A few weeks ago we discussed Steve Blow’s column from The Dallas Morning News, in which he advocated (tongue-in-cheek) that the Southern Baptists at their next convention re-establish child sacrifices. Then his satire lost its humor as it became apparent that it was the Bible itself under attack, not just Baptists.
He has written a follow-up article (August 23rd) in which he states that the first column was a joke and that he knew he was “twisting verses all around” (35A). However, his attempt to straighten up the first mess only confirms what most people thought all along.
This time he suggests that Baptists “just kill people who don’t believe like we do.” As authority for such behavior he cites 2 Chronicles 15:12-13.
Then they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul; and whoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman (35A).
He calls suggestions like these having “more wacky Bible fun.” Apparently, he is not able to tell the difference between humor and attacking the Scriptures. He includes no qualifying comments, such as, “Of course, Israel lived under a theocratic system; we do not; thus, such a passage cannot really apply to us.”
No, instead he thinks that the existence of Scriptures such as 2 Chronicles 15:12-13 give everyone the right to pick and choose what they want to obey from the Word of God. One lady wrote to him, saying, “Unlike you, I believe ALL the Bible.” He responds:
Oh really?How about this one from Deuteronomy 21: “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death” (35A).
Once again, his argument is that, since no one would today advocate this behavior, the Bible is not to be taken literally or in its entirety. For Blow, that means one can pick and choose what Scriptures he will obey and which ones he can simply reject (such as wives being submissive to their husbands or homosexuality being a sin).
The word hermeneutics is obviously not in his vocabulary; perhaps he ought to ask a Southern Baptist preacher to explain it to him. The first thing a student of the Word is taught is to ask of any text questions like these: “Who is speaking?” “Who is being spoken to?” “What is the purpose of the statement?” “To whom are the things taught herein applicable?”
Noah, for example, was told to build an ark; should we all rush out to buy the appropriate tools and lumber? We restrain ourselves because God told Noah to do so, not us. He told him to build an ark because He was going to destroy the world with water. Later, he promised He would never destroy the world again with a flood, which is the reason nobody teaches classes in “ark-building.”
The Law of Moses was given to God’s people, who in Old Testament times lived under a theocracy. The Law of God was their civil and legal authority. Hence, they could do what they did in 2 Chronicles 15 and Deuteronomy 21. They were commanded to put the ungodly to death because they knew of a certainty that those who violated the law were disobedient to God and worthy of death. We can know the same thing today, but we have not been granted authority to enforce the laws of God. We are not Israelites living under the old covenant; we are Christians living under the new covenant (Heb. 8:6-7). The law under which Israel lived was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). Blow calls recognizing such distinctions “picking and choosing,” but the Bible calls it “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).
He also mentions that believers are told “they can handle snakes and drink poison without harm. Should we believe it? I don’t know. You go first.” Blow thinks balking at snake-handling proves that we all selectively ignore certain verses. Actually, this is a difficult passage to exegete–but scarcely impossible. First one would need to notice that the text focuses on the unbelief of the apostles.
And when they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe (Mark 16:11).After that, He appeared in another form to two of them as they walked and went into the country. And they went and told it to the rest, but they did not believe them either (Mark 16:12-13).
Afterward He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen (Mark 16:14).
It is to this group of slow-on-the-uptake apostles that Jesus says: “These signs will follow those who believe. . .” (Mark 16:17). In other words, Jesus’ promise was not made to every believer, but to the apostles. What confuses people is the great commission that Jesus gave in verses 15-16 (it especially confuses Baptists who want to exclude baptism so that the verse would read, “He who believes is saved,” which would harmonize with their theology). But notice that verse 16 uses the pronoun he, while verses 14 and 17 use they or them. Salvation is for everyone; serpents and poison are not.
To interpret Scripture correctly, one must study each text carefully. The next question would be: “How do these verses relate to the teaching of other passages of Scripture?” With respect to poison, nothing further is said; a viper, however, attached itself to Paul (Acts 28:3). Jesus’s promise held true; no harm came to the apostle (much to the surprise of everyone watching). It is true that this promise was not made directly to Paul, since he was not present, but when God chose him to be an apostle, he was granted everything accorded to the other apostles, including immunity to poison and serpents.
There is no record of Christians handling serpents or drinking poison that would confirm the interpretation that what Jesus said applied to all individuals; hence, most people rightly regard that idea as false and the interpretation which applies it only to the apostles as true. But Blow could not just bring up the serpents; he had to cast doubt on the entire passage.
You’ll find a footnote in most Bibles after Mark 16:8, saying something like, “The most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20.”
Actually, most modern versions do not have that statement; only the NIV is bold enough to propagate this untruth, which is deliberately calculated to mislead people. The New Revised Standard Version says it correctly: “Some [emphasis GWS] of the most ancient authorities bring the book to a close at the end of verse 8.” Earlier manuscripts than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (the two referred to by the NIV) have Mark 16:9-20; some predate them by as much as 200 years. Most of those, however, are not complete New Testament manuscripts.
The NIV translators want their readers to conclude that Mark 16:9-20 does not belong–hence, their inaccurate wording. Also, it is a matter of judgment, not fact, that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the MOST reliable manuscripts.
Having said all of the above (and more), Blow then tries to get on the right side of the Bible–but fails.
Don’t get me wrong. I do believe the Bible is divinely inspired. It’s got more wisdom and guidance than 10,000 of today’s self-help books.. . .but I don’t think it dishonors or diminishes God one bit for us to wrestle with the Bible, trying to pull out timeless truths from the ancient stories, cultural quagmires, and human errors (35A).
Steve never seems satisfied to quit while he is ahead. He thinks the Bible is divinely inspired, but at the same time it is merely a collection of ancient stories couched in a cultural quagmire–with human errors. This is an interesting view of inspiration, somewhat equivalent to telling a young lady, “You’re the most beautiful woman I’ve ever seen, if I just disregard your obesity, abrasive personality, and lack of good taste or judgment.”
The same book that mentions the “rebellious son” also records God saying to Moses: “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2). God expected His inspired revelation to be respected, which is more than Blow seems willing to grant.
If indeed there are human errors in the Bible, one wonders who shall be commissioned to tell us which verses err and which ones we can trust. And some people think that Bible-believers are arrogant! But just as there is a penalty for mishandling serpents, there is one for mishandling Scriptures, too–death.