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.
No comments:
Post a Comment