|
BY THE AUTHOR
Dr. W. Robert Cook, Th.D
Who does not
know that the Holy canonical Scripture
Is contained within definite limits
and that it has precedence over all letters of subsequent bishops,
so that it is altogether possible to doubt
or question the truth or adequacy of what is written in it?
Aurelius Augustine (3S4-130)
The requisites of the public interpretation of Scripture have been laid down by divines with more attention to usefulness, although they have not been observed with equal fidelity. They consist in knowledge of languages; inspection of the originals: examination of the context: care in distinguishing between literal and figurative expressions; consideration of cause and circumstance, of antecedents and consequents; mutual comparison of texts: and regard to the analogy of faith. Attention must also be paid to the frequent anomalies of syntax.
Lastly, no inferences from the text are to be admitted but such as follow necessarily and plainly from the words themselves, lest we should be constrained to receive what is not written for what is written, the shadow for the substance, the fallacies of human reasoning for the doctrines of God. For it is by the declarations of Scripture, and not by the conclusions of the schools, that our consciences are bound.
John Milton
(1608-1674)
The spirit breathes upon the word,
and brings the truth to sight;
Precepts and praises afford
A sanctifying light.
William Cowper (1731-1800)
I. Illumination: Accomplished by the Holy Spirit
It is the church’s misfortune that confusion continues as to what is involved in illumination. Barth sees it merely as an extension or continuation of inspiration. [1] If this were the case, Gordon Clark perceptively notes that "the readers would soon be writing more scripture; for since the first work of the Spirit, his work in the prophets, resulted in the writing of the biblical books, a continuation of the same work would result in additional books of the Bible. [2]
Some evangelicals, on the other hand, would have us believe that illumination is a special gift to some charismatically endowed individuals whereby the ordinary sense of scripture is transformed into a hidden deeper sense. In contrast to this modern-day mysticism, we believe with Carl Henry that "the Spirit illumines the truth, not by unveiling some hidden inner mystical content behind the revelation…, but by focusing on the truth of revelation as it is. The Spirit illumines and interprets by repeating the grammatical sense of scripture; in doing so he in no way alters or expands the truth off revelation." [3]
Yet others seem to teach that the Bible is a closed book in the full sense of the term, that is, there cannot even be a correct cognitive assessment of its data. Again, however, we must avoid extremes. Many straightforward statements of the scripture are quite capable of being understood by any reader. Thus, as Henry comments,
It is somewhat misleading to say that without the Holy Spirit’s action the truth of Scripture is not apparent even to the intelligent reader, for such a statement can mean various things. The witness of the Spirit does indeed persuade the hearer and reader that Scripture is true in its affirmations. … But it is wrong to argue, as a consequence, that without the perspective transforming work of the Spirit one cannot understand the teaching of the bible. ... The revelational truth conveyed by objective scriptural disclosure itself stipulates the need for subjective illumination and appropriation. But to make the fact of illumination and need of appropriation a reason for compromising the perspicacity of scriptural teaching is unjustifiable. [4]
A. Definition
Illumination is that work of the Holy Spirit in which he makes clear, enlightens and teaches the truth of the written revelation. It involves supernatural awakening from within (John 16:12-15; 1 Cor. 2:14-15). It is true that the "Bible does not use the specific term illumination; it does, however, refer to that special activity of the Holy Spirit by which man can recognize that what Scripture teaches is true, and can accept and appropriate its teaching.” [5]
B. The Need
There are two categories of reasons why the scriptures need to be illuminated by the Spirit of God. The first is ontological and the second hematological.
First of all, because the nature of God is infinite and man is finite, spiritual truth would elude us without this ministry of the Spirit. Also, the nature of spiritual truth itself calls for this work. As Erickson notes, because we are concerned here with matters of (spiritual and eternal) life and death, it is necessary to have more than mere probability." [6]
A sure word is necessary. It is this set of truths that Isaiah writes of when he records the words of Yahweh, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts. (Isa. 55:8-9). Paul, likewise, relates to this truth as he prays for the "enlightenment" of the Ephesian believers regarding their hope, their inheritance, and the great power of God made available to them through the resurrection of Christ (Eph. 1:17-18).
The second set of reasons why the Spirit's illuminating work is needed relates to sin. On the one hand, the unsaved man is naturally in a state of spiritual blindness and death. Thus, the I natural man does not personally welcome the things of the Spirit of God, assessing them as foolishness, nor can he understand them in the way God intends them to be understood since this comes only through spiritual examination (discernment) (1 Cor. 2:14). On the other hand, because the Christian tends to be controlled on occasion, by the flesh there is a carnal blindness which must be overcome (1 Cor. 3:1-3; Heb. 5:12-14).
C. The Provision
It is to be noted that the ministry of the Holy Spirit as regards illumination relates to the things spoken by Christ (John 16:12) as well as to those things given by God (1 Cor. 2:12 ff). John 16:12-15 also seems to indicate that it includes all the disciples, the non-writing (and thus, by extension, to the rest of the disciples of Christ—including us—who are non-writing disciples as well as the writing.
The context of John 16:12-15 unfolds around two concepts. In John 16:5-11 the Lord speaks of the Holy Spirit's work in the world as he convicts of sin, righteousness and judgment. Then in verses twelve through fifteen, he speaks of the Spirit's work with the disciples. As Christ develops this illuminating work of the Holy Spirit he speaks of the extent, nature and aim of this ministry.
1. The Extent of His Ministry
The extent of the ministry is developed by noting the contrast between their present inability and their future ability. Currently Jesus says, they cannot bear the many things he needs to say to them. This inability relates to the implications and complexity of the truth rather than to their ability to understand it in the simple sense of the term.
In contrast when the Spirit of the truth comes he will function as a guide or leader in the way within the truth over which he is custodian. It is well to note two things here. His leadership relates to all the truth of which he is custodian (i.e., all spiritual truth not all knowledge); and, it is within [7] the truth that he leads. [8]
2. The Nature of His Ministry
The nature of this ministry of the Spirit in guiding believers within the whole truth involves three things. His message is not sourced in himself but in the Son and the Father; he proclaims another's message than his own; and, he reports the future.
3. The Aim of His Ministry
Finally, the aim of his ministry is 'to glorify Christ (v. 14). To do this he will report to the disciples those things which are Christ's and the Father's (which are also Christ's). Put in other words, a true theology of the Holy Spirit is a theology of Christ and the Father and his illumination of the scriptures is to that end.
II. Interpretation: The Responsibility of the Believer
If the Holy Spirit is the great Illuminator of scripture does this mean that man is merely a passive recipient of the Bible's message? Does he have any responsibility in determining the meaning scripture and, if so, what is it? Is this meaning to be determined in terms of the reader's cultural milieu, circumstances and needs or must the intent of the author (both human and divine) be allowed to be the governing factor?
While the full exploration of these issues and others that are related is the responsibility of the discipline of hermeneutics, at least a brief response to them is necessary here. Although it may seem self-evident, the man or woman of God does have responsibility to study and accurately handle the scriptures so as to be properly equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 2:15; cf. 1 Tim. 4:11-16; 2 Tim,. 3:16-17; 1 Pet. 3:15; Rev. 1:3).
While this response may be widely accepted, our response to the next question is not. It is our strong conviction that the only valid interpretive methodology gives first place to the author's intent, but this is widely rejected today. For example, Howard J. Lowen insists that "in order to understand the meaning of Scripture…one must understand it in faith and obedience to God." [9]
In evaluating this basically Barthian view Henry states: “They [evangelicals] insist rather that the authority and sense of Scripture objectively precede the reader's faith; the Bible's given meaning and authority are not definitively conditioned or dependent upon present-day belief-ful response." [10]
The removal of meaning from authorial intent to readers fancy leads, however, into theological quicksand. E. D. Hirsch has shown "…that the loss of interest in an author’s meaning exposes textual criticism, to relativism and subjectivism, however much the critics may dignify their interpretive endeavors as being seriously academic." [11] As Hirsch states, "If the meaning of a text is not to be the author's, then no interpretation can possibly correspond to the meaning of the text." [12]While it is true that some passages of Scripture, especially more difficult ones, are variously interpreted, it is not true that every passage has a selection of meanings from which we may choose. Nor is it true that meaning is determined by the reader solely and arbitrarily at his discretion. Why is this so? God is a God of truth, that is, what he communicates conforms with reality, things as they really are. He not only sets the standard for truth, he is the truth. Further; he is in the business of revelation or disclosure of truth rather than aiming to obfuscate or hide it. He wants himself and his ways to be known and this cannot be the case if language is arbitrary, i.e. not precise, accurate and singular in meaning.
Two things must be kept in mind at this point. First, the very fact that we have dictionaries underscores the fact that words have meaning in an objective sense. We do not have the right to bring our own meaning to words. As words are constructed into phrases and sentences they bring meaning with them. We are bound by those meanings in the interpretive process.
The second determinative factor is that outside the dictionary, words have only general (without context and thus uninformed) meaning. Words in isolation are at best imprecise and at worst meaningless. When put to use in grammatical units such as sentences they only have accurate meaning as they relate to the author’s intention. We, the readers, cannot dictate the author’s meaning. Thus our interpretive task is to determine the author’s meaning rather than what we want the text to mean.
In certain “post-modern” circles this is strongly challenged. These critics advocate what they call “deconstruction”—the critical method which declares that the identity and intentions of the author of a text are irrelevant to the interpretation of the text. In fact, they insist that all interpretations are equally valid and equally meaningless. [13]
It is axiomatic that while there may be several applications of a given passage, there is but one interpretation. To be legitimate any application must be related to the interpretation of the passage.
The true meaning of a passage depends... upon the author's verbalized intention and its private significance for a creative reader is not to be confused with the author's meaning. An interpreter may, and often does, attribute to the text a significance it has for him, thereby uncritically confusing his own response with the text's verbal meaning, and thus unjustifiably identifying them. Yet the first question hermeneutics properly asks is not, "What is the significance of this message for me?" (as if its meaning is to be derived from the interpreter), but, "what is the author's meaning?". [14]
Some of the basic canons of interpretation are as follows:
1) The purpose of the Bible as a whole must be determined, that is, first of all interpretation must be a canon-wide consideration.
2) The distinctive purpose and message of each book in the context of the canon must be determined.
3) It must be determined to whom a given passage of scripture is addressed. All scripture is for the Christian but not all is to or about him.
4) The grammatical and historical context of the passage must be determined.
5) All scripture on a given theme must be marshaled.
6) The exact meaning of determinative words and syntax must be discovered.
7) Personal prejudices must be avoided. It is absolutely essential that the difference between prejudice and conviction be distinguished.
For an elaboration upon these canons, and others that apply, various conservative works on hermeneutics should be consulted. [15]
Finally, a brief word is necessary regarding the widespread tendency to seek for the ultimate interpretive key, for a "canon within the canon.” This seems to be a continuing pastime of critical scholars and evangelicals alike. For some, all of scripture is to be interpreted in light of the doctrine of justification by faith; for others it is Christology; and often this principle is invoked not only to interpret the scriptures but also to determine what is and is not canonical. Others such as Oscar Cullmann, would offer “salvation history” as the key. Covenant theologians tend to reduce the biblical message to an exclusively redemption focus through the grid of the Covenant of Grace." Dispensationalists, on the other hand, tend to use hard and fast “dispensational distinctions" to explain all of scripture.
In fact, every interpreter of scripture, including the writer of these words, is in danger of committing this “canon within the canon” error when he invokes a principle which fails to account for the entire message of the Bible. Henry’s words, while directed toward critical rather than evangelical scholarship, are fittingly apropos to both since in every case the aim seems to be to “…stipulate some discriminatory rule or canon by which to justify a private preference in promoting or neglecting different aspects of the Bible.” [16]
III. Canonicity: Acknowledged by the Church
A. The word Canon Defined
In its original sense the word “canon” meant a measuring rod. Thus it came to have the sense of a rule or standard. As used of the scripture it refers to the sum total of the books which make up the Bible. Thus it came to mean “the established list.” In addition it also came to mean “rule of faith.” Thus the canonical scriptures are described as the standard for judging all controversies of religion.
The study of the canon of scripture is the study of the process by which the books of the Bible became recognized as true and as the authoritative standard of the church. To acknowledge a book of scripture as canon, then, is to give recognition of an inherent authority.
That this is the Bible's view of itself is supported by much testimony.
The New Testament repeatedly uses the phrase "the writings" of the Old Testament canon (cf. Matt. 26:54: Mark 14:49: Luke 24:27; John 5:39; Acts17:2, 11; 18: 24; Rom. 15: 4: 16: 26; 1 Cor. 15:3-4), and not simply of individual passages (Matt. 21:42; 22:29). The divine authority of the individual passages of Scripture is indeed constantly invoked (cf. Mark 12:10: Luke 4:21: John 19:37: Acts 8:32, 35: Rom. 4:3; 9:17; 10:11: Gal. 4:30: James 2:23; etc.). But the shorter phrase "the writing" seems indubitably also to refer in many cases to the whole body of Scripture (e.g., John 2:22; 10:35; 20:9; 1 Pet. 2:6; 2 Pet. 1:20). Even some passages which use the singular "the writing" for a specific passage may embrace also a larger reference to the canon as a whole (e.g., Mark 15:28; John 7:38: 13:18: 19:24, 36; Rom. 11:2; Gal. 3:8, 22: James 4:5). [17]
In commenting on the Hebrew view of the Old Testament Gottlob Schrenk says that it had "… permanent and unassailable validity” and that “the absolute normativity of a binding text demands a carefully differentiated and integrated number of books”. [18] In other words, the Old Testament was viewed as a canon.
The New Testament likewise bears evidence of its own canonicity. The various writers testified to the authority of their own writings in such passages as Luke 1:1-4; John 20:30-31; 1 Corinthians 14:37; Galatians 1:6-12; 1 Thessalonians 2:13: 4:2; 2 Peter 3:15-16; and Revelation 1:3, 22:18-19.
B. The Formation of the Canon
Basically, the canon was formed by God the Holy Spirit. “The idea of a canon, of a body of Scripture viewed as the ‘oracles of God’ (Rom. 3:2, RSV), was already fully established and accepted in the attitude of the first Christians toward “the law and the prophets,” or the Old Testament.” [19]
Historically the compilation of the books we now consider as canonical was accomplished through the recognition of the authority of the various books by the Spirit-controlled members of the early church, who as regards the Old Testament, were following the lead of the Jews. The completed canon as we know it today was finally and formally certified at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.
Since not all the books of the scripture were formally recognized as canonical by the early church this has been a problem in the minds of some. It should be kept in mind that a distinction is to be maintained between the canonicity of a book and its collection into that grouping that we now call the Holy Bible.
All the books of scripture were canonical from the moment of their writing, but in some cases they were not acknowledged as such nor added to the collection of the acknowledged scriptures for many years.
The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their inherent worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa—at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397—but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities. [20]
Bruce Metzger points out that "the slowness in determining the final limits of the canon is testimony to the care and vigilance of early Christians in receiving books purporting to be apostolic." He goes on to say, "In the most basic sense neither individuals nor councils created the canon; instead they came to perceive and acknowledge the self-authenticating quality of these writings, which imposed themselves as canonical upon the Church.” [21]
C. Tests of Canonicity
In general the Old Testament canon is considered to have been closed about 400 B.C. Tests that were applied to various works advanced as canonical were as follows: Was it written during the prophetic period, that is, from Moses to Artaxerxes? Was it from a man directed of God? Did it have Christ's attestation (note for example Luke 24:44; Matt. 23:35--this includes references to the first and last books of the Hebrew canon, namely Genesis 4:8 and 2 Chronicles 24:21)? Finally, and most important of all, the question asked was, Is it scripture and thus God-breathed? That is, the test of inspiration was applied.
Regarding the New Testament the following tests were applied: Was it authored by an apostle or one related thereto? Was its content spiritual in character? Did it agree with the Old Testament? Did it agree with the teachings of the apostles? Did it have more or less universal reception by the Christian church? This last item relates to the witness of the Holy Spirit among the believers. And again finally and supremely, did it give evidence of being inspired? Such evidence would be found in the intrinsic content of the book, by its moral effect upon its readers and by the historic testimony of the Christian church.
Finally, it is important enough to repeat that the various tests should not be viewed as the basis for adjudging a book as fit for the canonical list. Rather, they were the means used by the church to discover which books, were indeed, a part of the canon.
D. The Extent of the Canon
Earlier, the sufficiency of scripture was discussed and it was determined that special revelation is not on-going at this point, another word in this regard is in order since in discussing the canon we recognize that with the giving of the New Testament documents the Old Testament canon was expanded. Can it be that the New Testament canon may likewise be enlarged? The answer must be “no” as Henry points out:
While the New Testament on the one hand enlarges the Old Testament canon, on the other it contains numerous intimations opposed to the notion of a permanently reopened canon. That Jesus Christ is the supreme revelation and climax of the Old Testament disclosure is everywhere declared in the New Testament (Rom. 16:26; 1 Cor. 10:11; 15:45; Gal. 1:8-9; Col. 1:25-27; 2:3; 6:19 [sic]; Titus 1:2-3; Heb. 6:5; 9:26; 1 Pet. 1:20; 1 John 4:1-3, 6). Prophecy contrary to Christ is condemned (John 14:6; Heb. 11:6). The gift of prophecy as well as other divine gifts served notably in the New Testament times to meet local congregational needs in a transitional and formative period of the church (1 Tim. 4:14). But this gift was expressly subordinated to apostolic teaching (1 Cor. 14:37). [22]
These truths provide a bulwark for the church against all cultic and charismatic pronouncements which claim to arise from “revelations” in whatever form.
E. The Place of the Old Testament Apocrypha
The number of books written between 400 B.C. and the time of Christ have been accepted as canonical by the Roman Catholic Church. These are Tobit which follows Nehemiah in the Douay version; Judith which follows Tobit; the remainder of Esther which forms chapters eleven through sixteen of the book of Esther in the Douay version; the wisdom of Solomon which follows Song of Solomon; Ecclesiasticus which follows Wisdom; Baruch which follows Lamentations; the song of the Three children which is a part of Daniel chapter three in the Douay version; the History of Suzannah which is chapter thirteen of Daniel in the Douay version; Bel and the Dragon which forms chapter fourteen of Daniel in the Douay version; and 1 and 2 Maccabees which follows Malachi in the Douay version. Other books sometimes given consideration are 1 and 2 Esdras and The Prayer of Manasses which are not found in The Douay version.
It should be noted that these books were not officially recognized as canonical by the Roman Catholic Church until 1545 A.D. (Part of the appeal for such doctrines as purgatory (2 Maccabees 12:41 ff.) and works-faith salvation (Tobit 12:9; 14:10-11; 1 Maccabees 2:52) is found in these writings.)
Protestantism has never accepted these books as canonical for the following reasons: because of their doctrinal content; because of their language; because they were written after 400 B.C.; because they are not quoted in The New Testament; because they were not received by the Jews of Jesus' day; and because they don’t claim to be God’s Word nor the work of the prophets.
While we do not believe that these books are canonical and thus authoritative we must not dismiss them as being of no value. They do give us some very helpful insight into the intertestamental period. To reject the canonicity of the apocryphal works, therefore, is not to declare them wholly worthless. It is, however, to deny them the inerrancy that orthodoxy associates with inspired Scripture." [23]
F. Conclusion
Regarding the canonical books of the Bible it is supremely important to remember the truly canonical books were canonical when written because they were inspired of God. It is the recognition which came later.
References:
|
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, 1/2, 522 |
|
|
Gordon Clark, Karl Barth’s Theological Method, p. 210 |
|
|
Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, IV, 283 |
|
|
Ibid., p. 279 |
|
|
Ibid., p. 282 |
|
|
Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, I, 247 |
|
|
not "to" the truth; the proposition is en rather than eis, see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on The Greek New Testament, p. 247 |
|
|
i.e., the Spirit of the truth guides in all truth regarding the one who is the truth, Jesus Christ— John 14:6; and, as John 5:39; 20:31 and 2 Timothy 3:15-17 show, Christ is found in the written scriptures so this "leading" is not a mystical one but it is based upon the illuminated scriptures. |
|
|
Howard J. Lowen, Karl Barth and the Church Doctrine of Inspiration, An Appraisal for Evangelical Theology, I, 419). |
|
|
Henry, op. cit., IV, 259 |
|
|
E. D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation, cited by Henry, op.cit., IV, 312 |
|
|
Hirsch, ibid., p. 15 |
|
|
See Beyond The Obvious by James DeYoung and Sarah Hurty, pp. 241-247; Evangelical Interpretation, by Millard Erickson, pp. 102-103 for helpful analyses from the Evangelical position; see also Postmodern Use of the Bible, by E.V. McKnight for the deconstructive position. |
|
|
Henry, op. cit. IV, 464 |
|
|
One such work would be Protestant Biblical Interpretation by Bernard Ramm. |
|
|
Henry, op. cit., IV, 452 |
|
|
Henry, op. cit., IV, 406 |
|
|
Gottlob Schrenk, “Graphe,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, I, 755-756 |
|
|
Henry, op. cit., IV, 435 |
|
|
F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents—Are They Reliable?, p. 27 |
|
|
Bruce Metzger, The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content, p. 276 |
|
|
Henry, op. cit., IV, 431 |
|
|
Ibid., IV, 414-15 |
|
Copyright © 2007 by
AncientPath Network
and the authors. All rights reserved. |
051807
