Troubling Passages of Scripture - Part 4 - Are Parts of the Bible NOT the Word of God?

There are actually several types of passages I am talking about here so I want to take each in turn:

1. Satan Speaks: While the Bible may record the words of the devil, that does not mean those words are authoritative simply because they are in the Bible. They are just there to record what happened and what was said. Even when the Devil uses Scripture (See the temptation of Jesus in the Gospels), he most certainly is twisting it to his own ends. What this part of the Word of God teaches a Christian is how the devil operates and what he does. We however should not see those things the devil says as accurate as far as what WE should do.

2. Job's Friends and Others: This category includes a lot of guys who speak in Scripture and are dead wrong in what they say, or teach things in the Bible that are contrary to other parts of the Bible. One time I heard a preach preach from Job and he was quoting one of Job's friends to prove that calamity results from sin. Guess he never read the end where God says everything Job's friends said was wrong. This is why you have to get the full context of anything you read in Scripture. Otherwise you might drop your finger on 'Judas went out and hanged himself' and think that applies to you. It is not that these are not part of the Bible, what they do is show us what beliefs are wrong. What we do have to note is that they are wrong and not believe them ourselves.

3. Paul Speaking by Permission and Not Commandment: 1 Corinthians 7:6 -- When Paul speaks of concession, not command, does that invalidate this as the commands of God? Guess it depends on your definition of inspired. If you understand that God allows the writers to input themselves as part of that inspiration (see here) then this is still inspired by God just with a different flavor. One that allows that God to use the Scripture writers own thoughts, issues, personalities and make them part of His Word.

4. Scripture Trumps Scripture: Matthew 19:1-12 -- when Jesus responds to the Pharisees he makes the statement that Moses allowed for divorce because of the hardness of their hearts, thus it seems that two passages of the Bible that seem to be at odds with each other. Several factors can be considered 1) What does it mean for the Bible to be inspired (above), 2) The progressive nature of that revelation (see here) and 3) that the Bible may also present options for the believer. In this case you can simply view marriage as a contract which can be annulled at any time or you can view it as a 'one flesh' covenant that is supposed to last a life time. In this case, the second option is a higher walk, but things happen so the first option remains.

5. Passages with Textual Problems: If you have a more modern translation you might find a textual note on a passage that indicates that it does not appear in older manuscripts. Most notable are John 8:1-11 (The Woman Caught in Adultery) and The longer ending of Mark's gospel where from 16:9 to the end is not in older manuscripts. This is the field of textual criticism where old manuscripts of the Scriptures are compared. What textual critics look for is changes as the copyist makes mistakes and age of the manuscript. The age is important because the closer some thing is to the original writing the less chance there are changes from the original because there has not been the time to make those changes. In the two cases above, both have the problem of not being supported by older texts, this means they very well could be additions put in by later people. This one is a harder thing to deal with. The thing to remember is that in all of these differences, not one of them openly contradicts anything else in Scripture nor do they present too many things that are not said elsewhere so for the most part they are not new material. In these cases, I simply have to shrug and say - 'do what you want with them' . It does not hurt to believe them or not to believe them.

6. Miscellaneous Stuff: How about the times the apostles are saying: 'this person greets you' or 'bring me X' seeing that the person's and things being talked about no longer exist. Once again, God in the situation and using it to inspire does not mean that the authors were brainwashed and these passages actually show that idea. Those verse that just seem to be filler at the end of letters, etc. Once again, context and inspiration definitions come into play.

What we see in all this is that the Bible is a very human book as well as being divine one. God inspiring the writers does not take away the very human situation they were in or their humanity itself. In fact it seems that the writers of Scripture have their humanity enhanced. The Bible and inspiration are really a God and Man collaboration and as we interpret it we should keep that in mind.

Previous: Herod's Slaughter of Infants

Who Defines God?

The major difficulty with humans is that we are so ignorant. When is comes to God doubly so. When we look to know God or understand Him, the fact is that if we are left to our own devices we will, because of ignorance or prejudice, get it wrong. We would define God in terms we would like or understand.

When someone says to me -- "I believe in God but I am not sure of the God of the Bible. I don't like him and he does not fit what I think God is." I understand the dilemma, but I also think they have a major problem -- they fail to see their own ignorance and prejudice.

Let's take an example to illustrate the point. Say I have a friend named Bob, I want to introduce to Larry. Bob asks me what Larry is like. The reality is that Larry is an extrovert and opinionated. I tell Bob this. Bob does not like opinionated, outgoing people so Bob says -- "I don't think so, I bet Larry is a shy, quiet guy." Does Bob's belief change who Larry is?

The problem is that this is what people do with God. They read the Bible and don't like that God so they come up with one of their own. For the sake of the unbelievers out there, let me put it this way: If the Bible is a true representation of who God is and what He says He is, then it does not matter two dingos kidneys what you or I believe or think He is. The God of the Bible is the reality and our belief or opinion will not change that. God would be who He is described to be no matter what.

The problem is further compounded by the fact that individual experience with God does not matter much either. People can claim to experience something but be lying; they could genuinely experience God or hear his voice, but interpret it wrongly. Human ignorance an prejudice again.

Ultimately we are left with one inescapable conclusion the only one who could accurately define God - who He is and what He is about - Is God Himself. God must come down and say, "This is who I am and what I want." Without this, no true definition of God would be possible. In addition when God does this, it must be witnessed by many people who all agree that is what God said and did, otherwise it falls back on individual religious experience.

Ultimately this is why the Bible is so hot a subject. It claims to be this record of what God said and expects; as well as, a record of what people did an thought about it. Others claim that this is not true. There are a million plus opinions so take your pick. The point is that the ultimate issue is can believers in the Bible prove that it is an accurate record of what God said and did. If the can, it means this is who God is so deal with it. If they can't then we are left searching for some true record of God or the divine acting or speaking that fits the same criteria.

One thing is for sure, we cannot define God for ourselves. This is what the prophets and philosophers both identified and dismissed as idolatry. We would make Him into our image of what we want Him to be. I am not saying that God may not have similar qualities as our own, but that we are simply not in a position to make the judgment of what those are. God must define Himself or no one.

Apparent Contradictions and the Progressive Revelation of the Bible.

Just a word before I begin about contradictions in Scripture - if you are looking for them you will find them. Some people make a living off of finding apparent contradictions. Like all interpretive techniques once you adopt a certain lens you stick with it, but it should be noted that when I hear people talking about contradictions in Scripture they are contradictions AS THEY SEE IT. To be fair though, some people have a way of reconciling those contradictions and can go to great lengths to do so. They are doing things as they see it as well. What we learn from this is sometimes whether a contradiction is a contradiction is usually in the eye of the beholder. Both sides can be guilty of reading into Scripture what they want to be there.

I want to look at how some contradictions are reconciled by the fact sometimes it is a matter of the writers perspective and aims in his writing in a previous post so what I want to do is look at how the Bible being a progressive revelation of God can affect apparent contradictions. I want to use two examples from the teaching of Jesus in relationship to the Law of Moses: 1) The 'Eye for and Eye' controversy and 2) Moses and Jesus differences on divorce.

1. The Law of Moses is the first place the expression "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth' appears. It does so in three places (Exodus 21, Leviticus 24 and Deuteronomy 19) and every time it is in relationship to the idea of punishment and restitution for the victim of a crime. If the victim loses an eye, justice demands that the person who caused this loss also lose an eye. There were alternative restitution methods in this but the standard was established based on equality. In our language -- 'let the punishment fit the crime'.

Thousands of years pass and Jesus is preaching the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7. (Note: this is not the same sermon as the one in Luke 6 although they are similar. Ancient speakers had to repeat themselves often for different groups so teaching would be repeated as the crowd changed. Remember no way to record words and no public address systems. It should also be noted that neither of these sermons say it was Jesus' first time speaking) He says "you have heard it said 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth, but I say to you, do not resist an evil person, but whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." We could say that Jesus is changing things like he does elsewhere, except he begins this sermon with a bold statement that that is not what he is doing -- that no part of the law will pass away until everything is fulfilled. That being said what is going on here?

The answer lies in the fact that the revelation of Scripture takes place over time. During the gaps people develop interpretations, establish schools of thought and have their own ideas. When Moses writes the law it is about justice. The passage of time has corrupted the interpretation of the idea from one of justice to one of justified vengeance. Also consider that politically the times are different. Israel is free under Moses; Jesus lives under Roman rule. The things Jesus advocates are a direct reaction to that fact. 1)Not resisting is a reaction to the idea of using 'eye for eye' as a justification for rebellion against an 'evil' empire. 2)being struck on the cheek was a common discipline action of Roman soldiers, Jesus says don't strike back but submit to further discipline as the law requires 3) Roman soldiers could compel a non-citizen to carry their stuff for a mile. Jesus says to not only for that but volunteer for a second mile 4) a Roman soldier could demand stuff from people Jesus is saying give them what they want and then some, etc., etc. In the end what Jesus is doing is correcting the bad interpretations of his time that allowed for both rebellion and vengeance in the name of God, but he never attacks the idea of eye for eye being used as a standard of justice.

2. The whole story for this can be found in Matthew 19 where Jesus is asked if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason. Jesus says 'No', giving only sexual unfaithfulness as a grounds for divorce pointing them to the story of man and woman being one flesh. The follow up is where things get interesting where they ask him why Moses then allowed for divorce with simply a certificate. Jesus replies that Moses allowed for divorce because of the hardness of the hearts of people. Which leads to a question: Was the certificate of divorce in the Law given by Moses inspired or just Moses doing something on his own? A similar question comes in 1st and 2nd Corinthians when Paul says he has no command of God on a subject but he speaks by permission. Are these permissions and allowances the Word of God and if not then is it not possible that other parts of Scripture are also not part of THE Word of God but are just nice stuff or fluff.

The thing I think needs to be considered is the nature of God as he reveals himself to people over time. The thing I propose as an open theist is that while God in his essential nature does not change (His character) his experiences with humans do change and require a modification of principles or rules as humanity changes on relationship to God. God may not change but his experiences with us are ever changing. Adam and Eve are one flesh, but sin enters the world and men's heart become hard. knowing this God allows Moses to allow divorce. When Jesus arrives God is working to re-establish true salvation by providing a means to change hearts. There is still an allowance for sin in Jesus' words but now it is about strict infidelity, not any other thing like --'she burned my toast'. The progressiveness of God's revelation to man and the ever changing humanity means the standards change as time goes by.

It is this changing relationship aspect of the God and man equation that factors into a lot of things in Scripture. It does not answer all the seeming contradictions but it does address some of them.

Is the Bible Inspired and Infallible?

What follows is a typical quote about the Bible from a church denominational statement (in this case -- The Assemblies of God):
"The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct"
There are many others like this one but in the end most of them have the following features:
1. The idea of verbal inspiration
2. The Bible is God's revelation to man
3. The Bible is infallible
4. The Bible is authoritative to the point that it defines what we should believe and and do.

Verbal inspiration means that the belief is that God just didn't just give the authors the ideas they used but the exact words to use -- word for word.

Infallibility means that the Bible contains NO errors. Some denominations add the condition -- 'in the original autographs'. This is done to accept the reality that as the Bible has been copied and translated over the years some things may have been changed, altered, etc. by humans either accidentally or on purpose. Textual Criticism (the branch of scholarship that deals with these changes and how they occur) states though as a whole the Bible is the most free of these things of all the documents of antiquity.

Now, I am going to make a statement that I think that this doctrinal statement has some errors in it. Not because I don't believe the Bible is inspired by God or the rule of faith and conduct for the Christian, but I feel the definitions of what it means to be infallible and inspired go beyond what the Bible even says about itself.

What Bible does say about itself is this:"All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be adequate,equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17 -- NASB). Now some translations prefer to bring out the idea of inspiration being "God breathed" which is good as the word in the Greek does have multiple levels of understanding.
Comparing these verses to the doctrinal statement above though there are some discrepancies.
1. The word 'verbal' does not appear in the Scripture itself, not here or anywhere else. The fact is the concept of HOW God inspired Scripture is a debatable point. When a individual or group says that the Bible is 'verbally' inspired they are making a theological statement not a Biblical one. More on this in a moment.
2. The Bible tells people it is trustworthy to lead them to God and can give them direction, etc. but it never makes claims at absolute infallibility. I think there is a reason for this which I will share in a moment.

What is telling to me is how God is conceived in inspiring the Scriptures.
1) In verbal inspiration, God is so fearful that the human writer might get it wrong he literally takes over the writers brain and hand a writes what he wants written. In short the human writer is nothing more than a automation that does not think or write for himself.
2) In a 'God breathed' scenario the image is different. The idea is that God breathes on something and thus animates and exalts its meaning and effect. The idea is the writer is facing a real practical situation and God breathes on that situation and thus animates (gives life) and exalts the final product to a different level. Picture the writer as a candle and God breathing on the flame to make it more intense and bright. This view has both God and the writer working together where the mind of God and the mind of the writer are in harmony but God does not dominate the writer but works with the writer to make their work together inspired.

The implications of this are staggering for the idea of the infallibility. That God may allow the idea He inspires to be taken by the writer and creatively used may mean that the discrepancies that people see in scripture may simply be that God allows interpretive freedom for the writer and that is why the differences and discrepancies. That the Bible is both a Divine and Human work, means that the same event can be looked at in different ways and be interpreted differently by the authors of Scripture themselves.

Probably the best and simplest way to illustrate what I am talking about it is to use the Gospel writers:
Matthew -- tax collector, eyewitness and one of the twelve. Writing to his Jewish brethren
Mark -- eyewitness to some events but not all, disciple of Christ but not one of the twelve, possible one of the seventy. It is believed that Peter was at his elbow as he wrote offering his views. Mark is writing to Gentiles. particularly Romans.
Luke -- Gentile believer, historian, doctor, not an eyewitness but someone who did interview eyewitnesses. Acting as a guy writing a documentary.
John -- One of the twelve and eyewitness, in addition he was one of the inner three disciples (Peter, James and John) giving him first hand experience with some of the events that others did not see. Tells other things the first three do not and offers up details they do not cover as he is writing some 30 years after the other three.

Lets take the the account of The Gerasene Demoniac (Matthew 8:28-34; Luke 8:26-37 and Mark 5:1-20). Picture each author as doing a movie about the life of Jesus.
Matthew's would look like saving Private Ryan -- through an eyewitness lens that is moving very quickly. He notes the main events and moves to the next one without pausing for detail or getting a look at the other parts of the picture. The Demoniac is a Gentile so has little appeal to the Jewish audience he is writing to, so the account is quick and accurate but the details of what happened to either man are unimportant to him-- there are two guys and Jesus casts out the demons into the swine and then leaves -- end of story.
Mark is different -- his is like an up close look at the human side of Jesus and so his details are more specific . Matthew writes like someone at a distance, but Mark like he is right there in the middle of the thing dealing directly with the situation. Peter may be chiming in with the details he remembers as well. The Demoniac is a Gentile and because Mark is writing to Roman Gentiles, he focuses on him for 20 verses as a central character to make his point for his message that Jesus cared about Gentiles. The second guy is missing, but it may be the simple fact that this guy stayed and the other ran off. Mark only really knows about this one, so he doesn't mention the second guy because there would be no point to doing so for his purposes.
Luke is doing a documentary film. Picture interviews after the fact and Luke basically saying --'this is what can be confirmed by all witnesses' like a narrator. No second guy here either, but what Luke is saying is the second guy just dropped out of sight and he simply can't confirm he existed and truth be told from the standpoint of making a point about the accuracy of Jesus' life, the second guy really is just a blip on the radar.

In both the case of Mark and Luke, the second guy may simply have been left out because from the standpoint of significance to the story of Christ he isn't that significant. They are simply editing their film so to speak and leaving him out because he isn't essential to what they are trying to do with their gospel. It does not speak of inaccuracy of anybodies account just that each were allowed by God to tell the story from their point of view with their objectives in mind and thus they are allowed to EDIT the story.

What does this mean for the doctrines of infallibility and inspiration. That we not only need to look at passages of Scripture from God's divine inspiration of the passages involved but that each author put something of themselves into the Scriptures as well. It means the Bible is both Divine and Human in a curious but wondrous mix of God's inspiration and human creativity.

Certain fundamentalist types will object to this (guys I call hyper-fundamentalists) because they feel if the Bible allows human creativity it could lead to error. My point is that if we don't allow for human creativity than God is of divided mind telling different accounts of the same story like he couldn't get it right the first time. By bringing humans in to the inspiration process, it changes what we mean by both inspiration and infallibility that such differences are not only allowed for but expected because each person -- including the Biblical writers -- is different.

Returning to True Fundamentalism -- Part 6 -- Why Does This Matter?

OK. Let's recap. True Fundamentalism is about making a list of the minimum things required in a Christian doctrine statement to be Christian. my list is only five things long:
1. The Bible is the Inspired Word of God
2. God exists in three persons: The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit and these three are one.
3. The reality of the person and work of Jesus Christ as both historical and spiritually significant
4. Through the person and work we can find salvation and find it in no other
5. Christ will return

Now, I want to note something -- I think this is all one needs to know to become a Christian and get saved. That said can anyone note all that is not said:

1. Type of inspiration (verbal, etc.)
2. The nature of God outside the trinity doctrine -- how is God omnipotent, omniscient, etc.
3. How one is saved by faith (faith and works controversy)
4. How salvation works and the nature of salvation are left somewhat open
5. End times -- completely open.

Why is this important? I think that unity is better achieved by fighting for the core, making allowances for differences outside the core and in all things being loving. Probably, the greatest downside to the Protestant Reformation has been division and hostility between the children of God. The fact is we often fight about many things that are not central to faith and the real issues often go by without really looking at them. The kind of unity Paul talked about in his writings is quite frankly imposable as long as these issues exist. We simply have a hard time accepting someone whose beliefs about Christianity are not very similar to our own and tat is becoming our downfall.

Finis

Returning to True Fundamentalism -- Part 1 -- The Bible.

True Fundamentalism. I know fundamentalism gets a bad rap at times and quite frankly most of the time it is deserved, but there was a time when true fundamentalism was a great idea. True fundamentalism was about exactly that -- the fundamentals of the Christian faith. In short what is fundamental (basic) to Christianity and Christian belief. Now i am speaking of Protestant belief here so keep that in mind. The fact was that in the beginning fundamentalism was about making the list short and basic what doctrines Christians hold to.

The first one True Fundamentalism upholds about the Scripture. There are two factors: 1) Inspiration by God and 2) Authority.

In the question of inspiration, the original fundamentalist felt that is was not so important to get bogged down with discussion about how the Bible was inspired only to say that is was inspired by God. Verbal, Plenary , etc. were not their concern -- the issue was simply who did it. The Bible to them was not ultimately the product of man and that is what need to be ultimately said. It was written by men but was God inspired.

The question of authority was simple -- it is the authority over everything we believe and do.

I like this -- it keeps things to the basics and allows room for discussion about the role of mankind in the inspiration. It also means that I can accept as a brother in Christ someone who has different views on how god inspired the Scripture as long as we all understand that that it is God's Word and has authority over us in what we do and believe.

This makes things a lot easier.

The Law, Christians and the Selective Authority of Scripture

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Engaging God's Problem -- Disagreements with Chapter Four

At this point, Bart Ehrman's book God's Problem is dealing with the issue of suffering being the consequence of sin. It is also where I get a little disappointed. The Disagreements are as follows:

1. Bart does not seem to have proper understanding of God's discipline. In particular he seems to think God's discipline is harsh but then again from God's perspective would it be?

2. I was also disappointed to find Bart engaging in a particular brand of politics -- liberal. He bashes capitalism (although he enjoys its benefits) and takes a pot shot at Iraq -- "masses of people dying in Iraq". When did that happen?

3. He state the Bible is a fully human book -- can't agree for a number of reasons, chief among them the historical nature of the Bible as it record God interaction with man.

4. In the debate he seems to skip over both Babel and the Flood parts that indicate the evilness of humanity and their lack of obedience.

5. While I have problems with God ordering the genocide of the Canaanites, I also realize these were not nice people and that their children would have probably grew up to be like them. I think God is taking a long term view. Had the Israelites obeyed God they would have avoided all the long term wars and suffering that followed that amount to greater suffering than simple genocide. Hard but true. Obedience would have avoided this suffering.

6. When a prophecy is fulfilled it does not mean divine will absolute it means the understanding of the prophecy is fulfilled. There is an inconsistency to Bart's reasoning. on the one hand he says that God does not possess a crystal ball with the prophets and yet that is how he treats it when talking about suffering. Can't have it both ways.

7. One thing came through to me loud and clear at this time -- one tone of the book is a cultural arrogance -- that is that the ancient culture of the Bible is inferior to ours. You cannot judge a different culture by standards we have -- their different and who are we to say our culture should judge others. Bart judging slavery of the ancient world is like this -- in that time slavery is just a social status. It also certainly does not say that the forced labor of Israels enemies was like the Nazi death camps or something. He does this again when he talks about Rome. Bart Ehrman sure puts himself up as the person who has the authority to judge ancient cultures and find them wanting -- I wonder what his basis for comparison is?

8. The David thing gets me too. David does get off -- by the law he should have been killed but the price for David is high -- he looses four sons and one of his daughters is raped. In addition he spends a good amount of time running from a son who is trying to kill him and who sleeps with his ten concubines. David suffers a lot for his one sin -- did he really get off? The one thing that does bother me though is the baby's death but David indicates an afterlife so is the child really bad off. Then that reasoning opens up a whole can of worms doesn't it.

9. More higher criticism -- this time that Luke wrote after the fact about the destruction of Jerusalem - -this is pure conjecture, but then again if Jesus predicts the the fall of Jerusalem before the fact and Luke simply records it before the fact then that would be one more proof Jesus is what He said and Christianity said he was. Bart can't have that.

10. Bart gives credence to freewill defence but does not explore it fully. He always pulls up short of where I would in this chapter.

Next: Agreements with Chapter Five.