Reflections on Inspiration and Interpretation: The Implications of Inspiration for Interpretation (Part Two)
by Matthew McAffee
In Part One of this essay, we introduced the nature of Scripture as dually-authored. In this essay, we will explore this further, commenting on how it is both divinely given and humanly written. We will also identify more specific ways in which our view of inspiration informs our attention to interpretation.
The Significance of Scripture as Dually-Authored for Interpretation
How does the nature of Scripture relate to biblical interpretation? Peter argues that Scripture is not a matter of one’s own interpretation because it has been divinely given (2 Pet. 1:20-21). The context of Peter’s discussion concerns the false teachers of his day who were misusing the Scriptures to support their sinful lifestyle. Peter compares their activity with the false prophets of the Old Testament who spoke “thus says the Lord” when the Lord had not spoken. It is my view that Peter is here dealing with the problem of wrong interpretation.[1] If it has been given by God, then there is a right and a wrong interpretation. If our interpretation is out of step with the broader witness of the Scriptures, then our interpretation must be corrected. Surely God does not contradict Himself!
This factor raises the issue of irreconcilable interpretations: What do we do about them? Does the existence of differing interpretations render our concerns null and void? Or does this mean that proper interpretation doesn’t truly matter, if folks can come up with different interpretations? It does not. On the contrary, it humbles us as we realize our own limitations as finite creatures whose minds have been twisted by sin.
The only reason we can know anything about God is because He has broken into our world and disclosed Himself to us personally. Interpretation is an ongoing process whereby we come to a fuller and more accurate understanding of God’s revealed will. Differing interpretations of Scripture within the church compel us to study the Bible more earnestly in order to acquire a more accurate understanding of God’s revelation.[2] Furthermore, it compels us to seek the Holy Spirit’s illumination, the same Spirit Who breathed out the Scriptures in the first place.[3]
What do 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20-21 teach us about our approach to Scripture? I would suggest that it means that faithfulness to interpreting Scripture requires attention to their two primary aspects at the very least: their nature as (1) divinely given, and (2) their nature as humanly written.
Scripture as Divinely Given
One implication that naturally arises from the fact that Scripture is divinely given is that the words written are trustworthy and true. If the Scriptures come from God through men in the mystery of His providence, then they must be true and free from error. They are reliable in all that they affirm. These men were moved by the Holy Spirit to write the words of God, even though their own personalities and cultural context are clearly evident. But if these words are truly God’s revelation, it also means that every word, phrase, and sentence is true and free from error in what it affirms.[4] God superintended the process of revelation so that Scripture’s authors wrote exactly what He intended, yet they did so with their total personality intact.
As a divinely given collection of materials, we can also speak of the overall coherence of the Bible as God’s unified revelation. Recently, Andy Stanley has cautioned against using expressions like “the Bible says” or “the Word of God says.” Rather he calls us to sayings like “Peter says,” Paul writes,” or “Isaiah the prophet declares.”[5] But this approach is one-sided. It ignores the Bible’s own claim to be divinely revealed, while over-emphasizing the human nature of Scripture.
Thus, we should not think of Scripture as 100 percent divine and 100 percent human, as Christ’s divine and human natures have been historically conceived. The nature of Scripture is somewhat different in that it has been divinely given by God in a mysterious way through human agency. The way in which the Bible is divine is not exactly the same as the way in which the Bible is human. Therefore, it is much more complicated than simply keeping these two aspects (the human and divine) in tension. For example, some recent evangelicals have criticized Warfield for over emphasizing the divine nature of Scripture at the expense of its human side, but this criticism would seem to misunderstand the nuanced relationship between these two aspects of Scripture.
We should also expect to find an overarching theme throughout the Bible as it relates to God’s plan of redemption. If God is progressively revealing Himself to us for the purpose of redemption, then interpretation must acknowledge identifiable connections throughout the canon. We have also touched on the need for the Spirit’s illumination in our interpretation, which requires that our study be saturated with the spiritual discipline of prayer. Interpretation, then, is not merely an academic exercise.
Scripture as Humanly Written
The human aspects of Scripture, however, cannot be ignored. Attention to grammar, syntax, and the literary style of writing all fall within the purview of appropriate interpretation. It is neither sacrilegious nor unspiritual to consult Bible dictionaries, word study tools, concordances, or commentaries. In fact, Scripture’s own testimony as being humanly written requires this.
The reason we need to give attention to these aspects is because the Bible was not written in our own language for readers of our own cultural setting. Neither was the Bible written in a single language within a single cultural context. Its writing spans 2000-plus years in both ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman worlds. Therefore, it behooves us to give appropriate attention to these matters in our study of these humanly written texts.
God has revealed Himself to us in His Word, but He has done so through men who were carried along by His Holy Spirit. This means that there will always be a healthy tension between the spiritual (God’s revelation of Himself to humanity) and academic (He did so through the language and cultures of men) sides of interpretation.
Conclusion
Admittedly, these essays are simply brief sketches. It is not meant to be (and cannot be!) exhaustive. My purpose has been simply to stimulate our thinking about the way in which inspiration ought to inform our approach to interpretation. Much more needs to be articulated in dealing with the unique challenges we face in the call to interpret the Scriptures to our world. But our challenges are not really all that unique after all.
The church has been laboring over this task for centuries. We would do well to listen to what Christian interpreters of yesteryear have handed down to us as we try to interpret the Bible faithfully for today. We are therefore interpreting Scripture within the context of Christ’s saints— not just the saints of today, but also the saints of the past.
Exposure to interpreters of past ages keeps us from being held captive to our own context and its blinders. God has revealed Himself to humanity so that He might be known in all ages, and not just our own. These Scriptures are the basis of not only our faith and practice, but also our fellowship with Him. Therefore, we must be all the more vigilant in the task of interpreting them faithfully.
____________________
[1] I am aware of the problems associated with the meaning of the phrase translated “one’s own interpretation,” with some scholars thinking that it refers to the origin of Scripture and not its interpretation. It is beyond the confines of this discussion to defend my interpretation here, but I intend to do so elsewhere. For a discussion of the various approaches in interpreting this expression, see Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (Word Biblical Commentary 50; Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 228-35.
[2] Consider Priscilla and Acquilla who took Apollos aside and explained to him “the way of God more accurately” (Acts 18:26). Luke describes Apollos as being “mighty in the Scriptures,” yet he had only been acquainted with the baptism of John alone.
[3] See Paul’s explanation of this process in 1 Corinthians 2:10-19.
[4] This view of inspiration is often called “verbal plenary,” meaning that every word of Scripture is fully God’s revelation.
[5] See Kevin P. Emmert’s interview with Andy Stanley in “Should Pastors Stop Saying, ‘the Bible Says’?” Christianity Today 58 (July/August 2014): 23.
____________________
Matthew McAffee serves on the Ministry/Biblical Studies faculty at Welch College. He is completing a doctorate in Northwest Semitics at the University of Chicago. He is also a graduate of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Welch College. He has ministered in Free Will Baptist churches in Virginia, Tennessee, Illinois, and Canada. He is married to Anna, with whom he has two daughters, Abigail (9) and Lydia (4), and one son, Samuel (2).
Recent Comments