Morals: Rules of Evidence

Law courts (at least in the English tradition) have found it necessary to develop rules of procedure and of evidence over the generations to help ensure a 'fair trial'. So we should expect to need some rules for using the Bible to help ensure accuracy in developing morals from the Bible

Lets see if we can state some basics for understanding the Bible.

I want to start with seven propositions. I will then explain why I think they are both correct and necessary for sound interpretation of the Bible :

1. God, not “the church” or any other human system gave us the Bible.

2. God is beneficent, so the Bible is intended for our good not our harm.

3. God is transcendent, so there are lots of things we could not find out about God unless he revealed them to us and the Bible is his 'authorised' record of this self-revelation.

4. God is super smart, so all the important things will be said so often in so many different ways so that even us dummies can get the message.

5. God is a master of language, so he might use poetry, hyperbole, sarcasm and the whole range of linguistic tools that even ordinary humans use. Thus 'literal' interpretations are obstinate folly.

6. Humans are at best fallible and at the worst lying, conniving, self deceiving, self-centred and nasty. So even the best people will sometimes misinterpret the Bible and the worst will use and abuse it to gain personal advantage. And there will be all stages in between.

7. Humans find being bad much easier and more attractive than being good, so our inner nature will be antagonistic to Bible teaching that tries to correct our faults.

1. God, not “the church” or any other human system gave us the Bible. My fellow believers of a Catholic persuasion will disagree strongly, but hear me out. This doctrine may have sprung up as a reaction to the protestant reformation with its stress on the authority of the Bible, and its use of the Bible to pass judgement on certain practices of the Western Medieval Church. But the book of Hebrews begins:  “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways,  but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son” If the Bible records what God spoke, whether by prophets or by his Son, then it comes with his authority and his imprimatur. Whatever role “the Church” played in recognising real from counterfeit claimants for inclusion in the canon of Scripture and preserving and transmitting the scriptures it cannot alter or supplant the divine origin of the Bible.

This proposition is also a necessary one. If the Bible were the product of mere humans, even ones who claim to be “the church” then it could not command universal respect. It certainly could not claim to give us access to the ultimate standard of morals. It is only so far as the Bible is the gift of God to the human race that we can say it gives us access to the ultimate standard – God's own moral character.

2. God is beneficent, so the Bible is intended for our good not our harm. Jesus said  “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” (John 10:10) The theme of God's beneficence and redemptive purposed for humankind are so prominent in the Bible that I don't think I need to present a case for it! But despite this biblical evidence, people indeed often religious people like the ancient Pharisees have made God out to be a kill-joy. Consequently people commonly think of the Bible as a book of burdensome rules. This is the opposite of the true position! Since God desires us to “have life and have it to the full”; his gift of the Bible to the human race is to help us have that life.

3. God is transcendent, so there are lots of things we could not find out about God unless he revealed them to us and the Bible is his 'authorised' record of this self-revelation. I hope it is self evident that there is a great deal about God that humans would have no way of knowing if God did not take the initiative and make himself known.

Is the Bible God's authorized record of him making his nature and purposes known to humans?

Look at it from the other end. If God cared enough about humans to want to relate to them, he would want them to know what he was like. Rather than “re-invent the wheel” so to speak by starting afresh with every generation and every individual, it would make a lot of sense to get something written down (once there was writing!) to serve all people generation after generation. So coming back to looking from our end, it would make sense to look for some writings that at least claim to be a record of God's revelation to mankind. The Bible does indeed make this claim repeatedly and consistently from beginning to end.

In this line of argument, the question is not “can one prove that the Bible is God's word”, but merely “is its claim to be God's self revelation better than any other body of literature that makes the same claim”. The Bible wins hands down!

More next post