|
Introduction by Peter Y. De Jong
Index & Table of Content
This article by Professor Benne Holwerda, who before his
death in 1952 taught at the Reformed Theological School in Kampen, the Netherlands, first
appeared in Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift (Volume 43) under the title
"De Heilshistorie in de Prediking."
I. The Relevance of the Problem
Some twenty years ago Prof. Ridderbos gave a talk on The Old
Testament In Our Preaching. In that speech this renowned Old Testament scholar said,
among other things, that:
"The preaching of the O.T. also has great significance for
promoting the correct understanding of the historical progression of revelation. Modern
man calls for the shortest road to God, meanwhile setting aside the history of
redemption. Even outside the movement of modernism one notes a superficial type
Christianity which supposes it is sufficient to proclaim what God in Christ wants to be
for the individual heart and life. But God, on the contrary, has given his revelation to
us with a historical progression; for the nourishment and up building of the
congregation. It is important that a correct understanding of this progression be
propagated". [1]
The problem to which Prof. Ridderbos alludes lies at the center of
interest today and consequently has become the subject of lively discussion. In one way,
the interest in this discussion is a healthy sign. We may be grateful that ministers wish
to be faithful in the "promotion of a correct understanding of the historical
progression of revelation", and also that they wish, by means of such promotion, to
nourish and build their congregations. Yet now that this question has, in the last half
year, become coupled with the so-called subject of "doctrinal differences,"
there is reason for me to believe that this debate threatens to go awry.
Dr. J. Douma, for example, wrote a series of worthwhile articles
entitled Exemplariche Prediking (Exemplaric Preaching) but noted therein that it was
lamentable that the Gereformeerd Mannenblad, (a periodical published by the League of
Reformed Men's Societies in the Netherlands) edited by Rev. van't Veer, was
"used to propagate recent notions which cannot be reconciled with that which has
been taught by the Reformed heritage ever since Calvin's day." "It is
rather alarming", he continues, "that in these dynamic times, one area of
thought after another must be won." [2] In
the same essay Dr. B. Wielenga wrote a series of articles entitled Reformanda in which he
devoted an article to the subject of "doctrinal differences." He finds it
noteworthy that,
"The proponents for the renewal movement do not, as is usual
seek to join themselves to some current of thought outside the church but actually they
proceed as upholders, one-would almost say discoverers, of the actual Orthodox Reformed
point of view... They proceed with a sharp, flint-edged idea of revelation and set
themselves up as Christological pearl-divers of Holy writ, especially of the Old
Testament." [3]
Such expression, it seems to me, has a most disturbing effect on the
fruitful progress of our discussion. When a context is suggested that is not present,
when certain motives are imputed which are not intended, or when an agreeable
qualification is made, then such affirmations can only serve to impede our mutual
interests. I should like to stress that we must trust each other to the nth. degree. Much
is demanded of us ministers these days. We should do well therefore to avoid anything
that would place our brotherly love in jeopardy.
Despite the fact that we are affected by our differing theological
stances, I should hope that we are agreed at least on this one point -- that we cannot do
without each others' support. True enough, a large number of disagreements have come
to light; nevertheless, I judge it to be in order to expect that we may, by continuing
our discussion, appear to stand closer theologically than we ourselves have often
supposed. Perhaps we may even reach complete agreement.
To be specific, allow me the attempt of eradicating a different type
of misunderstanding than the one which has to do with the discharge of our mutual
interests. From a discussion with one of my colleagues I learned that some suppose that
the proponents of the "redemptive-historical" method of preaching have only
sharp criticism in reaction to the homiletical attempts of their "exemplaric"
brethren. Such a conjecture is most unjust. Although I and others have gradually become
strongly convinced of the correctness of the redemptive-historical method, I have never
heard any of my fellow adherents dispute the fact that many fine and worthwhile elements
are found in the sermons of their "exemplaric" brethren.
True, we are of the opinion that these fine elements are occasionally
somewhat veiled on account of uncertainty and imprecision as to method, but we do not for
a moment affirm that such lack of clarity fails to plague many of our own sermons. Rev.
J.Douma refers to a sermon of Rev. van Dijk on Judges14, but everyone knows that a large
number of other sermons, also structured by the redemptive-historical method, could also
be criticized. That is not the point at issue. There are sermons with many notable
elements despite their vagueness of method, and there are also sermons far below the
commonly accepted ideal. Our discussion, however, is not about practical results, but
rather about the most correct method for achieving better results.
I can well understand the criticism that is sometimes levelled at
those redemptive-historical sermons which are introduced by affirming some such
statements as, "Actually, we are here dealing with Jesus Christ, not with Abraham or
David." Granted, such an introduction is irritating, especially when it has become a
stereotype already. Given this admission, however, I should still like to invite others
to acknowledge that such an uninspiring formulation testifies to a serious attempt to
come to grips with the actual content of the text.
After dismissing from our discussion all manners of personal
allusions which can but serve to obscure our common concern, a notable question remains.
To what cause must we attribute the great interest in these redemptive-historical
questions? Two factors, I suggest, must be mentioned.
a) The more intensive study
of bibliological subjects by our own theologians.
No one will wish to dispute that since the above mentioned address by
Prof. Ridderbos ever increasing attention has been devoted to the science of exegesis and
related subjects. At the dawn of this century dogmatics was pretty well the only Biblical
science. Since 1920 there has not been a decrease of interest in dogmatic questions, but
in connection with the growing number of biblically oriented publications, the exegetical
foundation to dogmatics has been given greater emphasis. After 1922 the Korte Verklaring
appeared, the series of Bottenburg; Prof. Grosheide wrote his Hermeneutiek; Prof. Ridderbos his Het Godswoord der Profeten and Prof.
Schilder stimulated the interest in redemptive-historical questions by many articles, as
well as by many keen insights in Christus in Zijn
Lijden.
Despite the abundance of material, we were immediately beset with
difficulty. Admittedly the preacher had a wealth of exegetical material; besides he now
had guidelines for dealing with the historical elements of the Bible. The big problem
however was how these rules were to be put into practice. Especially with respect to the
historical books, the complaint was rather common that the exposition was strongly
literary-historical. In recognition of the need to take a stand against Wellhausian and
related trends, such a complaint appeared to be justified. But the man who had to enter
the pulpit was plagued with the question, "What is the content of Revelation in this
passage, what is the good news of God for the congregation hic et nunc?" To some
degree the characterization of Schreiner was valid also for our church:
"Die homiletische Situation der Gegenwart ist deshalb durch die
Tatsache gekennzeichnet, dass die Predigt der Kirche wo immer sie die Alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft um Rat und Unterstutzung befragzt, zwar uber viele wichtige dingen Auskunft
erhalt, aber fur die entscheidenende Arbeit, namlich den Offenbaruntgehalt biblischer
Aussagen in ihrem Bezug zum historischen Befund erkennen zu kennen und umgekehrt, den Weg
verspert sieht." Even verder klaagt hij zelfs, dat de tegenwoordige stand der
O.T.ische wetenschap "'instrumentaliter' eine Abhangigkeit herbeifuhrt, die
der Predigt den Weg des christlichen Vertstandenisses des alttestamentlichen Zeugnisses
nicht nur in vieler Hinsicht bahnt, sondern auch verbaut." [4]
Naturally we would express these ideas differently.
Although our preachers find themselves in a more favourable position, we can well
understand the complaint of Pastor von Bodelschwingh:
"Eine Net erfuhr ich als besonders brennend; den Zwiespalt
zwischen der Theologie als Wissenschaft und dem personlichen Zeugnis von Christus in der
praktischen Verkundigung", [5]
b) The
exposition of the O.T. by the dialectical theologians is the second factor responsible for the increased interest in historical redemptive questions. Obviously the
place which this theology had come to have in our country was of such a nature that
proper account of their exegetical procedures had to be given. Again our preachers were
faced with the problem of deciding to what degree this exegetical literature was useful
for sermon preparation. Thus interest in the history of redemption was promoted by the
exposition of the dialectical theologians that is -- to the extent that this interest had
not already been promoted by the dogmatic works of the theologians.
II. Misunderstandings About the Problem
In the course of time a growing misunderstanding
about the complex of questions came into light of day. These misunderstandings can for
the most part be attributed to an entirely different interpretation of the terms here
used.
In a series of articles I tried to isolate the
difference between points of view as to the method of dealing with historical materials
by distinguishing between the "Christocentric" and "exemplaric"
method. Since that time this distinction has entered into the discussion, even though the
first term was often substituted by the term "redemptive-historical". These
terms were chosen for the sake of brevity in an attempt to typify the uniqueness of each
of the two methods. The second method I called "exemplaric" because it finds a
solution by treating biblical history as a number of independent happenings which are
examples for us. The first, in contrast, I named "Christocentric" because its
aim was to understand all the historical accounts in their relation to each other, in
their mutual inner unity, in their relation to the center of salvation history -- Jesus
Christ. Since at that time I was already afraid of being misunderstood I wrote that this
terminology ought especially not to be so understood that the adherents of the second
method would not wish to place Christ in the center. At that time I also tried to avoid
another misunderstanding by writing, that,
"whoever wishes to interpret the historical elements in a
Christocentric way as mentioned above, must not forget that this historical material was
written for our example; indeed he must proceed on that basis and must show why these
historical elements can be examples for us." [6]
I clearly said that the difference was concentrated
around the question of whether we were treating many independent happenings or whether we
were dealing with one history of salvation. Whatever the specific cause, in many
instances the specific meaning of the terms I then used was overlooked in the subsequent
discussion.
For example, the adjective of Revelation history
(openbarings-historisch) has often been taken to refer to the scientific description of
redemptive history instead of to the revealed history itself.
In the Heraut, Grosheide published several
articles about this discipline and all of us are in complete agreement with what he
wrote. In a closing article, Dr. Grosheide discusses the relevance of this discipline for
preaching. He says that the history of revelation (geschiedenis der openbaring) rests on
the exposition of scripture and must never be used alongside of
it.
"One cannot choose to take his point of departure history of
revelation and interpret a part of Scripture on that basis. That would be circuitous
reasoning of the first degree." [7]
There is no quarrel on that score. But it was never
the intention to take our point of departure in this branch of science and then exegete
by means of a principle thus derived. On the contrary, the intention was to exegete out
of the conviction that the history of redemption (heilsgeschiedenis) as it has been
revealed to us, is a unity and thus we intended to escape what Dr. Grosheide described as
the big danger in sacred history: namely that this history be presented as separate
units; that the truths of the Bible be told in a beautiful manner, but that their meaning
for the work of Christ be overlooked; and that what is of the greatest importance be
suppressed -- positively giving the congregation a richer knowledge of God and a better
eye for his majesty and glory. Grosheide's aim is precisely the aim to which the
proponents of redemptive-historical preaching have allied themselves; but it never
occurred to them to exegete (and consequently to distort) Scripture by way of a principle
derived from a particular science.
Apparently such a scientific interpretation of the
term "redemptive - historical" has filled J.Douma with the fear that the
Christian be sacrificed to a new type of intellectualism, because Scripture is regarded
as a book that only the scientist can work with. It is this interpretation too that lies
behind his warning against a new form of clericalism.
Just as preaching "dogmatically" does not
involve bringing dogmatics to the pulpit, so also preaching
"redemptive-historical" does not involve a course in the history of revelation.
Admittedly it is possible that someone or other has occasionally slipped up on this
point, but in view of the present stage of development in this science I would judge this
danger to be less serious than that of introducing purely dogmatic
considerations.
A similar sort of criticism can be levelled against
the interpretation of the term "Christocentric." One gets the impression that
many take the term to refer only to the person of the Redeemer. Rev. J.Douma, for
example, grants that Christ is the core and center of God's salvation in Scripture,
but notices also that God has given us much that lies around the core. Thus many appear
to be afraid that the rich content of Scripture will be narrowed down, that those who use
the redemptive-historical method are exclusively concerned with what God does to bring
his Son into the world, and that only the cross and redemption will be emphasized.
Possibly that impression has from time to time been given. In discussions and in the
themes of sermons I have occasionally noted an expression that could give the impression
that in every text of O.T. the development to the central fact of Christmas was central.
Indeed, in that way a type of preaching could develop that might be termed Jesucentric,
staurocentric, or soteriocentric, but Christocentric I should not choose to call
it.
Much discussion has centred around the term
"Christocentric." Recently Edelkoort distinguished between Christ and Messiah.
"Messianic" was intended to refer to Christ's kingship, while the name
"Christ" primarily referred to the idea of a universal redeemer, rather than
exclusively to the idea of kingship. Yet even Edelkoort in the latter instance was
referring to the person of the universal redeemer. It cannot be denied however that
gradually the name "Christ" has been recognized to have a broader content.
Today the term "Christocentric" means that Christ is the content of all
revelation. Thus the term does not merely refer to his person, but also to his work. As a
title of his office, I should think this broader usage of the name is justified. To use
the words of J.Douma, "'Christocentric'" also includes all that God has
given around the core." It was never the intention to exclude all but the nucleus,
rather the intention was to protest the isolation of anything from the core and
consequently to protest preaching about it in an un-christocentric
manner.
Perhaps it is possible to find a term with more
clarity. Several attempts have been made in that direction - Ridderbos prefers to speak
of "theo-christo-centric. Herntzich and Schreiner prefer "Trinitarian" and
Grosheide claims that christocentric exegesis will at the same time be theocentric
because Christ is He who paves the way for the honour of God. "The theological,
rather than the soteriologlcial emphasis," he claims, "comes to the foreground
in revelation."
Whatever term we choose, the term
"christocentric" must in any case include all the work of God, redemption as
well as judgment, the giving of the law as well as discipline. However else one wishes to
describe it, the term must refer to the personal as well as to the work of the redeemer,
to Christ in all three of his offices, and to both "parts" of the
covenant.
The term "exemplaric" has likely given the
most difficulty. Obviously this term does not excel as far as clarity is concerned. While
studying 1 Cor.10 in connection with this question, I noticed that in his Novum
Testamentum Latine, Nestle, although he uses the word "exemplum" a number of
times, translates "tupos" with "figura" and in other places
translates "forma" rather than "exemplum." I tend to agree, seeing
that "figura" and "forma" indicate that a certain fact is an image
(beeld) of something in a later period -- these terms clearly have an historical aspect
to them that "exemplum" does not have.
In the debate, it has frequently been argued by
Rev.J.Douma, and others with him, that their own objection was directed only at the
exclusiveness of the redemptive-historical method, that they wanted to leave room next to
it "also" for the exemplaric; thus they have pleaded for a "higher
synthesis" of both methods, or at least for a maintaining of the "exemplaric
aspect." Yet one must look intently into what the point is here. If the intention
was solely to lay the emphasis on the fact that preaching on historical materials ought
to be practical, no one would object. Otherwise, it would no longer be preaching. But
just the fact that they warn against "exclusiveness" and desire a
"synthesis" points in the direction that they wish to combine two conflicting
methods. Completely in line with the way in which they interpret the respective terms,
they now see the matter in this way -- that the redemptive-historical aspect is of great
help to us for the science of the history of redemption, whereas the exemplaric aspect is
indispensable with a view to the practical application.
Now I am afraid that many in the application, that
is to say, in preaching, will by this procedure still have a tendency to lay aside the
"redemptive - historical" method as too 'scientific', and then for the
sake of the practical will hastily make historical equations.
Over against that approach I wish to express as my
firm conviction that in order to have a sound application the historical moment must be
brought into consideration, even though it tends to make the application more difficult.
In other words, the 'exclusive' redemptive-historical method, exclusive of a
single "exemplaric" element, is the only method which can lead to a sound
application. It is not proper to take account of the historical moment in the exposition
and then to ignore it in the application. If there is anything that would give an
ambiguous character to preaching it is this.
On this point many have appealed to Grosheide, and
justly so, it seems, for he wishes to do two things. First, one can take into
consideration what significance a certain segment of sacred history has in the whole
revelation. This means the "Christocentric" is brought under
discussion.
But after that, in the second place, each historical
account, within its particular place must also be considered apart from the place that it
has in, and the significance that it has for, the whole of God's revelation, it
proclaims something to us ... One could ask about the virtue which is here extolled, or
the sin which is punished .... The first would point more in the direction of the history
of revelation; the second, to the application.
Yet I doubt that it is really Grosheide's
purpose that one may overlook the historical aspect in the application, thus making it
exemplaric in the strict sense, i.e. that one would lift the application out of the
historical context.
For Grosheide gives no homiletical rules for the
application, but hermeneutical rules for interpretation. In that connection, his concern
is with finding the leading ideas. And that is why he gives us these two pointers: take
note of the material in its larger context, and look closely at the text in particular.
It deals, thus, if I may put it this way, with the longitudinal and the cross-sectional
dimension of the text. By means of the first, we discover its place within the rest of
the revelation; by means of the second, we find out the specific meaning of the text. The
author also warns, "the point here is not something which is two-faceted ...but the
second is the particularizing of the first. Accordingly, the one may not be separated
from the other.
Surely, this must be his intention seen also in the
light of what he writes elsewhere: " ... that the Scriptures always and everywhere
deal with the Christ, and that a portion of Scripture is interpreted properly only if it
has been brought into relation with Christ." Furthermore: "…… that
history also gives us admonition."
History also stands in a certain relationship to
Christ. for it is precisely there that He stands in the center; but that is also why
history retains its hortatory significance. Thus there is no hortatory significance next
to, but around the "Christocentric" character of
redemptive-history.
III. Attempt at Setting Up the Problem with Precision
In pointing out the misunderstandings which have
formed around the problem we already had to give quite frequently a thetical explanation.
'Yet we must elaborate this more fully. It goes without saying that this is nothing
more than an attempt to set forth the question more precisely. As I see it several
aspects, are to be brought into our discussion.
First of all, I would like to mention the
preservation of the 'unique' character of the historical materials. Naturally, it
is not possible in terms of the aim of this lecture to examine too extensively the
question of the place which "history" has in Holy Scripture. For this reason I
would like to point to a few special studies which have appeared with respect to this
question: J. Hempal, Altes Testament und Geschichte, and A. Weiser, Glaube
und Geschichte in Alten Testment; while for the N.T. we can mention: H.D. Wendland, Geschichtsanschauung und Geschichtsbewusstsein im neuen
Testament.
Here we have to do with the special character of the
historical materials. Everyone knows that every kind of material brings along with it its
own rules of interpretation: an historical account is something different than a section
of a prophecy or an epistle; and a psalm bears yet another character, and again, the
wisdom literature possesses a wholly unique mark. The point is that, therefore to handle
an historical account as a fact of history, and not, for example, as a
parable.
Whoever considers it possible that God allowed a
certain history to be written in order to present only instruction in the form of
illustration, loses from view, in my opinion, the distinction between the history of Ahab
and Naboth's vineyard, and the parable of the good Samaritan, even though definite
similarities between the two could be pointed out.
In particular, we intend to examine closely the
question of what is the relationship between the historical materials, on the one hand,
and the dogmatical, ethical, (etc.) sections, on the other. Then, in my opinion, it
cannot be open to question that the dogmatic materials rest upon the historical, and not
vice-versa. The great redemptive miracles of the exodus from Egypt, the giving of the law
at Sinai, etc., are assumed by the prophets; the work of Jesus Christ, as it is
historically set forth in the Gospels and Acts, is explained in all its richness in the
Epistles. But once one admits that the historical lays the foundation for dogma and
ethics, it is impossible for him any longer to see the historical materials as merely a
source of illustrations alongside of it. The dogma-foundational function of
redemptive-history excludes a dogma-illustrative function; for it should be quite obvious
that, with this last option, dogma and ethics would merely be set forth as concrete
illustrations, and would thereby be presupposed in the historical
materials.
Naturally, it is not denied that you may illustrate
a certain "truth" from an historical account, particularly, when you preach on
a text from the Epistles, or on one of the commandments. When you preach the ninth
commandment, you may select an illustration, e.g. from Genesis 12, (Abram's lie of
emergency); in a sermon on James 1:6. (he who doubts is like a wave of the sea), you can
make the exposition very concrete -by referring to Thomas (John 20); and in a sermon on
Eph. 6:5-9, the relation between master and slave, the exposition could be made very
illustrative by the use of Gen. 16, (Sarah and Hagar). As long as you are searching for
an illustration for such a text of Scripture, you need not limit yourself to the biblical
materials; in certain cases you could also illuminate a text by turning to men in church
history: Calvin, Kuyper, or whomever you might wish to consult.
Thus it is possible to interpret a dogmatic text by
appeal to a specific account in the history of redemption. But if one has chosen a
historical text, then he must consider it with accordance with its own nature, and not as
merely illustrative.
A sermon on Genesis 12 may not degenerate into a
sermon on the lie of emergency; a sermon on John 20 may not deal with doubting; a sermon
on Gen. 16 may not deal with social interrelationships. And therefore, when those who
support the redemptive historical method warned against the dissolution of history into
all kinds of 'pictures' which are to function as examples for us, their objection
was directed at this -- the fact that men were handling historical materials
"illustratively" and overlooked their "dogma-foundational"
significances.
You do understand that this additional terminology
is not employed here in order to replace the term "exemplaric" and
"redemptive-historical" These terms are not means to be scientifically exact,
for if they were, they could conceivably unleash a new confusion of tongues. Our only
point in using this additional terminology is for descriptiveness, it is only an attempt
to 'restate' one of our distinctions, for the sake of brevity.
Secondly, one must take note of still another point.
The question of the recognition of the (external) context is also in order
here.
One of the most crucial rules of hermeneutics is
that, with each segment of material, attention be paid to the context. Whoever removes an
utterance of Scripture from its context can make the author say something entirely
different than he intends. I only have to refer to the manner in which Matt. 17:8 has
been used as an inaugural text: "And they lifting up their eyes, they saw no one but
Jesus only."
Yet it is striking that this rule is so frequently
abandoned with respect to historical materials. Men often take each bit of material by
itself, and then end up with incidental scenes from the lives of Abraham, David, and
others. And some try to arrive at the application by constructing a parallel between such
a "picture' and an incident out of our own lives.
In the very nature of the case this procedure
signifies a great levelling process. Actually, whoever mentions the word
'history' is speaking of something dynamic, of movement; and connected with
history is the development, growth, and progress. History always means ONENESS and
forward movement at the same time. But whoever ignores the context and dissolves an
ENTIRE history into a great collection of independent stories, loses both 'unity'
as well as 'progress.'
It is clear where this latter method leads in the
area of redemptive- history: by this fragmentary method, one simply blocks the way to
preaching effectively on these materials; but because they have severed the historical
bond between David, Abraham, and ourselves - the bond of the relationship to the one,
ever-growing redemptive work of God in Christ - they must now, in order that they may
still be able to make an application, construct another connection; and usually they do
it in this manner - instead of recognizing the historical connection, they search for the
oneness in a psychical resemblance.
Or to say it more precisely: one has here a shift
from the history of redemption to the ordo salutis, which is so characteristic of Philo.
As concerns Philo, Lagrange has defined his method very keenly as follows: "He
transposed history into the domain of religious philosophy. He did not evaporate it to
the point of denying its existence. But the principle lesson of history became moral
instruction. Instead of leading Israel's destiny by means of revelation toward the
Messiah, God showed that He kept a watchful eye on the perfecting of each soul in
particular''.
Philo also lost view of the history of redemption.
For him all items were independent stories. He read into each story that which God did
for every individual soul, and then drew a parallel with what He does for our own soul.
Instead of the history of redemption in which everyone has his own time and place and
function, he set forth the ordo salutis, which is the same for all.
Naturally I do not deny that essentially we stand a
great distance from Philo. We see things in a much more orthodox perspective than he. Our
basic concern is not morality but religion. But most of all we speak about what God in
Christ means for our own heart and life. But as far as the essential view of history is
concerned, there is positively great agreement. There is quite a bit of preaching which
truly tries to be 'Christocentric' and yet is not. One can say many true and
beautiful things about what God in the coming of Christ (3 illegible words here, SW) and
then draw a parallel with what He is for us in the Christ who has come.
But unintentionally and unwittingly you have stepped
over from history to theordo salutis; then you no longer ask what meaning or purpose
Abraham, Elijah, etc. had for God's one, ever-increasing, progressive work in Christ
but the very opposite - what significance God in Christ has for them. Surely the
Christian stands in the center here though that was not the intention.
Furthermore, as concerns method, a certain affinity
to Philo is readily discernable. For even though one can ignore progress in history, yet
it repeatedly asserts itself. It is not easy to draw a parallel between the experiences
of Abraham, Elijah, etc., and our own. Consider for example, Abraham, who of us would
leave his country and kindred behind as he did, who has to flee because of hunger as he
had to, who has hazards as he did with Abimelech, who has difficulties in his tent as he
had with Sarah and Hagar? If in these things you should wish to find similarities (with
our experiences), you would have to stretch the meaning of these experiences
considerably, whether by means of a parallel which remains absolutely on the periphery
and which has nothing to do with a real analogy, or by means of allegory, which is
equally forced. And surely, there is no one who would be as extreme as Philo; but I
believe that it is possible to find plenty of examples of both. Men have drawn
superficial parallels not only when using Matt. 17:8 as an inaugural text (that the
congregation may see only Jesus in preaching of their new pastor), but also when using
Jn. 2:2 (Jesus was also invited) in the usual way, as a marriage text (thus young people
must also invite Jesus into their married life); or when 1 Kings 19:7 (Arise, and eat,
else the journey will be too great for you) must function as a text for the Lord's
supper. Allegory is also far from dead: Matt. 8:23ff (storm on the sea) often receives an
application which deals with the spiritual storms on the 'sea of life'; Luke
24:29 (stay with us, for it is toward. evening and the day is now spent) is applied in
the style of "Abide with me", Jn, 21:7 (John says at the Sea of Tiberius,
('It is the Lord') often becomes a sermon on Providence - in all our baffling
experiences then we must learn to see that 'It is Lord.' All of this to the
complete neglect of the actual content of the text! Correct and even edifying
observations are made, but these have nothing at all to do with the
text.
This is exactly the same as Philo. In his days, the
Pentateuch was: "the means for the edification of the pious. But this use of the
Pentateuch was made difficult by the fact that much in it appeared archaic ... and
lacking in relevance for the readers. At this point Philo wants to offer assistance by
attaching to each word in the Pentateuch a chain (reische) of thought by means of his
allegories which is meant to aid the reader in achieving fruitful meditation." But
in the meantime he gave them something entirely different.
And this was also intended by the warning against
'psychologyzing' in preaching. That was not an objection to psychology nor even
less an evidence of a low opinion of 'God's work in us' but only an
opposition to a method which concealed the actual content of the text under a multitude
of edifying observations.
In opposition to this, we should maintain with
Grosheide, that we must ascertain how a specific portion of sacred history has meaning
within the whole of revelation and 'that a portion of scripture is expounded well if
it is related to Christ.' If one does not view a historical fact as a part of a
larger whole, if one does not note the organic bond but views them fragmentarilyno good
exposition is possible and therefore no good sermon. These terms, "organic,
fragmentary", so not once again claim scientific, sharp distinctness, but can
perhaps yet again indeed help to illumine from a different angle the matter under
discussion, "heilsgeschichtlich or exemplaristic."
We must mention yet a third point, viz.; the
question of the deference due to the internal textual coherence. We are not finished when
we have indicated the lines of connection in their historical context. As I have just
mentioned, Groshieide intends that we shall also view each text as a complete entity --
included indeed in a larger context and not divorced from it, but nevertheless possessing
a distinctive significance and function in that larger whole. This concerns the
peculiarity of each text or the "cross-section" in distinction from the
"longitudinal section" if I may call it such.
Grosheide speaks of the "profound meaning"
or also of "synthetic" exegesis. This profound meaning is not meant as a more
profound meaning beneath or opposed to the grammatical-historical meaning; if this were
the case one could not escape the acceptance of a sensus duplex. At best one can speak of
a sensus compositus. But only exact grammatical-historical exegesis can lead to the
discovery of the profound sense. Therefore "synthetic" exegesis is not a second
thing next to literary (exegesis): "Synthesis is here... used as the summation of
analysis"; one can thus say that it moves in an opposite direction, covers the same
course by a different route. Only such indication of the profound meaning completes
exegesis, and the "profound meaning speaks of Christ." Whoever asks what really
is the issue does not neglect the incidentals but tries correctly to find a leading
thought which controls all incidentals and does justice to them, according to
Grosheide.
The objection has been voiced that
heilsgeschichtliche method would become monotonous. Because one chose to point out Christ
in each historical fact, the danger would be great that it would really amount to the
same thing in each sermon; and it has been supposed that one ought to warn against such
an impoverishment of the manifold richness of scripture.
That, however, was the very last thing intended; I
meant precisely the opposite, that by this method one escapes the danger of monotony,
precisely because one lays all the emphasis on synthesis. Each historical fact is,
according to this conception, composed indeed of all sorts of elements; but these
elements have acquired in this place a very definite connection; and this very special
connection is that which gives each text a unique significance in the whole of
revelation; each fact thus has its own content and its own application. Only synthetic
exegesis grasps the peculiarity of a text and therefore makes it possible to always
remain fresh.
The heilsgeschichtlich method will never lead to
impoverishment and wouldn't think of always sounding the same note. The danger of
impoverishment, which is unavoidable through. the exemplaristic method, is precisely what
it will prevent.
Actually it is the same as in chemistry. If I have
some water (H20) and wish to speak of
its significance and peculiarities, I must not speak of the qualities of the components
of water (H) but of H as it is involved in very definite connection with O. And with
sulphuric acid not of H but of the completely different connection
H2SO4.
This is approximately the way it is with preaching.
Whoever does not deal with things synthetically but rather atomistically does not do
justice to the text. Then he accomplishes one of two things: either one makes all sorts
of practical observations with the various subdivisions of the text, but because he
misses the main thought there is no unity, and the listeners complain that it hangs
together as sand, or he lifts a certain element out of the whole and preaches about that
"atom." It is then that one cannot escape the danger that the richness of
scripture is not discerned. Then he would be able, e.g. to preach both the same sermon on
Matt. 11:1-8 (the doubt of John the Baptist) and on John 20:24-29 (the doubt of Thomas)
-- Jesus delivers from all doubt. I do not deny that he then says true things, or even
less that the congregation derives something from it; I only say that he ought to say
these things with another text. The peculiarity of these texts is not preached like this.
If things were viewed synthetically the preacher using Matt. 11 would have spoken about
the crisis of the preaching of the gospel while John 20 deals with the specific Easter
confession: My Lord and my God. According to the atomistic treatment one can make the
same application to Gen. 22 (the trial of faith on Moriah) and Matt. 15:21ff. (the trial
of the Canaanite's woman's faith), but according to synthetic exegesis that is
never possible.
Perhaps someone will ask what the question
"synthetic or atomistic" has to do with the problem "heilsgeschichtlich or
exemplaristic." Everything, I think. For a moment ago it became evident that the
method which we, for the sake of brevity, call the "exemplaristic" has this
peculiarity: that it accepts the historical facts, then asks what God has been for this
or that biblical saint, and then views this as an illustration - as an object lesson - of
what he chooses to be for us. One then seeks a parallel between the situation in which
God was something for the biblical saints and situations in which he will be the same for
us. This comparison one then sees between John the Baptist/Thomas and us in doubt,
between Abraham/the Canaanite woman and us in the trial of faith. But because none can
still at any time have doubt precisely as Thomas, and because none can be tested
concerning his faith exactly as Abraham, we are compelled to let the peculiarity of their
doubt and trial of faith drop. Thus, we are forced to speak of doubt, trial of faith,
etc. in general, abstracted from their synthetic connection with the main thought of the
text. The exemplaristic method thus compels us of necessity toward atomistic
treatment.
You must understand me well. Some apparently suppose
that theheilsgeschichtlich method chooses to know exclusively about the "way of
Christ" and that it sacrifices all else in the text of this idol. That it would thus
ignore a certain instant that speaks of God's work in us: that it would have no
consideration for the spiritual life of Thomas, etc. But nothing is less true. A text is
composed of a multitude of elements, and all ought to be considered: Elijah's mantle,
Peter's sword, John's doubt and Balaam's ass. Yet none considers, I think,
preaching in connection with Elijah's mantle on Christian fashion or in connection
with Balaam's ass fulminating on cruelty to animals. Why not? Because he would have
wrenched such an element out of its context. Even less may one atomistically make an
application of John's doubt to our own. He ought first to assign to that element of
doubt its very special place in the synthetic context before he may arrive at the
application.
Therefore, I would like to mention, as the third
moment of the problem at hand, the question "atomistic or
synthetic?"
Perhaps we should have brought even more things up
for discussion. But I hope I have succeeded, through this analysis, in putting more
sharply the question which up to now has been understood in the not thoroughly
transparent terms " heilsgeschichtlich-examplaristic." Summarized briefly, it
amounts in my opinion to this:
a) Will a person permit Heilsgeschichte to retain
its function as a foundation for dogma or treat it illustratively?
b) Ought one to treat this history in its organic
connection or may he elucidate it fragmentarily? Not in its development, but leveled
out?
c) Should one work synthetically in the explanation
of each fact or is atomism admissible?
Now that things have been put thus, I hope that
hereafter it will be more clear that a synthesis of methods is out of the question. Also,
the question is not whether one may use history as an example, not at all, but in what
manner one may do so. Whether it may also take place illustratively, fragmentarily, and
atomistically.
Therefore the appeal which has been frequently made
in the course of discussion to 1 Cor. 10 and Heb. 11 seems to me unfounded. It is said
that scripture speaks plainly there of "examples". The Rev. J.Douma has
assigned himself the task of going through all the books of the N.T. to determine the
significance of 'example' in the N.T. That is very worthwhile. But it is
unfortunate that he did not enter into the sizeable question whether the N.T. speaks of
'examples' in the heilsgeschichtliche or in the examplaristic sense of the word
-- both terms conceived in the sense determined above. Consequently, we have not made any
progress in the consideration of the real problem.
I confine myself here to 1 Cor, 10 and Heb. 11
because in my opinion these chapters are the most important ones for the discussion, and
the other references are related to them. First of all then 1 Cor. 10, where those things
which took place in the wilderness are said to have occurred as examples for us upon whom
the end of the ages has come. It should not escape our attention that Paul here (a)
exegetes 'synthetically'. He isn't concerned with the vice of grumbling in
general but with the murmuring against God's redemptive acts. The Rock was Christ.
The application then becomes also (synthetically), "Let us not tempt
Christ."
Then I would also note that Paul (b) explicates and
applies this history organically, He will have nothing to do with historical
equivalences; of course he says expressly, "us upon whom the ends of the ages has
come," and (c) he retains the history in its factualness, and not as a concrete
illustration, as an illustrative instruction in a determined thesis.
For tupos (example) has in Paul a very definite
historical tone. Goppelt stated in his significant book, ''Typos, (Die
Typological Deutung des Alten Testaments im Neuen)" concerning this, "As far as
we can tell Paul uses the Greek word tupos as an expression for an advance representation
of the coming in a preparatory history." "The object of typological meaning
presents itself when a naturally more complete and greater fact is perceived as having
been established by God." " Der Typus ist wesentlich nicht das verkleinerte
Abbild des Antitypus, sondern die einer andern heilsgeschichtlichen Ebene angehorende
Vorausdarstellung die den Umriss, die Grundzuge das komenden Wesenhaften andeutet und mit
dessen Erschoinung jede selbstanige Bedeutung verliert," this latter statement in
opposition to Philo who wants to see type simply as an inferior image.
O. Michel notes concerning this text, "Das was
das A.T. als geschehen berichtet, ist allerdings wircklich geschehen; aber es ist nicht
nur um unsertwill geschehen!" He is in agreement with Leitzmann and J. Weiss who
stress that Paul sees the O.T. facts as 'Vorbildung' of the happenings of the
Messianic end time, and that the end in itself stands entirely in the background. And
then he follows "Das A.T. ist also weder ein dogmatisches Lehrbuch fur Paulus noch
einfach ein padagogisches Geschichtsbuch, sondern vielmehr ... eine Offenbarung einer
geheimnisvollen typologischen Heilsgeschichte." "Auch von hier aus erscheint
das ganze A.T. als tupos auf die Endzeit hin."
Thus not, "They are written illustratively,
graphically. pedagogically for a pattern for us, as an example; but, they have happened
as a previous image, a prefiguration of the Messianic time. Image, thus, has not an
exemplaristic, but a pure heilsgeschchtlich content.
The case is somewhat different with Heb. 11. Here
there constantly recurs, 'through faith'. That is illustrated from many passages.
Yet this proves nothing opposed to the heilsgeschichtlich method. For it has already been
admitted that there is no objection to the choosing by dogmatic texts of illustrative
material from the Heilsgeschichte. One would thus be able to say, "The writer
demonstrated in the course of his argument, which bore a dogmatic and not a
heilsgeschichtlich character 'through faith' from history. Thereby nothing is
said concerning how one should preach on the material itself.''
Nevertheless, we can go further. Not only does Heb.
11 say nothing against this method, this whole view of Heilsgeschichte is the foundation
of Heb. 11. Goppelt writes, "Hier scheint die typologische Beziehung in eine
Gleichstellung der 'Wolke von Zeugen' mit der gemeinde Christi verschoben zu
sein. Aber es handelt sich nur um eine Veranderung der Blickrichtung. Het historisch
gelijkteken dus slechts schijnbaar aanwezig. Gottes werk kann von Anfang an bis zur
Stunde immer nur im Glauben erfasst werden, Glaube ist immer ... Festhalten an
unsichtbaren, insbesonder zukunftigen Dingen. Obwohl so dem Ziel der Aufsfuhrungen gemass
aller Nachdruck auf das Gemeinsame gelegt wird, ist doch auch hier der durch die
Erscheinung Christi erfolgte Bruch der Welzeiten und die dadurch bedingte typologische
Art nicht ubersohen." The writer thus rightly indicates a communal moment in all of
these accounts, but he yet retains the particularity of what Moses did in faith in
distinction from what Abraham did; he thus continues to view things synthetically. He
does not read things fragmentarily; he posits no historical equivalences, for all faith
of all men was an expectation of the future, of the caesurs which would come in history
with Christ. Tupos in 1 Cor. 10 and 'pistis' in Heb. 11 are thus both preached
heilsgeschichtlich. Heb. 11 is also not concerned with the fact that they have not
received the promise. In this way God had provided for us somewhat better, "because
apart from us they should not be made perfect".
The heilsgeschichlich method thus retains completely
the significance of the pattern but then in the qualified sense which the word has in
Scripture.
IV. The Hermeneutical Side of the Problem
If we have succeeded in posing the question more
sharply, then the great difficulty yet remains of how we should seriously execute
heilsgeschlchtlich preaching. The question is continually raised by many, "How must
I deal with this particular text? How do I arrive at the proper heilsgeschichtlich,
organic, synthetic exegesis?" And if I have found it how does it continue in the
application?" We can thus distinguish the hermeutical and the homiletical sides of
the problem. We state first that there are indeed for both divisions a couple of common
directives but still there are no precepts to give. Schreiner states, not
inappropriately,
" Die praktische Theologie hat keine Gesetze zu entwickeln und
nichts ware verkehrter als van ihr Rezepte zu erwarten, womoglich solche, die unbedingt
in jedem Falle brauchbar waren."
Indeed there is already a fairly extensive
literature. In recent years this problem has boon investigated in many publications from
the viewpoint of dialectical theology. They have not tried to exegete in a practical way
large sections of the Bible Christocentrically; above all else they have also grappled
with the question principally and theoretically. With respect to the practical works the
studies of W. Vischer and H. Hellbardt are most notable. Regarding the theoretical
expositions we are here directed above all to the introductions to these works
particularly the literature arising around Vischer's treatment of the Pentateuch.
Before we survey this material in relation to our preaching, we ought to reflect on the
large preliminary questions.
1. The
dialectical treatment, especially that of the O.T.
Really the entire German literature concerning this
subject, and for a large part the Dutch also, is more or less 'dialectical', in
orientation. I know that and could ask the question whether it is possible to speak about
dialectical theology as a unified theology because the mutual differences have manifested
themselves with increasing sharpness. The contrasts with regard to O.T. preaching also
have become very great. Yet the term dialectical can give us an impression of its
theological root ideas, and therefore also of the starting point of the preaching, of the
majority of those who have participated in the discussions and the practical
attempts.
In his well known book, Berkhouwer spoke about the
"isolation of the Reformed view of Scripture" not the least after having been
confronted with the dialectical doctrine of Scripture. Therefore if we want to prevent
accidents when we make use of this literature, we shall do well to remember that
isolation in the view of Scripture also means isolation in exegesis, hermeneutics, and
homiletics. "One has to be able to judge the discernment before one may take this
work to hand," wrote Schilder in a review of De Wilde's Leviticus. This pertains
practically to everything which has been published till now. In view of this, we must
start with determining our position over against the dialectical approach of the
O.T.
The great turning point came in 1934 with the
publishing of volume I of Vischer's Das Christuszeugnis des alten
Testaments. Already before this the typical Wellhausian approach had to make room
for a method which inquired not so much about the origin of a book but about the
religious worth of it. (Rud. Kittem, Grossman). Gradually, they became more positive.
However, they did so without conquering the basic error of relinquishing in principle the
canon of the O.T. The question of the relationship between the O.T. and the N.T. remained
unresolved and therefore also the question as to the "Christocentric" character
of the O.T. Nevertheless, Vischer reemphasized that the O.T. gave "witness to
Christ". Many have followed him since in speaking about "das Christuszeugnis
des A.T".
This characterization, which has been derived from
John 5:39 presently becomes suspect for him who takes note of the peculiar distinction
which is made in this camp between witness and revelation. The term "witness"
betrays the dualism of Scripture-Revelation; Scripture-Word of God.
Following in the tracks of Karl Barth, Scripture is
here seen as a sign of revelation. Incarnation and inscripturation are considered to be
of the same genus, at least there is a high degree of parallelism. Thus Vischer sees the
Scriptures of the O.T. and N.T. then as "swaddling clothes" which have been
given to us as a sign. In, with, and under the content of the O.T. is the Word of God to
be heard. Not the external history of Israel is God's revelation but God's
activity must be seen in, with, and under that history.
However, Vischer does emphasize the reading of the
O.T."wie es dasteht, im besten Sinne naiv," and therefore takes an aversion to
a "pneumatische Exegese; der psychiasch-rationale Process des Lesens und Verstehens
(darf) nich zu Pneumatolog werden." He recognized the danger that we carry our own
thoughts into the Bible, yet he allows for allegory and typology, "Im weitesten
Umfang, wie man sie sich in einer modernen Exegese nicht mehr hatte traumer lassen."
This allegorical method, of which Hellbardt is also repeatedly guilty (and which is
naturally more understandable in Lutheran than in Calvinistic circles) has invited severe
criticism. However, and this confirms the lack of certainty of some, at the same time
this method has also been defended. Schreiner, e.g., does not want to limit himself to
the historical sense because of the fact that the same truth, in the mutual discussion
among people, "eine verschiedene Tiefte und eine verscheidene Bedeutung entfalten
kann, je nach Lage und Frage des Horers." [8] With all his objections of Vischer, De Wilde yet asks himself whether in
just this way "he has not spoken to the N.T. congregation according to the
Spirit.
Of course the question is not whether a word has
more content than the speaker knows but rather if it means something different than the
speaker intends. Thus the question has rightly been asked: Sensus sucrae scripturae
duplex?
Something else is connected herewith. From this side
a strong emphasis has been put on faith as condition for right exegesis. No reformed man
would raise objection to this as long as it is understood in the sense of Moller: "
Ist der Forscher unglaubig ofer behandelt er seinen Stoff wie etwas Lebloses, so ist die
Theologische Aufgabe weder erfast noch orfult." [9] However, the intent is evidently another one, Vischer does assure us:
'If Jesus really is the hidden meaning of the O.T. Scriptures, then an honest
philosophical exegesis must somehow touch upon it. But some pages further he states,
"Only the Holy Spirit is able to open up the Bible and to disclose its real meaning.
The author has hidden himself in such a way in his work that no exegetical can unveil
him; it desires to and must become its own interpreter if it is to find a reader."
Actually, the proof of the Scripture, John 5:59, has been handled here in conflict with
its actual intent.
The dualism inherent in the term
"Zeugnis," (testimony), automatically means an unresolved tension between a
literary historical and 'pneumatical' exegesis, between knowledge and faith.
Certainly there are authors who see through this. Breit for example, writes, "with
that the problematic is freely postponed. The question is not here historical there
theological exegesis, but the formulation of the question is radically different: either
theological exegesis including, literary criticism, history of religion, etc., or a
treatise on religion. Furthermore, there is no difference between pneumatical and
historical exegesis." Hempel says concerning this matter, "The contemporary
historical, the literary-criticism, the history of religions' explanation of the
O.T., in short, historical criticism in all its varied branches stands not in opposition
to the theological considerations of the O.T. as a document of revelation, rather it
shaped the O.T.'s necessary and indispensable prerequisite whereas, as a matter of
fact, the O.T. deals with the reality of the revelation of God in time, with a once for
all historical action."
In the pneumatical exegesis many authors avoid the
results of the historical sciences, especially such men as Hellbardt and often times
Vischer; or else it is declared that this too belongs to the foolishness and weakness of
God, that the Word becomes audible and visible only when it is surrounded by historical,
geographical, and scientific errors. "It is therefore, a peculiarity of theological
exegesis that it maintains within its bounds two opposite positions of knowledge which
strive for unity." Here we see the construction of an 'offence' which
obscures the real scriptural 'offence.' It is a pity that even a man like
Herntrich, who gave a good critique of Vischer remains caught himself in the above
mentioned dualism and in the constructing of such 'offence' as accompanies
it.
The publicly confessed dependence on Barth comes to
the fore not only in the conceptions concerning Scripture, but also in the conception of
history although the latter is not of great significance for our present discussion.
Vischer formulates his conception concerning this point as follows: "Do we accept
that the two parts of the biblical documents have in reality the same content, that the
O.T. and N.T. testimony stand over against each other like two halves of a choir in a
circle and point to the same center, and that there stands in this center like a
historical incarnation Immanuel, God with us? He also sees the diverse covenants as
concentric circles of different sizes. Heintrich has correctly remarked that Vischer
still speaks about a history of revelation but actually he does not take the revelation
of God in history seriously in spite or his assurance to the contrary. Basically this
means a docetic "Auflosung" (disintegration), of the redemptive history and
therewith of the 'testimony of Christ'. This is the reason why Vischer is so
non-committal when it comes to historical questions. This does not present difficulties
for the allegorical exegesis but it does to someone who actually believes the "
heilsgeschiedenis" and its continuation.
With such a construction the question becomes
interesting as to how one has to see the relationship between the O.T. and the N.T.
Vischer says it this way: The O.T. says, what Christ is, the N.T. who he is. The
salvation in the O.T. so far as its essence is concerned differs from nothing we receive.
There is, however, a difference as to the "austeilung" (administration) and the
"Darbeitung" (performance). But however much the Bible maintains the real
historicity, this history is eternal presence. "Everyone can only become
contemporaneous with the time in which he lives and then only with one, to live with
Christ on the earth," he repeats after Kierkegaard. The following quotations may
show how close Vischer comes to a complete levelling: "In their carnality, in their
time controlled limitation, in their historical accidentalness, the scriptures of the Old
and New Testaments testify of this incarnation ... signs, identifying signs as the Son of
God born in a stable are as good for those who seek him in the O.T. as well as those who
seek him in the N.T."
The well known words from Eph. 4, "There is one
body, one Spirit, ... one Lord," compel him to remark: "This description, with
which the apostle has drawn a cross section through the Christian Church of his time,
touches also a part of the longitudinal section through the historical epoch of the
Church of Christ. Consequently, G. Von Rad's criticism of Vischer is being widely
shared, namely, "that he has been seriously mistaken in as much as he also searched
for the incarnated Word in the O.T.", since this means a pure identification of both
testaments. De Wilde also does not see a difference in essence, but only in form: for him
too the O.T. is already a testimony of the fulfilment. But --and this is one of the
typical contradictions with Vischer--at the same time the N.T. is yet only promise.
Because (in following Barth) with fulfillment he does not understand that that which was
promised came, although initially so, but that the promises were confirmed. Also the N.T.
Church must be a hoping Church; otherwise she would not be the Church of the crucified
but of the glorified Christ. While at first he saw the gospel as the, "extreme
actualization of that which is written in the O.T," it is now clear that this
actualization is not a realization, that the Kerygma does not point to
facts.
Repeatedly one comes across these contradictions:
emphasis on the 'carnality' of Scripture and the necessity of biblical
criticisms, doubt concerning the biblical criticism, a practical ignoring of the weakness
of Scripture. There is a difference between the O.T. and N.T. and they are being
equalized. The O.T. already witnesses to the incarnation, the N.T., however, is only a
confirmation of the promise. On the one hand one finds scriptural proof and honest
philological exegesis which must be able to find Christ; on the other hand there is
"faith", because exegesis does not find the Spirit; the Spirit is never a human
possibility, to become secure of God apart from the freedom of God, to be present or not
to be present according to his will.
For that matter. one must be careful in every
respect because the disturbing thing is that almost all the terminology of the confession
has received new content. I already cited the concept of the incarnation: the
"heilsgedachten" of the O.T., become flesh and blood in Jesus. However, this
reality is nothing but a promise confirmed. Similar ideas are held concerning the cross.
Often the "cross" has the meaning of scandal, an offense for the mind; this is
the "kruisweg van het woord."
Revelation of God is always at the same time also a
veil, and even in that offense, scandal since the revelation of God in history is always
toctum cruce'-- remains hidden beneath the cross. When De Wilde comes to dealing with
Gen. 12, then he says among other things, "But then the call is also: go out,
separate yourself from everything, which ties you down, give up your securities and
certainties, go unprotected in the open field, only with my word. That is the cross, the
weariness and the grief, that is death...Here again where God descends is first of all
the end of man, the judgment". What if one should read something like that when one
tries to deal with the text in a Christocentric manner; and mind you this is being said
to people who already like to hear about 'their' cross. The danger is great that
both the minister and the congregation will bypass the content of the text. Somewhere, De
Wilde also speaks concerning "the problem of the theodiceo which culminates in the
revelation of Jesus Christ". Because it is precisely in the confines of the
covenant, facing God, that man becomes (!) a sinner. Nowhere else does he become this.
Yes, we can also say it this way: "Where man became a sinner, there is the covenant,
the righteous (!!) suffers and dies; there he must suffer and die." These are well
known sounds, but they have acquired a foreign content. "Man as man is under
judgment."
Obbink says concerning Vischer that "he really
does not rise above his dogmatic suppositions." Really that typifies all these
writers including Obbink himself. Of course one can say that it is never possible to
approach a test presuppositionless; "the dogma of the church may not function as
preconceived opinion", according to De Wilde. However, in this way, the minister and
the congregation become estranged from the dogma of the church because one does not allow
himself to be told by Scripture what revelation, incarnation, and the cross is.
Therefore, the question, which Herntrich asked in another connection, becomes valid,
whether "this objectivity is not exactly abandoned here, which can only lie in this,
in order that one lets the lines, the valuations and the aim of the object be shown him,
i.e. from the O.T. itself and instead these valuations become authoritative, those which
one brings from unrelated sources to the message of the 0.T."
A very peculiar position is taken by E. Hirsch. 0.
Brocksch typified him and not unjustly so, as 'Mavion redivivus.' Hirsch opposes
the Barthian theology very sharply. He even speaks of "bad theological
flippancy" in their treatment of the O.T. For him the O.T. is "that invalid
book raised up in the N.T." In preaching the reinterpretation of the O.T. is
therefore a necessity, because the O.T. is law, 'law oriented religion,' Jewish,
and therefore, "Similarity with the N.T. not according to its present being, but
according to its being, to which it was broken down by the New. Yet the O.T. remains a
necessity for preaching, because "only in the experience of the antagonism between
the law and gospel do we hear the Gospel."
However, Hirsch suffers from the same theological
rashness of which he accuses the dialectical theologians. Therefore it is well for us to
say with Strahmann that in the Christian Church we are lacking entirely a historical,
scientific, indisputable, clear and sure relationship to the 0.T.
Therefore it is difficult to come to a different
conclusion than the following: in spite of the fact that these authors have gathered much
useable material, yet precisely when they did their exegesis their method is nevertheless
principally objectionable. Their theory with respect to the preliminary question is of
such a nature that what they submit as theological, "Christocentric Pneumatical'
exegesis cannot rightfully claim any one of the four terms. Exegesis which is worthy of
the name, unfolding of that which is embedded in the words. The exegesis will be
'pneumatic' only in its commitment to the Word.
The contrast comes into focus very sharply with De
Wilde in his commentary on Leviticus. There he says, "the natural
'Wassenschaftler' does not understand the things which are spiritual; on the
contrary, they will be foolish to him. He is not able to understand them because the
spiritual sense is scientific nonsense for such a man. As he sees it many 'mad'
Pauls are running around who are not suffering from erudition but from a mental condition
which one might term 'spirituality.'
Over against this the following axioms of Reformed
'pneumatic' exegesis must apply: the spiritual sense can never be scientific
nonsense; those two go together. Every exegesis that does not account for being 100
percent scientific, will not let us find the spiritual sense. For the preaching it means
this: since the proclamation of the Word is not based on philological exegesis, it is
never pneumatish, theological, or Christocentric. Faith is not a separate organ that
hears the Word of God in, with, and under the written material, much less is it an organ
which should perceive what is crucified by thought. Konig is definitely right when he
says that "nur die allgemein menschliche Denkraft" is requested in exegesis.
"Intellectual enlightenment by the spirit is enough." The natural human being
does not accept the things that are spiritual, he hears it but rejects it. Actually
nothing is left over of the sin of unbelief on this contested standpoint; the heavy
accent which faith receives makes void the scriptural concept of faith; this is no
scriptural faith.
Therefore we wish to maintain the meaning of faith,
in a dual sense for the reformed preaching in its own peculiar way.
(1) Faith is necessary in the sense of accepting the
self-testimony of scripture. Men may not impose a message on scripture. Men must allow
scripture to say that which it wants to say that is: objectivity as we have explained in
faith to the perspicuity.
(2) Faith as condition for good works, according to
L.D. 33. Preaching is worthwhile only when it is founded on Jesus Christ, and a definite
will to serve him in obedience.
But this faith, just because it is scriptural faith,
does not tolerate a separation, an antithesis of Godly and human factors: we are
confronted in the Bible with a marvellous 'two-in-oneness' a Godly and human
factor which can be theoretically distinguished, but which the exegesis may never
separate for a moment. Because when exegesis separates these factors, she has lost the
Scripture as God's revelation which came to and through men. This is already more
adequately explained under the subject "the deeper sense."
2. The Rules for historic
material according to Grosheide
If we retain the salvation-history method, it is
clear that this kind of preaching takes a great deal of preparation. Immediately it can
be pointed out that one cannot simply give a 'key' to it. Grosheide never tires
of saying that with respect to the N.T. a special gift is necessary. This however does
not exclude the fact that the gifted person keeps himself to certain rules and methods
which can be set forth.
a. Detect the place in the whole of
revelation.
b. Investigate that which is specific in each
text.
c. Take into account that every historical book has
its own tendencies.
I think that this sums up the most important factors
and that there are no other rules for the O.T. I would like to emphasize a few of the
things that were mentioned under III, where we tried to set up the problem with some
precision.
1) Personally I think it very beneficial to deal
with it in series. That goes together with what was said above concerning the matter of
"organic- fragmentic." It does not work simply by taking a periscope out of a
greater cycle, but rather to proceed as Grosheide suggests, by placing it in the whole of
revelation.
2) Profound detailed exegesis in connection with
what was said about the point: "synthetic-automatic"
3) It is of great importance to determine exactly
what God does in a certain section. Often we begin immediately by looking at the persons,
and are busy identifying them with people of today. Of course we may not forget the human
aspect since each detail asks for attention. But we should always see those human deeds a
reaction in God's action. Abraham and Abimelech for example: this is not the sin of a
white lie in general but an attempt to secure in this way the promise of the seed, the
heir. Then a person is on his way to discover the specific meaning of a text. The same is
true of Israel's grumbling: we are not dealing here with the sin of rebellion, but
with the rejection of God's redemption as they had seen by the water from the rock;
'The rock was Christ.'
4) It is also especially necessary to observe
whether the specified people act in the quality of an office. When I have discovered
either faithfulness or unfaithfulness to an office, then I am well on my way. One is at
the same time guarded from 'staurocentrisch' (cross-centred) preaching. With
respect to Elijah I don't have to insist on drawing a parallel to the cross as long
as we see him as the bearer of the Word, on whom the spirit of Jesus Christ
rests.
3. The
Specific Difficulties In the Old Testament
Although the difficulties in the N.T. are quite
great, they obtain a special accent in the O.T. It is difficult to see immediately the
relation between the N.T. and the O.T.
The definition of that relationship as
'law-gospel' will shed light over it. Especially when men like Hirch do not take
'law' in the specific sense of Galatians anymore. In this connection
'law' is never seen as autosoteric, nor is it a rule of thankfulness. The big
question is whether we can bring this whole relation under this heading even if we take
'law' in the Pauline sense. In the light of the letter to Galatians itself, this
does not seem possible to me; the 'law' is something that comes later
on.
Neither is it obvious what is meant by
'promise-fulfilment'. I have pointed already to the dialectic structure of this.
But we have to be just as careful with the old 'Weissagungsbeweis' of Hofman as
with the spiritualization of relations by Koning. Because there is something right in all
those opinions: with the dialectic thinkers we agree that the N.T. does not preach the
complete fulfilment, with Hofman we see that the O.T. announces many details that find
their literal fulfilment in the N.T., and together with Koning we see that the blessings
of salvation of the N.T. are often spiritual. The drawback lies in
absolutizing.
We cannot find the answer in Vischer's
'what-who' relation either. The O.T.does not say much about Christ, who he is,
whereas the N.T. says many things about what Christ is. Maybe it is best to see the
relation as a 'less-more.' The less of the O.T. gradually becomes more up to
Christ, but the more of the N.T. is not everything,
Therefore we need a thorough knowledge of the use of
the O.T. in the N.T. Not only to see how scripture itself sees the relation, but also
materially. Then we can begin to discern the big lines. We ought to refer especially to
Rom. 9 -11, Galatians, 1 Cor.10, 2 Cor.3 and Hebrews, as well as Revelations, as those
places in which most O.T. material is used.
Much light is shed on those principles in two
articles by E.T. van de Born:"De Verbondsgedachte van het O.T.", and
also "van het N.T." Other material can be found in: W. Eichrodt:
"Theol. of the O.T." (I, iff, 255ff); L. Goppelt: "Types
& passim"; the series of J. Kroeker: "Das Lebendige
Wort", H. Breit on Deuteronomy.; M.B. van't Veer on Elijah in "Mijn God is Jahwe"; E.T.v.d. Born: "De Wijsheld van de
Prediker", A.H. Edelkoort: "De Christus Verwachting van het
O.T.", S.G. de Graaf: "Verbondsgeschiedenis I & II" ; in
addition there is a handbook by L. V. Andel, an abundance of material in Kittel's
T.W.N.T. and finally in the works of K. Schilder.
V. The Homiletical Side of the Problem
We have already stated a couple of times that
'application' is not attacked by the history-of-redemption method. We should go
into this matter a little more. There seems to be some pre-apprehensions that this kind
of preaching is too intellectual or theoretical. Now I think that we ought to make a
distinction here. A possible lack of application by young preachers is certainly not
evidence of a wrong method but of an understandable lack of experience which is excusable
since he is not yet fully acquainted with the whole of reality.
On the other hand many church members testify that
this method has given them a more accurate view of the scriptures. I have met many people
who at first thought that the preaching was too cold and abstract but later on honestly
confessed that by this kind of preaching they had received great comfort and were more
convinced in their faith.
Furthermore we will have to ask ourselves if this
criticism has the proper motifs. People ask for 'warmth', 'something to live
by'. That sounds very nice but quite often it is nothing else than a narrowing down
of the contents of scripture reducing it to the theme 'God and soul.' There are
many church members who find no 'warmth' in a sermon about the church, nor do
they think that a sermon about the progress of the kingdom is very practical. Of course
it should be something to live by but then only that of which God says we should live by
and not that which we just happen to think will do us some good. The taste of the church
people does not always correspond to God's Law which is sometimes very narrow but
quite often much broader.
Everything that God has revealed is of practical
concern for us. Kuyper was very angry with the ministers who dealt over and over again
with some obvious, and matter of course parts of the truth. These they presented to the
congregations with a kindhearted speech approaching their material first through one text
and then through another. It is something different to preach the whole Word of God. Nor
is it every man's task to make clear to others the whole history of redemption from
creation through the book of Revelation, in the whole of its context and to understand
and teach it in its mystical sense, and in its symbolic and spiritual sense. An incident
from the life of a patriarch or a part of David's hardships, or the struggles of
God's prophets should not be presented to the congregation as a scene in itself.
Otherwise we could just as well take any person out of history about whom we happen to
know many interesting facts, and to whose words and actions we could apply the same
remarks.
No, rather all these facts and events in holy
history should be seen as parts of one whole, as pieces of the great work of God's
revelation. These things must be seen as parts of history set aside to show how God
worked through these men for the future of His church and for the revelation of His work
of grace to the glorification of His name.
We have to be very careful with the
'subject-object' scheme. These terms are used here in the current significant
sense. We have to see that the 'objective subjective' dilemma is not acceptable
for preaching. For in both cases men reduce preaching to dealing with the loci and the
struggle then is with a number of loci. In such a case the question becomes whether the
'locus de salute' must be dealt with in every sermon. But dealing with loci is no
preaching and neither will it be by means of a shot of
'salute.'
A few examples rather than a long story will show
that salvation-history preaching does not exclude the application. First of all I think
about Luke 24; the men on the road to Emmaus are reproached by Jesus for their unbelief
and slowness of heart in regard to all that was said in the scriptures. They are very
depressed on this first Easter day. Then Jesus teaches them to understand scripture. He
explained what was written concerning himself. This teaching of Jesus is a summary of the
O.T. but it is Christocentric and that makes them say 'Stay with us.' This has
caused many exegetical errors. They were asking the unknown Lord this question. This
evening is often devotionally allegorized so as to mean all evenings in life but to do
this is to emasculate the text. It is nothing more than that this Christocentric
preaching set their hearts aflame and their hunger for more was awakened in
them.
A second example is a scripture passage to which Mr.
Beyse drew my attention. In his discussion of Acts 13 he pointed out that Paul preached
in the synagogue in a historical redemptive way with the result that the heathen asked
him to preach the same sermon on the following Sabbath when it was attended by almost all
the people in the city, provoking the Jews. So this preaching surely attracts. And also
this preaching certainly brings on the crisis.
Now concerning the application, I would like to
refer to what Rev. C. Veenhof said at a speech at a rally of the Geref. Mannen Bond (the
League of Reformed Men's Societies) which is full of quotations from Kuyper and
therefore very valuable. "I would say that as far as I can see the explication -
application scheme should be rejected because the matter of a subjective - objective is
involved and because the character of the Word of God and the preaching is intentionally
obscured. It seems more correct to me to see what is called application as a
concretization of the text content for the congregation here and now. The whole sermon is
explication then from A to Z but also applicatorily directed even from the first sentence
and thus it remains the service of the Word".
Another matter that we have to deal with in a
broader view is the question of the personal element in the preaching. At this point we
come in direct contact with the problem of
'collectivism-individualism'.
Some quotations to begin with. Prof. Ridderbos
wrote, "In general we can say that with the replacement of the Old dispensation by
the New, personal life came more to the fore. The covenant made with Israel had a
national character and although the believers had a personal faith life which was vital
as for example the psalms clearly indicate, and furthermore even though the N.T.
considers the believer not an isolated entity but as members of the covenant, that is
especially as members of the Body of Christ, yet it does not eliminate the fact that the
N.T. speaks much more to and concerning the believers than the O.T. Dr. C. N. Impeta, who
agrees with these words, refers to Barthimeas, Zacheus, and the parable of the lost
sheep. Prof. Grosholde presented an article about 'Enkeling en Gemeenschap.' He
fears that there is worldly influence when the covenant is emphasized. That is not only
the result of worldliness although it surely has a wrong influence. It can also be that
the church undergoes the influence of the world unawares. Grosheide sees it in this way:
for 40 years individualism was almighty in the world but in the present time a different
spirit moves through the world. The individual person is of very little importance. He
has to give way for the country and the people.
And we see again the consequences in the Church.
There is much less pressure for conversions, only an insistence to live by the covenant.
They place the covenant of grace in the center and focus all things from this vantage
point. But the insistence on personal conversion is hardly ever found.
Apparently some are of the opinion that those using
the heilsgeschichtlich method run the risk that they do not keep themselves unspotted
from the world. However I doubt this. As far as I can judge it seems to me that the
proponents of this method are very energetic to combat the spirit of the world. Among
other things, it appears that here they simply discuss the whole problem of collectivism
- individualism as worldly. Grosheide rightly notes concerning this that the world swings
continually from the one pole to the other. That cannot be otherwise because there
appears to be a relationship of tension between the individual and the community. This
problematic has been continuously imported into theology. Frequently it is represented
that the O.T. is collectively oriented while the N.T. has a strong measure of
individualistic tendencies. One meets with this construction, e.g., in the otherwise fine
study of F. Baumgarter concerning the character of O.T. piety. But we must reject this
construction of tension with regard to the Bible unconditionally. There is no indication
that we would meet with this disjointedness in the relation between the community and the
individual in the Bible. Above all, theology has recently purified and deepened our
insight in this respect. So J. Harrmann, e.g., writes in an article dealing with prayer
in the O.T.,
"die Frommigkeit des einzelen Israeliten immer eingebetten
gewesen ist in sein Bewusstsein, dem Bundesvolk anzugehoren, und der Einzelne hat mit
seinem individuellen Glauben an dem Glauben der Religions und Voksgemeinschaft
teilgenemmen, als deren Glied er des seinem Volke geschenkten Gottesverhaltnisses auch
fur seine Person teilhaftig wird. Immer wider machen wir darum im A.T. die Erfahrung,
dass der Beter als Glied des Jahwevolkes betet. Auch das Gebetsleben, wie das sonstige
Glaubensleben, des israeliten ist nicht sowehl durch die Beziehung Israeliten zu
Jahwe…"
Note also in this connection the comments of
Eichrodt and Hempel on the problem of individualism and collectivism.
It is my concern that the biblical relationship is
properly understood. Proceeding from the heilsgeschichtlich method naturally does not
deny that even on this point there has been development in revelation. This problem of
progress is present in the case of the church (first interwoven with the patriarchal
family, then bound to the life of the Israelite state and the cultic center in Jerusalem,
and finally expressly in the community at Pentecost). The same progress is also present
in proper connection in regard to the place of the individual in the community. I
therefore believe we may say that the light of the N.T. on both is fuller and richer, and
therefore these two are more sharply differentiated for us. Nevertheless, it seems to me
that it is unproven and unprovable that the N.T., would indicate a structural difference
in comparison with the O.T. Furthermore, I do not think the emphasis is here actually
placed differently.
The proofs which Dr. Impeta gives rather indicate
the contrary. The N.T. always views the individual as a member of the community.
Meanwhile, one may not forget that Christ, with complete personal healing, continues to
intend to stir the multitudes to faith. Moreover, if I consider Rom. 11 (trunk and
branches), 1 Cor. 12 (head and members), the church as the body of Christ in the Ephesian
epistle, and the rigorous personal admonitions which Paul in Rom. 12:1-8 gives in the
framework of the church community, then I cannot even discover a difference in emphasis
between the O.T. and the N.T. In my opinion, Ridderbos stated correctly in 1922, "If
it is true that for a sound development of the life of faith a knowledge of the spiritual
community as it is realized in the church is indispensable then it is certain that the
rich development of the communal life as it in presented in the O.T. possesses a very
special significance for Christian proclamation." The opposition from the
heilsgeschichtlich method is never directed toward application as such nor toward a
personal element in proclamation. It would only free the application and the personal
element from a scheme on which the Scripture does not rely.
Why should a heilsgeschichtlich sermon result in the
loss of an application through seeking the particularity of the text? Why should the
personal element be repressed? I recall what Herrmann said concerning the significance of
ethnic history for one's personal prayer life. I can point to a statement by
Ridderbos that an insight in the historical course of revelation "is of great
significance for an understanding of God's direction in relation to one's
personal life also." The applicatory and personal elements attested by
Heilsgeschichte in Ps. 66, which is classified by Eichredt as liturgy for an individual
votive offering, is splendid. This Psalm connects the personal experiences with those of
the whole of Israel and derives solace precisely from the
Heilsgeschichte.
One can indeed say that the application here becomes
somewhat more difficult (one must not, however, exaggerate this) because he takes account
of the historical difference. With regard to the method of this application, each can
profit from Moller's pointers. He indicates that we should take account of (a) the
"schon" of the O.T. revelation, (b) the "noch nicht" of the N.T.
fulfilment in the O.T.,(c) the "nicht mehr" of the O.T. shadow in the N.T., and
(d) the "noch immer" of the O.T. in the N.T.
This method produces good results. In Ps. 32, e.g.
(the benefit of the forgiveness of sins) one comes to the conclusion that that this
invariably obtains in the N.T.; after the sacrifice of Jesus Christ this Psalm receives a
still stronger accent through the method of "how much more" (technically, kal
wahomer or "light and heavy"). It is a different case, e.g., with Ps. 84 (the
longing for the courts of the Lord). Perhaps even here the difference between
exemplaristic and heilsgeschichtlichapplication can be clearly shown. The exemplaristic
application is "We must also experience that longing. Do you feel it now?" But
the one who interprets it by the heilsgeschichtlich method says, "The poet is a man
of great misery." He is acquainted with the temple as God's cultic place; but he
can come only rarely into the courts; he cannot live and work within the temple walls,
and this makes him envious of the sparrows and swallows.
But this misery is done away with in Christ. Through
him the place of worship is now established everywhere; life and work are now permanently
bound to the temple. We are admitted not only to the courts, but to the holy of holies.
Then the application becomes, "How immensely rich we are since Pentecost. Then there
is call for the admonition, "How shall we escape if we neglect so great a
salvation?" Unfaithfulness in church attendance can then be much more harshly
reprimanded.
For that matter, that same historical difference
must be reckoned with in material from the N.T. I am thinking of Thomas. The
exemplaristlc application is, "We have also our doubts, we are also freed by
Christ." But in the heilsgeschichtliche method one puts things differently and I
mean by this better. One then asks about the background of his doubt. This is not to
psychologize. Has it been melancholy, or intellectualism, or is it bound up with his
struggling valorous nature? To be sure, the Bible itself gives several pointers. Thomas
did not believe the resurrection (John 11:16), and this was connected with the fact that
he as yet did not know that Christ was the Son, God manifest in the flesh (following John
14:5ff). Now Christ brings Thomas to confidence in the resurrection, and thus to the
confession, "My Lord and my God!" This however, he does for our sake since the
church was "built upon the foundation of the apostles." This means on the
foundation of Thomas as well. Christ intends hereby to make possible our Easter
confession, with confidence and personally.
No longer does he accomplish this through an
appearance as with Thomas, but through the apostolic preaching. Therefore it is written,
"Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." Thomas is
blessed, "Blessed are the eyes which see the things that you see." But more
blessed are they who have no more need to see. This grows out of the application
concerning Christ's current mode of revelation not through an Easter appearance, but
through a proclamation of Easter. And following the proclamation, each must say for
himself, "My Lord and my God."
Finally, we must keep in mind the fact that whoever
follows this method is encircled by perils. That is not due to the method, but our
weakness. I will mention some who, to speak accurately, deceive us through the
application. For whoever makes an application draws a parallel between then and now. Here
in lies the peril:
1. Strained Parallelism --
one forces each text into a predetermined mold. This danger I consider relatively slight.
Not when one points in each case to the cross or the incarnation. Then one does not elude
schematism. But whenever one views "Christ" as a description of the fullness of
God's revelation and exegetes exclusively organically-synthetically, he courts this
danger. One seldom starts with the presupposition, "Here is a revelation of Christ,
but what is here said concerning him must yet be determined."
2. Much more serious is the
capricious parallelism of allegory. Even with the examplaristic method this danger is not
overcome (vide supra). Because of the fact that exegesis is exclusively of that which is
written, one must confine himself to the historical meaning, which also has a prophetic
perspective and can say more than the writer himself was aware; but the prophetic
perspective lies always in the continuity of the historical sense, and can never come
into conflict therewith. I believe that we see the folly of Vischer's allusion to the
eucharist when Melchizedek offered Abraham " bread and wine." Hellbardt is
equally arbitrary when he reaches the conclusion that the church can scarcely conquer as
long as it remains in the area of promise from the notice that Abraham pursued
Chedorlaomer to Dan, the later northern boundary of Israel and presumes to prove that
from the fact that the biblical writer does not select the geographic name Laish, but the
"spiritual name" Dan. Even in the writings of my own school of thought there
are scores of examples to be seen (which is connected with what was above called the
Philenic movement of history -- according to the ordo salutic). None in this day and age
will again find in the meeting between Isaac and Rebecca that the "soul" finds
"its Jesus."
Nevertheless such a one as DeGraaf is very close
when he says, " Just as Christ called Rebeca, so shall he call all who belong to him
to be incorporated with him. In this the particularity of Rebecca's call is
overlooked, and the historical setting is neglected. The Scriptures do not engage in this
manner of allegorizing. not even in Gal. 4 or in Revelation. We must be fully conscious
of the danger of "Alexandrianism."
3. Then there is the peril
of impure parallelism through association, i.e. one through incidental details leaps to
something completely different, "When I think of Jacob and his wrestling by night,
as a matter of course I think of Jesus and his wrestling by night at the Kidron." We
come across such frequently in Vischer. I read somewhere in De Graaf, "We must all
wage the same battles as Ishmael, when we must recall that our life lies not in ourselves
but in Christ." He thus draws a parallel between Ishmael-lsaac and us-Christ. But
Paul's train of thought in Gal. 4 seems better -- the struggle between those who are
born after the flesh and those who are born after the Spirit.
4. The danger of levelling
parallelism. By this I mean that the parallel as such is pure, but that one negates the
historical utterance or even forgets to indicate the points of change. One runs across
this frequently in De Graaf when Abraham or someone else is compared to Christ. But the
inner connection, the historical development, is not completely indicated; and therefore
it is unsatisfactory. Then one actually places a text from the N.T. alongside a notice
from the O.T. and simply posits a likeness between them.
Thus the difficulties are still great, but, on the
other hand, through mutual effort we can indeed overcome. There are stacks of writings in
libraries, and there is also some very significant material sitting unused on shelves in
some study or other. Whenever we can be of service to one another, there is a great deal
that may be gained. Above all else, because we have the promise that the Spirit will open
the eyes of our understandings.
I. The Relevance of the Problem
II. Misunderstandings About the Problem
III. Attempt at Setting Up the Problem with Precision
IV. The Hermeneutical Side of the Problem
V. The Homiletical Side of the Problem
1. Strained Parallelism
2. Much more serious is the capricious parallelism of
allegory
3. Then there is the peril of impure parallelism
through association
4. The danger of leveling parallelism
Footnotes
(1.) Ridderbos, J. in "Schild en
Pijl" #8, Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1922.
(2.) De Heraut, Jan, 25, '42
(#3339)
(3.) Ibid, March '42 (#3348)
(4.) H.
Schreiner, Das A.T. In Der Verkundigung, Scherin (Meckl.) 1937, page
13,18.
(5.) cited by Mellar, Bibl.Theol. Das
A.T.Zwiken (Sachseg) 1938. [ ed. note ( unreadable original copy)]
(6.) Geref. Mannenblad, #4, April
'40.
(7.) Heraut, December 14.
'41.
(8.) "May unfold
a different depth and a different meaning, depending on the conditions and questions of
the hearer".
(9.) If the researcher is
an unbeliever or if he treats his material as something lifeless, then the theological
task has neither been understood nor fulfilled."
©2008 SpindleWorks All Rights Reserved.
Please Note:SpindleWorks does not have any official connection to any Reformed Churches
or organizations.
Content is the sole responsibility of the site maintainer
This web-site is designed and maintained by KraftWerk Digital
|
