After a recent workshop, I offered a one-hour Q and A. One of the question stumped. Before I proceed... I am currently listening to your excellent series “How We Got the Bible” and am reading How to Read the Bible for All its Worth (Fee and Stuart) and The Making of the Bible (Schmid and Schröter). I see my need to up my game. The question was on the argument that the biblical authors did not understand sexual orientation or the concept of loving, monogamous gay relationships as we do today, making their writings obsolete.

My answer is that even if this were true, doesn’t such an argument implicitly reject the inspiration of scripture? Would the Holy Spirit of God not understand these characteristics when he inspired Paul and Moses to write what they wrote? Are we really to believe that God, the architect, and designer of every person, was ignorant about our need and desire to give and receive love, be in a relationship, or about biology and psychology?

In your series “How We Got the Bible” you state that the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible, and therefore anticipated how culture would change, and accounted for that. This somehow means the Bible transcends the culture it was written in. I do not find that a sufficient answer, because the rest of the Bible does not work like that. If we use cultural settings to explain away scientific and historical discrepancies in the Bible (there are many examples of this), we can’t turn around and say the Bible transcends culture in order to fight the evolution of culture and ethics. If you have an article already written you want me to read or a podcast I can listen to, great!

Last, is it not inaccurate to say that the Bible is “inerrant” if it can be reasonably argued that there are some errors? Is there another term I should be using? — G. H.

A few thoughts for you:

  1. Your question is important, because few Christians have received training in interpretation, and as a result may use terms loosely, fail to appreciate the reasoning of those with different perspectives, and easily fall into the inconsistency about which you are concerned. We need to think more deeply, more carefully.
  2. In claiming that the Holy Spirit has given us a message for all time, this is not to claim that we find all the truth about every subject in Scripture. The find the truth the Lord intended us to find, the principles we need for human flourishing.
  3. The Bible deals with the personal, relational, moral, and ethical aspects of human existence. It is not a book about cosmology or grammar or physics. In saying nothing to disabuse ancient readers / listeners of their presumable notion that the sun rises and sets, the Bible should not be taken as supporting the geocentric model (disproven by Galileo et al).
  4. In claiming that the Holy Spirit has given us a message for all time, this is not to claim that we find all the truth about every subject in Scripture. The find the truth the Lord intended us to find, the principles we need for human flourishing.
  5. Even is there are "errors" in one part of Scripture, it does not follow that all other parts are unreliable. Instead of trying to winning others to acceptance of biblical inerrancy, surely it is simpler and wiser to show them the evidence for the really important stuff: the amazing life of Jesus, his resurrection, the love of God in both testaments, the message of the gospel of the kingdom, and so forth.
  6. The biblical writers lived in a time when, like now, homosexual practices were common—in fact, far more common and accepted than in the 21st century AD. Not just in Canaan (13th century BC), but also in the Roman Empire (1st century AD). In taking a stand as they did they were not confused, just counter-cultural. It is naïve of us to opine that they were naïve.
  7. There was no need to “anticipate,” since human nature has not changed.
  8. Yes, we all need relationships, even those on a celibate path. That’s reality, and that reality is reflected throughout the books of Scripture. We are all sinners, each with his or her own temptations and limitations. Yet our essential identity is in Christ—not in the sins (or pleasures) that characterize our lives. We don’t need to succumb to temptation, and when we do we ought not to rationalize it (James 1:13-15)!
  9. “Inerrant” is a slippery word. In my bookCompelling I adopt the wording of the Lausanne Convention. “We affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” Of course we must ask, what is meant by “all that it affirms?” There are core teachings (Eph 4:3-6; Matt 22:37-40; etc.) but also 100s (1000s?) of incidental things. Affirmation it seems to me is connected with emphasis. In the biblical world, the earth is flat, not spherical. Yet it would be straining things to cook up a “doctrine” of the flat earth, or geocentricity. Ancients believed many things which the Lord doesn’t bother to correct. (Same with us!) But as to how we should live, and how we should love God and one another, there is no need for Scripture to be updated, or apologized for.
  10. You ask for suggestions for further study. Sure, I have written some articles that could. Instead of referencing them, today I prefer to point you to the books by Jerry Jones (Sexuality Examined) and Rubel Shelly (Male and Female God Created Them) are excellent, esp. as they demonstrate that the ancient world was for more promiscuous and “tolerant” than we are today. And of course, as you know, Strength in Weakness is an excellent resource for anyone struggling to understand or come to terms with these very modern / ancient issues!