A History and Critique of The Documentary Hypothesis and a Defense of Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch

Introduction 

It seems that the debate regarding the authorship of the Pentateuch has generated more discussion and disagreement than any other of its kind. Opinions are quite varied on the topic as some claim that Moses wrote every word, while others claim that Moses had nothing to do with it. This form of critical scholarship of the Pentateuch supposes that authors of much latter dates than Moses composed the Pentateuch, and from different sources and documents the Pentateuch was constructed. Given this opinion, rather than primarily expressing my own, I would like to interact with its claims and see if they stand up to criticism.

A (brief) History of the Documentary Hypothesis,

and the Authorship of the Pentateuch

The notion that Moses had nothing to do with the Pentateuch was first suggested in 1670 by Jewish philosopher Benedict Spinoza. This is in fact the beginnings of what scholars refer to today as the documentary hypothesis. The documentary hypothesis proposed that instead of having one document, written and put together by one author (i.e. Moses) you have many documents or sources (J, E, D, and P), and the authors of these alleged sources are the real authors of the Pentateuch.

The first real documentary hypothesis scholar to suggest the existence of a J (or “Yahwist”) and E (or “Elohist”) source for the Pentateuch was the French physician Jean Astruc in 1753. The characteristics the J source can be identified by the use of Yahweh in Gen 2 and the E source can be identified by the use of Elohim in Gen 1. For Astruc, the reference to God as Elohim and Yahweh was evidence of authorship and not a stylistic literary purpose. In addition to the divine names, another characteristic and proof of the J and E sources were the evidence of doublets. Following Astruc, Johann G. Eichhorn in 1780-83 identified the J and E source by literary characteristics. For example, J was identified in Gen 12:10-20 when Abraham and Sarah were in Egypt and the E source in Gen 20:1-10 when they are in Gerar. For him, this series of doublets proved that there had to be two authors since the elements of the narrative event were so similar and yet differed on the detail of location or setting of the event. Other characteristics germane to J are anthropomorphic speak about God, because this sort of thinking is regarded as being quite simple, for who in there right mind would think that God would be portrayed in human ways. And communications and visions through dreams are further characteristics of E. For example, Moses being portrayed as a miracle worker: Turning of water to blood, etc. 

Further proof of the existence of a J and E source were brought forth by W.M.L. DeWette in 1807. He marks the next important stage in the development of the documentary hypothesis as he suggested that different phraseology (such as vocabulary and style) were parts of later contemporary authorship and thus nothing in the Pentateuch and the J source pre-dates 1000 BC and 900 BC for the E source. The proof for such a late contemporary authorship was the similarity of phraseology between J and E and the book of Jeremiah. Also, there were anachronisms, such as allusions to the temple in Dt 12:5 and allusions to Kingship in Dt 17:14-20, which prompted him to conclude that this phraseology proves latter authorship since there was no temple until the time of Solomon and the writing of 1 Kgs 9, and the notions of kingship meant that the text must have been written when there were actually kings in the land.

As DeWette was one of the first to suggest a D source (commonly understood among documentary hypothesis scholars as a reference to the book of Deuteronomy), the grounds for its identity and characteristics can be found within the Deuteronomistic History (this would have been everything from Joshua to 2 Kgs). Why? Because of the parallels with the Deuteronomistic phraseology. The identity of the Deuteronomistic phraseology is writing from a Covenant Lawsuit perspective. In other words, it evaluated the legitimacy of the northern kingdom. The work Traditional Historical Studies by Martin Noth in 1943 further develops these notions. He proposed (as well as Dewette) that the book of Deuteronomy was fabricated by someone, perhaps Josiah as he discovers a “Book of the Law” in 2 Kgs 22-23, and thus writes in a Deuteronomistic phraseology in order to use it as a preface for the histories. In other words, Deuteronomy was a “pious fraud” or counterfeit in order to produce reform. It was to centralize worship (Dt 12:5) so that the nation would come under control of the priests. Deuteronomy also functioned as providing further theological rational that accounted for why the nation had gone so astray.

This move to centralize worship in the temples and thus under the control of the priests, as well as the writing of covenantal material are crucial characteristics of D. However, within the Pentateuch there was actual achievement of the centrality of worship so documentary hypothesis scholars identified one more document: the P or “Priestly” source. The first to identify P was Hermann Hupfeld in 1853 in light of certain legal and priestly material found within the Pentateuch. Shortly thereafter, the hypothesis reached its classical form with the works of Karl Graf, Abraham Kuenen, and the brilliant German scholar, Julius Wellhausen. Frist, Graf in 1865 looked at the P source and concluded that P was later than D, because D seems to not know P on account of D not citing P. For if one reads D, then one would not find any of the core material of P, which is Lev 17-26. Again, his logic is that if D does not quote P, then P did not exist until after D. He categorizes P as being exilic or sometime during the exile, and slits P into two portions: Legal P, which was exilic, and Historical P which was much earlier. Next, given Graf’s suggested split with P, Abraham Kuenen in 1869 was the next crucial scholar for the hypothesis. He was the first to claim that there was only one “P” and suggested that it was quite late (either exilic or post exilic), and then provided the documentary hypothesis with its official ordering of the documents: J, E, D, and P.

Therefore, given Kuenen’s ordering of the documents, the man who most refined and populized the hypothesis was Wellhausen, who was an expert in Semitic languages. In 1876, being highly influenced by Hegelian philosophy and Darwinian evolution, he concluded that the practices of the religious institutions during the writing of Pentateuch evolved, not revealed. The proof he needed can be found among the varying characteristics of the document. The ritual practice of centralized worship is mentioned in D and not achieved until P. Moreover, J and E never write about the centrality of worship, so they are much older than D and P. Given his presuppositions and conclusions, he was prompted to provide dates for each one. J was written around 850 BC by someone from Judah (the southern kingdom) who emphasized biography as well as ethical and religious concerns. E was written around 750 BC by someone from the northern kingdom and was more objective in his narrative writing style. D was written around 621 BC by the high priest Hilkiah who incorporated notions of the law and legal religious practices most likely as a result of the reign of Manasseh. Following both Graf and Kuenen, Wellhausen dated P as a post-exilic source. According to him it was mainly compiled and edited by Ezra around 450 BC. Ezra incorporated genealogies, lists, origins, sacrifices and the description of the Tabernacle into the Pentateuch. Along the way there were redactions that combined each individual document. JE was redacted and combined into one document in 650 BC; JED in 550 BC; and JEDP in 400 BC. While the exact dates for the documents are still to this day highly debated within this hypothesis, Welhausen’s dates are considered by many to be more-less representative of this view and more-less “close enough.”

To conclude this brief historical account, this hypothesis took the scholarly world by storm. It gained enthusiastic support from numerous biblical scholars and theologians. As a result, this way of thinking was state of the art among liberal biblical/theological scholarship, and if one was considered to be a serious biblical scholar then this approach was adapted. S.R. Driver was the most influential English scholar to articulate the hypothesis and promoted its appreciation and acceptance for British scholarship, while Charles A. Briggs of Union Seminary did the same for American critical scholarship. Lastly, Frank M. Cross, formerly a professor of OT at Harvard Divinity School, is only one of many modern scholars who promote and teach this approach as most plausible concerning the authorship and dating of the Pentateuch.

A Critique of the Documentary Hypotheses

The problems and weaknesses concerning the documentary hypothesis are quite numerous, as reaction and opposition to it began as early as the nineteenth-century. The key scholars are too numerous to simply even mentions, but their main criticism rested upon the hypothesis’ inconsistent and contradictory methodology. To begin, none of the alleged documents have even been found. Also, the same verse or passage might be assigned to different documents depending upon the scholar. In addiction to this, some respected scholars have identified additional sources (K, L, or S). Therefore, these inconsistencies and contradictions concerning the methodology of the hypothesis certainly beg the questions concerning its reliability. Also, this subjective handling of the texts does little to increase one’s confidence in the method.

The next form of criticism worth mentioning notes the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) parallels found among the literature of the Pentateuch. On a side note, in a much earlier blog post I mentioned one account that clearly proves ANE literary parallels within the Pentateuch, and I think it would be a source to consult for a further and more detailed discussion. Here’s a link: http://nicholaslutzo.blogspot.com/2011/02/ane-suzerian-vassal-treaties-creation.html. In fact, these ANE parallels are too numerous for me to simply list, but I will provide a few examples. For one, hypothesis scholars claim that there is a J and E source because of a discrepancy concerning divine names. If you remember, they claim that it is a result of authorship and not literary style. This is simply absurd! There are many singular gods among the ANE who had numerous names: The Egyptian sun god Ra was also referred to as Amon-Re; Osiris is referred to as Wennofer and two other names; and the Ugaritic god “Koshar and Hasis” is a compound name and no one suggests that such a compound is a result of different authors and documents with respect to particular Egyptian and Mesopotamian texts. In fact, since there is an obvious parallel to what one sees with the divine naming and compounding of Elohim and Yahweh in the biblical texts, then one can similarly conclude that the text is a result of one author and document. Also, the reason for the ANE style of using different divine names was for literary purposes. Therefore, the reason for the different uses of the divine names speaks not to issues of different authorship, but to the nature and purposes of the context of the passages. Again, this is just a few examples of how the documentary hypothesis appeals to arbitrary discrepancies upon texts.

There also seems to be an antisupernatural bias or naturalism assumed among certain hypothesis scholars when working the texts. Since some would presuppose that miracles and prophecy do not exist, then texts that speak of kings and a temple must have been written when there actually were kings and a temple in the land. This highly begs the questions and is quite the illogical move for the scholar. Next, there is an arbitrary appeal to redactors. A prime example is much later covenantal material (D source) found within a much earlier narrative of Exodus 20:2-17 (J and E). The primary D material being referred to here is the Decalogue (Dt 5), and since you have it in Ex. 20 then they conclude that a D redactor had their hand in the content of J and E. However, this account does not take into consideration the fact that this covenantal lawsuit material can be found in the ANE Tukulti-Ninurta Epic in 1240 BC. The literary structure of the Ex. passage is:

I.                   Narrative (JE)

II.                Cov. material (D)

III.             Narrative (JE)

However, if you look at the Tukulti-Ninurta epic, then you will find the same literary pattern existing there:

I.                   Narrative

II.                Cov. lawsuit

III.             Narrative

Also the documentary hypothesis proposes artificial stylistic restrictions. But style has nothing to do with authorship and everything to do with subject/genre in the ANE. There are also artificial discoveries of discrepancies, and duplicates. For example the Gen 12 and Gen 20 story of Abraham and Sarah. Is it possible that Abraham made the same mistake twice? Sure it is we do all the time! Lastly, as I pointed out above, the documentary hypothesis seems to have not adequately taken into consideration how the people in the ANE wrote. There are many ANE parallels found in the Pentateuch that one need not look far to see how authors of that time wrote and thus support the notion that the text of the Pentateuch is quite old and primarily written by one author (i.e. Moses).

Conclusion and Defense of Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch

It seems that the most basic reason that best accounts for such a movement within biblical scholarship is based upon what one wants to see in the Bible. If you want to see discrepancy then you will find it. However, if you want to see unity then you will find it. In other words, the issue of authorship of the Pentateuch is a matter of starting points. Given my response to the notions of the documentary hypothesis, let’s begin from a perspective of unity within the Pentateuch.

First of all, it seems that we should look for unity within the compositional structure of the book(s) as a whole rather than the solely among its individual parts that make up the whole, since it is possible that the author might have used a collection of clay tablets, which contained on them the accounts of creation, the flood and the lives of the early patriarchs. Given this, the author would have written the Pentateuch in the same manner as Luke say he wrote his gospel (Lk 1:1-4). However the author did it it seems rather certain that the Pentateuch accurately depicts the age and historical period of the Exodus. There are many reasons that support such a statement, but it is mainly proven by our knowledge of how the people of the ANE wrote. Also, assessing unity from the structure of the whole accounts is supported by how narrative literature works. In other words, it tells a story. For example, the building of the tower of Babel (Gen 11:1-9) is quite the isolated story and mostly self-contained within its most immediate context. However, the story plays a huge role within one of the major themes of the Pentateuch: God restoring his blessings upon his people through the lineage of Abraham and making them one great and numerous nation.

Among other aspects of unity found in the Pentateuch, the author is certainly concerned with history and impressing upon the Israelites the ideology of their identity and the meaning of God’s kingdom. Themes of God as the creator and redeemer, and ones that relate to his attributes, such as his holiness, along with the descriptions of who God is and how who humanity is (sinful) speak to issues of history, identity and the meaning of God’s kingdom. Accompanying the talk of God as redeemer that are notions of human salvation from destruction and the coming of a Messiah or Anointed One who will ultimately rescue humanity from their sin. There is also consistent mentioning of covenants being made and being referred back to as humanity either upholds or breaks them. These factors of literary unity speak to the issue that the one writing is more than a crude redactor or editor who simply compiles patches together the sources.

Given these themes and the many parallels with other writings of the ANE, it is rather valid and sound to claim Mosaic authorship. He would have received superb teaching and training, and such teaching and training in many respects can be found reflected in what is found in the Pentateuch. In addition to the Moses’ education, his other qualifications for authorship are tied to his exceptional spiritual gifts, his divine calling and high role as a political and religious leader of Israel. Moses in many ways can be seen as someone who redefines and redirects Israel’s meaning, identity, purposes and mission, and destiny as God’s elect people.  

In addition to Moses’ qualifications, we have statements within the Pentateuch which would provide further support concerning his authorship: Ex 17:14; 24:4, 12; 31:9, 24; 34:27-28 (“the Book of the Law,” which is a clear reference to Ex 20-23); and Num 33:2 all speak of Moses writing something that pertained to the Law and is mostly likely found within the Pentateuch. There are also clear references to Moses being the author of parts of the Book of Deuteronomy (Dt 31:9, 19, 22, 24). There are also speeches from God that are introduced with the phrase “The Lord spoke to Moses” (Lv 4:1), which implies that what follows has come from Moses’ hand. Lastly, without mentioning the references, there are many other statements to be found within the OT and even the NT that ascribe authorship to Moses.

To conclude, I would like to clearly state that I do not think that Moses wrote every word of the Pentateuch as we have it today. What I hopefully have laid groundwork for is primary Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, with later editors adding minor additions to meet the needs of the postexilic community. But we can discuss further reasoning later.

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.

A Philosophical and Theological Query: The Problem of Religious Language

I have an extremely limited ability to do theology within a philosophical framework; however, I cannot stop from dabbling in the art and so I'm going to make another attempt at doing so. Lately, I have questioned and debated combating theories of God. Within certain debates, specific pondering concerning the notation of human limitation (whether it’s expressed through our experiences, knowledge, language, etc.) has numerously emerged from the crevasse of my mind. For, as we approach theology proper, in an effort to provide an explanation of who he is, we must address the reverse side of the coin: Who are we? Therefore, in this post I would like to primarily focus on the limitation of human language as it endeavors to speak meaningfully about the nature of God.  

Given God’s divine and infinite personage, character, nature or properties, and the finite qualities that we (as humans) possess, what are the philosophical dangers of assessing God (or epistemologically speaking, knowing what God is like) given our recognition that God is transcendent and not a material being as we are? Such a question is basically raising the philosophical problem of religious language.  Specifically, how adequate is human language to communicate truth about God to us? The first danger we must avoid is creating God in our own image, a form of idolatry, in that our language is exactly reflecting who God is. On the other hand, the other danger we face, in trying to avoid the first one, being so careful to not bring God down to our level, we make it impossible for him to reveal himself to us and thus deny the ability we have to speak meaningfully about him. In other words, we impose on God a limitation in HIS ability to communicate since he is so “wholly other” (the Barthian understanding of God).  We must avoid both errors, as God makes it clear in Scripture that he has revealed himself both in nature and in Scripture. God says he is able to make his nature and will known to us—so we cannot believe that the philosophical questions we’re asking are insurmountable without doubting what Scripture says about the matter (as well as assuming, without clear warrant, that God just cannot adequately communicate and we cannot know him adequately). 

Before I provide a direct response to the problems listed above, I find it interesting and important to note two Christian doctrines that give us hope in explaining why and how it’s possible for God to speak to us adequately. First, there is the doctrine of the imago dei, the idea that we are created in God’s image. We are like him in significant ways, and for our purposes, this means that we need not be hindered by Barthian pronouncements that God is “wholly other.” A Christian cannot say that and be consistent with the biblical teachings that we are the image of God and that God himself has revealed himself to us both in nature and in the Word. Yes, God is “other”, even drastically other, but he is not wholly other. Secondly, there is the doctrine of the incarnation in which God himself takes on flesh to be one of us. The incarnation reinforces what the imago dei teaches, that though God is greatly different from us, transcendent to all created things, he is nevertheless not so different that he cannot enter into human time and space as one of us and “exegete” God for us (John 1:18). 

All of this implies, contra the Barthian notion, that there is an analogy of being between God and us.  Though we are different than God, we are similar in some important ways.  Our being and nature is not exactly the same as God’s, but it is analogous to God’s. And this analogy of being provides the basis for meaningful God-talk and an adequate divine revelation to man. As you might know, there are three ways to construe religious language. First it might be understood univocally—i.e., our words mean exactly the same thing when predicated of God as they do when predicated of creatures. Of course, this view is impossible to reconcile with the serious differences between us and God.  When I say that “God speaks,” I can’t mean exactly the same think as when I say “Nick speaks” because God has no lips and no vocal cords. Secondly, we might understand religious language equivocally such that my words have completely different meanings when applied to God. But this leads to a radical skepticism about God since I can’t have any idea what my words mean when applied to God. Thirdly, Christian theologians and philosophers have typically defended the notion that God talk is analogical—my words don’t have exactly the same meaning when applied to God, but they don’t have a completely equivocal meaning either.  Rather, they have a similar, analogical meaning.  So, e.g., when I say, “God speaks,” I’m not saying that God does exactly the same thing that Nick does when he speaks, but I’m saying that God does something analogous to what Nick does when he speaks.  This seems to me to give us what we want and allows is to steer a middle course between idolatry and skepticism. Therefore, we can have genuine and adequate (though incomplete) knowledge of him, given the possibility of analogical God-talk. On a completely unrelated note, my reference to myself in the third person is like “The Jimmy” episode of Seinfeld. If you haven’t seen it, then I highly recommend you watch it!

I know that I have not exhaustively dealt with this subject matter in great detail, but only wished to introduce my thoughts on the limitations of our talk of God. But perhaps our starting point, ourselves and our language, might still result in an idealized humanity; however, we have no other place to start since all we have is our limitations, and is it possible that God uses such limitations to communicate to us something about himself without misrepresenting himself? Yes, he certainly can and does! If analogical language is possible (and it seems clear to me that it is), then God can reveal himself to us incompletely, partially, perhaps even vaguely, but nevertheless truthfully and adequate to our needs. We avoid an “idealized humanity” because we realize that God-talk is merely analogical, not univocal. And yes, we can know at least some of God’s essential properties or characteristics, and no, we cannot have direct experiential knowledge of God’s essence—“No man can see God and live”—that’s why we need the mediation of the incarnate Christ.  He gives us an indirect glimpse at God’s essence.

I would like to conclude with a helpful list of a few highly recommended resources on the matter. Enjoy and let me know what you think.

Huffman and Johnson, eds. God Under Fire (Zondervan).

Geisler and Corduan, Philosophy of Religion, 2^nd ed. (Baker).

J.I. Packer, “The Adequacy of Human Language” in Inerrancy, ed. Geisler (Zondervan).

2 Corinthians 5:19-21, Imputation, and the Divine Declaration

Over the last few years, biblical and theological investigations into the meaning of imputation have produced an increasing amount of literature, which is rather overwhelming at times if you ask me. I first began to examine the subject a couple of years ago (my last semester at SEBC), and as of recently, according to a divine appointment, I am taking a class on justification here at GCTS where the issue and meaning of imputation is closely connected. Therefore, you have to thank class notes and required reading for this posting and I hope you enjoy it.

The growing interest concerning imputation is due to recent controversies regarding the New Perspective on Paul (NPP), which views the matter much differently than it had been previously. Therefore, without interacting directly with that modern understanding, I would simply like to express some thoughts I have on the topic, which will hopefully give cause to either affirmation, constructive disagreement and conversation in order that further details and reasons for alternate persuasions can be brought forth and evidence weighed. Lastly, you will find me assuming a great deal here, but the assumptions are intentional and where the comments so lovely enter the picture. 

Let’s jump right into it! I understand imputation within the traditional evangelical view of a great exchange taking place between Christ and humanity. That is, I view our sins being imputed to Christ who pays our penalty on the cross, and Christ’s righteousness being imputed to us. On a side note, I know that I have assumed a particular model of the atonement, and again due to another divine appointment, I am taking a class on the atonement as well and would be delighted in discussing this issue further.

Now concerning the details of the great exchanged (as mentioned above), I find 2 Corinthians 5:19-21 to be of great benefit. There is much to be commented on in these short three verses, but for a conversation starter I will restrict my comments to the verses that follow, which seem to be most relevant for our present discussion: “[I]n Christ, God was reconciling the world to himself by not counting their trespasses against them. . .he made the one who did not know sin to be sin on our behalf, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

Before I remark on the language of the exchange, I would like to make a quick observation or two in order to establish a foundation before I move forward. First, the world is the object of God’s reconciliation, and can be summed up by his canceling of the sinner’s debt (cf. Col. 2:13-14). The method of doing so is through the person and work of Christ (2 Cor 5:19), as Christ was made a representative for sinners just as Adam was a representative for humanity (cf. Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:21-22), which results in the sinner becoming the righteousness of God. Quickly, the semantics of my statements that ‘God’s object of reconciliation is the world’ and ‘Christ is a representative of sinners’ might suggest a change of mind. However, for those who know me too well, I would like to affirm that such a tragedy has not befallen me as I am still a card carrying Calvinist (or Biblicist, hahaha). My apologies to some, and to others rest assured that the phraseology does not indicate a change from good thinking ;) and only gives us more questions to contemplate and answers to communicate.     

Now as I move onto the language of the exchange, I must first address a linguistic issue of the text. Namely, God is “not counting” our sins against us and Christ is being “made” a sinner, rather than being “counted as” a sinner. In other words, the counting is applied in one direction (humanity) and missing in the other (Christ); however, I find a certain consistency in the passage, which suggests that the exchange has the same conceptual elements working in both directions. Namely, our unrighteousness is counted towards Christ and Christ’s is righteousness counted towards us.

Given such a statement, the burden for me is to explain how the elements of the exchange work. In order to do so, I will quickly restate the parts of the exchange: Our sins are counted (in some way and I’ll explain further in a second) towards Christ (“He [was] made…to be sin”), and Christ’s righteousness (“the one who did not know sin”) is counted towards us (“to be sin on our behalf”). Now you might be rightly asking, “How does the first part of the exchange work?” In other words, if Christ was only made sin, then how can I claim that our sins were counted towards Christ (remember that the language of counting is missing in that direction)? Well, it seems likely to view it as our sins being transferred and thus they are “counted” as belonging to Christ. But again you might ask, “How does this transferring work?” In conceptualizing such a transfer, it seems logical to understand it as counting something for what it is not (i.e. exchange) rather than understanding it as counting something for what it is (i.e. recognition). Furthermore, in order to provide greater explanation, the language of “forensic” rather than “transformative” enters into the discussion. If the judgment is “forensic” or God declaring something to be what it is not, then the notion that how our sins are counted to Christ finds its explanation and logical support. Therefore, it cannot be “ethical” or God recognizing something for what it is, because Christ was not sinful.

Now the explanation of later element of the exchange (Christ’s righteousness counted towards us) follows quite nicely. In the same fashion as our sins were counted to Christ, so too was his righteousness counted to us. In other words, it was transferred to us as Christ is our representative and brings about the effect or result of one becoming the righteousness of God. This is the traditional evangelical view of imputation: God declares something to be what it is not (i.e. forensic imputation) in both cases (Christ and humanity), as he reconciles the world back to him through the person and work of Christ, resulting in the person becoming the righteousness of God.  

I will conclude with a comment concerning this divine declaration or action that one is just who is not just. First of all, such an action is a gracious one, and implies that God grants us just even though we were unjust. Moreover, God counts someone righteous despite who they are, and on the basis of who he is by definition (Rom 4:5, 17). Once more, God’s divine activity is the basis for this counting, not the activity (i.e. faith) of the unrighteous. Again it is not an ethical issue, or God recognizing something for what it is, but a gracious issue based upon a divine prerogative (Rom 9: I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy). In other words, I find there to be no injustice upon God concerning this act or declaration. Also, the forensic understanding of imputation is helpful as it gives further clarity to the justice of God's action or declaration.

This should do for now, as I know that this shot across the bough will give my opponents more than enough cause to fire back. The NPP has much to say about all of these issues, so it would be good to hear them. Lastly, I know that I’ve made mention to some side and irrelevant issues, so for now let’s try to discuss matters regarding the 2 Cor text, imputation, and justice or injustice of God, and then move onto my snide remarks (hahaha).

Be Blessed,

Nick