How Is The Bible The Word Of God*
Then I opened my mouth, and hehold. a cup was offered to me: it
was full of something like water, but its color was like fire. And I
took it and drank; and when I had drunk it, my heart poured forth
understanding, and wisdom increased in my breast, for my spirit
retained its memory; and my mouth was open, and was no longer closed.
And the Most High gave understanding to the five men, and by turn they
wrote what was dictated, in characters which they did not know. They
sat forty days, and wrote during the daytime, and ate their bread at
night. As for me, I spoke in the daytime and was not silent at night.
So during the forty days ninety-four books were written (II Esd.
14:39-44). By this marvelous mode of inspiration, Ezra was enabled in
forty
days to dictate not only the entire Old Testament, but also a large
group of extracanonical writings which were highly val ued by the Jews.
If the inspiration of the biblical books were of this nature, many of
our modern problems would never have been raised, for the Bible would
indeed be only the Word of God, and not in any significant sense the
words of men. For many centuries, the Bible was treated as though it
was only the Word of God; and the modern discovery that the Bible is
indeed the words of men has created a tension between the theological
and the historical view of the Bible. Many critical scholars have been
so enamored of the discovery that the Bible is in fact the words of men
written within the historical process that they have often neglected
altogether the significance of the Bible as the Word of God. The norm
of modern critical study has been deceptively and appealingly simple.
The Bible is an ancient book and must therefore be studied precisely
like all other ancient books. The critical assumptions and methodology
used in the analysis of such books as Second Esdras, the other Jewish
books of the so-called Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha [These
arc the two main collections of Jewish writings produced between 250
B.C. and 100 A.D. They have been published in English by R. H. Charles.
The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913).], the recently discovered Dead
Sea Scrolls, and all other ancient literature, Jewish or Greek,
religious or secular, must be applied to the Bible.
This is only partially true; but it is partially true. The purpose of
this book is to illustrate the most important critical methods used in
studying the Bible. These critical methods must be used because of the
obvious fact that the Bible is not a magical book, but a product of
history written in the words of men.
The Bible was not written like the books reputedly dictated to Ezra, in
characters which the scribes did not know, but in the common languages
of the ancient world. We shall point out in a later chapter that the
Greek of the New Testament was not a special language created by the
Holy Spirit but was basically the vernacular tongue of everyday people.
The Bible must be fnally studied in its original languages, Greek and
Hebrew (with a few passages in Aramaic). The books of the Bible,
written in very different literary styles, reflect the diversity of
human authorship. Each book embodies the distinct human literary
characteristics of its author. Some books are written in a very simple,
easy style; others are more polished and difficult. Some have a limited
vocabulary, others a far more extensive one. Most of the New Testament
is written in relatively smooth Greek, but some books, such as Mark and
II Peter, are rough or ponderous. Revelation is studded with
intolerable Greek constructions. Obviously, the fact that the Bible is
the Word of God does not mean that the human factor has been ignored
nor the words of men bypassed. Thorough Bible study must employ all the
paraphernalia of the linguistic, philological, and literary sciences.
Although this obvious fact is admitted even in the most uncritical
circles, its implications have not been understood.
To admit that the Bible is written in the words of men and must be
studied as an ancient literary work is not to deny that God speaks to
men day by day through the Scriptures apart from any such critical
study. When I read in John 3: 16, the "most beloved verse in the
Bible," that "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
everlasting life," I do not need to ask a scholar about the meaning of
the verse in order to believe, to commit myself to Christ, and to enter
into the life of which the verse speaks. Furthermore, searching for and
finding answers to questions of a critical kind is not the equivalent
of believing and finding everlasting life. Unfortunately, critical
scholarship has usually been satisfied to seek solutions to questions
of this type and stops short of entering into the realitv to which the
Word of God witnesses. When this happens, the Word of God has indeed
become only the words of men.
On the other hand, the fact that I have believed in Jesus Christ and
have received the gift of eternal life ought never to prevent me from
asking critical questions; indeed, I ought to be stimulated to
determine as precisely as possible what the biblical language means.
The scholar must ask such questions; and the intelligent layman ought
to be eager for all the light he can gain from the scholar in
understanding the exact meaning of the Word of God.
Why, for instance, does the RSV render the Greek monogenes
(which the AV translates "only begotten") as "only"? Does this reflect
a change in theology? What is the precise philological meaning of the
Greek word monogenes? Does it have some subtle theological
meaning - "only begotten"; or is the meaning in John 3: 16 the same as
in Luke 7: 12; 8:42; 9:38? What is the precise theological content of
"Son"? Does it indicate merely Cod's creativity (Luke 1:35; 3:38)? Does
it have only a religious content (Ex. 4:22; Hos. 11:1; Rom. 8:14)? Does
it designate Jesus as the Davidic Son of God, the messianic King (II
Sam. 7: 14; Psalms 2: 7; 89: 27, 29)? Historically considered, it is
quite uncritical to assume that everywhere "Son of God" appears in the
New Testament in reference to Jesus, it designates incarnate deity (see
chapter VII). We believe that the use of the title in both John and the
Synoptics does include more than the nativistic, religious, or
messianic meanings; but this conclusion can be established only by
meticulous critical study. Again, the critical student must ask about
the meaning and content of everlasting (eternal) life. Is it primarily
salvation in the Age to Come - the life of the resurrection, as in
Daniel 12:2, Matthew 19:16, 29; 25:46? Or it it somehow a present
experience, as in John 3:36? If so, how can eternal life be both
present and future?
The devotional use of the Bible and its power to bring men into a
saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ does not depend upon
an answer to these questions; but the critical scholar, i.e., the
careful, thorough student must raise such questions and many others:
for the Bible is indeed the words of men, written in different specific
historical situations and expressing the divinely given understanding
of the several authors of the meaning of God's redemptive action in
Israel and in Jesus of Nazareth.
This raises the question, In what sense is the Bible the Word of God?
How can it be both the words of men and the Word of God? If the
books of the Bible are given in historical situations through the words
of men to meet specific historical situations, must
not the Bible be studied simply as the history of human ideas about God
and God's redeeming work? Is not historical criticism at the same time
criticism of God's Word? To answer this
question, we must consider what the Bible is, and how God revealed
Himself to men.
The Bible is first of all a book of history. It records the history of
the Hebrews, the story of Jesus of Nazareth, and the rise of the
Christian church. The first twelve chapters of Genesis are a collection
of Hebrew traditions which describe what we must designate technically
as "pre-historical" times. This is not to suggest that the events in
Genesis 1.11 did not happen, but only that we have no extra canonical
historical evidences that they
happened. By "historical evidences" we mean records, documents,
archaeological evidence, and other sources of ancient information by
which the historian, as a historian, can establish objectively that
these events occurred. The record of Genesis 1-11 cannot take us back
much beyond five thousand years before Christ; yet Anthropology has proven
beyond serious question that man, as we know him, has lived on this
planet for scores of thousands of years. Anthropology has been
unable to establish that
all men have descended from a single pair - Adam and Eve. There are
indeed archaeological evidences for a great flood in the Near East in
pre-Abrahamic times, but the debate over whether this was a local
or universal flood has raged heatedly. The existence of the
main pre-Abrahamic characters, Adam, Eve, Enoch, Methusaleh, Noah, and
so on, cannot be established by extrabiblical sources.
For that matter, both Abraham himself and the patriarchs are known to
us in ancient sources only from the Genesis record. A generation ago
strict historians were inclined to discount the historicity of the
patriarchal narratives (Gen. 12-50) and to view the history of Israel
as beginning with the Exodus or later. However, modern archaeology has
shed an unexpected new light on the patriarchal period, for the
discoveries at Ugarit (1928) and Mari (1933) have now given us an
accurate understanding of the sociological and economic situation in
the patriarchal period which corresponds remarkably with the book of
Genesis. Therefore, while the historian cannot say that the existence
of Abraham and the patriarchs has been objectively established, he now
knows that the biblical record of the patriarchal period is in
agreement with what is historically known of the times.
The Bible goes on to record the birth of the nation Israel and its
history. Moses was an able leader who brought the Hebrew people out of
Egypt into Palestine where they settled, first as shepherd nomads, and
later as a monarchy under David, Solomon, and their successors. The
main outlines of Israel's interaction with the neighboring nations -
Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, and Persia have been established as historical
facts. Archaeology has established that there was constant tension
between the Israelitic worship of their God, Jahweh, and the worship of
the Canaanite deities, Baal and Ashtaroth. The division of the nation
into two parts - the northern (Israel) and southern (Judah) kingdoms -
the overthrow of Israel by Assyria, the conquest of Judah by Babylon,
and the restoration of a remnant of Judah in the times of Ezra and
Nehemiah are established history.
The Old Testament, then, is largely a book of the traditions and
history of Israel. Added to it is a collection of poetical books (Job,
Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon),and a collection of
prophetic writings identifIed with the names of prophets who preached
to both Israel and Judah the will of God from the pre-exilic times of
Amos (ca. 775 B.C.) to the post-exilic period o[ Haggai, Zechariah, and
Malachi.
If the Old Testament records Israel's traditions, history, poetry, and
prophecy, how is it also the Word of God? Are we perhaps to conclude
that the "Word of God is to be found only in the prophetic words, and
not in the historical record? What does history have to do with the
divine self-revelation? At this point we are confronted by the central
feature of the biblical truth of revelation and of the role of the
Bible in this divine self,revelation: God has revealed Himself to men
not only in words, but first of all in acts, in deeds, in historical
events. History is the vehicle of the divine self-revelation.
When God called Moses and commissioned him to lead Israel out of
Egypt into Palestine, the purpose was not only the deliverance of God's
people; it was also divine self-revelation. Israel would know that
Jahweh is God because of His mighty acts in delivering them from
bondage. "I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians,
and I will deliver you from their bondage, and I will redeem you with
an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgment. . . and you
shall know that I am the Lord your God, who has brought you out
from under the burdens of the Egyptians" (Ex. 6:6-7). Israel would come
to know God not because He had appeared to Moses, or spoken to Moses,
or given Moses a personal revelation which he in turn conveyed to the
people. Israel would know God because of what He had done — His mighty
acts — His saving deeds in history. The deliverance from Egypt was not
accomplished by some wise plan devised by the Israelites, nor by the
skillful leadership of Moses, nor by the decision of the Pharaoh; it
was an act of God, a divine salvation, through which God revealed
Himself to be God — the God who delivers and saves His people.
However, the revealing event was not a bare event. That is, God did not
accomplish the deliverance and leave Israel to assume that He was the
actor. God's works did not speak for themselves; along with the event,
He gave a divine word of interpretation. God acted, and God spoke; and
His word explained the event.
God told Moses what He would do; and Moses conveyed to Israel the "Word
of God, both before the event (Ex. 4:28,31), and after it. Moses did
not try to convince the people that they were powerful, that Pharaoh
was weak, or that he — Moses — had carefully worked out a plan which
would set them free. On the contrary, Moses was afraid that the people
would not be able to hear the Word of God in his own words (Ex. 4:1),
because of his lack of eloquence or fluency of speech (Ex. 1:10) . Thus
the "Word of God came through human words, but through a man inspired
to be a prophet, who received and spoke the Word of God.
Here is the biblical mode of revelation: the revealing acts of God in
history, accompanied by the interpreting prophetic word which explains
the divine source and characte of the divine acts. Deeds — words; God
acts — God speaks; and the words explain the deeds. The deeds could not
be understood unless accompanied by the divine word; and the word would
seem powerless unlesss accompanied by the mights works. Both the acts
and the words are divine events, coming from God. In fact, it would be
better to speak of the revealing deed-word event, for the two belong
together and form an inseparable unity. (This approach was expounded by
the present author in an essay, "The Saving Acts of God," Basic
Christian Doctrines, ed. C. F, H. Henry (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston. 1962).
This pattern of deed-word event is illustrated not only by the Exodus;
it provides the basic structure of the biblical reality of revelation.
A further illustration may suffice to reinforce this point. Both the
fall of Israel before Assyria and the captivity of Judah in Babylon
were historical events which the secular historian can chronicle; but
in biblical history, they are viewed as judicial acts of God in history
by which He revealed Himself as God, acting in righteousness and
justice. Amos announced the impending historical Destruction of the
northern kingdom (Amos 2:6 ff.) not as the result of irresistible
historical forces but as the acting of God. As God had called Israel
into being as a nation (3: 1-2), so God would bring down destruction
upon a sinful, disobedient people at the hands of Assyria (3:9ff.).
Behind the historical tragedy stands God. "Therefore thus I will do to
you, O Israel; because I will do this to you, prepare to meet your God,
O Israel!" (4:12). This "day of the Lord" (5: 18-20) means exile beyond
Damascus (5:27). This judgment will happen historically because God has
spoken (3:8). Even in judgment Israel is to realize through the
prophetic word that "the LORD, the God of hosts, is his name!" (4: 13).
In like manner Ezekiel, speaking the Word of God after the overthrow of
Judah at the hands of Babylon, laments that Judah's sins had profaned
the holy name of God. His righteousness and justice had of necessity
brought destruction and captivity upon His people for their evil ways
and apostasy. However, the overthrow of God's people had resulted in
the pagan nations' mocking of Judah and her God, for it seemed that the
triumph of Babylon had proved that pagan gods were mightier than the
God of Judah. Thus God's name was profaned (Ezek. 36:20-21). However,
it was neither Babylon nor her gods which had dispersed the people of
God, but God Himself (36: 19) .
If the prophets proclaimed to both Israel and Judah the redemptive and
judicial character of God's acts in history, the so-called historical
books are no less prophetic in character. They are not interested in
Israel's history as such, but only in Israel's history as the theatre
of God's activity. The books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles not only
record history; they also interpret history in terms of God's
redemptive and judicial activity. When Israel rejected God, God
rejected Israel and removed Israel from the land into Assyria so that
they no longer appeared before His sight (II Kings 17:19-23). The later
captivity of the southern kingdom was due to the fierceness of God's
wrath in reaction to the apostasy and rebellion of His people (II Kings
23:26).
If God revealed Himself in redemptive power through the deliverance of
Israel from Egypt and their establishment in Palestine, and in judicial
power through the overthrow and captivity of both Israel and Judah, the
prophets promise a further revelation of God in the future appearance
of a Deliverer and messianic King. God will one day raise up a child
who will be a mighty ruler, who will establish joy and peace in the
world, who will crush evil and purge the earth of wickedness, who will
rule with righteousness and justice (Isa. 9:2-7; 11:1-9). As a result
of the coming of this messianic Ruler, "the earth shall be full of the
knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea" (Isa. 11: 9). God's
Word promises the coming of a new shepherd for His people who will feed
them (Ezek. 34:23-24) and bring to them cleansing and conversion from
their evil apostate ways (Ezek. 36:25-26). God will one day reveal
Himself in a new dimension of salvation, not merely for the sake of His
people but to make Himself known in the world. "And I will vindicate
the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the
nations. . . and the nations will know that I am the LORD,
says the Lord GOD, when through you I vindicate my holiness before
their eyes" (Ezek. 36:23).
This is the repeated pattern of revelation: a prophetic word from God
telling what God will do and how He will reveal Himself in His saving
and judicial acts; the acts of God themselves in history; and a
prophetic word from God explaining the meaning of what God has done,
and bringing further promises of what He will do.
The prophetic Word of God was of course first of all a spoken word. The
prophets spoke to the people the contemporary word which they had
received from God, interpreting what God was about to do and what He
would finally do to judge and save His people. They also, however,
looked to the past, to recall how God had revealed Himself in earlier
times, particularly in the deliverance from Egypt and the subsequent
visitation at Mount Sinai. "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and
out of Egypt I called my son" (Hos. 11:1). "The LORD came from Sinai,
and dawned from Seir upon us; he shone forth from Mount Paran, he came
from the ten thousands of holy ones, with flaming fire at his right
hand. . . . Thus the LORD became king in Jeshurun" (Deut. 33:2, 5). The
past deliverances and judgments of God provided the revelation that He
is God and that He will continue to deal with His people (Amos 3: 1-2).
God's controversy with an apostate people is grounded in the fact that
they had forgotten this self-revelation in "the saving acts of the
LORD" (Mic. 6:5) — what God had done for them in Egypt, how He had
raised up the prophets, how He had led them through the years.
This provides us with the clue for understanding the Bible both as a
record of history and as the Word of God. The Bible is both the account
of God's redeeming acts, and the prophetic Word of God interpreting
these acts. Its record of history is not neutral, "objective" history
of the sort that a modern critical uncommitted historian would write. A
historian can deal only with observable human events; he cannot, as a
historian, talk about God. The biblical writers are concerned with
history, but even more with the God who acts in history. Therefore the
Bible is interpreted history — history understood as the vehicle of
God's self-revelation and saving acts.
The New Testament is bound together by this same prophetic motif: the
self-revelation of God in Jesus of Nazareth, and the divinely given
interpretation of the meaning of this great historical event. The New
Testament records first the ministry of Jesus, providing brief sketches
of His person, mission, message, and death. However, the Gospels were
not written by "neutral" or unbelieving observers, but by men who
understood that the Old Testament prophetic Word of God promising a
Deliverer and messianic Saviour had been fulfilled in Jesus.
Uncommitted people thought that Jesus' amazing conduct indicated that
He was abnormal and out of His mind (Mark 3:21) or in league with
demonic power (3:22). The Gospels are both reports of events in history
and also prophetic interpretations explaining who Jesus really was —
the messianic Redeemer, the incarnate Son of God. They record many
facts that history cannot understand or explain, for example, that
Jesus was born by God's creative act in the body of Mary, that the
crucified Jesus was raised from the dead.
The modern critical rnethod of studying history, outlined in the next
chapter, has assumed that all historical events must be explained by
natural historical causes. From this perspective such alleged facts as
the birth of a child from a virgin or a resurrection from death are
simply incredible and hence excluded ipso facto from serious
consideration. The historian tries only to explain historically, that
is, humanly, how such ideas arose; he docs not accept the reality and
objectivity of such "supra-historical" events. However, the authors of
the Gospels were convinced that the events really occurred in time and
space; for here in the person of Jesus of Nazareth not only was God
redemptively active among men, but God had Himself become incarnate in
the person of His Son to redeem men.
The Acts of the Apostles records some of the events in the history of
the men who responded to this divine revelation; the epistles, written
to various churches, explain further the meaning of the person and
redeeming mission of Christ, and draw implications for Christian
conduct. The last book of the New Testament stands in this same stream
of interpreted history and looks forward to the consummation of what
God had done in Jesus, promising the final destruction of evil and the
creation of a new heaven and a new earth when the entire history of
God's self-revelation will achieve its divinely intended goal of a
perfect human society dwelling in undisturbed fellowship with God.
The New Testament books are, like the Old Testament, both history and
revelation. They record the mission of Jesus Christ and what happened
as a result of His life, death, and resurrection. But they embody also
the divinely givenWord of God, interpreting His future coming to
establish the eternal Kingdom of God. Thus the entire Bible is both
history and interpretation, deed and word.
The evangelical accepts the Bible's view of revelation. He accepts the
Bible as a trustworthy record of redemptive history. He believes that
such wonderful events as the incarnation, virgin birth, and
resurrection of Jesus really happened in time and space. He recognizes
that a secular historiography cannot explain these events; and he can
understand how a rationalistic critical-historical method is offended
by them. But he believes that they stand at the heart of revelation. If
such events are without historical explanation or analogy, it is
because in this stream of redemptive history (the Germans call it Heilsgeschichte),
God has been pleased to be uniquely active in self-revelation.
Furthermore, the evangelical accepts the Bible's view of itself as the
inspired, normative, authoritative Word of God (I Tim. 3: 16; II Pet.
1:21). Revelation occurred in specific concrete events, particularly in
Jesus Christ; but essential to the event are the divinely inspired
words of the prophets — including the words of Jesus Himself — setting
forth to their contemporaries the revelatory meaning of these events.
Men were not left to guess, to speculate, to infer what the events
might mean: God spoke His Word.
These events are uow in the past, and the prophets are long since dead.
But God in His good providence has given to men both the record of
redeeming events and the corpus of the prophetic interpretation, which
together constitute the Word of God, whether spoken or written. God has
also given to the church the Holy Spirit, one of whose ministries is to
make the events of the past revelatory and redeeming history
contemporaneous with every age, to make the prophetic words written
long ago living words to the modern reader. Although revelation was
accomplished in past history and the prophetic word given long ago,
both the redemptive events and the Word of God may become contemporary
living words and events today. The death of Christ is not merely an
event of ancient history; it is the place of my redemption, and even
becomes my death to my old life (Rom. 6:3-4). His resurrection is not
only an event of the past which transcends the bounds of all secular
historical understanding; it becomes my resurrection into newness of
life (Eph. 2:6). The Bible is not only a historical record and the
report of the divinely given Word of God interpreting the meaning of
God's redemptive events to its ancient contemporaries; it becomes
contemporary with me as the Word of God, telling me who God is, how He
has revealed Himself, what He has done in Jesus Christ for my
salvation, and bringing me into fellowship with Him. The Bible both as
history and interpretation is God's Word relating how God revealed
Himself in history; and because it is God's inspired Word, it can
become a living, inspiring word to me, bringing me into a personal
experience of that to which it testifies.
Because it is history, the Bible must be studied critically and
historically; but because it is revelatory history, the
critical method must make room for this supra-historical dimension of
the divine activity in revelation and redemption. A methodology which
recognizes both the historical and the revelatory aspects of the Bible
is what we mean by an evangelical criticism, which we shall attempt to
illustrate in the chapters which follow.
* The New Testament and Criticism. by George
Eldon Ladd, William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967, Pages
19-33.
From: GospelPedlar, visit their website
for many good articles