The Bible’s Definitions

In several different discussions lately, atheists have been demanding to know what the Bible’s definition of something is. Their demands have an extremely limited merit, but the approach being used is completely farcical. In both of the most recent examples (example one and example two (see also the follow up in the comments with “Doubting Tom” this post)), the atheist demands “chapter and verse” for the definition of a theological term.

Specifically, we have the most recent request of Tundaz (linked in example one above) stating:

Please state the Bible's definition of 'omnipotence' for the record, noting the chapter and verse if you will.

His request was echoed by Gray_Mouser too.

The problem with this is that the Bible is not a dictionary, nor is it to be used as such. There are only very rare instances when the Bible specifically states out an explicit definition in a matter that would satisfy today’s atheists. But this is to be expected in a book that is meant to have a universal, trans-cultural appeal.

Atheists—no, let us get even more specific: Modern Westernized atheists account for one very small slice of all the cultural viewpoints that have ever existed. Were the Bible penned to address every whim of modern Westernized atheists, the Bible would have remained meaningless for thousands of years, incomprehensible to any other culture.

The modern Western philosophical method of defining terms—of explicitly stating them in the midst of a comprehensive philosophical argument—is not only historically limited to just a few hundred years, but is also not even the way that anyone speaks normatively today. There is a reason that philosophy books have a limited appeal while James Patterson and Steven King are read by millions.

The average person speaks colloquially, using words defined by their context set in the conventions of society. Language is fairly “loose” when used in this manner, but it is how every culture converses, and it is how modern Western philosophers speak when they are not writing stuffy books.

The Bible’s intention was not that it would be understood by only the selected philosophical elite, but that it would have a universal and transcendent scope. The uneducated farmer in the Nile Delta in 200 AD could understand the point of Scripture when it was read to him; he would not need a modern philosophy degree to “get it.”

So, to demand “chapter and verse” where a term is defined ignores 1) the cultural context of the term’s usage—that is, how it was used conventionally; 2) the textual context of the term’s usage—that is, how it was used in the text itself; and 3) the anachronistic aspect of inserting a philosophized back into a colloquial work.

While the first two points should be fairly self-evident, I will clarify what I mean by the third point. The term “omnipotent” is not found in Scripture. It is a term that systematic theologians came up with to describe one of the various attributes of God that can be discovered by reading the text of Scripture. As such, the “definition” of the term is the distillation of multiple points drawn from various sources, linked by a common bond. In the case of omnipotence, the common bond is the concept of the power of God. The meaning is defined not by a single verse, but by every verse that deals with God’s power.

That this can be summarized in a modern definitional form by systematic theologians does not mean that the modern definitional form is found in an explicit statement in the Bible itself; nor should it. The onus, at this point, is on the atheist to demonstrate how this is not a perfectly reasonable manner in which concepts can be conveyed to the vast majority of people throughout all history. In other words, the atheist needs to demonstrate why the Christian must be compelled to give him a definition in such a narrowly constructed manner as the atheist requests.