Theology On Target: The Scope of the Whole (which is to give all glory to God)

By James M. Renihan

James M. Renihan, Ph.D., is Dean of the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies, Westminster Theological Seminary in California, Escondido, CA.

On October 16, 1845, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow wrote these familiar lines in a poem titled “The Arrow and the Song”:

I shot an arrow into the air, It fell to earth, I knew not where; For, so swiftly it flew, the sight Could not follow it in its flight. 

I breathed a song into the air, It fell to earth, I knew not where; For who has sight so keen and strong, That it can follow the flight of song? 

Long, long afterward, in an oak I found the arrow, still unbroke; And the song, from beginning to end, I found again in the heart of a friend.

Longfellow recorded, “Before church, [I] wrote The Arrow and the Song, which came into my mind as I stood with my back to the fire, and glanced on to the paper with arrow’s speed. Literally an improvisation.”[1] These well-known poetic lines, some of which have crept into popular idiom, were nothing more than momentary thoughts, penned as a result of the action of Longfellow’s eye. The illustration they provide is, nonetheless, thought-provoking. An archer may nock an arrow to his bowstring, raise it to the sky, draw the cord, and release the arrow without any express aim at a target. It rapidly flies away, perhaps to be lost, perhaps to be found at another time.

This picture may serve as a metaphor to introduce the topic at hand: theology and hermeneutics. In a religious world replete with an increasing number of diverse expositions, books, articles, and sermons, one is bewildered. Why are there so many discordant voices? How can it be that one text — Christian Scripture — when examined by competent (or sometimes incompetent) students, yields such a miscellany of interpretations? While this question is far too large even to begin to answer in any comprehensive sense, perhaps we may suggest a line of thought as a contribution to the discussion.

Sometimes there seems to be a hermeneutical principle upon which books, sermons, and even expositions of Scripture texts are based — arrows shot into the air at a chance, without reference to a particular target. The Holy Book is treated, consciously or unconsciously, as a loose collection of historical events, propositional truths, and wise sayings, with little or no reference to the interrelationship of the whole and/or its parts. It may be that these arrows will one day be recovered from the oak tree, but they may just as easily be lost forever.

This approach to Scripture differs significantly from an important method commonly used in Christian history. A more unified approach — what we might today call a canonical approach — is far more frequent in the tradition of interpretation we inherit, and may serve as a useful tool to recover in our own day. This article is an attempt to argue that the concept of scopus (σκοπός) or the scope of Scripture may provide a helpful corrective to this theological dissonance.

In the English Reformed theological tradition, and specifically among the early generations of Particular (or Calvinistic) Baptists, the notion of the scope of Scripture was fundamentally important. We may begin with the common language of the three major seventeenth-century Confessions: the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of 1647 (WCF), the Congregational Savoy Declaration of 1658 (Savoy), and the Particular Baptist 2nd London Confession of 1677 (2nd LCF).

Every good confession is replete with technical theological language; such a statement ought to be obvious. Nonetheless, for the purposes of this study, it is important to be reminded of this fact. While certainly true, it may be easily forgotten, and contribute to the neglect of, or perhaps even ignorance of, important doctrinal issues addressed briefly in the theological symbol. The 2nd LCF is just such a document. From beginning to end, its framers brought together very specific technical language, reflecting the best theological insight of all the preceding Christian centuries. This careful and specific language, often the fruit of difficult controversies, has become the common heritage of Christians, defining the nature of the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

Among the gems of insight hidden in the 2nd LCF is the statement in the title of this paper: “The scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God)” (2nd LCF 1.5). This clause, easily passed over in the midst of the development of the larger argument it supports, is a window into an important doctrinal perspective and hermeneutical aid employed by theologians from Athanasius through the Post-Reformation period. Our purpose is to look through this window, view the vista it provides, and benefit from the things that we see.

The clause is one of several statements used in a section of chapter one described by B.B. Warfield as the “properties” of Scripture.[2] The fourth and fifth paragraphs read as follows:

4. The Authority of the Holy Scripture for which it ought to be believed dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth it self) the Author thereof; therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. 

5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church of God, to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the Doctrine, and the Majesty of the stile, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, and many other incomparable Excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding; our full persuasion, and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our Hearts.

In these paragraphs, the Confession argues that the authority of Scripture derives from its divine origin, and though buttressed by several important properties, will only be recognized for what it truly is by a divine work of the Holy Spirit. The properties are nonetheless of great importance. The church is to testify to the nature of the Word by means of a “high and reverent esteem;” but beyond this, Scripture itself “abundantly evidences itself to be the Word of God” by six properties: heavenly matter, efficacious doctrine, majestic style, self-consistency, its scope, and its complete disclosure of the way of salvation, along with “other incomparable excellencies.” Each of these is an argument for its divine origin, which together produces a formidable demonstration of the point. Among them is our phrase, easily overlooked, but of great importance.

Scope in the History of Interpretation

The most helpful essay on our topic is “Between Reformation and Modern Commentary: The Perception of the Scope of Biblical Books” by Gerald T. Sheppard. It was printed as one of three introductory essays prefaced to the 1989 reprint of William Perkins’ Commentary on Galatians.[3] Sheppard argues that the “technical use of the term ‘scope’ became commonplace among English expositors from the middle of the sixteenth until the end of the nineteenth centuries, and is highly significant because it indicates the debt this period owes to the Greek church fathers. .. .”[4] Perhaps the most prominent incidence among the Greek fathers of the use of σκοπός is found in Athanasius.[5] He argued that the Arians, in their attempts to undermine the orthodox defense of the deity of Christ, misunderstood and thus misused certain texts because they did not comprehend the “scope” of Scripture as a whole, i.e., its testimony to Jesus Christ as true God and true man. Refuting the Arian interpretation of Prov. 8:22, he said:

it is necessary to demonstrate how far they go astray through not knowing the scope of divine Scripture. .. . the heretics have a bad understanding of a good statement. For if they knew and understood the character of Christianity, they would not have called the Lord of glory a created being, nor would they have tripped over what is written well.[6]

For Athanasius, the clear testimony of the whole of Scripture presents Christ as true God. Every Christological text points to this fact, and must be understood in its light. As James Ernest says, “the fundamental continuity underlying. .. the anti-Arian polemic, in which the scope of Scripture is central,. .. is in the unfailing focus on Christ as the Word of God incarnate for human salvation.. .. it is άσεβές to ask ποῦͅ, πῶς, ποταπός concerning the Father or the generation of the Son.”[7] This was a brilliant tactic to use in defense of orthodoxy, and served Athanasius well. Since all texts in unity point to this theological fact, they must all be understood in consonance. The Arians’ hermeneutical problem is based in this — they isolate texts from one another, divorce the individual from the whole, and draw damning conclusions as a result. Fundamentally, they misuse and thus abuse the texts they seek to employ in support of their position. According to Sheppard:

in this. .. usage, the skopos of Scripture. .. corresponds to the creedal core found clearly within the larger context of Scripture and, from this vantage point, delimits the purpose of any part of Scripture on the basis of the whole. In this way, the description of a text’s scope vacillates between a vision of the larger context and appeals to the core content of Christian Scripture, so that the latter resembles a restatement of some element in the rule or analogy of faith. As an example, Athanasius contends that the Arians find biblical support for their Christology from a narrow reading of biblical texts in the Old Testament and in the Gospels because they have missed ‘the scope’ of all these texts, which is the dual nature of Christ, as shown clearly elsewhere in the New Testament.[8]

This citation helps us immensely, for it points us in the direction of a definition for our term. In modern usage, the scope of something often refers to its full range; for example the scope and sequence of a curriculum for children refers to all of the subjects covered during its course. But this is not how the term was used by Athanasius, nor by the sixteenth and seventeenth century divines. In fact, for them, it had almost the opposite meaning, referring instead to the design, or goal, or purpose of a particular text. Richard Muller makes this point well:

It is particularly important that the contemporary English meaning of ‘scope,’ the full extent, range, or intention of a thing, be excluded. The original Greek (skopos) and Latin (scopus) indicates the center or bull’s eye of a target. Indeed, in the First Helvetic Confession, scopus translates der Zweck of the German original. The term is rightly understood, therefore, not as the full extent, range or intention of Scripture, but as the aim, purpose, goal, and center, indeed the ‘bull’s eye’ of the biblical target.[9]

This comment leads us to make an important point. The scope of Scripture should not be confused with the analogy of faith. Analogia fidei has to do with the sum total of doctrine in the text. It aims at internal consistency; scopus is the target that the text points to. They are similar, but look at the picture from the opposite ends: scopus may be illustrated by the ornithologist’s spotting scope — he seeks to observe the bird on the limb; analogia fidei looks through a wide angle lens in order to notice, not just the bird on the limb, but the entire vista and the bird’s place in it. We may put it this way: in the case of Christological texts, when one looks at them, one always sees their testimony to the true deity and humanity of Christ. They are all spotting scopes, aimed at the one target.

When one speaks of the scope of Scripture, or of a particular text, one speaks of that to which it points, in the way that an archer aims his arrow towards the center of a target. To change the figure, scope may be understood as true north to which the needle of the compass always points. This pointing explains the sense of the text and delimits its purpose and meaning. It must be understood in this light; to do otherwise is to confuse the compass by means of interference; to send the arrow into the air without purpose. The simple raison d’etre of the barbed shaft is to hit the target; that of the compass, to provide true direction — anything less is a waste. While Longfellow may have mused about sending an arrow into the air without purpose, the exegete must never do so. He must ensure that the target is in sight, for the text always points to it.

The Scope of the Whole

We have already cited the common language of the great English Protestant Confessions, Presbyterian, Independent, and Baptist; we are now prepared to consider their relevant words. Among the attributes of Scripture is the fact of its scope: it gives all glory to God. This brief statement allows us to conceptualize the Puritan notion of scope — all of Scripture points to the glory of God. Its purpose is, at all places, a demonstration of God’s glory. While this may be hidden to blind eyes, and only received by a work of the Spirit, it is nevertheless certain. Divine origination and thus divine authority provides Scripture with a reflexive quality. In all of its parts its purpose is this: to glorify God. The divine author has ensured that it always aims at this target; that it always points to this compass position.

This is not to say that the only way to view the scope of the whole is in light of the glory of God narrowly defined, for that does not reflect the totality of the Puritan vision. In a fascinating paragraph that largely parallels the statement of the three Confessions cited above, John Owen (who played a principal role in the editing and publication of the Savoy) speaks to the subject. He says:

I deny thee not the testimony of the universal church of Christ in all ages, so far as thou art capable of knowing it, as well as of the present church, or any particular one to which thou art any way related, as a help to thee: make the best thou canst of it, only rest not on it. But especially take notice, if thou see not the stamp of God upon the word, characters of divinity imprinted on it, as well as external notes accompanying it, consider the antiquity of it, the continuance of it, the miracles that confirmed it, the condition of the men that penned it, — their aims, their carriage and conversation — God’s providence in keeping it and handing it down to thee through so many successive generations, when so many in all ages would have bereaved the world of it. And, farther, consider the majesty and gravity, and yet plainness and simplicity, of its style; the depth of the mysteries it discovers, the truth and divineness of the doctrine it teacheth, the spirituality of the duties its enjoins, the power and force of the arguments with which it persuades, the eternity of the rewards it promises and the punishments it threatens; the end and scope of the whole, — to reform the world, to discountenance and extirpate wickedness, and promote holiness and righteousness, and thereby advance God’s glory, and lead man on to everlasting blessedness, etc.[10]

This is, too a large degree, a comment on the confessional paragraph. As such, it expands the sense given to the succinct statement in the theological symbol. Owen defines the nature of the “scope of the whole” in three terms, all related to God’s glory and the reception of eternal blessedness for humanity. The terms are simply “to reform the world, discountenance and extirpate wickedness, and promote holiness and righteousness.” By themselves, one might think that Owen has slipped into moralism — teaching that the purpose of Scripture may be reduced to moral reform, the conquest of evil, and the promotion of righteousness. But to do this divorces his words from his thought at large, and from this sermon in particular. The excerpt we have cited comes almost at the end of a lengthy discourse titled “The Testimony of the Church is not the only nor the Chief Reason of our Believing the Scripture to be the Word of God.” It is a defense primarily against Romanist assertions that the testimony of the teaching magisterium is the sole basis upon which to receive the Scripture as the Word of God. The very first sentence of the sermon is this: “An everlasting blessedness — men’s greatest and most desirable good — is that which God only can bestow, and the way to it, that which he only can discover.”[11] The vindication of the Protestant doctrine of Scripture is couched in this context — a divine act is the great necessity for man’s salvation. Owen does not descend into moralism, rather he summarily points to the work of God in granting redemption to humanity. This is the context of his remarks.

It is necessary to insist that there is a further step to identify in this process, which is to say that in agreement with Athanasius, the English Reformed confessors understood their statement to imply that Christ is the scope of all Scripture. This is evident in at least two ways. First, the Reformed authors, following the text of Holy Writ, argue that Christ is the incarnation of the glory of God. If the scope of Scripture is to give all glory to God, and all glory comes to God through Him, then by definition this statement must have reference to the person of Jesus Christ. Secondly, they recognized the intimate relationship present between the two testaments and their constituent books. The Old, whether considered as a whole or in its parts, is an anticipation of the work of God in Christ. From the protevangelium through the historical revelation of the Covenant of Grace in the history of Israel, everything looked forward to his coming. Likewise, the New is the full revelation of the promises progressively revealed in the Old. This unity finds it fullness in Jesus Christ and his work. In every place, the Bible points to Christ — he is the target — the scope of Scripture. Perhaps Benjamin Keach best articulates this point:

Now the mystery of Godliness principally consists in the person of Christ, God manifest in the flesh. .. . When we know Christ better, we shall understand the mystery better: Christ is the mystery wrapt up in the Gospel, he is the scope of all the Scripture, the pearl hid in the field; every line is drawn to him, as the proper center; all the types and shadows pointed to him, and all the promises run in him. Jesus Christ is really and truly God, and yet very Man, God and man in one person, and is this not a mystery?[12]

This is the language of Athanasius and the great Confessions, expressed in popular terms by a leading Particular Baptist. Where does Scripture always point? To Christ.

The Scope of the Parts

While these expositors understood that the parts have reference to the whole, they did not restrict their understanding and use of the notion of scope simply to the whole. We may also speak of the scope of the parts: testament, book, chapter, pericope, verse, and even phrase. In every case, the basic idea is the same. We have suggested the scope of each Testament: the Old anticipates the coming of Christ; the New fulfills the promise. Within each Testament, the canonical books serve that purpose. While the scope of the whole is to bring all glory to God, the scope of the particular book within its Testament points to the fulfillment of God’s purposes in Christ, whether through anticipation and preparation or accomplishment and consummation.

This method is carried on through each of the constituent parts of the text. When one studies an individual book, one must first identify the scope of the book — generally the purpose at hand as expressed by the author. If a smaller section is under observation, the expositor still must seek to determine the target to which that section points — what is the purpose of the writer in putting this (pericope, phrase, word, etc.) in this place? When the student determines that fact, his exposition will be governed by this principle. Whether this is evident in a positive exposition of a book of Scripture, or in an exegetical discussion within a theological treatise, frequent reference is made to the idea of scope. One does not have to look long to find instances.

In William Perkins’ Exposition of Jude, the very first item addressed is the scope of the book: “the generall ayme and scope of this epistle, is partly to declare the duty of all Christians, and partly to set out the corruptions of those, and these dayes and times; in both which every one may receive edification, who are desirous either to follow the former, or avoid the latter.”[13] Similarly, William Bradshaw’s Exposition of 2 Thessalonians begins with these words: “The principall scope of this Epistle is, to confirme and strengthen this Church in the sincerite of that Faith and Religion wherein it was first planted, and therein to arme it against all trials and temptations arising either from wicked Persecutors, or corrupt and antichristian Seducers.”[14]

These are simply examples, which could be easily multiplied. Commenting on Perkins’ use of scope in his Galatians exposition, Sheppard says that it is “an indicator of how the content can be read in support of an authoritative argument.”[15] For expositors such as these, the identification of this target served an important role in their own understanding and communication of the meaning of the text. Interpretation was to be governed by rules, and in this case, by a constant awareness of the design, or goal, or purpose of the text. In this way, they could ensure that the parts always supported the argument of the whole, could not be misused, and produced a consonant theological result. Perhaps we may think of a symphony. A wide variety of instruments, each given specific parts, together present a harmonious blend of music. The conductor’s goal is to ensure that each one fulfills its task properly with reference to the composer’s purpose in the musical score. For solo instruments the circumstances may be different, but as parts of an orchestra, their function is to contribute to the overall composition. The expositor is, in a sense, a conductor. His task is to understand the contribution made by the part with reference to the whole, ensuring that this is the role it fulfills, and no other. He must always be subject to the will of the divine composer. Musical misdirection produces cacophony, not harmony. Theological misinterpretation produces heterodoxy, not orthodoxy.

Of course, when Perkins or Bradshaw or any other commentator identified the scope of a particular book, they were not denying that the book itself always served as a compass needle pointing to the larger scope of the canon — the glory of God in Jesus Christ. This was always first and foremost — the book served the divine purpose of the corpus of Scripture. They were simply recognizing the occasional nature of each book within that larger sphere.

It is important to note how this idea was implemented on a narrower or more restricted basis in the biblical text, for this is perhaps the most frequent occurrence of the concept. We have said that even the parts were understood to have a scope, and this must be appreciated as well. Just as the two Testaments, and the books of each Testament point in certain directions, so also do the smaller portions of each book. The English Reformed commentators recognized that the books of Scripture were literary productions subject to the normal rules of composition, and these rules have a direct relationship to the scope of the composition. The ebb and flow of argumentation, the development of themes, the use of literary devices, etc. each serve a purpose within the presentation of the author’s structure. In order to understand properly this purpose, the expositor must keep in mind this governing perspective. Without it, errors almost inevitably creep into the interpretation. Some examples will assist us.

In 1654, John Owen published The Doctrine of the Saints’ Perseverance Explained and Confirmed, a book-length treatment of the subject, primarily intended as a refutation of the views of the enigmatic Arminian Independent minister John Goodwin. In Owen’s long and detailed discussion of Rom. 8:28, we find a relevant paragraph. Owen introduces the phrases under consideration, and then cites Goodwin:

To the objection, that those who are called are also justified, and shall be glorified, according to the tenor of the series of the acts of the grace of God here laid down, he answereth “That where either the one or the other of these assertions be so or no, it must be judged of by other scriptures. Certain it is, by what hath been argued concerning the frequent usage of the Scripture in point of expression, that it cannot be concluded or determined by the scripture in hand.”

This is followed by a satirical evaluation:

The sum of this answer amounts to thus much: “Although the sense opposed be clear in the letter and expression of this place of Scripture, in the grammatical sense and use of the words; though it flows from the whole context, and answers alone the design and scope of the place, which gives not the least countenance to the interposing of any such conditionals as are framed to force it to speak contrary to what, γυμνῆ τῇ κεφαλᾗ, it holds forth; — yet the mind of God in the words is not from these things to be concluded on; but other significations and senses, not of any word here used, not from the laying down of the same doctrine in other places, with the analogy of the faith thereof, not from the proposing of any design suitable to this here expressed, but places of Scripture agreeing with this neither in name nor thing, expression nor design, word nor matter, must be found out in the sense and meaning of this place, and from them concluded, and our interpretation of this place accordingly regulated.”

If this is not enough, he continues:

Neither hath Mr. Goodwin produced any place of Scripture, nor can he, parallel to this, so much as in expression, though treating of any other subject or matter, that will endure to have any such sense tied to it as that which he violently imposeth on this place of the apostle. And if the sense and mind of God in this place may not safely be received and closed withal from the proper and ordinary signification of the words (which is always attended unto without the least dispute, unless the subject-matter of any place, with the context, enforces to the sense less usual and natural), with the clear design and scope of the context in all the parts of it, universally correspondent unto itself, I know not how, or when, or by what rules, we may have the least certainty that we have attained the knowledge of the mind of God in any one place of Scripture whatever.[16]

While this may seem like theological piling-on, it certainly makes the point — both for Owen and for our study. The interpretation of a text is aided by a proper understanding of a set of principles, among them the scope of the passage. Unless proper weight is given to its scope — interpretation cannot produce an accurate result. In Goodwin’s case, at least so far as Owen was concerned, the lack of attention to this and other principles brought serious theological consequences, and removed any realistic possibility of constructing an exegetically based theology. Biblical texts ripped out of their context can be made to say and teach anything; the same texts understood in light of the design of the author engender orthodoxy.

Another example, this time from Baptist authors, is based on 1 Tim. 2:4–6. This biblical text states (in the Authorized Version) “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” Apparently, some General or Arminian Baptists insisted that these verses taught the universal intention of God to provide salvation to all men. In a comment on this text in their book God’s Ordinance the Saint’s Priviledge, John Spilsbury and Benjamin Coxe argue that while this text seems to provide “special strength” to their General Baptist opponents, “it is the apostle’s scope here to prove that it is acceptable to God not only that we should pray, but also that we should give thanks for all men, (viz. in that sense in which the words all men are used, in verse 1).” For these men, the sub-section of the text, vv. 4–6, is governed by the apostle’s earlier statement in v. 1, which says, “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;” and thus the latter verses must be understood in this light. To use them for other purposes apart from this scope produces illegitimate results. They state that they

therefore conceive that he here speaks of God’s effectual will. And so God wills not that all persons, or every person in the world, should be saved, and come unto the knowledge of the truth; as appears in 1 Pet. 2:8; Jude 4; Isa. 6:9, 10; Rom 11:7, 8. Here therefore by all men, we must of necessity understand only all orders and degrees of men; that is, some of all orders, and degrees: viz those whom God hath chosen to Himself, out of every order and degree among men. Thus, the great objection from this verse is fully taken off.[17]

In both of these examples, the authors use scope as a means to bring their opponents back to the text in itself. They seek to argue that ideas must be understood in their formal connection to other ideas, not in isolation from them.

Scope as a Theological Tool

There is another function of scopus, already alluded to, but which now deserves at least brief treatment. This is its theological use. We noted above the method used by Athanasius in refuting the Arian doctrines—he appealed to the total testimony of Scripture on any one doctrinal point, and argued that any texts which seem to teach a contrary doctrine must be understood in this light. Men like John Owen used the same tactic. When, for example, he expounded at length the doctrine of justification, he knew that it was necessary to take up the apparent differences between Paul and James. While his treatment is lengthy and detailed, we may have a sense of the course of his argument by means of a few excerpts. Consider what he says:

The seeming difference that is between the apostles Paul and James in what they teach concerning faith, works, and justification, requires our consideration of it; for many do take advantage, from some words and expressions used by the latter, directly to oppose the doctrine fully and plainly declared by the former.. . 

It is taken also for granted, on all other occasions, that when there is an appearance of repugnancy or contradiction in any places of Scripture, if some, or any of them, do treat directly, designedly, and largely about the matter concerning which there is a seeming repugnancy or contradiction; and others, or any other, speak of the same things only “obiter,” occasionally, transiently, in order unto other ends; the truth is to be learned, stated, and fixed from the former places: or the interpretation of those places where any truth is mentioned only occasionally with reference unto other things or ends, is, as unto that truth, to be taken from and accommodated unto those other places wherein it is the design and purpose of the holy penman to declare it for its own sake, and to guide the faith of the church therein. And there is not a more rational and natural rule of the interpretation of Scripture among all them which are by common consent agreed upon. 

According unto this rule, it is unquestionable that the doctrine of justification before God is to be learned from the writings of the apostle Paul, and from them is light to be taken into all other places of Scripture where it is occasionally mentioned. Especially it is so, considering how exactly this doctrine represents the whole scope of the Scripture, and is witnessed unto by particular testimonies occasionally given unto the same truth, without number.. . As unto what is delivered by the apostle James, so far as our justification is included therein, things are quite otherwise. He does not undertake to declare the doctrine of our justification before God; but having another design in hand, as we shall see immediately, he vindicates it from the abuse that some in those days had put it unto, as other doctrines of the grace of God, which they turned into licentiousness. Wherefore, it is from the writings of the apostle Paul that we are principally to learn the truth in this matter; and unto what is by him plainly declared is the interpretation of other places to be accommodated.. . 

That they have not the same scope, design, or end, in their discourses; that they do not consider the same question, nor state the same case, nor determine on the same inquiry; and therefore, not speaking “ad idem,” unto the same thing, do not contradict one another… 

As to the scope and design of the apostle Paul, the question which he answereth, the case which he proposeth and determines upon, are manifest in all his writings, especially his Epistles unto the Romans and Galatians. The whole of his purpose is, to declare how a guilty, convinced sinner comes, through faith in the blood of Christ, to have all his sins pardoned, to be accepted with God, and obtain a right unto the heavenly inheritance; that is, be acquitted and justified in the sight of God.. . . 

The apostle James, on the other hand, had no such scope or design, or any such occasion for what he wrote in this matter. He does not inquire, or give intimation of any such inquiry; he does not state the case how a guilty, convinced sinner, whose mouth is stopped as unto any plea or excuse for himself, may come to be justified in the sight of God; that is, receive the pardon of sins and the gift of righteousness unto life. To resolve this question into our own works, is to overthrow the whole gospel. But he had in hand a business quite of another nature; for, as we have said, there were many in those days who professed the Christian religion, or faith in the gospel, whereon they presumed that as they were already justified, so there was nothing more needful unto them that they might be saved.[18]

While these excerpts do not do justice to Owen’s argument in its entirety, they help us to understand his method of reasoning. To a large degree, the differences between the two authors are resolved by a proper understanding of the scope of their writings. Paul points to the free justification of a sinner, James to the problem of Christian professors who demonstrate no godliness. We may see the concept of scope working at two levels here. On the one hand, all of Scripture testifies to Paul’s doctrine of justification — we may say that the scope of the whole concerning justification points to Paul’s doctrine. On the other hand, we see that Paul and James must be understood in terms of the scope of their own particular writings. Together these perspectives produce the orthodox doctrine of justification, solve the problem of an apparent discrepancy, and effectively cut off the objections of those who promote alternate positions.

Scope and Canonical Interpretation

This study has briefly investigated the older understanding of the scope of Scripture and its function at a variety of levels. Gerald Sheppard asserts that this perspective was “rare” “by the end of the nineteenth century.”[19]But its use by expositors and theologians for centuries calls for a re-examination of its effectiveness for contemporary interpretation. While it is only a part of the complex necessary to interpret the text, it nonetheless may serve the church well in her quest for the understanding of truth. While it would seem to be useful at each of these levels, the “scope of the whole” is of special interest.

This comprehensive view of Scripture as a unified totality is tremendously helpful, for it reminds the expositor of the necessity of keeping the big picture always in mind. Interpretation must not degenerate into the examination of disparate paragraphs, sentences, phrases, or words; it must remember that the divine author who stands behind the human authors has a comprehensive purpose in mind throughout his book. This is, as the confessional statements indicate, to bring him glory in Christ. Brevard Childs has expressed this beautifully:

The Christian canon consists of two different, separate voices, indeed of two choirs of voices. The Old Testament is the voice of Israel, the New that of the church. But beyond this, the voice of the New Testament is largely that of a transformed Old Testament which is now understood in the light of the gospel.[20]

He continues a few pages later:

Serious theological reflection seeks to come to grips in some way with the mystery of the faith. Yet it is equally important to stress once again that the element of Scripture’s simplicity, perspicuity, and unity be maintained and affirmed. The role of Scripture in the life of the church cannot be identified with the efforts of technical theology, which perform a much-needed but ancillary function for the community of faith. It is a basic Christian confession that all scripture bears testimony to Jesus Christ. In this sense, there is a single, unified voice in Scripture. When the church Fathers and Reformers spoke of the ‘scope’ (scopus) of scripture, they were addressing the kerygmatic content of the Bible which the interpreter of the Bible was urged always to keep clearly in sight in order to comprehend the true nature of the biblical witness. Matthias Flacius stood firmly within this exegetical tradition when he admonished the readers of Scripture to direct their attention first of all ‘ut primum scopum, finem, aut intentionem totius eius scripti” (‘to the perspective, goal, and intention of the entire writing’) (De ratione Cognoscendi,’ Clavis Scripturae, Tract 1 Praecepta 9). The basic hermeneutical problem of the Bible, therefore, is not adequately formulated by using the terminology of unity and diversity. The oneness of Scripture’s scope is not a rival to the multiple voices within the canon, but a constant pointer, much like a ship’s compass, fixing on a single goal, in spite of the many and various ways of God (Heb 1.1), toward which the believer is drawn… 

The recognition of the one scope of Scripture, which is Jesus Christ, does not function to restrict the full range of the biblical voices. It does not abstract the message, or seek to replace a coat of many colours, with a seamless garment of grey. It was the great insight of Calvin at this point to see that each individual passage, whether in the Old or New Testament, was able to bear a truthful witness while at the same time retaining its discrete literary, historical and theological integrity. Indeed the purpose of his Institutes was not to offer a propositional summary of the Christian faith, but to instruct in the nature of Scripture’s proper scope precisely in order to be able to discern the true subject matter of scripture among its full range of notes.[21]

This is theology on target. It is the task of the Christian interpreter, who, as a servant of the text, must remember this fact: it is master. For those who receive and accept the divine authority of Scripture, confessing that this inerrant Word ultimately derives from one author, this perspective may be acknowledged with joy. Let us hear Athanasius, Calvin, Owen, Keach, and the rest of the confessors. Their voices should ring in our ears. They were master marksmen, sharpshooters without peer. We must not take arrows from our quiver and release them randomly, for they all are intended to serve one purpose. Let us ensure that the target is always in our aim. In this way, the final Reformation sola will achieve some measure of fulfillment. Soli Deo Gloria. This is the scope of the whole.

Notes

1. http://eir.library.utoronto.ca/rpo/display/poem1317.html.
2. B.B. Warfield, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield. Vol. 6, The Westminster Assembly and its Work (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 210ff. It should be noted that 2nd LCF 1.5 is almost identical with the same paragraph in both the WCF and the Savoy.
3. Gerald T. Sheppard, “Between Reformation and Modern Commentary: The Perception of the Scope of Biblical Books” in William Perkins, A Commentary on Galatians, ed. Gerald T. Sheppard (New York: The Pilgrim Press, 1989), xlviii-lxxvii.
4. Ibid., lix.
5. James D. Ernest, “Athanasius of Alexandria: The Scope of Scripture in Polemical and Pastoral Context,” Vigiliae Christianae 47 (1993), 341–362.
6. Ibid., 343.
7. Ibid., 352.
8. Sheppard, lix-lx.
9. Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, Second Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 2:209. The text of the First Helvetic Confession may be found in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom: The Evangelical Protestant Creeds (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983 reprint), 3:211–231. The language is quite interesting. Article V is titled in Latin “Scopus Scripturae” and rendered in German “Was der Zweck der heiligen Schrift sei, und worauf sie zuleßt hinweise;” Muller translates this as “What the center of the Holy Scripture is, and toward what the Scripture ultimately points” (Muller, Ibid., 209). Article XII is titled in Latin “Scopus Evangelicae Doctrinae” and rendered in German “Was der Zweck der evangelischen Lehre sei.” This might be translated “What the center of evangelical doctrine is.”
10. John Owen, “The Testimony of the Church is not the Only nor the Chief Reason of our Believing the Scripture to be the Word of God” in William H. Goold, ed., The Works of John Owen (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth, 1976 reprint), 8:541–42.
11. Ibid., 497.
12. Benjamin Keach, Preaching from the Types and Metaphors of the Bible (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1972) 934. I owe this reference to Austin Walker in his book The Excellent Benjamin Keach (Dundas, Ontario, Canada: Joshua Press, 2004), 151.
13. William Perkins, A Godlie and Learned Exposition upon the Whole Epistle of Iude (London: Felix Kyngston, 1606), 1.
14. William Bradshaw, A Plaine and Pithy Exposition of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (London: Edward Griffin, 1620), 1.
15. Sheppard, “Perception,” lix.
16. John Owen, The Doctrine of the Saints Perseverance Explained and Confirmed. See Works, 11:170. Owen is refuting Goodwin’s book Redemption Redeemed, and indicates that the citation is taken from chapter 10 section 44, and it is apparently found between pages 207–219. Owen’s method of citation is not precise.
17. John Spisbury and Benjamin Coxe, God’s Ordinance the Saints Priviledge (London: M. Simmons, 1646), 48–49.
18. John Owen, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith in Works 5:384–88.
19. Sheppard, “Between Reformation and Modern Commentary”, xlix.
20. Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (London: SCM Press, 1992), 722.
21. Ibid., 725-726.