In this paper I will examine the incarnational nature of divine revelation and how this reality affects man’s understanding of the sacred scripture.  The first part of the paper will primarily touch upon the relationship between the Church and scripture, and how scripture, as a theandric reality, communicates God’s revelation to man:  first, by looking at the doctrine of inspiration; second, by explaining the formation of the Gospel and the canon of scripture; and third, by examining the historical nature of revelation which enables the biblical exegete to investigate scripture through the use of various methods, e.g., historical, literary, and source criticism, to name just a few.  In the second part of the paper I will briefly look at the consequences of the incarnational principle and how it leads of necessity to a rejection of a both the modernist and the fundamentalist approaches to the interpretation of sacred scripture, while it simultaneously endorses the various critical methods mentioned above.

          Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu expressed in a poetic manner the incarnational nature of divine revelation when he said that, just “. . . as the substantial Word of God became like to men in all things, ‘except sin’; so the words of God, expressed in human language, are made like to human speech in every respect, except error.” [Pius XII, page 21] This quotation highlights perfectly the double nature of the sacred texts; for sacred scripture is the word of God in human language, which means that the Bible truly conveys what God intends; and yet, at the same time sacred scripture is limited because all human communication is by definition finite.  This limitation must not to be thought of as a problem, but should instead be seen as an expression of God’s condescension, because He comes down to man in a way that man can comprehend, and does this in order to personally reveal Himself and His plan of salvation.

          The incarnational principle enunciated by Pius XII finds its expression as well in the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, where the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council stated that, “In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.” [Dei Verbum, page 9]  In saying this, the Council Fathers were showing that scripture, like the incarnate Word, does not destroy humanity, but rather perfects it, and that it is possible for both God and the men whom He inspired to be thought of as true authors of the sacred texts.  God of course is the primary author of the scripture, but the human authors were not mere automatons, for they truly, and not in mere appearance, wrote the texts ascribed to them, and all the while they employed their own innate natural abilities, which were elevated and perfected by God’s grace. [cf. Rahner, pages 13-18; Fitzmyer, page 58]  Thus it is important to remember the ancient axiom that holds that grace never destroys nature; but rather elevates and perfects it.

          Catholic tradition views the human authors as true authors who act under the inspiration of God while composing the sacred books, but this inspiration must not be thought of as simply an individualistic reality, for it is in some sense the whole Church that is the location of God’s inspiration.  In other words, the human authors compose the sacred texts as members of Christ’s mystical Body, and so they act as representatives of the whole Church by reflecting her living tradition.  This ecclesial emphasis is particularly important in both Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology, and appears in many ways to be similar to Karl Rahner’s social theory of inspiration, which you mentioned in class on the 5th of October.  Orthodox theologian Fr. John Breck puts it this way:  “Tradition is the matrix in which the scriptures are conceived and from which they are brought forth.  Tradition, however, is the ‘living memory of the Church’ (Fr. Sergius Bulgakov).  It is the Church, in other words, that produces the canonical scriptures.” [Breck, pages 77-78]  It is easy to see affinities between the Orthodox understanding of inspiration and the idea proposed by Karl Rahner in his book Inspiration in the Bible, for as he said, “. . . the inspiring activity of God is an inner moment of the Apostolic Church and derives from this fact its peculiar character.  God wills the Bible together with His own authorship of it, and He posits both because, and to the extent that, He actively and effectively wills His own authorship of the Church.” [Rahner, page 53]  In saying this Rahner is trying to convey something akin the idea expressed by Fr. Breck, that is, the fact that the scriptures come from God through the community of the faith.  Thus, they are not something foreign to the Church and imposed upon her from outside of her, but are instead the living expression of her own faith, arising from within her by the inspiration of God.  In some sense the individual inspiration of the biblical authors involves the inspiration of the whole Church.

          Now, just as the Church manifests and participates in the inspiration of scripture, in that God reveals Himself through the texts written by the biblical authors, who are themselves members of the community of faith; so too, the whole Church, through her tradition and Magisterium, participates in the process of discerning the canon of scripture.  This process of discernment took place during the first 400 years of the Christian era culminating in the various councils and synods of the 4th and 5th centuries in Rome and North Africa.  It is also important to highlight the fact that these councils recognized the unity of the two testaments in opposition to the views various Gnostic sects.

          In reference to the fourfold Gospel Joseph Lienhard points out that there were, “three stages of development . . . oral tradition, the composition of the Gospels, and the acceptance of the four Gospels as scripture.” [Lienhard, page 29; cf., compare this to Sancta Mater Ecclesia, pages 5-8]  It is the final stage of development that concerns the recognition of canonicity, and this stage takes several hundred years to be confirmed; although by the end of the 2nd century the four Gospels are generally accepted as authoritative, and this is clear from the evidence provided by the Muratorian Fragment. [cf. Lienhard, page 35] This early consensus along with the local and regional synodal decisions helped to set the canon of the New Testament, and the scope of that consensus was enhanced by the approbation given to the local decisions by various Popes and later by several ecumenical councils, e.g., the councils of Florence and Trent.

          The extent of the canon of the Old Testament became a contentious matter during the 16th century Protestant Reformation, because the Protestant Reformers decided to follow the Old Testament canon of Rabbinic Judaism, and this meant that they rejected the canonicity of seven of the books contained within the Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures.  The Catholic Church had accepted these books as canonical at the particular synod of Rome (A.D. 382) and also in various conciliar decisions of the North African Churches.  It is important to note that the Old Testament canon, including the seven disputed books (Judith, Tobit, Sirach, Wisdom, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch), was reiterated in the 11th session of the Council of Florence 75 years before the Reformation began. [cf. Clarkson, pages 44-45]  Thus, the rejection of these books does not reflect the Church’s living tradition, which recognized their canonicity by allowing them to be read during the Divine Liturgy.

          The Church responded to the Reformation by defending her tradition and by reasserting her authority.  This defensive posture continued for many years reaching new heights during the modernist crisis at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century.  The Church’s initial response to the various modern forms of biblical research was quite cautious, because most of the modern methods were imbued with philosophical presuppositions contrary to the faith of the Church.  But the historical critical method was not per se the problem; instead, it was the philosophical presuppositions of those using it that were often contrary to the faith.  In the encyclical letter Providentissimus Deus Leo XIII rejected those underlying modernist presuppositions and buttressed the Church’s traditional views on interpretation, but he did not rule out some of the methods of interpretation being used by the Modernists, in fact quite the contrary, he indicated that the sons of the Church should be familiar with them, for as he said, “eminent scholars have carried on biblical studies with success, and have defended Holy Scripture against rationalism with the same weapons of philology and kindred sciences with which it had been attacked.” [Leo XIII, page12]  Clearly this is not a ringing endorsement of the modern methods of biblical research, but it is also not a complete rejection of those methods.  It would take another 50 years before the Magisterium would endorse the modern tools of critical research.  Pius XII, in his encyclical letter Divino Afflante Spiritu, while still endorsing the Latin Vulgate, opened up new avenues of research to Catholic biblical scholars by recommending recourse to the biblical texts in their original languages. [cf. Piux XII, pages 13-14]  He also endorsed textual criticism, while also pointing out the importance of literary criticism. [cf. Pius XII, pages 14-15 and 20-22]  By his actions he opened the door to many new forms of investigation of sacred texts, and his decisions were later endorsed and expanded upon by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council in the document Dei Verbum.

          The Council Fathers unequivocally asserted the personal and incarnational nature of divine revelation, and as a consequence, they supported the use of the historical critical method as an indispensable tool for understanding the text, as they said, “. . . since God speaks in sacred scripture through men in a human fashion, the interpreter of sacred scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.” [Dei Verbum, page 10]  Thus, the exegete must pay due attention to the “. . . historical, prophetic, poetic, or . . . other form of discourse,” used by the human author in order to interpret the text correctly. [Dei Verbum, page 10]  It is because sacred scripture is the word of God in human language that the various modern methods of investigation can and should be used. [cf. Williamson, page 24]

          Since God has condescended to reveal Himself to man through the use of human language, it becomes possible to employ the various critical methods of research; moreover, because human language is by definition limited, the incarnational aspect of divine revelation highlights the error of those who attempt to absolutize the sacred texts by destroying the human element and improperly emphasizing the divine element. [cf. NCCB, page 3]  Pope John Paul II in his address to the Pontifical Biblical Commission focused his attention on this truth, and also pointed out how his predecessors had safeguarded the spiritual integrity of sacred scripture by rejecting the errors of modernism, while also rejecting a fideistic and overly spiritualized reading of the sacred texts.  As he pointed out in his speech, “The Church of Christ takes the realism of the incarnation seriously, and this is why she attaches great importance to the historico-critical study of the Bible.” [John Paul II, page 17]  In other words, divine revelation as an historical reality can be investigated in an historical manner.

          The Pope goes on his address to highlight the error of those who support what can be called a fundamentalist approach to scriptural exegesis by indicating that this type of interpretation is founded upon a faulty understanding of the nature of God and the incarnation. [cf. John Paul II, page 18]  The historical critical method, along with other modern methods of interpretation, has a place in exegesis precisely because the Bible is a communication of divine realities couched in human language. [cf. Fitzmyer, page 58]  As the Holy Father explains:  “. . . although [God] expresses Himself in human language, He does not give each expression a uniform value, but uses its possible nuances with extreme flexibility and likewise accepts its limitations.” [John Paul II, page 18]  This clearly images the incarnational nature of revelation, for God accepts the limitations of human speech in order to reveal Himself, while at the same time this human limitation allows Him to remain mysteriously hidden in the cloud of unknowing.  This idea fits quite well into an Eastern Catholic understanding of God’s self-revelation, for in Eastern Catholic thought God remains transcendent in His essence, while He is simultaneously revealed in His energies.

          In conclusion, it is clear that scripture can best be understood by remembering the twofold nature of the incarnation, for just as the Word of God became fully human while remaining fully divine; so too, the sacred texts are both fully human and fully divine.  The human aspect must not be diminished, nor must the divine communication received by the Church in sacred scripture be diluted; instead, both elements have their proper role, and it is only in remembering this truth, that one can avoid the error of modernism, which reduces the text to a purely human work, and the error of fundamentalism, which absolutizes the human language of scripture by failing to take into account the relative conditions of human communication.  Moreover, the scriptures must always be read in the light of the Church’s living tradition, for it is only by reading scripture within the community of faith that one can fully comprehend and actualize the mystery of redemption.  The liturgical nature of the sacred texts must not be forgotten, for as Fr. Breck points out, “The Church is the proper locus for the interpretation as well as the proclamation and celebration of the word of God.  Exegesis is a function of the worshipping, witnessing community of faith.” [Breck, page 88]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books and Periodicals:

John Breck.  "Orthodox Principles of Biblical Interpretation.”  St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 40 (1996), no. 1 and 2:  pages 77-93.

John Clarkson.  The Church Teaches:  Documents of the Church in English Translation.  (St. Louis:  B. Herder Book Company, 1955).

Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J.  Scripture the Soul of Theology.  (New York:  Paulist Press, 1994).

Joseph T. Lienhard.  The Bible, the Church, and Authority.  (Collegeville, MN:  The Liturgical Press, 1995).

Karl Rahner.  Inspiration in the Bible.  (New York:  Herder and Herder, 1961).

Peter S. Williamson.  Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture:  A Study of the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.  (Rome:  Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2001).

Church Documents:

Vatican II.  Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum.  (Boston:  Pauline Books and Media, 1965).

John Paul II.  “Address on the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.”  The Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.  (Boston:  Pauline Books and Media, 1993).

Leo XIII.  Providentissimus Deus.  (Boston:  Pauline Books and Media).

Pius XII.  Divino Afflante Spiritu.  (Boston:  Pauline Books and Media).

Pontifical Biblical Commission.  Sancta Mater Ecclesia.  (Boston:  Pauline Books and Media, 1964).

National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB).  A Pastoral Statement for Catholics on Biblical Fundamentalism.  (Washington, DC:  United States Catholic Conference, Inc., 1987).

The Incarnational Nature of Divine Revelation

by Steven Todd Kaster

Franciscan University of Steubenville

Theology 601:  Biblical Foundations

Dr. Minto

12 October 2004

Copyright © 2004-2024 Steven Todd Kaster