The phrase “the Bible is clear” tends to make my left eye twitch a little these days. No matter which way the phrase is utilized (and I notice several common applications), it’s generally a conversation-ender instead of a conversation-starter. It’s meant to be the granddaddy of mic drops. But a closer look at The Good Book reveals that the picture is a lot more murky than Christian bumper stickers would have us believe. This series will discuss five reasons I think the Bible is actually opaque.
- “The Bible is clear” claims internal consistency, but reading the text unravels the concept of inerrancy.
There are a lot of things in the Bible that just don’t “line up,” if our expectation is inerrancy (a text without error, due to being incapable of error (infallibility), and therefore completely trustworthy in everything it proclaims). A few “uh-oh spots” that have troubled me:
- Did Judas die by hanging himself (Matthew 27:5), or did he fall down in a field and spill his intestines (Acts 1:18)?
- Is the order of Creation plants, animals, people (Genesis 1), or man, plants, animals, woman (Genesis 2)?
- Did God tell Noah to bring seven pairs of every clean animal and one pair of every unclean animal on to the ark (Genesis 7:2) or just one pair of each species (Genesis 6:19, 20 & Genesis 7:8,9)?
- Did God save Ninevah (Jonah) or did God destroy Ninevah (Nahum)?
Oh, and:
- Why are the genealogies of Jesus so vastly different in Matthew 1 and in Luke 3?
- Why is the history of Israel recorded in Samuel/Kings different than the history of Israel recorded in Chronicles?
- Why does Deuteronomy 23:1-3 say foreigners and eunuchs cannot be admitted to the assembly of the Lord, but Isaiah 56: 3-7 says they can be?
- Why are the rules concerning Hebrew slaves not consistent? (Exodus 21: 2,7: Hebrew male slaves may go free in the 7th year, but female Hebrew slaves may not; Deuteronomy 15:12: Male and female slaves can go free; Leviticus 25: 39-43: Do not have Hebrew slaves period)
I often hear 2 Timothy 3:16 quoted as a proof-text for the perfection of Scripture: “All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” But what about John 5:36 when Jesus affirms John’s testimony but then says his is greater? Does this suggest — on any level — that some parts of Scripture carry more weight than other parts? And what about the fact there are four gospels? Why would four similar — but undeniably different — accounts of the same story be included in the Bible, one right after another, if we weren’t free — no, invited! — to consider multiple points of view?
Many of us have a black and white view of truth. Only one interpretation (mine) can be true, so the alternatives have to be false. If any part of the Bible is relevant today, then the whole thing has to be. Interestingly, I’ve noticed that atheists and conservative Christians sometimes approach the Bible the same way, with this all-or-nothing premise (the former finding that it’s “nothing” and the latter finding that it’s “all”). Maybe there’s a third way? Maybe there’s an option that prizes the Bible’s deep value while also acknowledging its undeniable blemishes? Maybe there are choices beyond “throw it in the garbage” and “our sole authority on all matters of faith and practice”?
The more I read the Bible, the more I must admit that it is not internally consistent. It *does* say contradicting things. And sure, you *can* harmonize some of the contractions. Google will spit out something for all of them, probably. But there’s an awful lot of harmonization that’s needed — it’s hundreds of instances, not two or three. And in some cases it takes significant mental gymnastics to squish our ancient messy Bible into the inerrant box we want it to fit in. (And never mind that we don’t have the original manuscripts to verify any of this…)
Eventually, slowly, over a long time, my intellect whispered to me, oh-so-timidly…
…Are you sure this thing is inerrant? I know you see the inconsistencies. You’re having to keep me pretty suppressed to maintain your position. You used to let me speak more; you thought I was fairly smart. You let me breathe on other issues — you claim that critical thinking is important. Maybe you could lean on your own understanding just a little. I have some thoughts about all this, if you’ll listen.
If you’d like to read more stuff like this, might I suggest:
- Peter Enns’ books and podcast, The Bible for Normal People, are excellent. Pete is a professor of biblical studies at Eastern University. He also writes blog posts such as these: What is the Bible? A Good Question That Biblical Inerrancy Can’t Answer
- The late Rachel Held Evans is one of my heroes and her books and blog are chocked full of thought-provoking insights about inerrancy and the Bible in general, for example: God Hates Cretans? (and other passages of Scripture we’d rather not talk about).
“My interpretation can only be as inerrant as I am, and that’s good to keep in mind.” — Rachel Held Evans
