God in His inspired Bible besides teaching us unchanging truths, informs us of His actions in history. In our time this “salvation history” is coming to be more widely appreciated than it was in the past. Trouble arises when some make this newly appreciated historical character of the Bible the excuse for nullifying anything in the Bible which they do not like. They claim that because the Bible is all historically conditioned, whatever in it conflicts with current fads or personal opinions (such as its rules about who may hold church office) is no longer binding for us. Dr. Weeks of Sydney, Australia, in this third part of his article deals with this problem.

III HISTORICAL RELATIVITY

The Bible As History

There has been in Reformed theology, in the last hundred years or so a rediscovery of redemptive history. Biblical theology, with history as its principle of organization has appeared alongside systematic theology. One thinks in particular of Geerhardus Vos, the man Kuyper wanted for O.T. at the Free University. As a teacher at Princeton Seminary he strongly influenced Presbyterianism. This development has added a depth and richness to Reformed Biblical study and theology.

Historical Relativism

At the same time we witness in non-Christian thought another sort of development of interest in history. That is historical relativism. It is argued that everything must be seen in its historical context. Ideas and movements are time–bound because they are shaped by the forces of their time. The truths of one age cannot be the truths of another.

Confusing The Two

Is the appreciation of redemptive history another form of historical relativism? You would think so from the way the two are sometimes brought together. It will be argued that just as the N.T. superceded the commands of the O.T. so we no longer have to keep the time-bound commands of the N.T. It is argued that there has been a progression in salvation history from the N.T. just as the N.T. progressed over the O.T.

God’s Revelation Against Relativism

However this pressing of redemptive history into the general structure of historical relativism ignores a basic fact. Progress, change in Biblical law is not part of ongoing cultural change. It is not a continuous development such as we find in human cultural history. Rather it is episodic. It is covenantal. The establishment of new covenants is closely connected with God’s acts of redemption. The O.T. ceremonial law was not done away with because it had become old fashioned. It was superceded by the new situation into which the people of God has been brought by Christ’s work.

It is important to realize that a view which excluded divine intervention in human history must reduce redemptive history to human cultural history. Redemption must then come through the outworking of the principles which God from the beginning placed in creation. The history of human culture becomes identical with the history of redemption. Thus it is perfectly consistent to treat the change from the legislation of the O.T. to that of the N.T. as the same as the present day rejection of N.T. legislation which contradicts the fashions of our age. Cultural change will be seen as determining and requiring both changes. But Biblical Theology itself would not have brought us to that picture of law change. Rather the Biblical picture of our period is of an age between two great redemptive acts; those of the first and second comings of Christ.

Historical Relativism Misinterprets The Bible

If historical relativism is accepted, it has certain consequences for exegesis. What is in the Biblical text must then have arisen from the ideas, debates, attitudes, etc. of the time. We often hear warnings against interpreting the Bible against its historical background. What often happens is the reverse. One argues from the Biblical text to what the customs and attitudes of the time “must” have been. For example, it has become almost “dogma” that Paul told the women in Corinth to wear veils because that was what was required of modest women in Corinth. How do we know that? The only extra–Biblical source which I have seen quoted in this connection says it was not the custom!! Unconsciously we can construct the “background” which is required in order to explain the text. If this danger appears in a reasonably straight-forward matter like dress customs, how much more will it arise in a complex question of attitudes, e.g., the role of women?

Unintentional Error

In all fairness it must be said that the Neo-Reformed want to avoid historical relativism. The adherents of the Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea, (of Dooyeweerd) would say there are norms that derive from the fact that God has structured creation in a certain way. While others who might want to emphasize the time–bound character of Scripture, might not state as explicitly the nature of their principles, I think that they too would not reject everything as time-bound. I must confess that I am not certain what they hold is not time–bound. In the very nature of the case it is hard for them to set such boundaries clearly. If we demand sharp, clear and definite lines to distinguish what is time–bound from what is not, we may well be accused of timidity. Perhaps our quest for certainty of such issues is merely a desire to escape the uncertainties of our “brave new world.”

Self-Defeating Arguments

Arguments which involve some psychological analysis of the other side are generally self defeating. Perhaps those who hold to the older Reformed position are afraid of our age of uncertainty. And yet, maybe the Neo-Reformed have allowed themselves to be swept from their secure position by this age of uncertainty.

Arguments have to be tested by Scripture. The Bible teaches that there are certain things that reflect the structure of creation –such as the relation of men and women and heterosexual as opposed to homosexual relations. Yet these are the very things that are being described as time–bound. One could be more impressed with the Neo-Reformeds’ ability to discern the unchanging principles if their discernment agreed more with Scripture’s.

The danger of arguments about historical relativism is that they can recoil. If the Scripture is a product of its time then so must our opinions be. We are told to interpret the Biblical statements in the light of opinions of their time. This same argument is applied to the Confessions. Why stop there? Let us apply it to the arguments of our day. The argument, that the Biblical prohibition on women teaching in the church is time–bound, would then be seen as an attempt to conform the church to the expectations of today. The idea of history as a development and unfolding of principles implanted in the original creation would then be seen as take–over of the organic, developmental metaphor that became so dominant in late nineteenth century thought.

I hope you will realize that these suggestions are made with a bit of tongue–in–cheek. I would not want to simply dismiss modern ideas by calling them a mere product of their time. For I believe that the Scripture can work in modern man a measure of escape from the intellectual fashions of this world. Nevertheless, I would find the confident statement that this or that element of Scripture is time-bound more convincing if it came from people who were as critical of the time-bound nature of their own opinions as they are of what they criticize.

United By The Bible Or Conforming To The World?

In raising this problem I am concerned with a lot more than winning debating points. If the Biblical writers are not lifted out of their age or freed from the erroneous opinions of their contemporaries, shall we fare any better? This links up with the problem I considered earlier. There are cultural factors which separate Reformed and Presbyterian. Can we overcome this cultural captivity and work together? If the Biblical writers did not overcome their cultural captivity, how shall we do so?

I think the force of this dilemma is not felt by the Neo–Reformed because to them barriers seem to be collapsing. Holding their new position, they find much more in common with a wide segment of Christendom then they did while holding the old position. It is only between them and those holding to the older Reformed position that the barriers seem to increase. Yet this greater communion with Christendom at large could be due to the fact that the Neo–Reformed have joined the broad mass whose opinions are conformed to the spirit of this age.

The older Reformed view of Scripture held open the possibility of God surprising us, as He surprised the church of old. If He communicated the mystery of the Gospel directly to the apostles and prophets, so His Word could do that for us. Let us confess that we have often tried hard to avoid being surprised. We have wanted the Bible to approve our cozy conformity to this age. Praise God that He had refused to allow us to contain His Word. I feel sorry for those who now have a new way of keeping the Bible from surprising them. Whenever they are made uncomfortable by its deviation from the conventions and customs we have adopted they can dismiss that teaching as time-bound. The history of the Roman church is an instructive example. The appeal to “apostolic tradition” was originally an orthodox argument over against the heretics with their spurious gospels. Yet that device in time became the means by which Rome was able to adapt itself to the philosophical fashions and political necessities (as she saw them) of later times. In the course of that adaption the gospel was lost. So in our time the argument that the Bible is time-bound may seem a convenient argument over against various “Biblicist” positions. It gives the church so much more room to manoeuvre in adjusting itself to a new age. The problem is that room to manoeuvre over against the Scripture must mean death for the church, however more popular it may make us with the wise of this age. We may become more respectable but we will lose each other? It is the pressure to conform to Scripture that draws us together despite our cultural divisions. Take that away and culture will keep us separate.

(to be continued)