Reading into the Bible what it does not teach)

Some apparently difficult texts in the Bible tend to give impetus to the fallacy that God has created some people for condemnation in hell and others for commendation into Paradise.

Such texts include the one that talks about God ‘hardening’ Pharaoh’s heart (Exod. 3:21), and others like God making "us wonder from your ways and hardened our hearts so we do not revere you" (Isa. 63:17).

Unless one understands the culture of the Bible writers and how that culture interpreted divine providence, possibilities of reading into the Bible what it does not teach are plenty. Oblivious of the fact that there was a great controversy between good and evil, the Hebrew mind conceived the notion that the evil God permits He causes.

Hence Job, after receiving the report that all his children had died by reason of ‘a great wind from the wilderness’, sighed: "Naked came I from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither; the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD" (Job 1:21).

We sometimes fail to make a difference between things God causes and those He permits. Further, we tend to confuse ourselves in trying to differentiate between things the Bible teaches and those it records.

For example, the Bible records that some stalwarts of faith, such as Abram and David were polygamists. Yet the Bible does not teach the practice of polygamy. Polygamy is a deviation from God’s ideal of a ‘one man, one wife’ marital relationship as instituted at creation (Gen. 2:21-24; Matt. 19:3-6).

Therefore, the reading of the Bible and its interpretation requires a mindset that appreciates the entire teaching of Scripture where the Bible itself, is its own interpreter. For purposes of giving the reader a hint of how various schools of biblical interpretation look at the Bible, I will highlight briefly on a few approaches that different Christian groups have adopted, and these arose in earnest in the 19th century, a time when leading minds in society heavily interrogated the Bible as the word of God.

Firstly, there is the ‘Liberal’ view. This view denies that the Bible is fully inspired, authoritative, has internal consistency and is trustworthy. But those who hold this view argue that, since the Bible is believed to be a fallible human document, it cannot be trusted.

Secondly, there is the ‘Fundamentalist’ or the ‘Ultra-Conservative’ view. It upholds the full inspiration of the Bible, its authority, authenticity and its internal consistency. Unfortunately, with its belief in the infallibility of Scripture, it employs a mechanical dictation mode of interpretation where the Bible reads as it says (proof-text method). Thirdly, there is the Evangelical ‘Orthodox’ or the Conservative, which holds that the Bible is indeed an inspired and authoritative word of God, internally coherent and dependable in whatever it teaches.

While this view rejects the proof-text method of interpretation, in its place it employs the grammatical-historical method where a text fits into the meaning of the teaching of the Bible as a whole.

Fourthly, there is the ‘Neo-Evangelical’ or ‘Moderate Liberal’ view. While this view claims to believe in the inspiration of the Bible and its authority on issues of salvation, it is nonetheless skeptical about its reliability and authority on historical and scientific issues.

Then there is the Barthian or ‘Neo-Orthodox’ view. This view holds that the Bible is not the word of God but it only contains the word of God. It argues that the Bible only becomes the word of God to individuals when it grips their hearts thus able to make meaning in their lives.

Having highlighted the approaches people use in interpreting the Bible, I need to state that the Bible is indeed a divine-human document whose purpose is to communicate God’s will for humankind (2 Pt. 1:20, 21).

Inherent in that will is God’s desire that "everyone who believes in [Jesus Christ] may have eternal life" (Jn. 3:15). But of course, God’s will does not override human will. God will not coerce an individual into believing in Jesus Christ, and the things the Bible teaches, if that individual chooses otherwise.

Therefore, such reading as "The LORD said to Moses, ‘When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go" (Exod. 3:21) have created an unfortunate impression that God indeed does influence people to do evil. Some of the confusing texts read: "Then the LORD sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died" (Numb. 21:6).

Another reads: "Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him" (1 Sam. 16:14).

Much as God is understood to be Supreme and Sovereign, He does not necessarily do what He does not restrain. While the texts read as they appear, God neither caused the evil acts recorded nor would He restrain those who chose to do evil.

His refusal to restrain the forces of evil may often be presented as though He directly sends the evil. But such interpretation fails to appreciate the fact that God respects choices that humans make. For example, Pharaoh had a disposition that failed to acknowledge God’s supremacy over him. Hence his resistance of God’s will naturally lead to the hardening of his heart (1 Sam. 6:6).

In cases where God is said to have caused something evil, the reason has often been a result of people’s disobedience. Since nature allows no vacuum, whenever the Spirit of God is withdrawn, the spirit of the devil takes occupation (Matt. 12:44, 45).

God never prevents people from following evil courses of their choosing. He may permit evil, but He certainly does not cause it (Jas.1:13ff).

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: