My default is to take the scripture at face value, and try to learn ways of interpreting it that teach me something or challenges me to be more Christ-like. But when scientific evidence doesn’t agree with a certain interpretation of scripture then I think that my interpretation or view needs to change. Likewise for archeological evidence. Likewise when there are different viewpoints in scripture itself. And especially when God seems to be portrayed in ways that don’t seem to be compatible with the character of God we see revealed in Jesus.
For example, my understanding is that the archeological evidence doesn’t support the biblical account of the conquest of Canaan very well. And I have a hard time believing that Jesus would order people to cut down and impale hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Canaanite children with swords and spears because of sins their parents committed. Especially when we have Ezekiel writing that the son should not be punished for the sins of the father. Things just don't seem to be consistent with all of these factors. When I consider all of this, I just don’t think God ordered the Canaanite genocide. Could I be wrong? Of course! I am fallible, too.
Regarding the genocide, perhaps the writers thought it really happened, or perhaps they were more intent on conveying theological points than providing what us modern folks think of as an ‘accurate’ historical account, or perhaps something else was going on. Maybe it is even an allegory. I cannot get in the heads of the writers. Regardless, I have a hard time taking that text at face value.
Let me first say, I really appreciate this thorough, and honest post.
It was clear, and you expressed your thoughts quite well.
Thank you for also expressing what you find troubling, and how you deal with that.
I hope you don't mind hearing someone express what may be disagreeable.
I try to not just willy-nilly throw stuff out, but at the end of the day I think all of us pick and choose which portions of scripture we emphasize. With the diverse bible that we have I think it is unavoidable. That is part of why I think we have so many expressions of the Christian faith that emphasize many different aspects of scripture, belief and practice.
I understand persons may think this, but is it based on fact, or your personal feelings?
I know factually that not everyone picks and chooses which portions of scripture we emphasize, although I am not sure what you mean by to emphasize.
Paul, for example, used particular scriptures to make a particular point, and that is necessary, as we would not use every scripture when discussing a particular topic.
May I ask what you mean by to emphasize?
And by the way, I think we have the bible that God wants us to have. I don’t say that stuff ‘doesn’t belong’. Perhaps we are meant to wrestle with the divine violence in scripture and ultimately reject it (I don’t recall where I read/heard this idea). And for me, the divine violence is the part that I am most skeptical of. If God really did kill every child on the planet in the flood, and every child in Sodom, and the Egyptian first-born, and ordered the killing of every Canaanite, Midianite and Amalekite children, then this implies that there is nothing inherently wrong with the mass slaughter of children. And in all of those cases the children were killed for the sins of others. Perhaps I just have weak faith, but I would have trouble holding on to any faith at all if being a follower of Jesus meant that I must believe that God killed millions of children and that it is somehow 'good' and 'loving'.
I understand how you feel, but consider this:
In the Gospel account of Matthew 26:52, the Gospel writer records this passage:
Then Jesus says to him, "Return your sword into its place; for all those having taken the sword, will perish by the sword.
This after Peter without hesitation drew his sword and sliced off the ear of one of those who came with a mob to take Jesus.
Yet, the Gospel writers recorded Jesus referring to accounts that some believe either did not happen - they were myth, or were not actual historical accounts, but stories:
- King David - Jesus replied, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for them to eat, but only for the priests. Matthew 12:3, 4
- This is the account when David was fleeing from Saul. The same Saul that we read was told to wipe out the Amalekites - man, woman, child and beast.
- The flood of Noah's day; Sodom and Gomorrah, and surrounding cities - And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed. Luke 17:26-30
- Jesus liken his day to the days of Noah, and Lot
We also have the writings of the apostle Paul, who wrote of the many characters and events that went before us. Hebrews 11:1-12:3
I'm just saying that when we dismiss the accounts we may not think should be there, or they are not real, it would be good for us to remember that the Lord and savior, and his followers did not do so.
So, I think we do well to ask, should we do that? Would it go well for us if we do?
This, since the book we call the Bible, if it is God's word, has a message for us, from the same God that spoke to Moses, and led the Israelites through the wilderness by Christ in his heavenly nature. 1 Corinthians 10:1-11
Hence, if we erase all that history, because we have a problem with it, we actually should consider if we are not erasing Christ.
All of it is connected.
Just something, I think is worth mentioning.
Not getting on anyone's back on what decision they should make.
We all have our choice to make.
2 Timothy uses the ‘God-breathed’ (which I understand can also be translated ‘God-breathing’) term, which was either coined by the author or it had a known meaning that we don’t have access to because no other documents from that time period that used that word have survived. So scholars do not have a way to study other uses and really learn what he meant by it. Some readers choose to assume it means ‘inerrant’ or ‘infallible’ or something else, and that is fine, but from my perspective that is an assumption imposed on the text. In any case, by faith I believe the Holy Spirit played some role that we can call 'inspiration'.
I haven't heard anyone use the term ‘God-breathing’.
That's not important though.
What's important, is if we have come to the conclusion that the scriptures are inspired of God, and as Peter said, those who wrote these records "were carried along by holy spirit".
Which would mean the scriptures are a product of holy spirit, and therefore, alive. Hebrews 4:12
Are we teaching others to treat it as such?
that would depend on how we ourselves view it... and a teacher, is holds greater responsibility, because he can eithe mislead - that is, stumble "one of these little ones", or guide them to waters of life - feed them the truth.
I don’t see why this would be the devil having us all fooled. It is just ancient people writing in the ways that made sense to them and their audiences. And perhaps making a few honest mistakes along the way. I believe these scriptures are still inspired and useful in all the ways indicated in 2 Timothy.
"just ancient people writing in the ways that made sense to them and their audiences."
That's an interesting way to describe the writers that were quoted by Jesus and his apostle.
Did you know that Jesus considers the writings of the Hebrew scriptures as God breathed, since no man can prophecy what he fulfilled?
There are so many prophecies that could not have been known beforehand about the Messiah. It is a miracle, that the writers of the Hebrew scriptures could write down these exact details, centuries in advance of their fulfilment.
Luke 24:44
Jesus said to them, “These are the words I spoke to you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.”
I would say that is more than "just ancient people writing in the ways that made sense to them and their audiences."
I would say as Peter did, these were men that God guided, like no other... even today, in what to write.
I think the gospels are probably quite reliable. The disciples were with Jesus continuously for a few years. I’m sure they saw him preach the same topics over and over again, and probably spent hours amongst themselves discussing what it meant. So for example, whether the sermons on the mount/plain were delivered all at once or are composites of various sermons, I expect they are pretty reliable accounts of the kinds of things Jesus preached about.
That's good. Do you think they got what he said concerning the Flood of Noah's day, correct?
But the gospels don’t exactly agree about everything, and that is fine with me. For example, when I read the 2 contradictory genealogies of Jesus in the NT, it is clear to me that at least one of them must be wrong. Perhaps both are even wrong. But that doesn’t really bother me. I doubt the most important point is the ‘correct’ genealogy. Perhaps the authors are trying to tell us something though those genealogies about who Jesus is and why he is important, and not even trying to give ‘accurate’ genealogies (or maybe at least one is simply mistaken).
Or both of them are right, but from two different "perspective" or genealogies.
Is that something you would consider, because sometimes we do not have an explanation for something, but that does not mean there isn't one we have not looked at?
Overall, my point is that yes, I do question God's actions as portrayed in scripture. And I have known believers that completely lost their faith over some of the portrayals of God in scripture. In my case, the best way I can see for me to keep faith (at least regarding many of the divine violence texts) is to flip the script and trust the view of God I see in Jesus and compare that to the texts that I find problematic. And again, I will be the first to admit that I could be wrong. There are many different ways that faithful, thoughtful, fruitful Christians approach scripture. If your approach is bearing fruit, by all means keep it!
Cheers.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, on this.
It was interesting.
Hearing from different people is alway interesting.
