Respondeo

Lutheran exegesis

On March 25, 2017

The attributes of God the son are shared with the human nature continually and yet somehow the human nature remains ontologically human. A short example of hermeneutics gone wrong from a recent paper I wrote on confessional materiels in the Lutheran church. There is a failure here to realize that if a certain understanding of a passage leads you to strained reasoning about the natures of Christ, it might be better to go back and re-look at other possibilities for your exegesis.

Here is the segment:

The Lutheran case is much more subtle. There is much to commend about it. They are determined to the hold to the unity of the two persons of Christ. I appreciate their commitment to the term Theotokos, that is, Mary was the God-bearer. Further, I appreciate their commitment to the fact that the Son of God suffered in the flesh. This, of course, should be tempered by an understanding that this suffering is not ontological, but relational.

The great problem is in their understanding of the communicato idiomatum. The communicatio idiomatum is the sharing of the attributes of the persons with one another. In this way, the Son can exercise the omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence of God. They are careful, however, to say that this is limited. They reject that the human nature is present everywhere in the same way the divine nature is present. But they affirm shared attributes. God the Son shares his attributes with his human nature in a static, undefined way. Part of the source of this problem is that the Lutherans want a unity in the nature of Christ; that somehow the divine nature in the Son of God became human flesh. It would be better to say, the person of the Son of God took on human flesh.

They also misunderstand the reformed understanding of the communication idiomatum. The reformed do believe that the divine nature shares attributes with the human nature. This is, however, done through the Spirit. Thus attributes are given are given to the son at certain points during his life, so that he can discern the minds of men and be aware of the future, but they are not shared in a static continual sense.

The Lutheran understanding, though thankfully not changing the essence of the son, seems to affirm the static, continual sense of the communication idiomatum. In this way, the Lutherans do not leave room for a maturing Jesus. They also end up with an apparent contradiction.The attributes of God the son are shared with the human nature continually and yet somehow the human nature remains ontologically human.

The ultimate problem, however, lies with the source of this document. The Lutherans want to affirm the physical presence of Christ at the table because of his words, “This is my body.” If this were a necessary interpretation of that phrase, the Lutherans would be right to come to their convoluted understanding of the natures of Christ. We would have to affirm that there is something mysterious going on here. If, however, there were an alternate understanding of that text that did not lead to the strained reasoning they have in this passage, it might be better to take that understanding. This would lead to an understanding of the two natures that would be less prone to losing the real humanity Christ, even as he rules in heaven today. What goes on at the Lord’s Supper is still a mystery, of course. How does the Spirit cause us to ascend into the throne room of Christ? What does it mean that we eat of Christ’s flesh? With a spiritual understanding of “This is my body” we can admit this mystery, and further, the mystery of the incarnation, without losing sight of the full humanity of Christ.

Is Theology the Queen of the Sciences?

By James

On March 18, 2017

In Hermeneutics, The Basics

The answer to the question might seem obvious to a bible-believing Christian. Yes, theology is the Queen of the sciences. The Bible is authoritative over every area of life, therefore the theology, which comes from the bible, is also over every area of life. However, the question answer is not quite so simple. Does that mean theologians can start telling scientists how to do science?

One way to understand the question is to argue that the bible is authoritative over every area of life, but theology, a scientific discipline in its own right, should not be exalted over the others. We look at the question this way: The bible is over everything. The bible is the King. Every science is equally subject to the bible and equally authoritative in its own field. The representatives of the various sciences will have a conversation as equals.

I would disagree. I believe, as was argued in the beginning, that theology proceeds from scripture and therefore theology functions as the queen of the sciences. Theology is the study of foundations as revealed in scripture. These are foundations for every area of study. This does not mean there is no room for conversation between Theology and other disciplines. This is necessary because Theologians may get something wrong in its understanding of scripture and may be corrected through another disciple. Theology through discussing a matter with the Science of Archeology, for example, may receive a deeper understanding of scripture.

What about the problem of theologians, who think they can inform members of other disciplines how to their work? We need to make an important distinction here between the experts and the discipline itself. The discipline itself doesn’t claim to teach methodology to other disciplines. It only claims an understanding of the significance of other disciplines. It gives answers to the deepest questions that all other disciplines must answer in order exist. Further, like every other discipline, theology does not belong to a special group of people. It belongs to all people. There are those who can claim greater expertise or greater knowledge in theology, but every person will have a bit of the theologian in them. Individual persons may misuse the discipline for their own ends, arguing that their conclusions should have primacy. When theology is the queen of the sciences that does not make her courtiers (theologians), supreme lords over the other sciences.

Involved in Providence

By James

On March 11, 2017

In Uncategorized

A short excerpt from a paper I recently wrote on an article by Robert Jenson. Here is one way to think about how prayer works. Prayer is a means in the plan of redemption and it moves along the plan of redemption.

Christians, through prayer, really are involved in providence.

When we understand this within the immutability of God’s decree, we see that God brings all things to be through his good pleasure. As beings in time, we can be confident in the certainty of God’s immutability; that he will always remain faithful. At the same time, we can, as part of God’s immutable plan, be certain that our prayers are means that truly are significant in God bringing out his plan of redemption. We can trust this is true, because God is not before us temporally, but is before us as the eternal king. He is both the beginning and the end. This means we don’t need to be fatalists. As Christians, we are living, breathing, free means within the immutable plan of redemption.

Are Christians idealists?

By James

On March 4, 2017

In Hermeneutics, History

When people get down to the business of deciding what to do, a divide tends to reveal itself. This is the divide between the realist and the idealist. The hard-headed realist is ready to do what’s necessary for the sake of his friends and family. He will choose the pragmatic option. He hold to the dictum, “the ends justify the means.” The idealist appeals to high-minded principles. It would seem that Christians are idealists because Christians desire to see real justice and real mercy in the world around us. Are we really just fighting for our ideals though? Are we pursuing a false Utopia?

I would argue that idealism and realism come together in Christ. Christ exemplified the ideal kingdom, that is, the kingdom of perfect righteousness that people long for and at the same time he lived in the harsh realism of this world. Christ was real. He walked and ate and drank. Christ showed the world that the kingdom of righteousness was something that was real and that it was something that was exemplified in his very real life. Christian idealism is historical, which means that it is not based on an idea but on a person. As Christians, we are fighting for the justice and mercy of that kingdom.

As people, however, we all live in really messed up situations. Is High-minded idealism really the right option for these situations? How do we combine our idealism with realism so that it is actually successful? Once again, Christ is the one who shows us how to cross this impasse. We cross it through our willingness to suffer. Through suffering, Christ showed the world that somebody could live according to their ideals. Now Christ was not living according to ideals but to the words of his Father in heaven. In particular, Christ suffered through his patience. He was constant in his patience toward his disciples, who had not fully grasped their calling to live for the sake of the kingdom of God.

Christians are realists in so far as they are patient with their brothers and sisters in Christ, as well as all their neighbors, as these fail in living according to the love and mercy of the kingdom. Christians are idealists, not in that they serve an idea, but in that they serve a person who exemplified the virtues fo the kingdom of God. This does not mean there are no hard choices. It does mean that we are willing to suffer for making the better choice.

We have Direct Access to our Lord Jesus.

By James

On February 24, 2017

In Uncategorized

A little bit of exposition from Colossians 1:16:

Through Christ, God the Father has created everything. Paul emphasizes that through the words, “heaven and earth.” In other words, the whole universe. Also, “visible and invisible.” That means, angels too. Then he gives us a number of descriptors of things that are created through Christ. These are “thrones and authorities, principalities and powers.” These could be human kings and emperors, but they can also refer to angelic powers behind the thrones and authorities. Paul probably means to include both. The church, just like the Jews of Paul’s time, is always tempted to give too much value to these created authorities. The fact is, these were created through Jesus. These powers owe allegiance to Jesus.

We are told later on that, in particular, the principalities and powers have been conquered through Jesus’ death. Colossians 2:15, “Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it,” that is, in the cross.

There is something big going on here. In the time of the Old Testament, the world was under the guardianship of angels. In particular, we know that the law of the Old Covenant was administered by angels. Hebrews 2:2, Acts 7: 53 and Galatians 3: 19 all confirm this. We know from the visions of Daniel in Daniel 7-11 that other nations had their angelic powers (perhaps even demonic powers) as well. Now Jesus has come. He has lived under the law that had been established through these angels. And he has fulfilled that law. He broke the power of that law and supplanted the authority of the angels who administered it.

That means that there is no hierarchy between us and Jesus anymore. We, as sons of God, have outgrown our tutor, the law of the OT, according to Galatians four, and we directly serve our Saviour Jesus Christ. Colossians 2: 14 confirms this, “He has nailed it (the handwriting of the requirements that were against us) to the cross of Christ. We are no longer subjected to these authorities and powers, but we are directly subjected to Christ through his death and resurrection. As we are told in the very next verse, “he is the head of the church.” This means that these powers have no control over the world anymore, not even an intermediary power.

Do You Believe in Progress?

By James

On February 18, 2017

In Hermeneutics, History

Is there a movement to history? Is the history of man a smooth journey to happiness and flourishing? Or is it bound to end in failure? How does history work? It’s hard to talk about the philosophy of history without talking about Hegel. Hegel thought that history was the self-realization of the spirit. This self-realization was defined by the struggle between a thesis (let’s say the work of priests and rituals; it could be anything) an antithesis (Let’s say philosophy and writing). The struggle would result in synthesis, meaning the problems between those two groups had been solved.

His work gave birth to the discipline of philosophical history. Obviously, most of the people who listened to him didn’t believe that he had actually discovered the final truth. This was a discipline that tried to find principles for how history works. I want to explore some versions of philosophical history that are popular today or have been popular in the recent past. I want to suggest a Christian response with a Christian understanding of philosophical history. You might say, a Christian understanding of progress.

Popular understandings of progress.

While Hegel popularized idealist history, very few people have a similar understanding today. Idealist history focusses on the knowledge of spirit. philosophical history today is much more materialist. Materialist history focusses on the struggle between classes or between man and nature, not so much on ideas. It is good to know that there is a difference here, but it will not be important for the rest of our paper.

Many, maybe most, people today would unthinkingly hold to the “whig theory of history.” This is the idea that things will slowly and naturally progress throughout history. People will become more peaceful and open-minded. Innovations will continue to progress: slowly but surely raising the standard of living. New knowledge will be continually superseding old knowledge.

Contemporary activists, whether they fight for LGBT rights or women’s rights, hold to a similar understanding. They are, however, much more revolutionary in their methods. In the mind of these activists, the highest good is egalitarianism and the greatest enemy of the good life is exlusivism. They seem to believe that society will continually become more open to those that are different than themselves. We have seen huge strides against racism directed against African Americans; they want to see it again through their fight for other minorities.

Personal theories of progress

Like the egalitarians, Marx also saw revolution as a means toward the end of happiness. He argued for violent revolution. Marx saw the goal as the happy life of each person “working according to his ability and receiving according to his need.” In Marx’s mind, the thing that stood in the way was “property rights.”

It may initially seem funny to compare a libertarian like Rothbard with Marx. Rothbard is a defender of property-rights. But he himself sees a similarity in that he is fighting against the oppressive class. There is an oppressive class and an oppressed class. Rothbard is fighting against the old order of Europe Marx may be wrong on economic theory. He may be wrong on his use of the apparatus of the state in order to bring about revolution, but he sees the importance of revolution against the oppressing class. For Murray Rothbard, the ultimate goal is liberty, while the obstacle to that goal is the oppressor. The way forward is in continually standing against the tyrants of the day.

Christians and progress

In a way, Murray Rothbard comes the closest to what we might call a Christian view of progress. In the scriptures, there is a strong sense that we are moving toward liberty. The old order (in this case the order before Christ), is not necessarily evil, but it is something that we have grown out of. We can think of Paul in Galatians 4, speaking of the children of the Jerusalem above who were under a tutor at one point and now have grown up.

There is an evil old order as well. It lives alongside the other old order, which is the law. This is the the oppression of sin and death. It is the rule of what Augustine might call the libido dominandi, that is, the desire for power. That means that the desire to oppress men is in all of us. Christ brough about salvation by humbling the libido dominandi.

How does this apply politically? Christians understand that all men need to be delivered from that sin and death and that it begins with their own deliverance. Once delivered they need to keep putting to death their desire for power. Christ taught us how to attack that desire for power in ourselves and in others. Christ humbled himself. He took the same advice he gave his disciples in Matthew 18. He accounted himself as humble, just like a small child. Through humility, we undermine the structures of power by beginning with ourselves.

Christians disagree with Rothbard in two areas then. We disagree that there is an old order out there. That old order is in us. That is why revolutions will often lead to something worse than that which they were attacking in the first place. It follows that we also disagree with revolutions. Revolutions don’t deal with the desire for power that is in everybody.

Christians do believe in progress. Our goal is the freedom to practice the righteousness of Christ. The problem is our own complicity in enslaving others and enslaving ourselves. The means is the humility of Christ, which can only be accomplished by trusting in Christ. Christ is the only humble man and, as the one who has been resurrected and ascended to the right hand of God, he provides the means we have to fight against our own desire to control other people.

Altars in the New Testament

By James

On February 9, 2017

In Hermeneutics

Altars are one of the most important items used in the worship of the Old Testament. How are we to apply their significance to New Testament Christians?

Allegory

In the New Testament, centered on the sacrifice of Christ, altars, the place of sacrifices, are highly significant. Ultimately, we can see every function of the altar in the person of Christ. Christ is our entrance into the heavens through his ascension. He brings us up to the mountain of God. Christ purifies us through his sacrifice so that our corrupt flesh may approach. Christ offers himself as a new food for those who enter into his courtroom. He is a new food that signifies peace between man and God. Christ also functions as a witness. He is a witness between men and God. As ministers of the gospel, we are called to present Christ crucified in our preaching (Galatians 3: 1). Christ is also a refuge to whom all can flee. Paul draws an analogy between Christ and the altar in 1 Corinthians 10: 17-18. He tells us that just as we participate in Christ through partaking of the Lord’s supper, so Israel, in a fleshly sense, participated in the altar her peace offerings (Of course if the Israelite had faith, he would ultimately be participating in Christ as well).

Tropology

Through Christ, we can apply altars to the life of those who are in him. We can appeal to Pentecost for this, where God sends his flame, his Spirit, into every believer’s heart. God brings his flames down upon men, just as he did upon altars in the Old Testament. We are the places where sacrifices are brought to God. Further support this understanding can be seen in Paul’s exhortation to be living sacrifices in Romans 12: 1 as well as Revelation 8:4 where the incense of the altar of incense is compared with the prayers of the saints. We function as altars as well. We are called to show a sacrificial spirit both in our worship and before one another.

Anagogy

We also sense a new significance to the altar as a mound of earth. The name “Adam” is related to the word for earth. We are literally mounds of earth or mounds of dust. Through the refining fire of the Spirit, we are glorified so that we become like the bronze altar and then like the golden incense altar. We follow the same pattern that the altars followed in the history of altars in the Old Testament.

Chronological Contradictions

By James

On February 1, 2017

In Genesis, Hermeneutics

“If one argues, on whatever grounds, that the long life spans of the patriarchs are impossible or that the narratives themselves report nonhistorical, secondary episodes, then clearly one cannot say anything very meaningful about either chronology or history. To reject the only data available is to reject any realistic hope of reconstructing early Hebrew history. In line with the historiographical principles followed in this book, the biblical record stands on its own merits unless there are unassailable external factors that militate against it.” (Merril 96)

For the greater part, I agree with this quote by Eugene H. Merril. I would argue that “unassailable external factors” are not really a problem. Perhaps we will find a better text of scripture at some point, but that is a matter of the biblical record itself, not “unassailable external factors.” However, he is right. We will lose history if we question the bare “facts” that are given in scripture.

Yet Merril has already undermined his own position. Concerning the genealogy from Shem to Abraham, Merril says, “Clearly, Shem preceded Abram by many more years than a strict reading will permit.” (Merril 43) He gives two reasons. The first reason: Abram lived to a good old age of 175. If he had been aware that Shem lived to 600, this would not be said. The 2nd reason is that there would not have been enough time for people to lose the fear of God. He gives these reasons so that he can question the numbers given in Genesis 11.

These are not “unassailable” external factors. In Genesis 6, God said “his days shall be 120,” usually understood to mean that man’s life will be limited to 120 years. It takes a while for this to come into effect. Abraham could have been happy for 175 years in light of this truth. Besides he could have been comparing himself to his contemporaries. Further, Moses is probably writing or editing this for an audience that doesn’t live that long anymore either. They don’t live near as long as Abraham did. They would see an Abraham that had definitely been blessed with a relatively long life.

As for the question of people losing their fear of God so quickly, this does not seem to be that uncommon in the history of God’s people. We need only think of the book of Judges, where the people repeatedly fall away every forty years or so. We can think of Adam, where the next generation is involved in fratricide.

Besides, there is evidence that the fear of God is not completely gone. Melchizedek is a God-fearer in Genesis 14. Abraham tells Abimelech “there is no fear of God in this place,” which suggests there were other places that might have had some fear of God left. Merril makes a huge assumption when he says everybody has lost the fear of God. It is an assumption based on silence, not the witness of scripture.

The greatest foolishness is that Merril has already undermined biblical chronology before he starts. He stands firm on the great ages and the events that surround the patriarchs, but he has undermined that position before he got there. He has questioned the ages given to the men of the genealogy of Genesis 11.

In Pursuit of Patterson

By James

On January 27, 2017

In Hermeneutics

I just started listening to the podcast “Patterson in Pursuit.” You can find it here.

In episode 2, he discusses the problem of consciousness with Dr. Westacott. He argues that human self-awareness is the one reason he does not hold to a merely physical explanation for existence. Patterson calls himself a reluctant Cartesian dualist. He holds to the reality of the physical world and he holds to the reality of self-consciousness but he is not sure how to connect the two.

In their discussion, the two men bring up several possibilities that might bridge consciousness and physicality. Patterson posits God as an answer. Our self-awareness suggests an awareness of something other. That “other” can help explain the very fact that we have self-awareness. The two men look back to Spinoza, who. among others, suggests a universal mind, which all selves participate in. Patterson is not satisfied with either option. In his mind, they are the philosophical version of the “Deus Ex Machina.”

I’m one of those people, who sees God as the answer. But I don’t want to end my contribution there. I think that it is particularly the doctrine of creation that helps cut through reluctant Cartesian dualism. God, who has his existence in himself, freely chose to create something other than himself. Our physicality is a gift. Consciousness is a gift. Our consciousness is a gift, which allows us to respond to the God who made us.

This helps us understand why we cannot have a comprehensive understanding of “I” without positing something other than ourselves. We are dependent beings. This reflects our lives as humans as well. We begin our lives as babies. Our parents name us. Our parents hand down traditions to us. They, along with our communities, form us before we ever begin to be self-aware. The created order around us already teaches us dependence.

This is a coherent explanation but where is the proof? The proof of creation is in the historical person of Jesus Christ. God has shown who he is in Christ and in the historical documents that teach us about Christ. It is the resurrection, in particular, which proves this. God put new life into that which has no life; he enacts a new creation. Christians look to that work of God in history as their starting point.

n.b. I’ve just started listening so I don’t know how Patterson’s beliefs develop in later episodes.

We Receive our Heritage by the Grace of God

By James

On January 24, 2017

In The Basics

This post is written for those of those, who like me, trace their theological roots back to the reformation of the 16th century.

About a week ago Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary put on a conference about the Reformation. Dr. Ted Van Raalte gave the opening speech. He argued that the Reformation happened by the grace of God. He demonstrated that earthly factors could not account for the reformation

This simple fact seems obvious to Christians (Maybe not to those who don’t see the reformation as a good thing). Even though it is obvious, it remains essential. The gifts that we have and the truth that we believe are all a gift from him. We stand in grace.

It is a warning against idolizing those men who were the means to that reformation as well. God worked through their weakness. It wasn’t the strength of their ideas or their logic that won the day. God won the day, sometimes despite the reformers.

Understanding this is important. It is important for our labor in understanding the scriptures. Here we continue to grow by God’s grace. It is important for how we view other Christians. We are nothing special for our knowledge. It is a gift. God’s Word calls us to humility. We are to demonstrate humility in our interactions with others; including those with less understanding. We are to pray for them. Let us continue as little children, receiving the gifts of our heavenly father.

God’s grace in Christ is indescribable. God’s grace in our history is indescribable. That grace is fundamental to whatever wisdom or knowledge that we have. That grace is the reason we seek to convince and persuade others to join us in the kingdom of God. It is that same grace, which gives us a reason to encourage all Christians to grow in knowing God in an increasingly fuller and better way. For that reason, I want to continue the work of the reformers, both in defending what they grew to understand and in continuing their work of further submission to the word and work of God.