I offered a piece about the concept of “prescriptive vs descriptive” in the Bible. I agree they exist. I agree they can be difficult (at times) to decipher. And I agreed that it is absolutely necessary that we do. That is, you don’t want to be making it a rule that, for instance, we all kill unbelievers because God commanded Israel to do it once. (I offer that as an example because I hope it’s abundantly clear that it was obviously descriptive, not prescriptive.) Now, is there a way to decipher which is which? Yes, I believe so, and with fairly high accuracy.
Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16-17). It claims to be good for the equipping of God’s people for “every good work.” If, instead, it was indecipherable and unreliable, it wouldn’t be good for much at all. So, Scripture requires, first and foremost, our respect and attention. We have to see it primarily as God’s Word and, therefore, God’s message to us. We don’t get to lay personal feelings or presumptions on it. We don’t get to tell God what He meant to say. We have to alter our thoughts and feelings to align with His intentions rather than the most common approach—bend God’s Word to align with my ideas.
Having established this core principle, what else can we find to help us figure out “prescriptive vs descriptive” in the Bible? Well, there are several factors.
What is the genre? The Bible has genres like the narrative and the law, wisdom, prophecy, and such. These are for different purposes (and we’re trying to take into account God’s purpose for what He inspired). So when it tells us that Lot’s daughters got him drunk and got themselves pregnant, that’s not a command or even a suggestion. It’s description. When Jesus tells His disciples, “Love one another as I have loved you” (John 13:34; John 15:12) (and repeats it for emphasis), it isn’t a description or a suggestion. It is an imperative. Imperatives bind the conscience.
We ask ourselves, “What was the author’s intent?” Paul often “urges you” to do something. Texts sometimes say, “this was evil in the sight of the Lord.” Scripture is littered with “so that” purpose statements and “therefore” application conclusions. These are prescriptive in nature. Travel details, cultural customs, actions without moral commentary; these are more often descriptive.
Another essential factor to consider is the covenantal context in which a command is given. How does it relate to the covenantal context of God’s relationship with Man? For instance, a mandate from Creation is a universal prescription. An Abrahamic command would be promise-oriented. A Mosaic command can be for Israel only or for God’s people eternally. (For instance, civil and ceremonial commands are for Israel as a people and moral commands such as the Ten Commandments are for all of God’s people.) Some Old Covenant commands are descriptive (and often explain New Covenant truths, like Jesus being the “Lamb of God”) while New Covenant laws are more prescriptive, grounded in creation and in Christ. Old Covenant civil and ceremonial laws are descriptive for us; Old Covenant moral laws remain prescriptive because they are grounded in creation and reaffirmed in Christ.
A real question you have to ask is how does the rest of Scripture treat these things? For example, Adam’s sin in Genesis 3 is treated as both actual and universally significant throughout Scripture. It wasn’t myth and it wasn’t just a description. It affects all of humanity because it affects all of Scripture. How does Scripture view these descriptions? At this point you can see how important it is to know Scripture. A reading from a narrative in the Old Testament can tell you what happened, but it takes all of Scripture to see how all of Scripture understands it.
Ask yourself, “How does the narrative and God see it?” Does the narrative understand the event as a good thing or a bad thing? Does God see it as a good thing or a bad thing? As an obvious example, should we start killing our siblings because Cain killed his brother and it’s in the Bible? Obviously the narrative describes it in negative terms and God viewed it as bad. Or consider Joseph and his brothers. His brothers tried to kill him and then sold him into slavery. Was that good or bad? Well, obviously good, because Joseph said, “God intended it for good,” right? No! Joseph held in perfect tension the evil nature of their actions against God’s good intentions and understood their acts to be evil while God’s intentions to be good. Joseph held together the evil of their actions and the goodness of God’s sovereign intention without confusing the two.
So we need to be careful with the Word of God. It has nuances and variations we need to consider. But it is not entirely vague and indecipherable, and anyone who makes that claim is missing the point. We don’t get to decide what God meant. We don’t get to tell God what He intended or what is right. We need to think God’s thoughts after Him rather than fill in the blanks with our own conclusions.
And it’s a funny thing, isn’t it? Those people who complain, “You can’t tell me what it says or what it means with any authority” typically will tell you you’re wrong … with authority. Don’t listen to Satan’s old, “Did God really say …?” Yes, He did. Listen to God’s Word. Handle it rightly (2 Tim 2:15). If Paul commanded Timothy to handle God’s Word rightly, it can be done. You simply need to apply yourself to the task and trust the Holy Spirit. (And, oh, by the way, conclusions that are contradictory—either to the texts, the context, the whole of Scripture, or each other—cannot be true. Don’t go there.) If the Holy Spirit is leading us to all truth, He will lead us to the same truth.
6 comments:
I argue that the single greatest threat to Christianity is not bad preachers, the secular world, LGBT, or Islam, but is biblical illiteracy. The Church today is just as biblically illiterate as the Church just before the Reformation, only we don't have the excuse of actually being illiterate. Our Age has never been more "educated" than ever in human history, but we only seem to be getting dumber and dumber. The idea of widespread literacy following the Reformation was so that more people can read and understand the Bible for themselves. Now we think we know so much that we don't need to know the Bible, but only care about the "vibes" we get from it. Brothers, this ought not be!
Not only are Biblically illiterate people a threat, but thanks to the internet those people have a much larger reach and impact than ever.
This is an excellent Part 2 on this topic. (I would even wish for a Part 3, but I realize you work an adherence to this principle into almost all of your posts.)
We’ve all heard of those skeptics who insist that the Bible makes no overall sense, and that God seems to arbitrarily change His mind from one place in His Word to another (you’ve addressed the “shellfish controversy” and the like many times, of course). They see apparent contradictions in Scripture and deem them grounds for dismissal of the whole thing, rather than a stimulus to study to gain proper interpretation. Just like the atheists who raise “the problem of evil,” those who ignore context and the author’s intent are demonstrating biblical illiteracy and ignorance rather than sagacity.
I will admit that I have--from even before the commencement of my Christian journey--seen contradictions and confusing aspects about the Bible. (In fact, thinking back, I recall that it was knowing that Christians don’t follow those “weird” OT rules and regulations now that led me to [wrongly] conclude that God doesn’t expect anything of us anymore--at least not much beyond the basic Ten Commandments.) I still have many unanswered questions about the Bible, even fifty years in, but now I attribute the existence of “unsolved mysteries” to failings on my part rather than on God’s. (And I am certain that, as a finite human being, I will die without knowing all the answers; I’m OK with that.)
P.S. Speaking of the “shellfish controversy”: In response to yesterday’s post, I pulled down a book from my shelves, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible by Robert J. Hutchinson. This book sought to answer “the mockers, skeptics, and deniers” of what “was once regarded as the ‘Good Book’” but now is under “relentless attack from left-wing academics, novelists, and screenwriters [seeking] to justify their own political agendas.” The first chapter I scanned was about the episode of TV’s The West Wing, which you have written about several times at Winging It.
David wrote, “I argue that the single greatest threat to Christianity is not bad preachers, the secular world, LGBT, or Islam, but is biblical illiteracy.”
Personally, I think the greatest threat (somewhat related to David’s) is false teachers, who serve the devil by helping to snatch away the seed of the gospel and to sow noxious weeds in its place (Matt. 13:19, 25). I am certain that those to whom Craig refers reveal a more nefarious condition than mere “biblical illiteracy”; it is spiritual ignorance and darkness stemming from their “false believer” status. There are those all around us who are (hopefully) seeking truth but simply need to grow in their knowledge and understanding of God’s Word, but then there are also those who operate out of the spiritual blindness of the natural man, with no desire to know God’s truth but to spread lies and deception instead. May we help disciple those in the first group (Mat. 28:19) and mark and avoid those in the second group (Rom. 16:17).
Lorna, the reason I say Biblical illiteracy and not false teachers is because if more Christians were Biblically literate they'd be able to see through the lies of the false teachers. I see those false teachers pop up on social media and I don't even need to think about what they're saying because it is so clearly against Scripture. Good teachers are important, but if the Church isn't being diligent in it's personal study we will end up like the Roman Church in the 1400 and 1500s, lead around by every wind of doctrine because our teacher said so.
What you say is true, David. I was making the important distinction between perhaps immature believers (who are at least safely inside the Church) and unbelievers posing as believers (who spread deception in ways such as that Craig mentioned). I think you and I have equally valid perspectives; I wasn’t refuting yours--just offering another view. Did you have an issue with my perspective, or were you just clarifying yours for me?
I agree that the ghastly spiritual state of “the Roman Church in the 1400 and 1500s” was due in large part to biblical illiteracy among the common people, who had not only a poor education but also no access to printed Bibles in their native tongue, and therefore could not recognize the large-scale erroneous teaching presented to them by their church. We don’t suffer from lack of printed Bibles or education now, of course, but we still have false Christians without the Holy Spirit to teach them truth.
Post a Comment