The Bible contradicts itself. I found this really difficult to accept when I first went to Bible college. But the more I studied theology, the more constructive arguments I could make for why “aionios” is mistranslated “eternal” when it should be translated “age to come” or refer to a quality of time not a quantity of time; and why “arsenokoites” is mistranslated “homosexual” when it probably means something closer to men violating the agency of other men (pederasty). I would explain away violence attributed to God as the warped God-concept of the biblical writers: “that’s just the language that those authors used at the time,” “their environments were more hostile,” “they were violent people so they assumed that God is also violent.” I used the New Testament to re-interpret the Old Testament, for example, when Paul deliberately doesn’t refer to God in his retelling of Noah’s ark, I use this as justification that God didn’t actually send the flood. Or when Jesus overturned “an eye for an eye” and called us to love our enemies, I would say that Jesus is the closest representation of who God actually is, and dismiss and overlook scriptural justifications for war and punishment in light of Jesus’ turning the other cheek and debunking Old Testament passages.
All of these things are helpful. Understanding context, studying original languages, and digging into the historical meanings of words and how they have been translated is important. Understanding the evolution of religion and spirituality over hundreds of years and seeing the evolution of the Bible itself can help us re-interpret violent, oppressive passages. I still believe in using the Bible to interpret the Bible.
And yet I take the Bible less literally than ever, with a lot more grains of salt than I have before. I allow room for the Bible to be completely wrong about some things.
Because if you were to convince me that “arsenokoites” was correctly translated and that the meaning in English today is the same as the meaning this word had in Greek two thousand years ago, I would then have to argue that the author who writes that gay sex is wrong, or sinful, or an abomination, was mistaken and did not understand love. Bible readers should not read with the assumption that the Bible is always right, that no human authors made any mistakes in their assumptions about what is moral and good and how God epitomizes that moral goodness.
I used to argue that we all had different interpretations of the Bible, that Christians needed to negotiate and agree to disagree on various interpretations. Again, I’m not saying that’s unfounded, but it is based on the assumption that there is something inherently trustworthy about the Bible, something valuable—some level of truth. I want to believe that there is valuable truth in the Bible, but I can’t do that without admitting that there are mistakes, contradictions, and potential fallacies in the Bible as well—or perhaps a better way to describe this would be to admit that some of the Bible is fictitious, but most human beings still find great sources of value in make-believe, myths, fables, and storytelling etc.
So then, how do I interpret the Bible today?
There is a particular lens that I use to interpret not only the Bible, but the religion of Christianity and my faith and spirituality on a personal level. This lens actually does come from the Bible, so I’m falling back somewhat on asking the Bible to interpret the Bible, I’m also relying on a strong “gut feeling” or intuition that I’m willing to stake my life and reputation on. I call this the anchor of my faith and of my life. If this lens, this idea, this belief were to be disproven, I’d have no other choice but to call myself an atheist.
My lens and my anchor for life, religion, spirituality and reading scriptural texts is this:
God is love and love is God.
You can find this phrase in 1 John chapter 4. You can find it in Sunday school songs like “Jesus loves me this I know.” You can find it in other religions and in theology textbooks.
I have heard people argue that the very idea that “God is love” is airy fairy. How do you define love? Again, I actually rely on the Bible to define love for me. I assume there is some level of truth to be gleaned from its pages and I find it in passages that talk about love being stronger than death; love is patient, love is kind, love keeps no record of wrongs, love is by nature unconditional, it is stronger, higher, wider, deeper, than we can fathom, there is no fear of punishment in love, there is no legitimate separation in love—nothing can separate us from the love of God; if I make my bed in hell, love is there, love endures forever, it is endless, persistent, unwavering, consistent, love never gives up, love never runs out, love never fails, love wins! [Song of Songs 8:6-7, Psalm 136, Psalm 139:8, John 3:16 & 6:37, Romans 8:38-39, Romans 12:9-21, 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 & 13, Galatians 5:14, Ephesians 3:17-19, Colossians 3:11-14, 1 John 4:17-21, 1 Peter 4:8, James 2:13.]
I stake my life on this idea that God is love and love will save the day.
And so, I read the Bible with the assumption and the gumption and the proclamation that God is love and that anything I read that doesn’t make sense in light of God being love and love being God, can be placed on the shelf. And when I read in line with God being love and love fighting for equality, equity, justice in the reconciliatory sense of the word, when I read about plowshares being turned into pruning hooks, and enemies into friends, and hatred being defeated by love, and governments coming apart at the seams because love is breaking through, and love is calling and love is beckoning us to follow… those are the stories and the words that I take seriously. That is where the Scriptures have value and ring true. When they align with the love that is God and the God that is love.
Leave a Reply