I hope the latter chapters of this work will move faster than this one. I took a very long time with many starts and stops (much longer stops than starts) trying to put my thoughts together on the scriptures. I grew up in a church tradition that highly valued scriptural fluency and my cultural values of study and a celebration of nerd-dom allowed me to flourish in my knowledge of the biblical texts.
Even today, though my approach to the bible has changed from that of my earlier days of faith, I have no issue engaging in “biblical” foundations for various theological positions. I can argue against my own positions sometimes better than those who disagree with me. All this to say, my relationship with bible is deep. I love the scriptures. I love the way it seems to have a life of its own in challenging me and calling me to reexamine myself and the situations I’m in. But this relationship is also complicated.
Scripture has a prominent place in the life of faith, but again, its a place. It is not everything as I once believed and practiced. The draft of this chapter that follows is far from “complete” but I think I’ll just have to release it for now with this disclaimer here and in mind.
it’s complicated
Christianity is a religion with a sacred text and the people of God have drawn upon this text for wisdom and instruction. In the scriptures we find narratives, poetry, histories, allegories, letters, and other works that have shaped the people of God as they sought to live out their faith in the world. Thus, the Bible has had great influence in the lives of many believers and has been the catalyst for all kinds of social and institutional change, both for good and for ill. It has been utilized for various — even opposing — causes: to wield and divest power; to uphold and abolish slavery; to enthrone tyrants and liberate the poor; to promote literacy as well as condemn science. This has left a very confusing legacy for Christians who are seeking to live out their faith with respect to our sacred texts. How should we relate to the scriptures?
Some in the church today advocate for a “plain reading” of the scriptures: supposedly taking scripture at face value. They come to scripture believing that it is inerrant, infallible, and universally applicable in every time and culture. They ground this approach in multiple passages: “The grass withers; the flower fades… but the word of our God will stand forever.”1 “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my [Jesus’] words will not pass away.”2 “The law of the LORD is perfect.”3 and many others. With such an approach, the common refrain, “scripture interprets scripture,” is often utilized when reading challenging passages. This refrain assumes that scripture cannot contradict itself, so Christians must understand seemingly contradictory texts through our understanding of clearer passages. If there are any perceived contradictions, it is due to a lack of understanding or improper interpretation.
Yet if we look at the history of biblical interpretation, this paradigm is a relatively new innovation. The doctrine of biblical inerrancy as we know it today only began to take shape in the 19th and 20th centuries as a response to developments in critical scholarship, where the discovery of new and more reliable manuscripts and new approaches to examining the texts called into question some long-held beliefs and doctrines. In response to these critical approaches, some in the church began to double down on their interpretations and were reluctant to reexamine the texts for fear of where that inquiry could lead.4 But if we want to seriously explore the text, we cannot avoid the work of scholarship.
it’s hard work
Engaging with the scriptures takes work! Those who ascribe to a “plain reading” often fail to realize that even their “plain reading” is not plain and are founded upon the efforts of scholars studying the texts in their original languages and cultures so that they could be understood today. Every time we seek to understand the scriptures, we must engage in a cross-cultural exercise. We are attempting to see a text that emerges from a particular culture, language, and society5 through the lens of our own culture, language, and society. To arrive at the meaning of a text requires discipline, patience, and a good dose of humility. If we seek to honor the text and understand its meaning, plain readings are too simplistic; they fail to honor the historical, cultural, literary, and overall complexity of the scriptures. But to embrace this complexity, we need to revisit basic assumptions we have about the text.
the barrier of historicity
When we read the Bible, many of the biblical narratives and accounts look like historical works: there are characters, places, monuments, time markers (e.g. “In the year that King Uzziah died…”), etc. The authors seem desirous to connect their writings to the lives of their readers; that there is a message and a purpose to their writings. They share etiologies about realities that the original audience likely experienced in their lives.. But for modern readers who expect historicity in these writings, this can pose a problem.
Most people today evaluate truth by appealing to evidence: photographs, surveillance video, observable cause-and effect. Learning what-actually-happened is closely related to how we evaluate and understand truth in the world. Thus, many Christians come to the scriptures like the way we approach raw video footage, and assume that the biblical texts must be historical in order to have value. Or more commonly, they’ve already experienced the value of the faith — community, care, belonging, fellowship — so they expect the texts to be historical; historicity and truth are so intricately connected today. But the more we read the texts, we eventually have to ask,
Did Adam and Eve really have a nonchalant conversation with a talking snake?
How did Noah fit all those animals on the ark?
You’re telling me that Jonah survived in the belly of a fish for three days?!
And perhaps for these questions, we can allow for divine intervention: God sustained them; God made it happen; It was a miraculous deliverance. We surely cannot preclude God’s activity in the world. But when archeological discoveries, documented records, and geological evidence seem to challenge the historicity of biblical accounts, modern readers who expect historicity are left with a deep tension.
Some in the church have responded to this tension by doubling down and vigorously defending the historicity of the Bible. Websites, books, organizations — even museums — have been created expressly for this purpose. They are dedicated to defending the historicity of biblical accounts, offering alternative explanations and data, and casting doubt on the larger community of scholars and academics. In these spaces, defending the faith becomes a perpetual exercise in the gatekeeping of information — some authors and interpretations of scripture are approved and others are viewed with suspicion. Guarding the faith becomes an anxious existence because the truth of the faith hangs in the balance.6 But it doesn’t have to be this way.
The modern requirement of historicity gets in the way of our reading of the scriptures. When we stop demanding the text be historical, we can see the text more clearly for what it is and better listen to what the authors are communicating. The texts do not seem concerned about historicity: they do not care about how Noah kept the predators from eating prey animals on the ark; they are not concerned about how the Israelites fed all their livestock when they wandered in the wilderness; they generally don’t seem as preoccupied about a mechanical how that modern readers often bring to the text. When we begin to peer into the texts as we have them, we can begin to take into account authorship, genre, social or political motivations for its composition. We can examine the text’s relation to contemporary works, cosmological frameworks and worldviews, etc. Approaching the texts from all these varied perspectives helps us to be aware of the cultural differences surrounding the original composition and our reading of the text. And this extends beyond historicity.
being aware of the questions
When we don’t consider the contextual differences, we foolishly expect the text to give definitive answers about morality or ethics, and it confuses us. We look at passages that describe divinely sanctioned genocide and wonder if there are could be any situation where this would be considered good. We look at passages that condemn marriage outside one’s own ethnicity and ask if there is some divine rationale we don’t understand — or we find ourselves needing to offer a justification for such unsavory prohibitions. We look at passages that ostracize people based on gender or sexuality or ethnicity, and we feel uneasy — maybe even ashamed — when we realize that such passages would ostracize many of our beloved friends, family, and neighbors. This is why we need to be aware of the questions. We are constantly in dialog with the text. We need to always ask,
What are the questions we are asking of the text?
What questions does it seem like the authors are addressing?
Does it seem like the authors are concerned with the same questions?
We must realize that the questions, assumptions, and values of our particular context likely differ from the concerns of the original authors and audiences of these texts. For us, absolute annihilation of a people group is seen with disgust, but it may carry a different meaning and boast for ancient peoples. Detailed instructions around ritual purity seemed to have a lot of weight in the cultic practices of ancient peoples but often come across as superfluous to us today. We question the texts and allow the texts to question us.
a living text
The people of God, throughout the ages have always wrestled with the scriptures to arrive at meaning. This practice goes beyond the early church to ancient Israel. We find evidence of this wrestling and reinterpretation even in the biblical texts. The laws from Moses at Sinai (Exodus) get reinterpreted for the generation that enters the promised land (Deuteronomy); the laws are similar, but the differences are notable.7 Editors of the book of Samuel wove together different perspectives on the Israelite monarchy seemingly without concern for harmonizing the views:8 in some sections the desire for the monarchy was a sign of disobedience, in others it was the solution to lawlessness. We also find that the Chronicler retells the story of the monarchy already told in Samuel and Kings but with a new lens: details and characters are changed to give hope to post-exilic Judah. The New Testament writers reference and apply the Hebrew scriptures against the reality of the Roman empire to form the early church.9 The author of the Gospel of Matthew reinterprets the psalms and prophets to show Jesus as a new Moses — as a new lawgiver where Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said… But I say to you….” His listeners understood that he was practicing a pattern of teaching and interpretation that has a long legacy with rabbis conversing with one another across the centuries; these various interpretations are recorded in the Talmud and further imaginative engagement are cherished in midrash literature. The community of faith through the ages has been comfortable with multiple interpretations of a text; it enriched their faith. Instead of a singular “true” interpretation of scripture, what we see is an ongoing dialog.
The Christian church participates in this hallowed and complex relationship between the people of God and the sacred text. We bring new questions to the text from our time and place, knowing that our cultural setting is different from that of the original author and audience. We wrestle with the text. We meditate on the characters, narratives, poetry, proverbs, and teachings, and we trust that the Spirit will impress upon our hearts and minds what he desires to reveal to us. We discuss these same texts in community, trusting that God works through the gathered community that seeks to know him. The early church practiced and taught that there was much to gain from meditating on scripture, affirming that “all scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”10 Being “God-breathed” meant that the scriptures were life-giving — in the same sense where God breathed life into the first humans in Genesis.11 Scripture gives life when we meditate on the messages it presents to us, helping us to live in right relationship with God and in right relationship with one another. It can illuminate our shadow sides so we can know where we need to grow. It binds us with the “great cloud of witnesses”12 to show us that we are in good company with saints and sinners all in need of grace. Scripture reminds us of who we are as members of one another and beloved children of God — made in his image.
the bible is not enough
The Holy Bible — our rule of life and faith — is only a part of what gives faith meaning and purpose in our lives. The bible alone is not enough.13 All of us share the world with others who may not share our theological beliefs or perspectives. For many of us, these relationships are present among our family members and friends; we may not share the same theological convictions, but we are nonetheless bound together in meaningful ways. Our differences often help us understand our faith more deeply; they challenge and affirm our convictions and values.
Many factors, together with the scriptures, inform and shape our lives: cultural movements and media, with family and friends, engagement with neighbors and community, growth and knowledge in our understanding of self, etc. All of these factors, together with scripture, are constantly engaged in conversation through the medium of our lives. As people of faith, we choose to regularly engage with scripture as a conversation partner. It is not a conversation partner that tramples over all other participants. Nor should it be used as a bludgeon against others or used to impose certain values. It is an authority in our lives because we recognize its wisdom and value as we engage with it, and through that engagement, commune with the greater community of faith through the ages.
- Isaiah 40:7-8. ↩︎
- Matthew 24:35. ↩︎
- Psalm 19:7. ↩︎
- In the life of faith there is often more at stake than scriptural interpretation. For example, one’s community and belonging can often be interwoven with particular interpretations of scripture like how one understands human sexuality or gender. While it may not be explicit, how one is treated for holding minority positions in a community can lead one to feel ostracized or pressured to conform or face practical expulsion/exclusion from community activities. ↩︎
- Most people are familiar with this practice even within a span of decades. Older generations often speak of not being able to understand newer slang. There are plenty of videos showing how younger generations have no idea how to “burn a CD,” dial on a rotary phone, or the phrase “be kind, rewind.” If there is a need for cultural translation within just a few decades within the same country, how much more when we traverse several millennia and across oceans and ethnic backgrounds? ↩︎
- There isn’t a formal approval process for this; I am speaking of a culture that discourages reading from certain sources that are deemed too far from the agreed upon beliefs to be safe. ↩︎
- For example, the laws regarding slavery in Exodus 21:2-11 are reinterpreted in Deuteronomy 15:12-18 to treat female slaves similarly to how male slaves were treated (in stark contrast to Exodus 21:7). The Deuteronomistic scribe felt no issue revising even divine revelation to better address new realities in the life of Israel. Some theologians describe this as “progressive revelation.” However you understand the timeline and development of the law, it is clear that the differences are not merely semantic and that there is movement between the recording of the law; “divine” law changes. ↩︎
- Almost as if keeping divergent views was important for the people of God to acknowledge various angles on different concerns. ↩︎
- A cursory survey of the use of the Hebrew scriptures in the New Testament would show how the authors reworked the meaning of the psalms and prophets for their setting. ↩︎
- 2 Timothy 3:16-17 NIV. emphasis mine. ↩︎
- θεόπνευστος (theopneustos). This is a word that was coined by the author of 2 Timothy and is not used elsewhere in the New Testament (or in contemporary writings). Rather than using this as a prooftext for the inerrancy or infallibility of scripture, it more rightly aligns with Jewish thought of breath or spirit which animates into life. We meditate on the scriptures to gain wisdom on how to live and give life to our world and those around us. ↩︎
- Hebrews 12:1, which is alluding to the list of the faithful recorded in Hebrews 11. ↩︎
- This statement is intentionally provocative. Those who grew up in the Protestant Church may be aware of the Five Solas at the heart of the Protestant Reformation, one of the five being sola scriptura — scripture alone. These phrases are still in use today but are divorced from their original context: statements that react against overreach by the institutional church of the 15th century. ↩︎
Leave a Reply