Why ditch the sequence even if there is literary artistry?
OK, we have to ask: "What forces us to ditch the idea of sequence?" It might well be conceded that when ever God writes a word there is more than historic action involved. There is deed and word, and both deed and word together are revelatory of a greater subject matter than they can fully contain by themselves. Thus even a 24hr literalist view must not be contained in the mere communication of a time sequence. It might be noted again here that there is no prohibition to seeing the Kingdom/King relationship in the creative events and retain an historical sequencing of 24 hr periods.
To illustrate it may be helpful to notice that the text speaks of evening and then morning - which are themselves a sequence. The text could just as easily said morning and then evening reversing the order, but we find it significant that God speaks in such a sequence, namely that light breaks through or into darkness - the light overtakes the darkness and the sequence becomes important to carry this idea. Literary artistry? - of course... Historical reality? of course, morning always does follow evening and resurrection is always preceded by death. So here we have a word revelation, with a historical correlative, that underlines theological truths and yet creates no tension between the word and the deed in there revelatory validity nor their historical veracity. In other words, we don't have to imagine an evening that is not meant to be a true evening or a morning that is not meant to be a true morning in order to understand the literary beauty and the redemptive-historical implication.
So again, why do we have to ditch the idea of historical meaning - a correlative historical event that happens along side of and is interpreted by the word (literary construct)?
1 comment:
Craig, well said my friend, but I think that the lure of the "book binders" is a subtle one - especially the closer you get to it. From the distance of the local church the lunacy of the "book binders" is quite obvious, but from the hall way of the academy and the seminary - it is often to ubiquitous to recognize. Like mist from a distance may be easily seen and to an extent measured, but when in the middle of it- it can seem as though it has almost dissipated, and measuring it would be impossible.
My guess is, that if Kline and the others would spend some time away from the academic spheres and down at the level of common Christian, they would see the difficulty of their position.
And I think your right about the apologetic approach when speaking to the "book binders" individually, but to treat the topic for the church we need to take every argument that is thrown at the text - and say yes or no based on what the text allows. I am concerned that the church and the world don't think that these are just differing options, but at the same time that they don't see our defense as guarding our interpreted pride. I think Pipa could be guilty of this kind of defense.
Post a Comment