From his book, "The Bible & the Future", Anthony Hoekema has these words to say concerning God's Word,
"Though it is true, therefore, that God reveals himself in the Bible which is his Word, we must not forget that he reveals himself primarily in the historical events which are recorded in the Bible. Revelation occurs through acts as well as through words. But the acts need to be interpreted before their revelatory message can be understood. God reveals himself, therefore, through both acts and words--through his acts as interpreted by his words. So, for example, it is only as the event of the exodus is interpreted by the writers of the Old testament that it is understood to be a revelation of the redemptive power and love of Israel's God who, in the fulfillment of his promises and in answer to their prayers, delivered his people from Egyptian bondage."
This statement causes me to ask just what we think has been "revealed" when we think of the "revelation of God?. One is the revelation of His existence, another thing revealed is His sustaining power, but these two things are revealed also (in more obscure a manner) in the creation itself. In the Bible we find that God revels who He is, His character, who we are and our nature, the fact that we have violated His holiness in Adam and the specific way in which we can be rescued from our unholiness and be reconciled to Him in covenant relationship.
Before the events of history were recorded in the Bible, they were really just part of general revelation and their interpretations could have suffered many widespread errors. Just think of how the Judiazers had misinterpreted the meaning of Christ's fulfillment of all the rituals of the Old Covenant like circumcision. When Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians it had probably been at least 20 years after Christ died. This was ample time for misinformed or malicious persons to arrive at erroneous interpretations of that great historical event before it had been recorded by men, born along by the Spirit of the Author of History Himself, as its interpretation was solidified in special revelation. So, in effect, our understanding of scripture is an interpretation of records which were (at least in its narrative genre) interpretations of historical events. Even though this is the relationship we have to the revelation of God, its complexity doesn't end there The good and simple exposition of the words of the Bible in their contexts do not fully exhaust their meaning for us.
Just as it is absurd (and heretical) to suggest that, because God is a Spirit and He is Holy, then all material things are evil, thus He cannot be incarnate, it is likewise absurd to suggest that just because the Bible does not lay out an idea explicitly, then no "extra-biblical" implication may ever be drawn in support of that idea. It has been the perennial criticism against Covenant Theology that (it's doctrine of a "realized" millennium in particular and its covenantal hermeneutic in general) its working assumptions are only implications drawn from scripture (false implications at that) rather than explications seen on its pages directly. We know of course, that we cannot find a particular verse that explicates the doctrine of particular redemption; "Christ Jesus our Lord died for the individuals the Father predestined and gave to Him and only for them did He shed His blood.", but this doctrine is so clearly implied in scripture that (as far as the historical testimony is concerned) the majority report of Christian orthodoxy affirms it, and so it is with the existence of the covenantal relationships God has ordained in order to commune with His people and His creation at large.
My point is this, I think that the further Christians are removed by time from the cross, the more difficult a time we have interpreting the Bible with its historical generation in mind. This I think is seen clearly in theologies that try to force a hyper-literal or exclusively literal interpretation on texts that (with the entire context of the Bible in mind) do not themselves limit the words that were used to interpret historical people, places, things, and events.
"Though it is true, therefore, that God reveals himself in the Bible which is his Word, we must not forget that he reveals himself primarily in the historical events which are recorded in the Bible. Revelation occurs through acts as well as through words. But the acts need to be interpreted before their revelatory message can be understood. God reveals himself, therefore, through both acts and words--through his acts as interpreted by his words. So, for example, it is only as the event of the exodus is interpreted by the writers of the Old testament that it is understood to be a revelation of the redemptive power and love of Israel's God who, in the fulfillment of his promises and in answer to their prayers, delivered his people from Egyptian bondage."
This statement causes me to ask just what we think has been "revealed" when we think of the "revelation of God?. One is the revelation of His existence, another thing revealed is His sustaining power, but these two things are revealed also (in more obscure a manner) in the creation itself. In the Bible we find that God revels who He is, His character, who we are and our nature, the fact that we have violated His holiness in Adam and the specific way in which we can be rescued from our unholiness and be reconciled to Him in covenant relationship.
Before the events of history were recorded in the Bible, they were really just part of general revelation and their interpretations could have suffered many widespread errors. Just think of how the Judiazers had misinterpreted the meaning of Christ's fulfillment of all the rituals of the Old Covenant like circumcision. When Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians it had probably been at least 20 years after Christ died. This was ample time for misinformed or malicious persons to arrive at erroneous interpretations of that great historical event before it had been recorded by men, born along by the Spirit of the Author of History Himself, as its interpretation was solidified in special revelation. So, in effect, our understanding of scripture is an interpretation of records which were (at least in its narrative genre) interpretations of historical events. Even though this is the relationship we have to the revelation of God, its complexity doesn't end there The good and simple exposition of the words of the Bible in their contexts do not fully exhaust their meaning for us.
Just as it is absurd (and heretical) to suggest that, because God is a Spirit and He is Holy, then all material things are evil, thus He cannot be incarnate, it is likewise absurd to suggest that just because the Bible does not lay out an idea explicitly, then no "extra-biblical" implication may ever be drawn in support of that idea. It has been the perennial criticism against Covenant Theology that (it's doctrine of a "realized" millennium in particular and its covenantal hermeneutic in general) its working assumptions are only implications drawn from scripture (false implications at that) rather than explications seen on its pages directly. We know of course, that we cannot find a particular verse that explicates the doctrine of particular redemption; "Christ Jesus our Lord died for the individuals the Father predestined and gave to Him and only for them did He shed His blood.", but this doctrine is so clearly implied in scripture that (as far as the historical testimony is concerned) the majority report of Christian orthodoxy affirms it, and so it is with the existence of the covenantal relationships God has ordained in order to commune with His people and His creation at large.
My point is this, I think that the further Christians are removed by time from the cross, the more difficult a time we have interpreting the Bible with its historical generation in mind. This I think is seen clearly in theologies that try to force a hyper-literal or exclusively literal interpretation on texts that (with the entire context of the Bible in mind) do not themselves limit the words that were used to interpret historical people, places, things, and events.
No comments:
Post a Comment