I have been thinking about Daniel 12:4:
”But you, Daniel, roll up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.” (NIV)
”But as for you, Daniel,keep these words secret and seal up the book until the end of time; many will roam about, and knowledge will increase” (NASB)
What this verse seems to hint is that understanding about the matters written in the book of Daniel, and probably in similar kind of texts elsewhere in the scriptures, will increase with time as the activities of humans accumulate knowledge. It also hints that God’s plans and secrets are revealed step by step, not everything at once.
That sounds true if we think of how the understanding about God and His plans have developed during history, first from the earliest texts in Genesis to the time of Jesus, then from the death of Jesus onwards. For example, there are prophetic texts about the future Messiah in the Hebrew Bible but they are not easy to interpret without knowledge about what happened later in the history.
The messages in the Bible, especially the Hebrew Bible (OT), seem to be told in a way that made it possible for the listeners to accept the (spiritual) key messages. This accommodation to the culture meant that the message was told within the worldview of the listeners, rather than revealing new information about the ‘scientific facts’ of the universe. When we read the ancient scriptures, we need to take into account the culture of the original listeners to separate the lasting core message from the cultural accommodation.
That is all basic stuff, accepted by most. The picture becomes a bit more complicated when we remember that also the reader interprets the text through the contemporary culture. We are all children of our time and culture and our interpretation is limited by our knowledge and assumptions. For this reason, a person who lived 2000 years ago would have interpreted the scriptures in a partly differing way than we do and a person living 2000 years in the future might interpret the same text in a way that differs from our current interpretation.
This basic principle may become controversial when we talk about what was written and decided by early generations of Christians. If we read the interpretations of Christians that lived 1200+ years ago (‘Fathers’ and the other early Christians), can we trust that their interpretations were fully correct? They were children of their time and their texts include points that show this limitation. For example, Clement writes in his first letter about the phoenix bird as an example of resurrection in Creation - he apparently believed that phoenix birds and the stories about their life were real.
There seems to be a need to sift the early Christian interpretations as we sift the ancient texts to separate the lasting messages from the culturally coloured beliefs.
As the knowledge accumulates, it may be that the later interpretations of the biblical scriptures are more correct than the early interpretations. The big question is which early interpretations should be understood as normative and which can be replaced based on better knowledge?
That is a question that may provoke disagreements.
This is an interesting and possibly influential topic, so I decided to ask your opinions about it to get some feedback.
What do you think about this question (the effect of the accumulating knowledge to the interpretation of the scriptures and earlier teachings)?
Should we stick to what the early generations of Christians wrote or can we reinterpret what the scriptures teach if we get better knowledge, for example about the language and cultural context of the biblical scriptures?
Knowledge obtained through scientific research is an important part of this question. How much can we modify our interpretations based on increasing scientific knowledge, for example about the evolutionary history of humans?
I don’t think we can. While some talk about progressive revelation I tend to think more in terms of a progressive appreciation of God. We have a deeper appreciation of God then those early church fathers. It doesn’t make what they wrote incorrect, just incomplete.
It’s not a case of “can we reinterpret” but “we must reinterpret” when we have better knowledge of the text, culture, and yes even science. And in answer to your last question, I don’t think there can be any limit on how much we can modify.
This is not true. If it were ever proven that the Resurrection did not happen, for example, Christianity would collapse for obvious reasons. And even a hypothetical discovery that the soul does not exist would directly contradict one of Jesus’ teachings. So yes, there are limits to how much we can revise. If science and irrefutable evidence ever forced us to cross those limits, it would simply mean that our faith is false. But that has not happened
The existence of 47,000 different Christian denominations in contradiction among themselves on crucial theological and ecclesiological doctrines proves that no, we don’t have a deeper appreciation of God, God is the God of truth, not of confusion and never ending contradiction. The existence of so many different Christian denominations is not a sign that our appreciation has grown, it’s a sign of confusion and division.
I think there is an important truth in what you are saying, but it needs to be stated carefully.
Daniel 12:4 does suggest that some things are not understood all at once, and that fuller understanding may come later, but I would be cautious about turning that verse into a general rule that doctrine simply changes whenever human knowledge increases. The stronger point is this: divine revelation is complete, while human understanding of it grows over time.
That distinction matters a great deal, because is a real difference between the substance of the faith and our interpretation, formulation, explanation, or defense of it: understanding can deepen, language can become more precise, and earlier interpretations can be corrected where they were too tied to the assumptions of their age, but that isn’t the same thing as saying that the core truths of the faith are endlessly revisable.
So I would not say, “later automatically means better.” I would say something more nuanced: later generations may understand some things better, especially when they have better tools for language, history, archaeology, and literary analysis, but any genuine development has to be continuous with the original apostolic faith rather than a contradiction of it.
That is also how I would approach the early Christian writers: they are extremely important witnesses, especially because they stand so close to the apostolic age and preserve the mind of the early Church, but it doesn’t follow that every opinion held by every ancient Christian author is binding or permanently correct.
Your example of Clement and the phoenix is actually a very good one: If an early Christian author could use the phoenix as an illustration of resurrection, that shows exactly why one must distinguish between a theological truth being expressed and the cultural vehicle used to express it. The truth being taught may be sound even if the illustrative framework is not. So yes, there is a real need to sift enduring theological content from temporary cultural assumptions.
The same principle applies to biblical interpretation itself. Scripture was given in history, through human language, to real communities with real cultural assumptions. That means the reader must pay attention to genre, context, idiom, symbolism, and the intention of the sacred author. A text can be fully true in what it teaches without being intended as a modern scientific description. In fact, many interpretive conflicts arise precisely when ancient theological texts are forced into modern scientific categories they were never meant to occupy.
And in my view this is where science enters the discussion.
In my view, science has not contradicted any genuine truth of Christian faith properly understood. What it has contradicted, at times, are certain interpretations made by Christians, especially interpretations that confused the theological meaning of a text with an ancient cosmology or a pre-scientific model of the world.
That is a very important distinction.
So when modern science shows that the universe is ancient, or that life developed over long periods of time, that does not refute creation. It only refutes the assumption that “creation” must mean “an instantaneous production of everything in its final form a few thousand years ago.” But that assumption is not itself the essence of the Christian doctrine of creation. The doctrine of creation is fundamentally the claim that all things depend on God for their existence, order, and intelligibility. That claim is not touched by whether the universe developed in six twenty-four-hour periods, over billions of years, or by a combination of processes we are still learning to understand.
The same applies to evolution. Evolution, by itself, doesn’t disprove God, creation, providence, or human dignity, It describes a biological process. The real theological questions begin when one tries to turn that biological process into a total worldview and say that matter, chance, and necessity are all that exist and that a couple that was the genealogical ancestor of all humanity, a couple specially elevated by God, cannot exist. That move is philosophical, not scientific.
So yes, I think it is possible (and often necessary) to revise older interpretations in light of better knowledge of language, history, and science. But not everything is equally revisable.
A sensible rule would be something like this:
If a belief belongs to the central content of the faith, it cannot simply be discarded because modern culture dislikes it.
If a belief is instead an ancient scientific assumption, a local custom, a passing explanatory model, or a commentator’s attempt to make sense of the text using the best tools available at the time, then it may well be corrected or abandoned.
That is why one should not flatten everything into the same category. “What early Christians thought” is too broad a phrase. Some things they handed down as part of the faith itself, some things they argued about, some things they simply assumed because everybody in their world assumed them. Those are not the same.
So to your main question ( should we stick to what the early generations of Christians wrote, or can we reinterpret Scripture with better knowledge? ( my answer would be: we should take the early generations very seriously, but not treat every one of their judgments as untouchable. Better knowledge can and should refine interpretation. What it should not do is sever interpretation from the core faith those early generations received and transmitted.
Put differently: there is a difference between development and replacement.
Development means seeing more clearly what was always there.
Replacement means importing a new worldview and reading the old faith through it until the substance changes.
The first is legitimate and necessary. The second is neither legitimate nor necessary. And this (development, not contradiction) is a framework clearly followed by most Christians worldwide, since most Christians belong to churches with apostolic succession: taken together, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church account for a clear majority of the world’s Christians.
So I would summarize my position this way: Christian faith does not fear truth from any quarter. Scientific discovery can correct bad readings, shallow harmonizations, and culturally conditioned assumptions. It can force believers to read Scripture more carefully and more intelligently, but it doesn’t overthrow the actual truths of faith. At most, it exposes where believers may have confused those truths with older, non-essential frameworks.
In that sense, increasing knowledge is not a threat to faith. It is a test of whether we know how to distinguish what is permanent from what is provisional.
I think the Church can, and must, reinterpret teachings of the early Christians. There are, no doubt, core doctrines, like the ones captured by the Nicene Creed for example, that have stood the test of time. But, the Church throughout its history has reinterpreted many teachings of the early Christians. A good example is some of the early teachings on the natural history of humans – we have had to separate the theological truths from many of the teachings about the actual physical processes involved in creation. There are many other teachings that have been reinterpreted.
I am not as bothered by denominational differences as some. I think God recognizes, even celebrates, the diversity of people. It would be nice if there was more effort put into peacebuilding among Christians, rather than dividing.
Having said this, I think reinterpreting teachings must be done very carefully. My denomination’s confession of faith highlights the following points about interpretation of scripture:
the authority of Scripture for ethics, for the relation of the church to society, and for church polity.
the interpretation of Scripture in harmony with Jesus Christ, in the sense that his life, teachings, death, and resurrection are essential to understanding the Bible as a whole.
the congregation of believers as the place where individual understandings and interpretations of Scripture are to be tested.
Given science can’t address either of those hypotheticals, try to come up with something that might actually happen. I can’t think of anything.
I was thinking more in terms of the developments up to say the 4th or 5th century (hundreds of years after the NT was written). In particular the development of the canon and the understanding of the Trinity.
Just a matter of degree. A big enough development could be called a replacement.
If something has to change to see it can you really say it “was always there”?
You are lumping churches with very different origins. That is not a fruitful approach.
The diversity of churches has positive points, like giving a better possibility to find a church community where you can worship and serve together with others, with your own language. All church communities are not such that would welcome the diversity of people and cultures. In addition, linguistic and sometimes cultural barriers may leave some out from a church community.
Despite the good sides, much of the diversity has an origin that is against the hope of Jesus that the believers would love and tolerate each others. Being in different organisations does not prevent cooperation and loving relationships but often there are suspicion towards ‘the others’ and that prevents cooperation.
Some small churches have been established because of conflicts between persons in a previous church. Such cases are sad.
Some churches have been established because some persons were kicked out from another church. For example, Luther, Melanchton and some other leaders of the Reformation wanted a reform in the RCC, not to establish a new church. When they were given an ultimatum to abandon all their claims and hopes or face hard punishments, they were forced to start a new movement and separate churches.
Some churches were established because there were doctrinal disagreements and the church could not accept those with the differing interpretation. In practise, some were ‘smoked’ out from the church and had to establish another church.
Some churches have been established among the immigrants that hope to have a church community that uses their language and follows familiar cultural practices. For example here, the growing influx of immigrants have increased the number of church-like groups much, possibly by hundreds (most are unofficial groups and are not listed anywhere).
There are also other reasons.
In general, one of the key reasons for divisions is that many churches have a low tolerance towards differing interpretations and a controlling leadership. When some people are ‘smoked’ out from this kind of a church and are forced to establish a new church, should we blame those who were driven out of the church or those who ‘smoked’ these people out from their church?
I agree with much you wrote. What may be a bone of contention is the list of those interpretations that are ‘core faith’ or normative vs. those that we are allowed or even need to reinterpret when we get better knowledge. Churches probably have differing lists here.
When I have read early writers (‘Fathers’) with a respectful attitude, I have observed that almost all writings include details that are based on the limited cultural knowledge they had, or are limited to the cultural system where they lived. The core problem here is not that individual writers make apparently outdated conclusions, it is that the interpretations affected the doctrinal decisions made by the councils. Because of that, we should sift also the decisions of the councils, rather than take all their decisions as normative rules.
I don’t think it is healthy in many cases to “blame” anybody. Again, in my church denomination, churches have split into separate congregations, but have remained in the same denomination. They continue to cooperate on common projects in building the Kingdom of God, but worship and fellowship separately.
I would note that peacebuilding in the church does not necessarily involve agreeing with each other on everything, but working through conflict with mutual respect for the other, and sometimes agreeing to disagree on some things, and always loving one another as siblings in Christ.
Well…Clement has his phoenix birds and we have dolphins that live for swimming with humans –we think!. Every society has its stories about animals and we probably like it that way. The phoenix bird and its ancient connection with the concept of resurrection—this does not mean that Hebrew prophets meant that sort of comparison. In the biblical text, “resurrection” has a completely different significance than just a bird returning to the air.
.No need to disparage the ancients. Sometimes they had it right! Learning about the ancient cultures and languages and context and the history of biblical interpretation– this is all good. It will benefit us as much as it will benefit those coming after us. But it should also be humbling. There is a history of silliness …and the silly ones oft times are us..
This shows that many, many modern Christians have been influenced in very nefarious ways by the “modern world”.
But that’s a development of an already believed teaching, not the contradiction of an essential teaching, that’s very different. Christians have believed that Jesus was God in the flesh from the beginning, the clarification of the Councils were needed because there were heretics who questioned that teaching, as a consequence the Holy Spirit led the Church to a better clarification.
As for the Canon, that’s another long (too long) story, suffice it to say that the Canon certainly wasn’t established right away (maybe I’ll delve deeper into it when I have more time).
Well, you know we disagree on this (or, more precisely, we partially disagree). I certainly don’t believe that the Church could have erred in its dogmatic teachings, but not everything that came out of the various councils was dogmatic.
You know what I believe: I believe that the Holy Spirit could not have allowed the Church to teach falsehoods to Christians as definitive teachings on matters of faith. You believe otherwise, and that’s fine. I can’t “prove” that I’m right beyond all reasonable doubt. All I can say is that my understanding is the same one Christians held for many, many centuries, as the early Christians followed the so-called “rule of faith” and accepted that the interpretation of Scripture belonged to the Church (as I have documented here Salvation without Christ - #103 by 1Cor15.54 and in other posts from that topic).
So, if I’m wrong, I can at least say that I’m in good company. alongside canonized saints and martyrs. There isn’t much more to be said on the subject. :))
I agree, but many Christians believe that science disproves the existence of an historical Adam and Eve, which is not true.
Expand on this, it’s interesting. What I meant is that if consciousness were proven to have entirely material origins there would be no reason to think it survives that. What is interesting is that there are many neuroscientists today who are beginning to think the opposite, namely that consciousness cannot be reduced to matter. This https://quantum-neuroscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/The-Spiritual-Brain.pdf is an interesting book on the subject.
Well, if you agree with that (namely: “development, non contradiction”) then we are on the same page about that. :))
Science disproves a historic A&E that fits in the Genesis narrative. You can stretch the interpretation of Genesis to get to a A&E that science can’t disprove but that is just to save your original sin interpretation, which, BTW, isn’t the only possible interpretation.
Answer these questions.
Do animals have a mind?
Do animals have a soul?
If the soul is added after the mind, where does it sit? Your heart perhaps?
Also, Knor, in your OP (which is very interesting because it highlights many assumptions common among modern Christians ) there seems to be an Enlightenment-style idea that the further we advance, the more we progress as humanity and as Christians. But I really don’t think that notion is supported by the Bible itself.
In Matthew 24 and Luke 17 Jesus describes the condition of humanity before His coming as being like the days of Noah : “but as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” — Matthew 24:37
Jesus continues: “For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”
— Matthew 24:38–39
Luke records the same idea: “And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.” — Luke 17:2
Jesus also says that before the end, evil will increase and love will grow cold: “ and because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.” — Matthew 24:12
This supports the idea of a growing distance from God: not merely ignorance, but moral and spiritual cooling.
Paul then gives a very strong description of the “last days”: “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.” — 2 Timothy 3:1
He then describes people as: “lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous,rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power.” — 2 Timothy 3:2–5
That last phrase “having a form of godliness” means religion may still exist outwardly, but without true submission to God.
Paul adds:“Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”— 2 Timothy 3:7
In other words: people may have information, education, and opinions, yet remain unable or unwilling to receive truth.
Paul also says that a time will come when people will no longer tolerate true teaching: “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” — 2 Timothy 4:3–4
This is one of the clearest passages about spiritual decline: people don’t simply lack truth; they actively prefer teachings that fit their desires.
Another key passage: “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.” — 1 Timothy 4:1
Here the issue is not general ignorance only, but deception and departure from the faith.
The second letter of Peter says that in the last days people will mock the promise of Christ’s return: “Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires” — 2 Peter 3:3
And he adds: “But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being” — 2 Peter 3:5
That phrase is evident: “deliberately forget.” The problem is not only lack of knowledge, but a chosen refusal to acknowledge God’s truth.
I would strongly object to the notion that “knowledge will increase” (if intended in a broader way as if men will become more spiritually aware and enlightened). That idea belongs more to Enlightenment thinking, which, from its very inception, has been fundamentally at odds with Christianity. Even if we consider only the Bible, nearly everything speaks against this concept. Moreover, our lived experience of reality suggests the opposite. that spiritual ignorance tends to deepen as time goes on.
It doesn’t take long to type ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Nor to type ‘probably’ or ‘maybe’, or even to type ‘yes, but it’s complicated - more later’. Certainly less time than typing what you did post.