Grace and Truth: How the Biblical Narrative Affirms that Christ is Supreme and Parts of the Bible Are Obsolete

By Francois Ntone

In this book, the author follows the biblical narrative from Adam to Christ and his apostles while tracking the flow of ideas on matters of theology and ethics.  The internal debates and evolving beliefs on such matters are highlighted.  Readers develop an awareness of the fragmented and incomplete understanding of the divine will among God's people in the pre-Christian era.  The narrative points to Christ as God's true representative and the ultimate teacher.  It also unambiguously leads to the conclusion that parts of the Bible are made obsolete by his teaching.  This conclusion is in conflict with the assumption of biblical inerrancy, which relies on unconvincing biblical evidence, but has led many Christians to the belief that all parts of the Bible are equally relevant.  Such a belief has created confusion among Christians and non-Christians regarding biblical morality.  This study rigorously shows that Christianity must be Christ-centered rather than Bible-centered, a fact that remains widely misunderstood today.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Francois Ntone
• Release date: Feb 7, 2021
• ISBN: 9781393111481

Francois Ntone

Francois Ntone is an engineer by profession, with a lifelong interest in matters of faith and religion.  He holds a PhD degree in Mechanical Engineering and retired, after 33 years, from Cummins, Inc. where he led activities in the area of Computational Fluid Dynamics.  He has taught Bible studies for many years and has, for a long time, been puzzled by the fact that, throughout history, many Christians have misused the Bible to justify behavior that is incompatible with the teaching of the New Testament.  In retirement, he is focusing on contributing to the on-going debate on what it means to be a Christian.

Book preview

Contents

Title Page v

Copyright vi

List of Tables vii

Introduction 1

Chapter 1: Brief History of Western Christianity 11

The Early Years of the Christian Church 11

The Church in the Graeco-Roman World 13

Doctrinal Debates Within the Church 14

Consequences of the Coalescence Between Rome and Christianity 17

Developments After the Decline of the Roman Empire 20

The Reformation and its Aftermath 28

Further Developments in Western Europe 35

Chapter 2: Protestantism in The United States 37

Protestant Churches in the United States 37

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy 43

The Importance of Understanding the Biblical Narrative 56

Chapter 3: The Critical Background in Genesis 57

Beginning 57

The Story of Noah 63

The Story of Abraham 66

The Story of Jacob 77

Joseph and Judah 83

Chapter 4: Moses and His Contribution 90

Moses and the Kingdom of Priests 90

The Law of Moses 109

Chapter 5: Judges, Kings and Prophets 122

The Judges of Israel 122

The Kings and Prophets of Israel 131

Chapter 6: Return to the Promised Land 162

The Jews Are Allowed to Return to the Promised Land 162

Ezra the Priest 163

Nehemiah’s Leadership 164

Chapter 7: The Writing Prophets 169

Isaiah the Prophet 169

Amos the Prophet 188

Hosea the Prophet 191

Jonah 193

Jeremiah the Prophet 196

Chapter 8: Jesus According to the Gospels 206

The Coming of the Messiah 206

The Baptism and Temptation of Jesus 210

The Beginning of Jesus’ Ministry in the Book of John 213

Jesus’ Ministry in Galilee 220

Jesus Confronts the Jewish Establishment 239

Conversations with Mary and Martha 243

The Last Visit to Jerusalem 246

The Arrest, Crucifixion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus 251

Chapter 9: Jesus’ Teaching About the Kingdom of God 257

The Beatitudes 257

The Greatest in the Kingdom of God 261

Jesus and the Law of Moses 263

Various Topics in Kingdom of God Ethics 267

Chapter 10: The Early Church and the Law of Moses 296

The Birth of the Church 296

The Letters of Paul 304

The Letter to the Hebrews 314

Tables 324

Index 332

Title Page

Grace and Truth

How the Biblical Narrative Affirms

that Christ Is Supreme

and Parts of the Bible Are Obsolete

Francois Ntone

Published by Francois Ntone through Draft2Digital.com

Copyright

While every precaution has been taken in the preparation of this book, the publisher assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions, or for damages resulting from the use of the information contained herein.

GRACE AND TRUTH:

How the Biblical Narrative Affirms That Christ Is Supreme And Parts of the Bible Are Obsolete.

Ebook published by Francois Ntone through Draft2Digital.com.

First edition. April 26.2021.

Second edition. April 28, 2022.

Copyright © 2021 François Ntone.

Written by François Ntone.

List of Tables

Table 1: Guidelines from Exodus for a Healthy Judicial System

Table 2: Laws from Exodus for the Protection of Hebrew Servants

Table 3: Laws from Leviticus on Social Responsibility

Table 4: Laws on Personal Injury as Listed in Exodus

Table 5: Laws about Protection of Property

Table 6: Laws on Unlawful Sex as Presented in Leviticus

Table 7: The Kings of Judah and Israel after David and Solomon

Table 8: The Sins of the Israelites According to Isaiah

Introduction

In his book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, published in 1994, historian Mark A. Knoll has the following opening statement:

The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind. An extraordinary range of virtues is found among the sprawling throngs of evangelical Protestants in North America, including great sacrifice in spreading the message of salvation in Jesus Christ, open-hearted generosity to the needy, heroic personal exertion on behalf of troubled individuals, and the unheralded sustenance of countless church and parachurch communities. Notwithstanding all their other virtues, however, American evangelicals are not exemplary for their thinking, and they have not been so for several generations.¹

Knoll himself is an evangelical who values the experiential expression of the Christian faith which characterizes evangelicalism. However, he laments the lack of contribution by evangelicals to the life of the mind, and explains:

The much more important matter is what it means to think like a Christian about the nature and workings of the physical world, the character of human social structures like government and the economy, the meaning of the past, the nature of artistic creation, and the circumstances attending our perception of the world outside ourselves. Failure to exercise the mind for Christ in these areas has become acute in the twentieth century. That failure is the scandal of the evangelical mind.²

In fact, this failure to exercise the mind for Christ is often viewed outside of evangelical circles as anti-intellectualism, and is a serious departure from the accomplishments of Protestantism from the days of the Reformation. It often manifests itself in an apparent reluctance to accept scientific knowledge as a valid tool for understanding God’s creation. The reason for that reluctance is that many (not all) evangelicals see the Bible as the true source of knowledge for all aspects of life, and reject any information that may appear to contradict Scripture.

Knoll finds it difficult to identify any element intrinsic to evangelicalism that might help remedy this situation. Instead, he proposes that evangelicals open their minds through collaboration with other Christian movements that have, historically, demonstrated their ability to contribute to the life of the mind. But in trying to emphasize the importance of such a pursuit, he points to the centrality of Christ himself in the life of the church:

In the end, the question of Christian thinking is a deeply spiritual question. What sort of God will we worship? With this question we return to the most important matter concerning the life of the mind. The Gospel of John tells us that the Word who was made flesh and dwelt among us, full of a glorious grace and truth, was also the Word through whom all things — all phenomena in nature, all capacities for fruitful human interaction, all the kinds of beauty — were made. To honor that Word as he deserves to be honored, evangelicals must know both Christ and what he has made.³

The above statement, taken at face value, implies the possibility that evangelicals may not know both Christ and what he has made as much as they might think or claim.

Some twenty-five years after Knoll published his book, it appears that the scandal of evangelicalism, and particularly white evangelicalism, is more serious than a mere failure to contribute to the life of the mind. Indeed, white evangelicals in America have, today, surprised outside observers with their faithful support of the forty-fifth president of the United States, Donald Trump. Given that Trump is far from embodying what might be described as Christian moral character, and given that many of his actions are inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus and his apostles, the allegiance he receives from white evangelicals is simply astonishing. Therefore, observers have been wondering whether there is something about them that made their response to him understandable.

It is well known that white evangelicals have adopted the Republican party as the party that best represents their political aspirations. During the 2016 presidential campaign, at the time Trump became a viable Republican candidate, they faced a real dilemma in trying to reconcile their claim to be the guardians of family values with a vote for a man whose life story was a violation of those values. Several evangelical leaders questioned Trump’s character and his fitness for the presidency. For example, Max Lucado, a prominent pastor and best-selling author who normally stayed away from politics, felt compelled to call for decency in a presidential candidate and wrote in a blog published in The Washington Post in February 2016:

I don’t know Mr. Trump. But I’ve been chagrined at his antics. He ridiculed a war hero. He made a mockery of a reporter’s menstrual cycle. He made fun of a disabled reporter. He referred to the former first lady, Barbara Bush as mommy, and belittled Jeb Bush for bringing her on the campaign trail. He routinely calls people stupid, and dummy. One writer catalogued sixty-four occasions that he called someone loser." These were not off-line, backstage, overheard, not-to-be-repeated comments. They were publicly and intentionally tweeted, recorded, and presented.

Such insensitivities wouldn’t be acceptable even for a middle school student body election. But for the Oval Office? And to do so while brandishing a Bible and boasting of his Christian faith?"

However, Trump was already getting the firm support of evangelical leaders such as Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell Jr and Robert Jeffress. Before election day in 2016, many white evangelical leaders were urging Christian voters to vote for Trump, presenting him as the Christian choice against the disastrous alternative represented by President Obama and to be perpetuated by Hillary Clinton if she were to become president. In September 2016, Franklin Graham and a host of white evangelical leaders circulated a publication called Decision, in which they discussed in detail the issues that were important to white evangelicals: abortion, sexual orientation, religious freedoms, military readiness and socialism. Whether these issues are the appropriate focus for Christians is debatable, but these leaders presented Trump as the only candidate who would fight for their values and nominate conservative judges who would support their causes. By the time the election was held, roughly 70% of white evangelicals were Trump supporters.

After Trump became president, newspaper articles and books were written to explain the attitudes of white evangelicals and their relationship with him. Some economic factors were identified: white evangelicals, especially in rural areas, have seen a steady deterioration in their economic conditions for the past few decades. They feel ignored or forgotten by politicians and see Trump as an outsider to the political system who is willing and energized to fight for them.

Cultural factors also came to the surface: white evangelicals are afraid of people who are different. They feel not only that their jobs and material welfare are threatened by non-whites and immigrants, but also that their entire cultural heritage is in jeopardy. They identify that cultural heritage with their understanding of the Christian faith. And since that understanding often assumes that other religions, such as Islam, are demonic, it is easy to see how they would support Trump’s policies which limit entry by Muslims into the United States.

It appears that white evangelicals, after four years of Trump’s presidency, feel that he made good progress in fulfilling his promises related to their priorities. Accordingly, they transitioned from reluctant to unconditional support of him. In fact, at the end of his presidency, they even supported misguided efforts to keep him in power through the use of violence. A 2019 book by Ben Howe gives an account of the shifting logic used in the transition. Howe is himself a white evangelical who came to the realization that his fellow evangelicals do not appear to take seriously Jesus’ question in Matthew 16:26, For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? In fact, they have come up with what he calls a New Good News to replace the Old Good News preached in the New Testament. Howe writes:

"With all of the needed rationales in place, some two years after the election, for many, the Good News in Christendom—that the kingdom of God is coming—has gotten an update. The New Good News is that Donald Trump is making America great again. To recap how the New Good News works:

Vessel Theology: God used the harlots and He used Cyrus to achieve His good ends, and like them He can use Trump to fulfill the evangelical policy agenda, which is itself a godly agenda and thus a good end. Ergo, do not question the vessel, or you are questioning the limits of God’s influence. God can use anyone! (Except Hillary Clinton.)

The King Cyrus Argument: Do not worry about whether or not He can use Trump this way. He will use Trump this way. It has, after all, been prophesied.

Compartmentalization: But even if you don’t believe those prophecies, and you still find yourself concerned that Trump seems at times to be untrustworthy or of low personal character, have no fear! All those principles Jesus spoke of at the Sermon on the Mount are actually things we shouldn’t want in a leader; in fact, we should want the opposite in a leader! Literally, being like Jesus would be super-bad in this scenario.

Lesser of Two Evils: Still not convinced? No problem. There’s always the lesser evil argument to consider. And given that anyone who is running against the Republican candidate is literally Satan, the moral calculus is always easy."⁴

White evangelicals decided that Trump was a vessel used by God, just like God had used imperfect vessels such as king Cyrus, the Persian king mentioned in Isaiah 45, who allowed the Jews to return to their homeland from Babylonian exile. Evangelical leaders not only associated the 45th president with Isaiah 45, but also declared that at least one of them had received a divine vision of Trump as a president chosen by God himself. Furthermore, the compartmentalization example mentioned by Howe above is a statement by Robert Jeffress that he would rather have a Trump-like political leader than a Jesus-like political leader. That raises a question: Can a person who is not a true follower of Jesus really call himself a Christian?

To illustrate the shifting logic used by some white evangelical leaders to justify their support for Trump, it is useful to compare their approval of Trump to their rejection of Bill Clinton. In an article published on August 10, 2016 in The Atlantic⁵, Jonathan Merritt writes:

"’Character counts.’ That was evangelicals’ rallying cry in their all-out assault against Bill Clinton beginning in 1993. In response to what they perceived as widespread moral decline, some religious groups had become aligned with the Republican Party during the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. To them, the allegedly draft-dodging, pot-smoking, honesty-challenged womanizer symbolized everything that was wrong with America.

More than two decades after Clinton’s first inauguration, many evangelical leaders of that era have endorsed the draft-dodging, foul-mouthed, honesty-challenged womanizer named Donald Trump for president."

Merritt mentions Albert Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Seminary, as a rare example of consistency. Indeed, Mohler said: If I were to support, much less endorse, Donald Trump for president, I would actually have to go back and apologize to former President Bill Clinton. But other leaders were apparently not disturbed by the thought of promoting a double standard. An example that stands out in that respect is that of Wayne Grudem, a distinguished research professor of theology and biblical studies at Phoenix Seminary in Scottsdale, Arizona, who has written several books, including a textbook on Christian ethics.

Grudem and other scholars⁶ signed a document published in November 1996 called Declaration Concerning Religion, Ethics, and the Crisis in the Clinton Presidency⁷ which, while not formally endorsing impeachment of the president, was highly critical of Clinton’s behavior. The document stated that politics and morality were inseparable, and the signers refused to accept Clinton’s apology, stating in their second article:

We fear the religious community is in danger of being called upon to provide authentication for a politically motivated and incomplete repentance that seeks to avert serious consequences for wrongful acts. While we affirm that pastoral counseling sessions are an appropriate, confidential arena to address these issues, we fear that announcing such meetings to convince the public of the President’s sincerity compromises the integrity of religion.

The meetings referred to in the above were events such as the Presidential Prayer Breakfast. Regarding the behavior itself, they wrote:

We are aware that certain moral qualities are central to the survival of our political system, among which are truthfulness, integrity, respect for the law, respect for the dignity of others, adherence to the constitutional process, and a willingness to avoid the abuse of power. We reject the premise that violations of these ethical standards should be excused so long as a leader remains loyal to a particular political agenda and the nation is blessed by a strong economy. Elected leaders are accountable to the Constitution and to the people who elected them. By his own admission the President has departed from ethical standards by abusing his presidential office, by his ill use of women, and by his knowing manipulation of truth for indefensible ends. We are particularly troubled about the debasing of the language of public discourse with the aim of avoiding responsibility for one’s actions.

In July 2016, Grudem changed his tune when it came to supporting Trump’s presidency. In a post in Townhall.com⁸, he explained that he had not supported Trump’s candidacy during the primary season, and had even spoken against him at a pastor’s conference in February. But he had now come to the conclusion that Trump was not an evil candidate but a good candidate with flaws. Describing Trump’s character, he said:

He is egotistical, bombastic, and brash. He often lacks nuance in his statements. Sometimes he blurts out mistaken ideas (such as bombing the families of terrorists) that he later must abandon. He insults people. He can be vindictive when people attack him. He has been slow to disown and rebuke the wrongful words and actions of some angry fringe supporters. He has been married three times and claims to have been unfaithful in his marriages. These are certainly flaws, but I don’t think they are disqualifying flaws in this election.

Grudem then proceeded to defend Trump against various accusations made against him:

On the other hand, I think some of the accusations hurled against him are unjustified. His many years of business conduct show that he is not racist or anti-(legal) immigrant or anti-Semitic or misogynistic – I think these are unjust magnifications by a hostile press exaggerating some careless statements he has made. I think he is deeply patriotic and sincerely wants the best for the country. He has been an unusually successful problem solver in business. He has raised remarkable children. Many who have known him personally speak highly of his kindness, thoughtfulness, and generosity. But the main reason I call him ‘a good candidate with flaws’ is that I think most of the policies he supports are those that will do the most good for the nation.

On October 9, 2016, after a video containing Trump’s lewd remarks about women was released, Grudem withdrew his approval of Trump and urged him to end his candidacy. He even expressed regret for the previous defense of Trump he had offered with no real evidence to support his assertions:

Some may criticize me for not discovering this material earlier, and I think they are right. I did not take the time to investigate earlier allegations in detail, and I now wish I had done so. If I had read or heard some of these materials earlier, I would not have written as positively as I did about Donald Trump.⁹

Ten days later, Grudem proudly announced that he had, following his controversial decision after the release of the video, turned down all requests for interviews by the liberal media, and reinstated his support of Trump because of his political agenda¹⁰. At that point, a strong opinion expressed in the 1998 statement against Bill Clinton discussed above had apparently become a distant and unimportant memory: We reject the premise that violations of these ethical standards should be excused so long as a leader remains loyal to a particular political agenda and the nation is blessed by a strong economy.

In December 2018, after Trump was accused of making hush payments to at least two women with whom he had had affairs, Grudem said: I strongly disapprove of adultery and being unfaithful in marriage, but I still support [Trump’s] actions as president. I’m glad he’s president, and I would vote for him again.¹¹ That year, Grudem had released a 1300-page book on Christian ethics with six chapters on adultery.

On December 19, 2019, Mark Galli, the editor-in-chief of Christianity Today and a white evangelical, published his last editorial in the magazine before his planned retirement¹². The previous day, the House of Representatives had voted to impeach Donald Trump. In his highly debated editorial, Galli said:

But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.

To Galli, this finding was not surprising given that the ethical violations of Trump and his entourage were a matter of public record. Addressing his fellow evangelicals, he added:

Trump’s evangelical supporters have pointed to his Supreme Court nominees, his defense of religious liberty, and his stewardship of the economy, among other things, as achievements that justify their support of the president. We believe the impeachment hearings have made it absolutely clear, in a way the Mueller investigation did not, that President Trump has abused his authority for personal gain and betrayed his constitutional oath. The impeachment hearings have illuminated the president’s moral deficiencies for all to see. This damages the institution of the presidency, damages the reputation of our country, and damages both the spirit and the future of our people. None of the president’s positives can balance the moral and political danger we face under a leader of such grossly immoral character.

Looking back to positions taken by evangelicals during the Clinton impeachment debate, Galli called for consistency, saying:

Unfortunately, the words that we applied to Mr. Clinton 20 years ago apply almost perfectly to our current president. Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election—that is a matter of prudential judgment. That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments.

Wayne Grudem felt compelled to respond to Galli in Trump’s defense¹³, which also prompted a response by Peter Wehner¹⁴, a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank. It is not possible to reproduce the debate between Wehner and Grudem here, and the interested reader should look at the references I provided. However, to anybody who closely followed the impeachment debate, it was clear that Grudem, once again, was putting forth arguments that could not withstand scrutiny, and were merely Republican talking points to distract from the truth. Wehner, on the other hand, was well versed in the details of the debate and was able to easily invalidate Grudem’s arguments. Of interest to me was Wehner’s reaction to Grudem’s rather feeble attempt to argue that Trump did nothing wrong by investigating a political opponent:

It is rather stunning to me that a person who has written a major textbook on Christian ethics can’t distinguish between a lawful investigation by American law-enforcement authorities or Congress and a president pressuring a foreign government, over which he has tremendous power, to announce an investigation into his political opponent—especially when the president’s team makes clear to that foreign government what the outcome of the request is supposed to be.

Galli and Wehner are examples of conservative Christians who value consistency and are capable of distinguishing between conservative politics and what they consider true Christian teaching. While Galli had avoided direct debates about Trump, he had already, in the past, raised questions about some attitudes displayed by his fellow evangelicals that had become salient during the Trump presidency. In a June 2017 article in Christianity Today, he wrote:

Or take attitudes toward undocumented immigrants. Evangelical Christians believe Jesus died for them while they were lawbreakers. They are a people who know themselves as those who live moment to moment by sheer mercy. You would think these people would try to make at least some allowances for illegal immigrants. It turns out, however, that white evangelical Christians, more than any other religious group, say illegal immigrants should be identified and summarily deported.

Later in the same article, he lamented the lack of inclusiveness that seems to characterize white evangelicals:

For various reasons, here’s the picture clearly emerging in the public eye: White evangelical Christians are deeply resentful of Mexicans, Muslims, and non-whites in general. Meanwhile, evangelical Christians who don’t fit this description wonder: What is wrong with these evangelicals? Who’s teaching them these unmerciful attitudes?

The subtitle of the article was Let’s get unchurched evangelicals back into church, and prejudiced evangelicals back to the Bible, which obviously implies that the issue is lack of understanding of biblical teaching. Galli does not consider the possibility that the evangelical approach to the Bible itself may contribute to the problem. Indeed, Wayne Grudem is a distinguished teacher of the Bible. And yet, one wonders to what degree his worldview is guided by a commitment to New Testament ethics. In fact, we have already seen that Robert Jeffress, a pastor of a megachurch who presumably knows something about the Bible, completely sets Jesus aside as irrelevant when it comes to politics.

I mentioned earlier that Mark Knoll, in 1994, was encouraging evangelicals to honor Christ by knowing him and what was created through him. Jim Wallis, an evangelical Christian who has been consistent in denouncing white evangelicals’ rejection of inclusiveness as incompatible with the teaching of Jesus, mentions in his latest book that he does not remember hearing much about Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount at the church he attended when he was growing up. The book, Christ in Crisis: Why We Need to Reclaim Jesus, raises many of the issues that have surfaced in the age of Trump, and declares that a focus on Jesus’ teaching is, today more than ever, needed in order to properly address them.

I wholeheartedly agree with Wallis. But I also put some blame on the evangelical approach to the Bible. I question the assumptions made by evangelicals about what the Bible is and how it should be read. To illustrate such assumptions, the first item in the Statement of Faith posted on the internet by Bible Study Fellowship (BSF), a popular non-denominational Bible study, is reproduced here:

We believe that the 66 books of Holy Scripture as originally given are in their entirety the Word of God verbally inspired and wholly without error in all that they declare, and, therefore, are the supreme and final authority of faith and life.

It is true that Christians routinely call the Bible the Word of God. But it is also true that the Bible is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a divine monologue. It is true that Christians believe the Bible was produced under divine inspiration, and consider it authoritative. However, they differ on the meaning of inspiration and on the scope of biblical authority.

I have taught and participated in Bible studies for a long time in evangelical circles, and I know for a fact that many churchgoers have been led to believe that God either wrote the Bible or dictated every word of it to its human writers. That is how they would understand the declaration by BSF that the Bible is verbally inspired by God. Obviously if God himself is its author, then it must be wholly without error, whatever that means. But this inerrancy is not limited to matters of faith. It is assumed to apply to all aspects of life. Therefore, it is not unusual to hear churchgoers adopting confrontational attitudes against science and other sources of knowledge simply because they are proud to say they believe every word of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.

To be sure, I do not think those who wrote the above statement of faith believe that God himself wrote the Bible. The implication of their statement may be that the Holy Spirit prepared and guided the writers so that the product of their writing was a reflection of the divine intent. However, they probably subscribe to the concepts of infallibility and inerrancy which do not have clear and direct support within the Bible itself. These concepts lead to the belief that all utterances in it are fully divine and have permanent relevance. However, since revelation in it is progressive, there is no reason to assume that new revelation cannot correct old revelation. In other words, as one learns more about God’s nature and his expectations of mankind, one may have to obsolete some old assumptions that were adopted at a less enlightened age. In this book, I argue that there is strong support in the Bible itself for this view.

Admitting the possibility that new revelation can obsolete older revelation is important. In fact, it is directly linked to the division of the Bible between an old covenant and a new one. A new covenant necessarily replaces an old one, even though it may not invalidate every element of it. In the Bible, it is a simple matter of honesty to recognize the fundamental incompatibility between some utterances in the two covenants. For example, the focus on love, peace, forgiveness and inclusiveness in the New Testament cannot be reconciled with the lack of inclusiveness and the propensity toward violence in the Old Testament. Does God endorse human violence or does he not? Did God endorse human violence in the past but does not anymore? Or did God always detest human violence but tolerated human inadequacies while patiently providing hints to guide mankind toward a better understanding of him?

Answers to such questions matter. If all parts of the Bible are equally relevant, then humans have no guidance at all from it on whether God endorses violence, and can pick passages that support their own inclinations. If God previously endorsed human violence but changed his mind, then it is difficult to say that peace and non-violence are part of God’s nature, and again, mankind has little guidance from a God who seems to be learning from experience. But if it is clear that God has always hated human violence, then it becomes easy to understand Jesus’ words: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. Clearly, children of God are a reflection of God’s true nature. They will not be inclined to rely on powerful weapons to impose their will on others in God’s creation.

In this book, I examine the biblical narrative while tracking the internal debates within it on matters of theology and ethics. That narrative is lengthy and intricate, and it is my observation that many Christians, including many who diligently study the Bible, do not have an adequate understanding of the flow of ideas in it from beginning to end. However, understanding that flow of ideas is necessary for the purpose of reaching conclusions on what really matters in the Bible. The present study shows that theological and ethical beliefs change for the better throughout a storyline that points to a future messianic leader who will provide definitive answers. Once the messianic leader has arrived, there is no justification for a return to previous assumptions that have been invalidated by his teaching. This conclusion may seem trivial to advanced scholars of the Bible, but the history of Christianity shows that it has not been properly understood. This has led to behaviors in the church that completely violate the principles promoted by the biblical Messiah. In fact, evangelicalism, by stressing the importance of biblical inerrancy, has contributed to this situation because biblical inerrancy leads to the conclusion that all biblical pronouncements are divine and have equal relevance.

This book is written to help readers who find it difficult to sort out the lengthy and intricate message of the Bible. Such readers also tend to struggle in trying to understand how Christianity has performed in the past and how it fits in the world today. For that reason, a brief history of Christianity is provided in the first two chapters, with the objective of showing how the perceived deficiencies in Christian performance have led to numerous movements, all the way to the evangelical movement in the United States. Readers who are already familiar with that history can skip those chapters and focus on the biblical narrative as presented in the rest of the book, but may find it useful to review the material at the end of Chapter 2 that discusses the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Other readers, who find this brief history inadequate and would like to know more, should consult other sources, of which Kenneth S. Latourette’s A History of Christianity (the primary source used here) is an example.

The approach adopted in this study is to take the Bible stories at face value and extract from them theological and ethical conclusions. All Bible quotations are from the New International Version.

---

1 Noll, Mark A.. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (p. 3). Eerdmans Publishing Co - A. Kindle Edition.

2 Noll, Mark A.. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (p. 7). Eerdmans Publishing Co - A. Kindle Edition.

3 Noll, Mark A.. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (p. 253). Eerdmans Publishing Co - A. Kindle Edition.

4 Howe, Ben. The Immoral Majority (pp. 68-69). Broadside e-books. Kindle Edition.

5 Merritt, Jonathan. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/evangelical-christians-trump-bill-clinton-apology/495224/

6 https://www.wthrockmorton.com/2016/07/31/compare-what-christian-leaders-said-about-bill-clinton-in-1998-to-trump-endorsements-now/

7 Declaration Concerning Religion, Ethics, and the Crisis in the Clinton Presidency. https://layman.org/news86fd/

8 https://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/07/28/why-voting-for-donald-trump-is-a-morally-good-choice-n2199564

9 https://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/10/09/trumps-moral-character-and-the-election-n2229846

10 https://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/10/19/if-you-dont-like-either-candidate-then-vote-for-trumps-policies-n2234187

11 https://www.npr.org/2018/12/24/678390550/for-evangelicals-a-year-of-reckoning-on-sexual-sin-and-support-for-donald-trump

12 https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html

13 https://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2019/12/30/trump-should-not-be-removed-from-office-a-response-to-mark-galli-and-christianity-today-n2558657

14 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/there-no-christian-case-trump/605785/

Chapter 1: Brief History of Western Christianity

In the Bible, the story of the nation of Israel begins with the liberation of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt under the leadership of Moses. The defining moment for that liberation is the crossing of the Red Sea, an event during which the God of Israel, through his servant Moses, parts the waters so that his people can cross safely to the other side while their Egyptian enemies drown. The Israelites can, thereafter, proceed toward their destination, Palestine, where they are to occupy the land promised by God to their ancestors Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and live according to the laws and regulations given to them by their God.

In Palestine, the Israelites must survive in an environment where political stability does not exist: surrounding kingdoms rise and fall, constantly threatening their borders. It is an atmosphere of constant warfare, where the Israelites are led by judges, kings and prophets who, in addition to their military responsibilities, must remind the people that their welfare is dependent on their obedience to the covenant God made with them. National successes are believed to occur when men of God lead the people back to obeying God, while national failures are blamed on idolatry and apostasy. With this interpretation of history, the conquest of the northern kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians in 722 BC is seen as divine judgment against his people for their sinful behavior. Later, in 597 BC, the southern kingdom of Judah is conquered by the Babylonians. About ten years later, Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed and many Israelites are deported to Babylonian territories.

With the rise of the Medo-Persian Empire and the fall of the Babylonians, the Israelites, now called Jews, are allowed to return to their homeland where they rebuild their temple and attempt to restore their national life under governors who answer to Persia. But the political climate changes again dramatically with the rise of Alexander the Great, and Palestine is swallowed by the Macedonian empire which brings Greek culture to the area in an era of deep political and military strife. Finally, in 63 BC, the Roman general Pompey conquers the Jewish capital Jerusalem and the Jews are brought into the Roman Empire. At the time Christianity is born, the Jews are under Roman domination and are struggling to maintain their national identity in a Graeco-Roman world.

The Early Years of the Christian Church

The Initial Spread of the Movement Started by Jesus

In the Bible, the book of Acts describes the early days of the Christian church in Jerusalem, after the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus. On the day of Pentecost, Jesus’ followers are filled with the Holy Spirit and empowered to proclaim the good news about him. The message is that God vindicated Jesus by bringing him back from the dead, and made him Lord and Messiah. Before the events that led to his crucifixion, Jesus had sent out his disciples by pairs, instructing them to begin the work of the kingdom of God by preaching and healing freely, while accepting hospitality from those who received their message, and relying on God’s providence for their needs (Matthew 10:5-14). After his resurrection, on the day of Pentecost, a community of believers begins to form and grow in Jerusalem. Those believers are committed to the teaching of Jesus, prayer, fellowship and the sharing of their possessions for the benefit of those in need (Acts 2:42-47, 4:32-35). Reliable men (servants or deacons) are even selected for the purpose of distributing food equitably (Acts 6:1-7).

Jesus had been persecuted by both Jewish and Roman authorities. The Jewish authorities considered his claims to be God’s true representative blasphemous and threatening to their own legitimacy. The Roman authorities saw his claim to be Son of God and the central figure under God’s rule as an unforgivable challenge to the authority of the emperor. As he had warned them ahead of time, his followers also become victims of persecution and soon have to flee from Jerusalem. One of the early deacons, Stephen, is stoned to death for boldly proclaiming views that deemphasize the importance of the Temple and the customs received from Moses, while presenting Jesus as the Righteous One rejected by the Jewish authorities (Acts 6:13-14, 7:44-53). After this, believers begin to take their message outside of Jerusalem, to places such as Samaria and Antioch, the largest city in Syria. Later, from Antioch, Saul of Tarsus, better known as Paul, will launch his missionary journeys which will result in the founding of churches in Cyprus, Asia Minor, Macedonia and Achaia, and contribute to the rapid spread of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire.

The Debate Over the Relation of Christianity to Judaism

Chapter 15 of the book of Acts discusses the Council of Jerusalem, a gathering of believers to discuss an issue that arises with the inclusion of Gentile converts into an initially Jewish church, as some Jewish believers suggest that The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses (Acts 15:5). In this debate, three key figures emerge as decision-makers: Peter, James and Paul. Paul, who has been establishing himself as apostle to the Gentiles and is accompanied by Barnabas, represents the view that the message about Jesus cannot be contained within Jewish law. Paul’s position, as seen in his letters, is that salvation comes by God’s grace through faith in Christ, not through obeying the law. Peter, known as the one to whom Jesus had given the key to the church (Matthew 16:16-19), with the benefit of his experience with Gentiles during his ministry at Caesarea and the part he played in the conversion of the Cornelius household (Acts 10:23-11:18, 15:7-11), supports Paul’s position. James, Jesus’ brother who is now becoming the leader of the church in Jerusalem, proposes an intermediate solution which, while not requiring circumcision and full adherence to the law of Moses, avoids offending those who have been instructed according to the law of Moses from the earliest times (Acts 15:19-29). In this solution, Gentiles are asked to abstain from food sacrifices to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.

While the Council of Jerusalem ends with a solution found satisfactory by Paul (Galatians 2:8-10), it does not completely eliminate the division in the early church between those who expect Gentiles to obey the law of Moses and those who do not. Indeed, some Jewish Christians in Jerusalem continue to observe Jewish laws. Sources outside of the Bible reveal that this movement later moved to a Gentile city east of the Jordan river called Pella. It included groups with somewhat different views such as the Nazarenes and the Ebionites. The Ebionites, in particular, remained in existence until the fourth century at least, and were considered a heresy by the mainline church.¹⁵

The issue of the relation between Christianity and Judaism has special relevance to the subject matter of this book. While the matter seems settled in the New Testament, it appears that fundamentalists and evangelicals have revived it, perhaps unconsciously, with their assumptions of inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible. Such assumptions, arrived at from very minimal and unconvincing information from the Bible, would lead to the conclusion that the Law of Moses remains as relevant as the gospel of Christ. As we will see later, such a conclusion cannot be reconciled with much of the teaching of the gospels, Paul’s letters and the book of Hebrews.

The Church in the Graeco-Roman World

Conditions Within the Empire

In Luke 2:1, the Roman emperor Caesar Augustus is said to have ordered a census for the entire Roman world. Caesar Augustus (Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus), the adoptive son of Julius Caesar, became the sole ruler of the empire after defeating Mark Antony at Actium in 31 BC. He consolidated the empire and strove to preserve peace (Pax Romana) over a borderless realm which stretched from today’s Portugal and Spain to Britain, West Germany, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Egypt and all of North Africa. Early Christian writers give him credit for making seas and roads safer for travel, which was necessary for the propagation of the Christian message.

After his death in AD 14, Augustus was replaced by Tiberius who is mentioned in Luke 3:1. Tiberius is the emperor who appointed Pontius Pilate, the prefect who ordered the crucifixion of Jesus. At the time he died in AD 37, he had left the city of Rome and was ruling his empire for eleven years from the island of Capri, a feat facilitated by the existence of a good communication system. Taking advantage of this system, Christian writers were able to send letters and other religious documents to distant places within the empire, which was quite helpful for the rapid spread of their message.

Christians were not the only ones benefiting from the safer conditions in the empire. Indeed, many other religions and cults were present. The Greek gods, believed to be assembled on Mount Olympus and led by Zeus (Jupiter), remained popular within the empire and were given Roman names. Other beliefs included the Egyptian gods Isis, Osiris and Horus, and many other cults and sects of oriental origin. Judaism and Christianity were in competition with pagan beliefs, and the fact that Christianity eventually prevailed may be seen as proof of its vitality.

Christians Confront the Graeco-Roman World

At the end of the book of Acts, Paul is a prisoner being taken to Rome, a city where a Christian community, which he has been longing to visit for some time, already exists (Romans 1:8-13). Tradition has it that Peter also ends up taking his ministry to Rome, and that both apostles die there, victims of persecution under Emperor Nero.

The early Christians in Rome were initially a despised minority whose misunderstood practices were deemed shameful by non-Christians. They were criticized for their reluctance to participate in community life and events such as pagan festivals and public amusement events, which they often found morally objectionable. The fact that they celebrated the Eucharist only among themselves gave rise to rumors that they sacrificed infants and ate their blood and flesh. They were also accused of holding their meetings in secret, at night and in burial grounds called catacombs, and engaging in questionable activities during those meetings. Pagans who believed that Rome was protected by its old pagan gods saw Christian rejection of those gods as a threat to the empire.

A major early persecution of Christians by Roman authorities is reported by Roman historian Tacitus and is associated with Emperor Nero who, in AD 64, wanted to blame Christians for a great fire he had, according to rumor, set up in Rome. Some Christian victims were torn to pieces by dogs, while others were crucified and set on fire to light up, for the crowds, a circus in Nero’s gardens. Persecutions continued to break out intermittently during the first three centuries, and were particularly severe during the second quarter of the third century under emperors Decius and Valerian, and at the beginning of the fourth century under Diocletian. Christians breathed a sigh of relief when Emperor Constantine became a Christian in 312 and introduced a policy of toleration of the various religions in the empire. Even though Constantine did not make Christianity a state religion, he supported it significantly, helping consolidate its structures, and building churches, especially after he moved his capital from Rome to Byzantium (Constantinople) in the eastern part of the empire.

Doctrinal Debates Within the Church

Many of the early Christians came from what their critics saw as the lowest segments of the population, including the dispossessed, the slaves and the freedmen. Critics viewed Christianity as a movement of ignorant men and gullible women, and tried hard to discredit Christian beliefs. In the Graeco-Roman world, public debates were greatly influenced by Greek philosophy, and early on, Christian thinkers had to embrace Greek thought patterns in order to provide effective defenses of their religion. In fact, they went beyond merely defending their beliefs and counter-attacked by showing that competing pagan beliefs were inferior. Thinkers such as Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria and Origen are noteworthy apologists for the Christian faith in the second century.

However, the effort to use Greek thought patterns to explain the Gospel also led to serious internal debates which caused prolonged divisions in the church. Platonism, a dominant philosophy, saw matter and flesh as evil, and pure spirit as good. Humans, who were both matter and spirit, could only achieve salvation by freeing the spirit from the corrupting effect of the flesh. This theory is obviously not consistent with the biblical narrative which claims that God’s creation is good (Genesis 1:10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). However, since many early Christian thinkers in the Graeco-Roman world had been molded by this thinking, it seemed natural for them to apply it to explanations of the Gospel.

Platonism had a particular influence on Gnostic beliefs. The Gnostics relied on Jewish and Christian scriptures, but interpreted them allegorically to bring them in alignment with their views on matter and spirit. They believed that God the Father was too holy to have created the corrupt material world. Instead, a series of progressively inferior emanations called ӕons had proceeded from him. The last and lowest ӕon, called Demiurge and identified as the God of the Old Testament, created the material world. Salvation was obtained by renouncing the material world and seeking the invisible spiritual world. This could be done by acquiring hidden knowledge (Gnosis in Greek), and Jesus was viewed as a revealer of such knowledge.

Another teaching which bore some similarities with Gnosticism was Marcionism, introduced by a man named Marcion who came to Rome from Pontus around AD 138. Marcion, unlike the Gnostics who thought salvation came from initiation into a mystery, believed that salvation came from faith in the Gospel. However, like the Gnostics, he believed that the evil God of the Old Testament, whom he also called Demiurge, had created the world and the evil in it. Taking the Old Testament at face value and refusing to interpret it allegorically, he felt that it was inappropriate to combine the Gospel with Judaism. He taught that the true God, who is a God of love, had revealed himself in Christ, and that through Christ’s teaching and sacrificial death, humans were enabled to escape from the kingdom of the Demiurge, with its legalistic requirements expressed in Judaism, into the kingdom of the true God.

Gnosticism and Marcionism are just two of the numerous unorthodox teachings that reflected the doctrinal divisions during the first few centuries of the church. A detailed discussion of such matters is out of the scope of this book. But it is useful to understand that debates on ethics and theology have been part of the church since its beginning. This situation was aggravated by the fact that a biblical canon was not available in the early years of the church. The Septuagint, a translation of Jewish sacred books from Hebrew to Greek, was available and corresponds more or less to the Old Testament in today’s Bible. However, the New Testament canon as it is known today only took shape progressively. During the first century, Paul’s letters to the churches, written before any of the four Gospels, were available to many Christians. It is generally believed that the four Gospels were written during the second half of the first century. However, Marcion may have been the first to assemble a collection of Christian writings which included Luke and some of Paul’s letters. Later, the so-called Catholic Church, which laid claim to doctrinal orthodoxy, slowly adopted the twenty-seven books which were believed to have been written by either an apostle or a friend of an apostle, and constitute today’s New Testament canon.

The idea of the Catholic Church (Catholic means universal) is strongly linked to the belief that the true Gospel had been transmitted from Jesus’ apostles to specific bishops along a succession line. Late in the second century Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, in his effort to denounce heresies within the church, made a case for an apostolic succession which he traced back to Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who had been taught by the apostles. Understandably, the office of bishop took on growing importance as bishops became guardians of doctrinal orthodoxy, and an integral part of the definition of the Catholic Church. Bishops became the heads of the major churches throughout the empire. Initially, they were considered equal. But in time the Bishop of Rome, seen by many as heir of the apostle Peter, grew in importance and became known as the Pope.

The need to maintain orthodoxy in the middle of divisive controversy led to the formulation of statements of faith which eventually became what is known as the Apostles’ Creed. But controversies and divisions did not disappear. The Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 prescribes baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Violent debates arose regarding the nature of the Son and his relation to the Father, and the proper understanding of the Trinity. Early on, contributions were made to this debate by church leaders such as Tertullian, Clement and Origen. However, the position adopted by the Catholic Church came from an effort to deal with the rise of Arianism in the eastern part of the empire. Arius believed that God the Father was eternal, without beginning, while the Son had a beginning and was not part of God. Emperor Constantine, in an effort to maintain unity in the church, gathered a council of the entire Catholic Church at Nicaea in 325, with about three hundred bishops in attendance, which set a precedent for the use of ecumenical councils for the resolution of divisive matters. The Arians were defeated and the creed adopted by the council became the basis for what is known as the Nicene Creed. However, Constantine’s involvement, intended to promote unity, also illustrates what happens when the state and the church come together: Constantine ordered the burning of all books written by Arius, banished his supporters and deposed bishops who had sided with him. The penalty for disobedience was death. Such actions are certainly not consistent with the teaching of Jesus.

Theological controversies continued in the church, and other ecumenical councils followed the one at Nicaea. One debate focused on the idea that Christ was both God and man, and lasted past the sixth century. The Council of Chalcedon, where about six hundred bishops gathered in 451, was the Fourth Ecumenical Council. The creed that came out of the gathering, representing the position of the Catholic Church, affirmed that the Son was truly God and truly human. In him were two natures, a divine nature and a human nature, in a single person.

The debates about the divine and human natures of Christ were primarily a concern of the Eastern (Greek) part of the church, while the Western (Latin) part was primarily preoccupied with understanding the nature of man and his redemption through Christ. A dominant figure in Western Christianity is Augustine, who converted to Christianity in 386, was baptized in 387 by Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, and became, in 396, the bishop of Hippo, a town in North Africa. Augustine wrote an autobiography called Confessions, in which he meditated about human nature based on his own life, and his experience of God’s salvation. Augustine also wrote the City of God in response to accusations from pagans that Christians had endangered the empire, which was under serious attacks from the Goths, by rejecting the old gods who had been protecting Rome. In the City of God, he contrasted earthly kingdoms such as Rome to the heavenly kingdom that was bound to grow under God’s rule, while the earthly one faded. Augustine’s work reveals his great concern was the fate of humans in God’s creation.

Eastern and Western churches differed in their understanding of the role of God’s grace. In the East, John Chrysostom taught that humans had free will and the ability to choose to do good. God’s grace would then help them and strengthen them in their effort to do God’s will. In the West, Ambrose and others believed in an original sin associated with the fall of man, which made humans incapable of initiate the act of salvation. Salvation had to be initiated by God’s grace, and humans could only cooperate. Augustine went beyond Ambrose and argued that the fall of man, as described in Genesis 3, was a choice made by man due to his pride and his desire to pursue his own will rather than God’s will. With the fall came a degradation of man into a lower level of being from which he is unable to recover by his own will. That degradation is inherited by all humans from Adam. Therefore God, through his grace, must initiate all good that can be attributed to man. In fact, God predestines some to be saved and others to be condemned.

Augustine used his formidable intellect and knowledge of Scripture to refute the arguments advanced by the Pelagians who, offended by the loose moral standards in the Roman world, argued that humans had the power to choose to do good, and that Adam’s sin was not transmitted to all his descendants. In Augustine’s mind, such arguments made no room for God’s grace and were therefore not acceptable. The Western Church, at the Synod of Orange in 529, adopted a compromise that affirmed the doctrine of original sin and declared that humans can only turn