Is The Bible Simple To Understand?

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. There doesn’t seem to be much going on on the Inerrancy front at the moment, so I thought instead on a somewhat related note, I might look at the question of if the Bible is easy to understand. One objection often raised is that the man on the pew can easily understand the Bible so why do we need to add a lot of complicated stuff?

Fair enough. Why don’t we take a look at a fairly simple verse we all grew up with? I will quote it the way I remember it.

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes on him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

Of course, most of us recognize John 3:16. This verse has been called the gospel in miniature. It’s my understanding that even Martin Luther called it that. I have no problem with it. We can pick up the Bible, read this verse, and understand that God loves the world. He loves it so much, He sent His son to die for it that anyone who believes in Him will have everlasting life.

So keep in mind, nothing I say in this post is to detract from the beauty and simplicity of this verse, and there is a beauty and simplicity in much of the Bible. If you want to be saved and know who God is, you don’t need to have a degree in the Bible. You don’t need to be a high-ranking theologian. You can do that with Scripture alone.

However, while there’s a simple message that can be grasped here, let’s look and see if there are some hard questions we could ask as well.

To begin with, who’s saying this? Is this still Jesus speaking, or is it John narrating on the meaning of the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus? I’ve seen arguments that go both ways.

“For God.” Who is God exactly? What does this mean? Does this mean the same being as in the Old Testament? What is He like? Is He triune? Does he switch roles? Some of these questions might seem strange, but they could all have an impact on Christian history. Marcion thought the OT god was an evil being. Arius would say the Son was not fully God and therefore there is no Trinity. Someone like Praxeus would say God is one person and therefore there is a switch of roles. Of course, the doctrine of the nature of God is rich with content and every theologian could spend their lifetime working on it and not get anywhere near fullness, as not even eternity will do that for us.

“So loved.” What is this love? Is this like the sexual love that I have for my wife? Is this like the family love I have for my parents? Is this like the phileo love I have for my friends? Does this mean that God has emotions? If He does, how does He love? If not, then what does it mean to say God loves? Can you have love without emotion?

“The world.” What does this mean? Are we not after all told to hate the things of this world and that love of the world is opposition to God? Are we not told about the corruption of the world? If the world is corrupt, why would God love it? Does this mean the material world? Does God love material objects? Does this refer to the Roman Empire? Why would God love the Roman Empire? Why would God love the world beyond Israel anyway? Is not Israel His special people?

“That He.” What does this mean? Are we going to say that God is a man? If God is a man, does He have a male body and if so, is He designed? Is this something that is perhaps sexist? Does this mean that God could be masculine, but if God is masculine, is He opposed to the feminine? Why do we say God is masculine, if that is the case, if male and female are both made in His image? If male and female are both His image, why does the text not say “That He/She”?

“Gave.” What does it mean for God to give something? Does it really cost anything for God to give something since He is the maker and Lord of all? If we are speaking about the sacrifice of Christ, can we really call it a sacrifice if Christ was to be raised three days later?

“His Only Begotten Son.” What does this mean? Does this mean that Jesus is the Son of God through sexual means? If not, how can Jesus be called the only begotten? Are there not others who are called sons of God? Isn’t Adam a son of God? Aren’t angels sons of God? Weren’t the kings of Israel and Judah considered to be sons of God?” Are we not as Christians considered to be sons of God? How is our sonship different from Jesus’s?

“That whosoever.” Are these whosoever free or not? Does whosoever apply to only the elect, or does it refer to anyone freely? If I am a Calvinist using this verse, should I be careful lest the person I am talking to is not one of the elect? If I am an Arminian, do I really believe that it’s possible that everyone could be saved? Would that mean Christ died in vain for some?

“Believes.” Does this refer to having intellectual assent? How can this be since we are told that the demons believe and tremble? But if belief does not refer to intellectual assent, then to what does it refer to? Is this an act of the will and if so, is it done freely or by irresistible grace?

“in Him.” What does it mean to believe in Jesus? Does it mean that I have to acknowledge that Jesus existed? Can I accept Jesus as a good man? Could I even accept Him as a resurrected man but not the God-Man? Does this verse then say anything about how I should act in response to this belief?

“Should not perish.” What does it mean to perish? Don’t we believe in Hell usually? Is Hell a place where people perish? Isn’t it a place where people really live forever in pain and/or shame? Does this verse refer to total destruction then? Does this mean that people have the freedom to avoid perishing?

“But have everlasting life.” What kind of life? Do I really want to live forever? Don’t people who exist in Hell also live forever? What does this say about salvation? The verse nowhere says “salvation” or “justification.” What does this say about sins? Do we have anything in this verse about sins? Will this everlasting life be in Heaven or will it be on a New Earth? Is there a difference between those two?

These are all questions we could ask. My point has not been to raise these to answer them. I have no intentions of doing such. My point is that yes, the Bible can be simple to understand at times, but at the same time, those simple verses have a rich complexity and too often in debates, we can say “Well it looks plain and simple to me.” Maybe it does, but that does not mean that it is.

To get the diamonds out of Scripture, we have to do some digging.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , ,

4 Responses to “Is The Bible Simple To Understand?”

  1. rey Says:

    “That He.” What does this mean? Are we going to say that God is a man? If God is a man, does He have a male body and if so, is He designed? Is this something that is perhaps sexist?

    Considering that you believe Jesus is God….you look pretty stupid asking this. Does Jesus have a male body? or is he some kind of hermaphrodite? or are you admitting that you don’t really believe he is God?

    You see, then, this is why people prefer to keep things simple rather than introduce the sort of convolution that you introduced here. By asking the silly question “If God is a man, does He have a male body? Is this something that is perhaps sexist?” you have opened up your most cherished belief — that Jesus is God — to the same questions. “Maybe the idea of a male incarnation of God is sexists — maybe we should also make Mary an incarnation of God to make things fair” I hear someone say…and you gave them the idea.

  2. apologianick Says:

    Gotta love it. Write a post on what happens when people treat the Bible as a simple document and along comes a prime example.

    No. No one is asking if Jesus has a male body, but It seems you’re saying “Jesus is God” is a one-to-one correspondence when it is not. Saying Jesus is God is theological shorthand for saying that all that is required to be of the nature of total deity exists in the person of the Son. The humanity is not a part of the deity. Jesus is fully God in nature but God is not fully Jesus.

    This could have been corrected by a few minutes study of orthodox Christology, but it seems that that is too difficult for you.

  3. reyjacobs Says:

    “The humanity is not a part of the deity.”

    This seems to be at odds with the Athanasian Creed, and thus the idea that it “could have been corrected by a few minutes study of orthodox Christology” seems questionable.

    “[33] Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. [34] One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God. [35] One altogether, not by the confusion of substance, but by unity of person.”

    That last phrase seems to mean that although the humanity is not part of divine substance, it is part of the divine person, since he is one person, and therefore his humanity cannot be separated from his divinity.

    “Jesus is fully God in nature but God is not fully Jesus.”

    You didn’t ask “Is God a male body?” You asked “Does God have a male body?” To the first question, the answer is no. To the second, it would be yes.

  4. apologianick Says:

    Did you bother to read the Creed at all? There’s that line there about not confusing th substances. The humanity and the deity do not become mixed and this is speaking about Christ taking on humanity in addition to his deity.

    Of course Jesus is one person, in response to a more Nestorian outlook, and that one person happens to have two natures that are not mixed.

    As for God having a male body, the answer is again not yes. That would assume that God is Jesus which is not the Trinitarian position.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: