Pastor to Pastor
10/28/08
Is the Bible Out of Date?
Roger,
My best friend and I were talking recently and he said to me during a discussion about God that, "the bible was written for people who lived a long time ago and its word does not pertain to us today." He was referring to our conversation about the man as head of the household and him needing to lead as head of the household. His spouse is very liberal and a feminist and he was telling me in so many words that the word of God saying that men were the head of household is no longer pertinent today because times have changed. I know this thinking is wrong but how might I explain that the God of Adam is still the same today and that you can't just pick and choose what you follow from the Bible as a Christian?
Sincerely,
S
Dear S,
In a recent “Ask Roger” response I answered your question about the husband being the head of the household (Ephesians 6:21-33). I will now respond to the other issue you brought up: “Is the Bible old-fashioned and out of date?”
My answer is, “No, the Bible is not old fashioned nor out of date—although it may appear that way if not properly interpreted and understood.”
Let me share several principles in handling the Bible properly. Bible verses must be brought closely into focus. Several lenses—properly focused—can help make this happen. We must examine such things as the history, culture, language and other Bible passages all of which form the background and context of a particular Bible teaching.
Let’s begin by focusing the Historical Lens. Consider again Paul’s instructions in Ephesians 5:21-33, regarding husbands and wives. Paul taught that husbands and wives are to submit to each other (verse 21). He then instructed women to submit to their husbands as they do to the Lord Jesus and to respect their husbands. He then instructed husbands to sacrifice their lives for their wives like Jesus Christ sacrificed His life for His church.
The Historical Lens puts this passage in a first-century-Roman-world setting. Women were treated poorly in the Roman world (as they still are in many cultures). Wives had no security in marriage. Their husbands could divorce them on a whim. They could be turned out from the home absolutely destitute. Women had little or no legal status. It was common for a man to have a wife, as well as several other mistresses. His legal wife was to raise his family and to pass on the family name legitimately. The other women were for sex.
Focusing the history lens we discover that Paul’s teachings were revolutionary for his times! Paul was not subjugating women to be under a man’s will and volition; he was elevating them to positions of equal submission and deep-seated security and protection. A husband was not to divorce his wife nor turn her out. He was to ensure that her needs were met first—even before his own! No one in the first-century world ever thought like this! But, in a Christian marriage, love and companionship rule.
Now, let’s focus the Cultural Lens. First-century culture drastically devalued women. They were often not allowed in public—unless in the company of their husbands—and even then they were to walk behind their husbands and certainly not beside them and especially not ever, ever in front of them. In Israel they were not allowed to participate in the Jewish synagogue services. In fact, they were segregated outside the building where they peered through windows in attempts to see and hear what was happening inside. Paul’s teaching was culturally incomprehensible to the Jews and Greeks of that world. Not only were women moved by Paul into compassionate roles of love and partnership with their husbands, they were allowed total involvement in the new Christian churches.
Finally, understanding the above, let’s clearly focus the Scriptural Lens. Paul lifted women to equal footings with men in the Christian church. He declared equality in Christ in Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
As we focus our lenses we see that the overriding principle for relationships between man and women is not the subjugation of women—but the liberating freedom of women from the often crushing and devaluation that occurs in most cultures.
Now, let me give several words of advice about interpreting verses from the Old Testament (the large portion of the Bible written before Jesus came to earth).
The Old Testament is replete with rules for proper behavior, many of which sound strange and ridiculous to us. The Old Testament has two categories of laws—only one of which is still applicable for today. Knowing which category a particular teaching fits into is critical for properly understanding the relevance of Old Testament teachings.
The first category consists of the Ceremonial and Constitutional Laws that governed the religion and government of Israel. Since Israel was a theocracy the ceremonial and religious laws often blended indistinguishably together. Many of these laws were deeply concerned with purity (for both health and religious reasons). Touching any dead or unclean animal rendered a person unclean. Cleaning was effected by going to a priest, confessing the sin and making an offering to the Lord. This law was enunciated in Leviticus 5:2-6: “If a person touches anything ceremonially unclean—whether the carcasses of unclean wild animals or of unclean livestock or of unclean creatures that move along the ground—even though he is unaware of it, he has become unclean and is guilty.”
Of course, none of us wants to handle road kill; but, no one would consider touching dead animals in the street as sins. Horses are in the category of religiously unclean animals; but, no one today would considerer riding horses to be sins. We are not subject to the Mosaic Laws which governed the nation of Israel. (By the way, these religious laws are worth studying. Many of them are Old Testament shadows of the coming reality of Jesus Christ.)
The second Old Testament category consists of the Moral Laws that transcend all cultures. These are normative and are to be followed rigorously. For example, Leviticus 18:6-7 details moral values dealing with incest: “No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD. Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.” Incest is a breaking of a moral law which transcends all times and places.
The Ten Commandments contain an overarching set of moral laws. Leviticus 19:11-15 summarizes several of them: “Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not deceive one another…. Do not defraud your neighbor or rob him…. Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.”
If an Old Testament teaching is a religious or constitutional law of Israel, ignore it. It is not authoritative for us today. On the other hand, if it is an eternal moral truth, you can safely obey it—without question—knowing that this moral value is for your personal good and for the good of people around you.
I hope you find these thoughts helpful as you sort out the applicable truths in the Bible for healthy living. The Bible, properly understood, is not designed to bring us into misery and bondage. God’s Word is designed to bring us into the abundant life that Jesus promised in John 10:10: “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.”
I hope these thoughts help.
Love, Roger
Comments
a couple of comments. First, regarding the question about which of the Old Testament Mosaic Laws apply to us today, I believe that this is the wrong question to ask. I think a Jewish perspective may be of some help in answering this question.
First, a disclaimer. I am not Jewish. I have never been Jewish. None of my family is, or ever have been, Jewish. What I am about to write comes from my own personal reading. If someone who does have a Jewish background (or some keener, better-informed insight) would like to comment on this I would welcome their input.
Instead of asking which of the laws in the old testament apply to us, the right question to ask, in my view, is which covenant applies to us gentiles today. From my reading, I gather that a Jewish rabbi would say that the covenant that Moses and the children of Israel made with Yahweh is not binding on gentiles. It just does not, nor will it ever, apply to us. On the other hand, Jews would say that there is a covenant made between Noah and his children and Yahweh that does still apply to us as gentiles. It is recorded in Genesis 9:1-17. (Wikipedia has a nice summary of the seven laws of Noah.) In fact, there is an echo of this covenant in the New Testament when the church decided the question of whether gentiles had to first become Jews before they could become Christians. The answer was, of course, that gentiles do not need to convert to Judaism before they could become Christians. The letter that this council sent out to the gentile believers informing them of their decision has an echo of the Noachic covenant laws (Acts 15:28, 29).
This does not mean that the rest of the Torah is irrelevant to us as gentiles. In fact, Jews would say that it is good for all of us, both Jew and gentile, to study Torah. The Talmud describes an encounter between Hillel, someone the Jews consider a great rabbinic sage, and a gentile. This gentile insisted that Hillel summarize the entire Torah while standing on one leg before he would begin studying Torah. Hillel responded, while standing on one foot, "That which you dislike don't do to your fellow: That’s the basis of Torah. The rest is commentary; go learn Torah!" Clearly, Jews consider Torah study to be appropriate for everyone, whether Jew or gentile.
My second point is about the status of women in the Christian church. I gather that S.'s friends are concerned that involvement in the church would be a step down in status for her. It might be instructive to see how Jesus interacted with women in his ministry.
The one instance that stands out in my mind is the story of Mary and Martha. Most people seem to concentrate on the altercation between Martha and Jesus and all but forget what precipitated the exchange. Note that this was not merely a tiff over who was going to do the chores that day. The argument was over the fact that Mary was "sitting at the feet" of Jesus. Without some historical context we could easily miss what is being said here. My reading has suggested to me that this turn of phrase, "sitting at the feet", is the same one Paul uses when he describes his rabbinical studies under Gamaliel. In other words, Mary was not a passive listener, while Jesus told a few parables to his disciples. She was very much an active learner. Essentially, she had enrolled in Jesus' rabbinical school! This is even more remarkable when we consider that Jewish women at that time did not study Torah; there was a proverb from around that time that said something to the effect that "It is better to throw the Torah scroll into the fire than to place it into the hands of a woman." Jesus clearly had different ideas about the place of women in his ministry. In this light it would appear that Jesus may have actually been--*gulp* dare I even think it?--a progressive-thinking, feminist sympathizer! Just to put some icing on this proverbial cake, I will also note that Paul frequently mentions various women church leaders by name in his letters. It might be good for us to keep these points in mind when we try to interpret what Paul is actually trying to say in those seemingly "anti-women" passages in his letters.
well, I'm not Roger, but I'll give my $0.02 worth. I have been volunteering with a group this past year ministering to refugees resettled to our community. Many of these refugees are Muslim. It has truly been a delight to help them get resettled here and I hope that everyone in our community would give these people--many of them fleeing from war and persecution back home--a warm welcome. Not only is it the christian thing to do, but you will certainly meet some delightful, warm-hearted people in the process.
As for the question of whether we actually worship the same God. First, Jews, Christians, and Muslims all trace their spiritual descent from Abraham so, in that sense we do worship the same God. On the other hand, I think a cautionary warning is in order. I have found, from my personal experience, that while we use very similar religious vocabulary we often have very different meanings for the words we use. As an example, what you and I, as Christians, mean by the word "prophet" will likely be very different from what a Muslim means when using that same word. It can easily lead to confusion and hurt feelings when discussing religious issues, if you are not careful. Because of this and other instances, I can't help but feel from my initial impression that the similarities that the Pope sees may be more superficial than real. In other words, peel back the layers and we may find that there is a bit less in common there than might first appear.
All of the above might be interesting for spirited discussion but, personally, I am much more concerned about how Islam is lived out in Muslim countries around the world today. In many Muslim lands living as a Christian can be difficult, to say the least. It is particularly difficult for converts out of Islam and into Christianity. Abandoning the faith of Islam for another religion, apostasy, is a very serious issue in the Land of Islam. In many instances it leads to death, imprisonment, and other forms of persecution.
I don't know if it was the same conference as "Common Word" but, recently petitioners, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestants from North Africa and the Middle Eat, wanted a meeting in the Vatican to agree to the following points:
1. that Islamic law does not apply to non-Muslims;
2. that dhimmi (or second class) status be abolished;
3. that the right to change religion be recognized as a fundamental right.
While Muslims and Christians may never agree on what it means to be a prophet of God, I would hope that at the very least we could all agree on the points of this petition.
I hope this helps.
Post a Comment
