Jewelry and History

There is a prevalent view amongst scholars that history is crucial in understanding the truths of the bible - or even what the bible is.

In the Reformed camp - this view is couched under the predestinarian cry that "God is the God of history". What is meant to follow from that is that God has used all of history to produce, shape and determine what His truth revealed (a.k.a the Bible) is!

So naturally the study of backgrounds that surround any given text are valuable, some may even argue crucial.

I reject this line of thinking. Not because it is illogical, or irreverent (at least on the surface), but because I believe it fails to see the purpose of history. This line of thinking makes all history contributive of the whole instead of complementing the main. In other words, if we were to think of human history as a diamond - the scholars view would make every contribution merely another cut on the rock to shape its beauty. In my opinion the place of human history is not the diamond itself - but rather the black cloth on which the diamond of God's revelation is set.

In my model - intertestmental unbelief is just so much more black cloth. Modern unbelief maybe crafted from different material and take different shapes, but is still, in the end black cloth. Redemptive History, both inscripturated and lived is the diamond - perfect on its own, but indeed more luster shines through it against the ever so pitch - unbelief.

If this is the case, then the study of backgrounds will tell us nothing about the revelation of God, except how much the brighter it shines in our unbelief. An example can be shown with the creation accounts. Babylonian unbelief crafts a creation myth - does this story help us understand where the bible got its figures? Certainly not! Scholars will object, citing the numerous similarities amongst accounts. If those similarities are not enough, they say, what about the Egyptian myths? How do I account for the similarities?

Simple, all human life is a reflection of the divine will and intricately tied to the spiritual realities that it is either rebelling from or conforming to. Why do the Egyptians have a creation ex nehilo? Because they hate, and are rebelling from the Triune God of Scripture that spoke all things into being. Why don't the Babylonians? Because they rebel in different ways - but in the end all attempt to overshadow the truth by spreading the black blanket of their unbelief over God's revelation.(or "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness") Unfortunately for them God's diamond like revelation cut through the cloth and shines ever so much brighter!!

Notice in this illustration that the black cloth is powerless to shape the diamond - but can be and is employed to showcase the diamond.

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing.

"...the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." 2Co 4:4-6

Hind sight is not always 20/20

It seems to me that we are having to face a new reality in the reformed world. That reality is that simple acceptance of the Bible (what it is and what it teaches) is no longer a predominate mindset, not even in the reformed world. The basic starting point has shifted. Where once the divine authorship was not only presupposed but it was also the starting point from which all phenomena was judged, now the starting point has become the "evidence" and the divine authorship plays a responsive or contingent role rather than the first cause "shaper". This change has taken place gradually as more and more attention has been placed on literature and archeology from the A.N.E (ancient near east) and man is more and more seduced by the idea that the Bible is not a timeless instruction book dropped out of heaven.

Though the conviction about the "timefulness" of the bible is a good one. We should not overload that conviction, nor should we eliminate (or even unnecessarily downplay) timelessness. It is surely true that the Bible is the revelation of God for His people, and that God stoops ever so low to covenantally communicate that revelation. But it must not be overlooked that God knew the end from the beginning when he spoke that revelation. He knew all His people, His whole bride, when He spoke that love letter to her. As much as a mistake it is to assume that the Bible contained information that was useless to the church for several thousands of years (until the invention of the helicopter for example). To that same degree, it is a mistake to confine the condescension of our LORD's communication to an ancient and foreign mind to the greater portion of the church. In other words "all scripture is God breathed, and profitable... so that the man of God [at any time in redemptive historical drama] may be competent..."

The effect of divine authorship must override the analysis of contemporary literature and artifact. Or else we cannot say that Scripture is our norming norm. To illustrate the approaches and the current problem I have this analogy.

Fig.1

I am using a fictional story about a battle of grays hill fought during the civil war. One of the Soldiers in the battle has two children - one who rebels and hates his Father passionately - the other remains faithful and loves his Father. Over the years the story conveyed to the children may pick up nuances , depicted by the additional dots, but the offspring of the rebellious child maintain a enmity toward the original teller of the story. In the written versions of the story - the grandchild of the faithful son is able to speak directly to his grandfather again before writing - Thus the product of his writing is not directly polemical or responsive, but didactic or informative - not brute fact, but faithful nonetheless.


Fig. 2
In this second figure the story is the same, but the influence of the grandchildren is different and the direct communication is gone. These two models roughly analogize the traditional way to consider the Bible and the new pseudo-sophisticated way. The first diagram is almost totally unconcerned for the product of the rebellious son, and the final product of the faithful son is also somewhat unconcerned about the stories own progression its the line of the faithful, because of the ability to get direct communication with the grandfather. But in Fig.2 the cross breading of sources and the distance from the grandfather make dependence upon one another - necessary?

Using this analogy, modern biblical criticism falls in the second option and pretty much denies divine authorship, even when they claim to believe in the inspiration of the text - they still mean something different than a direct, exclusive, telling of the story from the source, but more a superintendence of the compilation at best. This always seems to result in a late dating of events and strong appreciation for redaction. Which leads to a suspicion of prophecy and the assumption that whenever two events share similar redemptive ear marks (Abraham & Exodus etc.) the earlier story chronologically is being retold during or after the time of the latter story - usually with the desire to vindicate or accentuate the latter story. All of which goes to show you that hind sight is not always 20/20. Just because you have the advantage of looking at events and stories after they are completed - does not mean that you will interpret them correctly, or that we are some how able to impose our fallen understanding of history on the development of the biblical narrative.

When dealing with the Scripture, 20/20 vision is only through the Spirit. Again it is His Word and our authority.

Greek love and English vindication

More likely than not, if you have been in the evangelical world for the past decade at least, you've heard some kind of comparison of the three different types of love that are found in the Bible - that you only have access to through the Greek language. Those loves are "eros" - "phileo" and "agapao". Depending on the level of adherence to the trend, you heard something to the effect that each has a different meaning and they constitute different stages or levels of love. You may have even had the joy of getting these explanations in a marriage seminar, where the teacher so craftily argued that a good marriage has an erotic love (eros) a friendly love (supposedly phileo) and a sacrificial / divine "like" love (supposedly agapao). While all this sound very good, and may in fact be quite helpful for marriage counseling - the problem is that it is wrong! flat out wrong!

In scripture the terms phileo and agapao are used interchangeably and the Scripture often defines the Love the Father has for the son - by the word (phileo). Use of the Septuagint brings even more questions as it says that "Now Absalom, David's son, had a beautiful sister, whose name was Tamar. And after a time Amnon, David's son, loved her." 2Sa 13:1 - and the word is none other than agapao!! - Certainly we cannot think that divine or sacrificial/unconditional love would motivate one to rape!?! No, what we see by the use of these words and the relation to our own languages is that every language is complex and full of nuance - it is impossible to get at the full meaning of discourses simply through the meaning of words. It is the contextual meaning that rules the day.

This means that the commonly held idea that the Greek mind had a better way of conceiving of "love", because of its tight and ridged differentiation of terms, and that their is more meaning and color buried in the language - to which the English suffers through its ambiguity to convey - is simply false. The Greek language is loaded with idiom and ambiguity too, and the more we study the language the more we see the lack of precision that grammar and word meaning actually have. It is context, built by grammar, syntax and discourse all together that bring more precision to the meaning - and also allow for more accuracy in translation. It is my belief that the more the Greek or Hebrew turns out to be ambiguous in word meaning, the more English translations are vindicated. Sure there is trouble in translating, and the concepts of one culture are not always compatible to another, but the symbols and morphology of language do not constitute her communication - and in that regard we should be comforted to know that there is nothing new under the sun. Man's language has not evolved - nor do I think it has devolved. The expression and the communication has remained within the scope of finite humanity grasping at the Divine condescensions. Though we may add to our vocabularies and to our refining of concepts within our context, we cannot utterly lose the ability to communicate - precisely because God condescends and communicates where ever the Word of God is preached.

Beware of anything that hints of secret or hidden meaning, now that God has made Himself known fully in Christ.

No Brute History

The idea of the modern man that history is a collection of facts in some chronological order, is becoming less and less appealing to scholars and critics. For the most part we as conservative reformed Christians can be glad for this shift, but I fear that it not all roses. Anytime a non believer starts agreeing with you its always time to check yourself - and this is no exception.

The apologetic world was I think significantly changed for the better when Van Til refined the idea of world view and transcendental/presuppositional argumentation. No brute fact - taght us that there is not one think in our thinking that is not interpreted through the grid of our world view and that is pretty potent stuff when your opponents world views are so blatantly inconsistent and borrowing from the Christian WV. What happens though when someone gets a hold of this concept and applies it to History? Can we say that there is no uninterpreted history?

There are advantages to such a position, and if we are consistent with our apologetic we must affirm this position at least on some levels. But I think a caution should be used. We can come dangerously close to relativism, and I believe flirt quite aggressively with the neo-orthodox position if we grab to tightly to this position. We must affirm that having an interpreted history in the Bible is not the same thing as having a false or mythical history. Sure the events are interpreted - but they are always interpreted around events that God preforms and, fortunately for us they are all interpreted by the Holy Spirit. So when the NT writers quote the OT and they don't "get it right" so to speak, we need not flee to fanciful "thats common place for the 2nd temple folk" talk - but rather boldly proclaim "the Lord rebuke you, for it is he who speaks, he who interprets"!

Surronding the Text

Even with the great dichotomizing confession that the Word of God is really the word of God and therefore inerrant - still some wrong thinking and wrong approaches sneak into the orthodox camp, still the luster and allure of respectability infect the ground.

Just what is the implication of "a believing" approach? And how far does it extend?

Current scholarship (even with in the Reformed world) has undertaken the task of learning the culture and the literature that surrounds the text of the Bible in an effort to try to refine its understanding of the biblical text. The argument is rather straight forward - if the biblical author was influenced by something else that we can get a hold of (like other literature or schools of thought, well, or even not so well, documented) then it will only aid in our further understanding of the text to study these.

Concerning the schools of thought - it would seem quite obvious that God speaks to our condition, condescends to our estate, even our trends in epistemological frameworks. This seems quite clear from the ease at which the Bible was able to speak to both the Hebrew culture and the Greek culture - but equally obvious is that the revelation of God while coming to and through these cultures always transcended those cultures. The idea "product of your environment" is not a biblical one! And needs to be rejected no mater how heartily one believes it to be true. If we deny the ability of God to transcend the boundaries of human culture and thinking then we make those out to be gods and ascribe to them the worth that is due the creator. This is also true when we force or pigeon hole any person into that same cage of human culture and context. Those things being ever so potent - remain finite, limited and week in the presence of God. No man is necessarily one way or another because of his environment - whether he is a Biblical author or not. God is sovereign over the likes of all this - and try as we may - we cannot make anything else the sovereign over God - even the use of means that he chooses! So in the study of what has influenced the text, we need to be always careful to ascribe full rights unto God to do as he pleases.

What about studying the other non biblical literature - what value do these works bring to our understand of God's Word?

Scholars, much like great artist, are appreciated for their fine observation skills. It is these skills that can add the greatest amount of color and interest to what they produce. The ability to spot similitude is one of the most important tools of the trade, and with both art and science, is able to help gain better mastery of things - by placing a similar -yet simpler object in view. This has been the approach to understanding inspiration in many scholarly circles. Find something that acts/looks like the Bible and build up from that an understanding of what the Bible is doing. The problem is - the Bible is unique. No matter how much God condescends in it - it still remains His Word, and all other writings always remain - not His Word. Thus to use the comparison of other text to gain understanding is only legitimate with in the Bible itself, apples to apples(as the Reformed have always held).

Scholars, put down your Babylonian scripts, there is no life in them! The Dead Sea Scrolls are not worth their weight in paper!
Students, use the phrase "inter-testamental" as opposed to "2nd Temple" for we are all about presupposing the inspiration of the one and not the other.
Christians, stop being embarrassed by the Word of God! They mocked Christ, they will mock His Word

Ignoble yet Inerrent?

The transmission of the Bible has been a sticky issue for believers for a very long time. Modern scholars, however, would like to say that the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls has changed everything and really given text-critics the foundation for all their speculation and very criterial attacks upon the Word of God.

But I like what John Frame has said concerning Antithesis and Doctrine of Scripture . Basically showing that there is an unbelieving or a believing way that we look at Scripture, always an antithesis! This is especially true or important when thinking about the transmission of scripture. Is it God's Word or not? Is it God's superintendence of fallible man's errors and mistakes roughly keeping the heart of God's redemptive purpose but flexibly bending to culture and time as His need sees fit? Or is the Bible that the church has always received - the very Words of God in spite of the transmission phenomena?

Frankly, our doctrine of Scripture as the principia, rather than our evaluation of the phenomena must determine here, and far to many "conservative" scholars are jumping on the "neutrality" band wagon and insisting that the phenomena can be evaluated properly without the norming influence of the scripture itself. "Oh foolish ones and slow of heart to believe"!!

However, I would like to endorse a hearty doctrine of the ignoblity of Scripture. What ?!? Well, simply put - I mean - the Scripture most assuredly does not act the way we would like. It does not conform to our ideas of what is perfect or pristine. We want the book to fall from heaven complete. To be written in one language, and never to have been translated . But alas God does seem to love to frustrate the wise of this world and to exult the lowly - and the history of transmission is no exception.

So what does all this mean for inerrency? It means that God is the author and finisher and His Word will not return to him void! It means that we serve a "God that does as He pleases" and that will not share his glory with anyone. That the exhaustive knowledge of "How" always belongs to Him and the responsibility to believe always belongs to us. And yes, it still means that the Bible contains no mistakes! That it never lies! And that try as hard as he may, neither man nor Satan can contaminate even the smallest part of it - Even if the Dead Sea Scrolls had 15 conflicting copies of Jeremiah!

Let the phenomena come. Let it rise up like the false prophets of old - that even sometimes prophesied truly - and let us stand in belief! with full confidence declare..."Yes, God did really say!!"

Why We Can Know (beyond WASP)

There is a certain movement always underfoot in the presence of the children of God, a movement designed to unsettle the most precious of gift's from God (beside redemption itself) - His Word. This bite in the heal is always subtle, always a sneak attack, and generally comes down to the great prevaricators first strategy - the old 'did God really say' bit.

Since I have Old Testament Introduction this semester - I am going to be taking a little break from the 'book binders' and turn my attention to the post-modern assault on not just the text of scripture - but on the foundations for knowing and understanding such text. I could call this group "the book bumblers" or something similar, but I think for now I'll just leave them at "other's".

At the outset - I want to state clearly that I am a W.A.S.P. steeped in Reformed Presbyterianism, and I believe that in no way impedes my understanding nor forces my logic into some cultural bound system, which I can't break free of, when considering the enormously important topics as canon, inspiration, incarnation, and epistemology. I believe that the scripture, and how we can know and understand it - are at the principial level of knowledge - and should be unaffected by the lasted fads of unbelief. Even if that unbelief is coming from with in the church herself. I believe that we can know - and at least in part, have known, real truths of God's covenantal dealings with and for man, precisely because they are communicated from God (and God knows!)

There is confidence to be found - in spite of the shaky foundations of modernism! There is truth and objectivity - in spite of the speculations of post modernism! This may seem like a rough start, but believe me its necessary. So hold on to your pants - and your Bible - and lets dig in.