Stephen
Terry, Director
Dealing with Difficult Passages
Commentary
for the June 20, 2020 Sabbath School Lesson
“All Scripture is
God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in
righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every
good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17, NIV
Many years ago, Daniel G. Taylor developed an
interactive website that listed 492 contradictions in the Bible. Although, that
website is no longer extant, the first sixteen examples may be seen in the
photo accompanying this commentary. The site became popular with atheists and
agnostics seeking justification for their disdain for Christianity. Over the
years, several Christian apologists set about debunking the contradictions,
some with more success than others depending upon their own view of the Bible,
for all Christians do not view scripture similarly. In fact, the Christian view
of scripture has wide latitude as evidenced by the many denominations that hold
disparate views and yet claim that their truth is distinctive enough to set
them above all the others. This is just as one might expect, for what would be
the point of a separate denomination that believed the same as another?
Unwittingly and ironically, Christianity may have
provided the best evidence for the intrinsic contradictions of the faith, for
each denomination has apologists who readily point out examples of why the
others are not dogmatically truthful while extolling their own inspired insight
revealed by God to a founder or founders who claimed such insight. If every
apologist is right, then every denomination is wrong. If every denomination is
right, then every apologist is wrong. This leaves room for the possibility that
some may be right, but every apologist is adamant that is not the case for any
denomination save their own. Christianity may therefore lack the ability to
model truth, but instead models a perception of the truth. That perception then
rather than the truth itself is what is often claimed to be
"God-breathed."
Again ironically, the Protestant Reformation was a
rebellion against the idea of the Roman Catholic Church dictating faith to the
laity and dominating the Christian narrative. To be sure, the seeds of that
rebellion were planted when Rome not only claimed to be the sole arbiter of
dogmatic perfection, but also appealed to the power of the state to enforce
matters of faith, going so far as to declare dissension a capital crime. But
these many seedlings that sprouted from Reformation soil may have fallen too
close to the tree that spawned them, for they in turn have made similar claims
on faith and conscience and perhaps would, given an amenable civil government,
would also enforce their dogma, maybe even to the point of death. As
Seventh-day Adventists, we often see ourselves as victims of such a possibility
and above the rest morally, yet with our Fundamental Beliefs and decrees issued
by Executive Committees and Annual Councils are we really so far from all of
that? Is it possible that there could be more of Rome in us than there is of us
in Rome?
When we realize the extent of the widespread
dissension between the various Christian communions, perhaps we can realize
also that the greater contradictions are not so much in the Bible as in the
people who profess to believe in it. According to John, Jesus said, "I
have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one—I
in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the
world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved
me." (John 17:22-23, NIV) If unity is proof that God sent us Jesus, what
does our disunity prove? Of course our denomination, like many others, deflects
that discussion by continually calling for unity that is in reality uniformity
that denies diversity.
This denial is not just in a doctrinal sense but in
a social sense as well. Women and minorities are denied parity within the
Adventist Church. Admittedly, this is slightly less of an issue in parishes
associated with large Adventist communities surrounding our colleges and health
care facilities, but not much less. It denies any claim to honest diversity we
may advance, notwithstanding any studies that show otherwise.[i]
Some churches still deny the right of women to be ordained pastors. White churches
and black churches alike will refuse to accept pastors of one another's
ethnicity to lead their parish. Perhaps most egregiously, in 1944, the
Seventh-day Adventist Church set up "Jim Crow," separate but equal,
black regional conferences rather than allow this minority the equality they so
rightly deserved. Those regional conferences continue to exist today because of
the ongoing discrimination.[ii]
It seems strange that those who would fret about contradictions in the Bible
would be living out such contradictions as praxis supposedly based upon that
tome.
If we could admit to those scriptural
contradictions and still find a uniform message even though they are clearly
there, then perhaps we could find a hermeneutic supportive of the
contradictions all too apparent in our ecclesiology. If we cannot, then we are
modeling something we profess not to believe, that there are no contradictions
inherent to Christianity.
We might ask, if contradictions are so intrinsic to
how we live our lives and practice our faith, why is it so important to deny
that they exist in scripture? Most denominations apparently believe in a future
perfect state of being in relation to a transformation to come at the Parousia.
While the Bible speaks often of that, much of the Bible, especially the Old
Testament, speaks of life here on Earth after a fall from Edenic grace and
before the return of Christ. Why then would we expect that time to be free of
imperfections and contradictions? If we look at our own lives as we have struggled
with the demands of life and tried to grow in Christ, have we not at times done
or said things that were contrary to what we say we believe? Some might dare to
claim perfection of life, but John said otherwise when he wrote, "If we
claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."
(1 John 1:8, NIV)
What is the solution then? Should we simply admit
that all we desire is imperfect, contradictory, and selfishly sinful? The Bible
tells us that repentance is the way forward.[iii]
How then shall we repent if we believe that we have the truth, everyone else is
wrong, and we are thankful we are not like them?[iv]
Have we imputed perfection to the Bible, so we can impute it to ourselves? Some
might claim the Bible is perfect and without contradictions because it is the
word of God, but the word of God can even come from an ass[v]
or be fulfilled by sinners.[vi]
He is not bound by our perceptions and conventions. Why then would his word
then be bound by them? How could omniscience and omnipresence incapable of
being chained by infinity ever be harnessed by our intellect, limited as it is?
We approach God with that intellect as though we
were unfolding the moves in a chess game with rules completely within our ken
and make move and counter move believing that the outcome is predictable if we
make the right moves. Then the chess board dissolves into a deck of cards, but
no problem, we know the rules for the game at hand, and after some adjustment,
we deal the deck with the same assumption that if we make the right plays, the
outcome is predictable. But once again the cards also dissolve to be replaced
by Chinese checkers. Again, we adjust, and following the rules we expect a
certain outcome. Part way through the game, it also dissolves into nothingness,
and God says, "Your move!"
You respond, "How can I move when I have
nothing to move?"
God says, "Exactly!"
Maybe it is time to set aside our belief that we
are able to overcome by following the rules. That belief requires us to also
believe that the Bible will give us a perfect foundation for those rules, rules
that, like Habakkuk, we may even try to get God to conform to. But in the end,
maybe we are best off to simply allow God to be God, and the Bible to be the
Bible, without defending either one. We cannot draw a picture of God or bind
him to rules as we understand them, and why would we want to? Such a God would
be so limited that he would not be God at all, but simply a projection of us,
tainted with our own desires and peeves. If we can come to the point of
allowing God to simply be God as he himself defines that, perhaps we can also
allow the Bible to simply be the Bible and receive it as it is, contradictions
and all, to see what it says to us, not as a denomination, but as individuals.
We may find surprises we did not know were there.
