Is the Bible without error in all that it affirms or teaches?<\/p>\n
Many of us are no doubt familiar with this way of articulating inerrancy<\/a>. Its advantage is that those things that are not affirmed or taught can be in \u201cerror,\u201d at least error-like in that they don\u2019t need to be obeyed\u2013like the pessimistic theology of Qohelet, or Ps 137, where the psalmist is giddy with the thought of Babylonian babies\u2019 heads smashed against rocks.<\/p>\n Portions of Scripture they do affirm\/teach include the 10 Commandments, Jesus\u2019s teachings on forgiveness, the Beatitudes, and many other things.<\/p>\n Of course, Christians don\u2019t often agree on what exactly \u201caffirm\u201d or \u201cteach\u201d mean and which passages fit that description. That in a nutshell is the evangelical hermeneutical adventure, and let the games begin.<\/p>\n For example, does Genesis 1 not affirm\/teach that the cosmos was formed in 6 days? Many will say yes, of course, while others will say no, since the author\u2019s intention is not to affirm\/teach something about the formation of the cosmos.<\/p>\n Personally, even though I don\u2019t agree with them, I do think the former group is more consistent with the \u201caffirm\/teach\u201d standard of inerrancy, and the latter are clearly influenced by extra-biblical factors such as science and the historical study of Scripture. And how do they know what the author\u2019s intention is, anyway?<\/p>\n Further, even when people agree that the Bible is indeed affirming\/teaching, there is no guarantee that behavior will match the creed (as in the case of Jesus\u2019 teachings).<\/p>\n What\u2019s got me thinking about this is Romans 13:1-7. There Paul famously wrote what can be nothing other than a number of quite clear and striking affirmations and teachings about God, the government, and what that means for the rest of us plebes.<\/p>\n If I may summarize Paul: The governing authorities have been instituted by God and to resist these authorities is to resist God. If you conduct yourself well, you have nothing to fear. If you do what is wrong, you will feel the brunt of their authority, since they do not bear the sword in vain, do they? \u00a0Of course not. The authorities are God\u2019s servants.<\/em><\/p>\n It sounds to me like Paul is affirming and teaching something.<\/p>\n I also think there are major problems with taking Paul\u2019s words as a binding affirmation\/teaching.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t need to draw you all a map. No one who is an American citizen thinks Paul\u2019s words are binding, given how our country was founded in rebellion to the governing authorities.<\/p>\n \u201cBut some powers are corrupt,\u201d some might say. Well, I don\u2019t see Paul giving us that option in his affirmation\/teaching. Governing authorities simply are<\/em> instituted by God. Period. What he says is \u201cclear,\u201d and if we can\u2019t trust what God is saying here so clearly, then we can\u2019t trust him anywhere. Paul gives no expiration date or escape clause.<\/p>\n I know many Christians who are more than willing to take these words of Paul as a clear and binding \u201cteaching\u201d\u2013that is, as long as their guy is in the White House.<\/p>\n Anyway, you get my point. Paul in Romans 13:1-7 certainly has his affirming and teaching hat on.<\/p>\n The truth is, I don\u2019t know many Christians who take Paul at his word here. They may try to deftly extract themselves by saying that Paul is merely giving an ideal<\/em> principle, or that only\u00a0legitimate <\/em>authorities\u00a0<\/em>are instituted by God.<\/em><\/p>\n But again, that\u2019s just \u201cadding\u201d something to God\u2019s word, which clearly makes a pretty cut and dried case for human governmental authorities as instituted by God.<\/p>\n But a proper understanding of these words of Paul\u2019s, as with most other things in Scripture, requires some sensitivity to their\u00a0historical\/cultural or literary context (or both).<\/p>\n In his commentary Reading Romans<\/a><\/em> First, in the Greco-Roman world, the basic social order was a household, with the father as the head. This social order was then applied to the empire<\/a>, where the emperor was \u201chead of the family\u201d (paterfamilias<\/em>).<\/p>\n That \u201corder\u201d was not remotely thought of as changeable as in the post-Enlightenment world, where governments rule by the consent of the people.<\/p>\n Paul\u2019s claim about God and government, therefore, was completely unexceptional for his day\u2013part of his cultural environment and utterly natural to him and his readers.<\/p>\n Also remember that in Paul\u2019s day, neither Judaism nor this new Jewish subgroup of Jesus followers was considered an immediate threat to Rome, and so they all more or less got along. At another time we should not presume Paul\u2019s thinking would have remained the same\u2013such as later in Paul\u2019s life when Christian persecutions were underway, or perhaps when Romans were killing Jews and razing their temple in AD 70.<\/p>\n As Johnson concludes,<\/p>\n Paul cannot be held responsible for his practical advice<\/span> later taken as divine revelation and as the basis for a Christian theology of state. That is too much weight for a few words of contingent remarks<\/span> to bear\u2026. Simply \u201creading it off the page\u201d as a directive for life is to misread it and to distort it, for the world in which it made self-evident sense no longer exists and never can<\/span>. (p. 201; my emphasis).<\/em><\/p>\n Translation: There\u2019s more to reading the Bible faithfully than just doing what it says, no matter of clearly it\u00a0seems\u00a0<\/em>to be telling us what to do.<\/strong><\/p>\n Which leads me to my point:<\/p>\n And in doing so we may come to see that when the Bible is affirming\/teaching something, that does not mean it is binding<\/strong>. It may mean that it no longer is.<\/p>\n And if anyone wishes, they can still call that \u201cinerrant.\u201d<\/p>\n What I am saying here about Romans 13:1-7 is not radical. I suspect many evangelicals would play the context card as Johnson does. And that is precisely part of the biblical literalist complaint: \u201cYou weak-in-the-knees quasi-evangelicals are always taking a clear affirmation\/teaching of the Bible and relativizing it with your fancy-pants talk of context and the ancient world and whatnot.\u201d<\/p>\n They have a point, actually. I can see tons of wiggle room in Genesis 1, Ecclesiastes, etc. in the affirm\/teach definition of inerrancy. But not when a biblical author is using words that in any other place would be described as a list of imperatives\u2013clear affirmations\/teachings. I mean, if not in Romans 13:1-7, then where?<\/p>\n Anyway, that was just on my mind at the moment. And this is why I think inerrancy\u2013however intended or defined<\/a> At the end of the day, you simply can\u2019t avoid genre and context when talking about how the Bible works. And when you do, definitions of inerrancy seem less and less convincing.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com\/e\/ir?t=inspirandinca-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1573122769\")
To think of Paul\u2019s words as a timeless blueprint, therefore, despite how clearly he is affirming\/teaching, is a mistake.<\/h2>\n
Clear affirmations\/teachings, just like everything else in the Bible, need to be seen in context.<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com\/e\/ir?t=inspirandinca-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0310331366\")