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.
“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.
Christians look to the Bible as an inspired source and norm for their beliefs. It is no accident that Christians —along with Jews — were long ago designated as “people of the Book.” In a very special sense the Bible has a shaping influence on Christian beliefs, and moral ideals, and conduct. The United Methodist Church, for example, says: “…Scripture is the primary source and criterion for Christian doctrine.” The original Articles of Religion of the United Methodist Church — drawn from the Anglican Articles of Religion as edited by John Wesley — states:The Holy Scriptures containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (NIV 2011.)
We cannot allow the argument for the authority and inspiration of the Bible to rest on this one verse alone — of course — but since this verse seems so clear and explicit, it has been cited more than any other. This is certainly a helpful summary of the role the Bible plays in the life of the church — and of the individual Christian. But, how far can this passage be pressed? How much is really entailed by this language?
It is natural for emphasis to fall on the word θεόπνευστος: “inspired” (or as in the NIV) “God-breathed.” At first glance, the derivation of the word seems to give it a clear meaning. It is a compound word: “God” (θεός) + “breathed” (πνευστος). While this is commonly translated “inspired,” the NIV insists on the more literal translation. There is no doubt in my mind that this word is intended to denote the idea of something inspired by God in such a way that it conveys a message from God. In the Theological Lexicon of the New Testament Spicq says:
To express the sacred nature of the Scriptures, their divine origin, and their power to sanctify believers, perhaps St. Paul coined the verbal adjective theopneustos, ‘breathed, inspired by God.’
So, this is apparently not a word picked up from the surrounding culture. This is a term Christians used to describe their confidence in Scripture. It may even be a term coined by the apostle himself as a way of expressing what role Scripture is to play in the Christian community.
There is a parallel idea in 2 Peter 1:21 – “…ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου φερόμενοι ἐλάλησαν ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι” (“…carried along by the Holy Spirit, people spoke from God”).
So far, so good. It seems that very high claims are made here about the Bible and its role in the life of faith. True enough. But, what is it here that the apostle says is “inspired”? It is πᾶσα γραφὴ, all Scripture. What is this? This passage comes from a time when the New Testament as we know it had not yet been collected together. The early church depended upon the apostles’ teaching (see Acts 2:42). But, they also looked to the Scriptures — what Christians today would call the Old Testament. Just as in Judaism, the Old Testament scriptures were considered authoritative and inspired — they conveyed a message from God. So, we can be sure this passage refers to the Old Testament as γραφὴ, Scriptures.
Now, let’s consider, what form or edition of the Scriptures (γραφὴ) are they talking about? It seems clear that the Scriptures being discussed here are the Greek translations of the Old Testament — commonly known as the Septuagint (LXX). Why do I think this? Because very few Jews even knew Hebrew well enough to read the Hebrew Bible — the common language of the Jewish people in those times was Aramaic, not Hebrew. The Septuagint was originally written because Hebrew was already dying out long before the days of Jesus and the apostles. The Septuagint essentially replaced the Hebrew Bible in those times. When New Testament authors cite Old Testament passages they cite them from the Septuagint. The New Testament writings were written in Greek — obviously to Greek-speaking people. The form of the Scriptures that these people would have had available to them — and the one they could read and understand — was the Greek translation.
So, yes, high claims to inspiration are being made in 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 and in 2 Peter 1:21. But whatever γραφὴ may be discussed in 2 Timothy — okay, maybe some apostolic writings, maybe the Hebrew Bible — it certainly refers to the Greek translation of the Old Testament — the Bible of the early Church.
But, the Septuagint is often a rather free translation of the Hebrew Bible. The Septuagint contains books not in the Hebrew Bible (like Tobit, and The Wisdom of Solomon, etc.). Major additions are made to some Old Testament books in the Septuagint: Esther is longer, and Daniel is longer. (Conservative Protestants who want to make exalted claims for the inspiration of Scripture built on this passage and the meaning of θεόπνευστος, may be inadvertently constructing an argument for the inerrancy of the book of Tobit!)
Furthermore, how much weight should rest on the fact that the compound word θεόπνευστος means “God-breathed”? Many compound words like the English word “chairman” don’t have a meaning that can be determined solely from “chair” + “man”. So, how much of the nature of the Bible’s inspiration can be deduced from 2 Timothy 3:16, 17? Not much, I think.
We have a great affirmation here about the practical usefulness of Scripture: “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness“; but, not too much about the nature of its inspiration. The passage cannot be pressed too far. So, this doesn’t get us as far as some might suppose.
Is there another way of looking at the idea of Biblical inspiration? Is there another approach? What about looking through the Bible for those (rather few) passages where the Biblical authors themselves reflect on what they are doing? This might give us more of an inside story on the nature of Biblical inspiration. We might ask: what view of inspiration and authority of Scripture are implicit in various passages of the Bible itself. How did the earliest Church Fathers view the inspiration and authority of Scripture?
But, over-reliance on 1 Timothy 3:16, 17 is just not going to work.
John Wesley saw the Methodist movement as a return to the original life & faith & experience of Christianity. He wanted to return to the faith of the apostles and the early church — to find that same dynamic quality of faith and life that the early Christians had. So, Scripture had a place of central importance in Wesley’s teaching and preaching.
In Wesley’s view, devotion to the teachings of the Scripture is absolutely essential for the task of keeping and renewing the Christian faith.
So, in light of this, I’ve gathered together on this page everything substantive that John Wesley said about the Bible. I have not attempted to “tone down” or alter any of his opinions — though I have updated the language in the first quote. My goal here has been completeness.
Yes, there is some room for argument about what he may have meant by some of these remarks — of course. And, I certainly wouldn’t say the man was in any way infallible. A very valuable line of inquiry would be: how did this actually work out in practice, as he commented on Scripture in his Explanatory Notes.