What if Jesus Was Wrong?

I came across this article by Matt Kennedy at Stand Firm and it got me to thinking. You can find the original here http://standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/29154

The central issue has to do with historical facts. He identifies three OT stories (Noah, Sodom & Gomorah and Jonah) to which Jesus makes reference. He then claims that Jesus thought all three were actual events in real history. He then posits two alternatives in light of this. Here are Matt's options:

1. Jesus knew they did not happen and promoted a historical fiction.
2. Jesus did not know they did not happen but the Holy Spirit through whom he taught permitted him to teach something as historically true that was in fact false.
Some propose a third option, namely that Jesus, knowing these stories to be parabolic, referred to them in order to teach a spiritual lesson in the same way that we might refer to Jack and the Beanstalk for a similar purpose. (This third option, he argues, is just another form of the first, so we are back to two options)

Matt lays out in logical fashion the case for historicity.
He argues that if the first is true then Christianity is lost, while the second is absurd because the Holy Spirit cannot teach a lie. [He does remind us that Jesus is not omniscent, though this is not a major focus of his exhortation.]

Like most of the commenters on his article, I believe in the authority of Scripture. Matt and I are "on the same side" in that sense. However, I think he and I would diverge on his use of the term history. I think the two options are the problem. He has underlying assumptions which may not be accurate. More importantly, I am troubled by what he has written. The facticity of the three events he mentions (and Jesus' affirmation of that) would seem to be set up as definitive for one's faith. Let me be clear, I have known and do know people who would say that "if you do not believe Noah was in the ark then you cannot be a Christian." (While I am not saying Matt has said this, I would think it possible some folks reading this might think he is not far from that view.) So there is a syllogism at work which could be paraphrased like this:

• These three stories are historical facts and Jesus said so.
• If you do not believe that they are historical facts you are calling Jesus a liar (or rejecting Him).
• Therefore, you are not a Chrisian.

I have heard this basic argument, with obvious shifts in language (sometimes gentler, sometimes harsher) many times in Bible Belt Memphis. And I know all manner of people who have concluded, I must not be a Christian. Lots of people quit the church over this. Lots. And for me, that is the rub.

I was told at 19 that if I did not believe Jonah was a real person I was going to go to Hell. Almost forty years later having seriously and prayerfully studied the story I am convinced it is not history. I believe it is parabolic, actually a challenge to the hyper-Judaism of its day. I believe it was intended to challenge the idea that only Jews mattered to God. The story is written differently than the other prophets. It is long on narrative (and illustrative narrative at that) and short on preaching content. The 'hero" is a Jewish prophet who never does anything right while the 'bad guys' of the Evil Empire of Nineveh repent. While much is made of the Fish (and whether Jonah could have survived there) we hear precious little about the historicity of the monumental event where a pagan nation repents before the Lord for its sins. I do not think Jesus is concerned with the Modern era's history question. I think it was part of the Jewish tradition with which He grew up. I think Jesus did not ponder it and the Holy Spirit was not making that point. He may have assumed it was true. What if Jesus was wrong? Well, then, He was wrong, but it was about history, not salvation. Is Jesus always being right about everything the concern here? What does "not omniscent" really mean? Did Jesus err in understanding germs when He healed? Was Jesus wrong about the anatomy of the eye when He said the light comes from the eye (affirming the assumptions of His age)? Maybe. Perhaps. Not really sure I want to go there because I am not really sure it is relevant. Does this negate the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection? Definitely not. And maybe our Modernistic concerns are really off point. Jesus was pre-Enlightenment. We aren't. Back to Jonah.

In the end, the content of the Jonah story is often ignored. The prophet is sent to preach and refuses. He goes the other way, rather than stay faithful to God. He decides that the project is a waste of time, trying to convince Nineveh it has sinned would be fruitless (sort of like trying to correct perceived errors in the national church is also considered a waste of time by many who left). In my mind, however, the toughest part of the story of Jonah is not the fish, it is the message. I would think the history question takes our eyes off what matters most. My Bible study on this story led me to a conversion experience as I taught on it. I literally decided I was called to stay in the Episcopal church while teaching on the story. I still remember the power of the moment. Some people call that sort of thing the Holy Spirit. Perhaps it was my own delusions. Whatever the case, the Jonah story changed my life and my ministry. Whether fact, parable or a mixture of both, or something else all together, it seems God spoke, loud and clear, through it. That is revelation, that is Truth, that is The Word of the Lord.

Ironcially, I wrote yesterday about reading the Bible, so some of my answer to this dilemma can be found there. I do not think history is the point of the Bible. I do not think that the Truth of the Christian faith hinges on an actual Jonah. I also know that that opens the door for all manner of apostacy and heresy. I also know that it gives people leverage to do all manner of harm. But show me anything that cannot be twisted. If we advocate that each person can read and interpret the Scriptures for him/herself is that not also how we ended up with the current anarchy of opinion?

I do not know what Jesus knew or thought about facts and historicity. I do not think the history question was asked the same way in ancient times as it is in our age. I think there are cultural differences, differences which Matt is overlooking. There are different assumptions and concerns, which he has not factored in. If Jesus was a real man (God incarnate, yes, but a real man) with all the limitations of a real man (like living in a particular culture) then it is probable that there were questions which we ask and care about that He did not. [That is why the Gospels are so lacking in information which we are interested in. Think of your own list of things which I wish the Bible wrote about. Also think about some of the muddled argumentation (by our standards) which is reflective of the people of that time. Think about the minor discrepencies between the Gospels (or Acts. One huge example, the three accounts of Paul's conversion experience).] Do we really want to make claims about history and the Bible which endanger people's faith? Do we really want to make blanket claims?

If we could go back in time and be with Jesus as He spoke, how would He react to our questions about historicity? Would He find some of our worries and concerns odd? We are all children of our age. We are not truly Ancients. We are not truly medieval. Some are modern. Others post-modern. Each has a worldview loaded with all manner of assumtions. And it impacts how we read the Bible and how we interpret. And it is okay. What if Jesus was wrong? Things still work out. Perhaps more pressing: what if I am wrong? What if you are wrong? We are. A lot. About all manner of things, including holy things. So we should be humble, repentant and cry out for mercy. Once more, even if we are wrong, we have hope. God loves errant people. Jesus makes that clear. That is more essential