The lessons on this web site are written from an Anglican Perspective. Anglicans believe in the final and decisive authority of Scripture. This is expressed in Article 6 of the Anglican Articles of Religion which reads as follows,
Holy Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation. Consequently whatever is not read in Scripture nor can be proved from Scripture cannot be demanded from any person to believe it as an article of the faith. Nor is any such thing to be thought necessary or required for salvation. By holy Scripture is meant those canonical books of the Old and New Testaments whose authority has never been doubted within the church.
Anglicans are not alone in their beliefs about the authority of Scripture. Many Christian churches accept the authority of Scripture, but they do not always agree on how Scripture is to be interpreted, and as a result, Christians differ in their understanding of the Bible. This raises an important question: How should we interpret Scripture?
Our present circumstances are not unlike the circumstances of the early church as she began to preach the gospel to the Gentile world. In the Gentile world of the first few centuries of the Christian era, there were many different conceptions of spiritual matters, and as a result, when people first began to read Scripture, they interpreted it in many different ways. Many of these ways, however, were false interpretations of Scripture. How then, did the early church decide which of these many interpretative approaches were true and which were false? To address that question, let me begin with a passage of Scripture, Luke 24:25-27.
After Jesus was resurrected, he appeared to his disciples on the road to Emmaus. They were discussing what had happened to Jesus in Jerusalem. After hearing their report, Jesus said to them,
“O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself (Luke 24:25-27).
The early Christians knew how to interpret the Scriptures because Jesus taught them the right interpretation, and when false interpretations arose, the earliest Christians appealed to the interpretation they had received from Jesus himself.
One of the ways Scripture has always been falsely interpreted is to pick out certain verses and use them in isolation from the rest of Scripture. For example, the gnostics, an early group of false teachers in the second century, believed that the body was evil and that salvation did not include the body. They used I Corinthians 15:50 to prove their point. They also believed that the material world was inherently evil, and as a result, they claimed that the God described in Genesis chapters one and two, the God who created the material world, was not the true God. In their view, the true God was the Father of Jesus Christ, and this God was not the God of Genesis one and two. The false teaching of the gnostics was opposed by Irenaeus, a Christian who lived in the second century. Against the gnostics, he claimed that the right interpretation of Scripture had been given to the earliest apostles and handed down to their successors in the church. Irenaeus knew these successors and he knew their teaching. In fact, in his writings, he summarized their teaching and showed that it denied gnostic interpretations of the Bible.
Here is another example. Arius, an early fourth century false teacher, used John 14:28 to claim that Jesus was not God since this passage apparently stated that Jesus was less that God the Father. Athanasius, an early church theologian, argued against Arius, using many, many passages of Scripture to show that Jesus was indeed God.
Not only has the church needed to combat false teachers, it has, more generally, needed to teach the Christian faith to new believers. To help in this process, the church developed short summaries of the most important Christian ideas. These summaries were based on Scripture, and they summarized the teaching that had been given to the church from the apostles. These summaries were called "creeds," and there were several of them. Their primary purpose was to set forth the most important biblical ideas for preaching and teaching, especially teaching those who were about to be baptized. At the same time, however, the creeds were used to counter false interpretations of Scripture. One of them, commonly called The Nicene Creed, teaches that the world was made by the one God, the Father, and that this one God is the Father of Jesus Christ. In other words, this creed denied the gnostic interpretation of Scripture, and in particular, the gnostic understanding of I Corinthians 15:50. When Irenaeus opposed the false teaching of the gnostics, he appealed to an early creed, a forerunner of the Nicene Creed.(1)
The Nicene Creed also teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ is "light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father," thereby denying the teaching of Arius that Jesus Christ was less than God. And, and in particular, the Nicene Creed denies Arius' understanding of John 14:28. In fact, it was Athanasius who insisted that the words, "light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father," be placed in the Nicene Creed. In short, the early church developed the creeds to accurately summarize the teaching of Scripture as interpreted by the apostles. Once these creeds were developed, they were then used in teaching the faith to believers, and they were also used against false interpretations of Scripture.
Following the practice of the early Church, Anglicans have always recognized the importance of the creeds for teaching the faith and understanding Scripture.(2) This is because Anglicans affirm the authority of the creeds. In the words of Article 8 of the Articles of Religion, "The three creeds, the Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, and that known as the Apostles' Creed, ought to be wholeheartedly accepted and believed. This is because their contents may be proved by definite statements of Holy Scripture." Derived from Scripture, the creeds enable believers to rightly interpret Scripture. For this reason, in what follows, I will use the creeds, especially the Nicene Creed, to present some general principles that will guide the interpretation of Scripture for the lessons of this website.(3)
To begin, let me ask the reader to carefully read the Nicene Creed. Notice that it is composed of three paragraphs, and notice the opening words of each paragraph. These opening words are as follows" "We believe in one God, the Father, ..." "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, ..." "And in the Holy Spirit, ..." These words reflect the baptismal formula found in Matthew 28:19 which states, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ..." The development of the Creed began with the words used in baptism, and then allotted one paragraph to the work of each person of the Trinity, beginning with the Father, then the Son, and finally, a paragraph on the work of the Spirit. The Creed also states that "We believe in one God." In other words, the Creed states that God is one. Similarly, Matthew 28:19 does not say to baptize in the "names" of the Father, Son, and Spirit, but in the "name" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is because God is one sole God, possessing one three-fold name, Father, Son, and Spirit. Therefore, as we interpret any passage of Scripture in which God speaks, acts, or appears, he does so in a single, three-fold manner as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All three persons of the Trinity are involved in each of God's words, actions, and appearances. Indeed, Scripture as a whole is the work of one God who speaks in a three-fold manner. As a result of the foregoing, our first interpretative principle is this: In Scripture, when God speaks, acts, or appears, he does so as one God who speaks in a three-fold way as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This principle, along with the other principles of interpretation presented here, will become clearer as we interpret specific biblical passages.
The Creed begins with creation by the Father, centers on Jesus Christ who is "light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father," and ends with the work of the Spirit and the "life of the world to come." These three events form a single narrative, the work of one God, staring with creation, then Jesus Christ, and finally, the end of the world. This reflects the biblical pattern which begins with creation, Genesis chapters one and two, has its central and decisive revelation in Jesus Christ of the gospels, and ends with the final age as described in the book of Revelation. Of course, there are many other events and words narrated in Scripture, but these three, creation, incarnation, and final age, are the three which anchor the rest. To help us see any particular passage in a wider context, a Biblical Timeline is given on this website.
As previously mentioned, one way to falsely interpret Scripture is to pick out a passage and read it in isolation from other passages. To rightly interpret a passage, however, one needs to interpret it in the context of the entire biblical narrative from creation to eschaton. The author of Scripture is one God who writes a single unified narrative. This claim was decisively affirmed against the Gnostics who sought to make differing gods the authors of Scripture. It was also affirmed against Marcion, a second century writer who denied the Old Testament as a revelation of God. The church has always, at least until the new developments of the 18th and 19th centuries, understood Scripture as a single narrative. In this context, one can measure the meaning of any single passage against the whole of Scripture, and the whole can be illumined by the meaning of a single passage. Therefore our second principle is as follows: In interpreting Scripture, any passage must be interpreted in light of the whole of the biblical narrative, beginning with creation, centered on Jesus Christ, and culminating with the life of the world to come.
As we study the Creed, we notice that Jesus Christ is described as "the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, ..." This is very important. There are many philosophies, ideas, and beliefs about God. Only Jesus Christ, however, is "true God from true God." In other words, only Jesus Christ gives the true knowledge of God. Of course, there are many traces of God in the created world. For example, the order and expanse of the created world show that God is intelligent and powerful. But the Creed does not say that creation is "light from light, true God from true God." Or, one can learn things about God by attending a church, but the church is not the "only-begotten Son, begotten from the Father." Or, the Creed states that the Holy Spirit "spoke through the prophets," but none of the prophets of the Old Testament were "only begotten of the Father." This means that wherever one learns something of God, in creation, in dreams or visions, in the Old Testament, or in the Church, all these manifestations of God's will and nature must be measured by Jesus Christ for Christ alone is "the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, light from light, true God from true God." This means that he is the decisive revelation of God, the norm by which all other revelations of God's character are to be evaluated. This has immediate implications for how we interpret Scripture.
Throughout Scripture God speaks, acts, and appears, but all these revelations of God's words, deeds, and appearances must be understood in relationship to Jesus Christ. For this reason, Colossians 2:17 will say in reference to Old Testament legislation about festivals, food, and drink, that these were a "shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ." Or, Hebrews 8:5 states that the Mosaic priesthood is a copy and shadow of Christ's priesthood. Again, Hebrews 10:1 states that the Old Testament law was "a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities," for in Christ and only in Christ is that true form given. In Luke 24:27, states that “beginning with Moses and call the Prophets, he [Jesus] interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” In John 5:39-40, Jesus tells the Jews, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” Paul, writing to the Corinthians and referring to the wanderings of Israel in the desert, declared that they “all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.” (First Corinthians 10:3-4). Or, the Nicene Creed will state that Jesus' resurrection was "according to the Scriptures," that is, Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament Scriptures. In other words, when considering any scriptural passage, its deepest meaning is given in relationship to Christ. He is the center, the key, to understanding the whole of Scripture, and further, the knowledge of Jesus Christ is found in Scripture, in the four gospels that witness directly to him.
Historically, the relating of the Old Testament revelation to the New Testament revelation given in Christ was worked out through a theory of types. Since Jesus was and is the fulfillment of the Law and the prophets, the events and words of the earlier revelation were types fulfilled in Christ. For example, the forty years Israel spent in the desert were fulfilled by Christ when he was in the desert and tempted by the devil. Or, the passing through the Red Sea and the escape from Pharaoh’s armies was a type of baptism where believers are liberated from sin and death. Or, the tree of life in the Garden of Eden was a type of the cross where God conquers death. Typological exegesis has its basis in God’s consistent character, in his unfolding revelation in Scripture culminating in Christ. At times in her history, the church has also used allegory to interpret Scripture, but of the two, allegorical or typological, the typological is closer to the Creed and the tradition of the early church fathers. J.N.D. Kelly sums up the matter in these words,
Of these two methods of exegesis the characteristically Christian one was typology, which had its roots firmly planted in the Biblical view of history. In its struggle with the Marcionites the Church found it an invaluable weapon for countering their attempt to separate the two Testaments.
Typological exegesis worked along very different lines. Essentially it was a technique for bringing out the correspondence between the two Testaments, and it took as its guiding principle the idea that the events and personages of the old were "types" of, i.e. prefigured and anticipated the events and personages of the New. The typologist took history seriously; it was the scene of the progressive unfolding of God's consistent redemptive purpose. Hence he assumed that, from the creation to the judgment, the same unwavering plan could be discerned in the sacred story, the earlier stages being shadows or, to vary the metaphor, rough preliminary sketches of the later. Christ and His Church were the climax; and since in all his dealings with mankind God was leading up to the Christian revelation, it was reasonable to discover pointers to it in the great experiences of his chosen people.(4)
Therefore, our third principle is as follows: When interpreting Scripture, any passage must be understood in reference to Jesus Christ as revealed in the gospels. In this regard, Old Testament persons or events are figures or types fulfilled in Christ.
This third principle can be considered theologically. The Creed states that Jesus Christ is “the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, light from light, true God from true God, ….” It denies the possibility that there are two or more beings begotten of the Father, or two or more lights from light, or a plurality of gods begotten of the Father. As God is internally, so he is externally in his acts. There are no acts, words, and appearances of God that derive from a second word or light in God. All God’s acts are related to Jesus Christ. For example, in creation, God acts by Jesus Christ since, according to the Creed, Jesus Christ is the one “through Whom all things came into existence, …” Or, the sending of the Spirit is not from the Father apart from the Son, but from the “Father and the Son.” For this reason, all God’s acts, words, and appearances set forth in Scripture are related to Jesus Christ who is the decisive revelation of God. In other words, the whole of Scripture must be interpreted christologically.
Further, the Old Testament words, appearances, and acts of God are revelation. They have revelatory substance. Against Marcion, Old Testament events are not simply ephemeral events without substantive significance. The Old Testament revelations may be partial, pointing to and fulfilled in Christ, but they are necessary for understanding and receiving God’s good will. Without that contribution, the revelation in Jesus Christ often degenerates into a piety devoid of social and economic significance. In the light of Christ, the Old Testament is maintained and affirmed. The great Anglican theologian, Richard Hooker (1554-1600) summarized the ancient tradition of relating the two testaments with these words,
We find that in ancient times there was publicly read first the Scripture, as namely, something out of the books of the Prophets of God which were of old; something out of the Apostles' writings; and lastly out of the holy Evangelists, some things which touched the person of our Lord Jesus Christ himself. The cause of their reading first the Old Testament, then the New, and always somewhat out of both, is most likely to have been that which Justin Martyr and St. Augustin observe in comparing the two Testaments. “The Apostles,” says the one, “have taught us as themselves did learn, first the precepts of the Law, and then the gospels. For what else is the Law but the Gospel foreshowed? What other the Gospel, than the Law fulfilled?” Similarly, the other said, “What the Old Testament has, the very same the New contains; but that which lies there as under a shadow is here brought forth into the open sun. Things there prefigured are here performed.” Again, “In the Old Testament there is a close comprehension of the New, in the New an open discovery of the Old.”(5)
The Creed states that Jesus Christ was "incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures and ascended to heaven." The word "incarnate" means to take flesh, to become a specific human being who was born at a definite time in history. Jesus had a real mother, he died on a certain day under the authority of a man named Pontius Pilate, and he rose again three days later. These are all specific places and events. Consistent with this perspective, the gospel accounts reveal Jesus as a man who spoke, acted, and lived as a Jew in Palestine at the time of the Roman occupation. He did not act or speak as a person from another time or place, but only in that place and at that time. He was not, for example, a man of the twenty-first century, or any other century except his own, although his words and deeds speak to all centuries. Similarly, when God speaks, acts, and appears throughout the whole of Scripture, his revelation is according to specific times, places, customs, languages, beliefs, and historical circumstances. He does this so the people of that time and place will understand him. In order for us to understand what God is saying and doing as set forth in any particular passage, it is important to know the historical and social circumstances surrounding that passage. For example, to understand what is being said in the book of Amos, one must know something of the conditions at the time of Amos, as well as the meanings of the words that Amos used. Or, to understand Genesis one and two, the narratives of God's creation of the world, we must know something of the historical circumstances that gave rise to these creation narratives.
Another way to think of this is in terms of genre. One aspect of God speaking in terms of specific historical, linguistic, and cultural circumstances, is that God makes use of the various literary genre common to the people who set forth his message. The word "genre" in reference to a passage of Scripture refers to its type of literature. The Bible was written by people who wrote according to the various literary forms of their day, and Scripture has many genres of literature. For example, the literary genre of the Book of Proverbs is proverbs. They are not, for example, history and therefore, we do not read them as history. According to Luke 1:2, the genre of the gospel of Luke is eyewitness testimony. The letter of Paul to the Corinthians is an epistle, the creation narratives of Genesis one and two are saga, where "saga" is understood as a series of divine acts that create the world and not a scientific account.(6) Therefore, we may phrase our fourth principle in this way: The original meaning of any passage of Scripture depends upon the meanings of its words in the context of its historical circumstances, and further, when reading Scripture, genre needs to be taken into account. The meaning of a scriptural passage for today is rooted in the original meaning.
Who was it that became was "incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man, …? Orthodox theology has always stated that it was God the Word, the second person of the Trinity. God became incarnate in Jesus Christ, and therefore, he was not only human, but divine, “the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, …” Born of the Virgin Mary he was human, incarnate of God, he was God. The Creed of Chalcedon states that the divine and human natures came “together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; …” Therefore, when reading Scripture, centered on Jesus Christ, we not only encounter the human nature of Jesus Christ, but in union with that nature, we meet God the Son who assumed the human nature of the man Jesus by incarnation. To put it another way, as we receive the biblical witness to Jesus Christ, and study the whole of Scripture with Christ at the center, this narrative of words, deeds, and events, reveals the person of God to us. This needs to be emphasized. Human beings, by the work of the Holy Spirit, can meet God, hear him speak and see his face, as he reveals himself as the words of Scripture. Some have said that God reveals himself in or through the words of Scripture. This is inadequate, giving the impression that meaning is hidden within Scripture, or communicated through Scripture like water through a tube. The Word actually takes form as the biblical words, so that it is best to say that that God speaks as the words of Scripture. The biblical words themselves are God’s speech. How this can be is described in the essay Barth on Anselm.(7) In light of the foregoing we state our fifth principle in this way: The biblical narrative reveals God; its narrated words and deeds are God speaking to us.
The Creed sets forth a linear temporal sequence. It begins with creation by God the Father, centers in Jesus Christ, and ends with the "life of the world to come." We are located at a specific time, after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ and before "the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come." This is the time of the church. As seen in Acts 2, the church was established by Jesus Christ through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and as one can see, the church is described in the paragraph on the Holy Spirit.
The paragraph on the Spirit states that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son." There are two matters here. First, as just discussed, the Son is the revelation of God. Then, this revelation is conveyed to the church by the Holy Spirit who reveals God the Father as known in the Son so that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Spirit does not reveal something other than the Son. He reveals the Son who is the revelation of the Father. In reference to the Spirit, Jesus states in John 16:14-15, "He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you." As a result, all the things narrated in the second paragraph of the Creed are made living realities in the lives of believers by the Spirit. Therefore, when reading a passage of Scripture, its deepest meaning is seen in relationship to Jesus, and then by the Spirit, it becomes a saving power in the life of the church. The meaning of a passage is not simply to understand its human and historical content with the mind. Much more than this is required. The meaning of a passage is not complete until the Spirit takes what is set forth in the passage and makes it real as a word or deed of God in the present. For example, Mark 3:1-6 describes how Jesus healed a man with a withered hand. According to the previous principle, that event took place at a specific time and place and it revealed God. Even as we read the passage, the past event and God revealed in that event can become real to us. Its full meaning for today, however, is not given unless the risen Jesus heals the sick and suffering today. For this reason, the meaning of a passage comes to completion as God does today by the Spirit what the passage narrated in its original context. Further, God healing today is itself the foretaste of the final healing when God will bring the life of the world to come. In the end, for believers, God will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away (Revelation 21:4). From this perspective, the Spirit takes the words, deeds, and appearances of God narrated in Scripture and repeats them in life today as a foretaste of God's final victory.
The word “repeats” indicates that the Spirit’s present work of revealing the Son does not go beyond the biblical witness to Christ. As previously mentioned, the Son is “God from God, light from light,” the complete revelation until Christ comes again. For that reason, the Old Testaments events and words were types which were then fulfilled in Christ who was and is the decisive and complete revelation. Although the Old Testament revelation was progressive, culminating in Christ, it cannot be said that revelation progresses beyond the biblical testimony to Christ. He is the light of the world, both before and after his coming. Although the work of the Spirit leads us deeper into an understanding of Christ as revealed in Scripture, the Spirit cannot lead us beyond or away from Jesus as known in the biblical witness. Therefore, what happened in Jesus is a not a type which was to be completed later, as were Old Testament events, but rather, they are the decisive revelation set forth by the Spirit in life today.
As it was with the Son, so it is with the Spirit. When God spoke as his Son, he spoke in the idiom of the people who heard him, according to their language, traditions, habits, and culture. Similarly, when the Spirit enlivens the words of Scripture and recreates them as God’s actions today, these contemporary words, deeds, and actions of God are normally rendered in the language of the people. The biblical revelation judges, redeems and transforms cultural forms, but it does not deny cultural forms per se. Jesus and the disciples spoke Aramaic, but the New Testament was written in Greek for a Greek-speaking world. In the same way, the Spirit repeats the biblical revelation in ways that account of the habits, needs, and hopes of people today. Or, it can be said that biblical interpretation is not a wooden repetition of past words, but a Spirit-enlivened rendering of those words and deeds in ways that bring salvation to every cultural context.
Furthermore, the Creed describes God as powerful because he can do miracles such as create the entire cosmos, or enable a virgin to give birth to his Son by the Spirit, or raise Jesus from the dead, or raise all people from the dead at the end of time. The Creed also describes God as loving because he sent his Son, the only-begotten Son of the Father to bring us salvation by dying for us under Pontius Pilate. Therefore, as we consider the work of the Holy Spirit who makes real the work of Jesus in believers, it is understood that God will act with loving, miraculous, creative power to redeem human life. This needs to be emphasized because there are some who do not believe that Jesus ever did miracles, or that the risen Jesus does today the miracles that Scripture narrates he did in his lifetime. When the Creed says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, it does not say that the Spirit divides the work of Christ into portions, as if the Spirit effects some of Christ's miraculous acts in the beginning but not now. No, the Spirit witnesses to the whole of Christ's words and deeds, and without all his words and deeds as present creative acts of love, we do not have Jesus Christ, nor the Father revealed by Jesus, nor do we fully know God. We may now state the sixth principle as follows: By his mighty power the Spirit takes the creative, powerful words, deeds, and appearances of God narrated in Scripture and repeats them in life today as a foretaste of God's final victory. From this perspective, Scripture, understood as God's action with corresponding human responses, are a promise of what God can do today. The meaning of a passage for today is God’s act and our response.
What is the purpose of Scripture? As seen in principle three, the fundamental purpose of Scripture is to witness to Jesus Christ who is the center of Scripture. What then was Jesus' purpose? Why did he come among us to live and die for us? According to the Creed, he did these things "because of us men and because of our salvation." Scripture was written to reveal God to us, and specifically, it was written for our salvation. That is why Scripture was written, and that is why it is so important. There is much information in Scripture -- geographical, historical facts, social customs, economic practices, and more. Among Christians today, there is debate as to whether Scripture is perfectly accurate in all its facts, or accurate in all the facts pertaining to salvation. I will not, at least not at this moment, enter into that debate in detail except to say that Scripture is fully sufficient to reveal a saving God to us, and further, that we need to read each passage and the whole with the aim of entering into a relationship with God, a relationship that saves us from our sins and gives us eternal life with God.
The Creed does not say that Jesus came down from heaven “because of me and my salvation,” but rather, “because of us men and because of our salvation …” Salvation is corporate. Being saved means belonging to the people of God. When Jesus began his ministry, he called twelve disciples, forming a new Israel. Therefore, when interpreting Scripture our primary goal is to see how a particular Scripture relates to the forming of the church, and in that context, how Scripture applies to the life of the individual.
The Creed speaks of certain persons, Jesus Christ, Mary, Pontius Pilate, and the prophets, and it mentions the church as the community created by the message of salvation. Among those who heard the saving words of God, some responded in faith and obedience, others did not. Jesus was obedient to the will of God. Mary responded to the revelation of the angel with the words, "Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word" (Luke 1:38). Pontius Pilate gave way to the cries of the crowd, and even though he knew Jesus was innocent, he washed his hands of the matter and had him crucified. In short, the Bible shows the many ways we human beings have responded to God's word to us, both in faithfulness and in disbelief. When, therefore, we read the words of God in Scripture, when we receive that revelation, we are called to respond in faith and obedience.
We may state the seventh principle in these words: The purpose of Scripture is to bring us into a saving relationship with the one true God, and Scripture is to be read with that as the primary goal. As members of the body of Christ, we enter into that saving relationship by faith and obedience.
You will notice that the Creed begins with the words, "We believe." The Creed describes what Christians believe and our belief is something we hold together. We receive God's revelation together, we understand it together, and we put it practice as the body of Christ. Therefore, it is good to listen to what others said on the interpretation of Scripture or any other Christian topic. It is not wise to think that we alone can understand the Scriptures. We need the help of the larger church as well as the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We can state our eighth and final principal in these words: Understanding Scripture is the work of the entire church, and for that reason, it is important to study what others have thought about a particular passage.
The foregoing has implications for how we approach Scripture. To understand a particular passage of Scripture, we need to know some of the historical context of a passage, the meaning of its words, the passage's relationship to the whole of Scripture, as well as what others have thought about a passage. Doing this is hard work, the work of a lifetime, but the rewards cannot be measured. Furthermore, according to principles five and six, the final meaning of a passage is God speaking to us, acting in our lives, and enabling us to respond in faith and obedience as members of his body. Therefore, our attitude toward Scripture needs to be one of prayer and humility, beseeching God to make the saving events of Scripture living facts in our community. It is not enough to simply understand the historical content of a passage with our minds. We need a living, loving God who acts. We need the risen Lord Jesus, we need the power of the Spirit, and to receive these things we need to prostrate ourselves before his cross, asking him with thanksgiving to make his living Scriptures a saving power in our lives today.
More could be said about the study of Scripture, as well as the importance of the creeds for understanding Scripture. The eight principles given here will, however, lay a good foundation. As you read the website, you will see these principles at work as we study the Scriptures. Let me invite the reader to approach our lessons on Scripture with an open mind. I do not understand all things, but I offer these to you as my best effort to be faithful to what God commanded me to do nearly forty years ago, that is, build up the ancient foundations of the Church. Please pray about what you learn here, test these things against Scripture and the writings of other Christians, and as you go forward, God will use all these things to bring you to an ever deeper knowledge of him through his mighty written Word, the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.
Principles of Biblical Interpretation
1. In Scripture, when God speaks, acts, or appears, he does so as one God who speaks in a three-fold way as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
2. All passages must be interpreted in light of the whole of the biblical narrative, beginning with creation, centered on Jesus Christ, and culminating with the life of the world to come.
3. When interpreting Scripture, any passage must be understood in reference to Jesus Christ as revealed in the gospels. In this regard, Old Testament persons or events are figures or types fulfilled in Christ.
4. The original meaning of any passage of Scripture depends upon the meanings of its words in the context of its historical circumstances, and further, when reading Scripture, genre needs to be taken into account. The meaning of a scriptural passage for today is rooted in the original meaning.
5. The biblical narrative reveals God; its narrated words and deeds are God speaking to us.
6. By his mighty power the Spirit takes the creative, powerful words, deeds, and appearances of God narrated in Scripture and repeats them in life today as a foretaste of God's final victory. From this perspective, Scripture understood as God's action with corresponding human responses, are a promise of God’s saving action in the present and future. The meaning of a passage for today is God’s act and our response.
7. The purpose of Scripture is to bring us into a saving relationship with the one true God, and Scripture is to be read with that as the primary goal. As members of the body of Christ, we enter into that saving relationship by faith and obedience.
8. Understanding Scripture is the work of the entire church, and for that reason, it is important to study what others have thought about a particular passage.
Endnotes
1. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III,4,2.
2. See, for example, Frederick Houk Borsch, (ed.) The Bible's Authority in Today's Church. Valley Forge: Trinity press International, 1993, p. 56. Booty, John and Sykes, Stephen, eds. The Study of Anglicanism, London: SPCK/Fortress Press, 1988, p. 91.
3. For an excellent book on early Christian Creeds, written by an Anglican, see J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds. Third Edition. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1972. An excellent book on the importance of creeds for early biblical interpretation is that of Francis M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
4. Kelly, J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978), pp. 171-2.
5. Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, (Ellicott City: Via Media, 1994), V.xx.6. I have modernized Hooker’s English slightly.
6. This term is taken from Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Vol. III:1, The Doctrine of Creation (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1958), pp. 76-92.
7. In this connection, the outstanding article by Dr. Mary Ford, "A Brief Reconsideration of the Term ‘Pre-critical’” shows how the Church Fathers understood the human capacity to know God when enabled by grace.
The Rev. Robert J. Sanders, Ph.D.
2011
The Creeds and Biblical Interpretation Continued
This essay is a sequel to the essay the Creeds and Biblical Interpretation. It will continue to give the rationale for the interpretations of Scripture given on this web site. Three other essays, Trinity and Incarnation, Barth on Anselm, and Knowing the Christian God, are also important as background for this essay.
Among biblical scholars today it is customary when addressing a particular text of Scripture to give its historical and cultural context, its author, and the time of its writing. This background is given in order to discern the original meaning of the text in its context, and once that is known, biblical interpretation will then give its relevance for today. Among other things, this essay will, in light of the creeds, consider some of the theological presuppositions of this approach, especially in reference to the Pentateuch as this is an area of considerable controversy. The controversy arises because certain scholars, who, for lack of a better term, we may call liberal, believe the Pentateuch to be composed of a number of documents blended together centuries after the death of Moses. Conservative scholars, on the other hand, believe Moses essentially wrote the Pentateuch. Among other things, this essay will address these differences. Before addressing these issues, however, a few thoughts on the creeds are in order.
It is widely recognized that each student of Scripture has a perspective that guides his or her understanding. Sometimes this perspective is consistent and made explicit. At other times, the perspective can be rather fragmented. Also, it is not unusual for biblical readers to find in Scripture only what they had already learned from their church or upbringing. In other words, some form of perspective will guide the interpretation of Scripture, and to that end, it is best that the perspective be theologically orthodox, that is, founded in the creeds and the wider teaching of the historical church.
Historically, over the course of the centuries, there have been many orthodox students of Scripture and their valid interpretations have varied greatly. This implies that an orthodox perspective on Scripture can give rise to a great many specific interpretations in many diverse historical contexts. Not all biblical interpretations are orthodox, however, and just as the creeds set the boundaries for right belief, they also set the boundaries for right biblical interpretation. There are, for example, many contemporary interpretations of Scripture whose presuppositions are contrary to the Christian faith. From the foregoing it can be said that each theological perspective on Scripture can give rise to a family of valid interpretations, and every particular interpretation is shaped in part by the theological perspective of the interpreter. I say “in part” because the perspective adopted here is that God can speak as Scripture and transform the theological perspective of biblical students.
As can readily be seen, the Nicene Creed presents a Trinitarian and incarnational understanding of God. God the Son or Word is eternally sent from the Father and the revelation in the Son is enlivened by the Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son. The revelation of the transcendent God, therefore, is conveyed by Word (God the Son) and the Holy Spirit. In reference to biblical revelation, the relevance of this will now be discussed, beginning with God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ is the center of Scripture, the key to understanding the whole of Scripture. He is also the key to understanding revelation since he is the supreme revelation of God. What do the creeds say about Jesus Christ and how is that relevant to an understanding of biblical revelation? Referring to the Creed of Chalcedon, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human, and both natures are united as one person. The human nature of Christ was created, and generalizing, when God speaks, acts, or appears, he does so in conjunction with created realities. This can be seen throughout Scripture. God spoke to Moses from the burning bush, Isaiah saw and heard God in the sights and sounds of the temple, God the Word spoke as the created nature of the man Jesus, and the visions of John, portrayed in the Book of Revelation, use created forms we can visualize and words we have heard even as he conveys profound mysteries. A bush, the temple, the human nature of Christ, and the images and words of Revelation taken from creaturely forms are all created realities. In light of this, the revelation of Scripture is composed of two factors – the words, deeds, and appearances of God, and second, human or created factors such as the humanity of Jesus, a bush, or the temple. Of these two factors, the divine aspects of revelation were discussed in Trinity and Incarnation, Barth on Anselm, as well as Knowing the Christian God. In these essays it was affirmed that revelation entails an objective, miraculous aspect which sets forth God the incarnate Word and by him the transcendent Father as the Spirit works to enliven the Word and words of God. Therefore, we will continue by discussing the human aspect.
These human factors can be understood in two senses. God speaks to human beings, and further, he speaks and acts by means of human beings. Let us consider this second case. When God spoke, appeared, and acted as the man Jesus, he did not deny, erase, or negate any of Christ’s human characteristics. The Creed of Chalcedon phrases this by saying that “the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence.” The “distinction of natures” refers to Jesus being both human and divine, and since their union does not annul the “characteristics of each nature,” it can be said that Jesus lived as a full human being even though he was the incarnation of God. He ate, breathed, and slept, he grew up in a family, he called disciples, he worshipped and went alone to pray, and he preached and taught in the language of the people and used examples from daily life. In other words, he lived a fully reflective life anchored in his time and place as a Jewish man of the first century.
Further, the revelation given to Jesus and given by Jesus had a social nature. Studies of his words reveal a deep knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures, and at the age of twelve, he was found among the teachers of the law, “listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers” (Luke 2:46-7). Jesus learned about God in the community of the people of God, and further, he understood his own life in the context of previous revelations of God.
Jesus not only came to know God by means of the Hebrew Scriptures, but also, God spoke to him at critical moments of his life, such as his baptism and the transfiguration, and further, empowered him to do the deeds of God. These events, his encounters with God and the power of God living within him, led him to interpret the Hebrew Scriptures in reference to himself. As he said to two of his disciples on the road to Emmaus, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled" (Luke 24:44). In other words, the revelation given to Jesus and conveyed by Jesus was composed of two factors. First, Jesus encountered God, and second, these encounters occurred in the context of the community in which his revelations reordered and augmented what had previously been revealed. As Jesus reordered and deepened the prior revelation of the Hebrew Scriptures, he did so by means of reflection, prayer, his awareness of life, and above all, the unique revelations given to him.
This process of revelation in the context of community, where new revelations reinterpret and deepen previous revelations, characterizes the whole of the biblical revelation. The process of revelation is fully divine in the sense that God speaks, acts, and appears, and it is fully human in that these revelations engage the full humanity of those who encounter God as well as those who reflect upon these encounters and put them into writing. In this sense the process is social with Scripture being a revelation given to a community and individuals in the context of the people of God. This social process culminates in Jesus Christ since he is the one and only incarnation of the Word, the pinnacle and norm of all God’s revelations. As a result, there are no new revelations that go beyond him as known in the biblical witness to him.
As the early church reflected upon the biblical revelation, it was recognized that Christ’s humanity was that of a common human nature, for if not, then Christ’s sacrifice of his human nature upon the cross did not apply to all persons. This belief, the belief in a human nature common to all people, pervades the biblical revelation. If the humanity of Christ, or the humanity of the biblical peoples, is not a common humanity, then what they received from God in reference to their redemption does not apply to humanity in general. Therefore, when reading biblical texts, it is recognized that the text speaks to all persons everywhere.
Similarly, in regard to God, Scripture understands all persons as created by the one God, and called by this one God into a redeemed life. In other words, when the text speaks of God, it is understood that the text is referring to a God who has some relationship to all people everywhere. Our next step is to consider the work of the Holy Spirit in reference to revelation.
As God reveals himself by words, deeds, and appearances in the context of past revelations and concrete historical circumstances, the Spirit enlivens what was revealed and enables the people of God to receive and confirm that the revelation is a valid revelation of God. Unless the revelation is received and confirmed, it is not a revelation of the triune God since God is revealed by Word and Spirit and not by the Word alone. Let us consider a few examples.
In the decades after Jesus, there were a number of gospels of Christ each purporting to convey the true words and deeds of Christ. The early church recognized four of these gospels as apostolic, that is, as testimonies to Christ anchored in the witness of the apostles who knew Jesus first-hand. The Holy Spirit enabled the apostles to know Christ as a true revelation of God, one who understood himself as the culmination of the Old Testament revelation, and therefore, the revelation given by Christ belonged with the Old Testament as its completion. Similarly, in the decades after Christ, the church being founded by the apostles and created by their preaching and writings, was also empowered by the Spirit to receive the revelation in Christ conveyed by the apostolic writings as a true revelation of God. False revelations were rejected while true revelations were recognized as the New Testament and added to the Old Testament to form the whole of Scripture. In other words, a revelation of God committed to writing must be authorized by the community as a revelation of God. The writers of the gospels knew many things about Jesus Christ, and perhaps there were even written documents testifying to Christ that informed the gospel accounts, but only in their final form were they accepted as belonging to the canon of Scripture. All other testimony or documents were not confirmed by the Spirit who witnessed to the true revelation of God given in the Lord Jesus. Let us consider another example, that of First and Second Chronicles.
Conservative biblical scholarship, such as that of the NIV and ESV study bibles, places First and Second Chronicles in the latter half of the fifth century before Christ, or perhaps a bit later.(1) At that time the Jews had returned from exile in Babylon and rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem. Chronicles was written to address questions such as whether the Exile had ended the people’s relationship with God, whether or not the Sinai covenant was still in effect, and even though there was no davidic king and the community was subject to Persia, whether God’s covenant with David was still valid.
To address these questions, the writer rewrote major portions of Israel’s history, drawing on First and Second Samuel and Kings for half of his material. He also drew on the Pentateuch, Judges, Ruth, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, and Zechariah, and referred to other texts not found in Scripture such as the book of the Kings of Israel, the book of the annals of King David, the book of the Kings of Judah and Israel, as well as unknown prophetic writings such as those of Samuel the Seer, Nathan the Prophet, Gad the Seer, Ahijah the Shilonite, Iddo the Seer, and Shemaiah the Prophet. In reference to all these sources, the biblically conservative NIV Study Bible states, “All these he used, often with only minor changes, to tell his own story of the past. He did not invent, but he did select, arrange and integrate his sources to compose a narrative ‘sermon’ for postexilic Israel as she struggled to reorient herself as the people of God in a new situation.(2)
In regard to David and Solomon, the writer of Chronicles significantly transformed what was found in First and Second Samuel and Kings. Anything that might detract from David and Solomon was omitted, including such things as the initial reluctance of certain tribes to accept David’s leadership, David’s sin with Bathsheeba, the bloody infighting for succession within David’s family, and the idolatry of Solomon under the influence of his foreign wives. The result was an idealized portrait of David and Solomon that differs significantly from the understanding of David and Solomon found in Samuel and Kings. Further, new text was added to the account, materials not found in first and second Samuel and Kings. Among other texts, some nine chapters of material not found in Samuel and Kings, show that the temple was essentially the joint project of both David and Solomon, a perspective not found in Samuel and Kings. There are other significant changes as well. For example, First Chronicles 16:8-36 describes how David offered a song of praise to God. This Psalm is composed of Psalm 105:1-15, Psalm 96:1-13, and Psalm 106:1, 47-48. Some 84 of the 150 psalms have superscriptions attributing them to David, some 65 of which are found in the first two books of the Psalms, Psalms 1-41 and 42-72. Psalm 72 ends with the words, “The prayers of David, the son of Jesse, are ended” (Psalm 72:20). Psalms 96, 105, and 106 are among the few psalms that were not attributed to anyone. It would seem on the face of it that the Chronicler took portions of three psalms which may or may not have been of David, and strung them together to make a song of praise for David. Be that as it may, it seems clear that the Chronicler selected, arranged, and integrated his sources. As he did so he changed the meaning of those original texts by placing them in another narrative context. Whether he did or did not invent anything is another question. Given the new meanings he derived from older sources, as well as the fact that he adopted texts from sources that no longer exist, one can wonder if he indeed did not invent. I will return to this matter shortly.
Another example can be useful, that of Exodus 21:1-23:33. This section of Scripture is a body of law which has been termed the Covenant Code. This code is found in the context of the covenant instituted in the desert at Mount Sinai, Exodus 19-24. A reading of this section of Exodus shows that the Covenant Code is legal material for persons living in the land -- raising crops, taking care of animals, owning houses, and worshipping God. It is not a law for escapees from Egypt making their way through the desert. Further, as one reads the Covenant Code in context, it appears that Moses assembled the people at Sinai for a covenant ceremony, gave them the Ten Commandments, and then interrupted the flow of the narrative to give the three chapters of the Covenant Code, including laws which would not have been of immediate concern to any of them. Then, once this legislation was given, the narrative returns to the ratifications of the covenant by blood and a meal as seen in chapter 24. These considerations have led some scholars to conclude that the Covenant Code was a form of ancient law, probably Canaanite law, that Israel encountered when she entered the land. This law was edited and transformed by the covenant revelation of the Exodus, and then inserted into the original narrative of the covenant. From that perspective, there was a nucleus of distinctive covenant law which began with Moses and the Exodus. This nucleus is found in Exodus 19, 20, and 24. Once that revelatory nucleus was given, other law codes and perspectives, such as the Covenant Code, were assimilated into the Sinai context by subsequent generations as they adapted the original revelation to new circumstances. Among these writings was the Covenant Code, inserted between chapters 20 and 24 of Exodus. Here are two quotations by biblical scholars affirming this account of the origins of the Covenant Code. The first is by Brevard S. Childs, the second by B. David Napier.
In a positive sense the formation of the Book [the Covenant Code] sought to bring all of Israel’s early laws – many of which were adapted from the surrounding culture – closer in line with the central tenets of the Sinai tradition. For this reason the tradition assigned the authorship of the Book to Moses (20:22; 24:3ff.).(3)
Israel met the crisis of her existence -- which was suddenly made unfamiliar and vastly more complex when the people settled in Canaan -- by adopting many formal regulations already and for long successfully in operation there. From 21:2 to 22:16 the Covenant Code presents laws which must have been predominately “borrowed” from Canaanite practice, and borrowed very early for the most part -- that is, in the two centuries immediately following Israel’s entrance into Canaan and before the establishment of the monarchy under Saul, David, and Solomon in the eleventh and tenth centuries.
It is necessary to add, however, the unqualified judgment that what Israel borrowed she always transformed in significant degree; which is to say that what Israel took over she modified by incorporating it into the total structure of faith and the Covenant community.(4)
By contrast, both the ESV and the NIV Study Bibles hold to the traditional view that Moses essentially wrote the first five books of the Bible with only minor additions and updates from later writers. As evidence for their belief, they note that the Pentateuch itself refers to Moses writing down portions of the revelation. One can see this, for example, in Exodus 17:14, 24:4, 34: 27-28, Numbers 33:2, and Deuteronomy 31:9, 19, 22. These passages do not demonstrate that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, but they do indicate that certain portions of the revelation to Moses were apparently committed to writing in his lifetime.
Further, according to the writers of the ESV Study Bible, the claim that the “the Pentateuch grew as different authors’ accounts were spliced and adjusted by a series of editors,” has been “strongly attacked, not just by conservative scholars, but also by those brought up on such theories.”(5) In their view, the various theories on the composition of the Pentateuch were “too complicated, self-contradictory, and ultimately unprovable. It is much more rewarding and less speculative to focus interpretive effort on the final form of the text.”(6) They go on to say,
The Pentateuch does undoubtedly claim to be divine in origin, mediated through Moses. Thus Moses should be looked to as the original human author. Indeed, as stated above, the Pentateuch looks like a life of Moses, with an introduction. But this need not mean that he wrote every word of the present Pentateuch. It seems likely that the spelling and grammar of the Pentateuch were revised to keep it intelligible for later readers. Also, a number of features of the text look like clarifications for a later age. But this is quite different from supposing that the Pentateuch was essentially composed in a later age. Rather, it should be seen as originating in Moses’ time but undergoing some slight revision in later eras so later readers could understand its message and apply it to their own situations.(7)
A number of comments are in order. First, the authors quoted above, Childs and Napier, are not claiming that the “Pentateuch was essentially composed in a later age.” They are saying that the Pentateuch reached its final form in ways similar to the formation of First and Second Chronicles. In their view, the covenant legislation of Exodus through Deuteronomy was composed of a nucleus of covenant legislation given by Moses, and all subsequent adaptations from other sources were placed in the context of the escape from Egypt, covenant at Sinai, and preparation to enter the land because God decisively revealed himself in those original events. For the Old Testament revelation, these are the revelatory foundation, and therefore, all subsequent law and practice borrowed from other sources must be transformed in light of the revelatory foundation and placed in that context.
The fact that the “Pentateuch does undoubtedly claim to be divine in origin, mediated through Moses,” does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that “Moses should be looked to as the original human author.” Among other things, the book of Genesis is not seen as mediated by Moses. All of Genesis happened before Moses was born. More to the point, it is the contention of this essay that revelation is fully divine, and therefore, profound encounters with God occurred under the leadership of Moses in the escape from Egypt, covenant at Sinai, entrance into and conquest of the land, and its division by tribes, clans, and families followed by life under covenant law. In these events, God revealed himself and did so repeatedly. It is also the claim of this essay that revelation is fully human. The fact that revelation is a divine disclosure does not necessarily imply a specific human process for receiving revelation. Nor does it imply that the divine disclosures occurred exactly as narrated in their final form. In First and Second Chronicles, the process apparently entailed integrating diverse materials into a single narrative, and the whole was appended to Samuel and Kings in the canon of Scripture because it had its source in the revelatory words and deeds of God in reference to David and Solomon.
Apparently Chronicles came into existence by reflection upon Israel's sacred writing, and over a process of time, certain truths came to the fore that spoke to a new historical context. As that happened, there may not have been a specific divine encounter similar to that by which God spoke to Moses on the mountain, or addressed Isaiah in the temple, or spoke to Amos by words and visions. God can speak in direct encounters, but he can also speak through reflection on past revelations which can lead to further revelations without any apparent moment of hearing and seeing God.
A similar process may well have been at work in reference to the Pentateuch as affirmed by Childs and Napier in that certain inspired Israelites reflected upon the traditions of the Exodus, written or unwritten, and in light of new conditions, expanded and incorporated additional material into a the Mosaic context. If, however, an individualistic understanding of authorship governed the formation of the Pentateuch, then Moses should probably be looked upon as the author since so much of Exodus through Deuteronomy is presented as the words of Moses received directly from God.
On the other hand, if the Hebrew people had a different conception of individual and corporate personality, one in which a founder could live on in the society he founded, similar to the revelation given at the time of David and Solomon being the foundation for Chronicles, or for Christ living in the church as described in the New Testament, then the transforming of materials in light of the revelation to Moses would be seen as authorized by Moses himself. This would lead to the tradition that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, and in a real sense, from this perspective, he was. This is the conception of individual and corporate personality that was set forth in the essays Trinity and Incarnation and A New Heart and Soul. To my mind, this approach is closer to a biblical understanding of human beings and more faithful to the apparent formation of the biblical revelation, although, as will be shown, I do not think there is sufficient evidence to reach a firm decision on the matter.
Further, even if Moses wrote the Pentateuch, one would wonder how he went about writing the fifty chapters in Genesis as these chapters narrate events that took place centuries before his birth, and further, the narratives of creation depict events “in the beginning” without human witnesses. In this regard the ESV Study Bible states that the narratives of Genesis are at home in the world of the late third or early second millennium before Christ,(8) and this conclusion is without doubt based on the vast expansion of archaeological and literary evidence that has accumulated since the beginning of the nineteenth century. Given that the Genesis accounts are rooted in what is known of that era, the authors conclude that the “stories about them [the patriarchs] were presumably passed on by word of mouth, or perhaps by some kind of early written record that is now lost. In any case, these parallels confirm that the history recorded in Genesis is quite reliable.”(9)
What is meant by the term “reliable”? If the term means that the events referred to in Genesis originally happened exactly as narrated, a view apparently held by the authors of the ESV, then “reliable” must mean that the events occurred exactly as narrated. If, however, reliable means rooted in history, yet history transformed by an oral tradition and transformed again in light of the covenant revelation to Moses, then the events are also reliable as revelation since they reflect how human beings and the one true God interact with each other. If, however, the events are not rooted in history in some form, then the revelation is not human because human beings live in history. Further, since the words, deeds, and appearances of God have an objective aspect,(10) and since these also form a history in conjunction with the human history narrated in Genesis, then reliable from this perspective would then mean that revelation reveals how the one true God reveals himself in relationship to human beings, and this is true even if the revelation is an original history reworked in light of subsequent revelations.
As later writers considered the early traditions of their people, there were doubtless many events, stories, and myths that were not the revelation of the God known to Moses and the patriarchs. These later writers preserved revelations of the true God, not revelations of the pagan deities, and given that God had revealed himself to their ancestors, they could not write fiction and deny God’s prior revelations. A revelation of the transcendent God is of supreme importance, a matter of life and death. They could, in light of a deeper revelation, integrate the older revelations with the new and thereby form a single narrative as the revelation of the one God. The church has always believed that God revealed himself progressively throughout the Old Testament, beginning with anticipatory revelations to the patriarchs which culminated in the deeper revelation in the Exodus, which in turn anticipated the final revelation in Christ.
When the writers of the NIV Study Bible state that the Chronicler did not invent the material included in First and Second Chronicles, they are, in part, making an assumption since no one has access to all the sources used by the Chronicler, and therefore, no one really knows what was or was not invented. It must be said, however, that the biblical authors, as well as the creeds and the tradition of the church, all affirm that revelation is of supreme importance, and past revelations, if they are indeed revelations, cannot be invented but preserved and integrated with deeper revelations, if such revelations are indeed given. Further, it must be said that the Chronicler did indeed receive further revelation since he wrote an idealized version of David and Solomon, and this deeper revelation’s final reference was not to David and Solomon, but to the sinless One, the Lord Jesus Christ.
In reference to the creation narratives of Genesis one and two, the biblical record clearly shows that the majority of Israelites consistently worshipped pagan deities, and therefore, assuming that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, the Hebrews must have held mythological perceptions of creation at the time of the Exodus. In general, pagan conceptions of creation described the processes of nature as stories of their gods. Moses and others in his circle would have drawn on these sources, together with the revelations to the patriarchs, and these were then reworked in light of the revelatory events that took place in the time of Moses. Then nature and its processes would have been seen as the work of the one true God of the Covenant. Perhaps Genesis one and two were directly dictated to Moses as were the Ten Words of the Ten Commandments. Even the Ten Commandments, however, had counterparts in other ancient law codes. God does speak words, but he also speaks words to human beings in history, and if the full humanity of those who receive revelation is involved, then the revelation makes use of the laws, past revelations, mythic images, or ideas current at a particular time.
If Moses did not write the whole of Genesis, then it makes sense that the writers who did develop the creation narratives followed a process similar to that just described for Moses. Then they would have appended the creation narratives to the nucleus of divine revelation given to Moses as their introduction, since the creation narratives were formed in light of the Mosaic revelation. Further, Israel came to believe that her saving history was significant for the salvation of the world, and therefore, it made sense to introduce her saving history with the creation of the world. The point here is that revelation reflects both divine and human aspects, and being human for the ancient Hebrews could well have included transforming various accounts as God progressively revealed himself to them. Such an approach is doubtless different from how moderns would write history, but there is variation in how our common humanity expresses itself in space and time.
According to the writers of the ESV Study Bible, the idea that the Pentateuch is composed of various sources has been “strongly attacked, not just by conservative scholars, but also by those brought up on such theories.” At present, the effort to discern the sources and literary units that make up the Pentateuch has apparently failed. But the effort to agree on the nature of these sources, and when they were transformed and located within the overall narrative created at the time of Moses, has not undermined the belief that the Pentateuch was composed of sources brought together after the time of Moses. For example, Alan J. Hauser, in a 2007 article entitled “Sources of the Pentateuch: So Many Theories, So Little Consensus,” does indeed recognize that there is little consensus on what sources were used to form the Pentateuch. He does, however, state an assumption held by the scholarly literature he surveys, namely, “Without doubt, the Pentateuch contains diverse literary styles and units. This can be seen, for example, by comparing the literary structure and systematic ordering of Gen 1 with the story-like nature of Gen 2-3.”(11) Or, Gordon Wenham, in a 1996 essay entitled “Pentateuchal Studies Today,” observes that Pentateuch studies are in ferment with the development of new models for the formation of the Pentateuch. The old models were developed in the nineteenth century and entailed finding four primary sources that came together to form the Pentateuch. Against the old models three new ones gained some following. These new models were termed the modified documentary hypothesis, a supplementary model, and a fragmentary model. All three models, like the old model, operate with the recognition that the Pentateuch was formed by the coming together of various sources in the centuries after Moses. The scholars only disagree on the content of the sources and how they were progressively formed into the Pentateuch. The assumption that the Pentateuch was formed by the blending together of various sources over time is common to both the old and new models. In fact, Wenham will say, “Though this article will focus on modern studies of the Pentateuch, this must not be taken to imply that the old views have been discarded. I suspect that if a poll of contemporary OT scholars were conducted, only a minority would endorse one of the modern models.”(12) In other words, in contrast to the claim of the ESV Study Bible, both Hauser and Wenham believe that most biblical scholars accept some form of a documentary hypothesis in regard to the Pentateuch, but disagree as to how that process of documentary formation took place.
Whether or not one can find sources for a particular section of Scripture depends, in part, upon the evidence. In regard to Chronicles, there is evidence. One can clearly see how the Chronicler utilized certain earlier sources. There is insufficient evidence in regard to the Pentateuch, which does not, of course, imply there were no sources. It does add credence, however, to the recognition that the intent of the Pentateuch is not to reveal its exact composition, but rather, to set forth a saving narrative of divine and human acts which have been received by the community as revelation regardless of the process by which the revelation reached it final form.
In the essay, The Creeds and Biblical Interpretation, the idea was proposed that the Scripture was understood by the church in terms of saving types. As types, the human and divine revelatory events of Scripture were fulfilled in Christ, and further, these types, including the revelation of the Incarnation, are repeated as events today by the work of the Spirit. For an event to function as a type, such as, for example, the call of Abraham, or Moses, or Isaiah, or Jesus, it is not necessary that the original event be biblically described in exact historical detail. If the event, such as the call of Abraham, took place centuries before the event was apparently rendered in written form, one would expect for the story of the call to have been shaped by an oral tradition as well as the covenant revelation in such a way as to function as a type for those who read its rendering in Scripture. As a type it would take a particular stylized form, a form that would stand for the many ways God calls persons to obey him. Even the call of Jesus at his baptism doubtless contained many details not given in the gospel accounts, and those that are given were most likely restricted to those aspects that enabled readers to recognize Christ’s authority and status. Unlike the call of Abraham that apparently entered the canon centuries after the events of his life, the gospels were written only decades after the death of Jesus. There is strong evidence that the gospels are eyewitness accounts,(13) and further, the revelation in Christ was the final revelation, given at the end of the ages by God himself in sinless human form.(14) As such, no one could go beyond it, nor, as was the case with Chronicles, could it be sanitized by purging sinful elements. It could, however, and it was, selectively ordered by the four evangelists.
Along these lines, and this is speculative, it may have happened that the judgments God sent against Egypt could have been various events that took place at different times and places. These events culminated in the deliverance from Egypt under the leadership of Moses, and when committed to writing, were formed into a narrative in which God acted by ten plagues followed by the covenant and his revealing himself with overpowering glory upon the mountain. We might, for example, in reference to Mark’s gospel, note the observation of Papias, recounted by Eusebius, that Mark wrote the events of the gospels in no particular order, although clearly, the crucifixion and resurrection came at the end of the narrative.(15) What does seem clear from the biblical text of Exodus is that powerful saving events occurred, profound manifestations of God’s presence took place, and these events were so compelling that they shaped the life of Israel for centuries, and further, God continued to act in the life of his people in ways similar to these saving actions. Conclusions along these lines seem virtually inescapable, unless one believes, contrary to the doctrines of Trinity and Incarnation, that God cannot speak and act in a miraculous fashion that literally redeems the world. Then one could, perhaps, consider the narrative to be pure fiction, or ordinary events expressed in primitive terms.
Given the limited evidence, virtually any theory as to the process of how the Pentateuch was formed is speculative. Even the NIV and ESV Study Bibles’ claim that Moses wrote virtually the whole of the Pentateuch is speculative since the evidence they present for this claim, at least in my view, is not compelling. Since the evidence is not decisive, whatever position one takes on the formation of the Pentateuch may well have its difficulties. For example, in their introduction to the book of Numbers, the NIV notes the “Special Problem” posed by Numbers 1:16 which asserts that the number of fighting men in Israel who escaped from Egypt was 603,550. According to the NIV, this number “would demand a total population in excess of 2,000,000. Such numbers seem to be exceedingly large for the times, for the locale, for the desert wanderings, and in comparison with the inhabitants of Canaan.”(16) The authors then suggest several ways around this problem such as a “thousand” might have a different meaning, or the word for thousand might mean chief” so that 53,400 would mean 53 chiefs and 400 men, or the numbers might be symbolic. None of these solutions are considered acceptable, however, and the NIV is left with a problem. If, however, ancient Israel, even years after the Exodus, thought that she herself escaped from Egypt with her ancestors, a view described in the essay, In Remembrance of Me,(17) then later readers of Numbers, before it reached its final form in the Pentateuch, may well have inserted a recent census into the narrative, or updated the original one in light of their current population. This is also a possible solution to the problem of Numbers 1:16. Whatever the case, the special problem noted by the NIV in Numbers 1:16 is only one of many problems that have led scholars to adopt some form of a documentary hypothesis. Be that as it may, the Pentateuch does not seem to lend itself to either conservative or critical speculation as to its formation. I am reminded of an essay by C. S. Lewis, originally entitled “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism,”(18) where Lewis notes that every hypothetical analysis of his writings -- the origins of his ideas, his sources, and how he arrived at a final text -- carried out by his contemporaries, united with him by culture, language, and education, were always without exception, as far as he could remember, wrong. How, he wondered, can biblical scholars, separated by centuries, language, and culture from the texts they study, expect to accurately discover sources behind the biblical text unless the evidence is clear?
The conclusion of the ESV authors, however, that it is “less speculative to focus interpretive effort on the final form of the text,” is the decisive point. The way forward is, as they say, attention to the final text. The text reflects events that typify the way God relates to his people, it has its roots in events that actually took place in ways similar to their final narrative form, and it speaks to a common humanity, and therefore, its saving typical revelations are sufficient for salvation if received with an open heart because God does today what he has always done as narrated by the biblical text itself.
Regardless of how the Pentateuch reached its present form, it was written to be read as a continuous narrative, the revelation of a single God, and further, it was not written to divide one portion of the text against another. From the beginning the church rejected the Gnostic interpretations of Scripture that divided the text against itself by claiming certain passages as the revelation of a god other than the Father of Jesus Christ. Approaches to Scripture which go behind the text as written to seek a diversity of written documents, and from there, construct a diversity of narratives without any overall unity, do violence to the biblical revelation and the unity of God. Therefore, although the text may, in certain circumstances, be composed of prior documents, it is not written to be read in that form, nor above all, are these presumed documents to be read against each other to arrive at polytheistic conceptions of the divine. An example of this approach, Engaging the Word, is given on this web site.
Even if the dream of liberal students of the Pentateuch were to come true, a consensus on the original source documents and the nature of their formation into a final form, one would not have revelation. These putative original sources would not be revelatory because they would not be integrated into the final biblical narrative. Apart from their integration into the canon, they do not have revelatory meaning, and once in the canon, their meaning changes given the new canonical context, a context which ultimately points to Jesus Christ. Or, even if sources were determined, there could well be sources behind those sources, reaching back into Israel’s pagan past to reveal a world of images and discrete narrative units that would not be ordered into a single narrative that reveals the one, true God. Or, even if the conservatives had, by some miraculous means, a video of certain ancient biblical events, and thereby satisfied the ESV claim that one had “reliable” information, this may not be the form chosen by God to save, although the final narrative account formed by the Spirit would have its roots in those events. Both the critical and the conservative approach tend to emphasize the Word apart from the Spirit, as if the Word alone, validated by various conservative or critical assumptions, is sufficient for salvation. There are theological assumptions, namely that the words and deeds of God and his people are rooted in history, a history of original saving events, yet these events are ordered and structured by the Spirit as to become saving types in a narrative context. The outline of that narrative context is given historically, Abraham before Moses, the escape at the Rea Sea before Sinai, wilderness wanderings before entrance into the land, Christ’s baptism before his ministry, his ministry before his death and resurrection, but within their basic narrative outline, there is room for variation. The Spirit has a vital role in forming the narrative of the Word, as well as its reception in the lives of those who receive the Word as canon. The church has always believed that Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
When the evidence is minimal, it is often best to refrain from reconstructions. On the other hand, there are biblical passages whose context has been determined with a fair degree of accuracy, and all biblical texts have some general location within the biblical world, and perhaps even more significant, are directly relevant to our common humanity. Further, the scholarly study of ancient texts as well as archaeological investigations have led to a dramatic increase in our understanding of the social, economic, linguistic, and cultural context of the biblical world. This has significantly increased our understanding of Scripture, and in that regard, I think the scholarly work has been most helpful.
Frankly, it is quite possible that the ideas proposed here will not be acceptable to either the conservative or the liberal party. The universities of the West are dedicated to ever new discoveries, and one sure way to get a Ph.D. in biblical studies is to deconstruct and reconstruct a biblical text. Advancement depends upon it. And in the conservative world, there is the need to hold to the reliability of the text in the face of science, historical criticism, and a culture that has been abandoning its Christian moorings for centuries. Even so, the conservative effort has been forced to make concessions. Both the NIV and the ESV Study Bibles, for example, recognize that Moses did not write every word of the Pentateuch, and although the ancient tradition was that Ezra wrote First and Second Chronicles, the NIV doubts this tradition and the ESV thinks it was written by someone else.(19) Or the ESV believes that faithful interpreters of Genesis chapter one can interpret its seven day format as not being seven twenty-four hour periods,(20) an obvious concession to the scientific belief that the earth is very, very old.
We cannot, in every respect, go back to the world before the rise of science and the critical study of the Bible. What we know of the world has changed. Our knowledge has expanded precipitously. Traditionally, Anglicans have been open to new knowledge and affirm our God-given reason to understand the world around us. I affirm this as well. On the other hand, God has not changed. He is everlasting, and he is the triune God who speaks, acts, and appears, the one who sent his Son to become incarnate in Jesus Christ. Fundamentally, human nature is the same as well. In spite of variations in our genetic code, we still need a savior. We can receive the biblical narrative as revelation given to human beings, as a divine Word to us from a living God. These features do not change, and any approach to Scripture that denies or ignores either of these two factors, is not an orthodox interpretation of Scripture. On the other hand, interpretations that recognize these two factors, even though they differ on how aspects of the biblical text came into existence, could well be valid approaches to Scripture. For example, in spite of their differences on how Exodus came to be, I found the commentary by Napier on Exodus, as well as the comments of the ESV and the NIV, to be most helpful as both recognized that that Exodus was fulfilled in Christ and that a living God was at work, a God who spoke to his people and acted in their lives.
From the perspective of Jesus Christ being one person in two natures, inadequate approaches to Scripture generally fall into two camps. On the liberal side, the miraculous and personal aspect of the biblical revelation is often ignored, as if God were not a living God who can speak and act. Further, the focus on ancient texts can lead to a failure to interpret texts in the light of Christ, as if we are simply dealing with texts and not with revelation. On the conservative side, the full humanity of the biblical authors is often slighted, and sometimes there is a failure to recognize that Scripture conveys an encounter with God. Instead, Scripture is often read as a series of propositional truths one simply believes, or as information pertinent to a particular doctrine or ethical claim, although these are given in Scripture as well.
In addition to the principles found in The Creeds and Biblical Interpretation, there are three implications from this essay that will determine the approach to Scripture of this web site. First, in general, if the historical context of a particular passage can be established with sound evidence, I will affirm that particular historical context as an aid to interpretation. If the historical context of the passage cannot be established with compelling evidence, I will appeal to general conditions relevant to its approximate time within the biblical narrative. Or, it may well be that so-called conservative or liberal exegesis, within certain limits, lead to similar conclusions when addressing fundamental issues and I will draw on those results. Second, I will address matters that are fundamental to our common humanity. Human beings need to be in wholesome relationships with God, with each other, with the created world, and all human beings wish to be delivered from evil. There are many, many lessons in Scripture, but these four matters will be at the forefront of my investigation of Scripture. Third, to be fully human, a person needs to act with purpose, and to act with purpose, certain fundamental questions must be addressed. They are: Where did we come from? Who are we? Where are we now? Where are we going? What must we do? These questions are fundamental to our common humanity and they will be addressed in this section of the web site on Scripture.
Finally, as is well known, there are many Christians who do not affirm the creeds, and others who believe Scripture can be interpreted apart from faith. Be that as it may, Anglicans base their faith on Scripture with special attention to the church of the first few centuries. As is well known, the early Christians appealed to the regula, the proto-creeds, as well as the understanding of Scripture carried forward by the apostles and their successors, to counter false interpretations of Scripture. Anglicans belong to that inheritance, and therefore, as an Anglican, I stand on that inheritance.
Endnotes
1. NIV Study Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), p. 571. ESV Study Bible (Wheaton: Crossway Bible, 2008), p. 697.
2. NIV Study Bible, p. 571.
3. Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975), p. 459.
4. B. David Napier, Exodus (Atlanta: John Know Press, 1982), p. 94.
5. ESV Study Bible, p. 36
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. ESV Study Bible, p. 39.
9. Ibid.
10. See the essay Barth on Anselm.
11. http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=725.
12. http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_pentateuch_wenham.html
13. See the outstanding book by Richard Bauckham. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006. I have written a review of this book which can be found here: Two Excellent Books.
14. See a second outstanding book, Larry W. Hurtado, Larry W. How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns Publishing Company, 2005. A review of this book can be found here: How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God.
15. Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, p. 203.
16. NIV Study Bible, p.184.
17. This perspective belongs to a sound understanding of sacramental theology, as well as the view that the reader of Scripture, by the work of the Spirit, becomes contemporary with the original saving events as narrated in the biblical text.
18. http://orthodox-web.tripod.com/papers/fern_seed.html
19. NIV Study Bible, p. 571, ESV Study Bible, p. 697.
20. ESV Study Bible, p. 43.
Archbishop Eames, Evaluation and Critique
Barth - Economic Life and a History Chapter 5
Barth - Political Responsibility for Economic Life Chapter Four
Building Up the Ancient Ruins - A Response to the Present Crisis
Cranmer on Salvation - Introduction
How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?
Infant Baptism and Confirmation
Introduction to Anglican Theology
Introduction to Anglican Theology - Anglicanism and Scripture
Introduction to Anglican Theology - Articles One Through Five
Introduction to Anglican Theology - Articles Six Through Twenty
Introduction to Anglican Theology - Articles Twenty-One Through Thirty-Nine
It's Not Just Sex, It's Everything - The Virginia Guidelines
Judgment Begins at the Household of God
Jung, the Faith, and the New World Order
Justification, The Reformers, and Rome
Nicea and the Invasion of Bishops in Other Dioceses
Preface to the 1549 Prayer Book
Prefaces and Offertory Sentences
Reason and Revelation in Hooker
Richard Hooker and Homosexuality - Introduction
Richard Hooker and the Archbishop's Address
Richard Hooker and the Puritans
Richard Hooker and Universal Salvation
The Anglican Formularies are not Enough
The Creeds and Biblical Interpretation
The Creeds and Biblical Interpretation Continued
The House of Bishop's Pastoral Study on Human Sexuality - Theological and Scientific Consideration
