Ekkehardt Mueller
The
Bible, revelation, inspiration, and Scripture's reliability and authority are
hotly debated today, with repercussions for Adventists. In some cases even
the possibility of divine revelation and inspiration is totally rejected. In
others revelation and inspiration are reinterpreted.[1]
The issues are hot because these
topics belong to the most fundamental ones in theology, having a strong
impact on the beliefs and the everyday lives of Christians. Although Jesus
and salvation through him form the heart of our theology and experience, it
is ultimately only through the Scriptures that we receive necessary
information about Him and redemption. There we know Jesus= in his multifaceted
ministry on our behalf. How we understand Scripture will shape our perception
of him and our understanding of discipleship.
This article focuses on the methods
of studying revelation, inspiration, and authority of Scripture. It will not
discuss these biblical doctrines per se, butBprovides limited
short definitions.
1.
Definitions
According
to the biblical testimony special revelation[2]is an act of God in which he
reveals to specific persons (1) himself, (2) truths of various natures,
and/or (3) his will. As a result of God=s initiative and
action these humans, called prophets, have access to an experience which
otherwise is not open to humans, receiving knowledge not otherwise available.
According to Scripture inspiration
is God=s act in which he
enables the prophet to understand and communicate the received message. By
this process the proclaimed message becomes word from God and is not just
human word. In order to communicate revelation reliably, inspiration is
needed. However revelation and inspiration cannot be sharply separated.
Speaking of the authority of
Scripture we believe that Scripture as "the infallible revelation of His
will."[3] is the standard for a Christian life. Everything has to be tested
by it. Each doctrine must be founded upon it. Scripture, then, has priority
over all human thought, research, and emotion.
2. Methodology
No
scholar or scientist works without certain presuppositions. On this topic,
some will overtly deny such things as divine revelation and inspiration.
Others claim the opposite. Some hold that there may be divine
inspiration. Based on these presuppositions some scholars consider the Bible
to be merely a human book, or a divine book, a mixture of the two, or a book
with both characteristics at the same time. Such preconceived ideas influence
the research.
Several approaches present
themselves. They are not exclusive but can be combined with one an other. One
option is to proceed inductively. Another one is to work deductively. In the
first instance the researcher can choose to study inspiration by means of
extrabiblical sources and draw conclusions which then are applied to the
Bible. Another possibility is to create analogies in order to demonstrate how
inspiration works and to make deductions. Again the respective approach
selected will shape the outcome.
a. Inductive
versus Deductive
The major choice is whether to
proceed inductively or deductively. Normally an inductive approach begins
with the investigation of biblical phenomena. One reads, for instance,
through the Gospels, compares them with each other, and detects differences
and so-called discrepancies. One studies Chronicles and Kings and notices
gaps and divergence. A comparison of Paul=s experience as
reported in Acts and in Galatians seems to reveal differences. Supposedly,
even his conversion accounts in Acts do not correspond. An inductive approach
oftentimes does not allow for harmonization even where it seems to be possible
and advisable. It is preoccupied with finding differences rather than
agreement and unity. And it always works with only parts of the entire
puzzle. Nevertheless, based on this type of collected and interpreted data a
doctrine of inspiration is formulated. The problem with this approach is that
it largely disregards the self-testimony of Scripture. The starting point is
not what Scripture claims to be, but the phenomena of the biblical texts as
seen and interpreted by a rational human being of the 20th or 21st
century.
A deductive approach begins with
the self-testimony of Scripture, that is, the texts which directly or
indirectly refer to revelation, inspiration, and authority of Scripture. A
doctrine of inspiration, for example, is formulated based on the claims of
Scripture and its numerous references to this topic.
Probably, the issue of inductive
versus deductive is not simply a matter of either/or. Both approaches are
needed. In formulating a doctrine of inspiration one cannot disregard the
textual phenomena and one should not discard the self-testimony of Scripture.
The Bible must be allowed to speak for itself. Thus, the question is How do
we start? or Which approach comes first? In a trial, it is only fair to
listen to a witness first and to take him or her seriously before one
questions his or her statements. To a certain degree, Heinrich Schliemann
even took Homer=s writings at face
value and excavated Troy, a city previously believed to be fiction only.[4]
Because the Bible claims revelation and inspiration, it is fair to start from
there and to ask oneself how the phenomena can be reconciled with this
assertion.[5]
b. Use
of Extrabiblical Sources
Among others, the history of
religions school has used extrabiblical sources to interpret Scripture, such
as Babylonian myths, Hellenistic mystery cults, and ideas of the Roman
Emperor cult.[6] Their views have been read back into the Bible. We would be
very hesitant to use such a procedure, since Adventists accept the principle
of Scripture being its own interpreter.
However, we must go a step further.
To study inspiration in an inspired, non-canonical prophet, for instance in
E. G. White, and read the data gathered back into the Bible is--on the basis
of the sola scriptura principleBalso not acceptable.
The Bible can stand on its own, and a biblical doctrine of inspiration must
be derived from the Bible and the Bible alone. Genuine non-canonical prophets
may provide helpful information, but to view the Bible through the processes
involved in the inspiration of a non-canonical prophet is circular
reasoning.[7] In addition, we must ask if by allowing for such an approach a
sort of principle of uniformity is at work. Although the Bible does not
provide evidence for stages of inspiration, that is, one prophet being more
inspired than another, the question remains whether or not inspiration really
worked the same way in all prophets. The outcome is equal in so far that
revelation, God=s message, is passed
on faithfully, but the processes are not necessarily identical. Jeremiah=s experience in
dictating God=s message to Baruch
while being inspired (Jer 36) is obviously different from Luke=s experience in
gathering information and under inspiration putting together his gospel.
c. Use
of Analogies
Analogies can be extremely
helpful. They are like pictures that bring home a point to the audience. But
analogies, like parables, have limitations. They should not be overextended.
To create an analogy and make deductions from that analogy may not any longer
correspond with reality.[8] Therefore, we need to exercise caution.
One of the most common analogies is
the so-called incarnational model. In this case, Scripture is paralleled with
Jesus Christ. There are theologians who deny the divine character of
Scripture. There are others who omit or underestimate the human factor. The
incarnational model stresses both the human and the divine. However, even
after accepting the last option, a question remains. Are the human and divine
sides complementary, yet separable? Or is there an inseparable unity between
the human and the divine?
In the case of Jesus, Christians
claim that he was truly God and became also truly man. Human and divine
cannot be split apart in Jesus. This seems also to be true for Scripture. 2
Pet 1:21 points to a cooperation between the Holy Spirit and human agents,
acknowledging the divine and the human. Yet, Scripture was not created by
humans. Through God prophets talked about God. God is the origin and final
author of Scripture. Gerhard Maier summarizes this in three
points:
#1)
>Men spoke=; that is,
representatives of >normal= persons at a
particular place and time, not >instruments,= >writing implements,= or the like; and
they used a >normal= human language . . .
#2) None of them, curiously enough, spoke from the standpoint of men, but >from God=; that is sent from
him, empowered, proceeding from his vantage point and bringing across a
message from him that is no less than a >divine= message. #3) The one
who brought about this peculiar state of affairs is the 'Holy Spirit.' [9]
Prophetic
messages and prophetic writings are the words of the Lord and are accepted by
God as such.[10] Biblical books are the word of the Lord.[11] Thus, the human
and the divine in Scripture are not complementary. They are integrated.
Consequently, different sets of tools in order to study the human side and
the divine side of the Bible cannot do justice to its unified nature, the
truly incarnational character of Scripture. And by the way, many tools of
scholarship are not just neutral. They are linked to presuppositions so much
so that by eliminating these presuppositions the tools themselves have
evaporated.[12]
In all these questions, Christians
are always referred back to Jesus Christ, their Lord and Savior and their
Exemplar. How did Jesus come to grips with Scripture in his time, with issues
such as revelation, inspiration, and authority? Jesus made statements about
Scripture, and he used Scripture profusely. Certainly, he was not naive or
ignorant with regard to the issues we raised. Here is Jesus= position on
Scripture:
Jesus
trusted Scripture. For him the OT, his Bible, is God=s word. Through human
agents God has spoken.
Jesus regarded the prophets as
reliable communicators of God=s words and accepted
inspiration on the part of the writers of the OT Scripture contains genuine
predictive prophecy. Many of these prophecies he regarded to be fulfilled in
himself.
Jesus accepted the historical
reliability of Scripture, including all the important events in Israel=s history as well as
creation and flood.
Jesus considered as author of a
book that person who was identified as such in the respective biblical book.
Divine interventions in history
such as miracles posed no problem for Jesus.
Jesus interpreted Scripture
literally and typologically. Critical methods in expounding the Bible were
foreign to him. Although he must have known so-called discrepancies in
Scripture he never focused on them and did not even mention them.
Jesus considered Scripture not only
as addressed to the original readers and hearer but also to his generation.
Scripture transcends culture.
Jesus= understanding of God=s will and his
actions in history are founded on Scripture. Biblical doctrines can be
derived from the O.T. At the same time, the O.T. was the standard for his
life as well as a justification of his behavior.
Scripture has practical value. It
fosters faith. It can be used as the authority and weapon against
temptations.
Jesus expected his contemporaries
to know Scripture[13]
3. Suggestions
How
then can we handle these issues of revelation, inspiration, and authority of Scripture?
Here are some suggestions:
Start with an attitude of trust
instead of a position of doubt. This does not exclude openness.
Take seriously Scripture=s self-testimony.
Do not deny or underestimate
problems in the biblical text. Take care, however, not to overstate them. Be
careful with extreme positions on personalized inspiration as well as
mechanical inspiration.
Look for solutions with regard to
the biblical phenomena without trying to make them fit artificially and be
able to suspend judgment. If you cannot find a solution that does not mean
that there is none.[14]
Use an appropriate interpretive
method and suitable exegetical tools that fit the character of God=s word.
Live the word of God.
Proclaim it, empowered by the Holy
Spirit.
[1].
Cf. Wolfhart Pannenberg, "The Revelation of God in Jesus of
Nazareth", J. M. Robinson und J. B. Cobb, Jr., Hrsg., in Theology as
History, New Frontiers in Theology, Bd. 3 (New York: Harper and Row,
1967), 101-133; Gabriel Moran, The Present Revelation: The Search for
Religious Foundations (New York: Herder and Herder, 1972), 38-40, 130,
227, 299, 341; Gerhard Maier, Biblical Hermeneutics (Wheaton, IL:
Crossway Books, 1994), 97.
[2]. Theologians distinguish between general revelation, which, e.g., is
found in nature, and special revelation.
[3]. See the Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists, no. 1, in Seventh-day
Adventist Church Manual,@ (Hagerstown, MD:
Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1995), 7.
[4]. Cf. Encyclopaedia Britannica: Micropaedia (Chicago: Encyclopaedia
Britannica, 1981), VIII: 965.
[5]. Cf. Peter M. van Bemmelen, Issues in Biblical Inspiration : Sanday and
Warfield (Berrien Springs, MI : Andrews University Press, 1987), 377-378.
[6]. These were proposed by Gunkel, Reitzenstein, and Bousset.
[7]. By means of Biblical criteria a prophet is declared genuine and
inspired. Then this very prophet is used to formulate a doctrine of
inspiration of the Bible.
[8]. It may be useful to compare the nature of Scripture with the nature of
light. However, to conclude that for these different aspects of light
different tools must be used and apply this to Scripture seems to go too far.
Scripture may be similar to light, but it is not light in the literal sense.
Cf. Richard W. Coffen, "A Fresh Look at the Dynamics of Inspiration:
Part 2," Ministry February 2000, 20-23.
[9]. Maier, 102.
[10]. See Jer.36:1-6 and Jer 25:2-8.
[11]. See Micah 1:1; Hos 1:1; Zeph 1:1.
[12]. See, e.g., form criticism which investigates the oral stage of
material, smallest units that were, for instance, created at a campfire or a
funeral procession. No revelation took place. Texts developed along
evolutionary lines.
[13]. References can be found in Ekkehardt Mueller, "Jesus and Scripture
in the Gospels," unpublished manuscript, March 1999.
[14]. See Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951).
|
.
|
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario