Whose Writings Should I Use?

Clark Pinnock

Clark Pinnock died on August 15th last year, at the age of 73. Few of my readers will ever have heard of him, and fewer still will have known him. But I am one of those few, for while I was studying at Manchester University in England, he was also there. Although I was an engineering student, and he was studying under Professor FF Bruce, we both attended meeting of the Inter Faculty Christian Union. Perhaps not surprisingly, we came into some doctrinal discussions, particularly about the Trinity. As Clark was a post-graduate student of Theology, the discus­sions were somewhat intense: so much so that he suggested a public debate. There were several other Christadelphians involved in the discussions, and we agreed with his suggestion, but asked if we could nominate a representative.

So Bro. Alfred Norris and Clark Pinnock discussed The Trinity, with several hundred attending. It is the only such debate I have ever attended, and reminded me of the great debates of Bro. Roberts of old, or at least the transcripts of such. And as any who knew Bro. Alfred might realize, he more than held his own in the debate. If anyone could be said to have “won” such a debate, Bro. Alfred did. And so when I heard Clark Pinnock had died, my thoughts went back to those days, when my knowledge of the nature of Christ was greatly enhanced. Not only that, but I did take the opportunity while I was in Manchester to attend lectures on New Testament Christianity held by Professor Bruce, whose vast knowledge and respect for the Scriptures deeply impressed me. And I have also since kept myself aware of Clark’s writings, most of which I disagree with, but whose attitude toward the Scriptures and whose view of Biblical inspiration I find useful. FF Bruce’s works are prominent on my bookshelves — not just because I knew him, but because he is one of the best of the conservative New Testament scholars of his generation. Even so, one must be very careful with Professor Bruce’s writings, as with any non-Christadelphian source. His views on the Trinity and the role of women reflect views we cannot share.

So as I contemplated the death of one I briefly knew many years ago, I began to think of the ways we use the writings of others, especially the use of non-Christ­adelphian authors. (This is not to ignore the primacy of Christadelphian authors, but rather to address non-Christadelphian ones.)

Use of the Writings of Non-Christadelphians

There is a tendency in some sections of our community to discourage the use of the writings of non-Christadelphians. I must also say that our first priority when we study the Bible is to let the text interpret the text. In the vast majority of cases, the meaning of the passage is explained simply by looking elsewhere in the Bible, using cross-references and concordances. The use of alternative translations can also aid in this work. But in some cases, a deeper look into the historical or Biblical context is desired, and most will turn firstly to Christadelphian works. Many will also consult such works as those by Edersheim or Josephus, which are old standbys used by many. But what of the many modern commentators? There are those who will look at all non-Christadelphian sources with such suspicion as to never even consider looking at them. But this seems alien to both common sense and Christadelphian usage. Certainly both Robert Roberts and John Thomas were widely read, and used many sources in their writings. For example, in “Eureka” John Thomas surveys the whole field of the expositions of Revelation. He used some of their information, but dismissed them all as false.

One must, as I indicated above, use all non-Biblical sources with caution, especially those from non-Christadelphian authors. Almost none share our hope, and the majority of the recent commentators do not have the same view of Biblical inspira­tion as do Christadelphians. So the facts as discussed in these writings have to be carefully extracted from the opinions of the writers. In particular, we have to be careful not to believe all that is written, and to test everything by the Scriptures and by our knowledge of the Truth. Indeed, although much valuable information is available from non-Christadelphian sources, it all must be filtered through our knowledge of the inspiration and veracity of the Scriptures. Many modern com­mentaries are probably best used by those mature in the faith, although some are quite helpful to most. I might mention the Tyndale Commentaries, which are available from the Christadelphian Office, and the ones by William Barclay on the Synoptic Gospels — I have found these to be quite useful.

If we have to rely only on Christadelphian works, there are some books of the Bible that have a great abundance of material. The most obvious is Revelation — there are at least 14 commentaries available, and that section of my bookshelf is replete with quite a few of them. And in the Old Testament, both the Psalms and Job have quite a wealth of information. On the other hand, for some areas my shelves are quite lacking in Christadelphian works. Books on the Kings and Chronicles are almost non-existent, apart from a survey of the Kings by Michael Ashton. As far as I know, there is no stand-alone commentary on Ezra, likewise for the Gospel of Matthew, although of course Bro. Harry Whittaker covers this latter area in his “Gospels.”

The example of Paul

In some Bibles, you might glance in the marginal references — and find some quite unusual ones. Look at Acts 17:28 and you will find that Paul is quoting from the Greek writers Epimenides, Aratus and Cleanthes. And Epimenides comes up again in the citation about the Cretans in Titus 1:12. Of course, neither of these quotations are commenting on the Old Testament, but it shows the knowledge of Paul about the general writings of his era. (It is of more than passing interest that there are no direct quotations in the New Testament from what is known as the Old Testament Apocrypha, despite its presence in Catholic Bibles of our era.)

None of this directly proves that we should use sources other than the Scriptures in our studies, but it does show the breadth of Paul’s reading. It also shows that Paul reached out to his audience using referents they were familiar with, an example we should (and often do) use in talking to our friends and acquaintances. Also, I cannot leave the topic of Biblical references without mentioning that among the Dead Sea Scrolls were several commentaries on books of the Old Testament, including ones on Habakkuk, Micah, Zephaniah and the Psalms. Of course, none of these are mentioned in the New Testament, which is not surprising since the only method of distribution of writings was by laborious hand copying. Almost all except the very rich could only hope in vain to actually own any copies even of the Books of the Bible — and note how Paul asked for the Books and Parchments he owned (2Tim 4:13). Together with the cloak he also asked for, they must have represented the bulk of Paul’s possessions — and certainly the most valuable.

The Misuse of Commentaries

It is all too easy, when asked to prepare a Bible class, or when engaged in Bible study about a passage, to simply reach for an available commentary and rely on that author’s opinions. As I have mentioned above, this is not how one studies the Bible. In addition, in this issue of the “Tidings”, and God Willing to be continued in the next, is a brief look at the “why” and “how” of Bible study.

I must admit I have been a little guilty of the “Bible Study by commentary” myself. While studying in Manchester, the Christadelphians at the university held a little study group on Galatians. So I went along to the university library, which was well stocked with commentaries because of its Religious Studies Department. Out of the dozen or so on Galatians, I borrowed several and attempted to make sense of them — but in the process I somewhat ignored the Biblical text. The result was that for many years my view of this book was more influenced by debates on its chronology and the location of the Galatian church than the essence of its message.

So, although these types of questions are of interest, they are not what we should focus on. Sometimes commentaries can help us tease out the most important message of a passage, but all too often they focus on the trees in the forest — or even on the twigs, while often ignoring the important message of the text. (And this is true of some Christadelphian commentaries as well.) I am sure at least some of you have been present at Bible classes where the method seems to be to find out where else in the Bible each Hebrew (or Greek) word was used, which is an exercise in the use of concordances, not Bible study.

Conclusion

We should be careful in how we use sources from outside of our community. But we should also be careful in how we use any commentary. Letting the Bible speak directly to us, and letting it interpret itself, is the bedrock of any study. And most of all, Bible Study by commentary is a great danger, especially in these days when one’s shelves groan with such books.