In my first post I argued that we can’t read the Bible ‘just like any other book’, because it is God’s word. The doctrine of inspiration is why we state that the Bible is God’s word, so the next few posts will look at that doctrine and what it means for reading the Bible well.
The traditional Christian view of the Bible is that it is God’s word. Some churches recognize this by finishing each Bible reading with “This is the word of the Lord”. What does it mean for how we read the Bible?
The doctrine of inspiration asserts that God has authored or authorized the Bible, so that it comes from him, bearing his meaning and intention. Some discussions are more about how God does that—I am asserting, though, that the principle point is not ‘how’ the Bible was written under God’s influence but that God stands behind it, in the analogy of an author. Just as you read these words and presume that they come from me and are my attempt to communicate and that I stand behind the message of this post, the Bible is the text that God presents as his communication.
I am choosing my language carefully here. Whenever we apply human terms to God they are analogical. God is not an author just like me. In particular, he almost always writes through other authors. Nevertheless, he stands behind the meaning of the Bible as a human author stands behind the meaning of a text they have written (in some ways, God authorizes the Bible as his book more fully than any human author can).
Claiming that the Bible is God’s word is the same as saying that the meaning of the Bible is God’s meaning and intention. By ‘meaning’ I refer to all that the words are intended to achieve. Communication in words does not simply convey information (we often focus on that with the word ‘meaning’); there is also purpose. We do things with words—command, entreat, promise or persuade. The doctrine of inspiration simply means that whatever the Bible is meant to do is what God does; and understanding the Bible means encountering what God is doing in and through the Bible.
Many theologians hesitate to make the full connection between Scripture and God’s word. They warn that a simple identification of the words of Scripture as the word of God assumes it is a message from God that we can receive and understand independent of his presence and grace. The words of the Bible, in effect, replace God.
That is an important concern. However, rather than creating this problem, the classic doctrine of inspiration implies that we must know the author of Scripture in order to understand it. The Bible is not Jesus, it is not the mediator of redemption and revelation. We are given life with God and know him (which is life) by the work of Father, Son and Spirit in perfect concert. They are God’s gift established in the person and work of Christ and shared with us by the Spirit. The Bible is no replacement for that work. It is God’s own testimony about his work. We can insist on the identification of the Bible as God’s word without it supplanting Jesus and the Spirit.
The claim that the Bible, and all of the Bible, is God’s word is often called ‘plenary inspiration’: unqualified or complete inspiration. That is the view I am affirming and is the view of the Christian church from the beginning.1
The most obvious implication of the doctrine of inspiration is that we receive the Bible with submission and trust. Our attitude to a person is reflected in our attitude to their words. When someone you don’t know tells you to do something, you ask why you should take their direction. However, when the person is your boss, a doctor, or your marriage partner, then you respond to the direction appropriately. If you ignore a request from them, that expresses a certain attitude!
The same goes for the Bible as God’s word; our response to it is our response to God. Psalm 119 is shot through with the conviction that the Scriptures are God’s word. The Psalmist delights in the law because it comes from God—“In the way of your testimonies I delight as much as in all riches… I will delight in your statutes; I will not forget your word” (vv. 14, 16). He loves God’s word because he loves God and his name (vv. 47, 131-132). He is confident in God’s word; it is righteous, sure and secure (vv. 75, 86, 89–91). He is in awe of God’s law, because his “flesh trembles for fear” of God (v. 120). Because the law is God’s it brings freedom; light and understanding; life; comfort and security (vv. 34, 45, 49-50, 76, 89–92, 96, 105).2
So reading the Bible should always be done with reverence, delight and confidence. This rebukes how easily we trivialize the Bible. Some Christian humour, while not meant to belittle God’s word, risks doing this. If we have a very clear sense that the Bible is the word of the majestic Triune God, then every time we read it or think about it we’ll be conscious that it is a serious business. God says that he esteems the person who trembles at his word (Isa 66:2).
Being serious about the Bible doesn’t mean that there is no pleasure in it. Just the opposite! Given the God who speaks and the reasons he speaks, there is every reason to delight. It is the word of life and the promise of salvation for us. God gives himself to us, in and through Scripture. It is his amazing way of being available to us in a manner that we can approach, understand and benefit from.
In summary, the key to reading the Bible well is to recognize it for what it is—God’s word. Only that can orient us properly. One of the implications of recognizing that the Bible is God’s word is that must shape our attitude to the Bible. We regard it with the reverence and wonder with which we regard God.
Trembling at God’s word implies a relationship with God. In the next post, we’ll think about how a relationship with God has to be part of reading the Bible properly.
Further reading, relevant to this post and the next few on inspiration and interpretation:
1. See BB Warfield, ‘The Church Doctrine of Inspiration’, in The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, P&R Publishing, Phillipsburg, 1948, pp. 105-128.↩
2. See D Kidner, Psalms 73–150, InterVarsity Press, Leicester, 1975, pp. 416-422.↩