Science and an Incarnational Approach to the Bible

An Incarnational Model

Mesopotamian Myths and “Genre Calibration”

Click here to read the first post.

“Seeing the NT as Christian Talmud: Toward Understanding the Nature of Christian Scripture” – at EBC, October 24, 10-12 noon

“It Was a Rough Century: Challenges to Conventional Notions of the Bible from the 1800s until Today” – at U.Vic., October 25, 7 p.m.

For more details, download the event flyer (PDF):

Flyer Front | Flyer Back

So, below are some thoughts about the IA that I think may help move us toward greater clarity.

Analogies are by definition incomplete

The IA is an analogy, a model, a metaphor. Therefore, it does not aim at complete identification between Jesus and the Bible, and to argue that it should, or that I am claiming such a thing, or that the analogy is faulty because of this failure of complete identification, is to misunderstand not simply the IA but the nature of any analogy.

Hence, I understand that Christ has a divine and human nature and there is a hypostatic union, whereas these things cannot be said of the Bible (of which we can speak of divine and human authorship). This difference between the two is not an observation that cripples an incarnational model as if to say, “See, Jesus and the Bible cannot be equated, so you can’t speak of the Bible incarnationally.” The very function of analogy is lost when such identification is expected.

There are other viable models of Scripture

The IA is not the only useful model for describing the Bible. It may not even be the best, and I remain open, as I always have, to other models. For some, a Trinitarian model is more effective, where the Bible is analogous to the Spirit’s voice rather than the incarnation. Still others employ an ecclesial model, where the Bible is analogous to the church (i.e., made of up diverse voices each coming from different perspectives, no one of which tells the full story, etc., etc.). My use of an incarnational model is driven by its simplicity and conceptual accessibility for lay readers.

The challenges to traditional formulations, whether from advances in biblical studies or increasingly persuasive scientific paradigms, are quite serious, and I think Christians will have to be more exploratory rather than less in working out viable and persuasive ways of talking about the Bible.

An incarnational model is descriptive

The IA is descriptive, not prescriptive. It does not safeguard inerrancy or any other model of Scripture, and this does not detract one iota from its viability. It has no value in making sure one does not “go too far” in what one concludes about specific biblical phenomena as judged by the standards of competing models. In fact, if it has any prescriptive value, it is in calling into question the hegemony of alternate models.

It is also worth pointing out that even the most Fundamentalist of inerrantist models do not have the prescriptive value some claim, as can easily be seen by the diversity of interpretations even among members of that Christian sub-culture. An inerrantist model does not guarantee unanimity in interpretation.

The incarnation is an irreducible entity

An incarnational model states that, as Christ is both divine and human, so too does the Bible have a divine and human element. Both the divine and human are present fully, and both Jesus and the Bible cease to be what they are if any element is marginalized or relegated to secondary status.

I realize—as does anyone with even a cursory exposure to these things—that the divine is ultimate insofar as it is the point of origin for the incarnation—“God so loved the world that he sent his only son….” I am not calling that into question. But, this divine initiative has produced a product that is irreducible and sui generis. And what God has joined together let no theologian put asunder. The incarnation is essentially and inextricable a divine/human phenomenon. This means that, in speaking of the nature of the Bible, one cannot table the “human dimension” and prioritize the divine any more than one can do that of Christ and still speak of Jesus of Nazareth.

This is a very practical point, as it happens far too often that explanations of why, for example, the Bible contains very significant tensions on both the historical and theological levels, is explained in view of the ultimate “perfection” of the Bible that is deemed necessary on the basis of “priority of the divine.”

The problem here is that what “divine” means is divorced from the incarnation, as if we can apprehend the former apart from the latter. But incarnation, be it Christ or the Bible, is the means God himself chose to reveal himself to his people. In other words, one cannot get “behind” the incarnation to what God is really like and then judge the Bible (and those who read it differently) accordingly—as if God said, “Listen, I have this divine essence I want you to grab a hold of and be sure to maintain its priority, but the best I can do is to give you a divine/human expression of that essence. Your job is to use the incarnation to move beyond it, to see whether you can discern what is ‘really’ going on beyond this unfortunate divine/human mess I have had to deal with.”

A slight caricature, perhaps, but my experience is that such a view is not too far below a more sophisticated veneer. I do not think I am the only one to sense the Platonic, even Gnostic, overtones of such thinking.

What we have to work with is God’s preferred means of communication, which is scandalously incarnational. To divide the two and presume to know the one without the other is a fantasy. The fact that the application of an incarnational model can be problematic for a “divine priority” approach does not call into question the former but the latter.

“Error” in an incarnational model

A consistent application of the IA would say that, as Christ is both divine and human but without sin, the Bible has divine and human elements but is without error. This is true as far as it goes, but only so long as it is not presumed what “error” is apart from understanding that the Bible is an irreducibly “incarnate” phenomenon.

For example, Jesus was human but without sin, but that does not mean that he was not a product of his culture and embodied the limitations of any human being. The fact that Jesus showed fully all the marks of humanity is part and parcel of the incarnation—the atonement and resurrection depend on it. No element of humanity was withheld from him, other than sinfulness. In other words, any aspect of Jesus’ life that speaks to his human limitation is not a function of his sinfulness but of his humanness, for example: that he bled, got hungry, got sick, did not know when the end would come, thought the world was flat, did not understand String Theory, could not speak French. These things do not make Jesus less the Son of God, but are part of what is inherent in Immanuel, God with us.

The Bible participates in an analogous state of human limitation. So, the theological and historical tensions in the Bible, mentioned above, are not “error,” and therefore merely illusions or only apparent (rather than real) because, as a divinely written text, we “know” that ultimately all these things cannot be and all will be reconciled for us either in this life or the next. Rather, diversity—real diversity—is a function of the incarnate nature of the Bible. It is not an unfortunate mark of a Bible that we “know” will ultimately be shown to have none of these “problems.” It is rather a mark that is indicative of its irreducibly “incarnate” status.

Theological diversity is just one area of application of the IA, others being the ANE context of the OT and Second Temple context of the NT, both of which are virtually limitless fields of inquiry. Another very practical area of application concerns the continued synthetic work of bringing science and Christianity into meaningful dialog with each other.

**************

There is much more that can be said, and as things come to mind I will address them here. Also, if there are issues that you feel need to be addressed, either about this post or other aspects of an incarnational model, please pass them along and I will interact with them.

The IA is a useful and adequate accounting of why the Bible behaves the way it does. It is not exhaustive or perfect, but neither is any other model. Its great benefit is in accepting the Bible for what it is rather than laying over it a complex system of expectations where ubiquitous biblical behavior becomes a theological problem.

Read Part One of my response here.

Below is the second part of my response to Waltke’s follow-up piece.

Nonsense and Logic

Waltke is concerned to maintain basic parameters of logic and to keep God from speaking “nonsense.” I think, though, that the entire point of our exchange has been to determine what in fact we have the right to label as “nonsense” and what a biblically oriented “logic” looks like. I may be missing something, but Waltke does not seem to consider this option.

Waltke repeatedly asserts that such things as human error in Scripture (which Hodge and Warfield themselves admitted to exist, by the way—see their booklet Inspiration, 27-28), or things commonly understood as mistakes, are unworthy of a book of ultimately divine origin. I do not wish to play word games, but I must continue to insist that just what these words mean, i.e., how they are to be defined, are the very things that need clearer definition precisely by bringing “biblical behavior” to the forefront of our debates rather than quick appeal to theological prolegomena.

To pick one extreme example, for some (not Waltke) it is “nonsense” to consider the differences of historical representation among the four Gospels or the synoptic accounts of Israel’s history in the Deuteronomistic History (Dtr) and the Chronicler. Diverse historical presentations in Scripture are “nonsense” because, since God is the author of Scripture, and Scripture is therefore “truth itself,” there really can be no synoptic “problem.”

I think Waltke and I are on the same footing when we respond, “No, the Bible itself will not allow for such an assessment of the nature of Scripture. The data do not support the theory.”

In principle, this is were we both are, but I would suggest that a real difference between Waltke and me is the extent to which we are willing to go in applying this same principle to other biblical phenomena. So, for example, I seem to be more willing to allow “Bible in its historical context” to determine what type of “logic” the Bible demonstrates and what constitutes “nonsense.” I am not only willing (begrudgingly) but fully prepared to engage the Second Temple hermeneutical context of the Chronicler in order to explain the differences between his account of Israel’s history and that of Dtr, as well as how the NT authors employ the OT.

All of this can be phrased as a question: What limits do we put on the contextual, historical, situatedness of the Bible for explaining biblical phenomenon, and therefore the nature of Scripture, and WHY, ON WHAT BASIS, do we place those limits? Or put another way, At what point do we, should we, say, “No, since this is the word of God, we can only go so far”? Or yet another way, At what point in applying an incarnational model are we ascribing error to God rather than merely observing the Bible’s “human nature”? These are ways of phrasing the disagreement between us, and further clarity would be achieved if we all dug a bit deeper to expose and critically evaluate the foundations of our thinking. At this stage, I do not think Waltke’s response moves us to greater clarity.

Both Sparks and I have entered into the discussion in the comments. (My comments begin at #36.) Hint: In order to see the entire comment thread, you have to click the “Comments” link under the post.

(Hint: Due to the somewhat bizarre user interface at Beliefnet, you have to click the word “Comments” at the end of the post to see the whole comment feed; otherwise, you’ll be popped somewhere in the middle of the conversation.)

PART 2: SBL Panel Discussion

On November 23, 2008, a Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) session was devoted to a discussion of Kenton Sparks’ book God’s Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Scholarship (GWHW). The panel was made up of: Stephen Chapman (Duke Divinity School), Bill Arnold (Asbury Theological Seminary), myself, and Gary Anderson (moderator, Notre Dame).

Continue reading >>>