Another reblog I’m afraid, from the early day of my blogging
One way or another, I’ve been involved in lots of conversations recently about the Bible and how we read it. When Christians disagree, very often the “nub” amounts to a diiferent way of reading the scriptures. There are many approaches to the Bible, but not all of them are helpful. What is needed is an approach that treats the Bible with the utmost seriousness but does not attempt to make it into something that it isn’t. I’m not claiming to have a “final answer”, but I thought it might be helpful if I shared a few thoughts on this important subject.
I suppose the first question we need to answer is, “What does the Bible say about itself?” The most obvious verse that ’springs to mind’ is 2 Timothy 3:16
“All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults, and giving instructions for right living”
This is the ‘proof text’ that is sometimes used to justify the view of the Bible as inerrant. But if we take the Bible seriously, is that what it actually says? I say this for several reasons. Let’s look through the verse and see:
1. “Scripture” to Timothy would have meant the books of what we now call the Old Testament and maybe some others usually included in what is called the Apocrypha. The books of the New Testament (including 2 Timothy!) were only just being written and were not accepted as “scripture” for some time.
2. “… inspired by God” is a translation of 1 Greek word which is used here but nowhere else in the New Testament, the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Apocrypha or indeed classical Greek. It is a compound word literally meaning “God-breathed”, but what does that mean? It is an enormous assumption to leap from ‘inspiration’ to ‘infallibility’, and to me it is an unreasonable one.
3. “Useful” is hardly a word calculated to suggest inerrancy. This is a word which is used elsewhere in the New Testament, in 1 Timothy 4:8 and in Titus 3:8 and in both cases is translated as “useful”, “of some value” or “profitable” depending upon which version you read. In fact, in 1 Timothy 4:8 it is used twice with degrees, “useful” and “more useful”. This is a long way short of the sort of infallibity to which some Christians cling.
In short, the Bible is inspired by God, of the utmost value to anyone who wants to live according to the will of God but it should not be read as an infallible “guide to everything”. Taking the Bible seriously means reading what it says, not what we want it to say and it is clear that the scriptures themselves do not claim infallibility. This is my first rule in the use of the Bible - it should teach us, not the other way around! It is very easy to come to the Bible knowing what it says, and finding ourselves confirmed by it. It is much more challenging to read it and allow the scriptures to speak for themselves.
My second rule is related to the first, and is simply stated: Read the Bible! Nothing controversial there, but it is surprising how few Christians do read the Bible for themselves. You will want to listen to what others have said about the Bible in sermons, devotional books and commentaries, but there is no substitute for turning the pages for yourself. How and when you do, for how long and how often - these are not matters for rules. Just read it!
My third rule is read in fellowship with others. Remember that the Bible arises from the Church, the gathered people of God. It is in the Church that the meaning of the Bible is authentically discovered and, barring extreme circumstances, you will need to be in fellowship with a Church community to really grow in understanding of the scriptures.
Lastly, don’t jump to conclusions. Sometimes it is tempting to take just one verse, or perhaps even a few, and make a hasty decision about what they mean. People have been known to build great edifices of doctrine on just one or two verses, and it is always a mistake.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
dh 10.29.10 at 5:36 pm
I personally like this translation “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof , for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” One must also include the rest which implies us to be as perfect as possible and so indirectly implies the Bible as well: “That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
To suggest this is the proof text when there are many other passages refering to what Scripture is and it’s nature. You seem to suggest that you don’t have the final answer and then go on to say what the Bible is NOT. To me you are implying you DO have the final answer that Scripture is fallible, etc. ,etc. etc. It seems to me this post does nothing more than to push and make divisions unecessarily. Also to suggest that myself and others who believe in the infallibility of Scripture are not “letting Scripture speak for itself” really is condecending and off. I and we DO let Scripture speak for itself and what it says is what it says. Therefore we DO let it teach us. What I have found is that if you go into Scripture looking for mistakes you will find them. If you go into Scripture with an openm mind and look at ALL of Scripture then you will find the clear explainations for the apparent mistakes on the surface. For the sake of generosity to those of a different opinion than myself, I don’t deny that many times in Scripture it may seem there is a mistake but when one reads Scripture in light of Scripture and look at all of the explainations without any predispositions of error you will see that it is consistent. Also many times people think that those who believe in inerrancy don’t believe that the “personalities of the writers” are reflective in the Scripture. Some of these people who say that towards those with my similar position take it even further and then say “see, you innerancy guys ahave a double standard by believing that the personalities of the writers are in Scripture. However just because different writers had different personalities reflected in Scripture doesn’t mean they were inconsistent with each other.
For example: If three different people wrote about a specific McDonalds on a specific road at a specific location and one wrote about the building alone, the other wrote about the food and the other wrote about the service then just because there are three different statements that focus on three different aspects of the specific McDonald’s doesn’t mean they contradict each other. Also just because one author who wrote solely about the building and failed to write about the food doesn’t mean the author is any less qualified because he failed to mention the details of building. So it is with Scripture .
Tony Buglass 10.29.10 at 9:53 pm
If you look at scripture expecting to find one uniform voice, you might be able to persuade yourself that you hear it by ignoring or rationalising the inconsistencies that are there. If you listen closely and honestly you will hear a chorus of voices. They’re not all the same, they’re not all saying the same things, but they are a chorus of witness and testimony. Reading the Bible is like listening to a symphony while following the score - have you ever tried following a full orchestral score? There are lots of lines, all different, some written in transposed parts, sometimes clashing and dissonant, but together producing a wonderful sound. Just so, you will not hear the same voice in Isaiah or Ecclesiastes as you hear in Paul or Matthew, but you will hear them come together. Stop trying to force the parts into the song you want to hear, and let hem sing to you with their own voices. Then you’ll hear the word of God. Not before.