The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Interpreting the Bible as a Whole, Part I

I have a confession to make. I am now utterly confident in the exegetical case for a universalist reading of the Bible as a whole, and I have a special confidence in my own critique, as set forth in The Inescapable Love of God and elsewhere, of the standard arguments against such a reading. But given that I am neither an expert in the languages of the Bible nor an expert in the historical background of its various documents, how can I so confidently (or at least reasonably) reject so many arguments of so many distinguished scholars who read the Bible very differently than we Christian universalists do?

Behind that question lies the more basic question of just what it might mean to interpret the Bible as a whole. Some scholars (especially those of a more liberal persuasion) are understandably suspicious of any such effort; some would even dismiss it, though I do not, as an incoherent project. For as even religiously conservative scholars typically acknowledge, the Bible is not a single text with a single (human) author; it is instead a rich and diverse set of documents that appeal to the religious imagination in a variety of complex ways. Given the diversity of interests and writing styles of its various authors, the history of some of its documents, and the variety of perspectives that it includes, a fertile imagination can almost always find a congenial way of putting things together. And for that reason alone, a theological interpretation of the Bible as a whole is as much an art, as much a work of the imagination, and as much a product of theological reasoning as it is of historical and linguistic study. Just as proponents of the geocentric theory of the solar system found many ways to account for the anomalous behavior of planets, so those who interpret the Bible from the perspective of a given system of theology inevitably find many ways to account for anomalous texts in the Bible.

Now I have the greatest respect for scholarly expertise and for the work of specialists in every recognized field of study. But just what constitutes expertise in the matter of putting biblical ideas together in a coherent and imaginative way? Can you not find experts in the languages of the Bible and in the historical and cultural background of its various documents on both sides of the larger theological issues that divide, let us say, Calvinists, Arminians, and universalists? Of course you can, and the reason is that any theology extracted from the Bible as a whole will take you well beyond those details of history, culture, and linguistic usage that specialized scholarly researchers might reveal to us. I no longer find it surprising, therefore, when a naïve reader of the English Bible—a reader who may acquire along the way many misconceptions in matters of detail—nonetheless seems able to read the text with far greater spiritual insight than a first rate scholar who manages to twist the good news of the gospel into a message of fear and condemnation. Because experts in New Testament Greek, for example, disagree on so many of the larger theological issues, we have no reason to defer to them, particularly when we disagree with them, on matters that lie outside the narrow range of their expertise.

Mind you, I would never minimize the contribution of Bible scholars to our understanding of the text. To the contrary, I have always tried never to challenge an expert on any specific point in his or her specific area of expertise, and this is true even when the acknowledged experts disagree with each other on some particular matter. In the latter kind of case, my normal strategy is, first, to consider the implications of each of the conflicting views respectively, and second, to argue that no substantive theological issues require that the dispute be resolved in one way rather than in another.

The two occurrences of “aiōnios” in Matthew 25:46 (often translated as eternal or everslasting) illustrate the point nicely. For the experts do not all agree on the best translation of this term in the context. My own strategy, therefore, is simply to accept, at least for the sake of a given discussion, whatever translation a given expert might want to endorse. If someone wants to translate this adjective as eternal or even everlasting, I will go with that; and if someone wants to translate it as age enduring or perhaps that which pertains to an age, I will also go with that. But then comes the important step, where I argue that the former translation, no less than the latter, is quite compatible with a universalist interpretation of the text. For as I have explained elsewhere, “aiōnios” is an adjective and must therefore function like an adjective, and it is the very nature of an adjective for its meaning to vary, sometimes greatly, when the nouns it modifies signify different categories of things. [For how this works with the English word “everlasting,” see willamette.edu/~ttalbott/Mat … 25-46.html]

So if I am right about this, then one of the most common exegetical arguments concerning why Matthew 25:46 supposedly supports the idea of unending punishment is quite fallacious. All of which raises a further question. Are not all of us, whether experts in some specialized discipline or not, entitled to challenge a demonstrably fallacious inference? I’ll take up that question in Part II of this discussion, which may not appear until after the holidays.

-Tom

Looking forward to this dicussion, Tom. I am now 3 years into being a convinced universalist, and I’ve yet to share it with my Pastor. Part of the delay is because I am working through my understanding of the atonement, (having moved away from a penal substitution view) and i want to be able to articulate my new views clearly, both about the universalism, and about the cross (which I think is the more difficult and nuanced of the two subjects, actually.

So we read through the entire book of 1 John today in prayer, (initiated by our pastor), and it comes across as such a black and white book. You either walk in the light, or walk in the darkness. The truth is either in us, or not in us. You either love the world, or you don’t. You either accept Jesus as the Christ, or you don’t. (So much for an inclusivist theology. :wink: ) You either do what is right and are born of God, or you do what is wrong, and are chlildren of the devil.

I think my pastor likes 1 John because it is so black and white. It just sets up the in vs. out dynamic. Now, when Jesus talks like this, at least in the Gospel of John, he seems to be almost exclusively talking to religious folk. But reading through 1 John, it seems to get much more easily applied to “the world”, i.e., the godless.

Interestingly, a man in our group discussed a woman he met at the post office who was scared to go home because of her jealous abusive boyfriend whom she was afraid of. Our pastor immediately wrote the boyfriend off as an “idiot”, but I was having compassion on the man for his slavery to sin, wondering what it will take for God to get through to this man.

So, (and my apologies for rambling), I do struggle with books like first John for being so black and white. Of course there are times when we do need to be black and white, for example, when we are speaking up against injustice.

I also struggle with the idea of Jesus being literally an atoning sacrifice (4:10), whose “blood…purifies us from all sin” (1:7), vs. the atoning sacrifice being a metaphor…Jesus is *like *an atoning sacrifice. My pastor would say: “No, he IS an atoning sacrifice”, it says clearly in the text. What if John is speaking metaphorically…or what if John actually sees it literally and God’s intention was that Jesus’ sacrifice had more metaphoric intentions, vs. God being appeased ontologically speaking?

Lastly, it was thoroughly enjoyable as we took turns reading this morning (we read the whole letter), that I was the one reading when it came to v. 2:2, and I got to read, and slowly emphasize, “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours,** but also for the whole world**”.

And one other thing, away from atonement theology, but back to universalism, there is the challenging verse, 5:16, “If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. I am not saying he should pray about that. All wrong-doing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death” Huh? Not sure what to make of that.

So I suppose all this is just a real-time example of the struggle, in my life, to read the Bible cohesively and as a whole. Any insights would be appreciated.

Caleb,
I have the same problem with reading the Bible as a whole sometimes, as well. I see how 1 John is troubling. What’s troubling for me is/was Hebrews 5. As a former Seventh-Day Adventist, I can’t help but think that Paul is commanding believers to worship on Saturday, the seventh day of the week. Given in context of the symbolism of Jesus as our Sabbath rest, the chapter takes on a whole new meaning. I think the best way to see apparently divisive chapters is to see it through the lenses of God’s character. So, in 1 John, we could interpret the black/white paradigm as a matter of Truth. Truth is inherently divisive. Either a statement is true or false (depending on the context and the specific question asked.) As a reconciliationist, we would interpret the chapter in terms of Truth in the context of this Age (before Jubilee when unbelieving sinners will be freed from the debt of sin.)
Hopefully that helps.

Caleb, I don’t have the answers for you, though I could speculate. Only it would take us away from Tom’s topic if I did that. I think you have some important questions here and I’d love to see you start up a topic on them. It would be interesting and helpful to see what everyone has to say. And then of course, you can give it a descriptive title specific to your particular questions.

Tom, I agree. It’s always frustrating to me when some person quotes an “expert” at me as though that settles the matter – as though there are no “experts” qualified to disagree with their favorite “expert.” I think there are some things that we have to settle based on the overall scriptural picture of our Father and His character, particularly as displayed in Christ Jesus. For me, this is a big part of interpreting the bible as a whole. We’ve seen the character of God displayed in Jesus. If a particular passage requires God to be other than Jesus showed us, then I think either the writer “missed it” or I’m not understanding it correctly.

It’s hard to argue with an inerrantist because most inerrantists are not only certain that every word, punctuation mark, and capital letter in scripture fell from the lips of God, directly onto the parchment, but they also believe their interpretations to be inerrant. If I disagree with the way they’ve interpreted, then I am a heretic. :unamused: Of course I am. I’m a heretic who believes God to be as good as they profoundly wish He was.

I do think that a part of our problem with considering alternative biblical interpretations is that we have a chronic (and sometimes terminal) case of confirmation bias. We can’t see what we know isn’t there.

Not only that, though. In many of the churches I’ve gone to there’s been a real attitude of disapproval toward the idea of questioning anything the pastor says. Oh yes, it was always encouraged from the pulpit. “You go home and READ these scriptures I’ve given you and see whether they really do say what I’ve preached today – like the Bereans!” And of course the isolated verses and passages DO say exactly what the pastor read from his Thompson Chain Reference. Only they might not mean what he said they meant, especially when taken in context – especially when taken in context of the whole bible, the culture into which they were spoken, and when taking into consideration possible confirmation bias on the part of the translators. So far that’s okay. Just don’t come back to the pastor and say, “You know what you said about such and such? I’m not sure that’s right . . . I was looking at those scriptures and it seems to me that . . . .” If you’re lucky and the pastor is a nice guy, you’ll get a quick brush-off and a change of the subject. Otherwise things could get very warm very quickly.

Ultimately, we have a teacher, the Holy Spirit, who will teach the willing heart what is true and what is truer and what is utterly false. If we’ll open ourselves up to being challenged and changed by the Spirit, we’ll learn all sorts of things. God is much, much better than we have ever imagined – even than we CUs have ever imagined. :wink:

Amen Tom! This is a great topic, I can only speak for myself and my close brother that God graciously saw fit to open his eyes to the Truth of Universalism as well (The true gospel, still hoping and praying for my mom and sister, and uncle to see the glorious victory of Jesus Christ made REAL…), but for both us, we’ve found as far as a SCRIPTURAL approach goes in interpreting the Bible, nothing that has equaled this article:

bible-truths.com/twelve.htm

May it edify you as all as well! God bless!

  • Brett

I don’t think this is technically true though Cindy. There are differing understandings and different types of inerrancy and most theologians and Bible scholars don’t particularly fall under the theory of Mechanical Dictation, where every word, every phrasing, the form, the styling, comes from the direct dictation of God. Even most Conservative Evangelicals wouldn’t ascribe to that. Most would say that the Bible contains no errors when the style and intention of the authors are taken into account (things like approximations of numbers, the form/genre of a book, an author’s own linguistic limitations [like Mark’s poor Greek]). So they would say that the Bible contains no errors in fact but was not divinely dictated by God either (though some bits were, like the Ten Commandments) with the authors being mere amanuenses - rather the Holy Spirit performed a supervisory role.

I look forward to part two :slight_smile:

In regards to the question, my initial response would be that clearly we are as long as the inferences themselves are unrelated to the area of expertise that the other person may have. What I mean by that is that a Greek expert may speak of the etymology of a word in the Bible and see that a majority of the time it means a specific thing, both outside the Bible and within it as well and therefore should definitely be translated as such within a certain passage you may be studying. Though it’s a distinct possibility it should be translated as such, because it only means a certain thing a majority of the time and not all the time, you obviously have to look at the surrounding context in the passage and factor that in. Ignoring it would clearly lead to an illogical inference, regardless of the Greek expertise of the other person because what is being challenged is not their expertise in Greek.

On the other hand, a person may say (as per your example) that ‘aionios’ in Matthew 25 clearly means eternal because of the parallel between the life and the punishment, so that if we accept that the life lasts forever then the punishment must do as well (we’ve all heard this argument before). A Bible scholar though may say that that is not necessarily the right inference and isn’t necessarily a result of the seeming parallel, because of some other passages, like Romans 5 with the parallel of ‘all’, where the other person would clearly want to be arguing that there is not an equal parallel of ‘all’ men being condemned and then ‘all’ men being justified. The Bible scholar may also point to a number of other passages as well. In this case the first person may be advised not to pose their own initial explanation as a challenge but as a humble query because the inferences, or rather lack of inferences, the Bible scholar makes about the parallelism in Matthew 25 fall under his area of expertise.

That’s a great idea, Cindy. Though not intended, my post was somewhat of a thread hijack. I’ll see about starting a new topic. My apologies Tom. Still very excited about your thoughts on interpreting the Bible.

I am no longer a universalist, so I was hoping after your very confident assertions Mr. Talbott that you would show how universalism is undoubtably true (based on the Bible as a whole). Are you just saying that your arguments in ‘The Inescapable Love of God’ are sound because they’re unable to be refuted by scholars interpretation of certain verses and words? I don’t mean any of that disrespectfully, but really do want to see how you believe the whole Bible supports UR. I read your book a while back, and from what I remember you dealt mainly with Romans and a few other universalistic texts. Are you going to go into these question in the next few articles? Thanks and have a Merry Christmas.

If you are an ex-universalist, do you mind sharing what your current theological position is - I’m curious>

Randy, thanks for the question. Here is a post I just wrote in response to it. It doesn’t deal with Scrpitural arguments (though Scripture is included), mainly it deals with my personal issues concerning UR.

[Why I am No Longer A Universalist (Part 1))

Hey, Jonny

You’re right; I was unfair. I was perhaps using a bit of hyperbole there, and thinking mainly of ect believers whom I’ve met on-line – not scholarly sources in most cases.

I’m not sure that anyone can “interpet the Bible as a whole”, since it simply isn’t a whole. It has been written by many different authors over a many centuries of time, and there are inherent contradictions, and a number of factual mistakes.

It seems to me that the concept of interpreting the Bible as a whole, presupposes that the Bible is a single, consistent entity—verbally dictated by, or at least fully inspired by God. But if so, it would be without error, would it not?

But there does seem to be error. For example, Jude quoted a prophecy from the book of Enoch. Jude stated that this prophecy was spoken by Enoch, “the seventh from Adam”. Several writers from the second century also thought the historic Enoch to be the writer. However, the book is known to have been composed only several hundred years B.C., and contains some unusual “astronomy” such as that the sun and moon pass through gates.

I have in my personal little library an old but very useful book, by J. Sidlow Baxter, entitled “Explore the Book”. Baxter was an excellent Bible teacher, and manages, as he goes book-by-book through the OT and NT, to show the threads and themes that are consistently woven into the texts, the stories, the poems, the prophecies, and the rest. It is a fascinating way to read through the bible.
A link: goodreads.com/book/show/9159 … e_the_Book

My thanks to all for your thoughtful (and thought provoking) responses to my original post. Here are a few quick responses of my own to some points that have arisen in the discussion so far.

(1) Caleb asked about “the challenging verse, 5:16” of 1 John, which reads as follows in the NIV: “If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that.”

For my own part, Caleb, I interpret this text in much the way I do Jesus’ remark concerning the unpardonable sin. Even as Jesus implied that God will never pardon a certain kind of sin, so this text seems to imply that prayer alone will never induce God to pardon a similar kind of sin. According to my friend Tom Johnson, who wrote the New International Biblical Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John, “the Elder’s refusal to authorize prayer for those whose sin is unto death (v. 16cd) suggests that he thinks of the death as having already occurred.” It has already occurred not in the sense that these sinners have already physically expired, but in the sense that they have deliberately and persistently rejected the truth and have done so to the point where they can no longer receive God’s freely offered forgiveness; they are spiritually dead, in other words.

So does this mean that their sin is uncorrectable? Not at all. It means instead that in cases of extreme spiritual death, a mere pardon will do nothing to revive someone spiritually and nothing to bring God’s forgiveness to that person. At some point, therefore, God will no longer protect the spiritually dead from the terrible consequences of their own choices, and so in that sense they will literally bear the punishment for their sin, perhaps even in the lake of fire. As the author of Hebrews put it: “For if we willfully persist in sin after having received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice [or a pardon] for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries” (10:26-27—NRSV). But here is where we reach a parting of the ways. For whereas some traditionalists view the lake of fire as everlasting divine retribution for sin and the annihilationists view it as a place where death has the final victory over millions of souls that will be extinguished forever, Pauline theology suggests a very different view. For according to Paul, “The last enemy to be destroyed is death” (1 Cor. 15:26), and in Paul’s scheme of things death includes everything that separates us from God. So why not view the lake of fire as one of the places where Paul’s prediction comes true and death itself dies everlastingly? When Death and Hades are both pictured as being cast into the lake of fire and this is called the second death (Rev. 20:14-15), do we not have here a clear image of the death of death, or the final destruction of everything that separates us from God? As I see it, then, the lake of fire is simply an image of the consuming fire of God’s love: how it will eventually consume the adversary within us, which is the old person or all that is false within us. But whether you accept that view or not, any interpretation of the Bible as a whole will require an act of imagination in which some themes are interpreted in light of others.

[Note: For a more detailed explanation of the distinction between a divine pardon and divine forgiveness, see the section entitled “Are Some Sins Unforgiveable?” (pp. 98-101) in the second edition of [i]The Inescapable Love of God. And for more on my understanding of the lake of fire, see the section entitled “Two Very Different Images: The Lake of Fire and the Outer Darkness” (pp. 185-189)].

(2) Cindy wrote: “It’s hard to argue with an inerrantist because most inerrantists are not only certain that every word, punctuation mark, and capital letter in scripture fell from the lips of God, directly onto the parchment, but they also believe their interpretations to be inerrant.”

You are certainly right about that, Cindy. It gets rather humorous when someone who insists upon a doctrine of inerrancy then turns right around and rejects the plain sense of a text such as Romans 5:18! Hee. Hee. Anyway, you may have noticed that I almost never address the issue of inerrancy in my own writings, and I have two reasons for not doing so. First, once you raise that issue in certain circles, it too easily becomes the sole object of people’s attention; nothing else may seem important to them, and they may not hear anything else that I have to say. Second, as far as I can tell, this issue has no relevance whatsoever to any other theological doctrine. Among those who believe in inerrancy, for example, some are Trinitarians and others believe that Christ was quite literally the first born of all creation (e.g., Arians, such as John Milton, and some of the older Unitarians); some are premillennialists, others amillennialists, and still others postmillenialists; some are Calvinists, others Arminians, and still others universalists. Accordingly, whenever I discuss biblical theology with someone, I am quite prepared to accept, at least for the sake of a given discussion, whatever view of the Bible that this person might hold. Why? Because rarely does anything of substance hang in the balance.

(3) awakeningaletheia wrote: “I am no longer a universalist, so I was hoping after your very confident assertions Mr. Talbott that you would show how universalism is undoubtably true (based on the Bible as a whole). Are you just saying that your arguments in ‘The Inescapable Love of God’ are sound because they’re unable to be refuted by scholars interpretation of certain verses and words?”

I think you may have misunderstood the intent of my original post. My “very confident assertions,” as you call them, were intended as a confessional statement, and the purpose of my post was not to establish that my confidence is justified, though I believe it is; it was instead to open up the whole question of just what it might mean to interpret the Bible as whole. But let that pass. Your chosen penname suggests that, as you see it, truth is in the process of awakening within you. So could you perhaps give us some idea of what this awakening truth might be and why it has led you away from Christian universalism? In the post to which you called our attention, you wrote: “I had no peace under universalism; I felt the arguments were solid and the idea was grand, but I could find no peace within me.” So, having rejected the way in which Christian universalists put biblical ideas together, does some other way of doing so produce a greater sense of peace in your heart? And if so, could you perhaps share with us what this other way of putting biblical ideas together might be? Calvinism and Arminianism are the only two possibilities that come immediately to my own mind. But I don’t want to put words in your mouth.

(4) Paidion wrote: “It seems to me that the concept of interpreting the Bible as a whole, presupposes that the Bible is a single, consistent entity—verbally dictated by, or at least fully inspired by God. But if so, it would be without error, would it not?”

I guess that’s not the way I see it, Paidion. There are, for starters, various ideas of progressive revelation and various ways of viewing the Bible as a human witness to the revelatory acts of God in history and to his supreme revelation in Jesus Christ. Not all of these require a doctrine of inerrancy. Indeed, have you not yourself provided a perspectives on the Bible as a whole? In any event, my friend, I doubt that you and I have much to disagree about here. At the very least, you seem to agree with the following statement from my original post: “For as even religiously conservative scholars typically acknowledge, the Bible is not a single text with a single (human) author; it is instead a rich and diverse set of documents that appeal to the religious imagination in a variety of complex ways.”

Again, my thanks to all who have responded so far.

-Tom

When Death and Hades are both pictured as being cast into the lake of fire and this is called the second death (Rev. 20:14-15), do we not have here a clear image of the death of death, or the final destruction of everything that separates us from God?

Yes i also addressed this in another post which was since death is linked here with hades it may be that this death of death is physical death ending in the LOF and later the spiritual death ending through God’s purification process. That would be an amazing thing.

Glad you qualified with the word “seem”. Many things may seem incorrect or in error but are not. We are not omniscient, therefore we can merely only suppose. But to lean this way is to put a great amount of faith in archaeology. In my opinion, there is simply not enough evidence for your conclusion. Though nothing wrong with speculation. I myself speculate on many things, knowing full well I may be wrong.

.

Well… I possess a copy of the book of Enoch, and I think the internal evidence is rather strong that it was not written by the seventh from Adam.
I acknowledge, of course, that strong evidence does not constitute proof.