A Controversy in Scripture

Tertullian, an early church father, once proclaimed: “a controversy over the Scriptures can clearly produce no other effect than help to upset either the stomach or the brain.” So, I hope you stocked up medicine because we are about to look at a controversy over scripture.

Welcome to the first episode of Unqualified Theology, a smart approach to theology created by me, a curious college student.

In this episode, we are going to look at the problematic way Protestant or evangelical Christians typically view the Bible and a solution, written into the Bible itself.

How do protestants view the Bible?

In 2018 a Gallup Poll found that around 50% of Americans describe themselves as protestant, so needless to say, there is a lot of variation in belief among this group. To narrow down what a typical American Christian believes I looked at the statements of faith from the ten largest churches which reach over 316,000 people each week. The general consensus is that the Bible is inerrant, infallible, inspired by God, a unique communication, and the full and complete authority over Christian life and doctrine. Beyond these church’s statements of faith, we can examine what scholars have said about the Bible. The 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy which was formulated by approximately 300 evangelical scholars says: “Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.”

The important thing to take away from these sources is that the Bible is typically viewed as an infallible authority which clearly directs Christian belief and theology.

Despite the consensus about how scripture should be viewed, there is a lot of disagreement about other issues. For example, the most fundamental part of Christian faith, salvation is often disagreed about. For instance, Is your salvation predetermined by God or do you have the free will to accept or reject it? Can a Christian lose their salvation once they are saved? Is there an “unpardonable” sin after which no one can be saved? Who can be saved or go to heaven? Will individuals who die as small children without understanding or accepting Jesus be saved? What about mentally handicapped people who can’t understand and accept? Will people who were never told or never heard of Christianity go to hell? Can people of other religions be saved? Does salvation require work to validate it? Or is salvation purely by grace? All of these questions are disagreed about and debated by Christians based on their reading of the Bible. And there are many more areas that Christians don’t agree on. Women in ministry, end times, gay marriage, and so on. If I spent time going through everything that was significant disagreement over, we would be here all day. My point is: I find it a bit ironic that while Christians agree that the Bible is the final authority on theology, they can’t agree on the basics of salvation or anything else for that matter.

This is not a new issue. John Nevin, an American theologian in the 1800s said: “If the Bible be at once so clear and full as a formulary of Christian doctrine and practice, how does it come to pass that where men use it in this way, they are flung asunder so perpetually in their religious faith, instead of being brought together by its influence apparently, and, at all events, certainly in its name?” Nevin points out that the Bible, instead of unifying, often divides believers based on interpretation.

On top of the issue of division, it is a contradiction to believe that the Bible clearly directs theology yet not be able to come to a conclusion about what that theology is. If the Bible clearly supported one set of beliefs, there would be agreement by sincere Christians on that system of belief. Instead, there is massive disagreement about issues as central to the faith as salvation. This is a problem. As Dr. Robert Johnston of Fuller Theological Seminary puts it “That evangelicals, all claiming a common Biblical norm, are reaching contradictory theological formulations on many of the major issues they are addressing suggests the problematic nature of their present understanding of theological interpretation. To argue that the Bible is authoritative, but to be unable to come to anything like agreement on what it says (even with those who share an evangelical commitment), is self-defeating.” In this statement, Dr. Johnston points out what I believe to be the reason behind this issue: that reason being the “present understanding of theological interpretation.” As we established earlier the mindset from which the Bible is typically interpreted as an infallible authority which clearly directs Christian belief and theology. If this mindset is causing problems, it leads us to the question, what is a correct mindset?

What we are going to find after we look at some examples is that the Bible offers wisdom, not black and white instruction and the wisdom the Bible contains often needs to be updated for the time and place one lives in. I know that this is a radical departure from what is typically believed but I think this view is well supported by the Bible itself.

The first example of this comes by comparing the Books of kings to chronicles. 1 & 2 Kings were written in the 500s BC. During this time, the kingdom of Judah had been captured by Babylon, a portion of the people had been relocated to Babylon, and Jerusalem and the temple had been destroyed. Prior to this time, the content of kings had been passed down by oral tradition and preliminary writings. It was finalized in this period as the Jewish people created themselves an identity in a foreign land and rationalized the destruction of their home and temple. Kings details many of the wrongs committed by the kings of Israel and Judah and how they lead to God turning his back on them. A specific example is in 2 Kings 21 where the many sins of king Manasseh are detailed.

1 & 2 Chronicles are a retelling of the events of Kings written between 350-300 BC. This is about 200 years after Kings was written. During this time the Jewish people had been returned to their home and rebuilt the temple. They were governed in relative peace by first the Persians and then the Greeks. The version of the story of King Manassah is radically different as presented in 2 Chronicles 33. King Manassah begins his reign by very poorly as he did in 2 Kings. God is very angry at Manasseh so the king of Assyria captures Manasseh and takes him to Babylon. Manasseh is humiliated and realizes his wrongdoing. He calls out to God and is restored as the king of Judah. Manasseh then finished his reign as a God-honoring king. He improved the wall around Jerusalem and removed false gods from his kingdom. The story of Manasseh was radically reinterpreted in Chronicles. Why?

When Kings was written, the author was rationalizing the punishment the Jewish people had received, the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. The story of Manasseh tells about the sin committed against God which was eventually punished. In Chronicles, we see a more hopeful message. Manasseh still sins and is punished. But after he repents, he is saved and returned to his home. This story parallels the story of the Jewish people’s repent and return to Jerusalem and the temple. The story of Manasseh has been updated to reflect the new circumstances of Israel and illustrate the forgiveness of God.

Someone with a normal evangelical/protestant view of Biblical interpretation would view these passages an apparent historical contradiction to be resolved. They would miss the fact that the historical details changed to illustrate a great point about forgiveness and redemption.

My second example starts in Exodus 20 where God gives the 10 commandments. The second commandment to not make and worship images is followed by the promise that God is “a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.” It is clear that sin or obedience has consequences for many generations.

This same idea is discussed in Ezekiel. Ezekiel was a prophet during the time of the Babylonian captivity. He prophesied about the punishment of Israel and the destruction of Jerusalem from Babylon before Jerusalem fell. After Jerusalem fell, he prophesied a message of hope.

In Ezekiel 18 Jerusalem has not yet been destroyed. There is still hope for Israel. God through Ezekiel critiques the idea that children will suffer for their parents' sin. Ezekiel 18:20 says “The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.” In Ezekiel 18:30 "Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall.” In Ezekiel, God says each individual and generation is judged by itself. Jerusalem can escape its prophesied destruction if the people repent from worshiping their false gods. This is the same sin that God promises in Exodus to punish to the 3rd and 4th generation. This is a major shift in tone. The wisdom of God has been applied to the generation of Ezekiel in a different way. God is offering this generation a chance at redemption if they stop sinning. No longer are they bound by the actions of their parents. This prophecy would give hope to Israel at a time that they needed it.

This is the gist of my argument. Exodus and Kings contained a lot of wisdom and direction for the generation they were written to. As times changed, the ideas needed to be updated for new generations and situations. The result of this is that the Bible contains two different ideas on the same topic directed to different people. When the Bible is viewed as an infallible and clear authority, it is very difficult to accept that ideas and God’s own promises might change for the better. So instead of reading these passages as thought-provoking continuations and clarifications of God’s truth, mental gymnastics are employed to make the passages mean the same thing although they do not. The practice of updating old material is not confined to the OT.

Jesus follows this same practice in the sermon on the mount in Matt 5. In this sermon, Jesus revisited several of the 10 commandments and other OT laws. Matt 5:21-22: “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment.” Jesus updates the 10 commandments to include anger and not just murder. This pattern is followed again for adultery, divorce, and taking an eye for an eye. Jesus reiterates 4 times that laws specifically given as the standard of righteousness in the OT no longer cut it. What God specifically directed in the OT is updated for a new time and place by Jesus.

Now I know someone listening, maybe you, will say Jesus fulfilled the law so he gets to change things without it contradicting the OT. Keep in mind that this instruction was given by Jesus several years before he fulfilled the law by dying. This means that in Matt 5 Jesus was speaking a group of Jewish people while the law was still in effect. He is not setting out a new set of actions to only follow after the law is fulfilled. He is telling His followers how they should act than before He died and fulfilled the law.

If we are honest with ourselves, updating the direction of scripture is something we are doing today, even if it is denied. For instance, divorce. In Matt 5:31-32 Jesus says “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” In this verse, the command given in Deuteronomy is updated by Jesus. Today, most sensible Christians believe that divorce is justified and even encouraged in cases of ongoing domestic violence in order to protect the abused spouse and kids, if they are involved. This is not a caveat Jesus addresses. In fact, Jesus specifically says no divorce except in cases of sexual immorality. However, it is very reasonable to believe that Jesus would not command a severely abused wife to stay in a situation that could lead to her death.

Another example of reinterpreting the OT courtesy of Paul is explained by Peter Enns, a professor of theology, in his book How the Bible Actually Works, “...Look at Romans 9:22-29, where Paul engages in a bit of biblical interpretation that is, frankly, tortured. He strings together several passages from the prophets Hosea and Isaiah that speak of God mercifully calling those who are not my people and not beloved back into the fold. Who are these not people? In Hosea and Isaiah they are rebellious Israelites who are restored as God’s people. Paul however, reads not my people and not beloved as referring to Gentiles, which is a conclusion one can only arrive at either by simply not paying attention or by reimagining Israel’s story creatively because the circumstances demand it.” In this passage in Romans, Paul is changing the meaning of OT passages, from what their authors intended, to prove that gentiles can be saved.

From all these examples in the OT and NT, I think it is clear that Biblical authors often reinterpret, or update prior commands for their own times and audiences. The result of this is that there are passages in the Bible that say different things about the same topic. This fact combined with the belief that all parts of the Bible are infallible, inerrant, and clearly direct doctrine, creates a lot of very diverse, contradictory, and ununified beliefs about God, Salvation, and everything else.

As I pointed out in the first part of this episode, there is a problematic and self-defeating way most Christians view the Bible. The source of this problem is that the Bible is not being interpreted in the same way its authors intended. The Bible contains a progression of thought that took place over, literally 1000 years or more. This means that some topics were addressed more than once and some times with different conclusions. These are not contradictions but a progression.

All parts of the Bible were written almost 2000 years ago. It is ridiculous to assume that nothing would need to be updated or revisited in these last 2000 years. As I already mentioned, the Christian view of acceptable divorce has been changed from Jesus’ teachings. Many have already changed their beliefs about topics like women in ministry, gay marriage, the authority of the church, etc. The Bible contains a lot of wisdom and truth. But things that were directed to a specific group of people in a specific time will not automatically apply to every other time and place. We must use wisdom to consider what is good, God-honoring action here and now. So, I’m not suggesting disregarding or ignoring the Bible. But we need to change the way we interpret it so that we can know how to act today and not in ancient Israel.

In this episode, I have shamelessly stolen ideas from two great books because the authors are smart and have PhDs and I do not. The first book is The Bible Made Impossible by Christian Smith and the second book is How the Bible Actually Works by Peter Enns. I recommend you read both if you want a much fuller grasp of my arguments here.