So, what if I told you I believe that there are contradictions in the Bible? Minor contradictions, usually, but contradictions nonetheless. Things like:
--In the Joseph narrative of Gen. 37, Joseph is apparently sold to both the “Ishmaelites” and the “Midianites/Medanites.”
--The account of Saul’s death in 1 Sam. 31 says that Saul killed himself with his own sword; while the recounting of Saul’s death in 2 Sam. 1 says that an Amalekite killed Saul.
--Then there are the various reports in the gospels of who exactly was at the empty tomb that wonderful Sunday morning of Christ’s resurrection.
Now there are obviously ways to construct seemingly logical explanations for all of these contradictions, as well as the numerous other textual problems in the Bible—although some problems are much harder to reconcile than those I’ve mentioned above. (If you have a “study Bible,” they will often provide these sorts of ‘answers’ for you in the commentary/notes sections.) But have you ever stopped to ask yourself, Why do we even try to reconcile these problems? Why is it such a big deal to us that the Bible fit our understanding of “perfect” or “inerrant” or “the Word of God”?
Well, part of it stems from our Protestant nature. Catholics used to want an infallible pope; many Protestants still want an infallible Bible. But Catholics have given up the infallible pope idea, and you have to wonder if the day is not coming soon when the infallibility of Scripture isn’t such a big deal to Protestants anymore.
This is probably part of it, but I guess there’s something lying even deeper within us than our Protestant heritage that longs for a text that can be measured, calculated, and stretched in every way and still meet our expectations of “infallibility”—namely, the desire for certainty. We want a Holy Book without any contradictions, because we want to believe without wrestling with doubt. But this isn’t the Holy Book that God gives us, and faith is not certainty. Certainty is for the next life, where "we will know even as we are known." Faith is for this life.
Now please don’t misunderstand me: I love the Bible. I believe in the power of the Word of God—Holy Scripture—to guide and direct people into new life. I believe that Scripture is “sharper than any two-edged sword….” However, I am very concerned about this push amongst many Evangelicals—especially of the Reformed tradition—to essentially “prove” the Bible to be “true” on scientific or historical grounds, and to provide logical explanations for all the seeming “contradictions” in the Bible. Why am I concerned about something like this?
Because it takes the focus off of Christ, and puts it onto our “evidence” and “arguments” and “logic.” Let me say something I am sure to say over and over again in this blog: Our faith is not in a text; it is in a Person—Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified, dead, buried and rose again to life by the power of God. This is the gospel, “the gospel by which you are saved,” says Paul in 1 Cor. 15. You are not saved by arguments for or against the “inerrancy” or “infallibility” of Scripture. We do not follow a book, we follow a Person. The book is only useful to the Church insofar as it points us to the Person of Christ. Christ Himself makes it very clear in Luke 24 that all of Scripture is about Him. If we take the focus of Scripture off of Jesus—even to make it about how the Bible is supposedly “infallible”—we misuse the Bible.
Let us, as the Church of Christ, use the Bible to point us to Him.
Celebrate today: the Lord is Risen!
When you start on the claim of not really believing in the infallacy of scripture, all foundation of truth unravels, quickly. Relativism creeps in and people are, now, free to claim whatever they want in scripture. I don't know if you are familiar with the Metropolitan Community Church (a sect begun by an openly homosexual minister). Many in this denomination believe that they can treat the Bible as an "a la carte" of sorts, picking and choosing what they want to believe and what they want to discard. This is apostasy and heretical. You state that "Christ Himself makes it very clear in Luke 24 that all of Scripture is about Him. If we take the focus of Scripture off of Jesus—even to make it about how the Bible is supposedly “infallible”—we misuse the Bible." That's a pretty strong statement. I am not sure what translation you are reading, but Jesus does not say that all of scripture is about him. He says that "everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. He states in Matthew 5 "17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Jesus is timeless as is the law. The bible states that Jesus is the word in flesh. Just because someone believes in the inerrancy of the Bible does not mean that his focus is wrong. We believe that the word is God inspired. Our God is big enough to inspire the correct passages, the right authors and the timeless nature of his word, in written form. I am not sure I understand your argument that people who believe in the historical and scientific accuracy of the bible are not faith based. We have faith that the word is God inspired. In particular, it should be noted that one of your specific examples of contradiction in the Bible is that of Joseph. There is no inconsistency there. The Ishmaelites are descendants of Ishmael whom many joined the Midianites. I'd think of it as: I am of Irish/Scottish descent, but I am an American, both facts. Further you use Saul as support for your claim. Saul tried to kill himself, he fell on his sword. Before he attempted this, he tried to get his armour bearer to kill him and he refused, so Saul attempted to do the job himself. Between vs. 4 and 5 there is no inerrancy, we find out in II Samuel that an Amalekite came along and saw that he was mortally wounded and helped the death process along. This, by no means, is a contradiction. We got a story from one writer's knowledge and then find out the between time. Ian, I am not sure what, other than conversation, you are trying to generate with this argument, but I would caution you in causing people to doubt the inerrancy of the Bible. This does nothing beneficial for someone's faith, especially people who aren't fully sure what they believe and don't bother to check out your claims. I believe that by doing this you are detracting from Christ. He is not a figment of imagination (not that I am claiming your are asserting) but when people think that the Bible is full of errors, what is there to believe? Who is to say what is true and what is not? You state, "Our faith is not in a text; it is in a Person—Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified, dead, buried and rose again to life by the power of God." 2 Timothy 3:16 ”All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,”The text, the Law is given so that we may become more like Jesus. We need the full text to know how to be godly. This is not worshiPng the text it is using it as a tool to shape us. I am very concerned about your theology. I think that thePostmodern "movement" is not God driven but man driven. It seems that you are not fully reading the scriptures. Ironically, you accuse people of having an agenda when they have interests (the "idolotrous" bibles you blogged about), but it is clear that you have your own. Your presuppositions are shaping your reading of the scripture and demonstrating glaring bias.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the above comment:
ReplyDeleteThanks for stopping by the blog, Jenn! I would address you first concern: "relativistic" readings of the Scripture. I am not proposing that all of us interpret the Scriptures however we'd like to. In fact, in a couple of my other blogs ("Who has the right to say, 'The Bible says...'?") I mention how much of a problem this is. Individual interpretation and relativistic readings of the Scripture are a huge problem, and the ONLY corrective to this is to recognize the authority of the CHURCH ALONE--over all time and space--to interpret Scripture. I believe that the sort of "infallibility of Scripture" we are talking about is NOT the stance of the Church all throughout history, but rather a by-product largely of the Reformation. In summary, I do not believe in the "infallibility of Scripture" in the way it is often proposed by individuals of the evangelical denominations precisely because it is not the view that the WHOLE CHURCH--throughout time and space--adopts.
As for the Luke 24 comment that I made--that Jesus here tells us that ALL Scripture is about Him--I, of course, did not mean that this was a quote from Jesus' lips. But "the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms" was a Jewish way of saying "all of Scripture." And Jesus says that "the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms" speak of Himself--so I think it's accurate to say that Jesus is here telling his followers that ALL Scripture is about Him. Surely nothing in the New Testament could be confused as being about anyone else, and Jesus had already covered all the OT by saying "the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms". Moreover, the Matt. 5:17 quote from Christ I believe REAFFIRMS my statement that all Scripture is about Him; it does not detract from it. I believe that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is the focal point not only of ALL SCRIPTURE, but of ALL HISTORY in general.
I will not address your specfic arugments concerning the three references I mentioned from Genesis, Samuel, and the gospels: I will only say that I clearly admitted in my blog that there were many ways of forming mental constructions that get around these contradictions, and that this is largely a waste of time. Not to mention that there are much more difficult textual problems in Scripture which I do not need to get into on this blog.
The often quoted (and often abused) 2 Tim. 3:16 verse does not detract from what I said either. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is USEFUL...." Notice the word "useful." Useful to whom? The CHURCH, of course. It does NOT say all Scripture is "inerrant" or "plenary inspired." It says all Scripture is "God-breathed and useful." Why do we think this necessarily means "textually perfect"?
Finally, as to you mention of concern about my theology and embrace of the "postmodern movement," I will say that I take your concern to heart--primarily because you are my family. As for the "postmodern movement" idea--I am quite sure you and I have two very different ideas of what that even means, and where there is no agreement on terminology it is difficult to have a coherent conversation. I do not think I embrace a "postmodern movement" anymore than I embrace a "white-Caucasian movement." I am a white-Caucasian, and I am living in an increasingly postmodern world. Both of those things shape my understanding of the world, but they are not "movements."
Thanks for taking the time to take these blogs seriously, Jenn!
Enjoyed reading these two comments. Thank you for being civil and concerned for each other. That's God's Best. Mark Green
ReplyDeleteThanks Mark for the encouragement. Ian and I have different ways of viewing things but we are equally passionate for Christ. Ultimately, that unifies our pursuit :) I think we are both very similar in personality, but our views vary, eh Ian? I am blessed to have him as friend and family.
ReplyDeleteWell, I suppose this is a bit late, but I thought that I would contribute some thoughts to the conversation. I don't really claim to have a thorough understanding of these issues, just some initial impressions.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Ian, I do agree that all scripture is about Christ. "The law was our schoolmaster leading us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.". Everything in the Bible, I believe, points us to Jesus Christ.
Secondly, I agree with the notion that too much has been wasted on "proving" certain ways of interpreting the Bible, and I whole-heartedly agree that we ought to leave these behind (such as the debate on the creation account) and point people from these texts to Jesus Christ.
However, I must admit that I do not come to the conclusion that you have come to on the inerrancy of scripture not being important. I believe in the fallacy of interpretation, and I believe in the limited nature of the human mind. However, when every text does not line up in a way that makes sense to our minds, we do have a choice: we may say, "I believe God wrote it, I don't understand it, so I MUST make sense of it" (Jenn's position, I believe) "I believe that the Bible is not, in fact, infallible." (Ian's position, as I interpret it) or, "God wrote it, I don't understand it, and in some cases, that's okay." (The position I would venture to take)
I do find it a bit ironic, Ian, that you have been espousing as of late the authority of church in interpreting scripture, but do not assent to the church's long standing claim that scripture is inspired and infallible. I also find it ironic that you claim faith in the infallible word of God is a mental shortcut; I see the belief that the Bible must fit into our own understanding in order to be infallible as a similar mental shortcut.
Finally, the emphasis on our faith being about a person, not a text, does not seem to make sense in light of the fact that the person IS the text. "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word WAS God." However, I think I understand your sentiment. Far, FAR too much emphasis and time has been placed on people promoting their own INTERPRETATION of scripture as the infallible interpreatation of the word of God, rather than spending that time demonstrating how each and every part of scripture points to Jesus. Amen, Ian!
Oh, by the way, if you go to gracepointministries.com, click on the bottom left tab where it says, 'Live Streaming Sunday Morning broadast', wait for the commercial to be over, click on "menu" and then select 'on demand broadcasts", you will find the sermon I gave on July 26th. Skip to about 32:00 into it; I wouldn't want you to waste your time worshipping, when you could be listening to ME!
ReplyDeleteNick, thanks for taking the time to stop by the blog! I was just reading today several quotes by Luther himself, where he says that "all Scripture is about Christ"--so I'm glad as a one brought up in the Lutheran Church that you agree! That said, I think it only logically follows that Jesus, the Word of God, is not the same thing as the Scriptures as "the Word of God." When John writes in his prologue that "...the Word WAS God" I think it's very clear that he is speaking of the Word as the Second Person of the Trinity--not the Bible. The Bible is our most helpful resource for understanding Jesus--sure--but it is not Jesus. The Word of God is first and foremost Jesus. The Bible can be referred to as "the Word of God" only insofar as it contains truth concerning the Word of God, which is Christ.
ReplyDeleteProbably what makes this exceedingly confusing in our modern context is that when we hear the word "word," we think of PRINTED words. That is not how the biblical authors use the word "word." When you understand this it becomes clearer why I make the distinction I do between Jesus and the Bible.
As for the Church teaching the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures all throughout its history--I agree on the first point (inspiration) but not on the second (infallibility, at least as it is popularly defined in evangelical circles today). The Church has always believed that the Bible was inspired (God-spirited/breathed, as Paul says to Timothy in 2 Tim. 3:16), but the idea that this inspiration meant "textual infallibility" was not a popular Church teaching until the Reformers. What the Church taught as "infallible" prior to the Reformation was the consensual teachings of the Church--a.k.a. the DOCTRINE of the Church, as attested to by its authorities, is infallible (of course, Luther challenged this--and rightfully so). But then Luther and the other Reformers went on to say that the BIBLE was infallible, not the doctrine of the Church. I don't agree with this swap, nor do I think it really makes any sense, but I can't get into that all now.
All that to say, thanks for engaging! I'll check out your sermon!