SermonStudio

Purpose Statement: How do we interpret the improbable sounding stories in our Old Testament?

Every Christian, except for the fundamentalists, at some time will ask the question, "Are the extravagant stories of our Bible really true?" Did Daniel survive the lions' den? Did a snake talk to Eve? Did a big fish swallow Jonah and spit him back up again? Were there really supernatural beings mating with humans, and giants as their offspring (Genesis 6:1-4)? Did people build a tower in Babylon that was so high it worried God? Is it conceivable that a man named Noah built a boat large enough to save every species of animal from a flood that covered the entire earth? People probably wonder why such stories appear mainly in the Old Testament, or why there haven't been events of that caliber throughout history, or even today. It is not easy to preach this sermon, but integrity calls for the preacher to be forthright with church members. There is no alternative.

a. The options. Very generally, we could say there are two options as to how one interprets these stories. First and most obvious, we can assume the stories are literally true word for word. We could believe the earth was created in six days our time, and each day 24 hours. Very conservative Christians insist on a literal interpretation of scriptures because they fear when the literal truth of one story is questioned, where does one stop? If the story of Noah and the ark is a myth, does that mean Jesus could be a myth? This is a seriously valid enough question not to be lightly brushed aside. The fundamentalists will also worry that such a figurative interpretation may make God out to be a liar somehow. Our second option is to understand the stories as myths, to be interpreted figuratively and symbolically. Instead of being factual history, they could be like the stories Jesus told. When Jesus told a parable, for example, the parable of the sower (Matthew 13:1-9), he did not intend us to think it actually happened. His intention is to tell a story that directs our attention to a moral. When asked why he used parables, Jesus answered in a cryptic way, that apparently only those who were really sincere in their quest for truth or prepared to follow would understand (Matthew 13:10-17). Could it be the very conservative Christian, who insists on the literal understanding, is closing his or her opportunities for understanding the deeper meaning of these stories in the way intended? The Pharisees were celebrated for their literal interpretation of the law.

b. The truth. When we say the Bible is true, our statement is true. The Bible has no intention of misleading or deceiving. Scripture represents an honest and sincere approach to the truth of God and God's will. The figurative interpretation is a much more sophisticated approach to truth, in general. On this level, the story of Noah and the ark is not concerned with history, but is struggling with theological truth. The issue is over sin and evil in the world, and the need for our renewal or regeneration. A literal interpretation makes God a terribly violent and vindictive God, doing things only the worst of us would do. To defend the idea that God really flooded the earth and destroyed almost every person and animal, on the basis that we simply do not understand God and God's ways, is not an answer. It is smoke and mirrors or an answer that is a non-answer. It is an admission of ignorance and confusion. It says, "We don't understand." The alternative, or figurative interpretation, suggests truth is found in the fact the writer of the passage was dealing with deeper truth by using a parable. This must clearly be the case concerning the stories of creation. Another possibility is the writer believed the story of Noah to be true and was mistaken. After all, the case has been successfully made that some authors of scripture had false notions (see sermon Z-5, "Blemishes And Biblical Authentication"). In such a case, the Bible is still true in that the writer really believed what he (men for the most part) had written concerning God to be true. Old Testament writers actually believed God wanted the people to stone their children to death at one period in time (Leviticus 20:9). Of course, God never wanted such a thing; the truth lies in the fact that the writers believed it.

c. The puzzle. If there is both myth and factual history in our Bible, the problem is to distinguish between the two, which is necessary if we are to get at the truth. To begin, we must honestly admit that no one, not even the fundamentalists, takes the Bible literally in its entirety (see sermon O-5, "Nobody Actually Takes The Bible Literally"). Where do we draw the line: parable, myth, or history; fact or fiction? We could depend upon scholars; but that would only be removing our decision one step further, for the question then becomes, "Which scholars are the sound and sensible ones who are approaching their interpretation without prejudice, as opposed to the ones looking for what they want to find?" We may be left to common sense, and hope the differences are obvious. Good rational logic should be fairly dependable in differentiating between myth and history. We can try the reasonable tests of asking: Is this consistent with the loving nature of God revealed in Jesus? Is it congruous with God's laws of nature? Then we can ask the question: Is it verifiable? The life and ministry of Jesus is certainly authenticated by the different accounts in the gospels, which agree totally in their presentation of the nature and spirit of Jesus despite the contradictions in details (see sermon Z-5, "Blemishes And Biblical Authentication"). His life and resurrection made such a profound impact on history as to clearly validate its genuineness.