Luther and Scripture

Another volume from last year. I bought this one at a Rutherford House Dogmatics Conference a few years ago and was really pleased to have read it last autumn. I've got a number of pages of notes from this book which will appear in time.

Lohse, responding to the many volumes on Luther and his theology, opens with a section on presuppositions relative to a description of Luther's theology. Part 2 sets Luther's theology in its historical development and then Part 3 Luther's theology in its systematic context.

Writing on the psalms lectures:
The sginificance of Scripture for Luther is particularly evident in this word: "The strength of Scripture is this, that it is not changed into him who studies it, but that it transforms its lover into itself and its strengths ... Because you will not change me into what you are .. but you will be changed into what I am." (page 52 - the quote from Luther is from his comments on Ps 67:14)

We, the reader, do not transform the words on the page of Scripture into God's word when it suits us, or when they 'speak to me'. The nature of Scripture is such that contact with Scripture will change the one who loves it. I like this bit, reading Scripture as one who does not love it will not result in change, there is an appropriate way to read, to approach Scripture. The lover of Scripture is transformed by it.
The last bit may cause concern, however, what is Scripture? Scripture is God's gracious self-revelation. So, if Scripture changes its lovers into itself, it will change us into the likeness of the God who is revealed in Scripture. It makes us like Christ. We do not worship Scripture but the God revealed in Scripture and so by Scripture we become like him - his image increasingly clearly displayed in us.

Would the true God please stand up now!

The human imagination is a great thing. We are especially good at imagining god the way we want him/her/it/them (delete as appropriate) to be. This imaginative quality plays right into our present relativistic worldview, or perhaps that should be worldviews!

How do I know that the God/god I know is the true God? How can I ever say that what anyone else calls god is not the true God? Is it even possible to think of such a question?

The true God has made himself known. If he had not made himself known no human would ever be able to imagine him as he is.

While in Peru in 2004 I heard the story of an Inca chief just a few years before the Spanish arrived who went for three days alone to an island in the midst of a mountain lake. On his return he told his head men that he had watched the sun, whom they worshipped, rising and setting in the same places each day for three days. And he concluded that if the sun were the great god he would chose to exercise greater freedom, so there must be a greater God than the sun and he wanted to get to know him.
This, I think, is exactly what I mean by general revelation, or what is the main point of Romans 1. Into the fabric of creation the true God has built in evidence of his existence and his nature. Not a full revelation, but sufficient for us to know there is a God and something of his power and divinity.

To this God has added the special revelation which is Scripture, the 66 writings of the Old and New Testaments. In these writings, and in no others, had the true God specially made himself known. One of the best definitions of Scripture I know is, 'Scripture is the gracious self-revelation of God.'

In current debates, certianly within the Church of Scotland, there is much heat generated on the subject of the 'authority' of Scripture. It is, in my opinion, much more important to grasp what the nature of Scripture is. Once we see that Scripture is God making himself known, the 'authority' of Scripture becomes at the same time both clear and subordinate. Any authority Scripture has is a function of God who is revealing himself in Scripture.

I've also come to recognise that starting any kind of Christian theology with Scripture is unhelpful. We need to start with God and come to Scripture as a sub-set of our thinking about God. In this the Scots Confession of 1560 is to be prefered to the Westminster Confession of 1647.

Missing the point

I'm still enjoying Rob Bell's book - Jesus Wants To Save Christians.

Writing about exodus and exile as the background into which the Lord Jesus came in a section on the Emmaus Journey (see Luke 24) we read:

whatever the stranger on the road taught these disciples from Moses and the Prophets, they got it. Their eyes were opened. The suffering and death and crucifixion of Jesus made sense to them.


In a couple of hours, using nothing but the Hebrew Scriptures, this man converted all of their despair to hope and a vision of a new future. p.90.

Where this really bites for me is just a few sentences later:

In Jesus' day, people could read, study, and discuss the Scriptures their entire lives and still miss its central message.
In Jesus' day people could follow him, learn from him, drop everything to be his disciples, and yet find themselves returning home, thinking Jesus had failed.
Which is a bit like walking with someone for hours,
only to discover that you had missed who they really are the whole time.
Because the stranger is, of course, Jesus. p. 90

I certainly know too many scholars, some of the finest intellects I've ever met, who've studied the bible their whole working lives and never met Jesus, and don't know what it is to follow him. But what strikes me is not where this affects others. No matter how faithfully, passionately, skillfully I read and study Scripture I must confess that I will and do get it wrong, I miss the point - worse I can walk beside Jesus and not recognise him.

We can have great confidence in Jesus and in the Scriptures, of the Old and New Testaments, Jesus can and will use them to open our eyes to his grace for us in the cross and empty tomb. That I get it wrong does not mean I need to abandon the gospel or the bible. Rather, in all humility, however much I think I know I need to come again and walk beside Jesus and hear him teaching the gospel from Scriptures until my heart burns within me.

And if you'll forgive me, I think you do also.

Reading in Community

I'm floating an idea here, so if you read this please comment even if you don't like the idea.

I'm thinking of trying to start blogging about Scripture. The idea would be to take a book for a period, say Galatians for three months or Exodus. To offer chapters to read and study for each week, comments on study resources, text and language, exegetical cruxes, and of course, biblical theology.

The idea will work if through a blog post a reading and commenting community grows up where we share with and encourage one another in reading Scripture. If there was interest a meeting could be arranged to take further any key issues that come up in our studies.

What do you think?

I'm away at the Kingdom Come conference next week, so I'll probably being on this week beginning Feb 8.

Revelation and Humility

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form (Colossians 2:9)

The fullness of the Deity, the essence of God, is unknowable to human reason or examination. It was made known to the Apostle, by revelation, that this fullness of God was in Christ, a permanent union of divinity and humanity. This is made known to us, not as to the Apostle by an immediate revelation, but by a mediated revelation, or a special revelation - through Scripture.

God is, he has being and existence, revealing himself to us through the union of divinity and humanity in Christ God shows himself to have personality - in Christ (and in Scripture) the personality and absoluteness of God go hand in hand.

Our knowing God, in which eternal life consists (John 17:3) is a knowing of God as he has revealed himself to us. Even if we do not know God as he is in himself, his essence, we have a sufficient knowledge of God as a result of his revelation in Christ, which now is revealed to us in Scripture.

Such a knowing of God should not, must not, lead to pride - how great are we that we know God! No, acknowledging that all we know of God is a result of his gracious self-revelation we live humbly before him, we receive with humility that revelation of himself he has given to us. Our approach to God, to his Scripture must be a humble approach. Such humility will give birth to great joy - we have received from God that which we do not deserve, a knowledge of him. How can we not rejoice and give glory to this gracious God?

The Bible and Revelation

I've started re-reading Eugene H Peterson's Eat This Book. I always enjoy Peterson's writing it is so rich and sumptuous.

In this second volume in his spiritual theology series Peterson writes about bible reading.

The challenge - never negligible - regarding the Christian Scriptures is getting them read, but read on their own terms, as God's revelation. (page xi)

... in order to read the Scriptures adequately and accurately, it is necessary at the same time to live them. Not to live them as a prerequisite to reading them, and not to live them in consequence of reading them, but to live them as we read them, the living and reading reciprocal, body language and spoken words, the back-and-forthness assimilating the reading to the living, the living to the reading. Reading the Scriptures is not an activity discrete from living the gospel but one integral to it. It means letting Another have a say in everything we are saying and doing. It is as easy as that. And as hard. (page xii)

Revelation is a term that has dropped out of current discussions on Scripture. The text of Scripture is not a work of the imagination, even the creative imagination, of some human seeker after God. The text of Scripture is revelation, there is an objective reality to which the text of Scripture bears witness beyond itself. That reality is God. This aspect of the nature of Scripture constrains us in our reading and interpreting these words, because these words and no other words are this revelation which has been made known, displayed before us.

I really like Peterson's insistence upon our reading Scripture being intimately connected to our living Scripture - the two go together in ways that cannot be torn apart. Where there is no obedience or submission to Scripture there has not been an adequate or accurate reading of Scripture. Reading is more than recognising that the black marks make the words, this is true of every text. Reading a text which is a revelation of God by God must engage our lives, must change our lives if we have even begun to read this word.

Kevin Vanhoozer's ten thesis

Here are the ten thesis of Kevin Vanhoozer mentioned in a post yesterday.


1. The nature and function of the Bible are insufficiently grasped unless and until we see the Bible as an element in the economy of triune discourse.

2. An appreciation of the theological nature of the Bible entails a rejection of a methodological atheism that treats the texts as having a “natural history” only.

3. The message of the Bible is “finally” about the loving power of God for salvation (Rom. 1:16), the definitive or final gospel Word of God that comes to brightest light in the word’s final form.

4. Because God acts in space-time (of Israel, Jesus Christ, and the church), theological interpretation requires thick descriptions that plumb the height and depth of history, not only its length.

5. Theological interpreters view the historical events recounted in Scripture as ingredients in a unified story ordered by an economy of triune providence.

6. The Old Testament testifies to the same drama of redemption as the New, hence the church rightly reads both Testaments together, two parts of a single authoritative script.

7. The Spirit who speaks with magisterial authority in the Scripture speaks with ministerial authority in church tradition.

8. In an era marked by the conflict of interpretations, there is good reason provisionally to acknowledge the superiority of catholic interpretation.

9. The end of biblical interpretation is not simply communication - the sharing of information - but communion, a sharing in the light, life, and love of God.

10. The church is that community where good habits of theological interpretation are best formed and where the fruit of these habits are best exhibited.

I really liked this quote from Vanhoozer towards the end of the paper:
"Seminary faculties need the courage to be evangelically Protestant for the sake of forming theological interpreters of Scripture able to preach and minister the word. The preacher is a “man on a wire,” whose sermons must walk the tightrope between Scripture and the contemporary situation. I believe that we should preparing our best students for this gospel ministry. The pastor-theologian, I submit, should be evangelicalism’s default public intellectual, with preaching the preferred public mode of theological interpretation of Scripture."

The Bible and Theological Interpretation

Mike Bird has a very helpful post on theological interpreation of Scripture in which he copies ten thesis from Kevin Vanhoozer, read it here.

Well worth reading and reflecting upon.

Tom Wright Justification 2

Chapter 2 – Rules of engagement.

In the long term, this may be one of the most important chapters in Wright’s book. Here Wright sets out a methodology for the study of Paul and/or justification. So often in church life today there is disagreement about theology or praxis which arises in large part from the different starting places and varied assumptions made by those taking part in the debates.

Wright contends that exegesis “close attention to the actual flow of the text, to the questions that it raises in itself and the answers it given in and of itself” (page 23) is the beginning and end of the task of understanding Paul and justification.

Systematise all you want in between; we all do it, there is nothing wrong with it and much to be said for it, particularly when it involves careful comparing of different treatments of similar topics in different contexts. But start with exegesis, and remind yourself that the end in view is not a tidy system, sitting in hard covers on a shelf where one may look up ‘correct answers’, but the sermon, or the shared pastoral reading, or the scriptural word to a Synod or other formal church gathering, or indeed the life of witness to the love of God, through all of which the church is built up and energized for mission, the Christian is challenged, transformed and nurtured in the faith, and the unbeliever is confronted with the shocking but joyful news that the crucified and risen Jesus is the Lord of the world. That is letting scripture be scripture. (pages 23-24)

Yes, what a wonderful paragraph! Any attempt to study scripture, to know God in any meaningful way involves theology. We cannot but have a theology, so we might as well have one that is well thought through and holds together well (a good systematics). But, too often we have allowed the system to control our reading of the text. We instinctively reject readings of scripture that don’t fit in with the system we hold. We look for answers in the big system rather than in the text of scripture. I heard Phillip Jensen at the EMA in 1997 tell us that he thinks Calvinists have a real problem with this. Thinking that Calvin’s system is so good we cannot imagine the text of scripture ever disagreeing with Calvin, so we amend our understanding of scripture to fit in with what we think Calvin wrote, although most times we have that wrong as well! So a big yes to having a good systematic theology, but a massive no (or even a Pauline me genoito) to allowing our system to take priority over our exegesis. It is good exegesis that will bring God’s word with power into all of the situations described by Wright at the end of the paragraph, and how great is the need for a clear statement of scripture in our churches and church courts.

Wright makes a good case for the inclusion of Ephesians in any study of Paul and justification, pages 26-28. It is curious how often conservative readings of justification do not attend to Ephesians, or Colossians for that matter.

Wright then suggests that we need to develop ‘A Hermeneutics of Doctrine’ (page 28 and following). There is a hermeneutic circle of theology and theological interpretation. Luther and Calvin were not only influenced by Augustine and the New Testament, but by all the theology that had been written and taught in between. It is important to consider which theological technical terms are not biblical, e.g. ‘the imputation of Christ’s righteousness’ and what associations are gathering into theology by the use of the Latin term iustitia? Now this is not to say that non biblical terms cannot be wisely used to help us understand scripture, rather that we do this too often without being aware of it and we do need to remind ourselves of the theological baggage we bring to scripture.

As an historian Wright is always concerned about historical questions.
We come with the questions and issues we have learned from elsewhere [other than scripture]. This is a perennial problem for all of us, but unless we are to declare, here and now, that God has no more light to break out of his holy word – that everything in scripture has already been discovered by our elders and betters and that all we have to do is read them to find out what scripture says – then further research, precisely at a historical level, is what is needed. I know that John Calvin would have agreed wholeheartedly with this. (page 33)

Wright is not saying that God will give fresh revelations of himself other than scripture (that’s a whole different discussion!). His point is this: can we in our study of scripture understand God’s word more clearly than earlier generations of students? If not, why do we study scripture, we should print text with Augustine, Luther and Calvin, like some Christian Gemora, and learn to interpret the few chosen interpreters. But, if we do believe that God will lead us in our study of scripture into his ways, not previously known, then historical study, not only of scripture but of theology is urgently required.

Wright ends this chapter with a complaint against contemporary English translations of Paul, particularly the NIV. In particular Wright mentions the translation of Rom 3:21-26

NIV - Romans 3:21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

I’ve copied the text above and you can see that the NIV has used ‘righteousness’ in vv. 21, 22, but justified, justice, just, justifies in vv. 24-26, which the same dikaisoun- root is used in the Greek. (I tried to copy the NA27 text but this blog post doesn't hold that font) Wright’s point is that this variety in English usage sets up a particular way of reading vv. 21-22 which is not what Paul intended. This point will be picked up in great detail in chapter 7 when Wright offers comments on Romans.

Three main things then:
1. Exegesis needs to have priority over systematic theology.
2. History is important, both in relation to scripture and theology.
3. Read the text, and make sure what you are reading is the text.

More on red letters

Further on red letter Christians and red letter bibles, see an earlier post here. I was reading the follow passage in a bible with red letters for the words of Jesus.

John 12:27-29
27 "Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say?`Father, save me from this hour'? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name!" Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it, and will glorify it again." 29 The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him.

Whose voice speaks from heaven in v. 28? Presumably the same voice as spoke from heaven at the baptism of the Lord Jesus and at his transfiguration. The only voice that ever speaks from heaven is the voice of God.

Why do we colour the words of the Lord Jesus red but not the words of God? Are the words of the Lord Jesus better, more significant, more important than the words of God spoken from heaven?

It is a truly silly idea to have red letter bibles, and an even worse idea to claim to be a red letter Christian, privileging the words of the Lord Jesus recorded in Scripture over the word of God, which is the essential nature of Scripture.

Tom Wright Justification 1

In 2008 John Piper published The Future of Justification: A response to NT Wright. This short volume from 2009 is Wright’s response to Piper. See my earlier post on Piper, in short, I think his book seeks to show that Wright is not following a main line, traditional reformed interpretation of justification. We didn’t need a book to tell us that.

In a number of posts I’m going to offer comments on Wright’s response.

Chapter 1
In this first Chapter Wright sets out to show what this discussion is all about and why it matters.

“Ever since I first read Luther and Calvin, particularly the latter, I determined that whether or not I agreed with them in everything they said, their stated and practised method would be mine, too: to soak myself in the Bible, in the Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, to get it into my bloodstream by every means possible, in the prayer and hope that I would be able to teach scripture afresh to the church and the world. The greatest honour we can pay the Reformers is not to treat them as infallible – they would be horrified at that – but to do as they did.” (page 6.)

I have not yet found a human author with whom I can say I agree with everything they said (or wrote). And I do not expect to find one. By definition a human author is human and therefore even the best author and their best work will be tainted by sin in some part. We cannot allow ourselves to be blindly chained to any human author, however much we value any tradition of interpretation of Scripture that derives from them.
I am not one of those who denies the value of theology and the systematic study of theology. However, if I am forced to choose let me study Scripture and only Scripture. There is no greater need in our generation than for Scripture to be heard and obeyed. If I find my study of Scripture to lead me to disagree with any tradition or part of Christian theology then I will humbly do that. That is what Augustine, Luther and Calvin did. Are they the only ones to be given this duty?

“But the real point is, I believe, that the salvation of human beings, though of course extremely important for those human beings, is part of a larger purpose. God is rescuing us from the shipwreck of the world, not so that we can sit back and put our feet up in his company, but so that we can be part of his plan to remake the world. We are in orbit around God and his purposes, not the other way round.” (page 8 – Author’s emphasis)

Yes, read that one over again and then lower your peacock feathers. Salvation is for God’s glory alone, not our glory. This doctrinal debate is not about some obscure point of theology. Justification is that doctrine by which the church stands or falls. It does very closely touch the work of redemption God has achieved in Christ. It is about the heart of the gospel.
It matters that we get this right, because if we get it wrong we will end up mistreating the gospel and misrepresenting the purposes of God in his great work of redemption.

In this opening chapter Wright comments on the vast field of contemporary literature on this theme. Noting that he will not engage with it all, but promises us a larger more detail work on Paul as part of his on going Christian Origins and the Question of God series. In this introduction Wright promises much. He will offer us three further chapters of introduction in which he outlines his thinking on justification before a final four chapters of detailed exegesis of the key Pauline texts on this theme.

Final Thoughts on The Word Became Fresh

I haven't offered a full review of all the chapters in this really good book. It's a long time since I've read a book of just 154 pages so full of really helpful comments and ideas.

Just two more, see earlier posts

On application:
God has given his word for our instruction and obedience, for our endurance and encouragement; therefore any interpretation that stops short of appropriation [application] is illegitimate. (page 94)
What a great definition of application,wholly grounded upon our understanding of the nature of Scripture as God's word and the purpose of Scripture which God desires to see in our lives. Too many sermons fail to be sermons at this point. A fine exposition of God's word ends at the point of exposition and never touches any kind of application. Davis shows in his chapter on this that application may obviously be applied to our behaviour, but also - and this is really important - to our thinking. Sometimes what needs to change is our thinking about God which can easily become un-biblical. In relation to narrative text Davis is very helpful in illustrating where the application can be doxological, the outcome of a story may be the glorifying of God and an out pouring of praise from those who respond properly to the wonders of our God.

On centre:
For a student of OT talk of a centre raises the spectre of a search for the unifying centre of the OT. Rather Davis offers a premier presupposition,
God has given his word as a revelation of himself; if then I use his word rightly, I will long to see him, and he will be the focus of my study. (page 121 - what a sentence to have on a page bearing this number!!)

Yes, Scripture is about God, a gracious self-revelation of God to humanity. It is only about humanity in relation to God, not about humanity and not about God in relation to humanity. If we go wrong at the beginning we won't get back on line at all. Too many sermons, and far to much of what is called contemporary theology is not worthy the name being rather sociological or anthropological studies in which some kind of god may or may not be involved. A theocentric approach to Scripture will serve us like a compass needle and keep us in the right direction.

This book is most highly commended for all preachers and all students of God's word. It has a particular focus upon OT narrative texts but the points made can be transferred to other genres and passages of Scripture.

Justification: Piper on Wright

I've been reading John Piper's book on 'The Future of Justification: A response to N T Wright'.

It is good to have such books as this which engage with other major scholars.

My concern about Piper's book is that all the way through he seems concerned only to show where N T Wright diverges from Reformed Orthodoxy. I'm not sure that Piper has taken seriously the possibility that Reformed Orthodoxy may itself need reformed. As Wright claims, it is not impossible that Christian thinking about theology and biblical interpretation went wrong with Augustine and has been on the wrong foot ever since. This is a bold claim, which I am not yet endorsing, however, we know that every great theologian of these past 1600 years has been human and therefore fallible, there is no a priori reason why the work of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards and other might not need reformed. A critque of N T Wright needs to do more than demonstrate that the Bishop is out of step with received Reformed Orthodoxy.

I rejoice to read the following:

"... Wright loves the apostle Paul and reverences the Christian Scriptures. That gives me hope that engaging with him will be fruitful. I know I have learned from him, and I hope that our common ground in Scripture will enable some progress in understanding and agreement." Piper, page 27.

We have had more than enough of name calling and anathematising between Christians, between those who love the Scriptures, between those who are sisters and brothers in the Lord Jesus Christ. This example of recognising a brother in Christ, of desiring to learn and to share from what one has learned is an example we should all aspire to follow.

A conversation partner

Over at Peter's Blog, I'm in a conversation with Peter Johnston on a post he made entitled Red Letter Christians.
It's important to talk, but more important to listen, especially with those we don't always agree with. I pray that our conversation will be helpful to us both and to others as we seek to respond to God's gracious self-revelation in Scritpure and seek his way in the life of our churches today.

On bible reading

This week I’ve been reading through Romans 9 to 11. This is surely a very challenging passage of Scripture which must raise some serious questions for us about our God, our relationship to him and the text in which we read these things.

For many any thought of election is an abomination, to be rejected out of hand. However, this is something that is taught in Scripture, even if we might want to argue about what it means. At the very least we should agree that this is what the Scripture teaches.

As a result of just over 100 years of very thorough textual research we can say with something approaching 97% accuracy that the text of the New Testament is settled and well attested. It is just not reasonable to suppose that at some point the actual words of the New Testament are in doubt.

However, while not saying this, or challenging this outcome of scholarly study, there are many who without a backward glance will excise some passage of the New Testament on the grounds that they don’t like it, or it doesn’t fit in with their understanding of God.

In the Reformed tradition we have agreed to place Scripture above human reason and above human tradition. Not above the need for Spirit led interpretation, we are to study the Scriptures with all the skill and wisdom God has given us aided by his Spirit. What we have agreed is to being our study with a humble and reverent submission to Scripture. God has spoken. It is not up to us to ignore or reject God’s word on the basis that we don’t like it, or it doesn’t fit in with our understanding of God. It is up to us to remain before the Scripture until God blesses us in it.

What is needed in our churches, in our Christian living as we seek to be disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the living word of God, is a holy submission before the written word of God that it might be the light shinning in our darkness to lead us into the way of the cross.