| VERDICT | ||
| Essay 15 | The Christian Verdict | 1984 |
The Gospel
and the
Spirit of Biblicism
Part 1
The Word of God in the Old Testament
The Word of God in the New Testament
Our recent remarks on "A Freedom from Biblicism" must have struck a sensitive nerve.1 Such swift and fiery responses! But we are not repentant for saying that the Bible may either find people mad or make them mad. Like Jeremiah,we have decided to add more words.
The blame, however, for so much Christian stupidity, arrogance, persecution and bigotry does not rest on the Book. Yet it is generally exhibited in the name of allegiance to the Book -- just as Judaism opposed Jesus and Paul because of a certain commitment to the Law or Old Testament Scripture. The fundamental issue then and now is the true purpose and the proper use of Scripture. Whoever addresses this issue risks being labeled an enemy of Holy Scripture, especially by the pious. We have obviously decided to take that risk, and we confess that we have enjoyed this pursuit. We hope we can mediate something of this joy and liberty in the gospel to others.
As the formal principle of the Reformation, sola Scriptura became a great Protestant slogan. "The Bible and the Bible only," cried Chesterton, "is the religion of Protestants." What Protestant sect, no matter how divergent, has not proudly congratulated itself for being "the people of the Book"?
As this century has progressed, the sciences of biblical criticism 2 have released a flood of new information about biblical literature, and especially insight on how the text and canon of Holy Scripture came into existence. Fearing skepticism or any revision of its time-honored sola Scriptura stance, the evangelical wing of the Christian movement has recently responded with massive literature on the inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility and authority of Scripture. Its litany of praise for the Bible apparently knows no bounds.
We want to suggest, however, that even a slogan like sola Scriptura may be given such a slant as to embody a great heresy. It has often been said by wise observers of history that heresy is truth carried to an extreme. To illustrate what we mean we shall raise some questions which challenge the spirit of biblical absolutism.
1. Why is the Bible almost silent about the Bible? If we follow the written record, Jesus and the apostles apparently said embarrassingly little to extol the wonders and virtues of the Bible. In his last discourse, on the eve of his departure, why did not Jesus comfort his disciples by telling them that the written text of Holy Scripture would take his place and reveal to them everything they needed to know?
2. Why did Jesus write nothing (except on sand) and not even instruct his eyewitnesses to record their witness in writing? Few biblical scholars today really believe that the beloved disciple actually wrote the Gospel of John. A careful reading of the book makes no such claim but instead suggests that the authors (i.e., "we") were the community who accepted the testimony of the beloved disciple (e.g., "he who saw it," "his testimony," etc.) (John 19:35; 21:24). The New Testament apparently gives us no written testimony by first-hand witnesses.
3. If the possession of information, including mundane details, was so crucial, why do we have four Gospels rather than one? For nearly two thousand years the church has tried to harmonize the four accounts but has been forced to acknowledge the task as impossible. Of course there are insurmountable discrepancies in the four Gospels! Anyone who says they do not exist might as well join the Flat Earth Society.
4. If God in his wisdom saw that we needed an inerrant Bible, why did he not provide us with an inerrant method for interpreting it?
5. If the all-sufficiency of Scripture means that nothing else is needed to bring a person to the truth, why is it the norm for people to become Christians by hearing a living witness? After all, the New Testament record is clear that the spoken Word is the vehicle and the ear is the receptacle for the Spirit (Acts 10:44; Rom. 10:5-17; Gal. 3:1-5). Scripture alone did not enlighten the Ethiopian with the gospel, nor is Scripture alone sufficient to make a person a particular sectarian. People do not become dispensationalists, Adventists, Calvinists or Lutherans just by reading the Bible. Usually they do not even become Christians just by reading the Bible.
6. The Christian church came into existence and communities of Christians flourished throughout the Roman Empire before there was a Christian Scripture and certainly for generations before there was a New Testament canon. The Christian Scripture therefore did not give birth to the church, but rather the church gave birth to Christian Scripture.
7. The faith of the great heroes of the Bible was not biblical faith. Abraham's faith preceded the formation of Old Testament Scripture. The faith of the primitive Christians, which mightily spread through-out the world, was not faith in Christian Scripture either.
8. Belief in the all-sufficiency of the Bible has often supported the notion that the Bible is a complete blueprint for everything a person needs to believe and do. Not only is the Bible supposed to answer every kind of theological question, but it is supposed to be a "how to" book on all aspects of human behavior --how to organize a church, how to run an evangelistic mission, how to manage rebellious teenagers, how to turn defeat into success, or how to secure guidance in business and pleasure. The teacher or leader who can answer almost every conceivable theological and moral question from the Bible is greatly admired. The fact that we Christians have often been mistaken on many important scientific, social and moral issues does not deter us from behaving as though we had God's inside information on every difficult issue. But the Bible frequently has no clear word from the Lord on many difficult social and moral questions. The silences of the Bible and the silences of Jesus on many theological questions should suggest that we ought to be dogmatic on very few things. It would do most of us good to say "We don't know" and "We were ,wrong" much more frequently. There is no virtue in being like the old Scottish divine who prayed as he studied the Bible, "Lord, please don't let me come to wrong conclusions, for you know I never change my mind."
9. In view of the fact that devotion to sola Scriptura led Pharisaic Judaism to oppose Jesus and the gospel, how can such devotion be the hallmark of faithfulness to the gospel today?
Is sola Scriptura a heresy then? Not necessarily, but quite possibly!
The Word of God in the Old Testament
Throughout the Old Testament "the Word" or "the Word of God" primarily pertains to what is spoken and heard. It seldom refers to what is written and read. As a general rule in the Old Testament, while the Law may be read, the Word is heard.
God is the living, personal One who loves his people. Because he loves them, he wills to commune and fellowship with them. His Word, "the Word of God," is God's mode of communication. It is always personal address.
We need to guard against the idea that God's Word contains mere information, ideas or propositions. God's very heart and Spirit are in his Word, and when he speaks to Israel, he always gives himself. This is why his Word demands far more than mere assent to divinely revealed information. The Word demands from Israel the personal response of trust and loyalty.
Because the Word of God is living, personal address, it was communicated to Israel through the mouth of a living person -- the prophet ("God spoke.., to our fathers by the prophets" - Heb. 1:1). When the prophet was endued with God's Spirit, he spoke. Just as words are formed by breath, so the prophet's words were formed by God's breath (Spirit). ("Men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" --2 Pet. 1:21.) God's Word conveyed presence, Spirit, life, power. The prophets were not philosophers uttering timeless theological or ethical insights divorced from concrete historical situations. But in the midst of real events in history, the prophets were vehicles of God's personal address.
Thus, the Word was living and full of breath. It was spoken and heard. For this reason it has been said that the religion of Israel was a religion of the ear, not of the eye, of sound rather than sight. This tended to remove Israel's temptation to make visible icons.
From the beginning of its history Israel made written records of the living Word that was spoken to them. That which Moses wrote, or what the members of the community wrote down on his behalf, came to be called the Torah (Law). But Torah was broader than Moses. It included what the later prophets said (Isa. 1:10; 8:16,20; 30:9, 51:4,7; Jer. 6:19; 26:4ff). Torah could mean the entire Old Testament Scripture (see John 10:34). For this reason the terms Torah and Scripture could be used interchangeably.
It used to be generally thought that the entire Mosaic Torah dropped directly from heaven. Today, through the science of biblical criticism, we know better -- at least we ought to know better. (We need not fear the new information so widely available. It can only urge us toward a better appreciation of the nature of the Word.)
Today no responsible scholar would disagree with Albright, who recognized that the Torah had its basis and beginning in Moses. Yet it is just as clear that Moses did not write the so-called books of Moses in their present form. Much of the material was gathered, edited or reedited long after the time of Moses. In his book, Jesus and the Law in Synoptic Tradition,3 Robert Banks shows that in the history of Israel preceding Ezra, the Torah was not the static, inflexible, timeless document that it later came to be. Rather, it was growing, expanding and flexible. The covenantal community often revised, reinterpreted and even altered specific statutes in the light of new and changing situations in which God repeatedly spoke through the prophets. The process of continually reinterpreting and revising the Torah reflected an ever-growing awareness of God's will. As Banks says:
With the passing of time, this historical revelation [to Moses] was interpreted afresh in the light of new circumstances, added to in the light of new situations, and summarised in a more comprehensive norm of behavior.......
[Sometimes] older traditions were handled with quite extensive freedom.4
There are also clear examples of new instructions being added which have no discernible basis in any previous legal statutes [e.g., cf. Exod. 20:24; Deut. 12:1]. 5
Every generation was summoned anew to listen to them [Yahweh's demands] and to interpret and apply them for itself. [Torah] .... then, is flexible in application.6
[There was] freedom to re-interpret and alter the Law as new situations arose.7
At the risk of the distortion which attends reductionism, let us attempt to summarize how the Torah was revised, reinterpreted, expanded and adapted to new situations. This development grew out of the intriguing tension between priest and prophet.
The priest was the custodian of the written Torah. He was dedicated to preserve the sacred tradition and to insure that the rituals and stipulations of the Torah were faithfully fulfilled.
As new situations arose, God would again speak through the prophet (living Torah). But to the priest it generally seemed that what the prophet said conflicted with the written Torah. In his allegiance to the Torah the priest would make war on the prophet and would generally arouse both king and community to resist this enemy of the religious status quo. The prophet was resented as a disturbing influence, for he would declare that Israel was not really obeying God's Torah at all. Often Israel did not realize that the prophet bore the Word of God until after he had been removed as an enemy of the Torah. When they realized that what he said in the new situation was the Word of God, the community through its priestly editors would revise and expand the written tradition.
Thus, Old Testament history shows that the written Torah or Old Testament Scripture may be called the Word of God only in a secondary, relational or derivative sense. This helps us appreciate why the Old Testament rarely calls the written tradition the Word of God. Strictly speaking, the Word of God is alive and full of Spirit. It is spoken and heard. What was written was a record of how the Word was spoken and heard in Israel. It is therefore a witness to the living Word, but the living Word itself could never be reduced to mere finite textuality.
We may use the following illustration to make the vital distinction between living Word and written witness: Suppose we saw a living lion in its awesome setting in Africa. We might take a picture of the beast.
We might even shoot it and have a taxidermist mount it in our home. But neither the photograph nor the mounted carcass would be the real lion. If there were no breath in it, it would not be a lion but only a representation, witness or image of the reality.
The prophet Amos clearly shows that there is a difference between Word of God and written Scripture.
"Behold, the days are coming," says the Lord God, "when I will send a famine on the [and; not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord.
They shall wander from sea to sea, and from north to east; they shah run to and fro, to seek the word of the Lord, but they shah not find it." --Amos 8:11,12.
This prophecy does not mean that Israel would lose all their copies of Holy Scripture. Amos is referring to the living Word -- i.e., "hearing the words of the Lord." Amos is predicting the silencing of the Word of God through the voice of the living prophet.
The process of recording the Torah, of expanding, reinterpreting and editing it, ended with the work of Ezra. With Ezra the flexible and expanding written tradition gave way to the rigid and static written tradition. One of the great Old Testament scholars of our time describes this transition:
During the exile, though we cannot say precisely how or where, the records and traditions of the past were jealously preserved. In these, which both awakened recollection of Yahweh's past deeds toward his people and held an earnest of hope for the future, the community lived. The Deuteronomic historical corpus (Joshua to II Kings), probably composed shortly before the fall of the state, was reedited, added to (cf. II Kings 25:27-30), and adapted to the situation of the exiles. The sayings of the prophets, now vindicated by events, were likewise preserved, orally and in writing, and in many cases, "footnoted" down to date, as it were, by additions and expansions. Though the details are quite unknown, the process of collection which ultimately produced the prophetic books as we know them was carried forward. The cultic laws which comprise the bulk of the so-called Priestly Code, and which reflect the practice of the Jerusalem Temple, were likewise collected and codified in definitive form at about this time a necessary step now that the cult, its practice controlled by custom and precedent, had left off. The Priestly narrative of the Pentateuch (P) was also composed, probably during the sixth century, and probably in the exile. Here we have a theological history of the world, beginning at Creation and culminating in the ordinances given at Sinai, which are presented as an eternally valid model not only for the past but for all time to come. As the community thus clung to its past it prepared itself for the future. 8
If Moses was Israel's founder, it was Ezra who reconstituted Israel and gave her faith a form in which it could survive through the centuries. 9
The distinguishing mark of a Jew would not be political nationality, nor primarily ethnic background, nor even regular participation in the Temple cult (impossible for Jews of the Diaspora), but adherence to the law of Moses. The great watershed of Israel's history had been crossed, and her future secured for all time to come.10
The new Israel wanted desperately something to draw it together and give it distinctive identity; and this was supplied by Ezra through the law book that he brought from Babylon and, with authority from the Persian court, imposed on the community in solemn covenant. That marked a great turning point. A new and well-defined community took shape composed of those committed to the law as promulgated by Ezra. This meant, in turn, a fundamental redefinition of the term "Israel." Israel would no longer be a national entity, nor one coterminous with the descendants of the Israelite tribes or the inhabitants of the old national territory, nor even a community of those who in some way acknowledged Yahweh as God and offered him worship. From now on, Israel would be viewed (as in the theology of the Chronicler) as that remnant of Judah which had rallied around the law. He would be a member of Israel (i.e., a Jew) who assumed the burden of that law.
But this redefinition of Israel meant inevitably the emergence of a religion in which law was central. This betokened, let it be repeated, no break with Israel's ancient faith, all the major features of which continued in force, but a radical regrouping of that faith about the law. The law no longer merely regulated the affairs of an already constituted community; it had created the community! As the community's organizing principle and line of demarcation, law assumed ever greater importance. Originally the definition of action on the basis of covenant, it became itself the basis of action, virtually a synonym for covenant and the sum and substance of religion. The cult was regulated and supported by the law; to be moral and pious was to keep the law, the grounds of future hope lay in obedience to the law. It was this consistent stress on the law which imparted to Judaism its distinctive character.11
Of the greatest importance is the fact that the Jewish community was constituted on the basis of a written law. 12
The canonizing of the law gave to Judaism a norm far more absolute and tangible than anything old Israel had known. Since God's commandments were stated in the law once and for all, with eternal validity, his will for every situation was to be determined from it; other means to that end were overlaid or suppressed. This doubtless explains why prophecy gradually ceased, for the law had, in fact, usurped its function and rendered it superfluous. Though prophets of old were revered, and their words accorded authority, the law actually left no place for a free, prophetic statement of the divine will. 13
The law did not, as once was the case, describe existing practice; it prescribed practice. 14
In the apostolic writings which preceded the New Testament era, the written Law (which in the broad sense embraced the Old Testament) was elevated to a higher and higher status. In the Book of Jubilees, for example, the written Torah appears as eternal, absolute in authority and written on heavenly tablets even before Creation. The voice of the living Word through living prophets had long ceased, but the further they were removed from that era, the more Judaism extolled the virtue of the written Torah. In the sayings of the rabbis the Torah was the Word, wisdom, light, life, bread, unchanging, the way, the truth, the life -- indeed all those titles of honor which the Gospel of John deliberately takes from the Torah and ascribes to Jesus Christ.
Judaism was the classical example of a religion based on a book. The world has never seen greater exponents of sola Scriptura. Judaism claimed that the written text contained all that could be known of the will of God. They thought that their entire responsibility was to exegete and implement the text. God's Word was dehistoricized and depersonalized.
The stage was set for the final confrontation between this religion of the book and the Word incarnate in Jesus Christ. Just as Israel repeatedly made war on the prophets, so they made war on the Living Word -- and in principle for the same reason. In the name of written Scripture and from a sense of zealous allegiance to it, they arrayed themselves against the Word made flesh. They barricaded themselves behind the letter of Holy Scripture and closed their ears against the living, eternal Word of God.
We need to exercise more sympathy for the dilemma of the Pharisees. On a great number of points the letter of Scripture seemed to demand that the Nazarene teacher should be destroyed. Humanly speaking, it is not a question of asking, "How could the Pharisees be so blind?" but, "How could we have failed to join them if we also stood on sola Scriptura?"
The tragedy was that Pharisaic Judaism, in its exalted view of the written Torah, was partly right. Even the Psalms seem to extol the Torah or Law as the Word, light, life, light, wisdom and truth (Ps. 119). But the written Torah or Scripture was only those things in a secondary, derivative or relational sense. As John declares in his Gospel, Jesus Christ rather than the written Law and Scripture is all these things. That which was written is only a witness to the Living Word and may be called the Word only in that relational sense. In its own right (or in the absolute sense) it never was and never will be the Word of God.
Pharisaism's mistake was to take the Word of God in a relative sense and make it the word of God in the absolute sense. For example, the living Word is eternal and inerrant, but Pharisaism claimed that their written Torah was eternal and inerrant. No wonder they thought Jesus blasphemous when he exalted his authority above Moses, the Sabbath and whatever else was in the Law! Even many Jewish Christians could not abandon this Judaistic notion that the written Law was eternal and inerrant. They therefore bitterly opposed Paul's gospel, which announced the end of the Law's binding claims.
Granting absolute status to the written witness was then and now a system of religious absolutism or religious fascism. It was then and now idolatry in its most insidious form because it makes a visible icon out of the witness to the Word of God. Taking that which belongs to the living Word (the eternal and inerrant attributes of God) and bestowing it on written Scripture compromises the uniqueness of the incarnation. As there is only one incarnation, so there is only one union of perfect divinity and perfect humanity. The one ideal, sinless humanity is the Word made flesh in Jesus' humanity.
TheWord of God
in the New TestamentThe living Word spoken by Old Testament prophets was finally disclosed in the person of Jesus. He was the living, eternal, inerrant Word, and the words which he spoke were Spirit and life (John 6:63). In him and him alone the eternal, inerrant Word took human form and was given human expression. To suggest that there could be any other perfect human expression of God is to deny the absolute uniqueness of the incarnation.
It is significant that Jesus made no attempt to convey his message in writing. The only written record he left was what he wrote in sand -- and that was soon swept away. If we think that the Word of God is essentially information, propositions or ideas, then we will also think that it can be adequately expressed in writing. But once we begin to see that God's Word is the presence of infinite life and Spirit, we begin to appreciate why none of Christ's eyewitnesses thought they could contain the Word in writing. The community of the beloved disciple passed on his testimony that "the world itself could not contain the books that would be written" if the living Word had to be reduced to writing (John 21:25).
The priestly guardians of the written word tried to silence the living Word. But the death of Jesus did not silence the living Word. Like the alabaster box which, when broken, filled the house with perfume, Christ's broken body resulted in the Spirit of Christ flowing out over all the world. The resurrection means that the living Word has not left; he has merely changed the mode of his being present. He is no longer present clothed in the flesh of Jesus of Nazareth; but his Spirit is alive in those who believe in him, and his personal presence makes the proclamation of his gospel the Word of God.
Throughout the New Testament "the Word" or "the Word of God" refers to the orally transmitted gospel (e.g., Acts 4:29; 6:4; 10:44; 13:5, 44, 48; 18:11; Rom. 10:5-17; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:1; 1 Pet. 1:23). Especially in Paul the orally proclaimed gospel is a synonym for the Word or Word of God. Werner H. Kelber summarizes the New Testament data as follows:
The master metaphor of the apostle's entire program is gospel. He employs the term approximately fifty times, more than any other author in the New Testament, and places it into predominantly auditory contexts. The gospel is commonly linked with verbs or nouns denoting the act of speaking. It is preached, spoken, announced, proclaimed (euaggelizesthai, lalein, kataggelein, keryssein), and a matter of confirmation, confession, defense, and participation (bebaiosis, homologia, apologia, koinonia). In Paul's view, the gospel was promised in advance by the prophets in Scripture (Rom. 1:1-2) but was not in itself a scriptural authority. It is constitutionally and operationally defined in oral terms, not by association with writing and reading. Although Paul does, of course, commit the gospel, or reflections upon it, to letters, his written exposition leaves no doubt that the gospel, when it came alive, was spoken aloud and, if it is to bring life again, must be sounded afresh. Clearly, the writing of a gospel after the manner of Mark is foreign to Paul. The gospel he writes about bears the indelible imprint, or more accurately, echoes the voiceprints of an oral authority.
The oral quality of gospel is corroborated by the fact that logos or logos tou theou can serve as synonyms for gospel in Pauline language. The Thessalonians have received "the Word" (1 Thess. 1:6), the Corinthians heard the unadulterated "Word of God" (2 Cor. 2:17; 4:2; 1 Cor. 14:36), the Galatians were taught "the Word" (Gal. 6:6), and the Philippians spoke "the Word of God" (Phil. 1:14). Gerhard Kittel has stressed the activist character of Iogos with a seriousness rarely encountered in Pauline scholarship: "In all this the logos is always genuine legein, or spoken word in all concreteness. One of the most serious errors of which one could be guilty would be to make this logos tou theou a concept or abstraction." As a rule, the Pauline reference to logos or logos toe theou is to the living, preached word of the gospel. 15
Just as the Word of God was once spoken by prophets upon whom the Spirit of God rested, so now it is spoken by Christian "prophets" who have the "gift of prophecy" (1 Cor. 14:1; cf. esp. I Cor. 14:24, 25 with Heb. 4:12, 13).
The bearers of Christ's gospel are not just bearers of mere information and theological ideas. They are bearers of the Spirit -- the life, power and presence of Jesus, the living Word. The gospel in the mouth of the living Christian "prophet" is the vehicle to convey the Spirit -- the life, power and presence of Jesus -- to those who hear (Acts 10:44; Rom. 10:17; 1 Cor. 2:4; Gal. 3:2; 1 Pet. 1:12).
Those who receive this living Word receive not just information but the living Christ, "who is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:18). They believe in their hearts that Christ is raised from the dead (Rom. 10:9). Their deep conviction and firm assurance (1 Thess. 1:5) of the resurrection does not rest on the apostolic testimony alone. No amount of historical evidences of the resurrection can place the issue beyond all doubt. But in the gospel the resurrected One is present to manifest himself in a way which confirms the apostolic testimony (John 14:18, 21; 16:16; Rom. 8:16). The hearer of the gospel is like the men of Samaria who said to the woman at the well, "It is no longer because of your words that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world" (John 4:42).
As time passed, it was inevitable and necessary that the Christian community make some written record of how the Word (Christ) appeared and how the Word (gospel) was proclaimed. Although inevitable and necessary, this exposed the community to the same dangers which attended the giving of the written Torah in the time of Ezra.
It is clear that the New Testament authors did not customarily refer to their written record as the Word of God. That subsequent Christian tradition tends to do this while the writers themselves hesitate to do it should tell us something. Evidently they distinguished the difference between the living, infinite Word and the written record more clearly than we do. If the written record is ever called the Word, it is the Word only in a secondary, derivative or relational sense. It is not the Word in the absolute sense. Strictly speaking, the Scripture is the witness to the Word of God, and like a good witness, it does not speak of itself but points away from itself (cf. John 5:39).
Church history has amply demonstrated that we have not generally made the same distinction. The written record became absolutized. The prophetic spirit was quenched. The Christian Scripture became a rigid Christian Torah, a rule book for everything Christians must believe and teach. The gospel became a new law. Faith was confounded with orthodoxy, which was really theological legalism. The church ceased to be a charismatic community and became an institution. Instead of the Spirit there were rules. Instead of the priesthood of all believers there was wretched clericalism. Instead of the Spirit and presence of the living Christ there was religious canned goods. Instead of the living gospel there was dead ideology. Instead of freedom there was bondage. Yet, like the Pharisees, we have desperately tried to substitute an incredible devotion to the letter of Holy Scripture for the prophetic spirit. Instead of having the certainty which the Spirit inspires, we have looked for certainty in endless apologetics and theories of textual inerrancy.
Unless otherwise indicated, scriptural quotations are from the Revised Standard Version.
1. See"A Freedom From Biblicism", The Christian Verdict Essay 14 (1984): 9-14.
8. John Bright, A History of Israel 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), p 350.