AUDIO
 |
Archbishop Peter Jensen's Christmas Message 2011 on the centrality of Jesus to human history
|
Idea 1: The clarity of scripture is an evangelical clarity.
It is the gospel of Jesus Christ that both unites scripture and renders it clear. Jesus is the ‘Yes’ who both explains and fulfils the promises of God. The Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 appeared baffled by his reading of Isaiah until he met Philip who explained it to him. We shouldn’t be distracted by the presence of an interpreter here: the point is not: ‘you need an authorised interpreter’ but rather ‘Jesus makes sense of it’. It is the proclamation of Christ crucified and risen that is the great shining light in the middle of the Bible, making the rest of its sometimes disparate parts cohere.
Idea 2: The clarity of scripture is a doctrine of the Holy Spirit
This evangelical clarity is a work of the Holy Spirit. The Ethiopian is able to read the Scripture and probably understand what the words mean but the significance is totally lost on him. For that, cue the Holy Spirit!
Idea 3: The doctrine of the clarity of the scriptures has little to do with how simple or how hard the scriptures are to understand.
Indeed, in 2 Peter 3:16, Peter complains that Paul’s letters have things in them that are very difficult! The clarity of Scripture does not mean that the matters and the subjects with which the scriptures deal are not mysteries that far exceed our human intellects.
Idea 4: Scripture itself speaks of its own clarity.
The Bible is a book whose authors expected to have readers who understood what they were talking about. The law in Israel was to be a light to the paths of the people (see also Ps 19:8): they were expected to read it and obey it, and were held accountable for it! Scripture is breath-out by God for the purpose of training the man of God (2 Tim 3:16). Scripture does not cast itself as a book of secrets, a book of codes and mysteries. These things are written, says John, that you might believe and believing have life! (20:31)
Idea 5: The clarity of scripture implies that scripture interprets scripture.
On account of the clarity of Scripture we discover that Scripture has the power of interpreting itself. By this the Reformers held that the basic ideas of Scripture clarify the parts, and that the obscure texts are explained by the plain ones. This was not to say that we should pretend we have no presuppositions when we approach the Bible - that would be sheer arrogance. But it does ensure that those presuppositions submit to the things we find in the pages of the Bible and are not held as an authoritative grid over it.
Idea 6: The clarity of scripture as a norm does not excuse the church and Christians from the responsibility of proper interpretation.
Having said that the Bible is self-interpreting, is not to excuse Christians and the church from the business of working hard at the text of scripture. But the Church's interpretation ought to be ministerial rather than magisterial - it serves rather than rules.
Idea 7: The clarity of Scripture is more about discipleship and holiness than it is about linguistic theory.
The clarity of Scripture, because it is an evangelical clarity, has more to do with the submission of the reader to the rule of Jesus than it does to some linguistic technique or skill. The disciples of Jesus know and recognise their master's voice. If you are converted, you are teachable: you are receptive to what the Spirit has to say to you in the Word of God.
Idea 8: We need to develop a proper ‘spirituality’ of reading
Reading the bible is a spiritual activity, to be attended by the virtue of humility and the business of prayer, as an anti-dote to our own pride and self-derived wisdom. See Psalm 119 for example!
Idea 9: But the clarity of scripture DOES have implications for linguistic theory.
If God's word is effective to communicate as a Word - that is, not as some wordless mystical silence - then words themselves are not ineffective instruments in his hands. Words may be the proper vehicles for the expression of concepts; and may even be effectively translated.
Idea 10: The danger of the doctrine of scripture's clarity is that we become rationalistic
The risk with the doctrine is that we will assume that Scripture can be understood by anyone possessed of native intelligence - which, is at one level, true. But though Scripture is human, it is not just human. It is the means by which the holy God reveals himself to us. As Paul Jewett puts it: 'its meaning is not simply at the disposal of our native intelligence.' That's why we pray before we read it, isn't it?
Next week: What does Scripture Alone really mean?
Good collection of points.
How would you work into your schema for the clarity of Scripture the development of doctrine historically over time, ie systematic/biblical theology - ie do they have value?
I guess a better question is: clear about what, and to whom? If the answer is Jesus, to us, then yes, sure.
Beyond that, these days I find it an extraordinarily strange claim to make, because there's so much evidence to the contrary:
- The extent to which we divide over it
- The hundreds/thousands of years it takes to vaguely figure something out
- The lack of data we have about certain parts
- The extent we need it interpreted and explained for us
... and so on.
It's an awful lot to ask of a disparate collection of writings that span many centuries.
Even to suggest that it contains "mysteries that far exceed our human intellects" is to admit that, by definition, parts are certainly not clear! If it's "clear" on some unattainable cosmic level, that may be well and good, but who's it written for? And what is "clarity" if not clear to *us*?
I think it's interesting to instead ask what a truly clear scripture would look like. Would it be a simple list describing all the things we've wrestled with since? Would it be a document of legalese, and be "clear" in a legal sense? Would it be handed down to us from on high ala the Koran?
I think we, as humans, have a great temptation to read meaning and order into past events to create some kind of narrative and structure where none obviously existed, and I think this magical idea of clarity is often subjected to that.
This idea of "clarity" seems to become an idea that the bible is a magical answer book where you can draw a direct line from your assumed meaning of any collection of words to your exact circumstance 000s of years later.
The assumed meaning sometimes comes not from the text (directly), but from what people have been taught *about* the text, and other times it comes from an initial (and wrong) "plain reading". Then fantastical leaps are made to our own lives, with some very strange results.
Actually, observing how ordinary people read the bible in bible studies etc is probably the greatest argument against scripture's clarity, with the exception that I made above.
I don't see these as qualifications. This is only what Reformed theologians have always claimed they meant by the clarity of scripture. It's no biggie, really!
But still: there's something in Tyndale's vision of the ploughboy reading the Scriptures that needs unpacking, no?
I wonder if your discussion might be further strengthened by an explicit connection of the clarity of Scripture to the character of God.
That is, we believe God is a competent communicator! (I think something like this was Mark Thompson's phrase. For a couple of extracts I cited elsewhere from Mark's excellent book on this topic, try here.)
In one sense, this is, of course, a presupposition. But it is also the testimony of Scripture, for example, that God never lies, that he knows all things, etc. The idea is that this powerful, knowledgeable and loving God is able to accommodate himself to our limitations and communicate effectively with us through what he has caused to be written.
If you were writing a one volume systematic theology, where would you put the doctrine of Scripture? Our first thought might be to put it up front, as a foundational, epistemological doctrine. Or, to tie it to the attributes of God. While these aren't necessarily bad, I think a better place is to put Scripture under the doctrines of salvation, because that is what Scripture is for.
Cheap shot.
It must be 100% correct then, my apologies.
Inasmuch as what? That a ploughboy could understand the narrative of the gospel? Or that he could understand Numbers? (Oh, you just meant the NT? My point entirely.)
Whatever the doctrine of the "clarity" of the Scriptures, it appears that it is defined as something very much other than "clarity" as we ordinarily understand it (hence the litany of qualifications, and they are indeed qualifications!) -- an understanding to which anyone is certainly entitled, but it just seems odd to call it "clarity".
The Reformation doctrine of clarity/perspicuity of scripture begins with the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit. But external, textual clarity is an implication of it - ie, the written word of scipture is God's effective means (by the Spirit) of turning people. But that doesn't mean all places are clear. For the Reformers, this meant of course translating the Bible and putting it in the hands of lay people. They knew the risks, but thought it was true to the gospel itself to do this.
This screams logical fallacy to me. The clarity of a document (insofar as it can be understood) surely cannot be deduced by the characteristics of its author. It has to stand or fall on its own.
That is to say, I can't deduce that something Jane writes is clear because Jane is smart, but rather I would think Jane is smart because something she writes is clear.
Otherwise, we'd be back at the Koran, with God dictating it more or less directly which, lets face it, would be a far clearer way of communicating with us (were it true).
Thanks for a great post. I'd second that recommendation of Mark Thompson's book - an absolute cracker.
Whilst I slightly empathise with Luke's difficulty with some parts of Scripture, I'm totally with you with respect to the clarity of Scripture.
It seems to me that the perspecuity of Scripture was a reformation principle which doesn't imply that every part of Scripture is equally as easy to understand. Rather, it means that any man or woman can obtain - without mediatorial priests! - the things he or she needs to know from Scripture. Which (I've just realised) is pretty much what you've said right? :)
Oh and Luke - I'm not so sure what exactly you've got in mind - but I think the fact that a) God is utterly truthful, and b) God speaks truthfully in Scripture - I think these things do help with the clarity of Scripture. No, they don't mean that every part is equally as easy to understand, but this implies that falsehood and real contradiction do not exist in Scripture, and thus cannot make Scripture unclear.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Thanks for the post Michael.
It is also worth considering those parts of scripture whose literary form is designed to conceal, or tease - the parables are the obvious example. In fact, things were taught in parables so that 'hearing that might hear but not understand...'
Is scripture readable? Yes.
Is scripture understandable? Sort of.
Is scripture clear? Notsomuch.
...and we're left with somewhat of a regress back to priestly intervention, of a kind.
@Mark, as for the circular logic you describe, I shan't venture there... :)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
…But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
…And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
…No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.
(from John 1)
Di
By "sufficient", I mean that you don't need a proxy to understand the key messages of Scripture, except that acceptance thereof requires the work of the Spirit. To someone who understands the words, you can say "take this, read it, it will tell you what you need to know". There's not a guide, a prophet, a key that you need before it is useful. Others may offer advice, but the scriptures are not "half the story". And even those who advise and guide are to be under the authority of the scriptures, not the other way around.
"Clarity", to my mind, implies transparency and obviousness (at least in modern usage). While this claim could certainly be made of some of the scriptures, I'm not sure that using it as a blanket description sends the right message. Unless we redefine "clarity" itself, which isn't a very clear usage. :)
Luke, if you're keen to read some interesting thoughts on circularity - have a read of John Frame's 'Doctrine of the Knowledge of God' pp130-133. There's some really helpful things to say about it.
Ok, back on the horse...
Because we're by nature "fools" (in the Biblical, rather than intellectual sense—ie lacking in fear of the LORD), God's wisdom is a closed book to us.
There are quite a lot of bits of Bible that teach this, not least the verse Mike might have meant to reference (?) in point three (see Polly's comment #20 above). Here the massive pothole on the road to understanding is not intelligence, but the fact that the "ignorant and unstable twist [it] to their own destruction"—probably the scoffers of verse three, in context.
Also, I wonder if more needs to be made of the work of Satan? Jesus highlights this as an obstacle to understanding in his parable of the 4 soils.
However: when we are talking about disagreements between Christians who equally have the spirit of God, though the temptation will be to say 'they disagree with me not because they just have a different way of reading than me but because they are a big fat sinner' we must be careful. We might of course miss our own sinfulness in this. And of course - two people might both be completely wrong, too!
Which is why the history of interpretation of the Bible is important.
I found this a helpful a distinction. We carefully listen to the godly insights of the Great Ones who have gone before, but we are not bound to their conclusions if God gives us new insights. However, if we come to different conclusions, we do so cautiously and humbly.
On the role of the Spirit: George had a scientific background and little knowledge of the Christian Faith. When his wife died, he decided to start coming to Church. He asked for a Bible, which he used to read. After he was converted he told me, "Before I couldn't make head nor tail of the Bible; now it makes perfect sense and I can't get enough of it." I saw in this the gracious work of the Divine Author as his own interpreter.
@Michael J: There is surely an exegetical fallacy here! Your comment above presumes that any given text from Holy Scripture can admit only one reading, all others therefore being 'wrong'. Why is it not possible for a biblical passage to be readable in several ways, all equally true or valid? (Historically, allegorists such as Origen or Augustine of Hippo would concur with me...)
An example from John 21 - the fishing-net being cast on the left side of the boat (where it remained empty) and then on the right (where it was filled with fish) can be read as (a) simple historical reportage or (b) a metaphor of the Ancient world-view whereby leftness equates with things 'sinister' [bad pun: this word is Latin for 'left'], the emptiness of evil, while rightness suggests 'rectitude' or 'righteousness' [again 'rectus' = Latin for right], the fulness [pleroma] of God. (As you can see, this idea survives even via the English language!) In my view, BOTH readings are 'true'. And don't get me started on John 21's 153 fish, wherein a complete exegesis requires some knowledge of Koine Greek gematria ... very rare among today's Christians, alas. Indeed, the multiple strata of meanings in Jn 21 shows that not all Scripture exhibits the superficial clarity that Michael proposes.
One comment I'd like to add that is relevant to this thread: the network of meanings across Scripture in its original languages that gematria gives rise to is automatically lost in ALL translations; ipso facto, this demonstrates that the Bible can indeed be cryptic, inasmuch as some meanings need to be numerically 'decoded' from the Urtexte.
The example you give is not a choice between readings two contradictory readings, surely.
di
I don't mind speaking of 'author's intentions', so long as we recognise that all we have to understand the 'author's intentions' is the text itself... But we have a text which is intended and purposeful, yes.
Nevertheless I can see that numbers and other patterns are sometimes important in the Bible and are not always obvious to readers in other language translations. However may I share one reason why intuitively people like me might hesitate before chasing after a full blown interest in such matters.
It might be most easily expressed by quoting Paul's words in 2 Cor 4:2...
He commends a style of preaching Christian truth which is based on a simple "open statement" or manifestation of the truth, not on making things hard to discover, let alone hiding things. That sort of approach just makes me hesitate before suspecting that number-word patterns are hidden all over the place behind the plain historical-grammatical meaning of texts, especially narrative historical texts.
Then again, I may just be showing my ignorance. And I repeat I don't really wish to drag this thread too far off topic.
@Sandy: Firstly, gematria is definitely 'on topic', since it introduces the idea that texts may (indeed, some would say "do") have more than one level of meaning. You are nonetheless wise to be cautious; and one certainly cannot argue with Paul. However, the fact remains that gematria does arise automatically from an undistorted reading of the Bible's Urtexte; and I can assure you that it is commonplace throughout the NT - the most obvious example being Revelation 13:18 (i.e. the 666 bit). In any event, having researched the subject for nearly 20 years, I'm yet to find a single instance that contradicts a Bible-passage's exoteric meaning! (I do hope this reassures you...) Anyway, thanks for taking an interest. One classic book I can recommend on the subject (though not entirely reliable) is E. W. Bullinger's Number in Scripture. And I'm happy to share my work-in-progress
There's not a "better" truth beneath the surface, even if there (arguably) is a broader one.
Thus, an "expert" might be able to show us how the author draws on this or that subtle (or merely unfamiliar) idea to reinforce or expand their point, but we should be highly sceptical of those who would say "Ah, what this really means is ...".
At least I think that's what Ian is saying, yes?
The Scripture, here, is clear...May it's clarity profoundly impact each of our lives and give us a evangelical sense of urgency for all of His people...
For, if you miss this point, you have missed the most important thing in life...Our Relationship with God and our Relationships with Others - that's what matters most!
For if we don't live a life of love...Nothing we say will matter!
If we don't live a life with love...Nothing we know will matter!
If we don't live a life with love...Nothing we believe will matter!
If we don't live a life of love...Nothing we give will matter!
If we don't live a life of love...Nothing we accomplish will matter!