CHAPTER
TWO
THE
BIBLE AS A DOCUMENT OF FAITH
Having examined the Bible
as a literary document, I now move on to the step of examining the Bible as a
document of faith. In the
Judeo-Christian tradition, the Scriptures are of divine origin, and not merely
of human construction. There are various
views and perspectives as to how the Bible operates as a both a source of
divine revelation and as revelation itself in this tradition. I will not be advocating for one view or the
other. I will simply be making mention
of them and then leave it up to the reader, who believes in the Bible as a
divine document, to determine where he/she stands relative to the issue.
THE INSPIRATION OF THE
BIBLE
Christian theology,
functioning as the knowledge base of Christianity, rests on the documentary
narratives of the revelation that God makes about Godself through Jesus
Christ. The Sacred Scriptures that
contain those accounts, constitute the primary sources. It is necessary, and even proper, therefore,
that our research be directed towards the issue of biblical authority. That authority rests on the fact that the
Scriptures constitute an inspired revelation of God to humankind (H. Orton
Wiley and Paul T. Culbertson, Introduction to Christian Theology. Kansas City (MO), Beacon Hill Press, 1948, p.
58).
Definition of Inspiration
In general, the word
“inspiration,” relative to the Bible, refers to the operation of the Holy
Spirit upon the writers of Scriptures that led them to produce the expression
of the will of God. The word
“inspiration” comes from the Greek word “theopnuestos,” which means
“God-breathed.” In essence, according to
this view, inspiration is the active energy of the Holy Spirit through which
persons chosen by God have proclaimed God’s will as it is revealed and attested
to in the Holy Scriptures (Ibid., p. 59).
Theories of Inspiration
There are various
theories and views as to the meaning of “inspiration” regarding the Bible. I will not say that either is right or wrong,
or that one is more correct than the other two.
Again, the reader will opt for the one that best fits in with her/his
view of Scripture.
The Dictation Theory-
This theory emphasizes the supernatural element to the point of stressing that
the personality of the writer was placed aside, and that by the guidance of the
Holy Spirit, the writer became a “secretary” who simply dictated what he/she
was given to write. According to this
view, the writers did not write anything of their own accord, but rather, just
wrote, word for word, what God told them to write. (Ibid., p. 61).
The Illumination Theory-
According to this theory, inspiration refers to elevating the natural knowledge
of humankind to a higher plane. This
theory leaves little, if any room for divine intervention, and is oriented
towards extreme humanism (Ibid., p. 62).
The Dynamic Theory-
This theory seeks to maintain the divine element in the writing of Scripture,
while at the same time, affirming that the Holy Spirit utilized, not only the
language, but also the culture and the personality of the writers. According to this point of view, inspiration
did not take place in a vacuum (Ibid.).
BIBLICAL AUTHORITY
One of the many
controversial issues in Christianity (especially in Protestant/Evangelical
Christianity) is that of biblical authority.
In Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, the traditions and experience
(the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church) are placed on a par with
Scripture. In Protestant Christianity
the Scriptures play either an exclusive role (evangelical Protestantism), or a
primary role (mainstream Protestantism).
Evangelical Protestantism adheres to the belief in “Sola Scriptura,”
i.e. the Bible is our only rule of faith and practice), whereas mainstream
Protestantism adheres to the belief in “Prima Scriptura,” i.e. the notion that
the Bible is the primary source of belief and practice, and tradition and
experience are secondary sources of belief and practice.
One of the questions that
we have to deal with is whether the Bible itself makes a claim to authority or
is the issue of authority something which has been imposed on the Scriptures by
the institutional Church. In my doctoral
dissertation, i.e. “The Liberation of Puerto Rico: A Theological Perspective,”
I refer to various scriptural passages that appear to be biblical claims to
authority. In retrospect, as I examine
those same passages that I have quoted, I need to add, that like with any other
passage of Scripture, there is a matter of contextual hermeneutics. Readers will have to determine for themselves
if the below represents a case for the Bible claiming authority for itself or
whether it is a case of the Church and its scholars making this claim.
In the Old Testament, as
in the New Testament, the claim to more than human authority is implicit, and
in many places, it finds direct and open expression. It is claimed, for example, that Moses
received from God both the moral law in addition to more detailed commandments,
even extending to arrangements for the Tabernacle. The prophets maintained that they were not
speaking their own words, but the message which God had given to them. Jesus Christ spoke with authority because He
was conscious of speaking not merely as the historical Teacher, but as the Son
of God. The Apostles had no doubt as to
the authoritativeness of their pronouncements.
It may be objected that
in the majority of these cases, the claim to authority is made only on behalf
of the message delivered and not on behalf of the written record in which that
message has been handed down. Thus, it
may well be true that the prophets or Jesus Christ spoke with divine authority,
but that sometimes we have their words only at second hand. The fact that inspiration is claimed for them
does not mean that inspiration is claimed for those who compiled the record of
their activity and teaching. If this is
so, according to this argument, there is no guarantee that what is written in
the Bible is a verbatim or accurate account of the message that was actually
delivered.
Against this objection,
we may set the fact that in the New Testament, especially with reference to the
Old Testament, definite authority is claimed for the written word of the
Bible. This point emerges clearly in
many parts of the teaching of our Lord Himself. Thus, He answers the tempter with the
three-fold ‘It is written.’ To the Jews
who searched the Scriptures, He gave counsel that ‘It is they that bear witness
to me.’ After the resurrection, He interpreted to the disciples in all the
Scriptures the things concerning Himself, showing that all things must be needs
be fulfilled, which were ‘written about Me in the law of Moses and the prophets
and the psalms.’ These and similar
statements make it quite plain that Jesus Himself accepted the inspiration and
authority of the written word, especially in so far as it gave prophetic
witness to His own death and resurrection.
When we come to the
Apostles, we find that their testimony to the divine authority of Scripture is
equally clear. In all the Gospel
accounts, great emphasis is laid upon the inspired foretelling of the work and
person of Jesus. The Apostle Paul quotes
extensively from the Old Testament, and his preaching to his own people is very
largely an attempt to prove the Messiahship of Jesus from Old Testament history
and prophecy. The statement in 2 Timothy
3:16 sums up the whole attitude of Paul.
Whatever translation we adopt, it is plain from verse 15 that the
Apostle has the Old Testament in mind and that he thinks of it as peculiarly
inspired by God. The other apostolic
writers quote just as frequently from the Old Testament, and in 2 Peter, open
testimony is borne to the inspiration of the Bible in a way very similar to
that in 2 Timothy. In 2 Peter 1:21, the
word of prophecy is traced back to its final author, God in the Holy Spirit.
‘Because no word of prophecy ever came by human impulse, but people moved by
the Holy Spirit spoke from God.’ Again,
in 2 Peter 3:16, there seems to be a further allusion to the written Bible as
an authoritative word which must be approached with reverence and humility. The latter verse is particularly interesting
in that it couples together with the Epistles of Paul and the other Scriptures,
a fairly plain hint that the apostolic authors were conscious of adding to and
completing the authoritative Canon of the Old Testament.
Surveying the evidence,
we may allow that the passages that treat directly of the inspiration of
Scriptures are few in number, and that there is no particular assertion of the
status or authority of every individual book.
On the other hand, we may note that with the exception of Ezra, Nehemiah,
Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah, all of
the books of the Old Testament are directly quoted in the New Testament; and
when we take into account the attitude of the New Testament to such quotations,
there can be little doubt that the ‘Thus says the Lord,’ of the prophets was
taken to apply to the record of prophetic activity as well as to oral words
delivered on this or that special occasion.
The written word was treated as the inspired and authoritative form in
which the content of divine revelation had been expressed and handed down (G.
W. Bromiley, “The Authority of Scripture,” The New Bible Commentary, ed. Donald
Guthrie. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing House, 1970, p.3).
It must also be said that
the Bible does, indeed, lay serious claim to divine origin, status, and
authority. It states clearly that its
message is of God. It traces back its
authority through human writings to the Holy Spirit. It accepts and claims the supernatural both
in prophetic utterances and in historical events. It makes no artificial distinction between
the inward content the written Word and its outward form. By its self-authentication as God’s written
Word, the Bible challenges us directly either to faith or unbelief. In our approach to the Bible, other
considerations may obtrude but the basic challenge cannot be ignored (Juan A.
Carmona, The Liberation of Puerto Rico: A Theological Perspective. Doctoral Dissertation. Rochester: Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity
School, 1982, p. 29).
The matter of biblical
authority is very closely related to the doctrine of the inspiration of the
Scriptures. It is not necessary to
reason in a circle in order to believe in the doctrine of the inspiration of
the Scriptures. The doctrine of divine
inspiration is based on the teaching of Jesus Christ. Even if we approach the Bible as an
exceedingly old and worthwhile sourcebook for the history of Israel and early
Christianity, we find pervading the sources, the doctrine of divine
inspiration, and this from the lips of Jesus Himself. Scattered throughout the record in every
Gospel, and in every type of record-parable, history, Passion record, etc.—from
first to last, it is the assurance in the teaching of Jesus that the Scriptures
of the Old Testament, to which He referred so frequently, are true. He made no distinction between the religious
and the practical. All the teachings of
Scripture were alike true for Christ; He believed them all (R. Laird Harris,
Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1969, p. 46).
I conclude this chapter
by inviting you, the reader, to examine three points of view concerning the
Scriptures. The views are also
representative of the approaches that readers, students of the Bible, scholars,
and theologians take to the Scriptures.
The Liberal View
What is termed the
“liberal” view is characteristically impressed with the nature of Scripture,
and expositions of our problem frequently begin with a description of the
phenomena to be found in the Bible, which point to the nature and origins of
that collection of writings. The
“liberal” point of view is highly associated with the historical-critical
approach to Scripture of the late 19th and early 20th century. This approach, rather than just quoting
Scripture, also involved researching and studying the Scripture in its cultural
and socio-political context. It raised
the question of authorship, audience, date of writing, motives, literary styles
and motifs, as well as issues of sources and possible redaction. It is called “liberal” because it is open to
a wide variety of theological perspectives within the body of the text
itself.
When the liberal approach
is used, openness to the possibility of human error in the Scriptures is
found. While those who adhere to a
liberal point of view concerning the Scripture, do not necessarily deny the
divine inspiration of the Bible, they do not equate divine inspiration with
inerrancy or infallibility. They find
the human element, with all its flaws present in the Scriptures themselves,
even to the extent of believing that there are contradictions and errors in the
body of the text itself. According to
that view, some of the materials in Scripture will be of more value to us than
some others, depending on the extent to which they have been formulated in
cultural terms we no longer think true (Harold De Wolf, The Case for Theology
in Liberal Perspective. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959, pp. 52-55).
Liberal theologians find
reflected in the literature of the Bible the same progressive understanding of
the truth that we find reflected in the whole history of humanity, as
succeeding ages increased in knowledge and moral sensitivity. Scripture therefore must be seen as a
collection of materials written by fallible people who reflect the culture out
of which they came and for which they are writing. Accordingly, Scripture itself is best
described as a mixture of the Word of God with the erring words of its human
authors (Paul J. Achtemeier, The Inspiration of Scripture: Problems and
Proposals. Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1980, p. 44).
The Conservative View
The “conservative” view
of Scripture begins with the affirmation that the Bible has its ultimate source
in God, i.e. that God is the originator of Scripture. That affirmation does not allow room for errors
or inconsistencies. While there is some
attention given to confirming such a view from Scripture itself, the real power
of this view lies in that prior assumption. If the prior assumption of the
actual inerrancy of Scripture were set aside, demonstrations of inerrancy could
as easily be dismissed as accepted. It is only the assumption that everything
the Bible says is true that gives any force at all to a Biblical witness
concerning inerrancy (Ibid., p. 50).
The Liberation View
Unlike Conservative and Liberal
theologies, which begin with the Scriptures themselves, Liberation Theology
(not a school of thought, but a movement of the 1960’s) emphasizes oppression
and human suffering as the starting points of biblical interpretation and
theological reflection. Issues of
inerrancy and infallibility are either moot or secondary to these deplorable
human conditions.
Jose Miguez Bonino says:
Whatever corrections may be needed, there is scarcely any doubt that God’s Word
is not understood in the Old Testament as a conceptual communication, but as a
creative event, a history-making pronouncement.
Its thrust does not consist in carrying out God’s promise or fulfilling
God’s judgement. Correspondingly, what is required of Israel is not an ethical
inference, but an obedient participation----whether in action or in
suffering—in God’s active righteousness and mercy. Faith is a ‘walking.’ It is unnecessary to point out that even the
idea of knowledge and knowing has this active and participatory content (Jose
Miguez Bonino, Frontiers of Theology in Latin America, ed. Rosino Gibellini, p.
53).
Hugo Assmann clearly
identifies the need for the practice of biblical understanding to be intimately
connected to the issues that are raised and to the events that take place in
history. He says that “the theology of liberation insists even more on the
strong historical basis of faith, including the notion of effective historical
action in its very vision of what constitutes faith. Faith can only be historically true when it
becomes truth: when it is historically effective in the liberation of
humankind. Hence the ‘truth’ dimension
of faith becomes closely linked to its ethical and political dimensions
(Assmann in Gibellini, p. 81).
As we move into the third
and final chapter of this book, we do so with the background of having
considered both the roles and views of Scripture in the faith communities of
Judaism and Christianity. We now will
seek to explore, how in continuing to believe in the divine inspiration of
Scripture, on the one hand, and on the other, seeing the fallible human element
in the Scripture, and also examining the witness to God’s Word in the light of
oppression, we can then move to the next step of decolonizing the Bible.
