There are many ways in which words have been, so to speak, put in the mouth of one of the Persons of the Trinity; but are all those ways equivalent, and are they all bad?
One way of "putting words in God's mouth" no one who subscribes to the Confession (and indeed, I think no one who has thought clearly about the matter) can object to: that of drawing out the consequences of what God has said in Scripture, so as to make explicit what was contained there implicitly. This of course is not adding to God's word except in the very rigid sense that the precise form of words was not used before. But since the meaning of Scripture is Scripture, this would hardly come into consideration, and at any rate is something we all ought to be agreed upon.
Another way of putting words in God's mouth about which we can all agree is when someone attributes to him something not contained in Scripture, as when the Q'uran or the Book of Mormon are held to be inspired Scripture, when false doctrine is preached, when someone shares an impulse of their heart or a fantasy of their imagination as being a word from the Lord.
But there are other ways about which we do not all agree.
Take, for instance, this excerpt from a sermon by Benjamin Grosvenor where Christ is represented as saying:
Now Christ never uttered this form of words; but for the purpose of making an impression, the preacher speaks in the person of Christ, he uses the first person to represent Christ's mind. Assuming that only sound doctrine is thus presented, is this rhetorical device acceptable? Is this sort of impersonation and imagination appropriate, or does it lack reverence? I believe it is not uncommon for preachers to do this - certainly some of Luther's sermons are riddled with long passages in which he uses the first person, speaking to the people as God or as Christ.
Another way of putting words in God's mouth is by supplementing the information given in Scripture: that could be by using history, archaeology, or imagination to help to realize the scenes of Scripture. This technique of course is also widely used, and in many instances it seems difficult to object. Many preachers and other interpreters of Scripture certainly do try to open up the psychology of the given characters who appear in a passage, sometimes with great effect. Again, what is the proper view of this? Is it unexceptionable? Is it a useful tool but one liable to abuse? Is it a perversion of Scripture?
Yet another method would be to "fill in the gaps' - to use imagination or research to fill in the backstory of certain characters or places in Scripture - something along the lines of what is done in Ben-Hur or The Bronze Bow. I would like to hear opinions as to the legitimacy or illegitimacy of this as well. And does it make any difference how it is presented, whether simply as "historical fiction" or also as "devotional literature"? Obviously if in this retelling the depiction given by Scripture is modified or distorted an unacceptable line has been crossed; but what about things that strictly occupy the silences of Scripture? For example, I remember finding in one book some story about a little girl who heard Jesus' words about forgiving seventy times seven times and who did some multiplication in the sand.
The final approach that I can think of would be when a story or other work of art has a figure which in some way parallels Christ - this seems rather tricky to me, because many such parallels are unintended and unconscious; some are blasphemous mockeries; some are ham-fisted; and some are materially unobjectionable, even if one decides that formally all such things should be condemned. Of course, it would be rather difficult to condemn all such parallels without simply condemning all stories not contained in Scripture - it is rather difficult to write a story without a princess and a dragon and prince on a white horse in one way or another. From the Aztec myth of Nanauatl to Tyr putting his hand in the mouth of the wolf, much of art and literature echoes more or less distinctly with the structure that is perfectly carried out in the life of Christ.
I am interested to hear people's thoughts upon the matter.
One way of "putting words in God's mouth" no one who subscribes to the Confession (and indeed, I think no one who has thought clearly about the matter) can object to: that of drawing out the consequences of what God has said in Scripture, so as to make explicit what was contained there implicitly. This of course is not adding to God's word except in the very rigid sense that the precise form of words was not used before. But since the meaning of Scripture is Scripture, this would hardly come into consideration, and at any rate is something we all ought to be agreed upon.
Another way of putting words in God's mouth about which we can all agree is when someone attributes to him something not contained in Scripture, as when the Q'uran or the Book of Mormon are held to be inspired Scripture, when false doctrine is preached, when someone shares an impulse of their heart or a fantasy of their imagination as being a word from the Lord.
But there are other ways about which we do not all agree.
Take, for instance, this excerpt from a sermon by Benjamin Grosvenor where Christ is represented as saying:
Now Christ never uttered this form of words; but for the purpose of making an impression, the preacher speaks in the person of Christ, he uses the first person to represent Christ's mind. Assuming that only sound doctrine is thus presented, is this rhetorical device acceptable? Is this sort of impersonation and imagination appropriate, or does it lack reverence? I believe it is not uncommon for preachers to do this - certainly some of Luther's sermons are riddled with long passages in which he uses the first person, speaking to the people as God or as Christ.
Another way of putting words in God's mouth is by supplementing the information given in Scripture: that could be by using history, archaeology, or imagination to help to realize the scenes of Scripture. This technique of course is also widely used, and in many instances it seems difficult to object. Many preachers and other interpreters of Scripture certainly do try to open up the psychology of the given characters who appear in a passage, sometimes with great effect. Again, what is the proper view of this? Is it unexceptionable? Is it a useful tool but one liable to abuse? Is it a perversion of Scripture?
Yet another method would be to "fill in the gaps' - to use imagination or research to fill in the backstory of certain characters or places in Scripture - something along the lines of what is done in Ben-Hur or The Bronze Bow. I would like to hear opinions as to the legitimacy or illegitimacy of this as well. And does it make any difference how it is presented, whether simply as "historical fiction" or also as "devotional literature"? Obviously if in this retelling the depiction given by Scripture is modified or distorted an unacceptable line has been crossed; but what about things that strictly occupy the silences of Scripture? For example, I remember finding in one book some story about a little girl who heard Jesus' words about forgiving seventy times seven times and who did some multiplication in the sand.
The final approach that I can think of would be when a story or other work of art has a figure which in some way parallels Christ - this seems rather tricky to me, because many such parallels are unintended and unconscious; some are blasphemous mockeries; some are ham-fisted; and some are materially unobjectionable, even if one decides that formally all such things should be condemned. Of course, it would be rather difficult to condemn all such parallels without simply condemning all stories not contained in Scripture - it is rather difficult to write a story without a princess and a dragon and prince on a white horse in one way or another. From the Aztec myth of Nanauatl to Tyr putting his hand in the mouth of the wolf, much of art and literature echoes more or less distinctly with the structure that is perfectly carried out in the life of Christ.
I am interested to hear people's thoughts upon the matter.
