The Bible and Atheists

Dearest Atheist friends,

I was proud to count myself among you for four years. Last year I became a Christian (you can read about what led to that conversion here: http://eph1-17.blogspot.ca/2013/05/a-journey-to-jesus-part-two.html). But I find that I can still relate to the way you think, and I can still appreciate the reasoning for your position on the religion question.

That said, if you’re anything like me when I was an atheist, you may be less informed about the Bible than you think. I remember railing against what I perceived to be inconsistencies and absurdities in the Bible; it was much later that I realized I only had an “on-the-surface” understanding of the text. I’m sure you’ve looked up passages in the Bible here and there, perhaps to cite as a friendly challenge to a Christian friend; unfortunately, selective reading like that can miss the meaning the text is trying to convey. I don’t expect everyone to be Bible scholars, but I do want to encourage you to read the Bible differently.

If you’re one of those skeptics who (like me) has cried “foul” at a biblical passage before fully understanding its intended meaning, you’re in good company. Several brilliant minds have made the same mistake. Here are two that come to mind:

The Cursing of the Fig Tree

In the 1920s, philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell wrote “Why I Am Not a Christian.” He expounded a number of arguments against Christianity. It is apparent that he only skim-read certain passages of the Bible, however, and as such he misunderstood them.

For example, in his section on “The Moral Problem” of Christianity, Russell criticizes Jesus for cursing the fig tree that did not bear fruit. “This is a very curious story,” says Russell, “because it was not the right time of year for figs, and you really could not blame the tree. I cannot myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom or in the matter of virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to history. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in those respects.”

The story Russell refers to is found in Matthew 21 and Mark 11/12. Jesus enters Jerusalem, goes to a fig tree and sees that it is barren; he curses it, and it withers up. Its significance is not apparent at first because Jesus first uses his actions to illustrate the importance of faith for producing miracles (after all, the people were baffled at how he just did that). He doesn’t reveal the symbolism of his actions until after he delivers a related parable (starting at Matthew 21:33). Jesus concludes, “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” (Matthew 21:43).

The point of the story was that it was a warning to the nation of Israel! They had been entrusted with God’s word and they did not do with it as God had desired. The context of the story makes it clear that cursing the fig tree had symbolic significance, but you simply don’t get that from a surface-level reading of the text. Ignoring the symbolism, it just seems like a petty move. Read the parable in Matthew 21:33-43 to understand the concept Jesus was illustrating with the fig tree.

“My God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

It’s one thing for a mathematician to misunderstand the Bible, but you would expect more from someone who specializes in studying early Christianity. Even New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman has misunderstood passages of the Bible by overlooking some of its nuances.

For example, Ehrman said in a public presentation (and likely in his book “Misquoting Jesus” as well; regrettably, I have not yet read it) that there were discrepancies in the gospel accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion. See a clip from that presentation here: http://youtu.be/ipiZnRHnY0s?t=2m52s.

He concludes by summarizing, “In Luke’s gospel, Jesus is completely in control of the situation. He knows what’s going on, he knows why it’s going on, unlike [the gospel of] Mark where he seems to be in doubt.” His reason for believing this is that Luke’s gospel records more of Jesus’ words during the crucifixion, whereas the only quote that Mark records is “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

If that’s all you knew of that quote, it would be easy to get the impression that Jesus felt abandoned by God during his crucifixion. However, Jesus was not lamenting his abandonment – he was quoting scripture which actually declared his status as the victorious Messiah! If you look at Psalm 22 you can read what Jesus had in mind when he said that. It is a psalm that describes one who is unjustly persecuted before being vindicated by the ultimate triumph of God over his enemies! Hardly the statement of one feeling abandoned.

The Jews of Jesus’ day understood what those words meant. It even says in the Book of Mark that the onlookers understood his words to be messianic: “And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elias” (Mark 15:34-35). It is easy to miss this if you’re not willing to look into the intended purpose and context of the text.

Conclusion

Remember, these mistakes were made by well-respected and widely-published scholars! If they can get it wrong, it is certainly possible for a guy with a search engine to get a few things wrong too. Myself included.

I hope this does not come across as a “straw man” argument (ie, these criticisms of the Bible are wrong, therefore all of them are); that’s not what I am trying to communicate. Indeed, there are other criticisms which are far more sophisticated. But I do hope these examples give us pause to think! When you come across a questionable passage in the Bible, do not cry “foul” until you fully understand the context and nuances of the passage. If your criticism is justified, it will have to convey more than a surface-level understanding if you intend to be taken seriously by Christians who know their Bibles.

When you read the Bible, I recommend starting with the New Testament (Why? Because it deals with the life of Jesus and what followed, and Jesus is the way that God reveals himself to humanity – see Matthew 11:27). The Gospel of John is a good place to start because more than any other gospel it was written in very straight-forward language. Try reading it with the intent to understand rather than to find another arrow in your arsenal against Christians. In the end, you will either be better equipped to defend your position, or you will come around to the position that the Bible advocates – that maybe there’s something to this Jesus fellow. Either way, what do you have to lose?

In the next blog post I will continue my series about the Bible. Happy reading!