First of all, thanks to Kendra for saying “What the heck?” and hosting two Follower Say events in one year. It’s really a great idea. Also thanks to all my fans, and to my friends and family watching back home.
Onto business.
Recently I made the overdue decision to read all the way through the Bible from cover to cover. Now considering I’m not as self-disciplined as some, and considering neither Bible study nor theology is exactly my forte, I’m allowing myself short literary lunch breaks of novels and the occasional picture book. So far I’ve only gotten about halfway through Numbers.
Since I only have a couple minutes or so to talk within the limits of the average attention span, I’m not going to share with you my interpretation of every single Bible verse and parable that I’ve read so far. Instead, I’m going to share with you the premature conclusion I’ve reached just from the first three and a half books of the Bible that I’ve read through.
I think we can all agree that the Bible did not descend from heaven on a cloud accompanied by an angel’s chorus. Most of you, on the other hand, probably believe that the Bible holds the exact words of God. Exact. I beg to differ.
Have you ever read all the way through the books of Leviticus and Numbers? If so, and you’re prepared to obey every word that the Bible commands to you in your life now, then I have some questions for you:
Have you been sacrificing lambs every time you sin? Have you ever suggested to your Church’s minister that he dress in golden robes made especially for him instead of in a suit and white collar? Do you go into exactly seven days of isolation every time you have an infectious disease? Do you go through a mystic and superstitious ritual every time your spouse suspects that you’re cheating on him/her? Do you honestly believe that the sky is a second ocean, just separated by an invisible ceiling? Do you believe that people should be stoned or killed for crimes as meager as theft and disobedience? Do you sacrifice the right type of animal through burnt offering to God every time a baby is born? Do you consider it a sin to be human?
I’m crossing my fingers that you haven’t answered yes to all of these questions.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I read the Bible. I learn from the Bible too. But I think that after roughly 2000 years, it’s time to consider the thought that what we’re reading in the Bible are not the words of God himself, but the words of men who were deeply inspired by God. Reasons why I think this? I’ll name some.
1) The Bible commands the people of early Israel to give most of their offerings to the priests. It says so very explicitly. The priests were ridiculously wealthy because while the offerings were made in regard to God, they were fed to the priests. Isn’t it possible that the priests had some influence over that? Do you really think that God would be so unfair as to give a select a handful of people to be five times more wealthy than anyone else in the nation?
2) The Bible is extremely contradictory. In the New Testament, Jesus preaches “turn the other cheek.” In the Old Testament, God the Father preaches “an eye for an eye.” There are many similar occurrences throughout the rest of the Bible.
3) Like I mentioned earlier, the science that is preached in the Bible is very ancient—not the type that an all-knowing God might believe in. The sky is a second sea? I don’t think so. Disease can usually be healed by holy water? Doesn’t sound scientific. I admire Christians everywhere who are conservative in their interpretation of the Bible but are still logical scientists. But that’s contradictory. How can you interpret the Bible literally and still answer no to all of the questions above?
Mainly, it’s just liberals who are accused of preaching the parts of the Bible that they like and ignoring the parts that they don’t. Really, I think just about all of Christians today are guilty of that too. If you think that one should interpret the Bible literally and then make all of his decisions based on specific verses, then it’s fair to guess that you also ignore the parts of the Bible that you don’t agree with, just judging by the fact that you’re not a total eccentric.
I’ve mentioned earlier that while most Christians use the Bible as a handbook to life, I use it as a tool for inspiration. I’ve said that a lot, haven’t I? Well, I want people to understand. The Bible still houses uncountable great lessons, instructions, and morals that need to be learned from. But I don’t want to see it as perfect. It’s like God’s prophets in the Bible. They came to teach a message, but they weren’t perfect.
Christians still need the Bible, but obsessing over each verse and basing our lives on it has already been proven to not work.
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting, and thought provoking. I, too, am currently reading all the way through the Bible, but I'm doing a 90-day program. Nearly done! :)
ReplyDeleteI look at it this way- Jesus came to fulfill the law. The law was basically God's way of showing us that "look, you can't do this on your own. If you try, you'll fail." Like you said, who has ever kept all those commandments? Not a single person in the world, not even back then. So it is a lesson in "All have sinned and come short," etc.
However, when Jesus came, he emphasized God's love more. Humanity had the we-can't-make-it thing down at least in some fashion (there were plenty of people who realized that, or would come to realize that), and Jesus was the "well, here I am. You don't have to be perfect anymore. You just have to trust me."
Just my way of thinking of it.
Yeah, the thing is that if you just read the Bible and take every passage out of context by itself, it won't always make sense, and you'll end up with contradictions.
ReplyDeleteYeah, the Old Testament law was "THE LAW." It was basically the list of ways that people could try to be perfect in God's eyes on their own. When Jesus came, however, he fulfilled the law so that we wouldn't have to shoulder that burden.
Furthermore, taking the Bible "literally" doesn't mean being unaccepting of metaphor; it means that what is stated to be true is true. Reading the Bible and getting to know God is like getting to know a good friend: over time, you eventually start to pick up on their language and understand how they talk. When a friend says to you "I feel like I cold eat a horse," you know what they mean. Same idea.
Basically, what I'm saying is that you can't judge the entire Bible by looking at it from a very specific and technical perspective. The Bible is like poetry: it has meaning, but isn't necessarily super-simple. I've heard some pastors say that the Bible simply will not make sense in some ways unless you develop a relationship with God (which is, of course, the ultimate reason for human existence).
That's why I'm reading it all the way through.
ReplyDeleteAlthough many of the messages in the Bible are certainly disguised by parables and double-meanings, I'm afraid not all of the things that don't make sense are metaphors. I've already stated my opinion on that matter.
BUT thank you for answering my question about the blood sacrifices. Jesus comes and we don't have to make anymore sacrifices. But what doesn't make sense is why they had to do that back then in the first place. The God from the Old Testament does not sound at all like the God we worship now.
And if I have to interpret the Bible literally to be a Christian, then I'm not a Christian.
I’m reading a book called "The Land: Place as Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith." by Walter Brueggeman (2nd Edition). I highly recommend it to you, I believe you would enjoy its analytical perspective, and also benefit from its insights into the historical and theological pattern of the Old Testament. It has already informed my reading of the Old Testament.
ReplyDeleteSince you are informed that Jesus' sacrifice for sins has cleansed us completely, then keep that perspective in mind as you begin reading the books of the Law. What is God doing here? Why would he give certain commands if they don’t give true salvation in and of themselves?
1. The Levites and Priests. A portion of the sacrifice brought to God was given to the priests. But notice that all the blood and fat of the animal belong to God. The part given to the priest would be just a portion, and not the best portion. The Levites are given no land like the other tribes. They had no land, only homes, and the temple. They could not raise animals or plant grain, they were dependant on the righteousness of the nation's worship of God. Just looking at the situation that God was creating for the Levites, does this sound like favoritism? It doesn't sound like it to me, it sounds like your whole life is dependant on God in a literal way.
2. Turn the other cheek. If someone slapped you in the face, it was an insult. Jesus isn't talking about not repaying violence with violence, he's talking about not responding with violence when something as petty as your ego is damaged. The Law of Moses teaches justice, an eye for an eye. But it also teaches "Vengence is mine, I will repay, says the LORD." Because let us face it, when we leave it to humans to met out justice, it always fails. God commands us to act with justice when it is within our power, then he reminds us that when it is not within our power, that he is the final judge and justice will be served.
3. Faulty science. The "faulty science" about the waters above the skies comes from Genesis 1, correct? Let me just give you some other ways to think about this. I heard one speculation that when God created the earth, it was different from how it is now. He suggested that there was a layer of water vapor above the earth. He suggested that this shielded the earth from solar rays and allowed humans to live the long times recorded in the Bible. Then the Flood which God brought on the earth came from this layer of water falling down, so after the Flood, there was no more layer like this, and man's lifespan immediately began decreasing. This may or may not be the reality of what happened, I just give it as an example of remembering that things might have been very different then. After that, remember that God didn't give the Bible as a science textbook. Some of what the Bible says about the natural world is in forms of poetry.
4. Harsh Laws. The laws which God makes are first, to tell men how they should live. He starts with the 10 Commandments. How would the world be different if everyone just kept those 10 laws? Secondly, he gives laws which emphasize his nature. He is a God of justice, and he is a providing and merciful God. He has, built into his laws, a focus on valuing people and acknowledging that he is the giver and provider. The sacrifice for a new child? That was actually a redemption. God says, "This child is mine, but I will give it to you on trust." The Israelites were to acknowledge the ownership of God by making the redeeming sacrifices. Ditto for the Feasts of First fruits. These were meant to remind the people that it is God who provides. And finally, there are the laws which focus on the Holiness of God. These are the regulations for the worship of God, and the laws about cleanliness and decent behavior. God says, "Be holy (set apart) as I the Lord your God am holy." In Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, you will see the same sentiments there about valuing people and valuing God.
Well, you make interesting points.
ReplyDeleteLike I said to KnightWing, however, I'd sooner be an atheist than a Christian who believes in mottos like "an eye for an eye."
Put it this way: the Old Testament has the Mosaic laws, which are, essentially, straight justice without mercy.
ReplyDeleteGod wouldn't be just if he didn't hold to those laws. However, Jesus fulfilled those in our place, so we can now have mercy. It's not that God didn't love us before, or that he didn't want to grant us mercy; it's that he still needed to be perfectly just. Now he can do both.
Christopher: I wonder why you would rather be an atheist than a Christian who believes in "an eye for an eye." Is it because you want people to like you? Or is it because you don't believe that every human is equal?
ReplyDeleteKnightWing: No, that is too simplistic. Tell me about the justice of the Year of Jubilee. Also, why did God choose Abraham? Why did he put up with the Israelites? They were given a new chance to be with God, which is more than what they deserved.
And look at this passage from Micah.
"With what shall I come before the LORD and bow down before the exalted God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old?
Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."
-Micah 6:6-8
If God could not show mercy in the Old Covenant, how could he expect his people to love it?
Lissy: ...
ReplyDeleteI'd sooner be an atheist than that type of Christian because...I want people to like me? And I'd rather not support such a motto of revenge like "an eye for an eye" because...I don't think all people are equal?
What's going on with this comment?
Do I not believe that people are unequal because I don't think that the criminal is any less of a person than the victim? How does that make sense? This may be unfair to say, but I might remind you that this statement is coming from a Republican to a Democrat. Kind of ironic.
As Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye will soon make the whole world blind."
I don't know what you were trying to get at when you posted that comment, but this debate is going virtually nowhere.
KnightWing: Well, it makes sense what you're saying, but I still (respectfully) disagree. Maybe I'm the foolish opponent in this debate, but I don't understand why God would have such a dramatic change of heart. It's like in the book of Genesis, when Abraham actually CONVINCES God to kill less people in a city. If God is so perfect, why does he change his mind so easily?
Well, there's two things here:
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, God cannot "change." The Bible istelf says that he is "unchanging." If it appears that he does change his mind, then it's really our perceptions that are off.
I mean, if you think about it, God is a being above our four-dimensional timespace, so time doesn't at all mean the same thing to him. Trying to apply a timeline to God doesn't really work.
Furthermore, even if we could theoretically "chart" God's time, how would we be able to comprehend the inner workings of a mind that is literally omniscient?
It's like when a five-year-old tells his parents that they don't know what they're talking about when they say the Earth revolves around the sun.
I believe that this debate can go somewhere if we listen to each other. Here are the reasons I can see for not believing in the motto, "an eye for an eye."
ReplyDelete1. The motto is associated with vengeful or hateful people, so in order to not drive people away from oneself, then it's best not to verbalize such a motto. If one claims "an eye for an eye" they are thought to be looking for vengeance, not justice. This seems odd to me, since the phrase is intended for justice. Gandhi is right in principle. If all justice was retributive, a lot of people would be hurt and the world's resources would be diminished. But the Old Testament law is not all retributive, much is restorative. It was only in regards to people that such strict punishments were given. I believe that this is to teach people to understand how God values people.
2. The second reason for not beliving in "an eye for an eye" would be that you do not believe one person's eye is worth another person's.
"Do I not believe that people are unequal because I don't think that the criminal is any less of a person than the victim? How does that make sense?" Indeed, how does that make sense? Honestly, I can't understand what you are saying that I said. All I asked was if you believed people aren't all equal. For the record, I do believe that criminals are as much people as victims, and this is why they ought to be held fully responsible for their actions.
I am a Christian who believes in "an eye for an eye" because I believe that God's justice will be served in the end. He will judge each man fairly by how he treated his fellow men. I believe in this innate justice, but I would not use it as an excuse to strike back in anger if I am hurt, because I believe that this is not my place and that God will take care of it.
"If God is so perfect, why does he change his mind so easily?"
That is assuming that there is one perfect decision in every circumstance. This is a big assumption, if we are assuming that the world only continues to exist because God wills it so, and that God answers to no one. God said that he would not destroy the city if 50 good people were in it. He said that he would not destroy the city if there were 40 good men in it... down to 10. None of these statements are false. The only thing the progression shows is God's willingness to suffer wicked people to continue living in order to not cut good lives short.
I was only offended because you were putting words in my mouth. I say I don't believe in an eye for an eye, and suddenly you accuse me of totally irrelevant things.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think that you're misinterpreting Gandhi's words. Gandhi also said "Hate the sin, love the sinner." I don't think he's the type of peaceful leader to believe in such vengeful mottos. He wanted peace. Where is the line between justice and revenge? I'll tell you. Justice is from the eyes of authority and society. Revenge is from the eyes of society.
The reason I don't believe in "an eye for an eye" is simply BECAUSE we ARE equal. Surely you are against the concept of revenge? That proverb is nothing BUT revenge. How can you interpret it as anything else? If you are against revenge, then you shouldn't preach that proverb. An eye for an eye. Your neighbor hurts you, you hurt him back. Does that not sounds both childish and brutish to you? I would rather preach of turning the other cheek then hitting someone back.
When I said that this debate is going nowhere, I meant it. We don't debate for any other reason than to fuel our emotions. We're both indignant that the other person has another opinion--at least in my case. You will probably never give up your faith. (That's a compliment.) I will never change my opinion on this subject. And we certainly won't change our opinions because of what we read on a blog. It's the truth. Debate should take place when a compromise is possible. When practical changes need to be made. To attempt to change somebody's most prized ideals is foolish.
Happy March 30th.
Have you ever heard of a man named Louis A. Frank?
ReplyDeleteHe has a theory based on "holes" in satelite photos of the poles. It does not match the evolution "facts", but there is no better explanation of the phenomena observed.
Christopher: I did not accuse your of irrelevant things. I was suggesting possible reasons why you would not believe in the "an eye for an eye" type of justice. That is very on-topic. Irrelevant would be if I accused you of cheating on your 5th grade math test. Second, I do not misinterpret Gandhi. When he says, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," he is pointing out that retributive modes of justice leave both parties injured and do not make things equal in a positive direction, which is what I said. He is correct in this. Now, you and I might disagree in how we are to apply this insight of his. As I said before, the Law of Moses generally used restorative justice, paying the whole value with interest in order to right wrongs and losses. However, when it came to the life and health of citizens of Israel, the Law proscribed retributive justice; eye for eye, bruise for bruise, life for life. The Law emphasizes this difference in Leviticus 24:21.
ReplyDeleteThere are two functions to law and justice. One is to make things equal between parties, either by payment or punishment. The other is to set an example to deter people from crime. The strong laws about personal injury serve both. You are totally right, the difference between justice and revenge is that justice is administered by the social authorities. And that is the context in which this principle is meant to be applied.
"An eye for an eye" is not revenge if it is used in the way it was meant to be used, which was in a system of justice where rulings are made by a neutral arbiter and no one can be convicted except with the testimony of two or more witnesses (and one of the cardinal laws of the people being to never bear false witness in court.) That is the context in which these laws were meant to be used. Finally, theology turns to God as the ultimate judge of personal wrongs. The author of Hebrews says, in Hebrews 10:30-31:
For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Things indeed go wrong and turn into revenge when people "take the law into their own hands" and personally hit back, and this is what Jesus was preaching against when he said to "turn the other cheek." Besides, the phrase "an eye for an eye" was supposed to apply to cases of serious injury, but people had begun using it as justification if someone so much as slapped them in the face or demanded an article of clothing.
This then is the over-arching theme for Biblical justice and the tie between "an eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek." It's "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies" now, because we can trust that God will repay "an eye for an eye" later as the perfect judge.
Last, just some questions of semantics.
An eye for an eye makes sense if you believe that all humans are equal. Human = Human, thus injury of human = injury of human.
But you say that an eye for an eye does not make sense because you believe all humans are equal. Could you explain the logic of that?
One more thing. Since it will take you a while to get there on your own, why not skip ahead a little in your Bible reading and read Acts 15. It will explain the reason that Christians do not follow the Law of Moses.
And by the way, we can turn this debate to questions about the American justice system if you would like. That would at least be a relevant discussion about applying our convictions to current affairs. I'm not an expert of the American legal system, maybe there are some things to learn there for me.
ReplyDelete