A Firm Foundation 6

Ian, I'll try to remember to end with a super Martin Luther quote, so don't let me forget,

that's why my phone is right here. I'm not like checking my stocks, which I don't have anyway.

So, none of those.

Okay, oh thank you. Okay.

Well, our topic this morning is the clarity of Scripture.

We are, as you know, because you've all been coming faithfully in a series on Scripture,

so we take up the topic of the clarity of Scripture.

And within the Reformation tradition, that is the tradition in which we would largely see ourselves in this church,

the Reformation tradition, a belief in the clarity of Scripture,

has always been affirmed and considered important.

And rightly so, for whatever allegiance that we might give to the authority of Scripture,

it could never really function as authority in our lives,

if, due to its obscurity, its message were inaccessible or impenetrable.

I mean, we might well be ready and willing to receive and act on the directives from the high command,

but if the radio transmitter can't give us a clear signal, we're at a loss.

Are we supposed to take the bridge or sit tight and wait for air support?

You know, what are we supposed to do?

I don't know. I couldn't make it out.

Too much static, no clear reception.

Well, that will never work.

Few believers are willing to deny in principle the authority of the Bible,

but often Scriptures are functionally denied the final word

because it is alleged that its meaning is not plain.

Who's to know what it means?

The effect is to have its authority blunted,

if not altogether abrogated.

And whether its supposed lack of clarity results in a confusion

that is lamented or perhaps even convenient,

who knows?

It's intriguing that the stratagem of the serpent was to raise in the mind of Eve doubt

as to what God had said.

Did God really say?

For confusion makes defection more likely,

even seemingly legitimate.

So, clarity, it would seem,

is vital for the effective functioning of God's authority.

But is the clarity of Scripture actually sustainable?

It would seem to be a highly problematic claim.

Some would even say utterly implausible.

What? Scripture clear?

You must be joking.

So, consider first what is typically alleged

against the claim of clarity for Scripture.

So, the implausibility of clarity.

And while the presumption of the Bible's clarity

has been a functioning presupposition among the people of God,

or at least as long as they have had Bibles or their precursors,

the writings of the apostles,

it has often indeed regularly been challenged.

What have been some of the arguments or observations against clarity?

Against clarity.

So, first let's consider some of the traditional arguments.

There is, for one, what we might call the challenge of mystery.

The challenge of mystery.

That is to say that the claim of clarity fails to account

for the mysterious transcendent subject matter of Scripture.

This was Erasmus' objection against Luther.

I should have had pictures of these folks.

Erasmus is a great, we've got some great woodcuts of Erasmus.

He's always wearing an enormous hat.

Because Erasmus, his head was so tiny relative to the rest of his body,

he feared that in public,

that would make his high intelligence look unlikely.

So, he would buy these enormous stuffed hats

that would bring his head up to a normal...

I don't know why I said that.

This is completely off topic, but just an interesting historical thing.

Erasmus of Rotterdam.

And this was Erasmus' objection against Luther.

However, inevitably, parts of the Bible will be opaque

because of the very grandeur of their subject matter.

There's so alleged Erasmus.

God's ways and purposes are so exalted.

How could we hope to comprehend them?

And Erasmus appealed here to Romans 11.33 as an example.

Oh, the depths of the riches and the wisdom and the knowledge of God.

How unsearchable are his judgments.

How inscrutable his ways.

See, Luther?

Or, again, he would appeal in the same vein to Isaiah 40, verse 13.

Isaiah 40:13

Who has measured the spirit of the Lord?

Or what man shows him his counsel?

You know, these things are inaccessible to us.

The claim that we may have clarity on such matters is hubris.

Who were we to scan the bosom of the Almighty?

Why, says Erasmus, as Deuteronomy 29.29 says,

the secret of the Lord remains with the Lord.

To think we can have God unveiled, clearly disclosed before us,

is to reduce God to distorting dimensions of human comprehension.

Okay?

So, you see the force of that.

See the force of that.

So, there's the challenge from mystery.

A second would be the challenge from multiplicity.

The challenge from multiplicity.

That is, the claim of clarity fails in practice.

Given the reality of the irreducible multiplicity of all of the interpretations that we have of Scripture.

I mean, surely it's self-evident.

How can anyone have the chutzpah to claim the Scriptures are clear when nobody can agree on what they say?

This was Robert Bellarmine.

You know, the great hammer of the Reformers.

And he pointedly taunted the Reformers who claimed clarity for Scripture.

You Protestants can't even agree amongst yourselves.

Look at all of your in-house squabbles over your understanding of even just those simplest words of institution.

This is my body.

Oh, come on.

Lutherans say one thing.

The Zwinglians say another.

Calvin offers a third option.

Ah!

The profusion of interpretations is dizzying.

And who can deny that it is so?

Look at the proliferation of denominations who understand the Scriptures sufficiently differently to warrant in their minds gathering up into their own group.

And you tell me, who's the eye of Romans 7?

Or who's the man of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2?

Or what's meant by the baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15?

Or preaching to the spirits in prison in 1 Peter 3?

And we could go on, as you well know.

This is a real potent and puissant challenge.

Finally, it would seem that the claim to clarity is simply misguided.

It fails by its own criterion, as Scripture itself confesses its own obscurity.

To claim clarity for Scripture is not simply to claim more for Scripture than it does for itself.

But it is to claim what Scripture explicitly denies.

How is it that David in Psalm 119 prays for understanding?

Verse 18, open my eyes.

Verse 27, let me understand.

Verse 34, give me understanding.

Verse 73, give me understanding again.

Verse 125, give me discernment that I might understand.

Again and again and again asking, I have to be granted some discernment or else it's impossible for me to understand.

Or the disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24, they were at a loss as to how to understand the Old Testament.

Or the Ethiopian in his chariot was baffled by the Isaiahan scroll.

In Acts 8, to Philip's question, remember Philip asked him, do you understand what you were reading?

Do you remember what his answer was?

I need somebody to...

Exactly.

How can I?

Unless there's somebody to explain it to me.

How could I possibly understand?

If Scripture's meaning were clear and accessible, such would be unnecessary, surely.

And then there's Peter's clear testimony that Paul's epistles contain, quote,

some things very hard to understand.

2 Peter 3.16.

So these are some of the longstanding challenges.

And they're pretty forceful.

Pretty forceful.

And supplementing these traditional arguments that we've kind of had going on for a long time against clarity

are those of more recent pedigree, which seem merely to compound the problem

for any who would make a claim to Scripture's clarity.

So, the contemporary intensification.

Consider the challenge of what we might call the limitations of language.

The limitations of language.

The claim that Scripture is clear stumbles and falls

because the vehicle in which it's communicated, human language,

is notoriously frail and feeble.

We all know how prone language is to misconvey intended meaning.

Just ask newlyweds.

Is it not clear that communication is completely elusive?

For that matter, ask those celebrating their diamond anniversary.

Language is really easy to get garbled.

To think that clarity is a possible attribute of language is to expect more than it can deliver.

As theologian Carl Barthes expresses it,

human words need interpretation because, as such, as human words, they are ambiguous.

Not usually, of course, in the intention of those who speak,

but always for those who hear.

So, human words are always ambiguous for those who hear.

And then, when you throw in the vagaries of translation,

I mean, most of us are not reading out of the Greek or the Hebrew.

Well, how much is invariably lost?

As the Italian proverb insists,

translation is treason.

Easy for polyglots to say.

What are we supposed to do, though?

And then, there is the darker, modern claim

that assertion of clarity in language

is to suppress inherent equivocation and ambiguity.

Ambiguity.

It represents, quote, linguistic cleansing.

If you say there's just one clear meaning to this,

ah, you're a linguistic cleanser.

Akin to the ethnic cleansing of megalomaniacs

who try to cleanse races.

This is Derrida you're probably recognizing.

And reflects a neurotic fear of, quote,

the proliferation of meaning.

This is Foucault, as you probably recognize.

Are you talking about logical positivism?

No, no, no, that's another.

This is the notion that language in itself

is a playful, is a very, a playful dynamic thing.

And if we try to fix meaning of language

to one, kind of tack it down like a dead butterfly,

you killed the thing.

No, no, no, no, no.

So, there always need to be multiplicity of meanings,

a playfulness.

And if you are trying to reduce it to one

and insist that it just has one clear meaning,

you're a linguistic cleanser.

You're trying to cleanse that thing

and polish it up in a way,

which, you know, it's an evocative term.

Is it not a linguistic cleanser?

You don't want to, you know, good grief.

You know, I'd be in the party of those,

you know, that's like ethnic cleansers linguistically.

You don't want to do that.

And, you know, who wants to fear,

kind of sounds exciting, the proliferation of meaning.

Who wants to be scaredy cat about that?

Well, maybe we do.

So, yeah, it's pretty, it doesn't just cast you, really, as ignorant.

This sort of challenge casts you as an evil person.

What you're doing is dangerous.

It's dangerous to insist that language is clear.

That's what dictators employ this as a stick to beat people with,

how language is always clear.

And compounding these limitations of language

are certain realities of the reader.

Any hope for a clear apprehension by the reader

is scuttled by the inevitable subjectivity of the reception.

What we imagine to be a clarity

is nothing more than our own construal.

That's how I see it.

The meaning of any text is never simply and clearly given in the text.

It is ever only and self-servingly graven.

We make it out to what we want it to be.

This you'll recognize, you know, this is the echoes of Nietzsche.

Language is used as an instrument of power.

Power over another.

As Gadamer, the German philosopher,

extremely influential in the universities,

as Gadamer emphasizes,

are our presuppositions

and the situatedness

of our horizon as readers.

In other words, where we are,

what we're like as people,

the concerns, the interests that we have,

our abilities.

These all shape the event

of understanding.

You know, when you come to understand a text,

you're bringing all of this freight

from who you are

and what you can do,

what you're interested in,

and that's going to affect the interpretation

that you give.

To imagine we have access

to some pristine,

clear, and distinct meaning

in the text

is really to remain in the thrall

of an outdated

and discredited

modernist model

that somehow

our brains

just can mirror

the realities there.

No, no, no, no.

We're active

and we're constructionist

in our engagement

with reality

and in our engagement

with the text.

We're constructing it.

We're not just absorbing it.

So,

to make such a claim

is to be in the strong grip

of an illusion

as to realities.

So, there you have it.

And these are strong currents,

particularly in the academic sensibility

that if you're up at the university,

you'll hear all these things.

To insist upon the Bible's clarity

in the teeth of these objections

and in the temper of these times

seems either quaint,

insane,

insane,

or reactionary.

An affirmation

doomed to derision.

But,

before we consign clarity

to the dustbin

of theological atavisms,

things going the way

of the dinosaur,

let's pause

not for a moment

of respectful silence

at its passing,

rather pause

for a moment

of reflection

and re-evaluation.

For,

there are

a few things

to be said

on its behalf,

which may stay

the executioner's hand.

So,

in defense

of clarity.

muse with me

for a moment

upon first,

and perhaps decisively,

God's purpose

and ability.

God's purpose

and ability.

Consider

that the Bible

is God's revelation

and flows

from his,

God's,

determination

to disclose himself.

It is God's desire

to be known

and responded

to

by his creatures

and to do so

through the vehicle

of his word,

the Bible.

To claim

that his word

is hopelessly

obscure

is to assert

God's failure

in attaining

his object.

It is to cast

him,

God,

as an

ineffectual

communicator.

But surely,

this is absurd.

Surely,

God's word

succeeds

in its purpose.

As God states,

Isaiah 55,

10 and 11,

For as the rain

and snow

come down

from heaven,

and does not

my,

and does not

return there

without watering

the earth,

and making it

bare and sprout,

and furnishing

seed to the sower,

and bread to the eater,

so shall

my word

be,

which goes

forth from

my mouth.

It shall not

return to me

empty,

without accomplishing

what I desire,

and without

succeeding

in the matter

for which

I sent it.

Furthermore,

it is the

assumption

throughout

the Bible

that its

words

are

comprehensible,

and as

such,

entail

the moral

responsibility

to be

heeded.

He doesn't

just utter

to no point.

He expects

that we hear

and heed

him.

Deuteronomy

30,

Deuteronomy

30,

11-14.

Deuteronomy

30,

11-14.

For this

commandment

that I

command you

today

is not

too hard

for you,

neither

is it

far off.

It is

not in

heaven

that you

should

say,

who will

ascend

to heaven

for us

to bring

it down

to us,

that we

may hear

it and

do it,

neither is

it beyond

the sea,

that you

should say,

who will

go over

the sea

for us

and bring

it to

us,

that we

may hear

it and

do it.

But the

word is

very near

you.

It is

in your

mouth

and in

your heart

so that

you can

do it.

As Luther

remarks,

Christ

has not

so

enlightened

us as

deliberately

to leave

some part

of his

word

obscure,

commanding

us to

give heed

to it,

for he

commands

us in

vain to

give heed

if he

does not

give light.

Get that?

That's from

bondage of

the will.

Again,

Luther

provocatively

asks,

and he's

asking Erasmus

at this

point,

who we

cited for

obscurity,

if

scripture,

Erasmus,

is obscure

and equivocal,

why need

it have

been brought

down to

us by

an act

of God?

Surely

we have

enough

obscurity

and uncertainty

within

ourselves

without

our

obscurity

and uncertainty

and darkness

being

augmented

by

heaven.

Yeah,

I mean,

if the

Bible's

completely

obscure,

how is

that going

to help

us?

How is

that going

to bring

redemption

and salvation?

So,

consider again

the purpose

and the

ability of

God.

Think that

that has

decisive

bearing

on this

topic.

At least

help us

to try

to work

through

some of

the

tension

here.

Consider

also

the

testimony

of

scripture.

And of

course,

the

critical

test

for

any

doctrine

is

whether

it

accords

with

or

better

is

taught

by

scripture.

And

relevant

here

would be

numerous

characterizations

as the

scripture

as

light.

Light.

Think

of that

metaphor.

Psalm

119,

105,

thy word

is a

lamp

to my

feet

and a

light

to my

path.

Psalm

Psalms 119:130

119,

verse

130,

the

unfolding

of

thy

words

give

light.

It

gives

understanding

to the

simple.

Psalm

36,

9,

in

thy

light

we

see

light.

2

Peter

119

speaks

of

scripture

as a

lamp

shining

in a

dark

place.

And

such

characterizations

are

impossible

on the

premise

that the

word

itself

is

dark,

shadowy,

and

failing

of

illumination.

Surely

there can

be no

better

image

for

clarity

than

light

which

illumines

our

darkness.

At

Deuteronomy

29,

29,

that Erasmus

had cited,

the secret

of the

Lord

remains

with the

Lord.

But

notice

that the

secret of

the

Lord

is

contrasted

with

the

word

that

he

has

given

to

us.

For

the

verse

goes

on,

but,

so the

secret of

the

Lord

remains

with

the

Lord,

but,

what

he

has

revealed,

that

is for

us,

that

we

may

observe

all

of

his

works.

words,

sorry,

that we

may observe

all of

his

words.

Again,

there is

no reasonable

expectation

for us

to observe

what is

fundamentally

opaque.

And as

to the

contentions

about

language

as an

unsuitable

medium,

it would

seem we

have reason

to think

that the

opposite

is true.

consider

the

suitability

of

language.

Assertions

of

language

as a

barrier

to

God's

successful

revelation

seem to

assume

that our

language is

simply

a

creaturely

phenomenon,

simply

a human

achievement

in

construction.

But this

is not

so.

language

is a

divine

gift.

And since

this is so,

it becomes

a bridge,

not a

barrier.

In giving

us this

gift,

God

has made

us fit

speech

partners

with him.

He's

wired us

for

understanding.

Remember,

God

is the

first,

in the

scriptures,

God is

the

first

to

speak

in

what

would

later

be

considered

human

words.

God

is the

first

speaker.

Words

are not

something

alien

to

God.

It's

not as

if

God

must

somehow

commandeer

something

which is

in and of

itself

unsuitable

to the

task

of

communication.

and so

the

allegation

as

Barth

puts

it

that

human

language

is

not

a

suitable

but

an

unsuitable

medium

for

God's

self

presentation

should

it seems

be

rejected.

Further,

God

the

Son

in

taking

human

form

as

part

of

the

incarnation

took

human

language

as

his

medium

of

disclosure.

Why

should

God's

self

communication

be any

more

distorted

by its

expression

in human

words

than

his

compassion

is

distorted

by its

expression

in human

flesh?

There's

never a

hint

of a

lisp

when

Jesus

speaks

about

himself

or the

Father's

purpose.

It's

never

Jesus

this is

so

frustrating

to me

I just

can't

explain it

human

words

are so

limited

never

never

there's

never

a

whisper

of

anything

like

that.

When

people

fail

to

understand

it is

always

accounted

for

in

other

ways.

Not

that

oh

this

language

thing

it's

such

a

blunt

instrument.

No

it's

accounted

for

by

hard

hearts

the

malice

of

Satan

unbelief

but

never

the

failure

of

his

words.

this

reality

takes

us

to

another

relevant

consideration.

It's

all

good

and

well

to

speak

of

languages

originally

a

gift

of

God

rendering

it

a

fit

and

fruitful

vehicle

for

communication

but

what

about

the

fall

what

about

the

fall

if

God

wired

us

for

understanding

has

not

sin

messed

with

the

circuitry?

Yes

it

has.

The

effect

of

sin

upon

the

understanding

is

this

in

our

sinful

rebellion

and

self

centeredness

we

do

not

always

like

the

words

we

hear.

this

hardness

of

heart

or

stiff

neckedness

if you

would

call it

that

I guess

affects

our

ability

to

understand

the

words

which

echo

in our

ears

are

resisted

and

so

our

understanding

is

darkened

so it

does

affect

our

understanding

usually

yeah

yeah

we

become

Christians

an

unbeliever

suppresses

the truth

and

unrighteousness

do

Christians

do that

and

they

do

the

Christian

walk

we

still

do

that

because

we

have

so

habituated

that

tendency

that

even

when

God's

spirit

when we're

united

with

Christ

and

God's

spirit

comes

to dwell

with

us

and

begins

to

produce

new

desires

an

affection

for

what

God

has

said

a

conviction

that

this

is

for

our

good

for

our

flourishing

but

remember

it's

still

a little

sprout

so we

don't

spring

from

our

spiritual

womb

fully

blown

like

Venus

on a

half

shell

she's

complete

but it

takes

a while

for

it

to

grow

so

like

sanctification

would be

the growth

in those

holy

desires

and in

many

of the

qualities

like

humility

submission

patience

that will

help us

to

appropriate

and we'll

get to

some of

those

themes

but very

apropos

yes

so

yes

we've

argued

that our

hardness

of heart

or our

stiff

neckedness

stiff

neckedness

affects our

ability to

understand

so the

words

which

echo

in our

ears

are

resisted

and so

our

understanding

is darkened

usually

we don't

get it

because we

don't want

to get

it

was it

man hears

what he

wants to

hear and

disregards

the rest

was that

Bob Dylan

I guess

I try so

hard to get

these contemporary

cultural

I guess

is he alive

still

okay

yeah

all right

I got

one

contemporary

culture

reference

man

I'm doing

I'm doing

okay this

morning

human

desire

deeply

affects

human

understanding

tainted

human

desires

correspondingly

taint

human

understanding

so

this

reality

does not

count

against the

clarity

of scripture

for the

problem

is not

with the

text

it's with

the reader

the problem

is not

with the

word

but with

the hearer

do you see

and to argue

for clarity

we're talking

about a

quality of

the word

so if we

you know

throw dirt

on things

or if we

close our

eyes

oh

the text

isn't clear

anymore

you closed

your eyes

deliberately

and how

often

have you

heard

the testimony

you know

I never

understood

a word

of the

Bible

but

then

I gave

my life

to Christ

and its

meaning

wonderfully

opened up

to me

before

I couldn't

have even

been bothered

now I

devour it

surely

you've heard

some

testimonies

perhaps even

experienced

that sort

of thing

do you

see the

transformation

you know

ah

sudden

clarity

what

changed

not the

text

not the

text

but the

reader

the

reader

but

even

if the

barrier

is not

obscurity

but

unresponsiveness

this is

not

an

insuperable

barrier

to

almighty

power

God

is not

stymied

in his

purpose

to communicate

his word

even by

our

rebellious

resistance

which darkens

our understanding

because

God

exerts

effectual

power

through the

spirit's

illumination

yeah

for the

spirit's

illumination

happily

in

understanding

his

word

God

does not

leave us

to our

own

compromised

devices

God

is

present

by his

spirit

as

revealer

so it's

not just

text

he shows

up in

person

in his

holy

spirit

as

revealer

such

that

understanding

becomes

more than

a creaturely

activity

it is

the

spirit's

action

upon

us

the

process

of

understanding

repeats

the

basic

motif

of

Christian

existence

which is

being

drawn out

of

darkness

of

sin

and

turned

to the

light

of the

gospel

so being

drawn

out

of the

darkness

of sin

and being

turned

to the

light

of the

gospel

there's

the

fundamental

biblical

motif

scripture

is

clear

but

because

what

it

presents

is

that

to

which

we

must

be

reconciled

we

can

discern

its

clarity

only

if

our

darkness

is

first

illuminated

so

understanding

is

therefore

not

first

of

all

an

act

of

clarification

of

the

text

but

an

event

of

being

ourselves

clarified

by the

spirit

okay

that's a

little

complex

maybe the

wording

let me

repeat

that

slowly

understanding

is

not

first

of

all

an

act

of

clarification

of

the

text

but

an

event

of

being

ourselves

clarified

by the

spirit

you

remember

in

2nd

Corinthians

3

but

to

this

day

Paul

writes

whenever

Moses

is

read

a

veil

lies

over

their

hearts

isn't

that

interesting

the

veil

is

over

their

hearts

remember

what

did

the

heart

indicate

in

Hebrew

or

biblical

idiom

so

they're

not

saying

that

they're

witless

but

they're

wanton

okay

it's

not

chiefly

an

intellectual

issue

but

a

moral

issue

the

heart

the

affections

where

we

direct

our

affections

and

the

veil

is

there

that's

the

problem

that's

what

needs

to

be

unveiled

well

yes

and

in

that

case

they

the

knowledge

that

God

has

given

them

have

that

they

have

turned

their

backs

upon

they

have

spurned

it

he

has

been

yelling

it

in

their

ear

again

the

prophets

he

sends

prophets

again

and

again

and

again

and

they

kill

the

prophets

and

then

he

sends

his

son

they

say

ha

look

it's

the

son

let's

kill

him

so in

the

end

they

are

without

this

knowledge

that

God

has

sent

again

and

again

and

again

why

did

God

not

send

it

did

God

not

offer

it

did

not

give

it

did

God

not

say

hey

it's

not

up in

heaven

that

you

have

to

climb

there

it's

not

across

the

sea

that

you

have

to

swim

there

it's

right

here

and

you

killed

him

and

you

killed

him

you

killed

me

so

similar

sort

of

thing

yeah

they're

without

knowledge

but

why

you

know

I

can't

hear

you

I

can't

hear

you

so

yes

you're

right

to bring

that up

but

that's

not a

different

phenomenon

really

than

what

we're

discussing

remember

the

and he

goes

on

illumination

really

repeats

the

miracle

of

creation

remember

in

2

Corinthians

4

when

he's

speaking

now

of

illumination

and

he

says

the

light

has

shown

in

your

hearts

in

our

hearts

to

give

us

the

light

of

the

knowledge

of

God

the

glory

of

God

in

the

face

of

Jesus

Christ

here

how

so

he's

describing

basically

illumination

or

regeneration

and that

that's

in

2

Corinthians