This month, several authors have demonstrated that the Nicene Creed (325 AD, updated in 381 AD) is rooted in solid biblical truth. The Creed is a wonderful summary of the most important doctrinal conclusions of biblical exegesis. But now that we have the creed, can the process work in reverse? Can the Nicene Creed actually help us to read our Bibles better?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this short article, I will argue that yes, the Nicene Creed can, and even should, aid our exegesis.[1]<\/a> Yet in their proper role, the creeds never allow us to supplant the authorially-intended meaning of the text via allegory or some other means. Rather, the creeds help us conform our worldview to that of the biblical authors, such that we are better enabled to understand the meaning they communicated, and the God about whom they spoke.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the greatest myths the modern age sold Christians was that biblical interpretation ought to be \u2018objective\u2019 or \u2018neutral.\u2019[2]<\/a> That is, the reader ought leave his beliefs about the Bible\u2019s unity, the character of God, and the trustworthiness of scripture aside in the name of objectivity. On first blush, these seem like worthy aims\u2014as believers, we all want to understand Scripture on its own terms. None of us want our preconceptions to prevent us from hearing and being confronted by the voice of God in Scripture. And so, \u2018neutral\u2019 exegesis often sounds like simply faithful Christian reading. However, beginning in academia and slowly seeping into the church, the quest for neutrality and objectivity morphed into skepticism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Taking this approach, each book of the Bible\u2014indeed, even each passage\u2014was treated as an island and pitted against the others. Scripture\u2019s unified message was replaced with many competing theologies: the \u2018high Christology\u2019 of John\u2019s Gospel against the \u2018low Christology\u2019 of the other gospels; the \u2018henotheism\u2019 of the patriarchs (adherence to one God in the midst of many) against the \u2018centralized monotheism\u2019 of national Israel. In summary, the quest for neutral exegesis cannibalized itself and threatened to devour the church by positing a contradictory Bible, an evolving religion, and an anti-supernatural smugness. Approaching each text of the Bible individually, setting the rest of Scripture\u2019s story, worldview, and theology aside in the name of \u2018neutral exegesis,\u2019 only served to sever the biblical authors from their own beliefs and yielded disastrous exegetical results.[3]<\/a> It turns out that the biblical authors did share the same worldview, believed in the same God, and were rooted in the same history of God\u2019s dealings with his people. In the end, it is better to read the Bible as a Christian than as a skeptic\u2014and the creeds can help us do that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The best framework from which to interpret Scripture is the worldview of its authors. But what worldview is that? James Hamilton, among many others, has demonstrated that the worldview of each biblical author was formed by saturation in earlier Scripture. [4]<\/a> That is, each author\u2019s worldview was shaped by the portions of the Bible that were written before <\/em>he began writing. As a result, the authors of Scripture shared a common framework of faith\u2014each one believing and expounding upon all that God had revealed to prior generations. This means not only that the authors of Scripture understood themselves to be a part of one unified story, propelled forward by God\u2019s progressively unfolding covenants,[5]<\/a> but also that they understood themselves to be dealing with the same God\u2014a God who had revealed unchanging truths about his identity from the very beginning.[6]<\/a> Thus, from the beginning, all the biblical authors firmly believed that God is the eternal creator of all things, omnipotent, omniscient, holy, and good without rival or equal, the only one worthy of worship, and utterly singular in his being. Thus, when we come to read Scripture, it would behoove us to do so with these categories already in place. <\/em>While there may be a time for setting our preconceptions aside to allow Scripture to prove itself afresh, we absolutely should notdo so every time we read. Instead, the more we come to share the Bible\u2019s own worldview and the more we re-read the text with that worldview already in place, the deeper we will be able to understand the text\u2019s meaning. The more we train ourselves to share the same theological substructures as the Bible\u2019s authors, the deeper we will be able to plumb the depths of their work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n In what follows, I will argue that the Nicene Creed accurately represents the worldview of the biblical authors and are the best place[7]<\/a> to become quickly and deeply acquainted with their theological substructures\u2014at least, that is, on the issues the creeds address.[8]<\/a> In this article, I will focus on interpretation of the New Testament and the worldview of the New Testament authors, but I hope to write a future article demonstrating how these principles apply to the Old Testament.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Because the biblical authors share a worldview, the various parts of Scripture not only provide us with building blocks for theology\u2014they also presuppose <\/em>a certain theology.[9]<\/a> In other words, theology is internal <\/em>to the Scriptures and functions as an organizing rule or structure within it. In the same way that English grammar provides an invisible set of organizing rules for language, apart from which our communication would be incoherent, so theology functions as a set of invisible organizing rules in Scripture, apart from which many passages would be contradictory or nonsensical. Likewise, in the same way that a careful interpreter must ensure that their interpretation follows the text\u2019s grammar and does not violate it, so we must interpret Scripture in accord with its own \u201ctheological grammar\u201d\u2014that is, in accord with the theology it presupposes, and which gives it its organizing structure.[10]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n It is my contention, and has been that of the church for centuries<\/a>, that the creeds of the early church rightly summarize and teach us not only truth that comes from <\/em>Scripture, but the very theology that forms Scripture\u2019s organizing substructure.[11]<\/a> That the creeds do so using words not found in Scripture should not be surprising\u2014these extrabiblical words are necessary in order to clarify and define the meaning of disputed biblical words. Just as the absence of the word \u2018participle\u2019 from a sentence does not mean a participle is not present, so the absence of the word \u2018Trinity\u2019 or the phrase \u2018one substance\u2019 (homoousios<\/em>) from a biblical text does not imply its absence in that text.[12]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course, anyone can claim that they have the key to unlocking the Scriptures, but the proof is in the pudding. We know the rules of grammar because when tested, they work\u2014they enable understanding. Likewise, we know the rules of Scripture\u2019s internal \u201ctheological grammar\u201d because when tested, they enable deeper understanding. Above all, the creeds help us understand about what (or whom)<\/em> the Scriptures speak (the referent), which in turn helps us better understand the meaning (the sense). So then, let\u2019s turn to an scriptural test-case and see how Nicene principles can aid us in our exegesis.[13]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n When Paul speaks of the one who \u201calone has immortality\u201d in 1 Timothy 6:16, of whom is he speaking? And how can Nicaea help us? Our first task is to examine the context (the creeds are no silver bullet that allows us to skip steps!) 1 Timothy 6:13\u201316 reads:<\/p>\n\n\n\n I charge you in the presence of God<\/strong>, who gives life to all things<\/strong>, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which he will display at the proper time\u2014he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see<\/strong>. To him be honor and eternal dominion<\/strong>. Amen.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n In this passage, Paul charges Timothy in the presence of two witnesses (cf. Deut. 19:15): God the Father (here simply called God) and Jesus Christ. We know that \u201cGod\u201d (1 Tim. 6:13) refers to the Father since he is here distinguished from Jesus Christ as a separate witness to Paul\u2019s charge. That charge is for Timothy to keep the commandment until the appearing of Christ, \u201cwhich he<\/em>\u201d\u2014<\/em>that is, a subject other than Jesus, which in the context can only be God the Father\u2014<\/em>“will display at the proper time\u201d (1 Tim. 6:14). This \u201che\u201d\u2014God the Father\u2014who will display Christ is then further described as \u201cthe blessed and only Sovereign . . . who alone has immortality (1 Tim. 6:15\u201316). Thus far, the context demonstrates for us that the Father is described as the one who alone has immortality\u2014and what more, in a passage that explicitly distinguishes him from the Son! What are we to make of this?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Arius thought he knew exactly what to make of this passage\u2014Jesus was not immortal, and therefore not God.[14]<\/a> But the Nicene Creed\u2014as a right summary of (some of) Scripture\u2019s internal theological rules, and of Paul\u2019s own worldview as a biblical author\u2014pressures us to dig deeper for another explanation. So we return to our exegesis and notice that Father and Son are here placed alongside each other, as equal witnesses. Moreover, both Christ and the Father are identified as \u201clord\u201d\u2014”our Lord Jesus Christ\u201d on the one hand, and the Father as the \u201cLord of Lords\u201d on the other. Thus, remembering our Nicene grammar, when Paul turns to address God the Father as the \u201cblessed and only Sovereign . . . who alone has immortality,\u201d we say \u201cAmen!\u201d The Father alone has immortality because he is the One and only God. And yet, this does not<\/em> distinguish him from the Son, since the Son shares this same, singular divine nature. As Paul weaves back and forth, we see that the two witnesses\u2014two divine persons\u2014are one: one Lord and God.[15]<\/a> While this does not change the sense <\/em>of Paul\u2019s text (since grammatically, the Father is clearly in view), a better understanding of the referent<\/em>\u2014that is, the God about whom <\/em>Paul speaks\u2014enables us to better understand both <\/em>the text and the God about whom it speaks. We now can make sense of how Paul can speak of an absolutely singular glory of the Father alone and yet at the same time set him in direct and exact parallel with the Son! It is because they are one and the same God, two persons, in one nature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n While access to the Nicene Creed is not strictly necessary to interpret this passage\u2014one can independently arrive at an understanding of Paul\u2019s theological worldview by comprehensively studying his corpus and the earlier Scriptures that form the backdrop for it\u2014it is wisest and best to utilize the Creed. Nowhere else do we have such a clear, succinct, and time-tested summary of the Trinitarian theology that formed the substructure of Paul\u2019s worldview. And the usefulness of creedal theology in exegesis only multiplies when we consider Chalcedon and the other ecumenical councils as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As wonderfully rich as the creeds are, and as helpful as they are for exegesis, they can be inappropriately applied to disastrous results. In short, the creeds become dangerous for exegesis when they are combined with belief in multiple textual meanings. One common view today avers that the texts of Scripture have no singular determinate meaning; rather, the Holy Spirit may mean many different (even disparate) things in a single text, only some of which were intended by the human author.[16]<\/a> In this view, these various meanings may be discovered in mystical contemplation, through a process known as allegorical exegesis. However, advocates of this view recognize that some guardrail is necessary in order to prevent wild, even anti-Christian, meanings from being found in Scripture, and the creeds are therefore put forward as that guardrail. However, as I will demonstrate below, the creeds are not sufficient to this task.<\/p>\n\n\n\n How should we posture ourselves when we come to read God\u2019s Word? Few Christians would dispute that we ought to approach Scripture prayerfully and contemplatively, open to anything the Holy Spirit might say. But does this mean that any given passage of Scripture means different things on different days to different people, depending on what the Spirit is speaking in that moment? Or does it rather mean that the meaning of the text is definite, and we ought to humbly submit whatever aspects of our mind, heart, and actions that the Spirit confronts via the implications of this single meaning?<\/p>\n\n\n\n If we take the first approach (multiple meanings), we quickly run into a problem. Any text of Scripture can mean anything (so long as it doesn\u2019t violate the creeds)\u2014which means that no specific <\/em>text means anything specific. <\/em>We end up with a Bible full of generalized verses that mean generally true things, but no individual texts that make particular exhortations, call us to faith in explicit areas, or demand repentance for distinct sins. So long as any indwelling sin remains in us, we will always conform the text to our presuppositions, since we have stripped Scripture of its authority to specifically <\/em>confront us in the domains in which we are most self-deceived. Thus, allegorical hermeneutics distort the right and pious instinct to be receptive to the Spirit and mute <\/em>the voice of the Holy Spirit in Scripture rather than amplifying it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n More than this, the creeds are not sufficient rules for all Christian doctrine. While the creeds admirably address the Trinity and Christology, these are not the only issues Christians must tackle to live faithfully in the world. For example, the creeds say little about justification,[17]<\/a> and nothing at all about LGBT<\/a>Q+ issues. Are these matters then irrelevant to the Christian faith?<\/p>\n\n\n\n If we adopt an allegorical hermeneutic whose only control is the creeds (and\/or church tradition) we will be forced either to admit that, yes, these issues are irrelevant or <\/em>we will need to turn to a living authoritative voice who can speak to today\u2019s issues on behalf of the creeds and the tradition.[18]<\/a> Roman Catholics offer this in the form of the magisterium (i.e., the pope and councils speaking in their official capacities to interpret doctrine). But Protestants have no such recourse. In the end, if we embrace allegory, we will either have to let anything go or convert to Roman Catholicism<\/a>\u2014whether we use the creeds as a guardrail or not.[19]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Does the Nicene Creed help us read our Bibles? Absolutely! The creeds plumb the depths of the biblical worldview, giving us a much richer understanding of that about which <\/em>the Bible\u2019s authors spoke, which in turn makes us better exegetes. However, as evangelicals have recovered our appreciation for the creeds and church tradition, some have twisted the role of the creeds in interpretation, leveraging them to usurp the authorially-intended meaning of Holy Writ. The creeds can maintain their authority only so long as they are understood as a governing rule internal <\/em>to the Scriptures\u2014that is, a summary of the Bible\u2019s own theological substructures. As soon as the creeds become an external <\/em>rule, determining valid and invalid interpretations on their own (apart from authorial intent), the distinct voice of the Holy Spirit in the text is usurped, and soon must be replaced with chaos or Roman rule. Let us therefore embrace the creeds, consciously using them in our reading and preaching, but always and only as a servant to elucidate the referent and authorially-intended meaning of the text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n1. In this article, my primary focus is on the Nicene Creed, as that is the focus of this month\u2019s celebration at Christ Over All. <\/em>However, I believe the principles in this article can be applied to all three ecumenical creeds: the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed) as well as to the first six ecumenical councils: Nicaea (325), 1st<\/sup> Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), 2nd<\/sup> Constantinople (553), and 3rd<\/sup> Constantinople (680\u201381). tOf these councils, only Nicaea and the first Council of Constantinople produced creeds, although the Chalcedonian definition is often understood to have creedal authority. There is a seventh ecumenical council (the Second Council of Nicaea), however, its doctrinal conclusions are questionable. While it re-affirmed the full humanity of Christ, it also upheld the veneration of icons. However, covering these other creeds and councils (including the reasons for omitting the seventh) are beyond the scope of this article.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
2. I am not here denying that Scripture\u2014or written texts in general\u2014have objective meaning. They do, and interpreters can be more right or wrong in their interpretation and application based on how closely they approximate that meaning in their interpretation. Rather, I am arguing that the application of so-called \u2018objective\u2019 scientific methods that seek to divorce Scripture from the faith commitments of its authors do a poor job in helping us discover Scripture\u2019s true meaning.<\/h6>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Good Exegesis is Creedal Exegesis<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
3. This is the story of \u2018higher criticism\u2019 or \u2018biblical criticism\u2019 in a nutshell.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
Adopting the Worldview of the Biblical Authors<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
4. James M. Hamilton, What Is Biblical Theology? A Guide to the Bible\u2019s Story, Symbolism, and Patterns<\/em> (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014), 15\u201316.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
5. Cf. Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants. <\/em>Second Edition(Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018).<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
6. \u2018The very beginning\u2019 has a double meaning here. God revealed unchanging truths about himself to Adam, the first man, and continued to do so to the patriarchs. These undoubtedly formed the worldview of later biblical authors. But special emphasis should be given to the revelation of himself that God gave to the first author of Scripture\u2014the permanent record of God\u2019s revelation\u2014the prophet Moses. The self-revelation of God in the five books of Moses were the<\/em> foundation par excellence<\/em> for the worldview of all subsequent biblical authors.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
7. By the \u2018best place\u2019 I mean that the creeds are the most time-tested and accurate summary of the Bible\u2019s theological substructures that do not sacrifice depth. While there is no replacement for steeping oneself in the Scriptures, the creeds are both a useful \u2018crash course\u2019 in the biblical worldview as well as a check on possible misunderstandings and misconstruals of that worldview. As such, the creeds are one of the best places to start if we want to read our Bibles better\u2014but they are not a replacement for reading our Bibles.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
8. There are, unfortunately, those who argue that the creeds\u2014without Scripture\u2014are sufficient for the entire Christian worldview, even on issues they do not address. For an examination and critique of this position, see Bijan Mahlouji\u2019s forthcoming article with Christ Over All.<\/em><\/h6>\n\n\n\n
9. I owe this insight to Bobby Jamieson\u2019s \u201cBiblical Reasoning\u201d course at Bethlehem College & Seminary (Summer 2021). Cf. R.B. Jamieson & Tyler R. Wittman, Biblical Reasoning: Christological and Trinitarian Rules for Exegesis <\/em>(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2022), 41.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
10. Jamieson & Wittman, i, 41, 56\u201358.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
11. That is, on the issues that the creeds address. I am not arguing that the creeds exhaustively teach Scripture\u2019s \u2018theological grammar.\u2019<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
12. One way of articulating this is that the creeds articulate the same theological \u201cjudgments\u201d as Scripture, but they do so using different \u201cconcepts\u201d in order to clarify and define precisely what those \u201cjudgments\u201d are. For more on this, see David Yeago, \u201cThe New Testament and the Nicene Dogma,\u201d Pro Ecclesia <\/em>3, no. 2 (1993): 152\u201364.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
13. For one of the best books on utilizing theology\u2014specifically, the theology of the Bible and the creeds\u2014in exegesis, see Jamieson & Wittman, Biblical Reasoning: Christological and Trinitarian Rules for Exegesis<\/em><\/a>.<\/h6>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Scripture\u2019s Internal Theological Rules<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
1 Timothy 6: An Example of Creedal Interpretation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
14. Arius, Letter to Alexander<\/em><\/a>. Arius clearly alludes to this passage with the phrase, \u201calone having Immortality,\u201d interpreting it to mean that the Father has immortality and the Son does not.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
15. Someone might object that Paul cannot be saying the Father and Son are one in this passage because of the phrase \u201cwhom no one has ever seen or can see\u201d (1 Tim. 6:16). Since we have seen the Son, Paul must be speaking of the Father only, excluding the Son, not identifying them as one. However, this objection does not hold. That which makes Father and Son one is the divine nature, and no one has ever seen the Son in his divine nature (just as no one has seen the Father). We have, by the miracle of the incarnation, seen the Son in his human nature. Yet even so, he shares one and the same divine nature (which is immortal, and which no one has ever seen or can see) with the Father. The Father and Son are one in divinity, though Jesus alone took on humanity.<\/h6>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Danger! Allegory & Creedal Exegesis Taken too Far<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
16. R.R. Reno, The End of Interpretation: Reclaiming the Priority of Ecclesial Exegesis<\/em> (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic), 2022.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
Muting the Voice of Scripture<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Return to Roman Captivity<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
17. The creeds say nothing directlyabout justification. However, the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone better accords with the Nicene Creed\u2019s teaching that salvation is accomplished not by us going up to God, but by Christ coming down to us.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
18. Some may argue that the tradition of the church speaks against LGBTQ issues. But what about justification? In this area of doctrine, multiple traditions compete, and who is to arbitrate between them?<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
19. For a fuller treatment on the dangers of allegory, especially its inevitable tendency toward Roman Catholicism, see my Christ Over All article on the hermeneutics of Christian Platonism<\/a>\u2014a new and popular movement aimed at pushing evangelicals and non-evangelicals alike toward allegorical interpretation.<\/h6>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n