As I have prepared more material for this blog, I have had an influx of ideas that are not precisely in accordance with the initial purpose of this blog. I initially designed this in a way that restrained the topics to those of Biblical theology that were discussed early in the church that play a important role to the Christian experience and understanding.
And there is a problem. I think about anything and everything remotely related to the religious experience and understanding of Christianity. For instance I seriously doubt that the idea of linguistics was a topic of discussion within the early church. Do not worry though, I don't plan on boring you tremendously on that topic, except only so far as I think it has important applications to Christian understanding and experience (as I did early in the literal vs. allegorical posts).
So, to be brief, there will be an evolution (such an ugly word) of the purpose here. The main purpose is the same ultimately, the discover the true basics of the faith and to phase out certain understands that impede a more complete knowledge and experience of Christianity, but what topics are up for writing is being broadened.
Tis probably natural though, as this is still less than a month old. I'm still exploring and learning how to approach this, both in topic and style.
So for once Charles Darwin's theory of evolution can be applied somewhere and it be right.....
Friday, March 30, 2007
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
For some humor - Chapel Linebacker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PcARA6Ygu8
Sequel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAN4RkrKqzg
Next time take a look at the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, fool!
Sequel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAN4RkrKqzg
Next time take a look at the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, fool!
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Justification and Romans 3:19-4:8
While the doctrine of justification was not an issue early on in the Church, receiving scant attention until the Protestant Reformation, it is a teaching that has great implications to the Christian religion. The major basis for the understanding of justification comes from the book of Romans, especially Romans 3 and 4.
Clement of Rome briefly talks about justification:
All this creates a tension between James and Paul, as Paul is the basis for justification by many theologians. James writes "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24 - NASB) In addition Psalms 106:30-31 proclaims that Phinehas was credited with righteousness as a result of interposing for the plague that had come over Israel.
So what does Paul mean in Romans 3:19-4:8? Since it has been variously translated, exegesis becomes much more important. First though, let us not presuppose that Paul and James must be in exact agreement (they may be, but such an assumption forces the Bible not to contradict, instead of allowing it to be what it is). But in turn, let us have the assumption that they would likely have some beliefs in common since they were contemporaries and had contact with each other.
Before starting though, the translation I am giving is based upon the NET Bible (available at http://www.bible.org/index.php?scid=3), except where indicated. Within using the NET I have made modifications (keeping in mind the Greek) so as make it a bit more understandable to the average person (NET has a good ease of read) but likewise allowing for what I believe is a better way to get at the real meaning. Such changes which will be noted by bold text.
Also, a warning. This is fairly length, but I will not split off the post in order to not split up the thought process in reading it. If you want to read it through but don't have the attention span (like I don't often times), you may want to read a bit, take a break scan over what you just read then start from there (don't worry. It took me about 3 hours of stopping and going. If you can't read it all at once, its not a big deal).
The meaning of the word "justification" is a matter of debate. Augustine argues that it means that one is declared righteous but also to make righteous. However, Protestants have understood it to refer to the idea of a judge who acquits a person of wrong doing, making it essentially synonymous with forgiveness. It is argued that this is the way the word is used in Greek literature, and while it does carry this forensic sense, it is also used in other manners, such as to declare the ethical state of a person. Such is the clearly the use in some instances such as in Romans 2:13 (considering the context). It is also used in that manner in the Septuagint (LXX) in Exodus 23:7 which says in the LXX "You shall abstain from every unjust thing: you shall not slay the innocent and righteous, and you shall not justify the wicked for gifts." (compare with the Masoretic/traditional texts). So we are left with somewhat of an ambiguity with the word in Romans 3:20 and other places without considering context. However, one might say the usage in Romans 2:13 gives us a sense of how Paul uses it later on, but we should let context dictate that ultimately.
We also see the main idea that Paul teaches against in Romans 3:20 is justification by "works from the Law", or as it is more literally rendered "works of the Law." Many have taken "works of the Law" more loosely to refer to all works, but then this means Paul needlessly qualifies the types of works as being that of the Law. Instead, we should take it at its face value and that is the works that are derived from the Law.
We should also keep in mind that the Pharisees and other Jewish sects derived many precepts from the Law that were not explicitly mentioned in the Law. So whereas some might see Paul as essentially nullifying the commandments of the Law (which seems to be in contrast to the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:17-19), it is more probable in my mind that Paul is talking about the observance of behavioral codes that are from the Law, both explicitly in the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy) but also those that were derived from it. In that then, one can more easily align the idea of Romans 2:13 and 3:20 by saying the former is talking about the observance of the meaning of the Law, whereas 3:20 is more about the ritualistic observance in a specific manner. This will also fit in last verse of Romans 3 where Paul says they maintain the Law.
Traditionally, there is a sentence break between the end of verse 20 ("...for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." - NASB) and the beginning of verse 21 ("But now, apart from the Law, the righteousness of God has been manifested..." - NASB). This leads some to conclude that the ending of verse 20 is the explanation of why the works of the Law do not justify anyone. However, this is probably not the correct understanding of the text because if the sole fact that the Law brings about knowledge of sin, it is a huge leap in logic from that to conclude that justification can not come from the Law. However, if one includes verse 21 (and what follows) as part of the logical argument by Paul against justification by the works of the Law, then it is much easier to see how that conclusion is drawn. If that is the case, then Paul states that justification (being judged as righteous) is not by works of the Law because its role was to show sin, but instead righteousness is to be attained through a different manner. The righteousness of God is the means to justification, and not the works of the Law.
This leads us then to consider what the meaning of the "righteousness of God" is. If one were to draw a conclusion just from Romans 3:19-21, one would say then by nature of the contrast between works of the Law and righteousness of God that the "righteousness of God" refers to the code of conduct one is to follow that comes from God. However, some might say it is not referring to an ethical code, but rather the righteousness that God credits to our account (as some might say, "Christ's righteousness imputed to us"). In Romans 1:17 though, the "righteousness of God" is contrasted with the "unrighteousness of men" in Romans 1:18. Considering that "of God" and "of men" are both genitives in the Greek, it would follow that one understands them in a similar way. Therefore, if "unrighteousness of men" refers to the evil behavior that men have, the "righteousness of God" refers to the holy behavior that God has, thus giving it an ethical meaning. Furthermore, the phrase is also used by James where he says that the "anger of men does not achieve the righteousness of God" (James 1:20 - NASB), where the phrase is clearly used regarding ethical considerations.
Considering all this then, Paul's argumentation is that justification is not by works of the Law because justification is obtained through the ethical code that God follows, or being like God in behavior. This brings to mind the saying "You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy" (Leviticus 9:2 - NASB) and also the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:48 which are "Therefore you are to be perfect exactly like your heavenly father is perfect" (My rendition). All this also implies that justification is more of the declaration of an ethical status instead of acquittal of past sins.
First, is pistis to be translated as faith or faithfulness here? It is to be understood as faith because Paul goes on to establish that justification is not by the law in Romans 4 by the fact that Abraham believed (similar word in the Greek, only in verb form) God and that belief was credited to righteousness. Faithfulness, while it might be implied by the concept faith, is not the idea that Paul is talking about in Romans 3-5 when he uses the word pistis.
Secondly, should we render the phrase as an objective or subjective genitive? Consider in Romans 4:12 the similar construction of faith + a genitive is taken as a subjective genitive when it says "the faith of our father." One would not think to say that faith was placed in Abraham, but rather that they mimicked the faith of the father Abraham. Taken the genitive consistently in that construction, one would translate it as the "faith of Christ." In addition, the genitive is used in a similar way with the "works of/from the Law" and the "righteousness of/from God." Furthermore, if it is translated as "faith in Christ" then Paul becomes rather redundant in Romans 3:21 and Galatians 2:16 where there is a clear instance of referring to the faith that people are to have, therefore it seems more reasonable to take it as referring to the faith that Jesus Christ had.
So what do we make of the phrase "the faith of Jesus Christ?" What does it have to do with us? Paul uses it to refer to the example of faith that we are to follow. Paul exhorts the Philippians to have the same "attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 2:5 - NASB). Furthermore, the Apostle Peter shows Jesus as an example in 1 Peter 2:21-25 while specifically referencing the trust that Christ had in God (1 Peter 2:23). So it is not a far cry to say that "the faith of Jesus Christ" refers to the faith that Christ had in God that we also are to have. This is not foreign to Paul at all, as Paul clearly calls for us to mimick the faith of Abraham in Romans 4. Just as we are to be "of the faith of Abraham" (Romans 4:16), we are to be of the faith of Jesus Christ.
This interpretation also explains Romans 1:17 which says "the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel from faith to faith" (NET). By the faith of some, such as Christ (and Abraham) the righteousness of God is shown to others who have faith. Christ in His humanity came to earth and displayed by His faith the way God is perfectly, because He is the image of God Himself. Thus, it is by Jesus Christ's faith that the way of righteousness is revealed to us.
In Leviticus 16:15 it is said that the mercy seat is the place where the blood of the sacrifices was to be sprinkled. However, there is something more significant I believe about the mercy seat. In Leviticus 16:2, it is said that the presence of God will appear over the mercy seat in a cloud. Furthermore, in Exodus 40:34-35 and 1 Kings 8:10-12, the cloud is referred to as the glory of the Lord. So one would said the glory of God was where the mercy seat was.
Now lets apply this back to the text here. If this is indeed the idea that Paul is alluding to, then he is describing Jesus as the place where atonement is made, and also where God's glory is. John describes Jesus (the Word) as the glory of God in John 1:14. Hebrews 1:3 also says that Jesus is the radiance of God's glory. As for the definition of glory, it may be describes as the visible power and/or presence of God.
So it follows if Jesus is the glory of God, then He is fit to reveal the righteousness that God has. He perfectly reveals God's righteous nature that we are to live by. Thus, Paul uses the mercy seat to allude to Jesus being the glory of God.
It goes on further to say that God disregards (or as some translations render it, "passed over") the sins that had been committed. Now the word there for disregards (paresis) does not indicate forgiveness, but rather it indicates a temporary overlooking on the part of God. What is the significance of this? Recall back to the mercy seat that no one, except Aaron, was to enter into the holy of holies, where the mercy seat was located. And he could only enter with a sacrifice of a bull, as stated in Leviticus 16:3. To do otherwise would mean death for him because God's presence was there. So if Jesus Christ is the glory of God, then it would follow to be in His presence would mean to suffer death. But yet, God overlooks the sins of people in order to allow Christ to demonstrate God's righteousness. If Christ could not appear before people without them dying, they could not see the very nature of God that we are to emulate.
As a side note, this would probably explain the meaning of "fall short of the glory of God" in Romans 3:23. It refers to the fact that none can come into the presence of God because of their sin, just as is implied by Leviticus 16:2-3. Because of our sins, we naturally would not be able to come into God's glory, but we would fall short and only be allowed outside the holy of holies.
Also note that God is said publicly displayed Jesus through faith. The context seems to fit the idea that Jesus was publicly displayed as a mercy seat through faith. In other words, by the faith of Jesus, Christ's faith in God was the means by which He demonstrated all the righteousness of God, but also by Christ's faith He was obedient to the cross so that He would be the place where atonement is made.
Notice the phrase "Of the works?" Most translations render this as "Of works?," but there is an article there in the Greek. I think it has specific importance because by including it, Paul is not talking about any works, but of THE works. The article in Greek is often times anaphoric (which means to refer back), so it is probably that Paul is speaking of the works that he had been talking about in this section, the works of the Law. Thus we need not conclude that it means works generically (though it possibly could still from a grammatical standpoint).
Notice that the objection does not say "by works of the law" (the NET Bible adds it, but it is absent from the Greek). Rather, this is plain justification by works. And then Paul gives his response. He doesn't say "he wasn't justified by works", but instead he responds that Abraham could not boast before God. Paul could have easily destroyed this objection by stating and proving that general works had nothing to do with justification. And yet, Paul doesn't, but instead simply claims there can be no boast before God. This sets up follows from Paul's pen.
It has often times be assumed by many that "the one who works" refers to the person who lacks all faith and is essentially unsaved. But this does not fit into the design of the apostle. The objection was regarding Abraham and the idea that if he is justified by works, he could boast. It is more natural, then, that "the one who works" refers to a person who is obedient to God, just as Abraham was. This does not involve a drastic shift in thought, but allows Paul to answer the question about what Abraham had found. Also, we must allow the possibility that Paul brings up the idea of a person who works in a metaphorical manner and not to be taken strictly literal.
So if this refers to obedient people like Abraham, what does it mean. If Abraham was justified by works, the reason God declares him as righteous is because that is what is due to him. Abraham indeed had all the works necessary to demonstrate oneself as a righteous man.
Paul does not stop there though because if that is all there is to it, then Abraham could have boasted before all, including God. Instead though, Paul gives the opposite; the one who does not work. Who could this be describing? If the one who works describes the person who is obedient as Abraham was, then the one who does not work probably refers to those who have not been obedient to God. It is said that this person is ungodly, and yet the man is justified before God.
In my opinion, this refers to person who was condemned in their sinful lifestyle. They had just repented of their sins before God, but they have had no opportunity to do works of righteousness. They had no works to their credit before God. But yet, God declares them as righteous on the basis of their faith. God sees the trust the person has in God as revealing of righteousness, even though the person had no opportunity to do righteous works. In other words, the man is in good standing before God and it is due to God's grace to accept the person's faith as righteous. Because of this fact, if a man is justified before God, God was gracious to him to declare him as righteous before the man even had the works to demonstrate that. Thus, God is the one who brings a man to righteousness, He initially is the source, not man, and therefore no man can boast.
This brings to remembrance the idea of the tax collector who went home justified before God after his repentant heart, whereas the Pharisee who followed the works of the Law did not (Luke 18:10-14).
1) God speaks of the person who God does not credit sin. If righteousness and sin are contrast, one could conclude that a man that God does not credit sin to, He credits righteousness to.
2) Secondly, as the end of the Psalm in 32:11, it is said that the man who is righteous should rejoice and the upright in heart should shout for joy. Thus, this final verse implies the righteous state of David after his repentance for his sin, even though he had no works.
So in quoting Psalms 32:1-2, Paul proves that justification can be obtained without works. He did not prove it by referring to the faith of Abraham in Genesis 15:6 because it could not be established that this was at a time where Abraham lacked works. It only showed that a man could obtain justification on the account of faith. Therefore, Paul must go further to prove his point that a man who has no works can be justified before God and therefore can not boast before God.
So in summary: Paul establishes that a man can by justified by emulating the faith that Christ has. He disproves that works of the Law (of Moses) justifies a person, but never states that works in general never justify. He instead says that a man can be justified before God on the account of something that is not a work, that is, on account of faith. It is not said that faith itself is the means by which that if a person have he must be justified, but only that if a man is to be justified, he can and will be justified by faith, and a faith that emulates the faith of Christ and Abraham.
I apologize for the length, but I felt it necessary.
Clement of Rome briefly talks about justification:
"And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever." - First Epistle to the Corinthians (approximately 97 A.D) by Clement of Rome, Chapter XXXIIBut yet only a couple chapters earlier Clement speaks of justification by works.
"Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace has been given by God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words." - First Epistle to the Corinthians by Clement of Rome, Chapter XXXIt seems, according to some, that Clement contradicts himself here. This just demonstrates that the understanding of justification is not simplistic. Other early church fathers also seem to indicate that justificaton is from a combination of faith and works. Later theologians, such as Martin Luther, conclude justification was based solely upon faith in Christ (but the faith that saves is one that works). More recently, many assert justification is based upon a faith that may or may not also be accompanied by works.
All this creates a tension between James and Paul, as Paul is the basis for justification by many theologians. James writes "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24 - NASB) In addition Psalms 106:30-31 proclaims that Phinehas was credited with righteousness as a result of interposing for the plague that had come over Israel.
So what does Paul mean in Romans 3:19-4:8? Since it has been variously translated, exegesis becomes much more important. First though, let us not presuppose that Paul and James must be in exact agreement (they may be, but such an assumption forces the Bible not to contradict, instead of allowing it to be what it is). But in turn, let us have the assumption that they would likely have some beliefs in common since they were contemporaries and had contact with each other.
Before starting though, the translation I am giving is based upon the NET Bible (available at http://www.bible.org/index.php?scid=3), except where indicated. Within using the NET I have made modifications (keeping in mind the Greek) so as make it a bit more understandable to the average person (NET has a good ease of read) but likewise allowing for what I believe is a better way to get at the real meaning. Such changes which will be noted by bold text.
Also, a warning. This is fairly length, but I will not split off the post in order to not split up the thought process in reading it. If you want to read it through but don't have the attention span (like I don't often times), you may want to read a bit, take a break scan over what you just read then start from there (don't worry. It took me about 3 hours of stopping and going. If you can't read it all at once, its not a big deal).
"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For no one is judged as righteous before him by the works of the law. That is because through the law comes the knowledge of sin, but now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been shown" -- Rom 3:19-21 (NET with changes in bold)"Judged as righteous" (dikaiow) is traditionally translated as "justification." However, I changed it so as to be less ambiguous to the casual reader and be more easily able to relate it to "righteousness" (dikaiosunh), which is a term that used by Paul also in these verses. I also did not keep with the NET translation of "declared righteous" as I think that is a bit ambiguous as to what I believe the meaning is.
The meaning of the word "justification" is a matter of debate. Augustine argues that it means that one is declared righteous but also to make righteous. However, Protestants have understood it to refer to the idea of a judge who acquits a person of wrong doing, making it essentially synonymous with forgiveness. It is argued that this is the way the word is used in Greek literature, and while it does carry this forensic sense, it is also used in other manners, such as to declare the ethical state of a person. Such is the clearly the use in some instances such as in Romans 2:13 (considering the context). It is also used in that manner in the Septuagint (LXX) in Exodus 23:7 which says in the LXX "You shall abstain from every unjust thing: you shall not slay the innocent and righteous, and you shall not justify the wicked for gifts." (compare with the Masoretic/traditional texts). So we are left with somewhat of an ambiguity with the word in Romans 3:20 and other places without considering context. However, one might say the usage in Romans 2:13 gives us a sense of how Paul uses it later on, but we should let context dictate that ultimately.
We also see the main idea that Paul teaches against in Romans 3:20 is justification by "works from the Law", or as it is more literally rendered "works of the Law." Many have taken "works of the Law" more loosely to refer to all works, but then this means Paul needlessly qualifies the types of works as being that of the Law. Instead, we should take it at its face value and that is the works that are derived from the Law.
We should also keep in mind that the Pharisees and other Jewish sects derived many precepts from the Law that were not explicitly mentioned in the Law. So whereas some might see Paul as essentially nullifying the commandments of the Law (which seems to be in contrast to the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:17-19), it is more probable in my mind that Paul is talking about the observance of behavioral codes that are from the Law, both explicitly in the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy) but also those that were derived from it. In that then, one can more easily align the idea of Romans 2:13 and 3:20 by saying the former is talking about the observance of the meaning of the Law, whereas 3:20 is more about the ritualistic observance in a specific manner. This will also fit in last verse of Romans 3 where Paul says they maintain the Law.
Traditionally, there is a sentence break between the end of verse 20 ("...for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." - NASB) and the beginning of verse 21 ("But now, apart from the Law, the righteousness of God has been manifested..." - NASB). This leads some to conclude that the ending of verse 20 is the explanation of why the works of the Law do not justify anyone. However, this is probably not the correct understanding of the text because if the sole fact that the Law brings about knowledge of sin, it is a huge leap in logic from that to conclude that justification can not come from the Law. However, if one includes verse 21 (and what follows) as part of the logical argument by Paul against justification by the works of the Law, then it is much easier to see how that conclusion is drawn. If that is the case, then Paul states that justification (being judged as righteous) is not by works of the Law because its role was to show sin, but instead righteousness is to be attained through a different manner. The righteousness of God is the means to justification, and not the works of the Law.
This leads us then to consider what the meaning of the "righteousness of God" is. If one were to draw a conclusion just from Romans 3:19-21, one would say then by nature of the contrast between works of the Law and righteousness of God that the "righteousness of God" refers to the code of conduct one is to follow that comes from God. However, some might say it is not referring to an ethical code, but rather the righteousness that God credits to our account (as some might say, "Christ's righteousness imputed to us"). In Romans 1:17 though, the "righteousness of God" is contrasted with the "unrighteousness of men" in Romans 1:18. Considering that "of God" and "of men" are both genitives in the Greek, it would follow that one understands them in a similar way. Therefore, if "unrighteousness of men" refers to the evil behavior that men have, the "righteousness of God" refers to the holy behavior that God has, thus giving it an ethical meaning. Furthermore, the phrase is also used by James where he says that the "anger of men does not achieve the righteousness of God" (James 1:20 - NASB), where the phrase is clearly used regarding ethical considerations.
Considering all this then, Paul's argumentation is that justification is not by works of the Law because justification is obtained through the ethical code that God follows, or being like God in behavior. This brings to mind the saying "You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy" (Leviticus 9:2 - NASB) and also the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:48 which are "Therefore you are to be perfect exactly like your heavenly father is perfect" (My rendition). All this also implies that justification is more of the declaration of an ethical status instead of acquittal of past sins.
the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been shown, namely, the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ for all who believe (for there is no distinction because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God), being freely judged as righteous by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, - Rom 3:21b-24 (NET with changes in bold)The phrase "the faith of Jesus Christ" has been a phrase that has recently been under much debate regarding to how one should render the Greek. Traditionally, this was translated as "faith in Christ," talking about ones own belief regarding Christ (and taking it as the type of belief that John frequently refers to, such as in John 3:16). In addition, there are others who would render it as "the faithfulness of Christ" (such as how the NET Bible itself does). The correct translation is debated because of two factors. First, the Greek word pistis can be understood as referring to faith, the cognitive aspect of a person, or faithfulness, which is talking about the behavioral aspects. Further more, "Jesus Christ" is in the genitive, which in certain instances, such as here, can be understood as an objective genitive ("faith in Christ") or as a subjective genitive ("faith/faithfulness of Christ").
First, is pistis to be translated as faith or faithfulness here? It is to be understood as faith because Paul goes on to establish that justification is not by the law in Romans 4 by the fact that Abraham believed (similar word in the Greek, only in verb form) God and that belief was credited to righteousness. Faithfulness, while it might be implied by the concept faith, is not the idea that Paul is talking about in Romans 3-5 when he uses the word pistis.
Secondly, should we render the phrase as an objective or subjective genitive? Consider in Romans 4:12 the similar construction of faith + a genitive is taken as a subjective genitive when it says "the faith of our father." One would not think to say that faith was placed in Abraham, but rather that they mimicked the faith of the father Abraham. Taken the genitive consistently in that construction, one would translate it as the "faith of Christ." In addition, the genitive is used in a similar way with the "works of/from the Law" and the "righteousness of/from God." Furthermore, if it is translated as "faith in Christ" then Paul becomes rather redundant in Romans 3:21 and Galatians 2:16 where there is a clear instance of referring to the faith that people are to have, therefore it seems more reasonable to take it as referring to the faith that Jesus Christ had.
So what do we make of the phrase "the faith of Jesus Christ?" What does it have to do with us? Paul uses it to refer to the example of faith that we are to follow. Paul exhorts the Philippians to have the same "attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 2:5 - NASB). Furthermore, the Apostle Peter shows Jesus as an example in 1 Peter 2:21-25 while specifically referencing the trust that Christ had in God (1 Peter 2:23). So it is not a far cry to say that "the faith of Jesus Christ" refers to the faith that Christ had in God that we also are to have. This is not foreign to Paul at all, as Paul clearly calls for us to mimick the faith of Abraham in Romans 4. Just as we are to be "of the faith of Abraham" (Romans 4:16), we are to be of the faith of Jesus Christ.
This interpretation also explains Romans 1:17 which says "the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel from faith to faith" (NET). By the faith of some, such as Christ (and Abraham) the righteousness of God is shown to others who have faith. Christ in His humanity came to earth and displayed by His faith the way God is perfectly, because He is the image of God Himself. Thus, it is by Jesus Christ's faith that the way of righteousness is revealed to us.
[Jesus Christ is] "whom God displayed publicly through faith as a mercy seat by His blood in order to demonstrate His righteousness, because by God's forbearance He disregarded the previously committed sins for the demonstration of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be righteous and the one who judges those who have the faith of Jesus as righteous" - Rom 3:25-26 (My own rendition)This is a verse that I think has been totally missed by most translations. Most translations render "mercy seat" (hilasthrion) as "propitation," which gives the connotation of a sacrifice. However, I believe "mercy seat" is a better translation, in which case it refers to the place that atonement is made. If this is the case, then this an allusion to the mercy seat in the Old Testament. So lets establish the significance of the mercy seat.
In Leviticus 16:15 it is said that the mercy seat is the place where the blood of the sacrifices was to be sprinkled. However, there is something more significant I believe about the mercy seat. In Leviticus 16:2, it is said that the presence of God will appear over the mercy seat in a cloud. Furthermore, in Exodus 40:34-35 and 1 Kings 8:10-12, the cloud is referred to as the glory of the Lord. So one would said the glory of God was where the mercy seat was.
Now lets apply this back to the text here. If this is indeed the idea that Paul is alluding to, then he is describing Jesus as the place where atonement is made, and also where God's glory is. John describes Jesus (the Word) as the glory of God in John 1:14. Hebrews 1:3 also says that Jesus is the radiance of God's glory. As for the definition of glory, it may be describes as the visible power and/or presence of God.
So it follows if Jesus is the glory of God, then He is fit to reveal the righteousness that God has. He perfectly reveals God's righteous nature that we are to live by. Thus, Paul uses the mercy seat to allude to Jesus being the glory of God.
It goes on further to say that God disregards (or as some translations render it, "passed over") the sins that had been committed. Now the word there for disregards (paresis) does not indicate forgiveness, but rather it indicates a temporary overlooking on the part of God. What is the significance of this? Recall back to the mercy seat that no one, except Aaron, was to enter into the holy of holies, where the mercy seat was located. And he could only enter with a sacrifice of a bull, as stated in Leviticus 16:3. To do otherwise would mean death for him because God's presence was there. So if Jesus Christ is the glory of God, then it would follow to be in His presence would mean to suffer death. But yet, God overlooks the sins of people in order to allow Christ to demonstrate God's righteousness. If Christ could not appear before people without them dying, they could not see the very nature of God that we are to emulate.
As a side note, this would probably explain the meaning of "fall short of the glory of God" in Romans 3:23. It refers to the fact that none can come into the presence of God because of their sin, just as is implied by Leviticus 16:2-3. Because of our sins, we naturally would not be able to come into God's glory, but we would fall short and only be allowed outside the holy of holies.
Also note that God is said publicly displayed Jesus through faith. The context seems to fit the idea that Jesus was publicly displayed as a mercy seat through faith. In other words, by the faith of Jesus, Christ's faith in God was the means by which He demonstrated all the righteousness of God, but also by Christ's faith He was obedient to the cross so that He would be the place where atonement is made.
"Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded! By what principle? Of the works? No, but by the principle of faith! For we consider that a person is judged as righteous by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of the Gentiles too? Yes, of the Gentiles too! Since God is one, he will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then nullify the law through faith? Absolutely not! Instead we uphold the law." - Rom 3:27-31 (NET with changes in bold)I do not have too much to say regarding this, as it seems to my fairly self explanatory. However, I will make one remark.
Notice the phrase "Of the works?" Most translations render this as "Of works?," but there is an article there in the Greek. I think it has specific importance because by including it, Paul is not talking about any works, but of THE works. The article in Greek is often times anaphoric (which means to refer back), so it is probably that Paul is speaking of the works that he had been talking about in this section, the works of the Law. Thus we need not conclude that it means works generically (though it possibly could still from a grammatical standpoint).
"What then shall we say that Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh, has discovered has found? For if Abraham was judged as righteous by the works ||, he has something to boast about -- but not before God." - Rom 4:1-2 (NET with changes in bold and deletion indicated by ||)In these verses we have the hypothetical objection someone might bring in response to Paul. It is of especial importance that one notes that this is a response to the fact that boasting is excluded, which we can see from the final statement of the object "he has something to boast about." The claim is that Abraham has been seen as righteous/obedient before God throughout the Old Testament and it was by works (see for instance the sacrifice of Isaac, as James discusses in James 2:21. See specifically Genesis 22:12 and 16-18), which was evidenced by the covenants God made with Abraham. The idea is then, if one can obtain justification by works, then we have something to boast about.
Notice that the objection does not say "by works of the law" (the NET Bible adds it, but it is absent from the Greek). Rather, this is plain justification by works. And then Paul gives his response. He doesn't say "he wasn't justified by works", but instead he responds that Abraham could not boast before God. Paul could have easily destroyed this objection by stating and proving that general works had nothing to do with justification. And yet, Paul doesn't, but instead simply claims there can be no boast before God. This sets up follows from Paul's pen.
For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his pay is not credited due to grace but due to obligation. But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who judges the ungodly as righteous, his faith is credited as righteousness, - Rom 4:3-5 (NET with changes in bold)Here the word "For" (gar) indicates Paul's rationale that Abraham could not boast before God. He quotes from Genesis 15:6 in order to demonstrate how Abraham could not boast. In the verse, it is demonstrated that God declared Abraham as righteous on the basis of his faith. If a trust in the promise that God made (which is the type belief that Abraham is said to have) justified someone, then there must be a time that works were not necessary for justification (not that I did not say "never necessary"). This point, Paul establishes in the following verses.
It has often times be assumed by many that "the one who works" refers to the person who lacks all faith and is essentially unsaved. But this does not fit into the design of the apostle. The objection was regarding Abraham and the idea that if he is justified by works, he could boast. It is more natural, then, that "the one who works" refers to a person who is obedient to God, just as Abraham was. This does not involve a drastic shift in thought, but allows Paul to answer the question about what Abraham had found. Also, we must allow the possibility that Paul brings up the idea of a person who works in a metaphorical manner and not to be taken strictly literal.
So if this refers to obedient people like Abraham, what does it mean. If Abraham was justified by works, the reason God declares him as righteous is because that is what is due to him. Abraham indeed had all the works necessary to demonstrate oneself as a righteous man.
Paul does not stop there though because if that is all there is to it, then Abraham could have boasted before all, including God. Instead though, Paul gives the opposite; the one who does not work. Who could this be describing? If the one who works describes the person who is obedient as Abraham was, then the one who does not work probably refers to those who have not been obedient to God. It is said that this person is ungodly, and yet the man is justified before God.
In my opinion, this refers to person who was condemned in their sinful lifestyle. They had just repented of their sins before God, but they have had no opportunity to do works of righteousness. They had no works to their credit before God. But yet, God declares them as righteous on the basis of their faith. God sees the trust the person has in God as revealing of righteousness, even though the person had no opportunity to do righteous works. In other words, the man is in good standing before God and it is due to God's grace to accept the person's faith as righteous. Because of this fact, if a man is justified before God, God was gracious to him to declare him as righteous before the man even had the works to demonstrate that. Thus, God is the one who brings a man to righteousness, He initially is the source, not man, and therefore no man can boast.
This brings to remembrance the idea of the tax collector who went home justified before God after his repentant heart, whereas the Pharisee who followed the works of the Law did not (Luke 18:10-14).
his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David himself also speaks regarding the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not credit sin." -Rom 4:5b-8 (NET with changes in bold)In verses 6-8, Paul endeavors to vindicate the teaching that a man may be justified by God before he has any works. He quotes Psalm 32:1-2, which is a Psalm written by David. In that Psalm, if one reads it through, it is a psalm of a penitent who had fallen into some sin and was under the wrath of God with no forgiveness from Him. But yet after he confessed his sins, God forgave him of his guilt (Psalm 32:5). Such a man who was in a state of disobedience that God would not forgive him his sins is a man whose works are not such that he can be seen as righteous by God. It is in that way then that Paul can state that Psalms 32 backs up the idea that righteousness can be accredited apart from works (and therefore according to faith). And it is implied that God credits righteousness because:
1) God speaks of the person who God does not credit sin. If righteousness and sin are contrast, one could conclude that a man that God does not credit sin to, He credits righteousness to.
2) Secondly, as the end of the Psalm in 32:11, it is said that the man who is righteous should rejoice and the upright in heart should shout for joy. Thus, this final verse implies the righteous state of David after his repentance for his sin, even though he had no works.
So in quoting Psalms 32:1-2, Paul proves that justification can be obtained without works. He did not prove it by referring to the faith of Abraham in Genesis 15:6 because it could not be established that this was at a time where Abraham lacked works. It only showed that a man could obtain justification on the account of faith. Therefore, Paul must go further to prove his point that a man who has no works can be justified before God and therefore can not boast before God.
So in summary: Paul establishes that a man can by justified by emulating the faith that Christ has. He disproves that works of the Law (of Moses) justifies a person, but never states that works in general never justify. He instead says that a man can be justified before God on the account of something that is not a work, that is, on account of faith. It is not said that faith itself is the means by which that if a person have he must be justified, but only that if a man is to be justified, he can and will be justified by faith, and a faith that emulates the faith of Christ and Abraham.
I apologize for the length, but I felt it necessary.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Creation ex nihilo and Genesis 1:1
It is proposed by most conservative Christians and theologians that Genesis 1:1, and the whole Bible, teaches creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing). The question that I will be ask is whether the Bible in fact teaches creation ex nihilo.
The often remembered words of Genesis 1:1 are "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." The traditional understanding is that "In the beginning" refers to the beginning of all time. Also, with out modern scientific understanding, we see "heavens" and equate it with the universe as a whole. Thirdly, "created" (bara in the Hebrew) is sometime said to speak of creating our of nothing due to some arguments as to the meaning of the word, as opposed to a word often translated as "made" (asah in the Hebrew).
Is what was intended initially by the writer of Genesis 1:1? Lets look at those three main arguments and investigate them.
1) "In the beginning" refers to the beginning of all time
Certainly, this is not an impossible understanding of the text. If one wanted to speak of the beginning of all time, one could definitely say "In the beginning." However, could this phrase be understood in an alternate manner?
Consider if I say "Back in the beginning, I was not a very good soccer player." The phrase "in the beginning" was not considered by most people to describe the beginning of all time (but if one interpreted that it way, it would be hard to argue that I was not a good soccer player). Instead, the phrase was used to refer to the beginning of an implicit time period. Depending on the context of the statement, it could refer to the beginning of my life or it could refer to the time when I started to play soccer. Beginning in these situations indicates more of a relative time than an absolute time.
Could Genesis 1:1 be understood in this manner? It is certainly possible. Matter of fact, in my opinion, I think it is more probable. It seems doubtful that the writer of Genesis 1:1 was concerned with the idea of time just beginning. It seems to me that the ancient Hebrews would probably not have a conception of the beginning of time itself. Thus we would not really expect a Hebrew to speak of the beginning in that manner.
Instead, the talk of the beginning seems to be used in terms of the time of the earth, in its formation. The time notion is present with speaking of the first day, second day , third day, etc. This beginning seems to denote a time before a day had passed. And the concept of a day to the ancient Hebrew was not 24 hours, or 1440 minutes, or 86400 seconds. Rather, it is said "there was evening and morning, first day." A day seems to be defined in Genesis by the cycle of light (presumably upon the earth), so one could not really say that beginning should be termed by the first seconds, but rather before the first day of creation had took place.
So the idea of the beginning seems to be related to the 7 days. We should not include another meaning to beginning as referring to the beginning of time unless we take the six days to be referring to the first 144 hours of creation, because otherwise would be to put a double meaning upon the word "beginning" which would seem awkward.
So in short, I think that "In the beginning" does not refer to the beginning of all time, but the beginning of the creation/formation of the earth. This is not to say that the author was opening up for time before the creation of the universe. Rather, he would have no concept of time before the creation of the earth and would probably not be concerned about it, thus he doesn't address it.
2) "Heavens" refers to the universe as a whole.
Today, our modern scientific understanding of the stars is that they are physical objects that exist in a great expanse known as the universe. When we think God created the heavens/universe we think of God creating the space which the stars were placed in.
Is this how the Hebrews though about it though? Doubtful. Their ideas of the heaven is based upon what they saw. When they looked up at night, they saw stars, and when they looked up in the day they say an ocean. They had no concept of the stars in the sky as being part of another space. Rather, it was to them a visual show. So they term heavens by what they saw, not in terms of the physical objects seen.
I don't know if I adequately described that (it is a hard concept for me to put into words right now), but basically, when they talked about the heavens, they referred to the sights seen. It is not a statement that the whole universe was created, but rather the sights above them were created. One might say that when it is say "heavens and earth" the ancient Hebrew through what was above them and what was below them (taking earth not to be referring to the globe, but the firm ground that people stood upon).
So I find no reason to say that when it is said that "God created the heavens" that it refers to the universe and all the objects and dimensions (such as time) within it, but rather it just refers to the sights seen when a person looks up.
3) "Created" (bara) means to create from nothing.
This is sometimes stated by a few people by looking up the usage of the word. 4 times out of 45 times, "bara" is attributed to someone that is not God (Joshua 17:15, 18, Ezekiel 21:19, and Ezekiel 23:47). By implication them, the other times it is either explicitly stated or implied that God is the one who does "bara." We can take from this that there are definitely times where "bara" is not used to indicate creating out of nothing, because no man can do that.
Furthermore, there are times the word is used when it is clearly not creation ex nihilo. In Genesis 5:1, it speaks of the day that God created (bara) humanity. This is clearly not referring to creation ex nihilo because it is said that God formed the man from the dust of the earth (Genesis 2:7). And if one investigates the usage of the word further, it is sometimes used in referring to God creating other men, who are born and not made out of nothing.
Now this does not demonstrate that bara can not be used to refer to the concept of creation ex nihilo. As a matter of fact, I believe it could have been used in such a manner if that was the intention of the author. However, it has been shown the word does not denote the concept of making something from nothing. As a matter of fact, this seems to be too much of a technical definition to attribute to a meaning of a word within the Hebrew vocabulary.
So, in short, I do not think Genesis 1:1 can be said to definitely refer to the concept of creation ex nihilo. I think the evidence indicates the author was concerned about something else and not about the idea of God making something out of absolutely nothing.
Now, this is not to say that God didn't create out of nothing in some point of time. But to impress upon the text of Genesis 1:1 the idea of creation ex nihilo is to give more meaning to the text than was intended by the author of Genesis, in my opinion. I do believe that God created everything in the universe from nothing and that there was a "time" (not using the word in a technical sense) when only God existed and nothing else. I just do not think the Bible teaches that explicitly anywhere.
The often remembered words of Genesis 1:1 are "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." The traditional understanding is that "In the beginning" refers to the beginning of all time. Also, with out modern scientific understanding, we see "heavens" and equate it with the universe as a whole. Thirdly, "created" (bara in the Hebrew) is sometime said to speak of creating our of nothing due to some arguments as to the meaning of the word, as opposed to a word often translated as "made" (asah in the Hebrew).
Is what was intended initially by the writer of Genesis 1:1? Lets look at those three main arguments and investigate them.
1) "In the beginning" refers to the beginning of all time
Certainly, this is not an impossible understanding of the text. If one wanted to speak of the beginning of all time, one could definitely say "In the beginning." However, could this phrase be understood in an alternate manner?
Consider if I say "Back in the beginning, I was not a very good soccer player." The phrase "in the beginning" was not considered by most people to describe the beginning of all time (but if one interpreted that it way, it would be hard to argue that I was not a good soccer player). Instead, the phrase was used to refer to the beginning of an implicit time period. Depending on the context of the statement, it could refer to the beginning of my life or it could refer to the time when I started to play soccer. Beginning in these situations indicates more of a relative time than an absolute time.
Could Genesis 1:1 be understood in this manner? It is certainly possible. Matter of fact, in my opinion, I think it is more probable. It seems doubtful that the writer of Genesis 1:1 was concerned with the idea of time just beginning. It seems to me that the ancient Hebrews would probably not have a conception of the beginning of time itself. Thus we would not really expect a Hebrew to speak of the beginning in that manner.
Instead, the talk of the beginning seems to be used in terms of the time of the earth, in its formation. The time notion is present with speaking of the first day, second day , third day, etc. This beginning seems to denote a time before a day had passed. And the concept of a day to the ancient Hebrew was not 24 hours, or 1440 minutes, or 86400 seconds. Rather, it is said "there was evening and morning, first day." A day seems to be defined in Genesis by the cycle of light (presumably upon the earth), so one could not really say that beginning should be termed by the first seconds, but rather before the first day of creation had took place.
So the idea of the beginning seems to be related to the 7 days. We should not include another meaning to beginning as referring to the beginning of time unless we take the six days to be referring to the first 144 hours of creation, because otherwise would be to put a double meaning upon the word "beginning" which would seem awkward.
So in short, I think that "In the beginning" does not refer to the beginning of all time, but the beginning of the creation/formation of the earth. This is not to say that the author was opening up for time before the creation of the universe. Rather, he would have no concept of time before the creation of the earth and would probably not be concerned about it, thus he doesn't address it.
2) "Heavens" refers to the universe as a whole.
Today, our modern scientific understanding of the stars is that they are physical objects that exist in a great expanse known as the universe. When we think God created the heavens/universe we think of God creating the space which the stars were placed in.
Is this how the Hebrews though about it though? Doubtful. Their ideas of the heaven is based upon what they saw. When they looked up at night, they saw stars, and when they looked up in the day they say an ocean. They had no concept of the stars in the sky as being part of another space. Rather, it was to them a visual show. So they term heavens by what they saw, not in terms of the physical objects seen.
I don't know if I adequately described that (it is a hard concept for me to put into words right now), but basically, when they talked about the heavens, they referred to the sights seen. It is not a statement that the whole universe was created, but rather the sights above them were created. One might say that when it is say "heavens and earth" the ancient Hebrew through what was above them and what was below them (taking earth not to be referring to the globe, but the firm ground that people stood upon).
So I find no reason to say that when it is said that "God created the heavens" that it refers to the universe and all the objects and dimensions (such as time) within it, but rather it just refers to the sights seen when a person looks up.
3) "Created" (bara) means to create from nothing.
This is sometimes stated by a few people by looking up the usage of the word. 4 times out of 45 times, "bara" is attributed to someone that is not God (Joshua 17:15, 18, Ezekiel 21:19, and Ezekiel 23:47). By implication them, the other times it is either explicitly stated or implied that God is the one who does "bara." We can take from this that there are definitely times where "bara" is not used to indicate creating out of nothing, because no man can do that.
Furthermore, there are times the word is used when it is clearly not creation ex nihilo. In Genesis 5:1, it speaks of the day that God created (bara) humanity. This is clearly not referring to creation ex nihilo because it is said that God formed the man from the dust of the earth (Genesis 2:7). And if one investigates the usage of the word further, it is sometimes used in referring to God creating other men, who are born and not made out of nothing.
Now this does not demonstrate that bara can not be used to refer to the concept of creation ex nihilo. As a matter of fact, I believe it could have been used in such a manner if that was the intention of the author. However, it has been shown the word does not denote the concept of making something from nothing. As a matter of fact, this seems to be too much of a technical definition to attribute to a meaning of a word within the Hebrew vocabulary.
So, in short, I do not think Genesis 1:1 can be said to definitely refer to the concept of creation ex nihilo. I think the evidence indicates the author was concerned about something else and not about the idea of God making something out of absolutely nothing.
Now, this is not to say that God didn't create out of nothing in some point of time. But to impress upon the text of Genesis 1:1 the idea of creation ex nihilo is to give more meaning to the text than was intended by the author of Genesis, in my opinion. I do believe that God created everything in the universe from nothing and that there was a "time" (not using the word in a technical sense) when only God existed and nothing else. I just do not think the Bible teaches that explicitly anywhere.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Biblical hermeneutics: Literal, allegorical, or both? (Part 4)
Now its time for the fourth, and last (at least for now), installment regarding literal vs allegorical interpretations.
For much of the history of the Christian church, especially the Western church, there has been a leaning towards literal interpretations of the Bible, with the only allegorical interpretations that were really made were those that were foreshadowing Christ. However, it seems to be that allegorical interpretation were also made, in addition to literal ones. Simply look at the prophecies that Matthew proclaims Jesus to fulfill in Matthew 2 and the context of the Old Testament quotations to get a glimpse of the more open interpretation style. And earlier in the church we see early church fathers, such as Origen, who rely heavily upon allegorical interpretations. Finally, today we see a resurgence of allegorical/figurative interpretations today, in part probably due to people having difficulty accepting Genesis 1-11 as historical but yet wanting to maintain the Bible as true. And the current trend of the Christian culture is aiming towards more open-ended interpretation.
(Note: Now let me say at this point that I have included more in the few posts about literal vs. allegory than I intended to initially. It has included more of the objective, exegetical mindset vs. the subjective mindset. Since that was not the original intent of these series of posts, I will leave some dead ends for now and pick them back up in another post that will be aptly titled)
So. What is correct? To not say really much and at the risk of sounding like I am trying to be on the fence, both. To clarify further, allegory is more important to interpretation than many allow for, and literal is more important than the opposing side allows for either. And a literal interpretation does not exclude the possibility of an allegorical interpretation. For instance, in Romans 5, Paul discusses Adam and Adam as a type of Christ. Paul seems to clearly conceive Adam as a historic character, but then he interprets the character of Adam and what is recorded of him and creates an allegorical interpretation to present a teaching about Christ. In Paul's mind, both the literal and allegorical interpretations of the account of Adam are valid.
Now this does not provide an further evidence that allegory is more acceptable than has commonly been given, as many of the texts of the Old Testament were interpreted allegorically to present a teaching about Christ, along with metaphorical. But if we look at Paul in Galatians 4, he uses an allegorical interpretation in order to present a teaching about the Old Covenant and New Covenant. Also, in Matthew 2:17-18 the slaughter of the children of Bethlehem was said to be a fulfillment of a text that literally was talking about the captivity of Israel by Babylon.
What we see here is that both literal and allegorical interpretations were used for topics other than Jesus Himself specifically. Now one might say, "but all those events are about Christ." And rightly so, they are. But Christian doctrine can not be separated from the Savior.
Now let me add a caveat to this. Just because we can make an allegorical statement does not mean it is doctrinally true for the Church. It may speak truth to the individual in some instances (and this I will address in a future post about objective vs subjective interpretations). There are correct allegorical interpretations and our perception of them, or the lack thereof, does not affect the truthfulness of them. Likewise, there can be "false" allegorical interpretations, but our perception of them does not make them true for the Church as a whole. This is not different than literal interpretations though.
Also, I think the allegorical interpretations can not be accurately seen without spiritual maturity. The author of Hebrews is a fan of presenting allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament to present teachings of Christ, but then says in one instance (Hebrews 5:11-14) it would be hard because they lack maturity. Paul also speaks of this in 1 Corinthians 2:6-3:2. Not just any Christian should try to understand the Bible allegory. Their spiritual understanding is weak and wrong interpretations could very easily lead them astray.
So conclude this series of posts. I do apologize for the lack of quality with this final post. I did this topic more as a topic to get my feet wet with this, and it instead turned a bit more complicated than I initially expected for this. So I expect that my reasoning may be hard to grasp at times and it feels like that I didn't quite prove my point. I feel that way myself and will revisit this topic in the future, I am sure. However, I have been a bit more anxious to get onto other topics, and thus the abrupt conclusion to this.
For much of the history of the Christian church, especially the Western church, there has been a leaning towards literal interpretations of the Bible, with the only allegorical interpretations that were really made were those that were foreshadowing Christ. However, it seems to be that allegorical interpretation were also made, in addition to literal ones. Simply look at the prophecies that Matthew proclaims Jesus to fulfill in Matthew 2 and the context of the Old Testament quotations to get a glimpse of the more open interpretation style. And earlier in the church we see early church fathers, such as Origen, who rely heavily upon allegorical interpretations. Finally, today we see a resurgence of allegorical/figurative interpretations today, in part probably due to people having difficulty accepting Genesis 1-11 as historical but yet wanting to maintain the Bible as true. And the current trend of the Christian culture is aiming towards more open-ended interpretation.
(Note: Now let me say at this point that I have included more in the few posts about literal vs. allegory than I intended to initially. It has included more of the objective, exegetical mindset vs. the subjective mindset. Since that was not the original intent of these series of posts, I will leave some dead ends for now and pick them back up in another post that will be aptly titled)
So. What is correct? To not say really much and at the risk of sounding like I am trying to be on the fence, both. To clarify further, allegory is more important to interpretation than many allow for, and literal is more important than the opposing side allows for either. And a literal interpretation does not exclude the possibility of an allegorical interpretation. For instance, in Romans 5, Paul discusses Adam and Adam as a type of Christ. Paul seems to clearly conceive Adam as a historic character, but then he interprets the character of Adam and what is recorded of him and creates an allegorical interpretation to present a teaching about Christ. In Paul's mind, both the literal and allegorical interpretations of the account of Adam are valid.
Now this does not provide an further evidence that allegory is more acceptable than has commonly been given, as many of the texts of the Old Testament were interpreted allegorically to present a teaching about Christ, along with metaphorical. But if we look at Paul in Galatians 4, he uses an allegorical interpretation in order to present a teaching about the Old Covenant and New Covenant. Also, in Matthew 2:17-18 the slaughter of the children of Bethlehem was said to be a fulfillment of a text that literally was talking about the captivity of Israel by Babylon.
What we see here is that both literal and allegorical interpretations were used for topics other than Jesus Himself specifically. Now one might say, "but all those events are about Christ." And rightly so, they are. But Christian doctrine can not be separated from the Savior.
Now let me add a caveat to this. Just because we can make an allegorical statement does not mean it is doctrinally true for the Church. It may speak truth to the individual in some instances (and this I will address in a future post about objective vs subjective interpretations). There are correct allegorical interpretations and our perception of them, or the lack thereof, does not affect the truthfulness of them. Likewise, there can be "false" allegorical interpretations, but our perception of them does not make them true for the Church as a whole. This is not different than literal interpretations though.
Also, I think the allegorical interpretations can not be accurately seen without spiritual maturity. The author of Hebrews is a fan of presenting allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament to present teachings of Christ, but then says in one instance (Hebrews 5:11-14) it would be hard because they lack maturity. Paul also speaks of this in 1 Corinthians 2:6-3:2. Not just any Christian should try to understand the Bible allegory. Their spiritual understanding is weak and wrong interpretations could very easily lead them astray.
So conclude this series of posts. I do apologize for the lack of quality with this final post. I did this topic more as a topic to get my feet wet with this, and it instead turned a bit more complicated than I initially expected for this. So I expect that my reasoning may be hard to grasp at times and it feels like that I didn't quite prove my point. I feel that way myself and will revisit this topic in the future, I am sure. However, I have been a bit more anxious to get onto other topics, and thus the abrupt conclusion to this.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Biblical hermeneutics: Literal, allegorical, or both? (Part 3)
So to sum up the last post on this topic, I defined 3 different interpretation types of 2 different times of writing, story telling and declarative statements. To give a brief overview of them:
Story telling -
Literal and historical acceptance
Moral/lessons
Symbolism
Declarative statements -
Literal
Similar but modified meaning
Borrowed phrase but different meaning
This is by no means exhaustive, but it suits the purposes for this discussion. Nor are these precise categories. Also, keep in mind that a text can be taken in all the manners, and not just one. Acceptance of symbolism does not exclude the possibility of a historical interpretation, or vice versa. This is especially true knowing that God can work history and the method of storying telling out that all three can possibly be true (this is true for declarative statements).
Now, lets see if we can find these principles being used in the Bible. Basically, we would get our vindication from using quotes in such a manner by the way that the New Testament authors interpreted the Old Testament.
I believe that there are times for literal interpretations is obvious, though to the degree one should take the Bible literally is disagreed upon. But for now, I will assume that a literal interpretation is vindicated and will not endeavor to show how it is used in the New Testament (though if necessary I will provide evidence).
What about interpreting stories for a moral or lesson? One should look no further than Hebrews 11, which describes the faith of many people in the Old Testament. There the author talks about the situations they were in and how faith was pivotal in what they did, even though the Old Testament texts scantly talk about the results of their faith.
As for symbolic, Paul often times uses stories of the Old Testament as symbolic of Jesus Christ. A big one is the character of Adam. This is more of foreshadowing, but it is still taking a text presented in a story format taken in a symbolic matter.
As for modified meaning of a declarative text in Luke 13:27. There Jesus quotes from Psalms 6:8. In that Psalm, David tells people to depart from him because he was suffered but had prayed to God and was going to receive an answer. Whereas Jesus uses it, with the same basic meaning, but slightly altered to refer to being cast away at the judgment.
Finally, adopting the language but having a totally different meaning was demonstrated previously by Paul in Romans 10:6-8.
Again, this is not exhaustive and there are many other techniques of quoting the Old Testament in the Bible. My purpose is to demonstrate that there are some figurative ways the Old Testament was used.
In the next post, I will look into what is the proper manner in which to use the different interpretation techniques and what that usage means.
Story telling -
Literal and historical acceptance
Moral/lessons
Symbolism
Declarative statements -
Literal
Similar but modified meaning
Borrowed phrase but different meaning
This is by no means exhaustive, but it suits the purposes for this discussion. Nor are these precise categories. Also, keep in mind that a text can be taken in all the manners, and not just one. Acceptance of symbolism does not exclude the possibility of a historical interpretation, or vice versa. This is especially true knowing that God can work history and the method of storying telling out that all three can possibly be true (this is true for declarative statements).
Now, lets see if we can find these principles being used in the Bible. Basically, we would get our vindication from using quotes in such a manner by the way that the New Testament authors interpreted the Old Testament.
I believe that there are times for literal interpretations is obvious, though to the degree one should take the Bible literally is disagreed upon. But for now, I will assume that a literal interpretation is vindicated and will not endeavor to show how it is used in the New Testament (though if necessary I will provide evidence).
What about interpreting stories for a moral or lesson? One should look no further than Hebrews 11, which describes the faith of many people in the Old Testament. There the author talks about the situations they were in and how faith was pivotal in what they did, even though the Old Testament texts scantly talk about the results of their faith.
As for symbolic, Paul often times uses stories of the Old Testament as symbolic of Jesus Christ. A big one is the character of Adam. This is more of foreshadowing, but it is still taking a text presented in a story format taken in a symbolic matter.
As for modified meaning of a declarative text in Luke 13:27. There Jesus quotes from Psalms 6:8. In that Psalm, David tells people to depart from him because he was suffered but had prayed to God and was going to receive an answer. Whereas Jesus uses it, with the same basic meaning, but slightly altered to refer to being cast away at the judgment.
Finally, adopting the language but having a totally different meaning was demonstrated previously by Paul in Romans 10:6-8.
Again, this is not exhaustive and there are many other techniques of quoting the Old Testament in the Bible. My purpose is to demonstrate that there are some figurative ways the Old Testament was used.
In the next post, I will look into what is the proper manner in which to use the different interpretation techniques and what that usage means.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Levitcus 18:22
We interrupt our regularly scheduled program to discuss something else of pertinence.
I reading today, I came across a blog that made a statement about Leviticus 18:22 and its prohibition against homosexual relations. The claim is that it is about ritualistic uncleanliness and not about morality. The purpose then is to say that it the Law does not prohibit it in a moral sense, only that it is unclean but not sinful (or at least that I got). I have heard this one a few times. Secondly, I have heard from other places its Levitical Law and Christ came to take away the Law so it is no longer in effect. Is this really correct interpretations of Leviticus 18:22?
Let us look at the first interpretation that claims it is a matter of ritualistic cleanliness and not morality.
Let us note what is prohibited here in the context of Leviticus 18:22.
- One shall not uncover the nakedness of any blood relative (may be a euphemism for sexual realtions). See verses 6-17
- One shall not marry a spouse's sister (keep in mind Polygamy may have been tolerated though not necessarily embraced). See verse 18
- One shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman who is in their period. See verse 19
- One shall not have intercourse with a neighbor's wife (adultery). See verse 20.
- One shall not sacrifice children to the god Molech. See verse 21.
- One shall not lie with a man in the same way they lie with a woman. See verse 22.
- One shall not have intercourse with any animal. See verse 23
Taking away the prohibition against homosexuality, no one would consider the other prohibitions not about morality. It seems to be a double-standard applied to verse 22 in order to support a certain agenda.
Secondly, homosexuality is referred to as an abomination to God (along with all the things, in verse 24). In my brief look up of the word used there, the word is not used in anything that can clearly be said to be merely about ritual. Rather, the word seems to be used of something that is horrible in the eyes of God. The only other instance of the word in the laws of the Pentateuch is used to describe insects, to describe their uncleanliness.
Finally, there is no other indication that this is about ritualistic purity. Where is the discussion about how to be cleansed? Where is the discussion about who can approach the temple? What about transmitted the uncleanliness? Or anything else that is typical of what one could consider ritualistic purity texts? There are none. There is no contextual reason then, therefore, to consider Leviticus 18:22 to be about ritualistic purity.
These two basic points renders the first objection without evidence. One must conjecture that there is homosexuality is an exception in that list that seems to be about morality, or must change their moral stance of many issues. Secondly, they much make an exception of the usage abomination with no clear instance of the Hebrew word an abomination of God being used in a manner of ritualistic uncleanliness. Finally, they must argue without context indicating this is about ritualistic purity. Long story short is, the presupposition that Leviticus 18:22 is about ritualistic purity is without much substantial evidence, but based for the most part upon conjecture.
Besides, what would be the purpose or ritualistic purity? One can say the cleanliness laws were to prevent the transmissions of diseases. What about the ones in Leviticus 18? What practical value can one offer behind them? Even ritualistic purity had its purposes. What is the purpose of Leviticus 18 that is no longer in effect now, if it is about ritualistic purity?
This brings us to the second point, that this is Levitical Law and it is taken away by Christ. Notwithstanding that in my opinion this is a faulty interpretation of the theology of the New Testament surrounding the Law, was this a commandment that was restricted only to the Law? No. It isn't. Notice in verse 3, God commands the Israelites not to mimic the practices of Egypt and Canaan. Furthermore, God goes on to state that in verse 25 that the other nations have received punishment because of those practices, nations which were not under the Old Covenant. These prohibition were laid across many nations, regardless of whether they had the Law of Moses or not. Therefore, the only way to argue that these commandments are no longer in effect (assuming any commandments are annulled) is either:
1) To say that the Law of Moses applied across all nations, which in opposition to what Paul speaks of about the Law in regard to the Jews and Gentiles in Ephesians 2:14-25.
2) To say that Christ made all types of laws before He came void, not just the Law of Moses. This is circumspect as there is no indication of this type of teaching anywhere within the New Testament, not to mention the idea of Jesus annulling commandments is suspect.
So in summary, the evidence suggest that Leviticus 18:22 is about morality and that this moral code given in the Levitical Law is in effect now just as it was in effect for nations other than Israel then.
We will return to our regularly scheduled programming in the next installment.
I reading today, I came across a blog that made a statement about Leviticus 18:22 and its prohibition against homosexual relations. The claim is that it is about ritualistic uncleanliness and not about morality. The purpose then is to say that it the Law does not prohibit it in a moral sense, only that it is unclean but not sinful (or at least that I got). I have heard this one a few times. Secondly, I have heard from other places its Levitical Law and Christ came to take away the Law so it is no longer in effect. Is this really correct interpretations of Leviticus 18:22?
Let us look at the first interpretation that claims it is a matter of ritualistic cleanliness and not morality.
""Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, 'I am the LORD your God. 'You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes. 'You are to perform My judgments and keep My statutes, to live in accord with them; I am the LORD your God. 'So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.
'None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness; I am the LORD. 'You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, that is, the nakedness of your mother. She is your mother; you are not to uncover her nakedness. 'You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness. 'The nakedness of your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether born at home or born outside, their nakedness you shall not uncover. 'The nakedness of your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for their nakedness is yours. 'The nakedness of your father's wife's daughter, born to your father, she is your sister, you shall not uncover her nakedness. 'You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's sister; she is your father's blood relative. 'You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister, for she is your mother's blood relative. 'You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother; you shall not approach his wife, she is your aunt. 'You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son's wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. 'You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife; it is your brother's nakedness. 'You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, nor shall you take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they are blood relatives. It is lewdness. 'You shall not marry a woman in addition to her sister as a rival while she is alive, to uncover her nakedness. 'Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her menstrual impurity. 'You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor's wife, to be defiled with her. 'You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD. 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. 'Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.
'Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. 'For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants.
Leviticus 18:2-25 (NASB)
Let us note what is prohibited here in the context of Leviticus 18:22.
- One shall not uncover the nakedness of any blood relative (may be a euphemism for sexual realtions). See verses 6-17
- One shall not marry a spouse's sister (keep in mind Polygamy may have been tolerated though not necessarily embraced). See verse 18
- One shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman who is in their period. See verse 19
- One shall not have intercourse with a neighbor's wife (adultery). See verse 20.
- One shall not sacrifice children to the god Molech. See verse 21.
- One shall not lie with a man in the same way they lie with a woman. See verse 22.
- One shall not have intercourse with any animal. See verse 23
Taking away the prohibition against homosexuality, no one would consider the other prohibitions not about morality. It seems to be a double-standard applied to verse 22 in order to support a certain agenda.
Secondly, homosexuality is referred to as an abomination to God (along with all the things, in verse 24). In my brief look up of the word used there, the word is not used in anything that can clearly be said to be merely about ritual. Rather, the word seems to be used of something that is horrible in the eyes of God. The only other instance of the word in the laws of the Pentateuch is used to describe insects, to describe their uncleanliness.
Finally, there is no other indication that this is about ritualistic purity. Where is the discussion about how to be cleansed? Where is the discussion about who can approach the temple? What about transmitted the uncleanliness? Or anything else that is typical of what one could consider ritualistic purity texts? There are none. There is no contextual reason then, therefore, to consider Leviticus 18:22 to be about ritualistic purity.
These two basic points renders the first objection without evidence. One must conjecture that there is homosexuality is an exception in that list that seems to be about morality, or must change their moral stance of many issues. Secondly, they much make an exception of the usage abomination with no clear instance of the Hebrew word an abomination of God being used in a manner of ritualistic uncleanliness. Finally, they must argue without context indicating this is about ritualistic purity. Long story short is, the presupposition that Leviticus 18:22 is about ritualistic purity is without much substantial evidence, but based for the most part upon conjecture.
Besides, what would be the purpose or ritualistic purity? One can say the cleanliness laws were to prevent the transmissions of diseases. What about the ones in Leviticus 18? What practical value can one offer behind them? Even ritualistic purity had its purposes. What is the purpose of Leviticus 18 that is no longer in effect now, if it is about ritualistic purity?
This brings us to the second point, that this is Levitical Law and it is taken away by Christ. Notwithstanding that in my opinion this is a faulty interpretation of the theology of the New Testament surrounding the Law, was this a commandment that was restricted only to the Law? No. It isn't. Notice in verse 3, God commands the Israelites not to mimic the practices of Egypt and Canaan. Furthermore, God goes on to state that in verse 25 that the other nations have received punishment because of those practices, nations which were not under the Old Covenant. These prohibition were laid across many nations, regardless of whether they had the Law of Moses or not. Therefore, the only way to argue that these commandments are no longer in effect (assuming any commandments are annulled) is either:
1) To say that the Law of Moses applied across all nations, which in opposition to what Paul speaks of about the Law in regard to the Jews and Gentiles in Ephesians 2:14-25.
2) To say that Christ made all types of laws before He came void, not just the Law of Moses. This is circumspect as there is no indication of this type of teaching anywhere within the New Testament, not to mention the idea of Jesus annulling commandments is suspect.
So in summary, the evidence suggest that Leviticus 18:22 is about morality and that this moral code given in the Levitical Law is in effect now just as it was in effect for nations other than Israel then.
We will return to our regularly scheduled programming in the next installment.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Biblical hermeneutics: Literal, allegorical, or both? (Part 2)
When we communicate, we communicate in many ways and forms. Even in written or spoken language, there can be multiple ways to communicate a certain point or idea. However, the natural way people communicate is in a literal manner. When I say "I am hungry" it is pretty likely I am trying to speak fact that I want to eat something. This is the most natural and basic form of communication we humans have. However, it is not the only way.
Do you remember as a child when your parents or someone else would tell you a story? Many times the story was told to entertain the child. Often times though, there was a moral behind the story. The story itself was presented as if it actually happened, even though it may or may not convey an actual event. A big purpose of the story though, whether it is real or not, was to give a specific message. For instance, the story of George Washington and the cherry tree. Regardless if it is true or not (and it probably is not) it teaches the moral that we should not lie. This is a perfectly acceptable way to communicate, even if it was not a real story. Stories sometimes helps to convey a message better than a direct plain statement, like "You should not lie." This is because we are emotional people, and stories evoke more emotions than a regular straight-forward statement. In this type of interpretation of a story though, whether it is true or not is not the issue. Rather, it is the meaning of the story.
However, those types of stories with a moral behind it are a different type of allegory than that of stories like Narnia. In stories such as George Washington and the cherry tree, there is a specific message behind it. The meaning is up forward and often times presents itself in a a specific action and it is a simple message. Other allegorical stories, on the other hand, are more expansive in their meaning. They also convey allegorical meanings differently. For instance in the Chronicles of Narnia, the lion Aslan symbolically represents Jesus Christ, whereas the White Witch may be said to symbolically represent Satan. In these type of stories, the allegory is represented through symbolic means that the reader must connect. They are more hidden and are rarely seen. Also, many, if not most, of the characters, events, etc. that are contained in such stories have a deeper symbolic meaning.
However, it must be said that the stories that have a deeper meaning still require a certain level of literal understanding, because we communicate literal ideas through language and then the hearer makes connections between the literal meaning and deeper meaning. But, how literal the story is taken varies, because the story may be taken in a literal manner, but it is not taken in a very literal way, as if to say the story is historical. But a literal meaning must be understood before any deeper meaning can be gleaned.
Communications though takes many other forms other than just story telling. The bulk of the Old Testament is a collection of stories, but there are many declarative statements that are talking about the present reality. For instance, the letters of Paul have very little story telling in them. Instead, they are more descriptive of an idea. That type of writing in most any context would be taken literally with very few attempts to search for allegorical meanings.
However, this does not stop us from using certain parts of such texts in alternative ways. For instance, we may hear a speaker talking about being a entrepreneur and he makes the statement "Never give up." Taken in the context of his speech, it is talking about always make every effort to make your business succeed. He is not necessarily talking about enduring in other situations. However, a listener might take that quote and apply it to other facets of their life. This does not betray the meaning of the quote, but it is used in a different way than the author intended it. We expand the meaning of a statement to include something that it did not originally mean.
We can go even further in such borrowing of words. We can sometimes strip something that is said of its original meaning and give it an entirely new meaning. We may possible modify it a little bit or leave it in is original form. I struggle as of the moment to give a non-Biblical example of such, so I will present a Biblical example. In Romans 10:6-8, Paul makes a loose quotation from Deuteronomy 30:12-14. Deuteronomy 30:12-14 talks about the fact that the people had the commandments of God and it was with them right there. Paul borrow and modifies the language in order to present a teaching not about commandments but about Jesus Christ and how He came to the earth from heaven and rose from the dead. The original usage and the modified usage are distinctly different. This type of usage is sometimes used in order to make remembering a specific teaching easier to remember by relating it to something we have heard.
It should be said that when we borrow statements and alter their meaning and little bit or a lot, we can not claim the original intent of the statement by the original author is in fact agreeing with what we are claiming. Nevertheless, these methods of borrowing the language of others is acceptable in certain instances.
Now I know that I have not given an exhaustive overview of how we interpret written and spoken language. Nor is it very technical. However, I hoped this gives you a basic idea of how we interpret statements in ways that can be acceptable in certain instances. In the next post, I will apply what we have here to Biblical interpretation.
Do you remember as a child when your parents or someone else would tell you a story? Many times the story was told to entertain the child. Often times though, there was a moral behind the story. The story itself was presented as if it actually happened, even though it may or may not convey an actual event. A big purpose of the story though, whether it is real or not, was to give a specific message. For instance, the story of George Washington and the cherry tree. Regardless if it is true or not (and it probably is not) it teaches the moral that we should not lie. This is a perfectly acceptable way to communicate, even if it was not a real story. Stories sometimes helps to convey a message better than a direct plain statement, like "You should not lie." This is because we are emotional people, and stories evoke more emotions than a regular straight-forward statement. In this type of interpretation of a story though, whether it is true or not is not the issue. Rather, it is the meaning of the story.
However, those types of stories with a moral behind it are a different type of allegory than that of stories like Narnia. In stories such as George Washington and the cherry tree, there is a specific message behind it. The meaning is up forward and often times presents itself in a a specific action and it is a simple message. Other allegorical stories, on the other hand, are more expansive in their meaning. They also convey allegorical meanings differently. For instance in the Chronicles of Narnia, the lion Aslan symbolically represents Jesus Christ, whereas the White Witch may be said to symbolically represent Satan. In these type of stories, the allegory is represented through symbolic means that the reader must connect. They are more hidden and are rarely seen. Also, many, if not most, of the characters, events, etc. that are contained in such stories have a deeper symbolic meaning.
However, it must be said that the stories that have a deeper meaning still require a certain level of literal understanding, because we communicate literal ideas through language and then the hearer makes connections between the literal meaning and deeper meaning. But, how literal the story is taken varies, because the story may be taken in a literal manner, but it is not taken in a very literal way, as if to say the story is historical. But a literal meaning must be understood before any deeper meaning can be gleaned.
Communications though takes many other forms other than just story telling. The bulk of the Old Testament is a collection of stories, but there are many declarative statements that are talking about the present reality. For instance, the letters of Paul have very little story telling in them. Instead, they are more descriptive of an idea. That type of writing in most any context would be taken literally with very few attempts to search for allegorical meanings.
However, this does not stop us from using certain parts of such texts in alternative ways. For instance, we may hear a speaker talking about being a entrepreneur and he makes the statement "Never give up." Taken in the context of his speech, it is talking about always make every effort to make your business succeed. He is not necessarily talking about enduring in other situations. However, a listener might take that quote and apply it to other facets of their life. This does not betray the meaning of the quote, but it is used in a different way than the author intended it. We expand the meaning of a statement to include something that it did not originally mean.
We can go even further in such borrowing of words. We can sometimes strip something that is said of its original meaning and give it an entirely new meaning. We may possible modify it a little bit or leave it in is original form. I struggle as of the moment to give a non-Biblical example of such, so I will present a Biblical example. In Romans 10:6-8, Paul makes a loose quotation from Deuteronomy 30:12-14. Deuteronomy 30:12-14 talks about the fact that the people had the commandments of God and it was with them right there. Paul borrow and modifies the language in order to present a teaching not about commandments but about Jesus Christ and how He came to the earth from heaven and rose from the dead. The original usage and the modified usage are distinctly different. This type of usage is sometimes used in order to make remembering a specific teaching easier to remember by relating it to something we have heard.
It should be said that when we borrow statements and alter their meaning and little bit or a lot, we can not claim the original intent of the statement by the original author is in fact agreeing with what we are claiming. Nevertheless, these methods of borrowing the language of others is acceptable in certain instances.
Now I know that I have not given an exhaustive overview of how we interpret written and spoken language. Nor is it very technical. However, I hoped this gives you a basic idea of how we interpret statements in ways that can be acceptable in certain instances. In the next post, I will apply what we have here to Biblical interpretation.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Biblical hermeneutics: Literal, allegorical, or both? (Part 1)
How many have read stories such as Narnia or the Lord of the Rings trilogy and find deeper messages about the Christian faith in them? These books, along with a host of others, present a story in a literal way (albeit, not generally historical) but have a deeper meaning to them, shown through key actions and themes throughout the story. This type of teaching is often referred to as allegory. However, allegory is not a concept that has been reserved for books that present themselves as fiction. Allegory has also been used to draw teachings out of the Bible.
A big area of contention in some groups is how should we interpret the Bible. This has been an issue even in the early church. For instance, the Antiochian and Alexandrian schools of thought for Biblical interpretation differed, with the former emphasizing a more literal approach to Scriptural understanding whereas the Alexandrian school had a more figurative approach to Scripture (though neither side was exclusively one or the other).
Today, there are some groups that are very prone to literal interpretation with literal regard for allegory. Take for instance many conservative Christians and most Bible scholars. Their approach to Scripture is rooted in a historical-grammatical approach to the Scriptures. In other words, they try to understand the texts of the Bible by understand the times in which it was written and through the grammar of the language in which the text was written. The assumption that is made about the Bible is that each text has only one intended meaning and no other. However, this principle is not applied strictly at all points, as many recognize that much of the commandments within the Law of Moses, such as the sacrificial system, are shadows of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice.
On the other hand, there are many groups that approach much of Scripture allegorically, even some scholars. For instance, many take Genesis 1-11 to be narratives presented in order to convey deeper meanings. Some take the stance that one can not know the literal historical value of the text, and others say it is not possible. So they glean teachings from the text by looking for themes and key parts of the text that could be interpreted as commentary on an aspect of life or theology. However, even in their attempts to take deeper meanings from the text, they have to use some literal interpretation techniques in order to be able to take some allegorical teachings. Furthermore, there is a greater tendency with those who approach the Bible with a more allegorical approach to see a plurality of meanings within the text. This is the theme within the emerging church today that emphasizes narratives and the teachings that can be taken from them. With post-modernism (though this is not a well defined term) and relativism more prevalent today, it is an increasingly more popular way of approaching the Bible.
Who is right? What is the proper approach to understanding the Bible? The Bible itself does not specifically say "you shall interpret the Bible literally" (or the opposite). Nor does it prescribe directions as to when to use what type of Bible interpretation method. Therefore, in order to try to obtain an answer, we must look at how we as humans typically understand the written language. In the next post, I will attempt to look deeper into how we are understand written language and work from there.
Terms to define:
hermeneutics - the development and study of theories of the interpretation and understanding of texts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics)
allegory - a figurative mode of representation conveying a meaning other than the literal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory)
A big area of contention in some groups is how should we interpret the Bible. This has been an issue even in the early church. For instance, the Antiochian and Alexandrian schools of thought for Biblical interpretation differed, with the former emphasizing a more literal approach to Scriptural understanding whereas the Alexandrian school had a more figurative approach to Scripture (though neither side was exclusively one or the other).
Today, there are some groups that are very prone to literal interpretation with literal regard for allegory. Take for instance many conservative Christians and most Bible scholars. Their approach to Scripture is rooted in a historical-grammatical approach to the Scriptures. In other words, they try to understand the texts of the Bible by understand the times in which it was written and through the grammar of the language in which the text was written. The assumption that is made about the Bible is that each text has only one intended meaning and no other. However, this principle is not applied strictly at all points, as many recognize that much of the commandments within the Law of Moses, such as the sacrificial system, are shadows of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice.
On the other hand, there are many groups that approach much of Scripture allegorically, even some scholars. For instance, many take Genesis 1-11 to be narratives presented in order to convey deeper meanings. Some take the stance that one can not know the literal historical value of the text, and others say it is not possible. So they glean teachings from the text by looking for themes and key parts of the text that could be interpreted as commentary on an aspect of life or theology. However, even in their attempts to take deeper meanings from the text, they have to use some literal interpretation techniques in order to be able to take some allegorical teachings. Furthermore, there is a greater tendency with those who approach the Bible with a more allegorical approach to see a plurality of meanings within the text. This is the theme within the emerging church today that emphasizes narratives and the teachings that can be taken from them. With post-modernism (though this is not a well defined term) and relativism more prevalent today, it is an increasingly more popular way of approaching the Bible.
Who is right? What is the proper approach to understanding the Bible? The Bible itself does not specifically say "you shall interpret the Bible literally" (or the opposite). Nor does it prescribe directions as to when to use what type of Bible interpretation method. Therefore, in order to try to obtain an answer, we must look at how we as humans typically understand the written language. In the next post, I will attempt to look deeper into how we are understand written language and work from there.
Terms to define:
hermeneutics - the development and study of theories of the interpretation and understanding of texts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics)
allegory - a figurative mode of representation conveying a meaning other than the literal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory)
Purpose of this blog
For over 2000 years, the attempts to explain the truth about God and Jesus Christ, their relationship to humanity, holiness, sin, salvation, Scripture, and the rest has been under discussion, debate, and evolution. In surveying the different beliefs throughout the history of Christianity, from conservative to liberal Christianity, from the early church to the post-modern church, from Catholicism and the Orthodox church (though by no means are they the same) to Protestantism, there have been a wide range of beliefs and ideas. What is true and what isn't? How can we know the truth regarding God, Jesus Christ, and humanity?
This is yet another attempt by another person in order to try to make sense of it all. I don't make claims to the monopoly on the truth, nor do I even claim I have more truth than others. With that said, I do think I have insight, though because I think that does not mean I truly have insight. I have been wrong many times in the past and still to this day I find errors in my thinking.
I want this to be a radical exploration of the faith from the start. I want to rid myself of all the theology that we have amassed over the years and use as a framework to understand the Scriptures, whether the framework is right or not. Not that it is necessarily wrong, but that it allows us to validate the truth in the understanding that we have and rid ourselves of the the false understands we currently have. In the end, it allows us to reconstruct a framework in which to understand Christianity.
I want to say though, this sounds like I do not hold to orthodox beliefs such as the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, etc. I do in fact hold on to those, but this is an attempt to validate those teachings further by starting fresh from the beginning. To go through what the Early Church Fathers went through. Perhaps we can uncover something that they didn't pick up. Perhaps we can correct an error that tradition has handed to us. Perhaps we can validate everything we have believed up to this point.
However, this is not only an attempt to reinvestigate the ideas that developed early in the church. It is to be an investigation and discussion (if any others every partake of it) of all aspects of Christian theology. And it isn't to be an intellectual exercise either. This is also to look into the more practical aspects of Christianity and how we are to operate our lives. It is to look at our spiritual lives, or to describe in more secular terms, our psychology, and the role God plays in our lives. Furthermore, I am not going to be terribly concerned about the language used. Much of Christian theology has been in contention over wording and that is to fall short of the spirit of the faith. Along with that, many people think theology is boring, or even worse, useless, because they perceive it as a bunch of argument about nothing but fancy words and complicated ideas that are not practical. I want to avoid that and change the perception of that (though I am not deluded as to think I have a great chance of grabbing the attention of many people and changing their minds, though there is always that hope).
In this blog, I will start with a few basic assumptions, though the last couple are more of starting points than they are assumptions that will not be changed.
1) There is absolute truth apart from our perception of it - The way the truth plays out may be a bit differently for different people, but the basic premises are true irregardless of our perceptions, experience, feelings, and beliefs.
2) Christianity is true - This is not to make any statement how valid or invalid other religions are. The aim of this blog is not to be a polemic against other religions. That is not to say that it is to be approving of other religions either. Regarding other religions, the discussion is essentially neutral until evidence is presented otherwise.
3) All Scripture is true - This I do not hold to dogmatically. By that I mean I am not going to force Scripture to be true if something that is there is indeed false. But I start with the assumption that everything contained in the Bible is true in its original purpose and intent of the author (and maybe other ways) unless shown otherwise.
4) The sixty-six books of the Protestant canon is to be the source for Scripture - Now this is definitely much more debatable than the other three within Christianity. However, since this is something I am endeavoring and I have come from a Protestant tradition, I figure the best starting point is from where I am most familiar. Should there be the need to argue for the inclusion of others books (such as the Apocrypha) or the exclusions of others (such as the Pastoral Epistles [Titus, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy], any of the general epistles, or Revelation) as inspired will come should the evidence present itself. But I will start from the point that all sixty-six books in the Protestant canon are all inspired and all that is inspired.
I want to reemphasize that this is not an attempt to deny traditional Christianity. As a matter of fact, I hope to vindicate much of it in the minds of others and myself.
Furthermore, I don't want to seem like I am belittling the idea of tradition. I have a healthy respect for tradition. Tradition is a democracy in allowing the people of the past to voice their opinions (I can not claim this idea to myself but where I first heard it I can not remember).
Also, everything I have written here is an ideal for my approach. However, I recognize the realities is that there will be times that I maintain too much of my Protestant upbringing (though I am not a typical Protestant, as I do label myself as a ProCathOdox, though somewhat as a joke but with some reality behind it).
Finally, I am not a scholar, though I have undertaken some scholastic pursuits and I would not object to being one. Nor am I a pastor, though I believe God has called me to be one. I am, as of the time of this writing, a 22 year old college student who will graduate in May (assuming I fail no classes) and who plans on going to seminary (Asbury seminary to be precise) but when I will make it there I do not yet know. But first and foremost, I am child of God, saved by Jesus Christ, trying to understand God more and become a more humble and holy servant.
This is yet another attempt by another person in order to try to make sense of it all. I don't make claims to the monopoly on the truth, nor do I even claim I have more truth than others. With that said, I do think I have insight, though because I think that does not mean I truly have insight. I have been wrong many times in the past and still to this day I find errors in my thinking.
I want this to be a radical exploration of the faith from the start. I want to rid myself of all the theology that we have amassed over the years and use as a framework to understand the Scriptures, whether the framework is right or not. Not that it is necessarily wrong, but that it allows us to validate the truth in the understanding that we have and rid ourselves of the the false understands we currently have. In the end, it allows us to reconstruct a framework in which to understand Christianity.
I want to say though, this sounds like I do not hold to orthodox beliefs such as the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, etc. I do in fact hold on to those, but this is an attempt to validate those teachings further by starting fresh from the beginning. To go through what the Early Church Fathers went through. Perhaps we can uncover something that they didn't pick up. Perhaps we can correct an error that tradition has handed to us. Perhaps we can validate everything we have believed up to this point.
However, this is not only an attempt to reinvestigate the ideas that developed early in the church. It is to be an investigation and discussion (if any others every partake of it) of all aspects of Christian theology. And it isn't to be an intellectual exercise either. This is also to look into the more practical aspects of Christianity and how we are to operate our lives. It is to look at our spiritual lives, or to describe in more secular terms, our psychology, and the role God plays in our lives. Furthermore, I am not going to be terribly concerned about the language used. Much of Christian theology has been in contention over wording and that is to fall short of the spirit of the faith. Along with that, many people think theology is boring, or even worse, useless, because they perceive it as a bunch of argument about nothing but fancy words and complicated ideas that are not practical. I want to avoid that and change the perception of that (though I am not deluded as to think I have a great chance of grabbing the attention of many people and changing their minds, though there is always that hope).
In this blog, I will start with a few basic assumptions, though the last couple are more of starting points than they are assumptions that will not be changed.
1) There is absolute truth apart from our perception of it - The way the truth plays out may be a bit differently for different people, but the basic premises are true irregardless of our perceptions, experience, feelings, and beliefs.
2) Christianity is true - This is not to make any statement how valid or invalid other religions are. The aim of this blog is not to be a polemic against other religions. That is not to say that it is to be approving of other religions either. Regarding other religions, the discussion is essentially neutral until evidence is presented otherwise.
3) All Scripture is true - This I do not hold to dogmatically. By that I mean I am not going to force Scripture to be true if something that is there is indeed false. But I start with the assumption that everything contained in the Bible is true in its original purpose and intent of the author (and maybe other ways) unless shown otherwise.
4) The sixty-six books of the Protestant canon is to be the source for Scripture - Now this is definitely much more debatable than the other three within Christianity. However, since this is something I am endeavoring and I have come from a Protestant tradition, I figure the best starting point is from where I am most familiar. Should there be the need to argue for the inclusion of others books (such as the Apocrypha) or the exclusions of others (such as the Pastoral Epistles [Titus, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy], any of the general epistles, or Revelation) as inspired will come should the evidence present itself. But I will start from the point that all sixty-six books in the Protestant canon are all inspired and all that is inspired.
I want to reemphasize that this is not an attempt to deny traditional Christianity. As a matter of fact, I hope to vindicate much of it in the minds of others and myself.
Furthermore, I don't want to seem like I am belittling the idea of tradition. I have a healthy respect for tradition. Tradition is a democracy in allowing the people of the past to voice their opinions (I can not claim this idea to myself but where I first heard it I can not remember).
Also, everything I have written here is an ideal for my approach. However, I recognize the realities is that there will be times that I maintain too much of my Protestant upbringing (though I am not a typical Protestant, as I do label myself as a ProCathOdox, though somewhat as a joke but with some reality behind it).
Finally, I am not a scholar, though I have undertaken some scholastic pursuits and I would not object to being one. Nor am I a pastor, though I believe God has called me to be one. I am, as of the time of this writing, a 22 year old college student who will graduate in May (assuming I fail no classes) and who plans on going to seminary (Asbury seminary to be precise) but when I will make it there I do not yet know. But first and foremost, I am child of God, saved by Jesus Christ, trying to understand God more and become a more humble and holy servant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)