The Bible and Scholars (2)Doug Focht, Jr. In our last article, we looked at some common criticisms of the Bible which modern scholars constantly raise. While we do not wish to be simplistic about it, the fact is that most of these arguments can be answered by anyone with just a little honest reading and thinking. The Bible criticisms which are used in this issue were taken from an article by bishop John Shelby Spong in a 1989 newspaper article entitled “Would God Rewrite the Bible?” (Bergen Record, Feb. 5, 1989). Bishop Spong was (and is as of this writing) the bishop of the Newark Diocese of the Episcopal Church. It is important to note that bishop Spong himself is not the specific focus of attention here. This article was chosen because it is typical of the kind of biblical criticisms appearing in the media. It is this scholarship in general that is the topic of consideration. Scholars:“The Bible is quite specific that only men, not women, are created in the image of God.” Bible:“And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. And God blessed them; and God said to them, `be fruitful and multiply…” (Gen. 1:27–28) Comment:Excuse me, but the last time I checked, “they” and “them” were plural! God created man and “blessed them” and “said to them…” In His image He created them. “Man” in this context is forced to carry the meaning of “mankind.” How else can you have “male and female” man? People talk about the “progress of man” or the “man's inhumanity to man.” We mean “mankind.” This is not hard to understand! Do you think the Bible is “quite specific” that only males are created in God's image? How could someone even vaguely familiar with what the Bible says miss this? Unless he (that's a generic “he”!) wants to find some basis for disbelieving the Scripture. But what if someone doesn't bother to check the Scriptures for himself? He is likely to accept what “scholars” have to say. After all, they know more about the Bible, right? Scholars:“The Ten Commandments assume that a woman is the property of a man. The tenth commandment enjoins the all male audience to whom the Torah is addressed not to covet `your neighbor's wife, his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is your neighbor's (Exodus 20).'” Bible:“You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” (Ex. 20:17, NASB) Comment:Yep, I guess that settles it—since a wife is mentioned in the same list with a man's property, then it must be that the Bible considers her as part of a man's property, right? But wait! What if she had not been included in this list of “properties?” Then, although it would still be wrong to covet a man's property, it would be OK to covet his wife, right? And since this is “addressed to an all male audience” (and since according to modern biblical interpretation, a man is not part of a woman's property), then it would be OK for women to covet their neighbor's husbands, right? Thus, by using a similar “scholastic” twist of logic, I could say this passage is biased in favor of women rather than against them, giving them the freedom to covet, while forbidding men to do so! My friends, coveting is wrong no matter who does it, because among other things, it leads to theft; and theft is not limited to a person's “property.” There's an old song which used to be popular back in the “dark ages” (as our son is fond of reminding us about) entitled, “Somebody Stole My Gal.” Did anyone think then that the “gal” was the “property” of the “fellah?” I suppose in today's world of “political correctness” someone might think so. Nevertheless, certain failure awaits a person if he carries this mentality with him in his study, and thinks he will arrive at an understanding of Scripture. God is not bound by human traditions and political perceptions, and one may just as well rewrite the Bible as to read into it something that isn't there. Should it be a surprise that the article from which we are quoting is entitled, “Would God rewrite the Bible?”? Scholars:“The Christian part of our Scriptures and, most particularly the Fourth Gospel, is laden with a negativity toward the Jews that has spawned a vicious anti-Semitism through the ages. To call Jews children of the Devil is offensive to me and yet John's Gospel does that (John 8:44).” Bible:John 8:44: “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him.” (NASB). Comment:This argument is becoming more and more popular. The Bible, not people's failure to live by it, is responsible for the ills of society! In this case, the Bible “has spawned a vicious anti-Semitism through the ages.” There are three things to consider here: Since the apostle John is reporting what Jesus said, then it is Jesus Himself who is being portrayed as anti-Semitic. This is illogical. After all, He was a Jew, His disciples were all Jews, (including the apostle John!) and almost all of the thousands that were healed by Him were Jews also. Even John's gospel records the feeding of the 5,000, who were Jews! (John 6). Jesus Himself said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” Matt. 15:24. Furthermore, He forbade His disciples to preach to the Gentile cities until after His resurrection (compare Matt. 10:5–6 with Matt. 28:19). It is more logical to argue that Jesus was anti-Gentile than anti-Semitic. But, for argument's sake, we'll focus in on that “anti-Semitic” forth gospel; which brings us to our second point: In John 8:44, to whom is Jesus speaking? He simply says, “You are of your father the devil.” Who is “you?” Verse 31 identifies these folks as those Jews who had believed Him (“which believed on Him,” KJV). This could mean those who once believed Him, but now did not, or those who only superficially believed in Him. Whatever the case, they were Jews who:
Think what you will about the Bible, but surely you can see that this passage is anti-sin, not anti-Semitic. Yet on the basis of this kind of scholarship, the Bible is rejected. The third point regarding this argument will serve to introduce our next article. Since the Bible can not successfully be assaulted on its own merits (as these and previous examples clearly show), scholars need to turn to external sources such as archeology and history. This is fine with me, because as we shall see in future articles, these external sources also tend to verify rather than vilify the Bible. Unless, of course, one uses the same shoddy scholarship with these external sources as is often used with biblical studies. Am I being too extreme in my assessment? Well, notice the subtle twisting of history in the critical comment that the “Christian part of our Scriptures,” meaning the New Testament, “has spawned a vicious anti-Semitism through the ages.” Did you know that the Romans were anti-Semitic long before Jesus was born? And the Greeks? And others? Did you know that the Old Testament prophets continually referred to the nation of Israel as a nation of evil-doers? Folks, I'm not justifying anti-Semitism, but any faithful Rabbi can tell you that his people have faced this problem wherever they went, even in cultures which did not have a Bible! So what if the Bible was later used by some to “justify” the persecution of Jews (because they killed Jesus, for example)? Does this mean the Bible actually does justify it? Anyone with even a little sense knows that the Bible has been used to justify all kinds of behavior. Jim Jones and David Koresh read the Bible, but did they follow it? Hitler probably had a Bible. Had he followed Jesus' command to “love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you (Matt. 5:44),” he would not have lashed out against the Jews even if he did believe they were responsible for Germany's ills. There would have been no Hitler. Nor would there have been an Inquisition; nor would Stalin have starved millions, nor would there be anti-Semitism or racism. Just because people say they follow the Bible, doesn't mean they do. It is tragic enough that people do not believe the only source that leads to eternal life. The tragedy is compounded when men ascribe to the Bible that which belongs to man's own failure to live according to its precepts. Do not fall for this! Get out your Bible and study for yourself. It takes time, but it will save your life if you take it to heart. —Reprinted from “Growing in Grace” Vol. 1 #5, June 2, 1996 Doug Focht, Jr.
To contact the author, please send e-mail to: dnfj@yahoo.com
|