First Theology: God, Scripture & Hermeneutics

When doing theology must we start with God, the Bible or hermeneutics? For postmodernism we must start with herme-neutics. God and the Bible as his Word are not seen as objective realities but only as realities with can only be discussed in the context of faith- and reading-communities. Already some years ago Kevin VanHoozer in a book with the title God, Scripture & Hermeneutics: First Theology argued that questions about these three issues belong together.

Kevin VanHoozer unashamedly identifies the Bible with the Word of God. When we do that, hermeneutics is governed by the self witness of the Scripture and can never be an activity that can be undertaken apart from this self witness. Reading the Scripture as the voice of God shows that our view of God is dependent on the Scripture and our view on Scripture is dependent on our view on God. God is not the construct of a faith-community and Scripture has a real and fixed meaning that is related to authorial intent.

In the context of the canon and the development of the history of revelation we can speak of an extended meaning in comparison with the original meaning. The extension is always in the line of the original meaning. I would say that we know more about the referent of Old Testament passages that readers or hearers could know under the Old Testament dispen­sation.

According to postmodernism there is nothing outside the text. According to the classical view on the Scripture and of God, the triune God really exists and is not dependent on the Christian community of faith. The text of Scripture cannot be really under-stood apart from the conviction that the triune God really exist and he speaks in and through the Scripture. The Scripture is the source of real and objective knowledge about God; knowledge that is not dependent upon the person who knows, but upon God who has revealed himself.

VanHoozer rightly argues that postmodernism is a radically new suspicion of hermeneutics itself. He completely disagrees with Stanley Hauerwas who maintains that the whole endeavor to interpret the Bible on its own term is vain nosense. VanHoozer defends a theological hermeneutics and a theological inter-pretation of the Scripture. This means that hermeneutics and interpretation is based on the view that God transcends the play of language in writing.

VanHoozer ends his study with the statement that a Christian theologian must be a truth-teller, truth-deer and truth sufferer.  A real theologian makes Christian truth claims. Real truth complains always surpass the community to which the person who makes this claim, belong. Truth requires evangelical passion. The willing-ness to suffer is an indispensable element of this passion.

Kevin VanHoozer, First Theology: God, Scripture & Hermeneutics  (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2002), paperback 384 p., price $40,-- (ISBN 978-0-8308-2681-0).

The Canon of the New Testament

Kruger can be seen as a real expert on the history of the formation of the canon of the New Testament. He combines his great academic insight with a deep love for the Bible as the Word of God. This combination of academic quality and piety is a model for every biblical scholar. In 2013 a second book written by him was published on this subject. Quite a lot of New Testament scholars see the canon of the New Testament as a ecclesiastical product of the fourth century.

This view is not in accordance with the classical view on the canon. In his last book Kruger tackles the five most prevalent objections to the classic, Christian understanding of the emerging, self-authenticating collection of authoritative counterparts to the Old Testament. These five objections are: 1. We must make a sharp distinction between Scripture and canon; 2. There was nothing in earliest Christianity that might have led to a canon; 3. Early Christianity was averse of written documents; 4.The New Testament authors were unaware of their authority; 5. The New Testament books were first regarded as Scripture at the end of the second century.

Kruger distinguishes three models for the canon of the New Testament: the exclusive, functional and ontological model. Each model has its merits, but the one model does not exclude the other. The exclusive model thinks that only from the fourth century we can speak of the canon of the New Testament. It is true that in the fourth century there came a universal consensus about the exact boundary of the canon, although we must stress that this consensus was just recognized. It was not the result of a somewhat arbitrary ecclesiastical decision.

Nevertheless, already form the second century there are quite a lot of data that point to the use of books of the New Testament as Scripture having the same authority as the Old Testament books. This is the functional model of canon. This model is based on the use of books as Scripture. Very important are here the witness of Irenaeus and the Muratorian fragment. The last list confirms the scriptural status of at least 21 and perhaps 22 books of the New Testament. Revelation, Hebrews, James and 1 and 2 Peter are not mentioned. Whether 3 John is included is not sure.

Kruger says that the functional model has many positive elements and provides a welcome balance to the exclusive definition of the New Testament canon. He states that also the functional model has its weaknesses. Some books that were not included in the final canon of the New Testament had at least almost the status of Scripture. Especially the Pastor of Hermas can be mentioned in this context.

A much more important weakness of the functional model – a weakness that it shares with the exclusive model – is that it fails to address the ontological status of the New Testament books. The books that finally found their way in the canon of the New Testament have an intrinsic quality not found in others. They are written by the apostles or their direct companions. That was the reason already in the Muratorian frag­ment the Pastor of Hermas was not regarded as Scripture, because it was written quite recently.

Although 1 Clements was written roughly in the same period as the last books of the New Testament, it was never regarded as Scripture, because its author clearly made a distinction between his own authority and the authority of the apostles. Kruger points to the importance to have a clear sight on the intrinsic quality of the New Testament books. In regard with the question of the canon he speaks of the ontological model. This model is quite often completely neglected, although it is finally the most important model.

For early Christianity the decisive criterion was the apostolic nature of a document. Pseudonymity was for them a definite reason not to recognize a document a Scripture. Kruger challenges ably the view that the early Christians were averse of written documents. Already from its very beginnings Christianity had a canon, namely the canon of the Old Testament.

The statement of Papias that an eyewitness must be preferred above a written testimony, he means that a direct testimony must be preferred above an indirect testimony. The gospels are eyewitness accounts in written form and have for the new generations the same value and status as the original oral eyewitness accounts.

Kruger denies that the apostles did not realize their own authority. The data point in a complete opposite direction. The apostles realized that their authority stood on the same level as the authority of the Old Testament prophets. Then we must not forget that all writers of the Old Testament were seen as prophets. The apostles knew that their authority was in a certain sense an extension of the authority of Jesus Christ.

It is no coincidence that beginnings of the written down of the New Testament documents corresponds with the rise of Christianity as a missionary movement in the fifties and sixties of the New Testament. The need of written eyewitness accounts, of what Jesus had said and had done, was more and more felt. Especially Paul wrote letters to congregations founded by his missionary work. The letters quite often written because of problems in the congregations were a form on extended personal and apostolic presence.

I would add that letters in Antiquity used to have a semi-public status. The writes knew that his letter was preserved, shared with others and used in other context. This means that although having a somewhat occasional nature the apostles knew already from the beginning that what they put down to writing had form that moment an apostolic authority.

Kruger rightly states the formation of the canon represented the working of forces that were already present in primitive Christianity and made some form of canon virtually inevitable. Following David Meade Kruger says that the apocalyptic nature of Christianity provided a strong inner reason for extension of Scripture. We see in all forms of apocalypticism in the period of the Second Temple that written documents were produced.

The fact, that written documents in the form of the book of the Old Testament were essential for Christianity from its very beginning, means that among early Christians there were literate people. This must have been especially true for spiritual leaders. In the second place we must realize that orality and textuality cannot be seen as opposites.

In the Ancient world an illiterate person could be intimately familiar with a written text. Texts were written to be performed orally. This is certainly true not only of the New Testament letters but of all New Testament documents. Kruger has done us a great service by giving us many arguments that ontological model of the canon – a model that is connected with apostolic authority and divine inspiration belongs to the very essence of the Christian religion.

Michael J. Kruger, The Question of Canon: Challenging the status quo in the New Testament Debate, Apollos, Nottingham 2013; ISBN 978-1-78359-1-004-9; pb. 256 pp., prijs £14,99.

From the Mouth of God

Why should we believe that – as Jesus our Lord and Savior – that the Bible is the mouth of God. In From the Mouth of God Sinclair Ferguson, a former minister of the First Presbyterian Church in Colombia, South Carolina and a former professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, answers this question. His book is highly relevant especially in a day when a growing number of people, although calling them-selves Evangelicals, question whether the Bible is the infallible and inerrant Word of God.

With regards to the fact the books of the Bible were written by human authors Ferguson point to the fact undoubtedly the human writers of Scripture were conscious that they were expressing their own words as they wrote. Btu at the same time they were under the sovereign direction of the Spirit. God prepared the human writes of the Bible with regards of all aspects of their lives to express his Word in their words.

Both the Old Testaments prophets and New Testament apostles were aware they what they preached and what was written by them was not merely an expression of their witness to the God of Israel and Jesus Christ. They believed that what they said and wrote was to be heard and read as God’s Word.

We can trust the Bible as God mouth. But how must we apply the Bible in our lives. Ferguson gives several keys for reading and applying the Bible in the right way. We should read passages and text of the Bible in their context and understand how to read different kinds of genre. All important is to realize that both the Old Testament and the New Testament point us to Jesus Christ.

The Bible is given that we as fallen creatures may be reconciled with our Creator through Him. Ferguson rightly urges that is im-portant to read the whole Bible. He advises to read every year the entire Bible. He also says it can be very helpful to read just a whole book of the Bible in one of two sittings. I heartily agree. How can the Bible shape our lives when we do not know its content?!

The book of Ferguson is well written and easily to follow also for them who do not have English as their native language. I heartily recommend it. May the Lord use it to teach is to honor and obey Him.

Sinclair Ferguson, From the Mouth of God: Trusting, Reading, and Apply­ing the Bible, The Banner of Truth, Edinburgh 2014; ISBN 978-1-84871-242-3; pb. 209 pp., price £7,50.

The Relationship between the Old and the New Testament

David L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible: The Theological Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, Third Edition, Downers Grove, Illinois/Nottingham, U.K.: IVP-USA/ Apollos, 2010. Pp. 376. Paper. $29,--. ISBN 9780830814213

The relevance and meaning of the Old Testament and its relation to the New Testament is the most important question in the field of hermeneutics. The answers we give to this question, deter-mines the character of our faith. Do we think that we can build our faith only on the New Testament or are we convinced of the fact that true Christianity is unthinkable when we do not accept to Old Testament just as the New Testament as the permanent revelation of God?

In the thoroughly revised, updated and expanded version of Two Testaments, One Bible David L. Barker, Senior Lecturer in Old Testament at Trinity Theological College in Western Austra­lia and formerly Deputy Warden of Tyndale House in Cambridge investi-gates the theo­lo­gical basis for the continual acceptance of the Old Testament through a study of its relation­ship to the New Testament.

Two Testaments, One Bible consists of four parts. In the first part the problem is stated and a quite extensive review of the different views in church history on the Old Testament and its explanation is given. In the second part four modern solutions on the relation-ship between the Old and New Testament are described and evaluated. In the third part the following important themes with regard to this relationship are handled; typology, pro­mise and fulfilment, continuity and discontinuity and covenant. The last part consists of an evaluation.

In this part the author shows how Marcion in the second century rejected the Old Testament as the book of the inferior creator god whom he distinguished from to god of love of the New Testament. The Church affirmed that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the same as the Creator of heaven and earth. She retained the Old Testament not in the last place by using the allegorical method of expla­na­tion.

The difference between the typology we find in the New Testament itself and which as the author show is completely legitimate is that in the allegorical no justice is done to salvation history. The typological meaning is in distinction to allegory related to the historical meaning.

Both Luther and Calvin affirmed the authority of the Old Testament. They both rejected the apocryphal books being a part of the Old Testament. Luther did not equate completely the Old Testament with the law and the New Testament with the gospel but he went to a great degree in that direction. Calvin stressed the fundamental unity of the Old and New Testament.

Scheiermacher, the father of modern theology, saw the Old Testament as the book of a bypas­sed religion. In his often quoted work on Marcion (1921) Von Harnack stated: ‘To reject the Old Testament in the second century was a mistake which the church rightly rejected, to keep it in the sixteenth century was a fate which the Reformation could not yet avoid, but to retain it after the nineteenth century as a canonical document in Protestantism results from paralysis of religion and the church.’ From the nineteenth century and onwards not only conservative scholars but also scholars who accepted the historical-critical method stressed the abiding value of the Old Testament.

With regard to modern solutions the author reviews the views of four theologians. For the famous critical New Testament scholar Bultmann the New Testament was the essential Bible. Accor­ding to Bultmann we need the Old Testament only as its pre-supposition that shows us the fai­lure of Israel to be saved by the Mosaic covenant. Wilhelm Visscher, a scholar who influen­ced by the christomonism of Barth although being more conservative, stressed that’s Old and New Testament are equally Christian Scripture. We must read the Old Testament christolo­gically.

For the Dutch theologian Van Ruler the Old Testament was the real Bible. The New Testament is only its interpretative glossary. According to Van Ruler the Old Testament shows us that the real issue of revelation is the creation and the kingdom of God in this world. The redemption wrought by Christ is only an emergency measure. The American Old Testament scholars Brueggemann and Goldingay each in their own way agree with Van Ruler in his view that the Old Testament is the real Bible of the church.

The last view, defended among others by the German Old Testament scholar Von Rad, is that Old and New Testament are connected to each other by the one history of salvation. He points to the fact that Von Rad does not see salvation history as real history but only as Israel perception of history in faith. The disagreement with this view ought to be formulated more strongly than the author does.

Baker especially criticizes the views of Bultmann and Von Ruler although acknowledging that there are elements of truth in it. Against Van Ruler he points to the fact that also the Old Testament takes human sin very seriously and its ultimate goal is communion with God and not enjoying this (redeemed) creation as such. He agrees with the view of Visscher, a view that has prevailed during the centuries, but points to the fact that is must be completed with the view that in salvation history the New Testament surpasses to Old.

This book is an important and well written book. Much can be learned form it. It is an aca­demic and not a devotional book. The book would have been stronger when in the last chapter more emphasis was given to the importance of all what has been said for the worship of and devotion to the living God. Although I can agree with the author that by understanding the Old Testament we must not limit ourselves to what the New Testament authors wrote about the Old Testament, as a Christian I am not altogether happy with the remark of the author that the New Testament authors are no norm for us in their exegesis of the Old Testament. Certainly they used for the contemporary methods of explanation, but also this aspect is part of God’s revelation.  

The authority of Scripture 8 (end)

Biblical exposition

It is the duty of ministers of the Gospel to expose the Scriptures. They must do that in the assurance that the Scriptures are the infallible and inerrant Word of God for all ages. The application is a part of the exposition. When we think that the application is not immediately related to the exposition, we in fact see the Bible just as an historical document. In that case the sources for the application of the biblical message come from outside the Bible. Knowledge of gram­mar, bib­lical history and languages is highly use­ful. We must compare Scrip­ture with Scrip­ture. We must reject how­ever exegetical methods, which are not based on the self-wit­ness of the Bible.

Our approach to the Bible is never neu­tral. We must approach the Bible in the aware­ness that it is the voice of the liv­ing of God. Not our reason must judge the Bible, but the Bible must judge our rea­son. What we need above all is the enlightening of the Holy Spirit. Other­wise our knowl­edge of the Bible and of bibli­cal exe­gesis can be very great, but it is just an encyclopaedic knowledge. For that reason exposing the Scripture, we miss the real point. How we have to pray daily: "Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law (Psalms 119:18)"

 

The end of the authority of Scripture

God has given us his Word to make us wise unto salvation. Defending the infallibility of Scrip­ture must never become an aim in itself. Our aim must be that we and other people glorify the triune God who has revealed himself to us and speaks to us in his Word. When we have our reser­vations about the divine origin of the Scripture and its divine inspiration, we cannot speak with authority any longer.

Prophets and apostles knew themselves to be spokesmen of the living God. They said: "Thus saith the LORD". Accepting the books of prophets and apostles as the Word of God, ministers of the gospel preaching the Word may speak and must speak which the same assur­ance: "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. (2 Corinthians 5:20)"

 

The authority of Scripture 7

The formal and material authority of Scripture

The scope of Scripture is the message of salvation by Jesus Christ. In that context we speak about the material authority of Scripture. That means: Scripture has authority because of its mess­age. The will of God and the way of salvation is abundantly taught in it. The for­mal auth­ority of Scripture means that all what the Scripture teaches on what­ever topic has divine authority. In article 5 of the Belgic Con­fession we read: "believing without any doubt all things contained in them."

More than once it has been defended that the Scripture is only infal­lible in regard to its doc­trine of faith and salvation. Men want to hold fast to its material authority but cannot accept its for­mal auth­ority. Again we must say that it is impossible to separate the saving message of Scrip­ture from all that it contains. The formal and material authority of Scripture presupposes each other and need each other. The formal and material authority of Scripture is two sides of one coin.

The saving message of Scripture is complete reliable because it is revealed to us in the fully inspired, infallible Word of God. We can never separate the content of Scripture form the character of God. What God says and that God speaks to us in Scripture, are com­pletely related to each other. Because of the form given to the Scrip­ture by God (fully and verbally inspired), the Scripture can fulfil the aim for which God has given it to us (to make us wise unto salva­tion).

 

The witness of the Holy Spirit

How do we come to the assurance that the Bible is the Word of God? It has been testified in the church during the ages. The Bible itself shows many marks of its Divine origin. Our ultimate assurance that the Bible is the Word of God is not based on the fact that the church receives and approves it as such, but on the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Sprits convinces us of our adoption into the family of God. At the same it convinces us of the divine origin, and the divine authority of the message of the Bible.

Paul wrote to the Thessalonians: "For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake (1 Thessalonians 1:5)." In the sec­ond chapter of the same epistle we read: "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe" (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

A Christian upbringing or Christian witness is as a rule the first way in which we are brought in contact with God’s Word, and is used by God, as the conviction that the Bible is the Word of God. But the witness of other men never can be our ultimate ground of assurance. Our unshakable assurance is based on the witness of the third person of the Holy Trinity in our hearts. Being enlightened by the Holy Spirit we see the majesty of God in his Word. We recognized his voice.

When we try to convince others of the message of the Bible, we can point to the fulfilment of prophecies, the trustworthiness of quite a lot of biblical accounts proved by archaeological excava­tions, the existence of the Christian church and so on. We can also point to unrest in every human heart and explain it in the light of the bibli­cal message of sin and salvation. We can witness and we are obliged to do it, we only God can really convince and assure people and he does it by his Holy Spirit.

 

The authority of Scripture 6

The historical reliability of the biblical witness

One of the essential features of biblical revelation is that God acts in history. God governs history. The biblical record is a his­torical record. Our salvation is based on God's mighty and saving acts. Is it essential that these mighty acts really happened? Are we to accept the reliability of the biblical historical records?
Let me first say the Bible is written in several genres. We find prose and poetry, psalms and prophecy. Awareness of the literary categories is essential for proper exegesis. We must however an appeal to literal genres to undermine the historical trustworthiness of the biblical record of events. What the Bible reports regarding history must be accepted as such.

The salvation of sinners depends on the work of Christ. Sometimes the position is defended that the acts reported in the Bible can be still true although they in reality never happened. We find this view already in the early church. Origenes said that several histories reported in the Bible were in reality allegories containing a lesson for us. With his allegorising method he tried to take away the offen­sive nature of the biblical message for the educated men of his own time. Heathen philosophers noted that fact.

In trying to explain the biblical message, Origenes offered it up to an essen­tial philosophical nderstanding inimical to the essence of the biblical message. When the great facts of the life of Christ never hap­pened, it cannot be said that Christ saves us. Not tak­ing se­riously the his­tori­cal reality of Christ's redem­ptive work, of his virgin birth, his death and resurrec­tion is a sin of a Pelagian view on sin and an esse­ntial moralistic view on the nature of salvation.

The saving acts of God in history are integrally related with the bib­lical record of the history of God's covenant people under the Old Testament dispensation and the biblical record of the life of our Sav­iour on earth. When we really obey the Scripture we accept all it says. In article five of the Belgic Confes­sion we read "believing without any doubt all things contained in them (namely the book of Holy Scripture)."

The fact that the Bible has a scope namely the revelation of Christ and his redemptive work does not mean that the other things revealed in the Bible are not essential. When we doubt what the Bible says about the context in which it places Christ and his work, we lose the very message of salvation. In this context I will discuss the issue how we must understand the first three chapters of Genesis. Are they myth or history?

In the account given in Genesis there is no hint that the first three or eleven chapters are only symbolical. They simply recount something which the writer believed took place. In the New Testament the fall of man is accepted as a historical fact. In Romans 5 Paul compares the action of Adam with the action of Christ.
The redemptive work of Christ is the answer on the fall of Adam. The historicity of Christ is cru­cial for Paul's argument. Man was created in the image of God. On a certain point in history Adam transgressed God's command. Death and mis­ery was the result. Death and miseries are not a part of God's ori­ginal creation.

If Adam's work is mythical, how do we know that Christ's work is not mythical? When we deny the historicity and significance of the first Adam, we cannot get a real insight into the work of the second and last Adam Jesus Christ. Accepting the histori­cal factuality of the fall of Adam is essential for a faithful presen­ta­tion of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The famous scientist Pascal said that true Christian religion consists in the knowledge of two persons, namely Adam and the damna­tion and misery of all mankind as a consequence of his fall and Jesus Christ and the felicity of all who believe in him.

Accepting the historical trustworthiness of the first part of Gen­esis is heavily criticized in the name of modern science. We all know the name of Darwin and his theory of evolution. We must never forget that so-called scientific data are in many cases not so sure as its defenders suggests.

Much of which is accepted as the only possible inter­pretation of the facts or data in one age, is seen by the next as the consequence of the prejudice with which the former age approached the­ data. All too often it is forgotten that science functions within the framework of pre-scientific presuppositions that are of an ideologi­cal or religious nature. Neutral science does not exist. That is especially true when questions concerning the origin of creation and human being are answered.

Evolution is not based on real fact but on the gaps between the facts. There is not one sure example of a being that can be seen as a transi­tion between tow kinds. Evolution is not the result of research of data but a postulate that can never be proved wrong for them who accept it. There­in it shows itself to be more than a scientific the­ory.
Real scientific theories can in principle be falsified. I do not say that accepting the historical trustworthiness of the first part of Genesis we can answer all ques­tions concerning the relation between faith and science. But that is not necess­ary for trusting the Bible as the infallible Word of God. Everybody no matter what his con­victions are lives implicit or explicit with open questions.

It is also important to realise that already in the Early Church the relation between the account of the origin of the world and the science of their day was problematic. According to the Greek philos­ophy matter was eternal. The Greeks did not belief in God as the Cre­ator of mat­ter.
We know that Augustine as a young man wrestled with the relation between faith and science. It was one of the reasons that he left the Christian church. But after many years he came back con­fessing that his heart was full of unrest until in found rest in God. Augustine learned more and more to bring into captiv­ity every thought to the obedience of Christ (compare 2 Corinthians 10:5).

 

The authority of Scripture 5

Accommodation

The point of the cultural and historical context in which the bib­lical revelation has been given to us, brings me to the subject of accommo­dation. In the doctrine of Scripture this topic plays a great role. We find it already in the writings of the church fathers. The reformer John Calvin has said much about it. The church fathers, and in their footsteps John Calvin, used this concept to clarify that God who is for us incomprehensible speaks to us in a way that we can understand. God, they say, accommodates himself to our level of understand­ing. In the writings of the church fathers and the reformers accommodation is not related to fallibility and time- and culture-bound insights, which are no longer relevant for us, but to the fact that we as limited creatures who cannot fathom God.

In the time of the Enlightenment we see that quite another concept of accommodation comes in fashion. Semler said that the biblical writers were just children of their time. In his opinion they were, in what they wrote, not raised above their time. The way in which Semler spoke about accommo­dation had very much influence. You can read quite often that several of the insights you find in the Bible are just bound to the cultural horizon of the biblical writers. A famous example is the biblical doctrine of eternal punishment. It is said that the biblical writers and also our Lord himself on that point, just accom­modated them­selves to the religious views of their time.

Such a view however brings you in conflict with the Bible itself. The doc­trine of eternal punish­ment surely belongs to the core of the biblical message. It is a substantial part of the dark back­ground of Christ's work of redemption and salvation. Christ came to save sinners from the coming wrath. When the reality of coming wrath is denied, the work of Christ becomes meaningless. The biblical doctrine of atonement and reconcili­ation is at stake. Christ propitiated the wrath of God by dying on Calvary. His death was a sacrifice for sin. When the wrath of God is denied, our view on Christ' work is substantially altered.

The view I mentioned is not self-con­sis­tent either. How do we know that with regard to eter­nal pun­ishment we can speak of accommodation and with regard to the love of God we have an insight for all ages? When we speak about accommodat­ion in the way Semler did it, our own rea­son becomes the judge of the message of the Scripture. All the aspects we do not like, we declare to be time-bound.

Besides the doctrine of eternal punishment, I can use another, and I know, for many people a disputed example. I refer to the posi­tion of women in the church of Christ. In the New Testament there are several texts that speak explicitly on this point. In 1 Corinthians 14:34 we read: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law" and in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 Paul states: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the trans­gression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they con­tinue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."

Going back to the creation-order Paul inspired by the Holy Ghost points to the fact that the position of man and woman in marriage and also in the church differs from each other. Each has his task and sphere. Because man is the head of woman it is not allowed that women preach, teach, or, fulfil an office (that is always associated with ruling and governing) in the church. We are going against the witness of Scripture itself when we say that Paul (and other biblical writers) in their view on the position of women conformed themselves to time-bound cul­tural customs. However Paul's appeal is not to con­form to the cultural-bound standards but to creation. The different position of man and woman in marriage, church and also (although the Bible is less explicit on that point) in society is based on God's creation order.

Most the biblical data on the position of women have reference to the married. Heavy stress is laid on the task of the women in the family. Confer again 1 Timothy 2:15 "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in child­bearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." This is a most neglected but very import­ant task. Through the godly upbringing of her children women can build the church. The classical example is Monica and her son Augustine. I do not mean that the task of women is restricted to her family. This is the first but not the only thing the Bible says. How useful can be the advice especially of elderly women. We read that Aquila and his wife Priscilla explained to Apollos the way of God more perfectly.

In several ways women can be used to build the church of God, but when we fol­low the biblical wit­ness we are not allowed to give them a ruling posi­tion in the church. Our view on the position of men and women must not be governed by the cultural standards of our time, but by the wit­ness of the Bible. The Biblical message originated within a certain cultural context. We must also say that the Bible has been given not only to transform our hearts and lives, but also to transform cul­ture and society.

 

The authority of Scripture 4

Is the Bible a time- and culture-bound document?

In the work of the writing of his inspired Word God used men who were men of their time, just as all men they were limited in knowledge and so on, in themselves they were fallible men. Does that mean that the Bible is a limited, time-bound and fallible record about God? That is argued quite often, but such an opinion contradicts the witness of Scripture itself. The Scripture does not present itself as a time- and culture-bound, fallible document, but as the record of God's revealed will for all times and places.

It is true: in themselves the biblical writers were fallible sinful men, but moved by the Holy Spirit they wrote the infallible Word of God. The biblical writers were men of their time. They lived and wrote within a certain culture. That does not mean however that what they wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was bound to their time and culture. God governs the whole world. He works all things according to his eternal pleasure. It pleased him to reveal his will within a certain cultural and histori­cal context. The cultural and historical contexts are not factors that stand out­side the counsel of God.

The Bible was written within a certain cultural and historical context, but its message is not bound to that context. From its very beginning, it was intended to be a revelation of God and his will for the world. When we read the Bible, we are confronted with commands and cus­toms. Are all commands meant for us? Are we to follow all customs described in the Bible?

In the first place we must distinguish between the Old Testament and the New Testament dispensation. In the New Testament it is explicitly indicated that many commands were only meant for the Old Testament dispensation. In the next place we must not forget that not all things that are described in the Bible are prescribed for all coming generations. But when a custom is in the Bible itself explicitly prescribed and it does not belong to the mosaic dispensation, we do not have the right to say that we are free to obey or disobey.

The authority of Scripture 3

Inspiration

Men wrote the Bible. God wrote the Ten Commandments, which are in the Bible. Men wrote the Bible, but that does not mean that the Bible is only an old and even a unique religious document. We believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God. The Bible itself testifies abundantly of its divine origin and authority. Two texts always have played an important role in the doctrine of Scripture. I refer to  2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21.

In 2 Timothy 3:16 we read: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in right­eousness." The Greek word for inspira­tion is "theopneustos", that means "breathed out by God". The Bible is not just an inspiring book, but it is the inspired book of God. His Spirit breathes out the words of the Bible.

God used men as his instruments to give us his revelation. That is especially true of his revelation in its scrip­tural form. Peter states in his second epistle: "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." The writers of the Bible were in their writing, moved by the Holy Spirit. Their thoughts were his thoughts and their words his words.

This does not mean that the biblical writers were completely passive in what they thought and wrote. God has revealed himself in diverse ways. God has used the complete personality of the biblical writers. He made use of their research and several other activities. The result of all was that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. The human instrumentality of revelation and the divine origin are just two sides of one coin. In and through the words written by men God has revealed himself to us.

The inspiration is a permanent and abiding feature of the Scripture. The Bible is the voice of God. We read the Bible in the attitude: "Speak, Lord, for thy servant hears"

 

The authority of Scripture 2

Bible and revelation

God has created heaven and earth. After the fall of man, God has revealed himself to men to redeem him from sin and guilt. God sent his servants the prophets. He revealed himself in mighty acts. The climax of God's revelation was the sending of his Son. The Bible is the record of God's saving acts. In the Bible, we find the interpretation of God's mighty acts. But, we must even say more. The Bible is not only a record of revelation. It is revelation itself. The Bible is the Word of God.

In every biblical statement (which we must take always in its context) God reveals some aspect of himself and how we have to honour and worship him. To give an example: the Psalms are more than human confessions of guilt and praise. They are inspired records of the work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts and lives of men. The Bible is not only the stan­dard of what we have to believe to be saved. But God has revealed to us how men experience their faith in him, too. The Bible is also the standard and rule of the experience of faith.          

In and through the Bible we meet the living God. The revelation of God has a personal charac­ter. At the same time we must say that the Bible is the revelation of God, about his nature, his will, and about God's way of salvation. We can call that the propositional aspect of revel­ation, that means revelation as revealed truth with an objective content; truth about God. The personal and propositional aspects of revelation do not con­tradict each other, but they presuppose each other.

To say it in other word: faith in God and in Jesus Christ has a distinct content. Faith is not feeling or emotion without content. To believe in Christ means trust in him, but also to know that he is God revealed in our flesh, the eternal and only begotten Son of God, who propitiated with his death the wrath of God against human sin.

When we deny the propositional aspect of biblical revelation, the element of knowledge in faith is not longer thought to be essential. All thoughts about God and Christ are seen as principally of the same value. Their remains just one sin: to have your doubts about the sincerity about the faith of others.
The denial of the Bible as the infallible Word of God has a universalistic tendency. Regardless of the content of their faith all men calling themselves Christians, are seen as Christians, or even further every man is seen as a child of God.

Our view on the Bible itself and on the biblical message is inter­re­lated. Sometimes it is said: "The way you see the Bible is not of pri­mary importance. The matter is: what means Christ for you? Do you love him?" But that is a wrong approach. After the close of the canon we can only come in contact with God in and through his Word. When we love God, we also love the book in which he speaks to us.
In Psalm 119 we find a clear witness of the interrelationship of love to God and love to the scriptural record of his revelation. A view on the Bible, that is not in accordance with its self-witness, leads to another view on God and on the way of salvation. Faithfulness to God can never be separ­ated from faithfulness to the book by which God speak to us and reveals himself to us.

 

The authority of Scripture 1

Introduction

In answer 21 of the Heidelberg Catechism we find the following state­ment in answer on the question: What is true faith? : "True faith is not only a certain knowledge, by which I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word, but also an assured confidence which the Holy Ghost works by the gospel in my heart, that not only to others, but to me also, remission of sin, everlast­ing righteousness and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ's merits."
I highlight the first part of this defini­tion: "True faith is a certain knowledge by which I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in his Word." God speaks to us in his Word. The Bible is the Word of God. This is a foundational conviction of the Christian church. The Word of God forms the Christian church. The Word of God is committed to the Christian church. Great parts of the Christian church are in a crisis. Man does not know what to believe. Ministers do not know what to preach. The reason is, that they are not convinced that God speaks to us in his Word. They are not sure that in the Bible, God reveals Himself to us.

With regard to the Bible two positions are possible: we can see the Bible as the Word of God to man or as words and thoughts of men about God. The first position is in agreement with the self-witness of Scrip­ture. The second completely contradicts it. Many people within the churches see the Bible as the thoughts of men about God. They confess it is a unique document. They will say: it is a standard for our thoughts about God, but that only means that we must first listen to the Bible in forming our thoughts about God. It does not mean that our thoughts about God must be completely formed and governed by the Bible.

When we deny the Bible to be the infallible Word of God, the immediate result is that our thoughts about God are formed by other sources: human traditions and reason are the climate of our own time. To proclaim to message of the Word of God faithfully, we must first bow to this, and to accept Word of God as his revel­ation for all ages and all places.

Everyone has a sense of God's being and existence. The apostle Paul speaks about that sense in Romans 1. He stresses that the sense man has of God apart from the biblical revelation never lead to the true knowledge of God. To know who God is, how we can find peace with Him, and how we have to worship him, we need the Bible as our only guide.