The Nature of Scripture and its Use in the Life of the Church

A Study Paper for the Curriculum Consultation Committee

Prepared by the Department of Religious Education
September, 1967

The application of the concept “Word of God” to the scriptures used by the church needs to be understood in relation to the Hebrew use of the term Word in respect to action or event rather than discourse. The Word of God constitute the self-disclosure of God, his character and purposes being disclosed in the events of history and supremely in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the central event which gives meaning to the range of history and the destiny of mankind.

Thus “the Word of God” was understood as the interpretation of historical events in which men were grasped by God’s claim upon them, the events being the medium by which God entered into relationship with men. The view is expressed by, Arthur Oakman thus:

Revelation has its roots in the intercourse between mind and event. Always the event is the locus of revelation. The mind appreciates this. The prophets saw the movement of God in history. It was there before they saw it…. But it became revelation to them when they appreciated this divine movement. What we have in the Old and New Testament is not therefore, revelation. It is a record made by the perceptor. It is in the nature of things, a record of an interim experience between the first perception and the working out of what was perceived in the course of time…. There are, then strictly speaking, no revealed truths. There are “truths of revelation”–statements of principles, that is, which stem from the revelatory experience…. For revelation is based upon the intercourse between the mind which guides the event and the mind which views it. When appreciation of Divinity in nature and history comes to man, revelation takes place. (Saints’ Herald, January 15, 1951)

Thus God reveals himself in human experience, in history. These events and experiences must be interpreted by the person or community perceiving their unique significance. At some point in the process, perhaps years after the events have themselves taken place, the witness may be committed to writing. the literary forms will reflect the crystallization of these events and experiences in traditions which have become normative for the community and which, through time and usage, may eventually be accorded the authority of canonization. However, to identify the Word of God with the words which are used to communicate the revelatory experience is to suggest a finality and inerrancy for the written records which does not exist. When we speak of the scripture as containing the word of God we are using the language of metaphor. The words used to communicate the insights of revelation are subject to the limitations of language, the partiality of human understanding and two cultural horizons of the writers.

1. Scripture as the Cumulative Witness of God’s Activity

It is proper to speak of scripture as providing a curative witness of God’s activity. By this, however, we do not suggest any regular, uninterrupted progression from “primitive” to “advanced” concepts of God. Nevertheless, while there are for example, variant, conflicting and changing views of God reflected in the different periods of biblical history and literature, it is possible to discern a general refinement in the Hebrew concept of God and his purpose, as their cumulative experience is interpreted with insight. For this reason the record must “be read and interpreted not only with religious sympathy but with wise discernment and discrimination, or its naive simplicity and frank fidelity to facts will be improperly regarded as a divine approving of whatever is recorded concerning the beliefs and deeds of the men and women who appear in narrative–which is by no means always true. (Article entitled “The Divine Element in the Bible” by W.F. Tillet, in the Abingdon Bible Commentary)

Thus we are not obligated to accept every view expressed, or injunction recorded, as representing the will of God. For example, we do not impugn the authority of the scriptures in declining to accept the slaughter of the Amelekites (1 Samuel 15) as the will of God, though it-is thus represented. Alan Richardson states:

The embodiment of the word of God in the record of the development of a certain people from the earliest days involves all the crudites and errors which such a people is likely to make…. God speaks to us through history, through the deeds of men who make mistakes and commit sins and hold restricted views of right and wrong; that is the method of biblical revelation.” (Preface to Bible Study, p. 70)

2. Modes of Truth Found in Scripture

The literary vehicle by which truth is conveyed through scripture is seen to vary, according to the disposition of the writer, the nature of the material being communicated or the literary conventions of the period. It is important to recognize that the Bible includes such widely diversified forms as poetry, chronicle, letters, riddles, drama, sermons, songs, parable and legend.

Similarly it is helpful to acknowledge that there are different modes by which truth is conveyed in the record. Some material may be reasonably accepted as a presentation of historical data, though perhaps subject to the common processes of selection and telescoping. Other sections are clearly figurative, using the modes of parable (the story of Jonah is an example of an extended parable) or analogy (Daniel and Revelation, .for example, are in the apocalyptic form, a special variant of analogy).

While such forms may pose difficulties for people of a scientifically conditioned age, they posed no such problem for people who thought normally in terms of symbol and image, and whose major concern was not “did it actually happen?”, but “what does it mean?” William Neal writes:

We must quite openly and readily admit that the early stories of Genesis are pure symbolism, that the stories of the patriarchs are more legend than history, and that even after we have reached the relatively solid historical foundations at the time of the Exodus, the element of legend persists, in some periods more markedly than others, as for example in the narratives surrounding the prophet Elisha, (The Rediscovery of the Bible, p. 76)

And further:

It is by the nature of things impossible that conversations recorded in the narrative parts of the Old Testament can be taken as any more than intelligent reconstruction…. Where we should say that Samuel became convinced after the failure of Saul that the anointing of David as future king was the will of YHWH for Israel, the Old Testament writers more picturesquely clothe the fact in dialogue between YHWH and the prophet (I Samuel 16:1-3)(Ibid., p. 77)

The stories of creation in Genesis, the Fall, the Flood, and God’s covenant with Noah may be regarded as containing elements of space and time The attempt to interpret these as strictly literal accounts of historical happenings fails to grasp the dimension of truth expressed by them. For this reason it is important to understand the various literary forms which are employed, and the codes of truth which they convey, since an understanding of form will serve in determining the meaning.

3. The Validity of Scholarship in Scriptural Studies

The general disinclination on the part of the membership of the church to acknowledge either the integrity or the scholarship of those who have been responsible for subjecting the Bible to the insights of critical examination is unfortunate. Biblical scholarship during the last century has been a remarkable achievement, and simply as an intellectual feat commands respect. We must recognize that biblical criticism offers a rich and valid field for our examination, and that many of the naive and unsound positions which persist among sections of our people arise from the failure to take such scholarship into proper account.

This is not to suggest that every conclusion or hypothesis of the Biblical critics must be accepted indiscriminately, but rather to affirm that serious consideration should be accorded their work as an important element in understanding the biblical witness. The human character of the writings demands that all available resources of literary and historical scholarship be employed with integrity.

There is no justification for dismissing the results of biblical criticism as “the wisdom of men” and therefore unworthy of our attention. We must acknowledge the depth of scholarship and the measure of integrity which is reflected in their work.

It will be helpful to be familiar with three fields of critical scholarship:

a.  textual (or lower) criticism: the effort to reconstruct the original documents, collating the various manuscripts to discover the most accurate rendering of the text;
b.  literary (or higher) criticism: literary and historical research on the records to make judgments about date, authorship, sources and other problems;
c.  form criticism: the attempt to discover the oral and written traditions behind the gospels.

Such critical examination has thrown a great deal of light upon the “background” of the Bible–the main literary sources behind the various books, the period in which they were written, the kind of men they were written for, the particular problems which they faced, and the historical conditions under which they lived. While there may be modifications, here and there, the broad general conclusions are beyond cavil. Not only will our appreciation of the meaning and value of the scripture be enhanced, but there can be no doubt also that this new knowledge, properly received, is a means of deepening our faith.

4. Versions of the Bible

Language is a dynamic force, to be likened to a river–always moving, leaving deposits on the banks in its wake and picking up new materials as it proceeds. While most of us are familiar with the stately Elizabethan English of the Authorized Version (as it is generally preserved in the Inspired Version), it is important to remember that language should communicate understanding as well as evoking feeling. In this respect modern-English versions may serve the purpose of reminding us that the scriptural testimony was originally written in the vernacular, and as such was close to the experience and life of its readers. Many passages will be clarified by reference to modern versions which take into account the continual process of change in meaning and usage.

Further, and equally important, advancing knowledge of biblical Greek, and the recovery of older manuscripts have resulted in increased accuracy in the rendering of the biblical text. It is now possible to recover the text as far back as the early fourth century AD, and to benefit from manuscripts not available when the King James Version was prepared. The results of the best scholarship available are expressed in the Revised Standard Version, although it follows the style of the King James Version as closely as possible. The New English Bible, shortly to be available in both Testaments, expresses the fruits of authentic scholarship in a modern English version. Other private translations, such as Goodspeed, Mofatt, Waymouth and Phillips are also of value.

It is not valid to make arbitrary and uncritical division of the versions into two categories–those inspired by God (the Inspired Version), and all others, which are then described as the work of men and therefore unreliable or inferior. Such a judgment is neither consistent with the circumstances of production, nor faithful to the witness of the versions themselves. Therefore it will be proper in the life and worship of the church to make use of a variety of versions, with some attempt to become familiar with the purpose and distinctive characteristics of each. In establishing grounds for making choices to which version to use, it will be appropriate to ask the following questions:

a.  What is the specific purpose–devotional, expository, exegetical?
b.  Who is the audience?
c.  Which appears to be the most accurate?
d.  Which makes the most significant impact?

5. The Place of the Inspired Version

It will be necessary to take into account several claims made for the Inspired Version, which it is difficult to substantiate, and which are unwarranted by the available evidence:

a.  That the work is exclusively a restoration of “plain and precious truths” removed from the text by accident or by design. It is clear that many changes are indeed additions to the original text, reflecting 19th century, concerns and theological positions, and elaborating the thought of the original writer. Thus it is not possible to identify, with any degree of certainty, any particular change as being a restoration, as distinct from an addition. Much of the material is clearly of a proleptical or interpolative character. It may to added here that the extensiveness of the changes, and their particular pattern, raise serious questions regarding the claim to restoration of lost portions of the text. Any sincere effort to estimate the value of the Inspired Version, it would seen, must be upon other grounds than as a literally communicated restoration of a pure original text.
b.  That all the changes were made as a result of prayerful consideration. Indeed the great preponderance of changes has no theological bearing, whatsoever, and are changes in style, constituting an effort (though lacking in consistency) to modernize the text. Thus by far the greater part of the revising must be considered as a routine process having no bearing on questions of meanings.
c.  That the changes introduced into the Inspired Version are inerrant. The nature of the work of the 1867 committee responsible for reducing the various manuscripts left by Joseph Smith to a single text, and the work of the revising committee of 1944, discount such a view. Apart from numerous errors in grammar, spelling and usage, it may also be held upon formidable grounds that a number of passages have been weakened in meaning by the changes introduced.

Therefore the following position is suggested with respect to the Inspired Version:

a.  The Inspired Version is not to be regarded as an accurate textual revision, restoring the”pure” text of the original.
b.  It should be acknowledged as an attempt to respond to certain theological positions by amplifying the thought and content of the scripture at points where the context was considered to be amenable. The preponderance of changes in content supporting positions already extant in the Restoration movement (Genesis 50, Isaiah 29, Genesis 2, the account of Enoch’s city, John 1, Romans 7, telestial glory in I Corinthians 15) lend strength to this conclusion.
c.  The changes should be subject to the processes of evaluation and judgment by which we relate to the scriptures in the first place, and should not be accepted on the blanket assumption that every change marks an inerrant improvement.
d.  It should be recognized that the processes of revision were subject to the same factors that reflect the imprint of the human in any other attempt to interpret the divine mind.

It is recommended that the Inspired Version should not be used in curriculum materials as the restoration of the pure, original text.

6. The Legitimate Use of Scripture

A guide to the appropriate use of the Bible which is a book of witness rather than of argument. Rather than setting forth a systematic argument for the existence of God, it testifies to what God has done. It is unprofitable and hazardous to use the Bible either as an infallible guide to ethical behavior or as a text book of developed theological formulations. The authority of the Bible is not to be found in a series of infallibly communicated propositions. Rather does it rest in the fact that it bears witness, as a “treasure in earthen vessels” to God’s redemptive activity in history, and confronts us with the necessity to respond in in the context of our own history and in the perspective of Biblical faith.

The reliance upon proof-text systems or chain-reference methods to establish theological positions (such as the attempt to identify the Restoration priesthood structure with -the New Testament church) is open to the most serious problems, and often suffers from an uncritical interpretation of the Biblical text. Further, we cannot consistently use the scripture in direct application of the responses of other ages to our contemporary situation. For example, the Hebrew interpretation of God’s will with respect to the Amalekites cannot be directly and uncritically applied to a Christian stance on Viet Nam. Rather does the scriptural testimony provide the ground upon which we shall cultivate a perspective for our own times.

7, The Authority of Scripture

Authority, in the absolute sense, resides in the truth alone, that is, in the mind and will of God. If scripture is to be accorded authority as a revelation of truth, it will be in some sense which is not incompatible with its human imperfection. Thus authority does not imply inerrancy, either in the mechanical processes by which we receive the record (original writing, copying, translating, etc.) or in the conceptual processes producing the testimony.

Neither the content of scripture nor our interpretation of it, can be regarded as possessing the kind of infallibility that is universally and finally binding upon us. Rather are we under the obligation of exposing ourselves to the witness of the revelation in such a way that the Holy Spirit may enable us to interpret that revelation in terms of the needs and conditions of our own times. This is what C.H. Dodd has in mind in writing, of the Biblical prophets:

Their words convey a personal experience of reality, and our aim it to participate in it, rather than merely to assess the logic of their arguments. If they can make us do that in any measure, then their authority has established itself. It is the only sort of authority they need claim. (The Authority of the Bible, p. 39)

The scriptural resources of the church, then, reflect the response (cannot read word) to the revelation of God in different times and circumstances. The writings constitute their endeavour to interpret that encounter. The theological positions set forth reflect a continuing dialogue, emerging from the morass of the contemporary scene and returning to it. In this sense, theology is the attempt to become self-conscious with respect to one’s faith. The scripture and its affirmations become normative for the church, not as a completed quest but as a continuing pilgrimage, illuminating the present age rather than dictating to it.

The implication is that all formulations of doctrine, including those explicated in canonical literature, stand under the judgment of God and possess no absolute authority in themselves.

Further, the scriptures arise out of the life of the church and are but a part of the whole stream of that life. They are not to be seen as independent of that tradition, so that they exercise an autonomous authority.