Biblical Theology and the Analogy of Faith Every Theology Regarding Itself As Christian Would Want to Affirm That It Was in Agreement with the Bible

Home , Rule of Faith

Biblical Theology and the Analogy of Faith Every theology regarding itself as Christian would want to affirm that it was in agreement with the Bible. The development of a theology that is truly Biblical is the sine qua non of Biblical worldview development. by Daniel P. Fuller

here may be another authority ures of speech wherever he wished. ward has been drawn from the pure [then] no one could reach any certain Word of God, and rests upon its alongside the Bible, as in T conclusions about any article of authority. Not Aristotle, but the Holy Roman Catholicism, which regards faith.1 Spirit teaches that the body of Christ church tradition as a separate source Studying the Bible in the original from the time of his resurrection was of authority. But since Roman Catholi- finite, and is contained in heaven even Greek and Hebrew was another way to the Last Day.3 cism never regards these two sources the reformers earned the right to make as clashing with each other, it would Seeking in these ways to let the claims about what the Bible taught. always affirm heartily that its theol- Bible speak for itself, the reformers dem- Both Luther and Calvin strove to master ogy is biblical. onstrated how much of the principle the language conventions of the bibli- of sola scriptura they had grasped. Ebel- It is noteworthy, however, that cal Hebrew and Greek so they could more ing has remarked, the term “biblical theology” first appeared readily grasp the meaning the biblical in the followers of the Reformation, writers attached to their own terms, and Reformation theology is the first among those who espoused the principle attempt in the entire history of theol- be less apt to impute current mean- ogy to take seriously the demand for a of sola scriptura. This principle ings back onto those ancient words. But theology based on Scripture alone. affirmed that since the church was they also wanted their conclusions Only among the followers of the Ref- ormation could the concept “biblical founded upon the teachings of the about the Bible’s meanings to be made theology” have been coined at all.4 prophets and apostles, the authority for its available to as many as possible, and teaching and practice must be derived so they stressed the need for translating Luther and the Analogy of Faith only from the Bible. To support the legiti- the Bible into contemporary lan- But the reformers also emphasized a macy of a claim to know what the guage. The more people could read the hermeneutical principle that is com- prophets and apostles taught, the reform- Bible for themselves, the more the monly called “the analogy of faith.” This ers made several radical departures Bible itself (sola scriptura!) would principle was used when the time from the way theologians had been con- directly teach individual Christians, came to combine what two or more bibli- tent to interpret the Bible in preceding and consequently there could be a priest- cal writers said about some article of centuries. hood of all believers. faith like the law (Moses or Paul), or justi- For one thing they rejected the The reformers also realized that theo- fication (Genesis, Paul, and James). medieval practice of finding in a biblical logians had kept the Bible from In general, the analogy of faith principle passage a fourfold sense: the literal, speaking for itself because they were so of hermeneutics affirms that the norm the allegorical, the moral, and the anagog- prone to construe its statements in for interpreting other parts of the Bible is ical (or mystical, ultimate) sense. At terms of medieval scholasticism, which certain passages in the Pauline letters, the end of his life Luther summarized this drew so heavily upon the philosophy which supposedly set forth biblical teach- hermeneutical principle in these of Aristotle. Luther said, “This defunct ings with the greatest clarity and pre- words: pagan [Aristotle] has attained supre- cision. The Holy Spirit’s words cannot have macy [in the universities]; [he has] more than one sense, and that the very In stating this principle Luther simplest sense, which we call the lit- impeded, and almost suppressed, the said, “It is the attribute of Holy Scripture eral, ordinary, natural sense. We are Scripture of the living God. When I think that it interprets itself by passages and not to say that the Scriptures or the of this lamentable state of affairs, I Word of God have more than one places which belong together, and can meaning. We are not to introduce any cannot avoid believing that the Evil One only be understood by a rule of 2 metaphorical, figurative sayings into introduced the study of Aristotle.” faith.”5 On the surface, the statement that any text of Scripture, unless the par- In arguing against the Roman Catho- ticulars of the words compel us to do “scripture interprets itself” seems to so. For if anyone at all were to have lic view of transubstantiation, Calvin be another pillar upholding the principle power to depart from the pure, simple said: of sola scriptura. But Luther’s addi- words and to make inferences and fig- The doctrine which we have put for- tional statement that passages...can only INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FRONTIER MISSIONS, VOL 14:2 APR.-JUNE 1997 66 Biblical Theology and the Analogy of Faith be understood by a rule of faith” raises the by faith. Luther was convinced that what scholasticism, and church tradition, ena- question of how anyone acquires the James said about justification could bled him to learn and transmit many authority for knowing just what that rule not be reconciled with Paul’s teaching on scriptural teachings that have greatly prof- is. As we consider how Luther and that subject. In the conclusion to an ited the church. But when he set up Calvin elaborated on this principle of the introduction to Hebrews, James, Jude, and his understanding of justification by faith analogy of faith, it becomes clear Revelation, Luther said, “Many sweat as the basis for suppressing such that, in the final analysis, the subjective hard at reconciling James with Paul, but books as the Synoptic Gospels, Hebrews, preference of the theologian himself unsuccessfully. ‘Faith justifies’ [Paul] and James, he then made it impossi- is the only basis upon which this all- stands in flat contradiction to ‘faith does ble for these books to deepen or improve important norm for interpreting the not justify’ [James 2:24]. If anyone his understanding of this doctrine. He rest of scripture is established. Conse- can harmonize these sayings, I’ll put my also made it harder for these books to quently, the analogy of faith principle doctor’s cap on him and let him call inform him on other subjects which does not undergird but undermines the me a fool.”9 Consequently Luther put they taught. So his use of the analogy of sola scriptura principle. James and these other books, each of faith undercut the sola scriptura prin- In elaborating this principle in which, in his view, had objectionable fea- ciple not only for himself but for all those another place Luther said, “Every tures, at the end of his New Testa- who have followed his hermeneutical word [of scripture] should be allowed to ment (of September, 1522). In his intro- lead ever since. stand in its natural meaning, and that duction to James itself, Luther said, “ This conclusion is confirmed by should not be abandoned unless faith [This book] cannot be defended against what Matthaeus Flacius (a Lutheran) said forces us to it [italics added].”6 [its] applying to works the sayings of about the analogy of faith in his Key Luther’s readiness to let faith force him to Moses in Genesis 15, which speaks only to the Scriptures (1567), the first herme- suppress the natural meaning of a text of Abraham’s faith, and not of his neutics book to emerge from the Ref- becomes evident from his famous state- works, as St. Paul shows in Romans 4... ormation. According to Flacius, ment made in his Disputation thesis, Therefore I cannot put him among the Every understanding and exposition De fide, September 11, 1535. There he chief books.”10 of Scripture is to be in agreement with affirmed, “Scripture is to be under- the faith. Such [agreement] is, so to In another place he singled out speak, the norm or limit of a sound stood not contrary to, but in accordance the books of the New Testament which faith, that we may not be thrust over with Christ. Therefore Scripture is to did properly “urge Christ.” the fence into the abyss by anything, be referred to him, or else we do not have either by a storm from without or by To sum it all up . St. John’s Gospel an attack from within (Rom. 12:6). what represents Scripture. If adversar- [not the synoptics!], and his first epis- For everything that is said concerning ies urge Scripture against Christ, we will tle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Scripture, or on the basis of Scripture, urge Christ against Scripture.” Like- those to the Romans, to the Galatians, must be in agreement with all that the wise, “If it is to be a question of whether and to the Ephesians, and St. Peter’s catechism declares or that is taught by first epistle–these are the books which the articles of faith.13 Christ or the Law is to be dismissed, show you Christ and teach everything This statement of Flacius shows how we say, Law is to be dismissed, not which is needful and blessed for you Luther’s use of the analogy of faith Christ.”7 to know even if you don’t see or even hear any other book. Wherefore St. principle had made church tradition, fixed Commenting on these statements of James epistle is a true epistle of straw in creeds and catechisms, the key for Luther, Ebeling says: compared with them, for it contains the interpretation of scripture. Even nothing of an evangelical nature.11 Luther was no biblicist...No biblicist though this tradition was now of a speaks like that [Luther] had not thor- The foregoing statements indi- Protestant rather than of a Roman Catho- oughly thought [the hermeneutical cate what Luther meant by his assertion problem] through from the methodo- lic variety, yet the barrier which it “Scripture interprets itself by pas- logical point of view and therefore the erected against letting biblical exegesis sages and places which belong together, methodology of theology in general improve or correct that tradition was remained obscure in decisive ques- and [scripture as a whole] can only be tions of fundamental importance. It exceedingly hard to surmount. understood by a rule of faith.”12 They was not made clear what the principle of sola scriptura means for the proce- give concrete examples of how the Calvin and the Analogy of Faith dure of theology as a whole.8 analogy or rule of faith justified singling John Calvin followed the same her- For Luther there really were out certain parts of scripture as the meneutical procedure as Luther. In places where Christ should be urged norm by which other parts of the canon his “Prefatory Address to King Francis,” against scripture. In his thinking, the were to be judged. Surely Luther’s designed to gain recommendation for term “Christ” often represented the whole submission to the Bible, implied in his his Institutes of the Christian Religion, of his understanding of justification rejection of the fourfold meaning, Calvin appealed to Romans 12:6 and INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FRONTIER MISSIONS Daniel P. Fuller 67 its phrase according to the analogy of exegesis of the Pentateuch itself, that “the from such remote contexts as Ephesians faith14 as his best argument for why same [italics added] covenant, of 1:5-6, 18 and Galatians 4:7. Accord- his teaching should be regarded as true. which Abraham had been the minister and ing to Calvin, these affirm that “the King- He said: keeper, was repeated to his descen- dom of heaven is not servants wages When Paul wished all prophecy to be dants by the instrumentality of Moses.” but sons inheritance, which only they who made to accord with the analogy of But then when he considered what have been adopted as sons by the faith [Rom 12:6], he set forth a very Paul said about the Mosaic law, he said, Lord shall enjoy, and that for no other rea- clear rule to test all interpretation of “Paul opposes [the Mosaic law] to the son than this adoption.” So, “even in Scripture. Now, if our interpretation be measured by this rule of faith, vic- promise given to Abraham, because as these very passages [Matt 25:34-46 and tory is in our hands. For what is more [Paul] is treating of the peculiar Col. 3:23-24] where the Holy Spirit consonant with faith than to recognize office, power and end of the law, he sep- promises everlasting glory as a reward for that we are-weak... to be sustained by [Christ]? To take away from us all arates it from the promises of grace works, [yet] by expressly terming it occasion for glorying, that he alone [that are found in Abraham and Moses].17 an ‘inheritance’ he is showing that it may stand forth gloriously and we Thus, according to Calvin, the comes to us from another source glory in him?15 message of Exodus through Deuteronomy [than works].”20 There are, to be sure, many pas- could not be properly grasped simply Here is a concrete example of sages where scripture teaches that “no by studying these books. One must first how the analogy of faith hermeneutics human being should boast in the pres- know about the antithesis Paul drew worked in Calvin’s thinking. He has ence of God,” but “Let him who boasts, between Abraham, on the one hand, and to construe Matthew 25 and Colossians 3 boast of the Lord” (1 Cor 1:29, 31). parts of Moses, on the other, before in terms of other passages drawn Those who are committed to sola scrip- his study of Exodus through Deuteron- from such distant contexts as Ephesians 1 tura want their understanding of such omy would produce accurate results. and Galatians 4. These he selects passages, as well as those setting forth all For Calvin, unless one knew that the because they accord well with his under- other biblical teachings, to be deep- promises in these books constantly standing of the analogy of faith, that ened and corrected by a careful exegesis shift back and forth between conditional only God, and not men, should be glori- of all of them. and unconditional ones,18 he would fied.21 Then he applies these remote- But sola scriptura was threatened be led astray in his study of them. So Cal- context passages to the ones in Matthew when Calvin, like Luther, made the vin concluded the introduction to his and Colossians, whose own terminol- Gospel of John the “key” for understand- harmony of Exodus through Deuteronomy ogy does not affirm so clearly that God ing the Synoptic Gospels. Concerning by saying, “I have thought it advisa- alone is glorified in man’s salvation. the Gospel of John, Calvin said, “The ble to say this much by way of preface, They even say, on Calvin’s own admis- doctrine which points out to us the for the purpose of directing my read- sion, that “the Holy Spirit [!] prom- power and fruit of Christ’s coming ers to the proper object [italics added] of ises everlasting glory as a reward for appears far more clearly in John than the history.19 works.” But this statement as it stands in [Matthew, Mark, and Luke]...For this But there are numerous passages in must be suppressed and replaced by the reason I am accustomed to say that scripture where such blessings as eter- passages from Ephesians and Gala- this Gospel is the key to open the door to nal life, and inheriting the kingdom of tians, so that the passages in Matthew 25 16 the understanding of the others.” God, are given because of the good and Colossians 3 will make it clear The problem, however, is that one who is works men have done. According to Mat- that the inheritance spoken of there convinced that John’s teaching is the thew 25:34-36, 46, the blessed will “comes to us from another source 22 key for understanding the other Gospels inherit the kingdom of God and eternal [than works].” will devote more energy to learning life because they have done such So long as the exegesis of bibli- what John teaches than he will to learning things for “Jesus’ brethren” as feeding cal passages is conducted by such analogy what a Synoptic Gospel teaches. This them when they were hungry. Like- of faith hermeneutics, it would be dif- in itself would be contrary to sola scrip- wise, Paul commands, “Whatever your ficult for systematic theology to be nour- tura, which requires one to be equally task, work heartily, as serving the ished and corrected by exegetical con- docile to all of scripture. Lord and not men, knowing that from the siderations from the biblical text. But this Calvin also required Exodus Lord you will receive the inheritance was the course which the reformers through Deuteronomy to be understood in as your reward.” (Col. 3:23-24). In his left for theology to steer. While the terms of Paul’s view of the law. Institutes, Calvin interpreted these reformers themselves introduced into Indeed, Calvin concluded, just from the two passages by calling in statements biblical exegesis many practice which

VOL 14:2 APR.-JUNE 1997 68 Biblical Theology and the Analogy of Faith greatly furthered the cause of sola scrip- Spener drew an antithesis between “bibli- vital requisite for this is to learn “’the tura, yet because they did not grasp cal theology” and “scholastic theol- time and place” where any single lit- how their analogy of faith principle ogy.” But in making this contrast Spener erary unit was composed. Second: clashed with sola scriptura, they gave was not trying to discard systematics We must carefully assemble all ideas a strong impetus for Reformation theol- in favor of another theological method. of the several writers and arrange ogy also to revert to a scholasticism He merely wanted to encourage theo- them in their proper sequence: those of the patriarchs, those of Moses, not unlike the medieval sort against which logical students to spend less time master- David, and Solomon, those of the they had rebelled. Thus Ebeling ing philosophical subtleties and more prophets, each of the prophets for that argues, time learning the “simple” teachings of matter....And as we proceed we are Christ and the apostles. As a result of for many reasons not to despise the This lack of clarity became apparent Apocrypha. In similar fashion, from in the degree to which Reformation Spener’s plea there appeared a number of the epochs of the new form of doc- theology, like medieval scholasticism, books which assembled proof-texts trine, [we must carefully assemble also developed into a scholastic sys- and arrange in proper sequence] the tem. What was the relation of the sys- from all over the Bible to substantiate the 25 ideas of Paul, Peter, John and James. tematic method here [in the post- affirmations of systematic theology. After accomplishing these two steps, Reformation] to the exegetical It was a century later that Johann method? Ultimately it was the same the interpreter’s third step is as in medieval scholasticism. There, Gabler used the term “biblical theol- too, exegesis of holy scripture went ogy” to designate a method for ascertain- ...to investigate which ideas are of importance to the permanent form of on not only within systematic theol- ing Christian teaching which should ogy but also separately alongside of Christian doctrine, and consequently supersede systematic theology. In his it, yet so that the possibility of a ten- apply to us, and which were spoken sion between exegesis and systematic inaugural address as a professor at only for the people of a given age or theology was a priori excluded. Exe- Altdorf in 1787 he drew a sharp distinc- were intended for a given form of instruct... Who, I ask, would relate the gesis was enclosed within the fron- tion between biblical and systematic tiers fixed by systematic theology.23 Mosaic regulations, long since done theology. “Biblical theology,” he said, away with by Christ, to our time, and There was one big difference, how- “always remains the same since its who would insist on the validity for ever. The post-Reformation era could our time of Paul’s exhortations that arguments are historical.”26 What was not completely forget the several strong women should veil themselves in the “historical” had an unvarying quality sacred assembly? The ideas of the impulses which the reformers had about it, since “what the sacred writers Mosaic form of instruction, which are given toward sola scriptura. So the more confirmed neither by Jesus and his thought about divine things” was post-Reformation theology became apostles nor by reason itself [italics something fixed in the past and repre- scholastic, the more it clashed with these added], can therefore be of no dog- sented to us today by an unchanging matic value. We must zealously latent sola scriptura impulses. Conse- examine what we must regard as text of scripture. Dogmatic theology, on quently, it was inevitable that a methodol- belonging to the abiding doctrine of the other hand, “is subjected along ogy would arise which (whatever its salvation; what in the words of the with other human disciplines to manifold apostles is truly divine and what is name) would seek that full conformity change.” “It teaches what every theo- fortuitous and purely human. Then with sola scriptura that systematic the consequence is in fact a “biblical logian through use of his reason philoso- theology, with its analogy of faith princi- theology.” And when such solid foun- phizes about divine things in accor- dations of “biblical theology” have ple, could not achieve. dance with his understanding, with the been laid after the manner we have described, we shall have no wish to Rise of Biblical Theology circumstances of the time, the age, follow uncertain ideas set forth by a A century after the Reformation the place, the school [to which he dogmatic theology that is conditioned 27 the term “biblical theology” was first belongs]” “Therefore,” Gabler by our own times. used. At the outset the term signified argued, “we are carefully to distinguish In Gabler’s first two steps there a corrective which certain precursors of the divine from the human and to is the implication that each biblical Pietism felt Protestant Orthodoxy undertake a separation between biblical spokesman should be studied with sorely needed. Philip Spener, one of the and dogmatic theology.” equal diligence. But then came his third founders of Pietism, remarked in his Thus biblical theology should be pur- step of drawing a distinction between Pia Desideria (1675) how two court chap- sued in order to grasp exactly how “the permanent form of Christian doc- lains in the parliament at Regensburg each of the biblical writers thought. To do trine,” and “ideas for the people of a had complained some years earlier that this, Gabler recommended that two given age.” Later revelation (that of Jesus “scholastic theology,” expelled by steps be taken. First, every effort must be and his apostles) as well as ”reason” Luther through the front door, had now directed to “what each of [the biblical were the criteria for making this distinc- come in at the back door to suppress writers] thought concerning divine tion. The problem with Gabler, and “biblical theology.”24 In his later writings things...only from their writings.” A with all biblical theology for the next cen- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FRONTIER MISSIONS Daniel P. Fuller 69 tury, was that the criteria for carrying out have no permanence in that they are through Jesus’ miracle-working power. the third step, and especially “rea- always conditioned by the thinking of But according to Luke 17:20-24, what son,” were so amenable to the prevailing their own times. But when a man as is now invisible will come, in the future, philosophy of a certain age that in the deeply committed to biblical author- with the highest visibility when Jesus teaching produced by biblical theology, ity as Bernhard Weiss practiced biblical returns as the ”Son of man” spoken of in the prophets, Christ, and the apostles theology and came up with an under- Daniel 7 and in numerous places in sound very similar to current modes of standing of Jesus’ teaching about the the Jewish apocryphal book of Enoch. thinking. kingdom of God that accorded so On the basis of many other state- An example of this is Bernhard well with the prevailing philosophy and ments of Jesus about the futurity of the Weiss’s Biblical Theology (1868), theology of his time, it seemed that kingdom, and a rather constant allu- which argued that the kingdom of God biblical theology was as vulnerable to the sion to similar thinking about the king- proclaimed by Jesus existed to the influence of current thinking as was dom of God in Jewish apocalyptic lit- degree that the disciples surrounding dogmatic theology. The ideal of sola erature, like The Assumption of Moses, Jesus made progress in living up to scriptura would be achieved only The Testament of Daniel, Enoch, and his ethical principles. Weiss said that “the when the exegetical method left the inter- 4 Ezra, J. Weiss concluded, dominion of God begins to be ful- preter with no alternative but to let The kingdom of God as Jesus thought filled when a company of disciples gather the text speak for itself in its own terms. of it is a wholly supernatural entity around Jesus, in whose midst is the that stands completely over against Impact of Religionsgeschichte kingdom of God.”28 Although Weiss con- this world. It follows from this that in Jesus’ thought there cannot have been ceded that “Jesus nowhere directly About the middle of the last century, certain biblical scholars became any place for a development of the designates the fellowship of his adherents kingdom of God within the frame- as the kingdom of God,” yet on the aware of many parallels between Jesus’ work of this world. On the basis of basis of verses like Matthew 21:31, “tax language in the Gospels and the Jew- this result it seems to be the case that ish apocalyptic literature. The use of such the dogmatic religio-ethical use of collectors and harlots precede you this idea in recent theology, which has [Pharisees] into the kingdom of God,” he writings as an aid for understanding divested it completely of its originally confidently affirmed that ”in [the dis- what Jesus meant in his frequent refer- eschatological-apocalyptic meaning, is unjustified.33 ciples’] fellowship [the kingdom] begins ences to “the kingdom of God” would to be realized. [Its] success depends be an example of one application of the Weiss’s conclusion regarding on the condition of men’s hearts.”29 It was exegetical procedure of Religionsges- Jesus’ understanding of the kingdom of the kingdom of God understood in chichte, or “the history-of-religions God was much better established than these terms which “must spread over the school.” his father’s conclusion, because the son whole nation, like the mustard seed In 1892 Johannes Weiss included this argued not only from a mass of evi- which grows from small beginnings to a procedure in his exegetical method in dence in the Synoptic Gospels, but also disproportionate greatness.”30 which, as he put it, “we attempt once from evidence provided by religions- Such an understanding of the king- more to identify the original historical geschichte, that is, from similar ideas in dom of God, however, was saying meaning which Jesus connected with the Jewish apocalyptic literature, which scarcely anything different from ethical words ‘Kingdom of God,’ and... we were pertinent because they stemmed idealism, the prevailing philosophy of do it with special care lest we import from the same general milieu in that time. This understanding was a vir- modern, or at any rate alien, ideas which Jesus lived. Faced with such dou- 31 tual reduplication of the theology of into Jesus’ thought-world.” ble evidence, it became virtually Albrecht Ritschl, who stressed that the Weiss noted his father’s conces- impossible for a modern man to under- kingdom which Jesus founded was a sion that nowhere did Jesus equate the stand Jesus’ statements about the community committed to the practice and kingdom of God with his disciples.32 kingdom of God in terms of cherished furtherance of his ethical ideals. Indeed, Jesus did say, in Matthew 12:25- contemporary concepts. We recall how Gabler had confi- 28, that the kingdom had already This is why J. Weiss’s Die Predigt dently predicted that as his three-step come, but the meaning here is that the Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (Goettingen: program for a biblical theology was car- kingdom was present in that Jesus Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1892) repre- ried out, the result would be ideas that had power to cast out demons and to dis- sents a great turning point in the his- belonged to the permanent form of Chris- mantle Satan’s realm. So while Jesus tory of biblical interpretation. It was this tian doctrine. These would replace the was on earth, the kingdom of God was book and Wilhelm Wrede’s Das Mes- teachings of dogmatic theology, which invisible and only indirectly evident sias geheimnis in den Evangelien (Goett-

VOL 14:2 APR.-JUNE 1997 70 Biblical Theology and the Analogy of Faith ingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1901) gard for [contemporary] theological having first established what stands in 36 the text, sets himself to re-think the that provided Albert Schweitzer with meaning and relevance.” whole material and to wrestle with it, the key for showing that nineteenth- Indeed, Religionsgeschichte had till the walls which separate the six- century liberalism could no longer made it possible for biblical theology teenth century from the first become transparent! Paul speaks, and the man find support for its teachings from the to tell ”what it meant,” but there is little of the sixteenth century hears. The Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels. As market for exegetical labors which conversation between the original Krister Stendahl has said: merely describe, with an antiquarian inter- record and the reader moves around the subject matter [italics added], The alleged biblical basis for what est, the thoughts of a by-gone age. until a distinction between today and has been called ”liberal theology” in There is, however, a very strong desire to yesterday becomes impossible.39 the classical form... was not shattered know “what the Bible means,”37 and by conservatives but by the extreme An example of how this all-important this desire has sought fulfillment in two radicals of the religionsgeschichtliche subject matter” (which in another Schule (history of religions school). very distinct theological procedures. [The exponents of this school] could place in the Church Dogmatics is stated show, on the basis of the comparative Two Alternatives as “revelation remains identical with material, that such a picture of Jesus 40 Karl Barth’s procedure for Jesus Christ” ) controlled Barth’s inter- or of the OT prophets was totally impossible from the historical point of affirming “what the Bible means” begins pretation of the text is his handling of view and that it told more about the with the presupposition that though passages like 1 Corinthians 15:51-54, ideals of bourgeois Christianity in the the biblical writers and the present-day which affirms that believers “shall all late nineteenth century than about the carpenter from Nazareth or the little interpreter are far removed from each be changed, from mortality into immortal- man from Tekoa.34 other in terms of their culture, yet they ity” (vv. 51, 52, 54). But Barth said So the history-of-religions school have very much in common in that that in the Christian hope, “there is no presented biblical theology with an exe- both have immediate access to the “sub- question of a continuation into an getical tool which made it virtually ject matter” of the Bible. At the indefinite future of a somewhat altered impossible for the Bible’s message to be beginning of his Church Dogmatics Barth life [but, rather] an ‘eternalizing’ of molded according to the current phi- affirmed, this ending life.” His reasoning behind losophy of a given culture. Now the Bible Language about God has the proper this surprising statement is, it seems, had to speak in terms of the meanings content, when it conforms to the that if believers did actually undergo the essence of the Church, i.e., to Jesus which the biblical writers had intended by inherent change of being resurrected, Christ. . eite prophetjean kata ten the words they used. Sola scriptura analogian ten pisteos (Rom. 12:6). then something of what is revealed in was now within the reach of all those who Dogmatics investigates Christian lan- Jesus Christ would be transposed guage by raising the question of this would work with the biblical text to from Christ over to created beings. But conformity. Thus it has not to dis- grasp its intended meanings and who were cover the measure with which [dog- since Barth’s Sache, or analogy of not obligated to shape those meanings matics] measures, still less to invent faith, bars revelation from extending itself to conform to some analogy of faith. [that measure]. With the Christian beyond Jesus Christ, and since this Church [dogmatics] regards and Sache confronted both Barth and Paul, But as Religionsgeschichte acknowledges [that measure] as given forced one back to the way the Bible (given in its own thoroughly peculiar despite great cultural differences way, exactly as the man Jesus Christ thought in its own times and cultures, between them, therefore Barth regarded it is given us).38 the relevance of the biblical message as proper to restate 1 Corinthians Since Christ is given for us today, seemed, for many, to vanish. As 15:51-54 from his knowledge of it, even just as he was for the writers of the Johannes Weiss expounded the Gospels’ though his words communicated a New Testament, it is understandable why own view of the kingdom, he different meaning from Paul’s. As Sten- Barth, at the very outset of his theo- observed that “most people will neither be dahl puts it, logical career, recommended an interpre- satisfied with this more negative tational procedure which regarded all Orthodoxy never had repristination as description of the concept [of the king- exegetical labors with a text’s historical its program in the periods of its dom of God as that which triumphs strength. The possibility of translation and philological data as mere “prelim- over Satan], nor want to understand it in was given–as it is for Barth–in the inary work,” which was to be followed reality of the subject matter [italics this completely supernaturalistic way quickly by a “genuine understanding added], apart from the intellectual of looking at things, which is mythologi- manifestations in the thought patterns and interpretation,” which means cal from our standpoint.”35 And Sten- of the original documents. God and dahl observes that “the resistance to the ...that creative energy which Luther Christ were not Semites in such a exercised with intuitive certainty in sense that the biblical pattern of religionsgeschichdiche Schule was his exegesis; which underlies the sys- thought was identified with the reve- openly or unconsciously against its disre- tematic interpretation of Calvin [who] lation itself.41 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FRONTIER MISSIONS Daniel P. Fuller 71

The problem with Barth’s procedure ing his theological thinking to the mean- namely, in the matter of avoiding subjec- is that even though Christ might be ing of the text of scripture as deter- tivity when the time comes to bring regarded as given to all believers in mined by philological and historical con- all the teachings of the Bible together? He church proclamation, yet this Christ siderations. “Barth is particularly answers that with the closing of the will be preached somewhat differently open to this danger, not only because of canon,47 from church to church, and so each the richness of his thought, but the thing that is new in this conclud- interpreter will read the text in a different because systematically he seems to treat ing new interpretation is the fact that light. Hence this procedure will pro- philological and historical explana- not just individual excerpts of salvation history are presented, as was the duce as many interpretations of the text as tions as too exclusively preliminary in case prior to the composition of the 44 there are interpreters, and not even as character.” Cullmann argues that last book in the canon], but that now, profound and wise a thinker as Barth has the Holy Spirit who inspired the biblical through the collection together of various books of the Bible, the whole any basis for claiming that his inter- writings history of salvation must be taken into pretation of a biblical text should be taken ...can only speak in human language, account in understanding any one of seriously. Stendahl observes that and that language must always bear the books of the Bible. When we wish the stamp of the period and of the to interpret some affirmation coming Barth speaks as if it were a very sim- individuality of the biblical writer. from early Christianity not merely as ple thing to establish what Paul actu- For this reason . [all philological and an isolated phenomenon, but as an ally meant in his own terms. . [But] historical considerations] help to pro- actual biblical text, as a part belong- biblical theology along this line is vide us with a “transparency through ing to a totality, we must call upon admittedly incapable of enough which, by an effort of theological con- salvation history as a hermeneutical patience and enthusiasm for keeping centration, we may see with the writer key, for it is the factor binding all the 48 alive the tension between what the the truth which he saw and with him biblical text together. text meant and what it means. [In may attain to the revelation which Thus Cullmann affirms that “a dog- Barth] there is no criteria by which came to him. We must thoroughly they can be kept apart; what is matics or ethics of salvation history understand this historic “transpa- 49 intended as a commentary turns out to rency”; our vision through it must be ought to be written some day.” To the be a theological tractate, expanding in so clear that at any moment we may objection that making redemptive his- contemporary terms what Paul should become the actual contemporaries of tory the perspective for understanding any have said about the subject matter as the writer.45 understood by the commentator.42 given passage of scripture is just as In contrast to Barth, Cullmann In contrast, biblical theology, subjective as any of the other rules, or wants to find the subject matter of any lit- controlled only by philological and histor- analogies of faith, Cullmann answers erary unit in scripture simply by sub- ical considerations, regards its first that salvation history is what called forth mitting himself to the pertinent historical order of business that of construing an certain writings as canonical in the and philological data, and by means author’s intended meaning in his own first place, and therefore only salvation of these alone to construe an author’s terms. Stendahl argues that biblical exege- history can provide the perspective intended meaning. Only as the inter- sis has reached a point where this is from which they are to be interpreted. ”I preter is thinking along “with the writer now possible for much of the biblical simply do not see any other biblical [of the text]” will he have access to material: notion [besides salvation history] which the author’s subject matter. Cullmann makes a link between all the books of Once we confine ourselves to the task rejects Barth’s idea that the inter- of descriptive biblical theology as a the Bible such as the fixing of the canon 50 field in its own right, the material preter should have prior access to the sub- sought to express.” It should also be itself gives us the means to check ject matter through the church’s proc- observed that, for Cullmann, salvation whether our interpretation is correct lamation of Christ. He says: history never allows the thinking of or not. From the point of view of method it is clear that our only con- When I approach the text as an exe- one writer to be suppressed in favor of cern is to find out what these words gete, I may not consider it to be cer- another (as the various analogies of meant when uttered or written by the tain that my Church’s faith in Christ faith do). He says, prophet, the priest, the evangelist, or is in its essence really that of the writ- the apostle—and regardless of their ers of the New Testament. In the ...[the scholar] must. resist the tempta- meaning in later stages of religious same way, my personal self- tion to bring two texts into harmony history, our own included.43 understanding [contra Bultmann], and when their affirmations do not agree, my personal experience of faith must if he is convinced that such a synthe- Stendahl regards Oscar Cull- not only be seen as exegetical aids, sis is incompatible with the critical mann’s procedure for establishing Chris- but also as possible sources of control exercised by philology and tian teaching as representing the alter- error.46 history; this he must do, however painful the biblical antinomy with native to Barth’s way. Cullmann is How then does Cullmann proceed regard to one point or another, once distressed with Barth for not subject- where the Reformation foundered, the synthesis has been rejected.51

VOL 14:2 APR.-JUNE 1997 72 Biblical Theology and the Analogy of Faith

Cullmann, however, does have state- than detracts from, the Bible’s applicabil- Investigation of its Problems (Nashville/ ments where he speaks of later events ity to life. In that the biblical message New York: Abingdon, 1972) 22-23. in redemptive history as providing “rein- is so out of step with human thinking in 2. M. Luther, An Appeal to the Ruling terpretations” of earlier ones. For any age, it calls for a response from Class. Martin Luther, Selections from example, when the Old Testament men that involves a complete break with His Writings (ed. J. Dillenberger; Garden kerygma passes on into the New Tes- the ways they are prone to view City, New York: Doubleday, 1961) tament, he says, “This kerygma passes things. Cullmann affirms, 470-471. through new interpretations more rad- The “application of the subject matter 3. J. Calvin, Institutes of the ical than all those undertaken within the to myself” [paraphrasing the famous Christian Religion (LCC 20, 21, ed. J. sphere of the Old Testament, because statement of Bengel given in the eighteenth century] presupposes that McNeill; Philadelphia:Westminster, they are all subsequently oriented toward in complete subjection to the text (te 1960) 21, 1393 (lV, xvii, 26). All further the Christ event. Furthermore, “The totum applica ad textum [Bengel]), references to the Institutes follow this evangelists [Matthew, Mark, Luke, and silencing my question, I struggle with edition. John] still offer their reinterpretation the “res”, the subject matter. But that means that I must be ready to heat 4. G. Ebeling, “The Meaning of of the form of a life of Jesus at a relatively something perhaps foreign to me. I Biblical Theology’,” Word and Faith late stage in the formation of the must be prepared to hear a faith, an (London: SCM, 1963) 82. primitive Christian kerygma.”52 address, running completely contrary to the question I raise, and in which I 5. Quoted by C. Briggs, Biblical But this “reinterpretation” does do not at first feel myself Study (New York: Scribner’s, 1884) not mean that older interpretations of a addressed.56 332. A century later the Westminster Con- redemptive event are discarded as no At this point George Ladd criticizes fession (I, ix) used similar language longer useful. The “correction” of the Cullmann for not having taken the in enunciating this hermeneutical princi- interpretation of a past saving event . “second step in biblical theology—that of ple: ”The infallible rule of interpreta- never happens in such a way that an ear- interpreting how the theology of sal- tion of Scripture is the Scripture itself, lier account is disputed. Rather, vation history can be acceptable today... and therefore when there is a question aspects formerly unnoticed are by virtue Biblical theology must be alert to this about the true and full sense of any Scrip- of the new revelation now placed in problem and expound reasons why the ture (which is not manifold but one), the foreground, creating a correspond- categories of biblical thought, admit- it must [“may”] in the American edition ingly wider horizon.”53 Elsewhere he tedly not those of the modern world, have be searched and known by other uses such words as “completed” and a claim upon our theological think- places that speak more clearly.” “refined”54 to define what he means ing.”57 by “reinterpretation,” and he also 6. Briggs, Biblical Study, 332. One reason Ladd gives for why expressly criticizes Von Rad’s under- men should welcome the claim made in 7. Taken from the Latin given by standing of later interpretations in the Bible’s history of salvation is that Ebeling, ”Meaning of Biblical Theol- redemptive history as invalidating because “Christ is now reigning as Lord ogy,” 82. earlier ones. 55 Therefore older interpreta- and King,” and will continue to reign 8. Ebeling, “Meaning of Biblical tions of a redemptive event continue until he has put all enemies under his feet Theology,” 82. to make valid contributions to our under- (1 Cor 15:25), therefore “his reign 9. Quoted by Kuemmel, History standing of that event, even though must [eventually] become public in power of Investigation, 26. later revelation adds new information and glory and his Lordship univer- 10. Ibid., 24-25. about it so that the perspective by sally recognized (Phil. 2:10-1 1).”58 A sal- which we view it shifts from that pro- 11. Quoted by E. Reuss, History of vation history in which so many vided merely by the earlier interpreta- the Canon of the Holy Scriptures in promises already have been fulfilled and tions. the Christian Church (Edinburgh: Hunter, which now promises that all the ene- 1891) 322, 329. On the basis of such an approach, mies that presently bring us such woe will 12. Supra, n. 5. Cullmann argues that one hears what the someday be banished, inspires a con- 13. Quoted by Kemmel, History Bible itself is trying to say, and the fidence for the future which, it would very objectivity of this message, arising seem, all men would most readily of investigation, 30. We note Flacius’ ref- from the sequence and meaning of the welcome! erence to Romans 12:6, where Paul Bible’s redemptive events, constitutes the exhorts his readers that if they have the proper object to which faith responds. End Notes gift of prophecy, they are to exercise The very “otherness,” or “strangeness,” of 1. Quoted by W. G. Kummel, The this gift ”according to the analogy of the biblical message increases, rather New Testament: The History of the faith” (kata ten analogian tes pis- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FRONTIER MISSIONS Daniel P. Fuller 73 teos). Paul’s point is that each Christian must let each one speak for himself and of the New Testament (2 vols., 3rd ed.; should exercise his spiritual gift in avoid construing him by recourse to Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1882)1, 67. accordance with the appropriate inner what another writer said. Otherwise there 30. Ibid., 68. faith, or inclination, that he has by is no escape from subjectivism in bib- 31. Ibid., 69. virtue of that particular gift. So it is clear lical interpretation. Since the Bible itself 32. J. Weiss, Jesus’ Proclamation of that “faith” in this passage does not does not point to certain parts as the the Kingdom of God (Lives of Jesus represent the objective body of truth. But norm to which other parts must conform, Series; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 60. that is the sense in which this passage one would be free to set up any anal- 33. Ibid., 68. was taken by Flacius, and by Origen, who ogy of faith that he or she chooses so long as nearly as I can determine was the as one can adduce a handful of 34. Quoted by Kuemmel, History of nearest to use the words “according to the verses, preferably from the New Testa- Investigation 228. analogy of faith” to urge people to ment, to support it. 35. K. Stendahl, “Contemporary Bib- conform their language and thinking 23. Second, when we cannot quickly lical Theology,” IDB (4 vols.; Nash- about a passage of scripture to an a escape from passages running counter ville/New York: Abingdon, 1962) 1,418. priori understanding of what God’s Word to our theological presuppositions by an 36. J. Weiss, Jesus’ Proclama- must be like (De principiis 4.26). analogy of faith procedure, then we tion, 81. 14. Cf. supra, n. 13. are driven to hear out a biblical writer 37. Stendahl, “Biblical Theol- 15. Calvin, Institutes, 20, 12-13. with an intensity that is not otherwise ogy,” 419. 16. J. Calvin, The Gospel according possible. I am convinced that the whole 38. I am indebted to Krister Sten- to John, 1-10 (edd. D. and T. Tor- problem of faith and works, which the dahl, in his article on ”Biblical Theol- rance; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959) 6. analogy of faith hermeneutics is most ogy,” cited above, for this apt way of 17. J. Calvin, Commentaries on often called in to solve, evaporates as stating the difference between the exposi- the Four Last Books of Moses (4 vols.; one probes more deeply into biblical the- tion of a text’s meaning and its appli- Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, repr. ology. A good starting-point for solv- cation for today. ing this problem is an understanding of 1950)1, 314.210/211 39. K. Barth, Church Dogmatics what Paul meant by a ”work of faith” 18. In my opinion, however, Cal- (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936)1/1, 11- (1 Thess 1:3; 2 Thess 1:11). Works done vin never demonstrated the existence of 12. from the motivation of faith preclude an unconditional promise in the Pen- 40. K. Barth, The Epistle to the the possibility of any boasting and give all tateuch, or anywhere in the Bible. A Romans (6th ed.; New York/Toronto: glory to God, yet these works are so major emphasis of his system is that Oxford, 1933) 7. This is a statement Barth vital to a saving faith that those lacking the gospel calling for faith comprises made in his foreword to the second them are not saved. On this line of unconditional promises, whereas law edition of this book in 1921. reasoning Colossians 3:23-24, Matthew appears in every conditional promise. See 41. K. Barth, Church Dogmatics 25, and many other passages could Institutes, 20, 575 (III, ii, 29) where (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956)1/2, 118. speak for themselves without having to be he makes a most basic statement regard- muzzled by the analogy of faith her- 42. Stendahl, “Biblical Theol- ing this distinction. meneutics. ogy,” 427. 19.Calvin, The Four Last Books of 24. Ebeling, “Meaning of Bibli- 43. Ibid., 420. Moses, I, 316. cal Theology,” 82-83. 44. Ibid., 422. Barth opposes letting 20. Calvin, Institutes, 20, 822 (III, 25. Ibid., 83-84. biblical theology have this sove- xviii, 2). reignty in determining Christian teach- 26. E. C. Baur, Vorlesungen Ueber 21. Supra, n. 15. ings. He regards it as having an equal Neutestamentliche Theologie (Darm- 22. To the objection that we must share of the responsibility along with dog- stadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, remain with the analogy of faith herme- matic history, systematic theology, repr. 1973) 3, provides a list of these neutics or else we will let passages and practical theology. ”Biblical and exe- books. like Matthew 25 and Colossians 3 lead us getical theology can become a field of 27. This and subsequent quotes right back to Rome and salvation by wild chasing and charging when it bows from Gabler are taken from Kuemmel, works, my answer is twofold. First, we to the idol of a supposedly normative History of Investigation, 98-100. must determine, regardless of conse- historicism and when therefore, without quences, what the intended meaning of 28. Ibid., 99-100. regard to the positively significant yet each of the biblical writers is. We 29. B. Weiss, Biblical Theology also warning ecclesiastical and dogmatic

VOL 14:2 APR.-JUNE 1997 74 Biblical Theology and the Analogy of Faith history, or to its co-responsibility in the and that which Jonathan Edwards hoped ing to interpret. My problem with this is world of systematic theology (in to live long enough to develop from that redemptive events in scripture are which it may perhaps make a dilettante his History of the Work of Redemption, always so inextricably bound up with incursion), or to the fact that ulti- which was a series of sermons he interpretations that I despair of ever mately theology in the form of practical gave in 1739. His son re-edited this series separating an event from the interpretation theology must aim to give meaningful after his father’s death so they would given it by the one reporting it. Fur- directions to the ministry of the commu- read as a continuous treatise. It begins thermore, even if one could remove all nity in the world, it claims autonomy with God’s creation of the world (and interpretive features from a reported as a kind of Vatican within the whole” even his purpose in creating it) and event, one could not then work back from (Barth, Church Dogmatics [Edin- inquires how each successive redemp- this bare event to decide which inter- burgh: T. & T. Clark, 1962j IV/3, 881). tive event, such as the call of Abraham, pretation was more valid. For example, But in reply we ask: How else can the the Exodus, and so on, makes its dis- knowing only that a man named Jesus principle of sola scriptura be realized tinctive contribution to the realization of rose from the dead carries with it no unless we seek to remain silent and God’s one great purpose in history. implication of its significance. At the beginning of this work Jonathan let each biblical writer speak for himself, 53. Cullmann, Salvation in History, Edwards said, ”In order to see how a in his own terms? In the earlier parts 113. of this essay we have heard the warning, design is carried on, we must first know 54. Ibid., 88. we believe, from what happened at what the design is. Therefore that the 55. Ibid., 112, 136. the Reformation and afterwards when the great works and dispensations of God that analogy of faith hermeneutics, such belong to this great affair of redemp- 56. Ibid., 88. as Barth advocates, led theology down the tion might not appear like confusion to 57. G. Ladd, “The Search for road to scholasticism. you, I would set before you briefly Perspective,” Int. 25 (1971) 48. Stendahl the main things designed to be accom- 45. 0. Cullmann, “The Necessity and (“Biblical Theology,”421) voices the plished in this great work, to accom- Function of Higher Criticism,” The same criticism. It should be noted, how- plish which God will continue working to Early Church (ed. J. Higgins; Philadel- ever, that Cullmann deliberately phia: Westminster, 1956)16. the end of the world, when the work avoids pointing to any psychological or will appear completely finished” (J. existential need which the biblical 46. Ibid., 13. Note Cullmann’s use of Edwards, The Work of Redemption. message fulfills, because of the danger Barth’s key word, “transparency” The Works of President Edwards [4 vols.; that such a need would become an (supra, n. 38). 20 New York: Leavirt & Allen, 1858] I, “analogy of faith” by which every biblical 47. 0. Cullmann, Salvation in 302). In the editorial introduction to this line of thought would then be inter- History (New York: Harper, 1967) 68-69. work, the son remarked that his father preted. This is what has happened in Bult- A Lutheran, Cullmann nevertheless ”... had planned a body of divinity, in a mann’s thinking, and Cullmann wants believes Luther’s rule of faith (“What new method, and in the form of a his- none of that. urges Christ,” supra, n. 7) needs to be tory (Ibid., I, 296. Italics added). 58. G. Ladd, A Theology of the modified to include the whole of redemp- 51. Cullmann, Salvation in His- New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerd- tive history (Salvation in History, tory, 298. mans, 1974) 630. 297-98. 52. Cullmann, “The Necessity 48. For Cullmann’s understand- and Function of Higher Criticism,” 15. ing that the canon imposed itself upon the Dr. Daniel Fuller is Senior Profes- Cullmann believes that such antino- sor of Biblical Interpretation and for- church and was not established by mies exist in scripture because he says, some arbitrary bias in the early church, mer Dean of the faculty of Fuller “That there were distorting influences see Salvation in History, 293-304, Theological Seminary in Pasadena, involved in the interpretation of the histor- and his essay, ”The Tradition,” The Early California. ical character and the kerygmatic Church, 55-99, meaning of the event should certainly not 49. Cullmann, Salvation in History, be disputed” (Salvation in History, 297. 96). He thinks, however, that he can [This material was first published in 50. Ibid., 292. There is, I believe, a detect which interpretation is a distor- Unity and Diversity in N.T. Theol- similarity between the sort of theolog- tion and can correct it by looking more ogy. Essays in Honor of George E. ical treatise which Cullmann envisions, closely at the event which it was try- Ladd.]

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FRONTIER MISSIONS