This is a response to Shane Himes’s article: “Israel’s Journey to Know God: Progressive Revelation Part One”

This is the second article I’ve written in response to Shane. You can find his first article here, and my first response here. This response is following his second article in this series.

Again, in the desire for brotherly love and unity, and to keep myself from polemicizing a brother in Christ with whom I greatly disagree, I’ve written to Shane personally.

Hi again Shane, 

To be honest, I hesitated for a few moments before clicking on your most recent article. The thoughts running through my head sounded something like, “What if there is some argument he brings up that I’ve never heard of before and can’t answer?” This initial thought led me to ask a couple of questions: “Why do I feel the need to answer your denial of biblical inerrancy?” and “How much of this discussion deals with our presuppositions before ever even coming to the passages in the text that are a bit troublesome?”

To answer the first question, I feel the need to answer because I believe inerrancy to be foundationally important to the Christian faith, for the reasons I stated in the previous article. Secondly, despite the litany of alleged biblical contradictions, why do I still hold so stubbornly to my belief that the Bible is, in fact, a unified collection of documents and does not contradict itself? 

It seems to me that we are dealing with our presuppositions. You and I are looking at the same evidence and coming to two different conclusions. It’s not that the issue with Exodus 6:3 absolutely convinced you that the Bible was prone to contradiction. I know that because when I look at this discrepancy, I (and others like me) don’t have the “ah-ha” moment you mention.

It saddens me that you felt limited to two options when addressing this issue.

“I could declare the Christian faith a hoax due to contradictions in certain parts of the Bible, or I could nuance my understanding of biblical inspiration and my expectations of the Bible.”

Have you considered a third option? I could hold onto my trust in the reliability of the Scriptures, dig deeper, and find an explanation that reasonably reconciles this passage with the times God is known as YHWH to the patriarchs. 

Yes, I think the issue you initially brought up can be addressed reasonably and without stretching the text. The foundational issue here, however,  is whether or not, at its very core, the Scripture is accurate and trustworthy. Do we get to subjectively decide where we think God’s Word is right and where it must be wrong?

When God states that He was not known by His name to the patriarchs, how can we account for the 100+ times that He (or they) use that name in Genesis 12-50? Here’s my attempt to answer it, but like I said (and will continue writing about), the issue we are dealing with is so much deeper than just one (of hundreds) of apparent discrepancies.

We are dealing with the storyline of God’s name, which doesn’t climax until Exodus 34:5-7. The concept of God’s “name” is never biblically emphasized as the four letters that make up the tetragrammaton, but the very character and nature of God. He is consistent and faithful. He will always be who he always has been (YHWH). The reason we can trust Him is because we can have absolute surety in “who” He is. The writer of Exodus was very familiar with Genesis and wasn’t contradicting it, but pointing out that Moses’s connection with God was so much deeper than what the patriarchs might have experienced. The point wasn’t that they didn’t know the word “Yahweh” in connection with God. The point is that God’s might was revealed to Abraham, but the fullness of His character wasn’t revealed until Moses, and even then it had to be limited so that Moses wouldn’t be destroyed (Exodus 33:17-23).

Can you answer how as a young boy Samuel “ministered before Yahweh” (1 Sam. 2:18; 3:1) but he “did not yet know Yahweh” (1 Sam. 3:7)? Did he know who he was serving or not? Clearly to know in this passage means more than simple recognition of existence.

What about every other time in Exodus when yadah, the Hebrew word “to know,” is applied to human engagement with Yahweh (6:7; 7:5, 17; 8:10, 22; 9:29; 10:2; 14:4, 18; 16:6, 12; 29:46)? Each of these passages indicates so much more than simple recognition of existence. Is it good exegesis to use a modern Western definition of know in Exodus 6:3, when it is clearly much more than that?

What about the fact that yadah  is applied to the intimate sexual experience between husband and wife? Did Abraham really not know Sarah before that happened?

What about Jeremiah 16:21 and Isaiah 52:6? Did the people of Israel really not know how to pronounce God’s name? I don’t think either of us would make that claim.

This isn’t stretching the text. This is exactly what you have been asking us to do, recognize the cultural, linguistic, narrative, and historical context of the Writings. We can’t apply the Hebrew word yadah to our cleanly defined 21st century Western understanding of what it means to know something, when it is clear from Scripture that it means so much more.

Moving to the bigger issue, however, where does my trust in the Scriptures come from? Is it a game of circular reasoning? I believe Jesus because I believe the Bible because I believe Jesus because I believe the Bible…and so on? I don’t think so.

I believe in the resurrection of Jesus.

I believe in the “gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 1:1-2). 

Because He was declared to be the Son of God, I believe the things He said to be true.

I believe what Jesus taught about the Old Testament. When did He ever cast doubt on its origin? Did he teach that the Old Testament writings were just the author’s interpretation of what God wrote? Actually, He taught exactly the opposite. Jesus regularly referred to passages from the Old Testament as “the commandment of God” (Matt. 15:3) and “The word of God” (Matt. 15:6; John 10:35). In fact, Jesus, Himself, quoted the very passage that convinced you that the Old Testament must contain errors.

“And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” (Matt. 22:31-32; Jesus is quoting from Ex. 3:6)

Who did Jesus credit these words to? You have attributed this passage from Exodus to a mistaken human, when Jesus attributes it to God Himself. 

I believe in Jesus’s promise to the apostles that they would be given the “Spirit of truth” who would teach and remind them of Jesus’s words (John 14:17, 26). 

I believe what Jesus said to those same apostles when he promised,

“When the Spirit of truth comes he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak…He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you” (John 16:13-15).

For those reasons, I also believe what the apostles say about the Hebrew Scriptures. When do they ever cast doubt on its origin? Do they teach that the Old Testament writings were just the author’s interpretation of what God wrote? Actually, they teach exactly the opposite.

2 Timothy 3:14-17

“But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

When Paul writes this about the Hebrew Scriptures, he emphasizes God’s intimate involvement in the Word. Where exactly is the room, according to Paul, for the Hebrew prophets to misunderstand Him and write their own interpretation of their experience with God?

2 Peter 1:19-21

“And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

Prior to this quote, Peter emphasizes his own role as an eyewitness and how God’s revealed words are even more concrete and trustworthy than what he had previously experienced walking daily with the incarnate Lord. Should this passage read, “No prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as best as they could understand him, while of course being limited by their unscientific, morally unrefined, ancient worldview”?

I’m just not comfortable with the presuppositions that would allow for Jesus and the apostles to be mistaken on their teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures.

I really do appreciate your attempts to show that the Bible must be seen in the cultural and historical context that its authors lived. I agree wholeheartedly, but to suggest that God was not able (or willing), in those ancient times, to communicate his words accurately is contrary to Jesus’s teachings. The term “inerrancy” might be a modern construct, but its definition has been the foundation of most Christians throughout history: the reliability that anyone with a copy of it has access to God’s own words.

As for the Akkadian texts you mention, I think they are amazing finds that really shed light on the Torah! If the global flood really did happen, wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect that other ancient cultures (even those who began writing their histories before the ancient descendants of Abraham) would recount these stories? Even the ancient Māori, in the land I’m currently living in, had a story of an overwhelming flood. Most ancient cultures do. That should increase our faith in the Hebrew Scriptures! 

Sidebar: Does the Bible claim that Moses was the first person to ever write anything down? Does the fact that these Akkadian texts are older mean that they are in some way better? The Sumerian Code of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin is actually much older than Hammurabi.

It’s great that you’ve listed some of the laws from the Code of Hammurabi, written centuries prior to the Exodus. Aren’t they amazing? The similarities to the Torah are awesome! If God did give His Law to a theocratic society that had recently departed Egypt, wouldn’t we expect some of the civil laws found therein to be similar to other ancient law codes? Of course we would. But, I think you forgot to mention some of the important differences. Hammurabi’s law is completely inundated with polytheism, like all cultures of the day (except the Hebrew). The Torah continually declares the Israelites’ reasons for believing and obeying it: God’s faithfulness and rescue. Before giving any laws, God states: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” (Exodus 20:2) Throughout the Torah He emphasizes the mandate for obeying Him is tied to His love and his previous action (Lev. 25:38; 26:11-13, Dt. 4:7). Yahweh’s laws are tied to His real presence and righteousness among His people. Is this something that Hammurabi can claim?

As for Joshua 10:12-14, I hope you can maintain consistency and never again use the phrases “sunrise” and “sunset.” Otherwise, people might consider you ignorant and unscientific. It might be more reasonable to allow the Bible to speak the same language that ancient people spoke, and in this case, the way people still speak today, as things appear from our perspective. 

You mentioned in a Facebook post that “these articles are fun, but they aren’t going to be the best means of academic engagement.” You suggested that we read your thesis if anyone really wanted to “dive into the issue.” While I appreciate the hard work and study that goes into a thesis, I think that since you’ve introduced the topic in a nonacademic venue, its best for us to continue the conversation down here. I also enjoy spending some time in academia’s ivory tower, but if conclusions reached there can’t be effectively communicated to those without access to it, we’re doing a great disservice to the Lord’s people. 

I’m not sure if you plan to respond to my responses, but I think I’ve voiced some questions that many of us have when inerrancy gets the boot. Perhaps you didn’t intend your articles to be a large scale defense of your position of “errancy,” but when you finish your series I would really appreciate your time in helping me understand your point of view in some of the questions I’ve raised. 

Shane, I appreciate you and hope we can come to a better understanding of God’s truth together.

Today as I was scrolling through Aggos.com, a new social media site for members of the church of Christ (check it out!), I noticed a post by Shane Himes sharing his article “Israel’s Journey to Know God: Biblical Inspiration” (find it here). In short, I disagree with his conclusions about biblical inerrancy and want to share why.

In the past authors within churches of Christ who disagreed with each other often wrote to their opponents in journals, blogs, or brotherhood publications to encourage a written debate and sort out the issues at hand. Sometimes, their correspondence was published for the readership of those journals. Unfortunately, and more often than not, these authors resorted to the vilification of those who disagreed with them through twisting the words of an author who would respond and setting up “straw-man” arguments against those who didn’t. These things don’t make for the “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). While we may disagree, I have a responsibility in my response to show “humility, gentleness, and patience, bearing with one another in love” (Eph. 4:2). In order to do this, and remind myself that I am writing to a brother, not an enemy, I’ve decided to write directly to Shane.

Hi Shane,
I know we’ve never met, but if you’re ever in the Henderson, TN, area in the next year or so, let me know and let’s grab some lunch. I’ve read your article about inerrancy and appreciate some aspects of it. I agree that adages and oversimplified viewpoints of the Scripture can cause more harm than good. The Bible is sometimes confusing and often difficult to understand. Even Biblical authors have acknowledged that. Acknowledging that fact, the question then is, “Where do we go from here?”

As I read, I noticed that you are a young guy, like myself, who obviously loves Jesus and His people. The topic of your writing, however, was troubling and in my opinion, inconsistent with what the Bible teaches. Though the Bible is difficult to understand in some places, I sincerely disagree that the best way to deal with these issues is to give up on inerrancy, deny the unity of the biblical writings, or overemphasize the human involvement in the word of the Bible to the point of neglecting the divine. This seems to be what your article is attempting to do.

For the sake of some readers of this, inerrancy as defined by the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy that Shane mentions is probably taken from article XI:

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

It is important to remember that this “statement” that Shane and I are referring to is not a denominational creed, but a definition of what many believe to be a summation of biblical principles on God’s authority and man’s involvement in the writing of the Christian Scriptures.

I think that your definition of inerrancy is a bit misleading. Article VI, that you’ve mentioned reads: “We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.” Without reading more of the statement, however, it might seem that they mean that God miraculously took control of the biblical author’s writing hand and mechanically dictated each stroke of the stylus. For clarification, Article VIII reads: “We affirm that God in His Work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.” The Bible is full of the original authors’ personalities: John’s Greek is easier to read than Luke’s, Paul doesn’t necessarily remember who all he baptized in Corinth, and Matthew’s gospel seems inherently “more Jewish” than Mark’s. These marks of authenticity don’t negate God’s inspiration, they actually emphasize God’s power in providing a consistent message through numerous human authors over long periods of human history.

Many have suggested that the Bible is inspired as far as it speaks to spiritual truths, but not necessarily in regard to what you phrase, “science, sociology, theology, morality, or anything else.” CSOI Article XII reads: “We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science.” In your upcoming articles, could you please inform us how we can trust the spiritual positions expounded in Scripture that come from a God unable (or unwilling) to correctly communicate the physical aspects of history or geography? Are the human authors involved in the process somehow limiting God’s accuracy of inspiration?

I appreciate your unique view of the growing understanding of the Hebrew people throughout the ages, but I believe you’ve created a false dichotomy between inerrancy and progressive revelation as the Israelites experienced it. In fact Article V of the CSOI states: “We affirm that God’s revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive.” It is completely reasonable to assume that God’s purposes and personality were more clear to those who had more of His revelation available to them. Hebrews 1:1-2 make that evident. While those who only had access to the Torah may have been more aware of God’s judgment and less of his grace, it’s an unsubstantiated leap to assume that their writings would contradict what would later be revealed. Is it not possible that the people of Israel were emphasizing different aspects about God as more of His revelation became known through prophecy? Do the supposed discrepancies force us to leap to the conclusion that they often changed their thoughts about God, contradicting themselves previously?

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that your viewpoint must concede that our ultimate authority as Christians is not Scripture, itself, but our subjective deliberations as to what within the Bible is correct by our own definition of proper morality, history, or science. You make some very concrete assertions about your faith, which is laudable. Let’s look at a few of them and apply your hermeneutic.

“I’m not always the follower of Jesus that I should be, but his grace is enough in the absence of my perfection. ”

Amen, brother. Me too. But if we can’t know with certainty which aspects of Scripture are truly God’s Word and which are just human reflections on God’s revelation (which are prone to error), how can you know that Paul’s description of Christ’s grace was what was intended by God?

“It is in Christ that we find the answer all of humanity, including ancient Israel, has searched for.”

I agree, but once again, I feel like my foundation of scriptural inerrancy upholds this. From your position how can you say this, without allowing for the possibility that the apostles misunderstood certain aspects of God’s revelation in Christ?

“Jesus is the perfect revelation from God and all previous revelation must bow to him.”

Amen again. But, if previous revelation and the human tendency to misrepresent God are any indication of how fallible men have represented Jesus in the books of the New Testament, how can I trust Jesus when I don’t actually know for certain who he is and what he is about? It sounds subjective at best.

If I can venture to guess what strategy you’ll take in regard to the concepts introduced in your upcoming article series, I would say that the “points of error” in the Bible (in your opinion) are actually “according to standards of truth and error that are alien to [the Bible’s] usage or purpose” (CSOI Article XIII). If you are planning to focus on “biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations,” (CSOI Article XIII) these can be explained without throwing out inerrancy in what you’ve termed as the “examining of Scripture on its own terms and in its own context.”

…We… deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church.

Chicago Statement of Inerrancy- Article XIX

This point is vital. Shane, if your view is correct, what are the rest of us missing out on by holding on to the doctrine of inerrancy? Acceptability in scholarly communities? Relevance in the modern world? An easy “out” when difficult questions (like the “violent depictions of God in the Torah”) arise? Is there actually something significant to our faith and knowledge of Christ that we can gain by letting go of inerrancy?

In my understanding, I don’t think those things are worth the price of cutting off the branch we are sitting on. The trustworthiness of God’s inspired word is a pillar that undergirds our faith. When we become the moral, scientific, historical, and theological authorities instead of trusting in God’s Word for all truth, our faith will eventually become a skeleton of what it once was, after we’ve picked it clean of what society deems as inappropriate or distasteful. We certainly won’t look like the church that Jesus built and our witness for Him will be limited to whatever is palatable to the majority.

Shane, as your series of articles appear, I will attempt to show that God’s Word as we have it, the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, is without error in anything that it asserts. The New Testament and Old Testament are in complete agreement with one another and the difficult questions that arise in this discussion can be answered without denying the ability of God to produce an authoritative message to mankind that is free from mistakes.

After teaching English to a Hindu family, I was very interested in learning more about the primary Hindu text: the Bhagavad Gita (BG).

Bhagavad Gita, Translated by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, 2^nd Edition; Revised and Enlarged, The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International, Inc., 1972, 1983

The BG is a story about the supreme Hindu god, Krishna, and his discussion with his follower, Arjuna. The setting is a battlefield where Krishna calls Arjuna to fight against his enemies, though many in the opposing army are members of Arjuna’s family. Krishna encourages Arjuna to keep his duty, which is the highest devotion one can pay towards Krishna. For more, see here.

The wife in the family I was studying with assured me that the BG, just like the writings of other religious groups (the Bible, the Quran, etc.), was all about love. She said that each of these writings taught their respective communities how to love one another and make the world a better place. In modern society, this is a very appealing statement. It is tempting to accept the notion that all religions are just different, but very similar, representations of each culture’s desire to leave the world better than they found it. If this was true, how could any religion claim to be superior to another?

As I read the BG, however, I didn’t find very much about love. In fact, I can’t recall “love” ever being mentioned in a positive light. Unfortunately, I believe my friend has been misguided. She is a very sincere and lovely person, but the religion that she and so many other Hindus follow is wholly inadequate when compared to the Christian religion. It is my purpose in this article to show the inadequacies of the supposed god Krishna and, thus, question the foundations on which many Hindus base their faith.

From what I have learned, there are many important Hindu writings, which I am sure would benefit me in my study of this religion. The translator, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, assures that though there are many important writings the BG is sufficient in leading one into the “truth” of Krishna.

Because Bhagavad Gita is spoken by the supreme personality of godhead, one need not read any other Vedic literature…This one book will suffice because it is the essence of all Vedic literature (BG Intro, 28).

Though the preface to the book claims that the BG is “historically authorised” (BG, xvii), The historicity of the BG, unlike that of the Christian and Jewish writings, is difficult to certify because of the lack of evidence. The introductory material of the BG actually claims that:

Krishna descends to this planet once in a day of Brahma, or every 8,600,000,000 years (BG, xviii).

One can imagine how difficult it would be to historically prove this claim. Because of the lack of information, most assert that the BG would fit in the literary category of the epic, along with Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. The writing of the BG has been dated somewhere between 400 BC and 200 AD but there is no evidence within the writing itself that assumes a historical date of the events therein.

Swami Bhaktivedanta, in the introductory material, makes claims about the Bhagavad Gita that differ from my friend’s more inclusive statements about all religions:

The Krishna consciousness movement is essential in human society, for it offers the highest perfection of life.

-BG, xix

In this present day, people are very much eager to have one scripture, one God, one religion, and one occupation. Therefore,…let there be one scripture only, one common scripture for the whole world – Bhagavad Gita…let there be one God for the whole world – Sri Krishna…and one hymn, one mantra, one prayer – the chanting of his name…and let there be one work only – the service of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

– BG Intro, 29

It is clear from these quotations that the respected swami does not consider all religions to be good and useful. On the contrary, the BG and its introduction makes similar claims of religious exclusivity that the Bible makes.

Ephesians 4:4-5

There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

If both of these religions claim to be exclusively true, their teachings deserve examination.

Searching Out the Truth in the Gita and in the Bible

Let’s first examine the methods by which these books ought to be read.

Lord Caitanya clearly says that anyone who tries to understand Bhagavad Gita from the Mayavadi (those “without perfect knowledge of Krishna”) point of view will commit a great blunder. The result of such a blunder will be that the misguided student of Bhagavad Gita will certainly be bewildered on the path of spiritual guidance and will not be able to go back to home, back to the Godhead.

-BG, xviii

In order to save oneself from this offence [interpreting the Bhagavad Gita without first trusting in Krishna], one has to understand the Lord as the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

-BG, xviii

To understand Bhagavad Gita, one must “be a devotee in a direct relationship with the Lord.”

-BG Intro, 4

Bhagavad Gita should be taken up in a spirit of devotion.

-BG Intro, 5

The Gita is “for devotees only.”

-BG note, 716

Much like the Book of Mormon (Moroni 10:4) , the BG asks its reader to trust it as absolute truth before reading it. I find this to be a major logical fallacy. Ought we trust someone just because they tell us they are trustworthy? In everyday life, we only trust things that have already proven themselves to us. The Bible teaches this clearly:

1 Thessalonians 5:21

Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.

1 John 4:1

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Revelation 2:2

I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false.

Unlike the BG, whose translators tell us, “Vedic knowledge is complete because it is above all doubts and mistakes… We have to accept perfect knowledge which comes down, as is stated in Bhagavad-gita” (BG Intro, 13), the Bible actually tells us to test everything and only accept it if it passes our tests. If a god capable of giving us intellect and reason actually exists, we would expect his writings to be in accordance with the intellect and reason that his creatures exhibit. “Trust me, because I said so” is not a mantra fit for the questioning and logical human mind.

Let’s consider some conclusions that the BG asks us to trust, just because “Krishna says so” (10.14).

Societal Divisions and Prescribed Duty in the Bhagavad Gita

Krishna – “The four divisions of human society are created by Me.”

– BG 4.13

The duties and qualities of each of the four divisions (Brahmans, Ksatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sudras) are laid out in BG 18.42-44.

Peacefulness, self-control, austerity, purity, tolerance, honesty, knowledge, wisdom and religiousness – these are the natural qualities by which the brahmanas work. Heroism, power, determination, resourcefulness, courage in battle, generosity, and leadership are the natural qualities of work for the ksatriyas. Farming, cow protection and business are the natural work for the vaisyas, and for the sudras there are labor and service to others.

Take note of what this passage teaches. There are certain classes of people who cannot attain to virtues such as: purity, honesty, knowledge, and wisdom. The lowest class cannot attain to anything higher than physical labor and service to others. Krishna specifically states that women, vaisyas, and sutras are of “lower birth” (BG 9.32).

The subsequent outcome of the caste system, Krishna’s four divisions of society, is the prescribed duty of each individual in whatever caste they find themselves born into. Examine the teachings of the BG passages regarding duty.

BG 2.27 – Duty is unavoidable.

BG 2.31 – Duty is specific according to caste.

BG 2.33 (3.8) – It is sin to reject your given duty.

BG 2.47 (3.19, 31; 18.9) – “You have a right to perform your prescribed duty, but you are not entitled to the fruits of your action. Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your actions.”

BG 3.5- Duty is prescribed by being born into a specific caste.

BG 3.22-24 – Even Krishna is subjected to prescribed duties.

BG 18.7 – “Prescribed duties should never be renounced.”

BG 18.59 – “By [Arjuna’s] nature, [he] will have to be involved in warfare.”

In summary, everyone is born into a particular caste, which comes with its own particular duty. It is sinful to reject your prescribed duty or to aspire to a higher duty than the one you have been born into. Because of the prescription of duty and the unchanging nature of your caste, you shouldn’t feel responsible for the consequences of your actions. Consequences of actions are, after all, not your fault since Krishna demands that you follow your duty.

Take careful note of the implications of the following passage:

By following his qualities of work, every man can become perfect. Now please hear from Me how this can be done. By worship of the Lord, who is the source of all beings and who is all-pervading, a man can attain perfection through performing his own work. It is better to engage in one’s own occupation, even though one may perform it imperfectly, than to accept another’s occupation and perform it perfectly. Duties prescribed according to one’s nature are never affected by sinful reactions…Therefore one should not give up the work born of his nature, O son of Kunti, even if such work is full of fault 

-BG 18.45-48

These particular words of Krishna’s are in response to Arjuna’s reluctance to killing his brothers and cousins in war. In essence, Krishna says, “You must do it. You are a soldier and it is your duty.” In this teaching, perfection is not a moral standard to be aspired to, but a blind acceptance of one’s duty, despite the outcome of one’s actions.

Isn’t it interesting that Krishna admits that certain types of prescribed duties are “full of fault” ? It is human nature, as Arjuna argues, to hold more tightly to moral obligations than to perceived caste duties. Should the son of a family of beggars, with a talent for music, not seek to improve his family’s desperate status by leaving his socio-economic class behind for a better, more prosperous status? Should the boy born in Nazi Germany have honoured his duty to fight as a soldier upholding Hitler’s evil regime, instead of his moral obligation to fellow man? Would Krishna be pleased with someone born to a family of beef butchers who worked in the slaughterhouse because of his prescribed duty?

Societal Divisions and Prescribed Duty in the Bible

Consider the aspects of societal divisions and  “duty” as seen from the Bible. It is evident, I believe, that the teachings found in the Bible fit within the moral obligations inherent in human society, much better than the notion of prescribed duties taught by Krishna in the BG.

Instead of the caste system, in which all people are divided, the Bible teaches that Jesus has come and torn down those barriers which formerly separated groups of people. Everyone has the same value, no matter their race, gender, and economic standing.

Galatians 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 5:6

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

Ephesians 2:14-15

For [Jesus] Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall…so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace.

Christianity teaches the unity of mankind where every individual is equally valued and important. In accordance with this teaching, every man and woman has the same duty.

Ecclesiastes 12:13

The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person.

Matthew 22:36-40

“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

The duties taught by Krishna might very well include fighting and killing because of the group you were born into. The duties taught by Jesus include loving God and as a natural outgrowth of that love, loving all other humans.

Standard of Morality in the Gita Compared to the Bible

You can imagine that the standards of morality given by Jesus and Krishna would be as vastly different as the prescribed duties that each of them teach. In the following passage, Arjuna tells his reluctance to fight his brethren. In fact, he is much closer to the moral teachings of Jesus before he is convinced by Krishna to follow his duty as a soldier.

Arjuna – I do not see how any good can come from killing my own kinsmen in this battle, nor can I, my dear Krishna, desire any subsequent victory, kingdom or happiness…Of what avail to us are a kingdom, happiness or even life itself when all those for whom we may desire them are now arrayed on this battlefield? …Why should I wish to kill them, even though they might otherwise kill me? …I am not prepared to fight with them even in exchange for the three worlds, let alone this earth…Sin will overcome us if we slay such aggressors…How could we be happy by killing our own kinsmen?…Why should we, who can see the crime in destroying a family, engage in these acts of sin?

– BG 1.31-38

Alas, how strange it is that we are preparing to commit greatly sinful acts…Better for me if the sons of Dhrtarastra, weapons in hand, were to kill me unarmed and unresisting on the battlefield. – 1.44-45

Arjuna’s words of love and sacrifice for his family are very similar to the words of Jesus in Luke 6:27-29, 31-33.

But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either…Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.

Unfortunately, Arjuna listens to Krishna, who tells him that his love for his family is “degrading impotence” and “weakness of heart” (2.4) because he is not ready to uphold his duty.

Krishna’s reasoning for saying these things is as follows:

Never was there a time when I did not cease to exist, nor you, nor all these kings; not in the future shall any of us cease to be. – BG 2.12

“How can a person who knows that the soul is indestructible, eternal, unborn and immutable kill anyone?” – BG 2.22

“If, however, you do not perform your religious duty of fighting, then you will certainly incur sins for neglecting your duties and thus lose your reputation as a fighter.” – BG 2.33

Here is another passage in the BG where devotion to Krishna requires a blind acceptance of Krishna’s words as truth, solely because “he said so.” Why ought we to believe in the cyclical rebirths and reincarnation taught in the BG? Because Krishna says we ought to, and because we ought to have already come to faith in Krishna before we started reading the BG. This reasoning is as cyclical as the cycles of reincarnation taught in this book.

It is remarkable that Krishna, after commanding Arjuna to fight and kill his family members, he then tells him to “keep all abominable activities far distant” from him (2.49).

The Christian might ask, “If killing isn’t abominable, what is?”, but the BG is consistent in the teaching that sin is only accomplished when one does not keep his duty (2.33).

Krishna wavers in his definitions of what is abominable. In one passage, an “abomination” is simply failing to uphold one’s prescribed duty. In a later passage, his definition of “abominable” seems to be more inline with Arjuna’s perceived moral obligation to love his family. In this case, however, Krishna reminds Arjuna that:

Even if one commits the most [seemingly] abominable action, if he is engaged in devotional service he is to be considered saintly because he is properly situated in his determination. – BG 9.30

This is in complete contrast to what is taught in the Bible.

Romans 12:9

Hate what is evil. Hold fast to what is good.

Notice that the things God hates are certain types of behaviour that humans take part in. Therefore, unlike the teachings of Krishna, the God of the Bible has set a divine standard for human behaviour. See Proverbs 6:16-19:

There are six things which the Lord hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil, A false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers.

Questions for the Bhagavad Gita

1) If Krishna truly desired peace (BG, xiv), why did he give his army to Duryodhana and give himself as advisor and chariot driver to the Pandavas, Duryodhana’s enemies? If he truly desired peace, why did he command Arjuna to fight at least five times (BG 2.18, 39; 3.30; 8.7; 11.33-34) ?

2) If Krishna is completely separate from the material world, why would he desire his followers to offer material things to him (BG 9.26-27) ?

3) Krishna urges Arjuna to “be relieved of the miseries of material existence” (BG 9.1). If Krishna created the material universe (BG Intro, 11), why did he create it to be so miserable?

4) Why does Krishna give conflicting commands to Arjuna? He tells Arjuna to fight and kill his enemies (family members), and then later says that if anyone wishes to come to him, he must be “friendly to every living being” (BG 11.55)? Later, Krishna says that if one wishes to be his devotee, he must be “a kind friend to all living entities” (BG 12.13). Furthermore, Krishna states that godly men will show “charity,” “nonviolence,” and “compassion for all living entities” (BG 16.3; see also 17.14 and the comments on 18.17). How do these commands harmonise with one another?

5) Who prescribed Krishna’s duties (BG 3.22-24)? If Krishna really is the “Supreme Personality of Godhead” (BG Intro, 29), who would have the authority to tell him what to do?

Differences between the teachings of Krishna and Jesus

Krishna says:

BG 3.13 – Enjoying food is a sin.

Jesus says:

1 Timothy 4:4 – For [every food] created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving.

Krishna says:

BG 5.20-21 – Rejoicing because of something pleasant or lamenting because of something unpleasant is evil.

Jesus says:

Romans 12:14 – Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.

Krishna says:

BG 6.10 – A holy person ought to live alone in a secluded place.

Jesus says:

Matthew 5:14-16 – “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden…Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

Krishna says:

BG 7.11 – Sex for pleasure is sin.

Jesus says:

God created sex to be good and enjoyed between a husband and wife.

Hebrews 13:4, Song of Solomon, 1 Cor. 7:2-5

Krishna says:

BG 8.13 – All sensual engagements are sin.

Jesus says:

Jeremiah 2:7 – “I brought you into a plentiful land to enjoy its fruits and its good things.”

Krishna says:

BG 16.16 – Hell is for those who enjoy the senses.

Jesus says:

1 Timothy 6:17 – God richly provides us with everything to enjoy.

Krishna says:

BG 6.15 – Heaven is the “cessation of existence.”

Jesus says:

Revelation 21:1-4 – Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “ Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away

Differences in the person of Krishna and the person of Jesus

Krishna’s mercy depends on our perfection

“A person free from all attachment and aversion and able to control his senses through regulative principles of freedom can obtain the complete mercy of the Lord” – BG 2.64

Jesus’s mercy depends on His perfection

“He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy” Titus 3:5.

Krishna desires destruction.

“To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I myself appear, millennium after millennium.” – BG 4.8

“Time I am, the great destroyer of the worlds, and I have come here to destroy all people.” – BG 11.32

Jesus desires no-one to perish.

“The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”- 2 Peter 3:9

Krishna claims to be death.

“I am all devouring death.” – BG 10.35

Jesus claims to be light.

“Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, ‘I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.'”. – John 8:12

Conclusion

I urge all followers of Krishna and the BG to consider the logical fallacies found within this book. The life that the God of the Bible has created for you is not meant to be hated. Life’s joys are meant to be enjoyed and our sadnesses and griefs such as death, infidelity, and loneliness bring sadness to God as well. He has created us in His image (Genesis 1:26) and we have the same moral values as our Creator. This is why Arjuna initially felt wrong in killing his family members. Arjuna was right before he listened to Krishna! God created us and he has put within us a compass pointing us to do what is right and to flee from what is evil.

The caste system and subsequent duty taught by Krishna in the BG is not reconcilable with the human values of: love, compassion, and improvement. These values are found in the Bible and are celebrated as being from God.

Likewise, Krishna teaches that perfection is found only when all earthly desires are rejected. Jesus teaches that physical desires are not inherently evil, and that God’s creation (food, relationships, beauty) are made to be enjoyed.

If you are a Christian, please show love to your Hindu friends and neighbours. Tell them about the “abundant life” that Jesus has provided for everyone who follow Him (John 10:10).

If you are a Hindu, please consider this article. Consider your feelings and emotions. Do you think God created everything that is pleasing to mankind just so he can make us feel bad for enjoying it? Of course not.

Jesus loves you and wants you to enjoy your life.

John 10:10

Jesus- I came that [you] may have life, and may have it abundantly

He also wants you to be prepared to meet Him in the next life.

Romans 2:6-11

God will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well- doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self- seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil… but glory and honour and peace for everyone who does good…For God shows no partiality

Are you ready?