The Voice of God in the Text of Scripture

Explorations in Constructive Dogmatics

Zondervan, Oliver D. Crisp, Fred Sanders

• Publisher: Zondervan Academic
• Year: 2016
• eBook ISBN: 9780310527770
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Criticism & Interpretation

A Development of the Doctrine of Scripture and Its Interpretation.

In the case of engaging with Scripture in a way that allows it to speak to us we have a theological mandate to develop a doctrine of Scripture that recognizes both the written text and its divine authorship.

The proceedings of the fourth annual Los Angeles Theology Conference focuses on the theological and doctrinal dimensions to the biblical texts, drawing on scholars of biblical studies and systematic theology in order to do so. The question that frames these discussions is, "How does the voice of God come to us in the text of Scripture?"

The ten diverse essays in this collection include discussions on:

• Authorial intent.
• The reception and formation of the Bible as Christian Scripture.
• The relationship between Scripture and human identity.
• The hermeneutics of metaphor and theological method.

Each of the essays collected in this volume engage with Scripture as well as with others in the field—theologians both past and present, from different confessions—in order to provide constructive resources for contemporary systematic theology and to forge a theology for the future.

CHAPTER 1

THE FREEDOM OF GOD’S WORD: TOWARD AN “EVANGELICAL” DOGMATICS OF SCRIPTURE

DANIEL J. TREIER

DOGMATIC THEOLOGY PARTICIPATES in the church’s effort to discern, develop a detailed account of, and defend its authoritative teaching. History demonstrates that these tasks intermingle: Defending Christian teaching is often the occasion of freshly discerning the truth and detailing its meaning. Here I cannot offer a full dogmatic account of Scripture, but I sketch a framework for developing such an account in today’s complex environment. In that framework, the first task—discerning the church’s traditional commitment—is fairly straightforward: The biblical texts together comprise one unified (form of the) Word of God. The second task—developing a detailed doctrine of Scripture—involves acknowledging important contemporary trends, which can help us to recover and reform the faithful hearing of God’s Word in Scripture. Yet a third task—defending the church’s traditional commitment—is also necessary, since theological challenges have arisen concerning the Bible’s oral contexts and moral integrity.

This third, more defensive, task prompts a consistent operative principle throughout: focusing on the Bible’s hermeneutical self-presentation. Whereas some believe that contemporary approaches to Scripture are necessarily beholden to general hermeneutics, others nearly reject such hermeneutics out of hand for binding us to human subjectivity and obscuring divine action.¹ In response to both concerns, however, theological accounts of Scripture must attend carefully to what God has actually done: God has incorporated a particular collection of texts—along with our hearing and understanding of them—into the Word’s saving divine self-communication by the Spirit. Moreover, God has provided reflection in the texts themselves about their writing, reading, hearing, and understanding. Given this biblical material, neither merely hermeneutical generalizations (about texts being occasions for human understanding) nor dogmatic generalizations (about the divine voice being the occasion of judgment and grace) will suffice. Without being naïvely inductive or phenomenological, a dogmatic account of Scripture should reflect this concreteness of its self-presentation.

The resulting dogmatic framework will reflect the following claims: The Bible itself authorizes the church’s traditional identification of Scripture as God’s Word; the Bible itself acknowledges the dynamism and diversity of such divine speech, as reflected in certain contemporary trends; and the Bible itself addresses theological challenges regarding its oral aspects and moral authority.

THE CHURCH’S TRADITION

So, first of all, a dogmatic account seeks to discern the church’s traditional commitment, honoring its past as a source of wisdom with which to pursue plausible continuity. Concerning Scripture, little controversy emerges in the church’s orthodox tradition: The biblical texts together comprise one unified (form of the) Word of God. Given creedal generality and churchly division, this near unanimity may be counterintuitive, but only momentarily so. The crucial consensus existed early: The Old Testament would be read as Christian Scripture, the God of Israel its speaker and the same as the One revealed in Jesus Christ; the authoritative apostolic writings of the eventual New Testament would comprise epistles Pauline and Catholic along with four Gospels, but not their “gnostic” alternatives. Thus the Christian tradition united in reading these Scriptures as the Word of God, spending intellectual energy on doctrinal matter and not methodological prolegomena. For, in creedal language, “he has spoken through the prophets.”

Henceforth Scripture has regulated, and had its interpretation regulated by, Christian faith and love. Its collected texts present a complex Christ-centered unity, with a literal sense variously defined and appropriated in light of the interplay between divine and human authorship. Beyond such basic commitments, the Christian tradition admittedly contains diverse notions of Scripture’s authority, exact canonical boundaries, and interpretive approaches. The doctrine of Scripture per se did not garner significant attention between the conclusion of the Christian canon and the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. Subsequently, from modernity’s onset to the present, the doctrine has frequently come under a searchlight, subject to blinding polemical heat as much as illuminating insight. Whereas a dogmatic account of Scripture should focus on authoritative church consensus regarding God’s action, polemics arise because the church no longer hears the Word as one body: Parts of the church each claim to be its true heart, uniquely indwelt by the Word’s Spirit. Hermeneutics cannot restore the church unity that God alone gives; yet modest hermeneutical concepts can secondarily inform dogmatics because, whatever else is involved, the church’s healing depends upon hearing God speak in and through human acts of reading biblical texts.

The dogmatic framework proposed here is admittedly Protestant, albeit in grateful solidarity with Orthodox and Catholic acknowledgment of Scripture as the Word of God. While learning from the intentionally traditional and spiritual character of these alternative approaches, Protestants can contribute ecumenical insight of their own. In particular, Protestant accounts celebrate the gospel freedom that Christians enjoy when the Word of God that is binding for salvation remains clearly distinct from the human traditions that emerge from churchly wisdom.

Furthermore, the dogmatic concerns addressed here have not just Protestant but even creedally orthodox theologies as primary dialogue partners. Admittedly, liberal Protestants have made instructive contributions: from their earlier tradition, celebrating human freedom and engaging modern culture, especially scientific learning; among their present tendencies, pursuing liberation for all creatures and opposing any systemic or ideological oppression. Many conservative Protestants recognize enough shared faith with such liberal Christians that they remain in mainline denominations. Meanwhile, evangelical Christianity is hardly monolithic regarding the doctrine of Scripture, actually fostering many of its contemporary polemics.

Those qualifications notwithstanding, the most fruitful modern discussions of the doctrine of Scripture have occurred among those evangelical Protestants who are scholarly enough, and those mainline Protestants who are conservative enough, to wrestle with a broadly shared faith commitment: Scripture’s authority as a form of the Word of God. Fundamentalists who have shrilly denied Scripture’s need for interpretation, and liberals who have paid no more than lip service to the Bible’s identity with the Word of God, have rarely offered accounts of Scripture that could sustain healthy Christian teaching over the long run.

In the background of such a bold claim lies Scripture’s self-presentation: The most basic, widespread concept with which the texts identify themselves is divine speech.² Those who maintain the biblically-claimed, creedally-implied, and liturgically-proclaimed identity between Scripture and “the Word of the Lord” are most likely to understand the Bible’s character and hear its message faithfully. In contrast with divine speech, comparatively few biblical texts focus on “revelation”—by whatever definition. The complications generated by that theological concept may be best addressed by the divine speech motif, since thereby the Bible incorporates both “personal” and “propositional” aspects in its self-presentation. God communicates the truth that fosters knowing God, while knowing God defines and then fosters hearing the truth aright. Truth makes cognitive contact with reality, while the primary reality is personal covenant faithfulness: who is our God, and who we are in relation to God.

Suppose we concede that the overwhelming majority of “logos” texts in the Bible do not directly designate written Scriptures but instead an oral, personal message. Numerous texts would still pertain to written Scriptures—minimally, Torah material in Deuteronomy; certain Psalms and new covenant texts; some of Jesus’s sayings in the Gospels; widespread appeals to “it is written”; Hebrews’s appropriation of human speech as divine discourse; key Pauline passages such as Romans 15:4 and 2 Timothy 3:16–17; and Petrine mention of Pauline letters.

Of course most of these texts principally reference some portion of the Old Testament, while scholarly debate continues over the clarity and timing of its “canonical” boundaries. However, if early Christians wished to think as closely to the Bible’s own idioms as possible regarding the texts’ nature and authority, where else would they have gone? Hence even today’s clarion calls for a minimalist, inductive, and biblical doctrine of Scripture lead to many of the traditional passages. Although Christ is God’s first and final Word, biblical texts do not blush when associating themselves with God’s Word. What God has joined together in the church’s traditional commitment, let us not put asunder.

CONTEMPORARY TRENDS

Secondly, a dogmatic account develops in detail the church’s traditional commitment. Confessional traditions and evangelical parachurch entities detail this commitment using a host of concepts such as inspiration, sufficiency, clarity, infallibility, and inerrancy. Beyond appropriating particular confessional or conceptual traditions, however, a more detailed dogmatic account must also address contemporary pastoral and intellectual contexts—which are the focus of the pan-“evangelical” framework sketched here.

A spate of important developments affecting the doctrine of Scripture surfaced following the controversies of the 1960s through the early 1980s over biblical inerrancy. Since the following developments have achieved wide influence, if not substantial consensus, in conservative Protestant circles, they ought to inform dogmatic reflection—even if I can only mention them briefly, noting one representative for each.

The first set of developments focused on the biblical texts’ self-presentation, thus informing the operative principle of the present account. To begin with, Brevard Childs directed attention to the canonical shaping of biblical books for understanding biblical theology.³ Soon Richard Hays directed fresh attention to practices of inner-biblical interpretation, particularly the New Testament’s use of the Old, for understanding Scripture’s internal unity.⁴ John Goldingay then directed attention to the diversity of biblical models for understanding Scripture’s authority.⁵ In some respects all of these developments emphasize biblical diversity and require cautious appropriation. Yet each can positively contribute to appreciation of the biblical texts’ holistic self-presentation rather than denial of any and all scriptural unity like some other “inductive” approaches.

The next set of developments reflected hermeneutical and philosophical trends, creating a measure of tension. On one hand, Nicholas Wolterstorff directed attention beyond just the mental contents of human authors or editors, and ultimately to the active force of their communication, when thinking about the object of interpretation.⁶ Through this appeal to speech-act philosophy, Wolterstorff defended the possibility of divine discourse in and through Scripture as a collection of human texts. On the other hand, Stephen Fowl directed attention to the virtue(s) of the interpreter(s) as the primary aim(s) and even norm(s) of churchly exegesis.⁷ Accordingly, Fowl disagreed with meta-theoretical use of speech-act philosophy, and ultimately with any normative appeal to general hermeneutics, despite apparently reflecting certain theoretical influences when emphasizing interpretive communities.

The developments chronicled so far primarily concern Scripture’s interpretation, addressing only certain aspects of its authority. Perhaps that is no accident, given the involvement of biblical scholars and a philosopher, not doctrinal theologians. Their hermeneutical focus accords with David Kelsey’s earlier analysis of Scripture’s theological use, from which more functional accounts of biblical authority typically followed.⁸ Given such developments the need became clearer for hermeneutical concreteness to impinge upon Christian teaching about Scripture.

Nevertheless, more dogmatically-oriented developments emerged at the turn of the millennium. William Abraham’s “canonical theism” challenged theologians to be robustly soteriological in their accounts of Scripture—focusing on Scripture’s function within a wider churchly network of means of grace.⁹ John Webster challenged theologians to be robustly theological—not only focusing on divine action rather than human agency or historical contexts or hermeneutical concepts, but also coordinating divine action regarding Scripture with God’s sanctification of other creaturely realities.¹⁰ Telford Work and others challenged theologians to be robustly Trinitarian—situating Scripture’s authority within a wider economy of salvation, in terms of the ministry of Word and Spirit.¹¹ Soon after these developments emerged, theologians began returning to scriptural commentary as a form of scholarship.¹²

Subsequent treatments of Scripture have assumed, elaborated, or occasionally contested these major trends: addressing its authority and interpretation through appeals to canonical shaping, inner-biblical interpretation, biblical diversity, speech acts, and/or virtues; addressing its nature and function through insistence on soteriological, theological, and thus specifically Trinitarian frameworks. Meanwhile, one of the older dogmatic frameworks for treating Scripture as both divine and human—an analogy with the Incarnation of God in Jesus Christ—came into controversy or even disfavor.¹³

These contemporary trends create a vital backdrop for engaging Scripture as God’s textual medium of self-communication. They encourage relishing the biblical texts’ genuine diversity as a God-given aspect of their unity. They encourage relishing the dynamism of reading Scripture as God’s saving witness to Christ in the powerful presence of the Spirit. Yet this backdrop of emerging consensus, vital as it is, does not fully detail either the nature of Scripture’s authority or its resulting implications for theological interpretation. Modest hermeneutical concepts make the case of Scripture more concretely analogous—both similar to and different from—other instances of human understanding, especially of texts. The operative principle here is that the modest concepts we most basically need emerge from the Scriptures themselves, so that dogmatic alliances with hermeneutics can be suitably chaste.

TEXTUAL COMMUNICATION

Thirdly, then, a contemporary dogmatic account should develop the church’s teaching about Scripture in terms of the Triune God’s textual self-communication: attending to the Bible’s diversity and dynamism within the saving economy of the Word and Spirit. Having already suggested that the biblical texts themselves emphasize divine speech, it is now time to emphasize that biblical texts themselves wrestle with the key tension: hearing divine speech in and through these written texts. In this small space, obviously, a dogmatic account cannot provide detailed exegetical defenses of its appeals to scriptural concepts but will have to gesture at relevant texts or thematic patterns—with five claims emerging...

Table of contents

• COVER PAGE
• TITLE PAGE
• COPYRIGHT PAGE
• DEDICATION
• CONTENTS
• ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
• LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
• ABBREVIATIONS
• INTRODUCTION
• 1. THE FREEDOM OF GOD’S WORD: TOWARD AN “EVANGELICAL” DOGMATICS OF SCRIPTURE
• 2. “IN MANY AND VARIOUS WAYS”: HEARING THE VOICE OF GOD IN THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE
• 3. HEARING GOD SPEAK FROM THE FIRST TESTAMENT
• 4. THE VOICE OF GOD IN ISRAEL’S WISDOM LITERATURE
• 5. THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW: READING HEBREWS RETROACTIVELY
• 6. PATHS BEYOND TRACING OUT: THE HERMENEUTICS OF METAPHOR AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD
• 7. THE VOICE OF GOD IN HISTORICAL BIBLICAL CRITICISM
• 8. POST(MODERN) BIBLICAL HISTORIOGRAPHY: AN INTERIM REPORT FROM THE FRONT LINES
• 9. READING SCRIPTURE IN OUR CONTEXT: DOUBLE PARTICULARITY IN KARL BARTH’S ACTUALISTIC VIEW OF SCRIPTURE
• 10. “FOR THE LOVE OF GOD”: SCRIPTURE AND THE FORMATION OF HUMAN IDENTITY
• SCRIPTURE INDEX
• SUBJECT INDEX
• AUTHOR INDEX