
Acts 7:55-56 (Speaking of Stephen)
But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
This shows that Stephen saw something that we haven’t seen, and probably never will. There are other examples in the Bible such as this.
This shows that Matthew 26, that they saw something that we do not, nor cannot see.
But there “will be” something that we will all see…in the future, not the past.
Ed, you’re speaking more from a traditional understanding of the Scriptures than you are speaking from the Scriptures themselves. Let the Scriptures speak for themselves.
You’re admitting that Stephen experienced something rare. I doubt that you have physically seen Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father like he did. But I’m sure you believe Jesus is sitting there, because you have faith that the prophecy of Psalm 110:1 is fulfilled just as Peter (Acts 2:34-36) and the other apostles preached. Therefore, you “see” Jesus sitting there by faith (in Psalm 110:1). If we walk by faith and not by sight, why are you so opposed to “seeing” the return of Jesus by faith – especially when you already “see” Him sitting at the right hand of God in that way?
Is this how you explain away scripture? Stephen saw it. But it sounds to me that you don’t really believe it. You sound like he only saw it based on faith, as if it was just a figure of speech.
Don’t worry, though, because Harold Camping finally resorted to spiritualizing the return of Christ as well, after he didn’t physically see it for himself. By faith, he believes that Jesus returned recently.
Of course I believe Stephen.
I don’t believe Harold Camping.
And yet you believe that Jesus came back already, by faith? By what means did he return? How, who saw it? Everyone, or just a select few? Did he come back invisibly, and no one saw it? For what purpose did he come back? Where is he now?
What are the prophesies pertaining to his return? Is the prophesies of the Jewish people over with?
Where is the Anti-Christ supposed to stand? (Not the many anti-christs, but THE anti-Christ, the one spoken of by Daniel the Prophet, as Jesus pointed out. Who is “THE” anti-Christ? Who is it that wants the throne of God? That is THE Anti-Christ.
There is so much that has yet to happen before Jesus returns.
Hint:
The Anti-Christ = the OBAMA-NATION of desolation!!
That’s a joke, by the way…I don’t believe that, by faith.
Your questions deserve answers. I deal extensively with the issue in Whatever Became of Jesus Christ?
For now, I’ll just say that everything Jesus said would happen before His return happened in the 1st Century.
I will read it, and I will study it. I will get back to you in due time afterwards if that is ok with you. These are the kind of challenges that I like.
This is how I operate. I study others doctrines as a primary hobby, and then I take it back to the word of God, searching the scriptures daily to see if those things are so.
So get ready to defend your position when I get done!!
That is what I see as a responsible debate, so that I am not accused, as I have been, of “traditional” thinking. I get accused of that a lot, but I don’t follow that at all. I am my own person. This is why I am not a Catholic, Lutheran, or Calvinist. But I do know that there is an orderly fashion of things in the Bible, and, my findings is in line with the “traditional” thinking. There is a reason that it is traditional thinking. Maybe it is because it is true, and those who are of the non-traditional thinking, don’t really understand what is meant when they themselves declare such words as “Everything that Jesus said would happen, already happened in the 1st Century”. They explain away scripture. They cannot understand that some of the prophecies are dual, some are both carnal and spiritual, such as the Promised Land is both the physical land of Israel with specific border lines as God directed, which HAS NOT come to pass yet, because those borders has never come to pass, and yet God promised those specific borders, and from the spiritual side, Heaven.
Ed,
Thank you for being willing to read what I have written. You will find that I hold Scripture in the highest possible regard. I await your challenges, and you will have ample opportunity as you are reading to make them.
I don’t seek to prevail over you, nor do I seek for you to prevail over me. I seek for the truth to prevail over us all.
No problem…like I said, this is what I enjoy. And thank you, as well.
Ed, this is what I have on my bog.
“You are responsible for your own interpretation of the Bible.
Each of us must walk in the light we have. You, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit are priority in interpretation.
You must not relinquish this to anyone else. This includes a pastor, a commentator, a denominational leader or even me.
(I know that last one is hard to believe 😉 )”
I think you’re doing a great job 🙂
I agree with you that we are each responsible, as we are judged as individuals, and not as a group. Thank you for your comment.
The Catholics don’t believe in “own” interpretation. They have Rome to “dictate” to them what to believe. They don’t have a mind of their own to interpret.
However, keep in mind that we are supposed to be “like-minded” in fellowship. Philippians 2:2, rather than double-minded. James 1:8, 4:8.
When did the second coming of Christ happen according to you Mike Gantt?