Faith and Reason in Biblical Studies

This Friday I will be attending the New England and Eastern Canada Regional meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL). I have been a student member of the SBL for some time now, and have rather enjoyed it. The society is scholarly and academic, and focuses primarily on researching biblically related issues. It is quite liberal among the majority scope of members, but recently more and more confessional conservative Evangelicals are joining. First of all, this is a wonderful thing to do. It promotes dialogue and lets the “higher critics” (they are only “higher critics” because they view themselves in a sense as being above the texts) know that Evangelicals are serious about studying biblical literature.

However, such a movement has been met with certain conflicts and rejection. About eight months ago, Ronald S. Hendel (a biblical scholar from UC Berkley) published an article in Biblical Archaeology Review titled “Farewell to SBL: Faith and Reason in Biblical Studies.” The reason for his publication was due to the fact that the SBL has begun to not only allow confessional groups to join the society, but also to allow them to present and establish groups and sections, which are held along with others in the annual and I’m sure regional meetings (but not completely sure concerning the latter).

I’m working on getting Hendel’s full article in order to post it as a comment for all to read, but here is a link to an abstract of it anyway http://www.bibarch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=4&ArticleID=9, and the basic gist of it is two fold. First it is an attack on the SBL. Simply stated, he accuses SBL of changing “its position on the relationship between faith and reason in the study of the Bible.” Here’s a link to SBL’s answer and clarification concerning their position and responds to Hendel’s claims and accusations against the SBL http://www.sbl-site.org/membership/farewell.aspx. Second, Hendel criticizes the claim that faith reason work together in one’s scholarly investigations of the bible. He claims that they have two “different motivations and pertain to different domains of experience.”

It would be helpful to bracket this discussion with seeking to first answer the question, “Are faith and reason like oil and water? Do they never mix with each other?” Well perhaps. Part of me agrees with Hendel’s approach, which is one should not allow one discipline (i.e. faith or reason) to completely control and even triumph over the other. But Hendel also seems to be coming from it at a different angle. That is he feels that his biblical study and findings there in are in some sense better than those of certain faith groups, who are not as serious scholars as he is since they are promoting their faith along with or perhaps over the reason of the text, as they do biblical studies and thus express their findings also within the society.

Well again perhaps they he is right, but it seems to me that Hendel is guilty of the same criticism. That is, his faith or believe about what the text is and is not does in a sense influence what he believes the text itself is reasonably saying. In other words, based upon his historical and authorial beliefs about the text his exegesis or interpretation of the text can be skewed. This is of course very similar to what can happen with the confessional conservative Evangelical. Their belief about who God is and who they are and the historical reliability of the text and its universal authority can influence what they find in the text.

Therefore, I agree with Hendel’s point here, but also disagree with him. That is, I do not find the issue to be regarding one’s faith, believe or presupposition can never mix with reason or one’s scholarly exegetical investigation of the biblical text, but an issue of one’s starting point or presupposition(s). Again, it seems that the issue is not that all presuppositions are wrong, but can one’s presupposition or faith find support in the text in which it is based on? Hendel will more than likely seek to prove that his starting point is valid and sound (perhaps by the Document Hypothesis but I am not for sure), and the Evangelical or faith group will attempt to refute his starting point.

Lastly, reasonable, critical and logical thinking is a human discipline similar to faith and believe. Therefore, for Hendel to claim that the former is never to mix with the later misrepresents and even begs the question as to the nature of reason and the “reason why” they cannot be a mixing of the two. Is it because one is greater than the other as one can give us more reliable data than the other? If so, then this avenue of criticism has not been fully addressed.

Some Thoughts on Romans 3:21-26

Romans 1:18-3:20 demonstrates the terrible human predicament: God’s condemnation of humanity precisely because all are sinful, none are able to meet his standard, and all need his righteousness. There is no hope, no optimism of rescue, as God has revealed his wrath and anger toward sin and humanity leaving all to suffer the consequences of condemnation. In light of that dismal reality, the next section (Rom 3:21-5:21) introduces a sharp contrast to what has previously been stated in the letter. There, Paul discusses how God will provide for the universal need for righteousness by telling the Romans that God has revealed his righteousness (as it compares and contrasts with the revealing of his wrath) through the person and work of Jesus Christ. For this reason, the message of hope and rescue comes not by mankind’s merit or ability, but by Jesus Christ and his work on the cross.

The small section that will be examined (3:21-26) not only shows how God has provided righteousness but also explains how the revelation of God’s righteousness in Christ’s work on the cross lays the foundation for one’s justification (or the means in which hope and rescue from condemnation has come back to man).

The words “but now” in v.21 indicate a crucial change in Paul’s argumentation, as well as a temporal change or new phrase in salvation history, as it declares the arrival of a new age. This logical and temporal change has been “attested by the law and the prophets” (v.21). And what is being attested in the OT is that “God’s righteousness” (understood as a declaration by God that humanity is righteousness and now possesses that status) “has been disclosed or revealed” and thus is nothing new or foreign. Paul will latter provide a more detailed discussion of OT proof of this claim in chapter 4 (Rom 4:1-3, 9-23; cf. Abraham: Gen 15:6; and Rom 4:4-8; cf. David: Ps. 32:1-2). 

Next, Paul specifically tells his Roman readers what has always been true; “namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe” (3:22). In other words, the divine declaration that humanity is righteousness and now possesses that status is made possible by Christ’s faithfulness and not mankind’s faithfulness. Moreover, through Christ’s faithfulness humanity is rescued from the horrible and destructive consequence of their sin.

The human predicament is of course the result of sin, because “all have sinned” (Rom 3:23), and the reason why all have sinned is due to one man’s sin-Adam (for through Adam all have sinned (Rom 5:12)), and also because mankind perpetually “fall short of the glory of God” (v.23). The glory spoken of here seems to be a reference to God’s splendor and a manifestation of his character or attribute. In one sense Christians are called to share in this glory, since they are made in his image. But due to sin believers fail to live up to certain expectations. It is for this reason that “there is no distinction” among humanity (v.22b). For mankind is alike in that each person has not only sinned in Adam but personally sinned and continually fails to live up to what he has been called and even made to do.  

And with the hope in the Second Adam (Christ) is righteousness that leads to life (Rom 5:18). As stated earlier, this righteousness and life is not a result of something man merited, but a result of something done for and even to man. And this righteousness of God and life is “for all who believe” (3:22).

The method or means in which God justifies sinful humanity is by his free grace, “through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (v.24). The word for “justify” is a legal or forensic term, referring to the law court imagery. And the meaning of the word implies that one is declared or pronounced just not made just. Such a meaning would support the interpretation of the phrase “the righteousness of God” as a declaration or pronouncement that one is just and now possesses that status. In other words, “the righteousness of God” is a reference to how God justifies humanity, and he does this “through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ” (v.22).  

Next, the word for “grace” means that God declares sinners just on account of nothing meritoriously performed on their part. In other words, mankind is justified without merit. It is all by the grace of God, and this grace of God has been demonstrated by the redemption of Christ. Also, the word for “redemption” implies that we are released or delivered from something-namely sin, since all have sinned or are sinful. The word is understood in light of one purchasing or ransoming another from slavery or captivity. But the question is, To whom is the ransom being paid to? In light of the passage’s suggesting that sin is personal and not simply an object or agent that mankind is enslaved to, it seems reasonable to suggest that one is purchased from his/her personal captivity to sin. Therefore, as the passage centers on sin or the sinful state of the individual, Christ has purchased the individual back from his/her sinful status and fallen standing. Once more, the death of Christ on the cross secures one’s release from bondage to sin and rescue from the condemnation and destructive wrath of God.

Paul then goes on to give further ground for this justification. He states that Christ was presented by God as a “mercy seat” (v.25a). The Greek word hilasterion has been traditionally translated as “propitiation,” which would be a reference to the object upon whom anger or wrath is appeased or satisfied. However, it seems best to translate it as “mercy seat” not because of any particular theological stance, but because of what is being pictured here in light of OT imagery. Given this preferred translation, a general reference is being made to the “sacrifice of atonement” or “the place of satisfaction or atonement.” More specifically though, this “mercy seat” is a reference to the covering of the ark where the blood of the animal was sprinkled in the OT ritual on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). This term is used in only one other place in the NT: Heb 9:5. There it should also be rendered “mercy seat” as it describes the altar in the most holy place (the holy of holies) where the duties of the high priest were performed (9:6). The OT imagery is thus one of Christ being the final and ultimate sacrifice and place where our sins our covered and God’s wrath is satisfied and thus averted for those who believe. Once more, Paul is saying that God displayed Jesus as the “mercy seat,” the place where propitiation was accomplished.

The means of accessibly and effectively receiving the benefits listed above is “through faith” (v.25a). This recalls the universality of the previous phrase “for all who believe” (v.22) and the subsequent phrase “the one who lives or has faith” (v.26) As a result, Paul is emphasizing the necessity of faith, as it by the means of faith that one’s sins are covered and thus declared just. There is nothing meritorious about faith. Yes it is in a sense a work, but a work that is graciously provided as a result of someone else’s work; namely “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.” (vv. 22, 26). One’s justification is based on God and his grace, founded in Christ’s work on the cross, and distributed by faith.

  

This passage is the very heart of the Gospel. As the entire world lay guilty of sin, God by his grace provides a way for mankind to be justified. The way God makes this reality certain is by sending his own faithful son, who in his death covers mankind’s sins, thus forgiving us of them. The faith of Christ is the efficient cause of mankind’s justification and the faith of mankind is the instrumental cause of justification.   

The Holy Spirit: Continuity and Discontinuity between the Testaments

This post is concerned with determining the role and nature of the Spirit as it relates to both the Old and New Testament. Therefore, I will seek to answer two questions: “What was the nature of the Spirit's ministry in the OT?” and “Does the Spirit minister differently in the New Testament?”

Let’s first address the issue of the role and nature of the Spirit in relation to the OT. We cannot begin without first citing the presence of the Spirit in creation (Gen. 1:2) and it is actively involved in establishing the stage in which salvific history would play out.  Next, I wish to set before us that the Spirit fulfills a wide variety of roles in the OT. The Spirit can generally endow understanding (Job 32:8; Prov. 1:23), and enable people with the technical skills needed to complete a task (see how workmen were equipped by the Spirit with skills in order to construct the tabernacle in Ex. 31:3; 35:31). The Spirit is also associated with inspiring human beings to prophesy (1 Sam. 10:6; 19:23-24; 2 Chr. 20:14; Neh. 9:30; Ezek. 2:2; 3:24; Zech. 7:12) and they are sometimes referred to as men “of the spirit” (cf. Hos. 9:7). Also, it is interesting to note that while the Spirit is said to inspire prophetic speak, it seems that Jeremiah went out of his way to discredit such a notion (Jer. 5:13). However, such a view could merely be due to the perversion of other prophetic tradition (possibly Canaanite religious traditions), and only serves as a strong warning or positive discouragement against those who falsely claim to be speaking according to the Spirit (also see Deut. 13:1-5; 189-22). Moreover, such a clever distinction could be a possible example of the theological diversity of the OT and its depiction of the Spirit, but more specifically it seems to express a point of vindication and revelation. In other words, the role and nature of the Spirit in the OT is one of endowing, equipping and inspiring, but overall it seems to be one of vindicating and revealing the plan and/or work of God is throughout salvific history. In other words, humanity vindicates their encounter with God through or by the Spirit.

Next, God’s work among his covenant people in the OT is not starkly different to his working and dealings with them in the NT. In addition to what we have seen in the OT, the NT as well adds to the daunting list of what the Spirit does. However, much of what we have already discussed finds its place in the NT as well. In 1 Cor. 2:6-16 the secret divine wisdom is only revealed to “us” by the Spirit. In other words, just as God vindicates and reveals his plan and work through the Spirit in the OT, he is also doing it during the NT. For it is only through the Spirit that one can know the plans and work of God.

 

It is at this point that I find it crucial to make two distinctive points about the role of the Spirit between the testaments; namely empowering and indwelling, and the futuristic language of the “coming” of the Spirit, which is clearly expressed in the NT. In the NT the Spirit often functions in an empowering or enabling way (Matt. 12:28; Rom. 8:9; 15:19). It is also been said to come upon Jesus (Matt. 3:16) just as, I assume, it come upon Saul (1 Sam. 10:10; 11:6), left him and come upon David (1 Sam. 16:13-14). I take this to be a reference to the empowering of the Spirit and not a reference to the indwelling of the Spirit. The day is coming when the Spirit will permanently come upon God’s people, thus empowering them to carry out special tasks in ministry. But to say that the Spirit of God never dwelt in his covenant people is absurd. How are we to understand a passage like Rom. 8:8-9? In other words, did Abraham please God and belong to him? I think so. And could he have done so without having the Spirit of God dwelling in him? I think not.

The futuristic language for the "coming" of the Spirit is all too real. It refers to the “coming,” “receiving,” “sending,” “being clothed,” etc. language of the Spirit on Pentecost (also see the language of Jn. 16:5-15). But again the problem arises when one assumes that "coming" equals "indwelling." This is false, because there seems to be no passage that makes any sort of equation. Note that there is a highly debated textual variant in Jn. 14:17, and I prefer the present-tense ejstivn rather than the future-tense ejvstai, and I would be happy to discuss this further if anyone has questions.

Now, let me try to sum up my answers to the questions. First, the role of the Spirit in the OT and the NT is of wide variety. The role of the Spirit in the OT was one of enabling, empowering, endowing, inspiring, vindicating and revealing. The role of the Spirit in the New is similar to that of the Old, but with one particular addition: The day is “coming” (and has arrived of course) when the Spirit will permanently come upon his people. Note that under both, the Spirit indwells his people, but it only empowers some in the OT. And in the New, there is an enabling of all of God’s people to possess the empowering nature of the Spirit in order to accomplish the mission God has seek before us.

“You are Saved!” The Past, Present and Future Realities of Salvation

First of all, I would like to state up front a theological important reality, which is often overlooked: Salvation has a past, present and future aspect. Therefore, one could rightfully say, “I have been, I am being, and I will be saved.” However, the point that I wish to make is that while salvation is not solely a past reality, it is in fact its past aspect that actualizes its present and future reality.

For biblical support let’s go to Ephesians 2:1-10, which is one of the most loved and useful texts in Scripture regarding salvation. You are perhaps already extremely familiar with the passage as a whole, and in order to shorten this post I will only focus a very small potion of it. In fact, the focus will be on the meaning of the perfect periphrastic participle construction in Eph. 2:5b and 8a: ejste sesw÷mevnoi.

First, a brief note concerning Greek participles: The Greek verb sw÷zw can mean I save, deliver, or rescue and the important distinction between the indicative mood (which means to the reality of the action of the verb is real or actual) and the participles is that the former conveys absolute time and the later relative time. Moreover, the participle’s time is relevant to the absolute time of the main verb (ejste), which is present active (meaning that the subject is actually doing the action) indicative (again meaning that the action of the verb is real).

The next order of business is to provide a short discussion pertaining to the meaning of Greek aspect (or what type of action is being described) and its relationship to the time when the action occurred (commonly combined with aspect to refer to the tense of a verb). With indicative verbs, tense is a combination of aspect and time, but with participles, tense is a combination of aspect and relative time.

Next, it is important to describe the meaning of the relative time being conveyed in this perfect participle construction. The perfect aspect combines the emphasis of a past occurrence (time) with an ongoing or continuing effect (aspect). Therefore, the time and aspect of the perfect passive (passive meaning that the subject is being acted upon) participle sesw÷mevnoi is past time occurrence with an ongoing or continuing effect (or aspect). Also, the participle expresses a relative time that is prior to/contemporaneous (or for the latter at the same time) in relationship to the action of the main verb (ejste), which is present time with continuous aspect.

The last thing that must be dealt with is the grammatical function of periphrastic participles. Periphrastic participles are used to emphasize the continuous force of the participle’s relative time, and it’s often the context in which the periphrastic participle is used, which conveys the emphasis on the continuous idea. However, the difficulty when determining the meaning of a perfect periphrastic participle is that one must place equal emphasis on both the perfect completed past action and the continuous or on going idea.

This brings us to the point where we can determine the meaning and best translation for the perfect periphrastic participles in Eph. 2:5b and 8a: ejste sesw÷mevnoi. You would parse the main verb ejste - present active indicative 2^nd person plural and literally translate it as “you are.” Next, you would parse the participle sesw÷mevnoi - perfect passive participle masculine plural nominative (as it in a way functions as a predicate nominative). This is where our translation becomes difficult. It’s correct to say that this phrase is constructed with the intention of placing special emphasis on the continuing results of the verb; again however, the use of the perfect participle implies a completed past action along with its continuing results into the present.

In light of these comments, it has been translated as, “you are being saved.” This translation seems to place more emphasis on the present realities of the particle, but fails to take into consideration the grammatical emphasis being placed on the past action. Therefore, the translation offered above would work best if the participle was also in the present along with the main verb, and as I’ve pointed out the participle is in the perfect tense not the present. Another way it has been translated is, “you have been saved.” However, this places more emphasis on the completed action than on the continuing effect and thus misses the grammatical significance of the prefect participle.             

Therefore, there seems to be a better way to carefully and clearly express the intended emphasis concerning a perfect participle and a present main verb. Since an etymological breakdown of the word periphrastic conveys the meaning of speaking or phrasing something in a wordy way, then I would like to offer a very wordy translation: “You have been and continue to be saved,” or simply “you are saved.” (See the NET Bible as they have chosen to translate it this way.) Notice how the latter, more-simplest translation, retains the present time of the main verb (“you are”) and also how the past time of the perfect participle is expressed (“saved”). Moreover, this communicates the idea that “you are in a continuing state of having already been saved.”

The theological importance, take away or big idea here is that Paul is telling the Christians at Ephesus that they are in a present condition of already having been saved. Therefore, God’s past action of saving you has a real result and impact on your present condition. And lastly, just as there is a present on going impact, there will be a future impact or reality that will also be enjoyed.