After Inerrancy: Evangelicals and the Bible in a Postmodern Age, Part 3
"The BioLogos Forum" is pleased to feature essays from various guest voices in the science-and-religion dialogue. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here.
Today's entry was written by
Kenton Sparks.
Kenton Sparks is professor of Biblical Studies at Eastern University and author of several books, including his latest God's Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship
This is the third entry of a seven-part series, which has been adapted from a Scholarly Essay of the same title. The first entry can be read here
In his previous post, Sparks extended the list of “tensions” in Scripture to include ethical matters, and concluded that Biblistic inerrancy “should never be granted any kind of fundamental status in the Christian faith.” In today’s blog, Sparks outlines some of our Christian forefathers’ thinking on Biblistic inerrancy.
Some Ancient Solutions
I do not want to give the impression that the kinds of problems I have outlined in my previous post have gone unaddressed among orthodox Christians. Christian interpreters have long recognized that the Bible presents us with interpretive challenges and apparent contradictions. How did men like Augustine, Gregory the Great, Aquinas, Calvin and Wesley handle these kinds of difficulties?
First, I wish to point out that our forefathers were generally sensitive to the way that their interpretations of Scripture would play before non-Christian audiences, especially when it came to matters of science. In his comments on the cosmology in Genesis, Aquinas said that “one should adhere to a particular explanation [of Scripture] only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”1 Father Augustine expressed a similar concern in his commentary on Genesis: “it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these [cosmological] topics, and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.”2 Augustine and Aquinas believed that Christians were responsible for the interpretations that they paraded before unbelievers. They also believed that where the scientific evidence seemed clear and convincing, our interpretations of Scripture would have to be adjusted accordingly.
Christian interpreters of the past generally used one of two different strategies to “adjust” Scripture’s meaning when it appeared to be wrong. One of these strategies was allegory. As Gregory the Great once said, “Undoubtedly the words of the literal text, when they do not agree with each other, show that something else is to be sought in them.”3 About a thousand years later John Wesley similarly wrote, “if the literal sense of these Scriptures are absurd, and apparently contrary to reason, then we should be obliged not to interpret them according to the letter, but to look out for a looser meaning.”4 Christians have long maintained that the Bible includes several mysterious levels of meaning and have turned to these when the so-called literal meaning seemed wrong.
The other common strategy for “adjusting” the Bible’s discourse actually admitted the errors but pinned the blame on the human audience of Scripture. John Calvin provides a good example. I have mentioned already that he understood the Genesis cosmology, with its heavenly waters, as an ancient and errant cosmology. In this case God and Moses merely “accommodated” their writings to the confused viewpoints of the ancient audience. Wesley allowed for something similar in his cosmology, and also admitted the possibility that the two genealogies of Jesus—in Luke and Matthew—were contradictory because the biblical authors consulted errant Jewish genealogies. Many other uses of “accommodation” appear in the biblical interpretation of the early Fathers of the Church.
But patristic uses of accommodation go beyond this. The Fathers realized that Scripture was not only influenced by human finiteness but also by human fallenness. This, they thought, was an obvious implication of the significant differences between the Old and New Testament views of God, theology and religious practice. Why, for instance, would God allow animal sacrifices in the Old Testament if these were really pagan in background and would be done away with in the New Testament? Here is the answer given by Gregory of Nazianzus, which I quote at length because it is particularly instructive:
And therefore like a Tutor or Physician [God] partly removes and partly condones ancestral habits, conceding some little of what tended to pleasure, just as medical men do with their patients, that their medicine may be taken, being artfully blended with what is nice … For instance, in the first [dispensation] he cut off the idol, but left the sacrifices; the second, while it destroyed sacrifices did not forbid circumcision. Then, when once men had submitted to the curtailment, they also yielded that which had been conceded to them: in the first instance the sacrifices, in the second circumcision, and became instead of Gentiles, Jews, and instead of Jews, Christians, being beguiled into the Gospel by gradual changes.5
Like some of the other early Christian fathers, Gregory argues that God allowed inferior and errant practices in Scripture because humanity was not prepared to manage their sudden elimination. Gregory only hints but does not explicitly say that the eliminated practices were actually bad or evil, but Father Justin was quite willing to say it:
We also would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all of your festivals, if we did not know why they were ordained, namely, because of your sins and hardness of your hearts … God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath and imposed on you other precepts for a sign, as I have already said, on account of your unrighteousness and that of your fathers.6
Justin found confirmation of his view in Ezekiel’s prophecy that God gave the Jews “laws that were not good” (Ezek 20:25). That is, Justin was willing to say (following Ezekiel) that God gave his people laws that were not good precisely because his people had fallen, hardened hearts (see Jesus’ comments in Matt ch. 19). Taken together, Gregory and Justin can easily be understood as saying this: Scripture’s discourse is adapted to and reflects human sinfulness, and these fallen elements of biblical religion are gradually eliminated in the course of the redemptive process.
In sum, our Christian forebears generally resolved the problems in Scripture by appeals to allegory and accommodation. Hermeneutical flexibility was of utmost importance because the problems were many and serious, and because the witness of the Church was at stake. For reasons that will become clear, I don’t believe that this two-pronged approach resolves all of the difficulties we face in Scripture. But I do believe that these earlier interpreters were on the right track.
In his next post, Sparks will point out the implications that Christ’s human nature should have on our understanding of Scripture.
Notes
1. Thomas Aquinas, pt. 1, q. 68, in Summa Theologica (5 vols.; Allen, TX: Christian Classics, 1981), 1:338.
2. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis (2 vols.; trans. J. H. Taylor; New York: Paulist Press, 1982), 1.42-43.
3. Gregory the Great, “Moralia in Job,” in William Yarchin, History of Biblical Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 89.
4. John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley (12 vols.; London: Wesleyan Methodist Book Room, 1872), 4:337.
5. Gregory of Nazianzus, Orations 5.25 (NPNF 2, 7:325-26)
6. Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 18.21 (ANF 1:203-4).
For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.
June 21st 2010
Nick, Martin, etc.:
Thus, Martin unnecessarily rescues the literal sense of the Bible, but ironically does it by a non-literal way of reading the Bible, i.e., by inventing miraculous events which the Bible never mentions and which clearly are not in tune with the plain or literal sense of the narrative he’s interpreting. He does this elsewhere, as I showed in a thread from several months ago about the waters above the firmament.
This is why literalism is so futile. The literalist ends up having to contradict his own first principle, i.e., ends up having to take huge liberties with the text in some places, in order to preserve a narrow literal understanding of the text in others. No consistely literal reading of the Bible can be maintained, and therefore literalism is a dead end.
Fortunately, ID is not committed to Biblical literalism. It shares Martin’s critique of “historical” sciences, but its objections to those sciences are not theological, but scientific; and they aren’t blanket rejections of historical science as such. Thus, Behe finds some neo-Darwinian claims unfounded, while accepting common descent and an ancient earth. ID is the non-dogmatic middle ground between YEC and Dawkins-Darwinism.
Reply to this commentJune 21st 2010
Dunemeister, You write, “Modern fundagelicals say that the flood story is straightforward history, whereas traditional commentators (from early Church Fathers onward) demur. The traditional approach to the flood (and creation) story rests much better with modern science than with the novel innovations of modern fundagelicalism.” This statement represents a gross oversimplification of the facts—for it gives the impression that insisting on a literal interpretation of biblical history is an innovation of modern times, whereas the more “traditional” approach is to read the text of Genesis in a “non-literal” manner. The fact is, however, that disagreement over how Genesis (and the Bible in general) should be interpreted goes all the way back to the church fathers and the dispute between the Antiochene and the Alexandrian approach to biblical interpretation. Basil the Great, who translated some of Origen’s works, objected strongly to Origen’s hermeneutical approach and was a strong advocate of interpreting the Bible literally (allowing, of course, for the use of figures of speech, apocalyptic symbolism, etc.) continued
Reply to this commentJune 21st 2010
Concerning the allegorical interpretation of the Bible, Basil writes, “I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others. There are those, truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own end.” He specifically refuted Origen’s interpretation of the waters in Genesis 1 as a symbolic reference to “spiritual powers”: “Let us reject these theories as dreams and old wives tales. Let us understand that by water, water is meant; for the dividing of the waters by the firmament let us accept the reason that has been given to us.” Basil was very careful to distinguish literal statements and poetic ones. For example, when the Bible says, “the heavens declare the glory of God,” he pointed out that the heavens do not literally speak. So it is simply wrong to say that a literal approach to interpretating Genesis is an evangelical innovation..
Reply to this commentJune 21st 2010
Dunemeister,
“The point seems to be that certain practices were permitted that God would rather not have permitted but did permit…”
Agreed—and in the case you cite we know that such an interpretation is valid because scripture defines it that way: “It was because you were so hard-hearted. “
What doesn’t follow from this example is Sparks’ easy dismissal of the OT sacrificial system, some reasons for which are discussed above.
But beyond this, there’s a broader principle at stake. In his piece, he flings the doors open so wide that no part of any text can be considered reliable or authoritative: “Hermaneutical flexibility is of utmost importance,” according to Sparks (note the absolutist language is his, not mine). Since flexibility matters most, why should I submit to Matt 19, or any other text you cite for that matter?
Reply to this commentJune 22nd 2010
Chip:
You make my point for me by citing Basil. There was a great variety of ways in which interpreters tried to interpret Genesis. The literal approach was decidedly a minority, and yes, Basil was one of its champions. But it was (and is) a minority view with nothing really to recommend it. It flies in the face of everything we know about the creation myths’ genre.
Moreover, fundagelicals really do have to get over the “thin edge of the wedge” argument. It simply doesn’t follow that if we interpret Genesis nonliterally then we must interpret everything nonliterally. Nor does it follow that we must lose authority if we emphasize flexibility. The flexibility enjoined here is not the practice (shared by fundagelicals) of ignoring or twisting passages to suit, or worse, regarding scripture as worthless. It’s the recognition that our understanding of the text is partial and previous (mis)understandings must give way in light of what we come to know, even if it comes from science. Thus if evolution looks like it’s the only scientific option as an account of origins, it behooves us to re-examine our interpretation of Genesis to see if somehow we got it wrong. American fundagelicals have got it wrong. Very wrong.
Reply to this commentJune 22nd 2010
Dunemeister,
Reply to this commentSeems you’ve got your wires crossed; Martin cited Basil, not me.
June 22nd 2010
Dunemeister, How do you know that the representatives of the “Antiochene” view of biblical interpretation were far outnumbered by those representing the “Alexandrian” view? And even if they were, what would that prove? Is our model for interpreting the Scriptures the fanciful ideas of church fathers who were only recently converted from Greek pagan backgrounds and strongly influenced by Platonic philosophy? Is that our ‘model’ for exegesis? Doesn’t it not make more sense to look at how Jesus Himself interpreted the Old Testament? There is no question that he interpreted Genesis as literal history. He placed the “blood of righteous Abel” in the same category with the blood of all those martyred for righteousness sake. He believed that God personally instituted marriage for the man and the woman, just as taught in Genesis 2. He believed the Scriptures were so straightforward and clear in their teaching that he frequently said to people such things as, “Have you not read?” or “Oh, foolish and slow of hear to believe all that the prophets have written.” I’d rather go with Jesus view of the OT, than that of the Greek fathers.
Reply to this commentJune 23rd 2010
Sorry, Chip!
Reply to this commentJune 23rd 2010
Martin,
Why assume the fathers were “fanciful” rather than “sober”? And why assume that Jesus considered Genesis as literal history? Why assume that if he did, we must?
Reply to this commentJune 23rd 2010
We (as Christians) need to move past using the antiquated term ‘post modern’. Post modernism has already come and gone and yet people are still acting as if it’s still 1990.
interesting links:
The Death of Postmodernism @ http://www.philosophynow.org/issue58/58kirby.htm
The rise of ‘Altermodernism’ @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqHMILrKpDY
Here’s a great interview of Marshall McLuhan from 1960 in which he clearly articulates that our technologies were creating the new ‘tribal man’ and destroying ‘individual man’ in the process @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C6FDcUutj8
Reply to this commentJune 23rd 2010
Dunemeister,
Reply to this commentI used the word “fanciful” as a description of the Alexandrian approach to interpretation based on Basil’s own use of the word “fancy” in the following quote concerning the Alexandrian method: “There are those, truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their FANCY wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own end.” Basil, just like modern American fundagenlicals, as you call them, insisted a that truly “sober” interpretation of Scripture required the interpreter to admit “the common sense of the Scriptures,” rather than abandoning that common sense to indulge, without textual warrant, in far-fetched allegorizing and spiritualizing of the text. In other words, interpret everything according to its genre—historical narrative as historical narrative, poetry as poetry, etc. (continued)
June 23rd 2010
So the real issue, as Peter Enns rightly points out, is that of “genre calibration.” Has the church for the last 2000 years “miscalibrated” the genre of Genesis 1-11? Enns claims that it has; he claims that the genre of those chapters has been wrongly identified by the church as historical narrative, when in fact, it was not the intention of the author of Genesis to teach anything about what took place in space and time in the historical past, but simply to make a “theological statement” about man’s relationship to God through vivid, mythical stories about man’s creation, the entrance of sin into the world, etc. I think it is Enns and others who hold to this “literary view” of Genesis 1-11 who are ‘miscalibrating’ the genre of Genesis. To my mind, the Genesis genealogies and the Table of Nations in Genesis 10, Paul’s view of Adam, and other features prove conclusively that the church has correctly identified Genesis 1-11 as ‘historical narrative,’ and that it was intended to be interpreted as such. Those who relegate the events in those chapters to the realm of myth and who ‘de-historicize’ Adam aren’t dealing with the reality of what the text is affirming.
Reply to this commentJune 23rd 2010
Dunemeister, Why do I assume that Jesus considered Genesis as real history? It is true that Jesus did not say much about Adam during His earthly ministry—although He did affirm the teaching of Genesis 2 that God personally instituted heterosexual marriage after creating man male and female. But I believe that after His earthly ministry, Jesus appeared to the apostle Paul on the road to Damascus and called him as an apostle. He revealed to him by divine revelation the content of the true gospel, as Paul affirms in Galatians 1. Therefore, the gospel that Paul preached was not his gospel, but Jesus’ gospel, and that gospel clearly involved the affirmation of the representative headship of Adam over all of humanity (Romans 5). Paul’s teaching on the “two Adams” was a central part of his gospel preaching and teaching; thus, it should be a central part of our gospel preaching and teaching as well. In fact, if we preach any other gospel than that which Paul preached, Paul says, we are preaching a false gospel, because Paul’s gospel was not “his” at all, but that which Jesus Christ gave him from heaven to preach and teach.
Reply to this comment