NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

Recommendations

Info

CONTEMPORARY HERMENEUTICS AND STUDY OF Õ. T. 141 differentiation are entangled in the same dilemma. Those who know the text to be the voice of the great Shepherd need not and cannot assume the burden of hermeneutical difficulties created by those who refuse to listen. For the former the question of hermeneutics has a specific, definitely qualified form, a form which is not self-defeating but life-giving: What is the precise nature of the unity of the Bible? How does the Bible interpret itself? Or, in the classic language of the Confession (I, x), how does the Holy Spirit speak in the Scripture? One must grasp that also, one should say especially, in the area of hermeneutics the antithesis makes itself felt. Once this basic distinction has been made, however, it is essential to stress that the question of hermeneutics, or better — and here I think we learn from current debate — the question of theological method remains a vital concern to the church. This will probably always be the case, at least until the resurrection transformation of believers becomes open, until faith turns to sight. In bringing this paper to a close, I wish to deal with one point which, it appears to me, deserves special attention in this connection, a point which lies at the heart of a methodologically responsible approach to the New Testament. In seeking to maintain the settled and abiding character of God's word, particularly over against the activistic thoughtcurrents of our day, it is tempting to conclude that the solution lies in recourse to some form of staticism. In other words, there is danger that, in one way or another, we begin to treat time as an enemy of God's truth and seek to secure ourselves against history. One must certainly share Professor Zuidema's recently expressed pique over the caricature that orthodoxy views the Bible as a book which has been dropped down straight out of heaven. 9 Still, it is difficult to deny that in the orthodox tradition justice has not been done to the historical character of the Bible, either in terms of its origin or its contents. There has been and continues to be a tendency to view Scripture as a quarry of proof texts for the building of a dogmatic edifice, as a collection of moral principles for the 9 "Holy Scripture and Its Key," International Reformed Bulletin, 32-33 (Jan.-Apr., 1968), 49.
142 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL construction of a system of ethics. That is to say, there is a tendency to force the Bible into a mold, to impose upon it a unity which, to a greater or lesser degree, is foreign to it. The Bible is "the only infallible rule of faith and practice/' Scripture does teach "what man is to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of man." But the biblical revelation is and does these things only in its distinguishing character as either description or explanation, that is, interpretation of God's redemptive activity. Inscripturated revelation never stands by itself. It is always concerned either explicitly or implicitly with redemptive accomplishment. God's speech is invariably related to his actions. Redemption is revelation's reason for being. An unbiblical, one could say, quasi-gnostic notion is the inevitable result, when one views revelation of and by itself or as providing timeless truths, self-evident in and of themselves. Precisely in its character as revelation the Bible transcends itself. It points beyond itself to the history of redemption which it infallibly attests and expounds. In other words, the specific unity of Scripture is redemptive-historical in character. Recognition of the orientation of revelatory word to redemptive act or, more broadly, of the history of revelation to the history of redemption has become a theological commonplace. It was introduced into Reformed scholarship primarily and most effectively by Geerhardus Vos and has been taken up by others. It does not appear to me, however, that the methodological significance of this correlation has been reflected upon sufficiently. Here I can give only the briefest indication of the lines along which it would seem this reflection should proceed for the study of the New Testament. A fundamental consideration is that interpretation of the Bible must understand itself as interpretation of interpretation. To be sure, in saying this one must not obscure the important differences between our interpretation and the interpretation furnished by the biblical writers. Ours is dependent upon and derived from theirs. Theirs is God-breathed and inerrant; ours is always tentative and in need of correction. But these differences are properly understood only as they are seen in the light of a more basic, underlying continuity. Both — our interpretation and the interpretation provided by Scripture —
Page 1 and 2: Issues in NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY by
Page 3 and 4: TABLE of CONTENTS Contemporary Herm
Page 5 and 6: 130 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Page 15: 140 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Page 21 and 22: THE USEFULNESS OF THE CROSS 229 "es
Page 23 and 24: THE USEFULNESS OF THE CROSS 231 myt
Page 25 and 26: THE USEFULNESS OF THE CfcOSS 233 I)
Page 27 and 28: THE USEFULNESS OF THE CROSS 235 IV
Page 29 and 30: THE USEFULNESS OF THE CROSS 237 res
Page 31 and 32: THE USEFULNESS OF THE CROSS 239 fro
Page 33 and 34: THE USEFULNESS OF THE CROSS 241 "th
Page 35 and 36: THE USEFULNESS OF THE CROSS 243 VII
Page 37 and 38: THE USEFULNESS, OF THE CROSS 245 I
Page 39 and 40: THE HOLY SPIRIT* RICHARD B. GAFFIN,
Page 41 and 42: 6 0 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Page 67 and 68:
110 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Page 69 and 70:
- 112 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURN
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
show all

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?