4. Debate about Revelation and Inspiration within Adventism
5. Towards a Biblical Interpretation of Revelation-Inspiration
6. Biblical Model of Revelation-Inspiration
Fernando Canale
Before briefly considering some leading models of interpretation of R-I, we make a methodological “rest stop.” We need (1) to ascertain with precision the technical meaning of R-I, (2) determine on what evidence theologians build their understanding of R-I, and (3) note from what hermeneutical presuppositions they work out their views. This will help us understand what others have said on this issue and what we should bear in mind in our own interpretation of it.
When theologians deal with the R-I doctrine, they use the words “revelation” and “inspiration” in a technical sense. “Revelation” broadly refers to the process through which the contents of Scripture emerged in the mind of prophets and apostles. “Inspiration,” broadly speaking, refers to the process through which the contents in the mind of prophets and apostles were communicated in oral or in written forms. Thus, revelation is a cognitive process while inspiration is mainly a linguistic one.
A word of caution is necessary to avoid confusion. Biblical writers did not use the word “inspiration.” Moreover, neither the biblical authors nor Ellen G. White used the notions of “revelation” and “inspiration” in the technical analytical sense in which we are using them in this chapter. They used them interchangeably. According to the context, they may refer to the origin of contents in the mind of prophets and apostles, to the process of communicating them in a written format, or to both. Not surprisingly, a large number of Adventist and Evangelical theologians do the same. A proper understanding of the origination of Scripture, however, requires a careful analysis of the cognitive and literary processes involved.
On what evidence do theologians build their understandings of R-I? Since one does not directly observe R-I in process today, theologians work from the results of R-I; namely, from Scripture. Theologians have come to recognize two lines of evidence in Scripture. They are the doctrine of Scripture and the phenomena of Scripture. Since we have already dealt with the biblical doctrine of Scripture in this section we will briefly introduce the notion of the “phenomena” of Scripture.
The Scriptural Phenomena. When theologians talk about the “phenomena” of Scripture, they are not usually referring to biblical teachings in Scripture but to the characteristics of Scripture as a written work and its entire contents. Consequently, while access to the biblical “doctrine of Scripture” involves theological analysis, access to the “phenomena” of Scripture takes place through historical and literary analysis. The first line of evidence underlines the role of the divine agency in R-I while the second uncovers the role of human agencies. Failure to integrate both lines of evidence adequately leads respectively to either fundamentalist or liberal interpretations of R-I.
It is evident that “the time has come for Seventh-day Adventists to move beyond apologetic concerns into the task of developing a more constructive theology of inspiration.”2 But how do we develop an understanding of a subject matter that Scripture addresses indirectly? What is required is nothing short of a constructive, pioneering task in systematic theology. Since all theological construction is based on presuppositions, the formulation of an Adventist understanding of R-I could benefit from analyzing the way other interpretations have been conceived.
The systematic theological task envisaged here must take into consideration three different levels of hermeneutics: (1) the hermeneutics of the text, (2) the hermeneutics of theological issues, and (3) the hermeneutics of philosophical principles. The interpretation of biblical texts and theological issues is conditioned by the doctrine of R-I, which in turn depends on the philosophical principles presupposed by the exegete.
So, what are the presuppositions involved in the understanding of R-I? Who decides which presuppositions should be used? Let us begin with the latter question. Since biblical evidence shows that the R-I phenomenon always involves divine and human actions, theologians unavoidably bring their own conceptions of divine and human natures to play in their doctrines of R-I. These are hermeneutical philosophical principles, because they are assumed as principles in biblical and theological hermeneutics. God’s nature and actions, as well as human nature and actions, have been variously interpreted by Christian theologians. Different views of God and human nature have produced different interpretations of R-I.
Let us review our discussion in this methodological section. First, we decided to use the words “revelation” and “inspiration” in the technical sense to foster clarity. Second, we realized that a proper understanding of R-I must start by listening to what biblical writers say about the origin of Scripture and consider the actual work they produced (phenomena of Scripture).
Third, we learned that doctrines of R-I are interpretations involving not only biblical data but also presuppositions. Any doctrine of R-I is an interpretation that hinges on the way in which theologians understand the natures and actions of God and of human beings. With these methodological clarifications in mind, we turn to the history of interpretations of R-I.
Theologians have interpreted R-I in many ways, yet, most explanations fall into two main models of interpretation, namely, the classical and modern models. We need to acquaint ourselves with these models, because they have influenced the development of Adventist thought on R-I.
Verbal Inspiration. During the first eighteen centuries following the death of Christ the doctrine of R-I was not a disputed matter. Following Christ’s example, His followers took the biblical teaching about its inspiration at face value. Briefly put, they assumed God, through human instrumentality, wrote the Bible.
As classical theologians maximized the role of divine activity in R-I, they were minimizing the role of human agencies, seeing prophets and apostles merely as instruments God used to write the very words of Scripture. Because God was believed to have written the words of Scripture, this notion, which led to a high view of biblical authority, came to be known as the “verbal” theory of inspiration. The words of the Bible are the words of God.
This view builds on an extrabiblical philosophical understanding of hermeneutics. The replacement of the biblical notion of God with the Greek idea of a timeless God made the idea of divine sovereign providence an overpowering, all-encompassing causal phenomenon. By the fifth century A.D., Augustine already was using these ideas, linking the notion of divine will and activity with the timeless nature of God.3 Centuries later, it came to shape Luther’s understanding of the gospel, as well as the understanding of the verbal inspiration of Scripture. Consequently, the biblical affirmation that the Holy Spirit led the prophets’ writing was understood on the assumption that God operated as an irresistible sovereign influence, overruling any initiative originating in human freedom. On this assumption, God becomes not only the author of Scripture but also the writer.
In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Evangelical theologians used the verbal inspiration theory to fight modernism with its challenge to traditional Christian theology. Working from the philosophical hermeneutical perspective of divine sovereign providence, Archibald A. Hodge (1823–1886) and Benjamin B. Warfield (1851–1921), while denying dictation, spoke of inspiration as divine superintendence in the confluence of the divine and human agencies.
The sculptor-chisel-sculpture analogy helps to visualize the way in which the verbal theory of inspiration conceives the manner in which the divine and human agencies operate when generating the writings of the Bible. As the sculptor, and not the chisel, is the 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.
The most noticeable hermeneutical effects of the verbal theory are recontextualization and inerrancy. (1) In claiming that a timeless God is the author and writer of Scripture, verbal inspiration places the origin of biblical thought in the nonhistorical realm of the supernatural. Historical contexts and contents are bypassed in favor of timeless divine truths.
This nonhistorical recontextualization has assumed various forms. They spread from the classical depreciation of the historical literal meaning of biblical texts to allegorical spiritual meanings and to the fundamentalist reading of Scripture in which each biblical statement is an objective communication of supernatural absolute truth. (2) We are more familiar with the notion of inerrancy, according to which every biblical statement is absolute truth.
Encounter Revelation. Modern times generated a radically new understanding of R-I, based on complex philosophical arguments. Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), the father of modern theology, proposed a blueprint that later proponents of encounter revelation would follow.
Briefly put, revelation is a divine-human encounter devoid of the impartation of knowledge. “Thus, the content of revelation is regarded no longer as knowledge about God, not even information from God, but God Himself.”4 Consequently, not a single word or thought that we find in Scripture comes from God. Encounter revelation is the opposite of verbal inspiration. If the contents of Scripture do not come from God, then from where?
The answer is simple: from the historically conditioned response of human beings to the personal non-cognitive encounter with God. The Bible is a human book like any other book. The study of how the contents of Scripture originated is left to historical investigation.
Assuming that God did not contribute to the contents of Scripture, historical critics see Scripture as the product of a long process of cultural evolution. Human imagination, community, and tradition become the grounds from which the all-human books of Scripture arise.
Consequently, some exegetes believe that inspiration operates not on individuals but on the entire community. According to this view, “inspiration” did not reach the personal level of prophetic thoughts or words directly but influenced the social level of the community within which the authors of Scripture lived and wrote. Not surprisingly, Scripture’s contents remain human, not divine.
The foregoing change on how inspiration is viewed is a direct result of the application of Immanuel Kant’s (1724–1804) restriction of reason’s capabilities to the realm of time and space.
Modern theologians found themselves assuming that God is timeless and that human reason cannot reach timeless objects. Within these parameters, there can be no cognitive communication between God and human beings. But Christianity revolves around the notion that God relates to human beings. Encounter revelation suggests that the divine-human relation (encounter) takes place not at the cognitive but at an “existential” or inner “personal” level, through the soul. Thus, revelation is a divine-human encounter, real and objective, but involving absolutely no communication from God.
The most noticeable hermeneutical effects of the encounter theory of inspiration can be summed up in two words, recontextualization and criticism. (1) As the verbal theory of inspiration led to recontextualization so does the encounter theory of revelation. While verbal inspiration assumes that Scripture reveals objective timeless truths, encounter revelation assumes that Scripture is a pointer to an existential, non-cognitive, divine-human encounter. Scripture then has no revelatory contents but is simply a pointer or witness to revelation. (2) Since the content of Scripture originated (contrary to the views of Paul and Peter) from the impulse and wisdom of human beings, we must subject it to scientific criticism and use them for religious purposes only metaphorically. (3) Due to the human origination of the biblical contents, the interpreter assumes Scripture contains errors not only in historical details but also in all that it expressly teaches, even teachings about God and His salvation.