This article first appeared in Christian Research Journal, volume 34, number 06 (2011). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org

Modern Western culture has drunk deeply of pop psychology’s ideas regarding forgiveness. Because of this, modern relationships are not generally built on a firm foundation of genuine love, truth, and reconciliation. Even among Christians, relationships too often remain at a superficial level marked by denial and avoidance by those who have injured others and by unresolved pain in those who have been wronged. Neither party grows from the experience, as God would intend. These types of weak and potentially explosive relationships are avoidable if we are willing to commit to a wholly biblical view and practice of forgiveness.

BIBLICAL DATA ON GOD’S FORGIVENESS

God is the pattern for all righteous behavior. We are to be perfect just as God is perfect (Matt. 5:48). We are to imitate Jesus Christ so faithfully that we are to “follow His steps” (1 Pet. 2:21). Indeed, the process of sanctification is equated with being “conformed to His image” (Rom. 8:29–30¹). Even in the matter of extending forgiveness to others, the behavior of God Himself is to be our pattern. We are to forgive others “even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you” (Eph. 4:32). We are specifically told to imitate the forgiveness of Christ (Col. 3:13).

Canceled Debt

God’s forgiveness is characterized as canceling a right of repayment or as completely eliminating a debt (Matt. 18:27, 32; Luke 7:41–50). When God forgives a person, his (or her) sin is covered and is therefore no longer considered by God (Ps. 32:1, Ps. 85:2, Isa. 44:22). God puts so much psycho logical and spiritual space between us and our forgiven sins that it can be likened to the endless distance between east and west (Ps. 103:10–13). God’s forgiveness is unlimited in scope, as well, covering all sins (Ps. 103:3; 1 John 1:9, but see the exception, Matt. 12:31–32), and is available to all people (2 Pet. 3:9).

Reconciliation

It goes without saying that the goal of God’s forgiveness is not the psychological health of the forgiver, since God is perfectly healthy from the beginning. Rather, the goal of God’s forgiveness is the reconciliation of human beings to Himself and the restoration of a relationship marred by human sin (Acts 26:18; Eph. 1:7–11; Col. 1:13–22). Further, this reconciliation is not the result of a psychological trick by which God simply decides one day to ignore the mass of offenses committed by human beings (Exod. 34:7; Num. 14:18). God’s forgiveness, rather, is extended within the context of both mercy and justice. God fully and completely judges sin, and based on the demonstration of wrath and purging of guilt that took place in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross (called propitiation in Rom. 3:24–26), both mercy and judgment are possible. In God’s economy, sin must be judged even while God’s mercy is given an avenue through which to operate.

Conditional Forgiveness

God’s forgiveness, then, is not tolerance of sin or “letting bygones be bygones.” God’s forgiveness is based on the fact that sin has already been judged in the person and work of Jesus Christ (Matt. 26:28; Acts 2:38; 10:43; 13:38; Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:22; 1 John 2:12). Although Christ is the ground of all forgiveness of sin and such forgiveness is freely given, there are conditions that precede receiving this forgiveness, such as faith (Rom. 3:24–26).

This is an important principle: while God’s love is unconditional, His forgiveness of sin is conditional. God’s love is constant and universal in that He is good toward all people, regardless of their moral character (Matt. 5:44–45; Luke 6:35). He desires and has made it possible for all people to be saved (2 Pet. 3:9) and He is always “ready to forgive” (Ps. 86:5). But God’s forgiveness, while certainly conceptually related to and motivated by His love, is not extended universally, as His love is.

In the Old Testament, Joshua makes clear that not just anyone can obtain God’s forgiveness of sins. Because God is holy and jealous, those who forsake Him or serve idols are not the recipients of His forgiveness (Josh. 24:19–21). Repentance, or “returning from one’s evil way,” is further presented as a prerequisite for obtaining forgiveness (Jer. 36:3, cf. Ps. 51, esp. vv. 3, 16–17). New Testament teaching agrees. The woman who received forgiveness consequent to her anointing of the Lord’s feet is stated to have exercised faith in Him, and thus her sins were forgiven (Luke 7:40–50). She was motivated by godly sorrow for her own sins (Luke 7:44–47), and Paul explicitly notes that such godly sorrow “works repentance” (2 Cor. 7:9–10). Repentance and forgiveness of sins are similarly linked in Peter’s sermons (Acts 2:38; 5:31; 8:22). So repentance is considered to be a prerequisite, or condition, of receiving forgiveness from God in both Testaments.

CULTURAL CONCEPTIONS OF FORGIVENESS

Since Christ is our example and we are to imitate the Father in our own moral character, we should emulate God in both our willingness to grant forgiveness and the conditions under which we grant it. Like God’s forgiveness of human beings, our forgiveness of others is based on the redeeming work of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 2:10). Like God’s forgiveness, we should be willing to forgive all people, for any sin, an unrestricted number of times (Matt. 18:21–22; Luke 17:4).

Freedom in Forgiveness

However, there is much disagreement culturally as to whether forgiveness is conditional or unconditional, and what its purposes are. “Spiritual counselor” Gary Zukav maintains, “When you don’t forgive it’s like wearing dark sunglasses that distort everything you see….Forgiving is…lightening up. It is being able to enjoy your life, laugh again, and see the beauty in others. When you cannot forgive yourself, you cannot forgive others. When you cannot forgive others, you cannot forgive yourself.” ² According to Zukav, then, forgiveness is primarily a matter of personal psychological health and self-fulfillment. It is “lightening up” as a part of a quest for personal happiness.

At Oprah.com one reads that “in his book…clinical psychologist Everett Worthington Jr. offers a five-step process he calls REACH. First, recall the hurt. Then empathize and try to understand the act from the perpetrator’s point of view. Be altruistic by recalling a time in your life when you were forgiven. Commit to putting your forgiveness into words. You can do this either in a letter to the person you’re forgiving or in your journal. Finally, try to hold on to the forgiveness. Don’t dwell on your anger, hurt, and desire for vengeance.” ³

So, according to Worthington’s pop psychology, forgiveness can be accomplished merely by the offended party’s expression of it—perhaps in his or her journal. Yet note that it is anticipated that an attempt to forgive in such a way might be difficult to “hold on to.” Forgiveness is an act of altruism, not provoked by any act or attitude in the wrongdoer and not conceptually related to healing relationships or judgment of wrongdoing.

Such erroneous notions of forgiveness are not limited to secular thinking, but are affirmed by professing Christians as well. Denise George, writing for ChristianityToday.com, says, “You’ve acknowledged the hurt and rightly blamed the offender. Now you’re ready to make the willful decision to ‘cancel the debt’ your offender owes you. Find a quiet place to be alone and ask the Lord’s help in forgiving the person who hurt you….After you’ve prayed and while you’re still alone, speak aloud your decision to forgive: ‘(Name of offender), I’ve chosen to forgive you for hurting me….’” ⁴

Free Forgiveness

Forgiveness can be accomplished while you are alone, merely by speaking it into existence? While George rightly recognizes that forgiveness involves recognition of moral culpability (you have blamed the offender), she seems to consider forgiveness more of a process of dealing with one’s own hurt than one of fixing a relationship that has been marred by wrongdoing. Note her idea that forgiveness is unilateral: while you have blamed the offender, he is not required to accept responsibility in order for forgiveness to be extended.

The “forgiveness” of pop culture is a matter of personal psychological health that we perform by ourselves, for ourselves. “Forgiveness” is essentially getting over an injustice; it is the near equivalent of releasing a grudge, and it can be accomplished unilaterally. “Forgiveness…means that we change old patterns of beliefs and actions that are driven by our bitterness. As we let go of grudges, we’ll no longer define our lives by how we’ve been hurt….It may be particularly hard to forgive someone who doesn’t admit wrong or doesn’t speak of their sorrow. Keep in mind that the key benefits of forgiveness are for you.” ⁵

Conditional, Confrontational, and Conciliatory

Nothing could be further from the biblical model than the popular ideas above. While the Christian must always have a conciliatory spirit, even in relation to those who may never ask for forgiveness, the actual act of forgiveness requires a wrongdoer’s confession or repentance. Biblical forgiveness is not extended arbitrarily or unilaterally, but is conditioned on the repentance of the wrongdoer. “If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him” (Luke 17:3–4).

Jesus says that if someone trespasses (αμαρταυω), the most generic New Testament word for “sin,” encompassing both intentional and unintentional offenses) against us, we are personally to “rebuke” him for his sin. We are to do so in an attempt to offer forgiveness to him, but we are to forgive him conditionally, only if he repents (v. 3). If he continues to offend, we are to continue to forgive conditionally, if he continues to repent (v. 4). There must be both a human confessor and a human forgiver in order for forgiveness to be complete. Human forgiveness, then, is conditional, just as is divine forgiveness (2 Pet. 3:9).

Biblical forgiveness is confrontational. Scripture does not indicate that it is possible, in the privacy and isolation of one’s own mind, to release one’s hurt mystically and achieve forgiveness. In Matthew 5:23–24, Jesus demands that if we come to worship (“bring thy gift to the altar”) and, prior to presenting our gift, realize that there is some unresolved matter (the Greek term is τίς, literally “anything,” great or small) between ourselves and our brother, that we are to leave the act of worship and seek to be immediately reconciled to our brother. So reconciliation with our brother is placed on a higher religious (not merely ethical) plane than even the worship of the Almighty. If we are at fault, we must confront the person that we have wronged with our recognition and confession of wrongdoing. Note also that in Luke 17:3–4, we are commanded to extend forgiveness in a process that begins with an act of confrontation: our rebuking our brother. In Matthew 18:15–17, we are commanded to confront the wrongdoer, and if he will not be scripturally reconciled, to seek the help of others in confronting him, too. There is no biblical justification for simply not speaking about sin committed either by us or against us and “getting on with life.”

While it is true that biblical forgiveness is confrontational, it is important to note that the confrontation has as its entire goal the objective reconciliation of relationships marred by sin. The Bible recognizes Christian relationships—not popular conceptions of mental health—as the primary criteria in determining the validity of one’s Christian walk (John 13:35). In Matthew 18, Jesus makes plain that reconciliation is so important that one church member’s failure to be reconciled is sufficient grounds for removing him from the local church and treating him as “a heathen man and a publican.” ⁶ Reconciliation of marred relationships between believers is of such high ethical importance that it cannot merely be a matter left to the two parties to sort out. If an attempt at reconciliation does not succeed, church leadership or the church itself should become involved (Matt. 18:16–17).

Note that the simple process of church discipline is enough to contradict the common misconception that forgiveness is a subjective psychological exercise by which one merely releases hurt or “chang[es] old beliefs and patterns and actions that are driven by our bitterness.” If forgiveness were so easily accomplished, there would be no need for a command to confront the offending brother (Matt. 18:15), no need to involve the church (vv. 16-17), and certainly no need to remove the offender from the local fellowship (v. 17). The believer simply could subjectively “forgive” or “release his hurt” and walk away. But genuine forgiveness is not a subjective experience related to mental health. It is an objective transaction in which one party accepts responsibility for wrongdoing and another party willingly reconciles despite the harm suffered (vv. 15–17). It is the objective reality of healing relationships in such a way as to demonstrate the mercy and love of God to others by modeling His willingness to forgive us despite the infinite harm caused to His glory by man’s sin (Matt. 18:23–35). Therefore, if forgiveness is either sought or offered and the other party refuses to respond appropriately, such failure to accomplish the objectively measurable transaction of repentance followed by forgiveness and reconciliation demands that church discipline be enforced.

In summary, biblical forgiveness is an objective, conditional, bilateral transaction in which sinners are confronted so that sin can be judged by both the offender and the offended and, consequently, relationships can be reconciled.

The snake oil that is pop psychology’s “forgiveness” condones sin, coddles the sinner, and leaves relationships forever marred. As with God’s judgment of our own sin on the cross, human wrongs can only be fully dealt with when mercy and justice are both satisfied. Therefore, confrontation of the offender—and repentance by the offender prior to extension of forgiveness—is a necessary aspect of accurately imitating divine forgiveness.

Recognizing that genuine forgiveness is conditional leads to the achievement of full spiritual maturity in both the offender and the offended. The offender knows that his sin has not been ignored, but rather has been judged. He has the opportunity to participate in the judgment of his own wrong, which is a necessary part of avoiding God’s greater judgment of sin (1 Cor. 11:31–32). He is also motivated to turn away from destructive personal behavior patterns that he now understands are not only wrong, but also hurtful to others and shameful to him. That true forgiveness is conditional also motivates both parties always to be willing to reconcile, leading to the rule of both love and peace within the church.

Jerry Jarman, J.D., Ph.D., is a Christian counselor with clients all over the world.

 NOTES

1. All Bible quotations are from the King James Version except where free-form translations of the Greek and Hebrew are offered.
2. Gary Zukav, How to Forgive Yourself, Oprah.com (http://www.oprah.com/spiritself/lybl/well/ss_lybl_well_forgive01_h.jhtml), accessed May 26, 2008. Considering the biblical data below, in which forgiveness is demonstrated to be about healing relationships, Christians can understandably be skeptical of the whole idea of “forgiving one’s self.”
3. Michael McCullough and Robert Emmons, Choosing Happiness, Oprah.com (http://www.oprah.com/spiritself/webmd/200710/spirit_happy_105.jhtml), accessed May 26, 2008.
4. Denise George, “What Forgiveness Isn’t,” in Today’s Christian Woman, ChristianityToday.com (http://www.christianitytoday.com/tcw/2006/julaug/14.38.html?start=3), accessed May 26, 2008.
5. Katherine M. Piderman, Ph.D., “Forgiveness: How to Let Go of Grudges and Bitterness,” MayoClinic.com (www.mayoclinic.com/print/forgiveness/MH00131/METHOD=print), accessed on May 27, 2008.
6. Far from being permission to treat the person cast out of the church with hatred, the role of the church following the process of church discipline changes from edifying and mobilizing him to attempting to evangelize him (Gal. 1:16; Gal. 2:9) and to love and pray for him (Matt. 5:44; Jude 21–23).

First, the entire New Testament canon was recorded early and thus was not subject to legendary contamination. Had any part of the canon been composed after AD 70 it would most certainly have mentioned the destruction of the very temple that had given the ancient Jews their theological and sociological identity. Additionally, because Matthew and Luke likely used Mark as a source and Luke composed his gospel prior to the writing of Acts, which was completed prior to Paul’s martyrdom in the mid–60s, Mark may have been composed as early as the AD 40s, just a few years after the events recorded. Moreover, in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul reiterates a Christian creed that can be traced to within three to eight years of Christ’s crucifixion. By contrast, the Gnostic gospels, including the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas, are dated long after the close of the first century. The entire New Testament canon was recorded early and thus was not subject to contamination. . . .The authority of the New Testament is confirmed through the eyewitness credentials of its authors. . . .And extra–biblical evidence
confirms the New Testament canon.

Furthermore, the authority of the New Testament is confirmed through the eyewitness credentials of its authors. John writes, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life” (1 John 1:1). Likewise, Peter reminded his readers that the disciples “did not follow cleverly invented stories” but “were eyewitnesses of [Jesus’] majesty” (2 Peter 1:16). Moreover, the New Testament contains embarrassing details that no authoritarian association bent on dogmatic dominance would have adopted. For instance, the Gospels present the founding members of the movement as dissident disciples who not only doubted but denied their Master.  The canon was not determined by men but discovered by the community of early believers based on principles of canonicity.

Finally, extra–biblical evidence confirms the New Testament canon and knows nothing of early competing canons. Secular historians—including Josephus (before AD 100), the Roman Tacitus (around AD 120), the Roman Suetonius (AD 110), and the Roman governor Pliny the Younger (AD 110)—confirm the many events, people, places, and customs chronicled in the New Testament. Early church leaders such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Julius Africanus, and Clement of Rome—all writing before AD 250—also shed light on New Testament historical accuracy. From such sources, we can piece together the highlights of the life of Christ independent of the New Testament canon. Moreover, Eusebius of Caesarea acknowledged the centrality of the canonical Gospels and recorded their widespread use in important Christian centers including Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. As such, the canon was not determined by men but discovered by the community of early believers based on principles of canonicity.

For further study, see Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004).

Luke 1:1–2
“Many have undertaken to draw up an account
of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as
they were handed down to us by those who from
the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.”

First, in Jewish idiom any part of a day counted as a day–night unit. Thus, there is no need to literalistically demand that seventy–two hours be accounted for. This is particularly evident in light of Jesus’ own contention that he would rise on the third day, not after the third day and night had ended (Matthew 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Luke 24:46; cf. Matthew 26:61; 27:40, 63–64).

Furthermore, the Gospels unanimously declare that Jesus died on the Day of Preparation; that is, Friday, the day leading up to the beginning of the Sabbath at sundown (Matthew 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:31, 42). The gospel writers demonstrate similar unanimity regarding the discovery of Jesus’ resurrection early in the morning on the day following the Sabbath; that is, Sunday, the first day of the week (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). Thus, to suggest as some have that Jesus died on Wednesday and rose on Saturday, or died on Thursday and rose on Sunday directly contradicts the testimony of all four gospel writers. Jesus’ sacrificial death and miraculous resurrection on the third day is the glorious archetypal fulfillment of Old Testament types.

Finally, once knowledge of ancient culturally informed modes of oral and literary expression replaces a naïve literalistic interpretation, the majestic harmony of Scripture shines through. Indeed, Jesus’ sacrificial death and miraculous resurrection on the third day is the glorious archetypal fulfillment of Old Testament types including the Passover Lamb (Exodus 12; cf. 1 Corinthians 5:7), Jonah’s preservation “for three days and three nights” (Jonah 1:17), and the restoration of Israel “on the third day” prophesied by Hosea (Hosea 6:2).

For further study, see Hank Hanegraaff, Resurrection (Nashville:Word Publishing, 2000).

Luke 24:46
“He told them, ‘This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day.’”

Matthew, writing to a primarily Jewish audience, emphasizes that Jesus Christ is the seed of Abraham and the legal heir of David, the long–awaited King of Israel who would ultimately restore his people from exile. As such, Matthew records fourteen generations from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile and fourteen from the exile to the Christ (Matthew 1:17). Matthew, a former tax collector, skillfully organizes the genealogy of Jesus into three groups of fourteen, the numerical equivalent of the Hebrew letters in King David’s name (4+6+4 =s+u+s). Thus Matthew’s genealogy simultaneously highlights the most significant names in the lineage of Jesus and artistically emphasizes our Lord’s identity as Messiah who would forever sit upon the throne of David.

Furthermore, Luke, writing to a primarily Gentile audience, extends his genealogy past Abraham to the first Adam, thus highlighting that Christ, the Second Adam, is the Savior of all humanity. Additionally, calling Adam “the son of God” (3:38) and strategically placing the genealogy between Jesus’ baptism and the desert temptation, Luke masterfully reveals Jesus as Theanthropos—the God–Man. It is also instructive to note that while Luke’s genealogy stretches from the first Adam to the second, only mountain peaks in the lineage are accounted for. Thus, it is impossible to determine how many years elapsed between the creation of Adam and the birth of Jesus. Matthew, writing to a primarily Jewish audience, emphasizes that Jesus Christ is the seed of Abraham and the legal heir of David, the long–awaited King of Israel who would ultimately restore his people from exile.

Finally, just as there are different emphases in the genealogies, so too there are different explanations for the dissimilarities between them. Matthew traces his genealogy through David’s son Solomon, while Luke traces his genealogy through David’s son Nathan. It may be that Matthew’s purpose is to provide the legal lineage from Solomon through Joseph, while Luke’s purpose is to provide the natural lineage from Nathan through Mary. It could also be that Matthew and Luke are both tracing Joseph’s genealogy— Matthew, the legal line, and Luke, the natural line. As such, the legal line diverges from the natural in that Levirate Law stipulated if a man died without an heir his genealogy could legally continue through his brother (Deuteronomy 25:5–6). Obviously, the fact that there are a number of ways to resolve dissimilarities rules out the notion that the genealogies are contradictory.

For further study, see Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1997): 199, 207–08.

Matthew 1:1
“A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ
the son of David, the son of Abraham.”

One of the most frequently cited alleged contradictions involves the female discoverers of the empty tomb. According to Matthew, the discoverers were Mary Magdalene and another Mary (28:1); Mark says they were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (16:1); Luke claims Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and others (24:10); and John focuses solely on Mary Magdalene (20:18).In providing a defensible argument against such dogmatic assertions, it is first helpful to point out that the Gospels are complementary rather than contradictory. If John, in the example cited above, had stipulated that Mary Magdalene was the only female to discover the empty tomb while the other gospels claimed that more than one woman was involved, we would be faced with an obvious contradiction. Instead, the complementary details provided by the four gospel writers simply serve to flesh out the rest of the story.

Furthermore, credible scholars look for a reliable core set of facts in order to validate historical accounts. In this case, liberal and conservative scholars alike agree that the body of Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. As a member of the Jewish court that convicted Jesus, Joseph is unlikely to be Christian fiction. Additionally, when we consider the role of women in first-century Jewish society, what is remarkable is that the empty tomb accounts would feature females as heroes of the story. This demonstrates that the gospel writers factually recorded what happened even if it was culturally embarrassing.

Finally, if each of the gospel writers presented secondary details in exactly the same manner, critics would dismiss their accounts on the basis of collusion. Instead, the Gospels provide unique yet mutually consistent perspectives on the events surrounding the empty tomb.

The principles above not only resolve the circumstances in the case at hand but all supposed contradictions highlighted by Peter Jennings in The Search for Jesus. We can safely conclude that far from being contradictory, the gospel accounts are clearly complementary; a consensus of credible scholarship considers the core set of facts presented by the gospel writers to be authentic and reliable; and the unique perspectives provided by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John preclude the possibility of collusion.

For further study concerning alleged contradictions in the Bible, see Gleason L.Archer, New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982); concerning evidences for Christ’s resurrection, see Hank Hanegraaff, The Third Day (Nashville: W Publishing Group, 2003). Also see Hank Hanegraaff, “The Search for Jesus Hoax,” available at www.equip.org.

Luke 1:1–4
“Many have undertaken to draw up an account
of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as
they were handed down to us by those who from the
first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.

First, it should be noted that it is Ehrman, not Mark, who makes a crucial blunder. A quick reading of the text in question reveals that far from saying that Abiathar was high priest, Mark states that David and his men ate the showbread “in the days of Abiathar the high priest” (Mark 2:26, emphasis added). Put another way, there is no direct indication that Abiathar was serving in the office of high priest at the time, only that he was alive. Had Jesus erred, the Jewish leaders who were intimately acquainted with their history would have jumped all over him.

Furthermore, the reason Jesus references Abiathar rather than his father Ahimelech should be self-evident—particularly to a New Testament scholar. Namely, while David has little interaction with Ahimelech in biblical history, he is inextricably linked to Abiathar. In fact, after Saul killed Ahimelech (1 Samuel 22:1–19), Abiathar found protection under David (1 Samuel 22:23), became priest to David (1 Samuel 23:6, 9; 2 Samuel 8:17), and eventually was exalted to the highest priestly office under David (1 Chronicles 15:11; 1 Kings 2:35). Put another way, Abiathar was the star— Ahimelech was but a footnote.

Finally, one thousand years from now people may well say that Desert Storm occurred in the days of President George W. Bush, though he was not president at the time—his dad was. Indeed, the entire Iraq crisis from 9/11 to the toppling and trial of Saddam, including all the attendant circumstances leading up to those events (e.g., the challenges of the U.N. weapon’s inspections prior to 9/11), are associated with George W. Bush’s Iraq war, not with George Herbert Walker Bush. In much the same way, Jesus is justified in speaking of David eating the showbread “in the days of Abiathar the high priest.”

Through a fair and balanced application of interpretive principles, this and a host of apparent contradictions are easily resolved.

For further study, see “Do the gospel accounts contradict one another?” [on p. 180] and Hank Hanegraaff, The Apocalypse Code: Find Out What the Bible Really Says about the End Times…and Why It Matters Today (Nashville:Thomas Nelson,2007).

Proverbs 18:17
“The first to present his case seems right,
till another comes forward and questions him.”

First, in order to interpret the Bible literally we must pay special attention to what is known as form or genre. Put another way, to interpret the Bible literally we must first consider the form of literature we are interpreting. As a legal brief differs in form from fantasy literature, so, too, a parable concerning a mustard seed would likely differ in form and function from a technical discussion on horticulture.

Furthermore, when Jesus asks, “What shall we say the kingdom of God is like?” (Mark 4:30, emphasis added) we should immediately be alerted to the fact that Jesus is about to use an extended simile (parable) to teach his disciples a principle about the kingdom. Indeed, Jesus says as much when he continues, “or what parable should we use to describe it” (v. 30, emphasis added). As with metaphors, the danger is to interpret extended similes in a strictly wooden literal sense. The kingdom of God is obviously not like a mustard seed in every way. Nor does Jesus intend to make his parable “walk on all fours.” A kingdom does not look like a mustard seed, nor is a mustard seed the smallest seed in the kingdom. Rather the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed in the sense that it begins small and becomes large (cf. Daniel 2:31–45).

Finally, while the One who caused the universe to leap into existence (another figure of speech) by simple speaking would obviously know that an orchid seed is smaller than a mustard seed, an orchid seed would have been profoundly inept for the purpose of the parable. Jesus used the smallest seed familiar to a Palestinian farmer—a small seed that unlike an orchid seed grows to have “big branches that the birds in the air can perch in”—to illustrate that the kingdom of God began in obscurity but would one day “fill the earth.”
In sum, to avoid the dangers of the hyper-literalism of fundamentalist scholars on the left, it is crucial to read the Bible as literature, paying close attention to form. As we do, you and I must ever be mindful that the Bible is not merely literature. Instead, the Scriptures are uniquely inspired by the Spirit. Thus, we must fervently pray that the Spirit, who inspired the Scriptures, illumines our minds as we learn to read the Bible for all it’s worth. 

For further study, see “What does it mean to interpret the Bible literally?” [on p. 522].

Mark 4:30-32
“Again [Jesus] said, “What shall we say the
kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use
to describe it? It is like a mustard seed, which is the
smallest seed you plant in the ground. Yet when
planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all garden
plants, with such big branches that the birds
of the air can perch in its shade.”

First, Paul obviously does not intend to say that women must always be silent in church. Rather, in a culture in which women were largely illiterate and unlearned, Paul is saying that until a woman learns she must not presume to teach. If Paul had intended to say a woman must always be silent, he would not have given women instructions on how to pray or prophesy publicly in church (1 Corinthians 11:5).

Furthermore, by alluding to Eve’s deception in the garden, Paul underscores how crucial it is that women, like men, involve themselves in learning. Far from chastising Eve for her role in the Fall, Paul chastises the Jewish men of his day for excluding women from learning, thus leaving them vulnerable to deception. Just as Adam was responsible for failing to protect Eve from deception, so too the men of Paul’s day would be held responsible if they hindered women from studying and growing in their faith.

Finally, Paul’s words refute the matriarchal authoritarianism practiced by pagan cults in that day. Ephesus, where Timothy ministered, was the home of a cult dedicated to the pagan goddess Artemis. Worship of Artemis was conducted under the authority of an entirely female priesthood that exercised authoritarian dominion over male worshipers. Thus, Paul emphasizes that women should not presume undue authority over men. Paul neither elevates women over men nor men over women, but is rather concerned that men and women be granted equal opportunity to learn and grow in submission to one another and to God (1 Timothy 2:11; cf. Ephesians 5:21).

For further study, see N.T.Wright,“Women’s Service in the Church:The Biblical Basis,” available at www.ntwrightpage.com.

Ephesians 5:21
“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

First, in the Jewish culture of Paul’s day, it was believed that if women died in childbirth it was a direct punishment for Eve’s role in the Fall. Thus, Paul may well be assuring believers that women will be kept safe through the process of childbirth “if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety” (2:15). As such, Paul’s words refute the denigration of women both in the culture and in the church.

Furthermore, men and women alike are ultimately saved as a result of the most significant birth in the history of humanity. Thus, Paul may also be alluding to the fact that just as “the woman [Eve] was deceived and became a sinner” (v. 14), so the woman (Mary) conceived and brought forth the Savior.

Finally, salvation here cannot mean salvation in the ultimate sense. If it did, women would not be saved by God’s grace through faith alone. Unlike men, they would also have to bear children. This not only is absurd but stands in direct opposition to the unambiguous teaching of Scripture (John 14:6; Ephesians 2:8–9; Galatians 3:28). Remember, that which is cloudy must always be interpreted in the light of that which is clear.

For further study, see Philip H.Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 233–37.

Ephesians 2:8–9
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.”

First, if unbelievers can be saved through marriage, there would be at least two ways to be saved: one by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone; the other by marriage to a believer. Not only so, but unbelievers would be forced into the kingdom of Christ against their wills.

Furthermore, being sanctified is not the same as being saved. In context, to be sanctified means to be set apart. As such, the unbeliever has been sanctified for the sake of the marriage, not for the sake of salvation. In other words, the believer is not defiled by the spiritual deadness of the unbeliever. Rather the unbeliever comes under the special influence of the Holy Spirit.

Finally, in the self–same context, Paul distinguishes between being sanctified and being saved by writing, “How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?” (v. 16, emphasis added). As such, sanctification is not synonymous with salvation.

For further study, see Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003).

John 14:6
“Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’”