The Bible in the Post-Christian World (Part 5): What is the point of the Bible?

Now that we have established that the Bible is trustworthy and authoritative because it is inspired by God, we need to turn to more detailed questions about this book. Let’s turn back to the young lady who wants to be a pastor. We have already addressed the argument she might give for being a pastor in which she might claim that not all the Bible is inspired by God. We’ve also challenged another view she might have: that the Bible is to be interpreted by her own experience, which is equal in authority to the Bible. But, there is another argument she might raise.

It is a popular position within the Church today to hold to an orthodox view of the Inspiration and Authority of Scripture but deny its usefulness as a whole. The young lady from our example might argue that she is free to pursue her calling as a pastor because “we are under grace, not under the law”. This is a common objection to the idea that the laws of the Old Testament can provide us with some guidance for our lives today. This raises a question with profound implications: Is the Bible fundamentally a collection of disconnected sayings and stories or a single story with one overarching meaning?

In this post I want to look at three popular views of the Bible which I believe are in error, and then I want to look at the correct view.

Dispensationalism

Dispensationalism has had more of an impact on religious belief in the US than most will recognize, and very few people even recognize the word at all. Dispensationalism is the belief that God has dealt with humanity through as many as seven different epochs (or dispensations), and that the way God dealt with man in each epoch changed. It is the belief that the story keeps repeating itself throughout the Bible, with God issuing a call to obedience for man, man’s ultimate failure in following that command, and God’s act of grace to bring mankind through to another dispensation.

It is important to understand three distinctions about Dispensationalism. First, the Dispensationalist is not saying that God doesn’t really have a plan, but rather is trying something different to see what man will do, and then changing his plan accordingly. Dr. Lewis Chafer says, “This, in part, is God’s purpose in the ages, and the result of the testings is in every case an unquestionable demonstration of the utter failure and sinfulness of man. In the end, every mouth will have been stopped because every assumption of the human heart will be revealed as foolish and wicked by centuries of experience.” (Chafer, Major Bible Themes, 1974)

Second, we must wholeheartedly acknowledge that God has set forth different ages or dispensations in which he has revealed himself to men through different signs, symbols, and economies. The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter VII, paragraph V says, “This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.” So, even this confession acknowledges that the Covenant of Grace was “administered” differently in the Old Testament than in the New.

However, the third distinction that we need to see is that Dispensationalism injects a discontinuity into the Bible that is not there. The Dispensationalist would say that God was dealing with men differently in the age of innocence or government or law, especially as it relates to his salvation. Each dispensation is waiting on man’s obedience to some new rule, whether it be obedience to conscience, to government, to the promise, or to law. Grace, in the dispensational view, comes later.

But, the Bible does not teach that salvation was based on a different set of criteria in the Old Testament. In Romans 4, Paul uses the examples of Abraham and David (men from different dispensations) as examples of those who were justified before God by their faith. In fact, it is in verse 3 that Paul so famously points back to the Law, noting, “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.”

The dichotomy that Dispensationalism creates between the Old Testament and the New is a dangerous one. From this belief have come errors such as the belief that I quoted earlier: “that was law, but we are now under grace”. If such a dichotomy exists, what are we to make of Paul’s use of the law in 1 Cor. 9:9–12: “For it is written in the Law of Moses, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.’ Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more?” Paul says here that this law wasn’t given for the sake of the ox, but for our sake.

Yes, the Bible does contain a history of God’s various dealings with men, and Chafer is right to say that God’s purpose in this is to prove for all of eternity that man is helpless without His work of grace. But, the point of the Bible must be more than this. Surely God was doing more than just repeatedly calling for obedience and repeatedly allowing man to fail.

Marcionism

Marcion was a pastor, first in Rome and then in Asia Minor, during the late first century. As he studied the Scriptures, he could not seem to reconcile the God of the Old Testament with Jesus. He saw the God of the Old Testament to be a capricious, vindictive God who was tribal and limited, while the Father of Jesus was loving and merciful. So, Marcion devised a system of theology in which there were two gods, the transcendent God who was the Father of Jesus, and the creator god, who was the god of the Jews. Marcion was also the first to publish a canon of Scripture, which included 11 books of the New Testament with parts removed that disagreed with his view.

There are some very obvious problems with Marcion’s position, and the church soundly rejected him as a heretic. First, Jesus quotes from every section of the Old Testament. Second, he speaks of the himself as being one with the Old Testament God (“before Abraham was, I am”). Third, he defends and extends the Old Testament Law.

But, even though Marcion was dismissed in the first and second centuries, we still find his views floating around in American religion today. Whenever people say, “My God is a God of Love, not hate”, I hear the echoes of Marcion in their voices.

Like Dispensationalism, this view creates a dangerous dichotomy between the Old Testament and New, even taking that division further than any Dispensationalist would be willing to go. The Marcionite creates this break for a good reason, in that he wants to defend God against those who would say that he is mean or unloving. But God is who he reveals himself to be. We cannot change what the story reveals about God just because we find it difficult.

The Guidebook for Life

There is one last position that we need to address as it relates to the point of the Bible, and that is the common belief that the Bible is a “guidebook for life”. Now, certainly everyone would agree that we should obey the Law of God. Everyone would also agree that we should heed its wisdom. But, my disagreement with this phrase revolves around the fact that it seeks to claim that the overarching message of the Bible is one of Law. In this view, the primary use of the Bible is to show us how to live, to teach us what is right and encourage us to walk in it. This view does the opposite of the Dispensational and Marcionite views. Instead of trying to make a distinction between the Old and New Testaments, this view assumes that all of Scripture is in the category of Law.

There is real danger here because one who holds this view of the Bible could easily fall into the error of believing that right living can earn a place in Heaven. Another dangerous version of this view is to see the Bible as a list of promises or formulas for success. We find this best represented in what is known as the “Health and Wealth” gospel. Proponents of this view believe that using God’s promises found in Scripture in the right way can provide the adherent with wealth, power, and prestige.

So What’s The Point?

There is real danger in summarizing the Bible. In attempting to do so, we run the risk of either treating it as if whole portions don’t matter, or as if it is all of one genre or another. This series started with the fact that the Bible is trustworthy because Jesus rose from the dead. If Jesus is the true, risen Son of God, then what he says about the Bible is the truth of the matter. So, with that same rubric in mind, in the next post we will consider what Jesus says is the point of the Bible.