What does “faithful to the Bible” mean?

No Bible writer talks about us having to be “faithful to the Bible.” “Faithful to the Bible” is a word that does not appear in the Bible itself, but all the more so in certain Christian circles. It is an expression of a certain attitude and understanding of faith. Here is an example:

• Manuel Seibel, “Was heißt bibeltreu?”

Those who speak of “faithful to the Bible” conjure up a conflict that is described in the aforementioned article as follows:

“But when I start pinning down individual statements of the New Testament as being tied to time or place, biblical fidelity quickly ceases.”

Suddenly you find yourself in a conflict determined by two extremes: “Everything in the Bible is true” or “Everything in the Bible is false”. It is striking that this view is not directed at the message of the Bible, but at the assumed basis of the “reliability of the text,” which manifests itself in freedom from error. Flawlessness then establishes relevance to life. Any differentiation is inappropriate. We’ll get to that in a moment.

Now, in the aforementioned article, it does not remain with this previous statement, but fortunately it is also somewhat put into perspective:

“Of course, we always wonder what the particular writer had to say in his context (temporal, regional). And of course the teachings God gave in the time of God’s people under law are different from those He gives in the time of grace. But that doesn’t take anything away from our responsibility to take God’s Word literally as well.”

So, on the one hand, fidelity to the Bible ceases when one interprets certain texts as bound to place and time, but on the other hand, it is supposed to be important to recognize some texts as bound to place and time. One senses that the soup is not eaten as hot as it is served up.

Only, who determines how something is to be interpreted? One is “forever,” but the other is “for this or that time”? This is where interpretations and teachings come in. These determine what is to be believed and how it is to be believed. Something like this only stands out if you consistently ask for justifications.

In the aforementioned article, the distinction takes place from a salvation-historical perspective. The time of the law and the time of grace are mentioned. This has little to do with the Bible text as a “text”. It is about interpretations and teachings about the text. One wants to be faithful to the Bible, however, one seems to want to be predominantly faithful to doctrine. We have arrived here at the ideological roots of the understanding of the Bible.

The Bible must be “literally” true

In the aforementioned article, a new word is also introduced. One should take God’s word “literally.” This is a key word to many Christians’ understanding of the Bible. I understand that people mean to take God’s Word seriously. Taking seriously, however, is here reinterpreted as “literally,” and soon reformulated as “literally.” This is the basis for propagating certain views in “Bible-believing circles” as “divine order” because it is literally written in the Bible, although this – soberly considered – often only has something to do with the interpretation of the community.

These terms form a conceptual world: verbal inspiration, literal, literal, biblical. So if you want to be faithful to the Bible, it is suggested that you must take the Bible literally. In practice, this means that the conclusions of the doctrine must be accepted.

It seems important to me that we learn the limits of our assumptions about the Bible and talk about them openly.

The neutrality that is sought is theoretically present through the defined point of view, but is constantly under pressure through doctrine. Neutrality is feigned by terms such as “biblical fidelity,” “literal interpretation,” and “verbal inspiration.” Unfortunately, none of these are “neutral” interpretations. The reality is a bit more complex. It seems important to me that we learn the limits of our assumptions about the Bible and talk about them openly.

Is the Bible “true”?

Those who talk about “being faithful to the Bible” and allow people to be drawn into this “true/untrue” conflict are being misled by it. The accuracy of the text is nowhere in the Bible a question. While God’s statements are described as reliable, people were asked to believe in God, not the Word. The Word should be trusted because it comes from God, not because it has some magical quality in itself. These are small but important differences. For example, Paul said:

“Therefore be of good cheer, men; for I believe God that it will come to pass in the way that was promised to me.”
Acts 27:25

The word is true, but he believes God. That is the differentiation. But now we must also ask in what way is the Word true? Is it about every single letter? The answer here is: No, it’s not about the individual letter. It is about the promise, as it says in the Bible text quoted before.

For a long time, I thoughtlessly referred to myself as “faithful to the Bible,” without realizing what was being expressed. Only later did it occur to me that Jesus and the apostles never called for “believing in the Bible,” but rather “believing in God,” or more precisely, “trusting God.” I will not use phrases like “I believe in the Bible” today because they are not correct. I believe in God, not in the Bible. I learn from the Bible. However, the Bible is not equal to God.

I will try to outline this according to my understanding: The doctrine of verbal inspiration sees Scripture “as inspired by God” and bases the freedom from error of the text on this. In other words, the Bible is from God, therefore true, and therefore error-free. This is, of course, humbug. In an argument, people like to refer to the authority of the Bible as if it were the authority of God. These are brought into line.

In practice, it then comes to curious assessments in the sense of “If you don’t believe what I read out of the Bible, then you don’t believe the Bible!”. From here it is only a small step until someone is denied the faith. I am constantly reproached for this – but only from a certain corner. People are usually perplexed that I see the Bible as reliable and yet think differently from it. In doing so, I shake both their understanding and black and white view of the world. That’s why I must be wound the wrong way then. That sounds logical, doesn’t it? As a rule, the authority according to which I am denied orthodoxy lies neither with the Bible nor with God, but with the helplessness of the other person.

We are part of a development

My “being faithful to the Bible” was done with the best of intentions, but it was also a spectacle through which I looked at the Bible. It blocked my view of what was said in the Bible. Of course, I have learned a lot and I am no less attached to the Bible today than I was then, but I have learned to differentiate my view somewhat. I realized that my assumptions were also faith traditions with a history. Faithful to the Bible is a strange word. Why do we use this?

If I want to better assess my understanding, it is also about how my faith was formed. I was amazed to discover that it was shaped not only by the Bible, but also by churches and communities, by theological education, and by countless conversations, books, and arguments. In the best sense of the word: My faith is a product of all experiences, all knowledge as well as a product of the spirit of the times and the Christian environment in which I found myself. The word “faithful to the Bible” was learned in my personal environment or I stuck it on myself as a label. This is a neutral statement, but with far-reaching consequences.

We are always part of a story. I noticed that some communities like to talk about their own “starting point”. For example, the churches of the Reformation, or the beginning of the Charismatic Pentecostal movement through the events at 6 Azusa Street in Los Angeles in 1906. These were renewal movements. Whoever refers back to such events today testifies to being part of a tradition. It doesn’t matter what community you are in today, because there is always an antecedent. Those who call themselves faithful to the Bible today probably have roots in 19th century movements.

Church history is the record of a development. We are also in this development. What we believe is not simply “eternal truth” but also the product of this development. By the way, this does not relativize the Bible, but it relativizes my understanding of the Bible. For all the confidence I take from the Bible, and for all the confidence I place in what the Bible says, I myself remain both flawed and my knowledge remains fragmentary. This humility is part of the biblical statements:

“For so far we discern only from a fraction and prophesy from a fraction.”
1Cor 13,9

If we can take anything away from these remarks, it is this: We don’t know everything, we can’t do everything, but we may reach out, that is, grow toward Christ (Ph 3:14). Development is positive. It also means that not everything always stays the same.

Can the term “faithful to the Bible” perhaps be described in more detail?

The word “preserve

In the New Testament you will not find expressions like “faithful to the Bible” or similar. This was not an issue in the time of the Bible. One heard the words of God and trusted these words – or not. Life bore witness to what was believed.

In Deut. 27, we find an injunction to Israel that they should “keep the word.” That’s a different kind of statement and I think it’s worth considering.

“And Moses and the elders of Israel commanded the people, saying, Keep all the commandment which I command you this day.”
Deut 27:1

It was an exhortation to Israel to keep the words of their God and to obey the laws, namely to live them out. The “preserve” also meant “to remember” (Deut. 27:3-4). The “today” in the text is the contrast to the “future”. One should always keep the words in mind and not deviate from them.

“And Moses and the priests the Levites spake unto all Israel, saying, Be still, and hear, O Israel. This day you have become a people to the LORD your God. So obey the voice of the LORD your God, and do his commandments and his ordinances, which I command you this day.”
Deut 27:9

It is as clear as day that this instruction concerned Israel and does not automatically concern us. However, we can learn from this that these things were so important that they were written down. Since then, the Jewish people have been a “people of the book”, but not “of the letter”. It was about the promises, about the declared fact that the people belonged to the Lord. It was not about the text, but about the fact that this God had entered into a covenant, a union with them. Everything followed from this fact. The text is witness to these things.

That is not all that has been said so far. Moses, we read in the same chapter, commanded two groups of people to testify. One group stood on Mount Gerisim and was to bless the people. The other group stood on Mount Ebal and was to curse the people.

The rest of the chapter does not speak of the blessing, but of the curse. That doesn’t seem quite right. At each statement, the people confirmed the statements with “Amen”. The concluding verse reads:

“Cursed be he who does not uphold the words of this law to do them! And all the people say, Amen!”
Deut 27:26

With “Amen” something is confirmed. They say “Getreu!”. With this, one should move from hearing to doing. Therefore, this chapter was about hearing, then preserving, and finally confirming. “Preserving the words” seems to describe a much healthier attitude of faith than insisting on flawlessness of a squishy fidelity to the Bible. Just as Mary is also reported:

“But Miriam kept all these speeches and pondered them in her heart.”
Lk 2,19

Set the focus correctly

Do we focus our faith on the “truth of the letters” or on “trusting God”? Here is a difference. We must learn to differentiate the Bible from God. My experience tells me that I can trust the Bible in what it says. I know that the word is reliable. But that is not the message of the Bible. I rely on God, not on the “literal.” But I will learn to keep the word in my heart.

What do I really trust? To the fact that the Scriptures are “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16-17), that is, carried by God’s Spirit. Spirit – not letter – should be central. I count on reading the Scriptures and allowing God’s Spirit to witness with my spirit in them (Rom 8:16). I am dependent on Him, not on a book. Effect is by spirit, not by letter (John 6:63).

Just as one cannot confuse a hammer with the craftsman who uses it, so one cannot confuse the Bible with the God who makes Himself known in it. Because we only see the hammer in comparison, not the craftsman, this can mislead us into thinking the hammer is essential. But more important is the craftsman who works with it. Without craftsmen, the hammer is nothing.

Now, must a true Christian be faithful to the Bible? No. It is not about the Bible. The Bible is only a tool. It is a means to an end. It is a tool for the “man of God,” as Paul puts it:

“All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for instruction, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be prepared, equipped for every good work.”
2Tim 3:16-17