What Does “In All It Affirms” Mean?

One of the frequently asked questions in the lead up to the Global Methodist Church (GMC) General Conference has to do with the proposed Article of Faith on Scripture. Here’s the question: why not just say Scripture is without error instead of saying without error in all it affirms? What’s the point of that additional language? What exactly does “in all it affirms” mean? And why do we need it? These are all excellent questions that deserve are careful thought as the GMC discerns how to articulate its understanding of Scripture. It’s a great discussion, and I hope it continues. I’m glad that our young denomination is engaged in a thoughtful public dialogue around doctrine generally and the doctrine of Scripture particularly. Theology is about learning to speak truthfully of God and his purposes in the world he has made. Time spent in that endeavor is always time well spent. And if God has revealed himself in Scripture, then we need to work on speaking accurately about the nature of that revelation. To that end, here are three questions that help clarify what it means to say Scripture is without error in all it affirms.

If you spend much time reading theology, you’ll quickly learn that a lot of the work involves the making of distinctions. This isn’t simply an exercise. It’s necessary for achieving clarity. When it comes to the doctrine of Scripture, one of the distinctions involves the difference between what Scripture affirms and what Scripture reports. This distinction is one of the building blocks of a doctrine of Scripture. Consequently, it needs to be clarified so that we can speak truthfully about how God has revealed himself.

There are things in the Bible that are recorded but not endorsed or affirmed as true. The Bible tells us about these things. That is, it reports them. But it isn’t necessarily teaching them as true. One common text to illustrate this distinction is Genesis 3:4 where the serpent is reported to say, “You will not surely die.” In context, the tempter is speaking about the consequences of eating the forbidden fruit. God has indeed said that death is the consequence of eating the fruit of that specific tree. Now Genesis reports that the serpent was contradicting what God had said. The text is not affirming that death is not a consequence of eating the fruit; it is reporting that the serpent said death is not a consequence of eating the fruit. That is a report, but not an affirmation.

Other example comes in the commentary from Job’s friends. There are examples aplenty, but one will do. Consider a section of Eliphaz’s speech claiming that God is punishing Job for his wickedness (Job 22:4-11). Scripture reports what he said but does not affirm it. In fact, Eliphaz and the others are later denounced as speaking falsely, “You have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has” (42:7). Eliphaz’s commentary was reported, but it was not affirmed.

“In all it affirms” means we are seeking to know what Scripture teaches as true. If we left the phrase off, then we lose that distinction. As the two examples here show, context is absolutely crucial is getting clear on what is taught as true. We can’t just pull random verses out of context and call them biblical affirmations. That’s just one reason why the statement that Scripture is without error needs to be qualified by the prepositional phrase “in all it affirms.”

The affirmations of a particular text are dependent on the literary form of that particular text. That is to say, we can only know what a text affirms after we know what kind of text it is. Literary form involves the structure of the text—how it’s put together. And the form of a text is determinative for the meaning of the text. The meaning of the text must be understood to get clear on its affirmations. Literary forms are categories like prose, poetry, epistle, law code, wisdom literature, apocalyptic, parable, and there are others. Each of those literary forms has their own conventions for conveying meaning.

Here’s a common example. In the parable of the mustard seed, Jesus describes the mustard seed as the smallest seed. Ah hah! But the mustard seed is not (scientifically speaking) the smallest of all seeds. The orchid seed is. Does Jesus err here?

Of course not. Why? Because the literary form is parable, not scientific analysis. In proverbial literature or wisdom literature, there is no expectation of modern scientific precision. The point of the parable isn’t about whether the mustard seed is the smallest seed. The point is that small and seemingly insignificant beginnings don’t rule out major and significant results. As the very small mustard seed grows to become a large bush and a home to various kinds of birds, so the presently small ministry of Jesus will also grow to be a worldwide kingdom and bless all the peoples of the earth. The parable is using generalized language to make a theological point about the nature and scope of the kingdom of God. The literary form of parable determines the affirmation of the text.

As an aside, another helpful clarification for understanding this parable is that the text communicates truthfully from the vantage point of the author or speaker. From a first-century perspective, the mustard seed looks like the smallest seed. Orchid seeds are microscopic, and a single orchid seed can’t be seen with the naked eye. Consequently, we can’t expect that level of precision from an ancient text. The parable does not err because it lacks precision only available with modern scientific instruments. From the vantage point of the speaker, it accurately represents reality.

Another key distinction comes with this question: do the canonical Gospels tell us the exact words of Jesus or do they contain the substance (or voice) of what he said? Some will be quick to point out that the question is complicated by the fact that Jesus at least sometimes spoke in Aramaic, and what he said in Aramaic is translated into the Greek of the Gospels (see Mark 5:41). Translation necessarily communicates substance, not exact quotes. A similar question could be raised about the various speeches of the apostles in Acts. If they are word for word, then they are very short speeches indeed! Many scholars would agree that the speeches in Acts are Luke’s summaries of what was said. We get the substance, even if we don’t get the exact words.

In each instance, the answer is probably that we have some of both—some exact words mixed into summaries of the substance. The difficulty is that we have no way of knowing which is which. Ancient people didn’t have quote marks, and they certainly did not have the same sort of rigorous citation conventions that we now have. They had no problem with attributing a summary of a quote to a speaker as a quote coming from that person. It would be unfair to require them to live up to our standards. So, as John Feinberg says, “If they contain the substance of what he said, there is no reason to think they err just because we don’t know Jesus’s exact words” (Light in a Dark Place, 245). What is affirmed can be communicated in terms of the substance of what was said. The affirmation is not lost in translation or lost in the inspired summary of what was taught.

The phrase “in all it affirms” is thus an important qualifier to “without error.” It is a constant reminder that we can’t just pull random passages from the Bible and make them say what we want them to say. We can’t assume we know exactly what they mean all on our own with little to no attention to the way things are framed. We can’t overlook the literary character of the text. In all it affirms reminds us that we are looking for what Scripture teaches as true. And that requires a lot from us. It requires interpretation. It requires humility. And it requires a faithful community of believers to whom our interpretations are accountable.

As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Thanks for supporting Theology Project through the Amazon links in this post.

If Theology Project has been helpful to you, here are a few ways you can support the work:

• Subscribe to receive new free articles.

• Share an article with a friend or post it on social media.

• Become a paid subscriber to help sustain and expand this ministry while gaining access to exclusive content.

• Buy me a coffee to drink while I’m writing my next article (use this link).

Every subscription, share, and recommendation helps more people rediscover the Bible they didn’t know they had.

Share