CHAPTER TWO THE BIBLE AS A DOCUMENT OF FAITH

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.