(Studies in Reformed Theology) Hans Burger (Ed.), Arnold Huijgen (Ed.), Eric Peels (Ed.) - Sola Scriptura - Biblical and Theological Perspectives On Scripture, Authority, and Hermeneuti

Sola Scriptura
Studies in Reformed Theology
Editor-in-Chief
Eddy van der Borght (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
Editorial Board
Abraham van de Beek (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

Martien Brinkman (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
George Harinck (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
Dirk van Keulen (Theological University Kampen)
Daniel Migliore (Princeton Theological Seminary)
Richard Mouw (Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena)
Emanuel Gerrit Singgih (Duta Wacana Christian University, Yogjakarta)
Pieter Vos (Protestant Theological University, Amsterdam)
Conrad Wethmar (University of Pretoria)
VOLUME 32
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/srt

Sola Scriptura
Biblical and Theological Perspectives on Scripture,
Authority, and Hermeneutics
Edited by
Hans Burger, Arnold Huijgen and Eric Peels

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Burger, Hans, 1974- editor.

Title: Sola Scriptura : biblical and theological perspectives on scripture,
authority, and hermeneutics / edited by Hans Burger, Arnold Huijgen, and
Eric Peels.
Description: Boston : Brill, 2018. | Series: Studies in reformed theology,
ISSN 1571-4799 ; VOLUME 32 | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2017041347 | ISBN 9789004355170 (pbk. : alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Bible–Evidences, authority, etc.–Congresses. |
Bible–Hermeneutics–Congresses. | Reformed Church–Doctrines–Congresses.
Classification: LCC BS480 .S625 2017 | DDC 220.1–dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017041347
Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface.
ISSN 1571-4799
ISBN 978-90-04-35517-0 (paperback)
ISBN 978-90-04-35643-6 (e-book)
Copyright 2018 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill
Sense and Hotei Publishing.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided
that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive,
Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.
This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents
List of Contributors viii
Introduction 1
part I
Systematic Perspectives
1 Contra et Pro Sola Scriptura 19

Maarten Wisse
2 The Problematic Character of Sola Scriptura 38

Henk van den Belt
3 Foundation or Perspective? On the Usefulness of Formation

and Epistemology 56
Hans Burger
4 Alone Together: Sola Scriptura and the Other Solas

of the Reformation 79
Arnold Huijgen
5 Hermeneutical Theology as Contemporary Rendition of

the Sola Scriptura 105
Willem Maarten Dekker
part II
Biblical Perspectives
6 Oral Tradition in the Old Testament and Judaism 123

Mart-Jan Paul
7 “And Moses Wrote This Torah”: Canon Formulas and the

Theology of Writing in Deuteronomy 137
Arie Versluis
vi contents
8 “How the Mighty Have Fallen”: Sola Scriptura and the Historical
Debate on David as a Southern Levantine Warlord 159
Koert van Bekkum
9 “And it Shall Come to Pass in Those Days …” Eschatological Prophecy

Between Literalizing and Spiritualizing 183
Eric Peels
10 Sacra Scriptura Sui Ipsius Interpres: Reinterpretation in the

Book of Isaiah 195
Jaap Dekker
11 Sola Scriptura and the Imperfection of the Hebrew Text 216

Reinoud Oosting
12 Reading the Bible with Multifocal Lenses 230

Rob van Houwelingen
part III
Historical Perspectives
13 Sola Scriptura: The Relevance of Luther’s Use of Sola Scriptura in

De Servo Arbitrio 243
Willem van Vlastuin
14 Sola Scriptura and Calvin’s Appeal to Chrysostom’s Exegesis 260

Jeannette Kreijkes-van Esch
part IV
Practical Theological Perspectives
15 Sola Scriptura as Social Construction. A Practical Theological

Approach 279
Jack Barentsen and Léon van Ommen
16 Sola Scriptura and the Formative Role of Practical Theology 294

Hans Schaeffer
contents vii
part V
Concluding Reflections
17 The Communio Sanctorum as Scripture’s Home: Sola, Singing and the

Literal Sense 315
Brian Brock
18 Sola Scriptura Means Scripture First! A “Mere Protestant” Dogmatic

Account (and Response) 335
Kevin J. Vanhoozer
Index 359
List of Contributors
Jack Barentsen
Ph.D. (2010), Evangelische Theologische Faculteit in Leuven (Belgium), served
as pastor in the Netherlands, and currently teaches Practical Theology, with
an emphasis on church leadership, at the Evangelische Theologische Faculte-
it. He publishes on church leadership (e.g. Emerging Leadership in the Pauline
Mission).
Koert van Bekkum

Ph.D. (2010), Theological University, Kampen, is Assistant Professor of Old
Testament at that university. He is author of From Conquest to Coexistence:
Ideology and Antiquarian Intent in the Historiography of Israel’s Settlement in
Canaan (Brill, 2011).
Henk van den Belt

Ph.D. (2006), Leiden University, is Professor of Reformed Theology: Sources,
Development, and Context at the University of Groningen. He is the author of
The Authority of Scripture in Reformed Theology: Truth and Trust (Brill, 2008)
and of several articles on Reformed Orthodoxy and on Neocalvinism; he also is
the volume editor of Synopsis Purioris Theologiae / Synopsis of a Purer Theolo-
gy: Volume 2, Disputations 24–42 (Brill, 2016).
Brian Brock
Ph.D. (2003), King’s College, London, is Reader in Moral and Practical Theology
at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. He has published scholarly volumes
on the use of scripture in Christian ethics, the ethics of technological develop-
ment, and the history of disability in the Christian tradition.
Hans Burger
Ph.D. (2008), Theological University Kampen, is Assistant Professor of
Systematic Theology at that university. He has published a book and articles
on ‘being in Christ’, on the doctrine of atonement, the doctrine of scripture
and on hermeneutics.
Jaap Dekker
Ph.D. (2004), Theological University Apeldoorn, holds the Henk de Jong Chair
as Professor of Biblical Studies and Identity at that university. After Zion’s
list of contributors ix
Rock-Solid Foundations (Brill, 2007) he has published articles on the Book of

Isaiah and co-edited Playing with Leviathan (Brill, 2017).

Ph.D. (2008), PThU, Utrecht, is pastor within the Protestant Church in the
Netherlands. He has published monographs, translations and articles on dog-
matics. His dissertation is entitled De relationaliteit van God: Onafhankelijkheid
en relatie in de godsleer en ontologie van Francesco Turrettini en Eberhard Jüngel
(Boekencentrum, 2008).
Rob van Houwelingen

Ph.D. (1988), Theological University Kampen, is professor of New Testament
at the Theological University Kampen (NL), Extraordinary Professor of New
Testament at the North-West University, Potchefstroom (RSA) and Research
Associate in the Department of New Testament Studies, University of Pretoria
(RSA).
Arnold Huijgen
Ph.D. (2011), Theological University Apeldoorn, is Professor of Systematic
Theology at that university. He obtained his Ph.D. from the same university in
2011. He specializes in Reformed theology, hermeneutics, and the doctrine of
the Trinity.

MA, is a PhD student in the field of Reformed Theology and Patristic Studies at
the University of Groningen, The Netherlands, and at the KU Leuven, Belgium.
She is working on a dissertation about Calvin’s reception of Chrysostom’s
method of exegesis.
Léon van Ommen

Ph.D. (2015), Evangelische Theologische Faculteit (Leuven), is Christ’s College
Teaching Fellow in Practical Theology at the University of Aberdeen. His re-
search and teaching centers on liturgy and ritual, suffering and healing, recon-
ciliation, and practical theology.
Reinoud Oosting
Ph.D. (2011), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, is Bible translator at the Nether-
lands Bible Society and research fellow at the Eep Talstra Centre for Bible and
x List of Contributors
Computer, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. His publications include The Role of

Zion/Jerusalem in Isaiah 40–55: A Corpus-Linguistic Approach (Brill, 2013).
Mart-Jan Paul
Ph.D. (1988), Leiden University, is Professor of Old Testament at the Evangeli-
cal Theological Faculty Leuven (Belgium) and the Christelijke Hogeschool Ede
(Netherlands). He is main editor of a series of Old Testament commentaries in
the Dutch language.
Eric Peels
Ph.D. (1992), Theological University of Apeldoorn, the Netherlands, is Pro-
fessor of Old Testament Studies at that university and Research Associate of
the Department of Biblical Studies of the University of the Free State. He has
published books and articles on the Old Testament image of God, and the
exegesis and theology of Jeremiah.
Hans Schaeffer
Ph.D. (2006), Theological University Kampen, is Associate Professor of Prac-
tical Theology at that university. He published on theological ethics and prac-
tical theology, including Ethics of Createdness: The Doctrine of Creation and
Theological Ethics in the Theology of Colin E. Gunton and Oswald Bayer (Walter
de Gruyter, 2006).
Kevin J. Vanhoozer
Ph.D. (1985), Cambridge University, is Research Professor of Systematic The-
ology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, IL (USA). He has
authored ten books, including The Drama of Doctrine (WJK, 2005) and Remy-
thologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion, and Authorship (CUP, 2010).
Willem van Vlastuin

Ph.D. (2002), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, is Professor of Theology and
Spirituality of Reformed Protestantism at that university. He has published
monographs and several articles in this area, including Be Renewed: A Theology
of Personal Renewal (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014).
Arie Versluis
Ph.D. (2012), Theological University Apeldoorn, is Research Associate in Old
Testament at that university. He has published The Command to Exterminate
the Canaanites: Deuteronomy 7, OTS 71 (Brill, 2017) and articles on the subject
of violence in the Old Testament.
list of contributors xi
Maarten Wisse
Ph.D. (2003), Utrecht University, Habil. (2011), University of Tübingen, is Pro-
fessor of Dogmatics at the Protestant Theological University in Amsterdam. He
has published in the areas of theological hermeneutics, Trinitarian theology
and Reformed systematic theology. His most recent book is Trinitarian Theolo
gy beyond Participation: Augustine’s De Trinitate and Contemporary Theology
(T&T Clark International, 2011).
Introduction
1 Introduction
At the occasion of the 500th anniversary of Luther’s Ninety-Five The-

ses, which he sent to the Archbishop of Mainz, Albert of Brandenburg, on
31 October 1517, and later posted on the door of Wittenberg’s church, spark-
ing various sorts of reforms and reformations, the Reformation as a whole is
commemorated, discussed, and evaluated broadly around the world. Particular-
ly for theologians from a Reformed background, this event offers momentum
to research and evaluate central ideas from the Reformation in d ramatically
changed contexts. One of the ideas that is often claimed to be central
to the Reformation and the subsequent Reformed tradition is sola scriptura
(“scripture alone”), usually placed in conjunction with sola fide (“through
faith alone”), sola gratia (“through grace alone”), and solus Christus (“Christ
alone”). The present volume brings together contributions on this subject that
were originally presented at an international conference, organized by the
combined research group Biblical Exegesis and Systematic Theology of the
Theological University Apeldoorn and the Theological University Kampen,
and hosted by the latter.
Many of the contributions in this volume discuss the question what sola
scriptura meant historically, what it could mean in the confrontation with bib-
lical texts, or what it should mean from a theological point of view. Rather than
taking sola scriptura as a presupposition for their various contributions, con-
tributors seek to discern the viability of the idea. For if it actually is a central
idea from the Reformation, the classical Reformed adage semper reformanda
(what is reformed should always be reformed anew) applies, and if it is a later
theological construct applied to the Reformation because of theological in-
terests of whatever kind, the question remains what the role of scripture for
theology is, and what it should be. The various contributions present differing
opinions on the meaning and implications of sola scriptura, which converge
in the combination of the conviction of the authority of the scriptures of the
Old and New Testaments on the one hand, and openness for historical-critical
approaches and other authorities, such as the Church, on the other.
In this introduction, the editors aim at three things. First, to demonstrate
the use of bringing biblical exegesis and systematic theology into contact
specifically for a volume on sola scriptura; second, to sketch the present
© Koninklijke Brill NV, leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/9789004356436_002

2 Burger, Huijgen and Peels
challenges in the field of theological interpretation of scripture, in which

the present work fits; and third, to provide a brief sketch of the various
contributions.
2 Connecting Biblical Exegesis and Systematic Theology
The present book is the result of the joint efforts of biblical exegetes and
systematic theologians, with additional help from the field of historical the-
ology. The editors think that bringing these disciplines together is fruitful for
theology in general, but is even more necessary with respect to the theme of
sola scriptura. For the scripture principle has historical, exegetical, and sys-
tematic aspects that need to be combined in order to get a coherent picture.
The historical question of whether sola scriptura was a closely defined topic
in the era of the Reformation, or a rather loose slogan used in later evalua-
tions of the Reformation, matters for the systematic discussions of the exact
definition of sola scriptura. Also, exegetical decisions concerning the nature,
and interrelatedness, of texts bear on what ‘scripture’ means in the adage
sola scriptura. Besides, systematic theology can help to define, clarify, and
demarcate the idea of sola scriptura, while offering a more comprehensive
view than the exegesis of individual biblical texts, passages, or Bible books.
So, the combination of exegetical, systematical, and historical perspectives
is useful.
This combination is even more than useful; it is necessary. Exactly the dis-
cussion on the authority of scripture shows that in expounding a Biblical text,
the definition of what a Biblical text is plays a role, whether one has a high view
of scripture, or regards scripture as any other text. Moreover, the question is
whether scripture primarily is a text, or whether it refers to scriptural practices.
These questions concerning what the Bible is and to which extent it has au-
thority in what domains, is the background of any exegesis. Also, any doctrine
of scripture will seek to be in line with exegetical results if the systematic theo-
logian does not wish to run the risk of becoming detached from Christianity in
the broadest sense of the word. Any doctrine of scripture that does not keep
in touch with contemporary exegesis is docetic, and any exegesis that shuns
the question what the Bible actually is, is not contextual enough and possibly
naive. Since biblical exegesis and systematic theology are often distinct depart-
ments of theology with their own methods and communication channels, this
interaction does not come naturally. The present volume both demonstrates
the benefits to be gained from cooperation, and stimulates further interaction
between exegesis and systematic theology.
introduction 3
The research group Biblical Exegesis and Systematic Theology (BEST) that
organized the conference of which the present volume is the fruit, is of Re-
formed conviction. Particularly for the Reformed branch of Protestantism,
the questions of scripture and the scripture principle have been important
because of the high view of scripture and the tendency to present d ogmatics
as biblical, and the Bible as the source book for systematic theology. The
present authors wish to be Reformed. Without acting as if the Bible, in all its
complexity, and systematic theology fit together unproblematically, the dia-
logue between biblical exegesis and systematic theology is vital for the truth
claims of the Reformed tradition. Within this Reformed tradition, members
of the BEST group mostly stem from conservative circles, in which the de-
bate on the relation between Bible and systematic theology has been ongo-
ing over several decades. In this debate, the validity of critical approaches to
the Bible has become widely accepted, without diminishing the deep respect
for the Bible as, theologically speaking, the inspired Word of God. Historical
methods and confessional forms of theology are not per definition at odds
with each other, but these two perspectives can together function in a fruit-
ful cooperation, albeit only if the two can speak for themselves first. It would
be equally inadequate to try to diminish the impact of historical-critical
methods on the Bible beforehand because of one’s Reformed beliefs, as it is
to demand that any Reformed convictions be set aside before the exegete can
begin his or her work (as if it would be possible to put one’s beliefs in brack-
ets as easily as that).1 But without bias or massaging away of inconvenient
truths, the debate between exegetes and systematic theologians deserves to
be pursued.
Of course, the various authors within the BEST group all have their different
approaches, and the BEST group is not the first to seek the intimate connection
between theology and exegesis. There is an entire area of research present on
theological hermeneutics. To tentatively define the place of the present vol-
ume within that area, the next section sketches the place of this volume in the
wider context of contemporary theological interpretations of scripture, while
the fourth and final section of this introduction provides an overview of the
various contributions to the present volume.
1 In this sense, the picture painted by Jörg Lauster, Prinzip und Methode. Die Transformation
des protestantischen Schriftprinzips durch die historische Kritik von Schleiermacher bis zur Ge-
genwart (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), that protestant theology moved from the scripture
principle to historical-critical methods, is historically adequate as far as German theology is
concerned, but is neither necessary nor desirable for present day theology.
3 The Challenge of a “Theological Interpretation of Scripture”
What the present volume offers resembles the so-called “theological interpre-
tation of scripture”, a theological approach of scripture that is advocated in
many recent books. Although the movement is diverse, its central claim is that
the books of the Bible have to be read primarily in the liturgical context of the
Christian Church as scripture, as the single canon and as the Word of God, in ac-
cordance with the creed of the ancient Church.2 This theological interpretation
of scripture emerged out of a dissatisfaction with the impact of modernity on
reading scripture. This dissatisfaction arose from what adherents of the theolog-
ical interpretation of scripture regard as disengaged readings of scripture. They
claim that in the name of objectivity, scriptural texts were read particularly with
a historical interest. This resulted in reconstructions of scriptural texts com-
posed of different sources, in disinterested readings within a deistic framework,
and in the isolation of the Bible from the ecclesial and liturgical context of read-
ing the Bible as scripture. Earlier tendencies within scholastic Protestantism
towards a formalized and intellectualized view of scripture already would have
prepared a fertile ground for this disengaged way of reading scripture.
The movement of theological interpretation developed as a result of dif-
ferent impulses. Consequently, it is difficult to give a clear-cut definition. Im-
portant influence has come from postliberals from Yale. With his “canonical
interpretation”, Brevard Childs has emphasised the centrality of the Chris-
tian canon and the necessity to read the Old and New Testaments together as
“scripture”.3 Hans Frei was one of the scholars who proposed a rehabilitation
2 See for introductions and overviews J. Todd Billings, The Word of God for the People of God:
An Entryway to the Theological Interpretation of Scripture (Grand Rapids /Cambridge:
Eerdmans, 2010); Stephen E. Fowl, Theological Interpretation of scripture (Eugene: Cascade,
2009); Stanley E. Porter, “What Exactly Is Theological Interpretation of Scripture, and Is It
Hermeneutically Robust Enough For The Task to Which It Has Been Appointed”, in Horizons
in Hermeneutics, eds. Stanley E. Porter and Matthew R. Malcolm (Grand Rapids / Cambridge:
Eerdmans, 2013), 234–267; Daniel J. Treier, “What is Theological Interpretation? An Eccle-
siological Reduction”, International Journal of Systematic Theology 12 (2010): 2, 144–161;
Daniel J. Treier, Introducing Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Recovering a Christian
Practice (Nottingham: Apollos, 2008). Kevin Vanhoozer has attempted to define ‘theologi-
cal interpretation of the Bible’ in the Introduction to Kevin J. Vanhoozer (General Ed.), Dic-
tionary of Theological Interpretation of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic / London:
SPCK, 2005), 19–25.
3 For a first overview of the significance of the work of Brevard Childs, see Brevard S. Childs;
Robert C. Kashow; Kent Harold Richards; Christopher R. Seitz, The Bible as Christian Scrip-
ture: the work of Brevard S. Childs (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013).
introduction 5
of narrative.4 Duke has been another important place for the development
of this movement. Here, it was, for example, Stanley Hauerwas who stressed
the importance of the Church as the context where the texts of the Bible are
read.5 This context is both liturgical and creedal. Moreover, the community of
the Church is the place where in its practices connected to the liturgy and the
reading of scripture, readers are formed. Emphases on community, narrative
and formation as we find in Hauerwas have been inspired also by Alisdair Mac-
Intyre’s communitarianism. However, to be good readers it does not suffice to
mention the ecclesial formation: the guidance of the Holy Spirit is even more
important. These first impulses led to a movement consisting of theologians
from different confessional backgrounds, but who share this emphasis on can-
on, Church and creed.6
Reading scripture within the context of canon, Church and creed has
resulted subsequently in relating the reading of scripture with other parts of
theology. As in the case of the so-called Trinitarian renaissance, the doctrine
of the Trinity is particularly important here as well. Many proponents of a
theological interpretation locate the use of scripture within the field of God’s
triune activity and consequently within the economy of salvation. The triune
God works towards the salvation of his creation and he uses scripture within
this saving economy. The Father speaks and sends, the Son is the Word of God
in whom we share, the Spirit guides us into all truth and unites us to Christ.
Reading scripture means participating in this triune economy. Consequently,
when we read scripture we do so in the presence and not in the absence of the
God who speaks.7
4 Hans Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative. A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century
Hermeneutics (New Haven / London: Yale University Press, 1974).
5 See e.g. Stanley Hauerwas, Unleashing the Scripture. Freeing the Bible from the Captivity to
America (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993).
6 See e.g. Robert Jenson, Canon and Creed (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010). On
Jenson, see Darren Sarisky, “What is Theological Interpretation? The Example of Robert W.
Jenson”, International Journal of Systematic Theology 12 (2010): 2, 201–216. See also A. van
de Beek, Lichaam en Geest van Christus: De theologie van de kerk en de Heilige Geest (Zoeter-
meer: Meinema, 2012), 195–391.
7 See e.g. Billings, The Word of God for the People of God; Mark Alan Bowald, Rendering the Word
in Theological Hermeneutics: Mapping Divine and Human Agency (Aldershot / Burlington:
Ashgate, 2009); Mark Alan Bowald, “The Character of Theological Interpretation of Scrip-
ture”, International Journal of Systematic Theology 12 (2010): 2, 162–183; Angus Paddison,
Scripture: a Very Theological Proposal (London / New York: T&T Clark, 2009); Angus Paddison,
“The Authority of Scripture and the Triune God”, International Journal of Systematic Theology
13 (2011), 448–462; Darren Sarisky, Scriptural Interpretation: A Theological Exploration
Because the movement of the theological interpretation of scripture is a

broad movement with people from different traditions partaking, confessional
differences colour the way in which different representatives reflect on reading
scripture.8 Some have a strong ecclesiology, others emphasise the primacy of
scripture.9 Robert Jenson mentions the hermeneutical role of the episcopacy;
Kevin Vanhoozer tries to maintain the primacy of scripture by reclaiming the
importance of sola scriptura, understood as a practice.10 Also, attitudes towards
postmodernism differ: on the one hand Stephen Fowl follows a postmodern
sceptical attitude towards textual sense, but rescues Christian reading of scrip-
ture via pneumatology and ecclesiology, on the other hand Francis Watson and
Kevin Vanhoozer plead for an authorial discourse interpretation.11
This movement of the theological interpretation of scripture developed
over the course of the second half of 20th century, mostly in Anglo-Saxon con-
texts. The contexts of the Dutch Reformed traditions from which most of the
authors of the present volume come, are different, but they do share many
of the main concerns of the theological interpretation movement, such as a
critical attitude towards liberal theology, the disengagement in much mod-
ern academic theology, and deistic attitudes in modern historical criticism.
(Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013); Kevin J. Vanhoozer, First Theology: God, Scripture &

Hermeneutics (Downers Grove Illinois: IVP/ Leicester England: Apollos, 2002); John
Webster, Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2003).
8 Cf. Robert W. Wall, “Reading the Bible Within Our Traditions: The ‘Rule of Faith’ in
Theological Hermeneutics”, in Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies &
Systematic Theology, eds. Joel B. Green, Max Turner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000),
88–107.
9 For examples of Protestant theologians arguing for the primacy of Scripture, see Webster,
Holy Scripture, 42–67; Donald Wood, “The Place of Theology in Theological Hermeneu-
tics”, International Journal of Systematic Theology 4 (2002): 2, 156–171.
10 Jenson, Canon and Creed, 71–76; Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A
Canonical-Linguistic Aproach to Christian Doctrine (Louisville: Westminster John Knox
Press, 2005).
11 See e.g. Stephen E. Fowl, “The Role of Authorial Intenion in the Theological Interpretation
of Scripture”, in Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies & Systematic The-
ology, eds. Joel B. Green, Max Turner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 71–87; S tephen E.
Fowl, “The Importance of a Multivoiced Literal Sense of Scripture. The Example of Thom-
as Aquinas”, in Reading Scripture with the Church.Toward a Hermeneutic for Theological In-
terpretation, eds. A.K.M. Adam etc. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 35–50; F rancis
Watson, Text and Truth: Redefining Biblical Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,1997); Kevin
J. Vanhoozer, Is there a meaning in this text?: the Bible, the reader, and the morality of liter-
ary knowledge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998).
introduction 7
In Kampen and Apeldoorn, theology has been studied in close relation to

the Reformed confessions and to Church practices. Coloured by its Reformed
19th and 20th century context, it shares an emphasis on canon, confession
(creed) and Church. At the same time, “theological interpretation” challenges
this tradition to locate scripture more explicitly within the economy of the
triune God. Despite the critical attitude towards the deistic tendency of much
modern historical criticism, it was itself influenced by modernity as well.
It shares a focus on history and textuality and is shaped by modern episte-
mological questions. The theological interpretation of scripture corrects this.
Scripture is no isolated book, but is used purposefully by Father, Son and Spirit,
in the salvation of God’s creation, and scripture is read primarily in the liturgi-
cal context of the Church. All in all, the present volume focuses more on scrip-
ture as text than on themes such as canon, Church, and attributes of scripture.
4 Setup of the Present Volume
4.1 Four Perspectives, Two Reviews

The structure of the present volume consists of five parts: systematic-theological
perspectives on sola scriptura, biblical perspectives, historical perspectives,
practical theological perspectives, and concluding reflections. The latter are
contributions by two leading scholars in the field of theological hermeneutics,
Brian Brock and Kevin J. Vanhoozer, who are both familiar enough to the Dutch
Reformed tradition to know beforehand what emphases are important in that
tradition, and have enough distance from this t radition to reflect in a critical
way. These reflections engage only with the four systematic contributions by
Henk van den Belt, Maarten Wisse, Hans Burger, and Arnold Huijgen, and with
four exegetical contributions by Arie Versluis, Koert van Bekkum, Eric Peels,
and Jaap Dekker. These eight contributions, in a sense, form the core of the
present volume.
4.2 Systematic Perspectives

To sketch the possible and actual problems involved in the idea of sola scriptu-
ra, the present volume opens with a contribution by Maarten Wisse, in which
he describes and analyses the intrinsic problems he sees in any idea of sola
scriptura. In an analysis of John Piper’s thought, he argues that a reference to
sola scriptura serves to obscure the selection process that is always involved
in scriptural interpretation. Thus, sola scriptura actually is a way of grasping
power, a coup. According to Wisse, there are always competing interests at
stake, and the powers that be tend to suppress other interests by invoking sola
scriptura. This obviously also makes theologians lazy, because they can take
an interpretative shortcut. Wisse’s theological baseline in speaking out against
sola scriptura are the first and second commandments of the Decalogue, which
guard the distinction between God the Creator and human creatures. There-
fore, “nothing in the created order can be the direct means for evoking God’s
presence or will”.12 On the other hand, Wisse does advocate another version of
sola scriptura, based on the singularity of the incarnation, which leads to the
singularity of the scriptures.
While the meaning of the idea of sola scriptura is the subject of systematic-
theological discussions, the history of the term is obviously also important.
Henk van den Belt uncovers that the notion sola scriptura is not representative
for the theology of the Reformers, neither in a historical, nor in a systematic-
theological sense. Van den Belt demonstrates that the earliest occurrence of
the term sola scriptura, in conjunction with sola fide, and sola gratia—the
three terms that together were labelled the “watchword” of the Reformers—is
somewhere in the nineteenth century. This slogan was probably driven by the
search for central dogma’s in the various branches of protestantism. So, from a
historical perspective, sola scriptura is not characteristic for Reformed theolo-
gy. Although this does not in itself decide on the question whether sola scrip-
tura is an apt description of the substance of Reformed theology, Van den Belt
proceeds to demonstrate that the doctrine of scripture was not as central to
Reformed theology as one would suspect, based on the idea of sola scriptura.
For Luther, the doctrines of grace and the justification of the ungodly were
central, so he retrieved these in the scriptures. The Swiss Reformation, how-
ever, intended a return to what the Swiss Reformers thought the Church of all
ages had believed on the basis of scripture; not primarily to scripture without
the tradition of the Church, but to scripture as the source of the right tradition
of the Church. Van den Belt criticizes the idea of sola scriptura as imprecise,
and in need of clarification. He therefore proposes to speak of prima scriptura
(“scripture first”) instead of sola scriptura.
If sola scriptura is disconnected from a foundationalist framework, and used
in a perspective model and a focus on the formation of Bible readers, it is a
viable way, according to Hans Burger. Having described the Reformation as a
conflict on authority, Burger shows how scripture as final authority provided
an answer for the 16th century, but also led to an ongoing debate on authority.
In the course of history, sola scriptura has taken the traits of modern founda-
tionalism: “the epistemological quest for a priori absolute certainty in com-
bination with a preference for formal instead of material arguments for the
12 Wisse, “Contra et Pro Sola Scriptura,” in the present volume, 31.

introduction 9
authority of scripture”.13 Burger criticizes this approach mainly because the fo-
cus of scripture itself is not epistemological, but soteriological, and because the
authority of scripture needs a Trinitarian embedding. Burger reconstructs
the theological perspective that guides the reading by the Dutch Reformed
theologian Klaas Schilder, and derives an emphasis on God’s trinitarian acts,
Christ as extra-textual center of the scriptures, the Bible as narrative, and
Christians as participants in that narrative. A shift to a perspective model does
not imply opting for anti-realism, however, but it does mean a shift towards the
formation of Bible readers.
The relation between sola scriptura and the other solas (sola gratia, sola
fide, solus Christus) is scrutinized by Arnold Huijgen. He notes that sola scrip-
tura was never intended to rule out all other authorities, but only to express
that scripture was the final, not the sole authority. In the relation to sola fide,
it shows that sola scriptura functions primarily as a confession of faith, so it
functions—as Hans Burger also emphasizes—in a soteriological framework,
not an epistemological one. Therefore, sola scriptura does not exclude the
Church, but has a double relation to the Church: scripture is both the origin of
the Church and functions within the Church as community of faith. In relation
to sola gratia, scripture is an expression of God’s grace, and thus fosters an at-
titude of receptivity and responsivity. Thirdly, sola scriptura is related to solus
Christus, again in a double way: Christ is the center of scripture, and Christ
is known through the scriptures. Huijgen argues that when sola scriptura is
understood in the context of its relation to the other solas, the critiques of
Maarten Wisse and Brad Gregory that sola scriptura fosters individualism, plu-
ralism, and arbitrariness, are countered.
The final essay in the systematical section sheds light on the 20th centu-
ry New Hermeneutic of Ernst Fuchs and Gerhard Ebeling. Willem Maarten
Dekker demonstrates that Fuchs and Ebeling distinguished the Bible from
the Word of God, since the latter is an event of God speaking to the hearer.
This “Word-event” can only be heard through explanation, while scripture
“is the primary explanation of the Word of God.”14 The focus shifts from
the text itself to the word that needs to be understood. So, Fuchs and Ebe-
ling replace sola scriptura by solo verbo. With the help of Ingolf Dalferth’s
“radical theology”, Dekker seeks to counter some of the weaknesses of the
New Hermeneutic, leading to the conclusion that hermeneutical theology
13 Hans Burger, “Foundation or Perspective? On the Usefulness of Formation and Epistemol-

ogy,” in the present volume, 59.
14 Willem Maarten Dekker, “Hermeneutical Theology as Contemporary Rendition of the
Sola Scriptura,” in the present volume, 108.
is “the best option which does justice to the scripture principle in a (post)
modern way”.15
In sum, from a systematic-theological perspective, the idea of sola scriptura
is in need of clarification, and it comes with serious risks, but there are theolo-
gians who think it can, and should, be maintained, albeit in a rephrased form
(Van den Belt), and/or in clearly defined way (Burger), and/or in coherence
with the other solas (Huijgen). An alternative to these approaches is a reinter-
pretation of sola scriptura in terms of the “Word-event” (Dekker).
4.3 Biblical Perspectives

In the exegetical and biblical-theological section of the present volume, the
main contributions focus on the meaning that traditions of writing, reinterpre-
tation, history, and eschatology have for the character of the Christian scrip-
tures, and thus for biblical hermeneutics. These contributions emphasize the
importance of theological exegesis, which is a corollary of the sola scriptura
adage.
Arie Versluis investigates the so-called “canon formula”, the stipulation in
Deuteronomy that nothing may be added to the words of YHWH, nor taken
from it. This stipulation is not unique to the Old Testament, but is also found in
the Umwelt. Versluis argues that this formula does not serve to protect a certain
text, but as a call to strict obedience. Deuteronomy does make claims about
authority, but these are clad in a theology of writing, one of the few activities
recorded in the book. The emphasis lies on the departing Moses writing, and
on the preservation of what he wrote, which underlines the closed, and au-
thoritative character of Torah. In the light of this, it is understandable that the
“canon formula” was later applied to stipulate the authority of the text of Deu-
teronomy, and of the Old Testament in general. So, “pre-forms of canonization”
are found in Deuteronomy.
The relation between text and history, and between theology and other
scholarly disciplines, is the subject of Koert van Bekkum’s contribution. The
recent consensus in archeological research is that David was the founder of a
dynasty in Jerusalem, but there is a broad range of opinions on the exact his-
torical picture. The few historical elements remaining are the fact that David
was a mercenary and a warlord, who expanded his territory the way warlords
do. The picture the Old Testament books of Samuel paint of David, however,
differs from the archeological data and scholarly consensus. It seems to be
an apology of David, emphasizing that he is anything but an usurpator. Van
15 Dekker, “Hermeneutical Theology as Contemporary Rendition of the Sola Scriptura”, 118.

introduction 11
Bekkum argues that Old Testament texts should be taken seriously as sources
and religious texts, and should not be subjected to a political hermeneutics of
suspicion beforehand. Sola scriptura means that the text of the Old Testament
should be treated in accordance with its self-presentation. This also indicates
that the text is not meant to answer all historical questions, since it primarily
makes theological claims.
After these contributions on the Torah and the Writings, Eric Peels writes on
the hermeneutic of prophetic texts. Sola scriptura means that no overly literal
or overly spiritual approach should be imposed on the text, but that the charac-
ter of the text itself needs to be respected. Given the contingent, fragmentary,
and contextual nature of prophecy, there is no simple either/or between fulfill-
ment and non-fulfillment. A sensitive hermeneutic of prophetic texts is no bed
of Procrustes, but is primarily responsive to the text’s nature. Peels character-
izes the nature of Old Testament prophetic texts as summarizing-perspectival,
imaginative-evocative, and actualizing-symbolizing.
While sola scriptura refers to the Reformed insistence on scripture over
against the Roman-catholic emphasis on tradition, there are other traditions
to be taken into account. Jaap Dekker demonstrates this in his contribution on
reinterpretation in the book of Isaiah. This is a step further than reinterpre-
tation of Isaianic texts by New Testament authors, or by the Ancient Versions
and Qumran texts. Also within the book of Isaiah itself, older texts are updated,
recontextualized, and reinterpreted. During this process, they receive a new
meaning. This shows particularly in the third part of Isaiah, chapters 56–66,
which Dekker characterizes as “scribal prophecy”. All this leads to a dynamic
understanding of the word of God, which can always bring forth something
new.
Other contributions in the biblical section of the present volume include
Mart Jan Paul’s on oral traditions, to which the book of Genesis alludes. While
rabbinic traditions claim that the oral tradition has been preserved, Protes-
tantism has generally rejected this claim. Paul stimulates Protestants, however,
to be aware of these kinds of traditions. Reinoud Oosting contributes on the
transmission of the Hebrew text, stating that it is necessary to look closely at
the textual data, and not let any scripture principle blind the biblical scholar
for inconsistencies in the Hebrew text. Rob van Houwelingen warns against
using sola scriptura as a hermeneutical key, as if the meaning of the text would
be accessible without further studies.
4.4 Historical and Practical Perspectives

In the historical section, both the reformers Luther and Calvin are discussed
in detail. Willem van Vlastuin notes that while Luther had to dispute those
who overestimated the tradition of the Church, presently the tradition of

the Church tends to be underestimated. Luther’s defiance of Aristotelian
philosophy serves as a warning that philosophical presuppositions and
worldview can influence our understanding of scripture. For Luther, however,
the Word of God was a living reality. As Jeannette Kreijkes demonstrates,
Calvin’s insistence on scripture did not mean that he disavowed the tradition
of the Church. Rather, he invoked the Church Fathers as authorities. Kreijkes
scrutinizes Calvin’s appeal to John Chrysostom’s exegesis and finds that Calvin
stresses the literal sense of scripture, but considers it legitimate that precon-
ceived theological notions, such as the dogma of the Church, play a role in
establishing the literal sense, if only the Church is subjected to Christ.
There are two practical theological perspectives provided in the present vol-
ume. Jack Barentsen and Léon van Ommen approach sola scriptura as an au-
thority claim, and thus as a social construction. Even when it is confessed that
the authority of scripture originates from outside faith communities, it must
be embedded in such communities through mechanisms of social construc-
tion. The social and theological complexities of sola scriptura are analyzed
with the “four voices” model, which distinguishes layers in theological situa-
tions. Hans Schaeffer contributes an essay on the formative role of practical
theology. Practical theology can help to overcome overly rational uses of the
Bible, and to integrate the various aspects of theological education. Thus, sola
scriptura in practical theology means a critical reflection on practices of the
Church, which is constituted by the word of God.
4.5 Two Reviews

Two outstanding scholars in the field of theological interpretation of scripture
reflect on eight of the contributions in the present volume. The first is Brian
Brock, Reader of Ethics at the University of Aberdeen, and author of the book
Singing the Ethos of God: On the Place of Christian Ethics in Scripture.16 Being in
agreement with most of what the systematic and biblical contributions in the
present volume bring forward, he returns to Martin Luther once again to un-
derstand in what context sola scriptura arose. As a young monk, Luther was ac-
customed to sing, and so pray, the psalms. This experience shows that the Word
is not primarily a text in a textbook, but that it is the living word. This word
leads to a new understanding, as well as a new understanding of tradition. To
receive this word, a hermeneutic of living with the scriptures, of staying with
the words, is necessary. This implies an attitude of obedience and faith, which
16 Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.

introduction 13
renders reading the scriptures to a spiritual and inner work, which renews the
person. This attitude of receptivity means to admit that one does not know
scripture yet, but needs to be taught time and again. As Brock writes, “His [Lu-
ther’s] theological ‘system’ is to perpetually be reentering the whole through
single verses, a process which he believes leads to the continual reversal of our
perceptions”.17 The Word of the Lord is new every morning, and the soteriologi-
cal horizon must shape the epistemic and hermeneutic rationalities.
Brock emphasizes that this hermeneutic, this life with the scriptures, does
not detach the individual from the community; on the contrary, this use of
scripture presupposes a community of praise and faith in the living God.
“There is a symmetrical relationship between the irreducibility of the text of
scripture and the irreducibility of the persons who make up the communion
of saints.”18 So, Brock points into the direction of a personal, experiential, com-
munal, ecclesial hermeneutic of obedience, which breaks through the usual
interpretative grids of the present day.
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Trinity
Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, has written extensively on the
theological interpretation in general and on sola scriptura in particular.19 Van-
hoozer notes that many contributors note the problematic character of sola
scriptura, albeit for different reasons. He agrees with some of the authors in
the present volume that the proper dogmatic location of sola scriptura is in
the triune economy of communication. So, scripture means that God active-
ly communicates with humans. “Scripture alone constitutes God’s authorized
self-presentation in human words.”20
According to Vanhoozer, this is in line with the historical meaning of sola
scriptura: the Reformers did not intend to isolate scripture from the actu-
al communication of God with his people. On the contrary: the Reformers
17 Brian Brock, “The Communio Sanctorum as Scripture’s Home”, in the present volume, 324.
18 Brock “The Communio Sanctorum as Scripture’s Home”, 328.
19 Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Mo-
rality of Literary Knowledge (Leicester: Apollos, 1998) argues that the postmodern crisis
of understanding is thoroughly theological in nature, and that while the Bible must be
interpreted as any other book, any other book should be approached from a trinitari-
an perspective. In The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian
Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 231–237, Vanhoozer discusses
sola scriptura in the context of his understanding as the scriptures as script that need
reenactment. In his recent book Biblical Authority after Babel: Retrieving the Solas in the
Spirit of Mere Protestant Christianity (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2016), he once again
engages the theme of sola scriptura.
20 Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Sola Scriptura Means Scripture First”, in the present volume, 343.
acknowledged other authorities than the scriptures, although scripture re-

mains the final authority. Also, the Reformers kept the solas of the Reforma-
tion together, and they did not despise traditions of the Church, but heartily
engaged the debate concerning traditional authorities such as the Church Fa-
thers.
From a systematic-theological perspective, Vanhoozer highlights the cove-
nant as the context of God’s communication with his people. He notes that
the biblical contributions to the present volume also point in this direction:
God not only speaks covenantally, he also writes covenantally. Also with
respect to truth, biblical theology and systematic theology are in agreement:
truth is primarily a soteriological, not an epistemological category. It belongs
in a c ovenantal epistemology: “Truth in scripture is thus closely connected
with God’s covenant faithfulness. Truth according to scripture is a covenantal
correspondence, a faithful fit, between God’s words and God’s deeds, between
who God says he is and who he is.”21 This understanding of truth can also
accommodate the archeological questions and matters of reinterpretation in
scripture that are discussed in the present volume.
In this context, Vanhoozer highlights both the importance of the Church
(canonicity and catholicity cohere), and Christ as the center of scripture. So,
the purpose of scripture is not only to inform but also to transform the reader
into the image of Christ.
Bibliography
Beek, A. van de. Lichaam en Geest van Christus. De theologie van de kerk en de Heilige
Geest. Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2012.
Billings, J. Todd. The Word of God for the People of God: An Entryway to the Theological
Interpretation of Scripture. Grand Rapids /Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2010.
Bowald, Mark Alan. Rendering the Word in Theological Hermeneutics: Mapping Divine
and Human Agency. Aldershot / Burlington: Ashgate, 2009.
Bowald, Mark Alan. “The Character of Theological Interpretation of Scripture”, Inter-
national Journal of Systematic Theology 12 (2010): 2, 162–183.
Childs, Brevard S. et al. The Bible as Christian scripture: the work of Brevard S. Childs.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013.
Frei, Hans. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative. A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centu-
ry Hermeneutics. New Haven / London: Yale University Press, 1974.
21 Vanhoozer, “Sola Scriptura Means Scripture First”, 348.

introduction 15
Fowl, Stephen E. “The Role of Authorial Intention in the Theological Interpretation of

Scripture”, in Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies & Systematic
Theology, eds. Joel B. Green, Max Turner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000, 71–87.
Fowl, Stephen E. “The Importance of a Multivoiced Literal Sense of Scripture. The
Example of Thomas Aquinas”, in Reading Scripture with the Church.Toward a Her-
meneutic for Theological Interpretation, eds. A.K.M. Adam etc. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2006, 35–50.
Fowl, Stephen E. Theological Interpretation of Scripture. Eugene: Cascade, 2009.
Hauerwas, Stanley. Unleashing the Scripture. Freeing the Bible from the Captivity to
America. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993.
Jenson, Robert. Canon and Creed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010.
Lauster, Jörg. Prinzip und Methode: Die Transformation des protestantischen Schrift-
prinzips durch die historische Kritik von Schleiermacher bis zur Gegenwart. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
Paddison, Angus. Scripture: a Very Theological Proposal. London / New York: T&T Clark,
2009.
Paddison, Angus. “The Authority of Scripture and the Triune God”, International Jour-
nal of Systematic Theology 13 (2011), 448–462.
Porter, Stanley E. “What Exactly Is Theological Interpretation of Scripture, and Is It
Hermeneutically Robust Enough For The Task to Which It Has Been Appointed”, in
Horizons in Hermeneutics, eds. Stanley E. Porter, Matthew R. Malcolm. Grand Rap-
ids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2013, 234–267.
Sarisky, Darren. “What is Theological Interpretation? The Example of Robert W. Jen-
son”, International Journal of Systematic Theology 12 (2010): 2, 201–216.
Sarisky, Darren. Scriptural Interpretation: A Theological Exploration. Chichester: W iley-
Blackwell, 2013.
Treier, Daniel J. Introducing Theological Interpretation of Scripture. Recovering a Chris-
tian Practice. Nottingham: Apollos, 2008.
Treier, Daniel J. “What is Theological Interpretation? An Ecclesiological Reduction”,
International Journal of Systematic Theology 12 (2010): 2, 144–161.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Is there a meaning in this text?: the Bible, the reader, and the morality
of literary knowledge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. First Theology: God, Scripture & Hermeneutics. Downers Grove Illi-
nois: IVP/ Leicester England: Apollos, 2002.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. The Drama of Doctrine. A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Chris-
tian Doctrine. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. (General Ed.), Dictionary of Theological Interpretation of the Bible.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic / London: SPCK 2005, 19–25.
Wall, Robert W. “Reading the Bible Within Our Traditions: The ‘Rule of Faith’ in Theo-
logical Hermeneutics”, in Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies &
Systematic Theology, eds. Joel B. Green, Max Turner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000,
88–107.
Watson, Francis. Text and Truth: Redefining Biblical Theology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1997.
Webster, John. Holy Scripture. A Dogmatic Sketch. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2003.
Wood, Donald. “The Place of Theology in Theological Hermeneutics”, International
Journal of Systematic Theology 4 (2002): 2, 156–171.
Part I
Systematic Perspectives
∵
chapter 1
Contra et Pro Sola Scriptura

Maarten Wisse
1 Introduction
The problem that I want to take on in this paper, the Reformation princi-
ple of sola scriptura, is well illustrated by Baruch de Spinoza in his Tractatus
Theologico-Philosophicus, at the beginning of chapter 7, where he deals with
the interpretation of scripture:
On every side we hear men saying that the Bible is the Word of God,
teaching mankind true blessedness, or the path to salvation. But the facts
are quite at variance with their words, for people in general seem to make
no attempt whatsoever to live according to the Bible’s teachings. We see
that nearly all men parade their own ideas as God’s Word, their chief aim
being to compel others to think as they do, while using religion as a pre-
text. We see, I say, that the chief concern of theologians on the whole has
been to extort from Holy Scripture their own arbitrarily invented ideas,
for which they claim divine authority.1
In the first part of this essay, I will argue that Spinoza was right.2 I will ar-
gue that the sola scriptura principle suffers from intrinsic problems because
it obscures the selection processes that unavoidably accompany appeals to
scripture. As a result, the idea that only scripture directs theological claims
cannot be upheld because the hand of the interpreter is inescapably present
in every appeal to scripture’s authority. My argument takes the following steps.
First of all, I will try to clarify what we mean by the sola scriptura maxim.
Subsequently, I will illustrate how the sola scriptura principle obscures the
selection process involved in scriptural interpretation with an example from
1 Benedictus de Spinoza, Samuel Shirley and Michael L Morgan, Complete Works (Indianapo-
lis: Hackett Pub., 2002), 456.
2 Although I would by far not agree with the drastic consequences that Spinoza draws from
this statement, cf. the discussion of Spinoza in Arnold Huijgen, Divine Accommodation in
John Calvin’s Theology: Analysis and Assessment (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2011), 31–32.

20 Wisse
contemporary theology. Building further on this example, I will suggest that

sola scriptura makes theologians lazy. Making the transition from pragmatic to
material-theological arguments, I will finally argue that the balance between
the appropriation of salvation on the basis of God’s incarnation in Jesus Christ,
on the one hand, and the otherness of God as commanded by the Decalogue
on the other, is central to Christian theology. This balance, then, will lead to a
final defense of sola scriptura because of the singularity of the incarnation. At
the same time, such a position upholds that our dependence on the witness of
scripture to God’s revelation to Israel and in Jesus Christ does not do away with
theology’s obligation to take responsibility for its selective use of scripture and
the prices to be paid for this.
2 What Do I Mean by Sola Scriptura?
If we want to argue against or in favor of the sola scriptura principle, we have to

be clear about what we mean by the term. The complexity of such an endeavor
is that we cannot simply define the concept however we want because what
we are talking about is ‘the Reformation principle’ of sola scriptura. Hence,
our use of the concept must be sufficiently consonant with historical usage
if we want to avoid refuting a strawman that has never existed in history.
On the other hand, this actual history is by no means obviously coherent or
diachronically consistent. Therefore, we have to systematize our use of the
concept in order to make clear what we mean and which use of the concept
we want to criticize and which we want to affirm or tolerate. Taking these con-
ditions into account, I think it is helpful to distinguish between the meanings
of the catchphrase sola scriptura on different levels.
Let me start with the stricter, theological meaning of the term. First of all,
the phrase sola scriptura points to a fundamental theological principle. Scrip-
ture is, quoting Gisbertus Voetius and others, principium fidei, axiom of faith.3
In terms of this principle, one might define sola scriptura as follows: sola
scriptura denotes the conviction that scripture is the one and only criterion
for Christian faith and living, and beliefs and practices are true and truthfully
Christian if and only if they correspond to the witness of the whole of scrip-
ture. The notion of ‘scripture as a whole’, tota scriptura, is important. According
to the Reformed tradition, scripture has to be interpreted by itself, following
3 Willem J. van Asselt and others, Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism (Grand Rapids: Refor-
mation Heritage Books, 2011), 225–247.
Contra et Pro Sola Scriptura 21
Augustine’s rule that more difficult passages should be explained with the aid
of clearer passages. Sacra scriptura sui interpres, the idea that scripture is its
own interpreter, is another typical Latin phrase that represents this insight.4
Sola scriptura is no license for biblicism, the arbitrary use of Bible verses to
claim that one’s own religious convictions are scriptural. If so, any heresy could
be defended on the basis of scripture.
At the same time, one of the characteristics of the Reformed interpre-
tation of sola scriptura is that it has been left basically unqualified.5 This
means, different from the Lutheran Reformation, there is no extra criterion
that qualifies the appeal to scripture to act as a filter that can order and
prioritize the data from scripture. With Luther, this criterion is Christ. For
Luther and the Lutheran tradition, the solus Christus qualifies the sola scrip-
tura.6 In my view, it is typical of the Reformed tradition to reject such a filter.
Theological reasoning should lead to a balanced view of scripture in which
the various parts and claims are brought into harmony with each other
(analogia scripturae). The Reformed tradition did not succeed completely
in a unanimously agreed balance between the Old and New Testament. One
might think of the struggles between Voetius and Cocceius about the fourth
commandment or about the place of the law between antinomians or neo-
nomians. Even Socinianism can be seen as a more drastic way of diverging
from the mainstream ways of balancing out the Old against the New Testa-
ment in biblical interpretation.
So far so good for the principle. The principle can be applied to concrete
expressions of theological reasoning. One might write a dogmatic handbook
in which one aims to base oneself completely on scripture and, as such, refer
to or discuss scriptural passages. It might also find expression in a biblical com-
mentary in which the interpreter abstains from criticizing the literal sense of
biblical passages under discussion or an interpretation in which one aims at
respecting the historicity of the events narrated in the Bible as long as possible.
4 John V. Fesko, ‘The Doctrine of Scripture in Reformed Orthodoxy’, in A Companion to Re-

formed Orthodoxy, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition,
40 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 429–64 (434–435).
5 It is true that there are additional hermeneutical rules for interpreting scripture, such as the
rules of faith and love, but such rules will never be admitted as necessary prerequisites for
scripture to have a unified and clear meaning in and of itself.
6 W.J. Kooiman, Luther en de Bijbel, 3rd edn (Baarn: Ten Have, 1977), chap. 17–19; Cf. Chris-
toph Schwöbel, Gott in Beziehung: Studien zur Dogmatik (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002),
323–324, although Schwöbel does not explicitly note that this is just Lutheran rather than
protestant.
22 Wisse
It goes without saying that the sola scriptura principle forbids one to let one’s
own theological judgment be a critical and decisive factor in weighing the dif-
ferent aspects in the witness of scripture. Accepting genuine contradictions
within Scripture seems to be incompatible with the sola scriptura principle be-
cause such a situation would force interpreters to intervene and to choose with
which part of the contradiction they wish to disagree. Even in the relationship
between the Old and the New Testament, for example, the interpreter does
not really intervene because, in practice, the New Testament prescribes how
the Old Testament has to be read. Although even in that case, it has become a
common custom among Reformed theologians to let the Old Testament speak
for itself as much as possible. Here too a complete theoretical reflection that
covers the actual practice of the interpretation of the Old Testament in the
Reformed tradition has never been developed.
I do not deny that the description so far is to some extent systematizing,
generalizing, and, therefore, one-sided. Scholars have pointed to various as-
pects of the Reformation’s sola scriptura that add to its dynamic character.
Richard Muller, for example, has pointed to a number of ways in which the
post-Reformation approach to scripture is in continuity with the medieval tra-
dition.7 This is true of figurative interpretation of scripture and the necessary
role of the church or of doctrine. In the Dutch context, Henk van den Belt and
Arnold Huijgen have drawn attention to the pneumatological character of the
Reformed doctrine of scripture.8 The Reformation did not see scripture as a
neutral deposit of timeless truths that only need to be uncovered by an equal-
ly neutral interpreter. Only believers who are directed by the Holy Spirit can
see the God-given character of scripture.9 Finally, one might nuance the sola
scriptura by pointing to its origin in the Reformation as a critical slogan. Thus,
sola scriptura is a critical instrument for criticizing power structures and giving
scripture back into the hands of ordinary people. This has certainly been the
primary function of it in the early Reformation.
I do not deny these aspects, but they do not do away with the fact that, espe-
cially in the context of an ongoing polemic among Christians of various con-
fessions, the Reformed tradition saw scripture as a weapon in the hands of
believers and as a way for theologians to claim that their tradition was most
7 Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,

2003), chap. 7.
8 See their respective contributions to the present volume, and H. van den Belt, The Authority
of Scripture in Reformed Theology: Truth and Trust (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008), 333–336.
9 Van den Belt, The Authority of Scripture, 316–324.
true to the whole of scriptural witness.10 This makes it inevitable to downplay or

reinterpret those parts of scripture that run counter to the key interests of the
Reformed tradition. What is worse, sola scriptura inevitably attempts to hide
those parts in the interest of upholding one’s own identity. If one would admit
that scripture can be legitimately read in ways different than the Reformed tra-
dition would, this would immediately open the door to competing confessions
to claim the legitimacy of their way of being church, such as Roman Catholics,
Lutherans, and, particularly, Anabaptists.11 This can be amply illustrated by a
few questions from Gisbertus Voetius’ Catechism, written down by one of his
pupils and reissued by Abraham Kuyper in the nineteenth century:
Q. But all those religions that name themselves after the Christian name,
are they the true religion? A. No.12
Q. Which religion among Christians then, is the true religion? A. The reli-
gion of the protestants and Reformed.
Q. Why is the religion of the Reformed the only true religion, and not the
others? A. Because the Reformed religion alone accords with God’s Word
in everything, and the other contradict it.13
Ultimately, as this example illustrates, the sola scriptura concept is part of an

appeal to absolute religious power. To this extent, it hinders a truthful, respon-
sible way of dealing with one’s own uses of scripture, because these motives
must remain hidden for the sake of upholding one’s own claim to power.
Apart from being a principle, however, the sola scriptura is also the basis of
religious practices. One might say that sola scriptura is the critical governing
principle that directs the life of churches and families in (mostly conservative)
10 My argument here is roughly in line with Alister E McGrath, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea:
The Protestant Revolution : A History from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First (New
York: HarperOne, 2007), chap. 2–3, and 9.
11 Maarten Wisse, ‘“… welches alle Menschen erleuchtet”? Die Krise der Europäischen Iden-
tität im Spiegel der frühmodernen Rezeption des Johannesprologs’, Neue Zeitschrift für
Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie, 55 (2013), 1–19.
12 “V. Maer alle die Religien, die haer selve bekleeden met den Christelicken naem, zijn die
de ware Religie? A. Neen. V. Welcke Religie onder de Christenen is dan de ware Religie?
A. De Religie der Protestanten ende Gereformeerden. V. Waerom is de Religie der Ge-
reformeerden alleen de ware Religie, ende de andere niet? A. Om dat de Religie van de
Gereformeerde alleen in alles met Godts woort accoordeert ende over-een-komt, ende de
andere daer-en-tegen tegen Godts woort zijn strijdende.”
13 Gisbertus Voetius, Voetius’ catechisatie over den Heidelbergschen Catechismus: naar Poud-
royen’s..., ed. Abraham Kuyper (Gebroeders Huge, 1891), 57.
24 Wisse
evangelical Protestantism. One can see the principle at work in all sorts of con-
texts. First of all, we find it in worship services, where we do not read Augus-
tine, Calvin, or Karl Barth, but scripture (except for the Heidelberg Catechism).
Ultimately, the question of truth about a sermon is whether or not it is ac-
cording to the scriptures. The same goes for all other aspects of the life of the
community of faith. If the leadership of a community of believers asks itself a
question, it will turn to scripture, including those complex questions regard-
ing practical contexts. A synod that finds itself confronted with proposals for
renewal in the life of the church appoints a committee that is asked to answer
the question: is this biblical? In fact, the community has no other official stan-
dard for evaluating the legitimacy of church life than the Bible.
In line with this, one might see a third layer of sola scriptura in the sense
that it is the powerful basis of the catechetical culture and spirituality of the
Reformation. Sola scriptura is the basic presupposition and driving force be-
hind religious reading practices. In that sense, it undergirds the basic religious
rite and, therefore, as one might say, sacrament of the Reformed tradition. If
we take typical devout Christian youth as an example, they will start their day
with a moment of devotion, which includes reading the Bible. In the family
scripture will be read one or more times, during Church events for young peo-
ple Bible readings will take place, and during worship services they will hear
from scripture again.
Before I attack the principle of sola scriptura, it is important to note that my
critique of the principle does not include every religious practice this princi-
ple prompts or vindicates. A critique of a principle does not necessarily lead
to the demise of every religious practice that is based on it. My critique, if it
finds resonance among Christian believers, will possibly qualify and transform
religious practices, but it will not do away with them, nor is this my intention.
3 John Piper’s Biblical Arguing as an Example
In this section, I will pursue my critique of the sola scriptura maxim further by
taking a very concrete example. Often, doubts about the historical reliability of
the Bible have motivated a shift away from a traditionally Reformed sola scrip-
tura theology. However, this has often led to an easy juxtaposition of those who
would accept the Bible as a whole, and would thus be truthful Bible readers,
and those who are modern and critical towards the Bible and so were no lon-
ger faithful to the Bible. This obscures the fact that there is a problem with the
application of sola scriptura in every use of the Bible, not just in the denial of
the historicity of a passage. ‘Biblical doctrine’ is a claim that raises a question of
what this is in every case the claim is being made, and I would say that there is
always, in every appeal to ‘biblical teaching’, a leap to one’s own context that is
hidden in that claim.14 I want to show this in terms of a concrete example: John
Piper in his bestseller Desiring God.15 I do not at all intend to stigmatize Piper
here as an abuser of scripture. What I aim to do is to sketch a paradigmatic
example of how in evangelical circles appeals to scripture are being made and
discern the argumentation processes that play a role in such appeals, be they
made in sermons, theological treatises, or Bible reading groups.
Needless to say, Piper claims to be a Calvinist and a biblical Christian. There-
fore, it is obvious that he aims to find warrant for his Christian hedonism in
scripture, although he has been realistic enough to situate his interest in the
topic in his own biography already in the introduction. Subsequently, in the
first chapter he finds the roots of his argument in scripture. On the page pre-
ceding the first chapter, the bridge between Piper’s hedonism and the alleged
biblical basis becomes clear when he mentions on top of the page: “Our God
is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases” (Psalm 115: 3). At the bottom of
the page, we find Piper’s own statement: “The climax of God’s happiness is the
delight He takes in the echoes of His excellence in the praises of His people.”16
God strives after pleasure, happiness, and delight, and he finds it not in us but
in his own glory, so Piper argues on the next page.
There is no space here to delve extensively into the exegesis of Psalm 115
nor the role of the theology of Jonathan Edwards in the argument of Piper.
What I want to suggest is that between Piper’s Christian hedonism and the
scriptural material that he brings together to support it biblically, there are
many steps that Piper does not take into account at all, at least not in terms of
references to scripture. One might summarize the explicit and implicit chain
of reasoning between Psalm 115 and Piper as follows:
1. God does all that he pleases. This emphasizes that God is free and sov-
ereign, which is indeed in Psalm 115, although in a totally different
context, but
14 I have made an honest attempt to select a fair and not too esoteric example. For a similar
example, but then in Calvin, see: Maarten Wisse, Scripture between Identity and Creativity:
A Hermeneutical Theory Building upon Four Interpretations of Job, Ars Disputandi Supple-
ment Series, 1 (Utrecht: Ars Disputandi, 2003), chap. 4, Accessed August 29, 2017, http://
dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/294105.
15 John Piper, Desiring God ([Sisters]: Multnomah, 2003).
16 Piper, Desiring God, 30.
26 Wisse
2. here, in Piper’s argument, it also suggests that God is heading towards

something, strives after things, which is definitely not obviously Re-
formed or Christian, and
3. that God is emotionally involved in this (‘pleases’ is linked up to ‘plea-
sure’) and
4. is freely moved in this by human beings who
5. experience a similar sort of ‘pleasure’ by enjoying God’s ‘pleasure’.
Piper constantly adduces biblical passages that support the notion of God’s
sovereignty and power (Psalm 33, Daniel 4, Job 2 and 42, Lamentations 2 etc.),
but he does not seem to pay any attention to the other four steps in his argu-
ment. However, these steps are the ones that provide the added value and, thus,
constitute the distinctive spirituality that is typical of his Christian hedonism.
What I do not want to suggest is that Piper should at last start to develop
an interest in reading scripture as he ought, namely without prejudices and
according to the single true historical sense of the text. My thesis in this paper
is that this is not possible. One cannot read scripture without having one’s own
agenda. My suggestion is that the idea of Christianity based on sola scriptura
precludes Piper from admitting this personal agenda, admitting that his Chris-
tian hedonism is either not in the Bible at all (which would be a harsh evalu-
ation of it) or is a rather particular approach to certain biblical passages that
runs counter to or competes with other selections of biblical material. Thus,
we see how an appeal to scripture because of a desire to be biblical always
has to face the way in which this appeal to scripture fares against the whole of
scripture. In the Reformed tradition at least, there is no sola scriptura without
tota scriptura. But this also blows up sola scriptura in the sense that any proof
that aims to justify that a particular claim is biblical, has to justify this claim
against any other verse of scripture, which, practically, implies an endeavor ad
infinitum.
4 The Sola Scriptura Makes Theologians Lazy
This example from Piper’s work illustrates the next point that I want to make
against the sola scriptura maxim, namely that it makes theologians lazy. It is
easy to trace a widespread skepticism towards abstract theology and ‘dogmat-
ics’ in many circles of believers. If we would just be ‘biblical’, we could get rid
of much ‘theology’ that leads us astray from the simplicity of the biblical mes-
sage. Is it not Jesus who told us to become like a child? Well, children do not do
theology, so we had better do theology as little as possible.
The problem is that the sola scriptura maxim sanctions this widespread line
of reasoning. Theological reflection, so it seems, is basically superfluous. And
this is why sola scriptura makes believers and theologians lazy. It makes theolo-
gians lazy because it provides them with a free card for not making their selec-
tion processes of biblical material and the reasons for those selections visible.
They are stimulated to hide why they downplay or reinterpret one verse and
privilege another. Believers likewise are stimulated to ‘just read the Bible’ with-
out being aware of the reasons why they constantly focus on, for example, the
Gospel of John or read John in terms of Paul or read the Old Testament in the
light of the New Testament. Let the texts speak for themselves, so the mantra
goes, whereas in fact texts are adapted or even forced to align with contempo-
rary interests and tacit presuppositions of religious communities.
In fact, the difficult position of dogmatics in theology since the Enlighten-
ment can be understood in the light of the sola scriptura maxim. If only scrip-
ture is normative for faith and scripture is to be interpreted in its historical
context and according to its primary historical meaning, dogmatics should
best strive for its own removal. If it is still worth something, it should restrict
itself to a collection of biblical material and understanding. A stronger aware-
ness of the diversity of material in the Bible only increased this effect, because
if the Bible is diverse and heterogeneous, then a systematizing approach to
biblical material as we find it in dogmatics leads us away from the richness and
diversity of scripture. Thinking along these lines, one might argue that Protes-
tant theology prepared its own demise in modern theology.
However, if the sola scriptura maxim is false, and if in fact Protestant dog-
matics, just like all the others, did in fact never live up to its own principle, this
might open a new perspective on what dogmatics is and on the way in which
it has been practiced over the centuries.17 Dogmatics used to be the discipline
that controlled access to biblical material and hid its motives and arguments
for granting, limiting, or even forbidding access to the different biblical passag-
es. Therefore, it seemed very sensitive to overstating its case or to an exaggerat-
ed search for enforcing the Bible to speak consistently where it in fact does not,
as there were always heretics on the horizon who would challenge their pro-
cedures for control. But if we look at dogmatics as a way of managing access
to different parts of the biblical message on the basis of theological arguments
and, instead of hiding these processes of control, bring them into the open,
both in the past and today, dogmatic discourse is the ongoing documentation
17 Cf. Maarten Wisse, ‘Doing Theology through Reception Studies: Towards a Post-
Postmodern Theological Hermeneutics’, Nederduits Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift,
53 (2012), 239–49, accessed August 29, 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.5952/53-0-237.
28 Wisse
of ‘scripture management’, of prescribed and forbidden routes that made peo-

ple encounter the right Bible verses at the right moment. In other words, theo-
logians were the policemen who directed the traffic.
Of course, those theological motives determining the directions could not
be brought into the open because this would imply that they were in fact con-
tingent upon certain interpreters’ lines of reasoning that could be different,
and, therefore, not intrinsic to the biblical message itself. This is why one did
not need to or could not argue for those motives. But if we do bring them
into the open, all at once this seemingly static discipline of dogmatics turns
out to be much more dynamic than it seems. And all at once, this debate
about taking the right route through the Bible verses becomes much more
relevant to theology and homiletics than it is often alleged. Dogmaticians
end up giving answers to the challenges and questions of their time under
continuously shifting circumstances through a conversation with the diverse
material that scripture contains. Charismatic gifts, a decrease in piety, politi-
cal domination, increase of welfare, the treatment of illnesses and mental and
bodily handicaps, or the independence of religious experts are all part of the
challenges that theology responds to as part of an ongoing reading commu-
nity and tradition.18
Seen in this way, dogmatics is not only a historical reconstruction of a prac-
tice from the past but also an ongoing weighing of the arguments and choic-
es from the past in the present. Every argument that leads to a neutralizing
or privileging of a biblical passage offers arguments for an old but also a new
debate. Not only then, but also now, believers have to make decisions in a dia-
logue between scripture and their own contexts.
In the meantime, the nature of the task of the policemen has changed. They
can no longer act as direct representatives of the Most High. They know that
both practically and theologically such a position is no longer at their disposal.
As I will argue shortly, such a position would be in direct contradiction with a
proper reading of the scriptures. The frame of reference from which we read
the scriptures is no longer absolute. It is a chosen frame of reference, and, be-
cause it is chosen, it is contingent. That it is contingent does not mean that
it is arbitrary: we can argue for a particular frame of reference (as I will do
below), but we indeed have to argue for it. If anyone nevertheless decides to
18 Cf. Maarten Wisse, ‘Towards a Theological Account of Theology: Reconceptualizing

Church History and Systematic Theology’, in Orthodoxy, Process and Product, ed. by
Mathijs Lamberigts, Lieven Boeve, and Terrence Merrigan, BETL, 227 (Leuven: Peeters,
2009), 351–74.
take another route through the biblical texts, the policeman may warn for the
ravine that is near or point to the beauty of the Reformed route, but the police-
man has no more than the weakness of words.
5 Scripture and the Decalogue
Up to now, I have pleaded against sola scriptura for pragmatic or even secular
reasons. The use of sola scriptura is part of a power structure of religious com-
munities, cannot live up to its own standards, and is therefore to be rejected.
However, for me as a theologian, this is only half of the story. The pragmatic ob-
jections are embedded in a theological point of view. Basically, this theological
standpoint has originated in a dialogue with the Bible, the tradition in which I
grew up, and the post-Marxist Western tradition which influenced me during
my Ph.D. studies.19 Over the years, I have discovered that there are resources for
the management of religious power in Christianity itself, resources that could
be seen as the intrinsic Christian critique of religion.20 Such a critique of reli-
gion is prominently present in the experientially Reformed tradition in which
I grew up, although it is not generally seen as such. In this tradition, the ques-
tion is crucial: are your religious experiences or narratives the result of God’s
work, or are they your own deceitful construct? Is your religious commitment
sincere and God-given or are they in your own interest?
Later on, I learned to ask the same questions concerning the appropriation
of religious power from a post-Marxist philosophical frame of reference. How-
ever, the more I bring this post-Marxist frame of reference in conversation with
the Christian tradition of which I study the history, the more I come to the
conclusion that the history of theology is moving back and forth between two
poles in the management of religious power, both individually, collectively and
institutionally. The one pole is the appropriation of salvation in Jesus Christ,
both personally, as part of religious communities, and as part of religious insti-
tutions. The other pole is the conviction that this salvation is nevertheless not
19 Wisse, Scripture between Identity and Creativity, chap. 2 and 6.

20 On the internal critique of religion in contemporary theology, see Wolfgang Huber,
‘“Keine anderen Götter.” Über die Notwendigkeit theologischer Religionskritiek’, in
Gott, Götter, Götzen: XIV. Europäischer Kongress für Theologie (11.-15. September 2011
in Zürich), ed. by Christoph Schwöbel (Leipzig, 2013), 23–35; for concrete examples of
developing theological critiques of religion, see Christoph Schwöbel, Gott im Gespräch.
Theologische Studien Zur Gegenwartsdeutung (Tübingen: Mohr, 2011), 355–405
30 Wisse
ours. It is a gift and even after it has been given, it remains someone else’s, the
Most High whose place we can never take.21
The thesis to which this essay pays tribute is that the attempt to find a re-
sponsible balance between these two poles is the toolbox of Christian dog-
matics, both de jure and de re. Such an attempt does not lead to one possible
outcome, neither de jure nor de re. Christian communities in the history of
church and theology have made very different choices in finding a balance be-
tween the two poles, even mutually excluding choices, but there is a shared
consciousness that neither of these two poles can be given up. Thus, the two
poles function as the defining matrix of the limits and possibilities of theolog-
ical conversation.
I see these poles symbolized by the two major units in the Bible, the Old
and the New Testament. This has been classically phrased as ‘Law’ and ‘Gospel’,
although I am aware that this is a very rough claim that needs to be nuanced
in many ways. It is rough, but I think even historically a case can be made for
the thesis that the diversity of opinions within the Reformation can be linked
up to the various ways in which strands in the Reformation conceived of the
relationship between the Old and the New Testaments.
It is from this perspective of the balance between the appropriation of sal-
vation and the distinction between God and creation that I would like to evalu-
ate sola scriptura. Of course, to some extent, this is a case of circular reasoning.
First, I select a specific approach to what scripture has to say and, subsequent-
ly, I evaluate scripture itself in those terms. But what if I would choose another
perspective on scripture? Such a case of circular reasoning seems inevitable,
but it becomes bearable to the extent in which I manage to give reasons for
the way in which scripture should be positioned in between these two poles.
Those reasons are an invitation to readers and dialogue partners to assess
them, accept them, or give other reasons that change the position of scripture
between those poles. In such a way, theology is a form of conversation around
the shared conviction that our salvation is in Jesus Christ but remains God’s
free gift that cannot be made ours at the same time.
21 One way to oversimplify this notion of the two poles is to reduce it to well known pairs
such as ‘transcendent’ versus ‘immanent’ or ‘extra nos’ and ‘intra nos’. I cannot go too
deeply into this, but they are oversimplifications because they are generalizations that
apply to everthing, scripture for example, but the characteristic of the two poles men-
tioned is that at least one of the two poles, Christology, is unique and as such particular
rather than general. In one of these poles, Christians hold that they have their ultimate
salvation, and so the dynamics of the Christian faith around this pole is unique and par-
ticular, and as such cannot be extrapolated to other contexts.
In formulating the balance between Law and Gospel, I opt for a rather
strong emphasis on the critical voice of the Decalogue. From the Decalogue,
the first commandment sounds as a constant reminder of the absolute unicity
of the one true and transcendent God, creator of heaven and earth. There is no
human being who may claim to be God. From the second commandment (Re-
formed numbering), I hear a strong reminder against human appropriations
of God’s presence or will, traditionally part of polytheistic traditions. Based
on these reminders, nothing in the created order can be the direct means for
evoking God’s presence or will.
Christology shows us how crucial the right balance between the appro-
priation of salvation and maintaining the difference between the divine and
the created order is for theology, especially Reformed theology.22 Especially in
Christology, it is crucial to uphold the truly interrupting nature of the incar-
nation, in which God and a human being become inseparable in the unity of
one person.23 On the other hand, it is equally crucial to uphold the distinction
between two natures: only God can save and only to God we pray, not to a
human being. In the salvation that is in Jesus Christ’s incarnation, the cross
and resurrection are in a human being truly and fully, but the divine nature of
Jesus does not fade away into his humanity. This Christological tension played
a key role in the Reformation, and Reformed theology in particular put much
emphasis, against the Lutherans, on maintaining the distinction between the
two natures of Christ.
From this Christological point of view, it is crucial to maintain the singularity
of the incarnation.24 God has become human in Christ but is now present
among us through the Spirit. The economy of God’s Trinitarian actions leave us
with a beneficial problem. Although God has really come among us in Christ,
tangible and visible, God is no longer among us in this way. In spite of the in-
carnation, God is still transcendently present among us. This transcendence
is beneficial because it interrupts our religious power games. This is the
theological reason why I argued against sola scriptura. Constructively, as a
stable basis on which a single true theology can be formulated, it turns into an
22 Cf. Maarten Wisse, Trinitarian Theology beyond Participation: Augustine’s De Trinitate and
Contemporary Theology (London: T&T Clark International, 2011), chap. 3.
23 Cf. Lieven Boeve, ‘Theological Truth, Particularity and Incarnation: Engaging Religious
Plurality and Radical Hermeneutics’, in Orthodoxy, Process and Product, ed. by Mathijs
Lamberigts, Lieven Boeve, and Terrence Merrigan, BETL, 227 (Leuven: Peeters, 2009),
323–48 (334–336).
24 By ‘incarnation’, I do not mean just the beginning of the life of Christ, but the whole of his
life as God on earth, so including the crucifixion and resurrection.
32 Wisse
extension of the incarnation in which God is no longer among us in Jesus but

nevertheless present through his speech and will in scripture. This is to be de-
nied. Scripture witnesses to the incarnation, but it is not in itself incarnational.
6 Pro Sola Scriptura
And this is then what finally leads to a positive affirmation of the sola scriptu-
ra maxim. In the previous section, I have suggested that both the doctrine of
scripture and Christology have to be controlled by the first and second com-
mandment and that Christology indeed did function as such in the history of
dogma. In this argument, the singularity of the incarnation plays a key role.
The incarnation can never be ‘extended’ to the Church, the ministerial office,
or scripture. Only Christ is God on earth and even in the case of Christ, the
distinction between two natures in one person precludes a creature from be-
coming venerated as if he was God.
It is this singularity of the incarnation that finally leads to an affirmation
of the sola scriptura maxim. The argument runs as such: if our salvation is in
a singular event, or a singular life of a specific historical person from the past,
Jesus Christ, then our salvation is historically mediated and radically so. If
there were no scripture or no oral report about Jesus Christ being transmitted
to us, we would not know about the Gospel. Therefore, the singularity of the
incarnation implies the necessity of a stable transmission of the Gospel mes-
sage throughout the ages. So, scripture is a necessary means through which we
receive the Gospel message.
In line with this, we cannot avoid accepting the scriptura part of ‘sola scrip-
tura’. If God deals with us in a historical manner and by becoming human in
one particular person, to our salvation, then our faith is essentially historical
and scriptural. By analogy, the same goes for Israel and the revelation in the
Old Testament. God’s election of Israel is the election of a particular people
with a particular history and, as such, still constitutive for the identity of those
who believe in Jesus Christ. God’s becoming a human being in Jesus Christ, is
preceded by the singularity of God’s election of Israel. Ultimately, the singular-
ity of God’s action in Christ has consequences for the whole of creation. This
singularity of God’s acts makes clear that God deals with a creation that has its
own value, its own history, and its own sequence of moments with a beginning,
middle, and end. None of these moments are any more mediatory of God’s be-
ing or will than all the others, but every moment has its distinct being and role
in God’s plan with creation.
Of course, one may ask: scriptura, yes, but does it have to be sola scrip-
tura? Should we not better say that the whole history of Christianity and
Judaism contributes to this transmission of the singularity of the incarnation
equally, given that I have argued above that there is no scripture without its
reception in particular times and contexts? Is not the community of b elievers
co-constitutive of revelation, as postmodernism has taught us? Can we do
without the ‘sola’-part of the maxim?
I do not think so. The sola is infinite, in the sense that it will never be fulfilled
and that it has to acknowledge and discover its own context, but it is also a sola
that can never be satisfied with its locus in the community or a sacramental
church, exactly due to this singularity of the incarnation. This singularity can-
not be extended or paralleled to the community of believers or the enactment
of them in a sacramental presence, and, therefore, it is the exact nature of this
singularity that is crucial to our salvation. The sources that tell us about God’s
acts in history are the criterion for the nature of our salvation. So, the content
of these historical sources is really at stake. The way in which we have dealt
with these sources or what an authoritative representative of Christ claims
about them in the here-and-now does not suffice. What is really said or what
really happened in the there-and-then of history matters.
This is also the reason why an appeal to the role of the Spirit as the Trinitarian
person who warrants the continuity between the singularity of the incarnation
and the Christian community in the present does not suffice. Such an appeal
to the Spirit would turn that appeal into an incarnational phenomenon of
its own. If in the here-and-now anyone can claim the authority of the Spirit
without any external critical reference, such claims become absolute and as
dangerous to the nature of the Christian community as popes, infallible scrip-
tures, or whatever means we use to get God’s will into our hands. The singulari-
ty of the incarnation and the unique history of God’s actions in creation, Israel
(election!), and ultimately in Jesus Christ are the particular critical references
that relativize any appeal to divine authority in the present, and it is in this way
that the singularity of the meeting-point between heaven and earth in Jesus
Christ is retained.
7 Consequences of This Step
It might sound like a conversion. After a passionate critique of the sola scrip-
tura a sudden and passionate turn to a defense. But the change is less r adical
than it seems. What we win by this step is that we discern a very clear
34 Wisse
distinction between the holy scriptures and other scriptures. The holy scrip-
tures derive their special status from the witness to God’s unique acts in the
history of Israel and in Jesus Christ. This is why Augustine’s works, however
many great things they might contain, are not normally the subject matter of
a Christian worship service. And this is also why we do painstaking exegesis of
single words or passages from scripture, an approach to texts that is normally
rather to be discouraged in interpretation processes. This is why we still write
new commentaries on scripture and develop new approaches to it. From a
secular perspective, the amount of attention paid to this particular collection
of texts from antiquity must undoubtedly seem extremely exaggerated, but
from a Christian perspective, it is more than natural. The distinction between
scripture and other texts is crucial.
The singularity of the incarnation as the basis of scripture makes us see why
the change is less radical than it seems. The singularity of the incarnation leads
immediately to a strong emphasis on the human nature of scripture. If Rome
extends the incarnation through the doctrine of the church, the Reformation
should not do so through the doctrine of scripture. This would immediately
undo the singularity of the incarnation. Scripture, therefore, is radically hu-
man. Scripture is our only witness to the singularity of the incarnation, but it
is a radically human witness. This does not mean that we have to deny that it is
inspired by God. Our confession of faith can or even should be that everything
that is written in it is written to our salvation because God wanted it to be as it
is. As such, it is as such necessary and sufficient to our salvation (cf. Confessio
Belgica, article 7).
This sounds very orthodox, but it is intended to be more heterodox than
it sounds. Less piously phrased: even if it turns out that the Bible is a very
diverse collection of chunks of very human witness to God’s acts in history,
even then it remains the witness to God’s acts that has been given to us.
God has given us those chunks, and we have to deal with them. There might
be historical inaccuracies in them, points of view that are inconsistent
with each other, dogmatically problematic passages, problematic views of
women or homosexuals, and whatever else, but these are the scriptures that
God gave us.25
25 See, e.g. Eep Talstra, ‘Text, Tradition, Theology: The Example of the Book of Joel’, in
Strangers and Pilgrims on Earth: Essays in Honour of Abraham van de Beek, ed. by Ed. A. J.
G. van der Borght and Paul van Geest (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012), 309–28; Eep Talstra,
De Éne God is de andere niet: Theologie en rolverdeling in Jeremia 5: 1–9 (Amsterdam: VU
University Press, 2011).
I would argue that this is indeed the case. The internal differentiation of
the witness of scripture is indeed of such a kind that it is impossible to ac-
cept everything it contains. We have to choose constantly, and, for this rea-
son, my argument against the way in which sola scriptura has been used in the
past remains valid.26 Whoever believes in sola scriptura constantly has to take
responsibility for his or her way of dealing with scripture because accepting
scripture as a whole is, precisely because of the nature of scripture itself, an
impossibility. And this is because of the sort of scripture that God gave us, and,
so, it is God’s will.
What this calls for is a specific understanding of the Christian communi-
ty of believers. As far as I can see, the consequences of the understanding of
sola scriptura for ecclesiology are more profound than those for the doctrine
of scripture. If scripture is fundamentally open to different interpretations, not
only de re but also de jure, then this has much to say about conflicts in the
church, particularly those regarding doctrinal divergences. Bluntly stated: it
means that we have to accept the plurality of the church insofar as it reflects
the plurality of the Bible. This does not mean that anything goes. There are
arguments for certain sets of selective uses of scripture and, in fact, such sets
are always already in place and form a part of stable confessional or ecclesial
traditions. Discussions about sets of selective uses do not start from scratch,
but they are always in conversation with existing traditions and the ways in
which they function within the life of the church.
Moreover, if the argument that I have developed so far has something to
offer, it implies that in this ongoing conversation within the church there is a
shared sensitivity towards the reality of the incarnation and the saving work
of Christ on the one hand and the fundamental distinction between God and
creation on the other. This does not mean that every believer, theologian, or
church community agrees on how this sensitivity has to be turned into prac-
tice, but it means that they have an idea of what has to be held in creative ten-
sion and what kind of common ground they have at their disposal to remind
each other of what cannot be given up without jeopardizing the integrity of
the Christian faith.
Ultimately, however, they have no guarantee that the Christian communi-
ty in the here-and-now is exactly on par with God’s will or with divine truth.
26 This goes much further than the common insight that we will never manage to fully un-
derstand the true meaning of scripture, and so to uphold the sola scriptura, but use it in a
merely critical sense, in the sense that the sola scriptura will always point us beyond what
we think scripture means. What I mean to admit is that scripture is indeed such that one
can never accept all that it claims, because its claims are heterogeneous.
36 Wisse
To have this would imply an imbalance of the two poles that are to be held in
tension. The guarantee for the future of the Christian gathering in the past,
present, and future is the saving work of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of
God alone.27
Bibliography
Asselt, Willem J. van et al. Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism. Grand Rapids: Refor-
mation Heritage Books, 2011.
Belt, H. van den. The Authority of Scripture in Reformed Theology: Truth and Trust.
Leiden; Boston, MA: Brill, 2008.
Boeve, Lieven. ‘Theological Truth, Particularity and Incarnation: Engaging Religious
Plurality and Radical Hermeneutics’, in Orthodoxy, Process and Product, ed. Mathijs
Lamberigts, Lieven Boeve, and Terrence Merrigan, BETL, 227. Leuven: Peeters, 2009,
323–48.
Fesko, John V. ‘The Doctrine of Scripture in Reformed Orthodoxy’, in A Companion to
Reformed Orthodoxy, ed. by Herman J. Selderhuis, Brill’s Companions to the Chris-
tian Tradition, 40. Leiden: Brill, 2013, 429–64.
Huber, Wolfgang. “‘Keine anderen Götter’ Über die Notwendigkeit theologischer
Religionskritik”, in Gott, Götter, Götzen: XIV. Europäischer Kongress für Theologie
(11.-15. September 2011 in Zürich), ed. Christoph Schwöbel. Leipzig: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 2013, 23–35.
Huijgen, Arnold. Divine Accommodation in John Calvin’s Theology: Analysis and Assess-
ment. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011.
Kooiman, W.J. Luther en de Bijbel, 3rd edn. Baarn: Ten Have, 1977.
McGrath, Alister E. Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution: A History
from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First. New York: HarperOne, 2007.
Muller, Richard A. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. Grand Rapids: Baker Aca-
demic, 2003.
Piper, John. Desiring God. [Sisters, OR]: Multnomah, 2003.
Schwöbel, Christoph. Gott Im Gespräch. Theologische Studien Zur Gegenwartsdeutung.
Tübingen: Mohr, 2011.
Schwöbel, Christoph. Gott in Beziehung: Studien zur Dogmatik. Tübingen: Mohr Sie-
beck, 2002.
27 I would like to thank Bart Kamphuis, Hans Burger, Arnold Huijgen and other members of
the BEST research group for their contributions to the development of this paper along its
various stages. I thank Kyle J. Dieleman for correcting my English.
Spinoza, Benedictus de, Samuel Shirley, and Michael L Morgan, Complete Works. Indi-
anapolis, IN: Hackett Pub., 2002.
Talstra, Eep. De Éne God is de andere niet: Theologie en rolverdeling in Jeremia 5: 1–9.
Amsterdam: VU University Press, 2011.
Talstra, Eep. ‘Text, Tradition, Theology: The Example of the Book of Joel’, in Strangers
and Pilgrims on Earth: Essays in Honour of Abraham van de Beek, ed. by Ed. A. J. G.
van der Borght and Paul van Geest. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012, 309–28.
Voetius, Gisbertus. Voetius’ catechisatie over den Heidelbergschen Catechismus: naar
Poudroyen’s…, ed. by Abraham Kuyper. Gebroeders Huge, 1891.
Wisse, Maarten. “Doing Theology through Reception Studies: Towards a Post-
Postmodern Theological Hermeneutics”, Nederduits Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijd-
schrift 53 (2012): 239–49. Accessed August 29, 2017. doi: 10.5952/53-0-237.
Wisse, Maarten. Scripture between Identity and Creativity: A Hermeneutical Theo-
ry Building upon Four Interpretations of Job, Ars Disputandi Supplement Series,
1. Utrecht: Ars Disputandi, 2003. Accessed August 29, 2017. http://dspace.library
.uu.nl/handle/1874/294105.
Wisse, Maarten. ‘Towards a Theological Account of Theology: Reconceptualizing
Church History and Systematic Theology’, in Orthodoxy, Process and Product, eds.
Mathijs Lamberigts, Lieven Boeve, and Terrence Merrigan, BETL, 227. Leuven:
Peeters, 2009, 351–74.
Wisse, Maarten. Trinitarian Theology beyond Participation: Augustine’s De Trinitate and
Contemporary Theology. London: T&T Clark International, 2011.
Wisse, Maarten. “‘… welches alle Menschen erleuchtet’? Die Krise der Europäischen
Identität im Spiegel der frühmodernen Rezeption des Johannesprologs”, Neue
Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie, 55 (2013): 1–19.
Accessed August 29, 2017. doi: 10.1515/nzsth-2013-0001.
chapter 2
The Problematic Character of Sola Scriptura1

Henk van den Belt
Reflection on the authority of scripture should start with pure amazement

about God’s revelation. That God has spoken is the greatest thinkable miracle.
He has spoken in the past at many times and in various ways. He has spoken
to us by his Son, Jesus Christ. He still speaks today, applying the revealed Word
to the hearts of believers through the Holy Spirit ‘the Lord, the giver of life,
who has spoken through the Prophets’ (Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed).
This amazement about God’s revelation is nicely illustrated in a Hassidic story
told by Martin Buber. Rabbi Israel Friedman of Ruzhyn (1796–1850), great
grandchild of Maggid of Mezzerich, one of the founding fathers of the Hassidic
Jews, wrote:
All the pupils of my grandfather handed down his doctrines, except for
one, rabbi Sussja. The reason was that he hardly followed one of the lec-
tures of the maggid to the end. When at the beginning of a lecture the
maggid cited the scripture that he wanted to comment on, and began with
the words: ‘and God said’ or ‘and God spoke’ rabbi Sussja went into ecsta-
sies, began to cry and move around so wild that others had to take him out
of the classroom because of the disorder. There he stood in the corridor or
striking the walls and shouting: ‘And God spoke! God has spoken! Etc.’ He
continued until my grandfather stopped with his lesson and therefore he
did not know the content. But says Israel of Rizhin, the truth is, that when
one speaks the truth and someone listens in truth, one word is enough.2
This article argues that the well-known phrase sola scriptura, that has become
a shorthand for the orthodox protestant view of the authority of scripture, is
not very is adequate to express that view. It first highlights the origin of the
triad sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide¸ and then argues that the expression
is problematic because of the relationship between scripture and tradition,
1 Some parts of this article have been published as Henk van den Belt, ‘Sola Scriptura: An
Inadequate Slogan for the Authority of Scripture’ in Calvin Theological Journal 2016 (51),
204–226.
2 Martin Buber, Schriften zum Chassidismus, Werke (Munich: Kösel, 1963), 3: 356.

The Problematic Character of Sola Scriptura 39
the indispensableness of hermeneutics, the importance of general revelation

for the understanding of scripture, and the intrinsic relationship between the
self-convincing nature of scripture as God’s revelation and the witness of the
Holy Spirit in the church in general and in the individual believers. Rather than
from scripture alone, protestant theology should be developed from scripture
as the primary and supreme authority, within the hermeneutical context of the
confession of the Church of all ages, and in the acknowledgement that scrip-
ture as such is insufficient without the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit.
1 The Origin of the Triad
The so-called watchwords of the Reformation sola gratia, sola fide, sola scrip-
tura have become very common to designate the theological core of the Ref-
ormation. The triad—at the outset in the nominative sola fides, instead of sola
fide3—became a fashionable expression only in 20th century. It was not used
to typify the Reformation in the earlier centuries neither in the writings of
the reformers themselves nor in those of protestant orthodoxy even though
the expressions themselves do occur separately here in there in the millions
of pages of Latin texts. Thus, the well-known triad is not much older than one
hundred years.4
The precise origin of the triad is difficult to reconstruct, but as an indica-
tion of the core of Reformation thought it appears to have emerged only in
scholarship shortly before the 1917 commemoration of the Reformation.5 It is
possible that the triad owes its origins in the 19th century custom of speaking
3 It is not clear when the nominative sola fides was exactly exchanged for the ablative sola fide.
In the earliest sources that could be traced for this article the expression is in the nominative.
Later the ablative has often been emphasized for the correct understanding of the whole
triad: through grace alone, though faith alone and through scripture alone.
4 Lane already argued that the slogan sola scriptura did not originate in the Reformation time,
but he broadly connected it to the ‘Post-Reformation’ period. In his view what is meant by
this slogan is the material sufficiency of scripture and formulated negatively “sola Scriptura
is the statement that the church can err.” Anthony N.S. Lane, ‘Sola Scriptura? Making Sense
of a Post-Reformation Slogan,’ in A pathway into the Holy Scripture, ed. David. F. Wright and
Philip Satterthwaite (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 324.
5 Research for this article focused on the use of sola in combination with gratia, fide(s) and
scriptura in the following search engines: Googlebooks, Digibron, and Hathitrust. Titles were
sought in WorldCat. More intensive research may deliver more information, but the triad
appears in various contexts with respect to the 20th century commemoration of the Refor-
mation.
40 van den Belt
about the Reformation in terms of central ideas (Zentraldogmen) or principles

(Prinzipien). It is understandable that Lutherans chose sola fide as ‘watchword’
to describe the Reformation.6 From there on the word sola began to have a life
of its own.
In the American context the triad emerged in the circles of radical Lutheran-
ism. Theodore Engelder (1865–1949), professor at the orthodox Lutheran Mis-
souri Synod Concordia Seminary, was one of the first to use it. He not only set
Luther’s “uncompromising sola—nothings else than,” over against Rome, but
also against “Zwingli and the other dreamers of dreams,” whom he describes
as saying: “Our philosophy and our visions shall not and do not supplant, but
only interpret Scripture. […] But Luther would have none of it. He knew that, if
it were not Scripture solely, it would not be Scripture at all.”7
Apparently, in the context of radical American Lutheranism the slogan
functioned to underline the doctrine of the real bodily presence in the Lord’s
Supper over against the Reformed ‘sophisticated’ interpretation of the literal
words of Christ ‘This is my body.’ Another article in the same commemora-
tive Lutheran volume explicitly uses sola scriptura to uphold Luther’s defense
of consubstantiation at Magdeburg against the so-called rationalistic biblical
interpretation of Zwingli. “At Marburg Luther once more ‘insisted upon blind
and unquestioning submission to the Bible.’ At Marburg Luther once more
6 Thus, for example, Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom: The History of Creeds (New York:
Harper, 1877), 626. Ebeling suggests that sola scriptura as formal principle originates in the
beginning of the nineteenth century. Gerhard Ebeling, “‘Sola Scriptura’ and Tradition,” in The
Word of God and Tradition: Historical Studies Interpreting the Divisions of Christianity, trans.
S. H. Hooke (London: Collins, 1968), 117.
7 The emphasis is Engelder’s. Theodore Engelder, “The Three Principles of the Reforma-
tion: Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fides,” in Four Hundred Years: Commemorative Es-
says on the Reformation of Dr. Martin Luther and its Blessed Results, in the Year of the Four-
hundredth Anniversary of the Reformation, ed. W.H.T. Dau, (St. Louis: Concordia, 1916),
99. Jacob Corzine argues that, although sola gratia and sola fide have a long history in
the Lutheran tradition, Engelder was the first to use the triad, and that sola scriptura is
an orthodox Lutheran reaction against modern understanding of Scripture. Jacob Cor-
zine, “The Source of the Solas: On the Question of Which are the Original Solas,” in The-
ology is Eminently Practical: Essays in Honor of John T. Pless, ed. Jacob Corzine and Bryan
Wolfmueller (Fort Wayne: Lutheran Legacy, 2012), 67. Engelder was not the first to use
the slogan in the American context. In 1912 H.H. Walker summarizes the position of
C. F. W. Walther as “two cardinal principles: (1) the only source and rule of all doctrines are the
Holy Scriptures; and (2) the grace of God alone saves us through faith in Jesus Christ:—Sola
Scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide,” H. H. Walker, “Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Walther, D.D. The
Luther of America,” in The Lutheran Quarterly 12 (1912): 358.
applied the formal principle of the Reformation—Sola Scriptura, Scripture

alone.”8 In Lutheran circles in America the triad at that time apparently was
already a noted expression.
In the Dutch context, one of the first to use the triad was Herman Bavinck,
who at the occasion of the commemoration of the Reformation, said that the
principle of the Reformation, “finds expression in a three-fold confession:
Scriptura sola, gratia sola, fides sola, Scripture alone, grace alone, and faith
alone. This was not a new principle, only the old Gospel.”9 Understood soteri-
ologically the triad makes sense. Sinners can only be saved by grace, they can
only accept this grace by faith, and they can only know this through scripture.
However, the solas are often understood as expressions for what the
Reformation was historically against its medieval background. This expansion
in usage of the solas to general Reformation principles poses a problem. The
discussion about the exact relationship between scripture and tradition,
between grace and merit, and between faith and works arises in the later
polemics between protestants and the Roman Catholics. It is misguiding to
define the core of the Reformation itself from the point of later polemics.
Tridentine Roman Catholic theology can be typified by the Latin word
et—and—in three areas: scripture and tradition, grace and merit, and faith
and works. Whoever, then, characterizes the Reformation by the sola-triad, al-
lows Tridentine theology to determine the agenda and ignores the fact that the
Catholic theology of the Middles Ages was more nuanced and diverse than lat-
er Roman Catholicism. The triad erases the appreciation of the Reformation’s
catholicity. As a matter of fact, the Reformation did not reject tradition as such,
but the idea that tradition was an extra-biblical source of revelation.
The same is true for sola fide; the slogan should not be detached from justifi-
cation, as if it does not result in sanctification. As Bavinck wrote: “According to
the Reformation it was a living faith that justified, fides sola but not solitaria.”10
8 Richard D. Biedermann, “Luther at Marburg,” in Dau, Four Hundred Years, 75.

9 Herman Bavinck, “De Hervorming en ons nationale leven,” in Ter herdenking der H ervorming,
1517–1917. Twee redevoeringen, uitgesproken in de openbare zitting van den senaat der Vrije
Universiteit op 31 October 1917, ed. H. Bavinck and H.H. Kuyper, (Kampen: Kok, 1917), 7. The
triad is not found in Bavincks Reformed Dogmatics nor in his other major writings.
10 Herman Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 4 vol. (Kampen: Bos, 1895–1901), 3: 523.
This sentence is absent from later editions of the Gereformeerde Dogmatiek. He also
quotes Calvin “it is faith alone that justifies; nevertheless the faith that justifies is not
alone.” Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 3: 546; cf. Herman Bavinck, Gereformeerde
Dogmatiek (Kampen: Kok, 19304), 4: 207. Cf. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vol.,
ed. John Bolt, transl. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003–2008), 4: 222. Cf.
42 van den Belt
Even regarding sola gratia the picture is more nuanced than one might
think at first glance, because according to the Reformers this grace did not
exclude the human will, but renewed; it freeing it from its bondage to sin and
excluding any cooperation between grace and human efforts or the assent of
the so-called free will.11
The sola-triad is a theological reaction to Tridentine theology, but the Coun-
cil of Trent itself of course also reacted to specific Protestant emphases. M artin
Luther and other first and second generation reformers stressed irresistible
grace, justifying faith and the ultimate authority of scripture. For Trent,
however, there was no knowledge of the truth, without tradition accompany-
ing scripture, no justification without works accompanying faith, and no grace
without the accompanying assent of the human will.
The claim that the historical Reformation can be characterized by the s ola-
triad, implies that Trent’s position was equal to that of the medieval C atholic
Church prior to the Reformation. This is only partly true, for the Reformation
was intended to be a reform movement within the undivided Catholic Church.
There is more continuity between aspects of medieval theology and the
soteriology of the reformers than the solas suggest.
2 Scripture and Tradition
The expression sola scriptura on which we will now focus, is not only prob-
lematic for historical reasons, but also because it does not adequately repre-
sent the protestant—at least not the reformed—theological position on the
authority of scripture.
Although the Wittenberg Reformation was consequent upon intensive
study of scripture, a formal doctrine of the authority of scripture was not
the basis for Luther’s reformation; the 95 theses about indulgences emerged
Jean Calvin, “Acta synodi Tridentinae cum antidote,” in Jean Calvin, Joannis Calvini Opera
quae supersunt omnia, ed. G. Baum, E. Cunitz, and E. Reuss (Braunschweig, 1863–1900,
[Calvin, CO]), 7: 477. Bavinck also refers to Calvin, Institutes 3.11.20.
11 This point is nicely illustrated by two book titles. In 1542 Albertus Pighius (ca. 1490–1542)
wrote Concerning Free Will and Divine Grace (1542)—in response to Calvin’s Institutes.
Calvin answered with The Bondage and Liberation of the Will: A Defence of the Orthodox
Doctrine of Human Choice against Pighius. Albertus Pighius, De libero hominis arbitrio et
divina gratia, Libri decem, (Cologne: Melchior Novensianus, 1542) and Jean Calvin, D efensio
sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae de servitute et liberatione humani arbitrii contra Alberti Pighii
Campensis (Geneva: Joannes Gerardus, 1543). Calvin, CO, 6: 225–404.
from a recovery of the Augustinian doctrine of grace. Only later, in discus-

sions with Johann Eck, Luther switched to an appeal to biblical authority.
Originally, he sought to reform the church from within by means of a church
council, thereby showing a desire to connect with the conciliarism of the
Middle Ages.
In their Leipzig debate (1519) Eck accused Luther of positions that
coincided with Hus, whose views had been judged unorthodox by the Coun-
cil of Constance in 1415. In confirming his agreement with Hus, however,
Luther also lost the possibility to appeal to the authority of a council. All that
remained was scripture: “No believing Christian can be forced to recognize any
authority beyond the sacred scripture (non ultra sacram scripturam), which is
exclusively invested with divine right (ius divinum).”12
Broadly speaking, then, the Lutheran reformation moves from gratia via fi-
des to scriptura. Luther’s appeal to scripture is a means to protect the doctrine
of grace from the power of the church. But to end materially with non ultra
scripturam is different from beginning formally with sola scriptura. In any case,
scripture is not understood separated from the tradition or the confessions of
the church of all ages. After all, Luther did not want to start a new church, but
reform the church from inside.
The early church held that the apostolic teaching, as embedded in scripture,
was mediated by tradition. Beginning with the fourth century, a development
emerged which took tradition as an authoritative source, alongside scripture.13
Thus, two views of the relationship between scripture and tradition developed
during the Middle Ages. The first view—sometimes called the “one-source
theory”—understood tradition as the vehicle by which divine truth, entrusted
to the apostles and contained in scripture, was conveyed from generation to
generation. The second view—the “two-source theory”—understood tradition
as the oral apostolic traditions preserved in the church that complement scrip-
ture. The Reformation can be said to have embraced and developed the first
and Roman Catholicism the second opinion.
12 Disputatio Ioannis Eccii et Martini Lutheri Lipsiae habita (1519), WA 2: 279: “Nec potest fi-
delis christianus cogi ultra sacram scripturam, que est proprie ius divinum, nisi accesserit
nove et probata revelatio: immo ex iure divino.”
13 According to an influential though generalizing distinction of Oberman “tradition” either
refers the instrumental vehicle in which Scripture is passed on (Tradition I), or to the oral
tradition complementary to Scripture (Tradition II). Heiko A. Oberman, The Harvest of
Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism (Cambridge: Harvard Uni-
versity Press, 1963), 406.
44 van den Belt
It is true that original draft of the decree of Trent says: “this truth [of the
Gospel] is contained partly [partim] in written books, partly [partim] in un-
written traditions”;14 and its final phrasing: “this truth and rule [of the Gos-
pel] are contained in written books and [et] in unwritten traditions.”15 But this
change has been overestimated by some scholars as if the council distanced
itself from the “two-source theory.”16
The Reformation hearkens back to the early church’s understanding of the
relationship between scripture and tradition: We receive scripture from our
predecessors in the process of handing down the Christian faith from genera-
tion to generation. Because the phrase sola scriptura, however, suggests a rejec-
tion of the tradition it is unsuitable as a descriptor of the Reformation’s view
of scripture. Sola scriptura would find a better home among representatives of
the radical reformation, even if not all would express it as crudely as Sebastian
Franck (1499–1543), who wrote: “O foolish Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome and
Gregory, not one of them knew the Lord, so help me God, even less were they
sent by him to teach. They were, rather, apostles of the anti-Christ.”17
It is better that Protestants not speak about sola scriptura, but about the
scriptures received through the tradition. The phrase scriptura et traditio itself
is not a problem, so long as its elements are not understood as two different
equal streams of authority, but together and inclusively. That is, tradition as a
process of transmitting scripture, in which the Spirit—the Lord, the giver of
life, who spoke through the prophets—enables the church to understand and
practice the Word.
14 Council of Trent, Concilium Tridentinum diariorum, actorum, epistularum, tractatuum

nova collection, ed. Societas Goerriesiana, 13 vol. (Freiberg: Herder, 1901–2001), 5: 31.
15 Council of Trent, Concilium Tridentinum, 5: 91.
16 Geiselmann writes that “Trent did not mean to define that Scripture and tradition were
two separate sources standing side by side.” Joseph R. Geiselmann, “Scripture and Tra-
dition in Catholic Theology,” Theology Digest 6 (1958): 75. Originally published as, “Das
Missverständnis über das Verhältnis von Schrift und Tradition und seine Überwindung in
der katholischen Theologie,” Una Sancta 2 (1956): 131–150. Cf. George H. Tavard, Holy
Writ or Holy Church: The Crisis of the Protestant Reformation (London: Burns & Oates,
1959), 208. Oberman is not certain that the participants in the council awarded this
change weight. Heiko A. Oberman, “Das tridentinische Rechtfertigungsdekret im Lichte
spätmittelalterlicher Theologie,” in Concilium Tridentinum, ed. R. Bäumer, (Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1979), 303–306. Cf. Johannes Beumer, Die mündli-
che Überlieferung als Glaubensquelle: Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte 4, Das Dasein im
Glauben, (Freiburg: Herder, 1962), 83–84.
17 Quoted by Alister McGrath in his Christian Theology: An Introduction (New York: Wiley,
2011), 141.
Hermeneutics are Indispensable

The Swiss Reformation differed in its start from the German Reformation. In
Zürich, the biblical-humanistic preaching of Ulrich Zwingli led to a new un-
derstanding of Christian liberty, that culminated in eating sausage during the
Lenten fast that Zwingli defended on the basis of scripture in his sermon on
the choice and freedom of foods. For the city council he drafted 67 articles in
which he confessed to have preached on the ground of the scripture which is
called theopneustos. “And should I not correctly understand the said scripture,
I am ready to be instructed and corrected, but only by the scripture.”18
Thus Zwingli moves from scriptura through fides—as a proper u nderstanding
of Christian freedom—to gratia. Simplified one could say that Zwingli re
discovered the doctrines of grace by taking his starting point in scripture,
whereas Luther rediscovered the authority of scripture by taking his starting
point in the doctrines of grace.
This approach to scripture, however, has been misunderstood from the
beginning, and because of that misunderstanding, it was also nuanced. The
Zürich discussions about infant baptism disclose the hermeneutic problem
of the Swiss Reformation’s original insistence upon sola scriptura. With some
justification, Zwingli’s more radical students appealed to his formal point of
departure in scripture with a view to move him to a more radical reformation.
Felix Manz (c. 1498–1527), in preparation for a new disputation on the pace
of the local reformation and on infant baptism, addressed Zürich’s city coun-
cil with the claim that Zwingli and his colleagues “know, much better than
anyone could expound from scripture, that Christ never taught the baptism of
children, and that it was not the custom of the apostles.”19 He wanted to deal
only on the basis of scripture and claimed that no one on earth could prove
infant baptism on that basis.
Zwingli published his Von der Taufe, von der Wiedertaufe und von der Kinder-
taufe three months after the first baptismal service in Zürich. In it he presents
18 Eberhard Busch, “Zwinglis Thesen von 1523,” in Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften 1/1

(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002), 68. The translation is from Philip Schaff,
Creeds of Christendom, 363.
19 Felix Manz, “Protest and Defense,” in The Radical Reformation, ed. Michael G. Baylor
(Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 96, 100. For the original, see
Leonhard von Muralt, Quellen zur Geschichte der Taüfer in der Schweiz 1. Zürich (Zürich:
TVZ, 1974), 1: 23–28. Conrad Grebel writes: “the baptism of children is a senseless,
blasphemous abomination, contrary to all Scripture.” Conrad Grebel, “Letter to Thomas
Müntzer,” in Radical Reformation, 44. For the original see Thomas Müntzer: Schriften und
Briefe. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, ed. G. Franz (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1968), 443.
46 van den Belt
from scripture, the catholic understanding held by the church of all ages
concerning baptism. But he could only do so by interpreting scripture from
within a specific hermeneutic. According to his view, the twin pillars of infant
baptism were 1) the fact that children of Christians belong to God, and 2) the
unity of the Old and New Testaments. Against his opponents’ question where
he found infant baptism in the Old Testament, he replied “We do find baptism
in it, and also that which is equal to our baptism today. That is, circumcision.”20
Because scripture was the Swiss Reformation’s point of departure it was
forced to find a new biblical basis for infant baptism. This it first found in the
parallel with the circumcision and it later developed this scriptural basis in the
doctrine of the covenant. According to some, this defense of infant baptism
is a far-fetched solution of despair. At least it was rather new compared to the
traditional arguments for the practice of baptizing new born babies. But the
issue, at least reveals, that the Reformation of the existing Catholic Church
was not a matter of sola scriptura, but one of a specific and confessional un-
derstanding of scripture. In the development of Reformed covenant theology
an old treasure, buried in scripture, was discovered. It is an example of the way
in which the Holy Spirit, who never adds new truths to biblically revealed doc-
trine, leads the church, through crises, to a deeper insight of scripture.
Not everyone agrees. The Anabaptists, together with Baptists who later
emerged from Puritanism and Methodism, see infant baptism more as a
relic of Rome than a biblically based practice. Perhaps the starting point in
the authority of scripture even makes the Reformed tradition, more than the
Lutheran, vulnerable to a radicalization of sola scriptura. The historical Swiss
or Reformed Reformation, however, sought to understand scripture within a
confessional hermeneutic, in fellowship with the church of all ages. Although
somewhat obscured by the official maintenance of the appeal to scripture
alone, this ‘confessional hermeneutic’ is the basis of the biblical underpinning
of infant baptism in the covenantal view that baptism replaces circumcision.
That this was sometimes denied with an appeal to scripture alone in polem-
ics both with radical reformers and with Roman Catholic opponents does not
annul the fact that in historical reality their confessional appeal to scripture
differed largely from biblicism.
The hermeneutic rule, or the regula fidei, was found in the creeds of the ear-
ly church. The later status of the protestant confessions as summaries of bibli-
cal doctrine, as norma normata next to scripture as norma normans, originates
20 Huldrich Zwingli, “Von der Taufe, von der Wiedertaufe und von der Kindertaufe,” in Hul-
dreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, [CR, 91] (Leipzig: Heinsius, 1927) 4: 327.
in this early switch to scripture understood according to a specific ecclesial

hermeneutic. The reformation intended to be a reform of the existing catholic
Church and a return to the essence of what the church of all ages had believed
on the basis of scripture.
3 Scripture and General Revelation
The phrase sola scriptura can also be confusing because it suggests that other
sources of knowledge are excluded. Reformed orthodoxy generally left more
room in the interpretation of scripture for human reason, than Lutheran or-
thodoxy.21 In the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper Lutherans argued that the bodi-
ly presence of Christ must be believed simply because Christ said, “This is my
body” For them Christus dixit or Dominus dixit meant the end of the discus-
sion.22 Against this understanding of the real presence of Christ in the Supper,
Reformed orthodoxy argued that it was unreasonable to believe that the hu-
man body of Christ, as it was ascended to heaven, could at the same time be
present on earth.23
More in general the phrase sola scriptura, at least seemingly, excludes a
positive role of general revelation in the interpretation of scripture. Of course,
in any case of a seeming conflict between scripture and the facts of nature,
between special and general revelation, one has to be careful not to conclude
that scripture is not reliable. As Augustin already said: ‘Whatever they can
really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of
21 Turretin, for instance, affirms the use of philosophy over against Lutheran opponents.
Chapter I.xiii “Is there any use of philosophy in theology? We affirm.” Francis Turretin,
Institutes of elenctic theology (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1992–1997) 1: 44. On the use of phi-
losophy in Reformed orthodoxy see Aza Goudriaan, Reformed Orthodoxy and Philosophy,
1625–1750: Gisbertus Voetius, Petrus van Mastricht and Anthonius Driessen (Leiden: Brill,
2006), 36–45.
22 According to Abraham Calov, dominus dixit was the unique principium cognoscendi in
the pure matters of faith, although this did not imply that reason did not play a role at all
in his theology. Kenneth G. Appold, Abraham Calov’s Doctrine of Vocatio in Its Systematic
Context (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 63. On the phrase in relation to Lutheran Chris-
tology and the Lutheran view of the Supper, see Theodor Mahlmann, Das neue Dogma der
lutherischen Christologie: Problem und Geschichte seiner Begründung (Gütersloh: Mohn,
1969), 51–52, 239.
23 Turretin, for instance, argues that human reason can judge that it is a logical contradic-
tion that the human body of Christ can be in many places at the same time. Francis Tur-
retin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1992–1997), 1: 32.
48 van den Belt
reconciliation with our scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises
which is contrary to these scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must ei-
ther prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, with-
out the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so.’24 This is a strong statement for
the primacy of scripture, but it does not exclude that the correct understanding
of scripture might well be informed by the findings in the book of nature.
In Reformed theology the distinction—however complicated it may
be—between the moral and the ceremonial laws is an important hermeneuti-
cal tool to discern the authoritativeness of the Old Testament. Reformed ortho-
doxy in some cases took counsel from the lex naturalis engraved upon the hu-
man conscience to decide which laws in the Torah were ceremonial or political
and which of them or which parts of them were moral and abiding.25 One can
know which laws belong to the moral core of the law, because there is a corre-
spondence between the eternal moral law of God, as expression of His charac-
ter, and the sense of good and evil in human beings created in God’s image and
likeness. Of course, we have to be aware of the complexities of concepts such as
natural law and the always fallible human conscience. Nevertheless, it would
be helpful in some ethical debates to recognize the interdependence of bib-
lical revelation and the general human knowledge of the good, the true, and
the beautiful. It was not sola scriptura, for instance, that led to the abolition of
slavery. That came about through Christians who had the courage to counter a
current in scripture by means of a new hermeneutic view, that is by attaching
more value to the implicit relativization of slavery in the New Testament than
to than its explicit regulation. They took this courage, because they also knew
from general revelation—call it natural law or human rights—that the way in
which slavery had developed in the seventeenth century was intrinsically evil.
A similar case can be made for the complicated relationship between faith
and science. Already at the beginning of the 17th century Reformed s cholars
accepted a heliocentric cosmology. Among them, the natural philosopher
Isaac Beeckmann (1588–1637) from Zeeland, who was influenced by the pu-
ritan preaching of Willem Teelinck.26 Unfortunately, the confrontation with
Descartes set Reformed theology back, with geocentrism becoming normative
on the basis of a particular interpretation of scripture regarding the movement
of the sun.
24 Augustine, De genesi ad litteram I.41.21.

25 Henk van den Belt, “Spiritual and Bodily Freedom: Christian Liberty in Early Modern Re-
formed Theology,” Journal of Reformed Theology 9 (2015): 161–162.
26 On Beeckman, see Klaas van Berkel, Isaac Beeckman on Matter and Motion: Mechanical
Philosophy in the Making (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013).
Scripture remains the only lens through which we correctly can perceive
general revelation, but sola scriptura seems to annul that general revelation
altogether and therefore it is a rather problematic slogan for the Reformed
view that we know God by two means; first, by the creation, preservation, and
government of the universe and second—and more clearly—by his holy and
divine Word.
4 Word and Spirit
A final reason to nuance sola scriptura lies in the relationship between Word
and Spirit. In the 1559 edition of his Institutes John Calvin wrote: ‘Let this
therefore stand: those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught, truly find rest
in scripture; it is indeed autopistos—it should not be submitted to demonstra-
tion by proofs—while it still owes the certainty that it deserves among us to
the testimony of the Spirit.’27
As early as the 1539 edition, in which Calvin first discusses scripture as
source for the knowledge of God, the question of how we can be assured of the
divine origin of scripture without the authority of the church is very important
for him. He is afraid that ‘miserable consciences’ will not be able to find ‘solid
assurance of eternal life’ if the promises ultimately depend upon human au-
thority.28 The only alternative for him is to seek that certainty in scripture itself,
that gives a sense of its own truth, just as light and dark, white and black, sweet
and bitter things.29 It is a dangerous error, according to Calvin, to derive the
authority of scripture from the church and thus make the truth of God depend
on human arbitrariness. The persuasion of the authority of scripture must be
sought higher than in human beings, namely in the inner witnessing of the
Spirit.30 Scripture gains reverence for itself by its own majesty (maiestas), but
only affects us seriously when the Spirit seals it to our hearts.
27 John Calvin, Institutes 1.7.5. John Calvin, Opera Selecta 3: 67. For a detailed discussion of
the background of the Greek term autopistos cf. Henk van den Belt, The Authority of Scrip-
ture in Reformed Theology: Truth and Trust, Studies in Reformed Theology, vol. 17 (Leiden:
Brill, 2008), 74–90.
28 Calvin, Opera Selecta, 3: 66. For an extensive discussion of the layers in the Institutes cf.
Van den Belt, Authority of Scripture, 17–64.
29 Calvin, Opera Selecta, vol. 3, p. 67. For the text in the final edition cf. Calvin, Institutes 1.7.2.
30 “[…] ab interiori spiritus sancti testificatione.” In the final edition Calvin rephrases this
into “[…] ab arcano testimonio Spiritus.” Calvin, Opera Selecta, 3: 69, cf. Calvin, Institutes
1.7.4.
50 van den Belt
By stressing sola scriptura the autopistia of scripture can easily be misun-

derstood as a form of circular reasoning, a reference to proof texts for divine
inspiration. In that case the authority of scripture rests on claims in the New
Testament—2 Timothy 3: 16 is a well-known example—that the scriptures are
inspired. The concept of autopistia, however, is not a reference to proof texts;
on the contrary, it is triggered by the attempt to avoid circular reasoning.
Originally the Greek term was used for the Euclidean axioms that were
‘self-convincing,’ because their demonstration was both unnecessary and im-
possible. Later in medieval theology the term was used for the principia per se
nota, the principles that formed the self-convincing epistemological starting
point of any true scientia. Thus, some medieval theological surveys open with
a preliminary discussion of theology as a science.31 Theology can only be a sci-
entia if it rests on principia and the principium of theology is scripture. This is
a principium of a special kind, it is not self-evident for human reason as such,
but only for the believing and Spirit-illuminated mind.
Reformed theology developed this medieval concept over against the Ro-
man Catholic claim that the authority of scripture depends on the authority of
the Church. For the protestants, scripture is self-convincing, it does not depend
on human authority or rational proof, but has its authority of its own majes-
ty. This authority of scripture, however, can only be discovered and accepted
through the work of the Spirit. A one-sided emphasis on sola scriptura in a for-
mal sense therefore can easily erase the appreciation of the interrelationship
of Word and Spirit.
This pneumatological approach to the authority of scripture precludes a
one-sided emphasis on the nature of inspiration or a strong antithesis between
scripture and tradition. The same Spirit who induced the facts of salvation his-
tory, who inspired the witnesses to speak and write about these facts, and who
safeguarded the tradition of the written testimonies, also dwells in the hearts
of Christians today. When the witness of the Spirit applies the witness of scrip-
ture to the heart, the living voice of God renews those who hear the Word and
makes them witnesses of what He has done for them.
Scripture contains all the truth necessary for salvation and there is no h
igher
court to appeal to. Nevertheless, exactly because the Word of God is theopneutstos,
breathed by the Spirit of God, the authority of scripture is always intertwined
with the witness of the Spirit. In the context of (post)modernity this easily is
misunderstood as a form of subjectivism, but the witness of the Spirit is not
to be confused with some kind of individualistic private judgement. It is the
31 For instance, Aquinas Super Sent, q1 a3 qc. 2 arg. 2.

resonance of the Word of God—culminating in Jesus Christ and embodied in

the scriptures—in the confession of the church of all ages and in the hearts
of the believers nowadays. In essence the witness of the Spirit is the effectual
testimony of the gospel regarding Jesus Christ.
5 Conclusions
It is remarkable that protestants often feel a need to nuance or qualify the ex-
pression sola scriptura by distinguishing the expression from nuda scriptura
or solo scriptura.32 Just as the expression sola scriptura, however, can be found
incidentally in the writings of the Reformers—John Calvin for instance states
that “the true rule of righteousness is to be sought from scripture alone [ex sola
scriptura]”33—the same is true of the here rejected nuda scriptura. For exam-
ple, John Calvin admits that the incarnation is a divine mystery beyond the
understanding of the human mind, but over against his opponents—in this
case skeptical humanists—he admits that “we depend upon scripture alone
[ex nudis scripturis pendeamus] for convincing people about such great mat-
ters.”34 It is noteworthy that Calvin here does not mean that ‘scripture alone’ is
his formal theological principle, but that in the discussion with his opponents
he has nothing else than scripture itself as vulnerable as it may seem to be.
Sometimes sola scriptura is modified and used as a shorthand for the suffi-
ciency of scripture as it is formulated in the protestant confessional statements,
such as the Belgic Confession, which teaches that “Scripture fully contains the
will of God and that all that man must believe in order to be saved is sufficient-
ly taught therein” (article 7) or the Westminster Confession which teaches that
“the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory,
man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by
good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” (I. vi).
32 Thus the evangelicals participating in the American ecumenical initiative “Evangelicals

and Catholics Together” declare that it is a “widespread misunderstanding in our com-
munity that sola scriptura (Scripture alone) means nuda scriptura (literally, Scripture
unclothed; i.e., denuded of and abstracted from its churchly context).” Charles W. Colson
and Richard John Neuhaus (eds.), Your Word is Truth: A Project of Evangelicals and Catho-
lics Together (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 39.
33 Calvin Institutes 3.17.8, Calvin, Opera Selecta, 3: 261.
34 John Calvin, Concerning scandals, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 18. Cf. Calvin, CO
8: 16.
52 van den Belt
The expression sola scriptura, however, one-sidedly emphasizes only one

of the four defining attributes of scripture namely its sufficiency and does not
convey the nuanced way in which this is related to its necessity, clarity, and
authority. Whereas Reformed confessional theology leaves room for doctrines
“deduced from Scripture”, it was exactly this point that was criticized by the
Lutherans who first introduced sola scriptura.
It is fine that the expression is often nuanced, but this leaves the question
unanswered why the nuanced view of the Reformation on the authority of
scripture should be summed up with such a simplified slogan. The continuous
desire to nuance sola scriptura and to explain it in a different sense than its
literal meaning is an implicit acknowledgement that the slogan taken literally
is not useful. The real reason for maintaining it is that it has not only become a
part of a collective memory, but also functions as a mark of orthodoxy.
In sum, the expression is inadequate for the historical Reformation, because
it always has to be nuanced in the light of the Reformed views of tradition,
hermeneutics, general revelation and the witness of the Spirit. Regrettably the
slogan has even developed into a formal hallmark of orthodoxy that easily can
squeeze out the amazement about the revelation of the God who has spoken.
An acceptable theological alternative for the sola-triad perhaps is: gratia
prima, fides prima en scriptura prima. The core of the Reformation debate was
about the right relationship between grace and merit, or rather grace and the
liberated free will, it was about the right relationship of faith and works, and
about the right relationship between scripture and tradition. The word sola
pulls this relationship apart in advance.
The word prima better expresses that grace, faith, and scripture are
irreducible points of departure, the principia, beyond which a Christian can-
not go. Scripture is received by means of the tradition, but its primacy lends it
authority to reform and renew tradition; tradition may not do so with scrip-
ture. Scripture may not be severed from hermeneutics, but it is always a ques-
tion of which hermeneutic and what is determinative for it. The primacy of
scripture means searching for “scriptural principles in order to explain Scrip-
ture”.35 Scripture cannot be separated from God’s general revelation in creation
or in the human heart, but scripture’s primacy and the darkening of the human
mind require that scripture be the lens to see this revelation. Inverting that
relationship is wrong.
35 As the title of a Dutch book on hermeneutics says; Seakle Greijdanus, Schriftbeginselen

ter schriftverklaring, en historisch overzicht over theorieën en wijzen van schriftuitlegging
(Kampen: Kok, 1946).
Probably Roman Catholics will also have little difficulty with the primacy of
scripture—as the normative point of departure for faith and conduct—even
as they will have little difficulty with the primacy of grace and faith. But this
does not mean that we are also in agreement about the meaning of primacy.
That is a proper subject for further debate.
The primacy of scripture, the primacy of grace and the primacy of faith
are non-negotiable. That is not just characteristic of the Reformation, but all
of Christianity. Besides, after 500 years no one should forget that the Refor-
mation was not about separation, but renovation of the catholic church of all
ages.
Protestantism has made itself unnecessarily vulnerable during the last
century because of the sloganization of sola scriptura, as evidenced by the
repeated attempts to define precisely what is and what is not meant by it.
This suggests that it is time to place this problematic phrase, along with the
other sola’s, in the trophy case of church history, there to represent a typical
polemical manner in which 20th century Protestants attempted to define the
Reformation.
Bibliography
Appold, Kenneth G. Abraham Calov’s Doctrine of Vocatio in Its Systematic Context.

Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998.
Bavinck, Herman. “De Hervorming en ons nationale leven,” in: Ter herdenking der
Hervorming, 1517–1917. Twee redevoeringen, uitgesproken in de openbare zitting van
den senaat der Vrije Universiteit op 31 October 1917, ed. H. Bavinck and H.H. Kuyper.
Kampen: Kok, 1917, 7–36.
Bavinck, Herman. Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 4 vol. Kampen: Bos, 1895–1901.
Bavinck, Herman. Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 4th edition, 4 vols. Kampen: Kok, 1928–
1930.
Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols., ed. John Bolt, transl. John Vriend, Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003–2008.
Belt, Henk van den. The Authority of Scripture in Reformed Theology: Truth and Trust,
Studies in Reformed Theology, vol. 17. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Belt, Henk van den. “Spiritual and Bodily Freedom: Christian Liberty in Early Modern
Reformed Theology,” Journal of Reformed Theology 9 (2015): 161–162.
Berkel, Klaas van. Isaac Beeckman on Matter and Motion: Mechanical Philosophy in the
Making. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013.
Beumer, Johannes. Die mündliche Überlieferung als Glaubensquelle: Handbuch der Dog-
mengeschichte 4, Das Dasein im Glauben. Freiburg: Herder, 1962.
54 van den Belt
Biedermann. Richard. D. “Luther at Marburg,” in: Four Hundred Years: Commemorative

Essays on the Reformation of Dr. Martin Luther and its Blessed Results, in the Year of
the Four-hundredth Anniversary of the Reformation, ed. W.H.T. Dau. St. Louis: Con-
cordia, 1916, 74–87.
Buber, Martin. Werke. Munich: Kösel, 1963.
Busch, Eberhard. “Zwinglis Thesen von 1523,” in: Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften 1/1, ed.
E. Busch. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002, 68–101.
Calvin, John. Joannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia, ed. G. Baum, E. Cunitz, and
E. Reuss. Braunschweig: Schwetschke, 1863–1900.
Calvin, John. Joannis Calvini Opera Selecta ed. P. Barth and G. Niesel. Munich: Kaiser,
1926–1962.
Calvin, John. Concerning scandals. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.
Colson, Charles W. and Richard John Neuhaus(ed.). Your Word is Truth: A Project of
Evangelicals and Catholics Together. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
Corzine, Jacob. “The Source of the Solas: On the Question of Which are the Original
Solas,” in Theology is Eminently Practical: Essays in Honor of John T. Pless, ed. Jacob
Corzine and Bryan Wolfmueller. Fort Wayne: Lutheran Legacy, 2012, 51–69.
Ebeling, Gerhard. “‘Sola Scriptura’ and Tradition,” in: The Word of God and Tradition:
Historical Studies Interpreting the Divisions of Christianity, trans. S. H. Hooke. Lon-
don: Collins, 1968, 102–147.
Engelder, Theodore. “The Three Principles of the Reformation: Sola Scriptura, Sola
Gratia, Sola Fides,” in: Four Hundred Years: Commemorative Essays on the Reforma-
tion of Dr. Martin Luther and its Blessed Results, in the Year of the Four-hundredth
Anniversary of the Reformation, ed. W.H.T. Dau. St. Louis: Concordia, 1916, 97–109.
Geiselmann, Josepf R. “Das Missverständnis über das Verhältnis von Schrift und Tra-
dition und seine Überwindung in der katholischen Theologie,” in: Una Sancta 2
(1956): 131–150.
Geiselmann, Josepf R. “Scripture and Tradition in Catholic Theology,” in: Theology Di-
gest 6 (1958): 73–78.
Grebel, Conrad. “Letter to Thomas Müntzer,” in: The Radical Reformation, ed. Michael
G. Baylor. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991, 36–48.
Greijdanus, Seakle. Schriftbeginselen ter schriftverklaring, en historisch overzicht over
theorieën en wijzen van schriftuitlegging. Kampen: Kok, 1946.
Goudriaan, Aza. Reformed Orthodoxy and Philosophy, 1625–1750: Gisbertus Voetius,
Petrus van Mastricht and Anthonius Driessen. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Lane, Anthony N.S. “Sola Scriptura? Making Sense of a Post-Reformation Slogan,” in: A
pathway into the Holy Scripture, ed. David F. Wright and Philip Satterthwaite. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994, 297–327.
Luther, Martin. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, ed. Ulrich Köpf, and
others. Weimar: Böhlau, 1883–2009.
Mahlmann, Theodor. Das neue Dogma der lutherischen Christologie: Problem und Ges-
chichte seiner Begründung. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1969.
Manz, Felix. “Protest and Defense,” in: The Radical Reformation, ed. Michael G. Baylor.
Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991, 95–100.
McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. New York: Wiley, 2011.
Müntzer, Thomas. Schriften und Briefe. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, ed. G. Franz. Güter-
sloh: Mohn, 1968.
Muralt, Leonhard von. Quellen zur Geschichte der Taüfer in der Schweiz 1. Zürich. Zürich:
TVZ, 1974.
Oberman, Heiko A. The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval
Nominalism, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963.
Oberman, Heiko A. “Das tridentinische Rechtfertigungsdekret im Lichte spätmit-
telalterlicher Theologie,” in: Concilium Tridentinum, ed. R. Bäumer, Wege der For-
schung, 313. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1979, 301–340.
Pighius, Albertus. De libero hominis arbitrio et divina gratia, Libri decem, Cologne:
Melchior Novensianus, 1542.
Schaff, Philip. The Creeds of Christendom: The History of Creeds. New York: Harper, 1877.
Tavard, George H. Holy Writ or Holy Church: The Crisis of the Protestant Reformation.
London: Burns & Oates, 1959.
Trent, Council of. Concilium Tridentinum diariorum, actorum, epistularum, tractatuum
nova collection, ed. Societas Goerriesiana, 13 vol. Freiberg: Herder, 1901–2001.
Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Phillipsburg: P&R, 1992–1997.
Walker, H. H. “Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Walther, D.D. The Luther of America,” in: The
Lutheran Quarterly 12 (1912), 355–363.
Zwingli, Huldrich. Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke. Leipzig: Heinsius, 1908–1959.
chapter 3
Foundation or Perspective? On the Usefulness of

Formation and Epistemology
Hans Burger
1 Introduction
After the end of modern foundationalism, perspectivism is seen by many

as an alternative. This shift in our cultural climate influences theological re-
flection on the scripture principle and sola scriptura. It is possible to use
a foundation-model as a starting point for understanding scripture; or a
foundation-model can influence a doctrine of scripture. The same is the case
with a perspective-model. In this article, I will deal with both models.
First, I will deal with the foundation-model, its historical background and
its limitations. The foundation-model, understood in a modern foundation-
alist way, tends to abstract scripture from its embedding in the practice of
the Christian life, and neglects the formation of Christians as good readers of
scripture (§ 2). Second, I will delve into the perspective-model. Starting with
Klaas Schilder’s trilogy Christus in zijn lijden (Christ in his suffering), I will in-
vestigate the central elements (beliefs) of his perspective on scripture. Fur-
thermore, I will emphasize the importance of formation as Bible readers (§ 3).
In a final section, I will show that the end of modern foundationalism with its
overestimation of epistemology does not imply that epistemology is no longer
necessary. Because Christians need to be (in some sense) realists, epistemolog-
ical reflection is needed as well.
2 Foundation
Saying foundation-model is saying ‘foundationalism.’ It is important to see

the relationships between this crisis of modern foundationalism and the
questions concerning the scripture-principle we are facing in theology. The
sola scriptura never functions in splendid isolation and did not originate in
a vacuum. For many centuries, Protestant reflection on the scripture prin-
ciple has interfered with modern foundationalism. Moreover, theological
positions have unforeseen and unintended effects, although weaknesses of

foundation or perspective? 57
a theological tradition often become apparent only much later during new
situations of crisis.1
The Protestant scripture principle was developed within a conflict on au-
thority.2 According to Pannenberg, the decline of western Christianity in the
second half of the Middle Ages was caused by the malfunctioning of the
church authority and the abuse of power by the papacy.3 This has led to many
movements of reform. In 1520, Luther emphasised the priesthood of all be-
lievers over against the priestly institute of power that Rome’s church had be-
come. According to Alister McGrath, the priesthood of all believers is directly
related to the ‘dangerous idea’ of the Reformation: every individual has the
right to interpret scripture; a dangerous idea that has had unintended effects.
Although Luther tried to modify this dangerous idea after the Peasants’ War in
1525, the idea was born.4
In the Institutes of the Christian Religion of John Calvin, we also find traces of
this conflict on authority. According to Calvin in book I,6.1, we have a twofold
knowledge of God, a knowledge of God as creator and a deeper knowledge of
God in the person of the mediator. For both, we need scripture. Central to
Calvin’s doctrine of scripture in book I of the Institutes are two discussions;
one with Rome concerning the problem whether the authority of scripture
rests on the authority of the church (1.9), and one with the ‘fanatics’ who place
their trust in new revelations of the Holy Spirit, bypassing scripture (1.9).5 Both
discussions concern the question of the authority of scripture as source for our
knowledge of God. Important motifs in these chapters are authority, the role
of the church and of the Holy Spirit, and the autopistia of scripture. Calvin
is contributing to a discussion of sources of knowledge during an authority
conflict.
Hence, at the beginning of the Reformed doctrine of scripture we find a
conflict about who has the final authority in the church, about the ultimate
source of authority and the source of true knowledge of God. This conflict led
to an emphasis on scripture as opposed to the church authorities. According
1 Cf. Alister McGrath, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution—a History from
the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First (New York: Harper One, 2007), 473.
2 Cf. McGrath, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea, 3; N.T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God:
How to Read the Bible Today (New York: Harper One, 2011), 25–26.
3 Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematische Theologie III (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1993), 557.
4 Cf. McGrath, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea, 2–4.
5 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by Ford Lewis Battles (Philadel-
phia: The Westminster Press, 1965), 69–71, 74–81, 93–96.
58 Burger
to Van Bruggen, however, this is an ambivalent solution. Where the bishops as

shepherds guided their flocks with the canon of scripture as their staff, it was
“because of the growing wickedness of the shepherds that the sheep at last had
to find their own way.” The isolation of the staff from the shepherds became
necessary, but still it is a “testimony of poverty”.6 This position might have its
limitations; in any case, the Reformers found their foundation in the redemp-
tive gift of God’s holy scripture. “Born as a defensive watch-word, sola scriptura
is solid”: it brings us to the source of life giving water.7
However, as happened more often in the emergence of modernity, a “melius”
is followed by a “peius” that is only “shaped in imitation and replication of the
redemptive good,” and might become a “parodic and corrupt development” of
a Christian good.8 The schism within the church and the subsequent religious
wars led to renewed quests for “new ground of stability”.9 In response to the ru-
mours of religious battles, Hugo Grotius sought for a new foundation of justice
and developed a new version of natural law; in response to the uncertainties
of the age, Descartes undertakes his quest for a new foundation of indubita-
ble certain knowledge. Gradually, modern foundationalism with its focus on
epistemology emerges. As a result, a rational or epistemological justification
becomes a necessary condition for faith in modern thinking.10 The effects of
the influence of modern foundationalism on the understanding of the scrip-
ture principle within the Reformed tradition are documented.11 Ironically, the
6 J. van Bruggen, “The Authority of Scripture as a Presupposition in Reformed Theology,” in

The Vitality of Reformed Theology: Proceedings of the International Congress June 20–24th
1994 Noordwijkerhout, the Netherlands, eds. J.M. Batteau et al. (Kampen: Kok, 1994), 64–
65. Comparably, Van de Beek sketches the ambivalence of the Protestant sola scriptura,
see A. van de Beek, Lichaam en Geest van Christus: De theologie van de kerk en de Heilige
Geest (Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2012), 280.
7 Van Bruggen, “Authority of Scripture,” 64.
8 Oliver O’Donovan, The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theory
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 251–252, 275. O’Donovan applies this
thought to Christian social and political thought; analogously, his idea can be applied to
developments in the field of epistemology.
9 Randal Rauser, Theology in Search of Foundations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009),
24; cf. Pannenberg, Systematische Theologie III, 557–558.
10 Rauser, Search of Foundations, 21, 26.
11 See e.g. Henk van den Belt, The authority of Scripture in Reformed theology: truth and trust
(Studies in Reformed theology, 17; Leiden: Brill, 2008); Jack B. Rogers and Donald K. McK-
im, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1979); Marcel Sarot, “Christian Fundamentalism as a Reaction to the En-
lightenment,” in Orthodoxy, Liberalism, and Adaptation: Essays on Ways of Worldmaking
doctrine of scripture in the Reformed tradition has taken over traces of this
modern foundationalism: the epistemological quest for a priori absolute cer-
tainty in combination with a preference for formal instead of material argu-
ments for the authority of scripture. Whereas in Christian practice scripture is
embedded in the life of the church with its tradition and the relationship with
the triune God, due to foundationalist influence scripture in theory tends to be
isolated from this embedding.
More important than historical questions is the systematic question con-
cerning the problems of modern foundationalism.12
According to a foundationalist epistemology, “a person’s noetic structure or
the totality of his convictions should be construed according to the analogy
of a building,”13 composed of a foundation of basic beliefs, and the non-basic
beliefs justified by those foundational beliefs. Modern foundationalism strived
in Times of Change from Biblical, Historical and Systematic Perspectives, ed. Bob Becking
(Leiden: Brill, 2011), 249–267. On Reformed orthodoxy: Aza Goudriaan, Reformed Ortho-
doxy and Philosophy, 1625–1750: Gisbertus Voetius, Petrus van Mastricht and Anthonius
Driessen (Brill: Leiden, Boston, 2006). Concerning 19th century Dutch Neocalvinism of
Herman Bavinck and Abraham Kuyper: Koert van Bekkum, “Zekerheid en schriftgezag
in Neo-Calvinistische visies op de historiciteit van de Bijbel,” in Geloven in zekerheid?
Gereformeerd geloven in een postmoderne tijd eds. Koert van Bekkum and Rien Rouw
(Barneveld: De Vuurbaak, 2000), 77–108; Dirk van Keulen, Bijbel en dogmatiek: schrift-
beschouwing en schriftgebruik in het dogmatisch werk van A. Kuyper, H. Bavinck en G.C.
Berkouwer (Kampen: Kok, 2003); Hans Burger, “Kuyper’s Anti-Revolutionary Doctrine
of Scripture,” in Neocalvinism and the French Revolution, eds. James Eglinton and George
Harinck (London / New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014), 127–143. Finally, on the
American Presbyterianism of Charles and Archibald A. Hodge, or Benjamin B. Warfield:
Cornelis Trimp, “Amerikaans fundamentalisme,” in Woord op Schrift: Theologische reflec-
ties over het gezag van de Bijbel, eds. C. Trimp et al. (Kampen: Kok, 2002), 21–45.
12 See for the discussion of modern foundationalism, its problems, and theology e.g. Nicho-
las Wolterstorff, Reason within the Bounds of Religion, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1999); John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Philipsburg: Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Company, 1987), 128–129, 368–387; D.Z. Phillips, Faith after
Foundationalism (London / New York: Routledge, 1988); Nancey Murphy, Beyond Liberal-
ism & Fundamentalism: How Modern and Postmodern Theology set the Theological Agen-
da, (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996); Sarot, “Christian Fundamentalism”;
Millard J. Erickson, et al., Reclaiming the Center: Confronting Evangelical Accommodation
in Postmodern Times (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004); Rauser, Search of Foundations;
Eudardo J. Echeverria, “Divine Revelation and Foundationalism: Towards a Historically
Conscious Foundationalism,” Josephinum Journal of Theology 19 (2012): 283–321.
13 Benno van den Toren, Christian Apologetics as Cross-Cultural Dialogue (London: T&T
Clark, 2011), 38.
60 Burger
for a peaceful coexistence of humanity that is based on an agreement about

knowledge, morality, religion and culture and is achieved according to rational
standards. To reach this goal, it prioritized epistemology. The ideal of modern
foundationalism was a self-evident foundation of indubitable basic beliefs.
In order to rationally attain absolute certain knowledge, two components are
required: a universally shared rationality, and a universally shared agreement
about “which beliefs are to be admitted as properly basic and thus as part of
the foundation”.14
Nevertheless, it proved to be impossible to reach agreement about which
beliefs could be considered as properly basic. Moreover, no one succeeded
in formulating a rule that described what could be considered as indubitably
justification of a proposition or a theory on the premise of the foundation.
Furthermore, rationality itself proved to be embedded in traditions and com-
munities.15
More fundamentally, the attempt to give an a priori epistemological foun-
dation is problematic itself. Such attempts of foundationalism result according
to Dalferth in three disappointing possibilities: they never end, they result in a
logical circle, or they prematurely stop at a certain point without valid reason.
Dalferth reminds us of the fact that ultimate justifications do not exist in theo-
retical contexts. Of course, we do have beliefs that we never will give up, beliefs
that are related to our acts, our choices, our identity and our life forms. “Letzt-
begründungen gibt es nur in praktischen, nicht in theoretischen Kontexten,”
Dalferth writes. Foundationalism confuses a theoretical concept of absolute
certainty with a practical concept of deep rooted convictions.16
Suppose we take foundationalism as starting point for a doctrine of scrip-
ture, in order to provide an a priori epistemological justification of scripture as
absolute certain foundation of the Christian faith, which implies a preference
for formal arguments. Especially when we do so in our pluralist, post-Christian
context, we need to face the theological problems of foundationalism and the
questions that it does not sufficiently answer.
14 Van den Toren, Christian Apologetics, 38.

15 Wolterstorff, Reason within the Bounds of Religion, 35–55; Rauser, Search of Foundations,
84–99.
16 Ingolf U. Dalferth, Gedeutete Gegenwart: Zur Wahrnehmung Gottes in den Erfahrungen
der Zeit (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 103–105, 137–139, 154–155; Dalferth, Die
Wirklichkeit des Möglichen: Hermeneutische Religionsphilosophie (Tübingen: Mohr Sie-
beck, 2003), 359–360.
a. Why the Bible? We live no longer in a Christian Europe where the Bible
is the only sacred book. In a formal defence of the authority of scripture
the revelation and authority of God are important arguments—deus
dixit. However, this leaves open whether God can reveal himself and
speak to us, but also why we should believe that he revealed himself
in the books of Israel and Jesus’ disciples, rather than in the Qu’ran
or in another book. Finally, we need to confront the question why we
should accept the authority of a sacred book at all.
Here the preference for a formal defence of scripture shows its weak-
nesses. The saving character of the good news of Jesus Christ and its
content should play an important role when these questions are to be
answered.
b. Why this old book? For the Reformers who were humanists as well,
it was a great joy to return to the original sources. We live after the
development of historical consciousness and are aware of the histori-
cal distance. Furthermore, to many of us, old knowledge is superseded
knowledge. Why should we read such an old book as the Bible?
Again, to answer these questions we need material-theological argu-
ments, e.g. about God’s eternity, about the universal significance of Je-
sus Christ as representative of humanity, or about the work of the Holy
Spirit who unites the church of all times and places to Jesus Christ, her
head.
c. Why the focus on knowledge of God? During the Reformation, d ebates
about the doctrine of scripture were in-house Christian discussions
between Roman-Catholics, Anabaptists and Reformed Christians in a
conflict on authority. In later times, the modern denial of the possibility
of knowledge of God resulted in a shift in focus: the problem of the
knowledge of God became the central question. In our time, this ques-
tion has lost part of its urgency, as spirituality or practical relevance
have moved to the foreground.
Foundationalism focuses on epistemology. Given the aforementioned
change, it is important to see that the foundation-metaphor in scrip-
ture primarily is not an epistemological metaphor, but a soteriological
metaphor that concerns our new life while dead in our sins; and an
ecclesiological metaphor of the new community that is created and
exists in Jesus Christ. Only secondarily does the foundation-metaphor
have epistemological implications. This has importance for the au-
thority of scripture as well: reasons to read scripture often will have
no epistemological character. Christians read scripture as follow-
ers of Christ who found their salvation and their life in him, and as
62 Burger
participants in the community of the church and her practices. These

soteriological and ecclesiological elements need to be used in explana-
tions of the authority of scripture.
d. Where is God? For the Reformers, the existence of God was exalted
above all doubt. We, however, live in a pluralist and maybe secular
age, and make efforts to realize what Abraham Kuyper expressed as
following:
To him who does not feel that, at the moment when he opens the Holy
Scripture, God comes by and in it and touches his very soul, the Scrip-
ture is not yet the Word of God, or has ceased to be this […]17
Foundationalism focusses on scripture, not on God’s acts. We need
to make clear that understanding the authority of scripture needs a
Trinitarian embedding: it is God the Father who speaks, God the Son
who is the Word of God but also the one in whose identity and mind
we share, and God the Spirit who guides us in all truth and makes us
understand.18
e. The text alone? Luther developed his scripture-principle when print-
ing was only just developed. For him, scripture was especially heard
scripture, read aloud and preached.19 For us, who live in a world full
of books (and screens) and after the development of positivism, sola
scriptura easily becomes ‘the text alone’.20 We need to explain that
scripture is more than its printed text.
f. Does the text have a meaning? For the Reformers, the question was
how the sensus literalis of scripture was related to the allegorical,
moral and anagogical sense of scripture. They never questioned the
17 Abraham Kuyper, Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology: Its Principles (New York: Charles
Scribber’s Sons, 1898), accessed August 29, 2017, https://archive.org/stream/
encyclopediaofsa00unknuoft#page/364/mode/2up, 364.
18 On the tendency of the Enlightenment towards the eclipse of God’s agency and the im-
portance of remembering God’s Trinitarian act for understanding Scripture, see Mark
Alan Bowald, Rendering the Word in Theological Hermeneutics: Mapping Divine and Hu-
man Agency (Hampshire / Burlington: Ashgate, 2007), 1–23; Kevin J. Vanhoozer, First The-
ology: God, Scripture and Hermeneutics (Leicester: Apollos / Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press, 2002), 127–158.
19 On the importance of the hearing and preaching of Scripture for Luther, instead of read-
ing, see Ingolf U. Dalferth, Jenseits von Mythos und Logos: die christologische Transforma-
tion der Theologie (Freiburg / Basel / Wien: Herder, 1993), 247–295.
20 How infertile it is to deal with Scripture especially as text, becomes tangible in Lambert
Wierenga, De macht van de taal—de taal van de macht: over literatuurwetenschap en bij-
belgebruik (Kampen: Kok Voorhoeve, 1996).
meaning of scripture itself. For us, who are faced with the presumed
the death of God and the author it has become a question whether
the text itself has a meaning. To answer that question, it is not enough
to focus on the text. Instead, we need to zoom out to rediscover God’s
agency in using scripture.21
g. Is Christianity a religion of a book or of a person? Van Bruggen warns
that Christianity is no book-religion. “Christians do not kiss the book,
but kneel for their living Saviour in heaven.”22 McGrath however sig-
nals that for some Protestants, fundamentalists and evangelicals, the
Bible stands at the center, as the Qu’ran for Islam.23 When in practice
the Bible and not Christ is the primary foundation for Christians, and
scripture instead of Christ has to provide the necessary assurance, un-
certainties will be denied or smuggled away, for they undermine the
supposed need for unquestionable absolutes. This complicates an
honest reflection on themes such as the way in which the scriptures
have come to exist, textual criticism, the character of biblical histo-
riography, as well as exegetical and hermeneutical problems. Difficult
and unsolved problems will undermine the desired theoretical cer-
tainty.24
h. Who is a qualified Bible reader? In Reformation times, it was a libera-
tion to return the Bible to the members of the church and to empha-
sise the priesthood of all believers. For us, living after the development
of the modern and/or protestant individual, there is a danger that the
individual reader with his authentic emotions alone uses the Bible
to prove whatever he wants. With McGrath, we see the threats of the
dangerous idea of the Reformation: every individual has the right to
interpret scripture for himself.
21 Vanhoozer, First Theology, 207–235; and more extensively Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is there a
Meaning in this Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998).
22 Jacob van Bruggen, Het kompas van het christendom: ontstaan en betekenis van de Bijbel
(Kampen: Kok, 2002), 9.
23 McGrath, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea, 474
24 See for two examples in the Reformed tradition Turretini’s view of the use of non-
Hebrew texts and conjectural emendation, Van den Belt, Authority of Scripture, 158–163;
and the way Kuyper deals with some of the problems mentioned, Abraham Kuyper,
The Biblical Criticism of the Present Day, trans. J.H. de Vries (Andover: Bibliotheca Sacra,
1904), accessed August 29, 2017, https://archive.org/details/biblicalcriticis00kuyp, 432,
671, 675–682; and further Burger, “Kuyper’s Anti-Revolutionary Doctrine of Scripture,”
134–137.
64 Burger
Foundationalism tends to forget the reader. But we need to face the question:
who is a qualified Bible reader, and more importantly, how we are shaped into
good readers of scripture. This question concerning formation is not asked in
a foundation-model. Nevertheless, when in a pluralist and postmodern society
we all face a destabilizing plurality, and if we undergo different and contrary
formative influences, we need to invest deliberately in the formation of good
readers (and hearers) of scripture.
For us, it is the challenge to reemphasise the embedding of scripture and its
individual reader in Christ in the relationship with the triune God and in the
community of the church and her tradition. Furthermore, we need to reflect
on formation of good readers and hearers of scripture. The foundation-model
will not help us in this respect.
3 Perspective
Moving from a foundation-model to a perspective-model might imply a move

from realism to an anti-realist perspectivism. As I will explain below, anti-
realism, however, is not a meaningful option as long as we believe that for our
salvation we are utterly dependent on a God who acts to save us. By ‘perspec-
tive’ I mean a view of reality, from a given standpoint of one or more persons,
disclosing reality semiotically and reconstructing it symbolically, focussing on
certain aspects of reality, selecting information with mechanisms regulated by
e.g. interests and control beliefs.25
Christians have always read scripture from a certain perspective. As an ex-
ample of a rich theological perspective on scripture, I take Klaas Schilder in
his trilogy Christus in zijn lijden.26 Primary to his theocentric perspective is the
25 Cf. Ingolf U. Dalferth, Kombinatorische Theologie: Probleme theologischer Rationalität

(Freiburg / Basel. Wien: Herder, 1991), 87–90.
26 Klaas Schilder, Christus in zijn lijden: overwegingen van het lijdensevangelie, Vol I–III, 3rd
ed. (Kampen: Kok, 1977). Schilder played an important role in the Dutch church history
of the first half of the twentieth century, and took a leading position in the Reformed
Churches Liberated (Gereformeerde Kerken Vrijgemaakt), which were established
in 1944, after Schilder was dismissed by the Synod of the Reformed Churches in the
Netherlands. See on Schilder and this trilogy Jozias J.J. Dee, K. Schilder: zijn leven en werk;
Deel 1 (1890–1934) (Goes: Oosterbaan & Le Cointre, 1990), 182–206; Ad L.Th. de Bruijne,
“Schilders vroege spiritualiteit en de latere vrijgemaakten,” in Wie is die man?: Schilder in de
eenentwintigste eeuw, eds. Marius van Rijswijk et al. (Barneveld: De Vuurbaak, 2012), esp.
68–71; Jaap Schaeffer, “Schilder mysticus,” in Wie is die man?, Van Rijswijk, esp. 223–248.
conviction that God has to reveal himself, and that God has revealed himself,
although sometimes in a hidden way in a mashal. This mashal brings crisis, in
order to reveal the heart: whether it hides friendship or enmity.27 God’s revela-
tion and the mystery of Christ’s suffering surpass our understanding.28 More-
over, sin makes it difficult to understand God’s revelation. Not according to the
flesh, only according to the Spirit, that is, in faith, can we see God’s actions and
can we start to understand the meaning of Christ’s suffering. To see, one has to
be in Christ and one has to learn to observe in the light of scripture.29 Hence,
the renewal of our knowing is fundamental to Schilder. His hermeneutic is a
soteriological hermeneutic.
God’s revelation is a unity and Christ is its center. Again and again, Schil-
der demonstrates that Christ is the fulfilment of scripture by his actions
and the experiences of his suffering. When after the celebration of Passover
Christ and his disciples sing the psalms of the Hallel, the author sings his
own psalms, Schilder points out.30 Dogmatics helps to see this unity. When
we read scripture with Schilder, we read with a theologian who uses dogmat-
ic concepts to explain what he reads. As such, we get access to the Word of
God. Then we see Christ, who performs the plan of salvation that Father and
Son made together in the eternal covenant of redemption. We see Christ in
his threefold ministry of prophet, priest and king. Schilder especially empha-
sises God’s justice and God’s wrath on sin. As mediator and second Adam,
Christ fulfils the requirements of God’s covenant. The moment of substitu-
tion, the unique sacrifice of Christ is thus heavily emphasised. At the same
time, at the end of many chapters Schilder asks us to reflect on ourselves,
on our reaction and position. Faithful knowledge of Christ has to touch and
change us.
In Schilder’s perspective, we find a whole range of important beliefs: about
God, God’s revelation; about human sin and misunderstanding, but also about
the necessity of regeneration to understand properly; about the value of dog-
ma; about the unity of scripture and the central place of Christ within scrip-
ture; about ourselves who do not stay apart as spectators but are existentially
involved because God addresses us; and about who Christ is and the signifi-
cance of his death in the light of God’s eternal council.
27 On the mashal, see Schilder, Christus in zijn lijden II, 80–100

28 See e.g. Schilder, Christus in zijn lijden I, 12, 52–53.
29 On the epistemic influence of sin on the one hand, being in Christ, faith and Scripture on
the other hand see Schilder, Christus in zijn lijden I, 27–29, 31, 55–56; Schilder, Christus in
zijn lijden II, 182, 216, 266, 269, 285. Cf. Schaeffer, “Schilder mysticus,” 224–226.
30 Schilder, Christus in zijn lijden I, 320.
66 Burger
Having seen this theological perspective of Schilder, we need to consider

which elements are important and necessary for being a good reader of scrip-
ture.
1. God’s Trinitarian acts: important for Schilder is that we see the acts of
God in the dramatic story of the Bible and in the life of its readers. Due
to the influence of modernity, the consciousness that we have to read
scripture as embedded in God’s Trinitarian act is at risk of being lost.
However, then we lose the Word of God.31 Vanhoozer has demonstrated
the relationship between our understanding of God’s interaction with
his people and our views of scripture.32 We should see God act, the
one God who has bound himself to Abraham and his seed, in the way
the creed identifies him threefold as Father, Son and Spirit.33 The one
God is the main character of the story of the Bible; with Robert Jensen,
we can say that Father, Son and Spirit, the “dramatis dei personae,” the
“characters of the drama of God” “make an internal structure of the
one God’s personal name”: “the three identities are one God”.34 As Fa-
ther, Son and Spirit he is the one God who addresses us, who restores
our relationship with himself in Christ and in his Spirit, and who rec-
reates his image in us in conformity to Christ by his Spirit.35 Hence, we
need to understand scripture as embedded in God’s Trinitarian act. We
31 Bowald, Rendering the Word, 1–23.

32 Vanhoozer, First Theology, 127–158.
33 Robert W. Jenson, Canon and Creed (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), esp.
45–46.
34 Robert W. Jenson, Systematic Theology: Vol. 1 The Triune God (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1997), 75; Jenson, Canon and Creed, 45.
35 According to Jenson, the action of Father, Son and Spirit has to be understood as a “mutu-
ally single act”. Consequently, it is too easy to say that Father, Son and Spirit do “different
things” (Jenson, Systematic Theology: Vol. 1, 111). Accordingly, we should be careful to
identify the locution of the divine speech act too strictly with the activity of the Father,
the illocution with the Son’s act, and the perlocution with pneumatology. Father, Son and
Spirit speak; Jesus Christ, God and man, cannot be understood without the Spirit; and
in the perlocution the ascended Christ is active together with his Spirit. Relating Father,
Son and Spirit with locution, illocution and perlocution, Vanhoozers formulations differ;
sometimes he formulates more openly, sometimes more strictly. See Vanhoozer, First The-
ology, 154–155, 200–202, 227–228; Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical Lin-
guistic Approach to Christian Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press 2005),
66–68.
read scripture because God in Christ and in his Spirit uses this book to
exercise his saving authority over our lives.36
2. Christ as extra-textual center: ‘alone the text’ is not sufficient. Texts, sep-
arated from their author and any context do not have a stable mean-
ing.37 Texts can be interpreted differently, dependent on the reader
and its context. A clear example is the difference between a Jewish
reading of the Tanakh and a Christian reading of the same books as
‘Old Testament’. These books are an open text with a story that can
be continued in different ways. To Schilder, it was obvious that Christ
is both the author and the fulfilment of scripture. To read scripture
meaningfully, these control beliefs are crucial: that God acted in Christ
extra-textually; that what God has done in Christ is “the central focus
and main content,”38 but also the embodiment of the word that God
wants to communicate with us; and that Christ is the fulfilment of the
scriptures of Israel. The Christian faith is no religion of a book, but of
a person. The centre of scripture remains extra-textual: Jesus Christ,
the incarnate Word of God.39 God’s revelation is still incomplete and
requires completion when Christ, our head, will appear in glory with
a body at his Parousia and be publicly visible.40 We read scripture with
Christ as extra-textual centre, and the scripture principle has to be un-
derstood in the light of the solus Christus.41 This position has the risk of
36 Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God, 21–22; Oliver O’Donovan, “The Moral Author-
ity of Scripture,” in Scripture’s doctrine and theology’s Bible: how the New Testament shapes
Christian dogmatics, eds. Markus Bockmuehl and Alan J. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2008), 165–166.
37 Cf. Maarten Wisse, Scripture Between Identity and Creativity (Utrecht: Ars Disputandi,
2003), esp. 146–157.
38 Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol.1: Prolegomena, ed. John Bolt, trans. John
Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 110; cf 339, 402.
39 Ingolf U. Dalferth, “Die Mitte ist aussen: Anmerkungen zur Wirklichkeitsbezug evange-
lischer Schriftauslegung,” in Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift: Studien zur Hermeneu-
tik des Evangeliums, Christoph Landmesser et al. (Berlin, New York: W. de Gruyter 1997),
186–198; cf. Wierenga, De macht van de taal, 121–122, 133.
40 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 1, 376.
41 Cf. Burger, “A Soteriological Perspective on Our Understanding,” in Correctly Handling the
Word of Truth: Reformed Hermeneutics Today, eds. Mees te Velde and Gerhard H. Visscher
(Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2014), 202–203; Dalferth, “Die Mitte ist aussen,” 191, 193;
Matthias Petzoldt, “Sola Scriptura: brauchbares Prinzip zur Rechenschaft über den Glau-
ben,” in Sola Scriptura: das reformatorische Schriftprinzip in der säkularen Welt, eds. Hans
68 Burger
playing off against each other Christ and scripture.42 However, it will
become clear that this is not what I am proposing.
3. Old and New Testament as one narrative: Schilder just tells the story of
Christ in his suffering. At the same time, the way he uses the scriptures
evidences that he reads Old and New Testament as a unified whole
that tells one grand narrative. This third element follows from the first
two: if the one God of Israel fulfils his word in his Son Jesus Christ,
the incarnate word, then the scriptures receive coherence. This is not
self-evident, for the scriptures tell many different stories and contain
more than stories. Only in Christ, it turns out to be possible to dis-
tinguish in scripture a single plot.43 Hence, it is important to learn to
distinguish this plot and the relationship between this plot on the one
hand and on the other all these small stories, prophecies, poetry and
wisdom.44
4. We share in that story, as body of Christ: Often, Schilder ends his chap-
ters with a question concerning ourselves. This shows that we are
involved, as baptism marks at the beginning of one’s existence as a
Christian. We become part of the story of Jesus Christ when we are
baptised into him. scripture is a book with an intended effect: that we
will become part of the new covenant and live as a member. “What
God does with scripture is covenant with humanity by testifying to
Heinrich Schmid and Joachim Mehlhausen (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd

Mohn 1991), 303; and moreover Arnold Huijgen, “Alone Together. Sola Scriptura and the
Other Solas of the Reformation,” in present volume, 79–104.
42 So Dalferth, “Die Mitte ist aussen,” 190–191; Hans Weder, “Die Externität der Mitte: Über-
legungen zum hermeneutischen Problem des Kriteriums der Sachkritik am Neuen Testa-
ment,” in Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift, Landmesser et al., 291–320.
43 According to Van de Beek, this coherence cannot be understood in terms of ‘salvation
history.’ ‘In the relationship of God and human beings is no progression, not only a fulfil-
ment,’ Van de Beek, Lichaam en Geest van Christus, 292; and further 292–296.
44 See for attempts to show this plot of the Bible many recent literature on biblical theol-
ogy, e.g. Craig G. Bartholomew and Michael W. Goheen, The Drama of Scripture: Finding
our Place in the Biblical Story (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004); Don A. Carson, The
God who is there: finding your place in God’s story (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010);
Christopher J. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Notting-
ham: IVP, 2006); N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (London: SPCK,
1992), 139–143; N.T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
2013), 456–537. Older, J. van Andel, Handleiding bij de beoefening der gewijde geschiede-
nis, 5th ed. (Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1920); S.G. de Graaf, Verbondsgeschiedenis: Schetsen voor
de vertelling van de bijbelsche geschiedenis, 2 vols. (Kampen: Kok, [1937–1938]).
Jesus Christ (illocution) and by bringing about the reader’s mutual in-
dwelling with Christ (perlocution) through the Spirit’s rendering scrip-
ture efficacious.”45 When we personally become part of that Christ,
we come to share in the community and the tradition of the body of
Christ. In Christ’s body, we learn to understand scripture together and,
moreover, actively to embody together our role within Gods grand nar-
rative. The Christian faith is not about text, but about communal life in
which our lives are reshaped in conformity to Christ.46
These four elements imply the creed that identifies Father, Son and Spirit as
the God in whom we believe, and the canon of the one scripture as Old and
New Testament, whereas the life in the body of Christ implies ordained minis-
ters. Although I will not delve into a discussion of the three instruments, which
in the early church had to keep the church close to Christ (canon, creed and
episcopate), I do want to mention the relationship between these four ele-
ments and the three instruments.47
Such an enumeration of crucial elements in a perspective on scripture,
however, does not suffice. By only giving an overview of some important con-
victions, I have chosen a rational approach focussing on beliefs.
However, especially when understanding scripture is concerned, it needs to
be emphasised that living as a Christian, reading scripture and understanding
everything in the light of scripture is not a matter of being an observer in a
theoretical mode. We read and understand, and live our perspective, being
in our the world.48 We do not have this perspective, we live this perspective
as participants who share in the body of Christ in the narrative of scripture.
We live bodily, having emotions, and in this bodily-emotional existence our
perspective on scripture is formed. Consequently, we need to ask how we are
formed as Christians with a meaningful perspective on scripture?49
45 Vanhoozer, First Theology, 200.

46 Cf. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol.1, 382–385; and especially Vanhoozer’s emphasis on
the performance of the theodrama of Scripture, see Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine.
47 For a discussion of these three instruments, see Van de Beek, Lichaam en Geest van Chris-
tus, 195–391; Jenson, Canon and Creed.
48 Dalferth, Gedeutete Gegenwart, 180.
49 Cf. the emphasis of James Smith on the bodily practice of the formation of a worldview;
see James K.A. Smith, Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview and Cultural Formation
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009); Smith, Imagining the Kingdom: How Worship
Works (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013); and Vanhoozer’s emphasis on spiritual for-
mation in Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine.
70 Burger
In our plural world, we experience many forming but also many misshaping
influences.50 If we want scripture to function in our lives as God’s saving word,
it is essentially that we invest in the formation of new Christians to mature
Christians who have developed a meaningful perspective of understanding
scripture and understanding everything else in the light of scripture.
Stories, practices and communities all have their formative effect. For Chris-
tian formation, these all are important: living with the grand narrative of the
Bible, as well as with the small stories of Christians from the past; living as a
dedicated member of a Christian community; and participating in the practic-
es of that community. Paradigmatic in this respect is participation in the litur-
gy of the church.51 When scripture is concerned, Vanhoozer further gives form
to formation and practice, referring to “canonical practices”: “a communicative
practice in a canonical context with a covenantal aim”.52 These practices can
be traced back to the canon and have the formative effect that the canon itself
aims for. As examples he gives interpreting with Christ (this concerns a way of
reading scripture) and praying with Christ.53
Participation in these practices is useless when we are not born again of wa-
ter and Spirit. The Spirit has to blow on these practices to make them salutary.
At the same time, the Word of God is seed of regeneration, and the Holy Spirit
works with and through the Word. Hence, the best someone can do to receive
formation as someone with a new perspective is conversion to p articipation
in the Christian life with the prayer that the Spirit will give new life in those
forms. Participation in Christian practices will lead to participation in Christ
and to sharing in his perspective. A fruitful perspective on scripture will
only grow via conversion, participation in Christ and transformation into his
image.54 The sola scriptura is inseparably related to the sola fide and the sola
gratia.55
50 Cf. Smith, Desiring the Kingdom, 18–26, 89–129.

51 See Tony Clark, Divine Revelation and Human Practice: Responsive and Imaginative Inspi-
ration (Cambridge: James Clark, 2010), esp. 171–196; Smith, Desiring the Kingdom, 133–
217; Smith, Imagining the Kingdom, 151–191; Bernd Wannenwetsch, Political Worship:
Ethics for Christians (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
52 Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine, 216.
53 Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine, 221–226.
54 Michael Beintker, “Anmerkungen zur Kategorie der Texttreue,” in Sola Scriptura, eds.
Schmid and Mehlhausen, 287–288; Burger, “A Soteriological Perspective,” 199–204.
55 Cf. Burger, “A Soteriological Perspective,” 202–203; Petzoldt, “Sola scriptura,” 303; and fur-
ther Huijgen, “Alone Together”, 79–104.
4 Epistemology
A shift from a foundation-model to a perspective-model might imply a shift

from modern foundationalism to postmodern perspectivism; or a shift from
scripture to participation in Christ, playing them off against each other.56 How-
ever, this would imply relativism or anti-realism. Christians believe not to be
saved by their language or their web of beliefs, but by the saving and recreating
acts of the triune God. These saving divine acts concern life and death, and
are a matter of truth and reality, important to everyone. Consequently, post-
modern perspectivism is no viable option.
Nothing is wrong with saying farewell to modern foundationalism, for it
overestimated the significance of epistemology and its ideal of absolute cer-
tainty is unrealistic. It is wrong to claim that we are only entitled to having a
belief if we can give an epistemological justification for this belief.57 However,
this does not imply that epistemological reflection is useless after the demise
of modern foundationalism. As a secondary, reflective activity epistemology
is not necessary to give faith a solid foundation. Nevertheless, to explain why
we believe and what, and to make the Christian belief publicly accessible
to o thers, epistemology gives a rational answer to the question concerning
knowledge of God and of our salvation in Christ. If the Christian faith concerns
the truth and does not have to lead to irrationalism or fideism, a rational, pub-
licly accessible explanation can be given of the reasons and the content of the
Christian faith; an explanation containing epistemological questions as well.58
Focused on the reading of scripture, rational justifications can not only be
given for our beliefs concerning scripture and its content, beliefs that are part
of our perspective on the Bible; but also for the formative practices in which
we acquire this perspective. It is good to ask critical questions such as Is it true
what we think? Is it right what we do? How do we know?
When we want to follow Jesus Christ and long for Christlikeness and the
scriptural formation he had received, these questions take shape as the ques-
tion concerning scripture.59 Jesus considered himself bound to the Tanakh, his
56 Meijering shows that this is what Harnack tried and that he failed, see Eginhard P. Meijeri-
ng, “ ‘Sola scriptura’ und die historische Kritik,” in Schmid, Mehlhausen, Sola Scriptura, 44.
57 Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 105, 385–391; Stefan Paas and Rik Peels,
God bewijzen: argumenten voor en tegen geloven (Amsterdam: Balans, 2013), 67–104.
58 Cf. Dalferth, Gedeutete Gegenwart, 29–53; Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God,
105.
59 Cf. Beintker, “Anmerkungen zur Kategorie der Texttreue,” 282; Petzoldt, “Sola scriptura,”
294–297; Jenson, Systematic Theology: Vol. 1, 23–33.
72 Burger
apostles devoted themselves to Jesus’ teaching, and so are we as followers of

Jesus to abide by Old and New Testament. Christ is more than scripture, but we
cannot know Christ without the scriptures.60 ‘There is no knowledge of Christ
apart from scripture, no fellowship with him except by fellowship in the word
of the apostles.’61 Whoever wants to receive the mind of Christ, has to listen to
the Bible; and whoever wants to stay in Christ, has to stay close to the canon.62
Consequently, our perspective on scripture grows when we live with the Bi-
ble, and will be corrected when we keep on listening to the Word and remain
open to the guidance of the Spirit. Applied to Schilder’s Christus in zijn lijden:
all beliefs that are part of his perspective on scripture can be tested critically.
In this respect, Jenson makes a helpful distinction between an internal and an
external test. An internal test is penultimate and concerns the question wheth-
er a theologoumenon says what the Bible says, given a certain a theological sys-
tem. An external test occurs if a theological system ‘proves or fails to prove
itself as a hermeneutical principle for the church’s general use of scripture’.63
Furthermore, when we make choices in reading and interpreting scripture in
theology, and assign more weight to the one motive than to the other, it is im-
portant to strive for argued transparency.64
Then we also need to confront the question: what is the significance of
scripture for our knowledge?
That scripture has the primacy, and that we want to think from scripture,
does not imply that we find everything in scripture we would like to know.65
60 Van de Beek, Lichaam en Geest van Christus, 300; Maarten Noordtzij, De leer van Jezus en
de Apostelen over de H. Schrift des O. Testaments: rede bij de overdracht van het rectoraat
aan de Theologische School te Kampen, den 17 December 1885 (Kampen: Zalsman, 1886);
Herman Ridderbos, Heilsgeschiedenis en Heilige Schrift: het gezag van het Nieuwe Testa-
ment (Kampen: Kok, 1955).
61 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol. 1, 472. Cf. Jörg Baur, “Sola Scriptura—historisches
Erbe und bleibende Bedeutung,” in Sola Scriptura, eds. Schmid and Mehlhausen, 24;
Vanhoozer, First Theology, 221. On Bavinck, Christ and Scripture furthermore Hans
Burger, “Christologisch én pneumatologisch: Herman Bavinck en de relatie tussen schrift-
leer en christologie,” in Weergaloze kennis: Opstellen over Jezus Christus, Openbaring en
Schrift,Katholiciteit en Kerk aangeboden aan prof. dr. Barend Kamphuis, eds. Ad de Bruijne
et al. (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2015), 128–132.
62 Van de Beek, Lichaam en Geest van Christus, 275–281; Jenson, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, 27.
63 Jenson, Systematic Theology: Vol. 1, 33.
64 Wisse correctly has reminded us of the problems that confront us here; however, this
does not exclude the possibility of making rationally justified choices. See Maarten Wisse,
“Contra et Pro Sola Scriptura,” in present volume, 19–37.
65 Cf. Van Bruggen, “Authority of Scripture,” 79.
Insightful is that Bavinck understands the sufficiency of scripture completely

in the light of the sufficiency of Christ.66 Because we find in Christ everything
we need for our salvation, we find in the scriptures everything we need for that
purpose.
Scripture is no handbook for the sciences.67 However, it would be wrong to
limit the significance of scripture to an individualistic soteriology, to an ex-
istential meaning for the religious inside.68 If Christ is the head of the new
creation, and if the Christian faith is catholic, it is important to learn seeing
everything in the light of Christ.69 Scripture does not answer all questions,
but we can delve into all questions in the light of Christ. Christian theology
needs to maintain the ambition of thinking from scripture. Explaining this,
O’Donovan distinguishes two discernments: first, understanding scripture and
discerning the text; second, understanding reality in the light of the text, dis-
cerning out of the text.70
An epistemology and a hermeneutics that lead us argumentatively and un-
derstandably towards an attitude of hearing and interpreting in the light of
God, both remain important. We need them if we want the word of God as
a lamp to our feet and a light for our path, and if we want to continue in the
apostles’ doctrine. If we want to remain in Christ, we need to remain in the
truth. That means: the word has to be in us and we have to remain in the word.71
66 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol.1, 346–347, 382–383, 490–491; see further Hans Burg-
er, “Bavinck’s View of the Relation Between Scripture and Tradition,” forthcoming; see
also Burger, “Christologisch én pneumatologisch,” 132. Cf. 2 Tim. 3: 4; and the Belgic Con-
fession, art. 7: ‘We believe that this Holy Scripture contains the will of God completely
and that everything one must believe to be saved is sufficiently taught in it.’
67 Van Bruggen, “Authority of Scripture,” 81f; Barend Kamphuis, “The Two Books Debate: A
Response,” in Correctly Handling the Word of Truth, Te Velde and Visscher, 17–20.
68 This seems to be the danger in the concept of the ‘scopus’ of Scripture as developed by
G.C. Berkouwer, see Hendrikus Berkhof, “De methode van Berkouwers theologie,” in Ex
auditu verbi, eds. R. Schippers et al., (Kampen: Kok, 1965), 45–55; Van Keulen, Bijbel en
Dogmatiek, 526–531.
69 Cf. Bavinck’s view of the catholicity of Christianity, see Herman Bavinck, “The catholicity
of christianity and the church,” Calvin Theological Journal 27 (1992): 220–51; or the rad-
ical new perspective on everything in Dalferth’s theology, see Ingolf U. Dalferth, Radikale
Theologie (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2010), 254–282.
70 O’Donovan, “The Moral Authority of Scripture,” 168; Oliver O’Donovan, Church in crisis:
The Gay Controversy and the Anglican Communion (Eugene: Cascade, 2008), 58–59.
71 Cf. Lucas Lindeboom, blijf in het woord van god: rede op den 33en gedenkdag van de theol.
School te kampen door den aftredenden rector (Heusden: A. Gezelle Meerburg, 1888).
74 Burger
Bibliography
Andel, J. van. Handleiding bij de beoefening der gewijde geschiedenis, 5th ed. Nijkerk:
Callenbach, 1920.
Bartholomew, Craig G. and Goheen, Michael W. The Drama of Scripture: Finding our
Place in the Biblical Story. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.
Bavinck, Herman. “The catholicity of christianity and the church,” Calvin Theological
Journal 27 (1992): 220–51.
Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics Vol.1: Prolegomena, ed. John Bolt, trans. John
Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.
Baur, Jörg. “Sola Scriptura—historisches Erbe und bleibende Bedeutung,” in Sola Scrip-
tura: Das reformatorische Schriftprinzip in der säkularen Welt, eds. Hans Heinrich
Schmid and Joachim Mehlhausen. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn
1991, 19–43.
Beek, A. van de. Lichaam en Geest van Christus: de theologie van de kerk en de Heilige
Geest. Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2012.
Beintker, Michael. “Anmerkungen zur Kategorie der Texttreue,” in Sola Scriptura: das
reformatorische Schriftprinzip in der säkularen Welt, eds. Hans Heinrich Schmid
and Joachim Mehlhausen. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn 1991,
281–291.
Bekkum, Koert van. “Zekerheid en schriftgezag in Neo-Calvinistische visies op de his-
toriciteit van de Bijbel,” in Geloven in zekerheid? Gereformeerd geloven in een post-
moderne tijd eds. Koert van Bekkum and Rien Rouw. Barneveld: De Vuurbaak, 2000,
77–108.
Belt, Henk van den. The authority of Scripture in Reformed theology: Truth and Trust,
Studies in Reformed theology, 17. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Berkhof, Hendrikus. “De methode van Berkouwers theologie,” in Ex auditu verbi, eds.
R. Schippers et al. Kampen: Kok, 1965, 45–55.
Bowald, Mark Alan. Rendering the Word in Theological Hermeneutics: Mapping Divine
and Human Agency. Hampshire / Burlington: Ashgate, 2007.
Bruggen, J. van. “The Authority of Scripture as a Presupposition in Reformed Theology,”
in The Vitality of Reformed Theology: Proceedings of the International Congress June
20–24th 1994 Noordwijkerhout, the Netherlands, eds. J.M. Batteau et al. Kampen: Kok,
1994, 63–83.
Bruijne, Ad L.Th. de. “Schilders vroege spiritualiteit en de latere vrijgemaakten,” in
Wie is die man? Schilder in de eenentwintigste eeuw, eds. Marius van Rijswijk et al.
Barneveld: De Vuurbaak, 2012, 49–80.
Burger, Hans. “A Soteriological Perspective on Our Understanding,” in Correctly Han-
dling the Word of Truth: Reformed Hermeneutics Today, eds. Mees te Velde and Ger-
hard H. Visscher. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2014, 195–207.
Burger, Hans. “Kuyper’s Anti-Revolutionary Doctrine of Scripture,” in Neocalvinism and

the French Revolution, eds. James Eglinton and George Harinck. London / New York:
Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014, 127–143.
Burger, Hans. “Christologisch én pneumatologisch: Herman Bavinck en de relatie tus-
sen schriftleer en christologie,” in Weergaloze kennis: Opstellen over Jezus Christus,
Openbaring en Schrift,Katholiciteit en Kerk aangeboden aan prof. dr. Barend Kam-
phuis, eds. Ad de Bruijne et al. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2015, 128–132.
Burger, Hans. “Bavinck’s View of the Relation Between Scripture and Tradition,” forth-
coming.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Phila-
delphia: The Westminster Press, 1965.
Carson, Don A. The God who is there: finding your place in God’s story. Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2010.
Clark, Tony. Divine Revelation and Human Practice: Responsive and Imaginative Inspira-
tion. Cambridge: James Clark, 2010.
Dalferth, Ingolf U. Kombinatorische Theologie: Probleme theologischer Rationalität.
Freiburg / Basel. Wien: Herder, 1991.
Dalferth, Ingolf U. Jenseits von Mythos und Logos: die christologische Transformation
der Theologie. Freiburg / Basel / Wien: Herder, 1993.
Dalferth, Ingolf U. Gedeutete Gegenwart: Zur Wahrnehmung Gottes in den Erfahrungen
der Zeit. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997.
Dalferth, Ingolf U. “Die Mitte ist aussen: Anmerkungen zur Wirklichkeitsbezug evan-
gelischer Schriftauslegung,” in Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift: Studien zur
Hermeneutik des Evangeliums, Christoph Landmesser et al. Berlin, New York: W. de
Gruyter 1997, 173–98.
Dalferth, Ingolf U. Die Wirklichkeit des Möglichen: Hermeneutische Religionsphiloso-
phie. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
Dalferth, Ingolf U. Radikale Theologie. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2010.
Dee, Jozias J.J. K. Schilder: zijn leven en werk; Deel 1 (1890–1934). Goes: Oosterbaan & Le
Cointre, 1990.
Echeverria, Eduardo J. “Divine Revelation and Foundationalism: Towards a Historically
Conscious Foundationalism,” Josephinum Journal of Theology 19 (2012): 283–321.
Erickson, Millard J. et al. Reclaiming the Center: Confronting Evangelical Accommoda-
tion in Postmodern Times. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004.
Frame, John M. The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. Philipsburg: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Company, 1987.
Graaf, S.G. de. Verbondsgeschiedenis: Schetsen voor de vertelling van de bijbelsche ges-
chiedenis, 2 vols. Kampen: Kok, [1937–1938].
Goudriaan, Aza. Reformed Orthodoxy and Philosophy, 1625–1750: Gisbertus Voetius,
Petrus van Mastricht and Anthonius Driessen. Brill: Leiden, Boston, 2006.
76 Burger
Jenson, Robert W. Systematic Theology: Vol. 1 The Triune God. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1997.
Jenson, Robert W. Canon and Creed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010.
Kamphuis, Barend. “The Two Books Debate: A Response,” in Correctly Handling the
Word of Truth: Reformed Hermeneutics Today, eds. Mees te Velde and Gerhard H.
Visscher. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2014, 17–20.
Keulen, Dirk van. Bijbel en dogmatiek: schriftbeschouwing en schriftgebruik in het dog-
matisch werk van A. Kuyper, H. Bavinck en G.C. Berkouwer. Kampen: Kok, 2003.
Kuyper, Abraham. The Biblical Criticism of the Present Day, trans. J.H. de Vries. Ando-
ver: Bibliotheca Sacra, 1904. Accessed August 29, 2017. https://archive.org/details/
biblicalcriticis00kuyp.
Kuyper, Abraham. Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology: Its Principles. (New York: Charles
Scribber’s Sons, 1898). Accessed August 29, 2017. https://archive.org/stream/
encyclopediaofsa00unknuoft#page/364/mode/2up.
Lindeboom, Lucas. Blijf in het Woord van God: rede op den 33en gedenkdag van de Theol.
School te Kampen door den aftredenden rector. Heusden: A. Gezelle Meerburg, 1888.
McGrath, Alister. Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution—a History
from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First. New York: Harper One, 2007.
Meijering, Eginhard P. “‘Sola scriptura’ und die historische Kritik,” in Sola Scriptu-
ra: das reformatorische Schriftprinzip in der säkularen Welt, eds. Hans Heinrich
Schmid and Joachim Mehlhausen. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn
1991, 44–60.
Murphy, Nancey. Beyond Liberalism & Fundamentalism: How Modern and Postmodern
Theology set the Theological Agenda. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996.
Noordtzij, Maarten. De leer van Jezus en de Apostelen over de H. Schrift des O. Testa-
ments: Rede bij de overdracht van het rectoraat aan de Theologische School te Kamp-
en, den 17 December 1885. Kampen: Zalsman, 1886.
O’Donovan, Oliver. The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theory.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
O’Donovan, Oliver. “The Moral Authority of Scripture,” in Scripture’s doctrine and the-
ology’s Bible: how the New Testament shapes Christian dogmatics, eds. Markus Bock-
muehl and Alan J. Torrance. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008, 165–175.
O’Donovan, Oliver. Church in crisis: The Gay Controversy and the Anglican Communion.
Eugene: Cascade, 2008.
Paas, Stefan, and Peels, Rik. God bewijzen: Argumenten voor en tegen geloven. Amster-
dam: Balans, 2013.
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Systematische Theologie III. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1993.
Petzoldt, Matthias. “Sola Scriptura: brauchbares Prinzip zur Rechenschaft über den
Glauben,” in Sola Scriptura: Das reformatorische Schriftprinzip in der säkularen Welt,
eds. Hans Heinrich Schmid and Joachim Mehlhausen. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Ver-
lagshaus Gerd Mohn 1991, 292–303.
Phillips, D.Z. Faith after Foundationalism. London / New York: Routledge, 1988.
Rauser, Randal. Theology in Search of Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2009.
Ridderbos, Herman. Heilsgeschiedenis en Heilige Schrift: het gezag van het Nieuwe Tes-
tament. Kampen: Kok, 1955.
Rogers, Jack B. and McKim, Donald K. The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An
Historical Approach. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979.
Sarot, Marcel. “Christian Fundamentalism as a Reaction to the Enlightenment,” in
Orthodoxy, Liberalism, and Adaptation: Essays on Ways of Worldmaking in Times of
Change from Biblical, Historical and Systematic Perspectives, ed. Bob Becking.Leiden:
Brill, 2011, 249–267.
Schaeffer, Jaap. “Schilder mysticus,” in Wie is die man? Schilder in de eenentwintigste
eeuw, eds. Marius van Rijswijk et al. Barneveld: De Vuurbaak, 2012, 205–260.
Schilder, Klaas. Christus in zijn lijden: Overwegingen van het lijdensevangelie, Vol i–iii,
3rd ed. Kampen: Kok, 1977.
Smith, James K.A. Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview and Cultural Formation.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009.
Smith, James K.A. Imagining the Kingdom: How Worship Works. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2013.
Toren, Benno van den. Christian Apologetics as Cross-Cultural Dialogue. London: T&T
Clark, 2011.
Trimp, Cornelis. “Amerikaans fundamentalisme,” in Woord op Schrift: Theologische
reflecties over het gezag van de Bijbel, eds. C. Trimp et al. Kampen: Kok, 2002, 21–
45.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. First Theology: God, Scripture and Hermeneutics. Leicester: Apollos /
Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2002.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical Linguistic Approach to Chris-
tian Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press 2005.
Wannenwetsch, Bernd. Political Worship:Ethics for Christians. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 2004.
Weder, Hans. “Die Externität der Mitte: Überlegungen zum hermeneutischen Problem
des Kriteriums der Sachkritik am Neuen Testament,” Jesus Christus als die Mitte der
Schrift: Studien zur Hermeneutik des Evangeliums, Christoph Landmesser et al. Ber-
lin, New York: W. de Gruyter 1997, 291–320.
Wierenga, Lambert. De macht van de taal—de taal van de macht: Over literatuurweten-
schap en bijbelgebruik. Kampen: Kok Voorhoeve, 1996.
Wisse, Maarten. Scripture Between Identity and Creativity. Utrecht: Ars Disputandi,
2003.
78 Burger
Wisse, Maarten. “Contra et Pro Sola Scriptura,” in the present volume, 19–37.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Reason within the Bounds of Religion, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Ee-
rdmans, 1999.
Wright, Christopher J. The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative. Not-
tingham: IVP, 2006.
Wright, N.T. Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today. New York:
Harper One, 2011.
Wright, N.T. The New Testament and the People of God: Christian Origins and the Ques-
tion of God, Vol. 1. London: SPCK, 1992.
Wright, N.T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God,
Vol. 4. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013.
chapter 4
Alone Together: Sola Scriptura and

the Other Solas of the Reformation
Arnold Huijgen
1 Introduction
In this article, the relation between sola scriptura and the other solas of
the Reformation, namely sola fide, sola gratia, and solus Christus, are explored.
The central thesis of the present contribution is that sola scriptura should
be understood as inherently related to the other solas, for if this perspective
is lost, the spectre of the dilemma of biblicism or postmodern relativism
looms large.
A problem in discussing sola scriptura is the lack of a broadly accepted defi-
nition, either explicit or implicit. This lack of conceptual clarity obviously co-
heres with the polemic nature of the term and with the complex history of the
idea. Therefore, two preliminary steps are taken to properly contextualize the
discussion of the relation between the solas, and to obtain a working definition
for sola scriptura. First, two critiques of sola scriptura are sketched (§ 2). Sec-
ondly, the history of the idea sola scriptura is explored, particularly the “origi-
nal” meaning of the idea in the time of the Reformation (§ 3), to find a working
definition of sola scriptura (§ 4). Then, the relation between sola scriptura and
sola fide, sola gratia, and solus Christus is discussed respectively (§§ 5–7). This
contribution closes with a concluding § 8.
2 Two Critiques of Sola Scriptura
Two recent critical approaches can serve to demonstrate the importance

and substance of the present discussion.1 First, Brad Gregory has recently
1 These obviously are not the only critical voices on sola scriptura, but they can serve
as representative critiques of the core of sola scriptura. Other critiques include
Roman-Catholic apologists, who have criticized the principle as self-referentially incoher-
ent and unbiblical in itself, because the Bible nowhere explicitly teaches sola scriptura.

80 Huijgen
given sola scriptura a pivotal role in his picture of the development of

the Reformation and the Enlightenment. The shared insistence of the Re-
formers on scripture as the sole authority for Christian life and faith led to
what Gregory calls “the unintended Reformation”: a secularization of both
church and society.2 For while adherents of sola scriptura stated that scrip-
ture interprets itself (sacra scriptura sui ipsius interpres), they were unable
to decide what the Bible actually taught and what, therefore, were good
Christian doctrines and practices.3 In the resulting conflict of incompati-
ble interpretations, the magisterial Reformers had to resort to various other
authorities than scripture to defend their adherence to practices such as
infant baptism and doctrines such as the Trinity that could not literally be
found in the Bible, as radical Reformers argued untiringly. Ultimately, the
conflict of mutually exclusive interpretations of scripture was brought un-
der the tutelage of competing political authorities, transposing the conflict
from the ecclesial to the political and even military levels. So, sola scriptu-
ra led to an interpretative plurality, not to say hermeneutical anarchy. Fur-
thermore, traditional authorities that had served at one time as normative
referees for the various truth claims, could no longer do so. Now, although
the magisterial reformers (unlike the radical reformers) acknowledged the
relative authority of patristic writers and conciliar decrees, “they all reject-
ed every putative ‘authority’ whenever the latter diverged from what each
regarded as God’s truth, based on scripture as they respectively and con-
trarily understood it.”4 The net result was “an open-ended proliferation of
irreconcilable truth claims,”5 which led to conflict, both in writing, politi-
cally, and militarily. This hermeneutical anarchy evoked the philosophical
response that the solution to disunity, indeed, conflict could only be found
without any appeal to supernatural, special revelation. Sola ratio promised
to be the comprehensive, peaceful and solid foundation for truth that sola
scriptura could not offer.6 So, the relativizing tendencies of sola scriptura
See Philip Blosser, “What Are the Philosophical and Practical Problems with Sola Scriptura?,”
in Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, ed.
Robert A. Sungenis (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Pub. Co., 1997), 42–50.
2 Brad S. Gregory, The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society
(Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2012), 89.
3 Gregory, The Unintended Reformation, 93.
6 Gregory, The Unintended Reformation, 113–114.
Alone Together: Sola Scriptura and the Other Solas 81
paved the way for religious and secular pluralism and, according to Gregory,
even consumerism and capitalism.7
While Gregory criticizes the sola scriptura principle from a historical point
of view, Maarten Wisse has recently added a strong critique of this principle
from a systematic-theological perspective: “Contra Sola Scriptura.”8 Wisse
identifies three related problems with sola scriptura. First, sola scriptura serves
as an ideological veil to cover up the fact that it is impossible to represent the
Bible in an objective way, because the representation will always be an inter-
pretation, driven by explicit or implicit interests. Sola scriptura hides these
interests from sight and serves to claim divine approval for the position de-
fended. Thus, sola scriptura serves an objectionable role in a power play: some
people exert interpretative power over other people.9 Secondly, Wisse is aware
of attempts to interpret scripture theologically in order to focus on scripture’s
central message, often in a trinitarian or christocentric framework, but Wisse
argues that this is problematic: for who decides the christocentric frame of
reading scripture and where does the christocentric unity come from that is
laid out over the plurality of biblical texts? Once again, the most fundamental
choices, the ones which affect our interpretations most definitively, are hidden
from sight.10 Thirdly, Wisse contends that sola scriptura renders theologians
lazy, because they are secured from completely explaining their theological
choices and accounting for their management of biblical texts: why do they
choose to highlight certain texts and downplay the importance of other texts?11
All in all, Wisse’s objections circle around unwarranted selections of texts and
the power play involved.
Remarkably, the criticisms of Gregory and Wisse are complementary but
not identical. On the one hand, Gregory holds sola scriptura accountable for
the abandonment of authorities and for the introduction of hyperindividu-
alism and anarchic pluralism. On the other hand, Wisse sees sola scriptura as
7 Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge, MA [etc.]: The Belknap Press of Harvard Uni-
versity Press, 2007) makes a similar case for the secularizing, disenchanting effects of
the Reformation. The individualist and pluralist bent Gregory discerns in sola scriptura
dovetails with what Taylor calls “The Great Disembedding” (146).
8 See Maarten Wisse, “Contra et Pro Sola Scriptura,” 29.
9 See Maarten Wisse, “Contra et Pro Sola Scriptura,” 29. For a similar critique, see David
R. Law, Inspiration (London; New York: Continuum, 2001), 11, 15. Law, however, seeks a
solution in a different direction than Wisse does.
10 Wisse, “Contra et Pro Sola Scriptura,” 27.
11 Wisse, “Contra et Pro Sola Scriptura,” 26.
82 Huijgen
a means in the hands of powerful people, regardless of whether this power is

political, ecclesial or academic in nature. These people wield their power to
reduce the pluralism that is inherent to the Bible to make it fit for a single theo-
logical mold. So, Gregory and Wisse agree that power is at stake, but they do
not agree whether sola scriptura belongs to the powerless or to the powerful.
For their respective assessments of sola scriptura, power structures, individu-
alism, pluralism, and interpretative freedom are important. These will be kept
in mind for the following discussion.
3 The ‘Original’ Meaning of Sola Scriptura
The lack of a clear definition of sola scriptura probably coheres with the fact
that this Reformed catchword does not originate in the era of the Reformation
itself, although there is a passage in Luther’s works in which the words sola
and scriptura are used in close proximity.12 Sola scriptura as “watchword” is a
relative recent invention.13 So, while some authors label sola scriptura as the
“formal principle” of the Reformation, correlating with the “material princi-
ple(s)” of sola gratia and/or sola fide and/or justification, not only the distinc-
tion between formal and material is typical for a nineteenth century discourse,
but the solas fit in the same era.14 This complicated historical picture does not
mean that the Reformers denied any version of sola scriptura, but the question
is what they could have meant by it.
When “scripture alone” is stressed, rivals are excluded. The main rivals in
the Reformation era were the church, its teaching office, the magisterium,
12 M. Luther, WA, 7, 98–99: “solam scripturam regnare”. David W. Lotz, “Sola Scriptura:
Luther on Biblical Authority,” Interpretation 35, no. 3 (1981): 258–273 notes that sola
scriptura as a principle is not exactly characteristic for Luther’s view of scripture. Luther’s
point rather is that scripture and Tradition are closely tied together and basically say the
same.
13 See Henk van den Belt, “The Problematic Character of Sola Scriptura,” 39, in the present
volume. Contra e.g. Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Moscow, Idaho: Can-
on Press, 2001), 281, who states that the first three centuries of church history and the
Reformation agree in their support for sola scriptura.
14 R. C. Sproul, Scripture Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Pub.,
2005), 15–16 uses this terminology in his plea for biblical inerrancy. For a rejection of
these terms, see Anthony N. S. Lane, “Sola Scriptura? Making Sense of a Post-Reformation
Slogan,” in A Pathway into the Holy Scripture, ed. Philip E. Sattertwhaite and David F.
Wright (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 298.
and ecclesial tradition. The Council of Trent famously stated that scripture
and tradition need to be accepted with equal piety and reverence, although
exactly what is meant here by Trent is open to discussion.15 But this does not
mean that the reformers ruled out all tradition altogether, but rather that the
Reformation opted for a certain tradition, which had a relative weight. Heiko
Oberman has labeled this Tradition I, the view of tradition that is found in the
Early Church, in which scripture and tradition are not mutually exclusive or
competing instances. Rather, in the living Body of Christ, “Scripture and Tra-
dition coinhere.”16 This Tradition I was accepted by the magisterial reformers:
they accepted infant baptism, the early creeds and conciliar decisions, unlike
the radical reformers. The other tradition, Tradition II, is a later, authoritative
extrascriptural tradition of the church. So, the reformers did not deny that a
certain tradition (Tradition I) had any authority, but they denied that it had
ultimate authority.17
So, sola scriptura was never meant to foster a ‘me-and-my-Bible’ attitude,
leaving aside all other sources and resources. In the one passage in which
Luther literally uses the words sola scriptura, he supports his statement that
“Scriptura alone must reign,” by referring to Augustine, who took the same
stance in a letter to Jerome.18 So, the Church Fathers’ support for sola scrip-
tura is important. Besides, Calvin’s discussions with Roman-Catholic oppo-
nents often focus on which Church Father can be claimed for either side.
Calvin famously stated: Augustinus totus noster est (“Augustine is entirely on
15 Council of Trent, session 4 (8 April 1546): “pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia suscipit et
veneratur”, see Heinrich Denzinger and Peter Hünermann, Enchiridion symbolorum defi-
nitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, 38th ed. (Freiburg; Basel; Wien: Herder,
1999), 496. Trent is open to discussion because the Counter-Reformation’s claim that tra-
dition adds to the revelation given with Scripture is not found in the council; cf. G.C. Berk-
ouwer, The Second Vatican Council and the New Catholicism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1965), 114. For an extensive discussion of Trent and the relationship between Scripture,
interpretation, and church, see Eduardo Echeverria, Berkouwer and Catholicism: Disputed
Questions, Studies in Reformed Theology 24 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 273–392. Thanks to
Eduardo Echeverria for pointing this out.
16 Heiko A. Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology; Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nom-
inalism. (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1967), 365–369.
17 Robert W. Jenson, Systematic Theology. Volume 1 (New York: Oxford University Press,
1997), 27–28. Jenson misses the point, however, when he writes that sola scriptura would
be an oxymoron if it means that church, tradition, etc., play no role. For church and tradi-
tion always play a role, but the question is what role they play.
18 Luther, WA 7, 98–99.
84 Huijgen
our side”).19 Moreover, the reformers refer to common knowledge in their

times, to human reason, to secular philosophers and poets, to nature and
culture. Calvin can appeal to experience as source of knowledge (experien-
tia docet; scimus),20 and he even devotes a treatise to astrology, making use
of contemporary state-of-the-art scientific insights.21 Besides, the use of Ar-
istotelian categories and logic is not confined to later Reformed Orthodox
theologians, but is also found in Calvin, albeit in more modest forms.22 Aris-
totelian metaphysics also surface in the Reformers’ writings in the outright
denial of God’s emotions and passions, for movement is inferior to immu-
tability.23 The Reformers even were open for various avenues of revelation,
not only through sensual apperception (other than reading the scriptures),24
but even through prophecy, as long as this prophecy is consistent with the
scriptures.25 Tony Lane rightly concludes that for the Reformers, scripture is
neither the sole source nor the sole resource of the theology.26 Besides, in the
Reformation era there was obviously no unequivocal equation of scripture
19 Calvin, CO 8: 266; cf. Inst. 3.4.33; 4.17.28; Jan Marius Jacob Lange van Ravenswaay, Au-
gustinus totus noster: das Augustinusverständnis bei Johannes Calvin (Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1990). Church Fathers were regarded as auctoritates, particularly in
polemical contexts, cf. Johannes van Oort, “John Calvin and the Church Fathers,” in: The
Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists, ed. Irena
D. Backus (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 698; A. N. S Lane, John Calvin: Student of the Church Fa-
thers (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999), 3.
20 Calvin, Inst. 3.2.4: “experientia docet”. On scimus as reference to common knowledge, see
Arnold Huijgen, Divine Accommodation in John Calvin’s Theology: Analysis and Assessment
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 276, 318.
21 John Calvin, “A Warning against Judiciary Astrology and Other Prevalent Curiosities,”
Trans. Mary Potter, Calvin Theological Journal 18 (1983): 157–189.
22 E.g. the distinction between necessitas consequentis and necessitas consequentiae in Inst.
1.16.9 and the four causes in Inst. 3.14.17; cf. Lane, “Sola Scriptura? Making Sense of a
Post-Reformation Slogan,” 304.
23 Huijgen, Divine Accommodation in John Calvin’s Theology, 355–361.
24 Cornelis van der Kooi, As in a Mirror John Calvin and Karl Barth on Knowing God: A Diptych
(Leiden; Boston, Mass.: Brill, 2005), 75–77.
25 Calvin, Inst. 1.9.1; cf. Lane, “Sola Scriptura? Making Sense of a Post-Reformation Slogan,”
309–310.
26 Lane, “Sola Scriptura? Making Sense of a Post-Reformation Slogan,” 313 Cf. the overview
in Anthony N. S. Lane, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey.,” in Vox
Evangelica 9 (London Bible College, 1975), 37–55.
and revelation. Revelation was regarded as both prior to and more important
than scripture.27
Stated positively, sola scriptura is meant as a statement that the scriptures
are the final, not the sole, authority. All other authorities are to be tested against
the norm of scripture, because even tradition and church can err.28 Nobody can
claim the right to exclusively authoritative interpretation.
The question remains whether the idea of sola scriptura can still be rele-
vant today. Since the time of the Reformation, the Bible has been regarded
more and more as a text that shares in all the characteristics that texts have.
Accordingly, historical-critical research tended to dismantle the unity of the
scriptures by approaching it with the exegetical means with which any other
text should be approached.29 Multiple crises have arisen: the crisis of under-
standing and that of authority, the complexities of textuality, and the episte-
mological challenges of the Enlightenment, modernity, and postmodernity.
Simple retrieval of sola scriptura is therefore not an option. If sola scriptura
can serve as a characterization of the Reformed view of scripture, it needs to
be thought through anew.
4 Towards a Viable Definition of Sola Scriptura
Before moving to a reinterpretation of sola scriptura, a basic sort of definition

is needed, which accords with the original meaning of sola scriptura and which
is viable for the present day.
Since the Reformation, various claims have been made with an appeal
to sola scriptura. On one side of the spectre, there are theologians like R.C.
Sproul that subscribe to the Chicago Declaration on Biblical Inerrancy and
regard sola scriptura as the formal principle and cognitive foundation of
27 Cf. Belgic Confession, Art. 3: after the Holy Spirit moved people to speak the Word of
God, “our God—with special care for us and our salvation—commanded his servants, the
prophets and apostles, to commit this revealed Word to writing,” http://www.crcna.org/
welcome/beliefs/confessions/belgic-confession [accessed August 29, 2017]. So, M athison,
The Shape of Sola Scriptura, 256 is clearly wrong when he calls scripture “the Sole Source
of Revelation.”
28 Lane, “Sola Scriptura? Making Sense of a Post-Reformation Slogan,” 324.
29 Cf. Michael C. Legaspi, The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies (New York,
NY: Oxford University Press, 2010), vi, 169; Jörg Lauster, Prinzip und Methode: die Trans-
formation des protestantischen Schriftprinzips durch die historische Kritik von Schleier-
macher bis zur Gegenwart (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004).
86 Huijgen
theology.30 This inerrancy idea moves one step further along the path of
theologians from the times of Reformed Orthodoxy, who esteemed scripture
as the cognitive foundation of theology.31 Meanwhile, the foundationalism
implied in the position that takes Scripture to be a cognitive foundation,
has been severely criticized as flawed.32 The corollary of foundationalism, a
correspondence theory of truth (adaequatio rei et intellectus) is used to ex-
plain what the Bible means by “truth.” Here I side with those who object to
identifying the biblical notion of truth with correspondence. Scripture itself
should determine the nature of truth, rather than a philosophical idea of
correspondence. Stated in terms of the relations between the solas, this line
of thought can hold on to sola scriptura without reference to sola fide and
solus Christus to become a rather formal foundation. But its correspondence
theory of truth is not per se identical to what the Bible presents as truth.
Diametrically opposed to this position is the postmodern approach of
theologians like Carl Raschke.33 This approach seeks to liberate scripture
30 Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, for instance, offers a broad apologetic of sola
scriptura against many objections and the contributors of the volume Don Kistler, Sola
Scriptura!: The Protestant Position on the Bible (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications,
1995) appeal to scripture’s sufficiency. Sproul, Scripture Alone notes that he himself was
involved in drafting the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. It should be noted that not every
theologian who has expressed support for the idea of ‘biblical inerrancy’ means exactly
the same as Sproul and Mathison; see for instance Clark H. Pinnock, The Scripture Princi-
ple (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984), 222–226.
31 Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Baker Academic, 2003), 81: “Scripture became the preliminary confessional article for the
Reformed before it became the first locus of theological system: it provided a model for
the structural development of system in an age of confessional theology and Protestant
orthodoxy.” While Calvin and others characterized scripture as “infallible,” the term in-
errancy introduces a “juridical strictness” (H. van den Belt, The Authority of Scripture in
Reformed Theology: Truth and Trust (Leiden; Boston, MA: Brill, 2008), 318).
32 See particularly Nicholas Wolterstorff, Reason within the Bounds of Religion (Grand Rap-
ids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1984).
33 There are obviously many positions between the two extremes, including positions that
cannot be defined as middle ways, but that offer completely new perspectives, most nota-
bly from the perspective of speech-act theory. Cf. Nicholas Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse:
Philosophical Reflections on the Claim That God Speaks (Cambridge [etc.]: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1995); Timothy Ward, Word and Supplement: Speech Acts, Biblical Texts, and
the Sufficiency of Scripture (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), and most
notably Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to
Christian Theology (Westminster John Knox Press, 2005). Vanhoozer regards scripture as
from the demands of logic and ontology, and to understand it in a p ersonalist

sense. Its language would not be propositional, logical and predicative, but
rather relational, personal, and vocative.34 In the words of Wilfred Cantwell
Smith: “There is no ontology of scripture. The concept has no metaphysical,
nor logical, reference; there is nothing that scripture finally ‘is’.”35 In terms
of the solas, “Sola scriptura […] emanates from the imperative of sola fide,
not the other way around.”36 But does this not result in a complete eclipse
of sola scriptura by sola fide, and hence in the separation of faith and
reality?37
In the following discussion, a definition of sola scriptura will be employed
that is in line with the original meaning, but that is not confined to the earli-
er discussion with Rome and the radical reformation.38 Sola scriptura is about
authority. Sola does not mean, however, that scripture is the sole authority, but
that it is the final authority in the Church, to decide what is true and what is
not. The question is, not only what is the nature and extent of this authority,
but also what is the nature of truth. Mindful of the objections of Gregory and
Wisse, I will also consider how endless pluralism and power plays can be
averted. An answer to these questions will be sought by relating sola scriptura
to the other solas.
norm, but as “sapiential norm” instead of “epistemic norm” (152), Thus, sola scriptura
is not primarily an idea, but a practice; namely, the practice of accepting the canon as
“theodramatic criterion” (237). This theodramatic accent differs from Vanhoozer’s earlier
attempt to provide a general theological hermeneutic. For this attempt see Kevin J. Van-
hoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary
Knowledge (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998).
34 Carl A. Raschke, The Next Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2004), 118–119.
35 Wilfred Cantwell Smith, What Is Scripture?: A Comparative Approach (Minneapolis: For-
tress Press, 1993), 237.
36 Raschke, The Next Reformation, 133.
37 Besides, John Bolt, “Sola Scriptura as an Evangelical Theological Method?,” in Reforming
or Conforming? Post-Conservative Evangelicals and the Emerging Church, ed. Gary L. W.
Johnson and Ronald N. Gleason (Wheaton, Il.: Crossway, 2008), 78, has strongly criticized
Raschke’s position, arguing in favor of explicit metaphysics but denying that sola scriptu-
ra can serve as a method.
38 In research on sola scriptura, the term often goes undefined. A loose definition based on
‘authority’ seems better than both a narrow definition that could be criticized for being
either too specific or so general as to have no boundaries at all.
88 Huijgen
5 Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide
5.1 Sola scriptura as a Confession of Faith

The fact that the ensemble of 66 books of the Bible is called scripture is itself
already a confession of faith, since this is not evident from the mere text of
the Bible and the variety of biblical writings.39 So, a fortiori, sola scriptura is a
statement of faith: God speaks His Word in and through these human words.
It would therefore be mistaken if scriptura in sola scriptura would be reduced
to merely a piece of text, or a collection of writings. It obviously is a text, but as
mode of God’s communication with humans, it is also more than a mere text.
Its primary mode of communication is not merely verbal/textual, but personal
because that is the purpose of God’s self-revelation. That is to say: as Word of
God, it cannot be abstracted from the work of the Spirit. So, scripture is not just
any book, which can be approached with the means of general theories of tex-
tuality and semiotics. Its reality as scripture transcends the nature of a book.
While scripture is certainly a visible reality, it is also a spiritual reality: not less
than visible, but more than visible.40
Only by faith can this nature of scripture be perceived, but this does not
imply that faith gives birth to scripture as the revealed Word of God. That
would characterize faith as the last and final authority. Rather, faith is receptive
by definition, dependent on God’s revelation (this is where sola gratia joins
in). So, while the ultimate authority of the scriptures is not derived from the
church—the original meaning of sola scriptura in the Reformation—, it is also
not derived from the believing individual or from the believing community. Its
authority comes from God: “the highest proof of Scripture derives in general
from the fact that God in person speaks in it.”41 This may sound fairly naive
and vulnerable for critiques of authoritarianism, since authority can only exist
where persons and communities invest authority and thereby make persons or
39 Cf. Ingolf U. Dalferth, “Die Mitte ist Außen: Anmerkungen zum Wirklichkeitsbezug evan-
gelischer Schriftauslegung,” in Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift: Studien zur Herme-
neutik des Evangeliums, ed. Christof Landmesser, Hans-Joachim Eckstein and Hermann
Lichtenberger (Walter de Gruyter, 1997), 183, who distinguishes scripture (singular) as
statement of faith from the scriptures (plural), as the biblical writings per se.
40 J. B Webster, Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2003), 49–50: “Scripture’s ‘externality’ is its reference to revelation, not
its visible textuality; that textuality serves the viva vox Dei.”
41 Calvin, Inst. 1.7.4: “tota scripturae probatio passim a dei loquentis persona sumitur”; John
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: In Two Volumes, trans. John Thomas MacNeill
and Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia; London: The Westminster Press; SCM, 1960), 78.
texts authoritative.42 But the distinct nature of faith renders scriptural author-
ity more than a social construct, at least: if it is true that God really speaks his
Word in words.43
But while scripture’s authority is not strictly based on faith, it cannot be
disengaged from faith to serve as an independent foundation of knowledge.
Such a procedure would take scripture out of the context of God’s commu-
nication with humans, which is personal rather than textual, persuasive
rather than propositional. This does not mean that the truth of scripture is
non-textual or non-propositional, but it means that textuality and proposition-
ality are less important than the personal, persuasive character of scripture.
The importance of faith is therefore not limited to the beginnings of under-
standing scripture, as if faith was only needed for scripture’s vindication as
foundation of knowledge, after which it could be formalized to serve as a judge
in a variety of epistemological and theological matters. The entire theologi-
cal and epistemological functions of scripture are defined by its soteriological
function. In other words, faith is itself not a formal principle, but it is the per-
sonal knowledge of God in Christ.
The definition of sola scriptura as confession of faith does not exclude the
open exploration of the text of scripture with all exegetical, historical and crit-
ical means, but rather opens up the possibility of such research. Sola scriptura
should not limit the freedom of exegesis. While sola scriptura underlines that
the reality of scripture is more than its visible, textual phenomena only, this
does not mean that the reality of scripture can be detached from these phe-
nomena. Since it is not to be expected that the spiritual reality of Scripture
is demonstrated by merely historical-critical methods, these methods do not
directly threaten that spiritual reality. But these methods also cannot speak
the final verdict over the reality of Scripture, because they do not ask for the
presence of God.
In sum: detaching sola scriptura from sola fide leads to a primarily epistemic
authority of scripture that does not conform to the nature of scripture. For
scripture is not primarily given to be understood but to be believed. On the
other hand, detaching sola fide from sola scriptura leads to an idea of faith that
is too general and therefore prone to subjectivism.44
42 Webster, Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch, 54.

43 This is the present author’s objection against the position of Carl Raschke. See footnote
34 above.
44 Calvin, Cat. Gen. Q. 111, in Thomas F Torrance, The School of Faith; the Catechisms of the
Reformed Church. (London: J. Clarke, 1959), 22. Cf. Webster, Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic
Sketch, 44–45.
90 Huijgen
5.2 The Church as Creatura Verbi and Community of Faith

In the present discussion of sola fide, the relation between scripture and church
can be clarified. As demonstrated above, the original intention of sola scriptura
was to prevent the church from ruling definitively over the interpretation of
scripture. But this does not mean that church and scripture are strictly sep-
arate entities or that they even could be defined by their mutual opposition.
On the contrary, the church is defined by the Word of God; she is creatura ver-
bi.45 For the church, this means that—unlike scripture—she is not autopistos
and that she does not find her stability and reliability in herself.46 Rather, this
stability and reliability are found extra ecclesiam, in God who speaks His own
Word.47
In this sense, the Bible is the book of the church; not in the sense that the
church separates acceptable interpretations from unacceptable ones. For sola
scriptura means that the church can err.48 The church is per definition on the
receiving end of the scriptures. As creatura verbi, her identity is primarily
hearing church, although she will subsequently teach what she has heard.49
This hearing shapes the identity of the church in an ongoing way: the church
is underway to become what the Word of God calls her to be. So, the relation
between scripture and church is stamped by an eschatologically oriented dy-
namic. The truth of what the church teaches, will also be vindicated in the
eschaton. She asserts the eschatological truth with an eschatological proviso.
This dynamic is constantly in danger, however. The church is tempted to claim
the authority that scripture has, for herself, which would turn the church’s
identity, and the nature of faith, upside down. No longer would the individual
believer and the community of believers be centered on God’s promises in the
gospel, but on itself. From being eschatologically oriented on God’s promis-
es, it becomes authority-oriented, and thus encapsulated in a church that will
be focused more and more on its own well-being than it is concerned for the
45 Note the use of the term ‘Word of God’, instead of ‘scripture’. This is not to oppose the two,
nor to deny that the Word comes to us in scripture, but to stress that the Word of God is
more than mere text; it is scripture in action through the operation of the Holy Spirit.
46 On scripture being autopistos, see H. van den Belt, “Schriftgezag en geloofszekerheid,” in
Sola Scriptura: De actualiteit van de gereformeerde visie op de Schrift, ed. Jan Hoek (Heeren-
veen: Groen, 2008), 82–103.
47 Webster, Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch, 46.
48 Lane, “Sola Scriptura? Making Sense of a Post-Reformation Slogan,” 324. Compare p. 326:
“Scripture needs to be interpreted, but it does not need a normative interpretation.”
49 Cf. Eberhard Jüngel, “Die Kirche als Sakrament,” Zeitschrift Für Theologie Und Kirche 80,
no. 4 (1983): 432–457.
Kingdom of God. Scripture constantly calls the church out of this error and in-
ertia. So, a church that lives by sola scriptura is not the guard of unchangeable
truths and of the status quo, but rather a community of people underway, that
lets itself be questioned and corrected. For the first person using the text of
scripture is neither the exegete or the church, but the Holy Spirit.
In this context, sola scriptura functions as a buffer against power play in
the church and by the church, rather than as a means of power play. For sola
scriptura stresses the incommensurability of the authority of scripture and
the authority of the church. The principle counters power plays by referring to
God’s authority in Christ, that no human can claim for himself. So, for Maarten
Wisse’s wish to prevent power plays from prevailing in the church, doing away
with sola scriptura is a bad idea.50
This obviously does not rule out any power play in the church beforehand.
That would be impossible, and more or less subtle forms of power play will
always be present, since wielding power is a fact of life. But rather than con-
cluding that anything goes, power structures in the church need to be kept in
check by the ongoing critical encounter with scripture. So, nobody can claim
that he offers the final interpretation of any text. Sola scriptura serves to keep
an open space for exegetical discussion, and as such serves Christian freedom.
All this results in a pneumatological-eschatological understanding of scrip-
ture, faith, and church. Scripture is not a dead text, but the living Word of God’s
promise, used by the Spirit to call the community of believers to the Kingdom
of God. Sin is exposed as people’s reluctance to move toward God’s Kingdom
and their tendency to build a Kingdom of their own. The church is built up
by tearing down the structures humans make to hide themselves. The obe-
dience of the church, and of the individual believer, does not come to pass
automatically. This is the work of the Spirit. One cannot learn sola scriptura
without conversion and obedience.
The togetherness of sola scriptura and sola fide provides both fixity and
openness. On the one hand: fixity on the canon of scripture, which is the sole
rule and norma normans non normata. But since scripture is not primarily a
simple text, but the Word God has spoken and speaks today, the canon is not
primarily a depositum to be guarded, but a guide to be followed. As Kevin Van-
hoozer notes, in this vein the canon is primarily “closed,” but it is also “open”:
It is closed in a formal sense, because it encompasses just these books. It

is also closed in a material sense, in the sense that God has spoken his
50 Wisse, “Contra et Pro Sola Scriptura,” 29–32.

92 Huijgen
definitive word in Jesus Christ. Yet the canon remains open in the sense
that it invites the church’s ongoing understanding and participation.51
6 Sola Scriptura and Sola Gratia
6.1 Holy Scripture as a Matter of Grace

The communication between God and humans through scripture is entire-
ly dependent on God’s initiative. It is a matter of grace. So, there can be no
understanding and confession of sola scriptura without sola gratia. More-
over, grace is not only the background of God’s communication with humans
in scripture, it is also the practice and content of that communication. The
aim of God speaking to humans is soteriological, and in sola scriptura there
is a tendency toward the proclamation of the gospel; sola scriptura leads to
solo verbo.52 Moreover, in his address, God communicates himself, not only
in the many words of scripture, but primarily in the Word, Jesus Christus.
God’s communication is self-communication and this self-communication
is communication-in-action. In other words: the doctrine of scripture is
grounded in the doctrine of the Trinity. Not only is holy scripture a witness to
God’s gracious deeds; it is itself the result of God’s grace and it is the very ad-
ministration and communication of God’s grace and ultimately: God Himself.
God’s gracious communication in holy scripture shows particularly in its
human character. God uses biblical scriptures that have been written in con-
crete historical situations to address humans in their actual contexts. God’s act
of self-communication does not exclude, but radically includes human agency,
which is an act of grace within an act of grace: God not only addresses humans,
but He addresses them in a human way; not only orally, but also in writing.
God is author, in the sense that his transcendence does not forbid Him to elect
certain writers and their texts to serve his self-communication.53 Exactly in the
human, textual character of the scriptures we see the signature of the God of
Israel, who acts and writes by engaging Himself completely in the human his-
tory He creates.
51 Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology,

237.
52 Cf. Gerhard Ebeling, “‘Sola Scriptura’ und das Problem der Tradition,” in Das Neue Testa-
ment als Kanon: Dokumentation und kritische Analyse zur gegenwärtigen Diskussion (Van-
denhoeck and Ruprecht, 1970), 321.
53 See Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse, 283–284 on the distinction between divine inspiration
and divine discourse, and on God’s being author.
The soteriological character cannot be removed from scripture to obtain a

residue of more or less interesting facts and trivia about God, humanity, and
the world. Scripture is written so that humans may believe. Far from being
a reduction of the truth-character of scripture, this is a definition of the na-
ture of truth found in scripture. Truth is not primarily what fits any human
theory of truth—for instance, the correspondence theory (adaequatio rei et
intellectus)—but what scripture proclaims to be true. Ultimately, Jesus Christ
himself is the truth. This radical redefinition of truth in the light of the gos-
pel follows directly from the indissoluble bond between sola gratia and sola
scriptura: humans do not have the understanding of truth at their disposal, but
need to learn it from beginning to end. This implies a trinitarian understand-
ing of scripture: it is not the foundation of human knowledge, the basic epis-
temological principle of theology, but it can only be understood in the light of
the self-revelation of the Triune God. Humans need the Spirit.54
6.2 Receptivity
Since scripture is God’s gracious gift and sola scriptura and sola gratia de-
fine each other reciprocally, scripture needs to be received in a certain kind
of way. God’s self-communication has a soteriological aim: to justify sinners
and renew their lives. So, in the dynamics of sola scriptura the human person
appears coram Deo, as sinner in God’s judgment. This entails a radical shift in
the hermeneutical situation: scripture is not dependent on the interpretation
of a more or less hermeneutically competent reader, but through scripture,
God interprets humans, that is, He gives them their proper place. Humans do
not have to bring light to the scriptures to clarify obscure passages, but scrip-
ture itself is the light that clarifies the person’s situation and the person he
is. This is the theological sense of the classical rule sacra scriptura sui ipsius
interpres: it not only means that easier passages can be used to shed light on
more difficult passages, but it even means more radically that scripture is not
in need of human interpretation to receive a meaning, but that humans are
in need of scripture to find meaning, not only in scripture, but also in their
entire lives.
So, scripture places humans in a position of receptivity. In the light of
scripture, it is no longer possible to distance oneself from the truth claims
54 Note that the present argument has been developed without an explicit theory of scrip-
ture’s divine inspiration. While inspiration is no unimportant theme, it does not have to
bear the weight of being the prime support of the authority of scripture, because not the
specifics of God’s work in biblical authors but God’s self-communication through biblical
writings and His triune life give the Bible its authority.
94 Huijgen
of scripture, or to act as homo hermeneuticus who skillfully squeezes out

meaning even of the most obscure texts. Rather, humans get involved in the
reality of God’s judging and saving acts. This receptivity involves losing control
of one’s life: one becomes dependent on God and His Word. It is not merely
choosing a certain perspective, such as a participatory perspective instead of
the o utsider’s perspective, but God puts humans in a receptive position. For in
a radical sense, human hermeneutical participation is and remains a matter
of grace.
This receptivity, however, is not mere passivity, but it is responsivity: God’s
gracious call in scripture asks for the answer of faith. The authority of scrip-
ture is not a static characteristic of scripture, but this authority is exerted
every time humans find themselves in the position of receivers of God’s grace.
“What do you have that you did not receive?” (1 Corinthians 4: 7). This im-
plies that scripture belongs primarily in the church and only secondarily in the
academy, because the church is the place where responsivity is practiced. This
is where classical historical-critical, methodologically agnostic approaches fall
short, useful as they may be to analyse the biblical writings in ways any oth-
er book can be analyzed. But a theological interpretation of scripture is also
needed.
Particularly in the canonicity of scripture, not only the indissoluble relation
of sola scriptura and receptivity shows, but also the way sola scriptura gener-
ates the community of believers rather than vice versa. Of course, the forma-
tion of the canon has not come to pass without the involvement, the decision,
and the authority of the church. But ultimately, the church is not creator of the
canon, but receiver of the canon. This fits the very nature of the church as com-
munity of believers: the authority of the church is an exercise in obedience.55
So, the acceptance of the canon on behalf of the church was an act of confes-
sion and submission.56 On the other hand, if the canon were merely, as Robert
Jenson writes, “a dogmatic decision of the church,” granting “final authority” to
the dogma of the church,57 then the entire theological structure of the church
and of scripture would change fundamentally.
55 Otto Weber, Grundlagen der Dogmatik 1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verl. d. Erzie-

hungsvereins, 1955), 274.
56 Webster, Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch, 63. Cf. John B. Webster, “Canon and Criterion:
Some Reflections on a Recent Proposal,” Scottish Journal of Theology 54, no. 2 (2001):
221–237.
57 Jenson, Systematic Theology: Volume 1, 27–28.
7 Sola Scriptura and Solus Christus
Solus Christus is decisively important for sola scriptura; without solus Chris-
tus, sola scriptura is unthinkable.58 At least, this was the case for Luther, who
explicitly regarded Christ as the heart, center and essence of scripture: “Take
Christ out of the scriptures and what more will you find in them?”59 As Lotz
notes, Christ is the center of Luther’s scripture because all scriptures are
oriented towards him, because the law-gospel dialectic points to him, and
because he proclaims himself through the gospel.60 Exactly this Christ-
centeredness of scripture determines scripture’s normative authority for the
church. Scripture’s authority is Christ’s authority.
Clearly, for Luther as for many others, Christ is primary and scripture is
secondary in the relation between Christ and scripture. Typically, Luther says
on the one hand that scripture alone must rule as queen in the church, and on
the other hand that scripture is servant and Christ is king.61 This christological
concentration in Luther’s reading of scripture even becomes a criterion to as-
sess scripture in its parts and as a whole. He ranks New Testament books by the
clarity of their discussion of justification, thus creating a hierarchy within the
canon. Because of a lack of Pauline teaching of justification, Luther could even
call the epistle of James “an epistle of straw.”62
This does not mean, however, that the relation between solus Christus and
sola scriptura is a one-way street. Also for Luther, scripture is necessary to find
Christ. Luther writes that he lost Christ in scholastic theology and found him
again in the apostle Paul.63 But the question is whether solus Christus must be
primary, and whether it should be used to practice Sachkritik on scripture?
And if it does, what is the role of the interpretative community, the church:
58 Lotz, “Sola Scriptura,” 275: “Solus Christus is the presupposition and ground of sola scriptu-
ra.” This is communis opinio; cf. Hans-Jürgen Hermisson, “Jesus Christus als externe Mitte
des Alten Testaments: Ein unzeitgemässes Votum zur Theologie des Alten Testaments,”
in Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift (Walter de Gruyter, 1997), 199–233; Vanhoozer,
The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology, 197; Armin
Wenz, Das Wort Gottes—Gericht und Rettung: Untersuchungen zur Autorität der Heiligen
Schrift in Bekenntnis und Lehre der Kirche (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996),
284; John B. Webster, Word and Church Essays in Christian Dogmatics (Edinburgh: T & T
Clark, 2001), 10, 25.
59 Luther, WA 18, 606: “Tolle Christum e scripturis, quid amplius in illis invenies?”
60 Lotz, “Sola Scriptura,” 270–271.
61 Luther, WA 40/1, 120; WA 40/1, 459.
62 Luther, WA.DB 7, 385; cf. 272.
63 Luther, WA 2, 414: “Ego Christum amiseram illic, nunc in Paulo reperi.”
96 Huijgen
does the community decide at the hand of solus Christus between texts and
texts?
Ingolf Dalferth has contributed to this discussion by explaining the idea that
Jesus Christ is the center (Mitte) of scripture as a statement on the relation to
reality (Wirklichkeitsbezug) of protestant interpretations of scripture.64 While
the scriptures themselves are a disparate collection of diverse books, themes,
genres, and centers of gravity, Christ is the center, not in a semantic or themat-
ic, but in a theological sense. For he is not simply the summary of the scrip-
tures, nor is he the explicit or implicit theme of all biblical scriptures. Rather,
the statement that Jesus Christus is the center of scripture, is a theological
statement of the christian church. It marks the point in relation to which the
biblical scriptures should be read and interpreted, to make it possible to un-
derstand God’s Word and to sense and explain God’s presence.65 So, the center
of scripture is not found in the horizon of semantic meanings of biblical texts,
but in the horizon of pragmatic use in the christian church.66 This center lies
outside (außen) scripture, for Christ is not a text, but the externality of the
text, to which faith relates. He is the focal point of the interpretation of these
texts.67 Thus, Christ cannot be completely identified with any text, since he is
the reality outside the text which gives the text its relation to reality (Wirklich-
keitsbezug). So, solus Christus is the criterion for sola scriptura; this relation
cannot be reversed.68
While Dalferth’s accent on Christ as Wirklichkeitsbezug of the text is a valu-
able insight, his approach comes with three problems. First, while Dalferth
makes a strong case for the importance of solus Christus, he renders sola scriptu-
ra almost irrelevant, because Christ is not only the center of scripture, but also
of the knowledge of God, self, and world.69 Secondly, while Christ guarantees
the Wirklichkeitsbezug of the faith of the christian church as a whole and of the
64 Dalferth, “Die Mitte ist außen,” 173.

65 Dalferth, “Die Mitte ist außen,” 189. Cf. Ebeling, “‘Sola Scriptura’ und das Problem der Tra-
dition,” 330. Ebeling connects the question of the scriptures’ unity to the “erleuchtender
Macht ihrer Sache.”
66 Dalferth, “Die Mitte ist außen,” 189: “in deren pragmatischem Gebrauchshorizont in der
christlichen Kirche.”
68 Dalferth, “Die Mitte ist außen,” 193: “Die Frage nach der Mitte der Schrift ist so immer
zugleich die Suche nach dem Sachkriterium der Selbstunterscheidung der Schrift von
ihrer Sache, und der Rekurs auf das Außen unterstreicht, daß die Mitte (das solus Chris-
tus) Kriterium der Schrift (des sola scriptura) ist und nicht umgekehrt, weil diese Mitte in
der Schrift selbst gegenwärtig wirksam ist.”
individual believer, the question remains how this interpretative community

is kept in the right track of understanding Christ. In other words: how can peo-
ple know it is Christ they relate to, and not an idea or principle. This is where
the experience (Erfahrung) of God’s presence by the interpretative community
of faith is important for Dalferth. It decides what can count as conforming to
Christ and what is not. In this respect, the believing experience, or the commu-
nion of the church, has taken the place that sola scriptura held earlier. Thirdly,
although Dalferth defends that he does not aim at a “christological reduction”
(christologische Engführung),70 his christocentrism tends to eclipse the most
difficult and offensive passages of scripture.71
As an alternative approach to Dalferth’s rather strict christocentrism, it is
worth to consider complementing the statement that solus Christus is the cri-
terion for sola scriptura with the statement that, secondarily, sola scriptura is
the criterion for solus Christus. Only secondarily, because christians do not be-
lieve in the scriptures like they believe in Christ: Christ is the center of scrip-
ture and scripture is not the center of Christ. Still, sola scriptura is an actual
criterion for what solus Christus means, because we have no other Christ than
the Christ of the scriptures. There is reason to be critical of Sachkritik on the
scriptures on the basis of solus Christus if solus Christus means the Christ of the
believers’ experience.
The present author suggests a parallel to the extra-calvinisticum in the doc-
trine of scripture. Christ as center of scripture is not locked in scripture, not
does he only exist outside scripture as the reality to which scripture points,
but he is both the Christ of history and the Christ of scripture. So, while faith
is primarily directed towards Christ, it cannot have Christ without scripture,
because it cannot have scripture without Christ. Trying to have Christ in ab-
straction of scripture fosters a docetic attitude in both christology and in the
doctrine of scripture: it belongs to the reality of Christ’s history that it has been
recorded in concrete texts. Besides, like sola scriptura does not mean “without
tradition,” solus Christus does not mean “without the Spirit.”72 Rather, to under-
stand the scriptures, the “same Spirit […] who has spoken through the mouths
of the prophets must penetrate into our hearts,” as Calvin writes.73

71 Dalferth, “Die Mitte ist außen,” 191: “Das solus Christus ist das Leitprinzip auch für das
sola scriptura, und dieses Leitprinzip läßt sich nicht dadurch ersetzen, daß man das sola
scriptura zum tota scriptura zu steigern sucht.”
197.
73 Calvin, Inst. 1.7.4; trans. MacNeill/Battles, 79.
98 Huijgen
8 Conclusion
In previous sections, the coherence of sola scriptura with sola gratia, sola fide
and solus Christus has been demonstrated. Let us return to the critiques of
Brad Gregory and Maarten Wisse to see whether the argument developed here
sufficiently addresses the issues raised.
While Brad Gregory states that sola scriptura in fact fostered individualism
and pluralism, this is certainly not inherent to sola scriptura. Historically, such
individualism seems to stem more from the endeavor of the Enlightenment
than from the Reformation. But more importantly, sola scriptura can neither
be detached from the tradition of the church, nor from sola gratia and sola
fide. This means that sola scriptura did not mean that crucial doctrines had to
be reconstructed or at least demonstrated anew,74 nor does it mean that every
part of doctrine today should be explicitly in the Bible.75 Rather than down-
playing the importance of ecclesial and theological traditions, sola scriptura
means that the final authority of doctrine does not reside with the church, but
in scripture. Ironically, if tradition was in agreement on one thing, it was on the
point that doctrine should be based on scripture.76
Sola scriptura should not be unhooked from the interconnection with the
other solas. It presupposes solus Christus as center of scripture, and sola fide
and sola gratia for the reception of scripture. However much sola scriptura
may be used as catchword by advocates of biblical inerrancy, it does not fit well
in such a defense because it does not primarily focus on the Bible as text. Sola
scriptura can only be understood in the light of solus Christus. For that very rea-
son, readers of scripture are not merely homines hermeneutici, who try to press
a meaning out of the text, but they are addressed as sinners and as people to
be justified. For scripture is not a mere text, but God’s salvific communicaton
with humans. Its truth is not primarily a set of propositions, but the truth of
God’s promises, demonstrated in the resurrection of Christ. So, sola scriptura
opens up a middle way between inerrantism’s objectivism and postmodern
subjectivism, between the power play of the singular dominant interpretation
and the plurality of incommensurable interpretations. All in all, sola scriptu-
ra needs a trinitarian mode of understanding instead of a philosophical one.
74 This is contended by William J. Abraham, Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology: From
the Fathers to Feminism (Oxford; Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University
Press, 1998), 148.
75 Lane, “Sola Scriptura? Making Sense of a Post-Reformation Slogan,” 319.
164–165.
Meanwhile, the doctrine of the Trinity itself illustrates nicely what is meant by
sola scriptura: the doctrine is not itself in the Bible, but it is biblical through
and through.77
On the other hand, Maarten Wisse has highlighted hermeneutical problems,
most notably power plays, in the use of sola scriptura. Leaving aside the ques-
tion whether all power structures are per definition wrong, as Wisse seems to
suggest, it is likely that the powers that be will try to use scripture for their
own aim. But rather than supporting these power structures, sola scriptura has
proven to resist power claims. For it is a critical notion, the expression of the
confession that the church can err. Still, Wisse has also criticized christocentric
forms of reading that impose their frameworks upon the Bible, pushing other
reading away as heretical. The christological framework is unwarranted. This
tension between plurality and unifying readings of scripture surfaced particu-
larly in the discussion of Dalferth’s view above. The present author has argued
for keeping the difficult, strange, and offensive texts of the Old and New Tes-
taments on the table, by adding a reverse movement to the movement from
solus Christus to sola scriptura. Secondarily, sola scriptura serves as a criterion
for solus Christus.
Wisse’s third objection against sola scriptura was, that it makes theolo-
gians lazy because they can hide their theological choices behind an appeal to
scripture. Leaving aside that it is difficult to account for all theological choices
one makes, it has become clear that sola scriptura serves a critical function,
challenging theologians and others to face the possibility of being complete-
ly wrong. Ultimately, sola scriptura underlines that no one can simply claim
scripture for his position, without submitting himself to God who speaks His
own word in the words of Scripture. Once again, the reader is placed in a posi-
tion coram Deo, not in the position of the homo hermeneuticus.
Surely, sola scriptura does not solve all hermeneutical problems; it rather
puts these in the perspectives of the other solas. Rightly so, because it can only
be understood with the help of the other solas.
Bibliography
Abraham, William J. Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology: From the Fathers to
Feminism. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 1998.
77 Christoph Schwöbel, “The Trinity between Athens and Jerusalem,” Journal of Reformed
Theology 3, no. 1 (2009): 22–41.
100 Huijgen
Adam, A. K. M. Reading Scripture with the Church: Toward a Hermeneutic for Theologi-
cal Interpretation. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2006.
Allert, Craig D. “What Are We Trying to Conserve?: Evangelicalism and Sola Scriptura.”
Evangelical Quarterly 76, no. 4 (2004): 327–48.
Bayer, Oswald. Autorität und Kritik: zu Hermeneutik und Wissenschaftstheorie. Tübin-
gen: Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1991.
Bayer, Oswald. Theologie. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verl.-Haus, 1994.
Belt, H. van den. “Schriftgezag En Geloofszekerheid.” In Sola Scriptura: De Actualiteit
van de Gereformeerde Visie Op de Schrift, 82–103. Heerenveen: Groen, 2008.
Belt, H. van den. The Authority of Scripture in Reformed Theology: Truth and Trust.
Leiden; Boston, ma: Brill, 2008.
Interpretation of Scripture. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2010.
Blosser, Philip. “What Are the Philosophical and Practical Problems with Sola Scriptura?”
In Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptu-
ra, edited by Robert A. Sungenis, 42–50. Santa Barbara, ca: Queenship Pub. Co., 1997.
Boersma, Hans. Heavenly Participation: The Weaving of a Sacramental Tapestry. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2011.
Bolt, John. “Sola Scriptura as an Evangelical Theological Method?” In Reforming or Con-
forming? Post-Conservative Evangelicals and the Emerging Church, edited by Gary
L. W. Johnson and Ronald N. Gleason, 62–92. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2008.
Brink, G. van den. “Theologische interpretatie als antwoord op de hedendaagse crisis
in de bijbeluitleg: een verkenning.” In Sola Scriptura: de actualiteit van de gerefor-
meerde visie op de Schrift. Heerenveen: Groen, 2008.
Brink, G. van den, and C. van der Kooi. Christelijke dogmatiek: een inleiding. Zoeter-
meer: Boekencentrum, 2012.
Calvin, John. “A Warning against Judiciary Astrology and Other Prevalent Curiosities.”
Translated by Mary Potter 18 (1983): 157–89.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion: In Two Volumes. Translated by John
Thomas MacNeill and Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia; London: The Westminster
Press; scm, 1960.
Calvin, John. Joannis Calvini Opera selecta Vol. IV. Edited by Peter Barth and Wilhelm
Niesel. Monachii in Aedibus: Kaiser, 1931.
Carrillo de Albornoz, A. F. “The Second Vatican Council and the New Catholicism. By
G. C. Berkouwer. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Com-
pany, 1965. 264 Pp. $5.95.” Journal of Church and State Journal of Church and State 9,
no. 1 (1967): 127–29.
Dalferth, Ingolf U. “Die Mitte Ist Aussen: Anmerkungen Zum Wirklichkeitsbezug Evan-
gelischer Schriftauslegung.” In Jesus Christus Als Die Mitte Der Schrift, 173–98. Walter
de Gruyter, 1997.
Denzinger, Heinrich, and Peter Hünermann. Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et

declarationum de rebus fidei et morum = Kompendium der Glaubensbekenntnisse
und kirchlichen Lehrentscheidungen. Freiburg; Basel; Wien: Herder, 1999.
Ebeling, Gerhard. “‘Sola Scriptura’ Und Das Problem Der Tradition.” In Neue Testament
Als Kanon, by Ernst Käsemann, 282–335. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970.
Echeverria, Eduardo J. Berkouwer and Catholicism: Disputed Questions. Leiden; Boston,
ma: Brill, 2013.
Enns, Peter. Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testa-
ment. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2005.
Gregory, Brad S. The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized
Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2012.
Hauerwas, Stanley. Unleashing the Scripture: Freeing the Bible from Captivity to America.
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993.
Hermisson, Hans-Jürgen. “Jesus Christus Als Externe Mitte Des Alten Testaments: Ein
Unzeitgemässes Votum Zur Theologie Des Alten Testaments.” In Jesus Christus Als
Die Mitte Der Schrift: Studien Zur Hermeneutik Des Evangeliums, 199–233. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 1997.
Hoek, J. Sola Scriptura: de actualiteit van de gereformeerde visie op de Schrift. Heeren-
veen: Groen, 2008.
Huijgen, Arnold. Divine Accommodation in John Calvin’s Theology: Analysis and Assess-
ment. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011.
Jenson, Robert W. Systematic Theology. Volume 1 Volume 1. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1997. Accessed August 29, 2017. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10279193.
Johnson, Gary L.W, and Ronald N Gleason. Reforming or Conforming?: Post-Conservative
Evangelicals and the Emerging Church. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2008.
Jüngel, Eberhard. “Die Kirche Als Sakrament.” Zeitschrift Für Theologie Und Kirche 80,
no. 4 (1983): 432–57.
Kistler, Don. Sola Scriptura!: The Protestant Position on the Bible. Morgan, pa: Soli Deo
Gloria Publications, 1995.
Kooi, Cornelis van der. As in a Mirror: John Calvin and Karl Barth on Knowing God: A
Diptych. Leiden; Boston, Mass.: Brill, 2005.
Kooi, Cornelis van der. “Christology.” In The Calvin Handbook, edited by Herman J. Sel-
derhuis, 257–67. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009.
Lane, A. N. S. John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999.
Lane, Anthony N S. “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey,” Vox Evan-
gelica 9 (1975): 37–55.
Lane, Anthony N S. “Sola Scriptura?: Making Sense of a Post-Reformation Slogan.” In
Pathway into the Holy Scripture, 297–327. Eerdmans, 1994.
Lange van Ravenswaay, Jan Marius Jacob. Augustinus totus noster: das Augustinusver-
ständnis bei Johannes Calvin. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990.
102 Huijgen
Lauster, Jörg. “Prinzip und Methode: die Transformation des protestantischen Schrift-
prinzips durch die historische Kritik von Schleiermacher bis zur Gegenwart.” Mohr
Siebeck, 2004.
Law, David R. Inspiration. London; New York: Continuum, 2001. Accessed August 29,
2017. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10403747.
Legaspi, Michael C. The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press, 2010.
Levering, Matthew. Engaging the Doctrine of Revelation: The Mediation of the Gospel
through Church and Scripture. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2014.
Lotz, David W. “Sola Scriptura: Luther on Biblical Authority.” Interpretation 35, no. 3
(1981): 258–73.
Mathison, Keith A. The Shape of Sola Scriptura. Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2001.
Muller, Richard A. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, Michi-
gan: Baker Academic, 2003.
Oberman, Heiko Augustinus. The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late
Medieval Nominalism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1967.
Oliphint, K Scott. “Bavinck’s Realism, the Logos Principle, and Sola Scriptura.” West-
minster Theological Journal 72, no. 2 (2010): 359–90.
Oort, Johannes van. “John Calvin and the Church Fathers.” In The Reception of the
Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists, edited by Irena
Backus, 661–700. Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1996.
Pinnock, Clark H. The Scripture Principle. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984.
Preus, James S. Spinoza and the Irrelevance of Biblical Authority. Cambridge [etc.]: Cam-
bridge University Press, 2001.
Raschke, Carl A. The next Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2004.
Rehnman, Sebastian. “Theistic Metaphysics and Biblical Exegesis: Francis Turretin on
the Concept of God.” Religious Studies 38, no. 2 (2002): 167–86.
Schwöbel, Christoph. “The Trinity between Athens and Jerusalem.” Journal of Reformed
Theology 3, no. 1 (2009): 22–41.
Selderhuis, Herman. A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy. Leiden; Boston, MA: Brill,
2013.
Slenczka, Notger. “Die Kirche Und Das Alte Testament,” 2013. Accessed August 29,
2017. https://www.theologie.hu-berlin.de/de/st/slenczka-die-kirche-und-das-alte
-testament.pdf.
Smith, Wilfred Cantwell. What Is Scripture?: A Comparative Approach. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1993.
Sproul, R. C. Scripture Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Pub.,
2005.
Sungenis, Robert A. Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine
of Sola Scriptura. Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Pub. Co., 1997.
Taylor, Charles. A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA [etc.]: The Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press, 2007.
Torrance, Thomas F. The School of Faith: The Catechisms of the Reformed Church. Lon-
don: J. Clarke, 1959.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Is There a Meaning in This Text?: The Bible, the Reader, and the Mo-
rality of Literary Knowledge. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Chris-
tian Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.
Ward, Timothy. Word and Supplement: Speech Acts, Biblical Texts, and the Sufficiency of
Scripture. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Warfield, Benjamin B. “The Divine and Human in the Bible.” In Selected Shorter Writ-
ings of Benjamin B. Warfield, 1894.
Weber, Otto. Grundlagen der Dogmatik 1. 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verl. d.
Erziehungsvereins, 1955.
Webster, J B. “Canon and Criterion: Some Reflections on a Recent Proposal.” Scottish
Journal of Theology 54, no. 2 (2001): 221–37.
Webster, J. B. Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2003. Accessed August 29, 2017. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511808180.
Webster, J. B. Word and Church: Essays in Christian Dogmatics. Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
2001.
Welker, M. “Das Vierfache Gewicht Der Schrift: Die Missverständliche Rede Vom
‘Schriftprinzip’und Die Programmformel ‘Biblische Theologie.’” In Dass Gott Eine
Grosse Barmherzigkeit Habe: Konkrete Theologie in Der Verschränkung von Glaube
Und Leben. FS Gunda Schneider-Flume, edited by D. Hiller and Ch. Kress, 9–27.
Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2001.
Wells, Paul. “The Doctrine of Scripture: Only a Human Problem.” In Reforming or Con-
forming?: Post-Conservative Evangelicals and the Emerging Church, edited by Gary
L.W. Johnson and Ronald N. Gleason, 27–61. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2008.
Wenz, Armin. Das Wort Gottes—Gericht und Rettung: Untersuchungen zur Autorität
der Heiligen Schrift in Bekenntnis und Lehre der Kirche. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1996.
Werbick, Jürgen. “Trugbilder Oder Suchbilder: Ein Versuch über Die Schwierigkeit,
Das Biblische Bilderverbot Theologisch Zu Befolgen.” In Macht Der Bilder, 3–27.
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim That God
Speaks. Cambridge [etc.]: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Reason within the Bounds of Religion. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B.
Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1984.
104 Huijgen
Yeago, David S. “The Bible: The Spirit, the Church, and the Scriptures: Biblical Inspi-
ration and Interpretation Revisited.” In Knowing the Triune God, 49–93. Eerdmans,
2001.
chapter 5
Hermeneutical Theology as Contemporary

Rendition of the Sola Scriptura
1 Introduction
How can the Protestant principle, that holy scripture is the sole source and
standard for the church, for its preaching and theology—“profitable for doc-
trine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim.
3: 16)—still be a usable principle today? In this essay I want to pose this
question as a dogmatic one. Characteristic for systematic theology is that the
question is not focused on history or practice, but on the future; furthermore,
systematic theology is a normative discipline. The question is: what is a viable
option for today’s theology to cope with the problem of its inherited principle
called ‘sola scriptura’?
The fact that I pose the question this way, means that I am convinced that
we have real problems in keeping to this scripture principle.1 There is no need
to name these problems in detail here, because they have already been men-
tioned in other contributions to the present volume. The current problems
imply that we cannot continue to uphold the scripture principle in the same
way as in the past. Yet, in my view, it does not imply that we must abandon the
sola scriptura principle. My objection to the current ‘solution’ to the problem is
twofold. Firstly, the criticism of the sola scriptura principle focuses mainly on
the scholastic or fundamentalist form of the principle: in the way the principle
functioned in seventeenth century scholasticism2 or in certain fundamentalist
circles today.3 However, this does not correspond with the original intention
1 The question is not new. Wolfhart Pannenberg already wrote his essay “Die Krise des Schrift-
prinzips” in 1962 (Grundfragen systematischer Theologie (2nd ed, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1971), 11–21).
2 An example is Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing,
1992) (originally Latin, 1688), second topic; furthermore H. Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, set
out and illustrated from the sources (Michigan: Baker Book House 1978), chapter II.
3 The role of Scripture in the discussions concerning ethical themes like homosexuality, as
these are evidenced in the majority of the churches worldwide, can be an example of this.

106 Dekker
of the scripture principle. In scholasticism and fundamentalism scripture was

above all criticism, a foundation of security; in the Reformation, though, it is a
source of faith and life.4
My second objection to letting go of this scripture principle is that a d ifferent
principle will take its place. A principle which is less theologically sound. It
might, for instance, be experience (Pentecostal tradition), reason (modern
metaphysical theology), the tradition of the church (Roman Catholic theolo-
gy), the Holy Spirit (radical Reformation), the idea of Christ (liberal Protestant-
ism) or the congregation itself.5 All these principles are part of ourselves. It is
our experience, it is our reason, it is our tradition, it is our idea of the work of
the Spirit and our idea of Christ.
If we choose scripture itself as the principle for theology, this danger is not
by definition excluded. Scripture must be interpreted and that creates the
possibility that it becomes part of ourselves: our idea of scripture. However,
because the text (‘the letter’) of scripture is objective, our subjective interpre-
tations can be tested within the community of theologians and the community
of the church. Scripture is therefore the best candidate for a standard outside
of ourselves. We need such a standard outside church and theology, in order for
theology to be a self-criticizing and not a self-affirmative discipline. The move-
ment of the ‘New Hermeneutics’ can be seen as an attempt to apply this refor-
mational position to the circumstances of the 20th century, which, in essence,
is still our context today. The sola scriptura itself is, as Ebeling points out, much
more than minimizing the revelational sources to only one source (namely the
scriptures); it is a hermeneutical principle.6 In this paper I would like to point
out a number of characteristics of this New Hermeneutics, including a brief
discussion of possible criticism (§ 2). After that, I will suggest a possible restart,
referring to recent new interest in the future of hermeneutical theology (§ 3).7
4 Luther’s theology of Scripture is described in the classic book by W.J. Kooiman: Luther and
the Bible (Grand Rapids: Muhlenberg Press, 1961). The last chapter considers Luther’s view
on biblical authority.
5 As in L.J. van den Brom’s essay “Zonder levensvorm geen Heilige Schrift,” in Protestants ge-
loven, bij bijbel en belijdenis betrokken, eds. M. Barnard et al. (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum,
2004), 52–64.
6 G. Ebeling, “Wort Gottes und Hermeneutik”, in Die neue Hermeneutik, eds. J.M. Robinson and
J.B. Cobb Jr. (Neuland in der Theologie, part 2) (Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1965), 109–146 (esp.
110–111) (also in: Wort und Glaube I (Tübingen: Mohr, 1960), 319–348).
7 I.U. Dalferth, Radikale Theologie (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2010); I.U. Dalferth, P.
Bühler and A. Hunziker, eds., Hermeneutische Theologie—heute? (Wissenschaftliche Unter-
suchungen zur Theologie 60), (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013).
Hermeneutical theology as contemporary rendition 107
2 Characteristics and Criticism of the New Hermeneutics
The two main representatives of the New Hermeneutics are Ernst Fuchs
(1903–1983) and Gerhard Ebeling (1912–2001). They adopted theological
themes from Martin Luther, Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann—the contradic-
tion between Barth and Bultmann is rejected here8—and philosophical themes
from their contemporaries Martin Heidegger9 and Hans-Georg Gadamer.10 Of
course there are differences between the ideas of Fuchs11 and Ebeling.12 But the
similarities (concerning hermeneutics) are much greater. Their ideas might be
seen as strengthening one another. At least six characteristics of their ‘New
Hermeneutics’ can be mentioned.
2.1 The Distinction between the Word of God and Sacred Scripture
Firstly, the New Hermeneutics distinguish between the word of God and sa-
cred scripture. This distinction was already made in the Enlightenment, for
example by Johann Solomon Semler in his Abhandlung von freier Untersu-
chung des Canon (1771–1775). However, Semler tried to find the Word of God
in scripture. Some biblical texts can and must be seen as a divine word, and
some not. Karl Barth made a decisive renewal with the doctrine of the three
forms of the Word of God.13 Luther had done some preparatory work with his
8 Ebeling, “Wort Gottes und Hermeneutik”, 116.

9 M. Heidegger, Unterwegs zur Sprache (Gesamtausgabe 12) (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio
Klostermann, 1985) (orig. 1959).
10 H.G. Gadamer, Wahrheit und Methode, Gesammelte Werke 1 (Tübingen: Mohr, 2010)
(orig. 1960).
11 Fuchs’s thoughts on hermeneutics were fully developed in his Marburger Hermeneutik
(Tübingen: Mohr, 1968). Furthermore, his earlier Hermeneutik (Tübingen: Mohr, 19633,
with a supplementary text) and the collection of essays in Ernst Fuchs Lesebuch (Tübin-
gen: Mohr, 2003) are the most important texts.
12 Ebeling’s most important works on hermeneutics are: his article “Hermeneutik” in the
third edition of the Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, part III, (Tübingen: Mohr,
1959), 242–262; the essay “Wort Gottes und Hermeneutik” in Das Wesen des christlichen
Glaubens (München/Hamburg: Siebenstern, 19673), 178–187; “Hermeneutische Theolo-
gie?,” in Wort und Glaube II, (Tübingen: Mohr, 1969), 99–120; “Hermeneutik zwischen der
Macht des Gotteswortes und seiner Entmachtung in der Moderne,” in Wort und Glaube
IV, (Tübingen: Mohr, 1995), 209–225. For a list of differences between Fuchs and Ebeling,
see Dalferth, Radikale Theologie, 49 f and 157 f. Also Dalferth, “Hermeneutische Theolo-
gie—heute?”, in Hermeneutische Theologie—heute?, eds. I.U. Dalferth et al., (Tübingen:
Mohr, 2013). 3–38 (esp. 27–37).
13 K. Barth, Kirchliche Dogmatik I/1 (Zürich: TVZ, 1986; orig. 1932), §4.
108 Dekker
distinction between the absolute clarity of the matter (‘Sache’) of scripture and
the partial obscurity of its words.14
The New Hermeneutics follow the distinction between the Word of God
and scripture. The Bible is not identical to the Word of God. The Word of God
in the strict sense is an event of the living God speaking to the hearer. But this
original ‘Word-event’ (Wortgeschehen (Ebeling), Sprachereignis (Fuchs)) can
only be heard as an explained word. The scripture is the primary explanation
of the Word of God.
According to Fuchs and Ebeling this means that hermeneutics is not pri-
marily concerned with the explanation of one or another (biblical) text. The
text itself is the expression of an original speech-act in which man is addressed
in his specific situation. Hermeneutics involves the repetition of this original
word-event. For this reason, what must be interpreted is not the text itself.
What the word did then, in creating faith, needs to happen again in a new
word-event now. In Ebeling’s words: “Das primäre Verstehensphänomen ist
nicht das Verstehen von Sprache, sondern das Verstehen durch Sprache.”15 The
distinction between the word of God and sacred scripture alters the scripture
principle. Normative is not the letter of the text, but the word, of which the text
is the most original testimony. Sola scriptura is reinterpreted as solo verbo: God
comes to us through his word. Salvation is not fixed in the letter of the text,
nor in certain historical facts. The real salvatory event is the word-event, which
is not part of the past, but can only happen in the present. ‘Wortgeschehen’ is
Ebeling’s and Fuchs’s reïnterpretation of Bultmann’s ‘Heilsgeschehen’,16 which
in Bultmann’s theology contradicts ‘Heilsgeschichte’.
Let us discuss briefly some possible criticisms at this point. The distinction
between the Word of God and scripture gives way to the possibility of ‘Sachkri-
tik’ concerning the Bible. This is an ongoing criticism towards the New Herme-
neutics. I think this criticism is to some degree correct, and to some degree not.
It is correct in pointing out the weakness that here again scripture is replaced
by our idea of scripture. If we can criticise the content and message of certain
biblical passages, because they do not correspond to the essential, primal form
of the Word, which is Christ, our interpretation is open to arbitrariness.
The criticism, however, overlooks the fact that one of the main characteris-
tics of the New Hermeneutics is that it places scripture above the interpreter.
14 M. Luther, “Der 36. (37.) Psalm Davids (1521)”, Weimarer Ausgabe 8, 239 and “De servo
arbitrio (1525)”, Weimarer Ausgabe 18, 606, 22–37.
15 G. Ebeling, “Wort Gottes und Hermeneutik,” 128.
16 E. Fuchs, “Die Spannung im neutestamentlichen Christus-glauben,” Zeitschrift für Theolo-
gie und Kirche 59 (1962): 41.
This standpoint should exclude interpretations which confirm the reader’s

assumptions. Here, the more Lutheran oriented tradition of the New Herme-
neutics can be complemented by the Reformed notion of ‘tota scriptura’. The
original word-event is reflected in the whole of scripture; in the totality of its
passages. If we take this critical addition into account, the distinction between
Word and scripture is still necessary to overcome fundamentalist tendencies
in church and theology.
2.2 The Word-Event

We already mentioned the central concept of the ‘word-event’; in German:
‘Sprachereignis’ (Fuchs)17 or ‘Wortgeschehen’ (Ebeling). According to the New
Hermeneutics, this is the epistemic and ontic primary phenomenon.18 There
“is” nothing “behind” the word-event. Here, the New Hermeneutics picks up
thoughts of the later Heidegger19 and Gadamer.20 According to Fuchs, it is not
true that man has invented language. It was not man who bore the language,
but man is born from the language.21
This word-event is the actual subject when the biblical text is read. The her-
meneutist is not the primary subject, but the primary object of the text.22 In
this context Fuchs speaks of seeking a ‘hermeneutical principle’. This is the
situation in which the text can appear as it essentially is. Fuchs uses the exam-
ple of a cat and a mouse.23 We give the cat the opportunity to appear to us in
his true nature—by showing him a mouse. Then the cat shows its true colours
to us.
17 E. Fuchs, “Das Sprachereignis in der Verkündigung Jesu, in der Theologie des Paulus und
im Ostergeschehen” (1959), in Ernst Fuchs Lesebuch 202–226 (esp. 202–205).
18 As Huxel points out, Fuchs thematises with ‘Sprachereignis’ the event that is traditionally
named as revelation and faith; however, without mentioning the function of the Holy
Spirit and without distinguishing between verbum externum and verbum internum. (K.
Huxel, “Theologie als Sprachlehre des Glaubens: Zum hermeneutischen Programm von
Ernst Fuchs,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 101 (2004): 292–314 (esp.311.)).
19 “Sprache ist lichtend-verbergende Ankunft des Seins selbst.” (Heidegger, Über den Hu-
manismus (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1949), 16.)
20 H.G. Gadamer, Wahrheit und Methode, III.3, referring to the medieval theological tradition.
21 Fuchs, Hermeneutik, 63.
22 Ebeling, Theologie und Verkündigung (Tübingen: Mohr, 1962), 14–15. According to Ebe-
ling, Luther’s maxim ‘Sacra Scriptura sui ipsius interpres’ means that Scripture itself is
subject. Not man explains Scripture, but Scripture explains itself to man.
23 Fuchs, Hermeneutik, 109. Fuchs also uses the example of a ball shown to a footballplayer:
“Das Neue Testament und das hermeneutische Problem,” 178–179.
110 Dekker
In reading and explaining the biblical text, the cat is the word in the text
and the mouse is man, the reader, interpreter. Searching for a hermeneutical
principle does not aim to find a way to get a grip on the text, but it aims to ma-
noeuver us into a position so that the text can grasp us. Good hermeneutics is:
becoming a mouse to the cat.24 Here, the human situation that lets God reveal
himself as God (the hermeneutical principle), is our need: Romans 7: 24.25
The idea of the “Word-event” as an ontological and epistemological primal
category has evoked criticism:
(1) What is the relation between this word-event and being? Does the
word not depend on being instead of vice versa? Interesting enough,
the New Hermeneutics has not only philosophical arguments for this
point, derived from the later Heidegger, but also theological argu-
ments. The philosophical idea of the word being ontologically primary
is connected to Barth’s view of Christ as the primal form of the divine
Word. Here, word and being no longer exclude one another. God cre-
ated everything ‘from nothing’, through His Word, i.e.: through Christ.
Here, an underlying distinction between ‘factuality’ and ‘being’ plays
an important role. What science means by ‘world’ or ‘being’ does not
depend on the word; but the hermeneutical tradition does not call
this ‘being’. What really is, are not the scientific facts, but the authen-
tic human existence. This existence is only possible by the word, that
gives everything its true being.26
(2) What is the relation of this word-event to history? If salvation is l ocated
in a speech-act, what about the deeds of God in history? Indeed, the
New Hermeneutics follow Bultmann, who spoke of a salvational event
(Heilsgeschehen) instead of salvation history (Heilsgeschichte). This
does not mean that history is unimportant. Fuchs re-opened the quest
for the historical Jesus, which Bultmann considered to be irrelevant.27
24 H.G. Gadamer has shown in his book Wahrheit und Methode that this reversal not only
occurs in reading religious texts, but in every hermeneutical process, as for instance un-
derstanding art.
25 Fuchs, Hermeneutik, 110. This reminds of Luther. “Was heisst ‘einen Gott haben’, oder was
ist Gott? Antwort: ein Gott heisset das, dazu man sich versehen soll alles Guten und Zu-
flucht haben in allen Nöten.” (Luther, “Der grosse Katechismus,” Weimarer Ausgabe 30/1,
132–133.)
26 On Dalferths criticism at this point, see the last paragraph of this article.
27 Fuchs, “Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments und der historische Jesus,” in Ernst Fuchs
Lesebuch, 174–201.
History only has theological meaning if it is seen as a creation of the

word. The word opens history.
(3) What is the relation between this word-event and God as a living
person? If the word-event is ontologically primary, is God Himself
a word-event? How should we conceive this? Does a word not pre-
suppose a speaker? Christians believe in a personal God, and not in
an event, which seems to be impersonal: ‘it’ happens. This is an im-
portant question, which is answered in different ways by the various
theologians.28 For Ebeling, who stays close to Luther, the personhood
of God is not in question. The nature of the divine word is twofold:
law and grace, and God is the omnipotent speaker of His word. Ac-
cording to Fuchs however, the law is not a distinct word, but an as-
pect of grace, so that the word of God in essence is just: ‘yes’. God says
‘yes’ to the human being. This is justification. The whole of God’s es-
sence is uttered in this word-event. Therefore, there is no God behind
this ‘yes’. This implies that the personhood of God is less important.
2.3 The Word as ‘Anrede’ (Address)

To continue, this has consequences for the nature of language. For the New
Hermeneutics, the word is primarily ‘Anrede’, address. It is communication
from one person to another. The primordial structure of the sentence is: “I
speak to you.”29 Scripture witnesses of an initial communication from God to
man, and that formal structure should be recognized in hermeneutics. God
calls to us.
The alternative view is that the nature of language is seen in the indicative.
Then language, in essence is informative, descriptive. Then there is actually no
address of an ‘I’ to a ‘you’ in the text, but an omniscient, distant narrator who
describes certain matters of facts, certain propositional truths.
In protestant scholasticism scripture language was used as if it was purely,
or at least first of all, descriptive language. Therefore the method of the dicta
probantia was possible. This made a reading of scripture possible in which the
reader remains unaffected. Ebeling and Fuchs were convinced that this is not
a reading of scripture that allows the text to appear as it is.
If the word of scripture is seen as something that addresses people (Anre-
de), the question arises whether we should critically interpret the scriptures at
28 Dalferth, Radikale Theologie, 152–155.

29 Ebeling, “Wort Gottes und Hermeneutik,” 139. Fuchs, “Das Neue Testament und das her-
meneutische Problem”, in Die neue Hermeneutik, 147–186 (esp. 161).
112 Dekker
all. Is this ‘method’ not at variance with the scholarly reading of scripture?30
In these scientific methods, such as the historical-critical method, the text
is interpreted primarily as an indicative; the implied truth claims are tested.
However, this theological work is by no means rejected by the New Herme-
neutics. Indeed, Fuchs and Ebeling use these methods because they take away
numerous obstacles in understanding the scripture. It is recognized that the
scientific methods do their work well, if they result in an urge to renewed
proclamation. The ‘Anrede’ towards us in scripture demands a new way of
addressing people, in preaching.
2.4 ‘Schriftgemässheit’ and ‘Zeitgemässheit’

In the fourth place, the New Hermeneutics affirm that there are two criteria
for true theology, which seem to be in conflict with each other, but, in fact, are
not. These two criteria are: being in accordance with scripture (“Schriftgemäss-
heit”) and being in accordance with our time and context (“Zeitgemässheit”).
In an objectifying or fundamentalist theology, these criteria are regarded as
mutually exclusive.31 That is because the essence of the word is regarded as
informative. The task of theology is then: maintaining the dogma. Hermeneu-
tics becomes a task of practical theology, to answer the question: how can the
eternal dogma be given a fresh practical twist?
Because the New Hermeneutics see scripture as a witness of the original
divine ‘Anrede’, and hermeneutics is not perceived as a “Verstehen von Sprache,”
but a “Verstehen durch Sprache,” there is no contradiction between ‘Sach-
gemässheit’, ‘Schriftgemässheit’ and ‘Zeitgemässheit’. The ‘Sache’ (matter) of
scripture is itself word, that means: relation, communication. We do justice to
this word only by ‘repeating’32 it in a new context. Truth is not timeless but in-
trinsically involved in time and history. The word of God is not the word of God
if it has no effect on us in our concrete situation. Even if this ‘word’ would be
dogmatically perfectly correct, it is not God’s Word, because it is not an address
to someone. An address to someone is always concrete, it has time and place.
30 A.N. Wilder, “Das Wort als Anrede und das Wort als Bedeutung,” in Die neue Hermeneutik,
253–280.
31 In the Dutch churches—and this might be the same in other churches—many discus-
sions can only be explained by the contradiction of these two principles. For instance, in
the discussion whether women can be allowed to fulfil church offices, how the relation
between creation and evolution is to be interpreted, what the place of homosexuals in the
church might be, what forms of liturgy are allowed in the Sunday services etcetera—it is
always presumed that Schriftgemässheit and Zeitgemassheit contradict.
32 Fuchs, Marburger Hermeneutik, 205–248.
Of course, this presupposition that ‘Schriftgemässheit’ and ‘Zeitgemässheit’

can’t contradict, opens the way to a quite ‘liberal’ reading of scripture. It is ac-
knowledged that, if the original address of the biblical text does not work any-
more in our (post)modern western context, this text does not always have to
be interpreted literally. Instead, theologians have to search for a translation of
the original transforming power of the word. This could mean that the mes-
sage becomes different. To experience the original power of the gospel in these
times, something should be said quite differently sometimes; as, for instance,
within the New Testament itself, James had to contradict Paul in order to say
the same. For instance, if we maintain the traditional relationships between
men and women (in church) this might not lead to the event of faith, but only
gives way to the idea that the church is an old-fashioned institution, desperate-
ly seeking to survive. In that case, Biblical quotes do not function as the Word
of God.
2.5 Theology as Science of the Word of God

The New Hermeneutics thus found a way to preserve the unity of theology. For
Ebeling and Fuchs not only exegesis, but also historical, systematic and practi-
cal theology are essential ways to interpret scripture. The last three disciplines
are, in their own way, concerned with the Word of God, which is attested in
scripture, as Ebeling pointed out for the study of Church history.33 As Jüngel, a
student of Fuchs and Ebeling, said: exegesis is the science of the Word of God
as a text; Church history is the science of the Word of God as a tradition; prac-
tical theology is the science of the Word of God as an event; and systematic
theology is the science of the Word of God as the truth.34 The sola scriptura
principle is thus not just some principle for the church’s proclamation, but also
for the whole of theology as science. Perhaps the collapse of theology (at least
on the European continent) and the appearance of a jungle of disciplines and
methods in religious studies have to do with the loss of this perspective on the
unity of theology as a science of the Word of God.35
33 Ebeling, Kirchengeschichte als Geschichte der Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift (Tübingen:
Mohr, 1947).
34 E. Jüngel, “Das Verhältnis der theologischen Disziplinen untereinander,” in Unterwegs zur
Sache, (Tübingen: Mohr, 20003), 57.
35 U.H.J. Körtner, “Konsequente Exegese: Zum Verhältnis von hermeneutischer Theologie,
Wort Gottes und Schriftauslegung,” in Hermeneutische Theologie—heute?, 149–172 (esp.
170–172).
114 Dekker
2.6 The Orientation towards Preaching

Finally, this orientation of the New Hermeneutics entails that the whole of the-
ology is directed to the practice of preaching the word of God in the church. In
this way, the hermeneutical theologians are able to stay loyal to Barth’s connec-
tion of theology and preaching. Fuchs and Ebeling state that scripture comes
from the original proclamation from the prophets and apostles, and that this
proclamation calls for a new proclamation.36 In this process the text becomes
a new viva vox and the reader becomes the listener. This means that theology,
in its various disciplines, is sermon preparation;37 not directly, but indirectly.
It also means that the sola scriptura principle is not just a confession but also
a constant practice which requires exercise: hermeneutical theology is sola
scriptura in actu. Because the New Hermeneutics remained oriented towards
the proclamation of the gospel, they also remained oriented to the church.
Some critics have said, that for this reason they couldn’t keep up with the evo-
lution of theology into religious studies. This might be right. However, this shift
from Christian, classical theology towards religious studies in general is still a
matter of discussion. As long as theology functions (among other things) as
education for the pastors and preachers of the future, a way of hermeneutics
must be found that not only recognises the (undeniable) distance between the
Bible and our context, but also bridges the gap between the scientific reading
of scripture and the reading of the believer and the church. Doesn’t Christian
theology flow naturally into preparation for proclamation?
3 New and Postmodern Hermeneutics
So far, six features of the New Hermeneutics and some possible criticisms have
been mentioned. Now it is good to remember that these ‘New’ Hermeneutics
are not so new anymore. After the New Hermeneutics emerged newer her-
meneutic movements came into being. As a result, however, the dealing with
scripture splintered into many different methods and orientations. The change
of the focus from the text to the hearer has resulted in a multitude of readings.
36 Ebeling, “Wort Gottes und Hermeneutik,” 118, 142 f. According to Fuchs a sacramental
understanding of the New Testament text includes the invitation to preaching. Fuchs,
Jesus. Wort und Tat (Vorlesungen zum Neuen Testament 1, 1971), 140. See also H. von
Sass, “Sakrament und Gleichnis: Zur Sprachlichkeit des Glaubens nach Ernst Fuchs,” in
Hermeneutische Theologie—heute?, 193–226.
37 P. Bühler, “‘Wort Gottes und Hermeneutik’—Gerhard Ebelings Erbe aus heutiger Sicht,” in
Hermeneutische Theologie—heute?, 39–54 (esp. 44–45).
This is not surprising, because there is not one reader; there are many readers.
The unity was lost by definition. Postmodern hermeneutics consequently tend
to say that there is no reality at all.38 There is nothing outside the text, accord-
ing to Derrida.39
If this is true, “Verstehen durch Sprache” (Ebeling) is impossible. The New
Hermeneutics is based on the assumption that there ‘is’ a ‘reality’ and that it
can be understood. It might be a typical ‘modern’ sort of hermeneutics at this
point. Modern hermeneutics start with the assumption of an understandable
reality. This leads to the idea that, if we follow the hermeneutical rules, the
otherness of the text can be overcome.
The postmodern era is much more sceptical towards this idea. Should we
not take into account the real ‘other’, that which cannot be captured in our
frameworks of understanding?
This seems to be one of the most important criticisms towards the New
Hermeneutics these days. It affects its most basic convictions. A full discussion
of this criticism goes beyond the aims of this article.40 Just three remarks can
be made. Firstly, we must see that this postmodern criticism tends to make a
problem not just of the New Hermeneutics, but of hermeneutics as a whole.
If there is no reality behind the text, hermeneutics, as such, can’t make sense.
What is left is an endless series of deconstructions and reconstructions of
texts. Theology as such, in any classical form, then becomes a very problematic
enterprise. That means: if postmodern criticism is right, Christian theology
should undo itself.41 Consequently, the possibility of the proclamation of the
church is problematized as well.
Secondly, the theological argument of the New Hermeneutics for the con-
viction that scripture can be understood, must be heard. The New Hermeneu-
tics starts with the idea of a self-communicating God. This is based on the
reading of the Gospel of John, foremost the first chapter: “In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God”. According
to the New Hermeneutics, theology cannot go behind this beginning in which
38 H.J. Prosman, The postmodern condition and the meaning of secularity (Ars Disputandi
Supplement Series Volume IV), 2011, 203 f.
39 Derrida, “il n’ y a pas de hors-texte”, De la grammatologie (Paris: Les éditions de minuit,
1967), 158–59.
40 See A. Hunziker, “Der Andere als Ende der Hermeneutik?,” in Hermeneutische Theolo-
gie—heute?, 117–145.
41 As was consequently demanded by H.M. Kuitert, Alles behalve kennis: Afkicken van de
Godgeleerdheid en opnieuw beginnen (Baarn: Ten Have, 2011).
116 Dekker
God communicates Himself. This argument has not been answered by post-
modern critics.
Thirdly, the postmodern thesis that it is impossible to understand any text,
still has some problems. That a full understanding of a text is very difficult,
can be shown theoretically and by studying the history of biblical exegesis.
However, the claim that understanding is impossible, goes way beyond that
conclusion. It presupposes an overview over what is possible, and what is not.
However, if reality is so difficult to understand, how can we know that some-
thing is impossible? This presupposes some all-knowing interpreter.
Therefore, it seems better to distinguish here between touching and com-
prehending the meaning of a text.42 There might be a “more”, remaining in God
and His Word, which cannot and must not be comprehended fully. However,
this “more” does not make any attempt to understand questionable. We can
say ‘Deus semper maior’, or: ‘the text always has a surplus of meaning’, but we
cannot say: ‘God cannot be touched,’ or ‘the text has no meaning’.
4 Dalferth’s ‘Radical Theology’ as Renewal of Hermeneutical Theology
Finally, it is important to mention the contribution of Ingolf Dalferth. In his

book “Radikale Theologie” [Radical Theology] Dalferth examines and eval-
uates the New Hermeneutics. Dalferth acknowledges some of the problems
that hermeneutical theology faces, especially the methodological problems.
The category of the “Wortgeschehen” or “Sprachereignis” interprets not only
scripture, but also the world of experience as a text which explains itself to
us. However, the world can not be seen like this; it does not interpret itself, but
man interprets it.43 Nowadays, this interpretation is dominated by the sciences.
Theological interpretation of reality seems to be superfluous. From this basic
criticism Dalferth develops a criticism of the hermeneutical “Sinnontologie”44
and the question of the relation of God to being.45 In the end, his analysis leads
to the central question of a theological criterion for truth.46 The hermeneuti-
cal theology identifies the “Wortgeschehen” with the event of truth.47 Theology
42 Classical theology distinguishes between ‘apprehendere’ and ‘comprehendere,’ in the doc-

trine of God. I use this distinction here in the doctrine of Scripture.
47 Dalferth, Radikale Theologie, 134, with reference to Jüngel.
neglects the search for truth on the level of our interpretation. This results in
the absence of a usable criterion for truth.
However, Dalferth believes that hermeneutical theology is not entirely passé.
He wants to do justice to the quest of hermeneutical theology by advocating a
‘radical theology’. ‘Radical’ does not mean ‘anti-modern’ or ‘anti-metaphysical’,
nor ‘radical orthodox’ in the sense of John Milbank or ‘radical hermeneutical’
in the sense of John Caputo.48 The radical theology of Dalferth is a critical de-
velopment of the core insights of the hermeneutical theology (in the version
of Fuchs and Jüngel). It is radical because it starts at the point where unbelief
turns to faith. When faith arises, something occurs that is not only different,
but also ‘new’. We cannot think about this new reality without thinking of
opportunities that do not arise from reality itself, but from ‘outside’, from ‘God’.
God is not phenomenologically perceptible, but talk about God is necessary if
we are to speak of God’s Word. We must speak about God’s Word if we want
to think about the reality, from the perspective of faith, ‘kataphorisch’ and
‘anaphorisch’.49 The reversal of unbelief into faith refers to the Word-event,
which originates in God. When experiencing a message that places our exis-
tence in a definitive new light (i.e.: an eschatological word) the word ‘God’ will
come into our minds. We should not speak about God too easily50 and talk
about God is never strictly necessary (in a logical or scientific sense); but if we
consider this transition from old to new fully, we can’t leave out the word ‘God’.
Dalferth defines theology now as a ‘science of the possible’ (‘Möglichkeitswis-
senschaft’)51 sub ratione Dei. It is not about the reality etsi Deus non daretur—as
is the object of the sciences. Theology involves a theocentric interpretation of
reality, going back to its in Gods revelation given possibilities. This interpreta-
tion is not purely subjective, because the phenomena are characterised by an
ontological plasticity.52
From the viewpoint of faith a new view of reality, in its entirety, springs
into being. Therefore (according to Dalferth) theology is about everything, sub
ratione Dei.53 Theology is that particular perspective on the whole of reality,
without which the phenomena itself disappear.54 At this point, Dalferth takes

49 Dalferth, Radikale Theologie, 220.
50 The epigraph of the book is by R.W. Jenson, “Let us say ‘God’ only when we absolutely
cannot avoid it.” (Dalferth, Radikale Theologie, 5).
51 Dalferth, Radikale Theologie, 239
118 Dekker
up lines of thought from Bultmann and Fuchs. They talked about the “self-
understanding” as the goal of the text. The issue in theological hermeneutics is
not only to understand God, but also and especially man; man in general, as he
actually and authentically is. Theology is not anthropology only, but it includes
anthropology. Dalferth states that the New Hermeneutics did not succeed in
showing that theology has anthropological relevance. If present-day theology
wants to show this relevance, then she should also debate and discuss with the
sciences and humanities.
In his Radical Theology Dalferth corrects some traits of the New Hermeneu-
tic which do not convince in our scientific age. At the same time, he remains
faithful to the intentions of the New Hermeneutic. As Dalferth writes, with-
out the theological point of view the phenomena themselves disappear. This
disappearance of the phenomena is going on in postmodern philosophy and
theology today. The letting go of the scripture principle—without returning
to the church principle of the Roman Catholic tradition, or an alleged basis in
metaphysics—could well mean that in theology the phenomena increasingly
dissolve in an endless and ultimately arbitrary series of interpretations. Then
the experience of being addressed by God disappears. Whoever does not want
this, but at the same time recognises the problems with the scripture principle,
should take notice of the ‘old’ New Hermeneutics again. This hermeneutical
theology, in its consequent quest for the hermeneutical potential of the bibli-
cal text, still remains the best option which does justice to the scripture princi-
ple in a (post)modern way.55
Bibliography
Barth, K. Kirchliche Dogmatik I/1. Zürich: TVZ, 1986.

Brom, L.J. van den. “Zonder levensvorm geen Heilige Schrift.” In Protestants geloven, bij
bijbel en belijdenis betrokken, eds. M. Barnard et al., 52–64. Zoetermeer: Boekencen-
trum, 2004.
Bühler, P. “‘Wort Gottes und Hermeneutik’—Gerhard Ebelings Erbe aus heutiger
Sicht.” In Hermeneutische Theologie—heute?, edited by I.U. Dalferth et al., 39–54.
Dalferth, I.U. Radikale Theologie. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2010.
Dalferth, I.U. “Hermeneutische Theologie—heute?” In Hermeneutische Theologie—
heute?, edited by I.U. Dalferth et al., 3–38. Tübingen: Mohr, 2013.
55 U.H.J. Körtner, “Konsequente Exegese.”

Derrida, J. De la grammatologie. Paris: Les éditions de minuit, 1967.

Ebeling, G. “Hermeneutik zwischen der Macht des Gotteswortes und seiner Entmach-
tung in der Moderne.” In Wort und Glaube IV, 209–225. Tübingen: Mohr, 1995.
Ebeling, G. “Hermeneutische Theologie?” In Wort und Glaube II, 99–120. Tübingen:
Mohr, 1969.
Ebeling, G. “Hermeneutik” In: Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3rd edition, part
III, 242–262. Tübingen: Mohr, 1959.
Ebeling, G. Das Wesen des christlichen Glaubens. München/Hamburg: Siebenstern,
1967.
Ebeling, G. “Wort Gottes und Hermeneutik.” In Die neue Hermeneutik, edited by
J.M. Robinson and J.B. Cobb Jr., 109–146. Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1965.
Ebeling, G. Kirchengeschichte als Geschichte der Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift. Tübin-
gen: Mohr, 1947.
Ebeling, G. Theologie und Verkündigung. Tübingen: Mohr, 1962.
Fuchs, E. “Das Neue Testament und das hermeneutische Problem.” In Die neue Her-
meneutik, edited by J.M. Robinson and J.B. Cobb Jr., 147–186. Zürich: Zwingli Verlag,
1965.
Fuchs, E. Ernst Fuchs Lesebuch, edited by Eberhard Jüngel and Gerd Schunack. Tübin-
gen: Mohr 2003.
Fuchs, E. Hermeneutik. Bad Cannstatt: R. Müllerschön 1963.
Fuchs, E. Jesus. Wort und Tat. Tübingen: Mohr 1971.
Fuchs, E. Marburger Hermeneutik. Tübingen: Mohr , 1968.
Gadamer, H.G. Wahrheit und Methode. Tübingen: Mohr , 2010.
Heidegger, M. Über den Humanismus. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1949.
Heidegger, M. Unterwegs zur Sprache. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1985.
Heppe, H. Reformed Dogmatics, set out and illustrated from the sources. Michigan: Baker
Book House, 1978.
Hunziker, A. “Der Andere als Ende der Hermeneutik?” In Hermeneutische Theologie—
heute?, edited by I.U. Dalferth et al., 117–145. Tübingen: Mohr, 2013.
Huxel, K. “Theologie als Sprachlehre des Glaubens: Zum hermeneutischen Programm
von Ernst Fuchs.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 101 (2004): 292–314.
Jüngel, E. “Das Verhältnis der theologischen Disziplinen untereinander.” In Unterwegs
zur Sache. Tübingen: Mohr , 2003.
Kooiman, W.J. Luther and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Muhlenberg Press, 1961.
Körtner, U.H.J. “Konsequente Exegese: Zum Verhältnis von hermeneutischer Theolo-
gie, Wort Gottes und Schriftauslegung.” In Hermeneutische Theologie—heute?, edit-
ed by I.U. Dalferth et al., 149–172. Tübingen: Mohr, 2013.
Kuitert, H.M. Alles behalve kennis: Afkicken van de Godgeleerdheid en opnieuw beginnen.
Baarn: Ten Have, 2011.
Luther, M. “De servo arbitrio.” In M. Luther, D. Martin Luthers Werke, Wesimar 1883 f, 18.
120 Dekker
Luther, M. “Der 36. (37.) Psalm Davids.” In M. Luther, D. Martin Luthers Werke, Weimar
1883 f, 8.
Luther, M. “Der grosse Katechismus.” In M. Luther, D. Martin Luthers Werke, Weimar
1883 f, 30/1.
Pannenberg, W. “Die Krise des Schriftprinzips.” In Grundfragen systematischer Theolo-
gie, 11–21. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971.
Prosman, H.J. The postmodern condition and the meaning of secularity. PhD diss., Uni-
versity of Utrecht, 2011.
Sass, H. von. “Sakrament und Gleichnis: Zur Sprachlichkeit des Glaubens nach Ernst
Fuchs.” In Hermeneutische Theologie—heute?, edited by I.U. Dalferth et al., 193–226.
Turretin, F. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1992.
Wilder, A.N. “Das Wort als Anrede und das Wort als Bedeutung.” In Die neue Hermeneu-
tik, edited by J.M. Robinson and J.B. Cobb Jr., 253–280. Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1965.
Part II
Biblical Perspectives
∵
chapter 6
Oral Tradition in the Old Testament and Judaism

Mart-Jan Paul
1 Introduction
The term ‘sola scriptura’ refers to the written text of the Bible. In this article, I
treat certain indications that God has revealed more than just what has been
written down in the text of the Bible by asking: What is the meaning of the oral
tradition in ancient times? Does the oral tradition have significance for our
view of sola scriptura as principle?
Gaining answers requires considering the following subjects: the Book of
Genesis, several laws in Exodus and Deuteronomy, the relationship between
oral and written traditions as found in antiquity, in the rabbinic traditions, and
in the New Testament. After treating these subjects, I give some general con-
siderations.
2 The Book of Genesis
In the Book of Genesis, our understanding of certain historical events can be-
come difficult without additional information. Three stories are chosen to il-
lustrate this point.
In Genesis 4, Cain and Abel are described as sons of Adam and Eve. In the
course of time, Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to
Yhwh, and Abel brought some of the firstborn animals of his flock. How could
they have known it was good to do that? Was offering a spontaneous action
on their part, or did they follow an already established custom? And, why was
the offering of Abel received with favor by Yhwh, and the offering of Cain not?
Were these unexpected outcomes or did the brothers know beforehand what
was acceptable to God?1 The most likely answers we choose depend heavily
1 It is possible that the better intention of Abel was expressed in the terms “the firstlings”
and “the fat”, while Cain “was content merely to discharge this duty”. Umberto Cassuto,
A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part I (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1978), 205. Jona-
than D. Sarfati mentions the opinion that always an animal sacrifice was necessary and
that Cain deviated from this custom. The Genesis Account: A Theological, Historical, and

124 Paul
on how we view the origin of the book of Genesis.2 The reader assuming a late
origin of the book in the times of the kings of Israel may interpret the cultic
activity as a retroprojection of later practices. However, he then has to deal
with a distinction in the meaning of the word mincha. This term is used in
Genesis 4 for typifying both offerings, while in Leviticus the usage of the word
is restricted to non-bloody offerings.3
Another possibility is a depiction of a spontaneous, internal compulsion
of both brothers to give something to God. However, that would make God’s
negative reaction to Cain’s offer difficult to understand. We do better to seek
an answer in already existing practices. The Book of Genesis tells us that God
spoke many times with Adam and Eve.4 Therefore, it is probable that He also
gave instructions concerning worship service and related cultic activities to be
carried out by humanity. Would the God who gave Noah detailed instructions
for building the ark (6: 14–16) have neglected to give Adam, Cain, and Abel
any verbal instructions regarding sacrifice? Also we note that the text intro-
duces the episode of the offering rather casually so that one could believe that
this depiction might not have been the first time the brothers had brought
sacrifices. Another presupposition of the existence of earlier divine commu-
nication and an oral tradition is likely with regard to events at the end of the
same chapter. We read that Seth had a son and named him Enoch. “At that time
Scientific commentary on Genesis 1–11 (Powder Springs: Creation Ministries International,

2015), 410–3. Cf. Eric Peels, “The World’s First Murder: Violence and Justice in Genesis 4: 1–
16,” in: John T. Fitzgerald, Fika J. van Rensburg and H.F. van Rooy (Eds), Animosity, the Bible,
and Us. Some European, North American, and South African Perspectives (Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature, 2009), 19–39.
2 E.g. C. John Collins writes: “… one purpose of this account is to pave the way for the sacrifi-
cial system of Leviticus. In particular, one function of this account would be to establish the
antiquity of the practices—so that the detailed description of Leviticus might be seen as pro-
tecting the purity of the rites against the deviations brought in by human sin”. Genesis 1–4: A
Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2006), 216.
3 C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, The Pentateuch. Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1973), 109. De term zebach or the name of a special type of sacrifice is lacking.
Outside Leviticus the word mincha can have a broader meaning. More differences between
the practices of the patriarchs and the later laws in Exodus—Deuteronomy are mentioned
by Bruce K. Waltke (and Cathi J. Fredricks) in Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zonder-
van, 2001), 29–30.
4 Gen. 1: 28–30; 2: 16–17; 3: 3, 9, 11, 13, 16–19. The reaction to God’s walking in the garden
(Gen. 3: 8) gives the impression of regular meetings and conversations with the first human
beings.
oral tradition in the old testament and judaism 125
men began to call on the name of the Lord” (4: 26).5 This seems the origin of a
specific and regular cult practice.6
In the New Testament we read that Abel was reckoned amongst the prophets
(Luke 11: 50–51). Although this is a later text, it points to the understanding of
Abel as a receiver of God’s revelations. In the same way, Enoch being another
descendant of Adam (Gen. 5: 19–24) is also considered a prophet (Jude: 14–15).
Although in the Book of Genesis these titles are lacking, yet it is possible to as-
sume that more traditions about God’s speaking survived, for instance taking into
account practices understood in the words: “Enoch walked with God” (5: 22).
A second example is a precept about the animals in the ark. Noah received
the command to take pairs of animals with him, as depicted by seven pairs of
the clean and one pair of the unclean animals (7: 2). The distinction between
clean and unclean animals is an issue here. The Jewish exegete Umberto Cas-
suto asks the question how it is possible to speak of animals that are clean and
not clean at a time when the Torah laws distinguishing between these catego-
ries had not yet been formulated? He suggests that the concepts of clean and
unclean animals would already have been in existence prior to the Torah, even
among the Gentiles, particularly in relation to sacrifices.7 Also, Bruce Waltke
suggests that Noah may have known of the distinction through his walks with
God, whereby this author argues that the fundamental institutions of the
‘ceremonial laws’ reach back to the original creation.8 Both Cassuto and Waltke
assume a revelation that as such is not mentioned in Genesis.
A third example concerns Abraham and obedience of practice. His son
Isaac had received the promise that he and his descendants will be blessed,
“because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my
degrees and my laws” (26: 5). Here legal language of later books, especially
Exodus and Deuteronomy, is used. We do not know exactly which instructions
are supposed in the cited passage.9 Somewhat earlier in the book, God declares
5 The quotations of Bible texts are from the NIV.

6 Cf. the same descriptive phrase when Abram built an altar (Gen. 12: 8). Kenneth A. Mathews,
Genesis 1–11: 26. The New American Commentary (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 1996),
292–3.
7 Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part II (Jerusalem: Magnes Press,
1974), 75.
8 Waltke, Genesis, 138.
9 Waltke writes: “The narrator means either the teachings of piety and ethics known by the
patriarchs prior to Moses or more probably the whole law of Moses. Genesis is part of the
Pentateuch and should be interpreted within that context. In Deut. 11: 1 the same list of
terms refer to the whole law of Moses.” Genesis, 368.
126 Paul
that He had chosen Abraham “so that he will direct his children and his house-
hold after him to keep the way of the lord by doing what is right and just” (18:
19).10 The terms ‘right’ and ‘just’ are not explained. However, the reader may
gain a general impression from the later descriptions. For instance, Genesis 18
clearly shows that the attitude of Abraham is in stark contrast to the attitude
of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, thereby suggesting an attitude of
obedience to what Yhwh had previously revealed.
My point is that an earlier revelation can be presupposed in several
instances of the Book of Genesis, while the content of that revelation has not
been w ritten down in this book.11 Seemingly, the Book of Genesis requires
reading together with the other Books of the Pentateuch, although a difference
in historical periods remains. Genesis describes a period preceding the time in
which Israel and Moses received special commandments.
Such a way of reading takes into account the continuing history and differs
from the Jewish approach to conceive the Torah as a coherent whole without
a historical development. In this Jewish approach, later regulations (for exam-
ple about clean and unclean) can be used directly to understand the book of
Genesis.12 Contrarily, my approach is that whereas themes are sometimes simi-
lar, yet engaging in a historical reading presupposes an earlier revelation, even
a revelation that at certain points may deviate from the message to the people
of Israel.
The term sola scriptura points to the written character of God’s word. The
question is whether traditions of revelation have been preserved outside
known scripture. Knowledge of such traditions aids the interpretation of the
Bible, although they are of a different status. Several scholars use in this respect
the designation ‘unwritten revelation’ or ‘oral revelation’.13 Their use of these
10 Cf. the expression “righteous” in Gen. 6: 9.

11 In the Protestant tradition several authors have equated the ‘primeval revelation’ (Urof-
fenbarung) with the later writings of Moses. That being so, it could not extend beyond
the writings of Moses and thus become what medieval (roman-catholic) scholars saw
as oral tradition accompanying written scripture. Cf. John H. Sailhamer, The Meaning
of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation (Downers Grove: IVP Aca-
demic, 2009), 137, 184–97. See further William D. Barrick, “Conscience, Oral Tradition,
Natural Religion, or Later Insertion?: Unwritten Revelation in Genesis 1–11,” ETS Annual
Meeting—November 2011, accessed August 29, 2017, https://www.academia.edu/
1368769/Conscience_Oral_Tradition_Natural_Religion_or_Later_Insertion_Unwritten
_Revelation_in_Genesis_1-11.
12 Rashi explains Gen. 7: 2 with “We learn that Noah studied the Torah [before revealed to
Israel]”. Cf. Talmud, Zevachim 116a.
13 See Barrick, “Conscience, Oral Tradition, Natural Religion, or Later Insertion?”.
terms is justifiable when we take into account that not all the revelations are
described in Genesis. Historical events too can have been told in the course of
the generations. We do well not to exclude the possibility that oral and written
traditions preceded the composition of the book of Genesis. An indication for
this position is the expression “This is the book of the toledot of Adam” (5: 1).
Also, in Genesis 14, regarding the account of Abram’s defeat of Kedorlaomer,
several explanations point to the use of an older written source.14
As regards revelation or historical descriptions, the conclusion can be
that Genesis presupposes much historical information and knowledge of
practices.15 This situation is understandable for a book that includes a lengthy
period, going from the first human beings to the origin of the twelve tribes
of Israel. We do not know the content of the lost knowledge, although in the
Hellenistic period several pseudepigraphic books tried to fill in the gaps of lost
knowledge, in order to enhance our understanding of the book of Genesis.16
Referencing the undisclosed previous traditions apparently was not essential
for the purpose of the author or compiler of the book of Genesis.
The Letter to the Hebrews opens with the assumption that “God spoke
to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways”
(Heb. 1: 1). This text and the considerations already mentioned point to a
more comprehensive revelation than provided in the scriptures,17 even though
knowledge of these traditions is not necessary for us.
3 The Legislation for Israel and the Concretization of the Laws
In the book of Exodus, laws are received by Moses on the Sinai. However, some
regulations were necessary in the time between the departure from Egypt and
14 Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15. Word Biblical Commentary (Waco: Word, 1987), 307.
15 When information is omitted in Genesis because the content is treated more extensively
in other parts of the Pentateuch, then this fact has consequences for our view on the ori-
gin of the books. See Hendrik Koorevaar and Mart-Jan Paul (Eds), Theologie van het Oude
Testament: De blijvende boodschap van het Oude Testament (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum,
2013), 186–7.
16 See the examples in James H. Charlesworth (Ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2
Volumes (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983–1985).
17 It is clear that several written documents were lost in the course of history. E.g., the Book
of Wars (Num. 21: 14), the Book of Jashar (Josh. 10: 13; 2 Sam. 1: 19–27), and the chron-
icles or annals of the kings (2 Kings 15: 31; 16: 19). See Th.C. Vriezen and A.S. van der
Woude, Oudisraëlitische en vroegjoodse literatuur (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 2000), 15–8.
128 Paul
the arrival at Mount Sinai. A few times we read of a reference to this. After the
description of the events at Mara it is written: “There the Lord made a decree
and a law for them” (Ex. 15: 25). This expression can point to the recent event,
but it is also possible that a more general activity is meant. A few c hapters later
Moses made it clear to his father-in-law that he informed his people concerning
“God’s decrees and laws” (18: 16; cf. vs. 20). It can be assumed that the precept
concerning the Sabbath belonged to these decrees, as it is p resupposed in the
gathering of the Manna (16: 22–23).
Following up the advice of his father-in-law, Moses appointed officials to
take over a great part of the juridical decision making (18: 17–26). We read
several times about seventy men being appointed with special leadership tasks
and being selected from a greater number of elders (24: 1,9; Num. 11: 16–25).
The tasks and the number of members of the Sanhedrin, mentioned in the
New Testament, is a later development of this early practice.
How was it possible for the first judges to carry out their tasks? The legislation
in the Pentateuch gives clarity regarding the main positions, but the text is more
‘illustrative’ than ‘complete’.18 The laws give concrete examples and instructions
what has to be done in sensitive situations, but their coverage is not complete.
This becomes clear from the manner in which new situations are described. The
focus and aim of the general law is apparently clear, but—as in the issue of the
daughters of Zelophehad—it also did not provide a direct answer. In this event,
a new legal provision is drawn up: if a man dies and leaves no son, his inheri-
tance will then be turned over to his daughter (Num. 27: 1–11 and 36: 1–12).
Also, the Ten Commandments are formulated as short instructions and in
the course of history different explanations about their implementation have
been provided, while the general direction of the Decalogue had been clear. It
is interesting that in the Book of Deuteronomy an elaboration and explanation
of it are given, being focused on the new situation of Israel living in the land of
Canaan. Especially Deuteronomy 12–26 gives us much insight in the meaning
of the Ten Commandments.19
18 Raymond Westbrook writes: “Just as a law code could never be exhaustive, so no p

articular
text could ever be an exhaustive statement of a rule, even when it took the form of a
peremptory order, because the mode of thinking was in examples, not principles. And
without definition of its terms, application of a rule could only be approximate—by
analogy, inference, or even looser associations.” A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law,
Volume 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 20.
19 M.J. Paul, G. van den Brink, J.C. Bette (Eds), Bijbelcommentaar Leviticus—Deuteronomi-
um. Studiebijbel Oude Testament, Volume 2 (Veenendaal: Centrum voor Bijbelonderzoek,
2005), “De opbouw, boodschap en het auteurschap van het boek Deuteronomium,” 765–70.
The judges and officials were expected to give guidance in the application
of the laws in the concrete situations (16: 18). Yet, many situations remained
too difficult for the local authorities to decide on. Therefore, a central address
is given where to turn for redress. Let the conflicting parties go to “the place
the Lord your God will choose”, to lay down their case for the priests and the
judge who is in office at that time (17: 8–13). It is clear that the central posi-
tion of Moses as judge could be taken over by a central court of justice in the
Promised Land.
How this institution has functioned in later centuries we do not know, but
we read that after a period of decline that king Jehoshaphat did make new
regulations about the administration of justice, both in the cities and for a
central court in Jerusalem (2 Chron. 19: 4–11).
4 Oral and Written Traditions in the Ancient Near East
While many scholars have made a clear difference between an earlier phase
of oral tradition and a later written phase of tradition found in antiquity, a
growing number of recent studies show that both traditions could have existed
simultaneously. Interaction between both systems was possible and a clear
diachronic development from an earlier to a later phase was not necessary.
Susan Niditch shows in her book Oral World and Written Word that the exclu-
sive diachronic approach is unable to do justice to the characteristics of orally
composed works in antiquity.
The literacy in antique cultures functioned in a different way than in our
modern world. There were no clear distinctions, chronologically and cultural-
ly, between oral and written literature. Also, oral and written presentations in-
termingled. Books were not written for the purpose of delivering them solely to
the eyes of readers, but to read them aloud for the ears of the hearers. In many
cultures no arguments for a separate period of oral tradition are available.20
A comparable approach can be seen taken by David Carr. He investigated
Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Greek texts to determine how traditions were
handed down during the generations. Usually, the written version functioned
as a support for the oral tradition and as a help to impress the message on the
hearer. The Book of Proverbs used the expression to “write them on the tablet
of your heart” (Prov. 3: 3; 7: 3). Carr explains the importance of transmitting
20 Susan Niditch, Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature (Louisville: West-
minster John Knox, 1996), 3, 78, 134.
130 Paul
the original texts in a very accurate way. Literary technique supported this
transmission and many hearers could control what happened. The text was
property of the community, and that made it possible to detect changes in the
content.21
A further point about the communication is the very compact writing of
the scriptural text. In the oldest manuscripts no spaces are found between the
words, no vowels are expressed in the Hebrew script, no punctuation marks
are placed, and the formatting of the pages is very limited. In such texts, the
intonation is lost, while perhaps the intonation was important for the correct
understanding of the sentence. From the written text of Psalm 121: 1 it is not
clear whether or not the sentence is a question or a statement: “Where does my
help came from?” or “From where comes my help”.
In the course of time, several grammatical forms went out of date. In many
cases it is not clear whether or not influences of dialects or international usage
have been influenced the texts.
Already in the Septuagint (3rd and 2nd century B.C.) one can observe that
several expressions in the Hebrew text had not been not clear for the transla-
tors. Sometimes they guessed certain meanings in order to make the Greek text
understandable. For the exegete many uncertainties could arise in the study of
poetical texts and the prophecies.
As long as the texts functioned in a community whereby the meaning was
orally transmitted and explained, we may expect fewer problems with inter-
pretation. However, when the oral tradition is no longer available, it becomes
more difficult to understand the texts. As the extant texts are the only source
for our understanding, we lack the accompanying, interpretative context. In
contrast to our culture, where writing and reading are independent forms of
transfer, in the ancient cultures these activities were interdependent within a
broader practice of transfer and memorization.
5 Oral Tradition in the Rabbinic Tradition
Rabbinic Judaism attaches great importance to the oral tradition. This tradi-
tion concerns the interpretation and facilitates the application of the laws in
21 David Carr, “Torah on the Heart: Literary Jewish Textuality Within Its Ancient Near East-
ern Context,” Oral Tradition 25 (2010), 17–40. Cf. M.J. Paul, G. van den Brink, J.C. Bette
(eds.), Bijbelcommentaar Hosea—Maleachi. Studiebijbel Oude Testament, Volume 12
(Doorn: Centrum voor Bijbelonderzoek, 2015), “Het ontstaan van de profetische boeken,”
836–48.
later situations. The oral Torah had been transferred from one generation to
another and ultimately recorded in the Mishna (2nd century), the Talmud (6th
century) and other writings (e.g. the midrashim).
According to one tradition, Moses received on the Sinai two Torahs: one writ-
ten Torah and one oral Torah.22 The First is the Pentateuch and the second was the
explanation orally transmitted and written down in a later time. Another rabbinic
view is that not only the Pentateuch, but also the later messages of the prophets
and wise men had been revealed to Moses. God revealed these in a later time
again to the prophets and wise men; we know of its content from their writings.
In Pirkei Avot, a part of the Mishna, the transfer of the tradition is explained:
“Moses received the Torah from Sinai and gave it over to Joshua. Joshua gave it
over to the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets gave it over to
the Men of the Great Assembly. They [the Men of the Great Assembly] would
always say these three things: Be cautious in judgement. Establish many pupils.
And make a safety fence around the Torah.”23 The expression ‘Torah’ here is not
only the written revelation, the five books of Moses, but also the oral revelation.
The rabbis ascribe divine origin and authority to this oral tradition. Because
God gave her to Moses, and via Joshua and the elders (the successors of Joshua;
Josh. 24: 31), and the prophets (from Samuel tot Malachi), she has been handed
down to the Great Synagogue. This expression pertains to the council of elders
from the time of Ezra and onwards dealing with the explanation of the law.
The Talmud refers a few times to rules that are not written in the Torah as
halakhot le-Moshe mi-Sinai (oral laws of Moses, received on the Sinai), but
this expression is never applied to the Mishna or to the rules in the Talmud.
The reader of the Talmud finds it nearly impossible to antedate all the dis-
cussions between the rabbis to the time of Moses, and this is also not done in
the Talmud itself. The wise men in the Talmud distinguish between two types
of laws: de-’oraita (written laws) en de-rabbanan (oral laws).24 Usually the
authority of the written laws is greater than those of the oral laws and rabbinic
decrees.25 Rabbinical applications presuppose God’s covenant with Israel and
22 Hermann L. Strack and Gunter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Min-
neapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), “Oral and Written Tradition,” 31–44.
23 Pirkei Avot 1: 1.
24 In Aramaic, de-’oraita means “from the Torah” and de-rabbanan means “from our Rabbis”.
Cf. Mark Kinzer, “Messianic Judaism and Jewish Tradition in the Twenty-First Century. A
Biblical Defense of Oral Torah,” in Kinzer, Israel’s Messiah and the People of God: A Vision
for Messianic Jewish Covenant Fidelity (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2011), 29–61.
25 Cf. David Novak, The Election of Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995),
172–3.
132 Paul
are intended to protect the written laws. The oral Torah is dynamic and flexible,
and is important for actualizing the ancient precepts in the course of history.
6 Josephus and the New Testament
Flavius Josephus depicts the Pharisees issuing laws on the basis of the tradition
of the elders, although these had not been written down in the books of Moses.
He referred also to the Sadducees as only respecting the written records.26 It is
well known that the rabbinic tradition stands in the line of the Pharisees.
The Pharisees are mentioned many times in the New Testament. In Mat-
thew 23: 1–2 Jesus speaks of the teachers of the law and the Pharisees as sit-
ting in the seat of Moses. Very likely this expression does not refer to the actual
seats in the synagogues but to the central legislative authority. This pertains
to the succession of the position of Moses and the juridical authority “in the
place the Lord shall choose” and the central legal institution in the days of
king Jehoshaphat.27 The normal name of it was ‘High Court’ of ‘Great Court’,
but in that Roman time the designation ‘Sanhedrin’ was usual, taken from the
Greek word synedrion. In the time of Jesus, the Sanhedrin resided in Jerusalem.
After the destruction of Jerusalem it moved to Tiberias.
The Sanhedrin was a Jewish agency with juridical authority; it was made up
of seventy members in accordance with Numbers 11: 16, with the high priest
serving as chair.
In Matthew 23: 3 Jesus gave the surprising encouragement referencing the
leaders sitting in the chair of Moses: “You must obey them and do everything
they tell you”. This concurs with the words by Moses in relation to the central
juridical office: “You must act according to the decisions they give you” (Deut.
17: 10). However, Jesus also adduced the reproach that these leaders do not
practice their own rules. Also, he signaled that many rules were misused and
26 Josephus, Ancient History, XIII: 297.

27 Barney Kasdan thinks that by the seats of Moses in the synagogues are meant those locat-
ed there. Matthew Presents Yeshua, King Messiah: A Messianic Commentary (Clarksville:
Lederer Books, 2011), 261. In that case, the name of the seats is derived from the function
of Moses in the past. However, the word is in singular in verse 3, while in verse 6 the plural
(“most important seats in the synagogues”) is used. It seems better to interpret the singu-
lar as the central legislative office in Jerusalem. Jakob van Bruggen, Matteüs: Het evangelie
voor Israël. Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1990), 398 and
Kinzer, Israel’s Messiah, 54–6.
that important principles of the written Torah had been neglected (Matt. 23:
4–33).
We receive the impression that Jesus accepted the principle of a central au-
thority with continuing legislation as such, but that he rejected several forms
of oral tradition and human rules.
7 Messianic Jews
While many Messianic Jews reject the rabbinical traditions, yet the influen-
tial Mark Kinzer follows another approach. He advocates accepting the good
elements of these traditions. For him, the sola scriptura is a good soteriolog-
ical norm, but with regard to the ethical questions (halacha) it is in his view
important to join the oral Torah in Judaism. His claim is that over the course
of the centuries this tradition served as a protective force. Nonetheless, by
starting with the confession that Yeshua is Messiah, not all the aspects of this
oral tradition can be accepted. Also, one must take into account that significant
differences exist between groups of Messianic Jews. Yet, in the manner suggested
by Kinzer, a part of the oral tradition remains important for life today.28
8 Some Considerations
1. The Hebrew Bible has a canonical status, but sometimes in it other

traditions are presupposed. As far as such traditions are known for us
out of other sources, these can be a help for the exegesis. The value of
these traditions has to be assessed carefully, because not all the tradi-
tions are old. Many traditions in the pseudepigraphic literature seems
to have a speculative character.
2. It is important for us to use the formula sola scriptura in accordance
with the character of the scriptures in the context of the cultures in
which they arose. It is not necessary to exclude the usefulness of oral
and written traditions.
In the Protestant tradition we do fully accept the legitimacy of doing
historical research on scripture, about the context in which the scrip-
ture is written, about the people who handed down the manuscripts
28 Kinzer, Israel’s Messiah, 59–61.

134 Paul
and the traditions, about apocryphal texts and, finally, about the history
of interpretation in different denominations.
3. The Reformers have stressed the value of the holy scriptures. Reformed
systematic theology assumes that old oral traditions and several writings
of prophets and apostles have been lost for us. The Reformed emphasis on
the exclusive nature of the Bible opposes those traditions that c ontinually
expand, overgrow the Bible and receive an independent authority in
doctrinal matters (especially as in Roman Catholic and Jewish circles).
Protestants continue to have problems with the Roman-Catholic papal
authority as stipulated in special dogmas and with the rabbinical halachic
decisions that go much further than the Old Testament or seem to be in
contradiction with the Christian belief. Of course, explanatory traditions
can be useful, but should always be tested from the books of the canon.
4. The Bible itself provides the most important message, necessary
for our salvation and serving God. However practical translation of
biblical truth to our time always raises questions. Someone like Herman
Bavinck emphasized that an “explanation tradition” is needed in order
to ensure consistency between scripture and the religious life of this
time.29 A careful hermeneutical approach can help and provide insight
into the nature of our own explanation traditions.
5. The oral tradition determines part of the identity of the Jewish peo-
ple. Some rabbis complain that because the oral traditions are written
down, the consequence is that these become static, while the original
intent had been to make it possible in later times to have new applica-
tions of the old Torah.
Who as a Christian considers this point of view, may think about the work of
the Holy Spirit. Jesus promised “the Spirit of the truth” (Joh. 14: 17), with the
goal that He “will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have
said to you” (14: 26).
An example of this can be seen in the New Testament discussions in Jerusa-
lem about the position of the new believers having a heathen origin. The con-
clusion of the Apostle convent was: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to
us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements” (Acts
15: 28). Apparently, a new application was possible through the guidance of
the Holy Spirit. In a letter, the apostle Paul emphasizes how important it is to
be led by the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5: 18).
29 H. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 481–94.
The principle of sola scriptura is, of course, never meant to exclude the
g uidance of the Holy Spirit, to the contrary, in relation to the actualizing of
the message of the scriptures the role of the Holy Spirit is an important aspect.
Bibliography
Barrick, William D. “Conscience, Oral Tradition, Natural Religion, or Later Insertion?:

Unwritten Revelation in Genesis 1–11.” Paper presented at the ETS Annual Meet-
ing, November 2011. Accessed August 29, 2017. https://www.academia.edu/1368769/
Conscience_Oral_Tradition_Natural_Religion_or_Later_Insertion_Unwritten_
Revelation_in_Genesis_1-11.
Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.
Bruggen, Jakob van. Matteüs: Het evangelie voor Israël. Commentaar op het Nieuwe
Testament. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1990.
Carr, David. “Torah on the Heart: Literary Jewish Textuality Within Its Ancient Near
Eastern Context.” Oral Tradition 25 (2010): 17–40.
Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part I. Jerusalem: Magnes
Press, 1978. Part II, 1974.
Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 Volumes. London:
Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983–1985.
Collins, C. John. Genesis 1–4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary. Phil-
lipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2006.
Kasdan, Barney. Matthew Presents Yeshua, King Messiah: A Messianic Commentary.
Clarksville: Lederer Books, 2011.
Keil, C.F., and F. Delitzsch. The Pentateuch. Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973.
Kinzer, Mark. Israel’s Messiah and the People of God: A Vision for Messianic Jewish Cove-
nant Fidelity. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2011.
Koorevaar, Hendrik, and Mart-Jan Paul, eds. Theologie van het Oude Testament: De
blijvende boodschap van het Oude Testament. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2013.
Mathews, Kenneth A. Genesis 1–11: 26. The New American Commentary. Nashville: B&H
Publishing Group, 1996.
Niditch, Susan. Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 1996.
Novak, David. The Election of Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Paul, M.J., G. van den Brink, J.C. Bette, eds. Bijbelcommentaar Leviticus—Deuteronomium.
Studiebijbel Oude Testament, Volume 2. Veenendaal: Centrum voor B ijbelonderzoek,
2005.
136 Paul
Paul, M.J., G. van den Brink, J.C. Bette, eds. Bijbelcommentaar Hosea—Maleachi.
Studiebijbel Oude Testament, Volume 12. Doorn: Centrum voor Bijbelonderzoek,
2015.
Peels, Eric. “The World’s First Murder: Violence and Justice in Genesis 4: 1–16,” in: John
T. Fitzgerald, Fika J. van Rensburg and H.F. van Rooy, eds. Animosity, the Bible, and
Us. Some European, North American, and South African Perspectives. Global Perspec-
tives on Biblical Scholarship 12. (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009), 19–39.
Sailhamer, John H. The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Inter-
pretation. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009.
Sarfati, Jonathan D. The Genesis Account: A Theological, Historical, and Scientific com-
mentary on Genesis 1–11. Powder Springs: Creation Ministries International, 2015.
Strack, Hermann L., and Gunter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.
Vriezen, Th.C., and A.S. van der Woude, Oudisraëlitische en vroegjoodse literatuur.
Kampen: J.H. Kok, 2000.
Waltke, Bruce K., with Cathi J. Fredericks. Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2001.
Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1–15. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco: Word, 1987.
Westbrook, Raymond. A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, Volume 1. Leiden: Brill,
2003.
chapter 7
“And Moses Wrote This Torah”: Canon Formulas

and the Theology of Writing in Deuteronomy
Arie Versluis
1 Introduction
A collection of essays about sola scriptura presupposes that we have scripture

as a certain fixed entity (a canon). This raises the question whether such an
idea of scripture is also present in scripture itself. This seems to be suggested
in the book of Deuteronomy.
In this contribution, I will explore the function of sacred texts being written
down in the book of Deuteronomy (in its present form). In this book, writing is
an important theme. This seems especially clear from the so-called ‘canon for-
mula’, stating that nothing may be added to or taken from the commandments
of Moses (Deut. 4: 2; 13: 1). This statement is all the more interesting since
Deuteronomy itself is a classic example of reinterpretation of earlier laws. The
present contribution will first deal with the canon formulas in Deuteronomy
and then with its theology of writing, before closing with some conclusions.
2 Canon Formulas
Deut. 4 opens with the exhortation that Israel should listen to the laws that
Moses is teaching them; then it will live in the land that Yhwh promised to
their fathers. Next follows the stipulation: “You shall not add to the word that I
command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the
Lord your God that I command you.” (Deut. 4: 2 esv). Deut. 13: 1 [ET 12: 32]
contains a similar command.1
1 There are some minor differences; Deut. 4: 2 has a plural formulation of the address, while
Deut. 13: 1 has a singular. As for some text-critical issues in Deut. 13: 1, see the text-critical
apparatus of BHQ. Cf. Udo Rüterswörden, “Die sogenannte Kanonformel in Dtn 13,1,” in Juda
und Jerusalem in der Seleukidenzeit: Herrschaft—Widerstand—Identität, ed. Ulrich Dahmen
and Johannes Schnocks, BBB 159 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 19; Udo
Rüterswörden, Deuteronomium 12–, BK (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2011–),

138 Versluis
The formulation consists of two parts: a prohibition of shortening

(Kürzungsverbot) and a prohibition of extension (Erweiterungsverbot). The
combination of these provides a delimitation on both sides and seems to im-
ply both that this is the minimum to be preserved (nothing should be taken
away) and that the text is complete (nothing should be added).2 At first sight,
this seems to be rather close to canonization; hence the designation ‘canon
formula’ (Kanonformel). Since it is clear, however, that these texts do not es-
tablish or delimit the canon as a collection of authoritative scriptures, authors
using this designation unanimously declare that it is in fact incorrect. German
scholars have proposed several alternatives: “Textsicherungsformel”, “Wortsi-
cherungsformel”, or even “Wortlautsicherungsformel”.3
These designations reflect the usual interpretation of the stipulation: it
would aim to protect the text of Deuteronomy against alteration.4 Deuteron-
omy 13: 1 is generally viewed as the conclusion of Deut. 12, the law about
the central sanctuary. The context in Deut. 4 is more general. This chapter
may be interpreted as a programmatic summary of Deuteronomy’s theology,
which is elaborated in chap. 5–11 (general exhortations) and 12–26 (specific
78: “Die Textüberlieferung der Textsicherungsformel schwankt beträchtlich.” Deut. 13: 1 is

often viewed as the original formulation. A formula which originally belonged to the main
laws of Deut. 12–13* would have been extended to the entire collection of Deut. 5–28; Ber-
nard M. Levinson, “Die neuassyrischen Ursprünge der Kanonformel in Deuteronomium
13,1,” in Viele Wege zu dem Einen: Historische Bibelkritik—Die Vitalität der Glaubensüber-
lieferung in der Moderne, ed. Stefan Beyerle, Axel Graupner, and Udo Rüterswörden, BThSt
121 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2012), 51–53; Eckart Otto, Deuteronomium
1–11, HThKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2012), 533, 539. According to Timo Veijola, Das 5. Buch
Mose: Deuteronomium; Kapitel 1,1–16,17, ATD (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004),
113–114, however, Deut. 4: 2 is the original.
2 Cf. Manfred Oeming, “‘Du sollst nichts hinzufügen und nichts wegnehmen’ (Dtn 13,1):
Altorientalische Ursprünge und biblische Funktionen der sogenannten Kanonformel,” in
Verstehen und Glauben: Exegetische Bausteine zu einer Theologie des Alten Testaments, BBB
142 (Berlin: Philo, 2003), 121–122.
3 Thomas Schaack, Die Ungeduld des Papiers: Studien zum alttestamentlichen Verständnis des
Schreibens anhand des Verbums katab im Kontext administrativer Vorgänge, BZAW 262 (Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 1998), 212; Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, 539; Lothar Perlitt, Deuteronomi-
um 1–6*, BK (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2013), 308; Eleonore Reuter, “‘Nimm
nichts davon weg und füge nichts hinzu!’: Dtn 13,1, seine alttestamentlichen Parallelen und
seine altorientalischen Vorbilder,” BN 47 (1989), 113–114.
4 See, e.g., Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, 539: “Sicherung des Wortlauts eines autoritativen Tex-
tes”; Veijola, Deuteronomium, 113.
And Moses Wrote This Torah 139
stipulations).5 The canon formula thus emphasizes the authority and complete-
ness of Moses’s Torah (therefore, it is also an “Autoritätssicherungsformel”).6
According to some authors, this would mainly relate to the substance,
not so much to the letter;7 but even in that case, the formula reflects a self-
understanding of Deuteronomy as an authoritative, more or less canonical
text.8 It should not surprise us that according to many authors such a concep-
tion would better fit a later than an earlier phase of Israelite literature. Accord-
ingly, the canon formula is often considered a (post-exilic) deuteronomistic
addition.9 This results in the paradox that to a book full of reinterpretation it is
added that nothing may be added.
The exhortation to neither add nor take away from a text has its parallels, or
possibly even its origin,10 in the literature from the Ancient Near East. From the
many parallels that have been adduced (Oeming distinguishes no less than ten
‘Sitze im Leben’), I mention three which are the most relevant.11
First, the exhortation to neither add nor take away anything occurs in in-
structions for scribes or messengers. An example is the Egyptian Instruction
of Khety or Dua-Khety (the so-called Satire on the trades; texts from the eigh-
teenth/nineteenth dynasty), in which a writer exhorts his son: “When an offi-
cial sends you with a message, Tell it as he told it, Don’t omit, don’t add to it.”12
5 See, e.g., J. G. McConville and J. Gary Millar, Time and Place in Deuteronomy, JSOT.S 179
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 49: “the hermeneutical key to Deuteronomic
theology.”
6 Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, 541–542.
7 Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NIC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 130;
Perlitt, Deuteronomium, 306; Schaack, Die Ungeduld des Papiers, 212. Otherwise C. J. La-
buschagne, Deuteronomium, POT (Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1987–1997), IA: 237.
8 See Oeming, “Du sollst nichts hinzufügen,” 133; Gerhard von Rad, Das fünfte Buch Mose:
Deuteronomium, ATD (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964), 36.
9 Dietrich Knapp, Deuteronomium 4: Literarische Analyse und theologische Interpretation,
GTA 35 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987), 45; Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11,
539.
10 This is argued very specifically by Bernard M. Levinson, “Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty
as the Source for the Canon Formula in Deuteronomy 13: 1,” JAOS 130 (2010): 337–47.
He views Deut. 13: 1 as a direct reworking of Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty (VTE §4).
The exclusive loyalty to the word of Esarhaddon was transformed to exclusive loyalty to
the word of Yhwh.
11 For an overview, see Oeming, “Du sollst nichts hinzufügen,” 122–131. According to him,
in Mesopotamia alone there are already “dutzendfachen Belegen” (125).
12 Translation William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger Jr., eds., The Context of Scripture
(Leiden: Brill, 2003), 1: 125 [further: COS].
140 Versluis
In this text, it is part of the professional ethics of a messenger or scribe that he

carefully conveys his message.13 Colophons regularly contain the claim that a
scribe transcribed the original verbatim.14
Second, an interesting parallel is found in the Mesopotamian Erra epic
(text from the eighth century b.c.), which deals with conveying the message
of a god. The ending of the poem contains a message about the scribe: “The
one who put together the composition about him [Erra] was Kabti-ilani-Mar-
duk son of Dabibi. (Some god) revealed it to him in the middle of the night,
and when he recited it upon waking, he did not miss anything out, Nor add a
single word to it.”15 The scribe claims inspiration, even verbal inspiration,16 by
means of a dream; remarkably, though, it remains unclear which god revealed
it to him.
Third, the clause occurs in royal inscriptions and treaty texts, indicating
that the text should not be changed. Usually, this is formulated as a curse. The
Codex Hammurapi ends with the stipulation that should anyone not heed his
pronouncements, change them, erase his name and replace it by his own name,
followed by extensive curse formulas in which twelve gods and the “great gods
of heaven and earth” are invoked to cause that person all terrible diseases,
distress and destruction.17 In the treaty of the Hittite king Tudḫaliya IV with
Kurunta of Tarḫuntašša, the person is cursed who “should alter a single word
of this tablet.”18 In treaty texts, the warning against alteration especially func-
tions to secure the strict observance of the agreed (or imposed) stipulations.
These parallels show that the exhortation to neither add nor take away any-
thing is not unique to the Old Testament. In addition, such formulations ap-
pear to occur very early already (so they could be early in Israelite literature
13 A similar exhortation would occur in the Instruction of Ptahotep (lines 608–609); ac-
cordingly, the canon formula is sometimes called “Ptahotepformel”; see Andreas Vonach,
“Die sogenannte ‘Kanon- oder Ptahotepformel’: Anmerkungen zu Tradition und Kontext
einer markanten Wendung,” Protokolle zur Bibel 6 (1997), 73–80. In recent research,
however, this passage is interpreted differently: one should not first say one thing, then
another. Therefore, the analogy with the Ptahotep passage is now generally considered
doubtful. See, e.g., Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1972), 261–262.
14 Reuter, “Nimm nichts davon weg,” 108–109.
15 Erra epic V: 42–44; COS 1: 415.
16 Cf. Reuter, “Nimm nichts davon weg,” 109.
17 Codex Hammurapi 49: 18–51: 91; text and translation in Martha T. Roth, Law Collections
from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 2nd ed., SBLWAW 6 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997),
136–140.
18 COS 2: 105.
as well),19 although the parallel is rather general. Especially interesting is the

parallel with treaty texts, since the covenant between Yhwh and Israel is a
central theme in Deuteronomy. A remarkable difference, however, is that in
treaty texts the canon formula is always found at the end, accompanied by
curse formulas. In Deuteronomy, the formula does not occur at the end of the
book and it is not connected with a curse.20
As for the canon formula in Deuteronomy, however, the usual interpretation

that it would establish and protect a certain text has a number of problems.
First, in the context of Deut. 4: 2 and 13: 1, there is no mention of a writ-
ten text at all. Rather, the formula aims at perfect obedience, as appears from
the structure of Deut. 4: 1–4. The passage opens with the exhortation to hear
Yhwh’s commandments and to do them, that Israel may live and enter the
land Yhwh promised them. The latter part (verse 1b) is elaborated in verses
3–4 with a reference to the events of Baal-peor; following Yhwh or the idols
appeared to be a question of life and death. The exhortation to keep Yhwh’s
commandments (verse 1a) is elaborated in verse 2.21 This is shown by the par-
allel formulation “that I teach/command you” and the similar purpose to keep
or do the commandments (‫שמר‬, ‫)עשה‬, verbs which are often used in combi-
nation in Deuteronomy. This parallel makes it likely to interpret the merism
“not adding”—“not taking away” as an exhortation to complete and strict obe-
dience. In Deuteronomy, this appeal sounds in various ways: in series of verbs
(‫עשה‬, ‫שמר‬, ‫ ;שמע‬e.g., Deut. 5: 1; 6: 3; 7: 12; 28: 1), in the image of a way that
Israel may not deviate from, either to the right or to the left (Deut. 5: 32; 17:
11,20; 28: 14), and also in the present exhortation. In Deut. 13: 1 as well, the
canon formula continues and elaborates on the call to keep and to do what
Moses commands, with no mention of a text that should be preserved. The
singular “(entire) word” does not point to a fixed text either; in Deuterono-
my, the combination of a “word” that Moses “commands” occurs as often in
the singular as in the plural.22 Neither are the verbs “to add” (‫ )יסף‬and “to take
away” (‫ )גרע‬specific for texts; “to add” is a frequent verb; “to take away” is also
used for the reduction of a task, of marital duties, of an inheritance, and for
shearing a beard.23 In conclusion, both the text of Deut. 4: 2 and 13: 1 and its
19 Cf. Oeming, “Du sollst nichts hinzufügen,” 131.

20 Cf. Oeming, “Du sollst nichts hinzufügen,” 132; Reuter, “Nimm nichts davon weg,” 112.
21 Thus, there is no change of theme between verses 1 and 2, as Perlitt, Deuteronomium,
305–306 states.
22 Singular: Deut. 4: 2; 13: 1; 15: 15; 24: 18,22. Plural: Deut. 1: 18; 6: 6; 12: 28; 28: 14; 32: 46.
23 See Ex. 5: 11; 21: 10; Num. 36: 3; Isa. 15: 2; H. Ringgren, ThWAT 2: 70–72.
142 Versluis
direct context point to a call to complete and strict obedience, rather than to
the fixation and protection of a text.24
Second, if this formulation was intended to protect a text, its position in the
book is remarkable, especially its absence at the end. The place of Deut. 4: 2
can be explained: at the beginning of the following stipulations.25 The position
of Deut. 13: 1 is remarkable, however; of course, this may be explained by the
genesis of Deuteronomy or as an emphasis of the main law of Deut. 12. Even
then, however, it seems strange that a similar formula does not recur at the end
of the book. Deuteronomy 27–28 contain extensive curses, with the curse on
anyone who does not do the words of this Torah as a climax of chap. 27 (Deut.
27: 26). Any threat against someone adding anything to or taking away any-
thing from the text, however, is missing, whereas in the Ancient Near East this
is a very common formula at the end of an important text.
Third, the same formula elsewhere in the Old Testament does not refer to
a text either.26 The combination “to add” and “to take away” is found in Qoh.
3: 14 (nrsv): “whatever God does endures for ever; nothing can be added to it,
nor anything taken from it.”27 Here, the formula is not an exhortation, but an
observation. It emphasizes God’s sovereignty and the perfection of his deeds;
his work is unreachable for human influence. Thus, God makes that people
fear before him.28
One half of the formula is found in Jer. 26: 2 and Prov. 30: 6. In Jer. 26,
Jeremiah is instructed to speak Yhwh’s words in the temple; he may not hold
back a word. This text is about a message, albeit an oral one—writing is not
mentioned in the chapter. The fact that the Kürzungsverbot is mentioned, may
be explained by the people’s resistance to his message; the other half of the for-
mula wouldn’t make sense in this context. In Prov. 30: 6, the other half of the
24 So also Richard D. Nelson, Deuteronomy, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002),
169; Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, AncB (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 199:
“Scrupulous observance of the law, without the slightest deviation.” Otherwise Veijola,
Deuteronomium, 113, who believes that Deut. 4: 2 originated in two phases, concluding:
“Der Bearbeiter von V. 2 b hat freilich den Sinn der Kanonformel nicht voll verstanden, er
hat die Aufmerksamkeit wieder auf die praktische Befolgung der Gebote gelenkt.”
25 Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 200.
26 In the Apocrypha, it is found in Sir. 18: 6; 42: 21. The content of these verses corresponds
to Qoh. 3: 14: God’s mighty works, from which a human being cannot take away anything,
nor can he add anything to it.
27 For the construction ‫ אין ל‬+ inf., see JM §160j. Cf. the oppositions in Qoh. 3: 1–8.
28 See Andreas Vonach, “Gottes Souveränität anerkennen: Zum Verständnis der “Kanonfor-
mel” in Koh 3,14,” in Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom, ed. A. Schoors, BEThL 136 (Leuven:
University Press, 1998), 391–397 (esp. 394–395).
formula is used: “Do not add to his words, or else he will rebuke you, and you
will be found a liar.” In the preceding verses, the limitations of human wisdom
are marked; God’s word, however, proves true. In this context, the Erweite
rungsverbot mainly is a warning against speculation and hubris. Again, the fo-
cus is not the protection of a text,29 but the call to be satisfied with what God
has revealed to human beings (cf. Deut. 29: 28).30
In conclusion, the exhortation in Deut. 4: 2 and 13: 1 to neither add nor take
away from Moses’s commandments does not aim to fix or to protect a certain
text (which is not mentioned in the context), but rather functions as a call
to strict obedience.31 The formula does show the authority of God’s words or
commands; nothing may be changed to them.32 The emphasis, however, is on
Israel’s obedience. This can affect dealing with the text of the book at most in-
directly or secondarily. It is conceivable that, if Yhwh’s words are so important,
one would also care for (the preservation and correctness of) the text; but this
is not the formula’s primary meaning.
From the parallels mentioned from the Ancient Near East, this corresponds
best with the formula in treaty texts. Deuteronomy likewise deals with a cove-
nant between two parties; the emphasis, as in treaties, is on observance of the
stipulations, rather than on the text in itself.33
Only in later times, the canon formula is related to the written text of scrip-
ture. The oldest reference seems to be in the Letter of Aristeas (second cen-
tury b.c.). This text claims that the Greek translation of the Torah was so ac-
curate that its text should be preserved without any revision. A curse was laid
on anyone who should alter the version by addition, change or deletion.34 It
is striking that the oldest reference to the immutability of the Old Testament
text applies to a translation, not to the Hebrew text. In the first century a.d.,
29 Otherwise Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, NIC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004–
2005), 2: 477: “Agur asserts the canonical status of his sayings.”
30 See Antonius H. J. Gunneweg, “Weishet, Prophetie und Kanonformel: Erwägungen zu Pro-
verbia 30,1–9,” in Alttestamentlicher Glaube und Biblische Theologie, ed. Jutta Hausmann
and Hans-Jürgen Zobel (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992), 257–258.
31 This interpretation is also suggested by Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, which translates “nor
shall you diminish anything by not keeping the commandments of Yhwh your God …”
(...‫)ולא תבצרון מיניה מן לא למינטור‬, thus connecting the canon formula even more
strongly to the rest of the verse.
32 Ringgren, ThWAT 2: 71.
33 Cf. Oeming, “Du sollst nichts hinzufügen,” 134; Schaack, Die Ungeduld des Papiers, 214.
34 Let. Aris. 310–311; James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, AncB.
RL (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 2: 33.
144 Versluis
Josephus claims that nobody has ever dared to add anything to, take away any-
thing from, or change anything in the Old Testament.35 In the New Testament,
the formula occurs in Rev. 22: 18–19, where it is extended into a curse formula
by a combination with Deut. 29: 19–20. This formula claims prophetic author-
ity for the completed book of Revelation (cf. Rev. 21: 5).36 It seems that the
application of the canon formula to the text of the Old Testament stems from
the Jewish Hellenistic milieu and was (partly) used for apologetic reasons,
namely to confirm the antiquity and perfection of the Old Testament.37
The first result thus is mainly negative: the so-called canon formula original-
ly is not about canonizing texts, nor a kind of Textsicherungsformel. Neverthe-
less, writing is a topic of interest in Deuteronomy.
3 Theology of Writing
3.1 Writing in Deuteronomy

At first sight, writing does not seem an important theme in Deuteronomy. The
vast majority of the book presents itself as reported speech. Moses is said to
pass on and to explain the laws Yhwh gave him on Horeb forty years ago. No
parallel has been found in the Ancient Near East of such an oral proclamation
of laws, without mediation of a written record.38
It is notable, though, that one of the very few actions recorded in Deuteronomy
is that Moses writes.39 After the speeches of Moses follows a report of the narra-
tor in Deut. 31, in which the writing of the Torah and the Song of Moses occupy
35 Josephus, Contra Apionem 1: 38,42. Cf. Philo, De vita Mosis 2: 34 (concerning a translation
into Greek); De specialibus legibus 4: 143–148 (where he claims that any change utterly
changes its meaning).
36 See Michael Tilly, “Deuteronomy in Revelation,” in Deuteronomy in the New Testament:
The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel, ed. Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken,
LNTS 358 (London: T&T Clark International, 2007), 177–186.
37 This is explicitly the case in Josephus. For an overview of the formula in both Jewish and
Greek contexts, see W. C. van Unnik, “De la règle Μήτε προσθεῖναι μήτε ἀφελεῖν dans l’his-
toire du canon,” VigChr 3 (1949), 1–36.
38 Jean-Pierre Sonnet, The Book within the Book: Writing in Deuteronomy, Biblical Interpreta-
tion Series 14 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 27–28.
39 Johannes Taschner, “‘Fügt nichts zu dem hinzu, was ich euch gebiete, und streicht nichts
heraus!’ Die Kanonformel in Deuteronomium 4,2 als hermeneutischer Schlüssel der
Tora,” in Kanonisierung—die Hebräische Bibel im Werden, ed. Georg Steins and Johannes
Taschner, BThSt 110 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2010), 61.
an important place. In addition to the oral discourse, the concept of writing

runs through Deuteronomy like a scarlet thread.40
Viewed from the perspective of Deuteronomy, writing mainly occurs in the
past (by Yhwh at Horeb) and in the future (by Israel in the land), only once by
Moses in the present.
In the past, Yhwh wrote at Horeb (Deut. 4: 13; 5: 22; 9: 10; 10: 4). The con-
tent of his writing is clearly defined: the Decalogue, which was first proclaimed
orally, was written down exactly as it was proclaimed; and when the first
tablets were broken, this was done again. In the description of Yhwh’s
revelation at Horeb, on the one hand his majesty is emphasized: He speaks
from the midst of the fire; there is darkness, cloud, and gloom; Israel sees no
form. On the other hand, God himself writes down his words, “with his finger”
(Deut. 9: 10).41 Inscriptions in stone are often found in the Ancient Near East,
but it is very uncommon that a god acts as a writer.42 The text Yhwh wrote is
then handed over to Moses and deposited in the ark. Given the importance
attached to this text, it is remarkable that no stipulation whatever is men-
tioned that the tablets should be taken out of the ark to be read.43
In the future, Israel should write in the land. Moses’s words should be on
their heart; Israel should pass them on to their children, bind them as a sign on
their hand and their forehead, and write them on the doorposts of their houses
and on their gates. Twice, the command to write follows the account of divine
writing (Deut. 6: 6–9 follows 5: 22; 11: 18–21 follows 10: 4).44 The question
whether the command refers only to the words of the Shema’, or also to the
Decalogue or even the entire Moab Torah need not be discussed here.45 In any
case, writing is at the service of teaching, passing on and living according to
the words of Yhwh.
40 Joachim Schaper, “A Theology of Writing: The Oral and the Written, God as Scribe, and
the Book of Deuteronomy,” in Anthropology and Biblical Studies: Avenues of Approach, ed.
Louise J. Lawrence and Mario I. Aguilar (Leiden: Deo Publishing, 2004), 100, 105–106.
41 See Sonnet, Book within the Book, 49–51.
42 Perlitt, Deuteronomium, 424.
43 Sonnet, Book within the Book, 67–68.
44 Cf. Sonnet, Book within the Book, 69.
45 See Beate Ego, “‘In der Schriftrolle ist für mich geschrieben’ (Ps 40,8): ‘Mündlichkeit’ und
‘Schriftlichkeit’ im Kontext religiösen Lernens in der alttestamentlichen Überlieferung,”
in Die Textualisierung der Religion, ed. Joachim Schaper, FAT 62 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2009), 85–86 (only Deut. 6: 4b originally); Georg Fischer and Norbert Lohfink, ““Diese
Worte sollst du summen”: Dtn 6,7 wedibbartā bām—ein verlorener Schlüssel zur medi-
tativen Kultur in Israel,” Theologie und Philosophie 62 (1987): 60; Sonnet, Book within the
Book, 52–55 (the entire Moab Torah, including the Decalogue).
146 Versluis
Next to writing within the family sphere, the Torah should be written down
in public. When Israel has entered the land, it should set up large stones on
Mount Ebal, cover them with plaster, and write on them all the words of this
Torah, “in order that you may enter the land which Yhwh your God gives you.”
(Deut. 27: 3,8). Thus, the Torah is a gate to life in the land; only by the To-
rah and by living according to the Torah is life in the promised land possible
(cf. the curse and blessing following in chap. 27–28, with recurrent reference
to the “book” or the “words of this Torah”; Deut. 28: 58,61; 29: 19,20,26; 30:
10).46 It is not made clear whether the stones on Mount Ebal also function to
make the Torah publicly accessible. In that case, it is remarkable that the law is
not engraved in stone, but written on perishable material. This makes it more
likely that the text was intended for a one-time ceremony.47 The Torah is not
transmitted by means of these stones, but in personal communication (Deut.
6: 6–9,20–25) and by hearing the words (Deut. 31: 10–13).
Writing the Torah not only should be done by Israel as a whole, but especially
by the king. The law concerning kingship (Deut. 17: 14–20) first indicates what
person may become king (verses 14–15), next limitations are set concerning
his wealth (verses 16–17), and finally his task is defined (verses 18–20). The
king has to write a copy of the Torah, from the “book”48 which is in the charge
of the Levitical priests; it shall remain with him and he shall read in it all the
days of his life. The Torah thus pervades the space (the copy shall remain with
him) and the time (he shall read in it all days) of his kingship.49 His kingship
is not characterized by sceptre and throne, but by the Torah and his pious life
(verses 19–20).50
Noteworthy about this stipulation is, first, the king’s position. In the Ancient
Near East, kings are often mentioned or depicted as scribes. Normally, however,
the king is the actor, the lawgiver; in Deuteronomy, Yhwh is the lawgiver, and
46 See Sonnet, Book within the Book, 86–96. According to him, Deut. 28 would refer to the
stones on Mount Ebal, since ‫ ספר‬can also mean ‘inscription’.
47 Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 626; Jeffrey H.
Tigay, Deuteronomy, JPSTC (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 248. Writ-
ing on plaster was common in Egypt; cf. the texts of Deir ‘Alla, among others. Nelson,
Deuteronomy, 317 suggests that writing on plaster may “communicate that the Shechem
arrangement was to be temporary”; the reason for this material might be the easy read-
ability or the speed of execution.
48 In reality, the ‘book’ was a scroll; the codex came into being only in the Christian era; see,
e.g., Jack R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 845.
50 Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, II: 127.
the king receives it. Accordingly, he does not write on his own initiative, but it
is an obligation imposed on him. Moreover, it is unprecedented that a king has
to write laws that regulate and restrict his own power.51
Second, the role of the priests is notable. The king should turn to them for
the scroll of the Torah. It may be an overstatement to suggest that he submits
himself to the priests,52 but it does show that the king’s power is not absolute.
In addition, it is interesting that the text assumes that the Levites have a stan-
dard copy (an editio princeps) of the Torah. This suggests a certain care for the
correct text of the Torah.53
Third, the relation between the king and the rest of Israel is striking. The
king has been described as a model Israelite, the Torah’s arch-reader.54 As
for the rest of Israel, however, a copy of the Torah is nowhere mentioned in
Deuteronomy. The words should be on their heart; if the stipulation on writ-
ing on the doorposts and the gates refers to the entire Torah, they should also
be written. Reading in the Torah by Israel, however, is not mentioned at all.
Whereas the king should read his copy all the days of his life, the other Isra-
elites hear the Torah only once every seven years (Deut. 31: 10–12). The goal,
however, is the same (see 3.3 below). As for the king, the goal is connected with
reading the law: thus, he learns to fear Yhwh and to keep his commandments.
In the present of Deuteronomy, finally, it is Moses who writes. The context is

that of transmission because of Moses’s imminent death. Moses writes “this
Torah” and gives it to the priests and the elders of Israel (Deut. 31: 9). They
should care for the transmission of this text; at the festival of booths in the
year of remission it should be read before all Israel. Next, the Song of Moses
is added to it (Deut. 31: 19,22). When Moses finishes writing,55 he hands over
51 Cf. Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 541; Sonnet, Book within the Book, 73, 77–78.
52 So Block, Deuteronomy, 420.
53 Cf. Sonnet, Book within the Book, 74–75.
54 Georg Braulik, Deuteronomium, NEB.AT (Würzburg: Echter, 1986–1992), 2: 129; Sonnet,
Book within the Book, 71.
55 It is controversial what verse 24 refers to: to the song only (so Carl Steuernagel, Das Deu-
teronomium, 2nd ed., HK [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923], 164; Labuschagne,
Deuteronomium, III: 208–209) or to the entire code of Deuteronomy (so S. R. Driver, A Critical
and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, 3rd ed., ICC [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902], 343;
Tigay, Deuteronomy, 297). The direct context (verse 22) and the writing as a witness against
Israel argue for the first, while the designations “writing in a scroll” and “this Torah” are
in favour of the second. The most likely interpretation is that the formulation is deliberately
ambiguous; in its present context, verse 24 thus refers both to the Song (as a summary of
the law code) and to the entire Deuteronomic law code; Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 844–845.
148 Versluis
the scroll to the Levites to put it by the side of the ark. Whereas the priests and
the elders are responsible for the transmission of the Torah, the Levites should
care for its conservation.56 On the one hand, Moses’s law code functions as a
means to know Yhwh and to live all the days in the promised land (Deut. 31:
12–13); on the other hand, it is a witness against Israel due to its expected dis-
obedience (Deut. 31: 26–29).57 This leads us to the question of the reason and
the goal of Moses’s writing in Deuteronomy.
3.2 Reason
Moses’s writing is directly connected with his imminent death. It follows
on the announcement of his demise and the encouragement of his succes-
sor Joshua (Deut. 31: 1–8). The writing of the song is a command of Yhwh
himself for the time after Moses’s departure (Deut. 31: 19). The end of Deu-
teronomy makes clear that the death of Moses is the end of an era: there is
no prophet like Moses. The fact that Moses writes down the Torah, which
never happened before in the Old Testament, is a sign and a marking of this
Epochengliederung.58 The importance of writing in a book which presents
itself almost exclusively as oral discourse, therefore, is not occasioned by a
higher valuation of either oral or written communication, but by a changed
situation after the era of Moses.
Being written down, the Torah can accompany the people of Israel, beyond
the border of Canaan and beyond the border of Moses’s death. Whereas Moses
himself has to remain outside the promised land (a recurring theme in Deu-
teronomy; Deut. 1: 37; 3: 26–27; 4: 21–22; 32: 48–52; 34: 4), his teaching will
accompany Israel through time and space. Writing thus provides continuity
and stability.59
In this way, Moses carries on the work of Yhwh. Moses should teach
Israel what Yhwh told him. Yhwh wrote the Decalogue and gave it to
Moses; Moses now writes the Torah and hands it over to the Levites.60
Thus, the process of writing and passing on continues; at the same time,
56 Cf. Sonnet, Book within the Book, 125, 163–164.

58 See Taschner, “Fügt nichts zu dem hinzu,” 50–57.
59 Cf. Ego, “In der Schriftrolle ist für mich geschrieben,” 93; Sonnet, Book within the Book, 75.
This is also clear from other texts emphasizing the durability of a written text; Ex. 17: 14;
Job 19: 23; Isa. 30: 8.
60 Sonnet, Book within the Book, 138. Schaper, “A Theology of Writing,” 113 even characterizes
writing as “an act of imitatio dei.”
the Torah is preserved beside the ark, so it remains in the presence of

Yhwh himself.
The incomparability of Moses is also evident from the fact that his tasks are
divided. This theme occurs already at the beginning of Deuteronomy when
leaders are appointed (Deut. 1: 9–18).61 After his death, Joshua succeeds Mo-
ses as Israel’s leader. Joshua, however, is not on the same level: he acts and is
obeyed just as Moses, but he is always dependent on Moses and his relation
with Yhwh is more indirect.62 The central authority is no longer connected
with the person of Israel’s leader, but is located in the Torah of Moses. In addi-
tion, transmitting the Torah does not become his, but the priests’ and all elders’
task.63 Thus, Moses is replaced by Joshua, but together with the priests and the
elders (responsible for transmitting the Torah), and by the Torah and the song
he writes (the central authority).64
Accordingly, Israel and its leaders are measured by the standard of Moses’s
Torah. As for Israel, this appears from the appeal to the book or the Torah of
Moses in the context of blessing and curse in Deut. 27–30 (see 3.1 above).
Joshua is commanded by Yhwh to act carefully according to all the law of
Moses. That book shall not depart out of his mouth, but he shall meditate
on it day and night (Josh. 1: 7–8). When Israel enters the land, Joshua builds
an altar, writes on the stones a copy of the Torah of Moses, all “as Moses had
commanded” and “according to all that is written in the book of the Torah”
(Josh. 8: 31–34). The same exhortation to do all that is written in the book of
the Torah of Moses is passed on to Israel at the time of Joshua’s death (Josh.
23: 6). This is also mentioned concerning later leaders. Solomon should keep
Yhwh’s commandments, “as it is written in the Torah of Moses” (1 Kgs. 2: 3).
As for David, Jehoiada, Hezekiah and the leaders after the exile, it is recorded
that they acted thus.65
In the Old Testament, writing down Yhwh’s revelation and its authority are
closely connected with the person of Moses as the mediator of that revelation.
At the end of the book of Joshua, doing what is written in the book of Moses’s
61 Cf. Sonnet, Book within the Book, 138–139.

62 See Koert van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence: Ideology and Antiquarian Intent in
the Historiography of Israel’s Settlement in Canaan, CHANE 45 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 185–
188.
63 Cf. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, III: 183–184.
64 Cf. Dennis T. Olson, Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading, Over-
tures to Biblical Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 21.
65 David: 1 Chron. 16: 40; Jehoiada: 2 Chron. 23: 18; Hezekiah: 2 Chron. 30: 5; Jeshua and
Zerubbabel: Ezra 3: 2.
150 Versluis
Torah is even equated with holding fast to Yhwh himself (Josh. 23: 6–8).66 The
other way round, Moses is bound to a written document more tightly than any
other prophet.67 The account in Deut. 31 has been the main reason why Moses
was mentioned as the author of Deuteronomy and of the entire Pentateuch.
3.3 Goal
The goal of Moses’s writing is that the text of his book is read (Deut. 31: 10–13).
This should be done once every seven years at the festival of booths, possibly
because this was the greatest feast.68 It is emphasized that all Israel should be
present: men, women, children, and aliens.69 The formulation recalls Deut. 4:
10, where Yhwh calls Israel together at Horeb. The septennial reading has the
character of a re-enactment of the divine revelation at Horeb.70
The goal of reading the Torah is that Israel learns to fear Yhwh, that it keeps
his commandments and transmits them to their children. The only other time
that Deuteronomy mentions the “reading” of the law (both times within the
promised land) is in the law on kingship. Above, the contrast was noted be-
tween the king who should read the Torah all his days, over against the people
who hear it being read once every seven years. The intended reaction of both,
however, corresponds closely. Both the king (Deut. 17: 19–20) and all Israel
should fear Yhwh (Deut. 4: 10; 5: 29; 6: 2; 14: 23; 31: 12–13), keep his com-
mandments (e.g., Deut. 5: 1; 7: 11; 11: 1), not exalt itself (Deut. 8: 14), not turn
aside to the right or the left (Deut. 5: 32; 28: 14); in this way, they shall live and
reign long (e.g., Deut. 4: 40; 5: 33; 11: 9).71 Reading the book of Moses in both
cases is a means to learn to serve Yhwh. In this way, king and people are held
together; the law which distinguishes the king from his fellow Israelites, at the
66 Cf. Joachim Schaper, “The Living Word Engraved in Stone: The Interrelationship of the
Oral and the Written and the Culture of Memory in the Books of Deuteronomy and
Joshua,” in Memory in the Bible and Antiquity: The Fifth Durham-Tübingen Research Sym-
posium (Durham, September 2004), ed. Stephen C. Barton, Loren T. Stuckenbruck, and
Benjamin G. Wold, WUNT 212 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 14.
67 Block, Deuteronomy, 735.
68 Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, III: 184–185.
69 As for a regular festival of booths, only the men are mentioned; Deut. 16: 16.
70 Cf. the stipulations in Ancient Near Eastern treaties about a regular reading of the text;
see Gary Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 2nd ed., SBLWAW 7 (Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1999), 46 (§13: repeatedly), 81 (§28), 91 (§16: three times yearly). There is no real coun-
terpart, however, to the idea of educating the entire people; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 500–
501.
71 See Sonnet, Book within the Book, 80–82. According to Block, Deuteronomy, 424, Deut. 17:
19–20 is the most complete series describing the goal of the Torah.
same time aims to ensure the king’s non-dissociation from his people.72 Thus,
the king is indeed characterized as a model Israelite.
In Deut. 6: 6–9, writing on the doorposts and gates and transmitting the
Torah to the next generation are mentioned, but both actions seem to be in-
dependent of each other. Reading is not mentioned at all in this context, only
speaking and reciting73 the words that Moses commands. The latter should
be done always, just as the king should always read. Knowledge of the Torah,
meditating on it and transmitting it are assumed, but this is not directly con-
nected to a written text in Deut. 6 (cf. Ps. 1: 2). This fits within a culture in
which oral transmission was essential, and writing was mainly practiced by the
cultural elite for a long time. Written texts were an aid to memorize important
traditions; in ancient cultures, there was no dichotomy oral—written, but a
“writing-supported process of memorization” to pass on the cultural heritage
to the next generation.74
Writing the Torah is not a goal in itself, but it serves to meditate on it, trans-
mit it, and live from it.75 The question whether Deut. 31 is a step in the direc-
tion of a regular reading of scripture in the liturgy or in the direction of the for-
mation of a canon overcharges the text with an improper contrast.76 Writing,
reading and speaking about the Torah, however, do point to the authoritative
character of the text. The king and all Israel should become familiar with these
words.77 This leads us to the last question: to what extent does Moses’s text
claim to be authoritative?
72 Sonnet, Book within the Book, 78.

73 For this meaning, see Fischer and Lohfink, “Diese Worte sollst du summen.” According to
them, ‫ קרא‬in Deut. 17: 19 should also be interpreted as “reciting”, since one read aloud in
antiquity.
74 See Koert van Bekkum, “Schrijven, schrijvers en auteurs in de oudheid,” in Nieuwe en oude
dingen: Schatgraven in de Schrift, ed. Koert van Bekkum, Rob van Houwelingen, and Eric
Peels, ApSt 62 / TU-Bezinningsreeks 13 (Barneveld: De Vuurbaak, 2013), 111–28; David
M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 2011), 3–36 (quotation 5). Cf. Schaper, “A Theology of Writing,” 112–115;
Schaper, “Living Word Engraved in Stone,” 20–21, who connects the theme of writing
in Deuteronomy with the increase of literacy in Israel. According to him, Deuteronomy
would fit the pre-exilic situation of the rising importance of writing.
75 Cf. Schaper, “A Theology of Writing,” 106.
76 See Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, III: 186 versus Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 833; Von Rad,
Das fünfte Buch Mose, 134; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 500.
77 Cf. Schaper, “A Theology of Writing,” 107: “Writing is the medium that ensures the
preservation, perpetuation, publication, and precise repetition (and thus internalization)
of the divine word.” Internalization does not necessarily imply individualization, as Schaper
152 Versluis
3.4 Authority
Several arguments have already been mentioned which argue for a certain au-
thority of Moses’s Torah: the suggestion of a standard copy in the charge of
the Levites, its periodical reading, and the fact that Israel and its leaders are
measured by the Torah of Moses.
The way in which the closure of the writing is indicated can be added to
these. This already begins with the Decalogue. At the end, it is recorded that
Yhwh spoke these words, that “He added nothing to it”, and that He wrote
them on the tablets (Deut. 5: 22). It is clearly delimited what Yhwh revealed
to all Israel; the text goes on with the people’s request to let Moses m ediate.
The closing formula indicates the unique and authoritative character of the
Decalogue and confirms that it is faithfully written down.78 Concerning Moses’s
writing of the Torah and the Song, it is likewise explicitly indicated that it was
finished (Deut. 31: 24,30; 32: 45). Michael Fishbane has pointed to the corre-
spondence with colophons in cuneiform literature, where the end is likewise
made explicit (qati, ‘the end’).79 Apparently, this need not exclude additions,
since after making a covenant at Shechem, Joshua wrote this in the book of the
Torah (Josh. 24: 26).
Last, the authority of Moses’s writing is indicated by the care for its preser-
vation. Moses hands over the scroll to the Levites, who should put it beside the
ark. The preservation in the sanctuary, even next to the ark, emphasizes the
status of the text.80
The preservation beside the ark confirms both the proximity and the
distinction between the words of Yhwh and of Moses. On the one hand,
they are always distinguished: the Decalogue is preserved in the ark, the
Torah next to it; it is explicitly recorded that only the Decalogue comes
directly from Yhwh (Deut. 5: 22).81 On the other hand, the words of Yhwh
suggests (114). According to Schaper, the scribes would legitimate their position by con-
necting writing with God as a scribe. The criticism of Moses in Deuteronomy (he may not
enter the land), however, argues against this.
78 See Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, IB: 56; Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, 754. For the gram-
matical construction, see GKC §156f.
79 Michael A. Fishbane, “Varia Deuteronomica,” ZAW 84 (1972), 150–151. Cf. Sonnet, Book
within the Book, 158–160.
80 In Deuteronomy, the function of the ark mainly is to be a box for the tablets (see Deut.
10: 1–2). A case to preserve a written treaty is also known from the Ancient Near East; see
Sonnet, Book within the Book, 63–68, 264.
81 Sometimes, a distinction seems to be made in the verbs used; in Deut. 5: 27, the peo-
ple use the verb “to speak” (‫ דבר‬pi.) for both Yhwh and Moses; in 5: 31, however, God
makes a distinction: Yhwh speaks, while Moses teaches (‫ למד‬pi.; this verb is never used
and of Moses are kept closely together: the assembly at the festival of
booths is described as a re-enactment of the divine revelation at Horeb;
both Yhwh and Moses act as scribes in Deuteronomy; for both, the same
designations are used and their words occur in parallel to each other (e.g.
Deut. 4: 1–2).82
In the light of these data concerning the authority of Moses’s Torah, it is
conceivable that the canon formula, while originally aiming at strict obedi-
ence to yhwh’s commandments, was later applied to the text of Deuterono-
my and to the entire canon as well. This eventually led to the delimitation of
the canon (and to an increasing emphasis on precision in the reproduction
of the text).
Finally, the question of the content of Moses’s writing has to be addressed. The
‘book’ of Moses in Deut. 31 is not identical to the book of Deuteronomy; Deu-
teronomy tells about the book of Moses.83 Therefore, we have the paradoxical
situation that that part of the Old Testament which most explicitly claims to be
holy scripture, which is finished, and which has an authoritative status, is not
available to us as a document. Yet, as Jean-Pierre Sonnet has argued, Deuteron-
omy does communicate with its readers about this ‘book’. While Moses’s book
is not directly available, it is available indirectly: by letting the reader hear its
content before it is written down. Moses transmits yhwh’s words to Israel,
as Deuteronomy does to its readers; both are directed toward the same goal.
Israel’s descendants and the implied readers of Deuteronomy almost merge
(although in narratological terms, their ‘world’, within or outside the text, re-
mains different). The book of Moses is not identical to Deuteronomy; at the
same time, it is available nowhere else than within this book. “In the readers’
world, Moses’ Torah ‘book’ is never ‘read’ outside of the Book of Deuteronomy.
The aim of the inset ‘book’—to be read to the sons—is thus fulfilled by the
reading of the framing book.”84
in Deuteronomy with yhwh as its subject); see Sonnet, Book within the Book, 37–38. An-
other remarkable difference is the material on which is written: yhwh writes on stone,
Moses on papyrus and the people on plaster (Deut. 27: 3).
82 J. G. McConville, Deuteronomy, AOTC (Leicester: Apollos, 2002), 439; Sonnet, Book within
the Book, 165.
83 In the text of the narrator, “this Torah” refers back to Deut. 4: 44, one of the four super-
scriptions within Deuteronomy: “This is the Torah …” This suggests the Torah of Moses is
found between Deut. 4: 44 and Deut. 31; so Sonnet, Book within the Book, 248. Otherwise
Taschner, “Fügt nichts zu dem hinzu,” 57–60, who argues that it refers back to Deut. 1: 5.
84 For this analysis, see Sonnet, Book within the Book, 235–267 (quotation 260–261).
154 Versluis
4 Conclusions
The writing and transmission of sacred texts is a topic of interest in

Deuteronomy. Yhwh, Moses and Israel (especially the king as the m odel
Israelite) are depicted as writers. The texts written by Yhwh and Moses,
authorized by Yhwh, should be preserved and transmitted to future gener-
ations. Writing provides continuity (after Moses’s death) and stability. At the
same time, writing is only one of the means of transmission, next to personal
communication and hearing the words of the Torah. Reading the Torah is
especially connected with the king.
In Deuteronomy, writing is a means, directed at the goal of fearing Yhwh
and at a relationship between Yhwh and Israel.85 In order to reach this goal,
knowledge of the Torah, transmitting it and living according to these words are
indispensable (cf. Deut. 32: 47: “This word is your life,” Moses’s last word after
the Song and before his blessing), but this is not always connected to a written
text.
A fixation of the text by means of a Textsicherungsformel or a curse formula
is not found in Deuteronomy. There is a commitment to writing and a certain
care for the text, but this is completely directed at the goal to fear Yhwh and
to keep and pass on his commandments. The so-called canon formula pertains
to strict obedience, rather than to a text. The formula reflects the importance
of obedience, and even the authority of Yhwh’s words, but there is no inde-
pendent attention to the text in Deuteronomy. Any use of sacred texts inde-
pendent of the living God himself and a life with him is inconceivable from
Deuteronomy’s point of view.
At the same time, pre-forms of canonization are found in Deuteronomy. The
word ‘pre-forms’ is deliberately chosen, since the canonization of scripture is
a historical and dynamic process, which cannot be fixated on one (either early
or late) moment. Although a fixation of the text is not found, the commitment
to writing and the closure of a corpus which claims to be authoritative are
present: the ‘book’ of the Torah of Moses, which is finished and preserved; even
a certain care for its correct text is suggested. Other texts appeal to this writing
(“as it is written in …”). The content of this writing should be transmitted to
subsequent generations, it should be recited and meditated upon, and it is a
yardstick for acting. Moses’s Torah is even a means to learn to fear Yhwh. These
data may be interpreted as a (pre)form of or a tendency toward canonization.
The delimitation of the Old Testament and its recognition as authoritative
85 Cf. the frequent use of ‫( למען‬in order that) in Deuteronomy.

scripture is not a sudden, late decision, but the conclusion of a tendency which
in any case in the book of Deuteronomy is already present.
In Deuteronomy, the writing of divine revelation, its closure and its author-
ity are closely connected with the person of Moses as the mediator of this
revelation. Other texts in the Old Testament appeal to (the book of) the Torah
of Moses. This connection of normative authority with the person of Moses
makes it understandable that in later Judaism the theological focus is on the
Pentateuch.86 If one wants to look for a focus of Old Testament theology, the
Torah of Moses as found in Deuteronomy would be a prime candidate.87
Bibliography
Anderson, Robert T., and Terry Giles. The Samaritan Pentateuch: An Introduction to Its
Origin, History, and Significance for Biblical Studies. SBL.RBS 72. Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature, 2012.
Beckman, Gary. Hittite Diplomatic Texts. 2nd ed. SBLWAW 7. Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1999.
Bekkum, Koert van. From Conquest to Coexistence: Ideology and Antiquarian Intent in
the Historiography of Israel’s Settlement in Canaan. CHANE 45. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Bekkum, Koert van “Schrijven, schrijvers en auteurs in de oudheid.” In Nieuwe en oude
dingen: Schatgraven in de Schrift, edited by Koert van Bekkum, Rob van Houwelin-
gen, and Eric Peels, 111–28. ApSt, 62 / TU-Bezinningsreeks, 13. Barneveld: De Vuur-
baak, 2013.
Block, Daniel I. Deuteronomy. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012.
Braulik, Georg. Deuteronomium. 2 vols. NEB.AT. Würzburg: Echter, 1986–1992.
86 This applies even more to the Samaritans, where Moses expressly becomes the standard;
this in turn has consequences for the extent of the canon (which does not contain the
prophets and writings) and for the textual transmission (the Samaritan Pentateuch has
a series of additions compared to the Masoretic text which emphasize the prominent
position of Moses); see Robert T. Anderson and Terry Giles, The Samaritan Pentateuch: An
Introduction to Its Origin, History, and Significance for Biblical Studies, SBL.RBS 72 (Atlan-
ta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), 65–69.
87 Cf. Siegfried Herrmann, “Die konstruktive Restauration: Das Deuteronomium als Mitte
biblischer Theologie,” in Probleme biblischer Theologie, ed. Hans Walter Wolff (München:
Kaiser, 1971), 155–70. In the New Testament, Deuteronomy is one of the most widely
used Old Testament books (after the Psalms and Isaiah); this also applies to the writings
of Qumran. See Moyise and Menken, eds., Deuteronomy in the New Testament.
156 Versluis
Carr, David M. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford
Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. AncB.RL.
New York: Doubleday, 1985.
Craigie, Peter C. The Book of Deuteronomy. NIC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.
Driver, S. R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. 3rd ed. ICC. Edin-
burgh: T&T Clark, 1902.
Ego, Beate. “‘In der Schriftrolle ist für mich geschrieben’ (Ps 40,8): ‘Mündlichkeit’ und
‘Schriftlichkeit’ im Kontext religiösen Lernens in der alttestamentlichen Über-
lieferung.” In Die Textualisierung der Religion, edited by Joachim Schaper, 82–104.
FAT 62. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009.
Fischer, Georg, and Norbert Lohfink. “Diese Worte sollst du summen: Dtn 6,7 wedib-
bartā bām—ein verlorener Schlüssel zur meditativen Kultur in Israel.” Theologie
und Philosophie 62 (1987): 59–72. Reprinted in Norbert Lohfink, Studien zum Deu-
teronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur III, 181–203. SBAB 20. Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995.
Fishbane, Michael A. “Varia Deuteronomica.” ZAW 84 (1972): 349–52.
Gunneweg, Antonius H. J. “Weishet, Prophetie und Kanonformel: Erwägungen zu Pro-
verbia 30,1–9.” In Alttestamentlicher Glaube und Biblische Theologie, edited by Jutta
Hausmann and Hans-Jürgen Zobel, 253–60. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992.
Hallo, William W., and K. Lawson Younger Jr., eds. The Context of Scripture. 3 vols.
Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Herrmann, Siegfried. “Die konstruktive Restauration: Das Deuteronomium als Mitte
biblischer Theologie.” In Probleme biblischer Theologie, edited by Hans Walter Wolff,
155–70. München: Kaiser, 1971.
Knapp, Dietrich. Deuteronomium 4: Literarische Analyse und theologische Interpreta-
tion. GTA 35. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987.
Labuschagne, C. J. Deuteronomium. 4 vols. POT. Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1987–1997.
Levinson, Bernard M. “Die neuassyrischen Ursprünge der Kanonformel in Deuterono-
mium 13,1.” In Viele Wege zu dem Einen: Historische Bibelkritik—Die Vitalität der
Glaubensüberlieferung in der Moderne, edited by Stefan Beyerle, Axel Graupner,
and Udo Rüterswörden, 23–59. BThSt 121. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
2012.
Levinson, Bernard M. “Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty as the Source for the Canon
Formula in Deuteronomy 13: 1.” JAOS 130 (2010): 337–47.
Lundbom, Jack R. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013.
McConville, J. G. Deuteronomy. AOTC. Leicester: Apollos, 2002.
McConville, J. G., and J. Gary Millar. Time and Place in Deuteronomy. JSOT.S 179. Shef-
field: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
Moyise, Steve, and Maarten J. J. Menken, eds. Deuteronomy in the New Testament: The
New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel. LNTS 358. London: T&T Clark Interna-
tional, 2007.
Nelson, Richard D. Deuteronomy. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002.
Oeming, Manfred. “‘Du sollst nichts hinzufügen und nichts wegnehmen’ (Dtn 13,1):
Altorientalische Ursprünge und biblische Funktionen der sogenannten Kanonfor-
mel.” In Verstehen und Glauben: Exegetische Bausteine zu einer Theologie des Alten
Testaments, by Manfred Oeming, 121–37. BBB 142. Berlin: Philo, 2003. Reprint of
Christoph Dohmen and Manfred Oeming, Biblischer Kanon, warum und wozu? Eine
Kanontheologie, 68–89. QD 137. Freiburg: Herder, 1992.
Olson, Dennis T. Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading. Overtures
to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994.
Otto, Eckart. Deuteronomium 1–11. 2 vols. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2012.
Perlitt, Lothar. Deuteronomium 1–6*. BK. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2013.
Rad, Gerhard von. Das fünfte Buch Mose: Deuteronomium. ATD. Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1964.
Reuter, Eleonore. “‘Nimm nichts davon weg und füge nichts hinzu!’: Dtn 13,1, seine alttes-
tamentlichen Parallelen und seine altorientalischen Vorbilder.” BN 47 (1989): 107–14.
Roth, Martha T. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. 2nd ed. SBLWAW 6.
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997.
Rüterswörden, Udo. Deuteronomium 12–. BK. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
2011–.
Rüterswörden, Udo. “Die sogenannte Kanonformel in Dtn 13,1.” In Juda und Jerusalem in
der Seleukidenzeit: Herrschaft—Widerstand—Identität, edited by Ulrich Dahmen
and Johannes Schnocks, 19–29. BBB 159. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010.
Schaack, Thomas. Die Ungeduld des Papiers: Studien zum alttestamentlichen Verständ-
nis des Schreibens anhand des Verbums katab im Kontext administrativer Vorgänge.
BZAW 262. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1998.
Schaper, Joachim. “A Theology of Writing: The Oral and the Written, God as Scribe,
and the Book of Deuteronomy.” In Anthropology and Biblical Studies: Avenues of
Approach, edited by Louise J. Lawrence and Mario I. Aguilar, 97–117. Leiden: Deo
Publishing, 2004.
Schaper, Joachim. “The Living Word Engraved in Stone: The Interrelationship of the
Oral and the Written and the Culture of Memory in the Books of Deuteronomy and
Joshua.” In Memory in the Bible and Antiquity: The Fifth Durham-Tübingen Research
Symposium (Durham, September 2004), edited by Stephen C. Barton, Loren T. Stuck-
enbruck, and Benjamin G. Wold, 9–23. WUNT 212. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.
Sonnet, Jean-Pierre. The Book within the Book: Writing in Deuteronomy. Biblical Inter-
pretation Series 14. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
158 Versluis
Steuernagel, Carl. Das Deuteronomium. 2nd ed. HK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1923.
Taschner, Johannes. “‘Fügt nichts zu dem hinzu, was ich euch gebiete, und streicht
nichts heraus!’ Die Kanonformel in Deuteronomium 4,2 als hermeneutischer
Schlüssel der Tora.” In Kanonisierung—die Hebräische Bibel im Werden, edited by
Georg Steins and Johannes Taschner, 46–63. BThSt 110. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neu-
kirchener Verlag, 2010.
Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy. JPSTC. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996.
Tilly, Michael. “Deuteronomy in Revelation.” In Deuteronomy in the New Testament: The
New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel, edited by Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J.
Menken, 169–88. LNTS 358. London: T&T Clark International, 2007.
Unnik, W. C. van. “De la règle Μήτε προσθεῖναι μήτε ἀφελεῖν dans l’histoire du canon.”
VigChr 3 (1949): 1–36.
Veijola, Timo. Das 5. Buch Mose: Deuteronomium; Kapitel 1,1–16,17. ATD. Göttingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004.
Vonach, Andreas. “Die sogenannte ‘Kanon- oder Ptahotepformel’: Anmerkungen zu
Tradition und Kontext einer markanten Wendung.” Protokolle zur Bibel 6 (1997):
73–80.
Vonach, Andreas. “Gottes Souveränität anerkennen: Zum Verständnis der “Kanonfor-
mel” in Koh 3,14.” In Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom, edited by A. Schoors, 391–97.
BEThL 136. Leuven: University Press, 1998.
Waltke, Bruce K. The Book of Proverbs. 2 vols. NIC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004–2005.
Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy 1–11. AncB. New York: Doubleday, 1991.
Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972.
chapter 8
“How the Mighty Have Fallen”: Sola Scriptura

and the Historical Debate on David as a Southern
Levantine Warlord
Koert van Bekkum
1 Introduction—Sola Scriptura and Historia Sacra
Both recent study and the contributions to this volume reveal that the phrase
sola scriptura is rooted in the 16th Century ce Reformation. Yet, as a theologi-
cal one-liner representing a specific concept it was invented much later, that is,
in the debate between Protestants and the Romana on the role of the Bible in
the authority in the Church during the late 19th Century ce after Vaticanum I.
Generally speaking, sola scriptura simply means that despite all hermeneutical
issues, the scriptures should be able to speak for itself and that it cannot not be
silenced. Neither by the doctrinal authority of Rome, nor by the conviction of
the Enlightenment that human reason is autonomous; and neither by a confes-
sion, nor by an influential leader in the church.
Needless to say, this principle evokes some serious questions. What are the
hermeneutical implications of this notion for the concrete explanation of
texts and for the understanding of scripture in diverse cultural contexts? Is
it really possible to focus on the message of scripture itself, when all kinds of
factors influence its interpretation? On the one hand, it is nowadays generally
acknowledged in Reformed theology—even in my own Dutch Neo-Calvinist
tradition, which has been deeply affected by modernity1—that the concept
of sola scriptura does not offer a complete hermeneutical model of exegetical
rules. On the other hand, however, it is important to maintain that the phrase
still describes an attitude that really lends a hand in finding the right track
in considering complicated methodological and exegetical issues. This over
against the view that the principle needs to be adapted to the rules of religious-
historical research and the idea that the Bible merely contains a complex nexus
1 Jakob van Bruggen, “The Authority of Scripture as a Presupposition in Reformed Theology,”

in: J.M. Batteau e.a., The Vitality of Reformed Theology: Proceedings of the International Theo-
logical Congress June 20–24th 1994 Noordwijkerhout the Netherlands (Kampen: Kok 1994),
63–83.

160 van Bekkum
of testimonies about God.2 According to the Reformed conviction, it is most

important that “Scripture itself—also in its unity as revelation of God—func-
tions as the norm in considering what suits its interpretation.”3 Applying this
criterion to the exegetical, historical and theological debate regarding biblical
texts is not the same as entering a closed circle, but making a hermeneutical
movement in weighing all the available data and the diverse methods from a
specific perspective: to what extent do they help in understanding scripture?
Elsewhere, I dealt with the meaning of the notion of sola scriptura for the
Reformed hermeneutics of biblical historical narrative, in particular with re-
gard to the normative function of the biblical text.4 This contribution takes its
point of departure at the other side of the spectrum in studying these texts, that
is, in the historical debate itself and more specifically in the relation between
the biblical material and non-biblical textual evidence and material remains
from archaeological excavations. This relation is highly complicated. Close
analysis, also of recent debates in biblical and Ancient Near Eastern studies,
reveals that besides good craftsmanship and methodological soundness, phil-
osophical and theological factors unavoidably play a part in the selection and
interpretation of the data.5 But what does that mean theologically? The Bible
2 For a discussion, see e.g. Klaus Koch, “Rezeptionsgeschichte als notwendige Voraussetzung
einer biblischen Theologie,” and Siegfried Hermann, “Die Abwertung des Alten Testament
als Geschichtsquelle,” in Hans Heinrich Schmid, Joachim Mehlhausen (eds.), Sola Scriptu-
ra. Das reformatorische Schriftprinzip in der säkularen Welt (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn 1991),
143–155, 156–165; Hans-Jürgen Hermission, “Jesus Christus als externe Mitte des Alten Tes-
taments,” in: Christoph Landmesser et al. (Hrsg.), Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift (Bei-
hefte der Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 86; Berlin—New York: Walter
de Gruyter 1997), 199–233; Michael Welker, “Sola Scriptura? The Authority of the Bible in
Pluralistic Environments,” in Brent A. Strawn, Nancy R. Bowen (eds.), A God So Near. Essays
in Old Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns 2003),
375–391.
3 Ad de Bruijne, “Bijbelse geschiedenis,” in Cees Dekker e.a. (red.), Omhoog kijken in platland.
Over geloven in de wetenschap (Kampen 2007), 125. Cf. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of
Doctrine. A Cononical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster
John Knox Press 2005), 231–237.
4 Koert van Bekkum, “‘For the Word of YHWH Will Certainly Come True’ (2 Kgs. 13: 32). Some
Remarks on Reformed Hermeneutics of Biblical Historical Narrative,” in: Gerald H. Visscher,
Mees te Velde (eds.), Correctly Handling the Word of Truth: Reformed Hermeneutics Today (Lu-
cerna; CRTS Publications, 1; Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock: 2014), 116–126.
5 For an overview and examination of recent debate, see e.g. Cf. Bill T. Arnold, Richard S.
Hess (eds.) Ancient Israel’s History. An Introduction to Issues and Sources, Baker Academic:
Grand Rapids, MI 2014, 1–22; Koert van Bekkum, “‘The Situation Is More Complicated.’ Ar-
chaeology and Text in the Historical Reconstruction of the Iron Age IIa Southern Levant,”
How the Mighty Have Fallen 161
and the Christian faith are deeply historical in nature. Accordingly, it would be
mistaken to look only for a theological interpretation of the available data. This
would lead too easily to a reading of scripture being dissipated from reality, or
to an interpretation of biblical historical narrative only confirming preconcep-
tions about the way it refers to history. Both results definitely contradict the
notion of sola scriptura, which is historically linked to the adage ad fontes of
the 15th and 16th century ce Renaissance, thus highlighting the appropriate
use of all sources and underlining the possibility of a new understanding of
texts.6 The deep theological grounding of these observations is to be found in
the connection between God’s general revelation in creation and history and
in his special revelation in scripture.7
In order to make this theological discussion regarding the relation of general
human knowledge and scripture tangible, this contribution takes the recent
archaeological debate regarding state formation in the Southern Levant and on
David as a warlord as a case study. First, I present the archaeological discussion
and then take a short look at several ways in which the books of Samuel are
used as a historical source. The notion of sola scriptura—at first appreciated as
an effort to understand the available (historical) data on their own terms—is
used to analyse both debates. It will become apparent that the principle cannot
only be made fruitful in theology, but also at its very borders, in conversation
with non-theological disciplines. An inductive, reluctant use of sola scriptura is
helpful both in clarifying historical issues and in revealing where the religious
aspects of the historical debates need to be discussed, that is, in the arena of
conflicting theological views. In this way, the principle is also connected to its
mere deductive, theological meaning on scripture as divine revelation.
in: Eveline van der Steen, Noor Mulder-Hymans, Jeannette Boertien (eds.), Exploring the Nar-
rative. Jerusalem and Jordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Papers in Honour of Margreet Steiner
(Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies, 583; London, New York: Bloomsbury T&T
Clark 2014), 215–244.
6 For an effort in this direction that nevertheless runs the risk of confirming preconceptions
because of its pre-suppositional approach, see Cornelis Van Dam, “Interpreting Historical
Narrative. Truth Claim, Truth Value, and Historicity,” in: Visscher, Te Velde (eds.), Correctly
Handling the Word of Truth, 83–115.
7 Cf. e.g. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics. Vol. 1. Prolegomena (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic 2003), Chapter 10 and 11. According to his late 19th century concept of theolo-
gy as reflecting being and consciousness, the Dutch Neo-Calvinist Abraham Kuyper (1837–
1920) defined historical reality and the immanent vicissitudes of the historical context of
the Bible as historia sacra (“zijn”) and divine revelation of this history as historia revelationis
(“bewustzijn”). Abraham Kuyper, Encyclopaedie der heilige godgeleerdheid, dl. 3 (Kampen:
Kok 1909), 147–166.
162 van Bekkum
2 State Formation in the Iron Age IIa Southern Levant (980–850 bce)
2.1 Sources and Consensus

The historical debate regarding state formation in the Iron Age Southern Le-
vant and the rise of Israelite territorial kingdoms mainly concentrates on three
kinds of data. (a) First, the Hebrew text of the biblical books of Samuel, Kings,
and Chronicles, in particular the stories of Saul and David (1 Sam. 16–2 Sam.
1), on David in Hebron and Jerusalem (2 Sam. 2–11), and on David and his
sons (2 Sam. 12–1 Kon. 11). (b) A second group of sources consists of several
types of non-biblical texts, that is, proto-Canaanite inscriptions from the 11th
and 10th Century bce that were found in the Southern Levant, and two 9th
century bce stelas from competing territorial kingdoms, the Aramaic Tel Dan
Stela and the and Moabite Mesha Stone from Diban. Since a few years, some
Neo-Hittite inscriptions in Luwian hieroglyphs from 11th and 10th Century
bce are also added to this cluster. (c) The third and final category of data com-
prises the ever growing amount of archaeological remains from the Iron Age
IIa (ca. 980–850 bce).
Until the early 1990s it was common sense to interpret these data within
a historical framework being inspired by the classical historical-critical views
of the biblical sources, which was mainly based on literary distinctions for-
mulated by Hermann Gunkel. According to this strand of scholarship, the
books of Samuel contain Heldensagen and also so-called doublets, for ex-
ample, in the stories about the encounters between David and Saul. In this
view, the vivid, almost secular portrait of human beings in the narrative and
the fact that its scribes most likely used administrative texts from the court
in composing the narrative of, for instance, 2 Samuel 5, 8 and 12, reflect a
transition from myth to real historiography.8 Accordingly, the story as a whole
was considered to be a valuable historical source for the study of the rise of
kingship in ancient Israel.9
Over the decades, the fields of epigraphy and the archaeology of the S outhern
Levant professionalized and became more independent disciplines. Neverthe-
less, major finds from the beginning of Iron IIa in the excavations between the
late 1950s and mid 1980s of for instance, Tell Hazor, Tel Megiddo, Tell Gezer
and the City of David in Jerusalem were interpreted as the archaeological
8 Cf. e.g. Hermann Gunkel, “Geschichtsschreibung im AT,” RGG [1], Bd. 2, 1348–1354.
9 For more recent examples of this consensus from Anglo-Saxon and German scholarship
see e.g. Baruch Halpern, The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel (Harvard Semitic Mono-
graphs, 25; Chico, CA: Scholars Press 1981); Walter Dietrich, Die frühe Königszeit in Israel. 10.
Jahrhundert v.Chr. (Biblische Enzyclopädie, 3; Stuttgart—Berlin—Köln: Kohlhammer 1997).
substantiation of the so-called ‘Golden Age’ of David and Solomon. Despite

some doubts, destruction layers at the beginning and middle of this period
were connected to the conquests of David and to the Asiatic campaign of pha-
raoh Shoshenq I against his grandson Rehoboam (cf. 1 Kgs. 14: 25). In addition,
the development of administrative buildings in provincial towns and Phoe-
nician influences in the architecture were interpreted as reflecting building
activities by king Solomon.10 The influence of this consensus can be detected
in most Bible atlases, addressing a large area of land and architecture in well-
known archaeological excavations to the immediate political control of the so-
called ‘United Monarchy’ of David and Solomon and paying specific attention
to the six-chamber gates of Hazor, Gezer and Megiddo (cf. 1 Kgs. 9: 15).11
2.2 Low Chronology Debate

In the meantime, the increasing scholarly scepticism since the 1970s concern-
ing the historicity of the patriarchal narratives and the traditions regarding Is-
rael’s settlement in Canaan resulted in several revisionist theories with regard
to the ‘United Monarchy.’12 A real shift in academic debate, however, occurred
in 1996 with Israel Finkelstein’s proposal for a lower date of the beginning of
the Iron Age IIa, that is, from ca. 1000 bce to ca. 920 bce. In his view, the tra-
ditional consensus simply took uncertain biblical texts of a much later date as
a point of departure and failed to interpret the material remains on their own
terms. He considered the 10th century bce to be a “dark age” and argued that
writing commenced in the 9th century, but at that time was still sporadic and
did not include complex texts. Finkelstein suggests that until the very begin-
ning of the 9th century the Southern Levant was not governed by kings, but by
tribal chiefs, warlords and local rulers. In addition, both the most important
building activities of Iron IIa and the relations with Phoenicia would suggest
10 For two classic presentations of this consensus, see John S. Holladay, “The Kingdoms of
Israel and Judah: Political and Economic Centralization in the Iron IIA–B” (ca. 1000–757
bce), in: Thomas E. Levy (ed.), The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land (New York:
Facts on File 1995), 368–398; William G. Dever, “Archaeology and the ‘Age of Solomon.’
A Case Study in Archaeology and Historiography,” in Lowell K. Handy (ed.), The Age of
Solomon. Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium (Studies in the History and Culture of
the Ancient Near East, 11; Leiden etc.: Brill 1997), 217–251.
11 Cf. e.g. Anson F. Rainey, R. Steven Notley, The Sacred Bridge. Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical
World (Jerusalem: Carta 2006), 162–164.
12 E.g. Thomas L. Thompson, Early History of the Israelite People. From the Written and Ar-
chaeological Sources (Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East, 4; Leiden etc.: Brill
1992), 316–339.
164 van Bekkum
that state formation did not take place in the southern, but in the northern
hills. In his view, the first real territorial kingdom of the Southern Levant was
that of Omri of Samaria (ca. 882–871 bce, 1 Kgs. 16: 23–28), while Judah and
Jerusalem came later and only started to thrive after the Assyrian destruction
of the northern kingdom (722 bce).13
By referring to the Israelite king Omri and his supposed “Omride architec-
ture” Finkelstein betrayed that his ‘alternative view’ also used a biblical Archi-
medean point in reorganizing the material, that is, the verses in 1 Kgs. 16 on
king Omri. Nevertheless, his alternative view instigated a fierce debate, which
not only touched on the issues of chronology and state formation in the South-
ern Levant, but also on the identity of modern Israel and the nature of the
solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.14
In the discussions between Finkelstein and the defendants of a modified
traditional chronology it turned out that he rightly criticized the role of David
and Shoshenq I in the traditional consensus. A new independent archaeolog-
ical basis for the period between the Late Bronze IIb Egyptian New Kingdom
involvement in the Southern Levant and the Iron Age IIb Assyrian conquests
had to be found. Finkelstein, however, also underestimated the level of literacy
in the Iron IIa (as became evident by the find of an abecedary in Tell Zayit in
2005 and the excavation of two ostraca in Khirbet Qeiyafa in 2008 and 2012),
the regional differences in the archaeological remains, and the importance of
David, who turned out to be mentioned as the founder of a dynasty in the Tel
Dan Stela, which parts were excavated in 1993 and 1995, and possibly also in
the long forgotten last lines of the Mesha Stela.15
13 Israel Finkelstein, “The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative View,” Le-
vant 28 (1996), 177–187. For the historical consequences, see Israel Finkelstein, Neil
Asher Silberman, David and Solomon. In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of
the Western Tradition (New York: Free Press 2006); Israel Finkelstein, The Forgotten King-
dom. The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel (Ancient Near Eastern Monographs,
5; Atlanta, GA: SBL Press 2013), and “Geographical and Historical Realities behind the
Earliest Layer in the David Stories,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 27 (2013),
131–150.
14 For a summary and analysis, see e.g. Israel Finkelstein, Amihai Mazar, Brian Schmidt, The
Quest for the Historical Israel. Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel (At-
lanta, GA: SBL Press 2007); Koert van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence. Ideology
and Antiquarian Intent in the Historiography of Israel’s Settlement in Canaan (Culture and
History of the Ancient Near East, 45; Leiden, Boston: Brill 2011), 450–459.
15 Ron E. Tappy, P. Kyle McCarter (eds.), Literate Culture and Tenth-Century Canaan. The
Tel Zayit Abecedary in Context (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns 2008); Yosef Garfinkel
et al., Khirbet Qeiyafa, Vol. 1, Excavation Report 2007–2008 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
With regard to the campaign of Shoshenq I, it has become highly unlikely

that this pharaoh sustained his claims on the former Egyptian Province in Asia
by a severe destruction of cities and villages. Finally, all partners in the dis-
cussion have difficulties in dealing with the impressive architecture that was
excavated by Eilat Mazar in the City of David (Jerusalem) between 2005 and
2008, and which at least to some extent seems to have functioned during the
10th century bce.16
In addition, it can be observed that the campaign by the Aramean king
Hazael (ca. 835/832 bce) as unearthed in the major excavation in at Tell es-Safi/
Gath is now generally acknowledged as a new chronological anchor in the pe-
riod under discussion.17 Accordingly, the gap between the ‘modified traditional’
and the ‘low chronology’ is narrowing, also due to radiocarbon analysis. As a
result, the beginning of Iron Age IIa is now estimated at ca. 980 bce or 950 bce.18
Society 2009), 243–258; Yosef Garfinkel et al., “The ʾIšbaʿal Inscription from Khirbet Qei-
yafa,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 373 (2015) 217–233; André
Lemaire, “The Tel Dan Stela as a Piece of Royal Historiography,” Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament 23 (1998), 3–14; Matthew Suriano, “The Apology of Hazael: A Literary and
Historical Analysis of the Tel Dan Inscription,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 66 (2007),
163–176; André Lemaire, “‘House of David’ Restored in Moabite Inscription,” Biblical Ar-
chaeology Review 20.3 (1994), 30–37.
16 Eilat Mazar, The Palace of King David. Excavations at the Summit of the City of David.
Preliminary Report of Seasons 2005–2007 (Jerusalem—New York: Shoham Academic
Research and Publication 2009). Cf. e.g. A. Faust, “The Large Stone Structure in the City
of David. A Reexamination,” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 126 (2010),
116–130; Israel Finkelstein, “The “Large Stone Structure” in Jerusalem. Reality versus
Yearning,” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 127 (2011), 2–10; Amihai Mazar,
“Archaeology and the Bible: Reflections on historical Memory in the Deuteronomistic
History,” in: Christl M. Maier (ed.), Congress Volume Munich 2013 (Supplement to Vetus
Testamentum, 163; Leiden, Boston: Brill 2014), 358–361.
17 Cf. Aren M. Maeir (ed.), Tell es-Safi/Gath I: The 1996–2005 Seasons. Vol. 1. Text (Ägypten
und Levante, 69; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2012), 43–49; Aren M. Maeir, “Can Material
Evidence of Aramean Influences and Presence in Iron Age Judah and Israel be Found?,”
in: Angelika Berlejung, Aren M. Maeir, Andreas Schüle (eds.), Wandering Arameans:
Arameans Outside Syria. Textual and Archaeological Perspectives (Leipziger Altorien-
talischer Studien, 5; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag 2017), 55–57.
18 Israel Finkelstein, Eli Piasetzky, “The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Narrowing?,”
Near Eastern Archaeology 74 (2011), 50–54; Amihai Mazar, “The Iron Age Chronology
Debate: Is the Gap Narrowing? Another Viewpoint”, Near Eastern Archaeology 74 (2011),
105–111; Hayah Katz, Avraham Faust, “The Chronology of the Iron Age IIA in Judah in the
Light of Tel ʿEton Tomb C3 and Other Assemblages,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Ori-
ental Research 371 (2014), 103–127; Amihai Mazar, “Archaeology and the Bible,” 354–368.
166 van Bekkum
From a historical perspective, these discussions in order to find new ground

for the chronology of the Iron Age clearly helps in focusing on the main ar-
chaeological issue regarding state formation in the Southern Levant. This area
experienced a major transformation in its general social structure, that is, from
an area dominated by villages and tribal structures in the Iron Age I to a region
defined by more hierarchy, administrative towns and centralization in Iron
Age IIa, with the territorial kingdoms of Israel and Judah in Iron Age IIb as its
result. The question, however, is when, how and why did this transition take
place?
With regard to the ‘when’ it is to be noted that most likely, the Iron IIa period
did not start and develop in all places at the same moment in the same way. In
addition, the recent answers to the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of this transformation in
the social structure of Southern Levant are also quite diverse, despite the fact
that they all claim to be based on archaeological evidence. This is not only the
case because of the dissimilarity between the socio-archaeological and anthro-
pological models that are used as a heuristic devices in the historical recon-
structions—for the material remains do not tell a story by themselves—but
also for the reason that scholars have different larger historical narratives in
mind as a point of departure for their interpretation.
This can be illustrated in two ways. First, there is a clear tendency in the
publications of Aren Maeir, the director of the excavations at Tel el-Safi/Gath,
arguing that this site, one of the largest in the Southern Levant during the tran-
sition from the Iron I to Iron IIa, was not only an important town, but also the
center of the most important polity in the region until its destruction during the
second half of the 9th century bce. Consequently, Judah could only thrive after
Hazael had destroyed its enemy in the west.19 This reconstruction, however,
deliberately ignores two difficult issues: how was the city of Gath integrated
in the diverse political landscape of the Philistine coastal strip, and what
might an upcoming kingdom in Judah or a monarchy of united Israelite tribes
have looked like? Accordingly, the question is to what extent this h ypothesis
tends to overestimate the material and economic factors in creating political
units during the early Iron IIa.
A second illustration is offered by the recent debate regarding the inter-
pretation of the archaeological remains of Khirbet Qeiyafa, a small 11th–
10th century bce fortress, excavated in 2007–2013. The site is located in the
Elah Valley between the tribal ‘Israelite’ villages in the highlands in the east
19 See e.g. Maeir (ed.), Tell es-Safi/Gath I, 40–43; Aren M. Maeir et al., “On the Constitution
and Transformation of Philistine Identity,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 32 (2013), 1–38.
and the ‘Philistine’ cities in the west. The excavators interpret the fortifica-
tions as definite proof of the fact that a ‘United Monarchy’ led by the tribe of
Judah was at war with the Philistines.20 Others connect the site to activities
of Saul, who would have been a local ruler of the territory surrounding Gibe-
ah and built the fortress in order to defend himself against the Philistines.21
Finally, the fortress is also interpreted as a last hiding place for Canaanites,
who retreated under the pressure of the Philistines in the west and the Isra-
elites in the east.22 Given the fact that the architecture, pottery and script of
the ostraca reflect the continuity of the Late Bronze II and Iron I Southern
Levantine culture as well as innovations that can be connected to the later
more centralized material culture of the Iron IIa territorial kingdom(s) in
the highlands, all interpretations seem to be possible.23
2.3 Geopolitical context

Due to the so-called ‘Great Power Eclipse’ it is very hard to elucidate this period
in the Southern Levantine history from Egyptian and Mesopotamian sources.
Very recently, however, Gershon Galil has undertaken the effort to shed more
light on the larger political context by studying the 11th–9th century history of
the Neo-Hittite kingdoms with help of some new hieroglyphic Luwian inscrip-
tions from Aleppo and Tell Tayinat and several early Neo-Assyrian sources. Ac-
cording to his reconstruction, it is possible to make a connection between the
‘Philistines’ in the south and a Neo-Hittite kingdom called ‘Walestin/Palestin’
in the north, which split up into four kingdoms in the 10th to early 9th centu-
ry bce: Palestin, Hamath, Carchemish and Arpad. In addition, Galil uses this
hypothesis to explore a previous suggestion, that is, that the second of the two
Neo-Hittite kings named Taita, who ruled over Palestin, the middle Orontes
Valley and Hamath, is possibly to be identified with Toi, king of Hamath, who
is presented as a bitter enemy of the Aramean king Hadadezer of Zobah in 2
Sam. 8: 8–9. In this way, Galil offers a historical reconstruction evoking the
possibility that David indeed fought some battles in the north, took advantage
20 Yosef Garfinkel et al., Khirbet Qeiyafa. Vol. 1–2 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society
2009–2014).
21 Israel Finkelstein, Alexander Fantalkin, “Khirbet Qeiyafa: An Unsensational Archaeologi-
cal and Historical Interpretation,” Tel Aviv 39 (2012), 38–63.
22 Nadav Na’aman, “Khirbet Qeiyafa in Context,” Ugarit Forschungen 42 (2012), 497–526.
23 Cf. Amihai Mazar, “Archaeology and the Bible,” 361–364.; Silvia Schroer, Stefan Münger
(eds.), Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah (Orbus Biblicus et Orientalis, 282; Fribourg, CH
2017); Nadav Na’aman, “Was Khirbet Qeiyafa a Judahite City? The Case against It,” Journal
of Hebrew Scriptures 17/7 (2017), 1–40.
168 van Bekkum
of the conflicts in this area and succeeded in making some of the Aramean and
Neo-Hittite kingdoms his allies and vassals.24
This interesting hypothesis certainly deserves attention, but also serious
testing. Apart from the fact that it barely pays attention to the ideological as-
pect of the inscriptions, there are also philological issues. Is there really a clear
connection between ‘Walestin/Palestin’ in the north and the ‘Philistines’ in the
south? Can the name “Taita” indeed be understood as an abbreviation of the
full Hurrian form “Taḫḫe-ta”, which could have been referred to as “Ta ͨi” or
“Toi” in Hebrew? Some scholars state that this is impossible. Accordingly, they
opt for a much more reluctant approach in reconstructing the history of the
Neo-Hittite and early Aramean states.25
Nevertheless, Galil rightly places the history of the Iron IIa Southern Le-
vant in the larger context of the political struggles between the Neo-Hittite
kingdoms, the Sea Peoples, the Arameans and the southern Levantine rulers.
They all claimed territories that were previously part of the Egyptian and the
Hittite Empires. This background already presents itself in the general his-
torical development of the ebb and flow of the great empires of the Ancient
Near East during the Late Bronze and Iron Ages. Moreover, echoes of these
struggles are also attested in biblical land-claims, for instance in Josh 13 and
in 2 Sam. 8 and 12, for these passages suggest that a definite fulfilment of
the Promise of the Land took place in David’s control of the former Egyptian
Province in Asia.26
24 Gershon Galil, “David, King of Israel, between the Arameans and the Northern and South-
ern Sea Peoples in Light of New Epigraphic and Archaeological Data,” Ugarit Forschungen
44 (2013), 159–174; idem, “A Concise History of Palistin / Patin / Unqi / ͨmq in the 11th–
9th Centuries BC,” Semitica 56 (2014), 75–104. Cf. Amihai Mazar, “Archaeology and the
Bible,” 368; Jeffrey P. Emanuel, “King Taita and His ‘Palistin’. Philistine State or Neo-Hittite
Kingdom?,” Antiguo Oriente 13 (2015), 11–40.
25 K. Lawson Younger, A Political History of the Arameans: From Their Origins to the End of
Their Polities (Archaeology and Biblical Studies, 13; Atlanta, GA: SBL Press 2016), 123–
135.
26 See e.g. Koert van Bekkum, “Remembering and Claiming Ramesside Canaan. Historical-
topographical Problems and the Ideology of Geography in Joshua 13: 1–7,” in: Ed Noort
(ed.), The Book of Joshua and the Land of Israel (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologi-
carum Lovaniensium, 250; Peeters: Louvain 2012), 347–360. For a similar analysis with
regard the land claims in 1 Kgs. 5: 1–5, see Christopher B. Hays, “Biblical Claims About
Solomon’s Kingdom in Light of Egyptian ‘Three-Zone’ Ideology of Territory,” in: Thom-
as E. Levy et al., (eds.), Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective. Text, Archaeology,
Culture, and Geoscience (Springer: Dordrecht etc. 2015), 503–515.
2.4 Range of Opinions

The recent debates regarding David as a warlord clearly resulted in a significant
increase of the knowledge of the social and cultural transformation of the
Southern Levant during Iron I and Iron IIa and of the geopolitical landscape in
this period. At the same time, however, the range of opinions on the question
how the historical figure of David fits into this picture has widened enormously.
For Finkelstein, David was just a leader of a band, who manoeuvred between
a north Israelite highlands polity and the dominating Philistine kingdom in
the southern Shephelah.27 At the other side of the spectrum, Galil exploits
the new available data in order to underline that the idea of a D avidic ‘United
Monarchy’ with allies and vassals among the Philistine, Neo-Hittite and e arly
Aramean rulers is still most likely.28 In between these two extremes, many
other s cenarios are available. Accordingly, it has become c ommon to believe
that D avid was indeed the founder of a dynasty in Jerusalem. Most scholars,
however, are also hesitant to draw a concrete historical picture, because
they consider it being hard to do more than to mention only a few historical
elements that should be used in a re-enactment of David’s life, such as the
fact that he was a mercenary and warlord expanding his power and territory
through marriages and kinship networks.29
3 Books of Samuel as Politics and Religion
One of the great difficulties in the archaeological debate concerning David is

how to use the Old Testament as a source. Although the discussion concerning
the dating of the biblical books touches upon this question, it is in itself not de-
cisive, because traditions that are written centuries after the supposed events
can still contain valuable information. Even the possibility cannot be ruled
out that they offer better historical explanations than an eyewitness account,
because of a more balanced presentation of the facts. The main problem,
however, is to explain the potential preservation of memories in the biblical
27 Finkelstein, “Geographical and Historical Realities,” 146.

28 For a recent effort to corroborate this more traditional view archaeologically, see Steven
Ortiz, “United Monarchy: Archaeology and Literary Sources,” in: Arnold, Hess (eds.), An-
cient Israel, 227–261.
29 See e.g. Bob Becking, “David Between Ideology and Evidence,” in: Bob Becking, Lester L.
Grabbe (eds.), Between Evidence and Ideology. Essays on the History of Ancient Israel Read
at the Joint Meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study and the Oudtestamentische Werk-
gezelschap, Lincoln, July 2009 (Oudtestamentische Studiën, 59; Leiden: Brill 2011), 1–29.
170 van Bekkum
traditions and how to value their testimony regarding the personality of its
main character.
During a large part of the 20th century ce it was common to argue that
three older sources could be detected in the Books of Samuel: the ‘Ark Narra-
tive’, the ‘History of David’s Rise’ and the ‘Succession Account.’30 The discussion
was—and to some extent is—how these sources were connected, adapted
and reworked since the late 8th or 7th century bce on by scribes writing from
deuteronomistic, prophetic and nomistic points of view.31 Most of the recon-
structions along these lines take the theological agenda of these scribes into
consideration. Their main purpose, however, is to show that these writings and
editions were written as legitimizations of certain groups in pre-exilic, exilic
and post-exilic times.
3.1 Apology of David

A specific and highly influential hypothesis concerning one of the pre-
deuteronomic sources was offered by P. Kyle McCarter. In his view, 1 Sam. 16:
14–2 Sam. 5: 10, but maybe also some parts of the ‘Succession Account,’ orig-
inally functioned as a kind of ‘Apology of David,’ a text using an Ancient Near
Eastern genre that can also be detected in the annals of the Hittite king Ḫat-
tušili III (ca. 1267–1236 bce). According to McCarter, royal scribes at the court
wrote this apology in order to defend the dynasty against a variety of charges.32
The interesting element in this hypothesis is that the biblical description
of David’s way to the throne indeed contains apologetic elements. In 2 Sam.
16: 7–8 Shimei, a member of Saul’s clan, blames David of having become king
by killing Saul and his family. If the story of Saul and David is read in the light
of this accusation, a whole range of passages regarding the end of members
of Saul’s house can be interpreted as refutations of this charge. According to
these passages David is not a ferocious usurper, for he neither killed Saul and
30 Leonard Rost, Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids (Beiträge zur Wissen-
schaft von Alten und Neuen Testament, 3/6; Suttgart: Kohlhammer 1926).
31 See e.g. Richard D. Nelson, “The Deuteronomistic Historian in Samuel. ‘The Man Behind
the Green Curtain’” and Walter Dietrich, “The Layer Model of the Deuteronomistic Histo-
ry and the Book of Samuel,” in: Cynthia Edenburg, Juha Pakkala (eds.), Is Samuel Among
the Deuteronomists? Current Views on the Place of Samuel in the Deuteronomistic History
(Ancient Israel and Its Literature, 16: Atlanta, GA: SBL Press 2013), 17–37, 39–65. Cf. also
the essays in A. Graeme Auld, Erik Eynikel (eds.), For and Against David. Story and Histo-
ry in the Books of Samuel (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 232;
Louvain: Peeters 2010).
32 P. Kyle McCarter, “The Apology of David,” Journal of Biblical Literature 99 (1980), 489–504.
Jonathan (1 Sam. 18–2 Sam. 1) nor Abner and Ishbosheth (2 Sam. 2–4). That
Michal, Saul’s daughter, did not have children was her own fault (2 Sam. 6).
David treated Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth and his servant Zibah very well,
while Shimei ruined his own future (2 Sam. 9; 16; 19; 1 Kgs. 2). Finally, Da-
vid honoured Saul, Jonathan and the male descendants who had been rightly
convicted because of Saul’s violation of Israel’s treaty with Gibeon, by burying
them in the tomb of their forefather Kish (2 Sam. 21).
In recent research most scholars opt for a later date of the earliest layers
in the books of Samuel. Therefore, they do not agree with McCarter’s idea
that this putative ancient ‘Apology of David’ is written in the later days of his
reign in Jerusalem in order to safeguard the new dynasty’s position among
the tribes. Nevertheless, the exclusively political reading of the story fitted
the general, a lready existing trend of reading the story of David ‘against the
grain’. This has resulted in several works of fiction and thorough scholarly
biographies portraying the historical David as a brilliant leader, but also as a
power-hungry p olitician and ruthless murderer.33 This inclination to reduce
the c ommunication in the Book of Samuel to a discourse of power with help
of a hermeneutic of suspicion leads to a striking paradoxical situation. On the
one hand, scholars are quite sure that the David narratives cannot be trusted
historically. But on the other hand they do know for certain that the actual
historical reality is exactly the opposite of what these books claim.
3.2 Historical Patterns and Yhwh’s Integrity

Some recent investigation avoids this paradox by undermining the whole idea
of the existence of a ‘Court History’, ‘Succession Account’ or ‘Apology of D
avid’
and by paying much more attention to those aspects in the story that are crit-
ical of the monarchy and of David as a king. According to these views, this
critical undertone clearly has to be post-exilic, while the earlier layers—if they
existed—legitimized both the social status of certain groups in ancient Judah
and the 7th century bce land-claim on northern Israel.34
33 Cf. the novels by e.g. Stefan Heym, Der König David Bericht (Frankfurt am Main:
Fischer-Taschenbuch 1972 [ET 1973]); Joseph Heller, God Knows (New York: Knopfler
1984); Geraldine Brooks, The Secret Chord (New York: Viking 2015). For scholarly biogra-
phies, see Steven McKenzie, David. A Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2000);
Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons. Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans 2001).
34 John Van Seters, The Biblical Saga of King David (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns 2009);
Jacob L. Wright, David, King of Israel, and Caleb in Biblical Memory (New York: Cambridge
University Press 2014).
172 van Bekkum
These approaches offer interesting exegetical insights, intriguing historio-

graphical observations and valuable considerations, in particular with respect
to cultural memory and the function of war commemoration, both in ancient
and present times. The primary focus, however, is still on political discourse,
while two elements being of great importance for the historical debate are ne-
glected, that is, the striking historical memories that seem to be present in the
books of Samuel and Kings, and the religious nature of these texts.
With regard to history, at least several components of the David story bear
the suggestion of historical probability. David founded a royal house, but his
son Solomon built the sanctuary connected to the dynasty. This is a most
unusual phenomenon in the Ancient Near East, which makes it trustworthy
as a historical memory, for in order to be convincing an author inventing this
part of the story of the beginning of a dynasty most likely would have used
more common literary features. In addition, both the texts and the material
culture portray the city of Gath as being very important in Iron I and early
Iron IIa. The texts also reveal that the Egyptian pharaoh Shoshenq I raided
Judean territory on his campaign into Asia in the late 10th century, as he
himself claims in his relief on the Bubastite Portal in Karnak. How did the
scribes know that? Finally, the stories in the books of Samuel presuppose
a social situation in the Southern Levant that perfectly fits the increasing
hierarchy in the tribal structures, the political instability and the very begin-
nings of the formation of territorial kingdoms in the transition from Iron I
to Iron IIa. That is at least a striking observation, which needs to be taken
into account in the consideration of these texts as a source for historical
reconstruction.
The own (religious) nature of the books of Samuel is highlighted by taking
a more detailed look at the formal and thematic similarities between this text
and the annals of Ḫattušili III and at the literary function of Yhwh’s election
and confirmation of David as Israel’s king.
Ḫattušili forcefully seized the throne of Ḫatti and his first person account
confirming this fact is intensely personal. The third person account of David
offers vivid portraits of its main characters, but is also strongly embedded in
an overarching history addressing a more general issue: the relation between
Yhwh and Israel. Moreover, the idea that David was an usurper is explicitly
denied in both the present text and in the presumed reconstructions of its
previous literary stages. Therefore, it is most important to recognize that the
annals of Ḫattušili III cannot be viewed as a direct parallel of 1 Sam. 16–2 Sam.
5. The appreciation of its apologetic tendencies should be placed in a much
more nuanced study of this motif among various accounts with similar motifs
in the Ancient Near East, doing justice to each text of its own.
In the books of Samuel, the intimate bond between David, Saul and Jona-
than drives the plot forward and offers a significant contribution, not only to
the persuasiveness of the presentation of David as a man of Yhwh’s own heart,
but also to the narrative as whole. As a result, Yhwh’s election of David turns
out to be not just a Leitmotif that is exploited politically. It is the very basis of
the entire story, which is ultimately not about how David became king and
who finally succeeded him, but on how Yhwh made a decisive new start with
Israel in this foundation of a dynasty.35
3.3 Lament of the Bow

An eminent example of the inextricable connectedness between the histori-
cal, literary, political and religious aspects of the text is found in the ‘Lament
of the Bow’ in 2 Sam. 1: 19–27. Recent analysis has shown that important el-
ements of the language, the descriptions of weapons, the role of women, and
the underlying view of heroism in this beautiful elegy reflect the warrior cul-
ture of the eastern Mediterranean of late Iron I, for it contains striking parallels
with Ugaritic, and even early Greek poetry.36
As an ancient Israelite poem and part of the books of Samuel, it contains
unique content. On a first level, the ‘Lament of the Bow’ can be read as an elegy
of a warrior singing the mighty deeds and tragic end of his brothers in arms.
David cherishes the relationship with his blood brothers and leaders. They are
one, in life and death, and only a beautiful song can describe it.
David portrays the country. Messengers are on their way to the Philistine
cities. The thought of the joy of the women there fills him with despair. The
poem portrays the fields of Mout Gilboa, ploughed by the boots of warriors.
Numerous Israelites are lying down. Imagining how Saul and Jonathan look,
would be horrific, and therefore, the camera shifts to their weapons. Saul’s shield of
wood, leather and iron is dirty and filthy of his own blood. It will never be cleaned
and oiled again. There are the invincible sword and the bow that never missed.
The poem is beautifully designed. The lines about the women encircle
those about the mountains, the weapons and the relationship between Saul
35 For an elaboration of these observations, see Paul Borgman, David, Saul, and God. Re-
discovering an Ancient Story (New York: Oxford University Press 2008); J. Randall Short,
The Surpising Election and Confirmation of King David (Harvard Theological Studies, 63;
Cambridge, MA: Harvard College 2010); Benjamin J.M. Johnson, “The Heart of Yhwh’s
Chosen One in 1 Samuel,” Journal of Biblical Literature 131 (2012), 455–466. See also
Andrew Knapp, Royal Apologetic in the Ancient Near East (Atlanta, GA: SBL Press 2015).
36 Mark S. Smith, Poetic Heroes. Literary Commemorations of Warriors and Warrior Culture in
the Early Biblical World (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans 2014), 267–283.
174 van Bekkum
and Jonathan. A wider circle repeats the exclamation: “How the mighty have
fallen!” (2 Sam. 1: 19, 25, 27). This level of the poem primarily communicates
David’s despair and invites readers to join in his grief, his denial and confu-
sion.
On a second level, however, the lament functions as a form of public com-
munication, for David not only honours his predecessors, but also unites the
tribes, presents himself as their new leader and chooses his opponents (cf. 2
Sam. 1: 18). The poet sings the ‘Lament of the Bow’ and thereby expresses his
sorrow. Both the readers and people in the account are acquainted with the
rest the story: Saul hunting for David, wanting him dead; David’s deep friend-
ship with Jonathan; and the tensions between him and his father. Despite this
context, David is not triumphant about the death of his enemy. Instead, he
raises a monument for Saul and Jonathan. This lament reminds the people and
the readers why everyone was so pleased with Saul, the king that was request-
ed from God. Who freed from oppression, made rich and brought security and
stability. In a striking reluctant and convincing way, David presents himself as
a the new leader of Israel’s tribes. Now, he will fight the Philistines.
In expressions and imagery echoing the surrounding narrative, the poem
even evokes a third level of meaning, that is, the ‘Lament of the Bow’ as reflect-
ing David’s unexpected way to the throne.37 Saul’s shield, which is no longer
anointed (verse 23), represents the end of his dynasty. His sword is said to have
never returned empty (verse 22). But despite the fact that this sword had been
in service of Israel (1 Sam. 13: 22), it also had failed to kill king Agag of Amalek
(1 Sam. 15: 33) and had been incompetent to serve as an armament in David’s
fight with Goliath (1 Sam. 17: 38–39). Moreover, Saul bore the final respon-
sibility for Doeg’s killing of the entire city of Nob “by the edge of the sword”
(1 Sam. 22: 19) and finally had fallen upon his own very sword (1 Sam. 31: 4, cf.
2 Sam. 1: 12). Similarly, the poem describes Jonathan’s bow as being famous,
because “from the blood of the slain and from the fat of the mighty it never
turned back” (verse 22). But in the narrative this weapon also functions as an
explicit symbol of David’s troubles with Saul, of the deep tensions between
the king and his son, and of Jonathan’s unreserved loyalty to David (1 Sam. 20:
18–42).
Stimulated by the abovementioned suspicious reading of the apologetic
elements in the narrative, scholars tend to interpret these allusions ironical-
ly, that is, as a hidden sign of David’s eagerness to seize the throne, thereby
37 Cf. Jan Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. Vol. 2. The Crossing
Fates (Studia Semitica Neerlandica, 23; Assen: Van Gorcum 1986), 677–682.
contradicting the poem’s positive words about the house Saul.38 Both the
poem itself and the larger narrative context, however, resist such an interpre-
tation. The allusions regarding the shield and sword of Saul do not regard the
tragic end of his dynasty as such, but merely symbolize Saul’s mistaken way
of being a king from a religious point of view. Yhwh’s rejection of the reign of
this ‘Messiah’ is highlighted, while David reminds himself and the people that
Yhwh can give victory without sword and spear (1 Sam. 17: 47).
In a similar way, Jonathan’s deep loyalty to David comprises more than an
intimate bond between warrior-soulmates. Jonathan is the very first character
in the story acknowledging Yhwh’s surprising election of David. He even con-
tributes to its confirmation by his acts (1 Sam. 18: 1–4; 20: 35–42; 23: 14–18).
The poem substantiates this religious interpretation in several ways. It is re-
corded in the “Book of the Upright One (of Yhwh)” (verse 18), the Philistines
are referred to as “the uncircumcised” (verse 20), and the shield that will never
again be anointed touches on divine election and rejection (verse 22). Most
striking, however, is the way the poem refers to Jonathan himself. The fact
that it is called the “Lament of the Bow” (verse 18), the order of the names
“Saul” and “Jonathan” (verses 21–27), the last lines on Jonathan’s love (verses
25–26), and the concentric structure of the poem all suggest that the “gazelle”
or “beauty of Israel” in its first line (verse 19) refers to Jonathan.39 Jonathan’s
preference for David over himself is the key to the interpretation of the poem.
The lament is not only David’s elegy in praise of his father-in-law and a dear
warrior-soulmate, but also his answer to Jonathan’s encouraging love, which
was ultimately demonstrated in his death and in which the mysterious hand of
divine providence can be perceived.40
4 Conclusion
“How the mighty have fallen!” In recent historical research, the Saul, Jona-
than and David of the well-known biblical historical narratives seem to have
disappeared from the scene as concrete historical characters in favour of
38 E.g. Tod Linafelt, “Private Poetry and Public Eloquence in 2 Samuel 1: 17–27. Hearing and
Overhearing David’s Lament for Jonathan and Saul,” Journal of the American Academy of
Religion 70 (2002), 497–526.
39 According to Pieter van der Lugt, the poem contains a negative (verses 19–21) and a
positive main part (verses 22–27), while verse 22, mentioning Jonathan for the first time,
functions as its deliberately designed rhetorical center (private communication).
40 Short, Surprising Election and Confirmation, 170–173.
176 van Bekkum
socio-archaeological reconstructions based on material remains, inscriptions

and cultural memories. How justified is this from a historical perspective? A
qualified, reluctant application of sola scriptura—understood as an effort to
understand the available data on their own terms—clearly sheds some light
on this question.
From the perspective of general historical knowledge, it can be concluded
that the recent scholarly debates on David and state formation in the Iron IIa
Southern Levant has significantly enriched our understanding of this period.
It was already assumed that biblical narratives about, for instance, Jephtah
and David could be elucidated by information from the Late Bronze Age about
groups of outlaws who were not part of society and gathered in bands in order
to survive.41 Surveys, excavations, socio-archaeological analysis of these data
and inscriptions offer a much more concrete picture of the development of the
villages in the Central Hill Country and of the cities in the valleys. Their weak
institutional political control have become more apparent, while a better pic-
ture was acquired of alternating leadership based on personal loyalty and rela-
tions between clans, which played a decisive part in the process that in the end
would lead to the territorial kingdoms of late Iron IIa. From a geopolitical per-
spective, it is reasonable to assume that any interregional leader in the Central
Hill Country who gained power over the region would try to take part in the
Phoenician trade at sea and seek to exploit his position between Phoenicia and
Arabia.42 In addition, it can be expected that he in some way or another would
try to claim the former Egyptian territories in Asia in order to fill the political
and ideological vacuum, which existed since the end of the Late Bronze Age.
Archaeologically, however, it is still very hard to determine when, where
and how such a kind of ruler emerged and what ideological and religious pro-
cesses were involved. Inscriptions are still very rare and merely illustrate the
lack of standardization during this period, while the material remains are in
themselves not able to say who was in political control, what historical vicis-
situdes occurred and how people perceived their ethnic identity. The use of
socio-archaeological models is of some help in this respect. Most of the time,
however, the larger historical narratives that scholars have in mind, are very
important for the outcome of their interpretations.
41 Nadav Na’aman, “Ḫabiru and Hebrews. The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary
Sphere,” Journal for Near Eastern Studies 45 (1986), 271–286.
42 Daniel Master, “Institutions of Trade in 1 and 2 Kings,” in: Baruch Halpern, André Lemaire
(eds.), The Books of Kings. Sources, Composition, Historiography, and Reception (Supple-
ments to Vetus Testamentum, 129; Leiden, Boston: Brill 2010), 508.
This state of affairs calls for explicit attention for the biblical text as a his-
torical source, for interpretations of this text, be it conscious or not, play their
part in historical reconstructions—even in those which claim to be purely
archaeological. The problem, however, is that most of the time, biblical texts
are read predominantly as being political discourse. Recently, scholars have
directed the attention to the negative consequences of this politicization of
the scriptures and their interpretation in modern biblical studies, because this
would not do justice to their very nature as religious texts.43 Scholarship on the
books of Samuel clearly serves as an example of this. The definition of its orig-
inal sources as the ‘History of David’s Rise’ and the ‘Apology of David’ certainly
has clarified certain of its aspects. But these theories also reflect a literary real-
ism that is derived from a purely secular understanding of existence.44
In this situation, sola scriptura is a great help. Biblical scholars and histori-
ans should realize themselves that in using biblical texts as a historical source
and in trying to identify their older layers and sources, their literary and reli-
gious nature need to be appreciated. Taking the biblical text seriously, implies
that the historical constraints and claims that are offered by the text, need to
be considered carefully. This regards the fact that historically, it seems most
likely that the books of Samuel indeed reflect the instable situation, geopolit-
ical context and warrior culture of late Iron I and early Iron IIa. The biblical
text strongly suggests that David indeed operated as a leader of outlaws, a mer-
cenary, and a local warlord in the Southern Hill Country before he became the
king of Israel. But in addition, this also involves the text’s theological claims
regarding Yhwh’s surprising election and confirmation of David as Israel’s
king. Is this story-line that has convinced so many generations and religious
groups, to be trusted or not? The last decades of history of research shows that
scholars cannot avoid it to consider their own presuppositions and theological
attitude towards the books of Samuel. In this way, a reluctant application of
sola scriptura—understood as an effort to interpret all the data on their own
terms—touches upon its theological meaning, that is, the nature of scripture
as divine revelation. Accordingly, both the scholarly world and the wider audi-
ence deserve to know how and from which context they decide on this point.
At the same time, this primary theological meaning of the text also has im-
plications for its interpretation. For despite the abovementioned historical
constraints, the text is not written in order to answer all kinds of historical
43 See e.g. Scott Hahn, Benjamin Wiker, Politicizing the Bible. The Roots of Historical Criticism
and the Secularization of Scripture, 1300–1700 (New York: Crossroad Publishing Compa-
ny 2013).
44 Short, Surprising Election and Confirmation, 195.
178 van Bekkum
questions. David became king of all Israel. But what exactly was the nature of
his reign? Who, for example, did add the Jezreel Valley and the Galilean hills to
the tribal areas in the Central Hill Country? Saul? Ishbaal? David himself? The
text remains silent about it, just as about the nature of David’s political control
and ties with allies and vassals. Even the lists and geographical texts in Samuel
and Kings that might have been derived from royal administrative texts are
deeply embedded in a narrative framework with a truly religious plot: this is
the way of Yhwh with the people of Israel.
Accordingly, biblical interpreters taking biblical historical narrative serious-
ly should resist the temptation of offering detailed reconstructions of history
beyond the biblical text, be it for historical-critical or apologetic reasons. Theo-
logically, the historical nature of these kinds of texts is of great value. But at
the same time, the texts leave room for all kinds of reconstructions. This is a
warning not to ignore their main end and also to leave enough room for those
scholars who study the fascinating history of the Southern Levant from a dif-
ferent perspective, that is, by interpreting inscriptions and material remains.
Bibliography
Arnold, Bill T. & Richard S. Hess (eds.). Ancient Israel’s History. An Introduction to Issues
and Sources, Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, MI 2014.
Auld, A. Graeme & Erik Eynikel (eds.). For and Against David. Story and History in the
Books of Samuel, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 232;
Louvain: Peeters 2010.
Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. Vol. 1. Prolegomena. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic 2003.
Becking, Bob. “David Between Ideology and Evidence,” in: Bob Becking, Lester L.
Grabbe (eds.). Between Evidence and Ideology. Essays on the History of Ancient Israel
Read at the Joint Meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study and the Oudtestamen-
tische Werkgezelschap, Lincoln, July 2009, Oudtestamentische Studiën, 59. Leiden:
Brill 2011, 1–29.
Bekkum, Koert van. From Conquest to Coexistence. Ideology and Antiquarian Intent
in the Historiography of Israel’s Settlement in Canaan, Culture and History of the
Ancient Near East, 45. Leiden—Boston: Brill 2011.
Bekkum, Koert van. “Remembering and Claiming Ramesside Canaan. Historical-
topographical Problems and the Ideology of Geography in Joshua 13: 1–7”, in Ed
Noort (ed.), The Book of Joshua and the Land of Israel, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum
Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 250. Peeters: Louvain 2012, 347–360.
Bekkum, Koert van. “‘For the Word of YHWH Will Certainly Come True’ (2 Kgs. 13: 32).
Some Remarks on Reformed Hermeneutics of Biblical Historical Narrative,” in: Ger-
ald H. Visscher, Mees te Velde (eds.). Correctly Handling the Word of Truth: Reformed
Hermeneutics Today, Lucerna; CRTS Publications, 1. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock:
2014, 116–126.
Bekkum, Koert van. “‘The Situation Is More Complicated.’ Archaeology and Text in the
Historical Reconstruction of the Iron Age IIa Southern Levant,” in: Eveline van der
Steen et al. (eds.) Exploring the Narrative. Jerusalem and Jordan in the Bronze and
Iron Ages: Papers in Honour of Margreet Steiner, Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testa-
ment Studies, 583. London, New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark 2014, 215–244.
Borgman, Paul. David, Saul, and God. Rediscovering an Ancient Story. New York: Oxford
University Press 2008.
Brooks, Geraldine. The Secret Chord. New York: Viking 2015.
Bruggen, Jakob van. “The Authority of Scripture as a Presupposition in Reformed The-
ology,” in: J.M. Batteau et al. The Vitality of Reformed Theology: Proceedings of the In-
ternational Theological Congress June 20–24th 1994 Noordwijkerhout the Netherlands.
Kampen: Kok 1994, 63–83.
Bruijne, Ad de. “Bijbelse geschiedenis,” in: Cees Dekker et al. (red.). Omhoog kijken in
platland. Over geloven in de wetenschap. Kampen: Kok, 2007, 107–126.
Dever, William G. “Archaeology and the ‘Age of Solomon.’ A Case Study in Archaeology
and Historiography,” in Lowell K. Handy (ed.), The Age of Solomon. Scholarship at
the Turn of the Millennium, Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near
East, 11. Leiden etc.: Brill 1997, 217–251.
Dietrich, Walter. Die frühe Königszeit in Israel. 10. Jahrhundert v.Chr., Biblische Enzy-
clopädie, 3. Stuttgart—Berlin—Köln: Kohlhammer 1997.
Dietrich, Walter. “The Layer Model of the Deuteronomistic History and the Book of
Samuel,” in: Cynthia Edenburg, Juha Pakkala (eds.), Is Samuel Among the Deuteron-
omists? Current Views on the Place of Samuel in the Deuteronomistic History, Ancient
Israel and Its Literature, 16. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2013, 39–65.
Emanuel, Jeffrey P. “King Taita and His ‘Palistin’: hilistine State of Neo-Hittite King-
dom?,” Antiguo Oriente 13 (2015): 11–40.
Faust, Avraham. “The Large Stone Structure in the City of David. A Reexamination,”
Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 126 (2010): 116–130.
Finkelstein, Israel. “The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative View,”
Levant 28 (1996): 177–187.
Finkelstein, Israel. “The “Large Stone Structure” in Jerusalem. Reality versus Yearning,”
Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 127 (2011): 2–10.
Finkelstein, Israel. The Forgotten Kingdom. The Archaeology and History of Northern
Israel, Ancient Near Eastern Monographs, 5. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press 2013.
180 van Bekkum
Finkelstein, Israel. “Geographical and Historical Realities behind the Earliest Layer in
the David Stories,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 27 (2013): 131–150.
Finkelstein, Israel & Neil Asher Silberman. David and Solomon. In Search of the Bible’s
Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition. New York: Free Press 2006.
Finkelstein, Israel, Amihai Mazar & Brian Schmidt. The Quest for the Historical I srael.
Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press 2007.
Finkelstein, Israel & Eli Piasetzky. “The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Nar-
rowing?,” Near Eastern Archaeology 74 (2011): 50–54.
Finkelstein, Israel & Alexander Fantalkin. “Khirbet Qeiyafa: An Unsensational Archae-
ological and Historical Interpretation,” Tel Aviv 39 (2012): 38–63.
Fokkelman, Jan. Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. Vol. 2. The Crossing
Fates, Studia Semitica Neerlandica, 23. Assen: Van Gorcum 1986.
Galil, Gershon. “David, King of Israel, between the Arameans and the Northern and
Southern Sea Peoples in Light of New Epigraphic and Archaeological Data,” Ugarit
Forschungen 44 (2013): 159–174.
Galil, Gershon. “A Concise History of Palistin / Patin / Unqi / ͨmq in the 11th–9th Centu-
ries BC,” Semitica 56 (2014): 75–104.
Garfinkel, Yosef et al. Khirbet Qeiyafa, Vol. 1–2. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society
2009–2014.
Garfinkel, Yosef et al. “The ʾIšbaʿal Inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa,” Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 373 (2015): 217–233.
Gunkel, Hermann, “Geschichtsschreibung im AT,” RGG, Bd. 2, 1348–1354.
Hahn, Scott & Benjamin Wiker. Politicizing the Bible. The Roots of Historical Criticism
and the Secularization of Scripture, 1300–1700. New York: Crossroad Publishing Com-
pany 2013.
Halpern, Baruch. The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel, Harvard Semitic Mono-
graphs, 25. Chico, CA: Scholars Press 1981.
Halpern, Baruch. David’s Secret Demons. Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King. Grand Rap-
ids, MI: Eerdmans 2001.
Hays, Christopher B. “Biblical Claims About Solomon’s Kingdom in Light of Egyptian
‘Three-Zone’ Ideology of Territory”, in: Thomas E. Levy et al., (eds.), Israel’s Exodus in
Transdisciplinary Perspective. Text, Archaeology, Culture, and Geoscience. Springer:
Dordrecht etc., 2015, 503–515.
Heller, Joseph. God Knows. New York: Knopfler 1984.
Hermann, Siegfried. “Die Abwertung des Alten Testament als Geschichtsquelle,” in:
Hans Heinrich Schmid, Joachim Mehlhausen (Hrsg.), Sola Scriptura: Das reforma-
torische Schriftprinzip in der säkularen Welt. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn 1991, 156–165.
Hermission, Hans-Jürgen. “Jesus Christus als externe Mitte des Alten Testaments,” in:
Christoph Landmesser et al. (Hrsg.), Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift, Beihefte
der Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 86. Berlin / New York:
Walter de Gruyter 1997, 199–233.
Heym, Stefan. Der König David Bericht. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer-Taschenbuch, 1972.
Holladay, John S. “The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah: Political and Economic Central-
ization in the Iron IIA–B” (ca. 1000–757 bce), in: Thomas E. Levy (ed.), The Archae-
ology of Society in the Holy Land. New York: Facts on File 1995, 368–398.
Johnson, Benjamin J.M., “The Heart of Yhwh’s Chosen One in 1 Samuel,” Journal of Bib-
lical Literature 131 (2012): 455–466.
Katz, Hayah; Avraham Faust, “The Chronology of the Iron Age IIA in Judah in the Light
of Tel ʿEton Tomb C3 and Other Assemblages,” Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 371 (2014): 103–127.
Knapp, Andrew, Royal Apologetic in the Ancient Near East. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press 2015.
Koch, Klaus, “Rezeptionsgeschichte als notwendige Voraussetzung einer biblischen
Theologie,” in Hans Heinrich Schmid, Joachim Mehlhausen (Hrsg.), Sola Scriptura.
Das reformatorische Schriftprinzip in der säkularen Welt. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn 1991,
143–155.
Kuyper, Abraham, Encyclopaedie der heilige godgeleerdheid, dl. 3. Kampen: Kok 1909.
Lemaire, André, “‘House of David’ Restored in Moabite Inscription,” Biblical Archaeol-
ogy Review 20.3 (1994): 30–37.
Lemaire, André, “The Tel Dan Stela as a Piece of Royal Historiography,” Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament 23 (1998): 3–14.
Linafelt, Tod. “Private Poetry and Public Eloquence in 2 Samuel 1: 17–27. Hearing and
Overhearing David’s Lament for Jonathan and Saul,” Journal of the American Acade-
my of Religion 70 (2002): 497–526.
Master, Daniel. “Institutions of Trade in 1 and 2 Kings,” in: Baruch Halpern, André Le-
maire (eds.), The Books of Kings. Sources, Composition, Historiography, and Recep-
tion, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 129. Leiden, Boston: Brill 2010, 501–516.
Mazar, Amihai. “The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Narrowing? Another
Viewpoint”, Near Eastern Archaeology 74 (2011): 105–111.
Mazar, Amihai. “Archaeology and the Bible: Reflections on historical Memory in the
Deuteronomistic History,” in: Christl M. Maier (ed.), Congress Volume Munich 2013,
Supplement to Vetus Testamentum, 163. Leiden, Boston: Brill 2014, 347–369.
Mazar, Eilat. The Palace of King David. Excavations at the Summit of the City of David.
Preliminary Report of Seasons 2005–2007. Jerusalem / New York: Shoham Academic
Research and Publication 2009.
Maeir, Aren M. (ed.). Tell es-Safi/Gath I: The 1996–2005 Seasons. Vol. 1. Text, Ägypten und
Levante, 69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2012.
Maeir, Aren M. et al. “On the Constitution and Transformation of Philistine Identity,”
Oxford Journal of Archaeology 32 (2013): 1–38.
McCarter, P. Kyle. “The Apology of David,” Journal of Biblical Literature 99 (1980): 489–504.
182 van Bekkum
McKenzie, Steven. David. A Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2000.

Naʾaman, Nadav. “Ḫabiru and Hebrews. The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary
Sphere,” Journal for Near Eastern Studies 45 (1986): 271–286.
Naʾaman, Nadav. “Khirbet Qeiyafa in Context,” Ugarit Forschungen 42 (2012): 497–526.
Nelson, Richard D. “The Deuteronomistic Historian in Samuel. ‘The Man Behind the
Green Curtain’”, in Edited by Edenburg and Pakkala, Cynthia Edenburg, Juha Pakka-
la (eds.), Is Samuel Among the Deuteronomists? Current Views on the Place of Samuel
in the Deuteronomistic History, Ancient Israel and Its Literature, 16. Atlanta, GA: SBL
Press, 2013, 17–37.
Ortiz, Steven. “United Monarchy: Archaeology and Literary Sources,” in: Arnold, Hess
(eds.), Ancient Israel, 227–261.
Rainey, Anson F. & R. Steven Notley. The Sacred Bridge. Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical
World. Jerusalem: Carta 2006.
Rost, Leonard. Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids, Beiträge zur Wissen-
schaft von Alten und Neuen Testament, 3/6. Suttgart: Kohlhammer 1926.
Schroer, Silvia, Stefan Münger (eds.), Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah (Orbus Biblicus
et Orientalis, 282; Fribourg, CH 2017)
Short, J. Randall. The Surpising Election and Confirmation of King David, Harvard Theo-
logical Studies, 63. Cambridge, MA: Harvard College 2010.
Smith, Mark S. Poetic Heroes. Literary Commemorations of Warriors and Warrior Culture
in the Early Biblical World. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans 2014.
Suriano, Matthew. “The Apology of Hazael: A Literary and Historical Analysis of the Tel
Dan Inscription,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 66 (2007): 163–176.
Tappy, Ron E. & P. Kyle McCarter (eds.). Literate Culture and Tenth-Century Canaan.
The Tel Zayit Abecedary in Context. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns 2008.
Thompson, Thomas L. Early History of the Israelite People. From the Written and Ar-
chaeological Sources, Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East, 4. Leiden etc.:
Brill 1992.
Van Dam, Cornelis. “Interpreting Historical Narrative. Truth Claim, Truth Value, and
Historicity,” in: Visscher, Te Velde (eds.), Correctly Handling the Word of Truth, 83–115.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. The Drama of Doctrine. A Cononical-Linguistic Approach to Chris-
tian Theology. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press 2005.
Van Seters, John. The Biblical Saga of King David. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns 2009.
Welker, Michael. “Sola Scriptura? The Authority of the Bible in Pluralistic Environments”,
in: Brent A. Strawn, Nancy R. Bowen (eds.), A God So Near. Essays in Old Testament
Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns 2003, 375–391.
Wright, Jacob L. David, King of Israel, and Caleb in Biblical Memory (New York: Cam-
bridge University Press 2014).
Younger, K. Lawson. A Political History of the Arameans: From Their Origins to the End
of Their Polities, Archaeology and Biblical Studies, 13. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press 2016.
chapter 9
“And it Shall Come to Pass in Those Days …”

Eschatological Prophecy Between Literalizing
and Spiritualizing
Eric Peels
1 Eschatological Prophecy and Sola Scriptura
A large part of the Old Testament either consists of prophecy or is influenced

by the spirit of prophecy.1 A small part of these prophecies is eschatological
and relates to the near or the more distant future. Many readers in our time pay
particular attention to these scriptural passages, for we live, they say, in apoca-
lyptic times. The ‘axis of evil’, which could be identified relatively easily short-
ly after 9/11 as a target of a modern crusade, is spreading around the world.
We witness eruptions of religiously motivated violence in various countries,
superpowers that are ominously stirring themselves, and millions of people
who are anxiously on the move. And one way or another, the state of Israel
is always in the center of all those forces and threats. Thus, the ground is cut
from under our feet, and we search for grip and insight. Can we not find these
things in the Bible, the Word given by God as the light for our path in the past
and the present, but also our light for the future? What do the Old Testament
prophecies tell us?
Seminars, conferences, films and books that scrutinize the Old Testament’s
eschatological prophecies, looking for their expected fulfilment, are very
popular. Church members ask their pastors for a less spiritualizing and more
concrete, historical preaching about prophecies. A Google search for the words
‘eschatological’—‘prophetic’—‘apocalyptic’ yields tens of thousands of hits,
leading into a colourful and sometimes bizarre world of explanation and ap-
plication. By way of reaction, it is hard to suppress the desire for a central au-
thority, a univocal ecclesiastical tradition, or even a pope, who can ex-cathedra
show the right way, beyond confusion.
1 Th.C. Vriezen, Hoofdlijnen der Theologie van het Oude Testament (An Outline of Old Testament
Theology) (Wageningen: H. Veenman en Zonen, 1974), 107.

184 Peels
For a protestant theologian, however, this longing is thwarted by the Re-

formed adage of sola scriptura. At the same time, thinking about the inter-
pretation of eschatological prophecy raises difficult questions concerning the
adage itself. In what sense can we speak about the scripture’s ‘autopisty’ or
about ‘comparing scripture with scripture (sacra scriptura sui ipsius interpres)’?
If, in this matter, not an external magisterium but the Word itself has the final
say, we need to be very careful, studiously asking what is in the text and how it
is there. This will be a listening exercise par excellence, in order not to let the
prophecy say more than it can say, but neither less than it wants to say. Thus,
sola scriptura incites a search for an interpretive framework, a paradigm with
hermeneutical and biblical-theological coordinates, which we derive from
scripture and, conversely, test against it.
The present contribution aims to provide some such coordinates. Together
they suggest a direction for the interpretation of eschatological prophecy,
even though questions and uncertainties remain. I will confine myself to Old
Testament prophecy and will deal with (1) the interpretation of eschatological
prophecy, (2) the nature of eschatological prophecy, (3) the language of escha-
tological prophecy and (4) the fulfilment of eschatological prophecy.2
2 The Interpretation of Eschatological Prophecy
The interpretation of eschatological Old Testament prophecy exhibits a wide

spectrum of approaches, from literalizing on the one hand to spiritualizing
on the other. This reminds us of the pair Scylla and Charybdis, both of which
should be avoided. By ‘eschatological prophecy’ I understand, with A.S. van
der Woude, prophecy that concerns “the completion and culmination of God’s
purposes with this people and the entire world, bringing about a new era in
a definite and irreversible way”.3 It should be noted that our distinction be-
tween this age and the age to come is not that clear in the Old Testament it-
self. The ‘last day’ can be in a nearer of in a more distant future, at this side
or beyond the horizon of our history. The Old Testament provides a colourful
set of expectations, sometimes in particularly bright colours, about politics
2 For a more thorough discussion than can be given here, see my “Eschatologie in het Oude
Testament” (“Eschatology in the Old Testament”), in: W. van ’t Spijker (ed.), Eschatologie:
Handboek over de christelijke toekomstverwachting (Eschatology: Handbook for the Christian
Expectation of the Future) (Goudriaan-Kampen: De Groot, 1999), 9–50.
3 A.S. van der Woude, “De oorsprong van Israëls messiaanse verwachtingen” (“The Origin of
Israel’s Messianic Expectations”), Kerk en Theologie 24 (1973), 2f.
And it Shall Come to Pass in Those Days 185
and religion, nature and history, life and death. The key question, therefore, is:
‘How do you read?’
On the one hand, there are many readers who simply take the prophecies
at face value—‘what you see is what you get’. When Israel or Egypt is men-
tioned, the text is about these countries and peoples, also in their present day
manifestations. These readers interpret prophecies ‘literally’ and they apply
them to history in a most straightforward manner. Such interpretation is not
only found in the extreme views of authors like Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye &
Jerry B. Jenkins, but also with ordinary Bible readers from evangelical or Re-
formed traditions. The aforementioned authors sketch a complete scenario of
the future, using biblical prophecies as building blocks. They read eschatological
prophecies as reports of an apocalyptic future, interpreting prophecy as pro-
leptic historiography that sketches out a projected course for future events.
Ordinary Bible readers, in turn, simply read the text as it presents itself and
ask whether a prophecy was already fulfilled or whether it is yet to be fulfilled
in the (near) future. ‘Fulfilled or unfulfilled?’ seems the main question when
reading these texts. The result is a more or less literal interpretation, often with
particular attention to a special future for the people of Israel.
On the other hand, there is an ancient interpretative tradition that reads
eschatological prophecy as typologically hinting at the Christian Church. Ja-
cob, Judah, Ephraim, Zion—in one way or another, all these names symbolize
the Church, while Egypt, Assyria, Edom, the Philistines and others embody its
enemies. In the Old Testament, it is said, things are foreshadowed, but the New
Testament reveals the spiritual reality to which it all pointed According to a re-
formed scholar like G. Ch. Aalders, God’s promises to Israel were either fulfilled
in the Old Testament itself or received their fulfilment in the Christian Church.
A similar spiritualizing interpretation is also found in the marginal notes (the
so-called ‘kanttekeningen’) of the Dutch Statenvertaling (‘Authorized Version’)
from 1637, which has had much influence among conservative churches in the
Netherlands, even until the present day.
On both sides, the literalizing and the spiritualizing, there are interpreters
who emphasize sola scriptura, but without realizing to what extent their inter-
pretations are in fact determined by their own conceptual frameworks.
On the one side, we see an almost positivistic way of thinking.4 The bibli-
cal texts are read as if their aim was to provide information for our picture of
the future. The prophetic genre and idiom is hardly taken into account; these
4 Cf. K. Frör, Biblische Hermeneutik: Zur Schrifttauslegung in Predigt und Unterricht (Biblical
Hermeneutics: Interpretation of Scripture in Preaching and Teaching) (München: Chr. Kaiser
Verlag, 1967), 228.
186 Peels
people read the texts in the same way as they read newspapers or modern text-
books. An important factor in this approach is the idea that prophecy is a pre-
diction of the future. In fact, the eschatological prophecy is isolated from its
literary, historical and theological context, and the selection of elements that
are interpreted literally and those that are not is often completely arbitrary. E.g.,
the prophecy in Isaiah 14 concerning the restoration of Jacob is taken literally,
while the statement that Sheol is “beneath” (‫ )תחתמ‬is taken in a metaphorical
sense. Is this sola scriptura? I would rather listen longer to the prophecy itself,
taking into account its own character and language.
On the other side, the spiritualizing approach seems to be more valid, be-
cause it can refer to the way in which the New Testament applies prophecies to
Christ and the Church. Peter, e.g., transfers Israel’s prerogatives to the Christian
community, designating it as “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation,
a people for [God’s] own possession” (1 Pet. 2: 9).5 Yet, this line of interpreta-
tion too does insufficient justice to the character, language and intention of
the Old Testament prophecy. The nations come to Israel and are incorporated
into Israel, but Israel is not absorbed into the nations. The dividing wall has
been broken down (Eph. 2: 14), but the New Testament does not nullify Is-
rael’s special place. When the Old Testament is read in this way, through the
filter of the New Testament, the prophecies’ original addressees disappear and
the fundamental belief that salvation is from the Jews (John 4: 22) becomes
blurred. Within this approach, a certain interpretive arbitrariness may also be
observed, e.g., when only prophecies of salvation and not prophecies of doom
are applied to the Church. Is this sola scriptura? I would rather listen longer to
the prophecy itself, in its own context and with its own testimony. Sola scrip-
tura encourages our hermeneutical conscience to be attentive to the character
and expressiveness of the text.
3 The Nature of Eschatological Prophecy
There is a persistent misconception that prophets and fortune-tellers belong to

the same category, and that prophecy is almost synonymous with foretelling.
Eschatological prophecy, however, is not like a rocket that is fired, over the
5 Note, in this connection, also 1 Pet. 1: 10–12, where the prophetic message of the Old Tes-
tament is related to the ‘salvation’ and the ‘good news’, which was ‘searched and inquired
carefully’ by the prophets. The prophecy does not end in speaking about the future of Israel,
but in ‘the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow’ (NIV).
heads of the first hearers without hitting them, into the future, where it will
come down, at some moment, on a later generation. It is not a word that, h aving
been spoken and written down, can be stored in a safe until the moment of its
fulfilment arrives. The prophets certainly spoke about the future, sometimes in
very concrete terms,6 but they were primarily pastors, appointed to call Israel
back to its God and his covenant. Their message was, to use German terms,
‘Verheissung’ much more than ‘Weissagung’. In English, the similar distinction
is expressed by the terms ‘forth-telling’ and ‘foretelling’7—while the latter was
not absent,8 the former dominated.
With regard to the character of eschatological prophecy, we should recog-
nize four elements; this prophecy is (1) effective, (2) contingent, (3) fragmen-
tary and (4) contextual.
Prophecy about the future is a functional and dynamic word in the time of
the prophet and his hearers; it aims to be effective, it is effective and it creates
history. This prophecy opens a threatening or inviting perspective in order to
awaken the audience and to cause repentance, in order to comfort and to en-
courage.9 Thus, an exegete should ask about the purpose of a prophecy in the
context of its own time. It may bear much potential for surprising actualiza-
tions and fulfilments in later ages, but it had its primary function in the time
in which it originated.
Secondly, prophecy is not a word that will be realized anyhow, ex opere
operato—let alone literally. Usually, there is an element of contingency and
6 W. Brueggemann aptly speaks about the ‘daring tilt toward eschatology’ with the Old
Testament prophets (Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy [Min-
neapolis: Fortress Press, 1999], 646). Still more broadly, J. Goldingay correctly states that
“an orientation to the future consummation of God’s purpose is intrinsic to biblical faith”
(Old Testament Theology. Volume Two: Israel’s Faith [Downers Grove IL: Intervarsity Press,
2006], 515).
7 W. Klein, C.L. Blomberg, and R.L. Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Dallas:
Word Publishing, 1993), 303.
8 Sometimes, prophets make remarkably detailed announcements about future events: Elisha
knows the war strategy of the king of Aram (2 Kgs. 6: 12); though living in exile, Ezekiel
knows the situation in Jerusalem (Ezek. 8–11); Jeremiah prophesies about the end of the
Babylonian exile (Jer. 29: 10; but note the symbolic number!). In 1 Kings 13: 2 we find a
prophecy about the birth of Josiah, and in 2 Kings 8: 12 about the cruelties of Hazael. More-
over, the fulfilment of a prophecy serves as a criterion of its truth (Deut. 18: 22; Jer. 28: 9).
Yet, there is a huge difference between prophecy and prediction. The connection between
prophecy and the contemporary situation makes it impossible to draw the Old Testament
eschatology into the sphere of prediction and mantic.
9 Cf. Amos 4: 12 and Jer. 18: 11.
188 Peels
conditionality, either explicitly or implicitly.10 Perhaps the best-known exam-

ple is Jonah’s announcement of the destruction of Nineveh (Jonah 3: 3, 10),
while Micah’s prophecy about the fall of Zion is another clear instance (Mic.
3: 12, cf. Jer. 26: 18f). According to Jeremiah 18: 7–10, God can repent of his
word, whether for good or for ill.11
Thirdly, eschatological prophecies should not be combined into one co-
herent picture. We do not get a news programme ante eventum, but we
see a large number of expectations and visions of the future, which were
developed within different historical contexts and rarely fit together seam-
lessly. This remains true even though there are recurring themes such as:
(a) restoration of the relationship between God and his people; (b) resto-
ration of the relationship between the people and the land; (c) restoration
of the relationship between brothers; ten (Ephraim) and two (Judah) will
again become one (Israel), and (d) restoration of the relationship between
God and the nations, in the breakthrough of his kingship in a way of judg-
ment and grace. The prophets do not unfold a future scenario in an exact-
descriptive way. Their preaching about the future is similar to their preach-
ing about the past—a mixture of facts and interpretation. From a prophetic
point of view, there is a certain correspondence between protology and
eschatology. Moreover, they do not proclaim the advent of something, but
of Someone, who holds past, present and future in his hand, in sovereign
freedom.
Fourthly, eschatological prophecy is contextual. The prophets use the
terms, metaphors and conceptions of their own times. They preach in their
own geo-political and religious context, with the intention that the people
will understand their message, obey it and repent. Of course, this contextu-
al nature of prophecy has its consequences for the interpretation of these
texts.12
10 Cf., e.g., Jeremiah 34: 2–5 with Jeremiah 38: 17; the first text announces the fall of Jerusa-
lem, which, given the condition provided in the second text, appears not to be unavoid-
able. Cf. also 2 Kings 22: 20 with 2 Kings 23: 29.
11 On the question of why these prophecies were still preserved and transmitted within the
Old Testament, see R. Chisholm, “When Prophecy Appears to Fail, Check Your Hermeneu-
tic,” jETS 53/3 (2010), 567.
12 “Consequently, to expect fulfilment in the exact terms of the prophecy is to mistake its
nature” (A.B. Davidson, cited in: W.A. VanGemeren, Interpreting the Prophetic Word: An
Introduction to the Prophetic Literature of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1990), 75).
4 The Language of Eschatological Prophecy
Although all Old Testament prophets have their own idiom and way of expres-
sion, it is still possible to describe, in cross-section, the characteristics of the
language of their eschatological prophecy. In an earlier publication, I coined
three double-terms,13 which I adopt here with some modifications.
Firstly, the language of eschatological prophecy is of a summarizing-
perspectival nature. Future events are pushed together, in terms of both time
and space. There is little temporal or spatial differentiation; prophecies often
lack chronological and geographical precision. The images of a mountain ridge
and a telescope are often used to describe this ‘prophetic perspective’.14 This
characteristic is directly related to the fact that the prophets’ eschatological
preaching is often characterized by an aspect of proximity. The prophetic
‘soon’ creates tension in their preaching as they proclaim that the future is ir-
resistibly approaching.15
Secondly, the language of eschatological prophecy is imaginative-evocative.
Prophets constantly use metaphors16 in order to paint their message as vividly
as possible. They are not concerned about factual information, but about a sug-
gestive-evocative call, impressed as they are by God’s advent, which they per-
ceive with the eye of faith, not with a photographic lens. In this respect, I may
refer to powerful images like the highest mountain of the gods (Isa. 2) or the via
13 See n. 2.
14 Cf. Herman Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom (St. Catharines: Paideia Press, 1978),
525: “Just as the time of the future is ultimately contracted to one point, so the world-
space is to him [the prophet, HGLP] a totality and not an accurately differentiated mag-
nitude.” Cf. also P.A. Verhoef, Die dag van die HERE (The Day of the LORD) (Exegetica
II/3) (Den Haag: Van Keulen, 1956), 86–89. B. Waltke, An Old Testament Theology: An
Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach (Grand Rapids Mi: Zondervan, 2007), 822,
correctly notes: “Prophecy is often generic—that is, the prophecy predicts an event that
unfolds in many specific instances (i.e., species).”
15 Cf. J. de Vuyst, “Enkele hermeneutische opmerkingen over apokalyptische stoffen” (“Some
Hermeneutical Remarks on Apocalyptic Passages”), in: J. van Genderen e.a. (red.), Ten
dienste van het Woord (In the Service of the Word) (Festschrift W.H. Velema) (Kampen:
J.H. Kok, 1991), 198.
16 “Woorden streven ernaar begrippen of gedachten nauwkeurig uit te drukken, beelden
streven ernaar begrippen of gedachten aanduidenderwijs op te roepen; beelden willen
suggereren wat zich in woorden niet laat exprimeren” (“Words aim at accurately express-
ing concepts or thoughts, images aim at indicatively evoking concepts or thoughts; im-
ages intend to suggest what cannot be expressed in words”) (De Vuyst, “Hermeneutische
opmerkingen”, 201).
190 Peels
sacra to Zion (Isa. 35).17 As Richard Bauckham and Trevor Hart put it, “Escha-
tological thought is an imaginative picturing of the unimaginable.”18 Of course,
the prophets’ own referential framework plays a major role in the s haping of
their eschatological preaching. God reveals to them something of the future in
words and images that match their circumstances and frameworks.
Thirdly, the language of eschatological prophecy is actualizing-symbolizing.
The prophets take up ancient traditions and, actualizing them, they give
them a place in their preaching about the future. In this respect, the word
‘new’ (‫ )חדש‬is characteristic. The future is painted in the colours and shape
of the past. The prophetic hope takes on the contours of Israel’s former glo-
ry, renewed and magnified. The future will bring about a new exodus, a new
crossing of the sea, a new wilderness journey, a new election and a new cove-
nant, a new David, a new temple, new heavens and a new earth.19 This actual-
izing is paired with symbolizing, as terms like ‘Zion’, ‘David’ and ‘Egypt’ receive
a symbolic surplus of meaning.20 In Isaiah 11, e.g., the glory of God’s future is
phrased in terms of David’s empire, while in Isaiah 19: 23ff Egypt and Ashur,
17 In particular apocalyptic literature has an imaginative-suggestive idiom, which may be

confusing through its ambiguity and complexity. Taking such images literally (e.g. in Zech
14: 4: Yhwh’s feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives, which shall split in two, so that one
half shall move northward, and the other half southward) is equally absurd as attributing
factual revelational value to, e.g., the Old Testament concept of sheol as a shadowy exis-
tence in a netherworld.
18 R. Bauckham & T. Hart, Hope against Hope: Christian Eschatology at the Turn of the Millen-
nium (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 138.
19 For ‘New Exodus’, cf. Isa. 9: 3; 14: 3; 43: 6f; Mic. 7: 15; Zech. 8: 7; For ‘New Crossing of the
Sea’, cf. Isa. 11: 15; 43: 16f; For ‘New Wilderness Journey’, cf. Isa. 43: 19f); For ‘New Elec-
tion and Covenant’, cf. Zech. 1: 17; Isa. 55: 3; Jer. 31: 31–34; For ‘New David’, cf. Hos. 3: 5;
Isa. 11: 1; Ezek. 34: 23; For ‘New Jerusalem’, cf. Isa. 1: 26f, 62: 1ff; For ‘New Heart’, cf. Ezek.
36: 26ff; For ‘New Temple’, cf. Ezek. 40–48; For ‘New Heavens and Earth’, cf. Isa. 65: 17ff,
66: 22. This ‘newness’ will not just be a restoration of old institutions, because God’s rec-
reation reaches further: heartily knowledge of God, the inflow of the nations, etc.
20 See, e.g., Isa. 11, which paints a picture of the future glory of God’s people, ruled by the
Messiah. The king of the messianic kingdom is a descendant of David (though in discon-
tinuity: from the stump of Jesse), the inhabitants of the kingdom are the Israelites, united
as before, and, like in David’s time, they will have dominion over the nations, which will
acknowledge the banner for the peoples and come to it. The shoot (vv 1–10) and the
remnant (vv 11–16) belong together as king and subjects. In this chapter, then, the glory
of God’s people is proclaimed in terms of the Davidic empire. The judgment prophecy of
Nahum also exhibits such symbolizing-universalizing features, as Nineveh is represented
as God’s great adversary. In Isa. 34, similarly, Edom becomes the symbol of a world that is
hostile to God.
the hostile superpowers, symbolize the nations that God will make partakers
of his salvation, and which will even precede Israel in entering God’s future
blessing.
When we take sola scriptura seriously, we must be willing to read and in-
terpret eschatological prophecy through these glasses of the ABC and the lan-
guage of the prophets.
5 The Fulfilment of Eschatological Prophecy
Concerning the fulfilment of the Old Testament eschatological prophecy, opin-

ions vary widely. It requires exegetical patience and hermeneutical clarity to
tune our interpretation, as much as possible, to the self-presentation of the
text. In this exercise, the nature and language of the prophecy should be lead-
ing, and we should accept that eschatological prophecy does not provide a
map for the future or, in times of confusion, a divining rod for giving meaning
to all kinds of historical events. Nor should prophecies be spiritualized, with a
one-sided emphasis on their fulfilment in Christ and the Church.
I would like to draw two lines with regard to the fulfilment of eschatological
prophecy. The first concerns the working of the prophecy and the second con-
cerns the larger scriptural context of the prophecy.
The prophetic word, telescoping the past with the present and the future,
has the potential of speaking and being effective in changing times and circum-
stances: in the prophet’s own time, in and after the exile, in the silent period be-
tween the Old and the New Testament, in Christ, who brings all lines together, in
the history of the Church and towards the judgment day and the eschaton. Each
fulfilment bears a seed of promise. The word becomes scripture; it enters histo-
ry and is actualized, reinterpreted and applied to new situations. From this per-
spective, any interpretation that works with the dilemma ‘fulfilled-unfulfilled’
is one-sided and fails to appreciate the word’s potential for ever new situations.
A clear example is the magnificent prophecy of Hosea (chapters 1–2), whose
message of Yhwh’s wrath and love was initially directed to Israel, but repeated-
ly actualized in Judah during the Assyrian crises, in Babylonian times (Judah’s
collapse), and especially in the early Persian period (return from exile). Ho-
sea’s word of correction and comfort then endures the following centuries and
flourishes anew in the advent and work of Christ, in whom God’s wrath and love
are fully revealed. In Him, Lo-Ammi becomes his people in a wholly new way
and Lo-Ruchama receives mercy (1 Pet. 2: 10; cf. Rom. 9: 25). And still this word
is speaking, becoming wonderfully fulfilled, when people “come trembling to
the LORD and to his blessings in the last days” (Hos. 3: 5 NIV).
192 Peels
In this connection, we must realize that prophecy always remains the word
of God, which He can use in his sovereignty. His word is trustworthy, but He is
not bound to it in such a way that its fulfilment, let alone its literal fulfilment,
is automatic. He is and remains the Lord of his word.21 We constantly have to
keep an eye on the contingence of prophecy. It is up to Him whether and how
a word is fulfilled, how many times and in which way—literally, substantial-
ly, symbolically etc. But one thing is sure; the prophecy will be fulfilled as He
ordains: “So is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me
empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I
sent it” (Isa. 55: 11 NIV).
The second line concerns the wider context of eschatological prophecy.
When investigating the working and fulfilment of the Old Testament’s expec-
tation of the future, we have to reckon with the overall development of the Old
and New Testament scriptures, the thread of salvation history. Sola scriptura
must also mean tota scriptura. Scripture as a whole reveals the development
from God’s universal start with creation and the nations, his private dealing
with Israel, which issues in the advent of the second Moses and second David,
Jesus Christ and his work in cross and resurrection, who at Pentecost breaks
through the borders of Israel and again focuses on the full breadth of his world,
until the day of judgment. In this overall development from broad to narrow
and from narrow back to broad, we see the application of the Old Testament’s
expectations of the future to Christ and his Church from Jews and gentiles.22
This development has brought an end to the specific political-theocratic po-
sition of Israel and its call to be a light to the nations.23 The New Testament
does not have a separate paragraph on Israel’s future, remoto Christo, as a geo-
political fulfilment of still unfulfilled elements of the Old Testament eschato-
logical prophecy.24 Such expectations are found neither in Jesus’ eschatological
21 VanGemeren, Interpreting, 97, correctly remarks: “The freedom of God and the failure of
systems of human interpretation must be constant reminders not to absolutize, princi-
palize, or systematize the glorious future into a grand scheme.”
22 Cf. Acts 2: 39; Rom. 4: 11f, 24; Gal. 3: 29, 2 Cor. 6: 16f.
23 There is a line from the words “light for the nations” in Isaiah 42: 6; 49: 6 (applied to the
people of Israel) through Luke 2: 32; John 8: 12 (applied to Christ) to Matthew 5: 14 and
Philippians 2: 15 (applied to the Church).
24 H.R. van de Kamp, Israël in Openbaring: Een onderzoek naar de plaats van het joodse volk in
het toekomstbeeld van de Openbaring aan Johannes [Israel in Revelation: An Investigation of
the Place of the Jewish People in the Vision of the Future in the Book of Revelation] (Kampen:
Kok, 1990), 317.
discourse in Mark 13 nor in the Epistle to the Hebrews, which was written after
the destruction of Jerusalem’s temple in 70 AD.
At the same time, the New Testament certainly holds expectations with re-
gard to God’s ancient covenant people (cf. the ‘unceasing anguish’ in Paul’s
heart, Rom. 9: 2). The movement which the apostle sketches in Romans 9–11
has not yet come to an end. We do not know how God, on his way to that end,
keeps his promises and covenant with Israel, and how He will act in line with
the Old Testament prophecy. The New Testament itself is also still a ‘book of
expectation’; in Christ, the Old Testament is fulfilled principally, but not yet
completely. We live by faith in God’s promises. But “we have this hope as an
anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the
curtain, where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf” (Heb.
6: 19f NIV). Living in the tension between the ‘already’ and the ‘not yet’ of
the kingdom of God, the Old Testament scriptures remain our guide to life.
They contain rich promises of a salvation which has not yet fully been accom-
plished, also not with regard to God’s covenant people, Israel. But it is up to
Him to accomplish it, at his time. He will do so in a way unpredictable for us
human beings—a way that will certainly surprise us, because He “is able to do
immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine” (Eph. 3: 20 NIV).
6 Conclusion
Living in a turbulent time, facing unpredictable and threatening develop-

ments on a global scale, people are longing for clear explanations and guid-
ance how to interpret what is going on and what can be hoped for in the (near)
future. In view of the adage of sola scriptura, no external authority, but holy
scripture itself can be expected to offer valid interpretive perspectives. At the
same time, however, sola scriptura is not a simple panacea. The interpretation
of prophetic, eschatological texts is in need of a sound hermeneutical and
biblical-theological consciousness, taking into account both the historical con-
text, and the particular nature and language of eschatological prophecy. Thus,
the conviction of sola scriptura stimulates the development of a responsible
hermeneutical and exegetical approach to scripture.
Bibliography
Bauckham, R., & T. Hart. Hope against Hope: Christian Eschatology at the Turn of the
Millennium. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
194 Peels
Brueggemann, W. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. Minne-

apolis: Fortress Press, 1999.
Chisholm, R. “When Prophecy Appears to Fail, Check Your Hermeneutic,” JETS 53/3
(2010): 561–577.
De Vuyst, J. “Enkele hermeneutische opmerkingen over apokalyptische stoffen,” in:
Ten dienste van het Woord. FS W.H. Velema., J. van Genderen et al. (eds.). Kampen:
J.H. Kok, 1991, 196–202.
Frör, K. Biblische Hermeneutik: Zur Schrifttauslegung in Predigt und Unterricht.
München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1967.
Goldingay, J. Old Testament Theology. Volume Two: Israel’s Faith. Downers Grove IL: In-
tervarsity Press, 2006.
Klein, W., C.L. Blomberg, and R.L. Hubbard. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Dal-
las: Word Publishing, 1993.
Ridderbos, H.N. The Coming of the Kingdom. St. Catharines: Paideia Press, 1978.
Van de Kamp, H.R. Israël in Openbaring: Een onderzoek naar de plaats van het joodse
volk in het toekomstbeeld van de Openbaring aan Johannes. Kampen: Kok, 1990.
Van der Woude, A.S. “De oorsprong van Israëls messiaanse verwachtingen,” Kerk en
Theologie 24 (1973): 1–11.
VanGemeren, W.A. Interpreting the Prophetic Word: An Introduction to the Prophetic Lit-
erature of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.
Verhoef, P.A. Die dag van die HERE, Exegetica II/3. Den Haag: Van Keulen, 1956.
Van ’t Spijker, W. (ed.). Eschatologie: Handboek over de christelijke toekomstverwacht-
ing [Eschatology: Handbook for the Christian Expectation of the Future]. Goudriaan/
Kampen: De Groot, 1999.
Vriezen, Th.C. Hoofdlijnen der Theologie van het Oude Testament. Wageningen: H. Veen-
man en Zonen, 1974.
Waltke, B. An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Ap-
proach. Grand Rapids Mi: Zondervan, 2007.
chapter 10
Sacra Scriptura Sui Ipsius Interpres:

Reinterpretation in the Book of Isaiah
Jaap Dekker
1 Introduction
The motto sola scriptura is primarily an idea by which reformed theology for
a long time has tried to safeguard the authority of scripture.1 In all matters
of faith, doctrine and life the only source and standard should be God’s own
speaking in scripture. This idea has been concretized in the hermeneutical rule
that scripture also is its own interpreter: sacra scriptura sui ipsius interpres.2
Martin Luther already formulated this principle in 1520.3 Scripture directs its
own interpretation. No church tradition or ecclesiastical counsel is needed for
this. Taking the unity of the Bible as a starting point, scripture has to be com-
pared with scripture and difficult passages can be clarified from the plain ones,
just as the Old Testament can be explained from the New.4
In practice, however, the relationship between scripture and tradition is
far more complex than has often been suggested.5 Tradition did not start af-
ter scripture had been completed, but already played an important role in the
making of it. Historical and human factors have put a stamp on the growth
and development of those texts which together now constitute the authori-
tative body of scripture. This also means that all kinds of interpretation and
1 Cf. G. van den Brink and C. van der Kooi, Christelijke Dogmatiek: Een inleiding [Introduction
to Christian Dogmatics] (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2012), 484–485, 499. In his contri-
bution to the present book H. van den Belt disputes the supposed roots of the sola scriptura
in the Reformation: “The Problematic Character of Sola Scriptura,” 38–55.
2 G.C. Berkouwer, De Heilige Schrift I [Holy Scripture] (Kampen: Kok, 1966), 180.
3 D. Martin Luthers Werke, WA 7 (Weimar: Herman Bohlaus und Nachfolger, 1897), 97.
4 This hermeneutical principlel became characteristic for the practice of reformed exegesis in
the Netherlands. Cf. S. Greijdanus, Schriftbeginselen ter Schriftverklaring en historisch over-
zicht over theorieën en wijzen van Schriftuitlegging [Biblical Principles for Biblical Interpreta-
tion and Historical Review of its Theory and Method] (Kampen: Kok, 1946), 124.
5 Cf. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Scripture and tradition,” in The Cambridge Companion to
Postmodern Theology, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2003), 149–169.

196 Dekker
reinterpretation have contributed to it. For several years biblical scholarship

has increasingly become aware that inner-biblical exegesis has been an inher-
ent part of the making of scripture. Thus, in fact, during the century-long pro-
cess of its genesis scripture has always been its own interpreter.6
The main focus of this paper is to illustrate the phenomenon of reinterpre-
tation within scripture from the book of Isaiah, with special attention to the
third part of the book. For reformed orthodox theologians, the contribution
of human reflection to the making of scripture emphatically posits the ques-
tion, how this relates to divine inspiration: the two may seem to be in conflict.7
Therefore, to pave the way for understanding and appreciating the phenome-
non of reinterpretation as a functional tool which the Holy Spirit apparently
did not disregard,8 first attention will be given to reinterpretation as it occurs
in the New Testament making use of the Old (§ 2). Also the Ancient Versions
and the great Isaiah scroll of Qumran will be briefly examined (§ 3). Then sev-
eral examples from the first and second parts of the book of Isaiah will be dis-
cussed, i.e. 1–39 and 40–55 (§§ 4 and 5), before turning to the phenomenon
of ‘scribal prophecy’ which constitutes most of the third part of the book, i.e.
56–66 (§ 6). This article will conclude with some evaluating remarks on the
dynamic intention of the reformed principle of sola scriptura, on the living
character of the word of God and on the need for the spiritual gift of scripture
learned prophecy for the Christian church today (§ 7).
By describing the phenomenon of reinterpretation this contribution thus
puts forward a diachronic element in reading the book of Isaiah. Needless to
say that this is a one-sided approach to the book. It should be supplemented
with a synchronic reading in line with the present chronology of its chapters.
This, however, is not the subject of this paper. But bearing in mind the exten-
sive use of reinterpretation will certainly add depth to the synchronic reading
of the book of Isaiah and contribute to its understanding in its present canon-
ical form.
6 With good reason M. Saebø starts his Hebrew Bible / Old Testament (HBOT): The History of Its
Interpretation, Volume I–V (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996–2015) with a chap-
ter by M. Fishbane on inner-biblical exegesis. See Volume I From the Beginnings to the Middle
Ages / Part 1 Antiquity (1996), 33–48.
7 Kenton L. Sparks, God’s Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Bib-
lical Scholarship (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008) tries to create more room for appreciating the
human and historical factors in the making of scripture.
8 Cf. H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek I [Reformed Dogmatics] (Kampen: Kok, 19987),
413–414.
Sacra Scriptura Sui Ipsius Interpres 197
2 Text and Interpretation in the New Testament Use of the Old
The inseparable connection between text and interpretation is well-known to

most exegetes from the way the Old Testament is cited in the New. Even when
a quotation is in accordance with its source text, though translated into Greek
or derived from the Septuagint, the New Testament quotes from a Christian
perspective, presupposing the crucified and risen Lord as the fulfilment of the
hope of Israel. Often, however, the apostles and gospel-writers even subtly in-
sert changes while quoting from scripture, attuning the Old Testament quota-
tion to its new context.
In Rom. 9: 33, for example, Paul merges two texts from Isaiah, thus creating
a composite quotation: “See, I am laying in Zion a stone (Isa. 28: 16) that will
make people stumble, a rock that will make them fall (Isa. 8: 14), and whoever
believes in him will not be put to shame (Isa. 28: 16).”9 With the aid of this
newly created proof text from scripture Paul substantiates his reasoning that
Christ is the fulfilment of Zion and that it is not conflicting with scripture that
Israel has stumbled over him.10 Something similar occurs in Rom. 11: 26, where
Paul quotes the prophecy of Isa. 59: 20 that announces the coming of yhwh as
Redeemer to Zion. Paul, however, deliberately changes the focus by saying that
the Deliverer will come out of Zion. Probably he has the prayer of Ps. 14: 7 in
mind.11 By citing scripture in this creative way, Paul at the same time changes
the point of reference. In accordance with Psalm 14 he thinks of Zion as the
abode of yhwh. Paul wants to stress that deliverance comes from God and
that it has the colour of atonement, for the dwelling of yhwh in Zion is often
closely connected to the altar of atonement. Therefore, Paul also adapts the
parallel phrase. Instead of the Deliverer coming to “those in Jacob who turn
from transgression” Paul ‘quotes’ that the Deliverer “will banish ungodliness
from Jacob,” as it is prophesied in Isa. 27: 9.12
9 All Bible quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version. The Tetragrammaton,
however, is written as yhwh.
10 Jaap Dekker, Zion’s Rock-Solid Foundations: An Exegetical Study of the Zion Text in Isaiah
28: 16 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 355–366 (Appendix: “The Zion Text of Isaiah 28: 16 and the
New Testament”).
11 Cf. J. Ross Wagner, “Isaiah in Romans and Galatians,” in Isaiah in the New Testament, eds.
Steve Moyise and Maarten J.J. Menken (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 117–132 (esp. 126–
127).
12 H. de Jong, Van oud naar nieuw: De ontwikkelingsgang van het Oude naar het Nieuwe Testa-
ment [From Old to New: The progress from the Old to the New Testament] (Kampen: Kok,
2002), 292–295.
198 Dekker
These are clear examples of reinterpretation—many more could be

g iven—which are directly inserted in the text of the Old Testament quotation
itself. This way of interpretative quoting, subtly changing the original phras-
ing, was not uncommon in ancient times. It reflects contemporaneous Jewish
exegetical methods13 and appears to be in line with interpretative translation
techniques which can also be observed in the Ancient Versions.
3 Reinterpretation in the Ancient Versions and Qumran
The Septuagint, the Targum and the Vulgate reveal numerous instances of re-
interpretation of the transmitted texts. With regard to the Septuagint of Isaiah
some scholars dispute the existence of a structural actualizing tendency,14 but
the data which others have collected are still quite impressive.15 A few exam-
ples will suffice to illustrate this phenomenon.
The substitution of ancient names by more contemporary ones is a rela-
tive simple way of actualizing scripture. The Greek translators turned the Ar-
ameans and Philistines, mentioned as Zion’s enemies in Isa. 9: 11, into Syria
and Greeks. In 49: 12 they changed the unknown land of Syene into the land
of the Persians. A subtle but thorough reinterpretation is presented in 19: 25
where the striking blessing for Egypt and Assyria is redirected to the people of
God in Egypt and among the Assyrians. In 49: 6 the Servant hears that his task
will not be restricted to the restoration of Israel. The Hebrew text mentions
this as “too light a thing.” The Greek text, however, calls this “a great thing” for
the Servant, after which both texts present the climactic promise that yhwh
will make him a light of the nations. Apparently the Septuagint wants to pre-
vent the possible misunderstanding that the restoration of Israel in itself was
of minor importance. The Greek translators may even have understood the
13 Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 113–165.
14 Cf. Ronald L. Troxel, LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the
Translator of the Septuagint and Isaiah (Leiden: Brill, 2008).
15 Cf. I.L. Seeligman, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of Its Problems (Leiden:
Ex Oriente Lux, 1948); Arie van der Kooij, “Zur Theologie des Jesajabuches in der Sep-
tuaginta,” in Theologische Probleme der Septuaginta und der hellenistischen Hermeneutik,
ed. H.G. Reventlow (Gütersloh: Kaiser, 1997), 9–25; Arie van der Kooij, “Interpretation of
the Book of Isaiah in the Septuagint and in Other Ancient Versions,” in ‘As Those Who Are
Taught’: The Interpretation of Isaiah from the LXX to the SBL, eds. C.M. McGinnis and P.K.
Tull (Atlanta: SBL, 2006), 49–68.
nations as referring to the Jewish exiles of the Diaspora whom the Servant had
to bring home.16
The surprising mention of “the tree of life” in Isa. 65: 22 LXX also is a clear
example of reinterpretation. The Septuagint associates the people’s prospect
of a long living with the days of the tree of life, while the Hebrew text only
mentions a tree in general. Inspired by the sketch of heavenly peace in 65: 25,
evoking memories of the Garden of Eden, the Greek translators thus intro-
duce the notion of eternal life within the text. The Targum does the same17
and even reveals many of such reinterpretations. It is remarkable, for exam-
ple, that the Targum completely rewrites Isa. 57: 16 and 58: 11 by inserting
a reference to resurrection,18 though this belief seldom filters through in the
book of Isaiah and in the Old Testament in general, and only in the youngest
passages.
A famous example of reinterpretation comes from the Vulgate. In the book
of Isaiah the Hebrew words for ‘justice’ (‫ ) ֶצ ֶדק‬and ‘salvation’ (‫ )יֶ ַׁשע‬are sever-
al times deliberately translated in a more personified way by using the Latin
words iustus (“the righteous one”) and salvator (“the saviour”), thus enabling a
straightforward Christian interpretation of these texts (Isa. 45: 8; 51: 5; 62: 1–
2,11).
In the writings of Qumran the book of Isaiah is often interpreted as referring
to the Qumran community itself.19 It is sometimes suggested, however, that
even the great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) in some instances adapted texts to cur-
rent belief, though this scroll, of course, cannot be considered as dependent
on the Masoretic text. For example, the suggestion of Isa. 56: 6 that a foreigner
could belong to God’s temple staff might have been problematic. In any case,
the verb ‫“ ׁשרת‬to serve,” which often refers to a priestly privilege, is avoided.
1QIsaa generally speaks about “becoming his servants” (‫)להיות לו לעבדים‬. The
foreigner is also said to bless (‫ )ולברך‬the name of yhwh instead of loving
16 David A. Baer, “‘It’s All about Us!’: Nationalistic Exegesis in the Greek Isaiah (Chapters 1–
12),” in ‘As Those Who Are Taught,’ eds. McGinnis and Tull, 29–47 (esp. 32–33).
17 Cf. Jacob Stromberg, An Introduction to the Study of Isaiah (London-New York: T&T Clark,
2011), 101: “What was lost in Genesis has been recovered through textual manipulation
in Isaiah. The life of the tree once lost would be returned.”
18 Cf. Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66 (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 70: “… the Targum
loses no opportunity to update the text in the light of the more-developed theological
ideas current in the early rabbinic period.”
19 Cf. B.H. Lim, “Isaiah: History of Interpretation,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament Proph-
ets: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, eds. Mark J. Boda and J. Gordon
McConville (Downers Grove: IVP, 2012), 378–391 (esp. 381–382).
200 Dekker
(‫ ) ְּול ַא ֲה ָבה‬it. Was this prospect theologically more acceptable for the Qumran
community?20 Comparable doubts about the idea of yhwh looking for a helper
among the gentiles may have produced a textual variant in Isa. 63: 3. The Mas-
oretic text states that “no one from the peoples” was with him when he trod the
winepress. 1QIsaa, however, reads “no one from my people.”21
Thus the Ancient Versions—and maybe also the great Isaiah scroll of
Qumran22—, show that it has been common practice to cut to size a quotation
to make it fit its new context. Often this occurred very subtly within the quot-
ed text by a textual omission or minor addition, as the Septuagint frequently
demonstrates. It could also occur, however, in a more obvious way, as in the
Targum and in the composite quotations of Paul. Anyhow, it seems to have
been an accepted practice, then, to attribute new meaning to the texts of scrip-
ture, which had already received an authoritative status, by blending reinter-
pretations with their phrasing.
4 Reinterpretation in Isaiah 1–39
Taking this for granted, one might suppose that the phenomenon of reinter-
pretation has already played an important role during the centuries in which
the Old Testament books themselves were still works in progress. This can be
illustrated convincingly from the book of Isaiah.23 The composed character of
this book clearly betrays the different periods in which it received its present
shape. All kinds of reinterpretation can be traced in it. This has a bearing espe-
cially on the third part of the book (56–66), but can also be demonstrated from
its first and second parts (1–39 and 40–55).24
20 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 68 and 130.

21 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 246.
22 George J. Brooke, “On Isaiah at Qumran,” in ‘As Those Who Are Taught’, eds. McGinnis and
Tull, 69–85 disputes the presence of sectarian readings in 1QIsaa or in the other Qumran
manuscripts (esp. 74–77).
23 Fishbane, HBOT I/1, 48, stresses that reinterpretation of older oracles clearly predates the
Hellenistic period: “It is rather part of a scholasticism which enters prophecy most no-
ticeably in early exilic prophecy—especially the way the oracles of Isaiah (of Jerusalem)
were reworked by his inheritors. In numerous cases, the master’s voice reappears in a new
guise.”
24 This paper restricts itself to traces of reinterpretation within Isaiah. Patricia Tull Willey,
Remember the Former Things: The Recollection of Previous Texts in Second Isaiah (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1997) and Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isa-
iah 40–66 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998) extensively discuss the conscious
The oracle concerning Moab, for example, in Isaiah 15–16, extensively an-
nounces the downfall of Moab. Some years afterwards, however, a passage in
prose has been added, which explicitly presents itself as a postscript: “This
was the word that yhwh spoke concerning Moab in the past. But now yhwh
says …” (16: 13–14). Apparently, at some time, when Moab’s downfall was still
to be waited for, the need was felt to update the oracle.25
Usually, however, textual updates are not marked in such an obvious way.
More often they are inserted or added without mentioning. For many years,
for example, scholars have suspected that the taunt against the king of Bab-
ylon in 14: 4b–21 originally referred to an Assyrian king, for Babel and its
king only occur in the framing verses of 14: 4 and 14: 22–23. This framing
apparently meant to make the taunt actual again in the later Babylonian
period.26
In the case of the song of the vineyard in Isa. 27: 2–6 we are able to
compare it with the original song in 5: 1–7. Because the later song is clear-
ly formulated in contrast with the previous one—all negative elements
have been replaced by their positive counterparts,—it presents itself as a
conscious reinterpretation against the backdrop of a time in which judg-
ment lies in the past already.27 Repeating the postscript of 16: 13–14 it
could be stated: “This was the word that yhwh spoke concerning his peo-
ple in the past. But now yhwh says …” For of course, the authority of the
later song is not less if it originates from a prophetic reinterpretation of the
original one.
Further examples from Isaiah 1–39 could be examined, such as the inter-
pretative addition to 6: 13, but a number of examples from the second part of
the book need to be discussed now.
use of other Old Testament books. Sommer even argues that Isaiah 40–66 is more de-
pendent on Jeremiah than on 1–39 and that Deutero-Isaiah never attempted to connect
himself to Isaiah the son of Amoṣ (73; 105–107; 180–181). This, however, is an over-
statement. Cf. Risto Nurmela, The Mouth of the Lord has Spoken: Inner-Biblical Allusions in
Second and Third Isaiah (Lanham: University Press of America, 2006).
25 Cf. Willem A.M. Beuken, Jesaja 13–27 (Freiburg: Herder, 2007), 140: “Es dient als Garantie
dafür, dass das Orakel über Moab seine Erfülling finden wird.”
26 Cf. Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 286; Beuken, Jesaja
13–27, 58; Stromberg, Introduction, 17.
27 Cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 374: “In any case, 27: 2–5, read as a radical revision or es-
chatological abrogation of 5: 1–7, presents a theologically interesting case of develop-
ment within the Isaian tradition.”
202 Dekker
5 Reinterpretation in Isaiah 40–55
Though Isaiah 40–55 contains many allusions to previous oracles, they are
not all instances of reinterpretation.28 Therefore, only the clearest cases are
selected for this article. The announcement of the opening of the eyes of the
blind in Isa. 42: 7, for example, thematically alludes to the judgement of Isra-
el’s hardening in 6: 9–10, but does not display enough similarities to recognize
a conscious reinterpretation.29
A striking case is offered by Isa. 43: 6 that announces the bringing of yhwh’s
sons and daughters “from far away” (‫ ) ֵמ ָרחֹוק‬and “from the end of the earth”
(‫) ִמ ְק ֵצה ָה ָא ֶרץ‬. The combined use of these expressions seems to be derived from
5: 26 where yhwh brings a nation “from far away” and whistles a people “from
the end of the earth” to execute his judgement. This lexical link functions as a
signal that the previous judgement oracle now is converted into an oracle of
salvation.30
Benjamin Sommer gives an example from Isaiah 51. He regards the state-
ment of 51: 4 concerning teaching going out from yhwh (‫תֹורה ֵמ ִא ִּתי ֵת ֵצא‬ ָ ‫) ִּכי‬
not only as an allusion to the commission of the Servant in 42: 1–4, whose
teaching the coastlands are waiting for, but also as an adaptation of the state-
ment of 2: 3 concerning teaching going out from Zion (‫תֹורה‬ ָ ‫) ִּכי ִמ ִּצּיֹון ֵּת ֵצא‬. In
the context of 51: 4 Zion itself is the object of consolation, for the exilic audi-
ence doubts the power of Zion’s God over Babylon. Therefore, more explicitly
reference had to be made to yhwh himself as the ultimate source of teaching
and salvation for the nations and coastlands.31 However, identifying 51: 4 as an
example of reinterpretation presupposes that the prophecy of 2: 2–4 has to be
dated prior to 51: 4, which is sometimes disputed.32
28 With regard to the numerous lexical links Nurmela, The Mouth of the Lord has Spoken,
states “In my opinion, their function is to demonstrate the unity of the book, and also to
invoke the authority of the elder prophet, which is by no means always connected with a
specific need of reinterpretation.” (introduction, without page number)
29 Nurmela, The Mouth of the Lord has Spoken, 21–23, yet signals verbal similarities between
Isa. 42: 18 and 29: 18 and between 42: 20 and 6: 9–10, but these are merely instances of
allusion, not of reinterpretation. Isa. 43: 8, however, seems to suggest implicitly already a
reversal of the judgment alluded to in 6: 9–10.
30 Nurmela, The Mouth of the Lord has Spoken, 27–28, also refers to the occurrence of the
same expressions in Deut. 28: 49, but argues the latter’s dependence on Isa. 5: 26.
31 Cf. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, 79–80.
32 Cf. Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39. With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 93. Yet Nurmela, The Mouth of the Lord has Spoken, 60, confirms
the direction of dependency.
Finally, the apparent reinterpretation of Isa. 29: 9–10 in 51: 17–23 may

not pass unnoticed. The oracle of 29: 9–10 is about prophets who are said to
be “drunk, but not from wine” (‫)ׁש ְכרּו וְ לֹא־יַ יִ ן‬
ָ , and about priests who stagger,
“but not from strong drink” (‫)וְ לֹא ֵׁש ָכר‬. By way of judgement, yhwh himself
has intoxicated them with “a spirit of deep sleep” (‫רּוח ַּת ְר ֵּד ָמה‬ ַ ). The histori-
cal setting is the pre-exilic Assyrian crisis. In 51: 21 Jerusalem is addressed as
one who is “drunk, but not with wine” (‫ּוׁש ֻכ ַרת וְ לֹא ִמּיָ ִין‬
ְ ). But instead of being
the object of God’s judgement, Jerusalem is comforted with the message that
yhwh has taken from her “the cup of staggering” (‫ )ּכֹוס ַה ַּת ְר ֵע ָלה‬which they
initially had to drink (51: 17, 22). The bowl of God’s wrath will now be given
to their tormentors (51: 23). The exilic setting of 51: 17–23 indicates that
now the Babylonians instead of the Assyrians are meant. This seems to be
a clear case of “historical recontextualization.”33 While the metaphor of ‘the
cup of the wine of wrath from yhwh’s hand’ may draw on Jer. 25: 15–29,34 the
notion “drunk, but not with wine” clearly betrays that Isa. 51: 17–23 means to
reinterpret the oracle of 29: 9–10.35
6 Isaiah 56–66 as Scribal Prophecy
It is especially the third part of the book of Isaiah which most clearly reveals
the phenomenon of reinterpretation. In biblical scholarship a broad consensus
has grown that Isaiah 56–66 cannot be ascribed to the preaching of one sin-
gle prophet, the so-called Trito-Isaiah who was introduced by Bernhard Duhm
in his 1892 commentary. One should even not think about Deutero-Isaiah36
or about the preaching of several prophets. This part of the book probably
originates from a process of exegetical reflection “on existing prophetic teach-
ing regarded as authoritative—first of all on the preceding section of the book,”
33 Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, 99–100. He even suggests that “the cup of
staggering”(‫ )ּכֹוס ַה ַּת ְר ֵע ָלה‬in Isa. 51: 17, 22 via sound play hints back to the “spirit of deep
sleep” (‫רּוח ַּת ְר ֵּד ָמה‬
ַ ) in 29: 10.
34 Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55 (New York: Doubleday, 2002), 336. Cf. Ezek. 23: 31–34.
35 Cf. Nurmela, The Mouth of the Lord has Spoken, 69.
36 Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, 187–195, and Shalom M. Paul, Isaiah 40–66: Trans-
lation and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 5–12, argue that Isaiah 40–66
as a whole should be ascribed to Deutero-Isaiah, but similarities in poetic style and tech-
niques do not outweigh the clear differences between 40–55 and 56–66 with regard to
structure, socio-historical setting and content.
204 Dekker
early in the Persian era.37 As a result the book of Isaiah in its present form is
much more than a collection of prophetic utterances from different periods.
It is a book “in which a message in one of the collages sometimes becomes the
text on which a later message is based, the text for a subsequent sermon. In
other words, earlier material within the book (and for that matter, words that
appear in other books such as Jeremiah) have become the recognized word of
God on which later material preaches.”38
It is indeed remarkable how many intertextual connections with passages
from the first and second parts of the book can be pointed at39 and in how many
ways these earlier texts appear to have been actualized and reinterpreted.40
Most scholars assume that the original core of this third part of the book is to
be found in Isaiah 60–62.41 It is imaginable, though hard to prove, that the pro-
phetic vision of these chapters can still be ascribed to an individual p
rophet.42
In any case, in the center of these chapters the voice of a prophetic ‘I’ is heard,
who presents himself as anointed by yhwh and expresses his prophetic mis-
sion.43 To him we possibly owe the fascinating vision about Zion’s future. This
vision hitches on to previous promises concerning Zion.44 It has to be read
37 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 77 (cf. 33–34). Cf. Ulrich F. Berges, Isaiah: The Prophet and
his Book (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012), 20–22; John Goldingay, Isaiah 56–66
(London-New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014), 7.
38 John Goldingay, The Theology of the Book of Isaiah (Downers Grove: IVP, 2014), 95–96.
39 Richard L. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 42–49, describes the history of research on this topic.
40 Cf. Goldingay, Isaiah 56–66, 96: “The manner in which the sermon takes up the text
varies. In the first case it nuances it; in the second it says “Yes, but/and now …” In the third
it riffs on it; in the fourth, it reapplies it. In each case it assumes that ongoing significance
attaches to earlier words of Yahweh.”
41 Peter Höffken, Jesaja: Der stand der theologischen Diskussion (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftli-
che Buchgesellschaft, 2004), 94. Cf. Berges, Isaiah: The Prophet and his Book, 61; Strom-
berg, Introduction, 43–44.
42 Ulrich Berges, Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt (Freiburg: Herder, 1998), 427–
431.
43 Joseph Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel: Revised and Enlarged (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 216, thinks it likely that the servants, who are
mentioned so often in Isaiah 56–66 “formed a prophetic eschatological group within the
postexilic community under a leader whose voice is heard proclaiming his mission in the
Spirit (Isa. 50: 21; 61: 1–4).”
44 Cf. for example, Isa. 49: 14–26. Isa. 60: 4 clearly alludes to 49: 22–23 and 60: 16 to 49: 26.
Cf. Nurmela, The Mouth of the Lord has Spoken, 109–111. Nurmela, however, argues that
in the case of Isa. 49: 18a and 60: 4a the direction of allusion is the other way round,
characterizing the former as a redactional gloss (55–56).
against the backdrop of the return from exile, when the expectations initially
were very high, in accordance with the promises of Isaiah 40–55. In practice,
however, circumstances fell short of what was expected. The second temple
only arose laboriously. In Isaiah 60–62 the promises for Zion once more are
firmly emphasized and at the same time expanded.
In spite of the great vision of Isaiah 60–62, however, the situation of Zion
remained worrisome. The glorious future never arrived. This gave rise to se-
rious doubts which could not be ignored. The chapters enclosing the core of
60–62—the third part of the book betrays a concentric structure45—owe their
existence to a reflection on these matters and to a search for answers to deal
with the tension between vision and reality. Remarkably, it was scripture itself,
i.e. the prophecies transmitted thus far in the first and second parts of Isaiah,
in other prophetic writings, and in the Psalms, which throughout directed this
process. For several years already the result of this process is called “scribal
prophecy.” This expression dates back to Wolfgang Lau46 and does more justice
to the character of Isaiah 56–66 than the German designation Fortschreibung
which Odil Steck has introduced.47 The last designation suggests that chap-
ters 56–66 are just a fouling growth to the book, while, actually, it has its own
characteristics. It can be explained more convincingly from an exegetical pro-
cess than just from an editorial process. The designation ‘scribal prophecy’ fits
this better.48 It is a kind of prophecy which is strongly nourished by scripture
and derives its authority from it. In the postexilic period a group of scribal
tradents—actualizing and reinterpreting scripture is not to be understood as
an individual activity, but was embedded in an interpretative community—has
elaborated exegetically on the ancient prophetic tradition to be able to speak
words of God in their new circumstances. Though their activity essentially was
45 Cf., for example, Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 60–63.

46 Wolfgang Lau, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie in Jes 56–66: Eine Untersuchung zu den
literarischen Bezügen in den letzten elf Kapiteln des Jesajabuches (Berlin: de Gruyter,
1994). D. Michel, “Zur Eigenart Tritojesajas,” Theologia Viatorum 10 (1965–1966), 213–
230, however, a lready talked about “Schriftgelehrte Auslegung.” See also Willem A.M.
Beuken, “ Trito-Jesaja: profetie en schriftgeleerdheid,” [Trito-Isaiah: Prophecy and Scribal
Learning] in Profetie en profetische geschriften [Prophecy and Prophetic Writings], eds. F.
Garcia Martínez et al., (Kampen: Kok; Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1987), 71–85.
47 Odil H. Steck, Studien zu Tritojesaja (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991).
48 Cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 79: “Prophecy is becoming a more learned, scribal and
textual activity, with its predictive aspects less in evidence.” Isaiah 56–66, however, does
not present itself as armchair prophecy—Lau also used the designation “Schreibtischpro-
phetie”—, for with good reason Berges, Das Buch Jesaja, 418, points at the social engage-
ment these chapters reveal.
206 Dekker
literary in character, one cannot deny their prophetic charisma.49 Besides, in a

culture which for the most part remained an oral one, texts always had to be
read and heard. It seems likely, therefore, that somehow this also has been the
case with at least part of the prophecies of Isaiah 56–66, especially with those
who intend to comfort Zion or, on the contrary, to criticize the people for their
social and religious behaviour.
To illustrate the phenomenon of scribal prophecy, it is best to start with the
core chapters of 60–62. Isa. 60: 9 proclaims that the coastlands wait for yhwh
(‫י־לי ִאּיִ ים יְ ַקּוּו‬ ִ . This almost literally quotes the end of 51: 5: “the coastlands
ִ ‫)ּכ‬
wait for me, and for my arm they hope” (‫) ֵא ַלי ִאּיִ ים יְ ַקּוּו וְ ֶאל־זְ ר ִֹעי יְ יַ ֵחלּון‬, which
in its turn is closely related to 42: 4: “and the coastlands wait for his teaching”
(‫תֹורתֹו ִאּיִ ים יְ יַ ֶחילּו‬ ְ . While in the second part of the book the coastlands wait
ָ ‫)ּול‬
for the teachings of the Servant and for the righteousness of yhwh, the oracle of
60: 9 does not focus on something the nations will receive for themselves, but
on their contributing to the glory of Zion. Their waiting is now connected with
the announcement of the ships of Tarshis bringing the children of Zion and
carrying silver and gold. This all takes place to honour “the name of yhwh your
God, and for the Holy One of Israel, because he has glorified you (i.e. Zion)”
(‫ֹלהיִ ְך וְ ִל ְקדֹוש יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ִּכי ֵפ ֲא ָרְך‬ ְ . This last sentence almost literally
ַ ‫)ל ֵׁשם יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬
quotes from 55: 5 (‫ֹלהיִ ְך וְ ִל ְקדֹוׁש יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ִּכי ֵפ ֲא ָרְך‬ ְ , an oracle concerning
ַ ‫)ל ַמ ַען יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬
nations being called to Zion.50 The previously announced light for the
nations (Isa. 51: 4; cf. 49: 6), in fact, is outshined by the light that will shine
over Zion (Isa. 60: 1–3). In essence the prophetic voice to whom we owe the
vision of Isaiah 60–62 does the same as Paul does in his letters: with the aid
of a composite quotation he creates a new text to substantiate his actual
message.51 This does not necessarily imply that he quoted from memory.52 It
probably reveals a creative use of scripture in which larger biblical-theological
connections outweigh the immediate literary context.
49 Erich Zenger et al., Einleitung in das Alte Testament, (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 20045), 421.
Cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 147: “Prophecy became, in other words, more scribal and
exegetical, more a matter of inspired appropriation and interpretation of existing pro-
phetic words deemed to be still authoritative and valid than a matter of direct prophetic
inspiration.”
50 Cf. Nurmela, The Mouth of the Lord has Spoken, 107–109; Goldingay, Isaiah 56–66, 265.
51 Cf. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 214: “The verse (Isa 60: 9) may then be taken as a small-
scale example of how new prophecy could be generated out of existing prophetic texts to
fit a different situation.”
52 Both Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 34, 214, and Goldingay, Isaiah 56–66, 47, suppose this.
The next chapter also presents an impressive example. The prophetic figure,
who in 61: 1–3 presents himself as anointed by yhwh, uses words that hark
back to the prophecy of 42: 1–4 concerning the Servant on whom yhwh has
put his spirit (‫רּוחי ָע ָליו‬
ִ ‫)נָ ַת ִּתי‬. When he says that the spirit of the Lord yhwh
is upon him (‫רּוח ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוָ ה ָע ָלי‬
ַ ), this is a clear allusion. However, this not only
alludes to the Servant prophecy, but also seems to fall back on the prophecy
of the Messianic shoot of whom 11: 2 announces that the spirit of yhwh shall
rest on him (‫רּוח יְ הוָ ה‬
ַ ‫)וְ נָ ָחה ָע ָליו‬. At the same time the anointed of Isaiah 61
presents himself as one who is sent (‫) ְׁש ָל ַחנִ י‬, using the same first person lan-
guage as the prophetic Servant of 48: 16b: “And now the Lord yhwh has sent
me and his spirit” (‫)וְ ַע ָּתה ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוָ ה ְׁש ָל ַחנִ י וְ רּוחֹו‬. Subsequently, he describes his
mission in several phrases, which are clearly inspired by 42: 7 and point there
to the mission of the Servant. In this way the prophetic voice of 61: 1–3 actual-
izes the Servant texts, the Messianic promises and the former words of comfort
to find an audience for its elaborated vision of Zion’s glorious future.53
The conclusion of Isaiah 62 consists of a compilation of texts from the second
part of the book.54 The call to prepare the way for the people and to clear it of
stones builds on the comparable call of 40: 3–4 to prepare in the wilderness
the way of yhwh. Isa. 62: 10, however, combines it with an appeal to lift up an
ensign of the peoples (‫ל־ה ַע ִּמים‬ ָ ‫) ָה ִרימּו נֵ ס ַע‬, falling back on 49: 22 where yhwh
announces himself to raise his signal to the peoples (‫ל־ע ִּמים ָא ִרים נִ ִּסי‬ ַ ‫ )וְ ֶא‬urging
them to bring back the exiled sons and daughters of Zion. The subsequent 55
announcement of the coming of salvation to daughter Zion in verse 11 is again

derived from Isaiah 40 and even quotes 40: 10b literally: “his rewards is with
him, and his recompense before him.” New prophecy in this case thus literally
results from recycling and recontextualizing older prophecies.
The chapters, surrounding the core vision of 60–62, reveal the postexilic
struggle to deal with the tension between the vision of Zion’s glorious destiny
and its still failing fulfilment. Isaiah 59, for example, begins with a statement
that it is not due to the supposed shortness of yhwh’s hand that salvation
failed to appear (‫הֹוׁש ַיע‬ִ ‫א־ק ְצ ָרה יַ ד־יְ הוָ ה ֵמ‬ ָ ֹ ‫)ל‬. This clearly alludes to the ques-
tion yhwh once asked in 50: 2 if his hand was shortened that it could not
53 Goldingay, Isaiah 56–66, 293, characterizes Isa. 61: 1–3 as “an apologetic legitimation
of a scribal prophet” and thus “a key text for the phenomenon of scribal prophecy.” The
conclusion of Nurmela, The Mouth of the Lord has Spoken, 134, that Isaiah 56–66 does not
contain any allusion to the Servant Songs, sounds strange, then, and probably proceeds
from his method of identifying allusions.
54 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 242. Cf. Nurmela, The Mouth of the Lord has Spoken, 118–121.
55 Cf. Isa. 11: 12 which uses another verb: ‫וְ נָ ָׂשא נֵ ס ַלּגֹויִם‬.
208 Dekker
redeem (‫) ֲה ָקצֹור ָק ְצ ָרה יָ ִדי ִמ ְּפדּות‬.56 Isaiah 59 now argues that the people’s contin-
uous sinning has troubled their relationship with God and the coming of sal-
vation. This chapter falls unmistakably back on the judgment preaching from
the first part of the book. The complaint of 59: 3 reminds of Isaiah’s preaching
in the Assyrian period: “For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers
with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue mutters wickedness.”57
It is really fascinating to see how the then sought for prophetic guiding is
nourished by scripture itself. Meanwhile, the initial promise of a blessed fu-
ture is maintained, but it is redirected now on part of the people: “And he will
come to Zion as Redeemer, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression, says
yhwh” (59: 20). It will not come to pass without conversion.58
The prophecy of Isa. 56: 8 also presents an example of reinterpreta-
tion.59 It announces that yhwh shall not only gather the outcasts of Israel
(‫) ְמ ַק ֵּבץ נִ ְד ֵחי יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬, but “will gather others to them besides those already gath-
ered” (‫)עֹוד ֲא ַק ֵּבץ ָע ָליו ְלנִ ְק ָּב ָציו‬. It is clear from the context that also foreigners are
meant. Though the theme of ‘gathering outcasts’ also occurs elsewhere in the
Old Testament,60 the expression ‫ נִ ְד ֵחי יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬combined with the verb ‫ קבץ‬only
occurs in the proclamation of 11: 12, that yhwh will assemble the outcasts of
Israel and the dispersed of Judah (‫הּודה יְ ַק ֵּבץ‬ ָ ְ‫)וְ ָא ַסף נִ ְד ֵחי יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ּונְ ֻפצֹות י‬. Then,
however, the role of the nations is restricted to bringing home the exiles.61 The
nations are not yet gathered themselves. This, however, evidently is the case in
56: 8.62
56 Cf. Num. 11: 23. Beuken, “Trito-Jesaja,” 72–74, stresses that the announcement of the
coming of the Lord in Isa. 59: 20, constituting the climax of the chapter, confirms the
allusion to 50: 2, for this verse also complains the previous disappointing reaction to his
coming. Probably 59: 16a still refers to this complaint.
57 Cf. Isa. 1: 15.
58 Stromberg, Introduction, 44: “Thus, what was promised unconditionally in 60–62 is now
seen by 58–59 to depend on the people’s behavior.” Cf. Isa. 58: 6–10, including the re-
markable allusion to 52: 12 in verse 8.
59 Also the reinterpretation of Isa. 6: 1 in 57: 15 could be pointed at. For a discussion of
these texts, see J. Dekker, “The High and Lofty One Dwelling in the Height and With His
Servants: Intertextual Connections of Theological Significance Between Isaiah 6, 53 and
57,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 41/4 (2017), 457–491.
60 Cf. Deut. 30: 4; Mic. 2: 12 and Ps. 147: 2. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, 218, there-
fore, hesitates to regard Isa. 56: 8 as a clear allusion. Cf., however, Nurmela, The Mouth of
the Lord has Spoken, 91–92.
61 Cf. Isa. 49: 22.
62 Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 141.
Isa. 60: 10 still restricts the role of foreigners to the rebuilding of Zion’s
walls. Also in 61: 5–6 foreigners only fulfil serving tasks in behalf of Zion and
its inhabitants. Solely the children of Zion will be called priests and minis-
ters of yhwh. Against the background of these texts it seems that the oracle
of 56: 1–8 as a whole originates from a reinterpretation. The sacrifices of the
foreigners are welcome on yhwh’s altar (‫ל־מזְ ְּב ִחי‬ ֶ ‫ )וְ זִ ְב ֵח‬and his temple
ִ ‫יהם ְל ָרצֹון ַע‬
is even called “a house of prayer for all peoples.” This is more inclusive than it
ever has been said and looks like a conscious reinterpretation of 60: 7.63 There
it had already been said that the flocks of the nations, being brought to Zion as
part of their richness, shall be acceptable on yhwh’s altar (‫ל־רצֹון ִמזְ ְּב ִחי‬ ָ ‫)יַ ֲעלּו ַע‬.
Also the temple is prophesied to be restored in its previous glory. The oracle of
56: 1–8, however, explicitly mentions the acceptance of the sacrifices of the
foreigners themselves and concretizes the glory of yhwh’s temple as its be-
coming a house of prayer for all peoples. Remarkably, the Greek translators
already signalled this coherence between 56: 7 and 60: 7, for they inserted
in 60: 7 the words “the house of prayer,” though without mentioning the
peoples! In 56: 1–8, however, the foreigner explicitly is allowed to join yhwh
and to minister to him (‫)ל ָׁש ְרתֹו‬ ְ , while in 61: 6 this obvious priestly activity
(‫ ּכ ֲֹהנֵ י יְ הוָ ה‬// ‫ֹלהינּו‬ ְ was still restricted to the children of Zion. Also in
ֵ ‫)מ ָׁש ְר ֵתי ֱא‬
this regard the oracle of 56: 1–8 results from a reinterpretation. The same
holds true for the comparable promise of 66: 21 that yhwh will take some of
those belonging to the nations to make them members of his temple staff.64
The last case of reinterpretation to be pointed at is incorporated in the vi-
sion of animal peace in Isa. 65: 25, sometimes qualified as “the most conspic-
uous instance of inner-Isaianic referencing in the whole book.”65 This vision
clearly falls back on 11: 6–9.66 The account of 65: 25, however, is not only the
shorter one, but also mentions the serpent as remaining under the curse of
Gen. 3: 14. Furthermore, it uses another word for the lamb (‫ ) ָט ֶלה‬that shall
live together with the wolf, than the word used in Isa. 11: 6 (‫) ֶּכ ֶבׂש‬. In the book
of Isaiah the ‫ ָט ֶלה‬only occurs in 40: 11, in masculine plural ‫ ְט ָל ִאים‬, referring to
the lambs yhwh himself will gather in his arms when returning to Zion. By
using the word ‫ ָט ֶלה‬, thus deviating from its source text, 65: 25 subtly calls to
63 Cf. Stromberg, Introduction, 45.

64 Cf. Goldingay, Isaiah 56–66, 81.
65 Stromberg, Introduction, 67, 70.
66 For an thorough analysis of this quotation, see Schultz, Search for Quotation, 240–256,
and especially J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten, “The intertextual relationship between Isaiah 65,25
and Isaiah 11,6–9,” in The Scriptures and the Scrolls, eds. F. García Martínez et al. (Leiden:
Brill, 1992), 31–42.
210 Dekker
mind the oracle of 40: 11. The lamb now represents the liberated exiles. These
redeemed of yhwh shall live in peace and do not have to fear that the serpent
could disrupt the party once again. In this context the ‘feeding together’ of wolf
and lamb is not meant to give biological information concerning wild animals
suddenly becoming vegetarians, but symbolizes the end of evil: “They shall not
hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain, says yhwh.”
7 Evaluation and Conclusions
The genesis and development of the book of Isaiah clearly demonstrates that
the history of interpretation of scripture does not start after scripture itself has
reached its final form, but already begins within the biblical texts themselves.
The hermeneutical principle of Luther, sacra scriptura sui ipsius interpres, can
be applied in its most literal sense to the process that gave rise to the book.
The many examples of reinterpretation in the book of Isaiah, which could
be pointed out, show that the motto sola scriptura should not be understood
as something static. The texts of scripture, which were granted authority be-
cause they were received as the words of God and as inspired by his Spirit,
were not always transmitted unchanged. In many ways they were actualized,
interpreted, and even reinterpreted in view of continuously changing circum-
stances. These reinterpretations should not be regarded as a denial of the au-
thority of the previously transmitted texts of scripture, but, actually, just im-
ply its recognition.67 The phenomenon of reinterpretation within the book of
Isaiah surprisingly illustrates the belief expressed in Isa. 40: 8 that the word
of God shall not wither like the grass and shall not fade like the flowers, but
will stand forever. This ‘standing forever’ (‫עֹולם‬
ָ ‫ )יָ קּום ְל‬does not imply an un-
changeable timelessness (then the verb ‫ עמד‬instead of ‫ קום‬could have been
used), but refers to the capacity of God to stick to his plans and to realize them
in ever changing circumstances. The word of God, therefore, should not be
understood statically, but dynamically, as the comparison with the rain and
the snow in 55: 10–11 beautifully reveals. The creative word of God is always
able to bring forth something new and to accomplish that which he purposes.
Together these statements about the divine word constitute an inclusio for the
67 Cf. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, 2: “The presence of biblical exegesis within the
Hebrew Bible itself shows that the religion of the ancient Israelites was already a text-
based religion, a set of beliefs and practices dependent not only on oral traditions but also
on authoritative documents.”
second part of the book. At the same time the second statement is concretized
and extensively illustrated in the scribal prophecy of the following chapters.
The process of reinterpretation that gave rise to the book of Isaiah in all as-
pects is nourished by the authoritative words of God. As scribal prophecy its
reinterpretations even have become themselves a new shape of God’s word for
future generations. Though described in this contribution from a diachronic
perspective, this process has not been merely human driven. Fundamentally,
the initial impulse to reinterpret previous texts as well as the process itself have
originated from God himself (cf. 55: 10–11), though it is impossible to disen-
tangle the human and the divine in it. The fact that the book of Isaiah has come
about through so many different forms of reinterpretation, demonstrates in any
case that the Spirit has more than one string to his bow in order to speak God’s
life giving words in every new situation. Understanding the exegetical and re-
dactional processes that gave rise to the book of Isaiah in its present form, really
augments the wonder about the living character of the word of God.
Furthermore, this wonder can become fruitful for a living interaction with
scripture today. In the context of the church community, Christians always
come across new questions, which make them look for words of God that are
able to provide reliable guidelines. Many Christians even long for direct forms
of receiving guidance. They pray for the Spirit to reveal them divine messages
in dreams and visions or to give them a word which could function as a
prophecy for their fellow-Christians. This longing should be acknowledged,
but the sometimes unhealthy focus on receiving immediate revelation should
be redirected to scripture as the only source and standard in all matters of
Christian life. In this regard the reformed principle of sola scriptura remains
important for Christianity today and for our contemporary understanding of
the spiritual gift of prophecy. This principle, however, does not exclude the
development of new interpretations of scripture, but just includes them, for
also in scripture itself, the word of God is not something static, but living and
active, and always open to the future.
New interpretations, however, have always to be vindicated by scripture
itself, as even the apostles and the gospel writers constantly do in the New
Testament. Their interpretation of the Old Testament is also a fascinating kind
of reinterpretation within a new context, i.e. the crucifixion and resurrection
of Jesus Christ. This does not constitute an abuse of scripture that denies the
uniqueness of the Old Testament or that turns the Old Testament into another
book, as is sometimes asserted. It, rather, is a similar process of reinterpreta-
tion as the one which shaped the book of Isaiah and just arises from the recog-
nition of the authority of all God has spoken in the past. This was the word that
yhwh spoke in the past. But now yhwh says…
212 Dekker
That new interpretation always has to justify itself to scripture, in fact, applies
even more today than during the process of its making. It is an obvious fact that
within the history of interpretation of scripture there has been a certain turn-
ing point after which new reinterpretations were not any more inserted within
or added to the text of scripture itself, but were rather given a place in new
writings and in commentaries on scripture. The moment at which the trans-
mission of the text of scripture and commentary were separated is, actually,
the moment at which scripture apparently had received its canonical status.
By consequence, from that time onwards new reinterpretations as well as our
own understanding of scripture can never be granted the same a uthority as
those interpretations which themselves have become part of scripture.68 In that
sense the principle sacra scriptura sui ipsius interpres remains an important
anchorage point for reformed hermeneutics today.69 This anchorage point,
however, does not exclude, but rather include, accounting for new questions and
the necessity of actualizing scripture in view of continuously developing new
contexts. Of course, many challenging hermeneutical questions then have to
be accounted for, which are the subject of other papers in this book. In con-
clusion, for Christianity today scripture learned prophecy—understood as an
activity embedded in a believing and interpretative community, just as scribal
prophecy in the book of Isaiah has been—is indispensable. Practising a living
interaction with scripture within the context of a focus on the kingdom of
God implies the promise that what is new and what is old can continuously be
brought out of its treasure and will help to hear what the Spirit is saying to the
church, today and tomorrow.70
68 Cees Houtman, De Schrift wordt geschreven: Op zoek naar een christelijke hermeneutiek van
het Oude Testament [Scripture is Being Written: Searching for Christian Hermeneutics of
the Old Testament] (Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2006) has not observed this distinction suffi-
ciently, when he considers our contemporary interpretations as “the Newer Testament.”
69 In fact, this principle opposes every kind of human tyranny over scripture. Cf. H.G.L.
Peels, “Het Woord is leven: Over de Heilige Schrift,” [The Word is Life. About Scripture]
in Gegrond geloof: Kernpunten uit de geloofsleer. In bijbels, historisch en belijdend perspec-
tief [Well-Founded Faith: Central Themes from Doctrine. In Biblical, Historical and Con-
fessional Perspective], eds. G. van den Brink et al. (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 1996),
52–92.
70 Cf. Matt. 13: 52 and Rev. 2: 7.
Bibliography
Baer, David A. “‘It’s All about Us!’: Nationalistic Exegesis in the Greek Isaiah (Chap-
ters 1–12).” In ‘As Those Who Are Taught.’ The Interpretation of Isaiah from the LXX
to the SBL, eds. Claire Mathews McGinnis and Patricia K. Tull. Society of Biblical
Literature Symposium Series 27. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006: 29–47.
Bavinck, H. Gereformeerde Dogmatiek I [Reformed Dogmatics]. Kampen: Kok, 19987.
Berges, Ulrich. Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt. Herders Biblische Studien
16. Freiburg: Herder, 1998.
Berges, Ulrich. Isaiah: The Prophet and his Book. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012.
Berkouwer, G.C. De Heilige Schrift I [Holy Scripture]. Dogmatische Studiën. Kampen:
Kok, 1966.
Beuken, Willem A.M. “Trito-Jesaja: profetie en schriftgeleerdheid” [Trito-Isaiah: Proph-
ecy and Scribal Learning]. In Profetie en profetische geschriften [Prophecy and Pro-
phetic Writings], eds. F. Garcia Martínez et al., FS. A.S. van der Woude. Kampen: Kok;
Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1987: 71–85.
Beuken, Willem A.M. Jesaja 13–27. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Tes-
tament. Freiburg: Herder, 2007.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. A History of Prophecy in Israel: Revised and Enlarged. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 1–39. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
Brink, G. van den, and C. van der Kooi. Christelijke Dogmatiek: Een inleiding [Introduc-
tion to Christian Dogmatics]. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2012.
Brooke, George J. “On Isaiah at Qumran.” In ‘As Those Who Are Taught.’ The Interpreta-
tion of Isaiah from the LXX to the SBL, eds. Claire Mathews McGinnis and Patricia K.
Tull. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 27. Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2006: 69–85.
Dekker, Jaap. Zion’s Rock-Solid Foundations: An Exegetical Study of the Zion Text in Isa-
iah 28: 16. Oudtestamentische Studiën / Old Testament Studies 54. Leiden: Brill,
2007.
Dekker, Jaap. “The High and Lofty One Dwelling in the Height and With His Servants:
Intertextual Connections of Theological Significance Between Isaiah 6, 53 and 57,”
Forthcoming in Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 41/4 (2017), 475–491.
Enns, Peter. Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testa-
ment. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.
Fishbane, M. “Inner-biblical exegesis.” In M. Saebø (ed.), Hebrew Bible / Old Testament
(HBOT): The History of Its Interpretation, Volume I From the Beginnings to the Middle
Ages / Part 1 Antiquity. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996: 33–48.
214 Dekker
Goldingay, John. Isaiah 56–66. The Interational Critical Commentary. London; New
York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014.
Goldingay, John. The Theology of the Book of Isaiah. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,
2014.
Greijdanus, S., Schriftbeginselen ter Schriftverklaring en historisch overzicht over theo-
rieën en wijzen van Schriftuitlegging [Biblical Principles for Biblical Interpretation and
Historical Review of its Theory and Method]. Kampen: Kok, 1946.
Höffken, Peter. Jesaja: Der stand der theologischen Diskussion. Darmstadt: Wissen-
schaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2004.
Houtman, Cees. De Schrift wordt geschreven: Op zoek naar een christelijke hermeneutiek
van het Oude Testament [Scripture is Being Written: Searching for Christian Herme-
neutics of the Old Testament]. Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2006.
Jong, H. de, Van oud naar nieuw: De ontwikkelingsgang van het Oude naar het Nieuwe
Testament [From Old to New: The progress from the Old to the New Testament]. Kamp-
en: Kok, 2002.
Kooij, Arie van der. “Zur Theologie des Jesajabuches in der Septuaginta.” In Theologische
Probleme der Septuaginta und der hellenistischen Hermeneutik, ed. H.G. Reventlow.
Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 11. Gütersloh:
Kaiser, 1997: 9–25.
Kooij, Arie van der. “Interpretation of the Book of Isaiah In the Septuagint and in
Other Ancient Versions.” In ‘As Those Who Are Taught.’ The Interpretation of Isaiah
from the LXX to the SBL, eds. Claire Mathews McGinnis and Patricia K. Tull. Society
of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 27. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,
2006: 49–68.
Lau, Wolfgang. Schriftgelehrte Prophetie in Jes 56–66: Eine Untersuchung zu den liter-
arischen Bezügen in den letzten elf Kapiteln des Jesajabuches. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift
für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 225. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994.
Lim, B.H. “Isaiah: History of Interpretation.” in Dictionary of the Old Testament Proph-
ets: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, eds. Mark J. Boda and
J. Gordon McConville. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2012: 378–91.
Michel, D. “Zur Eigenart Tritojesajas.” Theologia Viatorum 10 (1965–1966): 213–30.
Nurmela, Risto. The Mouth of the Lord has Spoken: Inner-Biblical Allusions in Second
and Third Isaiah. Lanham: University Press of America, 2006.
Paul, Shalom M. Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary. Eerdmans Critical Com-
mentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.
Peels, H.G.L. “Het Woord is leven. Over de Heilige Schrift” [The Word is Life. About
Scripture]. In Gegrond geloof: Kernpunten uit de geloofsleer. In bijbels, historisch en
belijdend perspectief [Well-Founded Faith: Central Themes from Doctrine. In Biblical,
Historical and Confessional Perspective], eds. G. van den Brink et al. Zoetermeer:
Boekencentrum, 1996: 52–92.
Ross Wagner, J. “Isaiah in Romans and Galatians.” In Isaiah in the New Testament, eds.
Steve Moyise and Maarten J.J. Menken. New York: T&T Clark, 2005: 117–32.
Ruiten, J.T.A.G.M. van. “The intertextual relationship between Isaiah 65,25 and Isaiah
11,6–9.” In The Scriptures and the Scrolls, eds. F. García Martínez et al., FS. A.S. van
der Woude. Vetus Testamentum, Supplements 49. Leiden: Brill, 1992: 31–42.
Schultz, Richard L. The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets. Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 180. Sheffield: Sheffield Aca-
demic Press, 1999.
Seeligman, I.L. The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of Its Problems. Med-
edelingen en Verhandelingen 9. Leiden: Ex Oriente Lux, 1948.
Sommer, Benjamin D. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66. Contraver-
sions Series. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998.
Sparks, Kenton L. God’s Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical
Biblical Scholarship. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008.
Steck, Odil H. Studien zu Tritojesaja. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 203. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991.
Stromberg, Jacob. An Introduction to the Study of Isaiah. London; New York: T&T Clark,
2011.
Sweeney, Marvin A. Isaiah 1–39. With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature. The Forms
of the Old Testament Literature 16. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Troxel, Ronald L. LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the
Translator of the Septuagint and Isaiah. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of
Judaism 124. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Tull Willey, Patricia. Remember the Former Things: The Recollection of Previous Texts in
Second Isaiah. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 161. Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1997.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. “Scripture and tradition.” In The Cambridge Companion to Post-
modern Theology, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2003: 149–169.
Zenger, Erich et al. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Kohlhammer Studienbücher The-
ologie 1,1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 20045.
chapter 11
Sola Scriptura and the Imperfection of

the Hebrew Text
Reinoud Oosting
1 Introduction
Reformed evangelical theologians usually emphasize the careful transmission

of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. They speak highly of the transmitters
of the text who performed their work in the most painstaking way. In doing so,
they don’t deny that small errors may have crept in during the transmission
process. Yet, one of them claims that “more than 95 percent of the text of the
Old Testament has been accurately transmitted.”1
While examining the text of the Old Testament, our research group fre-
quently is faced with the inconsistency of the Hebrew text.2 For our research
we make use of a database of the Old Testament, which can be used for
analyzing the Hebrew text in a systematic way. While looking for regularities
within the text, we are frequently confronted with exceptions to those rules.
Those exceptions make clear how messy the Hebrew text of the Old Testament
is at certain points.
In our research, we thus experience a discrepancy between, on the one
hand, the view of those theologians that the text of the Old Testament has
been accurately transmitted and, on the other, the inconsistencies in the He-
brew text that we actually have. That observation has stimulated me to tackle
the question as to how Reformed theology can deal with the history of the
1 The Dutch original reads: “Meer dan 95 procent van de tekst van het Oude Testament is
accuraat overgeleverd.” The quote is found in the article “Dr. Paul: Oude Testament accuraat
overgeleverd,” [Dr. Paul says: the Old Testament has been accurately transmitted], Reforma-
torisch Dagblad, February 27, 2008, accessed August 29, 2017, http://rd.nl/1.247872.
2 The history of the research group and its methodological line of thinking are described in
Reinoud Oosting, “Computer-Assisted Analysis of Old Testament Texts: The Contribution
of the WIVU to Old Testament Scholarship,” in The Present State of Old Testament Studies
in the Low Countries: A Collection of Old Testament Studies Published on the Occasion of the
Seventy-fifth Anniversary of the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap. Oudtestamentische
Studiën, 69, ed. Klaas Spronk (Leiden: Brill, 2016).

Sola Scriptura and the Imperfection of the Hebrew Text 217
Hebrew text, if at the same time it holds on to the principle of sola scriptura.
Can we read the Bible as the Word of God, while at the same time doing justice
to the fact that the biblical text has been transmitted by humans in the course
of time?
In answering that question, this paper does not pretend to bring forward
new results. Rather the aim of this paper is to show that the Hebrew text itself
needs our attention. We cannot discuss the careful transmission of the bibli-
cal text, if we do not pay attention to the textual data that we actually have.
For that reason, it is important first to look at the text of the Old Testament
itself. Which Hebrew text are we talking about? What are the characteristics
of this text? After looking at this, attention will be drawn to the complexity
of the textual data. What other manuscripts do we have? What kind of in-
consistencies do we find in the Hebrew text that shed light on the process of
textual transmission? Finally, we will discuss how reformed theologians deal
with the tension between the principle of reading the Bible as the Word of
God and the fact that this text has been passed on by humans in the course of
time. Based on that, we are able to draw conclusions as to how contemporary
Reformed theology can hold on to sola scriptura, while at the same time not
closing its eyes to the long road that the biblical text has travelled before it
came to us.
2 Database of the Old Testament
In the late 1970s, Eep Talstra founded a research group at the Faculty of The-
ology of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, in order to contribute to the study
of the Old Testament by implementing the computer. The main concern of the
research group has been to build up a database of the Hebrew and Aramaic
text of the Old Testament and to add linguistic information to it. In doing so,
they have developed a powerful instrument for exegetes, Bible translators, and
Semitists to search the text of the Old Testament at different linguistic levels.
When searching the database, it is possible not only to look for certain ele-
ments in the text, such as words and phrases, but also to search for the linguis-
tic features of textual elements. The research group remained under Talstra’s
direction until his retirement in 2011. After his retirement, it was renamed the
Eep Talstra Centre for Bible and Computer (ETCBC).
As mentioned, the plan for building up the database goes back to the late
seventies of the previous century. At that time, comparable projects were
started at other places. It is noteworthy that many researchers who took the
initiative in examining the text of the Bible with the help of the computer had
218 Oosting
a Jewish or protestant background.3 In both Judaism and Protestantism, the

text of the Bible plays an important role. So, it seems no coincidence that espe-
cially Jewish and protestant biblical scholars were attracted to using comput-
ers for analyzing biblical texts. The computer is an appropriate instrument to
let the text of the Bible speak for itself.
From the very beginning, the research group made clear that the database
was not meant for storing exegetical opinions, but rather that the linguistic
features of the text should receive priority over literary and theological inter-
pretations. By giving priority to the linguistic features of the text, the database
sheds new light on the grammar of Classical Hebrew, the meaning and the
translation of biblical texts, and on the history of development of the text of
the Bible.
In 2014, the ETCBC database has become accessible via the internet. In order
to improve the opportunities for searching the database and sharing the query
results, the ETCBC joined forces with the Data Archive Network Service (DANS)
institute in The Hague in the project System for Hebrew Text: Annotations for
Queries and Markup (SHEBANQ). The SHEBANQ website enables students,
teachers, and researchers not only to perform advanced searches on the ETCBC
database, but also to save and publish the results of the queries as annotations
to this resource.4 Below two examples are presented that give an impression of
how the database can be searched through with the help of SHEBANQ. But first,
it is appropriate to take a closer look at the Hebrew text underlying the ETCBC
database and to pay attention to the characteristics of this text.
3 Masoretic Text of the Old Testament
The text of the ETCBC database is based on the scholarly edition of the Old
Testament, the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS),5 which in turn is based on
3 Cf. Eep Talstra, “‘Zelfs uw houthakkers en uw waterputters’ (Deuteronomium 29: 10(11)): De

ruimte voor het ambacht in de theologie,” [Even the Hewers of Your Wood and the Drawers
of Your Water (Deut. 29: 10(11)): Room for the Craft in Theology] Theologia Reformata 51
(2008), 150–164 (esp. 163–164), who refers to the study of Christof Hardmeier, TextWelten
der Bibel entdecken: Grundlagen und Verfahren einer textpragmatischen Literaturwissenschaft
der Bibel, vol. 1, Textpragmatische Studien zur Hebräischen Bibel 1/1 (Gütersloh: Güterslo-
her Verlagshaus, 2003), especially chaps. 3 and 4.
4 The web address of the SHEBANQ project is: https://shebanq.ancient-data.org.
5 Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph, eds., Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 19975).
the Leningrad Codex, a medieval manuscript dating from 1009 ce. The Lenin-
grad Codex is the oldest complete manuscript of the Old Testament and is the
product of Rabbinic tradition. It is mainly written in Classical Hebrew. Several
chapters and some isolated words are in Aramaic. The people who were re-
sponsible for copying and transmitting the biblical texts within the Rabbinic
tradition are called the Masoretes.6
In order to get an impression of the development of the text in the course
of time, we need to look more closely at the various aspects of the Hebrew text
in its final form. Just like other Semitic languages, such as Arabic and Aramaic,
Classical Hebrew has an alphabet with merely consonants. The original bibli-
cal texts thus contained neither vowels nor punctuation marks. That stage of
the text is still visible in the biblical manuscripts found in the area of the Dead
Sea. In the course of time, a need for fixing the meaning of the text arose. From
the sixth century CE onwards, the Masoretes developed a system for vocalizing
the biblical text with the help of vowel marks. Beside vowel marks, they also
added accents to the Hebrew text, which indicated how the text should be
divided and how it should be recited.
Some exegetes accept only the consonants of the Hebrew text, because in
their view the vowel marks and the accents reflect the Masoretic interpreta-
tion of the text. A representative of that view is Jacob Hoftijzer, who notes: “one
has essentially to work from the consonantal text and the information with
which this consonantal text provides us.”7 Others emphasize that the Masoret-
ic text is “the only complete and reasonably coherent version of the Hebrew
Bible that we have.”8 In their view, it is better to adhere to the Masoretic ver-
sion of the text because it provides a solid basis for examining and translating
the Old Testament text.9 The latter argument was also the reason that the Eep
Talstra Centre decided to follow the Masoretic reading of the text, although the
Masoretic text is relatively young.
Due to the fact that we have neither original biblical texts nor complete
manuscripts form the biblical time, we have to deal with transmitted copies
6 The term Masoretes is derived from the word masora, which means ‘tradition.’
7 Jacob Hoftijzer, A Search for Method: A Study in the Syntactic Use of the H-locale in Classical
Hebrew, Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics, 12 (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 5.
8 Arian J.C. Verheij, Bits, Bytes, and Binyanim: A Quantitative Study of Verbal Lexeme Formations
in the Hebrew Bible, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 93 (Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 10.
9 Due to the fact the ETCBC gives priority to linguistic features it does not follow the Masoretic
division in all cases. The Masoretic accents are followed as long as they do not conflict with
the linguistic division of the text.
220 Oosting
from later time. Those copies give us access to the history of the text. At the
same time, these texts themselves are the product of history.
4 Variant Readings
Even when taking the Masoretic text as the starting point for examining and
translating the Old Testament text, one cannot escape the need to make a de-
cision as to how to read the text at various points. The BHS has approximately
1300 cases in which an alternative reading is found in the margin of the text
(see the appendix at the end of this paper).10 In these cases, the vowel marks in
the main text refer to the alternative in the margin that is unpointed. In doing
so, the Masoretes indicated that the word or the words in the main text, the
Ketiv (“what is written”), should be read as indicated in the margin of text, the
Qere (“what is read”). Such a variant reading occurs, for example, in Isa. 49: 5.
The main text has the word ‫“( לֹא‬not”), while the margin of the text reads the
prepositional phrase ‫“( ֹלו‬to him”).
These alternative readings in the margin of the text were traditionally con-
sidered to be corrections. According to that opinion, the Masoretes did not
feel free to correct the surviving texts and for that reason they put the correct
reading in the margin of the text. In later times, biblical scholars emphasized
that the readings in the margin should not be taken first of all as corrections,
but instead as additions to the main text.11 In most cases, the main text, as well
as the text in the margin, makes sense linguistically.12
10 The numbers in the appendix are based on the representation of the BHS in the ETCBC
database. Following the edition of Aron Dotan, Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia (Peabody:
Hendrickson, 2001), Barr finds about 1250 variant readings in the margin of the Hebrew
text. Cf. James Barr, “A New Look at Kethibh-Qere,” in Remembering all the Way …: A Col-
lection of Old Testament Studies Published on the Occasion of the Fortieth Anniversary of
the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland, Oudtestamentische Studiën, 21, ed.
Adam S. van der Woude (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 19–37 (32).
11 Cf. Emanuel Tov, “The Ketiv/Qere Variations in Light of the Manuscripts from the Judean
Desert,” in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays, Texts and Studies in
Ancient Judaism, 121, ed. Emanuel Tov (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 199–205 (202):
“In any event, the Qere readings should not be considered corrections, since they inter-
vene in the text inconsistently, and sometimes are inferior to the Ketiv.”
12 In the ETCBC database the variant reading in the margin of the text is always adopted as
the first reading, because the vocalization of this reading has been preserved in the Maso-
retic tradition. Yet, the reading of the main text is always registered as an understandable
alternative, which in most cases can be easily reconstructed.
That both readings are syntactically acceptable in most cases can also be
seen in English translations. The King James Version (KJV), for example, ad-
heres to the reading of the main text and renders Isa. 49: 5 as follows: “Though
Israel be not (‫ )לֹא‬gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord.” The
New International Version (NIV), on the other hand, follows the reading in the
margin of the text and translates: “and gather Israel to himself (‫)ֹלו‬, for I am
honored in the eyes of the Lord.”
The variant reading in Isa. 49: 5 is treated by some biblical scholars as a
single case. However, when looking for similar cases in the Book of Isaiah, it
becomes clear that the same phenomenon occurs two more times in this bib-
lical book:
Book of Isaiah Main Text Margin of the Text
Isa. 9: 2 ‫“( לֹא‬not”) ‫“( לו‬to him”)

To see how many times this phenomenon appears in the whole Old Testament,
we can make a query on the SHEBANQ website. When executing that query,
we see that the Masoretic text (MT) has 18 cases in which the main text has
‫“( לֹא‬not”) while the margin of the text has ‫“( ֹלו‬to him”), and that there are two
cases in which it is just the other way round:13
Main Text Margin of the Text
Old Testament ‫“( לֹא‬not”) ‫“( לו‬to him”) 1814

Old Testament ֹ‫“( ֹלו‬to him”) ‫“( לא‬not”) 215
These numbers show that the confusion between ‫“( לֹא‬not”) and ‫“( ֹלו‬to him”)
in Isa. 49: 5 is not an isolated incident. The fact that the words are frequently
confused with one another should not come as a surprise, because the sound
13 Cf. “‫( לא‬Ketiv) and ‫( לו‬Qere) or ‫( לו‬Ketiv) and ‫( לא‬Qere),” SHEBANQ, Accessed August 29,
2017, https://shebanq.ancient-data.org/hebrew/query?version=4&id=863.
14 Cf. Ex. 21: 8; Lev. 11: 21; 25: 30; 1 Sam. 2: 3; 2 Sam. 16: 8; 2 Kgs. 8: 10; Isa. 9: 2; 49: 5; 63: 9;
Ps. 100: 3; 139: 16; Job 6: 21; 13: 15; 41: 4; Prov. 19: 7; 26: 2; Ezra 4: 2; 1 Chron. 11: 20.
15 Cf. 1 Sam. 2: 16; 20: 2.
222 Oosting
of the words is quite similar. The phonological similarity is probably the rea-
son why the transmitters of the text had difficulties discerning one from the
other.16 In that light, it is not appropriate to suggest that these cases are just
incidents. It is better to create permanent room for these misunderstandings,
because they reflect the human side of scripture. The Bible has been written
and transmitted by humans in the course of time. So, it is logical to find reflec-
tions of human imperfection in it.
Furthermore, this example shows that different traditions of reading may
have been preserved in the text of the Bible. As modern people, we are used to
having only one version of the text (the printed version) that counts. The Old
Testament has been produced by scribes and copyists before the art of p rinting
was invented. As a consequence, the Hebrew Bible cannot be dealt with in
the same way as writings produced after the invention of the printing press. It
appears that in the time that the Old Testament was copied and transmitted, it
was not unusual for various versions of the text to exist alongside each other.
This phenomenon can be illustrated by the reading of Isa. 49: 5 in two Isaiah
manuscripts discovered in the caves near the Dead Sea. The great Isaiah scroll
found in cave one (1QIsaa) reads the prepositional ‫“( ֹלו‬to him”) in Isa. 49: 5,
while one of the Isaiah fragments found in cave four (4QIsad) has the word ‫לֹא‬
(“not”): 17
Book of Isaiah MT (Main Text) MT (Margin) 1QIsaa 4QIsad
Isa. 49: 5 ‫“( לֹא‬not”) ‫“( לו‬to him”) ‫“( לו‬to him”) ‫“( לא‬not”)
By registering alternative readings in the margin of the text, the Masoretes

were able to save two traditions of reading in one manuscript.18
Finally, the work of the Masoretes shows us part of the road that the bibli-
cal text has travelled in the course of time. The text of the Bible as we have it
now does not have a one-to-one relationship to the original biblical writings.
16 Barr, “New Look at Kethibh-Qere,” 31.

17 Cf. Eugene Ulrich, ed., The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants,
Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 134 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 427, 528.
18 Cf. Tov, “Ketiv/Qere Variations,” 203, n. 17: “The background of this non-distinction in pro-
nunciation between some K/Q variations is that even though the Qere reflects a reading
tradition, it was originally based on manuscripts that included variants that are not dis-
tinguishable orally.”
There is a long history of copying and transmitting the text of the Bible.19 Any-
one who tries to wipe away that history does not do justice to the work of the
various generations that received the biblical texts, adapted them and passed
them on to the next generation.
5 Inconsistencies within the Masoretic Text
A second aspect of the Masoretic text that requires our attention is the consis-
tency of the Hebrew text. The syntactic consistency of this text can be checked
with the help of the ETCBC database. This database enables researchers to ex-
amine the Masoretic text at various linguistic levels. In order to examine the
consistency of the Hebrew text, we can, for instance, look at verbal patterns
in the text. In doing so, we should not be surprised to find exceptions to those
patterns, as well.
The inconsistency of the Hebrew text can be illustrated by looking at the
combination of the verb ‫( הלְך‬Qal) (“to go”) with the preposition ‫“( ֶאת‬with”).
When searching for that verbal pattern with the help of SHEBANQ, it becomes
clear that this combination occurs 33 times in the Old Testament.20 One of
the texts in which this verbal pattern is found, is Gen. 12: 4. The NIV reads: “So
Abram left, as the Lord had told him; and Lot went with him (ֺ ‫) ִאּתו‬.”21
The above query can easily be modified and used for making another query
that searches for all the occurrences of the verb ‫( הלְך‬Qal) (“to go) with the
object marker ‫ ֶאת‬. That verbal pattern occurs less often in the Old Testament.
This query has only four results.22 Particularly interesting is the combination of
19 Some exegetes neglect the history of the biblical texts and suggest that the Masoretic
reading of the text is nearly identical to the original writings. See, for example, John N. Os-
walt, The Book of Isaiah, chapters 1–39, New International Commentary on the Old Tes-
tament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 29: “By and large, the original text of Isaiah has
been well preserved. While there are a number of instances where obscure statements
suggest the possibility of textual corruptions, there are remarkably few in proportion to
the whole.”
20 Cf. “to go + with,” SHEBANQ, Accessed August 29, 2017, https://shebanq.ancient-data
.org/hebrew/query?version=4b&id=754.
21 The other occurrences are in Gen. 13: 5; 14: 24; Num. 10: 29; 22: 20; 23: 13; Josh. 10: 24;
Judg. 1: 3(twice), 17; 7: 4(twice); 1 Sam. 23: 23; 2 Sam. 3: 16; 13: 26; 15: 11, 19; 16: 17;
19: 27; 1 Kgs. 13: 15; 22: 4; 2 Kgs 3: 7; 6: 3, 4; 8: 28; 10: 16; Ezek. 31: 4; Mal. 2: 6; Prov. 1: 11,
15; 13: 20; Ruth 1: 18; 2 Chron. 22: 5.
22 Cf. “to go + object marker,” SHEBANQ, Accessed August 29, 2017, https://shebanq.ancient
-data.org/hebrew/query?version=4b&id=755.
224 Oosting
the verb ‫( הלְך‬Qal) (“to go”) with the object marker ‫ ֶאת‬in Jer. 19: 10. In the NIV,
this verse is rendered as follows: “Then break the jar while those who go with
you (‫ )או ָֺתְך‬are watching.”23
The pronominal suffix “you” in the Masoretic text is preceded by the ob-
ject marker ‫ ֶאת‬, which indicates that this pronoun functions as a direct object.
The rendering of the NIV, however, suggests that its translators have read the
preposition ‫ ֶאת‬for the object marker ‫ ֶאת‬here. It is certainly possible that the
original text of Jer. 19: 10 had the preposition ‫ ֶאת‬, but that it was confused with
the object marker ‫ ֶאת‬in the course of time.24
The confusion between the object marker and the preposition ‫ ֶאת‬in Jer.
19: 10 is not exceptional. The Hebrew grammar of Joüon and Muraoka men-
tions that the object marker for the preposition ‫ ֶאת‬occurs 61 times in the
Masoretic text, especially in late biblical books.25 Here again, it is clear that the
inconsistencies in the Hebrew text are not just incidents, but rather are part of
the process of textual transmission. For that reason, it is appropriate to create
permanent room for the development of the biblical text in the course of time.
That means that we should not take textual criticism as ‘a means of detecting
any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission,’
as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy suggests.26 Textual criticism
can rather be used as a tool to get better insight into the process of textual
23 Besides Jer. 19: 10, SHEBANQ indicates that the combination of the verb ‫( הלְך‬Qal) with
the object marker ‫ ֶאת‬is also found in Deut. 1: 19, Judg. 19: 18, and Ezek. 36: 27. The last
case, however, is not correct, because the object marker ‫ ֶאת‬at the beginning of the clause
is governed by the verb ‫( עׂשה‬Qal) (“to make”) in the previous clause. The occurrence in
Judg. 19: 18 is also problematic. Most translations choose to read here the preposition ‫ֶאל‬
(“to”) for the object marker ‫ ֶאת‬. See, for example, the translation of Judg. 19: 18 in the NIV:
“I have been to Bethlehem in Judah and now I am going to (‫ ) ֶאת‬the house of the Lord.”
24 It is interesting that the Aleppo Codex also has the object marker ‫ ֶאת‬in Jer. 19: 10. The
Aleppo Codex, Accessed August 29, 2017, http://www.aleppocodex.org/aleppocodex
.html. It is likely, therefore, that the copyist of the Leningrad Codex was not responsible
for the confusion between the preposition ‫ ֶאת‬and the object marker ‫ ֶאת‬in Jer. 19: 10,
but rather that the text has been changed at an earlier stage. For the close connection
between the Leningrad Codex and the Aleppo Codex, see Yosef Ofer, “St. Petersburg I
Firkovitch B19a Manuscript of the Hebrew Bible,” in Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language
and Linguistics, vol. 3 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 617–618.
25 Cf. Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Subsidia Biblica, 14/I-II
(Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 19962), § 103j.
26 “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition,” Bible Research, Accessed
August 29, 2017, http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html. The quote is found in
the exposition under the heading “Transmission and Translation.”
transmission. The inconsistency discussed above shows that the Masoretes did
not add vocals and accents to the original biblical text, but instead to the text
they received themselves.
The syntactic inconsistency in Jer. 19: 10 is just one example. It is not hard
to point out other traces of textual transmission in the Masoretic text, but I
won’t do that here. My main question is not how many inconsistencies can I
detect in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Rather, my question is how
can Reformed theology integrate the development of the biblical text in its
doctrine of the holy scripture. Can we read the Bible as the Word of God, while,
at the same time, not shutting our eyes to the long history of copying and trans-
mitting the biblical text?
6 Doctrine of the Holy Scripture
An important principle in Reformed theology is that the holy scripture is

something we have received. The Bible is the Word of God, which God has
given to the people. That principle is nicely expressed by the late professor
Johannes P. Versteeg: 27
We have to accept the Holy Scripture as it has come to us, including all
the questions that confront us. In that way, Scripture is to be confessed by
us as being the inspired Word of God.
Taking this quote as our starting point, it is, in my view, possible to make room
for the history of the biblical text in a Reformed doctrine of the holy scripture.
In doing so, it is important to pay attention to the following three points:
1. Reformed evangelical theologians are inclined to defend the close

similarity of the current Hebrew text to the original biblical writings.
This is well illustrated by the aforementioned quote that “more than
95 percent of the text of the Old Testament has been accurately trans-
mitted.” Apart from the question of what this quote exactly means,
27 The original Dutch reads: “We hebben de Schrift te aanvaarden zoals ze tot ons gekomen
is, mèt alle vragen waarvoor ze ons stelt. Zo hebben we de Schrift te belijden als het
geïnspireerde Woord van God.” Cf. Johannes P. Versteeg, “Het fundamentalisme en de
historische betrouwbaarheid van de Schrift,” in Geest, ambt en uitzicht: Theologische op-
stellen [Fundamentalism and the Historical Reliability of Scripture, in Ghost, Office, and
Prospect: Theological Essays], comp. G.J. Versteeg-Floor (Kampen: Kok, 1989), 23–31 (29).
226 Oosting
I have difficulties with it, because it suggests that the Bible is valued
on the basis of a modern view of written texts. Since the invention of
the printing press, we are used to the fact that the original text and
its copies are a 100 percent in line with each other. For that reason,
people think that the Bible should be as close as possible to that norm.
The Bible, however, has been written and transmitted in a different
time. So, there is no reason to suppose that the Hebrew text that we
have is nearly identical to the original biblical writings.
2. The tendency of those theologians to defend the Bible is understandable.
After all, they receive and read the Bible as the Word of God. For that
reason, they are inclined to consider the Bible as a perfect book. Though
they do not claim that the text of the Bible in its final form is perfect,
they suggest that the current manuscripts are close to being so, due
to the meticulous transmission of the text under the guidance of the
Holy Spirit. However, when taking seriously the fact that the b iblical
texts have been written and transmitted by humans in the course of
time, we cannot escape the need to recognize the history of the text.
The traces of the transmission process are clearly visible in the text.
We should not try to moderate or disguise those inconsistencies, but
rather make room for them. The imperfection of the text makes clear
that this is the way God has chosen to reveal himself to humans.
3. When paying attention to the irregularities in the biblical text, one also
develops an eye for the vitality of the text. The Bible is not a collection of
eternal truths that have been preserved in a specific form. Yet, one finds
living truths in it, that have been passed on by a long tradition of believers.
During the process of transmission the biblical text has been adapted and
updated by various generations of readers. The traces in the text show us
how those people have been dealing with the text in the course of time.
We should not consider those adaptions as dust that obstructs our view of
the original text. The development of the text is part of the living tradition
we have received. This is the way the Old Testament text has come to us
and is to be confessed by us as being the inspired Word of God.
7 Conclusions
The above points lead us to answer the question as to how contemporary Re-
formed theology can hold on to sola scriptura, while not closing its eyes to the
history of the biblical text. On the basis of the preceding considerations we can
draw the following conclusions:
1. In examining the history of development of the Bible, sola scriptura

is still a valuable principle. We should not view the Bible on the basis
of our modern view of written texts, which have come into being after
the invention of the printing press, but instead let the text of the Bible
speak for itself. What does the text itself teach us about the way the
biblical text has developed, how it was transmitted, and has come to
us? The irregularities in the Hebrew text provide us with clues about
the process of development and textual transmission.
2. Furthermore, the history of the biblical text gives a clear signal about
the way God wants to reveal himself to humans. God makes use of
human beings with their typical human weaknesses.
3. When reading the Bible as the Word of God, it is important to r ealize
that people were involved in writing, editing, and transmitting the
biblical texts. The human side of the Bible is not something to worry
about. It may rather stimulate us to receive and pass on the Bible in
our own imperfect way.
4. Finally, the history of the biblical text concentrates our minds on the
tradition of readers we belong to. We are part of a community of be-
lievers, who all in their own way have dealt with these biblical texts.
The text of the Bible connects us to the earlier generations of people
who read the Bible. We may join that tradition by reading the biblical
texts ourselves and adding our own contributions to the understanding
of the Bible.
Appendix Number of Variant Readings in the Margin of the BHS Text
Biblical Book Number of Variant Readings
Genesis 20
Exodus 14
Leviticus 6
Numbers 9
Deuteronomy 26
Joshua 31
Judges 22
1 Samuel 72
2 Samuel 87
1 Kings 46
2 Kings 74
228 Oosting
Appendix Number of Variant Readings in the Margin of the BHS Text (cont.)
Biblical Book Number of Variant Readings
Isaiah 53
Jeremiah 140
Ezekiel 128
Hosea 5
Joel 1
Amos 3
Obadiah 1
Jonah 0
Micah 4
Nahum 4
Habakkuk 2
Zephaniah 2
Haggai 1
Zechariah 7
Malachi 0
Psalms 68
Job 53
Proverbs 71
Ruth 12
Canticle 4
Qoheleth 12
Lamentations 22
Esther 13
Daniel 140
Ezra 40
Nehemiah 22
1 Chronicles 41
2 Chronicles 40
Total 1296
Bibliography
Barr, James. “A New Look at Kethibh-Qere.” In Remembering all the Way …: A Collec-
tion of Old Testament Studies Published on the Occasion of the Fortieth Anniversary
of the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland, Oudtestamentische Studiën,

21, edited by Adam S. van der Woude, 19–37. Leiden: Brill, 1981.
“Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition.” Bible Research. Accessed
August 29, 2017. http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html.
Hoftijzer, Jacob. A Search for Method: A Study in the Syntactic Use of the H-locale in Clas-
sical Hebrew, Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics, 12. Leiden: Brill, 1981.
Oosting, Reinoud. “Computer-Assisted Analysis of Old Testament Texts: The Contribu-
tion of the WIVU to Old Testament Scholarship.” In The Present State of Old Testament
Studies in the Low Countries: A Collection of Old Testament Studies Published on the
Occasion of the Seventy-fifth Anniversary of the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap.
Oudtestamentische Studiën, 69, edited by Klaas Spronk, 192–209. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah, chapters 1–39, New International Commentary on the
Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.
Talstra, Eep. “‘Zelfs uw houthakkers en uw waterputters’ (Deuteronomium 29: 10(11)):
De ruimte voor het ambacht in de theologie,” [Even the Hewers of Your Wood and
the Drawers of Your Water (Deut. 29: 10(11)): Room for the Craft in Theology]. Theo-
logia Reformata 51 (2008): 150–164.
Tov, Emanuel. “The Ketiv/Qere Variations in Light of the Manuscripts from the Judean
Desert.” In Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays, Texts and Stud-
ies in Ancient Judaism, 121, edited by Emanuel Tov, 199–205. Tübingen: Mohr Sie-
beck, 2008.
Ulrich, Eugene, ed. The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants,
Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 134. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Verheij, Arian J.C. Bits, Bytes, and Binyanim: A Quantitative Study of Verbal Lexeme For-
mations in the Hebrew Bible, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 93. Leuven: Peeters,
2000.
Versteeg, Johannes P. “Het fundamentalisme en de historische betrouwbaarheid van
de Schrift.” In Geest, ambt en uitzicht: Theologische opstellen [Fundamentalism and
the Historical Reliability of Scripture, in Ghost, Office, and Prospect: Theological Es-
says], compiled by G.J. Versteeg-Floor, 23–31. Kampen: Kok, 1989.
chapter 12
Reading the Bible with Multifocal Lenses

Rob van Houwelingen
Sola scriptura is not suitable as a hermeneutical key. If it is true that this

term was coined in the sixteenth century by the Reformers as a weapon in
their battle against Roman Catholics and Anabaptists, then “the weapon of
the sola scriptura is incomplete and insufficient as a starting-point for the
interpretation of the scriptures.” Thus my predecessor Jakob van Bruggen in
1994 at a conference on the vitality of Reformed theology.1
Almost two decades later, the systematic theologian Maarten Wisse wrote
something similar in a Christian newspaper: “Sola scriptura is a polemical
tool that in the sixteenth century was deployed against all kinds of human
inventions, in order to preserve the exclusive right of the divine Word. The
recognition of one’s own position in the interpretation of scripture could
hardly have a place in this concept.” Wisse finds this disastrous, because in that
case the Bible is used mainly to prove one’s own rightness. He is hoping for a
new openness in dealing with the Bible.2
How do you deal with the Bible? You do so not on the basis of ecclesiastical
authority or inner light, but rather as an independent interlocutor, within
the believing community. And there must also be explicit accountability
for your own conscious or subconscious presuppositions when reading and
interpreting the Bible.
Thus, sola scriptura is not suitable as an independent hermeneutical key.
The purpose of the following essay is to warn against “absolutizing” this
doctrine, by thinking that every question can be solved with only the Bible.
Sooner or later, this will result in a fundamentalist use of the Bible, which does
not take into account the historical context of a particular passage, but treats
it as a timeless truth, or which considers scripture as a whole to be a collection
of proof-texts.
1 J. van Bruggen, “The Authority of Scripture as a Presupposition in Reformed Theology,” in:

J.M. Batteau e.a. (eds.), The Vitality of Reformed Theology. Proceedings of the International
Theological Congress June 20–24th 1994 Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands (Kampen: Kok,
1994), 63–83 [84].
2 Maarten Wisse, “Zoek nieuwe omgang met Bijbel,” Nederlands Dagblad 13 september 2013.

reading the bible with multifocal lenses 231
This essay consists of three sections, corresponding with three aspects that
will be discussed. Firstly, I will address the question why a careful hermeneutical
approach is important; secondly, I will explore the impact of the search for
meaning and significance; and thirdly, I will argue that Christians have to live
with the Bible open.
1 A Hermeneutical Approach
What is the function of hermeneutics, regarding the explanation of texts?

Generally speaking, there are two extremes:3
1. According to the classical approach (followed in the Reformed

tradition), hermeneutics is reflection on the exegesis. This view can be
referred to as minimizing, because it is limited to formulating reading
rules for a text. In addition, that text has only one valid meaning,
referred to by the author, a meaning that we as contemporary readers
try as far as possible to discover. “Hermeneutics is not a magic wand,
but reading glasses,” said Van Bruggen with a particularly vivid
image.4
2. According to the postmodern philosophical approach (developed
in the twentieth century, and perhaps best known from the
Reader-response criticism), hermeneutics is the whole process
in which a text from the past gets meaning for the contemporary
reader. This reader him/herself gives meaning to a text—regardless
of what the author may have intended—and constructs his/her own
truth, in much the same way as the ambiguity of a modern painting
or an art house movie permits different meanings for the viewers.
3 For a more detailed overview of different hermeneutical positions, see Anthony Thiselton,
New Horizons in Hermeneutics. The Theory and Practice of Transforming Biblical Reading
(London: HarperCollins, 1992).
4 Jakob van Bruggen, Het lezen van de bijbel. Een inleiding (Kampen: Kok, 1981), 19. Cf. his
article “Bijbel en leesbril. Over hermeneutiek,” Radix 5 (1979), 117–143. A. Noordegraaf
used this motto ten years later as title for his booklet on biblical hermeneutics: Leesbril
of toverstaf. Over het verstaan en vertolken van de Bijbel (Kampen: Kok Voorhoeve, 1991).
See also A. Berkeley Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible. A Book of Basic Principles for
Understanding the Scriptures (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963, 7th printing 1977): the task
of interpreting the Bible is to discover the author’s meaning and to transmit that meaning
to modern readers.
232 van Houwelingen
This philosophical view can be referred to as maximizing, because

various meanings can co-exist and the quest for the intention of the
author is not crucial.
There is, however, a middle way, one which also transcends these two
extremes. In both cases a critical reflection on the process of understanding
is needed, explicitly in philosophical hermeneutics and implicitly in classical
hermeneutics. The minimizing approach takes too little account of the role
of the reader and his/her conscious or unconscious presuppositions. Simple
reading glasses are not enough. At the same time hermeneutics should not be
separated from exegesis, as with the maximizing approach, because then the
text plays no role anymore. A magic wand is no reading aid. That is why I prefer
the approach that has been put forward by Anthony Thiselton:
3. “Hermeneutics explores the conditions and criteria that operate to

try to ensure responsible, valid, fruitful, or appropriate interpreta-
tion.”5 Hermeneutics should then be regarded as the critical reflec-
tion on the entire process of understanding, including exegesis.
Exegesis is the craft of text explanation, not as a stand-alone oper-
ation but as part of the process of understanding. In this process of
understanding, we trust the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who en-
lightens our mind and gives us insight in the word of God. Herme-
neutics can help us look at the entire process of understanding
in a critical way and improve it where necessary. In the end, it is
a false dilemma: reading glasses or magic wand. Hermeneutical
awareness works rather like multifocal lenses that allow you when
reading the Bible to fluently make the connection with the reality
around you.
Multifocal glasses or progressive prescription lenses, as they are also known,

provide the opportunity not only to see far and near well but also all in-
termediate distances. With such glasses you do not suffer from an abrupt
transition between the reading segment and the other part, as with bifocals.
It is precisely this smooth transition that the reader makes consciously or
unconsciously, in a continuous interaction between the text and the reality.
This does not mean, however, that the range of interpretations is endless.
The better we listen to what the text is saying, the sharper the questions
5 Anthony C. Thiselton, Hermeneutics. An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 4.

we will ask in our situation. Conversely: the more precisely we analyse the
situation, the more we will be motivated to listen to scripture. Various exam-
ples of this challenging interaction between text and reality could be given
here, such as questions about God’s omnipotence in a world full of distress,
or concerns about the next generations of humankind and their ecological
environment. In so doing, the Bible as Word of God has the primacy, but
reading the Bible does not separate us from the reality of the past and the
present.
What Bavinck already pointed out is worth remembering: general revela-
tion (namely the reality of God) is the necessary sounding board for special
revelation (that is, the word of God).6 So, both scripture and reality are given as
means to find our way. Of course, scripture is authoritative, while reality is not.
But what do we mean exactly with the authority of scripture? It is the authority
of the speaking God himself, who acts in this world and whose intention is to
save people.7 Scripture provides access to another reality, the Kingdom of God.
The sola scriptura may not lead to such unscriptural absolutizing of scripture
that the living God is moved away.
2 The Search for Meaning
The fact that we are or become conscious of the specific manner in which we
read the Bible is described in technical terms as ‘hermeneutical awareness’.
Reflection on the search for meaning has always been taking place, also in the
case of the Bible. Previously, however, that happened less explicitly, particu-
larly with regard to the reader’s own perspective. At the present time, the pro-
cess of coming to an understanding of meaning itself is being examined and
described.
A composite diagram can show, in a perhaps oversimplified schematic form,
what happens when Christians read the Bible.
6 Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 1 (John Bolt, editor & John Vriend, translator;
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), chapter 10–12 [301–385]. The reformed tradition
has always emphasized that, without general revelation, special revelation loses its connect-
edness with the whole cosmic existence and life. Furthermore, obedience to the Scriptures is
not an aim in itself; it is reacting to the God who reveals himself.
7 N.T. Wright, “How can the Bible be authoritative?,” Vox Evangelica 21 (1991), 7–31, Accessed
August 29, 2017, http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm.
234 van Houwelingen
Figure 1
With ‘text’ I mean a larger or smaller Bible passage, which functions within
the whole of scripture. The small triangle indicates this text in its original
context, with the first readers as the primary target group (meaning); the big
triangle still has the same text at the center, but in another cultural-historical
situation. Now we are the readers and the text functions also in our context
(significance). I use the word ‘context’ as an overall designation for the various
surrounding areas of the text.
There are many examples of such larger triangles, such as Germany in the
time of Luther, the Netherlands in 1950, or Kenya today.
Essential is the order of the triangles. The text must be analysed within the
smaller triangle first, before coming to its function in the larger triangle. It is
important, therefore, to make a distinction between the two. Sometimes, the
reader may allow the two triangles to coincide; to do so could lead to errors
in two different directions. The first error is to apply the smaller triangle (the
meaning of the text in its original context) directly to our situation; the second
error is to begin with the larger triangle (the significance of the text in our
context) and to interpret this back to the earlier situation.8 What the triangles
together aim to show is how the reading of a text develops during the passage
of time, opening new dimensons.
8 More on the reading of the Bible throughout the ages can be found in: Arie Zwiep, Tussen
tekst en lezer. Een historische inleiding in de bijbelse hermeneutiek I-II (Amsterdam: VU Uni-
versity Press, 2009 and 2013).
3 Living with the Bible Open
The process of understanding is not just concerned with a relationship

between text and reader. Bible readers are given insight into another
reality: the significant world behind the text, the world of God’s acting in
redemptive history and of his Kingdom. For our hermeneutical awareness it
is important to bear in mind that we are dealing with three interconnected
areas: the Bible, the reality of God’s acting, and also the reality in which
we live.9
How can we in a responsible way deal with the Bible today? Let us begin
with ourselves. ‘Every heretic finds a proof-text’, as the saying goes, and you
can intentionally twist the scriptures, so as to give an incorrect meaning to
them (2 Pet. 3: 16). The faithful reader of the Bible, however, will behave as a
disciple. We do not create a private interpretation (2 Pet. 1: 20); we listen to the
Bible and try to reproduce the message that we are hearing. Kevin Vanhooz-
er remarks rightly that reproducing a meaning that, in some sense, is already
there, has to be distinguished from producing a meaning. He compares the Bi-
ble reader with someone who finds him/herself at a well. “The reader at the
well, in order to be nourished, must draw from and drink of the text. To “drink”
here means to accept and to appropriate.” It is the responsibility of the reader
to receive the text according to its nature and intention. This requires compe-
tent readers, who are able to reproduce, in Vanhoozer’s words, a ‘creative echo
to the text.’10
This way of dealing with scripture requires readers who are genuine disci-
ples. A helpful metaphor was introduced in 1991 by N.T. Wright. Suppose there
exists a Shakespeare play of which the fifth act has been lost almost complete-
ly. Only four acts are known, together with the first scene of the fifth, which
gives hints of how the play is supposed to end. How could the actors play the
whole drama, without a complete script for the final part? When they are fa-
miliar with Shakespeare, they are able to improvise, but they are not free to
produce their own text. The best they can do is “[to enter] into the story as
it stood, in order first to understand how the threads could appropriately be
9 Mark Alan Bowald, Rendering the Word in Theological Hermeneutics. Mapping Divine and
Human Agency (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), chapter 2.
10 Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “The Reader in New Testament Interpretation,” in: Joel B. Green (ed.),
Hearing the New Testament. Strategies for Interpretation (Second Edition; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2010), 259–288 [283].
236 van Houwelingen
drawn together, and then to put that understanding into effect by speaking and
acting with both innovation and consistency.”11
Let us consider for a moment the holy scripture as a holy script, taking
into account the redemptive-historical perspective. It tells the great story
of God, who is both the author and the main actor. As Bible readers, we are
involved in his story. The four known acts progress (simply put) from Creation
through Israel to Jesus. Act Five contains the whole period to the Eschaton,
but from the New Testament we know only the first scene and we have a
visionary description of the rest, namely the book of Revelation. The text of
scripture is complete, and finished, while the story-line continues. So we find
ourselves within the scope of the Bible, although the canon has been closed.
Our performance has to be faithful to the previous acts. You have to play your
role in line with the entire story and together with the other actors. In this way,
acting with innovation and consistency, Christians of the 21st century are able
to deal with scripture.
Bible reading is somewhat of a dialogue: talking, listening, answering.12
We have to remember that the scriptures originated and functioned in an
oral culture. God has both the first and the last word. He appeals to us and as
believers we respond to what he says. This dialogue should take place within a
personal relationship. Without faith we are left with a lifeless book; the Bible
has nothing to say anymore. But because it is God who speaks to us by means
of his written Word, the dynamic interaction between the triune God and the
believer will drench the hermeneutical process. To clarify this, a circle may
be drawn around the previously shown diagram with triangles. This circle
illustrates that we find ourselves with the Bible within the force field (or sphere
of influence) of the holy Spirit:
11 Wright, “How can the Bible be authoritative?”; N.T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of
God. How to Read the Bible Today (revised and expanded edition of The Last Word; New
York: HarperOne, 2011). Cf. Craig C. Bartholomew & Michael W. Goheen, The Drama of
Scripture. Finding Our Place in the Biblical Story (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004);
Samuel Wells, Improvisation: The Drama of Christian Ethics (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press,
2004); Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine. A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to
Christian Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005). Vanhoozer correctly
adds to this metaphor the element that you do not choose your own role; your role—the
theologically correct term is: calling, or vocation—is defined by your identity in Christ.
Such role definitions are most appropriately understood within a vital Christian commu-
nity (363–369).
12 “God authorially interacts with human beings in dialogical fashion,” concludes Kevin J.
Vanhoozer, Remythologizing Theology. Divine Action, Passion, and Authorship (Cambridge:
University Press, 2010), at the end of chapter 6 [337].
Figure 2
Such an attitude towards reading and living the Bible will take into account the
following five items, stated briefly:
1. As members of the New Testament church, believers have received

the Holy Spirit, who will make them wise step by step with the Bible.13
Wisdom is a creational gift, which already in the Bible tries to push
human life in the right direction.
2. For God, not so much the external behaviour as the inner disposition is
important: “Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks
at the heart” (1 Sam. 16: 7); we may live with the same attitude as that
of Jesus Christ (Phil. 2: 5). In doing so, we are led by the—purified—
conscience of a Christian who is reborn in the Spirit (Rom. 12: 1–2;
14: 5b).
3. As followers of Christ we practice Christian virtues, with the coming
of his Kingdom in view. This is known as the biblical motif of the
imitation of Christ. Tom Wright stresses the need to develop Christian
13 A.L.Th. De Bruijne, “Appreciate the wisdom of the Bible!,” Lux Mundi 29.4 (2010),
100–103.
238 van Houwelingen
characters, equipped with a better understanding by the renewal of

their thinking.14
4. As a community of believers, we have to grow in ‘contextual
sensitivity’15 and to take into account the reaction of outsiders, which
was for the apostle Paul one of the most important driving forces in his
missionary work.16
5. Christians will form in the worldwide church, “together with all saints”,
a scriptural community around the Bible (Eph. 3: 18).17
Thus, the Bible has to be the spiritual property of Christian believers, carefully
carried in their hearts. We seek fellowship with God in his Word, by maintaining
a personal relationship of faith with him and his Son Jesus Christ, as living
members of a congregation that is finding her way with the light of the Bible
and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Then, in our search for meaning,
God will come to us, in order to give significance to the texts and through these
texts to our lives.
Bibliography
Bartholomew, Craig C. & Michael W. Goheen. The Drama of Scripture. Finding Our
Place in the Biblical Story. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.
Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 1, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend.
Berkeley Mickelsen, A. Interpreting the Bible. A Book of Basic Principles for Understand-
ing the Scriptures. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 19777.
Bowald, Mark Alan. Rendering the Word in Theological Hermeneutics. Mapping Divine
and Human Agency. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007.
Bruggen, Jakob van. “Bijbel en leesbril. Over hermeneutiek,” Radix 5 (1979): 117–143.
14 N.T. Wright, After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters (New York: HarperCollins,
2010).
15 Vanhoozer, “Scripture and Hermeneutics,” in: Gerald R. McDermott (ed.), The Oxford
Handbook of Evangelical Theology (Oxford: University Press, 2010), 35–51 [47].
16 Andrie B. Du Toit, “Sensitivity Towards the Reaction of Outsiders as Ethical Motivation
in Early Christian Paraenesis,” HTS Theological Studies 68.1 (2012), 1–7, Accessed August
29, 2017, doi: 10.4102/hts.v68i1.1212.
17 On cross cultural Bible reading, see: Green, “The Practice of Reading the New Testament,”
in: Joel B. Green (ed.), Hearing the New Testament. Strategies for Interpretation (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 411–427 [424–427].
Bruggen, Jakob van. Het lezen van de bijbel. Een inleiding (Kampen: Kok, 1981).
Bruggen, Jakob van. “The Authority of Scripture as a Presupposition in Reformed
Theology,” in: The Vitality of Reformed Theology. Proceedings of the International
Theological Congress June 20–24th 1994 Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands, eds.
J.M. Batteau et al. Kampen: Kok, 1994, 63–83.
De Bruijne, A.L.Th. “Appreciate the wisdom of the Bible!,” Lux Mundi 29.4 (2010):
100–103.
Du Toit, Andrie B. “Sensitivity towards the reaction of outsiders as ethical motivation
in early Christian paraenesis,” HTS Theological Studies 68.1 (2012): 1–7. Accessed
August 29, 2017. doi: 10.4102/hts.v68i1.1212.
Green, Joel B. “The Practice of Reading the New Testament,” in: Hearing the New Testa-
ment. Strategies for Interpretation, ed. Joel B. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995,
411–427.
Noordegraaf, A. Leesbril of toverstaf. Over het verstaan en vertolken van de Bijbel. Kamp-
en: Kok Voorhoeve, 1991.
Thiselton, Anthony C. New Horizons in Hermeneutics. The Theory and Practice of Trans-
forming Biblical Reading. London: HarperCollins, 1992.
Thiselton, Anthony C. Hermeneutics. An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. The Drama of Doctrine. A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Chris-
tian Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. “The Reader in New Testament Interpretation,” in: Hearing the New
Testament. Strategies for Interpretation, ed. Joel B. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
20102, 259–288.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Remythologizing Theology. Divine Action, Passion, and Authorship.
Cambridge: University Press, 2010.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. “Scripture and Hermeneutics,” in: The Oxford Handbook of Evangel-
ical Theology, ed. Gerald R. McDermott. Oxford: University Press, 2010, 35–51.
Wells, Samuel. Improvisation: The Drama of Christian Ethics. Grand Rapids: Brazos
Press, 2004.
Wisse, Maarten. “Zoek nieuwe omgang met Bijbel,” Nederlands Dagblad 13 september
2013.
Wright, N.T. “How can the Bible be authoritative?,” Vox Evangelica 21 (1991): 7–31. Ac-
cessed August 29, 2017. http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm.
Wright, N.T. After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters. New York: HarperCol-
lins, 2010.
Wright, N.T. Scripture and the Authority of God. How to Read the Bible Today. Revised
and expanded edition of The Last Word; New York: HarperOne, 2011.
Zwiep, Arie. Tussen tekst en lezer. Een historische inleiding in de bijbelse hermeneutiek
I–II, Amsterdam: VU University Press, 2009/2013.
Part III
Historical Perspectives
∵
chapter 13
Sola Scriptura: The Relevance of Luther’s Use of

Sola Scriptura in De Servo Arbitrio
Willem van Vlastuin
1 Introduction
Sola scriptura functioned as a theological instrument during the Reforma-

tion, becoming a central principle of (reformed) Protestantism. Today, how-
ever, this principle is no longer self-evident, indeed we could even describe
the current situation as one which is undergoing a crisis of the principle of
scripture.1 This crisis can be identified by a brief examination of several in-
terrelated issues.The first concerns the precise relationship between scrip-
ture and tradition.2 The second, the danger of making a subjective appeal to
scripture,3 (illustrated by the many protestant denominations which appeal
to sola scriptura). The wavering of universal foundationalism in postmodern
culture is the third issue and one which suggests there is a wavering of the
authority of scripture.4 Fourth, the extreme individualism evidenced in
1 W. Pannenberg, ‘Die Krise des Schriftprinzips’, in W. Pannenberg (ed.), Grundfragen

systematischer Theologie. Gesammelte Aufsätze (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011)
I: 11–21.
2 Paul received tradition, 1 Cor. 11: 23. According to Irenaeus, apostolic tradition was to
be found in Scripture, AH 3.6.1. Compare W. van Vlastuin, (2013), ‘Between tradition and
renewal. Some considerations about the use of tradition in reformed theology’, in In die Skriflig
47.1.
3 According to H. Bavinck the theology of the Reformation hinged on the human subject, Re-
formed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), I: 583. Compare C. van der Kooi,
(2008), ‘The appeal to the inner testimony of the Spirit, especially in H. Bavinck’, Journal of
Reformed Theology 2, 103–112; H. van der Belt, Autopistia. The Self-Convincing Authority of
Scripture in Reformed Theology (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 276. To counter subjectivism Bavinck
stressed the church, Reformed Dogmatics I: 564, 585. Compare H. van den Belt, Autopistia,
266, 281–283, 312.
4 B. van den Toren, Christian apologetics as cross-cultural dialogue (London: T&T Clark, 2011),
11–12.

244 van Vlastuin
postmodern culture5 implies that truth is (inter)personal. Sola scriptura

seems to have been dismissed because of the authority of the interpretative
community, the ‘Cultural-Linguistic Turn’.6 This observation coheres—and
this is the fifth issue—with Gadamer’s thesis that the meaning of scripture
cannot be isolated from the reader and his context.7 This, in turn, raises the
issue of hermeneutics: Can one speak of an objective meaning of scripture?8
Another relevant issue is the relationship between systematic theology and
biblical exegesis. Can the perspicuity and sufficiency of scripture still be spo-
ken of as it was in the reformed tradition, or was the reformed doctrine of
scripture too formal?9 And, last but not least, the sixth issue: the historical
critique of the post-Kantian culture has undermined the belief that scripture
is the Word of God and that the understanding of the Bible as a human
literary product has increased.10
All these issues complicate the appeal to scripture, which brought K.J. Van-
hoozer to the conclusion that the greatest challenge for reformed faith in this
5 C. Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge, Mass./London, UK: Harvard University Press, 2007),
473–504 is illustrative. Compare M.D. Thompson, A Clear and Present Word. The Clarity of
Scripture (Downers Grove: IVP, 2006), 32–45.
6 K.J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine. A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian The-
ology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 3–16.
7 H.G. Gadamer, Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), translated as Truth and Method (New York: Continuum,
2004).
8 Compare A.C. Thiselton, The Hermeneutics of Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Eermans, 2007);
J. Webster, ‘Hermeneutics in Modern Theology: Some Doctrinal Reflections’, in J. Web-
ster (ed.), Word and Church; Essays in Christian Dogmatics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001),
47–86; C.J. White, (2014), ‘Is it possible to discover ‘the one’ intended meaning of the
biblical authors?’ in Scottish Journal of Theology 67.2, 178–194; M. Wisse, ‘Doing theol-
ogy through reception studies: Towards a post-postmodern theological hermeneutics’, in
Nederduitse Gereformeerde Teologiese Tydskrif 53 (2012), 239–249.
9 J. Webster argues that the clarity of scripture is not a formal property, but a work of the
Spirit, Holy Scripture. A Dogmatic Sketch (Cambridge: University Press, 2003), 93–95. See
also his Confessing God (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 33–68. Compare A.T.B. McGowan,
The Divine Spiration of Scripture (Nottingham: Apollos (IVP), 2007), 28–29. Despite the
tendency to treat the doctrine of scripture as a locus within pneumatology, M. Horton
puts this theme in the first part of his The Christian Faith. A Systematic Theology for Pil-
grims on the Way (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 35–219.
10 Compare J. Lauster, Prinzip und Methode. Die Transformation des protestantischen Schrift-
prinzips durch die historische Kritik von Schleiermacher bis zur Gegenwart (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2004). Characteristic is his conclusion that the human character of scrip-
ture weakens the transcendent character of scripture, 447.
Sola Scriptura 245
postmodern culture is the possibility of biblical authority.11 This means that a

continuing reflection upon the reformed sola scriptura is required. In this article
I revisit Martin Luther’s understanding of scripture in his The Bondage of the Will,
by himself judged as one of his best books,12 for a number of reasons. First: we
recognize that history helps us to look further than our own limited understand-
ing.13 Second: we understand, from John Webster, that pre-Kantian theology was
not handicapped by having a closed worldview in which the rational subject is
the epistemological center;14 an argument that deepens our first point. Next, we
know that sola scriptura became the explicit so-called principium primum in Lu-
ther’s theology,15 which means that any reorientation on sola scriptura cannot
deny the historic functioning of this principle. Fourth, the very fact that Erasmus
promoted the reading of scripture makes the comparison interesting. (Erasmus
was already calling upon the church to be familiar with the apostle Paul in 1501,
and in 1511 he criticized obscurantism in the church in his book In Praise of
Folly, and in 1516 he published the Greek text of the New Testament).16
It is not the aim of this article to investigate Luther’s doctrine of scripture as
such, but I do concentrate on Luther’s interaction with Erasmus because, in De
Servo Arbitrio (1525), he developed one of his most systematic treatments of
11 K.J. Vanhoozer, ‘Scripture and Tradition’ in K.J. Vanhoozer, (ed.), The Cambridge Compan-
ion to Postmodern Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 149–169,
157.
12 WA (Weimarer Ausgabe) 8: 99. See also M. Brecht, Martin Luther (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag,
1986) 2: 231. Brecht describes Luther’s work as a concentrate (‘Konzentrat’) of Luther’s
theology.
13 Todd Billings appreciates ‘the value of pre-modern approaches to Scripture’, The Word of
God for the People of God: An Entryway to the Theological Interpretation of Scripture (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 149. This is in accordance with C.S. Lewis, ‘Introduction’, in
St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation: De Incarnatione Verbi Dei (New York: St. Vladimir’s
Seminary Press, 1996), 3–12.
14 J. Webster, ‘Theologies of retrieval’, in J. Webster (ed.), Oxford handbook of systematic the-
ology (Oxford: University Press, 2007), 583–599, 589.
15 J. Lauster, Prinzip und Methode, 12–13; B. Lohse, Luthers Theologie in ihrer historischen
Entwicklung und in ihrem systematischen Zusammenhang (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1995), 204–205.
16 E.W. Kohls, LUTHER oder ERASMUS. Luthers Theologie in der Auseindersetzung mit Eras-
mus (Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt Verlag, 1978) II: 3–4. See also J.I Packer and O.R. John-
ston, ‘Historical and theological introduction’, in M. Luther, The Bondage of the Will (trans-
lated by J.I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, Grand Rapids: Fleming H. Revell, 1957, seventh
printing 1995), 13–61, 13–19. For references to Luther’s text, I will use this translation,
cited as BW. The work is also available in P.S. Watson and B. Drewery (translators), Luther’s
Works. Career of the Reformer III. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972), 33.
246 van Vlastuin
the authority of scripture.17 In this article I want to answer the question: ‘How
can Luther’s existential confession of sola scriptura in De Servo Arbitrio con-
tribute to contemporary understanding of scripture?’ This question is treated
from three perspectives. First, sola scriptura in the perspective of tradition,
second: sola scriptura in the perspective of philosophy, third: sola scriptura in
the perspective of human interpretation. In the evaluation of this research the
contribution to the contemporary debate is answered.
2 Sola Scriptura in the Perspective of Tradition
For Luther, sola scriptura meant that the highest appeal in the church was to the
Word of God:18 “Is it not enough to have submitted your judgment to Scripture?
Do you submit it to the Church as well? Why, what can the Church settle that
Scripture did not settle first?”19 This attitude revealed his critical attitude towards
the tradition of the church: “The authority of the Fathers must therefore be held
null and void (…) for Christ is a higher authority than the Fathers. In short, then:
if you take this position with reference to the Word of God, it is blasphemy.”20
This critical stance raises the question how Luther understood the relation-
ship between scripture and church, given the fact that scripture and canon
originated within the church and being conscious that Luther’s approach has
major implications for the understanding of totus Christus in the early church,
meaning that Christ and his body are a unity.
17 Luther already treated the doctrine of Scripture in To the Christian Nobility of the German
Nation (1520) which caused several debates to be held on Scripture. A good introduction
to Luther’s doctrine of Scripture is A. Beutel, ‘Erfahrene Bibel. Verständnis und Gebrauch
des verbum dei scriptum bei Luther’, in A. Beutel (eds.), Protestantische Konkretionen
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 66–103. See also his ‚‘Wort Gottes’ and ‘Theologie als
Schriftauslegung’ in A. Beutel (ed.), Luther Handbuch (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2005),
362–372, 444–450. See also, in the same volume, T. Kaufman, ‘Luther und Erasmus’,
142–152.
18 This appeal was in accordance with the attitude he voiced on 8 April 1521 in Worms: ‘For
my conscience is captive to the Word of God’, after R. Marius, Martin Luther. The Christian
between God and Death (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), 294.
19 WA 18: 604; BW, 69. The church is created by the Word, WA 6: 560. Luther will accept
the pope’s decisions, as long as God’s Word is the highest norm, WA 6: 322. See also M.D.
Thompson, A Sure Ground on Which to Stand. The Relation of Authority and Interpreta-
tive Method in Luther’s Approach to Scripture (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2004), 54–58,
249–251, 254–257, 261–264, 276–281.
20 WA 18: 630; BW, 97. The Word is high above the church, WA 6: 560.
Sola Scriptura 247
Luther did not deny the importance of the church as the body of Christ, but
he accepted the implications of his understanding of the authority of Scripture
by making a distinction between the authority of the body of Christ and the
Word of Christ, so that the ultimate authority lies with scripture and not with
the church, without rejecting the tradition of the interpretation of scripture.21
In accordance with H.A. Oberman we can speak of the acceptation of ‘Tradi-
tion I’ as an interpretative tradition of scripture and a rejection of ‘Tradition II’
in which tradition was understood as revelation.22
This self-evident authority of God’s Word implied that the whole truth of
scripture had to be preached. Luther made this last point in reaction to Eras-
mus’ plea to suppress certain truths of scripture, especially concerning God’s
sovereignty and human bound will.23 Luther defended the preaching of all
truths, founded on his conviction that truth is rare,24 that human beings dislike
truth and that preaching the truth would cause resistance.25 Being silent about
the doctrines of Christianity shows that “carnal peace and quiet seems to you
far more important than faith, conscience, salvation, the Word of God, the glo-
ry of Christ, and God himself.”26 The Word of God has to be preached, even if
“the whole world should be (…) shattered in chaos and reduced to nothing-
ness.”27 The fact that Luther made this remark in the midst of the turmoil of the
farmer’s war,28 underlines not only the existential dimension of his conviction,
but also his conviction that God’s Word is a Word of salvation and liberation
21 K.A. Mathison describes how sola scriptura originates from the earliest roots of the Chris-
tian church without neglecting tradition, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Moscow, Idaho:
Canon, 2001), 19–48. Scripture alone has authority, but Scripture is not alone, 257–259.
T. Ward speaks about solo scriptura, Word of Life. Scripture as the living and active word
of God (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 2009), 150–151. M.D. Thompson speaks about
nuda scriptura, A Sure Ground, 281. Luther was a conservative mind who suspected new
teachings, 252–253 and feared exegetical anarchy, 265.
22 H.A. Oberman, The Dawn of the Reformation. Essays in Late Medieval and Early Reforma-
tion Thought (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), 269–296.
23 WA 18: 620–630; BW, 86–97.
24 Only twelve apostles accepted the truth of Jesus and, in the age of Arius, only five bishops
adhered to the orthodox interpretation, WA 18: 649–652; BW, 119–123.
25 WA 18: 627; BW, 93. Compare A. Beutel, ‘Erfahrene Bibel’, 94.
26 WA 18: 625; BW, 90.
27 Ibid. For more on this antithesis see also WA 18: 628; BW, 94.
28 M. Brecht, Martin Luther 2: 172–193; H. Schilling, Martin Luther. Rebell in einer Zeit des
Umbruchs. Eine Biographie (München: Beck, 2012), 294–317. For the English language
see R. Marius, Martin Luther, 397–403.
248 van Vlastuin
This short investigation in Luther’s understanding of scripture shows how

God’s Word is unbounded. We cannot understand Luther’s approach from the
later developed doctrine of inspiration which formalized scripture’s authority,
because Luther understood scripture’s authority from its content. Neverthe-
less, we see the contours of scripture’s first defining attribute in Protestantism,
namely the sufficiency of scripture.
3 Sola Scriptura in the Perspective of Philosophy
For Luther, sola scriptura implied having an important understanding of the

relationship between scripture and theology. According to Luther, scripture
was not a collection of truths to develop theology, rather theology itself was
nothing more than an exploration of scripture.29 Interpreting scripture is not
dependent upon human frameworks of interpretation, but Scripture ultimate-
ly explains itself (scriptura sui ipsius interpres).30 This view made him critical
of the use of philosophy in theology. In 1517 Luther organized the Disputatio
contra scholasticam theologiam;31 theses 43 and 44, in particular, stress Luther’s
rejection of the positive contribution made to theology by Aristotle’s philoso-
phy. Thesis 29 in the Heidelberger Disputation (1518) repeats the same issue,32
and the same accent can be heard again in the fifteen theses presented in 1519
about the uselessness of applying philosophy to theology.33 These facts all in-
dicate that Luther’s opposition against Erasmus in De Servo Arbitrio was a long
time in the making.
It can be asked whether Luther understood Aristotle in the right way and
how he understood logics as such. From the point of view of Luther the
following remarks can be made. First, Luther did not reject logics and ar-
guing as such, but he accepted the use of reason within the obedience to
scripture by faith. In this context we can speak about the ministerial use of
29 E.W. Kohls, Luther oder Erasmus II: 33. In Brian Brock’s study (of Luther), we recognize
this thinking which takes God as its starting point, Singing the Ethos of God. On the Place
of Christian Ethics in Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 163, 232, 242, 251.
30 WA 7: 97; 10.III: 237. Luther rejected rules or norms when interpreting Scripture, WA 7: 9.
31 WA 1: 224–228. The structure of Aristotle’s philosophy became determinative for soteri-
ology, M.D. Thompson, A Sure Ground, 260.
32 WA 1: 365. On 9 May 1518 Luther wrote that a renewal of the church was impossible
without rejecting scholastic theology, philosophy and logics, WA Br 1: 170. Erasmus wrote
to Luther, in 1520, telling him not to condemn philosophy as such, WA Br. 2, no. 321: 157.
33 WA 6: 28–29.
Sola Scriptura 249
reason,34 which implied for Luther that we have to think thoroughly through
God’s revelation. For this reason, Luther criticized Erasmus for being an
inconsistent thinker who did not really analyze the propositional truth of
scripture.35 Second, Luther rejected the magisterial use of human intellect
in which reason judges God’s revelation. For this reason Luther suspected
Aristotle’s philosophical system, because he understood it as an immanent
system that was unfit for expressing God’s transcendent and contingent reality
in Christ.36 Reasoning from God’s transcendent freedom and referring to Christ’s
resurrection, the reformer of Wittenberg criticized Aristotle’s closed worldview.
According to Luther’s understanding of s cholastic theology and philosophy, it
locked up the transcendent God in a narrow h uman interpretative framework. In
this sense Webster’s remark that pre-Kantian theology did not know of a closed
worldview has to be nuanced. Luther’s protest against the Aristotelic framework
of understanding shows that theology had to unmask a closed worldview well
before Kant. In rejecting this closed worldview Luther rejoiced in the kingdom
of God extra nos and extra mundi. Creation, incarnation, resurrection, revela-
tion and salvation were moments of God’s acting that transcends all immanent
creaturely possibilities. Without faith human beings only see the weak human
appearance of scripture37 but, by having faith, believers share its transcendent
reality that liberates them from philosophical and cultural bondage.
4 ‘Sola Scriptura’ in the Perspective of Human Interpretation
The difference between the Wittenberger and the Rotterdammer also had
consequences for the interpretation of Scripture. When Erasmus wrote that
34 W.L. Craig, Reasonable Faith. Christian Truth and Apologetics (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008),
47. Human reason does not reach transcendent realities: ‘There is nothing better adapt-
ed for grasping God’s words than weakness of understanding’, WA 18: 659; BW, 133. Ac-
knowledgement of human bondage leads to spiritual liberty, G.O. Forde, The Captivation
of the Will. Luther vs. Erasmus on Freedom and Bondage (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005),
43–44.
35 WA 18: 614, 721, 752; BW, 79, 221, 265.
36 E.W. Kohls, Luther oder Erasmus II: 36–37. Luther could summarize Christian faith as
faith in the transcendent Creator. Genesis 1 contained the whole Scripture, WA Tabletalks
3, no. 3043a. The reverse is that human possibilities are nothing, because God created
ex nihilo, WA 43: 173.
37 God’s Word is a worm, WA 48: 31. It is as the simple wicker basket in which Moses was
laid down, WA 16: 82. Scripture is written by human beings, but not from human beings,
Thompson, A Sure Ground, 61–68.
250 van Vlastuin
he found little satisfaction in assertions and that he preferred the attitude of

a sceptic, Luther reacted very critically stating that the spirit of ‘Sceptics and
Academics’ is not the spirit of Christianity, because assertions and confessions
are essential to Christianity.38 According to Luther, Erasmus behaved as if he
was a spectator at a drama and not involved himself in the most existential
war, and a war with eternal consequences.39 The consequence of this non-
committal academic attitude towards God’s Word was that Erasmus treated
God’s Word from an academic perspective.
In this context it is clear that Luther’s scripture was not a neutral object
which could be mastered by an academic intellect,40 but that it was the Word
that mastered him existentially.41 While Erasmus sought peace to do his aca-
demic work, Luther found peace in the Word, while experiencing conflict in
this world. From that experience he indignantly wrote to Erasmus:
“In a word, what you say comes to this: that you do not think it matters a
scrap what anyone believes anywhere, so long as the world is at peace (…)
and you would encourage him to treat Christian doctrines as no better
than the views of human philosophers.”42
Luther might also have added that he was not discussing ‘linguistic figures, but
doctrines.’43
Luther’s assertive faith raises the question as to whether he did not under-
stand the academic uncertainty about the complexity of interpreting scripture.
38 WA 18: 603; BW, 66–67.

39 WA 18: 750; BW, 262.
40 ‘But duty and doctrine are not therefore condemned; rather, they condemn us!’, WA
18: 622; BW, 87, ‘The word of God is not bound (…) and shall Erasmus bind the Word?’,
WA 18: 628; BW, 95, or: ‘So your Creator must learn from you, His creature, what may
usefully be preached and what not?’, WA 18: 631; BW, 97. Compare P.S. Watson, Let God
be God! An Interpretation of the Theology of Martin Luther (London: Epworth Press, 1947);
R. Kolb, Bound Choice, Election, and Wittenberg Theological Method. From Martin Luther to
the formula of Concord (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2005), 7–9.
41 Understanding Scripture means wrestling with sin, death and devil, WA 45: 559. Scrip-
ture can only be understood by oratio, meditatio and tentatio, WA 50: 658–659, see
also Thompson, A Sure Ground, 271–272; A. Beutel, ‘Erfahrene Bibel’, 86–88. 97–103;
‘Theologie als Erfahrungswissenschaft’ in his, Luther Handbuch, 454–459.
42 WA 18: 605; BW, 69–70. ‘Your thoughts of God are too human’, WA 18: 622, BW, 87.
43 WA 18: 939; BW, 108. Weakening the understanding of Scripture implied the abandon-
ment of God’s promises and the discount of all the consolations of the Spirit, WA 18: 619;
BW, 84–85.
Sola Scriptura 251
Whilst Luther did not deny that many passages in scripture were obscure, he
claimed that this obscurity had to do with human linguistic and grammatical
ignorance.44 This ignorance did not hinder any understanding of the doctrinal
content of the gospel:
“For what solemn truth can the Scriptures still be concealing, now that
the seals are broken, the stone rolled away from the door of the tomb, and
that greatest of all mysteries brought to light—that Christ, God’s Son, be-
came man, that God is Three in One, that Christ suffered for us, and will
reign forever? And are not these things known, and sung in our streets?
Take Christ from the Scriptures—and what more will you find in them?”45
This expression clarifies three things: first, that scripture has to be understood
through Christ as the interpreting unifying key of scripture.46 Second that Lu-
ther’s Christology is focused on soteriology,47 and third, that scripture does not
explain the mysteries of the incarnation or the trinity, but that the message of
salvation in these facts is plainly revealed. Next, it appears that sola scriptura
in Luther’s theology cannot be isolated from personal faith. We can even speak
about the ‘internal perspicuity’ of scripture as a pneumatological category:
“Nobody who has not the Spirit of God sees a jot of what is in the scriptures.”48
The opposite is also true: “Through the enlightening of the Holy Ghost, the
special gift of God, one enjoys complete certainty in judging of and deciding
between the doctrines and opinions of all men as they affect oneself and one’s
own personal salvation.”49 Finally, the ultimate peace of people’s conscience
44 WA 18: 606; BW, 71. ‘Firstly, I hold that the Scriptures are perfectly clear’, WA 18: 661; BW
135. See also WA 18: 653–658; BW, 125–132. Erasmus was a good translator of Scripture,
but he did not grasp the spiritual content, WA 20: 728.
45 WA 18: 606; BW, 71. No book was clearer than scripture, WA 8: 236, see also 239.
46 Christ was present in the Old Testament, WA 54: 67.
47 Compare Luther in his explanation of Ps 51: ‘The true subject of theology is the man who
stands under the accusation of sin, and God, who justifies and saves the sinful man’, WA
40.II: 328. See also B. Lohse, Luthers Theologie, 48–49, 204. The knowledge of God and
human being is decisive for theology; the rest is idleness, 53.
48 WA 18: 609; BW, 73. ‘Thus it is no wonder that in so many ages men of superior ability
should be blind concerning the things of God (…) in the realm of divine things it would
be more surprising if one or two were not blind’, WA 18: 659; BW 132.
49 WA 18: 653; BW, 124. In this context Luther rejects the fanatics in their appeal to the Spirit
and the church of the Middle Ages in his ‘doctrine’ that scripture is dark, in order to make
room for the interpretation of the church.
252 van Vlastuin
was not to be found in a certain interpretation of an abstract scripture, but in

the viva vox of a personal God.50
5 The Relevance of Luther for Today
In connection with the foregoing investigation into Luther’s understanding of

sola scriptura, I would like to make three points about Luther’s relevance for
today.
First, while Luther had to fight against overestimating the tradition of
the church, I think today we tend to underestimate it. The fragmentation
of reformed churches is an indication of such an underestimation.51 If the
well-known reformed description is used that a church consists of the true
preaching of the Word and the ministry of the sacraments, every meeting
of people who share the Word and the sacraments has to be understood as
a church, so that protestant denominations multiply easily, especially in a
postmodern culture in which everybody looks for a church that suits them.
This phenomenon means a reconsideration of the definition of the church is
required. Luther’s acceptance of ‘Tradition 1’ can teach us to incorporate the
historical church structurally in our theology of the church, because preaching
the Word today cannot be isolated from the interpretation of Scripture in tra-
dition.52 The church cannot miss the church to be church.
The tradition of the church can also help to preach the whole counsel
of the Lord. The limited nature of every generation means that the whole
tradition of the church has to be confronted if we are to understand why
biblical themes and an understanding of the depth of God’s revelation are
not preached. Perhaps Luther’s plea about Erasmus suppressing certain
unprofitable truths in scripture is a relevant one in this postmodern culture
50 Believers hear Christ’s voice in scripture, WA 33: 144. A. Beutel, ‘Erfahrene Bibel’, 71. Beu-
tel explained that Luther unites Deus loquens, verbum aeternum, verbum creatum, verbum
scriptum and verbum praedicatum, ‘Wort Gottes.’ While Augustinus spoke about God,
Luther spoke with God, B. Brock, Singing the Ethos of God, 166. Scripture leads us in our
relation with God, 173. Reading God’s Word is hearing God’s voice in the present tense,
Thompson, A Sure Ground, 55–59. Speaking and preaching fits better to the character of
Scripture than writing and reading, B. Brock, Singing the Ethos of God, 185; Thompson, A
Sure Ground, 74
51 The Roman Catholic site http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a120.htm mentions
46,243 protestant denominations worldwide (visited June 4, 2015).
52 Compare K.J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine, 154–165, 232–236.
Sola Scriptura 253
of ours in which human measure is decisive. Interaction with the tradition of

the church implies interaction with a deep spiritual tradition. Understanding
scripture in communion with the saints of all ages is also an important instru-
ment that protects the church in the twenty-first century from revolutionary
theological inventions.
Second, Luther’s critical attitude towards Aristotelic science makes us aware
that implicit cultural worldviews and academic frameworks of interpretation
unconsciously influence our understanding of scripture. In defending the aca-
demic position of theology and making theology academically acceptable, the
independent authority of scripture can easily be weakened.
This is not to deny that philosophical instruments are required in
theological reflection in order to communicate in the academic context,53 nor
that Luther’s denial of scholastic distinctions was sometimes unfortunate,54
but it does remind us of the possible influence of immanent concepts in
the understanding of the transcendent message of God’s Word. Despite the
weakness in which God visits us in scripture, the transcendent message of
scripture cannot be locked up in immanent frameworks of interpretation. This
implies that our starting point should not be an interpretation of scripture
using literature and history then maximizing this to God’s Word, but should be
an understanding that the triune God reveals himself in scripture.55 Scripture
is not a function of the church or theology, but the opposite.56
John Webster has worked out this understanding for contemporary
theology.57 He underlines that theology is primarily understanding scripture,
not developing theological concepts on the basis of scripture.58 This starting
point criticizes theological creativity as an aim in itself and stresses that the
essence of doing theology is to embark on a spiritual training in which the
highest study of scripture is meditation.
53 Calvin used a philosophical concept of the Middle Ages, see R.A. Muller, The Unaccommo-
dated Calvin. Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 2000), 39–61; D.C. Steinmetz, ‘The Scholastic Calvin’, in: Carl. R. Trueman and
R.S. Clark (eds.), Protestant Scholasticism. Essays in Reassessment (Carlisle: Paternoster,
1999), 16–30
54 Unfortunately Luther rejected the distinction between necessitas consequentis and neces-
sitas consequentiae, WA 18: 616–617; BW, 82.
55 J. Webster’s approach is a good example of Luther’s intentions, Holy Scripture, 1–10.
56 Compare J. Webster, Holy Scripture, 49.
57 J. Webster, Holy Scripture, 107–135. See also A. Beutel, ‘Erfahrene Bibel’, 67.
58 For a contemporary debate, see G.T. Meadors (ed.), Four Views on Moving beyond the Bible
to Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009).
254 van Vlastuin
This spiritual attitude towards scripture has implications for the exegeti-
cal, methodological and hermeneutical tools we use to understand scripture.
Our careful exegesis and necessary hermeneutics are under the control of the
self-testimony of scripture.59 If understanding scripture is hearing the voice of
the living God, we have to deny our ‘self-interpretation’ of scripture in order
that our self is interpreted by scripture. This is the relevance of Luther’s scrip-
tura sui ipsius interpres.
This approach also implies that scripture cannot be reduced to formal,
static and epistemic prolegomena before theology and faith, but that we need
a personal encounter with the eternal Word if we are to grasp the message
of scripture.60 Whether this implies that we can or cannot speak about the
epistemological status of scripture is a current issue. It seems to me that
John Webster is afraid of every objective or formal claim made in relation to
scripture.61 According to his perception, speaking about textual properties
is often deistic.62 Kevin Vanhoozer, on the other hand, also emphasizes the
dynamic character of God’s communion with us through his Word, but
his concept of the ‘script’ in the drama implies a greater emphasis on the
‘objectivity’ of its truth.63 However concepts such as ‘formal’ and ‘objective’
are – according my perception—not appropriate for describing the dynamics
of the Word of God, the truth-aspect of the ‘objectivity’ of scripture is that we
have to acknowledge first that the Word of God is real truth and independent
of personal faith.64
59 J. Webster remarks that much hermeneutics misses this mode of discipleship, Holy Scrip-
ture, 92. K.J. Vanhoozer states that the canon is the interpretative framework for under-
standing God, the world and self, The Drama of Doctrine, 149. This point is also made
by Brian Brock, Singing the Ethos of God, 264–265, 268–269. For a critical treatment of
hermeneutics, see Thompson, A Clear and Present Word, 111–142.
60 J. Webster, Holy Scripture, 55–56. This is also acknowledged by Thompson, A Clear and
Present Word, 54.
61 Ibid, 55–56, 93.
62 Ibid, 36. Thompson criticizes this attitude in Barth and Webster, A Clear and Present Word,
73–79.
63 Compare Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine, 144–147. J. P. Moreland and G. DeWeese
defend a modest foundationalism in relation to realistic metaphysics using the categories
of Alvin Plantinga, ‘The premature report of foundationalism’s demise’, in M.J. Erickson,
P.K. Helseth, and J. Taylor (eds.), Reclaiming the Center. Confronting Evangelical Accommo-
dation in Postmodern Times (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004), 81–108.
64 See also W. van Vlastuin, (2015) ‘The Doctrine of Scripture in the Heidelberg Catechism
Revisited: Heidelberg’s Relevance for a Postmodern Age’, International Journal of System-
atic Theology 17.1, 26–45, 40.
Sola Scriptura 255
Third, Luther essentially understood scripture as the viva vox and as a

(re)creative power.65 This personal aspect in God’s drama with us reminds us
of the importance of preaching in a cultural context in which authoritative
preaching becomes suspect and the sermons are exchanged for alternative
types of public worship.66 On the one hand, this makes us extra sensitive of the
fact that so many people seek (Christian) spirituality outside the church and,
on the other hand, it encourages us to expect that preaching in a postmodern
age of personal relationship will bear fruit.
God’s personal voice in preaching confronts preachers with the question
as to whether they are preaching in such a way that the congregation meets a
personal Christ. The fact that a personal relationship with God is created and
sustained by the living Word clarifies that scripture can never be reduced to an
object that can be searched for in a neutral way. Too many preachers explain
texts in such a way that the listeners do not hear Christ’s voice in it, nor do they
perceive the personal presence of the Word.67
I am of the opinion that preaching the Word of God as a distinct objec-
tive truth with subjective applications is a temptation for orthodox p reachers
which does not honor the reality of the living Word of God.68 Preaching in this
way creates a great distance between God and the believer and puts a barrier
65 A disadvantage of Vanhoozer’s metaphor of ‘script’ is the weakening of God’s viva vox,

although he intends the metaphor to refer to the functioning of the viva vox, The Drama
of Doctrine, 177, 229. John M. Frame who defends the propositional character of Scrip-
ture robustly also acknowledges that Scripture is primarily the personal voice of God, The
Doctrine of the Word of God (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2010), 3–7.
66 Compare C. Schwöbel, ‘The Preacher’s Art: Preaching Theologically’, in C.E. Gunton, (ed.),
Theology through Preaching: Sermons for Brentwood (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001), 1–20,
4. See also McGowan, Divine Spiration, 192–206.
67 Compare E. Farley, ‘Toward a New Paradigm in Preaching’, in T.G. Long and E. Farley
(eds.), Preaching as a Theological Task: World, Gospel, Scripture (Louisville: Westminster
John Knox, 1996), 165–175.
68 The contemporary movement supporting a theological interpretation of Scripture em-
phasizes the unity of explanation and application, see M.A. Bowald, Rendering the Word
in Theological Hermeneutics: Mapping Divine and Human Agency (Aldershot: Ashgate,
2007); S. Fowl, Theological Interpretation of Scripture (Eugene: Wipf & Stock 2009);
J. Todd Billings, The Word of God for the People of God: An Entryway to the Theological Inter-
pretation of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010); D.J. Treier, Introducing Theological
Interpretation of Scripture: Renewing a Christian Practice (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008). See
also K.J. Vanhoozer, First Theology: God, Scripture & Hermeneutics (Downersgrove: IVP,
2002) and the work edited by him, Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006).
256 van Vlastuin
between the listener and his personal assurance of salvation. But hearing God’s
voice in scripture through the Spirit creates in the listener a ‘direct’ assur-
ance of God’s favor which coheres with a relational character of salvation in
which the extra nos guarantees in nobis, as distinct from a more substantial
understanding of salvation in which the aspect of extra nos vanishes.
All preachers, and theologians, are reminded by Luther that we do not listen
to scripture to get intellectual information but, as sinners, we hear God’s voice
as offering the ultimate divine answer fulfilling our deepest needs. Sola scrip-
tura implies sola experientia. In this way sola scriptura is a liberating reality
created by our participation in Christ’s transcendent kingdom.69
Bibliography
Bavinck, H. Reformed Dogmatics. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.

Belt, H. van der. Autopistia. The Self-Convincing Authority of Scripture in Reformed The-
ology. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Beutel, A. ‘Erfahrene Bibel. Verständnis und Gebrauch des verbum dei scriptum bei
Luther’, in Protestantische Konkretionen, edited by A. Beutel, 66–103. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1998.
Beutel, A. ‘Wort Gottes’, in Luther Handbuch, edited by A. Beutel, 362–372. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
Beutel, A. ‘Theologie als Schriftauslegung’ in Luther Handbuch, edited by A. Beutel,
444–450. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2005.
Interpretation of Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.
Bowald, M.A. Rendering the Word in Theological Hermeneutics: Mapping Divine and
Human Agency. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007.
Brecht, M. Martin Luther. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1986.
Brock, B. Singing the Ethos of God. On the Place of Christian Ethics in Scripture. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.
Craig, W.L. Reasonable Faith. Christian Truth and Apologetics. Wheaton: Crossway, 2008.
Farley, E. ‘Toward a New Paradigm in Preaching’, in Preaching as a Theological Task:
World, Gospel, Scripture, edited by T.G. Long and E. Farley, 165–175. Louisville: West-
minster John Knox, 1996.
Forde, G.O. The Captivation of the Will. Luther vs. Erasmus on Freedom and Bondage.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
69 B. Brock, Singing the Ethos of God, 201, 209.

Sola Scriptura 257
Fowl, S. Theological Interpretation of Scripture. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2009.

Frame, J.M. The Doctrine of the Word of God. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2010.
Gadamer, H.G. Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986 (translated as Truth and Method. New York: Contin-
uum, 2004).
Horton, M. The Christian Faith. A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.
Kaufman, T. ‘Luther und Erasmus’ in Luther Handbuch, edited by A. Beutel, 142–152.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2005.
Kohls, E.W. Luther oder Erasmus: Luthers Theologie in der Auseindersetzung mit Eras-
mus. Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt Verlag, 1978.
Kolb, R. Bound Choice, Election, and Wittenberg Theological Method. From Martin Lu-
ther to the formula of Concord. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
Kooi, C. van der, ‘The appeal to the inner testimony of the Spirit, especially in H.
Bavinck’, in Journal of Reformed Theology 2 (2008), 103–112.
Lauster, J. Prinzip und Methode. Die Transformation des protestantischen Schriftprinzips
durch die historische Kritik von Schleiermacher bis zur Gegenwart. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2004.
Lewis, C.S. ‘Introduction’, in St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation: De Incarnatione Verbi
Dei, 3–12. New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996.
Lohse, B. Luthers Theologie in ihrer historischen Entwicklung und in ihrem system-
atischen Zusammenhang. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995.
Luther, M. WA. Luther’s Works. Career of the Reformer III. Translated by P.S. Watson and
B. Drewery. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972.
Marius, R. Martin Luther. The Christian between God and Death. Cambridge: Harvard
Mathison, K.A. The Shape of Sola Scriptura. Moscow, Idaho: Canon, 2001.
Meadors G.T., editor, Four Views on Moving beyond the Bible to Theology. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2009.
McGowan, A.T.B. The Divine Spiration of Scripture. Nottingham: Apollos (IVP), 2007.
Moreland, J. P. and DeWeese, G. ‘The premature report of foundationalism’s demise’,
in Reclaiming the Center. Confronting Evangelical Accommodation in Postmodern
Times, edited by M.J. Erickson, P.K. Helseth, and J. Taylor, 81–108. Wheaton: Cross-
way, 2004.
Muller, R.A. The Unaccommodated Calvin. Studies in the Foundation of a Theological
Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Oberman, H.A. The Dawn of the Reformation. Essays in Late Medieval and Early Refor-
mation Thought. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986.
258 van Vlastuin
Packer, J.I and Johnston, O.R. ‘Historical and theological introduction’, in M. Luther, The
Bondage of the Will, translated by J.I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, 13–61. Grand Rapids:
Fleming H. Revell, 1995.
Pannenberg, W. ‘Die Krise des Schriftprinzips’, in Grundfragen systematischer Theol-
ogie. Gesammelte Aufsätze, edited by W. Pannenberg, I: 11–21. Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 2011.
Schilling, H. Martin Luther. Rebell in einer Zeit des Umbruchs. Eine Biographie. München:
Beck, 2012.
Schwöbel, C. ‘The Preacher’s Art: Preaching Theologically’, in Theology through Preach-
ing: Sermons for Brentwood, edited by C.E. Gunton, 1–20. Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
2001.
Steinmetz, D.C. ‘The Scholastic Calvin’, in Protestant Scholasticism. Essays in Reassess-
ment, edited by Carl. R. Trueman and R.S. Clark, 16–30. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999.
Taylor, C. A Secular Age. Cambridge, Mass./London, UK: Harvard University Press,
2007.
Thiselton, A.C. The Hermeneutics of Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Eermans, 2007.
Thompson, M.D. A Sure Ground on Which to Stand. The Relation of Authority and Inter-
pretative Method in Luther’s Approach to Scripture. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2004.
Thompson, M.D. A Clear and Present Word. The Clarity of Scripture. Downers Grove:
IVP, 2006.
Toren, B. van den. Christian apologetics as cross-cultural dialogue. London: T&T Clark,
2011.
Treier, D.J. Introducing Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Renewing a Christian
Practice. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008.
Vanhoozer, K.J. First Theology: God, Scripture & Hermeneutics. Downersgrove: IVP, 2002.
Vanhoozer, K.J. ‘Scripture and Tradition’ in The Cambridge Companion to Postmod-
ern Theology, edited by K.J. Vanhoozer, 149–169. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2003.
Vanhoozer, K.J. The Drama of Doctrine. A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian
Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.
Vanhoozer, K.J. (ed.) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Grand Rap-
ids: Baker, 2006.
Vlastuin, W. van. ‘Between tradition and renewal. Some considerations about the use
of tradition in reformed theology’, in In die Skriflig 47.1 (2013).
Vlastuin, W. van. ‘The Doctrine of Scripture in the Heidelberg Catechism Revisited:
Heidelberg’s Relevance for a Postmodern Age’ in International Journal of Systematic
Theology 17.1 (2015): 26–45.
Ward, T. Word of Life. Scripture as the living and active word of God. Nottingham:
Inter-Varsity Press, 2009.
Sola Scriptura 259
Watson, P.S. Let God be God! An Interpretation of the Theology of Martin Luther. London:
Epworth Press, 1947
Webster, J. ‘Hermeneutics in Modern Theology: Some Doctrinal Reflections’, in Word
and Church; Essays in Christian Dogmatics, edited by J. Webster, 47–86. Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 2001.
Webster, J. Holy Scripture. A Dogmatic Sketch. Cambridge: University Press, 2003.
Webster, J. Confessing God. London: T&T Clark, 2005.
Webster, J. ‘Theologies of retrieval’, in Oxford handbook of systematic theology, edited
by J. Webster and others, 583–599. Oxford: University Press, 2007.
White, C.J, ‘Is it possible to discover ‘the one’ intended meaning of the biblical au-
thors?’ in Scottish Journal of Theology 67.2 (2014), 178–194.
Wisse, M. ‘Doing theology through reception studies: Towards a post-postmodern
theological hermeneutics’, in Nederduitse Gereformeerde Teologiese Tydskrif 53
(2012), 239–249.
chapter 14
Sola Scriptura and Calvin’s Appeal to

Chrysostom’s Exegesis
1 Introduction
In the Middle Ages, tradition played an important role in reading the Bible.
During the Reformation, the Protestant perception of authority changed no-
ticeably. The authority of the inspired scripture was considered to be of more
importance than the authority of tradition, summarized by the adagium sola
scriptura.1
What actually changed, however, was not that scripture as such regained
its authority, but that the literal interpretation of scripture in a grammatico-
historical sense became authoritative. As Frei argues, since the Reformation,
the literal sense (sensus literalis) had been regarded authoritative in itself, be-
cause of its perspicuity. This ‘plain’ reading of the Bible became normative.2
Against this background, sola scriptura (scripture as the sole source) does
not imply the exclusion of its rival The Christian Tradition. The tradition re-
mained helpful for the exegesis, but it no longer had an authorizing function
in establishing the meaning of the text.3 Calvin, also, makes an extensive use of
the patristic tradition for his exegesis in his commentaries. Since Chrysostom
usually interprets literally, Calvin considers him the best Early Christian
1 Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Re-
formed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003) 2, 239; Jace R.
Broadhurst, What Is the Literal Sense?: Considering the Hermeneutic of John Lightfoot (Eugene:
Pickwick Publications, 2012), 149.
2 Hans W. Frei, “The ‘Literal Reading’ of Biblical Narrative in the Christian Tradition: Does
It Stretch or Will It Break?” in The Bible and the Narrative Tradition, ed. Frank McConnell
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 42: “Not until the Protestant Reformation is the
literal sense understood as authoritative—because perspicuous—in its own right, with-
out authorization from the interpretive tradition.”; Broadhurst, What Is the Literal Sense?,
149–150.
3 Cf. Anthony N.S. Lane, “Sola Scriptura? Making Sense of a Post-Reformation Slogan,” in A
Pathway into the Holy Scripture, eds. Philip E. Satterthwaite and David F. Wright (Grand Rap-
ids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994), 327.

Sola Scriptura and Calvin’s Appeal to Chrysostom’s Exegesis 261
exegete. Of all the Church Fathers, Chrysostom is the most frequently cited in
Calvin’s New Testament commentaries.4
However, merely the observation that Calvin highly values Chrysostom’s al-
leged literal exegesis does not say much, as the understanding of sensus literalis
differs from exegete to exegete. How could Calvin establish that Chrysostom’s
exegesis corresponds to the sensus literalis of scripture? To what extent is
Calvin’s understanding of sensus literalis shaped by his theology? Is Calvin’s
concept of the sensus literalis of scripture, which he recognizes particularly
in Chrysostom’s exegesis, not merely a confirmation of his own preconceived
theological viewpoints?
Moreover, a fallible exegete can considerably color—or even worse—
mutilate scripture, although he searches for the sensus literalis or assumes to
have found it. One could ask if scripture is then still the sole source. What are
the consequences for the authority of scripture as the sole source when an
exegete colors the sensus literalis with his own theology?
In order to analyze what role theology plays in Calvin’s concept of sen-
sus literalis in light of the sola scriptura slogan, two questions are discussed.
First, how does Calvin value Chrysostom’s exegesis? And secondly, to what
extent does Calvin distinguish between the authority of scripture and his per-
ception of sensus literalis? As a case study, an analysis of Calvin’s reception
of Chrysostom’s exegesis of Galatians 4: 21–26 is provided, because in this
passage Calvin explains the importance of the sensus literalis. This analysis
of Calvin’s reception of Chrysostom’s method of exegesis aims to contribute
to our understanding of literal exegesis. Therefore, the conclusion addresses
4 John Calvin, Praefatio in Chrysostomi Homilias, CO 9: 834: ‘Sunt autem homiliae, quae quum
variis partibus constent, primum tamen in illis locum tenet scripturae interpretatio, in qua
Chrysostomum nostrum vetustos omnes scriptores qui hodie exstant antecedere nemo sani iu-
dicii negaverit. Praesertim ubi novum testamentum tractat. Nam quominus in veteri tantum
praestaret, obstabat hebraicae linguae imperitia.’; trans. W. Ian P. Hazlett, “Calvin’s Latin Pref-
ace to his Proposed French edition of Chrysostom’s Homilies: Translation and Commentary,”
in Humanism and Reform: The Church in Europe, England and Scotland, 1400–1643: Essays
in Honour of James K. Cameron, in Studies in Church History, Subsidia 8, ed. James Kirk (Cam-
bridge: Blackwell Publishers 1991), 144: “Although homilies are something which consist of
a variety of elements, the interpretation of Scripture is, however, their priority. In this area
no one of sound judgement would deny that our Chrysostom excels all the ancient writers
currently extant. This is especially true, when he deals with the New Testament. For the lack
of Hebrew prevented him from showing so much expertise in the Old Testament.”; John R.
Walchenbach, John Calvin as Biblical Commentator: An investigation into Calvin’s Use of John
Chrysostom as an Exegetical Tutor (Eugene: Wipf and Stock [reprint of diss. 1974], 2010), 49.
262 Kreijkes-van Esch
the possible relevance for hermeneutics and preaching in the twenty-first

century.
2 Calvin’s Appreciation of Chrysostom’s Exegesis
In his 1538 Praefatio in Chrysostomi Homilias, the preface to his intended trans-
lation of a number of Chrysostom’s homilies, Calvin states that Chrysostom
is the best ancient exegete. Having compared Chrysostom to other Church
Fathers—who, according to Calvin, interpret Scripture too allegorically—he
concludes: “The chief merit of our Chrysostom is this: he took great pains
everywhere not to deviate in the slightest from the genuine plain meaning of
scripture [germana scripturae sinceritate], and not to indulge in any licence
of twisting the straightforward sense of the words [simplici verborum sensu].”5
Thus, Calvin seems to consider the simplicitas that characterizes Chrysostom’s
exegesis the opposite of allegorical interpretations. Therefore, simplicitas can
be understood as ‘literality’ and as a synonym for sensus literalis.
On the basis of this quotation among others, Calvin has been regarded to
represent “the Antiochene tradition of exegesis, which is largely adopted by
the Reformation.”6 It suggests that the method of interpretation of the Refor-
mation is directly related to the Antiochene tradition known for its literal exe-
gesis. One could ask whether this conclusion is justified.
First, Calvin does not reject allegorical interpretations as such; however, he
does believe that solely an excess of allegorical interpretations obscures the
meaning of the author.7 Additionally, his aversion to this excess is not based
on a methodological preference for the Antiochene over the Alexandrian
tradition, because Calvin himself does not distinguish between Antiochene
and Alexandrian exegesis. Moreover, if there is a strict dichotomy between
the Antiochene and Alexandrian tradition, it is currently ascribed to theo-
logical rather than to methodological differences by patristic scholars, but
actually they interplay. For example, Chrysostom’s theological view on the
relationship between the Old and New Testament leads to an interpretation
5 John Calvin, Praefatio in Chrysostomi Homilias, CO 9: 835: ‘Chrysostomi autem nostri haec
prima laus est quod ubique illi summo studio fuit a germana scripturae sinceritate ne minimum
quidem deflectere, ac nullam sibi licentiam sumere in simplici verborum sensu contorquendo.’;
trans. Hazlett, “Calvin’s Latin Preface,” 145–146.
6 Hazlett, “Calvin’s Latin Preface,” 136, 146, n. 45; see also J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines
4th ed. (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1968), 75–79.
7 John Calvin, Praef. in Chry. Hom., CO 9: 834–835.
that modern scholars understand as ‘literal’ or ‘historical’, but it is most likely

that Chrysostom has not intended to focus methodologically on the historical
setting.8
Altogether this raises the question whether Calvin’s preference for
Chrysostom is really due to Chrysostom’s method of interpretation or to his
theological viewpoints. It makes the second question the more pressing con-
cerning the way in which allegorical interpretations and theological notions
relate to Calvin’s concept of the sensus literalis.
3 Calvin’s Distinction between the Authority of Scripture

and His Perception of Sensus Literalis
Illustrative for the importance of theological viewpoints for our understanding

of Calvin’s concept of the sensus literalis, is Gary Hanson’s observation that on
the basis of theological rules and priorities Calvin legitimates non-literal exege-
sis.9 Yet, Calvin’s reputation as an advocate of a literal approach is still unaffect-
ed. Whether Hanson’s conclusion coincides with Calvin’s general preference
8 Donald Fairbairn, “Patristic Exegesis and Theology: the Cart and the Horse,” Westminster
Theological Journal 69 (2007), 8; Rowan A. Greer, The Captain of Our Salvation: A Study in the
Patristic Exegesis of Hebrews (Tübingen: Mohr, 1973), 174–175, 228–232, 276–282. Greer
argues that in Chrysostom’s view on the Two Ages (one of imperfection and one of perfec-
tion), the Old Testament belongs to the First Age and the New Testament to the Second Age.
Chrysostom uses typology in order to adhere to both the historia of the Old Testament types
in their contexts of the First Age and to their fulfilment in the Second Age, the resurrection.
In light of the theology of the Two Ages, the sequence of events (the narrative logic of the
text) was more important to Chrysostom than reconstructing the historical setting; John J.
O’Keefe, “Christianizing Malachi: Fifth-Century Insights from Cyril of Alexandria,” Vigili-
ae Christianae 50. 2 (1996), 137–138; Alternatively, Young had stated that the question of
methodology remained relevant in the distinction between the Alexandrian and Antiochene
tradition, Frances Young, “The Rhetorical Schools and Their Influence on Patristic Exegesis,”
in The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick, ed. Rowan Williams (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 189.
9 Gary Neal Hansen, John Calvin and the Non-Literal Interpretation of Scripture (PhD diss.,
Princeton Theological Seminary, 1998), 1; Gary Neal Hansen, “John Calvin’s Non-Literal
Interpretation of Scripture: On Allegory,” in John Calvin and the Interpretation of Scrip-
ture: Papers Presented at the 10th and 11th Colloquiums of the Calvin Studies Society,
January 28–29, 2000 and March 1–2, 2002 (Grand Rapids: MI: CRC, 2006), 343, 353;
Richard Burnett, “John Calvin and the Sensus Literalis,” Scottish Journal of Theology 57.
01 (2004), 1–2.
for the sensus literalis depends on the elasticity with which the concept of lit-
erality is used.
A modern understanding of literality as ‘scripture is literally about Jesus’, for
example, may include allegorical interpretations, as long as they serve the pur-
pose of the proclamation of Jesus.10 Although such understanding undermines
the distinction between interpreting allegorically and literally that Calvin him-
self made in the Praefatio, it shows that the elasticity of this concept results in
different views on Calvin’s exegesis. This underlines the importance of insight
into Calvin’s perception of sensus literalis.
Also in his commentary on Gal. 4: 22, Calvin contrasts allegorical interpreta-
tions with the sensus literalis. According to Calvin, “the true meaning of Scrip-
ture is the natural and simple one (verum sensum scripturae, qui germanus est
et simplex)”. Calvin encourages his readers to embrace and resolutely abide
by this true meaning. He warns them: “Let us not merely neglect as doubtful,
but boldly set aside as deadly corruptions, those pretended expositions, which
lead us away from the literal sense (a literali sensu).”11
Calvin explicitly calls the true meaning of scripture the opposite of cor-
ruptions (corruptelas), which summarizes what Calvin stated in his previous
paragraph: “With such approbation the licence increased more and more, so
that he who played this game of allegorizing Scripture not only was suffered to
pass unpunished but even obtained the highest applause. For many centuries
no man was thought clever who lacked the cunning and daring to transfigure
with subtlety the sacred Word of God. This was undoubtedly a trick of Satan
to impair the authority of Scripture and remove any true advantage out of the
reading of it.”12 Thus, Calvin identifies the true meaning of scripture, which he
10 Cf. Burnett, “John Calvin and the Sensus Literalis,” 1–3; Frei, “The ‘Literal Reading’ of Bib-
lical Narrative,” 39–40.
11 John Calvin, In Epistolam Pauli Ad Galatas Iohannis Calvini Commentarius 4: 22, COR
II/16, 107: ‘Sciamus ergo eum esse verum Scripturae sensum, qui germanus est ac simplex:
eumque amplectamur et mordicus teneamus. Fictitias expositiones, quae a literali sensu
abducunt, non modo negligamus tanquam dubias, sed fortiter repudiemus tanquam exi-
tiales corruptelas.’; trans. T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: The Epistles
of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1996), 85.
12 John Calvin, In Epist. Ad Gal. Comm. 4: 22, COR II/16, 106: ‘Tali approbatione crevit magis
ac magis licentia, ut in tractandis Scripturis ludere non modo impune permissum fuerit, sed
etiam summae laudi tributum. Neminem siquidem multis seculis ingeniosum putarunt, nisi
qui subtiliter transfigurare sacrosanctum Dei verbum sciret ac auderet. Hoc procul dubio
Satanae commentum fuit ad elevandam Scripturae authoritatem et verum ex lectione illius
tollendum usum.’; trans. T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 84.
calls germanus (natural) and simplex (simple) with the sensus literalis, just as
he did in the Praefatio.
The connection to the authority of scripture is remarkable: by regarding
allegorical interpretations as undermining the authority of scripture, Calvin
makes this authority partially dependent on the exegete’s ability to find the
sensus literalis. These quotations indicate that Calvin does not distinguish be-
tween the authority of scripture and that of his concept of the sensus literalis.
In light of sola scriptura, Calvin’s appeal to the sensus literalis in Chrysostom’s
exegesis is noteworthy, because sensus (meaning) presupposes interpretation
or assignment of meaning. If the authority of the assignment of meaning coin-
cides with the authority of scripture, would it still be possible to talk about sola
scriptura? Does Calvin—concerning his appeal to Chrysostom’s exegesis—not
mix up the authority of the source (scripture) with that of the resource (the
Christian tradition)?
The following case study aims to shed more light upon this question. It con-
cerns Calvin’s reception of Paul’s allegory in Gal. 4: 21–26 and Chrysostom’s ex-
egesis of this passage. Paul connects the term ἀλληγορούμενα to Genesis 16, the
history of the slave woman Hagar and her son Ishmael, and of the free woman
Sarah and her son Isaac. In debate with his Jewish opponents, who only con-
sidered ethnocentric Jews to be of the true lineage of Abraham, Paul uses this
allegory to distinguish between obedience to the law as a sign of slavery and
belief in the gospel, which leads to freedom. Although the Jews thought that
keeping the Old Testament laws would lead to true kinship with Sarah and
Isaac, Paul on the contrary, associates this thought with the slavery of Hagar
and Ishmael. He relates faith in the gospel to the freedom of Sarah and Isaac.
4 Paul
Paul’s exegesis is not isolated from its Hellenistic context, in which the allegor-
ical method of interpretation flourished. In this allegory, Paul’s contemporary
readers might have recognized not only the history of Hagar and Sarah, but
most likely also aspects from Greco-Roman writings.13 Similar to the motives
with which Plato (427–347 BCE), Plutarch (50–120 CE), and Dio Chrysostom
13 G.H. van Kooten, “Philosophical Criticism of Genealogical Claims and Stoic Depolitici-
zation of Politics: Greco-Roman Strategies in Paul’s Allegorical Interpretation of Hagar
and Sarah (Gal. 4: 21–31),” in Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian,
and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham, eds. G.H. van Kooten, M. Goodman, &
J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten (Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff/Brill, 2010), 361–362, 366.
(40–110 CE) despised pride of kinship with Heracles,14 Paul argues that only
resemblance in faith with Sarah and Isaac proves true lineage from Abraham,
and that ethnicity as such does not matter.15
In the antithesis between the earthly and heavenly citizenship, of which
the free, heavenly, supra-ethnic Jerusalem is preferable to the earthly that is
characterized by slavery, Paul’s contemporaries might have recognized the cos-
mic city of the philosophers.16 For example, Plato,17 Seneca (4 BCE–65 CE),18
and Dio Chrysostom19 regard the cosmic city superior to the earthly, because
of its universalistic character.20 Thus for his allegory in Gal. 4, Paul uses Greek-
Hellenistic concepts from the pagan tradition.
5 Chrysostom
Chrysostom,21 who interprets the term ‘allegory’ in line with the ancient philos-
ophers, criticizes Paul’s use of it. He considers Paul’s use of the term ‘allegory’
14 Van Kooten, “Philosophical Criticism,” 367–372; Plato, Theaetetus, LCL 123; Plato, Lysis,
LCL 166; Plutarch, On Compliancy, LCL 405; Dio Chrysostom, On Kingship iv, LCL 257;
Dio Chrysostom, The Thirty-Third, or First Tarsic, Discourse, LCL 358.
15 Van Kooten, “Philosophical Criticism,” 365–366, 384–385.
16 Van Kooten, “Philosophical Criticism,” 372–381.
17 Plato, The Republic, IX.592a–b, LCL 276: 388–389. In this passage, Socrates says that the
ideal city exists in theory and not on earth. There is a model of it in heaven.
18 Seneca, Moral Essays, vol. II. (De otio) 4.1, 6.4, 8.1–3, LCL 254: 186–189, 196–201. In
these passages, Seneca distinguishes between the city “to which we have been assigned
by the accident of birth,” and that “which embraces alike gods and men,” and does not
only belong “to some particular race of men,” but to all. Despite his doctrine of a dual
citizenship, the cosmic city is preferred to the earthly, because of the universalism that
characterizes the former (“to the ears of all men of all nations”).
19 Dio Chrysostom, The Borysthenitic Discourse 1–38, LCL 358: 420–455. According to Dio,
there are orderly (“a city of the blessed gods in heaven”) and disorderly cities (“a city of
mortal men”). He states that Stoics use the word “city” metaphorically to refer to the cos-
mos. Although the cosmic city is open to all, only those who “have a share in reason and
intellect” are involved.
20 Van Kooten, “Philosophical Criticism,” 373–379.
21 John Chrysostom, Divi Ioannis Chrysostomi Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani Opera
(Works of Saint John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople) (Paris: Claude Chevallon,
1536), Commentarius in Epistolam ad Galatas 4: 21–26, T. IV, fol. 224 voG–L; trans. “Com-
mentary on Galatians 4: 24,” in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the
Christian Church. First Series, vol. XIII, eds. Philip Schaff et al. (Buffalo: The Christian Lit-
erature Company, 1886–. Reprinted Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952–1956), 34. Since the
for a ‘type’ “contrary to usage”.22 According to Chrysostom, Paul claims that the
Galatians—like ethnocentric Jews—are descendants from Abraham, but that
there are two kinds of lineage. Both are united to Abraham by faith, but there
is a difference in dignity between the sons of the slave woman and those of
the free woman. The free are more honourable, since Isaac is fashioned by the
Word of God in Sarah’s formerly dead womb. Just as Isaac is born “as the result
of a divine promise,” the Galatians are Abraham’s kindred. The less honourable
position of the Jews is affirmed by Ishmael’s status as a slave and by his banish-
ment from his father’s house, an interpretation that Chrysostom adds to Paul’s
exegesis.23
From Chrysostom’s preference for the word ‘type’ over Paul’s ἀλληγορούμενα,
it becomes clear that, according to Chrysostom, Paul sees a typological rela-
tionship between the historical and the present events. Chrysostom states:
“this history not only declares that which appears on the face of it, but an-
nounces somewhat farther, whence it is called an allegory. And what hath it
announced? No less than all the things now present.”24 Chrysostom discerns
both a lexical and a geographical connection between the typology and the
events in Genesis 16. The lexical connection is that the name of the slave wom-
an, ‘Hagar’, is the word for Mount Sinai in the language of that country, Arabia.
The geographical connection between the Sinai and Jerusalem is that the pres-
ent Jerusalem belongs to Mount Sinai. The fact that the old covenant—which
generates slaves, Hagar did—was given on this mountain, shows that slavery
publication of Alexandre Ganoczy and Klaus Müller, Calvins Handschriftliche Annotatio-

nen zu Chrysostomus: ein Beitrag zur Hermeneutik Calvins (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Ver-
lag GMBH, 1981), Calvin has been supposed to use this Latin translation of Chrysostom’s
works. Although Ganoczy and Müller’s arguments raise some doubts, the references to
Chrysostom in Calvin’s work that he wrote during his last Genevan period (1541–1564)
may be based on this edition. In the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, we can
assume for the time being that Calvin used the 1536 Chevallon edition for his 1548 com-
mentary on Galatians. Therefore, the references to Chrysostom in this paper are derived
from this Latin edition. The translation of Chrysostom’s Commentarius in Epistolam ad
Galatas in NPNF corresponds mostly to the text of this commentary in the Chevallon
edition.
22 John Chrysostom, In Gal. Comm. 4: 24, CHEV. T. IV, fol. 224 voI: ‘Abusive figuram dixit
allegoriam.’; trans. NPNF 1, vol. XIII, 34; Mark Sheridan, Language for God in Patristic
Tradition: Wrestling with Biblical Anthropomorphism (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,
2015), 90.
23 John Chrysostom, In Gal. Comm. 4: 23, CHEV. T. IV, fol. 224 voH, I; trans. NPNF 1, vol. XIII,
33–34.
24 John Chrysostom, In Gal. Comm. 4: 24, CHEV. T. IV, fol. 224 voI; trans. NPNF 1, vol. XIII, 34.
characterizes Mount Sinai and the present Jerusalem, contrary to the free
heavenly Jerusalem, the church.25
Thus, Chrysostom pays attention to the context of the Galatians to whom
Paul addresses his letter. He mentions the parallel with the philosophic thought
that the relationship to Abraham has no value in itself and is even inferior to
the resemblance in character or faith. Chrysostom does not regard the antithe-
sis between the earthly and heavenly Jerusalem a distinction between the visi-
ble and invisible reality, because he relates the earthly and heavenly Jerusalem
to the old and new covenant. He associates the old covenant with slavery and
the new covenant with the church.
6 Calvin
Implicitly contrary to Chrysostom, Calvin26 states that Paul “certainly does not
mean that Moses deliberately wrote the story so that it might be turned into an
allegory, but is pointing out in what way the story relates to the present case.”
However, Paul uses it “gracefully” as “a fine illustration.”27 With an appeal to
Chrysostom, Calvin states that Paul incorrectly uses the term ‘allegory’.28 That
Calvin’s reference to Chrysostom as an authority to criticize Paul is not only
delicate in light of sola scriptura, but also remarkable, because generally speak-
ing Calvin’s concept of allegory is more in line with the ancient literature than
with the patristic or medieval writings.29
Calvin prefers the word anagoge (higher meaning), as somewhat closer to
the literal meaning than allegory. The higher meaning is the miserable condi-
tion of the slaves who are under the law, whereas God desires to make them
free. The resemblance between the figurative representation of the church
25 John Chrysostom, In Gal. Comm. 4: 24–26, CHEV. T. IV, fol. 224 voI–L; trans. NPNF 1, vol.
XIII, 34; Robert J. Kepple, “An Analysis of Antiochene Exegesis of Galatians 4: 24–26,”
Westminster Theological Journal 39: 2 (1977), 244–245.
26 John Calvin, In Epist. Ad Gal. Comm. 4: 21–26, COR II/16, 105–111.
27 John Calvin, In Epist. Ad Gal. Comm. 4: 21–22, COR II/16, 105–106; trans. T.H.L. Parker,
Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 84–85.
28 John Calvin, In Epist. Ad Gal. Comm. 4: 22, COR II/16, 107; trans. T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s
New Testament Commentaries, 85.
29 Ward Holder, John Calvin and the Grounding of Interpretation: Calvin’s First Commentar-
ies (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2006), 129–130; Gary Neal Hansen, “John Calvin’s Non-Literal
Interpretation,” 346: “Calvin draws his definition of allegory as continuous metaphor, not
from the Christian practitioners in the patristic and medieval periods, but from the tradi-
tion of classical rhetoric.”
with the true and literal meaning is that Abraham’s family was also a true
church. The mothers represent the two covenants, and the sons two nations.30
Although both Ishmael and Isaac were sons of Abraham and belonged to
one church, there is a significant distinction: not in Ishmael but in Isaac was
the election of God. Just as there were two mothers in Abraham’s family, the
doctrine (doctrina), the mother of whom God’s children are born, is twofold.
Doctrina consists of the legal covenant which makes slaves, and the evangelical
covenant which makes freemen. Calvin sees only an indirect reference to the
calling of the Gentiles, Abraham’s spiritual offspring, and to the rejection of
the Jews, Abraham’s natural children.31
Additionally, Calvin discerns a higher distinction: Sinai, the legal covenant
that generates slaves, is our first mother, whereas Jerusalem, the evangelical
covenant, is our second mother. Since God has only free children, Calvin re-
gards this interpretation at first sight “absurd”, but emphasises that there is
some truth in it since among the Old Testament believers the law generated
disciples to slavery. Nevertheless, this slavery was only temporary and external;
internally they were free.32
Yet, Calvin rejects this interpretation because the context seems to make
clear that by the children of Sinai Paul means the hypocrites “who are at last
expelled from the church of God and deprived of the inheritance.” Contrary to
the believers who were brought to Christ under the Old Testament by the law
and had Jerusalem for their mother in spirit, a wrong use of the law prevents
these hypocrite Ishmaelites from going to Christ. Although they are regarded
as belonging to God’s covenant and the church, Calvin considers them spuri-
ous (spurios), who “falsely” call God their Father.33
Calvin calls Chrysostom’s use of etymology to generate the meaning of the
text “childish” and argues that Paul compares the present Jerusalem to Mount
Sinai to illustrate that the Jerusalem of his days had degenerated to slavish wor-
ship. Calvin says that he was of a different opinion before, but that he now
agrees with Chrysostom and Ambrose. The heavenly Jerusalem is not out of
this world, but symbolizes the church, which is spread all over the world and
30 John Calvin, In Epist. Ad Gal. Comm. 4: 22, COR II/16, 105–107; trans. T.H.L. Parker,
“originates in heavenly grace”. Without having the church as a mother, one can-
not have God as a Father.34
Calvin’s exegesis does not have much in common with Chrysostom’s.
Calvin leaves out the historical setting of Paul’s debate with the Jews con-
cerning the lineage from Abraham, something that Chrysostom highlights.
However, Calvin introduces the doctrine of election and, as an aside, a
salvation-historical element. This is difficult to reconcile with his apprecia-
tion of Chrysostom’s simplicitas and the sensus literalis as a strictly historical-
grammatical concept.
Calvin’s use of the term doctrina may shed more light upon this.35 His exe-
gesis is not only guided by sola scriptura, but also by tota scriptura. In order to
refer to scripture as a whole, Calvin often uses the word doctrina.36 In a similar
way, he denotes the gospel.37 The sana doctrina is not a rational concept, but
refers directly to life.38 In doctrina, dogma and exegesis converge, since Calvin
uses the term doctrina in three ways: 1) in a classical-philological sense as ‘eru-
dition’ or ‘instruction’, 2) in a dynamic sense: derived from docere: as ‘to teach’,
35 V.E. d’Assonville, “Calvin as an Exegete of Scripture: a Few Remarks with Reference to
Calvin Research in General,” In die Skriflig 44.3 (2010), 133: “Two aspects are to be con-
sidered in this regard: on the one hand, it is revealing to see how Calvin’s understanding
and exposition of Scripture correlates with his usage of the concept of doctrina. On the
other hand, the way we read and interpret Calvin’s works should take into account this
application of the concept of doctrina.”
36 Victor E. d’Assonville, “Exegesis and Doctrina,” in The Calvin Handbook, eds. H.J. Selderhuis
and Henry J. Baron (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 380; See also W. van ’t Spijker, Calvin:
Biographie und Theologie, Die Kirche in ihrer Geschichte—ein Handbuch, Bd. 3 (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), J209: “Seine Hermenutiek geht von dem tota scriptura
aus. Doch kann dabei vom einem formalen, legalistischen oder biblizistischen Prinzip
keine Rede sein. Das ist durch Calvins Auffassung von dem unlösbaren Zusammenhang
von Wort und Geist ausgeschlossen.”
37 John Calvin, Institutes 2.9.2, OS 2, 399, 27: Evangelium vocatur a Paulo doctrina fidei.; John
Calvin, Comm. I Tim. 4: 6; CO 52: 298; John Calvin, Comm. I Tim. 6: 1, CO 52: 322–323; Vic-
tor E. d’Assonville, Der Begriff “doctrina” bei Johannes Calvin—eine theologische Analyse
(Münster: Lit 2001), 155; d’Assonville, “Exegesis and Doctrina,”385; d’Assonville, “Calvin
as an Exegete of Scripture,” 139–140; Holder, John Calvin and the Grounding of Interpreta-
tion, 22–23.
38 John Calvin, Comm. I Tim. 6: 3–4; CO 52: 323–325; d’Assonville, Der Begriff “doctrina”,
167–168; d’Assonville, “Exegesis and Doctrina,” 381; d’Assonville, “Calvin as an Exegete of
Scripture,” 140.
‘teaching’, or ‘sermon’, and 3) in a static sense as ‘doctrine’.39 In other words:

the exegesis produces doctrina, but doctrina also forms the framework for the
exegesis.
Doctrina flows from the mouth of God and is therefore closely linked to the
proclamation of the Word of God.40 The authority of doctrina is in Christ.41 The
fact that Calvin regards doctrina an all-inclusive concept of proclaiming the
Word of God implies that the authority of scripture, exegesis, and preaching
is in harmony.42 The Holy Spirit, who is inseparable from the Word, will not re-
veal a new doctrina, but, as promised, enlightens the church in understanding
God’s Word.43
7 Relevance for Twenty-First-Century Hermeneutics

and Preaching from a Reformed Perspective
Calvin’s reception of Chrysostom’s interpretation of Paul’s exegesis of Genesis

16 illustrates that preconceived theological notions play a significant role in
interpreting. Even a strong emphasis on the sensus literalis as counterpart of
more subjective interpretations does not prevent the exegete from reading his
own theology in a text. Although Calvin does not explicitly acknowledge this
and even considers a literal interpretation authoritative, he regards exegesis
39 D’Assonville, “Exegesis and Doctrina,” 383–384; d’Assonville, “Calvin as an Exegete of

Scripture,” 135.
40 John Calvin, Comm. Tit. 1: 9; CO 52: 412; d’Assonville, “Exegesis and Doctrina,” 380;
d’Assonville, “Calvin as an Exegete of Scripture,” 135; W.H. Neuser, “Dogma und

Bekenntnis in der Reformation: Von Zwingli und Calvin bis zur Synode von Westmin-
ster,” in Handbuch der Dogmen- und Theologiegeschichte, Band 2, eds. Bernhard Lohse,
Wilhelm Neuser, Günter Gaßmann, Wilhelm Dantine, Reinhard Slenczka, Gustav-Adolf
Benrath (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1980), 243: “Die reformatorische Entdeck-
ung der Predigt, die wirksames Wort (verbum efficax) ist, weil Gott ein redender Gott
(deus loquens) ist und durch das Wort am Menschen handelt, prägt Calvins Theologie.”;
John Calvin, Institutes 1.7.4, OS 3, 68–69.
41 John Calvin, Comm. II Tim. 4: 3–4, CO 52: 386; John Calvin, Responsio ad Sadoleti Epistol-
am, OS 1, 466 (CO 5: 393); d’Assonville, “Exegesis and Doctrina,” 385.
42 See also d’Assonville, Der Begriff “doctrina”, 202: “Das heißt nicht, daß Calvin nicht
zwischen doctrina und der Heiligen Schrift unterscheidet. Es ist ihm aber ein Anliegen,
gerade die Autorität und den Ursprung, die Quelle der an der Bibel orientierten doctrina
hervorzuheben.”
43 John Calvin, Responsio ad Sadoleti Epistolam, OS 1, 465–466 (CO 5: 393); d’Assonville,
“Exegesis and Doctrina,” 381.
shaped by dogma as not necessarily conflicting with sola scriptura in its strict
sense. In establishing the sensus literalis of the text, the roles of dogma and
exegesis are interwoven as long as the church is subjected to one doctrina by
one Spirit of Christ. Sola scriptura does not presuppose a sensus literalis that
excludes the reader’s preconceived theological notions and allegorical inter-
pretations as a result.
When a twenty-first-century exegete intends to interpret literally, in line
with Calvin, it is important to realize that it is unnecessary and even impossi-
ble to clearly define the border between dogma and exegesis, between the text
and the role of the interpreter. Confidence in the promise that the Holy Spirit
leads in all truth is indispensable, as well as a confident use of the available
means, which together benefit the proclamation of the Word of God.
Therefore, both dependence on the guidance of the Holy Spirit and an op-
timal use of the available tools for an exegesis within the scope of the entire
scripture are essential for the twenty-first-century hermeneutics and preach-
ing from a Reformed perspective. This forms the basis for the freedom of the
exegete. Although in our hyper-hermeneutical context some transparency in
the hermeneutical considerations serves to convey the message, too much fo-
cus on it distracts from the Word itself. After all, preaching does not derive
its authority from transparency, but from the connection with Christ through
Word and Spirit.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Calvin, John. Joannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia (CO). Edited by G. Baum,
E. Cunitz and E. Reuss [Corpus Reformatorum. vol. 29–87]. Braunschweig: Schwet-
schke, 1863–1900.
Calvin, John. Ioannis Calvini Opera Omnia denuo recognita et adnotatione critica in-
structa notisque illustrate (COR). Edited by B.G. Armstrong et al. Geneva: Droz, 1992.
Calvin, John. Joannis Calvini Opera selecta (OS). Edited by P. Barth and G. Niesel. Mu-
nich: Kaiser, 1926–1936.
Calvin, John. Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to
the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians. Translated by T.H.L. Parker.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Chrysostom, Dio. Discourses 1–11. Translated by J. W. Cohoon, Loeb Classical Library
257. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932.
Chrysostom, Dio. Discourses 31–36. Translated by J. W. Cohoon, H. Lamar Crosby, Loeb
Classical Library 358. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1940.
Chrysostom, John. Divi Ioannis Chrysostomi Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani Opera.

Paris: Claude Chevallon, 1536.
Chrysostom, John. “Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalo-
nians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon.” In A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers of the Christian Church. First Series, vol. XIII, edited by Philip Schaff et al.
Buffalo: The Christian Literature Company, 1886–, reprinted Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 1952–1956.
Plato. Theaetetus. Sophist. Translated by Harold North Fowler, Loeb Classical Library
Plato. Lysis. Symposium. Gorgias. Translated by W.R.M. Lamb, Loeb Classical Library
Plato. Republic, Volume II: Books 6–10, Translated by Christopher Emlyn-Jones, William
Preddy, Loeb Classical Library 276. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013.
Plutarch. Moralia, Volume VII: On Love of Wealth. On Compliancy. On Envy and Hate.
On Praising Oneself Inoffensively. On the Delays of the Divine Vengeance. On Fate. On
the Sign of Socrates. On Exile. Consolation to His Wife. Translated by Phillip H. De
Lacy, Benedict Einarson, Loeb Classical Library 405. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1959.
Seneca. Moral Essays, Volume II: De Consolatione ad Marciam. De Vita Beata. De Otio. De
Tranquillitate Animi. De Brevitate Vitae. De Consolatione ad Polybium. De Consolatio-
ne ad Helviam. Translated by John W. Basore, Loeb Classical Library 254. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1932.
Secondary Sources
d’Assonville, Victor E. Der Begriff “doctrina” bei Johannes Calvin—eine theologische
Analyse. Münster: LIT, 2001.
d’Assonville, Victor E. “Exegesis and Doctrina,” in The Calvin Handbook, eds. H.J. Selder-
huis and Henry J. Baron. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009, 378–384.
d’Assonville, Victor E. “Calvin as an Exegete of Scripture: a Few Remarks with Refer-
ence to Calvin Research in General.” In die Skriflig 44, Supplement 3 (2010): 129–143.
Broadhurst, Jace R. What Is the Literal Sense?: Considering the Hermeneutic of John
Lightfoot. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2012.
Burnett, Richard. “John Calvin and the Sensus Literalis.” Scottish Journal of Theology,
57.01 (2004): 1–13.
Fairbairn, Donald. “Patristic Exegesis and Theology: the Chart and the Horse.” West-
minster Theological Journal 69 (2007): 1–19.
Frei, Hans W. “The ‘Literal Reading’ of Biblical Narrative in the Christian Tradition:
Does It Stretch or Will It Break?” In The Bible and the Narrative Tradition, ed. Frank
McConell. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986, 36–77.
Ganoczy, Alexandre and Müller, Klaus. Calvins Handschriftliche Annotationen zu

Chrysostomus: ein Beitrag zur Hermeneutik Calvins. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Ver-
lag GMBH, 1981.
Greer, Rowan A. The Captain of Our Salvation: A Study in the Patristic Exegesis of He-
brews. Tübingen: Mohr, 1973.
Hansen, Gary Neal. John Calvin and the Non-Literal Interpretation of Scripture, PhD diss.
Princeton Theological Seminary, 1998.
Hansen, Gary Neal. “John Calvin’s Non-Literal Interpretation of Scripture: On Allegory.”
In John Calvin and the Interpretation of Scripture: Papers Presented at the 10th and 11th
Colloquiums of the Calvin Studies Society, January 28–29, 2000 and March 1–2, 2002,
Columbia Theological Seminary, Decatur, Georgia. Grand Rapids: CRC 2006, 343–354.
Hazlett, W. Ian P. “Calvin’s Latin Preface to his Proposed French edition of Chrysostom’s
Homilies: Translation and Commentary.” In Humanism and Reform: The Church in
Europe, England and Scotland, 1400–1643: Essays in Honour of James K. Cameron, in
Studies in Church History, Subsidia 8, ed. James Kirk. Cambridge: Blackwell Publish-
ers 1991, 129–150.
Holder, Ward. John Calvin and the Grounding of Interpretation: Calvin’s First Commen-
taries, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2006.
Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines, 4th ed. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1968.
Kepple, Robert J. “An Analysis of Antiochene Exegesis of Galatians 4: 24–26.” Westmin-
ster Theological Journal 39: 2 (1977): 239–249.
Kooten, G.H. van. “Philosophical Criticism of Genealogical Claims and Stoic Depolit-
icization of Politics: Greco-Roman Strategies in Paul’s Allegorical Interpretation of
Hagar and Sarah (Gal. 4: 21–31).” In Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish,
Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham, eds. G.H. van Kooten,
M. Goodman, & J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten. Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff/Brill, 2010,
361–385.
Lane, Anthony N.S. “Sola Scriptura? Making Sense of a Post-Reformation Slogan.” In
A Pathway into the Holy Scripture, eds. Philip E. Satterthwaite and David F. Wright.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994, 297–327.
Muller, Richard A. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of
Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003.
Neuser, W.H. “Dogma und Bekenntnis in der Reformation: Von Zwingli und Calvin bis
zur Synode von Westminster.” In Handbuch der Dogmen- und Theologiegeschichte,
Band 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1998, 167–352.
O’Keefe, J.J. “Christianizing Malachi: Fifth-Century Insights from Cyril of Alexandria.”
Vigiliae Christianae 50. 2 (1996): 136–158.
Sheridan, Mark. Language for God in Patristic Tradition: Wrestling with Biblical Anthro-
pomorphism, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2015.
Spijker, W. van ’t. Calvin: Biographie und Theologie, Die Kirche in ihrer Geschichte—ein
Handbuch, Band 3, Lieferung J2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001.
Walchenbach, John R. John Calvin as Biblical Commentator: An investigation into Cal-
vin’s Use of John Chrysostom as an Exegetical Tutor. Eugene: Wipf and Stock [reprint
of diss. 1974], 2010.
Young, F. “The Rhetorical Schools and Their Influence on Patristic Exegesis.” In The
Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick, ed. Rowan Williams.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, 182–199.
Part IV
Practical Theological Perspectives
∵
chapter 15
Sola Scriptura as Social Construction.

A Practical Theological Approach
Jack Barentsen and Léon van Ommen
1 Introduction
Sola scriptura functions as a theological claim in many Christian faith

communities, and points to scripture as the primary authority for the
community. This claim is sometimes but not always accompanied by the
limiting clause, “in matters of faith and practice.” Moreover, sola scriptura
may also function as implicit authority claim within a faith community that
does not use the phrase itself; this is typical of many evangelical churches
that frequently deny (at least formally) any other form of authority besides
scripture.
The debate about this phrase and the extent of its authority claim is
a substantial issue in systematic theology, for instance in theologies of
ministry where clerical authority and scriptural authority are carefully
balanced. However, the phrase sola scriptura was coined in a particular
social and religious context, where it served to distinguish one faith
tradition from other faith traditions.1 Thus, as with any good theology, it
originated in particular faith practices of a particular era and location.
This highlights that authority claims are not primarily abstract ideas or
important theological issues but that they function to structure social
realities in theologically relevant ways. In particular, the authority claim of
sola scriptura provided theological legitimacy to particular social realities
that had been structured differently by other forces and communities.
This highlights that an authority claim like sola scriptura is not only and
perhaps not even primarily an issue in systematic and historical theology,
but has much broader relevance.
Therefore, a practical theological approach commends itself as a promising
avenue of investigation. The aim of the present article is to offer a practical
1 See for the social and religious contexts in which the phrase sola scriptura originated the
contributions of Henk van den Belt, and Arnold Huijgen, in the present volume.

280 Barentsen and van Ommen
theological analysis of the social dynamics within which the phrase sola
scriptura might function as exclusive authority claim of certain faith
communities. The article focuses not on historical analysis, but on a
contemporary and fictitious case study in order to illustrate the complexities
of the question at hand.
The practical theological analytical model of Helen Cameron et al., which we
will introduce in the first part of this article, will highlight various aspects of the
case study. The model will demonstrate different layers of normativity that play
a part in the case study. In the second part we will introduce social identity theory
to further our understanding of the social dynamics of these claims. Finally, we
position our understanding of the case study and the analytical models within
the framework of social constructionism. The goal of introducing these models
and theories is to demonstrate the theological and social complexity of claims
about scripture as exclusive authority in faith communities today.
2 The Case: Cathy en Peter
Somewhere in the Netherlands a faith community meets every Sunday: the

evangelical church The Bridge.2 According to their website, this church places
itself deliberately in the broader Evangelical tradition, emphasizing the values of
being missional, progressive, and welcoming to all. The members of the church
experience their community as warm and compassionate, although they are
divided over a couple of ethical issues. The church has one pastor, four elders (all
men), and a leadership team of twelve men and women, including the pastor and
the elders. The pastor says he preaches biblically and relevant for contemporary
living. The worship service blends a mixture of old and new elements and songs,
and is led by various men and women, and sometimes by some youth.
Recently the topic of divorce and cohabitation has been hotly debated. This
was occasioned by a couple, Cathy and Peter, who want to become members
of the community. Both Cathy and Peter have been married before. Cathy di-
vorced her first husband because he abused her psychologically. Peter divorced
his first wife because, as he says, “our marriage didn’t work anymore.” About
half a year ago Cathy and Peter got to know each other. They want to stay to-
gether faithfully, yet without marrying; at least they don’t want to marry in the
near future. “We have both gone through too much pain to marry again,” they
say. The couple has come to The Bridge for several months now. People are
2 As noted before, the case study is entirely fictitious, including all names.
Sola Scriptura as Social Construction 281
friendly and it seems the couple has quickly become part of the community. A
few weeks ago they expressed their interest to participate more actively in the
life of the community. Cathy would like to work with the older youth as well
as to lead worship services. Peter would like to be on the preaching rota. While
the community is happy with Cathy and Peter’s attendance, many members
are opposed to Cathy and Peter taking on these tasks. Some of them disap-
prove of Peter’s divorce and consider their relationship unbiblical. Moreover,
the fact that Cathy and Peter want to cohabit without marriage is unacceptable
for many church members.
3 Four Voices: A Practical-Theological Analytical Model
Helen Cameron et al. have proposed a model to analyze cases from different
points of view. Every situation involves at least four ‘voices’: the voices of nor-
mative, formal, espoused, and operant theology.3 The strength of this model is
its heuristic value: it distinguishes various layers or voices at play in the praxis
at hand. The model distinguishes between what those involved in the situation
say they do (espoused theology), and what in fact they do (operant theology).
Cameron et al. define the former as “the theology embedded within a group’s
articulation of its beliefs” and the latter as “the theology embedded within the
actual practices of a group.”4 At these levels, the tension evident in the case
comes to the surface. Also, certain theologians may be consulted about what
should be done (formal theology), while normative documents of the tradi-
tion (scripture, creeds, liturgies, statements of faith, conferences, etc.) play in
the background and may be drawn upon (normative or traditional theology).5
These four voices mutually influence each other. The voices are distinct, yet
they overlap and they are interrelated. This implies that the formal voice and
the voice of the tradition not only influence espoused and operant theology,
but the latter two question and influence the former voices as well. Moreover,
each of the voices influences and is influenced by each of the three other voic-
es. This model allows us to analyze the social and theological complexity of
sola scriptura as exclusive authority claim.
3 Helen Cameron et al., Talking about God in Practice: Theological Action Research and Practical
Theology (London: SCM Press, 2010), 53–56.
4 Ibid., 54, italics original.
5 Cameron et al. call this the voice of normative theology. We propose to replace the term
‘normative theology’ with ‘theology of the tradition’ or ‘traditional theology.’ As will become
clear in our article, norms function in each of the four voices.
The model of the four voices helps to understand the complexity of concrete
situations by analyzing four important dimensions that are discernible in any
form of praxis. For instance, the model can be used to analyze how particular
norms and values are embedded in a concrete situation along each of its four
dimensions. This helps to see the various layers of normativity in that situation.
This will become clear as we analyze the case of Cathy and Peter below. It
will become clear that norms are embedded in the situation at various levels,
which shows that the principle of sola scriptura—in the sense of scripture as
the only norm—functions in a way that is far more complex than a systematic
theological analysis might suggest.
When we look at the case of Cathy and Peter and their place in The Bridge
at face value everything seems to be fine. The community is happy to welcome
new members, and Cathy and Peter seem to have found a spiritual home in a
loving community. However, when the new couple expresses their desire to
help out with some of the tasks in the life of this community, tensions that
have been implicit so far rise to the surface, generating dialogue, sympathy and
resistance. What role do the four voices have in this situation, and what is the
place of scripture in these voices?
Let us first look at what the members of The Bridge think about this situation:
the voice of espoused theology. The community emphasizes its welcome to
everyone, its progressive character and its missional outlook. The pastor says he
preaches biblically and relevant to today’s society. The community says to be happy
with Cathy and Peter. When the couple wants to take up new roles, some in the
community start to emphasize other norms and values. For them Peter’s divorce
(or even Cathy’s) is unacceptable. Their relationship is unbiblical, they claim,
as is their practice of cohabitation. Others in the community see no problem in
Cathy and Peter’s further involvement in the life of the community. They think
the divorces are to be regretted, but these should not stop Cathy and Peter from
moving on in life. These people emphasize that God is a God of second chances.
Furthermore, this group emphasizes the welcoming and inclusive character of The
Bridge. Both groups point to scripture and argue from scripture for their position.
For both groups scripture is the final authority: norms should be based on scripture.
The conflict in the community does not only make it possible to see what
different members say, but also what is actually happening in The Bridge: the
voice of operant theology. The situation makes clear that members of The
Bridge hold to different positions about divorce and cohabitation. There is
no uniform theology at this point of the debate; we may speak of different
theologies. Tensions rise between the value of being inclusive and ethical norms
about relationships; between being contemporary church and upholding
the traditional norms of marriage. For those who do not endorse Cathy and
Peter’s relationship, the values of welcoming and inclusivity are secondary to

the values and norms around marriage and divorce. For others, the values of
welcoming and inclusivity deserve priority, while some may not even share the
traditional marriage values. The issue is hotly debated, various groups claiming
biblical authority for their position. The place of scripture is not necessarily
discussed in the community, but the interpretation thereof is.
In order to resolve the issue, the community members may turn to books,
lectures, internet sites, and seek advice from theologians. In other words,
they turn explicitly to the voice of formal theology. The question is to which
books and theologians they will turn. If the voice of operant theology betrayed
different points of view, the formal voice of theology is even more diversified.
For an honest dialogue the members would do well to listen to various voices
in formal theology. The diversity in formal theology becomes clear from at least
two points. First, different theologians hold to different views on scripture,
both in terms of interpretation and even the authority of scripture. It is to be
expected in the case of The Bridge that the members will consult primarily
evangelical theologians who see scripture as revelation of God and therefore as
normative. Second, in this voice not only scripture and theology are consulted,
but a dialogue may take place with other disciplines as well. The question is
which role these other disciplines get and how they will be positioned vis-à-
vis scriptural authority. For example, psychology can yield insight into mental
health development of partners who live with domestic violence. For some
members in The Bridge domestic violence is not a reason to endorse divorce
because, according to them, scripture is silent on this issue in relation to
divorce. Yet, others accept domestic violence as a legitimate reason for divorce,
most likely claiming scriptural passages for their position.
Finally, The Bridge probably has authoritative documents: the voice of
traditional theology. The most obvious traditional authority is scripture itself,
but the church may also have polity documents and denominational directives.
The church may also point to tradition as norm; even where the normativity of
tradition is questioned, as in some evangelical churches, the practices of these
churches often betray a significant influence of tradition: “But we have always
done it this way …” Clearly, biblical authority is claimed by all members as final
norm, even when they differ. Scripture functions in the voice of traditional
theology as perhaps the most important norm. But this remains abstract as
long as this claim is not embodied in the life of the community.
With this last remark we are back to espoused and operant theology. How can
the members of The Bridge make sense of biblical authority (or sola scriptura)
when they disagree over, what seems to many, elementary issues? At this point it
is helpful to make explicit what was implicitly already: the distinction between
scripture as source of authority and the understanding or interpretation of

scripture. This is a theoretical and formal distinction, while our case study shows
how the principle of scriptural authority is expressed through and embedded
in different and even competing understandings of scripture. Biblical authority
cannot simply be separated from the interpretations of the community
members. Theologically the community can (and does) confess their belief in
scripture as revelation of God and therefore as ultimate norm. Nevertheless,
what the members claim to be the scriptural norm in this particular situation—
the content of the scriptural norm—is their interpretation of scripture.
The issue for the community is to acknowledge the distinction between
the authority of scripture and their own interpretation of scripture. When the
community fails to make this distinction and when people make exclusive au-
thority claims for their particular position, it will be very hard to set up an hon-
est and respectful dialogue. Where the community succeeds in making this
distinction, it opens up space for dialogue.
The analysis so far shows the complexity of the sola scriptura principle in
the practices of faith communities. The relationship between the voices, the
way the community deals with them, and the community’s view on the role
of sola scriptura—as authority claim for scripture or for one’s own interpreta-
tion—within these voices, demonstrate various layers or normativity in this
case study. This will be clarified in the next section, where we analyze our case
study from a social identity perspective.
4 Social Identity and Sola Scriptura in the Bridge
Social identity theory investigates how people categorize themselves as a

member of a group or community, depending on their situation and context.
They take on a particular social identity, which involves several dimensions.
The cognitive dimension refers to the ideas and values of the group that group
members identify with. The affective dimension denotes people’s emotional
attachment to the community and the normative dimension concerns the
value that members attribute to their group membership.6 Moreover, groups
often have a repertoire of accepted behavior, a common praxis, in which the
members are expected to be or become competent.7
6 Rupert Brown, Group Processes: Dynamics within and between Groups, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Black-
well, 2001), 311ff.
7 Etienne Wenger, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Learning in Doing
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 136–141.
The social identity of a group, therefore, has a number of identity markers,

such as knowledge and understanding of the group’s self-definition, its norms
and values, goals, emotions and behavior. These identity markers are struc-
tured such that some are more important than others because they are more
definitive of the core identity of the group and play a more important role in
shaping and guarding the group’s identity than other markers. We can picture
this as an onion model, with some identity markers at the core of the onion,
others in the layer around the core, etc.8
In the socio-religious identity of The Bridge we can distinguish the following
identity markers, and categorize them as core, middle, or edge. Core identi-
ty markers are: a broad evangelical identity, a strong sense of community, an
open and missional attitude to outsiders, and bible-centeredness. Elements in
the middle layers are: traditional and modern elements in the worship service,
and an expanded leadership team including men and women. In the outer lay-
er we find a couple of ethical ‘hot potatoes,’ and liturgical leadership by men,
women, and youngsters.
Where in the model do we find the norms with regard to marriage, divorce,
and cohabitation from our case study? From one perspective, the traditional
norm of marriage is a specific way of behaving, and therefore is to be placed in
the outer layer of the identity model. This seems the right place for this norm,
because the identity layers in the middle involve complementarity of diverse
church members in the various roles in liturgy and leadership. The resistance
against Cathy and Peter taking up certain roles in the church is not because of
an unwillingness to have a diversity of people in leadership or liturgical presi-
dency. Nevertheless, Cathy and Peter’s relationship is for many a bridge too far.
Why? Because their behavior is interpreted in light of various biblical texts that
appear so clear in their support of the traditional norm of marriage, that any
deviation from this marriage norm registers as a conflict with the core identity
marker of bible-centeredness.
In this way, the essence of the tension in the case study is a link people con-
struct between a behavioral norm in the outer identity layer on the one hand
and the core value of bible-centeredness on the other hand. A behavioral issue
in a particular male-female relationship is connected to a core identity marker,
so that it gains in prominence and a challenge of this norm is experienced by
some as an identity threat. One could perhaps advise not to link these two
8 Blake E. Ashforth, Spence H. Harrison, and Kevin G. Corley, “Identification in Organizations:

An Examination of Four Fundamental Questions,” Journal of Management 34, no. 3 (2008):
329–331.
norms so directly in order not to cause an identity crisis. However, the fact that
so many in the congregation object to Cathy and Peter’s behavior shows that
they interpret their behavior as an identity threat or at least a blemish on their
identity. With such an issue the group connects the outer layer with the core
identity self-consciously in order to guard the group’s identity and the advice
to disconnect these matters would fall on deaf ears. It rather seems that for
many a particular marriage norm does not belong to the outer identity layer,
but rather to the core, intertwined with the norm of bible-centeredness.
The case study thus demonstrates that many community members experi-
ence a close connection between the core identity markers of evangelical and
bible-centeredness, and a traditional norm of marriage that would ordinarily
belong to the outer, behavioral layer (and which is, therefore, less likely to be
‘identity sensitive’). Consequently a tension arises between the community’s
desire to be missional and their interpretation of what it means to be evan-
gelical which implicitly includes certain behavioral norms for at least some of
the members. In many situations this tension was hardly noticed but in this
new situation, the tension moves into the foreground, at first implicitly but
gradually more explicitly. The sensitive issue now is that a tension exists be-
tween different core markers of the group’s socio-religious identity, namely
bible-centeredness and being missional.
This analysis further points out that leaders and members of the group en-
ter into a negotiation process about certain elements of their socio-religious
identity. Perhaps the group should disconnect their behavioral norm of mar-
riage from the core identity marker of being evangelical. But could they do so
with identity loss in other core identity markers? Or, perhaps the marker of
being missional, which seems to be interpreted as ‘contemporary and always
open,’ should move to the middle layers of identity, which means welcoming
diversity but secondary to maintaining an evangelical identity. That would
change the identity from ‘evangelical and always open’ towards ‘evangelical
and radically committed.’ This, in turn, would result in tension with several
identity markers of contemporary Western society where discrimination, in-
tolerance and exclusivism have become cardinal sins—‘always open’ has thus
become almost a non-negotiable identity marker, not only of our society but
also of our churches. Evidently, it is very challenging to maintain an ‘always
open’ posture as core identity marker without losing other core identity ele-
ments. The main point is that this situation leads to negotiations about the
shape of this church’s socio-religious identity, redefining and repositioning a
number of identity markers, in order to define acceptable internal group rela-
tionships and to maintain the social relevance of the community for members
as well as newcomers.
How does this social identity analysis enhance our remarks about the func-
tion of the sola scriptura principle in this case study? This particular evangelical
church formulates its traditional stance on marriage with an exclusive appeal
to scripture. Certainly some elements of this marriage norm can be detected in
scripture, but many church members equate their particular view on marriage
with the content of a few biblical texts. This enables them to label certain be-
havior as ‘not biblical.’ It appears that the label ‘biblical’ or, more formally, ‘sola
scriptura’ legitimizes a certain interpretation of both marriage and scripture:
the traditional norm of marriage is ‘biblical,’ Cathy and Peter’s relationship is
not. It is this tight link between scriptural interpretation and marriage norms
that leads to the verdict that Cathy and Peter do not live ‘biblically,’ not accord-
ing the sola scriptura principle. Since Cathy and Peter’s behavior is perceived
not to fit with the church’s core identity, many members question Cathy and
Peter’s loyalty to the church. These members even feel compelled to see Cathy
and Peter more as outsiders than as participants—and certainly not as leaders.
Thus, it is not just a specific behavior (divorce, cohabitation) nor only a specific
interpretation of scripture but rather the tight link to sola scriptura that leads
to a certain exclusivity in order to guard the church’s socio-religious identity.
This exclusivity, in turn, is in tension with other identity elements such as ‘mis-
sional’ and ‘inclusive,’ also core identity elements of the church as well as of
our society.
The combination of both the four voices of theology and a social identity
analysis thus demonstrates the presence of various layers of normativity that
play a complex role in the community’s identity construction, which in turn
includes various levels of identity that may or may not shift as tensions arise
between the community’s identity and its social environment. Thus, the com-
munity continually renegotiates its socio-religious identity to adjust to and
cope with various developments within and outside the community. The sola
scripture principle as well as particular marriage norms each play their own
role in the identity construction of the community. It appears that the sola
scriptura authority principle is used to frame particular social norms of mar-
riage (being married through culturally appropriate rituals at the city hall) as
theological norm and thus implicitly as core identity markers.
5 Discussion
Above, we demonstrated how the four voices play a part in praxis and how so-
cial identity theory can shed light on this. In the evangelical and reformed tra-
ditions scripture is seen as norma normans. What does it mean to see scripture
as norma normans in the model of the four theological voices? Can we elevate
the sola scriptura principle to the voice above all voices, or to the identity mark
par excellence? Let us close with a few observations about the functioning of
sola scriptura in the faith community.
First, from social identity theory we learn that in the identity construction
of the church, scripture is one of the identity marks, of which social dynamics
determine its priority and value. Scripture does not stand apart from the social
identity construction of the community. Sola scriptura has its own part but is
not the sole normative factor, nor can it be elevated above this social playing
field as neutral arbiter; indeed our understanding of scripture is always inter-
preted and therefore preliminary.
This does not have to lead to relativism. If it is recognized that sola scriptura
is a social construction that often functions to legitimize some matters and
not others, then one can also imagine alternative social constructions where
different matters are legitimate or illegitimate. This may appear threatening
to those whose social identity is tightly linked to particular matters that
are legitimized by sola scriptura, but that remains the case only when one
remains locked within one particular socio-religious church identity. If one
succeeds in taking one or more different perspectives, this gives space, air to
new conversations.9 This would open space for renewed dialogue about our
interpretations of scripture, and would also help to surface potential abuse
of power that may potentially arise from an inappropriate use of the sola
scriptura principle.
Moreover, from a faith perspective we confess that we live in God’s world,
in which he is active and involves people. The faith community is called to
cooperate with Gods work in this world.10 Therefore we trust that when the
community faithfully tries to understand God’s revelation through scripture
and its application in our own times, the Holy Spirit guides this process. That
is, we believe and confess that scripture and God’s work through the Holy
Spirit come from outside of us, and that it is not merely a matter of social
construction. Nevertheless, we humbly dialogue about our interpretations and
about how we handle the authority of scripture, since we acknowledge that
we can only make sense of these as they are embodied within our social and
historical setting.
9 Kenneth J. Gergen, An Invitation to Social Construction, 2nd ed. (London, Thousand Oaks,
New Delhi: SAGE, 2011), 28.
10 Cf. the title of Kees de Ruijter’s introduction to practical theology, Meewerken met God
(Cooperating with God). Kees De Ruijter, Meeewerken Met God: Ontwerp van Een Gerefor-
meerde Praktische Theologie (Kampen: Kok, 2005).
Our second observation is that much more in this situation is social

construction. The entire system of norms surrounding marriage and divorce
is a historical and social construction that defines particular forms and styles
of relationships at a particular time and place. In our digital society, we
have become aware of the immense variety in how different social groups
and different cultures relate to marriage. As our western marriage norms
shift—as they have always done—the church often responds by maintaining
the standards of a particular time and place (often with an appeal to sola
scriptura), but from time to time a careful and fresh interpretation of biblical
texts and re-evaluation of their application today will help the church to see
alternative ways to respond to and to construct norms relating to marriage and
divorce.11 In addition, the concept of being missional is a social construction. In
a society, where the church has lost its former status and influence, and where
neo-liberalism has pushed the church out of the public arena, the church
attempts to reassert itself in the public and to regain a measure of influence.
The rediscovery of the missio Dei and the flood of books on emerging church,
missional church and fresh expressions should be understood against this
social background. Particular strands of biblical text and theological thinking
proved relevant for both experimental churches and established churches,
creating fertile ground for the rise of what we now know as ‘missional church.’
It is helping churches to envision alternative ways of doing church, as the
church may also be helped to envision alternative ways of being faithful to
the biblical picture of male-female relationships.12 These various social
constructs continually interact with one another in a web of meaning, so that
a continuous process of negotiation and repositioning is taking place, usually
implicitly but with the ‘right’ incident, as in our case study, such negotiation
becomes more explicit. Willingness to recognize that many of these aspects
11 See the discussion in Marco Derks, Pieter Vos, and Thijs Tromp, “Under the Spell of the
Ring: The Role of Marriage in Moral Debates among Orthodox Reformed Christians in the
Netherlands,” Theology & Sexuality 20, no. 1 (2014): 37–55. They highlight the dialectic
between being bible-believing and opening interpretive space for alternatives in the dis-
cussion on relationships and sexuality; for one issue, the ‘conservatives’ may opt for the
‘bible-believing’ stance with advocates for change desiring more interpretive space—but
these positions might be reversed on a different issue. Thus, ‘bible-believing’ cannot sim-
ply be equated with ‘conservative,’ and neither can ‘interpretive’ or ‘hermeneutical’ be
simply equated with ‘progressive.’ See also Patrick Nullens, Zorgen voor een eigenwijze
kudde: Een pastorale ethiek voor een missionaire kerk (ET: Tending the Willful Flock: Pasto-
ral Ethics for a Missional Church) (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2015).
12 With this observation we do not intend to take a particular stance in the debate about
marriage.
are part of our social and religious constructions opens up the dialogue while
using the label ‘sola scriptura’ too soon or too indiscriminately functions as a
conversation stopper.13
Third, to see sola scriptura as social construction enables us to identify
the power dimension that can often be associated with its use.14 Using a label
like ‘biblical’ or ‘sola scriptura’ and thereby claiming to speak with the voice
of the tradition may be a helpful way to position oneself with regard to one’s
understanding of scripture and tradition, as well as with regard to a current
social issue. However, it also serves to mark identity boundaries. “We, the
faithful, are ‘biblical,’ but you compromise.” Such a use of this label includes
some within the boundaries of the community while marking others as
deviant, dangerous or even as outsiders. In this sense, the sola scriptura label is
part of the flow of power within the community. For instance, a church board
might claim this label for its considered position on a particular issue as a way
to overcome resistance or even squelch debate in the congregation where
many take a different position. In this way the board would define their version
of espoused theology as normative for the community, overruling other voices
of espoused theology, and perhaps countering an operant theology they wish
to exclude. If this is part of a normal process of negotiation and discernment,
it can contribute to healthy maintenance of a community’s boundaries, but
it can also evolve into power abuse, at which point the sola scriptura is used
as a means of power to support one position, in this case the board’s, and to
undermine others. In such a case the voice of traditional theology is used to
overrule the voices of operant and espoused theology, with or without the
help of formal theology. The flip side of this dynamic is when every church
member is entitled to claim the label ‘biblical’ for their own personal position
on an issue, as might be happening in The Bridge. This, again, may be part
of normal discernment processes, but it may easily become a jockeying for
position and power within a community, seeking to build coalitions for one
view and squelching alternative views. Power is thus an integral part of the
social construction of sola scriptura, as it functions to define the community’s
identity and secure its boundaries.
Fourth, to label sola scriptura as social construction implies a commu-
nity that supports the use and application of this concept. In situations of
13 To say that many aspects are part of our social construction is not to say that all is relative,
that there is no ‘objective’ reality, or that there is no truth. These challenges and misun-
derstandings of social constructionism have been dealt with convincingly elsewhere. See
Gergen, An Invitation to Social Construction, 156ff.
14 See for the issue of power and power abuse Maarten Wisse’s contribution in this volume.
healthy identity negotiation, a community supports discussions on the issue

that makes room for various positions and opinions. The claim by some that
a particular position is ‘biblical’ can then be weighed through discussion and
discernment in a setting of respect and equality. This, then, opens up space
to consider the four voices of theology. For instance, the tension between es-
poused and operant theology may be brought to the surface, one’s historical
and social connection to a particular theological tradition may be duly consid-
ered, and perhaps input from formal theology can be sought. Whether or not
the community considers the debate in terms of these four voices, this is es-
sentially the process that takes place, where the various voices are considered,
tensions identified, and—where possible—brought into harmony. However, it
is also clear that sometimes tension remains because of the way various voices
are positioned in the socio-religious identity construction of the community.
Thus, this process of discernment will also engage with identity construction,
for instance by relieving tension between various identity elements by reposi-
tioning them from core to middle to edge (or vice versa), or perhaps by neutral-
izing an element so that it loses its role in defining community identity. Thus,
the sola scriptura principle may function well within the community discern-
ment processes, which makes the point that it takes a community to support
the healthy functioning of the principle.
Finally, if sola scriptura is acknowledged as social construction, this creates
alternative discourses for how to read scripture and converse together about
issues that are important to us as a community of faith. In an open and di-
verse world, many issues enter our communities that are potentially divisive
or that could form an identity threat. One way to handle such issues is to
establish firm boundaries and attempt to close our communities off from un-
desirable outside influences. This is, in part, a healthy response of any organ-
ism: to ward off potential sources of conflict and disease. Yet, an organism is
also nurtured and strengthened through its interaction with the environment.
Thus, discernment processes that deal with the four voices of theology, and
with the various levels of identity construction—whether implicitly (as usu-
al) or explicitly—enable a community to engage meaningfully both with its
own traditions, beliefs and behavioral norms and with the challenges posed
by its societal and cultural context. If one were to believe that there is only
one way to be ‘biblical,’ one way to abide by the sola scriptura principle, then
such debate would be illegitimate, and any alternative positions would need
to be resisted at all cost. If, however, one maintains a healthy tension between
tradition and relevance, discernment processes are needed to identify what
a particular community will accept as ‘biblical’ in ongoing negotiations and
identity construction.
6 Summary
The purpose of this article was to demonstrate the complexity of the sola
scriptura principle in the practices of contemporary faith communities.
More questions have been raised than answers given, which underlines
the point that faith practices are complex. The model of four theological
voices shows different factors that have a role in these practices. We have
demonstrated how scripture has a role in all four voices, and we have pointed
to the complex relationship between scripture as source of authority and
our own interpretation of scripture. However, this model and the social
identity analysis show that scripture is not the only norm in situations. A
social constructionist perspective further shows that authority is a social
construction. Even the authority of scripture, though we confess that it comes
to us from outside our communities and social identities, must be embedded
in our communities through the mechanisms of social construction to
make sense of who we are and where we fit in this world. In this way, the
sola of sola scriptura receives its meaning, the primary source of authority
in many communities of faith, and yet contested for its implications and
interpretations.
Bibliography
Ashforth, Blake E., Spence H. Harrison, and Kevin G. Corley. “Identification in

Organizations: An Examination of Four Fundamental Questions.” Journal of
Management 34, no. 3 (2008): 325–74.
Brown, Rupert. Group Processes: Dynamics within and between Groups. 2nd ed. Oxford:
Blackwell, 2001.
Cameron, Helen, Bhatti, Deborah, Duce, Catherine, Sweeney, James, and Watkins,
Clare. Talking about God in Practice: Theological Action Research and Practical
Theology. London: SCM Press, 2010.
Derks, Marco, Pieter Vos, and Thijs Tromp. “Under the Spell of the Ring: The Role
of Marriage in Moral Debates among Orthodox Reformed Christians in the
Netherlands.” Theology & Sexuality 20, no. 1 (2014): 37–55.
De Ruijter, Kees. Meewerken met God: Ontwerp van een gereformeerde praktische
theologie. Kampen: Kok, 2005.
Gergen, Kenneth J. An Invitation to Social Construction. 2nd ed. London, Thousand
Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE, 2011.
Nullens, Patrick. Zorgen voor een eigenwijze kudde: Een pastorale ethiek voor een
missionaire kerk. ET: Tending the Willful Flock: Pastoral Ethics for a Missional Church.
Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2015.
Wenger, Etienne. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Learning in
Doing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
chapter 16
Sola Scriptura and the Formative Role of

Practical Theology
Hans Schaeffer
1 Introduction
Sola scriptura is more than just a “slogan” of Reformed Theology, as R.C. Sproul
names it.1 It is a rough and ambiguous story captured in just two small Latin
words. Though its verbal form may be of later date (as Henk van den Belt states
in the present volume), its content reflects an embodied practice of Reformed
theology that links its core conviction with practices of tradition that connect
the present church with its past and origins.
In this article, I will argue that Practical Theology (PT) within a Reformed
context may well use the Bible as read and lived by within the Christian com-
munity. In order to elaborate and discuss this, I will first briefly define sola
scriptura and discuss three recent books on the use of the Bible in (PT) (1).
This leads to a concept of Reformed PT that, as a disciple of integration, could
use the Bible in concentrating on church practices and their formative charac-
ter (2). With the help of McGrath’s concept of ‘theological attentiveness’ and
Bayer’s view on the correlation of authority and critique, the formative rela-
tion between the Bible and the (future) minister is conceived (3). The recent
attention to ‘discipleship’ turns out to be helpful in embodying such formative
relation (4). The final section brings all this back to the role and use of the Bible
in PT (5).
2 Practical Theology and the Bible
Before turning to three recent examples of how practical theologians explain

their use the Bible, we will first consider what sola scriptura within the Re-
formed tradition actually means. We can define the principle of sola scriptura
1 R.C. Sproul, Scripture Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine (Philipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2005),
15.

Sola Scriptura and the Formative Role of Practical Theology 295
as expressing “the Reformers’ insistence on the sufficiency of God’s Word as

the final authority in matters of faith, in contrast with the often questionable
and corrupt authority of the church of the time.”2 As Michael Allen and Scott
Swain state in their defence of a true catholic-Reformed use of sola scriptu-
ra, it captures the promise of a truly Christian theology that is embedded in
“the school of Christ” in which the Spirit forms disciples of Jesus Christ.3 Thus
interpreted, these words hold that even though the churchly-liturgical con-
text in and through which “the Bible is present to the church, as Scripture is
prayed, sung, read, preached, and sacramentally practiced”4 may be contested
and flawed in the course of its tradition, it is exactly this historical chain that
connects the Church with its source through the Spirit. They indicate that sola
scriptura therefore does not refer to an obsolete point of view held by people
who deny any need of interpretation and mediation. In line with Martin Bucer
they say it delineates a doctrine “to engage more deeply the catholic fullness of
the church’s past rather than to hold tradition at bay, to avoid the diverse forms
of ecclesial formation, or to nullify ecclesiastical authority.”5
Allen and Swain’s explicit defence of the potential of sola scriptura as an
ecclesiologically embedded practice and confession is a sign of renewed at-
tention to concrete formative, ecclesial practices that are subject of (among
others) Practical Theology (PT). Yet, their approach to explaining what sola
scriptura means is an example of the complex relationship between scripture
and (academic) theology as well.
Both this complexity and the concrete formative practices are highlighted
in three recent proposals how to deal with the authority of scripture within PT.
Zoë Bennet, in charge of the professional doctorates in PT at the Anglia Ruskin
University (Cambridge), provides us with the first example. She starts her book
on using the Bible in Practical Theology by referring “[her] own struggle with
the Bible.”6 Firmly rooted in the Bible as an Anglican ‘open evangelical,’ Ben-
net needed a third way between ‘verbal inerrancy’ and an uncritical mixing
of evangelical witness with ecumenical intentions. Bennet therefore points to
2 Dora Bernardt, “The Medium and the Message—Sola Scriptura and (Dis)unity in the Re-
formed Tradition,” in The Unity of the Church: A Theological State of the Art and Beyond, ed.
Eduardus Van der Borght (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 113.
3 Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain, Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for Theology
and Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015), 18.
4 Allen and Swain, Reformed Catholicity, 59.
6 Zoë Bennet, Using the Bible in Practical Theology: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives
(Burlington: Ashgate, 2013), 1.
296 Schaeffer
true and honest reflection on the autobiographical experiences in using the Bi-
ble. She here extensively draws on the work of the nineteenth-century art critic
John Ruskin (1819–1900) as an example of how to critically and creatively
relate the Bible with other texts and experiences. According to Bennet, PT is
about interpretation of experiences that arouse when reading both the Bible
and ‘the text of life’. We need to explore “practices and ways of thinking that
enable us as practical theologians to avoid sterile polarisations and to live with
a more fluid and mobile, a more warm and hospitable, and ultimately a more
fruitful way of engaging with the Bible together.”7
The second example of relating the Bible and PT comes from Eric Stoddart,
lecturer in PT at St. Andrew’s. He follows a similar pattern in his autobiographical
account of PT.8 Stemming from a Church of Scotland parish church, as a student
he was (re-)baptized in a Baptist congregation and became a Baptist minister
in a fairly ‘conservative’ if not ‘fundamentalist’ theological climate, as Stoddart
calls it. Two major autobiographical experiences, both circling around true
listening to other’s experiences that did not have to be monitored and evaluated
immediately by means of Biblical texts, were decisive in Stoddart’s turn to PT.
Stoddart wanted to find a way of discipleship that takes experience seriously,
and yet at the same time critically relates experience to the Bible in order to put
it into perspective. The reflexivity necessary for this critical relation between
the Bible and experience, Stoddart argues, is at the core of doing PT and (or,
because) it is at the heart of being a disciple of Jesus Christ. This is what the title
‘Critical Discipleship’ refers to.
The third example stems from Australia. Brian Macallan, currently teaching
at Tabor University, starts his doctoral thesis on PT with describing his jour-
ney from being committed to biblical inerrancy to a critical realist position.9
After an investigation in foundationalism and its relation to postmodernism
and modernism, concluding with the potential of postfoundationalism, Ma-
callan continues with a description of what PT is and how its recent devel-
opments coincide with the broader discussions on epistemology towards “a
more c ontextual-based approach, which gives value to local experience” (67).
The appraisal of experience as a source of knowledge induces a postfounda-
tionalist critical correlational hermeneutic implying that concrete human ex-
periences are “taken into dialogue with the two poles of the human sciences
7 Bennet, Using, 51.

8 Eric Stoddart, Advancing Practical Theology: Critical Discipleship for Disturbing Times
(London: SCM Press, 2013), 1–11.
9 Brian Macallan, Postfoundationalist Reflections in Practical Theology: A Framework for a
Discipline in Flux (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2014), 6–10.
and the Christian classics” (135). Engaging with the scriptures as part of these
‘Christian classics’ in Macallan’s thinking has to be done with humility (“a
chastened rationality”) and ecumenically (146).
All three accounts of PT reflect the radical change scripture’s authority has
undergone since the 1960’s. They stress the critical, autobiographical, personal
and local dimensions of doing theology instead of merely being bound to a
source of authority. They point to PT as focussed on the concrete local Chris-
tian tradition of reading the Bible and living out of it, and they point to the for-
mational role needed to become critical and chastened disciples in the ‘school
of Christ’.10
From this brief survey of three recent proposals on the use of the Bible in
PT, it is clear that using the Bible in PT within the context of the Reformed
tradition needs explication. This is the case because of at least two characteris-
tics of Reformed theology. First, Reformed theology states that the Bible is the
most important source for doing theology, for it is here that one has access to
God’s word. The way in which we are connected to the Bible, however, is not a
matter of rational thinking alone. The Bible in its authoritative aspect cannot
be thought of apart from the way the Bible is received, interpreted and lived
by. Using the Bible, therefore, this immediately entails also dealing with “given
life experiences of people in their individual, church, societal and ecological
dimensions.”11 The Bible is never dealt with in some kind of vacuum, for it is
always the Bible read and experienced as embedded in practices of reading en
living. Second, and related to the former, such focus on local practices in which
the Bible is dealt with entails a specific anthropology: human persons are more
than rational, thinking animals. As James Smith argues, we have to understand
human persons as embodied actors, who prioritizes practices rather than ideas
and looks at those practices primarily through the lens of worship or liturgy.12
In the following section, I will discuss these two features of using the Bible in
PT as it can be done within the Reformed tradition: the Bible is always critically
received by means of authoritative church practices of tradition, and Chris-
tians need formation into the Christian faith in order to receive the Bible as
God’s Word.
10 Bennet, Using, 107–135; Stoddart, Advancing, 58–61; Macallan, Postfoundationalist,

144–155.
11 Macallen, Postfoundationalist, 45.
12 James K.A. Smith, Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview and Cultural Formation
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 35.
298 Schaeffer
3 Practical Theology in Reformed Context
The authority of scripture and the focus on practices, as mentioned above,

bear consequences for the use of the Bible in the PT curriculum within a Re-
formed context. PT can be considered as ‘a theory of (church) practice’.13 The
practice of believing is central here. Furthermore, PT has a close relation to the
Church it trains its ministers for. PT, than, is part of a curriculum ‘intended to
scientific, spiritual, and practical formation for becoming Reformed ministers
and doing Reformed theology’.14 PT, however, is not limited to the formation of
ministers. Cahalan and Nieman discern three different but related fields with-
in PT because PT is “a form of theology that occurs within multiple contexts
carried out by a variety of people: as a theological discernment by Christians
seeking faithful ways of life, as a theological action and reflection by ministers
and church leaders, and as a theological discipline focused on teaching and
learning as well as research and study.”15
This differentiation between several levels of PT is useful, but here I con-
fine myself for practical reasons to PT as a theological discipline within the
explicitly Reformed church-context. PT then focusses education and research
in PT on the church with an eye on strategic action of ministers in practice.16
13 E.g.: C.J. de Ruijter, “Praktische theologie,” in Gereformeerde theologie vandaag: oriëntatie

en verantwoording, ed. A.L.Th. de Bruijne (Barneveld: De Vuurbaak, 2004), 83.
14 So the Theological University Kampen presents itself at its website (https://www
.tukampen.nl/portal-informatiepagina/missie-visie, Accessed August 29, 2017). Cf. also
Hans Burger’s article on ‘Theology in Kampen’ (“Theologie in Kampen—ontwikkelingen,
context, profiel”, https://www.tukampen.nl/file/download/default/465DE14449C7E7
C1AF703E83C8713AE6/Hans%20Burger%20-%20Theologie%20in%20Kampen.pdf,
Accessed August 29, 2017).
15 Cahalan, Kathleen A., and James R. Nieman. “Mapping the Field of Practical Theology.”
In For Life Abundant: Practical Theology, Theological Education, and Christian Ministry,
by Dorothy C. Bass and Craig Dykstra, 64. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008, 64. Cf. the dis-
tinction by Bonnie J. Miller-McLemore between PT as way of life, method, curriculum,
and discipline (Miller-McLemore, Bonnie J. “Introduction: The Contributions of Prac-
tical Theology.” In The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Practical Theology, by Bonnie J.
Miller-McLemore, 1–20. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2014, [1–20] 6).
16 Cf. Don S. Browning, A Fundamental Practical Theology: Descriptive and Strategic Propos-
als (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 55f. Whether or not this focus suffers the deficits
of what Edward Farley called the ‘clerical paradigm’, cannot be elaborated here (The Frag-
mentation and Unity of Theological Education (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2001 [1983])). The
encyclopedical approach criticized by Farley, however, is explicitly countered by A.L.Th.
de Bruijne (Gereformeerde theologie vandaag, 11–29).
This ministerial focus of the academic discipline of PT, however, is not self-
evident in the academy, where multiple perspectives on faith, theology and
reality in general are present. Within the academia, PT’s history demonstrates
some bemusement regarding object, method, context and goal.17 Historically,
this bemusement of PT is a consequence of its emancipation. PT should be
more than just the technical application of systematic, historical, and biblical
studies in practice because “in this way of thinking, pastoral care and Chris-
tian ministry were not regarded as generative of theological insight, but were
merely applications of truth found within systematic theology.”18 PT needed
to become an academic discipline of its own, with its own methods and ob-
ject.19 The practice of PT is more nuanced, I would say. It shares in the b roader
tendency to overcome the strict distinction between theory and practice.
According to Bonnie Miller-McLemore, it is time to put phronèsis or practical
knowledge into the center.20 The ministers we educate cannot uphold all kinds
of academic divisions and borders between theological subjects in the work
within church-communities.
This can be seen in three areas: the person of the minister, his profession,
and his ordination.21 First within the person of the minister himself.22 He has to
be embedded in the tradition and her sources, in which the Bible plays a unique
17 “Practical theology is not an easily defined category” (Miller-McLemore, Companion, 5).

“The disciplinary status of pastoral theology is problematic, in both historical and con-
temporary perspective” (Elaine L. Graham, Transforming Practice: Pastoral Theology in an
Age of Uncertainty (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1996), 56). In his famous 2009 presidential
address to the International Academy of Practical Theology, Ruard Ganzevoort gave a
road map for PT. A road map may be necessary for perhaps more than other theologi-
cal subjects PT wrestles with its own existence (Ruard Ganzevoort, “Forks in the Road
when Tracing the Sacred,” Accessed August 29, 2017, http://www.ia-pt.org/wp-content/
uploads/2011/11/presidentialaddress2009.pdf).
18 Elaine Graham, Heather Walton, and Frances Ward, Theological Reflection: Methods
(London: SCM Press, 2005), 3.
19 Cf. Chris A.M. Hermans and Mary E. Moore (Eds.), Hermeneutics and Empirical Research
in Practical Theology: The Contribution of Empirical Theology by Johannes A. van der Ven
(Leiden: Brill, 2004).
20 Bonnie J. Miller-McLemore, Christian Theology in Practice (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2010), 170–190. Cf. Miller-McLemore, Companion, 1–4.
21 I here draw on Gerben Heitink’s model in which he distinguishes between three aspects
of being a minister: person, ordination, and profession (Gerben Heitink, Praktische the-
ologie. Geschiedenis, theorie, handelingsvelden, (Kampen: Kok, 1993), 293–306; Gerben
Heitink, Biografie van de dominee (Baarn: Ten Have, 2001), 178–182).
22 I here deliberately use the male form, for within the Reformed Churches Liberated (estab-
lished in 1944, Netherlands) still only men can become ministers.
300 Schaeffer
role. Sola scriptura first of all means that the minister should be drenched in
the Word of God. But he should also be able to critically distinguish systematic
and historical components within the Bible, according to biblical scholarship,
to reflect on it and to live accordingly. Secondly, it takes integrative features
on the level of a minister’s profession. Pastoral care, community-building
strategy, and preaching on Sunday all ask for integration of all theological sub-
jects in concrete practices. Finally, the minister needs to function within the
framework of institutional ordained ministry within the context of post- or
late-modernism.23 Social-cultural developments like differentiation, individu-
alisation, and allergic reactions to all kinds of authority alone raise many ques-
tions on religious authority, legitimization and control within the community.
Such practical questions can only be solved with the help of an inter- and mul-
tidisciplinary approach and formation of (future) ministers. When and if the
praxis of church and believers is central for PT, it cannot escape its integration-
al function in the formation of future ministers within the Church. PT is ipso
facto a discipline of integration.
This is why PT is closely connected to what now has become known un-
der the heading of ‘theological reflection’. As well as PT is not confined to the
academy, theological reflection is not the prerogative of ordained ministry but
is part of every Christian’s life. Some therefore point to the “reappraisal of the
status and role of the laity in many of the major Christian traditions.”24 It is
not only the ministry of the ordained that count but all who are baptised are
valued as formative of the Church’s being. “As a result of these various trends,
Christian ministry comes to be understood as being less about the application
of expertise and more about facilitating the vocation of all Christians through
the processes of understanding, analysing and reflecting.”25
If PT—as part of the whole of theological education—is ‘about facilitating
the vocation of all Christians through processes of understanding, analysing
and reflecting,’ this integrational task of the theologically trained minister is
about formation in relation to these processes. To illustrate this shift I take
the Lutheran systematic theologian Oswald Bayer as an example. According
to Bayer, theology is not primarily about knowledge but more about the ques-
tion what makes someone a theologian: it is about biographical personality,
23 Cf. Stuart Murray, “Post-Christendom, Post-Constantinian, Post-Christian … Does the La-

bel Matter?,” in International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 9/3 (2009):
195–208.
24 Graham, Walton and Ward, Theological, 3.
25 Graham, Walton and Ward, Theological, 5 (drawing on Donald Schön’s influential concept
of the reflective practitioner).
locality, individuality, and—in terms of Gadamer—Okkasionalität.26 Who am

I as a Christian, as a theologian? This question within the context of the Chris-
tian community takes the form of a prayer to God. Bayer elsewhere refers to
Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s poem out of prison in which the question ‘who am I?’
finally is framed as: Wer ich auch bin, Du kennst mich, Dein bin ich, o Gott! 27 As a
prayer, this definition (if we may call it that) of what constitutes the Christian
is not so much about knowledge but about concrete Christian practices. Refer-
ring to Luther, Bayer rehearses six characteristics of the theologian: the grace
of God’s Spirit, temptation, experience, occasion, attentive reading of texts,
and knowledge and practice of the sciences.28
To come back on the sola scriptura, PT (as part of the theological curricu-
lum) is part of the training of future ministers with respect to personality and
identity, professionality, and functioning within an institutional framework of
ordination. In all three aspects, scripture should be brought into play for the
sake of the forementioned processes of understanding, analysis and reflection.
This article is not the place to unfold this in detail, but at this point it must be
clear that it at least means being involved in and critically reflectiong on the
Christian practices in which the future minister takes part. According to Allen
and Swain, this actually is what sola scriptura means. Because the Church is
both creature of the Word, hearer of this Word, and is given ministerial author-
ity, these three elements affirm the church’s role “as a genuine social entity and
a concrete community. Yet each [element] also locates the church as subservi-
ent to the primary agency of the Triune God. In so doing, they help contextu-
alize the catholic shape of sola scriptura by locating scripture’s final authority
within the nexus of churchly practices and offices instituted and sustained by
the very same Triune God who inspired those holy scriptures.”29
PT, therefore, as an academic discipline focusses on church practices and
their formative character, based on the presupposition that scripture is forma-
tive for Christians as mediated within these practices. From this sketch of PT
I will now elaborate on three issues: the formation of Christians (and conse-
quently of ministers of the Christian church), ‘discipleship’ as an overarching
description of the Christian’s calling, and the role of the Bible in all this.
26 Oswald Bayer, Martin Luthers Theologie: Eine Vergegenwärtigung (Tübingen: Mohr Sie-
beck, 2003), 15.
27 Oswald Bayer, Gott als Autor: zu einer poietologischen Theologie (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1999), 21–40.
28 Bayer, Martin Luthers Theologie, 17–25.
29 Allen and Swain, Reformed, 93.
302 Schaeffer
4 Formation
As already mentioned, James Smith has shown the importance of formative

practices. According to Smith, human persons are desiring, imaginative ani-
mals in need of a “pedagogy of desire” correlate to a picture of Christian educa-
tion as some sort of “liturgical formation.”30 Christians, and as such theologians
as well, are in need of developing some sort of “theological attentiveness,” as
Alister McGrath calls it.31 In this respect, there is no categorical distinction be-
tween Christians and theologians, church leaders or ministers. McGrath here
draws on the notion of ‘attentiveness’ developed by Iris Murdoch (1919–90),
who in turn borrowed it from Simone Weil (1909–43). Attention is both
waiting, expectation, and longing, and attentiveness thus can be defined as “a
just and loving gaze directed upon an individual reality” (111). The point is that
this reality is often hidden from us, even when we actually ‘look at’ it. In order
to see things as they actually are, and interpret them accordingly, requires the
development of the skill of discernment. McGrath equals this ‘attention’ with
discipleship of the mind, which encourages “a specifically and authentically
Christian engagement with reality” (113). Such engagement does not let reali-
ty be swallowed up by some sort of general theory but insists that the concrete
and particular reality is respected.
Academic PT, according to McGrath, “is about being attentive to the spe-
cifics of a given situation (…) when seen through the lens of the Christian tra-
dition” (113). It involves the assessment of situations and ministerial possi-
bilities, partly through observation. As this observation never can be neutral,
theology and Christian practices appear to be closely related. “The primary
task of practical theology is to enable us to see situations and individuals from
the standpoint of the Christian tradition, so that we may evaluate them and
behave toward them in an authentically Christian way” (115f). This implies
some kind of ‘mapping reality’ that is “already being absorbed through par-
ticipation in the Christian community, in which the reading of scripture, the
inhabitation of liturgical forms, and exposure to preaching shape our outlooks.
(…) To speak of theological attentiveness is to highlight the importance of al-
lowing the specifics of the Christian narrative to shape the way in which we
understand the world and society, in order to better understand how to serve
them” (116).
30 Smith, Desiring, 37.

31 Alister E. McGrath, “The Cultivation of Theological Vision: Theological Attentiveness and
the Practice of Ministry,” in Perspectives on Ecclesiology and Ethnography, ed. Pete Ward
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 107–123.
McGrath’s plea for theological attentiveness correlates to the three exam-

ples of doing PT mentioned above. To quote Zoë Bennet at length:
“With the autobiographical must come reflection on our own position,

if we are to be at all critical. We need […] a consciousness of our own
biblical reading history and, with that, a sense of its place in the wider
public reading history and in reflective mapping of that reading histo-
ry. This is what the discipline of biblical hermeneutics can give us. This
book has in part been a conscious redressing of the balance towards the
autobiographical, not as a means of evading criticism—far from it—but
as a means of engaging a subjectivity that is more penetrating and com-
prehensive in its understanding than a supposedly detached, ‘objective’
view.”32
This notion of ‘critical’ is explored by Stoddart when he advocates the position

of critical discipleship. By this he means that being a follower of Jesus Christ
not only entails critical distance to practices in which ‘the world’ is “mistaken,
malevolent or neglectful,” but also discipleship “that is inherently critical of
one’s own faith.”33 This means acknowledging one’s own upbringing and auto-
biographical formation within the Christian faith and life (at some point of life
at least), but also and more profoundly it requires “critical distance from the
formation in which we are being shaped” (71). Stoddart rightly highlights this
critical aspect of the Christian formation. Such critical distance is necessary
because the Christian formation itself does not occur in a perfect spiritual cli-
mate. It is subject to all kinds of ecclesial and non-ecclesial relations of power
(66). The very notion of ‘formation,’ therefore, cannot be thought of apart from
such relations in order to be called pedagogy. As we live in a sinful world, such
formation can also result in what James Smith calls ‘mis-formation’ or ‘defor-
mation’.34
This is why on the side of the forming powers of Christian life the awareness
of the process of giving and receiving, authority and critique is so important. At
this point, the careful work of Oswald Bayer can be of help. According to Bayer,
the anthropological and societal reality that human persons live in a process of
giving and receiving as paradigmatically described in 1 Cor. 15: 3 is always a mat-
ter of ‘relations of power’ through which we continually learn to be and become
32 Bennet, Using, 132.

33 Stoddart, Advancing, 65.
34 James K.A. Smith, Imagining the Kingdom: How Worship Works (Grand Rapids: Baker Aca-
demic, 2013), 100.140.
304 Schaeffer
ourselves.35 Such practices of giving and receiving are paradigmatically found in

church practices in which the scriptures are both given and received, and yet
their relation to the salvific action of God can never be far off.36 “As the Bible tes-
tifies to this history [of God with creation], it is by reading this book that I learn
to discern my own history as being part of God’s history with this world. Reading
God’s history in the text of the Bible incorporates my ‘self’ to this history.”37
The Church’s practices are for centuries present and formative: reading the
Bible, celebrating the Lord’s Supper, caring for the poor. And yet the Church did
not invent these practices. Even Mother Theresa or Benedict of Nursia did not
invent practices, nor do emerging churches or good old Reformed Churches
in the Netherlands. Surely, they look for interpretation of their practices, but
eventually they always were received in the course of the Church’s tradition.
Reformed PT has to assess these church practices, in description, analysis,
and evaluation, and finally discover opportunities for strategic action.38 One of
the many ways by which this can be done is by putting the term ‘discipleship’
in the center.
5 Discipleship
This term clearly is on the march in Church and theology. Recent research on
discipleship39 indicates that a scholarly consensus on its definition is lacking.
Some focus on Nachfolge, others on practices, God’s Kingdom, or spiritual
formation. Some consider teaching discipleship as the primary task of the
Church, others state that jobs are our primary places of discipleship, not the
church. The same counts for the more popular publications. In the past five
years, a number of books have been published within the (broad) Reformed
context in the Netherlands. Just to give an impression of this: The Church has
been called to be a ‘city on the mountain’.40 Christian communities discover
35 Oswald Bayer, Autorität und Kritik: zu Hermeneutik und Wissenschaftstheorie (Tübingen:

Mohr, 1991).
36 Bayer, Autorität, 49.
37 Hans Schaeffer, Createdness and Ethics: The Doctrine of Creation and Theological Ethics in
the Theology of Colin E. Gunton and Oswald Bayer (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006), 157f.
38 Cf. the usual PT-action-cycles of Richard Osmer and Don Browning.
39 Dick Welfing, Early Adopters van discipelschap: theorie en empirie onderzocht (MA-thesis
Kampen Theological University, 2015).
40 James Kennedy, Stad op een berg: de publieke rol van protestantse kerken (Zoetermeer:
Boekencentrum, 2010).
their importance as a place to ‘practice’ Christian faith,41 so that they can func-
tion as a space to become a ‘community of disciples’.42 A Church-community
work-book was published in which the community was characterized as a
‘place to grow in the good life’ in order to learn a life of discipleship.43 Practical
theologian Sake Stoppels (VU Amsterdam) received a prominent place in the
official office of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands (PKN) in order to
connect the academia to the Church and vice versa. Stoppels is involved in
many lectures and workshops on ‘discipleship’ within many churches of multi-
ple backgrounds. The Reformed pastor dr. Jos Douma (Zwolle) is blogging and
preaching regularly on discipleship and designed several community-projects
on practices of discipleship.44
The focus on discipleship seems to me to be in line with a trend in West-
ern Christianity. After a phase in which the Church looked for adaptation to
and relevance for its surrounding context, a new phase seems to commence.
Younger people within the church—as far as they did not leave church—are
active and even more orthodox. They ask with more emphasis about what dis-
tinguishes church from its context. Youth work within the Church becomes
more focussed on scriptural content and radical commitment.
This is in line with Stoddart’s focus on ‘Critical Discipleship for Disturbing
Times’ or Kathleen Cahalan’s proposal for a practical-theological curriculum
completely dedicated to ‘Christian Discipleship’.45 Medi Ann Volpe explicitly
focusses on discipleship as the pre-eminent feature of Christian identity as
rooted in the Bible and tradition.46 Cahalan states that it is “Jesus’ invitation
to become a disciple and to live the life of discipleship. In and through this
radically new identity and practice, God’s mission becomes embodied in a com-
munity that seeks to live in dialogue and response to the call of reconciliation
41 Herman Paul and Bart Wallet, Oefenplaatsen: tegendraadse theologen over kerk en ethiek
(Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2012).
42 Sake Stoppels, Oefenruimte: gemeente en parochie als gemeenschap van leerlingen (Zoeter-
meer: Boekencentrum, 2013).
43 Ad de Bruijne, Hans Schaeffer, and Pieter Vos, “Ter introductie,” in James Kennedy and
Pieter Vos (Eds.), Oefenen in discipelschap: de gemeente als groeiplaats van het nieuwe leven
(Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2015), 7–14.
44 Cf. e.g. his weblogs on discipleship: http://www.levenindekerk.nl/2015/06/03/waarom-ik
-geloof-in-woord-en-sacramenten-als-kern-van-discipelschap/ (Accessed August 29,
2017).
45 Kathleen A. Cahalan, Introducing the Practice of Ministry (Collegeville: Liturgical Press,
2010).
46 Medi Ann Volpe, Rethinking Christian Identity: Doctrine and Discipleship (Chicester:
Wiley-Blackwell, 2013), 8.
306 Schaeffer
and justice, mercy and love.”47 Cahalan subsequently identifies concrete prac-
tices for “[t]o be a disciple means learning a way of life that embodies particu-
lar dispositions, attitudes, and practices that place the disciple in relationship
to, and as a participant in, God’s mission to serve and transform the world.”48
These practices are: to follow Jesus in a lifelong process of learning, worship,
witness, being a neighbour, practice forgiveness, being called to prophetic
witness against “social and cultural realities that harm people’s lives on a per-
sonal, interpersonal, and systemic level,”49 and stewardship. In the course of
ministry-education, Cahalan states, PT should focus on such practices, both in
fostering them as well as in analysing and describing them.
By defining discipleship as Cahalan does, again there is only a gradual dif-
ference between professional theologians and ‘Christians’ or church-members.
Through baptism, every Christian is called to discipleship, and ministry, in
turn, “is the vocation of leading disciples in the life of discipleship for the sake
of God’s mission in the world.”50 Well researched stories of such ‘life of disci-
pleship’ are then needed to establish some sort of coherent narrative on what
Christians really believe and think, what they do and want to do, what they ab-
stain from and how and when. Focussing on practices of discipleship thus en-
tails attention to what is called ‘ordinary theology’. Jeff Astley argues that if we
would like to assess our faith, acquired and learned over time, it needs to “in-
clude some reference to its origins” including the assessment of “the learning
context of a person’s Christian theology.”51 By doing this, the reality of faith is
described and taken seriously as a source for doing theology. As Astley stresses,
there is a vast amount of knowledge and practice that is present in the life of
lay-Christians, and an equally vast amount of innovations and crystallisations
of Christian faith. The least a systematic study of ‘ordinary theology’ can do is
to “make these innovations and elucidations available to theology in general.”52
Every Christian is called to some kind of theological reflection, even of the
‘ordinary’ kind, and theology therefore is not confined to the professional
theologian, just as Bayer recalls Luther’s dictum that every baptized Christian
is a theologian.53
47 Cahalan, Introducing, 2.
51 Jeff Astley, Ordinary Theology: Looking, Listening and Learning in Theology (Aldershot:
Ashgate, 2002), 13.
52 Astley, Ordinary, 151.
53 Bayer, Martin Luther’s Theologie, 17 n. 8.
PT is that disciple within the broader framework of academic theology,

which describes and analyses Church practices that take place within the cre-
ated world, assesses them and looks for strategic action. In all four phases of
the pastoral cycle, scripture should be present in different ways: within the
practices themselves, as part of the analysis, in the assessment, and as a re-
source for strategic planning. Scripture’s authority is located not somewhere
above this reality, but exactly within this complex framework of intertwined
practices. In practice, this implies that the voice of scripture is—in the reality
of the lives of Christians—one voice in the midst of many, often competing
voices. The contribution of Jack Barentsen and Léon van Ommen in this
volume identifies one instrument by which this complex mixture of voices can
be unravelled: Helen Cameron’s model of Theological Action Research in the
form of theology in ‘four voices.’54
6 The Bible
PT within the Reformed context has to teach and inform students how to un-
ravel this, sometimes chaotic, reality in Christian life. The voice of scripture
is part of the ongoing conversation between all kinds of voices, although it is
confessed to be an authoritative one. PT has to help future ministers to hear
this voice and to give voice to scripture, as present in the practices of reading
and listening to it. PT then maps these practices, analyzes the occurring ten-
sions, and indicates direction for these practices by offering strategic propos-
als. Renewed practices then become object of description themselves, and so
the pastoral cycle continues.55
To be clear: this pastoral cycle does not mean that the first stages are ‘neu-
tral’ or socio-scientific in nature—on the contrary. The whole cycle is theologi-
cal from the outset,56 in that observation, analysis, the setting of standards, and
54 Helen Cameron et al., Talking about God in Practice: Theological Action Research and Prac-
tical Theology (London: SCM Press, 2010); Helen Cameron and Catherine Duce, Research-
ing practice in ministry and mission: a companion (London: SCM Press, 2013).
55 This is the pastoral cycle of PT (cf. Richard R. Osmer, Practical Theology: An Introduction
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008); Browning, Fundamental; Cameron et al., Talking). For
the relation between PT and social sciences, cf. Hans Schaeffer, “Theologie en etnogra-
fie: Een eerste verkenning voor gereformeerde praktische theologie in Kampen” in, In-
stemmend luisteren. Studies voor Kees de Ruijter, eds. Marinus Beute, Peter van de Kamp
(Utrecht: Kok, 2014), 239–257
56 Cf. Cameron e.a., Talking.
308 Schaeffer
proposals for strategic action take place within the framework of the commu-
nity of Christians, who practice their faith and reflect critically on this practice.
Being critical is not something practiced outside the community but should
be at the core of being a Christian community. Personal ‘theological attentive-
ness’ (McGrath) or formation of the theologian are therefore very important.
This is why Stoddart, Bennet and Macallan offer an extensive autobiographical
account. According to Don Browning, such explicit self-analysis by the theolo-
gian is an essential condition for doing PT.57 It is, thus, by embodying Christian
faith in practices within our complex and broken reality, that we read the Bible
and want to be formed by it. Reformed PT must stress its own rootedness in
scripture in observation, analysis, setting of standards and offering possibili-
ties for strategic action.
In fact, it should do this for reasons that are inherent to the Bible itself. It is
rather insightful that Bennet, Stoddart, and Macallan reject any uncritical use
of the Bible that reduces scripture to a set of normative texts in order to secure
existing practices. One only becomes ‘critical,’ it seems, when taking reality
and experience more seriously than listening to the Bible. It may be instructive
to point once more to a richer and more nuanced view on scripture, in which
scripture itself is a space for living the complexities of life in all its ambiguity.
As Kevin Vanhoozer states, by living as disciples of Christ one is formed into
scripture, playing one´s role in the ‘drama of doctrine’. Theology, Vanhoozer
remarks, “should … concentrate on spiritual formation: the formation of the
life of Christ in his disciples through the ministry of word and Spirit.”58 Critical
reflection, then, is part of living with and in the Church as the ‘Theatre of Word
and Sacrament’: “The connection between participating in this central rite [of
the Lord’s Supper] and the need for self-examination is especially striking.”59
Vanhoozer here refers to 1 Cor. 11: 28 where the participants are called to ex-
amine themselves, and only then eat the bread and drink the wine. Critical dis-
cipleship can be part of living very close with scripture—at least that is what
Reformed doctrine states. Critical discipleship is not necessarily learned only
after reading scripture, as Stoddart and Bennet suggest. It may well be learned
by reading scripture as the voice of God opening up the space and time to
observe, analyse, regulate the complexities of life in order to participate in the
‘drama’ of doctrine as lived in local churches.
57 Browning, Fundamental, 59–66.

58 Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-linguistic Approach to Christian
Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 396.
59 Vanhoozer, Drama, 411.
7 Conclusion
PT as academic discipline in the Reformed context will need to treat the Bi-
ble in its formative power of both Christians and the Christian community
in general, and of (future) ministers and their educators in particular. This
formative role of scripture is appreciated by stressing PT as a discipline of
integration, in which the study of practices that shape our ‘theological at-
tentiveness’ (McGrath), including the necessary critical stance towards one’s
own faith and the tradition in general, takes place in observation, analysis,
normative assessment and mapping possible strategic action. The term ‘dis-
cipleship’ may be well suited to display the content of the PT curriculum,
especially in its connotations that unite the three levels of PT (academic
training, ministerial practice, and Christian life). The role of the Bible in PT,
thus conceived, is that it is confessed to be constitutive for one’s faith and the
Church’s practices, and the minister’s embeddedness in the Bible is therefore
important. On the other hand, it may well be the case that by treating the
Bible this way, Scripture itself will stimulate the critical attitude PT requires
of its practitioners in the academy, in ministry, and in the community of the
Church.
Bibliography
Allen, Michael, and Scott R. Swain. Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for
Theology and Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015.
Astley, Jeff. Ordinary Theology: Looking, Listening and Learning in Theology. Aldershot:
Ashgate, 2002.
Bayer, Oswald. Autorität und Kritik: zu Hermeneutik und Wissenschaftstheorie. Tübin-
gen: Mohr, 1991.
Bayer, Oswald. Gott als Autor: zu einer poietologischen Theologie. Tübingen: Mohr Sie-
beck, 1999.
Bayer, Oswald. Martin Luther Theologie: Eine Vergegenwärtigung. Tübingen: Mohr Sie-
beck, 2003.
Bennet, Zoë. Using the Bible in Practical Theology: Historical and Contemporary Per-
spectives. Burlington: Ashgate, 2013.
Bernardt, Dora. “The Medium and the Message—Sola Scriptura and (Dis)unity in
the Reformed Tradition.” In The Unity of the Church, ed. Eduardus Van der Borght.
Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Browning, Don S. A Fundamental Practical Theology: Descriptive and Strategic Propos-
als. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.
310 Schaeffer
Bruijne, Ad de, Hans Schaeffer, and Pieter Vos. “Ter introductie.” In Oefenen in disci-
pelschap: de gemeente als groeiplaats van het nieuwe leven, by James Kennedy and
Pieter Vos. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2015, 7–14.
Cahalan, Kathleen A. Introducing the Practice of Ministry. Collegeville: Liturgical Press,
2010.
Cahalan, Kathleen A., and James R. Nieman. “Mapping the Field of Practical Theology.”
In For Life Abundant: Practical Theology, Theological Education, and Christian Minis-
try, by Dorothy C. Bass and Craig Dykstra. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Cameron, Helen et al. Talking about God in Practice: Theological Action Research and
Practical Theology. London: SCM Press, 2013.
Farley, Edward. The Fragmentation and Unity of Theological Education. Eugene: Wipf
& Stock, 2001.
Ganzevoort, R. Ruard. “Forks in the Road when Tracing the Sacred: Practical Theol-
ogy as Hermeneutics of Lived Religion.” Accessed August 29, 2017. http://www
.ruardganzevoort.nl/pdf/2009_Presidential.pdf.
Graham, Elaine L. Transforming Practice: Pastoral Theology in an Age of Uncertainty.
Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1996.
Graham, Elaine, Heather Walton, and Frances Ward. Theological Reflection: Methods.
London: SCM Press, 2005.
Heitink, Gerben. Biografie van de dominee. Baarn: Ten Have, 2001.
Heitink, Gerben. Praktische theologie: Geschiedenis, theorie, handelingsvelden. Kamp-
en: Kok, 1993.
Hermans, Chris A.M., and Mary E. Moore. Hermeneutics and Empirical Research in
Practical Theology: The Contribution of Empirical Theology by Johannes A. van der
Ven. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Kennedy, James. Stad op een berg: de publieke rol van protestantse kerken. Zoetermeer:
Boekencentrum, 2010.
Macallan, Brian. Postfoundationalist Reflections in Practical Theology: A Framework for
a Discipleship in Flux. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2014.
McGrath, Allister E. “The Cultivation of Theological Vision: Theological Attentiveness
and the Practice of Ministry.” In Perspectives on Ecclesiology and Ethnography, by
Pete Ward. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012, 107–123.
Miller-McLemore, Bonnie J. Christian Theology in Practice. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2010.
Miller-McLemore, Bonnie J. “Introduction: The Contributions of Practical Theolo-
gy.” In The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Practical Theology, by Bonnie J. Miller-
McLemore. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2014, 1–20.
Murray, Stuart. “Post-Christendom, Post-Constantian, Post-Christian ... Does the Label
Matter?” International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church, 2009: 195–208.
Paul, Herman, and Bart Wallet. Oefenplaatsen: tengendraadse theologen over kerk en
ethiek. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2012.
Ruijter, C.J. de. “Praktische Theologie.” In Gereformeerde Theologie vandaag: oriëntatie
en verantwoording, ed. A.L.Th. de Bruijne. Barneveld: De Vuurbaak, 2004.
Schaeffer, Hans. Createdness and Ethics: The Doctrine of Creation and Theological Ethics
in the Theology of Colin E. Gunton and Oswald Bayer. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006.
Smith, James K. A. Desiring the Kingdom: Worship Worldview and Cultural Formation.
Smith, James K.A. Imagining the Kingdom: How Worship Works. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2013.
Sproul, R.C. Scripture Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine. Philipsburg: P&R Publishing,
2005.
Stoddart, Eric. Advancing Practical Theology: Critical Discipleship for Disturbing Times.
London: SCM Press, 2013.
Stoppels, Sake. Oefenruimte: gemeente en parochie als gemeenschap van leerlingen. Zoe-
termeer: Boekencentrum, 2013.
tian Theology. Westminster: John Knox Press, 2005.
Volpe, Medi Ann. Rethinking Christian Identity: Doctrine and Discipleship. Chicester:
Wiley-Blackwell, 2013.
Welfing, Dick. Early Adopters van discipelschap: theorie en empirie onderzocht. MA-
thesis, Kampen: Theological University, 2015.
Part V
Concluding Reflections
∵
chapter 17
The Communio Sanctorum as Scripture’s Home:

Sola, Singing and the Literal Sense
Brian Brock
My aim in this essay is to add an additional, but I think important, layer of

analysis to a book that is already exceedingly rich, informative and precise. I
will do so by drawing attention to an important but often overlooked aspect of
Martin Luther’s exegetical practice: the moral psychology that it entails. The
overarching claim I would like to defend is that that scripture (and scripture
alone) is the prime textual coordinate of the church’s worship, a wider theo-
logical claim that I understand as an intentional broadening of the narrower
question of the historical reformed scripture principle.
I do so in sympathy with the main lines defended by the systematic theolo-
gians in this volume:
1) That sola scriptura is not a stand-alone doctrine, but depends on the

other solas, renders it primarily an indicator and reminder of scrip-
ture’s role as the final if not sole authority in the church (Arnold Huij-
gen).
2) Any properly Christian account of the term must refuse the individ-
ualism with which it has become associated in the modern period by
insisting that it always includes reference both to the church and to
the humanity of the scripture and its readers, irreducible contingen-
cies ultimately explicable only in reference to the incarnation and the
work of the Spirit (Henk van den Belt).
3) Such a Christian account must also lament its having become
a (false) warrant for factionalist proof-text wars that have long
marred Protestantism and in which scripture is used as a weapon
against others. Though the doctrine emerged out of a debate about
appropriate ecclesial authority, in the modern period it has become
enmeshed with modernist foundationalist philosophical presup-
positions that are very different from its early reformation versions
(Hans Burger).

316 Brock
I therefore wish to join the consensus view of the authors of this volume nicely
encapsulated by Huijgen: “If sola scriptura can serve as a characterization of
the Reformed view of scripture, it needs to be thought through anew.”1
I will pursue this challenge in four movements. After completing my intro-
ductory survey of my points of agreement with the authors of this volume, I
will first draw attention to the implications of Luther’s problems praying the
psalms as a young monk, suggesting that these struggles generated some of
the early insights that underlie his understanding of sola scriptura. A second
section will show how these struggles drove Luther to develop a rich and theo-
logically nuanced emphasis on the role of faith and self-critical practices in
biblical exposition. In a third section I will make nine points about the theo-
logical claims that are necessary for this self-critical and faithful engagement
to proceed. A final section will illustrate how this theological understanding of
scripture as the point of unity of the communio sanctorum generates a robustly
theological account of the literal sense of scripture.
The reformation traditions have long been united in confessing that the
church is that community called into existence by God’s speaking and so is a
creature of God’s Word, a creatura verbi. As a result, it understands the witness
to that speaking, the Bible, not just as another book but as scripture, that is, a
divinely designated medium through which God has chosen to shape human
hearing and action. This affirmation has been elaborated methodologically
because its very formulation demands that the question of how the church
understands God to shape it through scripture must be itself continually sub-
mitted to scripture. Any insistence that the church is the proper context for
biblical interpretation must thus be matched with a thoroughly theological
account of the role scripture plays in the moral formation of the church. Based
not least on the origin of the reformation as a movement within the western
church, these traditions insist that the simple self-designation “church” cannot
be made without examining how this group of people understands their re-
lation to scripture. “Church” and “scripture” are mutually defining terms. This
would suggest that any Christian tradition that understands itself as part of
the reformation trajectory will understand putting the word “sola” in front of
“scripture” to be protecting something important, at least indicating that the
claim to be a “church” is not one that can be made whether or not scripture is
taken seriously. There is an appropriate humility in that church which allows
itself to be forced back to scripture rather than relying on the contention that
the Bible is the church’s book to defend a lack of attention to the actual text
1 Arnold Huijgen, “Alone Togeter. Sola Scriptura and the Other Solas of the Reformation”,
present volume, 85.
The Communio Sanctorum as Scripture’s Home 317
of scripture. The Bible is God’s book, through which he forms a church, and
through which he disciplines and may even finally reject some who call them-
selves church.
It is therefore entirely appropriate that the biblical perspectives offered in
this volume offer such insightful contributions to the discussion. To insist that
biblical interpretation is essentially ecclesial, by definition, should foster clos-
er attention to the differences and even contradictions between the 66 biblical
books. Of special relevance are the arguments developed that:
1) It is God’s own living words/acts (dabar) that animate Moses to write,

the Levites to preserve, and all Israel to revere and listen attentively to
enscripturated words: “Take to heart all the words that I am giving in
witness against you today; give them as a command to your children,
so that they may diligently observe all the words of this law. This is no
trifling matter for you, but rather your very life” (Deut. 32: 46–47a).
God’s acts must be understood as simultaneously keeping scriptures
alive—by way of the activity of all those believers who hand them on
and who are in those processes carried by them. The words of scripture
are thus situated as the place where humans appropriately attend to
this God, the world, and each other in order to live in reality, that is, the
economy of God’s working (Arie Versluis).
2) The assumption behind the first point is that God’s word does things,
not automatically, but because it functions as effective communica-
tion. This affirmation warrants the claim that the biblical/theological
basis of the doctrine of sola scriptura is in fact the biblical promise that
God’s word will do what it says. If we attend to the content, idiom and
narratives of the enscripturated story of Israel (and later the church)
believers in the God of Israel can discern in a productive way what can
be expected from this word and the hope we can expect it to bear (Eric
Peels).
3) If this account of the relation of God’s word to scripture accurately
represents both the operation of God’s word and Israel’s assumptions
about it, then the divine activity always remains the condition of any
continuing literary and religious tradition in Israel at all. Even from the
point of view of a more methodologically skeptical stance, we should
we able to see traces of this understanding in the historical materi-
als, visible in the ways Israel and the church practiced and explained
their activities of authorship, redaction and canonization (Koert van
Bekkum). This understanding of tradition suggests that the reforma-
tion language of sola scriptura should be understood as describing the
318 Brock
conditions of continuity of the biblical traditions as they have shaped

scripture. This affirmation includes depictions of divine involvement
in these human processes of canon formation which scripture nar-
rates as its source (Jaap Dekker).
Together these investigations of the inner coherence of divine and human ac-
tivity as revealed in the artifact and content of scripture press the important
point that the term sola scripture should not be understood as naming a her-
meneutic or theological method, but is an affirmation that Christian biblical
interpretation is part of a tradition, and is thus a practice in which appropriate
moves are not “derived” from scientific premises, but are “recognizable” by par-
ticipants in that tradition, both past and present. To thus affirm the continuity
of the biblical traditions both inter-canonically and post-closure of the canon
is not to downplay the moment of canonization as an important boundary
for sustaining this tradition. It is instead to indicate distinctions in the way
that the one God has been at work to communicate God’s self and to preserve
these self-revelations. The one God of Israel and the church has been at work
speaking to humans, inspiring them to write down that communication,
fostering traditions for preserving and collating those textual witnesses and
eventually codifying and closing the canon. The very existence (including
closure) of the biblical canon is thus understood by the church as evidence of
the potency of God’s life-giving word (as emphasized by Jaap Dekker).
I want to suggest in this paper that it is worth returning again to Luther’s
comments on the processes of biblical interpretation because they include a
narration of some of the inner activity that he understood to accompany his
understanding of scripture in the believer. Luther’s questions about the role of
scripture ultimately turned not on the question of hermeneutic transparency,
or even systematic defensibility (though he offered both), but on the question
of how we come to be claimed by any given passage of scripture in a manner
that might be clear and sharp enough to provoke repentance and hope amidst
our lived existence. Thus, not unlike Descartes’ cogito, his search was for cer-
tainty,2 but unlike Descartes, he thinks that certainty is not found by stripping
2 That certainty is Luther’s core interest is especially evident in his ethical writings and is
the heart of his Treatise on Good Works. “St. Paul also says, ‘Where the Spirit of Christ is,
there all is free’ (Rom. 8: 2). For faith does not permit itself to be bound to any work or to
refuse any work, but, as the first Psalm says, ‘it yields its fruit in its season’, that is, in the
normal course of events. We may see this in an everyday example. When a husband and
wife really love one another, have pleasure in each other, and thoroughly believe in their
love, who teaches them how they are to behave to one to another, what they are to do or
away false ideas and impressions, but by attending in a discriminating manner

to the appropriate sensory impressions which are in fact the condition of hu-
man knowledge.3 Doing so will take me into the complex and difficult matter
of how the reformational slogan sola scriptura relates to the more fundamental
matter of how we conceive the unity of the church. I will attempt to define
this unity by reference to the notion of the communio sanctorum, and to do
so in a manner that does not slide into romanticized pictures of an imagined
Christian unity nor the easy (and commonly offered) assertion that tradition is
nothing more than an extended argument or conversation that we must enter
but which can never crystallize in any final truth claims.
I will suggest that these are the coordinates that are assumed in Luther’s
desire to be open to the claim of God in a way that is simultaneously grounded
enough to support some existential certainty and yet open to novelty, surprise
and judgement in in a manner formed by scripture. Despite his becoming ever
surer of his material, Luther always claims only the certainty of familiarity with
scripture, not comprehensive mastery.4 Affirming that he has more to learn
from scripture, he nevertheless believes he has grounds for confidence that
his interpretations are orthodox. As we will see, this is ultimately a confession
of reliance on the working of the Trinitarian God. The question is how Luther
not to do, say or not to say, what they are to think? Confidence alone teaches them all this,
and even more than is necessary. For such a man there is no distinction in works. He does the
great and the important as gladly as the small and the unimportant, and vice versa. Moreover,
he does them all in a glad, peaceful, and a confident heart, and is an absolutely willing com-
panion to the woman. But where there is any doubt, he searches within himself for the best
thing to do; then a distinction of works arises by which he imagines he may win favor. And
yet he goes about it with a heavy heart and great disinclination. He is like a prisoner, more
than half in despair, and often makes a fool of himself.” Martin Luther, “Treatise on Good
Works, 1520,” in Luther’s Works, Vol. 44, The Christian in Society I, ed. James Atkinson, trans.
W. A. Lambert (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 26–27.
3 “This is the first cogito, more deeply buried although more visible than the thinking cogito. I
feel, I have felt; I have seen, heard, tasted, smelt; I have touched; I touch, I enclose myself in
my pavilion of skin.” Michael Serres, The Five Senses: A Philosophy of Mingled Bodies, trans.
Margaret Sankey and Peter Cowley (London: Continuum, 2008), 58–59.
4 Luther, for instance, is happy to affirm that, “There is no book in the Bible to which I have
devoted as much labor as to the Psalter, but immediately goes on to assert that, “I must
openly admit that I do not know whether I have the accurate interpretation of the psalms
or not,” “Psalms 1 and 2 from Works on the First Twenty-two Psalms, 1519 to 1521: A Com-
posite Translation,” in Luther’s Works, Vol. 14, Selected Psalms III, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (Saint
Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1958), 285. He maintained this stance for the rest of his
career.
320 Brock
understood this non-Cartesian certainty, and just as importantly, why he so

strongly affirmed that sola scriptura mattered in sustaining it.
1 Reading Scripture Means Bringing a Specific Sort

of Attention to Bear on the Words of the Text
Luther learned to read scripture must fundamentally happen by praying it. As

a young monk he was immersed in singing the psalter, seven times a day, seven
days a week. We should not underestimate the shaping impact of this expe-
rience of performing scripture. Singing the psalter demands staying with the
words. Thoughts distract, the mind wanders. It takes an intense disciplining
of the mind to keep it concentrated on the words of scripture being recited,
even when these are being spoken out loud or from memory. It was through
this intense performance of scripture that Luther learned from an early age
how difficult it is simply to attend to scripture. If we pause to consider the
phenomenon of attending to scripture, we can much more easily understand
Luther’s constant recourse in his account of scripture to the distinction between
“human thoughts” and “God’s thoughts”. Why is it so hard to attend to scripture?
Because thoughts of other things constantly crowd our minds—we plan our
future, recall pleasant and unpleasant thoughts—in general, our minds seem to
go of their own accord anywhere else but to the words of scripture.
This tangible experience of the problem of projecting our ideas onto scrip-
ture and the distraction that accompanied it allowed Luther very early on to
come to understand the Psalter as a school for faith. The articulate God of
scripture was so aware of our human frailties that he offered us a workout reg-
imen in which we could be recalled daily to attend to the gap between our
thoughts and God’s words that is the prerequisite of any attention to scripture
and to God’s working. Thus Luther considered such biblical texts constantly to
raise questions for the people of God: What is entailed in becoming the sort
of community that can stay with the psalms? What does it mean that God is
faithful to train the people of God to become attuned to the vectors of their
unfaithfulness? This problem is not only pressed by the form of the psalter, but
regularly by its content. We could even say that psalms such as Psalm 78 are
precursors to the doctrine of sola scriptura in their recognition that even when
the good things of God are on their lips (whether divinely provided food or the
life-giving words of God, cf. 78: 29–30), the cravings of the hearts of God’s peo-
ple remain powerfully at work to bend them toward their own concerns. There
is thus, for Luther, no substitute for exercising with the Psalter. Do not believe
that you cannot pray them.
First practice on one psalm, even one little verse of the psalm. You will
progress enough if you learn to make only one verse a day, or even one a
week, live and breathe in your heart. After this beginning is made, every-
thing else will follow, and you will have a rich treasury of understanding
and affection.5
Here we need to note the contrast with the contemporary language of deci-
sion or choice that are regularly at the center of discussions of hermeneutics.6
To know the content of scripture or to read scripture is different than to be
claimed by and through it, and there is no practice or rational method that
can force this claim. This is why Luther privileges perceiving in his account
of b iblical performance, and why his doing so did not need to come at the
expense of thinking or deciding.
My own discovery of these connections arise from an interest in what it
means to live Christian faith. Thinking, including theologizing, is one aspect of
faithful human living. But before either thinking or acting must come hearing,
the condition for obedience. As Luther puts it,
True obedience is not to do what you yourself choose or what you im-
pose upon yourself, but what the Lord has commanded you through His
Word[…] Therefore when God is not speaking but is keeping silence,
there can be no obedience. Moreover, it is not enough that God speaks;
but it is necessary that he speaks to you … “The Lord has said”—whoever
keeps this phrase in mind in all his actions will always live happily and
be full of hope.7
My sole interest in the topic of sola scriptura is the role it plays in serving the
divine invitation to human obedience.
These considerations also illumine, I hope, my complaints about the hy-
pertrophy of hermeneutics, which at best is talk about the conditions under
5 Luther, “Psalms 1 and 2,” 310.

6 It is the location of the whole discussion of sola scriptura within the assumption that the hu-
man situation is fundamentally one of choice that finally vitiates Wisse’s otherwise penetrating
article. Rather than understanding the conditions of a biblical tradition at all being the rec-
ognition of and response to texts as divine witnesses, Wisse instead says, “We have to choose
constantly, and, for this reason, my argument against the way in which sola scriptura has been
used in the past remains valid.” (Wisse, “Contra et Pro Sola Scriptura”, present volume, 35).
7 Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis vol 2. Jaroslav Pelikan ed., (St. Louis: Concordia, 1960),
271, 273.
322 Brock
which God might be known. My interest is in rediscovering how God has and
is claiming human lives as his own. To know that God claims lives or to know
the conditions for any claim to emerge is not yet to have learned what it might
mean to recognize Christ’s claim in the present. Recognition is an action, a re-
sponse, a skill and not an idea.
2 Attending to Scripture is an Act of Faith
The main hurdle any such account must face today, as Wisse rightly empha-
sizes, is our tendency to project our thoughts onto scripture.8 This is why a
contemporary recovery of sola scriptura must attend to the theologically de-
scribed spiritual and inner work that is demanded by Luther’s understanding
of the authority of scripture, with its core assertion of the problem of gen-
uinely relying on God and not on our own thoughts. Luther formalizes the
distinction between human and divine thoughts using the idea of rival laws.
Commenting on Psalm 1: 1a, “Happy are those who do not walk in the coun-
sel of the wicked,” he notes, “Here ‘council’ is undoubtedly used in place of
‘principles’ or ‘doctrines,’ since no human association exists unless it is con-
structed and maintained according to certain principles and laws.”9 Thus the
opposite of blessedness is to “disdain to walk in the Law of the Lord, but to
follow their own council.”10
This analysis comes to serve Luther as a recurring tag for the polarity be-
tween human self-assertion and the “way of one’s own will”. This “council of
the godless” is paradigmatically enacted in the worship of the Israelites of
the golden calf at Sinai. While Moses was receiving the words of the law of
8 Here the cautions of Wisse righty indicate the centrality of these issues as one of the cru-
cial apologetic problems in modern Christianity, nicely summarized by Spinoza: “All men
are ready to say that Holy Scripture is the word of God that teaches us true happiness or
the way of salvation, but their actions betray a quite different opinion. For the common
people, the last thing that they appear to want is to live by the teaching of Scripture. We
see them advancing false notions of their own as the word of God and seeking to use the
influence of religion to compel other people to agree with them.” Benedict de Spinoza,
Theological-Political Treatise, trans. and ed. Johnathan Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 2007), 97. The question is how to meet this challenge, Wisse emphasizes
the importance of greater rational hermeneutical self-awareness while Luther develops a
more thoroughly theological account of criticism.
9 Luther, “Psalms 1 and 2,” 288. Luther cites Ps. 15: 2 and 101: 6, as well as Rom. 8: 1, 4, to
substantiate this point.
blessedness, the Israelites constructed a surrogate god; one has faith in the true
God (Yahweh) through Christ or one casts about on the grounds of confidence
in the worth of human virtue or works (Romans 3).11 “Thus you must always
have these two opposites in mind: faith in God and godlessness, just as the
Law of God and the council of man. For when we deal with piety and impiety
we are dealing, not with behavior but with attitudes, that is, with the source of
behavior.”12
Ungodliness is at its roots a desire to makes one’s own law, or to live a ccording
to the human laws of others. It is thus precisely by loving the word of God
that Luther thinks that the immense human temptation to project our desires
onto God is resisted.13 In this way the prayer to hate the semblance of truth is
actually a request that we may be sharpened in our understanding of what
is ours and what is God’s. This “hatred prayer” is in fact a prayer that “keeps
faith in motion,” because it commits us to the continual critical displacement
of our recurrent pagan impulses of self-defense, pride and covetousness by
delight in God’s law alone. “Once and for all I say: see that you always separate
most w idely and distantly the law of the Lord from the laws of any men, and
watch with all your diligence that they two, confused into one chaos […] do not
miserably destroy you.”14
Scripture is essential to Christian proclamation as the condition of its
existence and the measure for its critical correction—the first subject of
Christian preaching being the unredeemed person in our own breast.15 This
leads Luther to explain the procedure used to discover the positive con-
tent of biblical prohibitions. Using the example of the command “thou shalt
11 Luther, “Psalm Fifty Nine,” in Luther’s Works, Vol. 10, First Lectures on the Psalms I, Hinton
C. Oswald ed. (St. Louis: Concordia, 1974), 274; Martin Luther, “Chapter Three,” in Lu-
ther’s Works, Vol. 25, Lectures on Romans, Glosses and Scholia, ed. Hinton Oswald (Saint
Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1972), 25–34.
12 Luther, “Psalms 1 and 2,” 289, emphasis mine.
13 “Where the Word of God is involved, there hate comes in, and love is out. But where my
person, my property, my reputation, or my body is involved, there I should render [my
neighbor] complete honor and service. These are God’s property, given by God to help the
neighbor.” Luther clarifies his point by indicating one biblical example of this wise hating
(David and Ahithophel, 2 Sam. 15: 31). Martin Luther, “Psalm 101,” in Luther’s Works, Vol.
13, Selected Psalms II, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan, trans. Alfred von Rohr Sauer (Saint Louis: Con-
cordia Publishing House, 1956), 177–184.
15 Jaroslav Pelikan, Luther’s Works: Companion Volume: Luther the Expositor: Introduction to
the Reformer’s Exegetical Writings (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 68–
69.
324 Brock
not kill”, he observes that these are cold and forbidding words unless we
meditate on them, talking about them and linking them with other biblical
discussions until God’s grace emerges from them. In modern terms Luther
is deploying a theological locus approach in which scriptures are arrayed
around a passage to elucidate its depth, rather than a scholastic catalog ap-
proach which combs all of scripture to develop a comprehensive encyclope-
dia of its meaning. His theological “system” is to perpetually be reentering
the whole through single verses, a process which he believes leads to the
continual reversal of our perceptions; instead of commands appearing as a
simple prohibitions, they direct our attention to God’s work of, for instance,
turning speakers of anger and slander into speakers who talk of God’s words
and love of neighbor.
This church delights in scripture, making it a church of chatterers of the
law—of preachers. This means that every righteous person is characterized by
right faith, love of others, and words which teach this faith, for, “if he does not
teach others, he certainly teaches himself, meditating in his heart on the law of
God.”16 It is in this way that God’s word remains eternally in him. So the “leaf”
of official church teaching and doctrine belongs to the whole body of Christ.
The official preacher is, in effect, the designated “representative listener” of
the congregation, the hearer who chatters about what he or she hears in God’s
law. The office of preacher can thus only be “the ear and not the tongue”—not
inventing anything but only representing to the body that which they are al-
ready taken into.17
These parameters frame Luther’s insistence that faith is the premier de-
scriptor of the Christian life, the famous sola fide, with prayer as its root ac-
tivity: “Faith in [God’s] promise is nothing other than prayer,”18 a claim with
which he summarized the tight set of conceptual connections just outlined.
Faith is the effect of God’s word and promise entering the heart, making it firm
and certain. This certainty is not immobile, but active; “it bursts into action
[…] impels him to compose beautiful and sweet psalms and to sing lovely and
joyous songs, both to praise and to thank God in his happiness and to serve his

17 For a more in-depth analysis of this concept, see Bernd Wannenwetsch, “‘Members of
One Another’: Charis, Ministry and Representation: A Politico-Ecclesial Reading of Ro-
mans 12,” in A Royal Priesthood? The Use of the Bible Ethically and Politically: A Dialogue
with Oliver O’Donovan, eds. Craig Bartholomew, Jonathan Chaplin, Robert Song, and Al
Wolters (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2002), 196–215.
18 Oswald Bayer, “Luther as an Interpreter of Holy Scripture,” in Donald McKim, ed., The
Cambridge Companion to Luther (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 77.
fellowmen by stimulating and teaching them.”19 Because faith is trust in God’s

word and promise, its constituent component is the acknowledgement that
Christ is Lord, the most basic form of talking to God. All other Christian action
takes place within this conversation, altering its shape in making it a response
of appreciation for God’s action. Sola fide means “let all your thinking and ac-
tion be infiltrated by the truth that the crucified and resurrected Christ is still
working and Lord of all things.” The behavior this creates is no fixed aptitude
or habitus, but a conversation, a “spirit that falls and rises.”20
In short (as noted by Huijgen), we cannot read scripture without conversion
The Spirit reserves much for Himself, so that we may always remain His
pupils. There is much that He reveals only to lure us on, much that He
gives only to stir us up. And, as Augustine has put it so clearly, if no hu-
man being has ever spoken in such a way that everyone understood him
in all particulars, how much more is it true that the Holy Spirit alone has
an understanding of all His own words! [...] I know that a person would
be guilty of the most shameless boldness if he dared claim that he had
understood even one book of the Scriptures in all its parts. In fact, who
would even dare to assert that anyone has completely understood one
single psalm? Our life is one of beginning and of growth, not one of consum-
mation. That person is better who has come closer to the Spirit.21
Luther’s fundamental point of conceptual clarity is thus revealed: in Christian

theology the soteriological horizon must always be allowed to shape the epis-
temic and hermeneutic rationalities of Christian theology.
3 These Words Only Live as God Lives, Speaks and Saves
As several authors in this volume have observed (notably, Wisse and Huijgen),
any properly theological account of sola scriptura is therefore inescapably
theocentric—Christ is its life, who by the Spirit animates the lives of the saints.
19 Martin Luther, “Treatise on the Last Words of David,” in Luther’s Works, vol. 15: Notes on
Ecclesiastes, Lectures on the Song of Solomon, Treatise on The Last Words of David, ed. Jaro-
slav Pelikan (Saint Louis: Concordia, 1972), 272–273.
20 Luther, Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 16, Lectures on Isaiah, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (Saint
Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1969), 321. Luther makes this comment as he e xamines
Hezekiah’s prayer to discover what it reveals about prayer in all times and places.
21 Luther, “Psalms 1 and 2,” 284–285, emphasis mine.
326 Brock
This is why, for Luther, scripture plays a central role as the determinative loca-
tion within the economy of God’s working for Christians to find their orienta-
tion in creation: in the communion of saints gathered around scripture.22 By
starting from a theological understanding of the communio sanctorum we are
enabled to push back against our default tendency to embed our intellectual
investigations within some version of universal rationality. His well-known be-
lief in the inextricable coinherence of the sola fides–solus Christus–sola scrip-
tura triad frees Christians to reason with and under scripture about daily life
without belaboring the task of comprehensively collating the biblical passages
that seem to contain the relevant “moral teachings.”23 We are now in the posi-
tion to offer nine summary propositions about what this might mean for the
life of the church today.
1) Christian theology must be understood as fundamentally an intellec-

tual discipline that serves the orientation of Christians in reality. The
reality which it indicates, however, is not one that can be perceived
without faith, it being a Trinitarian, ecclesial and scriptural reality.
The term “reality” is thus indexed to the doctrine of God. Theologians
are not primarily concerned with establishing or grounding Christian
claims about reality (an apologetic task) nor with ensuring internal
conceptual balance (an important but second-order systematic task),
but are fundamentally committed to facilitating the church’s b ecoming
aware of this reality in real time, so to serve humans b ecoming oriented
in their daily lives.
2) Because this reality is accessible only through the economy of God’s
works ad extra, the Christological and pneumatological origin of all
Christian knowing and action is foregrounded. In this foregrounding
the praise of the Christian community is revealed as the primary form
of human response to the reality that sustains human life. Doxology is
the ongoing human acknowledgement of reliance on and gratitude for
God’s presence and care. Because God has revealed in the life of Jesus
Christ that God’s desire is to keep us in God’s story, humans can affirm
that a way has been prepared for this walking together of God and
humans to continue. In the existence and preservation of scripture we
22 Bernd Wannenwetsch, ‘Conversing with the Saints as they Converse with Scripture: In
Conversation with Brian Brock’s Singing the Ethos of God,’ European Journal of Theology,
18: 2 (2009): 125–136.
23 Oswald Bayer, Martin Luther’s Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation, trans. by Thomas
Trapp (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), ch. 4.
see that God has been gracious not to leave humanity to invent praises
on its own, which would be tantamount to reinventing faith. What we
trust we praise; the form of our faith is detectible in our praises. Some
praises are authoritative because they genuinely “author” us, genuine-
ly open up communication with the one life giver, so keeping us alive.
Doxology is ordered vertically as coming from and returning to God,
and given shape, horizontally, by its emplacement in the praises of the
saints carried in the various scriptural texts and narratives.
3) These two opening points betray not only a comfort with, but an in-
sistence that theology and ethics admit their location “in the middle”
of God’s creation and salvation of the world. God must break in on
humans to make us aware of his presence and care amidst the counter-
vailing tendencies that characterize our fallen psyches and the social
formations within which they are wholly embedded. Sanctification is
thus, irreducibly, a process of unlearning and displacement of what
we think we know by what comes to us, by that which we cannot yet
perceive or comprehend.
4) The foregoing also explains why Luther is wholly comfortable with
the admission that we (Christians) do not yet know scripture. Once I
learned the order of the biblical books, and I thought I knew scripture.
But then I learned the content of the books, and realized that only then
did I know scripture. Yet later I learned the biblical languages and real-
ized, by learning more, how little I had previously understood.24 We are
always tempted to think we know once we have grasped the theologies
of the biblical books or their ethical content, grasped the appropriate
hermeneutic method, and so on, ad infinitum. But if Christian theolo-
gy can do no more than attend to the letter of scripture rather than ar-
bitrarily putting aside this attention on the grounds that we now know
it, it is left with a never-ending movement into scripture. Christian
24 I am indebted to Don Wood for his invariably insightful comments on a draft of this pa-
per. He raised a point that is germane to our discussion here when asking (by e-mail), “I
recognize this, though I can’t recall the source precisely. Does it need a reference?” Did
the biblical writers ask themselves this question? As a modern author I am certain that
I did not directly plagiarize these lines, not least because I have revised them and am
generally conscientious about citing my direct quotations. But they do sound familiar
now that Don points them out. The fact seems to be that these lines inhabit me, which
the psalmists, for example, would have expected of a people steeped in scripture and
theology. I will, in any case, claim these as my own words, whether the saints speak these
words through me or not.
328 Brock
faith can never transcend the patient “chewing” meditation demands

and which is constitutive of human blessedness (Ps.1: 1). The human
condition is one of continual temptation to claim arrival, to seek to
rest in a reading that is so complete that reading can cease. But being
comfortable with being perpetually “in the middle” of both life and
scriptural meditation can only continue in the ongoing and sustaining
presence of the community of worship by the work of God.
5) When Christians lose this sense of being embedded in the faith of the
community of praise, the Spirit-sustained body of Christ, they inevi-
tably clutch for alternative mechanisms for generating certainty and
stability. This clutching becomes visible when attending to the shifting
inflections of praise. There is a symbiosis between a church enamored
with method, the loss of confidence in the power of the Spirit and
the methodological deism that results. This is to emphasize the im-
portance of the creedal claim that there is a “pneumatological context
for human living”. Formed activities of listening to scripture, praying,
communal praise and so on are exposed as basic forums in which hu-
man life is given a form that befits it, that enlivens it.
6) There is a symmetrical relationship between the irreducibility of the
text of scripture and the irreducibility of the persons who make up
the communion of saints. Every generation of Christians must read
scripture with the saints because our sanctification is found in joining
them, in being made one with them. Because the Christian ethos is
fundamentally doxological, it is irreducibly political. Individual praise
is only knowable as real praise as it harmonizes with the body of Christ.
The sympathy towards the saints that this account engenders is funda-
mentally at odds with the academic culture in which success is won
through criticism. It is vital that contemporary theologians, especially
theological students, become aware of the ways they are being cut off
from the body of Christ by the habits of disdain, objectification and
debunking that come so easily in the academy and offer such glittering
short term gains.
7) This last observation about the influence of academic culture on theo-
logical habits is an example of how such a theology places prime im-
portance on the heightening of sensitivity to the denuding “schemata
of this age” (Rom. 12: 2), which Luther strongly links with a definition
of salvation that comes by way of the divine overcoming of such sche-
mas. Scripture and the communio sactorum are understood as God’s
chosen modalities serving this overcoming, a wholly divine act hu-
mans can either embrace or reject. As scripture must remain outside
us, truly other in order to preserve the space for the Spirit to liberate
it from our self-justifying projections, so too must the saints’ exege-
sis stand against us in all its glorious depth and bewildering contra-
dictions. To allow them to do so is to conceive biblical commentary
as closer to midrash. To immerse ourselves willingly in this turbulent
but unified stream is a venture of reliance on the illuminating power
of the Spirit can only be called a dramatic and eschatological meta-
morphosis sustained only by their hope in the advent of divine mercy
and salvation. Romans 12: 1–5 suggests that our practical and theo-
retical knowledge are inextricably intertwined, and therefore that our
attempt to keep them separated can only yield resistance to the refor-
mulation of the schemas that simultaneously entangle our lived life
and thoughts.
8) We can summarize this approach by calling faith an “exploration of
the Torah,” a designation superior to all bifurcated accounts of theolo-
gy and ethics, or ethics and exegesis. The Christian church is here con-
ceived as a conversation between contemporaries gathered around
and anchored to God by this text, these words, with their tangible and
concrete materiality. This surface, in its sheer givenness, opens the
space in which God has chosen to gather a church. It is the anchoring
mode of God’s presence as he has chosen to offer it to us. Scripture
can be loved and inhabited because it can be touched and “eaten”. It
invites us into itself. In so doing it opens our eyes to our embedding in
God’s works, works that encompass not only us but the whole cosmos,
evoking concrete worship and love. If the Torah is God’s revelation of
himself and all his works, we can never encompass or summarize it,
but can only be inside it, to be exploring it with all our beings amidst
the wonderful variety of creatures in God’s creation.
9) It is therefore in scripture, and in scripture alone that the communion
of saints discovers itself as a little band in a vast universe of words,
each of which indicates God’s ways of being with humans. In this uni-
verse biblical exegesis is the discussion about the way forward togeth-
er. That discussion is defined by waiting for God to reveal how we can
advance without breaking communion even when we disagree or are
confused amongst ourselves. Christian ethics is concerned with indi-
cating how humans can learn to trust the words of scripture as has this
city, this people, and so to be made one with them, Christ’s body. This
account continually presses Christians to consider the “we” to whom
their reading is beholden. If the saints living and dead do not need to
be “recalled” or “reconstructed” from the traces they have left behind
330 Brock
in texts but “listened to”, then the “we” that they represent will come
to overshadow the “we” of the various other communities to which we
belong, such as the nation state. In short, human beings live their lives
in the company of and looking for the approval of other persons. The
theologically and morally crucial question, then is “which people”? If
we are Christians, it is the church, the city of God, the saints living
and dead who constitute our “we”. Such affirmations are constitutive
of being part of a tradition (passed down between persons) but more
importantly, to be part of this tradition, in which the saints are the
body of Christ.
4 Sola Scriptura and the Plain Sense of Scripture
I would like to draw these points together with a concluding discussion that
I hope will concretize them. My suggestion is that the idea of sola scriptura
might best be understood as an attempt to plumb the depths of the literal
sense of scripture. Yet another highly contested term, the notion of the “literal
sense” points to an often overlooked point of great significance for our under-
standing of the task and reality of Christian interpretation of scripture: the in-
escapable moral dimensions of our reading strategies. Ignoring this dimension
imperils all exegetical efforts. This must be so because when reading scripture
we assume that our shared participation in the communio sanctorum is a truth-
ful description of our relation to the texts/authors we engage within it. But pre-
cisely this acknowledgement raises the question of how we treat the authors
we engage, in a morally qualified sense. Does sticking to predetermined rules
of interpretation (as we usually define properly “scientific” or critical interpre-
tation) really ensure we do justice to an author or text? It matters a great deal
for our readings of scripture what sort of character we take its author(s) to be,
and what sort of interpersonal rapport we establish with him or her.
In our desire to “come to terms” with some text and “make sense” of it, how
often and easily do we employ interpretative accounts in which the authors of
scripture are forced to play the role a moody character prone to cringe-worthy
scientific, moral, or pedagogical errors? How aware are we of what we are do-
ing in making such ascriptions, and do we know how such moves affect our
relationship with the author? By returning again to the assumption inherent
in the belief in the communio sanctorum—that the biblical authors are guided
by the same Spirit that is to guide our interpretative efforts—we are reminded
that our relation to these writers must be grounded in love. We thus cannot
rest content with reading strategies that resolve or explain difficult passages at
the expense of generating a portrait of an author who is internally inconsistent

and whose faith is anything but trustworthy. The often-heard call for “charita-
ble interpretation” calls forth this much more demanding theocentric frame
of reference if it is to be meaningfully carried out. Without it we are prone
as modern readers to recapitulate the very sin that the Apostle Paul battles
against in readers like the Corinthians—by taking up an interpretative stance
that claims the freedom to characterize our author in such a way that, in effect,
we no longer think of ourselves as members of “the body of Christ, and each
one of you is a part of it” (1 Cor. 12: 27 cf. Rom. 12: 5).
Such an interpretative approach has moral significance, of course, only if we
understand authors not as dead bodies but as living voices. One crucial aspect
of the process of reading is the generation of an imagined authorial persona as
we read. While this imaginative fabrication is in itself inevitable, the important
point is to notice the high moral charge that attends it. As we are characteriz-
ing people in one way or another, we easily flatten them into two-dimensional
pictures which are useful as a rapid communicative shorthand, but which also
prevent others from getting to know them in their full and often surprising
roundedness. This observation about characterization forces the question:
What is a “plain sense” reading? Real people must be allowed to characterize
themselves. To take someone seriously is to listen closely to what that person
is really saying and doing, refusing to allow our stock overlay of what we have
heard that someone “is like” to substitute for a close listening to another’s own
self-articulation. In the same way, a preference for sticking to the plain sense
of scripture and growing alertness to the inescapable moral dimensions of
characterization are ways of resisting forces that so easily deafen us to the real
voices of others.
In 1 Corinthians, to take one example, Paul offers the church in that place
the counsel to attend to “Nothing beyond what is written” (4: 6). This sounds
very much like what is being emphasized with the term sola scriptura. The
foregoing has suggested, however, that the plain sense of scripture will rarely
appear on the surface of the page for “any good reader” since it only becomes
obvious to those willing to practice repentant reading. Such reading must be
prepared to submit to the text by relinquishing not only first impressions, but
also by curtailing speculation. To grasp the plain sense requires going beyond
the stance of self-justifying distancing to discover the ways in which we are
being chastened and purified by passing up interpretative avenues that attract
us or offer us an easy rendering of a passage. If we refuse to distance ourselves
from an author understood to be alive in the communion of the saints, a plain
sense reading instead assumes a qualified and reluctant distance from her-
meneutical method in order to resist its capacity to foster evasions. The fatal
332 Brock
temptation is to allow interpretations to be generated without demanding that

those interpretations be spiritually judged and reformed.
One of the besetting exegetical sins of our age is that no one (but funda-
mentalists) even seeks the sensus literalis any longer, because doing so is
perceived as merely reading what is “given” and is therefore presumed to be
fatally unsophisticated. The result has been the transformation of academic
biblical exegesis into a sort of methodological brothel, in which the exegetical
methods of the day compete for adherents by offering wild interpretations that
demonstrate their capacity to generate exciting “new” readings. Many sense
this problem today, though the most common response to the challenge is
to attempt to “fuse the horizons” associated with well-developed and widely
accepted, if seemingly incompatible hermeneutic approaches. But no such
fusion can address the problem that a plain sense reading addresses by starting
from the other end of the problem with this question: How are we to break
through all our interpretative grids? How are we to avoid entrapment within
the patterns of, say, a psychological or sociological interpretative grid, to take
two powerful examples that we so often encounter in the exposition of Paul’s
letters and highly redacted texts like Isaiah?
The plain sense is the deepest lineament of the text. But to read for this
sense is not to be confused with the assumption that the meaning lies behind
the words of the text. The plain sense is the literal sense. This is to resist the
conflation of the surface of the letter with the surface meaning as derived from
a specific exegetical method. On the contrary: the material surface of the letter
is the surface that resists initial readings and explanatory accounts of “what the
author really means” by claiming to be able to go “beyond” or “behind” the let-
ter. Rightly understood, the sensus literalis indicates a mode of reading that re-
sists this pulverization of the letter. Plain sense reading is thus a way of resist-
ing the flight into any form of sophistication that alienates us from the author
as the living spirit of the letter. Luther’s emphasis on the sensus literalis rests
on the Hebrew sensibility that “not one jot or tittle” will perish from scripture
(Matthew 5: 18 par.), combined with his affirmation of the eternal life of the
saints in Christ. The implication is that only the reader who is willing to strug-
gle with the letter will eventually understand the plain sense of scripture, that
is, actually hear the voice of the Spirit who animates it.
This is why struggling with the letter cannot be reduced to philological work
alone. Struggling with the letter means battling our own tendencies to escape
from the challenge a literal reading might imply for us. The letter is the sheer
given that emerges or remains only when we read against the pronouncements
of our own instinctive or inherited reading strategies, the lesson first learned
by Luther the medieval monk in the oratory. The literal meaning is not on the
surface of the letter any more than a conversation with a person is reducible to
a transcript of the words our interlocutor speaks. Paul remains, as 1 Corinthi-
ans chapter 13 will put it, the Apostle who is “hoping all things” for us, and is
still being made the Apostle in making us the church. For these reasons, we do
well to expect coming to terms with the literal sense to take a long time, and
to be characterized by much thinking and repentance, both individually and
collectively.
Bibliography
Bayer, Oswald. Martin Luther’s Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation, trans. Thomas

Trapp. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Bayer, Oswald. “Luther as an Interpreter of Holy Scripture,” in The Cambridge Com-
panion to Luther, ed. Donald McKim. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Luther, Martin. “Chapter Three,” in Luther’s Works, Vol. 25, Lectures on Romans, Glosses
and Scholia, ed. Hinton Oswald. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1972.
Luther, Martin. Lectures on Genesis, vol 2, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan. St. Louis: Concordia,
1960.
Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works, Vol. 14, Selected Psalms III, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan. Saint
Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1958.
Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works, Vol. 16, Lectures on Isaiah, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan. Saint
Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1969.
Luther, Martin. “Psalm 101,” in Luther’s Works, Vol. 13, Selected Psalms II, ed. Jaroslav Pe-
likan, trans. Alfred von Rohr Sauer. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1956.
Luther, Martin. “Psalm Fifty Nine,” in Luther’s Works, Vol. 10, First Lectures on the Psalms
I, ed. Hinton C. Oswald. St. Louis: Concordia, 1974.
Luther, Martin. “Psalms 1 and 2 from Works on the First Twenty-two Psalms, 1519 to 1521:
A Composite Translation,” in Luther’s Works, Vol. 14, Selected Psalms III, ed. Jaroslav
Pelikan. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1958.
Luther, Martin. “Treatise on Good Works, 1520,” in Luther’s Works, Vol. 44, The Christian
in Society I, ed. James Atkinson, trans. W. A. Lambert. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1966.
Luther, Martin. “Treatise on the Last Words of David,” in Luther’s Works, vol. 15: Notes on
Ecclesiastes, Lectures on the Song of Solomon, Treatise on The Last Words of David, ed.
Jaroslav Pelikan. Saint Louis: Concordia, 1972.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. Luther’s Works: Companion Volume: Luther the Expositor: Introduction
to the Reformer’s Exegetical Writings. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959.
Serres, Michael. The Five Senses: A Philosophy of Mingled Bodies, trans. Margaret Sankey
and Peter Cowley. London: Continuum, 2008.
334 Brock
Spinoza, Benedict de. Theological-Political Treatise, trans. and ed. Johnathan Israel.
Wannenwetsch, Bernd. “Conversing with the Saints as they Converse with Scripture:
In Conversation with Brian Brock’s Singing the Ethos of God,” European Journal of
Theology, 18: 2 (2009): 125–136.
Wannenwetsch, Bernd. “‘Members of One Another’: Charis, Ministry and Represen-
tation: A Politico-Ecclesial Reading of Romans 12,” in A Royal Priesthood? The Use
of the Bible Ethically and Politically: A Dialogue with Oliver O’Donovan, eds. Craig
Bartholomew, Jonathan Chaplin, Robert Song, and Al Wolters. Carlisle: Paternoster
Press, 2002.
chapter 18
Sola Scriptura Means Scripture First! A “Mere

Protestant” Dogmatic Account (and Response)
Kevin J. Vanhoozer
1 Introduction: Being “Biblical”: What It Means and Why It Matters
It is my honor and pleasure to participate in this interdisciplinary dialogue

about the nature and significance of sola Scriptura in the Reformed church on
the eve of the 500th anniversary of the reformation. In light of my surname,
people often assume my family must have come from Holland. Of course, a
native is quick to spot the corrupt spelling of my name, and thus my weak
claim to be Dutch. I nevertheless detect a kinship with my fellow-authors that
goes deeper than culture or genealogy: we belong to a church that recognizes
herself to be “a creature of the Word.”
The editors have asked me to lay out my own position in dialogue with the
eight essays I read. Instead of responding to each of them in sequence, I will
integrate my comments into a more systematic presentation. Let me begin,
however, by saying how much I benefited from these essays, both as goads to
come up with a better account of sola scriptura and as guidelines for doing so.
Though I interact most often with the systematic theologians, I found some-
thing of value in each of the contributions of the biblical scholars as well. After
all, the persistently pressing question I ask myself as a Christian theologian is:
what does it mean to be biblical?
It is not enough to have a high view of Scripture; one must also know how
rightly to interpret and use the Bible in order to develop doctrine and make
disciples. My claim will be that sola scriptura names both a theory and a prac-
tice and, as such, serves as a shorthand answer to my life question: what does it
mean to be biblical? I shall further claim that being biblical is not an idolatrous
alternative to following Christ but rather a mark of genuine discipleship.
1.1 Problems with Sola Scriptura

My first impression upon reading the four essays by the systematic theologians
was that sola scriptura has acquired a host of negative connotations: Witten-
berg, we have a problem! The dire straits of sola scriptura are reflected in three
of the titles, which speak of being contra sola scriptura, regret the problematic

336 Vanhoozer
character of sola scriptura, and question its usefulness, respectively. I share the
concerns raised, but in my view they are only flesh wounds, not mortal weak-
nesses—unless they are left untreated.
Here is my summary of the six problems that any future account of sola
scriptura must address if it is not to be irresponsible. Much of the remainder of
my essay responds directly or indirectly to these issues.
“It is Misleading”
Henk van den Belt argues that sola scriptura fails adequately to express the
orthodox Protestant view of biblical authority. In particular, sola (“alone”)
misleadingly ignores the role of tradition, the church, general revelation, and
the illumination of the Spirit in biblical interpretation. Other authors note the
need for a consensual and conceptually precise definition of the phrase.
“It is Modern”
Hans Burger worries about modern philosophy’s preoccupation with episte-
mological foundationalism co-opting sola scriptura. The modern tendency
(and temptation) is to use the Bible as an epistemic criterion for distinguish-
ing true from false beliefs, a use that takes Scripture out of its proper context:
making wise to salvation and cultivating godliness.1 On this view, sola scrip-
tura makes what should be a house of prayer into a den of epistemologists.
Even Arnold Huijgen, the most explicit defender of the traditional view in the
present volume, worries that some today use Scripture as an epistemic stan-
dard, a slide-rule for determining truth, a merely formal principle that can be
disconnected from the theological subject matter of which it speaks.
“It is Methodologically Simplistic and Obscurantist”

Maarten Wisse’s essay raises the most problems with sola scriptura, or at least
the way it is commonly used. He believes that sola scriptura covers a multitude
of methodological sins—in a bad way, as in covering up. Pretending to be bib-
lically wise, theologians who appeal to sola scriptura become forgers of God’s
signature, smuggling in other criteria under the pretense of being biblical.
Wisse’s concern is that easy appeals to sola scriptura keep one’s prejudices and
presuppositions hidden, as in “no creed but the Bible.” He wants theologians to
make explicit, and take responsibility for the judgments they make as to why
they appeal to certain texts in such and such a way for particular purposes.
1 William Abraham raises a similar concern in his Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology:
From the Fathers to Feminism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).
Sola scriptura means Scripture first 337
“It is Dangerous”
Conversely, some theologians use sola scriptura as a Trojan horse to smuggle
in their own ideological agendas. Wisse cites Spinoza’s sobering observation:
“the chief concern of theologians on the whole has been to extort from Holy
Scripture their own arbitrarily invented ideas, for which they claim divine
authority.” This is indeed dangerous, even idolatrous to the extent that it “ex-
changes the truth of God for a lie” (Rom. 1: 25). Kathleen Boone argues that
fundamentalists in particular are prone to this to the extent that they conflate
“the Bible says” with their own interpretations.2 In my experience, this danger
is real—and not for fundamentalists only.
“It is Self-Defeating”
Huijgen mentions Brad Gregory’s argument that sola scriptura unleashed
interpretive anarchy upon the world. The conflict of interpretations that fol-
lowed the Reformation required regulating, first, by political authorities (i.e.,
nation-states), and then, after these states were exhausted by the wars of reli-
gion, by sola ratio. Of course, postmodern critics have shown reason itself to
be contaminated by language, tradition, and culture, leading Gregory to lay
responsibility for the hyperpluralism in Western society today at the doorstep
of sola scriptura.3 The interaction of Luther’s twin principles, sola scriptura
and the priesthood of all believers, produce what we might call the second law
of “hermodynamics”, which we might formulate as follows: the hermeneuti-
cal entropy (interpretive disorder) of a theological system increases through
interaction with other systems.4 As one Roman Catholic thinker puts it: “No
honest religious historian can deny that the result of sola scriptura has been
doctrinal chaos.”5
“It Detracts from Christ”

Huijgen, Wisse, and Burger all raise in one way or another the specter of sola
scriptura functioning as an epistemic criterion in abstraction from—or worse,
as a rival to—solus Christus. No one can serve two solas (cf. Matt. 6: 24). The
2 Kathleen C. Boone, The Bible Tells Them So: The Discourse of Protestant Fundamentalism
(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989).
3 Brad S. Gregory, The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society
(Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2012).
4 See further Alistair McGrath, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution—A His-
tory from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First (New York: HarperOne, 2007).
5 Devin Rose, The Protestant’s Dilemma: How the Reformation’s Shocking Consequences Point to
the Truth of Catholicism (San Diego: Catholic Answers Press, 2014), 87.
338 Vanhoozer
concern is a real one: to what extent is Scripture meant to function as an au-

thority apart from Christ? Does the Bible, considered as an isolated text, even
have meaning apart from Christ, much less authority?
1.2 Prospects of Sola Scriptura

In spite of these formidable problems, I remain positive about the prospects
of sola scriptura in present and future Reformed theology. To be sure, in and of
itself—alone!—sola scriptura is no panacea to the interpretive ills that ail the
church. Sola scriptura is shorthand for a principle of biblical authority, but the
principle is not alone, for it is accompanied by a practice. Better: sola scriptura
is shorthand for a practice of theological authority in a particular interpretive
community: the “mere Protestant” church.6 Furthermore, the practice of sola
scriptura makes sense only in the context of a broader pattern of authority.
Sola scriptura ultimately comes into its own when we understand its
place in what we may call the economy of theological authority, which I will
explain further below. Suffice it to say that the prospects of sola scriptura
shine b rightest when we remember its proper dogmatic location in the triune
economy of communication. I therefore second Huijgen’s motion that sola
scriptura “needs a Trinitarian mode of understanding instead of a philosophical
one.” To mention the economy is to invoke the whole plan of revelation and
redemption that unfolds in the history of Israel and culminates in the event of
Jesus Christ. This is vital. Sola scriptura is not simply a formal principle that the
Reformers invented to resolve interpretive disputes; rather, Scripture is part
and parcel of the gospel message, one of the mighty acts of God, a set-apart
means that the triune God employs to communicate his light and life.
The gospel Paul delivered to the Corinthians was of “first importance.” What
matters is not only that Jesus died for our sins and was raised by God on the
third day, but also that Jesus died for our sins and was raised on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15: 3, 4). What is of first importance
is what accords with Scripture. In a word: Scripture first! Sola scriptura means
that Scripture is “first and foremost”—most prominent; preeminent (and here
I resonate with Van den Belt’s suggested alternative prima scriptura) when it
comes to communicating the God of the gospel and the gospel of God.
6 By “mere Protestant” I am referring to a catholic Protestantism that agrees about the solas
before disagreeing over the secondary doctrinal issues that distinguish particular denomi-
nations. For a book-length response to the afore-mentioned problems, and a fuller account
of mere Protestant theology, see my Biblical Authority after Babel: Retrieving the Solas in the
Spirit of Mere Protestant Christianity (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2016).
2 Sola Scriptura and Historical Theology: Exclusion or Exclamation?
The Reformation was Protestantism’s defining moment. However, as Van den

Belt points out, the triad of solas (sola fide, sola gratia, sola Scriptura) is of more
recent vintage. Moreover, the Reformers themselves did not explicitly define
sola scriptura. Yet, if meaning is a function of use, there is good reason to think
that we can work out what the Reformers believed about biblical authority.
2.1 The Definition

A picture of interpreting alone—of an individual reading the Bible for himself,
without consulting any other authority—holds us captive. After all, isn’t that
what the phrase means: Scripture alone? What is striking about this caricature
of sola scriptura is its hyper-literalism. The words sola scriptura, literalistically
interpreted, may indeed give rise to the thought that the Bible is the only au-
thority for theology, but this is not the literal meaning of the phrase. The literal
meaning is a function of what its authors meant by the phrase, and this in turn
is a function of how they used it. To interpret sola scriptura as meaning “Scrip-
ture is the only authority a theologian may consult” is to rip the phrase out of
its original context.
As Huijgen rightly observes, the Reformers never intended sola scriptura to
exclude the use of secondary sources altogether. Sola-ism is solipsism, though
fallible, no matter how closely the terms resemble one another. If there is an
exclusionary aspect to sola scriptura, it pertains only to what is first and fore-
most as concerns authority (there can be only one “first”!). However, to say that
Scripture alone is the supreme authority opens the possibility that there are
other, lesser authorities. In Huijgen’s words: “Stated positively, sola scriptura is
meant as a statement that the scriptures are the final, not the sole, authority.”
Matthew Barrett’s definition is similar: “Sola Scriptura means that only Scrip-
ture, because it is God’s inspired Word, is our inerrant, sufficient, and final author-
ity for the church.”7
2.2 The Context

Insofar as the occasion for the Reformation solas were certain egregious errors
in late medieval theology, the solas were necessarily exclusionary, for they con-
tradicted false teaching. The solas did not exclude the significance of human
works or human traditions per se, just their excesses. For example, sola gratia
7 Matthew Barrett, God’s Word Alone: The Authority of Scripture. What the Reformers Taught
and Why It Still Matters (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016), 10 (emphasis his).
340 Vanhoozer
and sola fide do not exclude the importance of human obedience; they rather
deny the meritorious nature of good works. To put works before grace is to
misconstrue the order of salvation. Similarly, sola scriptura does not exclude
church tradition as a theological resource; rather, it seeks to put such tradition
in its rightful place.
Both Huijgen and Van den Belt rightly emphasize the importance of keeping
the solas together, and hence the irony of treating sola scriptura alone. To
mention sola gratia and sola fide raises the question: why are there so many
“alones”? Graeme Goldsworthy thinks that each preserves an essential aspect
of gospel truth and that, taken together, they have their organic unity in the
triune God.8 This, at least, is my working hypothesis: the solas are not isolated
doctrines but integrated insights into the ontology, epistemology, and teleology
of the gospel, itself an account of the economy of redemption, namely, the
joint work of Father, Son, and Spirit in communicating their light and life to the
world in love. The need to correct excesses may have been the occasion for
the solas, but they are essentially positive insights: exclamations that celebrate
the presuppositions, implications, and entailments of God’s gospel.
2.3 The Function

As I will argue below, tradition has a legitimate place in the pattern of theolog-
ical authority. It is therefore incumbent upon Reformed theologians to combat
the misleading picture of sola scriptura as necessarily excluding tradition and,
by extension, the church and the Holy Spirit.
Luther’s appeal to sola scriptura occurs in the context of arbitrating the
conflict of theological interpretations: “by whose judgment is the question set-
tled if the statements of the fathers are in conflict with one another? Scripture
ought to deliver this judgment.”9 This is the context in which to understand
Luther’s affirmation solam scripturam regnare: “Scripture alone to rule.”10 Or, as
someone else has translated it: “Scripture alone … the true over-lord and mas-
ter of all writings and doctrines on earth.”11 Scripture is alone in its magisterial
authority.
8 Graeme Goldsworthy, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evan-

gelical Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 46, 50.
9 “Assertio omnium articulorum M. Lutheri per mullam Leonis X,” in D. Martin Luthers
Werke, WA 7 (Weimar: Herman Bohlaus und Nachfolger, 1897, 97).
10 Ibid., 98–99.
11 Works of Martin Luther—In Defense of all the Articles of Dr. Martin Luther Condemned in
the Roman Bull Jesus.
Luther also describes Scripture as its own interpreter: sui ipsius interpres.
When accused of interpreting Scripture according to his own ideological agen-
da or “private spirit” [proprio spiritu], he insisted that his only agenda was to
interpret Scripture by its own spirit [suo spiritu]. Contra the common opinion,
then, the Reformation was not a charter for individuals to do what is herme-
neutically right in their own eyes only. The priesthood of all believers was not
a license for epistemic egoism as much as a mandate for epistemic conscien-
tiousness, that is, for acknowledging that other Christian believers have “the
same natural desire for truth and the same general powers and capacities that
I have.”12
At the same time, the Reformers realized that not all interpreters or
interpretive communities are created equal. In particular, they distinguished
between communities that nurture a primary trust in their own authorized in-
terpreters (e.g., the Roman Catholic magisterium; Enthusiasts) and those who
nurture a primary trust in Scripture as its own best interpreter (and the Spirit’s
ability to mortify one’s interpretive will to power). Sola scriptura is a warning
to the former (interpretive communities can err) and an encouragement to
the latter (interpretive communities can pass on the truth when illumined by
the Holy Spirit to understand Scripture). The Reformers, then, were far from
despising church tradition. Indeed, they regularly appealed to the Church
Fathers as secondary authorities because they acknowledge the fathers as faith-
ful, though fallible, expositors of Scripture.13
3 Sola Scriptura and Systematic Theology: The Economy of

Divine Communication
We have now briefly surveyed the contemporary objections to sola scriptura as

well the reasons the Reformers had for emphasizing it in their own historical
context. I claimed that what began as a necessary corrective—an exclusionary
gesture—is at root a positive exclamation: “the word of the Lord!” However,
we need to inquire further into the Bible’s status as the word of God if we are
to avoid treating it as a theological talisman: an inspired object whose power
and authority individuals can wield to further their own ideological ends. In
particular, we need to make sure that we do not isolate sola scriptura from its
12 Linda Trinkhaus Zagzebski, Epistemic Authority: A Theory of Trust, Authority, and Autono-
my in Belief (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 55.
13 See further Esther Chung-Kim, Inventing Authority: The Use of the Church Fathers in Refor-
mation Debates over the Eucharist (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2011).
342 Vanhoozer
place in the economies of revelation and redemption, thereby turning it into a

merely formal mechanism for validating truth claims, as if it were a theological
times-tables chart. This is not what Luke meant by “the word of God increased
and multiplied” (Acts 12: 24)!
The word of God did “increase and multiply” in the sense that it accom-
plished the purpose for which it was sent (Isa. 55: 10–11). The question,
however, concerns the purpose of this sending. We understand the concept
of a mission statement, but what exactly is the “mission” of God’s word: on
what kind of mission are the Bible’s statements and other forms of discourse
sent? The answer, I submit, is that Scripture alone constitutes God’s authorized
self-presentation in human words. For mere Protestants, the proper dogmatic
location of the doctrine of Scripture is in the triune God’s economy of self-
communication and communicative action oriented to communion: a fellow-
ship of the reconciled. It follows that we must not separate Scripture’s formal
authority from its material covenantal purpose.14 Stated differently: sola scrip-
tura properly belongs in the broader context of God’s covenantal initiative
(sola gratia) and human covenantal response (sola fide).
3.1 A Unique Authority

Authority is rightful say-so, the power to commend belief and command obe-
dience. Who has more right to say-so over a certain domain than the author of
that domain? Divine authority derives from divine authorship (i.e., creation):
“For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been in-
stituted by God” (Rom. 13: 1). The question is whether God has expressed his
authority and, if so, where. Sola scriptura is the answer to the question con-
cerning the locus of divine authority.
The authority principle in Christianity is the triune God in verbal communi-
cative action, using human words to say and do things with determinate con-
tent and force. For example, God’s promise to Israel via Moses is neither vague
nor idle, but specific and sure: “I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt
to the land of the Canaanites” (Ex. 3: 8). What bears authority is the voice of
God communicating the word of God to the people of God. Note that authority
must be verbally expressed—said—because, apart from meaningful content,
there is nothing else that holds persons accountable. To the extent that Scrip-
ture’s meaning is unclear, its authority is short-circuited: the bugle that gives
an indistinct sound cannot summon soldiers to battle (1 Cor. 14: 8). Scripture
14 See further John Webster, Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 2003), 11–35.
is filled with instances of God speaking to people either directly, as from the
burning bush, or indirectly, via the prophets. Indeed, that God speaks human
words to human creatures, and that there is an authoritative word of the Lord
to as the church’s supreme authority, is a central and conspicuous theme in
Scripture from Genesis onwards: “Speaking is not incidental to God, as if it
were simply one more thing he happens to do. It is central to who he is, what
he does, and how he relates to his creation.”15
In addition to God speaking, there are also intriguing indications that God
cares about preserving his word in writing. In this regard, I appreciated Arie
Versluis’s careful examination of the canon formulas in Deuteronomy, name-
ly, the injunction against adding to or taking away from the words God gave
Israel (Deut. 4: 2). Versluis approaches the formula cautiously, noting that it
neither refers to a particular text nor appears at the end of the book, as is the
case in similar Ancient Near Eastern texts. Nevertheless, it was fascinating to
learn about Deuteronomy’s fixation on writing. The Torah is to be written on
doorposts and on the heart. Israel’s kings are to write out copies of the Torah
and read them in order to learn the fear of the Lord (Deut. 17: 18–20). And, as
Versluis comments, one of the very few things that happen in Deuteronomy is
that yhwh writes (Deut. 4: 13, 5: 22; 9: 10; 10: 4) and “Moses writes” (see Deut.
31: 9, 19).
A text, says Paul Ricoeur, is “a discourse fixed by writing.”16 Discourse is some-
thing someone says about something in some way for some purpose. What
God inspires is neither persons nor ideas, but human discourse. The words of
the Bible are not divine, but the discourse is, and it is fixed in writing (2 Tim.
3: 16). What Scripture says, God says. Triune authorship does not suppress but
sanctifies the human discourse, making it a fit vehicle for the communicative
activity of God. Deuteronomy helps us to see how not only the law, but all
the prophets and writings, including the Gospel and the New Testament epis-
tles, are ultimately instances of divine discourse: something God says about
his purposes for his people. For among the many things God does with words
(e.g., commanding, calling, instructing, etc.), perhaps the most prominent in
Deuteronomy is covenanting: making unconditional promises and soliciting
heartfelt obedience, all for the sake of communion (“Listen to my voice, and
15 Peter H. Nafzger, “These Are Written”: Toward a Cruciform Theology of Scripture (Eugene,
OR: Pickwick, 2013), 67. For more on God as a communicative agent, see my Remytholo-
gizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion, and Authorship (Cambridge: Cambridge Universi-
ty Press, 2010).
16 Paul Ricoeur, Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences: Essays on Language, Action, and In-
terpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 146.
344 Vanhoozer
do all that I command you. So shall you be my people, and I will be your God”;
Jer. 11: 4).
A covenant is a relationship established by an oath-bound commitment.17
There can be no covenanting without communicative action: speech. Yes, God
uses other things, like rainbows, to signify his covenant, but these signs must
be accompanied by divine words for the covenant to have meaningful content
and hence binding authority. Deuteronomy depicts God fixing his discourse
by writing words on stone (the tables of the Law to be deposited in the ark of
the covenant) and by making provision for Moses’ Torah to be preserved and
read on a regular basis so that Israel will learn to fear yhwh (Deut. 31: 10–13).
Versluis’s comment is apt: “The preservation beside the ark confirms both
the proximity and the distinction between the words of yhwh and of Moses.”
What we learn from Deuteronomy, then, bears on sola scriptura in at least two
respects: first, we learn that there is a set apart (i.e., holy) set of writings au-
thorized by God; second, we learn that the purpose of these set-apart writ-
ings—seminal scripture—is to establish and administer covenant relations
between God and his people. Versluis judiciously concludes his examination
of the evidence by suggesting that Deuteronomy displays “a tendency toward
canonization.”18
The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381) identifies the Holy Spirit as the
ultimate author of the canon, the one qui locutus est per prophetas (“who spoke
through the prophets”). The example of Deuteronomy reminds us, however,
that divine inspiration ought not to be isolated from the broader context of
God’s communicative action. Yes, God can “throw his voice” as it were, but in-
spiration is not a celestial parlor trick. Rather, inspiration serves a covenantal
purpose. So do all of the Bible’s other perfections (e.g., clarity, sufficiency, in-
fallibility): “[E]ach of the perfections of Scripture needs viewing through the
prism of the divine purpose: namely, God binding himself to his people by way
of covenant in Christ through his Spirit.”19
The dogmatic location of sola scriptura in the economy of triune communi-
cative action reminds us that the perfections of Scripture are not mere formal
17 So George Hugenberger: “A covenant … is an elected, as opposed to natural relationship

of obligation under oath” (Marriage as a Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Gov-
erning Marriage Developed from the Perspective of Malachi [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994], 11).
18 For an argument that Deuteronomy, and the Bible in general, is a covenantal document
bearing formal similarities to Hittite suzerainty treaties, see Meredith G. Kline, The Struc-
ture of Biblical Authority, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972).
19 Graham Cole, “Sola Scriptura: Some Historical and Contemporary Perspectives,” Church-
man 104.1 (1990): 31.
properties but characteristics of the text as ingredient in God’s communicative

activity oriented to covenantal communion. Here, in condensed form, is my
attempt to say what is unique about the Bible’s authority: Scripture alone is
holy, set apart as the church’s supreme authority, because God, its ultimate au-
thor, commissions just these texts to serve in the triune economy of covenantal
communication. Scripture is the medium whereby the triune Lord commu-
nicates his light (i.e., revelation, knowledge, truth) and life (i.e., redemption,
fellowship, salvation). The Father initiates, the Son effectuates, and the Spirit
consummates the discourse that holy scripture preserves in writing. Scripture
is a chosen means of God’s self-presentation, a collection of diverse forms of
discourse that, taken together, establish and administer the covenant of grace.
The human writings that make up Scripture are essential ingredients in the
ministry of God’s word, the means by which the risen Christ announces the
gospel, administers his new creational kingdom, and imparts his light and life
to readers made right-minded and right-hearted—fit for communion with
God—through the illumination of the Holy Spirit.
3.2 A Truthful Authority

How does this construal of Scripture as triune covenantal discourse bear on
the concern that sola scriptura turns the Bible into an autonomous epistemo-
logical foundation? What, if anything, does covenantal discourse oriented to
communion have to do with truth? Does sola scriptura indeed oblige us to use
the canon as an epistemic criterion rather than as an aid in learning the fear of
God? Must we, like Israel before crossing into the Promised Land, choose this
day whom we will serve: epistemology or soteriology?
Here we may recall Burger’s criticism of the “foundational model” of sola
scriptura. Burger worries that the Reformed doctrine of Scripture shows t races
of the modern “epistemological quest for a priori absolute certainty.” The
concern is that those who view the Bible as a textbook of propositional truth
would be tempted to “prove” things by citing chapter and verse rather than
appreciating, and participating in, the broader economy of redemption that
those c hapters and verses serve. Burger is right to raise the alarm: it is possible
so to focus on the supernaturally revealed textual propositions that one forgets
that their purpose is to instill the fear of the Lord in the reader. This would be a
classic case of peering at oneself in the mirror of Scripture but then going away
and forgetting what one was like (James 1: 23–24). Or, to change the metaphor:
viewing biblical authority only in terms of propositional truth encourages a
kind of tone deafness to the music of the economy. One cannot abstract the
notes (verses, truths) from the overarching redemptive-history without losing
the theological melody and harmony—the musical subject matter, as it were.
346 Vanhoozer
At this point, Wisse plays against name-type (I believe wisse is ancient

Dutch for “certain”) and sounds a note of uncertainty: how can I be sure that
whatever hermeneutical framework I bring to the text, covenantal or not, is
actually biblical? After all, he reminds us, “It is a chosen frame of reference
and, because it is chosen, it is contingent.” In light of what he says about the
singularity of Jesus’ incarnation, I wonder if his point applies to Jesus’ frame
of reference too. The immediate point I wish to make, however, is that sola
scriptura does not stifle Wisse’s question but encourages it. Sola scriptura is a
standing challenge to the finality of any and all interpretations. Scripture alone
is authoritative, not our interpretation of it. I therefore tend to associate sola
scriptura not with modern foundationalism, but with critical realism. Scrip-
ture has meaning: what God said/did with human words (discourse) has been
fixed by writing. Accordingly, as a past communicative act, its meaning is really
there, independent of the interpreter’s language and thought.
Scripture is God’s word and it has determinate meaning, but it does not fol-
low that we therefore have God’s word, or its meaning, in our possession. Wisse
is right to distinguish between inspiration and incarnation, and to remind us
of the command not to confuse any bit of creation with the Creator, yet it need
not follow that Scripture is only a “flawed human witness.” God is able to take
flawed human beings, like Moses, sanctify them and their words (Ex. 4: 11–
12), and render them as fit vehicles of his “living and active” voice (Heb. 4: 12).
The salient point is that God has appointed Scripture to play a vital role in the
economies of revelation (communicating light) and redemption (communi-
cating life). Remembering this will help us avoid making Scripture “a static,
rationalizing norm divorced from personal acceptance of the living Christ and
from the active presence of Christ’s Spirit.”20
Sola scriptura presupposes canon consciousness, namely, the realization
that just these words have been elected to serve as the means by which the
triune God communicates his life and light in love. What is ultimately commu-
nicated is Jesus Christ, “full of grace and truth” (John 1: 14, 17). And, as Jesus
communicates the light of God in his person (John 8: 12), so his testimony and
that of his commissioned witnesses is similarly light-giving (John 8: 14; 21: 24;
Titus 1: 13; 3 John: 12). Sola scriptura implies the canon (the locus of divine
discourse), and the speaker of this discourse implies that the testimony is true.
This way of framing it puts an entirely different light on the question of canon
as an epistemic criterion. The truth of sola scriptura is a function of what we
20 Richard Muller, “The Foundation of Calvin’s Theology: Scripture as Revealing God’s

Word,” Duke Divinity School Review 44 no. 1 (1979): 21.
might call covenantal epistemology, where the characteristic gesture is not in-
tellectual assent but heartfelt trust in the truth of biblical testimony.
It is rational to believe in testimony, but this is not the rationality of the
modern foundationalist. For in the economy of communication, human sin-
ners cannot see the light of truth until the Spirit illumines them. According to
Alvin Plantinga, God has created humans with several belief-producing fac-
ulties, including perception, memory, and credulity (i.e., the tendency to be-
lieve something on testimony unless there is good reason not to). Plantinga’s
epistemology shows its distinctly Protestant colors, however, when he invokes
Calvin’s doctrine of the Spirit’s internal testimony, which involves the produc-
tion in human beings of the gift of faith in response to the hearing or reading
of God’s word.21 It is therefore possible to accord an epistemic role for Scripture
if one keeps in mind the broader economy of triune communication, and what
Scripture is primarily about: the redemptive history and covenant of grace that
culminate in Jesus Christ.
What of truth? Huijgen rightly cautions against buying into philosophical
theories of correspondence. We should examine Scripture itself to determine
the nature of truth, and we should do so with a Trinitarian framework. And we
should not be queasy when we speak of truth, for the Bible is not. Earlier we
mentioned Deuteronomy and the importance of set-apart writing. The book
of Revelation also has a canon formula that warns us from adding to or taking
away any of its words (Rev. 22: 18–19). We also hear the ascended Son say to
the author of Revelation: “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and
true” (Rev. 21: 5).
Scripture associates truth with what can be relied on. God’s word is true
because both God and what he says are wholly reliable. Scripture is the utter-
ly reliable personal word of the triune God. Everything God says—promises,
warnings, commands, and yes, statements—can be counted on to accomplish
the purpose for which they were spoken. Indeed, through the biblical narra-
tive God proves himself true by time and time again keeping his word. Truth
in Scripture is thus closely connected with God’s covenant faithfulness. Truth
according to Scripture is a covenantal correspondence, a faithful fit, between
God’s words and God’s deeds, between who God says he is and who he is. True
words communicate reality—what is, was, and will be—and they do so reli-
ably. Scripture is indeed a “light to my path” (Ps. 119: 105), but the light- and
life-giving capacity of Scripture is a function of its place in the economy of
communication.
21 See Alvin Plantinga, Knowledge and Christian Belief (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 48.
348 Vanhoozer
True words communicate what is. Jesus is the truth (John 14: 6), the true
Word that communicates what God is and the Word that fulfills God’s promise.
There is thus a covenantal correspondence between God’s word’s and God’s Word
made flesh. “Truth” is first and foremost a quality of a person before it is a prop-
erty of propositions. God’s word is reliable because of his emeth (covenantal
faithfulness) and hesed (steadfast love), an emeth and hesed realized in Christ
(“full of grace and truth”; John 1: 14; cf. Ex. 34: 6). As Jesus faithfully communi-
cates who and what God is, so Scripture is true and faithful testimony to who
Jesus is and what is “in Christ.” Sola scriptura means that Scripture is the su-
preme authority in all matters concerning God and the gospel, the identity of
Christ’s person and the significance of his work. To borrow Huijgen’s phrase:
Scripture is the “canon” of Christ, the rule that tells us what is in Christ, thus en-
abling us to distinguish true or false testimony, sound or unsound doctrine. So
Burger: Sola scriptura means that Scripture is sufficient to teach us about Christ.
3.3 A Supreme Authority

To describe Scripture as the final court of appeal leaves open the possibili-
ty that there are lower courts. For example, in the United States the highest
judicial authority is the Supreme Court, but there are also thirteen appellate
courts, ninety-four district courts, and many more municipal courts. We might
describe this structure as a economy of judicial authority. Something similar
pertains to Scripture’s role in what we call the economy of theological authority.
The risen Christ makes a stunning claim: “All authority in heaven and on
earth has been given to me” (Matt. 28: 18). There is no limit to the domain
of dominical authority. At first blush, Christ’s claim to exclusive and inclusive
authority seems to contradict what we have said about the supreme authority
of Scripture. Bernard Ramm states the problem: “The difficulties of a single
principle of authority (rather than a pattern of authority) appear clearly in
discussions of the authority of Jesus Christ. Frequently the authority of Christ
and the authority of the Scriptures are opposed.”22 The way forward, I submit, is
to view biblical authority not as an isolated principle but as an element in the
larger economy of authority. Again, the sola in sola scriptura means “only final
authority,” not “only source of authority.”
All authority has been given to Jesus Christ, yet Christ did not count divine
authority “a thing to be grasped” (Phil. 2: 6), but rather delegated his authority
to others. In particular, Jesus commissions the apostles not only to do the kinds
of things he characteristically did (Matt. 10) but also to preach (Mark 3: 14)
22 Bernard Ramm, The Pattern of Religious Authority (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 46.
and “proclaim the kingdom of God” (Luke 9: 2). Moreover, Jesus not only ap-
points but also anoints the apostles with the Holy Spirit, empowering them for
their authoritative office, namely, to be Jesus’ witnesses (Acts 1: 8). The apos-
tles are delegated authorities, commissioned witnesses of Jesus’ person and work,
inscribers of the meaning of the Christ event whose written discourse is part and
parcel of the triune economy of communicative action.
There is therefore an economy of authoritative testimony: God the Father
makes himself known in and through Christ; Christ makes himself known to the
apostles; the apostles make Christ known to the church. And what of the church
and Christian tradition: do these too have a place in the economy of theological
authority or does sola scriptura rule them out? It is precisely here that the wis-
dom of treating the solas together becomes apparent. For, properly understood,
“Scripture alone” does not mean “Scripture abstracted from the economy of
grace” or “Scripture apart from the community of faith” or even “Scripture inde-
pendent of church tradition.” Sola scriptura excludes rivals such as the teaching
office of the church and church tradition only when it comes to the role of
supreme (magisterial) authority. It does not eliminate other sources and resources
of theology altogether. The challenge is to locate sola scriptura rightly in the
broader pattern or economy as the primal and final, but not the sole, authority.
To speak of a pattern or economy of authority is to call attention to the way
in which the triune God employs various means to communicate his light
and life. Scripture cannot be “alone” if it is an ingredient in an economy of
authoritative communication. Yes, Scripture is the supreme authority—it is
both the cradle of Christ and the scepter by which the ascended Christ now
rules the church (Luther)—but it does not play this role independently of
the Holy Spirit or of the church’s tradition and teaching ministry. We there-
fore need an unabbreviated understanding of sola scriptura, in contrast to
abbreviated (and literalistic) versions that abstract the Bible from the broader
economy of authority.
Neither Luther nor Calvin advocated traditionless interpretation. It is vitally
important to distinguish sola from “solo” scriptura. The problem with individu-
als thinking that they can interpret the Bible by reading solo is not merely the
subsequent lack of checks and balances afforded by earlier interpreters but
also the neglect of the gifts the Spirit has provided, like tradition. In particular,
“solo” scriptura denies the importance of catholicity: “Scripture itself indicates
that the Scriptures are the possession of the Church and that the interpreta-
tion of the Scripture belongs to the Church as a whole, as a community.”23 Sola
23 Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2001), 245.
350 Vanhoozer
scriptura comes into its own only when God’s people read Scripture in God’s way
for God’s purpose. This purpose, I suggest, is to serve as the instrument by which
God rules his people, administers his covenant, and shapes the people into a
holy nation. The church—including her tradition and her teachers—plays an
ancillary role.
Sola scriptura functions properly only in the context of the whole church.
Therefore, what God has joined together—canonicity and catholicity—let no
one (especially theologians) put asunder. It is noteworthy that the Reformers
objected to the church magisterium of their day not because it used tradition
as a resource, but because it narrowed catholicity—to the institution housed
in Rome. “Roman” catholicity is, strictly speaking, a contradiction in terms. By
way of contrast, sola scriptura is perfectly compatible with what we could call
Reformed catholicity, by which I mean catholicity governed first and foremost
by canonicity.24 One important Protestant expression of catholicity was con-
ciliarism: the use of fully representative church councils to make theological
judgments about issues that threaten the integrity of the gospel and the unity
of the church.25
Sola scriptura is the practice of attending to the Spirit speaking in the Scrip-
tures and to those, equally attentive, who do the same. I mentioned previously
that Luther and Calvin were very interested in patristic tradition because, as
persons of epistemic conscientiousness, they realized that the fathers too were
motivated by their desire to get Scripture right. Those who wish to be biblical
do well to attend to those who have wrestled with the text before us, especially
when they reached consensus on fundamental truths, such as they did at Nica-
ea with regard to the Trinity. I like Herman Bavinck’s construal of tradition as
“the method by which the Holy Spirit causes the truth of Scripture to pass into
the consciousness and life of the church.”26
24 Michael Allen and Scott Swain have recently argued that the catholic church is the proper
context for interpreting Scripture and doing theology, and they claim to have retrieved
this idea from the Protestant Reformers themselves. They define tradition as “the church’s
stance of abiding in and with apostolic teaching through time”; Reformed Catholicity: The
Promise of Retrieval for Theology and Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Aca-
demic, 2015), 34.
25 John McNeill argues that conciliarism is the “constitutional principle” of what he calls “uni-
tive Protestantism,” his term for what I call “mere Protestant Christianity.” See John T. Mc-
Neill, Unitive Protestantism: The Ecumenical Spirit and its Persistent Expression (Richmond,
VA: John Knox Press, 1964), 89. For further discussion of the role of church councils and
tradition in the economy of authority, see my Biblical Authority after Babel, chap. 3.
26 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 1: 494.
It is a grievous mistake to think that sola scriptura entails nulla traditio

(no tradition or Tradition 0). While the biblical authors and Reformers right-
ly showed disregard for human traditions claiming magisterial authority, the
kind of tradition that interests me in the present context is fully part of the
economies of grace and faith: tradition as the postapostolic conversation about
the meaning and implications of apostolic discourse, a conversation that the
Spirit uses to guide the whole (“catholic”) church into all truth. Tradition too,
therefore, is an element in the economy of grace that, like the church, exists to
nurture the society of Jesus.
Tradition’s products—the Rule of Faith, creeds, and confessions—may be
viewed as sanctified instruments in the economy of grace, “true and proper
effects of [the Spirit’s] pedagogical grace.”27 Tradition has no independent
capacity to communicate light. Tradition is rather the moon to Scripture’s sun.
What light the moon gives is always and only a reflection of the sun, yet it
is real light. Indeed, a full moon casts enough light for a pilgrim to find her
way. Tradition has a derivative, secondary, or ministerial authority insofar as
its creeds and confessions rightly reflect the light that shines forth from the
biblical text. The church exists in part to pass on this light: “The Spirit who
enables and sustains our reading of Holy Scripture also provides a community
to aid us in our reading.”28
How do Scripture and tradition relate in the economy of authority
where Scripture holds pride of place? Scripture is the norma normans
(norming norm), or what we could also call the “unnormed norm.” Tradi-
tion is a norma normata (normed norm). The normed norm of tradition
has ministerial (as opposed to magisterial) authority. Tradition is a form of
corporate testimony with a relative testimonial authority of its own (as to
what Scripture means), yet it is an authority under the judicial authority
of Scripture. As Huijgen aptly comments, the one thing tradition agrees on
is “that doctrine should be based on Scripture.” Scripture alone is the su-
preme authority, yet God in his grace decided that it is not good for Scrip-
ture to be alone. He thus authorized tradition so that, when Scripture saw
it, Scripture said, “This at last is norm of my norm and light of my light;
she shall be called postapostolic testimony, because she was taken out of
apostolic testimony.”

28 Scott R. Swain, Trinity, Revelation, and Reading: A Theological Introduction to the Bible and
Its Interpretation (London: T&T Clark, 2011), 100.
352 Vanhoozer
4 Sola Scriptura and Biblical Theology: “Scripture Interprets

Scripture” as Canonical Practice
We come now to the hermeneutical implication of sola scriptura, namely, the

idea that Scripture is its own best interpreter. Just as Scripture alone contains
everything we need to know for salvation (material sufficiency), so some think
that Scripture provides its own rule for right interpretation (formal sufficien-
cy). Others, like Wisse, contend that Scripture is “fundamentally open to dif-
ferent interpretations.” While he is quick to say that “not anything goes,” it is
not entirely clear why not, though it seems to have something to do with the
centrality of Jesus Christ, the subject matter of Scripture’s human witness. My
burden in this section is to clarify the meaning of this hermeneutical corollary
to sola scriptura—“Scripture interprets Scripture.”
The first thing to note is that readers too are part of the economy of triune
communication (what God says about something in some way to someone).
The Creator of heaven and earth does not speak futilely into the air but effec-
tively into human hearts and minds. The reader’s role in the economy is not to
author Scripture, or to confer authority on it, but rather to receive and revere
it as the word of Christ, giving thanks for it with others in the church, and
letting it dwell in the core of one’s being (Col. 3: 16) in order gradually to be
conformed to Christ, its subject matter.
4.1 The Canonical Center: Jesus Christ

Several authors in the present volume treat the relationship of sola scriptura to
solus Christus. In my view, the most helpful insight concerns the pair’s asym-
metrical reciprocity. Huijgen distinguishes Christ as the center of Scripture and
Scripture as the canon of Christ (i.e., the rule with which rightly to identify him
and discern his presence) and Burger similarly says that “Christ is more than
the Scripture, but we cannot know Christ without the Scriptures.” Both men
emphasize the “extra-textual” reality of Christ (Huijgen does so by drawing
an intriguing parallel to the extra-calvinisticum), but this extra-textual reality
can only be known thanks to what Burger calls the “perspective” on reality we
have in the Scriptures. As Bavinck succinctly puts it: “If the apostolic witness
concerning Christ is not reliable, no knowledge of Christ is possible [… and]
if Christ is authoritative he is authoritative also in the teaching concerning
Scripture.”29
29 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 1: 437.

I agree with this way of looking at the relationship of Christ and Scripture, in
contrast to Ingolf Dalferth’s tendency (as described by Huijgen) to make Christ
the center not of Scripture’s (semantic) witness but rather of the church’s
(pragmatic) use of Scripture. In my view, Dalferth misleadingly exaggerates the
distinction between Christ and Scripture (and he is hardly alone in this). I pre-
fer to take a more Chalcedonian line: “without confusion [...] without separa-
tion.” After all, the testimony to Christ was ultimately commissioned by Christ
and inspired by the Spirit of Christ. The canon is the rule of Christ precisely
because it is a function of the prophetic office of Christ, its human authors
commissioned witnesses in the economy of his self-presentation.
4.2 The Canonical Practices: Guiding Interpretation

Scripture interprets Scripture. It is Jesus’ own reading perspective, in which
he is the second Adam, the greater Moses, the consummate prophet, priest
and king, that dominates the New Testament authors’ interpretation of the
Old Testament. “Scripture interprets Scriptures” is about more than the im-
portance of interpreting the parts in light of the whole and the whole in light
of the parts—a principle that obtains for texts in general. It concerns learning
what I have elsewhere called “canonical practices,” that is, a distinctive commu-
nicative practice in the context of the canon with a covenantal aim of presenting
Christ.30 The papers by the biblical scholars in this volume rightly emphasize
the importance of gaining competence in Scripture’s literary practices too.
Koert van Bekkum helpfully states, “the Scriptures should be able to speak
for itself and that it cannot be silenced.” But how can scripture do that in an age
of increasing specialization, when we have more and more knowledge, thanks
largely to archaeology, about the Ancient Near Eastern “world behind the text”?
In particular, how do we square 1 and 2 Samuel’s historical account of David’s
rise to the monarchy with archaeological evidence indicating that there were
no kings at the beginning of the ninth century, only tribal chiefs and warlords?
If I am reading him correctly, I applaud Van Bekkum’s call to attend to the bibli-
cal text as a historical source in its own right, and resist the temptation to read
1 and 2 Samuel merely as symptoms of political and ideological discourse.
Van Bekkum points out elements in the story of David that seem out of
place on the assumption that it is political propaganda: why would a pro-David
narrative go out of its way to say that Solomon, not David, built the temple, a
very un-ANE thing to do? This jarring detail has the ring of truth, as does the
30 See further my The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian The-

ology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 216–31.
354 Vanhoozer
Gospels’ depiction of the disciples, the future leaders of the church, as theolog-
ically dim-witted and afraid. Even more importantly: if we stick with the text
and read it on its own terms, we find that our attention is drawn not to ques-
tions about state formation in the Southern Levant in Iron Age IIa, but rather
to how yhwh makes a decisive new start with Israel. The moral: the narrative
form itself teaches us how to read Scripture’s histories rightly in the broader
context of the progress of God’s promises.
Eric Peels’s essay similarly contributes to understanding the hermeneutical
implications of sola scriptura for a different biblical literary genre: eschatolog-
ical prophecy. Here, too, the emphasis falls rightly on letting Scripture have its
own say, and thus on the importance of attentive listening. I particularly appre-
ciated Peels’s emphasis not simply on getting the grammar but the interpretive
paradigm right, and doing so by deriving it from and testing it against Scripture
itself. Prophecy is indeed an excellent case study for it generates extreme inter-
pretations: either a positivistic literality that reads eschatological prophecy as
a blueprint of the future or a “typologic” spirituality that too quickly discovers
Christ and the church and too quickly loses Israel.
Like Van Bekkum, Peels keeps in mind the big redemptive-historical picture
or, to put it in my terms, the broader economy of redemption. Neither Scripture
nor eschatological prophecy is “alone” in the sense that we should contemplate
them in the abstract. On the contrary, Peels argues that eschatological proph-
ecy concerns the consummation of God’s redemptive purpose, which I have
described in terms of triune communicative action oriented to communion. Of
particular importance is what Peels calls the “actualizing-symbolizing” nature
of the language of eschatological prophecy that speaks of the future in terms
of the past, a linguistic technique that I find entirely appropriate to the often
surprising ways in which God displays both covenant faithfulness and the abil-
ity to do a new thing in Christ.
This is also the theme of Jaap Dekker’s essay on the phenomenon of
reinterpretation in the book of Isaiah, a graphic example of how Scripture is
(literally!) its own interpreter. What is fascinating is how we learn God’s cov-
enant faithfulness not simply through statements that assert it propositionally,
but also by canonical practices such as reinterpretation that display in the form
of textuality both the creativity and the covenant faithfulness of God.
Reinterpretation happens when earlier Scripture is brought to bear to ad-
dress new circumstances. For example, a previously announced light for the
nations (Isa. 49: 6) “is outshined by the light that will shine over Zion (Isa.
60: 1–3). Dekker understands this as “scribal prophecy,” more a matter of in-
spired appropriation of existing words than of direct prophetic inspiration,
and concludes that sola scriptura ought to allow for this process of dynamic
growth (i.e., through reinterpretation/appropriation). He then infers that God

is not tied down by his word but is always able to “bring forth something new.”
I prefer to say that God is tied to his word but not by it: it is his word, after all.
I understand the phenomenon of reinterpretation in terms of progressive rev-
elation, as involving both divine fidelity to the sense of earlier prophecy and
divine creativity as concerns the “how much more” glorious nature of the ulti-
mate referent of earlier prophecy.
4.3 The Canonical Virtues: The Apprenticed Interpreter

Scripture alone is sufficient for the purpose God sent it. This purpose is not
merely to inform but also to transform the reader—or rather, to form Christ
in us. Scripture is the word of Christ that rules the domain of Christ (i.e.,
everything!), particularly the community of believers who worship in Spirit
and truth. It follows from the purpose of communication that the community
of readers is part of the economy. Scripture accomplishes its purpose not merely
when it is read but when it is used by the Holy Spirit to minister—to form—
Christ in its readers (“let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts”; Col. 3: 15).
In the final analysis, “Scripture interprets Scripture” means that its canoni-
cal practices are magisterial. Biblical interpreters practice sola scriptura when
they apprentice themselves to the canonical practices, learn them, and there-
by acquire what we could call canonical virtues: excellences in reading Scrip-
ture along its linguistic, literary, and canonical grain and following (walking)
the way the words go. As I have written elsewhere: “Good theological judgment
is largely, though not exclusively, a matter of being apprenticed to the canon:
of having one’s capacity for judging (a capacity that involves imagination, rea-
son, emotion, and volition alike) formed and transformed by the ensemble of
canonical practices that constitute Scripture.”31
David Starling argues that biblical hermeneutics is essentially an appren-
ticeship to the various literary and canonical practices of Scripture.32 Scripture
actively interprets Scripture when biblical authors serve as their readers’ peda-
gogues. We “learn Christ” (Eph. 4: 24) when we learn how to follow the various
biblical texts—Torah, eschatological prophecy, the histories, and so forth—to
their final referent and covenantal climax so that we can understand all things
in light of Jesus Christ.
The important point to remember is that sola scriptura is theological short-
hand for a principle, pattern, and practice alike. Canon is the crucial concept,
31 Drama of Doctrine, 331.

32 David Starling, Hermeneutics as Apprenticeship: How the Bible Shapes our Interpretive Hab-
its and Practices (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2016).
356 Vanhoozer
for it refers to the means by which God rules his people. Consider: canon in-
volves authority (kanōn = “measuring rod” or “ruler”), interpretation (e.g., the
relationship between whole and /parts: everything from the New Testament
use of the Old Testament to intertextuality), and community (i.e., those
interpreters for whom just these books are authoritative Scripture). All three
elements—authority, interpretation, community—come together in G alatians
6 when Paul, after invoking the order of the new creation established by the
cross of Christ, refers to “all who walk by this rule [kanōn]” (Gal. 6: 16)—“all
who,” the community; “walk by,” the practice of interpretation; “this rule,”
the canonical Scriptures. This one verse alludes to the principle, pattern, and
practice of sola scriptura.
5 Conclusion: Following the Word by Following His Words
It should now be clear that sola scriptura, properly understood as an element

in the broader economy of triune communication, does not fall prey to the
problems listed at the outset. When viewed in the Trinitarian pattern of theo-
logical authority—what I have called the economy of communication—and
in the context of the other solas, it becomes apparent that its meaning, func-
tion, and purpose are far removed from the concerns of modern foundation-
alist epistemology.
Sola scriptura is the declaration that Scripture alone is of “first importance”
for making wise unto salvation, developing doctrine, making disciples and,
in general, for knowing God and cultivating godliness. Scripture alone is the
divinely authorized standard for measuring all attempts to present Christ or
to form Christ in us. Disciples are simply following the example of their Lord
when they do theology “in accordance with the Scriptures” —when they both
proclaim and practice sola scriptura.
Sola scriptura is a confession of faith, namely, that God’s word is God’s (in-
fallible) word and that my human interpretation is my (corrigible) interpre-
tation. It is the admission that the church, and her tradition, are ultimately
accountable to a word that is not their own. It is an acknowledgment that my
primary responsibility as a theologian is not to my denominational tradition
but to the whole scriptural witness to Jesus Christ. And yet, this confession,
admission, and acknowledgment is not strictly speaking alone, for it is part of
a broader economic pattern of triune communication, one that includes the
church, her tradition, and her teachers as means the Holy Spirit uses to minis-
ter right understanding.
Sola scriptura plays a vital role in the economies of revelation and redemp-
tion as a reminder of the set apart nature and function of the Bible in the
divine economy of communication, interpretation, and authority. It is no con-
tradiction to say both that Scripture is not alone in this economy and that it
plays a singular role in the economy. “Sola” scriptura indicates not solitariness
but singularity. Only Scripture provides the final say-so as to doctrine and disci-
pleship, for only Scripture provides the final say-so concerning the person and
work, the who and the what, the alpha and omega of Jesus Christ.
Bibliography
Abraham, William. Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology: From the Fathers to Fem-
inism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Allen, Michael and Scott Swain. Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for The-
ology and Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015.
Barrett, Matthew. God’s Word Alone: The Authority of Scripture. What the Reformers
Taught and Why It Still Matters. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016.
Bavinck, H. Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003.
Boone, Kathleen C. The Bible Tells Them So: The Discourse of Protestant Fundamental-
ism. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989.
Chung-Kim, Esther. Inventing Authority: The Use of the Church Fathers in Reformation
Debates over the Eucharist. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2011.
Cole, Graham. “Sola Scriptura: Some Historical and Contemporary Perspectives,”
Churchman 104.1 (1990): 31.
Goldsworthy, Graeme. Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of
Evangelical Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006.
Gregory, Brad S. The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized
Society. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2012.
Hugenberger, George. Marriage as a Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Gov-
erning Marriage Developed from the Perspective of Malachi. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994.
Kline, Meredith G. The Structure of Biblical Authority, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1972.
Luther, M. D. Martin Luthers Werke, WA 7. Weimar: Herman Bohlaus und Nachfolger,
1897.
Mathison, Keith A. The Shape of Sola Scriptura. Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2001.
McGrath, Alister. Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution—A History
from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First. New York: HarperOne, 2007.
McNeill, John T. Unitive Protestantism: The Ecumenical Spirit and its Persistent Expres-
sion. Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1964.
358 Vanhoozer
Muller, Richard. “The Foundation of Calvin’s Theology: Scripture as Revealing God’s

Word,” Duke Divinity School Review 44 no. 1 (1979): 21.
Nafzger, Peter H. “These Are Written”: Toward a Cruciform Theology of Scripture. Eugene,
OR: Pickwick, 2013.
Plantinga, Alvin. Knowledge and Christian Belief. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015.
Ramm, Bernard. The Pattern of Religious Authority. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957.
Ricoeur, Paul. Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences: Essays on Language, Action, and
Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Rose, Devin. The Protestant’s Dilemma: How the Reformation’s Shocking Consequences
Point to the Truth of Catholicism. San Diego: Catholic Answers Press, 2014.
Starling, David S. Hermeneutics as Apprenticeship: How the Bible Shapes our Interpretive
Habits and Practices. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2016.
Swain, Scott R. Trinity, Revelation, and Reading: A Theological Introduction to the Bible
and Its Interpretation. London: T&T Clark, 2011.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Biblical Authority after Babel: Retrieving the Solas in the Spirit of
Mere Protestant Christianity. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2016.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion, and Authorship.
tian Theology. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006.
Webster, John. Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2003.
Zagzebski, Linda Trinkhaus. Epistemic Authority: A Theory of Trust, Authority, and Au-
tonomy in Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Index
A. Scripture citations
Genesis (book of) 11, Numbers (book of) 227 6: 2 / 150

123–127, 227 10: 29 / 223 6: 3 / 141
1 / 249n36 11: 16 / 132 6: 4b / 145n45
1: 28–30 / 124n4 11: 16–25 / 128 6: 6 / 141n22
2: 16–17 / 124n4 11: 23 / 208n56 6: 6–9 / 145, 151
3: 3, 8, 9, 11, 13, 21: 14 / 127 6: 6–9, 20–25 / 146
16–19 / 124n4 22: 20 / 223 7: 11 / 150
3: 14 / 209 23: 13 / 223 7: 12 / 141
4 / 123 27: 1–11 / 128 8: 14 / 150
4: 26 / 125 36: 1–12 / 128 9: 10 / 145
5: 1 / 127 36: 3 / 141n23 9: 10 / 344
5: 19–24 / 125 Deuteronomy (book 10: 1–2 / 152n80
5: 22 / 125 of) 10, 123–125, 128, 10: 4 / 145, 344
6: 9 / 126n10 227, 344, 345, 348 11: 1 / 125n9, 150
6: 14–16 / 124 1: 18 / 141n22 11: 18–21 / 145
7: 2 / 125, 126n2 1: 19 / 224n 11: 9 / 150
12: 4 / 223 1: 37 / 148 12 / 138, 142
12: 8 / 125n6 1: 5 / 153n83 12–13 / 138
12: 24 / 223 1: 9–18 / 149 12–26 / 128, 138
13: 5 / 223 3: 26–27 / 148 12: 28 / 141n22
14 / 127 4 / 137, 138 13: 1(12: 32) / 137, 138,
16 / 265, 267, 271 4: 3–4 / 141 139n10, 141(n22),
18 / 126 4: 1–2 / 153 142, 143
18: 19 / 126 4: 1–4 / 141 14: 23 / 150
26: 5 / 125 4: 10 / 150 15: 15 / 141n22
Exodus (book of) 123, 4: 13 / 145, 344 16: 16 / 150n69
124n3, 125, 127, 227 4: 1a / 141 17: 19–20 / 150n70
3: 8 / 343 4: 1b / 141 17: 10 / 132
4: 11–12 / 347 4: 2 / 137, 138, 141(n22), 17: 11, 20 /141
5: 11 / 141n23 142, 143, 344 17: 14–20 / 146
12: 25 / 128 4: 21–22 / 148 17: 18–20 / 344
16: 22–23 / 128 4: 40 / 150 17: 19 / 151n73
17: 14 / 148n59 4: 44 / 153n83 17: 19–20 / 150
18: 16, 20 / 128 5–11 / 138 18: 22 / 187n8
18: 17–26 / 128 5–28 / 138 24: 18, 22 / 141n22
21: 8 / 221n14 5: 1 / 141, 150 27 / 142
21: 10 / 141n23 5: 22 / 145, 152, 344 27–28 / 142, 146
24: 1, 9 / 128 5: 27 / 152n81 27–30 / 149
34: 6 / 349 5: 29 / 150 27: 26 / 142
Leviticus (book 5: 31 / 152n81 27: 3 / 153n
of) 124(n2–3), 227 5: 32 / 141, 150 27: 3, 8 / 146
11: 21 / 221 5: 33 / 150 28 / 146n
25: 30 / 221 6 / 151 28: 1 / 141
360 index
Deuteronomy (book of) (cont.) 15: 33 / 174 6: 3, 4 / 223n21

28: 14 / 141(n22), 150 16–21 / 162 8: 10 / 221n14
28: 49 / 202n30 16–2 Samuel 5 / 172 8: 12 / 187n8
28: 58, 61 / 146 16: 14–2 Samuel 5: 10 / 170 8: 28 / 223n21
29: 10(11) / 218n 16: 7 / 237 10: 16 / 223n21
29: 19–20 / 144 17: 38–39 / 174 13: 32 / 160n4
29: 19, 20, 26 / 146 17: 47 / 175 15: 31 / 127
29: 28 / 143 18–2 Samuel 1 / 171 16: 19 / 127
30: 10 / 146 18: 1–4 / 175 22: 20 / 188n10
30: 4 / 208n60 20: 18–42 / 174 23: 29 / 188n10
31 / 144, 150, 151, 20: 2 / 221n15 Chronicles (books of) 162
153(n83) 20: 35–42 / 175 1 Chronicles (book of) 228
31: 1–8 / 148 22: 19 / 174 11: 20 / 221
31: 10–12 / 147 23: 14–18 / 175 16: 40 / 149
31: 10–13 / 146, 150, 345 23: 23 / 223n21 2 Chronicles (book of) 228
31: 12–13 / 148, 150 31: 4 / 174 19: 4–11 / 129
31: 19 / 148 2 Samuel 22: 5 / 223
31: 19, 22 / 147 1: 12 / 174 23: 18 / 149
31: 24, 30 / 152 1: 19, 25, 27 / 174 30: 5 / 149
31: 26–29 / 148 1: 19–27 / 127, 173 Ezra (book of) 228
31: 9 / 147 1: 18 / 174 3: 2 / 149
31: 9, 19 / 344 2–11 / 162 4: 2 / 221n14
32: 45 / 152 2–4, 6, 9, 16, 19, 21 / 171 Nehemia (book of) 228
32: 46 / 141n22 3: 16 / 223n21 Esther (book of) 228
32: 46–47a / 323 5, 8, 12 / 162 Job (book of) 228
32: 48–52 / 148 8, 12 / 168 2 / 26
32: 47 / 154 8: 8–9 / 167 42 / 26
34: 4 / 148 13: 26 / 223n21 19: 23 / 148
Joshua (book of) 227 15: 11, 19 / 223n21 6: 21 / 221
1: 7–8 / 149 15: 31 / 323 13: 15 / 221
8: 31–34 / 149 16: 17 / 223n21 41: 4 / 221
10: 13 / 127n17 16: 7–8 / 170 Psalms (books of) 155,
10: 24 / 223n21 16: 8 / 221n14 205, 228
23: 6 / 149 19: 27 / 223n21 1: 1 / 328
23: 6–8 / 150 Kings (books of) 162, 172, 1: 1a / 322
24: 26 / 152 178 1: 2 / 151
24: 31 / 131 1 Kings (book of) 227 14 / 197
Judges (book of) 227 2 / 171 14: 7 / 197
1: 3 / 223n21 2: 3 / 149 15: 2 / 322n9
17: 7, 4 / 223n21 5: 1–5 / 168n26 33 / 26
19: 18 / 224n23 9: 15 / 163 78 / 320
Ruth (book of) 228 13: 15 / 223n21 78: 29–30 / 320
1: 18 / 223 13: 2 / 187n8 100: 3 / 221
Samuel (books of) 10, 14: 25 / 163 101: 6 / 322n9
161–162, 169–175, 16 / 164 115 / 25
177, 178, 227, 354 16: 23–28 / 164 115: 3 / 25
1 Samuel 22: 4 / 223n21 119: 105 / 348
2: 16 / 221n15 2 Kings (book of) 227 121: 1 / 130
2: 3 / 221n14 3: 7 / 223n21 139: 16 / 221
13: 22 / 174 6: 12 / 187n8 147: 2 / 208n60
index 361
Proverbs (book of) 129, 27: 9 / 197 55: 11 / 192

228 28: 16 / 197 56–66 / 196, 200,
1: 11, 15 / 223 29: 18 / 202n29 203–210
3: 3 / 129 29: 26 / 204n44 56: 1–8 / 209
7: 3 / 129 29: 9–10 / 203 56: 6 / 199
13: 20 / 223 30: 8 / 148 56: 7 / 209
19: 7 / 221 34 / 190n20 56: 8 / 208(n60)
26: 2 / 221 35 / 190 57 / 208n59
30: 6 / 142 40–55 / 196, 201–203 57: 15 / 208n59
Qoheleth (book of) 228 40: 10b / 207 57: 16 / 199
3: 14 / 142, 142n26 40: 11 / 209–210 58: 11 / 199
3: 1–8 / 142n27 40: 3–4 / 207 58: 6–10 / 208n58
Canticle (book of) 228 40: 8 / 210 59 / 207
Isaiah (book of) 11, 42: 1–4 / 202, 207 59: 16a / 208n56
155n87, 195–215, 221, 42: 18 / 202n29 59: 20 / 197, 208
223, 228, 332, 355 42: 20 / 202n29 59: 20 / 208n56
1–39 / 196, 200–201 42: 4 / 206 59: 3 / 208
1: 15 / 208n57 42: 6 / 192n23 60–62 / 207
1: 26f / 190n19 42: 7 / 202, 207 60: 1–3 / 206, 355
2 / 189 43: 16f / 190n19 60: 4 / 204n44
2: 2–4 / 202 43: 19f / 190n19 60: 4a / 204n44
2: 3 / 202 43: 6 / 202 60: 7 / 209
5: 1–7 / 201(n27) 43: 6f / 190n19 60: 9 / 206, 206n51
5: 26 / 202(n30) 43: 8 / 202n29 60: 10 / 209
6: 9–10 / 202n29 45: 8 / 199 60: 16 / 204n44
8: 14 / 197 48: 16b / 207 61 / 207
9: 11 / 198 49: 12 / 198 61: 1–3 / 207, 207n53
9: 2 / 221(n14) 49: 14–26 / 204n44 61: 5–6 / 209
9: 3 / 190n19 49: 18a / 204n44 61: 6 / 209
11 / 190(n20) 49: 22 / 207, 208n61 62 / 207
11: 1 / 190n19 49: 22–23 / 204n44 62: 1–2, 11 / 199
11: 12 / 207n55, 208 49: 5 / 220–221, 221n14, 62: 10 / 207
11: 15 / 190n19 222 62: 1ff / 190n19
11: 2 / 207 49: 6 / 192n23, 198, 206, 63: 3 / 200
11: 6 / 209 355 63: 9 / 221(n14)
11: 6–9 / 209 50: 2 / 207 65: 17ff / 190n19
14 / 186 50: 2 / 208n56 65: 22 / 199
14: 22–23 / 201 51: 17–23 / 203 65: 25 / 199, 209
14: 3 / 190n19 51: 17, 22 / 203 66: 21 / 209
14: 4 / 201 51: 21 / 203 66: 22 / 190n19
14: 4b–21 / 201 51: 23 / 203 Jeremiah (book of) 142,
15–16 / 201 51: 4 / 202, 206 201n, 204, 228
15: 2 / 141n23 51: 5 / 199, 206 11: 4 / 345
16: 13–14 / 201 52: 12 / 208n58 18: 11 / 187n9
16: 13–14 / 201 53 / 208n59 18: 7–10 / 188
19: 23ff / 190 55: 10–11 / 210–211 19: 10 / 224, 225
19: 25 / 198 55: 10–11 / 343 25: 15–29 / 203
27: 2–5 / 201n27 55: 3 / 190n19 26 / 142
27: 2–6 / 201 55: 5 / 206 26: 18f / 188
362 index
Jeremiah (book of) (cont.) 23: 4–33 / 133 15: 3, 4 / 339

26: 2 / 142 28: 18 / 349 2 Corinthians
28: 9 / 187n8 Mark 6: 16f / 192n2
29: 10 / 187n8 3: 14 / 349 Galatians
31: 31–34 / 190n19 13 / 193 3: 29 / 192n22
34: 2–5 / 188n10 Luke 4/ 266
38: 17 / 188n10 2: 32 / 192n23 4: 21–26 / 261, 265
Lamentations (book of) 228 9: 2 / 350 4: 22 / 264
2 / 26 11: 50–51 / 125 5: 18 / 134
Ezekiel (book of) 228 John (gospel of) 27 6 / 357
8–11 / 187n8 1 / 115 6: 16 / 357
23: 31–34 / 203n34 1: 14 / 349 Ephesians
31: 4 / 223n21 1: 14, 17 / 347 2: 14 / 186
34: 23 / 190n19 4: 22 / 186 3: 18 / 238
36: 26ff / 190n19 8: 12 / 192n23 3: 20 / 193
36: 27 / 224n 8: 12, 14 / 347 4: 24 / 356
40–48 / 190n19 14: 6 / 349 Philippians
Daniel (book of) 228 21: 24 / 347 2: 5 / 237
4 / 26 Acts 2: 6 / 349
Hosea (book of) 228 1: 8 / 350 2: 15 / 192
1–2 / 191 2: 39 / 192n22 Colossians
3: 5 / 190, 191 12: 24 / 343 3: 16 / 353
Joel (book of) 228 15: 28 / 134 3: 15 / 353
Amos (book of) 228 Romans 2 Timothy
4: 12 / 187n9 1: 25 / 338 3: 4 / 66
Obadiah (book of) 228 3 / 323 3: 16 / 50, 105, 344
Jonah (book of) 228 4: 11f / 192n22 Titus
3: 3, 10 / 188 7: 24 / 110 1: 13 / 347
Micah (book of) 228 8: 1, 4 / 322n9 Hebrews
2: 12 / 208n60 8: 2 / 316n 1: 1 / 127
3: 12 / 188 9–11 / 193 6: 19f / 193
7: 15 / 190n19 9: 2 / 193 4: 12 / 347
Nahum (book of) 190n20, 9: 25 / 191 James (book of) 95, 113
228 9: 33 / 197 1: 23–24 / 345
Habakkuk (book of) 228 11: 26 / 197 1 Peter
Zephaniah (book of) 228 12: 1–2 / 237 1: 10–12 / 186n5
Haggai (book of) 228 12: 1–5 / 329 2: 9 / 186
Zechariah (book of) 228 12: 2 / 328 2: 10 / 191
1: 17 / 190n18 12: 5 / 331 2 Peter
8: 7 / 190n18 13: 1 / 343 1: 20 / 235
Malachi (book of) 131, 228 14: 5b / 237 3: 16 /235
2: 6/ 223n21 1 Corinthians (book of) 331 3 John
Matthew 4: 7 / 94 : 12 / 347
5: 14 / 192 11: 23 / 243 Jude
5: 18 par. / 332 11: 28 / 309 : 14–15 / 125
6: 24 / 338 12: 27 / 331 Revelation (book of) 144,
10 / 349 13 / 333 236, 348
13: 52 / 212n70 14: 8 / 343 21: 5 / 144, 348
23: 1–2, 3 / 132 15: 3 / 303 22: 18–19 / 348
Index 363
B. Persons
Aalders, G.Ch. 185 Ebeling, Gerhard 9, 40n6, 106–109,

Abner 171 111–115
Ahithophel 323n13 Edwards, Jonathan 25
Allen, Michael 295(n3), 309, 351n24, Erasmus, Desiderius 245, 145–252
358
Ambrose 44, 267 Fowl, Stephen 6
Amos (prophet) 201n24 Frei, Hans 4, 260
apostles 43–45, 72, 73, 85n27, 114, 134, Fuchs, Ernst 9, 107–118
197, 211, 247n24, 349, 350
Aristotle 248(n31), 249 Gadamer, Hans-Georg 107, 109, 110, 244,
Augustine 21, 24, 34, 44, 48n24, 83, 325 301
Galil, Gershon 167
Barentsen, Jack 12, 279, 307 Goliath 174
Barth, Karl 24, 107(n13), 110, 114, 118 Gregory (Church Father) 44
Bavinck, Herman 41, 59, 73, 134, 233, 351, Gregory, Brad S. 9, 79–82, 87, 98, 101, 338,
353 358
Bayer, Oswald 100, 294, 300–301, 303,
304n35–36, 306n53, 309, 324n18, Hadadezer of Zobah 167
326n23, 333 Ḫattušili III (Hittite king) 172
Bekkum, Koert van 7, 10–11, 159, 317, Hauerwas, Stanley 5
354–355 Heidegger, Martin 107, 109, 110
Belt, Henk van den 7, 8, 10, 22, 38, 90, 195, Hezekiah 149, 325n20
279n, 294, 315, 337, 339–341 Houwelingen, Rob van 11, 230
Bennet, Zoë 295, 303, 308 Huijgen, Arnold 1, 7, 9, 10, 22, 79, 279, 315,
Boone, Kathleen 338 316, 325, 337–341, 348, 349, 352–354
Brock, Brian 7, 12, 13, 252n, 315
Bucer, Martin 295 Ishbaal/Ishboshet 171, 178
Bultmann, Rudolf 107, 108, 110, 118
Burger, Hans 1, 7–10, 12, 56, 298, 315, 337, Jenkins, Jerry B. 185
338, 346, 349, 353 Jenson, Robert 6, 66, 72, 83n17, 94
Jeremiah (prophet) 142, 187n8
Cahalan, Kathleen 298, 305–306 Jerome 44, 83
Calvin, John 11, 12, 24, 25n14, 41n10, Jonah (prophet) 188
42n10–11, 49, 51, 54, 57, 75, 83, 84, Jonathan 171, 173–175
86n31, 88n41, 89n44, 97, 100, 253n53, Joshua (leader) 131, 148–149
260–272, 348, 350–351 judges (leaders) 128–129
Childs, Brevard S. 4 Jüngel, Eberhard ix, 113, 116n47, 117
Chrysostom 12, 260–273
kings (leaders) 124, 127, 163, 167, 344, 354
Dalferth, Ingolf U. 9, 60, 73n69, 75, 96–97, Kreijkes, Jeannette 12, 260
99, 100, 116–118, 354 Kuyper, Abraham 23, 62, 63n24, 161n7
David 10, 149(n65), 159–178, 190(n19–20),
192, 323n13, 354, 356 LaHaye, Tim 185
Dekker, Jaap 7, 11, 195, 318, 355 Lindsey, Hal 185
Dekker, Willem Maarten 9–10, 105 Luke (apostle) 343
364 Index
Luther, Martin 1, 8, 11, 12, 21, 40–43, 45, Samuel (prophet) 131

57, 62, 82, 83, 95, 106–108, 110, Saul 162, 167, 170, 171, 173–175
111, 195, 210, 234, 245–253, 255, Schilder, K. 9, 56, 64, 65–69, 72
256, 301, 316, 318–328, 332, 341, Shakespeare 235
350, 351 Shoshenq I 163–165, 172
Solomon 149, 163, 168, 172, 354
Macallan, Brian 296–297, 308 Sonnet, Jean-Pierre 153
MacIntyre, Alisdair 5 Spinoza, Baruch de 19
Mazar, Eilat 164, Sproul, R.C. 85, 86n, 294
McCarter, P. Kyle 170, 171 Stoddart, Eric 296, 303, 305, 308
McGrath, Alister 23n10, 57, 63, 64, 294, Stoppels, Sake 305,
302, 308, 309 Swain, Scott 295, 301, 351n
Mephibosheth 171
Moses 10, 125n9, 126, 126n11, 127–132, Thiselton 232
137, 139, 141, 143–145, 147–155, 192, Toi (king of Hamath) 167
249n37, 269, 317, 322, 343–345, 347, Tudḫaliya IV (Hittite king) 140
354
Murdoch, Iris 302 Vanhoozer, Kevin J. 4n, 6, 7, 13, 14,
66(n35), 69n46, 70, 86n33, 91,
Ommen, Léon van 12, 279, 307 234–235, 236n, 238n, 244, 254–255,
Omri 164 308, 336
Oosting, Reinoud 11, 216 Versluis, Arie 7, 10, 137, 317, 344, 345
Vlastuin, Willem van 11, 243
Paul (apostle) 27, 95, 113, 134, 193, Voetius, Gisbertus 20, 21, 23
197, 200, 206, 238, 245n2, 245,
265–271, 318, 331, 332, 333, 339, Watson, Francis 6
357 Weil, Simone 302
Paul, Mart Jan 11, 123 Wisse, Maarten 7–9, 19, 72n64, 81–82, 87,
Peels, Eric 1, 7, 11, 183, 317, 355 91, 98, 99, 230, 289n, 321n6, 322(n8),
Peter (apostle) 186 325, 337–338, 347, 353
Pharisees 132 Woude, A.S. van der 184
Piper, John 24–26 Wright, N.T. 236n, 237
Ricoeur, Paul 344 Zibah 171

Index 365
C. Subjects
absolute certainty 8, 59, 60, 63, 71, 346 autopistia (autopisty) 39, 49, 50, 57,
absolute claims 33 90(n46), 184
absolute clarity 108 autopistos (see: autopistia)
absolute frame of reference 28
absolute religious power 23, 147 Baptists 46
absolute unicity 31 Barth, Karl 24, 107(n13), 110, 114, 118
acts, God’s 9, 32–34, 62, 64, 66, 71, 92, 94, Bavinck, Herman 41, 59, 73, 134, 233, 351,
233, 236n12, 317, 338 353
Alexandrian 262–263 Bayer, Oswald 100, 294, 300–301, 303,
allegorical 63, 262–265, 272 304n35–36, 306n53, 309, 324n18,
Anabaptists 23, 46, 61, 230 326n23, 333
analogia Scripturae 21 Bekkum, Koert van 7, 10–11, 159, 317,
Ancient Near East 1, 129–130, 139, 354–355
142–148, 150n70, 152n80, 160, Belt, Henk van den 7, 8, 10, 22, 38, 90, 195,
163n10, 168, 172, 173, 344, 354 279n, 294, 315, 337, 339–341
ancient traditions 190, 205 Bennet, Zoë 295, 303, 308
ancient Versions 11, 196, 198–200 Bible in the center (see: center of scripture)
Anrede 111, 112 bible-centeredness (see: center of scripture)
Antiochene 262–263 Bible, authority of the 6, 58, 94, 95, 168,
archaeology 162, 354 173, 185, 189, 235, 237, 245, 251, 252,
Arpad 167 260
assertion 250, 319, 322 Bible, use of the 5, 22, 23, 34, 43, 44, 58, 68,
authority 1–5, 8–10, 12–14, 39, 67, 73, 73, 79, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 106, 115, 125,
80, 82, 83, 144, 149, 152–155, 183, 142, 152, 160, 165, 170, 199, 202, 231,
195, 201, 202, 205, 300, 301, 303, 340, 246, 247, 250, 252, 253, 260, 263, 298,
341, 343–353, 357, 358 299, 305, 318, 350
authority conflict 57, 61 biblical theology 14, 68n44, 123–238,
authority human 49, 269 353–357
authority of Christ 95 biblicism 21, 46, 79
authority of doctrine 98, 134, 271
authority of the Bible/scriptures 1, 2, 9, 38, Calvinist 25
42–46, 49–50, 52, 57–59, 61–63, canon closing 318
85–91, 93n54, 94, 95, 106n4, 143, 149, canon formation 94, 151, 318
193, 195, 210–212, 233, 243–248, canon formula 10, 137–144, 153, 154, 344,
253, 260–265, 271, 277, 281, 295, 348
297, 298, 301, 307, 315, 322, canon of scripture 4–7, 10, 58, 69, 72, 82,
337–343 87n, 91, 92, 95, 134, 155n, 196, 235,
authority of the church/tradition 49, 50, 246, 254, 318, 346–347, 349
57, 91, 94, 95, 134, 230, 260, 295, 315 canonical interpretation 4
authority of the Spirit 33 canonical practice 70, 353–357
authority of Torah 2 canonical status 133, 143n, 212
authority principle 277, 280, 280–282, 286, canonicity 14, 94, 351
287, 291, 343 canonization 10, 138, 144, 154, 317, 318,
authority, divine 19, 33, 338, 343 345
authority, juridical 131–133, 139 Carchemish 167
366 Index
Catechism 23, 24 computer-assisted research 217–218

catholicity 14, 73n4, 350–351 concept 48, 60, 65, 73n8, 109, 125, 139,
catholicity of Reformation 41, 351 145, 161n7, 188, 189n16, 190,
catholicity, Roman 351 253(n53), 254, 269, 270(n35), 271,
center of scripture (Christ) 9, 14, 65, 288, 294, 300n25, 324n17, 343, 356
67–68, 95, 96–98, 353–354 concept of sensus literalis 261–266
center, Bible in the 63, 284–285 concept of sola scriptura 20, 23, 50, 87,
center, extra-textual 1, 9, 67 159, 185, 230, 289
Central Hill Country 176, 178 conceptual 79, 185, 324–326, 337
certainty 8, 49, 58, 59, 60, 63, 71, 251, conciliarism 43, 351(n25)
318–320, 324, 328, 346 Confessio Belgica (Belgic Confession) 34,
Chicago Declaration on Biblical 51, 73n66, 85n27
Inerrancy 85, 86n30, 224 confession 7, 9, 34, 39, 41, 43, 46, 51,
Christ 1, 5, 9, 12, 14, 20, 21, 29–35, 38, 40, 86n31, 88–89, 92, 94, 99, 114, 133,
45, 47, 51, 56, 61, 63–73, 83, 89, 91–93, 246, 250, 295, 319, 352, 357
95–98, 106, 108, 110, 186, 191–193, confessional 5, 6, 7, 22–23, 35, 46, 51, 52,
197, 211, 235–237, 246, 247, 249, 251, 159
255, 267, 271, 272, 295, 297, 303, 308, context 1–5, 7, 9, 12–14, 22, 25, 27, 33, 39,
318, 323–326, 328, 330–332, 336, 338, 40, 41, 47, 50, 51, 60, 67, 70, 89, 91,
339, 345–350, 353–358 106, 109, 112–114, 125, 130, 133,
Christ, natures of 31, 32, 34 138, 139, 141–143, 147, 149, 151, 161,
Christology 30–32, 47n22, 95, 99, 97, 251, 164, 167, 168, 174, 175, 177, 186–188,
326 191–193, 197, 200, 202, 206, 208,
chronology 163–167, 196 210–212, 230, 233, 234, 244, 248, 250,
Church 1, 3–9, 12, 14, 22–24, 28, 30, 32– 251, 253, 255, 265, 269, 267, 272, 277,
35, 39, 42–44, 46, 47, 49–51, 53, 283, 290, 294, 295, 297–301, 304–307,
57–59, 61–64, 69, 70, 73, 80, 82–85, 309, 316, 328, 337, 339–343, 345, 351,
87, 89–91, 94–99, 105, 106, 109, 112– 352, 354, 355, 357
115, 118, 159, 183, 185, 186, 191, 192, Contextual Sensitivity 238
195, 196, 211, 212, 237, 238, 243–248, correspondence 48, 152, 188, 348
251–253, 255, 261, 262, 266, 269–272, correspondence theory of truth 86, 93
278, 279, 281, 282, 284, 286–289, correspondence, covenantal 14, 348–349
294–298, 300–302, 304, 305, 307–309, cosmology 48
315–319, 324, 326, 328–331, 333, 336, Council of Trent 41, 42, 44, 83
337, 339–342, 350–353, 355, 357 covenant 14, 46, 65, 68, 131, 141, 143, 152,
Church Fathers 12, 14, 83, 84n, 261, 262, 187, 190, 193, 269, 267, 345, 346, 348,
342 351, 355
circular reasoning 30, 50 creed 4, 5, 7, 38, 46, 66, 69, 83, 280, 328,
City of David 162, 165 337, 345, 352
clarity (see: perspecuitas) crisis 13, 44, 56, 57, 65, 73, 85, 203, 243,
clarity, hermeneutical 191 284
Codex Hammurapi 140 critical realism 347
communitarianism 5 critique of religion 29
community 5, 9, 13, 24, 28, 33, 35, 51, 61, Cultural-Linguistic Turn 244
62, 64, 69, 70, 88, 90, 91, 94–97, 106,
130, 186, 199, 204, 211, 212, 227, 230, Decalogue 8, 20, 29, 31, 128, 145, 148, 152
235, 237, 244, 277–287, 289, 290, 294, devote (see: devotion)
300–302, 305, 308, 309, 316, 320, 326, devotion 1, 24, 72, 84
328, 339, 350, 352, 356, 357 dicta probantia 111
Index 367
disciple (see: discipleship) extra-calvinisticum 97, 353

disciples, Jesus’ 61, 65, 355 extra-textual center (see: center)
discipleship 234–235, 254n59, 267,
294–297, 301–309, 336, 357, 358 fideism 71
discourse 6, 27, 82, 86, 92, 145, 148, 171, fides prima 52
172, 177, 266, 338, 343–347, 350, 352, formation 5, 8, 9, 56, 64, 69, 70, 71, 94, 151,
354 161, 162, 164, 166, 172, 176, 295, 297,
diversity 27, 30, 281, 284, 285 298, 300–304, 308, 316, 318, 355
divine authority (see: authority) foundation-model 56, 64, 71
divine inspiration (see: inspiration) foundationalism 8, 56, 58–62, 64, 71, 86,
doctrina 267–272 243, 254, 297, 337, 347
doctrinal 35, 134, 159, 251, 338, 339n frame of reference 28–29, 331, 347
doctrine 8, 22, 24, 38, 40(n7), 43, 45, 46, fulfilment 11, 33, 65, 67, 68, 153, 168,
47, 52, 73, 80, 98, 105, 107, 116n, 183–185, 187, 188, 191–193, 197, 207,
195, 230, 247, 248, 250, 251, 266n18, 256, 263, 349
267, 295, 308, 315, 317, 320, 322,
324, 326, 336, 341, 348, 349, 352, Gath (Tel el-Safi) 166
357–358 general revelation (see: revelation)
doctrine of scripture 2, 8, 22, 32, 34–35, 42, god’s revelation (see: revelation)
56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 92, 97, 116n, gospel 27, 31, 32, 41, 44, 51, 90, 92, 93, 95,
225–226, 244(n9), 245, 246n, 251n49, 113–115, 211, 251, 255, 265, 270, 339,
343, 346 341, 344, 346, 349, 351
doctrine of the church 34 gospel-writers 197
doctrine of the Trinity 5, 92, 98 grace 1, 8, 9, 39, 40–43, 45, 52, 53, 92, 94,
111, 188, 270, 301, 324, 341, 346–350,
ecclesial tradition 35, 83 352
economy 5, 7, 13, 31, 317, 326, 339, 341, gratia prima 52
342–358
economy of revelation (see: revelation) halacha 133–134
election 32, 33, 172, 173, 175, 177, Hamath 167
190(n19), 269–270 hermeneutical clarity (see: clarity)
episcopate 69 hermeneutics 1–7, 10, 11, 39, 52, 62, 67,
epistemology 7, 8, 9, 14, 50, 56–73, 85, 89, 73, 106–116, 118, 160, 185, 212, 231,
93, 110, 245, 254, 297, 337, 341, 346, 232, 234, 237, 244, 254, 255, 262, 271,
348, 357 272, 299, 303, 321, 341, 344, 356
eschatology 10, 90, 183–193, 201n27, historical reliability (see: reliability)
204n43, 329, 355, 356 historical-critical 1, 3, 85, 89, 94, 112, 162,
evangelical 13, 25, 59, 82, 87, 185, 196, 178
216, 225, 238, 254, 267, 277, 280, 281, Holy Spirit 5, 22, 36, 38, 39, 46, 49, 57, 61,
282, 284–286, 294, 295, 341 70, 85, 90, 91, 106, 109, 134, 135, 196,
ex-cathedra 183 226, 232, 238, 238, 271, 272, 287, 325,
exegesis 1, 2, 3, 10, 12, 25, 34, 89, 113, 116, 341, 342, 345, 346, 350, 351, 356, 357
133, 195, 196, 199, 210, 231, 232, 244, human authority (see: authority)
254, 260–265, 267, 269, 270–272, 329, human reason 47, 50, 84, 159, 249
332 hyperindividualism 81
exegete 3, 91, 125, 130, 187, 261, 262,
270–272 identity 23, 25, 29, 32, 60, 62, 67, 90,
exilic 139, 170 –171, 200, 202, 203–205, 134, 164, 166, 176, 235, 278, 283–287,
207 289–291, 301, 305, 349
368 Index
illuminating work of the Holy Spirit 39, 329 Kanonformel (see: canon formula)
immanent 30n, 161n7, 249, 253 Khirbet Qeiyafa 164, 166–167
immediate revelation (see: revelation) kings 146, 150, 162, 188
immutability 84, 143 kingship (see: kings)
imperfection of the Hebrew Text 216–228, knowledge 42, 47–49, 57–58, 60, 61, 65,
263 71, 72, 84(n20), 89, 93, 96, 126–127,
incarnation 8, 20, 31–35, 51, 198, 245, 249, 151, 154, 161, 169, 176, 190n19,
251, 315, 347 251n47, 284, 297, 299–301, 306, 319,
inconsistency of Hebrew text 216, 223, 225 329, 346, 353–354
inerrancy 82n14, 86, 98, 295–297, 340
infallibility 33, 86n31, 345, 357 Lament (of the Bow) 173–175
infant baptism 45, 46, 80, 83 late-modernism 300
inscriptions 140, 145, 162, 167, 168, 176, law 21, 31, 48, 58, 81, 111, 125, 128, 131,
178 132, 138, 140, 142, 146–150, 265, 269,
inspiration, divine 50, 92n53, 93n, 140, 267, 317, 322–324, 338, 344, 345
196, 206n49, 248, 345, 347, 355 leadership 3, 24, 128, 159, 176, 279, 284,
insufficient (see: suffiscientia) 298, 302, 355
inter-canonical 318 legislation 127–129, 133
internal testimony 348 Levant, Southern 161–164, 166, 169, 172,
internalizing 151n77 176, 178, 355
interpretation 2–7, 12, 13, 19, 21, 22, 34, linguistic data 217–229
40, 47, 48, 58, 81–83, 85, 90, 91, 93, literal 2–4, 6, 11, 12, 21, 40, 52, 185, 192,
94, 96, 98, 108, 116, 117, 126, 130, 134, 210, 260–263, 269, 267, 271, 315, 316,
138, 139, 141, 143, 144, 147, 160, 161, 330, 332, 333, 340
166, 167, 175, 177, 184–188, 191–193, literal interpretation (see: interpretation)
195–199, 206, 210–212, 219, 230, 232, literal sense (see: sensus literalis)
234, 235, 238, 245–253, 255, 260–263, literal sense 12, 21, 210, 260(n2), 264,
265, 267–271, 281, 282, 285, 286, 288, 315–334
291, 295, 297, 304, 316–319, 326, 330, liturgicy 4, 5, 7, 70, 112, 151, 280, 284, 295,
331, 337, 341, 344, 347, 350–354, 357, 297, 302
358 locus 33, 86n31, 244n9, 324, 343, 347
interpretation, literal 185, 260, 270–271
irrationalism 71 magisterium 82, 184, 342, 351
Isaiah (LXX) 198–200 Masoretic text 155, 199, 200, 218–221,
Isaiah, Qumran scroll of 196/198–200 223–225
Israel 20, 32–34, 38, 61, 67, 68, 92, 124, meaning 1, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 20, 21, 27, 35,
126–128, 131, 137, 141, 144–154, 52, 53, 63, 65, 67, 73, 79, 82, 85–88, 93,
162–175, 177, 178, 183, 185–188, 94, 98, 111, 115, 116, 123, 124, 126,
191–193, 197, 198, 204, 206, 208, 128, 130, 143, 144, 151, 160, 161, 174,
221, 235, 317, 318, 322, 339, 343–346, 177, 190, 191, 200, 218, 219, 231, 233,
355 234, 238, 244, 246, 260, 262, 263, 265,
269, 267, 283, 288, 291, 324, 332, 339,
Jerusalem 10, 99, 123, 125, 129, 132, 134, 340, 343, 347, 350, 352, 353, 357
137, 160, 162–165, 167, 169, 171, 187, Mesha Stela 162, 164
188, 190, 200, 203, 266–267 Messiah 131–133, 171, 190
Judaism 33, 123, 130, 131, 133, 155, 218, Messianic Jews 133
220 Mishna 131
juridical authority (see: authority) modernity 4, 7, 50, 58, 66, 85
Index 369
narrative 5, 9, 68–70, 160–162, 173–175, post-Christian 60

178, 260, 263, 263, 302, 306, 348, 354, post-closure 318
355 post-exilic 139, 170–171
natures of Christ (see: Christ) post-Kantian 244
necessity of scripture 52 post-Marxism 1
Neocalvinism 59n postliberals 4
New Hermeneutics 106–116, 118 postmodern 6, 13n19, 33, 64, 71, 79, 85,
Nicaea (see: Nicene-Constantinopolitan 86, 98, 114–116, 118, 231, 243–245,
Creed) 252, 255, 297, 300, 338
Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed 345, 351 postmodernism (see: postmodern)
ninety-five theses 1 Practical Theology (PT) 12, 112, 113,
non-literal 263 277–311
norma normans (norming norm) 286–287, preaching 45, 48, 62, 105, 112, 114, 183,
352 185, 188–190, 203, 208, 247, 252, 255,
norma normans non normata (norming norm, 262, 271, 272, 279, 300, 302, 305, 323
not normed itself) 46, 91 preconception 161(n6)
norms 248, 280–290 priesthood of all believers 57, 63, 338, 342
nuda scriptura 51, 247n21 prima scriptura 8, 339
nulla traditio 352 primeval revelation (see: revelation)
principium fidei (axiom of faith) (see: rule
objectification (see: objective) of faith)
objection (see: objective) principium fidei 20
objective 4, 29, 81, 86n, 87, 89, 98, 99, 105, promise 49, 91, 125, 168, 191, 198, 208,
106, 112, 244, 254, 255, 289n, 303, 209, 212, 267, 272, 295, 317, 324, 325,
328, 342 343, 349, 351
objectivity (see: objective) prophecy 11, 84, 183–193, 196, 197, 200,
Old Testament 10, 11, 22, 27, 32, 46, 48, 202–208, 211, 212, 355, 356
123, 124, 127, 134, 140, 142–144, 148, prophecy, scribal 11, 203, 205–207, 211,
149, 153–155, 160, 164, 169, 183–193, 212, 355
195–200, 208, 211, 212, 216–223, 225, prophets 38, 44, 85n27, 97, 114, 125, 127,
226, 251, 261, 263, 265, 267, 354, 357 131, 134, 155n, 186–191, 203, 344, 345
Omriden (see: Omri) propositional 87, 89, 111, 249, 255, 346
oral revelation (see: revelation) psalm (song) 12, 65, 316, 319n4, 320, 321,
oral tradition 11, 43, 123, 124, 126, 324, 325
129–131, 133, 134 psalmist 327
oral tradition 11, 43n13, 123–136, 210n
qui locutus est per prophetas 345
Palestin 167–168
Pauline (see: Paul (apostle)) rabbinic 11, 123, 130–134, 219
perpective-model (see: perspectivism) radical theology 9, 116–118
perspectivism 56, 64, 71 reader 5, 6, 12–14, 63, 64, 66, 67, 86, 93,
perspectivism 64, 71 99, 110, 111, 114, 115, 124, 126, 131,
Philistines 167–168, 174–175, 185, 198 153, 231, 232, 234, 235, 244, 331, 332,
philosophy 12, 40, 47n, 118, 246, 248–249, 346
337 reason 31, 33, 35, 38, 47, 49, 50, 52, 59, 60,
pneumatological (see: pneumatology) 84, 86, 97, 98, 106, 108, 114, 146, 148,
pneumatology 6, 22, 50, 66n35, 91, 244n9, 150, 159, 166, 196, 205, 217, 219, 220,
251, 326, 328 222, 224, 226, 248, 249, 266, 282, 321,
poetry 68, 173 326, 338, 340, 348, 356
370 Index
reasoning 21, 25, 27, 28, 30, 50, 197, 249 self-convincing nature of scripture (see:
Reformation 1, 2, 8, 14, 19–22, 24, 30, autopistia)
31, 34, 39–47, 52, 53, 57, 61, 63, 64, 67, self-revelation (see: revelation)
79–85, 87, 98, 106, 159, 195, 243, 247, semper reformanda 1
260, 262, 271, 315–317, 336, 338, 340, sensus literalis (literal sense) 12, 21, 63,
342 210, 260–265, 270–272, 315–334
regeneration 65, 70 significance 4, 61, 66, 71–73, 123, 155,
regula fidei (see: rule of faith) 204, 208, 231, 234, 238, 330, 331, 336,
reinterpretation 10, 11, 14, 85, 137, 139, 340, 349
195, 196, 198–203, 208–211, 355, 356 sin 42, 65, 91, 124, 250, 251, 331
reliability, historical 24, 90, 225n singularity 1, 8, 20, 31–34, 347, 358
religious-historical 159 singularity of the incarnation 8, 20, 31–34,
restoration 186, 188, 190, 198 347
revelation 20, 32, 38, 39, 41, 47–49 [general], singularity of the scriptures 8, 358
52, 57, 61, 65, 67, 80, 83n15, 84, 85, skeptic 26, 51, 317
85n27, 88, 93, 106, 109n18, 117, 125, skepticism (see: sceptic)
126, 126n11, 127, 131, 145, 149, 150, social construction 12, 277, 287–291
153, 155, 160, 161, 177, 190n17, 211, social dynamics 280, 287
233, 247, 249, 252, 281, 282, 287, 318, social identity theory 278, 283, 286, 287
329, 337, 339, 343, 346, 347, 356, 358 society 4, 64, 80, 123, 146, 155, 163, 164,
Roman catholocity (see: catholicity) 167, 169, 176, 263, 281, 285, 286, 288,
rule of faith 20, 46, 352 302, 318, 338, 352
Socinianism 21
Sachkritik 68n42, 95, 97, 108 sola fide 1, 8, 9, 39, 40, 41, 70, 79, 82,
sacra scriptura sui ipsius interpres 21, 80, 86–91, 98, 324, 325, 340, 341, 343
93, 184, 195–212, 353–356 sola gratia 1, 8, 9, 38–40, 42, 70, 79, 82, 88,
Sanhedrin 128, 132 92, 93, 98, 340, 341, 343
scholastic 4, 20, 95, 105, 106, 111, 200, sola ratio 80, 338
248, 249, 253, 324 sola scriptura 1, 2, 6–13, 19–24, 26, 27,
scholasticism (see: scholastic) 29–33, 35, 38–53, 56, 58, 62, 67, 70–72,
Schriftgemässheit 112–113 79–83, 85–99, 105, 106, 108, 113,
scribal prophecy scribal (see: prophecy) 114, 123, 126, 133, 135, 137, 159–161,
scriptura (see: nuda scriptura, solo scriptura, 177, 183–186, 191–193, 195, 196,
scriptura prima) 210, 211, 216, 217, 226, 227, 230, 233,
scriptura prima 52 243–248, 251, 252, 256, 260, 261, 265,
scriptural witness (see: witness of scripture) 269, 270, 272, 277, 278, 280, 282, 283,
scripture 1–14, 19–30, 32–35, 38–53, 286–291, 294, 295, 300, 301, 315–317,
56–73, 79–99, 105–109, 111–116, 118, 319–322, 325, 330, 331, 336–343,
126, 133, 134, 137, 139, 143, 151, 153, 345–347, 349–353, 355–358
154, 159–161, 177, 184, 185, 191–193, solas 9, 10, 14, 41, 42, 79–104, 315, 338,
195–198, 200, 202, 203, 205, 206, 339n, 340, 341, 350, 357
208, 210–212, 222, 225, 230, 232, 233, solo scriptura 51, 247n21, 350
235–237, 243–256, 260–265, 270–272, solo verbo 9, 92, 108
277, 278, 280–282, 286, 287, 289–291, solus Christus 1, 9, 21, 67, 79, 86, 95–99,
294, 295, 298, 301, 302, 307–309, 338, 353
315–332, 336–358 soteriological 9, 13, 14, 41, 42, 61, 62, 65,
scripture interprets scripture (see: sacra 73, 89, 92–93, 133, 248n31, 251, 325,
scriptura sui ipsius interpres) 346
scripture, sufficiency of (see: suffiscientia) soteriology (see: soteriological)
Index 371
special revelation (see: revelation) 305, 309, 316–319, 321, 330, 337, 338,
Sprachereignis 108, 109, 116 341, 342, 350–352, 357
statement of faith 88(n39), 280 transcendent 30n, 31, 244n10, 249, 253,
Statenvertaling (Authorized Version) 185 256
stories 29, 38, 66, 67, 68, 70, 123, 162, 166, Trent (see: Council of Trent)
170–177, 235, 269, 294, 306, 317, 326, Tridentine (see: Council of Trent)
354 Tridentine (see: Council of Trent)
story (see: stories) Trinitarian acts 9, 66
subjective (see: subjectivism) Trinitarian Renaissance 5
subjectivism 50, 89, 98, 106, 117, 243, 255, Trinity 80, 251, 351
271, 303 truth 3, 5, 14, 22, 24, 31, 35, 38, 42–44, 49,
suffiscientia (sufficiency of scripture) 34, 50, 51, 58, 62, 67, 71, 73, 80, 86, 87, 89,
39, 51, 52, 67, 73, 86, 244, 248, 295, 90, 93, 98, 112, 113, 116, 117, 134, 160,
340, 345, 349, 353, 356 161, 187, 230, 231, 244, 247, 249, 251,
systematic theology 1, 2, 3, 13, 14, 19–118, 254, 255, 267, 272, 289, 299, 319, 323,
134, 244, 277, 299, 342 325, 337, 338, 341–343, 346–349, 351,
352, 354, 356
Taita 167, 168
Talmud 126n12, 131 unwritten revelation (see: revelation)
Tanakh 67, 71 Uroffenbarung (see: revelation)
Targum 143n31, 198–200
Tel Dan Stela 162, 164 values 261, 280–286
Tell Zayit 164 Vanhoozer, Kevin J. 4n, 6, 7, 13, 14,
Ten Commandments (see: Decalogue) 66(n35), 69n46, 70, 86n33, 91, 234–
Tetragrammaton 197n 235, 236n, 238n, 244, 254–255, 308,
Textsicherungsformel (see: canon formula) 336
Textsicherungsformel 138, 144, 154 Versluis, Arie 7, 10, 137, 317, 344, 345
textual transmission 155, 224, 225, 227 vitality 226, 230
textual variants 222n18 viva vox 88n40, 114, 252, 255
textuality 7, 85, 88(n40), 89, 355 voices of theology 286, 290
theological interpretation of scripture 2–7,
12, 13, 94, 116, 161, 218, 255, 341 watchword 8, 39, 40, 82
theological revelation (see: revelation) Westminster Confession 51
theologoumenon 72 wisdom 68, 143, 237, 350
Torah 10, 11, 48, 72, 125, 126(n12), witness of scripture / scriptural witness 20,
131–134, 137–155, 329, 344, 345, 22, 23, 32, 34, 35, 39, 92, 111, 112,
356 316, 318, 321n6, 347, 353, 354,
tota scriptura 20, 26, 88n41, 97n71, 109, 357
192, 270(n36) witness of the Holy Spirit 39, 49–52
tradition (living) 226 Word of God 3–5, 9, 11, 12, 19, 40, 50,
tradition 1, 3, 6–8, 11, 12, 20–24, 26, 28, 62, 65–67, 70, 73, 85, 88, 90, 107, 108,
29, 34, 38, 40–44, 46, 50, 52, 57–59, 111–114, 192, 196, 204, 210, 211, 217,
63, 64, 69, 73, 82–85, 92, 96–98, 225–227, 232, 233, 244–247, 250, 254,
106, 109, 110, 113, 118, 123, 124, 126, 255, 263, 267, 271, 272, 300, 322, 323,
129–134, 140, 159, 164, 183, 185, 195, 342, 343
201, 205, 219, 220, 222, 226, 227, 231, Word-event (see: Sprachereignis)
233, 243, 244, 246, 247, 252, 253, 260, worship 24, 34, 69, 70, 124, 255, 267, 279,
262, 263, 265–269, 277, 278, 280, 282, 284, 297, 303, 306, 315, 322, 328, 329,
289, 290, 294, 295, 297, 299, 302, 304, 356
372 Index
Wortgeschehen (see: Sprachereignis) 212, 222, 223n, 225, 226, 265, 269,
writing, theology of 10, 137–155 318n, 341, 344–346
writings 11, 39, 41n9, 51, 84, 88, 93n, 94,
126n11, 131, 134, 155n, 170, 199, 205, Zeitgemässheit 112–113

(Studies in Reformed Theology) Hans Burger (Ed.), Arnold Huijgen (Ed.), Eric Peels (Ed.) - Sola Scriptura - Biblical and Theological Perspectives On Scripture, Authority, and Hermeneuti

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

(Studies in Reformed Theology) Hans Burger (Ed.), Arnold Huijgen (Ed.), Eric Peels (Ed.) - Sola Scriptura - Biblical and Theological Perspectives On Scripture, Authority, and Hermeneuti

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Sola Scriptura

Studies in Reformed Theology

Eddy van der Borght (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

Abraham van de Beek (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/srt

Hans Burger, Arnold Huijgen and Eric Peels

Names: Burger, Hans, 1974- editor.

Copyright 2018 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

1 Contra et Pro Sola Scriptura 19

2 The Problematic Character of Sola Scriptura 38

3 Foundation or Perspective? On the Usefulness of Formation

4 Alone Together: Sola Scriptura and the Other Solas

5 Hermeneutical Theology as Contemporary Rendition of

6 Oral Tradition in the Old Testament and Judaism 123

7 “And Moses Wrote This Torah”: Canon Formulas and the

9 “And it Shall Come to Pass in Those Days …” Eschatological Prophecy

10 Sacra Scriptura Sui Ipsius Interpres: Reinterpretation in the

11 Sola Scriptura and the Imperfection of the Hebrew Text 216

12 Reading the Bible with Multifocal Lenses 230

13 Sola Scriptura: The Relevance of Luther’s Use of Sola Scriptura in

14 Sola Scriptura and Calvin’s Appeal to Chrysostom’s Exegesis 260

15 Sola Scriptura as Social Construction. A Practical Theological

16 Sola Scriptura and the Formative Role of Practical Theology 294

17 The Communio Sanctorum as Scripture’s Home: Sola, Singing and the

18 Sola Scriptura Means Scripture First! A “Mere Protestant” Dogmatic

Koert van Bekkum

Henk van den Belt

Rock-Solid Foundations (Brill, 2007) he has published articles on the Book of

Willem Maarten Dekker

Rob van Houwelingen

Jeannette Kreijkes-van Esch

Léon van Ommen

Computer, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. His publications include The Role of

Willem van Vlastuin

At the occasion of the 500th anniversary of Luther’s Ninety-Five The-

© Koninklijke Brill NV, leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/9789004356436_002

challenges in the field of theological interpretation of scripture, in which

2 Connecting Biblical Exegesis and Systematic Theology

3 The Challenge of a “Theological Interpretation of Scripture”

Because the movement of the theological interpretation of scripture is a

(Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013); Kevin J. Vanhoozer, First Theology: God, Scripture &

In Kampen and Apeldoorn, theology has been studied in close relation to

4 Setup of the Present Volume

4.1 Four Perspectives, Two Reviews

4.2 Systematic Perspectives

12 Wisse, “Contra et Pro Sola Scriptura,” in the present volume, 31.

13 Hans Burger, “Foundation or Perspective? On the Usefulness of Formation and Epistemol-

4.3 Biblical Perspectives

15 Dekker, “Hermeneutical Theology as Contemporary Rendition of the Sola Scriptura”, 118.

4.4 Historical and Practical Perspectives

who overestimated the tradition of the Church, presently the tradition of

4.5 Two Reviews

16 Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.

acknowledged other authorities than the scriptures, although scripture re-

21 Vanhoozer, “Sola Scriptura Means Scripture First”, 348.

Fowl, Stephen E. “The Role of Authorial Intention in the Theological Interpretation of

Contra et Pro Sola Scriptura

© Koninklijke Brill NV, leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/9789004356436_003

contemporary theology. Building further on this example, I will suggest that

2 What Do I Mean by Sola Scriptura?

If we want to argue against or in favor of the sola scriptura principle, we have to

4 John V. Fesko, ‘The Doctrine of Scripture in Reformed Orthodoxy’, in A Companion to Re-

2 Connecting Biblical Exegesis and Systematic Theology

3 The Challenge of a “Theological Interpretation of Scripture”

4 Setup of the Present Volume

4.1 Four Perspectives, Two Reviews

4.2 Systematic Perspectives

4.3 Biblical Perspectives

4.4 Historical and Practical Perspectives

4.5 Two Reviews

2 What Do I Mean by Sola Scriptura?

3 John Piper’s Biblical Arguing as an Example

4 The Sola Scriptura Makes Theologians Lazy

5 Scripture and the Decalogue

6 Pro Sola Scriptura

7 Consequences of This Step

1 The Origin of the Triad

2 Scripture and Tradition

3 Scripture and General Revelation

4 Word and Spirit

2 Two Critiques of Sola Scriptura

3 The ‘Original’ Meaning of Sola Scriptura

4 Towards a Viable Definition of Sola Scriptura

from the demands of logic and ontology, and to understand it in a p ersonalist