Too many conservative Christians view the Bible the way Muslims view the Qur’an — they act as if the Bible fell out of heaven in a heavenly language. But our God is a God who works in history. And in the incarnation, the Son of God came down from heaven and took on flesh, lived and spoke, died, and was resurrected in history.
You will find that there is similar literature to what is in Scripture in the Ancient Near East (ANE). Moreover, Scripture is not written in a heavenly language. Some assumed that the New Testament’s Greek was unique until they discovered everyday documents proving that it was the common Greek of the common people at the time. The cosmology of Scripture is not unique, the authors of Scripture use the normal ANE framework in their descriptions. Scripture is fully the words of its human authors. We should expect that on this level Scripture would “fit in” in the world when it was written. In other words, we should expect that on this level Scripture would not be strange in the ANE. What makes Scripture unique is that it is fully the word of the true and living God.
Reformed theologians have been apt defenders of the doctrine of inerrancy (Scripture is without error) and infallibility (Scripture is unable to err). They have positively set forth how Scripture is fully the word of God written down. And they began to positively set forth how Scripture is fully the words of its human authors. But this point was not developed and stressed. We can only speculate on the question of “What if?” If they had developed the full humanity of Scripture, would Barthianism have become so popular? And perhaps if they had done so then the multitudes that become convinced intellectually (even if the Spirit is testifying to Scripture as the word of God in their hearts) that Scripture has errors would not have been so convinced.
One of the problems is that most conservatives and liberals share the same set of modern presuppositions. That is, they both begin from the same assumptions about what would make Scripture err and anyone who is intellectually honest would have to admit that on this foundation the liberals would be right. In other words, both come to the text expecting that Scripture has to speak the way a modern would or it is in error. They impose upon the text their own criteria for truth. They set themselves up as gods judging the word of the true God.
Take for example something as simple as the classification of plants and animals. The modern method of classification relies on dissection to know what is going on in the inside of the plant or animal. The ANE method of classification relied on looking at the outside of the plant or animal. In both systems there are plants and animals that do not quite fit. Which animals chew the cud again? Is the tomato really a fruit? Both systems can be valid ways of classifying plants and animals. Just because moderns use the one and ancients used the other does not mean that the ancient system is in error when it conflicts with the modern system. Scripture is not a science textbook. It does say things that are binding on science, but to expect it to be a science textbook is imposing upon the text external criteria for determining if it is inerrant.
Instead, what we need to do is to see what Scripture says about itself and what Scripture is actually saying and doing. It is important to know what genre of literature one is reading, for example, before one hastily jumps to the conclusion that Scripture is in error.
Speaking of jumping to conclusions, the simple answer is not often the right answer. Too often conservative Christians look for the simple answer. Take, for example, Chronicles. Some would want to harmonize what it says with what historical books in the Prophets say. But then they would miss what Scripture is doing. Chronicles is not making mistakes in telling about the history of Israel. Every word was intentional. So we need to begin asking, “Why?” Why is the author of Chronicles doing what he is doing?
If you want to understand why Scripture looks like it does, begin with the incarnational analogy. It is an analogy so do not force it to fit every detail. Let us state it: Scripture is fully the words of its human authors and fully the word of God just as Jesus Christ is fully human and fully divine. We might also note that as Jesus was without sin, all of the teaching of Scripture is without error and actually unable to err. You will run into problems any time you deny the humanity of Scripture or the divinity of Scripture. Both are true. Our God is a God who works in history.
It is also worth noting that it is only by the Holy Spirit that one can come to see the full divinity of Scripture.
This post sets forward nothing new than what I learned at Westminster Theological Seminary, though any mistakes are my own. A particularly helpful book is Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament by Peter Enns. You may also find his further reflections online helpful. See http://peterennsonline.com/ii/
Recent Comments