This is a bumper
edition of “Dissecting the top 100 biblical questions,” as I
tackle seven questions that Richard Bewes answers about the bible and
Christianity. These questions conclude the “bible we read”
section of Bewes' book.
51. Can it have
different meanings? I hear so many different interpretations of Bible
passages from speakers at Christian meetings. Are they all valid?
One
thing that I have always found confusing about Christianity is just
how many denominations exist within it. You get Roman Catholicism,
Protestantism, Pentecostalism, Methodism, Calvinism, Eastern
Orthodox, Church of England, not to mention countless others. They
all interpret the word of God slightly differently, but are they all
right in their interpretations?
Richard
Bewes argues that no there isn't. He criticises the idea that “every
text of the Bible is 'infinitely interpretable!' He refers back to
question 49, where he argues that “a text means what its author
meant. There can only be one interpretation
of a Bible passage, and it is through study, and a growing knowledge
of the rest of Scripture, that we can arrive at the one and only
meaning of what we are reading.”
“We
are to establish – as John Stott, a noted leader of the worldwide Evangelical movement, has clearly
put it:
The natural meaning – without twisting words.
The
original meaning – without
bending the author's intention.
The
general meaning –
without ignoring what the rest of Scripture says.”
Bewes is arguing that there only has ever been one interpretation of
the bible and there can only ever be one interpretation. Even in the
days of the early church, the Apostles held universal agreement over
God's teachings. And I would agree with this idea, if from a more
technical perspective. For organised religion to be “organised,”
it requires structure. Its members need to wholly submit to
universal ideas that connect the whole group. Any splinter factions
threaten the stability of the collective.
On
a deeper level, I think this is a powerful argument against
fundamental religion. You always hear stories of groups manipulating
religious teachings to suit their own ideologies. A
prime example here is the Westboro Baptist church who have latched
onto the homophobic ideas in Leviticus and used them as a springboard
for their own homophobic ideology. They regularly picket funerals
and claimed that the Pulse nightclub shooting was just punishing for
homosexuals. Their website is “www.godhatesfags.com.”
However, they have been denounced as a hate group by the Baptist World Alliance and many
other Christian denominations refuse to associate with them.
In the New Testament there is plenty of scripture that can be deemed anti-semitic, especially in Acts of the Apostles:
"You stick-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: you always resist the Holy Spirit. Was there every a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him - you have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it." (7: 51-53)
"Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent of it. From now on I will go to the Gentiles." (18:6)
People who say that this is evidence that Christianity is anti-semitic are forgetting one tiny detail. Jesus was Jewish. He traces his ancestry back to King David who was one of the greatest kings of Israel and Judah. Jesus' disciples were Jewish. They preached in the Jewish province of Judah. They quote Jewish scripture and partake in Jewish celebrations. The early Christians would have seen themselves as an offshoot of Judaism. If anything, I think this anti-semitic scripture is more targeted towards the religious Jewish leaders of the time who felt threatened by Jesus' presence.
An
even more topical example would be Islamic fundamentalism. ISIS,
a.k.a, goatfuckers international, are holding Islam hostage to
promote their own negative ideologies. They want to create their own
state full of Sunni Muslims, despite the Qu'ran stating that Islam does not encourage forcing people to join Islam:
"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things." (2.256)
And let's not forget that Islam comes from the same origins as Christianity and Judaism. They share a lot of the same prophets and stories with these other religions. Moses and Jesus are considered major prophets.
My Christian friend Naomi agrees with Richard Bewes' argument.. She argued that “the
Bible isn't meant to be cryptic in its meaning. When you read the
verses in their wider context, they should make sense. The letters
in the bible should be read bearing in mind they're letters.”
If
you interpret scripture out of its content then you run the risk of
missing out on entire meaning, leading to half-baked interpretations.
52.
May a Bible story
be a Legend? Is it possible that some of the Bible accounts - such
as Jonah - should not be interpreted as factual narratives, but as
parables, or even as inspiring fables?
Richard Bewes argues that they shouldn't be considered as
parables. He uses the examples of Jonah and the Whale to distinguish
between historical narratives and parables. It is obvious when a
parable is a parable and when a historical narrative is a historical
narrative. Bewes cites the tale of the Good Samaritan as an obvious
parable, due to its instructive purposes. This same instruction is
lacking in stories like Jonah and the Whale.
Bewes also mentions the interesting example of John Ambrose Wilson
who catalogued a case in 1927 when a crewman on a whaling boat was
swallowed by a sperm whale. When the whale was found and killed
three days later, the crewman was still alive.
I also don't think that the Bible should be considered legend. I
think this would undermine some of its key teachings. Quite a few of
the ten commandments focus purely on worshipping God: “thou shalt not
have gods other than me,” “thou shalt not worship false idols,” and “thou shalt not make any likeness of me.”
And
there are many examples throughout the Bible, where God punishes the
Israelites for their idolatry. In Exodus, God threatens
to kill the Israelites who worship a Golden Calf on Mount Sinai.
Later on, in the Prophetic texts, God allows the Assyrian and
Babylonian empires to destroy Israel and Judah for their
faithlessness. I think that if we treated these stories as legend,
we run the risk of mythologising them. Myths
can hold the same longevity and reverence as historical narrative,
just look at the mythologies of Ancient Greece and Rome. Millennia
later, we are still talking about them. By mythologising these
narratives, we're turning them into idols to be worshipped, which
completely goes against God's teachings.
Naomi
takes a similar view to Bewes. She argued that if something was
written down in the bible then it's fact. The parables were designed
to be purely instructive and thus didn't happen, but everything else
did.
53. Help from outside the Bible? How far can a knowledge of
outside history, local detail or archaeology fill out and complement
my understanding of the bible?
Bewes'
answer to this is a very interesting one. He openly acknowledges and
praises the scholarship and archaeology that exists around
Christianity. He gives the
examples of the Site of Capernaum and the Nabonidus Chronicle, as
archaeological evidence for the first Jewish synagogue and that King
Belshazaar of Babylon did really exist. Bewes argues that whilst
there isn't anything wrong with biblical archaeology and scholarship,
we should not use it to “prop up belief in the truth of the Bible.”
By doing so, we run the risk of pedestalising biblical
archaeology over God's teachings. Naomi
adopts a similar viewpoint to Bewes. She argues that whilst it can
help us, we don't necessarily need it.
I
can respect this idea. If we use biblical archaeology to substantiate
our own beliefs, then what we are doing is actually invalidating the
word of God. We are saying that we believe in what happened, because
of archaeological evidence, and not because it was God's will. We
are saying there is more truth in archaeology, than in the word of
God.
Whilst
I respect and understand this idea, I don't agree with it. To help
me understand the bible, it has been necessary for me to draw on a
variety of sources such as Richard Bewes' book that I'm writing about
now, many study guides and archaeological evidence. If I relied
purely on the bible alone, then my understanding would be limited and
one-dimensional. I also think that archaeological evidence validates
Christianity and religion in the eyes of Atheists. A common argument
I hear for why Atheists don't believe in religion is because of how
it lacks any tangible, physical evidence. They believe in what they
can see and touch. I think that by acknowledging the importance of
this evidence will help to ground Christianity as historical fact.
56.
The Bible- and listening
to God? I'm told that I must spend time listening to God. But how
can I know that it is His voice I'm hearing?
Bewes' answer to this question returns to the idea of religious
fundamentalism. He argues that many irrational, dangerous actions
have been justified through the disclaimer that “God spoke to me.”
Bewes gives the example of the Christian 'Crusades,' and how God's
will was twisted to justify military action against the Muslims. I
think of the People's Temple – a Christian religious sect led by
the unstable Jim Jones who eventually convinced his 900 followers to
undergo a mass suicide. Another example is Peter Sutcliffe who
became the “Yorkshire Ripper,” as he believed that he had been
sent on a spiritual mission by God to murder the impure.
And
Bewes also rightly mentions that saying you “have heard the voice
of God […] is only a self-authenticating claim.” How can this be
independently corroborated? What does God's voice sound like? Bewes
argues that to hear the voice of God, we have to come to him in
humility. We have to want to hear, listen and submit to his will.
Only then will he speak to us. I understand this idea, but I think
it runs the risk of becoming a “self-authenticating claim.” Once
again, how do we know
that it is His voice
that we are hearing?
57.
Should the Bible be
banned? I read in a newspaper that someone was trying to obtain a
court ruling that the Bible is an obscene book. What is the
Christian answer?
I have to admit that despite how “obscene,” the Bible may be,
I've never thought that it should be banned. Yes, there are
countless instances of violence, drugs and sex, which may not make it
appropriate to everyone. Other than the many genocides that occur,
particularly gruesome sections include King Hezekiah of Israel having his sons killed in front of him by the Assyrian Empire and
then having his eyes gouged out. The far more obvious example is Christ's crucifixion.
There are a number of instances of people being stoned if they break
the law. There is also the example of a man who was stoned for picking up sticks on the Sabbath:
"While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood ont he Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to moses, 'The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.' So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the Lord commanded Moses." (Numbers 15: 32-36)
However,
Bewes argues that these more “obscene” sections are vital for our
understanding of the Bible. He
states that “the 'impure' events related in its pages are there as
part of the realistic picture given us of fallen, unredeemed
humanity.” This returns to the idea of why evil and suffering
exist. We need the bad to help us understand the good. Without the
darkness, there can be no light. If we were never learn to about the
mistakes that our predecessors have made, we would be doomed to
repeat them.
Bewes
also argues that if we are to ban the bible, we would need to ban all of
the other literature inspired by it. To say the bible has had a
massive cultural impact would be an understatement. If we were to
ban it, then poets could no longer read Dante's Inferno. Crime
fiction lovers could no longer enjoy Thomas Harris' Red
Dragon. John Milton's
Paradise Lost will
never be analysed again. No Shakespeare play would ever be performed
again. We wouldn't be able to listen to the biblical inspired
compositions of Mozart or Beethoven.
I
also think that banning the bible constitutes an unnecessary act of
censorship. I think that it's wrong to censor something just because
we don't agree with it or because it offends us. If I wanted to, I
could disable the comments on my blog, as I know that religion is a controversial topic. But I won't do that, as
those people have a right to what they want to say. As does the
Bible and those who believe in it. By censoring it, we're cutting
out their tongues. We're shutting down any attempts at a
conversation. To quote Voltaire: “I may not agree with what you
have to say. But I'll defend to the death, your right to say it.”
58.
Nothing but the Bible? Is
it best if my Christian reading is confined to the reading of the
Bible alone?
If
you think that this question sounds similar to question 53 then
you're not alone. I initially had this thought, but I think that
question 53 had a greater focus on archaeological evidence, rather
than biblical scholarship. Bewes'
response to this question is also very similar to question 53.
He
argues that it is perfectly fine for us to consult biblical
commentaries or to annotate the bible ourselves, providing that we
aren't directed away from it. We
can use scholarship to enhance our understanding, but we must always
read it in relation to the Bible itself. But we need to remember
that the truth lies within the Bible and not these external sources.
Naomi says much the same thing.
This is very much the point that I was making in question 53. By
reading a range of commentaries, and providing some myself, I have
helped to nuance my own understanding of the Bible. If I had relied
on the Bible alone, any scholarship by me would be very basic.
59.
What about
'atrocities' in the Bible? I have heard it said that Moses was no
better than Molosovic, in the slaughters that we read about in the
Old Testament. Is the morality different between the Old and New
Testaments?
When I first read the Bible, I was astounded at the genocide present
within it. I didn't understand how an omni-benevolent God could
possibly condone the destruction of such cultures like the Canaanites
in the Old Testament, but then preach “love thy neighbour” in the
New Testament.
Bewes
kicks off his argument by highlighting the hypocrisy of some people.
People who want God to wipe out the Islamic Fundamentalism that
caused 9/11, but who also condemn how he wiped out cultures like the
Amorites. From here, Bewes argues that God's patience stopped him
from enacting out his vengeance like this again. It is certain to
happen, but God is still hoping that the sinful will repent. Bewes
concludes that the purpose of these atrocities was to showcase that
sin will always be punished, but also as to act as a warning to
others.
Naomi argued that whilst the morality wasn't different, the
historical context was. God's kingdom in the Old Testament was a
strictly political, Jewish one. God didn't want his followers to
become corrupted by the immoral teachings of other religions and so
he condemned them to death. However, in the New Testament, the
kingdom had become Christian and was far more expansive. The same
rules need not apply.
In
Exodus, the Israelites were
wandering nomads without a home. They found a home in the Promised
Land, kicking out the people who already lived there. From here they
grew into two big powers: Israel and Judah, who were forced to defend
themselves against outside threats. Skip forward to the New
Testament and Judah is a community living under Roman rule and forced
to worship Roman gods. Those who didn't were executed by the Romans.
The Israelites had been culturally oppressed and weren't in a
position to fight back.
No comments:
Post a Comment