The Bible is considered the most read book in the world.  It has been a source of wisdom for many, but has also been grossly misused.  The misuse has brought suffering to many.  This may be deliberate because some readers will intentionally extract from the Bible thoughts that validate their impulses, with complete disregard for context.  But another explanation for the misuse is that readers simply do not have the background or training to understand the biblical material adequately.  It makes sense to associate, at least in part, this second possibility to the shift from relying on accepted church authorities for guidance, to a more democratized approach where individuals are encouraged to focus on “what the Bible means to them.”  This is not to say that accepted church authorities always get it right.  But the democratized approach leads to more diversity in interpretations, and some of them will necessarily be very unusual.

For the above reasons, it is often helpful to look at what biblical scholars have to say about Bible interpretation.  That is why I turn my attention, today, to an article published in Christianity Today on June 28, 2021 by Nijay K. Gupta, a professor of New Testament at Northern Seminary in Lisle, Illinois.  In the article, titled “The Bible Doesn’t Come with Instructions. But We Still Need Guidance to Handle It Well,” he discusses the merits of a new book by New Testament scholar Michael F. Bird, titled Seven Things I Wish Christians Knew about the Bible.  In his opinion, the book is a useful guide for biblical understanding.

Gupta starts his article with some examples of misplaced emphasis from Bible readers.  One of them is the Bible Bar, a real product that was commercially offered some time ago, which contained only seven ingredients, the foods listed in Deuteronomy 8:8 as available in the Promised Land: wheat, barley, vines (raisins), figs, pomegranates, olive oil, and honey.  Being lactose intolerant, Gupta jokingly expresses his appreciation for the fact that milk is omitted from the list.  After all, aren’t we talking about the land flowing with milk and honey?  What makes the ingredients on the list much more special than milk?

Gupta mentions the best-selling book The Bible Code, written in 1997 by Michael Drosnin, which “argued that the Hebrew Bible contained crossword puzzle–like codes that supposedly embedded terms like ‘Hitler’ and ‘Pearl Harbor.’”  In other words, a careful study of the hidden codes in the Bible could help predict important historical events.  Gupta explains why, in his view, interest in hidden codes has gone away:

“For a brief time, The Bible Code was a sensation, but it was quickly forgotten for obvious reasons. God doesn’t want us to read behind the text for hidden codes. He wants us to read the Bible carefully and faithfully as a testimony to what God has done in the world and what role we play in his work of redemption.”

But he states that drawing questionable conclusions from biblical verses continues to be a common problem.  For example, people will read “I can do all things” in Philippians 4:13 and directly apply those words to victory in a football game.

According to Gupta, Michael Bird’s book dedicates separate chapters to the following seven statements

• The Bible didn’t fall out of the sky.
• The Bible is divinely given and humanly composed.
• Scripture is normative, not negotiable.
• The Bible is for our time, but not about our time.
• We should take the Bible seriously, but not always literally.
• The purpose of Scripture is knowledge, faith, love, and hope.
• Christ is the center of the Christian Bible.

Gupta summarizes Bird’s explanation on the items above.  I know from experience that some good Christians truly believe that God himself wrote the Bible.  The first item is therefore important because it focuses on how the books of the Bible were arrived at.  Gupta explains:

“It wasn’t until college that I realized my Catholic friends had books in their Bibles that weren’t in mine, books like Sirach and Tobit. And their Bibles, in turn, were a bit different than Bibles used in the Greek Orthodox tradition. All these Bibles have slight variations not because God got confused, but because the biblical books were not hand-delivered by God to the church. A process of canonization took place in the period after the apostolic age; this involved discussion and discernment among early church leaders over what should count as Holy Scripture.”

The second statement addresses the issue of divine inspiration, which is understood differently by different people.  Gupta summarizes Bird’s explanations:

“It is crucial for Christians to think through the Bible’s inspiration and authority, which Bird considers in consecutive chapters. Inspiration doesn’t mean that God deposited divine words into the brains of Matthew or Paul. As Bird helpfully argues, it probably involved ‘God’s guiding and leading human minds at the conceptual level.’ In other words, while God influenced the biblical writers’ direction of thought, they expressed those thoughts in their own ways, yielding God’s Word in human words. This helps explain why the Bible includes so many genres: narrative, poetry, letters, apocalyptic literature. God did not invent these genres. Instead, he chose to reveal himself through written forms that already existed, though some of these undoubtedly took on new features.”

The third statement is about the authority of the Bible, which is not just another book (at least to Christians).  Again, Gupta’s explanations are provided below:

“Bird defends biblical authority by talking about how Scripture ought to shape what we think is important and how we establish the direction of our lives. Addressing Christians who might treat the Bible as “holy opinion,” he challenges them to see Scripture’s authority as grounded in the supremacy of God himself. We are his creatures, not his religious customers. The Bible is not simply another book, something to read alongside other “important” books. It is uniquely inspired.”

Gupta skips the fourth statement and comments next on the fifth one, which is a warning about excessive biblical literalism: “Of course, there are many Christians who take the Bible seriously but make the error of reading and applying everything literally. It is dangerous to equate seriousness only with literal interpretation.”  He summarizes Bird’s advice:

“How can we tell when and when not to stick with a literal reading of particular phrases and passages? Careful discernment is essential. Bird encourages all believers to better understand the ancient world in which the words of Jesus and the apostles came into being. Slavery then was different than slavery now. Political systems were different. And so were cultural conventions and expectations, like how to behave at a dinner party or be a good friend. If we neglect these basic distinctions, we are bound to misread and sometimes misapply Scripture.”

Gupta’s last comments deal with the last two statements.  Summarizing Bird’s thoughts, he says:

“The purpose of reading Scripture is not (merely) to gain information, but to be conformed to the image of Jesus and spurred to deeper love of God and neighbor.

Bird rightly warns us against viewing the Bible like a rolled-up newspaper that’s used to whack you over the head for being naughty. It is not a book of religious rules, either. As Bird puts it, ‘The goal of our instruction in the Scriptures is to know God better so that we may grow in our love for God.’ Well said. Scripture forms and shapes us into the people God has destined us to be, a people of faithful and generous love.”

Even though I haven’t read Bird’s book, I am in general agreement with the summary provided by Gupta.  Bird’s seventh statement is particularly dear to my heart, and a lot of my writing is motivated by my observation that many Christians claim that Christ is their Lord and Savior, but do not really treat him as the center of the Christian Bible, and the final word on Christian conduct.