Cherry-Picking in the Orchard of God’s Word

No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.” George Bernard Shaw

 

Every time a serious conversation on Biblical doctrines and topics takes place, you start hearing things like the following. “I sure don’t understand how you got that from that text;” or “Why are you reading Leviticus when you should be quoting Paul? He’s more relevant for our time!” or “If you think that Scripture A is true, wait until you hear what Scripture B says!” Then, someone starts throwing out accusations that the other person is picking and choosing which Scriptures are “relevant” and the whole conversation rapidly goes to hell in a hand basket.

The true irony really only appears when a non-believer shows up with questions about Biblical inerrancy. Both Christians, who have just been fighting bitterly over whose interpretation of Scripture is correct, will quickly stand back-to-back and tell the non-believer that the entire Bible is inspired and there are no contradictions to be seen in it at all. If the non-believer dares to disagree, he is generally informed, “Jesus is the scarlet thread running through the Bible that holds it all together so you’re wrong!” As if that is going to somehow convince him!

In spite of the thousands of denominations which have arisen in Christendom because there is some obvious ambiguity over which texts are more or less “correct” than others, it is just not okay for you as a Christian (unless you are an Episcopalian) to admit that you don’t like certain passages or think that they are not true or binding for our time. If you in fact do admit this, you are generally made to feel like a heretic with “weak faith” for doing so. The one exception is if you are discarding an “acceptable” passage because your denomination has told you it is all right to do so (e.g., tossing out God’s law as binding if you define yourself as a New Covenant believer).

While studying and researching the Scriptures, the context they were written in, and eventually the history of the Bible canon itself, I finally came to the inescapable conclusion that far from treating every verse in the Bible the same, I personally do make distinctions as to which Scriptures I allow to have “authority” over me. Furthermore, I also disregard those that make no logical sense! And you know what? Every other Christian – and Jew, for that matter – does the exact same thing.  I’ve just decided it is OK to admit it.

An interesting email came in from the Internet that illustrated this issue in a very thought-provoking manner. It was an open letter written by a concerned individual in response to Dr. Laura Schlesinger, a conservative radio host who was at the time of this letter’s writing a very devout Orthodox Jew.[1] In her radio show, Dr. Laura said that homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The writer of the letter had a few questions and concerns regarding this issue.

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination … End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev. 15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev. 24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.[2]

 

Facetious? Yes. But true? Also yes. It is easy to relate to this email because we all tend to pick and choose which parts of Scripture we believe are valid and binding for our times. That is why it becomes a bit ludicrous – and blatantly hypocritical – when we deny others the privilege of doing that which we ourselves do on a regular basis.

Ironically, many Christians insist they are not cherry picking Scripture when in fact they are doing that very thing. One friend’s rationale for holding some laws to be valid and not others was, “It’s not cherry picking but rather gleaning from these ancient laws the principles necessary for governing our lives. Obviously the laws were written for a tribal community and some of the laws aren’t applicable to our modern society but when it comes to our bodies and how to take care of them, what to eat, sexuality… yes, they are still valid!” This friend discarded a certain number of the laws as fitting only for a “tribal” people but held the ones that were important to her today – such as the law regarding homosexuality – to be valid. If this is not cherry picking Scriptures, I do not know what is!

Another Christian friend’s response to the above “Dr. Laura” letter was to obfuscate. “The point is there is a standard. There is right and wrong. People can believe what they want, based on their feelings, their emotions, whatever. I choose to believe in the Word of God. It’s the only thing that hasn’t failed me, though I have failed it. That is the standard, telling me truth from error. Were anyone to come to me, and try to convince me otherwise, I would likely be pretty wary of them.”

Who is to determine what is authoritative and inspired for you and what is not?  Dr. Larry Richards, a professor at Andrews Theological University, presented an interesting paper with a very logical thought process regarding the Bible canon and which writings are inspired. He writes:

I have, to be sure, argued that the traditional arguments made in defense of the authoritative nature of Scripture (and therefore in an indirect sense, of the truth contained in Scripture) are often not very sound, and are meaningful at best only for those who already believe… We shall look at three questions which represent the concerns most often raised. The line of thought that runs through these inquiries suggests that I have taken something away, something that previously offered certainty. Some persons, no doubt, have held a position much like the one I’m going to now cite from, Edward J. Young (Introduction to the Old Testament, 1949) who wrote these words:

“Canonical books . . . are those books which are regarded as divinely inspired. The criterion of a book’s canonicity, therefore, is its inspiration. If a book has been inspired of God, it is canonical, whether accepted by men as such or not. It is God and not man who determines whether a book is to belong to the canon. Therefore if a certain writing has indeed been the product of divine inspiration, it belongs to the canon from the moment of its composition”.

First of all, the statement sounds good, does it not? (We have pointed out, however, that inspiration was not a criterion for canonicity in the early church). Notice the third sentence. How often I have heard this comment: “If a book has been inspired of God, it is canonical, whether accepted by men as such or not.” But I must ask, who answers the question about whether a book has been inspired of God? I agree, if God inspired the book, it is God’s word. But someone must decide (either an individual or community), whether or not God inspired the book! Who?

Young goes on to make another commonly heard statement: “It is God and not man who determines… canon.” Once again, I’ll say yes, God determines. But it follows that I must also ask: “How do we determine what God has determined?” How do we know God’s thinking on this? Who tells us? Does God? If God, how does He tell us?

Dr. Young’s final point in the above paragraph reflects a very unscholarly judgment. Magic is not the order of the day. In the following quotations from the same book, we may again read the typically held position—a product of Reformation heritage. Note the obvious circular nature of the comments:

“The Christian recognizes the Scriptures as inspired, because they are such, and bear in themselves the evidences of their divinity. Basic, therefore, to any consideration of how man comes to recognize the Bible as God’s word is the fact that it is indeed divine”.

“Young is simply saying that Scripture is true because it is. The person who comes to the Bible knows it’s God’s Word because it is divine. This line of reasoning is shallow even for a believer.[3]

How true is this, yet how often is that the sum total of the reasoning given to Christians by their various church leaders? “The Bible is inspired because it says it is inspired.” It is completely circular reasoning, rather like a self-professed prophet who “says” he or she is a prophet and therefore, he or she must be one because his or her “inspired” work says so!

This is one issue that Catholics take with the Protestant doctrine of “sola scriptura” or “Scripture alone”. Protestants are taking this Catholic creation – the Bible – and using it to tell Catholics how they are wrong. Catholics do not say the Bible is divine because of what it says, but because their church leadership has affirmed it; whom they ultimately believe has the authority to define what is divine and what is not.

In like manner, many so-called “Torah-observant” believers – former Christians or current Messianic Jews – feel they are superior or more “obedient” to God than traditional Jews. These “Messianic” believers elevate Torah to the point of believing that every single word in it is from the mouth of God; yet they disregard the fact that Judaism itself brought them their Torah, and may have some relevant insights about its interpretation and current application!

Mr. Richards goes on to say,

To argue for “inherent worth” alone is to argue strictly on the subjective judgment of a reader. That is, Luther reads 2 Maccabees and testifies: the text does not authenticate itself. How did he determine this? Obviously his own religious experience, his education, his presuppositions, his understanding of canon history, etc.—none of these can be separated from the judgment he makes. Eck, on the other hand, brings a different background to the same document and concludes the opposite of Luther. For Eck the text of 2 Maccabees belongs to the canon.

Any Christian in any age, however, who argues that a document is authoritative for them because of what that book has done in his/her life, may, and only then, testify that it has inherent worth. That is the relationship between the Reformation criterion and the one I’m proposing. Results come first; the response leads to a statement about self-authentication. The statement alone, that is without some means of testing it, opens the door for a multitude of different canons. Luther himself would have eliminated some books (such as James) from a canon list which was not in dispute by Catholic or Protestants!

The second question is, if Scripture is authoritative only after it is declared such (by a person or a community), are we able to say it is still authoritative even if everyone should deny the authority?

If every person should deny a document’s authority, it obviously would not have authority. A document only has control over, or offers guidance to, one who agrees to such. That is what authority means. “Authority” by definition requires at least one person to acknowledge the authority, or it does not exist.[4]

A real-world example of this fact is that a conservative Adventist will generally call Ellen White’s writings “authoritative and inspired”, while a “former Adventist” or Baptist will scornfully call her a false prophet and toss out her writings as just another woman’s opinion.

None of this line of reasoning is intended to argue that a truth becomes truth only by our feeble acknowledgments. Truth is indeed truth prior to our understanding; we do not make something true because we say it’s true; on the other hand, truth is only truth for any person or body of persons after they “know” it. My recognition does not make it truth; it only becomes truth for me, though, once I believe! You mean, someone asks, it’s only true/authoritative after I (or someone) says it is? No, it may be true/authoritative for someone else apart from my stated belief. But in terms of a person’s real world, that truth/authority makes no impact until it exercises authority over the person. And it can only exercise authority after the person consents.

Third, in the end, how can anyone be certain about what is authoritative and whether or not there is such a thing as absolute truth? Where or how are such crucial questions answered?[5

Mr. Richards’ point really resonated with me. As Christians, we routinely find different parts of Scripture that we do or do not give “authority” over us. One person will give Leviticus 18:22 authority over their life because they don’t believe in homosexuality; yet they consider Leviticus 19:19, just one chapter over (do not wear clothing with two different kinds of fiber in it) to be irrelevant. Another Christian will hold as Gospel Truth the apostle Paul’s advice that women are not to teach in church, while another will dismiss this directive as the product of a bygone age.

Mr. Richards' article ultimately concluded that we should test “inspirational” documents and see what kind of fruits they bear in our own lives. Jesus said much the same when he said,

“Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.”[6]

 

Here we have a very interesting point. What “fruits” have the different portions of Scripture borne through time? How have they impacted the lives of those they have touched?

To make this “fruits” concept even more personally relevant, each one of us should be brave enough to ask the following questions: What kind of life do I lead? How many people do I bless through my very existence? Does my personally selected authoritative “Scripture” make me more or less loving and tolerant to those around me? Does my religion make me kinder and more humble, or does it make me angry and superior? Would others who do not hold any Scripture passages to be authoritative actually want to find out what I believe because they see that I am such a loving and compassionate person that they want to know the God that I claim is leading me? What kind of fruits have the Scriptures that I  hold dear produced in my own life?

I learned to quote pages and pages of Bible texts when I was a child; now, it was time to learn more about the history of the Bible itself. Perhaps if I discovered more about the circumstances surrounding the Bible’s formation, the contradictions within the Scriptures would become less troublesome.