IS.Chapter2.docx

CHAPTER TWO SCRIPTURE AS THE WORD OF GOD 1. THE MEANING OF SCRIPTURE AS THE WORD OF GOD THE dogmaticians unreservedly and unequivocally call Scripture the Word of God. To them it is the ‘vox Dei, 1 the ‘vox et verbum Dei,’ 2 ‘das rechte reine Wort Gottes,’ 3 ‘ipsissum Dei verbum’ 4 Scripture is the...

CHAPTER TWO SCRIPTURE AS THE WORD OF GOD 1. THE MEANING OF SCRIPTURE AS THE WORD OF GOD THE dogmaticians unreservedly and unequivocally call Scripture the Word of God. To them it is the ‘vox Dei, 1 the ‘vox et verbum Dei,’ 2 ‘das rechte reine Wort Gottes,’ 3 ‘ipsissum Dei verbum’ 4 Scripture is the Word of God because God speaks to us in Scripture. Scripture is God speaking. ‘The Holy Spirit speaks to us in and through Scripture, and so we must look for the Word and will of the Holy Spirit in these words of Scripture.’ 5 Scripture is the Word of God because its author is not a number of men, but very God. ‘God is the supreme author of Scripture.’ 6 The Scriptures have been delivered to us from the very hand of God. Commenting on Rom. 3. 2, Aegidius Hunnius 7 says, ‘And so we regard that volume of prophetic writing as having originated for our sake from the hand of God and from His heavenly mansions.’ The writers themselves speak of God as the author of their writings.8 To the dogmaticians Scripture was an ‘epistola coelestis,’ a letter sent us from our Father in heaven, instructing us concerning His essence and will.9 Gerhard 10 offers a definition of Scripture which is typical: ‘Holy Scripture is the Word of God, reduced to writing according to His will by the evangelists and apostles, revealing perfectly and clearly the teaching of God’s nature and will, in order that men might be instructed from it unto life everlasting.’ There is, therefore, no real difference between Scripture and God’s Word.1 And, in a certain sense, the Word of God can be found only in Scripture today, for all our proclamation and doctrine must be based upon Scripture alone.2 2. THE MATERIA AND FORMA OF SCRIPTURE The meaning of the old dogmaticians’ conception of Scripture as the Word of God is brought out most clearly in their discussion concerning the so-called forma and materia of Scripture. The terminology of the dogmaticians as touching the materia and forma of Scripture differs slightly and at times becomes quite involved, especially among the later dogmaticians. The materia of Scripture is either ex qua or circa quam. The materia ex qua of Scripture is the letters, syllables, words and phrases which go together to constitute Scripture. In this sense Scripture differs in no way from any other book. The materia circa quam of Scripture is specifically the doctrines and precepts contained in the Bible and in general everything which is contained in Scripture. The forma is either external or internal. The external forma is the idiom and style of writing. The internal forma of Scripture is its inspired meaning, the thoughts of the divine mind concerning divine mysteries, thoughts which were conceived in eternity for our salvation, revealed in time and communicated to us in Scripture. The forma, therefore, which is its inspiration, or inspired sense, is that which makes Scripture what it is, namely, the Word of God, and is that which distinguishes Scripture from all other books.3 In his characteristic way Quenstedt defines his position in unmistakable terms. He says,1 ‘We must distinguish between the grammatical and outer meaning of the divine Word and the spiritual, inner and divine meaning of the divine Word. The former is the forma of the Word of God in so far as it is a word, the latter is its forma in so far as it is a divine Word. The former can be grasped even by any unregenerate man, the latter, however, cannot be received except by a mind which has been enlightened.’ 2 The dogmaticians, therefore, when they speak of Scripture as the Word of God, are thinking primarily of the divine meaning, the inspired content, of Scripture. This fact is brought out by a statement of Gerhard’s.3 ‘By the term Scripture,’ he says, ‘we do not mean the outer form or sign, that is, the particular letters, the act of writing and the words with which the divine revelation has been written down, so much as the matter itself and the thing signified, as that which is meant and designated by the writing, namely, the Word of God which informs us about His essence and will. Some people have expressed it this way: the Word of God may be viewed essentially as the very thoughts which God expresses, or non-essentially and accidentally as preaching and writing. That is to say, as in every writing brought about by an intelligent and rational agent, so also in the prophetic and apostolic Scripture two things should be borne in mind, first the letters, syllables and words which are written and are outer symbols indicating and expressing the ideas of the mind; second the thoughts themselves, which are the things signified, expressed with the symbols of letters, syllables and words. Accordingly, in the term Scripture we include both of these, but especially the latter.’1 The later dogmaticians are even more explicit. They not only say that it is the forma of Scripture which makes Scripture what it is, namely, the Word of God, but go so far as to say that only the forma of Scripture can rightly be called the Word of God. Calov,2 for instance, says that in a discussion regarding the Word of God he is not speaking about the material principle, the letters and words etc., but about the formal principle, the divine content expressed by the letters and words. The so-called material principle of Scripture can be called the Word of God only improperly and in a significative sense. The formal principle of Scripture, however, is properly called the Word of God because it is the wisdom of God and the counsel of God, the divine meaning of those things which are revealed to us in Scripture.3 The dogmaticians therefore, when they identify Scripture as the Word of God, are speaking of the inspired content of Scripture, if they are speaking properly. This is a fact which is by no means insignificant and one which has not been sufficiently brought out by those who have offered expositions of the old dogmaticians’ tenets. Viewed in reference to its inspired and intrinsic content, Scripture is never uninspired. It is the Word of God; it does not, and in the nature of the case cannot, become the Word of God.4 It does not become the Word of God when the Church recognizes it as such or when God acts upon a person to accept it as such. Just as the letter of a friend expresses his views, so the Scriptures present at all times God’s plan concerning our salvation. God is speaking, always speaking, to us in Scripture. God does not speak to us immediately today, but only through His Word as it is contained in Scripture.1 3. THE UNITY OF THE WORD OF GOD In keeping with this doctrine that the forma of Scripture makes it the Word of God and gives Scripture its being the dogmaticians maintain the unity and sameness of the Word of God regardless of the mode of communication attached to it. They mean to say that the external Word of God is always the same. whether delivered to men by God viva voce, or through the mouths of angels, or through writings given by inspiration. Caesar is Caesar whether represented on a canvas or a coin. So also the Word of God whether preached by word of mouth or written remains the same. The things which pertain to faith and life are not changed when spoken about or put into writing.2 The preached and the written Word of the prophets and apostles differ only in respect of the materia, or outer mode of expression. Hence the difference between the written and the spoken Word of God is only accidental, since the manner in which the Word of God is communicated does not effect the essence of the Word in any way.1 The identity of the divine Word is indicated in certain passages of Scripture such as Phil. 3. 1: ‘Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe.’ Cf. also Acts 15. 27; 1 Jn. 1. 3, 4. The ará in this first passage designates the identity of doctrine.2 The identity of the Word of God extends also to the inner Word of God as it exists in God and to the Word as it is conceived in the mind of man and as it produces godly fruits. This is also true because there is only one Word of God.3 The so-called verbum , the Word which exists in God, is not a different Word but the same one which He has revealed to us in Scripture. Calov states: 4 ‘This Word of God [Scripture] is not understood as the hypostatic or personal Word which is the Son of God (Ps. 33. 6; Jn. 1. 1), or as the mental Word, the mental, inner thoughts of God which are and remain in God, although the Word which is in God and that which He makes known to us is the same.’ There is a Word of God which is in a sense different, in that it is hidden in Him and we cannot know it, but the nature of this Word simply cannot be probed. ‘We do not deny.’ says Calov again,5 ‘that there is a separate [diversum] Word of God, since many things lie hidden in God, but with Luther we differentiate between the hidden and the revealed God.’ The identity of the Word of God extends also to the Word as it existed in the minds of the prophets and apostles before the act of writing. Meisner calls the Word of God as it was in the minds of the writers of Scripture the invisible Word, but says it differs in no way from the visible Word written by the apostles and prophets, that is, it does not differ in substance (ratione substantiae). In this sense, he says, there is an unwritten Word of God.1 No matter how the Word of God is viewed it is the same, one identical Word of God. It may be viewed as in the mind of God, as in the minds of the prophets and apostles, as preached by the apostles and prophets, as written by these men, or as received into our hearts, but it remains the same Word of God because its meaning, its forma, is always the same.2 The insistence of the old Lutheran dogmaticians upon the identity of the Word of God is in antithesis to the Roman Catholic doctrine of unwritten tradition as the Word of God alongside Scripture, but also and especially in opposition to the opinion of Rathmann, who held that the inner Word, as he called it, which was the wisdom of God, was different from the external Word of God, which was Scripture. Rathmann taught that the inner Word of God could not be put down in writing except in a believer’s heart. Against this opinion the orthodox Lutheran theologians held that the Word of God was one and the same no matter what outer form it might happen to take. The Word was a genus and Scripture was a species of this genus. Although there were different species of this genus they did not oppose each other.3 The Word of God was one because the content of that Word was one, regardless of its outer form.1 The dogmaticians are careful to distinguish between the written Word of God and the everlasting, hypostatic Word of God, who is the second person in the Trinity, and according to his substance was begotten from all eternity. This does not mean that there is no real relationship between the written and the personal Word. The personal Word, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, may be said to be the real author of the written Word.2 Therefore when we think of the written Word (verbum ), or the hidden Word, or the Word in God (verbum ) we are to think of them only in the context of the personal Word () through whom God speaks and without whom He will neither speak nor work.3 In other words such an intimate relationship exists between the prophetic and the personal Word of God that no word of prophecy can exist apart from the personal Word. Therefore when God says, ‘Let there be light,’ He can only mean that through His Son He commands that there be light, for He speaks and commands and creates all things through His co-eternal and consubstantial Word.4 God will not speak apart from this Word, without which nothing was made.1 Furthermore, the words of God are in a certain sense not words but deeds.2 But the personal Word of God is not merely the author of the prophetic Word, He is not merely the logos through which God speaks to man; He is more than all this: He is the heart and content and meaning of the prophetic Word, He is the message and purpose of all the Scriptures.3 There was good reason why the old Lutheran dogmaticians insisted upon identifying Scripture with the Word of God. When they spoke of the Word of God they ordinarily meant Scripture. When Catholic theologians, however, spoke of the Word of God they meant not only Scripture but also what they called the unwritten Word of God, namely, tradition. Confusion was therefore caused when both parties affirmed that the Word of God was the norm of Christian doctrine. Moreover, Roman Catholic theology when speaking of Scripture understood also the apocryphal books of the Old Testament, thereby holding to the principle that the Church and not God forms the canon. The attacks of the Jesuit theologians on the clarity and sufficiency of Scripture were in fact directed also against the Lutheran doctrine of Scripture as the Word of God. Catholic theology held that Scripture was a dead letter and a wax nose without the necessary interpretation and explanation of the Church. Only when its contents were understood according to the proper understanding of the Church could Scripture be called the Word of God.4 By their insistence that Scripture was the Word of God the old Lutheran teachers also took a stand against the opinions of Rathmann, Andrew Osiander and the Schwenkfeldians, all of whom held that Scripture, properly speaking, was not the Word of God, that only Christ could properly be called the Word of God. In marked antithesis to this view the dogmaticians taught that Scripture was the Word of God, not improperly, not metonymically, but simpliciter, in fact.1 This is true because the Scriptures are called the ; they were inspired and written by men who were ( as they spoke. Through the Scriptures God speaks to us (Lk. 1. 7; 2 Sam. 23. 2). The words which the apostles spoke were to be regarded as the words of God (1 Thess. 2. 13). Scripture is the living Word of God (1 Pet. 1. 23) which works faith unto life eternal (Rom. 10. 17) and regenerates and creates spiritual life (Jas. 1. 18). This in no way controverts the fact that Christ is called the Word of God. There exist simply two significations of the Word . Christ is the author of the written Word, therefore denotes either the hypostatic or the prophetic Word as it occurs in Scripture, but never something between the two.2 Nor can one disclaim the proposition that Scripture is the Word of God by saying that its words and phrases etc. merely indicate the divine meaning of Scripture which alone can be called the Word of God. The letters and words of Scripture not only signify the inspired content of the Scriptures but actually impart this divine meaning and therefore cannot be separated from it.3 It should be said at this point that the terms materia and forma as they are handled by the dogmaticians are not merely scholastic and unnecessary jargon. These terms become important implements in their discussion of the inspiration and also the properties of Scripture. We cannot understand their views regarding these matters unless we know at all times whether they are talking about the materia or the forma of Scripture. The ideas behind such terminology have prevailed down to the present day, even in liberal Lutheran circles. This fact is clearly brought out by the use of the phrase ‘content and fitting word’ as it occurs in the ‘Pittsburgh Agreement’ of the United Lutheran Church in America and the American Lutheran Church, Church bodies which have not hesitated to condemn the scholasticism of the old Lutheran dogmaticians. One more thing should be mentioned at this point. From what has been said it is obvious that the dogmaticians do not equate Scripture and the Word of God. Scripture is the Word of God, but the Word of God is not Scripture. To represent their position as if they had narrowed the Word of God down to the point where it could be equated with Scripture does violence to their doctrine of Scripture and the Word of God and results in a caricature of their position.1 It is basic in this connection to bear in mind that the old Lutheran teachers do not restrict the forma of Scripture to Scripture alone. It is true that the dogmaticians say that after the time of the apostles there was no Word of God except Scripture.2 By this they mean, in antithesis to the Catholics and enthusiasts, that there is today no inerrant, inspired and normative Word of God apart from and in addition to Scripture. They certainly never denied that preaching was the Word of God when and because it agreed with Scripture.3 4. THE NECESSITY OF SCRIPTURE Are the Scriptures necessary for the Church today? Why were the Scriptures written? These questions, which are really only one question, are considered by the dogmaticians in opposition to the Roman Catholic theologians of their day who, in the interest of the supremacy of the Church, denied that there was any simple necessity of the Scriptures. The dogmaticians point out first of all that Scripture is not absolutely necessary for the Church; the Church could exist without the Scriptures. God cared for His Church and saving doctrine was preserved for millenniums before Scripture was recordedc1 But it pleased God to inspire the writing of His Word as a means of revealing himself, and God does not indicate that He wishes to make use of any other method of revealing Himself and His will today (Lk. 16. 29; 2 Tim. 3. 15-17; 1 Pet. 1. 19).2 As possible causes which induced God to cease proclaiming His Word viva voce and to record it in writing the following are listed: the brevity of human life after the days of the patriarchs, the diffusion of the human race and of the Church, the weakness of the human memory, the possibility of doctrinal corruption while people were taught viva voce, the need for a norm in defending the pure doctrine against heretics, and the wickedness of all men and their need for a fixed source of doctrine. All these possible causes lie in man. In God the cause lies in His benevolence and mercy toward fallen mankind. Quenstedt 3 lists a fourfold use of Scripture as evidence that it is necessary for the Church: (1) Scripture is the means whereby we distinguish true from false doctrine; (2) through the promises and fulfilments of the Messiah contained in Scripture we are brought to faith in Christ by means of Scripture; (3) the promises in Scripture strengthen and confirm our faith (Phil, 3. 1); (4) through Scripture the heathen also are called and saved. Gerhard holds that the usefulness of Scripture predicates its necessity— not its absolute necessity, to be sure, but its hypothetical necessity, due to the sinfulness of man. He says: 4 ‘No Christian can deny that the holy Scriptures are useful since the apostle says so in no uncertain words (2 Tim. 3. 16). Now the Scriptures inform us of things unknown naturally, as is clear from the doctrine of the Gospel; they preserve purity of doctrine against error and corruption (Matt. 22. 39); they keep us in assurance (Lk. 1. 3; 2 Pet. 1. 19); and I may say they are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, which is the reason we are invited to read them with diligence and devotion (Jn. 5. 39; 1 Tim. 4. 13; 2 Tim. 3. 15). This leads us to the question, whether with their usefulness there is not also a certain necessity joined on account of which God wants the Scriptures in the Church.’ Calov asserts that it was the ‘Scripture-hating papists’ who made imperative the discussion of the necessity of Scripture.1 Pure doctrine can be maintained by means of tradition without the aid of Scripture, they said.2 Like Gerhard, Calov wishes to uphold only the hypothetical necessity of Scripture. Whatever God in His wisdom and love has ordained to give His Church is for this very reason necessary. Far from being a cause of heresies, as the papacy asserts, Scripture is a powerful means of preserving us in the pure doctrine,3 and this in itself is proof of its hypothetical necessity. The purpose of Scripture, which is our faith and salvation, presupposes its necessity. Calov is quick to point out that not all Catholic theologians denied the necessity of Scripture. He remarks that the whole controversy arose because the Catholics and Lutherans did not agree on terms, the Lutherans speaking for the hypothetical, the Catholics against the simple necessity of Scripture.