In the first three parts of this mini-series, we saw the two schools of theology and their approaches to Biblical interpretation; next, we looked at Augustine and his alignment with the Alexandrian school, as a reaction to the literalistic theologians that surrounded him. In part III, we examined both Platonist and Aristotelian philosophy, and discovered that Platonism focuses on the “other” world known only by the intellect, while Aristotelian philosophy focuses on this world, since we can know nothing about the invisible world.
In this post, I’d like to spend time talking about how the philosophical perspectives of Plato and Aristotle impact theological views. We’ve already seen that Augustine’s Neo-Platonism was responsible for his allegorical approach to the biblical text on issues like the Millennial Kingdom of Revelation 20, for example. But did you know that we, like Augustine, are guilty of approaching the Bible with our own philosophical presuppositions?
You might say to me, “Hey---wait a minute! I approach the text objectively, simply reading what the Bible says.” But do you really? Truth be told, we all approach the text with our own philosophical and theological presuppositions. For example, when we read about God saving Israel with “His arm” or how God “bore them [Israel] on eagles wings” throughout the Scriptures, do we really assume God has an arm or wings? No we don’t. Instead, we chalk such language up to human writing with the purpose of revealing something about God through the use of anthropomorphic (“human form”) language. God is given the characteristics of humans (or animals, in the case of wings) within Scripture to communicate a truth about God. And why do we not take these descriptions literally? Because we all assume a philosophy of God, whereby “God is spirit” (John 4:24). If God is spirit, He cannot be physical, or human, and thus, find a way to reconcile such passages with the nature of God.
Now, what about the debate regarding dispensationalism and covenantal theology? Underlying the biblical passages is not only a theology, but a philosophy. In the same way that Plato viewed “real reality” as the “wholly other,” so do covenantalists view biblical passages as pointing to the “spiritual.” The words themselves have no inherent meaning; instead, they “point to” the real meaning (which is some spiritual interpretation that requires much creativity). Therefore, when they read “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16) in the NT or “Israel” in the OT, they assume that the words refer to the Church.
Yesterday, I talked with a brother of mine at the local coffeeshop about his hermeneutic (he is covenantal in his theology). I asked him what about the progressive dispensationalist view did he intensely dislike...and he told me that his problem with the progressive view is that it is “not Christocentric.” And then, he proceeded to tell me that he doesn’t believe that the temple in Jerusalem is actually gonna rebuilt, he doesn’t believe in a world war against Israel, etc. I told him that those reasons are no reasons to discredit the biblical text about prophecies concerning national Israel: after all (for example), because an atheist doesn’t like the idea of Hell or believe in it does not nullify the fact that the Bible argues Hell as a real place. His last line of defense was that the progressive hermeneutic did not point to Christ.
It was at this point in the conversation that I asked him, “So where in Scripture are we ever told that the land of the OT refers to Christ in the NT?” This question is only one of many questions I could ask him. His response was a rehearsed covenantal response: “If you assume a Christocentric hermeneutic, then you can see that everything, all the promises, are summed up in Christ.” What this brother doesn’t seem to realize is that after Christ’s resurrection, according to Luke’s work in Acts, Christ spent forty days with the disciples, teaching them of the kingdom of God. At the end of the time, the disciples ask Jesus a legitimate question about the OT: “Lord, will You AT THIS TIME RESTORE THE KINGDOM TO ISRAEL?” (Acts 1:6, NKJV)
What is Jesus’ response? Does He tell them that this isn’t going to happen? No. Instead, He tells them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons...” (Acts 1:7) Christ’s response did not nullify the OT promise of the kingdom; rather, Christ simply told them that they were not to know the time or season in which the kingdom would be restored. This is the most logical assessment when we see that the disciples believed Christ would restore the kingdom to Israel “at this time.” They believed that by the end of His time with them, He would hand the kingdom over to Israel. But it was the timing Jesus rebuked them about, not the restoration of the kingdom to Israel.
As a result, my brother simply cannot handle the fact that the Scriptures only shroud the timing of the restoration and not the restoration itself. Why? because the restoration of Israel is an Old Testament promise! And if it is an OT promise, and the Lord Jesus (God incarnate) continues to uphold the promise, then this means that Revelation 20 (which mentions the millennial reign of Christ) will be literally fulfilled in Israel; the Israelites will return to their land, dwell in safety, and the Lord Himself will rule from the land of Israel. If you’re a covenantal theologian, this is not something to smile about.
So, do progressive dispensationalists REALLY rid themselves of the Christocentric hermeneutic? No. Rather, we uphold it---every promise of God will be fulfilled. God promised Abraham and Sarah that they would have a child named Isaac, from whom the Messiah would come. If this literal fulfillment leads to Christ, then why can’t the promise of the land make sense in the context of Christ’s one-thousand-year reign over earth? After all, the land will only provide security if Christ is there...and “there” He will be.
What about if one assumes Aristotelian philosophy? The text of Acts 1 is one that you rejoice over! When you understand that the disciples themselves read the OT promises of a future kingdom in Israel, it is clear that they adhered to a literal hermeneutic of some sort, that when God promised to restore the kingdom, He really meant what He said. And all this is clearly laid before you because, unlike Plato and covenantal theologians, you assume that what you can see and read with your sight is actual reality, that the words on the page tell you about life in this world. The words themselves have real inherent meaning, and are not only pointing to something beyond themselves. “Israel” refers to the nation of Israel itself, not the Church. If Israel is the nation itself, and God made her promises, then He will fulfill those promises. With the land, for example, progressive dispensationalists look to the future and anxiously await the fulfillment of promises for Israel that are yet to be fulfilled.
Both progressive dispensationalism and covenantal theology believe in a Christocentric hermeneutic; the difference in the two approaches has to do with philosophy: one focuses on the literal meaning of the text, while the other focuses on spiritual interpretation. The question is, “Can a person have both literal interpretation and still maintain a Christocentric hermeneutic? To this question I answer, “Yes; yes you can.”
Showing posts with label Covenant Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Covenant Theology. Show all posts
Monday, June 21, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
Philosophy For The Theologian, Part III: Distinguishing Platonist and Aristotelian Philosophy
Just what exactly is “Neo-Platonism,” anyway? That is one of my tasks in this post: to give a succinct definition of the term itself and how it relates to my current discussion on Augustine.
To find the answer to this question, I began to search for an old philosophy book that served as required reading for me in my Introduction to Philosophy course back some two and a half years ago here at seminary. Picking up the book again, I found a definition that was accurate and to-the-point. Platonism comes from Plato’s “theory of Forms or Ideas,” which states that
“total reality...[is] divided into two realms. There is the visible world, the world as it is presented to our senses, our ordinary everyday world, in which nothing lasts and nothing stays the same--- as Plato liked to put it, EVERYTHING IN THIS WORLD IS ALWAYS BECOMING SOMETHING ELSE, BUT NOTHING EVER JUST PERMANENTLY IS. (This formulation became shortened to ‘everything is becoming, nothing is.’) Everything comes into existence and passes away, everything is imperfect, everything decays. This world in space and time is the only world that our human sensory apparatus can apprehend. But THEN THERE IS ANOTHER REALM WHICH IS NOT IN SPACE OR TIME, AND NOT ACCESSIBLE TO OUR SENSES, AND IN WHICH THERE IS PERMANENCE AND PERFECT ORDER. THIS OTHER WORLD IS THE TIMELESS AND UNCHANGING REALITY of which our everyday world offers us only brief and unsatisfactory glimpses. BUT THAT IS WHAT ONE MIGHT CALL REAL REALITY, because it alone is stable, unshakeable---it alone just is, and is not always in the process of sliding into something else” (Bryan Magee, “The Story of Philosophy: A Concise Introduction to the World’s Greatest Thinkers and Their Ideas.” New York: DK Publishing, 2001, page 28).
If the invisible world is the “real reality,” then what is the visible world? The visible world is “a figment of our imagination,” as my friend Tammy said [although she really doesn’t believe that (smile)!]. In other words, life as we know it here is nothing more than “virtual reality,” like a toy truck instead of the Chevrolet F-150! Life here is nothing short of an illusion.
But if this life is an illusion, how can we have the smallest idea of what the OTHER life, the one beyond this one, is like? If, as Bryan Magee says, “our everyday world offers us only brief and unsatisfactory glimpses” of the other world, how can we even know which “glimpses” are reliable and trustworthy (if life itself is an illusion)? Basically, humanity is being “deceived by the deception.” This last statement, in and of itself, is self-defeating.
In addition, if the “other,” unchanging world is truth, and our glimpses of this “other” world are deceiving, how can we even know what truth is? How can we distinguish between truth and error here on earth? We can’t. We have no way of knowing truth, according to Platonist philosophy. In other words, we live in a world of complete, utter deception and mystery. We can’t even know if “we live in a world of complete, utter deception and mystery”!!!
Now, on to Aristotelian philosophy. First, though, a little bit about Aristotle himself:
“Aristotle himself was born in the city of Stagira in 384 BC. His father died when he was still a boy, so he was brought up by a guardian, who sent him to Athens when he was about 17 to be educated at Plato’s Academy” (Bryan Magee, “The Story of Philosophy,” page 32).
As Magee tells us, Aristotle, then, was a student of Plato. However, Aristotle disagreed with his teacher in regards to philosophical thought:
“he [Aristotle] rejected something fundamental to Plato’s philosophy, namely THE IDEA THAT THERE ARE TWO WORLDS. As we have seen, Plato taught that there can be no such thing as reliable knowledge of this ever-changing world that is presented to our senses. The objects of true knowledge inhabit, he said, another world, an abstract realm...as far as Aristotle was concerned, THERE IS ONLY ONE WORLD THAT WE CAN DO ANY PHILOSOPHIZING ABOUT, AND THAT IS THIS WORLD WE LIVE IN AND EXPERIENCE...furthermore, Aristotle did not believe that we could find any firm ground outside this world on which to stand, and from which to pursue philosophical enquiries. WHATEVER IS OUTSIDE ALL POSSIBILITY OF EXPERIENCE FOR US CAN BE NOTHING FOR US. We have no validatable way of referring to it, or talking about it, and therefore it cannot enter into our discourse in any reliable way; IF WE STRAY BEYOND THE GROUND COVERED BY EXPERIENCE WE WANDER INTO EMPTY TALK” (Magee, “The Story of Philosophy,” page 32).
Simply put, Aristotle disagreed with Plato because Plato, while referencing this “other” world beyond human experience, gave the intellect NOTHING by which to compare this world and the “other.” How can one distinguish two worlds if there is nothing by which one can compare one world to another?
As believers, let’s take the Bible. If there is NOTHING in this world that testifies to the “other” world, and the Bible is in this world, then the conclusion follows--- The Bible cannot be trusted. It cannot tell us what the “other” world is like. The words on the pages of Holy Writ would be like the rest of the world in which we live: fleeting.
As I mentioned in my last post on “Augustine’s Encounter With Biblical Interpretation,” Augustine himself held to Neo-Platonism. I’ve covered Platonist philosophy; but what exactly does it mean to be “Neo-“ Platonist? It was Plotinus who prepared Platonist philosophy for its entrance into Christianity:
“Plotinus taught that since ultimate reality consists of Plato’s Ideal Forms, what exists is ultimately mental, and therefore for something to be created is for it to be thought. There are, he believed, three ascending levels of being. The lowest, on which human beings are, is SOUL. The next level up, ON WHICH THE IDEAL FORMS ARE APPREHENDED, is the intellect. The highest level is the good. Reflective human beings are engaged in an attempted ascent towards one-ness with the good. Christians translated this into their doctrines that the world has been created in the mind of God, and that human beings are aspiring to one-ness with God, who is perfect goodness” (Magee, “The Story of Philosophy,” 30).
Earlier, when I attempted to describe Platonism, I made mention of Plato’s view of the “other” world that is permanent and unchanging. This world is really just a temporary reality to get to the next (the changing for the unchanging). However, if we place this into our discussion of Augustine and hermeneutics, what becomes clear is that Augustine, a Neo-Platonist, believed that man is striving to “apprehend the Ideal Forms” of life, which lay in his mind (intellect). If this be the case, then, doesn’t it make sense that Augustine believed in allegorical interpretation?
“This accent upon the spiritual value of the text (2 Cor. 3:6) emphasized the underlying truth...that could be unpacked through MULTIPLE MEANINGS IN THE TEXT given by the Spirit and DISCERNED BY THE SPIRITUAL EXEGETE” (Peterson, from John S. Feinberg, “Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments.” Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1988, page 23).
In other words, “reaching for the Ideal Forms” in the text required Augustine to “go beyond” the world of “words” and see the “unchanging reality” behind them. Now, does it all make sense? Can you see why Augustine argued so heavily for spiritual interpretations of the biblical text? His philosophy advocated it! And embracing Neo-Platonism, Aurelius Augustine made it his philosophy of everything, INCLUDING hermeneutics. This explains why he interpreted the words of Scripture as not significant in and of themselves, but “pointing” to something beyond them. And that is why his view of the Millennium (Rev. 20) turned into the “present reign of Christ in the hearts of His people.” With enough diligence and hard work, man could find the “ideal forms”---if only he would engage his intellect, which contained them. Since striving for the ideal forms would lead towards the destination of “oneness with the Divine,” then man’s exercise in spiritual interpretation was a worthy one, a noble one, a more spiritual one than just reading the words and understanding what lay on the page.
We can now put many things together about this mini-series. After today’s post, you can understand why it is that I began the small series with discussion of the two schools of theology, the Alexandrian (allegorical) and the Antiochene (typological). I did this because I wanted to show that, in the same way there have been two approaches to theology, there have also been two approaches to philosophy, as this post reveals (Platonist and Aristotelian). And the two theologies and philosophies have dominated the philosophical and theological worlds ever since.
In my next post, I will discuss the implications of Platonist and Aristotelian philosophy upon theology, with regards to the issue of Dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology.
To find the answer to this question, I began to search for an old philosophy book that served as required reading for me in my Introduction to Philosophy course back some two and a half years ago here at seminary. Picking up the book again, I found a definition that was accurate and to-the-point. Platonism comes from Plato’s “theory of Forms or Ideas,” which states that
“total reality...[is] divided into two realms. There is the visible world, the world as it is presented to our senses, our ordinary everyday world, in which nothing lasts and nothing stays the same--- as Plato liked to put it, EVERYTHING IN THIS WORLD IS ALWAYS BECOMING SOMETHING ELSE, BUT NOTHING EVER JUST PERMANENTLY IS. (This formulation became shortened to ‘everything is becoming, nothing is.’) Everything comes into existence and passes away, everything is imperfect, everything decays. This world in space and time is the only world that our human sensory apparatus can apprehend. But THEN THERE IS ANOTHER REALM WHICH IS NOT IN SPACE OR TIME, AND NOT ACCESSIBLE TO OUR SENSES, AND IN WHICH THERE IS PERMANENCE AND PERFECT ORDER. THIS OTHER WORLD IS THE TIMELESS AND UNCHANGING REALITY of which our everyday world offers us only brief and unsatisfactory glimpses. BUT THAT IS WHAT ONE MIGHT CALL REAL REALITY, because it alone is stable, unshakeable---it alone just is, and is not always in the process of sliding into something else” (Bryan Magee, “The Story of Philosophy: A Concise Introduction to the World’s Greatest Thinkers and Their Ideas.” New York: DK Publishing, 2001, page 28).
If the invisible world is the “real reality,” then what is the visible world? The visible world is “a figment of our imagination,” as my friend Tammy said [although she really doesn’t believe that (smile)!]. In other words, life as we know it here is nothing more than “virtual reality,” like a toy truck instead of the Chevrolet F-150! Life here is nothing short of an illusion.
But if this life is an illusion, how can we have the smallest idea of what the OTHER life, the one beyond this one, is like? If, as Bryan Magee says, “our everyday world offers us only brief and unsatisfactory glimpses” of the other world, how can we even know which “glimpses” are reliable and trustworthy (if life itself is an illusion)? Basically, humanity is being “deceived by the deception.” This last statement, in and of itself, is self-defeating.
In addition, if the “other,” unchanging world is truth, and our glimpses of this “other” world are deceiving, how can we even know what truth is? How can we distinguish between truth and error here on earth? We can’t. We have no way of knowing truth, according to Platonist philosophy. In other words, we live in a world of complete, utter deception and mystery. We can’t even know if “we live in a world of complete, utter deception and mystery”!!!
Now, on to Aristotelian philosophy. First, though, a little bit about Aristotle himself:
“Aristotle himself was born in the city of Stagira in 384 BC. His father died when he was still a boy, so he was brought up by a guardian, who sent him to Athens when he was about 17 to be educated at Plato’s Academy” (Bryan Magee, “The Story of Philosophy,” page 32).
As Magee tells us, Aristotle, then, was a student of Plato. However, Aristotle disagreed with his teacher in regards to philosophical thought:
“he [Aristotle] rejected something fundamental to Plato’s philosophy, namely THE IDEA THAT THERE ARE TWO WORLDS. As we have seen, Plato taught that there can be no such thing as reliable knowledge of this ever-changing world that is presented to our senses. The objects of true knowledge inhabit, he said, another world, an abstract realm...as far as Aristotle was concerned, THERE IS ONLY ONE WORLD THAT WE CAN DO ANY PHILOSOPHIZING ABOUT, AND THAT IS THIS WORLD WE LIVE IN AND EXPERIENCE...furthermore, Aristotle did not believe that we could find any firm ground outside this world on which to stand, and from which to pursue philosophical enquiries. WHATEVER IS OUTSIDE ALL POSSIBILITY OF EXPERIENCE FOR US CAN BE NOTHING FOR US. We have no validatable way of referring to it, or talking about it, and therefore it cannot enter into our discourse in any reliable way; IF WE STRAY BEYOND THE GROUND COVERED BY EXPERIENCE WE WANDER INTO EMPTY TALK” (Magee, “The Story of Philosophy,” page 32).
Simply put, Aristotle disagreed with Plato because Plato, while referencing this “other” world beyond human experience, gave the intellect NOTHING by which to compare this world and the “other.” How can one distinguish two worlds if there is nothing by which one can compare one world to another?
As believers, let’s take the Bible. If there is NOTHING in this world that testifies to the “other” world, and the Bible is in this world, then the conclusion follows--- The Bible cannot be trusted. It cannot tell us what the “other” world is like. The words on the pages of Holy Writ would be like the rest of the world in which we live: fleeting.
As I mentioned in my last post on “Augustine’s Encounter With Biblical Interpretation,” Augustine himself held to Neo-Platonism. I’ve covered Platonist philosophy; but what exactly does it mean to be “Neo-“ Platonist? It was Plotinus who prepared Platonist philosophy for its entrance into Christianity:
“Plotinus taught that since ultimate reality consists of Plato’s Ideal Forms, what exists is ultimately mental, and therefore for something to be created is for it to be thought. There are, he believed, three ascending levels of being. The lowest, on which human beings are, is SOUL. The next level up, ON WHICH THE IDEAL FORMS ARE APPREHENDED, is the intellect. The highest level is the good. Reflective human beings are engaged in an attempted ascent towards one-ness with the good. Christians translated this into their doctrines that the world has been created in the mind of God, and that human beings are aspiring to one-ness with God, who is perfect goodness” (Magee, “The Story of Philosophy,” 30).
Earlier, when I attempted to describe Platonism, I made mention of Plato’s view of the “other” world that is permanent and unchanging. This world is really just a temporary reality to get to the next (the changing for the unchanging). However, if we place this into our discussion of Augustine and hermeneutics, what becomes clear is that Augustine, a Neo-Platonist, believed that man is striving to “apprehend the Ideal Forms” of life, which lay in his mind (intellect). If this be the case, then, doesn’t it make sense that Augustine believed in allegorical interpretation?
“This accent upon the spiritual value of the text (2 Cor. 3:6) emphasized the underlying truth...that could be unpacked through MULTIPLE MEANINGS IN THE TEXT given by the Spirit and DISCERNED BY THE SPIRITUAL EXEGETE” (Peterson, from John S. Feinberg, “Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments.” Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1988, page 23).
In other words, “reaching for the Ideal Forms” in the text required Augustine to “go beyond” the world of “words” and see the “unchanging reality” behind them. Now, does it all make sense? Can you see why Augustine argued so heavily for spiritual interpretations of the biblical text? His philosophy advocated it! And embracing Neo-Platonism, Aurelius Augustine made it his philosophy of everything, INCLUDING hermeneutics. This explains why he interpreted the words of Scripture as not significant in and of themselves, but “pointing” to something beyond them. And that is why his view of the Millennium (Rev. 20) turned into the “present reign of Christ in the hearts of His people.” With enough diligence and hard work, man could find the “ideal forms”---if only he would engage his intellect, which contained them. Since striving for the ideal forms would lead towards the destination of “oneness with the Divine,” then man’s exercise in spiritual interpretation was a worthy one, a noble one, a more spiritual one than just reading the words and understanding what lay on the page.
We can now put many things together about this mini-series. After today’s post, you can understand why it is that I began the small series with discussion of the two schools of theology, the Alexandrian (allegorical) and the Antiochene (typological). I did this because I wanted to show that, in the same way there have been two approaches to theology, there have also been two approaches to philosophy, as this post reveals (Platonist and Aristotelian). And the two theologies and philosophies have dominated the philosophical and theological worlds ever since.
In my next post, I will discuss the implications of Platonist and Aristotelian philosophy upon theology, with regards to the issue of Dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Philosophy For The Theologian, Part II: Augustine's Encounter With Biblical Interpretation
In my last post, I discussed Rodney Petersen’s chapter on the history of hermeneutics, how the two approaches to theology (Alexandrian and Antiochene) is what started the debate of how the Old and New Testaments work together. The Alexandrian school, as you’ll remember in my last post, focused on allegory and spiritual interpretation (Origen), while the Antiochene school emphasized typology---this interpretive device placed the historical event or person itself side-by-side with the spiritual implications (or events). In the Antiochene school, the historical was not sidelined for the spiritual; rather, the spiritual built upon the foundation that the historical figure provided.
In this post, however, I intend to do what Rodney Petersen does: zoom in on Augustine. Aurelius Augustine (354-430) was one of the most influential (if not the most) of his time. According to Petersen, many factors influenced Augustine’s hermeneutic:
“Several stages marked Augustine’s passage to faith in Christ. Each left its mark upon his interpretation of the text. At first, put off by the archaisms and infelicities of the text, Augustine was driven toward MANICHAEAN DUALISM WITH ITS DENIGRATION OF THE OT” (Petersen, from John S. Feinberg, “Continuity and Discontinuity,” page 23).
Manichaean dualism believed that there were two “forces” in the world: one good, and the other evil. Manichaeism was rather like Gnosticism in that it postulated that the material world was bad, the immaterial world good. To build the soul (immaterial), the individual had to “discipline” the flesh (the material), and rebel against the flesh’s lusts. This involved things like beating oneself with whips or starving oneself for as long as possible. If this doesn’t sound bad enough, add to this the fact that Manichaeans also made distinction between the literal and spiritual interpretations: the literal being material (which was bad), the spiritual being immaterial (which was good). As a result, the spiritual interpretation (what Manichaeans considered to be the NT) was accepted, while the literal interpretation of the OT (“shadows of the things to come”) was outright rejected.
As I mentioned earlier, in case you don’t believe that philosophy has anything to do with theology, check out the Manichaean belief: because of their underlying philosophy of material (bad) and immaterial (good), they viewed the Old and New Testaments through their belief system and decided the Old Testament was bad and should be rejected. I fear that covenantal theologians do the same today when they argue that the New Testament “replaces” the Old Testament in biblical interpretation.
In 386, Augustine was converted to Christ through the preaching of Ambrose of Milan (c. 339-397). Ambrose, a Neo-Platonist who freely used allegorical interpretation,
“helped Augustine to accept the Scriptures more readily. In his own work, Augustine would often make free use of allegorism. This accent upon THE SPIRITUAL VALUE of the text (2 Cor. 3:6) emphasized the underlying truth behind the symbols of expression. THAT TRUTH COULD BE UNPACKED THROUGH MULTIPLE MEANINGS IN THE TEXT GIVEN BY THE SPIRIT AND DISCERNED BY THE SPIRITUAL EXEGETE” (Petersen, from John S. Feinberg, “Continuity and Discontinuity,” page 23).
There is a connection here that I don’t want you to miss: first, Augustine was won to Christ through the preaching of Ambrose of Milan. Ambrose was a Neo-Platonist; therefore, Augustine, upon studying under Ambrose, embraced the teachings of NEO-PLATONISM. And Neo-Platonism, according to Petersen, involves great emphasis on “allegorism” and “spiritual interpretation.”
Augustine’s philosophical embrace (Neo-Platonism) can best be seen regarding his struggle in his interpretation of the millennial kingdom of Revelation 20:
“As Augustine wrestled with traditional understandings of the millennium (Rev. 20:3), a time in which the promises to Israel would be realized, he rejected what he felt to be THE CRASS LITERALISM of many of his predecessors. Instead, HE FOLLOWED ORIGEN, offering a spiritual interpretation. IT [the millennium] WAS THE TIME SYMBOLIZED BY THE PRESENT LIFE OF THE CHURCH, experienced by those who, having accepted Christ, live under his general sway” (Petersen, from John S. Feinberg, “Continuity and Discontinuity,” page 23).
Augustine interpreted the Millennium of Revelation 20 to be that which is being experienced currently (that being, Christ ruling in the hearts of those who make up His church). While I respect Augustine as a great theologian to the early church, I disagree with his interpretation of Revelation 20 for the simple fact that his spiritual interpretation does not make sense in light of Revelation 2, for example, with the church at Sardis (as well as the other wayward churches of Asia Minor). If Christ was ruling and reigning in the hearts of those churches, then why was there so much decline in godliness that even the Lord threaten to return against His own believers in eschatological judgment? And these churches (most of the 7) were not even “generally godly” in practice.
However, what is most striking about Augustine’s spiritual interpretation is that, in so doing, “he followed Origen”---which means that he took up the theology of the Alexandrian school. Remember what I said about Alexandrian theology?
“Origen was inspired by the Jewish exegete Philo, who ‘argued for the importance of a DEEPER SPIRITUAL or ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION BEHIND THE HISTORY OR LETTER OF THE TEXT’ (“Continuity and Discontinuity,” page 20). Further, ‘the OT...was filled with enigma. It was an allegory or spiritual symbol. MEANING---and in a way THE NEW DISPENSATION---WAS CONCEALED IN THE OLD WITH DEBATABLE REGARD FOR HISTORY. IT WAS THE WORK OF THE SPIRITUAL EXEGETE TO FIND THE SPIRITUAL MEANING’” (21).
There was “little regard for the history” of the OT; instead, every word of the OT “pointed beyond” itself to the NT.
This is the Alexandrian School’s theology; but if “philosophy is the handmaiden of theology,” and the theology is “allegorical and spiritual,” then what is the driving philosophy? Platonism. Augustine, as I mentioned above was a “Neo-Platonist,” being tutored under the great preacher Ambrose. Since Neo-Platonism was Augustine’s philosophy, it had just as much a role to play in Augustine’s writing as did his theology. His theology then, reveals that he holds to some sort of “spiritual, mystical” philosophy. Just what is “Neo-Platonism,” anyway? You’ll find out in my next post.
In this post, however, I intend to do what Rodney Petersen does: zoom in on Augustine. Aurelius Augustine (354-430) was one of the most influential (if not the most) of his time. According to Petersen, many factors influenced Augustine’s hermeneutic:
“Several stages marked Augustine’s passage to faith in Christ. Each left its mark upon his interpretation of the text. At first, put off by the archaisms and infelicities of the text, Augustine was driven toward MANICHAEAN DUALISM WITH ITS DENIGRATION OF THE OT” (Petersen, from John S. Feinberg, “Continuity and Discontinuity,” page 23).
Manichaean dualism believed that there were two “forces” in the world: one good, and the other evil. Manichaeism was rather like Gnosticism in that it postulated that the material world was bad, the immaterial world good. To build the soul (immaterial), the individual had to “discipline” the flesh (the material), and rebel against the flesh’s lusts. This involved things like beating oneself with whips or starving oneself for as long as possible. If this doesn’t sound bad enough, add to this the fact that Manichaeans also made distinction between the literal and spiritual interpretations: the literal being material (which was bad), the spiritual being immaterial (which was good). As a result, the spiritual interpretation (what Manichaeans considered to be the NT) was accepted, while the literal interpretation of the OT (“shadows of the things to come”) was outright rejected.
As I mentioned earlier, in case you don’t believe that philosophy has anything to do with theology, check out the Manichaean belief: because of their underlying philosophy of material (bad) and immaterial (good), they viewed the Old and New Testaments through their belief system and decided the Old Testament was bad and should be rejected. I fear that covenantal theologians do the same today when they argue that the New Testament “replaces” the Old Testament in biblical interpretation.
In 386, Augustine was converted to Christ through the preaching of Ambrose of Milan (c. 339-397). Ambrose, a Neo-Platonist who freely used allegorical interpretation,
“helped Augustine to accept the Scriptures more readily. In his own work, Augustine would often make free use of allegorism. This accent upon THE SPIRITUAL VALUE of the text (2 Cor. 3:6) emphasized the underlying truth behind the symbols of expression. THAT TRUTH COULD BE UNPACKED THROUGH MULTIPLE MEANINGS IN THE TEXT GIVEN BY THE SPIRIT AND DISCERNED BY THE SPIRITUAL EXEGETE” (Petersen, from John S. Feinberg, “Continuity and Discontinuity,” page 23).
There is a connection here that I don’t want you to miss: first, Augustine was won to Christ through the preaching of Ambrose of Milan. Ambrose was a Neo-Platonist; therefore, Augustine, upon studying under Ambrose, embraced the teachings of NEO-PLATONISM. And Neo-Platonism, according to Petersen, involves great emphasis on “allegorism” and “spiritual interpretation.”
Augustine’s philosophical embrace (Neo-Platonism) can best be seen regarding his struggle in his interpretation of the millennial kingdom of Revelation 20:
“As Augustine wrestled with traditional understandings of the millennium (Rev. 20:3), a time in which the promises to Israel would be realized, he rejected what he felt to be THE CRASS LITERALISM of many of his predecessors. Instead, HE FOLLOWED ORIGEN, offering a spiritual interpretation. IT [the millennium] WAS THE TIME SYMBOLIZED BY THE PRESENT LIFE OF THE CHURCH, experienced by those who, having accepted Christ, live under his general sway” (Petersen, from John S. Feinberg, “Continuity and Discontinuity,” page 23).
Augustine interpreted the Millennium of Revelation 20 to be that which is being experienced currently (that being, Christ ruling in the hearts of those who make up His church). While I respect Augustine as a great theologian to the early church, I disagree with his interpretation of Revelation 20 for the simple fact that his spiritual interpretation does not make sense in light of Revelation 2, for example, with the church at Sardis (as well as the other wayward churches of Asia Minor). If Christ was ruling and reigning in the hearts of those churches, then why was there so much decline in godliness that even the Lord threaten to return against His own believers in eschatological judgment? And these churches (most of the 7) were not even “generally godly” in practice.
However, what is most striking about Augustine’s spiritual interpretation is that, in so doing, “he followed Origen”---which means that he took up the theology of the Alexandrian school. Remember what I said about Alexandrian theology?
“Origen was inspired by the Jewish exegete Philo, who ‘argued for the importance of a DEEPER SPIRITUAL or ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION BEHIND THE HISTORY OR LETTER OF THE TEXT’ (“Continuity and Discontinuity,” page 20). Further, ‘the OT...was filled with enigma. It was an allegory or spiritual symbol. MEANING---and in a way THE NEW DISPENSATION---WAS CONCEALED IN THE OLD WITH DEBATABLE REGARD FOR HISTORY. IT WAS THE WORK OF THE SPIRITUAL EXEGETE TO FIND THE SPIRITUAL MEANING’” (21).
There was “little regard for the history” of the OT; instead, every word of the OT “pointed beyond” itself to the NT.
This is the Alexandrian School’s theology; but if “philosophy is the handmaiden of theology,” and the theology is “allegorical and spiritual,” then what is the driving philosophy? Platonism. Augustine, as I mentioned above was a “Neo-Platonist,” being tutored under the great preacher Ambrose. Since Neo-Platonism was Augustine’s philosophy, it had just as much a role to play in Augustine’s writing as did his theology. His theology then, reveals that he holds to some sort of “spiritual, mystical” philosophy. Just what is “Neo-Platonism,” anyway? You’ll find out in my next post.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Philosophy For The Theologian: The Schools of Alexandria and Antioch
Here at the Center for Theological Studies (CTS), I am always blogging on theological issues, such as Calvinism vs. Arminianism and Dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology. In today’s post however, I will still consider the theological topic of dispensationalism and covenant theology, but I will do so from a philosophical perspective.
In case no one has ever told you this, philosophy and theology go hand in hand, like a ball in a glove (“philosophy is the handmaiden of theology”). Because philosophy supports theology, one’s theology will reveal an individual’s philosophy.
This morning, while up reading a chapter in John S. Feinberg’s “Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments,” I read a chapter on the debate on continuity and discontinuity of the Testaments throughout church history. Feinberg tells us that there were two schools of theology at the time:
“They [the theologians] were generally oriented around two ‘schools’ of theology, one located at Alexandria and the other at Antioch. Both understood the OT as an historical document, ultimately the work of the same divine Spirit as that present in the NT. Both agreed on certain key events and the way in which these foreshadowed Christ and the church...both believed that the new was contained in the old. DIFFERENCES APPEARED IN THE MANNER BY WHICH THE NEW REVELATION WAS DISCERNED IN THE OLD AND IN THE INDEPENDENT STATUS OF THE FORMER REVELATION IN LIGHT OF THE NEW” (“Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments.” Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1988, page 20).
The relationship of the Old and New Testaments was the subject of frequent dialogue and debate in church history. Contrary to what some may think, this issue did not just start with contemporary theologians as a newly-created debate to keep believers in continual disagreement. No---the debate itself has existed since the completion of the New Testament canon...and according to Paul, since the time of the Romans to which he wrote his epistle.
Now, the question becomes, “What ideas did the two ‘schools’ consist of?” In other words, “What did these two schools believe about theology?” That is what I will detail now.
First, let’s start with the school at Alexandria. This school was founded by Origen (c. 185- c.254), who promoted allegorical exegesis. According to Rodney Petersen, Origen was inspired by the Jewish exegete Philo, who “argued for the importance of a DEEPER SPIRITUAL or ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION BEHIND THE HISTORY OR LETTER OF THE TEXT” (“Continuity and Discontinuity,” page 20). Further, “the OT...was filled with enigma. It was an allegory or spiritual symbol. MEANING---and in a way THE NEW DISPENSATION---WAS CONCEALED IN THE OLD WITH DEBATABLE REGARD FOR HISTORY. IT WAS THE WORK OF THE SPIRITUAL EXEGETE TO FIND THE SPIRITUAL MEANING” (21).
To put this clearly, the Alexandrian school believed that the actual text itself did not contain meaning, but POINTED TO MEANING (“meaning was concealed in the old”). The Alexandrian school, devoted to allegorical interpretation, believed that the true meaning of the text was not found in the words, but something “behind” the words; and this “something behind the words” was to be discovered by the exegete himself. Exegesis, as a result, became more of an exercise in creative imagination than an exercise in understanding and comprehension. The text, in Alexandrian theology, participated in a game of “hide-and-seek”: true meaning was hidden, but could be found with enough diligence.
And what about the Antiochene School? The Antiochene School argued for typology:
“This relationship was seen as correspondence, not simply symbolism. It was believed to be found in Scripture itself (Isa. 51:9-16; Gal. 4:24). EVENTS AND PERSONS IN AN EARLIER REVELATION WERE ‘TYPES’ OF THAT WHICH WOULD APPEAR LATER. IN THIS WAY THE SPIRITUAL MEANING AND HISTORICAL SENSE OF THE TEXT WERE CLOSELY BONDED. Through insight (theoria) one might discern both the historical reality and proper spiritual intent of a text set within a clearer picture of the development of revelation (fuller truth about Christ is found in the Gospels, not in a spiritual interpretation of the OT). THIS HAD THE ADVANTAGE OF OFFERING A MORE INTEGRAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE. Allegory appeared to lose this through unreliable or illegitimate associations” (21).
The Antiochene School argued for typology, insisting that the historical event and a greater spiritual reality were BOTH important to understanding the text.
If we use an example, let’s use the example of the Israelites in Exodus. God told the Israelites to place the blood of a slaughtered lamb on their doorposts. This had to be done so that the death angel would “pass over” them (thus, the “Passover” event, Exodus 12:21-30). Historically, this is important: the Israelites were “literally” told to obey God’s instructions. Since the Egyptians did not do this, they lost the firstborn in all of their homes. Failure to take a lamb, slaughter it, and place its blood on the doorpost would result in the loss of the firstborn child. For the lives of Jewish firstborns, it was imperative that the Israelites hear and obey everything God told them.
However, there was also a future spiritual meaning to the act. The act of slaughtering a lamb and sprinkling its blood to cover them and prevent death foreshadowed Christ who was to come. This is why Paul would go on to write in 1 Corinthians while condemning the church for allowing a man to remain in their midst who was sleeping with his stepmother:
“Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. FOR INDEED CHRIST, OUR PASSOVER, WAS SACRIFICED FOR US. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor. 5:6-8, NKJV).
Here we find that the slaughtering of the lamb in the Old Testament was not meant to be just a mere command and tradition; rather, by celebrating the Passover (slaughtering a lamb, and so forth), the Israelites were actually anticipating the Christ event that was to come. Now, in lieu of Calvary, the believers in the early church (and us today) are to remember the death of Christ, remember what He died for---that being our sin. Because He died for our sins, He commands us to “reckon yourselves dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead...” (Rom. 6:11-13)
The “old leaven,” what Paul labels as “malice and wickedness,” is that which the “old man,” the man before Christ, would do. But the new man in Christ is to have newly unleavened bread, that being “sincerity” of heart and truth (everything he does is to be pure, just, and right).
Now, Paul’s words are good to the New Testament church about the spiritual commemoration of the Passover; but does this nullify the commandment God gave the Jews about Passover? What is the commandment God gave the Jews, anyway?
“And you shall observe this thing as an ordinance FOR YOU AND YOUR SONS FOREVER. It will come to pass when you come to the land which the Lord will give you, just as He promised, that YOU SHALL KEEP THIS SERVICE. And it shall be, when your children say to you, ‘What do you mean by this service?’ that you shall say, ‘It is the Passover sacrifice of the Lord, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when He struck the Egyptians and delivered our households’” (Exodus 12:24-27).
The Jews were told to commemorate that special night when they entered the Promised Land. It was not just told to them to remember it once or twice, but to be done by them “and...sons FOREVER”. It would be performed every year, from generation to generation to generation. In the eyes of Scripture, then, the foreshadowed meaning of the Passover and Christian ethics in light of the future event (Christ’s death) does not cancel out the necessity of the Jews to remember God’s command to celebrate the Passover. In the Antiochene School and its use of typology, both the historical event and the spiritual significance are upheld, side by side. Neither is negated for the other.
In this daunting post, I have described the Alexandrian and Antiochene Schools of Theology and their hermeneutics (interpretive methods) regarding Scripture. In my next post, I will cover the popularity of the Alexandrian School (focusing on Augustine in particular) and the underlying philosophical thought behind the two theologies.
In case no one has ever told you this, philosophy and theology go hand in hand, like a ball in a glove (“philosophy is the handmaiden of theology”). Because philosophy supports theology, one’s theology will reveal an individual’s philosophy.
This morning, while up reading a chapter in John S. Feinberg’s “Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments,” I read a chapter on the debate on continuity and discontinuity of the Testaments throughout church history. Feinberg tells us that there were two schools of theology at the time:
“They [the theologians] were generally oriented around two ‘schools’ of theology, one located at Alexandria and the other at Antioch. Both understood the OT as an historical document, ultimately the work of the same divine Spirit as that present in the NT. Both agreed on certain key events and the way in which these foreshadowed Christ and the church...both believed that the new was contained in the old. DIFFERENCES APPEARED IN THE MANNER BY WHICH THE NEW REVELATION WAS DISCERNED IN THE OLD AND IN THE INDEPENDENT STATUS OF THE FORMER REVELATION IN LIGHT OF THE NEW” (“Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments.” Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1988, page 20).
The relationship of the Old and New Testaments was the subject of frequent dialogue and debate in church history. Contrary to what some may think, this issue did not just start with contemporary theologians as a newly-created debate to keep believers in continual disagreement. No---the debate itself has existed since the completion of the New Testament canon...and according to Paul, since the time of the Romans to which he wrote his epistle.
Now, the question becomes, “What ideas did the two ‘schools’ consist of?” In other words, “What did these two schools believe about theology?” That is what I will detail now.
First, let’s start with the school at Alexandria. This school was founded by Origen (c. 185- c.254), who promoted allegorical exegesis. According to Rodney Petersen, Origen was inspired by the Jewish exegete Philo, who “argued for the importance of a DEEPER SPIRITUAL or ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION BEHIND THE HISTORY OR LETTER OF THE TEXT” (“Continuity and Discontinuity,” page 20). Further, “the OT...was filled with enigma. It was an allegory or spiritual symbol. MEANING---and in a way THE NEW DISPENSATION---WAS CONCEALED IN THE OLD WITH DEBATABLE REGARD FOR HISTORY. IT WAS THE WORK OF THE SPIRITUAL EXEGETE TO FIND THE SPIRITUAL MEANING” (21).
To put this clearly, the Alexandrian school believed that the actual text itself did not contain meaning, but POINTED TO MEANING (“meaning was concealed in the old”). The Alexandrian school, devoted to allegorical interpretation, believed that the true meaning of the text was not found in the words, but something “behind” the words; and this “something behind the words” was to be discovered by the exegete himself. Exegesis, as a result, became more of an exercise in creative imagination than an exercise in understanding and comprehension. The text, in Alexandrian theology, participated in a game of “hide-and-seek”: true meaning was hidden, but could be found with enough diligence.
And what about the Antiochene School? The Antiochene School argued for typology:
“This relationship was seen as correspondence, not simply symbolism. It was believed to be found in Scripture itself (Isa. 51:9-16; Gal. 4:24). EVENTS AND PERSONS IN AN EARLIER REVELATION WERE ‘TYPES’ OF THAT WHICH WOULD APPEAR LATER. IN THIS WAY THE SPIRITUAL MEANING AND HISTORICAL SENSE OF THE TEXT WERE CLOSELY BONDED. Through insight (theoria) one might discern both the historical reality and proper spiritual intent of a text set within a clearer picture of the development of revelation (fuller truth about Christ is found in the Gospels, not in a spiritual interpretation of the OT). THIS HAD THE ADVANTAGE OF OFFERING A MORE INTEGRAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE. Allegory appeared to lose this through unreliable or illegitimate associations” (21).
The Antiochene School argued for typology, insisting that the historical event and a greater spiritual reality were BOTH important to understanding the text.
If we use an example, let’s use the example of the Israelites in Exodus. God told the Israelites to place the blood of a slaughtered lamb on their doorposts. This had to be done so that the death angel would “pass over” them (thus, the “Passover” event, Exodus 12:21-30). Historically, this is important: the Israelites were “literally” told to obey God’s instructions. Since the Egyptians did not do this, they lost the firstborn in all of their homes. Failure to take a lamb, slaughter it, and place its blood on the doorpost would result in the loss of the firstborn child. For the lives of Jewish firstborns, it was imperative that the Israelites hear and obey everything God told them.
However, there was also a future spiritual meaning to the act. The act of slaughtering a lamb and sprinkling its blood to cover them and prevent death foreshadowed Christ who was to come. This is why Paul would go on to write in 1 Corinthians while condemning the church for allowing a man to remain in their midst who was sleeping with his stepmother:
“Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. FOR INDEED CHRIST, OUR PASSOVER, WAS SACRIFICED FOR US. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor. 5:6-8, NKJV).
Here we find that the slaughtering of the lamb in the Old Testament was not meant to be just a mere command and tradition; rather, by celebrating the Passover (slaughtering a lamb, and so forth), the Israelites were actually anticipating the Christ event that was to come. Now, in lieu of Calvary, the believers in the early church (and us today) are to remember the death of Christ, remember what He died for---that being our sin. Because He died for our sins, He commands us to “reckon yourselves dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead...” (Rom. 6:11-13)
The “old leaven,” what Paul labels as “malice and wickedness,” is that which the “old man,” the man before Christ, would do. But the new man in Christ is to have newly unleavened bread, that being “sincerity” of heart and truth (everything he does is to be pure, just, and right).
Now, Paul’s words are good to the New Testament church about the spiritual commemoration of the Passover; but does this nullify the commandment God gave the Jews about Passover? What is the commandment God gave the Jews, anyway?
“And you shall observe this thing as an ordinance FOR YOU AND YOUR SONS FOREVER. It will come to pass when you come to the land which the Lord will give you, just as He promised, that YOU SHALL KEEP THIS SERVICE. And it shall be, when your children say to you, ‘What do you mean by this service?’ that you shall say, ‘It is the Passover sacrifice of the Lord, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when He struck the Egyptians and delivered our households’” (Exodus 12:24-27).
The Jews were told to commemorate that special night when they entered the Promised Land. It was not just told to them to remember it once or twice, but to be done by them “and...sons FOREVER”. It would be performed every year, from generation to generation to generation. In the eyes of Scripture, then, the foreshadowed meaning of the Passover and Christian ethics in light of the future event (Christ’s death) does not cancel out the necessity of the Jews to remember God’s command to celebrate the Passover. In the Antiochene School and its use of typology, both the historical event and the spiritual significance are upheld, side by side. Neither is negated for the other.
In this daunting post, I have described the Alexandrian and Antiochene Schools of Theology and their hermeneutics (interpretive methods) regarding Scripture. In my next post, I will cover the popularity of the Alexandrian School (focusing on Augustine in particular) and the underlying philosophical thought behind the two theologies.
Monday, June 14, 2010
"Taking the Entire New Testament Out of Context"
“It is widely held that the most obvious corollary to the Christocentric hermeneutic is the ‘theologia crucis’ that THE NEW TESTAMENT MUST ALWAYS BE OUR GUIDE TO INTERPRETING THE OLD TESTAMENT. But why would a rule be imposed on the revelation of God that demands that the Old Testament passages may not become the basis for giving primary direction on any doctrines or truths that have relevancy for New Testament times? This is only to argue in the end for A CANON WITHIN A CANON...we misjudge the revelation of God if we have a theory of interpretation which says THE MOST RECENT REVELATION OF GOD IS TO BE PREFERRED OR SUBSTITUTED FOR THAT WHICH CAME EARLIER” (W.C. Kaiser Jr., “The Land of Israel and the Future Return”; quoted by Barry E. Horner, “Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged.” Nashville: B&H Academic, 2007, page 183).
Today, I began reading the section “Kingdom Promises and the Testaments,” in John Feinberg’s “Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments.” Arguing for the promises as purely scriptural is Bruce K. Waltke, a covenantal theologian whose work I was exposed to this past semester in my OT theology course. The other theologian, writing for some discontinuity, was Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., whose quote is given above regarding a proper biblical hermeneutic.
In this post, I want to dive into Kaiser’s quote above, while also introducing the viewer to Bruce Waltke’s comments regarding the kingdom promises as spiritual. I want to establish that hermeneutics is the key to where one stands in the dispensationalism-covenantal theology debate. While arguing that hermeneutics determines perspective, I will also argue (however) that there is only one proper hermeneutic of the text that does justice to both testaments. Like the Calvinism-Arminianism debate, there is only one right theology in this debate; and it will all come down to hermeneutics, the method by which one interprets the biblical text.
Back somewhere around two years ago, I took Dr. David Hogg for my Theology III course, titled “The Church and Eschatology.” In my theology III class, Dr. Hogg covered the chapter on Romans 11 regarding Israel. In his lecture, he argued that “the church is taking the entire New Testament out of context.” According to Dr. Hogg, the church has become so “Gentile” in its outlook that, when Pastors witness, they carry around small pocket Bibles that only contain the Old Testament books of Psalms and Proverbs while carrying around ALL of the New Testament books without reservation. And why do we carry around only the OT books of Psalms and Proverbs? Because “we can sing the psalms and give wisdom with the proverbs,” he said. In short, he stated that preachers know so little about the Old Testament that they rarely preach out of it...and when they do, they only preach the narratives like Daniel in the Lions’ Den, or David fighting Goliath, or the Red Sea Experience, etc. There are other books, for example, like Leviticus, even Job, that are rarely ever preached on in pulpits across the country. Pastors rarely touch the other books of the Old Testament because they know so little about them. In my estimation, however, I think pastors and preachers alike rarely preach from those books because they don’t think the Word will be enough to “entertain” their congregations. It’s a sad day when the Word is only “good” when it entertains us and makes us feel good about ourselves (which is so contrary to what the Word is meant to do, which is instruct and correct us)...
Dr. Hogg’s lecture came back to the surface of my mind as I began to read Walt Kaiser’s words on Covenantal Theology and its need to create a “canon within a canon.” I think my former theology professor was right when he made it clear that most preachers preach the New Testament without realizing that the foundation for the New Testament is the OLD Testament! That’s right: were it not for the OLD Testament, there would be no NEW Testament! It seems then, that to preach the NT does not only compute to preaching only ONE-HALF of the counsel of God (instead of the whole), but also, to preach the “house” of the Scriptures without first “laying the foundation” thereof. How can a house stand if it has no foundation? In the same manner, how can the Word of God make sense if the foundation (the Old Testament) is not preached first?
Kaiser’s words come to an alarming climax when he writes,
“This is only to argue in the end for A CANON WITHIN A CANON...we misjudge the revelation of God if we have a theory of interpretation which says THE MOST RECENT REVELATION OF GOD IS TO BE PREFERRED OR SUBSTITUTED FOR THAT WHICH CAME EARLIER.”
Why is there a need for “a canon within a canon”? Why do evangelicals feel as though they need to decide which of the testaments is “more” important (as if to say that both are not equally important)? Let’s take Jesus for example: the early church declared that Christ was “fully God, fully man,” without any distinction to “this percentage God” and “this percentage man.” In the eyes of the early church, Christ’s divinity and humanity were equally important: Christ’s divinity, because only God, a perfect Lamb, could die for the sins of imperfect mankind; and Christ’s humanity, because only Christ could fulfill God’s Law---something required by all of human creation). Both were equally important to Christ’s mission as Savior on earth, and neither was to be disqualified or “substituted” for the other.
If Christ is the Word (John 1:1), and the Word reveals Christ, why then, must believers take the Word of God (God’s revelation to us in written form) and classify which testament is greater? Did not Paul say that “ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD AND PROFITABLE for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16, NKJV)? At the time Paul made this remarkable claim, all the New Testament church had was the OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES! So Paul’s words here to Timothy are to reveal that “all Scripture,” even the Old Testament, is inspired by God, or “theopneustos” (“God-breathed”) and useful for instruction. But what purpose does the modern-day church give the OT? How useful is the OT in today’s church? If the OT is useful, why then, do we not make use of it and use it in our teaching, preaching, and witness? Why is the OT considered by some to be just a “substitute teacher” until the NT came along?
What about Paul’s words to Timothy in 1 Timothy 1?
“BUT WE KNOW THAT THE LAW IS GOOD, if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate...ungodly and ...sinners...the unholy and profane...murderers of fathers and mothers...manslayers...fornicators...sodomites...kidnappers... liars...perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:8-10, NKJV).
The Law in question here is the Old Testament, for this is all the early church had as a formative canon. It seems that, since this is Paul’s introduction to his letter, the Old Testament Law was possibly being twisted in the name of false doctrine in the church at Ephesus: especially with “myths and endless genealogies” (1 Tim. 1:4), as well as with the creation account from Genesis, with Adam’s formation before Eve and Eve’s deception having to be defended as orthodox (1 Tim. 2:13-14).
Despite the twisting of the Law for bad use, Paul still believed the Law was good. Let’s check out these words regarding Law and sin:
“But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? IS THE LAW SIN? CERTAINLY NOT! On the contrary, I WOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN SIN EXCEPT THROUGH THE LAW. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, ‘You shall not covet.’...therefore THE LAW IS HOLY, AND THE COMMANDMENT HOLY AND JUST AND GOOD...FOR WE KNOW THAT THE LAW IS SPIRITUAL, but I am carnal, sold under sin” (Romans 7:6-7, 12, 14).
As believers saved by grace through faith in the work of Christ on the cross, we do not have to offer the sacrifices of Leviticus, for example. However, while we are not bound to the sacrifices of Leviticus, we are bound to “the Spirit” of Leviticus, for as the writer of Hebrews tells us,
“By Him let us continually offer THE SACRIFICE OF PRAISE TO GOD, that is, THE FRUIT OF OUR LIPS, giving thanks to His name” (Hebrews 13:15).
For Paul, the Law still served as a valuable guide to the Christian (whether Jew or Gentile); why then, have we become “post-Paul” in our thinking and decided that the Law serves no purpose for the modern-day church?
Ladies and Gentleman, this is what covenantal theology (often called “replacement” theology) is doing in its assessment of the Old Testament, with regards to Israel, Hermeneutics, etc. And herein lies the problem: that one part of the counsel of God is being ditched for the other.
I’ll conclude with words from Bruce Waltke regarding how dispensationalists view the implications of covenantal theology upon the biblical text:
“Amillennialists differ from dispensational premillenialists in their hermeneutics by calling for A SPIRITUAL INTERPRETATION OF KINGDOM PROMISES OVER AGAINST A ‘LITERALISTIC’ (J.I. Packer’s term) INTERPRETATION OF THEM. Amillennialists emphasize with Augustine that ‘THE NEW IS IN THE OLD CONCEALED AND THE OLD IS IN THE NEW REVEALED,’ while dispensationalists complain that in the amillennial system ‘THE OLD IS BY THE NEW RESTRICTED AND THE NEW IS ON THE OLD INFLICTED’” (Bruce Waltke, “Kingdom Promises as Spiritual,” from “Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments” by John Feinberg, editor. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1988, page 272).
Ask yourself the following: Are both Old and New Testaments the Word of God? If you answer yes to this question, then one more remains: “Is Christ divided” (1 Cor. 1:13)? If Christ is not divided, then why treat God’s Revelation (The Word) as though IT is?
Today, I began reading the section “Kingdom Promises and the Testaments,” in John Feinberg’s “Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments.” Arguing for the promises as purely scriptural is Bruce K. Waltke, a covenantal theologian whose work I was exposed to this past semester in my OT theology course. The other theologian, writing for some discontinuity, was Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., whose quote is given above regarding a proper biblical hermeneutic.
In this post, I want to dive into Kaiser’s quote above, while also introducing the viewer to Bruce Waltke’s comments regarding the kingdom promises as spiritual. I want to establish that hermeneutics is the key to where one stands in the dispensationalism-covenantal theology debate. While arguing that hermeneutics determines perspective, I will also argue (however) that there is only one proper hermeneutic of the text that does justice to both testaments. Like the Calvinism-Arminianism debate, there is only one right theology in this debate; and it will all come down to hermeneutics, the method by which one interprets the biblical text.
Back somewhere around two years ago, I took Dr. David Hogg for my Theology III course, titled “The Church and Eschatology.” In my theology III class, Dr. Hogg covered the chapter on Romans 11 regarding Israel. In his lecture, he argued that “the church is taking the entire New Testament out of context.” According to Dr. Hogg, the church has become so “Gentile” in its outlook that, when Pastors witness, they carry around small pocket Bibles that only contain the Old Testament books of Psalms and Proverbs while carrying around ALL of the New Testament books without reservation. And why do we carry around only the OT books of Psalms and Proverbs? Because “we can sing the psalms and give wisdom with the proverbs,” he said. In short, he stated that preachers know so little about the Old Testament that they rarely preach out of it...and when they do, they only preach the narratives like Daniel in the Lions’ Den, or David fighting Goliath, or the Red Sea Experience, etc. There are other books, for example, like Leviticus, even Job, that are rarely ever preached on in pulpits across the country. Pastors rarely touch the other books of the Old Testament because they know so little about them. In my estimation, however, I think pastors and preachers alike rarely preach from those books because they don’t think the Word will be enough to “entertain” their congregations. It’s a sad day when the Word is only “good” when it entertains us and makes us feel good about ourselves (which is so contrary to what the Word is meant to do, which is instruct and correct us)...
Dr. Hogg’s lecture came back to the surface of my mind as I began to read Walt Kaiser’s words on Covenantal Theology and its need to create a “canon within a canon.” I think my former theology professor was right when he made it clear that most preachers preach the New Testament without realizing that the foundation for the New Testament is the OLD Testament! That’s right: were it not for the OLD Testament, there would be no NEW Testament! It seems then, that to preach the NT does not only compute to preaching only ONE-HALF of the counsel of God (instead of the whole), but also, to preach the “house” of the Scriptures without first “laying the foundation” thereof. How can a house stand if it has no foundation? In the same manner, how can the Word of God make sense if the foundation (the Old Testament) is not preached first?
Kaiser’s words come to an alarming climax when he writes,
“This is only to argue in the end for A CANON WITHIN A CANON...we misjudge the revelation of God if we have a theory of interpretation which says THE MOST RECENT REVELATION OF GOD IS TO BE PREFERRED OR SUBSTITUTED FOR THAT WHICH CAME EARLIER.”
Why is there a need for “a canon within a canon”? Why do evangelicals feel as though they need to decide which of the testaments is “more” important (as if to say that both are not equally important)? Let’s take Jesus for example: the early church declared that Christ was “fully God, fully man,” without any distinction to “this percentage God” and “this percentage man.” In the eyes of the early church, Christ’s divinity and humanity were equally important: Christ’s divinity, because only God, a perfect Lamb, could die for the sins of imperfect mankind; and Christ’s humanity, because only Christ could fulfill God’s Law---something required by all of human creation). Both were equally important to Christ’s mission as Savior on earth, and neither was to be disqualified or “substituted” for the other.
If Christ is the Word (John 1:1), and the Word reveals Christ, why then, must believers take the Word of God (God’s revelation to us in written form) and classify which testament is greater? Did not Paul say that “ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD AND PROFITABLE for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16, NKJV)? At the time Paul made this remarkable claim, all the New Testament church had was the OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES! So Paul’s words here to Timothy are to reveal that “all Scripture,” even the Old Testament, is inspired by God, or “theopneustos” (“God-breathed”) and useful for instruction. But what purpose does the modern-day church give the OT? How useful is the OT in today’s church? If the OT is useful, why then, do we not make use of it and use it in our teaching, preaching, and witness? Why is the OT considered by some to be just a “substitute teacher” until the NT came along?
What about Paul’s words to Timothy in 1 Timothy 1?
“BUT WE KNOW THAT THE LAW IS GOOD, if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate...ungodly and ...sinners...the unholy and profane...murderers of fathers and mothers...manslayers...fornicators...sodomites...kidnappers... liars...perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:8-10, NKJV).
The Law in question here is the Old Testament, for this is all the early church had as a formative canon. It seems that, since this is Paul’s introduction to his letter, the Old Testament Law was possibly being twisted in the name of false doctrine in the church at Ephesus: especially with “myths and endless genealogies” (1 Tim. 1:4), as well as with the creation account from Genesis, with Adam’s formation before Eve and Eve’s deception having to be defended as orthodox (1 Tim. 2:13-14).
Despite the twisting of the Law for bad use, Paul still believed the Law was good. Let’s check out these words regarding Law and sin:
“But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? IS THE LAW SIN? CERTAINLY NOT! On the contrary, I WOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN SIN EXCEPT THROUGH THE LAW. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, ‘You shall not covet.’...therefore THE LAW IS HOLY, AND THE COMMANDMENT HOLY AND JUST AND GOOD...FOR WE KNOW THAT THE LAW IS SPIRITUAL, but I am carnal, sold under sin” (Romans 7:6-7, 12, 14).
As believers saved by grace through faith in the work of Christ on the cross, we do not have to offer the sacrifices of Leviticus, for example. However, while we are not bound to the sacrifices of Leviticus, we are bound to “the Spirit” of Leviticus, for as the writer of Hebrews tells us,
“By Him let us continually offer THE SACRIFICE OF PRAISE TO GOD, that is, THE FRUIT OF OUR LIPS, giving thanks to His name” (Hebrews 13:15).
For Paul, the Law still served as a valuable guide to the Christian (whether Jew or Gentile); why then, have we become “post-Paul” in our thinking and decided that the Law serves no purpose for the modern-day church?
Ladies and Gentleman, this is what covenantal theology (often called “replacement” theology) is doing in its assessment of the Old Testament, with regards to Israel, Hermeneutics, etc. And herein lies the problem: that one part of the counsel of God is being ditched for the other.
I’ll conclude with words from Bruce Waltke regarding how dispensationalists view the implications of covenantal theology upon the biblical text:
“Amillennialists differ from dispensational premillenialists in their hermeneutics by calling for A SPIRITUAL INTERPRETATION OF KINGDOM PROMISES OVER AGAINST A ‘LITERALISTIC’ (J.I. Packer’s term) INTERPRETATION OF THEM. Amillennialists emphasize with Augustine that ‘THE NEW IS IN THE OLD CONCEALED AND THE OLD IS IN THE NEW REVEALED,’ while dispensationalists complain that in the amillennial system ‘THE OLD IS BY THE NEW RESTRICTED AND THE NEW IS ON THE OLD INFLICTED’” (Bruce Waltke, “Kingdom Promises as Spiritual,” from “Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments” by John Feinberg, editor. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1988, page 272).
Ask yourself the following: Are both Old and New Testaments the Word of God? If you answer yes to this question, then one more remains: “Is Christ divided” (1 Cor. 1:13)? If Christ is not divided, then why treat God’s Revelation (The Word) as though IT is?
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Distinguished Israel: The "Stumbling Stone" of Romans 11, Part II: Future Hope for Israel
In my last post, I stated Marten H. Woudstra’s argument for continuity between Israel and the church. I also pointed out that contextually, Romans 9-11 refutes Woudstra’s view of a “spiritual Israel,” since Paul makes statements like “my kinsmen (countrymen) according to the flesh” and “those of my flesh,” etc. In addition, with the analogy of the vine and the branches and the broken-off branches, we learned that the broken-off branches were severed from the vine because of unbelief. These branches can also be grafted in again, because God can graft them in again should they cease to persist in their unbelief and begin to believe once more (Rom. 11:23).
Now, someone may say, what about the continuity of Israel and the church? Woudstra is not entirely wrong in his argument. Paul does talk about all the branches, both Jewish and Gentile, being grafted into the same vine (Rom. 11:17, 24). However, Paul’s discussion throughout Romans 9-11 has not been primarily concerned with the believing Jewish remnant. Paul mentions this remnant once in Romans 11:5, and basically says that this remnant is a sign of God’s promise to save Israel to the full (“how much more their fullness!”, verse 12).
The idea of the Jewish remnant in Romans 11:5 poses an interesting question: for what do we do with Paul’s words in verse 7?
“What then? ISRAEL has not obtained what it seeks; but THE ELECT have obtained it, and the rest were blinded” (Rom. 11:7, NKJV).
Notice that “Israel” is being placed in contrast to “the elect,” and this statement comes right after Paul’s mention of a Jewish believing remnant (11:5).
Throughout these first verses of Romans 11, Paul has been consumed with the people of God, that is, national Israel. But here in verse 7, Paul distinguishes between two groups of Israel: the elect (those who believe, Romans 10:9-13), and “the rest,” those who do not believe.
Do u see the words of Romans 11:7?
“The elect have obtained it, and THE REST WERE BLINDED.”
Since the elect refers to the believing remnant (11:5), “the rest” refers to unbelieving national Israel; this means, therefore, that the rest (unbelieving Israel) were blinded. The words of verse 7 meet their match in verse 25:
“I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery...that BLINDNESS IN PART HAS HAPPENED TO ISRAEL until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.”
Here is where Marten Woudstra says, “See, Israel will be saved (v. 26) by the inclusion of the Gentiles...thus creating a spiritual Israel.” While the inclusion of the Gentiles does mean that they are grafted into the “cultivated olive tree” of God’s people (“spiritual Israel”), this does not take away from Paul’s words of future hope for the nation of Israel. In verse 24, Paul talks about the “natural branches” being grafted back into “their own olive tree,” meaning that the branches will be grafted in once more (v.26). The Gentiles, labeled “wild olive trees” (v.17), cannot turn around and be the “natural branches” of the cultivated olive tree. This is also why Paul uses the phrase “contrary to nature” (v.24) to describe the Gentile inclusion into the people of God (the vine). Paul writes this way to make it clear that, while both Israel and Gentiles will partake of the vine together, such communion of spiritual blessings DOES NOT nullify the promises of God to national Israel. Israel then, is represented by the “natural branches,” while the Gentiles are represented by the “wild olive” branches. It is natural for the Jews to be part of the cultivated olive tree, but UNNATURAL for the Gentiles (wild olive branches) to become part of the natural olive tree. If God has such mercy on a people who do not belong to the vine, then surely, He will have mercy on those who BELONG TO THE VINE by nature (Rom. 11:24)!
In verses 26-27, we find that Israel’s salvation is certain because God Himself declared it to His people in the Old Testament:
“And so all Israel will be saved, AS IT IS WRITTEN:
‘The Deliver will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; for this is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins’” (11:26-27; referencing Isa. 59:20, 21).
Paul declares that God wrote it in His Old Testament Scriptures that national Israel would be saved. And then comes the reference from Isaiah 59:20-21.
It is at this time that I would ask covenantal theologians, “Do these verses pertain to national Israel in the Old Testament, or to the church in the New Testament, or to both?” If I’ve done my reading correctly, covenantal theologians will respond, “to the church.” But to think this way would be to overlook the context of the Old Testament itself. Let’s return to Isaiah 59:20-21 to see who receives God’s promise there. First, let’s see what Isa. 59:20-21 says:
“The Redeemer will come to Zion, AND TO THOSE WHO TURN FROM TRANSGRESSION IN JACOB, says the LORD. ‘As for Me,’ says the LORD, ‘THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM: My Spirit who is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your descendants...from this time and forevermore.”
Who is Isaiah told to speak this to---the Gentiles? No. Instead, we find that Isaiah is given these words to national Israel herself: in Isaiah 58:1, Isaiah speaks to “the house of Jacob.” Jacob was renamed Israel, through whom the twelve sons (tribes) came forth. This, then, refers to national Israel. To deny that the house of Jacob refers to Israel would be costly---for it would mean denying things like the Red Sea Experience of Exodus, or the fact that the nation of Israel physically entered the Promised Land, which was a physical territory!
So when God makes this covenant, He does so with the “house of Jacob,” referring to national Israel.
Verse 26 distinguishes between national Israel and spiritual Israel (i.e., the Gentiles): “concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.” Here we find that Israel and the church are chosen according to two different things: National Israel is chosen according to an unconditional election, while national Edom (Gentile nations) are chosen according to a conditional election, namely, election by faith (Rom. 11:20-22). Individual Jews and Gentiles are elect by faith as well, but nationally, Israel has an unconditional election given by God that will never be done away with. Why is this the case? “for the gifts and the calling of God are IRREVOCABLE” (v.29).
Because God called Israel and unconditionally elected her, she as a nation will be elect REGARDLESS! This is the nature of “unconditional”---that Israel cannot be cast away, no matter how unbelieving she may be.
In verses 30-31, Paul writes that both the Gentile nations and national Israel have been given the same mercy by God: “For as you were once DISOBEDIENT to God, yet have now obtained MERCY through their DISOBEDIENCE, even so these also have now been DISOBEDIENT, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy.” The Gentiles were once estranged from God and have now been brought near; in the same way, the Jews, once near God, have “fallen”---but in her fallenness, God is willing to grant her mercy again.
Now, there is one more question that I’d like to address: “Who is the “you” and “these” and “they” of verses 30-31? The “you” refers to the Gentiles, since Paul wrote in verse 13, “For I speak to you Gentiles...” The “these” of verse 31 refers to unbelieving national Israel. The “they” of verse 31 refers to the same unbelieving Israel.
If Paul was only concerned with the Jewish believers and Gentile believers (“spiritual Israel”), why then, does he spend one verse on the Jewish believers (11:5), but the rest of the chapter (the next 25 verses or so) on the unbelieving nation of Israel as well as the believing Gentiles? As context has demonstrated, Paul’s major concern was for national Israel to be saved. This makes sense of the “great sorrow and continual grief” in Paul’s heart for Israel (Rom. 9:1-3). Believing Gentiles are discussed in this section, but only because of their view of the Jews. The Gentile opinion gives Paul a reason to write “I do not desire, brethren, that...you should be wise in your own opinion...” (11:25) The fact that most of chapter 11 encompasses unbelieving national Israel testifies to the progressive dispensationalist view that God still has a place for national Israel, while also making room for the Gentile nations. According to election, Israel (Jacob) is chosen; according to the gospel, the Gentiles (Edom) are chosen.
Now, someone may say, what about the continuity of Israel and the church? Woudstra is not entirely wrong in his argument. Paul does talk about all the branches, both Jewish and Gentile, being grafted into the same vine (Rom. 11:17, 24). However, Paul’s discussion throughout Romans 9-11 has not been primarily concerned with the believing Jewish remnant. Paul mentions this remnant once in Romans 11:5, and basically says that this remnant is a sign of God’s promise to save Israel to the full (“how much more their fullness!”, verse 12).
The idea of the Jewish remnant in Romans 11:5 poses an interesting question: for what do we do with Paul’s words in verse 7?
“What then? ISRAEL has not obtained what it seeks; but THE ELECT have obtained it, and the rest were blinded” (Rom. 11:7, NKJV).
Notice that “Israel” is being placed in contrast to “the elect,” and this statement comes right after Paul’s mention of a Jewish believing remnant (11:5).
Throughout these first verses of Romans 11, Paul has been consumed with the people of God, that is, national Israel. But here in verse 7, Paul distinguishes between two groups of Israel: the elect (those who believe, Romans 10:9-13), and “the rest,” those who do not believe.
Do u see the words of Romans 11:7?
“The elect have obtained it, and THE REST WERE BLINDED.”
Since the elect refers to the believing remnant (11:5), “the rest” refers to unbelieving national Israel; this means, therefore, that the rest (unbelieving Israel) were blinded. The words of verse 7 meet their match in verse 25:
“I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery...that BLINDNESS IN PART HAS HAPPENED TO ISRAEL until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.”
Here is where Marten Woudstra says, “See, Israel will be saved (v. 26) by the inclusion of the Gentiles...thus creating a spiritual Israel.” While the inclusion of the Gentiles does mean that they are grafted into the “cultivated olive tree” of God’s people (“spiritual Israel”), this does not take away from Paul’s words of future hope for the nation of Israel. In verse 24, Paul talks about the “natural branches” being grafted back into “their own olive tree,” meaning that the branches will be grafted in once more (v.26). The Gentiles, labeled “wild olive trees” (v.17), cannot turn around and be the “natural branches” of the cultivated olive tree. This is also why Paul uses the phrase “contrary to nature” (v.24) to describe the Gentile inclusion into the people of God (the vine). Paul writes this way to make it clear that, while both Israel and Gentiles will partake of the vine together, such communion of spiritual blessings DOES NOT nullify the promises of God to national Israel. Israel then, is represented by the “natural branches,” while the Gentiles are represented by the “wild olive” branches. It is natural for the Jews to be part of the cultivated olive tree, but UNNATURAL for the Gentiles (wild olive branches) to become part of the natural olive tree. If God has such mercy on a people who do not belong to the vine, then surely, He will have mercy on those who BELONG TO THE VINE by nature (Rom. 11:24)!
In verses 26-27, we find that Israel’s salvation is certain because God Himself declared it to His people in the Old Testament:
“And so all Israel will be saved, AS IT IS WRITTEN:
‘The Deliver will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; for this is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins’” (11:26-27; referencing Isa. 59:20, 21).
Paul declares that God wrote it in His Old Testament Scriptures that national Israel would be saved. And then comes the reference from Isaiah 59:20-21.
It is at this time that I would ask covenantal theologians, “Do these verses pertain to national Israel in the Old Testament, or to the church in the New Testament, or to both?” If I’ve done my reading correctly, covenantal theologians will respond, “to the church.” But to think this way would be to overlook the context of the Old Testament itself. Let’s return to Isaiah 59:20-21 to see who receives God’s promise there. First, let’s see what Isa. 59:20-21 says:
“The Redeemer will come to Zion, AND TO THOSE WHO TURN FROM TRANSGRESSION IN JACOB, says the LORD. ‘As for Me,’ says the LORD, ‘THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM: My Spirit who is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your descendants...from this time and forevermore.”
Who is Isaiah told to speak this to---the Gentiles? No. Instead, we find that Isaiah is given these words to national Israel herself: in Isaiah 58:1, Isaiah speaks to “the house of Jacob.” Jacob was renamed Israel, through whom the twelve sons (tribes) came forth. This, then, refers to national Israel. To deny that the house of Jacob refers to Israel would be costly---for it would mean denying things like the Red Sea Experience of Exodus, or the fact that the nation of Israel physically entered the Promised Land, which was a physical territory!
So when God makes this covenant, He does so with the “house of Jacob,” referring to national Israel.
Verse 26 distinguishes between national Israel and spiritual Israel (i.e., the Gentiles): “concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.” Here we find that Israel and the church are chosen according to two different things: National Israel is chosen according to an unconditional election, while national Edom (Gentile nations) are chosen according to a conditional election, namely, election by faith (Rom. 11:20-22). Individual Jews and Gentiles are elect by faith as well, but nationally, Israel has an unconditional election given by God that will never be done away with. Why is this the case? “for the gifts and the calling of God are IRREVOCABLE” (v.29).
Because God called Israel and unconditionally elected her, she as a nation will be elect REGARDLESS! This is the nature of “unconditional”---that Israel cannot be cast away, no matter how unbelieving she may be.
In verses 30-31, Paul writes that both the Gentile nations and national Israel have been given the same mercy by God: “For as you were once DISOBEDIENT to God, yet have now obtained MERCY through their DISOBEDIENCE, even so these also have now been DISOBEDIENT, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy.” The Gentiles were once estranged from God and have now been brought near; in the same way, the Jews, once near God, have “fallen”---but in her fallenness, God is willing to grant her mercy again.
Now, there is one more question that I’d like to address: “Who is the “you” and “these” and “they” of verses 30-31? The “you” refers to the Gentiles, since Paul wrote in verse 13, “For I speak to you Gentiles...” The “these” of verse 31 refers to unbelieving national Israel. The “they” of verse 31 refers to the same unbelieving Israel.
If Paul was only concerned with the Jewish believers and Gentile believers (“spiritual Israel”), why then, does he spend one verse on the Jewish believers (11:5), but the rest of the chapter (the next 25 verses or so) on the unbelieving nation of Israel as well as the believing Gentiles? As context has demonstrated, Paul’s major concern was for national Israel to be saved. This makes sense of the “great sorrow and continual grief” in Paul’s heart for Israel (Rom. 9:1-3). Believing Gentiles are discussed in this section, but only because of their view of the Jews. The Gentile opinion gives Paul a reason to write “I do not desire, brethren, that...you should be wise in your own opinion...” (11:25) The fact that most of chapter 11 encompasses unbelieving national Israel testifies to the progressive dispensationalist view that God still has a place for national Israel, while also making room for the Gentile nations. According to election, Israel (Jacob) is chosen; according to the gospel, the Gentiles (Edom) are chosen.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Distinguished Israel: The "Stumbling Stone" of Romans 11
“Paul regards the remnant idea not so much from its eschatological aspect, but rather as an entity which is now present and comes to light in the way in which God deals with the church in relation to its Jewish members: ‘So, too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace’ (Rom. 11:5). But in the meantime the fullness (Greek: pleroma) of the Gentiles is complete, and in this way (Greek: houtos) ‘all Israel’ will be saved. L.A. De Caro has well pointed out that the biblical use of the word ‘until’ does not always mean a later reversal of a given situation (see Ps. 110:1; 1 Chron. 28:20; Isa. 6:9-13). In other words, THE APOSTLE’S EMPHASIS IS NOT UPON SOME LATER POINT IN TIME WHEN THERE WILL BE A REVERSAL IN THE HARDENING IN PART OF THE JEWS. Rather, THE emphasis is upon the word ‘so’ or ‘thus,’ ‘in this way.’ ALL ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED IN THE WAY OF THE BRINGING IN OF THE FULLNESS OF THE GENTILES” (Marten H. Woudstra, “Israel and the Church: A Case for Continuity,” from “Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments” by John S. Feinberg, ed. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1988, page 236).
I’m the kind of person that loves to examine arguments. Coming to seminary and reading theology has taught me to assess arguments. Most theologians often give scriptural proof-texts as a way to convince people that their take on a given issue is correct; however, upon assessing that Scripture, one can either see the truth or find that the given theologian’s view is in error.
And after reading Marten Woudstra’s chapter on “Israel and the Church: A Case for Continuity,” I found just the error: he stumbled over the distinguished Israel of Romans 11.
Regarding the above quote, Woudstra states that, according to his own research (L.A. De Caro), the word “until” does not always indicate a reversal of a situation, then providing prooftexts to show why this statement is true. However, while “until” may not always indicate a REVERSAL of a situation, it does indicate a CHANGE in situation. Look at Psalm 110:1, one of the verses Woudstra cites above as proof of his take of the word “until.” The verse reads (NKJV), “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.” The word “till” (until) indicates a change in situation: UNTIL the Lord subdues His enemies, the Son is to sit at the right hand. But what happens after the enemies are subdued? God will reign supreme!
The writer to the Hebrews comments on Psalm 110:1---
“But to which of the angels has He ever said: ‘Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool’?” (Heb. 1:13, NKJV)
In other words, God never said the words of Psalm 110:1 to an angel; no---the statement is made to Christ, who is the person of God the Son. There will come a time when the Son will not just sit at the right hand and “wait” for His enemies to be subdued...the enemies of God WILL be subdued! When that time comes, God will then reign over all things, since all things will be reconciled to Himself (Colossians 1:20). Although the reconciliation of all things is not yet, such as death (1 Cor. 15:26), one day, this will change; all things will be reconciled to God. So the word “until” signals a time when the existing world conditions will change completely.
Having said this, let’s take a look at Woudstra’s quote once more. Of the above quote, the most telling portion would be:
“...L.A. De Caro has well pointed out that the biblical use of the word ‘until’ does not always mean a later reversal of a given situation (see Ps. 110:1; 1 Chron. 28:20; Isa. 6:9-13). In other words, THE APOSTLE’S EMPHASIS IS NOT UPON SOME LATER POINT IN TIME WHEN THERE WILL BE A REVERSAL IN THE HARDENING IN PART OF THE JEWS. Rather, THE emphasis is upon the word ‘so’ or ‘thus,’ ‘in this way.’ ALL ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED IN THE WAY OF THE BRINGING IN OF THE FULLNESS OF THE GENTILES.”
To see if Woudstra’s conclusions are correct, we will have to get a sweeping context of Romans 9-11. Although Woudstra states that the emphasis is on the Gentiles “completing” spiritual Israel, I think he has smeared his argument. In chapter 9, Paul’s concern is over “my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:3). “According to the flesh” refers to the physical Jewish descent. “My countrymen” tells it all---Paul is referring to physical Jews, fellow Israelites, the people of the national Israel. There is nothing here about spiritual Israel or the church.
In chapter 10:1, Paul writes, “brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel IS THAT THEY MAY BE SAVED” (10:1). This is an unsaved Israel Paul is referring to here; if not, why would he pray for the saved to be saved again? Therefore, Paul continues his discussion in chapter 10 of unbelieving Israel’s salvation (the salvation of the nation).
In chapter 11:1, Paul asks the question, “has God cast away HIS PEOPLE? Certainly not! FOR I ALSO AM AN ISRAELITE, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin” (11:1). Who are God’s people referred to here? National Israel. This is why Paul goes on to say, “I also am an Israelite...” Paul is referring to the unbelieving nation of Israel.
In verse 5 of the Romans 11, Paul says, “Even so, then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” Who is the remnant being discussed here? The remnant here refers to the Jews. Remember, back in chapter 9, Paul quotes from Isaiah 1:9 about the Jewish remnant (9:29). This remnant, however, will experience a fullness: “Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!” (11:12) Paul cannot be in a discussion of the church comprised of Jews and Gentiles here, for he is contrasting a certain group apart from the Gentiles, whom he explicitly mentions in verse 12. In verses 13-14, Paul writes, “I speak to you Gentiles...if by any means I may provoke to jealousy THOSE WHO ARE MY FLESH AND SAVE SOME OF THEM.” With the words, “those who are my flesh” and “some of them,” we see that Paul is referring to Jews of physical descent (“my flesh”) and the unbelieving nation (“save some of them”). Paul cannot refer here to the believing remnant of Israel, nor can he refer to the Gentiles. Gentiles are not physical descendants of the Jews.
Verse 15 does what verse 12 does: it reveals the “lesser-to-greater” argument. In verse 12 Paul talks about “their fall,” the fall of the Jews, with “their fullness,” while in verse 15, Paul discusses “their being cast away” with “their acceptance.” In verse 15, the Jews have been “cast away,” but not finally or completely; this is why the end of verse 15 discusses “their acceptance.” So, contrary to Woudstra’s argument, there is a discussion regarding change in Israel’s situation: while she is currently cast away, in the future, she will be accepted once more.
In verse 17, we find that only “some of the branches” of the olive tree were broken off. The Gentiles are a “wild olive tree” (v.17) whose branches “were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree” (v.24). So “some of the branches” of the olive tree must be the branches of the Jews, some of the Jewish tribes of national Israel.
Now, the question becomes, “Which group of Israelites are the branches that have been broken off?” We are given the answer to this in verse 20: “BECAUSE OF UNBELIEF THEY WERE BROKEN OFF, and you stand by faith.” So the branches are unbelieving branches. If the branches refer to Israel (which I have already established), and the branches are broken, then the broken branches represent unbelieving national Israel. Verse 23 confirms that there is hope for Israel, since “God is able to graft them in again” only if they believe (v.23). Contra Woudstra, God has not given up on the nation itself. The passage then, is not about “spiritual” Israel, but national Israel, the nation of Jewish descendants.
I will continue with verses 25ff and what they have to say about national Israel (against Woudstra’s argument) in my next post.
I’m the kind of person that loves to examine arguments. Coming to seminary and reading theology has taught me to assess arguments. Most theologians often give scriptural proof-texts as a way to convince people that their take on a given issue is correct; however, upon assessing that Scripture, one can either see the truth or find that the given theologian’s view is in error.
And after reading Marten Woudstra’s chapter on “Israel and the Church: A Case for Continuity,” I found just the error: he stumbled over the distinguished Israel of Romans 11.
Regarding the above quote, Woudstra states that, according to his own research (L.A. De Caro), the word “until” does not always indicate a reversal of a situation, then providing prooftexts to show why this statement is true. However, while “until” may not always indicate a REVERSAL of a situation, it does indicate a CHANGE in situation. Look at Psalm 110:1, one of the verses Woudstra cites above as proof of his take of the word “until.” The verse reads (NKJV), “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.” The word “till” (until) indicates a change in situation: UNTIL the Lord subdues His enemies, the Son is to sit at the right hand. But what happens after the enemies are subdued? God will reign supreme!
The writer to the Hebrews comments on Psalm 110:1---
“But to which of the angels has He ever said: ‘Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool’?” (Heb. 1:13, NKJV)
In other words, God never said the words of Psalm 110:1 to an angel; no---the statement is made to Christ, who is the person of God the Son. There will come a time when the Son will not just sit at the right hand and “wait” for His enemies to be subdued...the enemies of God WILL be subdued! When that time comes, God will then reign over all things, since all things will be reconciled to Himself (Colossians 1:20). Although the reconciliation of all things is not yet, such as death (1 Cor. 15:26), one day, this will change; all things will be reconciled to God. So the word “until” signals a time when the existing world conditions will change completely.
Having said this, let’s take a look at Woudstra’s quote once more. Of the above quote, the most telling portion would be:
“...L.A. De Caro has well pointed out that the biblical use of the word ‘until’ does not always mean a later reversal of a given situation (see Ps. 110:1; 1 Chron. 28:20; Isa. 6:9-13). In other words, THE APOSTLE’S EMPHASIS IS NOT UPON SOME LATER POINT IN TIME WHEN THERE WILL BE A REVERSAL IN THE HARDENING IN PART OF THE JEWS. Rather, THE emphasis is upon the word ‘so’ or ‘thus,’ ‘in this way.’ ALL ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED IN THE WAY OF THE BRINGING IN OF THE FULLNESS OF THE GENTILES.”
To see if Woudstra’s conclusions are correct, we will have to get a sweeping context of Romans 9-11. Although Woudstra states that the emphasis is on the Gentiles “completing” spiritual Israel, I think he has smeared his argument. In chapter 9, Paul’s concern is over “my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:3). “According to the flesh” refers to the physical Jewish descent. “My countrymen” tells it all---Paul is referring to physical Jews, fellow Israelites, the people of the national Israel. There is nothing here about spiritual Israel or the church.
In chapter 10:1, Paul writes, “brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel IS THAT THEY MAY BE SAVED” (10:1). This is an unsaved Israel Paul is referring to here; if not, why would he pray for the saved to be saved again? Therefore, Paul continues his discussion in chapter 10 of unbelieving Israel’s salvation (the salvation of the nation).
In chapter 11:1, Paul asks the question, “has God cast away HIS PEOPLE? Certainly not! FOR I ALSO AM AN ISRAELITE, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin” (11:1). Who are God’s people referred to here? National Israel. This is why Paul goes on to say, “I also am an Israelite...” Paul is referring to the unbelieving nation of Israel.
In verse 5 of the Romans 11, Paul says, “Even so, then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” Who is the remnant being discussed here? The remnant here refers to the Jews. Remember, back in chapter 9, Paul quotes from Isaiah 1:9 about the Jewish remnant (9:29). This remnant, however, will experience a fullness: “Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!” (11:12) Paul cannot be in a discussion of the church comprised of Jews and Gentiles here, for he is contrasting a certain group apart from the Gentiles, whom he explicitly mentions in verse 12. In verses 13-14, Paul writes, “I speak to you Gentiles...if by any means I may provoke to jealousy THOSE WHO ARE MY FLESH AND SAVE SOME OF THEM.” With the words, “those who are my flesh” and “some of them,” we see that Paul is referring to Jews of physical descent (“my flesh”) and the unbelieving nation (“save some of them”). Paul cannot refer here to the believing remnant of Israel, nor can he refer to the Gentiles. Gentiles are not physical descendants of the Jews.
Verse 15 does what verse 12 does: it reveals the “lesser-to-greater” argument. In verse 12 Paul talks about “their fall,” the fall of the Jews, with “their fullness,” while in verse 15, Paul discusses “their being cast away” with “their acceptance.” In verse 15, the Jews have been “cast away,” but not finally or completely; this is why the end of verse 15 discusses “their acceptance.” So, contrary to Woudstra’s argument, there is a discussion regarding change in Israel’s situation: while she is currently cast away, in the future, she will be accepted once more.
In verse 17, we find that only “some of the branches” of the olive tree were broken off. The Gentiles are a “wild olive tree” (v.17) whose branches “were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree” (v.24). So “some of the branches” of the olive tree must be the branches of the Jews, some of the Jewish tribes of national Israel.
Now, the question becomes, “Which group of Israelites are the branches that have been broken off?” We are given the answer to this in verse 20: “BECAUSE OF UNBELIEF THEY WERE BROKEN OFF, and you stand by faith.” So the branches are unbelieving branches. If the branches refer to Israel (which I have already established), and the branches are broken, then the broken branches represent unbelieving national Israel. Verse 23 confirms that there is hope for Israel, since “God is able to graft them in again” only if they believe (v.23). Contra Woudstra, God has not given up on the nation itself. The passage then, is not about “spiritual” Israel, but national Israel, the nation of Jewish descendants.
I will continue with verses 25ff and what they have to say about national Israel (against Woudstra’s argument) in my next post.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
Dear Readership,
Your writer here! It's June 1st...which means that it's time for an exciting announcement.
I am done with finals and ready to proceed in our studies of the Word of God. This past year, I tackled the Calvinism-Arminianism debate. There is still much to study regarding those two theological systems (and we will study them more in the future); however, the theological debate for the summer (one of the summer tackles) will concern "Dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology." On an initial level, I have some books to recommend: (1) "Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views" by Herbert W. Bateman IV, General Editor; (2) "Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged" by Barry E. Horner; (3) "Progressive Dispensationalism" by Darrell Bock; (4) "Understanding Dispensationalists" by Vern Poythress; (5)"Dispensationalism" by Charles Ryrie. I also recommend the work done by the Feinberg brothers on (6) "Continuity and Discontinuity" as well as (7) Robert Saucy's "The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism."
For those who, like me, love to read historical theology, I recommend a special book to you: (8) "The Scofield Bible: Its History and Impact On the Evangelical Church" by R. Todd Mangum and Mark S. Sweetnam. I own all of these eight books and will be posting on them here in the days ahead.
Since dispensationalism is often the position of the two above most attacked, I decided to start with studying it first. Having already finished one book of the eight above in my summer pursuits, I can say that I think progressive dispensationalism might be one of the most upsetting rivals to covenantal theology. To my readership, I would recommend the work of Darrell Bock in this camp and say that his work will be greatly prized here at the site. If you desire to know, I do own a work on covenantal theology that I am reading: (9) "God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology" by Michael Horton. I plan to do lots more reading on both dispensational and covenantal theology in the coming days.
Feel free to recommend books here and even comment on books you read if you desire to do so. Like the debate on Calvinism and Arminianism this past year, we too, will grow together as we embark on this new and exciting theological journey. May the Lord grant us grace, mercy, and wisdom as we seek to know His truth...and may the work done here at the site be to the glory of our God...
Your writer here! It's June 1st...which means that it's time for an exciting announcement.
I am done with finals and ready to proceed in our studies of the Word of God. This past year, I tackled the Calvinism-Arminianism debate. There is still much to study regarding those two theological systems (and we will study them more in the future); however, the theological debate for the summer (one of the summer tackles) will concern "Dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology." On an initial level, I have some books to recommend: (1) "Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views" by Herbert W. Bateman IV, General Editor; (2) "Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged" by Barry E. Horner; (3) "Progressive Dispensationalism" by Darrell Bock; (4) "Understanding Dispensationalists" by Vern Poythress; (5)"Dispensationalism" by Charles Ryrie. I also recommend the work done by the Feinberg brothers on (6) "Continuity and Discontinuity" as well as (7) Robert Saucy's "The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism."
For those who, like me, love to read historical theology, I recommend a special book to you: (8) "The Scofield Bible: Its History and Impact On the Evangelical Church" by R. Todd Mangum and Mark S. Sweetnam. I own all of these eight books and will be posting on them here in the days ahead.
Since dispensationalism is often the position of the two above most attacked, I decided to start with studying it first. Having already finished one book of the eight above in my summer pursuits, I can say that I think progressive dispensationalism might be one of the most upsetting rivals to covenantal theology. To my readership, I would recommend the work of Darrell Bock in this camp and say that his work will be greatly prized here at the site. If you desire to know, I do own a work on covenantal theology that I am reading: (9) "God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology" by Michael Horton. I plan to do lots more reading on both dispensational and covenantal theology in the coming days.
Feel free to recommend books here and even comment on books you read if you desire to do so. Like the debate on Calvinism and Arminianism this past year, we too, will grow together as we embark on this new and exciting theological journey. May the Lord grant us grace, mercy, and wisdom as we seek to know His truth...and may the work done here at the site be to the glory of our God...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)