Theology Driving Understanding of the Bible

Theology Driving Understanding of the Bible

Thomas Allen

A person can understand the Bible in terms of his theology or can derive his theology from the Bible. Most fundamentalist and evangelical Christians argue that the Bible should be understood in its most literal sense. One exception is when a figure of speech, such as a metaphor or simile, is obviously being used; for example, the description of Jesus as a lamb in heaven in Revelation should not be understood literally. 

However, these Christians are not consistent in their literalist interpretation. When a literal reading contradicts their theology, they abandon literalism. Thus, they let their preconceived theology drive their understanding of the Bible. The following four examples illustrate this point.

Chapter 4 of Genesis describes Cain leaving his homeland and going to the land of Nod where he finds a wife and raises a family. Literalist fundamentalists and evangelists understand this chapter in light of their theology: the unity of man, all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve. These Christians argue that Cain married his sister, whom he apparently carried with him in his exile. However, nowhere does the Bible make this claim or even suggests it. A strictly literal reading of Genesis leads to believing that Cain discovered other people in Nod and married one of them. Nowhere does the Bible suggest that Adam and Eve had any children between Abel and Seth. Moreover, the events of Cain’s arriving in Nod, marrying, and beginning his family seem to have occurred before Seth’s birth. Consequently, Cain could not have married his sister. A strictly literal reading of the Bible leads to the conclusion that people inhabited Nod before Cain’s arrival, and these people were not descendants of Adam. Other events about Cain also support this conclusion, such as his fear of other people killing him, which led to God placing a mark on Cain to warn others not to kill him. 

Instead of understanding Genesis 12:3 literally, fundamentalists and evangelists spiritualize the verse while condemning people who spiritualize Biblical passages.  (Genesis 12:3 reads, “and I will bless them that bless thee [Abraham], and him that curseth thee will I curse: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.”) They have to spiritualize this verse because a literal reading conflicts with their premillennialist theology. A literal reading of this verse shows that the promise of blessing and cursing applies to those who bless and curse Abraham. It does not apply to those who bless or curse the country of Israel. Fundamentalists and evangelists spiritualize this verse and claim that it applies not only to Abraham but also to Israel today.

Like most Christian Zionists, literalist fundamentalists and evangelicals argue that today’s Israel is entitled to all the land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates. This claim is based on Genesis 15:18, which reads, “In that day Jehovah made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.” (Some identify the river of Egypt with the Nile while others identify it with the stream that is now called the Wady el-‘Arish, whose mouth is near Arish.) According to these Christian Zionists, ancient Israel never fulfilled this promise. Therefore, the promise has not yet been fulfilled; it lies in the future. However, Joshua disagrees with these Christian Zionists. According to Joshua 21:43-45, “So Jehovah gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. . . . There failed not aught of any good thing which Jehovah had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.” Thus, the promise made in Genesis 15:18 occurred in the time of Joshua. Consequently, literalist fundamentalists and evangelicals like most Christian Zionists ignore Joshua for the sake of their premillennialist theology.

Like almost all Christians, these literalist fundamentalists and evangelicals are Trinitarians. They understand the New Testament in the light of the Trinitarian creeds developed in the early centuries of Christianity and elaborated on since then although they disagree on what the Trinity really is. Thus, they let their theology drive their understanding of the Bible.  However, if they read the New Testament literally with an open, unbiased mind, they probably would not arrive at the orthodox Trinity dogma. Most likely, they would arrive at a doctrine similar to what the Arians espoused, which was similar to the subordination doctrine (the Son had a beginning and was subordinate to the Father) that was orthodoxy in the second and third centuries. Or, perhaps, they would arrive at an adoption doctrine (God the Father adopted Jesus the man to be His Son). These two require much less mental gymnastics than does the Trinity doctrine to explain away contradicting passages.

Many Christians start with their preconceived theology and proceed to understand the Bible in light of their preconceived theology. Only a few let the Bible determine their theology. Nevertheless, nearly all Christians of the former group will claim that they derived their theology from the Bible.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

More on the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

More on the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Thomas Allen

This article reveals more hypocrisy of Biden’s and, by that, America’s approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Furthermore, these hypocrites are habitual liars. When Biden, Congressmen, federal bureaucrats, and presstitutes tell half-truths, they are telling a whole lie. As J.I. Packer said, “A half-truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth.” Nevertheless, as one evangelist said, “People love being lied to.”

The Russia-Ukraine conflict is very simple to understand: Russia is bad; Ukraine is good. Putin and Russia are totally depraved and can do nothing good even if they wanted to, which they do not. Like America and Israel, Ukraine is sinless and can do nothing evil even if it wanted to, which it does not.

Russia attacks its neighbor, and that is bad. Israel attacks its neighbors, and that is good. Russia attacks Ukraine, which is a potential threat to Russia, and that is bad. The United States attack Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya, which are on the other side of the world and of no threat to the United States, and that is good.

Biden claims that he wants peace in Ukraine. Yet, he continues to fund Ukraine’s war efforts and to make insulting belligerent remarks toward Putin. Moreover, Biden urges Zelensky to continue to fight the Russians. His deeds do not match his claims. How much of Biden’s urging Zelensky to fight the Russians to the last Ukrainian relates to preventing evidence of the Biden crime family’s crimes from falling into Russian hands?

Both Biden and Zelensky seem to want a nuclear war. Zelensky would rather have the world destroyed by a nuclear war than loses his power over the people within the borders of Ukraine as they were in 2010. Is Biden’s desire for nuclear war on purpose or from stupidity? 

Antichrist

Some rapture-is-imminent futurists identify Putin as the latest Antichrist after Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and other recent candidates have failed to be the Antichrist. John defines the Antichrist as one who denies Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:18, 2:24, and 4:3). When John wrote this definition, he had Jews in mind. Being a Jew, Zelensky meets this definition of the Antichrist while Putin, who seems to be a believer, does not. (Being Antichrist may explain why Zelensky is trying to persuade Biden, who is also Antichrist, into militarily attacking Russia and, by that, precipitating a nuclear war. What a sacrifice they can offer to their master Satan.)

Petrodollar

Moreover, Biden and his administration and their controllers, the oligarchs, are on the verge of destroying the petrodollar, the US dollar. Biden and NATO’s embargo against Russia and their thief of Russian financial reserves have led Russia to sell its natural gas in Russian roubles instead of US dollars. Because they are losing trust in the United States, both China and India are moving toward buying oil and other imports with the yuan and rupee. Even Saudi Arabia is considering selling its oil in currencies besides the US dollar. If countries start buying and selling oil in currencies other than the US dollar, the value of the dollar will collapse and inflation in the United States will soar. Is this destruction of the US dollar being done deliberately, or is it being done out of stupidity?

Fascism

Russia accuses Ukraine of being a neo-Nazi country. Americans accuse Russians of being neo-Nazis. Both are correct. Nearly all countries today have a fascist political economy. (Corporatism, business-government partnershipism, classical fascism, socialism, national socialism [Nazism], and communism are merely different forms of fascism.)

Under fascism, the government heavily regulates businesses primarily for the benefit of its favorites — the business-government partnership. (Communism is the ultimate form of business-government partnership since business and government become the same entity.) Often the government subsidizes favored businesses, such as bailing out banks. Moreover, the government may own some types of industries and businesses, but such ownership is not necessary because regulation and taxation can achieve the same purpose as governmental ownership. Accompanying the economic system is the welfare state.

Moreover, fascist countries are authoritarian in various degrees; some approach totalitarianism, such as Canada and Australia, or even become totalitarian, such as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Communist China. True liberty exists in none of them. Nevertheless, the governments of most fascist countries are democratic in that the people elect the principal governmental leaders in elections that are at least as honest as the 2020 US presidential election.

Although not a necessary component of fascism, a common component is a racial or ethnic extermination policy. Under Germany’s national socialism, it was the extermination of Jews, Gypsies, and other “undesirables.” Under the fascism of Western Europe, the United States, White Anglophone countries, and South Africa, it is the extermination of the White race. For Ukraine, it is the extermination of Russians, especially in Donbas. For China, it is the Tibetans and Uyghurs who are being exterminated. The Israeli fascist government seeks the extermination of the Palestinians. Nevertheless, not all fascist countries have racial or ethnic extermination policies.

Another component of fascism is militarism. Many fascist countries today have not adopted this component. However, the United States have incorporated militarism. They have been the most militaristic country in the world since World War II.

Crimea

Some claim that Russia has no right to incorporate Crimea into Russia because it entered a treaty that recognized Crimea as part of Ukraine. Apparently, Crimeans are not allowed to have a say in their political status. Only foreigners have the right to decide Crimea’s political status. That a plebiscite of more than 95 percent voted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia does not matter. This plebiscite was at least as honest, probably more honest, than the 2020 US presidential election. So much for democracy!

Conclusion

What America needs is more humility and less arrogance. It needs to purge itself of Yankee Puritanism. America needs to stop patrolling the world and imposing its views, i.e., the views of the oligarchs who control the US government, of proper behavior and forcing countries who deviate from America’s standards and ideals to conform with American standards and ideals.

Hopefully, Americans will wake up before it is too late and see the matrix of lies erected around their lives since at least World War II and throw off their chains. If they do not, they will live the worst of the horrors of Moa’s China — even worst than those depicted in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles. 

A Letter: Tariffs

A Letter: Tariffs

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 1986 responding to two articles published in The New American magazine, which is associated with the John Birch Society.]

    There seems to be some disagreement between two articles in your April 21 issue. Chamberlain argues correctly that tariffs, especially protective tariffs, are detrimental to the economy. Lockman, apparently in agreement with Ellis and Kurowski, whose book he reviews, argues in favor of tariffs as a primary source of revenue for the U. S. government. He evens favors protective tariffs.
    Lockman surely favors taxing imported oil heavily to subsidize domestic oil producers. U.S. industry and military run on oil. They certainly should not rely on foreign supplies. Let us have autarky for everything that the U.S. government considers essential — especially chrome, platinum, and other strategic metals for which there is little or no domestic sources.
    Certainly, not all the Founding Fathers favored protective tariffs. John Taylor of Caroline and many other leading Southern statesmen and agriculturalists realized that tariffs made the farmer a serf and the agricultural Southern States colonies of the Northern bankers and industrialists.
    To rely on Hamilton’s arguments in The Federalist Papers is to rely on the representative of the bankers and industrialists. Hamilton, the author of the federal deficit, was part of what the JBS [John Birch Society] would call the Insiders.
    Another fallacy of Lockman is that tariffs on imports are paid by foreigners. Tariffs on imports are no more paid by foreigners than sales taxes are paid by retailers. If the objective is to get foreigners to support the U.S. government, an impost on exports would be much more effective.
    Tariffs may be an acceptable source of revenue for government — as long as the tariff is uniform without favor to product or country and is no more than about five percent. Once a tariff becomes protective in nature, it subsidizes inefficiency, incompetence, and the politically powerful. It injures the economy in the ways Chamberlain points out — and worse.
    The Southern colonies have but one hope of regaining their lost liberties, free trade, and low taxes. That hope is to follow the example of the Founding Fathers, who seceded from England. The time has come for a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States.

Copyright © 1986 by Thomas C. Allen.

More economic articles.