Scripture and God in Christianity

Richard Swinburne's approach is quite interesting. He agrees with many, that we cannot take the
Bible literally. He observes: "Of course if we are misguided enough to interpret the Bible in
terms of the 'original meaning' of the text, that the original meaning is often false: there is scientific,
historical, moral, and theological falsity in the Bible, if it is so interpreted. This evident fact
led many liberal-minded theologians of the twentieth century to cease to talk of the Bible being
'true', but to speak rather of it being 'useful' or 'insightful' if read in accord with some rule or other
of interpretation; and there have evolved as many ways of interpreting as there have been theologians
to do the interpreting. And saying this sort of things about the Bible hardly gives it special
status-the same could be said of any great work of literature. A general fog settled over 'hermeneutics.'"
202 But he further argues: "And yet the rules are there, sanctified by centuries of use by
those who claimed in accord with Christian tradition that the Bible was 'true'. If we wish to take
seriously claims for truth of the Bible, we must understand it in the way that both philosophical
rules for interpreting other texts, and so many of those who interpreted the Bible or laid down the
rules for doing so in previous centuries, suggest; and that includes their admission that it contains
deeper truths which future generations wiser than themselves might detect by using their
rules." 203 Swinburne, I think, is quite aware of the limitations of these centuries-old rules of interpretations
and can appreciate the problems involved in applying and following those rules
without further elaborations and modifications.
Any modification less than a frank confession of the fact that the writers of these books were imperfect,
primitive human beings trying to understand and interpret the multi-faceted Christ event
to the best of their ability, probably, would not work in our times. It goes without saying that
such a response and interpretation face the limitations of their writers and cannot be equated with
or labeled as the inerrant Word of God Himself.
CHRISTOLOGY AND ANTHROPOMORPHISM:
Jesus historically existed among Jews, respected their Scripture and claimed to be sent to the lost
sheep of the house of Israel. "To a considerable extent", writes Grant, "Jesus shared the views of
his fellow Jews about the God who had revealed himself to Moses and to the prophets." 204 There
may have been features distinctive to Jesus' understanding of God and His transcendence, but the
concept as a whole would probably be not at odds with the Jewish understanding of the Deity.
Earliest Christians, then, obviously inherited themes of divine transcendence and monotheism
from the developed Judaism "and it was almost inevitable that they should have been discussed
by early Christians when the nature of God was being considered." 205 Therefore the earliest
Christians must have believed in the One, Holy, Just God of developed Judaism. Later history
and claims of Christianity are living proofs of this fact as Kelly observes: "The doctrine of one
God, the Father and creator, formed the background and indisputable premise of the Church's
faith. Inherited from Judaism, it was her bluewark against pagan polytheism, Gnostic emanationism
and Marcionite dualism." 206
Like Clement, many of the church fathers argued that the Hebrew Bible's anthropomorphic expressions
must be taken metaphorically. Basil interpreted turning "His face" as God leaving us
alone in difficulties. Gregory of Nazianzus interpreted God's face as His oversight, Theodoret as
25