Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament

In our patristic Greek class today, we had a very engaging roundtable discussion on Origen's De Principiis. In it, Origen gives a lengthy treatise on what parts of the Old Testament should be understood literally and what parts should be interpreted spiritually. Now, Origen was later condemned by the church as a heretic, largely for his denial of the resurrection of the body. However, regardless of whether or not his interpretations are correct, his points are worth considering.

He states, in no uncertain terms, that when a literal understanding of a text is impossible, that one must interpret it in a spiritual sense. One of his many examples comes from Genesis 1. He explains that the days of Creation could not be indicating literal days, for how could there be a day without the sun and moon? Thus, in this work, Origen drives home the point that not everything in Scripture should be understood in a strictly literal sense, especially when it does not coincide with historical fact or logic. He says that "intelligent" folks who "read carefully" will be able to recognize when a literal meaning is impossible and search for a spiritual meaning. However, lest he quickly be labeled a Gnostic, he quickly clarifies that the "simple-minded" are not prevented from receiving salvation even if they can only understand at a literal level (IV.2.6).

Clearly from an evangelical standpoint, there are many theological red flags with his statements. However, this same debate on the literal/metaphorical interpretation of Scripture still exists today, almost two millennia later, with evangelicals leaning more on the literal side of interpretation. How are we to rightly handle narratives, laws, literary forms, etc. in the Old Testament which clearly reflect older ancient Near Eastern accounts? How do we genuinely take into consideration recent scholarship in historical and source criticism while still holding a high view of Scripture?

The answers to such questions are by no means simple. Yet, as I continue to study and get caught up on recent biblical scholarship, I realize that there is much valid research on Scripture and history that I need to take into consideration. The more I read, the more I am intrigued and eager to discuss what I've learned.

In my educational journey, I have observed two types of Christian biblical scholars: 1) those who are highly accomplished and produce groundbreaking research in biblical studies, and who feel the need to share all that they know to the church as their ministry, no matter how controversial or difficult the topic, and 2) those who are highly accomplished and produce groundbreaking research in biblical studies, and who do NOT feel the need to share all their knowledge to the church.

I have always identified more with the first category. After all, why am I spending all these years studying the Bible if I am not going to edify anyone by sharing what I've learned? For Christians, is not the aim of all academia to serve the church? Isn't the goal of all exegetes, theologians, and seminarians to correctly interpret and teach the Scriptures? So why wouldn't I share all that I learn with other fellow believers who haven't had the opportunity?

But then I think about Origen, and how he is so bold as to suggest that Scripture can have metaphorical meaning, while not requiring all Christians to follow his example. Is there perhaps some merit in those of group two above, who, out of sensitivity to believers who may be seriously troubled by hearing all the latest scholarship and interpretations of key biblical passages, refrain from divulging all pertinent information about a text? Maybe it is more of a service to the church to introduce these ideas little by little in a gentle, pastoral way that will not unintentionally cause them to stumble in their faith.

I don't want to sound like an elitist here, and, I think, neither did Origen. There is no hierarchy in the church, since all have fallen short of the glory of God and are saved by grace alone. However, I do believe God imparts different talents and gifts to each individual. Those who are able to consider controversial biblical scholarship while holding on to the authority of Scripture should certainly do so, but perhaps with an attitude that does not require the rest of the church to do the same, or at the very least, must introduce them in a way that nurtures one's trust in the authority of Scripture. If I want to build up the body of Christ, then my communication of the facts should stem from a desire to encourage and affirm believers in their faith, not merely to point out others' errors or cause controversy.

Is this not the principle Paul teaches the Corinthians?

"Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” This “knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up... Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak,you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble." --1 Cor. 8:1, 8-13

"And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." --1 Cor. 13:2

It would not be a service to the church to become a highly accomplished biblical scholar only to become a stumbling block to believers. Otherwise, "it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matt 18:6).

I do still think there is a responsibility for every believer to carefully study Scripture, but each one does so according to one's own ability and within the confines of creedal Christianity. The historical church has worked hard to define what is orthodox and what is heretical. So while Scripture cannot be handled haphazardly, biblical scholars must restrain their knowledge until they are able to communicate in a way that builds up the believer.