In autumn an old man's thoughts . . . .
18/05/08 13:49 Filed in: Thinking Thoughts
In Spring, we are told, a young man's thoughts turn to love. Perhaps on similar lines you'll forgive an old man's thoughts turning to theology in autumn, especially as it is autumn here in the southern hemisphere!
My thoughts were turned that way by reading the Douglas Moo commentary on James which I got at a bargain price. It wasn't actually the price that drew me - I didn't know it was 'on offer' until I got to the till - but the fact that I am quite interested in James and Douglas Moo is a name I know and respect in the evangelical world. I have his commentary on Romans and other books in which he has a part in editing or authoring the material.
All the more disappointing then, to be faced with a thorny problem while reading the James commentary. There are a number of issues in interpreting biblical text and I am not an expert in any of them, but I do have my doubts about the way Scripture is treated sometimes. I can outline my view of Scripture this way:
1. Scripture is entirely and completely the Word of God, in the original (Hebrew and Greek) perfect in every way and still in translation infallible and inerrant.
2. I recognise the human authorship of the books of Scripture and that those authors have left their mark in terms of style and other non-essential matters. Nevertheless I believe the Holy Spirit to be the original author of Scripture because all Scripture is God-breathed.
3. This original divine authorship of Scripture means that the Bible is not like other books. Through it God himself speaks, judging, correcting and encouraging his people.
It is this last point I particularly want to comment on here. It is essential that we do not ever treat Scripture as merely a human book, because in that way we will find ourselves degrading the truths it is meant to convey and at the worst we will put ourselves in the position of allowing ourselves to judge Scripture rather than submitting ourselves to it, as we should.
Scripture really is unique. This is evident in Peter's comment (2 Peter 1:21) where he says:
For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Quite plainly in the most natural sense Peter is referring to the Old Testament, but in that 'prophecy' in the context carries the meaning of conveying the Word of God it equally plainly applies to the New Testament as well. Peter has more to say:
Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.
(1 Peter 1:10-12)
The meaning here seems plain enough: the human authors of Scripture sometimes found their curiosity aroused by what they themselves had written. Or put another way, 'carried along by the Holy Spirit' they wrote things that were not wholly clear to them in meaning. They knew that, and although they sought to know more fully, the Holy Spirit revealed that what they had written was for a future time which Peter identifies as the age in which we live - the Gospel age, between the first and second coming of the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ.
If there is a lesson from these texts it must be that the idea that is regularly promoted even by evangelical authors, that the first and most important question in studying a passage in the Old Testament is its meaning to the author and original authors, cannot be true. I do not mean to suggest that historical context has no importance, indeed far from it. Knowing where we can the approximate dates of an author and gaining some idea of the political, economic and religious milieu in which the text was written is of great advantage and importance. But to imagine that what the author or original hearers understood of a text is of primary importance or even in some cases any major importance is to deny the truth of the two texts we have quoted. To give just a couple of examples, both from Isaiah, I have only a general idea who the prophet's original hearers or readers were, and certainly not too much clue about what they understood of what we call Isaiah 6 or Isaiah 53. But I do know this: that the real significance of the first part of Isaiah 6 is revealed in John 12, where we told that it was the glory of the pre-incarnate Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, that Isaiah saw; the significance of the last part of the chapter is revealed in a number of gospel passages where the Lord tells us that Isaiah spoke of the generation he was addressing (and by natural extension all who hear the gospel and reject it). I know too that the real meaning of Isaiah 53 only becomes apparent in the light of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Back to Moo, who is wrestling with the text of James in a day when it is a very controversial text for some who want to find passages in the New Testament that will suggest that Paul is somehow a 'rogue apostle' promoting a gospel that differs from that of the Lord Jesus Christ and other apostles. Dealing with these issues and producing a coherent commentary on the text of James is no easy matter and I do not think that I could do better than Douglas Moo. But what does disturb me is the heavy reliance in this commentary on the early date for James (pretty certainly true) as a reason why James and Paul do not seem to agree: James is writing to a largely Jewish readership at an early stage in the history of the church and therefore the development of apostolic theology permits James to express things in a way he might not have done in the light of the later developments by Paul. (That is my summary of what Douglas Moo says at a number of points.)
Of course it all sounds reasonable enough, unless you bring to mind that the 'prime cause' author is not James but the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit knows perfectly well what he will inspire Paul to write, and everyone else. James leaves his mark on the text in many ways, but if Peter's comments mean anything we can be sure that the 'carrying along by the Holy Spirit' will mean that James will write beyond his own understanding where that is necessary. I say where that is necessary because James, as an apostolic author, writes under the promise that the Holy Spirit will reveal all truth to him and bring to mind the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ and more. James is not doing his best in the circumstances. Instead, the Holy Spirit having illumined his mind and now carrying him along as he writes, he produces pure and accurate truth for the Gospel age. The truth is not limited to him or by him. He knows far more than you or I or Douglas Moo (or even NT Wright, for that matter!) and his work is not some 'early stage' production that we can now see the fault lines in. Here is apostolic truth that speaks into in our lives, judges us as a living word sharper than any two-edged sword, and gets right to the heart of our sinful problems. Here is the pure Word on which the church of God is founded. Here God speaks, as he does through all Scripture but with special clarity in the New Testament where the Gospel is revealed, expounded and explained.
I think Douglas Moo would agree with most of what I have said. But sadly, I think evangelical scholars sometimes now too easily adopt the methods and presuppositions of the liberal scholars, and thus undermine a high view of Scripture which is essential to a true and living faith.
(Quotations in this post are from the English Standard Version of the Bible.)
My thoughts were turned that way by reading the Douglas Moo commentary on James which I got at a bargain price. It wasn't actually the price that drew me - I didn't know it was 'on offer' until I got to the till - but the fact that I am quite interested in James and Douglas Moo is a name I know and respect in the evangelical world. I have his commentary on Romans and other books in which he has a part in editing or authoring the material.
All the more disappointing then, to be faced with a thorny problem while reading the James commentary. There are a number of issues in interpreting biblical text and I am not an expert in any of them, but I do have my doubts about the way Scripture is treated sometimes. I can outline my view of Scripture this way:
1. Scripture is entirely and completely the Word of God, in the original (Hebrew and Greek) perfect in every way and still in translation infallible and inerrant.
2. I recognise the human authorship of the books of Scripture and that those authors have left their mark in terms of style and other non-essential matters. Nevertheless I believe the Holy Spirit to be the original author of Scripture because all Scripture is God-breathed.
3. This original divine authorship of Scripture means that the Bible is not like other books. Through it God himself speaks, judging, correcting and encouraging his people.
It is this last point I particularly want to comment on here. It is essential that we do not ever treat Scripture as merely a human book, because in that way we will find ourselves degrading the truths it is meant to convey and at the worst we will put ourselves in the position of allowing ourselves to judge Scripture rather than submitting ourselves to it, as we should.
Scripture really is unique. This is evident in Peter's comment (2 Peter 1:21) where he says:
For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Quite plainly in the most natural sense Peter is referring to the Old Testament, but in that 'prophecy' in the context carries the meaning of conveying the Word of God it equally plainly applies to the New Testament as well. Peter has more to say:
Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.
(1 Peter 1:10-12)
The meaning here seems plain enough: the human authors of Scripture sometimes found their curiosity aroused by what they themselves had written. Or put another way, 'carried along by the Holy Spirit' they wrote things that were not wholly clear to them in meaning. They knew that, and although they sought to know more fully, the Holy Spirit revealed that what they had written was for a future time which Peter identifies as the age in which we live - the Gospel age, between the first and second coming of the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ.
If there is a lesson from these texts it must be that the idea that is regularly promoted even by evangelical authors, that the first and most important question in studying a passage in the Old Testament is its meaning to the author and original authors, cannot be true. I do not mean to suggest that historical context has no importance, indeed far from it. Knowing where we can the approximate dates of an author and gaining some idea of the political, economic and religious milieu in which the text was written is of great advantage and importance. But to imagine that what the author or original hearers understood of a text is of primary importance or even in some cases any major importance is to deny the truth of the two texts we have quoted. To give just a couple of examples, both from Isaiah, I have only a general idea who the prophet's original hearers or readers were, and certainly not too much clue about what they understood of what we call Isaiah 6 or Isaiah 53. But I do know this: that the real significance of the first part of Isaiah 6 is revealed in John 12, where we told that it was the glory of the pre-incarnate Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, that Isaiah saw; the significance of the last part of the chapter is revealed in a number of gospel passages where the Lord tells us that Isaiah spoke of the generation he was addressing (and by natural extension all who hear the gospel and reject it). I know too that the real meaning of Isaiah 53 only becomes apparent in the light of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Back to Moo, who is wrestling with the text of James in a day when it is a very controversial text for some who want to find passages in the New Testament that will suggest that Paul is somehow a 'rogue apostle' promoting a gospel that differs from that of the Lord Jesus Christ and other apostles. Dealing with these issues and producing a coherent commentary on the text of James is no easy matter and I do not think that I could do better than Douglas Moo. But what does disturb me is the heavy reliance in this commentary on the early date for James (pretty certainly true) as a reason why James and Paul do not seem to agree: James is writing to a largely Jewish readership at an early stage in the history of the church and therefore the development of apostolic theology permits James to express things in a way he might not have done in the light of the later developments by Paul. (That is my summary of what Douglas Moo says at a number of points.)
Of course it all sounds reasonable enough, unless you bring to mind that the 'prime cause' author is not James but the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit knows perfectly well what he will inspire Paul to write, and everyone else. James leaves his mark on the text in many ways, but if Peter's comments mean anything we can be sure that the 'carrying along by the Holy Spirit' will mean that James will write beyond his own understanding where that is necessary. I say where that is necessary because James, as an apostolic author, writes under the promise that the Holy Spirit will reveal all truth to him and bring to mind the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ and more. James is not doing his best in the circumstances. Instead, the Holy Spirit having illumined his mind and now carrying him along as he writes, he produces pure and accurate truth for the Gospel age. The truth is not limited to him or by him. He knows far more than you or I or Douglas Moo (or even NT Wright, for that matter!) and his work is not some 'early stage' production that we can now see the fault lines in. Here is apostolic truth that speaks into in our lives, judges us as a living word sharper than any two-edged sword, and gets right to the heart of our sinful problems. Here is the pure Word on which the church of God is founded. Here God speaks, as he does through all Scripture but with special clarity in the New Testament where the Gospel is revealed, expounded and explained.
I think Douglas Moo would agree with most of what I have said. But sadly, I think evangelical scholars sometimes now too easily adopt the methods and presuppositions of the liberal scholars, and thus undermine a high view of Scripture which is essential to a true and living faith.
(Quotations in this post are from the English Standard Version of the Bible.)