The Bible doesn’t say
Not a few recent posts and speeches on question of bishops, whether gay or women, have prompted this, but I want to protest the casual use of the phrase; “The Bible says”.
There is one way in which that phrase might be true: if I were to follow “The Bible says …” with a long quotation that started at Genesis 1:1 and finished at Revelation 22:21. Even then that would be controversial depending on the inclusion or omission of the apocryphal / deuterocanonical books. However, that is not typically how people use the phrase, whether it is (normally) Christians staking out a position, or (occasionally) atheists seeking to argue for the ludicrous nature of Christianity.
There are two essential things that are meant by “the Bible says”. The first is, “I have read in my Bible the words X.” The second is, “My (or my tradition’s) theological interpretation of the overall tenor and thrust of the Bible is Y”. What happens quite often is that the two are combined, so that X is a shorthand statement for Y, and it seems to me that this then disguises the fact that Y is what is really happening.
Non-controversially, consider this claim: “The Bible says that God is love.” It is certainly possible to find in the Bible the phrase “God is love” (1 John 4:8). It is also possible to find a great many statements made, or stories told, about God which would strongly suggest both that this and its opposite is true. But a strong Christ and Cross focussed interpretation of God, leading into developed Trinitarianism, allows this short statement to stand as a summary of the whole narrative and interpretative framework adopted by the Christian Church.
Controversially, consider the statement that “The Bible says same sex relationships are an abomination.” Of course, it doesn’t quite say this even in my first sense. The specific form of words it contains that come nearest to this (and I note that I am entirely ignoring questions of translation) is “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22). That is to say, the verse refers to particular but imprecisely specified sexual acts, not relationships. Just at this level, interpretation is needed to flesh out what the sexual acts might be, and further interpretation is needed to move from this to any concept of a relationship, especially the sort of monoandrous one being proposed by some gay Christians and others today.
But more must be said. A second verse, Leviticus 20:13, goes further: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death.” What is it that allows our speaker to claim “The Bible says same sex relationships are an abomination” but not to call for the death penalty. The verse is being selectively referred to, because a wider interpretative framework is being applied. “Abomination” is also used to refer to shellfish among other things (Leviticus 11:10), or to confusing clean with unclean animals (Leviticus 20:25). A bigger framework is necessary to make sense of why part of one verse can be held to typify what “the Bible says” when another verse, or even another part of the same verse is laid aside as not being what “the Bible says”.
None of this is to argue for any particular interpretation of any verse, or to suggest what the right interpretation should be. But I am arguing that there is never a “Bible says” argument that actually is just the quotation of a verse. The very act of selecting the verse depends on an interpretative framework or tradition. “I take the Bible to say …” “My tradition teaches that the Bible says …” “Our church interprets the Bible to mean…” All these are fundamentally honest statements.
By contrast, use of the phrase “the Bible says …” tends to dishonesty and self-deception. It obscures the work of interpretation that lies behind the statement, whether individual or ecclesial, and it replaces an honest argument for that interpretation with a statement that labels disagreement as rebellion, and questioning as sin.
Repeat after me: “The Bible doesn’t say”.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:46 am
Doug - thanks for the clarity - you have gotten good references from this one.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Good stuff Doug.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
[...] know, that title is so much worse than the one I’m going to link to — The Bible doesn’t say. That makes the [...]
July 10th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
[...] clearly touched a nerve and said what others were also thinking with yesterday’s post The Bible doesn’t say. Among the responses the one I found most interesting and sympathetically challenging was Sean the [...]
July 11th, 2008 at 7:15 am
[...] don’t be presumptuous. Doug Chaplin recently wrote, … there is never a “Bible says” argument that actually is just the quotation of a verse. [...]
July 12th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Hmm, didn’t Jesus say “the Bible says” in Luke 4:4, and well, at a great deal of other times too?
July 12th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Nope. There was no Bible.
July 12th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
He said “It is written…”
Different words, and he’s only referring to the Hebrew scriptures of course, but I don’t see how that’s substantially different to a Christian saying “The Bible says…”
July 13th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Yes, they are related. I hope to find time to suggest in a subsequent post some of the ways in which they differ.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
[...] the question many are asking is “Does the Bible condemn same-sex practices?” Apart from the dubious idea that the Bible says or condemns anything, I think this is the wrong question, because it is focussed on an abstracted [...]
July 18th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Hi Doug,
I’m a little torn on this. While I agree that we all have an interpretive framework, I don’t think there aren’t cases where we can’t simply and unapologetically state that: “The Bible says x…”
The sound bite debate in the media goes like this:
“The Bible says Homosexuality is wrong”…
“Yeah, but the Bible also says slavery is OK”…
“No it doesn’t - if you look at the overall story the Bible is telling it is about a God who sets slaves free”…
“Well that’s your interpretation. The Southern slave owners interpreted it differently. So it doesn’t really have authority either way - people just use it to say what they want to say.”
Q.E.D. - go to a commercial.
I really think one can say some pretty powerful things, straight from the authority of the Bible, without saying that they are merely your interpretation. Here are some examples:
- God is the maker of the world.
- Though man was created good, he now has evil in the intentions of his heart, such that he cannot trust them alone to “do well”.
- God has acted in calling a people to himself - the nation of Israel.
- Israel has proven stubborn and rebellious against God, and though God has disciplined them, he has remained faithful. Though he exiled them for disobedience, he brought them again to their homeland.
- Israel had a problem in wanting a king over them like other nations, when God was their king. Yet king David was a king after God’s own heart.
- Jesus is the messiah - the king of the Jews - the son of David - and his kingdom is the kingdom of God.
None of these are mere “interpretation” - they are part of the core message of the Bible itself. Now, there are nuances that are up to interpretation, and application up to interpretation, and corollary questions and ambiguous passages and concepts up to interpretation, but the Bible does actually say something.
Forgive me if I’ve imputed to you much that you didn’t say - no doubt I have. But I hope you can see why I push back somewhat.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
But what you’ve done there is select from a broader range, and (for the sake of argument) let me tease out a couple of issues. First, there was for some time some major disagreement about whether God creates out of nothing, since Genesis doesn’t actually make this clear. Arguably Job and Isaiah do, to say nothing of Paul’s implication in Romans 4, but agreeing on what we mean by saying God is the Maker of all things, visible and invisible, which I think is the only theological statement that does justice to the whole sweep of the biblical narrative and its claims, actually proved to be contentious.
Second, to take one of the points you select: “Israel had a problem in wanting a king over them like other nations, when God was their king. Yet king David was a king after God’s own heart.” Well, up to a point. But presumably not when he arranged for Uriah’s death, or on several other occasions. The implication of the way you present this is that David is a worthy king, and so establishes the importance of kingship. I would give more credit to God’s ability to turn even our mistakes and rebellions to good account: kings and rulers in all sorts of ways remain bad, and the one who comes as true King is consistently un-king-like.
Now these are quibbles in one sense, but in another they highlight that even your selection of what “the Bible says” though a fair one of some central themes, involves interpretation (as selection always does).
July 18th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
And a PS to that. I’m not saying “merely your interpretation”, I’m saying “involving your interpretation”. I think those are significantly different.
July 19th, 2008 at 12:56 am
I agree with you strongly on this point the confusion people make between their interpretive framework and the text itself. All texts only say something within a framework of interpretation. And most people who are using the bible are trying to make subtle judgements hence their framework is fragile, change it slightly and the interpretation can shift radically.
In my “debate the calvinist” debate that was essentially what I argued regarding female eldership that just a slight shift in culture (the importance of virginity) led to a massive shift in what people believed about female eldership; and if one carries to that to today you can see how a similar slight shift can lead to a different opinion on woman in ministry.
Anyway, it’s a fully worked example of your point.
August 9th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
It is very understandable that when people discuss the Bible
with each other they use the words The Bible syas to prove
their point. What other way is there for people to prove that
what they are asserting is not just their own personal opinion
but that it is God’s opnion.
On the other hand: the Bible is a very difficult book and many
passages and verses in it are open to more than one explanation.
This means that people should never use the words The Bible says
just to end the debate and to prove that their interpretation of
a certain Bible passage or verse is the right one and that people
with a different interpretation are wrong