I often speak or write — or think — about the mission of the Church. It is natural for religious professionals (or even former ones like me) to get in the habit of thinking that the mission of Christ is the mission of the Church. We start to think of the Church as the necessary mediator of the grace of God — as not just the ordinances of the Church but also its very activities as saving. I think it’s a false teaching, myself — but one easily fallen into — to restrict the activity of God to the activity of the Church — and to (unconsciously) fall into the falsehood of thinking the Church is the necessary mediator of grace.
There is, in fact, a mission of God larger than the Church — out of which the Church was born as a response. The Church did not create this mission and the Church does not own it. It belongs to God. Jesus came into the world as the living expression of the mission of God in the world. The Spirit of God was given to empower the Church in its witness to Christ.
This is a follow-up to my recent post about taking the Bible literally — whatever that means!
I’m not the only one who wonders about the use of the word “literal” in relation to the Bible. Here is N. T. Wright discussing the use of this word in relation to our reading and interpretation of the Scripture.
I keep hoping people will stop using the word “literal” to describe the Bible — as in: “take the Bible literally” “literal interpretation of the Bible” and so forth. It’s never going to happen, but I keep hoping.
The reason I keep hoping for this is the fact that the term is over-used, wrongly used, and abused. What does it mean to take the Bible “literally“? What does the word “literal” mean in this context? It seems to be used rather loosely. I understand it to be the opposite of words like “symbolic” “figurative,” or “allegorical.” To take a thing literally is to take it at face value. It’s not that difficult a concept. Yet, the way the word is used would make you think otherwise.
Luke is the New Testament writer whose narratives emphasize the activity of the Holy Spirit. Thus, Luke’s account of the life of Jesus, and the mission of the early Church are linked to the Old Testament witness of the creative and inspirational Spirit of God: The Spirit of God that swept over the waters in creation (Genesis 1:1-2), the Spirit who inspired the craftsmen who made the sacred objects for the tabernacle (see, for example, Exodus 31:1-6), who inspired the prophets. Luke is making the implicit claim that this same creative, energizing Spirit of God is at work again in the life and ministry of Jesus. Luke will also make this same claim about the expanding mission of the early Church — in his record in the book of Acts.
In the summer of 2014 (as I recall) I preached for the evening services at the Family Bible Camp at the Albright Park Camp & Retreat Center in Reed City, Michigan. It was a very natural place for me to be, and I was glad to preach there. I have a fondness for the tradition of the holiness camp meeting (as you may have noticed), and it felt right to be there preaching in that old tabernacle.
It occurred to me: why not preach on the Sermon on the Mount from Matthew? I remembered the importance of the Sermon on the Mount in the preaching of John Wesley, and I wondered if a series of messages suitable to a camp meeting could be delivered based on it. I think it went very well.
“and how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I wrote above in a few words, a reading of which will enable you to perceive my understanding of the mystery of Christ.” — Ephesians 3:3, 4 NRSV.
The reference to the “mystery” (μυστήριον) of Christ refers us back to Ephesian 1:9ff: “…he has made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure that he set forth in Christ, as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.” (NRSV.) I’ve always thought μυστήριον would be better translated “secret” here rather than “mystery.” It signifies something previously unknown which has now been revealed. Translating it as “mystery” suggests it is obscure or hidden, but Ephesians proclaims the μυστήριον has now been revealed. God’s intentions in Christ were unknown before, but now revealed.
Since this is actually another blog re-boot, I thought it would be good to re-iterate my intentions for this web site and this blog — and for my various Internet projects.
It is generally agreed among the scholars that Psalm 1 is an introduction to the whole book of Psalms. Some think it was never itself sung. So, reading it is a way of orienting ourselves to the whole book that follows. It shows us how the first compilers of this book understood it.
Prayer calls us away. It calls us to focus on the ultimate rather than the immediate. It calls us to attentiveness to God. In a sense, we become more aware of our surroundings, not less aware.
In my last post in this series, I pointed out that 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 may not be as helpful in understanding the idea of the divine inspiration of the Bible as it might seem at first glance.To restate: Because this passage uses the word θεόπνευστος (literally: “God-breathed”) and because 2 Peter 1:21 speaks of prophets who were “borne along by the Holy Spirit,” and “spoke from God” — this would seem to suggest that the inspiration of the Scriptures was some sort of divine dictation, similar to (what people suppose was true of) prophetic inspiration. But, since the writings these authors are speaking of surely is the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) — interpreters (especially Protestant ones!) have good reason not to draw that conclusion. The Septuagint differs somewhat from the Hebrew Bible, and contains additional books. Anyway, 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 is more focused on the usefulness of Scripture than on any theory of its inspiration and authority.
Most interpreters want to avoid the idea of inspiration as a sort of direct dictation from God — even though this idea has some popularity among the Christian public. Thus, for example, Louw & Nida say:
“In a number of languages it is difficult to find an appropriate term to render ‘inspired.’ In some instances ‘Scripture inspired by God’ is rendered as ‘Scripture, the writer of which was influenced by God’ or ‘… guided by God.’ It is important, however, to avoid an expression which will mean only ‘dictated by God.’” (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains 1989).
Interpreters want to avoid the notion of divine dictation because it does not seem to accord with what we otherwise know to be the process by which the Scriptures were written. And, it is to this I want to turn now.
Let’s take a look at those few passages where the Biblical authors talk to us about the process of writing and their intentions in writing.
“Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.”
Luke does not speak of the writing of his Gospel as being a divine dictation — or anything like it.
He tells us that he set out to write not just an “account” (διήγησιν, as in verse 1), but “an orderly account” (καθεξῆς). Louw & Nida say that the word καθεξῆς means “a sequence of one after another in time, space, or logic” (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains 1989). Time, thought, and organization went into the writing. Not only that, but investigation and research preceded the writing itself: “after investigating everything carefully from the very first….” It is said here that Luke’s account of the life of Jesus from the testimony of those who were “eyewitnesses and servants of the word….”
So, this is not at all the same as the delivery of an oracle. It was often claimed that the Oracle at Delphi fell into a trance and delivered messages in that state. But, Luke tells us that his writing proceeded from research, thought, and organization.
The ecstatic structure of human spirituality would also suggest a trance-like type of inspiration. But, in Christianity mind and spirit generally work together. The Holy Spirit imparts wisdom and rationality. While ecstatic in a very basic way, it awakens the mind rather than suppressing it.
This is a wisdom which was often well-expressed within the 19th Century Holiness movement — but seems to have been forgotten since. Here are the views of Thomas C. Upham (1799–1872):
The person, who is guided by the Holy Spirit, will be eminently perceptive and rational. The operations of the Holy Spirit, in the agency which he exerts for the purpose of enlightening and guiding men, will not be found to be accidental, or arbitrary, or in any sense irrational operations. …
We repeat, therefore, that one evidence, of being guided by the Holy Spirit, is, that such guidance contributes to the highest rationality. In other words, the person, who is guided by the Holy Spirit, other things being equal, will be the most keenly perceptive, judicious, and rational. Not flighty and precipitate; not prejudiced, one-sided, and dogmatical, but like his great inward teacher, calmly and divinely cognitive. The experience of holy men, particularly of those who have made it a practice to ask the guidance of the Holy Spirit on their studies, agrees with this statement.
So, however we are to understand the nature of Biblical inspiration, it is not as a trance-like inspiration that overrides human rationality. It is not divine dictation — and this fact is attested by Luke, one of the most prominent of the New Testament authors. It is the community of faith that recognizes these writings as “inspired” “God-breathed” and its authors as “cared along by the Spirit” — even though it was a rational process to the writers themselves.
Furthermore, Luke wants us to know that his book rests on the testimony of “eyewitnesses.” It is about events that actually happened. So, again, this is not a collections of oracles given by immediate inspiration — Luke wants to make a credible claim that it is the account of events that happened.
This insight, in turn points us toward the kind of revelation that the Bible imparts to us. It is not so much a direct vision of God as it is a record of events that reveal the nature, will, and purpose of God. It is historical revelation. The inspired words of Scripture witness to revelatory events.
Again, taking 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 and 2 Peter 1:21 by themselves would seem to suggest something different. But, in fact, this is an evaluative statement being made about the writings of rational minds illuminated by God’s Spirit.
But, we can’t let these observations rest on Luke alone. So, next I want to turn to some other passages that tell us about the process by which the Bible was written.
A story can be told in more than one way. Two witnesses may see events in a significantly different way. I think sometimes preachers, commentators, and theologians give in too easily to the temptation to get behind the story of Jesus rather than reading it for what it is . The way the story is told cues us to the meaning the gospel writers saw in the story. It is story-telling that we encounter in the Gospels, not some kind of scientific history writing. The story has a point. That’s why the gospel writers tell it. In addition, people often too quickly attempt to harmonize and explain. And, I think the temptation is strong in this passage.
