Modern Scholarship: Change for Change's sake?

I have a friend who is very knowledgeable about modern scholarship and has many, many commentaries. I dare say he is easily the most well-read man on commentaries that I have ever met. He often lets me borrow some to aid my small library and I greatly appreciate it. I have some of the old standards like Calvin and Kistemaker, so I always borrow the newer guys. I have noticed a few things while going through the Epistles of Peter, and I thought I would simply share my thoughts here.

What I have noticed is a trend in modern scholarship to move away from older readings, often time in my opinion with very little reason to do so, or at least shaky reasons. I wish I had written all the examples down from I Peter, but I didn’t. Needless to say the controversial passages such as I Peter 3:18-22 is one where you will not find many modern commentators defending the Augustinian view of that passage or even the Medieval Roman view about descending into hell. They have a new explanation. But I am not just talking about confusing and disputed passages, I am talking about passages where no real disagreement existed before.

Take II Peter 1:1 “To those who have received like precious faith with us . . .”

Now you look at Kistemaker and Calvin and even William Barclay the liberal they all agree that “faith” in this passage is the subjective personal faith, the trusting in the Lord Jesus for salvation. Of these only Kistemaker says that there are multiple possibilities in reading the word faith. He defends his choice of the subjective faith rather than objective faith (ie. a body of teaching) in one paragraph consisting of 10 lines where he defines both terms. He takes two sentences to explain why the context makes it subjective.

Now newer commentaries like Gene L. Green’s commentary published this year takes a subjective stance on faith. It is the same doctrinal teaching, not the same receiving and trusting of God. So does Peter Davids who is published in 2006. Both take the objective meaning of faith. Why this departure? Surprisingly little time is devoted to it. David’s mentions that some have read it a different way, but merely states that it fits the context better despite his admission that the more normal usage of the word is subjective.

Now I would not bother posting here if this did not continue. Take II Peter 1:5 “add to your faith, virtue . .” Here again the older commentators all take faith to be the subjective trusting and believing in Christ. But the newer guys all reject that reading. Here, however, both Davids and Green take faith to mean “faithfulness”. Their defense? It means this most often in non-biblical virtue lists. That seems more than a little flimsy to me.

So my question is about modern scholarship in general. Do modern scholars look to disagree with the past? I can see how no one would want to buy a commentary that said nothing new. Do modern scholars prefer newer readings because we believe that as moderns we have more insights? Am I alone in seeing trends like this? Could it be that I have just made a big deal about nothing? I would like to hear your thoughts.

Oh and for disclosure sake, J.N.D Kelly who is newer than Barclay and Calvin, but slightly older than Kistemaker and older than the other new guys splits the difference by taking an objective view of the first faith, but stays with the older crowd by taking a subjective view of the second faith.

Learning from 9/11

Today is September 11th, a day that will forever be marked in our minds. I used to think it was weird that people of my parents generation could tell you exactly what they were doing and where they were when Kennedy was shot. I no longer think it is weird. I can tell you exactly where I was when the radio broadcaster first mentioned a plane into one of the towers. A few minutes later they interrupted a song to say that a second plane had hit and that this was no accident, it had to be terrorism. It made the rest of the drive to work pretty quick. It was only my second day of work, so I did not go to the room where everyone kept gathering to watch the news. I had meetings about insurance and stuff, and I was still trying to make that good first impression. I sat quietly listening to the radio and folding letters. I did not see the first images until I got home that day after 5pm (MST). They are images I will never forget. I actually preached my first sermon ever that Sunday. Of course that Tuesday I complete scrapped what I was going to say and started over.

We should never forget as a country, as people. We need to be constantly aware of terrorism and that we are not protected from it. But what is the message that we as the church should remember from 9/11. The church is not America, and we should never confuse the two. I was preparing a message on Jonah 4:2 this week. There Jonah says the reason he ran from God in the first place, "I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who relents from doing harm." It really struck me this week that Jonah would rather the Ninevites die than be saved. Of course, I had noticed this before, and it is pointed out in seminary class after seminary class. It had always been easy to laugh off Jonah as a really bad prophet. The unloving prophet, the prophet who did not have the right attitude. Yet, how many of us would rather Bin Laden die than be saved? I am not saying that he should not face criminal punishment for his actions. Being saved it not a get out of jail free card, but we should still whole heatedly desire his repentance. Islam is no religion of peace, no matter how much our President like to think it is. It is a religion of evil that enslaves millions to its lies. Yet, we must have the same view of them that God has: pity. "And should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left" (4:11). Is this not true of those Islamic fundamentalists we hear so much about? They cannot discern their right and their left. So, I think that this is the lesson of 9/11 for the church: we must never lose our pity. We must never forget to spread the gospel, because it is the only weapon against evil. The Sword of the Word (Eph. 6) is stronger than any tank, any bomb, or military force we can send. The church can never forget its mission to evangelize. No matter what Rick Warren, Barak Obama, and John McCain think evil is not defeated by the state, it is defeated by Christ.

Peace and Argumentation

Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3)

This is a very misused verse these days. I do not think that the real meaning is mysterious. In fact, I think Paul spells out the bond of peace in the following verses where he speaks about having one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one body, one Spirit, one hope and one God and Father. I do think Paul is urging brothers and sisters in Christ to bear with one another in love and patience. This is true and not really debatable.

Where I think this verse is misused is that it has become a rallying cry to end conversation, to stop talking and let ‘peace’ reign. The problem is that Paul is saying that peace reigns where the oneness of Christianity reigns. However, if we cannot agree on the ‘one faith’ or the ‘one hope’ or even the ‘one Lord’ then there is no peace. None. The history of the church is littered with times that people used the cry of peace to stop discussion and before you know it, unbelief wins the day. Because peace cannot exist outside of those bonds Paul describes. In the 1920’s the Presbyterian church tried to have peace and the next thing you know the church is kicking people out that think Christians need to believe in the Bible or that Mary was a virgin and many other things. The ‘one faith’ is now optional and those who did not think so were removed. That same Presbyterian Church (USA) is going through similar things now. An accord had been struck between the pro-homosexual minister group and the anti-homosexual minister group. A peace if you will. Then what happens? The pro-homosexual group makes a big power play and there is little left for the conservative branch of the church left to do but leave. The fight is over and won because they tried to pretend bonds of peace existed where the ‘one faith’ did not. Just to show that I am not picking on any one church, I think my denomination, the RCUS, did the same thing in the late 19th century.

I point this out because of a discussion that happened recently on Reformed Catholicism. It began with a quote from A.B. Bruce about how “very humiliating” it is that “the symbol of union has been turned into a chief cause of division” of course referencing debates about the Lord’s Supper. Yet, there are denominations or religions out there that teach a version of the Supper that denies our ‘one faith’, and our ‘one hope’. The Supper is not our symbol of union with those who deny the complete efficacy of Christ’s death on the cross. Why should we try to have peace with those who deny the bonds of peace? Peace is not something we create. Peace is not the absence of talking or discussion or some visible unity of being in the same church building or eating the same meal. Peace is found in the things listed by Paul. Without those there is no peace no matter how much we may avoid discussing the hard things.

It is hard to imagine the trouble the church has caused by silencing itself in hopes of a peace that does not exist. If you want to make a Christian mad today and have him stomp off, try discussing your ‘one hope’ or the doctrine of our ‘one baptism’. Doctrine divides they scream as they shut their ears. We have mistaken peace for the absence of argumentation and discussion. A serious error.

Baptism and the Covenant

I wanted to blog about this post by Mark Horne over at Biblical Horizons. I know it is a post from long ago, but it was interesting and I thought deserving of a response no matter how late.

The question he is dealing with is whether or not baptism admits one into the covenant or confirms that one is already there. He does some quoting from the Westminster Shorter Catechism and makes his argument that baptism admits one into the covenant. With this I disagree. I shall not deal with Westminster quotes or argumentation because I do not hold to the Westminster and thus shall just let someone else argue about it. However, I should point out that this might be a difference between the Westminster and the Heidelberg Catechism. The HC specifically states about infant baptism, "Yes [infants are to be baptized], for since they, as well as their parents belong to the covenant and people of God," (Q.74). Thus, the reason given for infant baptism by the Heidelberg is that the infants already belong to the covenant of God. It should also be noted that the Heidelberg is explicit that sacraments are for assurance and confirmation not for conveying (see Q.65 and 67). The Westminster is less clear.

Rev. Horne does nice work in examining OT passages regarding the Passover, special feasts and circumcision. He has some ideas about why women were unclean after birth and whether or not that makes babies unclean and why that puts circumcision on the 8th day. I do believe he drifts into some speculation such as making the argument that children in utero were partaking of the Passover. He even goes so far as to make this an argument for paedocommunion. This makes the sacrament more about the act of eating than anything else. I find little support for the idea that babies getting nourishment through an umbilical cord is seen biblically as participating in the feasts of the OT. But I digress. Rev. Horne does deal with many Psalms that indicate a special saving relationship between God and the unborn (8.2; 22.9-10; 71.5-6, 17). He also mentions else where Samson and one could add John the Baptist as well. His answer is that is because the child is "in" the mother or "covered by the mother". He gives his defense from the ceremonial law. It makes for interesting reading.

But, I disagree because of a verse that Rev. Horne did not discuss. Genesis 17:7 speaks of the covenant and who it is with. Note the language. "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." Here we see the covenant is with God and Abraham, but also with his seed. At this time of course Abraham has no seed, but the covenant is still with them. They are not yet in their mother so the idea of the mother covering them cannot be used in this example. They are already parties to the covenant. The seed of Abraham are already made parties to the covenant here in Genesis 17. Rev. Horne does deal with Genesis 17:14 where the uncircumcised male child shall be cut off for breaking the covenant. Rev. Horne believes this only applies to the adult, but admits that language like this is used and the line is hazy. However, I think that Genesis 17 fits nicely with the Psalms mentioned above by us both that God is in covenant relationship with them already, prior to baptism.

It should also be noted that both the Belgic and the Heidelberg list as reasons for baptism of infants the fact that the promise of salvation is to them. Of course the Matthew passage of let the little children come to me is listed (19:14). And the Belgic makes reference to Leviticus 12:6-8 where the command is given to sacrifice for a child born either male or female. Females of course did not have circumcision, but they had the promise of redemption as seen in the sacrifice, thus they should be baptized. And the fact that the promise of redemption was for these children, it implies that they are a part of the covenant by birth. Rev. Horne fails to deal with this difficulty as well. If circumcision admitted one into the covenant rather than serving as a sign of it or confirmation of it, were women in the covenant? If so, how did they get in? Their birth alone cannot be the reason or all of the argumentation is undone. It would be helpful for Rev. Horne to address this problem in his argument.

The article is interesting and his admonition to deal with the book of Leviticus and OT typology is well taken. This book cannot be ignored. However, in the end, I find his argument wanting, and I must take the opposite position. I believe, along with the Three Forms of Unity, that baptism does not admit one into the covenant, but rather confirms one as already in it.

Man after God’s own heart

I have just completed a very edifying (to me at least) series on the Life of David. I enjoyed it immensely and it was eye opening to me often. Of course I think the question that cannot be ignored when studying David is what exactly does it mean that David is a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 13:14, and again in 16:7). However, I was extremely disappointed in the commentaries I often used because they did not pay enough attention to this question, and thus, I also think they missed one of the major themes of the books of Samuel. Admittedly, this is partly because our English Bible as two books of Samuel as opposed to the Hebrew Bible, which has Samuel as one book. Thus, the commentaries were often broken up into 1 and then 2 Samuel and would look for themes in each book rather than find a unifying theme or a theme that ran throughout.

For example, Joyce Baldwin does not even make a comment at all upon 1 Samuel 13:14 as if it was not that important. Keil and Delitzch do not spend long upon it nor do they reference 1 Samuel 13:14 when God says he looks upon the heart at the anointing of David (16:7). I think that comment is meant to remind us that God has chosen a man after his own heart to be the next king as well as make the contrast between David and Saul clear. Dale Ralph Davis’s commentary on 2 Samuel is more about the kingdom than about David, and his quoting of the 1 Samuel 13 is only to point out flaws in David and never to define what is meant by the phrase. Walter Brueggemann actually jumps off his liberal leaning deep end in 1 Samuel 13:14 and has a very sympathetic view of Saul! No kidding. He actually thinks Samuel withheld the promise from Saul on purpose and had been looking for an excuse to remove Saul from the throne. Brueggemenn argues that the punishment is far to severe. Disturbing. Even the book, After God’s Own Heart: The Gospel According to David by Mark Boda only mentions the verse twice. I do think Boda gets it right on page 136 when he says that David’s quick repentance at Nathan’s revelation in 2 Samuel 12 shows that David is a man after God’s own heart as opposed to Saul who argued with Samuel’s proclamation of sin. However, he failed to carry that short paragraph through the whole book.

I believe that the text is saying that David is a man after God’s own heart and the rest of Samuel reveals what that means. Basically, I think the text is showing us that David is a man after God’s own heart because David loves God’s word. That is what the text tries to show over and over and over again. We get stories of David in Chronicles as well, but Chronicles is clearly following the temple. Samuel is contrasting David’s attitude toward the Word of God with those around him. First, Saul, later Joab, Absolam, and a host of others. Let me try to illustrate. I will focus on David’s life, but I think it is apparent earlier in Samuel too for example Samuel’s own reaction to God speaking as opposed to Eli’s sons or even Eli himself.

It starts at the introduction of Saul. Saul is annointed King over Israel in chapter 10 verse 1, but it not made public to Israel. Yet when it is public, Saul is hidding among the equipment (v.22). Not exactly a bold trust or ready acceptance of God’s word. Of course in chapter 13 Saul is already elevating himself as the King of Kings and ignoring God’s word. He does not wait for Samuel to make the Sacrifice. His sin is primarily not obeying the word of God as given by Samuel, not in doing the work of a priest (13:13). He is finally rejected as king in chapter 15 because he disobeys the word again. Chapter 16 David is promised that he will be king and in chapter 17 we see the story of Goliath. Here David does not fear and kills Goliath while Saul sits in his tent and trusts in armor more than in God. Notice in places like chapter 20 that Jonathan believes the promise or word of God to David and chooses David over Saul. Note in chapter 22:5 of 1 Samuel how quickly David obeys rebuke from God this time through the prophet Gad. The rest of chapter 22 is devoted to Saul making war on God and his Word by trying to kill all the priests. Notice how David turns to get a word from the Lord through the priests/ephod in chapter 23. Every time David spares Saul’s life it is because he respects God’s word and the fact that God will not have his annointed harmed. That is a sign of David’s love for God’s word, not sign of David’s respect of Saul. The contrast is made explicit at the end of 1 Samuel as both men are in tough positions. Saul goes to a medium to try and resurrect Samuel. Saul does not turn to God’s word. In fact it is said God refused to answer him (28:6). So Saul turns to a medium. David on the other hand turns to God in the Urim and Thummim in chapter 30. What seems like an obvious choice to pursue those who kidnapped your loved ones, David makes sure to clear it with God before doing so. Respect for God’s word. In the early parts of 2 Samuel we get to see the warlike attitudes of Abner and Joab. Joab repeatedly breaks God’s word and the king’s word. We see David fail to transport the ark according to God’s word in chapter 6, but he corrects himself. Showing he knows where to turn when sin is exposed. Chapter 7 God gives him a promise, which is a high point of the narrative. God’s word to David serves as the turning point of the whole narrative. We then get chapters 9 and 10 where David deals out the Hesed of God (lovingkindness) to Mephibosheth and to Ammon (which was rejected). This is to contrast David with Joab who deals out only murder. David lives out God’s word, Joab does not. Again we see David sin, but is quickly repentant when confronted with the Word of God in chapter 12. This is another turning point of the book. In chapter 12 Nathan promises trouble that the sword will not depart. The rest of the book shows that Word of God being fulfilled. First with Amnon then with Absolam, both of whom show no respect for God’s word despite being confronted with it, and on with the other rebellions. Ahithophel hangs himself in chapter 17 because he realizes that God is with David and not Absolam and instead of repenting, he hangs himself ala Judas. Chapter 21 is again David inquiring of the Lord and doing what he says without question. The last words of David in chapter 23 are about God’s word. God “spoke by me” (v.2), “spoke to me” (v3.), and verses 5 to the end are about the strength of God’s promise/word to him and his house. It is about ruling under God’s word and trusting God’s word. The last story in chapter 24 shows us again David’s tender conscious to sin and his quick trust of God when confronted with the Word of God again by the prophet Gad. That story culminates with God answering prayer and David obeying the Word of God by buying the threshing floor. Another example of David obeying the word of God.

In short I wished that the commentaries had wrestled more with the meaning of being after God’s own heart. In the end, I think that tremendous application can be made to our lives if we understand exactly what it means to be after God’s own heart.

12 Principles of Protestant Catholicity: A Response

I would like to draw attention to a post over at the new Evangelical Catholicity blog that is very helpful in understanding the mission and thinking of the modern ‘catholicity movement’ for lack of a better term. This post by Mr. Bonomo has 12 principles for Protestant Catholicity. I find them honest and the post is a great starting point for discussion regarding Protestant Catholicity. I hope that this response will be seen as an attempt to further that discussion by asking some refining questions and making a few comments on each of the 12 Principles.

1. The Centrality of Jesus Christ – I do not have any disagreement with this one. I do question the need to add the phrase ‘and not mere speculation about him’, but I agree with the point. We are unified only in Jesus Christ, He alone is our center.
2. The Essential Unity of the Church – Again, I have no objections here. Another good point.
3. The Diversity of the Church – Here again I agree. However there is a problem. That problem is in how one defines ‘secondary matters’. I agree that secondary matters should be left up to the individual and should not bar union and unity with fellow believers. I also know of no one who does not agree with that statement. The problem lies in defining ‘secondary matters’.
4. The Supremacy of Historic Creedal Orthodoxy – Here I must depart for a moment. The argument here is that the original historic creeds of the Apostle’s, Nicene, and Chalcedonian creeds should be the basis for unity. I suppose this is the attempt to define what is an essential and what is a secondary matter of faith. I have two main objections: one historical and one theological. The historical objection is that those creeds were not meant to serve that purpose ever. The Apostle’s Creed was originally a baptismal creed and the other two were written in response to specific heresies, not as a source of unity. Plus, which Nicene Creed are we talking about. Do we include the Filoque clause that teaches the Spirit proceeds from the Son or not? This is a serious matter to the Eastern Orthodox church. This, in my opinion , is forcing something on these creeds that they were not made to do, namely be the definition of the essentials of the Christian faith. My theological objection is that I do not believe these creeds sufficiently cover the basics of Christianity. Paul makes clear in Galatians 1:8-9 that the gospel is essential and those who reject it or pervert it are to be accursed. That book goes on to talk about the gospel and deals mainly with justification by faith, a subject not covered in any of those three creeds. Thus, if I am to be faithful to Paul’s words, I need more than those historic trio of creeds.
5. The Heinousness of Schism – Here I will claim ignorance. The claim is made by Mr. Bonomo that division in the body of Christ is as bad as propositional heresy. This I have not thought over enough to comment upon. I also would like to investigate the idea of schism without some sort of underlying sin and/or heresy being involved. Is it possible for a schism to occur without some deeper issue being involved? I prefer to ask for more time to study this issue before I agree or disagree with this one.
6. The Hope for Inter-Confessional Unity – To this one I must strongly object. Mr. Bonomo argues “All Christians ought to hope for a day when believers in Christ from all the various orthodox confessional traditions can exist in one visible Body while yet retaining their confessional identities. This may seem impossible from our perspective, but with God all things are possible.” What I do not understand is why? Why cannot I hope for a day when people from various confessional traditions exist in one Body and share the same confession? I believe that Baptist churches are Christian churches. However, why would I ever hope to have a church where some people believed in baptizing children and some did not? Why should we not hope for a day when Baptists give up their position and join in agreement with the Heidelberg Catechism? As Mr. Bonomo says, ‘with God all things are possible’. I do not think that visible unity should come at such an obvious theological disunity. Can real unity be based on so little? I don’t think so.
7. The Catholicity of the Reformation – Here we are reminded that the Reformation was a movement within the catholic Church. Now, if ‘catholic’ here means ‘universal’ or ‘historic’, then I am in agreement. If it is meant ‘Roman Catholic”, then I disagree. I do not believe the Reformation was really a movement within the Roman Catholic Church. Luther burned the papal bulls, which is just revolutionary as it was reformatory. Others left their monastic vows being convinced they were completely wrong. Other disobeyed their bishops and ran the churches according to the Word of God rather than the word of the bishops. There were plenty of reform movements within the Roman Church. See the Cluniacs for example. They never rejected the fundamentals of their church such as the primacy of Rome, and they were successful reform movements. The Reformation was not like that at all.
8. Non-Protestant Communions are Christian Churches – Again this I believe is wrong. Perhaps this one goes back to my earlier disagreement about the nature of the essentials of the gospel. However, I do not believe that the Eastern Orthodoxy nor the Roman Catholic have valid ministries of the word or sacraments. While some in those churches may trust Jesus Christ for their salvation and be saved, it does not validate the system of those churches just as God speaking through Balaam’s donkey does not validate taking advice from farm animals.
9. Sola Scriptura not Solo Scriptura – Here I would like to see some clarification. Things that concern me in this section are the tendecy to talk about the Church as an institution and not as people. If the Scripture is given to the Church for Her to interpret, how is that different from saying that Scripture is given to the people of God for them to interpret? Are we saying that only the professionals of the Church have the right to make applications and interpretations from the Scripture? Are we saying that the Church is something different than the people of God called out from the world? This phrase also concerns me, "The Scriptures are for the Church, to be interpreted and expounded upon within the context of the church’s life, as she is led along by the working of the Spirit to reveal to her the glorious truths contained therein." Here it seems like one is arguing for theological development throughout time, but it is unclear especially when considered next to the claim that we should hold historic truths in reverence. I would like this phrase parsed out more. I am against the idea that new truths within the word will be revealed that previous generations could never have known or understood. I am not against the idea that new technologies will lead to new applications of age-old truth.
10. The Need for an Apologetic for Our Times – An apologetic for unity is not a bad idea, but this list is a search for exactly what that means. Also I see the verses listed where unity is commended, but there are also verses where disunity is commended. ‘What fellowship does Christ have with Belial?’ or that Jesus came to ‘divide mother and daughter, brother and sister’ or that the Word is ‘sharper than a two-edged sword able to divide bone and marrow’. The Word is a sword and swords cleave not unite. I wish that would be taken into consideration more in any future apologetic for unity.
11. The Need for a Proper Christian Epistemology – I am all in favor of sound Christian Epistemology. I do not consider myself a follower of Enlightenment thought nor do I think I am a Foundationalists. These are popular critiques right now. However, what confuses me is this phrase, "From a proper Christian perspective, truth ought to be conceived irreducibly as an incarnate, crucified, resurrected, divine Person, through faith in whom all of our seeking of understanding must be mediated." What exactly does that mean? Is this a denial that truth is propositional? Is it stating truth is only relational? What exactly is in view here?
12. Moving Past a Hermeneutic of Suspicion – I can agree with this. We need not always think the worst of one another. Christian brothers and sisters ought to be given benefit of the doubt at all times and that Reformed People can find great biblical insights in the words of a Baptist minister or a Presbyterian pastor. It should be pointed out that part of the disagreement here is over who exactly should be considered Christian and that debate has impact in this section, but I can agree that too often people glory in controversy.

I hope that this post furthers and prompts much discussion. I will try to make sure and send a trackback to the Evangelical Catholicity blog in an attempt to have a fruitful discussion about some of these principles. I look forward to any comments.

A Response to the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Tim Challies is a well known and very good blogger. So, I hesitate to cross swords with this master, but he recently blogged something I felt compelled to debunk. It was a blog about Homeschooling as a self-fulfilling prophecy with regards to Public Schools. Mr. Challies was commenting on a new book by Al Mohler who calls for Christians to get an exit strategy from public schools, and then goes on to talk about how godless they are and give examples. Mr. Challies asks the question of whether or not withdrawing the godly from the schools will help with the problem of the schools being godless and wonders out loud if the homeschooling movement has helped create or at least worsen the problem they complain about.

Before I get going on this critique, I should just let you know where I stand on homeschooling. I am homeschooling my kids, but I don’t consider myself a rabid homeschooler. I agree wholeheartedly with a recent report my denomination did on the subject. The Bible clearly places the parents responsible and accountable for their kids education. However, we can go no further in binding consciences than that. The parents are responsible, and if they see fit to delegate the act of educating to others, then it is biblically allowable. It does not remove responsibility or accountability, but it is not anti-Christian to send kids to public school, or private school, or a Christian school. It is about each parent making what they think is the best choice for their kids. For me, I choose homeschooling. You may want to choose something else.

Now, Mr. Challies makes this biblical suggestion about leaving kids in the public school. After mentioning that Canadian schools are not as bad off as American schools and thinking that might be because homeschooling is not as big in Canada, he goes to the bible for support of his reasoning.

I wonder sometimes about a “Genesis 18” principle. In Genesis 18 we read of Abraham interceding for Sodom and for his people in that city. “Then Abraham drew near and said, ‘Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?’” Abraham asks God, pesters God even, whether God will preserve the city for the sake of the righteous. Will God preserve the city because His people are in it? God answers in the affirmative. And is it possible, I wonder, that the Canadian system has been preserved more than its American counterpart because God’s people have remained there? Perhaps this is a long shot; perhaps I am abusing the text and the principle it teaches; but I can’t help but wonder. Would we not expect God to preserve an institution where His people are present and are attempting to make inroads for His glory?

It is this argument that I think needs to be discussed because I do believe Mr. Challies is wrong on this point. Very wrong, in fact.

First, I do think he is misusing the passage a little and making it say something that I do not believe it is saying. In Genesis 18 God does agree that for 10 righteous souls he will not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, but alas 10 righteous cannot be found. This passage, however, does not say that 10 righteous souls would prevent Sodom from being so sinful in the first place. It seems to me the principle of Genesis 18 is that God will be generous with mercy for the sake of the righteous. It does not say that God will allow 10 righteous to influence a corrupt system for the good.

Second, I think the passage actually goes on to teach exactly the opposite of what Mr. Challies argues. If we look we find Lot’s family living in a place of degenerate sinfulness. Does the passage show Lot influencing the city for good or does the passage show Lot being influenced by the city. Well, we see Lot offer his daughter in place of the angel visiting him. A morally questionable motive. We see Lot’s wife look back with longing in her heart for the sinful life of Sodom. We see Lot’s daughter sleeping with him after Lot is drunk. It seems to me that one of the principles of Genesis 18 is exactly what many homeschoolers are stating, ‘Bad company corrupts good morals.’ One cannot be immersed in Sodom and remain unscathed.

What makes Canadian schools have less anti-christian rage than American public schools? I don’t know. It could be that Canada is farther along in removing Christian influence from the society at large (see hate speech laws and other such things). Maybe the churches there are not as active in politics, or maybe the educational elite do not want to create a mass exodus of the system and thus do not push their anti-christian worldview. Who knows? I am just fairly sure there is a better explanation than Christians in the schools creates a better influence. At the very least that argument runs counter to Genesis 18 and other similar examples found in Scripture.

More NT Wright and The Gospel of John

If I might follow up on my previous assertion that John’s gospel begins with the Second Person of the Trinity and then shows us Jesus taking flesh. I believe that John’s gospel is clearly the hardest for Bishop Wright’s position of absolutely no self-awareness of divinity within Jesus.

John begins with the famous passage, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God and the Word was with God.’ This has seldom been debated that it is referring to the fact the Word is the second person of the Trinity. He is both God and with God, a fine description of Nicaean Theology (or perhaps that is the other way around). That Word then takes flesh. Thus, I think implied at least is the idea that the Person of the Word is now the Person Jesus who is both God and flesh. However, I think John gets more explicit as the gospel goes on.

Now I am going to bypass all of the miracles done by Jesus and other non-human abilities such as seeing Nathanael under the fig tree. In many of these such as the one mentioned, we see Jesus being proclaimed to be the ‘Son of God’ and calling himself the ‘Son of Man’, and saying that he is Jacob’s ladder. All of these things cause problems for Bishop Wright’s opinion, but I have said that arguing over the titles deserves another series of posts on its own.

John shows in the teachings of Jesus that Jesus the Person is the Word who was in the beginning and with God, now made flesh. One example comes in John 6:33, ‘For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.’ Here Jesus specifically speaks of himself and says that he came down from heaven. Someone who is not aware of his divine nature, and only aware of a calling to do things God said he will do cannot make this statement. If Jesus is just a First Century Jew and unaware of any preexistent life as the Second Person of the Trinity, then he cannot claim to be he who came down from heaven.

Chapter 8 presents even more trouble with several statements. 8:23, ‘You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.’ Again, hard statements for a person without any awareness of his divinity. Wright would have to stretch these comments to make them not a literal above, but some sort of figurative meaning. Yet, this seems even more unlikely as we reach the climax of the debate in chapter 8. The most common verse to prove the divinity of Christ, and consequently the self-awareness of that divinity is John 8:58, ‘Then Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am’.’ Here Jesus claims he is the I AM just as God said to Moses in Exodus 3:14. I have not seen on-line Bishop Wright react to that particular verse, and I would be extremely interested to see how he explained it. But, I do not see how this is not Jesus showing his self-awareness that he is the Second Person of the Trinity. Verse 59 shows us that the Jewish leaders thought he was claiming to be God as they took up stones. So, even in the context of the chapter, it is taken to be a claim to divinity. Of course we cannot divorce John 8 from John 1, so we know exactly what Jesus is referring to, the fact that He is the Word who is God.

Of course chapter 8 ends with people rejecting Jesus as God, chapter 9 ends in the opposite manner with the healed blind man accepting Jesus as God. We see Jesus heal him at the beginning of the chapter, and the we follow the blind man through his trials, and finally Jesus finds the formerly blind man again. In 9:37, Jesus tells the man that Jesus is the Son of God, and in verse 38 the man responds with ‘Lord, I believe! And he worshipped him.’ Note particuarly the ending. The man worshipped Jesus. This is not to be done to a mere man. Someone who was a good first century Jew, but did not think himself God would have stopped the worship immediately. Thus by not stopping the worship, Jesus reveals he knows he is God, he is self-aware of his divinity. [Just as a side note, the man worships Jesus when Jesus tells him he is the Son of God, which seems to imply that Son of God contains it not just Messiahship, but divinity, which goes against Wright’s arguments.]

One could continue endlessly through John. There are many other ‘I am’ statements and the great confession of Thomas, ‘My lord and My God!’ in John 20:28. But I will stop for now. I would love to hear from anyone who knows how Wright reacts to some of the verses in John I have quoted. I think it would be educational. However, I do think these verses destructive to Wright’s Christology.

Bishop Wright and John 1:1-18

Bishop Wright makes several argument about his position from Scripture. Remember is argument is best framed by this quote:

no first-century Jew could think of a human being, far less than himself, as the incarnation of God. Jewish monotheism prohibits it; and even if it didn’t (If we take Alan Segal’s point about pluriformity within early Jewish God-talk), there is no actual model for it within Judaism. (Jesus’s Self Understanding)

Bishop Wright begins by stating that all title such as Christ, Son of Man, and Son of God only point to the Messiahship of Jesus, his vocation, rather than being the Second Person of the Trinity. This fact is generally granted for the title of Jesus except Son of God and perhaps Lord. More in-depth argumentation against the idea that the Son of God title means Second Person of the Trinity can be found in a 9 part series of posts by Rev. Jeff Meyers. I believe Rev. Meyers is arguing along a similar path as Bishop Wright with regards to the title ‘Son of God’. Now, I do think that the title Son of God refers to the divinity of Jesus, but I am simply going to grant his point here. I do not think that the self-knowledge of Jesus as the Second Person of the Trinity hinges on the title Son of God. So I will just pass this point, but noting my disagreement for now. Perhaps in a future post series we can take that subject up.

The first point that any discussion of Jesus as a self-aware Second person of the Trinity should start is with John 1:1-18. This familiar passage gives us a clear picture of the Incarnation and is the traditional defense of Jesus as God. Bishop Wright of course deals with this passage.

The Word became flesh, and tabernacled in our midst’: eskenosen is of course a Temple-image, and if we understand John 1:1-18 in terms of its Jewish roots, and its parallels in, for example, Sirach 24, this should not surprise us. Word, Wisdom, Spirit and ultimately Temple and Torah—these are the themes which, in Judaism, speak of the one, true and living God active within the world in general and Israel in particular, promising future decisive personal action to save Israel and the world. These are the themes of the Prologue, and of the whole Gospel; and I suggest that they are also major themes in the Synoptics.

Bishop Wright seeks to make John 1 about a picture of the Temple. The Word tabernacles with us. I have no objection to the Word tabernacling with us, I have disagreement with the spin placed on it and the use of the other words. Bishop Wright takes ‘Word’ as a reference to 2TJ’s manner of speaking about the work of God. Wright’s reference to Sirach 24 is puzzeling as it speaks of Wisdom tabernacling and relates Wisdom to the Torah, but nothing about the Word. But here is where Wright’s methodology dominates his Christology. There are ways to use the Logos (the Greek of Word) that do not involve Wright’s 2TJ. For example the term ‘Word’ had a long Greek history. The Stoics, a major philosophical force in the first century used the term freely to mean the principle through which all things came to be and to which all returned. Hellenistic Jews used the term often to refer to Divine Reason. So the term obviously found its way into widespread Jewish usage too. John could be communicating here with the Greek philosophy of the age by calling out their Logos that created all things is actually God and with God and now has taken on flesh. It would fit more with the audience of John since it appear he is not directing his gospel to the First Century Jew.

Of course the other problem that Wright does not address in his on-line articles is that John (no matter whose reading one takes) is beginning with the Word who is God and with God. This Word is what takes on flesh. John begins with the eternal divine nature of Jesus and then tells us Jesus took flesh, the human nature. When we begin with the Second Person of the Trinity and move to that Person of the Trinity taking to himself a human nature, then it becomes hard to imagine a Jesus who is not self-conscious of his divine nature. In fact, the method of Wright to ask what a first century Jew could possible have thought is the exact opposite of the method of John in his gospel.

As for John 1:14 where the Word tabernacles among us somehow being a reference to the Temple which overthrows the centrality of persons and natures in Christology, I think there is a better explanation. John 1:14 seems to me to be alluding to the much repeated formula of God being our God, we being his people, and he dwelling among us. Leviticus 26:11-12 comes to mind. There we find out that the tabernacle should be among the people because He is our God and we His people, and He will walk among us. Jesus is fulfilling the picture the tabernacle gave us. I do think John 1:14 is referring to the picture of the tabernacle and the temple, but instead of reading John 1:14 as a First Century Jew and think of Jesus serving like the Temple as a way God works among his people, we ought to view the temple as a picture of Jesus. In short, it seems to me Wright wants to take his First Century Judaism and let that dominate his view of Jesus, and I think we should take out view of Jesus and let that dominate the view of Judaism.

In summary then I do not buy Bishop Wright’s explanation of John 1:1-18 because he seems to brush aside too much by claiming the Temple view, and because John is clearly beginning with the self away Second Person of the Trinity and taking to himself a human nature. This more than implies a divine-human who is more than self-aware. The only way to get to Wright’s self aware human who is unaware of his divine nature is to fall into Nestorianism by making two persons. The text does not allow it.

Reformed Rhetoric or Reformed Basics?

Tim Enloe at Reformed Catholicism has some concerns about the rhetoric of Reformed people and churches concerning Roman Catholics and Roman Catholic theology. When shifted, the gist of his complaint is that Reformed people do not take the time to understand the nuances of Romanism and that Reformed people cling to that desperate illusion of ‘Bible-onlyism’. Without shifting the post is a rant that shows Mr. Enloe has no real understanding of what the Reformation actually says. Maybe there is someone out there somewhere who fits his straw man, but I doubt it. It also shows that Mr. Enloe holds the fundamental tenants of Protesantism in contempt.

Here is a good sample of exactly what I mean:

here’s a particular one that bugs me of late. Reformed people very easily go off on diatribes against Rome’s "false Gospel," claiming that it "cannot save." Usually this is accompanied by horrific slurs of “Rome’s teaching” which are based on hopelessly inadequate categories of analysis derived from an utterly silly "Bible Onlyism" that blinds people to the complicated interfaces of history, culture, language differences, and philosophy with theology.

Hopefully we can all agree with Paul that false gospels do not save and that another gospel is really no gospel at all. I think Mr. Enloe would agree with that. It seems to me that Mr. Enloe is saying Rome is not teaching a false gospel and that such things are a slur against Rome. Why is it that most Protestants think that Rome teaches a false gospel? According to the post because we believe the Bible alone as the rule of faith, and do not hold to quadrilateral of Scripture-Tradition-Experience-Reason. This is the real objection of Mr. Enloe.

Take a look at some of the questions Mr. Enloe sets forth to remove us poor Protestants from our ‘sophomoric’ addiction to the Bible and rejection of tradition.

More importantly, what does it mean to say that “Rome’s Gospel doesn’t save”? For militant Bible-Onliers, where exactly in the Bible does it say that believing in the doctrines of the Reformation is "how" you get saved? If this is true, why didn’t the Apostles preach sola fide in the book of Acts?

What Reformed person on the planet thinks that believing the doctrines of the Reformation is "how" you get saved? In fact it is just the opposite. Rome thinks you must submit to the Pope (ie. believe what he believes) and be a member of the Roman Church to get saved, while the Reformed think we are saved by Jesus Christ alone through faith alone by grace alone. The whole debate about whether or not Rome’s gospel saves is because Rome and Geneva disagree on "how" one is saved. The instrument of the salvation is not belief in the doctrines of the Reformation, but rather faith is the sole instrument of salvation and in that point is where the debate lies. Mr. Enloe knows this as his assertion about Acts shows, but he puts it in the very inflammatory manner because it makes his case sound better.

As for Acts sola fide is preached by the apostles. Acts 2:38 has Peter telling the crowd "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." There is no notion of works plus faith here just turning from one’s sins to Jesus Christ. Note Philip’s requirement for the Ethiopian to be baptized in 8:37, "If you believe with all your heart [that Jesus Christ is the Son of God] you may." Faith is all that is required by Philip, who may not be an apostle, but is in the book of Acts. Notice how the preaching of Saul soon to be Paul is characterized in Acts 9:20, "Immediately he preached the Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God." Acts 15 has the Apostles and elders specifically reject the idea of law keeping as a necessary part of salvation. Peter calls it a yoke that ‘neither our fathers nor we are able to bear’ (v.10). Then of course we have the famous answer of Paul to the Philippian Jailor saying "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household" (16:31). I could go on.

One other question posed by Mr. Enloe deserves a bit of attention.

What does it mean to say that the Gospel was “recovered” at the time of “the” Reformation? If the Gospel is what saves, and if it was “lost” for so long, how was anyone between whatever point the loss occurred and the point of the recovery saved? Is Christianity thus like Mormonism, conceiving that True Faith was destroyed for hundreds and hundreds of years and then, poof!, shazam!, and abracadbra!, just recovered out of the blue at the point of our own little group’s founding?

Here I must give Mr. Enloe some credit. First, for using the word ‘shazam’ in a sentence. It has always been one of my favorite words. Second, because here he has a decent point. Some people do think that the gospel was completely lost, and those people are wrong. However, I think a better historical question for Mr. Enloe is does not the success of the Reformation show that the gospel never really disappeared? It is only recovered in the sense of something being taught from the top. The popes had lost the gospel, but it had never fully disappeared from the world. Take for example the Waldenses who cease to exist as a separate entity because their teachings were the same as the teaching of the Reformation because they both taught the Bible. Similar success was found among the many followers of Wycliffe. The history of the Medieval Church is a history of how the gospel survived and thrived especially in Southern France, Switzerland, and northern Italy, which all became hot beds of the Reformation. While Mr. Enloe is right to characterize some Protestants as dismissing almost all of history because they think anything pre-Reformation is wrong, that is not the case for most Protestants. History is on the side of the Reformation, and her doctrines.

All in all for a for a post about the poor state of Reformed Rhetoric, this post is laughable. It makes every error it charges to the Reformed. Mr. Enloe’s hostility will not abate because he does not truly want a change in Reformed Rhetoric, he wants the Reformed to abandon Sola Scriptura. Mr. Enloe’s problem is not with our speech, but with our theology. Hopefully next time he will just admit it and gets straight to the heart of the matter.

John Gerstner, Church History, and Matthew 16

I recently was given some video tapes from the video tape library of a dear departed friend, Rev. Norman Jones. I had a few spare moments and had been intrigued by the John Gerstner Church History series that was made by Ligoner ministries. I only watched one full lecture and parts of two others, and I thought I would make a comment on one or two things that struck me, specifically the third point.

First, I did skip straight to the Middle Ages. I have a peculiar interest in Charlemagne and the church as a whole during the 8th and 9th century. It is very hard to find good material on them. In fact, it is almost impossible to find a church history book that actually covers them at all. John Gerstner mentioned Charlemagne one time in a sentence about the power of the pope to crown emperors. Never mind that this was a highly debatable historical point (there is some evidence to suggest that the pope crowned Charlemagne during a prayer to give the appearance of papal authority). That was the only time Charlemagne or anyone from the 8th century was mentioned. That was it. Gerstner did just what everyone else does and that is skip from the 5th Century to the 13th. That is a large gap. I found it frustrating.

Second, the whole course seemed to be history as an apologetic against the abuses of Rome. There is nothing wrong with using that as a unifying theme, and it did provide for some interesting comments and discussion. Gerstner was excellent at pointing out paradoxes in Roman papal history and thought. He was particularly good at ridiculing the Unam Sanctum, which proclaimed all have to be in submission to the pope to receive salvation. This of course was given by Pope Boniface VIII who was in captivity and complete submission to King Philip the Fair of France. The Unam Sanctum is still the law of the Roman church.

Third, Gerstner made some interesting comments on Matthew 16:18. Of course Rome reads this as Peter being the rock, and upon Peter the church is built. Traditional Protestants read this as the Confession of Faith (as exemplified by Peter) is the rock upon which the church is built. Now there are several alternate readings that I am familiar with. Edmond Clowney read the passage as Peter and ALL the Apostles are the rock upon which the church is built. Augustine (the reading I favor) held that Christ is the rock and he builds the church upon himself. Dr. Gerstner introduced me to a new alternate reading. Gerstner claimed Peter was the rock upon which the church is built, but that did not imply authority rather we are all rocks upon which the church is built. He did make some caveats about it was faithful Peter, not Peter regardless of faithfulness. Still, Gerstner claimed that this passage was virtually the same as I Peter 2:5 where he calls all believers living stones. That Jesus was really only referring to Peter as a stone that builds the church, and that all believers are stones that build the church. Gerstner referenced Matthew 18 (I assume verse 18) and John (no reference was given) to support his view. Gerstner did not explain how ‘building upon the rock’ fits into his view more than to say we are all living stones being built into the church. I wish he would have gone into greater depth of this view, but alas it was a church history tape. If anyone out there knows more about this position, let me know. I am also interested to hear what anyone has to say about this verse in general.

Sacramental Exegesis?

Lost in all the modern controversy about Federal Vision is the exegetical controversy about Grammatical-Historical exegesis. There is a sudden rise in people desiring to replace Grammatical-Historical exegesis with a Medieval exegesis that includes not only typology, but allegory and basically gives free reign to the exegete.

Barb of Whilin Away the Hours gives us a good example of the modern Medieval exegesis. Barb finds symbolism of baptism in Jonah and then finds the baptism again in the water that Jesus turns to wine in John 2. Thus, baptism and the supper are linked, and she is able to then use the link (she has a few other dubious connections) to argue for padeo-communion.

With this sort of exegesis linking water to baptism (both judgment and salvation), why not use Judges 12. In that chapter Jephthah and the Gileadites are standing in the water killing the Ephraimites; thus the judgmental waters of baptism. 42,000 Ephraimites died, which surely would have stained the water with their blood; thus, the Supper is pre-figured. The Blood of the Supper calm the waters of baptismal judgment and make them calm waters of baptismal salvation. The Gileadites then re-emerge from the waters onto a now calm and peaceful land.

Am I right in my new found exegesis of Judges 12? I found water and blood, surely that means the sacraments are in view? What logic did I use in Judges 12 that is not employed in the Jonah story or finding the sacraments in John 2? If Grammatical-Historical exegesis is set aside, we can find the sacraments or whatever we want anywhere in the bible. It is the Grammatical-Historical exegesis that forces us to deal not in fanciful connections of symbology, but with context. What in the context of Jonah makes us think of baptism other than the mere appearance of water. Nothing. Does baptism fit into the point the book of Jonah is making? No. What about John 2? Jesus turns water into wine, but what makes us think it has anything to do with baptismal water? There is nothing in the context to suggest it at all. There is nothing at all wrong with typology, but typology must not get out of control. I am afraid that by shedding grammatical-historical exegesis we will see more of this find-what-you-want-anywhere typology.

Literal reading and the Senses of Scripture

An interesting discussion has taken place that I would like to comment upon. Alastair commented on an article written by Matt of Fragmenta, who was responding to Peter Leithart. Basically, Rev. Leithart is saying that we cannot find the meaning of Scripture in the author’s intent because it is unrecoverable, but we also cannot disassociate meaning from the author’s intent because that leads to pure chaos. Leithart’s answer is to:

address this, medievally, by complicating what we mean by "sense." After all, linking sense to authorial intent is only a problem if there is only one sense. If there are multiple senses, then one of them might be a direct expression of the author's intention without committing us to saying that all of them are.

Matt objects to the idea of multiple meanings saying that proliferating the meanings only gets in the way.

Alastair defends Rev. Leithart by adding:

Whilst the original meaning of the text is always important and should not be lost sight of, the meaning of the text is far greater than its original meaning. I appreciate the value and importance of such readings of Scripture that Matt speaks of. However, important as such readings of the Scriptures are, it was not the approach adopted by the apostles, who habitually interpreted the OT in a manner that placed the accent on the multiple senses that went beyond the original sense and occasionally even appeared to run contrary to it.

As a follower of Grammatical-Historical Exegesis, which Leithart and Alastair find wanting, and a rejecter of the New Perspectives on Paul, which Matt seems to favor, I thought I would add my two measly cents.

First, I am not against the idea of ‘senses’ to Scripture, nor is the method of grammatical-historical exegesis. Louis Berkhof even speaks of a mystical sense of Scripture in his Principles of Biblical Interpretation. There are passages that point us to Christ in the OT. Abraham sacrificing Isaac for example. This is a legitimate meaning of the text despite the fact that Christ is no where ‘literally’ mentioned in the text. The Bible contains symbols and types that can only be called a mystical sense that goes above a literal sense.

Second, I am against the idea that every text has a mystical sense to it. Not every text is a type or contains some hidden non-literal meaning. Elisha calling down the bears on the disrespectful children is not some sort of strange type, nor is Nehemiah striking the children that speak foreign tongues.

Third, the mystical sense has to be grounded in the literal sense. Alastair is right that we find texts that seem to place a priority on the mystical (spiritual may be a better word, but I am sticking with the common term) meaning, but I disagree that it ever runs contrary to the literal or even appear to run that way. Jesus in John 6 points to the deeper meaning of the his feeding of the 5,000, but that meaning is based on the action of feeding the 5,000. Galatians 4:22-31 speaks of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar. However, that passage makes no sense at all if the literal understanding of the Abrahamic story is not there.

Thus, here are my concerns with what was said. Rev. Leithart seems to argue for a Medieval understanding of the senses of Scripture. It actually seems to be a running theme. What I have argued for in my three points above is that the Scripture does have a mystical sense that is grounded in the literal sense and that grammatical-historical methodology can discover it. Basically Scripture interprets Scripture. That is not the Medieval methodology. Nor, I would add, the New Perspective methodology. The Medieval way of looking at Scripture is that every passage has multiple senses. The literal sense is barely even a touch stone for the other two or three senses. Hugo of St. Victor said, "Learn first what you should believe, and then go to the Bible to find it there." This is what worries me about the discussion. One can argue for types and symbols in the OT or in the NT without having to argue for Medieval exegesis. Let me just give you a concrete example of what we are talking about.

Bernard of Clairvaux, who wrote my favorite hymn of all time and is a figure I actually like, gives us this nugget of exegesis from Song of Solomon 1:17, which reads, “the beams of our houses are cedar, and our panels are of cypress”(according to the Latin version used by Bernard). His exegesis of the verse:

By ‘houses’ we are to understand the great mass of the Christian people, who are bound together with those who posses power and dignity, rulers of the church and the state, as ‘beams’. These hold them together by wise and firm laws; otherwise, if each of them were to operate I nany way that they pleased, the walls would bend and collapse, and the whole house would fall in ruins. By the ‘panels’, which are firmly attached to the beams and which adorn the house in a royal manner, we are to understand the kindly and ordered lives of a properly instructed clergy, and the proper administration of the rites of the church. Yet how can the clergy carry out their work, or the church discharge her duties, unless the princes, like strong and solid beams, sustain them through their goodwill and munificence, and protect them through their power?

That is what the Medieval men mean by ‘another sense’ of Scripture, and that is not what I mean. I sincerely hope that is not what Rev. Leithart is arguing for, but by throwing around the term’Medieval’ and others arguing that the mystical sense can appear to contradict the literal, I fear it is.

Forgetting Joseph

"And there arose a new king in Egypt, who did know Joseph." – Exodus 1:8

This verse in Exodus gives the context, but I believe it also introduces a theme that runs throughout the rest of the Bible. That theme is the sin and danger of forgetting history. I do not mean history as facts, but rather history as the meaning of things done in the past. Here in Exodus we see that forgetting the past leads Egypt to persecute the people who saved all of Egypt through seven years of famine, not to mention made them into a wealthy people. The consequences of that forgetfulness is the Red Sea and the death of every first born male.

Yet, the theme does not stop with Egyptians. We see the same theme running in the people of God. The book of Judges has a similar start. "When all that generation [those who lived with Joshua] had been gathered to their fathers, another generation arose after them who did not know the LORD nor the work which He had done for Israel" (Judges 2:10). That starts a cycle that basically repeats itself throughout the rest of Judges. This of course leads to the people of the Lord doing evil in his sight, neglecting true worship and exchanging it for false worship. This theme continues even after the kings of Israel. Josiah finds the book of Deuteronomy that had been lost and forgotten (2 Kings 22). We see in Ezra 10 that the Israelites had forgotten the word of God and taken pagan wives. It is the constant cry of the prophets (see Isaiah 17:10, 51:13, Jer. 2:32, 3:21, etc.). It is found in the Psalms (see 106 for example).

Not only do we see the sin of forgetting the works of God in the past we see God providing ways for us to remember. We see it over and over and over again. God commands Joshua to set up Memorial Stones after crossing the Jordan so that "when your children ask their fathers in time to come, saying, ‘What are these stone?’ then you shall let your children know" (Joshua 4:21-22). The tribes of Reuben and Gad build an altar because they feared “in time to come your descendants may speak to our descendants” without remembering they are all part of Israel (Joshua 22). The exhortations about throughout Scripture to remember, "Remember your creator in the days of your youth" (Ecc 12:1). One can even look at the sacraments and see that one of the purposes is “to proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” because every generation needs a sign so that they do not forget.

It seems to me then that one of the main jobs of parents is to teach our kids history. Or to put it another way remind them of what God has done in the past, and how God’s work in history affects them now. I think it is easy to see how forgetting the Josephs of the past have put our society in a bad position. We must make sure that our children remember the work of God, or else when they face their own Red Sea they may find themselves among the Egyptians.

Philemon – more than a slave?

It is a strange oddity that the meaning of Philemon is so contested. The main question appears to be, does Paul ask Philemon to liberate his returned-run-away slave, Onesimus. The main answer, historically, seems to have been no Paul does not ask for emancipation. However, I am convinced that he does indeed ask Philemon to release Onesimus, and what is more, I find the evidence fairly overwhelming. I freely admit that I do not own a large quantity of commentaries on Philemon, but John Calvin, Markus Barth, R.L. Dabney, William Henderson, and William Barclay all favor the idea that Philemon is just to forgive Onesimus for running away or give him some kind of cushy-slave job.

Some commentators do appear to favor the idea that Onesiums was to be freed, and slavery as a whole condemned. J.B. Lightfoot seems to hold this view and more recently the always controversial John Robbins. Despite Robbins’s reputation, I believe he is right.

Commentators like Markus Barth get bogged down in minute details, and miss the flow of the argument over all, including the high occurrence of slave related terms.

It seems to me Paul starts out calling Philemon a ‘fellow-laborer’ to bring to mind the idea of a slave immediately. More than that, he applies to both himself, Timothy and Philemon, while in verse two only calling Archippus a ‘fellow-soldier’. Paul goes on to speak of Philemon’s ‘love and faith’, which is an unusual word order placing emphasis on love. It is Philemon’s love toward Jesus and all the saints that is about to be put to the test in how he treats Onesimus, who is a fellow saint. Paul is building up to his point about correct treatment of Onesiums.

In verse 8 Paul says he could command him as an apostle, but would rather appeal to the love toward the saints, and especially toward Jesus, which had just been commended. Of course Paul tops that off with another slave reference. He mentions that he is in bonds for the sake of Jesus and the gospel. He repeats the bonds in verse 10, the first mention of Onesimus. Paul continues to ramp up the argument by saying Onesiums should be received as Paul would be received because Paul would have liked to keep him to minister to him while he is in the bonds of the gospel, another reference to slavery applied to Paul.

Verse 14, the beginning of the height of the argument, Paul explains why he did not command Philemon because this good deed should be done not out of necessity, but voluntarily. Commentators like Barth spend many pages discussing the difference between coercion and free-will decisions, but seem to neglect the fact that this is another slave-reference. Paul does not want Philemon to be coerced like a slave, but make a decision like a free man does. This leads to the famous verse 16 where Paul exhorts Philemon to make Onesimus ‘more than a slave, a brother beloved’. Remember the love of the saints is what Philemon is known for the most. But he is also to make him more than a slave because Onesimus is a beloved brother ‘both in the flesh and in the Lord’. It seems probable to me that ‘the flesh’ here simply means he is a man, a human. Thus, Paul, Philemon, and Onesimus are all brothers because they are all believers in Christ (in the Lord), and because they are all human (in the flesh). Paul is saying Onesimus must be more than a slave because he is a man just like Philemon and Paul.

In the end, I do think Paul is asking for Philemon to release Onesimus from slavery. Too many commentators make a big deal that he never says ‘Emancipate Onesimus’ that they torture the words to make Onesimus being ‘more than a slave’ mean still a slave. I think it is time that we let go of odd bias and see Paul’s argument for what it is, an argument for emancipation.

A few interesting extrabiblical notes, archaeologists have found an inscription on a tomb in Laodicea. The tomb was inscribed by a former slave to the master who freed him. The dead master’s name is Marcus Sestius Philemon. Also we see an Onesimus in the letter of Ignatius to Ephesus. That Onesimus is a man of inexpressable love who is also the bishop of Ephesus. Could that be our Onesimus? It would have made sense that a free Onesimus would have served the church, as he had already served Paul.

Roman Degradation of Mary

In a perfect storm of events, books, and blogs, I have been recently thinking on the subject of Mary and her place in the Reformed Church. Mr. Bonomo of Reformed Catholicism has posted his thoughts on Mary. His post is provocatively entitled, ‘The Protestant Degradation of Mary.’ The question obviously becomes do Protestants degrade Mary or do Romanists elevate her to a status she does not deserve?

Mr. Bonomo admits up front in his post that the Scholastics went too far. He rejects Mary’s Immaculate Conception and any idea of Mary as co-meidator (which I believe includes prayers to her). In this we agree. So far Rome has gone too far. What then does he reject in Protestantism? He asserts that the Reformed church does not go far enough in her praise perhaps by even refusing to call her blessed. But do Protestants and Reformed Protestants actually refuse to call her blessed? The Scripture itself calls her blessed, and what person would actually think that Mary was not blessed when God chose her to birth the savior? Mr. Bonomo admits that her blessedness derives itself from the savior in her womb, what Protestant church disagrees with that? The Reformed Churches and confessions all accept the third and fourth ecumenical councils that describe Mary as the Theotokos (God-bearer), so where has she been degraded?

The only real difference then between Protestants or at least Reformed Protestants and Mr. Bonomo’s position is the latter’s choice to remain silent or accept the supposed Patristic evidence for a Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the question of actual sin in Mary. Mr. Bonomo would rather not impute sin to her because it is not expressly stated in the Bible she sinned. Mary’s own words proclaim God as her ‘savior’ (Luke 1:47) expressing a sinful state that would need salvation, and that would seem to be enough for me to impute sin to her. The argument is made in the comment section that such a salvation could be for original sin rather than actual sin. But, then who is tainted with original sin, but does not ever actually sin? Would that not create quite a slippery slope theologically? Plus, the bible has no problem imputing sin to all mankind in such statements as ‘All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God’ (Romans 3:23). I think these Scriptural statements enough for me to rest assured she sinned as the rest of us do.

The Perpetual Virginity is a more troubling idea. The Bible does clearly state Jesus to have brothers and sisters. Matthew 13:55 names his brothers, and Matthew 2:46-50 makes clear it is his mother and his brothers. I see no compelling reason to think that ‘Mary the mother of James and Joses’ in Matthew 27:55 is anything than another name for the blessed Mary, the mother of Jesus as well as James and Joses. This along with the idea that it would have been sinful for Mary to withhold herself from Joseph for their entire marriage is enough to put to rest her perpetual virginity. The troubling aspect of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is why it was so important to Medieval Theologians. It was important because virginity was important. That sexual love was somehow wrong, sinful, or at least a lesser way. Mary was the embodiment of holiness; thus, she must have never partaken of such a sinful thing as sexual love with her husband. This theology is embedded in Romanism still today. Vows of celibacy are still required showing that somehow virginity is a higher holier road. The Roman Church needs the Perpetual Virginity of Mary because if she had relations with Joseph then she is no longer ‘Mary full of grace’, but rather ‘Mary just like the rest of us’.

Kevin Johnson of Reformed Catholicism makes the accusation that lip service may be paid to Mary, but devotion to her does not show up in Reformed churches. Again, I argue that Mary shows up enough. Nothing is denied her that Scriptures give her. I preached from the Magnificat this year, and I heard a Reformed sermon on the radio about Mary this Christmas. Are we really being called to task because not all Reformed Churches think Mother’s Day sermons are appropriate? If we are all agreed that icons of her are forbidden, prayers to her are forbidden, the extra-biblical miracles about her are wrong, then where is the disagreement? What activities exactly are the Reformed Churches not doing for Mary that need to be done? We know for a fact that Enoch was a prophet, a righteous man, did not die and was taken to heaven, but no one ever raises the charge that churches are not devoted enough to him and his life. So what is the difference?

It is my belief that Protestant churches get a bad wrap about Mary. She is given every laud given to her in Holy Writ. Most Reformed churches preach unashamedly through Luke, Matthew and John, all of which necessitate sermons on Mary. The Biblical evidence has to viewed as against her sinlessness and perpetual virginity, plus both are necessary props for the modern Roman dogmas, which these gentlemen appear to reject. The Marioloty of Rome is an actual threat to the gospel by making her a co-redeemer and mediator, but it is the Reformed who seemed to get lectured about Mary more often than not. I believe it is the Protestants who defend Mary, and the Romanist who degrade her by making her into something she is not, one who does not bare the savior, but is a savior.

More John 6

Another round of debates has occurred about John 6 at Reformed Catholicism. Paul Owen began the discussion about why most Calvinists miss the Eucharistic point of John 6. I will respond to Dr. Owen, but his post provoked a response from James White, which contained some reasoned points, but far too many personal attacks. Kevnin Johnson defended Dr. Owen and his own comment about reading John 6 through the ‘mind of the church’.

I am going to wade into this debate because I do not believe that John 6 is about the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper if you prefer. However, I do not believe that John 6 is primarily about the decrees of God or predestination either, which is the false dilemma presented by Dr. Owen. I think the sense of the passage is about the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ, not about partaking of His meal. It is not about eating his flesh, but that was used to represent belief in Him. As he says in verse 63, It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. And as Peter rightly answers when asked if they will depart like the others in verse 68-69, The Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. This is the main point of the passage, not the decrees, and not the Supper.

Dr. Owen does make a claim that Jesus is not talking of the eternally predestined in verse 37, and that verse 40 telling us that Jesus will raise them up on the last day is not about eternal glory but rather speaking about church membership and God’s desire to not see anyone perish. He attempts to reference 2 Peter 3:9, but does not show a strong connection. I would be interested in all of the talk about the mind of the church for Dr. Owen to bring someone out that actually made that argument before.

The crux of the debate seems to be to me whether or not one wants the meaning to be determined by the words of Jesus to his audience there in John 6 or the writing of John to his audience decades later. Dr. Owen and others argue that John’s audience would have been familiar with the Eucharist and would have ‘clearly’ seen the reference being made, and the fact that Jesus spoke these words to an audience prior to the institution of the Eucharist does not matter. Kevin Johnson argues that John had another ‘agenda’ in his gospel, supposedly one about the Eucharist. This idea I find hard to support. John’s gospel describes itself (John 21:31) as arguing for believing in Jesus unto eternal life (which is what I argue is the point of John 6), not some agenda about the Eucharist. If John has an agenda to make reference to the Eucharist, why is John’s the only gospel that does not have the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Instead, John includes the foot washing, but not the Supper. This problem is not discussed in either article.

Both articles including the commentors make a great deal about the history of interpretation. Commentor Mike Spreng on Kevin’s post, states,

Don’t you just love how he fires those shots without leaving a chance for anyone to comment on his site (not that anyone wants to interact with such a man)? What can be said about guys like this that only go as far back as Spurgeon, or at best Zwingly(sic)?

I have posted on that before, but people thought John 6 did not refer to the Eucharist long before Zwingli, Calvin, Luther, and Suprgeon (who all think John 6 is not about the Supper). Such early church lights as Basil, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria denied the link between the Supper and John 6. So perhaps the ‘mind of the church’ argument works against viewing John 6 as a Eucharistic reference.

Before departing I want to point out one other thing that needs to be said. Dr. Owen begins his piece by stating:

Nowhere do we get a clearer illustration of the folly of anti-sacramental, non-churchly Christianity than in John 6. Calvinists take a clearly Eucharistic passage and turn it into a treatise on predestination. It is not.

His sixith point then reads:

6. Now none of this is to say that this passage in John 6 is incapable of a different interpretation.

Now unless, Dr. Owen means that it is possible to have an ‘anti-sacramental, non-churchly’ interpretation he is contradicting himself. He either thinks that denying the link between John 6 and the Supper is ‘folly’ that betrays a dislike of the church and sacraments, or he thinks it a legitimate possibility for an informed reading of the text. One cannot have it both ways.

Jephthah and his Daughter

Recently I began a study of the book of Judges. It is a book of the Bible I have often felt is too much ignored. It seems to be one of those ‘historical books of the OT’ that many are want to pass over. Even Calvin in his commentary writing skipped over Judges. What has caught my attention is how much commentators want to make the Judges look like really bad people. In fact the unifying theory of most of the commentaries is that the Judges get worse and worse as time goes on. With this I think I now have to disagree.

Let us take Jephthah for example. Chapter 11 of the Judges gives us the famous example of Jephthah and his daughter raising the question, did Jephthah sacrifice his daughter. I have to admit I came to this text expecting to find Jephthah sacrificing his daughter because I was always taught that ‘those who argue that the daughter was dedicated to temple service are just trying to sanitize the Biblical text.’ Most commentators jump at the chance to make Jephthah a murder. But few stop there. K. Lawson Younger Jr., author of the NIV Application Commentary on Judges not only argues for a sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter, but argues it is not a sacrifice to Jehovah, but rather a sacrifice to Chemosh, the god of just defeated by his armies. Daniel Block in his commentary on Judges says several times that those who argue for temple dedication and service are “overestimating Jephthah’s spirituality.”

But wait, does not Hebrews 11 include Jephthah as a member of the Hall of Faith? Can we overestimate the spirituality of someone God himself puts forth as an example of faith? If Jephthah sacrificed his daughter, or worshipped Chemosh, why is he in the Hall of Faith? What makes these declarations worse is that both commentators mentioned above recognize the previous story in chapter 11, where Jephthah negotiates with the Ammonites, shows tremendous knowledge of Numbers 20-21 and Deuteronomy 2. Does this familiarity with Scripture not show he is no mere "brigand" or worshipper of Chemosh? Jephthah demonstrates himself familiar with Scripture and with the history of Israel, but then sacrifices his daughter? The law provided a way out of rash vows. Would one familiar with God’s prohibition on human sacrifice not avail himself of the out provided by the law? These things do not make sense to me. The arguments for temple dedication are not far fetched. It fits better with the reaction the daughter, and does not violate the sense of his vow. It also fits better with the passage in Hebrews where Jephthah is commended for his faith. So then should we not take this charitable reading of Jephthah? I have to wonder, why are we in such a hurry to make the Judges into sinners rather than saints?

The Eucharist, John 6, and the early church

It has been asked of me to find some examples of the use of John 6 in the early church fathers, to see how they read this section.

It cannot be denied that some church fathers read John 6 as referring to the Eucharist. Cyprian stands as one clear example. But, did anyone ever read John 6 as not referring to the Eucharist, the answer is yes. Eusebius the Historian reads John 6 as referring not to the Supper, but to his words, which Eusebius holds to be the true food to the soul of believers (as quoted in Schaff History Vol 3. Pg. 495). Basil also ascribes the 6th chapter of John to the words of Jesus Christ (ibid., pg. 497). These men specifically relate John 6 to his words rather than the Eucharist.

Clement of Alexandria also seems to see John 6 as meaning something other than the Eucharist. He uses John 6:54, "Whosoever eateth my fles and drinketh my blood shall have eternal life" which he says, "describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and promise" (ANF vol. 2 pg. 218). He does not seem to equate it with the Eucharist, and even when he quotes from John 6 and talks of the Eucharist, it involves more metaphors rather than a direct correlation.

Tertullian has a clear exposition of John 6 to mean one must believe in Christ and His words, and makes no mention of the Eucharist at all. His very nice summary of John 6 includes this idea "Constituting, therefore, His word as the lifegiving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because too the Word had become flesh" (ANF vol. 3 pg. 572).

This does not mean that everyone else believed that John 6 related to the Eucharist. Many of those properly called Apostolic Fathers did not directly quote John 6 nor explain it. However, Ignatius in his epistle to the Romans speaks of desiring the ‘bread of God’ and the ‘bread of life’ which he says is the flesh of Jesus Christ and then the drink he defines as ‘incorruptible love and life eternal.’ Here, it is unclear whether or not Ignatius is referring to John 6, but he is clearly speaking about the ‘bread of life’ in a non-sacramental manner, as this discussion appears in his reasons for wanting to die a martyr (Romans chapter 8). He is desiring the bread of life, which seems to be given to him when he dies, not here on earth. Such comments from Ignatius and the prior citations (for they are citations from leaders of the early church) seem to indicate that John 6 was not read ‘liturgically’ by the early church, at least a great many of them read John 6 as referring to Christ's words.

I was also asked to see if the early church fathers viewed the Supper as ‘anything more than a symbolic spiritual representation’. Why that wording is mine, it is clearly not the best wording. But, not wanting to back down from a challenge, I shall endeavor to show that the Zwinglian interpretation has precedent in the Church Fathers. Oecolampadius’s view is almost directly taken from Tertullian who claimed the bread and wine figured the body and blood. Cyprian too here favors a figurative interpretation with the focus on the "is" in the words of institution being figurative. Augustine followed those African fathers in teaching a symbolical theory of the Supper. He maintains a distinction between the outward sign and the inward grace, and maintains the figurative character of the words of institution. Of course still talking of spiritual feeding by faith (with which Zwingli agreed) in the Supper. From Augustine we can see his view disseminate throughout the church’s history. It can be easily seen in men like Facundus, Fulgentius, Isidore of Sevilla, the Venerable Bede, the Carolingian bishops, and finally Ratramnus and Berengar. Both Augustine (d.404) and Ratramnus (ca.944) each used John 6 to point to the Eucharist, but came out with Spiritual views of the Supper. Ratramnus’s book, which quoted liberally from Augustine, was republished by the Zwinglian Reformers as proof their position on the Eucharist was the historic position of the church. Other men who held this view during the 10th Century were Rabanus Maurus, Walafrid Strabo, Christian Druthmar, and Florus Magister, not to mention the book received royal endorsement from Charles the Bald. John Scotus Erigena appears to have written against a Real Presence view, but his work is lost, so we cannot be certain. The Eleventh Century saw Berengar agree with Ratramnus along with Eusebius Bruno (bishop of Angers) and Frollant (bishop of Senlis), but he was condemned for his views. Thus, the Zwinglian claim that the church held their beliefs about the Supper is not entirely without merit, nor then is my claim that a symbolic and spiritual view of the Supper is the position of the early church.

Liturgical Exegesis

Alastair has an interesting post up about the idea of Double Resurrection and Double Justification taught by James Jordan. If I had nothing but time this would be the sort of stuff I would like respond to at great length. However, I do have a job, so I will just respond to one paragraph that stuck out.

Most contemporary Christians would believe that such a passage is far too obscure to play any role in our doctrine of justification and that Paul’s theology never could have been informed by such a thing. This is the natural response for Protestants, who have very little time for liturgy. The assumption is that the ‘Bible’ is the only place where God’s revelation of saving truths is to be found. There are a number of problems with this notion. Chief among them is the fact that what we call the ‘Bible’ is a relatively recent creation. The people of God of previous ages encountered the Scriptures in the form of liturgical performance not as we do, by reading words off the pages of our mass-produced, privately-owned Bibles. It should not surprise us that, approaching the Scriptures as they do, most modern Christians make little sense out of it.

Alastair is advocating here the fact that the Scriptures should primarily (or at least equally) be revealed in the liturgy of the church rather than a book in the hand. The context is about why an ‘obscure’ passage (his words not mine) like Numbers 19 might actually be essential in understanding justification. His argument is that through the liturgy such passages would have received the proper emphasis and that through the liturgy it would be lived out in the life of the believer. Alastair explains further in another post.

If the Bible was given to be encountered primarily as a printed or written text the Church is not that necessary. However, I believe that the Bible was given to be ‘performed’ (much as the Shakespearian play). The chief ‘performance’ of the Bible is that which occurs in the Church’s liturgy. It is read aloud in the lectionary. It is prayed, sung, meditated upon, memorized and recited. Its story is retold in various forms. It is our conversation partner and our guide.

While, I certainly agree that we should read the Bible, pray the words of Scripture, and sing psalms during worship that misses the point. Was the Bible primarily written to be encountered and performed? Is a Sunday liturgy to be the main way that people get the Word of God? Does having a Bible in every believer’s home that they read daily make the Church unnecessary as Alastair claims? I do not believe so, but first let us see the other implications of this idea as put forth by Alastair himself.

The Bible that most modern Christians think in terms of is an object; what we encounter in the liturgy is nothing less than the personal Word of God, Jesus Christ Himself.

This is not only a denial of the power of the Spirit in reading the word of God (at least a significant downplaying of it), but it sets the stage for a sacerdotalism where the Church is necessary to dispense the benefits of Christ. There can be no way to encounter Christ with out the minister/priest. There can be no way to receive forgiveness without the church service and perhaps specific points in the service. Without ‘inhabiting’ or becoming part of the liturgy then we are separated from Christ. This paves the way for the necessity of the words of absolution from the minister, and the sacraments and other elements of the worship service. Salvation occurs weekly as we live out the story again and again in the worship service. Subtly here the definition or purpose of worship has changed from glory we give to God to salvation we receive from God.

Secondly and just as important is this point:

It seems to me that the displacing of typological and liturgical ways of reading Scripture and the rise of pure grammatical historical exegesis owes much (for numerous reasons) to the invention of the printing press. . . Liturgy provides us with a hermeneutical context for reading the Word of God.

The liturgy is not just something we do as a we to encounter and participate in Jesus Christ, but it is a way to read the Bible. This debate over John 6 is a good example of a practical debate about the subject. It is not as important as what Jesus meant when he spoke of eating his flesh, but it is more important of how the readers of John’s gospel would have read that phrase with regard to their worship service. It also is the point of the original post by Alastair. For Alastair, we do not get our understanding of justification primarily by reading the Scripture and trying understand what it says. Instead we should get our understanding from the Liturgical Word and it supposed forerunner in Israel. This is what he means by using the liturgy as a hermeneutical tool. This point is nothing more than a complete reversal of the Reformational Sola Scritptura. How do we interpret Scripture? Alastair’s answer is through the tradition of liturgical worship. In fact, he is arguing that the liturgy is the way for believers to encounter Scripture. There is nothing wrong with your leather bound Bible per se, but you should read it through what the Church says about it via the liturgy.

I do have a few objections to Alastair’s view. The first is Acts 17:10-13. The Bereans appear to do just the opposite of what Alastair advocates. They go to the service, listen attentively and then read the service through the light of the Scripture, not the Scripture through the light of the liturgy/service. And the Spirit calls them ‘more noble’ for doing so. II Timothy 2:15 seems to counter his understanding as well. ‘Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.’ This sound much more like the grammatical parsing and rational thinking through the Word that Alastair seems to eschew rather than the ‘inhabiting’ the word through the liturgy advocated in the posts.

A second point is with the historical understanding that underlies his position. The Scriptures were originally written down before they were used in the liturgy. They existed as books and epistles long before the existed in a liturgy. While it is true that before the printing press not everyone had a nice bound copy to stick in their pocket and church may have been the way many heard the word, it does not change the fact that they were originally written. Let us not forget that we see the Bible existing as we have it now quite early on. Athanasius in the 4th century gives a list of the books that stand in our bible, meaning that churches and people were collecting the inspired books into one canon by that time. The Muratorian Fragment suggests is was by the 2nd century and the collection of Marcion suggest even in the 1st century people were gathering it all into one book rather than keeping it only in the liturgy. They are not originally a play as his Shakespeare analogy would suggest, but rather they are originally a novel turned into a play, and when it was turned into a play is up for some debate. We have far earlier evidence of men using the Scriptures as we would use a modern English bible than we have of early liturgies. In fact, the Roman liturgy seems to be no earlier than 451, which is different than the Liturgy of St. James and the Eastern liturgies (5th Century), and they differ still from the Gallican liturgy (494), which is different than the Alexandrian liturgy (late 4th century), and still it differs quite radically from the heretical liturgies (5th Century) of Nestorius. In fact, we have several confessions of faith that pre-date these liturgies.

The high liturgical service of the Middle Ages was not necessarily the worship service of the early church.
In fact this a great example of the problem of using liturgy to encounter the Word and as our hermeneutical guide. The idea that the Lord’s Supper was anything more than a symbolic spiritual representation was rejected by the church at least through 9th century. Yet, it changed and the bread became the body and John 6 was used a proof text. Christians before the 10th century would have understood John 6 in a completely different way than those after. This makes the ever changing liturgy a very shaky guide to finding truth in the Scripture. Instead of the liturgy being a way to find typological meaning it seems to be a way for meaning to be created and/or lost. For the record the grammatical historical method of exegesis existed at least since Theodoret (5th century).

It should also be remembered that letting the Church interpret Scripture did not lead to a greater understanding of the Word, it led to no one understanding the word. There was mass ignorance of what the Bible actually taught until the printing press. This is one of the points of the Reformation, everyone should be a Berean.