by Richard Barcellos | Mar 31, 2011 | Hermeneutics, Historical Theology
Part 1. Intro.
Part 2. Patristics
Part 3. Patristics
4. EXCURSUS: The Hermeneutical Task of the Second-Century Church
At this point in Dockery’s discussion of second-century hermeneutics, he makes this monumental observation:
In a very basic way, the hermeneutical task facing the second-century church was to show the continuity of the Old Testament with the New Testament or, put another way, how the Old Testament could remain the church’s Bible. Galatians, Colossians, John, 1 John, and 1 Peter especially evidence the struggles of the early Christians. During the second century, and especially in the latter half of that century, the rise of heresies became so wide-spread that they provoked in the church at large a reaction that was to be of enormous significance for the history of Christian thought and Christian hermeneutics.[1]
Dockery claims that a hermeneutical shift took place in order to justify the Old Testament as Christian Scripture. Gerald Bray seems to agree with Dockery, when he says:
Patristic biblical exegesis grew up at a time when the church was faced with a number of crucial problems which it needed to solve, and interpretation of the Bible played a key role in this. The main issues confronting the fathers of the church can be set out as follows.
- It was necessary for them to distinguish Christianity from Judaism. The early church had to explain why it rejected Judaism, without abandoning the Jewish Scriptures. At one extreme were people such as Marcion, who wanted to reject the Jewish heritage altogether, but found that this was practically impossible. At the other were people such as Tertullian, for whom Christianity was a more thorough-going legalism than anything the Jews had attempted. The mainline Christian church could accept neither of the positions, but it had to find a viable interpretation of the Old Testament as Christian Scripture. This task was such a top priority throughout this period that the history of exegesis can very largely be written in terms of it alone.[2]
As will be seen below, a shift took place in the early church in terms of hermeneutical method and goal. The shift was from a moralistic method (i.e., functional hermeneutic) to an apologetic method centering on how the Old Testament can be viewed as a Christian document. What materialized was a sort of mini-pendulum action. On the one hand, there was a tendency toward allegory (the school of Alexandria and later the Middles ages [see subsequent posts]) and, on the other, a tendency toward typology (the school of Antioch and later the Reformation and, especially, the post-Reformation Reformed orthodox [see subsequent posts]). Both allegory and typology had as their primary purpose the Christianization of the Old Testament, though differing in their method in reaching that end.[3]
[1] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 55.
[2] Gerald Bray, Biblical Interpretation: Past & Present (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 95. Emphases added. This is a claim of mammoth proportions and, I think, helps explain the history of Christian hermeneutics.
[3] Cf. Dennis E. Johnson, Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from All the Scriptures (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2007), 100ff. for a similar assessment.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by Richard Barcellos | Mar 29, 2011 | Ecclesiology, Historical Theology, New Testament, Sacraments
Our Confessional and Catechetical Formulation of the Lord’s Supper as Means of Grace
Introduction: The confessional formulation of the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper as means of grace is not based on one biblical text, but upon a complex of texts and doctrines that are all interrelated. The confessional formulation is based on at least the following:
- 1) the accounts in the Gospels of the institution of the Lord’s Supper by Christ prior to his exaltation;
- 2) the words of the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, which are post-ascension, inspired, explanatory applications of the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper as instituted by Christ during his humiliation;
- 3) the grace of faith and how it grows and develops more and more into Christ-likeness through the use of means;
- 4) union with Christ, or what Gaffin calls existential union, effected by faith and brought to souls by the Holy Spirit;
- 5) the ministry of the Holy Spirit in relation to the exalted Redeemer in bringing mediatorial, redemptive benefits to the souls of believers.
We will look briefly at our Confession (1677/89) and then the Baptist Catechism of 1693. I view the Catechism as a practical mechanism through which the doctrine of the Confession was taught. Theological formulation came first (the Confession) and then practical reflection (the Catechism).
2nd LCF (1677/89)
a. 30:1 The supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by him the same night wherein he was betrayed, to be observed in his churches to the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance, and shewing forth the sacrifice in his death, confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof, their spiritual nourishment and growth in him, their further engagement in, and to all duties which they owe to him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other.
Three observations:
1) The supper confirms the faith of believers in the benefits of Christ’s death. The Supper tells everyone who has faith in Christ, “All that He is for sinners, He is for you!”
2) The supper is a means through which spiritual nourishment and growth in Christ occurs. This is the language of means of grace. Something happens during the Supper that alters our souls for the better. “…spiritual nourishment and growth in him…”
3) The supper is a bond and pledge of communion with Christ. It is God’s bond and God’s pledge to us.
b. 30:7 Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
Two observations:
1) Worthy receivers spiritually receive and feed upon Christ and the benefits of His death in the Supper. There is some sort of spiritual transaction that takes place during the Supper.
2) The body and blood of Christ are spiritually present to the faith of believers in the supper. Here I take “body and blood” as the benefits coming to us as a result of Christ’s death for us. Excursus: Q: How do the benefits of Christ’s death come to us? A: The benefits of Christ’s death come to us through the human instrumentality of faith in Christ (union with Christ) and through the divine instrumentality of the ministry of the Holy Spirit.
The Baptist Catechism (1693)
a. Q.94. What are the outward means, by which Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption?
A. The outward and ordinary means, by which Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption, are his ordinances, especially the Word of God, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and prayer; all which means are made effectual to the elect for salvation.
Two observations:
1) The Lord’s Supper is identified as an outward and ordinary means of grace.
2) Christ communicates the benefits of redemption during the Lord’s Supper. The grace that is communicated during the Lord’s Supper is purchased grace, redemptive grace, grace from the exalted Mediator to the souls of men. This means that in the Supper we receive something from Christ. There’s communion going on, sharing going on between Christ and His people during the Supper.
b. Q. 97. How do baptism and the Lord’s Supper become effectual means of salvation?
A. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper become effectual means of salvation, not for any virtue in them, or in him that does administer them, but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of the Spirit in those that by faith receive them.
Two observations:
1) The sacraments do not work ex opera operato.
2) Christ blesses them and the Holy Spirit works grace into the souls of believers.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by Richard Barcellos | Mar 24, 2011 | Hermeneutics
In one sense, believing the Bible contains its own hermeneutic is other-planetly. It is pre-critical, pre-enlightenment, neither modern nor post-modern. The Endarkenment (:-)) brought with its rationalism a hermeneutical revolution that humanized the Bible and made it like any other book. However, it is not like any other book, at least in one very crucial sense – behind its various human authors is one divine author. So when the Bible interprets the Bible it is doing so infallibly and, as a result, establishing infallible principles of interpretation revealed by God himself! The only infallible interpreter of the Holy Scripture is the Holy Spirit in the Holy Scripture – so said John Owen. When the Bible comments upon itself (which it does in various ways in both testaments), we need to listen and emulate its methods. There is intertextuality occuring in both testaments. There are various allusions throughout Scripture to itself. These things are so because of divine authorship, something an Enlightenement-tainted hermeneutic does not take into account, at least not properly.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by Richard Barcellos | Mar 18, 2011 | Apologetics, Audio/Video, Books, Current Events, Ecclesiology, Hermeneutics, Historical Theology, Interviews, Soteriology
Listen to Paul Edwards interview Martin Bashir here. I highly recommend it! Bashir is the one who bashed a Bell recently. 🙂
Here are my thoughts. The quotes utilize the dynamic equivalence theory. 🙂
Bashir says the book is evasive, disingenuous, and historically inaccurate. Bell selectively quotes Luther and uses him out of context. He does that repeatedly with historical and biblical texts. Bashir slams Bell’s method.
“Bashir knows more about historic Christianity than Rob Bell,” Paul Edwards. I agree with Paul. 🙂
Bashir is really sharp. He was born into a Muslim family. He says that Christianity will offend any culture it goes to at some point.
The book is “…the psychological out-workings of a young man… and I am sympathetic with that.” “He is a victim of his own experience, as we all are to a point.”
“Any theological position that can’t be questioned is not worth following.” This includes Islam.
He nails the emergent movement as a youth movement away from historic Christian theology and practice. “If the church has been so backwards and out of touch with culture, how has it survived?” Amen!
“If I start rapping and dressing and talking like a 15 year-old as a parent, it won’t work.” Amen!
Bashir says he does attend Keller’s church, married to a Christian woman, and is a committed Christian. Amen!
“My personal faith was entirely irrelevant in that interview.” Well, I’m not so sure of that.
He is very sharp and easy to listen to.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by Richard Barcellos | Mar 17, 2011 | New Testament
We will discuss two issues concerning this phrase: its syntactical function and its meaning. The syntactical function of this prepositional phrase is disputed. Does it modify something antecedent to it or subsequent to it? The ASV (1901), KJV, and NKJV connect it with something in v. 4. The ESV, NAU, and NIV connect it with the participle “having predestined” of v. 5. There are three views. Some take it as qualifying the main verb of v. 4 “He chose”. “He chose us…in love.” “…God’s choice is born in God’s love…”[1] Others take it as qualifying the subsequent participle in v. 5 “having predestined.” “…in love having predestined us…” The third view is that is modifies the nearest antecedent it can, the infinitival clause “that we would be holy and blameless.” It would mean that God’s election has as its purpose the perfected holiness and blamelessness of the elect in His special eschatological presence “in love.” I prefer this latter view for the five reasons Hoehner states.[2] “First, within the present context the verbs and participles describing God’s actions always precede the qualifying phrases.”[3] He then lists the following for proof:
v. 3—”the one who blessed us. . . with every spiritual blessing”
v. 4—”he chose us.. . in him before the foundation of the world”
v. 5—”having predestined us. . . to adoption”
v. 6—”he bestowed grace on us. . . in the beloved”
v. 7—”we have the redemption.. . through his blood”
v. 8—”he lavished on us. . . with all wisdom and insight”
v. 9—”Having made known the mystery.. . according to his good
pleasure”
v. 9–”he purposed. . . in him”
v. 10–”to head up all things. . . in Christ”
v. 1 l–”having been predestined. . . according to his purpose”
“Second, four out of the five times Paul uses “in love” in Ephesians, it follows the clauses it modifies (Eph 4:2, 16, 16; 5:2) and is so used by Paul in other places (Col 2:2; 1 Thess 5:13; cf. also other words, 1 Tim 4:12; 2 Tim 1:13).”[4] Third, the other uses of “in love” in Ephesians (Eph 4:2, 16, 16; 5:2) all refer to human love.[5] Fourth, six other times in Ephesians the noun “love” refers to human love (1:15; 4:2, 15, 16; 5:2; 6:23). “Fifth, it is fitting to have love joined with holiness and blamelessness. They balance each other out.”[6] Hoehner concludes:
God has restored what humans lost in the fall. He is both love and holy and a person is to manifest love with holiness as a result of being elected. This will be fully realized in the future when believers will stand in God’s presence. However, if it is true that they will be holy and blameless before him in love, the purpose of God’s work in believers today is to produce holiness within them and love toward one another. That which will be perfected in the future has its necessary corollary today. Believers are to be holy and blameless before him in love, as well as before their fellow human beings in order to show God’s work and character in them. In conclusion, it seems best to see [“in love”] united to [“holy and blameless”]. Thus, God chose us that we might stand in his presence holy and blameless before Him in love.[7]
Our second question concerning this phrase is its meaning. Whose love is Paul talking about? Is it God’s love for man or man’s love for God or man’s love for God and man? It is probably best to take it as the latter for these reasons. First, the infinitival clause includes other perfected/eschatological human characteristics – holiness and blamelessness. Second, the other uses of “in love” in Ephesians (Eph 4:2, 16, 16; 5:2) all refer to human love.[8] Third, six other times in Ephesians the noun “love” refers to human love (1:15; 4:2, 15, 16; 5:2; 6:23). If this is so, then what Paul is saying is that election is unto holiness and blamelessness in the special, eschatological presence of God where there will be love exhibited for God and man like never before.
[1] Hoehner, Ephesians, 182.
[2] This is also the view of Thielman, Ephesians, 50; O’Brien, Ephesians, 101-102; Lincoln, Ephesians, 17; Hodge, Ephesians, 34-35.
[3] Hoehner, Ephesians, 184.
[4] Hoehner, Ephesians, 184.
[5] Hoehner, Ephesians, 184.
[6] Hoehner, Ephesians, 184.
[7] Hoehner, Ephesians, 184-185.
[8] Hoehner, Ephesians, 184.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
