A Hell of a Problem! (Or, Univeralism and the Problem of Hell)

So lately I've been reading The Evangelical Universalist. In the book the author seeks to answer each of the following questions in the affirmative: Can an orthodox Christian, committed to the historical faith of the church and the authority of the Bible, be a universalist? Is it possible to believe that salvation is found only by grace, through faith in Christ, and yet to maintain that in the end all people will be saved? Can one believe passionately in mission if one does not think that anyone will be lost? Could universalism be consistent with the teachings of the Bible? I must say this is quite intriguing, but I'm afraid a travesty as well. This post will primarily focus attention on one of the author's philosophical problems with traditional Christian teachings on hell. 

The philosophical argument I'll address is what the author calls "The Problem of the Joy of the Redeemed." The basic principle here is that if the redeemed have eschatological bliss, then they cannot know of anyone they love who is suffering eternally with no hope of salvation. Here is his argument.

1. Supremely worthwhile happiness (or eschatological bliss of the redeemed) must (a) survive complete disclosure of the truth concerning the universe and (b) the redeemed (S) must be filled with love for others.
2. Given 1.a, Supremely worthwhile happiness cannot be based on deception or false factual beliefs. And given 1.b, Supremely worthwhile happiness cannot exist if S knows people but does not love them.
3. Supremely worthwhile happiness can be jeopardized if S loves someone who eternally suffers with no hope of salvation. 
4. Therefore, supremely worthwhile happiness exists if and only if S has genuine knowledge of the fate of loved ones and remains happy.
5. S can only remain happy concerning loved ones if their fate is ultimately a blessed one.
6. Therefore, S can only have supremely worthwhile happiness if no loved ones eternally suffer with no hope of salvation. 

This argument seems to be logically valid in that each premise follows from the other(s), but the soundness of 1.a should be firmly rejected. For example, Bill Craig suggests that complete disclosure of the truth concerning the universe does not entail that the redeemed (S) must be aware of the fate of the damned. Craig provides us with two valid possibilities: either 1) God could wipe away S's memory of loved ones who suffer or (2) the ascetics of the eschatological state might be so all-consuming that S never thinks about them. 

But the universalist isn't quite ready to concede just yet. For here the author replies with a rejection of both Craigian options. The memory-wipe option would lead to deletion of huge chunks of past memories, memories about eternally suffering loved ones who were instrumental to S's salvation. And the second option does not mean that S will be made less aware of pains of others but more. In other words, the escaton would makes us more aware that God loves the righteous and hates the wicked. 

Perhaps the universalist has a point, but for now I'm still persuaded that they are missing the point. S's eschatological bliss is primarily about the joy and memory they have towards a God who saved him/her. Yes eternally damned individuals in S's memory bank could cause them to not be happy, but why is that memory crucial for self awareness? Moreover, the point seems to be that God saved S who remembers clearly that they needed to be saved, but the instrument used by God is secondary and not essential for self awareness or perhaps better said self identification. 

Next, I think the universalist's rejection of Craig's second option seems possible, but what can be said about S's overwhelming happiness for a God who ultimately saved him/her that it overshadows the reality that there are people S loved who are suffering? What I'm trying to say is that if S's joy and happiness is primarily and supremely directed towards God because of S's need to be saved, them why would S ever think about the secondary instruments used by God?

I hope this provides some good food for thought, and what do you think about all of this?

The Kalam Cosmological Argument and Libertarian Inconsistency

In an earlier post, I made the suggestion that some libertarians are guilty of being inconsistent if they hold to a certain cosmological argument for God's existence. The cosmological argument I have in mind is the kalam cosmological argument. However, amongst the responses a friend was more than willing to reject this version because he felt it had too many presuppositions built into it. Therefore, what I would like to do here is lay out the three premises of the argument, and in hopes of defending it provide proof for the inconsistency of the libertarian.

First of all, here are the premises:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Quickly notice that the argument is quite simple and easy to remember. Also notice the argument's validity and soundness. For if one was to reject the conclusion (premise 3), then he/she must prove either premise 1 or 2 to be false because the conclusion necessarily follows from the two premises. Lastly, notice the direction the argument is going in. Namely, the universe must have a beginning, and since nothing begins to exist without a cause, there must be a transcendent creator of the universe. 

So this is the question and challenge for the libertarian: Either what reasons do you have to reject this argument? Or how do you account for such validity and soundness and still claim that your actions, which have come into existence, have no transcendent cause?

Athanansius' Logical Argument against Arianism

While completing what right now seems endless reading for my summer course- Trinitarian and Christological Controversies, I came across a most intriguing logical argument from Athanansius for the divinity of Jesus, the Son of God. Also, the thoughts here are a further result of the class notes and presentation of the class notes by my prof- Dr. Don Fairbairn. 

In Athanansius' Orations Against the Arians, he sets forth three types of arguments: Direct Biblical Arguments; Biblical/Logical Arguments; and Biblical/Soteriological Arguments. And again, the most interesting one to me was his logical argument. 

The logical argument in particular that caught my eye responded to Arius' understanding of who Jesus is. Specifically, Athanasius is responding to the Arian notion that the Father is the One (God) and Jesus is the first one and greatest of all created beings. In other words, Arianism pushes the subordination of the Son to a logical conclusion (which Origen might have already implicitly stated) and explicitly denies the Son's deity. The Son is a creature whom the Father has created out of nothing, and is only God in the sense that he has been given the dignity of deity.

This Arian thinking caused many (Athanasius included) to respond quite harshly, and this brings us Athanasius' logical response to such a notion. First, Athanasius begins with distinguishing between partaking and entire participation within the Godhead. If the Son partakes of the Father's deity, then he is not a true Son at all. The Son must entirely participate in the Father nature (physis or ousia) in order for the Son to be divine and thus save humanity. In other words, the Son participates by nature in the Godhead. He is naturally God just like the Father.

He then argues that if the Son was not eternally a Son, then the Father was at one time a one, then a two and then three. Now, it was not important to Arianism to uphold a trinitarian understanding, but what would have been important was upholding the Father as ineffable, immutable and unchangeable. So, for the Father to at one time not be a father and at another time be a father would be impossible, since this would imply an imperfection and change in God (the Father). In other words, if there was ever a time when God had no Son, then he was not always Father. Moreover, if God were not always a Father, then what could one say about a time when God would stop being a trinity? Perhaps either adding or subtracting another. 

But Athanasius must address the Scriptural teaching that the Son was begotten by the Father. While Arius claimed that if the Son was begotten then he was created, Athanasius made a distinction between divine and human begetting. Human beings become fathers and sons temporarily, but the Father produces or becomes a father eternally. 

Athanasius proves to be one of Christianity's most able defenders of orthodoxy as it relates to our beliefs about how Jesus is. Well done Athanasius...well done.

Some Thoughts on Being Devotional in Academic Reading

This morning, while completing some reading for my summer course- The Trinitarian and Christological Controversies, I came across a most delightful, and in many respects encouraging and challenging quote from C.S. Lewis. In the Popular Patristics Series published by St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Lewis writes an introduction for St Athanasius’ On the Incarnation and on page 8, Lewis writes:

“For my own part I tend to find the doctrinal books often more helpful in devotion than the devotional books, and I rather suspect that the same experience may await many other. I believe that many who find that “nothing happens” when they sit down, or kneel down, to a book of devotion, would find that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology.”

How true this is for me, but seldom heard from many in the church. What Lewis is getting at here is the needless division between two types of Christian books: those that tend to spiritualize and devotionalize matter and those that tend to be more academically rigorous and technical. We all know what books and authors I am referring to here, and while both have their usefulness, I cannot tell you how many doctrinal, academically rigorous books have caused the devotional cords of my heart to sing. Of course part of Lewis’ quote gets to the issue that the devotional books don’t really say anything. Now I don’t mean that every devotional/pastoral book out there is guilty of such criticism, but the best books for spiritual devotion seem to be “a tough bit of theology” because of what it forces one to do. That is, think much harder and deeper about the issue at hand.

I would like to conclude with what I think this really gets at today. Namely, this quote both encourages and challenges the Christian to read rather difficult doctrinal books and not separate the spiritual and devotional aspects of the literature from the academic rigor. For how often do we as Christian do that? I know I have heard this method told to me many times! For example, there were several instances in my undergraduate education, where students and professors alike told me that in addition to my classroom assignments and studies I need to have a personal “quite time.” But why?! Is not Scripture just that-Scripture? Are we to ever separate those spiritual teachings found in the Word from our academic study? As it seems Paul would respond, “mh… gevnoito” or “Certainly not!” Shouldn’t we always be devotional in every aspect of our study of the Word (whether we are dealing with the Word itself, or a secondary source)? In other words, shouldn’t our study of the Word always be applied to matters of our Christian life? I think so. And I think Lewis is encouraging and challenging us to do the same.

The Context, Controversies and Future of Evangelicalism

Introduction 

I would like to state up front that I am a confessing evangelical, a graduate of an evangelical bible college and currently a graduate student of an evangelical seminary. So rest assured that this is not an attack on evangelicalism, but hopefully a helpful reminder of where we have come from and anticipating where we are going. Given this disclaimer, it is important to state that evangelicals are not unaware of the controversies and debates of specific doctrinal issues that took place and are taking place under the evangelical tent. Moreover, these evangelical disagreements have been the topic of discussion in some of my seminary classes and cause for some interesting dialogue (in many respects, much of what follows in the product one of those classes and its notes). Therefore, I would like to briefly outline the contexts of some of these controversies, which may help us in understanding our disputes better and perhaps settle them (maybe), and conclude with a suggestion on how to move evangelicalism forward in the 21^st century.

The Context and Controversies of Evangelicalism

First the context of the 20^th century posed some interesting controversies. Without going into great detail the point of these evangelical diversities points us in the direction of the existence of theological differences within the movement. In the early 20th century, millennial debates and dispensationalism were of huge interest. The mid-century introduced us to the charismatic movement. The 1960s produced controversies concerning gender roles as they related to women ordination. The 1970s-80s saw issues of contemporary worship and defining and defending the inerrancy of Scripture. Most recently, the meaning of justification has been the hot bottom topic within evangelicalism.

Many of the age old debates, such as Calvinism and Arminianism, the nature of the Spiritual gifts, gender roles, the sacraments (e.g. baptism and the Lord’s Supper), find their supporters among the evangelical camps and are till an issue today. In other words, as a group we have not solved these debates. Even our high view of Scripture, which I’ll mention soon, has not led to a consensus understanding of how to interpret Scripture. In fact, there are considerable differences about “how” to interpret the Scriptures and this of course results in biblical/theological differences. These evangelical biblical/theological differences have caused evangelicalism to define itself, and in light of the disagreement within academia and the church, who decides what answers are “correct”? Moreover, who decides what issues we must argue on in order to be an evangelical?

In an effort to define evangelicalism, the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) provides a doctrinal basis that one must sign every year in order to be a member of the society. It reads, “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.” First, such a statement is often associated with notions of the essentials of evangelicalism and in it we find a specific understanding of the authority and nature of Scripture as well as the nature of the trinity. However, is this enough to establish evangelicalism and one as an evangelical? Yes there are many doctrinal aspects that evangelicals must agree on: such as, the final authority of Scripture, the divinity of Jesus Christ and a need for personal faith in him; however, what about the nature of Christ’s work on the cross? What did it primarily accomplish? Victory and defeat of Satan’s hold on humanity, a satisfaction of God’s wrath, a moral example, etc.? Furthermore, the nature of humanity and the necessity to live a life spiritually transformed? Lastly, what about the importance of mission work for furthering the kingdom (whatever it looks like)? Therefore, along the similar vain of the in the previous paragraph, what confessions are essential and who decides that?

So the doctrinal aspects of a definition of evangelicalism are quite diverse among confessional evangelicals (e.g. evangelical Methodists and Presbyterians). There may be some affirmation of essential doctrines and thus in a sense unity, but it does not take too long to find many aspects of doctrinal diversity within the essential doctrines and then some. As a result, it seems that the theological characteristics and professions of evangelicalism are not enough to primarily hold it together and define it.

Not even cultural definitions can hold evangelicalism together. While evangelicalism is commonly identified as “politically conservative” (e.g. the republican party), who defend ethical issues such as pro-life and anti-gay marriage, there are many evangelicals who vote for different parties. Moreover, there are many non-evangelicals who are also “culture conservatives” (e.g. Roman Catholics and Mormons). Also, there are many who seek to hold evangelicalism together from a scientific approach, but this is flawed as well. For while evangelicals are typically labeled as “scientifically conservative” (e.g. creationism and intelligent design), who hold certain scientific notions about the age of the earth and anti-evolutionary theories, there are many evangelicals who hold an old earth view as well as certain notions of evolutionary theological theories (check out BioLogos http://biologos.org/).

In light of the insufficiency to define evangelicalism with a doctrinal/theological profession, and culturally political and scientific standpoints, many scholars have gone the route of defining evangelicalism in light of historical paradigms. George Marsden suggests a Protestant paradigm as it understands evangelicalism’s close association to the heritage of the Protestant Reformation. I think Marsden rightly notices this, but there seems to be more to evangelicalism historically than just the Protestant Reformation. As a result of many unanswered historical influences, Donald Dayton claims that a Pentecostal paradigm is best as it notices a common heritage in the revivals of the 19^th (2nd Great Awakening) and 20^th (Pentecostal) centuries. But still there seems to be things that Dayton’s paradigm leaves out. In light of the diversity here, Daryl Hart asserts that no paradigm is sufficient to account for the diverse heritage of evangelicalism. There are many historical narratives and heritages that relate to characteristics of evangelicals, so which one is best? As seen above, elements of the protestant reformation (e.g. faith alone) and historical revival movement find there respective roots in evangelicalism (e.g. the urgency of conversion and para-church ministries), so how can we say one is more prominent than another? The later option might be the better one at the moment, since it seems that no single paradigm can account for all the moving (evangelical) parts.

What seems to best define and unite evangelicalism is what it stands against. In other words, what best defines evangelicalism is not what it is but what it is not. For example, evangelical’s battle with modernism is the common enemy of evangelicals and in a sense an accurate defining aspect of the movement. Our attacks against the ethical relativists, the religious atheists, liberal Jesus scholars (e.g. Bart Ehrman, and the “scholars” of the Jesus Seminar), etc are just as much a definitional aspect of who we are as a movement as what our creeds say.

Conclusion: The Future of Evangelicalism  

The contexts and controversies of evangelicalism are quite numerous and there is more to be explored. There are two books coming out that I need to read on this topic before I make any more concluding remarks regarding what the future of evangelicalism will look like: Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism and Evangelicalism: What Is It and Is It Worth Keeping? by D.A. Carson. But some thoughts would be that we must clearly define what we are and I think that evangelicalism can only do that if it sees itself as a movement instead of a religious group or organization within Protestant Christianity. My reason for saying this is because there seems to be too much infighting than actual agreement on specific issues. If we understand evangelicalism as a religious movement within Protestant Christianity, then the things we stand for can often be associated with reforming and reviving specific Christian groups. 

Some Thoughts on Matthew 8:5-13: The Healing of the Centurion’s Servant

8:5 When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him asking for help: 8:6 “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible anguish.” 8:7 Jesus said to him, “I will come and heal him.” 8:8 But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. Instead, just say the word and my servant will be healed. 8:9 For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I say to this one, ‘Go’ and he goes, and to another ‘Come’ and he comes, and to my slave ‘Do this’ and he does it.” 8:10 When Jesus heard this he was amazed and said to those who followed him, “I tell you the truth, I have not found such faith in anyone in Israel! 8:11 I tell you, many will come from the east and west to share the banquet with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 8:12 but the sons of the kingdom will be thrown out into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 8:13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go; just as you believed, it will be done for you.” And the servant was healed at that hour. (NET Bible)

Matthew 8:5-13 is Matthew’s second story about healing in this particular section of his gospel. The first is found in vv. 1-4 (Jesus’ healing of the leper), and our story of healing is followed by another, which is found in vv. 14-17 (Jesus’ healing of Peter’s mother-in-law). Moreover, this literary section is concluded with a message from Jesus about discipleship (vv. 18-22).  Furthermore, this pattern of alternating stories of miraculous works followed by a teaching about discipleship repeats itself two more times till the end of chapter nine (8:23-9:13; 9:14-9:38). 

To begin to comprehend the full significance of this passage, we must first grasp some basic information about Roman centurions and how they were viewed by Jews in the first century. In the ancient world, a section of roughly 100 soldiers were under the command of a centurion (“century” means 100 years). Also, Roman soldiers participated in pagan religious worship to the divine emperor and were not viewed highly by the Jewish people in the first century. So, compare this man to Jesus and it seems rather odd that he would approach Jesus in the first place…right? They really don’t have that much in common. Again, the Centurion is a professional soldier, and Jesus is a man of peace; the Centurion is a Gentile and Jesus is a Jew; the centurion is a pagan worshipper and Jesus is the Son of God.

But the narrative seems to suggest that the two have much in common. For one, this particular centurion, a high rating Roman officer, seems to be a man of high character and quality as indicated by his concern for a lowly servant and Jesus, rating quite highly in the divine order, is too a man of high character and has great concern for humanity. So in many respects, both individuals are excellent examples of humility (For more on Jesus’ humility see Phil. 2:5-11). But, to understand their connection more fully we must look more closely at the narrative.

I think that their main connection is the location where our narrative takes place and what it signifies. Capernaum has already been mentioned as Jesus’ hometown in 4:13 (cf. 9:1; 17:24), and is presently marked by the astonishing faith that Jesus finds in this Roman centurion and a far cry away from what will later be Jesus’ condemnation of Capernaum for its unbelief (11:23). So not only does the centurion’s faith bring him to Jesus, but in many respects this centurion and Jesus have much in common as they are an example of faith, which have come out of Capernaum.

And there are things we can learn from the centurion’s request and statement and Jesus’ response. As for Jesus’ response we can learn about discipleship and ministering to people who are not ethnically and culturally like us, and as for the centurion’s request and statement we can learn about what it means to have great faith. So, let us begin by first examining the centurion’s request.

We have much to gain from observing and modeling the humility of the centurion and this teaching is two fold. First, the centurion humbles himself before Jesus not on behalf of himself but for a lowly servant (vv. 5-6). Now there is some debate as to whether the Greek term pais means “son” or “servant” but the point is that this individual was probably considered part if not all of the centurion’s family. In the ancient world, Roman soldiers were not permitted to have legal families during their two decades of military service, so this servant might be the only member of what the centurion would consider family. Moreover, the evidence that this centurion considers this slave a family member is witnessed by the economic cost for a slave in those days and instead of just letting the slave pass away from natural causes and thus saving the centurion some great financial costs (roughly one third of his annual pay), he considers this slave to be a treasured member of his family and comes to Jesus on his behalf.

Second, the centurion humbles himself by acknowledging his inferior status (vv.5-6). In other words, this highly rated Roman military officer comes to Jesus, who is a non-Roman citizen under the rule of the Roman government, and entreats (or pleads) him to do something for his dying servant. So what we have witnessed first is that the centurion’s request is an example of humility as he comes on behalf of another and acknowledging his inferior status and what we witness next from the centurion is wisdom.

The wisdom of the Centurion is also two fold. The Centurion recognizes Jesus’ authority (v.6). It’s very likely that he has heard of Jesus’ miraculous works and who he has claimed to be, and as a result addresses him with the title “Lord” as it contrasts with what Jesus’ enemies call him (i.e. Teacher. Cf. 26:25, 49.). This centurion shows faith not only by humbling himself and entreating Jesus but also by recognizing who Jesus was and the power and authority he possessed that is far superior to his own concerning this matter.

In addition to recognizing Jesus’ authority he recognizes his divinity as well. Now I think that the centurion’s recognition of Jesus’ divinity is ever clear in vv. 8-9. First, in response to Jesus’ claim that he will come to the servant and heal him in v.7, the centurion says no, but why? Why does the centurion feel himself not fit to have Jesus in his house? I think part of the reason is a feeling of personal inadequacy at a moral and/or spiritual level, not because he is a horrible person per se, but mostly because he knows the majesty and authority the God-man possesses and what he is capable of doing: “Just say the word and my servant will be healed.” (v.8b).

Now the significance of the centurion’s recognition of Jesus’ ability to simply command something that is followed by its fulfillment is further expounded upon in v.9. Here, the centurion’s statement that he “too is a man under authority” implies that he is referring to Jesus as the other man who is also under authority. And just like the centurion who has authority over others, Jesus too has authority over others. The centurion is under the authority of Caesar and there are some who are under him (i.e. soldiers and slaves) and there is something under them (i.e. work). The centurion gives a command that implies that it must be fulfilled. In the same manner, Jesus, under the authority of the Father, gives a command to the one under him (the Holy Spirit), and that work gets done.

Now this command fulfillment pattern is found among the literature of the ANE. Specifically in an Ugaritic Poem (dating about 1200 BC) titled the Epic of King Keret. In this poem, Keret is struck with multiple misfortunes. Although he had seven wives, they all either died or deserted him. Also, he had no surviving children so no heir to his throne. Following such a horrible tragedy, he is left alone crying himself to sleep. One night, while he is praying and lamenting his plight, the god El appears before him and commands him to go and do a number of things and the rest of the poem is him carrying out these commands. Also, we can find a biblical example of this command fulfillment pattern: Creation. God creates by commanding and it is fulfilled.

So, Jesus, the God-man, can command that something be done and it will be done and this is the reason why the centurion’s request and later statement that if Jesus would “just say the word” then his servant will be healed is an example of great faith. This leads me into my next point.  

The acceptance of Jesus. (Keep in mind that this is part one of two concerning Jesus’ response.) First, Jesus accepts the centurion’s attitude as one of faith-greater than the faith of “anyone in Israel.” (v. 10). So the first lesson to be gained from this text is the nature of true faith. Jesus calls the centurion’s request and statement an example of great faith because it implies the authority that Jesus has. All Christ had to do was speak and command something and that command would be done. In this passage, all Jesus had to do was to command that the disease be healed and it would obey, and Jesus had this ability because he was divine, and by the centurion saying “just say the word” it demonstrated recognition of who Jesus truly is. In many ways this is what faith is. We live by faith in that we recognize the authority that God has and the role that we play within salvation history. For we are under the rule of God as he commands us to do something and this is the second lesson to be gained from this text: The abandonment of ethic and cultural prejudices when witnessing and ministering to people different than you. Also, by Jesus saying that the faith of the centurion is greater than anyone in Israel points us to a truth that every Christian needs to be reminded of: Those closest to the truth often take it for granted. Therefore, let us be like the centurion who recognizes the power of the truth of God communicated to us in the Word and in the personage of Jesus Christ!

This brings us to my final observation: the anticipation of Jesus- which is also two fold (being positive and negative). First, Jesus regards this exceptional example of faith by a Gentile as the promise of more Gentiles to come (v.11). This further emphasizes the fate of those you haven’t heard and the responsibility that we bear to minister to them. Once more, Jesus commands that in order to properly disciple nations we must abandon any prior ethnic and culture prejudices. Also, this banquet imagery we see in v.11 is a way of describing the fellowship and celebration that these Gentiles will experience as being part of the people of God in the kingdom of heaven.

But Jesus also anticipates something rather negative (v.12). The “sons of the kingdom” are surely to be interpreted as Jewish people- those who expected salvation based upon their ethic decent from Abraham. But instead of being destined for salvation, they are destined for damnation “where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” The weeping indicates mourning over their eternal state and the gnashing indicates anger. This sober warning to the Jewish nation of Jesus’ day is just as important to complacent Christians today.

This episode is capped off by a statement from Jesus that brings about what the centurion and the reader had already anticipated (v.13), and I think what this passage teaches us overall is that true genuine faith anticipates a favorable or positive response or reaction. Now this response might not always be witnessed, experienced or enjoyed here on earth, but it will surely be done so in heaven!  

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.