Stephens on Bullinger and Interpreting Scripture

Peter Stephens (see earlier post) observes the following with respect to Bullinger and Scripture:

“Bullinger regards three things as essential in reading the Bible: knowledge of languages, the scope of Scripture, and certain methods of interpretation. First, he emphasizes the necessity and usefulness of languages, and what is lost in not having them. In his support, he appeals to theologians, such as Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, and others, who recognized that fruitful theological work was not possible without the knowledge of languages. He even outlines in a practical way a course in Hebrew and Greek, having shown what is lost in not having the original biblical languages.

The second essential element concerns the scope (scopus) of Scripture, to which all the books of the Bible relate. Bullinger begins by referring to the Lutheran idea of law and gospel. He does not explicitly reject it, but simply says that he neither finds fault with it, nor wishes to praise it. For Bullinger, however, all the books of the Bible involve the eternal testament or covenant, which God has made with the human race (Genesis 17 and 22).

It is significant that in the list of the theological terms which Bullinger gives at the end of the book (ie Studiorum ratio), the covenant comes first, before either God or Scripture. The covenant has two parts. First, God binds himself to us and shows and promises who and what kind of God he wishes to be to us. Second, we are to keep this covenant, serve God faithfully, cleave to him alone, and live in innocence and in accordance with his will. The Bullinger adds significantly something which is not in Genesis: that God punishes those who break the covenant. In effect he reads this back from the rest of the Bible, which shows God’s relation to unbelievers. The treatment is the same in both Old and New Testament.”

Stephens’ conclusion is consistent with Bullinger’s insistence on the unity of the canon. Since the Holy Spirit is the author of Scripture then “covenant” (berith) in the Old Testament can be legitimately understood (hence Stephens’ comment ‘he reads back from the rest of the Bible’) through the lens of the New Testament use of diatheke (both ‘covenant’ and ‘testament’).