Scripture Speaks for Itself
John M. Frame
This article was originally
published in John W. Montgomery, ed., God’s
Inerrant Word (Minneapolis, Bethany Fellowship, 1974). Used by permission
of Bethany House, a division of Baker Publishing Group, copyright 2005. All
rights to this material are reserved. Materials are not to be distributed to
other web locations for retrieval, published in other media, or mirrored at
other sites without written permission from Baker Publishing Group. http://bakerbooks.com, http://www.BakerPublishingGroup.com.
What does Scripture say
about itself'? The question is both momentous and commonplace.
It is momentous: the
self-witness of Scripture has been for centuries the cornerstone of the
orthodox Christian argument for biblical authority. For one thing, there would never be any such
argument unless there were reason to believe that Scripture claimed
authority. If Scripture renounced all
claim to authority, or even remained neutral on the subject, there would not be
much reason for Christians today to claim authority for Scripture. But if Scripture does claim authority over
us, then we are faced with a momentous challenge indeed! Acceptance or rejection of that claim will
influence every aspect of Christian doctrine and life.
Furthermore, the authority
of Scripture is a doctrine of the Christian faith – a doctrine like other
doctrines – like the deity of Christ, justification by faith, sacrificial
atonement. To prove such doctrines,
Christians go to Scripture. Where else
can we find information on God's redemptive purposes? But what of the doctrine of the authority of
Scripture? Must we not, to be
consistent, also prove that doctrine by Scripture? If so, then the self-witness of Scripture
must not only be the first
consideration in the argument; it must be the final and decisive consideration
also.
Now of course someone may
object that that claim is not competent to establish itself. If the Bible claims to be God's word, that does not prove that it is God's
word. That is true in a sense. Many documents claim to be the word of some
god or other. The Koran, the Book of
Mormon and countless other books have made such claims. In no case does the claim in itself establish
the authority of the book. The claim
must be compared with the evidence. But
the evidence through the presuppositions furnished by, among other things, our
religious convictions. A Christian must
look at the evidence with Christian assumptions; a rationalist must look at the
evidence with rationalistic assumptions.
And the Christian finds his most basic assumptions in the Bible!
As I have argued elsewhere,[1] it is
impossible to avoid circularity of a sort when one is arguing on behalf of an ultimate criterion. One may not argue for one ultimate
criterion by appealing to another. And
the argument over Scriptural authority is precisely an argument over ultimate
criterion!
We must not, of course, simply urge non-Christians to
accept the Bible because the Bible says so.
Although there is much truth in that simplicity, it can be misleading if
stated in that form without further explanation. A non-Christian must start where he is. Perhaps he believes that Scripture is a
fairly reliable source, though not infallible.
He should then be urged to study Scripture as a historical source for
Christian doctrine, as the original “source.” He will be confronted with the
claims of Scripture – about God, about Christ, about man, about itself. He will compare the biblical way of looking
at things with his own way. And if God
wills, he will see the wisdom in looking at things Scripture's way. But we must not mislead him about the demand
of Scripture. He must not be allowed to
think that he can become a Christian and go on thinking the same old way. He must be told that Christ demands a total
repentance – of heart, mind, will, emotions – the whole man. He must learn that Christ demands a change in
“ultimate criterion.” And thus he must learn that even the evidentiary
procedures he uses to establish biblical authority must be reformed by the
Bible. He must learn that “evidence” is
at bottom an elaboration of God's self-witness; that “proving” God is the same
as hearing and obeying him.
So the question[2] of the
biblical self-witness is a momentous one indeed. In a sense it is the only question. If by “self-witness” we mean, not merely the
texts in which the Bible explicitly claims authority, but the whole character
of the Bible as it confronts us, then the question of biblical authority is
purely and simply the question of biblical self-witness.
On the other hand, the question is also commonplace: Simply because it is so important, the question has been discussed over and over again by theologians. Although I feel greatly honored by the invitation to speak and write on such a basic question, I must confess also to a slight feeling of numbness. What can I say that hasn't been said already? What can I say that Giiussen, Warfield, Kuyper, Murray, Young, Van Til, Kline, Ridderbos, Pache, Wenham, Packer, Montgomery, Pinnock and Gerstner haven't said? Even in this collection, some of the other papers will overlap this topic! No doubt, in a collection of papers of this sort, someone ought to summarize the basic material. But I can't help thinking it might be best just to quote snatches from other authors whose scholarship and eloquence is far superior to my own. It might be; but I won't follow that course here, because I do have a few reasons for attempting an individual, if not independent, study.
Past
orthodox Christian discussions of this matter have, in my opinion, done a very
adequate job on the whole. As in all
human endeavors, however, there is room for improvement here. The improvements I have in mind are chiefly
two:
1. There needs to be a greater emphasis upon the pervasiveness
throughout Scripture of the biblical self-witness. As we suggested earlier, there is a sense in
which all of the Bible is self-witness.
Whatever the Bible says, in a sense, it says about itself. Even the genealogies of the kings tell us
about the content, and therefore the character of Scripture. The way in which the Bible speaks of kings
and vineyards and wilderness journeys and God and man and Christ – its manner
is a testimony to its character. More
specifically: the overall doctrinal structure of Scripture is an important
element of the biblical self-witness.
For when the Bible speaks of atonement, reconciliation, justification,
glorification, it speaks of these in such a way as to presuppose a crucial role
for itself. Or, to look at redemption
from a more historical perspective, from the beginning of God's dealings with
men God has taught them to give his words a particular role in their lives, a
lesson which is taught again and again through the thousands of years of
redemptive history. Now when we neglect
this emphasis on the pervasiveness of the biblical self-witness, at least two
bad things happen: (a) People can get the idea that the concept of biblical
authority is based largely on a few texts scattered through the Bible, texts
which may not be very important in the overall biblical scheme of things. They might even get the idea that the
doctrine of inspiration is based largely upon a couple of texts (II Pet. 1:21, II Tim. 3:16) which liberal scholars
dismiss as being late and legalistic.
Thus it may seem as though the doctrine of biblical authority is a
rather peripheral doctrine, rather easily dispensable for anyone who has even
the slightest inclination to dispense with unpalatable doctrines. (b) People
can get the idea that Christ and the Bible are separable, that you can believe
in and obey Christ without believing in and obeying the Bible. They may think that Scripture is unimportant
to the Christian message of redemption.
2. If, as orthodox people
maintain, the biblical self-witness to its authority and infallibility is obvious, clear – and certainly if it is
“pervasive”! – then we must face more squarely the question of why
not-so-orthodox people see the matter differently. At one level, of course, it is legitimate to
say that they fail to see the truth because of their unbelief: the god of this
world has blinded their minds.[3] Sin is “irrational” – it turns away from the
obvious. But sinners, when they are
scholars, at least, generally do things for a reason, perverse as that reason
may be. And perverse or not, such
reasoning is often highly plausible. If
orthodox people can identify that reasoning, explain its surface plausibility,
and expose its deeper error, then the orthodox view of the biblical
self-witness will be stated much more cogently.
In the remaining portion of
this essay, I shall present an essentially traditional argument concerning the
character of the biblical self-witness; but I shall structure the discussion in
such a way as to implement the above two concerns – not comprehensively, to be
sure, probably not adequately – but to greater degree than one might expect in
a paper of this length.[4] The first section will examine the role of
verbal revelation in the biblical understanding of salvation. The second will discuss the relationship of
that verbal revelation to Scripture, and the third will analyze what I take to
be the most common and plausible objection to the previous line of reasoning.
We have suggested that the
whole Bible is self-witness; but the Bible is not only or primarily
self-witness. It is first and foremost,
not a book about a book, but a book about God, about Christ, about the
salvation of man from sin. But that
message of salvation includes a message about the Bible. For this salvation requires verbal revelation. In saving man, God speaks to him.
A. Lord and Servant
God spoke to man even before man fell into sin. The first human experience mentioned in
Scripture is the hearing of God's word; for immediately after the account of
man's creation we read,
And God blessed them: and
God said unto them, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and
subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of
the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”[5]
It is appropriate that the
hearing of these words be presented in Scripture as man's first experience. For this was the experience by which the
whole course of man's life was determined.
When man heard these words of God, he heard his own definition. God was telling
man who man was, what his task was.
Everything else that man did was to be in obedience to this
command. Whether a shepherd, a farmer, a
miner, a businessman, a teacher, a homemaker – his main job was to replenish
and subdue the earth in obedience to this command. The command covered all of life, not just
some compartments of it. The command was
not to be questioned; it was God's sovereign determination of man's
responsibility. The command asserted
God's claim to ultimate authority; for, paradoxically, while the command
declared man to have dominion over the earth, it also declared God's dominion
over man! Whatever dominion man enjoys,
he receives from God; he enjoys it at God's pleasure; he enjoys it out of
obedience to God's command.
Why? Simply because God is God, and man is
man. God is Lord; man is servant. God commands; man must obey. To have a Lord is to be under authority. A servant is one responsible to obey the
commands of another. What kind of
lordship would there be without commands?
The very idea is absurd. Without
commands, no obedience; without obedience, no responsibility; without
responsibility, no authority; without authority, no lordship.
Man was created in
obedience; he fell through disobedience – disobedience to another command, this
time the command concerning the forbidden tree.[6] The simplest biblical definition of sin is
“lawlessness”[7]
– rejection of, disobedience to God's commands.
Therefore just as the word of God defines our status as God's creatures
and servants, it also defines our status as fallen creatures, as sinners.
Redemption, according to
Scripture, involves a re-assertion of God's lordship. The fall, of course, did not annul God's
lordship; God's lordship over fallen man is vividly expressed in divine
judgment against sin. But if man is to
be saved, he must be brought to realize again that God is Lord and demands
man's unconditional obedience. When God
saved
God's demands are absolute
in at least three senses: (1) They cannot
be questioned. The Lord God has the
right to demand unwavering, unflinching obedience. God blessed Abraham because he “obeyed my
voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.”[9] He did not waver[10] even when God
commanded him to sacrifice his son Isaac, the son of the promise.[11] To waver – even in that horrible situation! –
would have been sin. (2) God's demand is absolute also in the sense that it transcends all other loyalties, all
other demands. The Lord God will not
tolerate competition; he demands exclusive
loyalty.[12] The servant must love his Lord with all his
heart, soul and strength.[13] One cannot serve two masters.[14] One of the most remarkable proofs of the
deity of Christ in the New Testament is that there Jesus Christ demands – and
receives – precisely this kind of loyalty from his followers, the same sort of
loyalty which Jehovah demanded of
B. Savior and Sinner
But salvation is more than a
reassertion of God's lordship. If God
merely reasserted his lordship, we would be without hope, for we have turned
against him and deserve death at his hand.[17] If God merely spoke to us absolute demands,
we would perish, for we have not obeyed these demands. But our God is not only Lord; he is also savior.
And he speaks to us not only demands, not only law, but also gospel
– the good news of Jesus Christ. But we
must emphasize that he speaks the
gospel. The gospel is a message, a revelation in words. How can we know that the death of Christ is
sufficient to save us from sin? Now
human wisdom could have figured that out!
Only God can declare sinners to be forgiven; only God has the right to
promise salvation to those who believe!
The same lord who speaks to demand obedience, also speaks to promise
salvation. As Abraham,[18] we are called
to believe the gospel simply because it is God's own promise. We know that believers in Christ are saved
because Jesus has told us they are.[19] Only the Lord can speak the word of
forgiveness, that word which declares sinners to be forgiven, and promises
eternal life.
Just as there can be no
lordship without an absolute demand, so there is no salvation without a
gracious and certain promise. Therefore
the whole biblical message presupposes the necessity
of verbal revelation. Without revealed words, there is neither
lordship nor salvation. To “accept
Christ as Savior and Lord” is to accept from the heart Christ's demand and
promise. Let there be no misunderstanding:
you cannot “accept Christ” without accepting his words! Christ himself emphasizes this point over and
over again.[20] If we set aside the words of Christ in favor
of a vague, undefined “personal relationship” to Christ, we simply lose the
biblical Christ and substitute a Christ of our own imagination.
And not just any words will
do! They must be God's words – words of
divine, and not merely human authority; words which cannot be questioned,
transcend all other loyalties, govern all areas of life. They must be words which cannot be contradicted
by human philosophies or theologies – or even by the “assured results of modern
scholarship”! Without words like that, we have no Lord and we have no
Savior.
But where can we find words
like that? No mere philosopher or theologian or
scholar speaks such words! Many
religions, indeed, claim to have such words; but how are we to judge among
these many claims? How do we distinguish
the voice of God from the voice of devils and the imaginations of our own
hearts?
II. REVEALED WORDS AND SCRIPTURE
Scripture tells us to go to
Scripture! Or, rather, the God of
Scripture tells us in Scripture to go to Scripture!
Of course we must note at
the outset that the Bible is not the only word that God has spoken. God has spoken words to and by his apostles
and prophets that are not recorded in the Bible. He has also spoken, in a sense, to the earth,
to the storms, to the winds and waves.[21] And in a mysterious sense, the word of God
may also be identified with God Himself[22] and
particularly with Jesus Christ.[23] But God does not always tell us what he says
to the winds and waves, and he has not always provided us with prophets at a
handy distance! Rather, he has directed
us to a book! That is where we are to go
for daily, regular guidance. That is
where we may always find the demands of the Lord and the promise of the Savior.
Writing goes back a long way
in the history of redemption. The book
of Genesis appears to be derived largely from “books of generations.”[24] We don't know much about the origin of these
books, but it is significant that (1) they include inspired prophecies[25] and (2) they
were eventually included among
And Joshua discomfited
Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword. And the Lord said unto Moses, “Write this for
a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: that I will
utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.” And Moses built an altar, and called the name
of it Jehovah-nissi; and he said, “The Lord hath sworn: the Lord will have war
with Amalek from generation to generation.”[26]
Not only does the Lord
authorize the writing of the book; the content of it is God's own oath, his
pledge. It is the word of God, a word of
absolute authority and sure promise.
Because God has spoken it, it will surely happen.
But
an even more important example of divine writing occurs a few chapters later. In Exodus twenty, God speaks the Ten
Commandments to the people of
What
was going on here? Why the sustained
emphasis upon divine writing? Meredith
G. Kline[31] suggests that
this emphasis on divine writing arises out of the nature of covenant-making in
the ancient near East. When a great king
entered a “suzerainty covenant relation” with a lesser king, the great king
would produce a document setting
forth the terms of the covenant. The
great king was the author, because he was the lord, the sovereign. He set the terms. The lesser king was to read and obey, for he
was the servant, the vassal. The
covenant document was the Law; it set forth the commands of the great king, and
the servant was bound to obey. To
disobey the document was to disobey the great king; to obey it was to obey
him. Now in Exodus twenty and succeeding
chapters, God is making a kind of “suzerainty treaty” with
Later,
more words were added to the document; and we read in Deuteronomy that Moses
put all these words in the ark of the covenant, the dwelling place of God, the
holiest place in
This divine authority takes
many forms. In the extra-biblical
suzerainty covenants, certain distinct elements have been discovered[34]: the
self-identification of the lord (the giving of his name), the “historical prologue”
(proclaiming the benevolent acts of the lord to the vassal), the basic demand
for exclusive loyalty (called “love”), the detailed demands of the lord, the
curses upon the disobedient, the blessings upon the obedient, and finally the
details of covenant administration, use of the document, etc. In the law of God, all of these elements are
present. God tells who he is,[35] he proclaims
his grace through his acts in history,[36] he demands
love,[37] he sets forth
his detailed demands,[38] he declares
the curses and blessings contingent on covenant obedience,[39] and he sets up
the machinery for continuing covenant administration, laying particular
emphasis on the use of the covenant book.[40] All of these elements of the covenant are
authoritative; all are words of God.
Theologians generally
oversimplify the concept of biblical authority.
To some theologians, it is God's personal self-manifestation (as in the
giving of the divine name) which is authoritative. To others, it is the account of historical
events. To others, the demand for love
is the central thing. To others it is
the divine self-commitment to bless. But
the covenantal structure of revelation has room for all of these elements, and
what's more, places them in proper relation to one another. There is both love and law, both grace and
demand, both kerygma and didache, both personal disclosure (stated in “I-thou”
form) and objective declarations of facts, both a concept of history and a
concept of inspired words. The covenant
document contains authoritative propositions
about history (the servant has no right to contradict the lord's account of
the history of the covenant), authoritative commands to be obeyed,
authoritative questions (demanding the vassal's pledge to covenant allegiance),
authoritative performatives (God's
self-commitment to bless and curse).[41] The propositions are infallible; but
infallibility is only part of biblical authority. This authority also includes the authority of
non-propositional language as well.
We have seen that the idea
of a “canon,” an authoritative written word of God, goes back to the very
beginning of
From time to time there were
new words of God. Joshua added to the
words which Moses had placed in the ark.[44] How could a mere man add to the words of God
in view of the command of Deut. 4:2? The
only answer can be that Joshua's words were also recognized as God's
words. The prophets also came speaking
God's words,[45]
and some of them were written down.[46]
Thus the “Old Testament”
grew. By the time of Jesus there was a
well-defined body of writings which was generally recognized as God's word, and
which was quoted as supreme authority, as Holy Scripture. Jesus and the apostles did not challenge, but
rather accepted this view. Not only did
they accept it, but they actively testified to it by word and deed. The role of Scripture in the life of Jesus is
really remarkable: although Jesus was and is the Son of God, the second person
of the Trinity, during his earthly ministry he subjected himself completely to the
Old Testament Scripture. Over and over
again, he performed various actions “so that the Scripture might be fulfilled.”[47] The whole point of his life – his sacrificial
death and resurrection was determined beforehand by Scripture.[48] Jesus' testimony to Scripture, then, is not
occasional, but pervasive. His whole
life was a witness to biblical authority!
But listen particularly to what Christ and the apostles say concerning the
Old Testament! Listen to the way in
which they cite Scripture, even in the face of Satan, to “clinch” an argument,
to silence objections.[49] Listen to the titles by which they describe
the Old Testament: “Scripture,” “holy Scripture,” “law,” “prophets,” “royal law
of liberty...... the oracles of God.”[50] Listen to the formulae by which they cite
Scripture: “It is written”; “it says”; “the Holy Spirit says”; “Scripture
says.”[51] All of these phrases and titles denoted to
the people of Jesus' day something far more than a mere human document. These terms denoted nothing less than inspired,
authoritative words of God. As Warfield
pointed out, “Scripture says” and “God says” are interchangeable!51
And consider further the
explicit teaching of Jesus and the
apostles concerning biblical authority:
1. Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, ‘till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law; until all things are accomplished. Whosoever therefore shall break one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.[52]
Jots and tittles were among
the smallest marks used in the written Hebrew language. Jesus is saying that everything in the law and the prophets (equals the Old Testament)
carries divine authority. And obedience
to that law is the criterion of greatness in the kingdom of heaven.
2. Think not that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that
accuses you, even Moses, whom you trust.
For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall
ye believe my words?[53]
The Jews claimed to believe
Moses' writings, but they rejected Christ.
Jesus replies that they do not really believe Moses; and he urges them
to a greater trust in the Old
Testament. He urges them to believe all
of the law, and thus come to accept his messiahship. We see here that Jesus did not merely quote
Scripture because it was customary among the Jews. Rather, he criticized the prevailing custom because it was insufficiently
loyal to Scripture. Jesus' view of
Scripture was stronger than that of
the Pharisees and Scribes. Jesus sees
Moses justly accusing the Jews because of their unbelief in Scripture. Believing Moses is the prerequisite to
believing Christ.
3. The Jews answered him, “For a good work we stone thee not, but
for blasphemy; even because thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in
your law, I said, ‘Ye are gods’? If he
called them gods unto whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be
broken), say ye of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world,
‘Thou blasphemest’; because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”[54]
A difficult passage, this;
but note the parenthesis. Concerning a
fairly obscure Psalm, Jesus says that “scripture cannot be broken.” It cannot
be wrong; it cannot fail; it cannot be rejected as we reject human words.
4. For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our
learning, that through patience and through comfort of the scriptures we might
have hope.[55]
Here, the apostle Paul tells
us that the Old Testament is relevant, not only for the people of the Old
Testament period, but for us as well. It
teaches us, gives us patience, comfort, hope.
And most remarkably, the whole Old
Testament is relevant! None of it is
dated; none of it is invalidated by more recent thought. Of what human documents may that be said?
5. And we have the word of prophecy made more sure; whereunto ye do
well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day
dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: knowing this first, that no prophecy
of scripture is of private interpretation.
For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God,
being moved by the Holy Spirit.[56]
Note the context of this
passage: Peter expects to die soon, and he wishes to assure his readers of the truth
of the gospel.[57] He knows that false teachers will attack the
church, deceiving the flock.[58] He insists that the gospel is not myth or
legend, but the account of events which he himself had witnessed.[59] Yet even when the eyewitnesses have left the
scene, the believers will still have a source of sure truth. They have the “word of prophecy” – the Old
Testament Scriptures – a word which is “more sure.”[60] They are to “take heed” to that word, and
forsake all conflicting teaching; for the word is light, and all the rest is
darkness. Moreover, it did not originate
through the human interpretative process; it is not a set of human opinions
about God; nor did it originate in any human volition. Rather the Holy Spirit carried the biblical
writers along, as they spoke for him!
The Holy Spirit determined their course and their destination. The Bible consists of human writings, but its
authority is no mere human authority!
6. All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for doctrine,
reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be
complete, furnished completely unto every good work.[61]
Note again the context, for
it is similar to that of the last passage.
Paul in this chapter paints a gloomy picture of deceivers leading people
astray. How shall we know the truth in
all this confusion? Paul tells Timothy
to hang on to the truth as he learned it from Paul,[62] but also to
the “holy scriptures”[63] (which, we
note, are available even to us who have not been taught personally by
Paul). This Scripture is “inspired of
God” as the KJV says, or more literally “Godbreathed” – breathed out by God.
In less picturesque language, we might say simply “spoken by God”;
but the more picturesque language also suggests the activity of the Holy Spirit
in the process, the words for “spirit” and “breath” being closely related in
the original Greek. Scripture is spoken by God; it is his Word; and as such it is all
profitable, and it is all that we need to be equipped for good works.
Both Old and New Testaments
then pervasively claim authority for the Old Testament scriptures. But what about the New Testament
scriptures? Can we say that they, also,
are the word of God?
We have seen the importance
of verbal revelation in both Old and New Testaments. Both Testaments insist over and over again
that such words are a necessity of God's plan of salvation. As we have seen, the concepts of lordship and
salvation presuppose the existence of revealed words. And in the New Testament, Jesus Christ is
Lord and Savior. It would be surprising
indeed if Jehovah, the Lord of the Old Testament people of God, gave a written
record of his demand and promise, while Jesus, the Lord incarnate of whom the
New Testament speaks, left no such record.
Jesus told his disciples over and over again that obedience to his words was an absolute necessity for
kingdom service and a criterion for true discipleship.[64] We need the words of Jesus! But where are they!? If there is no written record, no New
Testament “covenant document,” then has Jesus simply left us to grope in the
dark?
Praise God that He has
not! Jesus promised to send the Holy
Spirit to lead his disciples into all truth.[65] After the Holy Spirit was poured out on the
day of Pentecost, the disciples began to preach with great power and
conviction.[66] The pattern remains remarkably consistent
throughout the Book of Acts: the disciples are filled with the Spirit, and then
they speak of Jesus.[67] They do not speak in their own strength. Further, they constantly insist that the
source of their message is God, not man.[68] Their words have absolute, not merely
relative, authority.[69] And this
authority attaches not only to their spoken words, but also to their written
words.[70] Peter classes
the letters of Paul together with the “other Scriptures”![71] Paul's letters are “Scripture”; and we recall
that “Scripture” is “God-breathed”![72]
We conclude, then, that the
witness of Scripture to its own authority is pervasive: (1) The whole biblical message of salvation
presupposes and necessitates the existence of revealed words – words of
absolute demand and sure promise; without such words, we have no Lord, no
Savior, no hope. (2) Throughout the history of redemption, God directs his
people to find these words in written form, in those books which we know as the
Old and New Testaments.
III. REVEALED WORDS AND MODERN THEOLOGIANS
Our conclusion, however,
raises a serious problem. If the witness
of Scripture to its own authority is pervasive,
then why have so many biblical scholars and theologians failed to see it?
We are not asking why it is
that these theologians fail to believe the
claim of Scripture. The unbelief of
theologians is at bottom rather uninteresting; it is not much different from
the unbelief of anyone else. Yet it is
surely possible to disbelieve Scripture's claim while at the same time
admitting that Scripture makes such a claim.
And some liberal theologians have indeed accepted this option: the Bible
claims inspiration and authority, but modern men cannot accept such a claim.[73] But others have refused to admit even that
Scripture makes that claim! Or more
often: they have recognized this claim in some parts of Scripture, but they
have judged this claim to be inconsistent with other, more important Scriptural
teachings, and thus have felt that Scripture “as a whole” opposes the notion of
authoritative Scripture in our sense.
Putting the same question
differently: is it possible to construct a sound biblical argument for biblical
fallibility? Some theologians, amazingly enough, have
said “yes,” despite the evidence to the contrary we and others have
adduced. Is this simply a wresting of
Scripture in the interest of a heresy?
Is it at bottom simply another form of modern unbelief (and therefore as
“uninteresting” as the unbelief alluded to earlier)? In the final analysis, I would say, the
answer is yes. But some analysis, final
or not, is called for. The argument must
be scrutinized, lest we miss something important in the biblical self-witness.
We are not here going to argue
specific points of exegesis. Some
thinkers would question our interpretation of Matt. 5:17-19, arguing that in
the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere Jesus makes “critical distinctions” among
the Old Testament precepts. Some, too,
would question our reading of the phrase “inspired of God” or “God-breathed” in
II Tim. 3:16. And indeed, some would
argue from II Pet. 1:21 (but in defiance of II Tim. 3:16!) that inspiration
pertains only to the writers of Scripture and not to the books which they have
written. For enlightenment on these
controversies, see the references in the footnotes. In general, we may say that even if it is
possible to question a few points of our exegesis, the evidence is so massive that the general conclusion is
still difficult to avoid:
The effort to explain away
the Bible's witness to its plenary inspiration reminds one of a man standing
safely in his laboratory and elaborately expounding – possibly by the aid of
diagrams and mathematical formulae – how every stone in an avalance has a
defined pathway and may easily be dodged by one of some presence of mind. We may fancy such an elaborate trifler's
triumph as he would analyze the avalanche into its constituent stones, and
demonstrate of stone after stone that its pathway is definite, limited, and may
easily be avoided. But avalanches,
unfortunately, do not come upon us, stone by stone, one at a time, courteously
leaving us opportunity to withdraw from the pathway of each in turn: but all at
once, in a roaring mass of destruction.
Just so we may explain away a text or two which teach plenary
inspiration, to our own closet satisfaction, dealing with them each without
reference to the others: but these texts of ours, again, unfortunately do not
come upon us in this artificial isolation; neither are they few in number. There are scores, hundreds, of them: and they
come bursting upon us in one solid mass.
Explain them away? We should have
to explain away the whole New Testament.
What a pity it is that we cannot see and feel the avalanche of texts
beneath which we may lie hopelessly buried, as clearly as we may see and feel
an avalanche of stones![74]
Not even the cleverest
exegete can “explain away” the biblical concepts of lordship and salvation and
the necessary connection of these concepts with the revealed words of
Scripture! No exegete can explain away
all the verses which call God's people to obey “the commandments, statutes,
testimonies, ordinances” of the Lord; all the “it is written” formulae; all of
the commands delivered by apostles and prophets in authoritative tone.
Rather than such detailed
questions, therefore, we shall confine our attention to broader considerations
which have carried considerable weight in contemporary theological
discussion. For just as we have argued
that the biblical concepts of lordship and salvation require the existence of
revealed words, so others have argued that certain basic biblical concepts exclude the possibility of such words!
The primary appeal of these
theological views is to the divine transcendence; as the following quotes from
Karl Barth and Emil Brunner respectively will indicate:
Again it is quite impossible
that there should be a direct identity between the human word of Holy Scripture
and the Word of God, and therefore between the creaturely reality in itself and
as such and the reality of God the creator.[75]
It is therefore impossible
to equate any human words, any “speech-about-Him” with the divine
self-communication.[76]
Such statements have a kind
of primitive religious appeal. God alone
is God, and nothing else may be “equated with him.” To “equate” or “directly
identify” something else with God is idolatry.
Now surely we must agree that Scripture endorses this sentiment, for
Scripture clearly opposes idolatry and exalts God above all other things! And if this is the case, then it seems that
Scripture requires us to distinguish sharply between God Himself on the one
hand, and language about him on the other; the transcendence of God is surely a
central biblical concept! And if
transcendence requires us to eliminate all thought of “revealed words,” even
though other biblical doctrines suggest otherwise, then perhaps we ought to
give serious thought to this issue.
However, Barth's concept of
“direct identity” is a difficult one, as is Brunner's reference to “equating.”
What does it mean to assert – or deny – a “direct identity” or “equation”
between God and language? Clearly, no
one wants to say that “God” and “language about God” are synonymous terms! Nor has anyone in recent memory suggested
that we bow down before words and sentences.
Even the most orthodox defenders of biblical infallibility maintain that
there is some distinction to be made between God and language. Further: even the most orthodox agree that
the words of Scripture are in some sense creaturely, and thus specifically
because of their creatureliness to be distinguished from God. On the other hand, if such words are God's
words, and not merely human, then they are closely related to him, at least as
closely as in words are related to me.
If God has spoken them, then their truth is his truth; their authority
is his authority; their power is his power.
Barth is willing to say that from time to time Scripture becomes the
word of God; therefore he admits that some close relation between God and
Scripture is essential. The question
then becomes: in what way is God “distinct” from this language, and in what way
is he “related” to it? A pious appeal to
God's transcendence, eloquent though it may be, does not really answer this
sort of question. Both the orthodox and
the Barthian would like to avoid being charged with idolatry. But what
kind of distinction between God and language is required by the divine
transcendence?
Barth is most reluctant to
give any positive description of this relationship. Commenting upon II Tim. 3:16, he says:
At the centre of the passage
a statement is made about the relationship between God and Scripture, which can
be understood only as a disposing act and decision of God Himself, which cannot
therefore be expanded but to which only a – necessarily brief – reference can
be made. At the decisive point all that
we have to say about it can consist only in an underlining and delimiting of
the inaccessible mystery of the free grace in which the Spirit of God is
present and active before and above and in the Bible.[77]
Inspiration, says Barth, is
a mystery, because it is an act of God's grace.
We cannot define what it is; we can only assert the graciousness of the
process. At another point, however, he
does venture to describe inspiration, alluding to the term used in II Tim.
3:16:
Theopneustia in the bounds of biblical thinking cannot mean anything but the special
attitude of obedience in those [biblical writers] who are elected and called to
this obviously special service…But in nature and bearing their attitude of
obedience was of itself – both outwardly and inwardly – only that of true and
upright men.[78]
Inspiration is an act of God
to create in men a special attitude of human obedience. It does not give them more than ordinary
human powers. Therefore,
The Bible is not a book of
oracles; it is not an instrument of direct impartation. It is genuine witness. And how can it be witness of divine
revelation, if the actual purpose, act and decision of God in His only-begotten
Son, as seen and heard by the prophets and apostles in that Son, is dissolved
in the Bible into a sum total of truths abstracted from that decision –and
those truths are then propounded to us as truths of faith, salvation and
revelation? If it tries to be more than
witness, to be direct impartation, will it not keep from us the best, the one
real thing, which God intends to tell and give us and which we ourselves need?[79]
The question, of course, is rhetorical. Barth is appealing to something he thinks his reader will concede as obvious. And this much we will concede: that if the Bible tries to be more than it is, if it exceeds its rightful prerogatives and usurps those of God Himself, then it will indeed hide from us the real message of God's transcendence. But what are the “rightful prerogatives” of Scripture? That must be established before the rhetoric of divine transcendence can have force. The rhetoric of transcendence does not itself determine what those prerogatives are.
It is clear from the last
quoted section at least that Barth denies to Scripture one particular
prerogative – the prerogative of presenting “truths of revelation in
abstraction from” God's saving act in Christ.
But what does “in abstraction from” mean in this context? An abstraction is always some sort of
distinction or separation, but what kind of distinction or separation? An orthodox theologian will insist that the
biblical “truths of revelation” are not “in abstraction from” God's act in
Christ. On the contrary, we learn about
this act, we come to adore this act, because the Bible gives us a true account
of it.
I think that in the back of
Barth's mind – perhaps in the front of it! – is a concern of many academic
people. When we teachers see students
cramming for theological exams, stuffing truths into their heads, we sometimes
wonder what all of this has to do with the
Well, theology examinations,
theological study can be a spiritual trial!
But surely if we lose touch with God in studying His truths, it is our
fault, not his for providing the truths!
And sometimes, at least, the study of truths can be downright inspiring;
sometimes, even in the academy, the law of the Lord purifies the soul! The evil in Barth's mind (as I understand
him) is not an evil that can be remedied by eliminating the concept of revealed
truth. It would be nice if such personal
sinfulness could be eliminated by such a conceptual shift! But the sin of trivializing God's word is one
of which we are all guilty – Barthians as much as anyone! We cannot eliminate that in Barth's way, nor
ought we to try to construct a doctrine of Scripture that will make such trivialization
impossible. That is the wrong way to go
about constructing doctrinal formulations.
Doctrines must not be arbitrarily constructed to counteract current
abuses; they must be constructed on the basis of God's revelation.
“Abstraction,” then, can't
be avoided by renouncing the idea of revealed truths or revealed words. Nor can it be avoided by renouncing biblical
infallibility. And in the absence of any
other clearly stated threat to God's transcendence in the doctrine we have
advocated, we are compelled to stand our ground. The orthodox view does not “abstract
revelation from God's act,” and it does not compromise the greatness and
majesty of God. On the contrary: the
true greatness of God, his Lordship and saviorhood as described in Scripture, requires the existence of revealed truths. Without such truths, we have no Lord, no
Savior, no basis for piety. Without such
truths, all that we say, think and do will be hopelessly “abstracted” from the
reality of God. Without such truths, we
have no hope. A Barthian or liberal or
“neo-liberal” theology can provide no such words; it can locate no words of
absolute demands and sure promise.
Rather such a theology retains the right to judge the truth or falsity
of all words with no divinely authorized criterion. Such theologies must be decisively rejected
by the