-
Since
many of our problems in the church stem from the way we view the
Bible, we need to take a hard look at such claims as this one. We
can do this more easily once we overcome the idea that the Bible
itself is the object of our faith. The Bible in some sense may be
“holy,” but not like Christ is holy. It is always the
Person of the Bible we worship, not the Bible itself. In like
manner, the Bible may be referred to as the Word of God, but not in
the same sense that Christ is “the Word of God,” as per
Rev. 19:3.
-
-
While
the Bible speaks often of the Word of God, it is not certain that it
ever refers to itself as the Word of God. Herein lies the problem
with so many opinions about the Bible, including the one from the
ETS:
claims
are made for the Bible that the Bible does not claim for itself.
The
Bible does not claim to be the Word of God. The Bible does not claim
to be inerrant. There is no doctrine of “inspiration” as
such in the Bible. In one place (2 Tim. 3:16) reference is made to
the Scriptures being Godbreathed or inspired, and 2 Pet. 1:21 speaks
of writers being “moved by the Holy Spirit,” but as to
what methodology is implied by this is a matter of opinion.
-
-
If
we speak as the Bible speaks about itself, we will refer to the
Bible as the Scriptures. Unless I have miscounted, there are 50
references to the Scriptures in the Bible, all of them of course in
the New Testament since only the Old Testament was the Bible of
Jesus and the early Christians. There are many other references in
both Testaments to “it is written,” which is a similar
reference. But I do not believe you will find even one reference to
the Old Testament (or the Scriptures) as “the Word of God.”
-
-
Our
Lord, for instance, always says such as “You search the
Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life”
(Jn. 5:39), and not “You search the word of God . . .”
Again and again reference is made to “that the Scriptures
might be fulfilled,” not “that the word of God might be
fulfilled.” Rom. 15:4 refers to “the comfort of the
Scriptures” and Acts 17:11 tells how some “searched the
Scriptures daily,” but the Bible does not use the term “the
Word of God” in such ways.
-
-
Since
Heb. 4:12 says that “the word of God is living and active and
sharper than any two-edged sword,” it is supposed that this
refers to the Bible. But that verse goes on to say that the Word of
God judges the thoughts and intentions of the heart, which could
hardly refer to the Bible. The next verse indicates that “the
Word of God” is God himself or the power of God, for it reads:
“And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all
things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have
to do.”
-
-
Our
preachers often point to Eph. 6:17 as an instance of the Bible being
called the Word of God: “And take the helmet of salvation, and
the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God,” but this
is another case of ignoring the time element. The early Christians
had no Bible to “take up” as we have. The “sword
of the Spirit” is the piercing influence of the Guest of
heaven who was with them, which demonstrates the power (or word) of
God. This they could “take up” by appropriating it to
their lives.
-
-
When
one examines the Scriptures to ascertain the meaning of “the
Word of God,” he finds that it involves far more than what is
written, even though what is written might convey the Word of God.
When the poet says “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a
light unto my path” (Psa. 119:97), one cannot suppose he
is talking about the Bible, including that very verse! The reference
is to the will and mind of God, and even the majestic power of God,
however that was communicated to the poet.
-
-
There
is mystery to such language as “the word of the Lord came to
Micah” and “the word that came to Jeremiah from the
Lord.” In the case of Jeremiah, the same Word that God put in
the prophet’s mouth he “hastens to perform it”
(Jer. 1:12). God’s Word is what he says and what he does; it
seems also to be an experience, for the prophets sometimes “saw”
the Word of God as well as heard it, as in Isa. 2:1. The prophets in
turn spoke the Word, but it was more than mere words in that it was
the power of God as well, as with Jeremiah whose words were like
fire in his mouth (Jer. 5:14).
-
-
The
Word of God is thus referred to in Scripture as abiding forever (l
Pet. 1:25), upholding all things (Heb. 1:3), settled in heaven (Ps.
119:89), and the framer of the worlds (Heb. 11:3). It would be
difficult to restrict these words to pen and ink: “By the word
of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the
breath of his mouth” (Ps. 33:6). That same creative Word, the
mind and personality of God, was at work in the prophets and it is
at work in the Scriptures. God speaks to us through the Scriptures,
but that is not the same as to say the Bible is
per
se
the
Word of God, just as we cannot say that Jeremiah was the Word of
God.
-
-
Not
all that Jeremiah said and did was the Word of God, however
frequently the Word used him. And so everything in the Bible is not
the Word of God, such as: “Now the sons of Issachar were Tola,
and Puah, Jashub, and Shimrom, four” (1 Chron. 7:1). That
verse is of course Scripture and may have some slight historical
value, but one would be hard put to say that God speaks to him
through that passage. That is of course true with much of the Bible,
which makes it misleading to say, as do the “evangelicals,”
that the entire Bible is the Word of God. Such unnecessary
deductions get us into trouble, obligating us to prove things about
the Bible that cannot be proved.
-
-
This
is why a defense can be made for what the Readers Digest sought to
accomplish with its abridged Bible. It is possible that such an
effort could capture most of what God is saying to us through the
Bible even when substantially condensed. Those who object to that
sort of thing are inconsistent, for we all have our “condensed
version, “as it were, in that we have our favorite portions.
We all know that a passage like “Seek first the kingdom of God
and his righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you”
(Mt. 6:33) means far more than “And the third day we cast out
with our hands the tackling of the ship” (Acts 27:19). While
both verses are Scripture, they are not both necessarily the Word of
God to us.
-
-
I
do not intend to say that part of the Bible is the Word of God and
part is not. Strictly speaking, none of the Bible is the Word of God
in that the Word (or mind) of God cannot be reduced to the written
page. The Word of God is eternal, existing long before the
Scriptures were ever written. I am rather saying that the Word of
God is communicated to us through Scripture, just as through the
prophets. As to how we come to realize the Word of God as revealed
in Scripture is no simple matter. We might have the Bible memorized
and yet not know the mind of God. One apostle assures us that
Scripture is “spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14),
while another one tells us that it is the anointing of the Holy
Spirit that must teach us (1 Jn. 2:27). It helps if we keep the
point of Scripture in mind, which is to conform us more and more to
the likeness of God through Christ (2 Cor. 3:18). When
Scripture is doing this, cultivating us in the likeness of Christ,
we can believe that the Word of God is at work.
-
-
The
ETS creedal statement says “The Bible alone . . . is the Word
of God written.” How do these theologians know that? One
Scripture assures us that “the word of God is not bound”
(2 Tim. 2:9), and since that was written before the church
had anything like our modern Bible, it is not likely that the
compilation of 66 books known as the “Holy Bible” has
the Word of God bound. The Word of God might express itself in
dreams, visions, poetry, art, philosophy, novels, or even in a note
from a child to an adult. Since when is the Word of God bound to a
book, any book, or even to the universe itself? Paul was comfortable
with the idea that God spoke through Greek poets (Acts 17:28). And
so he might speak to us through the likes of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn,
whether in a speech at Harvard or in a novel. I am not saying God
does
but
that he
might.
I
am saying what the Scriptures say, that you cannot imprison the Word
of God. God
might
speak
to a man through his dog. Don’t forget Balaam’s ass!
-
-
If
the ETS means that only the Bible constitutes the holy Scriptures, I
would agree. It would also be true that however the Word of God
might manifest itself (whatever idea we believe comes from God) it
would not contradict what God has already revealed in Scripture.
-
-
As
for the Bible being “inerrant,” which appears to be as
crucial a doctrine to the new “evangelicals” as to the
old fundamentalists, the issue loses its urgency once it is conceded
that we are talking about Scripture rather than the Word of God, and
that the Bible is not to be viewed as if it were God himself. No one
would object to referring to God as inerrant, but it is risky to
suppose that
any
work
of man could be perfect (or without any error at all), and that has
to include the Bible since it is the writings of scores of men, even
if “inspired” or “moved by the Spirit.”
whatever we make that mean.
-
-
But
our brothers making up the ETS have an ingenius way of covering
their tracks. Being the scholars they are, they know there are
errors (even if insignificant ones) in the Bible, so they say
“inerrant in the autographs.” The autographs are the
original writings, such as the actual manuscript prepared by John
known to us as “the Gospel according to John.” It is
that
manuscript
that is inerrant, the ETS tells us, not your copy of John, which may
be errant in some detail. Since our ETS brothers know that not a
single autograph exists today, their affirmation of an inerrant
Bible is wholly irrelevant if not foolish. The inerrant Bible to
which they express creedal loyalty does not exist!
-
-
When
scholars point to the jars and conflicts of the Bible, errors if you
like, such as in the Easter story (had it “began to dawn”
as Matthew says or was it “still dark” as John says when
the women went to the tomb?), I am not at all bothered, for I look
for the Word of God in the story, and all the witnesses agree that
Jesus was raised from the dead. If anything, the contradictions in
detail enhance the message, for they not only reveal the humanity of
the witnesses but their integrity as well. They obviously didn’t
frame up on us!
-
-
If
we will allow the Bible to be “the Scriptures,” to use
our Lord’s language, and avoid creating a bibliolatry out of
them, making necessary and foolish claims, claims that the
Scriptures do not make, we will do the church a great service. If we
persist in dogmatizing (and sometimes even pontificating) about the
nature of the Bible, whether its “plenary inspiration”
or “verbal inerrancy” (weasel words?), we might weaken
people’s faith, for they may conclude that if these claims
made for the Bible cannot be sustained then the whole Christian
faith loses its credibility.
-
-
I
am not saying that we should never refer to the Bible as the Word
God, for I have shown that there is a sense in which we can. I am
saying that we should have a responsible view of the Bible, and,
yes, like our Lord and his apostles, speak more often the way they
did. Like Paul did: “From a child thou hast known the holy
scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation”
(2 Tim. 3:15).
-
-
But
I am also saying that it seems that the church continues to move
alongside the Pharisees. “You search the scriptures,”
Jesus said to them, “because you think that in them you have
eternal life; and it is they that bear witness of me” (John
5:39). It was their inordinate concern for the mechanics of their
Bible and their dogmas thereof that kept them from seeing Jesus.
Unless we are careful we will lose Jesus in the very book we claim
to venerate. —the
Editor