History | Knowable Word

I haven’t read Reading the New Testament as Christian Scripture, but I appreciated this interview with its authors. In it, they speak of some of the differences between how we read the Bible today and how the ancients used to read it. We’ve certainly made many great gains in our understanding. But there remain some strengths of yesteryear we ought to be careful not to lose.

Every culture and age has particular insights and blind spots. This applies to biblical interpretation as well. In the West we’re a few hundred years into particular modes and habits of reading the Bible, what we can call modernist hermeneutics. Modernist hermeneutics serve us well in providing a depth of historical background, insights from literary analysis, and a focus on hearing the human author’s intent. But modern approaches to interpreting the Bible often fail to read theologically, canonically, and tropologically (for moral formation). Believing interpreters will also seek to interpret the Bible in these latter ways, but the modern hermeneutical commitments are ironically contrary to these good reading habits.
Premodern interpreters operated with different priorities and sensibilities when reading Scripture. Theological, moral formative, intra-canonical, devotional, and homiletical interpretations were seen as primary and ultimate because this is why God has given Scripture to his people—to shape us to be like him, to be holy as he is holy.

Check it out!

Disclaimer: Amazon link is an affiliate link. Clicking it and buying stuff will help to support this blog’s moral formation, at no extra cost to yourself.

Last week I argued that our best hope in controversy is to continue in the Scriptures. And yet, the Scriptures are what we so quickly abandon or ignore. When the right hook of controversy knocks out our teeth and adrenaline kicks in, what do we spew? Do we spew Scripture? Or do we spew such things as wit, history, or theology? What we spew betrays what we trust in to carry the battle.

Lesley Mitchell (2011), Creative Commons

My inspiration for this post comes from the currently raging controversy among conservative theologians regarding the Trinity. In this controversy, all agree that Jesus submitted to his Father’s will during his incarnation. But is such submission a part of the Father/Son relationship from all eternity, or not? If you’d like to learn more, see the two helpful summaries by Wyatt Graham (here and here). My goal is not to enter the discussion itself, but to reflect on how it has played out so far.

The Scriptures demand a few rules of engagement for theological controversy. If we’re willing to listen, the Scriptures can equip us for a good, good work.

1. Debate is necessary but not sufficient.

We must be alert (Acts 20:29-31) and always ready to defend our hope when we are attacked (1 Pet 3:14-17). We ought to hone our skills at explaining our theology from the Scriptures (Acts 17:2-3). But remember from 2 Tim 2 (last week) that we must avoid the childish passion for quarreling. We cannot rely on well-crafted words, careful argumentation, or higher education to carry the battle. Such things are necessary—I’m not saying we can go without them!—but they are not sufficient. One can be a clear speaker, witty writer, and pedigreed academic—and still be dead wrong. He who meditates on the testimonies of God will end up with more understanding than all his teachers (Ps 119:99).

2. History is necessary but not sufficient.

Let us not fall into the error of ignoring the past (Ps 106:1-13). But let us also not fall into the equally damaging error of living in the past; it is not from wisdom that we do this (Eccl 7:10). We must learn from history, but history alone cannot carry the battle.

3. Theology is necessary but not sufficient.

The Bible teaches many important truths about God, like dots on a grid. And we love to draw connections between those dots to make them all fit together. This work of dot-connecting, we call “systematic theology.” And we must do this, or our thinking will not be rational and our teaching will not be clear. But let us be careful to defend tenaciously the dots of Scripture and not the hand-drawn lines of men. We must consider theology, but theology alone cannot carry the battle.

4. Bible verses are necessary but not sufficient.

Jesus clearly submitted his will to his Father’s will in the garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:36). But was Mark’s intention in this passage to teach us about the eternal nature of the Trinity?

Jesus clearly had all glory together with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5). But did Jesus the pray-er (or John the narrator) have in mind exactly what later creeds would call “the unity of the Godhead” in which “there be three Persons of one substance” (Westminster Confession of Faith)?

Please note: I am not questioning the confessional understanding of the Trinity. I am simply questioning how we use Bible verses to defend our positions. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are proof that people can use many Bible verses to support conclusions that are simply false. When we spew, we must spew Bible verses. But let them be Bible verses in context, and according to the intentions of the original author for his original audience.

We’re on much stronger ground when we argue from the main points of passages instead of from possible implications of philosophical presumptions from standalone verses. And when the dots are hard to connect, there’s no shame in declaring: “Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, and his greatness is unsearchable” (Ps 145:3).