It is with fondness that I often reflect upon friendships I formed in the 1990's with some fellow Christians. We always marvel that in terms of day to day life we had (and perhaps still have) little in common but what brought us together was Christ and a love for the Scriptures.
And thus when together, our attention was almost always given
to the Scriptures. We talked about how to apply them to be sure but what I
really remember and relish is the way we would wrestle with the text. Not
content to simply read through passages (which we did on a frequent basis) we
would also 'dig in' as it were and tease out the themes and the flow of
argument – sometimes staying up late into the night. It's one thing to read the
Scriptures as a sort of exercise, it's another to force yourself to get into
the text and to follow the flow of argument and interact with it.
To be honest I think a lot of Christians (maybe even most) have
never done this. A good commentary can help (and we used them) but in all
honesty this sort of exercise can (at times) drive one to frustration with said
commentaries as one will all too often find the commentators themselves have
erred or missed the larger flow of argument. This would be a point that really
separates the good from the mediocre and even bad commentaries – of which there
are too many to count. Some extract maxims and ideas from the text and
sermonise or tie them in with a theological tradition. Not everything they say
is bad or inaccurate, but it is often not germane to the text they're dealing
with. The same is often true in sermons – more often than not I'm afraid. Others
get lost in the syntax, variants, and in scholarly interaction with the
academy. There aren't many commentaries that focus hard and fast on the
doctrine being taught– come what may of the theological schools.
I would like to think it was this tendency taken up some
twenty-five years ago that has led me to where I am today – a place few would
want to be I'll admit, but one (I hope) that has endeavored to stay faithful to
the Scriptures, come what may.
This is not meant to be a testimonial but rather a reflection
on discussions we would have that followed this trajectory. All Scripture is
inspired to be sure but not all Scripture has the same value or purpose. The
genealogies in Nehemiah are there for a reason but some of those passages do
not have the same import as say John 6 or Ephesians 2. Both are inspired but
both are not of the same value in terms of what they're teaching, let alone in
the space being used to make the point. I hope this isn't a controversial thing
to say.
Additionally, the New Testament holds a position of supremacy
over the Old, something many would take issue with. It interprets the Old and
supersedes it as indeed the Old Testament (while inspired) is effectively a
fulfilled and (if considered in isolation) obsolete canon. It can and ought to
be utilised but this must be done with and only in light of New Testament
revelation which is (technically speaking) the canon of the Church. Old
Testament exegesis rendered apart from the New Testament is by definition
non-Christian and has no place in the Church or in the thinking of Christians.
While that may sound less than controversial, in practice it is practically
revolutionary.
Returning to the context of my interactions with my friends,
this broader understanding would lead us to discussions about the nature of
Biblical books, their place, and what might be described as their roles in
terms of New Covenant revelation and canon.
When looking at the New Testament, we find an interesting mix
of larger and shorter works. The smaller works are certainly of no less
importance and in some respects can be quite 'packed' (as it were) with
doctrinal information and development. The larger works cover a wider range of
topics and as units (it could be argued) they lay the large stones (as it were)
in the wall or edifice and the other books 'fill in the gaps'. It's a flawed
analogy to be sure, but it's a start.
Our New Testament discussions always came back to what we
called the two 'big books' in terms of doctrine – namely the Epistles to the
Romans and the Hebrews.
These books along with the Gospel of John (which is of a
different order, even from the other gospels) are central to constructing a
doctrinal framework for the New Covenant.
Interestingly, some might argue that Romans and Hebrews
represent two heads of theological methodology – that of Systematics (Romans)
and Biblical or Redemptive-Historical Theology (found in Hebrews). This
argument is convenient for those who believe strongly in both systems or for
Systematics advocates that nevertheless will grant that the method must be
tempered by thematic development and a proper identification of context.*
And yet I must reject this characterisation and insist that
both Romans and Hebrews are built upon a Redemptive-Historical framework.
Romans in reality is not a systematics work at all. The method is not present
in the New Testament and to some degree I would argue is invalid – a case of
philosophical theology dependent on an epistemology developed outside of the
New Testament and maintained apart from the Christocentric framework of New Testament
revelation.
Both epistles build their case by means of comparison and
contrast, a juxtaposition of the Old and New Testaments. Once again it must be
said that the relationship between the Old and New Testaments remains one of
the most essential and yet misunderstood questions at the very foundation of
Christian theology. My friends and I realised this quite early on in our
discussions. Everything seemed to come back to a few essential points and this
was always one of them. How you answer this question determines everything
else.
While Romans certainly exhibits unity found in the person of
Christ and in Abraham his typological forerunner, the main focus is largely on
the question of discontinuity – a dominating point in the Epistle to the
Hebrews. Dispensationalism's abuse of the discontinuity principle has (for
several decades now) led to a pendulum swing, a robust and yet misguided
over-emphasis on unity and coherence – to the point that New Testament doctrine
has been made all but shipwreck as a result. Both dominating schools (Dispensationalism
and the Monocovenantal (or Monist) variety of Covenant Theology) tend to lose
the Biblical dynamic and admittedly its maintenance is no easy feat.
But it also must be said that in many cases there are
extenuating circumstances and external influences that are driving the theology
and how these texts are used. In some cases it's a commitment to a Baconian
system in reference to epistemology and science. In other cases the quest for
cultural transformation plays a role in the need to create a grand unified
theory – the utilisation of philosophy to create a so-called 'worldview' and
the like. In other cases even politics plays a significant role as the
Scriptures are mined or milked (as Chelčický once put it) by those looking for proof-texts or justifications
for their social constructs or legislative agenda.
Romans begins by presenting a picture of unity. We are saved
just like Abraham was. He was not saved by works nor by keeping the law. The
latter point receives much greater treatment and elaboration in Paul's letter
to the Galatians.
Paul lays out a scenario of universal condemnation of both
Jew and Gentile and rooting the gospel in the Old Testament, he explains how it
is fulfilled in Christ – the Second Adam. There is a historical flow
culminating in Romans 11 in which both Jew and Gentile are brought together.
The Judeo-centric Old Testament finds its climax, fulfillment, as well its
development, enlargement, and eschatological realisation in the New Covenant
Church.
This leads to the transformative (and it must be said higher)
Spirit-wrought ethic of Romans 12 and the following chapters. Like Christ's
teaching in the gospels, the Church is actually called to a higher ethic and spiritually
mature calling than that of the Old Testament saints – a point also made in
Galatians. This is not to say that God winked at sin in the old order. By no
means, but the external righteousness achievable under the old order is
revealed to be but an external form – and one obsolete and dispensed with. We
live as those adopted into Christ, seated even now in the heavenlies, as ones who
(while still wrestling with sin) are yet also dead to it.
Romans 14 is often misunderstood as a result of missing the
back-and-forth nature of Paul's redemptive-historical development and the
consequent tensions he is addressing. The context (which begins in chapter 12 (or
more properly chapter 9) and concludes in chapter 15) is with regard to the
fusion of Jew and Gentile in the context of the Church, the place of the law,
the ethics of the new Jewish-Gentile order in a pagan non-sacral context, and
obsolete Jewish practices (and mindsets) being tolerated by the Church. It is
not (as is commonly supposed) a call to treat the introduction of pagan liturgy
and calendars into the Church as a matter of adiaphora. Nothing could be
further from the apostle's mind. The theologians who argue such only
demonstrate the very point I'm trying to make – they are mining the Bible for
proof-texts, not reading it and understanding its flow. As a result not only
are their theological systems askew and often in gross error – the ethics they
produce can only be described as 'rotten fruit'.
----
*Others that will not even grant this point find Hebrews troubling and while they will utilise it, it's a book that clearly frustrates them and at best they 'cherry pick' from it to make certain points. Its redemptive-historical basis, and certainly the way it roots soteriology in that framework and method – simply defies them and clashes with their theologies. For my part, Hebrews remains a favourite and like 1 John (and the Johannine writings in general) it utterly (and gloriously) defies Evangelical and Confessional conventions and epistemological norms.