*Apparent Contradictions in the Bible: A Brief Study of Interpretation and The Fall and Salvation
Apparent Contradictions in the Bible: A Brief Study of Interpretation and The Fall and Salvation.
Having studied the Bible and the Christian Worldview for over 8 years, I will attempt to clear up some confusion.
>However I do want to note that most “apparent contradictions” in the Bible are a result of misinterpretation. Just as there is a philosophy of History there is a philosophy of Biblical Interpretation. I will briefly discuss the one that I use:
--A passage ultimately has only one correct interpretation (meaning), but may have various practical implications or applications. Most confusion is because of our limited understanding of the text: language, culture, literary type, communication… Proper Biblical Interpretation includes the Correspondence theory of truth, historical-grammatical interpretation and Laws of Logic.
Let’s begin with some definitions:
Exegesis (natural or literal sense of interpreting) is exposing all that the biblical text contains in its grammatical, historical, cultural, literary context.
Hermeneutics is the art and science by which one interprets the biblical text. The goal is to capture what has been described as a “pure biblical theology, which is an isolation and presentation of the unchanging biblical teachings with are valid for all times. It results from a natural, normal reading of Scripture, consistently taken in context and at face value. It is the logical and obvious way to read any literature and is a literal, grammatical-historical hermeneutic. When a literal hermeneutic is applied to the interpretation of Scripture, every word written in Scripture is given the normal meaning it would have in its normal everyday usage.
_________________________________________________________________________________
-- Two Systems of Theology:
1. Covenant Theology
a. allegorizing and spiritualizing portions of the text
b. theological covenants : works, redemption, grace
c. assembled by deductive reasoning
d. practices allegorization and attempts to justify the allegorical method
e. allegorical interpretation:
1. assigns to the literal words in the text secondary meanings that are not expressly taught by the words
2. believe that beneath the letter or the obvious is the real meaning of the passage
3. determines whether the secondary, or hidden, meaning was an intended meaning of the original writer or merely something imported by the interpreter
4. Note: this is not the same as an allegory, A literary device used to illustrate a point
2. Dispensational Theology (Dispensationalism)
a. results from a natural, normal reading of Scripture, consistently taken in context and at face value
b. logical and obvious way to read any literature
c. literal hermeneutic
d. a posteriori—the Scriptures declare that God uses different dispensations or methods of divine household management, to manage the affairs of His creation
e. attempts to never allegorizes or spiritualizes the Scriptures
f. most dispensationalists agree that there are 7 dispensations or “duties telling what God wants people to do”
g. believe there are divine covenants (promises of what God will do for people) within dispensational periods of time such as the Noachic, Abrahamic, and Mosaic covenants.
3. I believe that a Natural Reading of Scripture will Result in Dispensational Theology:
a. requires that a distinction be made between the ethnic nation of Israel and the church
1. God has different purposes for and has made different promises to both
b. will result in a premillennial view of eschatology
4. Dispensational theology is what i believe is most logical and so, I use this for biblical interpretation.
5. if there seems to be a conflict in interpretation, the interpreter would choose the alternative that is the simplest
1. don’t choose simple alternatives for simplicity’s sake
2. diligently investigate all alternatives, consider the logical and natural harmony of God’s word, and after the consideration of the harmonized facts, embrace that which is most easily accepted
3. when alternative interp. seem equally plausible and contain equally good sense, the general rule of thumb is to choose the one interp. which imposes the least strain on credulity
b. when the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, and literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, clearly indicate otherwise
Some Foundational Principles of Interpretation:
1. Scripture interprets Scripture
a. God cannot teach in one place anything that is inconsistent with what He teaches in another
b. grammatical exegesis-- the necessity of examining the context, and comparing Scriptures that treat common subjects
2. Scripture cannot contradict Scripture
a. if a passage admits of different interpretations, the correct one should agree with what the Bible teaches elsewhere on the same subject
3. Take the words in their normal, literal, plain, historical sense
a. literal would imply the natural or usual construction and implication, following the ordinary and apparent sense of words rather than an allegorical or metaphysical sense
b. give attention to grammar; to times, circumstances, and conditions of the author of the biblical book; and to the context of the passage
c. be aware of the origin and root meaning of words, the etymology of words, comparison of words, the cultural use of words, the cognitive comparison of words, the grammar of sentences, principle of cross referencing
4. Allegorical interpretation must be rejected as an overall interpretative system
a. within the framework of literal interp. there is room for illustration, symbols, figures of speech, and poetry
5. All literary devices depend on the literal, normal stratum of language
a. parables, types, allegories, symbols, and figures of speech presume a level of understanding in the audience
6. Approach the word logically and systematically
7. Careful attention must be paid to the contextual whole of the Bible when studying a given verse or paragraph of the word
a. the overall Biblical context must be taken into account; the Word creates a context of itself
b. Old or New Testaments form contexts in themselves
c. the given gook or section of books form a context
d. the specific chapter in which the verse(s) come from is the more immediate context and so on.
8. Extra-biblical history also forms a context
9. Consider progressive revelation
a. in many prophecies of Scripture, God didn’t reveal everything at once concerning a specific truth or doctrine
b. over years and even centuries, a doctrine may be progressively expanded upon
10. must study the Bible dispensationally, looking for clues that indicate God is doing something different in biblical history that is important for the unfolding of a plan
a. without noting dispensational distinctions, can lead to interpretative problems that distort and dull the full message
11. if there seems to be a conflict in interpretation, choose the alternative that is the simplest
12. must realize the Bible contains figurative language, but it, too, has a literal point of reference
a. if the literal meaning of any word or expression makes good sense, it should be taken as literal
______________________________________________________________________________
Therefore, the conclusion that “God must "sacrifice himself to himself to change a rule he made himself!" is based on faulty premises. Understanding correctly what God is saving us from is essential for anyone to be saved. If one misunderstands this, their eternity is in jeopardy. There is a misunderstanding of the Christian worldview in particular the fall, salvation and the Old Testament and New Testament.
The Fall and Salvation
Man was originally created perfect, his spirit was in unbroken fellowship with God, man disobeyed, sin entered and resulted in consequences [on the physical body (physical death, disease), on the spirit (separation from God) and on the soul (shame, fear, rebellion, evil desires).] Now as a result, everyone is born disconnected from God and condemned to hell (Rom 5:12; Rom 3:10-12, 23 and Gen 1-3; rom 8; Gen 3; Psa 51:5; Isa 52:13-53:12; 64:6; Jer 17:9; John 3:1-36; Rom 1-8; Eph 2:1-10; Titi 3:3-8).
God created man with free will, the ability to choose right and wrong.
He gave Adam and Eve a choice to obey Him or not, they chose to sin and then sin and death (spiritual and physical) entered the world and spread to everyone thereafter.
Possible worlds God could have created
a. God could have created nothing at all.
b. God could have created only beings who were not free.
c. God could have created beings who were free to sin but did not sin.
d. God could have created beings who were free but must sin.
e. God could have created beings who were free to sin and did sin.
If man had to sin then there is no choice, they are not free to love (God).
Norman Geisler: “If God created beings who were free to sin, he could not at the same time guarantee that they did not sin.” The same conditions that are necessary for a free will response to love also create the possibility of rejection of that love. “Even God could not create free men without at the same time creating men who were free to rebel.” Evil or the possibility of evil, is a necessary condition and byproduct of a perfect moral world “A world with evil is a morally necessary prerequisite to the most perfect world possible. A less perfect moral world is possible, but then it would not be the most perfect moral world that an infinity perfect God could achieve… permitting evil is the best way to produce the best world” Only in a world with evil, the maximum number of people will come to God. This world, with free will is not the best world, but is the best way to the best possible world, to heaven. “There is no way to create a world where people where free to love God in order to experience the greatest good but are not fee to reject God’s love which is the greatest evil.” “God cannot force His love on anyone because forced love is not love; it is a contradiction in terms.”
So, all people are born condemned, guilty, relationally and spiritually separated from God, sentenced to hell and in need of Salvation. All are guilty of breaking God's moral laws, sinners by nature and by choice. (Romans 3:10,23; James 4:17; Galatians 3:10; James 2:10).
How is this possible?
The result of Adam and Eve’s sin in the garden and Adam’s sin being imputed or charged to the account of every person ever born. This means that the guilt or condemnation was imputed to the rest of humanity as well as the sinful nature which was passed down through biology and genetics (Gen 2:17; Heb 9:27; Psa 51:5; Jer 17:9; John 3:3; Eph 2:1-2; Rom 5:12-19).
God judicially imputed to each member of the human race the guilt of Adam’s first offense as his or her own sin. Sin is not imputed or charged when there is no law just like in our court system. All people were still sinners before the 10 Commandments or Law was given. The Bible says physical death is the result of our corrupted sinful nature inherited from Adam and not because of our sinful actions against the Law.
Sin is any thought or attitude, act or failure to act, that displeases God. It is disobedience to God’s moral law. All sin—inherited, imputed, or actual—has a price to be paid, everlasting or the second death for a person that never applies the value of Jesus’ atoning work, who never is saved (Rev 20:12-15; Rom 6:23; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Rev 21:8). History is God story in the redemption of man; it is a series of meaningful events leading to the fulfillment of God's ultimate purposes: (Creation, Fall, Redemption).
Because God is just and holy, He deals with sin and sinners as they deserve, condemning them and punishing them; all sin everywhere must be paid by someone somewhere; it is paid either by the sinner or by Christ. (Hebrews 9:27; Hebrews 2:2,3, 9:22; Romans 2:12; Rom 5:8; 1 Peter 2:24; 3:18; Isaiah 53:5-6 )
Jesus took the place of sinners on the cross (Mark 10:45; 2 Cor 5:14-15); He was their substitute; He bore the punishment of their sins (1 Pet 3:18)
How could God who is holy and just deal with sinners as they deserved and still deliver them from the punishment of their sins?
The debt of sins had to be paid; a substitute had to be found if sinners were to be delivered from this obligation.
Only God Himself was qualified to be this substitute (Isa 53:10; Act 4:12; John 14:6; Heb 2:14; Rom 5:6; 2 Cor 5:18; Psa 3:8; Job 9:32-33). Jesus met the holy and just requirements intrinsic in the basic nature of God (Rom 3:25)
There are only two parties involved: the condemned criminal (sinner) and the one who is the judge, wronged party, king (law) and substitute. God was not administering someone else’s’ law but His own; sin was not committed against someone else, but against Him; he did not take someone else and accept him as a substitute for the condemned sinner, but He came himself, and took upon Himself the nature of the guilty one and bore the penalty of His one law. At the cross, our sins were judicially transferred to Jesus and he bore our guilt, the obligation to pay our judicial debt--- death .
Therefore, The final destiny of those who have habitually sinned and have not accepted God’s offer of forgiveness through Jesus is judgment—eternal separation from God. To restore our relationship with Himself, God sent His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to earth to be crucified on the cross so we could be saved from the penalty of our sins. (John 3:16-21). When one recognizes their need for a Savior, that they are a sinner who deserves Hell, and puts their faith/ trust on what Jesus did on the cross for them, God applies its value to their accounts; if sinners do not trust in the Savior as their substitute, then they themselves must bear the full punishment of their sins (John 3:36)
The God of the Old Testament is exactly the God of the New Testament.
There is a saying that goes something like this: the New Testament is in the Old Testament contained, the Old is in the New revealed. In other words, what the OT predicts, NT fulfills.
Jesus is the theme of both Testaments: In the OT, there is the anticipation of Christ. It details His coming. In the NT, there is the realization of Christ. It details His arrival.
The five books of the Law detail God intervening in human history: Him choosing a nation, redeeming them, sanctifying them, guiding them and instructing them.
The next 12 books continue God's plan of preparation for the coming Messiah. They detail God's intervention in the nation of Israel as well as other nations. They include Israel's oppression, prosperity, sin and restoration.
The prophetic and poetic books fit into the historical structure. They show the aspiration of Israel for the Messiah in spiritual and moral matters.
The last 17 books look forward to the Messiah.
The OT does seem to focus more on God's wrath on sin and judgment. But His eternal nature has not changed. The teaching emphasis has moved from the temporal to the eternal. Examples: He is just (Deut 32:4; Jer 32:19; Psa 89:14; Rom 2:6, 11; 2Tim 4:8; Rom 3:24-26; 5:8; 1John 1:9), loving (John 3:16; Rom 5:8; Neh 9:17; Isa 54:8, 10; Psa 69:16; 92:2; Psa 100:5; Exod 34:6; Deut 7:9) and a hater of sin (Psa 5:5; 11:5; Hos 9:15; Rom 9:13; Rev 14:19; 15:1; 19:15; Rom 1:18; 2:2-12; 3:9-18; John 3:36; Matt 13:41-50).
There are areas of Scripture that are difficult to understand. But this does not mean the Bible is untrustworthy.
_________________________________________________________________________________
For more check out some of my other articles on http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=31816418806&ref=ts
Themes that were revealed in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New http://www.carm.org/christianity/bible/are-new-testament-themes-found-old-testament
>>Some good books on this topic:
-- Introduction to Bible Difficulties and Bible Contradictions http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/introduction-bible-difficulties-and-bible-contradictions
-- Bible Difficulties http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties
-- Interpreting the Bible http://www.carm.org/christianity/bible/how-interpret-bible
Notes
An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics by Male Couch
A Popular Survey of the New Testament by Norman L. Geisler
Examine The Evidence: How to Analyze Alleged Contradictions in the Bible by Ralph O. Muncaster