Is The Bible The Word of God?
I once heard a dear old Salvationist Soldier say in a discussion regarding which Bible translation is best to use ‘I use the King James Version. If it was good enough for Jesus to read, it’s good enough for me.’ I think many of us have heard comments like that. It highlights an issue that seems to have plagued Christians for centuries, and regularly raises its’ head in discussions around ‘Does the Bible really say.....’ I think the questions facing us in this regard are ‘Is the Bible the Word of God?’ If it is, ‘How literally can we read it?’ If it isn’t, ‘What is it?’ I don’t intend to answer all these questions in full, just raise some of the issues. A proper answer would require a major work.
The question is not a new one. In Genesis we read of the temptation of Eve by the serpent who said ‘Did God really say......’ (Genesis 3:1). Let us assume for the start of the discussion that the Bible is the Divine Word of God, and therefore to be obeyed in its’ entirety. Doctrine in most denominations would seem to support this assumption. The Salvation Army Articles of Faith state ‘We believe that the scriptures of the old and new testament were given by inspiration of God, and that they only constitute the divine rule of Christian faith and practice.’ This raises a number of questions for me – chiefly – ‘How literally can we take it?’ There are certainly a number of things which seem ‘wrong’ if we are to take a literal understanding. In Genesis, we have two different accounts of creation. We can say that one simply explains in more detail the other, yet that only raises more questions. They are obviously two different styles. If God only created Adam and Eve, then where did the other nations come from with which their children intermarried after the fall? By the time we get to Noah, the earth is full of nations. Where did they come from? It’s simply not physically possible for them all to have been descended from Adam and Eve in just a few generations. Yes. Genetics has confirmed that we are all related through mitochondrial DNA – but this does not mean one person – it means one small group of people (who were located somewhere in Africa). It also assumes that humanity is hundreads of thousands of years old and we need to accept in part the theory of evolution otherwise the idea that we are all related falls down. In order to take such a literal account of creation, we need to start making up other stories to force the various biblical stories to fit together.
Moving on from Genesis (although we could stay there for a long time), other Biblical passages don’t make sense in light of what we know of the world, unless we take them allegorically. No one today would assume that the earth is flat, or that the universe revolves around the earth, or that epilepsy is the same as demonic possession. Very few of us consider wearing garments of blended material to be sinful, or insist on maintaining the various food regulations (the list goes on). Suddenly, we find ourselves in the position of looking at the Bible and deciding which parts are to be taken literally, which parts are to be taken allegorically, and which parts are to be understood as no longer applying to us because they have ‘been fulfilled in Christ.’ This is a very dangerous thing to do. Once we start doing that, what difference is there between Christianity and any other man made religion? We can say that it was Godfearing men and women who made these decisions, but many of these same Godfearers were the ones who condoned the holocaust, the witch hunts, and many other atrocities throughout history. As a result, the Bible has been used to say whatever man wants it to say. Instead of asking ‘Did God really say....?’, we ask ‘Didn’t God really say....?’ and so justify anything we want it to. At that point we have arguments starting with ‘The Bible says...... and so that’s the end of it!’ While at the same time saying other practices are no longer applicable because they have been fulfilled in Christ.
We do need to realise that the Bible has a historical and cultural context – which is very different to ours today. There are difficulties in translation. How a particular phrase or word might have been understood in biblical times is very different to how it might be understood today. It has often been discussed as to the meaning of certain words in 1Corinthians 6:9. ‘Arsenekoine’ is translated as ‘homosexual’, while the previous word ‘Malakoi’ is translated as male prostitutes. However, in classic Greek literature, language and culture, these words have very different meanings. An example of a difference in understanding resulting from a difference in culture and history is that of marriage (or age of consent). There is strong evidence that Mary was at the oldest 14 when she gave birth to Christ, and that Joseph was probably in his mid to late 30’s with adult children of his own. Today, we would consider such a relationship as paedophilic. But in its’ historical and cultural setting, it was perfectly moral. As stated above, we are forced to make decisions as to which parts of the Bible are culturally affected, and which parts apply to us. We can not take the Bible literally. If we do, we are forced to admit that either the Bible is wrong, and therefore the word of God can not be trusted, or it is not the word of God, and is something different.
John 1:1 says ‘In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.....’ It goes on to say ‘and the word became flesh and dwelt among us’ (John 1:14). The writer of Hebrews writes ‘For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.’ (Hebrews 4:12). Now, we can debate as to whether it is ‘Big ‘W’ word’ or ‘Little ‘w’ word’ as much as we like. But it would seem plain that the Bible is saying that Christ is ‘The Word of God’ – ‘Divine Logos’. Christ came to fulfil the Old Testament – so the Old Testament looked forward to Christ. It was but a dim reflection of what is in heaven. The New Testament is about Christ more explicitly. I would suggest that the Word of God is Christ, and that the Bible is man’s commentary on the Word of God (Christ).
This gives us a very different way of understanding the Bible, and our own faith. Only then can we fully reconcile positions such as women in church leadership, gender inclusive language, issues of sexuality within the church – the list goes on – to science, psychology and our personal understanding of our faith.
The Bible is not The Word of God, it is commentary on The Word of God. It is fallible and open to interpretation. It gives us a historical understanding of how men and women have understood God and salvation. It must continue to change and evolve. If it doesn’t, then as all things which do not change and grow, it is dead and has no power.
Graeme Randall
Former
Australia
Australia Southern Territory
7 comments:
If the Bible is to change and evolve,that would seem to mean that additional letters and writings would have to "continue " to be added. Revelation gives us warning about such adding or subtracting.
Another way of evolving would be changing what has been written as time goes by. My personal opinion is that did not take place. So, I would not want to be adding to what is complete for now.
Eternity will reveal the rest. For now , God speaks in many ways. I will try and listen.
Blessing in Christ.
USA former
USA Former:
Interesting take on the adding or subtracting in Revelation - I always have taken this not applying to the whole Canon of Scripture but just to the dream/ vision of John on Patmos at the end of his life. After all, the Book of Revelation nearly did not get included in the compilation of what we have as 'the Bible', nor did Hebrews for that matter.( I am glad they did get included but then so could have many other letters etc rather than predominantly those by one man called Paul). This would then have given us a totally different NT balance and perspective on the person Jesus Christ.
I believe that many equally valid writings could have been included by the Council members a few centuries after Christ but they were not - for whatever reasons - and some others that have been included could easily have been omitted as irrelevant - I think especially of some of the obscure OT history bits.
Graeme:
As a non literalist myself, much of what you say I can appreciate and cope with and teach quite easily with a clear Salvationist conscience. For many fundamentalist literalist believers, Salvationists included, the Bible (the written word)has been placed on a par with or has become more important and the substitute of Christ (the living Word)
What would have happened if say Esdra or the Gospel of Thomas had been deemed politically acceptable to be included by those men who decided and bartered as to what to include and what not? Would we not then have accepted these as holy writ?
I often wonder what would have been included and acceptable as definitive doctrine and dogma if they had to go about their business today.
Keep challenging us - we may not fully agree on every aspect but it certainly gives us food for thought.
ACTIVE UK
Active UK,
Of course Revelation gives warning about what John received at Patmos. That is my point. I would not want to add or take away of what was revealed. As far as literalists , I don't know that anyone is quite at 100% of being that anyway. You are correct About Paul. I would have to say that without some of Pauls letters things may have been much different as far as doctrine.
Blessings!
At the right time, God sent his Son. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Christ is the living Word. How do I know that , and where did I hear about it? Through the written word. Much of the Bible is ignored and overlooked. Certain portains are often neglected to save face . The Bible often puts things right in your face, garbage and all. Through it all the theme of salvation is presented and God's love for His children is very evident. All of our questions will not be answered this side of eternity. Perhaps once we take our last breath and we see Him face to face, questions will not really matter , but service and worship will.
USA East former
The Bible is the description God gave us about who He is, and His desires and plans for humanity. The most significant component of this revelation is the story of our separation from God by sin and God’s provision for restoration of fellowship through the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ, on the cross. Our need for redemption does not change. Neither does God’s desire to reconcile us to Himself.
The Bible contains a great deal of accurate and relevant information. The Bible’s most important message—redemption—is universally and perpetually applicable to humanity. God’s Word will never be outdated, superseded, or improved upon. Cultures change, laws change, generations come and go, but the Word of God is as relevant today as it was when it was first written. Not all of Scripture necessarily applies explicitly to us today, but all Scriptures contain truth that we can, and should, apply to our lives today.
Active UKT
This conversation gives me the shivers. The good kind. Thank you to Graeme and all those who made comments for opening such a wondrous discussion.
If a man is to become his own (G) god then he would too be tasked with such things as the working of miracles, then doing exceedingly and abundantly above all thought, and asking. Words alone that are merely failed attempts to explain little more than a lack of faith only reveal a failure to trust and place confidence in God. The only evolution noticeable is man changing from created being into sinful being. Sin is easily distinguishable through its destructive nature.There is hope for you simply because even as a babe, you do seem to know that you didn't create yourself.
Post a Comment