Friday, January 19, 2007

Is the Bible Too Difficult To Understand?

When studying contentious texts, many good and sincere Christians are tempted to throw up their hands in the air with frustration. Isn’t the Bible supposed to be simple? Hasn’t the Bible been handed down so we all can read and understand it? The answer is not as straightforward as some people would like. On one hand, the gospel message is very simple. The overall theme of the Bible, God calling His covenant people to Himself, is simple enough.

But to know and apply the Scriptures in their entirety for people in the 21st century takes time and work, especially when we are dealing with difficult passages. And no, contrary to what some claimed in the Middle Ages, understanding the Scriptures shouldn’t just be put in the hands of a few scholars and church leaders. The Scriptures can and should be accessible to anybody in the pew, but it is up to the people in the pew to learn how to study Scripture and at least have the resources and tools to turn to when unlocking difficult issues.

Some people also have a view of Scripture that is incredibly too rigid and simple. They assume that the Bible tells us about every little matter of life in completely black and white terms. It doesn’t, and it never intended to. While the Bible is very black and white on any number of issues, it leaves room for differences and freedom amongst good Christians in plenty of other areas (see for example Romans chapters 14-15). Also, many times well-meaning Christians don’t understand that the Bible has to be interpreted on its own terms, not our own. By that, I mean that there’s sometimes more than meets the eye when we are reading Scripture.

Take for instance the book of Revelation. Many well-meaning Christians think that they are being most faithful to God’s word by interpreting the book “literally.” The problem is that even those who say they interpret Revelation “literally” are not doing so unless they want to argue that Satan really is a giant red dragon (Rev. 12), that Christ really well return to earth with a massive sword sticking out of his mouth (Rev. 19) and that a third of the sun and moon will really be destroyed (along with literal stars being flung down to earth, per Rev. 8:10-12) in the tribulation.

But if these things really happened “literally,” life would cease instantaneously and the rest of Revelation would have no significance. However, that is not the point of these texts. The text is indeed describing literal realities of judgment, but using highly figurative language that was very typical of apocalyptic literature from ancient times to describe it. Apocalyptic literature was popular and well read between 200B.C and 200 A.D. It isn’t particularly popular now. Before we make judgments about what a text means, we have to first know how it was meant to be read and how people back then would have read it. So we in the 21st century have to first understand what the Bible meant to the people it was written to and then decide what it means for today, not the other way around.

Another instance of where there is more than what meets the eye is in Ephesians 5:22-33. Many Christians today use this passage to show women their proper place in society by showing how the Bible proves their version of “Biblical female submission.” More than a few Christian men use this and several other passages to try and basically prove that by the very nature of their being men, they are always to have the final word in everything in and outside of the home. Unfortunately, most of them conveniently ignore the verse immediately preceding this passage which reads “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” It is right after that where we come to the discussion of wives and husbands. Remember, the subheadings in your Bible were not inspired by the Holy Spirit and weren’t included in the Bible until relatively recently. But plenty want to completely ignore vs. 21 and act like it has nothing to do with vs. 22!

Also, what most of them are completely unaware of is that the original Greek text does not have the word “submit” in verse 22. The earliest Greek manuscripts literally read, “wives to your husbands as to the Lord.” Now, what’s meant here is indeed submission, but the word “submit” is borrowed from vs. 21, a grammatical rule standard in Greek grammar called “ellipsis.” This shows that the meaning of verse 22 about wives submitting to their husbands is indeed connected to what is said in verse 21 about us submitting to one another in general. Wives are indeed told to submit to their husbands, but husbands actually have the greater burden placed on them in this passage (it was already assumed without question in that highly patriarchal culture of the first century that wives should submit to their husbands, thus Paul spends more time talking to husbands here telling them some things which weren’t already assumed).

Some argue that while wives are to “submit,” husbands are to only “love,” whatever that’s supposed to mean. This is ignoring the context and ignores the fact that when Paul closes this section he tells husbands to again “love” their wives but now for wives to “respect” their husbands. He doesn’t change his mind in verse 33 and say that wives don’t have to submit after all, instead only “respect” their husbands. Rather, what is going on here is a form of mutual submission and it goes both ways. If true, this contains many powerful implications and applications. They differ, of course, from some of the assumptions of both many Christians as well as secular feminists.

While there’s plenty more that could be said about these passages and others, my overall point is that Bible study and interpretation is not impossible, it just takes a little more thought and critical thinking than we sometimes would assume. The good news is that Scripture study, while sometimes difficult, is at the same time a very exciting journey. God’s inspired Word is still living and active. Also, no matter how old we may be, we can never stop learning or growing in the Lord. Of course, it’s not just enough to know about it. We need to live it and be it. And that’s where the rubber really meets the road for the serious Christian.

11 comments:

Christopher I said...

What you are saying, in so many words, is that the Bible shouldn’t be read literally, since we should take into account the times in which the various parts of it were written, the context of many passages, and that translating texts into English from other ancient languages is an inexact science.

How about, also, that much of the Bible must be seen as symbolic, rather than literal?

Let’s take the Jesus story, where a baby in an obscure middle-eastern country is born to a virgin mother in a stable. When the baby becomes the adult Jesus, he does such things as walk on water, feed a crowd of five thousand from a single loaf of bread, turn water into wine, make people completely well from serious diseases by the mere laying on of hands, make dead people alive again, appear alive in person to his friends three days after being crucified on a cross, and finally ascend into the sky forever.

That many hundreds of millions of people around the world believe this story, that defies the laws of nature without any proof, is testimony to the infinite gullibility of the human animal.

If, for instance, only one person believed this, or perhaps a handful of people believed this, they would be called insane and locked up somewhere. But if many hundreds of millions of people believe this, they are called Christians, and given great respect.

Learned men have said there’s nothing in the Christ story that hadn’t previously appeared in other Pagan religious texts and stories, particularly those of the ancient Egyptians.

As St Augustine wrote:” The very thing which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients also, nor was it wanting from the inception of the human race until the coming of Christ in the flesh, at which point the true religion, which was already in existence, began to be called Christian”.

So perhaps it is more likely that the Christ story, given it was lifted from other Pagan religious traditions, tells us in symbolic form about the human psyche and the human condition, rather than that all which befell Jesus actually happened.

It has been asserted by many, that there was never any such person as Jesus Christ. On the other hand you have written, in an article on Lew Rockwell.com, that there’s plenty of evidence that there was such a person.

As someone who looks at the Christ story extremely sceptically, I can accept that there may well have been a wise man called Jesus Christ who lived in the middle-east 2000 years ago. But the burden of proof is on those who assert His divinity, and that He did all the miraculous stuff which the Bible says He did.

Is it not more likely that an itinerant wise man called Jesus subsequently became a mythological figure, whose followers projected on to him the deeds, symbols, and parables gleaned from the various Pagan religions, that tell us about our inner selves?

To assert that Jesus was the Divine Son of God, who performed miracles is an extraordinary claim. As Carl Sagan once famously said: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”.

So, if much of the Bible shouldn’t be read literally, as you say, should this not also be extended to the story of Jesus Christ?

Far from invalidating the Bible, reading it entirely symbolically, including the story of Jesus Christ, has, for many, made it come alive as never been before, not least for the theologian and Anglican priest, Tom Harpur, author of “The Pagan Christ”.

Bill Barnwell said...

Christopher, no, I don't buy that Christianity is just an evolutionary rip-off from older pagan relgions and that issue has been addressed by a number of people on both the popular and scholarly level (unless you think the only real "learned men" are skeptics). For just one resource, take a look at the tektonics.org website which addresses just about all of the "Christianity has pagan genes" arguments.

Second, I think you misunderstand my original statements. Certain genres of Biblical literature were not meant to be taken strictly "literally". Apocalyptic literature fits that bill. I'm saying we should interpret the texts as they were meant to be interpreted. However this doesn't mean even such highly symbolic texts aren't making very literal and literal points, or that they aren't referential of different events or circumstances.

Christopher I said...

Thanks for your reference to the Tektonics site.

I'll read it with interest.

By the way, I enjoy reading your articles on your bloging site and on Lew Rockwell.

henry said...

The Holy Spirit truly does bear witness with my spirit. Unbelievers cannot understand that nor can it be adequately explained to them. As the scriptures say, "they are willfully ignorant." How very sad for them. As Unger said, "what we want to know is often not what we ought to know."

Christopher I said...

To Pastor Bill Barnwell:

I did go in to the www.tektonics.org website, as you suggested I do.

Wow.

tflander said...

Hi Bill. This is Todd from Warren. Another issue with reading Revelation is if you take the events and chronological. I found that Revelation makes more sense if you look at it the way Genesis was written -- parts go from more general to more specific rather than following a chronology. That's a perfectly acceptable literary form, but we are not used to it in our time.

Does this make sense or am I a heretic?

Bill Barnwell said...

Hi Todd! Good to hear from you. I view Revelation as very relevant to the original audience it was originally written to with polyvalent applications for Christians throughout the ages until the final generation of believers. Most readers of Revelation today think everything past chapter 3 is only in the distant to remote future and will only effect those "left behind," or at least a final generation of Christians and unbelievers living in a final seven year period--a misunderstanding from one verse of Daniel. Many in the original audience probably caught the 666 reference to Nero and symbolic descriptions of the Roman Emperor and the Emperor cult that promoted its worship. Thus, I dont think the point of Revelaton was to only find fulfillment in a final generation of Christians, and I definitely don't think there is a pre-tribulational "rapture" in Revelation or anywhere else in the Bible for that matter. Keep in touch!

Todd F said...

Yeah, the rejection of pre-trib seems pretty common among those who have taken the effort to dig into the scriptures. I'd like to think pre-trib is true. On the other hand, If I were to base my faith on what I would like to believe, then I would have to reject Christianity on the general basis that there are too many passages that make me uncomfortable. I'd probably have to go with Unitarian Univeralists if that were criteria for selecting a religious affiliation.

Ralph said...

Studies of Artificial Intelligence have opened up some interesting things in this regard. For example, Godel's theorem, which states that in any system with the complexity of number theory there exist truths that can neither be proven nor disproven. Essentially, our knowledge, no matter how far we progress is incomplete and always will be. Another is Chaitin's theorem, which states that in any axiomatic system, there exist an infinity of undecideable propositions.

The most interesting to me is the Church-Turing thesis, which says basically that anything which can be coded and passed to another human brain can also be programmed into a computer.

Let's assume that there is an "elect" church formed by humans that proves its "election" by the rules, laws, and dogma of its religion. The Church-Turing thesis comes into play here, since if it can be passed to other humans in coded form, it can be programmed into a computer. There would be no difference between a computer generated religion and a collective religion of the people.

We could argue that the Holy Spirit gives humans the power to organize churches, but then the Holy spirit would have to be defined in such a way that it gave authority. But defining the Holy Spirit would also make it programmable in a computer.

A true "church of God" therefore, cannot be defined by any rules, laws, dogma, or ritual. In Matthew 15:8, Jesus seems to support this when he stated that people worshipped him in vain, teaching for commands the doctrines of men.

Paul seems to anticipate Godel's theorem in Romans 8:7. He writes that the carnal or natural, fleshy mind is enmity against God. It cannot be subject to God's laws.
This leaves us with two basic results:
1. No one can claim authority as God's representatives because no one can be subject to God's laws.
2. Any attempt to do so would result in continual splintering and speciation of ideas about God.
Paul seems to have anticipated this in Ephesians 2:8-10.

If God is the source of all truth and all knowing, we can't get from "here" to "God" by any works we can produce, which fits logically with both Godel's theorem and Chaitin's theorem above.
If God is all knowing, we can't make freewill decisions to attain salvation, since God already knows who will 'accept" or "reject" Him.
Paul goes with logic in Romans 8:29-30 and further states in Romans 9:16 that we are incapable of such decisions. Again, he seems to have anticipated both Godel and Chaitin.

We are left, therefore, with only one qualifying mark: love one another. This is also what Paul states in 1 Corinthians 13, the "love chapter".

Anonymous said...

米蘭情趣用品,情趣用品,飛機杯,自慰套,充氣娃娃,AV女優.按摩棒,跳蛋,潤滑液,角色扮演,情趣內衣,自慰器,穿戴蝴蝶
免費視訊聊天,辣妹視訊,視訊交友網,美女視訊,視訊交友,視訊交友90739,成人聊天室,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天,視訊聊天室,情色視訊,情人視訊網,視訊美女
一葉情貼圖片區,免費視訊聊天室,免費視訊,ut聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,影音視訊聊天室,

辣妹視訊,美女視訊,視訊交友網,視訊聊天室,視訊交友,視訊美女,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,視訊交友90739,免費視訊聊天室,成人聊天室,視訊聊天,視訊交友aooyy
哈啦聊天室,辣妺視訊,A片,色情A片,視訊,080視訊聊天室,視訊美女34c,視訊情人高雄網,視訊交友高雄網,0204貼圖區,sex520免費影片,情色貼圖,視訊ukiss,視訊ggoo,視訊美女ggoo
080苗栗人聊天室,080中部人聊天室ut,ut影音視訊聊天室13077,視訊做愛,kk777視訊俱樂部,上班族聊天室,聊天室找一夜
A片下載,成人影片下載,免費A片下載,日本A片,情色A片,免費A片,成人影城,成人電影
影音視訊聊天室,辣妹視訊

goodeda1122 said...

情趣,情趣,視訊交友,情趣用品,情趣用品,飛機杯,自慰套,自慰套,自慰套,自慰器,充氣娃娃,AV,按摩棒,電動按摩棒,情趣按摩棒,按摩棒,跳蛋,跳蛋,跳蛋,男女,潤滑液,SM,情趣內衣,內衣,性感內衣,角色扮演,角色扮演服,吊帶襪,丁字褲