I think we should be very careful when we say, “The Bible teaches…” or “the Bible says…” I guess the second of those especially requires special handling. When we say such things, we need to be able to point to direct textual affirmations of what we’re saying.
Here are some times I’ve heard people misuse these phrases:
- Years ago, in a meeting with other church leaders, one very good student of the Bible said, “The Bible says the man is to make the decisions in the family.” When pressed on the point, he referred to the passages that speak of male headship. What he should have said is, “The Bible says the man is the head of the woman, which I understand to mean that the man makes the decisions.” I don’t agree with his interpretation, but at least the statement would be accurate.
- In another meeting, during a heated discussion, one young member referenced the Psalms to support his point. As soon as the young man mentioned the Psalms, the preacher interrupted and said, “My Bible says that’s been nailed to the cross.” Were it possible to be sued for textual malpractice, this man would have lost his preaching license.
- Taking their cues from Romans 13, I’ve heard Christians say, “The Bible teaches that we are to be good citizens,” and “The Bible says that Christians are to obey all laws (unless they contradict God’s law).” Both of those affirmations are based on an interpretation of “Submit to the authorities” and “Honor the King.” They need to be acknowledged as such.
- One person who participated a few years ago in our discussion about alcohol contacted me on Facebook to discuss the subject a bit further. He made the statement, “My own personal rule or standard is that if I drank anything strong enough to make me drunk it would violate the prohibition against strong drink.” Unless he’s found some new passage that I’ve never heard of, the “prohibition” he’s referring to comes from Proverbs 20:1. Rather than open the whole discussion again, I merely told him: “As we’ve seen before, we have differing views on whether or not God prohibited strong drink.” But it was a bit discouraging to see him continue to tout advice from wisdom literature as a biblical prohibition.
All of that to say, I’m trying to do better at owning my own interpretations. There is a difference between what God’s Word says and the conclusions I draw based on what is said. If I don’t learn to discern between the two, it will be hard for me to learn much of anything.
I think Tim you need to give some examples of when the Bible does speak. There is a difference in conversation or dialogue than preaching. Yes it is my interpretation that the Bible forbids strong drink. Yes it is based on that text from wisdom literature. But it also based on taking the scriptures as a whole. It is based on my understanding of the Bible speaking in negative terms about wine, drinking, drunkenness, etc. and saying okay what does this mean? It is an my coming to a conclusion about what all these scriptures mean and how to apply it to my life.
I do agree that we should be very careful to state that the Bible teaches something. But does it teach anything. I read an article which I think I still have where a denominational preacher took every text on a woman’s roll and curtly dismissed them as insufficient and concluded that women could do most anything with God’s approval.
Does the Bible not teach that we are to obey the laws of nations? Yes we apply that only to laws that are within God’s law? Is that not what we should do? Wasn’t the law nailed to the cross? Sure but was does that mean? Well it means I can’t quote Proverbs 20 as a law against strong drink. But you know that wasn’t what I was doing. I was trying to have an honest private conversation with you. If this young man you referred to quoted the Psalms in some instances he could be applying it as law. In other instances he could be showing it’s application to today. ‘
I agree with your point and it is relevant to our discussing the Bible. Here are some of my suggestions.
We should say more often, “My understanding is the Bible teaches…. rather than the Bible teaches.
We should when someone is making a questionable statement say, “Lets open up the Bible and read the scriptures on what it says about that topic.”
“honor and submit also means a Christian has to vote”
Tim, the problem is that too many people don’t really know WHAT the Bible says, they just know what they’ve HEARD other people SAY the Bible says. On a related thought, we need to know when to answer with a specific quote from Scripture or a genralization of a thought or principle. There is obviously nothing wrong with quoting Scripture to answer a question. Christ quoted specific verses when he answered Satan in the Wilderness. Peter used specific passages on the Day of Pentecost. Yet at other times, Christ and the apostles used generalizations of texts, especially when dealing with non-scholars. I think we need to be careful in both instances, for unlike Jesus, Peter, etc., we aren’t miraculously guided in our knowledge by the Holy Spirit. Prefacing with “my understanding is….” is probably a wise approach. (However, where i’m from they’d accuse you of being weak about standing for the truth if you showed anything less than 100% certainty in standing up and “confronting error.”) The wishy-washy build their house upon the sand, you know….
Randy Harris’ illustration about polygamy comes to mind. I heard him say once that, early in the semester, he liked to challenge his undergrad bible students to think about how preaching the gospel would engage with polygamous cultures – whether the missionary should require that polygamous relationships be severed as a part of repentance. Upon receiving the typical undergrad reply, “Of course they have to break up those marriages! The NT says polygamy is wrong!” Randy would say something like, “Oh really? Prove it.”
His favorite student response was, “Jesus said, ‘No man may serve two masters.'”
Indeed, there is never anything wrong with quoting Scripture – Scripture that actually answers a question correctly or at least sheds light on the path towards an answer. But sometimes, we quote Scripture that sounds like it answers the question, but really doesn’t – it sometimes just gives a biblical veneer to our own opinion. I’ve done this enough to know – it’s pretty addictive, actually.
Thanks for dropping by Joe. I guess I would envision a “prohibition” as being stated more directly. Taking the whole context of the Bible, including passages which praise alcohol and include the possibility of using strong drink in worship to God, it’s hard to make a case for the Bible forbidding strong drink. You can say it’s unwise, dangerous, leads to sin, any number of things, but to say that the Bible forbids its use is to misrepresent what the Bible says.
Does the Bible teach that we are to obey the laws of nations? I think we’ve heard that said so many times that we accept it as true. And I’m certainly not advocating a lawless lifestyle. But it doesn’t say that and we’re hard pressed to say it teaches some requirement for Christians to obey earthly laws. Think about Esther. She could have clung to the excuse that it was illegal for her to come before the king. There was nothing in God’s Law that actually compelled her to go before the King. Yet it’s obvious from the story that it was right for her to break that law, even though it in no way violated God’s Law.
As for the story involving the young man, he literally said, “The book of Psalms says…” when the other man cut him off, saying “My Bible says that was nailed to the cross.” If the book of Psalms was nailed to the cross, somebody forgot to tell the New Testament writers! They sure quoted the Psalms a lot.
Your suggestions at the end of your comment are very good.
Of course, there’s nothing wrong with quoting Scripture to answer a question. I’m talking about misquoting Scripture.
I would caution, though, that using “proof texts” is a very tricky business. Because of the intricacies of Bible study, glibly quoting passages can lead us to say things that weren’t intended. I don’t know that Proverbs really means that all winking is evil (Proverbs 16:30), nor that sleep is forbidden for God’s people (Proverbs 6:4). And I have a hard time believing that money is the answer to everything (Ecclesiastes 10:19).
And yes, humility is often seen as a sign of weakness/wishy-washyness.
Good discussion and reminder. I know I fall into that trap from time to time.
Tim, I think your Esther illustration is pretty specious, especially viewed through authoritative interpretation of Leviticus 19:18 that the Messiah established in Luke 10. You sort of argue as if our kingdom citizenship gives us diplomatic immunity to disregard human laws altogether – I know that you *said* that you’re not advocating a lawless lifestyle but since there are precious few laws in the New Testament… I’m sorta confused as to why I should get a driver’s license – I can certainly drive lovingly without one.
Nick
If you think through the consequences of your use of Leviticus 19:18, doesn’t it lead to some of what you’re saying, as well? Couldn’t I justify a Robin Hood lifestyle, robbing the rich and giving to the poor, doing it all in the name of loving my neighbor?
I’m really not advocating a lawless lifestyle. But I am trying to figure out what laws we follow and what laws we don’t. Saying “it doesn’t go against God’s Law” doesn’t always help. It’s easier when the authorities say, “Don’t preach Jesus.” What if they say, “Don’t allow black people to use your restroom”? What if they say, “Report all illegal aliens”? What if they say, “Don’t openly teach pacifism”?
Where does civil disobedience come in? Is it ever allowed? On what grounds? Do we fight for the rights of the homeless by breaking laws that mistreat them? Do we do that for undocumented workers?
Esther broke the law. Why was that right? Which laws can I break? How do I know?
Grace and peace,
Tim
Let me add, I think we obey human laws mainly out of fear of punishment from the authorities behind those laws. Not sure about now, but until recently, the Texas state constitution forbade the carrying of pliers in your back pocket, spitting on the sidewalk, etc. Few Christians would argue some moral obligation to follow those laws.
Christians regularly violate copyright laws. People drive over the speed limit. Some travel on planes without turning off their cell phones. We talk about obeying laws, but it’s really about the punishment, in my view.
Yes, that’s exactly the conclusion I gather from a theology that says disregarding earthly laws is never sinful – that Christians are free to disregard any earthly law so long as they do not violate God’s law. In the above illustration, I’m not stealing for myself – I don’t COVET my neighbor’s property – I’m a Christian, so I know better how that property should be distributed. As long as I don’t acquire that property by violence, why should a citizen of the kingdom of God pay any attention to the kingdom of the USA’s law against larceny?
All three of those are hypotheticals. Jim Crow laws were about public property – they had no authority to mandate what was done by private property-owners. The same legislation will eventually bite church institutions, who will no more be allowed to set their own hiring standards than business owners are allowed to set standards for who they serve.
As far as I know, no law in America says, “Report all illegal aliens.” The theme of today’s post is just as important in reading and applying earthly laws as it is in applying Scripture.
If Christians (American and otherwise – it isn’t just red-white-and-blue Republichristians) can’t even agree on whether pacifism is an orthodox doctrine, I’m pretty sure we’re getting kinda far afield in our hypotheticals.
I agree that Christians do, in fact, do many things. But I thought we were considering the “ought” rather than the “is.”
Nick,
I’m still digging through a lot of this. I’ve neither said that disregarding earthly laws is never sinful nor that Christians can freely disregard any laws. Pragmatically, life will be much easier if we come down on the side of blindly obliging Christians to obey laws. I’m just not there yet. And none of the explanations I’ve heard deal well with the questioned I raised in my comment.
So it’s your chance to be the first! Looking forward to your thoughts on the other points I raised.
Tim
Just for the record, I’ve heard it preached that Esther sinned by breaking the law. The ends don’t justify the means. However, God did use that for good (at least for the Jews). The rationale for teaching this is the warnings against lawlessness, which apply to not only the law of Moses but also breaking man-made laws. From an absolutists standpoint, we will have to answer for breaking the speed limit, leaving our cell phones on while on an airplane, using the internet at work to take part in religious blogs, etc. When faced with a decision between obeying man’s law and obeying God’s law, we obey God’s, because God’s law is supreme. Just giving you the argument. Excellent points have been made to show how we haven’t lived up to the doctrine we’ve espoused throughout the brotherhood through the years.
I wonder how much division occurs where someone has equated their interpretations as being what the Bible actually says.
I promise, I’m not recommending that anyone do anything blindly. Cost must be counted, and you’re right that the Scriptures do not literally say, “Christians must obey the law of the countries in which they reside.” Of course, once again, that expectation is an *awfully* high one to place upon a set of texts that were never intended to establish a code of laws. I agree that it doesn’t say what it doesn’t say, but we have to decide from a narrative theology POV – How do we expect such a text to convey such a message?
Maybe it is a technicality, maybe not, but since the king raised his scepter to her, she did not actually break the law. If she had broken the law, she would have been executed – that’s what the law said. But as the text says, there’s an exception *written into* the law for precisely what happened in her case. So while she took a risk, I think that (at least in the way the law is presented to us by the author) she took advantage of an exemption. Just like, even though US Law says that anyone who doesn’t pay Social Security tax gets punished, preachers who don’t pay it aren’t punished – they qualify for an exemption and thus are not lawbreakers. That’s the other reason why I think the Esther example is specious.
You’re asking for specific responses to general ideas, and that’s a good way to make sure you never get any satisfactory answers. Humility must answer, “I don’t know” to each of your questions – there are so many land mines built into just about every word.
From a kingdom perspective, what rights are we discussing? From a kingdom perspective, does anyone have any rights?
What constitutes mistreatment? The #Occupy crowd argues that the whole profit motive is maltreatment.
What about the rights of those people born in countries who don’t share a long, barely-guarded, wilderness border with the United States who don’t have the opportunity to intentionally break the law of the land?
I would also recommend for examination the examples of the Hebrew prophets – loud, passionate advocates for the poor and mistreated.
“Submit to the authorities,” while not being a blind blanket approval or mandate, has to mean something.
When laws are clearly parallel to God’s command, we’re obviously expected to obey them. When laws clearly contradict God’s command, we’re expected to disobey. Peter and John, even more clearly than us, had received a direct command from the Messiah to announce the good news (Laymond won’t like this, but in a related note, they call preaching the good news about Jesus – a command that came FROM Jesus, not from the voice in the heavens or from the scriptures – obedience to God).
But there’s a pretty broad gulf between those two concepts – a gulf that must be navigated with prayer and discernment and humility and integrity and community.
Don’t preach pacifism is a hypothetical? It wasn’t a hundred years ago. Look up Cordell Christian College.
But yes, the others are hypotheticals, but not that far-fetched, at least in my opinion.
Submit to the authorities did mean something, Nick. It meant don’t rebel against them as the Jews did. Of course, stripped from its context, it’s come to mean just about anything we want it to.
As for Esther, well, I don’t want to pick it apart too much. It was just a specific example that came to mind. She says, “I will go to him, though it is against the law.” We won’t find many examples, because for much of the context of the Bible, civil and religious law were one and the same.
That’s a very close to how I see it.
These days, someone I’m close to is about to have an immigration hearing. Will he be deported, separated from his wife and kids? Will the wife go with him? What about the kids that are citizens? As I think about all of that, some would say, “Well, he’s violating the law. Since he’s a Christian, he has an obligation to leave this country.” I’m wondering about a lot of that. Can a Christian violate immigration laws for the good of his family? Must we as Christians tell such scofflaws to go back to the place they came from?
That’s part of what I’m wrestling with as far as “Christians must obey all earthly laws” is concerned.
Tim, while I’m not an expert on the Cordell situation, I can’t find anything that was actually made illegal except the publication of material encouraging people to break the draft laws. Once again, what’s good for the goose (in this case, the theme of today’s blog that we pay strict attention to the authoritative texts themselves) must also be good for the gander (speaking of the authoritative texts we don’t like). Preaching pacifism was not made illegal. It was immensely unpopular and had an extraordinary weight of social pressure brought to bear against it, but just as the text of holy Scripture doesn’t say, “Christians must obey all earthly laws,” the text of federal law did not say, “Professors may not openly preach pacifism.”
The school was shut down – as far as I can tell – nominally because of the death threats, but practically because the pacifism stance had made the school so unpopular that attendance and financial support plummeted.
I think this is a even more damning way to tell the story, because instead of being able to merely paint the government as big bad Caesar, the guilt is spread
OK, maybe I’m mixing Cordell with the Gospel Advocate in my mind. Let me quote Mike Casey:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3244/is_3_44/ai_n28951865/pg_3/?tag=content;col1
If that’s not good enough, then just call it a hypothetical that comes VERY close to reflecting reality.
Really? I appreciate that we’re trying to avoid overexpansion, but it seems dangerously reductionary to say that all Paul meant when writing that to the Roman Christians was, “Don’t put together an army, form a rebel government, and lay siege to Capitoline Hill.”
Why isn’t the expected behavior of the exiles towards the government in Babylon our default setting as exiles ourselves?
If we’re looking for a principle, I think we have to strike through the adjective first, and ask the question…
Another related question is, Why should a Christian expect not to be punished for civil disobedience? The powers aren’t that smart! The best thing the powers in the South in the ’60s could have done was to ignore Dr. King, the Freedom Riders, etc. It was the violent response of the powers that put the activity on the map and spelled doom for the way the powers were running the world.
On the citizenship question, how does our own citizenship in a kingdom that has requirements for citizenship relate to a government’s responsibility to establish and enforce such citizenship requirements before sharing the benefits of citizenship?
On the pacifism point – the amendments to the Sedition Act by which McQuiddy was threatened with prosecution are the same ones with which Watchtower president Joseph Rutherford was actually convicted – were repealed in 1921.
The Sedition Act, as a whole, has been one of the most controversial laws in American history, which shows a profound difference between governments based on the Roman Republican model and governments based on other, more centralized and less self-correcting, models. This form of government is relentlessly self-examining and self-correcting. The vast majority of governments over the course of human history have shown very little concern over whether their actions were just. Rome (especially as a republic) and the United States, while by no means perfect or anything else, had and have a track record for agonizing over historic injustices. Look at the reputation that Rome has in the Maccabean literature. Look at the reputation of centurions in Luke-Acts. Not all governments necessarily function as tyrants or deify themselves.
Nick,
I’m not saying that Romans 13 only has to do with armed rebellion. At the same time, the idea that Christians were to take every point of Roman law and make it “Christian law” seems foreign to the context. Christians were to seek quiet lives, not lives of continual uprising like the Jews. This would indeed mean accepting most of Roman law.
Many see Jeremiah 29 as a model for us. I don’t have a problem with that, especially if we’ll take seriously the whole concept of maintaining the identity of exiles while praying for the good of the place we find ourselves.
Grace and peace,
Tim
The biggest difference I see is that one makes citizenship open to all who are willing to accept the requirements, while many earthly governments restrict not only citizenship, but residence. The average person who wants to become a citizen of the kingdom may do so; the average person who wants to immigrate to the U.S. (for example) may not.
“Willing to accept the requirements.” I know this is a stickling point in the immigration debate, but I agree that it is foundational to the discussion.
I disagree that the average person who wants to become a citizen of the kingdom of God may do so. Desire is not the only requirement – many would love to ignore repentance; many would like a syncretic citizenship. As we’ve discussed before, many are on church rolls who are probably not kingdom citizens. Messiah set the bar for citizenship pretty high.
I think one of the major problems I see is where adherence to immigration laws and regulations is made a term of Christian fellowship. I have no firm answer on how to address that yet, but I am VERY uncomfortable with it.
I grew up in South Africa. The Group Areas Act meant that it was illegal for our live-in cleaner’s husband to spend the night with her (he didn’t have a permit for the area). So my parents broke the law once a week for decades by allowing him to stay on a Saturday night. Denying him that right would have unChristlike. Just one very small example.. many Christians broke much more serious laws in opposing the apartheid regime.
Unwillingness is one thing. Inability is another.
“Laymond won’t like this,” Actually Nick, I am pretty proud to say I know you.
I believe you are studying the scriptures and, understanding them better than many who have had longer to read them.
Yep, you make any Christian brother proud. keep it up.
Actual inability is one thing. Professed inability is another.
How many people have not received kingdom citizenship because they’ve said, “I just can’t [fill-in-the-blank]?”
Nick, you know me well enough to make statements like this, I don’t like it when someone counters, what Jesus himself said so plainly.
(Laymond won’t like this, but in a related note, they call preaching the good news about Jesus – a command that came FROM Jesus, not from the voice in the heavens or from the scriptures – obedience to God).
Jhn 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
Jhn 12:50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.
The Bible is a pathetic immoral old book, with a load of inconsistencies and wickedness. The Old Testament was written by drunken goatherds, and the New Testament was written by the Roman aristocracy in order to keep the slaves from converting to Judaism.
Mike,
Sorry to see that you prefer to repeat the sayings of those who don’t know rather than investigate the facts. Or are you just trolling?
Either way, God bless you.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer