|
A tourist, bothered by the jets taking off and landing
during a tour of Windsor Castle, asks the guide, “Why would they build
so close to the airport?”
So what else is a historical perspective good for?
Historical Perspective
It is good for something in Biblical studies generally,
because Judaism and Christianity are historical religions, rooted in
historical events and persons.
Such a point of view can help us appreciate what it was
like to have been a believer in early New Testament times, when as yet
there was no New Testament, but when there was an exceptionally vivid
sense of the presence of Christ, mediated through women and men who had
seen Jesus in his earthly life, who had come to know him very well, and
who had been sent out as his extended personality and presence to draw in
others who would become his followers.
In other words, before there was a New Testament
there was a church, a community of those who had experienced new life in
Jesus Christ. Through the historical imagination we are virtually
transported back to a time before disciples were called Christians; a time
when most believers were Jewish and the Temple in Jerusalem was still
standing; a time before letters or gospels or the book of Acts were
written; a time when everything seemed new, and the end-of-time events
were near.
Historical perspective enables us to honor the letters of
Paul especially, not only for their rich content but also because as the
earliest writings of the New Testament they take us back to within a
decade or two of the Christ event. Thus we get a peek at the earliest
Christian congregations, and empathize with their end-of-time expectations
(and with their disappointment when the end did not come). We sense some
of the tension they felt between the old and the new, between law and
gospel. We discover a three-dimensional Paul, who is the caring pastor,
the fierce defender of the law-free gentile mission, and the end-of-time
visionary who in the course of time faces his own this-age mortality.
Wearing our historian’s hat, we celebrate our being able
to work through documents which came from the pen (or from the dictation)
of Paul himself, a first century man of action who was also a first class
thinker. As we come to appreciate the historian’s craft, we give pride
of place to Paul’s letters as primary sources, in the enterprise
of reconstructing his work and his thought. We view with interest whatever
reminiscences of the apostle have come down to us from later, secondary
sources, without permitting such evidence to over-ride what we find in the
letters. Since the letters give us direct access to Paul’s personality
and thinking, we can to a considerable extent permit Paul to tell his own
story.
Even as we prize the letters as primary sources, and use
with caution secondary sources such as the book of Acts, we try to keep in
mind that Paul was no impartial observer. He had a cause to promote, and
was very much a partisan for the cause of the gospel of Jesus Christ, as
indeed the other writers of the New Testament were partisans. Thus the
story Paul tells is not objective history, but it is very much his
story.
Though this process may sound simple and straightforward
enough, it is complicated by the fact that students of Paul are often
themselves believers as well as historians. Do we remove our historian’s
hat when we do theology, or do we remove our theologian’s hat when we do
history, as in the reconstruction of Paul’s career and the development
of early Christianity? When Van Harvey affirms that it is the historian
who confers authority on his sources, sorting out the more from the less
reliable sources, we may not be bothered if the historian is investigating
colonial America, for example. But if a historian begins sorting out the
more from the less reliable sources in the Bible, believers may become
offended by what appears to be a denial of the authority of the Bible.
When this problem arises, it is no longer an issue of biblical
interpretation, but a theological issue.
Accordingly, we need to consider the theological
perspective which a person brings to biblical studies in general,
and to the study of Paul in particular.
Theological Perspective
We recognize several theological problems which converge
at this point of our discussion, including (a) the source(s) of religious
authority; and (b) the doctrine of the inspiration of the scriptures.
The sources of religious authority
We proceed, not so much prescriptively, as descriptively,
to identify the bases for what Christians believe, how they worship, and
the manner in which they conduct their lives.
 | The Church is not only a community of
believers but also a source of authority, whether explicitly declared
(as in the councils and creeds of the church), or implicitly as some
expectation of agreement and conformity. Sometimes this authority is
expressed in a hierarchical manner, and sometimes in terms of
denominational or local tradition. The widespread practice of infant
baptism is evidence of a willingness to accept a long standing
tradition of the church, without express scriptural warrant. |
| The Bible has historically been
influential in defining the church’s doctrines, and in providing a
source for making moral decisions. The sole authority of the
scriptures (sola scriptura) was a major Protestant affirmation,
even though, as has long been recognized, the authority of the
scriptures is derived from the authority of the church, which defined
the canon or limits of Holy Scripture. Because of the diversity of
teachings in the Bible, the process of regulating belief and practice
on the basis of the Bible alone has tended to be somewhat
selective—Anabaptists insisting upon believers’ baptism and
pacifism, but ignoring the Sabbath requirement (i.e. rest on the
seventh day of the week) and dietary requirements; and Seventh Day
Adventists laying emphasis upon Sabbath and diet, but less concerned
about pacifist teaching. |
| Reason plays an important part in the
theological and moral teachings of various denominations, whether
Catholic or Protestant, though rarely does it function in isolation
from other sources of authority. Great minds have struggled (and not
often successfully) with problems of innocent suffering,
predestination, and the Trinity; and have tried to construct a
credible interface between faith and science (often failing to satisfy
believers and scientists). |
| Religious Experience is valued
among most Christians, but comes to classic expression in the Society
of Friends. The inner life nourishes the springs of religious life,
but mystics and enthusiasts have some times been perceived as a threat
to the religious establishment. |
Most often, a combination of all four sources is operative
in defining religious belief and practice. Where there is greater freedom
of choice and expression within a denomination, the last two will
naturally play a more important rôle.
A Theology of the Inspiration of Holy Scripture
There are a number of different ways to state this belief,
and it would be presumptuous to say that this is the best way or the only
way. The claim made here is that this statement is theologically
defensible, and that it is one which gives room for scholarly inquiry on
the one hand and for thoughtful and informed contributions by the general
reader, on the other hand.
At the outset, we should make clear that the doctrine of
inspiration is itself a sub-topic under the theme of revelation,
namely, how God discloses himself to humankind. On the one hand, God makes
himself known in nature, in history, and in the mental and moral
capabilities of persons. Accordingly, he is accessible to all, and
appropriately this sort of manifestation is known as general revelation.
God also reveals himself to and through Israel, his chosen
people; through the Jewish Bible and the New Testament of Christians; and
supremely in Jesus Christ and in the continuing activity of the Holy
Spirit. Special revelation is the term applied to these channels of
revelation. Having laid the matter out in this way, we nevertheless
acknowledge that God by his sovereign nature is not at all limited in the
ways he might choose to disclose himself and his righteous will to
humankind.
As for the doctrine of inspiration itself, we mention
again that the covenant community, whether Israel or the church, is prior
to the books of scripture. These books are written for the community, by
inspired people (prophets, poets, apostles, lay persons) of the community;
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit these books are declared to be part
of Holy Scripture by the community—in the case of the New Testament, by
councils of the church.
In view of the diverse contents of the books of the Bible,
the typical Bible reader is understandably puzzled. Historically, the
church has provided guidance to the faithful in the interpretation of the
Bible’s message. The writings of the Church Fathers are still
instructive for the modern reader, as are more contemporary works of
scholarship. Ultimately, Jesus Christ—his life, his message, his
example, his death and resurrection—is the standard by which the
teachings of the Bible are to be measured.
While people sometimes refer to the Bible as “the Word
of God,” it is perhaps theologically more useful to speak of the Bible
as containing the Word of God, if we understand by “Word of
God” the divine self-disclosure or revelation, which sometimes comes to
expression in the pages of the Bible under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, but which sometimes is operative in other ways, for example, in God’s speaking
through prophet or preacher; thus, the term “Word of God” is a broader
concept than the books of scripture. Indeed, the Word or logos of
God as set forth in John 1:1-18 comprehends not only the divine revelation
but also divine creativity. Martin Luther declared that God’s Word is
contained in scripture, even as the infant Jesus lay in a manger without
being the manger. So also we are entitled to say that the Bible contains
the Word of God, without reducing the divine Word to a book. While one
does not wish to make spiritual realities into some kind of formula, it is
nevertheless useful to recognize that the printed page of scripture does
not in itself operate to inspire, convert, instruct and illumine, but that
it is the Holy Spirit who brings these things about in the reading and
hearing of the words.
The enterprise of Biblical scholarship then is engaged in
clarifying the process by which revelation was mediated to and through the
community of faith, as the books of the Bible came to be written; and thus
to clarify the divine message, as it came to the Jewish and Christian
communities. If questions are asked concerning the date, authorship,
unity, destination or purpose of books of the Bible, it is for the sake of
hearing that message more clearly and urgently, and not just to be playing
scholarly games.
It is indisputable that the Bible is a vital part of Christian
education, evangelism, spirituality, and moral concern. As such, it
deserves, and receives, appropriate appreciation and honor. The Bible is
clearly a very important means to a very important end. That some are
inclined to make claims of inerrancy on the part of the Bible, is perhaps
understandable, though hardly necessary. The larger problem is to decide which of the parts of the Bible
are authoritative and to be taken with the utmost seriousness: the parts
(for example) which legislate retaliation (the lex talionis of Exodus 21:24;
Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21), or which abrogate retaliation
(Matthew 5:38-42); the parts which legislate dietary requirements
(Leviticus 11), or which declare all foods clean (Mark 7:14-23).
|
|
Click Next
button below to continue, with Earliest Believers.
|
|
  
|
|
