Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration Interpretation (Volume 2)

by Donald G. Bloesch

Voted one of Christianity Today 's Books of the Year In Holy Scripture, Donald G. Bloesch sets out the pivotal evangelical doctrines of the Bible's revelation, inspiration and interpretation. Striving to "defend the orthodox evangelical faith from its friends as well as its enemies," he provocatively argues against both evangelical rationalism and liberal experientialism. And he proposes the alternative of biblical evangelicalism--which sees Scripture as the written Word of God but stresses that it becomes the living Word of God only through the illumination of the Holy Spirit. In dialogue with Martin Luther, John Calvin, P. T. Forsyth, Karl Barth and Emil Brunner, Bloesch's Holy Scripture examines the implications of biblical authority for the 21st century. It surveys the role of the Bible as seen within the Bible itself and as that role has unfolded through centuries of Christian tradition. It also explains and critiques many highly contested issues, such as the value of biblical criticism, the meaning of myth, the plethora of hermeneutical options and the nature of truth.

Genres: Theology

Paperback

First published December 1, 1993

Reviews

[Tom Clawser · Rating 5 out of 5]

Can't get enough Bloesch. Ever.

[Zach Brandt · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don’t think Bloesch gives me all the answers (a little too Barthian on natural theology for my taste), but he does provide me with a passionate and intelligent space to live out my evangelical faith. His openness to the conclusions of various critical methodologies allow me the liberty to take seriously the questions and answers that seem to force themselves on me from academic spaces. However, his theology of Word and Spirit is totally orthodox and pious. He got me excited about the Bible in a way I haven’t felt in a while, reminding me of the unexpected, sovereign, gracious power of the Holy Spirit working through the biblical text.

I didn’t read him closely enough to think through too many of the issues, but these are the takeaways I have after one quick read:

- Inerrancy: Bloesch clarifies for me that there are 4 ways of interacting with inerrancy. 1 is to affirm it and interpret the Bible literalistically. This is intellectual suicide. 2 is to affirm it but qualify it with a careful understanding of genre common sense and stuff like that. Think Packer or Erickson. 3 is to deny it in empirical (scientific or historical) matters but basically affirm it in a theological way. This is the way Bloesch sees it. 4 is to deny it outright and affirm the Bible as a human witness without a divine voice. Options 2 and 3 are really not that far from each other in the conclusions they draw (how different is Bloesch from someone like Packer or Bavinck, really?). At the moment, I think 3 is probably the most true, but I’m not sure. Basically Bloesch argues inerrancy as historically understood is defensible, but in the post-enlightenment world, the term has been co-opted and does not mean what it used to. From what I understand, this is basically Berkouwer’s view.

- Myth: Bloesch blessed me immensely by his acceptance of mythological language in the Bible, even in the gospels. This isn’t anything crazy and the Bible is still rooted in God’s mighty deeds in history, but these events are narrated to us in mythological language (if you want to quibble on the term, Bloesch is fine with something different). I wonder how this compares with Meir Steinberg’s proposal that the Bible is a blend of history, theology, and poetics. No easy answers on where to draw the line here, but it does give me the freedom to think and question.

I know many traditional evangelicals will be very concerned with Bloesch’s proposals here. I certainly don’t think he’s got everything figured out. But at this moment, I just fail to see how Bloesch is that far off the mark. Perhaps it is possible to qualify inerrancy enough to make it rationally acceptable. If so, that is probably the best way forward. Bloesch himself says that traditional evangelical theology makes the theological task more simple. But I gotta feel like this is definitely a work of Catholic, orthodox, and evangelical theology.

Quotes to get a taste:

Yet our final authority is not what the Bible says but what God says in the Bible. To be sure, God says what his witnesses say, but he says much more. Indeed, some things that his witnesses say fall short of the full picture that God invites us to see.

Our final authority is not the Bible as a book or the Bible in and of itself but the Bible penetrated by the Spirit and discerned by Spirit-filled people.

It should be noted that Jesus, Peter and Paul appealed to extant copies, not to the autographs.

I agree that the people of ancient Israel entertained numerous misconceptions conceptions of God as well as antiquated and even sub-Christian notions of human life and destiny. Yet such notions, which belong to a past time and culture, still have a place in the total biblical panorama, for they direct us to the center and apex of biblical history-the self-revelation of the living God in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

We are given in the Bible not a fully developed metaphysical worldview but a divine message and a divine imperative that nevertheless have metaphysical implications.

Historical exegesis gives us the literal sense of the passage, what the author actually said. Theological exegesis or exposition tells us what the author was trying to say, what he was pointing toward.

Myth in the Bible does not mean that the events depicted have no basis in reality-only that they are set forth in dramatic, imaginative language. The stories may have a firm anchor in history, yet at the same time contain legendary elements.

I believe the hope of theology rests on a genuine evangelical renaissance, but such a renaissance will not happen until evangelicals break out of their epistemic bondage to Enlightenment rationalism and their cultural bondage to patriarchalism and capitalism.

[Glenn Crouch · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am enjoying re-reading these volumes almost 20 years later (not so long for some of the later volumes of course). I do enjoy the way Bloesch writes and he gives me much to think about. Even when I disagree with him (or at least don't fully agree), I can still appreciate his argument.

This is an excellent volume that I would recommend to any Christian who is serious about Hermeneutics. It is also quite accessible for those who may be concerned with what people say about the Bible, about Inerrancy, about Inspiration. Too often we seem to be presented with an extreme Fundamental / Everything Literal approach or an extreme Liberal / Everything Made Up approach, if we reject the former then we are accused of not being Christian, if we reject the latter then we are unthinking zealots. Bloesch's approach is far more reasonable and I would argue still quite evangelical.

Well worth the time to read - now on to the next volume :)

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a refreshing and stimulating read. Despite it's age (over 30 years), much of the content felt as fresh and relevant as ever. Bloesch manages to hold onto the idea that the Bible is inspired and revelatory, without being a fundamentalist, that is, obsessed with "enlightenment rationalism" and locating the authority of the Bible in the text instead of the living God who uses the text. Likewise he also rejects theological liberalism which "makes human moral experience the supreme criterion in shaping theological understanding; the Bible is valued because it provides insights that elucidate the universal experiences of transcendence.”

I liked his metaphors of the Bible being a light bulb and a water pipe, and not light and water itself. The distinction between inspiration and revelation ("Inspiration makes Scripture revelatory—open to divine truth. Revelation makes Scripture salvific so that it communicates the divine truth and power") was helpful. His focus on truth being relational and transformative instead of propositional was fantastic. Not to mention his Christ-centered hermeneutic.

I'll definitely be returning to my notes on this book in the years to come.

[Cody · Rating 4 out of 5]

An approach to Scripture that emphasizes inspiration while also arguing for a more nuanced view of it. Would probably be safe to call Bloesch an infalliblist as opposed to an inerrantist. While the book seems to drag at times, there are some excellent observations and points made in regard to reading Scripture for the points it is actually trying to make as opposed to reading it with a wooden literalism that can tend to obscure the text and create dogmas out of incidental material. I didn't find myself agreeing with everything the author said, but in any case I did find the book to be interesting and agreed with a good deal of his points.

[Demetrius Rogers]

Bloesch gives a fine survey of the many aspects Christians hold true regarding Scripture. Fair, irenic, and relatively clear. Bloesch first presents the spectrum of views concerning the Bible and then offers his own mediating (often Barthian) perspective. Some of his conclusions struck me as too much of a compromise for a self-professed Evangelical (particularly his take on the so called use of mythopoetic language). But for the most part this book was a helpful exposure to the vast field of Bibliology.

[Tim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Aimed at a graduate level, Bloesch is perhaps working with his "bread and butter" for this topic. He accounts for the main historical voices and engages deeply with the issues, concluding that Scripture and Spirit go hand-in-hand.
This book requires a deep investment and probably some background knowledge, but it is a worthwhile read!

[Filip Sekkelsten · Rating 4 out of 5]

I will change my review of the book, adding one star. Bloesch is dense, but very reflected. I especially enjoyed how he dealt with Bultmann. I came back to that chapter after having listened to some podcasts where existentialist thoughts were presented.

[John]

Bloesch is always great.