Interview: Ian Hugh Clary

I have found something to boast about on the blog: the interview series is off to a great start thanks to my interviewees Stan Porter and now Ian Clary.

Ian Hugh Clary is a doctoral student in historical theology at VU Amsterdam where he is working on a dissertation on Alexander Carson as an evangelical response to the Enlightenment. Ian lives in downtown Toronto with his wife Vicky and their two children Jack and Molly. Together they are members of New City Baptist Church in the city core. I have asked him questions about historical theology and its relation to the study of the Gospel of John.

AR: What is historical theology and how does it differ from other related disciplines?

IC: The theological disciplines are often broken down into various parts. They include such things as systematic theology, biblical theology, practical theology, and historical theology. Of course this oversimplifies and leaves a lot out, for instance exegesis, which typically falls under biblical theology, or philosophical theology, which could be categorized with systematics. Ideally a good theology is grounded in biblical theology and exegesis, is informed by history, is summarized systematically, and is practical for the life of the Christian and the church.

Historical theology itself relates to how doctrine has developed across church history, looking at how different Christians in different periods understood theology, from specific doctrines, to theological method. R. Scott Clark and Carl Trueman explain that historical theology “is the discipline of fairly determining and describing what was.” Because it is description, historical theology is not taken up with evaluation, which is the task of dogmatics (or systematics). Clark and Trueman point out the disparaging, if not hilarious, complaint by Gerhard Ebeling who said that historical theology has become a refuge for “those who cannot manage theology.” For me, that’s like complaining about the bass player in Led Zeppelin—as though John Paul Jones couldn’t hold his own with the other genius’ in the band (This is a little like the Synoptic Problem applied to classic rock)!


AR: How would historical theology help us in our understanding of John’s Gospel?

IC: Biblical interpretation, to borrow a cliché, is not done in a vacuum. As important as current exegetical studies are today, to neglect what Christians in days past have had to say about a text is somewhat akin to saying that the Brits shouldn’t worry about what Lord Nelson had to say about naval combat. Sure, his methods reflect an antiquated era, but the man didn’t make the Royal Navy into what it was by being a bad admiral. Likewise, we need to know what greats like the Cappadocians, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Owen, or Bavinck had to say about any given doctrine, even if their methods aren’t always what we would today consider sound.

John’s gospel is especially interesting in this regard when one considers its place alongside the synoptic gospels. Since the rise of historical criticism, John has been relegated to a place of its own (though theologians before this method recognized the differences between John and the other gospels). While the events are often recorded differently, or appear only in this gospel, its high Christology has made it suspect. To understand why John is important not only for the canon, but also for the life of the church, we can turn to historical theology and text critics like Lightfoot, Westcott, Hort, etc. The high Christology matches the early church’s understanding of Jesus’ divinity, and the interpretation of John can be traced through the writings of fathers like John Chrysostom, who preached homilies on it. Chrysostom is especially useful, as Moises Silva has pointed out, because he preached in what we now call koine Greek. So when the “Golden Mouth” discusses the meaning of a word, we are getting it from the horse’s mouth so to speak. We can also learn how early apologists used it to combat heresies, like Gnosticism or Arianism, and how those same arguments were picked up in later periods against similar groups like the Socinians or Unitarians.


AR: Are there any instances that come to mind where an understanding of historical theology aids us in interpreting John’s Gospel?

IC: While I’m sure that a whole dissertation could be, and probably has been, written on this subject, I can come up with a couple of examples. In terms of the early church, one thinks of Irenaeus of Lyons and his important work Against Heresies that is a major collocation and refutation of what we call Gnosticism. He is useful when it comes to the question of the authorship of John. Who the gospel writer was is subject to debate, and while internal evidence is unclear—though I think it affirms the traditional view—external evidence like the writings of Irenaeus indicate that it was the apostle John, the “beloved disciple” who was the penman (that is, unless he used a scribe!). Irenaeus validates for us that Polycarp, whom he knew, sat at the feet of John “who had seen the Lord.” Based on this, Irenaeus tells us that John, who “leaned on the breast” of Jesus, wrote the Gospel of John while he was in Ephesus.

Another example is a bit more basic to the task of sermon preparation. John Calvin is well-recognized as a sound interpreter of Scripture, and that his methods and conclusions remain relevant today. Calvin, as a humanist and reformer, embodied the best that scholarship had to offer in his day, and reflected the cream of biblical teaching from those theologians who went before him. Calvin was as in tune with Augustine or Bernard as he was with his Reformation colleagues like Bucer or Melancthon. So, when a difficulty arises in interpreting a passage from John, it is as useful to turn to Calvin’s commentary on John as it would be to turn to Don Carson. While Carson would be a first choice because he is more up to date, and would be able to point out flaws even in Calvin, it is still very important to meditate on and consider what the Genevan Reformer had to say—especially on major passages like the Prologue, where the richness of biblical Christology is encapsulated in the Reformer’s thoughts, or on the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 and the debated notion that it reflects John’s Eucharistic theology. Even being able to see where an interpreter from church history went wrong, as in the case with much of the allegorizing from the early church, is helpful as we think through the meaning of a passage.


AR: Are there any resources you’d recommend to help a reader of John’s Gospel become acquainted with the history of interpretation of the Gospel?

 IC: The first source I would recommend is the two-volume commentary on John in the Ancient Christian Commentary series that is edited by Tom Oden. The first volume, also edited by Oden, goes up to John 10, while the second, edited by Joel Elowsky, finishes the gospel. The whole commentary set that goes from Genesis to Revelation is worth owning. The two volume set is basically a collection of quotations from various church fathers on each verse in John. Because each verse is treated to a host of quotes, it is helpful to see the range of interpretive options available in the early church. You can see what Chrysostom said about a passage, and skip down a quote to read Augustine. While you might not agree with what is written, it is still helpful in your preparation. At the very least, you can find some great quotes to spice up your sermon. The danger is that if you use it in every sermon, your congregation might take you for a patristics scholar!

A book for the specialist in historical theology, and for one with a hefty wallet, is Craig S. Farmer, The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century: The Johannine Exegesis of Wolfgang Musculus in the excellent Oxford Studies in Historical Theology series. The book is fantastic on many levels: it sets Musculus in his historical setting, so there is lots of discussion of medieval and Reformation exegesis; it deals with particular issues in John, like the wedding feast at Cana, the raising of Lazarus, etc.; and Farmer really shows Musculus as an important Reformation exegete who stands alongside others like Calvin. This is one of those books that makes me salivate when I think about it, but not all of your readers may be interested.

Keeping up to Date with Greek (Verbal Aspect)

Let me preface this post with my saying that I am not currently a pastor. What I say here should therefore be taken with a grain of salt, but I hope more than that that it would be weighed carefully. As a result, I will couch this in the form of a question with reflections.

Is it possible for pastors to keep up with current Greek scholarship on at least a marginal enough level that they are aware of the discussions and especially take into account developments in the last 2+ decades on verbal aspect?

I notice in sermons that pastors and speakers frequently say something about the Greek that lies behind the English version they are using and make an exegetical pronouncement about the text based on the verb that is questionable. The idea that either absolute time or ‘kind of action’ is the central feature of the verbal tense-form is an antiquated idea (with some debate as to whether time functions at all in it). I hesitate to provide examples lest I single pastors out. These pronouncements do not always affect the main point of the sermon but if I were preaching ideas that have shown to be false, I would want to have those things corrected out of integrity.

So, is it possible for a pastor to keep up with current Greek scholarship? I have two thoughts on this.

1) Scholars may be to blame in the first place. Commentary writers and popularizers of academic material have themselves failed to keep up and provide pastors with material that keeps up to date with the current understandings of the Greek language, especially the Greek verb.

I recently got my hands on a commentary that was released in 2010 (I won’t mention who) that fails to cite any Greek grammatical work beyond 1963, with the exception of two revised lexicons (1996 and 2000) which themselves are not in line with modern linguistics and Greek grammatical study. As such, the writer refers to tense-form usage in terms of its time-values and ‘kind of action’ that fails to recognize what all the major players of Greek grammar currently do and have for at least 2 decades: aspect, and not time, is the major contribution of the verbal tense-forms. Sadly this commentary is not alone in relying on dated grammars that were once magisterial (and no doubt they should be consulted) but have now been surpassed and even contradicted. How can pastors be expected to stay up to date if they are reading commentaries like this?

On the other hand, there are small glimmers of hope that the tide is changing as pastoral commentaries such as Kruse’s The Letters of John (PNTC) and Carson’s forthcoming Johannine Epistles (NIGTC) take verbal aspect seriously in their discussion of the Greek verb. Let’s hope for higher percentages.

2) Whatever the time commitments of the pastor, most (I hope) would agree that the preaching and teaching of the Word is central to the pastor’s job (cf. e.g., Acts 6:4; letters to Timothy). If that is so, the same pastors would agree that the faithful preaching and teaching of the Word is required. After all, to knowingly say something false would not be helpful. I don’t want to say that the pastor needs to be a scholar (there are varying gifts anyway) but should not some contact be maintained with the disciplines from when the pastor first encountered them in their seminary training (Greek as well as church history, theology, etc.)? After all, seminary does not teach everything the pastor needs to know so that they don’t have to read another book in their life, but it exposes the pastor to the beginning of a lifetime of study (I first heard this idea expounded by D.A. Carson in an interview).

Of course, all this is predicated on the idea that the languages are important for the pastor in the first place, a topic for discussion another time (but as I’ve heard many say and I myself believe: you don’t find pastors who have learned Greek well ever complain that it has not been fundamental in their study and teaching).

So, is it possible to maintain contact and stay abreast of the current discussion? I don’t have the final answer and won’t say more than I’ve just said for now except that if a pastor doesn’t think the languages are worth their time, should they quote Greek or refer to grammatical issues in a sermon in the first place?

Interested in your thoughts.

John 1:1-5 – The Word (Logos)

The first eighteen verses of John’s Gospel are usually referred to as the prologue to the work. I am choosing to focus on the first five verses to keep the study manageable and since the participant introduced in verse 6 is different from verse 1, it provides us with a good break in the text to separate into more than one study.

The Text

The focus of these first five verses is the Word. The Word (logos) is introduced in verse 1 with three clauses that each tell us something about this new and first participant in the book.

In the beginning was the Word,
And the Word was with God
And the Word was God.

The first clause tells us that the Word existed in the beginning, “in the beginning was the Word.” The biblically literate person may hear an allusion back to the very beginning of the Bible where the exact same words are used, “in the beginning.” Here, in John’s opening, it is asserted that this Word was, in some respect not yet defined, “in the beginning.” What beginning John has in mind will be better understood as the verses unfold.

The second clause tells us that this Word was with God, or in some sense face to face with God or toward God. It posits a separation between God and the Word, the nature of the relationship as of yet also undefined.

The third clause is, to me, the most shocking in light of the second clause. The second clause posited some sort of differentiation between the Word and God but this clause says that the Word was God. Different and yet the same? How can this be? Time will tell.

Verse 2 then reiterates what was claimed in verse 1, connecting the ideas of the first clause and second clause above: “This one (the Word), was with God in the beginning.”

Verses 3 to 5 then continue the discussion of the Word, using pronouns and participant chains to refer back to “it” (we will refine who the Word is as the text unfolds).

All things were created through him… nothing was made that has been made without him… In him was life… The life was the light of all people… The light shines in the darkness… The darkness has not overcome it….

The Word remains the focus while other subjects are introduced to talk about the Word and flesh out who this Word is. Verse 3 brings up creation, helping us justify seeing an allusion to Genesis 1:1 in John 1:1 and helping us to read the first clause of the first verse as, “in the beginning of all things, the Word existed.” It says that everything that has ever had existence was made through the Word. In fact, it strengthens it by saying it again in the negative: nothing that has come into being was made without him. This Word has some participation in the very act of bringing all things into existence and so helps to show that this Word is itself uncreated. At this point we see that the Word existed in the beginning of all things, is different from God in some respect and yet is itself God, and has been at least a participant in bringing all things into existence, justifying the thought that the Word itself is uncreated.

Verses 4 and 5 continue to have the Word as the focus (argued above) but now bring new categories to bear upon it. The text says that “life was in him,” and that this “life was the light of all people.” The text goes on to say that the light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it. Not much will be said on these two verses at this point as I believe the Gospel itself will begin to expound these life and light/darkness categories throughout. Be on the look out for them.

The Word

So, what is this Word? There are of course many prior associations with the use of logos that a first century reader might have since logos was not a newly invented term by John (see especially Craig Keener’s The Gospel of John commentary for a thorough look at all the possible backgrounds), but it is important to see how John defines this logos as we move throughout the book, noting simply for now that the word logos in Greek “can be summarized under the two heads of inward thought, and the outward expression of thought in speech” (Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 152), suggesting John has in mind that the Word is the divine self-expression. In this text the logos is personified and so we have a personal divine self-expression. Jesus, who is the Word, is God’s self-expression, his revelation. This is significant because it points out that Jesus is the revelation, he does not just bring revelation from God.

This word then disappears from the rest of the book as a referent for Jesus after the prologue. Perhaps this word was the best word to encapsulate all that John wanted to say of Jesus. Jesus is God’s self-expression, his divine revelation.

The peculiar language of verse 1, and really this whole text, begins our journey into the theme of the relationship of the Father and Son, though the terms do net yet arise in the text. It will form the basis of discussion of the trinity throughout.

Perfectionism

As I write the first text study on the Gospel of John (due out tomorrow), I continue to wrestle with a life long challenge: perfectionism. I know this gets used as the example for weakness often in job interviews, since it can be used as a strength, but this isn’t a job interview so I’m sure you’ll forgive me!

The funny thing about perfectionism is it cannot be attained in most respects. Sure I can set small and easy goals for myself and complete them, but rarely does that constitute perfectionism. Rather, goals are set up that are often beyond what is capable or sensible.

With respect to the John blog posts, I want to be able to work away at them forever. I want to have analyzed and considered all the linguistic evidence before I publish them. But, nothing would ever come out and I would quit the blog.

I read this today in a preface: “The writing of this book has taken five years, and had I realized at the outset the scale of the task I was undertaking, I am not sure I would have had the courage to begin” (Horrocks, Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers). And in John commentaries I frequently see it mentioned that many writers have undertaken to write these commentaries but they had to be finished by others because they died before they could finish them! This testifies to that massive task that writing something on John can be and to a host of other factors, not least of which may be perfectionism.

I’m glad I didn’t think too hard about starting up this blog with the goals I had in mind because, like the writer quoted above, I probably would not have had the courage to begin. But, the content I produce cannot be helpful if it is not shared with others. And it cannot be refined by others if it is not shared with them.

With those thoughts in mind, I press forward, knowing that my studies will be far from perfect but I pray that they still yet will remain helpful.

Interview: Stanley E. Porter

I am excited for this inaugural interview here on the blog. Dr. Stanley E. Porter is President, Dean, and Professor of New Testament at McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. He is recognized as an expert in many areas of research, especially in linguistics and Greek grammar. His publishing record is second to none and more can be read about him on his faculty page here.

Dr. Porter is also now a blogger! I highly recommend following his blog which can be found here.

As a student of his it is an immense pleasure to get to interview him for this and continue to learn from him. Since the current thrust of the blog is to work through the Gospel of John, I have tailored a number of my questions to this topic. I trust you will find it as interesting and helpful as I have.

AR: You’ve spent a good deal of your career studying and writing on linguistics and Greek grammar. What does the discipline of linguistics and the study of Greek contribute to our interpreting the Bible?

SP: Study of the Bible is first and foremost a language-based discipline. I know that there are those who are heavily promoting the so-called theological interpretation of Scripture and other attempts to ground interpretation in social backgrounds and various types of other criticisms–and some of these are very important and helpful–but at its heart when we read the Bible we are at the least engaged in a linguistic interpretive exercise, or at least first we are doing so. As a result, it stands to reason that we need to bring to bear the most important and recent advances in linguistic thought. I firmly believe that most of our interpretive difficulties have been caused by language and can only be solved by the interpretation of language, so we need to invest our efforts in such linguistic matters. I often get frustrated to see how neglectful contemporary biblical scholarship is of matters linguistic, whether this means making linguistic judgments (i.e. statements about language and how it functions) on the basis of no determinable linguistic basis, or simply invoking grammatical works now long superseded. Many of these works may well have been excellent for their day, but we have made significant advances in our linguistic thinking, and appealing to traditional grammar or some earlier paradigm is no longer sufficient–especially as some of these earlier models are incommensurable with our current understandings. In other words, to offer a short answer, I think that linguistics is fundamental to interpreting the Bible, and a necessary starting point for everything else we do, including responsible theologizing.

AR: Does understanding the genre of the Gospels help us interpret them? What can we say is the genre of John’s Gospel?

That is a very difficult question, as there is, I think, a lot of misunderstanding regarding the notion of genre. Genres tend to be treated as static, fixed and absolute, when they are essentially social-linguistic constructs that are useful for labeling and categorizing works from various time periods. So, in the sense that there is a set number of genres to invoke, no I don’t think such a concept is that useful. There is a tendency in biblical studies–and this has been demonstrated in a number of basic interpretive works–to use generic categories as the starting point of interpretation, and then impose them upon various works as if this holds the key to interpretation. We see this in books that break the Bible down into such genres as Gospel, letter, apocalypse, etc., and say that you would not want to read a letter the same way you would read an apocalypse, etc. This begs numerous questions, not least how one knows that any given work fits within the category that is being imposed. In order to use the notion of genre, I think that we need to qualify it and use it cautiously, by recognizing at least the following factors–that genres vary from language to language, time to time, culture to culture, and that they are not fixed; genres need to be seen as the relative, culturally based constructs that they are; genres must be seen in comparison and contrast to other genres within that particular socio-linguistic milieu; and one must always take into account how given works of literature are complexes that encompass what most would identify as multiple genres.
.
I prefer to use a bottom-up rather than a top-down approach in interpretation. Whereas a genre approach is top-down, I think that we should build our interpretive framework on the basis of strata of linguistic substance, and then formulate larger generalizations and patterns as we proceed. If we do this, then I think that we can generalize that there are some general literary or textual types grounded in the use of language. These would include narrative and non-narrative as a basis. Non-narrative would include expositional and perhaps poetic material. Beyond that, I am not sure how much you can say, without needing to move into a much more complex cultural specific analysis.
.
As for John’s Gospel, it is clearly for the most part narrative, or at least it utilizes a narrative framework, but within it, there are non-narrative sections, and there is a movement among these. However, I think that at this point a much more fruitful avenue for exploration, rather than typical genre analysis, might be register analysis from systemic-functional linguistics. I believe that register analysis is a useful means of creating a linguistic profile of a discourse, or even of sub-discourses within a discourse. These may be typical registers, but I think we also need to be open to individualized registers based upon the linguistic evidence.
.
This does not answer the question of the genre of John’s Gospel directly. However, let me give you a brief idea of how I would discuss that. Having done the kind of literary type and register analysis I indicate above, I would probably want to say that John’s narrative needs to be seen in relation to other types of narrative found in the Greco-Roman world. It clearly has many similarities to, as well as some differences from, the other Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), as well as a number of other narratives in the ancient world. Many of these are related to the “lives” category of writing. This is not the same as saying that John’s Gospel is simply an ancient biography, although that might be the best reductionistic answer.

AR: Do you have an opinion on when the 4th Gospel was written?

SP: I don’t have a firm opinion on when it was written, although I hope to have a firmer idea once I have written a major commentary that I am wishing to write in the next few years or so. At this time, I am convinced of several things, however. One of these is that developmental or evolutionary models of interpretation have had far too important a role to play in determining the date of John’s Gospel and its relationship to the other Gospels. Hence, many say John must be late because it has a more developed Christology than the other Gospels, or it must be late because it seems to have developed further material found in the Synoptics, or whatever. I think these developmental models assume far too much. I also think that John’s Gospel is related to the Synoptics as probably availing itself of common tradition. Other issues that push for a late date of John’s Gospel (such as synagogue expulsion, John 9) are not necessarily indicative of this when one considers other evidence. Many dates typically used for New Testament documents are less about firm evidence than creating compromises regarding supposed extreme positions (the date of Acts is a classic in this regard), so I want to rethink these. As a result, John may be relatively late (e.g. around 90), but I am very much open to it being much earlier as well, even before AD 70 and the fall of Jerusalem.

AR: What advice would you have for a reader of John’s Gospel in the 21st century church?

SP: I would recommend that a reader of John’s Gospel pay attention to the text, worry less about how John’s Gospel may “sound different” than the Synoptics, and observe and listen closely to Jesus as he speaks and acts throughout the book. John’s Gospel is a phenomenal narrative and exposition of the life and ministry and teachings of Jesus. Though the author used a restricted number of vocabulary items–in my mind because he chose to limit his lexical repertoire, not because of any personal linguistic shortcoming–he has created an expansive and inspiring portrait of Jesus as God’s divine son, from beginning to end. In many ways, there is no other account of Jesus that can compare with John’s Gospel. I think if you approach the text from this angle, questions of meaning and significance, then and now, etc., tend to dissolve into the direct presence of Jesus.

AR: Are there any books (commentaries/monographs/light studies/etc.) that readers of John’s Gospel might find helpful as they read along?

SP: Most commentaries today, I believe, are generally unsatisfying. They are often highly neglectful of linguistic matters (such as Michaels), and too often are simply compendia of other previous commentators’ thoughts (there are too many to mention here). This is a real problem in commentary writing–the commentary writer has to say something about everything, but that is an impossibility, so they often say something about what others have said before them. I think most commentary writers would be better served by spending much more time with their text than they have, and not write until they believe they have something new and fresh and insightful to say. Of course, publishers would hate this, because they need to sell books. But I think that there would be much better (and perhaps fewer) commentaries. For which we could all be thankful.
.
As for a book on John’s Gospel, I would recommend Ruth Edwards’ Discovering John (London: SPCK, 2003). I also have a forthcoming book, tentatively entitled John’s Gospel: A Public Gospel that should be coming out in the next year or so, and which covers many of the major issues in recent interpretation of John.