ends and goals
Why did God give us his word? Calvin said God could have sent us angels as preachers rather than men, and that he did so for our humility. But why did God give us his word, a book, the Bible? What purpose did he have in doing that?
Part of the challenge of reading old books is that language has changed over time. We no longer understand the significance of some of the words older writers used. ‘End’ is just such a word. ‘Ends’ should point us to purposes, meanings, causes, goals, directions. Think of the Westminster Shorter Catechism and its initial emphasis on the ‘chief end’ of man. Out of all the things we live for, out of all the motivations we could have, out of all the reasons for existing, what is the chief end – the very highest goal – for which we have been made? To glorify God. So in Bullinger’s second sermon, what is the end/purpose/goal for which God’s word was revealed to us and our fathers?
Though he’ll explore the answer more later on in the sermon, he makes sure to explain this end of God’s word at the very beginning. Because he desires the salvation of all men, God has given us his word ‘so that indeed there might be a rule and certain way to lead men by the path of justice into life everlasting.’ In other words, God gave us his word to save us and show us the path to paradise.
This is why the whole Bible is given to us. No parts of scripture are excepted from this purpose. I wonder how many pastors today are effectively NewTestamentarians: they only (or largely) preach from Pauline Epistles (and usually the beginning of the epistles at that). Do we actually believe in a whole-Bible inspiration of scripture? Preaching the gospel from Proverbs? Leviticus? The Prophets (even Ezekiel?)? Bullinger makes a strong point of believers needing to hear the Old Testament preached. It was written for our good as well.
The emphasis on examining the Old Testament but avoiding the trap of falling into a Jewish form of legalism may strike readers today as odd, but it’s a reminder that Bullinger was writing in a very pastoral context, a context in which all bets were off as to how the church was going to interpret any number of issues. We don’t (usually) face quite the same issues today, but we do face numerous interpretive issues on how to use the Old Testament. This was one of the key interpretive factors (there were others of significance as well) behind the recent discussions on Christian Nationalism. How exactly do New Testament Christians use the Old Testament, particularly the bits that were focused on Israel as a nation? Our discussions are different to those of Bullinger’s age, but there is overlap.
One of the real strengths of this sermon, especially as it would have been meaningful to the congregation to whom it was preached, is the way Bullinger seeks to explain to his audience how they are to understand and use scripture themselves. This isn’t some academic hermeneutic chart that unlocks the deep mysteries of interpretation. It reveals scripture to God’s people rather than hiding it from them. It’s a sermon, not a lecture. Bullinger wants his people to understand the message of godliness from God’s word. ‘True piety,’ words that make the most relevant Reformed pastor shudder with the terror of legalism, is just how Bullinger understands scripture. God’s word teaches us how to live. The gospel changes our behaviour. Novel idea that.
Bullinger also combats the Roman Catholic idea of an ‘unwritten tradition’ of scriptural interpretation, an idea that effective cuts Christians off from any meaningful understanding and interpretation of scripture apart from the authority of the church. Being both firmly Protestant and a wise pastor, Bullinger wants his people to love, obey, and understand God’s word. He will later instruct how to avoid the error of leaving every man alone with his Bible, but that doesn’t come in this sermon. And contextually, relatively early in the Reformation, that makes sense. This pastor is trying to help his people, a people who already believe very strongly in their need for their own local clergy, learn how to understand scripture for themselves without relying on ‘authorities’ who actually would undermine the ordinary Christian’s ability to understand God’s word.
It’s noticeable how often Bullinger connects godliness with salvation. Justification and sanctification go together. This seems to have been lost in the modern Reformed-ish/Evangelical world. We’ve effectively become Justificationists. Confessional Protestantism is universally agreed that justification and sanctification are distinct but inseparable. We need both. Salvation and godliness necessarily come together. More on that later in the Decades, but it’s worth flagging even now. Bullinger is pastorally concerned that the comfort of the gospel is connected to the repentance that both leads to the gospel and is the fruit of the gospel.
Bullinger’s use of the parable of the sower is pastorally brilliant. His warnings against ‘voluptuous and dainty lovers of this world, who cannot abide to suffer any affliction for Christ and his gospel’ should be a stern warning to western Christians who live amidst unparalleled prosperity. Are we hearing God’s word without fruit, the precious seed choked out by the cares of this world?
The final comments that God’s word feeds, strengthens, confirms, and comforts our souls, that it regenerates, cleanses, brings joy, and joins us to God are powerful reminders of how much we truly depend on this word for life. By it God sustains our lives. And the encouragements of what God’s word is to us fit well with Bullinger’s following warnings against our not listening to this life-giving instruction from God. How truly we pray, give us this day our daily bread, bread that not only feeds our bodies, but also the bread of life that sustains our very souls.
Next, interpretation and exposition of God’s word.
