Fernando Canale
Should we choose one interpretation over the others? Alternatively, should we seek a new understanding? To answer these questions we must begin by evaluating present theories on R-I. How do we evaluate them? We assess them by carefully listening to all the evidence. Our understanding, then, without distortion, should account for tensions or contradictions found in the full range of Scripture’s self-testimony and in other phenomena of Scripture. Moreover, we should look at the origin and content of the philosophical hermeneutical presuppositions explic-itly or implicitly involved in the conception and in the formulation of each model of R-I.
Raoul Dederen approaches an understanding of R-I by using a differ-ent methodology. Instead of embracing available interpretations for apologetic or hermeneutical purposes, Dederen subjects current interpretative patterns to criticism based on attentive listening to what biblical authors and Ellen G. White have to say on this issue.26 On this basis, he finds the encounter revelation and thought inspiration alternatives wanting.
Dederen recognizes that revelation is not merely an intellectual phenomenon but a personal encounter of the prophet with God. Yet according to Scripture, he argues, in the encounter of revelation, God communicates, though partially, knowledge about Himself and His will. Moreover, the disjunction between divine act and human word on which encounter revelation builds its case has no biblical support. This position can be argued only on a scientific and philosophical basis.27
Proceeding on the same biblical basis, Dederen implicitly dismisses thought inspiration as discussed above. He argues that in the Scriptures word and thought belong together. Consequently, “words are intrinsic to the revelation-inspiration process.”28 Also correctly, he argues that after reviewing Ellen G. White’s writing on R-I “everything points to the fact that God who imbued the prophets’ mind with thoughts and inspired them in the fulfillment of their task also watched over them in their attempts to express ‘infinite ideas’ and embody them in ‘finite vehicles’ of human language.”29 Scriptures are “in the highest and truest sense God’s creation.”30 Finally, Dederen feels ill at ease with the notion that Scripture is only partially revealed, but totally inspired, and encourages the church to find “other solutions.”31
This succinct evaluation disqualifies the three views of R-I presently operative in Adventist theology. Because each view works from philosophical definitions of hermeneutical presuppositions, no amount of reflection will make them responsive to the entire range of biblical evidence. Therefore, we must develop a new understanding by using biblical definitions of the hermeneutical presuppositions involved in R-I.
However, nothing is really new. In our search for another model of interpretation, we should recognize the strength and contributions of present models on R-I. From “encounter” revelation we should retain the biblical conviction that God’s work of R-I takes place within a personal historical I-Thou relationship (e.g., Deut 34:10). From “thought” inspiration we should retain the biblical teaching that God’s work of R-I focuses on the thought-process level of biblical writers (2 Pet 1:21). From “verbal” inspiration we should retain the biblical teaching that the divine work of R-I also reaches the level of the words (2 Tim 3:16). Finally, because in Scripture God has incarnated His thoughts in human thought and writing, the human and divine elements are inseparable. Consequently, we should never attempt to distinguish between divine and human contributions in the conception and in the writing of Scripture.
From this starting point we should consider the many ways in which God and the biblical writers interacted in the process of conceiving the ideas and of gathering the information we find in Scripture. We should ask the same regarding the process through which these ideas and information were put into writing (Heb 1:1). It is true that God acts in ways hidden from our sight. Yet, Scripture and Ellen G. White give us abundant evidence on which to build our understanding. The evidence we find in them includes both the self-testimony and the phenomena of Scripture.
In our search for a biblical understanding of R-I we will take two steps. First, we will consider carefully the hermeneutical presuppositions involved in our interpretation of the human and the divine agents involved in R-I. Second, we will attempt to formulate in a succinct manner a biblical understanding of R-I by using the notions obtained in the first step to understand the general statements of Paul and Peter on inspiration (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20-21).
The key to any interpretation lies in applying the appropriate hermeneutical principles. Basic scientific procedure requires that we derive our hermeneutical presuppositions from the thing we want to understand. Since in our case we are trying to understand the origin of Scripture, we not only must listen to what biblical authors say about R-I but also take note of the hermeneutical presuppositions they used, rather than adopting them from human philosophy and science. Fundamentally, we presuppose a God who personally acts within the flow of human history.
Dederen affirms, “revelation takes place and unfolds within history.”32 By adapting His infinite thoughts, ideas, and actions to our creaturely level, to our limited, imperfect thought patterns and words, God enables divine history to take place within human history. It is not the prophet, but God who translates His ideas into our cognitive and linguistic patterns.
The idea that God acts historically in time, which is assumed by the biblical writers and Ellen G. White and which lies at the foundation of the Great Controversy theme, requires a reinterpretation of the philosophical hermeneutical presuppositions that underlie encounter revelation, verbal inspiration, and thought inspiration, understood as a radical dichotomy between words and thoughts.
In contrast to the classical, evangelical, and modern idea that God used only one pattern of divine operation in R-I, Scripture speaks about a variety of divine patterns. The introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews affirms that “in the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at various times (polumerōs) and in various ways (polutropōs), but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son” (Heb 1:1).
Some Adventists have begun to recognize this variety and have suggested that to the generally accepted “prophetic” model we should add the “research model” of revelation. Other suggestions include the “witness,” “counselor,” “epistolary,” and “literary” patterns of revelation. Additional analytical work needs to be done in order to discover, as far as possible, in what ways divine and human agencies contributed to the generation of biblical thought and information.
It seems clear that, in the origination of Scripture, divine and human agencies interacted in at least the following patterns: Theophanic (Exod 3:1-5), prophetic (Rev 1:1-3), verbal (Exod 31:18), historical (Luke 1:1-3), wisdom (Eccl 1:1, 12-14; 12:9-11), and existential (Lam 3:1). Analyzing these patterns and their hermeneutical presuppositions will allow us to understand better how the entire Bible resulted from revelation and from inspiration and will enable us to overcome the radical thought-versus-words disjunction implicit in thought inspiration.
The prophets have not left us much information about the ways in which divine interventions operated while they were communicating their messages in oral or in written forms. Yet, from the information available, we are entitled to draw some working conclusions.
It seems the biblical writers received ideas and information before they sat down to write. The role of the Holy Spirit in inspiration, therefore, was not primarily to generate thoughts but to assure the trustworthy communication of the information received.
When God sent Moses to liberate Israel from Egyptian bondage, the Moses-Aaron team worked in ways like the God-prophet team. Moses represented God in “putting words” into Aaron’s mouth. Meanwhile, Aaron, speaking for Moses to the people, played the role of the prophet.
The act of “putting words in the mouth” of someone meant that the recipient became a subservient representative of another; the representative, however, had freedom to represent. He or she had, so to speak, power of attorney. Verbatim representation makes no sense. Aaron had strong verbal skills, and God called him to use his gift. In the same way, prophets and apostles, as representatives of God, were subservient to His thoughts but expressed them according their understanding and manner of expression.
At this point, we must bear in mind that, in revelation, divine thought adapted itself to the limitations and imperfections of human-thought processes. With inspiration, divine thought, already adapted to the human mode of thinking, adjusts itself to human-writing patterns. The mode of thinking and writing we find in Scripture, then, is not divine, but human. Therefore, Ellen G. White tells us “the Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God’s mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. However, God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen” (1SM 21, italics supplied).
This does not mean that the content of Scripture is unreliable. It means only that we must not expect in Scripture divine absolute perfection to the minutest detail, as if God would have used His perfect mode of thinking and writing. The true content generated by revelation becomes expressed in the imperfect mode of human thought and writing.
For instance, biblical writers did not have perfect memories; they forgot things as we do. They did not possess perfect sensory perception. They were not able to grasp all the richness of divine thoughts and ideas revealed to them. Moreover, our words may have several, even contradictory, meanings. Our syntax allows for arranging sentences in different ways with different meanings, and so on. All this is part of the human mode of thinking and writing that God used in revealing and in inspiring Scripture.
Did divine inspiration always erase or overrule the imperfections of the human mode of thinking and of writing? Contrary to the claims of “verbal” inspirationists, the phenomena of Scripture clearly shows that it did not. God used our imperfect means of communication to reveal Himself and His word to us. In Scripture, then, we find God’s truth expressed in an imperfect human mode of communication. God wanted it to be this way, because it is the best way to reveal Himself and His salvific truths to us.33
The goal of inspiration is not to upgrade the human mode of thinking or of writing but to ensure that writers do not replace God’s truth with their own interpretations. The Holy Spirit’s guidance did not overrule the thinking and the writing process of biblical writers but supervised the process of writing in order to maximize clarity of ideas and to prevent, if necessary, the distortion of revelation, or changing divine truth into a lie. In other words, we should not conceive of the continuous guidance of the Holy Spirit in the process of writing as continuous divine intervention, causing the choice of every thought and word in Scripture. Instead, we should consider a less intrusive pattern of inspiration, one more consistent with the freedom of human writers.
Ellen G. White’s comments on her own writing experience provide us with examples of the many remedial-corrective patterns of direct intervention that the Holy Spirit used during the process of inspiration. For instance, we note enhancing the memory (2SG 292-293; 1SM 36-37), helping find a “fit word” (2MR 156-157; 1MCP 318), and giving new revelation (3SM 36, 110). From these examples we can see that God is not causing the words by overruling the normal function of the human agency. On the contrary, we see the thinking and the writing processes freely taking place in the human agency under the careful guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Finally, Scripture presents an example of an occasional divine intervention pattern also used by the Holy Spirit to guide biblical writers. We note Balaam’s prophecies (Num 22:1–24:25). The biblical text and Ellen G. White’s comments make it clear that Balaam’s freedom was overridden by the Holy Spirit (Num 22:18, 20, 28-31; PP 439, 443, 448-449). This pattern is not the usual pattern of divine inspiration, as the verbal theory suggests. Obviously, we cannot apply Balaam’s pattern of divine operation to the biblical prophets.
This incident helps us to see that God will not allow Himself to be misrepresented by recognized prophets who, because of self-interest, are willing to change God’s truth into a lie. The Spirit made sure that chosen prophets did not change divine truths into human imagination.
On the forgoing basis we can affirm the total reliability of Scripture within the parameters of the normal human limitations of the thought and the linguistic process. Since the whole Bible is revealed and inspired within the level of human thought and language, it does not represent divine perfection; yet, its words reliably disclose God’s thoughts and will to us.
This view of inspiration explains why certain discrepancies and the lack of absolute precision in matters of detail that we find in the phenomena of Scripture do not affect the trustworthy communication of revealed contents.