Rescued from my old blog. This is a long post, consisting of five papers I wrote while still an Evangelical pastor representing the thoughts that ultimately led me to return to Anglicanism.
Bovine Droppings in the Place of Prayer - intro
Many are the sacred cattle
wandering through the sacred halls
in the awesome sacred precincts
of the sacred church of God,
many sacred cattle leaving
evidence upon the sacred floor
where their sacred feet have trod.
Many cows, much evidence
in which upon the floor there grows
a strange and various vegetation,
nourished by what has been left,
and fertilized, and rank with life
of many types and many shapes
whose weirdly formed
and wildly branching limbs
boldly bear a strange
and psychedelic fruit
which when partaken makes men mad
and banishes good sense
and turns discourse into blather
which doesn’t end.>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><
(This was the preface to each of several papers about Scripture that I did some years ago, while still an Evangelical Pastor. Writing these helped lead me back into the Great Tradition. I finally decided to post them here.)
Warning!
You are entering the domain of a crotchety old preacher. I’ve lived six decades in a variety of different fellowships. I’ve heard much, believed much, and declared much — and a large proportion of what I have heard, believed, and declared has been foolishness, to put it mildly. Close attention to the Scriptures and to what the wise men of many ages have seen in the Scriptures has led me to recognize how much influence sacred cows and their droppings have had upon Christian thinking and practice. Sacred cows produce a lot of leavings that need to be shoveled, and I’ve got the shovel. This is one of a series of occasional papers in which I will attempt to identify and question some of these commonly accepted and (I believe) false notions. I’m seeking truth, and I hope that is true for my readers. No offense is meant, and I hope none is taken. May God lead us all into truth and wisdom unto salvation!
Ed Pacht
wandering through the sacred halls
in the awesome sacred precincts
of the sacred church of God,
many sacred cattle leaving
evidence upon the sacred floor
where their sacred feet have trod.
Many cows, much evidence
in which upon the floor there grows
a strange and various vegetation,
nourished by what has been left,
and fertilized, and rank with life
of many types and many shapes
whose weirdly formed
and wildly branching limbs
boldly bear a strange
and psychedelic fruit
which when partaken makes men mad
and banishes good sense
and turns discourse into blather
which doesn’t end.>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><
(This was the preface to each of several papers about Scripture that I did some years ago, while still an Evangelical Pastor. Writing these helped lead me back into the Great Tradition. I finally decided to post them here.)
Warning!
You are entering the domain of a crotchety old preacher. I’ve lived six decades in a variety of different fellowships. I’ve heard much, believed much, and declared much — and a large proportion of what I have heard, believed, and declared has been foolishness, to put it mildly. Close attention to the Scriptures and to what the wise men of many ages have seen in the Scriptures has led me to recognize how much influence sacred cows and their droppings have had upon Christian thinking and practice. Sacred cows produce a lot of leavings that need to be shoveled, and I’ve got the shovel. This is one of a series of occasional papers in which I will attempt to identify and question some of these commonly accepted and (I believe) false notions. I’m seeking truth, and I hope that is true for my readers. No offense is meant, and I hope none is taken. May God lead us all into truth and wisdom unto salvation!
Ed Pacht
Bovine Droppings in the House of Prayer - 1. Autographs
It would be difficult even to count the many statements of
faith issued by organizations, denominations and ministries in an attempt to
define their theological stance. Most of them will include one or another
definition of the inspiration of Scripture, often given as the very first and
paramount point. Now, while the inspiration of Scripture is highly important to
Christians (though I doubt it merits first place among doctrines - I’ll likely
come back to that later), they were content for the first millennium-and-a-half
to accept that fact without much definition. It has only been since the
Reformation, and even more to the point, since the beginning of the Twentieth
Century, that the intense haggling over terminology has infected the church’s
attitudes toward Holy Writ. I am unconvinced that this is a good thing.
A typical modern Evangelical statement will often speak of the Scriptures as being “verbally inspired and without error” (I’ll probably come back to those statements) “in the original autographs.” That last phrase sounds eminently reasonable and is very widely used by well-meaning seekers after truth, but it rests upon some very flawed concepts, leading to a weakened concept of the church, a weakening of the real authority of the Bible, and a dilution of the immediate rule of God. I’ve always been strongly committed to the Scriptures as the ultimate authority for doctrine and practice in the church, and could not isolate for years just why this phrase made me acutely uncomfortable, but it always did, from the first time I heard it.
What Autographs?
By “autographs”, of course, is meant the original documents as produced by the writers themselves, thus, for example, Dr. Luke’s Gospel in his own handwriting just as he originally issued it. At first blush it seems eminently reasonable to assume that this original would be the very document inspired by the Holy Spirit. After all, “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1:21) Wouldn’t you think that those sheets of papyrus hand lettered by that holy man of God would uniquely bear the imprint of God’s own authority? That may be so, but it presents one insuperable obstacle in the Christian’s search for an authoritative document. There are no autographs. No original autograph manuscripts of any of the books of Scripture have survived, nor is there any expectation whatever that such an artifact will ever appear. Even if a manuscript turned up that appeared to be an autograph, who would authenticate it, and how? What sort of evidence would prove indisputably that such an infinitely precious document really existed?
No Autograph, No Authority
If one holds a high view of the inspiration and authority of Scripture, as do I, then the confining of true or full inspiration to the nonexistent (or at least unavailable) autographs raises some truly painful questions. If I am serious about Scripture as the ultimate and essential authority in the Church of God, I need to see, hear, and identify the source of authority, but all I am offered is a more-or-less accurate copy of a lost book. If I can’t know exactly what the authority is, how can I follow it? Where is this God-breathed, inerrant, authoritative, volume? The answer that results from the restriction of inspiration to the autographs is clear and dismal: there is no such book - only a shadow of it. Yes, the texts we have contain enough of the Word (or so we assume) to carry us through, but they are not guaranteed to be what God intended us to have. Thus “inspiration in the autographs” deprives us of a truly inspired Bible.
No Stable Text
How do we know the actual text of Scripture? Twentieth Century scholars would have us establish it by a sort of archeological procedure. We begin with the assumption that the Bible we have been using is to some extent inauthentic, that it needs to be changed, that things have (obviously) happened to it to make it somewhat less than the ‘real’ Bible. Textual critics are constantly busy hunting for older and older manuscripts so they can have reason to amend the text they have received, and some of the changes are truly quite significant. All this is done under the assumption that the older manuscripts would obviously be more like the autographs, thus more authentic. As a result, Christians are left without certainty that the Bible they have today will be up-to-date and recognized in a few decades. The text is fluid. The latest discoveries and the most current (and fashionable) theories determine the text. Might that also change the Gospel? There is no guarantee. You see, though we are searching, no one has yet seen the true Bible.
Were There Ever Autographs?
Not every book of Scripture conclusively identifies an author. In fact most do not. Not every book of Scripture was actually composed at one time by one person. Few of them actually make such a claim. It is quite possible, without hurting the inspiration of the Bible, that some of the divisions into separate documents that liberal scholars claim to find may actually be there. That has no bearing one way or the other on the ability of God to inspire, or on the final works having been prepared by “holy men of God . . . moved by the Holy Spirit.” Was there a single text for each and every book before it became recognized as Scripture? Or did “holy men of God” consult the Spirit in editing the final product? Furthermore, did Dr. Luke write his Gospel once and not again? If we found a manuscript and proved somehow that it was in his handwriting would that make it the one and only true text? Might it have been an early draft that he later corrected? Could it have been a late, hasty, and inaccurate copy he himself made for someone? Or could he have written several copies with his own hand, each just a little different? All these are possible. Before printing presses, there was not a concept of exact copies, at least not that early, and variant versions could all represent the writing of an inspired man, equally.
Knowing the Bible
So, how do we know that our text is the inspired Word of God? Well, how did this large and assorted collection of writings get to be the Bible in the first place? The answer is startlingly simple. God’s people declared it so. First the Jews, and then the Christian church were confronted with a multitude of writings purporting to come from God. They selected. How? “Holy men of God . . . moved by the Holy Ghost.” There is no one “expert”, nor is there a committee, nor even an official church council evident at the real point of selection. The Holy Spirit, working in the whole Body of Christ, has seen to it that the truly inspired books were selected, honored, and used, and that the others, valuable as they might be, were not. To determine what books belong in the Bible, it is only necessary to check around and see what books the universal church is actually using. The historical development of the choosing is of considerable interest, but is ultimately irrelevant. We can learn a great deal from examining the historical process, by searching documents, by unearthing lost manuscripts, by all the research techniques available, but none of that tells us why the Bible has the form it does. The Bible is. There’s not much more to say.
I maintain that we can say the same thing for the text of each book. What is the authentic text? The text the church uses. And how do we identify that? For the New Testament the answer is elegant in its simplicity. What is the text continuously used in churches that have historically used Greek, the original language? That question immediately establishes a group of texts with no more than petty variations—for all practical purposes a single consistent and authoritative text. Whether we favor what is called the “received text” (on which the KJV is based) or the “majority text” or the “Byzantine texts”, we are in agreement, in the overwhelming number of cases, with the Bible as it has been used by God’s people. Older manuscripts with significant variations simply do not have the evidence of recognition by the church. They may indeed have been set aside as inadequate copies, or they may represent variant traditions that died out for good reasons. In either case they deserve to be laid aside as historical curiosities, and probably do not merit consideration in establishing an authoritative text. The New Testament was written in the church, read in the church, copied and distributed by the church, defined as Scripture by the church, and preserved by the church, and what we have is the real thing. Either that or the church itself is a colossal failure and the promises made by God about the church have failed—throwing God’s own authority into great question.
With regard to the Old Testament, however, the situation is a little less clear. The existing Hebrew text, fundamentally the Masoretic text edited by several generations of rabbis, seems to represent pretty well the Hebrew text as handed down and in continuous use. But Christians do need to recognize that this text was edited well after the coming of Christ, well after the establishment of the church, and that it was edited by Jewish scholars with a decided interest in opposing the Christian view of the scriptures. There are almost no extant Hebrew manuscripts dating to before the time of Christ (I would not have to have added ‘almost’ prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls). Now, during the centuries of its editing, Christians were most certainly using the Old Testament Scriptures, but in Greek translation, a translation made well before the coming of Christ. The text does make it obvious that the underlying Hebrew was often rather different from that of the later Jewish text, and there is also the matter of the so-called ‘apocryphal’ books, rejected by Protestants and insisted upon by Rome and the East. I remain at this time a bit conflicted as to which of these is the authentic text of the inspired OT scriptures. Either seems to fill the criterion of continuous use by those God appointed to guard and use them. But I remain convinced that, for the NT and for whichever view of the OT may be accepted, the authoritative text is to be recognized, not in the oldest documents found, but in the continuous use of God’s people — not in the autographs, but in the book that has rested upon the altars and pulpits of God’s church through the ages and into today.
Three Specific Issues
I’ll illustrate the difference these views can make in the actual use of the Scriptures by declaiming about three of my pet peeves.
Mark 16:14-20. Scholars have found a number of alternate conclusions in various old manuscripts of Mark. Does this justify eliminating the conclusion so long used in the churches? What nonsense! Whether Mark wrote several different versions (one possibility), or whether the current conclusion had been in detached oral transmission until editors placed it here, or whatever other explanation might be developed, it is clear that this ending was known and believed by many of the earliest fathers, and has been seen as Scripture through almost all of the church’s life. I think the main reason so many desire to drop it is that it is far too supernatural for the modern mind. That is part of the reason I’m so insistent upon its authenticity. We need it! The fact that certain wild sectarians have made strange interpretations has no bearing on the case. This is indeed the word of God.
John 8:3-11. It may be true that old manuscripts of John do not include this story. It may even be true that John did not write it. But it is also true that It is firmly attached to this place and firmly attached to the mind of the church. Can we live without the story of the woman taken in adultery? It is the one clearest passage about forgiveness and judgment and self-righteousness. In all likelihood the suggestion in the notes of the Jerusalem Bible states the case accurately: that the story was transmitted orally, often quoted, and often preached, but hadn’t been attached to one particular Gospel before the written form of the NT had gelled. This story may not be by John’s hand, but it certainly is scripture.
Matthew 17:21. Just because some ancient copyists eliminated the phrase ‘and fasting’, are we to eliminate the Lord’s intent that the discipline of fasting be an essential part of preparation for serious spiritual warfare? Perish the thought. Prayer and fasting have been linked together in the Christian imagination from the very beginning, and have been quoted in this passage from time immemorial.
I submit that it is no small matter how these questions are resolved. A great deal of clarity and depth in Christian witness depends upon getting the text right—and on the realization that God has always had an interest in preserving the text He wanted among the people He chose to guard it.
From the droppings of sacred cattle, Good Lord deliver us. Amen.
A typical modern Evangelical statement will often speak of the Scriptures as being “verbally inspired and without error” (I’ll probably come back to those statements) “in the original autographs.” That last phrase sounds eminently reasonable and is very widely used by well-meaning seekers after truth, but it rests upon some very flawed concepts, leading to a weakened concept of the church, a weakening of the real authority of the Bible, and a dilution of the immediate rule of God. I’ve always been strongly committed to the Scriptures as the ultimate authority for doctrine and practice in the church, and could not isolate for years just why this phrase made me acutely uncomfortable, but it always did, from the first time I heard it.
What Autographs?
By “autographs”, of course, is meant the original documents as produced by the writers themselves, thus, for example, Dr. Luke’s Gospel in his own handwriting just as he originally issued it. At first blush it seems eminently reasonable to assume that this original would be the very document inspired by the Holy Spirit. After all, “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1:21) Wouldn’t you think that those sheets of papyrus hand lettered by that holy man of God would uniquely bear the imprint of God’s own authority? That may be so, but it presents one insuperable obstacle in the Christian’s search for an authoritative document. There are no autographs. No original autograph manuscripts of any of the books of Scripture have survived, nor is there any expectation whatever that such an artifact will ever appear. Even if a manuscript turned up that appeared to be an autograph, who would authenticate it, and how? What sort of evidence would prove indisputably that such an infinitely precious document really existed?
No Autograph, No Authority
If one holds a high view of the inspiration and authority of Scripture, as do I, then the confining of true or full inspiration to the nonexistent (or at least unavailable) autographs raises some truly painful questions. If I am serious about Scripture as the ultimate and essential authority in the Church of God, I need to see, hear, and identify the source of authority, but all I am offered is a more-or-less accurate copy of a lost book. If I can’t know exactly what the authority is, how can I follow it? Where is this God-breathed, inerrant, authoritative, volume? The answer that results from the restriction of inspiration to the autographs is clear and dismal: there is no such book - only a shadow of it. Yes, the texts we have contain enough of the Word (or so we assume) to carry us through, but they are not guaranteed to be what God intended us to have. Thus “inspiration in the autographs” deprives us of a truly inspired Bible.
No Stable Text
How do we know the actual text of Scripture? Twentieth Century scholars would have us establish it by a sort of archeological procedure. We begin with the assumption that the Bible we have been using is to some extent inauthentic, that it needs to be changed, that things have (obviously) happened to it to make it somewhat less than the ‘real’ Bible. Textual critics are constantly busy hunting for older and older manuscripts so they can have reason to amend the text they have received, and some of the changes are truly quite significant. All this is done under the assumption that the older manuscripts would obviously be more like the autographs, thus more authentic. As a result, Christians are left without certainty that the Bible they have today will be up-to-date and recognized in a few decades. The text is fluid. The latest discoveries and the most current (and fashionable) theories determine the text. Might that also change the Gospel? There is no guarantee. You see, though we are searching, no one has yet seen the true Bible.
Were There Ever Autographs?
Not every book of Scripture conclusively identifies an author. In fact most do not. Not every book of Scripture was actually composed at one time by one person. Few of them actually make such a claim. It is quite possible, without hurting the inspiration of the Bible, that some of the divisions into separate documents that liberal scholars claim to find may actually be there. That has no bearing one way or the other on the ability of God to inspire, or on the final works having been prepared by “holy men of God . . . moved by the Holy Spirit.” Was there a single text for each and every book before it became recognized as Scripture? Or did “holy men of God” consult the Spirit in editing the final product? Furthermore, did Dr. Luke write his Gospel once and not again? If we found a manuscript and proved somehow that it was in his handwriting would that make it the one and only true text? Might it have been an early draft that he later corrected? Could it have been a late, hasty, and inaccurate copy he himself made for someone? Or could he have written several copies with his own hand, each just a little different? All these are possible. Before printing presses, there was not a concept of exact copies, at least not that early, and variant versions could all represent the writing of an inspired man, equally.
Knowing the Bible
So, how do we know that our text is the inspired Word of God? Well, how did this large and assorted collection of writings get to be the Bible in the first place? The answer is startlingly simple. God’s people declared it so. First the Jews, and then the Christian church were confronted with a multitude of writings purporting to come from God. They selected. How? “Holy men of God . . . moved by the Holy Ghost.” There is no one “expert”, nor is there a committee, nor even an official church council evident at the real point of selection. The Holy Spirit, working in the whole Body of Christ, has seen to it that the truly inspired books were selected, honored, and used, and that the others, valuable as they might be, were not. To determine what books belong in the Bible, it is only necessary to check around and see what books the universal church is actually using. The historical development of the choosing is of considerable interest, but is ultimately irrelevant. We can learn a great deal from examining the historical process, by searching documents, by unearthing lost manuscripts, by all the research techniques available, but none of that tells us why the Bible has the form it does. The Bible is. There’s not much more to say.
I maintain that we can say the same thing for the text of each book. What is the authentic text? The text the church uses. And how do we identify that? For the New Testament the answer is elegant in its simplicity. What is the text continuously used in churches that have historically used Greek, the original language? That question immediately establishes a group of texts with no more than petty variations—for all practical purposes a single consistent and authoritative text. Whether we favor what is called the “received text” (on which the KJV is based) or the “majority text” or the “Byzantine texts”, we are in agreement, in the overwhelming number of cases, with the Bible as it has been used by God’s people. Older manuscripts with significant variations simply do not have the evidence of recognition by the church. They may indeed have been set aside as inadequate copies, or they may represent variant traditions that died out for good reasons. In either case they deserve to be laid aside as historical curiosities, and probably do not merit consideration in establishing an authoritative text. The New Testament was written in the church, read in the church, copied and distributed by the church, defined as Scripture by the church, and preserved by the church, and what we have is the real thing. Either that or the church itself is a colossal failure and the promises made by God about the church have failed—throwing God’s own authority into great question.
With regard to the Old Testament, however, the situation is a little less clear. The existing Hebrew text, fundamentally the Masoretic text edited by several generations of rabbis, seems to represent pretty well the Hebrew text as handed down and in continuous use. But Christians do need to recognize that this text was edited well after the coming of Christ, well after the establishment of the church, and that it was edited by Jewish scholars with a decided interest in opposing the Christian view of the scriptures. There are almost no extant Hebrew manuscripts dating to before the time of Christ (I would not have to have added ‘almost’ prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls). Now, during the centuries of its editing, Christians were most certainly using the Old Testament Scriptures, but in Greek translation, a translation made well before the coming of Christ. The text does make it obvious that the underlying Hebrew was often rather different from that of the later Jewish text, and there is also the matter of the so-called ‘apocryphal’ books, rejected by Protestants and insisted upon by Rome and the East. I remain at this time a bit conflicted as to which of these is the authentic text of the inspired OT scriptures. Either seems to fill the criterion of continuous use by those God appointed to guard and use them. But I remain convinced that, for the NT and for whichever view of the OT may be accepted, the authoritative text is to be recognized, not in the oldest documents found, but in the continuous use of God’s people — not in the autographs, but in the book that has rested upon the altars and pulpits of God’s church through the ages and into today.
Three Specific Issues
I’ll illustrate the difference these views can make in the actual use of the Scriptures by declaiming about three of my pet peeves.
Mark 16:14-20. Scholars have found a number of alternate conclusions in various old manuscripts of Mark. Does this justify eliminating the conclusion so long used in the churches? What nonsense! Whether Mark wrote several different versions (one possibility), or whether the current conclusion had been in detached oral transmission until editors placed it here, or whatever other explanation might be developed, it is clear that this ending was known and believed by many of the earliest fathers, and has been seen as Scripture through almost all of the church’s life. I think the main reason so many desire to drop it is that it is far too supernatural for the modern mind. That is part of the reason I’m so insistent upon its authenticity. We need it! The fact that certain wild sectarians have made strange interpretations has no bearing on the case. This is indeed the word of God.
John 8:3-11. It may be true that old manuscripts of John do not include this story. It may even be true that John did not write it. But it is also true that It is firmly attached to this place and firmly attached to the mind of the church. Can we live without the story of the woman taken in adultery? It is the one clearest passage about forgiveness and judgment and self-righteousness. In all likelihood the suggestion in the notes of the Jerusalem Bible states the case accurately: that the story was transmitted orally, often quoted, and often preached, but hadn’t been attached to one particular Gospel before the written form of the NT had gelled. This story may not be by John’s hand, but it certainly is scripture.
Matthew 17:21. Just because some ancient copyists eliminated the phrase ‘and fasting’, are we to eliminate the Lord’s intent that the discipline of fasting be an essential part of preparation for serious spiritual warfare? Perish the thought. Prayer and fasting have been linked together in the Christian imagination from the very beginning, and have been quoted in this passage from time immemorial.
I submit that it is no small matter how these questions are resolved. A great deal of clarity and depth in Christian witness depends upon getting the text right—and on the realization that God has always had an interest in preserving the text He wanted among the people He chose to guard it.
From the droppings of sacred cattle, Good Lord deliver us. Amen.
Bovine Droppings in the House of Prayer - 2. Sola Scriptura
Sola Scriptura, “Scripture alone”, was a major battle-cry of
the Reformation, and is loudly trumpeted today as a foundational principle of
conservative, evangelical, and fundamentalist brands of Protestantism. It was
first proclaimed in response to the superstitions and abuses of a deformed late
medieval and renaissance Catholicism, and today is championed as an answer to
the superstitions and abuses of modern and postmodern Liberalism. The abuses in
both cases are major, a threat to the integrity of the Gospel, a barrier to the
salvation of sinners, and a cancer raging in the body of the church. A strong
corrective surely is needed, but there is a problem with the one offered.
Now, here is where I ruffle some feathers, raise some tempers, and generally get myself in trouble. I observe that an enormous proportion of official statements of faith and works of systematic theology begin with propositions about the nature and sole authority of Scripture. This is wrong for a variety of reasons (and I will probably revisit them), but for now it seems enough to concentrate on this one problem: Sola Scriptura never was, is not, and never shall be true, reasonable, possible, or even desirable — and no one has ever really acted as if it were. Scripture is never alone, nor should it be, nor can it be. Scripture has precisely no practical authority unless it is upheld and implemented by some other authority alongside.
What is the Bible?
The Bible is not self-defining, that is it does not list or describe within itself the documents to be included therein. It is true that some Scriptural books are quoted or referenced in some others (most notably the many Old Testament quotations in the New Testament), but many other books are never quoted or even mentioned, and, then again, several books are mentioned or even quoted that are either lost or simply never admitted to the canon (the Book of Jasher, the Book of Jubilees, and others in the Old Testament; and, in the New Testament, the Ascension of Moses, Enoch, and the mysterious source of Matthew 2:23). I have already discussed the establishment of contents and text in Article #1, Autographs, so it will suffice to repeat here that the Bible, while inspired (and presumably edited) by the Holy Spirit, was identified, upheld, and preserved by an authority outside itself, that of the Church created and guided by the same Holy Spirit. The Scriptures if alone do not exist (or at least cannot be found).
What is the Bible For?
The Bible, both testaments, was written as a number of separate volumes, almost all of them intended to be read in a public meeting, by an authorized reader, in the context of corporate teaching. We need to remember that, although the habit of private and personal study of and meditation upon the Scriptures is certainly praiseworthy, the Scriptures were simply not written with a view toward their use for personal, individual study. There are at least two reasons we have to assume this. In the first place, it was a preliterate society with a literate leadership. In other words, the majority could not read and thus needed to have documents read to them. Secondly, books (scrolls) were very expensive and thus accessible to very few, even if they could read them. It was only at the advent of printing that books became generally available, and only when there were sufficient books did it make sense for the majority to learn reading. In short, the modern Protestant dependence on ownership and reading of Bibles is actually a new thing on this earth, beginning in Europe at about the time of the Reformation, and not really before.
Secondly, most of the Bible was written with an eye toward its use in the proper training and discipline of God’s people (the church) by the leadership. Timothy had apparently learned much of the Old Testament at home from his mother and grandmother, a very unusual situation, but listen to what Paul told him to do with what he had learned;
2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Do you see it? A vision of Scripture as a teaching tool, intended to hone a people into a fully united and well instructed body. Furthermore, much of Scripture is intended for use in public worship, notably the Psalms. Here the people sing God’s words together, and worship, far from being spontaneous, is guided and regulated by the written word. What is the Bible for? It is for use in and by the church.
Uninterpreted Scripture
For years I ministered in a fellowship that proclaimed its only standard of doctrine, government, worship, and life to be the Word of God, uninterpreted. Of course this was not true, a point we’ll come back to later, but neither was it really helpful. An uninterpreted book either remains unused on the shelf, gathering dust, like the Bible in nominally Christian homes, or it becomes a content-free ritual object. Sikhs have the Sacred Granth, written in several languages, solemnly chanted by priests who may understand none of them. Buddhists in Thailand, Japan, Mongolia, and Tibet chant sacred texts in Pali, a language they have not learned. Non-Arab Muslims memorize extensive passages of the Quran in Arabic, often without receiving a translation. Protestants used to speak scornfully of the Latin Mass. Is it any different to mouth words in English without seeking meaning, without interpretation? As faith without works is dead, so Scripture without interpretation is dead. Thus Scripture, to be of any use must be interpreted.
Interpreting Scripture
If, then, Scripture needs interpretation, how are we to know the correct interpretation? What must be accepted? What is acceptable? What must be rejected? To the Eastern Orthodox the standard is tradition. To Roman Catholics it is the magisterium, the teaching Authority of the church, centered around the papacy. Lutherans, marching under Luther’s battle cry of Sola Scriptura, are nonetheless fierce in their insistence that interpretation be governed by the Book of Concord, and Calvinists have a similar attitude toward their various confessional documents. Even non-confessional denominations, whose “only” standard is the Bible, have accepted interpretations, sometimes in astonishing detail, distinctive to each fellowship, and obligatory within it. We went so far as to credit the General Assembly with the divinely given unique right and power to interpret Scripture, thus effectually denying our own “Bible only” stance. The point is that some kind of standard of interpretation is inescapable. It will be there whether a group thinks it believes in it or not.
Private Interpretation
Some of the most disheartening words in theological discourse are these: “This is what it says to me,” or “This is how I see it.” Peter agreed with me when he wrote
2 Peter 1:19-21 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Private interpretation has produced all manner of strange and novel doctrines, has borne fruit in the scandalous division of Christians (hundreds, perhaps thousands, of competing sects), and has spawned God-denying heresies, from Arianism to contemporary Modernism. I recently had the embarrassing experience of sitting in a meeting, listening to a fellow-pastor I respect, as he expounded upon Psalm 51 in such a way as to make Jesus not truly Mary’s son, and thus not truly human. I should have spoken out (but did not) for that is a major heresy, one dealt with once and for all (I had hoped) many centuries ago. Private interpretation, the authority of one’s own bright ideas, a sort of self-idolatry. Lord, deliver us!
Whose Bible?
No, the Bible is never alone, and I am never alone with it. The Bible is not mine (“My Bible says …” has to be one of the most offensive phrases ever coined.) It wasn’t given to me to control or interpret. It wasn’t given to America. It wasn’t given to the twentieth (or 21st) Century. It wasn’t given to Luther or Calvin, or to the pope of Rome. The Bible was given to the Church of God — to the whole church — to the church of every century, every generation — to the church of every race, every nation, every language. It wasn’t given to seminary professors. It wasn’t given to country preachers. It wasn’t given to the rich. It wasn’t given to the poor. The Bible was given to the Church of God — to the whole church — to the church of every economic and cultural level. It was given to the church and the church owns it. Not me, not you, not the experts — the church, the whole church.
A Dangerous Book
The Bible, taken by itself, is a dangerous book, and it is not hard to see the roots of the medieval and counterreformation reluctance to see it in lay hands. In fact, subsequent events appear to ratify these fears. The Bible has been misused widely, grievously, and often sincerely. It has been misused to support anti-Semitism, chattel slavery, racial prejudice, and other injustices. It has been proclaimed as the basis for wars, murders, and thefts, for colonialism and the destruction of ancient cultures, both for economic oppression and for revolution.
The Bible has been used gloriously to speak truth, but it has also been quoted endlessly and contentiously to produce disruptions, divisions, and a relentless atomization in the Body of Christ. There is no shortage of “Bible only” sects whose God is not the God of Jesus and His church (Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Way, the heirs of H. W. Armstrong, and many others) or is described in such a muddle as to be barely recognizable (“Jesus only” Pentecostals, for example). There are also sects that are more orthodox in the central core of theology, but have used the Bible to teach bizarre and dangerous practices (snake handling, abstinence from medical care), an astonishing range of petty legalisms (no alcohol, no wedding ring, don’t wear red, no dancing, ad infinitum), and a wide variety of truly eccentric ideas (such as the reemergence of the one true church in Cherokee County NC in 1903. I used to teach this one!)
What is the problem here? It is precisely Sola Scriptura, taken to its limit, i.e. the use of Scripture by people who refuse to listen to the church, yes, to tradition. Holy Writ is such a vast collection, speaking of such awesomely incomprehensible mysteries that it is simply beyond the ability of one person or even of a group to unravel. To attempt to do so is to court disaster. Fortunately, however, you and I don’t need to do it alone. It is not our book; it was given to the church; and the church stretches across time and across cultures and across this planet. The church has time enough, minds enough, and prayers enough to seek truth, and has the guaranteed presence of the Holy Spirit to guide and aid the search. How do we come up with a correct interpretation of Scripture? Well, maybe Tevye had the right idea after all. The word is “Tradition.”
Tradition
Now you’ll be wondering, “Is this Protestant preacher putting tradition on a par with Scripture?” Well, do I accept any other authority equal to the Bible? The simple answer is , “No!” The Book is uniquely the Word of God, occupying a position above every other authority. It is the ultimate judge of every teaching, every practice, yes, every tradition. But the Book is never alone. It did not appear of itself, “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” It did not announce itself, but was identified, we could even say selected, by a living and active church over a period of centuries. It has ever and always had its main use in the assembly of Christian people. It has belonged to a church, taught in that church, carried the worship of that church, been preserved by that church, and been interpreted within that church. The ongoing life of a church is best described as tradition, that which is handed down, and the tradition of the church is, first and foremost, the Book it has used and handed down for so many centuries. That primary tradition is handled with reverence, used, studied, and interpreted in the fellowship that has preserved it. In short, there is a tradition of interpretation, and Scripture cannot be properly interpreted outside it. He who ignores the wisdom of the centuries does so at his own hazard and that of others. No, tradition is not infallible. It may indeed err, and indeed has, but it cannot be ignored. Some would dispose of “the traditions of men” completely (though they always do so under the influence of other traditions), and others would place Scripture and Tradition as co-equal sources of truth. Some would even consider Scripture a mere part of tradition. All these viewpoints seem inadequate. Perhaps the following will come somewhere near the truth:
Scripture, identified, preserved, and interpreted by tradition; tradition judged by Scripture.
Specifics
Some of the crucial doctrines of Scripture are not specifically formulated in the Book and are usually described in non-Scriptural terminology. These doctrines were honed to a fine edge over several centuries, during which other formulations were demonstrated to be so inadequate as to deserve condemnation. The result is eminently in accord with the Bible, in fact necessary for a proper understanding of the text, but cannot successfully be extracted from it by individuals, and requires a more technical vocabulary for clear expression.
The Trinity. An adequate description of the Christian God must deal with His absolute unity. There is no God beside Him. It must also deal with the full divinity of three separate entities, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Threeness and oneness are both central attributes. The term “Trinity” itself is nowhere in the Bible, but was coined to fill the need of discussing this suprarational truth. The Trinity is described as having one “nature” in three “persons”, also nonbiblical terms. For generations Christians wrangled in a confused fashion with these seeming contradictions until a vocabulary was developed to label the concepts. Notice, that these concepts are beyond comprehension, but, with proper words, can be affirmed and discussed. Here a traditional apparatus makes it possible to study Scripture without confusion. Anyone who tries to get along without these terms simply flounders around. I’ve heard a great deal of that.
Likewise the Dual Nature of Christ. The person and nature of Jesus has been and still is intensely debated. The classic description of what Scripture says took four centuries and four church councils to iron out, again using nonbiblical terms. The problem is that there is only one Jesus, but He is described both as God and as man. Controversies roared, some denying or minimizing His divinity, others making Him less than fully human. Ultimately the definition looked like this: Jesus Christ, Son of God and Son of Man, is one single “person”, who exists in two “natures”, the divine nature, and the human nature. Note that nothing has really been explained. It remains mystery as much as does the Trinity, but the vocabulary makes it possible to approach all of Scripture with clarity and without confusion. The mystery was further guarded by a surprising vocabulary choice, one Protestants tend to dislike, but one that seems to do a marvelous job of identifying Jesus. This is the identification of Mary as theotokos, bearer of God (sometimes translated as “Mother of God”). The word did not intend to say anything about the virgin mother herself, but rather to defend against those who would deny His full divinity from His very conception. Their opponents’ use of christotokos, bearer of Christ, on the other hand, tended to lessen emphasis on His divine nature.
In both of these cases, Scripture indeed is the truth, but tradition has devised ways of approaching that truth with clarity and disposing of the many inadequate and unhelpful theories. Tradition keeps us from reinventing the wheel—and that was hard enough the first time around.
Summary
The Bible in the church. The Bible for the church. The Bible interpreted by the church. The Bible, judge of the church. But never the Bible alone.
From the droppings of sacred cattle, Good Lord deliver us. Amen.
Now, here is where I ruffle some feathers, raise some tempers, and generally get myself in trouble. I observe that an enormous proportion of official statements of faith and works of systematic theology begin with propositions about the nature and sole authority of Scripture. This is wrong for a variety of reasons (and I will probably revisit them), but for now it seems enough to concentrate on this one problem: Sola Scriptura never was, is not, and never shall be true, reasonable, possible, or even desirable — and no one has ever really acted as if it were. Scripture is never alone, nor should it be, nor can it be. Scripture has precisely no practical authority unless it is upheld and implemented by some other authority alongside.
What is the Bible?
The Bible is not self-defining, that is it does not list or describe within itself the documents to be included therein. It is true that some Scriptural books are quoted or referenced in some others (most notably the many Old Testament quotations in the New Testament), but many other books are never quoted or even mentioned, and, then again, several books are mentioned or even quoted that are either lost or simply never admitted to the canon (the Book of Jasher, the Book of Jubilees, and others in the Old Testament; and, in the New Testament, the Ascension of Moses, Enoch, and the mysterious source of Matthew 2:23). I have already discussed the establishment of contents and text in Article #1, Autographs, so it will suffice to repeat here that the Bible, while inspired (and presumably edited) by the Holy Spirit, was identified, upheld, and preserved by an authority outside itself, that of the Church created and guided by the same Holy Spirit. The Scriptures if alone do not exist (or at least cannot be found).
What is the Bible For?
The Bible, both testaments, was written as a number of separate volumes, almost all of them intended to be read in a public meeting, by an authorized reader, in the context of corporate teaching. We need to remember that, although the habit of private and personal study of and meditation upon the Scriptures is certainly praiseworthy, the Scriptures were simply not written with a view toward their use for personal, individual study. There are at least two reasons we have to assume this. In the first place, it was a preliterate society with a literate leadership. In other words, the majority could not read and thus needed to have documents read to them. Secondly, books (scrolls) were very expensive and thus accessible to very few, even if they could read them. It was only at the advent of printing that books became generally available, and only when there were sufficient books did it make sense for the majority to learn reading. In short, the modern Protestant dependence on ownership and reading of Bibles is actually a new thing on this earth, beginning in Europe at about the time of the Reformation, and not really before.
Secondly, most of the Bible was written with an eye toward its use in the proper training and discipline of God’s people (the church) by the leadership. Timothy had apparently learned much of the Old Testament at home from his mother and grandmother, a very unusual situation, but listen to what Paul told him to do with what he had learned;
2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Do you see it? A vision of Scripture as a teaching tool, intended to hone a people into a fully united and well instructed body. Furthermore, much of Scripture is intended for use in public worship, notably the Psalms. Here the people sing God’s words together, and worship, far from being spontaneous, is guided and regulated by the written word. What is the Bible for? It is for use in and by the church.
Uninterpreted Scripture
For years I ministered in a fellowship that proclaimed its only standard of doctrine, government, worship, and life to be the Word of God, uninterpreted. Of course this was not true, a point we’ll come back to later, but neither was it really helpful. An uninterpreted book either remains unused on the shelf, gathering dust, like the Bible in nominally Christian homes, or it becomes a content-free ritual object. Sikhs have the Sacred Granth, written in several languages, solemnly chanted by priests who may understand none of them. Buddhists in Thailand, Japan, Mongolia, and Tibet chant sacred texts in Pali, a language they have not learned. Non-Arab Muslims memorize extensive passages of the Quran in Arabic, often without receiving a translation. Protestants used to speak scornfully of the Latin Mass. Is it any different to mouth words in English without seeking meaning, without interpretation? As faith without works is dead, so Scripture without interpretation is dead. Thus Scripture, to be of any use must be interpreted.
Interpreting Scripture
If, then, Scripture needs interpretation, how are we to know the correct interpretation? What must be accepted? What is acceptable? What must be rejected? To the Eastern Orthodox the standard is tradition. To Roman Catholics it is the magisterium, the teaching Authority of the church, centered around the papacy. Lutherans, marching under Luther’s battle cry of Sola Scriptura, are nonetheless fierce in their insistence that interpretation be governed by the Book of Concord, and Calvinists have a similar attitude toward their various confessional documents. Even non-confessional denominations, whose “only” standard is the Bible, have accepted interpretations, sometimes in astonishing detail, distinctive to each fellowship, and obligatory within it. We went so far as to credit the General Assembly with the divinely given unique right and power to interpret Scripture, thus effectually denying our own “Bible only” stance. The point is that some kind of standard of interpretation is inescapable. It will be there whether a group thinks it believes in it or not.
Private Interpretation
Some of the most disheartening words in theological discourse are these: “This is what it says to me,” or “This is how I see it.” Peter agreed with me when he wrote
2 Peter 1:19-21 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Private interpretation has produced all manner of strange and novel doctrines, has borne fruit in the scandalous division of Christians (hundreds, perhaps thousands, of competing sects), and has spawned God-denying heresies, from Arianism to contemporary Modernism. I recently had the embarrassing experience of sitting in a meeting, listening to a fellow-pastor I respect, as he expounded upon Psalm 51 in such a way as to make Jesus not truly Mary’s son, and thus not truly human. I should have spoken out (but did not) for that is a major heresy, one dealt with once and for all (I had hoped) many centuries ago. Private interpretation, the authority of one’s own bright ideas, a sort of self-idolatry. Lord, deliver us!
Whose Bible?
No, the Bible is never alone, and I am never alone with it. The Bible is not mine (“My Bible says …” has to be one of the most offensive phrases ever coined.) It wasn’t given to me to control or interpret. It wasn’t given to America. It wasn’t given to the twentieth (or 21st) Century. It wasn’t given to Luther or Calvin, or to the pope of Rome. The Bible was given to the Church of God — to the whole church — to the church of every century, every generation — to the church of every race, every nation, every language. It wasn’t given to seminary professors. It wasn’t given to country preachers. It wasn’t given to the rich. It wasn’t given to the poor. The Bible was given to the Church of God — to the whole church — to the church of every economic and cultural level. It was given to the church and the church owns it. Not me, not you, not the experts — the church, the whole church.
A Dangerous Book
The Bible, taken by itself, is a dangerous book, and it is not hard to see the roots of the medieval and counterreformation reluctance to see it in lay hands. In fact, subsequent events appear to ratify these fears. The Bible has been misused widely, grievously, and often sincerely. It has been misused to support anti-Semitism, chattel slavery, racial prejudice, and other injustices. It has been proclaimed as the basis for wars, murders, and thefts, for colonialism and the destruction of ancient cultures, both for economic oppression and for revolution.
The Bible has been used gloriously to speak truth, but it has also been quoted endlessly and contentiously to produce disruptions, divisions, and a relentless atomization in the Body of Christ. There is no shortage of “Bible only” sects whose God is not the God of Jesus and His church (Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Way, the heirs of H. W. Armstrong, and many others) or is described in such a muddle as to be barely recognizable (“Jesus only” Pentecostals, for example). There are also sects that are more orthodox in the central core of theology, but have used the Bible to teach bizarre and dangerous practices (snake handling, abstinence from medical care), an astonishing range of petty legalisms (no alcohol, no wedding ring, don’t wear red, no dancing, ad infinitum), and a wide variety of truly eccentric ideas (such as the reemergence of the one true church in Cherokee County NC in 1903. I used to teach this one!)
What is the problem here? It is precisely Sola Scriptura, taken to its limit, i.e. the use of Scripture by people who refuse to listen to the church, yes, to tradition. Holy Writ is such a vast collection, speaking of such awesomely incomprehensible mysteries that it is simply beyond the ability of one person or even of a group to unravel. To attempt to do so is to court disaster. Fortunately, however, you and I don’t need to do it alone. It is not our book; it was given to the church; and the church stretches across time and across cultures and across this planet. The church has time enough, minds enough, and prayers enough to seek truth, and has the guaranteed presence of the Holy Spirit to guide and aid the search. How do we come up with a correct interpretation of Scripture? Well, maybe Tevye had the right idea after all. The word is “Tradition.”
Tradition
Now you’ll be wondering, “Is this Protestant preacher putting tradition on a par with Scripture?” Well, do I accept any other authority equal to the Bible? The simple answer is , “No!” The Book is uniquely the Word of God, occupying a position above every other authority. It is the ultimate judge of every teaching, every practice, yes, every tradition. But the Book is never alone. It did not appear of itself, “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” It did not announce itself, but was identified, we could even say selected, by a living and active church over a period of centuries. It has ever and always had its main use in the assembly of Christian people. It has belonged to a church, taught in that church, carried the worship of that church, been preserved by that church, and been interpreted within that church. The ongoing life of a church is best described as tradition, that which is handed down, and the tradition of the church is, first and foremost, the Book it has used and handed down for so many centuries. That primary tradition is handled with reverence, used, studied, and interpreted in the fellowship that has preserved it. In short, there is a tradition of interpretation, and Scripture cannot be properly interpreted outside it. He who ignores the wisdom of the centuries does so at his own hazard and that of others. No, tradition is not infallible. It may indeed err, and indeed has, but it cannot be ignored. Some would dispose of “the traditions of men” completely (though they always do so under the influence of other traditions), and others would place Scripture and Tradition as co-equal sources of truth. Some would even consider Scripture a mere part of tradition. All these viewpoints seem inadequate. Perhaps the following will come somewhere near the truth:
Scripture, identified, preserved, and interpreted by tradition; tradition judged by Scripture.
Specifics
Some of the crucial doctrines of Scripture are not specifically formulated in the Book and are usually described in non-Scriptural terminology. These doctrines were honed to a fine edge over several centuries, during which other formulations were demonstrated to be so inadequate as to deserve condemnation. The result is eminently in accord with the Bible, in fact necessary for a proper understanding of the text, but cannot successfully be extracted from it by individuals, and requires a more technical vocabulary for clear expression.
The Trinity. An adequate description of the Christian God must deal with His absolute unity. There is no God beside Him. It must also deal with the full divinity of three separate entities, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Threeness and oneness are both central attributes. The term “Trinity” itself is nowhere in the Bible, but was coined to fill the need of discussing this suprarational truth. The Trinity is described as having one “nature” in three “persons”, also nonbiblical terms. For generations Christians wrangled in a confused fashion with these seeming contradictions until a vocabulary was developed to label the concepts. Notice, that these concepts are beyond comprehension, but, with proper words, can be affirmed and discussed. Here a traditional apparatus makes it possible to study Scripture without confusion. Anyone who tries to get along without these terms simply flounders around. I’ve heard a great deal of that.
Likewise the Dual Nature of Christ. The person and nature of Jesus has been and still is intensely debated. The classic description of what Scripture says took four centuries and four church councils to iron out, again using nonbiblical terms. The problem is that there is only one Jesus, but He is described both as God and as man. Controversies roared, some denying or minimizing His divinity, others making Him less than fully human. Ultimately the definition looked like this: Jesus Christ, Son of God and Son of Man, is one single “person”, who exists in two “natures”, the divine nature, and the human nature. Note that nothing has really been explained. It remains mystery as much as does the Trinity, but the vocabulary makes it possible to approach all of Scripture with clarity and without confusion. The mystery was further guarded by a surprising vocabulary choice, one Protestants tend to dislike, but one that seems to do a marvelous job of identifying Jesus. This is the identification of Mary as theotokos, bearer of God (sometimes translated as “Mother of God”). The word did not intend to say anything about the virgin mother herself, but rather to defend against those who would deny His full divinity from His very conception. Their opponents’ use of christotokos, bearer of Christ, on the other hand, tended to lessen emphasis on His divine nature.
In both of these cases, Scripture indeed is the truth, but tradition has devised ways of approaching that truth with clarity and disposing of the many inadequate and unhelpful theories. Tradition keeps us from reinventing the wheel—and that was hard enough the first time around.
Summary
The Bible in the church. The Bible for the church. The Bible interpreted by the church. The Bible, judge of the church. But never the Bible alone.
From the droppings of sacred cattle, Good Lord deliver us. Amen.
Bovine Droppings in the House of Prayer - 3. Bible Church
Numbers 21:5-9
And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread. And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.
Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.
And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
John 3:14-16
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
2 Kings 18:1-4
Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Abi, the daughter of Zachariah. And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did. He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan. He trusted in the LORD God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him.
Idolatry can be a subtle thing. It has been claimed that all idolatry is nothing more than a failure of priority, a placing of a thing or a being in a higher place than it deserves. As Paul wrote:
Romans 1:22-26a
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: . . .
The sun is good, but the sun is not to be worshiped. It is a mere creation (however impressive) of the one Creator. Sex is good: after all, God Himself commanded man (and all the animals) to be fruitful and multiply, and in Song of Solomon and other places He celebrates the beauties of sex, going so far as to use it as a sacred symbol of His own love for His people. But sex is not to be worshiped, to be glorified, or to be lifted into a higher place than the Creator has assigned it. No sun god, no fertility god, no god or goddess of any kind is acceptable in the sight of the one God of the universe. “I, the LORD, thy God, am a jealous God,” saith He.
To value the creature more than the creator, then, is idolatry, even when the creature is in itself good, beautiful, or productive of blessings—even when it has been made and used by the direct command of God Himself. The three passages with which I began this paper tell one story which well illustrates this.
Nehushtan
Nehushtan is what the people of Judah were calling a precious possession of theirs. It had been a gift of God in a time of great trouble. It had been made according to God’s explicit command in answer to the prayer of God’s appointed representative, Moses. It was a sign of God’s great mercy, His ‘amazing grace’, in more ways than one — It was a sign of His great compassion in that those who looked upon it received healing and deliverance by His miraculous intervention — It was a sign of His limitless desire to forgive, as what was being healed was the direct result of the people’s willful scorning of His love, yet healing came — It was, moreover, a powerful sign of promise, intended by God (as Jesus declared in John’s Gospel) to speak of the redemption wrought on the Cross of Calvary. Yes, this brazen serpent mounted on a staff was precious, and was lovingly preserved and cherished. It seems only right.
But Nehushtan was being valued in ways that God never intended. Incense was being burned to it, and it was thus receiving honor and worship that belonged only to God. Hezekiah, God’s chosen instrument, destroyed the precious relic, broke it into pieces, and God was pleased.
So, what’s the point?
I’m feeling as though there are aspects of contemporary Evangelicalism that approach terribly closely to this point. One of the most precious gifts of God to His people is the book we call Bible. This book was written at the express command of God. In its pages are healing and undeserved mercy, and in in every part it testifies to the story of redemption in Jesus by the Cross and Resurrection. It is precious, but could it come to receive some of the honor and worship that is His alone? Has it already?
I’ve always been more than a bit discomfited by the existence of so many congregation calling themselves “Bible Church” or the like. There are whole denominations like the “Bible Baptists” or the “Bible Presbyterians” or the “Open Bible Standard Churches” and even distinctly heretical groups like the “Bibleway Churches of the Lord Jesus Christ”. Is it just me, or is there something inappropriate about this kind of church name? Then there is the common categorization that refers to some people as “Bible-believing Christians” and some churches as “Bible-believing churches”. Where is our faith to be put? Are we called upon to believe a book? Or are we called upon to believe a person? Where does our faith lie? For many years I served in a church that taught as a cardinal principle that it was constituted by acceptance of the Bible, that it was a pledge to “take” the Bible that brought the true church back into the open after centuries of burial under traditions, and that it was taking that pledge that united the individual Christian to the true church. I don’t have a copy handy as I write, but it went something like this: “Do you take this Bible as the Word of God, to be your only standard of faith and practice, government and discipline . . .” “I do.” I need to ask, “Who takes us into God’s church? If God requires faith, who or what should we put our faith in? Is it a book? Even the Book? Or is it the living Word of God who took flesh and dwelt among us?”
Almost any thinking Christian would see clearly that what I then believed was fallacious, but almost every conservative Evangelical actually does believe something very similar. There is hardly one Evangelical or Fundamentalist statement of faith that does not give first place to a belief in Scripture. It seems terribly difficult somehow to say, “I believe in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ, His Son, our Savior, and therefore, I believe the book that God has given me.” Instead we tend to say, “I believe that the Bible is inerrant and infallible, and therefore I believe what it says about God.” What’s wrong with this picture? Why are we surprised that unbelievers don’t just jump on board?
Conclusion
I am a believer. I am a conservative evangelical believer. I value the Bible as one of God’s greatest gifts. My interpretation of Scripture is extremely conservative and highly respectful. Because I know the Author, I implicitly accept the book, and order my life by it. But I am NOT a “Bible-believing Christian.” I am a God-believing Christian. I gladly affirm my faith in a creed (Apostles’) that doesn’t explicitly mention Scripture, and in a creed (Nicene) that mentions it twice in passing, but I refuse to put my signature to one that gives pride of place to the book. It’s wrong. God would be justified to send someone to take our Bibles from us, as he sent Hezekiah to destroy Nehushtan. Church, let’s use the precious gift in the way God intended it to be used, and let’s avoid even the appearance of idolatry.
From the droppings of sacred cattle, Good Lord deliver us. Amen.
And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread. And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.
Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.
And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
John 3:14-16
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
2 Kings 18:1-4
Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Abi, the daughter of Zachariah. And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did. He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan. He trusted in the LORD God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him.
Idolatry can be a subtle thing. It has been claimed that all idolatry is nothing more than a failure of priority, a placing of a thing or a being in a higher place than it deserves. As Paul wrote:
Romans 1:22-26a
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: . . .
The sun is good, but the sun is not to be worshiped. It is a mere creation (however impressive) of the one Creator. Sex is good: after all, God Himself commanded man (and all the animals) to be fruitful and multiply, and in Song of Solomon and other places He celebrates the beauties of sex, going so far as to use it as a sacred symbol of His own love for His people. But sex is not to be worshiped, to be glorified, or to be lifted into a higher place than the Creator has assigned it. No sun god, no fertility god, no god or goddess of any kind is acceptable in the sight of the one God of the universe. “I, the LORD, thy God, am a jealous God,” saith He.
To value the creature more than the creator, then, is idolatry, even when the creature is in itself good, beautiful, or productive of blessings—even when it has been made and used by the direct command of God Himself. The three passages with which I began this paper tell one story which well illustrates this.
Nehushtan
Nehushtan is what the people of Judah were calling a precious possession of theirs. It had been a gift of God in a time of great trouble. It had been made according to God’s explicit command in answer to the prayer of God’s appointed representative, Moses. It was a sign of God’s great mercy, His ‘amazing grace’, in more ways than one — It was a sign of His great compassion in that those who looked upon it received healing and deliverance by His miraculous intervention — It was a sign of His limitless desire to forgive, as what was being healed was the direct result of the people’s willful scorning of His love, yet healing came — It was, moreover, a powerful sign of promise, intended by God (as Jesus declared in John’s Gospel) to speak of the redemption wrought on the Cross of Calvary. Yes, this brazen serpent mounted on a staff was precious, and was lovingly preserved and cherished. It seems only right.
But Nehushtan was being valued in ways that God never intended. Incense was being burned to it, and it was thus receiving honor and worship that belonged only to God. Hezekiah, God’s chosen instrument, destroyed the precious relic, broke it into pieces, and God was pleased.
So, what’s the point?
I’m feeling as though there are aspects of contemporary Evangelicalism that approach terribly closely to this point. One of the most precious gifts of God to His people is the book we call Bible. This book was written at the express command of God. In its pages are healing and undeserved mercy, and in in every part it testifies to the story of redemption in Jesus by the Cross and Resurrection. It is precious, but could it come to receive some of the honor and worship that is His alone? Has it already?
I’ve always been more than a bit discomfited by the existence of so many congregation calling themselves “Bible Church” or the like. There are whole denominations like the “Bible Baptists” or the “Bible Presbyterians” or the “Open Bible Standard Churches” and even distinctly heretical groups like the “Bibleway Churches of the Lord Jesus Christ”. Is it just me, or is there something inappropriate about this kind of church name? Then there is the common categorization that refers to some people as “Bible-believing Christians” and some churches as “Bible-believing churches”. Where is our faith to be put? Are we called upon to believe a book? Or are we called upon to believe a person? Where does our faith lie? For many years I served in a church that taught as a cardinal principle that it was constituted by acceptance of the Bible, that it was a pledge to “take” the Bible that brought the true church back into the open after centuries of burial under traditions, and that it was taking that pledge that united the individual Christian to the true church. I don’t have a copy handy as I write, but it went something like this: “Do you take this Bible as the Word of God, to be your only standard of faith and practice, government and discipline . . .” “I do.” I need to ask, “Who takes us into God’s church? If God requires faith, who or what should we put our faith in? Is it a book? Even the Book? Or is it the living Word of God who took flesh and dwelt among us?”
Almost any thinking Christian would see clearly that what I then believed was fallacious, but almost every conservative Evangelical actually does believe something very similar. There is hardly one Evangelical or Fundamentalist statement of faith that does not give first place to a belief in Scripture. It seems terribly difficult somehow to say, “I believe in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ, His Son, our Savior, and therefore, I believe the book that God has given me.” Instead we tend to say, “I believe that the Bible is inerrant and infallible, and therefore I believe what it says about God.” What’s wrong with this picture? Why are we surprised that unbelievers don’t just jump on board?
Conclusion
I am a believer. I am a conservative evangelical believer. I value the Bible as one of God’s greatest gifts. My interpretation of Scripture is extremely conservative and highly respectful. Because I know the Author, I implicitly accept the book, and order my life by it. But I am NOT a “Bible-believing Christian.” I am a God-believing Christian. I gladly affirm my faith in a creed (Apostles’) that doesn’t explicitly mention Scripture, and in a creed (Nicene) that mentions it twice in passing, but I refuse to put my signature to one that gives pride of place to the book. It’s wrong. God would be justified to send someone to take our Bibles from us, as he sent Hezekiah to destroy Nehushtan. Church, let’s use the precious gift in the way God intended it to be used, and let’s avoid even the appearance of idolatry.
From the droppings of sacred cattle, Good Lord deliver us. Amen.
Bovine Droppings in the House of Prayer - 4. Verbal Inspiration
It does appear that the first several papers in this series
all concern Scripture. This is another, and there will be at least one more.
However, concerns about the Bible are not the only concerns to be numbered
among my pet peeves. Patience, there will be other themes, but meanwhile, let’s
begin with two texts:
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Scripture claims for itself and every conservative, historic, or traditional Christian affirms, that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and constitutes the written Word of God. This, obviously, is true for “Sola Scriptura” Protestants, but can equally be affirmed of Roman Catholics whose reliance on “Scripture and Tradition” still ends up giving Scripture the place of preeminence; and it is equally true of Eastern Orthodox who speak of Scripture as a part of Holy Tradition, but yet treat it as the most important deposit of that tradition.
So it has always been. The Apostles’ Creed does not mention Scripture, but is largely a pastiche of Scriptural phrases. The Nicene Creed mentions Scripture in passing (Jesus rose again “according to the scriptures”; and the Holy Ghost “spake by the prophets”), with an assumption of their authority. The Fathers and every notable writer through the centuries of the early church and the middle ages constantly quoted scripture and affirmed its divine character. The Reformers based their case on Scripture, and the counter-reformation answered with Scripture. Scripture, beyond all debate, was God-breathed, inspired.
However, for a millennium-and-a-half this fact of inspiration was scarcely defined at all. Simply knowing that God had spoken in these writings was sufficient. Truly, prior to the Reformation there doesn’t seem to have been a theory of inspiration at all, and no lack was felt, and what theories were advanced at the Reformation were still a bit sketchy. In actuality, it was not until the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as a response to burgeoning modernism, that the doctrine of inspiration became laden with the heavy burden of verbiage now so fervently insisted upon and argued over. I tend to consider, even under the provocations of the modernist heresies, that this excrescence of more and more detailed terminology is not only not necessary, but absolutely harmful, picking fights in the wrong places and causing orthodox Christians to look a bit foolish, and this without truly adding anything constructive to the ancient doctrine of inspiration. My purpose here is to discuss a few of these terms, and hopefully lay them to rest.
Verbal Inspiration
What precisely is meant by the phrase ‘verbal inspiration’? It certainly is bandied about with great freedom and insisted upon with great vehemence, but just what does it mean? Well, any theory of inspiration of Scripture has to take into account that the Word of God is only expressed by words, and that therefore inspiration has to be inspiration of the words used, or ‘verbal inspiration’. Truly the words used by the Scriptural authors can be seen as inspired words, chosen under God’s prompting to express what God wished to have expressed.
‘Modernists’ and ‘Liberals’ tend to see the Bible as a book like other books, to be accepted or not, in full or in part, insofar as it appears to express truth (as truth is judged by the reader). Inspiration, by them, would be seen, perhaps, as no more than the ‘inspiration’ of a gifted artist or poet painting or writing beauty from the depths of his heart; or, perhaps, there might be a recognition of divine inspiration in the sense that the writers were in touch with God through the impartation of some spark of divine illumination, and reflected this in their writing. This, obviously is not ‘verbal inspiration’, and the phrase could usefully be employed to exclude such a minimalist view. The inspiration of Scripture is manifestly something different and superior to that of, say, Shakespeare or Milton, but is truly God’s chosen means of expressing His own thoughts.
If that were the full meaning of the phrase, one could be content to use it, but such is not the case. “Verbal inspiration” is often used to express a notion that each and every word in the Scripture was specifically chosen by God, that the writers themselves were not free to choose other words than these, and that the Bible, in effect, was dictated to copyists, rather than being written by inspired men. This is, quite simply, unacceptable. God simply does not manipulate puppets. He reveals His will to men and gives them the ability to express His thoughts faithfully, whether in deeds or in writing, but it is holy men of God who speak when they are moved by the Holy Spirit, not puppets, automatons, or mediums. Each book of Scripture is as thoroughly an expression of the personality of its writer as it is of the nature of God.
Could it be that John was deliberate in the oblique language of his Prologue? Could it be that He intended to say something more general about incarnation than just the Christmas event? In the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and the word was God . . . and the word was made flesh . . . God, in the supreme expression of Himself took flesh of the virgin Mary and the God-man was born. Might this also imply that God, in the revelation of His nature and will, used the flesh of men to write it, and a human-divine book was born, having a dual nature much like that of the Christ? I would not be the first to have advanced such an idea.
For these and other reasons, while holding a high view of inspiration, I simply will not use this phrase ‘verbal inspiration’. It would seem quite sufficient to declare, as the Scripture itself does, that the written Word is ‘inspired by the Holy Spirit’, and leave it at that.
Plenary Inspiration
Now this written Word does indeed consist of a number of separate and distinct documents, dictated and/or penned by a number of separate and distinct individuals, with a variety of different ends in view, and that over a quite considerable span of centuries. Could this disparate body of writings indeed be inspired by God in its entirety and in every part? One’s answer here could indeed be considered a fair test of whether one is a traditional orthodox Christian or a modernist liberal. Historic Christianity does answer with a resounding ‘yes’. ‘Plenary’ or “full and complete’ inspiration has this as its basic meaning, but I have observed that the louder one shouts about plenary inspiration the more likely one is to fall into certain basic errors of scriptural interpretation. Does inspiration mean that every passage speaks authoritatively about what is? Well, yes and no. I believe that every statement in the Book is there for a purpose, succeeds in its purpose, and expresses precisely what God would wish to express. However, that does not mean that every passage of Scripture, in and of itself, conveys truth that must be heeded. For many passages inspiration consists in that this is an accurate presentation of error to be avoided, as in the declamations of Job’s friends, parts of which are often quoted as God’s truth, even though God Himself is depicted as refuting them. Other passages, such as 3 John 2, are often made to carry a burden they were never intended to bear. This is not a declaration about healing, or even less about prosperity, but simply a statement of the wishes of a godly old man concerning his addressee. Yes, God desired it to be said, but nowhere did God guarantee that John’s wish was everywhere and always precisely His own.
In short, though I am fully convinced that divine inspiration permeates the entire body of the Scriptures, I refuse to describe it as ‘plenary’. It would seem quite sufficient to declare, as the Scripture itself does, that the written Word is ‘inspired by the Holy Spirit’, and leave it at that.
Infallible and Inerrant
These also are popular ways of describing the Scriptures. It is true that God’s written Word will not and can not fail in its purpose. It is also true that God simply does not make mistakes, and that his Scriptures will not therefore contain mistakes. It is therefore not appropriate to do as Liberal theology does, and continually pick and choose among passages we do or do not agree with. However, “infallibility” of the Scriptures is all too often used synonomously with the infallibility of a given way of interpreting them. This becomes most blatantly obvious in the various schemes of prophetic interpretation. Every teacher (and there are a multitude, disagreeing violently one with another) asserts categorically that his scheme of things is what the Bible says. If such a proclamation be believed, what happens when a prophecy goes unfulfilled (as in 1844 when Miller’s prediction of the end did not come to pass)? Did Scripture fail?
“Inerrancy” comes to refer to statements which appear to conflict with discoveries of modern science. Unbelievers will sometimes point to Scriptural statements that appear to conflict with present-day understandings of how the universe works, and use this perceived conflict as a pretext for rejecting the whole thing. Literal minded believers, on the other hand will consistently try to shout down the scientific voices with, “The Bible says . . .” Does either side understand what God, in the Scriptures, is intending to do? I think not.
Divine inspiration means, at the least, that God has placed into this Book precisely what He intends us to hear, the fullness of His eternal truth, the richness of His promise, the surety of His salvation, and so much of His own nature as men are able to comprehend. Human authorship means that those men who are infallibly and inerrantly conveying that message are doing so as men, and are expressing and illustrating it in terms of what they know and have experienced. A work divinely inspired and humanly authored will assuredly present eternal verities, will sometimes reveal matters of fact beyond the author’s prior knowledge, but will always be a work of its own time, presenting the eternal worldview in terms comprehensible to the author’s own worldview. Is it, then, necessary to accept every scientific or historical statement, every number, dimension, or date, in Scripture as absolutely true? Does the truth of the Bible stand and fall on this kind of understanding? By no means! Do I need to accept that the world came into existence in seven twenty-four hour days in 4004 BC? Do I need to accept a literal world-wide flood that submerged every bit of earth’s landsurface? Does my faith as a Christian hang upon these things? Jesus said, “Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, but they are they which testify of me.” There’s the purpose of inspiration. The whole corpus of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments, is inspired of God in order that we might see the redemption wrought by God in Christ. It would seem quite sufficient to declare, as the Scripture itself does, that the written Word is ‘inspired by the Holy Spirit’, and leave it at that.
BLESSED Lord, who hast caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning; Grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that by patience and comfort of thy holy Word, we may embrace, and ever hold fast, the blessed hope of everlasting life, which thou hast given us in our Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.
From the droppings of sacred cattle, Good Lord deliver us. Amen
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Scripture claims for itself and every conservative, historic, or traditional Christian affirms, that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and constitutes the written Word of God. This, obviously, is true for “Sola Scriptura” Protestants, but can equally be affirmed of Roman Catholics whose reliance on “Scripture and Tradition” still ends up giving Scripture the place of preeminence; and it is equally true of Eastern Orthodox who speak of Scripture as a part of Holy Tradition, but yet treat it as the most important deposit of that tradition.
So it has always been. The Apostles’ Creed does not mention Scripture, but is largely a pastiche of Scriptural phrases. The Nicene Creed mentions Scripture in passing (Jesus rose again “according to the scriptures”; and the Holy Ghost “spake by the prophets”), with an assumption of their authority. The Fathers and every notable writer through the centuries of the early church and the middle ages constantly quoted scripture and affirmed its divine character. The Reformers based their case on Scripture, and the counter-reformation answered with Scripture. Scripture, beyond all debate, was God-breathed, inspired.
However, for a millennium-and-a-half this fact of inspiration was scarcely defined at all. Simply knowing that God had spoken in these writings was sufficient. Truly, prior to the Reformation there doesn’t seem to have been a theory of inspiration at all, and no lack was felt, and what theories were advanced at the Reformation were still a bit sketchy. In actuality, it was not until the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as a response to burgeoning modernism, that the doctrine of inspiration became laden with the heavy burden of verbiage now so fervently insisted upon and argued over. I tend to consider, even under the provocations of the modernist heresies, that this excrescence of more and more detailed terminology is not only not necessary, but absolutely harmful, picking fights in the wrong places and causing orthodox Christians to look a bit foolish, and this without truly adding anything constructive to the ancient doctrine of inspiration. My purpose here is to discuss a few of these terms, and hopefully lay them to rest.
Verbal Inspiration
What precisely is meant by the phrase ‘verbal inspiration’? It certainly is bandied about with great freedom and insisted upon with great vehemence, but just what does it mean? Well, any theory of inspiration of Scripture has to take into account that the Word of God is only expressed by words, and that therefore inspiration has to be inspiration of the words used, or ‘verbal inspiration’. Truly the words used by the Scriptural authors can be seen as inspired words, chosen under God’s prompting to express what God wished to have expressed.
‘Modernists’ and ‘Liberals’ tend to see the Bible as a book like other books, to be accepted or not, in full or in part, insofar as it appears to express truth (as truth is judged by the reader). Inspiration, by them, would be seen, perhaps, as no more than the ‘inspiration’ of a gifted artist or poet painting or writing beauty from the depths of his heart; or, perhaps, there might be a recognition of divine inspiration in the sense that the writers were in touch with God through the impartation of some spark of divine illumination, and reflected this in their writing. This, obviously is not ‘verbal inspiration’, and the phrase could usefully be employed to exclude such a minimalist view. The inspiration of Scripture is manifestly something different and superior to that of, say, Shakespeare or Milton, but is truly God’s chosen means of expressing His own thoughts.
If that were the full meaning of the phrase, one could be content to use it, but such is not the case. “Verbal inspiration” is often used to express a notion that each and every word in the Scripture was specifically chosen by God, that the writers themselves were not free to choose other words than these, and that the Bible, in effect, was dictated to copyists, rather than being written by inspired men. This is, quite simply, unacceptable. God simply does not manipulate puppets. He reveals His will to men and gives them the ability to express His thoughts faithfully, whether in deeds or in writing, but it is holy men of God who speak when they are moved by the Holy Spirit, not puppets, automatons, or mediums. Each book of Scripture is as thoroughly an expression of the personality of its writer as it is of the nature of God.
Could it be that John was deliberate in the oblique language of his Prologue? Could it be that He intended to say something more general about incarnation than just the Christmas event? In the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and the word was God . . . and the word was made flesh . . . God, in the supreme expression of Himself took flesh of the virgin Mary and the God-man was born. Might this also imply that God, in the revelation of His nature and will, used the flesh of men to write it, and a human-divine book was born, having a dual nature much like that of the Christ? I would not be the first to have advanced such an idea.
For these and other reasons, while holding a high view of inspiration, I simply will not use this phrase ‘verbal inspiration’. It would seem quite sufficient to declare, as the Scripture itself does, that the written Word is ‘inspired by the Holy Spirit’, and leave it at that.
Plenary Inspiration
Now this written Word does indeed consist of a number of separate and distinct documents, dictated and/or penned by a number of separate and distinct individuals, with a variety of different ends in view, and that over a quite considerable span of centuries. Could this disparate body of writings indeed be inspired by God in its entirety and in every part? One’s answer here could indeed be considered a fair test of whether one is a traditional orthodox Christian or a modernist liberal. Historic Christianity does answer with a resounding ‘yes’. ‘Plenary’ or “full and complete’ inspiration has this as its basic meaning, but I have observed that the louder one shouts about plenary inspiration the more likely one is to fall into certain basic errors of scriptural interpretation. Does inspiration mean that every passage speaks authoritatively about what is? Well, yes and no. I believe that every statement in the Book is there for a purpose, succeeds in its purpose, and expresses precisely what God would wish to express. However, that does not mean that every passage of Scripture, in and of itself, conveys truth that must be heeded. For many passages inspiration consists in that this is an accurate presentation of error to be avoided, as in the declamations of Job’s friends, parts of which are often quoted as God’s truth, even though God Himself is depicted as refuting them. Other passages, such as 3 John 2, are often made to carry a burden they were never intended to bear. This is not a declaration about healing, or even less about prosperity, but simply a statement of the wishes of a godly old man concerning his addressee. Yes, God desired it to be said, but nowhere did God guarantee that John’s wish was everywhere and always precisely His own.
In short, though I am fully convinced that divine inspiration permeates the entire body of the Scriptures, I refuse to describe it as ‘plenary’. It would seem quite sufficient to declare, as the Scripture itself does, that the written Word is ‘inspired by the Holy Spirit’, and leave it at that.
Infallible and Inerrant
These also are popular ways of describing the Scriptures. It is true that God’s written Word will not and can not fail in its purpose. It is also true that God simply does not make mistakes, and that his Scriptures will not therefore contain mistakes. It is therefore not appropriate to do as Liberal theology does, and continually pick and choose among passages we do or do not agree with. However, “infallibility” of the Scriptures is all too often used synonomously with the infallibility of a given way of interpreting them. This becomes most blatantly obvious in the various schemes of prophetic interpretation. Every teacher (and there are a multitude, disagreeing violently one with another) asserts categorically that his scheme of things is what the Bible says. If such a proclamation be believed, what happens when a prophecy goes unfulfilled (as in 1844 when Miller’s prediction of the end did not come to pass)? Did Scripture fail?
“Inerrancy” comes to refer to statements which appear to conflict with discoveries of modern science. Unbelievers will sometimes point to Scriptural statements that appear to conflict with present-day understandings of how the universe works, and use this perceived conflict as a pretext for rejecting the whole thing. Literal minded believers, on the other hand will consistently try to shout down the scientific voices with, “The Bible says . . .” Does either side understand what God, in the Scriptures, is intending to do? I think not.
Divine inspiration means, at the least, that God has placed into this Book precisely what He intends us to hear, the fullness of His eternal truth, the richness of His promise, the surety of His salvation, and so much of His own nature as men are able to comprehend. Human authorship means that those men who are infallibly and inerrantly conveying that message are doing so as men, and are expressing and illustrating it in terms of what they know and have experienced. A work divinely inspired and humanly authored will assuredly present eternal verities, will sometimes reveal matters of fact beyond the author’s prior knowledge, but will always be a work of its own time, presenting the eternal worldview in terms comprehensible to the author’s own worldview. Is it, then, necessary to accept every scientific or historical statement, every number, dimension, or date, in Scripture as absolutely true? Does the truth of the Bible stand and fall on this kind of understanding? By no means! Do I need to accept that the world came into existence in seven twenty-four hour days in 4004 BC? Do I need to accept a literal world-wide flood that submerged every bit of earth’s landsurface? Does my faith as a Christian hang upon these things? Jesus said, “Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, but they are they which testify of me.” There’s the purpose of inspiration. The whole corpus of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments, is inspired of God in order that we might see the redemption wrought by God in Christ. It would seem quite sufficient to declare, as the Scripture itself does, that the written Word is ‘inspired by the Holy Spirit’, and leave it at that.
BLESSED Lord, who hast caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning; Grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that by patience and comfort of thy holy Word, we may embrace, and ever hold fast, the blessed hope of everlasting life, which thou hast given us in our Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.
From the droppings of sacred cattle, Good Lord deliver us. Amen
Bovine Droppings in the House of Prayer - 5. Hermeneutics
This will probably be the final paper of this series that
relates directly to Scripture as such, and is a rather difficult one to write for
one, like the present writer, who insists on responsible use of Scripture and a
fairly rigid orthodoxy of doctrine.
There is a lot of truly dreadful “interpretation” of Scripture being done. There is a dismaying lot of doctrine built upon passages wrest from their context and thoroughly misunderstood. There is, I think, more eisegesis than exegesis being done—more of reading preconceived ideas into the text than of deriving doctrine from the text. There is, moreover, an appalling ignorance among Biblical interpreters of such niceties as historical background, identity of author and audience, and original language, and, just lately, a lot of theology being derived from inadequate contemporary translations.
Opposed to this wasteland of misinterpretation there is a well-developed set of principles which goes under the name of hermeneutics, a set of instructions about context and background, and generally on the ways the intended meaning can be derived from any document. Historical records, scientific texts, other factual and philosophical works, and even works of fiction can be approached in this way and their meaning discerned.
Scripture, too, is usefully approached through the tested rules of hermeneutics. Much is to be learned, and much is to be gained in this way, and one is protected from the worst kinds of misinterpretation, and yet . . .
Jesus said, ‘Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, but they are they which testify of me.’ He said this to the Pharisees, who were satisfied that their interpretation of Scripture was thorough and accurate. Jesus seems to have agreed with that, for another thing he said about them was that people should listen to what the Pharisees taught, because ‘they sit in Moses’ seat.’ Sound interpretation, accurate interpretation, even valuable interpretation, but interpretation that was unable to find Jesus—and He is the reason for the Book, both Old and New Testaments.
One of the things that perplex liberal scholars and even many conservative Evangelicals is the use of Old Testament texts by the New Testament writers. Most of the prophetic statements quoted and applied to the Christ are far from obvious in context. In very truth some of them, at least, when read in their original context, appear to be saying something entirely other than what, say, Matthew quotes them as saying. Furthermore, Paul’s extensive use of OT scripture would get a failing grade from any hermeneutics professor. He wrests from context, makes truly surprising applications, and fails ever to take background into consideration. What’s going on?
The word of God is quick [alive] and powerful [effective] and sharper than any twoedged sword piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)
In effect, it’s alive, and does what a mere unliving book cannot do. It reads the reader. It speaks individually to the individual listener. It says more to those who will seek it out than it appears to be saying. It is, in some sense, the incarnate Christ Himself. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us . . . refers not only to Bethlehem, but also to the written Word that He has chosen to inhabit. God is in it, and He is not a tame God. He does what He wills. Thus it is that readers of Scripture are often surprised. Often, yea very often, one hears in Scripture things that one cannot actually find on the page. Sometimes one is impressed with a teaching truly Biblical, yet not really supported by the particular passage at hand. Many have come to a saving knowledge of Christ through a completely mistaken understanding of a verse.
I find it no wonder that the dispute raged for so many centuries as to whether the Bible should be understood literally or allegorically. Some of the early Fathers did one, and some the other. Who was right? Both . . . and neither. To refuse to reason out the plain meaning of Scripture is to deny that there is a reliable written Word from God, but to bind the Book with unbreakable chains of logic is to banish the living presence of an unbindable God from its pages.
Recommendations
By all means, study the Scriptures systematically, according to good hermeneutical principles. Use the God-given resource of an intelligent mind to find the plain meaning of the text before you. By all means, approach the Bible devotionally. Let it speak as it will to your heart. Hear what it says to you, even outside the plain text you see.
For both reasons Christians, when they gather together, need to listen together to an orderly plan of readings (a lectionary), that Scripture may speak for itself, independently of what explanations teachers may wish to give. Also for both reasons Christians, when they gather together, need to listen together to an orderly and thoughtful teaching of the scriptures
If you learn something new by either approach, hold it loosely. Check with other Christians. Is it in accord with what generations of Christians have found to be true? Is it in accord with what Christians generally believe? If it’s not, it’s most likely a mistake. Though Christ does make everything ’new’, he does not revel in producing ’novelties. If you still believe you have a correct insight not accepted by others, hold it loosely and humbly. It is far better to love than to be correct, and fighting over doctrinal insights is seldom edifying.
But hold fast to the faith once delivered to the saints.
There is a lot of truly dreadful “interpretation” of Scripture being done. There is a dismaying lot of doctrine built upon passages wrest from their context and thoroughly misunderstood. There is, I think, more eisegesis than exegesis being done—more of reading preconceived ideas into the text than of deriving doctrine from the text. There is, moreover, an appalling ignorance among Biblical interpreters of such niceties as historical background, identity of author and audience, and original language, and, just lately, a lot of theology being derived from inadequate contemporary translations.
Opposed to this wasteland of misinterpretation there is a well-developed set of principles which goes under the name of hermeneutics, a set of instructions about context and background, and generally on the ways the intended meaning can be derived from any document. Historical records, scientific texts, other factual and philosophical works, and even works of fiction can be approached in this way and their meaning discerned.
Scripture, too, is usefully approached through the tested rules of hermeneutics. Much is to be learned, and much is to be gained in this way, and one is protected from the worst kinds of misinterpretation, and yet . . .
Jesus said, ‘Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, but they are they which testify of me.’ He said this to the Pharisees, who were satisfied that their interpretation of Scripture was thorough and accurate. Jesus seems to have agreed with that, for another thing he said about them was that people should listen to what the Pharisees taught, because ‘they sit in Moses’ seat.’ Sound interpretation, accurate interpretation, even valuable interpretation, but interpretation that was unable to find Jesus—and He is the reason for the Book, both Old and New Testaments.
One of the things that perplex liberal scholars and even many conservative Evangelicals is the use of Old Testament texts by the New Testament writers. Most of the prophetic statements quoted and applied to the Christ are far from obvious in context. In very truth some of them, at least, when read in their original context, appear to be saying something entirely other than what, say, Matthew quotes them as saying. Furthermore, Paul’s extensive use of OT scripture would get a failing grade from any hermeneutics professor. He wrests from context, makes truly surprising applications, and fails ever to take background into consideration. What’s going on?
The word of God is quick [alive] and powerful [effective] and sharper than any twoedged sword piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)
In effect, it’s alive, and does what a mere unliving book cannot do. It reads the reader. It speaks individually to the individual listener. It says more to those who will seek it out than it appears to be saying. It is, in some sense, the incarnate Christ Himself. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us . . . refers not only to Bethlehem, but also to the written Word that He has chosen to inhabit. God is in it, and He is not a tame God. He does what He wills. Thus it is that readers of Scripture are often surprised. Often, yea very often, one hears in Scripture things that one cannot actually find on the page. Sometimes one is impressed with a teaching truly Biblical, yet not really supported by the particular passage at hand. Many have come to a saving knowledge of Christ through a completely mistaken understanding of a verse.
I find it no wonder that the dispute raged for so many centuries as to whether the Bible should be understood literally or allegorically. Some of the early Fathers did one, and some the other. Who was right? Both . . . and neither. To refuse to reason out the plain meaning of Scripture is to deny that there is a reliable written Word from God, but to bind the Book with unbreakable chains of logic is to banish the living presence of an unbindable God from its pages.
Recommendations
By all means, study the Scriptures systematically, according to good hermeneutical principles. Use the God-given resource of an intelligent mind to find the plain meaning of the text before you. By all means, approach the Bible devotionally. Let it speak as it will to your heart. Hear what it says to you, even outside the plain text you see.
For both reasons Christians, when they gather together, need to listen together to an orderly plan of readings (a lectionary), that Scripture may speak for itself, independently of what explanations teachers may wish to give. Also for both reasons Christians, when they gather together, need to listen together to an orderly and thoughtful teaching of the scriptures
If you learn something new by either approach, hold it loosely. Check with other Christians. Is it in accord with what generations of Christians have found to be true? Is it in accord with what Christians generally believe? If it’s not, it’s most likely a mistake. Though Christ does make everything ’new’, he does not revel in producing ’novelties. If you still believe you have a correct insight not accepted by others, hold it loosely and humbly. It is far better to love than to be correct, and fighting over doctrinal insights is seldom edifying.
But hold fast to the faith once delivered to the saints.
From the droppings of sacred cattle, Good Lord deliver us.
Amen.
