A latent rationalism?

Paul Jewett writes:

Though essential to the Protestant view, the doctirne of the perspicuity of Scripture runs the risk of fostering an exegetical methodology that conceals a latent rationalism. It may be assumed that because of its intrinsic clarity, Scripture can be understood by anyone possessed of native intelligence. At one level, of course, this is true. One can know Scripture, since it is a human book, "from a human point of view", even as one can know Christ "from a human point of view" ... But though it is fully human, Scripture is not merely human. It rather bears witness to the divine majesty of him who addresses us in it, which is to say that its meaning is not simply at the disposal of our native intelligence. God, Creation & Revelation, p. 148

This latent rationalism is not always avoided, alas! But I would like to develop his christological analogy somewhat: Scripture is fully human but not merely human, yes; and this means that the human aspect of it is not somehow short-circuited in the processs of revelation. It is not that our rational processes are somehow denied as we read, or that these rational processes are over-ridden by some other more spiritual method, or insight. It is in, and through, this very human act of reading human words that the process of divine revelation takes place and the Spirit works!

So: it may be even and especially be at the scholar's desk that the Holy Spirit works to reveal Christ!

'Do you understand what you are reading'

In Acts 8, Philip wanders off down a wilderness road away from Jerusalem. There he meets an Ethiopian eunuch, an important public official under Queen Candace. Here is obviously a man of no small authority and intelligence. What is more, he is devout, having come up to Jerusalem to worship such as he could given his physical condition. Here is a man with the ability and the hunger to know God. Seated in his chariot, we find him catching up on his reading of the prophet Isaiah.
What is not in question is the significance and authority of the scriptures: the eunuch knows already that Bible study is indispensible. His problem is not with the authority of scripture. His problem is with the clarity of scripture.


Philip, overhearing him reading from this book, asked him a great question:

Do you understand what you are reading?

The reply comes:

How can I, unless someone guides me?

And with that, Philip is invited to explain the scripture and its fulfilment in the good news of Jesus.

Now, this text has been used a model for the necessity of authorised interpretation of the scriptures. So Jaroslav Pelikan:

...if sola scripture was not enough for all these devoted readers of OT scripture without th enormative interpretation that was provdied by the apostolic witness, does the written codification that apostolic witness, in turn, in the books of the NT by itself render obsolete the Ethiopian's question, "How can I understand, unless someone instructs me?" Or does the history of the church and of its controversies raise anew the Apostle Philip's question ... It is the consensus of Orthodox and Catholic teaching that the continuing apostolic witness of the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as tis has been set forth in tradition, liturgy and creed, performs the same function for the iterpretation of the "Scripture" (now consisting of both the Old and New Testament) as it did for the "Scripture" when this consisted of only the OT... (Acts, p.116)

But this misses I think the point of the text itself entirely - which is not that there always needs to be an authorised interpreter of the written word, but rather that the gospel of Christ Jesus provides the hermeneutic key that clarifies the Scriptures. Under Pelikan's construal the problem is only displaced. Note the effect of this encounter: the Ethiopian is converted and gets baptised. This clarity is not a matter of quibbling over a text: this encounter actually results in the spiritual transformation of the reader.

Actually, also: he discovers not the meaning of the text so much as how the text describes Jesus Christ... the focus is shifted from the text to Christ.

Some further idle and incomplete thoughts about the clarity of scripture

Thought 1: The clarity of scripture is in fact a far more important doctrine to defend than inerrancy. Inerrancy is a red herring for evangelicals and is divisive. It focuses our attention on the wrong thing entirely, that is, the matter of 'errors' or lack thereof. Whereas, if scripture is not clear, Protestantism is a bad joke and we should become Roman Catholics tomorrow. Scripture itself does not claim its own inerrancy (nor its errancy), whereas a very strong biblical case can be made for clarity.

Thought 2: The clarity of scripture is an evangelical clarity. It is the gospel of Jesus Christ that both unites scripture and renders it clear - not that the OT was without clarity. Jesus is the 'Yes' who both explains and fulfils the promises of God. The Ethopian eunuch appeared baffled by his reading of Isaiah until he met Philip who explained it to him. We shouldn't be distracted by the presence of an interpreter here: the point is not: 'you need an authorised interpreter' but rather 'Jesus makes sense of it'.

Thought 3: Of course, the doctrine of the clarity of the scriptures has little to do with how simple or how hard the scriptures are to understand. Indeed, in 2 Peter 3 Peter complains that Paul's letters have things in them that are less than crystal. Having said this though: scripture isn't as tough as is often made out!

Thought 4: The clarity of scripture is primarily a teaching about the effectiveness of scripture to do its job, which is to present us Christ Jesus. It is more about discipleship and holiness than it is about linguistic theory.

Thought 5: But the clarity of scripture DOES have implications for linguistic theory. It certainly did in the Reformation (or at least was in dialogue with 16th century humanism); it does also today...

A bit of Dutch clarity

Herman Bavinck, the Dutchman whose works are just being translated into English, gives a strong account of the clarity of scripture as a Protestant sine qua non:

'The teaching of the perspicuity of Scripture is one of the strongest bulwarks of the Reformation'.

It was true in the 16th century; it is true now. As Bavinck reads the history of theology, the clarity of scripture was upheld from the earliest times and even as late as Gregory 1 and beyond. In fact, it is not until the 12th century that the obscurity of scripture becomes a teaching of Rome. Of course, the corollory of scripture's obscurity is an infallible magisterium, who alone can interpret. Which, in effect, means that authority as both norm and judge belongs to the hierarchy of the church alone.

It is funny how contemporary this problem is. Intepretation is a necessary activity of course; but interpretational activity can be carried out with ceding all the authority to the interpreter. However, as in Rome, so in modern liberal Prostantism (which is like Rome without all the good bits): it is just that the interpreter in whom authority is thought to reside is an individual not a church hierarchy...

Individual readers and churches do have responsibility to judge what they read, says Bavinck; but neither the conscience nor the magisterium are infallible. They are not the highest court... They may err. Indeed, do!

The clarity of scripture

It has long been the passion of my colleague Dr Mark D Thompson to defend the doctrine of the clarity of scripture.

I shoulda known it all along, but he is absolutely right, and timely.

In the name of 'hermeneutics' all sorts of crimes are being committed, frankly; and the trend even amongst Protestants is to exalt the clarity and authority of the church and its traditions over the scriptures (which are held to be dark, mysterious and indeterminate). Disagreement is taken as evidence that there is no clarity to be had.

For his part, John Webster says 'very simply, the church alone is not competent to confer authority on Holy Scripture, any more than it is competent to be a speaking churc before it is a hearing church, or competent to give itself the mandate to be apostolic.'

Webster then brilliantly restates the clarity of scripture, reminding us that 'reading scripture is inescapably bound to regeneration'. If there is dispute, or lack of clarity, it lies in the unwillingness we have to submit to the scriptures. This is not a philosophical matter, so much as an ethical and spiritual one.

It is worth noting that the clarity of scripture is not a Reformation innovation. Irenaeus addressed the Gnostics with their fanciful interpretational practices by asserting the plain meaning of the text of scripture. This doctrine has a very long tradition indeed.

BTW, Webster offers a convincing critique of JAK Smith's defence of hermeneutics, too!