What do you think?
Rate this book
What the Bible Really Teaches: About Crucifixion, Resurrection, Salvation, the Second Coming, and Eternal Life
Keith Ward’s new book is a vigorous and lively contribution to the debate on the authority of scripture—how we read the Bible, and how, he believes, a fundamentalist reading is unsustainable. Thoroughly grounded in the Bible, suffused with a profound and clear understanding of theology, this is a book that will enlighten many and help the many Christians who struggle with these issues.
224 pages, Paperback
First published September 14, 2004
About the author
Keith Ward
159 books52 followersKeith Ward was formerly the Regius Professor of Divinity and Head of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Oxford. A priest of the Church of England and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, he holds Doctor of Divinity degrees from Cambridge and Oxford Universities. He has lectured at the universities of Glasgow, St. Andrew's and Cambridge.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
April 8, 2014
Keith Ward is a born-again Christian who does not think that fundamentalists are Bible-based, and he sets out “what the Bible teaches on a number of issues that fundamentalists get wrong.” Ward states that the tragedy of fundamentalism is that it is so utterly unbiblical. It insists on the literal truth of a few selected passages, neglecting or twisting the interpretation of many others. It is impossible to say, “The Bible teaches exactly this, and it is clear to all true believing Christians.” What the Bible really teaches is usually not very clear, and is often widely misunderstood.
For example, “Belief in Biblical inerrancy is not based on what the Bible explicitly says. It is based on an argument that if God inspires Scripture, then God will prevent any errors occurring in it. But that argument seems to be undermined by Scripture itself. There are many small mistakes in the Bible. . . . The Bible is not inerrant in detail, but God has ensured that no substantial errors, which mislead us about the nature of salvation, are to be found in Scripture.” (pp. 14-15)
Ward lists and discusses six principles of biblical interpretation: contextualization, consistency, comprehensiveness, sublation, spiritual interpretation, and Christ-centeredness. Of these, his favorite appears to be sublation, which he defines as ‘to negate and yet to fulfill at the same time.’ He points out that the Bible gives numerous examples of sublation, e.g., Jewish rigorism being sublated as a result of the amazing success of Paul’s preaching to the Gentiles. Ward suggests that “It is as though Scripture is teaching us that we can never rest content with the ancient perceptions of others, however exalted those others may be.”
The biblical account of creation is “opposed to any evolutionary view that sees human life as evolving by accident, and in a wasteful and morally indifferent way. But it is not opposed to evolution as such. . . . So the evolutionary theory, now accepted by the vast majority of working scientists, that homo sapiens evolved from simpler forms of life over a long period of time, is quite compatible with the Biblical view. What the Bible insists upon is that this was an intentional, elegant and good process, not a random, wasteful or repugnant one.” (pp. 84-85)
“Original sin is not some sort of innate guilt we are born with, even before we have done anything. It does not mean that we are guilty because of something some remote ancestor did long ago. It is our sharing in the separation of human existence from its divine source, a separation that darkens our spiritual knowledge and disables our moral will. That separation occurred early in the prehistory of the human race, and it has been reinforced by the acts of millions of humans throughout many generations. It leaves us in a state of spiritual death, of separation from God.” (p. 108)
The evolutionary account of human origins does not compete with what the Bible teaches. “On the contrary, it is very helpful in exploring the story of the ‘fall’ of humanity. It explains how lust and aggression are natural dispositions of an evolved species, which could form plausible temptations to egoistic desire. And it suggests, as theologians like Irenaeus did, that humans could have developed dispositions of love and courage if they had co-operated with the Spirit of God, to grow into the likeness of the divine power and freedom. But it was not to be.” (p. 111)
The Bible gives no systematic doctrine—that is for theologians to attempt, and their attempts are always tentative and revisable. What then does the Bible do? It upsets our preconceived ideas, puts in question our over-neat systems of doctrine, and presents paradoxes and conflicting viewpoints. But above all, it turns the mind to God, in reverence and praise rather than in comprehension and explanation.
Ward makes an interesting case for salvation after death. He suggests that what the Bible teaches is that “those who strive for righteousness and have faith in God will be saved, and that it is Christ who saves them, whether they know it or not.” (p. 110)
In passing, Ward tackles topics like the New Testament teachings on remarriage and the status of women reinterpreted in light of the deeper principle of unrestricted love.
In summary, Ward states that the Christian life is not a matter of obedience to rules, either of the Bible or of the church. It is a life that is to be formed on the pattern of Christ, by the inner working of the Spirit.
I found this book to be very readable and thought-provoking throughout. I recommend it to anyone interested in a progressive Christian take on what the Bible really teaches.
For example, “Belief in Biblical inerrancy is not based on what the Bible explicitly says. It is based on an argument that if God inspires Scripture, then God will prevent any errors occurring in it. But that argument seems to be undermined by Scripture itself. There are many small mistakes in the Bible. . . . The Bible is not inerrant in detail, but God has ensured that no substantial errors, which mislead us about the nature of salvation, are to be found in Scripture.” (pp. 14-15)
Ward lists and discusses six principles of biblical interpretation: contextualization, consistency, comprehensiveness, sublation, spiritual interpretation, and Christ-centeredness. Of these, his favorite appears to be sublation, which he defines as ‘to negate and yet to fulfill at the same time.’ He points out that the Bible gives numerous examples of sublation, e.g., Jewish rigorism being sublated as a result of the amazing success of Paul’s preaching to the Gentiles. Ward suggests that “It is as though Scripture is teaching us that we can never rest content with the ancient perceptions of others, however exalted those others may be.”
The biblical account of creation is “opposed to any evolutionary view that sees human life as evolving by accident, and in a wasteful and morally indifferent way. But it is not opposed to evolution as such. . . . So the evolutionary theory, now accepted by the vast majority of working scientists, that homo sapiens evolved from simpler forms of life over a long period of time, is quite compatible with the Biblical view. What the Bible insists upon is that this was an intentional, elegant and good process, not a random, wasteful or repugnant one.” (pp. 84-85)
“Original sin is not some sort of innate guilt we are born with, even before we have done anything. It does not mean that we are guilty because of something some remote ancestor did long ago. It is our sharing in the separation of human existence from its divine source, a separation that darkens our spiritual knowledge and disables our moral will. That separation occurred early in the prehistory of the human race, and it has been reinforced by the acts of millions of humans throughout many generations. It leaves us in a state of spiritual death, of separation from God.” (p. 108)
The evolutionary account of human origins does not compete with what the Bible teaches. “On the contrary, it is very helpful in exploring the story of the ‘fall’ of humanity. It explains how lust and aggression are natural dispositions of an evolved species, which could form plausible temptations to egoistic desire. And it suggests, as theologians like Irenaeus did, that humans could have developed dispositions of love and courage if they had co-operated with the Spirit of God, to grow into the likeness of the divine power and freedom. But it was not to be.” (p. 111)
The Bible gives no systematic doctrine—that is for theologians to attempt, and their attempts are always tentative and revisable. What then does the Bible do? It upsets our preconceived ideas, puts in question our over-neat systems of doctrine, and presents paradoxes and conflicting viewpoints. But above all, it turns the mind to God, in reverence and praise rather than in comprehension and explanation.
Ward makes an interesting case for salvation after death. He suggests that what the Bible teaches is that “those who strive for righteousness and have faith in God will be saved, and that it is Christ who saves them, whether they know it or not.” (p. 110)
In passing, Ward tackles topics like the New Testament teachings on remarriage and the status of women reinterpreted in light of the deeper principle of unrestricted love.
In summary, Ward states that the Christian life is not a matter of obedience to rules, either of the Bible or of the church. It is a life that is to be formed on the pattern of Christ, by the inner working of the Spirit.
I found this book to be very readable and thought-provoking throughout. I recommend it to anyone interested in a progressive Christian take on what the Bible really teaches.
April 26, 2020
This book is a much more considered polemic against fundamentalism than the last one I read, and makes some good points about our approach to the study of the Bible - giving some good principles of biblical interpretation, and warning against the dangers of confirmation bias (where we only read the books by the "sound" writers). However as he was discussing the lack of consensus on issues such as those surrounding the existence or not of a "Q" manuscript, I was actually reminded not of fundamentalists so much as Bruce Bawer, who - in his own polemic against fundamentalism - stated quite unequivocally that scholars now agreed that there was a Q manuscript (and other equally definite statements in defiance of the uncertainty).
My conclusion therefore is that fundamentalists have no monopoly on confirmation bias and bad practices in Bible interpretation!
Nevertheless the principles suggested are sound and useful and Ward makes some good arguments that deserve to be heard. It is sad that it is precisely those people wrapped up in confirmation bias who are least likely to actually give this book a go.
I did find some of the points were a little stretched and others were sketched over too briefly. For instance, the assertion that Jesus' words on marriage to divorced people must be meant to be symbolic seems to me to ignore another excellent principle of exegesis that Ward does not mention - that we must understand how the original hearers would have understood the teaching when performing our exegesis of the meaning of the passage. We may feel that there is much more to be said on an issue and a case to be made for a broader understanding on an issue - but to deny the original intention of the words as recorded seems to me to be importing our views back into the text. That is surely illegitimate.
But I agree with Ward that fundamentalism picks and chooses which texts it treats as literal and which it chooses as symbolic (or ignores altogether). This is an intelligent book that makes an excellent case that fundamentalism is not quite the bible based Christianity it claims to be. As a thesis, this deserves consideration.
My conclusion therefore is that fundamentalists have no monopoly on confirmation bias and bad practices in Bible interpretation!
Nevertheless the principles suggested are sound and useful and Ward makes some good arguments that deserve to be heard. It is sad that it is precisely those people wrapped up in confirmation bias who are least likely to actually give this book a go.
I did find some of the points were a little stretched and others were sketched over too briefly. For instance, the assertion that Jesus' words on marriage to divorced people must be meant to be symbolic seems to me to ignore another excellent principle of exegesis that Ward does not mention - that we must understand how the original hearers would have understood the teaching when performing our exegesis of the meaning of the passage. We may feel that there is much more to be said on an issue and a case to be made for a broader understanding on an issue - but to deny the original intention of the words as recorded seems to me to be importing our views back into the text. That is surely illegitimate.
But I agree with Ward that fundamentalism picks and chooses which texts it treats as literal and which it chooses as symbolic (or ignores altogether). This is an intelligent book that makes an excellent case that fundamentalism is not quite the bible based Christianity it claims to be. As a thesis, this deserves consideration.
January 31, 2018
Great info, a bit dry.
October 15, 2011
Very good book. Certainly "a challenge to fundamentalists"! Ward is a Liberal, and explores the various ways in which the Bible can be read. A fabulous read for anyone wanting an in-depth look into Christianity (and Jewish history), and for anyone simply interested in the "non-stereotypical" aspects of religion.
October 5, 2012
Spot on in terms of the subject. Some really interested and valid points but I didn't like how it was written
April 29, 2017
Ward is a heretic who doesn't believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ. While a lot of what he does says is great he just believes God crushed the body of Jesus in the tomb and it wasn't that body that was resurrected. Perhaps he should read 1 Cor 15 ?
Nor does he believe that this world will be recreated as taught by the bible or by good business bible scholars such as Tom Wright
Ward is heavily influenced by Indian philosophy something that can't be ignored while reading this book and although he
writes a lot of good stuff basically he is an universalists and cherry picks passages to suit his cause.
At times I was really enjoying reading it then he would just come out with some strange ideas
And while many things we do see in a glass darkly there are some tenants of faith that we should still hold on to
Nor does he believe that this world will be recreated as taught by the bible or by good business bible scholars such as Tom Wright
Ward is heavily influenced by Indian philosophy something that can't be ignored while reading this book and although he
writes a lot of good stuff basically he is an universalists and cherry picks passages to suit his cause.
At times I was really enjoying reading it then he would just come out with some strange ideas
And while many things we do see in a glass darkly there are some tenants of faith that we should still hold on to
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews