Misusing the Bible

I have been watching from the sidelines the latest match between the Christian Contenders, with Sabbatarian coming out swinging against Sunday worshipper. It is a match which will never come to a consensus, because the two sides are not fighting in the same ring, not debating in the same language. Sabbatarian is a fundamentalist, content to hurl in his defence sundry Bible verses (usually from the Old Testament) like grenades as 'proof texts', while proponents of Sunday worship generally use a more theological approach to sacred Scripture which is incompatible with fundamentalism. Both use the Bible to support their positions, but because they both use the Bible radically differently, they cannot even begin to have dialogue.

Fundamentalists believe that all the words in the Bible are literally and historically true, and that all the texts are consistent and cannot disagree with each other because God is the author of all the words in the Bible. Therefore, it does not matter whether the text is from Genesis or Revelation, gospel or psalm: you can take a passage from Genesis and put it next to one from Romans, and because God is the author of both passages, they will be internally consistent.

theological growth

Those of an older Christian tradition believe the Bible represents the history of God's dealings with his people, that the Bible reflects theological growth and development among the Jewish people, who did not see so clearly at first, but grew to know God and his ways better and better as the centuries passed.

For example, speaking about retaliation, Genesis (4:24) says, "If Cain is avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy-sevenfold": somewhat harsh. Then Exodus (21:23-24): "Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe": this is progress, balancing the retaliation with the offence. Then Jesus says (Mt 5:38-39): "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also": this New Covenant teaching is a radical shift. So you can't just take a passage and interpret it (as fundamentalists do) without understanding where in their journey God's people are when the text was written. Fundamentalists are still stuck in the eye for an eye.

Another theme is the inheritance of the land promised by God to Abraham for his offspring (Gn 15:7-19), which becomes entrance into the sanctuary of God (Ex 15:17), God's resting place (Ps 132:7-8) reserved for those who truly have faith (Ps 95:8-11; Heb 3:7-4:11), and, finally, entrance into the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 6:12, 18-20), "the eternal inheritance" (Heb 9:15). Some fundamentalist Christians with a lot of guns and money want to help modern Israel dispossess the Palestinians.

nature of justice

A big issue is the nature of God's justice. In the early Old Testament, God rewards the good and punishes the wicked (Ps 112:1-10; Lv 26:3-33; etc.); the whole Book of Job challenges these notions (especially Jb 10:1-7; 13:3-28; 23-24), and Jesus reaffirms that the approach is flawed in the story of the man born blind (Jn 9:1-12) and elsewhere. Yet fundamentalist proponents of the prosperity gospel abound; they are stuck in the early part of the Old Testament.

There are fundamentalists, and then there are deep fundamentalists, like the Sabbatarians. They believe that the Old Covenant is still in force, and they give no credence to the word 'New' in the 'New Covenant'. We can call them Judaisers, for the more extreme of them (like Ian Boyne's Armstrong church) want to celebrate the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles instead of the Incarnation (Christmas), and the Passover instead of Jesus' Death and Resurrection (Easter). There is nothing wrong with being Jewish - it is our heritage; the problem is wanting to call yourself Christian while doing Jewish things, and criticising real Christians for following the New Covenant.

The exegetical task includes, therefore, bringing out the truth of Augustine's 5th Century dictum: "The New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed."

Within the New Testament, as within the Old, one can see the juxtaposing of different perspectives that sit, sometimes, in tension with one another. One of the characteristics of the Bible is precisely the absence of a sense of systematisation, and the presence, on the contrary, of things held in dynamic tension. But if you are looking for harmony, you will find it; there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and a Roman Catholic deacon. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.