Saturday, January 16, 2010
"Theodramatic" Theology?
Here is a very insightful summary by Guy Davies of Kevin Vanhoozer’s The Drama of Doctrine. He focuses especially on the implications a “theodramatic” view of Scripture, redemption and theology has on preaching (among other crucial aspects). Interesting and fresh!
Friday, January 15, 2010
Tertullian on Idolatry and Its Taunt-worthiness
What are the consequences of people's rejection to building their lives on a reverent respect and fear of the Lord? One of the consequences is foolishness, the hatred of all knowledge and wisdom and sound instruction (Prov 1:7, 29). This, because a person can’t despise the One in whom are hidden all the riches of wisdom and knowledge and still retain a solid foundation for life (Col 2:3). Every aspect of the unbeliever’s thoughts, words and deeds is resting squarely on a sand-like foundation (Matt 7:24ff).
Additionally, since as humans created to reflect what we reverence, in our unbelief we wind up taking on the dead, impersonal, and irrational characteristics of whatever object we have given God’s place of ultimacy over to (Ps 115:3—8). This idolatry leads us to futile reasoning and hearts of darkness. Finally, our exchanging the natural relationship we are to have with our God for that which is unnatural, worshipping something in creation (ultimately ourselves), leads us to pervert ALL that is natural. Making the natural unnatural and then proclaiming it “natural,” putting our selves as gods, we throw everything upside down and backwards (Rom 1:18ff). What’s saddest is that, we believe the upside down and backwards world is “just the way things are”—in a word, normal.
What the unbelieving world calls “normal,” Paul describes as a world of people who operate within every domain in the “futility of their minds,” and are “darkened in their understanding...hard-hearted” and “ignorant” (Eph 4:17—18). However, Paul also teaches us that God, in the omnipotent power and divine wisdom of the gospel, has made the world’s wisdom to be seen for the foolishness that it is; and the world’s perceived strength as it is in reality, weakness.
Now, as confessing Christians, we at least mentally assent to and affirm the truth of these biblical assessments of the unbelieving rationale (or should!). Far from Freud’s “psycho-scientific” conclusion that, our primary problems are the result of repressed anxieties of our sexual or patricidal tendencies; or Skinner’s excusing inferences from a person’s antecedent sociological depravations of one kind or another, the biblical diagnosis of our problem is simply idolatry. And idolatry makes one stupid—sin is irrationality in its highest manifestation. Despite the perceptions and delusions of the world, this is the reality and nature of the case.
Nevertheless, how often are we honest (or convicted) enough to tell the truth in this regard? Why aren’t Christians more willing to “answer the fool according to his folly” (Prov 1:5), not merely announcing the biblical diagnosis, but demonstrating it as well? As D. A. Carson often says, we’ll never agree on the solution (i.e., the gospel) until we can first agree on the problem (i.e., idolatry). The gospel is the only alternative to idolatry.
There has been one in our past who was not afraid to do these very things: reduce humanity’s dilemma down to the living true God or idols, and then make a mockery of the latter option. This one’s name was Tertullian.
In chapter I of De Idololatria, Tertullian gives a persuasive exhibition of how every sin, vice and avarice is in principle only a flagrant display of the deeper problem of idolatry. “The principle crime of the human race, the highest guilt charged upon the world, the whole procuring cause of judgment, is idolatry.” This is the opening line of this work, and the thesis that the rest compellingly proves.
Fraud, even, is rooted in idolatry. Tertullian explains, “The essence of fraud, I take it, is, that any should seize what is another’s, or refuse to another his due; and of course, fraud done toward man is a name of great crime. Well, but idolatry does fraud to God, by refusing to Him, and conferring on others, His honors.” Many similar correspondences are draw in this way. He concludes this chapter. “[S]ince all faults savor opposition to God...doubtless, whoever commits a fault is chargeable with idolatry.”
From a biblical perspective, idolatry is the root of all evil; for Tertullian, it was the same.
We insist that idolatry has not only moral but also intellectual fallout—idolatry = irrationality. Tertullian was quite comfortable to repeatedly point this out to his opponents. It must further be borne in mind that, in the late second and early third centuries, the N. African and Asia Minor Christian communities were experiencing a baptism of blood. Tertullian’s penchant for sardonic tones and heckling taunts were on the pains of death. Today, in the West, we fear challenging our Intelligentsians in the academy, for example, lest our grades suffer; we instead regurgitate their buffoonery back to them on tests and in papers, and in the end, place a measure of offering on the alter of rebellious human Reason. Not Tertullian. There was no compromise at any point; there will always be antithesis between the Church and the Academy, between Jerusalem and Athens.
Last night, Beaner and I read a striking example of his canny for making a mockery out of the judgments of idolaters who despised Christians for nothing more than their name. His point was to illustrate how the Emperor and the Senates’ hatred for Christ and his people had driven them to utter madness. This he does in both Apology II, III and Ad Nationes II. The latter makes the point lucid.
“In this case [of those charged only with being Christians] you actually conduct trials contrary to the usual form of judicial process against criminals; for when culprits are brought up for trial, should they deny the charge, you press them for a confession by tortures. When Christians, however, confess without compulsion, you apply torture to induce them to deny. What great perversity is this, when you stand out against confession, and change the use of torture, compelling the man who frankly acknowledges the charge to evade it, and him who is unwilling, to deny it? You, who preside for the purpose of extorting truth, demand falsehood from us alone, that we declare ourselves not to be what we are...To be sure, you put others on the rack and gibbet, to get them to deny what they have the reputation of being. Now, when they deny (the charge against them), you do not believe them; but on our denial [of Christ and the faith], you instantly believe us!”
“Let this perversity of yours lead you to suspect that there is some hidden power in the case under whose influence you act against the forms [of jurisprudence], against the nature of public justice, even against the laws themselves” (Apol. II).
“Upside down and backwards” are the terms we ascribed to the folly of idolatry earlier, and Tertullian has given us a brilliant illustration of it in the antichrist idolaters of his own day. “O miserable deliverance,--under the necessity of the case, a self-contradiction!...Goodness is of less value that hatred of Christians!” (Apol. II, III).
Although Tertullian had some heterodox slippage, not least with his Montanistic leanings, his taunts and censors against the idolatry and heresy of his day were reminiscent of Paul and in parts Jesus also.
That’s Tertullian. But, what about us today?
Additionally, since as humans created to reflect what we reverence, in our unbelief we wind up taking on the dead, impersonal, and irrational characteristics of whatever object we have given God’s place of ultimacy over to (Ps 115:3—8). This idolatry leads us to futile reasoning and hearts of darkness. Finally, our exchanging the natural relationship we are to have with our God for that which is unnatural, worshipping something in creation (ultimately ourselves), leads us to pervert ALL that is natural. Making the natural unnatural and then proclaiming it “natural,” putting our selves as gods, we throw everything upside down and backwards (Rom 1:18ff). What’s saddest is that, we believe the upside down and backwards world is “just the way things are”—in a word, normal.
What the unbelieving world calls “normal,” Paul describes as a world of people who operate within every domain in the “futility of their minds,” and are “darkened in their understanding...hard-hearted” and “ignorant” (Eph 4:17—18). However, Paul also teaches us that God, in the omnipotent power and divine wisdom of the gospel, has made the world’s wisdom to be seen for the foolishness that it is; and the world’s perceived strength as it is in reality, weakness.
Now, as confessing Christians, we at least mentally assent to and affirm the truth of these biblical assessments of the unbelieving rationale (or should!). Far from Freud’s “psycho-scientific” conclusion that, our primary problems are the result of repressed anxieties of our sexual or patricidal tendencies; or Skinner’s excusing inferences from a person’s antecedent sociological depravations of one kind or another, the biblical diagnosis of our problem is simply idolatry. And idolatry makes one stupid—sin is irrationality in its highest manifestation. Despite the perceptions and delusions of the world, this is the reality and nature of the case.
Nevertheless, how often are we honest (or convicted) enough to tell the truth in this regard? Why aren’t Christians more willing to “answer the fool according to his folly” (Prov 1:5), not merely announcing the biblical diagnosis, but demonstrating it as well? As D. A. Carson often says, we’ll never agree on the solution (i.e., the gospel) until we can first agree on the problem (i.e., idolatry). The gospel is the only alternative to idolatry.
There has been one in our past who was not afraid to do these very things: reduce humanity’s dilemma down to the living true God or idols, and then make a mockery of the latter option. This one’s name was Tertullian.
In chapter I of De Idololatria, Tertullian gives a persuasive exhibition of how every sin, vice and avarice is in principle only a flagrant display of the deeper problem of idolatry. “The principle crime of the human race, the highest guilt charged upon the world, the whole procuring cause of judgment, is idolatry.” This is the opening line of this work, and the thesis that the rest compellingly proves.
Fraud, even, is rooted in idolatry. Tertullian explains, “The essence of fraud, I take it, is, that any should seize what is another’s, or refuse to another his due; and of course, fraud done toward man is a name of great crime. Well, but idolatry does fraud to God, by refusing to Him, and conferring on others, His honors.” Many similar correspondences are draw in this way. He concludes this chapter. “[S]ince all faults savor opposition to God...doubtless, whoever commits a fault is chargeable with idolatry.”
From a biblical perspective, idolatry is the root of all evil; for Tertullian, it was the same.
We insist that idolatry has not only moral but also intellectual fallout—idolatry = irrationality. Tertullian was quite comfortable to repeatedly point this out to his opponents. It must further be borne in mind that, in the late second and early third centuries, the N. African and Asia Minor Christian communities were experiencing a baptism of blood. Tertullian’s penchant for sardonic tones and heckling taunts were on the pains of death. Today, in the West, we fear challenging our Intelligentsians in the academy, for example, lest our grades suffer; we instead regurgitate their buffoonery back to them on tests and in papers, and in the end, place a measure of offering on the alter of rebellious human Reason. Not Tertullian. There was no compromise at any point; there will always be antithesis between the Church and the Academy, between Jerusalem and Athens.
Last night, Beaner and I read a striking example of his canny for making a mockery out of the judgments of idolaters who despised Christians for nothing more than their name. His point was to illustrate how the Emperor and the Senates’ hatred for Christ and his people had driven them to utter madness. This he does in both Apology II, III and Ad Nationes II. The latter makes the point lucid.
“In this case [of those charged only with being Christians] you actually conduct trials contrary to the usual form of judicial process against criminals; for when culprits are brought up for trial, should they deny the charge, you press them for a confession by tortures. When Christians, however, confess without compulsion, you apply torture to induce them to deny. What great perversity is this, when you stand out against confession, and change the use of torture, compelling the man who frankly acknowledges the charge to evade it, and him who is unwilling, to deny it? You, who preside for the purpose of extorting truth, demand falsehood from us alone, that we declare ourselves not to be what we are...To be sure, you put others on the rack and gibbet, to get them to deny what they have the reputation of being. Now, when they deny (the charge against them), you do not believe them; but on our denial [of Christ and the faith], you instantly believe us!”
“Let this perversity of yours lead you to suspect that there is some hidden power in the case under whose influence you act against the forms [of jurisprudence], against the nature of public justice, even against the laws themselves” (Apol. II).
“Upside down and backwards” are the terms we ascribed to the folly of idolatry earlier, and Tertullian has given us a brilliant illustration of it in the antichrist idolaters of his own day. “O miserable deliverance,--under the necessity of the case, a self-contradiction!...Goodness is of less value that hatred of Christians!” (Apol. II, III).
Although Tertullian had some heterodox slippage, not least with his Montanistic leanings, his taunts and censors against the idolatry and heresy of his day were reminiscent of Paul and in parts Jesus also.
That’s Tertullian. But, what about us today?
Viewing the World Aright
“For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).
For Bible class, I (Israel) have been working through James Jordan’s book Through New Eyes, and something caught my eye. Jordan briefly touches on the subject of how the world reveals God and his attributes. It is absolutely amazing how many comparisons there are between creatures on our little blue marble and God and his personality. He has revealed himself through our world in so many ways.
To make this point, Jordan draws from the mastery of the Dutch neo-Calvinist Herman Bavinck’s work in Reformed Dogmatics, vol. II, where Bavink gives this list of analogous comparisons between nature and God and what these teach us about God and his personality:
“He is compared to the lion (Isa 31:4), an eagle (Deut 32:11), a lamb (Isa 53:7), a hen (Matt 23:37), the sun (Ps 84:11), the morning star (Rev 22:16), the light (Ps 27:1), the lamp (Rev 21:23), a fire (Heb 12:29), a spring or fountain (Ps 36:9; Jer 2:13), food, bread, drink, water, anointment (Isa 55:1; Jn 4:10; 6:35, 55), a rock (Deut 32:4), a refuge (Ps 119:114), a tower (Prov 18:10), a stronghold (Ps 9:9), a shadow (Ps 91:1; 121:5), a shield (Ps 84:11), a road (Jn 14:6), a temple (Rev 21:22), and so on” (p. 101).
Jordan captures this by saying, “...God chose to reveal the infinity of his personality in the diversity of this world...” The Lord created this universe in such a way that man could see his creator in the creation around him. Everything in the universe reflects God’s character, but we are special symbols, made in God’s very own image (Gen. 1:26). How well are you reflecting God’s character?
“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge” (Ps. 19:1-2).
Israel
For Bible class, I (Israel) have been working through James Jordan’s book Through New Eyes, and something caught my eye. Jordan briefly touches on the subject of how the world reveals God and his attributes. It is absolutely amazing how many comparisons there are between creatures on our little blue marble and God and his personality. He has revealed himself through our world in so many ways.
To make this point, Jordan draws from the mastery of the Dutch neo-Calvinist Herman Bavinck’s work in Reformed Dogmatics, vol. II, where Bavink gives this list of analogous comparisons between nature and God and what these teach us about God and his personality:
“He is compared to the lion (Isa 31:4), an eagle (Deut 32:11), a lamb (Isa 53:7), a hen (Matt 23:37), the sun (Ps 84:11), the morning star (Rev 22:16), the light (Ps 27:1), the lamp (Rev 21:23), a fire (Heb 12:29), a spring or fountain (Ps 36:9; Jer 2:13), food, bread, drink, water, anointment (Isa 55:1; Jn 4:10; 6:35, 55), a rock (Deut 32:4), a refuge (Ps 119:114), a tower (Prov 18:10), a stronghold (Ps 9:9), a shadow (Ps 91:1; 121:5), a shield (Ps 84:11), a road (Jn 14:6), a temple (Rev 21:22), and so on” (p. 101).
Jordan captures this by saying, “...God chose to reveal the infinity of his personality in the diversity of this world...” The Lord created this universe in such a way that man could see his creator in the creation around him. Everything in the universe reflects God’s character, but we are special symbols, made in God’s very own image (Gen. 1:26). How well are you reflecting God’s character?
“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge” (Ps. 19:1-2).
Israel
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
The Bible: America's favorite unopened text!
David R. Nienhuis has written an intriguing piece for Modern Reformation on the state of biblical illiteracy our country, particularly with youth. Well worth the read. Check it out here.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
IRENAEUS: ADAM, CHRIST, AND REDEMPTIVE HISTORY
I love patrology (i.e., the study of the early Church Fathers); I love apologetics; I love good theology, and I love a redemptive-historical view of the Bible, one that holds Jesus high and centered. These are just a few reasons why I love Irenaeus and his works.
Reading the patristics often requires a critical eye. Few early Church fathers were thoroughly orthodox in their theology, oftimes, being influenced by their heritage and saturation in Platonism and the spirit of the age. With Irenaeus, however, one may relax and enjoy. His mind and subsequently his theology were radically transformed by the Rule of Faith (i.e., the essential gospel) and a Christological reading of all the Scriptures.
James Dennison, Jr. has written an insightful piece titled “Irenaeus and Redemptive History”, which covers Irenaeus and his redemptive-historical hermeneutic, particularly the “recapitulation” theme. Something very central to Irenaeus’ eschatology, Christology, anthropology, and soteriology—in a word all his theology.
Reading the patristics often requires a critical eye. Few early Church fathers were thoroughly orthodox in their theology, oftimes, being influenced by their heritage and saturation in Platonism and the spirit of the age. With Irenaeus, however, one may relax and enjoy. His mind and subsequently his theology were radically transformed by the Rule of Faith (i.e., the essential gospel) and a Christological reading of all the Scriptures.
James Dennison, Jr. has written an insightful piece titled “Irenaeus and Redemptive History”, which covers Irenaeus and his redemptive-historical hermeneutic, particularly the “recapitulation” theme. Something very central to Irenaeus’ eschatology, Christology, anthropology, and soteriology—in a word all his theology.
Friday, January 8, 2010
THE PRIMARY RULES OF ARGUMENT ANALYSIS
Two years ago, when Beaner was studying critical thinking, I made this simple list for her curriculum. Whether one is studying Scripture, engaging in apologetic conversation, reading the newspaper, or listening to a commercial on the radio, knowing the basic rules for identifying an argument (or lack thereof) is crucial.
Proverbs teaches us that, “The first one who states his case first seems right, until another comes and examines him” (18:13). And how often do the Scriptures warn us against being deceived, the root of the primeval, archetypical sin? Moreover, “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only expressing his opinion” (Prov 18:2).
How, then, are we to discern between mere opinion, conjecture or arbitrariness and reliable patterns of reasoning? It’s only a start, but being able to discover and identify premises and conclusions is essential. So, here are some general guidelines and helps for that end...
1. Premises and conclusions are not identified by their content or their location in the paragraph.
2. The appearance of the following words at the beginning of a sentence or clause signifies that what follows will be a:
PREMISE
a. since
b. for
c. because
d. as
e. whereas
f. inasmuch as
g. seeing that
CONCLUSION
a. therefore
b. thus
c. hence
d. so
e. consequently
f. accordingly
g. it follows that
h. as a result
i. I conclude
These terms may or may not be present; in other words, the rule is not absolute. But the presence of one of these words before a premise or a conclusion is the rule, not the exception. Argument identification can be greatly enhanced by learning the various forms of valid arguments. (We’ll look at that in a future post.)
3. An enthymeme is a kind of argument that is so clear from the context that it assumes the reader/hearer will supply some premises or the conclusion.
One example of the enthymeme that is lucid is Jesus’ argument that “My kingdom is not of this world” in John 18:36. Yes; this verse contains a complete argument. It goes like this:
P1. “If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews.”
P2. [The supplied premise: And it’s not so that my servants are fighting]
Therefore,
C1. My kingdom is not of this world.
P2 is supplied by the reader/hearer thus completing the the pattern of thought. That this is enthymemic is reinforced by the fact that Jesus is employing a particular from of argument, known as the modus tollens (one we’ll look at in the future), which is made complete with the assumed/supplied premise.
4. A sorites is a set of interlocking arguments in which there are propositions that may be both a conclusion in one and a premise in another following argument. This method doesn’t have a great showing in our culture; this due to the fact that media saturation, the ridiculous institution known as public “education,” and the misological attitude that has prevailed Western society of late, has degenerated our abilities to follow a lengthy, escalating discourse (esp. a written one). Nevertheless, if you read the Bible or any theological or philosophical works anterior to the 20th century, then you’ve been exposed to the sorites. Paul’s letters, especially Romans, provide great examples, as does Hebrews.
I hope you'll find these points helpful.
Proverbs teaches us that, “The first one who states his case first seems right, until another comes and examines him” (18:13). And how often do the Scriptures warn us against being deceived, the root of the primeval, archetypical sin? Moreover, “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only expressing his opinion” (Prov 18:2).
How, then, are we to discern between mere opinion, conjecture or arbitrariness and reliable patterns of reasoning? It’s only a start, but being able to discover and identify premises and conclusions is essential. So, here are some general guidelines and helps for that end...
1. Premises and conclusions are not identified by their content or their location in the paragraph.
2. The appearance of the following words at the beginning of a sentence or clause signifies that what follows will be a:
PREMISE
a. since
b. for
c. because
d. as
e. whereas
f. inasmuch as
g. seeing that
CONCLUSION
a. therefore
b. thus
c. hence
d. so
e. consequently
f. accordingly
g. it follows that
h. as a result
i. I conclude
These terms may or may not be present; in other words, the rule is not absolute. But the presence of one of these words before a premise or a conclusion is the rule, not the exception. Argument identification can be greatly enhanced by learning the various forms of valid arguments. (We’ll look at that in a future post.)
3. An enthymeme is a kind of argument that is so clear from the context that it assumes the reader/hearer will supply some premises or the conclusion.
One example of the enthymeme that is lucid is Jesus’ argument that “My kingdom is not of this world” in John 18:36. Yes; this verse contains a complete argument. It goes like this:
P1. “If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews.”
P2. [The supplied premise: And it’s not so that my servants are fighting]
Therefore,
C1. My kingdom is not of this world.
P2 is supplied by the reader/hearer thus completing the the pattern of thought. That this is enthymemic is reinforced by the fact that Jesus is employing a particular from of argument, known as the modus tollens (one we’ll look at in the future), which is made complete with the assumed/supplied premise.
4. A sorites is a set of interlocking arguments in which there are propositions that may be both a conclusion in one and a premise in another following argument. This method doesn’t have a great showing in our culture; this due to the fact that media saturation, the ridiculous institution known as public “education,” and the misological attitude that has prevailed Western society of late, has degenerated our abilities to follow a lengthy, escalating discourse (esp. a written one). Nevertheless, if you read the Bible or any theological or philosophical works anterior to the 20th century, then you’ve been exposed to the sorites. Paul’s letters, especially Romans, provide great examples, as does Hebrews.
I hope you'll find these points helpful.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Salvation History Overview Article From The ESV Study Bible
Clicking here will take you to a wonderful article, which is also found in the recently released ESV Study Bible from Crossway Bibles. Appropriately, Crossway placed the article just before the Old Testament. It’s concise but robust. The sections are as follows:
God’s Plan for History
Christ in the Old Testament
The Promises of God
Warnings and Curses
Covenants
Offspring
Christ as the Last Adam
Shadows, Prefigures, and “Types”
Christ the Mediator
Those initiated in biblical theology will rightly recognize the subject matter as topics of the same. You’ll also notice the stress on Christ in all the Scriptures, as well as the continuity of the Old and New Covenants.
Sadly, few Christians have even a cursory understanding of the systematic theology they profess; and worse, fewer still can give a cogent expression of any of the topics listed above.
This article is a great contribution to the greatest study Bible available anywhere. The English Standard Version is, I believe, the finest expression of Holy Writ in the English language. And the commentary notes are as good as it gets. I can’t recommend this Bible enough. But even if I didn’t get the ESV Study Bible, I’d print this article and read it at least once a year. The themes discussed therein are to the Bible what an engine is to your car—the driving power behind every movement!
God’s Plan for History
Christ in the Old Testament
The Promises of God
Warnings and Curses
Covenants
Offspring
Christ as the Last Adam
Shadows, Prefigures, and “Types”
Christ the Mediator
Those initiated in biblical theology will rightly recognize the subject matter as topics of the same. You’ll also notice the stress on Christ in all the Scriptures, as well as the continuity of the Old and New Covenants.
Sadly, few Christians have even a cursory understanding of the systematic theology they profess; and worse, fewer still can give a cogent expression of any of the topics listed above.
This article is a great contribution to the greatest study Bible available anywhere. The English Standard Version is, I believe, the finest expression of Holy Writ in the English language. And the commentary notes are as good as it gets. I can’t recommend this Bible enough. But even if I didn’t get the ESV Study Bible, I’d print this article and read it at least once a year. The themes discussed therein are to the Bible what an engine is to your car—the driving power behind every movement!
Sunday, January 3, 2010
John Walton on the use of the plural pronouns in Gen 1:26
I recently received John Walton’s NIV Application Commentary on Genesis from a good friend. Apart from a general dislike for the structural format of the series, the content has been both extremely insightful and bewildering at the same time.
Every one has their “thing,” their particular emphasis and specialty. Of course, Walton’s thing is ancient Near Eastern (ANE) background comparative studies. Walton’s emphasis provides us with fruitful reference material, which helps us to transcend our cultural situatedness and read the text of the OT through the lenses of reconstructed elements of an ANE paradigm. Walton’s contributions in this respect shine through in his part in the IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament.
I’ve found times, however, in his Genesis commentary that this emphasis becomes so axiomatic for Walton that, the comparative analysis is held at the expense of the straight forward teaching in other biblical passages, not least the ones that are authoritatively interpreting the various Genesis texts he’s considering. Genesis 1:26 is a case in point.
Walton affords two-plus pages to the use of plural pronouns in reference to God in Gen 1:26 (i.e., “Let us...in our image”; see pp. 128—30). Walton sets forward three lines of reasoning used to deal with this anything but uncontroversial topic: 1) theological, 2) grammatical, and 3) cultural. The cultural perspective is later qualified as offering two differing veins, one of which is Walton’s preferred resolution for the plurals. Walton defines these three categories as follows:
1. Theological: The plurals are explained as an expression of the plurality within the Godhead, either specifically of the Trinity or at least as a recognition of the two persons represented by the creator God (elohim) and the Holy Spirit of verse 2.
2. Grammatical: The plurals are explained as an expression of grammatical or rhetorical conventions, including self-deliberation, plural of majesty, and grammatical agreement with the plural elohim.
3. Cultural: The plurals are explained against the background of ancient Near Eastern culture.
One of the cultural interpretive options is that the plurals represent a vestige of polytheism. Walton rightly dismisses this option out of hand, as it is the result of heterodox presuppositions that he (and most other students of the Bible) simply can’t adopt. The grammatical option even less attention before dismissal.
Granting the ANE background and other OT text such as 1 Kings 22:19—22; Is 14:13, and Job 1, Walton concludes that the cultural view that assumes the plurals are to be understood as representing a “heavenly court” comprised of angels is the best case hypothesis for reading Gen 1:26.
Walton’s positive conclusion notwithstanding, my concern with his handling of this verse is in connection with his dismissal of the theological reading of the plurals.
He begins by admitting that, “the theological is probably the most popular in traditional circles...” I’m sorry, but given the contemporary attitude towards anything “traditional,” this reads as poisoning the well—he has bent the reader toward his conclusion prior to hearing his argument, if, that is, the reader doesn’t understand themselves to be part of the “traditional circle.” Today, it is almost unanimous consensus that if something is coming from a traditional perspective, it is necessarily wrong or at very least needs serious questioning.
In addition, the statement reads as if the theological reading is held only by those in “traditional circles,” or in other words, modern “traditionalists,” a.k.a, anti-intellectual fundamentalists. How it ought to read, though, is that the theological view of Gen 1:26 comes not from a traditional “circle” but rather a long “line” of tradition. The theological reading has a sustained pedigree throughout the orthodox hermeneutical tradition.
For instance, if the Epistle of Barnabas sheds any light on the apostolic interpretation of this verse, then the following is significant. “For the Scripture says concerning us, while he speaks to the Son, ‘Let Us make man...’” (Barn., VI). Likewise, Irenaeus has this: “[T]he Son and Holy Spirit, to whom He says, ‘Let Us make man’” (AH, IV, Preface: 4). And again, “[T]he Son and Spirit, by whom and in whom...He made all things, to whom He also speaks, saying, ‘Let Us make man...’” (AH, IV:XX:1). Furthermore, Tertullian, in his treatise Against Marcion, says the same. “Since then he is the image of the Creator (for He, when looking on Christ His Word, who was to become man, said, ‘Let Us make man...’)” (Ch. VIII).
These men are not reading Gen 1:26 through highly developed, post-Nicene Christological/Trinitarian lenses; a charge that might be laid at the doorstep of Calvin, who concludes thus in his commentary of Genesis, “Christians, therefore, properly contend, from this testimony, that there exists a plurality of Persons in the Godhead. God summons no foreign counsellor; hence we infer that he finds within himself something distinct; as, in truth, his eternal wisdom and power reside within him.”
From these examples, the “traditional circle” boasts a 2000 year circumference; from the best minds in the faith, the theological view was the Patrological view and the Reformational view of the plurals in Gen 1:26. Shall we then throw this to the wind?
This, of course, provokes a question: How much authority ought ecclesiastical tradition and historical theology exercise over our hermeneutical practice today? Historically, Protestants, in response to the absolutism of the Romish doctrine of papal authority, have tended to overreact and do their interpretation in a vacuum. This attitude has been heightened and exaggerated by the individualistic and autonomous spirit resident in the various independent-fundamentalists movements of the 20th century, which scathes any tradition as being the “traditions of men” (as though they are not constructing a tradition of their own!).
Such an attitude is unwise at best (literally). And it seems that Walton shares some measure of this attitude toward the authority of our historical interpretive heritage.
Walton continues.
“[I]f we ask what the Hebrew author and audience understood, any explanation assuming plurality in the Godhead is easily eliminated. If the interpreter wishes to bypass the human author with the claim that God’s intention is what is important, there are large obstacles to hurdle. If divine intention is not conveyed by the human author, where is it conveyed?”
This last sentence begs some attention. The question seems loaded and rhetorical to me. If we answer this question with any dual agency theory, Walton has framed it so it would seem that we’re disparaging authorial intent (and adopting a quasi-dictation idea of inspiration). This works, however, only is we accept his equivocation.
Here Walton seems to be equivocating the terms “understood” and “conveyed.” This appears to me to be the only way for his argument to work. For if we take the terms to denote their usual lexical sense, then limiting our conclusions to what the human author and his contemporaries understood would eliminate not only plurality in the Godhead, but divine intention altogether, reducing the Bible to a monument of human literary genius. On the other hand, of course, we’re obligated to subscribe to the idea that the divine intention is conveyed (or carried through, communicated by, et cetera). However, it does not follow from the fact that the author’s own words are the vehicle of divine intent to the notion that the divine intention of the author’s words are strictly bound by the cultural categories and plausibility structure of the author and his contemporaries. This, though, is exactly what I believe Walton’s remarks “convey.”
Moreover, if the divine intention is constricted to the paradigmatic understanding of the author/audience, then what we commonly understand as “progressive revelation,” the organic escalation of God’s Self-disclosure in Scripture, is dependant on and subordinate to the cultural and sociological developments of ANE civilization. I believe this conclusion is as unavoidable as it is heterodox.
Finally, Walton says:
“Certainly, if the New Testament told us that the Trinity was referred to in this verse, we would have no trouble accepting that as God’s intention. But it is not enough for the New Testament to affirm that there is such a thing as the Trinity. That affirmation does not prove that the Trinity is referred to in Genesis 1:26. Without specific New Testament treatment, we have no authoritative basis for bypassing the human author.”
I’m inclined to respond to these remarks with tongue in cheek...
“Certainly, Mr. Walton, if the NT explicitly told us that ANE comparative analysis was the most proper means of extracting the divine intention from the OT texts, then we’d have no trouble accepting the primacy you afford the method. That modernistic methods like this exist, and can be brought to bear on the text of Scripture (working on the presupposition that the Bible is ordinary literature!), is not enough to convince us. Without specific NT use of this method, we have no authoritative basis for bypassing the Christological-Canonical reading used by the NT authors.”
The truth in this jest is this: Walton rightly appeals to later revelation, particularly that later than the Advent of Christ, Who is the Sum and Finale of God’s revelation to mankind, in order to establish an “authoritative basis” for the theological view. He believes there is none, so... But this seems like special pleading, since Walton has no NT basis for allowing ANE background analysis to be the final determiner in discovering the divine intention in the reading of Gen 1:26.
In Lk 24:25ff, the two on the road to Emmaus are upbraided by Jesus for their reading of the OT. “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory? And beginning with Moses (i.e., Genesis) and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself...Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.” Further, Paul teaches that an Old Covenant reading that does not presuppose Christ is a “veiled” reading.
Does not, then, the NT train us to always take a Christ-first, theological reading, lest we too are “slow of heart to believe”?
And what of the logic of the NT? The NT presents Christ as the uncreated Creator, through whom all things, including man, were made. Moreover, the image-restoration texts (esp. Eph 4:24 and Col 3:10) teach us not only the essential attributes lost in the Fall, but also their recovery; our salvation is a progressive recreating into that originally good image of God in us, through the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Thus, without any self-consciousness of inconsistency, Paul presents us with the clear teaching in the renown ordo salutis, Rom 8:28--30, that our salvific reshaping is into the image of the Son. And John, when we shall inherit our full redemption, the resurrection and perfection of our bodies, 1 Jn 3:2. Good and necessary deduction from the NT data offers the very thing Walton claims is not there.
Nevertheless, beyond the logic of the NT, what about the explicit texts, such as Jn 1:1—3, Col 1:15f, and Heb 1:1—3? Where else did the early Church fathers get the notion that the plurals of Gen 1:26 were an intra-Trinitarian discourse? For Walton to claim that because these texts don’t explicitly read “Gen 1:26 is Uni-Plural Divine dialogue,” we must suspend judgment is unfair; for using the same rationale, he’d also have to suspend judgment that even there exists such a thing as the Trinity, since the NT doesn’t say so according to the rigors of his expectations.
So, while I’m finding some of Walton’s gleanings from his expert research in ANE background very helpful in many respects, there are several points in the commentary, such as this one, where he seems so stuck on his “thing,” his specialty, that he’ll slay both good exegesis and common sense on its altar (to use ANE language, that is;).
Every one has their “thing,” their particular emphasis and specialty. Of course, Walton’s thing is ancient Near Eastern (ANE) background comparative studies. Walton’s emphasis provides us with fruitful reference material, which helps us to transcend our cultural situatedness and read the text of the OT through the lenses of reconstructed elements of an ANE paradigm. Walton’s contributions in this respect shine through in his part in the IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament.
I’ve found times, however, in his Genesis commentary that this emphasis becomes so axiomatic for Walton that, the comparative analysis is held at the expense of the straight forward teaching in other biblical passages, not least the ones that are authoritatively interpreting the various Genesis texts he’s considering. Genesis 1:26 is a case in point.
Walton affords two-plus pages to the use of plural pronouns in reference to God in Gen 1:26 (i.e., “Let us...in our image”; see pp. 128—30). Walton sets forward three lines of reasoning used to deal with this anything but uncontroversial topic: 1) theological, 2) grammatical, and 3) cultural. The cultural perspective is later qualified as offering two differing veins, one of which is Walton’s preferred resolution for the plurals. Walton defines these three categories as follows:
1. Theological: The plurals are explained as an expression of the plurality within the Godhead, either specifically of the Trinity or at least as a recognition of the two persons represented by the creator God (elohim) and the Holy Spirit of verse 2.
2. Grammatical: The plurals are explained as an expression of grammatical or rhetorical conventions, including self-deliberation, plural of majesty, and grammatical agreement with the plural elohim.
3. Cultural: The plurals are explained against the background of ancient Near Eastern culture.
One of the cultural interpretive options is that the plurals represent a vestige of polytheism. Walton rightly dismisses this option out of hand, as it is the result of heterodox presuppositions that he (and most other students of the Bible) simply can’t adopt. The grammatical option even less attention before dismissal.
Granting the ANE background and other OT text such as 1 Kings 22:19—22; Is 14:13, and Job 1, Walton concludes that the cultural view that assumes the plurals are to be understood as representing a “heavenly court” comprised of angels is the best case hypothesis for reading Gen 1:26.
Walton’s positive conclusion notwithstanding, my concern with his handling of this verse is in connection with his dismissal of the theological reading of the plurals.
He begins by admitting that, “the theological is probably the most popular in traditional circles...” I’m sorry, but given the contemporary attitude towards anything “traditional,” this reads as poisoning the well—he has bent the reader toward his conclusion prior to hearing his argument, if, that is, the reader doesn’t understand themselves to be part of the “traditional circle.” Today, it is almost unanimous consensus that if something is coming from a traditional perspective, it is necessarily wrong or at very least needs serious questioning.
In addition, the statement reads as if the theological reading is held only by those in “traditional circles,” or in other words, modern “traditionalists,” a.k.a, anti-intellectual fundamentalists. How it ought to read, though, is that the theological view of Gen 1:26 comes not from a traditional “circle” but rather a long “line” of tradition. The theological reading has a sustained pedigree throughout the orthodox hermeneutical tradition.
For instance, if the Epistle of Barnabas sheds any light on the apostolic interpretation of this verse, then the following is significant. “For the Scripture says concerning us, while he speaks to the Son, ‘Let Us make man...’” (Barn., VI). Likewise, Irenaeus has this: “[T]he Son and Holy Spirit, to whom He says, ‘Let Us make man’” (AH, IV, Preface: 4). And again, “[T]he Son and Spirit, by whom and in whom...He made all things, to whom He also speaks, saying, ‘Let Us make man...’” (AH, IV:XX:1). Furthermore, Tertullian, in his treatise Against Marcion, says the same. “Since then he is the image of the Creator (for He, when looking on Christ His Word, who was to become man, said, ‘Let Us make man...’)” (Ch. VIII).
These men are not reading Gen 1:26 through highly developed, post-Nicene Christological/Trinitarian lenses; a charge that might be laid at the doorstep of Calvin, who concludes thus in his commentary of Genesis, “Christians, therefore, properly contend, from this testimony, that there exists a plurality of Persons in the Godhead. God summons no foreign counsellor; hence we infer that he finds within himself something distinct; as, in truth, his eternal wisdom and power reside within him.”
From these examples, the “traditional circle” boasts a 2000 year circumference; from the best minds in the faith, the theological view was the Patrological view and the Reformational view of the plurals in Gen 1:26. Shall we then throw this to the wind?
This, of course, provokes a question: How much authority ought ecclesiastical tradition and historical theology exercise over our hermeneutical practice today? Historically, Protestants, in response to the absolutism of the Romish doctrine of papal authority, have tended to overreact and do their interpretation in a vacuum. This attitude has been heightened and exaggerated by the individualistic and autonomous spirit resident in the various independent-fundamentalists movements of the 20th century, which scathes any tradition as being the “traditions of men” (as though they are not constructing a tradition of their own!).
Such an attitude is unwise at best (literally). And it seems that Walton shares some measure of this attitude toward the authority of our historical interpretive heritage.
Walton continues.
“[I]f we ask what the Hebrew author and audience understood, any explanation assuming plurality in the Godhead is easily eliminated. If the interpreter wishes to bypass the human author with the claim that God’s intention is what is important, there are large obstacles to hurdle. If divine intention is not conveyed by the human author, where is it conveyed?”
This last sentence begs some attention. The question seems loaded and rhetorical to me. If we answer this question with any dual agency theory, Walton has framed it so it would seem that we’re disparaging authorial intent (and adopting a quasi-dictation idea of inspiration). This works, however, only is we accept his equivocation.
Here Walton seems to be equivocating the terms “understood” and “conveyed.” This appears to me to be the only way for his argument to work. For if we take the terms to denote their usual lexical sense, then limiting our conclusions to what the human author and his contemporaries understood would eliminate not only plurality in the Godhead, but divine intention altogether, reducing the Bible to a monument of human literary genius. On the other hand, of course, we’re obligated to subscribe to the idea that the divine intention is conveyed (or carried through, communicated by, et cetera). However, it does not follow from the fact that the author’s own words are the vehicle of divine intent to the notion that the divine intention of the author’s words are strictly bound by the cultural categories and plausibility structure of the author and his contemporaries. This, though, is exactly what I believe Walton’s remarks “convey.”
Moreover, if the divine intention is constricted to the paradigmatic understanding of the author/audience, then what we commonly understand as “progressive revelation,” the organic escalation of God’s Self-disclosure in Scripture, is dependant on and subordinate to the cultural and sociological developments of ANE civilization. I believe this conclusion is as unavoidable as it is heterodox.
Finally, Walton says:
“Certainly, if the New Testament told us that the Trinity was referred to in this verse, we would have no trouble accepting that as God’s intention. But it is not enough for the New Testament to affirm that there is such a thing as the Trinity. That affirmation does not prove that the Trinity is referred to in Genesis 1:26. Without specific New Testament treatment, we have no authoritative basis for bypassing the human author.”
I’m inclined to respond to these remarks with tongue in cheek...
“Certainly, Mr. Walton, if the NT explicitly told us that ANE comparative analysis was the most proper means of extracting the divine intention from the OT texts, then we’d have no trouble accepting the primacy you afford the method. That modernistic methods like this exist, and can be brought to bear on the text of Scripture (working on the presupposition that the Bible is ordinary literature!), is not enough to convince us. Without specific NT use of this method, we have no authoritative basis for bypassing the Christological-Canonical reading used by the NT authors.”
The truth in this jest is this: Walton rightly appeals to later revelation, particularly that later than the Advent of Christ, Who is the Sum and Finale of God’s revelation to mankind, in order to establish an “authoritative basis” for the theological view. He believes there is none, so... But this seems like special pleading, since Walton has no NT basis for allowing ANE background analysis to be the final determiner in discovering the divine intention in the reading of Gen 1:26.
In Lk 24:25ff, the two on the road to Emmaus are upbraided by Jesus for their reading of the OT. “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory? And beginning with Moses (i.e., Genesis) and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself...Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.” Further, Paul teaches that an Old Covenant reading that does not presuppose Christ is a “veiled” reading.
Does not, then, the NT train us to always take a Christ-first, theological reading, lest we too are “slow of heart to believe”?
And what of the logic of the NT? The NT presents Christ as the uncreated Creator, through whom all things, including man, were made. Moreover, the image-restoration texts (esp. Eph 4:24 and Col 3:10) teach us not only the essential attributes lost in the Fall, but also their recovery; our salvation is a progressive recreating into that originally good image of God in us, through the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Thus, without any self-consciousness of inconsistency, Paul presents us with the clear teaching in the renown ordo salutis, Rom 8:28--30, that our salvific reshaping is into the image of the Son. And John, when we shall inherit our full redemption, the resurrection and perfection of our bodies, 1 Jn 3:2. Good and necessary deduction from the NT data offers the very thing Walton claims is not there.
Nevertheless, beyond the logic of the NT, what about the explicit texts, such as Jn 1:1—3, Col 1:15f, and Heb 1:1—3? Where else did the early Church fathers get the notion that the plurals of Gen 1:26 were an intra-Trinitarian discourse? For Walton to claim that because these texts don’t explicitly read “Gen 1:26 is Uni-Plural Divine dialogue,” we must suspend judgment is unfair; for using the same rationale, he’d also have to suspend judgment that even there exists such a thing as the Trinity, since the NT doesn’t say so according to the rigors of his expectations.
So, while I’m finding some of Walton’s gleanings from his expert research in ANE background very helpful in many respects, there are several points in the commentary, such as this one, where he seems so stuck on his “thing,” his specialty, that he’ll slay both good exegesis and common sense on its altar (to use ANE language, that is;).
Saturday, January 2, 2010
WORLDVIEW 104: The Principle of Antithesis, pt. 1
Because I’ve been so sloth in following up posts on this topic, I thought a bit of review would be in order. I’ve also linked the former posts in the series for convenience.
In the first entry on the subject of worldview, we saw that the fact of worldview is ubiquitous in human experience. Everyone has a worldview. This stems from the truth that all people are made in the image of God, and since God has a worldview, so to speak, so too does every creature bearing his image. In the second entry, WORLDVIEW 102, we attempted to define worldview, using the contributions of various scholars, and concluding with Abraham Kuyper’s definition.
In the third post, finally, we concluded that every worldview has its “touchstone proposition,” its “root” principle, that one ultimate presupposition from which all others come and are brought into constant relationship with; and that most ultimate heart commitment, that root principle, is an attitude toward one’s relation to God, the controlling premise of all other inferences and beliefs. Hear Kuyper again on this point. “Thus I maintain that it is the interpretation of our relation to God which dominates every general life system [i.e., worldview]” (Christianity: A Total World and Life System, 10). It is this fundamental principle which every other truth claim is determined to be in some measure believable or else flatly false within the context of the given worldview.
Jesus said, “Whoever is not with me is against me” (Matt 12:30), and that a person cannot serve two masters (7:24). These, and scriptural statements like them, immediately throw everybody on the horns of a dilemma. So, as C. S. Lewis rightly concluded in The Problem of Pain, "From the moment a creature becomes aware of God as God and of itself as self, the terrible alternative of choosing God or self for the centre is opened to it." In other words, there are really only two worldviews available, and these are—in their respective fundamental principles—in diametrical opposition to one another. See this article for a fuller demonstration of the theme of a biblical view of the antithesis.
This diametrical opposition or antithesis is essentially absolute. Now, this needs qualification, I know. What we mean by absolute antithesis is that, at the root of the respective worldviews—their original, fundamental principle—there is comprehensive contrariety. The Christian outlook accepts Lewis’ dilemma above and adopts the theocentric, i.e., God-centered principle as its foundational starting-point, submitting to the God of Scripture as the final authority; the rejection of the Christian perspective is necessarily, then, the positive adoption of the latter principle—a self-centered perspective, or more generally, an anthropocentric presupposition, wherein man is taken to be the starting-point for up building the entirety of the worldview, and consequently, the ultimate authority.
Therefore, at the very root of the respective outlooks, there is, as Kuyper said, a struggle for primacy, a wrestling match engaged in mortal combat, warring over the question of absolute primacy and authority. One begins and ends with man as its ultimate reference point; one begins and ends with the triune God of the Bible as its ultimate reference point. And because there cannot exist two beings with absolute and universal authority, there is absolute and universal antithesis between those who claim the prerogative and power of the position of primacy and ultimate authority.
In addition to this, there is the fact that the fundamental presupposition of a worldview is profoundly personal, beginning as it does in an attitude or disposition rather than a mere premise of one’s intellectual assent. The antithesis is comprehensive and holistic, reaching to the furthest bud on the longest branch that grows out of the root principle. Thus, the antithesis between the Christian worldview and all others is one which is absolute, leaving no room for compromise; and it is comprehensive, leaving no area of human experience or endeavor, no intellectual domain or discipline, no question of what is real, right, reasonable, or remedial is untouched by the absoluteness of this essential antithesis.
In principle, then, there is no “partnership...fellowship...accord...portion” or “agreement” between the Christian worldview and any other competitor (2 Cor 6:14—16). One begins by submitting to and worshiping the Creator-Controller-Redeemer God in Christ, the other worships and serves the creature; and each has its relative corollaries and consequences, which spring up from its fundamental root (Rom 1:18ff; Gal 5:16ff). There is no area of neutrality between these two warring world and life systems.
However, if all this were true, someone might object, then it would follow that Christians are utterly insolated and isolated from the unbelieving world around them, thus leading them to an unqualified pietism. Further, it seems that consistency with this principal antithesis would preclude any and all dialogue with non-Christians, since, supposing such were true, there would be no commonality, no neutral ground, no point of contact between the adherents of those who espouse the contrary systems.
Admittedly, there is some sense in which we would respond to these apparent problems with an emphatic “Yes, that’s right." But, on the other hand, nothing is further from the truth. As paradoxical as it might sound, consistency with the principle of antithesis is alone that which provides the point of contact necessary for trans-worldview communication. That is why this particular point of our look at worldview will come in parts, this one being only the first of several. This point needs careful attention and illustration.
In the next part, therefore, we’ll make the qualifications required for resolving these and other objections with the principle of antithesis, and hopefully give some clarity to the issue.
Until then, blessings in the thrice-holy God be yours!
In the first entry on the subject of worldview, we saw that the fact of worldview is ubiquitous in human experience. Everyone has a worldview. This stems from the truth that all people are made in the image of God, and since God has a worldview, so to speak, so too does every creature bearing his image. In the second entry, WORLDVIEW 102, we attempted to define worldview, using the contributions of various scholars, and concluding with Abraham Kuyper’s definition.
In the third post, finally, we concluded that every worldview has its “touchstone proposition,” its “root” principle, that one ultimate presupposition from which all others come and are brought into constant relationship with; and that most ultimate heart commitment, that root principle, is an attitude toward one’s relation to God, the controlling premise of all other inferences and beliefs. Hear Kuyper again on this point. “Thus I maintain that it is the interpretation of our relation to God which dominates every general life system [i.e., worldview]” (Christianity: A Total World and Life System, 10). It is this fundamental principle which every other truth claim is determined to be in some measure believable or else flatly false within the context of the given worldview.
Jesus said, “Whoever is not with me is against me” (Matt 12:30), and that a person cannot serve two masters (7:24). These, and scriptural statements like them, immediately throw everybody on the horns of a dilemma. So, as C. S. Lewis rightly concluded in The Problem of Pain, "From the moment a creature becomes aware of God as God and of itself as self, the terrible alternative of choosing God or self for the centre is opened to it." In other words, there are really only two worldviews available, and these are—in their respective fundamental principles—in diametrical opposition to one another. See this article for a fuller demonstration of the theme of a biblical view of the antithesis.
This diametrical opposition or antithesis is essentially absolute. Now, this needs qualification, I know. What we mean by absolute antithesis is that, at the root of the respective worldviews—their original, fundamental principle—there is comprehensive contrariety. The Christian outlook accepts Lewis’ dilemma above and adopts the theocentric, i.e., God-centered principle as its foundational starting-point, submitting to the God of Scripture as the final authority; the rejection of the Christian perspective is necessarily, then, the positive adoption of the latter principle—a self-centered perspective, or more generally, an anthropocentric presupposition, wherein man is taken to be the starting-point for up building the entirety of the worldview, and consequently, the ultimate authority.
Therefore, at the very root of the respective outlooks, there is, as Kuyper said, a struggle for primacy, a wrestling match engaged in mortal combat, warring over the question of absolute primacy and authority. One begins and ends with man as its ultimate reference point; one begins and ends with the triune God of the Bible as its ultimate reference point. And because there cannot exist two beings with absolute and universal authority, there is absolute and universal antithesis between those who claim the prerogative and power of the position of primacy and ultimate authority.
In addition to this, there is the fact that the fundamental presupposition of a worldview is profoundly personal, beginning as it does in an attitude or disposition rather than a mere premise of one’s intellectual assent. The antithesis is comprehensive and holistic, reaching to the furthest bud on the longest branch that grows out of the root principle. Thus, the antithesis between the Christian worldview and all others is one which is absolute, leaving no room for compromise; and it is comprehensive, leaving no area of human experience or endeavor, no intellectual domain or discipline, no question of what is real, right, reasonable, or remedial is untouched by the absoluteness of this essential antithesis.
In principle, then, there is no “partnership...fellowship...accord...portion” or “agreement” between the Christian worldview and any other competitor (2 Cor 6:14—16). One begins by submitting to and worshiping the Creator-Controller-Redeemer God in Christ, the other worships and serves the creature; and each has its relative corollaries and consequences, which spring up from its fundamental root (Rom 1:18ff; Gal 5:16ff). There is no area of neutrality between these two warring world and life systems.
However, if all this were true, someone might object, then it would follow that Christians are utterly insolated and isolated from the unbelieving world around them, thus leading them to an unqualified pietism. Further, it seems that consistency with this principal antithesis would preclude any and all dialogue with non-Christians, since, supposing such were true, there would be no commonality, no neutral ground, no point of contact between the adherents of those who espouse the contrary systems.
Admittedly, there is some sense in which we would respond to these apparent problems with an emphatic “Yes, that’s right." But, on the other hand, nothing is further from the truth. As paradoxical as it might sound, consistency with the principle of antithesis is alone that which provides the point of contact necessary for trans-worldview communication. That is why this particular point of our look at worldview will come in parts, this one being only the first of several. This point needs careful attention and illustration.
In the next part, therefore, we’ll make the qualifications required for resolving these and other objections with the principle of antithesis, and hopefully give some clarity to the issue.
Until then, blessings in the thrice-holy God be yours!
Friday, January 1, 2010
TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH, Beaner's Romans Paper
Here’s a paper the Beaner wrote for last year’s Bible class. Not too bad for a then thirteen year old ;). Earlier this year, she did a piece on Nero, which I’ll post sometime in the not too distant future. I’m awful proud of God’s grace that works in her heart and mind; and I wouldn't trade the pleasure of homeschooling her any thing, getting to see her grow everyday in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ--in every discipline, with heart, soul, and mind.
INTRODUCTION
Martin Luther once said that Romans was “the chief part of the New Testament and the very purest of all the gospels.”[1] He believed we should soak our souls in this Epistle everyday, and for good reason. To know anything about Martin Luther is to know about the agonizing struggle he went through trying to become acceptable before a holy God. K. Scott Oliphint says that Romans 1:17 “began to soothe Luther’s guilty conscience and bring him to an understanding of the liberty of the gospel.” He further recounts that Luther said that this verse—“The righteous shall live by faith”—“struck my conscience like lighting” and was “like a thunderbolt in my heart.”[2]
If the question of our acceptability before God is the most important one that can be asked (and it is), and more directly than any other book in the Bible, the Epistle to the Romans answers that question, then our coming to better understand this Epistle should be the most important object of every heart. The purpose of this thesis, therefore, is to investigate and answer four of the basic but essential questions for a correct understanding of the Epistle to the Romans: The who, the when, the where, and primarily the why of Romans. I will venture to do so by presenting various hypotheses formed by a variety of conservative commentators, dating from the Reformation to today.
AUTHORSHIP
Most commentators automatically assume the apostle Paul to be the author of Romans, largely because of certain writings in earlier manuscripts written to the churches of various cities, namely Galatia. As Harrison argues, “If the claim of the apostle to have written the Galatian and Corinthian letters is accepted, there is no reasonable basis for denying that he wrote Romans, since it echoes much of what is in the earlier writings, yet not slavishly.”[3] Galatians provides many such examples. For instance, when Paul mentioned how “we know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing…” in Romans 6:6, this echoes “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me…” in Galatians 2:20, written earlier. There are a number of other parallel phrases and concepts found between these two books thus further proving Paul as the author. [4]
DATING THE EPISTLE
Many commentators (e.g., Schaff, Harrison, Quarles, Bryan, Moo, and Hendrickson)[5] agree that the epistle to the Romans was undoubtedly written on Paul’s third missionary journey, sometime between the years of AD 53 and AD 58. Douglas Moo states, for example, “Paul writes Romans on his third missionary journey…probably in about AD 57.”[6] He was completing his third missionary journey and was heading back to Jerusalem with a collection (gift) from the Gentile churches, preparing for a missionary trip to Spain by way of Rome.
ORIGIN OF THE EPISTLE
In the book of Acts, Luke tells us that when Paul was in Corinth, testifying in front of the Jews, they opposed him and he said, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the gentiles.” The Roman church was predominantly a gentile congregation with some from the Jewish community. More than likely, Paul wrote this letter to Rome not long after he made this declaration. Many scholars support that it was most likely written in Corinth. Although, others, including Christopher Bryan and Douglas J. Moo, believe it was written in Cenchreae (a small seaport very near to Corinth).[7] Thus Paul was writing from Corinth or near Corinth about his plan to go to Rome.
PURPOSE OF THE EPISTLE
This is not an exhaustive list of supported reasons for Paul to have written the letter, but what follows are a few of the basics or more general themes and motives behind his writing the Epistle.
Paul’s Thesis Statement
Paul states the thesis of his Epistle in the first chapter. “I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’” (Rom. 1:16-17). That Paul would write down a summery of his Gospel and the theology behind that in a letter and send it to Rome, so that the church there could digest his message, before his visit, is the main reason supported by scholars for Paul writing Romans. Barrett agrees, “Most commentators recognize in them [1:16, 17] the ‘text’ of the Epistle; it is not wrong to see in them a summary Paul’s theology as a whole.”[8]
Paul’s Call to Unity within the Church
Another clear reason behind the Epistle, which is held highly by commentators, is that Paul wanted to address and correct certain problems existing in the Roman church; in particular, calling them to unity. Thanks to Gods providence, through Roman conquest, the pax Romana (“Peace of Rome”) helped to tare down nationalistic boundaries that would have kept Christian evangelists from reaching the nations, keeping the Great Commission. Rome also sustained a ‘universal,’ common language, Koinē Greek, which made it possible to communicate the Gospel to every “tongue, tribe, nation, and people”—or “the whole world.” Moreover, a highway system that allowed for easy travel. Despite these external benefits of Rome’s peace, this peace did not go deep enough to touch human hearts. There still existed bitter hostility between ethnic, social, religious, and cultural groups throughout the empire. The clearest tension lies between the Jews and Greeks, and the enmity was mutual. This disunity spread through all areas of their lives, but the one it was most evident in was their religion. The church in Rome was born under this area of false ‘peace.’ This disunity was at the heart of the church, and it was obvious. The attitude of resentment toward each other was the one Paul was facing when he was writing the letter. Bryan articulates this by saying, “Paul sought to address both groups not with a ‘compendium of Christian doctrine,’ but with an account of how the Gospel accords with God’s promises to restore creation (Rom 8:18—25) and how that should affect the attitude of believers toward each other (Rom 12:1—15:13).”[9] Paul is trying to point out that Caesar’s counterfeit peace could not reach the core of peoples hearts and Jesus’ genuine peace can (Ephesians 2:11-22).
Paul’s Personal and Theological Introduction to the Church in Rome
Since Paul had been longing to go to Rome for so long (Rom 1:11), and the Roman church had never seen him or heard his message, he sought to formally introduce himself and give them a full exposition of his Gospel. In this way, they would not be totally ignorant of his message and perceive it wrongly. Many commentators hold to the belief that this was at least part of the purpose of the letter.[10] Not least, C. K. Barrett, who puts it this way, “An obscure provincial, Paul plans to visit the center of the world; a self-styled apostle, lacking the self evident authorization of the Twelve, he approaches a church where his authority and even his credentials may well be questioned.”[11] Never the less he marches on, because that is what God called him to do.
CONCLUSION
I set out to answer the questions, who, when, where, and why, and I have done so to the best of my ability. There is no reason to doubt that the Apostle Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans on his third missionary journey, between AD 53 and AD 58 in the city of Corinth. He did so, because that was God’s plan for him to fulfill the Great Commission in Rome.
[1] Luther, Martin, Commentary of Romans, (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications. 1976) xiii.
[2] Oliphant, K. Scott, The Battle Belongs to the Lord: The Power of Scripture for Defending Our Faith, (Phillipsburg – New Jersey: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing. 2003) pp. 107—8.
[3] Everett F. Harrison, “Romans,” pp. 519—605 in The Expositors Bible Commentary, Barker, L. Kenneth, John R. Kohlenberger general editors, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing. 1994) p. 519.
[4] E.g., Rom 6:3//Gal 2:20, 3:27; Rom 6:9//Gal 2:19-20; Rom 6:21, 22//Gal 6:8; Rom 7:4//Gal 2:19; 5:22; Rom 7:23//Gal 5:17; Rom 8:6//Gal 6:8; Rom 814—17//Gal 4:3—7, etc.
[5] Respectively: Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 1, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. 2006), holds AD 58. p. 369; Everett Harrison, “Romans,” EBC, dates the epistle to early AD 57. p. 519; Charles Quarles, “Romans, letter to the,” pp. 1409—15 in Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Brand, Chad, Charles Draper, Archie England general editors, (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference. 2004), agrees on AD 56 – 57. p. 1410; Christopher Bryan, “Romans, book of,” pp. 697—703 in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, Kevin J. Vanhoozer general editor, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Publishing. 2005), concurs with AD 56 – 57. p. 697; William Hendrickson, Survey of the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books Publishing. 2005), also maintains Paul’s third missionary journey as the time of writing. p. 341.
[6] Douglas J. Moo, “Romans,” pp. 291—96 in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology: Exploring the Unity and Diversity of Scripture, Alexander, T. Desmond, Brian S. Rosner, D.A. Carson, Graeme Goldsworthy general editors, (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press. 2000) p. 292.
[7] Christopher Bryan, “Romans, Book of,” DTIB, is comfortable with either Cenchreae or Corinth, p.697. Douglas J. Moo, “Romans,” NDBT, says, “Cenchreae, near Corinth…” p.292.
[8] C. K Barrett., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, (New York, Hagerstown, San Francisco, London; Harper & Row, Publishers, 1957.) p. 27.
[9] Christopher Bryan, “Romans, Book of,” DTIB, p. 699.
[10] Charles Quarles, “Romans, Letter to the,” HIBD, p. 521; Everett Harrison, “ Romans,” EBC, p. 1411.
[11] C. K Barrett, Ibid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)