Book Review: Scripture and the Authority of God

On October 10, 2019April 6, 2024 By Jovan PayesIn Bible Study, Book Reviews, Hermeneutics, Interpretation, New Testament, Old Testament

N. T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today (New York: HarperCollins, 2005), pb, 210 pages.

In his volume, Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today, the former Bishop of Durham (2003–2010) and Anglican scholar, Nicholas Thomas Wright (1948–), argues in close quarters (200 pages) that the “authority of God” is mediated in the scriptures and this authority is properly accessed today when the church takes the biblical narrative seriously—Jesus redeems, renews, and completes the human story—as the rubric by which it engages today’s meaningful questions in face of God’s victory revealed in the gospel.

Book Summary

Wright argues that God is the only authority that can be spoken of concretely and that the authority of God manifested in the world is a necessary reality in way of sin’s corruption of creation in the fall. This assertion of divine authority is realized by the concept of rulership and kingdom. The written word, properly understood as the scriptures (i.e., the Bible), is not authoritative in a moralistic sense as being a scrapbook of good ideas, but instead communicates God’s authority in a narratival sense. For Wright, the flow of this story is played out in five acts (creation, the fall, Israel, Jesus, and the church) revealing the way in which God plans to heal and renew his image-bearers and the creation itself through the work and person of Jesus Christ. The scriptures, therefore, mediate God’s authority in the same way as revealed in the work of prophets as they spoke and proclaimed his word. Today, that same authoritative word is mediated properly to the church—the Bible reading community—when this overall message is narratively understood, contextually appreciated, and Christologically applied.

The overall purpose of the book is to provide a remedy to the “bible wars” in which the question and place of the scripture’s authority have lost their fixed placement in the “culture wars.” The church has always been a “Bible reading” entity and its history reflects this point; however, the church interacts with culture as well as the Bible and must constantly apply afresh its narrative to the church’s ever-changing setting and questions. The areas of contemporary tensions (culture, politics, philosophy, theology, and ethics) the church faces “interlock” with how the Bible-reading church applies the scriptures.[1] The most important resource which sets the scriptures apart as a unique source of Christian guidance is that the Bible is “the authority of God.” This is, as Wright describes a “shorthand” to help densely pack into a phrase that the narrative of the scriptures has an effect upon its readers because it carries a transcendent narrative that reveals the only true authority—God—as one who has created, and is now confronting the fall of his creation by the manifestation of his kingdom through Jesus Christ.

In this significant sense, the Bible reveals that in the kingdom (the kingship), in Jesus, God is confronting a fallen world in order to redeem, renew, and complete it in him. To do so God not only enlists his image-bearers (humans), but must also in the process redeem, renew, and complete them to be those who embrace the kingship of God. Authority, according to Wright, is not static nor flat but must be understood within the conflict of the biblical narrative. The authority of God includes the scriptures, but the scriptures do not exhaust God’s authority. In other words, “the authority of God” resides in the scriptures because it is the form God has chosen to mediate his kingship authority to his bible reading image-bearers, who will be redeemed, renewed, and completed in Jesus Christ. The narrative of scripture as alluded to above, unfolds in five stages, beginning with the good creation, the fall of humanity, the call of Israel, the incarnation of Jesus Christ, and the full consumption of God’s plan in the church. God’s authority in scripture only makes sense within that narrative.

Wright conceives of a theological foundation for his approach to the authority of scripture. This approach brings his main purposes and overarching points into focus. Much of what Wright sees in the broader church culture are significant influences and forces on the academic study of scripture that undermine its authority and accessibility to the church—the intended Bible reading community—and therefore his proposal. Wright spends a major part of his proposal engaging and providing clarifications based on his extensive body of research (which he self-references) to highlight the lingering benefits and problems from the Enlightenment (i.e., Age of Reason), and the influence of the Reformation. Negatively, the development of scientific tools of historical research birthed a movement of pure rationalism, and with it an accompanying skepticism of the divine (or tendency toward deism). This has created a polarization within the theological academy which is still felt to this day represented in his catalog of various “misreadings.”[2] Wright argues that good historical criticism and the Bible can co-exist without the loss of the scripture’s supernatural authority. It is not only possible but necessary for the church to contextually understand the Bible’s story.

Meanwhile, the celebrated Reformation period has likewise contributed to contemporary problems in Bible reading. In particular, Wright culls out the mantra of the Reformation—sola scriptura—and contextualizes it. The slogan was not intended to eviscerate any appreciation for the history of how the historic church had responded to the authority of the scriptures. Wright affirms the Reformer’s “insistence that scripture contains all things necessary to salvation… was part of their protest against the Roman insistence on belief in dogmas like transubstantiation as necessary articles of faith.”[3] The slogan was to affirm a limit, namely, that “nothing beyond scripture” could be taught as an article of salvation.[4] The need to stress this speaks to the “muddled” understanding of the “protest” theology behind the slogan. Furthermore, Wright goes on to underscore a common misunderstanding of another term reaffirmed in the Reformation period, being on insisting on the “literal” sense of scripture. This phrase does not pursue “the sense of the letter” but instead it means “the sense that the first writers intended.”[5] For Wright, this is crucial because it underscores the importance of historical criticism in understanding the text, and it discards a misunderstanding of a hermeneutical principle.

A Brief Evaluation

Wright argues that the question regarding the “authority of scripture” is not a flat discussion, and must take into account more than a book citation by observing how a text of scripture fits within his five-act biblical narrative, and how the trajectory of the “new creation” frames an important narratival hermeneutical context to understand the relevance and application of these texts.

Simply because there may be a “proof text” of an idea found in the Bible does not provide sufficient warrant that the notion is provided positive authority for the practicing Christian today. More is required. This is certainly an important point which Wright demonstrates in the two case studies that Sunday is not the new Sabbath and that the Sabbath ultimately speaks to the coming divine-human co-habitation,[6] and on how to establish the proper basis for male-female monogamy in the face of considerable evidence that the Old Testament tolerated polygamy.[7] What is extremely helpful in Wright’s model is how it grounds the textual and the application of the text in the renewing story of the gospel, and in this way provides God’s authority mediated through these scriptures.

If there is any drawback to Wright’s argument it may be found in his writing style. Granted, it is refreshingly straightforward, but the inclusion of caveats and parenthetical notations can detract from the argumentation. It is not so much of a drawback in Wright’s argument, but the writing style of a very aware scholar seeking to maintain in every statement an accurate reflection of the substance of his thesis. More significantly, Wright does not spend any time working through 2 Timothy 3:16-17, being by his own admission, “the famous passage about scripture.”[8] His only observation is that the passage is not about the nature of scripture but an encouragement to study the scriptures. Certainly, Paul’s focus the usefulness of “all scripture” to make its students “proficient, equipped for every good work” (3:17 NRSV).[9] Nevertheless, “all scripture” is both “useful” (ōphélimos) and “inspired by God” (theópneustos) which are both adjectival statements in the same clause about scripture in general, and are affirmations of their origin (theópneustos) and purpose in particular (ōphélimos). The explanation for this lack of attention is probably because the work presupposes the Bible as God’s mediated authority on the one hand, and that Wright is focused on how to appropriate this authority.

Finding Application

The thesis of Wright’s work has proven to find an immediate application in my life. First, the emphasis on the renewing work in Christ as the “end game” of the theological trajectory has an immediate and personal application in how I process scripture. Second, recognizing that scripture still mediates God’s authority has invigorated my confidence in the theological process.

First, Wright’s work has significantly challenged how I apply the same principle behind the transformative “renewing” of my mind principle of Romans 12:2 to the trajectory of the gospel narrative. As Paul says, “So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!” (2 Cor 5:17). It has certainly made me more aware of the need to ground my conclusions to what Christ is renewing in the world. The narrative framework looks at the promises of God as “speech acts” wherein he heals not only me, but the world around me.

Second, even in the wake of its historical, occasional, culturally bound essence which requires reason and the Spirit to evaluate my experience(s) and church traditions, God’s authority is still mediated in the scriptures. This has re-invigorated my confidence in the theological process. Wright’s survey of biblical interpretation and authority was extremely helpful in providing better clarity of how authority and scripture have been connected over the centuries.[10] Wright also called attention to the importance of private and communal study, not just in the academic context but also in the congregational setting. Since our insights are limited, it is worthwhile to gain insight from what others see in their in-depth study of God’s word.

Conclusion

What Wright accomplishes in Scripture and the Authority of God is to chart an important course that affirms that “the authority of God” is mediated in the scriptures, and this authority is properly accessed and applied when the redeeming, renewing, and completing work of Jesus Christ is applied to understanding the narrative of scripture as the church answers its call today.

Endnotes

Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God, 4–18.
107–14.
72.
72.
73–74.
143–73.
176–95.
97.
New Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible.
Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God, 61–81.

The Word of God among the Denominations

On January 29, 2018March 30, 2024 By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Gospel Advocate, Hebrew Bible, Introduction, New Testament, Old Testament, Publications, Published, Revelation, Theology1 Comment

***Reprinted with permission from the February 2018 issue of* Gospel Advocate *Magazine.***

Hebrews affirms, “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (4:12 ESV). This is part of a warning in Hebrews, which affirms that Christians who defect from God will fail to meet their rest as their Israelite counterparts did (vv. 1-11). God holds his people —and His creation— accountable by His presence (“sight”) in the word of God (Hebrews 4:13). This is a raw incontrovertible truth.

This passage makes no caveats; it makes no attempt to remedy a distinction between God’s word and God’s presence. They are both manifested at the same time. God is involved with real life (time and space) with Israel and with Christians. God makes promises and keeps his word regarding their “rest,” and God holds His people and creation accountable to His word. God is Lord of heaven and earth and everything in between, and He holds it together by the power residing in Jesus (Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:17). The word of God is connected not only to the authority of God but also to His nature and how He reveals Himself to the world.

Let me say the above in a differently. Our God, who is beyond time and space (God’s transcendence), enters our earthly “realm” bound by time and space (God’s immanence) with His divinity and authority (sovereignty) intact; furthermore, God enters into relationship with His creation (Abraham, Israel, Christians) by revealing Himself in creation and in His word. God is active both in creation and in His word. Creation reveals God’s existence and hints at elements of His attributes (natural theology), but it is His word that reveals God and His “will” so that humanity can enter into covenant with God. The word of God was both proclaimed orally through particular spokesmen (patriarchs, prophets, kings, apostles), but the prophetic word was not only through oracles but also in written communiqués embedded with the same divine authority (2 Peter 1:16–21). These writings reveal the mind of God (1 Corinthians 2:11–16), His purposes and mystery (Ephesians 3:1–6), His involvement in human events (Acts 17:26–27), and the righteousness by which He will bring justice to the world (Acts 17:30–31).

To say it bluntly, the Bible is the word of God set in a permanent written form. Paul declared, “all scripture is breathed out by God” (2 Timothy 3:16). The Scripture bears the character of God and is no “dead” codebook, for it transforms every “man of God” into a competent, equipped servant (2 Timothy 3:17). The profitability of all Scripture is due to its quality as “God’s breath.” There is no pecking order between the spoken or written word of God. The inspired written word is as inerrant as God’s character. There is no source outside of the Holy Spirit-given Scripture that speaks God’s transforming work since it is the depository of the gospel’s message. What the word of God promises, God will do; what God proclaims, God’s holds His creation accountable to (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

The above may seem to belabor the point, but as anticipated by the title of this piece, we will sketch how the word of God is handled among Liberal (Modern) and Neoorthodox influences. It is essential for the church to reflect on these twentieth-century influences because dialogue is healthy, truth has nothing from which to hide, and any redefinition of biblical Christianity must be given due consideration (Galatians 1:6-7).

The following historical sketches will probably not satisfy everyone, but they will be enough to see their direction and how they redefine significant elements of historic Christian beliefs and their tendency to subvert scriptural authority.

Liberalism/Modernism

The word “liberal” is a very loaded word. It is often used with contempt to show disapproval of someone else thought to be progressive (instrumental music, expanded role of women, etc.). But this is not the historic sense of the word. Liberalism emerged in the late nineteenth century through the interplay of many players, thinkers, and philosophical trends. The influence of Liberalism, or Modernism, is seen in three levels: (1) revelation is not the final answer to reality, (2) naturalism is the key to reality and religion, and (3) since the Christian documents are built on ancient myths and superstitions, the historic supernatural claims of Christianity is immaterial. To be a “Christian” is a matter of experience and the “essence” of its teaching.

Liberalism, as an intellectual revolution, is a child of the Age of Reason (the Enlightenment). The “Age” saw the elevation of human reason over the institutional “church,” which wielded divine revelation. It was “the church” that dictated to the people what to believe about reality. Divine revelation was the final answer to determining truth and what really happened in the past. This was displaced with rationalism, scientific history (criticism), and naturalism as final answers to genuine and authentic history and truth. In essence, as Stanley Grenz and Roger Olsen point out, the maxim “I believe in order that I may understand” was turned to “I believe what I can understand.”[1] Faith was overturned by a reason informed by modern findings — thus, this point of view is called “Modernism.”

Everything that was received as genuine knowledge, now, was shaped by the natural world. This was further supported by what is called “the principle of analogy,” popularized by the liberal theologian Ernst Troelsch (1865–1923), which argued that the present is the best way to understand the past. The consequence was detrimental in the extreme on the trustworthiness of Scripture. The supernatural elements interwoven in Scripture are, by definition, myths and superstitions. This meant that there are no miracles, no supernatural interventions by God, and no resurrection of Jesus Christ. Thus, many new schools of “criticism” emerged to study Scripture with mixed results.

This naturally led to an embrace of “the essence of Christianity” so long as reason and experience allowed. “Liberals” are open to the modern findings from the natural world, open to a religious humanism and science —in particularly embracing Darwinian evolution as the process by which God created. If God exists, He could only be revealed through religious “experience.” It was also immaterial if the events of Scripture happened or not because religion is a condition of the heart. Yet, the apostle Paul makes it abundantly clear that if the resurrection event has not occurred, both our preaching and faith are in vain and we are still in our sins (1 Corinthians 15:14, 17).

Another arm of Liberalism is the demythologizing of the New Testament pioneered by the “Form Critic” Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976). Bultmann argued that historic person of Jesus is built on untrustworthy sources. The New Testament is Christian propaganda shrouded in the imagery of the Greek myths and Roman legends. As such, they are not relevant for faith nor spiritual truth claims. It is the symbolism that matters. Today, one only need to watch the latest “history” programming to find modern theological liberals interviewed. Theological liberalism has significant questions that need to be answered, but it brings Christianity to a logical dead end.

Neoorthodoxy

The Swiss theologian Karl Barth (1886–1968) ignited a movement when he published his commentary on Romans in 1919. It charted a new theological direction away from Liberalism/Modernism. Barth (pronounced “bart”) was not fond of the misnomer “neoorthodoxy,” but his strand of thinking regarding the meaning of “revelation” and “the word of God” would rival the prevailing traditional belief held historically by the church. As a consequence, many regard Barth as one of the great theologians and the father of modern theology.

Orthodoxy affirms the teaching of historic Christian truth based on Scripture. This includes, for example, the following concepts: the inerrant inspiration of scripture, the triune Godhead, the deity and virgin birth of Christ, the historic creation and fall of humanity, the bodily resurrection and ascension of Christ, the return and final judgment. Barth argued, on the other hand, that “revealed truth” was not written, but was the outcome of an encounter (an experience) with God. Thus, instead of scripture as being the objective word of God, Barth argued for a subjective experience with God initiated by reading the Bible.

Barth was offering a completely different course of thought altogether. “Revelation” does not appear in the form of propositional truths. Arguing book, chapter, verse, or appeals to the very words of scripture is insufficient to reveal God. Revelation (the word of God), it is argued, is an “event” in which God acts in history (God’s immanence). Barth even argued that revelation is not found in natural theology (Acts 17; Psalm 19; Romans 1) but, instead, in events like the call of Abraham, the exodus, and the resurrection. Millard Erickson is spot on when he classifies Neoorthodoxy as an illumination theory divorced from an objective standard.[2]

Although Neoorthodoxy is not a unified movement, there are three interconnected witnesses (modes/forms) that shape its view on revelation.[3] First, Jesus is the word of God in the truest sense, for He reveals God in the event of His incarnation, life, ministry, death and resurrection. This is true revelation, the very gospel. Second, Scripture points to Jesus but it is a flawed human (read “errant”) attempt to provide a witness to divine revelation. It is instrumentally God’s word but not properly. Third, the proclamation within the faith community —Barth preferred “community” to church— is likewise instrumentally God’s word. The Bible, then, only becomes God’s word when God uses it to reveal Jesus Christ in the encounter, contrary to 2 Timothy 3:16.

In fact, Neo-orthodoxy is quite a popular approach to handling the Word of God, even among churches of Christ. A popular theological branch of this movement is “Canonical Criticism,” popularized by the late American scholar Brevard Childs (1923–2007). It seeks to broadly bypass much of the liberal destructive criticism of the twentieth century by accepting the texts of Scripture as literary units. Nevertheless, this point of view struggles, as did Barth’s, to embrace the Bible as a very human (errant) book while appealing to its authority for theological thought as if they were inerrant. They seek, in the words of one sympathetic Abilene Christian University professor, to “articulate a doctrine of Scripture that recognizes human flaws in it.”[4] Treating the Bible as an inerrant text is simply a form of bibliolatry.

Keeping the Faith

Today, the phrase “Word of God” means different things to different believers, and that includes preachers. Liberalism ultimately rejects a supernatural Christian faith, and is at home with amputating its historic claims of a resurrected ascended Lord Jesus, in exchange for a subjective diluted Christianity. Neoorthodoxy, on the other hand, embraces a supernatural Christian faith, but it rejects the supernatural origin, inerrancy, and authority of the Scriptures which undergird its claims. The Word of God has always been a manifestation of God’s presence in our lives, in His proclamation, and in His Scripture without pecking order. Let us join Paul who declares, “Let God be true though every one were a liar” (Romans 3:4).

Notes

Stanley J. Grenz and Roger E. Olsen, 20th Century Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992), 17.
Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 2013), 220–21.
Karl Barth, Evangelical Theology: An Introduction, trans. G. Foley (New York: Holt, 1963), 26–36.
Christopher Hutson, “Scripture as the Human Word of God: Why Faith Contradicts Inerrancy,” Lexington Theological Quarterly 44.1 (2011): 210–21. Hutson serves as a professor of ministry and missions at Abilene Christian University.