Theology, Part 2

Scripture

“But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.  All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may  be proficient, equipped for every good work.” (II Timothy 3:14-16)

 

I.   The Presupposition of Scripture:  God Speaks

Scripture presupposes Revelation and is a subset of revelation.

-Scripture is not an isolated source of writings and authority.   Rather, it assumes that God does speak, and that he does so in a way which we can hear and understand.  It is the record of God’s activity in the lives, hearts, and minds of those whom he has chosen, so that by having this chronicle we may know him better.   This is not a testimony of humanity’s  reaching out and discovering God, rather it is the account of how God has reached out to humanity, to us.

     Barth, “The Bible tells us not how we should talk with God, but what he says to us; not how we find the way to him, but how he has sought and found the way to us; not the right relation in which we must place ourselves to him, but the covenant which he has made with all who are Abraham’s spiritual children and which he has sealed once and for all in Jesus Christ. It is this which is within the Bible.  The word of God is within the Bible.” (quoted in Brueggemann, ABD, v. 1055)

II. Scripture and the Word of God

A.    The Logos

John 1:1ff. – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was with God in the beginning.  Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.  In him was life, and that life was the light of men.  The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.” (NIV)

I John 1:1ff. – “We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life – this life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it, and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us – we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.”

Donner, “The Logos was understood 1. as revealer and interpreter of the invisible ,transcendent Father, 2.  as the rational principle in God, related to man’s reason (to Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria he was the inspirer of the best of Greek Philosophy), and 3. The (expression of the) will of the Father, thus maintaining the unity of word and deed seen in the OT understanding of God’s word.”  (NDT, 396)

-This is a concept which, upon reflection, is almost overwhelming.

 

B.    Heard in many places – It goes beyond just the person of Jesus, it is also

preached and heard in the Gospel. 

John 17:20 – [Jesus said in his prayer to the Father]“I ask not only on behalf of these [the ones who heard Jesus directly], but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one.” (NIV)

Matthew 13:3ff. –Then [Jesus] told them many things in parables, saying: ‘ A farmer went out to sow his seed.  As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up.  Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil.  It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow.  But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root.  Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants.  Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop – a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.  He who has ears, let him hear.”  (NIV) Jesus then explained to his disciples that the seed represented the Word, the message of the kingdom. 

 

C.   Written Word

          -Barth talked about the Word being threefold: Jesus, preached, and written.

Weber added to this saying that the Word preached, written, and incarnate are in relationship to each other.  Written is Word in as far as it expresses incarnate, as is preached Word as it faithfully expresses incarnate.

 

III. The Function of Scripture

     -It is a corollary of the doctrine of Revelation.

A.    Scripture is a Record of Act and Word – It presents both history and theology.

 

B.    Scripture gives us a meeting place where we can find God.

 

C.   Primarily and profoundly it is a way that we might know God unto Salvation

Weber, “The New Testament witnesses refer back to the salvation-event, to the ‘Word happened.”  None of them sees himself as a champion of his own ideas.  They are all dealing with the event of the resurrection, of the cross, of the words and work of Jesus.  Their relationship to this event is not that of the historian but that of the witness.”  (Weber, 253)

 

IV. “Getting” Scripture:  The testimonium internum Spiritus Sancti

A.    Definition

     It is the inner witness of the Spirit by which we know the Scriptures are from God.

John 16:13 – “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.”

Luke 24:32 – “They said to each other, ‘Were not our hearts burning within us while he was talking to us on the road, while he was opening the scriptures to us?”

Weber, “We do not make the Word effective, neither with our scriptural scholarship, nor with our evangelistic forcefulness, nor with the passion of our faith.  We also do not make it ineffective with the hardness of our resistance nor the carelessness of our failing to hear.  But it also does not carry this authoritative validity within itself.  Rather, it has it because it is the Word of witness, as human word, empowered by the Holy Spirit—and thus it is placed at our disposal!  That this Word places us in the specific situation of decision is the work of the Spirit.  In this work the One at work is the one who is the source of life for the word of witness, the scriptural Word, and to this One the Word must always be related.  In relationship to the Word witnessed to there is no place for our co-working.  Christ, through the Spirit, is the One at work in the Word and through it.” (Weber, 286)

Packer, “The help of the Holy Spirit must be sought throughout, for only the Spirit enables us to see the meaning and bearing of scriptural principles and to realize the reality of God as the texts set him forth.  Without the ministry of the Spirit as authenticator and interpreter of the Scripture that he authored ,we shall at best be locked into a barren and mechanical biblicism.  Through the Spirit, however, life under the authority of Scripture becomes what it was meant to be – namely, realized communion with the Father and the Son.” (NDT,   630)

Elias, “The Holy Spirit, the divine agent who superintended the writing and compilation of holy writ, is the instrumental cause who enables believers t acknowledge it as the divine word and interpret it correctly.”  (NDT, 65)

 

B.    What it is not

It is not a dream or vision

-This is an interesting difference between our scripture and the Book of Mormon or the Koran. We do not hold to the supposed visions or revelatory experience of one person.  For me that is a tremendous boon.  One person can be discounted, but the collection of those who contributed to the old and new Testaments is worth a great deal.  These people for the most part are not discussing what they saw in an alternate state of consciousness, but rather their real encounter with the Living God in real life situations.

 

C.  The connection with the idea of adoption

     It is a recognition of God and Christ in Scripture.  The recognition will dim or grow

depending on our own walk with God.  There is a fusion of Spirit and Word.  Irenaeus talks about two hands – Spirit and Word. 

     -“Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the       gifts bestowed on us by God.  And we speak of these things in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the   Spirit, interpreting spiritual things to those who are spiritual.  Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit , for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually      discerned. Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else’s scrutiny.  (I       Corinthians 2:12ff.)  -This is not strictly referring to Scripture, but it is appropriate for understanding that we can understand that which is written or preached about God and Christ only through the work of    the Spirit in us. 

 

V.  The Limits of Scripture:  Canon

A.    The Definitions of Canon

Canon means the canonical books used in the Bible, they are the specific authority for theology.

Packer, “Scripture expresses and mediates the authority of God, which means, formally, his right to be believed when he speaks and obeyed when he commands; and, materially, the sum total of declarations and directives by which we requires us to live.  The use of  ‘canon’ for a list of books that are canonical in the defined sense is secondary and derivative.”  (NDT, 627ff.)

 

B.    The Very Human History of the Canon

          -The canon was functionally closed by the second century

The apocrypha was used, being quoted by the early Christians as well as by Christ himself.

n       II Peter 3 discusses the writings of Paul as being authoritative.

n       The sub-apostolic Church used what is now the New Testament in quotations as on the level with what is now the Old Testament.

n       In the second century, Marcion formed his own canon, excising most of what was then accepted, and adapting those he did accept to fit within his philosophy.  This challenged the church to form an official canon in response.

Gamble, “The history of the NT canon, then, was a process extending from the composition of Christian literature in the 1^st and early 2^nd centuries, through the spread, use ,and progressive esteem of these writing s in the 2^nd  and 3^rd centuries, to the determination of a fixed list of authoritative Christian scripture in the 4^th and 5^th centuries.  This process was not only lengthy but also uneven, moving at a different pace and even in somewhat different directions among the religional constituencies of the ancient church.” (ABD, v. I, 853.)

-Eusebius discusses the formation of the canon in his book Ecclesiastical History (III.24, 25)

-homolegameno - refers to the books that were fully accepted, “We must, of course, put first the holy quartet of the gospels, followed by the Acts of the Apostles.  The next place in the list goes to Paul’s epistles, and after them we must recognize the epistle called I John; likewise I Peter. To these may be added, if thought proper, the Revelation of John.” 

-antilegomeno - questioned books, “disputed, yet familiar to most,” a list which includes, “the epistles known as James, Jude, and 2 Peter, and those called 2 and 3 John, the work either of the evangelist or of someone else with the same name.”

“Moreover, some have found a place in the list for the ‘Gospel of Hebrews’, a book which has a special appeal for those Hebrews who have accepted Christ.”

Gamble, “To reconstruct its history it is necessary to rely on (1) the actual use of early Christian documents by Christian writers of the 2^nd through the 5^th centuries, noting the frequency and manner of their citation and inferring the value they attached to them; (2) explicit discussions and judgments by individual writers or ecclesiastical councils about the authority of various documents; and (3) the contents and arrangements of ancient manuscripts, together with the various aids (concordances, prologues, etc.) they include.”  (ABD, 853)

Criteria for inclusion in the Canon:

1.     Apostolic authorship. 

Gamble, “…it was actually a broader concept than this, and could signify, besides actual authorship, derivation from the time of the apostles, or even simply agreement with what the church took to be apostolic teaching.”  (ABD, v. 1, 858).

2.     Coherence – They must agree with one another. 

Weber, “…the proper Scriptures state, show, and promote basically the same thing.”  (Weber,

259).  He states a few pages later, however, that this is in question. “Newer exegesis, which

does not presuppose the agreement of all biblical writings but rather investigates the individual

statements, the writings, and the writers against the background of their various thought

structures and proclamation, has found within the canonical Scriptures many more gaps, leaps,

and contradictions than someone like Luther could have suspected.”  (Weber, 261)

-It is my thought that coherence is still valid, and that the “gaps, leaps, and contradictions” are

mostly more a matter of misinterpretation, or lack of Divine interpretation within and by the

exegete.  Scripture is coherent, but complicated, leading some to say that it is chaotic, when in

reality it is profoundly full of order.  Its apparent simplicity is the outer shell of an infinitely

complex system of thought which can be understood at one sitting but also can take a lifetime,

and beyond, to understand.  This is tied into the emerging thought of the Chaos theory, in which

seemingly simple systems, like a tree or a cloud, contain a intricacy which virtually defies

understanding.  What has previously been dismissed as simple or without order is being re-

examined as having an order and consistency which is mind-boggling.  I have not yet heard this

paradigm applied to Biblical or historical studies, but it would be a worthwhile effort to do so.  

Those who truly know God, which is shown in the reflection of God in their lives, seem to me to

delight in the coherence of Scripture, while it is those who have merely an academic interest in

the writings who see the most splits and cracks in what has been passed on to us. 

3.     Is there a demonstration of the Divine Spirit? - Do we sense God speaking therein.  The Councils decides over a long period of time again and again, eventual long-term consensus includes a book or excludes it.

-This is a difficult one for me.  For the determination of the presence of the Divine Spirit is rather subjective.  I guess that is why the second point must be made.  One person is not reliable in determining the Spiritual qualities, but over the course of time and tradition, a standard can be set.  This is interesting because the Scriptures are set up as the standard of special Revelation, but it seems in this case that general Revelation, i.e. the Spirit working in the hearts and minds of believers, helps to confirm and shape how the Special Revelation was related. 

4.     The style of the book was important - was it relevant to a wide range of believers?

Gamble, “This criterion embodies the church’s preference for broadly accessible and pertinent documents as opposed to esoteric ones.  But this preference did not, obviously, exclude documents originally addressed to strictly local churches or even to individuals.  It was rather a matter of their availability and their utility to the whole church.”  (ABD, v. 1, 858)

5.  Is there a consistent citation by the Church over a period of time?

Or as Packer puts it, “continuous acknowledgment and spiritually fruitful use of the books within the church from the apostolic age on – a consideration that becomes weightier and more compelling with every passing year.”  (NDT, 628)

-The question also arises if this ultimately was a political decision, or even a victory

by power.

 

C.   Variations on an Explanation of the Canon

1.     Simple history – The canon was indeed formed, we should accept it because we have it.

2.     Simple providence – The human community involved was inspired and led by God.  We should accept the canon as the movement of God.

3.     The Testimonium – The testimony of the Spirit affirms the canon.  Do I/we sense God’s inspiration.  We would expect that every generation would agree in this regard.  The Bible does prompt this reaction in every generation – we expect there to be a witness, expecting the Spirit to cry out “Abba!”

4.     Apostolic authorship – Because of the authority of the Apostles we should listen to what they say, the witness of the witnesses of Christ.  But, then what do we do with Luke, or Hebrews?

5.     Kerygmatic content – The canon speaks of that which can be said in a general way about the Gospel.  The question  was asked, “Does this book preach the Gospel?”

Weber, “…the New Testament references refer back to the salvation-event, to the ‘Word-happened.’” (Weber, 253)

“Thus, the way in which this backward reference is accomplished becomes a differentiated procedure in which rational memory, teaching transmission, pneumatic word, ecstatic hearing (2 Cor. 12:9!), integration of tradition into the special situation of proclamation and of Community life at any given time and place, and theological reflection on the kerygma all appear in a variety of ways together and alongside one another.”  (ibid.)

6.     The Declaration of the Church – There is a corporate testimony to the truths, giving to us a confession of experiences of generations.

Weber, “The existence of the canon is a symbol of the fact that the Church never exists just

as it is at a specific time, nor merely in its power or weakness, wisdom or foolishness, but rather

that the Church is what is in this ‘backward reference.’”  (Weber, 254)

7.     Evaluation/Overview – The canon comes together and holds together in a balance of factors.   The Challenge in debating canonicity should be in coming up with more than one of these criteria as an issue.  Even Luther did not put himself above Scripture in his defiance of the Council. 

-The weight of these factors together has great strength.  These also should keep us humble as we look at Scripture.  While a useful in raising questions and gaining insight, much critical scholarship of the last several hundred years has erred in placing the individual mind, or recent trends, over Scripture to analyze and critique its message.  The dangers in doing this can be seen most clearly in the results of 19^th century German scholarship.

    

IV. The Character of Scripture

A.    Inspiration of Scripture

     II Timothy 3:16 – “All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,  so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.”

     Hebrews 1:1,2 – “Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds.”

     I Peter 1:10-12 – “Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours made careful search and inquiry, inquiring about the person or time that the Spirit of Christ within them indicated when it testified in advance to the sufferings destined for Christ and the subsequent glory.  It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in regard to the things that have now been announced to you through those who brought you good news by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven – things into which angels long to look.”

     II Peter 1:20, 21 – “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

Packer, “The historic description of Scripture as inspired means not that it is inspiring, but that it is ‘God-breathed; (theopneustos, 2 Tim. 3:16), is a product of the creator-Spirit’s work, always to be viewed as the preaching and teaching of God himself through the words of the worshipping human witnesses through whom the Spirit gave it.”  (NDT, 629)

Inspiration is the action of the Holy Spirit upon the authors of Scripture while they

are writing.

1.     Inspiration is not dictation.

-This is a commonly asserted fallacy that is foisted upon conservative Christians.  Very few,

if any, actually hold to this thought.

2.     It is not half-hearted.

-The Spirit does not “kind of” work in someone.  The writers were people in whom, and through    whom, the Spirit was very active in thought and deed.

3.     Their are some refinements within the idea.

a.     Verbal – This is the idea that every word is inspired, not artificial, but the whole message is inspired – we cannot pick and choose which parts are.

b.     Plenary – All Scripture is equally inspired – maybe not equally interesting, or relevant, but there is no reason to judge otherwise.

We should not judge account of our interpretation.

c.     For this reason our exegesis searches for the author’s intent and genre.  The argument is raised whether we should accept the text for the text alone.  There might be more in there than the writers initially intended.

-An interesting analogy might be offered here.  The Constitution of the United States was written in a distinct era, with distinct thought, a couple of  hundred years ago and yet is still binding upon the people of this country.  In legal circles there is a debate over the importance of the authors original intent.  Should the text as we have it stand as it is, letting modern thought interpret it as it will, or should there be an attempt to discover the purpose behind the text and in doing so have a more complete understanding of the thought which helped guide and form this nation.  Just as in the study of Scripture, there is no set answer, but rather differing views which still contend against each other.  This is important especially in consideration of ideas and situations which were not existent or dealt with by the original authors. 

d.     Indelible character – Inspiration is indelible, it is not connected with physical

qualities but “deep to deep.”

-There is no magic in the words themselves.  This is a difference between Islam and Christianity.  Islam holds the Koran as not only a communicator of holiness, but as an object of holiness in and of itself.  The very Arabic words are holy.   Though this is existent within Christianity at some levels (I was certainly raised with the idea of respecting my Bible), outside of syncretistic practice, it is not widespread or extreme.

 

B.    Authority

Elias, “Scripture remains for biblical and evangelical Christianity the supreme teacher and arbiter in belief and practice.  It is the judge of all claims advanced by any other authority.” (NDT, 65)

1.     Causative authority – An example of this is yelling “stop!”  to a child running across the street.  It is causing results by expression of authority.

Mark 1:22 – “They were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.”

This is the kind of authority that we hear in Jesus.  It involves the saving work of God. 

2.     Normative authority – This authority presents a norm, rule, or guideline.  Scripture presents itself as an objective authority.   This is a bit like the directions of the manufacturer.  God is our creator and has given us guidelines to live by. 

Psalm 19:7ff. – “The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the decrees of the LORD are sure, making wise the simple; the prefects of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandments of the LORD is clear, enlightening the eyes; the fear of the LORD is pure, enduring forever; the ordinances of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.  More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold sweeter also than honey, and drippings of the honeycomb.”

Psalm 1:1 – “Happy are those who do not follow the advice of the wicked, or take the path that sinners tread, or sit in the seat of scoffers; but their delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law they meditate day and night. They are like trees planted by streams of water, which yield their fruit in its season, and their leaves do not wither.  In all that they do, they prosper.”

3.      Relative Authority  -- This is a secondary authority, an authority we accept based on Scripture (i.e. creeds, hymns, pastoral, etc.).  Theology based on Scripture, supported by reason, traditions, and experience.

As we look at Scripture we are doing a work of substance, exegeting the writing but not critiquing the message.

Weber, “The thesis of the unique authority of Holy Scripture in the Church is an axiom: it cannot be established from some other source, but rather it is the expression of a fact which establishes everything else.”  (Weber, 18)

 

C.    Infallibility of Scripture

     Scripture “doesn’t fail”.  The word ‘reliability’ might be better.  It speaks dependably in all its affirms in all matter of faith and practice.  This is rooted in God’s faithfulness.  There has been a debate about the word ‘inerrancy’.  It really came to light when liberals rose to theological prominence in the 1940’s and ‘50s. and challenged the veracity of Scripture.  They played fast and loose with Scripture, seeing errors in every spot they looked.

     There are different ways of looking at the word inerrancy:

1.     In older theologies (pre-19^th century) it is hard to distinguish between infallibility.

2.     Some affirm the inerrancy of a particular version, i.e. KJV.

3.     Inerrancy is required because of what Scripture needs to be, otherwise God is a liar.  Harold Lindsell took this view.  A question arises whether one is looking for a certainty besides faith.  This might be an interesting idea – an S (of the Myers-Briggs designation) may need the formal structure of inerrancy, while an N can be more able to deal with abstracts.  This tends to be more of a populist, rather than theological, idea.  Berkouwer said that inerrancy is like praising a book without reading it.

Packer, “Since the God who created Scripture by sanctifying the authorial efforts of his servants is true and no deceiver, biblical infallibility becomes an article of faith.  I t was no more necessary that the Bible, being human, should be wrong sometimes than it was for Jesus, being human, to go astray in conduct or teaching.  Those who confess a sinless Christ cannot consistently dismiss this analogous belief in an inerrant Bible.  To treat the witness of Christ and the apostles to the nature of Scriptures as not settling the matter, and to go against them on the point, is in itself illogical, irreverent, and indefensible.”  (NDT, 629ff.)

-It must be said that there are some very intelligent, well thought out scholars who hold to a view of inerrancy, despite how easily dismissed this view can be in some circles. 

I am not totally convinced by Packer’s arguments equating the perfection of Christ with Scripture.  Scripture was written by men, inspired and Spirit-filled though they were, they were not without faults and imperfections which might come across in their writings.  Christ came directly from God and was one with the Spirit.  The authors were inspired and filled but not yet one with the One who inspired them.   God uses people, and people have the capacity to make mistakes.  Though I am not saying that they made any, just that it might be possible.

1.     Some ideas are more nuanced, with the idea that different aspects need to be looked at differently.  Are the arguments of Job’s friends inerrant?  Of course, does the word inerrancy then become so nuanced that the word completely loses any real meaning?  Focusing on this can get us stuck in the minutiae, so much so that we lose sight of the salvific message.

2.     Some stretch the ideas so much that it is the word that is used, but the doctrine behind it is totally different.

We should choose a word that will start a conversation we want.

-This is an interesting topic for me to look at.  My family religious history is Fundamentalist, and I graduated from Wheaton College which has a strong view of ‘inerrancy’.  The Wheaton statement of faith on Scripture is as follows:  “We believe that God has revealed Himself and His truth in the created order, in the Scriptures, and supremely in Jesus Christ; and that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are verbally inspired by God and inerrant in the original writing, so that they are fully trustworthy and of supreme and final authority in all that they say.”  Having taken a fair amount of Bible classes, and even a Doctrine of Scripture class, I found that the professors were consistent with the strict view of the college (unlike at some other Christian colleges).  To be honest, this does not seem like much of an issue to me.  I find myself not being convinced by the argument that if one tidbit is out of alignment than the whole structure falls.  When exactly Quirinius was governor of Syria does not affect the fact that Jesus died on a cross and rose again.  My own position, having studied and contemplated the topic is rather undefined.  I know that there are some strong challenges to complete accuracy in all matters, but I also know that our knowledge is very incomplete, and that we simply do not have enough information to draw definite conclusions.  The inerrantists seem faulty in that by holding on to the word ‘inerrant’ they have to make big allowances, and really gut the meaning of the word.  This position is worthwhile in that it really views Scripture as authoritative, with the error often coming in the transmission or interpretation.  The infallible view is where I would probably place myself, though with this understanding comes the tendency to find too many errors, and not pursue alternate interpretations which may lead to a deeper truth.  The real question to me is whether we place ourselves above or below Scripture as we study it.  Hopefully, the question of terms will subside over the coming years as the reaction to liberal scholarship cools down.  This has been a 20^th century controversy, and hopefully it will stay that way so that we can focus our time and thoughts on what really matters rather than dividing and causing disunity among the body. 

Packer, “The right path is to deal with the phenomena of Scripture on the assumption that, being God-given, it is faithful to physical, moral and spiritual fact; for that is the approach that Christianity’s founders modelled in their own ministry and authoritatively taught their followers.”  (NDT, 630)

 

D.    The Sufficiency of Scripture

     Scripture is adequate unto redemption. 

          Each generation is spurred to discover this.

-There is no secret wisdom, or special training required.  What we read is what we need to know. 

 

     E.  The Perspicuity of Scripture

          There is clarity in Scripture, it is clear for the purposes of salvation. 

The Reformation pointed this out, that there is not a need for authoritative interpretation. This does not necessarily mean that we do this alone, but rather this is done in community.  There is certainly some points of mystery in the Bible, but the issue of salvation is not one of them.  Our real task in helping people understand Scripture is getting people to read Scripture.

-It has been asked, considering the complexity of Scriptural exegesis, whether it is indeed possible for those without sufficient skills of interpretation to understand what Scripture is saying.  The answer is a delightful, and wonderful, YES!  One does not need a degree, there is no special class to take.  Rather, Scripture is of such a nature that the most ignorant reader can find wisdom leading to salvation, and the most well-trained theologian can still encounter mystery and challenges. 

 

IV. The Interpreter of Scripture:  Listening to the Word

A.    How we read it. 

1.     Devotional – Psalm 23

-This is meant to inspire us to worship, to encourage our hearts, and point us to God.

2.     Theological – John 1

-This is meant to give us understanding of the person, nature, and work of God, so that we

  might have a better understanding of who he is that calls us.

3.     Liturgical – the Nativity passages

-The passages of Scripture which enliven and enrich our community gatherings.  The nativity narrative and Christmas, or the Eucharist passages in the gospels and Paul, give us a reminder of who we serve and calls to worship

1.     Historical-critical – A text is viewed this way that has a history layer.  It wants to get to the author’s intent.

-The book of Acts is one which lends itself most clearly to this way of viewing, but all texts have an historical background which fills out our understanding of Scripture.  I can almost remember the very hour in which the letters of Paul became more than a set of religious writings, and became real letters, written to real people dealing with real circumstances.

1.     From different perspectives – Another perspective (i.e. feminist, Hispanic, addict, mother, cross-cultural, etc.) can help us view a passage in a different way, adding possible layers and depth. 

              Some passages veer towards one, or a combination, of these readings.

Tribble, “In various was this hermeneutical pursuit [that of feminism] interacts with the Bible in its remoteness, complexity, diversity and contemporaneity to yield new understandings of both text and interpreter.”  (McGrath, 76)

-These diverse views can help us see that our own views come from a certain perspective.  If we are forthright in stating our perspective, and be open to other perspectives, than we can gain a fuller understanding of God than if we block out any other points of view.  There are aspects, however, which transcend points of view.  The  points which constitute the Gospel message, and  that which cements us together as a diverse community transcend cultural and gender differences.

         

B.    Interplay and Interaction

     How does this all work together?

     It is good to settle with one reading that is integrative with all of them. 

The fundamental reading of Scripture ought to be always devotional.  It is the food, bread, drink of our lives.  What else do we really have to give and take from.  These readings all hang together under the personal self-revelation of God, buried in the relationship between myself, my God, and my community. 

Packer, “