Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Vatican II, Church Tradition, and Hermeneutics

by

Recently a segment of evangelicals has been pushing for the abandonment of sola Scriptura in favor of a theological approach that relies on both Scripture and Church Tradition.

D.H. Williams is a key figure moving some evangelicals this direction. Here’s a quote that captures some of his concerns and hints toward his proposed solution:

Despite the recent attempts of a few evangelical writers to inculcate a theory of sola scriptura as the real intent of the early church, there was no question in believers’ minds that Scripture could or should function in the life of the believer apart from the church’s Tradition. Were it to do so, there was scarce assurance that an orthodox Christian faith would be the result. While many parts of Scripture were inherently perspicuous and able to be understood with little outside assistance, post-apostolic Christians would have anathematized the principle set forth in Buswell’s systematic theology, ‘The rule is then give the Bible an opportunity, in you own mind, to interpret itself,’ as setting the stage for heretical aberrations.

D. H. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 98

The October 2008 issue of First Things contains an article which reveals the difficulty of using tradition rather than Scripture as the touchstone of orthodoxy. Richard John Neuhaus’ article, “What Really Happened at Vatican II” evaluates two books about Vatican II that present different visions of the council.

Included in the article is this section which focused on a quote from Benedict XVI about the council:

The question is one of hermeneutics, says the pope. There are, he suggests, two quite different ways of understanding the council: ‘On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call ‘a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture’; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the ‘hermeneutic of reform,’ of renewal in the continuity of the one subject, the Church that the Lord has given us. She is a subject that increases in time and develops, yet always remains the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.”

p. 25

This of course raises the question: If the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church struggles over the interpretation of a church council, how can it solve the problem of rightly interpreting Scripture. Or to put it another way, how does an authoritative interpretation of Scripture help when people can’t agree on the interpretation of the interpretation.

D. A. Carson on "Objective Scholarship"

by

In the preface to Moo’s new commentary on Colossians and Philemon, D. A. Carson makes a comment well worth pondering:

The vision of “objective scholarship” (a vain chimera) may actually be profane. God stands over against us; we do not stand in judgment of him. When God speaks to us through his Word, those who profess to know him must respond in an appropriate way, and that is certainly different from a stance in which the scholar projects an image of autonomous distance.

p. viii

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part 15

by

In his epistles Paul also taught that Jesus is prophet, priest, and king.

In 2 Thessalonians he declared that Jesus will return a conquering king and a judge (1:7-10).

In 1 Corinthians he declared that Christ was sacrificed as a Passover lamb (5:7). He also declared that Christ will reign until he puts all his enemies, including death under his feet. Then he will deliver his kingdom up to the Father (15:24-28).

In Romans, Paul affirmed the Davidic rights of David (Rom 1:3). He sees these as integral to the gospel promised before by the prophets (1:2). He also recognized that Christ was the propitiatory sacrifice on behalf of men’s sins (3:25).

In Ephesians he referred to Christ’s resurrection and session as the time in which God granted the Son dominion over all things (1:20-23). Christ Jesus is the one who through his sacrifice invalidated the Old Covenant’s sacrificial ordinances (2:14).

In Philippians Paul connected the sacrifice of Christ on the cross with his exaltation (2:8-10).

Paul makes the same connection in Colossians (1:18). In the same context he refers to Christ’s sacrificial death (1:20). Later Paul returned to the exaltation and kingship themes (2:10; 3:1).

In his first letter to Timothy Paul called Christ “the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God” (1:17). In the second letter Paul spoke of believers reigning with Christ (1:11). This theme looks forward to a restoration of right dominion by mankind. Paul also looked forward to Christ returning as judge and establishing his kingdom on earth (4:1).

Machen, Love, and Controversy

by

Some years ago I was in a company of teachers of the Bible in the colleges and other educational institutions of America One of the most eminent theological professors in the country made and address. In it he admitted that there are unfortunate controversies about doctrine in the Epistles of Paul; but, said he in effect, the real essence of Paul’s teaching is found in the hymn to Christian love in the thirteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians; and we can avoid controversy today, if we will only devote the chief attention to that inspiring hymn.

In reply, I am bound to say that the example was singularly ill-chosen. That hymn to Christian love is in the midst of a great polemic passage; it would never have been written if Paul had been opposed to controversy with error in the Church. It was because his soul was stirred within him by a wrong use of the spiritual gifts that he was able to write that glorious hymn. So it is always in the Church. Every really great Christian utterance, it may almost be said, is born in controversy. It is when men have felt compelled to take a stand against error that they have risen to the really great heights in the celebration of the truth.

Machen, What is Christianity, 132-33 cited in Piper, Contending for Our All, 146.

Hamilton on Niehaus’ Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology

by

Jim Hamilton has a helpful post on Jeff Niehaus’ Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology.

According to Hamilton, Niehaus is challenging evangelicals to use ANE background material from a seriously Christian and Biblical basis. In other words, the ANE background material should not dictate how one understands the Bible. The Bible should dictate how one understands the ANE material.

The works by Niehaus that I’ve read and consulted before have all been very good. See especially his commentaries on Amos and Obadiah in the McComiskey set on the minor prophets.

The Emerging Church or Old Liberalism?

by

This temper of mind is hostile to precise definitions. Indeed nothing makes a man more unpopular in the controversies of the present day than an insistence upon definition of terms. . . . Men discourse very eloquently today upon such subjects as God, religion, Christianity, atonement, redemption, faith; but are greatly incensed when they are asked to tell in simple language what they mean by these terms

J. Gresham Machen, What is Faith? 13-14 cited in John Piper, Contending for our All, 135.

There are places here where I have gone out of my way to be provocative, mischievous, and unclear reflecting my belief that clarity is sometimes overrated, and that shock, obscurity, playfulness, and intrigue (carefully articulated) often stimulate more thought than clarity.

Brian MacLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, 22-23.

The Fear of the Lord is the Beginning of Knowledge

by

One of the Oswalt quotes noted last week demonstrates how unbelief can distort a scholar’s understanding of Scripture.

It is hard to understand how those who can assert that the theological function of this passage [Isa 36-37 / 2 Kings 18-19] is to claim that God acts in history can then assert with equal force that God did not act in this event (cf. Clements). If they do so to demonstrate that biblical theology is self-discredited, that is one thing. But to speak of the worth of the theology while denying its evidence is very odd indeed.

Oswalt, Isaiah, NICOT, 1:638, n.21

Other examples of this abound if one looks for them. Here are a few others.

In commenting on Ezekiel’s charge as a watchman, Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 2.185, speaks of ‘the complete irrationality of the divine activity.’ He refers to God’s first commissioning a foe against his people and then sending a watchman to warn them. ‘Such is the divine logic!’ says Zimmerli. This bold exclamation minimizes the justice of God in bringing judgment on the persistently wicked, the mercy of God in not taking pleasure in the death of the wicked (33:11), and the full responsibility of every human being for his own actions.

Robertson, Christ of the Prophets, 295, n. 30

Or note the contrast between the critical and evangelical commentators on Ecclesiastes 2:26:

Qohelet’s positive counsel rests under a cloud. The ability to enjoy life is not in anyone’s power, coming as a gift from God.

Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, OTL, 89

The final verdict of ‘vanity’ refers to the arbitrary (from the human standpoint) action of God who does as he pleases.

Murphy, Ecclesiastes, WBC, 26-27

This verse does not present God as capricious but does relate to the biblical idea of the grace of God. To believe that one’s life is ruled by impersonal fate is intolerable; to believe that one’s life is controlled by a personal God is a comfort.

Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, NAC, 296

All these commentators are looking at the same data, but the evangelical sees God’s grace whereas the liberals see a capricious god.