Applying Divine-Human Scriptures

I’ve used the term phrase “divine-human combination” or something quite close to it several times over the last few days. It’s easy to make it appear that this concept of inspiration, sometimes called “incarnational” is largely a tool to deal with the difficult parts of scripture. When I read “love your neighbor as yourself” I don’t have to apply such an interpretation, but when I read “go kill all the ____” then I must resort to a special understanding of inspiration. The feeling might be that Biblical inerrancy is fine, except for a few annoying passages. But this is not my approach.

An incarnational understanding of scripture places the burden on the community and on the individual, who make decisions in their faith, practice, and in their daily lives. There is a certain truth to the accusation that this more liberal approach to scripture is more people-centered than God-centered. This should be seen as a good thing. I take some of my warrant for this view from 1 John 4:20, which reads: “If anyone says ‘I love God,’ but hates his brother, he is a liar. For how can one who doesn’t love his brother, whom he has seen, love God, whom he has not seen?” The focus of our actions is to be people, even though those people-oriented actions are accepted by God as service to him.

This is not, however, solely a characteristic of the incarnational model. It’s openly acknowledged and celebrated by those who use an incaranational model of inspiration, but for everyone, the word of God as it comes to your own mind, is mixed with the human element. Even if you believe that the Bible in its current written form is perfect, your understanding of that word will always be imperfect. There is simply no way to get perfect knowledge into an imperfect mind. In this sense, the incarnational model puts more of the emphasis on God, because God is seen as active throughout the process. The Holy Spirit is present inspiring the prophets and remains active inspiring listeners, writers, copyists, and finally even modern exegetes, of Bible students known by less pretentious titles.

The question becomes simply “How does God’s message get to me?” or “How does God’s message get to my community?” In answer to these questions we have a model in scripture as we have it in canonical form.

1. We hear from God in the events of history, and specifically in God’s involvement, or even uninvolvement in them. This is represented in scripture by the strong historical element of the faith. Whatever you may believe about the historicity of the various details, if you are a Christian you must believe that at some point and in some way God has inserted himself into human history.
2. We hear from God through the common pool of community wisdom. This is represented by the wisdom literature. The easier part to read is Proverbs, where we have pithy sayings that sound like common sense. But there is another approach in Ecclesiastes which looks at the personal struggle of a teacher and lets us come along side his experience. I think those who reinterpret Ecclesiastes into some God of triumphant affirmation of God, as is required for some people’s view of inspiration, lose its primary value as an experience that skeptics and cynics can relate to.
3. We hear from God through direct inspiration. This is the one that many modern Christians want the most, and they want it to be the primary and overarching form of revelation. It’s most comfortable when we can say, “God told me ____.” We feel much less secure saying, “Experience teaches me ____” or “After due consideration of historical precendent _____.” But direct affirmations are only part of God’s revelation.

I think we lose part of that pattern with the more modern understanding of special and general revelation. Those categories are not without some merit, but I think they lose some of the “many portions and many ways” (Hebrews 1:1) in which God has spoken and continues to speak. In modern times I would add simply that God speaks through the natural world. I think this is simply an extension of point #1, God speaking through is action in history.

What this means in my daily life, however, is that I must make decisions. I bring all these elements to bear on the issue. I ask what is the appropriate principle to apply, and then in the end I take responsibility for what I have done. And this applies whether you are a charismatic believer receiving a “word from the Lord” via a modern day prophet, or someone searching the Bible for wisdom. You have to ask what all of these elements of God’s revelation are telling you, and then you combine them using your human reasoning, enlightend by the Spirit of Truth.

No, it’s not “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.” You don’t have that one-to-one correspondence, but then you never did. Everyone has a scheme for determining what part of the Bible applies. The question is really not whether you are responsible for making the decision. It is whether you will acknowledge your responsibility and exercise it appropriately.