Doctrine

(This is post from the House of James booktalk blog)
I was asked to read Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe by Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears,[1] and provide my reflections on its content. I have read some of Driscoll’s previous works, and was impressed with them. However, this was not the case with Doctrine. Both the publisher and the authors make bold claims about the book’s credentials. First, they claim scholarly pedigree. [2] The suggestion is that this book is worthy of serious, even academic, study; rather than for merely devotional purposes. This is a goal worthy of commendation, since it is a necessary and important one. Second, it claims to be an accurate representation of what genuine and normative Christian beliefs must look like.[3] I believe both these claims are false, and from reading it, I am convinced that this book lacks the credibility to make them. This becomes evident when the methodology supporting Driscoll and Breshear’s biblical argumentation is examined. This encompasses composition, formation, and appropriate study of the biblical text. Any book on Christian doctrine must be rooted in the Bible. If your hermeneutic is wrong, it is likely your book is as well. If you are unable to show proper argumentation, then why should I trust you? In regards to Doctrine, this means that if Doctrine’s hermeneutic and argumentation is wrong, naive, or narrow, I should not trust it. Furthermore, it will be unable to make the claim, as its subtitle does, What Christians should believe. I am going to argue that this is exactly the case, and the book is not really ‘meaty’ nor can it claim to speak for widespread Christianity.

Context

The authors make a strong claim for the necessity of context-based reading. They say, “Because the Bible was not intended to be read in bits and pieces, reading verses out of context can lead to serious misunderstandings. Thus, rightly interpreting particular sections of Scripture requires paying attention both to the immediate context and the overall context of all Scripture. ”(43) This is a great statement, completely true, and necessary for a good hermeneutic. If only the authors followed their own advise and presented context in their biblical references. Most of their references are one or two verses, with little or no argumentation offered as support. Galatians 1:15 and Jeremiah 1:5 are present as support for God’s providential preparation of His human authors for their writing. It is beyond dispute that both Jeremiah and Paul were agents of God, working out of His providential care. However, the context of both these verses suggests that God’s providential act in their lives was to do with their prophetic careers, and not with their writings.[4] The claim that because God was behind their prophetic careers they must be speaking authoritative might still be an accurate one, but this requires a few steps of exegetical work, not just an assertion.[5] It might be what we want the text to mean, but it is not what it says.

Authorship and “Scholars”

Doctrine also discusses human authors in regards to the Old Testament. The point it is trying to make is that Jesus claims certain authors wrote certain books, and I am not going to dispute that claim. What I do take issue with is that instead of arguing for this, they suggest ‘many “scholars” boldly claim that Moses did not pen any of the first five books of the Bible, or that two or three authors penned Isaiah, none of them was actually Isaiah.’(62) Who are these nameless “scholars,” and where did they claim this? Does putting something in quotation marks guarantee they are wrong? This is not argument. Many of the scholars, who were left nameless, are strong evangelical and/or world class thinkers have argued that Moses did not write all of the Pentateuch or that there is a considerable shift in focus between Isaiah 39-40.[6] It is a serious allegation to call someone’s scholarly standing into question, at least name them and reference where they do it.

A second methodological concern is a naive (mis)understanding of the role and origin of Septuagint (or LXX). There is minimal reference to the LXX. The two prominent ones are on p. 53. Doctrine notes that “(c. 250 BC) Greek-speaking Jews living in Alexandria translated the Old Testament into Greek, calling it the Septuagint. For some unknown reason, they changed the content of several books, added many books, and rearranged the order of the books. ” (53) They continue “Early Christians followed Jesus and used the same books as found in the Hebrew Bible today. But as the center of Christianity moved away from Jerusalem and Christians read and worshiped more in Greek than Hebrew, there was more openness to the books of the Septuagint... ” The trouble with this is that the Bible of the early church was the LXX. Paul quotes from it, at times when it differs from the Hebrew Bible. It is a mis-representation of the facts to say what they said. If you question the legitimacy of the LXX you lose Paul. This seemingly negative representation of the LXX is dangerous and untenable. Gordon Fee says: “There are just enough idiosyncratic moments where Paul and the Septuagint agree against a more precise rendering of the Hebrew text to give us considerable confidence here... [Paul’s] wording, including some unusual renderings, are too often that of the Septuagint to allow one to think that he did not regularly use a form of translation that has come down to us as the Septuagint”[7] The LXX is essential, as it stands, for ancient and modern Christianity; It must not be minimized.

Translation

The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. This means our English Bibles are translations, faithful ones, but translations nonetheless. Doctrine makes significant mistakes in this area. A lengthy quote, followed by analysis will demonstrate this.

Scripture also has a single word to designate how Jesus diverts the active wrath of our rightfully angry God from us so that we are loved and not hated. The word is propitiation, which summarizes more than six hundred related words and events that explain it. The American Heritage Dictionary defines propitiation as something that appeases or conciliates an offended power, especially a sacrificial offering to a god. Propitiate is the only English word that carries the idea of pacifying wrath by taking care of the penalty for the offense that caused the wrath.

Many Christians are not familiar with this word, though, because various Bible translations use different words in an effort to capture its meaning. For example, the [NIV] and [NRSV] use “sacrifice of atonement,” and the [NLT] uses “sacrifice for sin” in such places as Romans 3:23-25, Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 2:2, and 1 John 4:10 where the original word was “propitiate.”

Worse still are the [RSV] and [NEB], which use “expiation” instead of “propitiation.” These latter two translations change the entire meaning of the verse, because propitiation deals with the penalty for sin whereas expiation deals with the cleansing from sin. The [ESV] has thankfully retained the original word “propitiation” from the Greek text of the New Testament. (259-260)

There are issues with this quotation. The original word cannot be an English one, but must be Greek. Therefore, the ESV cannot have retained the original word “propitiation,” but the original translation propitiation. Although this appears to be only a small technical mistake, it is much more than this. The authors supply no Greek word, nor a reason why propitiation is preferred. The primary question that must be asked is: “Since this specific Greek word was chosen, how must it be reflected in English?” This is not done. Instead, the authors assert their interpretation as the only possible one! This is done without consulting a lexicon. I cannot speak to their motive, but what I can say is that the Lexicon would undermine their generalization that propitiation is only option for the Greek words ἱλαστήριον, ἱλασμός, and ἱλάσκομαι. Instead BDAG,[8] the standard bearer for Greek-English Lexicons offers both as meanings, although appearing to prefer expiation.[9] Not providing any support, rejecting out of hand any other possible meaning, while criticising other translation, and not even alluding to the Greek text is counter-intuitive. This is not the only time where ancient words are left unsubstantiated. When they discuss the creation account, the authors neglect to provide support for translating the Hebrew originals as they do, but instead require the reader to trust their claims. Based on their actions in regard to ἱλαστήριον, ἱλασμός, and ἱλάσκομαι, is this wise?

Conclusion

These points have made it clear that there is a fundamental issue in the approach to the biblical text and its use in Doctrine. As mentioned Doctrine makes claim of how the text should be used, yet does not follow this itself. It minimizes scholars because they have a different view on various issues, without naming them or presenting argumentation. It misrepresents translation theory, and naively minimizes the role and function of the Septuagint. Christian doctrine, it must be remembered, rests entirely on the God’s revelation. The Bible is the surest record of this. If one misuses it, everything collapses. Since Doctrine misuses the Bible, why should I trust anything they say? Even though Doctrine makes many good points, is filled with great truth, and portrays many elements Christians should believe, I cannot be certain these claims hold water because they are built on a faulty foundation. This book is not meaty, but Tofu; not universally Christian, but Driscollian Christian.

Doctrine, and the sermon series from which it evolved, is a prerequisite for membership at Mars Hill Church. This will be the impact of the book. If you are not a fan of Driscoll, it is doubtful Doctrine will change your mind. If you are a fan, and agree theologically with him, Doctrine will go far to cement your worldview. For those who are indifferent to Driscoll, I see nothing in this book that lives up to its claims, or any reason to read this in order to understand doctrine. If you read to challenge your mind, Doctrine will fail you. If you read to probe your heart, it will fail you as well. In a nut shell there are better books than this one, to present Christian doctrine.

---

[1] Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears, Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe (Crossway Books, 2010)

[2] Driscoll claims, “We have in every way beefed up the content (from the 13 week sermon series at Mars Hill) significantly. It is a packed theological text following the storyline of the Bible.” http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/31245672. And Driscoll’s promotional video. “A Seminary-type lecture” http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/doctrine/trinity-god-is

[3] Notice this claim from the publishers write up. “Doctrine is the word Christians use to define the truth-claims revealed in Holy Scripture. Of course there is a multitude of churches, church networks, and denominations, each with their own doctrinal statement with many points of disagreement. But while Christians disagree on a number of doctrines, there are key elements that cannot be denied by anyone claiming to be a follower of Jesus. In Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe, Driscoll and Breshears teach thirteen of these key elements. This meaty yet readable overview of basic doctrine will help Christians clarify and articulate their beliefs in accordance with the Bible.” http://www.crossway.org/product/9781433506253 Granted this is a publisher’s claim which cannot always be added to the authors. However, the claims here echo elements of what Driscoll says in the promotional video.

[4] Paul is contrasting his current life of work for the gospel with his previous life in Judaism, where he was working against God. He is not talking about his authorship, but his call to preach the gospel among the Gentiles. The same can be said of Jeremiah, whom Paul is intentionally echoing here, where the second half of the quote is “I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” One wonders if Paul’s primary point in his allusion to Jeremiah is that God is sending him to the Nations?

[5] Although God appointing someone to be a prophet does not mean they are meant to write, since some were only oracular ones and not written ones. (Elijah, Elisha, Nathan)

[6] Fuller Professor John Goldingay, The Message of Isaiah 40-55: A Literary-theological Commentary (T and T Clark 2005), believes that Isaiah 40-55 are from the 6^th century rather than the 8^th as are 1-39. G.J. Wenham Genesis 1-15 (Word Biblical Commentaries 1987) allows for pre- and post-Mosiac elements in the Pentateuch. See Raymond Dillard and Tremper Longman III, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Zondervan 1993) pages 38-48; 268-276, for an excellent summary of the possibilities and views.

[7] Gordon Fee Pauline Christology (Hendrickson 2007) 201

[8] William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000) (BDAG).

[9] See BDAG p.473-474 as well as TDNT for more information on the Greek words and there possible meanings. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin.; ed. Gerhard Kittel et al.;, electronic ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-c1976) 3.320-22, Liddel-Scott seem to lean more toward propitiation, but expiation and other meanings are not dismissed out of hand. H.G. Liddell, A Lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (Oak Harbor, WA, 1996) 379.