Customer Reviews

The Living Word of God: Rethinking the Theology of the Bible

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The Living Word of God helps us to think through what is meant when we say that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. Dr. Witherington mostly works with the New Testament, but there are occasional forays into the Hebrew Bible.

In chapter one, Ben talks about the word of God as an oral message (1 Thessalonians 2:12-13), an Incarnate Person (John 1:14), and as an inscripturated text (2 Timothy 3:16). Taking his cue from 1 Samuel 4-6 and 2 Samuel 6, he points out that the Israelites believed God to be active and present with His word.

He also discusses the mystery of God speaking His word through human writers and human personalities so that it became inscripturated. He spends considerable time with 2 Peter 1:16-21 and 1 Peter 1:23, noting that God's word has life giving potential.

In chapter two, Dr. Witherington talks about the timeless nature of Scripture, that it is the true of word of God for all people in all places and times. Here he critiques NT Wright's book "The Last Word." Wright is right in noting that the Bible is God's way of exercising authority over His people. But Wright is wrong in dodging the issue of whether or not God's word is true and what it means for it to be true.

Ben also observes that the Bible does not merely contain the word of God or serve as a witness to the word of God. It IS the word of God! This means that God spoke eternal truths through individuals living in a particular place and time.

In chapter three, Ben critiques Peter Enns' book on the inspiration of Scripture (the title of this chapter is catchy and creative - "The Ends of Enns"). He applauds Enns for teaching us to be appreciative of the diversity in the Bible and for recognizing that the Bible is a historically conditioned document.

But Ben is concerned that he takes the analogy between the Bible and Christ too far. Enns speaks of the Bible's humanity and divinity as parallel to Christ's humanity and divinity, and Ben rightfully responds by saying that books do not have humanity and divinity. We can say that the words are divinely inspired.

Ben is also concerned that Enns is so protective of the diversity of differing scriptural accounts that he doesn't always believe it is possible to know what happened historically.

In chapter four, Ben discusses truth telling as an art form. He stresses the importance of recognizing and correctly interpreting the different kinds of literature in the New Testament. We have ancient biography (the Gospels), narrative (Acts), letters and homilies (letters of Paul and the letter to the Hebrews), and apocalyptic (Revelation). He contends that what the word of God meant to the original hearers is STILL what the word of God means today.

The fifth chapter focuses on certain New Testament texts and shows how these things are historically plausible and probable, and that even apparent contradictions like Mark 2:25-26 (compare with 1 Samuel 21) have logical explanations. Ben also shows that there is nothing inherently implausible with the birth narratives in Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2, nor is there anything morally repugnant about the household codes in Colossians and Ephesians.

Chapter six shows that the canonical books of the New Testament were settled in the minds and hearts of church leaders by the end of the 4th century, and that thinking on these things actually began as far back as the Apostolic age. Ben also suggests that even though translations might sometimes get it wrong, there are no outright contradictions in the original manuscripts of NT documents.

In chapter seven Ben recommends using an English Bible translation done by a team rather than one person, because no one person can know everything about the biblical languages. My only reply by way of criticism is that sometimes, a team translation will also mean that a certain Greek word in the NT may be translated one way by Douglas Moo in Romans and another way by Gordon Fee in Philippians, and the reader may never know which way was right or wrong.

Ben also discusses the "rules of the road" for biblical interpretation. He stresses that there is a difference between the Bible's meaning and the Bible's significance. There is only one meaning to the text, but it may carry by way of application a significance in the life of the reader that was otherwise not anticipated by the original writer. Ben gives an example from his life: A promise from Ezekiel 36 originally addressed to the Israelite exiles was applied to his life and family by the Spirit. Ben also discusses the importance of sola scriptura, meaning that the Bible alone is authoritative in matters of faith and practice.

There is also a concluding chapter about the art of reading scripture in a postmodern world. Ben highlights the importance of reading the Bible in historical context and allowing it to be authoritative in our lives. He believes that Emergent thinkers such as Rob Bell and Donald Miller are doing this, but that writers such as Marcus Borg and Brian McLaren have more of a pick and choose approach, with McLaren showing some disdain for the orthodox understanding of the substitutionary atonement of Christ.

There is a concluding appendix where Ben answers biblical and theological questions from the online community BeliefNet.

This is a beautifully written book about the Bible. Ben writes for a wide audience, so that scholar and student and layperson and casual reader may benefit. You will come away from this book with a greater appreciation for the inspired, authoritative, living word of God.

Rev. Marc Axelrod

Witherington tackles the difficult, provincial subject of the inspiration and authority of the living word of God ... with emphasis on living word and meaning in the 21st century through the legacy of our 1st century authors.

The book follows the deductive logic of:
1. God is omniscient, omnipresent all powerful, and completely truthful
2. God is able to accurately and truthfully reveal his mind, plan and nature.
3. God has inspired certain human authors to write down his words
4. The authors have accurately done so ... therefore
5. The Bible is the word of God and is accurate and truthful in all it intends to assert.

Then ... Witherington tests it.

The author works both in and between the lines in 1 through 5. He provides the aggressive God seeker with scholarly observations and tools for dealing with the difficulties of meaning and understanding within the framework of sola scriptura and the rational use of the human mind that God provided us to understand the living word. This is not easy. If you have spent years working to grasp the truth in God's word through the writers of scripture, this work will most assuredly provide an expanded perspective and perhaps offer some dissonance with your preconceptions.

I can see that I have highlighted passages in this volume way more than other recent books ... there's much to note in this book. The ideas will take time to play out in my mind. The book is stimulating.

Witherington tells us, that like Jacob ... if you wrestle with the divine long enough, you will walk away with a blessing, but you might have a limp.

If you are looking for a book on how to understand the canon and the controversy between denominations over what books to include, this is not the book.

Ben Witherington III mainly addresses the meaning of "inspiration" and what the reasonable approaches to interpretation are. He also gives a few examples of the reliability of the text in places that have traditionally received attacks by Christians and non-Christians unconvinced of the text's historical (and otherwise) accuracy.

The one gap in this text that I found is that Witherington barely touches upon the Bible's source of authority (to some Protestants this may seem an oxymoronic statement). He assumes the definition of canon without even referring one to books on the formation of the canon or arguments for or against the authority of the church in the formation of scriptures. To anyone well-versed in canon history (Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox), it will seem that Ben doesn't even state his point of view on the canon sufficiently.

Nevertheless, Ben is not writing primarily for scholars nor for in depth research. He is merely giving one a taste, a starting point for where to go next in one's thinking about the nature of the Bible. He points out the flaws in some church traditions that try to read the Bible without reference to the historical churches' typical understanding and interpretation. But Witherington doesn't leave it at that. He continues to show why many theological models, such as dispensationalism (he is known to be rather hard on dispensationalism), are deficient, not just for abandoning traditional interpretation, but for not appropriating an historical, critical and contextual hermeneutic in their reading of the Bible. All in all, I highly recommend Ben Witherington III for his acute reasoning, clarity of thought, and plain humor.

To supplement "The Living Word of God" I would recommend two books for those who are interested in understanding why and on what authority we have the books of the Bible that we do: A High View of Scripture? The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon (Evangelical Ressourcement: Ancient Sources for the Church's Future) is not a history of the canon, but a supplement that explores the ancient church's use of the word "scripture" and "canon" and shows clearly how the Bible without the church should make little sense to a Christian. The second book, By What Authority?: An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition similarly attempts to expose the void of reasoning involved in explaining the Bible as self-authenticating. Mark Shea, the author, explains his journey to Catholicism with humor, grace, and an appreciation for his Evangelical heritage.

In this book, Witherington writes in response to 2 unhealthy patterns and attitudes to the bible he sees in today's world - on one hand, we have the fundamental conservatives who insist that everything in the bible is literally true, and understand the "authority" of scripture in a straightforward, literal sense, as demonstrated by Christians who insist the world is flat and square because Revelation speaks of how "angels came from four corners of the earth". On the other hand, we have the liberals, demonstrated by Erhman and his new book "Jesus Interrupted", pointing out that the bible is full of contradictions and cannot be trusted.

In both cases, Witherington argues, there is ironically the same problem - a straightforward, simplistic approach to scripture that neglects fundamental issues that arise in the study of any piece of literature (religious including). In both cases, there is a neglect of the complexity of scripture, with both groups forgetting that texts can and should primarily be understood as they were meant to be understood - eg: we should not be reading a comic strip as if the statements within where academic literature.


For example, liberal theologians often have an issue with the chronological differences between the four gospels - forgetting that biographies written 2000 years ago were not seeking to establish historical chronicity or accuracy, but rather sought to demonstrate and describe a persons life in particular themes. In essense - biography is different from history (especially ancient biogrpahy and ancient history).


Witherington spends much of the book look at specific issues and case studies - for example household regulations found within colossians and whether Paul is inadvertently promoting slavery and patriarchal systems, and discussing how a surface interpretation of the text will not suffice to do justice to it and the theology drawn from it. He also devotes 1/4 of the entire book to a QnA section, where he answers some of the most common questions he receives from the general public about the bible.


This book probably underachieves to some extent - it is entitled "rethinking the theology of the bible", but in reality Witherington does little more than to put forth a stock standard, if well thought out argument for the proper and careful exegesis of scripture and its application to Christian life. His arguments are not groundbreaking, and would be what you expect from any reasonable book on hermeneutics.


Where it does shine, however, is the (rather slim) chapter on postmodernism - and a brief commentary on self proclaimed postmodern christians, such as Brian Mclaren, Rob Bell and Dan Miller. In this, he effectively argues that they aren't true postmodernists, demonstrating that Christians, both professional and lay, often have a misconception of what true postmodernism is, and how it impacts the way we read scripture. Alas, this chapter is rather short.


In summary, "The Living Word of God" puts forth a good case for the need to properly and carefully handle the Christian scriptures, and warns against the fallacies committed by both liberal and fundamentalist camps. It is a book that is perhaps written more for the student who is beginning his/her journey in the study of the scriptures, than for the seasoned and experienced exegete. Nonetheless, the QnA sections, the Case Study sections and a few others do provide some gems and food for thought for someone more experienced.

Despite his subtitle ("Rethinking the Theology of the Bible"), Ben Witherington's discussion of inspiration brings little new to the table. Granted, he is scholarly. He stands by the need to read the books of the Bible in their context, be it historical, social, or even rhetorical, in order to correctly understand them. He also makes a number of subtle distinctions (between what Scripture "touches" and "teaches"; between the malleability of significance and the permanence of meaning) that may genuinely expand our approach to the Bible. Make no mistake, though: Witherington's goal here is to save the authority of Scripture.

To that end, he examines a variety of passages in the New Testament that appear to be contradictory, historically mistaken, and so on, and attempts to show why they are in fact true and trustworthy. His arguments are sophisticated, but not always as irrefutable as he wants them to be. This may be the book's greatest weakness: for all his scholarship, Witherington's work still savors of the old Christian fear that discrediting any one statement in the Bible means discrediting the whole. As long as we are "rethinking" our Biblical theology, it might be more satisfying to ask how a Christian should interpret and accept the authority of the Bible if, for example, Luke really is wrong about the dating of Quirinius's census.

Inasmuch as Witherington's method is still to begin with the assumption that the Bible is inspired (or that "we should assume inspiration looks like what we have in [the New Testament]") and work from there, it is debatable whether we are "rethinking" theology at all. This book is reasonably articulate but not very surprising.