Authorized (Mark Ward)

Ward, Mark.  Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Version.

This is not an attack upon the King James Version.  Ward probably spends more time praising and defending it.  What it is, however, is a defense of the idea of translating, since our target language is always a moving target.

The KJV should be revered.  As Ward notes, this version, like many older hymns, “binds generations together.” No one would dream of reading Psalm 23 at a graveside in any translation other than the KJV. We might as well anticipate one objection: is the KJV easier to memorize?  No.  Because it was a force of cultural osmosis, the KJV was reinforced through all media for centuries.  That is why it “seems” easier.

The real difficulty with the KJV is not the obsolete words.  You can pick up a book and figure it out.  The true danger is in “false friends,” words that we use today but have changed in meaning.  Ward lists several:

“How long halt ye between two opinions” (1 Kgs 18:21).

We use the word “halt” today.  It means stop.  That really does not make sense in Elijah’s speech, but we can still get the essence of what he means.  At this point, we still have communication between the two languages.  Halt, however, did not mean stop in this context.  It means “limp,” as other translations note.

“God commendeth his love.”

We use the word “commend” today. Is that what Paul means in this passage?  Is God putting forth his love as a good idea?  Maybe.  It kind of works.  Is that what the word actually meant then, though?  Not really. “Commendeth,” as noted by John Milton in 1644, is “to set off to advantage…to adorn.”  That makes more sense.

Not only are the words misleading, but so is the punctuation.  Elizabethan punctuation was not as defined as ours today.  That is a very good point. Ward does not bring this part out, but have you read places in Jonathan Edwards where there seem to be “random” commas?  Edwards is not guilty of comma splices.  A few hundred years ago, commas often signaled “breathing spaces.”

“But fornication, and all uncleanness….is not convenient” (Eph. 5:3-4).

Does Paul really think that people think that filthiness is “convenient?”  If you avoid fornication and the like because it is inconvenient, that is still a good life choice, but that is a rather odd reason for it.  “Convenient,” obviously, means something else.

“Remove not thy neighbor’s landmark.”

Is God telling his people not to take away the boundary marker in their neighbor’s field?  In a sense, yes. That is not quite what “remove” means.  God is not saying, “Do not take it and get rid of it.”  He is saying “Do not move it.” Do not change the property line.  That makes more sense.

There are probably more “false friends” out there, but Ward establishes his point.

Is the KJV on a Fifth Grade Level?

No, it is not for the simple reason that what we call “a fifth grade level” is a moving target.  As Ward notes, “Reading level assumes contemporary language.: No one, no matter how educated, and certainly no fifth grader, uses “besom when broom is available.”

Ward interacts with Joel Beeke’s otherwise excellent article on why one should use the KJV.  Beeke has one comment that deserves some mention.  Should we accommodate dumbed down English? Should we not strive for better?  I like the idea.  The problem is that such a standard means that C. S. Lewis, probably the finest prose stylist of the 20th century, wrote in a degenerated English.  I am not willing to go that far.  

At the end of the day, communication requires at least two things: understanding between you and me.  The KJV, arguably the finest relic in the English language, does not always ensure understanding in communication.

Advertisement

Commentary on Revelation (Beale)

Beale, G. K. Revelation. New International Commentary on the Greek Text. 

Regardless of one’s position, this is by all accounts the gold standard on Revelation. The background information alone justifies its place at the top.  Beale takes what he calls “an eclectic idealist” approach. Revelation’s use of symbols finds its anchor in the Old Testament, primarily the book of Daniel. Unlike a pure idealist approach, he sees future referents in the book, namely a future Antichrist. With all amillennialists, he sees the millennium spanning the church age.

He defends the “late date” of Revelation and so critiques preterist interpretations. As he notes, there was no systemic emperor worship under Nero.  Nero did persecute Christians, to be sure, but it was for the fire, not for religious reasons (Beale 5).  Even though “Babylon” is where our Lord was crucified, which seems to suggest Jerusalem, it is also spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, suggesting, rather, that all three terms are figurative (25).

Rev. 1:7 cannot refer to an early date because Zech. 12, its referent, speaks of the redemption of Israel, not its judgment.  Moreover, “tribes of the earth” never refers to Israel, but to the whole world” (26).

Another problem is that preterism limits the prophecies to 70 AD, whereas Daniel 2 and 7, the main passages quoted, are universal in scope and usually point towards a final judgment (44-45).

Structure of the Book

The best outline of the book will divide it into 7 or 8 sections (114).  Moreover, Beale suggests that such a division best falls under a fourfold division of 1:1-19; 1:20-3:22; 4:1–22:5; 22:6-21 (155).

Progressive-recapitulation: the seals/trumpets/bowls recapitulate each other by portraying judgment, then redemption (121).

Revelation 1:19 as Hermeneutical Key

Daniel 2:28-29 is the source for Rev. 1:19. When the LXX of Daniel says “what things must take place in the latter days,” John uses almost the same language to say “what things must take place quickly.” Eschaton ton hemeron → genesthai en taxei.

Revelation 5

5:10.  Basileuo can be either future or present. Futurists connect it to Rev. 20:4. Beale opts for a present tense reading as it ties in with 1:5-6a. But if the referent to 1:5 holds, then these saints are reigning on earth right now, and that is not the case. To be sure, 1:6 speaks of his making us to be a kingdom, but if we aren’t currently reigning on earth, then it does not make sense to connect it to verse 5.

Revelation 6-8

Two questions present themselves to us.  Are the seals recapitulated in the trumpets and bowls?  Secondly, are the first four seals simultaneous or sequential?

Beale says the seals are simultaneous.  That does not seem right. For example, the actions of war and famine create the conditions for inflation. Moreover, Beale says these seals apply to the general church age (384-385). He says the seals “purify the faithful,” but he alludes to Leviticus 26, which contain covenant curses on God’s people.

He then says the four horsemen (“to kill”) is aimed at the Christian community. That does not follow for a number of reasons.  The first three plagues are aimed at the whole world (presumably killing much of the world). Why would this last plague be any different?  And in terms of this happening over “the church age,” while persecution does last throughout the age, it is never a worldwide phenomenon like in this passage.  Finally, and most problematic, if these seals purify the church and punish the wicked, then it is hard to see how killing Christians punishes the wicked.

6:9. Are the saints under the altar actual martyrs or Christians in general?  Beale says they represent all Christians. True, there is sacrificial language of the Christian life in the NT.  A simpler reading, though, is that these Christians were actually killed.  There is a future referent in the comfort provided to them (i.e., wait until the rest of the Christians are killed).  If killed at the end of the verse means killed, then it has to mean so at the beginning. Not only does this point to a future referent, but Beale even concedes that the future seems “imminent” (395).

9:5. This is where “spiritual readings” tend to break down.  If these judgments happen in the interadvental age, then it is not clear why the “two months” means anything.  If the two months are not literal, as Beale suggests, then how do they apply to an age that spans the whole church age? One could reply that they refer to a limited time at the end of this church age. That could work, but it does not seem that Beale takes that option.

9:18.  Do the plagues kill people in a spiritual or literal manner? Beale says they are literal.  The people actually die, but the duration of the plagues is not literal.  It is spiritually stretched out.  Presumably it is also for the entire church age, but this makes the time limit given by John unnecessary.

11:5. The two witnesses are the two lampstands, the church.  This is hard to square with the earlier comments of the church being trampled.  If the witnesses are protected from harm, then at the same time they can’t be trampled. Moreover, these witnesses are decisively killed, but the church is never decisively killed.

The witnesses’ resurrection means God vindicates them over the world system at the end of time.  The problem, though, is that in the text they are vindicated before the end of time.

Place of Refuge in the Desert

Beale says topos is always a synonym in the NT for “temple” (648).  I guess that is true.  At first glance it does not seem likely.

Excellent section on the Beast language.  Rightly points to Leviathan and Behemoth in Job.  The Beast will be a Roman-like system reaching its zenith in an individual.  I can go with that.

Mark of the Beast

The mark is figurative (716)..  This does not seem right.  Even though the seal on believers is spiritual, the mark is recognizable in that you cannot buy or sell without it. That is evidence of a physical mark. Moreover, once one takes the mark, there is no going back. If the mark were simply the values of the world-system, then repentance for a wayward Christian is impossible. That does not seem right. 

Chapters 16-22

If the bowl/trumpet judgments are stretched out through the church age, then how should we expect these judgments acted out in history? The most likely reading is they are acted out at the end of the church age. Otherwise, the entire church age should be one of economic destruction (perhaps, see p. 814).  Historically, the opposite is true.  

16:16.  According to Beale, Armageddon is symbolic.  I think that is probably right.  In any case, I do not think the greatest battle in the history of humanity will be fought on the plains of Megiddo.  Because Armageddon is symbolic, so Beale argues, the “city” of “Jerusalem” is symbolic.  I do not think that is accurate. According to Zechariah 14, Jesus will stand on the Mount of Olives in the context of this battle, and when he stands there, the mountain will split.  Because the splitting of the mountain will create an escape route for the Jews, we know that Zechariah is speaking literally.  A symbolic reading cannot work.

17:10.  Beale picks up again his critique of preterism and its identification of the seven kings. He lists the following arguments:

1. With which emperor does one begin counting: Augustus, Julius, or Caligula?  The text is not clear and any choice is arbitrary.
2. Do we count the brief reigns of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius “during the eighteen months between Nero’s death and Vespasian’s capture of Rome” (873)?
3. “How could the eighth emperor also be one of the seven without introducing a figurative notion into an otherwise literal method?”

The Millennium

Foundational to any argument for amillennialism is the rejection that Revelation 20 is sequential Revelation 19.  Beale makes a strong case that it recapitulates the church age rather than follows the battle of Armageddon (974ff). Not every one of his subsidiary arguments, however, is good.  Amillennialism, despite its strong argument for recapitulation, must overcome a number of hurdles.

(1) Exactly how was Satan bound?  He was bound so that he could deceive the nations no more. Revelation 12-13, unfortunately, has him doing precisely that.  This is a fatal contradiction to the recapitulation theory. One could argue, perhaps, that Satan no longer deceives “all” the people in a nation.  That removes the contradiction, but it does not seem to be what John is saying.

(2) If Satan’s binding is co-extensive with Christ’s redemptive work, then does his loosing undo Christ’s work?  That cannot be right.  Beale is aware of this problem, but he thinks this only applies to Christ’s purchasing a people for himself.  True, Christ did that but it is not clear how that removes the problem.

As it stands, I do not think Beale has given sufficient rebuttals to the above charges. Before we become premillennial, I think another option is available.  Satan is bound so that he may not lead an assault on the “Mount of Assembly” (which is what har maggedon means in Hebrew) until the final hour.  That is a much better reading.

The next problem for an amillennial reading is the resurrection language. The main problem is that resurrection, on the amillennial reading, means spiritual in one clause and physical in the next with no clear indicator of a change. Beale counters that the New Testament speaks of our “being raised with Christ in the heavenlies,” and that clearly does not mean a physical resurrection.  Perhaps.

The death of the righteous (souls beheaded) is the first physical death of the saints. The second spiritual death of the wicked is spiritual (1005).  Therefore, since the two types of death are different, so also are the two types of resurrection.

It is logically possible, but by no means certain.  Beale asks another question: is it not wrong to have the glorified saints in heaven return to earth for a millennium?  Would they not be leaving their spiritual blessedness (1011)?  We need to be careful with this line of argument.  On the surface, it is Platonic, not biblical.

There are a few other problems.  This cannot refer to the whole of the “godly dead” in the church age, for John says they were specifically killed (beheaded, actually) by the Beast, whom Beale says is at the end of time.

So which interpretive theory is correct?  Probably amillennial, at least at this point in my reading.  I think the case for recapitulation is solid, but I do not think other amillennial arguments are that good.

In conclusion, Beale provides us with an excellent commentary on Revelation.  My only real complaint is the format in the series.  Unlike commentaries in NICOT or NAC, there is no block of text before each section.

Blogging through Beale (Rev. 16-22)

Chapters 16-22

If the bowl/trumpet judgments are stretched out through the church age, then how should we expect these judgments acted out in history? The most likely reading is they are acted out at the end of the church age. Otherwise, the entire church age should be one of economic destruction (perhaps, see p. 814).  Historically, the opposite is true.  

16:16.  According to Beale, Armageddon is symbolic.  I think that is probably right.  In any case, I do not think the greatest battle in the history of humanity will be fought on the plains of Megiddo.  Because Armageddon is symbolic, so Beale argues, the “city” of “Jerusalem” is symbolic.  I do not think that is accurate. According to Zechariah 14, Jesus will stand on the Mount of Olives in the context of this battle, and when he stands there, the mountain will split.  Because the splitting of the mountain will create an escape route for the Jews, we know that Zechariah is speaking literally.  A symbolic reading cannot work.

17:10.  Beale picks up again his critique of preterism and its identification of the seven kings. He lists the following arguments:

1. With which emperor does one begin counting: Augustus, Julius, or Caligula?  The text is not clear and any choice is arbitrary.
2. Do we count the brief reigns of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius “during the eighteen months between Nero’s death and Vespasian’s capture of Rome” (873)?
3. “How could the eighth emperor also be one of the seven without introducing a figurative notion into an otherwise literal method?”

The Millennium

Foundational to any argument for amillennialism is the rejection that Revelation 20 is sequential Revelation 19.  Beale makes a strong case that it recapitulates the church age rather than follows the battle of Armageddon (974ff). Not every one of his subsidiary arguments, however, is good.  Amillennialism, despite its strong argument for recapitulation, must overcome a number of hurdles.

(1) Exactly how was Satan bound?  He was bound so that he could deceive the nations no more. Revelation 12-13, unfortunately, has him doing precisely that.  This is a fatal contradiction to the recapitulation theory. One could argue, perhaps, that Satan no longer deceives “all” the people in a nation.  That removes the contradiction, but it does not seem to be what John is saying.

(2) If Satan’s binding is co-extensive with Christ’s redemptive work, then does his loosing undo Christ’s work?  That cannot be right.  Beale is aware of this problem, but he thinks this only applies to Christ’s purchasing a people for himself.  True, Christ did that but it is not clear how that removes the problem.

As it stands, I do not think Beale has given sufficient rebuttals to the above charges. Before we become premillennial, I think another option is available.  Satan is bound so that he may not lead an assault on the “Mount of Assembly” (which is what har maggedon means in Hebrew) until the final hour.  That is a much better reading.

The next problem for an amillennial reading is the resurrection language. The main problem is that resurrection, on the amillennial reading, means spiritual in one clause and physical in the next with no clear indicator of a change. Beale counters that the New Testament speaks of our “being raised with Christ in the heavenlies,” and that clearly does not mean a physical resurrection.  Perhaps.

The death of the righteous (souls beheaded) is the first physical death of the saints. The second spiritual death of the wicked is spiritual (1005).  Therefore, since the two types of death are different, so also are the two types of resurrection.

It is logically possible, but by no means certain.  Beale asks another question: is it not wrong to have the glorified saints in heaven return to earth for a millennium?  Would they not be leaving their spiritual blessedness (1011)?  We need to be careful with this line of argument.  On the surface, it is Platonic, not biblical.

There are a few other problems.  This cannot refer to the whole of the “godly dead” in the church age, for John says they were specifically killed (beheaded, actually) by the Beast, whom Beale says is at the end of time.

So which interpretive theory is correct?  Probably amillennial, at least at this point in my reading.  I think the case for recapitulation is solid, but I do not think other amillennial arguments are that good.

Blogging through Beale (Rev. 8-13)

Revelation 8:6-12

The trumpets “portray judgment on unbelievers” (472).

Burning mountain: probably a wicked kingdom.  Mountains often symbolize kingdoms in the OT.

Star: Babylon’s representative angel (479).

9:5. This is where “spiritual readings” tend to break down.  If these judgments happen in the interadvental age, then it is not clear why the “two months” means anything.  If the two months are not literal, as Beale suggests, then how do they apply to an age that spans the whole church age? One could reply that they refer to a limited time at the end of this church age. That could work, but it does not seem that Beale takes that option.

9:18.  Do the plagues kill people in a spiritual or literal manner? Beale says they are literal.  The people actually die, but the duration of the plagues is not literal.  It is spiritually stretched out.  Presumably it is also for the entire church age, but this makes the time limit given by John unnecessary.

Chapters 10-11

The parenthesis refers to the entire church age (521).

11:1-2.  The temple is spiritual, or better, eschatological.  It corresponds to Ezekiel’s temple in 40-48. It is the body of Christ (562). This could work.  To be honest, any discussion of the temple is problematic.

Likewise, the Holy City is also figurative. This gets problematic in the application, though.  The whole city on Beale’s reading is trampled, yet the whole church is not trampled today (574).  While we are one, and we share in one another’s sufferings, it is simply not the case that the whole church is trampled.

11:5. The two witnesses are the two lampstands, the church.  This is hard to square with the earlier comments of the church being trampled.  If the witnesses are protected from harm, then at the same time they can’t be trampled. Moreover, these witnesses are decisively killed, but the church is never decisively killed.

The witnesses’ resurrection means God vindicates them over the world system at the end of time.  The problem, though, is that in the text they are vindicated before the end of time.

11:15.  Beale does not make much of it here, but this passage could be problematic for those who think Christ is reigning now.  If Christ is reigning now, then why is he said to become king at this moment?  

Place of Refuge in the Desert

Beale says topos is always a synonym in the NT for “temple” (648).  I guess that is true.  At first glance it does not seem likely.

Excellent section on the Beast language.  Rightly points to Leviathan and Behemoth in Job.  The Beast will be a Roman-like system reaching its zenith in an individual.  I can go with that.

Mark of the Beast

The mark is figurative (716)..  This does not seem right.  Even though the seal on believers is spiritual, the mark is recognizable in that you cannot buy or sell without it. That is evidence of a physical mark. Moreover, once one takes the mark, there is no going back. If the mark were simply the values of the world-system, then repentance for a wayward Christian is impossible. That does not seem right.

Blogging through Beale (Rev. 5-6)

Revelation 5

5:10.  Basileuo can be either future or present. Futurists connect it to Rev. 20:4. Beale opts for a present tense reading as it ties in with 1:5-6a. But if the referent to 1:5 holds, then these saints are reigning on earth right now, and that is not the case. To be sure, 1:6 speaks of his making us to be a kingdom, but if we aren’t currently reigning on earth, then it does not make sense to connect it to verse 5.

Revelation 6-8

Two questions present themselves to us.  Are the seals recapitulated in the trumpets and bowls?  Secondly, are the first four seals simultaneous or sequential?

Beale says the seals are simultaneous.  That does not seem right. For example, the actions of war and famine create the conditions for inflation. Moreover, Beale says these seals apply to the general church age (384-385). He says the seals “purify the faithful,” but he alludes to Leviticus 26, which contain covenant curses on God’s people.

He then says the four horsemen (“to kill”) is aimed at the Christian community. That does not follow for a number of reasons.  The first three plagues are aimed at the whole world (presumably killing much of the world). Why would this last plague be any different?  And in terms of this happening over “the church age,” while persecution does last throughout the age, it is never a worldwide phenomenon like in this passage.  Finally, and most problematic, if these seals purify the church and punish the wicked, then it is hard to see how killing Christians punishes the wicked.

6:9. Are the saints under the altar actual martyrs or Christians in general?  Beale says they represent all Christians. True, there is sacrificial language of the Christian life in the NT.  A simpler reading, though, is that these Christians were actually killed.  There is a future referent in the comfort provided to them (i.e., wait until the rest of the Christians are killed).  If killed at the end of the verse means killed, then it has to mean so at the beginning. Not only does this point to a future referent, but Beale even concedes that the future seems “imminent” (395).

Blogging through Beale (Introduction)

I have been reading through GK Beale’s standard-setting commentary on Revelation for about a year, off and on. I consider myself “a leaky amillennialist.” I think there are weak spots in amillennialism, though. As a general rule, we have not done a great job dealing with texts like Zech. 14 and Isaiah 24-26. Moreover, I think idealism is a terrible hermeneutic for interpreting Revelation. Beale avoids much of that problem, though I will register my disagreements at time.

Critique of Preterism

For a late date: There was no systemic emperor worship under Nero.  Nero did persecute Christians, to be sure, but it was for the fire, not for religious reasons (Beale 5).  

The biggest weakness arises from the seven kings.  With which king does one start?

Even though “Babylon” is where our Lord was crucified, which seems to suggest Jerusalem, it is also spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, suggesting, rather, that all three terms are figurative (25).

Rev. 1:7 cannot refer to an early date because Zech. 12, its referent, speaks of the redemption of Israel, not its judgment.  Moreover, “tribes of the earth” never refers to Israel, but to the whole world” (26).

Another problem is that preterism limits the prophecies to 70 AD, whereas Daniel 2 and 7, the main passages quoted, are universal in scope and usually point towards a final judgment (44-45).

Critique of Historicism

The main problem is that all of the prophecies are tied to unique moments in Western European history, making the rest of the world largely irrelevant (46).

Beale’s own view is eclectic.  He rejects that there are unfolding prophesied moments in the book (49).

Symbolism

4, 7, and 12 symbolize cosmic order (60-63).

Structure of the Book

The best outline of the book will divide it into 7 or 8 sections (114).  Moreover, Beale suggests that such a division best falls under a fourfold division of 1:1-19; 1:20-3:22; 4:1–22:5; 22:6-21 (155).

Progressive-recapitulation: the seals/trumpets/bowls recapitulate each other by portraying judgment, then redemption (121).

Revelation 1:19 as Hermeneutical Key

Daniel 2:28-29 is the source for Rev. 1:19. When the LXX of Daniel says “what things must take place in the latter days,” John uses almost the same language to say “what things must take place quickly.” Eschaton ton hemeron → genesthai en taxei.

1:1 “Apocalyptic” is a heightened form of prophecy. The “things that must soon take place” refer to the “imminent time of fulfillment” (181). We are looking at the beginning of fulfilment, not the final moments (pace futurism) nor merely AD 70 (pace preterism). A similar Greek parallel is Mk. 1:15.

1:10a While “Lord’s day” could be equivalent to “Old Testament Day of the Lord,” the word kuriakos is never used like that in the LXX, NT, or early fathers (203).

1:18. Following David Aune’s analysis, Christ’s holding the keys of death and Hades could be a polemic against  the pagan gods who were thought to be the rulers of the underworld (215).

1:20. The angels are primarily heavenly beings, though with a human dimension in light of corporate representation.  Stars are metaphorical for both angels and saints in the OT (218).

Heavenly Courtroom

Crystal Sea:  allusions to Red Sea (cf. 15:2-4).  Possible Solomon’s laver.

4 Living Creatures: Possible options include the Zodiac.  The problem is that the Eagle is never mentioned in the Zodiac (329).  Probably represented the whole created order.

What Kind of Book is Opened in Rev. 5?

Book of redemption:  The problem with this view is that the contents of the book have more to do with events happening to both elect and unbelievers (339). In fact, if John has Daniel 2, 7, 12, and Ezek. 2-3 in mind, then the book is more about judgment.

Old Testament: Has the advantage of seeing Christ as interpreting the Old Testament.  Unfortunately, it suffers from similar problems: the books in Daniel and Ezekiel are not represented as “the Old Testament.”

Beale suggests the “book” is a general testament of judgment and redemption.  It is a covenantal promise of inheritance (340).

2 Temple Sources Beale Uses

Sibylline Oracles (4.24; Beale 59).

Odes of Solomon 23 (Beale 341). Corresponds to the idea of “book” as “testament of promise.”

Biblical Interpretations in Preaching (Von Rad)

Von Rad, Gerhard. Biblical Interpretations in Preaching.

This is not a series of sermons following the church calendar, though the table of contents may suggest as much. Rather, Gerhard von Rad gives guidelines on what to look for the text, ranging from technical Hebrew grammar to overarching themes. Of course, we can’t follow von Rad in many places. He is far too critical of the text as we have it (though he never goes as far as the liberalism that gutted mainline Protestantism). Nonetheless, we are in the presence of a master.

His introduction is a fine survey of problems in modern hermeneutics, to which he tells us that “language and mind form a unity” (von Rad 14).

Genesis 4: “Ancient man sensed it much more clearly than do we: the earth, intended by God to serve man as the maternal foundation of life itself, has drunk a brother’s blood” (21)! The sermon should center on verse 10 and the contrast between Abel’s and Christ’s blood, the former only increases the burden of the curse.

Genesis 22: “The word ‘God’ is especially emphasized by the syntax (it is placed before the verb!)” (33).

Genesis 32: “We must remember that ancient man was conscious that his life was molded and surrounded by divine powers which he could not decipher…If he encountered a numen, the most elemental question was the question of that being’s name” (41-42). If you can’t commit to that idea in some level, you simply can’t understand the world of the Bible.

Joshua 1:1-9: God’s address to Joshua “comes in an actual interim period, between promise and fulfillment, between election and ultimate…salvation” (49). Von Rad correctly notes that our word “law” doesn’t capture the essence of Torah, which was “the sum of all beneficent divine intention in Israel” (51).

2 Chronicles 20: Holy war. The narrative “certainly understands the mearbim to be heavenly powers sent by God to intervene and cause the enemy’s defeat” (67).

Psalm 32. There is a penitential aspect, but it isn’t to function as a morbidly medieval penance psalm. The “diction of the psalm resembles that of wisdom literature; i.e., it is highly didactic” (75).

Psalm 96. The enthronement of Yahweh. It begins noting that only the elect community knows of this cosmic turning point, to which it must respond with “praise” and “proclamation” (79). “All true praise lives out of certainty of the eschatological kingdom.” God’s coming in judgment is a shaphat, a settling.

This book cannot replace exegesis, but it is a fine guideline for the new student.

Hopeful Imagination (Brueggemann)

One can appreciate the way Brueggemann reads the Bible. For all of Evangelicalism’s rejection of Plato and its (rightful, if not always self-understood) suspicion of Hellenism, Evangelicals are thoroughly Platonic when it comes to thinking about the Biblical text. Evangelicals see the Old Testament as one seamless unity in which all texts have equal applicatory power to the life of the believer. Brueggemann shows how untenable that view is. While sensitive to the fact this is God’s word, these texts reveal a highly dynamic sitz em leben. Not only do many texts of the Old Testament—moral and civil texts at that—not easily apply to today’s life, they didn’t even apply to the life of the “Old Testament” believer in many cases.

His Thesis

Brueggemann’s thesis is helpfully summarized in the final pages of the book: Jeremiah urged “grief” in order for newness to come out of brokenness, a brokenness caused by idolatry. Ezekiel posited God’s holiness as the only ground of hope, for only God’s holiness remains “undeconstructed.” 2nd Isaiah points the way back from exile with new community, new hope, and both by way of a “new memory” (131-133).

Brueggemann argues that 587 B.C. is a break in Israel’s prophetic history (2). After the Babylonian exile, the Prophets had Israel’s text—or better her “collective memory”—in a different way. For example, it would not have done any good to preach the covenant promises of Deuteronomy 28-30 to the captive community without radically altering the way they are applied. Therefore, the prophets—Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel—had to draw upon new applications of Israel’s older memories. The older stories still work, but they have to work in a new way.

An Hegelian on Crack?

There are some difficulties with Brueggemann’s project. Brueggemann sets forth the prophet as the critic of the Bourgeois. The prophet calls against the moral and theological compromise in the power circles. That is good and there is no problem with that. It appears, though, that there must always be a prophet who is critiquing a system that is always corrupt and is calling forth a new system which, too, will soon become corrupt.

It is not fair to critique an argument simply based on the implications of how some will apply the argument—and I largely agree with what Brueggemann is saying. However, it would have been interesting to see how he develops the same true insights in a new setting. In other words, it would have been helpful for him to “imagine” a more normative, yet morally just setting in which these prophetic insights could play.

Sola Scriptura: Problems and Principles in Preaching Historical Texts

Greidanus, Sidney. Sola Scriptura: Problems and Principles in Preaching Historical Texts. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2001.

“Dare to be a Daniel!” What is the purpose of preaching?  Is it to tell the story of redemption or to preach a moralistic sermon that will give me a burning in the bosom?  Given the way I phrased that question, you might expect me to side with the former.  True, I intend nothing but the harshest criticism of pietistic preaching.  I agreed with every single criticism raised by the Schilderite school (or Redemptive-Historical [RH] school).  Unfortunately, the Schilderite school does not give us any realistic alternatives.

The RH’s challenge is quite simple: if the point of preaching is to give us moralistic advice, then you do not need the bible to do it.  Quite so.  The target is not just moralistic preaching.  Overly-subjective preaching or pietism is just as guilty. In pietism, the attention is on man and not on God’s finished work in Christ.

The exemplary approach sees the bible, particularly the Old Testament, as a source for illustrations (Greidanus 57). We will list a number of problems with moralistic/exemplar preaching:

* “Moralistic preaching is legalistic; it issues imperatives without the divine indicative” (79).

* Often the text itself does not tell us whether an action is good or bad (81).  A good example is David’s marrying Abigail.  David is clearly the hero of that story and the marriage, minus the dead husband, is quite beautiful.  The problem is that David already has a wife.  Such facts strain the “Go and do likewise” moment.

Problems with Subjectivist Preaching

* “The sad phenomenon of the scarcity in certitude also in our Gereformeerde Kerken is in no small measure due to the fact that these people have been taught to search for certitude where it cannot be found” (quoted in Greidanus 97).

Given the fatal problems with exemplarist preaching, do they have a comeback?  They have several, but only one of them is any good.  On a surface level reading it seems that the apostles appealed to Old Testament history as a model for today.  1 Corinthians 10 is such an example.  Paul writes, “Now all these things happened unto them for examples.”  Greidanus points out, however, that examples is tupoi/tupikos, types.  This is closer to redemptive-historical than moralistic preaching.

No matter, is not Hebrews 11 such a text?  It looks like it, but it might not help the moralist as much as one expects.  No one seriously preaches a “roll-call” text like Hebrews 11.  Maybe the author means something else.  On one hand, I do not find the RH rebuttals very persuasive.  On the other hand, this is not exactly what we would call a sermon today (yes, I know Hebrews was probably read aloud as a sermon).

The strongest text is James 5:16-18.  James clearly appeals to Elijah as a model for us today.

The RH have a ready solution to individualism:  the covenant and covenant history.  This seems right enough, and I do think the answer is in this direction, but there are some problems, which we shall note below.

Redemptive history is “the successive realization in time of God’s thoughts of peace for us according to his fixed plan, and the fulfillment in time of this work-program which Father, Son, and Spirit decided upon before time” (123). This approach points to Christ and not in a haphazard way.  It gives unity to history. It allows one to point to Christ without forcing Jesus into every river and house.

While such an approach is obviously superior to legalistic moralism, it has problems.

1) Schilder and other  RH guys use the eternal decree in a different way than Scripture does.  Schilder makes deductions from the decree concerning the course of history (174-175). Where Schilder might reason from the decree to history, sometimes Scripture moves in the opposite direction. 

2) Schilder sometimes has to look for the “new phase” in RH.  In some ways this is easy: Mt Sinai, Davidic covenant, and Pentecost.  In other areas it is not obvious and the preacher is thrown back upon the same speculation criticized in the moralistic preachers.  Even worse, this means the meaning is decided before the text is heard (179).

3) While progressive revelation is a legitimate category, Schilder more often uses it not to elucidate history, but eternal truths in God’s mind (182).

4) Scripture contains teaching (didache).  It is not clear how RH can include that within its narrative of redemptive history.

5) RH sermons run the risk of being lectures on redemptive history, and since there is only one redemptive history, the lectures start to sound the same.

Conclusion

As with many surveys of 20th century Dutch theological controversies, it is not always clear what the main point is.  Moreover, the book raises more questions than it answers.  To be sure, Greidanus has written several volumes explaining how to preach in such a way. In any case, this was a valuable text that serves as a cautious reminder to both sides of the debate.  It reminds us that neither moralistic legalism nor redemptive history fully exhausts the demands laid upon the preacher.

Prophetic Imagination (Brueggemann)

Brueggemann, Walter. Prophetic Imagination. Fortress Press.

As with all of Brueggemann’s works, it is rich in insight and weak in depth.

Great in terms of theoretical critique, weak in terms of solution. Brueggemann appears to advocate perpetual socialist crisis as the ideal for living faith. A number of problems with his approach: he advocates that community must be formed around a prophetic leader. I agree, sort of. But for WB this prophetic leader is useless unless he has something to prophesy against. Thus, there should be a perpetual bad guy, preferably white, male, and capitalistic. The philosophical marxism should be immediately apparent: perpetual crisis for perpetual flux and change.

Actually, for all of his talk about eschatology, he advocates a de-eschatologized marxism: perpetual class warfare without the “eschatological moment” when class is eliminated.

This book, for all of its problems, has its good moments. Unfortunately, its good moments only apply to communities that are highly disciplined and are able to appropriate their freedom in responsible manners. WB frames the debate in terms that the true solution cannot be mentioned (e.g., while it is good to talk about speaking the truth to power, this isn’t always the reason that communities are oppressed. Usually, the oppressive power is often connected with government bureaucracies).