flc the cognitive principle of christian theology

Where do Christians get the information about what they believe? How do theologians know whether the doctrines they teach are made up of divine truth? For centuries believers have assumed that the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, is the origin of Christian knowledge. Over time, other sources were added to Scripture, such as philosophy, science, tradition and experience. With the advent of modernity, philosophy and science led many Christian theologians to the idea that the documents comprising Scrip-ture came out of human thinking and tradition. If the modern view was correct, Christian theology had no cognitive foundation; it was left groundless. Is there unique truth in Christianity? Do Christian doctrines describe real things to our minds? Or are they the result of imagination flowing through the traditions into which we are born? Is the modern view of the Bible’s origin the final word on the matter? Or are the views of the classical church and of contemporary evangelicals viable in postmodern times? Should we think about the origin of Christian knowledge—the revelation and inspiration of Scrip-ture—by constructing a new model to lead us beyond the limitations of present ideas? In The Cognitive Principle of Christian Theology: A Hermeneutical Study od the Revelation and Inspiration of the Bible, Canale addresses not primarily the academic community, but the thinking community of the church, including ad-ministrators, pastors, theology students, and lay persons interested in theological issues. He guides them step by step to understand the classical, modern, and evan-gelical models of revelation and inspiration by analyzing the hermeneutical pre-suppositions from which they come. The reader will see that each of these models fail in some way to integrate either what the Bible says about itself, or the facts of what we find on the written page. Then by using the same hermeneutical presup-positions biblical authors assumed when writing Scripture Canale develops an al-ternate model able to harmonize what Scripture teaches about itself with its actual characteristics as written work (phenomena of Scripture). The book ends by con-sidering the consequences that the new historical cognitive model of revelation inspiration has for the interpretation of Scripture and its truthfulness.

For the past twenty years, Fernando L. Canale, PhD,

has served as professor of theology and philosophy at Andrews University’s Theological Seminary. He is also the author of numerous articles and three other books: Toward a Criticism of Theological Reason: Time and Timelessness as Primordial Presuppositions, Back to Revelation-Inspiration: In Search of New Foundations, and Basic Elements of Christian Theology: Scripture Replacing Tradition. He lives in Berrien Springs, Michigan, with his wife, Mirta.

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE ofCHRISTIAN THEOLOGY:A Hermeneutical Study of the

Revelation and Inspiration of the Bible

Fernando Canale

Andrews University Lithothec

2005

I dedicate this book to my wife Mirta, her wisdom, prayers, patience and beauty have motivated and encouraged me to study,

research, and write this book for my students

“...In The Cognitive Principle of Christian Theology Canale brings apractical, groundbreaking Adventist introduction to this extremely importantdoctrine… .Through a carefully outlined and progressive discussion,...Canaleleads the reader...to understand both the complex issues inherent in thesubject, as well as the down-to-earth difference one’s view of it makes intheology, preaching, leadership, view of authority, and sense of churchmission. This engaging, easy to read work...builds confidence in the Wordof God."

–Larry Lichtenwalter, Ph.D., Senior Pastor of the Village Church ofSeventh-day Adventists, Berrien Springs, Michigan.

“In the light of his penetrating analysis of the presuppositional structures ofthe classical and liberal models of revelation-inspiration, Dr. FernandoCanale has effectively exposed their limitation… .His new model does fulljustice to the balanced divine-human role God took in the revelation-inspiration process and so makes a major contribution to the on-goingdebate. He clearly shows how his new model is relevant to a post-Kantian,post-modern world view. It is presented in a user-friendly way withillustrations. I consider it a classic destined to have a persuasive impact onthis foundational issue of hermeneutics.”

–Norman R. Gulley, Ph.D., Research Professor in SystematicTheology, Southern Adventist University.

“Philosophy can be an excellent handmaiden for theology. It may, alongwith fresh biblical interpretation, provide solutions to long standingproblems. In this case, it helps professor Canale come up with a new way ofunderstanding the dialectic of the divine and human dimensions of Scripture.It enables him, with a sounder understanding of God, to approach theproblem from a hermeneutical perspective which assumes a temporal-

historical conception of the divine nature and makes it easier to understandGod's actions in history such as revelation and inspiration. The work iscomprehensive in breadth and profound in depth.”

–Clark H. Pinnock, Ph.D., Professor of Systematic Theology, McMaster Divinity College.

“This is a carefully written study of the most fundamental Christian doctrine.The author has rightly discerned some problems which have plagued theformulation of this doctrine for ages… . With clarity of language andexcellent organization, Dr. Canale confronts ambiguity. With carefuldefinition of concepts and precise distinction between them, Dr. Canale seeksto reduce confusion. His unswerving faithfulness to the Bible helps him toavoid the extremes of narrowly based models. There is a need for such awork in SDA theology, and Christian theology as well. Dr Canale's TheCognitive Principle of Christian Theology addresses that need.”

–Miroslav M. Kis, Ph.D., Professor of Ethics, Chair of the Theology andChristian Philosophy Department, SDA Theological Seminary, AndrewsUniversity.

“… .I find Canale's study persuasive and illuminating. Such a foundationalground-breaking work is long (almost two millennia!) overdue, and willundoubtedly prove to be a watershed in theological discussion at the turn ofthe new millennium.”

–Richard M. Davidson, Ph.D., J. N. Andrews Professor of OldTestament Interpretation, Chair of the Old Testament Department, SDATheological Seminary, Andrews University.

"In this book Dr. Canale offers a much-needed antidote to the partisan

debates over revelation, inspiration and hermeneutics. The book is sober andcarefully reasoned, as one would expect from a philosopher, yet there is aconsistent attempt to take exegesis of the Bible seriously. No one will readthis volume for entertainment, but for those who care deeply about the Wordof God, this book will provide lasting benefit. I highly recommend it."

–Jon Paulien, Professor of New Testament Interpretation, SDATheological Seminary, Andrews University.

GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

SECTION 1: GROUNDWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1. What Are You Talking About? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. General Revelation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3. Introduction to the Study of Special Revelation . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4. The Biblical Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5. What is Knowledge? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 6. The Possibility of Revelation: Nature and Supernature . . . . . . . 87

SECTION 2: MODELS OF INTERPRETATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 7. Models as Tools for Understanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 8. The Classical Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 9. The Turning Point Between the Classical and Modern Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13910. The Modern Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15311. The Evangelical Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

SECTION 3: THE HISTORICAL COGNITIVE MODEL . . . . . . . . 22512. The Postmodern Shift: The Possibility of a New Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22613. Biblical Hermeneutical Presuppositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24314. Methodological Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27615. God’s Role in Revelation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28916. Revelation Incarnated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32217. Patterns of Revelation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35218. Inspiration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39019. Hermeneutical Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42020. The Truthfulness of Scripture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449

PREFACE

Where do Christians get the information about what they believe? How dotheologians know whether the doctrines they teach are made up of divine truth?For centuries believers have assumed that the Bible, consisting of the Old andNew Testaments, is the origin of Christian knowledge. Over time, other sourceswere added to Scripture, such as philosophy, science, tradition and experience.With the advent of modernity, philosophy and science led many Christiantheologians to the idea that the documents comprising Scripture came out ofhuman thinking and tradition. If the modern view was correct, Christian theologyhad no cognitive foundation; it was left groundless.

By the end of the twentieth century, the conviction that religion is a matter ofhuman tradition had firmly entrenched itself in postmodern thought and culture.The prevailing belief seemed to be that as humans relate to their finitude andmortality, their imagination creates scenarios that comfort them in sorrows anddeath. Even many Christian believers relate to their religion today as a matter ofcultural tradition, not as a matter of divine truth or as an accurate description ofreality.

Is there unique truth in Christianity? Do Christian doctrines describe realthings to our minds? Or are they the result of imagination flowing through thetraditions into which we are born? Is the modern view of the Bible’s origin thefinal word on the matter? Or are the views of the classical church and ofcontemporary evangelicals viable in postmodern times? Should we think about

2 THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

the origin of Christian knowledge— the revelation and inspiration ofScripture— by constructing a new model to lead us beyond the limitations ofpresent ideas?

As I started thinking and teaching on these issues, I soon realized that therewere no textbooks on revelation and inspiration that would respond to the presentpostmodern situation. Those few available only rehashed the old theories. Forexample, theologians from the modern school of thought reject the possibility thatthe Bible came from God by pointing to Scriptural inconsistencies they callerrors. If Scripture errs, it cannot be divinely inspired. To them, divine inspirationcan only mean verbal inspiration— the idea modern theologians hear from theirevangelical colleagues that the Holy Spirit produced the actual words ofScripture through the human writers.

In other words, the only written considerations I could find about revelation-inspiration— the Bible’s origin— were from modern theologians, which beganwith the actual facts of the biblical text (also known as the phenomena ofScripture) and thereby rejected its claim of divine origin; or from classical andevangelical theologians, who began with the Bible’s claim about itself (thedoctrine of Scripture) and reasoned their way to the belief that the book containsno errors at all.

Trying to avoid such lopsided thinking, I took a different approach, beginningnot from the inerrancy controversy, nor based on either the doctrine orphenomena of Scripture, but by considering both at once. In the present work,The Cognitive Principle of Christian Theology: A Postmodern View ofRevelation-Inspiration, I attempt to bring the two starting points together. Thisbook begins with the postmodern conviction that “to know is to interpret.”Together you, the reader, and I will study the classical, modern, and evangelicalmodels of revelation and inspiration by analyzing the hermeneuticalpresuppositions from which they come. We will find that each of these modelsfails in some way to integrate either what the Bible says about itself, or the factsof what we find on the written page. Once that is complete, we will apply thesame analysis of presuppositions to the Bible itself in order to develop analternative model of revelation-inspiration: the historical-cognitive model. Onlyonce we have considered all available models and have developed an alternative

PREFACE 3

will we consider the issue of Scripture’s reliability in postmodern times.Hopefully, by so doing we will escape the inerrancy debate, and challenge thegeneralized notion that Christianity is based on mere legend we have inheritedthrough tradition.

The issue before us is the starting place of Christian theology. How weunderstand the origin of the Cognitive Principle of Christian Theology— theBible— will determine the contents of our theology, and consequently the unityand action of the Christian church.

This work is based on two of my earlier books, A Criticism of TheologicalReason: Time and Timelessness as Primordial Presuppositions,1 and Back toRevelation-Inspiration: Searching for the Cognitive Foundations of ChristianTheology in a Postmodern World.2 Unlike those works, in the present study I amnot addressing primarily the academic community, but the thinking communityof the church, including administrators, pastors, theology students, and laypersons interested in theological issues. Because I could not find a textbook thatcovered all the issues effectively, I prepared one of my own for my seminary classon revelation, inspiration, and the interpretation of Scripture. I finished most ofthe manuscript by July 2001 and published it as “a work in progress” with onlyseventeen chapters, thanks to the hard work of my then-graduate assistant, KarenK. Abrahamson, who carefully edited and formatted the manuscript for theprinters. Since that time I have finished writing the last three chapters, and gainedvaluable input from my students, who used the book to prepare themselves forexaminations.

They picked up no few inconsistencies and typos that needed correction.Some, particularly Nathan Robinson, took time to write them in their copies andshared them with me. My secretary, Marilyn Bender, had the thankless job ofproofreading the manuscript I was using as a textbook for my students. Asproofreading was slow, I continued to publish the unfinished and uncorrectedmanuscripts each year.

By the fall of 2003, Karen had taken grater responsibilities and I wasinterviewing students to fill the graduated assistant position. One of the studentsI interviewed, Tomm Lemon, had already taken the class for which the textbookwas written. When I asked about his editing skills, he responded with confidence


1Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1983.2Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2001.

and began editing the book to make it more reader-friendly, continuing even aftergraduating and moving to Idaho to pastor two rural congregations. I want toexpress my gratitude to Tomm for his excellent job. As a result of hiscontribution, I find this book much easier to read and more accessible to a wideraudience. My gratitude also goes to Samuel Millen who in short notice proofreadthe manuscript for publication. It is my prayer that students of theology, pastors,and motivated believers may find in these pages a helpful introduction to thetheological understanding of the revelation and inspiration of Scripture.

My gratitude also goes to Dr. Miroslav Kis, Chair of the Theology andChristian Philosophy Department, for his continuous support and friendshipthroughout our years together; and to the administration of the Seventh-dayAdventist Seminary for implementing the semester research policy without whichI could not have produced this work. May all honor and glory be given to God, the Author and Revealer ofTruth and Grace.

F.L.C.

SECTION ONEGROUNDWORK

The study of revelation-inspiration is a complex enterprise. As theologians studythe origin of Scripture, they must consider many issues. Later in this book we willexamine the major views on revelation and inspiration, but before we can do that,we must understand the foundations of the issue first.

In Chapter 1, we will address methodological issues, clarify the subjectmatter, and consider why we are discussing the topic in the first place. Oncethat is complete, we must discuss general revelation, first to distinguish itfrom natural theology and second, to uncover the role it serves in theinterpretation of revelation-inspiration; this we do in Chapter 2.

Chapter 3 introduces the study of special revelation by examining theconcepts of revelation and inspiration, and uncovering presuppositions withwhich theologians consider them. There we will discuss the theoreticalnature of any doctrine of revelation-inspiration and identify the data on whichsuch a doctrine builds. At that point we will choose and describe amethodology with which we will analyze the data and interpret ideas aboutrevelation and inspiration.

The biblical claim of its own origin is the topic of Chapter 4. Twostatements, in 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20-21, we will analyze tounderstand the problem of revelation-inspiration.

Chapter 5 is a consideration of the cognitive nature of revelation-inspiration; there we will introduce ourselves to a basic description of thestructure of knowledge, highlighting the role of our presuppositions. One setof presuppositions that has particular bearing on revelation-inspiration is thatof nature and supernature; Chapter 6 explores how these two aspects ofreality have been interpreted by Christian theologians over the centuries.

1. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

§1. BREAKING THE ICE

Have you ever gone back to your hometown after a prolonged absence?Good friends, no doubt, threw you a welcome-home party. This happened tome when I returned to Argentina after four years of being away. I had beenlooking forward to this reunion for a very long time. After the initialexcitement and reminiscence of “the good old days,” the conversation turnedto more recent events. Although a few moments earlier everyone had receivedme with open arms, I began to feel strangely out of place. Why? A fewmonths later that strange feeling left as mysteriously as it had come. But Istill couldn’t answer why I had felt so out of place in my hometown andsurrounded by my best friends.

Looking back, it dawned on me that at the welcome party my friends hadstarted to talk about things with which I was unfamiliar. I felt out of placebecause I could not understand their conversations. Fortunately, in time, Ibecame familiar with the issues and events they were talking about, and theuncomfortable feeling of alienation disappeared.

I share this experience with you, the reader, because I suspect you mayexperience a similar feeling of alienation as you embark on your study oftheology. You have dreamed with excitement about these studies. Perhaps inanswer to a call to ministry, you decided to attend a seminary, or you have

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? 7

purchased a few books to learn more about the Bible and become more effectivein your witness for the Lord. So you are very excited and ready to go.

But as you begin to read your excitement may start to dwindle; you maybegin to feel confused, out of place, even alienated. Please don’t be discouraged!Think of me, the writer of these pages, as your friend. I will do my best to explainany unfamiliar ideas or terms. However, even my best efforts will not alwayskeep you from feeling lost. The key to overcoming this discomfort isperseverance. Bear with me and you will become familiar with the issuessurrounding revelation-inspiration.

Traditionally, Scripture has enjoyed a place of authority in Christiantheology and the church’s experience. But during the last two centuries, itsposition has come under fire. Now, the trustworthiness of Scripture isquestioned not merely by philosophers and theologians, but by people ofevery background and discipline. Faithful pastors and informed believersshould be able to give a sound answer to the question, Can we believe theBible ?

The issues surrounding any question of the reliability of Scripture arecomplex. Theories and arguments have reached a high level of sophistication andare expressed in a technical terms that confuse even theologians. But don’tworry. I will do my best to make you feel at home! Just stick with me longenough to become familiar with these issues. As you read, you may wonder whaton earth I am talking about. Just remember that you are pursuing a lofty goal.Our Savior Himself requested that we be faithful servants, using all the talentswith which he endowed us - including the ability to think abstractly. Moreover,the apostle Peter encouraged Christians to always be “ready to make a defenseto everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter3:15).1 Since our faith is based on the trustworthiness of the Bible, it is ourresponsibility as Christians to understand revelation-inspiration, and thus beprepared to give a sound answer when we are questioned about the source andvalidity of Scripture.


§2. PAVING THE WAY

Before exploring how Scripture was conceived and written, we must take apreparatory methodological detour.

1. The Complexity of Theology.

Christian theology is a serious search for truth. The many issues involvedand their presentations have led to several approaches to Bible study. Acasual reading of the Bible immediately reveals not only different literaryforms and styles, but also a broad range of concepts and issues— allrevealing the complexity of its theology. Because of this complexity, Biblestudents have developed many different theological disciplines, for instance,textual criticism, literary criticism, biblical exegesis, biblical theology,archaeology, history of antiquity, church history, theological history, andsystematic theology.

As you read theological literature, try to be aware of the differences betweenthese various disciplines, and focus on adapting to their different requirementsand methods. Frequently, students borrow study methods from disciplines withwhich they are familiar, and apply them to other areas for which those methodsare unsuited. Obviously, this only serves to muddle issues that are alreadycomplex. For example, could we study architecture with the methods applied inliterature, or vice versa? Actually, we could— but the results would be less thansatisfactory. Why? Because when we apply methods of study to fields for whichthey are unsuited, we almost always distort the issue under investigation.

The study of revelation-inspiration belongs to the area of theological studiesknown as systematic theology. Thus, students should approach this study fromsystematic theology’s perspective and methods. To avoid using improperapproaches to the topic, students need to obtain an introductory understanding of(1) the area under study, (2) the nature of the problem, and (3) the methodologynecessary for understanding revelation-inspiration. These issues will be pursuedin our next section (§2.2) and in Chapter 3.


2. Area of Study.

The main building blocks used in the task of biblical theology are concrete - thatis, they exist in the real world. Among them we find, for example, languages,dates, names, places, passages, manuscripts, and various archaeological objects.In these areas, a person needs an exceptionally good memory for mastery, whileanalytical skills are of little use. Systematic theology, on the other hand, workswith abstract building blocks, namely, ideas, their meanings, and theirrelationships. For a systematic theologian, an average memory is generallysufficient, while proficiency in working with ideas and their logical implicationsis essential.

Most students of the Bible are actually better trained in the sciences than inthe humanities. Consequently, they are better equipped to work with concreteinformation than with ideas. While memorization works well with manydisciplines, it is actually counterproductive when studying systematic theology.If you rely too much on your memory, you may pass tests on the subject, but stillfail to comprehend the ideas in question and their relationships to each other. Tosuccessfully understand systematic theology, you must first acknowledge thatideas exist and that they must be addressed on their own turf and according totheir own nature. With practice, as proficiency in dealing with ideas increases,you will begin to feel more comfortable with the abstract issues treated in thisbook.

Moreover, if you become able to deal with ideas well, you have manyadvantages in ministry as well. Pastors and evangelists do not deal primarily withfacts and information, but with people. The same process of understanding ideasapplies to dealing with individuals as well. Human beings are affected by manycomplex ideas that influence their actions. Therefore, our interpersonalrelationships depend a great deal on our ability to understand and evaluatevarying ideas and ideologies.

3. Learning Strategy. Attempting to learn by simple memorization is impossible in this area


IDENTIFY the technical wordsGRASP the meaning of ideasEXPRESS the meaning of technical ideas in commonspeechDISCOVER the connections between ideas

Figure 1: Learning Strategies

because memory does not touch our process of understanding. A briefexplanation of the learning process involved in abstract thinking may provebeneficial for students with little or no training in systematic theology.

As you know, one word may have varying, even vastly differentmeanings. Systematic theology has no short supply of such words. At times,theologians attach new definitions to already existing words. Occasionally,when no existing word lends itself to a given idea, they create a new word.In either case, you must be focused and on your guard when studyingsystematic theology.

The conceptual nature of theology calls for some specific learning strategies(Figure 1). The following steps may be useful for studying revelation-inspiration.First, begin by identifying a word used in a technical or unfamiliar sense. Second,try to grasp the meaning of that word as it is used in that context. Third, restate

that technical meaning in common, everyday language (this will help you masterand remember both the concept and the word being studied). Finally, determinethe natural way in which the ideas and words you are studying connect with eachother and the broader ideological context to which they belong.

4. Defining Revelation-Inspiration.

Now we must move into the subject matter of our study, revelation-inspiration.The word revelation has various shades of meaning. When capitalized,Revelation often refers to the last book in the Christian New Testament. It canalso refer to God’s communication with human beings or signify an astonishing


disclosure made by one human being to another. In this book, however, the wordrevelation will be used technically; it refers here to the process by which theinformation present in Scripture came into the possession of the human writer. Inother words, revelation points to how God’s ideas came to the mind of thebiblical writer.

Inspiration has many meanings as well. In everyday language, we use theterm inspiration to refer to the intellect, the action or power of moving emotions,or to the results of such movings. Thus, we speak of an inspired preacher or ofan inspired sermon, of an inspired poet and his or her inspired poems. In ourstudy, the term inspiration will also be used technically; here it refers to theprocess by which the biblical writers put into writing the contents, ideas, andinformation they received through the prior process of revelation.

Remember, biblical authors and Christian theologians use the termsrevelation and inspiration in broad and flexible ways. One cannot ignore thiswider usage or become confused because of it. At the same time, as a student youmust recognize and differentiate between technical and nontechnical meanings.This is vital because it will enable us to use the terms revelation and inspirationin the restricted sense of how the Bible was written. As you will understand later,this restricted meaning does not conflict with more flexible biblical andtheological usages.

The technical definitions of revelation and inspiration indicate that Scripturewas written in two steps (Figure 2). Again, revelation refers to the process bywhich God gave the contents of Scripture to the biblical writer, while inspirationis the process of putting ideas and information into written form. Attempts toexplain the origin of Scripture that disregard either one of these two steps will beunclear and will produce hazy, unsatisfactory theories. Thus, whenever speakingabout how the Bible was written, we must always use both ideas .


Figure 2: Definition of Revelation-Inspiration

Anyone who has been a student is familiar with the experience ofwriting term papers. This experience, by analogy, can help us understandthe process of revelation and inspiration. Producing a term paper requiresat least two steps. First, students need to know the subject about whichhe or she will write; this step corresponds to revelation. After the subjectmatter is clear in their minds, students produce a written report; this stepcorresponds to inspiration. The activities involved in each step aredifferent; yet, in their differences, they are complementary. This processis not unlike the biblical writers’ methodology. Simply, they came toknow (revelation), and wrote it down (inspiration).

5. Focusing on the Issue.

When interviewed by the press, basketball players frequently underline anobvious fact: To win ball games, teams need to stay focused. When studyingrevelation-inspiration, the same need to focus on the issue is crucial.Otherwise, questions regarding the origin of Scripture become entangled withthose of authority, apologetics, and interpretation (hermeneutics). Indeed,revelation-inspiration is closely related to these areas, making it all the more


necessary to distinguish between them.Focusing on revelation-inspiration requires more than just a brief definition

of the subject matter. It requires that we come to understand why the study of theorigin of Scripture should not be confused with these other issues. When studentsfail to distinguish between these vastly different fields of theological inquiry, theirunderstanding of each becomes foggy.

a. Distinguishing Revelation-Inspiration from Authority.

The issue of authority revolves around a simple question: Who has the lastsay? In other words, who has the power to settle any and all disputes?Authority is power. Power gives its holder the right to provide the final,correct answer to debated questions. Authority and power are closely relatedeven in biblical language.

In theology, the issue of authority involves a similar question: Who ultimatelysettles issues of doctrine and life? For centuries, the church exercised thatauthority; Roman Catholic tradition still claims to have it. In the sixteenthcentury, Martin Luther challenged the power of the church by suggesting that thefinal authority in Christianity should be Scripture rather than the church. Today,at the beginning of the twenty-first century, the dispute continues. WolfhartPannenberg, a notable German theologian, summarizes the core of the Catholic-Protestant controversy over authority: “Protestant theology used scripture toshow that church doctrine should be open to criticism and that it had departedfrom the witness of scripture. Roman Catholic theology pointed to the manyvoices in scripture which cannot be harmonized without help, so that an authoritythat can expound and decide is essential.”2

How does the issue of authority relate to the question of revelation-inspiration? Those who say the Bible is the highest authority in Christiantheology must justify their claim. Protestant and evangelical Christiansgenerally argue that Scripture has final and absolute authority in theologyand church life because God Himself inspired it – because the words ofScripture are the words of God. Consequently, in evangelical traditions theissues of revelation-inspiration and authority are intertwined.

However, scientifically trained believers ask, How can we verify the biblical


Classical Protestant view:

Revelation-inspiration grounds the authority of Scripture. The issue of

revelation-inspiration and the issue of authority blend.

Modern Protestant view:

The truth in Scripture grounds its authority. The issue of

revelation-inspiration and the issue of authority are not essentially

related.

Figure 3: Revelation-Inspiration and Authority

claim of divine inspiration? Moreover, what is inspiration, and how does it relateto truth? Showing great sensitivity to these questions, Pannenberg suggests thatwe cannot settle the truth of Scripture before verifying its claims.3 Thus, wecannot establish the authority of Scripture by its inspiration. In this view,authority lies more on the side of scientific reasoning. In other words, the Bibleis authoritative because its ideas can be shown to be true, regardless ofwhether those ideas came directly from God.

Thus, in this view, the issue of revelation-inspiration and the issue ofauthority are not essentially related. These two views are contrasted in Figure3.

How, then, do these two different views affect the study of revelation-inspiration? The conservative Protestant assertion that a connection existsbetween the issues of inspiration and authority is a positive contribution.However, failure to distinguish between the two sometimes leads to asuperficial treatment of revelation-inspiration and to an overemphasis on howit affects the Bible’s authority.

Liberal Protestantism clearly distinguishes between these matters.However, the implication that Scripture’s divine origin is not relevant to theissue of authority seriously undermines that authority. Since the possibility


INCLUSIVE APPROACH TO AUTHORITY

(1) The question of authority should be answered from both, the doctrine of

revelation-inspiration, and the verification of the truth of Scripture.

(2) Revelation-inspiration takes priority over authority.

Figure 4: Methodological Tracks

that God communicated knowledge and information directly to the prophets(cf. chap. 10) is rejected, Scripture is invested with merely human andcommunal authority. Clearly, revelation-inspiration is never unrelated to theauthority of Scripture.

Any position that disconnects authority and revelation-inspiration is notbiblical (cf. chap. 4). If God was involved in the writing of Scripture, hisauthority is inescapably linked to its authority.

Any further analysis of the relationship between revelation-inspiration andauthority is not necessary here. Right now, you need only to be aware of theconnection between the two. When you have mastered this distinction, the issueof revelation-inspiration will come into sharper focus. The followingmethodological tracks (Figure 4) will help you with the relationship betweeninspiration and authority.

First, students of theology should resolve the question of authority byfollowing an approach that includes both revelation-inspiration and theverification of the truth of Scripture. Neither can settle the issue of authority byitself. The authority of Scripture flows simultaneously from its divine origin andfrom the truth of its contents. In other words, Scripture is trustworthy bothbecause it was revealed and inspired by God, and because its words and ideas


can be demonstrated to be accurate. People usually relate better to one or the other of these two approaches. Those

who already believe are more likely to be impressed by the divine origin ofScripture, while non-Christians are more likely to follow its words because thosewords are true. In theological analysis, however, we must ground the authorityof Scripture on both approaches.

The second step in understanding the relationship between revelation-inspiration and authority is to acknowledge the natural distinction between them.We must make certain that revelation-inspiration has priority over authority. Weshould affirm the disciplinary priority of revelation-inspiration over the questionof authority. In other words, we must first answer the question of how the Biblecame to be. Only then will we be ready to evaluate its repercussions in the areaof its authority. Simply, we have to know where it came from before wedecide how closely we follow it.

b. Distinguishing Revelation-Inspiration from Apologetics.

Apologetics is a word rarely used in common language. We frequently usethe word apology meaning “to confess, repent, or excuse one’s behavior.” Intheology, however, apology means “a defense of one’s position.”

During the second century A.D., “a number of Christian writers took uponthemselves the task of defending their faith in the face of false accusations.”4

Because their main purpose was to defend Christianity from various attacks,historians call them “the apologists.”5 The task of defense has continued eversince and by the eighteenth century the term apologetics described a theologicaldiscipline.6 Briefly, apologetics is the rational grounding and defense ofChristianity.

The task of apologetics as a theological discipline needs someclarification. Richard A. Muller explains that “the discipline ofapologetic theology represents the logical and rational defense of theprinciples and truths of the Christian religion. The topics of apologetics,therefore, relate directly to the contents both of philosophical and ofdoctrinal theology, with the intention of manifesting those contents to bebelievable and even compelling in the face of skepticism or disbelief.”7


LEAVING APOLOGETICAL CONCERNS FOR LATER

We should not study revelation-inspiration to prove the truth ofthe Bible but to understand the way in which the Bible wasproduced. The question about the truth of the Bible is not to bedecided a priori from its divine origin.

Figure 5: Methodological Step

This explanation assumes correctly that apologetics requires “the priordevelopment of philosophical and doctrinal theology.”8 Thus, a beliefmust exist before there is a need to defend or ground it.

Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions have frequently approachedapologetics as a rational enterprise with many shapes and forms. Within somegroups of conservative American evangelicals, one of the tasks of apologetics isto affirm the divine inspiration of the Bible. To these believers, God’s authorshipof Scripture, generally understood as verbal inspiration (§55.1), plays aprominent role in establishing the reliability of Scripture. Unfortunately, thisemphasis concentrates on the defense of inspiration to the detriment of a fullunderstanding of what divine revelation-inspiration actually means.

Concerning apologetics, the study of revelation-inspiration requires a verysimple methodological rule: total disengagement of revelation-inspirationfrom apologetics. Moreover, as we study revelation-inspiration, we shouldnot entertain ulterior, defensive motives. The study of Scripture’s origin doesnot form part of the apologetic enterprise (Figure 5).

Two points may help us to see the validity of this methodological maxim: Priority of Revelation-Inspiration. The existence of a doctrine is

necessary before its defense becomes possible. Besides, any understandingof biblical doctrine assumes an answer to the question of how the Bible came


to be. The study of revelation-inspiration, then, precedes the understandingof any doctrine; the understanding of that doctrine precedes its defense.

Bias Management. Mingling the study of revelation-inspiration with thetask of apologetics undermines both enterprises. Refusing to follow themaxim of disengagement will lead to an overemphasis on the more practicaldefense of Scripture in detriment to the consideration of revelation-inspiration. An apologetical bias may pressure students to shape their viewsregarding the origin of Scripture so that they correspond to the views of theircommunity of faith.

We must carefully distinguish revelation-inspiration from apologeticsbecause the two are only indirectly connected through hermeneutics anddoctrine. The understanding of revelation-inspiration one brings to theologicalinvestigation directly influences one’s hermeneutic. This, in turn, helps usunderstand Christian doctrines. Only then can apologetics play its grounding ordefensive role.

c. Distinguishing Revelation-Inspiration from Hermeneutics.

Revelation-inspiration is more closely related to hermeneutics than toapologetics. The field of hermeneutics is the study of general methodologicalprinciples of textual and ideological interpretation.9 Biblical hermeneuticsconcerns the interpretation of Scripture.

Protestant traditions have often viewed hermeneutics as a briefmethodological introduction to the interpretation of Scripture. In this view,hermeneutics describes the rules and procedures the exegete must follow inhis or her search for scriptural meanings. Thus understood, hermeneuticscenters more on the rules than on the process of interpretation it is meant tofacilitate. Moreover, those interpretive rules are seen as undisputed guidesto the meaning of the text, and once they are applied, the meaning of the textis supposed to pop up as reliably as a garage door when the door opener ispressed. The meaning of the text is seen as objective and, therefore, obviousto anyone following the proper rules of interpretation.

During the last two centuries, the study of the process of interpretationhas acquired a pivotal role, over against its rules. Philosophers studied


interpretation as an instance of human knowledge, which spurred more studyof its nature, limits, and functions. That study has proven bothinterpretation’s complexity and its relativity. Complexity refers to the manycomponents involved in the interpretive act, while relativity underlines thefact that interpretation is always subordinate to the framework of reference,or point of view, from which the student approaches a given text, idea orbelief under investigation.

The hermeneutical revolution has been the conviction that all humanknowledge is based on presuppositions and that those presuppositions arethemselves the result of interpretation. In other words, the presuppositionsinvolved in any process of knowing are produced by the cultural and personalexperiences of human beings. Therefore, no two human beings will understandthe same text, reality, idea or belief in exactly the same way. Unlike traditionalProtestant traditions, today’s hermeneutical age focuses not on prescriptive rulesfor textual interpretation, but on their underlying presuppositions. We will comeback to this issue later.

Now we must consider the two-way relationship between revelation-inspiration and hermeneutics. As one pole in the relationship, hermeneuticsinfluences our understanding of revelation-inspiration, the other pole, revelation-inspiration influences our hermeneutics of texts and doctrines. This bidirectionalrelationship raises three questions: (1) how each pole affects the other; (2) whichpole should have methodological precedence, and (3) whether the relationshipinvolves circular reasoning.

Both poles belong to the philosophical area of epistemology, or knowledge.Revelation-inspiration probes the origin of theological knowledge, whilehermeneutics delves into the issues of communication and understanding. Whichproblem should we approach first?

In §2.2, we saw that the study of revelation-inspiration takes place in the areaof ideas and understanding also studied by hermeneutics. Moreover, the processof understanding textual origin assumes interpretation of a text and, therefore,also presupposes at least basic hermeneutical principles. These facts indicate thatwe should begin, then, by establishing some broad hermeneutical principles.Please note that once the inquiry into revelation-inspiration has taken place, its


conclusions become presuppositions which shape the principles of biblical andtheological interpretations.

Does this bidirectional relationship hide a vicious circle? On one hand, thedoctrine of revelation-inspiration stands on the broad hermeneutical principlesthat it presupposes. On the other, biblical hermeneutics depend on a doctrine ofrevelation and inspiration.

This bidirectional relationship, however, is not prone to circular reasoningbecause the presuppositional role of revelation-inspiration does not revert backto the same presuppositions assumed in the reflection that generated it. We gainour basic principles for interpreting the Bible from the Bible, but as we do so,we do not need any prior understanding of revelation-inspiration. In this case, wecan approach Scripture as we would any other book. After we develop ourunderstanding of revelation-inspiration from its pages, we can combine our viewof the Bible’s origin with the presuppositions that we assumed for the formationof that view. Thus, the doctrine of revelation-inspiration is integrated with apackage of foundational presuppositions that together shape how we interpret theBible (Figure 6).

Only one aspect of the bidirectional relationship applies directly to thestudy of revelation-inspiration— the role which some broad hermeneuticalprinciples play in shaping our views of revelation-inspiration. Once the studyis complete, revelation-inspiration becomes an additional presupposition orhermeneutical principle. Our specific study ends at that point – once thedoctrine of revelation-inspiration is established.

Since our study partly belongs to the area of hermeneutics, we willconduct our investigation of the idea of revelation-inspiration by probing intothe interpretive principles that condition its formation.


Figure 6: Priority of Hermeneutics over Revelation-Inspiration

§3 WHY SHOULD WE STUDYREVELATION-INSPIRATION? Greek philosophers of the classical period pursued knowledge for its own sake;they were moved to understand things by the simple delight of knowing. But thesheer wonder of discovery will probably not be a motivating force for pragmatic,twenty-first-century Americans. We are all, even evangelical Christians moreprone to engage in a profitable enterprise than in one without personal benefits.

Consequently, when professors recommend an issue for study, the studentsimmediately ask whether it will play a direct role in their ministry. For instance,they immediately recognize sermon materials as useful. Greek, Hebrew, andChurch History professors, on the other hand, have a much more difficult timemeeting a student’s criteria for usefulness. Unfortunately, revelation-inspirationfalls within those courses that few students will immediately deem as practical.A few thoughts on the real-world benefits of studying revelation-inspiration maymotivate you not only to read this text carefully, but also to dig deeper into theissue for yourself. In this section, we will examine the relevance of revelation-inspiration to theological, ecclesiological, and missiological areas of ministry.


1. Relevance to Theology.

The usefulness of revelation-inspiration is proportional to the role thatScripture plays in the beliefs and ministry of a pastor. For instance, mostevangelical pastors may be inclined to give Scripture a greater role than theircharismatic colleagues who, at times, may lean more on the prompting of theHoly Spirit than on Scripture. Consequently, communities claiming to buildtheir beliefs and actions on the sola Scriptura principle may find more profitin studying revelation-inspiration than those who build their beliefs on theprima Scriptura principle.

Prima Scriptura is a theological principle that gives first and specialattention to Scripture, and then to other subordinate authorities that may helpto express or complement an understanding of Christian theology. Revelation-inspiration is still valuable to traditions following the prima Scriptura principlebecause it grounds the reasons for dealing with Scripture in a more selective way.This will become clearer in later chapters dealing with various models ofrevelation-inspiration.

As noted in §2.5.c, the study of revelation-inspiration is worthwhile to apastor because it uncovers one of the principles or presuppositions of biblicalinterpretation (see Figure 6). Since pastors interpret the Bible every time theypreach, they should immediately recognize as valuable any study foundational totheir homiletical expositions.

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, Christian theology is incrisis. Christianity is not shaping culture as it did in past centuries, and itsthought has fragmented more than ever before. New ways of doing theologyabound. Philosophical, scientific, and cultural opinions have replacedscriptural teachings. Many Christians rarely read or study the Bible forthemselves. Various communities claiming to hold Scripture as their onlybasis for life and doctrine espouse very different theological views.

Why these theological contradictions among Christian denominations allclaiming to base their views on the same Scripture? Shouldn’t they agree on thebasic teachings of their common faith? Obviously, their differences are not in the


sources they employ. The Bible is their one source. While there may be manycauses for these conflicts, we must note one in particular: hermeneutics.Divergent principles of interpretation lead to diverse understandings of Scripture,leading to conflicting doctrines and practices.

In light of this, the study of revelation-inspiration holds great promise forChristian traditions endorsing sola Scriptura. Yet, a correct understandingof revelation-inspiration alone will do little for theological and ecclesiasticalcommunities. It must be used in conjunction with other biblically basedhermeneutical axioms to develop fine-tuned principles for biblicalinterpretation and systematic theology.

Without a clear understanding of revelation-inspiration, well-meaningpastors run the risk of following their own hearts or the expectations of theircommunity over God’s revelation. No effort, prayer, or miracle can undo thetragic consequences of doing a theology that assumes a wrong or aninadequate understanding of revelation-inspiration. Only a properunderstanding of this area will bring Christians back to unified, biblicaltheology.

2. Relevance to the Church.

We live in ecumenical times. However, it is easier for us to see ecumenicalprogress in church activities than in doctrinal issues. This pragmatism apparentlyflows from unbridgeable theological divergences. But unity in life and practiceblended with wildly dissimilar teachings is not a recipe for success. Christiansneed to go back to Scripture to find the source of their beliefs. From there, theycan retrieve the original teachings of Christianity. Both revelation-inspiration andhermeneutics play paramount roles in this process.

Christianity must be unified in truth as well as practice. Any unity not basedon serious thought is external and, therefore, artificial. Without a theologicalbasis external harmony in activities and rituals is dangerous because it mayeasily reduce Christianity to lifeless rituals and social programs. Christian unity,then, must spring from theological thinking springing from the solid foundationof Scripture.

The ecclesiological primacy of revelation-inspiration is twofold. First, it


Figure 7: Missiological Usefulness of Revelation-Inspiration

affirms the Bible’s role in the life of the church and asks that she to return to thefoundation of her teachings and practices. Through the process of discovering,reflecting on and surrendering to truth together, Christians can build real unity.

Second, revelation-inspiration is a vital part of retrieving and appropriatingthe teachings of Scripture. Without such a biblical foundation, church unity willalways have external, practical, and political bases. The inner unity of theChristian church, then, requires a clear understanding of the revelation-inspirationprocess and its hermeneutical role. Revelation-inspiration is an essential elementof the inner unity of the church.

3. Usefulness for the Mission of the Church.

The mission of the church stands on theology. Without it, there is noChristian church and no Christian mission. Moreover, without Scripture,Christian theology would not exist. Obviously, the Bible must be properlyunderstood and appropriated correctly in order to do theology accurately. Atthis point, the relevance of the doctrine of revelation-inspiration becomeclear (Figure 7).

The doctrine of revelation-inspiration is a fundamental hermeneuticalprinciple in Christian theology (cf. §2.5.c). Variations in understanding it havedirect and momentous repercussions in the church’s life, teachings, and mission.


An inaccurate doctrine of revelation-inspiration leads to a distorted and foggyview of theology that adversely affects the life and the mission of the church. Forinstance, Christians who believe Scripture was produced by the religiousimagination of human beings tend to shy away from proselytism and identifyChristian action with social and political involvement. Therefore, the bestmethodology for a successful missionary enterprise is a clear understanding ofbiblical theology. Revelation-inspiration is the first of the necessary steps thatlead to such an understanding.

REVIEW

• The study of revelation-inspiration requires perseverance The study of revelation-inspiration is an abstract, conceptual undertaking.The issues involved in understanding it are many. Not all explanationscan be presented at the same time, and what may not be clear in the firstchapter may be illumined in the tenth chapter. So you must be patient.Keep reading, and as you become familiar with the big picture, thevarious issues will begin to make more sense.

• The study of revelation-inspiration belongs to the arena of systematictheologyThe study of revelation-inspiration is a part of systematic theology.Reflection here requires proficiency in dealing with ideas and how theyrelate to each other. Familiarity with philosophical analysis may behelpful.

• The study of revelation-inspiration requires its own methodology Theology is a complex enterprise involving many disciplines andmethodologies. Since revelation-inspiration is a part of systematictheology, it uses its methodology. We should not study revelation-inspiration by borrowing methodologies from other theologicaldisciplines, such as apologetics, exegesis or history.


• The study of revelation-inspiration requires special study techniques Since you may not have much experience with studying in this area,consider the following steps:1) Identify the technical words.2) Grasp the meaning of the ideas behind those words.3) Express the meaning of those ideas in common words.4) Look for connections between the ideas.

• Definition of revelation-inspiration Revelation-inspiration is the process through which God originatedScripture. This process included two complementary sub-processes: (1)Revelation, in which God originated the contents and information in themind of biblical writers, and (2) Inspiration, in which those contents andinformation were put into writing.

• Revelation-inspiration and the authority of Scripture The issue of revelation-inspiration must not be confused with the issue ofthe authority of Scripture. However, because the two are related, we needto distinguish between them. To study revelation-inspiration, we followa two-pronged approach. First, we ground the Bible’s authority on boththe doctrine of revelation-inspiration and the verification of the truth ofScripture. Second, we give revelation-inspiration priority over authority.Since the question of authority assumes an understanding of revelation-inspiration, we should seek that understanding first.

• Revelation-inspiration and apologetics We should not approach the study of revelation-inspiration with a hiddenagenda to defend the Bible. Such an apologetical approach may distractstudents from understanding the cognitive nature of revelation-inspiration(see chapter 5). Therefore, we must leave those concerns until our studyis complete and our subsequent view of revelation-inspiration has becomea presupposition in the development of doctrine. In other words, weshould not study revelation-inspiration to prove the truth of the Bible but


1Unless otherwise specified, all biblical quotes are from the New AmericanBible.

2 Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 1:26.

3 Ibid., 50.4 Justo L. González, History of Christian Thought, 3 vols. (Nashville:

Abingdon, 1971-1975), 1:98.5 Ibid.6 Wolfhart Pannenberg, Theology and the Philosophy of Science, trans. Francis

McDonagh. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 413.7 Richard A. Muller, The Study of Theology: From Biblical Interpretation to

Contemporary Formulation, Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation Series,vol. 7 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 148-149.

8 Ibid.9 “Ideological” interpretation means interpretation of our “beliefs.”

to understand the way in which the Bible was produced. The questionabout the truth of the Bible is not to be decided a priori from its divineorigin.

ENDNOTES

2. GENERAL REVELATION

We are studying the concept of revelation-inspiration and its hermeneutical rolein Christian theology. The goal of our study is to understand how God wasinvolved in the Bible’s origin. But before we attempt to understand how it waswritten, we must differentiate between two concepts: special revelation andgeneral revelation. We will examine how Christian tradition has conflated thetwo, and the subsequent role natural theology plays in Christian theology.

§4. GENERAL AND SPECIAL REVELATIONSWhen Christians speak of how human beings come to know God and hiswill, they refer to two avenues: nature and Scripture. Consequently, theyhave traditionally accepted two forms of divine revelation— general andspecial. Briefly, general revelation acknowledges the revelatory activityof God by means other than Scripture, while special revelation refers tothe disclosure of God and his will through Scripture. From thisdistinction, it is clear that any discussion of the Bible’s origin – the entirescope of our study – falls within the boundaries of special revelation.

Theologians call the broader manifestations of God “general” becausehow God reveals himself in nature is less specific than how he does in thewords of Scripture. For example, consider the broadness and consequent lack

GENERAL REVELATION 29

of specificity conveyed in Psalm 19:1: “The heavens are telling of the gloryof God; and their expanse is declaring the work of his hands” (NASB). Inthis passage, David is writing about general revelation. But while theheavens are “telling of the glory of God,” notice they do not utter anythingspecific. Indeed, David observes in verse 3 that “there is no speech, nor arethere words.” This type of revelation is labeled “general” because of itsuniversal reach – that is, God touches every human being through generalrevelation. In contrast, through special biblical revelation he reaches onlythose to whom Scripture is available.

General revelation is also known as “natural revelation” because natureprovides much of the objective data. A miraculous, supernatural action of Goddoes not produce this form of revelation. Instead, to reach every person God useswhat is naturally available to him or her. Scripture points to many instances ofordinary means through which God communicates with humankind. (Forexample, see Job 36:24-37:24; 38:1-39:30 and Psalms 8, 19, 29, 65, 104, 148.)Another reason many theologians call this revelatory activity of God “natural”is their belief that human beings are capable of comprehending God’s messagethrough the natural processes of their minds, without supernatural help. Thisnotion, however, comes from classical philosophy rather than Scripture.

§5. GENERAL REVELATION IN SCRIPTUREHow do we know that the God of the Bible reveals himself by means otherthan Scripture? While we could argue for the reality of general revelationon philosophical grounds, these fall short if we are to settle the issue froma biblical perspective. In fact, Scripture itself affirms the existence ofgeneral revelation.

1. Biblical Statements

As mentioned above, the best-known Old Testament text pointing togeneral revelation is Psalm 19:1-4.In that text, God reveals himselfthrough His creation. In the New Testament, the apostle Paul clarifies andfurther develops the Old Testament concept of general revelation in


Romans 1:18-21, describing the context of universal sinfulness withinwhich we should understand justification. He writes, “The wrath of Godis revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness ofmen who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which isknown about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes, his eternalpower and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understoodthrough what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For eventhough they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks, butthey became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart wasdarkened” (NASB, emphasis supplied).

Since the Greek word translated “made evident” means “to reveal, tobring to light,” this verse can be translated, “because God revealed [it] tothem.” In this text, God tells us that he uses nature and history to makehimself personally known to the individual. Thus understood, this text doesnot support the classical identification of general revelation with naturaltheology. (We will explore the difference between general revelation andnatural theology in §6.2.)

2. Three Facets of General Revelation

Paul broadens the idea of general revelation in three important facets— theagency, the content, and the goal of revelation. Agency addresses who isworking within general revelation and is thus its most important characteristic.Content deals with the concrete means involved in revelation. The goal is thedesired outcome of the revelatory process.

a. Agency

Regarding the essence of general revelation, Paul underlines that what can beknown about God is plain to human beings “because God has shown it tothem” (Romans 1:19). In general revelation, as well as in special revelation,God is personally involved in the actual process of revelation in two ways.First, God shapes the medium through which He will reveal Himself to human


beings, and then He uses them to reveal Himself and his purposes. In Specialrevelation God generates Scripture which, the Holy Spirit uses as medium toreveal God to sinners. In General revelation God creates the world which theHoly Spirit uses as medium to reveal God to sinners. That God takes initiativeto speak through the medium He chooses is essential to revelation. He is theagent, human beings are the recipients of God’s revelatory actions. In bothgeneral and special revelation, then, the content of a message is not created bya person using his head to interpret a set of facts. Instead, the Holy Spiritopens a person’s mind to His message through those facts, whether they arethe words of Scripture or the realities of the person’s world. John, in theintroduction to his Gospel, explains that the second person of the Trinity, theWord, is “the true light [that] enlightens every man” (1:9). God achieves thisuniversal salvific enlightenment through a variety of means.

b. Means

Paul specifically identifies the acts of God as the means of general revelation.Tradition has understood Paul’s statement to mean creation or nature. In otherwords, the means of general revelation are the things God created and thatarea of reality we identify as “nature,” in contrast to that of human historyand experience. Paul’s statement, however, does not support the traditionalview of the means of general revelation. Instead, he identifies the objectivemeans or content of general revelation as “the things that have been made”(Romans 1:20). Since the Greek word behind this phrase also means “thethings that have been done,” Paul is referring not only to the realm of creationbut also to providence - God’s administration of human history. In otherwords, general revelation can employ both nature and events (see Acts 14:17).According to Paul, general revelation is the good news that God manages toreach not only those who have access to Scripture, but all of humanity,including all those that will never be able to read the Bible.


c. Goal

Finally, Paul underscores that the goal of general revelation is to allow humanintelligence to see (Romans 1:20) the truth of God (Romans 1:18). Thus, GodHimself acts (agency) using nature and history (means) to reveal his will toeach human being (goal).

Paul’s understanding of general revelation raises two questions. First, cana person be saved only on the basis of the knowledge given him by Godthrough general revelation? Second, does the biblical affirmation of generalrevelation require or even make room for natural theology?

3. Salvific Reach

The answer to the first question seems to be affirmative. On the basis of hisdescription of general revelation, Paul makes the all-inclusive statement that“there will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: firstfor the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone whodoes good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not showfavoritism.” (Romans 2:9-11, NIV). This statement embraces every humanbeing. It assumes the salvific goal of general revelation because only generalrevelation actually reaches every human being that ever lived. Assuming theessential indivisibility of faith and works, Paul asserts the general principle ofsalvation is bestowed not upon “the hearers of the law [oi avkroatai. no,mou ],”but rather upon “the doers of the law [oi poihtai. no,mou ]” (Rom 2:13).

Even though Paul does not clarify in this passage that the “doing of thelaw” is not an independent human accomplishment but rather the result ofhuman surrendering to the personal ministry of Christ (Heb 7:25) through Hisrepresentative on earth, the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:26-27), it is obvious that heassumes the latter. The doing of the law, thus, is the basic content of theexistential experience of the believer “in Christ.” On this basis, it can be seenthat if the Gentiles, who do not have access to the Bible (Romans 2:14),willfully surrender to the calling of the Holy Spirit presented to them throughgeneral revelation, they will be transformed into the image of God in Christ,whom they do not know,thus showing “that what the law requires is written


on their hearts” (Rom 2:15). At this point, it should be noticed that, accordingto Scripture, the writing of the law in the human heart is an essentialcomponent of the eternal covenant of salvation (Jer 31:33; Heb 8:10).

According to Paul, the fact that some among those who do not haveaccess to Scripture have the law of God written in their hearts can beexplained only in reference to the fulfillment of the eternal covenant ofsalvation and the transformation of their minds. Paul’s explanation presentsa God who is able to communicate the same plan of salvation, grounded in therevelation and work of Christ, by speaking either through Scripture, orthrough nature and history. This is the basis for the impartiality (Romans2:11) and the universality of his judgment on humanity: God “‘will give toeach person according to what he has done.’ To those who by persistence indoing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But forthose who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there willbe wrath and anger” (Romans 2:6-8, NIV). Clearly, Scripture affirms thesalvific reach of general revelation.

Now we turn our attention to the second question: does the existence ofgeneral (or natural) revelation as affirmed in Scripture necessarily groundand justify the existence of natural theology as traditionally affirmed byChristian theologians?

§6. GENERAL REVELATION AND NATURAL THEOLOGY

1. Classical View

Natural theology is a reflection about God based on data provided by natureand analyzed by the powers of human reason and imagination. Moreover,natural theology has become synonymous with general revelation. Classicalthinkers such as Thomas Aquinas believed that Romans 1:20 provides thebiblical basis for natural theology; thus, the terms became interchangeable.

Theologians use the words “natural theology” to describe the philosophicalapproach to the knowledge of God. Simply, natural theology and philosophicaltheology both describe a human search for the knowledge of God based on


nature rather than Scripture.Since general revelation is also called natural revelation, there is an innate

verbal link to natural theology, and it is no surprise that many people identify thetwo with each other. But this association blatantly ignores their basic difference:agent.

2. General Revelation Versus Natural Theology

What is the difference between general revelation and natural theology? Based onour earlier discussion of the agency of general revelation, we can say that thedifference between them is in the person performing the activity in each. Generalrevelation is a revelatory activity performed by God, while natural theology is aninterpretive activity performed by human beings.

In general revelation, God uses nature and history to reveal His will to eachperson with the goal of their salvation. In natural theology, however, humanbeings address these same objects, but with the purpose of interpreting them fromtheir own perspectives to gain an understanding of God. In other words, they tryto decipher God based on their interpretations of nature and events.

One should not confuse the revelatory act of God with the hermeneutical actof human beings. These two activities are different in agent and nature. In generalrevelation, God is the agent and His will the content; His purpose is to lead eachindividual to Himself. In natural theology, human beings are the agents and thecontents are theoretical ideas about God produced by their imaginations.Unfortunately, natural theology produces teachings in a degree of specificity anduniversality that can truly be attained only through special revelation.

Traditionally, Christian theology has understood general revelation to benatural theology. Thus, in this usage, general revelation mistakenly refers torational human interpretations of the world instead of divine revelatoryactivity in the life of each believer. Nature as God’s creation supplementedby human thinking becomes natural theology through human agency. Naturaltheology is not the work of God, but the interpretive work of human beings.When general revelation is understood as natural theology it loses the generalrole described in Scripture. As philosophical teachings about God, naturaltheology cannot reach all human beings through all times. It also loses the


cognitive broadness characteristic of natural and historical realities. The biblical concept of general revelation describes God using theknowledge available to each person to reveal Himself and His will to them.The knowledge and understanding leading to that experience have personalvalue only; they cannot be considered valid for all human beings everywhere,as most theologians claim. Therefore, while the Bible affirms generalrevelation, it does not require or even make room for natural theology.Christian theologians should carefully avoid using the teachings of naturaltheology as a foundation from which to interpret Scripture and build thedoctrines of Christianity.

3. Making Room for Philosophy in Christian Theology

But is there still a role for natural theology in Christian theology? ClassicalChristian thought finds in Romans 1:20 the scriptural basis for such a role.Proponents of natural theology argue that since God created nature, we areentitled to read it as his handiwork. Since it is a work of God as much as Scriptureis, they contend, we can observe nature in order to know its author. But thesetheologians often overlook the fact that the teachings produced by natural theologyfind their source not in nature, but in the fertile soil of human imagination. Theirreasoning does not take into account the gap between the indistinctness and lackof specificity within nature, and the detailed complexity of natural theology. Thisgap has been bridged by human interpretation. Consequently, what we find withinnatural theology is human invention rather than God’s revelation. In fact,precisely because of nature’s limitations as a means of communication, Godused special revelation to communicate personally with Adam and Eve in theGarden of Eden (Gen 2:16-17; 3:8-24).

Simply speaking, general revelation does not make use of words and,therefore, has no clear content. Natural phenomena, historical events, andexistential experiences may be used by God as He attempts to personallyreach each human being on behalf of his or her salvation. According toRomans 1, these things have always been at God’s personal disposal anddependent upon his activity in each person’s situation (Romans 1: 19-20). ButPaul is not talking about natural theology, for he does not say that each person’s


experience should be universalized or considered equal with Scripture. Cognitiveuniversality belongs only to special revelation as present in Scripture. Generalrevelation has an individual focus, which cannot be translated into universalteachings without introducing human imagination. When that imagination becomesa component, it takes control of the meaning of general revelation. Therefore, theresulting teachings – natural theology – cannot be said to come from God. On theother hand, in special revelation God works through words. Since the linguisticmeans of special revelation allow for the highest degree of cognitive specificity, itis uniquely suited for a universally valid theology.

In general revelation God talks without words (Psalm 19:3). Yet, theheavens tell the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork(Psalm 19:1). Nature and history (general revelation) are facts we interpret.Yet, when human beings that have no information about the God of Scriptureread them in search of theological ideas they remain silent. In them they do notfind teachings about God or His work of salvation but only a realization of his“invisible things,” such as, His power and divinity (Romans 1:20) that theHoly Spirit uses to bring salvation to those that have no access to Scripture.Natural theology, on the contrary, is about teachings on God’s existence andnature. Where do these teachings come from? Certainly they do not comefrom the facts of nature and history. On the contrary, they are constructsgenerated by theologians. To understand this point better, let us liken God toa carpenter and His general revelation to a chair. Could we read the person,character and actions of the carpenter from the chair he built (generalrevelation)? Does the chair tell us anything about the carpenter other than hisexistence and power to do quality work? Wouldn’t any statement I concludeabout the carpenter’s nature and actions be generated by my imagination andnot by the carpenter? In a similar manner, the teachings of natural theologydo not stem from nature and history but from philosophical imagination.

4. ConclusionRevelation-inspiration should not be confused with either general

revelation or natural theology. Revelation-inspiration describes how Scriptureas God’s special revelation came into existence. General revelation, as taught


in the Bible, is a means other than Scripture the Holy Spirit uses to reach allhuman beings individually on behalf of their salvation. General revelation isnot divine teaching but God’s action. Natural theology is another name forhuman philosophy, which seeks to disclose God by reflecting on andinterpreting nature and history. The basic problem with natural theology isthat the facts of nature and history are not expressed by words and thereforelack the cognitive specificity required of a theology that seeks to be based onGod’s teachings and not on human imagination.

§7. NATURAL THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHYIn general revelation, God uses the world he has created and the history withwhich he is personally involved, to impress the mind of every human being forsalvation. Clearly diverging from special and general revelation, naturaltheology is a human activity. A theology based on Scripture should affirmgeneral revelation, while rejecting natural theology.

Rejecting natural theology is rejecting human philosophy as a source ofrevelation. Christian believers claiming to ground their beliefs on Scripturealone cannot consider philosophy, or for that matter science, as sources ofdata for theology that is at the same level as biblical data.

In contrast, classical, modern, and postmodern theologies have ranked humanphilosophical and scientific data the same as or higher than the Bible. They usethese ideas as hermeneutical principles for interpreting Scripture and formulatingdoctrine . These hermeneutical principles, as we will discuss later, are also usedto explore revelation-inspiration. Unfortunately, even mainline Protestantdenominations still follow this methodology, thereby giving up the sola Scriptura(Scripture only) and the tota Scriptura (the entire Scripture) principles. Whenhermeneutical principles are defined by philosophy, Scripture becomes only oneof several sources of theology, along with philosophy, science, and culture.Furthermore, the Bible is no longer even the first source of revelation becausephilosophy and science provide the initial principles of interpretation. Faithfulnessto the sola, tota, and prima Scriptura (Scripture, only, entirely, and first)principles require that theologians derive their hermeneutical principles from the


Bible. This is what we will do in this book.

§8. REVIEW

• Special Revelation God’s revelation to human beings through Scripture is called “specialrevelation.” In special revelation, God does two things: he originatesScripture, and uses it to reveal himself, his will, and his salvation tohuman beings. The first process we call “revelation-inspiration.” Thesecond is known as “divine illumination”. God’s revelation to humanbeings through nature and history is called “general revelation.”

• General Revelation In general revelation, God does three things: he creates and orders thenatural world; governs history; and uses both of those processes to revealhimself and his will in order to save people (Figure 1). The mereinterpretation and contemplation of nature bring neither a knowledge ofGod nor salvation. According to Scripture, revelation takes place whenthe Holy Spirit illuminates the reader.

The Bible does not discuss general revelation extensively, yet clearlypoints out its existence in the Old and New Testaments. Paul, in Romans,shows that general revelation is a divine activity using nature and history.The goal of general revelation is the same as in special revelation— thesalvation of human beings.

• Classical View: General Revelation Equals Natural Theology asPhilosophy Christian theology has traditionally identified general revelation asnatural theology. However, general revelation is a revelatory act of God,while natural theology is a cognitive act of human beings. Naturaltheology is synonymous with human philosophy, and in Christian


GENERAL REVELATION = NATURAL THEOLOGY

NATURAL THEOLOGY = PHILOSOPHYFigure 2: Classical View

GENERAL REVELATION ? NATURAL THEOLOGY

Figure 3: Biblical View

theology is the philosophical approach to the knowledge of God (figure2).

• Scripture does not make room for natural theology. Over time, Christian theologians have used Paul’s affirmation of generalrevelation to justify their use of philosophical concepts and teachings.However, this methodological procedure is based on tradition rather thanScripture. The biblical affirmation of general revelation does not requireor even make room for the existence of natural theology or its use inshaping Christian theology. Consequently, Christian theologians shouldcarefully avoid building on the teachings of natural theology (figure 3).

• Warning: do not identify the biblical concept of general revelation withnatural theology. We should distinguish carefully between general revelation and naturaltheology. According to the Bible, general revelation is a means other thanScripture used by the Holy Spirit to reach all human beings with thepossibility of salvation. Natural theology is another name for humanphilosophy, which seeks to unveil God through the interpretation ofnature and history.


• Distinguishing between revelation-inspiration, general revelation, andnatural theology. Revelation-inspiration should not be confused with either generalrevelation or natural theology. The difference is in how each works.Revelation-inspiration describes how Scripture came into existence, thatis, how God originated the Bible as special revelation. Natural theologyis human reflection on God, based on nature and history. Generalrevelation is the process through which God reaches every human beingwith means other than Scripture.

• Christian theology should draw hermeneutical principles from Scripturerather than natural theology. Christian theology, including the Protestant and evangelical traditions,has taken the definition of its hermeneutical principles from humanphilosophy (natural theology). When this methodological step is taken,the sola Scriptura principle is automatically brushed aside. Theaffirmation of this principle is dependent on which source hermeneuticalprinciples will be taken from. The sola Scriptura principle stands onlywhen theologians define the hermeneutical principles of theology fromScripture alone.

3. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OFSPECIAL REVELATION

After our excursion into general revelation and natural theology, we returnour attention to revelation-inspiration. In Chapter 1, we discovered that itbelongs to the area of systematic theology (§2.2). Moreover, we definedrevelation-inspiration as the process through which the Bible was written, aprocess involving both God and man (§2.4). We also learned that to gain aclear focus on revelation-inspiration, we must distinguish it from things likeauthority (§2.5.a), apologetics (§2.5.b), and hermeneutics (§2.5.c). Thepurpose of this chapter is to discuss the strategy we will use to understandthe origin of Scripture.

Every presentation requires a methodology or strategy to reach its intendedgoal. This book is no exception. So, before we explore the issue itself, we mustspend some time drawing the broad contours of our map in anticipation of whatlies ahead. Each chapter of this book is a stepping stone to the next, so it isimportant to understand all the facets of each one. Think of this book as apicture being painted before your eyes, with each chapter contributing somestrokes. The full picture will become apparent to you only at the end.

In this chapter, we will explore the concepts of revelation, revelation-inspiration as a process and as a structure. Then we will deal withrevelation-inspiration as theory, as fact, and as problem. At the end of the


chapter we will consider the methodology to be applied throughout therest of the book.

§9. THE CONCEPT OF REVELATION As we saw in chapter 1, the word revelation may be used in various sensesboth broad and specific. Remember, revelation generally describes how Godcommunicates with people; this book focuses on how He was involved in thecreation of the Bible.

1. Broad Sense

Generally speaking, revelation can be described as the way Godcommunicates His person, will, and wisdom to human beings in order tobring salvation to them. Understood this way, revelation includes all theobjective means present in general and special revelations. Scripture is partof this broad conceptualization of revelation.

We are accustomed to saying that Scripture is the “revelation of God” tohuman beings. However, historical facts, such as the incarnation of God inJesus Christ, are also revelations of God. For this reason, we say that JesusChrist is the greatest revelation God has given to humanity. Sometimes, wetake events in our lives as the revelation of God through the Holy Spirit.These examples show that the idea of revelation, in a general sense, involvesall divine activity through which God speaks, every way in which Hecommunicates with human beings.

2. Restricted Sense

Here we begin to use the word revelation more technically. Theologians useit to describe a more specific range of divine activities: what God as divineagent actually did to produce the Bible as special revelation. It is in thissense that we will use the idea of revelation from here on.

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SPECIAL REVELATION 43

§10. REVELATION-INSPIRATION AS A COGNITIVE-LINGUISTIC PROCESS

As we advance in our study, it will become clear that the way God originatedScripture was very complex. It was not created instantaneously by divinecommand, but by a historical process in which God was involved in variousways. As we discussed earlier (§2.4, see Figure 2), throughout this process, Godacted in two different, yet coordinated and complementary ways— in revelationand inspiration. Revelation in its restricted, technical sense describes how God placed thecontents of Scripture in the minds of the Bible writers. Inspiration in its restricted,technical sense refers to how God brought those contents from the authors’ mindsinto written form. Revelation involves a cognitive process, while inspirationinvolves a linguistic process. Revelation should clarify how ideas and informationarrived in the minds of the prophets, while inspiration should clarify how theywere put into words. In short, the historical process that led to the existence ofScripture involved a twofold dynamic— the cognitive process of revelation and thelinguistic process of inspiration.

§11. THE STRUCTURE OF REVELATION-INSPIRATION The existence and operation of the cognitive-linguistic process of revelation-inspiration implies a relationship. That is, revelation-inspiration did not takeplace in a vacuum, but through a relational event between God and the Biblewriters. Revelation-inspiration, then, has two agents— God and each of theBible writers. Any attempt to understand the Bible’s origin assumes aninterpretation of that relationship. In other words, when theologians studyrevelation-inspiration, their goal is to understand what happened between Godand the human writers.

But theologians do not begin from square one. What they have in theirminds, from opinions to knowledge to theological doctrines, they necessarily


bring to their interpretation of revelation-inspiration. Their presuppositionsof God and human nature determine their conclusions about revelation-inspiration because God and human beings are the two main contributors tothat process. Therefore, as the interpretation of the divine-human relationshipvaries from one theologian to the next, so does the consequent understandingof revelation-inspiration, and therefore the interpretation of Scripture.

The nature of the relationship between God and man plays such aprominent role in understanding revelation-inspiration that it cannot beoveremphasized. This will become more apparent when, in later chapters, weanalyze various interpretations of revelation-inspiration.

§12. REVELATION-INSPIRATION AS THEORY The study of Scripture’s origin leads to the creation of a doctrine of revelation-inspiration. Yet, there are many conflicting doctrines on the subject. Themultiplicity of interpretations reveal the theoretical nature of revelation-inspiration.

Why are there so many different doctrines of revelation-inspiration?Robert Gnuse suggests that one reason may be the obvious tendencytheologians have to disagree with one another. Another reason, he believes, isthe lack of clarity and information that we find on this issue in Scripture.Although Gnuse’s reasons are valid, it is possible that the diversity ofinterpretations spring from a deeper source: the undergirding structure ofrevelation that theologians assume when interpreting revelation-inspiration.

As we have already learned (§11), revelation-inspiration involves twoagents— God and the Bible writer. Consequently, our understanding of theevent that produced Scripture is directly conditioned by our understanding ofthe relationship between God and people. Differences in the interpretation ofdivine and human nature will necessarily produce contrasting understandingsof revelation-inspiration. This, I believe, is the reason for multipleinterpretations of the same concept.

Conflicting doctrines of revelation-inspiration can exist only on thetheoretical level. But what does it mean to say that revelation-inspiration is


theoretical? It means that doctrines of revelation-inspiration are human effortsto understand something that God has not fully explained. Although the Bibleis not completely silent about itself as a book or about its origin (in chapter4 we will discuss the two best-known places where Scripture deals withinspiration), the biblical information at our disposal does not explicitlydescribe the cognitive-linguistic event of revelation-inspiration. God has notincluded his view on the issue . Consequently, all explanations of the originof Scripture are theoretical in the sense that they are tentative andhypothetical constructions created by human beings. Therefore, no doctrineof revelation-inspiration is final or invested with dogmatic authority.

To say that doctrines of revelation-inspiration are theoretical implies that theyare hypothetical. Because these doctrines are constructed by human reason, andsince only God can provide absolute certainty, theology cannot decide withcomplete confidence which interpretations of revelation-inspiration are correct andwhich are false. Therefore, any doctrine of revelation-inspiration that we chooseas the foundation for our theology can provide only hypothetical certainty.

Must we be satisfied with mere hypotheses on such a foundational issue?How can we ever be certain that we truly understand revelation-inspiration?I believe we may be assured we are on the right track when we base ourunderstanding on Scripture rather than reason (see below §13). Everydoctrine of revelation-inspiration is grounded on a presupposition concerningthe structure of revelation, that is, on the understanding of the nature of Godand human beings, and how they interact (§11). As we will see in laterchapters, classical and modern traditions of Christian theology have builttheir doctrines of revelation-inspiration on a philosophical understanding ofGod and human nature – that is, on the shaky, hypothetical ground of reason.

There is another way to explore the meaning of revelation-inspiration. Wecan choose to build on the Protestant sola Scriptura principle. In so doing,we are still working within the limits of human reason and, therefore, maynever claim absolute certainty from a rational viewpoint. But becauseabsolute certainty can be achieved by direct revelation from God, we may restassured that a doctrine of revelation-inspiration based on biblicalpresuppositions, data, and phenomena is true compared with doctrines built


on philosophical presuppositions (cf. chap. 9). The historical-cognitive modelthat I will present in the third section of this book is still theoretical andhypothetical from a human viewpoint, but from the viewpoint of biblicalrevelation – sola Scriptura – it can achieve certainty.

§13. REVELATION-INSPIRATION AS FACTMost of us are accustomed to working with facts. The so-called “hard sciences”,such as physics, biology, and astronomy, work by interpreting concrete,measurable data. Although the interpretations of facts are theoretical, the factsthemselves are not. By their very definition, facts are real and certain. Is itpossible there are facts of revelation-inspiration, tangible, concrete things fromwhich to begin our task? Actually, there are.

The events of both revelation and inspiration are the concrete,cognitive-linguistic contacts that took place between God and the Biblewriter. These events were personal and private, inaccessible even to thoseclose to the writers themselves. Moreover, these events are now history,belonging to the irretrievable realm of the past. So, although the variousevents of revelation are not available to the researcher, the results of theseevents are available to us in the concrete fact of revelation: Scripture. TheBible exists. Therefore, since it is the result of the revelation-inspirationprocess, it contains the facts we need to further our own process ofunderstanding.

The fact that Scripture exists presents two major sources of informationor data that are directly related to revelation-inspiration. These are thedoctrine and the phenomena of Scripture.

1. The Doctrine of Scripture

Scripture does not include a doctrine of revelation-inspiration, but it does


include a doctrine of Scripture. In other words, biblical writers did not taketime to describe to their readers the way in which the divine and humanagencies interacted in the generation of the writings. However, biblicalauthors did take considerable time to express their views of Scripture as abook. These views, spread throughout the Bible, are known as the “biblicaldoctrine of Scripture.”

2. The Phenomena of Scripture

By phenomena of Scripture, theologians mean the obvious attributes of theBible as a written work. They include literary characteristics such as style,language, and figures of speech, and characteristics of content such as whatScripture says and teaches. When these phenomena are carefully studied, theyshow a number of features that seem to demonstrate human rather than divineactivity. To find God’s role in the creation of the Bible, we must study indetail the doctrine of Scripture as described within its pages. There the Bibledescribes itself as of divine origin.

In short, the doctrine of Scripture emphasizes the divine role, while thephenomena of Scripture indicate human participation. It is not surprising, then,to learn that doctrines of revelation-inspiration emphasizing the divine origin ofScripture generally ignore the human role implicit in the phenomena of Scripture.Likewise, doctrines of revelation-inspiration sensitive to the human role warrantedby the book’s phenomena tend to overlook the divine role described within.

To summarize this brief introduction, Scripture is fact, that is, it exists;consequently, theologians have a concrete starting point from which to developtheir ideas about revelation-inspiration. First, since the Bible exists, we may askwhere it came from. Second, the Bible describes its own origin within its pages,though not in detail. And finally, the Bible as a document has many general andconcrete characteristics readily apparent to the reader.

In searching for an explanation for the origin of Scripture, theologiansshould find an answer that accounts for all the data presented by the Bibleitself, that is, all that we find in both the doctrine and the phenomena ofScripture. This brings us to the problem of revelation and inspiration.


§14. REVELATION-INSPIRATION AS A PROBLEM As a book, Scripture shares the characteristics common to books produced byhuman beings. Books have authors; they do not write themselves. Since it is abook, Scripture must also have an author. The questions of authorship and oforigin are one and the same: revelation-inspiration. However, in the case ofScripture, the question of authorship goes beyond mere interest in the writer andwhat made him write. For the Bible, it must tackle the unique problem of asimultaneous, dual authorship.

Books are the products of human writing and Scripture is no exception. Thedoctrine and phenomena of Scripture testify to the fact that it was written byhuman beings. However, as we will learn in Chapter 4, the doctrine of Scriptureunequivocally states that God is the Bible’s author. This is the problem: how cana book have two simultaneous authors, one of whom is divine? Reflection on thisissue gives rise to three subordinate questions— possibility, essence, and process.

The question about the possibility of revelation-inspiration simply askswhether a simultaneous, dual authorship can in fact take place. Is it possible toclaim that God is the author of Scripture? Is it possible to claim at the same timethat it was written by human beings? If we assume that it is possible, we movenext to the question of essence: if a simultaneous, dual authorship is possible, howdid it take place? What was God’s role, and what was the human’s? How did theideas, information, and words of the Bible emerge from the unique dynamics ofthis type of authorship? Finally, the question of process builds on the answers tothe possibility and essence of revelation. What were the concrete patterns ofinteraction between God and the human authors in the generation of the Bible?Did the divine and human agencies always follow the same process frombeginning to end or is there evidence that the interaction took place in severaldifferent ways? The question of process explores the concrete ways in which theBible was authored.

In summary, the problem of revelation-inspiration arises from twoapparently contradictory kinds of evidence, both flowing from the facts. Onthe one hand, Scripture claims to be a direct expression of the wisdom andwill of God for the salvation of human beings. On the other hand, it isadmitted, even by Scripture itself, that the actual writing of its words was


done by human beings. The goal of the doctrine of revelation-inspiration isto clarify this problem.

The problem of revelation-inspiration described in this section is one oftheological reflection, not faith. Faith is a personal experience influencedmore by the message of Scripture than by reflection on its origin. Faith doesnot cancel the theological question, but assumes an answer to it. To acceptthe fact of divine revelation in Scripture, faith must first assume an answerto the problem of revelation-inspiration. It is the role of theology to bring thatassumption into open analysis.

§15. METHODOLOGY AND STRATEGY The road-map metaphor we used earlier implies more than a view of the goal,source, structure, nature, and problem of the study before us; it also requiresa methodology and strategy. By methodology, I mean the way in which wewill deal with both the data presented by the fact of revelation-inspiration,and the various interpretations of revelation-inspiration that have developedthroughout the history of Christian theology. By strategy, I mean theprocedure we will follow to apply the chosen methodology to reach our goal.

In this book, I have chosen to apply a phenomenological methodology.Phenomenology can be traced back to Edmund Husserl, a distinguishedGerman philosopher. Hans-Georg Gadamer has said that there are as manyinterpretations of the phenomenological method as there are practitioners ofit. I have decided to spare the reader a detailed historical and systematicdetour into the meaning of the phenomenological method, but we should atleast understand in what sense it will be applied in our methodology.

The two essential components of the phenomenological method that we willemploy are, first, its battle cry, “to the things themselves”; and second, itsdescriptive method. My approach combines these two elements and may bestated as the “description of the things themselves.” When the phenomenologicalmethod is applied to the study of revelation-inspiration, “the things themselves”are the doctrine and phenomena of Scripture. Phenomenological analysis attemptsto describe the facts without resorting to hidden, behind-the-scenes sources, ideas,


or causes. With this approach, one has to work with concrete realities and whatis implicit in them.

Some strategic steps will guide this presentation. First, to betterunderstand the problem of revelation-inspiration, we will take a closer lookat the central claim of Scripture concerning its origin. Next, we will examinethe cognitive nature of revelation-inspiration to gain the necessary perspectivefor analyzing and interpreting it as a divine-human event. Specifically, weneed to become aware of the elements of knowledge and the way in whichknowledge takes place as human activity. Then, we will address the questionof possibility. Is the phenomenon of revelation-inspiration that we areattempting to analyze even possible, or does it present an intrinsiccontradiction? Following this, we will analyze four models of revelation-inspiration: the classical (thought revelation and verbal inspiration), themodern (encounter revelation and human inspiration), the Protestant (verbalinspiration), and the historical-cognitive (cf. section 3). The book will thenconclude by introducing the issue of the reliability of Scripture and thehermeneutical role of the doctrine of revelation-inspiration.

§16. LIMITATIONS There are obvious limitations to our presentation of revelation-inspiration.Most of these follow logically from the introductory nature of thepresentation. In attempting to introduce readers to a complex discussion, theneed for simplification and clarity frequently conspires against the specificityof technical and scholarly analysis. So at times, I have compromised technicalprecision for the sake of clarity, while at other times complexity demandedthat I sacrifice clarity. Furthermore, since this book is an introduction to thegeneral trends of interpretation and the study of revelation-inspiration, I havehad to limit my selection of issues and trends to a manageable amount.

Another limitation flows from the hermeneutical approach to the study ofrevelation-inspiration that I am following in this book (§2.5.c). Since thehermeneutical approach to revelation-inspiration aims to understand how theprocess took place and how the divine and human agencies interacted to


create the Bible, we will not discuss the doctrine of Scripture found in theBible or the history of interpretation of the doctrine of revelation-inspirationin detail. Moreover, the model methodology (see Chapter 7) I will use tostudy and compare the various interpretations of revelation inspriation doesnot require an exhaustive covering of these areas of study

§17. REVIEW Before beginning our study, we have paused to reflect on the nature of the taskbefore us. In this chapter, we have reviewed the goal, source, nature, structure,problem, method, and strategy of our attempt to understand revelation-inspiration.In other words, we have looked at the road before us and chosen the best possibleroute to our destination.

• Goal The goal of the study of revelation-inspiration is to determine the originof the Bible. Specifically, the origin of Scripture involves a twofoldprocess including a foundational, cognitive aspect and a subordinate,literary aspect. The goal of revelation-inspiration is to clarify this processin all its aspects.

• Source The source of any doctrine of revelation-inspiration must be Scriptureitself. The original events that created it are not available for research.The results of those events – the Bible as a book, existing today –constitute the “fact of revelation-inspiration.” So, if we are to understandScripture’s origin, we must start with the only thing we have: the bookitself. The fact of revelation includes the doctrine and phenomena of theBible, which together comprise the concrete properties of Scripture as abook.

• Nature The investigation of Scripture’s origin is theoretical in nature. In otherwords, since Scripture does not explicitly describe the process of


revelation-inspiration, we are left to find the best possible explanation ofwhere it came from. Any resulting doctrine is theoretical in nature andhypothetical in certainty, but reaches its highest degree of surety when wepursue it within the bounds of the sola Scriptura principle, withoutresorting to extrabiblical philosophical foundations (i.e., assertions aboutdivine and human nature).

• Structure The structure of revelation involves two agents: God and the Bible writer.Any interpretation of the revelation-inspiration event directly depends onone’s presuppositions about divine and human nature, and how theyinteract.

• Essence Revelation-inspiration consists of a cognitive-linguistic, divine-humanrelation, that is, an event through which knowledge was revealed by Godand written down in human language by the writer.

• Problem The basic problem with revelation-inspiration flows from the dichotomybetween its doctrine and its phenomena. Scripture declares God is its author.Yet, it also describes what the phenomena of Scripture corroborate: the Biblehas been written by human beings. How should we approach this issue? Byfully considering the roles of both the divine and human agencies.

• Method and Strategy. In this book, we will follow an analytical-descriptive methodology(phenomenology). Thus, I will attempt to describe the major elementsinvolved in the origin of Scripture, and the main models of interpretationpresent in Christian theology. This study includes the following steps:•The biblical claim. •The cognitive nature of revelation-inspiration: exploring the structure ofcognition.


•The possibility of revelation-inspiration: nature and supernature.•The classical model: thought or verbal inspiration.•The modern model: encounter revelation and human inspiration.•The Protestant model: verbal inspiration.•The historical-cognitive model.•Hermeneutical effects of the historical-cognitive model.•The truthfulness of Scripture.

4. THE BIBLICAL CLAIM

Finally, we are on the road! We have introduced ourselves to the issue. Now wemust turn our attention to the fact of revelation-inspiration— Scripture itself. Inthis chapter we will consider two important questions: What does Scripture sayabout its origin and, does it tell us who its author is? The witness of Scriptureregarding its origin is probably the most important piece of evidence we willconsider. So, we must understand the biblical claim before we can assess it. Inthis chapter, we will analyze two passages about the Bible’s origin: Paul’sstatement in 2 Timothy 3:14-17, and Peter’s in 2 Peter 1:21. Paul’s statementpresents the issue in broad strokes, while Peter’s goes more into detail, so we willbegin by considering 2 Timothy 3:14-17.

§18. 2 TIMOTHY 3:16

1. Text and Context

In the immediate context of this segment of his letter, Paul finishes hisdescription of the spiritual condition characterizing the people living in thefinal days of earth’s history. After addressing some of the dangers expectedat that time (3:1), Paul exhorts Timothy to “continue in the things you havelearned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learnedthem, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are

THE BIBLICAL CLAIM 55

able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is inChrist Jesus. All Scripture is inspired (qeo,pneu stoj) by God and profitablefor teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so thatthe man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy3:14-17).

A first reading of the text reveals that Paul is not speaking about the issueof revelation-inspiration explicitly, but about the role of Scripture in the lifeof the believer. Through faith in Christ Jesus, sacred writings (iera.gra,mmata) can give us wisdom that leads to salvation. Though Paul isdoubtless referring here to the Old Testament, his statement describes therole and origin of all canonical Scripture.1 We must not overlook the fact thatPaul is emphasizing the Bible’s role in salvation. Usually, the goal of modernand postmodern assertions about revelation-inspiration appears to be either toaffirm or to negate the truth of Scripture and its authority for the believer.However, we must understand revelation-inspiration in terms of the role theBible plays in God’s plan of salvation.

Paul’s reference to the origin of Scripture is brief: “All Scripture [is]God-breathed,” or, “all inspired Scripture (pa/sa grafh. qeo,pneu stoj).” Thetext qualifies the word “Scripture” with the adjective “God-breathed.” Ourword “inspiration” comes from the Latin translation “divinitus inspirata.”However, Paul uses the word qeo,pneu stoj. This word, not used anywhereelse in the Bible, is a composite of qeo,j (“God”) and pne,w (“to blow,”“wind,” “air in movement”). Significantly, pne,w is related to the nounpneu /ma, which usually refers to the spirit of human beings or to the personof the Holy Spirit. As an adjective, qeo,pneu stoj describes an action of divinebreathing.

Since we have no idea what “divine breathing” means, we mustunderstand this word metaphorically. The text tells us that God is directlyinvolved in the creation of Scripture; however, it is vague as to the mannerof divine involvement. What part does God play in the origination ofScripture? What is involved in the process of divine breathing? The text doesnot answer these questions; it simply states God’s involvement in theorigination of Scripture.


2. Divine Action

What kind of action does the word qeo,pneu stoj indicate? Paul did not usereadily available words such as “speak,” “write,” or “dictate.” These wordswere probably too specific to adequately describe God’s role in the creationof the Bible. A less specific term was needed to describe an action that hadtaken many different forms of expression. After all, God “spoke long ago tothe fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways(polu tro,pw j)” (Hebrews 1:1).

Broad as it may be, qeo,pneu stoj involves writing; otherwise God’s actionwould not produce Scripture, but would exhaust itself in the act of divinebreathing. This passage in 2 Timothy indicates that the end result of God’sactivity is the text of Scripture, or grafh,, a word that in the New Testamentis used only for sacred writing. Thus, this text expresses a simple but far-reaching assertion: God is the originator and author of the writings ofScripture. Moreover, according to Paul, “inspiration” (“God-breathing”) is“verbal” in the sense that it reaches the very words of Scripture (Figure 1).

Notice, however, that the text does not give us an explanation, theory, ormodel of the way in which the divine authorship takes place.

An important distinction must be drawn at this point. We shoulddistinguish between what the text affirms and our theological interpretationsof what it describes. This distinction should help us avoid the twin dangersof either reading into the passage the conservative-fundamentalist theory of

Figure 1: God’s Inspiration Reaches the Words of Scripture


“verbal inspiration” (see chapter 11), or of disregarding the verbal outcomeof revelation-inspiration.

After our brief overview of the biblical claim on revelation-inspiration,we will consider several theological models concerning this problem. One ofthese models is known as the “verbal” theory of inspiration. While the verbaltheory of inspiration agrees with Paul that the outcome of inspiration reachesthe words of Scripture, its explanation of the process through which Godachieved this end is not supported by this text or any other in Scripture.

A detailed theological analysis is required to evaluate the claims of anytheory of revelation-inspiration. Paul’s statement gives us data that shouldnot be overlooked. According to Paul, God’s breathing reaches the verywords (grafh,). Paul, however, does not explain what God does in and throughHis breathing. Scripture has not given an explanation as to the way in which thistook place nor what it means for interpreting the Bible. Consequently, anystatement on these issues falls into the category of theory. Embracing orrejecting the verbal theory of inspiration does not depend on Paul’s affirmationof the verbal outcome of revelation-inspiration. The verbal theory of inspirationwe will consider in Chapter 11 is not the only way in which Paul’s assertion canbe understood. However, no theorizing should ignore the biblical claim that God’sinspiration reaches the level of human words.

3. Human Action

Paul’s statement is brief and to the point, yet it is also incomplete. Did Godwrite Scripture? The text does not say. The unusual word selected by Paulto describe God’s role seems to stem from the distinction between author andwriter. While the text strongly affirms God’s authorship of Scripture, it doesnot say God is also the writer. The statement we are analyzing is notinterested in the question of writing, but in the question of authorship. TherePaul is clear: Scripture was authored by God.

What difference is there between an author and a writer? An author is theoriginator of the ideas and contents of his or her writings. A writer is onewho produces words, sentences, paragraphs— the literary work itself.Generally, an author is almost always a writer. Writers, however, are not


always authors. For example, in an act of plagiarism, a person steals others’ideas and presents them as his or her own. A plagiarist is a writer, but not anauthor. The two do not have to coincide in the same person.

In 2 Timothy 3:16, Paul affirms God as the author, but not necessarilythe writer, of Scripture. In addressing both the question of authorship and thequestion of writing, Peter agrees by stressing that God originated Scripture(2 Peter 1:20-21). Yet, Peter goes on to say that Scripture was written byhuman beings. Does this mean that the writers of Scripture were plagiarizingGod’s ideas? Since plagiarism generally means stealing someone’s ideas, theterm cannot apply to biblical authors. But how should we understand therelationship between the divine author and the human writers? What did Goddo? What did the human writers do? These questions, prompted by Paul’sstatement, are not answered in his writings or elsewhere in Scripture.Theologians have attempted to answer these and other related issues. Theresult of their efforts is the doctrine of the revelation-inspiration of Scripture.

§19. 2 PETER 1: 20-21

1. Context

After reviewing various aspects of the Christian life, Peter exhorts hisreaders to diligently demonstrate Christian virtues (2 Peter 1:10-11). Then,he underlines the fact that Christians need to be constantly reminded of thetruth they already know and practice (1:12-13). Knowing that he does nothave much longer to live, Peter considers the process through which God’srevelation is passed along from one generation to the next. He wants to makecertain that the constant reviewing of truth will continue after his death(1:14-15), specifically the incarnation, ministry, and death of Jesus. Hespecifically rejects the notion that God’s revelation in Christ was a collectionof “cleverly devised tales” (1:16), but was in fact truth. Peter goes on to listthe grounds on which Christian belief in Jesus Christ stands.

First, he points to the believers’ own experiences as “eyewitnesses of Hismajesty” (1:16) and describes what he, John and James saw at the


transfiguration also described in the gospels (1:17-18). But sensory-perception experiences were not, for Peter, the only grounds for Christianfaith. He also points to the “prophetic word” (1:19), or Scripture. Eventhough Peter was unaware at the time that the written gospels would becomepart of the sacred canon, it is clear that the testimony about Christ’sministry, death and resurrection is part of the “prophetic word” and hasbecome a ground of Christian truth.

Peter then briefly describes the salvific role of the prophetic word. Scripturefunctions, he explains, as a “lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawnsand the morning star arises in your hearts” (1:19). Scripture brings the light ofthe knowledge of God to the world. It is not light in itself, but it communicates theLord’s message through its words. Human beings are depicted as dwelling indarkness, a metaphor for meaninglessness and the absence of wisdom just as lightsymbolizes knowledge and truth. God’s goal in authoring the Bible is to producea change in people’s hearts and minds. He intends to replace the darkness ofhuman thoughts with the light of his own divine knowledge and wisdom. Thepurpose of salvation is not merely understanding Scripture’s ideas and teachings,but the rising of the “morning star” in the hearts of human beings, a reference toChrist (cf. Revelation 22:16). Through the testimony of Scripture, Christbecomes Lord to those who through faith receive Him.

Peter seems to be stating that the basis of Christian belief is neither thesensory-perception experience of the presence of God, nor the existence of written communication of God’s teachings and acts of salvation in the propheticword. The real ground of Christian faith is the believer’s personal experiencewhen Christ enters his or her life. But the pivotal role of the written word cannotbe overemphasized. Without it, the “morning star” could not rise in the hearts ofhuman beings.

2. Text

Within this immediate context, Peter turns our attention to the way in whichScripture was originated. The New American Standard Bible renders Peter’sstatement as follows: “But know this first of all, that no prophecy ofScripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever


made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke fromGod” (2 Peter 1:20-21). To study this statement effectively, we musttranslate the Greek as literally as possible, understand what Peter isaddressing, and become aware of some special terms he uses.

Since English translations often hide the rough edges of the original witha smooth translation, what follows is my own literal rendering of Peter’sstatement: “Knowing this first: every prophecy of Scripture does not come intobeing (gi,netai) from [one’s] own interpretation (evpilu ,sew j, i.e.,“explanation, exposition”), for not by the will of man was ever prophecybrought about (hvne,cqh , cf. from fe,rw ), but men spoke from God being led(fero,menoi) by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21).

3. Subject Matter

The subject matter that Peter addresses in this statement is explicitlyformulated— the origin (gi,nomai) of every prophecy of Scripture. How do thecontents of the Bible come to be? The question is that of revelation-inspiration, and Peter answers directly. If our doctrine of Scripture is tocome from Scripture itself, the importance of this statement cannot beoveremphasized. Peter says that the prophetic content of Scripture does notspring from the imagination or will of human beings. Instead, the origin ofScripture can be traced back to human beings led by the Holy Spirit, whospoke from God. Before we explore what this means for the origin of theBible, we must examine the word “prophecy.”

4. Connotation

Since the text speaks about the “coming into being” (gi,netai) of “prophecy”,we may wonder whether this verse speaks to the process through which thewhole of Scripture was originated, or only to the process that produced whatwe normally think of as prophecy. Does Peter’s statement apply to all theB i b l e , o r p r o p h e t i c d i s c o u r s e o n l y ?

The biblical term “prophecy” (profhtei,a) has four main connotations ofmeaning. First, it refers to the gift (ca,risma) or ability to prophesy (cf.


Romans 12:6). In this sense, the word emphasizes the divine cause behindprophetic utterances. Second, in other contexts, the word “prophecy” relatesto the prophetic activity that the divine gift generates (cf. Revelation 11:6).In still other places, “prophecy” specifically refers to the result of theactivity, the utterance itself (1 Corinthians 14:6). Finally, “prophecy” alludesto the content , or teaching, of the ut terances .

Taken together, prophetic content exists within the utterances, which areproduced by the prophetic activity originating in the divine gift. In otherwords, the teaching of a particular statement can be considered propheticbecause it ultimately comes from God via the prophetic gift. Generally, weassociate the terms “prophet” and “prophecy” with the anticipation of futureevents. However, in the words of Louw and Nida, “foretelling the future wasonly a relatively minor aspect of the prophet’s function.”2 In New Testamenttimes, the word “prophecy” applied to any inspired utterance proclaimed onbehalf of and on the authority of God.3

In the context of 2 Peter 1:20-21, the word “prophecy” could refer either tothe prediction of future events or simply to an utterance proclaimed on behalf ofand on the authority of God. If Peter is speaking of future events only, our textapplies only to that type of prophetic discourse. If, on the other hand, he uses theword “prophecy” simply for utterances, he is writing of the general structurethrough which God communicates with human beings.

It is difficult to determine whether Peter meant utterances of future events orutterances in general. The immediate context suggests that Peter had in mind theOld Testament witness about Jesus Christ. At first, this indicates Peter isreferring to prophetic predictions of Jesus’ historical activities. However, weshould not forget that Jesus himself used Moses, the prophets, and the Psalms aswitnesses to himself and his work at the cross (cf. Luke 24: 27, 44). Thus, withinthe context of the New Testament, it seems more likely that Peter is envisioningthe entire Old Testament in this statement.

Now, are the writings of the New Testament by extension included inPeter’s statement? It cannot be referring to them explicitly, at least as wehave them now, because they had not yet been compiled or deemedcanonical. With that in mind, can we still apply this text to how the New


Testament came into being? Would such an application be acceptable froma scholarly viewpoint?

To apply Peter’s statement to the whole of Scripture would be wrongexegetically, but correct from a systematic perspective. Since exegesis isconcerned with the meaning of the text, we cannot say it speaks aboutsomething that did not exist at the time. But because systematic theology isgeared to clarify questions about past, present, and future realities, we cangain insights about the origin of both the Old and New Testaments from atext that only applies to the Old Testament. We learn about revelation-inspiration from Peter’s statement, and use those insights to make progresstoward an understanding of the issue as a whole. It is in the latter sense thatPeter’s statement illuminates the process that generated not only the Old, butalso the New Testament. 5. No Human Interpretation

In 2 Timothy 3:16, Paul approaches the origin of Scripture with a forcefulstatement about God’s causal involvement in the generation of the words, buthe does not discuss how God did this. Peter’s approach to the same issueimplies an interaction present in the writing process. Paul tells us that “Godbreathed Scripture.” Peter tells us that “men spoke from God being led(fero,menoi) by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, translation mine). Peter explicitlytells us an almost obvious fact: Scripture was written by human beings. Yet hedoes not contradict Paul’s statement, because he adds that the human agencyacted under the leading of the Holy Spirit. Both God and human beings areinvolved in the generation of Scripture. The way this basic divine-humaninteraction occurs is the issue the doctrine of revelation-inspiration attempts toclarify. Peter begins this task by bringing in the question of interpretation.

Human activity generates Scripture. But Peter carefully and forcefullyqualifies the role of human agents: “Knowing this first: every prophecy ofScripture does not come into being (gi,netai) from [one’s] own interpretation(evpilu ,sew j)” (2 Peter 1:20). At no time was Scripture produced on the basisof human interpretations. The Greek word evpi,lu sij literally means a“release” or “liberation”; figuratively, it connotes “explanation, exposition,


or interpretation.” Because the text is speaking of the coming-into-being ororigin of Scripture, evpi,lu ,sij cannot refer to the action of the reader. Instead,Peter argues that even when human beings were involved in writing theBible, they were not the sources of the material we find there. Humanactivity is involved, but it is not the source from which the explanations,expositions, or interpretations of Scripture spring.

If the human writers were not the ones who created the views andteachings of Scripture, where did they come from? Peter answers that “notby the will of man was ever a prophecy brought about (hvne,cqh , cf. fromfe,rw ), but men spoke from God being led (fero,menoi) by the Holy Spirit”(2 Peter 1:21, translation mine). Again, the human authorship of Scriptureis denied. This time Peter denies that the will of human beings was involvedin the creation of Scripture. What, then, did human beings do? They spoke(evla,lhsan, i.e., proclaimed, communicated) the messages that came fromGod as author. Speech as writing is the expression of thought. Thus, God’sdirection accompanied the writers of Scripture not only when they wrote, butalso when they spoke. What they said, however, was not out of their ownreasoning, imagination, or creation. It was a manifestation of God’s thoughtsand actions.

6. Divine Inspiration

The text unequivocally affirms the direct involvement of God in the creationof the Bible. However, Peter does not explain how the divine and humanagencies interface. Like Paul’s word qeo,spneu stoj, fero,menoi appears onlyonce in the Bible. fero,menoi is a verbal form of the word fe,rw . Variousinflections of this verb appear more than sixty times in the New Testament,meaning to “bear, carry, carry along, carry forward, bring along, move, drive,and lead.” Peter uses the word in the passive voice as a participle modifying theword “men.” In other words, the action here is performed by the Holy Spirit toor on the men. Thus, “men were led or carried along by the Holy Spirit.” So, theBible began with the Holy Spirit acting on the writers.

These passages sound more like a claim about Scripture’s origin than atheological explanation of the process involved in it. Peter maintains that


Scripture proceeds from God and that it is written by human beings. Howshould we understand him? How should we understand Paul’s affirmation ofthe divine origin of Scripture? The Bible does not clarify these questions. Aswe attempt to find answers of our own, we embark on the task of theology,a search for understanding.

But Paul’s and Peter’s statements present one very important fact whichno doctrine of revelation-inspiration should ignore. They teach that God isthe author of all Scripture. Theology should find a way to understand howthis took place and at the same time be able to account for the human sidethat shows up in how the Bible was written (the phenomena of Scripture). Atthis point we have completed the scenario required to understand thedevelopment of the doctrine of revelation-inspiration.

7. Paul and Peter on Inspiration

As we noted earlier, our term “inspiration” comes from the Latin renderingof the Greek words qeo,pneu stoj and fero,menoi. One might say these twowords encapsulate the biblical concept of inspiration. This idea refers to theorigin of Scripture, yet in a general, nontechnical way.

Earlier in our study, we defined revelation as the process through whichthe contents of Scripture were generated in the mind of the writer, whileinspiration is the process through which the contents already present in theprophet’s mind were put into writing (§4:2-4). Neither Paul nor Peter gavethis technical meaning to the term “inspiration.” Their approach is broaderand less specific. However, the two words that the Bible uses to denote thenotion of inspiration— qeo,pneu stoj and fero,menoi— include in their scopethese technical descriptions of revelation and inspiration. Thus while ouranalysis does not contradict the biblical idea, the student should be carefulnot to read the technical definitions of revelation and inspiration back into thebiblical texts.


These texts present biblical inspiration as the action through which Godgenerated Scripture. Paul sees God’s action (inspiration) moving from thedivine being to the writing, while Peter explains that God’s action reaches thewriter. Paul says that God “breathes” (inspires) Scripture, while Peteraffirms that the Holy Spirit “carries along” (inspires) human beings. Arethese views contradictory?

The answer would be yes if they were saying different things about thesame issue. A closer examination, however, shows that they arecomplementary pronouncements. Paul affirms that God’s activity generates– inspires – the writing without giving any consideration to how that end isachieved. Peter, without denying Paul’s assertion, focuses specifically on themethodological structure through which God does the inspiring. Paul speaksof the broad structure of inspiration from primary cause, God, to specificgoal, Scripture; Peter helps us to grasp the method which moves fromprimary cause to specific goal: the “carrying along” of the human being bythe Holy Spirit. Paul’s statement about “God-breathing” includes andrequires Peter’s “carrying along by the Holy Spirit.” Conversely, Peter’s ideaof “carrying along by the Holy Spirit” is included within Paul’s “God-

Figure 2: Paul’s and Peter’s Views Complement Each Other


breathing” (Figure 2).

8. Divine Author, Human Writers

As we consider the Bible’s origin, we need to differentiate between therole of author and writer. Generally, the author and writer of a literarywork are the same person. Frequently, however, sports figures, artists, orcommon folk involved in unusual circumstances write a book. Usually,their language skills are limited and insufficient to produce qualitywriting. They have something interesting to say, yet they are not able toexpress it in written form. Their literary limitations are solved throughthe assistance provided by a “ghost writer,” a person with highlydeveloped writing skills. However, the ghost writer has nothing to say; heor she is not an author. In other words, a ghost writer does not create ororiginate the stories or ideas we read in the book. The author creates whatthe book says, but not the way it says it. The responsibility for what issaid belongs to the author, not the writer. In the creation of the Bible,something similar takes place. God is the author of Scripture, but not thewriter. Conversely, prophets and apostles wrote the Bible, but were notits authors.

§20. REVIEW

• Paul and Peter speak of inspiration for practical purposes in ministry.Speaking of the moral condition of the world at the end of time, Paulmentions the issue of inspiration to reinforce his explanation of theBible’s role in salvation. Peter verbalizes the fact of inspiration in orderto strengthen the Christian experience of his readers.

• The word “inspiration” is not used in Scripture. Our word “inspiration” comes from the Latin translation of the Greekwords qeo,pneu stoj and fer,omenoi. qeo,pneu stoj means “God-breathed”and fero,menoi means “carrying along.”


• God’s “inspiration” reaches the words of Scripture. In a very broad statement, Paul makes the point that God originatesScripture. Paul speaks clearly of God’s action as being “verbal” in itsresults; that is, inspiration somehow touches the words of the Bible. Buthis statement does not clarify how this happens. Consequently, Paul is notnecessarily supporting the “verbal theory of inspiration.” The verbaltheory of inspiration is only one of several possible ways to understandGod’s involvement in producing the words of Scripture.

• God is the author of Scripture. Paul’s term “God-breathing” unveils the divine involvement in theorigination of Scripture. The term qeo,pneu stoj is purposely broad and,therefore, includes the processes through which the contents of Scripturewere generated (revelation) and through which the revealed contents wereput into writing (inspiration). Paul’s statement on “inspiration” indicatesthat God’s creativity (and not human beings’) is the source of Scripture.

• In the creation of Scripture no human interpretation was involved.

Even when human beings wrote Scripture, Peter explains that they werenot the source of any of the material Scripture sets forth.

• Human beings spoke under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. God is the author of Scripture, yet it was written by human beings. Theprocess through which human beings conceived and wrote Scriptureoriginated in God and was directed and communicated by the Holy Spirit.

• The biblical concept of inspiration is a claim, not an explanation. Scripture does not explain the divine-human process that generatedScripture.

• The biblical claim of inspiration confers divine authority on Scripture.If God, and not human beings, is the author of Scripture, it logicallyfollows that the Bible is a unique book. Its uniqueness rests in its divine


1 See Gerhard F. Hasel, “Divine Inspiration and the Canon of the Bible,”Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 5, no. 1 (1994): 68-105.

2 J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, eds. Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon Based onSemantic Domains, 2d ed (New York: Michael S. Bushell, 1995), s.v. profh,thj.

origin. Since God authored the Bible, he conferred on it his authority;therefore, the authority of Scripture does not reside in itself, but in itsauthor. The authority of the Bible always rests in its mediatorial functionbetween God’s thoughts and human understanding, between God’sactions and human life.

• The biblical claim requires a theological explanation. The Bible’s claim that it is authored by God and written by humanbeings, is not immediately understandable. As believers accept this claimby faith, each of them forms in their minds a picture of how it took place.Thus, a variety of understandings about revelation-inspiration are formedwithout necessarily being expressed. Since the process is never explicitlydescribed in Scripture, believers cannot know whether their mentalpictures of revelation-inspiration are correct without exploring the issuetheologically.

• The doctrine of revelation-inspiration must consider the biblical claim.Paul and Peter write that God is the author of Scripture. As we try tounderstand revelation-inspiration, we should not ignore their claim.Moreover, we should carefully include all the pieces of the puzzle. The piecesto be included in revelation-inspiration fall into two main categories— thebiblical doctrine of Scripture (what Scripture says about itself) and thephenomena of Scripture (what we find as we read and study Scripture).

ENDNOTES


3 Ibid.

5. WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE?

In this chapter, we will explore the structure of human knowledge. In otherwords, our purpose is to gain a basic awareness about the act through whichhuman beings come to know things. Some readers will wonder why aphilosophical issue that, at first glance, appears totally unrelated torevelation-inspiration should be included in this study. Some may even objectto such inclusion on grounds that revelation-inspiration is not aphilosophical, but a theological matter. Very few readers will immediatelysee the connection between understanding how human knowledge takes placeand the doctrine of revelation-inspiration.

So we will begin this chapter with a brief explanation of the cognitivenature of revelation-inspiration. Only when these issues become clear in ourminds will we understand why the study and interpretation of revelation-inspiration requires explicit awareness of how people know. We will explorethe classical, modern, and postmodern views of knowledge, and concludewith a brief overview of some key ways in which human knowledge isinvolved in the question of revelation-inspiration. Although the issuesaddressed in this section may be foreign to many readers, I cannotoveremphasize their importance for the study of revelation-inspiration. Theanswer to how people know is always presupposed in the issue and doctrineof revelation-inspiration. Becoming aware of how knowledge takes place setsthe foundation for interpreting the models of revelation-inspiration produced

WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE? 71

by Christian theologians. It is also key to understanding how the minds of thebiblical writers were engaged in the writing of Scripture.

§21. THE COGNITIVE NATURE OF REVELATION-INSPIRATION Revelation-inspiration, as we have defined it in this book, deals with theorigin of the ideas, information, and words of the Bible. At its essence, thedoctrine of revelation-inspiration tries to clarify the origin of theologicalknowledge as given in Scripture. As we will see, some models of revelation-inspiration argue that God is involved in the generation of biblical teachingsand information. Other models, however, argue that all the contents ofScripture are of human origin. In spite of their differences, both modelsclearly deal with the cognitive process through which the Bible came to be.

The phenomena of Scripture give us another angle from which to view thecognitive nature of revelation-inspiration. Scripture is made up of language:letters, words and sentences. But the ideas found in those sentences come fromsomewhere – from someone’s mind. A linguistic phenomenon flows from acognitive source. Although the process of knowledge and linguistic expression aretwo different things, they cannot be separated. Words and knowledge belongtogether. Words require and imply knowledge, while knowledge requires wordsfor expression. Knowledge, however, is the ultimate ground for words and theirmeanings.

Recent developments in the philosophy of language testify to this fact. In theprevious century, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, and Gadamer, among others, studiedthe function of human knowledge from the starting point of language. During thelast portion of the eighteenth century, Kant studied how human knowledgeoperates, starting from an analysis of judgments. Judgments and language areboth products of a human mind, a fact which entitles them to be primary data forstudying the functioning of human knowledge. In other words, judgments andlanguage imply the existence of a mind to produce them. Where there are words,a thinking agent must somehow be producing them. Thus, the phenomena ofScripture also reveal the cognitive nature of revelation-inspiration.


If the issue we are investigating is cognitive, our analysis will alwaysassume an understanding of what cognition is. In other words, if we arestudying understanding or thinking, we must know what it means tounderstand or to think. Unfortunately, our awareness of how we obtain anduse knowledge relies more on our daily cognitive experiences than onreflection on how those experiences take place. This is true not only foreveryday people, but also for many theologians and scientists. In otherwords, we all know what knowledge is because we are experiencing it all thetime. Yet, most of us are not in the habit of analyzing and describing inwords what actually takes place when we know – when we experienceknowledge. Consequently, the ideas about knowledge we assume are foggy– we don’t know how we know – and lack the precision required in theanalysis of revelation-inspiration. The clearer we conceptualize knowledge,the better our analysis of the doctrine of revelation-inspiration will be. So, wemust become familiar with the activity of knowledge.

§22. THE COGNITIVE NATURE OF THE DOCTRINE OFREVELATION-INSPIRATIONFirst we must distinguish between the revelation-inspiration events thatoriginated Scripture and our interpretation of them. In §21, we learned that theevent of revelation-inspiration is cognitive. That is, the goal of our study is tounderstand an event that happens in the mind. However, we should alsorecognize that our understanding of the revelation-inspiration events also happensin the mind. When we strive to understand the cognitive events which resulted inthe Bible, we find ourselves also performing a cognitive act. When theologiansreflect on any cognitive issue, the nature of their task is also cognitive. Thus, theformulation of doctrines about the origin of Scripture also belong to the area ofhuman knowledge.

This is another reason why we include the issue of knowledge in our study

of revelation-inspiration. Understanding the structure of knowledge is a helpfultool in analyzing the history of theological interpretations of the doctrine of


revelation-inspiration. In the following section, I will attempt to introduce thestudent to a simplified description of the act of knowledge.

§23. PAUSE: WARNING AND ENCOURAGEMENTBefore I proceed to describe knowledge, let me both warn and encourageyou. You must be aware of the difficulty of the task in which we areabout to embark. Even though what follows is a simplified explanation,the issue remains difficult because it remains concealed from oureveryday experience. This warning applies not only to readers introducingthemselves to theological reflection, but also to scholars. Scholarshiprequires awareness and use of data but scholars often forget about thecognitive processes through which data is obtained and interpreted.Consequently, some readers may need to go over this description ofknowledge more than once. After reading, some students may get undulydiscouraged, thinking that they do not have what it takes to reflecttheologically. Others may try to lay the blame for their lack ofunderstanding on the writer.

In this context, let me add to the warning a word of encouragement.The difficulty in understanding what follows is neither due to a deficiencyof the reader’s intelligence nor to the intentional design of the writer, butto the nature of the issue before us. There are two reasons this issue isdifficult to understand. First, we can grasp the cognitive act of humanknowledge only through self-reflection. Second, the description ofknowledge deals with a reality difficult or even impossible to visualize.

An analogy between sports and knowledge may help with this point.Basketball players are not usually able to explain in words what they doon the basketball court, but by reviewing the game on tape they can beginto understand how well they played. It is only after playing the game thatthe moment of self-reflection can take place. The same is true ofknowledge. Scholars and students go about their business of getting andanalyzing information in the same way basketball players play: they just


do it. They do not think about it. Only after giving thought to a particularissue does the moment of self-reflection take place: “How did we do it?”The difficulty, however, is that most of us are not used to this kind ofexercise. But eventually anyone can get the hang of it.

A second difficulty builds on the first. The subject matter we aresupposed to focus on in the moment of self-reflection is difficult tovisualize. For basketball players, self-reflection comes easily becausethey can see themselves moving on the TV screen. This, unfortunately, isnot the case when we reflect on the way we think. There is no way we can“tape” our mind during the thought process and visualize ourselves in theact or process of self-reflection. I will try to help the reader visualizewhat we cannot see with simple diagrams.

§24. THE COGNITIVE ACT OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE What elements are present when one knows anything at all? By “anything at all”I mean, for instance, a brick, a dream, a feeling, an idea, a text, a jar, a musicalpiece— whatever can become an object of knowledge for us. In the structure ofknowledge, there are three main components (Figure 1). The first component isthe human agent or cognitive subject. When we think, we always think aboutsomething. Thus, the first component in the structure of the act of knowledge isthe subject that produces the activity: the person. The second component is theobject or content of the act performed by the subject. When we think we alwaysthink about something. That something is the object to which our cognitiveactivity is addressed. The object is anything we can know. So an object could bea text, a letter, a sentence, a map, a car, a nail, a sound, an image, a dream, adesire, an emotion. The third component is the relationship established betweenthe subject and the object. FBI or CIA documents, for instance, are objects ofknowledge, yet they are not objects of knowledge for most of us because we haveno access to them; there is no relationship between the subject and the object.


Figure 1: Components Involved in Knowledge Formation

The arrow in Figure 1 represents the third element or the relationshipbetween subject and object. It shows that the human subject performs theaction of knowledge.

In synthesis, we can say that the structure of knowledge always involvesthree components— subject, object, and their relationship (Figure 1). Yet,how does this relationship take place? What roles do the subject and theobject play in the formation of knowledge? Who decides the content ofknowledge? Does the object determine the content of knowledge? Does thesubject become the source of knowledge? Or, do both the subject and theobject together cause the content of knowledge? This relationship has beenunderstood in three main ways: the classical (objective), the modern(subjective), and the postmodern (hermeneutical) views.

1. The Classical, Objective Position

Early on in the history of Western civilization, this view determined not onlythe shape and development of philosophy, but also of theology and the so-called hard sciences. Originating primarily with Plato and Aristotle, this viewis known as realism (in ontology) and intellectualism (in epistemology). Thisinterpretation of the subject-object relationship maintains that the objectdetermines the content of knowledge. The subject (human being) is conceived


Figure 2: Classical View: The Object Determinesthe Content of Knowledge

as passively receiving the information from the object (Figure 2). Accordingto the classical view, the act of knowledge consists in faithfully receiving allthe information coming from the object.

Because the object determines the knowledge that the subject receives,scientific knowledge is said to be “objective.” Any contribution to the contentof knowledge proceeding from the side of the subject is conceived as abiased, “subjective” distortion of objective scientific knowledge.Consequently, the classical view of knowledge strongly encouraged amethodical elimination of any and all subjective contributions to objectiveknowledge. According to this interpretation, the cognitive subject (humanbeing) passively receives all the contents of knowledge from its relationshipwith the object.

The way a video camera functions may help some readers to visualize thisview. According to the classical position, the cognitive subject – the mind ofthe person – operates in a fashion similar to the operation of a tape in a videocamera. As the tape in the camera passively receives what is imprinted on itfrom external objects by way of lenses and computer chips, the cognitivesubject receives the knowledge and stores it in its brain from external objectsby way of sensory perception. As the tape in the video camera does notcontribute to the content of the picture taken, neither does the cognitivesubject contribute to the content of knowledge.


Figure 3: Modern View: The Subject Determinesthe Contents of Knowledge

2. The Modern, Subjective Position

The idea that contributions generated by human beings (cognitive subjects)determine the content of knowledge of the object (Figure 3) can be traced toImmanuel Kant and German idealism. According to this view, the human act

of knowledge is a projection of the object by the subject. What is beingprojected outside the subject is what we normally call “reality.” What we seeas the “external object,” is only a mental projection. In this view, the act ofknowledge can be compared to a movie projector (the subject, or humanbeing) showing images on a screen; the object is the image on the screen,created by the projector.

The distinctive characteristic of this interpretation of the structure ofknowledge is the complete command conferred to the human subject. Thehuman subject is actively (if unconsciously) determining the basic content ofknowledge, while the object passively receives the contents from the humanagent. Due to the belief that the person involved is the foundation andprincipal contributor in the formation of knowledge, the modernunderstanding of the structure of knowledge is subjective. The modern viewis the direct opposite of the classical view; instead of receiving knowledgefrom the object, the human subject confers knowledge on the object.

The modern and classical views, however, agree on one thing: objectiveknowledge does not include the world of historical, everyday, life experience. Toreach objective knowledge, the mind must systematically eliminate any and allcontents that originate in personal and historical experiences. Personal


experiences give rise to opinion, never to objective knowledge. The classical viewattains objectivity by claiming that reason is able to grasp the reality of the objectoutside of the flow of a person’s experiences. The modern view claims thatreason is able to escape the world of historical flux not by receiving, but byprojecting the object into external reality. Human beings are able to projectexactly the same characteristics or contents of a given object because humannature includes the basic patterns of objective knowledge. In the act of projectingknowledge, human beings use the patterns, categories, and forms that areuniversally shared by all of them.

The modern and classical views are actually quite similar. However,they do disagree as to the origin of knowledge. Modern thinkers seeknowledge as coming from the person, the subject, while classical authorsassert that knowledge originates in the object. While the classical view iscalled realism, the modern position is known as idealism. The views doagree in the interpretation of the essence of knowledge. They seeobjectivity as the main characteristic of knowledge and share theconviction that objectivity is reached only when the cognitive subjecteliminates all personal, historical experiences from the formation ofknowledge. In short, knowledge is supposed to be universal and objective.It is objective because it does not include personal opinions, views, or thehistory of the cognitive subject.

The modern understanding of knowledge is difficult to visualizebecause it runs against our common-sense experience. Drawing ananalogy between “virtual reality”and the modern view of knowledge mayhelp the reader to understand this view more clearly. Virtual reality is acomputer-generated experience. In virtual reality, human subjects interactwith a computer-generated projection that looks like reality, but is not.

As is true with most analogies, our virtual reality analogy eventuallybreaks down. In virtual reality, the projection is made by a computer;while in knowledge, the projection is made by the same human being thatperceives the projection as real, as if it were a dream. The point of theanalogy is that as the computer projects reality, so does the subject,according to the modern view. In virtual reality, we see (know) what the


Figure 4: Postmodern Hermeneutical View:Subject and Object Contribute to Knowledge

computer has projected. In the modern view, we know (see) what our ownmind’s capabilities of knowledge have simultaneously projected.

A criticism of these two positions is not necessary in this study. Weneed only to become aware of their existence because of their influenceon how revelation-inspiration has been understood in the classical andmodern periods.

3. The Hermeneutical Position

Heidegger and Gadamer, among others, have propagated a third view that isfoundational to postmodern thinking. This interpretation of the subject-objectrelationship maintains that knowledge is determined by the contribution ofboth the subject and the object. This view retains the classical conviction thatthe object contributes to the formation of knowledge, as well as the modernidea of a cognitive subject, actively contributing to the content of knowledge(Figure 4). In the hermeneutical view, the subject does not contribute byprojecting the universal, innate categories or forms of objectivity, but ratherby projecting the contents of its own concrete, historical experience.Knowledge is formed when the subject projects its experience to the objectthat confronts it. Here the notion of objectivity is radically reinterpretedbecause, for the first time, it includes the world of concrete experience thatthe classical and modern views consistently rejected from their definition ofobjectivity.


Figure 5: Computer Analogy (1)

Familiarity with the way information takes place in a computer mayexplain how human knowledge takes place, according to the hermeneuticalinterpretation. To produce something with a computer, we need a physicalbody (hardware), programs (software), and data. Let us compare theprogram to the contribution of the cognitive subject, or person; the data tobe processed (information that we type or scan into the computer), thecontributions of the object; and the final product to knowledge (Figure 5). Itis clear that in the case of the computer, the final result (often a printout) isproduced by the combination of two factors— the program and the data. Inthe same way, knowledge, the final product, is reached by the combinationof two contributing factors: the experience of the cognitive subject, and theobject that is brought to his or her attention. The concrete, historicalexperiences that the cognitive subject brings to the activity of knowledge areknown in technical jargon as “presuppositions” or “principles ofinterpretation.”

The computer analogy points out something important about thehermeneutical view. When working with a computer, two different users canarrive at different results by using the same data. The reason for the differentinterpretations may be because the two users processed the data with differentprograms (Figure 6). In the same way, human beings produce different results

when addressing exactly the same issue or data because they work with different


Figure 6: Computer Analogy (2)

“programs.” Life experiences differ from individual to individual and, therefore,are understood in different ways.

The experience of examining animal tissue through a microscope illustratesthe role experience plays in the formation of knowledge, according to thehermeneutical view. A biology professor prepares a tissue to be observed undera powerful microscope. He then gathers ten biology seniors and ten seminaryseniors, and gives them all the same assignment: examine the slide through themicroscope and describe it. To no one’s surprise, the reports are different eventhough the slide is the same (Figure 6). Moreover, biology students seem to seemore on the slide than do the seminary students. What is the difference? Is it inthe slide (the object) or is it brought to the slide by the students (cognitivesubject)? Obviously, it is the experience of biology seniors in observing,identifying, and describing different kinds of animal tissues. The presuppositionsbrought to the event of knowledge by each student formed a part of knowledgeitself. This analogy clearly shows the active and conditioning role presuppositionsplay in the generation of knowledge.

§25. KNOWLEDGE AND REVELATION-INSPIRATIONIn this section, I will attempt to explain how knowledge as a human activitycontributes to the study of revelation-inspiration. We must examine two


aspects of the structure of knowledge: analytical role and content.

1. Analytical Role

I have chosen to follow the hermeneutical understanding of the structure ofknowledge in this book. Together we will use it as a tool (program) toanalyze the Bible, and the various doctrines of revelation-inspiration thattheologians have produced throughout history (data). It is important tobecome acquainted with how the hermeneutical understanding of thestructure of knowledge works when used as such a tool.

As different computer programs analyze the same data and strive toachieve the same goal yet reach different results (Figure 6), so humanbeings process the same data (objects) with different presuppositions orprinciples and achieve different results. Because of our understanding ofthe components in the structure of knowledge, and the way they operatein the formation of knowledge, we are aware that any idea we may wantto analyze, including revelation-inspiration, has been produced by usingpresuppositions–what the cognitive subject contributes to the formationof knowledge. In other words, any time we analyze an idea, we knowbeforehand that it has been produced by using presuppositions and data.

Understanding an idea requires analysis. We need to be aware of thevarious parts that form any such idea. These components may vary from ideato idea. Yet because of their cognitive nature, we know that data andpresuppositions are two necessary components that are always involved inthe creation of any idea.

An analytical understanding of data and presuppositions is essential inorder to properly grasp their meaning. Thus, when dealing with howrevelation-inspiration has been understood throughout history, we willexamine the presuppositions and data on which various positions have beenbuilt. This procedure will help us to understand the genesis of theologicaldifferences regarding our topic.

Moreover, we must not forget to analyze our own presuppositions anddata in our pursuit of understanding revelation-inspiration. Consequently, asearch and determination of the actual content of presuppositions and data


will be part of our interpretations. Whether understanding an already-formulated doctrine, or attempting a new formulation, we must begin bydefining the content of the presuppositions and data, which we will use in ourinterpretive or creative endeavors. 2. Analysis and Synthesis

The English word “analysis” comes from the Greek noun avna,lu sij, whichdescribes the act of breaking something into pieces. It comes from thedistributive preposition avna (“each one, apiece”) and the transitive verb lu ,w(basic meaning: “to loose, to separate into its component parts”). Thus,analysis literally means to break something into pieces and then to examineeach piece one at a time. This is exactly what we do when analyzing a notionor doctrine: we take the whole of the idea, break it down into its componentpieces, and look at each piece one at a time, inquiring about its meaning androle in the whole. The movement of analysis is completed by its reverse:synthesis.

Again, the English word “synthesis” comes from the Greek verbs u nti,qhmi, which means “to agree together, to come to a mutual decisionwithin a group.” This verb is a composite of two words— the preposition s u ,n(“with”) and the verb ti,qhmi (“to put, place, or lay”). Synthesis literallymeans “to put together.” It puts back together what has been taken apart byanalysis.

3. Content

The doctrine of revelation-inspiration is part of human knowledge. As such,its formulation necessarily involves data and presuppositions. As explainedabove, the data are provided by the fact of revelation-inspiration, orScripture. Scripture contributes to the data in two main ways: the doctrineand the phenomena of the Bible.

But what about the presuppositions involved?–What do we assume whenconsidering revelation-inspiration? At first this questions seems to require anopen-ended answer. If presuppositions are determined by a person’s


experience, as I have argued in this chapter, then we have to realize that thereare at least as many presuppositions as there are theologians. Seldom do weexperience exactly the same thing twice, nor do two different peopleexperience the same event in exactly the same way. If the presuppositionsruling our interpretation of any issue are determined by all our personalexperiences, no unified understanding can ever be achieved. Our thinking willbe fragmented ad infinitum, threatening the very possibility of meaningfulcommunication and understanding.

However, not all presuppositions are of the same kind or play the samerole. Let us go back for a moment to the microscope analogy (Figure 6).Students observing the slide under the microscope bring all their experienceswith them, yet obviously they do not need to use all of it to understand theslide. Only a few experiences apply. So which presuppositions matter? Thatis determined by the nature of the object. In the case of the microscopeanalogy, only knowledge about the characteristics of cell tissue applies.Theological knowledge, strong political feelings on abortion, and other ideasexist among the presuppositions of the cognitive subject, but that person doesnot use them to identify and describe the slide because they do not apply tothe object–the cell tissue in question.

Likewise, not all presuppositions are relevant to revelation-inspiration. Todecide which of them apply, we must focus on the object of consideration:the origin fo the Bible (see §10 and 11, where we considered the two mainagents in the generation of Scripture–God and human beings). Consequently,any analysis of revelation-inspiration assumes a particular view on the natureand actions of God and of human beings, particularly as they relate to theformulation of knowledge. Hence out of the sum total of our past personalexperiences, the presuppositions that matter are our beliefs about the naturesof God and of man, and how they interacted to produce the Bible. These twoprior beliefs are always involved in the analysis, interpretation, andformulation of the doctrine of Scripture’s origin, and play a clearHermeneutical role in guiding and determining our understanding.

Therefore, before analyzing various historical views on revelation-inspiration and developing our own, we must consider the concrete


interpretations of God and human beings always assumed in the variousformulations of the doctrine of revelation-inspiration. We will expand thisissue in the next chapter.

§26. REVIEW

• Two facts that tie the study of revelation-inspiration directly to thequestion of knowledge.The issue of revelation-inspiration and the process through which westudy knowledge are both cognitive in nature; that is, they both happenin the mind. Scripture is comprised of words that represent thoughts,these ideas originate in the cognitive activity of God and that of the sacredwriters. Thus, the issues which revelation-inspiration considers aredirectly related to the broader question of knowledge, because the processof revelation-inspiration is cognitive.

• Human cognition can be described as a subject-object relationship.The subject is the human being, while the object is anything that entersthe scope of human consciousness. Knowledge takes place when, throughthe activity of the subject, a connection with the object is established.This description applies to all human knowledge.

• How knowledge takes place in the subject-object relationship has beeninterpreted in three major ways.The classical view maintains that knowledge is determined by the objectand passively received by the subject. The modern view believes thatknowledge is determined by the activity of the subject, who projects thecontents of knowledge into a passive object. The hermeneutical viewbuilds on the strength of the previous two; knowledge is determined bycontributions of both the subject and the object.

• The subject-object relational structure of knowledge in the analysis of


revelation and inspiration.The structure of knowledge consists in the interaction of presuppositions(contributions of the subject) and data (contributions of the object).Consequently, in order to understand any interpretation of revelation-inspiration, we need to be aware of the presuppositions and data operativein the doctrine.

• Previous understandings of God and human nature are the two mainpresuppositions determining all interpretations of revelation-inspiration.In any given case of knowledge, the object determines what aspects of ourexperience are relevant. Revelation-inspiration studies the origin ofScripture as its object. Since God and human beings are the agentsinvolved, how we understand them directly affects our understanding ofrevelation-inspiration.

• Both our own interpretation of revelation-inspiration and the evaluationof other views require that we became explicitly aware of thepresuppositions about God and human nature involved in each case.As we seek to understand the origin of Scripture, we must be aware of thevarious views of God and human beings that affect how Christiantheology has understood revelation and inspiration. Moreover, as weattempt to understand revelation-inspiration based on the sola Scripturaprinciple, we must be ready, if necessary, to adjust our pre-understandingto what the Bible teaches on these issues.

6. THE POSSIBILITY OF REVELATION: NATURE AND SUPERNATURE

Early in the twelfth century, Roman Catholic theologian Anselm ofCanterbury wrote that theology is a search for understanding (fides quaerensintellectum).1 Karl Barth, one of the greatest Protestant theologians of alltime, came to agree with Anselm’s basic view.2 This study on revelation-inspiration is a part of that search. Yet, our search is not to understand thetradition of faith to which we belong by birth or baptism, but the ground onwhich faith itself becomes possible: the phenomenon of revelation-inspiration. Anselm took on the classical view of knowledge andunderstanding, and Barth did not challenge this view. We, however, arefollowing a different understanding of how knowledge and understandingtake place: the hermeneutical view as presented in Chapter 5.

As we noted there, the hermeneutical view of human cognition asserts that aswe come to know something, two components are interacting— data, and ourpresuppositions. A hermeneutical analysis, then, will always seek to understandthe presuppositions and data involved in any discourse, explanation or theory. Inthe case of revelation-inspiration, we must examine the process through which theBible was conceived and written down. As Paul and Peter clarified, two agentswere continuously and simultaneously operating in the generation of Scripture(see §18 and 19). Thus, any interpretation of revelation-inspiration must assumepreviously formed beliefs concerning how God and human beings interrelate.


How we view the relationship between God and humanity, then, is the mainhermeneutical presupposition conditioning any understanding of how the Biblecame to be. Using hermeneutical analysis, we will attempt to discover howvarious interpretations of God and human nature have shaped the leadingviews of revelation and inspiration.

§27. THE ISSUE OF NATURE AND SUPERNATURE

1. Introducing the Issue

Again, our study requires an unusual detour. On the surface, the concept ofnature and supernature seems closer to the doctrine of God than to that ofrevelation-inspiration because it applies directly. A presupposition of nature andsupernature affects the doctrine of revelation-inspiration only indirectly.Nonetheless, that indirect bearing is precisely why we should consider this issuecarefully.

Before we proceed, I will review some pertinent points we have discussed inprevious chapters. Our method, hermeneutical analysis (§2.5.c), seeks tounderstand by uncovering the presuppositions assumed in the meaning of anystatement, pronouncement, or teaching. Moreover, we know that both the issueof revelation-inspiration and the study of that issue belong to the area ofcognition (§22 and 23). A brief exploration of the act of knowledge taught us thatboth subject and object contribute to the formation of knowledge (§24.3). Thecontributions of the subject (human being) to the formation of knowledge arecalled presuppositions because they are formed before they are applied to aparticular object. Our study of revelation-inspiration necessarily involves ourpresuppositions. How can we know which presuppositions are at work in theconception and formulation of our doctrine of revelation-inspiration? Byquestioning its subject matter.

Since Peter has made clear that the event of revelation-inspiration alwaysengages two agents, God and the human writer (§19.7-8), our ideas about divineand human nature directly shape our position on revelation-inspiration.Moreover, our understanding of God and human beings depends on the type

NATURE AND SUPERNATURE 89

of reality to which they belong: God to the realm of supernature, humanbeings to that of nature. As we become aware of various interpretations ofnature and supernature, we learn the hermeneutical reasons for theinterpretation of the nature of God. Awareness of conceptualizations ofnature helps us to understand how human nature has been interpreted. As wecome to understand God and human beings and how their natures act andinteract, we secure for ourselves the hermeneutical tool that unlocks for usthe complex world of theological interpretations of revelation-inspiration.

2. Purpose.

In this chapter, I will attempt to summarize the ideas involved inunderstanding God and humanity. More importantly, we will examine therole of those ideas as hermeneutical presuppositions affecting ourinterpretation of revelation-inspiration. Our purpose in this chapter ismodest: we will explore nature and supernature–the arena from which weform our ideas about human and divine nature, respectively. We will outlinehow both Christian theology and Scripture interpret nature and supernature.Then, we will discuss the hermeneutical consequences of interpretingrevelation-inspiration by following either the classical or biblical views onnature and supernature.

Uncovering the significance of presuppositions for interpreting revelation-inspiration may help you to better understand the hermeneutical role that theseideas play. After describing various approaches to the relationship betweennature and supernature, we will apply those approaches as presuppositions in theanalysis of various models of revelation-inspiration. From there, we will continuein our own search for a new model. The importance of this step cannot beoverstated. How we understand these ideas will determine our interpretation of,first, whether revelation-inspiration is possible; second, our understanding of theprocess that generated Scripture; and, finally, our interpretation of Scripture.

3. Organization.


This chapter will be organized into three major sections. Each section willcover one interpretation of nature and supernature and its consequences forrevelation-inspiration. The interpretations to be considered are the classical,the modern, and the biblical. The classical view believes that the realms ofnature and supernature are discontinuous. The modern view proposes thatnature and supernature are absolutely discontinuous. The biblical model,however, assumes that nature and supernature are not discontinuous butwork within a pattern of integrated historical continuity.

§28. THE ISSUEWhat do theologians mean when they speak of nature and supernature? By theword “nature” theologians and philosophers mean the realm where everything weknow exists. It includes the world and everything embraced within the generalterm “universe.” Biblically speaking, what philosophers call nature is describedas God’s creation. Everything within the category of creation by definitionbelongs to the realm of nature. In contrast, supernature is that which goes beyondnature: the realm of the divine. Thus, only God exists within supernature.Traditionally, the domain of the supernatural has been described as “heaven,”while the natural has been called “earth.”

On the surface, things appear simple enough. Heaven is heaven and earthis earth. But what kind of reality is a heavenly or supernatural reality, andwhat kind of reality is an earthly or natural one? The answer to thesequestions directly conditions how one believes these two realities relate toeach other. Christian theology provides us with three views of nature andsupernature and the relationship between them.

§29. THE CLASSICAL VIEWAugustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas are two notable and influentialrepresentatives of the classical view. They not only express it in theirwritings, but they assume it in developing their theological views. Their


influence is still very much alive in the twenty-first century.

1. Plato’s Two-World Theory

The classical concept of nature and supernature was drawn from the viewsof Greek philosophy, specifically Plato and Aristotle. Plato’s view of natureand supernature is encapsulated in his reflections on the to,pu j ou vranou , or“heavenly place.” Plato was deeply influenced by Greek religion andmythology. The idea of a place where the gods lived was familiar to hisfollowers and students. Plato, however, constructed his own view of whatheaven is as a part of his interpretation of reality. That interpretation isconveyed by the technical word “ontology,” derived from the Greek wordso,ntoj (“of the being or thing”) and lo,goj (“word” or “study”). Thus,“ontology” is the study of being or reality. Plato’s view on reality roughlycorresponds to what we call “worldview” or “cosmology.”

In Plato’s mind, reality must be eternal. In other words, we cannotconceive of ultimate reality as coming to be or passing away. Plato probablyborrowed this idea of reality from Parmenides, who argued that being wastimeless and eternal. The problem with Parmenides’s speculative notionabout a timeless reality is that it does not tell us much. We do not experiencetimeless reality; instead, we understand only transient, historical realities.Parmenides did not solve the problem. Plato ventured his solution by way ofhis to,pu j ou ranou / theory. He decided that reality as a whole is made up oftwo tiers or worlds, one heavenly and the other earthly. Realities in theheavenly world are uncreated, and therefore timeless and eternal, whereasrealities in the earthly world are created, and therefore temporal andtransient. The relationship between the heavenly and earthly tiers is one ofduplication. Plato developed his interpretation of creation and reality in greatdetail; however, we are only interested here in how his thinking influencedsubsequent theologies of nature and supernature.

2. Plato’s Influence on Classical Christian Theology


Through a process that took several centuries, Plato’s two-worlds theorycame to shape how Christian theology understood nature and supernature.The two-worlds interpretation influenced not only Christianity, but alsoJudaism. Jewish theologian Philo of Alexandria adopted this view and usedit as a hermeneutical tool to interpret the Old Testament and to develop hisown teachings. By the time of Augustine, Christian theology had claimed foritself the basic outline of Plato’s cosmology. Christianity’s Old Testamentroots also speak of heaven and earth. God speaks and acts from heaven,while we as creatures belong to earth. Since Scripture was not readilyavailable to most believers for centuries, it was unusual for early converts toChristianity to be trained in philosophy and thus able to extrapolate Plato’sview into Christian thinking. A few generations later, however, some of hisideas became a part of the Christian tradition. It should be noted thatclassical Christianity did not become completely Platonized. What took placewas the appropriation of some select ideas. Plato’s notion of nature andsupernature was one area of thought that was adopted into Christianity.

3. Nature and Supernature: Discontinuity

Under the influence of Platonic and Neoplatonic philosophies, Christianity cameto conceive of heaven as timeless. Plato’s two-worlds theory was adapted tobiblical teachings on God and human beings. By the time of Augustine, God wasconceived of as the higher and perfect personification of timeless reality. Incontrast, earth was thought of as the temporal, historical, and transient realm ofreality.

This understanding of reality involves a notorious discontinuity between thetimeless realm of supernature and the temporal realm of nature. Because of thisinterpretation, a real gap was interposed between God and human beings. Intechnical terms, this gap was ontological3 because it resulted from the oppositecharacteristics of the very being of God and of creation. But, of what does thegap between the supernatural (timeless) and natural (temporal) realms consist?To answer this question, we need to understand the technical meaning of theword “timelessness.”


4. Timelessness

When we use the notion of “timelessness”in everyday language, we refer tosomething that endures within time as opposed to something that is transient andpasses away. For instance, when we say that a piece of art is “timeless,” wemean to say that a sculpture, portrait, or musical score has a permanent valueunaffected by the passage of time and successive changes in human culture.

The technical meaning of timelessness is quite removed from our dailyexperience. When philosophers and theologians say that something is “timeless”in this sense they mean to say that something remains in a level of existencewhere there is neither time nor space.4 Hence, the negative particle “less” is addedto the otherwise positive term “time.” Timelessness is the absence of time andspace.5 A timeless reality does not experience the flow from past to present andfuture, and therefore never changes or experiences anything new. As we considerrevelation-inspiration, we will use the term “timelessness” in its technical sense.You should commit the technical meaning to memory to avoid confusing it withits everyday sense.

To apply this concept to God does make sense. To say that God istimeless explains, for instance, his eternity. Why is God eternal? Aclassical theologian might say, “God is eternal because, being timeless,he is totally outside the realm of transience and passing away. God,consequently, always is; he never ceases to exist.” One cannot help butbe impressed by the clarity and rationality of the classical explanation ofGod’s eternity. Is the classical explanation in harmony with Scripture?Doesn’t the Bible say that God is eternal? Yes, it does (see, i.e.,Deuteronomy 33:27; Isaiah 43:13; and 1 Timothy 1:17). However,Scripture does not present God’s eternity in a timeless way. We will comeback to this issue later in the chapter.

5. The Analogy of Being: Discontinuity is Not Absolute

We must now consider the gap between nature and supernature when nature


is understood temporally and supernature timelessly. From early times,philosophers followed the axiom that “the like know the like.” In otherwords, a basic similarity between the cognitive subject and a particularobject is a necessary precondition of knowledge. Between timeless andtemporal realities— completely different in being— there can be no point ofcontact. They are so different that there is no way in which realities existingin these two worlds may communicate. The gap between timelesssupernature and temporal nature appears absolute. The gap, however, is bridgeable thanks to a concept called the “analogy ofbeing” put forth by the classical view. “Analogy of being” essentially means“similitude of reality.” Philosophically, the analogy of being is the idea that allreality is similar in that it is all ultimately timeless. In other words, all of reality,even temporal reality, somehow shares in timelessness. This means that only Godis totally and perfectly timeless. Created realities are composite, combiningtimeless and temporal components. The soul (timeless)-body (temporal)conceptualization of human nature is a clear example of how the analogy of beingapplies to concrete, everyday realities.

6. Consequences for Revelation-Inspiration

Revelation-inspiration is possible because a timeless God can communicatewith the timeless soul of a human being: “the like know the like.” Theanalogy between these two levels of reality allows them to communicatedirectly. However, revelation-inspiration can occur only within the area ofsimilarity: timelessness. Revelation-inspiration, then, must be thought of asa timeless, intellectual phenomenon; the temporal, historical aspects ofScripture are therefore irrelevant.

Figure 1 is a graphic representation of the divine action of revelation-inspiration when the classical interpretation of nature and supernature isassumed. The realms of supernature (timeless heaven) and nature (temporalearth) are depicted as separate by way of a sort of “H” that resembles thegoal posts in a football game.


Figure 1: Classical View of Nature and Supernature

The upper compartment in the “H” of Figure 1 corresponds tosupernature. God’s timeless being belongs to and determines the nature of thesupernatural realm. The lower compartment in the “H” of Figure 1corresponds to nature, encompassing all created beings. Because humanbeings are temporal , they belong to the realm of nature. However, due to theanalogy of being, temporal realities also share in timelessness. Specifically,human beings are thought of as a composite of body and soul. God cancommunicate with them through their timeless souls, in spite of the gapbetween timeless supernature and temporal nature. More precisely, thetimeless nature of the human soul and its intellectual faculty allow God tocommunicate to it through revelation and inspiration. This view requires thatGod’s cognitive communication can only take place within the realm oftimelessness. As we will see in the next chapter, the belief that revelationtakes place within a timeless, intellectual zone has shaped the classical modelof revelation-inspiration.

§30. THE MODERN VIEW The modern view is a reinterpretation of the classical understanding. ImmanuelKant, a noted German philosopher, reviewed Plato’s two-worlds theory andconstructed another way to think of nature and supernature.


Kant is a representative of the Enlightenment and a forger of modern andpostmodern times. He was not preoccupied with interpreting reality, but withevaluating how we know what we say we know. Kant specialized in the study ofknowledge. In his work he influenced the traditional view of revelation-inspirationnot only by reinterpreting its presuppositions of nature and supernature, but alsothrough a reinterpretation of what knowledge is. The reader should bear in mindthat as a result of an intricate process of historical development, the ideas I willbe abridging are very complex and involved.

1. Kant’s Historical Continuum

Classical theologians believed knowledge took place within the timeless zoneof human intellect. In contrast, the modern view proposed that humanknowledge takes place within time. In a sense, one can say that with theEnlightenment thinking became aware of its own historicity. Obviously, thesetwo positions conflict. But how does Kant’s temporal interpretation ofhuman knowledge work when applied to revelation-inspiration?

According to the classical view, human knowledge was capable ofknowing timeless objects. Human intellect was the main characteristic of thetimeless, human soul. So, a cognitive interchange between God and humanbeings (revelation-inspiration) and between human beings and God (naturaltheology) was deemed possible. In contrast Kant argued that humanknowledge is possible only within the limits of space and time. To him,human knowledge was not able to reach timeless objects. In other words, noaspect of human knowledge could be attributed to a supernatural cause.Nature and time were a continuum closed to any outside influence.Consequently, no event could have a timeless, supernatural cause.

2. Nature and Supernature: Absolute Discontinuity

Kant’s closed historical continuum does not deny the existence of a realm beyonditself. Broadly speaking, modern thought rejects neither the existence ofsupernature nor the classical interpretation of it. However, there is an enormousdifference. While the supernatural realm (heaven) continues to be timeless, the


natural realm (earth) has become entirely temporal. The analogy of being hasdisappeared. The gap between nature and supernature has become unbridgeable,and the discontinuity between nature and supernature has become absolute. Godbecomes “Wholly Other” than every created thing. Since he belongs to the realmof supernature, He is absolutely different from anything we as temporal beingsknow or may ever come to know. As there is no contact between nature andsupernature, human knowledge is possible only within the limits of space andtime (nature). The modern interpretation of nature and supernature has far-reaching consequences. It has completely reshaped ideas of religion and theology– including revelation-inspiration.


According to the old philosophical maxim, “the like know the like,” somesimilarity is necessary for two entities to have a relationship of cause orknowledge. To put it simply, for communication to take place both partiesmust tune their radio transmitters to the same wave frequency. Therefore, ifGod is to communicate successfully to humans, both he and they mustoperate within the same frequency of reality. The sameness assumed in theprocess of communication is technically termed the “analogy of being.”Since the modern view of nature denies any relationship or connection withsupernature, it consequently denies any analogy between them. If thecondition for communication between God and human persons is thus gone,can one still speak of revelation-inspiration as divine activity resulting inScripture, as Paul and Peter have stated? The answer seems to be, “No.”The modern interpretation of nature and supernature – absolute discontinuity– makes revelation-inspiration impossible.

Figure 2 graphically represents the consequences that the moderninterpretation of nature and supernature brings to the issue of revelation-inspiration. Again, I use an “H” to depict the realms of nature andsupernature, but this time the unbridgeable gap between timeless supernatureand temporal nature is presented as a thicker, darker line. God is againplaced in the supernatural realm, and humans in nature. Two arrows, one in


Figure 2: Modern View of Nature and Supernature

each world, symbolize the attempts of God and human beings tocommunicate with each other. Both arrows stop at the line dividing nature

and supernature. Due to the fact that an absolute, unbridgeable gap liesbetween them, nei ther can reach the other s ide .

Because human knowledge cannot reach God in this view, naturaltheology cannot exist. Since God cannot reach temporal reality, the idea ofa personal God acting in history becomes impossible. Specifically, a personalGod who reveals his ideas, will, and plans to human beings cannot exist ifthe modern view of nature and supernature is accepted.

§31. THE BIBLICAL VIEWScripture does not address the supernature-nature issue in such a technical,philosophical manner. It is important to recognize that Christian theology hasbecome rigidly attached to the notion that theology must build on philosophicalfoundations. Consequently, one will probably not find too many Christiantheologians attempting to work within biblical descriptions of nature andsupernature. On the contrary, their dependance on philosophical principles


explains why they often choose the classical or modern views on supernature-nature. The search for the biblical notion of nature and supernature requires areversal of this methodological tradition.

But is there a biblical view of nature and supernature? The evidence appearsto be mixed. Biblical literature abounds in references to heaven and earth.Consequently, we can reasonably assume that, implicitly or explicitly, Scripturesubscribes to a definite idea of nature and supernature. In contrast, a review ofChristian theology suggests that even if there is a biblical view on nature andsupernature, it has become inoperative, because philosophy has been chosen toprovide the intellectual foundations for theological discourse. Therefore, asidefrom tradition, we have no plausible reason for not exploring and using thebiblical idea in place of the prevalent Platonic and Kantian interpretations. Howdoes the Bible conceive of nature and supernature?

1. Ground Statements

Scripture does not explicitly address the relationship between nature andsupernature. If we are to understand how the Bible views the two, we mustanalyze biblical statements about God (supernature) in relationship to the world(nature). In this way, we will gain insight into how biblical writers implicitlyunderstood nature and supernature. An exhaustive list of all the biblicalstatements is impossible and unnecessary. We need only to identify the basicscriptural view, particularly in comparison with the classical and modern viewsof nature and supernature. As we have explored, these two views agree inunderstanding supernature as timeless, but disagree on how supernature relatesto nature. The classical view allows supernature to relate to the world only withinthe timeless aspects of created reality (analogy of being), while the closedhistorical continuum adopted by the modern position allows for no divine activityin nature or history. What about Scripture? Does the Bible conceive of God astimeless? Or does Scripture, in contrast to the classical and modern positions,make room for God’s personal and historical actions within nature? By lookingbriefly at two biblical passages where God is said to relate to the world, we maybe able to ascertain the biblical concept of nature and supernature. The firstpassage speaks about God’s presence in the Old Testament sanctuary; the


second, about God’s incarnation in Jesus Christ.

a. The Old Testament Sanctuary

After calling his people out of Egypt, God revealed himself to Israel onMount Sinai. There Yahweh gave the Decalogue to the people (Exodus20:1-24:2) and entered into a solemn covenant with them (Exodus 24:3-11). God then called Moses to come up the mountain (Exodus 24:12-18),where he revealed an astonishing plan to live among them: “Let themconstruct a sanctuary for me, that I may dwell among them” (Exodus25:8). The English word “dwell” accurately translates the Hebrew term!kv. Most of what follows in the book of Exodus concerns God’s plan todwell with His people. At the end of the book, Moses is told to erect thetabernacle. When the work is finished, God’s plan becomes reality when“the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled thetabernacle. Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because thecloud had settled on it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle”(Exodus 40:34-35). What does this tell us about nature and supernaturein the biblical view?

According to the classical and modern views, what happens in this textis not possible; God cannot dwell within space and time. Proponents ofthese views would simply say that because of his timelessness God cannotactually undergo spacial-temporal experiences. He cannot dwell in ahouse built by human beings as Exodus 25:8 suggests. A Platonichermeneutic would force this text to be interpreted in a metaphoricalsense. But to assume such a method of interpretation is speculative,denying the text its own implicit concept of supernature. Fortunatelythere are no biblical, logical, or philosophical reasons forcing us into thetimeless notion of supernature. On the contrary, faithfulness to Scripturerequires that we seriously consider a different idea of supernature.

Exodus 25:8 describes God undergoing the temporal-spacial experienceof dwelling in a sanctuary among human beings. We are not interested in thetheological teaching or repercussions of this text, but its implicit concept of


supernature. When we suspend the application of an extrabiblical, Platonicview of supernature in favor of Scripture’s implicit understanding, wediscover that Exodus 25:8 presupposes a temporal-historical supernature.According to this text, God actually dwells in the house prepared for Him,directly experiencing the spacial-temporal reality of nature in all itsimmediacy and concreteness. This picture of God’s activity implicitlyassumes that the supernatural realm is fully compatible with the temporalityand historicity of the natural realm.

b. The Incarnation of God

The New Testament gives witness to the astonishing fact of God’s incarnation inJesus Christ. The term “incarnation” is not found in Scripture, but it accuratelydescribes how the Son of God became flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.Using words reminiscent of Exodus 25:8, the apostle John writes, “The Wordbecame flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). The eternal and divine Wordbelongs to the realm of supernature (John 1:1-2, 18). The flesh belongs to therealm of nature. But somehow, the eternal Word became flesh and dwelt amonghuman beings.

The idea that God can dwell among humans is clear from Old Testamentteaching about God’s sanctuary. Likewise, the idea of incarnation implies evengreater compatibility and harmonious integration between nature andsupernature. This is demonstrated by the usage of terms such as “being” and“becoming” in the original Greek as well as in English. Being means “to havereality or actuality.” Becoming signifies “to come into existence or being.” In theincarnation, the divine, eternal, and preexistent Word underwent a process ofcoming into existence or being as flesh – a human being with a physicalconception and birth. If the incarnation requires an inner divine process that endsin the natural realm, we must conclude that this action of God is based on atemporal-historical understanding of supernature.

Do the classical and modern views of nature and supernature allow for theJohannine description of incarnation? Again, the answer is, “No.” If God and thesupernatural realm are timeless, a change in the divine nature of the Word fromnon-incarnate to incarnate is impossible. This movement, implicit in the biblical


idea of becoming, can take place only on the assumption that the supernaturalrealm is compatible with the realm of nature. The incarnation requires atemporal-historical understanding of supernature and, hence, a harmoniousintegration between nature and supernature.

2. Integrated Historical Continuum

Scripture’s teaching about heaven and earth assumes a specific view ofnature and supernature. From our examination of these two texts, wehave discovered that Scripture does not adhere to the classical andmodern interpretations. In far contrast, Scripture assumes anunderstanding diametrically opposed to these views, which agrees withthe classical and modern theories on the idea of nature, yet stronglydisagrees on supernature. Specifically, their view of supernature astimeless is replaced in biblical thinking by a temporal-historical view. Inthe Bible, nature is a finite realm of creation limited by spatiality andtemporality. Supernature is the realm that properly belongs to God alone.Scripture assumes that God is an infinite, eternal and yet temporal-historical being.

From this idea, we should not assume that the gap between nature andsupernature has totally disappeared; the two realms have not becomeone. Elsewhere throughout Scripture it is clear that God’s own temporalhistoricity is decidedly different from humans’ limited participation in it.For instance, Scripture affirms that God does not possess time orexperience history in the same way we do (2 Peter 3:8). We have alimited understanding of what time and historical life are, but Godpossesses life in Himself and therefore experiences time and history in aninfinite manner totally removed from what creatures can understand. Wecannot experience the depths of God’s life or the fullness of time as Hedoes. The lesser is not capable of the greater. Consequently, as inScripture, nature and supernature are markedly different in a way betterexpressed in terms of Creator-creature than in terms of timelessness-time.

The biblical affirmation that nature and supernature are both temporal-


historical forces a momentous reinterpretation of the analogy of being.Analogy is again possible because in the Bible, the two conditions for it,sameness and difference, are obvious. Sameness is present because natureand supernature are temporal-historical. Difference is likewise present. Butunlike the classical view, in which the analogy of being occurs within atimeless eternity, the biblical view sees the analogy of being as occurring intime and history. In the Bible, the relationship between nature andsupernature takes the form of a historically integrated continuum that iscreated, sustained, and governed by God.

This continuum is assumed throughout Scripture. Though it recognizes thedifferences between the two realms, their temporal sameness allows nature andsupernature to interrelate directly within time and history. The closed historicalcontinuum of modernity and postmodernity is thus opened to God’s experienceof and action in history.

The biblical concept of nature and supernature is a necessary presuppositionfor understanding biblical teachings such as the sanctuary and the incarnation.Since nature and supernature are integrated in a historical continuum, there is noontological contradiction between believing God experiences life in the fullnessof time in eternity and believing He is able to experience life at the limited levelof his creatures. By distinguishing between the supernatural and natural realms,Scripture prevents any pantheistic or panentheistic attempts to merge the two intoone. Nature cannot experience life or time as God does. The higher reality canexperience the lower reality, but not the lower the higher.


The relationship between nature and supernature in the Bible impacts allChristian theology, especially revelation-inspiration. According toScripture, sin and not timelessness explains the absence of God. SinceGod acts within history, the cognitive processes resulting in the Bible –revelation-inspiration – must be interpreted historically, not timelessly.

a. The Absence of God


There is an obvious gap between God and the world. We perceive this gapby the absence of God’s historical presence. Believers claim there is aGod, yet, He does not make Himself obvious to us here in space and time.In this sense, we experience the “absence of God.” Classical and moderninterpretations of nature and supernature explain this universalexperience as an inevitable consequence of God’s timelessness. God’snature precludes us from experiencing His presence in space and time.This explanation is quite reasonable. A timeless God by definition cannotmake Himself present within time.

In contrast, Scripture explains the absence of God with the concept ofsin: “But your iniquities have made a separation between you and yourGod, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does nothear” (Isaiah 59:2). In this passage, Isaiah explains that God does notdirectly communicate with human beings because of their sinful state, notbecause their temporality precludes Him from doing so. Once sin issomehow removed, God can directly relate to human beings regardless oftheir temporality. This leads to the second consequence— the realizationthat God acts historically in history.

b. The Acts of God

To say that God acts historically in history seems awkward andredundant. Let me explain the expression. The classical and modernviews of nature and supernature are forced to provide an explanation ofGod’s relationship to nature. After all, if God does not relate to naturesomehow, the essence of Christianity is forfeited. Consequently, classicaland modern views of Christian theology speak of “God’s acts in history”and “his historical acts.” On the surface, these statements seem to say that God acts in humannature, that is, within the realm of creation and time. However, these phraseshave become theological jargon for a very specific mode of divine action inthe natural realm, action which does not take place within the flux of time.From outside the flow of history, God’s historical act is the intersection of


his timeless activity (which is always the same) with time. The intersectionbetween nature and supernature becomes God’s historical action.Theologians say that this intersection does not take place within the flux oftime, but in the “instant.” We will come back to this idea later.6

Figure 3 graphically represents the biblical view of nature and supernaturealong with its consequences for revelation-inspiration. The “H” we have beenusing to depict the separation of nature and supernature does not have a black barfor the dividing gap between them. However, I have shaded each realm with adifferent pattern to indicate that, in spite of the absence of a separating gap,nature and supernature remain distinctly different. The absence of a gap indicatesthat the two realms are not of opposite natures as in the classical and modernviews. Instead, both share the same general characteristics of time, history, andlife. The heavenly and earthly realms experience this commonality each accordingto the specificity of its respective reality. The Creator experiences the sequence

of time and history in the eternity of His infinite being, while creatures experiencetime and history in a finite and limited manner. The horizontal arrows indicate thehistoricity of God’s activity from within eternal time in supernature and in thelimited, created time of nature. The vertical arrow indicates that God can act inhuman history from within the flow of created time, but also from within his ownuncreated, eternal time.

c. The Nature of Knowledge

Figure 3: Biblical View of Nature and Supernature


The third consequence of applying the biblical notion of nature andsupernature is the effect on the relationship between the process ofknowledge and revelation-inspiration. In §21 and §22, we discussed thecognitive nature of the question and doctrine of revelation-inspiration.We acknowledged that our presuppositions directly influence ourinterpretation of Scripture. Our present discussion of nature andsupernature is a result of realizing the role presuppositions play inunderstanding. The same philosophical ideas that played substantive rolesin the classical and modern views of nature and supernature play similarones in interpreting the origin and nature of human knowledge. Thosewho assume the classical view of nature and supernature are likely toadopt the classical view of knowledge, while those assuming the modernunderstanding of nature and supernature are likely to adopt the modernview of knowledge (cf. §24.1-2).

The classical model understands knowledge as timeless. The objects weknow and the process through which we know them takes place within thetimeless realm of supernature. Historical thinking is reduced to the level ofopinions and biases that thus needs to be avoided. The only thought processwhich is objective (the goal of science) is one that is capable of eliminatingall historicity (cf. §24.1).

The modern interpretation of knowledge still depends on viewing natureand supernature as temporal and timeless, respectively. Yet, it calls on timeand history to play a higher role than they are allowed to play in the classicalview. Although post-Kantian modernity tended to view reality morehistorically, knowledge was still interpreted as timeless . The tendency infavor of history, then, did not challenge the classical view of nature andsupernature, but because of the new historical emphasis, the classical viewneeded serious reexamination.

In his Being and Time, German philosopher Martin Heidegger took on thetask of deconstructing the classical and modern philosophical foundations ofnature and supernature. In his Truth and Method, Gadamer, Heidegger’sstudent, undertook the work of interpreting human understanding as historicalprocess. His work emphasized how our historical experiences form our


presuppositions in the process of understanding. Gadamer’s work gave birth tohistoricist hermeneutics, an interpretation of human understanding based on theassumption that knowledge takes place within the historical flux of time. SinceScripture understands nature and supernature from an analogical view of timeand history, some of Gadamer’s insights into the historical nature of humanunderstanding will be helpful in our study of revelation-inspiration.

§32. REVIEW

• Presuppositions of nature and supernature are necessarily involved inthe study of revelation-inspiration. To study revelation-inspiration hermeneutically, we must secure ananalysis of the presuppositions involved. Two agents are involved in theprocess of revelation-inspiration: God and humans. Supernature is therealm of reality to which God belongs, while nature is where createdhuman beings find their place. Thus, preconceptions of nature andsupernature always determine our beliefs about God and human beings.These ideas regulate our understanding of revelation-inspiration.

• The Classical View: Analogical Discontinuity Supernature is timeless, while nature is a composite of timelessness andtime. The timelessness present in nature provides the basis for connectingnature and supernature. All connections between them, including thecognitive activities essential to revelation-inspiration, must take placewithin the timeless level of existence.

• The Modern View: Absolute Discontinuity Supernature is timeless, while nature is temporal and historical. However,while the existence of a timeless soul within humanity is recognized, that soulcannot know temporal things. Knowledge is totally limited to the temporal-historical realm of nature. This view does not exclude the possibility of allcontact between nature and supernature, because of the acceptance of a


timeless soul. Nevertheless, cognitive contact between nature and supernatureis impossible. An absolute cognitive discontinuity exists between nature andsupernature.

• The Modern View: Closed Historical ContinuumIf supernature is timeless and nature is temporal as the classical and modern

views maintain, God cannot act historically in history. The gap betweentimelessness and temporality is absolute. Beings that belong to one realmcannot cross over to the other. Thus, the sequence of cause and effect withinthe flow of time cannot be modified by a timeless cause. A supernatural,timeless being, then, cannot act in time and history at the level of temporalcauses.

• The Biblical View: Integrated Historical ContinuumNature and supernature are temporal and historical, but beings from each

realm experience time and history in different ways. In other words, God andcreatures experience time differently according to the nature of their beings.God, as the infinite Creator, experiences time and history in their fullness,whereas finite, limited creatures like human beings experience time in a finite,limited manner. Divine and human experiences are similar in that both relateto the same temporal-historical reality. Nature and supernature, then, areintegrated realms of reality. God is able to experience the lower level of naturedirectly because the greater is always capable of experiencing the lesser.Human beings, however, cannot experience God’s awareness of time andhistory because the lesser is never able to assimilate the view of that whichsurpasses it.

• Consequences of the classical view: revelation-inspiration is possible,but takes place in a timeless environment. The absence of God is explained by the difference between nature and

supernature: humans are bound by time, but God is timeless. The analogy(similarities) between supernatural and natural timelessness, however,


1 “I long to understand in some degree thy truth, which my heart believes andloves. For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order tounderstand. For this also I believe,— that unless I believed, I should not understand”(Anselm, Proslogium, 1).

2 Cf. Karl Barth, Anselm: “Fides quaerens intellectum” Anselm’s Proof of theExistence of God in the Context of His Theological Scheme, trans. Ian W.

makes cognitive contact between God and a human writer possible. SinceGod and the human being can communicate only within a timeless zone,any doctrine of revelation-inspiration based on this view must assume atimeless cognitive process. God can act in time, but not within the cause-effect flux of history. God’s acts can only take place within timelessreality.

• Consequences of the modern view: revelation-inspiration as a cognitiveevent is impossible. Since God’s absence is explained by virtue of his timelessness, no

analogy between nature and supernature is acceptable. Any cognitivecontact between a timeless God and a temporal prophet becomesimpossible. Moreover, the historical level becomes closed to theintervention of any timeless cause. Nature becomes a closed historicalcontinuum.

• Consequences of the biblical view: revelation-inspiration is possibleand takes place within a temporal-historical environment. The absence of God is explained as a direct consequence of sin. Due tothe analogy between nature and supernature within the integratedhistorical continuum of reality, revelation-inspiration becomes possible.God is able to act and communicate cognitively with a human being livingat the historical level of reality.

ENDNOTES


Robertson, 2d ed. (London: SCM Press, 1960), 12A-12B.3 Derived from the Greek o,ntoj (“being”) and lo,goj (“word, study”), ontology

is the philosophical discipline that studies the broad characteristics of reality. 4 Augustine understood God’s being as timeless. He did not develop it technically,

but his writings clearly show his leaning when addressed to God’s being and works. Forinstance, he writes, “At no time, therefore, did you [God] do nothing, since you hadmade time itself. No times are coeternal with you, because you are permanent, whereasif they were permanent, they would not be times” (Confessions 11, 14, 17). ThomasAquinas describes the meaning of timelessness as he uses it to portray God’s eternity:“Those beings alone are measured by time that are moved. For time, as is made clearin Physics IV, is ‘the number of motion.’ But God, as has been proved, is absolutelywithout motion, and is consequently not measured by time. There is, therefore, nobefore and after in Him: He does not have being after non-being, not non-being afterbeing, nor can any succession be found in His being. For none of these characteristicscan be understood without time. God, therefore, is without beginning and end, havingHis whole being at once. In this consists the nature of eternity” (Summa ContraGentiles, 1.15.3).

5 Space and time are an integrated continuum. Kant argued that we can think oftime without space, but not vice versa. To deny time also implies the negation of space(cf. Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, trans. J.M.D. Meiklejohn [Buffalo, NY:Prometheus, 1990]).

6 The reason for my awkward addition of the adverb “historically” to the technicalphrase “God acts in history” is to specify how the action takes place. Traditionally, thetechnical phrase “God acts in history” has been used in contexts that assume God’sactivity to originate in timelessness. I use the more awkward wording to alert the readerthat I intend a different association. The adverb expresses the mode in which God’sactivity takes place. When we understand that mode as historical, we follow Scripturein assuming that God, from inside the flow of history, can act, relate, and communicatedirectly with humanity.

SECTION TWOMODELS OF INTERPRETATION

Theologians have considered the question of Scripture’s origin almost fromthe beginning of Christian history, coming up with many different views. Ifwe are to understand revelation-inspiration today, we must do so within thecontext of these ideas, all of which are still operative within the theologicalcommunity today.

How should we tackle our study in light of two millennia’s worth oftheological consideration? In this book, we will use a method based on the ideaof a theological “model,” looking for the basic traits common to variousinterpretations. We will begin with the hermeneutical presuppositions of eachhistorical model we examine. We will soon see that at the level ofpresuppositions, we have only a few significant variants to consider; in otherwords, the presence or absence of one or two simple ideas in a theologian’s mindcan give rise to vastly different models. We will not need to summarize allavailable interpretations; our use of model methodology will give us an overviewof all the basic interpretations that have emerged over the centuries.

In Chapter 7, we will explore the idea of a theological model as a way ofunderstanding revelation-inspiration. Chapters 8, 9 and 10 will each presentone of the three most significant models— the classical, modern, andevangelical respectively.

7. MODELS AS TOOLS FOR UNDERSTANDING

It is important to consider how revelation-inspiration has been understoodthroughout Christian history. As we examine the various interpretations,we move from methodology to historical theology. With the completionof Section 1 we have finished the groundwork for analysis, but we are notyet ready to attempt a systematic understanding of revelation-inspiration,which will be our aim in Section 3. First we must examine howScripture’s origin has been understood previously, so we will survey thehistorical landscape. This will help us understand the current theologicaland ecclesiological situation. Why are there so many versions ofChristian theology? Why are there so many churches? Our purpose is notto answer these questions per se. But as we enter historical (Section 2)and systematic (Section 3) analyses of revelation-inspiration, be awareof how ideas about revelation-inspiration affect the thoughts and actionsof all Christians.

If we survey the catalog of specialized studies on the Bible’s origin, welearn two things. First, Christian literature categorizes this topic under thebroad heading “inspiration.” I have chosen to use the more cumbersome label“revelation-inspiration” to indicate the complexity of the process we areexamining.


Second, there are a variety of conflicting interpretations of revelation-inspiration. Such discrepancies lead to the question of methodology. Whatprocedure should we use to classify and describe the various interpretations?My proposal is to use the “model” method because of how it organizes anddescribes theological ideas; it harmonizes with the hermeneutical approachwe will be using as we survey how revelation-inspiration has beenunderstood historically.

This chapter will explain the idea of the model as a tool for theologicalanalysis. First we will explore what we mean by the word model and how itfunctions as such a tool. Then we will consider the issue of classification andthe hermeneutical perspective from which we are classifying the models ofrevelation-inspiration in this book.

§33. EXPLORING THE CONCEPT OF MODELThe English word model generally means “structural design” or “pattern to bemade,” two ideas that correspond well to the idea of model as a method ofanalysis. They suggest something like a blueprint for a house or a car. A modeldoes not describe specific details, but provides a theoretical framework to shapethe reality to which it applies. For example, the blueprint for a house does notapply to any particular house, but to houses built from its plans. In myneighborhood are several houses which follow the same general plan, or model,of my own home. But all houses are unique; while they follow the sameblueprints, those plans are applied slightly differently for each house. From thiswe learn several characteristics of models.

A model is ideal, broad, and applicable to reality. It is ideal because nospecific reality matches it exactly, but every reality following the model attemptsto follow its pattern. It is broad because not every detail is included in theblueprint. Only the main, decisive features are present. Models are patterns usedto build concrete realities. As the construction of the reality takes place, thatreality may differ from the model. So how does the concept of model relate totheological methodology?

MODELS AS TOOLS FOR UNDERSTANDING 115

1. Models In Theology

Models are blueprints or patterns that guide action. When a contractor buildsa new home, blueprints guide the entire process of construction. After thehouse is built, the importance of the blueprint remains, for eventually, thehouse will need repair or remodeling. If we want to remodel a house but havelost the blueprints, what can we do? If all else fails, we could reconstruct theblueprints from the actual layout of the existing house.

Something similar happens in theology. As with a house’s building plan,theological blueprints are involved in constructive and reconstructiveactivities. When a theologian develops his interpretations and teachings, hefollows general patterns for theological construction. These patterns ormodels form a part of his presuppositions (cf. §24). Most of the timetheologians do not explicitly express the blueprint from which they areworking. Then we are forced to reconstruct the blueprint from the actuallayout of their work.

In the study of revelation-inspiration, most theologians do not explicitlyformulate their blueprints for theological constructions. Our task in Section 2,then, is to discover the overall plans from which theologians generally work— tofind the implicit plan we call “model.” American theologian David Tracy has used the model methodology insome of his books with remarkable success and ability. He is not onlyconvinced of its effectiveness, but assures us that it is a widely acceptedprocedure among theologians.1 In theology, the essence of models— thatwhich makes them worthwhile— is showing the main components andstructure of any given doctrine.2 Thus, as tools, models help identify thegeneral characteristics of any theological position, school, or trend. We willuse this methodology to analyze and summarize the major approaches torevelation-inspiration.

2. Models and Presuppositions

Models in this study refer to the blueprints for understanding a given doctrine orteaching. Thus, we may talk about models of the church, atonement, salvation,


or revelation-inspiration. These models, in turn, depend on broader beliefscommon to the formulation of all doctrines and teachings. As we noted earlier, all our experiences play a presuppositional role, yetonly a few apply in the formulation of any given doctrine (see §25.3). Thereare two types of presuppositions which determine the interpretation andformulation of all Christian doctrines, including revelation-inspiration:hermeneutical principles (also known as “axioms”) and methodologicalparadigms.3 Our discussion of supernature and nature is a clear example ofhermeneutical principle (see §28-31), while the method one chooses to applyin exegetical studies is an example of what falls under the designation of“paradigm.”

3. Limitations

Models have their limits; they are not exact, all-inclusive, or provable. A modelis not exact because it never describes perfectly the position of any specifictheologian whose ideas follow it. In other words, each theologian may have ideasthat do not fit within the overall description of the model, even in the case of aparticular theologian who may be the best representative of a given model.4 Amodel is not all-inclusive because at times theologians do not follow anyspecific model, but work by mixing together components of several differentmodels. Therefore, some theologians are very difficult to classify.5

A model is not provable because its true status cannot be demonstrated.That is, theologians which we would categorize under a particular model arenot the ones who state or create that model; models are only general patternsof interpretation which theologians tend to follow.6

§34. CLASSIFICATION OF MODELS Not only do our presuppositions condition the creation of our models ofinterpretation; they affect our description and classification of the models usedby others. Consequently, we must consider our own presuppositions in thissection; then we will familiarize ourselves with some of the classifications


available in the theological market; finally we will discuss how we will attemptto describe and classify models here.

1. Variety in Model Classification

As there are a variety of models for interpreting revelation-inspiration, sothere are several ways to identify, describe, and classify these models. Thisvariety of classification sets exists because various theologians have differentgoals in classifying the various models. Consequently, our goal determinesthat we classify models of revelation-inspiration as classical, modern, andevangelical. But first, let us consider some examples produced by othertheologians.

Robert Gnuse speaks about strict verbal, limited verbal, nontextual, andsocial theories of inspiration,7 whereas Carl Henry refers to evangelical, liberal,and neo-orthodox approaches.8 Writing about revelation rather than inspiration,Avery Dulles distinguishes five different models: doctrinal, historical,experiential, dialectical presence, and new awareness.9 Likewise, MiikkaRuokanen notes three models: propositional, nonpropositional, andnonpropositional with new divinely-originated information.10 He has alsodesigned two models of inspiration: the direct-instrumental and the integrated-content theories. Obviously there are many ways to classify models of revelation-inspiration.11

2. Hermeneutical Perspective

As we continue, I will review the viewpoint from which we are classifyingthe models of revelation-inspiration. But as you read, bear in mind that anyclassification, including our own, is somewhat arbitrary. Remember, modelsare tools for analysis and description, so researches should be ready toprepare and tune their classification of models as sharply and precisely asthey can.

In this study, we are attempting to understand how the Bible came to be,particularly in relation to its claim that God is its author (see §18,19).Moreover, we have decided to approach our subject from a hermeneutical


perspective by examining the presuppositions which affect the interpretationof revelation-inspiration (§2.5.c). Our aim is not to defend a particularschool of interpretation, but to understand why there are so many differentinterpretations of the same vital issue. As we have noted, since not allpresuppositions apply to revelation-inspiration, we must identify whichpresuppositions are relevant. Hermeneutical presuppositions are broad issueswe take for granted when we attempt to interpret it. In the case of the Bible’sorigin, we discovered that the process of revelation-inspiration alwaysinvolved divine and human agencies. Consequently, our understanding of thebeing and actions of God and of humans directly shapes our view ofrevelation-inspiration (cf. §25.3; also Chapter 6).

From this perspective, we will classify interpretations of revelation-inspirationthrough the use of models, each of which will be decided by presuppositionsabout God and humanity. In this respect, the classical, modern, and evangelicalmodels are not arbitrary choices, but reflect main turning points in Christianunderstanding of revelation-inspiration.

§35. REVIEW

• Models as blueprints.Models are a sort of blueprint for the interpretation of doctrines. As theblueprint for a building includes all the guidelines for its construction, somodels include all the characteristics of a specific type of doctrinalinterpretation.

• Models are ideal, broad, and play a presuppositional role. Models are ideal because they do not correspond precisely to any particulardoctrine of revelation-inspiration. Consequently, they are broad becausewithin the overall range of each of their primary characteristics, they allow fordifferent interpretive details concerning revelation-inspiration. Models aregeneral patterns that guide the formulation of doctrines and thus play apresuppositional role at the doctrinal level.


• Models are built from hermeneutical principles. Hermeneutical principles such as the interpretations of supernature andnature, of God and human beings, directly influence the models ofinterpretation. Any change in the understanding these principles createsan opportunity for the development of a new model of doctrinalinterpretation.

• Models have limitations. A model does not completely describe the position of any theologianincluded within its parameters. Thus, models cannot be demonstratedbecause they are not explicitly formulated by theologians whom we wouldsay fall within their boundaries.

• Models can be classified from various points of view. When studying the landscape of theological interpretations of a doctrine,theologians can classify models in various ways depending on theiroverall goal and perspective.

• Hermeneutical Perspective on Model Classification Models can be distinguished by the hermeneutical principles involved in

the formulation of a given doctrine. Substantial changes in theseprinciples allow for the formulation and/or identification of a new model.

• The hermeneutical perspective for model classification leads to threemodels of revelation-inspiration. Changes in hermeneutical principles are not frequent, but take place only atpivotal times in the history of philosophical and theological thought. One canrecognize three main models of revelation-inspiration from the hermeneuticalperspective. They are the classical, modern, and evangelical models.

ENDNOTES


1David Tracy explains that “a widely accepted dictum in contemporarytheology is the need to develop certain basic models or types for understanding thespecific task of the contemporary theologian” (Blessed Rage for Order: The NewPluralism in Theology [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988], 22). For furtherliterature on models, see, e.g., Frederick Ferré, Language, Logic and God (NewYork: Harper, 1961); Ian Ramsey, Models and Mystery (London: OxfordUniversity Press, 1964); and idem, Christian Discourse (London: OxfordUniversity Press, 1965).

2 Tracy, 23.3 Catholic theologian Hans Küng has used the term paradigm in this

methodological sense. See Küng, Theology for the Third Millennium, trans. PeterHeinegg (New York: Doubleday, 1988), and idem, Christianity: Essence, History,and Future, trans. John Bowden (New York: Continuum, 1995).

4 Küng, Theology for the Third Millennium5 Ibid., 29.6 Avery Dulles, Models of Revelation (Maryknoll, NY: Oribs, 1992), 29.7 Robert Gnuse, The Authority of the Bible: Theories of Inspiration,

Revelation, and the Canon (New York: Paulist Press, 1985), 22-23, 34-41, 42-49,and 50-68.

8 Carl Henry, “Divine Revelation and the Bible,” in Inspiration andInterpretation, ed. John Walvoord (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 256-269.

9 Dulles 27-28. 10 Miikka Ruokanen, Doctrina Divinitus Inspirata: Martin Luther’s Position

in the Ecumenical Problem of Biblical Inspiration (Helsinki: Luther-AgricolaSociety, 1985), 19-23.

11 Ibidem.

8. THE CLASSICAL MODEL

Christianity’s conviction of the divine origin of Scripture followed the Jewishbelief that Yahweh was the author of the Old Testament. For example, Jewishhistorian Flavius Josephus wrote that the books of the Hebrew canon contained“divine doctrines.”1 In the same fashion, for centuries Christian authorstrusted in the divine authorship of the Bible without attempting a theologicalunderstanding of it. Scripture’s divine origin was for them a matter of fact,a ground on which to build their understanding of the faith. But in time,theologians began to consider how the Bible came to be, focusing notably onthe question of prophecy. Eventually, reflection on revelation and inspirationdeveloped into a general school of interpretation, a model for interpretingquestions about the Bible’s origin. After the Protestant Reformation,seventeenth-century theologians developed the doctrine of inspiration in greatdetail. It became a debated issue in Christian circles only after theEnlightenment, when modern theological interpretations challenged not onlythe validity but even the possibility of the classical understanding.

In this chapter, we will use the model methodology of the previous chapter toanalyze the structure of the first historical position on revelation-inspiration: theclassical model.2 Understanding this model is vital because it reflects the thoughtof not only early Christian writers, but also that of many later thinkers. It is stillhow most conservative Protestant and Roman Catholic theologians view


Scripture’s origin, so the importance of understanding it cannot beoveremphasized. We will explore the classical model in three major steps:revelation, inspiration, and evaluation.

§36. REVELATIONThe biblical concept of revelation applies to many things. For instance,when the Holy Spirit illuminates a person’s mind to the teachings ofScripture, that is a true revelation of God. In Chapter 2, we learned thatGod also uses other objective means to reveal himself and his salvationto humanity. In this section, we will use the term “revelation” to describehow the contents of Scripture came to the mind of the human writer(§10). This relates directly to the claim that God is the author ofScripture (§18-19). If God is the source of the Bible, how did its contentsoriginate in the minds of the human writers?

1. Nature and Supernature as Presuppositions

For God to be involved in Scripture’s origin, he must come in contactwith the human writer. There must be a divine-human encounter if Godis to be the source of its contents. Throughout Christian history, believershave maintained that contact between God and the human writer waspossible. But they have disagreed on the nature of the divine-humanencounter that resulted in the Bible. How each model answers thisquestion depends on how proponents of that model view nature andsupernature (§28-30).

The classical model depends on the timeless interpretation of natureand supernature, a view which, as we discussed in Chapter 6, came fromthe writings of Greek philosophers such as Parmenides, Plato andAristotle. Though their thinking was extrabiblical and speculative, theirinfluence on the classical view of God has been preserved in the writingsof Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, and their subsequenttraditions.

THE CLASSICAL MODEL 123

According to this understanding, God is perfectly, infinitely timeless.Human beings, though existing within the flux of time, have timeless soulsand through them share in God’s timeless reality. The timelessness of thesoul is not perfect or infinite as God’s is, but it does provide a means withinthe flux of time by which God can encounter the mind of the human writer.Since the intellect is a capacity of the timeless soul, revelation takes place asa cognitive encounter between God and the mind of the human writer.

2. Enhancement of the Prophet’s Intellect

What God communicates to the prophet are timeless truths. But how canthe limited human mind receive divine, perfect, timeless truth? Thisproblem leads to an important characteristic of the classical model.Aquinas explains that the human writer’s intellectual capabilities need tobe elevated by God. The soul’s rational capabilities receive special poweror charisma from God to prepare them for revelation. This powerAquinas calls “prophetic light” (lumen prophetiae).3

Put another way, the prophetic light gives the soul’s intellect a burstof divine power. The writer’s mind is thus prepared to receivesupernatural truth that will eventually be written down in Scripture.Because of the prophetic light, the intellectual capabilities of the biblicalwriters are immeasurably superior to those of common human beings.The prophet’s human abilities have to be elevated because God’s being,as perfectly infinite and unchanging, cannot accommodate the lesser,temporal being of the human. The human agency must accommodate thedivine nature as much as possible without destroying itself.

3. Content of Revelation

We now turn our attention to the process of revelation. As we have defined it, theprocess of revelation studies the origination of the contents of Scripture. Theclassical model claims there are two sources of scriptural contents: propheticrevelation and nature. The former stems from God’s supernatural action in theminds of the biblical writers,4 while the latter is derived directly from ordinary


knowledge.5

a. Prophetic Revelation: Communication of Timeless Truths

The classical model asserts that divine revelation takes place only within thisprophetic pattern. Revelation is understood as the divine communication of truthshuman beings cannot reach by themselves–supernatural truths. Because of hownature and supernature are assumed by classical thinkers, divine truths can onlyexist and be communicated within the realm of timelessness. Thatcommunication is a cognitive event between the mind of God and the soul of theprophet. Since revelation takes place in the intellectual mind, the classical modelcould be said to subscribe to the idea of thought revelation. Those chosen asprophets receive a boost of their natural, rational capabilities (cf. §36.2). Theprophetic light not only enhances the prophet’s rational capabilities, but gives himthe hermeneutical principles he will use to process his natural and supernaturalinformation.

Once the light of prophecy prepares the prophet’s mind, God infusesdivine, timeless truths into that mind. Because God and the human soul aretimeless, the truths that are communicated to the prophet by God are alsotimeless.

When the classical model uses the word “timeless” to describe the truth orcontent communicated by prophetic revelation, it does mean permanence orunchangeableness throughout time. But its real emphasis is on the nontemporal,nonhistorical content of truth. God may choose to convey timeless truth directlyas in the case of Solomon and the apostles, or by historical-temporal means as inthe case of the handwriting on the wall (Daniel 5:25) or the multi metal image(Daniel 2). The truth communicated through temporal-historical vehicles is,nonetheless, still considered to be timeless. To understand them, the prophet needsthe assistance of the prophetic light, the elevation of his or her rational powers.In brief, revelation is the communication of supernatural, timeless truths.

b. Natural Sources


The writers of Scripture also drew from various natural sources. Whenprophets wrote from history and nature, they processed the data through theprophetic light. But though they were guided by their supernaturallyenlightened capabilities , some biblical writers gathered data through naturalprocesses of knowledge and research. Consequently, proponents of theclassical model believe that only some sections of Scripture are revealed. Inother words, because some portions of the Bible consist mostly of historicaldata readily available to any literate person writing at that time, thoseportions cannot be considered to be supernatural revelation.

4. Conclusion on Classical Revelation

Figure 1 is a diagram of the classical understanding of supernaturalrevelation. Again I am using an enlarged “H” to indicate nature and supernature. Again, as in Greek philosophy, the supernatural realm to

which God’s being and actions belong is timeless. The prophet obviouslydwells and functions within the natural level. Since the natural realmharbors a combination of timelessness and temporality, humans arethought of as a soul-body dichotomy. The body is temporal, but the soul

Figure 1: Revelation in the Classical Model


is timeless even as it is present in the body.Reason, or the intellect, is the soul’s primary defining characteristic. Reason

reaches absolute, timeless truth within the realm of supernature by piercingbeyond the temporal-historical level of reality and entering into the essence of allreality, which is always ultimately timeless. Since the natural capabilities ofreason are insufficient for receiving supernatural truth, those capabilities must beelevated (Step 1). Notice that the soul of the prophet moves to the supernaturallevel; this represents how the prophet is able to receive supernatural truths afterthe gift of prophetic light. In other words, God infuses revealed truths in the mindof the prophets. Without this step, revelation (or the infusion of divine, timelesstruths) is impossible. Next, at the point of revelation, God infuses divine truthsinto the mind of the prophet (Step 2), who retains the truths thus revealed in hisor her memory afterwards (Step 3). Since God is the one infusing truth into themind of the prophet, this position could be characterized as “thought revelation.”

§37. INSPIRATIONAs we have defined it earlier, inspiration is the process through which Scripturewas written. Inspiration therefore presupposes revelation. According to theclassical model, the contents of Scripture can be divided into supernatural,timeless truths, and natural, historical information.

Once the contents are secure in the mind, the prophet must convey themin oral or written form. This is the process of inspiration. How does theclassical model relate God to the prophet’s writing process? 1. The Two-Causes Theory

The classical theory has used the Aristotelian idea of multiple causality to explainhow God and the human agency interact in the writing of Scripture. Multiplecausality simply means more than one cause in the generation of one reality. Inthe case of the Bible, the classical model teaches that God as author is theprimary cause and human beings as writers are the instrumental cause. Imaginea sculptor using a chisel to create a statue. As the sculptor, and not the chisel, isthe author of the work of art, so God, and not the human writer, is the author of


Scripture. Human writers, as the chisel, play only an instrumental role.

a. God as Primary Cause

The primary cause is all-pervasive in the goals and results obtained by useof the instrumental cause. In the case of inspiration, first, as we just noted,God elevates the intellectual capacity of the soul and infuses it withsupernatural truths. But God also supernaturally elevates the prophet’spractical writing skills. He conceives of the ideas and plan of the book, andleads the writer to them. Using the writer as an instrument, he writes whathe wants written. Finally, God’s action on the prophet includes not only theoutline of the book, but the very words and literary styles of the humanwriter.

b. Human Agency as Secondary Cause

The instrumental agency acts in two ways – its own, and that given by theprimary cause. Charles H. Pickar uses the sculptor/tool analogy again: “As thetotal effect of a work of art is attributed to the artist as the principal cause and tohis tools as the instrumental causes, so also, the whole effect of Sacred Scriptureis produced by God the principal cause and by man the instrumental cause.Therefore God elevates and applies all the faculties of the sacred writer for thewriting of Sacred Scripture in such a way that the human author does not act onhis own, but in virtue of an action communicated to it by the principal agent.”6

However, prophets maintain some human deficiencies. The activity of theprimary cause does not erase all the limitations and imperfections of the humanwriter.

According to the classical model, the human writer contributes very little tothe writing of the Bible in terms of individuality and thinking. Guided by theprophetic light, the prophet expresses in words the eternal truths he received inrevelation and selects from the realm of natural data what will go into Scripture.In this the biblical writer appears to possess a great deal of freedom andcontributes much to Scripture. But since God as primary cause also directs theprophet in the writing process, the human element in Scripture amounts to almost


nothing. God is in control of the ideas and the words of Scripture. Thecontribution of the prophet is negligible.

c. Outcome

If we accept this interpretation of inspiration, what kind of book is Scripture? Itis verbally inspired and inerrant in content. Not only does the activity of Godreach the words; it determines each word of the Bible (see §18.2). The inerrancyof all scriptural content logically follows from this theory. Since God is the authorof its plan, content, and words, the Bible cannot contain errors of any kind. Thistheory proposes a very high view of Scripture.

2. Conclusion on Classical Inspiration

Figure 2 depicts the role inspiration plays in the classical model. Since theprocess of inspiration builds on the process of revelation, this figure builds onFigure 1 of this chapter. After the writer has had his soul elevated by the light ofprophecy and received the supernatural, timeless truths from God, he puts therevealed truth into writing: inspiration. The writer gathers information fromnatural sources to communicate the timeless truths. This process is directed by

Figure 2: Inspiration in the Classical Model


the Holy Spirit, who as primary cause, uses the prophet as an instrument toproduce the literary work. The Bible contains some revealed passages; themajority, however, are only inspired. Thus, only a few portions of Scripturecommunicate timeless truths. Most are instead illustrations of timeless truths.

§38. HERMENEUTICAL EFFECTHow does the classical model function as a presupposition for hermeneutics?Before we answer this question, let us remember two things. First, we aretold by this model that in revelation, God discloses timeless truths which wecannot access through the natural powers of the mind. Second, this viewpresents God not only as author, but also as writer. God, through theinstrumentality of the human, is the one behind every word in Scripture.

1. Emphasis on Revelation

Due to the cultural conditions of the first fifteen centuries of Christianhistory, theologians were not inclined to follow the classical view ofinspiration to its logical consequence for hermeneutics. It took the ProtestantReformation for that (Chapter 10). But conservative Roman Catholicism andthe mainline Protestant denominations depend on the classical model whichassociates the truth of Scripture with the timeless ideas it contains and notwith its words. This explains why they never embraced the literalisticinterpretation of American fundamentalism.

2. The Dehistoricizing of Theology

The classical model affects the interpretation of the Bible by separating truthfrom history. The classical concepts of nature and supernature lead to the beliefthat in revelation, any truths communicated by God are timeless. The truths in theBible are therefore timeless. Any historical aspects we find in the Bible are merelyvehicles for timeless truth. In other words, the biblical writers were forced to usethe language and circumstances of their own times to communicate God’s


revelation to their generation. Theology based on this model is therefore separatedfrom history.

Because exegesis requires the interpretation of biblical texts, it cannot avoidworking within the historical level of Scripture. But because the historical aspectsare only the trappings or decorations of timeless truths, exegesis falls short ofunderstanding those truths. Reaching the truth of Scripture requires thespecialized services of human reason. Classical philosophy proposed that reasoncould pierce the historical wrapping into the core of timeless truth, but since withtheology we are considering truths outside nature and time, this model proposesthat we must have our natural powers of thought heightened if we are tounderstand. This heightening happens for the interpreter through the supernaturalgift of faith. The boost of faith enables the human mind to reach the timeless truthwithin the historical, scriptural texts. Theology builds on those particular truthsand cannot be distracted by the many other aspects of life considered in the Bible.In fact, theologians must not let themselves be sidetracked by the limited culturalperspectives of the biblical writers. Imagine a birthday present covered inwrapping paper. To become preoccupied with the historical-cultural aspects ofthe Bible would be like admiring the wrapping paper instead of the gift–timelesstruth. Theology builds on the latter and considers the historicity of Scripture amere illustration of truth.

3. Reduced Theological Content

One wonders how much of the Bible is the gift, and how much is the wrappingpaper. What is eternal truth, and what is mere illustration? There is no exactanswer for this question. After reading the works of some classical theologians,one would be led to think that very few portions and notions of Scripture areexplicit revelations of eternal truth. Most of Scripture is historical narrative and,thus, illustrative of truth rather than truth itself. Reason elevated by faith may beable to identify the truths under the historical wrapping, but there are not manyof them. Most are found in the Apostle’s Creed.7 From those few truths, thewhole of theology may be deducted. One might say that all the eternal truth in theBible fit on less than a page, while the illustrations take up the rest of the book.


4. Illustration: Genesis Does Not Deny Evolution

To illustrate the hermeneutical effects of the classical model, consider the biblicalconcept of creation. It is a timeless truth included in the Apostle’s Creed. Froma reading of Genesis 1-2:3, one comes to the conclusion that God created heavensand earth during a period of six days, finishing with a seventh day devoted to rest.But classical theologians might take a second look and ask, “Did God really takeseven days to create our planet?” The consistent answer throughout Scripture is,“Yes, He did.” Classical theology will find this idea impossible to believe.Remember, the classical model of revelation-inspiration depends on the Greekidea of nature and supernature, in which God is timeless and can only acttimelessly. If you pause and try to understand or visualize what a timeless actwould be, you will soon discover that it is not easy. From the perspective ofsomeone within time, the only way to describe a timeless act is to say that it“happens instantaneously.”

Of course this is only a metaphor because even Aristotle recognized thatwhat we call an “instant” belongs to time. But the classical model works onthis hermeneutical basis. The prophet’s rational capabilities were elevated toreceive timeless truths, one of which is creation. When the human writercommunicated the idea of creation in written form, he was forced to adapt tothe cognitive level of his readers, who were unable to understand timelesstruths directly. The human writers of Scripture, led by the Holy Spirit(inspiration), covered the timeless core (revealed truths) in temporal-historical clothing (the story). That is why we find in the Bible the narrationabout the seven days of creation. The seven-days plot of the biblical story isnot factually true, but instead is only a literary device to communicate thetruth that God created heaven and earth.

According to the classical model, God is not speaking about Creation inGenesis as a historical, but as a timeless occurrence. If the truth of creation doesnot involve seven literal days, we are left to ponder our own historical origins.

For centuries, Christian theology accepted without hesitation the Genesisaccount as inspired, a supremacy suddenly challenged by the theory of


evolution. During the last two centuries, most scientists have become convincedthat life on our planet is the outcome of a long process of evolution. Obviouslythis contradicts the biblical narrative. In spite of this, many Christian theologianshave come to embrace the idea of theistic evolution, in which God created theworld through evolution. How is this possible? By declaring that revealed truthsare timeless, the classical model of revelation-inspiration places the seven daysof the biblical story outside the realm of eternal truth. The truth is not that Godcreated the world in seven days, but that God is the ultimate cause of ourexistence. Evolutionary theory becomes incompatible with Christianity only whentheologians fail to distinguish between the timeless nature of divine revelation andits historical wrapping.

§39. EVALUATIONThe classical model of revelation-inspiration is still at the foundation ofconservative Christian theologies. For example, the evangelical model onlymodifies the classical model, without rejecting its basic outline. We must,therefore, evaluate the classical model carefully. Is it an appropriateviewpoint from which we can understand Scripture’s origin? Or does it fallshort?

If we are to evaluate this or any model, we must have criteria from whichwe judge it. For any theory, not just models of revelation-inspiration, thereare three criteria to consider: consistency, coherence, and practicalapplication. Consistency looks inside the model for internal contradictions.Coherence measures whether the model corresponds to what we find inreality. Practical application evaluates the consequences and results of themodel.

1. Criteria For Evaluation

The data we use to evaluate a model of interpretation has to come from thesubject we are studying— in our case, the origin of Scripture. As we have


discussed, the data here is provided by the fact of revelation-inspiration: theexistence of the Bible (see §13). The Bible itself presents two sets of dataconcerning its origin: the doctrine and phenomena of Scripture. The doctrineof Scripture affirms that God is the author of the Bible even at the level ofwords, while the phenomena of Scripture indicate to what extent humanwriters were involved in its formation.

Any model of revelation-inspiration must be judged according to thesetwo factors. They are the data for the criteria of consistency and coherence.In other words, on one hand they allow us to consider whether theclassical model is consistent with Scripture’s declaration that God is itsauthor, and on the other, whether the model corresponds to what we findin the reality of Scripture–the phenomena of its language. The thirdcriterion, practical application, looks at the theological results. Theapplication of the model is its “hermeneutical effect,” the presuppositionof exegesis and theology. This final criterion reveals the strong and weakpoints of the model. 2. Consistency and Coherence

The classical model passes the consistency test with flying colors, but failsthe test of coherence. This model clearly teaches that God is the direct authorof the entire Bible, from the general concept to content to literary style andwords. But because of this overemphasis on the divine, the classical modeldoes not allow for the many human characteristics of the text.

In fairness to proponents of the classical model, they do recognize thelimitations and deficiencies of the human side of the Bible’s origin. But theirmodel places such a strong emphasis on the control and agency of God thatthe limitations they allow for in the human writers do not account for thegreater evidence of human contribution that a careful reading of Scripturereveals.

As an example, consider the prologue to Luke’s gospel (1:1-3). Lukeasserts that the account he is writing is the result of his own initiative andresearch. However, according to the classical model, Luke’s narrative ofgospel history and theology is a direct result of God’s plan and execution. If


this is so, Luke’s contribution to the formation of the gospel narrative is assignificant as the chisel’s contribution to the sculpting of a statue. Moreover,when personal experiences are related in the Bible, it is difficult to imagineGod, and not the ones who had the experiences, as the originator not only ofthe words, but also the contents of those passages (for example, David inPsalm 51).

The emphasis of the classical model, then, suggests the Bible was createdthrough a process more divine than human. For that reason, it is unable toprovide a satisfactory hermeneutical framework for accurately understandingScripture. As eighteenth-century theologians moved from a philosophical toa historical hermeneutic for understanding biblical texts, the classicalmodel’s limitations became clear. The need for a different explanation of theBible’s origin eventually led to the modern model, which we will examine inChapter 9.

3. Practical Application

The hermeneutical effect of the classical model of revelation-inspiration greatlyrestricts the theological scope of Scripture. Even the few portions containingrevealed truths must be interpreted from extrabiblical philosophy and science.Instead of allowing Scripture to be self-sufficient, the classical model demandsthat its interpretation depend on human insight and wisdom. This theologicalscenario is certainly possible. However, the theological relevance of Scripture isso limited that one becomes suspicious of the entire explanation. Why would Godcreate a book of helpful spiritual illustrations without much theological truth?The reduction of Scripture’s theological content by the classical model runscontrary to the conviction of most biblical writers— the testimony of Scriptureabout itself. Could the marriage of theology and philosophy have resulted intheological misdirection?

§40. REVIEW

• The classical model is based on the classical understanding of nature


and supernature.The classical model is based on the Platonic notion of supernature as a realmof timeless realities, and nature as that of transient, temporal duplication ofthose realities. God is the highest manifestation of timeless reality. Humanbeings consist of temporal bodies and timeless souls. The timeless God is ableto communicate with the timeless human soul.

• The Bible writers’ rational abilities must be elevated for revelation. Reason is the cognitive instrument able to grasp God’s timelessrevelation. But to be able to receive that supernatural revelation, theprophets’ minds must be enhanced by the gift of the light of prophecy.

• Divine revelation consists of timeless truths. After God has elevated the prophet’s reason to the timeless realm, Heinfuses into it the timeless truths he wants to communicate.

• Only some of the contents of Scripture are revealed, but all are whollyinspired. Not all the contents of Scripture originate in God’s supernatural revelation.Most of its contents come from the prophet’s perception of natural andhistorical facts. However, the light of prophecy enhances his judgment ofthese data, and he makes them illustrations of divine truth. Only a smallportion of the information in Scripture is of divine origin, while the rest is agathering of natural and historical facts.

• Broad and restricted uses of “revelation”Up till now we have used the word revelation to refer to how the contentsof Scripture came to the minds of the Bible writers before they wrotethem down. But the classical model uses the word in a restricted sense torefer to the timeless truths supernaturally given by God. Because of thislimited sense, the classical model calls the revelation of Scripture partial;the Bible has a limited number of revealed truths.


• Classical model as “thought” revelation.The classical model of revelation-inspiration describes what could becalled “thought” revelation. God gives in revelation truths or thoughts,not words. Of course, in inspiration, God does give the very words. Yetbecause this model favors revelation over inspiration, in practice theclassical model teaches that theology ought to work from the timelessthought wrapped in Scripture, not from its words.

• Inspiration: God as author (primary cause) uses the prophet as hisinstrument (secondary cause) to produce the words of Scripture. God as primary cause conceives the plan of the book, its contents, and itsvery words. The prophet, filled with the Holy Spirit, is the instrumentproducing the written work.

• Inerrancy is the logical result of the verbal-plenary idea of inspiration.If God is both the creator of the plan of the book and the one who choosesthe words, Scripture must be inerrant not only at the level of eternal,supernatural truths, but also at the level of nature and history. This wasnot an issue until the scientific method began to produce results thatchallenged the contents of Scripture.

• The classical model is consistent in theory, but inconsistent in practice.The classical model is undoubtedly consistent with Scripture’s testimonyabout its own nature. But because it favors revelation over inspiration,and creates dehistoricizing interpretations, it is inconsistent with what theBible says about itself–the doctrine of Scripture. For instance, theclassical model of revelation-inspiration allows for either instantaneouscreation or a long process of evolution, even though Scripture clearlyteaches that God created the world in a process of seven literal days.

• Lack of Coherence with the phenomena of scripture The classical model asserts that God is responsible for both the contents andthe words of Scripture. Thus, the role of the divine agency is so great that it


1 Against Apion, I.8. 2 Although I have chosen to base my description of the classical model on

Thomas Aquinas’s treatment of prophecy in Summa Theologica, bear in mind thatthis chapter is intended to describe a general model and not Aquinas’s position.

3 Summa Theologica, II-II. 171.2.4 Ibidem, II-II. 171.55 Ibidem, II-II. 173.2.6 Charles H. Pickar, “The Bible,” in Summa Theologica (New York:

Benzinger, 1948), 3105.7 Allow me to transcribe the text of the Apostle’s Creed so that the reader may

gain insight into its contents: “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator ofheaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived ofthe Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified,died, and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from thedead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, theholy catholic [or universal] church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins,the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen (“Historic Church Documents”in Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics, [www.reformed.org]).

minimizes contributions of the human agency. But during the last twocenturies, exegesis demonstrated that humans were involved in the Bible’sorigin at a much greater level than the classical model anticipated. Newdiscoveries began to challenge the theory and suggested that a new modelshould replace the old one.

ENDNOTES

9. THE TURNING POINT BETWEEN THE CLASSICAL AND MODERN MODELS

We have become accustomed to change at the beginning of the twenty-firstcentury. Continuous, rapid change is the one absolute from whichpostmodernity has not been able to free itself. Because we are continuouslybombarded with new and astonishing discoveries, we find it hard to imaginelife in earlier centuries, in which change evolved over many generations. Theshift from the classical to the modern model of revelation-inspiration wassuch a change, momentous but long in development.

Finding a new model of revelation-inspiration was inevitable. The classicalmodel was consistent with the doctrine of Scripture, though over the yearsexegesis began to reveal phenomena within the text that caused problems forthe model’s emphasis on God’s control over the very words of Scripture. Butthe advent of biblical exegesis does not, by itself, explain the shift. Amomentous change was taking place in the deeper recesses of Westernconsciousness, but it took several centuries to bear fruit within thetheological and religious community. Knowing why this particular changehappened will help Christian theologians understand why change is theabsolute of the postmodern world.

In this chapter, we will detour from direct analysis to study the historicalcontext that led to a revolutionary new interpretation of revelation-inspiration(Chapter 10). We will examine an essential aspect of modernity which


transformed theology’s philosophical grounds and consequent hermeneuticalprinciples, creating quite a predicament for Christian thinkers.

As we study, we will return to the area of philosophy to understand theshift in models. We will begin with a look at the long affair betweenphilosophy and the medieval church. Then we will touch on philosophy’smodern independence from theology and the church, and how thisaffected the church in the modern age. Next, we will consider the new,modern interpretation of reason and examine an important theologicaldecision which made that interpretation a turning point in theologicalhistory. We will conclude by looking at how the independence ofphilosophy from theology has divided Christianity into two separatecamps.

§41. THE ENTANGLEMENT OF PHILOSOPHY AND CHRISTIANITYWestern philosophy started in Greece around the sixth century B.C. Theviews of Plato and Aristotle shaped the view of nature and supernatureeventually adopted by the classical model of revelation-inspiration (Chapter6). The philosophy of these two teachers shaped Western thought andprogress for approximately two millennia.

Classical philosophy and Christian theology became so entangled that bythe thirteenth century A.D. the two became practically indistinguishable.Arguments about the authority of the church or about revelation wereconsidered as much a part of philosophy as pronouncements from reason.With the advent of the modern age, philosophy freed itself from theology.However, theology has yet to achieve a similar independence fromphilosophical thought. Since Christian thought relies on philosophy for itsmethodology, any change in philosophical views demand a change in theteachings of the church.

The modern era is so defined by the new meaning of reason it has beencalled the “age of reason.” Though reason played a role in the classical age,the modern age expanded its role even as it declared reason’s cognitive

THE TURNING POINT 141

powers to be less than they were according to the classical view. Modernitydeparts from the classical view of reason in two important ways. Reasonbecame the source of truth, beyond the restrictions imposed by the classicalview, and it was no longer viewed as timeless.

The modern age’s criticism and reinterpretation of reason directlyaffected the view of revelation-inspiration as a cognitive process forcing areinterpretation of how the Bible came to be. Both the authority of reasonand its new temporal limitations play important roles in the modern model ofrevelation-inspiration.

§42. PHILOSOPHY’S INDEPENDENCE FROM THE CHURCHWhile the medieval church synthesized reason with revelation, modernphilosophy intensifies the secularizing role of classical reason. Philosophyfirst came into being as a crossover from myth to science. Before the birthof philosophy, humans understood themselves and their surroundings throughreligion and myth. Greek philosophy tried to reject the religious-mythologicalvenue and search for truth more scientifically. But it still built many of itsideas on the old mythological realm. One could argue that philosophy beganas the secularization of Greek religion. Christianity’s entanglement withphilosophy meant that it, too, began to be secularized. During these twoperiods, the birth of Greek philosophy and the medieval church, philosophynever became totally independent from religion, myth, and revelation.

At the beginning of the modern age, Francis Bacon and René Descarteswere convinced that philosophy must become independent from religion.They began a search for truth based on reason and nature alone. Byconsciously and explicitly dissociating themselves from revelation and thechurch as sources of truth, Bacon and Descartes became harbingers of a newphilosophy. Reason became supreme.

This new-found freedom allowed philosophers to consider a plethora of newideas, even if they contradicted church teaching. The theological unity imposedby the Roman Catholic church was ending, while a new age of ever-increasingdisagreement was just beginning. As long as philosophy continued basing its


findings on classical ideas derived from religion, theology did not face majorchallenges. But when philosophy rejected classical tradition and began to searchfor truth independent of the church, Christian theology found itself facing asituation that would eventually divide it across denominational lines.

§43. REASON BECOMES BOUND TO TIMEPhilosophical changes do not take place overnight, nor are they the result of theingenuity of one individual. However, some philosophers express the views of theage so well that they become representatives of their time and influence manythinkers for years to come. We have mentioned Aristotle as standing for theclassical age; Immanuel Kant similarly represents the modern age. These twobecame icons of philosophy because of how they interpreted reason, whichresulted in paradigm shifts during their respective periods. Morever, their viewsstill present Christian theology with a choice in methodologies, resulting individed schools of theological thought and Christian denominations.

1. Reason in the Classical View

The classical understanding of knowledge, called “intellectualism,” is acomplex issue to analyze, but here we will ask only two questions. First,what kind of knowledge does reason produce? Second, what kinds of objectsfall within its reach?

As we discussed in Chapter 5, knowledge takes place when the humansubject encounters any sort of object. In the classical view, both the personand the object are by nature composites of timeless and temporalcomponents. In human beings, the timeless component is the soul, while ininanimate objects, it is the substance or essence. Reason resides in the soulas its most notable characteristic and highest power, and is able to connectthe timeless and temporal components. This is not a simple transaction. Thetimeless essence of objects is not available to the five senses. The sensesallow contact with temporal reality, behind which the timeless component issupposed to exist. Reason takes over where the senses fail. Since reason is


Figure 1: Classical Reason

timeless, it allows human contact with timeless reality. While scientificknowledge is expressed in temporal-historical terms, it stands on the timelessessences of things. Reason’s role is to access this timelessness. As it piercesthe temporal wrapping of an object into its inner timeless essence, reasonreaches true, objective, scientific knowledge.

Figure 1 represents the classical idea of reason. The two concentriccircles on the left represent the cognitive human subject, while the two circleson the right represent the object. The soul, with reason as its highest feature,is represented as an inner circle because it is not visible to the human eye,but is contained within the material body; the same goes for the essence, theinner reality of the inanimate object represented on the right.

The upper arrow represents what the five senses present in the bodyachieve – a knowledge of the external matter of the object. Both body andmatter are temporal realities. Our sensory perception allows us to know whatis changing and transient, passing illusions that Plato called “the shadows.”What is transient cannot be a basis for permanent truth and knowledge; it ismere opinion. Only constants – things true for all people at all times – maybe considered truth. Sensory perception falls short of such an ideal.

The lower arrow depicts the action and achievement of reason. Reason, as atimeless reality, can penetrate beyond the reach of sensory perception into therealm of timelessness. Thus reason allows us to reach the ultimate truth of things,truth that never changes with the passage of time nor from the perspective of


different subjects.In other words, the classical theory proposes that all human beings are

given the same objects to know and possess the same tool, timeless reason,with which to discover truth within the timeless essence of the objects.Consequently, differences in knowledge are explained as errors in reason.That is, this model assumes that an error takes place when a person followshis or her opinions based on sensory perceptions and emotions, rather thanthe information about the timeless essence of the object provided to the soulby reason.

Since in the classical view reason is able to understand timeless objects,this model claims knowledge of the timeless truth of supernatural revelation.Clearly, reason plays a pivotal role in the classical model.

2. Reason in the Modern View

Classical philosophy focused on interpreting reality. The scholars’ questionwas, What can we know? Thus, issues like nature and supernature were ofprimary concern. Secondary issues, such as the interpretation of reason, wereapproached based on what philosophers understood about their primaryconcerns. In other words, classical authors began by interpreting reality asa whole, and from there attempted to understand reason and otherepistemological issues.

The modern age turned these priorities upside down. Instead of focusingon what they could know, modern philosophers asked, How do we knowwhat we know? Instead of trying to interpret reality, they began by trying tointerpret the human subject and its cognitive capabilities. The question ofwhat is knowable was put on hold until this exploration was more complete.Instead of admitting that their views of reality were presuppositions forunderstanding reason as the proponents of the classical model did, moderntheologians began with their views on reason and knowledge aspresuppositions for interpreting reality. Modernity, therefore, focused on thehuman being instead of on overall reality.

Immanuel Kant became a prominent representative of the modern age; hisview of reason became an acceptable alternative to Aristotelian


intellectualism. Here we will focus on one feature of Kant’s interpretation ofreason: the historicizing of reason, central to the modern model of revelation-inspiration.

In his Critique of Pure Reason,1 Kant argues that reason is only able toreach the temporal wrapping of reality (phenomenon), falling short ofreaching the timeless essence (noumenon). Kant’s view of reason is notentirely historicized, but because he claimed that reason works within thelimits of space and time, he set the stage for that historicization, which hascome to fruition in postmodernity.2

Figure 2 shows how this seemingly insignificant change is relevant.It mirrors Figure 1 by depicting the three basic components of the act ofknowledge (reason). The two circles on the left represent the humansubject, the two on the right the known object. The arrow depicts therelationship between them, established by reason. This basic structure isthe same as in the classical model. The external circles represent thetemporal side of both subject and object, body and matter respectively,whereas the internal circles stand for the timeless level, soul and essence.The modern view introduces what appears at first to be a minor change.Instead of being a part of the timeless soul, reason becomes a part ofspace and time within the body. Thus while the timeless level of soul andessence is still the basis of human and natural realities, reason is believedto operate totally within time and history. Notice that the arrowportraying reason’s operation originates in the outer circle; the temporallevel of the body, including reason, is only able to understand thetemporal level of the object.

Two enormous consequences follow from this reinterpretation of reason.First, reason is limited in its understanding of any object. Second, reason isnot timeless but historical. The first is a characteristic of modernity, thesecond, of postmodernity. For now, we will limit our discussion to the firstof those two consequences.

If Kant is correct, all of classical theology becomes suspect because it isbuilt on an illusion – the notion that human reason can somehow contacttimeless reality beyond space and history. While Kant did not deny the


Figure 2: Modern Reason

existence of the soul and of God, he did maintain that since they aretimeless, we cannot know them. Since reason as the power which humanshave to understand reality had been thus understood in a new way, theclassical view on nature and supernature also became open toreinterpretation. Even so, most modern philosophers continue to think ofsupernature as timeless, but reject the idea that nature has any nontemporalcomponent. Therefore, the analogy of being between nature and supernaturebegins to lose its philosophical foundation.

§44. A FATEFUL DECISION OF METHODOLOGYWhy should we bother with what Plato or Kant said about reason? Won’t theHoly Spirit reveal truth as we read Scripture? Of course the answer is yes,but this understanding’s usefulness is limited to personal conviction. Itleaves much to be desired if we as a community of believers at the local anduniversal levels are going to agree on our beliefs.

1. Intellectual Christianity

As we discussed in Chapter 4, Scripture states clearly its divine origins.


But it never clearly explains how God and the Bible writers actuallyinteracted as the book was created. As preceding generations ofChristians have left us a variety of interpretations of revelation-inspiration, wide divisions have developed within Christianity. Theproblem of doctrinal conflicts cannot be resolved by simply saying thatthe Holy Spirit will lead us to all truth (John 16:3). If the Holy Spirit isalready leading all Christians into truth, why is there so much division inChristian theology?

Simply attributing one’s theological view to the leading of the Holy Spirit isa dangerous combination of arrogance and ignorance; no Christian believes he orshe is not being led by the Holy Spirit, and yet Christians disagree. Because manyquestions of revelation-inspiration remain unanswered in Scripture, and becausediffering answers supplied by theology have divided the community of faith, evenbiblically minded Christians are forced to recognize the complexity of the subject.Moreover, Christians are commanded by Christ to love God not only with theirhearts and bodies, but also with their minds (Matthew 22:37). God allows peopleto ask questions. Thus, those who are truly looking for answers should not becriticized. Their questions are usually determined by their experience, so anabsence of questions does not reveal a “higher” level of faith or experience. Infact, those reading and meditating seriously on Scripture are bound to have morequestions than those who do not. Thus, to question is not wrong. Rather, it is apositive part of the process of spiritual growth. The problem lies not in the act ofquestioning, but on the source one chooses to answer his or her questions.

2. Philosophy and the Hermeneutical Principles of Christian Theology

Motivated by the practical desire to defend and share their faith, earlyChristian thinkers began to use philosophical sources – a momentousmethodological decision. Initially, they intended not to modify the faithby philosophy but to use philosophy as a missionary tool. But afterseveral centuries, what had begun as a missionary tool became a seriesof theological presuppositions determining classical hermeneutics. Forexample, when we read Augustine, we discover that his teaching is basedon hermeneutical principles drawn from Greek philosophical sources,


especially Platonism and Neoplatonism. He made the same mistake Philoof Alexandria had made several centuries earlier. In another case,Thomas Aquinas used Aristotle’s writings to define the hermeneuticalprinciples of his theology.

As time passed, the use of philosophy as a source for hermeneuticalprinciples became increasingly accepted within Christianity, as were theconsequences of those principles for theology and doctrine – for example,the natural immortality of the soul.3 The Roman Catholic Church isknown to accept two sources of revealed authority: Scripture and thetradition of the church, in which philosophy plays a notable and openrole. Following that lead, most Protestant and evangelical schools oftheology have allowed philosophy to become a ground and source oftheological thinking. They justify this inclusion based on the biblical ideaof general revelation, but insist that Scripture is the controllinghermeneutical element. We have discussed why we have departed fromthis approach in §6 and 7.

But because of this dependence on philosophy, theology found itself facedwith a startling choice when the modern age arrived. How did this happen?During the classical age from the second to thirteenth century A.D., Christiantheologians drew certain doctrines such as the immortality of the soul fromGreek philosophy, primarily Plato and Aristotle. More importantly, they alsodrew their hermeneutical principles and consequently all their theology fromGreek philosophy. They had become convinced that without philosophicalassistance, theology would not function properly. Christian thought hadwillfully become dependent upon philosophy. Thus in practice, the solaScriptura principle had been replaced by prima Scriptura (Scripture first).

At first, theologians found that depending on philosophy was a goodbargain because it saved them the time-consuming task of creating anintellectual framework for theology from scratch. Without copyrightlaws, they could use the ideas of prior philosophers without having toacknowledge where those ideas came from. But this dependence onphilosophy created a stormy predicament for Christian thinkers with theadvent of the modern era.


§45. THE WATERSHED: ARISTOTLE OR KANT?Modern philosophy not only declared itself independent of the church’sauthority, but asserted that the traditional interpretation of reason, asunderstood by the church, was also wrong. These conclusions did notbecome consequent overnight, nor did they gain a foothold in allphilosophical schools. At first, this reorientation was merely a newalternative to traditional philosophy. Kant’s interpretation of reason wasmore revolutionary in the theological than philosophical field. The entireedifice of classical theology suddenly found itself on shaky ground.

Theologians had become convinced they had to obtain theirhermeneutical principles from the supermarket of philosophy (§44). Ofcourse, they rejected some notions they had found there, and adjustedothers. They had no doubt that Platonic and Aristotelian thought hadgiven them the necessary intellectual foundation for theology. But in thelate seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, theologians discovered a new andrevolutionary product in the philosophical supermarket, one which contradictedthe classical understanding.

What could they do? Should they hold onto the classical notion of reason,which allowed contact between God and humans through the reasoningpower of the timeless soul? Or, should they start over with a new definitionof reason, and reinterpret all of Christian theology?

Foremost of all, what source could they turn to for help in their decision?Philosophy was their answer, and it too became engulfed in turmoil andradical change. Theologians were forced to make decisions based on theirown instincts and feelings. Most decided to retain the Aristotelean definitionof reason and reality. Others determined that Kant was correct and beganreinterpreting Christian theology from its foundation up, part of which wasthe doctrine of revelation-inspiration. These decisions divided Christiantheology across denominational lines, resulting in what are now known asconservative and liberal positions. Since “conservative” and “liberal” meanmany different things in different contexts, let us clarify that they refer to theclassical and modern schools of theology, respectively. “Conservative”


theology continues to derive its hermenutical principles and teachings fromclassical philosophy, while “liberal” theology uses modern philosophicalviews. In the next chapter, we will explore the consequences of such achange in this one hermeneutical principle of theology for revelation-inspiration.

§46. REVIEW

• Philosophy became entangled with theology during the Middle Ages.When philosophy originated in Greece in the sixth century B.C., it began aprocess of secularization from previous religious ideas. The great systems ofPlato and Aristotle never became totally secularized, however. During theMiddle Ages, theologians interwove Greek philosophical ideas with Christianreligious ideas.

• Modern philosophy became independent from Christian theology.Francis Bacon and René Descartes helped move philosophical researchaway from the authority of the church to an authority based on reasonand nature.

• Modern philosophy asserts that reason can reach only spacial, temporalobjects.While modern thought still considers the soul and God to exist on atimeless level, reason is merely temporal and therefore cannot reacheither. Immanuel Kant was influential in formulating and spreading thisview.

• The major schools of Christian theology use philosophy to define thehermeneutical principles used for theological thinking.Very few theologians dare to challenge this widespread methodologicalassumption, even as it presents them with an unexpected choice.


1 Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, trans. J.M.D. Meiklejohn (Buffalo,

• Theologians’ dependence on philosophy is the cause of the rise ofmodern theology.By basing its hermeneutical principles on philosophy, classical theology madeitself vulnerable to the whims of philosophy. Any changes in philosophyradically affected theology because theology was tied to philosophicalreflection.

• By challenging the classical view of reason, modernity became theexternal cause for the rise of modern theology.When philosophers chose not to recognize the authority of the churchover their discipline, they could develop new ideas and make possible newtheological synthesis. This jeopardized the supremacy of the classicalsynthesis, and eventually brought it to an end with the rise of moderntheology.

• The Choice: Aristotle or KantWith modernity, theology suddenly had more than one philosophical basiswith which to begin its work. Should it follow the classical frameworkadvanced by Aristotle or the new one conceptualized by Kant?

• The Hermeneutical Division of Christian TheologyThe dependence of theology on philosophy for its hermeneuticalpresuppositions, together with the rise of Kantian philosophy, set the stage forthe division of Christian theology. Two separate camps developed: theclassical (conservative), and the modern (liberal). Each group has its ownunderstanding of revelation-inspiration; we will examine the modern modelin the next chapter.

ENDNOTES


NY: Prometheus, 1990).2 For an introduction to the postmodern historicizing of reason, cf. John D.

Caputo, Radical Hermeneutics: Repetition, Deconstruction, and the HermeneuticProject (Bloomington: Indian University Press, 1987).

3 On the question of the immortality of the soul and its nonbiblical status, cf.Samuele Bacchiocchi, Immortality or Resurrection? A Biblical Study on HumanNature and Destiny (Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectives, 1997).

10. THE MODERN MODEL

When Kant’s new interpretation of knowledge emerged, it did not force areinterpretation of revelation-inspiration and Christian doctrine until a sizeablenumber of Christian theologians became convinced it was more accurate thanAristotle’s view. Once that happened, those theologians were forced todeconstruct theology as it had been classically understood, since knowledge wasnow limited to space and time. The notion that God’s revelation involvedknowledge became impossible. After all, if God is timeless and cannot enter thespace-time continuum, He could hardly have originated the contents of Scripture.Worse, Christian theology risked becoming groundless, because if God cannotenter the human experience, religion and theology are empty and without content.If Christian theology was to survive in the modern age, it needed a newfoundation.

As modern theologians set out to reinterpret revelation-inspiration, theywere confronted by a simple question: Is there a zone in which a timelessGod may get in touch with temporal, spatial human beings, besides the zoneof knowledge? In other words, if God cannot relate to human beings throughknowledge, can He relate to other levels of human experience? Theologyafter Kant needed not only a new understanding of revelation-inspiration, butalso a new “zone” or “level” where it could take place.


§47. REVELATIONFriedrich Schleiermacher, known today as the father of modern theology,developed both the foundation and framework for the modern view ofrevelation-inspiration. Over the years, Schleiermacher’s explanation of theorigin of Scripture was endorsed by an ever-increasing number oftheologians who accepted the Kantian limitation of human knowledge. Hisinterpretation of revelation-inspiration became dominant in Christianthought. Schleiermacher’s views of revelation tend to stand behind mostmodern and postmodern approaches to systematic theology as well as thehistorical-critical methodology pervasive in contemporary biblical exegesis.However, his views were and are influential as they provide an alternative tothe classical model. Moreover, they are the precursors to many subsequenttheories of revelation-inspiration, among them the ideas of Rudolf Otto,Martin Buber, and Emil Brunner. In this chapter, however, we will limit ourexploration of the modern model of revelation-inspiration toSchleiermacher’s basic blueprint, following the model methodologyexplained earlier (§34-36) .

1. The New Zone: Feeling Replaces Reason

The modern model of revelation-inspiration is known as the “encountertheory.” This does not imply that the earlier classical model did not describean encounter between God and the biblical writer. The two views differ onwhat the divine-human encounter consists of, specifically in what zone ittakes place.

As we have discussed, the classical theory asserts that the encounter happenswithin the intellectual experience of the human writer. It therefore involves thecommunication of cognitive contents. God gives eternal truth out of his ownwisdom to the prophet and through him or her to the Jewish and Christiancommunities. In the classical view, God encounters the prophet and giveshim specific ideas to write down.

As we discussed in the previous chapter, Kant believed reason and knowledgewere limited to time and space, making it impossible for God to contact human

THE MODERN MODEL 155

beings on an intellectual level. In other words, since God is timeless, he cannotgive temporal human beings cognitive information. Since Schleiermacheraccepted Kant’s view of reason, he could not accept an intellectual exchangebetween God and humans.

To deny the possibility of a divine-human encounter brings us to deism, apopular trend of thought in Europe during the sixteenth through eighteenthcenturies. Most deists rejected the possibility of supernatural revelation, butbelieved that human reason could obtain knowledge of God’s existence.Consequently, most deists accepted God as the principle cause of the universe,but denied His providential involvement in its development.

For Schleiermacher, the deist understanding was inadequate forreinterpreting Christian theology, specifically revelation-inspiration, becauseit did not provide grounds for a real point of contact between a timeless Godand historical human beings. Without that point of encounter, deism provideda natural theology, or at best a natural religion. But it could not support thebasic claim of Christianity— that Christ enters into a personal, salvificrelationship with human beings. To provide new grounds for the divine-human encounter, Schleiermacher went beyond deism and Kant’s rationaltheology, and suggested that the divine-human encounter takes place in azone of human experience other than the intellect.

At the age of thirty-one, Schleiermacher published Speeches OnReligion.1 His purpose was to present his cultured friends, who did not thinkmuch of the claims and status of Christianity, with an explanation of thefaith that they could not reject. Schleiermacher argued that Christianitybelonged to the very nature of humanity. To be human necessarily involvesbeing religious. By despising Christianity, Schleiermacher’s friends wereneglecting an essential component of human nature and, thus, were notreaching their full potential.

Schleiermacher claimed that human nature includes three interrelated,indivisible components: reason, action, and feeling. The operation of reasongives rise to science; action gives rise to ethics; and feeling gives rise toreligion. Proponents of the classical model had mistakenly assumed thatChristian theology and experience were grounded on either science (theology)


Figure 1: Modern Model of Revelation-Inspiration

or ethics (moral behavior). In contrast, according to Schleiermacher,Christian theology and experience do not build on theological or ethicalgrounds, but on those of human emotion. In this simple assertion,Schleiermacher changed the grounds of not only the doctrine of revelation-inspiration, but of the entire edifice of Christian doctrine.

Before this, classical Christian theologians of both the Roman Catholicand Protestant traditions had assumed that their work was based on sourcesin the cognitive or scientific “zone” of human experience. Schleiermacherboldly contended instead that Christian theology is ultimately based onhuman feeling— the feeling of absolute dependence. In switching the zone ofChristian experience from cognition to feeling, Schleiermacher created themost radical paradigm shift in the history of Christian theology.

2. Working Assumptions

Twenty-three years after the publication of the Speeches on Religion, a moremature Schleiermacher wrote his chief work, The Christian Faith.2 There hepresented a brief but comprehensive reinterpretation of the classicalteachings of Christianity. Among the issues that he analyzed was revelation-inspiration; he wrote in detail on how he believed God contacts human


beings.Our study of Schleiermacher’s view, the modern paradigm of revelation,

will begin with Figure 1. Examine it carefully before reading the explanation,and remember to keep in mind our earlier diagram of the classical model,presented in §36.4, Figure 1.

a. God as a Timeless Nonhistorical Reality

The diagram in Figure 1 is based on the same “H” structure we used before, andrepresents the supernatural and natural realms. Once again, God belongs to thesupernatural realm, while the human writers of Scripture dwell at the naturallevel. The modern model of revelation-inspiration adopts the classical timelessview of God without criticism.3 God’s actions, including revelation are assumedto take place within the dynamics of this nonhistorical, static reality.

b. Human Nature as Historical “Consciousness”

The modern model’s major change has to do with human nature. This changeconsisted of two beliefs. First, as we have discussed, Kant decided thatreason was limited to temporal and spacial realities. Second is the modern“turn to the subject.” The best way to understand this idea is to compare it withthe classical “turn to the cosmos.”

The phrase “turn to the cosmos” refers to the assumption that the externalworld exists. Proponents of this view never questioned the reality of theexternal world nor the human capability to know. In contrast, “turn to thesubject” means that the modern thinker doubted the reality of the externalworld and, therefore, was forced to build his or her reflections from thesubject and the contents of his or her mind.

Schleiermacher refers to the human nature involved in revelation andtheology as “consciousness.” We must distinguish consciousness from“conscience.” The latter is an ethical term that usually evokes theprinciples that govern our individual or social conduct, whereas theformer embraces all human experience. Specifically, “consciousness”refers not only to being awake, but also to all the accumulated experience


stored in our minds. Each person’s consciousness is based directly on hisor her individual history.

According to Schleiermacher, reason was included within this idea ofconsciousness. In the classical view, reason was assumed to be part of thetimeless soul, but in the modern view it had become limited to historical realityand was outside the soul. Modern thinkers had stripped the soul of reason andconsciousness, but they still assumed that as part of human nature,4 the soul wasthe point of contact between God and the human being. At the point ofrevelation, God would touch the soul of the writer but not his consciousness.Yet, through its emotions human consciousness picks up the reverberations of thedivine touch.

3. Content of Revelation

Any idea of revelation necessarily implies a connection, contact, or “encounter”between God and humans. How theologians understand and articulate thisencounter shapes their view of revelation, and consequently their entiretheological framework. Their view of the divine-human encounter is based onhow they understand divine and human nature. The modern model of revelationis known as the “encounter” theory because it presented a new interpretation ofthat encounter between God and the prophet.

a. The Anatomy of the Encounter

In The Christian Faith, Schleiermacher describes the encounter theory ingreat technical detail. To understand his view in broad terms, let us return toFigure 1. Schleiermacher reinterpreted the classical understanding ofknowledge by moving the place of encounter from cognition to emotion.While the divine-human contact required for revelation cannot take placewithin the realm of knowledge, nothing prevents it from taking place withinthe realm of human feelings.

Knowledge and emotion are both located within the zone of humanconsciousness. Emotions are internal modifications of our consciousness thatgenerally come from our cognitive experiences. For instance, a person is


often able to trace the anger he or she feels inside to a cause within space andtime. However, Schleiermacher posited that as we scan the entire surface ofour consciousness, we will eventually stumble onto a feeling of absolutedependence. This absolute dependence differs from all other feelings in thatit does not come from a spacial or temporal experience. However, the factthat we find no spacial-temporal cause for our feeling of absolute dependencedoes not mean that this feeling is causeless. Schleiermacher believed that ourinability to find a cause in space and time strongly suggests the existence ofa timeless cause. He proposes that God must be this timeless cause, or the“whence” from which the feeling of absolute dependence comes.5

In short, God is called upon to play the role of hypothetical cause of ourfeeling of absolute dependence. I say “hypothetical” because, according toSchleiermacher’s view, we are not conscious of God’s presence, nor of theorigin of the feeling of absolute dependence; we are only aware of thatfeeling. In other words, since no special cognitive content has beencommunicated from God as he generated the emotion of absolutedependence, the human reaction is one of feeling with no cognitive thought.

How does this divine-human encounter enter the realm of humanconsciousness? In other words, if the feeling of absolute dependence playssuch a pivotal role in Schleiermacher’s view, how is it generated? It comesinto existence in our consciousness as an emotional reaction to the objectiveaction-presence of God in the inner recesses of our soul. The divineencounter reverberates in the level of consciousness as an emotional reaction.But this is not all. As do all emotions, the feeling of absolute dependence attachesitself to whatever is in our consciousness when the encounter takes place. In thisindirect way, the presence of God in the human soul finds expression in humanconsciousness.

b. Example: The Pebble and the Pond

It might be difficult to visualize the relationship between the feeling of absolutedependence and the content of Scripture. Let us compare our consciousness to apond. Then, imagine that God’s action is like a pebble thrown into the pond,generating waves that eventually reach the shore. Clearly, the falling pebble does


not create the water or anything in it (our consciousness or its contents); thepebble merely ripples the pond’s surface. The water itself does not cause therippling, but the pebble does. Like the pebble hitting the water, the encounterdoes not create contents in the prophet’s mind, but “makes waves” in his or herconsciousness. The pebble does not communicate “pebbly” things to the pond.As nothing new is added to the water but the rippling, so nothing new is createdin the religious consciousness of the prophets but the emotional waves producedby the divine encounter – the feeling of absolute dependence. Water can onlyexperience watery things, certainly not pebbles; it only experiences the ripplingproduced by the pebble. Likewise, the prophet experiences the feeling ofabsolute dependence, but not God’s encounter.

c. Summary

The modern model consists of four main points. First, revelation is anencounter. God enters into direct contact with human beings, who live inspace and time. Due to God’s nature, however, the encounter takes place notwithin the spatiotemporal level of history and reason, but in the timeless,spaceless realm proper to what are believed to be the natures of God and thehuman soul. Second, revelation is objective. Because the divine-humanencounter takes place in reality rather than in the human imagination,Schleiermacher’s theory claims to be objective and real, not subjective orimaginary. Third, revelation is personal. The encounter does not involve thecommunication of any information, knowledge, or truth. Revelation disclosesa person, God, rather than knowledge about or from Him. Fourth, revelationgenerates its own cognitive witnesses. The encounter enters the level ofhuman consciousness indirectly by stirring up the emotions. This final pointbrings us to a look at the connection between the encounter and the actualcontents of Scripture.

§48. INSPIRATION


We have examined the modern model of revelation; now we turn ourattention to its understanding of inspiration. Remember, “inspiration” as wehave been using it is a technical word for the process by which the Bible waswritten down. Without inspiration, however it is defined, the experiences andideas of biblical writers would have died with them.

We must also continue to recognize that we cannot explore the writing ofScripture apart from the process of revelation that precedes it. Obviously, beforesomething is put into writing, it must first exist in the mind of the writer. We havebeen examining revelation first to figure out the role of God in the generation ofthe ideas in the prophets’ minds. In the modern model, the short answer to thatquestion is simple. God has nothing to do with the contents of the Bible in termsof the knowledge they relate. All biblical contents spring from the knowledge andimagination of the prophets or holy writers. But the modern model does not endthe discussion by declaring that Scripture is an ordinary book. On the contrary,the writers of Scripture are held in high esteem because they are witnesses to thedivine-human encounter. 1. The Indirect Connection Theory

Schleiermacher proposes an indirect connection between revelation andinspiration, mediated through the feeling of absolute dependence. God relatesto our consciousness indirectly, through this feeling. Instead of a directcausal connection as in the classical model, the modern model suggests anindirect connection, more like attachment.

a. Connection By Attachment

According to the classical model, the connection between God and Scripture iscategorized as cause, i.e., God (cause) brings about the contents of Scripture(effect). In the idea of “connection by attachment,” cause and effect areassociated by proximity and timing. The connection does not happen because thecause creates the effect; instead, because they happen close to each other, theybecome attached or associated via the emotions.


b. Example: Enjoying Music

If you enjoy music, you already understand how inner emotions attachthemselves to spatiotemporal experiences. Familiar melodies can evoke aspecial mood, but also even call to mind past events. When my wife and Ihear Rachmaninoff’s second piano concerto, we are transported to the timeand place of our earliest romantic encounters. We relive those experiencesin our imaginations when our mood attaches itself not only to the music wehear in the present – its spatiotemporal cause – but also to the contents thatwere present in our consciousness when we were engaged. Similarly, themodern model of revelation asserts that the feeling of absolute dependenceattaches itself to whatever was happening in the prophet’s mind and life atthe time the encounter took place. How did this attachment cause them towrite down the contents of Scripture?

c. Encounter Attaches to Culture

Because the biblical writers were more sensitive to religious experiences thanmost people, they were able to perceive with greater clarity the feeling ofabsolute dependence generated by the encounter. Moreover, they felt theyhad to tell others of their experiences. But the biblical writers could notcommunicate the encounter simply because they had a consciousness of it.After all, feelings are subjective and communication can take place onlythrough objective means. So, the prophets were left to express theirencounters by using the ideas and contents they were experiencing when thefeeling of absolute dependence came over them. These ideas were notgenerated by God in the encounter; the prophet learned them just as anyordinary person would learn about culture, history and science.

The modern view of inspiration claims that all the information and ideas in theBible came from ordinary sources available to the prophets in their time. God didnot originate a single fact or concept we read in the biblical text. This view raisestwo important questions. Why did the prophets write the Bible and what is therole of Scripture in the life of the believer and in Christian theology? We will


answer these questions in a moment.

2. A Broader Picture

In the classical model, inspiration is like a divine energy enhancing therational powers of the prophet’s soul and guiding him in the process ofwriting Scripture. But since in the modern model God is unable tocommunicate knowledge or cognitive thoughts, He presents Himself in thesoul of the prophets only to reveal His being. The modern view does allowthat the encounter is a powerful emotional experience that reveals God andsaves the prophet, and if its description is accurate, we would expect a strongresponse from the prophet. We might wonder how an ambiguous feelingcould be perceived as “salvation”, but there is no doubt that according to thistheory the divine encounter produces a colossal impact on the life of theprophets. The modern model of inspiration rides on the aftermath of theencounter.

a. Analogy with the Arts

In the classical model, the Bible was written supernaturally; Godintervened to ensure that the human writers accurately described thetruths He had given them. According to the modern model of inspiration,the Bible was written just like other books, except for its religious basisand goal. Since no cognitive truth was communicated in the encounter,the process of writing – inspiration – needs no supernatural interventionor guidance by the Holy Spirit. Does the modern model need a concept ofinspiration?

The answer is yes, but the modern model views inspiration not as divineguidance, but divine motivation to express the religious encounter in words.Writing about his experience allows the prophet an objective means to expressa subjective reality.

The intensity of the experience justifies this use of objective means to describea personal experience. In other words, the religious encounter is so earthshakingthat it requires an outlet for relief. The prophet finds relief by expressing his


experience within the world of objective realities in space and time. Writing is justone of many ways in which the intensity of feeling bursts out. In the modernmodel, the intensity of religious feeling provoked by the encounter serves asinspiration only because it has to express itself in writing. Inspiration is like aburning sensation inside the prophet, who can find relief only as he witnesses toothers about his encounter with God.

The modern model clearly likens the inspiration that expresses itself in thewriting of Scripture to that which results in a work of art. As artists attempt tocommunicate subjective moods such as beauty or anger by way of objectivemeans like painting or poetry, so the biblical writers have attempted tocommunicate a religious mood. Although the content of communication may bedifferent, the process through which it is communicated is the same. The modernmodel concludes that Scripture is to be regarded as a work of art, the contentsand words of which are totally determined by its authors and the cultures towhich they belong. We cannot study Scripture to discover cognitive truth aboutGod or the world, but only to become aware of the divine as it encounters us inthe depth of our beings. b. Liturgical and Missiological Goals

The biblical authors’ goal in expressing the divine encounter has two aspects,liturgical and missiological. The liturgical goal is to respond to God’s presenceby worshiping. Worship is a response by the believer to God’s revelation andsalvation, but can only take place within time and history, the objective worldwhere the believer lives. Since our subjective experiences are often bestexpressed in objective language, we should not be surprised that holy menrecorded their religious experiences in oral or written form.

For the missiological aspect, the prophets’ oral and written expressions wereintended to evoke the source of the feeling of absolute dependence – theexperience of the divine. The words point beyond themselves to the realm wherewe ourselves might encounter the divine. In other words, the prophets wantedothers to have the same experience, and wrote to encourage others to search forthe divine within themselves. Thus, the prophets’ motivation was the religiousexperience of absolute dependence; their goal was that others experience that


feeling too.

§49. THE HERMENEUTICAL EFFECTTo summarize, the modern model views revelation as an encounter, andinspiration as artistic expression. Applying these two principles ashermeneutics for interpreting the Bible and doing theology dramaticallyaffects both biblical and systematic theologies. Their application forces aradical reinterpretation of exegesis and Christian teaching (hence Christianchurches are divided across denominational lines; the conservative-liberaldebate in twentieth-century American Protestantism was based on thedifferences between the classical and modern concepts of revelation-inspiration). At the most basic level, the modern view depreciates the realmof theology from a divine to a human level. This expresses itself in thehistorical-critical method of exegesis, and the historicizing of systematictheology.

1. The Historical Conditionality of the Biblical Text

The concept of historical conditionality is another complex and technicaltopic we must discuss. At the beginning of the twenty-first century,practitioners of the historical-critical method of exegesis built on theconviction that Scripture is historically conditioned. What does this mean?Simply, that the contents of the entire Bible are based on the cultures inwhich the biblical authors lived and wrote.

Since we have already studied the classical and modern models ofrevelation-inspiration from a hermeneutical perspective, we are able toexamine more closely the idea of “historical conditionality.” Obviously, thebiblical writers had to work within the historical context of their culture. Butwhile the idea of history is important, we must also consider the other halfof the term: “conditionality.” Conditionality must be distinguished from cause. The idea of cause hasa positive, creative sense, in which something brings something else into


being. The idea of condition, on the other hand, implies that something isprerequisite for something else to occur.6 Both the cause and the conditionmust be present to produce a given result. Simply put, a condition is asubordinated cause. A condition must be present for something to happen,yet that thing will not happen without a cause. The English dictionary may help us clarify these definitions. We mayunderstand the word “condition” if we think of it as a prerequisite, that is,“something essential to the appearance or occurrence of something else.”7

For instance, we know that “available oxygen is an essential condition forlife.”8 However, we do not claim that oxygen is the cause of life. The causeof life is evolution or creation, not oxygen. Yet if oxygen were not present forthe process, plants and animals could not exist.

When theologians say that the Bible is historically conditioned, theymean that history and information we find in Scripture were derived fromtheir cultural context as necessary means to communicate the divinetimeless encounter. What was that cause? The process of revelation byGod. Remember, both the classical and modern models place revelationoutside of time and history. Therefore, the cause and the condition arebelieved to work on two different and incompatible levels of reality; thatis, timelessness does not cause temporality nor does temporality causetimelessness.

That is why the timeless soul alone is capable of receiving revelation,for in the modern (and classical) model, revelation is by definitiontimeless. Consequently, in both views, history has nothing do to with theessence or content of revelation. Yet, without history, revelation isincommunicable because humans are historical beings. Anything we mightfind in Scripture that has to do with history or culture is merely wrappingpaper for the gift of divine, timeless revelation. The difference betweenthe classical and modern models is not how they view the historicalexpression of revelation (inspiration), but in what a timeless act of Godinvolves. In the classical view, revelation is the communication ofcognitive truth; in the modern view, revelation is only a feeling of absolutedependence. Since the classical and modern models agree that history


conditioned how the prophets expressed revelation, theologians from bothcamps are able to use the historical-critical method. However, keep inmind that the historical-critical method was constructed by theologiansespousing the modern model of revelation-inspiration.

2. The Historical-Critical Method

a. Historical Origins

For centuries, theologians played down the historical meaning of Scripture.Origen and the Alexandrian school of theology tended to interpret the Bibleallegorically. In contrast, during the fourth century A.D. Lucian and the schoolof Antioch tried to interpret the Bible literally and historically. During thesame period, John Cassian distinguished between the historical and spiritualsenses, arguing that the latter included the tropological (practical-ethical),allegorical (what is hidden beneath the literal sense), and anagogical(eschatological) senses.9 During the Middle Ages, these four senses, termed“quadriga,” became the standard method of biblical interpretation. ThomasAquinas emphasized the historical-literal aspect as the foundation for the otherthree senses,10 but it was only with the Protestant Reformation that thehistorical sense became decisive in the constitution of Christian theology.“The literal or historical sense of the text argued by the Reformation-eraexegete was not . . . a bare literal understanding of the text but rather anunderstanding that took into consideration the larger theological context andspecifically the meaning of the divine author as presented in the Bible as awhole.”11

The Reformers elevated the value of the historical meaning of the Bible,but they depended on philosophy as an interpretive foundation just asChristian thinkers had been doing for more than a millenium. However, theReformation implicitly promote some changes in the philosophicalpresuppositions of classical Christian theology. René Descartes, the father ofmodern philosophy, went beyond the Reformation and challenged the practiceof basing truth on either the authority of the church or supernaturalrevelation. He argued instead that reason and the scientific method alone can


reach truth with any objective certainty. Embracing Descartes’s rationality, pantheistic philosopher Baruch Spinoza

wrote Theological Political Treatise, about methodological issues involvedin interpreting Scripture.12 For example, using rational arguments, he arguedagainst the traditional view that Moses wrote the Pentateuch and accusedbiblical history of being “untrustworthy.”13

The rationalism of Descartes and Spinoza was followed by the empiricismof John Locke and David Hume. The empiricists agreed with the rationalistson the central role of reason, but disagreed on the origin of cognitiveknowledge. Locke published Essay Concerning Human Understanding in1690, and Hume wrote An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding in1751. In their works these two rejected the classical idea that true knowledgeis timeless and resides in the soul, arguing instead that true knowledge is onlyavailable through our spatiotemporal senses. This simple proposal not onlydismissed biblical revelation, but also opened for criticism the presuppositionsof classical philosophy. In other words, empiricism argued that nature andhistory are the only areas open to human inquiry; since religion is beyond thepowers of reason, it cannot be investigated. The impact of these ideas ontheology was reinforced thirty years later by Kant’s Criticism of PureReason.

Influenced by Rationalism and Empiricism, Johann Salamo Semler, thefather of historical-critical theology, published his Study of the FreeInvestigation of the Canon in four volumes from 1771 to 1775. His biblicalresearch convinced Semler “that any study of the Bible had to start with thebiblical text and its tradition. In doing so he concluded that the biblical bookswere written by human authors with the language and in the idiom of theirspecific culture.”14 He rejected verbal inspiration as understood by Lutheranorthodoxy because it was not clearly taught in Scripture itself. “Throughouthis writings Semler used the Enlightenment notion of accommodation,according to which the religious truths in the Bible were adjusted to the mentalcapacities and thought world of a given period and culture.”15

Just as the historical-critical method of interpretation was emerging,biblical studies became independent of Christian dogmatics and developed into


separate disciplines, meaning that scholars could investigate the Scripturaltexts without any obligation to attack or refine doctrine or theology. Thisallowed them to contribute to Christian teachings for the first time since theOld and New Testaments were written.16

b. Impact on Biblical and Theological Studies

Clearly, Schleiermacher’s encounter theory eventually resulted from theformulation of the historical-critical method of interpretation. Hisreinterpretation of revelation-inspiration was motivated by the same set ofhermeneutics that resulted in the historical-critical method of intepretation.The historical-critical methodology of exegesis necessarily implies theencounter theory of revelation, and the artistic view of inspiration. As oneapproaches the Bible through the modern model, then, he or she finds that thenature and extent of what Scripture teaches has been limited, both for biblicaland systematic theologies. From the hermeneutical perspective, therefore, themodern model of revelation-inspiration determines the nature and extensionof the cognitive ground on which both biblical exegesis and theology operate.

The meaning of Scripture is now understood to be historical only in thesense of human history, not in the sense of divine history as both the Old andNew Testaments indicate. Scripture testifies to at least two different histories:first, as Spinoza noted, the history of the Scriptural texts themselves; andsecond, the history of Israel as a nation and culture. These two histories areevident in the biblical text. Yet, historical-critical hermeneuticalpresuppositions assume that the biblical text is not historically reliablebecause its authors write to testify of their experience in a divine-humanencounter rather to relate factually accurate accounts. Consequently, thehistorical-critical scholar reads the text with suspicion, treating Scripture asif it were a hostile witness in a trial.

In the modern model, the biblical authors wrote of their divine encounters usingthe terms of their own culture and experience. Therefore, as we would expect, we


Figure 2: Modern Interpretation

find references to community, but these references contain descriptive flashes ofthe divine-human encounter embedded in what is ultimately a fictional narrative.Thus, historical-critical methodology attempts to reconstruct the historical eventsin that narrative. Scholars using this model believe that Biblical writers mixedactual historical happenings with products of their own imagination, creating amythological narrative.

One exegetical consequence of the historical-critical method is its very slimresults for the task of theology and Christian teaching. In practice, scholarsstudy the Scripture scientifically only to arrive at scanty results based on barehypothetical reconstructions of historical events. Since most of the text is theproduct of human imagination, it cannot be taken as true. What advantages,then, can historical-critical methodology offer Christian theology? Proponentsof the historical-critical method point to two: existential experience andtheology.

By separating the mythology from the facts of Scripture, the historical-critical method is believed to point to the ultimate spiritual meaning of theBible, namely, the divine-human existential encounter. Figure 2 depicts thistype of exegesis, along with how the historical-critical method assumes the modern


model of revelation-inspiration. The two ovals on the bottom left represent thehuman nature of the biblical writer. The inner oval stands for the soul, while the outer oval represents the temporal human body together with itscapacity for reason. God’s objective action touches the timeless soul of theprophet in a noncognitive encounter: revelation. In the encounter, the prophetexperiences the feeling of absolute dependence; this feeling attaches itself to reasonand its objective, cultural forms. The experience is so powerful that the prophet ismotivated to express himself in words, oral or written, thus resulting in Scripture.Biblical writings, then, consist basically of myth, metaphor, or narrative.

On the lower right-hand side of the diagram is a human being. From him, twoarrows point left toward the Bible and the existential encounter motivating thebiblical author to write. The shorter and wider arrow labeled “HCM” representsthe historical-critical method, in which scholars work at locating the objective,natural, and historical meanings of Scripture. This procedure prepares the Biblereader for the second step, represented by the longer and thinner arrow penetratinginto the soul of the prophet, where the encounter between God and the prophettook place. This second arrow shows that the ultimate goal of reading Scriptureis to obtain the same existential experience that first motivated the biblical writerto express himself.

An example of the historical-critical method’s application to theology is itstreatment of the creation account. The method, together with the modern modelof inspiration, has provided scholarly justification for dismissing the biblicalaccount of creation and the subsequent metanarrative it supports. In this case, themodern model goes a step beyond the classical one. For instance, even thoughAugustine did not believe that God took seven days to make the world, he didaccept the concept of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) as a revelation fromGod. In his view, God’s timeless act of creation could only be perceived bypeople as taking place in time and space, so the Bible writer was inspired todescribe a seven-day process.17 Thus, even though Scripture consists of thevery words of God, in the classical view, it cannot reflect how God really isand acts, because it is articulated in a temporal sequence. Creation out ofnothing, nonetheless, is understood as an eternal truth visible behind thetemporal-historical wrapping of the Genesis narrative.


Conversely, the modern model of revelation-inspiration considers creation inany view to be a human notion rather than divine communication about the originof the world. After all, Scripture only reflects the state of human knowledge in theprescientific age in which it was written. Its teachings about origins are wrong and,therefore, of no use for theologians interested in discovering truth. Since God hasnot spoken on the issue of origins (or on any other issue), we are left to study thisand other issues as the biblical authors did, by learning from scholars of our ownage. If theologians find they need to talk about the origin of the universe, they arelimited to scientific teachings and speculations.

Historical-criticism purports to demonstrate, then, that the Bible is a purelyhuman book teaching many easily detectable errors. Consequently, believerscannot depend on biblical writings to supply them with truth about nature orhistory. If the Bible is mere mythology, there is little or no use for Scripture in thelife of the believer or the experience of the community. Since the literal meaningof Scripture has become theologically useless, the Bible’s role has to be defined,and a new way of reading it found.

3. The Historicizing of Theology

What becomes of theology if one assumes that Scripture does not contain eternalor historical truths? On what grounds would theologians develop their reflectionsand discourses? All that is left is history, specifically the history of Christianity.Scripture is only a part of that history, and Christianity itself is only a part ofgreater human history, which encompasses all traditions and religions.

In the modern view, then, Christian theology is grounded on tradition. Itis not that the other historic sources, such as Scripture, experience, andreason, have disappeared; they only receive their authority from the broadercategory of tradition. It is the soul of theology, the source of facts andteachings from which we are to develop religious ideas. From Schleiermacherto the present, theology has developed by retrieving material from its ownhistory. This phenomenon is known as the historicizing of theology. Theologyis no longer a science of God and his eternal truths, but a reflection on humanresponses to their encounters with God. God is mute; only humans speak.

This historicizing refers only to human history, without any acts of God


in it. The result of such a theology is irrelevancy to non-Christians andChristians alike. Modern Christian theologians, searching for relevance, haveunsurprisingly turned away from metaphysics and biblical studies to focustheir efforts on everyday sociological, cultural, psychological, and politicalissues. In so doing, they relate to Scripture as though it were part of anideological resource center where they hope to find ideas that may help themto face the challenges of contemporary culture. Traditional theological issuesserve only to provide boundaries for the identity of each denomination andtheir respective guidelines for worship. Truth is left to secular science.

As theologians have become aware of the everyday consequences of themodern model, many have seen the practical dangers to which it has led. Tohelp overcome this, some theologians have worked in recent years to helppeople take the literal understanding of the Bible more seriously, calling itnarrative instead of mythology. But they have yet to challenge thehermeneutical presuppositions of the modern model. Only by revisiting thedoctrine of revelation-inspiration, revising their presuppositions, and findingan exegetical alternative to the historical-critical method, can Christiantheologians heal the wound inflicted by modernity.

§50. EVALUATION

1. Criteria

As we evaluate the modern model of revelation-inspiration, let us revisit thecriteria we set forth earlier (§39.1). Two of the criteria come directly fromScripture itself – the doctrine of Scripture (what the Bible says about its origin),and the phenomena of Scripture (the characteristics of the Bible as a book). Thethird criterion, hermeneutical effect, simply asks about the practical consequencesof using a given model. We called each of these consistency, coherence, andapplication respectively. Consistency asks whether the model agrees with howScripture describes itself. Coherence asks whether the model adequately explainsthe literary characteristics of Scripture. Application looks at the theologicalresults. The application of the model is its “hermeneutical effect”— how it


functions as a presupposition of the exegetical-theological enterprise. The practicalapplication criterion helps demonstrate both the strong points and shortcomingsof a particular model. 2. Consistency and Coherence

Is the modern model consistent with what Scripture says about itself? It isbased on the ideas of noncognitive encounter and artistic expression, so onedoes not need much theological ability to detect the inconsistency here.Scripture strongly disagrees with the modern model’s emphasis on the humanorigin of Scripture; after all, the phrase, “Thus says the Lord,” is repeated inScripture more than 3,800 times.

Next, is the modern model coherent with what we find in the Bible as a literarywork? Here the modern model has a decisive advantage over the classical one. Ifthe contents of Scripture are created within history and written down just like otherancient documents, it would explain the human idiosyncrasies of the Bible as awritten text – so the modern model would totally account for the phenomena ofScripture. In short, the classical and modern models of revelation-inspiration seemto counterbalance each other’s weaknesses and strengths.


The primary weakness of the historical-critical method is what happens when it isapplied – the hermeneutical effect. It gives no explanation for the origin oftheological knowledge. It provides no way to construct theology on cognitive truthin or from God. The idea of encounter may be emotionally appealing, but it has noconcrete foundation for the construction of theological ideas. Of course, the modelis internally coherent when it says that we do theology for the purpose of worship,to encounter God ourselves, rather than to know him on something other than anemotional level. Yet, how do we know that the prophets encountered God when weread Scripture? When the entire Bible is viewed as myth, narrative, or even as amoving story, it is difficult to imagine how Christianity could claim to be anythingmore than a sophisticated fraternity. It becomes just another human tradition, withmild claims about an unknowable God. Not many Christian believers subscribing


to the modern model realize they are building not only their theology, but also theirlife stories on the quicksand of rapidly shifting cultural trends.

§51. REVIEW

• Nature and supernature in the modern modelThe modern model understands nature and supernature much as does theclassical model. The realm of supernature is understood to be timeless,while the world of nature is spatiotemporal. The difference is that in themodern model, human reason is able to understand objects only within thespatiotemporal world – an idea originating with Immanuel Kant.

• Prophetic reason works historically. Unlike the classical model, the cognitive capabilities of the biblical authorsare not elevated in order to reach their objects for two reasons: reasoncannot reach beyond nature and history, and revelation does not involvecognitive truth anyway. Moreover, the prophet’s mind works only withinhistory, using data from time and space to describe his or her religiousexperiences.

• Content of divine revelation: noncognitive encounter An objective contact between God and the biblical authors took place at theexistential level of the timeless soul. God revealed himself to human beingswithin their inner souls, but without cognitive communication. His presenceinside them generated an emotive response, objective in its cause (hispresence), yet subjective in its responsive nature and content (human feeling).This unique, spiritual feeling, known as absolute dependence, is different fromall other emotions because it is caused by a timeless God rather than byanything in the spatiotemporal world. But since it is present within the realmof consciousness, the prophet naturally associates it with the cognitive contentsof his or her mind.


• Inspiration is an aesthetic expression of the noncognitive encounter, anddraws its contents from the cultural environment of the biblical authors.Biblical writers, as “spiritual artists,” expressed their feelings of absolutedependence with colors of their own cultural knowledge and expression. Noknowledge, idea, or information in Scripture comes from the mind of God.

• Doxological and missiological goals of scripture Biblical authors did not write to communicate God’s ideas or message tohuman beings. Instead they wrote, first as an expression of worship to theGod of the encounter (doxological), and, second, to tell others of how theyexperienced God within their souls (missiological).

• The Bible is a human document. According to the modern model of revelation-inspiration, the Bible is a humandocument from beginning to end, not only in form, but also in content.

• The modern model of revelation-inspiration requires the historical-critical method for biblical exegesis, and vice versa. We use the same methodology for studying Scripture that we would usefor any other human book. This is known as the “historical-criticalmethod,” and arose during the eighteenth century. Although thismethodology originated some thirty years before Schleiermacherthoroughly formulated the modern model of revelation-inspiration, theybelong together.

• The modern model of revelation-inspiration, together with the historical-critical method of exegesis, results in the historicizing of Christiantheology. Theology finds its foundation and contents in the dynamics of tradition.Scripture is limited to a place as part of that tradition and the church’swider historical experience.


• The modern model is inconsistent with the doctrine of Scripture, butcoherent with the phenomena of Scripture.The modern model of revelation-inspiration clearly contradicts the doctrine ofScripture (not to mention the entire classical tradition). On the positive side,due to its historical emphasis, the modern model shows coherence with thehuman characteristics exhibited by Scripture as a written work.

• In practical terms, the modern model of revelation-inspiration leavestheology at the mercy of human change and tradition. Though it better accounts for the human characteristics of Scripturepresent in its phenomena, the modern model of revelation-inspirationleaves theology without a divine basis for its content. The teachings oftheology become completely human and, therefore, subject to the whimsof changing human culture.

• Scripture contains error not only at the level of historical details, butalso in its foundational teachings. If God cannot communicate words and ideas to people, they are left to createthem on their own. As a result, the biblical contents reflect only the knowledgeavailable to the authors at the time they wrote.

• Scripture as the primary norm for theology is reduced to a resourcecenter of ideas from which to draw in the face of the present existentialand social situation. Theologians who subscribe to the modern model of revelation-inspirationand the historical-critical method are not likely to endorse the Protestantsola Scriptura principle. They are more inclined to speak of Scripture asthe first among many theological sources – prima Scriptura. In practice,this means that theologians begin with present ethical, social or politicalproblems, and look to Scripture for themes, symbols or events from whichthey can draw as resources for those problems. Prima Scriptura meansthat Scripture is no longer a privileged source of cognitive revelation fromwhich all other sources are to be judged and interpreted.


1 Friedrich Schleiermacher, Speeches On Religion: Addresses in Response toIts Cultured Critics, trans. Terrence N. Tice (Richmond, VA: Knox Press, 1969).

2 Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, trans. H. R. Mackintosh andJ. S. Stewart, 2d ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928).

3 After Schleiermacher, criticism of the classical view of God has grownconsiderably. Notably, what is known as process theology has criticized thetimeless view of God because it does not leave room for human freedom or anyreal interaction between God and people. However, process theology ends uparguing that God is both timeless and temporal. Even within process theology,classical Greek philosophy continues to shape theology’s hermeneutical principles.

4 Read Schleiermacher’s account of the resurrection (The Christian Faith,§161). It seems clear that he leaned toward a wholistic view of the human nature,without actually eliminating the classical dichotomy between soul and body.

5 Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, §4.4.6 José Ferrater Mora, Diccionario de Filosofía, 5th ed., 2 vols. (Buenos Aires:

Editorial Sudamericana, 1965), 1:329.7 Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, sv. “condition.”8 Ibid.9 John Cassian, The Conferences, 2:8.10Summa Theologica I.1.10.11 R. A. Muller, “Biblical Interpretation in the 16th & 17th Centuries,” in

Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters, ed. Donald K. McKim(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998), 129.

12 Baruch Spinoza, A Theologico-Political Treatise and A Political Treatise(New York: Dover, 1951).

13 Ibid., 120.

ENDNOTES


14 J. A. Dearman, “Semler, Johann Salomo (1725-1791),” in HistoricalHandbook of Major Biblical Interpreters, ed. Donald K. McKim (Downers Grove:InterVarsity, 1998), 356.

15 Ibid., 357.16 Gerhard Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current

Debate, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 20-21.17 Augustine writes, “And I looked attentively to find whether seven or eight

times Thou sawest that Thy works were good, when they were pleasing unto Thee;but in Thy seeing I found no times by which I might understand that thou sawestso often what Thou madest. And I said, ‘O Lord,! is not this Thy Scripture true,since Thou art true, and being Truth hast set it forth? Why, then, dost Thou sayunto me that in thy seeing there are no times, while this Thy Scripture telleth methat what Thou madest each day, Thou sawest to be good; and when I countedthem I found how often?’ Unto these things Thou repliest unto me, for Thou artmy God, and with strong voice tellest unto Thy servant in his inner ear, burstingthrough my deafness, and crying, ‘O man, that which My Scripture saith, I say;and yet doth that speak in time; but time has no reference to My Word, becauseMy Word existeth in equal eternity with Myself. Thus those things which ye seethrough My Spirit, I see, just as those things which ye speak through My Spirit,I speak. And so when ye see those things in time, I see them not in time; as whenye speak them in time, I speak them not in time.’” (Confessions, ed. Philip Schaff,trans. J.G. Pilkington, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1 [Albany: AgesSoftware, 1996], XIII, 29, emphasis mine). Regarding God’s act of creation, aftersome reflection on the meaning of time, Augustine concludes, “As, then, Thou inthe Beginning knewest the heaven and the earth without any change of Thyknowledge, so in the Beginning didst Thou make heaven and earth without anydistraction of Thy action?[sic]” (ibid., XI. 31).

11. THE EVANGELICAL MODEL

Modernism shook the very foundations of classical Christianity. RomanCatholic and Protestant denominations differed in their reactions to it,due partly to the structure and content of their respective theologies. Agroup of American Protestant denominations, now known as“fundamentalist” or “evangelical,” strongly opposed modernism’sapproach to revelation-inspiration in the nineteenth and twentiethcenturies. Before we examine their experience, we will look at howRoman Catholicism and Protestantism each reacted to modernity. Oncethis is complete, we will have the context for understanding the rest ofthis chapter.

§52. HISTORICAL BACKGROUNDAfter much hesitation, Roman Catholicism has come to accept many of theteachings of modernism it initially condemned. Prominent among these ideas areevolution and the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation. Protestantreaction has been sharply divided. Whereas mainline denominations havefollowed the example of Roman Catholicism, fundamentalist and evangelicalchurches denounce modern teachings as contradictory to their traditions,


especially those of creation and the inerrancy of Scripture. This chapter focuseson the latter – the evangelical view of revelation-inspiration.

1. Roman Catholicism and Modernism

In 1870 the first Vatican council reaffirmed the classical views of revelationand inspiration.1 In 1907, Pope Pius X condemned the errors of moderntheologians, including their understanding of scripture, in his decreeLamentabili Sane, “The Syllabus of Errors.” Due mostly to these officialcondemnations, Roman Catholic theology and teaching adhered to theclassical view until Vatican II in the 1960s.

In the meantime, however, several controversial thinkers were publishingideas that departed from the official path. One such scholar was PierreTheilhard de Chardin, who espoused the theory of evolution and applied itto the development of theology. At the time, Chardin was both heralded asa prophet and denounced as a heretic. However, following Pope JohnXXIII’s encouragement of aggiornamento (“bringing up to date”), RomanCatholic scientists and theologians found themselves free to exploreevolutionary ideas. On October 22, 1996, Pope John Paul II, in an addressto the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, implicitly endorsed the theory ofevolution, modified for compatibility with Roman Catholic teaching.

The same process happened with biblical interpretation. Today,Roman Catholic theologians freely use the historical-critical method tostudy the historical aspects of Scripture. How could Roman Catholicthinkers make such an about face within only a few decades? Forconservative, non-Catholic Christians it seems like not only a seriouschange in belief, but a theoretical contradiction and doctrinalinconsistency.

Roman Catholics readily concede that the church’s position haschanged, but strongly deny that such a change implies inconsistency withtraditional Roman Catholic theology. They are able to maintain thisposition accurately, even as they contradict past official pronouncements,because their theology is guided by the classical two-tiers view of reality:

THE EVANGELICAL MODEL 183

timeless supernature, temporal nature. Doctrinal teachings flowing fromtradition and the office of the papacy find their ultimate source in this ancientGreek framework of reality (see §29 and 36.1).2 Change occurs at thenatural, spatiotemporal level where doctrine is formulated, so it must berecognized by the church; change does not occur at the supernatural, timelesslevel of “mystery,” so any apparent changes in doctrine have ultimatelyaffected nothing. In other words, the changing expressions of dogma have ananchor in unchanging supernature, a point that can only be reached whennatural reason is supernaturally bolstered by faith. In practical terms, thehighest level of faith (improved rational capabilities) is conferred byordination upon the Catholic clergy.

John Paul II’s recognition of the theory of evolution appears to contradictthe traditional biblical teaching of creation. However, that endorsement tookplace at the spatiotemporal level of nature, where change is acceptableaccording to Roman Catholic philosophical presuppositions. Becauseevolution is supposed to have happened at the spatiotemporal level, it neitherreplaces nor challenges the traditional view of creation, which is supposedto have happened at the timeless level of mystery. Thus John Paul II couldstate that the theories of evolution asserting that the mind emerges “from theforces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, areincompatible with the truth about man.”3

The separation of nature and supernature allows Roman Catholicism tomove from classical exegetical methodology to the historical-critical method.By definition, the historical-critical method works at the spatiotemporal leveland cannot interfere with the timeless spiritual realities of religion.Historical-criticism is incapable of altering the central spiritual tenet ofChristianity: God and his promise of salvation.

2. Evangelicals and Modernism

Mainline Protestant scholarship recognized and adopted the samephilosophical principles on which traditional Roman Catholic theology wasbuilt. Hence many Protestant theologians warmly accepted both the theoryof evolution and the historical-critical method, thereby encouraging


Protestants to embrace modernism and causing further division acrossdenominational lines. The modern model of revelation-inspiration and its historical-criticalapplication was bound to reach local congregations. Theologians wrote booksthat were read by teachers, who in turn prepared pastors to nurture the flock ofbelievers and nonbelievers. Once the modern ideas reached everyday churchmembers, their impact could not have been more dramatic. The centuries-oldveneration of Scripture and doctrine was replaced among believers with criticismand rejection. Both the Bible and Christian doctrine began to be vastlyreinterpreted.

From the 1880s to the present, the adherents of the modern and classicalmodels have found themselves in a war over theology, the conservativeshanging on to traditional theology in the classical mold, the liberals arguingfor completely new views. Initially, the conflict arose in the aftermath of the1859 publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species. While a small number ofscientists had questioned creation for some decades before this, no one hadarticulated an alternative to creation so well. As more people became convincedthat the theory of evolution better explained the origin of life than did creation,theologians began to realize that the credibility of Scripture was in jeopardy. Asthey searched for answers to the challenge, some held to scriptural teachings,while others reinterpreted them to fit the new scientific framework. The debatehas never receded.

Evolution questioned the truthfulness of Scripture on the creationaccount, and by extension the rest of its teachings. George Marsdendescribes the conflict of the last two decades of the nineteenth century inpoignant terms: “Whether in South or North, the larger issue was the truthof the Bible. The authority for their whole belief system seemed to rest onthis foundation. If the Bible were not true, then on what did Protestantism,the religion of scriptura sola [sic], rest? And what if there were scientific andhistorical errors in Scripture? Would not such flaws call into question otherbiblical claims? With both Darwinists and highly sophisticated higher criticssuggesting that there were serious errors in Scripture, many of the faithfulof the turn-of-the-century generation had to be deeply disturbed.”4


The conservative stand against the modern view of Scripture drewstrength from the classical model of revelation-inspiration and its necessaryimplication of inerrancy (§37.1.c). Presbyterian theologians of the OldPrinceton school, notably, Archibald Alexander Hodge and BenjaminBreckinridge Warfield, championed this reaction to modernism. This schoolof thought carefully defined the church’s traditional stance regarding theBible. “The text as originally inspired by the Holy Spirit, they insisted, was‘absolutely errorless.’ This doctrine of ‘inerrancy,’ as it came to be known,was no invention of the late nineteenth century. Many Christians in the pasthad said or assumed much the same thing. But the fact that now someconservative Protestants were making biblical inerrancy a central doctrine,even sometimes a virtual test of faith, signaled the degree to which the newscientific and historical threats to the Bible were forcing everyone to shoreup whatever he or she considered the most critical line of defense.”5

Inerrancy began to be used within the context of Christian apologeticsagainst the opinions of other believers, and became the center of gravity forthe Protestant opponents of modernism— the fundamentalists. James Barrdescribes their view as tying the doctrinal and practical authority of Scripture“to its infallibility and in particular its historical inerrancy.”6 Thisperspective on Scripture has persisted throughout the twentieth century to thepresent day, as evangelicals and fundamentalists defend inerrancy and itsprerequisite, verbal inspiration.

In summary, the challenge of modernity had provoked ProtestantChristianity into emphasizing Scripture’s inerrancy as a means of defendingthe faith; this emphasis on apologetics permeated the development of whatwould become the evangelical model.. The idea that the Bible could containerror was a foul spirit that needed exorcizing from the church – and thefundamentalists brought out a version of the classical model of revelation-inspiration to do it. The aspects of that model they emphasized led to theprimacy of inspiration over revelation.

The “evangelical” model of revelation-inspiration came to prominence viaapologetics which, in turn, permeated the formulation of the model. At thispoint, we must note that what we are calling the evangelical model in this


chapter differs from the classical model (Chapter 8) only in selection andemphasis. In other words, the evangelical model is a Protestant version ofthe classical model, born out of the conflict with the modern model. Becausethe classical and evangelical models are so similar, to describe the latter in detailhere would prove to be needless repetition. Instead, in this chapter we will explorethe emphases of the evangelical model that give it its distinct flavor.

§53. PRESUPPOSITIONS Protestant theologians never seriously challenged the philosophicalpresuppositions of the classical model. Instead, they held onto the tenets ofGreek philosophy that had come to the church primarily through Augustine,denouncing it only when it appeared to contradict the Pauline-Lutherandefinition of the gospel as understood by evangelicals. So classicalphilosophy continued to influence evangelical doctrine surreptitiously,including revelation-inspiration.

Having accepted the classical model without much question, evangelicaltheologians added two typically Protestant modifications to the classicalstructure: the sovereignty of God and the total depravity of human nature.These modifications play a decisive role in the evangelical model ofrevelation-inspiration. 1. The Sovereignty of God

Roman Catholicism approached the doctrine of God with a focus on Hisessence; Protestant theology concentrated instead on his will. It was a matterof emphasis; Roman Catholicism did not ignore the will of God, nor didProtestantism ignore his essence. The distinction rests on how each traditionunderstood God’s activity. Generally speaking, Roman Catholicism thinksof God’s activity in intellectual terms, while Protestantism views it throughthe lens of God’s choice to freely justify the sinner. The former emphasizesGod’s nature; the latter, the will of God.

How does the decisive role of God’s will function in Protestant theology?


As the basic characteristic of God’s being is timelessness, so the basiccharacteristic of God’s will is sovereignty. Since God’s activity covers notonly the gospel but also the inspiration of Scripture, we must ask how thesovereignty of God affects the Holy Spirit’s role in the inspiration ofScripture.

The idea of God’s sovereignty was not invented by evangelical theologians,or even by Luther or Calvin during the Reformation. Instead, it developed withinthe writings of Augustine of Hippo in the fifth century. Although Augustine didnot use the word “sovereignty” frequently, he explicitly defined it as an idea andwove it into his understanding of salvation. Augustine’s interpretation ofpredestination, election, grace, the cross, justification, and sanctification are allgrounded on divine sovereignty; his theology could not operate without it.

God’s will is sovereign; it is the source from which salvation flows.Predestination, election, grace, the cross, justification, and sanctification are allacts of God, willed by God. Revelation and inspiration are also acts of God thatflow from His will.

God’s will is sovereign in the sense that it overpowers and determines the willof man.7 God’s will is absolute. Nothing falls outside of its reach because God’swill is causative: whatever He wills, is. Taken to its logical conclusion, this ideaof sovereignty implies that God is the cause of evil. Augustine expressly deniedthis, attributing the “willing of evil” to the free will of humanity. But even afteraccepting this premise, Augustine affirmed that the content of the human evil actis controlled by the will of God.8 Thus, humans are free to choose sin and thenexperience what God has determined as a result of their choice; in other words,they have the ability to move to the general area of unrighteousness. But eventhen, God determines what they do.

Where does the concept of sovereignty come from? Augustine believedit to be biblical. Indeed, Scripture indisputably speaks of the role of God’swill in salvation and history. Moreover, it states that God makes somedecisions concerning humanity in which we have no say, for example, theelection of ancient Israel as His people.

But Augustine’s idea that God directly or indirectly controls all the eventsof history, including decisions of the human will, is not biblical. It is based


instead on his hermeneutical presuppositions. Augustine thought that the willof God is equal to His being. Since he believed that God is timeless, God’swill would also be timeless. Fortunately, he wrote of it explicitly:

Will you say that these things are false, which, with a strong voice, Truth tellsme in my inner ear, concerning the very eternity of the Creator, that Hissubstance is in no wise changed by time, nor that His will is separate from Hissubstance? Wherefore, He willeth not one thing now, another anon, but onceand for ever He willeth all things that He willeth; not again and again, nor nowthis, now that; nor willeth afterwards what He willeth not before, nor willeth notwhat before He willed. Because such a will is mutable and no mutable thing iseternal; but our God is eternal. Likewise He tells me, tells me in my inner ear,that the expectation of future things is turned to sight when they have come; andthis same sight is turned to memory when they have passed. Moreover, allthought which is thus varied is mutable, and nothing mutable is eternal; but ourGod is eternal. These things I sum up and put together, and I find that my God,the eternal God, hath not made any creature by any new will, nor that Hisknowledge suffereth anything transitory.9

Augustine reveals many things about his thinking here, but it is very clearthat in his view, God cannot do things that are new to Him. Everything in hissight exists and nothing changes. We, however, experience events nottimelessly as God does, but temporally. Scripture presents God as if He weredoing new things in history or in our lives only to accommodate our temporalexperience. Human history, then, is predetermined to the most minute detailby the nature and will of God.10 Since God is timeless, He cannot changeanything. Therefore, if God cannot change anything, how could mere humanbeings cause anything out of our own initiative? God’s will and his actionsare by definition irresistible.

Sovereignty so described affects every other theological construct. Be itjustification, grace, predestination, election, sanctification, or the secondcoming of Christ, all doctrines and biblical ideas without exception aretransformed by this view of God’s will. This includes revelation-inspiration.

The Reformers had depended on Augustine for help as they challenged theRoman Catholic theology of salvation by works. In so doing, they


inadvertently subscribed to the philosophical hermeneutics behind hisunderstanding of divine sovereignty. Three centuries later, when Americanevangelical theologians faced the challenge of modernity, they too basedmuch of their position on the Augustinian notion of divine sovereignty andits hidden philosophical presuppositions.

2. Human Nature: Total Depravity

The other presupposition of the evangelical model is its view of humannature. On the basis of the classical view that the soul and its capacity forreason are timeless, found in Augustine’s writings, Protestant Reformersemphasized that human beings after the fall cannot do good at all. The imageof God was totally erased from human nature, so people of themselves canonly sin. Goodness and truth are only the result of God’s activity inpredestination and grace, the outcome of God’s sovereign will.

Adam’s sin totally corrupted human nature, not only the will but reasonas well.11 All natural faculties were defaced and all supernatural gifts lost.In Calvin’s words, “To will is of man; to will ill, of a corrupt nature; to willwell, of grace.”12 Human will apart from God’s irresistible grace cancontribute only error, sin, and further corruption.

These two ideas did much to ground the Reformers’ challenge to the RomanCatholic teaching of salvation through meritorious works. On one hand, humanbeings after the fall can choose no good, not even to have faith in God. They canonly sin. On the other hand, divine sovereignty is the only source of anythinggood in humans both before and after the fall. Undoubtedly, this strategy goes farto dismantle the claim that salvation somehow requires meritorious works.

On the basis of these two hermeneutical presuppositions, any goodness thatwe may observe in human beings in or out of the Christian community must bedirectly accredited to God, not to the will or goodness of humans. No one has anyreason to boast of his or her goodness.

One might well argue that this view of salvation disregards the historicalnature of reality and several passages of divinely-revealed Scripture. Its logicand ground come from extrabiblical philosophies that, as we will see later,have been challenged and discarded by postmodernity. But the Protestant


assumptions of divine sovereignty and human depravity have alsoconditioned the evangelical model of revelation-inspiration.

§54. REVELATIONEvangelical theologians use the classical model of revelation-inspiration tocombat the modern notion of a Bible created by men and containing error.But the classical view of revelation recognizes the obvious fact that not allof Scripture is the product of supernatural intervention by God. Largesections instead can be attributed to the familiar process of everydayresearch. How can one affirm the inerrancy of the Bible and still recognizethat not all of Scripture is revealed? Since the evangelical intent is to defendthe Bible as a whole, its proponents emphasize inspiration over revelation.However, they do not disregard or ignore revelation, but instead use it tointroduce inspiration. Why? The process of writing is the central issue toaffirming inerrancy. A prophet may have received a perfect revelation fromGod, but it does his reader no good if he makes a mistake writing it down.

Benjamin Warfield, a notable representative of the evangelical model,writes that inspiration as the act of writing is the culmination of a processbeginning with revelation. Warfield recognizes three patterns in which thebiblical writers obtained their information and ideas: externalmanifestation, or theophany; internal suggestion, or prophecy; andprovidential-concursive operation.13 Theophany and prophecy are clearlysupernatural communications; concursive operation covers everythingelse, or all the biblical writings which could be said to come from naturalsources, such as psalms, epistles, and history.

1. Theophany

A theophany is the appearance of God’s real presence in space and time. InWarfield’s view, God enters man’s everyday life “in a purely supernaturalmanner, bearing a purely supernatural communication. In thesecommunications we are given accordingly just a series of ‘naked messages


of God.’”14 In the theophanic pattern, communication consists primarily ofaudible words. Revelation by theophany covers a very limited portion of thebiblical text.

2. Prophecy

The prophetic pattern of revelation involves visions and dreams in whichvisual and audible communications take place. Warfield writes:

That which gives to prophecy as a mode of revelation its place in thecategory of visions strictly so called, and dreams, is that it shares with themthe distinguishing characteristic which determines the class. In them allalike the movements of the mind are determined by something extraneousto the subject’s will, or rather, since we are speaking of supernaturallygiven dreams and visions, extraneous to the totality of the subject’s ownpsychoses. A power not of himself takes possession of his consciousnessand determines it according to its will.15 After a list of biblical references to prophets and prophecy, he asserts that

the prophets “were under the divine control. This control is represented ascomplete and compelling, so that, under it, the prophet becomes not the‘mover,’ but the ‘moved’ in the formation of his message.”16 For Warfield,passivity does not mean inactivity, because “reception itself is a kind ofactivity.” The prophets’ “intelligence is active in the reception, retention andannouncing of their messages [active], contributing nothing to them [passive]but presenting fit instruments for the communication of them.”17

Notice how Warfield ties the prophetic pattern of revelation to theAugustinian-Calvinist belief in divine sovereignty. This is necessary for tworeasons. First, Warfield believes divine sovereignty to be the trueinterpretation of the way God wills and acts; and two, it helps to secure theinerrancy of Scripture— the goal of the model. Less conspicuous inWarfield’s view is the role of the total corruption of human nature. Thiscorruption is implicit in the emphasis on the passivity of the human writer.Obviously, any contribution stemming from human nature would distort thecontents of divine communication. Overall, the prophetic pattern covers a


larger portion of the Bible than the theophanic one.

3. Providential-Concursive Revelation

The extensive portions of Scripture that his first two patterns of revelation do notcover (the psalms, epistles, and history) Warfield places under what he calls the“concursive” operation of the Holy Spirit. Peter van Bemmelen has correctlyobserved that what Warfield describes as “concursive” operation “seems to bevery similar to what he elsewhere describes as inspiration.”18 Since those areasof the Bible generated by the concursive operation of the Holy Spirit fall withinthe reach of inspiration as much as the portions derived from theophany andprophecy, we will discuss it in the section on inspiration. In any case, his ideasof providence and concursive operation help him explain the long process ofcreating Scripture, a process crowned by the event of inspiration.

We must remember that revelation in the technical sense refers to howa biblical writer obtains his ideas before he writes them down. Theevangelical model accepts that many Bible writers drew their material fromordinary sources. This implicitly opens the door for a Scripture withmistakes in it. Obviously, the Bible must be safeguarded at the point ofinspiration. According to the evangelical model, by taking control of theprocess of writing, God’s inspiration sifts away any possible error, andprotects the Bible’s inerrancy.

To strengthen the evangelical position, Hodge and Warfield introducedivine providence into the revelation process long before the writing is saidto take place. In their view, God providentially prepared each biblical author“so that he, and he alone, could, and freely would, produce his allottedpart.”19 In other words, God’s providence prepared the subject of revelationso that he would choose what God wanted him to choose, and wouldtherefore select only that which God wanted to include in Scripture.

But to Warfield, this process of preparation was not limited to the biblicalwriters. God’s sovereign providence also selected the subject matter ofScripture. He explains that divine inspiration is “superinduced upon a longseries of processes, providential, gracious, miraculous, by which the matterof Scripture had been prepared for writing, and the men for writing it.”20


Clearly, according to the evangelical model, God through his sovereignprovidence shapes both the prophet and the content of Scripture, which isrevealed not only by theophany and prophecy, but also by divine providenceselecting other material.

The application of divine sovereignty to the shaping of both the prophetand the cognitive material of Scripture is rooted in the conviction that animmutable God always acts in the same way. After describing theprovidential preparation of the prophet, Warfield explains that “the mode ofoperation of this Divine activity [inspiration] moving to this result [divine-human nature of Scripture] is conceived, in full accord with the analogy ofthe Divine operations in other spheres of its activity, in providence and ingrace alike, as confluent with the human activities operative in the case; as,in a word, of the nature of what has come to be known as ‘immanentaction.’”21

By calling on God’s sovereign providence to explain the nature ofrevelation and inspiration, the evangelical model does not eliminate the roleof the human agency or its freedom. Hodges and Warfield clearly state thatthe divine superintendence of the process of revelation and inspiration“interfered with no spontaneous natural agencies, which were, in themselves,producing results conformable to the mind of the Holy Spirit.”22 God’ssovereign control is not experienced by the human agent as interference withthe free operation of his or her mental capabilities. Although the divine actionallows the free operation of the human agency, its results are not attributedto the human, but to the divine action. By overriding the human agency as acause of Scripture, the evangelical model compensates for the total depravityof human nature. In other words, by combining divine superintendence withdivine-human concurrence, the evangelical model claims to allow for thehumanity of Scripture while at the same time safeguarding its divine qualityand inerrancy.

The pattern of revelation that results from linking divine revelation withsovereign providence is apparently similar to, but more dynamic than, theAristotelian two-causes pattern. It maximizes the divine contribution to thecontents of Scripture, while minimizing human contribution even when that


contribution is more than the pen the human writer uses when he or she actsas primary cause.

However, the concept of divine, sovereign providence is more dynamicand closer to Scripture than that of first cause in the classical model. Herethe primary cause is God’s providence, while the secondary cause is the fullyhuman activity of the biblical writer. In so arguing the evangelical model ismore dynamic than the classical view and closer to Scripture. In this pattern,the divine agency works in concurrence with the human agency. This bringsup again the idea of concurrence-confluence, which we will discuss below.

§55. INSPIRATIONWe have defined inspiration as the process through which the informationrevealed to the biblical writer is put into words. In this process, twoagencies— one divine, the other human— interact in the production of thescriptural text. The doctrine of inspiration is the explanation orinterpretation of this interaction. How inspiration is understood dependson each model’s presuppositions about divine and human nature. In theevangelical model, God is presupposed to have a timeless nature and asovereign, irresistible will, while human beings each possess a timelesssoul, whose supernatural capacities are lost and natural abilities totallycorrupted. In the following sections, we will explore how the evangelicalmodel interprets the nature, extent, and pattern of inspiration.

1. Nature: Verbal

a. Verbal Inspiration

In the sixteenth century, the verbal nature of inspiration was prevalent in


Roman Catholic circles. At the time it was also assumed by ProtestantReformers, who had larger issues to discuss.

Proponents of verbal inspiration teach that as the biblical writer recordswhat has been revealed, the Holy Spirit is involved at the level of the wordsthemselves. Whatever our view of inspiration may be, we must recognize thatthe idea of verbal inspiration stands in harmony with the claims of Scripture(cf. §19.2). But how the Holy Spirit was involved in selecting the words ofthe Bible is open to interpretation. As we consider the possible pattern theHoly Spirit followed, we reach the distinctive core of the evangelical modelof inspiration. How God acted through inspiration stands at the center of themodel; in that process the hermeneutical presuppositions assumed by theevangelical model also begin to act.

b. Thought Inspiration

Before we move to our next section, we must note that the evangelicalreinterpretation of the classical view of verbal inspiration is not the only onetaken by all theologians known by the evangelical label. This issue has beendiscussed at length by classical theologians. One significant alternative to theverbal view is “thought” inspiration, an idea accepted by conservativeProtestant thinkers who are not satisfied with the assumed rigidity of theverbal understanding.

Thought inspiration asserts that in the process of writing Scripture the HolySpirit’s influence reached the level of thought, while the words were up to thehuman agent. Put another way, the Holy Spirit provided the thoughts, but not thewords of the Bible. This seems to allow for greater human contribution and lessdivine control.

How significant this is to the discussion of inspiration depends on how itis understood. Not surprisingly, proponents of thought inspiration fail toagree on what “thought” specifically involves. In the nineteenth century,Franzelin argued that the Holy Spirit inspired each thought behind everyword of Scripture, even those thoughts that were otherwise naturallyobtained. The writer’s task was limited to writing the inspired ideas withwords and literary forms.23 The difference between his view and verbal


inspiration is effectively negligible; inerrancy is still expected.In contrast, the classical school identifies the thoughts provided by the

Spirit with the timeless truths that God reveals. Here the problem is greaterbecause God reveals few truths. To them, biblical authors covered broad,timeless thoughts about salvation with their own words and literary forms.Consequently, the action of the Holy Spirit in the production of the words ofScripture is seriously curtailed, so inerrancy becomes difficult to maintain.This version of thought inspiration is known as “dynamic inspiration.”24

In thought inspiration, God’s activity stops at the level of ideas in theBible writer’s mind, thereby introducing a “hermeneutical flexibility.” Manycontemporary supporters of thought inspiration are attracted to it preciselybecause it allows them a certain latitude for interpretation. Since the thoughtand not the words are inspired (and therefore authoritative), the interpreterlooks for the thought or meaning behind and beyond the words. The problemis that in practice, when the literal meaning of the words is bypassed insearch of an authoritative thought, interpreters tend to leave the realm ofobjectivity to wander in the wonderland of their imagination. Frequently,supporters of this view claim that the Holy Spirit’s illumination in the mindof the believing reader guarantees genuine knowledge of the thoughts behindthe words. But when thought inspiration is understood like this, its practicaleffect is very similar to that of the modern model.

While the classical model spoke of thought revelation, this variant of theevangelical model spoke of thought inspiration. The difference is significant.The classical view taught that God not only originated the thought of theprophet, but also inspired all of Scripture through the Holy Spirit. In thethought inspiration version of the evangelical model, revelation is collapsedinto inspiration, reducing divine intervention to a few points in Scripture thatare either supernatural in origin or speak directly to the salvific issuesassumed to be the aim of revelation.

The mainline evangelical model emphasizes the verbal nature ofinspiration precisely to avoid the imprecision and imagination of thoughtinspiration that would jeopardize Scripture’s inerrancy. It also emphasizesplenary inspiration to avoid any assumption that large areas of Scripture may


contain any kind of error. What does plenary mean?

2. Extension: Plenary

As a theological issue, the extension of inspiration asks how much of Scripturewe should regard as inspired. There are two options: “partial” inspiration or“plenary” inspiration. In other words, inspiration covers portions of the Bible, orevery word of the whole book. Whether a theologian chooses partial or plenaryinspiration depends largely on whether he or she emphasizes revelation orinspiration when considering Scripture’s origin. Writers leaning on the side ofrevelation tend to prefer partial inspiration; likewise, those who emphasizeinspiration usually favor the plenary view. While those who favor the classicalmodel still contend over the role of inspiration, proponents of the evangelicalmodel boldly subscribe to plenary inspiration: every word of Scripture isinspired.

a. Partial Inspiration

Since not all Scripture depicts revelation as supernatural knowledge (the overallRoman Catholic emphasis) or salvation (the Protestant emphasis), some authorscall for limited rather than plenary inspiration. For instance, John Henry Newmanwrote that inspiration extends to issues of faith and moral conduct only, therebyleaving sizable portions of Scripture outside inspiration.25 Dutch Reformedtheologian G. C. Berkouwer believed that the content of Scripture was notinspired truth, although its intention to communicate salvation was.26 Accordingto these theologians, only the ethical, spiritual and salvific portions of Scriptureare inspired.

Partial inspiration is not consistent with the evangelical belief in inerrancyas expressed in the 1978 Chicago Statement on Scripture, which was “signedby nearly 300 evangelical scholars, representing almost every majorevangelical organization in the United States and several foreign countries.”27

The affirmation of partial inspiration allows for a great variety ofpositions. Although it implies that large portions of Scripture contain error,


theologians differ widely on the definition of what that error might be. Somebelieve that errors occur only at the level of small details; others assert thaterror could include clear and significant teachings, such as the seven literaldays of creation.

At the practical level, the controversy between partial and plenary inspirationis based on the conflict between biblical statements and the teachings of modernscience. By proposing a dichotomy between the spiritual-ethical-salvific realm ofreligious experience and the concrete, spatiotemporal world of science,proponents of partial inspiration preempt any conflict between theology andscience. They are able to believe in evolution and in justification by faith in thecross simultaneously, yet without contradiction. A correct understanding of theworld’s origin belongs to science, while the understanding and experience ofsalvation are the property of theology. In stark contrast, supporters of plenaryinspiration assert that Scripture speaks factually on issues also covered byscience— thus continuing the conflict between science and faith.

b. Plenary Inspiration

To believe in plenary inspiration is to believe that the Holy Spirit is directlyresponsible for all the content of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.Inspiration in this view guarantees the truthfulness of Scripture on any issue,spiritual or mundane. This is the meaning of inerrancy as a challenge to themodern notion of inspiration as merely aesthetic. The evangelicalcounterattack on the teachings of modern theology leads to a belief ininerrancy, which is dependent on plenary inspiration.

But it is not enough merely to affirm plenary inspiration. We must askhow the Holy Spirit acted in the process of inspiration. We know what thewriters did— they wrote. What specifically did the Holy Spirit do?

3. Pattern of Operation: Superintendence with Concursive Confluence

By pattern of operation, we refer to how the divine and human agenciesinteracted in the writing of Scripture. Theologians frequently label this the


“means of inspiration.” This is the heart of the evangelical model, where theground for inerrancy is laid. Here we find that the evangelical model is arestatement, intensification, and adaptation of the classical model, but withits own hermeneutical presuppositions and apologetical goal.

There are only a few patterns explaining the mode of divine operation onthe biblical writers: the Aristotelian two-causes theory (Chapter 8, §37.1);dictation; providence; and concursive, confluent divine-human action. Keepin mind that these patterns do not attempt to explain in detail the type ofdivine action involved in concretely inspiring each author and book ofScripture. That is correctly considered to be as mysterious as the being of theGodhead.28 These patterns are only rough descriptions of the phenomenon;they were created to describe the nature of the Bible so that it could besatisfactorily interpreted.

a. Dictation

Dictation in the context of inspiration means that God chose the contents ofScripture word by word. It originated in the period of classical theology. Forexample, Calvin described the Bible’s origin in terms of dictation.29

However, though he affirmed Scripture’s authority, what he wrote isinsufficient to determine exactly what he believed about how it was written.In fact, most writers who favor the dictation pattern do not attempt todescribe how it actually operates.

Dictation is usually described as either mechanical or verbal. Much as inthe two-causes theory, in mechanical dictation the prophets function as “organs”of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit seems to act on the biblical author in a mannersimilar to the contemporary phenomenon of spiritual “channeling” in New Agewritings.30 Verbal dictation, on the other hand, pictures the Holy Spirit orderingthe words of Scripture to the prophet much as a businessman might dictate aletter to his secretary. In either mechanical or verbal dictation, the results areultimately the same. Believers from either position are classified by Geisler andNix as fundamentalists.31 Note how the dictation pattern theoretically allows forhuman influence on the style, composition, history and culture that we actuallyfind in the Bible.32 It is important to note that the evangelical model of inspiration


does not adopt this pattern to explain the mode of operation of the Holy Spirit inthe inspiration of Scripture.33

b. Divine Superintendence and Its Concursive Confluence with the HumanAgent

The evangelical model depends on the belief that Scripture is the result of thesuperintendence – the constant, direct supervision – of the Holy Spirit in thelives of the writers, and as a consequence an intrinsic quality of the thebiblical words. This divine superintendence takes place through a concursiveconfluence–that is, a simultaneous flowing together–with the human agent,whose freedom is not curtailed in any way. The result is that the Holy Spiritpasses inerrancy on and into the original text of Scripture. In this section, wewill explore this view with the help of Archibald A. Hodge, Benjamin B.Warfield, and Millard Erickson.

But before we continue, we might ask why we need a special divineintervention at the moment of writing if, through the process of revelation,God’s sovereignty is able to produce a inerrant Scripture. Warfield thoughtthat this question was unavoidable:

When we give due place in our thoughts to the universality of the providentialgovernment of God, to the minuteness and completeness of its sway, and to itsinvariable efficacy, we may be inclined to ask what is needed beyond this mereprovidential government to secure the production of sacred books which shouldbe in every detail absolutely accordant with the Divine will. The answer is,Nothing is needed beyond mere providence to secure such books.34

If God’s divine providence alone can produce an inerrant book, why doeshe need the process of inspiration at all? Warfield explains that inspirationis necessary to confer on Scripture “a divine quality unattainable by humanpowers alone.”35 Why do the words of Scripture have to have a divinequality? Warfield answers this question by pointing to the twofold value ofinspiration. First, it makes Scripture authoritative and trustworthy at asuperhuman level; second, it allows Scripture to speak its “divine wordimmediately to each reader’s heart and conscience.”36

Warfield’s first value of inspiration consists in making sure there is no


room for error both in the generation of biblical words and in theirinterpretation. By claiming God sovereignty operates supernaturally in thegeneration of the words and in the process by which the believer understandsthem, Warfield’s model proposes that divine inspiration overrules both thecognitive initiative of biblical writers and the hermeneutical freedom ofbiblical readers. In this model, inspiration produces the words, but alsooverules the free procees by which believers understand the words. In myopinion, this double role of inspiration overstates the apologetical goal of themodel.

Regarding the second value, Warfield implicitly subscribes to asacramental view of Scripture. The word “sacrament” here is a technicalterm for the invisible presence of the divine in a spatiotemporal object. Thehost in Roman Catholic theology is a clear example. After the priest blessesthe bread, it becomes a sacrament because it has changed its essence— itsinvisible central nature— from bread to the crucified Christ. Externally thebread still is bread, but its unseen essence is divine. We might say that theclassical sacramental theology is very close to Warfield’s idea of divine-human confluence in revelation-inspiration. His statements seem to indicatethat providential revelation grounds the inerrancy of Scripture, whileinspiration goes beyond inerrancy by transforming Scripture into asacrament— because of the presence of the Holy Spirit speaking from thetext.

Hodge and Warfield define inspiration as “the superintendence by God ofthe writers in the entire process of their writing, which accounts for nothingwhatever but the absolute infallibility of the record in which the revelation,once generated, appears in the original autograph.”37 Even though theyaffirm that the essence of inspiration is divine “superintendence” rather thanmere “influence,”38 Warfield tends to use the terms interchangeably in hislater discussions of inspiration.39 For our purpose – understanding the model– we will consider the two words synonyms. Inspiration as superintendence-influence describes God as producing the text of Scripture in confluence withthe human writers. Superintendence and influence, as we have noted, aretechnical terms for the type of divine activity present in the writing of


Scripture, within the evangelical model. The divine and human agenciesworked in a relationship of confluence to create the Bible.

The mode of divine operation in inspiration is clearly a mystery just asare other divine activities elsewhere in theology. Imprecise as the terms“superintendence,” “influence,” and “confluence” are, they at least give ussome idea of what the evangelical model proposes took place in inspiration.

Superintendence depends on the sovereign will of God as itspresupposition and points forward to the natural consequence of thatwill— the provident, irresistible government God exercises over his entirecreation.

Influence indicates that the divine operation is an internal one, which inturn serves as a reminder that inspiration is an activity of God’s immanence.With the exception of a few theophanies and the incarnation of Christ, Godacts internally rather than externally, just as we do in our historicalenvironment. Therefore, we may compare divine influence to a supernaturalenergy moving within the human authors. Again, this is exactly the same wayGod operates in the sacraments, salvation and providence, at least in theclassical and evangelical views. In short, God acted in inspiration through hisimmanent guidance or energy–influence–and thereby totally controlled the outcome of human writing.

Confluence describes the interaction between divine and human activity.The idea of confluence differs from mechanical dictation in that the latterdoes not allow for the free movement of the human agency. Confluencemeans that God and men work together freely and harmoniously, eachaccording to their proper nature. Thus, “God predetermined all the matterand form of the several books,”40 while human writers produced what we callthe “human side” of Scripture.41 As instruments, the normal functions of theprophets were not hindered by inspiration.

In the evangelical model, inspiration as superintendence-influence-confluence is consistently applied to the whole of Scripture.42 It clearlyovercomes the difficulties of a mechanical view of inspiration with the moredynamic concept of confluence. Yet, the Augustinian-Calvinistic concept ofsovereignty, developing out of a timeless view of God’s nature and activity,


means that God still controls everything from the experience, thoughts, andwords of the humans involved to the matter, content, organization, and words ofScripture. At a practical level the evangelical model does not make room forprophets who operate as real thinkers and authors.

§56. THE HERMENEUTICAL EFFECTBefore we continue, we should remember that a theological model is a sortof theoretical umbrella covering several variations on a general view of anissue, as exemplified in the writings of different theologians. This chapter,then, does not describe Hodge’s or Warfield’s views per se, but rather thebroad model which they represent. Instead of reversing it, the evangelicalmodel solidified the hermeneutical schism initiated by the modern model.Conservative American Protestants are most likely to adopt some version ofthe evangelical model as described in this chapter.

Modernity departed from classical thinking at the level of hermeneuticalpresuppositions. The evangelical model did not even address thephilosophical issues involved, but simply returned to the presuppositions ofthe classical model and intensified them. This rehashing of an old way ofthinking did not appeal to modern theologians, who had rejected classicalphilosophy based on profound arguments. Not surprisingly, the evangelicalmodel of revelation-inspiration appealed most to conservative AmericanProtestant believers, and remains at the center of the broad group ofdenominations and theologies known as American evangelicalism.

As we might expect, the evangelical model possesses the samehermeneutical effects as the classical model. However, its unique emphasisand inner logic trigger some idiosyncratic effects related to the authority ofScripture and to its interpretation. 1. Effects on the Authority of Scripture

a. Divinization of Scripture


The divinization of Scripture refers to the supernatural quality fused into thewritings of the prophets by inspiration. In all fairness, proponents of theevangelical model never assert that the Bible is divinized by inspiration.Instead, inspiration is said to confer “divine qualities” on the text.43

Moreover, they readily affirm the contribution and freedom of the humanwriters. But the difference between saying that Scripture has divine qualitiesor is divinized is probably semantic, one of degree rather than essence. Andto affirm that the biblical text undergoes a transformation from a merelyhuman work to some unspecified level of divinity opens this position to thecharge of neglecting the obvious human nature of biblical writings.

Whatever those divine qualities are, they relate directly to two characteristicsof the biblical text, according to the evangelical model: immediacy and inerrancy.Immediacy plays an important role in the spiritual realm, while inerrancy isdecisive in the epistemological arena.

b. Immediacy

Warfield strongly supports the divine immediacy of Scripture: “Thus thesebooks become not merely the word of godly men, but the immediate word ofGod Himself, speaking directly as such to the minds and hearts of everyreader.”44 Not all evangelical authors elevate the divine quality of Scriptureto the same paramount level of biblical inerrancy. The act of linking divineimmediacy to the text seems to be a counterattack on the noncognitiveencounters of the modern model of revelation-inspiration. The claim thatinspiration confers a divine quality to human writing, thus elevating it to adifferent level, may well overstate the evangelical position.

There is only a tangential connection between the divine quality ofScripture and inerrancy. Both result from inspiration and qualify Scripture.They mutually reinforce each other.

Because of the unnecessary implicit divinization of Scripture within theevangelical model, supporters open themselves to the charge of bibliolatry,or the worship of Scripture. While most evangelical theologians of the earlytwenty-first century are certainly not guilty of bibliolatry, one cannot expect


to avoid the allegation when claiming a divine quality for the text of theBible. Critics working from the modern model should not dismiss the claimsof the evangelicals summarily by accusing them of bibliolatry. On the otherhand, evangelical theologians cannot afford to ignore such philosophicalissues in conversation with their modern counterparts. c. Inerrancy

We have already mentioned one of the primary characteristics attributed toScripture through inspiration, in the evangelical view: inerrancy. The idea ofinerrancy is so similar to those of infallibility and trustworthiness that for allpractical purposes they are synonymous.45

Evangelicals do not all agree on the exact meaning and extent ofinerrancy. Many believe that Hodge and Warfield went too far in theirdefinition of inerrancy. Naturally, disagreements on what it means areusually connected to differences over revelation and inspiration. Theacceptance of some form of “thought” inspiration or degrees of inspirationis usually the source of variance. In this chapter, I am basing my commentson the writings of Hodge and Warfield, who are broadly recognized asoutstanding representatives and defenders of the evangelical model.

Hodge and Warfield see inerrancy as the historical position of theChristian church. While recognizing that Scripture was not “designed toteach philosophy, science or human history as such,” they assert that “all theaffirmations of Scripture of all kinds, whether of spiritual doctrine or duty,or of physical or historical fact, or of psychological or philosophicalprinciple, are without any error when the ipssima verba of the originalautographs are ascertained and interpreted in their natural and intendedsense.”46 Inerrancy includes “accuracy,” “which secures a correct statementof facts or principles intended to be affirmed” but excludes “exactness” or“an exhaustive rendering of details, an absolute literalness.”47

From this statement, it becomes clear that inerrancy, even as understood byHodge and Warfield, requires some conditions. First, inerrancy applies toaffirmations or statements of Scripture. Second, since errors could have beenintroduced over centuries of copying far removed from the original written


copies of the Bible books, textual criticism must be used to secure the originalwording as far as possible. Finally, the affirmations must be taken in their“natural and intended sense.” Even with these caveats, the claim of inerrancycovers many areas and subjects not only within the unverifiable spiritual realm,but also in the natural and historical worlds open to everyday study. Everyaffirmation, then, in these two areas becomes open to verification or refutation.

In the spiritual arena of worship and personal religious experience, theclaim of inerrancy indeed seems to build confidence in the biblical message.But in the theological arena, inerrancy falls short of evangelicals’apologetical aim to extricate the darts of modernity. Because the evangelicalmodel claims that biblical affirmations, even those of the historical andnatural realms, are inerrant, it places the authority of Scripture on precariousand shaky theological ground. If one historical error should be proven, forexample, Scripture is no longer inerrant and therefore no longerauthoritative.

Moreover, if one error is proven, the whole Christian faith becomessuspect. The spiritual experience of believers may shatter if some mistake,no matter how small and insignificant, is discovered in Scripture. Theinerrancy asserted by the evangelical model creates a slippery-slope dynamicwhich inexorably undermines faith – the faith of those trapped between thedoctrinal conviction that Scripture is inerrant, and the exegetical perceptionthat errors are present there.

Hodge and Warfield openly recognized that “if the Scriptures do fail in truthin their statements of whatever kind, the doctrine of inspiration which has beendefended in this paper cannot stand.”48 Moreover, they reiterate that “a provederror in Scripture contradicts not only our doctrine, but the Scripture claims, andtherefore its inspiration in making those claims.”49 Since the issue of inerrancyis always open to challenge, it can never achieve closure in the theologicalrealm. Its defenders are left with the constant task of defending their position.

Instead of discouraging opponents from attacking the veracity ofScripture, the inerrancy claim motivates them to fabricate new arguments.Evangelicals are forced to answer these charges to maintain their credibility.Inviting the enemy to shoot at you is not a good defensive strategy.


Finally, the affirmation of scriptural inerrancy does little to change theviews of modernist theologians who are already convinced there aredemonstrable errors in Scripture. Instead of addressing the philosophicalissues behind the modern model, proponents of the evangelical model resortto mere criticism of the basic modern understanding of God and humannature. We will return to the issue of inerrancy and hermeneuticalpresuppositions later.

d. Full Authority

The evangelical model assigns full authority to the word of God.Establishing that authority was the goal evangelicals pursued in theirattempt to shape modern Christian theology. To the evangelical model,Scripture’s full authority rests on its verbal-plenary inspiration andinerrancy. If these two aspects of the Bible are rejected, its authoritycannot be affirmed in the theology and life of the church. If one error isfound in Scripture— an ever-present possibility— its authority isundermined.

2. Effects on the Interpretation of Scripture

Like the others, the evangelical model of revelation-inspiration directlyaffects how a person interprets the Bible. To briefly review, as in theclassical model, evangelical theologians interpret Scripture in reference to itsspiritual, supernatural, timeless subject matter. That subject matter isthought of as the gospel, though, rather than timeless truth. When closely tiedto the concept of predestination, the gospel becomes as speculative andtimeless as the truths of classical Christianity. Evangelical theologians whoview the gospel in this way usually subscribe to the idea of thoughtinspiration.

In terms of hermeneutical results, the evangelical model goes beyond theclassical model in one significant respect. Because inspiration is verbal andplenary, the historical passages of Scripture are not mere “illustrations” ofeternal truths, but are upgraded to revelation.


Remember, the classical model proposes that revelation refers to timelesstruths from a timeless God. God reveals few eternal truths in Scripture, butdoes so through usage of historical and mythical illustrations. Since God andtruth are timeless but the historical contents of Scripture are obviously basedin space and time, those contents must be illustrations only.

In contrast, the evangelical model’s emphasis on inerrancy makes thedistinction between timeless truths and their spatiotemporal illustrations lessclear. Proponents of inerrancy claim that every scriptural affirmation isabsolute truth, while to classical theologians most affirmations arespatiotemporal illustrations of eternal truth. They might ask why we shoulddefend the truthfulness of mere illustrations. There is no need to argue aboutthe historicity of Aesop’s fables, because what matters in those stories is themoral— the timeless truth.

Nevertheless, the evangelical model broadens divine truth to include whatclassical thinking understood as mere illustrations. God’s truth also refers tothe spatiotemporal realm, so its descriptions in the Bible must be inerrant.This expansion of divine truth is required by the central role that the crossof Christ plays in evangelical theology.

Because the evangelical model portrays God as speaking from heaven directlyto each human being, through Scripture, about both spiritual and historicalmatters, believers are led to interpret the words of Scripture as the very words ofthe absolute God. The Bible conveys the truths and the will of a timeless,irresistible, sovereign being. In the book are words God himself selected to talkto us from heaven. Theologians may need to use textual criticism to make surethat these words are as close to the original as possible; they may need to studygrammar and history to understand those words. But after these preliminaries arecomplete, each biblical affirmation is to be understood as absolute, divine truth,spoken from the will of a timeless, irresistible, sovereign God.

Of course, pastors and church members know better. They have put two andtwo together and have recognized the obvious. They know that the samesovereign, irresistible power that inspired Scripture is present within them,irresistibly illuminating the understanding of believers. “Niceties” such as textualcriticism and the grammatical-historical method of interpretation do not apply in


real life. Didn’t Christ himself promise that the Holy Spirit will guide to all truth?

The hermeneutics of fundamentalism depend not only on the evangelicalmodel of inspiration, but also its natural corrolary, the idea of Spirit-ledinterpretation. The question is not whether God inspires or illumines, but how oneassumes that God performs such activities. In the evangelical model, based likethe classical model in part on ancient philosophy, God is a timeless, irresistiblesovereign, who does everything according to His own eternal will. If Godsuperintends the writing of Scripture through inspiration, His illuminationsuperintends its interpretation. Just like inspiration, illumination becomes amiracle of God’s irresistible grace. Believers who assume God acts in this waynaturally confuse their own understanding of Scripture as God’s will for allcreation.

This fundamentalist method of interpretation contains at least two basicflaws. First, it encourages the notion that serious study or reflection isunnecessary to understand the Bible. As a believer reads the word of God,a mere prayer will secure the miracle of interpretation. God’s irresistiblesovereignty covers the minds of believers as well as it did the creation of theBible; as He is solely responsible for the words of Scripture, he is also solelyresponsible for how believers understand them. Second, because of thismiraculous view of illumination, believers are bound to confuse their partialand incorrect interpretations of Scripture with God’s will for the entirehuman race. Moreover, because believers are convinced that they understandGod’s truth effortlessly and perfectly, they also believe that whoeverdisagrees with them is not only wrong, but has not received the spirit ofillumination. Dialogue is impossible under these hermeneutical conditions.

To be fair, evangelical theologians and believers would explicitly disapproveof any application of this kind of fundamentalist hermeneutic. But thephilosophical ideas on which evangelicalism builds its views of revelation, God,and the gospel make it inevitable; in fact, this kind of understanding flourishes.

§57. EVALUATION


1. Criteria

To review (§39.1, 50.1), our criteria for evaluating this or any model areconsistency, or whether the model agrees with what the Bible says aboutitself; coherence, or whether the model accounts for the characteristics ofScripture as a book; and practical application, the hermeneutical effect andtheological results of viewing the Scripture through the model, whichdemonstrates the strong and weak points of that model.

2. Consistency and Coherence

Just like the classical model it is based on, the evangelical model passes theconsistency test with flying colors, but fails the test of coherence. Theevangelical model clearly teaches that God is the direct author of the entireBible, from the general conception of the book, to its contents, literary styles,and words. But both the classical and evangelical models do not account forthe many human characteristics of the text uncovered by exegesis.

In contrast to the classical model, the evangelical model seeks toaccommodate the contributions of the human agent to Scripture. But it relieson the biblical doctrine of Scripture instead of observing also the phenomenaof Scripture— that the biblical writers contributed directly as individuals toScripture’s content. If the Bible writers contributed to the book’s content, itmight jeopardize the sovereignty of God; if the sovereignty of God’s will ischallenged, it might damage the evangelical understanding of the gospel andjustification by faith alone. These possibilities cannot even be addressedbecause it would endanger the identity of the evangelical movement. Theevangelical model thus fails the test of coherence.


Departing from the classical model of revelation-inspiration, and the thought-inspiration theory, the evangelical model’s inerrancy claim seems to broadenthe Bible’s theological usefulness. The historical contents of Scripture— whatthe classical model terms “illustrations” of eternal truth— become inerrant,divine revelations. All that the Bible contains comes out of God’s revelation


through theophany, miracle, or providence. Why must the Bible be inerrant?To affirm its authority for the church, one might answer. Yes. But, underwhat category does that authority fall? We would assume that the Bible is thesource for theology, belief and doctrine in the church.

The evangelical model has a clear potential advantage over the modernand classical positions in that it allows a broader theological scope for theBible. Within the spiritual life, every statement helps and can be a meansthrough which the Holy Spirit speaks to the believer. But in actual practice,the evangelical model does not use all inerrant affirmations in Scripture todevelop Christian doctrines. Instead, it employs a selective process similar tothat applied by the classical model. The same presuppositions that ground theevangelical model— that the Bible exists chiefly to reveal salvation— alsodetermine that only some inerrant affirmations of Scripture are essential fortheology. Large numbers of inerrant statements are only indirectly relevant,while others are totally unnecessary.

In other words, evangelical theology correctly emphasizes that the aim ofChristian theology is to understand the issue of salvation. Evangelicalterminology categorizes God’s work for the sinner under the biblical label of“gospel.” The gospel is the salvific action of God or the good news that Godhas already enacted salvation for us. God is presupposed to be timeless inboth the evangelical model of revelation-inspiration and the evangelicalunderstanding of the gospel. In both cases, God never changes, but actsaccording to His timeless and sovereign nature. Since His act of salvation inthe gospel belongs to the timeless realm, the divine action through which Godsaves is not historical, but eternal. If Christ is God, then he carries out theprocess of salvation sovereignly. The evangelical understanding ofgospel, then, necessarily includes the twin notions of timelessness andsovereignty (see §53.1 above). The evangelical presuppositions of God’stimeless nature lead to a timeless understanding of the gospel as a salvificact, and the sections of the Bible that cannot be reconciled with thispreconception of salvation are naturally discounted. The selection processflows from presupposition to gospel to the text of Scripture. Since eternalpredestination and justification are easily reconcilable with the activity


of a timeless Omnipotent, they reside at the heart of the evangelicalunderstanding of not only the gospel, but Scripture as well. From thisposition, evangelicals proceed to differentiate between the necessary andunnecessary portions of Scripture.

For instance, some affirmations (such as Romans 3:20-28) are considered tobe more directly connected to the gospel than others (for example, James 2:14-26). Furthermore, most affirmations about God’s salvation in the Old Testamentare seen as only indirectly connected to the gospel. This selectivity through anunderstanding of the gospel does not negate the absolute inerrancy of everyaffirmation in both Old and New Testaments. It means only that not allaffirmations have the same theological value. The theological value of a biblicalaffirmation is not determined by its inspiration, but by how closely the statementrelates to the gospel— the subject matter of revelation.

However, the evangelical model posits that everything God inspired isinerrant. For instance, God revealed information about Israel related neither to thegospel nor to salvation. Much of that information refers to past events, which canbe verified through archaeology and history. But when God predicts events thathave not yet taken place, the situation becomes more complicated. This is the casewith unfulfilled prophecies about Israel. These prophecies play no role inunderstanding the gospel, yet if they do not come to pass the entire Bible— andtherefore the gospel— will be proven wrong. Therefore, every Old Testamentprophecy must be fulfilled as it reads; that is, it must be fulfilled in the literal stateof Israel. (The dispensationalist school of prophetic interpretation operates on thishistorical basis.) Since prophecy is unrelated to the gospel, it plays only acorroborative role within revelation-inspiration; when fulfilled, prophecy showsthat God keeps His word and, therefore, can be trusted in what matters most— therevelation of the gospel.

The evangelical model was supposed to restore what the modern model tookaway— the biblical foundations of classical Protestant theology, especially theunderstanding of the gospel. Yet, the evangelical model of inspirationinadvertently restored more biblical data than its theology requires. In otherwords, it set up the inerrancy of many spatiotemporal affirmations unessential tothe evangelical understanding of the gospel.


The evangelical model of revelation-inspiration is much like the classicalmodel in its selective use of Scripture. While for classical theologians eternaltruths are the subject matter of theology and therefore the Bible, forevangelical theologians the subject matter of theology is the gospel. Bothpositions, however, are based on the extrabiblical, philosophical notion thatGod cannot operate in space and time. Even when the evangelical modeltheoretically opens divine revelation to the historical realm, itspresuppositions of God’s nature and actions restrict its own understandingsmuch as the classical model does. The evangelical model, however, retainsmore biblical affirmations than the classical model, since its selectivity isbased on the gospel rather than eternal truths.

§58. REVIEW

• Roman Catholicism answered modernity by way of aggiornamento –“bringing up to date.” Roman Catholicism’s hermeneutical presuppositions were based on Platonicphilosophy, which attributed timelessness to eternity and supernature, whileallowing for change at the lower, temporal-historical level of reality. Becauseof this flexibility, Roman Catholic theologians were permitted to adopt thehistorical-critical method, since any understanding of the historical shell ofrevelation would not affect the timeless truth it contained. The essence ofrevelation would remain untouched by modern methodologies.

• American evangelicalism answered modernity by affirming theinerrancy of Scripture. Although sharing the same two-tier understanding of reality, Americanconservative Protestantism could not apply the historical-critical method toScripture because the cross of Christ— a historical event— played a centralrole in their theology that was not required in Roman Catholic teaching.Instead, they emphasized and sharpened the classical ideas of inspiration andinerrancy.


• Building on the classical model of nature and supernature, theevangelical model emphasizes the sovereignty of God and the totaldepravity, or corruption, of human nature. The ideas of divine sovereignty and total depravity of human nature werebased on the classical views of a timeless God and soul.

• The concept of divine sovereignty is built on Augustine’s view of God’s

will. Augustine clearly understood that the will of a timeless God must beimmutable. Therefore, His actions have been, are, and will be always thesame without variation. God is sovereign because nothing can condition Hiswill and actions. All events and realities in history are expressions of Hisunchangeable will and power.

• The idea of total human depravity is based on understanding the soulas timeless. Human reason is assumed to work timelessly, but it cannot functionproperly in its present state. Total depravity is based on the belief thatthe fall has had permanent and devastating effects on the human soul,preventing the proper operation of the entire range of humancapabilities. Contrary to the classical view, in which the fall hascaused minimal damage to the natural capacity for reason,evangelicals believe that the fall has permanently damaged it.

• The evangelical model of inspiration builds on the classical model. The evangelical model essentially modifies the classical model into anapologetical tool in the battle against modern theology and the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation.

• Revelation is cognitive and is responsible for all the material in theBible; it comes through theophanies, miracles, and providence. Theophany is the actual presence of God in time and space. Miraclesinclude dreams and visions, or prophecy. Providence covers the events of


biblical history and interpretations of those events. Therefore, the contentof revelation includes not only timeless, but also temporal-historicalmaterial.

• The evangelical model stresses inspiration over revelation. Even though evangelical authors address revelation, their emphasis is oninspiration, because inspiration, unlike revelation, covers all of Scriptureand results directly in the final product.

• Verbal inspiration is preferred to thought inspiration. The evangelical model affirms that God verbally inspires the biblicalwriters, reaching the very words of Scripture. In contrast, within thoughtinspiration God reaches their thoughts, but not their words.

• Plenary inspiration replaces partial inspiration or degrees ofinspiration. Supporters of the evangelical model believe that the supernaturalinfluence of the Holy Spirit reaches every word in Scripture: plenaryinspiration. They reject two ideas specifically, first, that inspirationreaches only selected portions of Scripture and, second, that differentparts of the Bible are inspired in different degrees. They reject these ideasbecause they would allow interpreters to distinguish the authoritativeportions of Scripture from less or nonauthoritative portions.

• Inspiration operates as a mysterious, all-powerful creative energy orcharisma from God. Inspiration is the sovereign power of God, leading the Bible writers torecord His words in Scripture. This energy is the same power God usesin creation, salvation, the sacraments, and miracles. While we know thatGod operates through His power (energy), how that divine energy worksis a mystery to us.

• Inspiration does not operate as mechanical dictation. The evangelical model strongly rejects the idea of mechanical dictation


because it does not do justice to the human contribution in the process ofwriting. When the modus operandi (manner of operation) of inspirationis understood as dictation (God chooses the words of Scripture verbatim)prophets make no contribution whatsoever to the text of Scripture.

• Inspiration, as a sovereign, irresistible, divine charisma, operates inconfluence with the human agency. God’s sovereign, irresistible energy combines mysteriously with the humanbeing. How the divine and human agencies combine is an enigma, butsupporters of the evangelical model believe that in that confluence, bothoperate according to their proper nature. God operates sovereignly and thehuman agency, because of its total depravity, operates in total submission.The results of this confluent operation are determined by the divine cause, butfollow the form of human operation. As we study the phenomenon ofinspiration in Scripture, we can perceive only its human side because itsdivine side is mysterious to us.

• Inspiration passes into the text of Scripture as a divine quality. In the classical model, inspiration was thought to elevate the humancapabilities of the prophets. In the evangelical model, inspiration elevates thewritten text as well. A sort of divinization of Scripture remains implicit in theevangelical model. Here divinization of Scripture is understood as a literarymedium— the letters of Scripture— not as content but as what Scripture saysto the reader at any given time.

• Scripture in its original manuscripts is inerrant. Since all the original manuscripts of the Bible have been lost, textualcriticism becomes necessary to determine the words of the original texts.Inerrancy means Scripture contains no mistakes in any issue it addresses, notonly on salvation or spiritual matters, but on history and natural science aswell.

• Scripture is invested with full, divine authority. All of Scripture is the word of God and, therefore, has full divine


authority over both individuals and the body of the church.

• The evangelical model of inspiration and its correspondent belief indivine illumination encourages an ahistorical fundamentalistichermeneutic. If Scripture is a book inspired by God, it communicates the will of Goddirectly from heaven to each human being. Its interpretation can be securedonly by divine illumination, an energy or charisma that secures the correctmeaning of God’s word in the mind of the reader. This inadvertentlyencourages the fundamentalistic hermeneutic: whatever any believer gainsfrom a superficial reading of the Bible is the infallible, inerrant will of God.It is even more of a problem when the reader assumes that since what he orshe understands is the absolute word of God, it applies to everyone else aswell. What the human agent understands has been caused by God.

• As in the classical model, the evangelical model of inspirationmaximizes the divine aspect of Scripture and minimizes the human. In so doing, the evangelical model well accounts for the teachings ofScripture about itself, but does not answer the phenomena of Scripture.The evangelical model does allow for more human contribution than doesmechanical dictation. But it stops short of allowing genuine humancontribution to the content of Scripture.

• As with the classical and modern models, the evangelical model isconsistent with itself and its presuppositions. The evangelical model flows from the hermeneutical presuppositions itaccepts and tailors for itself. In spite of its inner coherence, theevangelical model, as with the classical model is not able to harmoniouslyincorporate all the relevant data, specifically the phenomena of Scripture.The characteristics of the Bible as a literary piece indicates a highercontribution of the human agency in the generation of the contents ofScripture.


1 Regarding revelation, the council maintained that “it was, however, pleasing tohis wisdom and goodness to reveal himself and the eternal laws of his will to the humanrace by another, and that a supernatural, way. This is how the Apostle puts it: ‘In manyand various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last dayshe has spoken to us by a Son’ (Heb 1:1). It is indeed thanks to this divine revelation,that those matters concerning God, which are not of themselves beyond the scope ofhuman reason, can, even in the present state of the human race, be known by everyonewithout difficulty, with firm certitude, and with no intermingling of error. This does notmake revelation absolutely necessary; the reason is that God directed human beings toa supernatural end” (“Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Faith,” in Decrees of theEcumenical Councils, ed. Norman Tanner [London: Sheed & Ward, 1990], 2.2-4).Moreover, the human authorship of Scripture was controlled by the Holy Spirit: “Thesebooks [Old and New Testaments] the church holds to be sacred and canonical notbecause she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composedby unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, butbecause, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as theirauthor, and were as such committed to the church” (ibid., 2.7). Finally, consider thestern condemnation of dissenters: “If anyone says that divine revelation cannot be madecredible by external signs, and that therefore men and women ought to be moved tofaith only by each one’s internal experience or private inspiration: let him be anathema”(ibid., canon 2.3.3).

2 The First Vatican Council reaffirmed Roman Catholicism’s long philosophicaltradition by stating that “the perpetual agreement of the Catholic Church hasmaintained and maintains this too: that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinctnot only as regards its source, but also as regards its object. With regard to the source,we know at the one level by natural reason, at the other level by divine faith. Withregard to the object, besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there areproposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinelyrevealed, are incapable of being known” (ibid., 4.1).

3 “Consequently, theories of evolution, in accordance with the philosophiesinspiring them, posit that the mind emerged from the forces of living matter or as

ENDNOTES


a mere epiphenomenon of matter and, thus, are incompatible with the truth aboutman. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person” (John Paul II,"Magisterium Is Concerned with Question of Evolution for It Involves Conceptionof Man." http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html: Catholic Information Network [CIN],1996).

4 George M. Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 37.

5 Ibid., 27-38.6 James Barr, The Scope and Authority of the Bible (Philadelphia:

Westminster, 1980), 65.7Augustine writes, “It is not, then, to be doubted that men’s wills cannot, so as to

prevent His doing what He wills, withstand the will of God, ‘who hath done all thingswhatsoever He pleased in heaven and in earth,’ and who also ‘has done those thingsthat are to come;’ since He does even concerning the wills themselves of men what Hewill, when He will” (“Treatise on Rebuke and Grace,” The Nicene and Post-NiceneFathers, Series 1, ed. Philip Schaff [Albany, OR: Books for the Ages, 1997], 5:1.45).

8The following passage suggests that human beings are free to choose to be wicked,but once they have done so, God’s sovereign will controls what their evil deeds actuallyare. “It is, therefore,” says Augustine, “in the power of the wicked to sin; but that insinning they should do this or that by that wickedness is not in their power, but inGod’s, who divides the darkness and regulates it; so that hence even what they docontrary to God’s will is not fulfilled except it be God’s will” (“A Treatise on thePredestination of the Saints,” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, ed. PhilipSchaff [Albany: Books for the Ages, 1997], 5:1.33).

9Augustine, Confessions, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. G. Pilkington, The Niceneand Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1 (Albany: Ages Software, 1996), 1:12.15.18).

10Augustine writes, “But if we speak of that will of His which is eternal as Hisforeknowledge, certainly He has already done all things in heaven and on earththat He has willed,— not only past and present things, but even things still future.But before the arrival of that time in which He has willed the occurrence of whatHe foreknew and arranged before all time, we say, It will happen when God wills.


But if we are ignorant not only of the time in which it is to be, but even whetherit shall be at all, we say, It will happen if God wills,— not because God will thenhave a new will which He had not before, but because that event, which frometernity has been prepared in His unchangeable will, shall then come to pass” (TheCity of God, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, ed. Philip Schaff[Albany: Books for the Ages, 1997], 2:22.2).

11John Calvin writes, “The other writers who came after them, while each soughtpraise for his own cleverness in his defense of human nature, one after anothergradually fell from bad to worse, until it came to the point that man was commonlythought to be corrupted only in his sensual part and to have a perfectly unblemishedreason and a will also largely unimpaired. Meanwhile the well-known statement flittedfrom mouth to mouth: that the natural gifts in man were corrupted, but the supernaturaltaken away. But scarcely one man in a hundred had an inkling of its significance. Formy part, if I wanted clearly to teach what the corruption of nature is like, I wouldreadily be content with these words. But it is more important to weigh carefully whatman can do, vitiated as he is in every part of his nature and shorn of supernatural gifts”(Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles [Albany: Book for theAges, 1998], 2.2.4).

12 Ibid., 2.3.5.13 Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration (Grand Rapids:

Baker, 1927), 15.14 Ibid., 17.15 Ibid., 22.16 Ibid., 22-23.17 Ibid., 23.18 Peter M. van Bemmelen, Issues in Biblical Inspiration: Sanday and

Warfield, Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, vol. 13(Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1987), 253.

19 “Each sacred writer was by God specially formed, endowed, educated,providentially conditioned, and then supplied with knowledge naturally, supernaturally


or spiritually conveyed, so that he, and he alone, could, and freely would, produce hisallotted part” (A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, Inspiration [Grand Rapids: Baker,1979], 14).

20 B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. S. G. Craig(Philadelphia: Pressbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1948), 160.

21 Ibid.22 Hodge and Warfield, 6.23 See John Scullion, The Theology of Inspiration (Notre Dame, IN: Fides, 1970),

26-27.24 Millard J. Erickson writes, “The dynamic theory [of inspiration] emphasizes the

combination of divine and human elements in the process of inspiration and of thewriting of the Bible. The work of the Spirit of God is in directing the writer to thethoughts or concepts he should have, and allowing the writer’s own distinctivepersonality to come into play in the choice of words and expressions. Thus, the personwriting will give expression to the divinely directed thoughts in a way that is uniquelycharacteristic of him” (Christian Theology [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990], 207); cf.Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology [Westwood: Revell, 1907], 211).

25 John Henry Newman, On the Inspiration of Scripture, ed. J. Derek Holmesand Robert Murray (Washington, DC: Corpus Books, 1967), 108-109.

26 See G. C. Berkouwer, Holy Scripture, trans. Jack Rogers (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1975), 147.

27 Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible(Chicago: Moody, 1986), 181, n. 87.

28 According to Warfield, the definition of inspiration “purposely declares nothingas to the mode of inspiration. The Reformed Churches admit that this is inscrutable.They content themselves with defining carefully and holding fast the effects of thedivine influence, leaving the mode of divine action by which it is brought about drapedin mystery” (The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, 420-421).

29 John Calvin writes, “This is a principle which distinguishes our religionfrom all others, that we know that God hath spoken to us, and are fully convinced


that the prophets did not speak at their own suggestion, but that, being organs ofthe Holy Spirit, they only uttered what they had been commissioned from heavento declare. Whoever then wishes to profiting the Scriptures, let him first of all, laydown this as a settled point, that thine Law and the Prophets are not a doctrinedelivered according to the will and pleasure of men, but dictated by the HolySpirit” (Commentary on 2 Timothy 3:16). “This is the first clause, that we owe tothe Scripture the same reverence which we owe to God; because it has proceededfrom him alone, and has nothing belonging to man mixed with it”(ibid.).

30 Geisler and Nix classify “mechanical” inspiration as an ultraconservative positionthat does not allow for errors in the original manuscripts or its copies (190).

31 Ibid. Geisler clarifies that not all fundamentalists follow this view. Somefollow the evangelical view of either providence or concursive concurrence (170).

32 Ibid., 170.33 Warfield, 421.34 Ibid., 157.35 Ibid., 58.36 Ibid.37 Hodge and Warfield, 6. Notice that in this definition the goal of inspiration

is inerrancy, thus revealing the authors’ apologetical intent.38 Ibid.39 Van Bemmelen, 240. 40 Hodge and Warfield write, “Thus God predetermined all the matter and form of

the several books largely by the formation and training of the several authors, as anorganist determines the character of his music as much when he builds his organ andwhen he tunes his pipes as when he plays his keys. Each writer also is putprovidentially at the very point of view in the general progress of revelation to whichhis part assigns him. He inherits all the contributions of the past. He is brought intoplace and set to work at definite providential junctures, the occasion affording himobject and motive, giving form to the writing God appoints him to execute” (14-15).

THE EVANGELICAL MODEL 22341 Warfield, 150-151.42According to Hodge and Warfield, “The importance of limiting the word

‘inspiration’ to a definite and never-varying sense, and one which is shown, by thefacts of the case, to be applicable equally to every part of Scripture, is self-evident,and is emphasized by the embarrassment which is continually recurring in thediscussions of this subject, arising sometimes from the wide, and sometimes fromthe various, senses in which this term is used by different parties” (7).

43 In Warfield’s words, “[T]he Spirit of God, flowing confluently in with theprovidentially and graciously determined work of men, spontaneously producing underthe Divine directions the writings appointed to them, gives the product [Scriptures] aDivine quality unattainable by human powers alone” (158).

44 Ibid. A few sentences later, Warfield further clarifies that through inspirationthe text “speaks this Divine word immediately to each reader’s heart andconscience; so that he does not require to make his way to God, painfully, perhapseven uncertainly, through the words of His servants, the human instruments inwriting the Scripture, but can listen directly to the Divine voice itself speakingimmediately in the scriptural word to him.”

45 Van Bemmelen, 293-394.46 Warfield and Hodge, 28.47 Ibid.48 Ibid., 40.49 Ibid., 41.

SECTION THREETHE HISTORICAL COGNITIVE MODEL

In criticizing theological ideas, especially those involving presuppositions, thereis a time for deconstruction and a time for construction. In the previous section,we examined models of revelation-inspiration currently representing the viewsof various Christian theologies. In this section, we move from deconstructingothers’ ideas to developing our own.

The need for a new model of revelation-inspiration is a consequence of thestrengths and weaknesses present in the models we have looked at. The strengthswe will build on are the divine origin of the cognitive content of Scripture, fromthe classical and evangelical models, and the historical view of human nature andknowledge from the modern model. We will try to avoid the pitfalls ofnoncognitive revelation present in the modern model, and the timelessunderstandings of God, human nature, and knowledge found in the classical andevangelical models.

As with the classical, liberal, and evangelical models, the historical-cognitivemodel must begin with presuppositions about God, humanity, and knowledge,presuppositions found in the Bible itself. These new presuppositions make ournew model possible. After all, philosophy has changed again, with postmodernperspectives producing new views of ontology and epistemology undermining theclassical-modern synthesis on which the existing models stand.

In the following chapters, we will identify our hermeneutical presuppositions,then study the cognitive process of revelation and the linguistic process ofinspiration (Chapters 12-14). We will look at how applying the historical-cognitive model affects theology, then compare and contrast the incarnation ofJesus Christ and that of the contents of Scripture (Chapters 15-16). We willanalyze the patterns of revelation (Chapter 17) and the idea of inspiration asunderstood by the historical-cognitive model (Chapter 18). Finally, we willperuse the cognitive principle of Christian theology (Chapter 19) and close ourstudy by considering the question of the Bible’s reliability (Chapter 20).

12. THE POSTMODERN SHIFT: THE POSSIBILITY OF A NEW MODEL

We have made good progress in our search for the meaning of revelation-inspiration. As we enter the final stretch of the study, we must decidebetween understanding revelation-inspiration as a choice, or as a challenge.If we perceive it as a choice, we will simply choose one of the existingmodels of revelation-inspiration discussed in the previous section. But if wefind ourselves unsatisfied with any of those models, we are challenged withdeveloping another one.

§59. LOOKING FOR A NEW MODEL

1. A Previous Model, or a New One?

Most theologians, even those few that still give some thought to the question ofrevelation-inspiration, choose to build their views as modifications of theclassical, modern, or evangelical models (Chapters 8-11). For example, in PaulAchtemeier’s recent Inspiration and Authority: Nature and Function ofChristian Scripture,1 he criticizes the evangelical model because of its dogmaticpresuppositions on the verbal inspiration of Scripture— and then dogmaticallysides with the presuppositions of the modern model.2

THE POSTMODERN SHIFT 227

I have a different strategy; I invite you, the reader, to view the classical,modern, and evangelical models not as alternatives to choose from, but asspringboards to an entirely new model.

2. Proper Methodological Procedure

In our analysis, we have found that the classical, modern, and evangelicalmodels fail to account for either the doctrine of Scripture, or for itsphenomena. In spite of that failure, each model has strong points that cannotbe discarded without hampering our understanding of revelation-inspiration.As we develop our new model, then, we will not start from scratch, but willrely on the experience we gained from examining both the failures andsuccesses of the previous models.

How should we begin? A contemporary approach would indicate that ourexplanations must be guided by the facts and events we are trying to understand.We are advised to let the object of study speak for itself, instead of followingideas external to the facts or preconceived notions of what those events are. Sincewe are studying the origin of the Bible, our search for a new model of revelation-inspiration should pay close attention both to what the Bible has to say aboutitself and to what the phenomena of Scripture reveal about how it came to be. 3. New Hermeneutical Presuppositions?

To follow this procedure properly, we must consider not only how to formulatea new explanation of revelation-inspiration, but more importantly our ownhermeneutical presuppositions. If we are to avoid the mistakes of previousmodels, we must begin with new presuppositions, or at least interpret theassumptions of the other models in a new way. Moreover, if our model is tosmoothly integrate the doctrine and phenomena of Scripture, we must continueto follow the maxim we considered earlier: “to the things themselves.”

As we have considered, previous models have started withpresuppositions not from Scripture itself, but from extrabiblical philosophy.Unfortunately, even now many Christian theologians are convinced thatphilosophy alone can provide those presuppositions we need to understand


revelation-inspiration. In order to work within their own framework, we needto become aware of recent developments within philosophical thinking.

4. Purpose and Procedure

In this chapter we will explore the shift at the bedrock level of Westernphilosophy which took place during the twentieth century. There we will findchanges that may help Christian theologians to break free from theirmethodological dependence on philosophy. Has history come to the pointwhere Christian thinkers no longer need philosophy to develop itspresuppositions and consequent doctrines? We cannot solve such a weightyissue in this chapter, but we will gain at least a working perspective on thepossibility of a more biblical development of theological presuppositions.

What shall our strategy be in formulating a new model of revelation-inspiration? First we must discuss how to “go beyond” previous models, andhow Scripture itself, instead of philosophy, may guide us in the developmentof hermeneutical presuppositions for understanding revelation-inspiration.

§60. METHODOLOGY

1. “Going Beyond” Previous Models

As we have said, we do not have to reject every aspect of the previous models todevelop a new one. I suggest that we neither reject nor adopt them wholesale, butgo beyond them. In other words, we adopt their contributions, but avoid theirpitfalls, removing the chaff of their mistakes from the grain of their accuracy.

At first, this idea of “distillation” may seem like an attempt to break newscholarly ground – as if we were trying to overcome previous positions. Atsecond glance, it appears to be an elegant disguise of an eclecticmethodology. In other words, the new model resulting from “going beyond”the classical, modern, and evangelical schools may only amount to anarbitrary rearrangement of past positions.

In short, I want to warn you that the following chapters present neither


a totally new and original position nor a simple reshuffling of old teachings.To avoid these twin misconceptions, we must carefully consider thehermeneutical foundations of the historical-cognitive model. As we have defined it, going beyond previous models of revelation-inspiration without falling into arbitrary eclecticism requires a newhermeneutical basis. In other words, since the previous models allpresupposed certain things about God and human nature based onphilosophy, and yet came out with inadequate understandings of revelation-inspiration, we need to reexamine the structure of the divine-humanrelationship with regard to the Bible’s origin. Our aim in this chapter is toexplore the philosophical foundation for a new model of revelation-inspiration.

2. The Bible, Philosophy, and Hermeneutical Presuppositions

Scripture has traditionally and consistently been read as nonphilosophicaldiscourse. One reason is that biblical writers used nontechnical language, asthey were addressing common people on the street. Everyday wordsnotwithstanding, biblical authors presuppose a certain view of God andhuman nature. We have no reason to ask anyone else to help us define theseissues philosophically unless we disagree with the biblical views— or havearbitrarily discarded them as nonphilosophical because they are notexpressed in philosophical language.

In this chapter, we will not attempt to establish the biblical doctrines ofGod or of human nature. Instead, our first task is limited to touching on justthose aspects of God and human nature which will later function ashermeneutical presuppositions in our quest to understand revelation-inspiration. Likewise, we cannot take the time here to translate biblical ideasinto philosophical language.

Our second objective in this chapter is to examine the philosophical climateat the beginning of the twenty-first century to assess whether theology’shermeneutical dependence on philosophy can be ended. Next, we will consider thebiblical understanding of God and human nature as hermeneuticalpresuppositions. Finally, we will look at the nature of knowledge based on the


second and third steps.

§61. THE POSTMODERN TURN IN PHILOSOPHY

1. From Kant to Heidegger

The modern model of revelation-inspiration resulted from a paradigm shiftin the philosophical understanding of human reason. As discussed above(§43), modern philosophy under the leadership of Immanuel Kant suggestedthat the classical view, in which human reason was able to know timelessthings, was incorrect. Reason, he argued, can only reach temporal, spatialthings. The timeless, supernatural realm where God and the soul existed wassimply out of reach for human knowledge. This one change generated manyother changes, resulting in a cultural climate generally known as modernityor the age of enlightenment (see Chapter 10).

During the twentieth century, another paradigm shift took place in thearcane halls of philosophy. When, in 1927, a young German philosopherpublished a book about human existence, very few understood its epoch-making character. Even today, Martin Heidegger’s Being and Time3 seemsto play little or no role in American philosophical and theologicalestablishments.

However, the revolutionary nature of Heidegger’s views was absorbed byhis students. Thirty-six years later, one of them, Hans-Georg Gadamer,wrote that “the brilliant scheme of Being and Time really meant a totaltransformation of the intellectual climate, a transformation that had lastingeffects on almost all the science.”4 Moreover, Heidegger’s revolutionaryviews have “penetrated everywhere and works in the depths, oftenunrecognized, often barely provoking resistance; but nothing today isthinkable without it.”5 What is all this about? Isn’t Gadamer grosslyoverstating the influence of his professor?

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, most readers are familiarwith the term “postmodernism” used to designate Western culture beginningin the last decade of the twentieth century. Postmodernism is a direct result


of Heidegger’s pioneering work. 2. Heidegger’s Philosophical Revolution

There is no unanimously accepted understanding of what “postmodernity”means. But this cultural movement has affected different areas of our culture,among them architecture, the arts, philosophy, and theology. Generally,postmodernity is understood as a social phenomenon, in which cultural relativismhas replaced the unified view of society prevalent in classical and modern times.

Many factors led to the genesis of the postmodern, pluralistic culture ofour time. Prominent among them is the conviction that reason cannot reachabsolute truth; this view is the basis of cultural pluralism.

a. Plato’s Two Worlds and Absolute Truth

Once again we return to the roots of Western philosophy. About six centuriesbefore Christ, a handful of Greek philosophers set out to explain reality asa whole based not on religious imagination, but on the observation of nature.They soon discovered that everything changes, and that consequentlyknowledge could never reach absolute truth (which they presupposed to bechangeless). Tied to the perpetual changes in nature, human reason couldreach only changing, relative truths.

To avoid this relativism, Plato developed the idea that what we see is notall that exists, and that what we could not see was actually more important,in terms of truth. In other words, behind everyday reality lies another realitythat cannot be reached with sensory perception. According to Plato, theworld we can see is characterized by change. The world we cannot see,however, does not change and, therefore, is the ground for the changingworld we perceive.

Why does one world change and the other remain the same? Plato,following a lead from an earlier thinker named Parmenides, believed thatchange requires time, while immutability (changelessness) requirestimelessness. Plato’s thinking gave birth to the classical understanding thatspatiotemporal reality was grounded in timelessness— and timelessness was


the only location of absolute truth. The role of reason, as we discussed(§43.1), was to reach beyond temporal realities to their timeless ground. Inso doing, Plato and subsequent Western thought believed that reason wasable to access absolute, changeless truths. This is the basis of the two-worldstheory.

b. Kant, Modernity, and Absolute Truth

As we just mentioned, Kant taught that reason cannot reach timeless reality(§43.2). However, since Kant assumed that a timeless reality existed, he leftthe Platonic belief in two levels of reality unchallenged.

Consequently, Kant’s view fostered relativism in the religious world. On theother hand, in the scientific world, he managed to keep alive the classical notionof absolute knowledge through some ingenious and difficult philosophicalgymnastics. But modern philosophy and theology both built on Kant’s belief thatreason can reach only the spatiotemporal level of reality .

As a result, the so-called hard sciences are given final authority becausethey are believed to reach absolute conclusions. Modern Christiantheologians who accept this intellectual structure embrace the teachings ofscience just as they interpret revelation-inspiration as a noncognitive,existential phenomenon.

c. Plato’s Influence and Heidegger’s Revolution

While studying philosophy many years ago, I stumbled onto Alfred NorthWhitehead’s famous remark that the history of Western philosophy was a seriesof footnotes to Plato. I dismissed it as an obvious overstatement, and attributedit more to the emotional involvement of the author with Platonic and Augustinianviews than to actual historical fact. Yet after extensive reading in the history ofWestern philosophy, I came to realize that Whitehead was more or less correct.Plato’s philosophical framework pervades not only Western philosophy, but alsoChristian theology. Heidegger’s role as a revolutionary and “prophet” ofpostmodernism is simply due to his radical departure from Plato’s view.


d. Heidegger: Rejecting the Two-Worlds Theory

For our purposes, we will compare Heidegger’s overall view with Plato’s. LikePlato, Heidegger attempted to interpret reality as a whole. But unlike Plato, whounderstood reality to be timeless and changeless, Heidegger expressed intechnical language the idea that true reality is not timeless or spaceless, butspatiotemporal.

In Heidegger’s writings he clearly rejected Plato’s two-worlds theory (§29.1).He could not accept Plato’s notion that our spatiotemporal world is a mereshadow of a timeless, spaceless world. According to Heidegger, Plato’s timelessworld does not exist; only the spatiotemporal world does. For the first time inmore than two millennia, Plato’s two-worlds theory was totally eliminated,turning both the classical and modern philosophical-theological frameworksupside down.

3. Consequences of Heidegger’s Change

Cultural postmodernity is the result of the massive changes brought aboutby Heidegger’s reinterpretation of reality. It may be obvious topostmodern people that Plato’s view of a timeless foundation for realityis groundless and speculative. But the philosophical and cultural tasksresulting from Heidegger’s ideas are even more radical than thoserequired by Kant’s epistemological switch. The process of reworkingphilosophy under postmodernity is referred to as “deconstruction;” oncedeconstruction is complete, new constructions must begin, much as citybuildings are demolished to make space for new ones. Heidegger’s changerequires that the old classical intellectual framework of Western culturemust be destroyed. The problem is that the task of deconstruction is mucheasier than building new intellectual foundations after the old ones haveproven faulty.

In this section, we will briefly cover the most obvious consequences ofpostmodernism for theology and a new model of revelation-inspiration— specifically, the death of timeless, absolute reason and the birth ofhistorical, hypothetical reason.


a. The End of Absolute Reason and Absolute Truth

At the basis of Western civilization is the belief that despite all the changes weobserve around us, we are able to know an unseen, changeless reality— absolutetruth. But Heidegger’s departure from Plato’s notion of reality as timeless rendersthe idea of absolute truth philosophically groundless; after all, once we haveeliminated the concept of timelessness, we find in reality only change andmovement. This realization, known as postmodern relativism, has left Westernculture without its traditional, intellectual center.

b. Historical Reason and Truth

The rejection of reason and truth as timeless opens the door for a newunderstanding of reason, one which began with John Locke and David Hume,critics of classical intellectualism and modern rationalism. Postmodernthinkers agree with Kant that reason cannot access objects beyond thespatiotemporal realm, and that it is therefore historical in nature. If reasonis historical, all knowledge must be an interpretation subject to prior contentsin the mind of the individual. These presuppositions are not inheritedcharacteristics of the mind, but are acquired through life experiences. Allknowledge is identified with interpretation; to know is to interpret.

But because life experiences differ, our knowledge of things varies. Sinceexperience factors into the development of knowledge, it becomes impossible forpeople to draw identical conclusions about any given event. Onlyapproximations of an ever-changing reality may be reached.

Moreover, historical reason is inextricably bound to the history of thecommunity or tradition to which one belongs. Tradition provides the commonparameters or presuppositions that allow us to arrive at common conclusions.Tradition, society, and culture play unifying roles in historical reason. Of course,they can only relate what has been received, that is, a consensus of opinions thatpassed from one generation to the next. Since tradition as part of history isalways changing, so is our knowledge of reality. Thus, historical reason is ableto help us communicate within a changing tradition, but it cannot lead us toabsolute truth— because truth itself, as an interpretation, is always changing.


§62. THE POSTMODERN THEOLOGICAL DIVIDEThe theological significance of the postmodern turn in philosophy stands onthe ancient and unchallenged methodological assumption that theology mustdepend on philosophy for its hermeneutical presuppositions (cf. §44). On thisbasis, we can easily understand why changes in philosophy may substantiallyaffect theological ideas. The methodological influence of philosophy ontheology becomes noticeable particularly when philosophical changes effectthe content of the hermeneutical principles of theology. Such a changeresulted in the modern theological divide in Christianity. Since theology stillthinks it needs philosophically-based presuppositions, Christianity finds itselfat an incipient postmodern theological divide. The time has come to seriouslyquestion this methodological assumption. Why should Christian theologydepend on philosophy for its hermeneutical presuppositions? Can we trustphilosophy for exegetical and theological purposes? To answer thesequestions, let us consider reason’s reliability as a philosophical tool.

1. The Hypothetical Nature of Reason and Philosophy

Classical philosophy viewed reason as timeless; postmodern philosophy assertsthat it is historical. Both views are equally viable from a philosophical viewpoint,but they cannot both be correct. How are we to decide between them?

The history of philosophy tells us we have a choice between viewing reasonas timeless or as historical, but reason itself is unable to tell us which option iscorrect. We must choose between one or the other to formulate any philosophicalteaching; after all, it is a matter of understanding ultimate reality, and in two verydifferent ways. But philosophical teaching cannot tell us which to begin with.Since we cannot know whether we began with a correct understanding of reasonitself, any philosophy based on reason must be hypothetical. This point is knownas the limits of reason. According to postmodern thinkers, reason is not onlyunable to reach absolute truth, but is grounded on what is called an exclusivedisjunction; it must be one or the other, and cannot be conclusively demonstrated


to be either. Since it is based on reason in one view or the other, philosophycan never offer anything but hypothetical explanations of reality, andcertainly not absolute truth.

2. The Postmodern Divide and Revelation-Inspiration

As we have noted (§43), while classical theology taught that reasonpenetrated the core of timeless reality, Kant taught that such insight wasimpossible, even though he and subsequent modern theologians accepted theexistence of ultimate reality and God as timeless. This forced areinterpretation of the cognitive processes behind revelation-inspiration; afterall, if reason can reach only spatiotemporal objects, it cannot serve as ameans of communication between a timeless God and human beings livingin time and space.

But now, postmodern theologians not only agree that reason is limited totime and space, but following Heidegger’s reinterpretation, understand realityitself to be temporal. If there is no such thing as a timeless reality, GodHimself somehow must be temporal— and must be conceived of in acompletely different way than He has been for centuries.

Moreover, without a timeless reality, Christianity has no philosophical groundfor the traditional view of divine transcendence. In this sense, postmoderntheology is still in its infancy. The idea of a temporal God may lead Christiantheologians to some form of pantheism. If so, as the divine becomes identifiedwith time and space, there may be no room left for the notion of revelation.Revelation would be superfluous if all people, including the writers of Scripture,turn out to be part of God. A postmodern view of inspiration, through apantheistic lens, would be very similar to that espoused by modern theology. Theorigin of Scripture would still be understood as a result of human reflection andwisdom.

§63. THE POSTMODERN DIVIDE AS AN OPPORTUNITYFOR A NEW MODEL OF REVELATION-INSPIRATION


The philosophical divide created by the emergence of postmodernismprovides the perfect opportunity to introduce a new model of revelation-inspiration. As we have seen, Christian theologians have built the previousmodels based on hermeneutical presuppositions about God and human beingsderived from philosophers contemporary to them. Postmodern philosophy is onlynow emerging, but its hermeneutical presuppositions will doubtless be muchdifferent than the modern and classical views. Is there a way to break this cycleof dependence? Postmodernity allows theology a way out in two ways. First, itreveals the relativity of philosophical discourse; second, it uncovers the fact thatwhether human reason operates timelessly or temporally is simply a matter ofchoice, as either option is viable.

1. The Relativity of Philosophical Discourse: An Opening for Biblical Revelation

At the dawn of postmodern philosophy, theologians are faced with a decisionbetween timelessness and temporality. Nothing could be more diametricallyopposed than these two concepts. The question before theologians is, then,which is true?

The days of a unified theological tradition are gone. Philosophical teachingshave been shown to be mere hypotheses; the more broadly philosophers attemptto interpret reality, the more hypothetical their teaching becomes.

If the philosophies on which theology has depended are unable to arrive at anyunified understanding of reality, what does that mean for theology? By allowingfor multiple interpretations of reason, postmodernity reveals that philosophicalchanges will not necessarily lead us to any certain increase in knowledge of theworld. If philosophy and its consequent presuppositions have proved sounreliable, why should theology depend on it anymore? And if we cannot dependon philosophy, where do we go to discover the hermeneutical principles neededfor theological discourse? If reason, due to a lack of clarity on its own nature, hasshown its inadequacies and limitations for this task, we clearly do not need moreof the same. Instead of reason and naturally originated discourse, we needrevelation and supernaturally originated discourse.


Where will we find such revelation? For Christian theologians, the answershould be simple— the Bible. If the answer is so simple, then why has it not beentried so far? The postmodern understanding of reality as temporal may help usto understand why Christian theology has not explored this path.

2. Reality as Temporal and Biblical Hermeneutical Principles

Let us take a few moments to review what we have covered up to this point.As we have noted repeatedly, Christian theology has obtained itshermeneutical principles by adopting philosophical teachings (§41). Early onin the church’s history, those teachings came from the Greek tradition (§29).Chief among them was the idea that reality is ultimately timeless; Christiantheologians embraced this idea and made it foundational to their theology(§29.4). They viewed God, his nature, and acts as timeless. Likewise, sincethe human soul and its capacity for reason shared this timelessness (§29.5),God could communicate with humans through the soul (§29.6).

At the dawn of modern philosophy, Kant retained the notion of a timelesssoul, but limited reason to space and time (§43.2). For all practical purposestheologians began to understand human nature in historical terms. The theory ofevolution, for instance, replaced the idea of divine, instantaneous creation.Consequently, some Christians began to view the content of Scripture— what hadbeen known as revelation— to be the product of human imagination and tradition.They deemed supernatural revelation impossible because a timeless God cannotcommunicate with historical beings (§47). In spite of the more recent shift towarda historically based reality, the notion of divine timelessness remains active incontemporary Christian theology.

The presuppositions of both classical and modern philosophy seriouslyaffected exegesis. After all, if God is assumed to be timeless, theologiansinterpret biblical texts describing God accordingly.

But even the casual reader would notice that the Bible was writtenwithin a historical frame of mind. When theologians interpret ahistorically conceived text from a timeless, hermeneutical perspective,they displace its meaning. What the words present temporally andhistorically, theologians understand as timeless. In this setting, the text


is no longer descriptive or declarative, but metaphorical. Notsurprisingly, theologians often build their views on reinterpretations ofbiblical texts dictated by the hermeneutical presupposition of divinetimelessness. This chain of dependence on philosophy ultimately weakensthe biblical thought.

For the years that this situation remained unchallenged, there was little hopethat theologians might consider biblical thought as an alternative to philosophicalideas. A philosophical exorcism was needed to break the philosophical spell.Heidegger, whose philosophy posits a reality grounded in time, provides such aforce. To break the spell of philosophically grounded timelessness, what could bebetter than philosophically grounded temporality? Heidegger’s technicalarguments for that temporality allowed scholars to extract their groundingphilosophical ideas from the Bible itself.

To explain further, before postmodernity, theologians argued that they couldnot take a philosophical use of biblical ideas seriously. In their minds, adichotomy existed between the temporal reality depicted in Scripture, and thephilosophical presupposition that reality had to be timeless. Postmodernphilosophy accepts a temporal understanding of reality, eliminating this argumentand making it possible for theologians to make use of biblical concepts forphilosophical and hermeneutical purposes.

If we are to gain our hermeneutical presuppositions from the Bible itself,we will have corrected a long overdue methodological inconsistency. As wenoted at the beginning of this chapter, proper procedure requires that weexamine any issue on its own terms. The classical and modern models ofrevelation-inspiration disregarded this basic principle and decided theirhermeneutical principles from outside the subject of study. In stark contrast,we will define our hermeneutical principles for understanding revelation-inspiration from its results— the fact of revelation-inspiration (§13).

In the next chapter, we will examine the Bible for the hermeneuticalpresuppositions necessary to interpreting revelation and inspiration. Sincebiblical ideas work within a historical and temporal fabric, we anticipate thediscovery of some entirely new hermeneutical presuppositions. Once that iscomplete, we will be well on our way to a new model of revelation-


inspiration.

§64. REVIEW

• Insufficiency of the classical, evangelical and modern models In our search the meaning of revelation-inspiration, we cannot rely oneither the classical, evangelical, or modern models. The first two do notproperly account for the human contribution, while the latter does notproperly account for the divine.

• Going beyond the previous modelsDespite their insufficiency, earlier models have made positivecontributions to understanding of revelation-inspiration. As we constructour new model, we must learn from those contributions while avoidingtheir mistakes. We call this critical procedure “going beyond.”

• A new model of revelation-inspiration requires new hermeneuticalpresuppositions. The critical process of “going beyond” the old models does not by itselflead us to a new model; we also need new hermeneutical presuppositions.

• Postmodernity as a social phenomenonBeginning in the last decade of the twentieth century, postmodernity hasemerged as a Western social phenomenon. The conviction that all truthis relative to the culture it belongs to is a hallmark of postmodernsocieties.

• Heidegger pioneered a philosophical revolution. During the twentieth century, Martin Heidegger pioneered a revolution inphilosophy by arguing that reality was not timeless, but temporal.

• Heidegger’s view of reality departed not only from modernity, but


1 Paul Achtemeier, Inspiration and Authority: Nature and Function ofChristian Scripture (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999).

2Achtemeier explains, “Instead of constructing such explanations of Scripture tosave some prior notions of what Scripture is like critical scholars, noting that secularliterature from the ancient world frequently developed from oral accounts or from thecombination of a number of sources, ask whether that may not also by the case with theliterature contained in our Bible” (64-65). It becomes clear that the modern view of theorigin of Scripture that developed from the phenomena of Scripture became thepresuppositions for Achtemeier’s theory of interpretation. He states that “it is our task

primarily from classical Greek thought.By rejecting Plato’s two-worlds theory, Heidegger implicitly departedfrom Kant’s timeless understanding of supernature.

• Heidegger’s temporal understanding of reality renders classical andmodern notions of “absolute truth” groundless.The idea of absolute truth is based on a timeless understanding of reality andreason. As Heidegger taught that ultimate reality was not timeless buttemporal, he took the philosophical ground from underneath the idea ofabsolute truth.

• Historical reason replaces absolute reason. Historical reason works within the changing parameters of time andculture. It replaces timeless, universal, and unchanging categories ofclassical philosophy.

ENDNOTES


in the following pages to inquire about the nature of the inspiration of Holy Scripture,taking into account the discoveries about the nature of those Scriptures which have beenmade during the past century by the use of critical methods of study” (ibid., 91).

3 Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Translated by John Macquarrie andEdward Robinson (New York: Harper and Collins, 1962).

4 Hans-Georg Gadamer, Philosophical Hermeneutics, trans. David E. Linge(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976), 138-139.

5 Ibid., 139.

13. BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICALPRESUPPOSITIONS

After our brief incursion into the philosophy of postmodernity and itspotential impact on Christian theology, we are ready to turn our attention toa new model of revelation-inspiration.

§65. INTRODUCTIONOur analysis thus far tells us that past models have not satisfactorilyinterpreted the revelation and inspiration of Scripture, since they do notaccount for all relevant data. On one hand, the classical and evangelicalmodels do not satisfactorily account for the human aspects of the Bible,which are demonstrated in the phenomena of Scripture, or the characteristicsof the book as a literary work. On the other hand, the modern model accountsfor this human side, but it ignores the biblical writers’ assertion that theirwritings were of divine origin, as expressed in the doctrine of Scripture.

Most theologians and church members do not deal with this question ofrevelation-inspiration. Their religious beliefs implicitly assume one of thethree models. (This is why so many believers approach revelation-inspirationfrom a defensive perspective instead of an investigative one.)

We may well be tempted to select a model of revelation-inspiration on the


basis of the beliefs we already hold, but as we discussed in the previouschapter, we do not have to choose between fixed alternatives— especially aswe have clearly seen their deficiencies. Instead, we have chosen our ownroad, the complex task of building a new model of interpretation. I hope youfind this as challenging and exciting as I do.

The current philosophical and social climates are favorable to such anendeavor. Western culture is going through revolutionary social changes,based on a foundational philosophical change attacking the traditionalframeworks of the classical and modern worldviews (§61). Within thiscontext, we will use the same hermeneutical methodology we applied to our studyof the previous models (§2.5.c) to explore the structure of a new one. Just as theothers did, our new model must assume, by the procedures of hermeneuticalanalysis, the natures of the two agents involved in its production— God and thehuman writers (§12). In the previous chapter we showed how philosophy canonly produce tentative results, due to the limits of reason (§62.1-2).Consequently, we as Christian theologians will take the opportunity to usebiblical concepts to define the hermeneutical principles of revelation andinspiration. In other words, our new model retrieves its hermeneuticalpresuppositions from biblical thought, rather than from philosophy. Whilesuch a procedure is unusual, postmodern philosophical criticism has madeit possible (§62 and 63). In this chapter we will retrieve presuppositionsconcerning the nature of God, the nature of human beings, and the nature ofthe cognitive connection between God and human beings, or reason.

§66. THE BIBLICAL GOD AND TIMEThis section is based on our discussion of the relationship between natureand supernature in Scripture (§31). In Chapter 6, we argued that the realmof the divine or supernature as presented in Scripture was not discontinuousor incompatible with the created realms of nature and history. Contrary tothe philosophical traditions of Parmenides and Plato, the God of Scripturecan act historically. This is obvious to any casual reader of the Old and NewTestaments. The God of Scripture is not presented as somehow timeless, as

BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS 245

the classical tradition has assumed.But if God is not timeless, what is He? Should we say that God is

temporal? If God is temporal, are we not making God into our own image?We know that a timeless God cannot act in time. Such a God cannot have apast, present, or future, but is himself a complete, simultaneous wholeoutside the sequence of time. Time and temporality, in the classical schoolof thought, are characteristics only of creation. In no way can time be foundin God unless He becomes a creature.

We can, however, characterize God as timeless if we suppose He istimeless in Himself. Yet when we try to apply timelessness to God’s actions,we find many theological inconsistencies and conundrums. To dodge these,classical and evangelical theologians have done all sorts of complextheological gymnastics, eventually denying the literal text of Scripture.

Because Christian thinking has been so extensively influenced by the ideaof timelessness, we must consider the relationship between God and time.Even though Scripture clearly depicts God acting in time, centuries oftradition are not easily dismissed. If in fact God is temporal, not only do wehave to open our minds to that picture of Him, but we also must consider thelogical consequences now, to avoid later problems. Sections §67 and §68below address such questions (if the idea of a temporal God raises noquestions for you, skip these two sections and resume reading in section§69.)

Our understanding of how God relates to time will directly determine howwe understand His relationship to the Bible writers— temporal beings— in theprocess of revelation-inspiration. This is the first and most decisive of ourhermeneutical presuppositions, into which we must gain insight before wecontinue.

§67. GOD AND TIMEIn this section, we will assume that the temporal nature of God is self-evident in Scripture. This statement needs clarification.1 Scripture does


not explicitly address the question of God and time, but assumes arelationship of God to time, implicitly within the text.

In Chapter 6, we examined some preliminary biblical evidence of God’sinteraction in time, specifically His dwelling in the Israelite sanctuary in the OldTestament, and the incarnation of God in Christ in the New(§31.1a-b). There aremany other examples in Scripture; these only add consistency to the biblicalwriters’ picture of God acting historically, within time.

The Scriptural portrait of God flies in the face of the Platonic idea oftimelessness. In the Bible, God relates to people in and through time— howeveruniquely He relates to time itself. This point needs clarification for the sake of ourdeveloping hermeneutical presuppositions, especially the question of whether Godrelates to time internally, within Himself and in His own nature, or only externallyas He relates to us. But first, let me illustrate how important our understandingof God’s relationship to time is.

1. Is a Temporal God a Lesser God?

After teaching for seven hours I was exhausted. I had a few moments torecuperate before the last class of the day. With my eyes closed and my mindin neutral, I was enjoying the break— and in no mood for chatting. Suddenly,a familiar voice broke my peace and quiet. “So you teach that God is notomnipotent,” Carlos, a fellow teacher, said abruptly.

Without opening my eyes, I replied, “No.” That was clear enough, Ithought. But Carlos was not satisfied. He continued pushing me on what Iperceived as a nonissue. When Carlos said that he had recently heard sometop church administrators expressing concern about my teaching against theomnipotence of God, I opened my eyes. Carlos asked if I had possiblylearned this view from my teachers in the doctoral program. The answer tothat was also no. Where could such a rumor have originated?

Finally, I got a satisfactory explanation. Some months ago I had taughta course on Judeo-Christian thought for pastors in the field. During the class,I had taught that the God of the Bible is temporal, while the God of Greekphilosophy was nontemporal. I had added that time does not mean the samething to God as it does to us— something obvious from certain texts in the


Bible. But I did not explain the difference. This oversight must have causedthe problem.

The reasoning flows something like this: If God is temporal, He is limited.If God is limited, He cannot be omnipotent. I was not teaching that, but byomission, it followed as a logical conclusion of my statement about thetemporality of God. Ever since then I have tried to avoid that pitfall.

The temporality of God in Scripture does not leave us with a lesser Godwe need to “upgrade” with the Greek notion of timelessness. The temporalityof God does not mean He is not the Eternal One. Because He is infinite, timedoes not limit His being, even though it limits ours.

The point of our next two sections is to explain why temporality is not alimitation for God. With this objective in mind, let us begin our explorationof God’s relationship to time. Because our discussion will be limited to twosections, however, be forewarned that God’s relationship to time will bedescribed only superficially.

2. God’s Nature and Time

Classical and modern theologies do speak of a relationship between God andtime. They do not ignore our temporal reality or the fact that Scripturespeaks of God acting in time. When they read Scripture, however, theyinterpret God’s acts in history through the philosophical assumption that Hisnature is timeless. They believe God can act “in” history— just not exactlythe way Scripture describes it.

a. God “In” Time

Many theologians use the preposition “in” as a technical word to signifyactivity originating from outside time, but resulting in historical effects inhuman experience. These theologians cannot conceive of a timeless Godacting within a sequence of past, present, and future. Such an action isimpossible for God. According to this view, God does not act “within,” but“in” time and history. Acting “in” history means that the results of God’stimeless acts reach our level of space and time; in contrast, acting “within”


history means that God acts from within the continuum of created, historicaltime. The former represents how classical and modern theologies understandthe mode of God’s relationship to historical realities from outside of time.The latter corresponds to how the Bible depicts God’s actions.

A timeless view of God, then, requires a specific understanding of divineactivity substantially different from that portrayed by the Bible. Theseconvictions, in turn, become hermeneutical presuppositions for addressing thequestion of revelation-inspiration. We have already seen the results of thatapplication in the classical, modern, and evangelical models.

b. God “Within” Time

The Bible presents a God moving within the flow of history. We have describedthis as acting “historically in history” (see §31.3.a-b). This unusual phrase,“historically” indicates that as an agent, God can work within the complexcausality of human history, in a sense becoming an agent among other agents.

If the biblical picture of God acting historically in history is accurate,then God’s nature must be compatible with the flow of time. In other words,God’s nature must be temporal. To describe God as acting “within” timerefers not just to those acts, but to divine nature as well. What, then, is therelationship between time and God’s nature?

§68. TIME AND GODIn a moment, we will identify how Scripture describes God’s relationship totime; first, we must ask how time relates to God. In other words, what do wemean by saying that God is temporal?

This question is the other side of the question of timelessness we exploredearlier in our discussion on the classical view of supernature (§29.4). Welearned that the theological connotation of timelessness is different from itseveryday meaning. By “timeless,” we usually mean something that is permanent,remaining the same in spite of the passage of time. Theologically, however,“timelessness” means the total negation of time. Something similar happens when


we say that God is temporal; it has a technical meaning within our discussion thatit does not have in everyday usage.

1. Time as Transience

We habitually connect the notion of time to the passing away of reality. What istemporal will come to an end. Thus, when we assert that God is temporal, somewill automatically conclude that we believe God is transient and limited just ashumans are. Moreover, the Bible associates time with impermanence ortransience. Paul wrote that believers “look not at the things which are seen, butat the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, butthe things which are not seen are eternal” (2 Corinthians 4:18). Here, the word“temporal” (? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ?? ) literally means “transitory.” Besides, Paul tells usthat what is transient is not eternal. Since God is eternal, then, it follows that Godcannot be transient. If transience or impermanence is the meaning of time, then,the biblical God cannot be temporal. Moreover, we should avoid even suggestingit.

But since the Bible portrays God acting in history, is there a way to saythat He is temporal that will not imply transience? Is impermanence theultimate answer for the meaning of time? At first glance, the associationseems unavoidable. Moreover, that time implies finitude is not the only wayour everyday understanding of time precludes the idea of a temporal God.We also tend to picture time as a container.

2. Time as Container

Ordinarily, we picture time (together with space) as a huge container inwhich the universe is located. That container has a beginning and an end. Tobe temporal is to be in the container, and to be in the container is to belimited to its duration— to end when the container does.

If we say that God is temporal, and mean by this that He is inside thecontainer, we seem to indicate that He is as finite as everything else in thecontainer. Again, the God of the Bible cannot be temporal in this sense.

Unless we set aside our preconceptions of time as transience or as a


container, we will be blind to how the biblical authors understood God.So, we must compare our notions of time to other realities in which timeplays a role. 3. What is Time?

In this section, we will explore whether a broadening of traditional views oftime may help us to understand the biblical view of God’s temporality.

a. Time is Not a Thing.

What is time? When we say, for instance, “table” we find no difficulty inpointing to the object named by that word, or the referent of “table.” The referentof the word “time” is not so easy to locate. We usually picture a clock or what aclock “measures.” Nevertheless, the word “time” does not name or refer to theclock, the movement, or its hands or digital readout. In fact, we always definetime in reference to something else, as we are unable to locate its referent inreality. We identify time with the movement of the clock, but we cannot picturewhat it is we are measuring by the clock. The reason for this is simple: time is not“a thing,” but a quality that all things or realities have in common. Time is thebasic characteristic of reality. Reality requires time, and time always co-appearsas a quality of a real thing.

b. Time “Co-Appears” With Things.

To “co-appear” means to appear with another reality. Coappearing generallyhappens with qualities. For instance, “goodness” does not appear by itself.“Goodness” is a quality that we find, for instance, in people. The same can besaid of colors, temperature, and the like. As a quality, time occurssimultaneously with the thing of which it is a quality or characteristic. In otherwords, time is co-given to us with the realities of which it is a characteristic. Forexample, a person may be tall, a rock may be solid, the sky may be blue— but allof them also have time as a characteristic, that is, each is temporal. Moreover,time does not apply equally to all things; all things will experience theirtemporality differently, relative to the nature of their individual being. We will


explore this last point more in a moment.

c. Time Is Not a “Container.”

Unlike qualities such as colors, characteristics, or virtues, which co-appear onlywith some realities, time co-appears with everything. Time is not a thing like acontainer within which reality takes place, such as when we put water (a thing)within a bucket (another thing); that is, time is not a thing in which all otherthings have their being. Our difficulty in defining time springs from ourassumption that time is such a thing. Time never appears or is given to us as a“thing,” but co-appears with all things as a basic characteristic of their being.Things are not in time, but time is in things. Therefore, we cannot understandtime as separate from everything else; instead, we can only understand time in itsrelationship with all things of which it is characteristic. The word “time” itself isa noun, but we should think of it as functioning like an adjective.

d. Time As Past-Present-Future Flow

If time is not a thing nor a container, what is it? It is an overall qualityshared by everything we find in reality. Time is the quality by which realthings exist within a past-present-future flow.

At first glance, we have not advanced much. We have replaced the ideaof “container” with the idea of “co-appearing,” but the notion ofimpermanence still lingers in our minds. This seems inescapable; wenaturally associate temporal flow with transience. Is such association reallyunavoidable? Let us reexamine the idea of transience, but assuming time asan innate quality of being rather than a container.

e. Time As Relative to Reality

That time flows does not exhaust its meaning. However, without its flow,time would not exist. Transience, on the other hand, is not necessarily tied tothe flow of time, but to a definition of limited duration. When we say thatsomething is “transient,” we mean that such a reality has a limited temporal


duration. In Critique of Pure Reason, Kant pointed out that reason canconceive of the flow of time as either infinite or of limited duration.

But even though time is a quality of all things, it does not apply equallyto everything; instead it adapts itself to any given reality with which itcoappears. All things are temporal, but different things and beings willexperience time differently. For this reason, we do not have to think of timeas strictly either infinite or limited. Time can be of limited or unlimitedduration depending on which reality it is describing. A limited being willexperience time as of limited duration; a limitless being will experience timeas endless. Our understanding of time must be relative to whatever reality inwhich it coappears.

4. God’s temporal eternity.

If “temporality” means being within a past-present-future flow, to say thatGod is temporal does not automatically imply that He is transient. Moreover,the replacement of the idea of time as a “container” with that of time as aquality of all things should change the way we understand God’s relationshipwith time. Those who insist on seeing time as a “container” superimpose aprior definition of time over God. We can overcome this approach only whenwe understand that time is relative to the nature and activity of the thing towhich it applies. Those who realize this understand that our understandingof time does not dictate how God relates to time. On the contrary, asScripture portrays it, God’s own nature dictates how God relates to time.Briefly put, the biblical revelation of God determines the meaning of time andnot vice versa.

Consequently, biblical writers in no way detract from God’s absolutenesswhen they depict Him acting within time. God can, without contradiction,both act within time and remain intransient. Clearly, Scripture’s portrait ofa temporal God is not a logical contradiction.

§69. THE TEMPORAL GOD AS A HERMENEUTICAL


PRESUPPOSITIONAs we have studied, each model of revelation-inspiration must presupposean understanding of the nature of God. Specifically, the process ofrevelation-inspiration itself assumes an interpretation of how God acts.Those acts depend on the nature of His being. And any attempt to understandGod’s being assumes a basic interpretation of the nature of reality. This iswhere the historical-cognitive model departs from the hermeneuticalpresuppositions of the classical, modern, and evangelical models.Christianity has traditionally understood revelation-inspiration based on thenotion that God and His acts are timeless, so we are being led down anextrabiblical path. Conversely, biblical thinking on God’s being and actsimplies temporality. It is not so much the nature of God, but His actions thatbecome direct hermeneutical presuppositions for revelation-inspiration. Howare we to understand those acts?

1. The Temporality of God and the Limits of Revelation

In this section, we are dealing not with divine activity overall, but with God’sactivity within created time. Unlike divine time, created time is limited. Notonly does it have a beginning and an end; its limitation affects its quality aswell. As God’s being is unlimited and infinite, so is His time. Conversely, ascreated beings are limited and finite, so are their times. After all, time is aquality which applies to different realities according to their natures. God’shigher level of infinite temporality allows Him to act within the lesser level ofcreated temporality. Conversely, finite human temporality can never reach oreven imagine God’s infinite temporality. Although essentially different, God’sbeing and time are not so different from created beings and time thatcommunication between them is impossible. The infinite Creator and finitecreatures, different as they are, share in common, each in their own way, the past-present-future flow of reality.

Because of their shared temporality, God can communicate directly withhuman beings, doing so by adapting His thoughts to the cognitive capabilitiesof human beings. Moreover, since according to the Bible God created


humans in His image, He gave them the necessary cognitive equipment torecognize and understand direct divine communication.

While God and man are similar enough to allow communication at thehuman level, the vast differences warn us we will never fully understandGod’s being and temporality. After all, if God is God, we should expect ourknowledge of Him to be limited by our creatureliness and temporality, evenknowledge He gives us directly through revelation. 2. Revelation and Inspiration From Below

Because of his infinite temporality, God can enter the created history of ourexperience. In this adaptation, God reveals Himself from within the sequenceof time, or “from below,” rather than the “from above” of His infinitetemporality and being.

If God reveals himself within our temporal experience, that self-imposedlimitation means it is impossible for us to grasp God as He is in His infinite,transcendent being. For God to communicate to us directly, He has to speaka language lesser than his own— ours, finite to our being and our limitedtemporality. (We will say more on this when we cover human nature below.)If we are to understand Him clearly, He has to express his thoughts in a waythat can be understood at face value. Thus, we do not need to translate whatScripture says into some deeper spiritual level having to do with God’sinfinite time. If God speaks, He has taken care of any necessary translationin the process of adapting to our lower level.

That in speaking, God has abandoned His own infinitude and isexpressing Himself from below, within the flow of history, is clear from thevery first verse of the Old Testament. Genesis 1:1 states, “In the beginningGod created the heavens and the earth.” In the New Testament, the Gospelof John opens with a similar statement: “In the beginning was the Word, andthe Word was with God, and the Word was God”(1:1). Since God’s time hasno beginning, both verses place God within created finite time. God’sthoughts are adapted in revelation to our spatiotemporal limitations. He doesnot reveal Himself from outside, but from inside the historical process he hascreated.


3. Revelation and Inspiration as Historical Process

If God’s revelation is from below, within created time, that activity must followthe dynamics of human history. God reveals and inspires Scripture within thesequence of cause and effect in our spatiotemporal order. His infinite temporalityand being mean that, as Creator, He functions in a manner so much different thanours as to be incomprehensible to us. We are unable to understand God on Hisinfinite level, so He reveals himself to us on ours— the level of limited time andhistory. His direct revelation to us, by definition of “to us,” must and will alwaysbe shaped by the characteristics of our being, including our created temporality.The God of the Bible reveals Himself and His cognitive ideas through a historicalprocess.

§70. TIME AND HUMAN NATURE We turn our attention now to an understanding of human nature— the secondpresupposition for the doctrine of revelation-inspiration. First we will reviewhow the previous models understand human nature in relationship to time.

1. Time and Human Nature in the Classical and Evangelical Models

As seen previously, the classical, evangelical, and modern models assumehuman nature is a composite of body and soul. The soul is conceived as a“spiritual” substance, based on categories from Greek philosophy.

Though they have this idea of the soul in common, the modern modeldiffers from the classical and evangelical models, based on its understandingof the soul’s capacity for reason and knowledge. The classical andevangelical models assume that the soul is the location of cognition, and thattherefore revelation-inspiration happens at the level of the soul. The modernmodel, instead, believes that human cognition lies outside the soul.

In classical thinking, timelessness properly belongs to God, while timeproperly belongs to material substances, such as our bodies. As a spiritual,immaterial, incorruptible substance, the soul is not temporal as material


things are, but it is not timeless as God is either. In the technical language ofclassical philosophy, the soul exists in aeviternity, a zone or dimension ofreality between timelessness and time.2

The soul needs this intermediate state because of its direct relationship withthe temporal body, while the timeless aspect of aeviternity allows the soul accessto timeless realities. Moreover, Aquinas explains that human reason is a powerthe soul directly receives from God.3 To prepare the prophet, God elevates his orher natural, rational capabilities so they can reach the supernatural and timelessideas of God.

2. Time and Human Nature in the Modern Model

The modern model of revelation-inspiration makes no foundational changes in theclassical notion of human nature. Its proponents believe in the existence of animmortal and incorruptible soul and understand its relation to the body much asthe classical thinkers do. Consequently, human nature is still related totimelessness via the soul.

However, proponents of the modern model believe that reason functionsonly within space and time. To them, true knowledge is acquired with norelationship to the soul, but only through the five senses of our materialbodies. Knowledge cannot come from the supernatural realm, because onlythe timeless soul can contact a timeless God, and the soul is incapable ofknowledge. Cognitive revelation is deemed impossible in the modern model.

Without challenging the classical teaching on the soul, the modern modelswitched from a timeless to a temporal view of human knowledge. Asexplained earlier, this turn was not prompted by biblical teachings, but bychanges in philosophical doctrine.

3. Time and Human Nature in Scripture

The Bible neither teaches nor assumes the existence of an immortal soul. InScripture, the word “soul” refers to human nature in a variety of senses.4 Butit never presents the soul as an entity separated from the body or merely


present in the body. In fact, according to the Bible, the “soul,” as understoodby the classical, evangelical, and modern models of revelation-inspiration,simply does not exist. Men and women exist and possess a variety ofcharacteristics, diversely grouped and described under words like body, soul,spirit, heart, or mind. These biblical categories do not describe specific partsor components of human nature, but human nature as a whole.

Since biblical thinking does not support the classical notion of humannature as a soul-body composite, it does not endorse the notions oftimelessness and aeviternity either. Instead, the Bible directs us to interprethuman nature temporally, not only negatively by lending no support to theclassical view, but positively by affirming the temporality of human beings.The Old Testament explicitly declares that God placed time within humanbeings.5 That hermeneutical assumption is implicit throughout the Old andNew Testaments. Once a temporal understanding of human nature is tied toa temporal understanding of divine being and actions, we have thehermeneutical grounds for a new model of revelation-inspiration.

§71. KNOWLEDGE AND TIMEIf human nature is temporal, what about human knowledge? In other words,how are the cognitive processes involved in revelation-inspiration affected bythis new understanding of human nature? To answer these questions, we needto find out whether Scripture supports a temporal view of human knowledge,and if so, what a temporal view of human knowledge involves.

1. A Scriptural Depiction of Human Knowledge

Much as it does not directly address the temporal being of God, Scripture doesnot present an interpretation of human knowledge. The Bible writers had otherthings on their minds. But Scripture clearly assumes a temporal understandingof human knowledge.

Without the immortality of the soul, the timeless view of humanknowledge advanced by the classical model finds no support in Scripture.


Therefore, the temporal-historical understanding of human knowledge flowsfrom the fact that Scripture does not teach the immortality of the soul;instead, the temporal view of human nature implicit in Scripture (§70.3)naturally suggests a temporal-historic view of human knowledge. Toappreciate, for instance, how Jesus used historical reason, we must firstunderstand how it operates.

2. Historical Reason

To understand how reason would operate in a historical fashion, let usreview the structure of knowledge we discussed earlier (§24). In brief,knowledge operates whenever a subject, a person with cognitive capabilities,comes in contact with any given object. The relationship between thecognitive subject and the known object is the structure from which humanknowledge always originates.

a. Presuppositions of the Subject

Within this structure, both the cognitive subject and the known objectcontribute to the formation of knowledge. In the subject’s mind are categoriesor ideas that allow him or her to form concepts and judgments. Thedifference between timeless and temporal understandings of reason revolvearound the categories a person uses to form concepts and judge.

If a person believes in the existence of a timeless soul within the subject,and that reason is the highest capacity of that soul, any categoriespresupposed by the subject’s soul in the generation of knowledge andjudgments are timeless and universal. Because they are timeless, they alwaysmean the same thing at all times. Because they are universal, they operate inall rational creatures everywhere. If reason is viewed in this way, rationalknowledge will always retain the same meaning.

In contrast, if a person believes that reason is part of the temporal,historical human subject rather than part of his or her soul, the categoriespresupposed by that subject in the generation of knowledge and theformulation of judgments are temporal and personal. Because they are


temporal, they mean different things at different times in history. Becausethey are personal, they mean different things to different people. Ifknowledge is generated by the reasoning of people with different categoriesof thinking in different places and at different times, knowledge itself willmean different things at different times and in different places.

Where do these mental categories come from if they are not universal? Theydevelop out of the historical experience of the subject, beginning with the cultureto which he or she belongs. Any culture, no matter where or when it exists, hascertain beliefs about knowledge; anyone who belongs to that culture is likelygoing to accept what his or her culture believes is true. In other words, thatperson— the cognitive subject— absorbs the content of his or her conceptualcategories from his or her surroundings. Rarely are these ideas analyzed,criticized, or verified.

b. The Primacy of the Object

This conviction that human reason depends on culturally defined presuppositionsis a hallmark of twenty-first-century postmodernism. Because the categories ofreason rest on shifting historical perspectives, many postmodern thinkersconclude that all knowledge is relative to cultural development and privateperspective of human beings. Nothing could be further from the truth— once onetakes another look at historical reason.

Important as they are, presuppositions are not the only items involved inhistorical reason. Information and ideas based on concrete facts and realities givehistorical reason an anchor against cognitive relativism. It is not the set ofpresuppositions we bring to the event of knowledge, but the objects we come toknow that ultimately determine the content and veracity of historical knowledge.Thus, in an act of knowledge from the perspective of historical reason, the knownobject takes primacy over the presuppositions of the subject. This point, largelyforgotten by euphoric postmoderns each embracing their own point of view,invalidates the notion that the truth about any object is relative to the perspectiveof the subject.

The primacy of the object not only determines the accuracy of our knowledgeabout it, but if we are to know the object clinically and scientifically, it also has


the capacity to alter or refresh our presuppositions. Historical reason opposes thenotion that presuppositions are based on the arbitrary cultural origins of thecognitive subject. Instead, presuppositions are concepts formed in our minds fromprevious encounters with a particular object. The content of our presuppositions,then, is always correctable as we compare it with the object from which weoriginally received it.

c. The Primacy of Divine Revelation

In Scripture, historical reason emphasizes not only the primacy of the object,but also the primacy of divine revelation. This means that God directlydetermines the cognitive contents of revelation and the presuppositions weneed to understand them.

God does not give us a list of presuppositions in the Bible. Thepresuppositions are implicit in the text, readily available to us as we read. Aswe learn in Scripture of God’s acts and revelations, we develop ideas aboutHim and His nature. As we return to the text again and again, these ideas arecorrected, polished, confirmed, and used as presuppositions. Thesepresuppositions— based on biblical, historical reason— are not the productof human imagination, but of direct divine revelation.

d. Processing Data Historically

Because of their temporality, human beings always exist in history. They literally“belong” to a specific historical situation— that is, to a culture and community.The subject’s ability to reason receives the objects and presuppositions necessaryfor its functioning from the surrounding culture and events. Their data andpresuppositions originate in the wisdom of the community; in this sense,meanings are historically constituted. (We cannot say that in historical reasonmeanings are historically “conditioned,” as if there were another cause outsidehistory determining their contents.)

Moreover, reason itself forms its meanings through a historical process.Human reason does not reach its conclusions overnight, but requires time toobtain and process information. This is what it means for reason to operate


historically. As it experiences the present and opens itself to the future, reasongathers and stores new information within its memory. From this wealth ofexperience, the cognitive subject recognizes, interprets and evaluates new data.

By reflecting on past experiences, the subject can recognize and interpret thenotions required as presuppositions for understanding any given issue. Byapplying the correct presuppositions, historical reason can pierce more deeplyand precisely into the meaning of reality— even divine reality— presented bysupernatural revelations within space and time.

Historical reason is a never-ending process of gathering and processinginformation, on a path to true knowledge which is never complete or exhaustive.This unending process is required by the temporality of both the subject andobject in the structure of knowledge.

Temporal human beings cannot grasp any matter completely in a single actof perception. On the contrary, all perception of reality is limited and partial. Wedo not know anything in a single mere instant. To understand anything, multipleacts of perception are required. The more complex the reality we are trying tounderstand, the longer and more complex the cognitive processes are. Historicalreason is a process that never ends, but is always developing and searching fora more complete understanding of reality.

To compound the issue, reality itself is temporal and undergoingchange— further requiring that historical reason continue its process. In thetimeless view of reality, any known object is always the same; a historicalreality means that any known object is always changing. Perpetual changerequires a continuous process of revision. Because the God of the Bible is theGod of history, He always surprises us by doing new things. Consequently,as human reason becomes aware of the things of God, it must always beopen to following divine initiative, revelations, and fulfilment of Hispromises. In other words, human reason must continuously revise itsconclusions on the meaning of divine revelation. These revisions must be madebased on the primacies of the object and of divine revelation.

3. Biblical Reason

Scripture nowhere addresses the question of reason; it contains no explicit


declaration that reason functions historically. However, it references humanknowledge and the mind in ways that provide additional insights into how thebiblical writers understood reason. In this section, we will use only oneexample, in which Christ uses reason as a tool to explain the meaning of Hismission to the disciples: the meeting between Jesus and the two disciples onthe road to Emmaus after the resurrection (Luke 24:13-32).

The story is well known. Two unnamed disciples were traveling to Emmauson the resurrection Sunday, discussing the sad events of the previous week,especially the crucifixion of Christ. A stranger— Jesus Himself,unrecognized— joined them, and asked about their conversation. The downcastdisciples gave an accurate report of what had happened. They had all the correctinformation, but they completely misunderstood it— to the point where they didnot even recognize the living Jesus right next to them. Then, Jesus said to them:“‘O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into hisglory?’ Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, he explained tothem the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures” (Luke 24:25-27, NAU).

This passage exemplifies the process of historical reasoning followedthroughout Scripture by prophets and apostles. From their situation, the twotravelers had the right data, but could not understand it because they were usingthe wrong presuppositions. They had hoped Jesus was going to redeem Israel(verse 21) and were crushed when He died.

They were receiving the best revelatory data, but were not getting therevelation. Why? Because accurate knowledge of anything, including Jesus’death, makes sense only with the right presuppositional framework. Awareof this fact of human knowledge, Jesus immediately directed them to the rightpresuppositions.

Aware of how human reason operates, Jesus new that to understand thecross they needed to remember and apply the categories He had alreadyrevealed in the Old Testament writings. Another miracle would not unlockthe meaning of the cross. Even drawing their eyes to Himself as a resurrectedperson would not have served his purpose; they might believe that He wasalive. The point these two disciples could not understand was the revelation


of God’s love that had happened right before their eyes at Calvary.According to Luke’s report, these two disciples agreed with the public

perception that Jesus was a prophet. It had not dawned on them that He wasalso God and that His death and (not yet comprehended) resurrection werethe cause of their salvation. That is precisely what Christ needed to reveal tothem.

As we have studied, revelation is a matter of understanding, whichrequires the proper historical interaction of presuppositions and data. Herethe data is clear— the events climaxing in Jesus’ death. Yet, whatpresuppositions would allow these disciples to understand the data correctly?

By directing their minds to the writings of “Moses and all the prophets”(verse 27), Jesus used prior revelation as the presupposition forunderstanding the new revelatory data. New revelatory data does not becomerevelation until it is understood in its proper context. Until human reasonmakes those connections, revelatory data may be memorized, but notrecognized for what it really is.

Jesus used Old Testament revelations to bring home the new revelationabout His own death and salvific mission. In so doing, He also gave us thekey to how we should develop our theological paradigms. Revelation is notrevelation until it is understood within the context of prior revelation. Isaiahrecognized this principle when he commanded that all messages purportingto come from God should be tested according “to the law and to thetestimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because theyhave no dawn” (8:20).

Finally, Jesus clarified the revelation about his person and mission usingpresuppositions from prior, historical, revelatory teachings, not from atimeless cognitive framework. Based on this, we can safely assert that Jesusconsidered historical reasoning a necessary tool to reveal the meaning of Hisdeath to His own disciples. Because Jesus used historical reasoning with aclear revelatory goal, and the Old Testament commands us to test newrevelatory messages using historical reasoning in the form of previousrevelations, we can see that biblical revelation assumes historical reasoning.


§72. HISTORICAL REASON AS HERMENEUTICAL PRESUPPOSITIONHow a person understands human knowledge and reason determines how oneinterprets revelation-inspiration (see §10, §21-22). A new model ofrevelation-inspiration, then, requires a new presupposition of reason.

Let us review our strategy. After identifying the presuppositions inherentto any model of revelation-inspiration, we questioned the various traditionalversions of them. Do these interpretations come from Scripture? Are theycompatible with Scripture? As we have studied, not only do the traditionalunderstandings of divine and human nature not come from the Bible (§36.1,§47.2, §53), they also operate in stark opposition to how the biblical writersunderstood reality. Classical and modern philosophies understand God in atimeless sense; Scripture understands God in a temporal-historical sense (§66-68). Likewise, classical and modern thought understands human nature to betimeless due to the immortality of the soul.6 Scripture, on the other hand, saysnothing about a timeless soul and instead supports a temporal understanding ofhuman nature and knowledge more akin to postmodern philosophical positions.

If human reason operates historically, its role will make a significantdifference to our new model of revelation-inspiration. Such a viewharmonizes with and depends on a temporal-historical view of God (§69) andhuman nature. Both presuppositions stem from and complement the biblicalpicture of reality.

If human nature and knowledge are not understood to be historical, thehistorical portrait of God in Scripture will always be forced to fit somenonhistorical pattern of understanding, as in the classical and evangelical models.Without the historical portrait of God, human nature is limited to history andcannot understand divine revelation cognitively— the modern model of revelation-inspiration.

How does a historical view of human reason impact the revelation-inspiration of Scripture? We will look at four aspects, beginning with thezone of revelation-inspiration, and then exploring how historical reasonaffects the mode, limits, and nature of the revelation-inspiration process.


1. The Zone of Revelation-Inspiration

Revelation and inspiration, we have argued, take place within the “zone” orsphere of human cognition and language (§21-22). Thus, the way we interpretknowledge is one of our primary presuppositions.

2. The Mode of Revelation Inspiration

a. Mode Versus Content

Revelation-inspiration as an event of knowledge in human language has twodimensions: content and mode. Content refers to what is said in Scripture–information, notions, and reasoning. Mode refers to the characteristics of thecognitive-linguistic vehicle used to express the contents of revelation. As anillustration, consider how you obtain the news of what is happening in the world.The content consists of the facts of the various news stories; the mode, how youget that information, whether that is by radio, television, website, newspaper, oreven word of mouth. When it comes to the content and mode of revelation, wecan distinguish between but never separate them. The mode belongs to revelation-inspiration as much as its content.

We have to make that distinction, however, to help us recognize thefundamentally human aspects of Scripture. We know that revelation-inspirationis a cognitive-linguistic phenomenon, so the knowledge and language used inScripture is not divine, but human. At first glance, this affirmation may seemtrite. After all, we know that the Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, andGreek— languages all spoken at some time in history by real people.

When we examine the mode of knowledge and language, we discover threeimportant aspects of reason as a hermeneutical presupposition. These aspectsrelate to the nature and characteristics of the knowledge and language of theBible.

b. Mode: Human, Not Divine

Even though it seems obvious, we must emphasize that the knowledge and


language of Scripture are human rather than divine; this is essential to thehistorical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration. As we studied, accordingto the doctrine of Scripture, God is its originator (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter1:20-21; see also §18-19). However, the phenomena of Scripture make itclear that revelation-inspiration took place within the human mode ofknowledge. Therefore, we should not expect to find in Scripture perfectexpression, but occasional imperfections. Those imperfections one mightexpect from the human mode of knowing and communicating, however, do notextend to the content of Scripture. Perfection of content and imperfection of modeare not incompatible.

c. Mode: General Characteristics of Human Knowledge

While we cannot explore the mode of human knowledge exhaustively here wewill consider four of its general characteristics. Human knowledge is limitedin reach, partial in scope, imperfect in accuracy, and relative in objectivity.By comparison, the divine mode of knowledge is unlimited, complete inreach, perfect in accuracy, and absolute in objectivity.

Human knowledge is limited because it can never fully comprehend anygiven object with one cognitive act. We develop information and ideasthrough a succession of complementary cognitive acts. Because this processis ongoing, it gives us only approximations, never exhaustive knowledge.This limitation is also characteristic of human language. No word, sentence,or study can fully exhaust any single truth, presenting instead limitedglimpses of truth. Only the divine mode of knowledge can fully comprehendin a single act the full truth of each created reality.

Human knowledge is partial in scope because it cannot reach the fullrange of truth about all reality. Humanity has only limited access to thingsin the present, a partial and imperfect memory of past realities, and only avague view of the future. The partiality of human knowledge forces us to relyon information and ideas obtained by other human beings as limited andfallible as we are. To make sense of anything, we must follow useful, butimperfect patterns of human logic that are not completely reliable. The divinemode of knowledge, conversely, reaches all things in the present, retains a


perfect memory of the past, and has a full knowledge of the future. Becauseof the completeness of his knowledge— omniscience— God does not rely oninformation gathered by sources other than Himself. Human knowledge is accurate only by approximation. Ideas must alwaysbe open to correction, fine-tuning, and criticism as we constantly return tothe realities those ideas describe. Human language is particularly inaccurate.Several words may mean the same thing. A single word may have a varietyof unrelated meanings. The meaning of words may change according to theirposition in the sentence or the place and time in which they are used. Fullaccuracy belongs only to the divine mode of knowledge.

Finally, human knowledge can reach objective truth only in a degreerelative to its limited reach, partial scope, and approximate accuracy. Onlythe divine mode of knowledge can access the full truth about everything, dueto its unlimited reach, total scope, and exact accuracy.

These characteristics give us a summary of what we mean by the modeof human knowledge and its imperfection in comparison with the divinemode. But would not divine involvement in revelation-inspiration have towork within the limitations of the human knowing and writing? Whatever thedivine intervention in revelation-inspiration might have been, it did notmodify the human modes of knowledge and writing; that is clear from evena superficial reading of the Bible. As we interpret the process of revelation-inspiration, we have to factor in the human modes of knowledge andlanguage present in the work of the prophet.

3. The Historical Processing of Revelation-Inspiration

As we have said, there is no scriptural teaching on how reason operated in theproduction of Scripture. However, since Scripture consists of writing, andwriting is an expression of our rational capabilities, we must assume that reasonwas present in the process of revelation-inspiration. To continue developing amodel of revelation-inspiration, then, we need to come to an understanding ofhow the cognitive faculties of the biblical writer worked.

How did prophets and apostles develop their thoughts and writings?However reason operated in their minds, we must be able to harmonize it


with the expression in their thinking and writing. How we interpret the wayhuman knowledge works must be grounded and compatible with humannature; according to Scripture, that nature, together with its ability to reason,is historical (§70.3).

The historical processing of data takes place as biblical writersunderstand, select, integrate, and organize new revealed information. Theirprinciples of selection and integration, based on previous divine revelation,allow them to understand and categorize the new data. This activity isexpressed in Isaiah’s principle “to the Law and to the Testimony” (Isaiah8:20) and in the pattern of reasoning Jesus used on the road to Emmaus. Aswe will see later, the historical processing of fresh, new revelation within thehistorical-cognitive model belongs to the essence of revelation-inspiration.

4. Historical Reason and Historical Revelation: Inner Harmony

The historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration will be based on thepresupposition that biblical writers thought and wrote according to a historicalview of knowledge. As explained above, reason in the Bible obtains itsinformation and ideas from spatiotemporal realities and events (§70.3), selectsthe presuppositions or categories necessary for understanding from pastrevelations (§71.2), and processes its data following historical patterns ofunderstanding (§71.2-3).

The historical-cognitive model will be based not on the historicity ofreason, but on the historicity of God and His revelation in space and time.The Scriptural portrait of a temporal-historical God sets the stage forovercoming the noncognitive nature of the modern model. Because God’snature is temporal, He can reveal Himself, His will, and His ideas directly tohistorical human reason. Revelation is therefore simultaneously historicaland cognitive. Biblical reason is grounded on the historical revelation of God.In Scripture, reason is not independent but proceeds in openness to divinerevelation. In short, our presupposition of human nature is directlyconditioned and shaped by our presupposition of divine nature and actions.


§73. REVIEW

• The temporal nature of God is self-evident in Scripture. In a negative sense, Scripture does not provide any evidence for thenotion of a timeless God. In a positive sense, it does portray God actingdirectly and historically within the causal order of nature and history. Inthe Bible, God is purely temporal.

• Divine Acts: “within” time, not “in” timeIn the earlier models, God is timeless and can act “in” time— that is,God’s timeless action reaches time in an instantaneous present. In theBible, God acts from “within” time— that is, within the causal order ofthe historical continuum.

• What God’s temporality is not.God’s temporality does not limit his being in any way, but describesthe dynamic nature of His life. Consequently, God does not experiencetime either as transience or as a container. While human beings doexperience time as transience, the notion of time as a container is acommon misconception that applies neither to God nor to humanbeings.

• God’s temporality according to the Bible. Time is not a thing, quality, or idea we can define on our own and then applyto God. If we did, we would be applying our own limited experience of timeto God. Instead, God Himself defines divine time. Consequently, we only havelimited glimpses of what time means to God. The way Scripture speaks ofGod’s redemptive acts and the incarnation of Christ demonstrates that thedivine being experiences the very essence of time as past, present and future.

• God’s temporal eternity. God’s eternity does not depend on the nature of time, but on His own


nature. Consequently, He defines His own relationship with time. Sincehe is an eternal being, the succession of time does not limit him. Whateverthe dynamics of God’s existence are, we know according to Scripture thatGod’s eternal temporality means at the very least that He has nobeginning and no end.

• God’s temporality as a presupposition for direct, cognitive revelation.God’s temporality is a presupposition necessary for direct communicationwith historically conceived human beings. Only by directly sharing in (andwithout being limited by) our past, present, and future experience can God’scondescension take place and cognitive revelation reach the mind directly.

• God’s temporality as a presupposition for revelation-inspiration: “frombelow.”God’s temporality places His perspective in revelation “from below,” thatis, within the historical flow of events. In other words, the content ofGod’s revelation does not come “from above,” that is, a perspective oftimelessness. God creates the meanings of revelation historically.

• God’s temporality as a presupposition for revelation-inspiration: ahistorical process of divine acts.God’s temporality implies that revelation-inspiration takes place as asuccession of divine, historical acts within the flow of space and time.

• The historical nature of human beings in scriptureBiblical thinking does not subscribe to the immortality of the soul and itsimperfect timelessness (only God has perfect timelessness). The Biblepresents human nature as a holistic ensemble of many components andactivities flowing within space and time.

• Human temporality as a presupposition for human knowledge.


Since human beings are temporal in the absolute sense of excluding theexistence of an immortal, timeless soul, their cognitive activities mustalso be temporal.

• Historical reason draws its data and presuppositions from the realm ofspace and time. Historical reason depends on presuppositions that come from historical dataand events. This contrasts sharply with classical reason, where thepresuppositions and conceptual categories are derived from a timeless realm.

• Historical reason gives priority to the object. This means that presuppositions are not subject to the random whims ofhuman imagination, but from careful consideration of the objects towhich they relate.

• Historical reason in Scripture gives priority to prior divine revelation.When historical reason works as a tool in divine revelation, it draws itshermeneutical presuppositions from prior divine revelations about thesubject matter to which it relates.

• Processing data through historical reason.By belonging to a concrete historical situation and culture, historicalreason selects the presuppositions it needs from historical data.Moreover, it operates by continually gathering and evaluating informationabout reality. Historical reason finds truth, but always in a manner opento further perfection.

• Christ used historical reasoning. Although Scripture does not explicitly describe how the human reason ofits writers functioned, Jesus left us a clear example of the historicaloperation of reason in Scripture. On the way to Emmaus, the resurrectedJesus used past revelation to help his disciples understand the newrevelatory data of his own death.


• Content and mode of revelation-inspiration.The content of revelation is comprised of the information, ideas, andissues that biblical authors wrote about. The mode of revelation is thecognitive-linguistic vehicle, with all its characteristics, through which thecontents were transmitted.

• The mode of revelation as characteristics of its human vehicle. The human mode of knowledge is limited in reach, partial in scope,imperfect in accuracy, and relative in objectivity. By comparison, thedivine mode of knowledge— to which we have no access— is unlimited,complete in reach, perfect in accuracy, and absolute in objectivity.

• The human mode of knowledge as a presupposition of revelation-inspiration. Because human knowledge and writing are the vehicles by which God’struth has been given to us, the knowledge present in Scripture is of thehuman mode. Due to its divine origin, the truth of revelation is perfect,while the cognitive-linguistic vehicle in which it is expressed is imperfect.We can distinguish between the content and mode of revelation-inspiration for the sake of analysis, but we cannot separate them inpractice, for example in exegesis. The divinely-originated content ofScripture is perfect, but shares in the imperfections of its cognitive-linguistic vehicle.

• Historical reason as a presupposition of revelation-inspiration. Because Scripture was given in human thought and language, we have toassume that historical reason was operative as the contents of the Biblewere created. The biblical writers processed their data historically as theyunderstood, selected, integrated and organized new revealed informationand ideas. To do this, they applied to the new data categories forunderstanding, principles of selection, and integrative patterns all derivedfrom previous divine revelations.


1 For information about the biblical view of God as temporal, see my ACriticism of Theological Reason: Time and Timelessness as PrimordialPresuppositions, Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, vol.10 (Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1983), chap. 3; cf. John E.Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove:InterVarsity, 1998).

2 According to Aquinas, aeviternity is a subdivision of eternity and, therefore,is not involved in time. The being of aeviternal things “neither consists in change,nor is the subject of change; nevertheless they have change annexed to them eitheractually, or potentially” (Summa Theologicae, Ia. 10.5). The changes that are“annexed” to the soul include choice, intelligence, affections, and places (ibid.).Apparently the being of the soul is timeless, but its life tends toward temporality.The idea of annexation reinforces the idea that the soul exists timelessly, but isable to act within temporality. Aquinas asserts that since the soul will have avision of glory, it will have a share in eternity (ibid., obj. 1). In the end,timelessness properly belongs to God and only in a derivative manner to the soul.

Of course, the annexation of the temporal characteristics mentioned above aredue to the Aristotelean monism on which Aquinas builds. The soul has temporal

• Historical reason and God’s revelation: inner harmony.In the process of revelation-inspiration, historical reason derives itsinformation and ideas from the spatiotemporal revelation of God; selectsthe presuppositions or categories for understanding from prior episodesof revelation-inspiration; and processes its data, all following the patternof God’s redemptive activities in space and time.

ENDNOTES


annexations because it has been designed by creation to function in the body. Forthis study, however, we must remember that in the classical model, the intellectoperates in order to reach timeless truths. In patria, that is in heaven, the soul willbe freed from bodily limitations and will have life exclusively in eternity.

3 Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Ia. 79.44 For a summary introduction to the ways Scripture uses the concept of the soul, see

Samuele Bacchiocchi, Immortality or Resurrection? A Biblical Study on Human Natureand Destiny (Berrien Springs: Biblical Perspectives, 1997), 39-154.

5 “He created everything beautiful in its time; he also put eternity in theirheart(s), without which man does not find the work that God made from thebeginning to the end” (Ecclesiastes 3:11, my translation).

6 The modern model, in spite of its acceptance of the immortality of the soul, leanstoward a temporal understanding of human nature. This leaning flows from theemphasis on the historical limitations of human knowledge as historical consciousness(§47.2.b).

14. METHODOLOGICAL REMARKS

The need for and creation of the historical-cognitive model rests on three pillars.First, previous models have not satisfactorily explained the origin of Scripture ina way that accounts for both the Bible’s teaching about itself and its phenomena(Chapters 8, 10, and 11). Second, postmodernity has thrown a mantle ofsuspicion and relativity over the philosophical bases of those models (Chapters9 and 12). Finally, to be faithful to basic scholarly procedure, we must examinethe object of our study— Scripture— on its own terms. We have decided to startwith the Bible itself to find the hermeneutical presuppositions on which we arebuilding the new model (Chapter 13).

We have already begun its construction by discussing the philosophicalframework that makes the historical-cognitive model possible. In Chapter 12,we became aware of the revolution that took place in postmodern philosophy.That philosophy has deconstructed the classical and modern philosophicalsyntheses from which Christian theology historically has drawn itshermeneutical presuppositions. The next question is this: if philosophy haschanged its teachings yet again, why should Christian theologians return toit for another theological framework that someday will be outdated?

In Chapter 13, we unearthed what is probably the best-kept secret in thehistory of theology: Scripture supplies its own interpretive principles. The writersof Scripture were master theologians. Christian theology needs neither theclassical nor modern interpretations, and never has.

METHODOLOGICAL REMARKS 277

These two realizations enable the historical-cognitive model to usepostmodern hermeneutical insights to build its hermeneutical presuppositions onthe Bible. Thus, the historical-cognitive model remains faithful not only to thedoctrine and phenomena of Scripture, but also to the biblical understanding ofGod and human nature— the basic presuppositions needed for understandingScripture. It so happens that the historical-cognitive model operates withinpostmodern deconstruction-construction dynamics, and searches for truth alongtemporal-historical interpretation of Scripture and reality. In this chapter, we will briefly discuss some methodological matters for thenew model, something we must do because we are engaged in a systematicconstruction. In Section 2, we were not constructing the classical, modern, andevangelical models, but describing and evaluating them. Consequently, we chosea tool appropriate to the task, the model methodology (Chapter 7). As our goalchanges, however, so must the tools we use.

Before considering the historical-cognitive model any further, then, wemust survey the road ahead. In other words, we need to look at the broadshape of the systematic approach we will use in the following chapters.

These are the basic points. First, we will focus on the interpretive goal of ourstudy. Then we will reflect on the relative originality of the historical-cognitivemodel. Next, we will have a preliminary look at how revelation will beunderstood in the model. After this, we will review the problem that all modelsof revelation-inspiration attempt to understand: the dual authorship of Scripture.Subsequently, we will study the general hermeneutics biblical writers used inwriting Scripture. Finally, we will briefly discuss how all models of revelation-inspiration, including the historical-cognitive model, develop from a rational,relative understanding of hermeneutical presuppositions.

§74. INTERPRETIVE AIMOur goal in this study is to understand the cognitive-linguistic origin of Scripture.This must be kept constantly in mind as we develop the historical-cognitive modelas an alternative to earlier models. We are not, however, trying to develop acomplete doctrine of revelation-inspiration. We will attempt only to outline a


model. As we discussed earlier, models only describe general patterns ofexplanation; in practice, these patterns take various concrete forms in the processof developing complete doctrines or teachings (§33-34). That said, we willintroduce the foundations for a doctrinal treatment of the origin of Scripture.You will remember this approach from our discussions of the classical,evangelical, and modern models. Our exploration of the historical-cognitivemodel will cover all the basic aspects involved in revelation-inspiration, butthe door remains open for further development of the historical-cognitivemodel into a complete doctrinal exposition.

This new model is based on presuppositions presented in the Bible itself.Thus, we will assume that as Scripture implies, reality is temporal andhistorical rather than timeless as the previous models asserted. On that basis,the historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration is not only biblical,but postmodern.

§75. ORIGINALITY? Since the Bible says “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9),I am reluctant to claim originality for this model. While this particularexpression of it is new, the historical-cognitive model may be defined as asystematization of a variety of ideas espoused by Christians throughouthistory. Since these views did not fit generally accepted philosophicalpresuppositions, they never gained acceptance or systematic expressionin leading theological circles. Now that the rise of postmodernism hasundermined those old presuppositions, the church is becoming willing toconsider alternate patterns of explanation thus far considered taboo byestablished theological traditions.

In a sense, the historical-cognitive model expresses in a technical,systematic way the view of revelation-inspiration that arises from a naivereading of Scripture. Any originality is in its theoretical and systematiccoherence.


§76. PRIMACY OF REVELATION OVER INSPIRATIONBefore we immerse ourselves in a new interpretation of revelation, let usconsider a distinctive feature of this model. This point offers a valuableperspective into how the historical-cognitive model works. In theirinterpretation of the Bible’s origin, the models surveyed so far haveemphasized the process of writing. After all, Scripture exists becausesomebody wrote it. Revelation is always considered by the other models, butinvariably plays a secondary role to inspiration. Let us review the othermodels on this point.

1. Classical and Evangelical Models

In both the classical and evangelical models, revelation extends to only someparts of Scripture. Most of the Bible consists of information and ideas theprophets and apostles obtained from natural sources and which was availableto their contemporaries. But since all of the Bible must be considered to beof divine origin, these models must emphasize inspiration rather thanrevelation. God is not responsible for all the ideas in Scripture, but He isresponsible for choosing every word.

2. The Modern Model

The modern model developed as the theoretical side to the historical-criticalmethod of exegesis. That method assumed Scripture came to existence justlike any other ancient document— that is, it was written by a human beingwithout divine aid. The Bible writers were prompted to write by anexistential, noncognitive experience. Consequently, the modern idea ofrevelation leaves the origins of the biblical content to the cultural originatedknowledge of biblical writers When biblical writers tried to express in wordsthe feeling they got from the encounter, they drew from natural sources andhuman reflections to explain what happened. Revelation itself had no contentat all, so according to the modern model, inspiration has total primacy.


3. The Historical-Cognitive Model

The doctrine of Scripture tells us not only that “all Scripture is inspired by God”(2 Timothy 3:16), but also that God “spoke long ago to the fathers through theprophets in many portions and in many ways” (Hebrews 1:1). The first text tellsus that God is behind all Scripture. The second tells us that in the developmentof Scripture, God did not always act in exactly the same way. To know how Godworked, we must consider His involvement in the phenomena of Scripture. Thiswill enable us to understand how divine action functioned in the origination ofScripture.

Following the doctrine of Scripture, the historical-cognitive model departsfrom tradition by prioritizing revelation over inspiration. Scripture in itsentirety originates from the process of revelation. The primacy of revelationover inspiration translates into a more extensive and detailed treatment of theformer and less extensive for the latter. While the other models revolvedaround their view of inspiration (writing), the historical-cognitive modelrevolves around the notion of revelation.

The primacy of the process of revelation over the process of inspirationrequires a careful rethinking of revelation as it relates to the origin ofScripture. We must understand how Scripture originated through divinerevelation and was written by divine inspiration. We can broaden the reachof revelation to the entire Bible only by broadening the notion of revelationitself.

How, then, do we broaden the notion of revelation? How do we know howbroad or narrow the revelation was that gave us the Bible? The answer issimple. We can obtain our goal by integrating relevant data from both thedoctrine and the phenomena of Scripture. We are ready now to consider thenotion of revelation.

§77. THE QUESTION OF DUAL AUTHORSHIPHow did the contents of Scripture come to be? We know that other books are


the products of human cognitive and linguistic processes. If this is all thereis to it, Scripture obviously results from human cognitive and linguisticactivities. A doctrine of revelation-inspiration would becomes unnecessary.

What complicates this picture is the fact that Scripture presents God asthe author of its contents (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21; see also §18 and§19). From this biblical conviction arises the problem of revelation-inspiration motivating our study.

The problem of revelation springs from two apparently contradictorykinds of evidence, both flowing from the fact of revelation-inspiration. Onone hand, the Bible claims to be as a whole a direct expression of the wisdomand will of God. Yet on the other hand, Scripture itself admits that humanbeings did the actual writing. Whatever the origin of the Bible, we must keepin mind this simultaneous, dual authorship. The goal of the doctrine ofrevelation-inspiration is to clarify this problem.

Of course, dual authorship cannot mean the same thing it does whenapplied to books written exclusively by human beings. Previously, wesuggested considering the dual authorship of Scripture under the ghostwriteranalogy (cf. §19.8). In this chapter we must clarify how it took place. Whatdid God as original author do, and what did the human authors asghostwriters do? How did ideas, information, and words emerge from theunique dynamics of this relationship?

§78. THE HERMENEUTICALSTRUCTURE OF REVELATIONRemember, we are using the notion of “revelation” in the restricted sense, that is,to how the information, ideas, and teachings in Scripture came to the minds ofbiblical writers. Somehow, the dual authorship of the Bible generated its content,beginning with revelation. Revelation is never an isolated or arbitrary actionof God; He has to reveal to someone. Revelation always takes place througha concrete, cognitive relationship between God and the biblical writer.

1. Hermeneutics in the Process of Revelation


The historical-cognitive model works with the postmodern principle that allknowledge involves an interpretation. At the outset of our study, weexplained the revolutionary conviction that all human knowledge begins withpresuppositions, and that presuppositions are always relative to somehistorical subject, such as community, culture, or events. Therefore, no twohuman beings will understand any one text in exactly the same way (§2.5.c).

Consequently, the field of hermeneutics applies not only to theologianssearching for an understanding of revelation-inspiration, but also to thatprocess itself. Specifically, we need to clarify the concrete, hermeneuticalpresuppositions of the biblical writers through which they understood God’scognitive disclosures, and how those presuppositions shaped the contents ofScripture. But, first, we must describe the hermeneutical structure of therevelation process itself.

2. Revelation as “Dialogical” Activity

As just noted, revelation always results from the joint activity of God andprophets. The classical and evangelical models understand the inspiration ofScripture to be a joint activity, called “concurrence” by some evangelicaltheologians. However, none of them recognize a joint divine-human activityin revelation. Proponents of the historical-critical method understandrevelation to be a joint non-cognitive encounter.

In the historical-cognitive model, revelation takes place as a subject-object relationship following a “dialogical” dynamic or form. As he receivesdivine communication, the prophet performs the role of subject. The contentsof the communication are the object. Revelation— the content the prophetwill eventually write down as Scripture— results from what God and theprophet each bring to this cognitive event. But how does God communicate?

3. Divine Communication as Meaningful Forms

In the historical-cognitive model, divine communications are not God’s ownideas, as in the classical and evangelical models, nor are they merely His owndivine being as in the modern model. Instead, divine communication occurs


through “meaningful forms.” Here we use the word “meaningful” in atechnical sense indicating that the forms signify specific ideas, ormeanings— they are “meaning-full.” According to Emilio Betti, a mindinitiating communication produces a variety of such “ meaningful forms.”1

When the mind in question is human, these forms may range “from fleetingspeech to fixed documents and mute remainders, from writing to chiffres[encoded messages] and to artistic symbol, from articulate language tofigurative or musical representation, from explanation to active behaviour,from facial expression to ways of bearing and types of character.”2

The contents of Scripture, however, are cognitively communicated byGod. Since God’s mind is capable of functioning not only according to itsown divine patterns but also according to the lower levels of human beings,we may logically assume that any meaningful form that can be produced bya human mind can also be created by the divine mind.3 (Of course, becauseof his divine nature, God is able to create meaningful forms in patternsbeyond the range of human cognition and action. Even then, however, Godwould be producing these forms within the realm in which human cognitionworks— historically, within space and time.) Revelation therefore assumesthat God condescends to work at the level of human, historical cognition.4

4. Human Reception of God’s Meaningful Forms

Still, God’s creation of meaningful forms is not the only component ofrevelation’s cognitive content. The meaningful form must be received andprocessed by the human being. God produces the meaningful forms withinthe limited range of human reason, so the human being does not have totranslate them from a divine into a human field. Moreover, the contents ofrevelation are always characterized by the interaction between God’sgenerated meaningful forms and their reception by the prophet. Godcontributes meaningful forms and the prophet contributes the interpretive,hermeneutical patterns for understanding them.

The contents of Scripture, then, integrate knowledge between God’sgeneration of meaningful forms and their interpretation through the prophet’shermeneutical presuppositions. This is how both God and the prophet


contribute to the content of revelation. We will now examine the participationof each in greater detail.

§79. HERMENEUTICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS AT WORKYou have probably noticed by now that we are operating under a specific setof hermeneutical presuppositions. The modern model of revelation wouldreject everything we just said, for example (§78). No theologian followingthe modern model would dare to suggest that revelation always takes placeas a concrete, cognitive relationship between God and the biblical writer. Formodern thinkers, revelation is never a cognitive act on the part of either Godor human beings; it is an emotional contact at best. The difference, of course,is that both the modern and the historical-cognitive views must presupposecertain issues— and since they presuppose directly opposite views of divineand human nature, their interpretations of revelation directly contradict.

Why is it that what is obvious for one model is not for the other? Why is itthat alternate models adopt completely opposite views about the same thing? Theanswer is simple. Each view must presuppose previous definitions about relatedissues. The definitions of these issues can be, and actually are, understood indifferent, even contradictory, terms. The modern and the historical-cognitivemodels disagree on the notion of revelation-inspiration, then, because they definethe question of divine and human natures in divergent ways.

In Chapters 9, 12, and 13, we considered how proponents of the modernand historical-cognitive models understand divine and human nature. If theyare unaware that their views depend on their presuppositions, practitionersof these models may consider our analysis in these chapters unnecessary. Butour study is based on the fact that we must understand hermeneuticalpresuppositions to understand revelation-inspiration.

In fact, practitioners of different models of interpretation cannot evencommunicate until they are aware of the presuppositions behind theirrespective theological positions. Our hermeneutical presuppositions arebased on taking what the Bible says at face value; as we outlined in Chapter13, revelation in the Bible is by definition cognitive.


In that respect, the historical-cognitive model has some ground incommon with the classical and evangelical models. The latter two, however,understand the cognitive nature of revelation much differently. Thisdifference springs from a substantial disagreement on divine and humannature. As we have noted, the classical and evangelical views understand thenatures to be timeless, while our new model understands them to betemporal.

Why should we accept one interpretation of the hermeneuticalpresuppositions over the others? The answer rests on the phenomenologicalprinciple, in which we interpret things according to themselves, or on theirown terms. While the classical, evangelical, and modern models build theirviews on extrabiblical philosophy, the historical-cognitive model makes aconscious effort to take its presuppositions about Scripture from Scriptureitself. Consequently, the historical-cognitive model seems to have a betterway of integrating all the data relevant to the doctrine of revelation-inspiration— that is, the doctrine and phenomena of the Bible.

This fact does not make the other models contradictory, groundless, orirrational. However, it demonstrates the soundness of the historical-cognitivemodel’s presuppositional ground. The final test is how it integrates thedoctrine and phenomena of Scripture. This will become evident as we furtherdescribe the model.

§80. REVIEW

• A model, not a doctrine.Our presentation in Chapter 15 will not be a complete doctrinaldevelopment, but a brief summary of the general characteristics of thehistorical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration. We will have to omitmany details for the sake of clarity.

• The historical-cognitive model is only relatively original.The historical-cognitive model we will analyze in the following chapters is not


a unique idea. In fact, many of its aspects were already present in previousmodels. The process of going beyond previous models must include holdingon to the aspects we found helpful. Those ideas accurately based on thedoctrine and phenomena of Scripture we will systematically integrate usingbiblical hermeneutical presuppositions.

• Primacy of revelation over inspiration.The historical-cognitive model emphasizes the process of revelation.Revelation is the primary divine-human action behind the dual authorship ofScripture. Inspiration polishes the revealed contents in the process of oral orwritten communication. Inspiration is thus subordinated to revelation.

• Dual authorship.On one hand, Scripture claims to be a direct expression of the wisdom andwill of God. On the other hand, Scripture itself admits human beingsperformed the actual writing. All models of revelation-inspiration attempt toanswer this dual-authorship problem.

• Hermeneutics in revelation.The historical-cognitive model assumes that the process of revelationintegrated the hermeneutical presuppositions of biblical writers. Wheredid they get those presuppositions? What were they?

• Revelation as a divine-human dialogue.The historical-cognitive model understands the dual authorship of Scriptureto take place as a divine-human “dialogue” at the level of revelation ratherthan as a “concurrence” within inspiration. We should not conceive of Godas operating through the Holy Spirit to miraculously guide the writing of theprophet. Instead, God uses a communicative or dialogical pattern in whichdivine and human agencies interact within the spatiotemporal flow of history.

• Divine communication in meaningful forms.Dialogue takes place as communication between two persons. It can


1 Emilio Betti explains that “ meaningful forms” (sinnhaltige Formen) are “to beunderstood in a wide sense as an homogeneous structure in which a number ofperceptible elements are related to one another and which is suitable for preserving thecharacter of the mind that created it or that is embodied in it” (Hermeneutics as theGeneral Methodology of the Geisteswissenschaften, 54). In his groundbreaking treatiseon interpretation, Betti refers to “ meaningful forms” as “forma rappresentativa.”“Forma” is understood in the most general way as “di rapporto unitario di elementisensibili, idoneo a serbare l’impronta di chi l’ha foggiato o di chi lo incarna (es.: il visodi una persona)” [“of the unitary relations of the sensory elements suitable to keep the

consist of speech, written documents, secret symbols, art, music,behavior, posture, or facial expression.5 We refer to all these means ofcommunication as “meaningful forms.” God generates the contents ofScripture through meaningful forms within human history. The historical-cognitive model begins by identifying which meaningful forms God choseto communicate with the prophets.

• Divine-human dialogue generated the content of Scripture. The contents of revelation are always the result of the reception of God’smeaningful forms by the prophet. The contents of revelation always resultfrom a harmonious integration of knowledge stemming from God and theprophet. In other words, God contributes meaningful forms and theprophet contributes the hermeneutical patterns for understanding them.

• Models build on hermeneutical presuppositions. Like the classical and evangelical models, the historical-cognitive modelunderstands revelation as cognitive. But because they disagree on divineand human nature, what they mean by cognitive communication is alsodifferent. While the classical view understands both God and humannature in a timeless fashion, the historical-cognitive model understandsthem temporally.

ENDNOTES


imprint of that which has formed it or of that which incarnated it (eg. the face of aperson)].” While “rappresentativa” is understood “nel senso che attraverso la formadebba rendersi a noi riconoscibile, facendo appello alla nostra sensibilità e intelligenza,un altro spirito diverso dal nostro e tuttavia intimamente affine al nostro” [“in the sensethat through the form it must render itself recognizable to us, calling on our ownsensitivity and intelligence, a different spirit from ours and still intimately connectedto our spirit.”] (Teoria Generale della Interpretazione [Milano: Dott. A. Giuffrè,1990], 62) Translation mine.

2 Betti, Hermeneutics as the General Methodology of theGeisteswissenschaften, 53. See also idem, Teoria Generale della Interpretazione,60.

3 The modern model recognizes that revelation is an act “from mind to mind.”Yet in revelation, God does not act within the human level of cognition. Themind-to-mind encounter is not “a body of information concerning certain thingsabout which we might otherwise be ignorant” or “information about God, but thevery God Himself” (Jack W. Provonsha, “Revelation and History,” AUSS 2 [1964]:111-112). See also Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1:241.

4 The concept of God’s condescension is not new. For an exploration of this idea inthe context of the doctrine of revelation-inspiration, see Bernard Ramm, SpecialRevelation and the Word of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 31-52.

5 Betti, Hermeneutics as the General Methodology of the Geisteswissenschaften,53.

15. GOD’S ROLE IN REVELATION

We have covered all the necessary introductory ground and at last are readyto explore the broad contours of the historical-cognitive model. This modelemphasizes revelation, which takes place through what we have termeddialogical activity between God and the human writers (§78.2); now we mustexplore how each agency operated in that process. In this chapter, we willidentify God’s leading intervention in revelation. In Chapter 16, we willconsider the human author’s role. Finally in Chapter 17, we will present themain patterns of dialogue through which the divine and human agenciesproduced Scripture.

In this chapter, then, as we explore the aspects of God’s contributions torevelation, we will look at the general modes of divine activity and the sources ormeans of revelation he employed to communicate with biblical writers.

§81. MODES OF DIVINE ACTIVITYDivine communication takes place through the production of meaningfulforms. Traditionally, Christianity has identified revelation with only thoseforms which are supernaturally originated. In this view, God did not createthe meaningful forms through natural processes; neither could the biblicalwriters have altered those forms as they received them from God. The


historical-cognitive model allows each of these possibilities their proper placein the framework of revelation.

1. Divine Activity

The broad subject of divine activity is limited, for our purposes, to the idea ofprovidence. This term is “concerned with God’s action in our world, and withhow, according to Scripture, that activity is carried out.”1

Divine providence has been interpreted in various ways. The historical-cognitive model agrees with the classical and evangelical views that Godacted through providence in a historical process of revelation-inspiration. Butthe classical and evangelical views assume a view of providence based on thetimelessness of God, whereas the historical-cognitive model assumes thatGod’s being is temporal, not limited to created time but compatible with it.

Recently, several evangelical theologians have raised their voice against theclassical interpretation of providence in a view known as “Open Theism.” Theirposition is similar to that of this book— that God is temporal, not timeless.Consequently, John Sanders and others have come to view providence in a similarsense as well.2 This open view understands God’s activity as the Bible depictsit, from inside the temporal flow of created time rather than from outside asin the classical and traditional evangelical views. In the historical-cognitivemodel, God creates the meaningful forms within time to communicate themto the prophet in revelation. God’s providential activities, of which theproduction of meaningful forms is one example, can operate in either an “open”or “stealth” mode.

2. The “Open” Mode of Divine Activity

Anyone who has heard Bible stories knows about the supernatural or“miraculous” mode of divine activity— biblical miracles. When God’s actioninterrupts the flow of natural cause and effect, we say He has performed amiracle. Generally, God chooses to perform miracles in a quiet way withoutexternal signs, while on some occasions they are accompanied byextraordinary external manifestations. A cancer patient who suddenly

GOD’S ROLE IN REVELATION 291

recovers after years of prayer by her church is an example of a quiet miracle,while the descent of the Holy Spirit on the apostles at Pentecost in Acts 2was a miracle accompanied by great wonders. In revelation, Godoccasionally generates meaningful forms through this “open-miraculous”mode of operation, with or without external signs.

3. The “Stealth” Mode of Divine Activity

God’s actions do not always break the laws of nature and history. But whenhe works within those laws, the activity cannot be perceived by humanbeings.

For instance, during His incarnation, Christ generally acted within thelaws of nature and history. His disciples only rarely perceived his divinitydirectly, such as at the Transfiguration or after the Resurrection. Most of thetime, they observed Christ operating within the laws of cause and effect, sothey perceived and related to Him as to a fellow human being. Christ’sdivinity, however, was present in “stealth” mode. The miracles Heperformed— which were, of course, within the “open” mode of action— were“pointers” to His divinity. John in his gospel calls them “signs” and“wonders” (John 2:23, 3:2, 4:48, cf. Matthew 17:2; Mark 9:2).

Yet, we know that not only His miracles, but everything Christ did, cameout of His divine-human being. The divine was indivisibly, constantlypresent, but in a stealthy, nonmiraculous mode. This brings us to a veryimportant point. Many Christians incorrectly assume that God’s activity isalways miraculous. However, the incarnation of Christ demonstrates thatGod not only operates nonmiraculously, but does so pervasively andprimarily. In providence, the stealthy, nonmiraculous mode of divineoperation is the usual and continuous one, while the miraculous or openmode is sporadic. We must keep this in mind as we study revelation. Ascientific approach to nature and history will admit only to clearly discerniblenatural and historical causes. In Christian theology, however, the believerknows by divine revelation that natural and historical causes are sustainedand guided by God (Acts 17:28). We cannot perceive or detect this divineactivity because God is operating in stealth-nonmiraculous mode.


In revelation-inspiration, we find God acting both miraculously andnonmiraculously. Just as in providence, the miracles are easier to recognizethan the hidden activities. We should be careful not to conclude that actionsor ideas of miraculous origin and mode are more divine, certain, or true thanthose coming in the stealth-nonmiraculous mode.

If we understand these two modes, we can better appreciate the varietyof ways God communicated with his prophets, and can classify the patternsof divine revelation. He gave them His divine meaningful forms in bothways— openly and stealthily, directly and indirectly, with and withoutmiraculous intervention.

Using those terms together, we can classify the means of revelation in thefollowing matrices:

1)Open-miraculous-direct (theophanies, visions, dreams, and miracles);2)Open-miraculous-indirect (previous revelation); 3)Stealth-nonmiraculous-direct (Jesus Christ, history, and nature);4)Stealth-nonmiraculous-indirect (reports others make about Jesus Christ, previous revelations, history, and nature).

As one can see Jesus, previous revelations, history, and nature are receivedby prophets both directly (cf. §82) and indirectly (cf. §83).

§82. DIRECT SOURCES OF REVELATIONIn this section we will refer to “sources” or “means” of revelation; theseinterchangeable terms refer to the meaningful forms God uses to expressHis views, but from differing perspectives; “means” refers to God’sperspective on a meaningful form, whereas “source” describes how thebiblical writer views it. In other words, for God, meaningful forms are themeans or resources by which he communicates; the human writer receivesthrough what he perceives as sources. From both perspectives, themeaningful forms are the objective means of communication from God tothe writer.

For revelation to happen, God must originate some means ofcommunication for the prophet to receive as a source of information. It must


integrate the meaning God intends with what He knows to be the biblewriter’s presuppositions as he will receive the meaningful forms. We willcome to this point later.

God initiates revelation in so many different concrete ways (Hebrews 1:1)that we will never know them all unless He someday tells us. But the doctrineand phenomena of Scripture tell us of at least some of these means throughwhich God communicated His will and teachings to the bible writers.

The bible writers experienced these sources of revelation personally, in spaceand time. Some of them came out of God’s open-miraculous-direct mode ofoperation, through sources such as theophanies, dreams, and visions; others,from his stealth-nonmiraculous-direct mode, such as in history and nature. Herewe will identify a few of the ways God communicated the meaningful forms ofrevelation. 1. Theophanies

By now we know that the God of Scripture was able to act historically. Ourquestion is not whether God communicated with the prophets, but how. Toanswer this question, we have chosen to depend directly on the teachings ofScripture; God may well have used other forms or means of communication.We must always remember that our knowledge of God, even through hisrevelation, is limited.

The meaningful forms God used for communication can be groupedaccording to the mode of divine activity that generated them. We find inScripture open-miraculous sources of revelation, notably, theophanies(Genesis 35:9; Exodus 3:2, 6:3; 24:10, 34:5; Deuteronomy 31:15; Judges6:11-24), dreams, and visions (Numbers 12:6; 1 Samuel 3:1; Jeremiah14:14; Hosea 12:10; Joel 2:28; Acts 2:7). Because biblical authorsexperienced theophanies in space and time, they are open-miraculous-directsources of revelation.

The word theophany comes from the Greek words ? ? ? ? (“God”), and ? ? ?? ?(“to shine”). Thus, “theophany” literally means “God shines.” This literalmeaning probably refers to the shining light associated with some instances ofdivine theophany, such as in Matthew 17:2 or Acts 9:3. Theologically, however,


the word refers to God’s direct presence in our spatiotemporal world; whentheophany happens in the Bible, God is presenting Himself to human beings. Onthose occasions, God as a divine subject or agent is really present at a location intime and space in what is usually thought of as the “closed” continuum of humanhistory. Because of this direct, actual presence, God can act within the laws ofcause and effect without breaking the continuity of its relationship.

In the classical and modern models, however, a theophany is merely anexternal manifestation of His being “for us.” Because God’s nature istimeless, He cannot be truly present in time and space. Classical and moderntheologians understand any such appearance of God as a symbol pointing tothe timeless being of God. As a symbol, the appearance must not be confusedwith the real God who always stays behind and beyond the reality of theappearance. According to these other models, a theophany is never the directpresence of God within space and time, but is only a symbol of His timelesspresence in eternity, which to God is the neverending now.

In the historical-cognitive model, divine theophanies are the basis and centerfor all the other modes and patterns of revelation. Because God presents Himselfin space and time, we know that the meaningful forms present in thosetheophanies, whether literal or in dreams and visions, proceed directly from God.By the same token, we know that the literal spatiotemporal meanings of theseforms accurately describe God’s being and actions. God’s temporality, howeverinfinite, enables Him to communicate literally and directly with his finite humancreatures. God speaks to the prophets directly in their own thought patternsand language. Whatever knowledge God gives them in revelation directlydescribes whatever He is referring to, be it part of God’s creation or GodHimself.

Divine communication always involves divine condescension. In otherwords, to communicate, God purposefully descends from His level ofexistence to the level of created human existence. Nothing prevents God fromcreating meaningful forms of communication which make obvious and opensense in the space and time of human experience.

While it goes beyond the biblical description of God to say He has a mouthlike we do, He certainly can utter the sounds required for oral communication


(for example, Matthew 3:17). He can communicate in human language. Heknows the meaning we give to our words and uses them accordingly to speak tothe prophets. (While God communicates directly, that does not mean we knowGod’s being directly or completely as He knows Himself. Scripture tells us God’srevelation is fragmentary and dimmed by our present state of sin, for example inIsaiah 59:2.)

At times, theophanies occur within dreams or visions. In such cases, wehave a theophanic context, but not a theophany proper. The meaningfulforms God gives in dreams and visions are similar to those in “normal”theophanies. These forms are primarily words (Ezekiel 1:28), acts (Ezekiel1:12), representations (1 Kings 22:19-22), symbols (Ezekiel 1:15-16), andfigures (Ezekiel 1:5; Isaiah 6:1). As forms of communication, there isnothing supernatural in them. Humans have used these meaningful forms tocommunicate with each other since creation itself. God speaks about Himselfand His will in forms and language that are understandable to human beings.In doing so, He can reveal His thoughts directly and without distortion,however limited by our patterns of thinking.

2. Dreams and Visions

Almost everyone dreams at night and uses his or her imagination during theday. These dreams and visions consist of mental images and voices perceivedwithin the person’s mind. By using his or her imagination, a person forms amental image of something not present to the senses or never beforeperceived in reality. While the will is involved in the imaginative process, itseems to play little or no role in our dreams. But the contents of both aredetermined from our experiences.

Like theophanies, dreams and visions are open-miraculous-direct sourcesof revelation. In them God places the necessary mental images within theimaginative process of human beings. To make sense, these meaningfulforms must fit the general content of the prophet’s mind. However, they donot originate with that human mind, but in God’s wisdom. In other words,the bible writers could tell the difference between communication from Godin dreams and visions, and the everyday workings of their own imaginations.


Scripture does not draw a significant distinction between dreams and visionsas different mediums of revelation, except that dreams are visions sent while theprophets sleep. God used both to communicate directly with the human mind inthe physical absence of the objects appearing in them. In that sense, dreams andvisions are similar to a movie or video. Though we see events unfolding on thescreen, they are not actually happening right in front of us. In the same way,visions and dreams are representations to the prophet of past, present, or futureevents in the absence of the realities they depict.

As a part of history, past realities are irreversible, irretrievable, andirreproducible. Present realities may, at times, be inaccessible to the prophetdue to his or her location or limitations. Future realities do not yet exist. Notsurprisingly, when God wanted biblical writers to know things that wereinaccessible to them due to their circumstances or present knowledge, He spoketo them through dreams or visions. He gave their minds mental representationsof the information He wanted them to have. This indicates that whichcommunication medium God uses depends on what He wants to communicate.In other words, the content dictates how God presents it. As the content ofrevelation varies, so does the means (Hebrews 1:1). Visions and dreams frequently refer to future events and actions of God.The books of Daniel and Revelation are outstanding examples of visions ofGod’s salvation and intervention through events that were future to thewriters of those books. Less often, visions can depict past and present eventsto the prophet as well.

In Acts 10:10-17, for example, God communicates a reality present to thebible character, information previously unavailable to him because of hislimitations (cf., Gen 15:1-5). In this passage, God gives Peter a vision basedon Old Testament revelation; the vision does not refer to a future event, butto God’s present salvific actions and will. While God’s will might normallybe considered out of the reach of human minds, it was not so in this case.God had already made clear that his salvation was for the entire world, notjust for Israel (Isaiah 56:7). The vision was intended to correct Peter’sculturally-shaped presuppositions. While God might have hoped to havechanged them by having the apostle read previous revelation, it was


apparently not enough for Peter at that time. He needed a paradigm shift inhow he understood past revelation. Peter needed something as dramatic as avision because his culture had so overshadowed the presuppositions withwhich he read Scripture that he did not understand the intention or reach ofGod’s salvation: it was meant for the whole world, not just the Jews.

Revelation 12:1-9 is another example in which God used a vision tocommunicate knowledge about events that had already happened when Johnwas writing (see also Ezekiel 28:11-19; Isaiah 14:11-14).

3. History

Theophanies, visions, and dreams take place as a result of God’s open-miraculous mode of activity within the flow of human experience. God canalso communicate through meaningful forms in His stealth-nonmiraculousmode. As we will see in this section, history is an example of this type ofrevelation.

a. Does God reveal history?

God rarely seems to be directly involved in the flow of historical and naturalevents. To the naked eye, history and nature appear to follow the laws ofcause and effect. Divine intervention in history seems limited to unusualevents we call “miracles.”

But much of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, consists of historicalmaterial. In these passages, the Bible writers describe events in the lives ofindividuals and nations, including references to geography and nature. Where dothese facts come from? Are they in the Bible simply because the prophet decidedon his own initiative to put them there? If God originated all the contents ofScripture, how did these historical, geographical and natural details end up there?

The evangelical and classical models assert that revelation only occurswithin the open-miraculous, supernatural mode of divine communication. Tothem, God does not reveal the historical portions of Scripture. But becausethese models prioritize inspiration over revelation, the historical passages arestill said to be true.

The historical-cognitive model solves this question by positing that the


entire content of Scripture stems from both revelation and inspiration. Godoriginates the historical and natural contents of Scripture in the mind of thebiblical writers just as He does the supernatural contents, because bothproceed from God’s revelatory activity— even if they occur in differentmodes. (Remember, the historical-cognitive model gives priority to revelationover inspiration.) How can historical narratives be revelation? Doesn’tbiblical history result from the prophets’ normal human observation ofhistorical facts?

b. History as a Source in General and Special Revelation

As we noted earlier (§81.1), providence covers all of God’s activity in humanhistory, including what we have called the open-miraculous and stealth-nonmiraculous modes of operation. Within the open-miraculous mode of divineactivity we find theophanies, miracles, visions, and dreams.

The stealth-nonmiraculous mode of operation, on the other hand, includes,God’s sustenance and guidance of the historical process, not only in the historyof salvation in Israel and the church, but also the history of the entire humanrace— what we normally call “secular” history. God’s involvement in historycovers the creation and maintenance of the world, as well as the work ofsalvation. Once Adam and Eve fell, God’s goal was to save every humanbeing. Thus, John writes that Christ “enlightens every man” (John 1:9).Moreover, Paul explains that God intends “through Christ to gathereverything in heaven and on earth under his government” (Ephesians 1:10,my translation). Since God’s actions in history involve everything in heavenand on earth, we can see how He might work not only within events directlyrelated to salvation, but within all of human history as a whole as well (seeDaniel 2:21).

History can be a vehicle of both general and special revelation (§5.2.c).As God’s providence works in history, history becomes general revelationand reaches all human beings (universality; see §4). But because providenceis usually hidden— because it operates in stealth-nonmiraculous mode— itdoes not generate words or any other meaningful forms, and therefore cannotbe said to communicate specific information (generality, §4).


When God’s providence operates in the history of salvation— Israel and thechurch— history becomes special revelation, specifically as it is understood andrecorded by the bible writers. Within salvation history, providence works bothopenly and stealthily, miraculously and nonmiraculously. As we noted above,God operates in open-miraculous mode to create meaningful forms ofcommunication such as words, figures, symbols, and representations (§81.1-2).

Stealth-nonmiraculous mode, on the other hand, produces not words, figures,symbols, or representations, but real historical events. In that case, the eventsthemselves are the meaningful forms. For example, God intervenes in a battle asit is fought. That providential act, together with the testimonies of eyewitnesses,is a meaningful form. If a bible writer is led to write of such an event andpossesses such eyewitness accounts, he has no need for God to send him dreamsor visions to repeat the same information.

In other words, humans come to know the events of history through theirfive senses and the operation of their reason. If God wishes to reveal a truthfrom history, He may choose to do so through naturally occurring forms. Touse supernatural means would be superfluous and very likelycounterproductive.

We must bear in mind that God chooses how to reveal somethingbased on what that something is. The information determines how it ispresented. When God wants to reveal truths about particular historicalevents, the most suitable means of communication are the historicalevents themselves. Historical revelation in the Bible, then, exists toreveal God’s purpose in the history of salvation.

As we will see later, the biblical writers understand new revelations aboutGod and the history of salvation through previous revelations. Specifically,God reveals the structure of the history of salvation through propheticanticipation. Of course, each portion of Scripture is different and involves acontext and complexity of its own. But in the historical-cognitive model, Godusually generates the meaningful forms related to salvation history byprovidential, stealth-nonmiraculous acts. We will return to the role ofsalvation history as the source of revelation in Chapter 17 when we explorepatterns of revelation.


c. Levels of Historical Revelation

History is complex, but God’s providence relates to it at every level.Historical revelation happens on two specific levels: the personal, and thecommunal or national. God generates meaningful forms as sources forrevelation in both of them.

d. Historical Revelation in Psalm 51

Much of Scripture was recorded as a consequence of God’s providence in thehistory of Israel and the Church. Here we will explore two examples, onefrom the Old Testament, the other from the New.

First, Psalm 51 is a song of repentance written by David after he wasrebuked for his affair with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11, 12). This song is aresult of neither a supernatural vision nor a dream, but of divine providence.The Psalm is a confession; if it were a result of God’s irresistible decision ora vision forced on David, its impact would be seriously weakened. As amatter of fact, David needed no vision for the ideas he expressed in the song.Those words came from the experience of repentance God providentiallyintervened to give him. Several factors were involved. Most obviously, thewords of Nathan the prophet provided the turning point in David’s attitude,but they merely built on the convicting power of the Holy Spirit andknowledge of the Law, both present in the king’s experience. David’s ownfreedom allowed him the decision to repent. None of these factors requiredan open miracle from God. Although arising from David’s own heart andmind, this psalm is an expression of God’s will and thought. After all,repentance brings our minds into harmony with God’s mind; He cleanses usthe same way He cleansed David. This is a clear case of divinecommunication through historical means.

e. Historical Revelation in Jesus Christ

The four Gospels are another clear example of information and ideasreceived by biblical writers through historical means. They are written


accounts of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. Almost all Christians agree thatJesus Christ is the highest and clearest revelation of God we have; for manytheologians the entire Old Testament is a mere anticipation of God’srevelation in Jesus Christ.

This historical revelation occurs in a different sense than that of Psalm51. In Christ, God acted historically, in stealth, direct, and human modes.3

God’s revelation in Christ is unusual because it blends the theophanic andhistorical means of divine communication. In Christ, we do not have a caseof “pure” theophany or “pure” historical revelation.

The difference between God’s revelation in Christ and other historicalrevelations is based on the fact that Christ was God. In historical revelation,divinely-originated meaningful forms occur as history itself. God, however,is not history; He is Himself, the divine being. In the life of Christ, we do nothave a pure case of historical revelation because Jesus was God immediatelypresent in space and time. Yet, because He does not appear as God, but asa human being, we do not have a pure case of theophany either. Because ofhis incarnation, God’s action in Christ takes place within the stealth mode ofdivine operation. In other words, Christ is God and appears in history— atheophany; however, the events of His life— His history— are also divinerevelation.

What we must remember is that in Christ, God communicates withbiblical writers in the ordinary sequence of historical causes. God gaveus the highest meaningful form of communication not through nature,history, dreams, visions, or theophanies, but through the His ownhistorical life and teachings. Christ was God revealing Himself in humanhistory— everyday human history within space and time. Christ Himself,His person, was a meaningful form; He created meaningful forms byteaching, performing miracles, dying and returning from the dead, whilehe lived among us. Both his being and the events of His life took placewithin the natural order of historical causes in which every human beinglives. This means that the New Testament writers received theirinformation on Christ’s life and ministry in the same way they wouldhave received any other information— through everyday historical


communication. Because Christ was also human, His divine nature operated stealthily; He

could therefore communicate a wealth of meaningful forms, which weredirectly and naturally received by His disciples and others around him. Thosewho could not be around Him during His earthly life have to depend on eyewitnesses for God’s revelation in Christ (see Luke 1:1-3). We will return tothis point when we examine indirect revelation in §83.

4. Nature

Unlike scientists or philosophers, biblical authors were not interested in pursuingthe study of nature for its own sake. Scripture is unconcerned with teaching aboutnature save for the consistent assertion that all the world is God’s creation(Genesis 1-2; Isaiah 45:18; Revelation 14:7). This teaching could not have comefrom anyone’s observation of nature, since according to the Genesis accounthumanity was the last creature God made. It had to come from divine revelation(Deut. 34:10). As we will see, nature may also be a stealth-nonmiraculous-directsource of divine revelation.

a. Does God reveal nature?

When God needs to reveal information that is available directly fromnature, it would be superfluous to give those facts to the bible writer ina vision or a dream if the writer could simply go outside and make hisown observations. According to the historical-cognitive model, God doesnot duplicate revelation unnecessarily. God is able to communicatethrough nature because He is the creator; therefore, everything in naturecan become a meaningful form at the disposal of the bible writers.

However, biblical authors did not pursue the understanding of nature likephilosophers and scientists. They did not use it to develop a natural theology,that is, they did not prove the existence of God or interpret His divine naturefrom nature. Their purpose was to understand God’s plan of salvation. Anyknowledge derived from or concerning nature (such as the doctrine ofcreation) was not an end in itself, but pointed to some aspect of God’s


involvement in history.

b. The Historical Focus of Biblical Thought

The focus of the Bible on history contrasts sharply with that of Greekphilosophy and modern science. These enterprises seek to understand nature.In Greek philosophy, even the examination of human nature began with anatural rather than historical perspective. Human nature was understood asa thing and was considered to be a composite of two substances, body andsoul, rather than as a historical event.

By basing its presuppositions on such ideas, Christian theology not onlyadopted a timeless view of divine reality (§29, §42), but also understoodhuman beings much as one would natural objects, asking what it consistedof— substance, soul or being. This mistaken approach to human nature settheologians in a course of thought incompatible with the patterns followedby biblical authors.

c. Nature as a Source of Revelation

Biblical authors drew very little from nature as a source of meaningfulforms of communication. Prophets generally used information from theirobservation of nature to aid their narratives of historical events. At times,biblical writers compared natural phenomena with events and activitieswithin history. A fast runner is compared to a gazelle (2 Samuel 2:18),or God’s strength to a rock (2 Samuel 2:23). The Holy Spirit is like thewind (John 3:8), while the king of Babylon, representing Satan, is like themorning star (Isaiah 14:12). Biblical writers also obtained geographicalinformation from their personal knowledge or by using the informationof others familiar with certain locations (Genesis 14:3; Numbers 34:12).Information about natural events, such as earthquakes, also came intorevelation the same way (see Exodus 19:18, for example). However significant recorded observations of nature may be to biblicalthought, they cover only a small fraction of Scripture. Moreover, any suchinformation was included by the biblical writers only as a way to understand


God’s intervention in human history. Any data derived from natural sourcesof revelation only set the stage and enhanced the historical contents of theBible.

Since human history takes place against the backdrop of nature, itwould be impossible to describe history without references to nature.These references, limited as they are in Scripture, tell us that biblicalhistory, including God’s intervention in it, took place in exactly the sameway in which our daily experiences occur— an indispensable point. Byoccasionally referring to nature, the Bible demonstrates that events in thehistory of salvation took place exactly in the same way as events ingeneral history.

d. Nature as Source in General and Special Revelation

Nature plays different roles in natural and special revelation; a biblicalexample may help illustrate this. In Psalm 19:1-4, David presents heaven andearth as vehicles of God’s natural revelation (see §4-5). David points out thatwhile nature can be communication from God, the absence of words usuallymeans that nothing specific is being communicated. On the other hand, inPsalm 8, those same heavens become a source of special revelation as theyfill David’s mind with thoughts of human insignificance.

In both cases the heavens are wordless. What determines when nature is asource of special revelation and when it is not? God as creator and sustainer ofnature determines its use and type of revelation, as well as the context in whichthe revelation is received by the biblical writer. Specifically, when God usesnature to communicate salvation directly with an individual, especially to oneignorant of special revelation in Scripture, it is considered natural or generalrevelation. When nature appears to generate specific ideas and words, wehave a use of nature as a source of special revelation. We find an example of the latter in David’s song: “When I consider yourheavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you haveordained, what is man that you take thought of him, and the son of man thatyou care for him”? (Psalm 8:3-4). In this psalm, David is using nature as asource of divine revelation, interpreting it from the perspective of creation.


Obviously, David did not derive the notion of creation from nature, but fromprevious revelation in the Genesis account. Instead of determining hishermeneutical presuppositions from philosophical or scientific speculation,David drew them from that divine knowledge. The observation of theheavens did not broaden David’s understanding of them, but helped him torealize the comparative smallness of human beings.

Nature plays a role in special revelation, but it is always subordinated to priorknowledge of God and His relationship to nature. Biblical writers obtained thisknowledge from written accounts of previous revelations. Nature becomes ameans of general revelation only where special revelation is unknown. In thatcontext, God uses it, together with history, as a means to communicate hissalvation to a particular individual’s personal experience. As we saw inChapter 2, when divine communication with humans is limited to meaningfulforms occurring in nature, without words, specific information is nottransmitted and any conviction is limited to the individual. The meaning ofnature is insufficient for generating universal knowledge of God and His willfor us.

§83. INDIRECT SOURCES OF REVELATIONNot many theologians recognize the possibility of indirect sources ofrevelation. What do we mean by “indirect”? It refers not to the origin ofrevelation in God, but to its reception by the prophet. Sometimes informationof God’s open-miraculous and stealth-nonmiraculous activities come to theBible writer through other people, either by speech or oral tradition, orthrough written documents. An example of an indirect open-miraculoussource of revelation would be the accounts of Jesus’ life and teachingscollected by the gospel writers, especially Luke and Mark, as well asreferences in the Bible to previous portions of Scripture. An indirect stealth-nonmiraculous source would include historical documents.

The classical and evangelical models assume that revelation takes placeonly when God speaks directly and openly to the human writer. In otherwords, proponents of these models understand revelation to be prophecy and


nothing else. What has not been clearly produced by prophecy is notrevealed, but only inspired. Once again we return to the idea that onlyportions of Scripture are revealed, while all of it is inspired. The historical-cognitive model, however, recognizes both direct revelation from God, andrevelation brought to the biblical writers indirectly through other sources. 1. Jesus Christ

In §82.3.e, we underlined that God reveals himself in Christ under thestealth-nonmiraculous mode of operation. In this section, we will examinehow at least some Gospel authors indirectly received the information andideas concerning God’s revelation in Christ. As we continue, keep in mindthat the event of revelation requires more than divine revelatory activity. Thebiblical writer must also receive the meaningful forms God communicates.

Luke and Mark seem to have obtained the information they used in theirgospel accounts indirectly, through eyewitness accounts and documents.These other sources observed God’s revelation in Christ directly, though itoperated in stealth mode. For instance, Luke collected this firsthandinformation for his own research. Luke introduces his Gospel by explainingto his reader the way he received the information for his writing:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the thingsaccomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those whofrom the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemedfitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from thebeginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellentTheophilus (Luke 1:1-3).Scholars believe Luke’s gospel presents Paul’s understanding of Jesus’

life and teachings, while Mark follows Peter’s eyewitness account of thesame events. But the point is that neither Luke nor Mark were among thetwelve disciples of Christ. They did not receive God’s stealth-nonmiraculousrevelation in Christ directly, but indirectly through the historical testimoniesof witnesses. Those testimonies may have included oral and written materialsas Luke’s introduction implies. God did not reveal the content of any of thegospels through supernatural dreams and visions, but by the events


themselves and by the stealth-nonmiraculous, normal transmission ofinformation from one person to another.

Because the historical-cognitive model assumes God’s nature to behistorical, God’s stealth-nonmiraculous revelation in Christ directly conveysGod’s thoughts and activities even though it was indirectly received by thegospel writers. To avoid confusion, we must differentiate here between twodifferent kinds of “direct-indirect” revelation. The first is whether Godreveals the information directly or indirectly; the second, whether thatinformation comes to the Bible writers directly or indirectly. The formerrefers to whether God speaks or acts miraculously or stealthily for a givenrevelation, the latter whether God is communicating with the prophet directlyor through an intermediary witness or writing. The historical-cognitive modelasserts that God is able to communicate through meaningful forms Hecreates miraculously as well as by speaking stealthily through seeminglyordinary objects, documents or circumstances. It also maintains that thesources of revelation can reach the biblical writers both directly andindirectly.

The revelation of the events in the four gospels defies the traditionalunderstanding of revelation. In Christ, we have the highest possiblerevelation of God available. Yet that revelation did not reach us throughvisions or dreams, but through the incarnation of God in human history.Moreover, Mark and Luke did not receive the information first-hand,directly, but indirectly through the testimony of witnesses.

Jesus’ life was public in the sense that it was available to all thosearound him. At times, there were thousands around him receiving stealth-nonmiraculous revelation directly as in the Sermon on the Mount(Matthew 5:1-7:29). At other times, only a few disciples were present, asin the transfiguration event (Matthew 17:1-13). In personalconversations, only the individuals with whom Jesus spoke received theinformation directly, as with Nicodemus (John 3:1-21).

Whenever a biblical writer receives revelation indirectly, a mediatorhas received it directly. Once that eyewitness has received the revelationand begins to relate it to someone else, he or she also interprets it. As


they relate their story to the biblical writer, their interpretation of thefacts is also revelation (Luke 1:2).

As the highest of God’s revelations in the Bible, the four gospels are a clearexample of revelation received both directly, by witnesses, and indirectly, bywriters. Visions, dreams, theophanies, and even the direct writing of God wereinadequate for communicating the meaningful forms present in and presented byJesus Christ.

2. Previous Revelations

God also revealed His will and teachings to the biblical writers throughrevelations that preceded them chronologically. Specifically, God revealsHimself in Scripture. A verse we referred to earlier, “To the law and to thetestimony” (Isaiah 8:20) is a clear example of this biblical principle. Theprinciple is based on the historical nature of God and His revelation to us,as well as the historical nature of human beings and knowledge.

No biblical writer wrote without a firm grounding in the knowledge of God,based on earlier revelation. We might even say that according to the record ofScripture divine revelation has always preceded human experience. Going backto Creation, as Adam opened his eyes, he saw God (Genesis 2:7-8). AlthoughMoses, who was probably the first biblical writer, did not have the advantage ofprevious written revelations, he was aware of divine revelation through oraltraditions learned from his mother (Exodus 2:1-9); it is clear in Exodus 3 thathe was well aware of who the God of Israel’s ancestors was even though he hadto ask God’s name.

Previously written revelation was a major source for the writers ofScripture. From those earlier documents, they drew their spiritualexperience, hermeneutical presuppositions, ideas, and information thatin various ways shaped how they understood God’s personal revelationto them.

First, biblical writers were believers in God and were experiencing thetransforming power of his grace, or sanctification. No atheistic, rebellious,or disobedient person ever became a biblical writer, because to be a prophetrequired knowledge of God’s prior special revelation. (The biblical writers


would use those earlier documents for their hermeneutical presuppositionsfor interpreting new revelations. As we will see later, as prophets receivednew meaningful forms, they always had to interpret them.) These twoqualifications were mandatory for biblical writers. Finally, biblical writerswould use the language and ideas of previous revelations, often quoting oralluding to earlier Scriptures. For example, Paul often quoted the OldTestament, as in his quotation of Psalm 32 in Romans 4.

3. General Historical Sources

Finally, biblical writers can also indirectly receive revelation that comes fromGod’s stealth-nonmiraculous mode of operation (§82.3-4). Again, “indirectly”means that the Bible writers sometimes received information about natural orhistorical events from other sources, oral or written. Since the community did notcome to recognize these sources as part of the canon, they are considered generalhistorical and scientific sources. By general historical sources I mean theexistence of oral or written sources of historical knowledge from which biblicalwriters derived knowledge they brought into their writings. These sources werenot canonical nor inspired. In other words, the community did not regard them asoriginating in God. However, their accounts of historical facts were used bybiblical writers as sources of information about God’s stealth involvement in thehistory of Israel.

The Hebrews kept official records of state. Among them we find, forexample, the following books: “The Acts of Solomon” (1 Kings 11:41), “TheChronicles of the Kings of Israel” (1 Kings 14:19), “The Chronicles of the Kingsof Judah” (1 Kings 11:41), and “The Book of Genealogy” (Nehemiah 7:5). Theauthor of 1 and 2 Kings actually compiled his narrative from different officialsources. Since these sources were provided by God’s providence in the historyof Israel, operating in stealth-nonmiraculous mode, we can consider them to besources of divine revelation, indirectly received by the author of Kings.

In the book of Esther, we have an account of how these official documentswere written. The narrative tells us how Mordecai became aware of a plotagainst King Ahasuerus, which he related to the queen. In turn, Queen Estherinformed King Ahasuerus (Esther 2:21-22). The “plot was investigated and


found to be so, they [the conspirators] were both hanged on a gallows; and it waswritten in the Book of the Chronicles in the king’s presence”(Esther 2:23). Thispassage tells us that it was customary elsewhere in the ancient world to record theimportant events of the kingdom in official records (see Esther 10:2). It alsoshows that the authors of these books investigated the facts before they put theminto writing. This was done following the normal procedures of historicalresearch and writing.

§84. RANKING THE SOURCES OF REVELATIONWe have isolated the main sources or means God used to communicate withthe writers of the Bible. While these are not the only ones, they are the mostrelevant to most readers of Scripture. To summarize, the historical-cognitivemodel accepts what Scripture teaches about itself: that God revealed Himselfin various ways (Hebrews 1:1). This biblical concept contrasts with the onepattern explanation of divine activity by the other models.

The means of divine revelation are many and diverse. To understandthem, then, we must account for their differences and for how they operatetogether. 1. Levels of Inspiration?

Theologians have always wrestled with the variety and differences of form

and style in the phenomena of the Bible. Some liberal theologians who findthemselves unwilling to give up completely the classical view of divineinspiration often use the notion of “levels” of inspiration to account for thisvariety. As an example, Paul J. Achtemeier recently asked, “How is one toaccount for such obvious variations in the quality of the material inspired byGod and contained in Scripture?” He notes two possible answers:

One can, of course, solve the problem by denying that it exists, i.e., byinsisting that the person who notes differing qualities simply shows in thatway that he or she is incapable of finding the true message in those


portions of Scripture identified as being of lesser quality. Not all, however, will see things so simplistically: “For those for whom

such a solution is not acceptable, the only other alternative lies in accountingfor those differences. One way is to speak of varying levels of inspiration.”4

Several pages later he concludes that if the quality of the material differs and is uneven, then we must concludethat there are varying degrees of inspiration. If some writings show amaximum ‘divine element,’ other show it at a minimum. The level of truthin some writings is high, in others it is low. All of that leads to theconclusion that one may not view the Bible as being of equal inspirationthroughout.5

Achtemeier feels that diversity in the content and literary form ofScripture means that it varies in quality. Apparently he has in mind theevangelical model’s understanding of the inspiration as a divine quality(§55.3.b). Since a difference in results logically suggests a difference incauses, Achtemeier believes the differences within Scripture’s qualitypoint to different levels of divine inspiration.

This notion of levels of inspiration is not new, going back perhaps as faras the third century AD. Although this view simultaneously accounts forScripture’s variety while affirming its divine origin, it does irreparabledamage to its authority. If some parts of Scripture are more “divine” thanothers, they should hold more authority in the life and teachings of thechurch. Which parts are “higher” than the rest are left to the presuppositionsand prejudices of any given reader. Thus, the Bible’s authority issurreptitiously subordinated to its interpreters.

2. Revelation and Literary Diversity in Scripture

Not only does Scripture cover many issues in many forms and styles. Variety isalso present due to God’s open-miraculous and stealth-nonmiraculous modes ofoperation and their direct and indirect reception by biblical writers. The diversityin writing styles is due to the varying literary savvy of each writer. The varietyof literary forms is derived both from the sources of revelation and the audienceaddressed by biblical writers. The historical-cognitive model recognizes diversity


of style and forms in Scripture, but departs from the notion of levels ofinspiration at three points: the divine activity involved, the reason for literarydiversity, and the consequences for the authority of Scripture.

First, variety of literary styles and forms are not traced back to variancesin divine inspiration, but to reception of divine revelation by the prophets. Inother words, all divine revelation was subject to interpretation by the biblewriters, which was bound to differ because of the differing personalities andbackgrounds of each of them. Second, the reason for literary diversity is alsodue to the variances in different sources of revelation rather than in therelative “strength” of inspiration. Finally, diversity of literary forms does notautomatically entail various levels of scriptural authority. God uses various methods of revelation simply because the things Hechose to reveal required different avenues of communication. Thus, Godchose whatever source suited his revelatory purposes at a given time. Forinstance, dreams and visions are especially suited to communicate propheciesof the future as well as abstract teachings and ideas. Theophanies are thebest way to reveal the real presence of God in time and space. Theconsequences of both sin and faithfulness to God at a personal level are bestrevealed through a particular writer’s own experiences with them. Similarly,sin and faithfulness at the communal level and their consequences are bestrevealed through the history of that community.

3. The Ranking Criterion

Since divine modes of revelation differ, is it possible to rank them withoutimplying that different parts of Scripture have different levels ofauthority? That depends on which criteria we use to rate the varioussources of revelation. If we suppose that God was somehow moreinvolved with some sources than with others, we may not be able to.

On the other hand, if we rate them on their cognitive specificity, we can.All portions of Scripture will remain equally authoritative because they come


from God, but because some are more specific than others, they can beconsidered higher.

Why must we rank sources of revelation in the first place? Doing so willhelp us to understand the sources of revelation as an interactive whole.Seeing how the sources work together will clarify for us how the humanwriters received revelation through the various sources (Chapter 16). Thiswill help us understand the patterns of revelation we will discuss in Chapter17.

4. Relative Standing

The sources of revelation— meaningful forms— that are more specific inmeaning outrank others that are less specific. For instance, words spoken byGod will outrank historical records or natural objects as vehicles ofcommunication.

Theophanies rank the highest in cognitive specificity because they includenot only words, but the real presence of God in space and time. Within thiscategory, we could place Moses’ face-to-face conversations with God(Exodus 33:11, 34:29; Deuteronomy 34:10). First among theophanies wefind the historical revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ.

At the second level we find visions and dreams. They have the capacityfor words as do theophanies and the person of Jesus, but lack the realphysical presence of God. However, they are able to add visualrepresentations of past, present, and future realities not present intheophanies or the Incarnation.

The history of salvation is the next meaningful form. This source is vitalbecause it reveals God from the outcome of his providential dealings with Israeland the church. In Scripture, God not only reveals Himself but demonstrates thepractical results of accepting or rejecting His plan of salvation. This source ofrevelation comes from God as certainly as do theophanies, the incarnation,dreams, and visions. However, its cognitive specificity is not as high as the firsttwo levels, because in it we do not perceive the words and acts of God directly,but from other human beings. Moreover, history is a public source ofinformation; everyone else has access to the same information the prophet does.


The world of nature is the fourth level of divine revelation. This levelranks the lowest because it does not include words of any kind; there is verylittle cognitive specificity. As with history, natural revelation is open toeveryone. Because of their public nature, God is able to use history andnature at the personal level to reveal salvation to every individual: generalrevelation. Yet, it is obvious that however it has been reduced, nature is asource of revelation in biblical thinking.

To summarize, the sources of divine revelation vary in cognitivespecificity, higher in theophanies and Jesus Christ, visions and dreams, andlower in history and nature. Does this relative standing imply acorresponding order of scriptural authority? Are those Bible passagesdepicting appearances of God more authoritative than those concerningnature? The answer is no. Differing degrees of cognitive specificity invarious passages of Scripture only mean that those passages have differentroles in the process of revelation. 5. Limitations

The relative standing of the sources of revelation uncovers the cognitivelimitations of history and nature as sources of revelation. Not only does theirrevelation of God and salvation remain more open to interpretation— a lowerlevel of cognitive specificity— but their limitations increase when prophetsreceived ideas from nature and history indirectly through the mediation ofother human witnesses. Reception implies understanding, which requiresinterpretation. When the biblical writers received revelation directly fromhistory and nature, they interpreted their sources first hand. Yet, when theyobtained their information through noninspired witnesses, the biblical writersinterpretations either overrules or integrates within a larger picture theinterpretations of those other sources. These multiple interpretations formpart of the process of revelation, and depend on the presuppositions fromwhich the bible writers think and write. We will study this role further in thenext chapter. For now, we must recognize that because historical and naturalsources are limited, they play roles different from other sources; moreover,because they are limited in cognitive specificity, their record depends on the


Figure 1: Roles of the Sources of Revelation

interpretation of the writers of Scripture as well as any sources they mayhave used.

6. Roles

As we have alluded to above, the degree of cognitive specificity of thevarious sources determines their relative role within the process of revelation(§84.4). Sources with higher cognitive specificity (theophanies, Jesus Christ,visions, and prophecies) play grounding roles. Sources with lower levels ofcognitive specificity (history and nature) play subordinate roles.

Because revelation always must be interpreted based on the biblicalwriters’ presuppositions, only sources with a high level of cognitive specificitycan provide those presuppositions. Thus, biblical writers always interpreted newinformation based on presuppositions from earlier revelations with the higherlevels of cognitive specificity (Figure 1). As shown in the chart, the historical-cognitive model inverts the order of interpretation proposed by the classical andevangelical views of revelation. In those models, natural revelation is consideredto be the most perfect. In other words, supernatural revelation must be interpretedthrough secular history and nature. Philosophy and science of necessity are usedto interpret prophecy and theological writings.

The historical-cognitive model reverses this by interpreting the meaningfulforms of history and nature through the far more specific meaningful forms given


by God through supernatural revelation. Only when this process is followed canwe claim to operate within the mandate of Isaiah 8:20: “To the law and to thetestimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have nodawn.”

§85. REVIEW

• God reveals Himself in many ways (Hebrews 1:1). God acts in a variety of modes. In revelation, God operates either openly orstealthily. Biblical revelation cannot be understood until it is recognized thatGod reveals Himself in many different ways.

• Open-miraculous mode.God is said to act openly or miraculously when His activity breaks thenormal flow of natural and historical causes. God has occasionally chosen togenerate the meaningful forms of revelation within this “open-miraculous”mode of operation, with or without extraordinary external manifestations.

• Stealth-nonmiraculous mode. God’s actions do not always involve bending the laws of nature andhistory. He can also work within them. However, when He does so,human beings are unable to perceive His activity. The daily life of JesusChrist is an example of this mode. The providential guidance of historyas a whole is another.

• Sources or means of revelation: definition.By source or means of revelation, we mean any objective reality produced byGod and received by the prophet. The form possesses meaning within itself,which passes from God to the human writer. We call these objective realities“means” from the viewpoint of God as their originator, and “sources” fromthe viewpoint of the biblical writer as receiver. Because sources or means of


revelation have meaning in themselves we call them “meaningful forms” ofcommunication.

• Sources/means of revelation: matrices.We can classify the means of revelation in the following matrices, based onthe modes of divine activity and human reception: open-miraculous-direct(theophanies, visions, and dreams); open-miraculous-indirect (previousrevelation); stealth-nonmiraculous-direct (Jesus Christ, history, and nature);and stealth-nonmiraculous-indirect (Jesus Christ, previous revelations,history, and nature). Jesus, previous revelations, history, and nature arereceived by the Bible writers both directly and indirectly.

• Theophanies.Theophanies work within the open-miraculous mode of divine operation. Abiblical theophany takes place when God shows or presents Himself tohuman beings; it is the real presence and actions of God as divine subject oragent within the causal flow of human history. Because of this direct, actualpresence, God can act in particular moments of human history withoutbreaking the continuity of its causal relationship.

• The historical-cognitive model: an emphasis on theophanies.In the historical-cognitive model, divine theophanies are the cognitivefoundation for all other modes and patterns of revelation. When God presentshimself in space and time, we know the meaningful forms presented intheophanies, dreams, and visions proceed directly from Him. We also knowthat their literal, spatiotemporal meanings accurately describe God’s beingand actions. Because God is temporal, He can communicate directly andliterally with finite humanity in space and time.

• Divine speech.Divine speech operates within the open-miraculous mode of divineoperation. Since God is historical, He can speak in human language.Although according to Scripture God does not have a mouth like we


do, He can utter the sounds required for oral communication (i.e.,Matt 3:17). In other words, He knows the meaning we give to ourwords and uses them accordingly when speaking with the prophets.Divine speech occurs in theophanies, Jesus Christ, visions, dreams,and is recorded in previous revelations.

• Dreams and visions.Dreams and visions operate within the open-miraculous mode of divineoperation. The meaningful forms involved in dreams and visions caninclude words (for example, Ezekiel 1:28), acts (Ezekiel 1:12),representations (1 Kings 22:19-22), symbols (Ezekiel 1:15-16), andfigures (Ezekiel 1:5; Isaiah 6:1). There is nothing supernatural in theforms themselves; it is only their presentation that is supernatural. Theforms mean the same things they always did to humans. God speaks tous about Himself, His will, and teachings for us in forms and languageunderstandable to us. In doing so, He can reveal His views directly andwithout distortion, however limited by our form and patterns of thinking(divine condescension).

• History as source/means of special revelation.God’s providential involvement in the history of salvation, that of Israeland the church, allows history to function as a source of specialrevelation. God’s providential activity in salvation history operates inboth the stealth-nonmiraculous and open-miraculous modes. Much of theOld and New Testaments uses history as a source/means of revelation.

• Meaningful forms in history. History consists of human events at the personal and social levels. Here,God does not produce words, figures, symbols, or representations, butguides the historical process. Historical events reveal His administration.This mode of divine involvement includes not only salvation history, butalso history as a whole— that of the entire human race.


• Two levels of historical revelation. God is involved in history at the existential level of each individual andat the social level of communities, nations, and the entire cosmos.

• Nature as a source/means of special revelation. Because God is Creator, everything in nature can become a meaningful formfor biblical writers. Obviously, the forms in nature do not include speech.Although this source is present in Scripture, it plays only an occasional andperipheral role.

• Direct and indirect reception of the sources of revelation. The prophet may receive the sources of revelation directly from God, orindirectly from other sources testifying about stealth involvement inhistory. The difference is that when a prophet receives revelationindirectly, a human mediator is involved. Sources produced via the open-miraculous mode of divine operation may reach biblical writers in writtenor oral form, and may include previous canonical or non-canonicalwritings. Either direct or indirect reception can apply to all sources ofdivine revelation, including Jesus Christ.

• Rejection of “levels” or “degrees” of inspiration. The notion that Scripture was produced by different degrees of divineinspiration implies that some portions are more inspired than others, andthus more authoritative. The historical-cognitive model rejects thisposition.

• Ranking the sources of revelation.As meaningful forms of communication, we can rank the relative standing ofthe sources of revelation according to their cognitive specificity. Somesources have higher cognitive specificity than others. Moving in order fromhigh to low cognitive specificity, we have theophanies, Jesus Christ, dreamsand visions, history, and nature. Since this ranking flows not from higher or


1 Paul Helm, The Providence of God: Contours of Christian Theology (DownersGrove: InterVarsity, 1994), 17.

2 See John E. Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998). Although delighted that fellow Christiantheologians are taking biblical thought seriously in these matters, I cannot followthis view in substantial points as, for instance, the foreknowledge of God. I willdeal with this and other related topics at a later time. Moreover, the focus of OpenTheism thus far seems to revolve around the reality of intercessory prayer and ourrelation to God without paying much attention to its systematic implications.

3 Divine sovereignty is a highly debated concept that can be understood inseveral different ways. The historical-cognitive model rejects the classicalinterpretation of divine sovereignty as understood by theologians like Augustineand Calvin. The question is not whether God is sovereign, but how He exercisesHis sovereignty. In recent years, the concept of “Open Theism” has emerged toassert that God rules history by persuasion. We assert here that God’s sovereigntycovers the entire scope of history. As divine, God rules over history. In theincarnation, He acts as a human person within the flow of the history He alsorules.

lower degrees of divine intervention, but from the cognitive characteristics ofthe different means of communication or meaningful forms, it does not entaildegrees of biblical authority.

• Ranking and roles.The various levels of cognitive specificity in the means God chose tocommunicate with biblical writers suggest the different means play differentroles in revelation. Moreover, previous sources with higher levels ofspecificity provided the presuppositions from which the biblical writersunderstood divine revelation.

ENDNOTES


4 Paul J. Achtemeier, Inspiration and Authority: Nature and Function ofChristian Scripture (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), 14.

5 Ibid., 30.

16. REVELATION INCARNATED

Revelation begins as God creates meaningful forms of divine information, and iscompleted as the human writer receives these forms in his or her cognitiveexperience. In the historical-cognitive model, how the contents of Scripture cameto the minds of its writers depends on this incarnation of revelation.

If we are to understand revelation, then, we must understand how each ofthe sources we discussed in the previous chapter was incarnated. Once thisis complete, we will be able to describe the major patterns of revelation inChapter 17, and how the revealed information was written down in theprocess of inspiration in Chapter 18. We will begin this chapter bycomparing the incarnation of revelation with the incarnation of Jesus Christ.Then we will discuss the incarnation analogy, its structure, locus, modes,content, and method.

§86. THE INCARNATION ANALOGYMost of us seldom use the word “incarnation” in everyday conversation. Theword comes from Latin and literally means “in flesh.” Christians use the word todescribe how the second person of the Trinity became a human being namedJesus of Nazareth. The apostle John described the idea simply: “The Wordbecame flesh” (John 1:14). In the incarnation, God became a man.

REVELATION INCARNATED 323

1. Incarnation

The concept of incarnation implies a certain process through which God becamehuman. We have almost no information about that process. We know only thatJesus somehow moved from divine to human existence (Philippians 2:6-8). Theincarnation took place at the very level of being. The divine Person was changedin a way that continues to puzzle the most brilliant theological minds.

2. Analogy

In the revelation-inspiration of Scripture, something like the incarnation of Christtook place: what was divine became human. While the two processes are similar,however, they are not identical. One thing can only be identical to another whenboth are exactly the same in all aspects— such as carbon copies or clones. Whentwo things are similar or analogous, they are alike in some respects, but differentin others.

3. Nature and Limitations

The incarnation of divine revelation in Scripture and the incarnation of the Sonof God in Jesus Christ are analogous, not identical. Having noticed the analogy1,some Christian theologians have used it to create an understanding of revelation-inspiration. Unfortunately, we cannot use the analogy like this, because anyanalogy is impossible without a knowledge of the two things we say are similar.In other words, we must understand both objects before we can say that they areanalogous.

Moreover, only when discussing Jesus Christ are we speaking ofincarnation proper. In revelation-inspiration, the idea of incarnation is morea metaphor. In revelation-inspiration, divine knowledge is literally writtendown, or “inscripturized.” Divine forms of knowledge and communicationbecome human.

The incarnations of Jesus and Scripture are similar, but in a reduced sense.Because Jesus is a Person and Scripture literature, the process through and sense


in which they became human is different. In Jesus, God became a human being.In Scripture, God’s knowledge became human knowledge. The two processesbelong to different planes— the former to the plane of things and being (ontology),the latter to knowledge (epistemology). Thus, we cannot determine how we viewthe incarnation of Scripture through revelation-inspiration from our view ofChrist’s incarnation. To determine how the divine and human factors interact ineach case, we must study them separately.

4. Factors of Interpretation

As various theologians interpret Christ’s incarnation in many different ways,so they interpret Scripture’s incarnation in many ways as well. The classical,evangelical, and modern models of revelation-inspiration are, in fact,different accounts of “incarnational” inspiration, though they are rarelyreferred to in those terms. We find more explicit references to an“incarnational view of inspiration” among theologians dissatisfied with theseexisting models.2 Proponents of such a view tend to be conservatives seekingto harmonize their beliefs with the historical-critical method and usually areparticularly dissatisfied with the limited role of the human agent in theevangelical model.3

We can sympathize with their dissatisfaction. But they are incorrect toassume that the incarnation of divine knowledge in Scripture must assume thehistorical-critical interpretation of scriptural phenomena.4 Why? The problem ismethodological.

5. Assumptions

Practitioners of the historical-critical method are usually unaware that it dependson classical and modern philosophical presuppositions. The method is a tool, theythink, enhancing but not distorting the phenomena. But this understanding ofscientific methodology is simply false.

Under the guise of scientific methodology, scholars approach the ideas andstories written in the Bible with suspicion. As they use historical-criticalprocedures, they superimpose on Scripture an alien, philosophical worldview,


including an alien view of revelation-inspiration— such as the denial of any directcommunication between God and human beings. Such assumptions make thesearch for a new model unnecessary. After all, why should we search for what wealready have?

Consequently, as we study revelation-inspiration, we must avoid nonbiblicalideologies. We have placed the historical-critical method under criticism for justsuch a reason, but we must also bracket out the conservative view of Scriptureas well. Setting aside any prior interpretations of revelation-inspiration and theirconsequent understandings of the Bible will give us new eyes for what it saysabout itself. In other words, it will give us a prescientific grasp on the nature andteachings of Scripture.

As we eliminate nonbiblical presuppositions, we open the door to thediscovery and use of biblical assumptions. We have discussed these assumptionsat length in Chapter 13 (§66-72). In the rest of this chapter, we will use them toexplore the incarnation of divine revelation in the mind of the biblical writer.

6. Introducing an Analysis of Revelation’s Incarnation

In this section, we will examine the incarnation analogy for the sake ofclearly understanding it. As we noted above, we must study eachphenomenon separately before we can see the analogy between them, so wewill not deduce the incarnation of revelation-inspiration from Christ’sincarnation. Once this study is done, however, points of similarity do emerge.Here I will use selected points from our prior study of Christ’s incarnationto further understand the incarnation in the Bible, not to create such anexplanation.

Some obvious issues regarding Jesus’ incarnation present themselves as weanalyze the incarnation of revelation. We see the issues more clearly as we lookat Christ, because in His case the incarnation takes place in a real person. Butthese points are not as obvious when revelation is incarnated, because thatincarnation takes place in the realm of knowledge. We can see people, but ideaswe cannot; they are intangible. Hence, our analysis here will move from theknown to the unknown.

Since the incarnation of Christ requires the presence of both the human


and the divine natures, any study of it must examine the relationship, orstructure, between the two. Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate; how wasthe divine present in the human? In other words, in what mode did the divinenature operate within the human locus? What kind of human nature did Hehave— that is, what were its a priori contents? Did it include original sin, forexample? How did Jesus live? Was he sinless, and if so, what does thatmean? And finally, how did His human and divine natures interact, oroperate, together?

These are the points of correspondence as we study the incarnation ofrevelation. We study the structure of revelation— the cognitive relationshipbetween divine nature (God) and human nature (biblical writers). Revelation’slocus is within the human nature of the bible writers; how did the meaningfulforms come to be present within those writers— what was their mode? Whatwere the concrete a priori contents of the writers’ human nature, the aspects oftheir being which they possessed before receiving revelation? Finally, how did thedivine and human components operate in the process of revelation?

While these corresponding components of incarnation will help usthrough the rest of the chapter, we must consider the differences as well. Inthe structure of both cases, the divine and human are involved, yet in Christthey are present at a personal level (ontological), while in revelation they arepresent at the level of knowledge (epistemological). Second, the locus ofincarnation is always human. Yet in Christ’s incarnation, the divine andhuman became one reality, while in revelation they became a particularmessage or teaching within a human mind. Third, God is present in Christ inhis human mode (form), while in revelation God’s thoughts and actions arepresent in cognitive and linguistic modes. Fourth, the a priori contents ofChrist’s incarnation refers to whether Christ inherited original sin, while inrevelation it refers to the previous knowledge and experiences biblical writershad at the time of revelation. Finally, the operation of Christ refers to Hisentire life in human form, while in revelation it refers only to the writers’reception and processing of divinely created meaningful forms.

§87. THE STRUCTURE OF INCARNATION


As the incarnation depended on a particular relationship between the divineand human natures in Christ, so did the revelation of God to biblical writers.The incarnation of God in Christ took place in one human person in aconcrete period of human history. In contrast, the incarnation of revelationtook place repeatedly, as the prophets’ minds processed the meaningful formsof revelation created by God, in a subject-object relationship. Divinerevelation became incarnate as the biblical writers freely examined themeaningful forms God gave them through the lenses of their prior lifeexperiences.

Before revelation is incarnated, God chooses what He will revealdepending on His purposes. He then takes the specific information He wantsto give and puts them in a form— the meaningful form— most suited to themind of His chosen writer, and to the historical period and audience thatwriter will address with his message. While no Bible texts explicitly supportthis assertion, most students of the Bible will agree with us that it is stronglyimplied by the phenomena of Scripture.

God’s thoughts are incarnated when the sources He creates are receivedby the prophets. Once the prophets get them, they interpret what they havebeen given based on their own experiences. What they write— the content ofScripture— is based on the free interaction between what God reveals andhow the prophet interprets it. Please note that what is written in the Bible isnot identical to the sources of revelation coming from God; those sourcesmust be interpreted by the prophet before they are written down.

The Gospels provide one clear example of how the bible writers’experiences and reception of revelation affected what they wrote. Obviously,Jesus only lived one life, yet we have four different accounts of it. Thesedifferences do not mean that God revealed a different set of events to each ofthe evangelists, but that each writer received what God revealed in Christdifferently.

All this means that the prophets did not originate the contents of Scripture,but did contribute to them via their free interpretive reception. The obviousquestion here is this: did the contributions of the writers introduce errors into theBible? We will deal with the reliability of Scripture in the last chapter of this


book. For now, though, we will explore the nature, modes, contents, and methodof how the humans received divine revelation.

§88. THE LOCUS OF INCARNATIONTo review, incarnation describes the presence of God in history as a human beingin the person of Jesus Christ. Similarly but not identically, the incarnation ofScripture describes the presence of divine knowledge in prophetic thinking.Doubtlessly, prophetic thinking originates with God. Yet according to thedoctrine of Scripture, God chose to communicate with us through the prophets(2 Peter 1:20-21). This means that somehow, God’s thoughts entered the mindand experience of the biblical writers. The prophets, then, passed on this divineknowledge to us through how they understood the sources God gave them— themeaningful forms of revelation. The people God used became the point, or locus,where the incarnation of divine thought took place.

The writers of Scripture assumed the historical understanding of humannature (§70) and reason (§71-72). As rational beings, prophets are notpassive, but active, receptors. Their minds actively shape what they receivefrom God in the very act of receiving the meaningful forms.

To assert that the prophets were not passive as they received God’s revelationand recorded it may be disturbing to you. How can God be the author ofScripture if His writers contributed to its contents? This is a reasonable objection.Yet, just because the prophets interpreted the sources of revelation they hadreceived from God before they communicated them to other people does notnecessarily contradict the biblical claim that Scripture originates in God. Tounderstand this, we must examine both the prophets’ reception and contributions.

1. Prophets as Historical Beings

What kind of being is the prophet at the moment he receives divine revelation?Are his rational powers changed or “elevated” to make him fit to receiverevelation? How we answer these questions determines how we understand theincarnation of God’s revealed thoughts; to do that, we must apply the


hermeneutical presuppositions we discussed in Chapter 13. Prophets were normal human beings just like us (James 5:17). Their natures

or brain functions were no different than ours. In other words, God did not elevatetheir rational powers to fit superhuman, timeless contents. According to biblicalteaching on human nature, they did not have a timeless soul that needed elevationbefore it could receive meaningful forms from God (§70.3). Their natures werehistorical. God merely condescended to communicate His thoughts at their level;as we have discussed, nothing in His nature prevents Him from doing so (§82.1).

If human nature is historical, then individual human beings as well astheir history as a community develops over time— historically. Greekphilosophy understands human nature in analogy of material nonhistoricalthings (see §29); Scripture understands human nature from the perspectiveof the events human beings create in space and time. History exists becausehumans produce it. Human nature must be understood historically. In thiscontext, human knowledge must also operate historically; that is, it developsover time. 2. Historical Minds

To have a “historical mind” does not mean merely that prophets existed inhistory, but that their cognitive abilities operated along the historicalprocesses of their own experiences. We have already explored the historicalfunctioning of human knowledge and its presence in biblical thinking (§71.2-3). Here, we will look at how a mind that processes information over ahistorical period would process divine revelation in meaningful forms.

Human knowledge is a subject-object relationship (§24). Knowledgealways and only takes place when humans receive sources ofinformation— that is, objects of knowledge. Knowledge requirespresuppositions. Processing information through a person’s presuppositionsis an act of interpretation.

Historical reason, then, operates by way of interpretation, andinterpretation operates by way of presuppositions. Presuppositions provideframes of reference within which knowledge takes place (see §24.3).

Where do prophets get the presuppositions they use to receive divine


revelation? From the community to which they belong. a. Belonging

As people existing in history, prophets belong to the communities of theirbirth. The contents and experiences they receive there shape their minds. Aschildren they absorb everything around them indiscriminately; their homesand communities literally mold them.

Later in their lives, through the exercise of their freedom, prophets canchoose the contents and experiences they will use to search for meaning indifferent situations. While they still belong to a particular community, it doesnot hold absolute sway over them.

Belonging forms not only a person’s presuppositions, but also theirconcrete personal being. After all, we are what we think (Proverbs 23:7).Belonging, by itself, seems to end in determinism. We are what ourcommunity is. The community defines our patterns of thinking andunderstanding. If this alone is the origin of the hermeneutical presuppositionswe use in historical reasoning, does it not mean that our community thinksin and for us, and that we are unable to think truly for ourselves? Thisamounts to cultural determinism.

You might well ask if we have found ourselves in a circular argument. Ifwe can only understand something through our presuppositions, and ourpresuppositions are determined by our cultures, does it not mean we can onlyunderstand what our cultural origins allow? If so, we approach the text of theBible with our own presuppositions, determined by culture, and come backwith an understanding of the Bible that fits those presuppositions. In otherwords, we only get out of the text what we bring to it. Such a notion wouldproduce many different interpretations of the Bible, all valid, by scholars ofdifferent cultures, resulting in theological relativism and religious pluralism.To break this vicious cycle, human freedom must intervene.

b. Freedom and Presuppositions

Why are we so often inclined to conclude that our cultural background


predetermines our knowledge in general and our understanding of Scripture inparticular? We make this mistake when we overemphasize cultural belonging andignore the role of the free will. While cultural belonging certainly determines thestarting point of understanding, the hermeneutical approach to human knowledgestrongly disagrees with cultural predestination.5 Every person’s thinking isshaped by their culture during their earliest years, but as they approachadulthood they discover freedom and begin to exercise it. If belongingcontrols them, they eventually surrender most of their freedom to culture— assome existentialist authors believe most people do. But they do not have todo so.

To think hermeneutically requires that we choose which authority toconsult for our presuppositions, as it is impossible to create themourselves. Obviously, most people choose to trust their cultures. Theother option is to choose our presuppositions “from the thingsthemselves.”6

What, then, are the “things themselves?” In Gadamer’s example of aliterary critic, they are the texts in question.7 For a doctor they may bepatients. For Christians studying revelation-inspiration, the things themselvesconsist of the revelation of God in Scripture.

We might compare the experience of obtaining our presuppositions aboutScripture with our Christian experience itself. In the latter, we have thechoice between basing our presuppositions about God and Christianity onwhat pastors and other believers tell us, or on what Scripture says aboutthem. The same goes for Scripture itself; either we choose to believe whatothers tell us about it, or what the Bible says about itself.

As free agents the Bible writers could choose their presuppositions.We must not think of them as mere products of their communities andtimes. But if they are not, how did prophets shape their presuppositions?If they were free, might they not have chosen the wrong presuppositions,and thereby distorted divine revelation? These questions require that weexamine how the prophets were prepared to record God’s revelation. c. The Prophets’ Sanctification


God carefully chose the people who would write His word. The Bibledescribes the call of people who became writers of Scripture, for example,Moses in the Old Testament (Exodus 3:2, 4, 10), and Paul in the New (Acts9:4-6, 15-16; 13:2-3). From these examples we find that God did not useatheists or followers of Baal or Diana to receive his revelations. On thecontrary, he called people who were already intent on serving Him. Not onlydid He choose the best people to write for Him, but He also prepared themto do so.

In that preparation, God did not elevate their rational capabilities tounderstand supposedly timeless truths. However, they experienced justificationand sanctification (Romans 12:1-2), thereby the transformation of their minds’patterns. This is how, according to the historical-cognitive model, God preparedthe biblical writers for their task. In other words, God did not prepare themsupernaturally, but through his providence. The fitting of the prophets’ mindstook place within the stealth-indirect mode of divine operation (§81.3; seealso §83.2). The prophets were prepared by their conversions.

To explain, once the prophets were converted, the process ofsanctification, or being set apart for God’s work, changed their minds so thatthey found divine teachings becoming part of their own thoughts and actions.The Holy Spirit transformed the writers’ perspectives from human to divineby enabling them to understand and apply previous revelations to their ownlives, a process available to all the people in their communities.

In other words, God selected His chosen instruments from the pool ofconverted persons. They freely chose to serve the Lord (Deuteronomy 30:15-20; Joshua 24:14-24), and He changed their presuppositions. God picked Hisrepresentatives not because they uncritically adjusted to the culture of theirtimes, but because they did not. They had already begun to see things froma divine point of view and were historicall-and culturally-loadedagents— people specifically able to receive and write fresh revelations.Moreover, since sanctification transforms a person throughout their lifetime,we can safely assume that each prophet’s capacity for understanding divinerevelation grew as they did, and as they received new revelations from God.

Finally, we find freedom behind how each prophet applied his


presuppositions to the sources of revelation they received from God.Presuppositions, even those determined by previous revelations, do notconfine the mind to a predetermined result. Instead, they take a single truthor event and open it to multiple meanings. From what they understood,prophets chose the meanings that best fit the purpose of their writings.Prophets frequently shaped their revelations by conversing with God (Exodus3; Isaiah 6:1-13). This same freedom also appears in the four Gospels, inwhich the same event is described differently by each writer to accomplishdifferent purposes.

§89. INCARNATION’S A PRIORI MODESTheologians use the term a priori, Latin for “from the former,” to describesomething that occurs or exists before and independent from something else.For example, Christ’s incarnation took the form of a human being.Humanity, therefore, is a priori— prior to and independent from— Jesus’incarnation. The a priori characteristics of human nature were assumed byChrist and shaped His concrete form; in other words, Christ’s being as ahuman was determined by what it meant to be human.

1. The Prophetic A Priori

When we discuss the prophetic a priori, we refer to everything the prophetsbrought to the reception of divine revelation. We may divide the prophetic apriori into two types— formal and material. The formal a priori includescognitive and linguistic modes that all prophets share in their humanity. Wehave seen that revelation is incarnated in human beings. But this incarnationis not like Christ’s, which involved the divine nature incarnating itself inhuman nature, an incarnation of being. In revelation, we have the incarnationof knowledge within human minds, specifically, in human language. Thematerial a priori refers to the sum of experiences and ideas each individualwriter brings to the reception and processing of divinely originated meaning-ful forms.


Both formal and material a prioris were in place, for example, when Godrevealed Himself to Moses. A proper understanding of the revelation process,then, must include not only the divine operations through which God createdthe sources-means of revelation, but also their reception by the biblicalwriters. This reception is not neutral because the prophets, as historicalbeings, bring to the reception a formal and a material a priori that shapes theprocess of reception.

The formal a priori sets the general characteristics and limits for theincarnation of divine revelation— what kind of language it will be in, forinstance. The material a priori sets the presuppositions that biblical writersneed to receive the sources of revelation, such as the assumption that Godexists, can and does speak to individuals living in time and space. Since toreceive revelation is to interpret it, we must understand these presuppositionsand how they function as revelation is incarnated. In this section, we willdeal with the prophets’ formal a priori. We will deal with the material apriori in the next section (§90).

2. Contents and Mode

To understand the function of the a priori, we must explore the subtle butimportant distinction between content (material) and mode (form).

Here content and mode refer to human knowledge. The content of knowledgeis what we know; the mode of knowledge refers to how we know what we know.

Humans begin by identifying new knowledge with the things alreadyfamiliar to them. Your reading of this book, for instance, is adding contentto your knowledge of the Bible. The material a priori is the knowledgepresent in your mind before you started reading the book. In the case of thebiblical writers, they processed the meaningful forms they received from Godbased on knowledge they already had concerning history and geography(dates, places, events), ideas (love, goodness, sin), and teachings (wisdom,doctrines).

But what we know is different than how we know. We seldom reflect on theway we think. We just do it. For example, cats and dogs “know and speak”differently from humans. In some respects their knowledge and speech resemble


ours; they use their eyes to gather information and communicate by makingsounds. Our thinking differs greatly from theirs, however, on the level ofabstraction, and the ability to choose how we form our knowledge. This exampleshows that cognitive activities vary with the kind of being that possesses them.

As God the Father is a real being, so Jesus the God-man is a real being.We can reflect on the kind of beings they are, personality and character(content), or we can reflect on how the divine and human natures co-exist(mode). In theology, we do the latter when we speak of divine and humannatures. Speaking of the “nature” of something simply means to reflect on itscharacteristics. When we speak of the modes of revelation, we are referringto the characteristics of human knowledge that make it what it is.

3. The Modes of Human Knowledge

Divine revelation was incarnated in the human modes of knowledge andlanguage. While these modes do not determine the contents, or what becomesknown, they do dictate limitations on how divine revelation and inspirationcan operate. If God is to communicate His thoughts to human beings, Hemust use their language, that is, within the human modes of knowledge andwriting. As we have studied, God’s nature, however infinite, is still temporal,allowing Him to condescend to the human level and communicate withhumans in a way they can understand.

This implies God’s revelation begins at the level of human thinking andwriting, not to mention human knowledge itself. In other words, the sourcesof revelation did not start at the divine level only to be somehow “translated”to human thinking, as one would translate something from a more complexlanguage to an easier one. (This is in contrast to the classical view; see§38.2.) Because of this limitation, prophetic thought and writing willdemonstrate the characteristics of human modes. The perfection of divinethinking and writing is not present in Scripture.

a. Characteristics of Human Knowledge

Since only God can experience divine knowledge, we have no idea of how


God knows, other than what He tells us in Scripture. We read there that bycomparison with God’s perfect mode of knowledge, our human modeappears imperfect (Job 36:4; 37:16). But even when considered alone, thehuman mode of knowledge is incomplete.

Not surprisingly, many believe that God operated by way of His divine,perfect mode of knowledge in the process of revelation. To explain further, theperfection of divine knowledge involves, for instance, unlimited reach(omniscience— Hebrews 4:13; 1 John 3:20), exact accuracy (Psalm 38:9; 139:1-18; 147:5; Matthew 10:30), and absolute truthfulness (John 14:6). By contrast,the human mode of knowledge is limited in reach, inexact in accuracy, and partialin truthfulness. Human knowledge is limited to the few facts we gather over time;we never have a complete picture of anything, not even our own lives. Hans-Georg Gadamer,explains that knowledge is circular because we understand thewhole from the parts and the parts from the whole.8 This circle never endsbecause we learn of the parts one at the time, and we inevitably forget some.Indeed, perfect memory, an irreplaceable part of perfect knowledge, is not ahuman capability.

Moreover, human knowledge can never reach absolute accuracy. Accuracyis a scientific ideal reached only in degrees of approximation. We cannot knoweverything there is to know nor all the details involved in one single truth oraspect of reality. We see only glimpses.9 Absolute accuracy is a scientific myth.

In all this we see that humans can reach only partial, imperfect knowledgeof truth. That knowledge is always in development, never obtaining truthabsolutely, but always pursuing it. The reality of human knowledge is thatit is partial and can contain error and self-deception. These characteristics ofhuman knowledge made Christ’s temptations possible. They were the fabricinto which divine revelation was woven in the minds of the biblical writers.

Those who believe that the knowledge within revelation is God’s own,perfect knowledge believe that a perfect God can only operate in a perfectmode. On this basis, some have believed Scripture was written in languagespecifically suited for divine use. But as anyone who has read the Bible in itsoriginal languages can attest, its writers thought and composed Scripture withinthe normal, imperfect modes of human knowledge and language.


b. Characteristics of Human Language

Language is intimately related to knowledge, for knowledge must always bedescribed with words. But the two are different phenomena. Language is themost accurate way of communicating to human beings. Yet, just as withknowledge, human language is far from perfect. For instance, differenthuman languages have different levels of sophistication. Not every thoughthas a word to describe it; one word may mean several totally unrelatedthings; another might change meanings according to the context.

4. Divine Revelation: Perfection Within Imperfection

While God’s mode of cognition is perfect, the human cognition and languageinto which revelation is incarnated is all too imperfect. Does that mean thatScripture contains imperfections? At the level of the human vehicle, yes, but notat that of the revealed content. Let us return to Jesus’ incarnation. Was Hishuman being perfect? Not if one compares it with God’s perfect being. The pointof the incarnation was not the perfection or imperfection of Christ’s being, but ofHis mission and total obedience to God (John 5:19; 8:28; 15:15), especially Hisdeath on the cross (Luke 22:42)— perfect mission and obedience in an imperfectmode of existence.

The purpose of Scripture is to communicate God’s thoughts to us (see Amos4:13). This communication refers to the content, not to the cognition andlanguage. In the Bible an imperfect vehicle communicates perfect truth.

The problem is this: separating the content from the vehicle is impossible.Some believe thought inspiration allows theologians to sift human imperfectionout and secure the perfect message. Yet, the teachings they call central are chosenarbitrarily and remain inseparably united to human knowledge and language.Scripture is an inseparable whole of mode and content. To remove the cognitiveand linguistic modes is to remove the content. The imperfect perfection ofScripture puts its reliability and truthfulness in the right context, which we willexplore in our last chapter.


§90. INCARNATION’S A PRIORI CONTENTSIn this section we will finish the discussion on the contents of the prophetica priori. To begin, Christ’s incarnation brings up the question of heredity.What did Christ inherit from His human side of the family? Particularly, howdid He relate to sin by birth, aside from Satan’s temptations? Thesequestions obviously go beyond questions of language and culture to the veryexperience of what it means to be human.

In the incarnation of revelation, we ask similar questions. How did theprophets relate to sin by birth? How do tradition and community affect aprophet’s reception of revelation? These questions also go beyond cognition andlinguistics to the content of the prophetic a priori. What do the prophets bring tothe event of revelation from God? Where do these contents originate? Theprophetic a priori brings to the content of the Bible each writer’s constitution,experiences, and education (Figure 1).

1. Constitution

Constitution, here, means the nature human beings receive at birth. Does itconsist primarily of nature (what a person receives at birth), nurture (how aperson is raised by their family and culture), or freedom (they determine theirconstitution themselves)? This is a hotly contested philosophical issue.During the Enlightenment, rationalists thought all people were born with aset of innate ideas that work like software for scientific thinking; that is,everyone was born with a set of hermeneutical presuppositions. Later in


Figure 1: The Material Prophetic A priori

the debate, empiricists thought that people inherit no ideas at birth. Eachinfant’s mind is a tabula rasa— a blank slate.

Today, we know that both ideas were wrong. When we are born, we donot inherit any ideas or presuppositions; yet properly speaking, we are nota tabula rasa either. Each human being inherits from their parents a specificmental and physical constitution that affects how he or she knows things.

Our constitution can be compared to computer hardware. As differentcomputers are manufactured for different kinds of connections, so differenthuman minds come better prepared to connect better with some things thanothers. For instance, my mind connects better to abstract thinking than toemotional experiences. Different computer peripherals allow for differentinformation processes; a computer with a scanner can do certain things acomputer with a mere webcam cannot. Human minds are similar; mine isbetter prepared to see the connection between ideas than between writtenwords, so when I read, my attention and perception focus on ideas ratherthan letters or words. I cannot see both at the same time. Hence, I am aprofessor and author, not a book editor.

Their differing mental hardware directly affected how the differentprophets received and interpreted divine revelation. For instance, we mightsay Paul was less sensitive to emotional issues than David or Solomon.


These differences are not negative to revelation, but completely necessary.As each biblical writer came better equipped for some tasks than others, theydealt with some issues and disregarded others. 2. Cultural Experience

Experience includes all events in the life of a person within their concreteenvironment (§88.2.a). Prophets are not stripped of all that ever happened tothem as they receive revelation and write Scripture. They continue tofunction as historical beings.

As we will see, not all experiences are the same, nor do they play out inthe same way as presuppositions. Moreover, because prophets were sinfulpeople like everyone else, by revelation God always risks accidentalmisunderstanding or willful tampering. This danger is compounded by thefact that human sinfulness affected their environment as well as the prophetsthemselves.

Left to their own constitutions, experiences, and consequentpresuppositions, prophets inevitably would have altered divine revelation,turning God’s truth into a lie (Romans 1:25). God therefore had to interveneto prepare each prophet’s a priori not only for receiving divine revelation,but for understanding it as well. 3. Education

God prepares the prophet through a process of education beginning at birth.Scripture emphasizes the importance of education to transform the lives ofbelievers and the community of faith (Exodus 18:20; Deuteronomy 4:10,5:31, 6:7; Matthew 28:2).

Education is not merely the transmission of information, but the shapingof parameters through which we live and understand the world. In the handsof God, education is a tool to transform human lives into His image.10 In thatprocess, the Holy Spirit helps us to receive and understand the teachings andwill of God,11 which shapes who we are (our characters) and what we think(our presuppositions).12


To do this God uses as an objective means existing special revelation (§83.2).Understanding, accepting, and living according to these prior revelations, then,shaped the Bible writers’ presuppositions. This involved not only divineinitiative and operation, but also the exercise of prophetic freedom (§88.2.b).By entering into God’s salvation (§88.2.c), prophets were made fit to receive,interpret, appreciate, and communicate divine revelations.

Again, we see no evidence of special transformation or elevation of thehuman, rational capabilities, but rather a transformation of presuppositions. Inother words, God did not change His writers’ hardware, but their software. Still,prophets could rebel and use their freedom to tamper with God’s sources ofrevelation. To prevent this, the Holy Spirit also guides the process of writing, ininspiration.

§91. INCARNATION’S OPERATIONChrist’s incarnation took place as He lived among us. As we consider Jesus’experience, we might well ask how He lived in the real world, and how he didwhat He did. Likewise, revelation’s incarnation operated as a cognitive processin the mind of the biblical writers; it was a real event in space and time. How didthe divine and human relate to each other in this event? We will probe thisquestion based on the foundations we have laid within this chapter.

1. Incarnation as Interpretation

The incarnation of revelation occurred as interpretation within the minds ofthe biblical writers. Each one received and processed the sources God gavethem. The doctrine of Scripture asserts that the prophets did not interpretthese sources based on what was in their minds, but according to God’s will(2 Peter 1:20-21). How was that possible?

After all, interpretation involves the possibility of error and distortion. Toarrive at correct interpretations, prophets must have possessed the rightpresuppositions about what they received. Errors in prior understanding mighthave generated errors as the new meaningful forms were received. Consequently,


before calling a biblical writer, God prepared the prophet to be able to interpretHis messages correctly. In other words, God chose agents who had accepted Himas God and had already changed their minds and lives accordingly.

Moreover, God did not change the prophets’ lives any differently than Hedid anyone else; there was no supernatural intervention. On the contrary,God prepared their minds by operating in stealth mode, in the process ofhuman redemption and education (§81.3, §83). Consequently, prophetsunderstood God from His own viewpoint as revealed in Scripture. Theycould, so to speak, put themselves in God’s shoes.

2. Presuppositions Involved

Scripture speaks to the same assumptions the classical, evangelical, and modernmodels of revelation-inspiration imported from Greek philosophy, such as thenature of God, His interaction with history, and human nature and sin. These allform the grid from which the prophet interpreted new revelation. Each writer’sprior assumptions about divine things placed biblical writers on “God’s side.”

As they formed their interpretations, the prophets were free, for instance,to include or exclude facts and issues from their writings. Luke hints at thisin the introduction to his Gospel (Luke 1:1-3). But they did not use theirfreedom as an opportunity to make sense of revelation from their own privateor cultural viewpoints. In other words, their viewpoints affected how theyinterpreted revelation, but they were more concerned with understanding andexpressing God’s message

3. Levels of Operation

As the prophets received revelation from God in meaningful forms, divinitybecame forever incarnated in human thought and language in at least twomajor levels of operation: divine condescension and propheticreception/interpretation. These levels assume what we have discussed aboutthe historical interpretation of divine and human natures (§69-72), the modesof divine activity (§81), and the human modes of knowledge and language(§89.3).


Both levels operated within the same cognitive and linguistic forms. Humanlanguage and expression served as the nature assumed by the meaningful formsGod generated (divine condescension) and the humans received (interpretation).The meaningful forms shared the limitations and imperfections natural to createdhuman beings. Any divine form of knowledge or language is understood only byGod; scriptural revelation only hints at it, since it is expressed in human modes.

Revelation was incarnated in the relationship between the meaningfulforms and their reception/interpretation by human writers. Human thoughtand language became part of revelation forever as God condescended toreveal His thoughts within the limitations of those forms. He did not askhuman writers to translate his perfect thoughts into human language; He tookthe initiative to speak to them in their own language. This is the primarycomponent in the incarnation of revelation.

However, that incarnation is not limited to divine condescension.Revelation is communication, and therefore requires a human receptor. Onlythen is the incarnation complete. Because of the writers’ conversions,consecration, and faithfulness, God was able to use their interpretation of hismeaningful forms as an inseparable aspect of His revelation. Thus, theconcrete human perspectives of Scripture’s writers became part of the truthsthey imparted to us in those writings.

We cannot overemphasize the inseparableness of the divine and humancontributions to the incarnation of revelation. The whole Bible is fully humanand fully divine.

4. Primacy of the Sources of Revelation

Interpretation is always decided by its object, never by the interpreter (§71.2.band c). In order to understand it correctly, the interpreter must change accordingto the characteristics of the object. Why is it that we repeatedly return to theobject of our study? Because each time we approach it, we grasp a newaspect that reflects back on our prior understanding. As our priorassumptions mature, we can penetrate deeper into our object of study andbetter interpret it. Our interpretations grow ever more objective because ourpresuppositions are not superimposed by our imagination or culture, but


from the object itself— in this case, the text of Scripture.Gadamer explains the objectivity of interpretation: “A person who is

trying to understand is always projecting. He projects a meaning for the textas a whole as soon as some initial meaning emerges in the text. Again theinitial meaning emerges only because he is reading the text with particularexpectations in regard to a certain meaning. Working out this pre-projection,which is constantly revised in terms of what emerges as he penetrates intothe meaning, is understanding what is there.”13

According to Gadamer, we receive and understand the object byexpecting it to be something. Nevertheless as we receive the object, or readthe text, we perceive something unexpected within it. This new aspect forcesus to revise what we project onto the object, or into the text. Ourpreunderstanding or presuppositions become gradually more objective.Gadamer used a literary text as an example. For biblical writers, the objectof interpretation may be an earlier text (such as previous special revelationor historical revelation) or any other source of revelation.

Let me give a personal example. When I was ten years old, I spent summervacations in my grandparents’ home. It was summer and, as was customary,everyone took a long siesta in the middle of the day. Since I was too young toappreciate midday naps, I tried everything to make the time pass more quickly.One day during the siesta, I spotted a small brown New Testament. I knew I wassupposed to read the Bible, but up until now I had been busy being a kid. Butnow I had plenty of time. So I opened the little book and scanned over its pagestrying to “land” on the right spot. Then I saw it— Romans! That looked like fun.I immediately thought of the Roman empire, gladiators, and all sorts of intrigue.As Gadamer describes, I projected my imagination into what I was reading,expecting to find out something about the Roman wars. At the time I wasdisappointed that Paul’s letter has very little to do with that. Since then, throughmany readings of Romans and the rest of the Bible, my assumptions have beencompletely replaced. In fact, my presuppositions continue to change every timeI read Romans. As an old pastor told me when I was a kid, “Each time one readsScripture one finds new things.”

This ever-increasing objectivity played the same role as the Bible writers


interpreted the objects God presented to them: the meaningful forms. Theprophets’ interpretations were not their own. God determined how theyunderstood revelation through its sources, as each was received, understood, andwritten about. Thus, the incarnation of revelation consists of humaninterpretation dependent on the objectivity and primacy of its divine origin. InScripture, the thoughts of God became the thoughts of humans.

§92. REVIEW

• When we say revelation was “incarnated,” we must define what thatmeans. To say we subscribe to an “incarnational view of inspiration” assumes thatwe interpret how the word of God was incarnated. In other words, it is notenough to recognize the fact of incarnation; incarnation must be defined. Inthe historical-cognitive model, incarnational inspiration refers to howrevelation entered the thought and language of the biblical writers.

• The incarnation of christ: an explanatory tool. The incarnation of God in Christ and the incarnation of revelation in the Bibleare similar, but we cannot use our knowledge of the incarnation of God inChrist to explain directly the doctrine of revelation-inspiration. Instead, wemust study each incarnation on its own. Only after those studies are completecan one speak of their similarities. In this chapter, we use the analogy betweenthe two as a tool of explanation, not a source of interpretation.

• The structure of revelation’s incarnation.The incarnation of revelation took place as a subject-object relationshipbetween the prophets and the meaningful forms they received from God.The free interaction between these forms and the Bible writers’presuppositions shaped how those writers thought, resulting in theincarnation in human thought and language of divine ideas.


• The Locus of Incarnation. The incarnation of divine knowledge took place within the cognitiveexperiences of the biblical writers, that is, within their mental capacitiesand histories. This assertion assumes a historical understanding of humannature (§70) and reason (§71-72).

• Prophets as historical beings. Prophets were human beings just as we are (James 5:17). Divinity did notchange their natures nor how their minds functioned. God did not elevatetheir natures and rational powers to fit superhuman, timeless contents.According to biblical teaching on human nature, they did not have atimeless soul that could be elevated to receive such timeless meaningfulforms (§70.3).

• The prophets’ historical reason.Historical reason operates through interpretation, while interpretationoperates through presuppositions. Presuppositions are frames of referencefor new knowledge (see §24.3). In the historical view of reason, aperson’s life experiences and learning shape their frames ofreference— their presuppositions.

• Prophetic presuppositions belong to a community. As historical human beings, prophets belong to the community of their birth.The contents and experiences they receive there shape their minds. Duringchildhood, a person absorbs everything indiscriminately. The home andcommunity literally mold an individual.

• Prophetic presuppositions are not culturally determined. Cultural opinions do not dictate prophetic assumptions, but the sourcesof revelation do.

• God prepared the prophets’ presuppositions.

In fitting them for receiving his revelation, God did not elevate the prophets’


rational capabilities to fit the supposedly timeless contents of supernaturaltruths. He did, however, transform their minds through the experiences ofjustification and sanctification (Romans 12:1-2).

• The prophetic a priori. The prophetic a priori refers to everything that the prophets brought tothe reception of divine revelation. We may divide the prophetic a prioriin two types— formal and material.

• The formal apriori.The formal a priori includes cognitive and linguistics modes that allprophets share because of their humanness–that is, the languages theyspeak and the ways they think.

• The material a priori.The material a priori refers to the sum of experiences and ideas thateach of he biblical writers brought to the reception and processing ofdivine revelation in meaningful forms.

• Mode (formal a priori) and contents (material a priori).Content and mode refer to human knowledge, which occurs indifferent ways. Knowledge as content refers to what we know;knowledge as mode refers to how we know what we know.

• Divine and human modes of knowledge.The divine mode of knowledge is perfect, in contrast with theimperfection of the human mode. Divine knowledge is, for instance,unlimited in reach (omniscience–Hebrews 4:13; 1 John 3:20), exactin accuracy (Psalms 38:9; 139:1-18; 147:5; Matthew 10:30), andabsolute in truthfulness (John 146). By contrast, human knowledge islimited in reach, inexact in accuracy, and partial in truthfulness.

• The imperfect perfection of divine revelation.


Biblical revelation is both imperfect and perfect without contradictionbecause both affirmations refer to different things. Because God givesrevelation within the human modes of knowledge and language, itshares their limitations–their imperfections. But though these modesare imperfect, God can still use them to communicate his views;therefore the content of Scripture is perfect.

• Revelation’s content and vehicle: inseparable.Separating the content from the vehicle is absolutely impossible. Somebelieve thought inspiration allows theologians to sift humanimperfection out and secure the perfect message. But even theteachings they arbitrarily retain are still inseparable united to humanmodes of knowledge and language. Scripture is an inseparable wholeof mode and content. To remove the cognitive and linguistic modessupplied by the human writers is to remove the contents given by God.

• The prophet’s constitution.Human constitution refers to the inherited physical and mentalmakeup that plays a similar role to computer hardware. Eachindividual receives a different constitution affecting their thinking andwriting.

• The prophet’s cultural background.Cultural experience includes all events in the life of a person within aconcrete environment (§88.2.a). Prophets are not stripped of theireveryday experiences as they receive revelation and write Scripture.They continue to be and to function as historical beings.

• The prophet’s education.God prepares the prophet through an education that begins at birth.Education is not merely the transmission of information, but theshaping of a viewpoint from which we live and understand the world.As the prophets grew as people, the Holy Spirit used their education


to shape their characters and presuppositions.

• Incarnation as interpretation.The incarnation of revelation in the mind of biblical writers operatedas interpretation. They received and interpreted meaningful sourcesgiven by God. Accurate reception required that their priorassumptions also be given by God.

• The prophet’s prior assumptions for interpretation. God called prophets whom He had already made able to interpret Hismessages correctly. There was no supernatural act involved that setthem apart from everyone else. Instead, God prepared theirassumptions and presuppositions in the process of their redemptionand education–something He does for everyone in His stealth mode ofoperation (§81.3 and §83).

• The incarnation of revelation as divine condescension.Revelation was incarnated as the human writers received andinterpreted meaningful forms given to them by God. Humans formsof knowledge and language became part of revelation forever as Godcondescended to reveal His thoughts within those limitations. God didnot ask human writers to translate His thoughts into human language,but did it Himself. Humanity became part of revelation as Godproduced the sources of revelation, which were recorded by theprophets in human thought and language. This is the primarycomponent in the incarnation of revelation.

• The incarnation of revelation as prophetic reception/interpretation.The incarnation of revelation is not simply the production of sourcesof revelation in human forms. Because revelation is communication,it requires reception by a person. Incarnation requires a humanreceptor. Because of the prophet’s conversion, consecration, andfaithfulness to God, his interpretation of divine revelation became the


1 For example, see Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance, 13 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936), I/2: 499.

2Alden Thompson, Inspiration: Hard Questions, Honest Answers (Hagerstown:Review and Herald, 1991), 87-97.

3 For example, Paul J. Achtemeier, Inspiration and Authority: Nature andFunction of Christian Scripture (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), 91.

4 Ibid.

5 See Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, trans. Joel Weinsheimer andDonald G. Marshall, 2d rev. ed. (New York: Continuum, 1989), 265-269.

expression of God’s revelation through His meaningful forms. Theprophets interpretations cannot be separated from revelation. Theirconcrete perspectives became part of the truths they imparted to us intheir writings.

• No prophecy of Scripture depended on an of its writer’s own interpretation.Objectivity played a central role in prophetic interpretation. Goddetermined the prophets’ interpretation through the very sources ofrevelation He gave them. As they interacted with those sourcesthrough their presuppositions, the sources made corrections in thoseprior assumptions and thereby made the prophets’ interpretationsevermore objective. This process allows us to recognize theincarnation of revelation as human interpretation, and yet keep theobjectivity and primacy of the Bible’s divine origin. In Scripture, thethoughts of God became the thoughts and words of human beings.

ENDNOTES


6 Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, trans. John Macquarrie and EdwardRobinson (New York: Harper and Collins, 1962), 153; Gadamer, 265-269.

7 Gadamer, 267.

8 Ibid., 291.

9 Ellen G. White states: “It is impossible for any human mind to exhaust evenone truth or promise of the Bible. One catches the glory from one point of view,another from another point; yet we can discern only gleamings. The full radianceis beyond our vision” (Education [Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1952],171).

10 Ibid., 236.

11 Ellen G. White, Fundamentals of Christian Education (Nashville: SouthernPublishing, 1923), 415.

12 Ellen G. White, Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Students (MountainView: Pacific Press, 1943), 46.

13 Gadamer, 267, emphasis mine.

17. PATTERNS OF REVELATION

Let us review the historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration as wehave studied it thus far. The cognitive process through which the informationand ideas found in the Bible came to the minds of its writers we call“revelation” (§2.4 and §10). Knowledge, we have also seen, occurs througha subject-object relationship (§24). In the subject-object relationship ofrevelation, we find the role of subject played by God, as the source of theinformation and ideas, and the prophets, who received them as playing therole of receiving “object.” (§25).

In revelation, God originated the content, or sources of revelation (seeChapter 15), and the human writers received that content. This relationshiptook the form of an incarnation of divine thoughts. God condescended totranslate his thoughts into human cognitive forms. Prophets received thesethoughts as they would other thoughts, except for their source. In otherwords, the humanity of the prophets dictated both the modes (how theyknew) and the contents (what they were able to know) of what God told them(Chapter 16).

Did the divine and human agencies always follow the same concretepattern from beginning to end? Or does the evidence point to a variety ofpatterns? Our study has revealed that both God and the prophets acted indifferent ways. Thus, no single pattern of explanation can do justice to thevariety of divine and human activities that generated Scripture. This chapter

PATTERNS OF REVELATION 353

attempts to answer the question of what patterns those activities followed.The patterns we will consider here include the theophanic, verbal, prophetic,historical, existential, and wisdom. We will close by considering some generalfeatures of revelation from the perspective of the historical-cognitive model.

§93. CLARIFICATIONBefore considering some examples of the patterns of revelation, let us makesome definitions. By the word “pattern” we mean a discernible, coherentsystem based on the intended interrelationship between component parts. As asystem of relationships, a pattern includes special arrangements orconfigurations of parts and procedures. Moreover, these arrangements orconfigurations can be repeated.

The patterns of revelation are the concrete configurations taken by theincarnation of the word of God within human minds. The relationships withineach configuration occur between divine sources and humanreception/interpretation.

In this chapter, we will look at the most obvious patterns of revelationrevealed by the phenomena of Scripture; we will not cover all of them, norexhaust the ones we present. Keep in mind, as you read, that our intent is toexplore the historical-cognitive model broadly rather than in great detail.

We begin with the following question: What causes the patterns to vary?Let us begin with “the things themselves”— the record of Scripture.

1. Biblical Foundation

Different patterns of revelation occur in Scripture because God chose tospeak in different ways. If divine wisdom saw fit to do so, we should not besurprised to find that the human beings to which He spoke received His wordin many different ways as well. In other words, human variety in each patternwas determined by the divine initiative in choosing the revelatory form, notvice versa.

The introduction to the epistle to the Hebrews affirms that “in the past


God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times(? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ) and in various ways (? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ), but in these last days hehas spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, andthrough whom he made the universe” (Hebrews 1:1, NAB). In this text, wefind two essential characteristics of divine revelation. First, the Greek? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? comes from ? ? ? ? ? (“many”) and ? ? ? ? ? (“part”), so literally itmeans, “many parts,” “fragmentary,” or “pertaining to many parts.” Thus,God spoke through the prophets in many installments, the last of which wasJesus Christ. As we have alluded to earlier, God revealed himself along thecourse of the sequence of time.

Second, the text says that God spoke “in various ways.” The word? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? is made up of two words: ? ? ? ? ? (“many”) and ? ? ? ? ? ?(“manner”). The translation “in various ways” is literally accurate. The manymodes are made possible because of all the different installments. Had there beenonly one instance of revelation, no variety of modes would have been possible. In fact this is what we studied in Chapter 15; different meaningful formsexist due to different ways in which God revealed His content. These modesdetermined the existence of the various patterns of divine revelation. Why didGod choose different manners of revelation? Why didn’t he simply speak inonly one way— the best available?

2. Need

Since nothing in the Bible addresses the issue directly, we cannot answer thequestion in absolute fashion; in other words, the doctrine of Scripture doesnot speak to the problem. But we may gain some understanding at the edges,that is, from the phenomena of Scripture. This is not an exegetical approachbut a systematic one, much like that we have used in this section andthroughout the book. As we explore the question, we must remember ourgoal is not to penetrate mysteries God has not revealed, but to understand therevelation already given us. We are searching for insight into Hebrews 1:1. Byso doing we will avoid the stumbling blocks of trying to understand our object ofstudy based on our own, independent presuppositions.

We must begin from the fact that God intended Scripture as an objective


instrument of communication. Scripture presents itself as such (2 Timothy3:16; Luke 24:27; John 5:39; Acts 17:2; Romans 15:4, 16:26; 1 Corinthians10:11). God devised Scripture as a tool for revealing himself to all peoplesin all ages. As such a tool, Scripture assumes what must be said and whowill hear or read it. Its hugely diverse audience may explain the repetitionsone finds in its pages, such as the four gospels. In other words, saying thesame thing over in different words or ways might reach someone who didn’tunderstand or absorb the message the first time.

But perhaps a better explanation for the diversity of the Bible’s contentsis the diversity of issues God wanted to address. The doctrine andphenomena of Scripture cover historical, existential, prophetic, theological,practical, and strategic issues. It might well be that God chose the patternsaccording to the nature of each of these issues. If so, we are able to identifythe main patterns of divine revelation.

3. Types

God’s different approaches to revealing himself produced several types ofrevelatory sources (§82-83). These different approaches meant that thehuman recipients received revelation in different ways, even though thepattern always took place within a cognitive relationship between God andpeople.

Different types of meaningful forms meant that the human writers were calledupon to play different roles. In other words, they were asked to perform differentcognitive activities. Despite different forms, each pattern consisted of a concrete,divine-human engagement through which the specific, cognitive word of Godbecame incarnate in human thought and language.

Here, we will examine only the most obvious patterns of divine revelation,based on our analysis of the sources of revelation. These patterns, as wementioned above, are the theophanic, verbal, prophetic, historical, existential, andwisdom. Although other patterns account for large portions of Scripture, mostbooks involve multiple patterns in their production— usually one or more of thefirst five. We will never know exactly how the divine and human agenciesinteracted in each instance; moreover, we would not benefit significantly from


such precision. But by examining these main patterns of interaction, we may gaina better sense of how to understand Scripture and its authority. And even thoughwe will introduce these six patterns, remember that the pattern of revelationfor each book of Scripture is unique, so each book must be studiedindividually.

Consequently, we should never decide what the revelatory pattern of aparticular book is without studying its doctrine and phenomena. For instance, wemight assume that since the book of Daniel is a prophetic book, its entirecontents must have been produced from the prophetic pattern of revelation. Butas we analyze the book, we find large patterns in the historical pattern ofrevelation, and even a few verses in the existential. Even in some of the shorterwritings, we find divine revelation operating in several patterns. Beforeaddressing each pattern individually and focusing on their distinctiveness, let usconsider what they have in common, the hermeneutical structure shared by allrevelatory patterns.

4. Hermeneutical Structure

In §87, we learned that the incarnation of God’s thoughts and informationhappened when biblical writers received the sources of revelation andinterpreted them from their own experiential point of view. Here we mustexplore this idea further, beyond the basic subject-object structure. In orderto properly understand each pattern, we need to see how God used the meansof revelation He created as instruments to shape the thoughts and informationin the minds of the biblical writers.

In many cases we are aware of what the Bible writers did to record theinformation, and are tempted to overlook God’s role in those instances. In othercases, when God was revealing information and ideas in open mode, we finddifficulty in distinguishing between God’s generation of the meaningful forms,and the writer’s interpretation of them— since they happen simultaneously. WhenGod operates in stealth mode, the difference is more obvious because themeaningful forms were clearly generated some time before they were recorded bythe writer.

To explain further, past scholars have assumed that God gives the content


of revelation and the prophet receives it, nothing more. The divine generationof meaningful forms is so powerful that it impresses the truth of therevelation into the prophet’s mind by sheer force. The classical andevangelical models of revelation-inspiration hold to this miraculous view ofrevelation.

But according to the historical-cognitive model, God generates themeaningful forms within the limitations of time, history, and the human modesof thought and language. Merely showing some truth to the prophet does notinsure that the prophet will receive the message. Thus, while God generates theforms, He also uses them to cause understanding in the prophet’s mind.

Let us examine the case of Moses’ visit with God at the burning bush inExodus 3:1-4:17, in which God both enters and explains the dynamics ofrevelation. We pick up the story in 4:10. After introducing himself, Godexpresses His desire to send Moses to Pharaoh. Moses explains to God why theAlmighty should find someone else: “Please, Lord, I have never been eloquent,neither recently nor in time past, nor since you have spoken to your servant; forI am slow of speech and slow of tongue.” God answers, “Who has made man’smouth? Or who makes him mute or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, theLord?” Then God promises to be with Moses: “Now then go, and I, even I, willbe with your mouth, and teach you what you are to say.” Moses is not convinced.He refuses the divine mission gently: “Please, Lord, now send the message bywhomever you will.” Angry, God answers Moses’s objection again: “Is there notyour brother Aaron the Levite? I know that he speaks fluently. And moreover,behold, he is coming out to meet you; when he sees you, he will be glad in hisheart. You are to speak to him and put the words in his mouth; and I, even I, willbe with your mouth and his mouth, and I will teach you what you are to do.”

God reveals here how he interacts with those who will speak for Him.Clearly, God is not forcing Moses, but attempting to persuade Him. By makingHis explanation, God is teaching Moses about himself and about what to expectas His chosen messenger. He promises to teach Moses what to say and what todo (Exodus 4:13,15). God forces neither the truth of the message nor the divinecalling on him. Within their conversation, God generates the means of revelationfor Moses and uses them. In the theophanic pattern, of which this story is an


example, God generates words by speaking them and uses them to teach truthsto the biblical writer. These truths include, in this example, the nature of thedivine being (Exodus 3:14-15), Moses’ commission as a prophet, and thedynamics of the hermeneutical structure of revelatory patterns— that is, Mosesbegins with one set of beliefs that is not immediately corrected by the revelation;God has to persuade him.

The general structure of revelatory patterns, then, is hermeneutical orinterpretive. God and the prophet enter into a cognitive relationship. God initiatesand directs the relationship. He creates and uses various sources of revelation,while the prophet receives them. God does not passively accept the reception-interpretation of His chosen messenger, but instead teaches the messenger untilhe understands what God wants to say. And as we see from Moses’ example, themessenger does not automatically accept what God says even when he knowsexactly Who he is talking to. The prophet discusses the issue or information withGod either through dialogue (in direct revelation) or reflection (in indirectrevelation). Through this dialogue with God, the truth becomes incarnate in themind of the prophet, almost as if God were a master teacher and the prophet aloyal disciple. Both parties act in complete freedom.

§94. THEOPHANIC PATTERNThe theophanic pattern, in which God reveals Himself directly, is key tounderstanding the other patterns of revelation in the Bible, even though thenumber of revelations produced in the pattern are few in number and usuallyquite short in length.

1. Divine Role

As we explored in §81, theophanies produce revelation in the open-miraculous-direct mode of divine operation. As the visible and audiblepresence of God in space and time, theophanies ground revelation inhistorical, temporal, spatial cognition. They demonstrate that Godcondescended to engage the human mind in its normal, everyday function.


Human receptivity was not called upon to translate divine timeless thoughtsinto human form; theophanies clearly show that God has translated Histhoughts for humans Himself. As He did so, the cognitive content of therevelation was contained within words uttered by the divine being. In the examplewe just looked at, God appeared in an angelic form in a burning bush. Byappearing visibly, God set the stage for communicating his revelation directly toMoses in the course of conversation. In other words, the knowledge God revealedcame directly through Moses’ eyes and ears as God appeared and spoke to him.

That said, we must keep several things in mind. That He was able to appearand speak demonstrates that there is nothing in God’s being preventing him frombecoming visible to human beings. We must not confuse God’s mere appearanceto people with the information or ideas He gave them at that time. Also,according to Scripture, divine invisibility is not due to God’s being (hisontological nature); in other words, God is invisible not because divinity isby definition beyond human sight, but because He utterly abhors sin. A veryfew people in the Bible actually saw God (Exodus 24:9-10; Judges 13:17-22),though at a distance (Exodus 33:21-23) and always based on God’scondescension.

2. Human Role

What is the place or function of the human writer who receives revelation? Mosesinterpreted what he was hearing and seeing as coming from God; he knew thewords and the being speaking them were divine revelation. The miraculouslygenerated physical forms, the fire and the angel, strongly indicated the divinepresence. Yet, someone else, a pagan perhaps, might have interpreted themdifferently.

But Moses immediately understood not only the words, but also theintention of God’s address to him, so he was able to converse with God. Byso doing, he, Moses, contributed to the content of Scripture. After all, God’sanswers to the prophet’s questions were part of what happened during thetheophany, and therefore of the revealed content of Scripture.

Moses received what God revealed through his human powers of perception.We may assume that when he later wrote down what happened, he relied on his


memory. God might have chosen to repeat the event in a vision or dream, but itwould have been unnecessary to produce the text as we have it. The historical-cognitive model assumes that the text was written solely from the informationobtained during the theophanic event.

To summarize, in the theophanic pattern of revelation, the contents ofScripture were derived from the open-miraculous-direct mode of divinecommunication. Human interpretation and contribution were present butminimal.

§95. VERBAL PATTERNScripture does not support the dictation or verbal theories of inspiration,though it does indicate that inspiration somehow reaches the level of thewords; in other words, revelation was incarnated in words as symbols ofmeaning. We will come back to this point in the next chapter. For now,though, the theophanic pattern of revelation shows that God did speakdirectly to prophets as He saw fit. A few times, God Himself chose to writeparticularly significant statements, such as the Decalogue (Exodus 31:18),and the handwriting on the wall during Belshazzar’s feast, just before the fallof Babylon (Daniel 5:5, 24).1 Although God produced these pieces, He is still using human language.There is no input by a human being, only open-miraculous-directcommunication. These few instances of verbal revelation tell us God couldhave written Scripture Himself, even if he was limited to the human modesof thinking.

Thus in the verbal pattern of revelation, God is in full control and thehuman factor comes in on the level of the modes of knowledge and languageonly. No human writer interpreted or contributed to the content of revelation.

§96. PROPHETIC PATTERNThe prophetic pattern of revelation originated many biblical discourses. In


Scripture, prophets were mostly teachers and only occasionally foretold thefuture. The prophetic pattern of revelation, then, gave rise not only toprophecies of the future, but also non-predictive discourse on many issues.Scripture contains much more extensive portions resulting from this patternthan from the theophanic or verbal patterns; one example is Peter’s vision inActs 10:11-16. The study of this pattern is important because the classicaland evangelical models use it for explaining the origin of the entire Bible.

1. Biblical Description

The introduction to the book of Revelation explains the structure of theprophetic pattern:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and he sent andcommunicated it by his angel to his bond-servant John, who testified to theword of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, andheed the things which are written in it; for the time is near. (1:1-3) God gave the content of Revelation to Jesus Christ, who communicated

it to an angel, who brought the information to John. Christ commanded Johnto write a testimony of what he saw in a book (Revelation 1:11). From thisdescription, we learn that in the prophetic pattern God operated in open-miraculous-direct mode. The information reached the prophet throughsupernatural visions or dreams containing visual representations and words. Thispattern emphasizes the visual nature of the meaningful forms. Johnreceived/interpreted (revelation) what he saw and put it into writing (inspiration).

Finally, John’s Apocalypse concerns “the things which must soon take place”(Revelation 1:1). It revolves around future events— not all future events, but thosethat must take place soon. This brings up another aspect of the prophetic pattern:it has a focus. Prophetic revelation (or that of any pattern) is not about random,disconnected facts, but about something in particular. That center is the realityrevelatory thinking aims to illumine. Revelation is content-driven and issue-oriented.


2. Divine Role

Revelation 1:1 says that God “communicated” the information. The Greekverb here is shmai,nw , which literally means “signed” or “made known bysigns.” In other words, in the prophetic pattern God produced visual andaudible symbols and communicated them through visions or dreams. Therepresentations might have included words, symbols, figures and events (suchas in Daniel 2). In this way, God communicated things out of the naturalreach of biblical prophets, just as He did in the theophanic pattern. But thetwo patterns remain distinct. On the one hand, prophecy took place in themind of the prophet and tended to emphasize visual communication— hencethe word “vision.” Theophany, on the other hand, took place in real space andtime and tended to rely on God speaking His message audibly to His chosenwriter.

If we study books like Daniel and Revelation, we find that while Godprovides symbols as meaningful forms, those symbols never completelyexplain the issues they represent. They do bring to light comprehensive ideasor structures of meaning, but without any exhaustive detail of events orrelated issues. 3. Human Role

Since God creates the contents of prophecy, we might be tempted to believethat the human writers played no role in the prophetic pattern of revelation.But Revelation 1:2, for example, tells us the book contains the writtentestimony of what John saw. If he was a witness, he had personal knowledgeof what he saw; in other words, for him to know, he had to receive andinterpret what God showed him. Consequently, the prophetic pattern requiresreception and interpretation on the part of the biblical writer. John’sintroduction to the book of Revelation implies that the entire volume was aproduct of the pattern described in the first three verses.

Our view of the human role in the prophetic pattern may vary according to ourpresuppositions of prophecy’s reach. If the prophets had only to write down whatthey heard and saw, their contributions appear limited to the choice of words in


the inspiration process. But the choice of words assumes an interpretation of those visual

representations and symbols they were given. Consider the following:Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And havingturned I saw seven golden lampstands; and in the middle of the lampstandsI saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, andgirded across his chest with a golden sash. His head and his hair were whitelike white wool, like snow; and his eyes were like a flame of fire (Revelation1:12-14, emphasis mine).What John saw with his eyes, his mind had to process— to receive and

understand. We can understand the meanings of his linguistic analogies onlyif we understand that we can only see them as he saw and recorded them. Thecomparisons he makes here were not given to him; they are a record of hisinterpretation. Thus, even choosing the words to describe prophetic revelationdepended on the prophet’s understanding of what God gave him. But we must take the prophet’s role further. If we extend the reach of thispattern to an entire book or even a section of one, the human role does not appearto be so limited. The writers interpret what they receive and contribute to thecontent of revelation, for example, from their self-awareness, geographicalknowledge, acceptance of prior revelation, and theological reflections.

Another way the prophets contributed to the prophetic pattern was byconversing with the angels in their visions. The book of Daniel provides oneexample. God gave the seventy weeks prophecy to answer Daniel’s prayer (see9:22-27). Daniel had been praying for understanding after an earlier vision(Daniel 8:2-14). When he tried to understand the vision’s symbols at the time,God had sent the angel Gabriel to help him (8:15-26). But Daniel did not findGabriel’s assistance adequate; at the end of the chapter, he still complained thatno one could explain what he had seen (8:27).

So, as we follow the story, Daniel does two things. He double-checks earlierrevelation— specifically, the seventy years Jeremiah had predicted for theBabylonian captivity (Daniel 9:2). Then he offers an intercessory prayer onbehalf of the people of Israel, Jerusalem, and the Holy Sanctuary (Daniel 9:3-19).Why? Daniel apparently understood the previous vision to indicate that the


captivity would be longer than Jeremiah had prophesied— a possibility he foundupsetting enough to pray that it would not come true. This example shows that asthe prophets recorded their visions and dreams, they of necessity had to includetheir reception and interpretation of them.

If we return to our earlier example of the book of Revelation, we find thatthe first nine verses do not seem to come from the vision, but from John’sself-awareness, familiarity with prior revelations, and his own theologicalreflections. All these became part of the human role in the prophetic patternof revelation. God’s information was connected in the prophets’ minds withwhat was already there; as they wrote what they received, these aspects oftheir human knowledge became part of the Bible.

To summarize the prophetic pattern, God produced predominantly visualmeans of revelation through his open-miraculous-direct mode of operation.Because the writers understood the prophetic forms only in a limited way, theprophets’ role in the pattern included, besides human forms of knowledge andlanguage, the selection of words and analogies, their own self-awareness,knowledge of previous revelation, and theological reflections. In all these, thehuman and divine aspects of prophetic revelation were inseparably united.The cognitive word of God became the words of human writers.

§97. HISTORICAL PATTERNLarge sections of Scripture fall into the historical pattern, comprising themajority of biblical narratives. Were they generated by a type of revelationlike the prophetic pattern? Based on the doctrine and phenomena of Scripture,the historical-cognitive model answers no; the historical narratives representa different pattern of divine revelation (§82.3.a).

Each pattern hinges around a different mode of divine, revelatoryoperation. As God reveals Himself in different ways, the human agentsrespond by adjusting their reception and interpretation of the revelation.

As we have seen, the existence of a historical pattern of revelation can bemaintained from biblical presuppositions about God’s relationship to time andhistory (§66-69). This leads us to understand divine activities, including


revelation and inspiration, as historical (§69). Operating primarily throughprovidence, God administrates human history. That is where this pattern, thehistorical pattern, comes from. God’s providence is his stealth-nonmiraculousmode of operation (see §82.3 and §83); the meaningful forms of the historicalpattern of revelation are generated by the events of history, as guided by God.


The historical pattern is described by Luke in the introduction to his Gospelnarrative.

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have beenfulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who fromthe first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since Imyself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemedgood also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellentTheophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have beentaught (Luke 1:1-4, NIV). Luke’s decision to write the Gospel does not come from a divine

command. According to him, he came up with the idea. This contrasts starklywith the prophetic pattern, a direct line of revelation from God (review John’scall in §96.1). However, the real initiative belongs to the events. Whathappened in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus must be understood; soLuke begins to write.

In these verses, Luke presents an explicit and detailed description of thehistorical pattern. In the hermeneutical subject-object relationship (§24.3), theobject includes the events, the original interpretation by “eyewitnesses andservants of the word,” and their transmission to Luke. His contributionsincluded research, writing, and purpose.

a. Historical Events

The contents of the Gospels, as well as of the other historical sections ofScripture, did not come to the writers through theophanies, visions, or dreams, butfrom historical events involving God operating primarily in stealth-nonmiraculous


mode, both direct and indirect. What do we mean by “event?” Simply, an occurrence existing in space

and time. Since they take place continuously, the number of historical eventsis practically limitless. When we speak of “historical events,” we simply referto what happens in life.

The historical events of the life of Christ, as they happened from day today, are what Luke is referring to when he writes about “the things that havebeen fulfilled among us” (Luke 1:1). The word “things” (? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? )carries the notion of present, historical happenings, but because Lukequalifies them by saying that they “have been fulfilled”(? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ) they are not mere general history. They have beenbrought to completion. The events Luke has in mind not only took place, butwere fulfilled.

This fulfillment refers to their anticipated role in the plan of salvation. In otherwords, the plan of salvation is a sequential ensemble of divine redemptive acts.When the historical events anticipated in the eternal plan of salvation(predestination see Ephesias 1:3-11) take place, they are “fulfilled” because theirprophetic anticipation and soteriological role become real. They involve not only historical, but also direct, theological interest. Theprevious revelation of God came true in things that really happened “among us,”right before the eyes of Jesus’ followers, things however now “past” to Luke.

b. Original Reception and Interpretation

Because a past event exists as memory, not as a present occurrence, itspreservation in writing assumes a witness. The witness was there when theevent was presently happening; he or she received and experienced it throughhis or her senses. An event without a witness can never become “historical”in the sense of being communicated to others. Without a witness, the event islost in the irretrievable past.

Witnesses automatically interpret the events to which they attest. Thereis no such a thing as an uninterpreted, pure historical event. The meaning ofan event is assigned by experiencing it; such meaning springs from the eventitself (object) and its reception and interpretation by the witness (subject).


Historical events are very rich in variant meanings. An automobile accident,for instance, is one event, yet the accounts of it would be as varied as the numberof witnesses reporting it. This variation is due to the historicity of humanknowledge (§71).

Different interpretations of the same event may be complementary orcontradictory. If the accounts are complementary, they probably all workwithin the same basic hermeneutical presuppositions. The richness of theevent, together with the varying physical perspectives and the limitations ofhuman sense and knowledge result in the variant accounts. If the accountscontradict each other, it may be due to different presuppositions.

Luke does not claim to be an eyewitness of the events in his Gospel. He baseshis report, however, on “those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses andbecame servants of the word” (Luke 1:2, my translation). The fact that thewitnesses “became servants of the word” gives insight into their presuppositionsas witnesses. That they “became servants” means that they experiencedconversion based on the events they experienced.

When did that conversion take place? Was it before the Gospels were written,or after? Perhaps they became witnesses and servants simultaneously, “from thebeginning” of the events they witnessed. After all, the apostles began theirrelationship with Jesus by becoming his disciples. What they saw graduallytransformed their presuppositions. Jesus’ teachings and deeds had a profoundimpact on them; they might not have understood some things until some time afterthe actual events took place. This seems to have been the case with theresurrection of Christ. In the case of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus,Jesus had to repair their presuppositions so that they could understand not onlythe fact that he had been resurrected, but its theological implications as well (Luke24:27).

A witness had to possess the right presuppositions to correctly understand therevelation of God in Jesus Christ. Not only would they have to be familiar withthe events of his life firsthand; they also needed the theological-historicalbackground to which his story belonged: Old Testament revelation. Most of all,the right presuppositions required conversion to following Christ and thesubsequent transformation of life and mind. In different ways, all biblical writers


came to that experience and shared the same presuppositions.

c. Tradition?

Was there a long line of communication between the original witnesses andLuke? Some scholars, particularly of the historical-critical method and themodern model of revelation-inspiration, propose that the narratives of thegospels depended on some real historical events, and that those whotransmitted the stories about Jesus projected their theological presuppositionsonto those events, distorting or even fabricating them.

This picture flies in the face of Luke’s own methodological report. In hisintroduction, he not only emphasizes that he will report events that actually tookplace (Luke 1:1, 4), but affirms that he received the testimony of the originalwitnesses firsthand (Luke 1:2). Thus, while there was a transmission and thus asort of “tradition,” any distortions we might associate with that term were reducedto a minimum.

As we will see, Luke must have used a broad range of written and oralsources including not only apostles, but also testimonies from thecommunity— that is, oral traditions. In that sense tradition can be a part ofthis historical pattern of revelation.

Another sense in which tradition is present is at the level ofpresuppositions. That is, Bible writers shared in a set of what we might calltraditional presuppositions— traditional because they all believed certainthings, without which they could not correctly interpret events and writeScripture. For example, they had been both justified and sanctified, and hadaccepted prior revelations. These presuppositions allowed them to dealcritically with indirect source material, such as that of oral traditions aboutJesus of Nazareth.

That said, we must mention that we must be careful when using the word“tradition.” It only refers to transmission of information, or thepresuppositions associated with conversion— never to a school of theologicalthought that forced ideas of its own onto Jesus’ life and teachings. Such anassumption contradicts the Bible record, as we see in the next section.


d. Research

Luke sifted the evidence with which he was presented as he began his book.He “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” (Luke 1:3, NIV).Thus, he was not reduced to choosing words to describe supernaturallyinfused thoughts. He had to research, interpret, judge, and verify theevidence— assisted, perhaps, by his close relationship with the apostle Paul.As we have said before, in none of the patterns did God have to elevate thewriter’s innate powers of the mind. Their powers were natural, but sanctifiedby the conversion common to all believers.

Luke wrote his Gospel critically, gathering and evaluating all availableevidence. Like the other writers of Scripture, Luke knew that not all witnesseshave the same value. Luke required that his witnesses be “servants of theword” (Luke 1:2), that is, followers of Christ. Their thinking had to begrounded in the Old Testament and in Jesus’ teachings. They had to beexperiencing a transformation into the likeness of their Master. And the bestwitnesses were those that had been in close relation to Christ for the greatestlength of time.

Luke’s criteria for witnesses can be fairly compared to those used by theapostles as they gathered to select a replacement for Judas Iscariot— since herecorded that event as well. At that time, Simon Peter said,

It is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time thatthe Lord Jesus went in and out among us — beginning with the baptism ofJohn until the day that he was taken up from us— one of these must becomea witness with us of his resurrection (Acts 1:21-22).In the minds of the earliest believers, Jesus’ disciples were considered the

best witnesses to His life as God’s revelation. Luke must have agreed as hedid his research.

Someone may object that this criterion prevents the selection of neutral orobjective witnesses in favor of those who were subjectively inclined tosupport the claims of Jesus and the early church. Followers of the classicaland modern understandings of reason would assert that the disciples’ closeinvolvement with Christ disqualifies them as witnesses. They would be“lacking in objectivity.” To classical and modern thinkers, presuppositions


are subjective prejudices interfering with a correct understanding of the facts.From a hermeneutical perspective, however, the disciples’ involvement

with Christ made their witness objective, in the sense that the object inquestion— Jesus himself— was more clearly revealed the closer they came tohim. The more time they spent with him, the more He could correct theirpresuppositions about who He was, so his disciples gradually became betterable to describe to others who He was, and the theological meaning of whatthey saw. So they became His best witnesses. In fact they illustrate the mainqualification for a writer of Scripture in any pattern: accepting God’spresuppositions and being transformed by previous revelations.

e. Writing

The decisions to research and to write tell us that in the historical pattern ofrevelation, the Bible writers used their natural rational and linguistic powers.Luke says he chose “to write an orderly account” of the “things that had beenfulfilled” among them. Order implies sequence or other arrangement bypurpose. Although Luke does not specify the type of order in which hepresents the events, to some degree it is dictated by the events themselves.

The writings derived from the historical pattern form the biblicalnarratives. At the time of this writing, we hear much discussion of biblicalnarrative and “narrative theology.” As we engage in such conversations, wemust never forget that biblical narrative is not just a literary genre. Thenarratives in Scripture relate historical events in order to reveal God’sinvolvement with his covenantal community.

f. Purpose

Luke writes that his purpose in research and writing his gospel account isthat Theophilus “may know the certainty of the things you have been taught”(Luke 1:4, NIV). The emphasis here is on “certainty.” This speaks to thefactual nature of Luke’s investigation. He wants to make sure that his readerknows that the things he has been taught about Jesus are accurate. This doesnot refer to the spiritual certainty of faith, but to the historical certainty of the


facts on which the Christian faith is built. To say that the Gospels (or anybiblical, historical writing) are mere narratives that describe inaccessibleevents disregards the entire effort and express intention of the biblical writers.According to them, they are writing facts.

But the stories in the Bible are not mere historiographical accounts. Theydo ascertain what really happened, but include interpretation by the witnessesand writers, since God’s revelation in historical narratives is not only theevents, but those interpretations as well.

The purpose of biblical narrative, consequently, goes beyond historicalcertainty. After describing several episodes in Israel’s history, in 1Corinthians Paul writes that “these things happened to them as an example,and they were written for our instruction” (10:11). Narratives, then, exist toinstruct and teach those who hear or read the stories.

As we interpret the historical narratives of Scripture, we must bear in mindthat historical accuracy is required if the accounts are to be used to teach. AsLuke explicitly underlined, historical certainty was a purpose of the Gospelwriters. But this aim was subservient to the ultimate aim: to reveal God’sinvolvement in the history and lives of his people. As historical facts areinterpreted, God’s providence in them becomes clear, and the hearers and readersof the word learn from the accounts.

2. Divine Role

We explored God’s role in the historical pattern of revelation in §82.3. Toreview, in this pattern, God produces the meaningful forms for revelationthrough his providential rule and involvement with his chosen people. The“history” of the historical pattern, then, is not general human history, buthistory related to salvation. In that history, God sometimes operates openly,but more often stealthily. So when they received the meaningful forms in thehistorical pattern, the writers of Scripture did not usually have a sense of


supernatural, divine intervention. They could have received the sourcesdirectly or indirectly; that is, they may have been directly present when theevents occurred, or received the information later from eyewitnesses’ oral orwritten accounts.

Importantly, in the historical pattern God communicates His thoughts notthrough words, but through human deeds. The activities of His people revealHis involvement with the community He created. But why would God choosethe historical pattern of revelation over the prophetic, verbal, or theophanicpatterns of revelation? Are not words much more specific than deeds in tellingus about God? While there are no texts that answer this question directly, wemight fairly answer that God reveals Himself in the deeds of His peoplebecause those acts are the referent to the words He generated through theother patterns.

History is the story of life, and revelation is about life. Christ explainedthat He came to give us life, and for that reason gave up His life for us (John10:10-11). Moreover, when Christ speaks of giving us abundant life, He isnot only referring to the resurrection, but to our lives here and now (John8:12; 17:3). But these are only words, expressed by Christ in the theophanicpattern inherent to His incarnation. In other words, they were only ideas. Toclarify what He meant by abundant living, He had to perform acts in people’slives.

God could choose to reveal what kinds of deeds should and should notproceed from the spiritual life through visions and dreams, or infuse the ideasinto the prophets’ minds. If He so chose, He could dictate a historical accountof the facts. Yet, such methods would be completely disconnected from thelives God most intends to affect; they would occur apart from the very realitythey are intended to relate.

The historicity of the Christian religion had to be revealed through thehistorical pattern of revelation. Not by chance, Luke emphasized the actualhistorical events and the certainty of the witnesses’ reports. To put it simply,because of the human methodology inherent to the historical pattern, we knowfor a fact Jesus was not an invention, but a real human being that lived anddied in Palestine two thousand years ago. Because God also reveals Himself


in historical events, we know that when He speaks about life, He has in mindour present life as well as its eternal extension into the future.

God also used the historical pattern because His plan of salvation itselfunfolded over history. The central event of that history was Christ’s death forus. Christ’s death is the foundational mark carved directly by God into humanhistory, but it belongs to a much broader process called the history ofsalvation.

The history of salvation is that of God’s dealings with His people, the“covenantal community.” This history, limited to certain groups of people incertain times and geographical areas, reveals the operation of God’s salvificplan in the life of those people. From that process God works out salvationfor the entire human race. He could reveal the theoretical aspects of salvationthrough the theophanic and prophetic patterns, but not the process throughwhich it becomes reality. For instance, at Sinai, God revealed in some detailthe overall structure of the plan. The plan would become real through a seriesof divine activities within the history of God’s people. For instance, divineforeknowledge about Christ’s victory at the cross were prefigured by thesacrificial system; those ceremonies found their reality in the historical eventof Jesus death in space and time, not vice versa. Because they describe eventsrather than theory, the Gospels by nature tell us much more about salvationthan Leviticus does. God is revealed in the history of salvation; this requiresthe historical pattern of revelation to preserve it for all generations.

Finally, as alluded to above (§97.1.f), God uses the historical pattern ofrevelation to uncover how He thinks, feels, and deals with recurrent patterns ofhuman behavior. As we noted, Paul tells us that “these things happened to themas an example, and they were written for our instruction” (1Corinthians 10:11,NAB). History reveals “types” of divine activity that God repeats throughout theprocess of salvation. Thus, the historical pattern of revelation is also written to tellus how to apply what God tells us.

3. Human Role

The role of the prophet in the historical pattern is more sensitive and involvedbecause God’s activity does not always generate words like it does in the


previous patterns we have examined. Historical events have words associatedwith them, of course, but generally they belong to a person involved in theevents, not to God. (The one exception, in the Gospels, is Jesus Christ, GodHimself speaking in history.) So for the historical pattern to work, God hadto call biblical writers to identify, select, interpret, and articulate therevelatory meaning of otherwise normal (and sometimes miraculous)historical events. As in the other patterns, the historical one presupposes ahistorical view of the prophet’s human nature and mental capacities. (see §70,§71, §72.3-4, §88.2; §90-91). Once again, what fitted biblical writers fortheir task was not divine miracle, but correct presuppositions based onprevious revelation, conversion, and sanctification.

Because this pattern requires a higher level of human involvement, itincreases the margin of error not only in the gathering of facts, but especiallyin their interpretation— in understanding the meaningful forms. We will dealwith the question of errors in Scripture in Chapter 20, after we examine firstthe inspiration of Scripture, and the hermeneutical effect of the historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration.

For now, when we consider the reliability of those parts of Scripturecreated by the historical pattern, we must keep in mind its three objectives.How did the Bible writers accomplish their theological (§97.2), historical(§97.1.f ), and educational (§97.1.f) objectives? These questions must comebefore that of historical reliability.

Critics often find errors in Scripture because they expect it to be what itwas never intended. The Bible is not a book of history, even if it containshistorical information. Consequently, we cannot assess its reliability as if itwere a document written by a modern historian. Whether the Bible is reliabledepends on historical verification and practical theological understanding. Wewill come back to this important issue in our last chapter.

To summarize the historical pattern of revelation, God shows Himself byoperating in history, both openly and stealthily, and the events are recordedand interpreted by witnesses and writers of Scripture. This pattern isparticularly indispensable for revealing the personal history of JesusChrist— God’s highest revelation. The historical pattern also reveals to us the


process through which God causes our salvation in space and time. Finally,through this pattern we discover how God deals with similar situationsthroughout the changes in everyday life caused by the flow of history.

The historical pattern we have just outlined may seem very complicated.Many believers prefer to hold a single pattern of explanation for the entireBible. They assume divine things are simple. The problem with simplicity,however, is that it does not correspond to the facts. The facts are complexbecause life is complex. This brings us to the existential pattern of revelation.

§98. EXISTENTIAL PATTERNThe existential pattern of revelation is something of a specialized section ofthe historical pattern (§82.3.c). The difference between the two occurs at thelevel of history through which God produces his meaningful forms.

In the historical pattern of revelation, the forms come out of eventsexperienced by a person or persons other than those who wrote them down.In the existential pattern of revelation, the forms are generated providentiallyfrom events of the writer’s own experience. In other words, historicalrevelation is third person— occurring to others— while the existential patternis first person: it happens to the prophet. Here, we encounter revelation inwhat we usually catalogue as “personal experiences.”

Compared to the historical pattern, only a few portions of Scripture comefrom the existential pattern. Yet, those small portions play a very importantrole. They reveal what happens when God operates in the inner life of ahuman being— in their personal relationship with Him. In a few words, theexistential pattern uncovers the private reflections of human hearts on eventshappening to them within the context of the divine covenant.

We have already explored an example of the existential pattern when welooked at David’s repentance in Psalm 51 (§82.3.d). Here we will explore theexistential pattern of revelation by distinguishing it from the historicalpattern.



While the Song of Songs and many Psalms are derived from it, the bestdescriptions of this pattern occur in the books of Job and Lamentations. Bothdepend on private experiences; in Job, those experiences are of personalevents, while in Lamentations, they are of events that happened to the entirecommunity.

a. Private Experiences

As is to be expected, writings based on life experiences do not usually includetheoretical definitions of their structure. Nevertheless, we find occasionalpointers to the existence and shape of that structure. As in much of the poeticpassages of Scripture, the book of Job expresses meanings emerging fromJob’s private experience with God. His suffering was not its own personal affair, but seemed to be directlycaused by God: “He tears me down on every side till I am gone; he uprootsmy hope like a tree. His anger burns against me” (Job 19:10-11, NIV). Jobdid not have any idea why he was being put through such a terrible ordeal,but he decided to speak up: “I will not keep silent; I will speak out in theanguish of my spirit, I will complain in the bitterness of my soul” (Job 7:11,NIV). Although Job was the primary witness of his life experience, he wasnot the author of the biblical book reporting his experience: “Oh, that mywords were recorded, that they were written on a scroll, that they wereinscribed with an iron tool on lead, or engraved in rock forever!” (Job 19:23-24, NIV). As in the case of the Gospels, the writer of Job used the testimonyof witnesses to historical events— in this case, personal events of suffering.

b. Community Experiences

In the existential pattern, the book of Lamentations expresses meaningsspringing from the experience of the community of God’s people. Jeremiahpresents himself differently than he does in the book of prophecies that bearshis name. That one begins with a clear description of the prophetic pattern(Jeremiah 1:1-10). In the book of Lamentations, however, he describeshimself as “the man who has seen affliction by the rod of his wrath”


(Lamentations 3:1, NIV). There we find a relationship between God and thewriter, just as we do in all patterns of revelation. But here, God’s activity isnot described as “word,” or information, but as “the rod of his wrath”— theexperience of divine punishment, in this case. Jeremiah writes that the objectof God’s wrath was the covenantal community: “You have made us scum andrefuse among the nations. All our enemies have opened their mouths wideagainst us. We have suffered terror and pitfalls, ruin and destruction. Streamsof tears flow from my eyes because my people are destroyed” (3:45- 48,NIV).

The affliction to which the book refers consisted of a series of real historicalevents, specifically the Babylonian captivity of Judah (586 B.C.). The book ofLamentations describes the aftermath of events prophesied over a century before(Micah 3:9-12), so it contains information from those events. But just as in thecase of Job, it is a theological reflection on the calamity. The events caused byGod’s wrath led to theological reflection based on the presuppositions of priorrevelations— in Jeremiah’s case, not just earlier written and oral sources, butpersonally received communication from God.

2. Divine Role

As in the historical pattern, the existential pattern flows from God’sprovidential involvement with human lives on a personal and social level. Inthis pattern, God does not generate words, symbols, or representations as themeans of communicating ideas, but reveals himself through experiences at thosetwo levels. This pattern, then, is based on the writers’ subjective reactions tohistorical events ordered by God’s providence in the history of salvation. Inother words, the meaningful forms, the sources of revelation, are the writers’responses to what has happened to them or to their communities.

History cannot be repeated or relived, and yet if God reveals Himself in it, itmust be recorded. One way to do this is to write a narrative, in the historicalpattern. Another is to consider the effects of events on individual lives— theexistential pattern. The historical pattern views events from the perspective of


God’s master plan of salvation; the existential pattern looks at the impact of thatplan from the perspective of the individual believer. God intended revelation to be a vehicle for the transformation of human heartsand lives. Because the existential pattern reveals how salvation works on anindividual level, it is an irreplaceable pattern for understanding the meaning ofevents in people’s individual lives individually and communally.

3. Human Role

The prophet’s role in the existential pattern is larger than in any of thepatterns we have explored thus far; after all, the Bible writer describes his orher own life experiences to reveal truth. These portions of Scripture are notdescriptions of God’s commands or ideas, but of human response to God’sinvolvement in their lives and community. Prophets receiving revelation in theexistential pattern are interpreting these experiences from their understandingof the covenant and of previous revelations (§84.4,6). As we have mentioned,their presuppositions consist of knowledge together with the transformationof justification and sanctification. The content of existential revelationdepends on the prior content of these presuppositions; the presuppositionsdetermine how the writer interprets his or her personal experiences. As theprophets reflected on their experiences and put them into words, thoseexperiences became connected to other aspects of their personal lives,experiences of the community past and present, and hope flowing from divinepromises. In short, the existential model integrates the divine teachings ofother passages with everyday life; the theory and the practice come together.Of course, Scripture cannot possibly cover all types of experiences, but thoseincluded in the Bible are enough to give us a clear view of what a personalrelationship with God involves.

§99. WISDOM PATTERNIn the Old Testament, the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are derived from anentirely different pattern of revelation. Since these books deal with wisdom, we


will call it the wisdom pattern. (While portions of the Psalms and some of theteachings of Christ could be considered wisdom literature, not all of that genrewas produced by the wisdom pattern. Clearly, Christ’s teachings originate froma different pattern of revelation; see §97.)


The opening verse of Ecclesiastes tells us that the book contains “the words of theTeacher, son of David, king in Jerusalem” (NIV). A few verses later, we find abrief description of how the book came to be.

I set my mind to seek and explore by wisdom concerning all that has beendone under heaven. It is a grievous task which God has given to the sons ofmen to be afflicted with. I have seen all the works which have been doneunder the sun, and behold, all is vanity and striving after wind” (1:13-14,NAB, emphasis in the original).As in the historical and existential patterns, the wisdom pattern of revelation

depends on no supernatural communication of knowledge nor a divine commandto investigate or write on a subject. The writer produces not only the words of thetext, but also the research of which the book’s content consists.

2. Divine Role

At first, God seems totally absent. But as we look at the contents of the books inquestion, we find the wisdom model operating similarly to the historical model.The difference is that the writer in the wisdom pattern considers not sacred onlybut universal history. He has reflected on “all that has been done under heaven”(Ecclesiastes 1:13).

Proverbs, on the other hand, aims at “obtaining wisdom and discipline”(1:2, 7), not as ends in themselves but as a means to “understand the fear ofthe Lord and find the knowledge of God” (Proverbs 2:5). If knowing Godmeans eternal life, as Jesus says in John 17:3, then wisdom literature isintended not only “to transmit the lessons of experience, so that one may learnto cope with life,”2 but also to obtain salvation.

As the wisdom writers contemplated daily events, they saw God revealed there


because everything happened within the limits set up by His creative design. Themeaning and meaninglessness of life are directly connected to God’s blueprint forhuman life. The person biblical wisdom calls “the fool” is the person who departsfrom the divine design for one of his own making; in reflecting on events in thelives of the wise and unwise, the wisdom writers conclude that mankind’s purposeis to “fear God and keep his commandments” (Ecclesiastes 12:13, NIV).

3. Human Role

As in the historical pattern, the writer takes the initiative to do research. Butin so doing the author is only performing his duty as a human being: the God-given task of exploring all that has been done under heaven (Ecclesiastes1:13). All must become wise by reflecting on life.

But the writer engages in more than just researching life; he experiencesit as well. His hermeneutical presuppositions are based on wisdom (Ecclesiastes1:13), not only intellectual capabilities of judgment, but also a perspective fromwhich such judgments are formed. God granted the abilities to Solomon on hisspecial request (2 Chronicles 1:11-12); the perspective was based on the king’sconscious adoption of the law revealed earlier through verbal, theophanic, andprophetic patterns of revelation (Deuteronomy 4:5-6). We might argue thatwisdom literature arises from interpreting everyday life from the general principlesof the Law. (Here we use “law” in the broad sense of the divine teaching by whichthe covenantal community came into existence.) In other words, the wisdompattern of revelation comes from the faithful application of previous, moredirect revelation to everyday life.

§100. REVELATIONBeginning with the biblical assertion that “in the past God spoke to ourforefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways”(Hebrews 1:1-2, NIV), we have identified some of the various patterns inwhich God revealed himself to humanity: the theophanic, verbal, prophetic,historical, existential, and wisdom patterns. Each presents a different method


by which God’s thoughts, teachings, and actions became incarnate in humanthought and writing. Our exploration has been brief and broad; a detailedanalysis of each model might require several volumes.

1. The Complexity of Biblical Revelation

The picture that arises from our analysis of the doctrine and phenomena ofScripture is complex, an unpleasant reality for most believers who prefersimplicity. While the classical, evangelical, and modern models are not simple,each approaches the origin of Scripture with one overarching explanation. As wehave seen, this is inadequate for a series of documents as complex and varied asthose that comprise the Bible.

The complexity generated by so many patterns is compounded when weread Scripture verse by verse asking what pattern we’re looking at in a givenbook. I confess I have not done that completely with any book of the Bible.Yet, many portions of books I have analyzed were apparently derived frommore than one pattern; one in particular might have been the basis for apassage, but other patterns were woven in.

2. All Scripture is Revealed.

The multiplicity of revelatory patterns enable us to say freely that divinerevelation extends to the whole text of the Bible. God was involved increating the meanings throughout Scripture in several ways. First, hegenerated the sources of revelation, the meaningful forms of communication.To reveal different ideas and teachings to vastly divergent audiences, heselected the best means for each point of revelation. Because what was bestchanged from situation to situation, we find today divergent patterns of divinerevelation in the Bible.

3. Forming the Writers

Through his providential intervention God also shaped those who would receiveHis messages. Each pattern required a different level of propheticinvolvement— some less (verbal, theophanic, prophetic), some more (historical,


existential, wisdom). Regardless of how much each human writer was called uponto contribute, to understand their revelations, the prophets needed to interpretthem, and to interpret God’s message without distortion, He had to be the one toshape their presuppositions.

He did this in two ways: by shaping their presuppositions, and by inspiringthem (Chapter 18). Here we will look at God’s involvement in the preparationof the biblical writers.

Although Scripture does not preserve the names of all the biblical writers, itrecords enough to demonstrate that God chose His representatives carefully. In theOld Testament, God chose prophets such as Moses (Exodus 3:1-4:17), Elisha (1Kings 19:19, 20; see also 2 Kings 2:13, 14), Isaiah (6:8, 9), Jeremiah (1:5),Ezekiel (2:3–5), and Amos (7:15). In the New Testament Jesus called the apostles(Matthew 4:18–20; Mark 1:16–18; Luke 6:14; John 1:35–42; Matthew 4:21, 22;Mark 1:19, 20; Luke 6:14; John 1:43, 44; John 1:45–51; Matthew 9:9; Mark2:14; Luke 5:27, 28). But God did more than just call prophets and apostles;he enabled them for their appointed tasks. Unlike the classical and evangelicalmodels, in which God supernaturally elevated the writers’ mental capacities,the historical-cognitive model posits that biblical writers had the same natureand rational powers common to all human beings (James 5:17).Consequently, the enabling was the transformation of the contents of theirminds, beginning with conversion and continuing throughout each prophet’swalk with God. God accomplished this by operating behind the scenes of eachone’s everyday life experiences. Through divine providence, God guided thelearning experience of His representatives. The presuppositions they gained overtime enabled them to comprehend the meaningful forms He would give them. Inthis way, God secured instruments that would not distort His intent with their owninterpretations (2 Peter 1:20-21).

This process of preparing the biblical writers’ presuppositions isillustrated by Christ’s ministry for His disciples. Through a process ofconsistent teaching and living, the Master formed the framework ofunderstanding for those who would be witnesses of His life and writers of theGospels.


4. Writers, Scholars, or Thinkers?

Our brief analysis here of the various revelatory patterns suggests that thebiblical writers were also thinkers. This fact becomes central in the historical-cognitive model of revelation. In the evangelical and classical models, thebiblical writers wrote only; they selected the right words, style and structure,but that was all. The modern model views the biblical writers as artists who putspiritual ideas into written form. They depended, then, on their imaginations. Inboth cases, the Bible writers were only writers, to the exclusion of more than themost basic thinking; their contributions were at the level of words only, not ofcontent.

This view creates conflict in the minds of some conservative Christians. Theywatch as the modern model provides for the historical-critical method of biblicalexegesis, applying current scientific methodology to the study of biblical history.Since modern presuppositions do not allow for God to move in human history,history could not have taken place in the way Scripture presents it; Scripture isonly loosely based on historical fact. For example, Israel was taken by Babyloninto captivity. But this did not happen because of a framework of salvation historyoutlined by God; those things existed only in the imagination of biblicalwriters— mere spiritual artists. As a reaction to this attack on the historicalreliability of Scripture, conservative Christians came to understand biblicalwriters more or less as scholars, who provided completely accuratehistoriographical information. According to their model of inspiration, GodHimself is a scholar uncovering accurate history in the pages of the Bible.

In contrast, the historical-cognitive model finds the biblical writers to beprimarily thinkers, even though some were also scholars (Luke 1:1-3), somepoets (the Psalms and many of the Prophets), and all of them writers. Theirmain contribution, however, was in thinking. To conceive of them as thinkersand scholars means they were concerned with the accurate transmission ofhistorical facts, but even more with the meaning of history and life as it tookplace within the community of God’s people. In other words, they contributedto the content as well.

Thinkers may be compared to philosophers; they both search for meaning.For them, historical data are important references to actual life in space and


time. However, Bible thinkers differ from Greek philosophers in at least threemajor ways. First, they ponder human and divine life rather than the abstractnature of reality. Second, they assume that human and divine life takes placein space and time rather than in timelessness. Finally, they interpret humanand divine life through supernatural, divine communications, while the Greekphilosophers dreamed up their interpretations of reality.

Whether we presuppose that the human role in creating Scripture was inwriting, scholarship, or thinking will play an important role when we examinethe reliability of Scripture in the final chapter.

§101. REVIEW

• Defining “pattern.”A pattern is a clearly coherent system based on an intended interrelationshipof its parts. In other words, it is a specific arrangement of parts andprocedures— and it can be repeated, as with a model or mold.

• Patterns of revelation. Patterns of revelation are configurations taken on by the revelation ofGod’s ideas and actions. Each pattern is a distinct system of relationshipsbetween what God reveals and how His writers receive and interpret it.

• Multiplicity of patterns. In His divine wisdom, God saw best to communicate with sinful humanbeings by incarnating His cognitive word in several different patterns.

• Reasons for differing patterns.


God chose various patterns for different times and messages for thebenefit of His audiences; some would understand communication throughcertain patterns better than through others.

• Incarnation of the cognitive word of God: hermeneutical.Each pattern of revelation is a different version of the structure ofincarnation described briefly in §87. God’s thoughts and information wereincarnated as biblical writers received the sources He gave them. Prophetsinterpreted the sources of revelation based on their presuppositions.

• The structure of all revelatory patterns: hermeneutical. All revelatory patterns take place in a process of interpretation. God and theprophet enter into a cognitive relationship. God initiates and directs thatrelationship, creating and using various sources of revelation, that the prophetreceives. We should not think of either God or the prophet as passive in thisprocess. God produces the meaningful forms, but does not automaticallyaccept whatever way His chosen messenger receives and interprets them.Instead, He teaches the messenger so he can understand. On the other side, themessenger does not simply accept what God says, even when he knows he isdirectly in the presence of God. He converses with God (in the case of directrevelation) or reflects on the message (in the case of indirect revelation).Through the process of dialogue or reflection, truth is incarnated. Propheticfreedom is at the essence of this process.

• Theophanic pattern.In the theophanic pattern, God condescends to make Himself present in spaceand time, there revealing directly His thoughts, teachings, and will throughhuman language and visible representations; He is permitted by Histemporal/historical nature to do so. In this pattern, prophetic interpretationand contribution are at a minimum.

• Verbal pattern.

In the verbal pattern of revelation, God actually writes the words. He is


in full control; the human factor consists only of the level of language andknowledge God uses. While the human element is fully present, there isno prophetic intervention, and human contribution is kept to its minimumpossible level. The biblical writer contributes nothing to the content ofrevelation.

• Prophetic pattern.In the prophetic pattern, God produces predominantly visual means ofrevelation openly, miraculously, and directly. The human beings are able tounderstand these forms only in a limited fashion. Their role includesknowledge and language, the selection of words and analogies, self-awareness,knowledge of previous revelation, and theological reflections.

• Interpretation and presuppositions.In comparison with the verbal, theophanic, and prophetic patterns, thecontributions of biblical writers increases greatly in the historical, existential,and wisdom patterns— because they are required to perform much moreinterpretation. These interpretations depend on their presuppositions and priorunderstandings. The writers of Scripture were not permitted to interpret thehistorical phenomena from their own imaginations or cultural views (2 Peter1:20-21), but from their previous understanding and acceptance of divinerevelation (Isaiah 8:20). Because of these prior contents of their minds, theycould understand God’s revelation in his gradually unfolding work of salvationfrom within the historical process itself.

• Historical pattern. In this pattern, God’s sources of revelation are not words or representations,but events in human history, specifically in the community of His people. Hisactivity in this pattern consists primarily of providential intervention in history(stealth-nonmiraculous-direct activity). Occasionally, miraculousinterventions (open-miraculous-direct) are included. The prophets may havebeen directly present when the event occurred, or they may have receivedinformation about the event indirectly from eyewitnesses’ oral or written


testimonies. The role and contribution of the biblical writer significativelyincrease in the historical pattern; they must write, search, evaluate, andinterpret the meaningful forms found in historical events.

• Existential pattern. In this pattern, God reveals himself through the biblical writer'spersonal and communal experiences. This pattern introduces thesubjective reaction to the historical events of God’s providentialprocess of salvation. The meaningful forms or sources of revelationare made up of the prophets’ subjective reactions to what hashappened, under God’s control, in their personal or communal lives.Again, they interpreted their experiences based on presuppositionsshaped by previous revelation.

• Wisdom pattern. As with the existential pattern, the wisdom pattern is a modification of thehistorical pattern. The meaningful forms come from everyday life, eventhat outside the community of faith. According to the wisdom pattern,only by considering and reflecting on everyday life can one come tounderstand God’s will for human beings. The role and contribution of theprophet are greater in this pattern than in all the others, because theyengage in a philosophical evaluation of life, once again from theperspective of previous, supernatural revelations.

• Complexity of revelation: the whole Bible is revealed. God did not use one single pattern to reveal everything we find inScripture, so a simple explanation of the origin of Scripture is impossible.However complex God’s ways of revealing Himself are, we must try tounderstand them if we are to approach understanding Him. Moreover, ifthe whole Bible is revealed and not merely inspired, these patterns arenecessary to explain its contents.

• Interweaving of patterns.


1 Daniel tells us that God sent the hand. Thus, it is probable that not GodHimself but an angel wrote it. But because God bypassed prophetic reception andwriting, we can take this event as an example of divine writing.

2 Paul J. Achtemeier, Harper’s Bible Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper andRow, 1985), s.v. wisdom.

Although most books in Scripture are based on one pattern of revelation,most of them interweave one or more secondary patterns as well.

• Divine formation of biblical writers. God had to shape a prophet’s presuppositions for that person to be able tointerpret what He would reveal. How each prophet thought, experienced, andinterpreted reality as a whole had to be carefully shaped. To this end, Godcalled and transformed His representatives into His own image.

• Biblical writers as thinkers.The historical-cognitive model regards biblical writers primarily asthinkers, though some were also scholars (Luke 1:1-3) and all werewriters. Their main contribution, however, was thinking. This means theywere primarily concerned with the meaning of history as experienced bythe community of God’s people. They were not writing mere literature orhistory, but divine truth about life.

ENDNOTES

18. INSPIRATION

Revelation and inspiration are the two halves of the process that producedScripture. Thus far, we have considered only revelation: how the biblicalcontent entered the minds of prophets and apostles. By itself revelationis useless. To bear fruit, revelation requires oral or writtenexpression— inspiration. When prophets and apostles communicated whathad been revealed to their audiences, God assisted them. Both God andman contributed not just to revelation but to inspiration.

So how did the process of writing take place? What part did the humanagent play? In what ways did God intervene? To understand inspiration, wewill look at all the evidence presented by the doctrine and phenomena ofScripture.

We will begin by reviewing the biblical description of inspiration andthe hermeneutical presuppositions of the historical-cognitive model.Then, we will consider why divine inspiration is necessary, and thehuman and divine contributions to inspiration. We will take a briefexcursion to consider the relationship between thoughts and words.Finally, we will conclude by highlighting the complex interface betweenthe various patterns of revelation and inspiration in the generation ofScripture.

§102. BIBLICAL DESCRIPTIONInspiration is the process through which human writers, under thesupervision and assistance of the Holy Spirit, brought what God hadrevealed to them into written form. This divine-human work is asessential to the incarnation of divine thoughts in the Bible as is revelation.We discussed the biblical claim for inspiration in detail in Chapter 4.There we found that Peter and Paul complemented each other in theirdescriptions of the process of revelation-inspiration. According to them,divine inspiration operates within the humans who wrote.

As we have since explored, revelation operated on the human agent’sknowledge and experience. But the writing of Scripture was not merelyhuman work; somehow, God operated in the minds of the biblical writershelping to bridge between what he had revealed and what theywrote— between revelation and inspiration. The Holy Spirit workedthrough the human agency, thereby influencing the written outcome. Inthis chapter, we will attempt to discover how that happened— how divineinspiration (qeo,pneu stoj) reached the words of Scripture (grafh.) asdescribed in 2 Timothy 3:16.

§103. HERMENEUTICAL PRESUPPOSITIONSOur understanding of inspiration builds on the same presuppositions weused to understand revelation— namely, that the biblical God is able tomove directly in human history; that human nature is ultimatelyhistorical, not timeless; and that revelation and inspiration both occurwithin the historical experience of those to whom God revealed the Bible(§65-71). Due to God’s historical nature, we assume that just asrevelation does not violate the minds of the prophets by taking them totimeless places, inspiration does not normally overrule human freedomor its normal rational and linguistic processes.


§104. THE NEED OF INSPIRATIONWhy should the historical-cognitive model add inspiration to revelation as asecond divine activity? Isn’t revelation enough to explain the origin ofScripture?

If revelation were the end of the process, we would be forced to questionthe reliability of Scripture. Does it accurately describe divine thoughts, will,and teachings? Unless the answer is yes, we have no reason to trust theBible’s reliability. The absence of inspiration would undermine Scripture’sreliability because the human authors’ freedom could lead them to introducetheir own interpretations as they wrote down what they received from Godin revelation. Let us consider this point furhter. 1. The Stealth Pattern of Revelation

Following Scripture, the historical-cognitive model recognizes that God did notalways produce revelation through obviously miraculous interventions. As weargued in Chapter 17, the historical, existential, and wisdom patterns ofrevelation came about naturally rather than supernaturally (§97-99). If thesepatterns were merely natural, it calls into question the reliability of Scripture.

In other words, if divine revelation can take place without the miraculousintervention of God, how can we differentiate between supernatural revelationand the work of the Holy Spirit when pastors preach? From time to time, manybelievers claim to have direct supernatural messages from God— so it is crucialthat we understand how the Holy Spirit uniquely assisted the Bible writers. 2. Freedom of the Human Writers

Even when revelation came to the prophets in obviously supernatural ways(the theophanic, verbal and prophetic patterns, §94-96), the question aboutthe reliability of the written account still stands. After all, humans are finite,sinful and prone to error. If the writing of Scripture was left to them, howcould we trust it? These two points— stealth revelation and humanfreedom— demonstrate the need for inspiration on top of revelation.

INSPIRATION 393

3. Divine Accommodation to Human Thought and Language

God must be involved in the writing of Scripture, or we are left to questionwhether it properly represents His thoughts. To correctly interpret andarticulate revelation, prophets and apostles needed inspiration. God’scontinuous involvement grounds the reliability of biblical thinking, for justas He involved Himself in every pattern of revelation, He guided theexpression of His thoughts into human language.

§105. THE LOCUS OF INSPIRATIONAccording to the teachings and phenomena of Scripture, inspiration happenswithin the mind of the human writers. We say that they were the locus ofinspiration, meaning they were the reality where divine inspiration tookplace. This happened in two senses. First, they were the “place” where God’saction of inspiration operated. Second, their minds were the agencies behindthe actual writing of Scripture.

In this we find another difference between the historical-cognitive model andthe classical, modern, and evangelical views of inspiration, once again based onthe hermeneutical presuppositions operative in each tradition. Note this carefully.The classical and evangelical views of inspiration make the text the locus ofinspiration. They bypass the human agency because they assume God actsaccording to the Augustinian-Calvinistic notion of divine, sovereign providence.

In contrast, the modern view denies divine intervention in the writing ofScripture altogether. Using the results of historical criticism to define the natureof Scripture and its formation, Paul Achtemeier has recently argued that thelocus of inspiration is the community of faith. Instead of viewing divineinspiration as acting on the cognitive power of the biblical writers, this viewsuggests the Holy Spirit leads the process of tradition history by acting on thecommunity of faith in biblical and pre-biblical times.1

Since the historical-critical method assumes that revelation had no cognitivecontent, to say that God only inspired the process of writing or assembling


Scripture means only that God’s people gathered a group of human documentsto serve as their authority. In other words, to them inspiration means only that theBible was given authority by and for the community of faith. But those writingsdo not contain the words of God, nor are they trustworthy representations of Histhoughts.

The Bible, however, never says that God inspired the community to writeit. Since by definition, inspiration is the linguistic process through whichdivine, cognitive revelation was recorded in Scripture, to say that the entirecommunity was inspired completely misses the essence of that process.

The teaching (see §104) and phenomena of Scripture instead point to thehuman writer as the locus of inspiration. This refers to the process through whichthe content in the mind of the prophet became words, sentences, and books. Sincethe description of God’s revealed ideas began in the mind, God’s contributionsto that process also took place there.

§106. HUMAN CONTRIBUTIONS

1. Linguistic Mode

Prophets and apostles wrote as any other human might write. Scripture wasrecorded in human language and shares all its characteristics and limitations.The writing process is the last step in the incarnation of God’s thoughts. Inother words, God’s infinite temporality allowed Him to incarnate Histhoughts by accommodating himself to the finite temporal-historical level ofhuman reality, and communicating in thoughts comprehensible to the writers;He finished the process by guiding the record of those thoughts in humanlanguage.

In other words, despite its limitations and finitude, human writing is qualifiedto communicate divine thought clearly and reliably. Actually, there is no otherway in which God could communicate with us. Were God to speak at His ownlevel, we would not be able to understand a word.

2. Book Composition

INSPIRATION 395

Contrary to what proponents of verbal inspiration would have us believe,human writers are responsible for the literary composition of the biblicalbooks. On numerous occasions, God simply commanded his servants to writewhat had already been revealed to them. For example, God commandedMoses to record historical events in a book (Exodus 17:14) and Jeremiah andJohn, to record prophecy (Jeremiah 30:2; Revelation 1:11).

Even though God commanded them to write, he did not seem to say howit should be organized, apparently leaving this to the human agent. Theevidence present in the phenomena of Scripture gives ample support to thisidea.

Charged with the task of communicating God’s thoughts, human writersdesigned and organized the composition of the books, applying their literarytalents to present the message in a manner appropriate to their audiences.

3. The Words

As we have explored, God communicated with the prophets, and the prophetswith their audiences. These two interchanges were not identical. Thedifference lies in the means of communication. God often communicated toprophets and apostles by means unavailable to them directly, for examplevisions and divine appearances, and by more natural means such as historicalevents. Prophets communicated only through words. Of course, when Godspoke directly from within theophanies and some visions, the prophetsattempted to record His exact words, or those of angels He sent. But whenGod revealed truth visually, He provided the necessary pictures to depict Hismessage; the prophets were left to decide how these would be communicated,including the selection of words. In the historical, existential, and wisdompatterns, prophets even chose which truths they would write about. With allthis in mind, an example may help us to see how God placed the task ofwriting Scripture on His human messengers.

4. Moses and Aaron

The relationship between God and his human writers may be compared to the


relationship between Moses and Aaron as described in Exodus 4:10-16.According to this passage, Moses felt he was not eloquent, literally “not aman of words” (4:10), even though he knew his task required the use ofwords. God assured him that he would be with Moses’ mouth (4:12).Whatever that meant, Moses did not believe God would miraculouslyoverride his speech problems or he would not have remained afraid. So Godrevealed that Aaron, Moses’ brother, was on his way to serve as Moses’voice because he could “speak well” (4:14). Moses was not relieved of hismission; he would still have to speak, albeit through his brother.

Then, God explained his plan by using an analogy we will use to help usunderstand the relationship between God and humans in revelation-inspiration: “You [God said to Moses] are to speak to him and put the wordsin his mouth [Aaron’s]; and I, even I, will be with your mouth and his mouth,and I will teach you what you are to do. Moreover, he shall speak for you tothe people; and he will be as a mouth for you and you will be as God to him”(Exodus 4:15-16). The Moses-Aaron team worked like the God-prophetteam. Moses’ act of “putting the words” into Aaron’s mouth representsGod’s role; Aaron speaking for Moses to the people represents the role of theprophet.

If the expression “putting the words in the mouth” is taken literally tomean a miraculous overriding of a person’s speech, the passage makes nosense. God would have to repeat the same action twice.

More likely, this passage indicates that God communicated truth to thebiblical writers (revelation), while biblical writers used their mental and linguisticcapacities to communicate the truths to their audiences. Communication was thetask of the prophet, even though the content came from God.

Putting words in another’s mouth meant that the recipient became arepresentative of the words of another. Though subservient, he had freedomin serving as God’s representative. He or she had, so to speak, power ofattorney. Repeating the words verbatim makes no sense. Aaron had strongverbal skills and was called to use his gift to represent Moses’ thoughts. Inthe same way, prophets and apostles, as God’s representatives, were tocommunicate His thoughts according the their understanding and manner of

INSPIRATION 397

expression. Couldn’t an omnipotent, omniscient God have written Scripture without

the contribution of the biblical writers? Yes— but had God done that, it mightsound very strange to us. Imagine God writing psalms about personalexperiences or, for instance, the Song of Songs! Since God wanted to revealthings concerning our lives, He engaged the contribution of humanrepresentatives. In choosing representatives to speak for Him, God followedthe best available method for communicating His salvific purposes to us.

The words of the prophets, then, did not express their views but God’s.The words of man became the words of God, not because He formed themmiraculously inside their mouths or in their hands as they wrote, but becausethey represented His thoughts faithfully and reliably. In Scripture, we do notfind an abstract account of divine truth, but rather God’s communication inhuman words. 5. Literary Forms

The task of communication involves more than constructing sentences,paragraphs and books. One must consider literary forms and styles. InScripture, we find a wide variety of such forms or genres— codes of law,legal contracts, covenants, riddles, royal decrees, psalms, prayers, parables,figures, and apocalypses.2

Where do biblical literary styles come from? Does God produce themmiraculously, as suggested by verbal inspiration? Are they determined by thethought patterns of the socioeconomic group from which Scripture came, ascertain schools of criticism suggest?3

According to the historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration, theanswer is no. Several factors contributed to variety of forms, such as themeaningful forms God used, which pattern of revelation was involved, the natureof the issues to be communicated, the purpose of the message, the audience, andthe literary bent of the biblical writers.

As we have discussed, prophets and apostles received truth through differentpatterns, and got different kinds of truth about different aspects of reality— allrevolving around God’s plan of salvation Such diversity all but demands different


literary forms. After all, communication of a personal experience cannot bepresented as law, prophecy cannot become royal decree, praise to God cannotbe in the form of riddles, and history cannot be depicted as apocalyptic prophecy.

What they intended to convey also influenced which forms they chose towrite in. For instance, calling people to action required different forms andstructures than would persuasion or assurance. Biblical writers chose themost suitable literary forms for their purposes, circumstances, andaudiences.

On one hand, biblical writers seem to have complete freedom in thatchoice. On the other, divine revelation almost always limited the forms fromwhich they could choose. Again, we see divine revelation limited by theprocess of incarnation. The communication, not its contents, is limited by theliterary capabilities of each writer.4 On the positive side, each biblical writercontributed his own personal perspective and literary style to the incarnationof truth on behalf of his fellow believers. 6. Editing Work

At times, biblical writers rewrote what they had already put down. Thissuggests that prophets and apostles edited their works. Let us consider abiblical example. Jeremiah received the word of the Lord over a period oftwenty-three years. He faithfully preached aloud God’s messages to Hispeople, but they did not listen (Jeremiah 25:1-5). So God asked Jeremiah to"take a scroll and write on it all the words which I have spoken to youconcerning Israel and concerning Judah, and concerning all the nations, fromthe day I first spoke to you, from the days of Josiah, even to this day” (36:2).

Jeremiah dictated the words to Baruch, who wrote them in a scroll (36:4).Unfortunately, the book was not appreciated by King Jehoiakim, who cut itup as it was read to him and burned it (36:23). God then commandedJeremiah to “take again another scroll and write on it all the former wordsthat were on the first scroll which Jehoiakim the king of Judah burned”(36:28). So Jeremiah dictated another scroll to Baruch (36:32).

We cannot make a general principle from one set of events. But this

INSPIRATION 399

episode reveals some interesting things about the process of writingScripture. We can see how revelation preceded its oral and writtencommunications, in this case through the prophetic pattern. The text suggeststhat Jeremiah had memorized these messages from God. Since the only copyof the first edition had been lost, the second edition also had to be based onJeremiah’s memory. Human memory is not perfect, so we might concludethat the second edition was not a verbatim copy of the first. Moreover, weare told that some things were added, so the book was expanded as well asrevised.

The same material, then, can be written in several ways, all of themreliable and satisfactory to God. In fact, the same topic could be morethoroughly covered with additional meaningful forms from God, or a deeperunderstanding of previous forms by the prophet. A second writing occurs ata different moment in the life of the prophet and, therefore, allows for abetter understanding of past revelations and their intended purpose.

Such intellectual development and editorial work should be taken as anormal processes in the writing of Scripture. Only the assumption that Godoperated by overruling the natural functioning of human cognitive andlinguistic activities forces the conclusion that prophets wrote a perfect copyon the first try. 7. Literary Sources

We have already considered the role of sources at the level of revelation(§82-§83). Here we will look at them at the level of inspiration— the writing.The distinction between indirect, written sources of revelation and literarysources is that the former provides means by which God communicates Hisideas; it also shapes a writer’s interpretations. The second merely providesfitting words for expressing what God has revealed through other means.Written sources of revelation provide content and interpretive patterns. Literarysources do not express God’s thoughts, but a writer may refer to religious orsecular writings of his day in an attempt to express God’s thoughts.

Let me explain further with two examples: one from personal experience, theother from the Bible itself. First, pastors love to use illustrations in their sermons.


At times, they use quotations from famous people to connect with their audience,especially if the congregation is well-educated. Pastors reference well-knownphilosophers or theologians not because the pastors agree with their primaryideas, but because the audience knows the names— and the pastors may wellquote these sources out of context. The words fit with the pastor’s train ofthought perhaps even better than his or her own words. Their meaning in thesermon, however, is quite different from what they meant in the original work,because the words have been recontextualized. The pastor has in mind what heor she wants to say; the words of a famous author allow pastors to express theirthoughts more clearly than they could with their own words.

An example of this phenomenon also takes place at the very beginning ofJohn’s gospel. Scholars of ancient literature have found that almost everysentence in the first eighteen verses of the book can be traced back to literatureavailable to John at the end of the first century. Their research does not revealthat John copied verbatim from pagan sources, but that he was highly selectivein how he used their words. His thoughts were unique and creative, even if thewords would have been very familiar to his audience.

To explain further, one of the key words in those eighteen verses is “logos.”In John’s day philosophers used the term “logos” to refer to the timeless order ofthe universe and particular entities. Since this word had a technical,philosophical meaning, scholars have suggested he borrowed the word for thesake of its technical meaning. That this is not the case becomes clear when Johnboldly states that the Logos became flesh— something absolutely impossible ifhe is referring to the philosophical notion common to the word. In other words,he subverts the word and packs it with new meaning, perhaps one similar to theOld Testament understanding of wisdom as presented in Proverbs 8.

§107. THOUGHTS AND WORDSBefore considering God’s contributions to the writing of Scripture, let uslook at the relationship between thoughts and words. On one hand, verbalinspiration claims God is the author of the words of Scripture, apparentlybypassing the thought processes of the Bible writers. Of course, prophets

INSPIRATION 401

were human beings, and as such had their own thoughts, but these wereoverruled by inspiration; God was in total control of his prophets’ thinkingand literary activities concerning Scripture. In this view biblical writers seemto think and write freely, yet at a deeper level of which they wereunconscious, God was in control. Thus, the biblical words are not theprophet’s, but God’s.

On the other hand, the historical-cognitive model proposes that thebiblical writers were in charge of the literary process of writing Scripture,but not of the process through which God revealed His thoughts to them.Thus it seems to suggest a dichotomy between thought (revelation from God)and words (inspiration from humans). This is not actually what the newmodel is proposing; to explain why not is the purpose of this section.

1. Thought Inspiration

Some Christians have created a similar dichotomy between thought and wordsto explain whatever they consider to be error in Scripture. For them, revelationis divine and infallible, but the words are simply how the biblical writerstranslated or incarnated divine, timeless thoughts into the human level ofunderstanding. Since no one has access to the original prophetic thoughts, whatthey actually were specifically is open to question. Variations of this view rangefrom claiming that God revealed only eternal timeless truths of a general,abstract nature, to proposing that God provided one thought for each wordwritten in Scripture. The former gives rise to what some call “thought”inspiration; the latter is almost indistinguishable from verbal inspiration.

In synthesis, thought inspiration claims God inspired divine ideas withinthe prophets, while they provided the words to convey them. Only thethoughts behind the words are inspired; the words are human and fallible. Toreach God’s revelation, we must move constantly behind and beyond thewords into the eternal truths they encase.

2. Problems with Thought Inspiration

Unfortunately, this position on inspiration has serious deficiencies and,


therefore, must be rejected. First, thought inspiration collapses inspirationinto revelation. It lacks biblical support and assumes unbiblicalhermeneutical principles. Because divine assistance to the prophet did notreach the words, it limits divine intervention to revelation. In practice, itmeans we are stuck with only the fallible words of human beings, not whatGod really meant. Though thought inspiration accounts for the phenomenaof Scripture better than does verbal inspiration, it does not explain howinspiration reaches the words (2 Timothy 3:16).

Hans-Georg Gadamer suggests that “language and thinking about thingsare so bound together that it is an abstraction to conceive of the system oftruths as a pregiven system of possibilities of being [in revelation-inspiration,divine thoughts] for which the signifying subject [biblical writer] selectscorresponding signs [words].”5 In other words, thought and words belongtogether.6 A thought without words perishes in the mind of the thinker.

The thought-word dichotomy assumed by proponents of thought inspirationis based on the same hermeneutical presuppositions used by classical Christiantheologians to ground their soul-body dichotomy. They would say that asobserving the body does not give us knowledge about the soul, so reading the textof Scripture leaves us clueless about what God told the Bible writer— that is,what the divine put, without words, into the human mind. The problem isultimately this: if inspiration did not reach the words, how can we be sure that weare reading God’s thoughts in the Bible? The separation between thought andwords allows for small errors; would not this add up to substantial errors intheology?

3. Thoughts in Words

Let us take a moment to understand the relationship between thoughts andwords. Words are not mere sounds or lines traced on paper. They havemeanings, which we might call the results of human thinking. Words carrythe thoughts they evoke. The dependence of words on thinking makestranslation possible. For instance, we translate the English word “table” withthe Spanish word “mesa.” The two different words are merely different signscarrying the same thought; both refer to the same object as perceived by the

INSPIRATION 403

mind. Translation between the two languages assumes the existence of athought about a piece of furniture with four legs and a flat surface for a top.In the absence of such a thought, the translator needs, first, to experience thethought behind the words to make his translation possible.

Thinking grounds words. But can we think without words? To answer acomplex question briefly, yes, we can think without words, but most of thetime we describe our thoughts to ourselves and others with words. While theformer is a contemplative experience, the second is a social and dialogicalexperience. When we contemplate a picture or a sunset, we might thinkwithout words, tending to refer to what is happening as “experience” ratherthan thinking. Because such experience is not verbalized, we call it real lifeor practical. In a contemplative experience, we are thinking, but oftenwithout words.

Social experience, on the other hand, requires words to communicate andbuild personal relations. Our thinking is shaped first by our mother tongueas we use its words to categorize what we perceive. Later, our thinking maybe modified through what is known as reason: instead of merely perceivingthings or acts, we connect ideas. Because they allow ideas to connect, wordsmake reason possible. They are the building blocks of reason. Withoutreason, thoughts would remain disconnected, and people would be unable tocommunicate; social interaction would be impossible. The concepts just presented may seem confusing, but we must understandthe folly of separating thought from words. With this in mind, we turn ourattention to biblical inspiration.

4. Inspired Words

Are the words of Scripture inspired? Many authors and believers assume thatto answer yes means that one believes in verbal inspiration and an inerrantScripture. We have thoroughly covered the problems with such a view; evenso, the Bible affirms that through inspiration, God has somehow reached thebook’s words.

On the other hand, to say that the words of Scripture are not inspiredassumes that God led in the process of revelation, but not in that of writing.


As we noted at the beginning of this section, this is incoherent. God revealsHis thoughts to communicate with people and therefore has to be involvedin the whole process. The question is not whether the words of Scripture areinspired, but what that means.

There must be an alternative view to both verbal and thought inspiration.The historical-cognitive model does not reject the biblical affirmation, butrather those explanations. The difference in the interpretations of 2 Timothy3:16 is based on the respective presuppositions. Both verbal and thoughtinspiration depends on those of classical philosophy, presuppositions wehave dismissed and replaced with biblical ones. Our task, then, is to see howthose biblical presuppositions lead us to understand how inspiration reachedthe Bible’s words. Would they lead us to deny the teachings of Scripture orto doubt its trustworthiness? By no means.

5. Thinking and Writing

What happened when prophets wrote? Somehow, revealed thoughts were put intowords. The historical-cognitive model suggests that the writing of Scripture wasa rational process. Biblical writers were thinking not only as they received divinerevelation, but also as they communicated it.

Writing is a thought process shaping revelation and, therefore, the actualcontent of Scripture. Consequently, we should not conceive of inspiration ashaving an outcome identical to its starting point. Inspiration is not like a hoseconnecting a gasoline pump to the tank of a car. When we pump gas, thehose does not change the service station’s gas to something else. In contrast,a writer of scripture articulates what he received from God; as he does so,the words he uses give shape to those thoughts, that is, he alters them. Thesealterations are a part of the writing and, therefore, become part of divinerevelation. Inspiration, as the actual process of writing, is the last step in theprocess of the incarnation of Scripture.

The thinking process resulting in the writing of Scripture produced fewalterations in the theophanic and prophetic patterns of revelation, comparedwith the historical, existential, and wisdom patterns. But whether it seemsobvious, divine thinking permeates human thinking in all the patterns. Divine

INSPIRATION 405

inspiration, as we are about to see, is the component insuring that divinethinking also permeates the words through which revelation is communicatedto the world.

As we have noted repeatedly, in Scripture, we do not find God’s level oflogic or rhetoric revealed to us, as the modes in which the Bible was writtenwere human and imperfect. Yet the historical-cognitive model insists that thecontent we find there does originate in God’s wisdom. This fact, asserted byScripture but largely ignored in Christian theology, has tremendoushermeneutical consequences, as we will see in Chapter 19.

§108. DIVINE CONTRIBUTION

1. Writing as a Creative Activity

Because a writer thinks as he composes his ideas on the page, he finds thatnew ideas emerge in the process of writing. Writing is, therefore, a creativeactivity. That creativity does not extend only to the words, but also to thethoughts and truths expressed in a given work. This, in the case of Scripture,implies that the written text differs somehow from the content of revelation.

Creative thinking takes place when authors attempt to express thoughts withwords. Since scholarship indicates that biblical authors used sources, certainschools of criticism, especially tradition criticism, suggest that biblical writerswere compilers of traditional information. In other words, they were not what wewould think of as authors, but copiers and organizers of what others created, notunlike librarians or bibliographers. They assembled and organized what othersthought, wrote, and transmitted, but contributed no thinking to the writing. Ifthis is accurate, tradition, not any human beings in particular, would be theauthor of Scripture. Revelation-inspiration would have to act on traditionrather than people.

Since the historical-cognitive model takes seriously what Scripture saysabout itself, it maintains, as we just pointed out, that the locus of revelation-inspiration is the minds of the biblical writers (§105). The prophets and


apostles were not compilers, but thinkers; as they did their work, they creatednew pieces of thought.7 Even in cases when they consulted oral and writtensources for their writings, they evaluated, criticized, and modified those theychose to use.

2. The Question of Inspiration

We have asserted that since the writing of Scripture was a divine as well asa human phenomenon, God was involved in the thinking processes, theorganization, selection of literary sources, writing and, if needed, editorialtouch-ups. The question is this: how? What was the Holy Spirit’s role in theprocess of the creation of the Bible as a written work?

As explained above, inspiration as divine intervention in the writing processdoes not create the contents; those have already been revealed. Instead,inspiration enhances the transmission of the contents and assures the record’sreliability. At the moment of writing, God’s work in the process of revelation-inspiration was nearly complete. Revelation “causes” the biblical content;inspiration brings it to literary expression.

Because the thinking and writing processes were inseparable, inspirationas well as revelation occurred within the minds of the biblical writers. In theremainder of this section, we will examine two integrated patterns ofexplanation, which may help us understand God’s involvement in the writing ofScripture, however tentative and preliminary that understanding may be.

As in the case of revelation, the historical-cognitive model rejects themonolithic, single-pattern explanation of inspiration advocated by the othermodels. The complexity of inspiration instead requires a multiplicity ofexplanatory patterns. We will only discuss the general-supervision andremedial-corrective patterns here, but there may well be more.

3. General-Supervision Pattern

Since inspiration is one of the many ways God acts within human history, itpossesses the same characteristics as other acts of divine providence. As wediscussed, the historical-cognitive model understands divine providence

INSPIRATION 407

differently than do the classical and evangelical models (§81.1). It is fromthis perspective that we consider God’s involvement in the writing ofScripture. While biblical writers did their work, God was providentially present,supervising the entire process. Through his omniscience and omnipresence,God was directly aware of all that was going on— the thought and linguisticprocesses— in the mind of biblical writers as they wrote.

This side of inspiration is non-intrusive. God is not causing the thoughts orthe words, but supervising the process of their free production in the mind of thewriters, making certain that the contents are being recorded in a trustworthy way.In other words, divine intervention in this pattern is ancillary; it does notcause the writing through an act of overriding power, but supports it bydivine grace and wisdom.

The general supervision pattern of inspiration provides the basis for moreactive interventions of providence. It embraces all of Scripture. In contrast,the remedial-corrective pattern occurs only when it is needed. The general-supervision pattern can be compared to a line underneath all of Scripture,whereas the remedial-corrective pattern appears only at certain points on thatline. Because the general-supervision pattern introduces no modification intothe human writing process, there must be a complementary pattern of divineinspiration— one that keeps the Bible writers from straying.

4. Remedial-Corrective Pattern

From within the flow of human history, divine providence also works directlyon the cognitive and linguistic processes through which the prophets wroteScripture. God not only supervised the entire process of prophetic andapostolic writing, but also intervened in it as needed. This means that onoccasion God assisted the biblical writers in their task of communication. Inthis way God insured that the prophets remained God’s faithfulrepresentatives. Divine contributions to the writing process in this pattern


serve to assure the reliability of the Bible as God’s word.As with the general-supervision pattern, the remedial-corrective pattern

takes place within the inner recesses of the writers’ minds. There, the HolySpirit acts in ways unavailable to our study. Yet, we can find examples ofhow the Holy Spirit acted, in the pages of Scripture itself.

a. An Aid to Memory

The historical-cognitive model relies on human memory to play anirreplaceable role in the process of creating Scripture. After all, inspirationassumes revelation; writing God’s ideas down assumes that the writerreceived God’s ideas in the first place. He has those ideas within his memory,stored up within his brain. Remembering is the act of retrieving informationpreviously processed and housed by the human brain.

After the last supper and before Judas’s betrayal, Jesus assured hisdisciples that “the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, hewill teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said toyou” (John 14:26). Here, Christ spoke about bringing to memory things fromthe past, specifically his own words, as they would be recorded in the Bible.Although the statement directly refers to inspiration within the historicalpattern of revelation, we can safely assume God lent his assistance in otherpatterns as well.

This divine assistance provided aid to the prophets’ normal capabilities,not an elevation of them. The apostles’ memories of the actions and wordsof Christ were normal memories; the Holy Spirit merely acted to clarify andcall them to mind. We do not know how God accomplished this task.Obviously, he has the capacity to work on the human brain, selectivelystimulating or repressing memories when necessary as the prophets wroteScripture.

b. New Revelations

Since, as we have discussed, ideas emerge and develop during writing, wecan assume that during the process, God assisted prophets with new

INSPIRATION 409

representations of the truths they were recording. After all, Christ promiseddivine guidance and revelation to the disciples: “I have many more things tosay to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth,comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his owninitiative, but whatever he hears, he will speak; and he will disclose to youwhat is to come. He will glorify me, for he will take of mine and will discloseit to you. All things that the Father has are mine; therefore I said that hetakes of mine and will disclose it to you” (John 16:12-15).

It is true that here Jesus spoke of the historical and prophetic patterns ofrevelation. But He did not exclude divine assistance in the development ofnew meaningful forms through the process of inspiration. Meaningful formsin inspiration differ from meaningful forms from revelation in that themeaningful forms of revelation express the issues and call for inspiration,where the meaningful forms that emerge during inspiration depend on whatwas already revealed.

Again, these revelations-within-inspiration were occasional and onlysupplemented the prophet’s writing activities. They emerged from thethinking processes in the prophets’ minds as they wrote. The prophets andapostles were free to decide how to write. What they wrote, however, wasstrictly what God revealed to them.

c. Selection of Literary Sources

We know that biblical writers used a variety of written and oral sources inthe process of revelation-inspiration (cf. §81-83; §106.c). Here we must askhow God was involved in the use of such sources. How did biblical writersselect them? What was the Holy Spirit’s role?

Because of their emphasis on God’s sovereign control, the classical andevangelical models of revelation-inspiration propose there were few sources at all,and God selected them. In contrast, the modern model allows for the free use ofsources and traditions without divine guidance at all.

The historical-cognitive model, in its attempt to account for the entirerange of evidence in the doctrine and phenomena of Scripture, sees the use,selection, and interpretation of sources as the task of the human agents.


Prepared by God for the job, they remained under constant surveillance andoccasional aid of the Holy Spirit. As we have previously discussed, the Bible writers received from God avariety of meaningful forms of revelation that shaped their thinking about thoserevealed truths. This led them to select oral and written sources of bothrevelation (in indirect sources or forms) and language (literary sources) withwhich to better express their thoughts.

Although God could have intervened supernaturally to select the sourcesfor His writers, they generally had to do their homework and choose contentand literary sources themselves. This does not mean they chose their sourcesindependently from divine direction. It means only that divine activityworked within them, stealthily shaping the interpretive and theologicalperspectives from which biblical writers thought, wrote, and chose theirsources. Through conversion, sanctification, and the meaningful forms giventhem by God, the minds of the prophets and apostles were able to distinguishreliably between divine truth and human lies.

The apostle Paul is an example of how God shaped His writers’ minds.Even when Gamaliel’s influence appears in Paul’s work, his theologicalthinking was shaped by divine revelations from God. His conversion anddivine revelations from God shaped Paul’s hermeneutical presuppositionsand theological perspective. From there he selected revelatory and literarysources that would convey divine thinking faithfully and reliably.

In 2 Corinthians 12:7, Paul speaks of an “abundance of the revelations”he had received. In Galatians 1:12 and 2:2, he writes that he received theGospel by a revelation of Jesus Christ. Elsewhere he confesses that divinerevelation shaped his “insight into the mystery of Christ” (Ephesians 3:3-4).This insight must have guided him in all phases of his work, as he reflectedon the practical issues to which he was writing and chose sourcesaccordingly. For instance, in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul addressed various situations related tomarriage which were confronting believers. Throughout the chapter, he attributeswhat he says to God (verse 10) and at times to himself (12). Some havesuggested that only what Paul attributes to God is inspired. But Paul considered

INSPIRATION 411

his opinions as trustworthy representatives of God’s view (25) because the HolySpirit was working in his life (40). This is not a matter of expressing divinethought with human words, but of Paul’s opinions faithfully representing divinethought.

Though, as we have stated, the biblical writers were enabled by salvationand sanctification to select the right sources for their writings, we must neverforget that such a selection required that they rethink the issues based onrevelation. Any idea or expression in their sources had to be recontextualizedwithin the new frame of thought provided by God; once that happened, thosesources properly revealed divine thought.

d. Overruling Prophetic Thinking

God can intervene in prophetic thinking and freedom should he so choose. InScripture, the incident between Balak and Balaam (Numbers 22-24)exemplifies God’s capability for overruling prophetic thinking. But anexamination of the story shows that God’s exercise of sovereignty in thatcase is much different than how the classical and evangelical models assumesovereignty works. Balaam was not a false prophet, but a true prophet of God who went astray.A false prophet would not have had direct communication with God as Balaamhad; on the other hand, a true prophet could not have even entertained thesuggestion to curse Israel (22:6-7). Balaam should have had enough discernmentto see the absurdity of the request (see Hebrews 5:14), but he had the audacityto present it before God (22:8-12).

Clearly, the question here is one of revelation rather than inspiration. Theproblem was in what the prophet was asked to say, not how he was to sayit. Balak’s request contradicted previous revelation, so while God gaveBalaam permission to accompany Balak’s servants, he could say only what Godlet him (22:20), even if he did not approve (22:22). Balaam knew that he wouldbe able to speak only what God would have him speak (22:18); that is, he knewinspiration could limit or prevent what he said. Still, he had been offered money,and so pushed the issue as far as he could.

In case Balaam had any doubt about how inspiration might prevent him from


speaking, God gave him an object lesson. On his way to visit Balak, he foundhimself conversing with his donkey (22:28-30).8 At the end of the episode, “theangel of the Lord said to Balaam, ‘Go with the men, but you shall speak only theword which I tell you’” (22:35). God would use an unfaithful prophet, even if hehad to use his preventive power to override the normal functioning of Balaam’sspeech, just as he had with the natural capabilities of the animal’s thinking andexpression. God was forced to “make a donkey out of Balaam,” using him as apuppet to pronounce a blessing instead of the curse (Numbers 24).

The point is unmistakable; when God overrides human freedom, humans aredeprived of their rational human nature and become like animals. Certainly, theBible writers were not animals; their freedom of thought was not taken away bya sovereign God. Balaam’s case may have been included because it was sounusual; he provided the exception proving the rule of how revelation-inspirationnormally functions in Scripture.

But this episode also shows what God may do when his prophets’expressions willingly or unwillingly misrepresent him. That God is capableof overriding his writers’ oral and written expressions of revelation groundsour certainty of Scripture’s reliability. At the same time, we know thispattern applies only when Bible writers or their expressions depart fromGod's will.

§109. COMPLEXITY OF REVELATION-INSPIRATION:INTERACTION BETWEEN PATTERNSWe have accepted the biblical idea that God revealed Himself in many ways(Hebrews 1:1) and discussed some of the most obvious patterns through whichdivine thoughts became incarnate in human language. Our exploration has notbeen exhaustive or detailed, but does present an overall model of operation forthe whole of Scripture.

The value of the historical-cognitive model will emerge from its

INSPIRATION 413

application to the interpretation of Scripture. As students of the Bibleconsider what its text says in light of the historical-cognitive model, theyshould keep in mind that any given passage may have resulted from morethan one pattern. As we have noted, we cannot assume that prophetic bookssuch as Daniel resulted from the prophetic pattern alone; the historicalpattern is present there as well. Careful analysis of various passages mayreveal other examples of the interplay between various patterns of revelation-inspiration. Researchers may even propose new patterns of revelation andinspiration based on the text of Scripture. As new patterns are discoveredand analyzed, the historical-cognitive model will continue to develop.

§110. REVIEW

• Description of inspiration.Inspiration is the process through which divine and human agenciesinteracted to write Scripture.

• Hermeneutical presuppositions of inspiration.The presuppositions are the same as those used in discussing the patternsof revelation. In both cases we assume that both God and his humanagents worked historically within the flow of human history.

• Necessity of inspiration.

Because the human writers were able to think freely, and God often acted instealth mode, misrepresentation of divine thought could have occured in thewriting of Scripture. To prevent this, God acted in inspiration to insure thatthe Bible faithfully represents his thoughts.

• The locus of inspiration.As in the case of revelation, inspiration— divine contributions to thewriting of Scripture— took place in the mind of the human writer.


• Linguistic mode.Although the inspiration of Scripture occurred in the imperfect mode ofhuman language, its perfection remained because God had alreadyaccommodated Himself to human thinking and language by incarnating Histhoughts.

• Book composition and style.The composition and literary styles of each biblical book was left to thefree initiative of human writers.

• The Moses-Aaron analogy.Moses and Aaron together functioned like God and each of His prophets.Moses’ act of “putting the words” in Aaron’s mouth was similar to God’srole in revealing the content of Scripture. Aaron's expression of Moses’thoughts corresponds to the role of the prophet in writing the revealedcontents of Scripture.

• The literary forms of scripture and their origin.The literary forms of Scripture (for example, law, riddles, royal decrees,psalms, prayers, parables, and apocalypses) are not determined by God’ssovereign power (as in the classical and evangelical models) or thesocioeconomic group from which they arose (as in the modern model).Instead, according to the historical-cognitive model, they arose from theinterplay of several factors: the meaningful forms of divine communication;the revelatory patterns from which they came; the nature and purpose of theissue to be communicated; the audience; and the literary inclination andstrategy of biblical writers.

• Editorial work.Jeremiah’s rewrite of the book destroyed by Jehoiakim suggests thatbiblical writers could edit their revealed and inspired work. If thesecond version of Jeremiah’s book was written from memory as the

INSPIRATION 415

passage suggests, it probably looked more like a new edition than averbatim copy. Although we cannot expand this episode into a generalrule, it demonstrates that inspired works can be edited by inspiredprophets.

• Distinction of revelatory and literary sources.

Written revelatory sources come from divinely originated meaningfulforms, and include interpretive patterns as well as data. Literary sources,in contrast, are composed of human reflection on religious and secularissues; when used in the Bible, they provide only words, not interpretivepatterns or data.

• Recontextualization of literary sources.Literary sources were used within the intellectual context of each biblicalwriter, not within that of the sources from which they were taken. In thisway, the borrowed words acquired meanings as used in Scripturedifferent than those they had in the original sources.

• Problems with thought inspiration.Thought inspiration proposes that God’s intervention falls short of thewritten words. This view has several weaknesses: it lacks biblicalsupport; it reduces inspiration to revelation; and it assumes nonbiblicalhermeneutical principles. Moreover, in all practicality we have no accessto the thoughts of the Bible writers; they are dead.

• Thinking grounds words.Words are not mere sounds or lines on paper. They convey meaningproduced by the human mind. Words carry meanings or thoughts betweenminds.

• The inspiration of words does not assume the verbal-inspiration theory.The historical-cognitive model does not reject the biblical affirmation thatthe words of Scripture were inspired by the Holy Spirit; it does, however,


reject the theoretical explanation provided by verbal inspiration.

• Biblical writing as a thinking process.Biblical writers were thinkers not only as they received divine revelation,but also as they communicated it. The process of writing Scripture wasitself a process of thinking that shaped revelation and, therefore, theactual contents of Scripture.

• Biblical writers were authors, not compilers.Writing is a creative activity. Biblical writers were in this sense authors,not compilers.

• Creativity extends not only to their literary expression, but also to thethoughts and truths in the Bible. This implies that what we now possess in the written text differs fromwhat the Bible writers received in revelation.

• The question of inspiration.What was the role of the Holy Spirit in the writing of Scripture?

• Multiple patterns of inspiration.The historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration rejects the single-pattern strategy adopted by the classical, evangelical, and modernmodels, and instead advocates a multiplicity of explanatory patterns.

• General-supervision pattern.While biblical authors were writing, God was present, supervising the entireprocess by His providence. This means that through his omniscience andomnipresence, God was constantly aware of all the thought and linguisticprocesses of the biblical writers as they wrote. This component of inspirationis nonintrusive.

• Remedial-corrective pattern.

INSPIRATION 417

1 Achtemeier, Paul J. Inspiration and Authority: Nature and Function of

Within the flow of history, divine inspiration worked directly on the cognitiveand linguistic processes through which prophets wrote Scripture; thus Godcould direct the writers to amend any inaccuracies they had written.

• Remembering previous revelation.God occasionally helped prophets remember certain revealed truths. Thissupernatural assistance does not imply the elevation of the prophet’s mentalcapabilities, but rather divine aid to normal capabilities.

• New revelations.God assisted biblical writers by giving them fresh revelations as theywrote. These revelations did not initiate writing, but enhanced it.

• Selection of literary sources.God aided biblical writers in the normal process of selecting literarysources by means of miraculous interventions.

• Overruling prophetic thinking.God could overrule prophetic writing when prophets intentionally orunintentionally tried to replace divine truths with their own views (Balaam,for example).

• Complexity of the patterns of revelation-inspiration and theirinteraction.The historical-cognitive model explains the genesis of Scripture bysuggesting multiple patterns of revelation-inspiration. Analysis of each Biblebook will likely reveal multiple patterns in their formation, operating togetherin complex interactions based on the issues addressed.

ENDNOTES


Christian Scripture (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999).2 Richard M. Davidson, “Biblical Interpretation,” in Handbook of Seventh-day

Adventist Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen, Commentary Reference Series(Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2000), 75.

3 S teven L. Mackenzie and Stephen R. Haynes, eds. To Each Its OwnMeaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application, rev. ed.(Louisville: John Knox Press, 1999).

4 What God communicated was already limited by His accommodation tohuman thought and language, and by the revelatory patterns He used.

5 Gadamer, 417. Gadamer seems to imply that Greek philosophy, on the basisof its timeless notion of reality, draws an abstract wedge between thought andword (Ibid., 417-418).

6 Our thoughts are influenced by the language that shapes them. 7 This runs against the assumptions behind Form Criticism. Gunkel assumed that

Scripture came out of a long tradition of oral and written sources. Authors, accordingto this view, are the originators at the beginning of those traditions. Scripture, as wehave it today, is the result of the cut and paste activity of compilers. Redactioncriticism, however, sees the authors of the Gospels as thinking theologians. To a lesserdegree, Wellhausen’s classical formulation of the Documentary Hypothesis of thePentateuch considered the writers of the present final text of Scripture to be authors.

8 Critics working from the encounter theory of revelation-inspiration consider thisepisode to be a fable in which animals talk. Since we know animals do not talk, thisstory could not really have taken place. This is consistent with higher critics’convictions that God cannot talk to prophets either. In the historical-cognitive model,however, God is able to speak to humans, and is certainly able to make animals speak.He is also able to override human freedom if He so chooses.

19. HERMENEUTICAL EFFECTS

In previous chapters, we have examined other models and the hermeneuticaleffects they have on the interpretation of Scripture. In other words, we haveseen how assuming that God is ultimately timeless affects what the Bible’swords are believed to mean— whether they lead one to nebulous and limited“timeless” truths or non-cognitive religious experience. The historical-cognitive model, on the other hand, begins with both thedoctrine and phenomena of the object studied— the Bible itself. The Biblepresents itself as divinely revealed and inspired, yet written by finite humanbeings. Moreover, God is depicted in Scripture as clearly able to act withintime. These aspects of Scripture, taken together and going beyond previousmodels, have led us to the current model. The goal of this chapter is to beginexploring the effects of the historical-cognitive model as a set ofhermeneutical presuppositions for understanding the Bible.

§111. THE MACRO HERMENEUTICAL ROLE OF REVELATION-INSPIRATION

1. The Two-Way Relationship Between Revelation-Inspiration andHermeneuticsAt the very beginning of our study, we directed our attention to the two-way

HERMENEUTICAL EFFECTS 421

relationship between revelation-inspiration and hermeneutics. On one hand,our interpretive principles influence our understanding of revelation-inspiration; on the other, how we view revelation-inspiration affects ourhermeneutics (§2.5.c). Is this a vicious circle? The answer is no, because thedoctrine of revelation-inspiration is not the source of the interpretiveprinciples we use to formulate it. As we have throughout this book, we must keep in mind that a model isan interpretation; that interpretation necessarily involves interpretive, orhermeneutical, principles. The historical-cognitive model defines thoseprinciples by beginning with the available facts. Since theologians generallyhave built previous theories of revelation-inspiration on the doctrine orphenomena of Scripture, this model chooses to define its hermeneuticalprinciples from both sets of data.

In other words, our hermeneutical principles are not derived from thehistorical-cognitive model, but from the evidence that led us to the model inthe first place. We did not assume the historical-cognitive model ofrevelation-inspiration to ground the hermeneutical principles we used toformulate it. We instead had to assume a hermeneutic because any doctrineof revelation-inspiration is an interpretation based on hermeneuticalprinciples. This, then, is the first half of the two-way relationship we arediscussing. We had to have a particular hermeneutic to understandrevelation-inspiration.

2. Grounding the Naive Reading of Scripture

In this chapter, we are exploring the second half of the two-way relationship:how the historical-cognitive model functions as an overarchingpresupposition of Christian theology. We have already done the same foreach of the previous three models. In those analyses, we saw that how oneunderstands revelation-inspiration dramatically affects one’s theologicaloutput.

I have frequently heard historical-critical exegetes mistakenly affirm thattheir approach to the interpretation of Scripture denies revelation-inspiration.They take Scripture to be uninspired, or just like any other book. What they


mean is that they simply do not agree with the classical or evangelical modelsof revelation-inspiration. But they fail to see that in so doing, they alsoassume an interpretation of Scripture’s origin— hence, a doctrine ofrevelation-inspiration. Some of these exegetes may be unaware that theirattempt to read the Bible without presuppositions— “scientifically”— findsits explicit ground in the encounter theory of revelation-inspiration, whichdoes in fact provide the intellectual and theological grounds for the modernand postmodern schools.1

The historical-cognitive model gives explicit theoretical ground to thenaive reading of Scripture, making such reading by non-theologiansintellectually possible. To read Scripture naively is to believe that what onereads in Scripture is true. The historical-cognitive model, then, shows thatthe naive reading or face value of Scripture can be maintained as a soundtheological option.

In this chapter, we will examine the effects— the basic hermeneuticaloutcomes— of the historical-cognitive model, by exploring how it operates oncognitive foundations, theological sources, overarching hermeneutical principles,biblical theology, and systematic theology.

§112 RECLAIMING SCRIPTUREThe first hermeneutical effect of applying the historical-cognitive model isthe affirmation of the Bible as the basic cognitive principle of Christiantheology. Understanding how the entire texts of Old and New Testamentwere revealed and inspired establishes the necessary cognitive and literaryconnections between God and the words of the Bible. Scripture becomes thesole source from which Christian theology acquires its teachings about Godand His actions in history.

1. The Effects of Reclaiming Scripture

The historical-cognitive model returns Scripture to the forefront of Christian


theology. The significance of this is apparent when one contrasts thehistorical-cognitive model with the other three; the previous models allsubmit Scripture to other presuppositions, rather than submitting theirpresuppositions to the Bible.

The classical model of revelation-inspiration submits Scripture toclassical philosophy, confining Scripture’s cognitive contributions to mere“timeless truth.” As a result, only few truths really determine Christiandoctrine and theology. Classical theology is built on this confluence betweenphilosophical and biblical information.

The modern model likewise submits Scripture to modern philosophy, butwith an opposite result. In this model, Scripture contains no certain truthbecause there is no cognitive connection between the text and God. Scripturebecomes a book of human fables and folk traditions. Any knowledge of thetrue God consists only of the imaginative projection of human fears andhopes. If the classical model emasculated Scripture, the modern model killedit.

At first glance, the evangelical model of revelation-inspiration seems toaffirm Scripture in the highest possible way. But like the classical model, itrejects the possibility that divine thought can enter history. The result is thatGod is seen to speak from a timeless heaven, outside the temporal realm,rather than from within the fray of human history. The historical context andarticulation of Scripture becomes irrelevant.

One clear example of this phenomenon is the supposed discontinuitybetween Old and New Testaments. From the perspective of the evangelicalmodel, revelation is not historical but “progressive.” God’s revelation inChrist is progress over Old Testament revelation and, therefore, supercedesand replaces it. There is a radical dichotomy between Old and NewTestaments. Instead of developing salvation over the flow of history, God isbelieved always to reveal the same salvific ideas from the outside; each newrevelation is clearer and deeper than the ones preceding. Since Christ is thefull and complete revelation of God, he replaces all prior revelation.Consequently, the New Testament replaces the Old regarding revelation ofdivine will, teachings, and actions.


This notion has fateful hermeneutical consequences for Christiantheology. Whoever builds theology on the New Testament alone removes itfrom its intellectual context; in other words, the New Testament buildsdirectly on the Old. Even Jesus Christ, after the resurrection, could not makeHis disciples understand His awesome resurrection except by approachingthe event from what He Himself had revealed to the prophets in the OldTestament (see Luke 24). The New Testament requires an intellectualcontext to understand it; without the Old Testament, theologians are drivento a surrogate context to replace it. In other words, they need other sources.Sola Scriptura is thus replaced by prima Scriptura. The historical-cognitivemodel, in contrast, affirms the whole of the Bible as the cognitive foundationof Christian theology; the New Testament is left in its natural intellectualsetting, that of the Old Testament.

The evangelical view of inspiration depends on a timeless notion of Godand results in a split between two discontinuous wholes (Old and NewTestaments). As you may have noticed, the timelessness of God also affectshow many evangelicals view salvation (law and grace). In other words, boththe evangelical view of revelation-inspiration and that of salvation resultsfrom assuming Greek hermeneutical presuppositions for use in theology.Because of its foundational role, however, the evangelical understanding ofrevelation-inspiration results in a non-historical hermeneutic for its theology.This point is the basis for what is known as the fundamentalist interpretationof Scripture— one that ultimately rejects the historical nature of divineactivities and any consequent theological understandings.

Let us pause for a moment to consider a frequent reaction to my presentationof the historical-cognitive model. I am aware that many evangelicals reading thisbook will staunchly deny the evangelical view of revelation-inspiration as I havedescribed it; in other words, I am told I have misunderstood that view. To thosereaders, I suggest that they are both correct and incorrect. The truth is that quitea few evangelical theologians claim to subscribe to a view of revelation-inspiration very similar to the historical-cognitive model. If a person reading thisbelieves my interpretation of revelation-inspiration does not correctly representthe evangelical view, that person may be saying that my representation of the


evangelical view does not correspond with their understanding of it, or with howanother evangelical writer has described it.

I suggest those critics do two things. First, they should explore thehermeneutical and theological underpinnings of official evangelical affirmationson Scripture. They may be surprised to discover that they do not agree with them.Second, they should compare it with the historical-cognitive model as analternative explanation. Many readers may well say they have approached theBible through the lens of the historical-cognitive model all their lives. I amconvinced this demonstrates that the historical-cognitive model is not aninnovation birthed from the imagination of a lonely theologian, but thearticulation of an understanding of revelation-inspiration faithful to theevidence— the doctrine and phenomena of Scripture. Anyone who reads the Biblein a sincere attempt to understand will find evidence in support of the historical-cognitive model.

To summarize, by going beyond current models, the historical-cognitivemodel reclaims Scripture as the cognitive, historically incarnated revelationof God’s thoughts and acts as the foundation of Christian theology.

2. Affirming Tota Scriptura

The historical-cognitive model reclaims the entire text of Scripture as arevelation of divine actions and thinking; in other words it affirms the totaScriptura principle. This means that to understand God, we need the Biblein its entirety, not just some select portions. Each passage reveals someaspect of God and His relationship with His creation.

Previous models of revelation-inspiration affirm the value of somepassages of the Bible, implying that Scripture gives us more than we need forour spiritual or theological undertakings. To know God and his truth, then,we do not need to read or understand the entire Bible, but only a sample. Todevelop our theology, we are directed not to use all scriptural data, but toselect portions from the whole according to our prior hermeneuticalprinciples, including the doctrine of revelation-inspiration.

The classical model leads us to believe that while most of Scripture iscomprised of illustrations of God’s timeless truths, we need only a few of its


propositions to understand its message. We should build our theology bysifting the eternal truths of Scripture from their temporal-historicalsurroundings.

The modern model asserts that Scripture gives us pointers to how pastgenerations experienced the transcendent, timeless God. Our theology is non-cognitive, and depends on the selection of a spiritual, existential experiencefrom the imaginative literary forms recorded for us. Theology becomes aselective and critical reflection on human tradition, rather than on divinerevelation. Theologians of this school attempt to understand the “faith,” ortradition of the community, not knowledge of “divine revelation.”

The evangelical model’s central point is that Scripture reveals eternal,timeless salvation for us in the cross of Jesus Christ. We should accordinglybuild our theology by selecting biblical texts that speak about Christ’ssalvation, such as those concerning Jesus’ death, justification by faith, andgrace. Anything else in Scripture may be included if it supports, symbolizesor foreshadows these salvific truths. A systematic principle of selection isthus arbitrarily imposed on the Bible, called in the exegetical process the“theological context” of the text. Consequently, even when the model claimsthat the entire Bible is inspired in such a way that God overrules the freedomof individual writers, theology has need of only few passages of Scripture.The bulk of Scripture is excluded. Moreover, this model also requires amultiple-sources approach; theologians are forced to understand Christ onthe basis of human philosophical, scientific, theological, and experientialconclusions— hence the fragmentation of Christian theology into modern andpostmodern schools.

Those who have watched the theological currents of the twentieth centurymight observe how modern and postmodern evangelical theologies dependnot on the Bible, but on the ever-changing movements of human culture. Thisobservation has led to my conviction that it is time for a new reformation,one I believe is more urgently needed than that of Luther’s time because theoriginal cognitive foundations of Christian theology have been ignored and/orreplaced for centuries. The intellectual foundations on which we theologiansbuilt during all those years were flawed. We need new foundations.


Revelation-inspiration must be understood as the historical incarnation ofdivine actions and thinking. By so doing, the historical-cognitive modelaffirms that all of Scripture is necessary for Christian religion and theology,disavowing any “canon within a canon” interpretive strategies. By affirmingthat the whole of Scripture is revealed and inspired, the historical-cognitivemodel sets the stage for another, final Reformation.

This principle, tota Scriptura, has vast hermeneutical consequences forChristian theology. Let us examine a few of the most prominent ones.

3. Broadening the Knowledge Base and Task of Theology

The historical-cognitive model broadens both the cognitive informationalbase and scope of Christian theology, because it sees the text not ashistorically conditioned but as historically constituted.. What are theseconcepts? How are they different?

a. Scripture as Historically Conditioned

The historical conditioning of Scripture means that the historical and culturaltrappings of contents are determined to be externally attached to theirsupernatural cause. In other words, by definition, theologians maydifferentiate and separate what led to the recording of Scripture from its timeand place. The historical contents and condition are disposable because whatmatters is the supernatural, divine cause.

To understand further what “historically conditioned” means, we mustconsider the two agencies involved in the revelation-inspiration event. In thisprocess, God’s action is understood as the “cause” of Scripture; what humanagencies did is its “condition.” What is the difference? Both are causes, butthe cause is always subordinate to the condition. For instance, a ship movesthrough the ocean from port to port. We could say that the cause for thisoccurence is the engine-driven propeller; the condition for movement wouldbe water for the propeller. Without water (condition), the propellor couldcreate no movement (cause).

According to the classical and evangelical models, the cause of Scriptureis God, while human agencies are the condition. As cause, God reveals


timeless truths and produces words. As conditions, human agencies providethe environment for the communication to take place. In other words, God’swords are the engine and propellor communicating in the water of humanagencies. The human environment includes the prophet’s literary style as wellas his historical situation or culture. These conditions are temporal andhistorical, and thus external to the cause and its cognitive activity. As acondition, history is external to the theological contents of Scripture. Adisassociation takes place between the timeless theological contents ofScripture and its historically conditioned form. Theologians, then, build theirteachings not on the historical contents of Scripture, but on the timeless truthit contains.

The modern model of revelation-inspiration also considers God to be thecause of Scripture and the human agent as its condition. Like the classicaland evangelical models, the timeless theological aspects of the Bible aredisassociated from its historical form. The difference with the other modelsis that the theological “content” of Scripture has no cognitive content, butconsists of an existential relationship outside the flow of time. Alltheologians have left is the historically conditioned form of Scripture.Unfortunately, just as in the classical and evangelical models, the historicallyconditioned form is external and, therefore, unnecessary for theologicalpurposes. Scripture’s function is reduced from shaping theology to its rolein community worship.

b. Scripture as Historically Constituted

By rejecting the timeless view of God on which the classical, evangelical, andmodern models of revelation-inspiration are built, the historical-cognitivemodel proposes that the contribution of the human agency is an internalcondition (rather than external) to the formation of the “eternal truths” ofScripture. (I place the word “eternal” in quotation marks because inScripture, eternity is no longer tied to timelessness.2) The historical meaningof Scripture is thus far from unnecessary; it is essential to theologicalresearch. In contrast with historical conditioning, in which the meaning ofthe Bible is divorced from its historical and cultural contexts, Scripture as


historically constituted means that the historical and cultural aspects of thetext are inseparable from truth revealed by God.

The historical-cognitive model integrates the divine and humancontributions to Scripture into an indivisible whole, including not only theOld and New Testaments equally, but also their entire content. TotaScriptura cannot work as the cognitive foundation of Christian theologywithout understanding the book as historically constituted.

Moreover, the historical-cognitive model considers the entirety ofScripture as essential data for searching the truths of Christianity. Accordingto the other models, the contents of Scripture are largely superfluous incomparison to the amount of theological truth they contain.

Conversely, according to the historical-cognitive model, the contents ofScripture are in fact too small for the theological truths they speak about.According to prior models, one arrives at theological truth by distilling itfrom Scripture. In the historical-cognitive model, Scripture itself is adistillation of the truths it illumines; in other words, truth is always greaterthan its scriptural representations. The apostle John pointed this out when heremarked that the world itself could not contain all the books he would needto write if he were to record all of Jesus’ earthly activities (John 21:25). Inother words, what we find in the New Testament is a drop in the oceancompared with the truth as it was incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ.Theologians cannot afford to do any less than make use of all of Scripture’sdivine truths.

§113 RETHINKING THE SOURCES OF THEOLOGY The question of theological sources may be one of the most important issues inbeginning theological studies. To study something, we need data; without data,we cannot research. Theology as the study of God and His relationship to realityalso requires a set of data on which Christians can agree to study to search God’struth.


1. Multiple Sources

For centuries Christian theology has been building on multiple sources oftheological data, even after the sola Scriptura challenge of the Reformation.Even conservative evangelical theology begins with what is known as theWesleyan quadrilateral of sources: Scripture, experience, reason, andtradition.

To use multiple sources, or what we might call a multisource platform,for theological knowledge is to assume natural revelation, with each sourceserving as a conduit of divine information. Individual sources are supposedto render different access to the knowledge of God, with each accepted on thesame cognitive basis, even if first consideration is assumed to be given to theBible. The pool of revealed information in this scenario is much broader andmore complex than that of a sola Scriptura approach.

As we have just seen, the classical, evangelical, and modern models ofrevelation-inspiration require multiple sources for their hermeneuticalprinciples. Reducing the number of sources to one, the Bible, meansformulating a theological hermeneutic such as the historical-cognitive model.If all Christianity were to do so, it would spell the end of previous theologicaltraditions, highly unlikely because millions of Christians are convinced thatreason rather than Scripture reveals the truth about reality. In this area,Christianity has, almost from the beginning, always given credence tophilosophy and science over Scripture.

The selection of theological sources is the most important decisiontheologians make. The choice can be reduced to that between Scripture andtradition, the latter of which is the basis of the multisource platform. Iftradition is chosen, Scripture is gradually reduced to a symbolic role withlittle or no role in the task of ascertaining theological truth. Because thehermeneutical principles of such a theology are non-scriptural, theconsequent doctrines are, too.

Of course, this situation varies according to theological models andChristian traditions. Some traditions, such as those of conservative


evangelical denominations, subordinate Scripture to tradition in a lesserdegree than do the liberal Protestant churches. But by building on tradition,both conservative and liberal approaches are depending on human ratherthan divine thoughts for truth. Roman Catholic theologians and thosefollowing the modern model of revelation-inspiration give such a significantrole to tradition that Scripture has no practical role as a vehicle of divinethought. Theology for them becomes a reflection of the religiousimaginations of past communities of faith.

2. One Source: Scripture

The historical-cognitive model rejects the multisource platform for theologicalknowledge, because it rejects natural theology as a revelation from God (SeeChapter 2). Because human reason in philosophy and science results in humanrather than divine understanding, we cannot automatically assume theseteachings and conclusions to be true and apply them as criteria for judging theveracity and meaning of Scripture.

Only in Scripture do we find the revelation of divine thoughts as theybecame incarnate in human language through the ministry of prophets andapostles. Reason, science, philosophy, and experience render only humanpoints of view and conflicting interpretations. Consequently, they cannot beconsidered to be sources of theological data. Scripture alone reveals divinethoughts. In this sense, the historical-cognitive model shows how and whyChristian theology should build its hermeneutical principles and basicdoctrines from scriptural data alone.

The amount of revealed knowledge resulting from the assumption of thehistorical-cognitive model as a hermeneutical presupposition is astonishing,tota Scriptura in all its historical complexity. But as we have noted, even ifall of Scripture is considered the data field for theology, it is but a briefintroduction to theological knowledge as it is in Christ. The Bible tells us allwe need to know God and experience salvation; it is not a completecompendium, exhausting the mind of God. Even eternity cannot give us that.


3. Prima Scriptura and Theological Resources

Theology is a complex activity even when it is reduced to the Bible as asingle source of information. But that study also involves a number ofextrabiblical resources. For instance, in order to understand Scripture, onemust begin with the original text. To understand those ancient languages oneneeds a number of language resources. Moreover, because divine thoughtwas incarnated into history, one must study history to understand the settingin which biblical authors lived and wrote.

Using these extrabiblical resources is not a return to the multisourceplatform, but an affirmation of the prima Scriptura principle. Scripture stillhas cognitive primacy over all resources theologians may call on in theirwork. Using what they have learned by using the tota and sola Scripturaprinciples, theologians place all human resources under the judgment ofbiblical revelation. All secondary resources are selected, analyzed, and, ifnecessary, recontextualized for theological use.

Science proper and other forms of extrabiblical research are called toplay an assisting role, but never as hermeneutical guide or cognitive source.Theology must build on data originating in God; that data, according toChristianity, has reached humanity through revelation in various forms, fromwhich an inspired record has been created. That revelatory record givesChristian theology its foundation and right to exist.

Without Scripture, Christianity would not have taken place. If Scriptureconsists of myth, as the modern model claims, the faith is a hoax, and thosewho continue practicing Christian rituals are foolish. If, on the other hand,Scripture contains only few timeless truths about God and salvation withina sea of illustrations designed not to reveal those truths but to makesuggestions for living, then Christianity has developed on the basis ofinadequate information. Scripture must be complemented with informationfrom the hard sciences in order to be of any use. Christianity is thus subjectto constantly changing human interpretations, taking the church far from theChrist of Scripture to its present situation of secularization andinstitutionalization.

As we have shown in this book, these views have gained prominence


because Christian theologians have assumed that Scripture can beunderstood only from a philosophical hermeneutical perspective. By showingthat this is not so, the historical-cognitive model leads to a hermeneuticrooted in biblical, historical thinking.

§114 RETHINKING THE HERMENEUTICALFOUNDATIONS OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGYAnother effect of the historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration is thereconstruction of theological hermeneutics based on the Bible. Such areconstruction becomes necessary due to the following facts. To begin, thehermeneutical principles of current Christian theology are dictated by thestructure and conclusions of human thinking. This contradicts a Scripturalhermeneutic not only in origin, but also in content. One proceeds from God andthe other from human wisdom. One considers divine reality to be timeless, theother that it is temporal and historical.

In the classical era, philosophy and metaphysics ruled over theology. Inmodern and postmodern times, the structure and conclusions of sciences,including history, anthropology, sociology, and psychology, dictate itshermeneutical principles. The revelation-inspiration models of all three eraswork from philosophically-defined hermeneutics that cover the entirety ofChristian theology. These theological models justify their use of extrabiblicalpresuppositions in two ways. First, it is argued that Scripture does not dealwith the question of reality or knowledge, a foundational point for doingtheology. Reality is addressed, however, by philosophical and scientificstudies. Since we need a general understanding of reality to develop theology,we are forced outside of Scripture to find the hermeneutical tools we need.Hence the introduction of extrabiblical hermeneutical principles. Only whenone has deconstructed Christian theological traditions can one see thatScripture does consider the issues of reality and knowledge necessary forbuilding the presuppositions of Christian theology.

Second, theologians justify the use of philosophy and science in theologyvia the biblical notion of general revelation. Since God revealed himself


through nature, it is argued that science and philosophy are also Hisrevelations. Unfortunately, this position fails to distinguish between generalrevelation and natural theology (see §7).

The historical-cognitive model not only deconstructs the hermeneuticalrole philosophy and the sciences have played in shaping Christian theology.It also shows it is possible to discover and adopt biblical presuppositions andconsequent theological hermeneutics. A reconstruction of hermeneuticalprinciples based on Scripture becomes possible by using the wholeBible— the tota Scriptura principle, affirmed by the historical-cognitivemodel.

The hermeneutical presuppositions involved in creating the historical-cognitive model— the nature and actions of God and human beings— remainactive in the study of all theological issues. To be sure, these are not the onlyhermeneutical presuppositions involved in doing theology. But they affect theformulation of all subsequent presuppositions. At this level we must remindourselves of the role of the sola Scriptura principle; that simply means we mustsecure the definition of all presuppositions and hermeneutical principles from theBible and biblical thinking alone.

This hermeneutical effect has lasting repercussions on the entiretheological task. The historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspirationcould only emerge once we had challenged the hermeneutical foundations onwhich former models operated. By so doing, we have entered into the “innersanctum,” where the most basic ideas at the center of Christian theologyhave been conceived and formulated.

1. Traditional Approaches

To review, our study reveals that what we know as Christian theology hasresulted from the multisource platform— biblical ideas interpreted using thehermeneutical perspectives of human philosophy and science. It does not matterthat Scripture speaks to the same issues addressed by these outside disciplines.In practice, when conflict arises between the two, philosophy and science arealmost always trusted over Scripture (over against prima Scriptura).


This time-honored theological approach renders two complete theologicalapproaches: the classical and the modern. Both achieve coherence by usingextrabiblical hermeneutical principles, reducing the biblical content to a bareminimum of referential truth. Scripture instead serves more as a source ofreligious experience and ritual.

On the other hand, conservative evangelical Christianity is divided by theunresolved conflicts between the historical Christ and the classical timelessview of God and the soul. Their emphasis on the cross pulls evangelicalChristians to Scripture, while their view of God and human nature drawthem in the other direction to classical Greek presuppositions. This issue ispresent not only in their model of revelation-inspiration, but in mostdoctrines as well.

2. A New Approach

The historical-cognitive model demonstrates the needlessness of this divide.Presuppostions about reality can and should be drawn from biblical thinking.What we have done in this book is minimal compared with what a full-fledged criticism of the hermeneutical presuppositions of theology wouldlook like. Here we have criticized traditional views of God and humannature; we might also critique presuppositions concerning being, cosmology,epistemology, and metaphysics.

a. Ignoring the Hermeneutical Question

Only those who claim that Christian theology should build on Scripturealone— based on the sola, tota, and prima Scriptura principles— would beinterested in criticizing theology’s traditional reliance on philosophy. Butmost conservative evangelical and fundamentalist theologians have attemptedto do theology from Scripture apart from philosophy— in other words, byignoring philosophy. They have consciously or unconsciously avoidedanalyzing their own hermeneutical presuppositions. But burying their headsin the sand fails to exorcize the powerful hermeneutical effects of humanphilosophy on their Christian thinking and experience.


Theology apart from philosophy probably can only take place inpreaching and in the early stages of development of a community experienceof faith. With the passage of time, however, questions arise as result ofdialogue with unbelievers or from the simple desire to achieve a betterunderstanding of God’s will and the human condition. Such questions leadconservative theologians back to hermeneutical principles derived fromphilosophical thinking. This phenomenon becomes inescapable whenmembers of the community of faith work within the scholarly world.

When they enter that world, their biblical experience and theology areabsorbed by the hermeneutical structures provided by philosophy. Butmodern and postmodern philosophical thinking has proven that the oldclassical synthesis was a result of human imagination not correspondent withthe facts as we experience them in reality.

b. Facing the Hermeneutical Question

The historical-cognitive model suggests that Christian theology shouldapproach all theological tasks with the same two steps it used to formulateits hermeneutical principles: deconstructing present understandings orpresuppositions based on the earlier models, and rebuilding based solely onall the biblical material pertinent to the topic or arena. Such a study assumesthe tota and sola Scriptura principles made possible by the historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration. Once the hermeneutical principlesof theology have been formulated in faithfulness to Scripture, they mayindeed be applied to all theological disciplines. Here, we will explore a fewof the hermeneutical consequences the historical-cognitive model brings toexegetical and systematic theologies.

§115. RETHINKING BIBLICAL THEOLOGYFor about sixteen centuries, Christian theologians approached the study ofScripture from the starting place of a systematic or dogmatic theology.Biblical theology challenged the reign of systematic theology when it became


an independent discipline around the middle of the eighteenth century.3 Fromthe very beginning, biblical theology based its identity on criticizingdogmatic theology4 and on the historical-critical method of theEnlightenment.

Please note that in this section, the term “biblical theology” is a technical termreferring to that particular school of thought. The historical-cognitive modelrelates to biblical theology in two contrasting ways. On one hand, it shares itscritical predisposition to classical theology; on the other, it is also critical of thehermeneutical foundations and procedures of historical criticism, defining aspectsof biblical scholarship at the turn of the twentieth century.5 In other words, thehistorical-cognitive model finds “biblical theology” to be both biblical andunbiblical. The model agrees with biblical theology that classical theology takesflight and departs from the text of Scripture; on the other hand, the historical-cognitive model also finds biblical theology, as a school of thought, to be un-biblical in most of its presuppositions.

Despite of its use of the historical-critical method, biblical theology hasbrought to the fore many important insights, light which can be used even bybiblically-defined theological presuppositions. Hermeneutical presuppositionsso defined, however, undermine the philosophical foundations of thehistorical-critical method. Practitioners of the method rarely speak about,much less submit to criticism, the hermeneutical presuppositions they assumein their practice. For example, the historical-critical method rejects the verbalinspiration of Scripture.6 Unfortunately, it also rejects the possibility ofcognitive revelation. Divine activity within history is deemed impossible. Thehistorical-critical method cannot operate without this assumption.

The classical and evangelical models of revelation-inspiration are impotent tocontradict these presuppositions; they, too, view God as timeless and unable toact in history. The only way they can find to counteract historical criticism is byinterpreting inspiration as verbal— a notion also based on the timeless view ofsovereign divine activity. As we have seen earlier, this approach does notincorporate the historical dimension of biblical thinking into theology. As a result,the historical-critical method still holds sway in Christian theology, in spite ofcriticism that continues to rise against it.


The historical-cognitive model challenges the assumption that God cannot acthistorically. Scripture presents God as temporal and historical, and thereforecapable of acting and revealing his thought directly within the flux of humanhistory. If the Bible is assumed to be right, one cannot affirm with absolutecertainty, even from a scientific basis, that God cannot act in history as the pagesof Scripture so report. One may doubt biblical teaching about God or even denythat there is a God, but no one can deny that Scripture presents the thoughts andwords of a living God. Atheism is not a hermeneutical question, but aphilosophical conviction one must bring to the text— a presupposition.

For all practical purposes, to study Scripture with the historical-criticalmethod is to study it from an atheistic perspective. The method can beapplied either way— from atheism, or, without modification, from a timelessview of God. The only reason for assuming that God is involved at all isbased on human tradition, and a philosophy that postmodern criticism hasshown results from human imagination rather than from evidence.

1. Principles of the Historical-Critical Method

German theologian Ernest Troeltsch articulated three principles forhistorical criticism: analogy, correlation, and doubt. Here I will attempt abrief introductory criticism of these critical principles from the generalperspective of the historical-cognitive model.

The principle of analogy is the conviction that present experienceprovides the criterion for judging the past. “Historians assume, consciouslyor unconsciously, that the past is analogous to the present, and that onehuman society is analogous to another.”7 For instance, since we never seeanyone walking on water or rising from the dead, historical criticismdogmatically asserts that such events cannot occur at all. Scripture’sdepiction of Jesus Christ doing those things is therefore discounted out ofhand.

But historical events are in their essence unique. A person followingprinciple of analogy is prepared to accept only what reoccurs periodically,like the cyclical events of nature. The historical-critical method stands onnaturalistic, positivistic assumptions that work reasonably well in studying


nature and the physical sciences. The same assumptions, however, are anotable hindrance in the study of history.

If we apply the principle of analogy to the biblical record, we may considerthe possibility that what is described there does not fit with certainpreconceptions of reality we now have— but to conclude that the biblicaldepiction of divine activity is wrong, something else must be operating behind theprinciple of analogy— the hermeneutical principles on which historical criticismbuilds.

The principle of analogy assumes the perspective of eitheratheistic/agnostic naturalism or the timelessness of God. Most theologianswork primarily from the second assumption— the timelessness of God.Recently, however, an increasing number of biblical exegetes seem contentto operate on purely naturalistic assumptions. They consider the text to bea human religious phenomenon and are convinced that God is a product ofhuman imagination.

Recently, Yale philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff successfully challengedthe naturalistic assumptions of the historical-critical method. Arguing froman apologetical perspective and an empiricist epistemology congruent with thepositivistic frame of mind of historical criticism, Wolterstorff concludes thatdivine speech as an historical phenomenon is possible in the present. He knowsother scholars may analyze the same phenomenon and arrive at different ends.So, Wolterstorff nuances his argument and carefully concludes that “it ispossible for an intelligent adult of the modern Western world to be entitled tobelieve that God has spoken to him or her.”8

This does not make the historical-critical method impossible, buthypothetical— only one possible way of interpreting Scripture. In other words,it opens the way for an alternate scholarly methodology with which to dobiblical theology, one based on new macrohermeneutical presuppositions fromwhich to apply the principle of analogy. The historical-cognitive model presentsthe presuppositions of such a methodology.

Maxwell Miller is correct when he writes that, other than the principle ofanalogy, “there is no specific methodology for historical research.”9 Theentire paradigm of historical criticism applies the principle of analogy to


Scripture based on the naturalistic, atheistic, deistic or timeless definitionsof divine activity (or non-activity). What this means is that all the“criticisms” of Scripture which historical-critical methodology presentsdepend on the presuppositions of the scholars who are applying the principleof analogy for validity. What should we do, then, with the other twoprinciples of historical research enunciated by Troeltsch?

The principle of correlation speaks to the tangled and ever-present webof historical causes: “For every effect within history . . . there are one ormore immanent causes, which can be further explained through antecedentimmanent causes and effects.”10 On the surface, this principle sounds simpleand clear. No objections come to mind until one remembers that in Scripturewe find God’s historical activities, and that according to tradition God istimeless. Within this setting, there can be no divine causation in history;therefore, God cannot be active in the closed chain of historical causality. Itis my belief that the historical-critical method stands or falls on how oneinterprets historical and divine realities; in other words, how a personinterprets the nature of God and the nature of history determines whether ornot they believe a purely naturalistic approach to the Bible will work.

The principle of correlation ties the other two historical-critical principlestogether, those of analogy and of doubt. It also provides the basis forpractical procedures involved, such as source, form, tradition, redaction,social, canonical, rhetorical, structural, and narrative criticisms.

The principle of correlation depends on seeing the world through Kantianeyes, that God does not actually enter history, but merely touches thetimeless souls of people in non-cognitive encounters— Schleiermacher’s view(see Chapter 10). God cannot act within the closed continuum of historicalcauses because He is timeless. (Actually, Kant did deal with the problem ofhow a timeless cause acts in a temporal web of causes; that explanation isthe real presupposition behind Troeltsch’s principles).11

The principle of analogy, like the principle of correlation, is reenforcedby the assumption of divine timelessness. Centuries before Troeltsch,Christian theologians supported that principle by adopting such a view ofGod, which makes it impossible for God to act historically in history. The


real hermeneutical ground of the historical-critical method is not ultimatelyTroelsch’s principle of analogy, but the Platonic-Aristotelean understandingof the divine as timeless. This notion was still operative in the Hegelianphilosophy and was the foundation of source and form criticisms,propounded by Wellhausen and Gunkel respectively.

The principle of methodological doubt directs the historian to questionScripture’s historical accuracy. Under this principle, biblical history per secannot be accepted as authentic without verification. Taken together, thesethree principles result in two outcomes when applied to the study ofScripture. First, Scripture’s contents are summarily evaluated and judged tobe wrong. Cloaked under scientific respectability, this evaluation must beingrained in researchers’ minds before they can begin their work. Second,Scripture’s account of history is being continually rewritten, resulting in aconstantly evolving hypothetical reconstruction of Israelite and earlyChristian histories. This hypothetical reconstruction is assumed to be fact,the fact from which biblical thinking is judged. Those words, “biblicalthinking,” themselves take on new meaning from such a perspective; it isonly the historically conditioned fantasies of the biblical writers, rather thandirectly revealed information from God.

2. Deconstructing Historical-Critical Methodology

The historical-cognitive model does not deny the web of historical causality, butthe philosophical assumption that the web excludes God. As we have shownrepeatedly, seeing history as closed to God is the result of Greek philosophy andsubsequent tradition. Yet, other views are possible. Since the Bible clearly depictsGod acting within the realm of history, the historical continuum is respected, notviolated. God is Himself shown to be a historical agent who speaks and actsdirectly within the “closed historical continuum.”

The historical-cognitive model necessitates the deconstruction of thehistorical-critical method. What this means is that all the procedures andsub-disciplines of historical criticism must themselves be criticized from theperspective of presuppositions and hermeneutical principles. The goal of thisdeconstruction is to take each objective and question of every historical-


critical procedure, and separate them from the presuppositions operative intheir uses against what the Bible actually says.

Once this task is accomplished, one could determine whether each procedureremains pertinent to the study of Scripture. Some procedures might still be useful,while others may be discarded. Those still valid might have to be redefined basedon the new presuppositions of the historical-cognitive model. All this wouldultimately result in a different method of Scriptural interpretation better tuned tohistorical and biblical thinking. Such a method would still be scientific, but onenot considered to be an analogy to the scientific method nor beholden to classical,modern, or postmodern philosophical assumptions.

Instead of referring to the necessary procedures as “criticisms” ofScripture, the new methodology would perhaps speak of “analysis.” Forinstance, the term “historical criticism” would give room to a differentprocedure possibly labeled “historical analysis.” Regardless of the terms, thehermeneutical effects of the historical-cognitive model demand thedeconstruction, however difficult, of historical criticism.

§116. RETHINKING SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGYThe hermeneutical presuppositions of the historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration have profound, overarching effects on systematic theology. Thesystem of Christian theology revolves around the being and actions of God. Anychange in our conception of God, however minute, will have considerable effectson the entire structure of Christian systematic theology. The historical-cognitivemodel demands such a change.

The new model itself became possible precisely because of a modificationof how we understand God. The modification does not stand on newphilosophical ruminations, but on ancient biblical teaching. And the changeis anything but minor. To move from a timeless to a historical God is acomplete paradigm shift, giving us completely different eyes for seeing thetruth about God’s nature.

Throughout the entire history of Christian theology, I am not aware of any


attempt to develop systematic theology from within a historical matrix, with theexception of second-century theologian Irenaeus in Against Heresies. Since thattime, systematic theology has evolved around the notion of a timeless God andconsequently wandered far from biblical thinking. Not even the ProtestantReformation, with its emphasis on Scripture, was able to uncover and throw offits slavery to Greek philosophical presuppositions.

In many ways Protestant congregations did come to think of God historically.But scholarly Protestant theology did not reflect the naivete of pastors andcongregations. (That long-standing dichotomy between theologians andcongregations is perhaps the best kept secret of conservative evangelicalism.) Thenotion of a historical God was relegated to movements that did not develop theirtheology from scholarly perspectives. As long as a Christian movement remainedlimited to the local congregation, historical, biblical thinking remained alive. Assoon as movements faced complicated theological questions in a seminary oruniversity setting, the historical approach to Christian theology was eventuallyreplaced by philosophically-originated assumptions of God as timeless. Thehistorical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration is the first step forexpressing in scholarly terms the naive, historical understanding of localcongregations who take Scripture at face value.

The reinterpretation of systematic theology as a whole is anothertheological job unleashed by the model. Here, we can only point to the task. Afull exploration of its consequences will have to wait for other books. Let me justsay that the application of the biblical notion of a historical God as themacrohermeneutical presupposition for the entire realm of Christian theology willresult in a biblical process theology quite different in content to current modelsof so-called process theology. The latter is a modernistic, scientific adaptation ofNeo-Platonic macrohermeneutical ideas, the former is an application of biblicalmacrohermeneutical principles to Scripture and to the entire scope of Christiandoctrine. The development of a biblical process theology is still to beaccomplished.

As you can see, the hermeneutical effects of the historical-cognitive modelare deep and comprehensive. I hope the examples presented in this chapterhave enticed your theological curiosity and confirmed your confidence in the


God of Scripture. Our final chapter will deal with the question of Scripture’strustworthiness.

§117. REVIEW

• The two-way relationship between revelation-inspiration andhermeneutics. On one hand, our presuppositions influence our understanding ofrevelation-inspiration; on the other, our understanding of revelation-inspiration influences our hermeneutics.

• The historical cognitive model of revelation-inspiration reclaimsScripture as revealed source of theology.By going beyond current models, the historical-cognitive model reclaimsScripture as the cognitive and historically incarnated revelation of God’sactions and thinking. The Bible thereby becomes the only source ofrevealed data for Christian theology.

• Affirming the tota Scriptura principle.Since the historical-cognitive model reclaims the entire text of Scriptureas a revelation of divine actions and thinking, it affirms the concept oftota Scriptura. This means that in order to understand God, we need allthe biblical writings, not just some selected portions of it. Each verse orsection reveals one aspect of God and His relationship to His creation.

• Rejecting “canon within the canon” hermeneutics.By understanding revelation-inspiration as the historical incarnation ofdivine actions and thinking, the historical-cognitive model affirms that allof Scripture is necessary for Christian religion and theology.Simultaneously, it disavows all attempts to approach Scripture from a“canon within a canon” interpretive strategy. By affirming that the wholeof Scripture is revealed and inspired, the historical-cognitive model sets


the stage for another Reformation.

• The historical conditionality of Scripture in the classical and modernmodels.To understand what proponents of other models mean by “historicallyconditioned,” we have to think of the two agencies involved in therevelation-inspiration event. In this process, God’s action is understoodas the “cause” of Scripture; what human agencies did is its “condition.”

• For Scripture, the historical cognitive model replaces “historicalconditionality” with “historical constitution.” The historical-cognitive model proposes that the contribution of thehuman agency is an internal condition to the formation of the “eternaltruths” of Scripture, not an external one. To be historically constitutedmeans that the historical component of the text belongs to the divine truthitself and cannot be considered peripheral in our search for theologicalreality.

• Rejecting the Wesleyan quadrilateral of theological sources.By affirming the sola Scriptura principle, the historical-cognitive modelrejects the traditional multisource platform of theological sources oftenknown as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral— the Bible, tradition, reason, andexperience. Such a multisource platform assumes natural revelation, orthe assumption that each source serves as a conduit of divine revelation.

• Affirming the sola Scriptura principle.Only in Scripture do we find revealed, divine thoughts as incarnatedthrough the ministry of prophets and apostles. Reason, science,philosophy, and experience render only human points of view andconflicting interpretations. Consequently, they cannot be considered to besources of theological data.


• Affirming the prima Scriptura principle.Prima Scriptura means that Scripture holds cognitive primacy over allresources theologians may use in their work. More specifically, howtheologians understand biblical ideas by means of the tota and solaScriptura principles allows them to place all human resources under thejudgment of biblical revelation. From that perspective, resources areselected, analyzed, and, if necessary, recontextualized for theological use.

• The biblical reconstruction of theological hermeneutics.Theological hermeneutics must be rebuilt for the following reasons. First,the hermeneutical principles operative throughout Christian theology rightnow are dictated by the structure and conclusions of human philosophyand science. Second, Scripture assumes different hermeneuticalprinciples. These two understandings contradict each other not only inorigin, but in content. One proceeds from God and the other from humanwisdom. One considers divine reality to be timeless, the other temporaland historical.

• Building theological hermeneutics from scripture.To begin building Scriptural hermeneutics, one must begin bydeconstructing the hermeneutical presuppositions present in the classical,modern, and evangelical systems of theology. A subsequent study ofhermeneutical foundations should search for the biblical presuppositionsrequired for doing theology.

• Deconstructing the historical-critical method.Applying the historical-cognitive model requires the deconstruction of thehistorical-critical method. This means that all its procedures, includingall the various subdisciplines within higher criticism, must themselves behermeneutically criticized. This criticism should separate the objectivesand questions each procedure deals with from the hermeneutical


1 The historical-critical method can be used for non-theological purposes aswell. In other words, it can be applied to the Bible if one considers Scripture to bea purely human description of religious experience. The difference between thetheological and religious application of the historical-critical method does notaffect the methodology nor its results, but the area where the scholar applies it.Scholarly research of religions as human phenomena do not need to connect thetext to God. Conversely, the work of a theologian requires a connection betweenthe text and God; otherwise they would have no justification for using biblicalliterature in their writings.

2 Oscar Cullmann has shown that Scripture does not tie eternity totimelessness, but to time. See Christ and Time: The Primitive ChristianConception of Time and History, rev. ed., trans. Floyd V. Filson (Philadelphia:Westminster, 1964).

presuppositions currently driving the historical criticism of what the Biblesays.

• Theological outcome of the historical-cognitive model: A biblicalprocess theology.The application of the biblical concept of an historical God as the drivingpresupposition for the entire realm of Christian theology will result in abiblical process theology, but one quite different in content to currentmodels of what is currently known as process theology. The latter is amodernistic, scientific adaptation of Greek philosophical presuppositions,while the former is an application of biblical hermeneutical principles toScripture and to the entire scope of Christian doctrine. The developmentof a biblical process theology has yet to be accomplished.

ENDNOTES


3 Gerhard Ebeling, Word and Faith, trans. James W. Leitch (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1963), 87; Gerhard Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in theCurrent Debate, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 18.

4 Ebeling, 88-91.5 I use the designation “historical-critical method” to cover a whole paradigm of

procedures including historical, source, form, tradition, redaction, social, canonical,rhetorical, structural, and narrative criticisms. A good introduction to historical methodand its critical procedures is To Each Own Their Own Meaning by S. Mckenzie and S.Haynes (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999).

6 Ibid., 89.7 J. Maxwell Miller, “Reading the Bible Historically: The Historian’s Approach,”

in To Each its Own Meaning: Biblical Criticisms and their Application, ed. S. L.McKenzie and S. R. Haynes (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 18.

8Nicholas Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on theClaim that God Speaks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 280.

9 Miller, “Reading the Bible Historically: The Historian’s Approach,”, 20.10 Jerry Gladson, “Taming Historical Criticsm: Adventist Biblical Scholarship

in the Land of the Giants,” Spectrum, 25 (1988): 21.11 See Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, trans. J.M.D. Meiklejohn

(Buffalo: Prometheus, 1990), 302-304. If you have a different version, look under“Antinomy of Pure Reason” for the section on “The Possibility of Freedom inHarmony with the Universal Law of Natural Necessity.” See also Fernando LuisCanale, A Criticism of Theological Reason: Time and Timelessness as PrimordialPresuppositions, Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, vol.10 (Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1983), 239 n. 1.

20. THE TRUTHFULNESS OF SCRIPTURE

§118 INTRODUCTIONGreat is the debate about the veracity of Scripture taking place here at thebeginning of the twenty-first century. For centuries Christian theologiansconsidered the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. As we have studied inChapter 10, this classical belief came under assault with the advent of modernity.Modern philosophical presuppositions and historical criticism led many Christiantheologians to the conclusion that Scripture was composed of merely humandocuments.

In turn, many conservative denominations reacted by affirming the inerrancyof Scripture over the last hundred years. They justifiably understood this to be anissue of paramount importance. After all, if the Bible was a human book and thussubject to error, as modern theologians claimed, the fundamentalist view ofChristianity was also subject to error.

Mistakes and inaccuracies in Scripture, according to modernist theologians,included not only matters of details but even theological teachings. Evangelicalconservative theologians could have taken the opportunity to criticize thephilosophical grounds of modernism, but instead affirmed the inerrancy of theentire Bible apologetically and theologically using the verbal model of revelation-inspiration (see Chapter 11). According to the Chicago statement made by the


1978 International Council on Biblical Inerrancy summit in Chicago, inerrancymeans that Scripture is “infallible,” “free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit,” andis internally consistent; this assertion covers all matters on which the biblicalauthors spoke or wrote, not just theological or spiritual themes.1

The historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration, as presented in thisbook, faces all the issues over which the previous three models struggle. But thehistorical-cognitive model begins from a different perspective. While scholars ofthe modern and fundamentalist schools both build their understanding ofrevelation-inspiration by assuming either the fallibility or inerrancy of Scripture,those of the historical-cognitive model sidestep that controversy. Only after wehave come to a particular view of how the Bible came to be can we accuratelydetermine its reliability and truthfulness. This is where we find ourselves here inthe last chapter. So, now we will consider the reliability of Scripture from the perspective ofthe historical-cognitive model we have developed in this book. We have alreadyimplicitly affirmed that the Bible is true when we looked at the hermeneuticalconsequences of the model (§113). Now, we must explore its implications for theveracity of Scripture.

We will start by considering first the idea of truth in general, then of Scripturein particular. From there we will introduce ourselves to the task of verifyingScriptural truth and to some necessary theoretical considerations concerning error,detail and accuracy. Finally, we will deal with concrete challenges leveled againstScripture’s reliability, and conclude by outlining the “historically comprehensive”view of biblical reliability.

§119 THE IDEA OF TRUTHTo speak about the truthfulness of Scripture with any degree of precision requiresus to explore the concept of truth. There are at least three relevant levels or sensesin which we use the word “truth.” They are truth as correspondence, truth ascoherence, and truth as disclosure.2

Plato and Aristotle made use of the concept of truth as correspondence.According to this view, we say a statement is true when it corresponds to the

THE TRUTHFULNESS OF SCRIPTURE 451

reality it supposedly describes. For instance, if my wife tells me, “It’s snowing,”I expect to see snowflakes falling when I look through the window; if they are, thestatement is true. If no snow is falling, my wife’s statement is false.

Hegel, together with several others, considered truth by the criterion ofcoherence. In this view, we say that a statement or idea is true when it cohereswithout contradiction to the whole of the statement or reality it describes. Forinstance, it is untruthful for you or me to say, “A triangle has four angles.” Sincethe word “triangle” itself means “three angles,” the statement expresses acontradiction and therefore cannot be considered coherent, that is, true.

To understand truth as coherence, let us compare the statement on triangleswith the statement about the weather. To determine the truth of my wife’sstatement about the outdoor precipitation, I need to do some exploring outside thestatement; I have to look out the window for snowflakes. To see whether thestatement on triangles is true, however, I do not need to go outside the statementto count the angles on something triangular. I need only to analyze the logic of thestatement itself. If it contains a contradiction, the statement is false; we know itdoes not describe properly what it intends. Of course, any discovery of aninconsistency in the second statement depends on prior knowledge of triangles andtheir definition. Truth as coherence refers to our analysis of any given statement;for the statement to be true, it cannot contain inner contradictions. If we find nocontradiction, we say the statement is true.

To briefly review, then, truth as correspondence requires that we compare aparticular statement with its referent or referents outside the statement in real life.Truth as coherence requires that we compare components of the statement todetermine that there are no contradictions or inconsistencies among their contentsand definitions. Finally, we reach the idea of truth as disclosure, in the work ofHeidegger and others.

Heidegger emphasized this definition by using the Greek word for truth,“al?theia.” Al?theia implies the uncloaking, discovery or revelation of somethingpreviously hidden; it takes place when something real appears or presents itself tous. Truth, in this sense, means revealing or uncovering. In our examples, realityrealities of snowflakes and the triangles reveal themselves to our awareness. The


revealed realities of the snowflakes and of the triangle are the real origin orfoundation of truth as correspondence and coherence.

Let us review the three levels in which we can speak of truth. Ascorrespondence, truth occurs when a statement and its referent are found tomatch. On this level a statement is true when what it says agrees with the realityor event to which it refers. As coherence, truth is the property of innerconsistency between all parts of a statement. On this level a statement is true whenall parts of a statement agree together. As disclosure, truth exists when realityreveals itself without distortion. On this level a statement is found to be true whenit lets reality speak for itself. Truth as disclosure is the foundation of truth ascorrespondence and consistency.

§120 TRUTH IN SCRIPTURE: MANY AND ALL

As we consider the truth of Scripture, we must specify in what sense Scripture istruth. While some philosophers emphasize one of the levels of truth above theothers, we will consider them to be complementary sides or components of whatwe call truth. Consequently, all of them apply to Scripture.

Because truth as disclosure grounds the other two levels, we will begin there.Truth as disclosure consists in the “uncovering” or “coming to light” of what isreal; it corresponds to what we have described in this book as revelation. Inbiblical revelation, God shows Himself to us in many ways. These many wayshave given rise to the different patterns of revelation-inspiration we considered inChapter 17. By definition, then, all of them are true because they disclose,present, or uncover God to us. Some theologians, following the classical andevangelical models of revelation-inspiration, attempt to simplify the question aboutScripture’s reliability by reducing that truth to its “theological” referent, that is, toGod alone and outside of human history. In this view, only what Scripture saysabout God is true, the rest can be in error. This position is known as limitedinerrancy.3 In contrast, the historical-cognitive model asserts that all the Bible istrue at the revelatory level. In other words, all that God reveals in Scripture is true


precisely because it proceeds from Him. The model also implies that the receptionand interpretation of revelatory patterns by biblical authors form part of God’swritten revelation to us. Thus, what the Bible writers put down correspondsaccurately to what God revealed— the correspondence level of truth. As thewriters worked together, all inspired by God, they produced a consistent pictureof divine revelation, just as we would expect— truth as coherence. In sum, truth asdisclosure, or revelation, grounds through inspiration truth as correspondence andcoherence.

But both the patterns of revelation and the contents of Scripture describe agreat diversity of realities besides God— because the God who reveals Himself inthe Bible is by nature historical and temporal. Because Scripture depicts God asinteracting directly with His creation, what He reveals goes beyond His own beingand His eternal will as classical theology would have us believe. God’s revelationregarding the history of salvation is not limited to the life and death of Jesus Christ,or to the restricted realm of timeless acts of God (realm of the “Spirit”) withinwhich the classical Christian theology works. In the Old and New Testaments Godshows Himself to us in many ways, within many historical referents. The sheerdiversity and variety of historical referents make the issue of Biblical veracity verycomplex. We should expect to find that truth in Scripture is all inclusive becauseit includes all levels of truth, and has many facets due to its surprising variety ofreferents.

§121 VERIFYING TRUTH IN SCRIPTUREThe issue of verifying the Bible raises many complex questions. Can we speak ofbiblical truth without verification? How do we know Scripture is right if we do notverify what it says? Do we find that biblical truths are self-authenticated in oursouls by the inner work of the Holy Spirit, or do we need to verify them as weverify other truths? Are they verifiable at all? How does verification relate to theclaim we just made that Bible truth is all-inclusive?

Paul seems to recommend that we check on the truth of the Bible when he tells


us to "be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to testand approve what God’s will is— his good, pleasing and perfect will" (Romans12:2, NIV [emphasis supplied]). In other words, we can verify what God tells usabout life by comparing it with our everyday experience. Paul implies that we cancompare what God wants for our lives, as revealed in Scripture, to what actuallyoccurs in our experience— that we can verify revelation directly. But the Bible hasmany referents besides our everyday lives; moreover, Paul’s affirmation that “theSpirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children" (Romans 8:16,NIV) does not mean we do not have to verify biblical truth in other arenas.

How much verification is necessary depends on both the needs of individualbelievers and the intellectual climate of a given age. In the present time, in whichthe scientific method is part of the fabric of the culture, we can hardly help but tryto verify the Bible. What exactly we verify also depends on how we interpretbiblical revelation in the first place. In other words, this, too, returns topresuppositions, but this time concerning what exactly the Bible is saying abouta given referent, which depends on our overall understanding of Scripture and ofdoctrine. Let us consider the task of verifying biblical truth at each level wementioned above.

1. Verifying Divine Disclosures

In Scripture God tells us about Himself and the world in many ways. Among themwe find theophanies, prophecy, providence, miracles, teachings, and Jesus’sincarnation. Genesis presents God as the Creator of the world. How can we figureout if this is true? Whether we find it true or false depends primarily on how weinterpret the nature and existence of God, the texts in question, and the verificationprocess itself.

In the present age we understand verification in the context of science. Thus,we have “scientific” knowledge when something has been observed firsthand andrecorded. On the basis of science many theologians, including conservativeevangelical ones, are convinced that what the Bible describes in Genesis 1-2 iswrong. How do they reach such a conclusion? Have they gone back in time to


watch the world’s birth and proven Genesis wrong? Obviously not; they insteadweighed the Genesis account against their conviction that the theory of evolutionis true. It is appropriate to ask if this is a valid method of verifying any biblicalteaching.

Notice that both Paul’s statement on verifying the Bible discussed above andmodern science agree that verification is checking a statement with its referent. Theproblem in the case of creation is that the referent cannot be checked because it isa past event which no human was alive to observe, and moreover was a uniqueevent in the history of the universe— what science terms a singularity.

The same is true, however, of evolution. In fact, the theory of evolution is notbased on the scientific method because that method can only be applied torepeatable events. Neither creation nor evolution can be studied through thescientific method. The theory of evolution is a broad hypothetical construct thatexplains some of the scientific data discovered in the last one hundred and fiftyyears. Evolution is not an empirical fact but a hypothesis. Besides, due todisciplinary constrains, scientific explanations cannot recognize the existence ofGod. Only that which is verifiable through repetitive experimentation can bedeclared “scientific.” Science has a right to develop its own theories, using its ownmethodology. But science must acknowledge its own limitations. A theory aboutunverifiable or unrepeatable events, which considers some but not all of the facts,and excludes God from the equation, cannot be considered adequate to prove abiblical account false. At the present time, both biblical creation and evolutionremain unverified theories. A person cannot use one to verify the other or proveit false; both hypotheses depend on an a priori commitment of faith.

Attempts to verify other patterns of divine revelation face the same difficulty.We cannot verify miracles, providential interventions, and prophecies because wehave no access to their referents. Since these are disclosures of God’s being, will,thought and acts, their referents are inaccessible past or future revelatory events,or even God himself whom we cannot scientifically access at the present time.Many doctrines of Scripture belong to this level and stand beyond verification orfalsification. They are accepted or rejected on faith based on the verification ofother truths. For the most part, what we cannot verify in Scripture, we accept


because of what we can verify— specifically, experiencing God’s will throughobedience. To prove revelations false beyond the level of experience, one has tosubmit to alternate explanations produced by science, philosophy, myth or popularculture. It becomes a matter of whom we accept as our authority; whom will wetrust?

Challenges to biblical teachings most often come from philosophical, scientificand cultural perspectives opposed to what has come to us through divinerevelation. The conflict is always one of interpretation. To answer theseperspectives, we must develop biblical apologetics as a theological discipline.

2. Verifying Truth as Correspondence

In the process of revealing Himself, God produced a rich variety of historicalevents vividly reported in Scripture. Any casual reading of the Bible will bring usan awareness of its great number of historical and geographical referents. Herearchaeology plays a pivotal role in biblical verification, even though its role ashistorical science means that it cannot produce absolutely certain conclusions, butonly higher or lower degrees of probability4— something we must keep in mind.

Christianity’s central truth is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ; itis a series of historical events which should be verified through historicalmethodology. As in the case with our hypothetical investigation of the Genesiscreation account, most of the referents described in the gospels are not availablefor checking. Thus, historical science can only produce tentative results in thiscase. Moreover, just as in the creation-evolution debate, some scholars who studythe life of Christ believe in God, while others do not. The result is that believerstake the weight of the textual evidence, compare it with what is known of first-century Palestinian culture and history, and assert that Jesus’ resurrectionprobably happened; unbelievers maintain that it did not because people just don’trise from the dead.

As we discussed in the previous chapter, biblical studies are currentlydominated by the historical-critical method. Since they assume that anyhypothetical God would be unable to act in history, the method’s practitioners


reconstruct the “real” history of Israel and the “real” historical Jesus— leavingbehind what is recorded in the Bible as simply wrong. Their arguments are many,complex, hypothetical, concrete and imaginative; as they cannot accept themiraculous as scientific, they look for other ways of interpreting the data, waysmore “scientifically accurate.” Yet, when implicitly or explicitly these scholarsclaim their studies to be “true,” they go beyond science into religious faith. Theirhypothetical reconstructions are only that— reconstructions.

Because the Bible contains so many historical and geographical referents, thetask of verifying each and every one of them is beyond the finite reach of anysingle human being. Besides, the task itself begins with an interpretation of thebiblical text and historical evidence. Consequently, archaeological and historicalstudies may produce conclusions in conflict with the Bible. The extent to whichinterpretation plays a role in verification will become clearer as we deal with somechallenges to Scripture’s reliability below.

In Scripture, as everywhere else, truth as correspondence consists in theagreement between statements and their referents. Challenges to the Bible’sreliability at this level come from the disciplines that study these referents:archaeology, history, natural science and the historical-critical method ofinterpretation. To answer these challenges we need to respect the nature and intentof any given biblical passage we wish to examine, maintain an awareness of thelimitations of scientific investigation, and of the hypothetical nature of anyconstructs verifying or proving false biblical statements, and challengepresuppositions that lead to interpretations which present the Bible as wrong.

3. The Truth of Scripture’s Inner Coherence

If God is the source of Scripture, as the historical cognitive model maintains, anytruth we find there ought to be consistent with itself— as the view of truth ascoherence would expect. In this arena, theological presuppositions again play


decisive roles in the task of verifying or proving false the truths of Scripture. What we assume to be the nature of biblical truth affects how we verify that

truth. Under Plato’s influence, Augustine conceived of Christianity’s truth asspiritual, or belonging to the timeless rather than the spatiotemporal level ofreality. On this basis, Luther strongly argued for the spiritual unity of the Bible,unity revolving around the gospel— which Luther understood to be the experienceof justification by faith.5 Augustine and Luther saw the coherence of Scripture tobe an inner, spiritual coherence; they could thereby leave out many ideas, teachingsand doctrines that could be considered contradictory or wrong without effecting theinner, spiritual core.

This approach is a systematic one, with which many Bible scholars might findthemselves agreeing. The trouble is that it does not account for all the doctrinalvariety in Scripture. Proponents of this view cannot account for such diversitybecause they are looking for spiritual truth rather than historically constitutedtruth; while they affirm the coherence of the idea of justification by faith in theBible, they must deny the coherence of the rest of Scripture’s teachings.6

The historical-cognitive model solves this problem by replacing the Platonic-Augustinian-Thomistic view of God and truth as ultimately timeless (see Chapter13) with a view that God and truth are completely compatible with our space andtime. The truths God gives us are historical, not confined to the realm of the“soul.” The subject matter of the Bible is still “spiritual” in the sense that it refersto God’s activities, but it is not “spiritual” in the sense of referring to timelessness.

In other words, the Bible depicts a real God involved in real life. Its subjectmatter is the historical process through which God puts into effect His eternal planof salvation made real in human lives, not just the “inner life” of the soul.7 Bibletruth should be interpreted and its inner coherence evaluated from within ahistorical understanding of reality.

When applied to the Bible, truth as coherence asks whether an inner systematicunity of biblical teachings exists. At this level, challenges to Scriptural reliabilitydo not come from other disciplines as with the level of truth of correspondence, butfrom theological and exegetical interpretations. These challenges may be answeredfrom a systematic theology developed from the Bible with biblical presuppositions.


§122 CHALLENGES TO SCRIPTURE’S RELIABILITY: THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONSLet us explain more precisely what consequences the historical-cognitive modelhas on the accuracy and truthfulness of Scripture. What exactly are the challengesto Scripture’s veracity? To answer that question, we must look at someintroductory theoretical considerations. Following that, we will look at someconcrete examples of the challenges to the Bible’s accuracy which the currentdebate presents to scholars and laypeople alike.

1. Errors

Here is the bottom line: does Scripture contain errors? Some claim the Bible isinerrant; others claim that it contains all kinds of errors. This debate is insolubleuntil we define the word “error.” Clarity on that issue will allow us to determinewhether the word refers to biblical phenomena. This especially is very importantfor pastors and other believers who have to deal with these issues not in thecomfort of academia, but on the battlefield of everyday life.

The dictionary recognizes several shades of meaning for “error.” Among themwe find: (1) deviation from truth or accuracy, (2) false belief, and (3) failure toconform to a standard or guide. Even when in our discussion “error” is connectedwith “truth” we need to bear in mind that their antonyms reveal that they areincommensurable. The opposite of “error” is “correctness,” or “accuracy.” Theopposite of “truth” is “lie” or “false.”We use the word “error” in many senses and contexts. The two senses in which theword might possibly apply to Scripture are (1) lack of accuracy, and, (2) lying orintentional deception.

In Scripture truth and lies are set as opposites (Psalm 52:3; Romans 1:25; 1John 1:6; 2:21). Paul emphatically affirms that he is telling the truth, not inventingor imagining things to deceive naive believers (Romans 9:1; 2 Corinthians 11:31;1 Timothy 2:7). From the perspective of the historical-cognitive model, we cannotuse the word “error” to refer to a lack of theological accuracy, but rather only if


we become convinced that Scripture is intentionally deceiving us. Since I do notthink that this is the case, I will not use the word error in reference to Scripture.I advise my readers to do the same.

In other words, for our discussion, the word error when applied to Scripturemeans a departure from truth, lies, and falsehood which extend to the content ofits teachings (on creation, salvation, eschatology and so forth). According to thehistorical-cognitive model, issues related to accuracy (such as numbers,quotations, and minor details in recording historical events) cannot be describedas errors because they are not intended to deceive Bible readers in any sense.

2. Biblical Reliability

Before assessing the Bible’s overall reliability, or reacting to evaluations othertheologians have made, we need to remind ourselves of two major points. First,any assessment of Scripture’s reliability assumes an interpretation of it; and,second, each model of revelation-inspiration works within different hermeneuticaland methodological parameters and presuppositions; in other words, each assumesa different theological system. Thus, evaluations of Scripture’s reliability arebound to vary according to the hermeneutical, methodological and theologicalpositions of the evaluator. With these points in mind, let us explore theconsequences of the historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration for biblicalreliability.

The historical-cognitive model clearly affirms the reliability of Scripture at thelevel of coherence and disclosure. These affirmations are made possible by thesweeping changes in methodology and hermeneutical procedures with which webegan our work on this model . At the methodological level, the tradition of usingmultiple sources for doing theology (prima Scriptura) is replaced by Scripture asthe only source of divine revelation for theological purposes (sola Scriptura) (seeChapter 2). In so doing, the historical-cognitive model refuses to judge Scriptureby way of ever-changing philosophical, scientific and cultural interpretations ofnature, history and society. Instead, the historical-cognitive model assumes thatScripture reliably conveys divine revelation to us. Since we take what it tells us at


face value, we are able to see the Bible’s truth as temporal (§66-§69) rather thantimeless (§29).

This change provides the primordial base for a new way of interpretingScripture. Divine actions and thought can be seen as historical, as the Bibledepicts them. If we can understand Scripture’s truth historically, we are able to seethe inner consistency of its theology. At that point we have confirmed the truth ofScripture at the coherence level.

Once coherence is in place, we can pursue verification of the disclosure level,by checking the truthfulness of biblical thinking, worldview, and doctrines againsttheir practical results in everyday life (see Romans 12:2). To harmonize with thelevel of coherence, verification depends on understanding God’s redemptiveactivities as historical. The result would be a new systematic theology. At thispoint we could fairly say that Scripture’s truthfulness is verified at the levels ofcoherence and of disclosure.

It is at the level of correspondence that the historical-cognitive model has toface the dilemma of the modernist affirmation that Scripture contains all sorts oferrors versus the conservative evangelical affirmation that Scripture contains noerror whatsoever. Here we examine the issue of the facts compared with what theBible describes.

Broadly speaking, the historical-cognitive model claims that there are nointentionally misleading factual errors in Scripture, yet due to the limitations andimperfections of human knowledge (§70-§72), Scripture’s phenomena do revealimperfections, or lack of one hundred percent accuracy. These imperfections takeplace at the level of minor detail and actually enhance rather than distort biblicaltruth. Below we will look at concrete examples of what modernist theology calls“errors,” inerrantist theology calls “absolutely accurate truths at every level,” andthe historical-cognitive model calls “lack of accuracy.”

3. What is a Detail?

“The devil is in the details,” so the saying goes. Many of the “errors” of Scripturebelong to what both sides consider details.8 Paul J. Achtemeier remarks that “the


debate about and defense of inerrancy, with its endless attempts to reconcile whatat best are peripheral details, diverts attention from the central themes ofScripture.”9 Yet for Achtemeier the deluge of Genesis 6-9 is a “detail.”10 If aworldwide catastrophe which the rest of the Bible marks as a major event is adetail, one cannot help but ask what else is. Even in less dramatic examples, weare left to determine what a detail is versus what a central theme is.

Let us say that a detail is a small, subordinate, nonessential part of a thing,event, statement’s, whole or subject matter. A detail is subordinate because, likea parasite, exists within something else. We know something is a detail because ifwe delete it, the meaning of the subject matter or reality to which it is attached isnot modified. Whether or not a particular aspect of the text is a detail or notdepends on how it affects the theme or issue which the larger passage is puttinginto words.

How can Achtemeier determine that the universal flood is a theological detail?The answer in all likelihood will be found within his own theology. Though I donot know Achtemeier’s preferred model, I dare to guess he might be thinking froman Augustinian-Lutheran perspective.11 To review, in this system truth belongs tothe spiritual realm, where God operates on the soul in the act of justification byfaith. Since this is considered to be the one subject matter or central theme oftheology, anything else is a detail by default. Within this framework, the creationin six days and the flood would qualify as such a detail. Rejecting the historicalreality of creation and the flood does not alter the truth, central theme, or messageof the Augustinian-Lutheran theological system. Because inerrantist evangelicaltheologians, such as Wayne Grudem, work with this same theological system, theyidentify “detail” with concrete historical events, including the creation of the world,the specifications of the sanctuary ritual in the Pentateuch, and the fact thatBalaam’s donkey spoke.12 Modernists and inerrantists tend to agree in callinghistorical events “details.”13

The historical-cognitive model defines detail differently because it radicallydeparts from the Augustinian-Lutheran theological system, stating that the entireBible, not just the life and death of Jesus Christ, is a result of divine action andthought within history (see Chapter 16). What Grudem and Achtemeier consider


historical details, the historical-cognitive model considers subject matter fortheology. Consequently, a detail is an aspect of divine revelation which the biblicalwriters communicated imperfectly due to their limitations. To identify a detail, onehas to understand the entire theological context of Scripture, interpreted from thetemporal-historical basis on which the historical cognitive model was built.

In this context, an example of a detail would be the number of Israelites wholeft Egypt during the Exodus. While there is certainly a debate on the accuracy ofthe figures,14 for the sake of the example, let us concede that the numbers inScripture could be inflated. Would such a concession affect the truth presented inthe text? I do not think so. If the precise number does not affect the truths aboutGod and His historical acts for His people, we may classify the tribal numbers asa detail.

4. Imprecisions in Historical Detail

Should this concession be labeled error? I do not think so; the narrative is notintentionally deceiving us, nor does a lower number affect the historical truthsdepicted in the books of Moses. The report was not written to inform us about thenumber of people that came out of Egypt. Those figures are backgroundinformation underscoring the extent of God’s liberating actions. In this case, lackof precision in the number neither deceives us nor distorts the description ofhistorical events; what we find here is not an “error” but a lack of precision in amatter of detail to be expected in historical accounts.

Let us pause for a moment to consider the idea of accuracy. Perfect accuracydoes not exist even in mathematics. The famous ancient mathematician Pythagoruswas dismayed to discover there were some numbers, such as the square root of twoor the number p (which is used to describe circles), that could not be expressedeither with decimal integers or fractions. We know these "irrational numbers" exist(or, at least, we theologians accept on faith that mathematicians know they exist!),because they have been used in successful calculations for centuries. But it isimpossible to express them with 100 percent accuracy using numbers most of uscan understand; the most we can expect are approximations.


Less abstractly, are we ever going to know the number of deaths resulting fromthe tsunami of 2004? Certainly not; we have only approximations. God mightspeak to someone and reveal the number, but we could not verify it. That is thenature of historical accounts of any kind. When reading Scripture we should notexpect to find perfect accuracy. The imperfections and inaccuracies we do findthere serve us as evidences of its historicity.

Each case has to be examined within its concrete theological and historicalcontext, so we cannot say that as a rule in Scripture all numbers are details. Whenit comes to the days of creation or certain time prophecies, numbers belong to thesubject matter of truth being revealed. In those cases, inconsistencies would beerrors.

5. How Slippery is the Slippery Slope?

Let us return to our example about the number of persons in the Israelite exodus.Will a concession that the number might be inflated trigger the feared “slipperyslope”?15 In other words, would such recognition be grounds for placing all ofScripture under suspicion? I hardly think so. Such reasoning merely provides theintellectual pretext for rejecting God’s word, a decision often already made basedon either a lack of understanding or willful decision. Do we need to “prove” everypoint of contention on historical accuracy of Scripture to maintain our faith in it?Of course not, and the historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration helps usto understand why not. God’s work of salvation takes place over history, as theBible shows us. The book had to be understood and communicated by historicalinstruments to preserve its truthfulness and effectiveness. When God chose toreveal himself in the limited and imprecise modes of human knowledge, he allowedthe knowledge there to suffer the lack of historical accuracy unavoidable in anygenuine historical discourse. Imprecisions at the level of detail demonstrate thatScripture was historically conceived and that it communicates the revelation of aGod who acts in history. Divine inspiration did not elevate any Bible writer’scognition, overrule his limitations or provide him with absolutely precise detailedhistorical and natural information. Why? Perhaps because it is essential to our


salvation that we understand God and his revelation Historically. As we will see in our next section, imprecisions extend not only to numbers but

to the record of historical events as well.

§123 CHALLENGES TO SCRIPTURE’S RELIABILITY: TYPES AND EXAMPLESIn this section we will consider some of the challenges to Scripture’s truthfulnessand accuracy at the center of the controversy over inerrancy. Here we will see thatour presuppositions determine our perception of what an error in Scripture is, andwhat effects the historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration has on concretecases of recognized errors. These examples will serve as cases to show how thehistorical-cognitive model relates to the debate, not as an attempt in this book toanswer the questions there. Please be aware that theologians have strong feelingson both sides of the controversy.

First, we will use examples of alleged biblical errancy from Achtemeier’s bookon inspiration.16 His presentation suits our purposes because he discusses the errorsin the same revelation-inspiration context that we are studying. Be aware as wecontinue that Achtemeier uses his affirmation of the presence of error in the Bibleto suggest that divine inspiration does not work on individual authors but on thecommunity of faith. He thus endorses the historical-critical method of biblicalinterpretation and its evolutionary approach to religious history— the modernmodel.

Finally, we need to understand that Achtemeier defines error from the sameperspective as an inerrantist. Keep in mind that the modern and evangelical schoolsboth assume that reality is timeless and that the teachings of the Bible are relativelyfew compared with the size of the literary material; the historical-cognitive modelbegins from a different perspective and thus defines error much differently.

1. Errors in Natural Science

Acthemeier affirms Scripture contains biological and botanical errors because it


says the rabbit chews (Leviticus 11:6),17 and the mustard seed is the smallest of allseeds (Mark 4:31).18 This is surprising because Achtemeier himself recognizesScripture does not approach reality from a scientific but from a commonsense pointof view.19 Only by requiring these texts to be conformed to the Enlightenment idealof absolute scientific precision could one consider them errors. Even if Achtemeieris right, the historical-cognitive model would view these examples as minor details,because their deletion would leave the message of the texts untouched.Consequently, one could choose to see them as examples of imprecisioncharacteristic of the limited and imperfect mode of human knowledge, conversationand writing; God’s truth is incarnated in them nonetheless.

2. Wrong Attributions

Another instance of supposed scriptural error takes place when a New Testamentauthor attributes verses from the Old Testament to the wrong Old Testament book.For example, Matthew 27:9-10 references Zechariah 11:12-13, but mistakenlyattributes the passage to Jeremiah. Likewise, Mark 1:2 quotes words from Isaiahthat actually belong to Malachi 3:1.20

Regarding Matthew’s quotation, semi-inerrantist Samuel Koranteng-Pipimrecognizes three possible explanations. (1) It might be an error introduced in thetransmission process, whereas the original scroll the former tax collector wroterightly cited Zechariah. (2) Matthew might have used the cultural convention ofgiving credit to the most prestigious author of a group. Since Jeremiah was morerenowned among the prophets than Zechariah, Matthew recognized him as theauthor. (3) Matthew quotes from both Jeremiah and Zechariah.21 Pipim prefers thethird answer.

From Pipim’s arguments it becomes clear that there is no single answer for thisobvious problem. All answers are hypothetical and have only relative degrees ofcertainty. The first option depends directly on the evangelical model’s convictionthat only the lost originals were inerrant. Achtemeier and others sharing modernhermeneutical presuppositions probably will not be convinced by Pipim’s attemptsat negating what they see as obvious. Moreover, Achtemeier argues convincingly


that recourse to lost originals is a cop-out.22 Then again, Pipim might be right.Again, the historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration considers this to

be a matter of detail that affects nothing revealed in the text. Nobody is deceived inany way by the misquotes, which in fact demonstrate the historical continuitybetween Old and New testaments. Only by assuming either that God overruleshuman agencies or that He elevates the normal powers of human memory can weclassify these imprecisions as errors. 3. Statistical Discrepancies

This section deals with inconsistent figures, not inflated figures like the example ofthe number of Israelites in the exodus. Here modernists claim error based ondiscrepancies between numbers given for the same event by different passages inthe Bible. For instance, 2 Samuel 10:18 portrays David killing 700 charioteers,while 1 Chronicles 19:18 reports him killing 7000 charioteers on the sameoccasion. According to the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, “it isimpossible to determine which number is correct.”23 In a similar case, Numbers25:9 reports 24,000 died in a particular plague, while 1 Corinthians 10:8 speaks of23,000.24

The differences in the figures are insignificant from the perspective of thehistorical-cognitive model. There is no need for harmonization. The conflictingnumbers represent the imprecision25 native to historical narratives with zero impactto their inherent truthfulness.26 Even if both sets of numbers were deleted, thehistorical truth of David’s victory over the Syrians and God’s judgment of arebellion in Israel will not be affected.

Again, this kind of discrepancy equals error only if we presuppose thatScripture’s purpose was to tell us all manner of detail with Enlightenment-stylescientific precision. These cases clearly fall within our category of imprecision ofdetail, which underscores the fact that the events were recorded truthfully— andhistorically, with all the limitations that implies.

4. Reporting Historical Facts


Let us consider a few cases of what Achtemeier and modernist theologians classifyas historical errors, but the historical-cognitive model considers mere imprecisions.

The first example consists in the discrepancy between Mark’s report that Jesuscited Abiathar as the high priest under whom David ate from the sanctuary’sconsecrated bread (2:26). According to the Old Testament, however, the highpriest in question was Ahimelech (1 Samuel 21:1-6).27

We find our second example in the New Testament reports of Jesus’instructions to His disciples before He sent them on a missionary journey. Markreports Jesus saying, among other things, that they should take nothing “except” astaff and sandals (6:8-9). In contrast, Matthew reports Jesus saying “not to take”sandals or a staff (10:9-10).28

The final case we are going to mention relates to Peter’s denying Christ threetimes before the cock crowed. “The issue concerns how many times the cock willcrow before Peter has denied Jesus three times. In Mark 14:30, Jesus tells Peter thatbefore the cock crows twice, Peter will have denied him three times. Matthew26:34, Luke 22:34, and John 13:38 portray Jesus telling Peter that before the cockcrows, the threefold denial will have occurred. In the event itself, Mark records thesecond crowing as the time of Peter’s realization of what he has done (i.e., deniedJesus three times) in Mark 14:72, while, true to their accounts, Matthew (26:74),Luke (22:60), and John (18:27) simply record that the cock crowed, clearlyimplying that this was the first time it happened. Such divergence raises for theconservative the problem of how to reconcile accounts in which there is noagreement on how many times the cock crowed prior to Peter’s denial.”29

None of these discrepancies actually affects the truth or the theology of thegiven passages. Of course, these are only a few samples; many others that can befound in the Bible.30 Let us move on to some more serious examples— “errors” intheology.

5. Inner Theological Inconsistencies

According to the evangelical model of revelation-inspiration, God controlled wordby word what was written in Scripture; how, then, are we to understand


contradictory theological concepts? Does not their existence falsify theevangelicals’ claim of inerrancy? How does the historical-cognitive model weighin? There are several obvious examples.

For example, in the light of Christ’s condemnation of divorce (Matthew 19:3-9),Acthemeier thinks Moses was in error when he permitted divorce in Old Testamenttimes (Deuteronomy 24:1).31 Then, in 2 Samuel 24:1-2, Scripture reports that Godincited David to take a census of Israel; the parallel account in 1 Chronicles 21:1-2informs us that Satan incited David to take the census. They can’t both be right, orso one would think.

If Christ taught us to love our enemies (Luke 6:27-28), how could God alsohave inspired David’s call for divine punishment over his enemies (Psalm 109)?Wasn’t David’s spirit un-Christian? This example opens the whole issue of divinewars and wrath presented in the Old Testament. Christian have traditionally solvedthis problem by claiming a theological discontinuity between Old and NewTestaments.

That same discontinuity is employed to explain the claim that Scriptureembraces two ways of salvation, one through obedience to the law given throughMoses to the Israelites (Leviticus 18:5), and the other by faith (Habakkuk 2:4)given through Christ to the Christians (Galatians 3:1-12; 2 Corinthians 3:6). If thisis truly a theological error, it is of the highest significance.

Finally, there is the widely recognized inconsistency between portraits of God,one immutable (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Job 23:13; Malachi 3:6; James1:17), the other, changeable (Genesis 6:6; Exodus 32:14; Judges 2:18; 1 Samuel15:35; 2 Samuel 24:16; Jeremiah 26:13; Amos 7:6; Jonah 3:10). This discrepancyis at the center of the current debate between classical evangelical theologies andthe neo-classical open view of God. Achtemeier correctly affirms that “when thisproblem is resolved by affirming that to say God ‘repents’ is accommodation,whereas to say he is unchangeable is ‘how it is,’ one has not drawn this differencefrom the biblical text.”32 How do we decide that “speaking of God’s ‘repenting’ isthe accommodation (i.e., how it appears to us)?” How does one know “that thelanguage of God’s unchangeableness is not accommodation, with God’s repenting‘how it really is’? Clearly, some other source than Scripture itself has led him to


this conclusion.”33

These inconsistencies or alleged theological errors are quite different frominconsistencies in numbers or the record of historical events. Here error is ascribednot to peripheral issues but to the Bible’s central revelatory themes: moralcommands, God’s nature and his plan of salvation. Are these theological errors?

Once again we return to the issue of presuppositions to explain the issue; certainpresuppositions will lead a person to conclude that these discrepancies are error. Inthat case, his or her hermeneutical paradigm is not broad enough to include bothideas. This incapability, endemic to most schools of Christian theology, flows fromthe conviction that God is timeless and therefore does not operate historically asdepicted in the Old and New Testaments. If God is timeless and reveals timelessunchangeable truths, contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time andin the same way.

On the other hand, when one reads these examples of theological contradictionfrom the perspective of the historical-cognitive model, no real contradictionappears. As we have repeatedly noted in this volume, from a biblically definedhermeneutical paradigm, God is not timeless but an infinitely temporal, historicalbeing. Because of this, He is able not only to reveal Himself and His thoughts, butto save us from within the flow of human history.

God’s design for humanity, as manifested by law and predestination, is alwaysthe same. But to change the evil order created by sin, He must operate within thelimitations imposed by finitude and sin. We can thus understand why God alloweddivorce in Old Testament times. To call Moses’ permission to divorce(Deuteronomy 24:1) an error is to forget that in the time of Moses, such a law wasa restriction on casual divorce, a standard higher than that of Israel’s paganneighbors. Divine design for marriage has not changed (Genesis 1:27) but Godadjusted his demands as a step in the process of restoring his likeness in them.Christ’s elevation of divine principle merely represented a higher revelationrequiring a higher level of obedience (Matthew 19:3-9).

If Scripture is historically revealed, God’s work of redemption is a historicalprocess. In that process, theological “inconsistencies” actually demonstrate howsalvation operates in real life. Instead of allowing differences between passages to


challenge our faith in the Bible, we should allow them to challenge our previouslyheld theological ideas. This itself is a step in the Biblical process of redemption forour own lives.

The same applies to the other examples. Both God and Satan were somehowinvolved in David’s decision to take a census of Israel. Historical reality iscomplex and often involves multiple causality from which God is never entirelyabsent. Both accounts of the census reveal the richness of the event in itstheological depth. But it does require, perhaps, that we set aside our assumptionsabout God and salvation.

Reality is complex, and Scripture recognizes this. It is not inconsistent to loveour enemies and at the same time desire that God give them their just reward. Whenwe leave to God whatever revenge on our enemies we feel necessary, we are lovingthem because we are entrusting them to the only one who can deal with them incomplete justice. Besides, loving them does not eliminate the strong negativefeelings resulting from what they have done to us, but channels those feelings inChrist and to Christ. In this light, for example, we would do well both to pray forthe salvation of terrorists, and that they be brought both to justice and to a placewhere they can never harm another human being again.

The Bible demonstrates that God involves Himself in punishing evil. He isloving, and yet He allows evil in order to vanquish it; this is not a theologicalcontradiction but the possibility, essence and aim of the plan of salvation. Scriptureforces us to understand God from both poles of what we might be tempted to viewas an inconsistency. To overcome this temptation, we must understand both polesas two aspects of the larger process of salvation.

As for supposed inconsistencies in God’s nature, we must again recognize thatthese inconsistencies do not exist in the biblical text but in our theologicalinterpretation of it. What causes us to “see” such inconsistencies is an extrabiblicalset of presuppositions, a theological paradigm we should get rid of. We do haveto go back to the drawing board, but only to place our assumptions under thecriticism of the Bible (as opposed to placing the Bible under the criticism of ourassumptions).


§124. A HISTORICALLY COMPREHENSIVE MODEL OF BIBLICAL RELIABILITYLet us conclude our examination of the consequences that the historical-cognitivemodel of revelation-inspiration has for the veracity and reliability of the Bible. Todo so, we will summarize its characteristics as an alternative explanation ofScripture’s reliability, one we will call the “historically comprehensive” view. Itscharacteristics can best be explained in contrast to the views of scriptural reliabilityarising from the other models of revelation-inspiration.

Briefly, every model of revelation-inspiration gives rise to a view of Scripture’sreliability. The historical-cognitive model gives rise to the historicallycomprehensive view of the Bible’s accuracy. The classical model gives rise to whatwe might call the theological or partial view. The evangelical model gives rise to themeticulously inerrant view. And the modern model gives rise to a view thatScripture contains errors of every kind. We will compare the historicallycomprehensive view with the views engendered by the classical and evangelicalmodels, but not to the modern model because we have chosen to reject theconsideration that Scripture contains deliberate error.

The classical model considers the Bible to be reliable only in a theological sense,because it claims accuracy only for biblical statements about the timeless, spiritualcontents. In this view reliability does not extend to the spatio-temporal realm, sohistorical and scientific statements in Scripture can be found to be in error withoutaffecting its theological contents. Because this model claims reliability only for thetheological portions of Scripture, we might call it the “theological” or “partiallyreliable” view.

The evangelical model supports and requires an exhaustive verbal reliability inall the Bible says and teaches. Because this model considers Scripture to be onehundred percent accurate on not only theology but also on detailed scientific andhistorical statements, we might call it the “meticulously inerrant” view.

The historical cognitive model favors the idea that Scripture is reliable in a“historically comprehensive” way. This position recognizes the complexity ofbiblical thinking, and thus builds on the simultaneous interrelatedness of the three


levels of truth we began this chapter with (correspondence, coherence, anddisclosure), and assumes a historical understanding of reality and humanknowledge.

To understand the Bible’s reliability as “historically comprehensive” means thatit is trustworthy, first, at the historical realm where the incarnation of God’s actsand thoughts took place. Consequently, Scripture’ trustworthiness should beascertained within the dynamics of everyday, commonsense thinking and not fromwithin the shifting conventions of scientific scholarship. Second, biblical reliabilityis comprehensive because it extends to every level of truth, every sentence andevery referent. Third, each part is reliable not in isolation from the comprehensivewhole of Scripture but in relation to it. Finally, we should ascertain the Bible’sreliability from the wholistic view of biblical revelation, not from an analytical,scientifically detailed examination of each individual part.

From this perspective, alleged errors at the disclosure level, such as claimingthat “biblical creation must be wrong because we know evolution is true,” arerejected by faith in Scripture’s comprehensive, wholistic disclosure of divine truth.At the level of truth as coherence, the historically comprehensive view of biblicalreliability rejects the existence of inner theological inconsistencies in Scripture; itunderstands that such inconsistencies are visible only from the perspective of non-biblical, non-historical, non-comprehensive presuppositions (§123.5). At thecoherence level, inconsistencies are recognized as such but are not considerederrors. After all, when perceived from the historically comprehensive perspective,they are shown to be imprecisions in minor details characteristic of common,everyday historical thinking and reporting. Divine revelation in the Bible is notcompromised by such trivialities.

As we compare these views of biblical reliability, we see both similarities anddifferences. The historically comprehensive view differs from the modern view inthat the latter allows for errors and misleading inaccuracies at all levels of truth,while the former does not. The historically comprehensive model differs from theclassical, theological view in that the latter confines biblical reliability to timeless,non-historical theological or spiritual contents, while the former extends it to theentire contents of Scripture, which are understood as temporal and historical.


Finally, the historically comprehensive view differs from the evangelical view ofmeticulous inerrancy in that the latter extends reliability to all biblical contentsindividually and at all levels, while the former extends it to all biblical contents asparts of an interrelated historical whole, but not individually at the level of minordetails as previously defined (§122.3-4).

§125. REVIEW

$ Biblical reliability as inerrancy.Inerrancy means that Scripture is “infallible,” “free from all falsehood, fraud,or deceit,” and internally consistent. This inerrancy extends to all matters onwhich the biblical authors wrote (including scientific and historical ones), andnot just to theological or spiritual themes.

$ Truth as correspondence.In this view, a statement is true when its contents correspond to the reality itdescribes. For instance, if my wife tells me, “It’s snowing,” I expect to seesnowflakes when I look outside. If no snow is falling, my wife’s statement isfalse; if it is falling, the statement is true.

$ Truth as coherence.In this view, a statement or idea is true when it is completely consistent, orcoherent, with all the arena to which it applies. To say, “A triangle has fourangles,” is to make an inherently contradictory statement; it is incoherent andtherefore false.

$ Truth as disclosure.According to this view, truth is an unveiling, appearance, or revelation. Theexistence of the snowflakes or the triangle is the foundation of any statement we


make about them; without this unveiling or revelation of their realities, we couldmake no statement about them. Truth as disclosure is the foundation of truth ascorrespondence and as coherence.

$ According to Paul, we can verify God’s good and perfect will for us.We can verify what God tells us about our lives by checking what He saysagainst our everyday experience. Since what God wants for our lives isrevealed in Scripture, in Romans 12:2 Paul tells us that we have a way to verifybiblical revelation.

$ The verification of biblical reliability depends on our interpretation of whatreliability is.Our verification or falsification of Scripture will depend, among other things,on our presuppositions concerning God, Scripture, and the verification processitself.

$ Neither biblical creation nor evolution can be verified or proven false.The event they describe is a singularity, an unrepeatable event; by definition itis not open to investigation.

$ Challenges to biblical trustworthiness at the disclosure level.Challenges to biblical teachings come from philosophical, scientific and culturalteachings opposed to divine revelation. These challenges take place as a conflictof interpretations. To answer them, we must develop biblical apologetics as atheological discipline.

$ Challenges to biblical trustworthiness at the correspondence level.Challenges to Scriptural reliability in this level come from sciences that studythe referents involved. Among them are archaeology, historical sciences, naturalsciences and the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation. To answerthese challenges we must, one, respect the nature and intent of any biblical textwe examine, two, remain aware of the limitations and hypothetical nature of


scientific constructs that attempt to verify biblical statements or prove themfalse, and three, challenge the presuppositional base of interpretations that claimto show the Bible to be wrong.

$ Challenges to biblical trustworthiness at the coherence level.Challenges to Scriptural reliability at this level do not come from outsidetheology, as with the other levels, but from theological and exegeticalinterpretations. These challenges may be answered from a biblically developedsystematic theology.

$ The meaning of “error.”The notion of “error” includes two basic meanings: (1) lack of accuracy; and,(2) to lie or to produce untrue statements made with the intent to deceive.

$ The historical cognitive model of revelation-inspiration affirms the reliabilityof Scripture.By beginning with a historical understanding of Scripture’s teachings, thehistorical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration allows the meaning and innerconsistency of its revelation to shine through, thereby affirming the truth ofScripture at the disclosure and coherence levels. At the level of correspondence,the historical-cognitive model claims there are no errors in Scripture. However,due to the limitations and imperfections of human knowledge (§70-§72),Scripture’s phenomena reveal a lack of perfect accuracy. These imperfectionstake place at the level of minor detail and enhance biblical truth rather thandistorting it.

$ Defining “detail.”For our purposes, a detail is a small, subordinate, nonessential part orqualification of a thing, whole or subject matter. A detail is subordinatebecause, like a parasite, it exists in something else. We know something is adetail, when, if we delete it, the meaning of the subject matter or reality to whichit refers remains unchanged.


$ The Enlightenment myth of perfect accuracy. Perfect accuracy does not exist even in mathematics. The famous ancientmathematician Pythagorus was dismayed to discover there were some numbers,such as the square root of two or the number p (which is used to describecircles), that could not be expressed either with decimal integers or fractions.We know these "irrational numbers" exist (or, at least, we theologians accept onfaith that mathematicians know they exist!), because they have been used insuccessful calculations for centuries. But it is impossible to express them with100 percent accuracy using numbers most of us can understand; the most wecan expect are approximations. Perfect accuracy does not exist even inmathematics.

$ Revelation-inspiration and the “slippery slope.”The “slippery slope” is a word picture describing the question of Scripture’sreliability. It expresses the conviction that if a small error is found in Scripture,its entire reliability becomes suspect, and unbelief in its teachings justified. Thehistorical-cognitive model does not share this conviction. The slippery slope,applied to the reliability of Scripture, is mere intellectual justification for adecision made out of ignorance or willful rejection of the Bible. Moreover, itworks only within the evangelical view of meticulous inerrancy.

$ The historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration favors a historicallycomprehensive view of biblical reliability.The historical-cognitive model recognizes the complexity of biblical thinking.When examining the reliability of Scripture, the model notes the simultaneousinterrelatedness of the three levels of truth (correspondence, coherence anddisclosure), and assumes a historical understanding of reality and humanknowledge.

$ Synthesis of the historically comprehensive model of biblical reliability.


1 Edmund et alli Clowney, “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,” in

Explaining Inerrancy, ed. R. C. Sproul (Orlando: Ligionier Ministries, 1980), 59-74.

2 For an introduction to the philosophical discussion on theories of truth, seeBradley Dowden and Norman Swartz, “Truth,” in The Internet Encyclopedia ofPhilosophy, ed. James Fieser (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/, Internet, 2005).

3 See, for example, Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2 ed. (Grand Rapids:Baker, 1998), 248-249.

4 Ernst Troeltsch, Religion in History (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 13.5 See, for example, Word and Sacrament I, ed. Hilton C. Oswald, Helmut T.

Lehmann, and Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, 54 vols., Luther’s Works, vol. 35(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 117-125.

6 According to the historical-cognitive model, theological diversity in Scriptureis part of the richness evoked by the incarnation of divine thought through thevarious patterns of revelation. So understood, such diversity is part of theharmonious process of historical redemption. From the perspective of the modernmodel of revelation-inspiration, diversity could be understood as a series of

To understand the reliability of Scripture as “historically comprehensive”means, first, that its trustworthiness takes place within the historical realmwhere God’s acts and thoughts take place. Consequently, Scripture’strustworthiness should be ascertained within the dynamics of historical,everyday, commonsense thinking, not from within modern conventions ofscientific scholarship. Second, biblical reliability is comprehensive because itextends to every level of truth, every sentence and every referent. Third, eachpart of revelation is reliable not in isolation from the comprehensive whole ofScripture, but in relation to it. Finally, biblical reliability should always beascertained from the wholistic view of biblical revelation and not from theanalytical outlook of a detailed examination of each individual par.

ENDNOTES


contradictory views; for an example, see James Barr, The Scope and Authority ofthe Bible (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1980), 114-115.

7 Predestination in the biblical, non-Calvinistic understanding. One mustconsider biblical texts such as Ephesians 1:1-11 and Romans 11:36 withoutAugustinian lenses.

8 On the conservative side, see Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: AnIntroduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 93-94; onthe modernist side see Paul J. Achtemeier, Inspiration and Authority: The Natureand Function of Christian Scripture (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), 62. Theemphasis in the quotation from Achtemeier is mine.

9 Achtemeier, 62.10 Ibid., 56.11 At this broad hermeneutical level, the Calvinist and Roman Catholic

theological systems differ little.12 These examples are from Grudem’s Systematic Theology, 93-94.13 Why then do some evangelicals like Grudem hold so fast to the inerrancy of

biblical detail, that is, the historical and natural contents of Scripture? Probablybecause their theology values the historicity of Christ’s life and resurrection farmore than the modernists.

14 For an introduction to the debate, see Alden Thompson, Inspiration: HardQuestions, Honest Answers (Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 1991), 221-223;and, Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, “An Analysis and Evaluation of AldenThompson's Casebook/Codebook Approach to the Bible,” in Issues in Revelationand Inspiration, ed. Frank Holbrook, and Leo Van Dolson (Berrien Springs:Adventist Theological Society Publications, 1992), 54-57.

15 Alden Thompson, Inspiration: Hard Questions, Honest Answers, 241-242.16 Inspiration and Authority, 45-6317 For an interpretation of this passage from a commonsense point of view, see

Francis D. Nichol ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary : The HolyBible With Exegetical and Expository Commentary [SDABC], CommentaryReference Series, (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association,1978), Leviticus 11:6-7.


18 Inspiration and Authority, 48, 49. Achtemeier believes Luke recognized the“error” about the mustard seed and rectified by deleting it from his Gospel (48, fn.57).

19 Inspiration and Authority, 47, 51.20 On the modernist side, Achtemeier claims in this case that Matthew corrected

Mark’s error by quoting from Isaiah 40:3 (48). On the semi-inerrantist side,Samuel Koranteng-Pipim argues that Mark quotes from both Malachai and Isaiah;there is no error here except under a superficial reading by the modernists(Receiving the Word: How New Approaches to the Bible Impact our Biblical Faithand Lifestyle [Berrien Springs: Berean Books, 1996], 294).

21 Receiving the Word, 295.22 Inspiration and Authority, 59-61.23 SDABC, 1 Chronicles 19:18.24 “The difference may be explained by the words ‘fell in one day.’ Or, a

thousand were perhaps slain by the judges on another day and so not included inPaul’s round number of those that ‘fell in one day.’” SDABC, Numbers 25:9.

25 Grudem recognizes the imprecision of biblical thinking. He seems to applyit, however, only to “round numbers,” and feels it necessary to explain that theyare not untruthful (Systematic Theology, 91-92). However, he might not applythe idea of cognitive imprecision to the inconsistency between numbers inScripture as I am suggesting.

26 According to Achtemeier, “Discrepancies are of course common in anyliterature, ancient or modern, where more than one account of the same event isrecorded” ( Inspiration and Authority, 51).

27 Achtemeier believes Matthew 12:4 and Luke 6:4 corrected Mark’s errorbecause they do not mention the high priest at all.

28 The SDABC, Matthew 10:10, explains this inconsistency by saying thataccording to Matthew’s explanation, Christ did not want them to take any extrasandals or staff. One can also harmonize these statements by claiming they reportdifferent historical occurrences of the same event. Achtemeier rejects this attempt.“Trying to solve such problems by positing two temple cleansings or twoinstructions to the disciples gets one into such problems as having to post six


miraculous feedings, since there are six accounts of that event in the Gospels, andall differ from one another” (Inspiration and Authority, 53).

29 Inspiration and Authority, 54-55.30 For further examples and attempts to solve problems see Pipim, Receiving

the Word, 279-301; Richard M. Davidson, “Revelation/Inspiration in the OldTestament: A Critique of Alden Thompson's 'Incarnational' Model,” in Issues inRevelation and Inspiration, ed. Frank and Leo Van Dolson Holbrook (BerrienSprings, MI: Adventist Theological Society Publications, 1992), 105-135; andRandall W. Younker, “A Few Thoughts on Alden Thompson's Chapter: Numbers,Genealogies, Dates,” in Issues in Revelation and Inspiration, ed. Frank and LeoVan Dolson Holbrook (Berrien Springs: Adventist Theological SocietyPublications, 1992), 173-199.

31According to Achtemeier, Christ taught that Deuteronomy needed to becorrected by Genesis 1:27 (Inspiration and Authority, 50).

32 Inspiration and Authority, 57.33 Ibid.

flc the cognitive principle of christian theology

Documents

scripture canale

christian theologians

christian doctrines

inspiration of scrip

theology students

professor of theology

new model

interpretation of scripture