Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Bob Springett's avatar

Hi Michael,

That was a good summary of the classic Reformation position. And quite readable. But you might have noticed as you were writing that it is full of assertions, and thin on discounting other interpretations.

Let me say up front that I also accept the Bible as inspired. Not a doubt in my mind! But that maximum position to outlined is a house of cards. 'Inspiration' does not imply 'Dictation', as implied by 'every word' in a modern sense. The Bible is NOT an 'Instruction Manual' as has commonly been portrayed; it is much deeper than that; it is a 'Formation Manual', so we are inwardly formed into people with Godly wisdom instead of simplistic obedience.

The Bible was written by men who were inspired by God to convey His words to people of their time in the circumstances of their time. But that wasn't simply 'good advice'! No! they wrote so as to show the universal principles on which that Godly advice is based. It is the task of the pious exegete to show how those underlying principles should be applied by different people in different circumstances.

For example, I have been assailed by one atheist friend who can't let go of the assertion that St. Paul didn't condemn slavery. I responded by saying that St. Paul was never asked whether or not he approved of slavery; his writings were not a political manifesto, but advice to people who were either slaves themselves of slave -owners. Paul was advising them how to live in those circumstances. "Why didn't he tell the owners to set their slaves free?" I was challenged. Because a freed slave in Roman society had very few rights, and no capacity to bring a case to court ; only citizens could do that. So instead of recommending manumission, Paul's advice was to treat slaves not as property, but as members of the family. Read Philemon!

This has implications far beyond the immediate circumstance. It implies how employee-employer relationships should be framed, and even to other power imbalances in society. All humans owe respect to all other humans, in whatever social structures they are framed. Thus Paul goes much deeper than merely condemning one social structure at one point in history.

Similarly the status of women. Paul wrote in several places that women should be submissive towards their husbands in public. Is this an eternal rule? Not really; Paul repeatedly says that women are to be loved by their husbands as a man loves his own body; that a man is to give himself as Christ gave himself. The hint is the social context. A woman who was disrespectful in public would bring shame upon her husband. So Paul asks the woman to be submissive. Note that he DOESN'T tell the husband to 'control your unruly wife!" It is the woman's gift to submit, not the husband's right to enforce it.

But in the home, out of public gaze, she is his equal and he would do well to treat her a such. Paul even uses the Greek word meaning 'Make a SON of' when describing the adoption of a woman into Christ; she has the same status as a man. But just as Paul didn't insist on all his rights, he urges women not to insist on all of their rights in public, for the sake of the Name.

So is the Bible inspired? You betcha! It is inspired to a deeper level than literalists can understand.

No posts

Ready for more?