For the Bible Tells Me So: The Real Story, Part 3

BY BOB ELLIS
DAKOTA VOICE

This is the third installment in a 8-part series examining the DVD "For the Bible Tells Me So."

Introduction - Why the DVD Deserves a Closer Look

Part 1 - Building Sympathy Without Exegisis

Part 2 - The Bible as a 'Truth Buffet'


One of the things about the Bible stressed by the clergy in "For the Bible Tells Me So" (FTBTMS) is the contention that the Bible and passages within it can be interpreted in many ways.

While it is true that each of us, due to our experiences and education, can come away with some different insights on a particular passage, a given passage really only has one overriding meaning. Or perhaps more directly, while there may be a number of truths contained within a particular passage, none of those facts or truths will present conclusions that are contradictory to other truths within the passage--or the rest of the Bible, for that matter.

For example, it is incorrect to reasonably say that one person might read, "Thou shalt not steal" and come away with the truth that "you're not supposed to steal," while another person may read it and reasonably come away with a different "truth" which says, "Thou shalt not steal unless you really need it" or “Thou shalt not steal unless it’s from a rich person” or "Thou shalt not steal unless it's Tuesday."

Reverend Richard Holloway, the retired Bishop of Edinburgh, claims in the film that "Biblical literalism," where God's instructions in the Bible are taken literally, is a modern view that only came about in the early Twentieth Century.

Rev. Holloway's assertion is at odds with the Old Testament Jewish view, who took God's word very seriously and very literally. God commanded the Jews in Deuteronomy chapter 6 to constantly examine and discuss and surround themselves with His word. The Jews came to take that so literally that they wore God's word on their heads in phylacteries, and took God's command to tithe so seriously that they even gave a tenth of the produce from their spice gardens.

Jesus also apparently took the Bible literally, since he repeatedly quoted it and taught it's application in our lives, including his statement in Matthew chapter 19 on God's design for human sexuality: "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

He didn't say, "Ahh, God didn't really mean what He said in the Old Testament about males and females, and being faithful to your spouse. He just wants you to be happy. So have sex with whoever you’d like"

The assertion that "Biblical literalism" is a recent phenomenon also goes against the people in and writers of the New Testament, who by their very words and actions indicated that they took God's word very seriously and very literally. This continued throughout the 2,000 years of Christian history, on through the Great Awakenings of the 18th and 19th Centuries.

On the contrary, it is a recent phenomenon that several Biblical scholars and some who call themselves Christians have taken the position that the Bible is NOT to be taken literally, that it is only allegorical and only "contains" some moral truths.

Reverend Joan Brown Campbell of the Chautauqua Institution attempts to mock Biblical literalism: "There is a text that says 'You must take all you have and give it to the poor.'" She is referring to the passage in Mark chapter 10 where the rich young ruler came to Jesus and Jesus told him to do this.

If you’ve actually read the passage you’ll note, however, that this was not a commandment given to all people; Jesus told the rich young man to do this when that man asked him, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus was not telling him this because giving away all your possessions is necessary to go to heaven, or because all wealthy people must give up all they have to get to heaven (many in the Bible were wealthy and God never commanded it of them). Rather, Jesus told him this because the man came to Christ, proud of his moral accomplishments and was essentially looking for the good rabbi to pat him on the back in front of people for being such a good person. Jesus, knowing what truly motivated the man and what was in his heart, cut through all the pride and pretension to expose that the man loved wealth and status more than he loved God.

Like any text, the Bible must be read contextually. This is not to say, as some claimed in this DVD, that we can "adjust" the moral imperatives of the Bible to suit our modern times or our fleshly appetites. Rather, it means that we must read the entire passage to understand whether this deals with a particular instance or is a universal truth; who is the subject of the passage; what is the spiritual principle being communicated; and what is the overriding truth.

Even personal correspondence must be read contextually. You wouldn't read a love letter from a spouse who had been away for a while which said, "I'm dying to see you" as meaning, "My heart is about to quit beating and my life on earth will literally end if I don't see you."

Likewise, you wouldn't interpret someone at the dinner table who has a heart attack and says, "I'm dying" as meaning he really doesn't like the food.

As we would pervert the statements made by the hypothetical people in these examples, so we dishonor God if we try to twist the meaning of what He’s told us in order to suit our own agenda.

If you're a parent, have you ever had a child try to twist something you said into a license for behavior that you clearly did not approve? Have they ever tried to exploit loopholes and come up with tortured interpretations to justify their disobedience? Has an employee or subordinate ever done it? Did that make you angry? I wonder how God feels when we try to twist and disregard His commandments to issue a license to ourselves for immorality?

Rev. Holloway also employs a little class envy to rile viewers against Christians who have taken a stand for morality in culture by pointing out they are "capitalists" and citing figures in the millions of dollars as if that were their personal income, rather than the revenue of their ministries.

Some of these ministries provide a multitude of services to thousands of people around the world, through the use of printed materials, radio and television broadcasts, service to needy people, and a legion of other expenditures--all of which can cost millions of dollars. Yet Holloway's intent is obviously to lead us to believe every cent that comes in to the organization goes into the pocket of the ministry leader.


In Part 4 next week: this film which contends to be about what the Bible says about homosexuality takes a stab at what science says about homosexuality...or is it what sympathetic researchers say about homosexuality?