THREE MORE BOOKS ON THE BIBLE: A CRITICAL REVIEW*

Trinity Journal, Spring 2006 by Carson, D A

(2) The definition of Scripture that Webster provides, for all its strengths, is simultaneously too large and too restrictive. He writes (as we have seen), '"Holy Scripture' is a shorthand term for the nature and function of the biblical writings in a set of communicative acts which stretch from God's merciful self-manifestation to the obedient hearing of the community of faith" (p. 5). The strength of the definition is in the resolve to connect Scripture to God himself; the notion of "Scripture" is incoherent if it is abstracted from God, who reveals himself by this means. But what is gained by saying that Holy Scripture is a shorthand "for the nature and function of the biblical text"? It is entirely proper to discuss the function of Scripture, of course; is it wise to make the function of Scripture part of the definition of what Scripture is as opposed to what it does? The next phrase is ambiguous: "in a set of communicative acts which stretch from God's merciful self-manifestation to the obedient hearing of the community of faith." Does this mean: (i) Scripture is the God-given means for Unking the communicative acts of God to their reception by obedience in the community of faith? Or: (ii) As a category, "Holy Scripture" includes the entire sweep of movement from the communicative acts of God all the way to their reception by obedience in the community of faith? Judging by what he goes on to say, Webster has the latter in view -but both readings are problematic. If the former, then Scripture itself is not revelation, but constitutes part of the link from revelation to reception of revelation; if the latter, then what "Holy Scripture" includes is much more than what is meant by η γρaøη it goes way beyond the writing to include the entire communicative act, from its giving to its reception. Not for a moment should we deny the importance of the entire sweep when it comes to discussion of the ways in which God graciously presences himself with his image-bearers, but that is not the same thing as saying that the word Scnpture is itself the appropriate term to refer to this entire sweep. Such usage is too all-embracing; worse, the effect, ironically, is to reduce what Scnpture itself is, what the written thing is. For whatever the written thing is, it remains that, even if people ignore it, even if people turn blind eyes to it and fail to see it for what it is, and receive none of God's self-presenting by this means. By opening the aperture to include the sweep of God's self-disclosure, Webster fails to acknowledge, as we shall see, what Scripture says about itself.

The same problem can be seen in Webster's treatment of revelation. Recall his definition:

Revelation is the self-presentation of the triune God, the free work of sovereign mercy in which God wills, establishes and perfects saving fellowship with himself in which humankind comes to know, love and fear him above all things, (p. 13; italics his)

Thus the content of revelation is "God's own proper reality" (p. 14); the agent is God himself; and it follows that revelation "is identical with God's triune being in its active self-presence" (p. 14). He stipulates further: