What is the “Word of God”?
It is always interesting to me to observe how a Christian uses the term “Word of God”. At the risk of oversimplifying, my experience tells me that Protestants are more likely to use the term to mean Scripture, while Catholics, at least in official ecclesiastical documents, tend to use it to refer to the Second Person of the Trinity.
Instead, the Catholic Church’s preferred term to refer to Scripture is “Sacred Scripture”, the Word of God in human words. I do not think that this difference is trivial. If we think of Scripture as the Word of God, it makes more sense to take it at face value. But if we qualify it as the Word of God in human words, we are forced to reckon with the fact that interpretation is not so straightforward.
Now, the debate on whether one should take the words of Scripture literally at face value or consider them in all their complexities might sound like an esoteric concern. Indeed, the history of biblical scholarship in this aspect is long and fascinating. However, it is also highly relevant for the lay reader. For that reason, I think it is worth talking about it, regardless whether one is a lay reader or a scholarly one. But since this is not a subject I can cover in one brief article, even if I only intend to scratch the surface, I will be dividing my discussion on this topic over three parts.
For this first part, I will consider some contemporary controversies, and then compare differing attitudes towards Scripture in the modern and pre-modern eras. In the second part, I will look at the postmodern era, which is arguably the phase we are living in today, and how it influences attitude towards Scripture among scholars. The third and last part, which will be the longest piece, will attempt to summarise contemporary approaches among scholars that developed in light of the history of scholarship discussed in part one and part two. At the end of the final part, I will offer some suggestions on how these scholarly approaches can be useful for the lay readers of Scripture.
Contemporary Controversies
Interpretation of Scripture is a difficult subject. Many, many pages have been devoted to it, but consensus is difficult. At the same time, it is an important topic with very real consequences. One famous example is the debate on whether one should interpret Genesis 1 to mean that thousands of years ago, God created the world in seven days, or whether it should be interpreted more figuratively. (St. Augustine’s position is quite clear, if we take some time to find out.) Some of us might wonder if this debate should really matter. But the division it creates among Christians and in the society should not be underestimated. In the U.S. context, it has led to debate whether this interpretation should be taught in schools.
And then there is the politicization of Scripture. Since Scripture is so important for so many of us, it should not be surprising that politicians across the spectrum will find it useful for winning votes. Very often, perhaps because it is rhetorically more persuasive, politicians will interpret the words of Scripture literally according to their face value, after making sure that such an approach results in the interpretation that fits their political position.
At times, ironically, Scripture is interpreted literally, but then its warnings are literally (pun intended!) ignored. A good example is doomsday prediction. There is no shortage of preachers who will predict the end of time, as attested in Scripture, and then attempt to search the Scriptures for hints as to when it might happen, despite warnings within Scripture not to do it. Sadly, there are preachers, not all, who do this not out of concern for their communities, but for their own financial gain. Worse, this use of Scripture has made Christianity the object of ridicule for many non-religious people, decreasing its credibility.
These uses of Scripture have one common thread, that is, words of Scripture only have one meaning, and we can know it relatively easily. This fundamentalist mode of interpretation is mostly disappearing among scholars, but is still quite common among popular writers. But there was a time when such a practice was more prevalent. Let us consider the history of its emergence.
A Modern Controversy in Theology and Biblical Studies
The twentieth century saw the rise of fundamentalism in Protestant Christianity in the United States as a reaction to the more liberal schools of thought. One point of contention in this theological contest is the inerrancy of Scripture. The fundamentalists held that Scripture is not only inerrant but that everything stated in Scripture is true literally, in the sense that Scripture can be taken at face value, assuming one carefully studies the text and fully understands it. From this perspective, the words of Scripture only have one meaning.
While the fundamentalist movement was not the first to come up with this approach, to my knowledge, they were the first to explicitly standardize this approach throughout the movement. On hindsight, it might seem reckless to do so given that most interpreters of Scripture in the history of Christianity did not use this approach. But we must remember that this movement is a reaction, and we tend to embrace stronger positions when we react.
Ironically, their liberal opponents held the same assumption. While many of them might not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, they too thought that if one has access to the “original” language and text, one can know exactly what the author intended to say. Of course, very often and with little justification, what they thought the biblical writers intended to say fit with their theological positions. Given the influence of the United States in so many cultures, this conflict soon spread beyond its coasts and entered Catholic circles.
The Pre-Modern Approach to Scripture
In order to understand why this modern controversy is a significant historically, (and how a Catholic could respond to this division that is still present today in many Christian groups), it is necessary to consider how pre-modern Christians saw Scripture. James Kugel, an important Jewish scholar, explained in his book How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture Then and Now that pre-modern readers of Scripture, Christian and Jewish, held four assumptions that are quite different from today’s readers.
The fourth one is the most relevant for our purposes here: pre-modern readers believed that Scripture is cryptic. Scripture is difficult to understand, and one must utilise all kinds of creative interpretive strategies to understand it. This is why, for them, tradition is critical. One needs the wisdom of the predecessors to help illumine the meaning of the text. The older the interpretive tradition, the more prestigious it is, since it has stood the test of time. This attitude towards Scripture and the emphasis placed on tradition resulted in open-mindedness to multiple ways of reading and multiple significant meanings that can be drawn from the text. In other words, for them, Scripture is multivalent.
Unfortunately for Christians, Martin Luther’s opposition to the Catholic Church’s teaching authority in terms of who had the final say in determining the meaning of Scripture meant that he had to argue that Scripture is clear and easy to understand by the average person. (Hence, most of our bibles today are “naked”, that is, without notes, since we do not need the wisdom of our predecessors if Scripture is easy to understand.)
While Luther might not be the first to emphasize the literal meaning of Scripture, he was a major figure in popularizing this idea that has remained until today. Eventually, the long-held view that Scripture is cryptic and multivalent became marginalized among Protestant Christians. This change was not isolated either. It eventually influenced Catholic Christians and non-religious groups that came after them, especially in places with heavy Protestant influences.
Well, this brief comparison now ends the first part of this series of essays. Look for the second piece to see the continuation of this fascinating history!
___
Photo: Kelly Sikkema, Unsplash / PD-US
