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.
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.
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.
