What About the Bible’s Factual and Moral Difficulties?

Despite what some extreme critics may want to say, the Bible presents what has proven to be a testimony rooted in real history that has created a profound understanding of moral virtue. However, there are parts of the Bible that present what appears to be difficult to reconcile in terms of either factual accuracy or moral sense. There are accounts that seem to differ. There are calls to destroy life that seem unnecessary. We can be well served by stepping back to gain some perspective on the nature of these challenges.

I believe there are parts of the Bible which ARE hard in terms of trusting what we do not understand by what we do understand. However, we can be well served by stepping back to gain some perspective on the nature of these challenges.

I find that there are three ways in which people react to these difficult elements in the Bible. Some tend to dismiss them as insignificant because their belief in God overrides their concern. (Skeptics will consider this to be a fear of facing the facts… a reflection of the fact that belief simply cannot be upheld by the facts.). Some will tend to see that the role of human lives reflects that the Bible is nothing more than human. In seeing similarities to ancient myths and stories too myth-like to be historical… or details that contradict between two accounts… they see what they believe strips the Bible of any potential to reflect divine truth. However, there lies what I find myself a part of, those who see that the whole nature of the Bible is that of God accommodating human history, culture, understanding and even factual limitations – though of a secondary nature - to convey the larger truth that is not contingent on these aspects.

As one who reflects that third perspective, I believe that the nature of what it really means to “believe the Bible” is more about what I believe about God. I believe that God, as the infinite Creator of all, is able to engage and ultimately enter human history… and communicate to finite and flawed human life… bound within the limits of human culture, understanding, language, and historical transmission… that which He deems essential for the redemption and restoration of all things.

Some will insist that if God is presumed to be all powerful, he would be able to overcome such limitations. I can appreciate that assumption. However, I think we should consider why that assumption may be misguided. First, the very nature being revealed about God is that he is working WITH humanity, flaws and all, rather than working to SUPERSEDE or overcome humanity. Secondly, there would be no logical way for the infinite to communicate to the finite without the limitations of the finite nature of human life. For instance, while some may have difficulty with the “simplistic” account of creation in Genesis. However, the very idea that an infinite God would, or even could, explain the nature of creation to finite beings may itself reflect a rather presumptuous view of our own understanding. One might have to wonder how that which is beyond time and space could convey such matters. If a more complete explanation were to be reduced to the modern mind… one may have to wonder, should such an explanation have adopted to the human understanding held in 1000 BC …or to the latest human created terms of “modern” physics…or to that fitting future theories that have not even been developed yet? Such reflection may help us to understand that the poetic narrative of the Genesis account…. along with other narrative forms in Scripture… may be fitting of how the infinite would unfold truth within the finite world of human understanding and history. Thirdly, we may do well to consider if God should be as interested in the type of truth that we currently focus upon. We may like to focus on secondary facts that we understand… while not seeing that it is the larger truth which God is communicating. The larger truths are deeper, and not contingent upon time and place. We as finite creatures may like the nature of “truth” reflected in the instruction manual to the latest technology we own. However, that truth tells us nothing about the larger questions of life… such as the origins of existence and who we are and the nature of our spiritual condition.

This is where the analogy of a parent speaking to a child may be helpful… even if imperfect. If a parent tells a child that “it’s time to get up because the sun came up” …are they telling the truth? Technically no. The sun did not come up… the earth rotated in such a way that the sun came into view. But from the limited perspective we have… it is fitting and makes no difference to the point being made. One should get up. The ability to convey the entire cosmological process is neither always possible, nor needed, to convey the real point.

Similarly, there are some aspects of what the Bible involves that can be challenging to our moral senses. I would surmise these elements, primarily in the Old Testament, to include:

·       Commands and Punishments, particularly the penalty of death for various violations. (We can’t imagine imposing death for spiritual and moral rebellion.)

·       Lack of moral confrontation and clarity regarding Israel’s ancient cultural patterns including polygamy and slaves. (God seems to guide them towards better practices regarding marriage and slavery and justice…but why didn’t He just clarify the ideal from the start? It can be used to suggest that the Bible accepts such behavior.)

·       Sacrifices – particularly the call to Abraham to sacrifice his son (....which notably God stops from taking place by providing an alternative sacrifice.)

·       Destruction of enemies – particularly the conquest of Canaan. (Is what is described simply the genocidal destruction of innocent lives?)

These raise significant questions in our relationship to the Bible…and ultimately God.

Those that seek to denounce the truth of the Bible, will present the difficult few elements in simplistic and sarcastic fashion… which shows no real desire to engage what is actually at hand in the context of these situations. Such a lack of desire to fairly consider the larger context itself, reveals whether one simply wants to appear intelligent rather than understand the truth. In our culture, which likes to think in quick quips that can be tweeted or fit on a bumper sticker, I would challenge us to be careful of the brevity of big accusations…which use emotionally loaded words to falsely summarize the facts. The key to understanding is always context…seeing the whole story. We can never understand anything clearly when we are told of an action without the context of the larger story. We need more of the story…not less…. to really understand the truth.

If an atheist is confronted with the profound atrocities that have flowed from the few rulers associated with an atheistic ideology … particularly Stalin and Marx…  who executed as many as 100 million human lives… their likely response will begin by saying that such a correlation is too simplistic… and that they need to unpack the whole story. And they are right to do so. But the point is that simplistic accusations often feel more powerful than they ultimately are. So beware of the way in which one line quips may seem potent…. not because they clarify truth…but because they obscure truth.

For example, when God calls Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Genesis 22) … to those who have never read the whole story…it can sound like a clear picture of God being brutal and heartless….of a blood-thirsty craving for child sacrifice. But if one really reads the story… it becomes clear that God never truly intended Abraham to kill his son – and that Abraham recognized this fact from the beginning. And the larger context helps us understand what Isaac represented and the stage of faith that this was calling for.

So as a starting point, when reading a text of Scripture that may include a more ancient human understanding of secondary facts... or involve what we consider morally offensive (violence, slavery, polygamy, etc.), I would suggest:

·       Don’t allow simplistic ways of stating what is so “obviously wrong” that does not seek to consider the context and point.

·       In regards to facts, consider how they may reflect God accommodating human history and understanding, rather than diminishing the larger truth being revealed.

·       In regards to what may be morally objectionable, consider whether such actions were possibly 1) something which God may have allowed only in the light of a greater consequence being avoided, or 2) accommodating patterns which God brought greater clarity to over time.

·       Recognize that the Bible is clearly leading to it’s clearest revelation in Jesus, for as it explains, “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being...” (Hebrews 1:1-3)

·       As with all beliefs regarding the larger questions of life, it always involves some element of trusting what we do not understand by what we do understand.

For more about considering the moral difficulties we face in the Bible, I spent more time in a message entitled Engaging The Severe Judgments In The Bible (February 12, 2017) which can be found here .

For those who desire to engage the challenge of violence, found in the Old Testament in particular, two more recent and differing views can be found in

 “Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God.” by Paul Copan  - A ore traditional way of synthesizing the Old and New Testament nature of God by assessing the historical context of various action.

The Crucifixion of the Warrior God: Interpreting the Old Testament’s Violent Portraits of God in Light of the Cross, Volume 1 & 2, by Gregory A. Boyd - Developing a theological interpretation of Scripture that he labels a "cruciform hermeneutic," Boyd demonstrates how the Bible's violent images of God are reframed and their violence subverted when interpreted through the lens of the cross and resurrection.