The sufficiency of Scripture

[Jordan]

Hi all,

The thread on 'the conservative theological voice' has introduced an aspect of biblical interpretation that I would like to start discussion on: the relationship between socio-historical studies and the sufficiency of Scripture. I've been mulling over this issue for some time, particularly in relation to debates over the interpretation of 1 Cor 14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2:11-14.

Often in reading interpretations of these passages, particularly 1 Timothy, I get the clear impression that the commentator doesn't really believe that sufficient information has been given in the text by way of historical background, and/or reasoning for Paul's injunctions, for us to understand and practice God's will for us today. The unspoken view seems to be that there are crucial elements of historical context which have not been included in the text, and if we don't know them and read the text in the light of them, we're bound to repeat the mistakes of the past in our interpretation and application.

This came out particularly strongly when reading Ben Witherington on 1 Tim (a commentator well known for his socio-rhetorical approach), but I have found it to be a mainstay of egalitarian interpretation.

My own view is as follows:

I agree that the writer's culture and the situation of the first readers are necessary to be known for interpretation, but only insofar as they have been revealed to us in Scripture itself.

I don't believe that we need to know additional information about background and what was going on in the early church etc. - beyond what may be proven from Scripture - in order to understand enough of what God is saying in Scripture in order to trust and obey him completely, today.

This is certainly not to imply that Scripture was written in a vacuum; neither does it imply that historical studies are not useful aids as a secondary witness to what the Scriptures teach. Socio-rhetorical analysis can also be useful to challenge presuppositions that we bring to the text (although Scripture is sufficient to do that anyway).

The dividing line is that ancillary historical studies cannot either establish nor undermine our interpretation of Scripture and the resultant faith and practice.

We can bring our historical studies to the text of Scripture to see whether they are compatible with Scripture; our historical studies may even alert us to things in the text that we didn't see before (although again Scripture and the Holy Spirit are sufficient to do this insofar as such details impact faith and obedience), but they must always stand under the authority of the text, and they must not be allowed to determine the meaning of the text, or the faith and practice that God is teaching in the text.

This interpretive principle is a necessary outcome of believing in the sufficiency and authority of Scripture.

Sometimes people object that this point of view can't take into account the translation of Scripture from one language into another. How can we say that Scripture is sufficient, when in order to translate from ancient Greek into modern English, huge amounts of study have to be done encompassing history, culture and how these impact the meaning of words in various contexts? Historical studies of all types are absolutely integral to this process! Also, how can we fit textual criticism in? The canon didn't drop out of heaven, centuries of collecting and evaluating manuscripts stand behind what we now call the 'Sufficient Word of God'! In light of all this, how can we affirm sufficiency?

I think the answer is found in understanding that 'sufficiency' and 'authority' refer to the words of Scripture (and I do mean words, not just thoughts or ideas) in their original language, and in the context of the rest of Scripture. This means that whatever studies we undertake, they are all with the aim of determining what each word of Scripture means in its literary context in Scripture. The words themselves are entirely sufficient and authoritative; the challenge is to determine what they are and what they mean.

The challenge is not to find additional words which have not been recorded in the belief that the inspired words are incomplete. The task in using textual critical tools and linguistic resources with all of the background studies involved, is only to determine what the sufficient words of Scripture are, and what they mean.

So of course, 'sufficiency' is not meant to be an unqualified term; nevertheless the doctrine of sufficiency does establish some real boundaries for interpretation.  

In Christ,

Jordan

[Andrew Bowles]

Hi Jordan,

I think in some cases (for instance the interpretation of 1 Cor 15:29) your doctrinal formulation doesn't quite work. Unless we find some extrabiblical information, we're not going to know what 'baptism on behalf of the dead' means (Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'll start doing it tomorrow!). But my understanding of sufficiency is that God has given us sufficient revelation in Scripture for the purpose of salvation, and the Holy Spirit makes sure the church doesn't lose that revelation entirely. Applying that to wider doctrinal questions leads to the problem that you're in, where you want to rule out an entire class of interpretations not because of exegetical information but because of a doctrine that itself is questionable.

[Jordan]

Hi Andrew,

I wouldn't assume that we need to know anything more about baptism for the dead, in order to obey God fully, than what has already been revealed. We don't practice baptism for the dead because Paul doesn't enjoin it but mentions it in passing while arguing apologetically for the resurrection. On the other hand, if someone wants to practice it, we couldn't condemn them for doing so based on this passage. The argument would have to come from other places in Scripture (if they speak clearly enough to address the question conclusively).

The sufficiency of Scripture doesn't mean that the questions we bring to a passage will always be answered. What it means is that what has been revealed is sufficient for us to live lives that are pleasing to God in every way, without the need for additional information.

Also, the revelation given in Scripture is more than simply enough to get us converted. I read in Griffith Thomas' theology (an exposition of the 39 Articles) that when the Reformers said 'sufficient for salvation' they meant to include everything involved in salvation on this side of eternity - everything we need to know in order to be fully obedient to God in life and doctrine. They didn't mean what we sometimes mean by the same expression - everything needed to get converted, but not necessarily enough to please God in every way.

The Westminster Confession is explicit on this point, saying, 'The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.' (I.VI)

The confession goes on to state the need for the Holy Spirit in interpretation, and that some circumstantial things can be ordered according to wisdom guided by the Word (without implying that we can claim biblical authority for these things).

I should back up this view of sufficiency with Scripture - if you'll permit me to use just one passage for the moment:

'But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.' (2 Tim 3:14-17)

Note that Paul teaches that Scripture is given for salvation through Christ, and also to equip us for every good work. Not just some, or most good works. The idea is that Scripture is given to complete the saints in righteousness (as much as God intends this side of eternity).

In Christ,

Jordan  

[Andrew Bowles]

Yes, it's a good distinction to speak about salvation in a comprehensive sense, which is how I meant it. In that sense of course Scripture is sufficient. But my understanding was that you are trying to take the sufficiency of Scripture and use it to decide how to deal with debated doctrinal questions like the ministry of women in the church, that often turn on interpretative questions in which appeals are made to extra-biblical information. That was why I mentioned baptism for the dead. I don't think I need to know about it for salvation, but the way you spoke of sufficiency in your initial post seemed to suggest that a sufficient Scripture should contain information relating to interpretation of all passages. If you just mean that it contains enough information for us to 'live lives pleasing to God in every way', then I think that concept needs to be defined more clearly, because I feel it's actually hiding the more specific doctrine behind it. Would it be fair to say that you think women's ministry is one of the issues we need to resolve in order to live lives pleasing to God? If so, should we be able to find all the interpretative information necessary to answer the question within the Bible itself?

[Andrew Bowles]

I've realised that all I've done is re-ask your initial question. To add something, I think that trying to use doctrines of Scripture to aid the interpretation of Scripture, or trying to use Scriptural texts to prove doctrines of Scripture, can be like to trying to lift yourself out of quicksand. 2 Tim 3:16 doesn't prove that Scripture is inspired, unless you already accept the authority of Scripture, and then you don't need it to be scripturally proven anyway. In the same way, trying to use sufficiency of Scripture to prove a particular interpretation is a procedure that recoils back on itself. Unless you have a prior list of the doctrines that Scripture is supposed to sufficiently teach, there's no objective way of deciding on the basis of Scripture that it teaches a particular doctrine sufficiently, particularly if there is disagreement about it. Doctrines of Scripture have a lower dogmatic rank than the Gospel and the creedal affirmations, so I think it's better to start from there if you're going to go down the path of using doctrines to judge Scriptural interpretation.

[Justin Denholm]

Jordan, I'm curious exactly what you would see the role/value of historical studies as (if anything). I often find historial and extra-Biblical material to be helpful for my own reading and thinking, but perhaps your argument implies that any benefit I derive could have been achieved through better studying of the text itself? Are historical studies a corrective against wildly discordant readings of the text? Are they helpful for ensuring that we don't make gross cultural assumptions in how we interpret scripture? Or do you think that historical studies are simply impeding natural readings of the text, or perhaps discouraging us to read scripture as closely as we ought?

From an ethical point of view, I'm wondering about whether this approach leans too heavily towards a limited applicability of the text (over-literal?). When we are thinking about a range of issues that are not directly dealt with in scripture (stem cells, nursing homes, carbon trading), we will need to extrapolate principles, values and relationships from their original context and determine how to most faithfully understand them in our own. To me, perhaps simplisitically, it seems that understanding original context as well as possible will provide me with the greatest ability to faithfully understand how God would have us live today. Will our understanding of these issues compromise our salvation? No, but they are important nonetheless and I think historical studies can be a helpful tool for appreciating them faithfully. I don't think this takes anything away from the sufficiency of scripture, though.

[Jordan]

Hi Andrew,

I agree with you that the doctrine of sufficiency can't be used as a trump card to finish off debates about women in ministry. But I do believe that it sets some boundaries for the interpretive process.

I don't believe that sufficiency means that we start the debate on women in ministry with the assumption that we need to have a clear answer on it in order to please God. That will depend on whether or not Scripture has spoken conclusively on the subject.

I remember reading one complementarian who argued that because women in ministry was such a big issue involving leadership in the church, we could go to the bible expecting clear answers on the subject. I don't agree with that line of thinking, because as you're saying, it begins with assumptions and human reason rather than with complete dependence on the Word of God.

As you suggested earlier though, my belief in sufficiency does mean that I rule out a class of interpretations which depend upon extra-biblical information in order to stand.

In Christ,
Jordan  

[Jordan]

Hi Justin, and welcome back from GAFCON.

I think historical studies fall into the category of things that are helpful, and have been useful, but strictly speaking are not necessary in order to understand God's will for us rightly.

So, you may have been helped by historical studies done along with your study of Scripture, and they may have alerted you to things in the Scriptures that you weren't aware of before, or the presuppositions you brought to the text may have been challenged and corrected.

I would argue that God, who is Lord of all truth, in and outside of the bible, has graciously used those means to help you understand his Word better. But I wouldn't say that it was necessary for God to work that way due to some limitation in the Scriptures themselves.

When we find that God uses our historical studies to benefit our reading of Scripture, that is something to thank Him for. But we shouldn't therefore prescribe it as being necessary, only a means that God chooses to use if he wants to.

I'd also add, and I'm sure you understand this, that it is possible to think we've been helped by something, when in fact we've simply been stimulated intellectually or emotionally. We haven't actually benefited in terms of our relationship with God - in terms of faith and obedience.

Regarding ethics, I agree that we need to extrapolate and apply biblical principles, especially when literal commands in Scripture don't meet our exact situation. This is part of applying the sufficiency of Scripture as well. We believe that Scripture is sufficient not merely in it's direct commands and teachings but also in what may be proved by putting things in Scripture together (see my quote from the Westminster confession above). It is Scripture as a whole that is sufficient. So you're right. We must avoid a merely literalistic approach that only looks on the surface of texts in isolation from each other.

However, the view you put forth in your last paragraph actually puts the original historical context over the Word. Which really means that you end up putting your interpretation of the original historical context over the Word. I'm sure you'll agree that we need to avoid doing that.

I do maintain that God has revealed sufficient historical context in Scripture itself for us to interpret his Word accurately enough to obey him fully. I think that trying to get behind the Word and back to the original context in greater detail, in the hope of attaining even greater faithfulness, is a slight on God and his Word. Remember what Moses said, 'Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away. It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?" Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?" No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe.' (Deut 30:11-14)

In Christ,
Jordan

 

[Justin Denholm]

Jordan wrote:

However, the view you put forth in your last paragraph actually puts the original historical context over the Word. Which really means that you end up putting your interpretation of the original historical context over the Word. I'm sure you'll agree that we need to avoid doing that.
 

Jordan,

I take your point about the need to prioritise scripture for reliable understanding. I'm not sure I agree, though, that this excludes the possibility of using historical studies to help us understand the context of the Bible.

This sounds to me like saying that learning Greek in order to better understand the NT is placing language over scripture. A better understanding of language is just one tool that helps us better understand scripture - I think the same is true for historical studies, when done faithfully. I don't think this says scripture is less important than history - I think it says scripture is so important that we will use whatever tools we have to help us appreciate it faithfully.

Of course, there are plenty of bad examples of using history, just like there are bad language studies and bad exegesis, and none of this should take away from good study of the text itself.

Justin

[Matt Williams]

Hi Jordan,

Just a quick observation: the 2 Timothy passage you quote doesn't actually support your view of the sufficiency of scripture. I think what you are claiming for scripture goes well ahead of what the scripture claims for itself.

In 2 Timothy Paul simply claims two things for scripture:
1) that scripture is god-breathed
2) that scripture is useful as an instrument of ministry (teaching, repreoof, correction, training in righteousness)
and the application of that ministry is intended to enable good works.

Notice what is missing here:
'useful' does not imply comprehensive;
'every good work' does not imply the ability to understand every bible verse rightly.

Scriptures are also (2 Tim 3:15)
"sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus".

So we may regard them as sufficient knowledge to be saved and to do good works.

Your position is further weakened by the nature of the biblical documents themselves, which (particularly in the case of the NT epistles) rarely give impression of being written with posterity in mind. Even where the are written with a more general view (say Ephesians), the writer is not able to take into account every likely misunderstanding from every age, only those they can foresee in their own context. They obviously refer to many things obliquely and in shorthand because they are understood between parties. As only one example of oblique references, the recent (and still uncertain) attempts to decode where in the Corinthian epistles Paul is quoting their letter and where he is making assertions would be greatly helped if the Spirit were causing Paul to think "now will people through the ages understand this? I'd better spell it out a bit more clearly that I'm quoting them, or for centuries people will be quoting me as saying it is well for a man not to touch a woman." But he didn't. We are ignorant eavesdroppers on some ancient, god-breathed mail. It was not designed for posterity, but posterity rightly treasured it and canonized it as the words of an unchanging God to Christians from the past, and therefore perenially useful as an instrument of teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness.

As an historical example, doesn't the knowledge that the temple actually was destroyed in 70AD affect our reading of lots of references in scripture to the destruction of the temple and many more oblique ones on both sides of that date?

Praise God that he continues to work through his word by his spirit, ensuring it does the basic job of saving people and driving them to good works, in spite of all our frailties. But I think to overblow the idea of the sufficiency of scripture beyond salvation and good works is to ask the scripture to be something it quite evidently isn't; it is a brittle doctrine that can only break under serious investigation. When we approach the bible expecting it to be more than it claims to be, we set ourselves up to be disappointed in it!

Blessings
Matt

[Andrew Bowles]

For some reason I can't quote things here, so I've pasted:

"I agree with you that the doctrine of sufficiency can't be used as a trump card to finish off debates about women in ministry. But I do believe that it sets some boundaries for the interpretive process.

I don't believe that sufficiency means that we start the debate on women in ministry with the assumption that we need to have a clear answer on it in order to please God. That will depend on whether or not Scripture has spoken conclusively on the subject."

 
This line of reasoning demonstrates the problem I was talking about before, about the 'quicksand'. The argument seems to go this way:

1) Scripture is sufficient and clear in all things in which we need to obey God
2) Women's ministry may be something in which we need to please God
3) We will know if it is, if Scripture has spoken sufficiently and clearly on the subject
4) We will know that it has spoken clearly about women's ministry if it is something that we need to know about to obey God
5) If we do need to know about it, Scripture will be clear and sufficient
6) Scripture will be clear and sufficient if it's something in which we need to obey God
7) We'll know it is something that we need to know and obey if Scripture is clear and sufficient on the matter
8) repeat 6 & 7 ad infinitum


You can get out of the loop by appealing to the exegetical process, but that involves dealing with all the relevant contextual issues, including extra-biblical material. The only way whether you can determine whether the discussion on women's ministry is helped or hindered by appealing to contextual material is actually engaging with that material, not ruling it out beforehand because of a dogmatic conviction as to what constitutes acceptable boundaries of debate. Because, if you do try to make that move, you end up with the circular argument above.

In summary, unless you already know that women's ministry falls into the category of 'things we need to know', then there's no warrant for rejecting interpretations that appeal to extrabiblical material. And you've said yourself that this is exactly the question at hand.

[Jordan]

Hi Justin,

When I say that Scripture is sufficient, I mean that the words of Scripture in the original manuscripts are sufficient.

Having affirmed this, we can see how textual criticism (establishing what the text of the original manuscripts was with the greatest degree of accuracy), and translation, are necessary. In fact, I would go further than you and say that these things are more than tools, they are necessary if we are to know what the Word of God is in our language today.

The English NIV isn't the 'sufficient Word of God', although we do claim great accuracy for our modern translations. Even our current Greek bibles are not perfect, although we can claim something like 99 percent accuracy for them.

But the sort of biblical criticism that I have described above (and in my first post) is aptly termed 'lower criticism', to indicate that it is all subservient to establishing what the text of Scripture is, and what the words of Scripture mean.

Yes, we need history in this process. For example, we might take the Greek verb 'authenteo' which is disputed in interpretations of 1 Tim 2:12, and we might run through its uses in ancient Greek literature with particular emphasis on its usage in and around Paul's time in ancient Palestine.

Having established the range of meanings that the verb had, we would then put it back into its literary and theological context in 1 Tim, and decide which of the possible meanings best fits the context. And although we would let the context of Scripture have the final say, we would not be allowed to divorce the word from its historical range of meanings.

If our understanding of 1 Tim 2 alters as a result of this process, we would say that our studies have helped us to see with greater clarity what God had already put in the text (the true meaning of the verb) that we couldn't see before.

In contrast, an abuse of historical studies occurs when we allow, unwittingly or otherwise, additional words of history and background to be placed alongside the words of Scripture, and give them greater or even equal authority with the words of the bible, to expand, tweak or alter the context and meaning of the biblical text. Then we say that having done this, we are now in a position to trust and obey God more than we could before, even though God has said that what he has already put there is enough for us.

I think the problem with this is obvious, but let me give another quote from the bible:

'Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge to him. Do not add to his words, or else he will rebuke you, and you will be found a liar.' (Prov 30:5-6)

I think the point is clear. We can't add anything to what God has revealed; which means that whatever we do with our studies of history, we can't give them interpretive priority (as you have said), or even interpretive equality. And we must maintain that the words of God already revealed are complete and sufficient for every good work (2 Tim 3:16-17).

In Christ,
Jordan
 

[Jordan]

Hi Matt,

I've got to be quick, so I'll just respond to your point about Scripture's self testimony:

Matt Williams wrote:

In 2 Timothy Paul simply claims two things for scripture:
1) that scripture is god-breathed
2) that scripture is useful as an instrument of ministry (teaching, repreoof, correction, training in righteousness)
and the application of that ministry is intended to enable good works.

Notice what is missing here:
'useful' does not imply comprehensive;
'every good work' does not imply the ability to understand every bible verse rightly.

Scriptures are also (2 Tim 3:15)
"sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus".

So we may regard them as sufficient knowledge to be saved and to do good works.

If you look closely at the verse you'll see that it doesn't just say 'good works', it says 'every good work' (NRSV).

The NIV has 'so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work'.

The picture is indeed comprehensive.

Regarding your second point, I don't claim in this thread that all the questions we bring to Scripture will be answered. But I do maintain from 2 Tim 3:14-17 that 'all' Scripture is given for the purpose of completing us in Christ, and 'all' Scripture must mean every word. Every bible verse has something to contribute to our salvation, even though we can't possibly verify this empirically!

Like you said, it is important to defer to Scripture's self testimony.

In Christ,
Jordan  

[Matt Williams]

Hey Jordan,

Erm... I'm a bit confused. You have quoted me referring to 'every good work', brother. The point about this not meaning we understand every bible verse rightly wasn't my second point, it was the first one.

Otherwise, I fear you're falling into an all=every fallacy. To say that the whole thing achieves something doesn't mean that 'every verse contributes to our salvation'. That's a big stretch. Every verse is part of a whole that is sufficient for salvation. It's the same mistake Graham Goldworthy makes regarding Jesus on the road to Emmaus (Lk 24:27), as Andrew Reid points out Jesus interprets the things concerning himself in all the scriptures; it's not that he finds something about himself in every verse of scripture.

To open my bible at random, what is the particular contribution to my salvation of this:

" And Hadad died. The chiefs of Edom were: chiefs Timna, Alvah, Jetheth..." (1 Chron 1:51)

And so on!

M

[Jordan]

Hi Matt,

The trouble with Goldsworthy is that he can't prove that Scripture has anywhere said, 'every verse is about Jesus.'

But I can prove that Scripture says, 'every word contributes to our salvation':

'Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."' (Matt 4:4)

Also, when you ask me the precise application of some random verse, you're falling into the trap of making Scripture's self testimony subordinate to reason. There is an application, it most likely won't be found in taking that verse out of its context, and I don't know what the application is exactly. I'm happy with that, and I don't think it affects my argument for sufficiency at all.

In Christ,
Jordan

[Andrew Bowles]

Jordan,

I'm struggling to see what your view gets you that is better than the equally venerable doctrine of  'just doing good exegesis'. It's not particularly controversial to say:

1) I want to know what the text was intended to say by its author
2) To do that I have to engage with the words of the text
3) To engage with the words of the text I can be aided by helps such as linguistic, social and historical resources.

That is straightforward 'author-centred' hermeneutics. That appears to be what you are describing. How does your application of the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture help you with that procedure? It doesn't change any of those steps. You would still want to understand the intended meaning of the text, in the words and context it was written.

You're not claiming that because of the sufficiency of Scripture the text will be easier to understand, or that there is no uncertainty of interpretation. It seems you want to use the doctrine to assure us that there is 'some useful truth in there somewhere' in every part of the Bible. But the doctrine of 'just doing good exegesis' assumes that as well, and in addition provides us with a more flexible hermeneutic than your suggestion, which appears to deny that God works in the academic world as well and that it is possible for truth derived from other fields of study to bring forth 'treasures new' (as well as old) from the Scriptures.

[Jordan]

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for affirming the positive aspects of my position. In a real sense it does come down to 'just doing good exegesis'.

I might suggest though, that the three points you have identified don't grapple with the uniqueness of Scripture. I think you'd find that your three steps are necessary for the study of any document.

So I'm claiming that there's a fourth step involved as well, which is to ensure that extra-biblical background information is not given interpretive equality with, or interpretive priority over, the text of Scripture.

I'm arguing that the uniqueness of Scripture involves the fact that God has invested his written words with a perfection and a completeness which meets our needs entirely, for the purposes of faith and godly living.

I don't deny that God works in the academic world. I affirm that God is Lord of all truth, both in and outside of the bible, and I affirm the need for what I called 'lower criticism' in an earlier post. I just think that in all of our studies we need to draw lines where Scripture draws lines.

I've been including passages of Scripture where I can. I think the following one is relevant:

'Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.' (1 Cor 4:6)

The Corinthians had been taking pride in human reason and philosophy, which they pursued alongside the gospel, thinking they could somehow enhance the gospel (see particularly chapters 1 and 2). Paul had to bring them back to the simplicity of 'Christ and Him crucified.' This theme of boasting in knowledge comes out over and over throughout this letter, and in chapter 4 Paul introduces this saying, 'Do not go beyond what is written.' I think we all do well to heed this warning, and I think you'll agree, Andrew, that biblical academia has a particular need to keep it in mind.

In Christ,
Jordan    

[Andrew Bowles]

Jordan, I still think that your doctrinal formulation is from an evangelical perspective quite uncontroversial and isn't going to provide you with any help with the debate over women's ministry.

My problem is that this reasoning,

 "So I'm claiming that there's a fourth step involved as well, which is to ensure that extra-biblical background information is not given interpretive equality with, or interpretive priority over, the text of Scripture. "

doesn't actually perform any helpful function in biblical interpretation. You seem to be both conflating extra-biblical information with philosophical and theological implications drawn from that information, and our biblical interpretations with the text of Scripture itself. Until those distinctions are drawn, it's impossible for the doctrine of Scripture to be helpful.

The only question with extra-biblical information is whether or not it is true (factual). If it is, then it should inform our interpretation of Scripture. That is not giving it 'interpretative equality' with the text, it is performing exegesis in context. If something changes on the basis of new information, it won't be the Scriptural text, it will be your interpretation, which is of course not immutable.

Where the doctrine of sufficiency becomes helpful is if someone suggests, for example, that in light of the Gospel of Judas we should revise our doctrine of the work of Jesus in salvation to embrace this Gnostic teaching. You would then rightly say, 'I'm not giving the Gospel of. Judas interpretative equality with the canonical Scriptures'. The doctrine of sufficiency applies to philosophical and theological ideas that contradict the teaching of the Bible.

This doesn't apply to something like, say, Winter's 'New Roman Woman' idea that people are interested in (I haven't read the book, by the way). If his historical information about the culture in Ephesus is true (factual), then it should inform our reading of Scripture. It might even indicate that our interpretation has been hitherto incorrect. It would not change the authority of the Scriptures or the sufficiency of the text. I can't even imagine what it would mean to give it 'interpretative equality' with the text of Scripture, because it is not a philosophical or theological idea but (purports to be) a socio-cultural fact. The only problem with it would be if it was not true, and then it would be inappropriate to use it to aid in reading Scripture.

So I still think that you can't use the doctrine of sufficiency to deal with the interpretations that arise from background information on a blanket basis. To do that is actually to privilege your own interpretation over the actual meaning of the text. We are always going to have to do the hard work to determine whether that information is, in fact, true, and whether that means anything for our interpretation of Scripture. I don't believe you're going to find a credible doctrinal shortcut for that process.


If you are not tired of this, perhaps provide a worked example of how you see this working out with an actual concrete example of particular extra-biblical material.

[Jordan]

Hi Andrew,

A worked example would be a good idea. I'll try to track down Witherington again, or maybe Winter, and lay it out in detail. But before I do that, I have a few more comments.

Andrew Bowles wrote:

The only question with extra-biblical information is whether or not it is true (factual). If it is, then it should inform our interpretation of Scripture. That is not giving it 'interpretative equality' with the text, it is performing exegesis in context. If something changes on the basis of new information, it won't be the Scriptural text, it will be your interpretation, which is of course not immutable.

Firstly, Scripture distinguishes between truth that has been determined from human wisdom (Solomon's lectures for example; 2 Ki 4:29-34), and divine truth, which has been revealed in Scripture alone (Prov 30:5-6). The truth we find out from our own historical studies is not divine truth, but truth which is the fruit of human inquiry or human wisdom. When you state that the only question with extra-biblical information is whether or not it is true (factual), you're not seeing this distinction. All truth is not equal in God's economy. Special revelation alone is immutable, and capable by God's power to lead us into faith and obedience (Jn 17:17).

Once this distinction is recognized, you might be able to see the problem of depending upon extra-biblical information for the interpretation of Scripture. It brings divine truth down to the level of human wisdom; or, it brings human wisdom up to the level of divine truth.

There is a relationship between divine and human truth. God took the rational inquiry of Luke the evangelist for example (Luke 1:1-4), and infused it with his own divine breath. But there is an absolute difference between divine truth and human wisdom at the point of authority. God's Words alone have authority to bind the conscience.

You've also raised the issue of interpretation. Human interpretations of divine truth are mutable to be sure. It is of course possible that extra-biblical background information will challenge a presupposition that underlies a particular interpretation, and lead to a better interpretation which is actually what the biblical text meant in the first place. I agree with you on that.

However, my contention is that though this happens, Scripture is actually sufficient anyway, so that one could have arrived at a better interpretation based on information given in Scripture alone, and that it is not necessary for the church, or individuals, to rely on extra-biblical historical information in order to understand God's Words enough to trust and obey him fully.

In the next post, I'll try to get down to an actual example.

In Christ,
Jordan  

[Andrew Bowles]

Jordan,

I'm getting closer here to understanding. You believe that there are two different kinds of 'truth', divine and human, which have some sort of ontological difference. I think that concept is rather strange, and an imprecise use of the word 'truth'. Luke wrote the gospel, and God 'infused it with his own breath'. Was that before he wrote the words, or after? If before, then you have the doctrine of inspiration, which is fine. If after, you have a strange concept where words 'transubstantiate' while remaining outwardly the same. Imagine if Luke had produced his Gospel exactly as it is, and then it had not been accepted as authoritative Scripture or infused with God's breath. Would it have been any less of a true and accurate account of Jesus' ministry?

I think the better distinction, which is what the Bible is talking about when it distinguishes between God's thoughts and our thoughts, is not that the 'truth' is different, but that the person is different. Our apprehension of Truth is limited, fragmented, and distorted by sin. God's apprehension of Truth is perfect and comprehensive. So we need the truth of salvation to be revealed to us. That was Calvin's understanding, I believe, so I am in good company!

Our limited understanding of truth explains the situation we have, where Christians disagree on many matters. We do not have direct access to the full meaning of Scripture, because we always read it from our limited perspective. That is the whole point of the science of exegesis and hermeneutics, to reduce the human distortion and bias to a minimum. People who think that they can rely for understanding on a 'plain' reading of the text alone are called fundamentalists, and we rightly think that they are naive.


You say:

"Scripture is actually sufficient anyway, so that one could have arrived at a better interpretation based on information given in Scripture alone, and that it is not necessary for the church, or individuals, to rely on extra-biblical historical information in order to understand God's Words enough to trust and obey him fully."

I think you might see the problem I have if you removed the word 'fully' from the end of that sentence. I agree 100% that we do not need extra-biblical historical information in order to understand Scripture enough to trust and obey God. That is what the sufficiency of Scripture means.  But 'fully'? That opens us up to the wild world of exegesis, hermeneutics, theology, and everything that the church has been wrestling with for two thousand years. 'Fully' is the promise of eschatological fulfilment, when we see face to face and not poorly in a mirror (1 Cor 13:12). 'Fully' is the question of women's ministry, and using every piece of truth that God gives us to understand what's going on.

The problem is that if you believe that there is enough plain and sufficient teaching in Scripture for us to 'fully' obey God in this life, you will be led down the path that says that everyone that disagrees with you is necessarily in error, because they are either lazy or wilfully ignoring what the Scripture says. That's why I mentioned the fundamentalists before, because that is their problem. And anyway, surely the 'fullness' of obedience is not in perfect understanding, but increased holiness of living?

Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth (Jn 16:12). I would prefer to trust him than a doctrine about Scripture.

But I'll wait for your example to see if I'm mistaken. Onward and upward!