Bibliology:
The Bible
by Ken McKinley
The
term Bibliology comes from the Greek word biblos, meaning
“book”. It literally means, “The study of the Book” with
the “Book” being the Bible. Bibliology often includes such
topics as revelation, inspiration, inerrancy, canonicity,
illumination and interpretation, AKA hermeneutics.
The
term “revelation” means to “unveil” or “uncover”.
Biblically speaking, revelation is the act and process whereby
God makes Himself known to us. He has done this in various
ways, including miracles, visions, dreams, creation, providence,
conscience, Jesus Christ, and Scripture. Theologians have spoken
of “general” revelation through nature, conscience and
providence and “special” revelation found in Christ and in
Scripture (Ps 19:1-6; Romans 1:18-20, 2:14-16; Acts 17:24-34;
John 1:14-18).
Thus
general revelation is equally available to all men at all times
and while it alone cannot save, it is nonetheless both essential
and preparatory to special revelation1.
General revelation is also one of the reasons all mankind is
guilty before God (See Romans Chs. 1 & 2).
“Inspiration”
is the theological word, derived from the Latin term spiro,
used to refer to the process whereby God superintended the human
authors of scripture so that what they wrote was simultaneously
their own words as well the Word of God Himself; God “breathed
out” His words through the writings (using the minds and
personalities) of His spokespeople (2nd Timothy
3:16). Thus, through Spirit-inspired writings God has preserved
an historical/theological record of His words and deeds and has
given it to His covenant people as a means of grace that they
might trust Him fully and obey Him implicitly. As a result of
our sinfulness and finiteness we stand in need of such divine
guidance and wisdom; scripture was inspired to that end.
Inspiration,
however, is not limited to mechanical dictation (indeed, very
little of it can be said to be mechanical in any way), as we
might have, say, in the receiving of the Ten Commandments (or
the letters to the churches in Revelation 2-3), but rather,
occurred in a variety of situations involving the writers as
whole people (their minds, emotions, wills, etc.) in their own
particular life situations (linguistic, religious, political,
economic, etc.). The end product, however, was always God’s Word
to man through man (2nd Tim 3:16; 2nd Pet
1:20-21) and carries God’s “full weight and authority.”
Technically speaking, inspiration applies to the autographa (not
later copies or translations).
Some
theologians have referred to the verbal (extending to the actual
words, not just concepts), plenary (the entire Bible, not only
those parts that seem to speak directly to issues of faith and
practice) inspiration of Scripture. This is the view that (1)
best corresponds to the view of OT writers, the prophets, Christ
Himself and His apostles, and (2) best represents the historic
position/understanding of the church on this issue. Since the
Enlightenment in France and Germany (17th/18th
centuries), however, it has been fashionable to deny the verbal
plenary inspiration of Scripture in light of apparent historical
inaccuracies and philosophical objections, particularly with the
existence and nature of God as well as the limitations of
language. But, while we can learn much from these views, we may
safely set aside their anti-super naturalistic prejudices as
both unfounded and contrary to the teaching of Jesus who Himself
strongly upheld the complete trustworthiness of Scripture
without reserve (e.g., Matt 5:17-20).
Inerrancy,
although not always properly defined, is a logical companion to
inspiration and in no way diminishes the human authorship of
scripture. If what the authors of Scripture penned was indeed
under the supernatural influence and guidance of the Holy Spirit
(as is properly affirmed), then since God is true, what they
wrote and affirmed is in all ways true as well. Thus inerrancy
applies to the autographa and Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic copies
insofar as they faithfully reproduce the autographa. The
doctrine rightly teaches that the scriptures are without error
in all that they affirm (i.e., properly interpreted), whether
they refer to geographical, historical, or theological issues.
Thus the scriptures are the final authority in matters of faith
and practice and take precedence over tradition, culture, and
creed. This doctrine also allows for different literary styles,
poor grammar, approximations in numbers, etc. (Psalm 119).
The
sixty-six books of scripture constitute the Protestant canon in
that they provide God’s rule for faith and life. The process of
canonicity involves the church’s recognition of the divine
origin and authority of the sixty-six books of scripture. The
church, as the redeemed community, made up of those of those who
have genuine faith in Jesus Christ, is qualified for this task.
It is important to note, however, that the church did not
determine which books were canonical, but only recognized those
books which were canonical; scripture is
self-authenticating. In the case of the Old Testament,
generally speaking, the church received it as the authoritative
Bible of her Lord and His apostles, i.e., the prophetic message
of God which was now fulfilled in and through Christ. In the
case of the New Testament, the church, by applying varying tests
such as apostolicity (was it written by an apostle or
authenticated by an apostle?), universality (was it widely read
and accepted?), and character (sufficiently spiritual, directed
at godliness, doctrinal content in agreement with other
apostles) recognized which books were “from the Lord” and which
were not, though the process was by no means finalized by the
end of the first century. In AD 367, in the 39th
Easter Letter of Athanasius, we find a list of the 27 books of
the NT we have today. This list was accepted by the
churches east of the Mediterranean while churches in the west
came to accept the same list some 30 years later, in AD 397, at
the Council of Carthage2.
There
are undoubtedly many reasons which prompted early Christians to
preserve the writings of the apostles, but perhaps the passing
away of the apostles as well as the development of heresies and
doctrinal disputes, were two of the most significant. Also, the
Diocletian persecution (AD 303-11), in which Christians were
tortured, their property taken, and their sacred books destroyed
by fire, undoubtedly helped to move the church along in its
recognition of which books were sacred (i.e., inspired) and
which were not. That is, there arose the need to know which
books to copy and preserve in light of the possibility that the
state continue to try and destroy the faith.
The
extent of the canon has been in some question among Protestants
and Catholics since the addition of the Apocrypha at the Council
of Trent (AD 1545-63). Anyone who has read these books may find
them encouraging, much the same as reading great Christian
literature, but they should not be regarded as on par with the
66 books, a fact which is recognized even by the Catholic Church
in its reference to them as deuterocanonical.
Illumination
refers to the work of the Spirit in the believer/believing
community enabling him/her/them to understand, welcome, and
apply Scriptural truth (cf. 1st Cor. 2:9-14)3.
For our part, we are to follow sound methods of
interpretation in keeping with the nature of Scripture and
generally accepted principles for understanding written
communication. Further, we are, by faith in Christ, to put into
practice that which the Scripture teaches us, lest we become
blinded by our accumulated ignorance (James 1:21-22) and
progressively blurred in our comprehension of spiritual
realities. In this way illumination increases and our grip on
the truth strengthens (or perhaps its grip on us!).
If Illumination is the work of the Spirit to help
believers understand and apply Scripture, interpretation,
broadly conceived, is the thought-through method we should
follow in this endeavor. Interpretation involves, then, three
elements:
Thus,
in the first step we are interested in gaining an awareness of
how our culture, tradition, and past acquaintance with Scripture
have affected us. In the second step we are interested in the
grammatical-historical meaning of a passage of Scripture. In
order to achieve this we study the words of a text in their
historical and grammatical context, the literary structure of a
passage, its mood, and the kind (genre) of literature it is.
Combined with this is the comparing of scripture with scripture
(e.g., interpreting the obscure by the clear) and ultimately the
teaching of the Bible as a whole. In this way, and through the
illuminating work of the Spirit, the church comes to grips with
the meaning and abiding relevance of Scripture.
But
this is only half the job. Moses did not write Deuteronomy and
Paul did not pen Philippians simply to be understood (i.e.,
between one’s ears). Rather, they wrote to save, guide,
instruct, and even discipline other believers to God’s will. In
short, their writings call for a response and this involves
first letting the Bible speak to the reader; convicting,
educating, encouraging, and showing us where to go. We
must bring our presuppositions and patterns of life to the
passage and allow it to judge and straighten. Then we must
allow the Scripture – as the very voice of God Himself – to
influence our beliefs and world views according to His
will. We must be careful to not fall into the trap of
reading what we believe, and instead make sure that we believe
what we are reading. The Lordship of Christ extends to the
entire universe, and we must remember that His word is a primary
way in which He expresses His grace oriented, kingly rule over
us.
Biblical hermeneutics, the art of interpreting the Bible, aims to develop rules for its interpretation. Given below are two basic rules with important refinements for each, and these rules are based on the conviction that the triune God for the sake of His elect progressively revealed Himself, according to His own immutable counsel, through the inspired authors, and providentially superintended the collection of their writings into the canon, the Bible, to His own eternal glory.
Rule One: Interpret the
Words of the Bible in the Light of Their Historical Context.
The different parts of
the Bible must be interpreted according to the
grammatical-historical method, that is, by studying the meaning of
its words in the light of the time and place they were originally
written. The books of the Bible are quite old, much older
than other books most people have ever read. The world of
the Bible is so different from ours that sometimes a translation
cannot bridge the gap between these ancient texts and modern
readers. But translators of this Bible and the contributors
of the notes have not reinterpreted the Bible to suit modern
attitudes; neither should the reader.
The application of the
first rule is complex because the Biblical writings were
continually relocated as the canon of Scripture progressively
expanded. In this unfolding context earlier texts take on
fuller senses. For example, the individual psalms addressed
to the people in the first temple period became finally the
written Word of God to the covenant people as a whole after they
were collected and arranged in the Book of Psalms. From this
point, the psalms had to be read and meditated upon (Ps. 1) in the
light of their new literary social contexts. For example,
Psalm 2, which proclaims Israel's king as the ideal son of God
with a mandate to rule the earth through prayer and power, was
sung before the Exile in the first temple, probably at the
coronation of Israel's kings. When the Book of Psalms was edited
after the Exile, however, Israel's throne was vacant, waiting for
a promised king, “the Messiah.” In that light Psalm 2 became
purely prophetic. After the coming of Christ the Psalms
became part of the Bible that included the New Testament; in that
light “the Messiah” of Psalm 2 takes on its fullest and clearest
sense: He is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ. Understanding
the Bible fully means keeping an eye on the developing stages of
revelation.
Rule Two: Interpret the Parts of the Bible in the Light
of the Whole.
The second important
rule of interpretation is often called “the analogy of
faith.” This rule asserts that Scripture interprets
Scripture. The Bible itself says that all its parts are
inspired by God (2nd Tim. 3:16), who is not a God of
disorder (1st Cor. 14:33). The rule is
corroborated by the existence of the Bible as a single
volume. The collection of sixty-six books, written over a
span of fifteen hundred years, into one book, reflects the
church's conviction that the transcendent Author superintended the
collection of the many writings into a harmonious whole.
Interpretation that pits Scripture against Scripture dishonors the
Alpha and Omega, who sees and rules from the beginning to the end
of all things.
More specifically, the Old Testament must be interpreted in the light of the New Testament. This is required for both literary and theological reasons. In a linguistic discourse the flow of thought keeps screening out unintended meanings. For example, the word “before” in the statement, “she sang before the Queen,” is ambiguous until the speaker adds “before the Queen rose to speak,” or “before the Queen on her throne.” In a similar way, as God's story of revealing and establishing His kingdom unfolds, ambiguous texts become clearer. For example, the ambiguous “offspring” (one or many?) in God's promise to Abraham (Gen. 22:18) becomes focused on Christ (Gal. 3:16). The unidentified maiden and Immanuel of Is. 7:14 are seen to be the Virgin Mary and her Son (Matt. 1:23), and the anonymous Servant in Isaiah (42:1-4; 49:1-6; 52:13 - 53:12; 61:1, 2) is revealed as Jesus, the suffering and yet triumphant Savior (Matt. 12:18-21; Luke 24:44-49; 1st Pet. 1:11).
This rule is required
theologically. Christ, who through the Holy Spirit
administers His Word to the apostles, is not only the final but
also the best revelation of God. God spoke at various times in
various ways in time past (Heb. 1:1), including his revelation to
Moses and to the prophets. In spite of their varying
psychologies by which God revealed Himself to them, all biblical
authors write with infallible authority. But they are not of
equal weight in interpretation, as the conflict of Aaron and
Miriam against Moses makes evident. Moses' brother and sister,
themselves both prophets, challenged the priority of Moses' words
over theirs (Num. 12:1, 2). In reply, God censured them for
their pride, arguing that Moses' words were superior because God
gave Moses a more intimate and clearer revelation than He gave to
them (vv. 6-8). The story establishes the important principle that
the forms of revelation require a hierarchy of interpretive
priorities. Christ is as much greater than Moses as a Son over a
house is greater than a slave within it (Heb. 3:5, 6). If Aaron
and Miriam should have feared to make themselves equal with Moses,
how much more should readers fear to make the Old Testament
superior to the New Testament that completes it? In fact, as the
conversation between Philip and the Ethiopian official shows (Acts
8:30, 31), the Old Testament cannot be fully understood without
the New Testament. This does not mean that the New Testament
corrects the Old Testament, but that it provides greater clarity
in understanding the Old Testament.
With these two
fundamental rules in hand we can now proceed to refine them.
The grammatical, historical method recognizes that different kinds
of literature, or “genres,” such as history, law, poetry, and
prophecy, in the Old Testament, and parables, and letters in the
New, will require different rules of interpretation. For example,
in contrast to legal literature, prophetic literature, as Numbers
12:6,7 makes plain, is frequently symbolic and full of figures of
speech, such as metaphor, personification, and metonymy.
Moreover, the prophet's symbolic visions and dreams have taken
their hue and coloring from their historical situations. For
example, at the threshold of prophecy God warns the serpent: “He
[the woman's offspring] shall bruise your head, and you shall
bruise His heel.” This is not a myth about the antipathy
between humans and snakes, but a statement about the conflict
between Christ and Satan (Rom. 16:20); the prophecy took its
coloring from the situation in the garden.
This kind of symbolic
language becomes even more intensified and extensive in
apocalyptic literature such as Daniel in the Old Testament and
Revelation in the New. The Ishtar Gate of Nebuchadnezzar, now in a
museum in Germany, will readily explain why Daniel had fanciful
dreams of animals. On that gate through which Daniel passed
many times, the patron deity of Babylon's chief administrator, saw
a lion with the wings of an eagle leading a train of other bizarre
animals representing Babylon and successive kingdoms (Daniel 7).
The Old Testament
prophets, using the images of their world to show the greatness of
Christ's rule from His heavenly throne, supercharged the old
figures. To portray the heavenly character of Christ's rule, for
example, Mount Zion is described as the highest mountain,
presumably, were it known, higher than Mt. Everest (Mic. 4:1). To
show the holiness of His kingdom, even the equipment of horses
bears the inscription formerly reserved for the diadem of the high
priest, HOLINESS TO THE LORD (Zech. 14:20). Jesus used enigmatic
parables in order to conceal His meaning from unbelievers and to
reveal it to His disciples (Matt. 13). Emphatically, the first
rule of hermeneutics does not mean that words are always to be
taken in their plain, “natural” sense; the interpreter has to take
careful note of figures of speech and literary genres.
Prophetic and
apocalyptic literature in the Old Testament and Christ's parables
in the New must not be read in the same way as Paul's letters.
Just as encyclopedia articles cannot be read as poems, so also the
Psalms ought not to be read like Chronicles. Relatively clear
texts like the epistles ought not to be interpreted in the light
of the less clear prophetic and apocalyptic literature; in-stead,
the unclear should be read in light of the clear. More subtly,
even such letters of Paul as those to the Corinthians, which
assume the reader knows the situation the apostle is addressing,
are less clear than an epistle like Romans, which logically sets
forth the Christian faith within a particular historical context.
Even what appears to be
straight-forward history, such as Kings and Chronicles in the Old
Testament, and the Gospels in the New, is not as straight-forward
as may appear upon first reading. The inspired historians of both
Testaments have carefully chosen and arranged their material to
teach spiritual lessons according to the needs of their audiences.
Sometimes incidents are arranged in topical or dramatic order
rather than in a purely chronological sequence. For example,
the Table of Nations in Gen. 10 chronologically came after Gen.
11, the story about the Tower of Babel, but Moses wanted his
audience to view the nations under God's blessing (Gen. 9:1-17)
and not under His judgment (Gen. 11:9). Sometimes the line between
historical and symbolic literature is attenuated as in the stories
of the early chapters of Genesis and, as some think, in Jonah.
Specifically, no one thinks that Eve only was sentenced to return
to the ground upon death (Gen. 3:16-19). Every reader intuitively
perceives that Adam and Eve represent every man and woman.
Nevertheless, the genealogies of the Old Testament and the
teachings of New Testament validate their historical character as
well.
The second rule, the
“analogy of faith,” needs to be refined particularly with
reference to the political history of the Old Testament and its
relation to the New. God is not pursuing two programs, one with
earthly Israel and a second with the heavenly Church, as
popularized in dispensational teaching. Rather, the earthly
presentation of the kingdom in the Old Testament is typical of its
heavenly and spiritual manifestation in the New Testament. For
example, the political and religious deliverance of Israel form
Egypt through the Passover lamb, Israel's baptism in the Red Sea
and the pilgrimage through the wilderness, sustained by manna from
heaven and water from a rock, and then entrance into the land of
Canaan, depict in concrete terms the spiritual experience of the
Church. The Old Testament history graphically portrays the exodus
of the New Israel from the Satanic world with its bondage of sin
and death through the Passover Lamb, Christ (1st Cor.
5:17), baptism into His death and resurrection, that is a death to
the world and rising to the newness of His resurrection life (Rom.
6:3,4; Gal. 6:14), pilgrimage to the heavenly city, nourished by
the sacraments of bread and wine (1st Cor. 10:1-17),
and final rest in the Promised Land (Heb. 4:6-11; 11:39,40).
Israel's ritual, with its consecrated site at Mount Zion, its
sacred Sabbaths and seasons, its holy priests and kings, and its
hallowed institutions such as animal sacrifice, symbolized the
heavenly realities (Ex. 25:9) now fulfilled since Christ entered
the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 9:10). The earthly and temporal
rituals were typical and became forever obsolete when Christ
brought His glorified church to the eternal, heavenly realms.
Today the church “is hidden with Christ” in the heavenly domains
(Col. 3:1-4) and in the future He without a veil will be seen (1st
John 3:2, 3). The Christian must read Israel's history and
ceremonies not only with a view to understanding what Israel's
history and ritual meant at the time, but also with an eye to
their antitypical significance according to the New Testament.
Moreover, the prophetic
promises, molded according to the political expressions of the
kingdom as known before Christ, must not be interpreted as having
a future, carnal fulfillment based on the typical model that has
forever been done away (Heb. 8:13), as some dispensational
teaching has supposed. Rather, the promises must be read in the
light of the antitypical, heavenly, and spiritual realities that
endure forever (2nd Cor. 4:18).
Lastly, although the Bible is a very old book, it is addressed to you. When introducing citations from the Old Testament, the New Testament writers frequently use the present tense, “God says,” rather than “God said,” and they reinforced the present relevance of His ancient Word by adding, “to us” and “to you,” rather than, “to them” (1st Cor. 9:9,10). Both Moses and Paul say, “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (Deut. 30:14; Rom. 10:8). Second, because the Bible is God's Word, do not read the Bible in the same way as other books. Biblical writers consistently use such expressions as “God says” (Is. 1:18-20; Matt. 19:4; Acts 4:25). Often God says directly, “I say” (Mic. 1:6-8). Accept God's word in faith and mediate upon it with memorization, imagination, and reflection. And before reading, pray that the Holy Spirit might teach you what He would, so that you may rightly divide the Word of truth.
[1] The objective revelation of God through nature, history, and conscience (human nature) is not extinguished because of man’s fall (see Psalm 19:1-6; Rom 2:14-15; Acts 17:26-27), but is seriously distorted through suppression and deliberate contempt (Rom 1:18-20).
[2] For more information on the canon of Scripture, see Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985); F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988); Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning, New Testament Series, ed. Dan O. Via (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985); Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: University Press, 1987).
[3] The entire passage from 2:6-16 has received no little attention in recent years. But even though there are disagreements regarding grammar, background, and theological emphases, there can be little doubt that the relevant thought for our purposes is quite clear: man in his unregenerate and carnal state cannot understand and accept the things of God (e.g., the cross-centered gospel), whereas the believer, who enjoys the enlightening ministry of the Spirit (cf. Eph 1:18), is able to welcome God's truth—now preserved for us in Scripture—in a deeply personal and transformative way.