Category: College

Old Testament 102: Barry Webb on Protest (against Proverbs) in Ecclesiastes

Barry Webb, in Five Festal Garments, suggests that the epilogue locates the Qohelet, the writer of Ecclesiastes, in the mainstream of Israelite wisdom (while I think he’s writing against certain elements of the wisdom movement), and that it is therefore inappropriate to see his teaching as a direct attack on Solomonic wisdom, especially in the canonical form in which we have it in the book of Proverbs. But…

“Clearly there is a tension between them that is evident in the body of the book… and which can not be ignored in any responsible reading of it. The difference relates essentially to the way the doctrine of creation functions in the two works.”

Ecclesiastes draws deterministic inferences from creation. For example, that the creator of the world is responsible for good times and bad (7:14), and that he has set limits to human knowledge (3:11), so we are therefore never in a position to secure guaranteed outcomes for particular behaviour.

Proverbs, on the other hand, sees creation as equally important, but is less influenced by the fall account, and more open ended and positive. It sees the created order as an expression of the wisdom of God (Proverbs 8:22-30). Which brings a confidence that careful observation can enable the gaining of wisdom, which will mostly lead to some modicum of success.

“These two works are certainly in tension, but not in fundamental conflict if we attend to them carefully. Proverbs acknowledges that in the end, it is God, not human beings, who determines the outcomes of events: “In his heart a man plans his course, but the Lord determines his steps” (16:9)… And Ecclesiastes, as we have seen, acknowledges the relative advantage of wisdom over folly (2:13, 10:12). They are both anchored in creation theology, and the fear of God is the essence of wisdom for both of them. Proverbs begins with it, and Ecclesiastes ends with it.”

November 15, 2010

Old Testament 102: Some more on protest in the Wisdom Literature

That last post probably makes more sense in the light of what the other wisdom books say about retributive theology, here’s the bit of my essay that directly proceded the stuff from Waltke:

Internal Protest

Von Rad (1972) suggests Jewish wisdom presupposed Yahweh as the “order underpinning creation” who would only act at last resort.[1] In order to reach this view he inexplicably dismisses Proverbs that call for trust in the Lord (Proverbs 3:5; 14:26; 16:3, 20; 18:10; 19:23; 28:25; 29:25; 30:1-14). The extreme version of this view reduces God to a deistic first-cause with a hands-off approach to creation,[2] and in this view the Yahweh of Proverbs functions the same way as the gods of the ANE.[3]

A retributive “reap-what-you-sow” theology is bound to result in disappointment in a broken world. Seemingly good people suffer, protest literature exploring this disappointment is common in the ANE.[4] Whybray suggests Israel’s protest literature was not unique, and not dependant on foreign works.[5]

This view of protest within the canon has become popular in modern wisdom scholarship,[6] and some have tried to identify retributive theology in the ethics of the prophets, suggesting it played an important role in Jewish theology.[7] Any concept of retributive theology legitimately found in the Old Testament is carefully grounded in the will of Yahweh,[8] and is usually the fruit of a promise.[9] I would suggest this view actually describes the purposes of the wisdom authors in addressing ANE conceptions of reality.

Ecclesiastes and Wisdom

If Ecclesiastes is understood as a protest against the mindless pursuit of wisdom characterised by the “wisdom movement” typified by the statement in 8:16-17, then this has been interpreted as a critique of Proverbs’ embracing of wisdom “Wisdom is supreme, therefore get wisdom” (Proverbs 4:7).[10]

However, it is possible that both statements reflect two sides of the same coin if they are read in the light of the “Fear of the Lord” (Proverbs 1:6, Ecclesiastes 12:13). Qoheleth’s objection to the wisdom movement must then be understood as a rejection of the wisdom movement as it exists in the ANE.[11]

Job and Retribution

Job maintains his blamelessness in the face of his friends, who clearly advocate a doctrine of retribution (for example Elihu’s words in Job 34:4-9).[12] His words in 9:22 speak out against such a doctrine, and his views on Yahweh’s rule of the world, and his own righteousness, are vindicated when Yahweh rebukes the friends because they have “not spoken of me what is right” (Job 42:7,8), dismissing any possible inkling of an acts-consequences nexus.

A major theological purpose of Job seems to be to overturn retributive theology,[13] theology that is commonplace in the ANE,[14] and not as clearly advocated in Proverbs as some suggest.[15]

[1] Von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, p 191

[2] Waltke, B, ‘Does Proverbs Promise Too Much?,’ Andrews University Seminary Studies, Autumn 1996, Vol. 34, No.2, pp 333-334 citing Huwiler, E.F, “Control of Reality in Israelite Wisdom” (Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 1988), p 64

[3] Whybray, N, ‘The Social World of the Wisdom Writers,’ p 246, Blenkinsopp, J, Wisdom and Law in the Old Testament, p 46 suggests the acts-consequence nexus is an unhelpful hangover from Israel’s adaptation of ‘old wisdom’.

[4] Dell, K.J, The Book of Job as Sceptical Literature, (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1991), p 38

[5] Whybray, N, ‘Two Jewish Theologies,’ p 181

[6] See Morrow, W.S, Protest Against God, pp 129-146, Dell, K.J, The Book of Job as Sceptical Literature, pp 35-56, Shaking A Fist At God: Insights from the Book of Job (Ligouri: Triumph Books, 1995), pp 37-66, Enns, P, Inspiration and Incarnation, pp 74-82

[7] Hubbard, ‘The Wisdom Movement,’ p 11 citing Gerstenberger, E. ‘The Woe-Oracles of the Prophets’, Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962) 249-263

[8] Lucas, E, ‘The Acts-Consequences Nexus,’ p 8 suggests any character-consequences nexus in Proverbs is not the result of an impersonal order, but rather the “will of Yahweh.”

[9] Israel’s occupation of the Promised Land was certainly linked to their righteousness – cf Deuteronomy 30.

[10] Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation, p 78

[11] Crenshaw, J.L, Ecclesiastes: A Commentary, p 24 suggests Qoheleth’s rejection of observing signs is a rejection of Mesopotamian wisdom, and p 26 suggests his embrace of life as opposed to suicide contrasts with Egyptian and Mesopotamian skepticism.

[12] Some have suggested that Job’s friends are representatives of the wisdom movement, or that all the characters are sages, Perdue, L.G, Wisdom Literature: A Theological History, pp 90-91, Zimmerli, Walther, ‘Expressions of Hope in Proverbs and The Book of Job,’ Man and His Hope in the Old Testament, Studies in Biblical Theology, SCM Press, London, 1971, pp 16-19, When confronted with Job’s plight, Eliphaz calls on Job to return to God, Bildad links righteousness and hope, and Zophar demands Job turn to righteousness. For Zophar the question is straightforward, if Job’s fortunes are in tatters then his righteousness is in question (Job 11), that the friends’ understanding of the underlying order of things, Dumbrell, W.J, The Faith of Israel, p 259 suggests the dialogues “explores the limits of traditional wisdom” before turning to an understanding of the world centred around Yahweh’s controlling interest.

[13] See Dell, K.J, The Book of Job as Sceptical Literature, pp 35-56

[14] Dell, K.J, The Book of Job as Sceptical Literature, p 39, Blenkinsopp, J, Wisdom and Law in the Old Testament,’ p 48 suggests retribution was a common theological belief of the ANE.

[15] For example, Dell, K.J, Shaking A Fist At God, p 40, Dell suggests Job’s friends draw their theological inspiration from Proverbs.

November 14, 2010

Old Testament 102: Waltke on Protest and the Acts-Consequences Nexus

I mentioned previously that the question of protest in Job and Ecclesiastes, against the retributive “acts-consequences nexus” possibly put forward by Proverbs, might crop up in the exam for the B Th people. I took a pretty round about approach to suggesting I don’t think protest against Proverbs is what’s going on in those books, but I do think they are written to protest against a purely “retributive” view of the world (especially such a view that ignores God, and his faithfulness to his promises).

The Problem with the proverbial Acts-Consequences Nexus

Waltke (1996) rejects what he perceives as three common aspects of the internal protest theory:

1.      Solomon was a dullard who failed to understand reality

2.      Proverbs contains promises that are not true

3.      The aphorisms within Proverbs present “probabilities not promises.[1]

Treating the book as a cohesive unit, rather than treating its aphorisms as axioms, radically countermands all three of these positions. This approach produces a balanced view of the world without an absolute law of cause and effect.[2] It is possible that Proverbs dealt with the “ends of life” rather than the means, and further that it dealt with the eternal consequences of temporal decisions (Proverbs 12:28).[3]

There are several proverbs (Proverbs 15:16-17; 16:8, 19; 17:1; 19:22b; 22:1; 28:6) that explicitly link righteous acts with poverty, and criminal acts with wealth, and others focus on failures of justice (Proverbs 10:2; 11:16; 13:23; 14:31; 15:25; 18:23; 21:6, 7,13; 19:10; 22:8, 22; 23:17; 28:15-16, 27).[4] These fly in the face of this acts-consequences concept,[5] most importantly, is the notion in Proverbs 15:16, that the “Fear of the Lord” can be coupled with having little, and that this is better than wealth.

Suggestions of an acts-consequences nexus may result from an under-realised eschatology. Proverbs suggests the consequences of righteous or wicked decisions may not come until the end of life (Proverbs 11:4,7, 18, 21, 23, 28; 12:7, 12; 14:32; 15:25; 17:5; 19:17; 20:2, 21; 21:6-7, 22:8-9, 16; 23:17-18; 24:20). The eschatological view point of Proverbs is best articulated in 24:14-16,[6] and 12:28, which Waltke suggests contains a promise of immortality.[7] The absence of such an undertone in Ecclesiastes and Job is a result of their more temporal concerns.[8]

This eschatological concern is uncommon in the Old Testament.[9] But securing a place in the afterlife was a primary concern of Egyptian wisdom. Egypt’s wisdom schools were called “Schools of Life,” for this reason.[10] Egyptian wisdom presented the gods of Egypt as subjects to the established order,[11] and the afterlife as tied to living life in accordance with ma’at.[12] Proverbs holds that Yahweh created, and controls this order,[13] and man’s hope is found in fearing him.[14]

The evidence for “protest” against conventional wisdom is strong in Job and Ecclesiastes,[15] but it is plausible to suggest Proverbs was not the target.[16] A simple reductionism of the works into a battle between optimism and pessimism will no longer suffice.[17]

Here’s my favourite sentence from my essay (because I got to use the word zeitgeist which is a cool word)…

The people of Israel had a predilection for harnessing themselves to the international theological zeitgeist, a propensity typified by their well-documented struggle with idolatry, and their geographical position as a political football between Assyria and Egypt meant they experienced a socio-political identity crisis, so it is likely that the primary function of any critique of foreign theology was internal.

[1] Waltke, ‘Does Proverbs Promise Too Much?, pp 322-325

[2] Shields, M.A, The End of Wisdom: A reappraisal of the historical and canonical function of Ecclesiastes, (Eisenbrauns, 2006), p 15

[3] Waltke, ‘Does Proverbs Promise Too Much?,’ pp 323-327, Lucas, E, Proverbs: The Act-Consequence Nexus, forthcoming, p 4

[4] Van Leeuwen, R.C, “Wealth and Poverty: System and Contradiction in Proverbs,” Hebrew Studies 33 (1992): p 29, Lucas, E, Proverbs: The Act-Consequence Nexus, forthcoming, p 7 suggests these “better than” Proverbs

[5] Waltke, ‘Does Proverbs Promise Too Much?,’ p 326

[6] Waltke, ‘Does Proverbs Promise Too Much?,’ p 326

[7] A position adopted by the NIV but not the ESV, Waltke, ‘Does Proverbs Promise Too Much,’ pp 329-330

[8] Waltke, ‘Does Proverbs Promise Too Much?’, p 327,  notes “they are concerned with events under the sun and focus on the righteous man flattened on the mat for the count of ten; they do not focus on his rising, though they do not rule that out.”

[9] So much so that questions are raised as to whether Israel had any concept of an afterlife. It is fair to say that the notion of a resurrection had developed by the time Paul used it to split the Pharisees and Sadducees – so it is not an idea completely foreign to Old Testament theology. A case could, perhaps, be made for Job’s apparent change of heart regarding “retribution” (Job 27) to be attributed to an eternal view of the world and judgment coming at death.

[10] Waltke, ‘Does Proverbs Promise Too Much?’, p 328 citing Crosser, W “The Meaning of ‘Life’ (Hayyim) in Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes,” Glasgow University Oriental Society Transactions, 15 (1955), pp 51-52

[11] Wright, G.E, The Old Testament Against Its Environment, Studies in Biblical Theology, (London: SCM Press, 1950), p 44

[12] Sinnott, A, ‘The Personification of Wisdom,’ p 41 – Ma’at is important for personal immorality and the “entire basis for the Egyptian understanding of the world”, however, Fox, M.V, ‘World Order and Ma’at: a crooked parallel,’ suggests Ma’at is not a cut and dried “retributive” system

[13] Waltke, ‘Does Proverbs Promise Too Much?,’ p 333

[14] Zimmerli, ‘Expressions of Hope in Proverbs and The Book of Job,’ p 24

[15] Shields, M.A, The End of Wisdom, p 35 suggests that the “apparent distinctive thoughts of Qoheleth” have common ground with Ancient Near East wisdom well before the exile.

[16] Shields, M.A, The End of Wisdom, p 16 suggests the wisdom movement is Job’s target, and that the story of Job demonstrates that God is not subject to the retributive system that had been “established by the sage.”

[17] Waltke, B, ‘Does Proverbs Promise Too Much?,’ p 323, “Nonevangelical academics, tend to pit the optimism of the so-called older wisdom represented in the Book of Proverbs against the pessimism of the so-called younger, reflective wisdom represented in the books of Job and Ecclesiastes.”

November 14, 2010

Old Testament 102: How wisdom might fit into existing Biblical Theologies

Brueggemann and Goldingay’s approaches to wisdom identified a worthwhile second peg in Biblical Theology theology that is often ignored in favour of focusing on salvation or redemptive history, bringing the issue of creation – what we are created to be/how we are created to live – into the mix. This approach puts the wisdom literature largely into the category of how we should live as people in God’s creation – but I’d suggest that the wisdom literature has a role to play in redemptive history. Because, as I’ve posted previously, I think the wisdom literature was part of an international wisdom dialogue, and that it put forward wisdom grounded in YHWH as true wisdom. Israel had a covenantal obligation (see Gen 12) to bless the nations. I think Solomon’s wisdom, as described in 1 Kings 4-10, is where we see that blessing most fulfilled in the Old Testament, and the linking of the wisdom corpus to Solomon’s reign provides a handy interpretive key with regards to its purpose. This doesn’t do away with the two poled creation/redemption approach. It’s not an either/or thing. To suggest that the Wisdom Literature only had one function or purpose and only has one way of being integrated with understanding the big picture is to create an unjustifiably false dichotomy.

Two of the problems that have caused the wisdom literature to be seen, as Brueggemann calls it, as the embarrassing step-child of the Old Testament, are its similarities to other Ancient Near Eastern wisdom, and the apparent presentation, in Proverbs, of a retributive “you reap what you sow” theology. Some scholars have suggested that Proverbs is so different in outlook to Job and Ecclesiastes that they can only be considered to have arisen in protest to this retributive idea. It’s very possible that this protest question is going to come up in the exam for the B Th people… so I’ll post my essay answer to that question again shortly.

I think that rather than being a problem for figuring out the Wisdom Literature, its similarities with other writings from the time and place are part of the answer. To touch on my current “big idea” – we’re used to the idea that part of the Genesis account is written directly to address other ANE creation accounts (the Gilgamesh Epic and Enuma Elish), and as I mentioned in my post on the Old Testament law and women last week, the laws in Leviticus are very similar to laws governing the same legal issues in contemporary cultures (just nicer, and designed to help Israel be “set apart” from their neighbours). So why do we get to the wisdom literature and go “oh no, it’s similar to the other nations” and then see this as a problem. Perhaps the Biblical wisdom literature seeks to address the influence of wisdom literature from other cultures on the people of Israel. Perhaps, in the light of the account of Solomon’s rule, it also seeks to participate in an international wisdom dialogue, and maybe it’s even presenting a philosophical apologetic for subscribing to Israel’s religious system to her neighbours… Norman Whybray, Bruce Waltke, and Christopher Wright have suggested there was an international wisdom conversation going on around the time the wisdom literature was emerging in Israel, Proverbs contains, by its own admission, wisdom from foreign kings, collected by Solomon (and others), and the account of Solomon’s reign in 1 Kings includes him giving his better wisdom to surrounding nations (as fulfillment of Genesis 12 – which is the intention of the 1 Kings narrative (Goldsworthy).

Most scholars are quick to dismiss the idea that Israel stole wisdom from other countries willy-nilly as it sought to develop its own social identity, but few explain the presence or influence of foreign wisdom in the Bible. Other than to suggest that all wisdom is developed out of observations of the same world. All agree that Hebrew wisdom deliberately creates a monotheistic distinction from conventional ANE thought. This deliberate distinction, not the similarities, should provide the most fruit for understanding the relationship between similar works.

Wright suggests Israel’s wisdom thinkers and writers took part in an international dialogue “with an openness to discern the wisdom of God in cultures other than their own,” and that such comparisons lead to the conclusion that there was “a lot of contact between Israel’s wisdom thinkers and writers and those of surrounding nations.”

Tying the wisdom literature to Solomon’s reign – the guy who built the temple, and reached the nations – seems to be a pretty good way to bring it alongside redemptive history, as primary documents from the time when Israel was at its peak… and its not doing an injustice to the text – because Proverbs and Ecclesiastes both present themselves as linked to Solomon, and most scholars acknowledge that the wisdom movement flourished under his reign.

Wright (2006) suggests “any wisdom that is associated with Solomon must be connected with the Solomonic tradition that God should bless the nations in their interaction with Israel.”

Here’s where I think that leads (from my essay):

Solomon participates in an international wisdom dialogue with foreign leaders, judges justly, and blesses the ANE world in fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise (Genesis 12:3), in the manner envisaged by the Psalm 72. His international focus is evident in his prayer dedicating the temple contains an international injunction (1 Kings 8:41-43). It is also feasible to assume that the description of Solomon’s collection of wisdom crossed national boundaries.

The aspects of his reign that I would suggest have bearing on our interpretation of biblical wisdom are as follows:

1. An interaction with the ideas of the nations and their rulers and wisdom, and thus with the religious beliefs of the nations (1 Kings 4:29-34, 1 Kings 10:23-24)
2. A theological focus, and corrective of international wisdom, based on the “fear of the Lord” (1 Kings 8:43).
3. A desire to see the nations come before Yahweh, recognising his rightful position as creator of the world and the basis of wisdom and righteousness (1 Kings 8:41-43, 59-61, 1 Kings 10:9, Psalm 72).

The reference to Solomon’s wisdom “surpassing that of Egypt and the wisdom of all the men of the east “ (1 Kings 4:30) invites us to compare Israel’s wisdom with the nations, and it is therefore feasible to expect similar interactions between wisdom literature linked to Solomon and the wisdom literature of the ANE.

The biggest difference between the Biblical wisdom literature and that of the surrounding nations is the centrality (at least in the final form of the texts, but I’d argue also in their fundamental purpose) of the concept of the “fear of the Lord” – it’s an important theme in Job and Ecclesiastes, as well as in Proverbs. And it’s indelibly linked to salvation history.

The “fear of Yahweh” is a touch point of Jewish orthodoxy synonymous with faithful obedience (Deuteronomy 4:10; 5:29; 6:2, 13, 24; 10:12, 20).

The phrase occurs throughout Proverbs (Proverbs 1:7, 2:5, 9:10, 10:27, 14:27, 15:16, 15:33, 16:6, 19:23; 22:4; 23:17, 31:30, and an injunction to “fear the Lord” occurs in Proverbs 1:29; 3:7; 8:13; and 24:21), it occurs almost exclusively in the passages tied to Solomon (Chapters 1-24), and does not appear in those collected under Hezekiah.

The passages linked most strongly to other ANE wisdom writings fall in passages attributed to Solomon. Those passages are either directly proceeded by, or followed by, a reference to fearing Yahweh (Proverbs 22:4, Proverbs 24:21, and Proverbs 23:17).

The phrase is also used to contrast with the teaching of wise (Proverbs 13:14) and the fear of Yahweh (Proverbs 14:27), with both considered as the “fountain of life.”

Retributive theology was a big concept throughout the Ancient Near East. And you can read Proverbs as advocating such a position, if you remove any notion of God (and some scholars go so far as to suggest that the Fear of the Lord is an addition by a pious sage wanting Proverbs to be more Godly – Von Rad is one of them). But Waltke suggests that any Proverbs that lend themselves to this interpretation should be considered in the broader scheme of the book, and are likely to be eschatological.

The idea that Job and Ecclesiastes stand in conflict with Proverbs is popular modern wisdom scholarship, and some have tried to identify retributive theology in the ethics of the prophets, suggesting it played an important role in Jewish theology. Any concept of retributive theology legitimately found in the Old Testament is carefully grounded in the will of Yahweh, and is usually the fruit of a promise. I would suggest this view actually describes the purposes of the wisdom authors in addressing ANE conceptions of reality.

Here’s the bonus bit – from a comment from my dad in response to one of yesterday’s posts:

“Can I suggest that there’s lots of Deuteronomic content in Proverbs, particularly relating to the blessings of living under covenant in the land? It’s often observed that Proverbs is overly idealised, and ‘over promises.’ But I’d suggest, no moreso than the blessings of Deuteronomy would lead you to expect. In fact, if you allow for an allegorical reading of the “son” material as referring to Israel, who is not to prostitute himself to other gods, Proverbs is (arguably) just saying that ‘all the Deuteronomic blessings will be yours if you remain faithful.’ Conversely, there are clear exile warnings in the early chapters of Proverbs, which also fit it neatly into the Deuteronomic schema. From there, it’s a simple step to building it into the metanarrative of a Biblical Theology. (Theory Part B – It’s all integrated by Hosea, who was one of Hezekiah’s men, as specified in Proverbs as those who ‘gathered and Solomon’s teaching.’) Hence, there are heaps of proverbial statements in Hosea, and echoes of Hosea’s “Israel as son” theology in Proverbs.)”

So there’s another response to the idea of protest that seems plausible, and also ties the wisdom literature to redemptive history… Here’s what I reckon is going on, from the conclusion of my essay:

“I propose that the wisdom literature adopted and critiqued the wisdom conventions of surrounding nations in the same way that Israel’s historians adopted and critiqued stories of creation and the flood from the ANE and contrasted them with an account grounded in the actions of Yahweh. A true understanding of wisdom, like a true understanding of history, is grounded in understanding Yahweh’s involvement in the world, not in its ANE equivalents. If the wisdom literature is an apologetic for Yahweh as the author of life, in a deliberate comparison with other ANE gods, and if this apologetic occurs in the context of an international wisdom conversation, then it was both didactic for the people of Yahweh, and a declaration to the nations. “

November 14, 2010

Old Testament 102: Wisdom and biblical theology

Following up on yesterday’s summary of approaches to integrating wisdom and Biblical Theology, Wilson discusses integrating Wisdom Literature with Biblical Theology following Bruegemann and Goldingay.

Brueggemann proposes a dialectic approach to Biblical theology – using the poles of creation and redemption. Goldingay develops this idea, suggesting that while Salvation History is a prominent strand in Biblical revelation we can focus on it at the expense of baby and bathwater, neglecting stuff like how God interacts with nature, how he interacts in day to day life, and wisdom. He makes four statements that summarise the relationship between the two poles.

1. The world God redeems is the world of God’s creation.
2. The world that God created is a world that needed to be redeemed.
3. Humans are redeemed to live again their life created before God.
4. The redeemed humanity still looks for a final act of redemption, or new creation.

Four good points. And the question “what does this passage contribute to our understanding of God’s creation and our place in it as his people” is a useful one to ask in exegesis, perhaps not quite as useful as “how does this passage demonstrate God’s plans to redeem the world through Jesus, and how do you fit in that” – but splitting them is creating a bit of an unhelpful dichotomy. They’re the same coin.

Here’s Wilson:

“The first two [points] establish the connection between creation and salvation history (or covenant), and ensure that both voices are heard. God’s pusposes are wider than the covenant people. Yet they are also focused on Israel, and effected through them.”

I like the idea that ancient wisdom movements are analogous to the later philosophies that Augustine and others before him (like Justin Martyr) suggested God’s people should pillage like gold from Egypt – truth is truth wherever it is found. How’s that for integrating different disciplines from college (actually, I like that idea a lot, and I’ll post something on it post exams – I’m working up a pretty big idea that needs to be blogged in order for me to stop dwelling on it – that’s how I roll).

“The last [point] enables us to see the incompleteness and forward looking nature of the Old Testament. The expressions of future hope that we find mainly in the prophetic and apocalyptic materials are rightly seen as part of the Old Testament core. When we read these together we appreciate some of the flow of Old Testament theology. We see the movement from creation, through God’s redeeming acts in different generations, to the future hopes variously described as redemption or new creation. This is the big picture, the broad canvas of the Old Testament.”

But there’s also a smaller picture, which Goldingay recognises in point three (but which I reckon is part of the bigger picture too, because Christians living that created life before God is part of bringing people into the grander narrative)…

Wilson on Goldingay’s third point:

“Here he again recognises that both creation and redemption have a part to play – people are redeemed to live their created life before God. Daily living is not just the concern of the wisdom materials. The Torah has extensive legislation that affects everyday life. The prophets call Israel back to right living within the covenant. Yet, the Wisdom themes have a great input here, particularly in the area of attitudes and the formation of character.

Kidner’s commentary on Proverbs says that wisdom focuses on “details of character small enough to escape the mesh of the law and the broadsides of the prophets.”

Wilson likes this twin pole idea championed by Brueggemann and followed by Goldingay. But he raises two concerns with regards to the Wisdom literature..

1. This point three needs clarification – wisdom isn’t framed as a response to God’s redemptive acts but rather to creation itself [though as Goldsworthy points out the “Fear of the Lord” suggests that wisdom might be based in the knowledge of God’s position as redeemer]. Scobie is the guy who suggests that wisdom is a response to the world and the human experience. Wilson says “perhaps what is needed is a broadening of our understanding of the human response so that it includes responding to God’s redemptive acts (the law and the prophets) and to God’s order in creation (especially in the wisdom materials).

2. The connection between creation and redemption needs to be explored further – which is more fundamental? He breaks it down to the questions:

“Is the focus in the salvation-history materials on “what requirements should be imposed on the covenant community?” While that of wisdom is rather “what values should I adopt or strive for?”

A nice summary of the functions of wisdom and the law that Robyn and I worked up yesterday is that the law provides the ethical low base for how God’s people are to live, while wisdom and the laws regarding loving God, and loving your neighbour, are the high bar. It’s the way God’s people are meant to live. Ideally.

Coming up next – I’ll try to summarise the approach I landed on in my essay (which provides a function for the wisdom literature that focuses on a purpose for the wisdom literature that fits under this model, and a method of integrating the different books that doesn’t put them in opposition to one another), and I’ll, as a bonus, put forward my dad’s solution. Which I also haven’t read anywhere else.

November 14, 2010

Old Testament 102: Biblical Theology and Wisdom

When it comes to the question of a Biblical Theology of the Old Testament (an idea that underpins it and holds it all together) the wisdom literature is a bit of an elephant in the room. Most Old Testament theologies focus on themes like “covenant” or “promise” and tie the Old Testament to the new by dealing with the unfolding of the story of God’s dealing with his people and his creation, finding some form of fulfillment in Jesus. It’s a noble, and useful aim. Provided you don’t lump for one, at the expense of all the other themes that are also there, and also valid. Why can’t all our Old Testament theologies be friends?

Eichrodt pioneered the “covenant,” and Dumbrell picked that idea up and ran with it. Von Rad (the most awesome name in theology) preferred to focus his sights on “salvation history,” Kaiser proposed “promise,” which doesn’t seem that much different from “covenant” because it isn’t. He sees wisdom as “life under the promise” – but Scobie (who has a few bobs each way on a unifying idea in his “The Ways of Our God“) suggests this connection between wisdom and the rest of the Bible is tenuous…

A useful piece from the Reformed Theological Review by Lindsay Wilson called “The Place of Wisdom in Old Testament Theology” summarises the situation nicely. Here’s an overview of the article.

Kaiser put forward two questions that need to be answered in order for a big idea to be considered valid:

1. Was this idea and purpose in the minds of the Old Testament writers?
2. Can this view be embraced by the whole Old Testament without artificially overloading this point, or ignoring large blocks of material?

Since the 20th century and Von Rad and Eichrodt’s work, scholars have decided that no single idea can describe the Old Testament adequately.

Goldingay suggests there are three ways to approach to the diversity of the Old Testament.

1. Diverse theologies can be explained by various historical contexts (e.g the idea of what it means to be the “people of God” changes based on Israel’s political circumstances).
2. One strand of theology should be used to evaluate and critique the others (Deuteronomic or Deutero-Isaiah should be the dominant view, others should be compared and contrasted).
3. The strands should be brought together, Goldingay calls this a “unifying or contsructing approach” – in a manner that does justice to the theological diversity.

Goldingay describes the different approaches like this:

“One suggests that different viewpoints are appropriate to different contexts, another that they reflect different levels of insight, and a third that they are all expressions of one underlying theology.” – Goldingay, Theological Diversity and the Authority of the Old Testament, 1987

Wilson analyses these approaches…

The first approach helps to explain some of the diversity of the Old Testament – clearly Adam in Eden requires different commands and hopes to Abraham, and Abraham to David, and David to those in exile.

The second is the most open to objection – it can involve people reading the Old Testament through a lens of their own creation, not something borne out by the Old Testament itself (eg the “history of religions” approach that tries to describe the emergence of Jewish monotheism from ANE polytheism).

The third is both promising and vexing – one must decide what to include in the mix to form a key cluster of ideas held in complex unity.

Wilson now considers how the wisdom literature might be approached in relation to Biblical Theology.

Solomonic Enlightenment
Von Rad championedthe idea that there was a period under Solomon and David that allowed the unfettered development of the wisdom movement. Brueggemann agrees. Because Israel had arrived at its peak – the wise in Israel could turn from questions of faith to questions of how to live.

Brueggemann suggests the “salvation history” approach concentrates on traps man might fall into and God’s subsequent actions to deliver him.

“Scripture has been integrated primarily around the theme of redemption which tends to suggest the gracious, powerful role of God and the despair and helplessness of man… As a result the countertheme of creation has been generally neglected.”

Suggestions for how wisdom fits commonly turn to the idea that it’s about “the order in and goodness of creation,” this works with the idea that different social situations produce different theological approaches, and a different theological focus.

Wilson outlines two approaches for finding integration between wisdom literature and the rest of the Old Testament… finding salvation history elements in the wisdom books, and finding wisdom elements in non-wisdom books. A similar approach to that discussed in Goldsworthy’s Gospel and Kingdom.

Finding Salvation-History in the Wisdom Literature
He suggests the “Fear of the Lord” is one such link (as identified by Goldsworthy) but then suggests that the wisdom literature is more diverse than just “the fear of the Lord”…

“While Goldsworthy concedes that wisdom is a complement to, not a sub-set of, salvation history, he comes close to reading wisdom down to life under the covenant. Thus he concludes that “wisdom is a theology of the redeemed man living in the world under God’s rule”.”

Wilson says the second problem here is that such an approach “fails to show how the wisdom literature and salvation history elements are integrated… it establishes a point of contact, but says little about the interplay between the two strands.”

Finding Wisdom in the Rest of the OT

A bunch of scholars have suggested a “wisdom school” might have been influential in the writing or shaping of other texts. This is hotly disputed. James Crenshaw has suggested the methodology used in some of these studies is a bit rubbish. Wilson examines a couple of case studies that Crenshaw has critiqued, and while he agrees with Crenshaw that the stories (Esther and the Joseph Narrative) are not “wisdom” exclusively, he disagrees because he says wisdom may form part of the picture.

Wilson says:

“In the light of what we have seen so far, we are able to draw at least two conclusions. Firstly, Wisdom material and influence is a significant part of the Old Testament corpus. Any proposed analysis of Old Testament theology must do justice to Wisdom themes. Secondly, we must be wary of those who see wisdom as alien to the normative theology in the Old Testament.”

Wisdom is woven into the fabric of the Old Testament. We’ll see where Wilson takes his piece in the next post.

November 13, 2010

Old Testament 102: Goldsworthy on the “Fear of the Lord”

The dedication of the Temple was a high point in Israel’s history, with it came a mood change in Israel.

“When Israel recognises the significance of the temple as the place where reconciliation and restoration to God can occur, it will be a people that fears God and enjoys the blessings of the covenant (1 Kings 8:38-40). This great benefit ill become known among the nations. Strangers will come to the temple and acknowledge God. Solomon prays that God will hear them from heaven and answer graciously so that all the nations of the earth may know his name and fear him (1 Kings 8:41-43). The coming of Sheba was the first sign of this prayer being answered.

The Fear of the Lord is not terror (it uses a different Hebrew word), it has a note of reverent awe.

In the period from Exodus to Solomon the “fear of the Lord” emphasises faithfulness to the covenant. Some examples include Exodus 14:31, and Deuteronomy 4:10.

“This fear of the Lord was to be expressed in their diligence to observe the laws of God in faithful response to his saving acts (Deuteronomy 6:2, 10:12, 10:20-21).

The “fear of the Lord” appears many times in Proverbs, and throughout the wisdom literature. But is it covenantal?

“These were Israelites and although salvation history is not a theme of their writings, they were not unbelieving philosophers professing a humanistic alternative to the covenant faith. They were men of God who reached out beyond the specific content of God’s revelation and engaged in the search for knowledge and understanding of the world in the light of revelation.”

Goldsworthy suggests the phrase is a central idea to the book of Proverbs – it sums up the prologue (1:7), and is scattered throughout the book.

“The evidence, in my opinion, is that the absolute necessity of God’s revelation for right understanding of the world was constantly recognised.”

Two different Hebrew words for “beginning” are used in Proverbs 9:10, and Psalm 111:10. The one used in the Psalm can also mean “chief goal”… if this translation is adopted:

“… it means that the fear of the Lord is both the presupposition of foundation, and the goal of wisdom.”

“We conclude that both the wisdom use of the ‘fear of the Lord’ and traditions concerning Solomon as temple builder and sage, point to an important connection between the Israelite concept of wisdom and the covenant of faith. This accounts for the truly distinct features of Israel’s wisdom which, while it shared many of the characteristics of the wisdom of the ancient middle eastern world, never lost sight of the revelation of the one true God…”

November 13, 2010

Old Testament 102: Goldsworthy on Wisdom and Solomon

“The Biblical evidence supports the view that Solomon, despite his failings, was a key figure in the development of wisdom in Israel”

1. Solomon’s wisdom had common ground with foreign wisdom, but was superior to it.
2. Solomon was capable of making shrewd judgments.
3. He was concerned with understanding the natural world.
4. The material glory of the kingdom was related to wisdom.
5. The temple was the means by which Israel could rightly make sense of the universe – because it pointed to the activity of God in seeking restoration.
6. The focal point of wisdom was the “fear of the Lord” which meant faith in the redeeming acts of God.

“Even pagans will have the wisdom to see that it is the height of folly to forsake a God who has proved his greatness in the way he has led and saved his people.”

Goldsworthy says 1 Kings 4:20-21 is an obvious reference to the promises made to Abraham so that their fulfilment is identified with Solomon’s reign.

In 1 Kings 4:29-34 Solomon’s wisdom is compared with that of all the wise men of the nations surrounding Israel, including Egypt.

Representatives from these nations recognised Solomon’s wisdom, and they flocked to hear it.

1 Kings 4:32-33 notes Solomon’s interest in nature (the way the world works) – which may explain the type of wisdom representatives from other nations were coming to hear.

November 13, 2010

Old Testament 102: Goldsworthy on the place and space of Old Testament Wisdom

Wisdom literature gives some advice on guidance and decision making. Goldsworthy argues that wisdom literature can be related to Israel’s covenant faith. And that it points to the coming of Christ. Goldsworthy advocates a presuppositional approach to wisdom about the world. To be truly wise, first one must presuppose God. And because we presume God, we assume the Bible is the basis for true wisdom, then we also need to realise that the Old Testament finds its fulfillment in Jesus, so any consideration of the function of an Old Testament book must begin Christologically.

Wisdom is not intelligence, it belongs to all who believe the gospel. It’s not so much an intellectual approach to life, as it is a way of living life. It differs us from the animals.

We must begin [studying wisdom in the Bible] with Christ because it is through him that we become Christians and are motivated to study the Old Testament as Christian Scripture.

He suggests the question to ask of the Old Testament Wisdom is how it comes to help us understand Christ. And then we need to ask how the Wisdom Literature is fulfilled in Christ.

In Luke 11:31 Jesus makes an explicit comparison between himself and Solomon:

“31 The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the people of this generation and condemn them, for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom; and now something greater than Solomon is here.”

Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 is another point of contrast – the Old Testament wisdom was very similar to the wisdom of the world, the gospel of Christ crucifed on the other hand, is folly to the wisdom of the world.

Worldly wisdom has a place. We use it every day.  When we approach questions of how to live our lives, we often turn to worldly wisdom without a thought about where it fits with God’s wisdom (appropriately) – we don’t ask if the correct approach to repairing a computer comes from God (nor should we take actions in those areas that contradict Godly wisdom – but you get the point).

“If Christians showed as much talent and shrewdness in the pursuit of the world for Christ as unbelievers show in the pursuit of riches, who could gauge what effect that would have?”

“Every culture collects the wisdom of its people, much of which will be found in the form of concise proverbial sayings.”

The wisdom literature from Babylon and Egypt has close similarities to the Biblical works.”

“At this point we can at least recognise that there is some common ground shared by the wisdom of pagans and that of God’s people”…

Stephen (Acts 7:22) suggests Moses was educated in Egypt’s wisdom.

By the time Moses went to school in Egypt there was already a long history of wisdom.

On Ma’at

“Ma’at represented an order that was to be seen particularly in the stability of the Egyptian state… There is no real parallel in Hebrew wisdom to Ma’at other than similarities to the idea of order. These similarities between Hebrew and Egyptian wisdom suggest that the common factor is the quest for the understanding of the order of the universe. Hebrew wisdom was distinct in that it was shaped by the Israelite experience of covenant and redemption.”

Goldsworthy suggests Biblical accounts of Solomon, and the non-Israelite bits in Proverbs suggest a connection between Israelite and ANE wisdom.

“The evidence available to us of the intellectual achievements of the people in the old civilizations of the Middle East shows us that wisdom was sought after and written down very early in recorded history. There is little doubt that wisdom sayings of some kind would have been part of the emerging culture of Israel’s ancestors.”

“Wisdom’s apparent lack  of concern for Israel’s history, covenant and law is one of its distinctive features. Perhaps we can work back from the wisdom books to look for clues to the origins of wisdom in Israel. The wisdom literature itself is lacking in the kind of historical references which would give such clues. The books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes contain only the briefest indications of the traditional patronage of Solomon.1

Four kinds of evidence which contribute to our understanding of wisdom in Israel:

First – the scattered wisdom sayings found in various parts of the narrative literature of the Old Testament (some of these are clues to a pre-literary stage which probably existed before there were any schools of wisdom or written wisdom) – for example sayings about mighty hunters (Genesis 10), and “it became a saying” in 1 Samuel 10. In this case the word “saying” is the Hebrew word later used for Proverb.

Second – the wisdom books themselves.

Third – knowledge of the wisdom literature form the ANE – “the forms and functions of this wisdom suggest parallels to Israelite wisdom, but the differences are more obvious.”

Fourth – the possible wisdom influences on other books of the Old Testament, the idea that other books were compiled by wisdom schools, written by wise men, or influenced by wisdom thoughts.

“If we could be sure of the identification of wisdom influences [on the Old Testament], they would provide some valuable evidence of the place of wisdom in the main stream of Israelite thought. We would see how the wisdom ideas, which in the main wisdom books appear in almost complete isolation from expressions of the covenant faith, have been brought into organic relationship with that covenant faith.”

1 We’ll get to Solomon later, and Goldsworthy’s view (also, see the previous post).

November 12, 2010

Old Testament 102: Wisdom and Biblical Theology (part one)

I’m wildly speculating that one of the questions on wisdom literature in next Tuesday’s exam will be on how to fit wisdom literature into Biblical Theology. One of the “main men” of biblical theology is Australia’s very own Graeme Goldsworthy. His “Gospel and…” series has laid the foundations for the Australian approach to the issue more than any other unifying ideas. His “God’s people living in God’s place, under God’s rule” maxim is a useful way to quickly come to terms with where any particular piece of the Bible fits into the broader narrative, both in the past, and in terms of eschatology.

Gospel and Wisdom is his attempt to integrate the wisdom literature (and more broadly, the wisdom movement) into the narrative of the Bible. The wisdom literature doesn’t fit easily into such characterisation because it almost completely excludes reference to Israel’s covenant obligations (I think there’s an alternative way to do it, which I’ve outlined in my six part posting of my Wisdom Literature essay. Which I’ll summarise in a later post. But you can read it starting from here.

Summarising Gospel and Wisdom is going to take a few posts. But here’s the reconstruction Goldsworthy offers for the development (and place) of wisdom literature in Israel’s history. In 17 points. There are a lot of points in here that I think sit nicely with my idea that the wisdom literature was used as part of Israel’s covenant obligation to bless the nations… but we’ll get to that.

1.     Popular folk wisdom would have emerged at various levels of society as the expression of what people learned through their life’s experiences. It is not certain what form the earliest wisdom sayings took, but the evidence does not support the idea that longer sayings developed from the one line proverb.

2.     In the period before Israel went into Egypt, education in family groups would most likely have led to the formation of sayings used in the training of children.

3.     With the development of the organized state of Israel came the recognition of men who would give wise counsel in the matter of running the country.

4.     The sages or wise men emerged as a recognizable group. It is not clear whether these were recognised as officials of government, religion or education. It has been suggested that the scribes later came to be the guardians of wisdom.

5.     Wisdom may not have been a “single phenomenon” but rather a search for knowledge and understanding pursued in various ways.

6.     Solomon was probably a patron of Israel’s wisdom movement during its heyday.

7.     Egypt and Babylon’s wisdom no doubt influenced Israel’s – but how much is a matter of some discussion.

8.     The movement to a monarchy began form a sinful desire to be like the nations (contrasted to the Judge’s efforts to bring the nation back to YHWH, sometimes spectacularly). But was eventually demonstrated to be an appropriate pointer to the coming Messiah.

9.     David is also influential in the development of wisdom, a wise woman encourages him to act wisely with regard to Absalom, she flatters David as one who has the wisdom of an angel, the same as the ability to discern good and evil (2 Samuel 14).

10. Wise men were emerging under David (good and bad counsel from counselors seems a bit of a theme in 2 Samuel). Egypt had had people performing the same functions in the time of Moses.

11. Deuteronomy 4 has already established a relationship between wisdom and the law. “Observe them carefully for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations” – who will hear about all these decrees and say “surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people”

12. The law did not cover every contingency in life – it provided a framework within which Israel had to show its responsibility before God. Had the law covered every contingency it would have showed a very different view of man.

13. Keeping the law was wisdom, but the law was not exhaustive. Israel was given guidelines in the law by which to understand and maintain relationships with God, man, and the world. But the law was never a substitute for the pursuit of wisdom. The humanness of God’s people meant much more than doing those things specifically stated in the law. The law did not tell Israel how to develop the arts, but it did put a limit on artistic endeavour (Exodus 20:4).

14. Between Abraham and David God revealed the meaning of the covenant through redemption and law – what was begun in the Exodus was finally established under David.

15. Under David and Solomon the stage is set for the flowering of wisdom – “the tutelage of the law loses its absolute status because the kingdom means the freedom to live wisely and responsibly.”

16. Wisdom grew from Israel’s beginnings, but during the formative period of salvation history it was not prominent in the life of Israel.

17. “God wants his people to live not  by a lot of rules and regulations, but responsibly and in a manner which harmonises with his kingly rule.”

November 12, 2010

Church History 101: A short history of church history from 64 AD to 600 AD (part four)

Moving right along, like a comedian whose last joke bombed badly, we’re getting towards the final stages of the “Patristic Period” (which covers roughly 100 A.D to 451 A.D, ending at the council of Chalcedon)… these councils all seem to have to decide the same thing over and over again, first against Arianism, and then against Nestorianism and Eutychianism.

Quick guide to fifth century heresies:

Arianism: Different substance, Jesus is creation, not same as creator.
Apollinarianism: Splits Jesus into divine (mind) and human (body)
Nestorianism: Mary bore Christ not God, different substances. Jesus became God (he was two persons in a moral union.
Donatism: Anything touched by somebody touched by a heretic is tainted. Purity at all costs. Your baptism, and salvation, are ruined by a heretic who transmits his heresy.
Pelagianism: No inherited sin, or original sin, or indeed sinful nature. Works can get you to heaven.
Eutychianism: Christ has one unique nature. Not human. Not god.

Quick Guide to the Councils:
325: Nicea – Against Arianism, Athanasius refutes Arianism, vote is hugely in favour, comes up with the Apostle’s Creed – which bears similarities to creedal confessions from 1 Corinthians 15, through the writings of the early church. Takes two months. Decides Jesus is fully human. Fully god. Of like substance.

381: Council of Constantinople – Jesus Christ is truly human. Just like us. Apollinarianism is refuted by the Cappuccino Brotherhood (Cappuccinos actually get their names from the hoods of monks).

393: Council of Hippo – Affirms Athanasius’ definition of the canon, provides criterion for adopting the books.

431: Council of Ephesus – Jesus Christ is one person, contrary to Nestorianism, which held that Christ was two persons, one divine and one human

449: The “Robber Synod” – Declares Christ has only one nature (Eutychianism).

451 Council of Chalcedon: – Response to Robber Synod, decides that “Jesus Christ is “two natures, the Divine of the same substance as the Father (against Arianism), the human of the same substance as us, which are united unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably…”


Here’s how the period plays out in timeline form:

325 Council of Nicea
328 Athanasius is bishop Alexandria
329 Basil the Great of Cappadocia is born, he promotes communal monasticism that serves the poor, sick, and needy.
330 Constantinople founded
335 Martin of Tours, a monk who is famous for his compassion for the poor is born.
337 Constantine’s baptism and death
339 Ambrose, a significant figure in the church whose powerful rhetoric converted Augustine, is born, his approach to OT exegesis was closely mirrored by Augustine, anything that wasn’t pure moral instruction he allegorised, looking for a mystical meaning. Follows Origen lots, and borrows allegory from Philo. Fought against Arianism.
340 Ulfias, a German dude, converts to Arian Christianity and ends up converting most of the Germanic tribes.
345 Chrysostom is born, the father of historical and grammatical exegesis (the good stuff) starts a movement away from allegorical interpretations that had been popular since Clement of Alexandria.
347 Jerome is born, Augustine’s interlocutor, and a massive brain who translates the Old Testament out of Hebrew into Latin, producing the Vulgate.
353 Constantius’ pro-Arian policy boots Athanasius out of Alexandria
354 Augustine is born, Augustine. The world’s first blogger. A prolific writer about church, state, doctrine, education, music… you name it, he wrote about it. Had an interesting, and slightly munted, view of the transmission of sin, and a predilection for bizzaro allegory in interpreting the Old Testament. Otherwise a brilliant thinker who should still be read today.
361 Julian the Apostate gains control, converts to Paganism. Rules for two years, gives the Donatists a chance to return to Rome (causing later headaches for Augustine)
367 Athanasius defines New Testament, naming the 66 books of the Bible in a letter.
370 Basil becomes bishop of Caesarea
378 Battle of Adrianople
379 Theodosius becomes emperor, makes Christianity the official state religion.
381 Council of Constantinople: Basil, Greg and Greg take down the Arians. Again. The council deals with pretty much the same issues, concluding that Jesus Christ is truly human, contra Apollinarianism, which split Jesus into a human body and a divine mind. The Great Cappadocians are the inspiration behind the defeat of Arianism at this council. They are St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and St. Gregory of Nyssa
382 A Roman Council affirms Athanasius’ definition of the canon.
385 Ambrose prevails
387 Augustine’s conversion
393 The Council of Hippo also recognises the canon, providing set criteria for recognition: a book had to be Apostolic, fit in with the other scriptures, and have been of fruitful use throughout the church up to that time
395 Augustine becomes bishop of Hippo
397 A council of Carthage recognises the decision at Hippo. We have a Bible.
398 Chrysostom bishop of Constantinople
400 Nestorius, a heretic, dies. He said Mary was the bearer of Christ not God. He could not call a three month child God. So he said that Jesus Christ was two persons, whose only union was a moral one.
406 Jeromes completes the Vulgate
410 Fall of Rome
411 Augustine starts writing against Pelagianism. Pelagius rejected the idea of sin through Adam, original sin, and a sinful nature. Ruled out grace, suggested works was all that was required. Augustine gives birth to Calvinism, ahead of its time. God’s grace is necessary not only to be able to choose to obey God’s commands, but to be able to choose to turn to God initially for salvation.
418 Synod of Carthage: Makes Pelagius a heretic and his teachings an “anathema”
431 Council of Ephesus: Again, forced to rule on Christology. Jesus Christ is one person, contrary to Nestorianism, which held that Christ was two persons, one divine and one human
448 Leo draws on the work of Tertullian and Augustine to define Christology for the church, writes a tome to Flavian (dude in Constantinople)
449 The “Robber Synod”: Declares Christ has only one nature (Eutychianism). Tries to argue that Christ’s nature is unique. Harks back to docetism.
451 Council of Chalcedon: Affirms Leo’s tome, rejects Eutychianism, tosses out Nestorianism (again), decides that “Jesus Christ is “two natures, the Divine of the same substance as the Father (against Arianism), the human of the same substance as us (against Eutychianism), which are united unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably (against Nestorianism)”
455 Vandals sack Rome
476 Odoacer deposes last Roman emperor

November 11, 2010

Church History 101: Timeline

November 10, 2010

Church History 101: A short history of church history from 64 AD to 600 AD (part three)

Continuing where we left off in post one, which was somewhere towards the end of the third century, we are rapidly approaching D-Day for the Christian church. Or Armistice Day. Constantine’s conversion to Christianity, or apparent conversion to Christianity, made Christianity the official state religion, and changed the landscape of the church forever. Being a state religion meant having rigid notions of doctrine in place in order to determine who was being a good citizen, and who was inspiring political unrest through heretical rocking of the boat. Truth became a democratic process, and this period saw a number of councils making significant decisions on doctrine, and the collapse of the Empire, and continuation of the church, brought about several interesting interchanges driven largely by power struggles within the church, or seeking the aid of the church… so lets go back to the end of the third century, having just farewelled Origen and Cyprian…

The Life and Times of Constantine, and the Council of Nicea
The Third Century ends with another bout of persecution under Diocletian. Diocletian split the empire into east and west, appointing Maximian as his co-emperor. Eventually the empire is split again, and Constantinus is basically appointed as co-emperor of the West. Diocletian’s persecution of Christians was particularly mean. He tried to wipe them out to satisfy some oracles. He ordered all scriptures, churches, and Christians to be burned (or just to not meet, but to hand over any copies of the Bible they had). The Christians of the west were ok, because their emperors did not enforce the edicts of Diocletian and Galerius.

Diocletian ends up abdicating in 305 A.D, and a year later Constantinus, Constantine’s father, dies and as a result Constantine is pushed into the role of emperor of the West. Constantine basically goes about reuniting the empire, and by 313 he and one of his relatives, Licinius, issue the edict of Milan – a policy of tolerance for Christians. Licinius eventually renegs on this deal, and Constantine then ousts him and becomes emperor of both sides of the empire. He moves the capital to Constantinople, and is eventually baptised as a Christian – fusing church and state, with Christianity now the official religion of the empire. A pretty massive turnaround in 300 years – from crucifying to worshiping Jesus.

This newfound status in the empire means the church has to thrash out some issues that have been bubbling away under the surface. First cab off the rank is Donatism – the Donatists appeal to Caesar, who rejects their views and banishes them in 316 A.D.

Then Arius starts up. Launching the Arian controversy which needed the Council of Nicea to unanimously (almost, 2 said no) define the Creed for Christian belief- the Nicene Creed. The council settled a bunch of issues, and as a result Constantine sacked any Arian sympathising bishops and exiled them.

At around this time Pachomius establishes a monastic community – a communal home for hermits. Monastries become a cool place to hang out by yourself. Monasticism essentially replaces martydom as the means for Christian sacrificial living.


A brief snapshot of figures from this period
1. Constantine: Control freak, megalomaniac emperor who was shrewd and effective often employing propaganda to get what he wanted – he took control of a fractured empire and ruled it for over twenty years, went from protecting the freedoms of Christians, to becoming one and making Christianity the state religion. Unseparated church and state. Though continued to patronise Roman religions throughout his life.

2. Arius: Ascetic dude who liked pagan philosophers and sparked a massive controversy within the church because of his Stoic interpretations of doctrine. Founded Arianism. Eventually died on the toilet just before being reinstated to the church (after Constantine’s successor revealed a penchant for Arian theology. Reinstated by Constantine in in 328 A.D.

3. Athanasius: The main opponent to Arius, presented the adopted view at Nicea. Taught that since only God is to be worshiped, and the New Testament calls for Christ to be worshiped, that Christ is God. Only God can save, Christ saves, Christ is God. Only somebody who is human and divine can offer eternal life. Only God can pay the debt for sins. Son of God, Son of Man used interchangeably for the one figure. Christ came to restore us to God. Becomes bishop of Alexandria after the Council.

4. Eusebius: Submitted a creed to the council that heavily influenced the final form of the Nicene Creed, wrote a history of the church up until 300A.D.

A brief snapshot of beliefs and events from this period
1. Donatism: Sprang up out of the Diocletian persecution (but came to a head a decade later). Argued that anybody who had complied to Diocletian’s orders was permanently tainted, and anybody who had any contact with them was also permanently tainted.

2. Arianism: Taught that Jesus was the Son of God, but not eternal, that he was in fact created ex nihilo before the creation of the world, Jesus was not human, or god, but was unique – a lesser divinity, not of one substance with the father (like, but different) – Arianism saw Jesus as an event in the life of God, rather than leading the life of God all along.

3. Nicene Council : Rejected Arianism, settled on the Nicene Creed as an appropriate outline of the faith. Took two months to decide on an alternative view. 220 Bishops in attendance, recognised Origen’s three hypostasis – the father, son and spirit. Also recognised Alexandria, Antioch and Rome as important churches with authority over others. Also settled the date of Easter.

November 10, 2010

Church History 101: A short history of church history from 64 AD to 600 AD (part two)

There’s a likelihood (or perhaps a possibility) that the exam questions tomorrow will ask about the development of the church in the early year’s it’s probably worth covering that off too… The New Testament Church enjoys the benefits of apostolic oversight. Guys like Peter and Paul are running around planting churches, but they’re supported by a bunch of other people (eg Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, Titus, Erastus, etc), The Council, or “pillars” of the church in Jerusalem can be consulted for major doctrinal decisions (like in Acts 15) – and their word is authoritative. But what of the next generation? Or the generation after that. The so-called Apostolic Fathers were seen as a natural link (and many people think that link established a continuous chain of authority). But obviously, based on looking at some of the primary documents, it didn’t take long for errors to creep in, or disputes to arise. The hotly disputed “Pastoral Letters” (that I still think were written by Paul because the arguments against that are just stupid),1 at the very least, demonstrate that some form of pastoral structures were present in the early church (there were elders, and teachers). There would also be false teachers to watch out for (suggesting that there were a bunch of people jumping on the itinerant preaching bandwagon, or people becoming teachers within a city or town). We know from the New Testament that there were churches scattered far and wide, throughout the Roman world. Developing some form of governing hierarchy became important as heresies began to emerge and spread, throughout the church. Marcion, the gnostics, and the Montanists gained traction across the church, causing the leading intellectuals from the orthodox side of the fence to more carefully define what was right and what was wrong belief. Which meant developing some semblance of a canon. Justin Martyr’s apology outlines the practices of the church a century after the last bits of what we know as our canon are assumed to have been written (unless you’re one of those academic nutbags who thinks they were all written mid second century). But it’s likely that the very diverse spread of the church, and very diverse set of academic, philosophical and social influences on leaders of the early church, meant that there were as many differences in writings and teachings (that were still faithful to the gospel) as there are today. There was much “plundering of Egyptian gold” (as Augustine likes to call it) going on with regard to determining and teaching the truth. Most teachers and apologists whose writings were influential on the church showed a mastery of pagan thought and philosophy, most engaged with Roman law, and with Greek philosophy in their apologies for the Christian faith, and most also had errors creeping in to their theology because of pre-existing commitments to human thought and philosophy. Different philosophical commitments gave rise to different exegetical methods – one man’s passage that required historical reconstruction to point to Jesus was another man’s passage that required allegory to point to Jesus. There was much diversity, but also unity. Approaches to theology from opposite ends of the empire both took the forms of “Apologies for the Christian Faith” directed to the emperor, and showed a love and familiarity for God’s word as contained in the Old Testament, and in the gospels and writings of the apostles. Tertullian’s description of Christian practice, with reference to the early letter between Pliny and Trajan, sounds very much like Justin Martyr’s description of Christian practice, though they were from the east and west sides of the empire. Separated geographically, but united in Christ, and in the way they remembered him. It is likely, based on the way the gospel is presented in works from the period across the empire, that Paul’s creedal confession in 1 Corinthians 15 was normative across the early church. Many prototypical creeds even include reference to Jesus trial before Pontius Pilate, Justin Martyr and Ignatius both make allusions to Pontius Pilate in their definitions of the faith. Ignatius in a letter, and Justin in his First Apology. An element of the gospel message which touches on the other common factor for the church, the Roman Empire, and the challenges that adopting the Lordship of Jesus put in the path of one who was living under the authority of Caesar (or one of them). This unity was encouraged by a continuation of the apostolic tradition of communication between churches (as demonstrated by the letter describing the Martyrdom of Polycarp, sent from one church to another for the purpose of encouragement. Though many modern scholars may seek to liberate early writers from the bonds of heresy, the early church was generally fairly sure of what was orthodox and what was not, though filtering through the philosophical presuppositions of the writers of the early church to find the theological truths leaves much more fool’s gold than real gold in some cases. Redeeming some of the thoughts of minority figures in the early church might be a popular past time, and occasionally baby and bathwater were heaved out together, but in most cases the act of heaving was well worth the effort, and the baby was usually found elsewhere anyway.

Here’s a quick chronology of figures from the early period of the church (up to the third century):
1. Ignatius: “Apostolic Father” lived in the first century, and a little of the second, wrote lots, apparently a disciple of John. Established some sense of rule of order for the church, first to use the phrase “catholic church” to describe the universal church, strongly advocated the real humanity of Christ. Also wrote on the Lord’s Day being Sunday not the Sabbath. Martyred.

“I am writing to all the Churches and I enjoin all, that I am dying willingly for God’s sake, if only you do not prevent it. I beg you, do not do me an untimely kindness. Allow me to be eaten by the beasts, which are my way of reaching to God. I am God’s wheat, and I am to be ground by the teeth of wild beasts, so that I may become the pure bread of Christ.”

2. Polycarp: Also said to be a disciple of John. Martyred spectacularly at a ripe old age, 86 years after becoming a Christian.

3. Clement of Rome: Wrote to Corinth in about 96 A.D to assert the authority of elders and bishops as enshrined by the apostles.

4. Justin Martyr: A philosopher who converted to Christianity and wrote two apologies for Christian belief. Taught that only Christianity was the true philosophy. Converted in 130 A.D.

4. Clement of Alexandria – another philosopher who attempted to convince the gnostics of their error by arguing that only the Scriptures contained true knowledge. Used Platonism to support Christianity. Founded the allegorical method (unless you count Paul’s use of Allegory in Glataians). Born 150 A.D.

5. Tertullian: Also an apologist, differed from Justin in that he didn’t use philosophy to support his case for Christianity, saying “what has Athens to do with Jerusalem. Born in 160 A.D. Helped define the Trinity in Against Praxeus, even though he became a Montanus. Not canonised by the Catholic Church. Father of theology in the Latin West, the first to write in Latin.

6. Origen: Born in 185 A.D. Disciple of Clement of Alexandria, develops his allegorical method, heavily influenced by Platonism. Not canonised by the Catholic Church.

7. Irenaeus: Born early in the 100s, a disciple of Polycarp, Wrote against gnosticism.

8. Cyprian: Bishop of Carthage in the mid third century, hides from Decian persecution rather than objecting to the empire or becoming temporarily apostate, discusses the role of baptism, and the return to the church of heretics. Fights against Roman supremacy of the church,. Doesn’t recognise baptisms by heretical church leaders. Martyred.

Here’s a quick list of beliefs that the church thoroughly rejected in its first hundred years, with very brief descriptions:

1. Docetism – the idea that Jesus only seemed to be human. Rejected by a bunch of people. Quote Ignatius. Who wants people to be sure that Jesus was truly born, truly ate, and was truly crucified. As a man. Jesus can’t save people if he’s not connected to people. Theologically speaking.
2. Marcionism – the idea that there are two gods – the Demiurge (nasty Old Testament God) and the God of the New Testament. Marcion only recognised Paul’s writings as Scripture, and a bit of Luke that he edited himself.
3. Gnosticism – Gnostics claimed to possess certain secret knowledge, again regarding the Demiurge and true God, Jesus was said to be a gnostic teacher, and a bunch of false gospels, or collections of sayings, were produced giving accounts of Jesus gnostic teaching. Gnosticism developed too late to have been addressed by the New Testament, but the church fathers (and even Marcion) attacked it with gusto. Valentinus and Basilides were two gnostic teachers who were fascinated by Christian teaching. They adopted certain elements of the Old Testament as their own heritage, identifying other possessors of the “secret knowledge.”
4. Montanism – Most of the church fathers rejected this teaching outright. Tertullian adopted it. Claimed to be a new “spirit led” movement that superseded the authority of the apostles. It was a “new teaching”… basically a doomsday cult.

1 One of the arguments I hate most is that they were written in a different style, or a different voice, with different idioms. Have none of these scholars ever written an email to a friend? Have none of them then compared the style they employ when writing to a friend with the style they employ when writing a journal? We all use different voices in different contexts. Plus, the arguments regarding theology just make no sense, and the idea that the writings are pseudopigraphal and somehow made it into the canon, slipping past the guys who lived much closer to the fact, and spoke Greek as their actual language… it just stops making sense pretty quickly and becomes easier to dismiss based on potential personal objections to the theology (I don’t think there are many people who don’t think life as a Christian would be easier if the passages about women not being allowed to teach weren’t in the Bible). Anyway. That idea is dumb. I can talk about that later. It’s also possible that language changed in transmission, and the manuscripts we’ve found reflect transmission error – in any case, it takes a pretty low view of God’s sovereignty to suggest that someone posed as Paul, wrote a bunch of letters that made it into the canon, and left us with 2,000 years of error to be cleaned up by some naked academics wearing the emperor’s fanciest new robes.

November 10, 2010

Church History 101: A short history of church history from 64 AD to 600 AD (part one)

So, I’m fast running out of time to put together my church history trading cards before the exam. Which is a shame. Because I really wanted to cover Origen, who emasculated himself so that he could minister to women and sescaped martyrdom because his mum hid his clothes so he had to stay inside the house naked… and Arius, who died on the public toilet just prior to being readmitted to the church… I’ll try to get around them, but the pre-exam motivation really is the driving force behind getting them up…

Anyway. In order to attempt to get a cohesive picture of the first 550 years of the church I’m going to try to give one rapid fire overview of the significant people and moments from that time.

Kicking off in 64 A.D, Nero was the first Roman emperor to actively persecute Christians. It was a pretty sporadic afair. But he also persecuted Jews, and the temple was destroyed in the Jewish revolt of 66-74 A.D. Nero blamed Christians for a fire in Rome, and used that as an excuse to pursue the church. Domitian was the next emperor to systematically pursue Christians. Domitian also had a big head, at least as far as this statues is reliable…

Second Century
The century turned, and in the second century the gnostic movement took off a little bit, trying to rebrand Jesus as a gnostic teacher who taught secret mysteries. Marcion also sprung up with his little heresy (throwing out the Old Testament, and only keeping a few bits of the new). He was a bad guy. A heretic. The first of his kind (well, the first recognised by the church. But his “canon” caused the early church to put together a real canon. The Apostolic Fathers – Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Didache, were some of the leaders of the church at this point – they were guys who were thought to have had contact with the apostles, thus providing some form of doctrinal continuity. Polycarp was martyred in 155 A.D, and Justin Martyr ten years later – having written his two Apologies for Christian belief to the Roman emperor – demonstrating that the church was still on the outer with Rome. The next cab off the rank, heresy wise, was Montanism. Tertullian came on the scene towards the end of the second century and wrote strongly against gnosticism, and Marcionism, and his own apology for Christian belief (seeking much the same as Justin Martyr – to ahve Christians treated fairly and recognised as a religio licita) but he took up the Montanist cause (which meant that the Catholic church refused to make him a saint. Montanists believed they had a new prophecy, and didn’t much like the veneer of compromise they saw in the church – they also loved martyrdom.

Third Century
Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Cyprian were some figures around the beginning of the third century (and at the end of the second). Irenaeus (who studied under Polycarp and Justin Martyr) and Tertullian both got their own trading cards.

Decius, the emperor in the middle of the century kicked off some further persecution of Christians by decreeing that all citizens of the empire were to sacrifice to the emperor in a pledge of allegiance to Rome. They had to do it within a certain time, and they’d get a certificate to prove it. Anybody who refused was a traitor. Many Christians died in the process, luckily Decius was only in power for two years.

Origen was an Alexandrian, and a Christian with a particularly platonic bent. A church council in the sixth century declared him to be a persona non grata – and many of his works were burned as a result. He was a controversial figure and pushed for some sort of hierachy within the trinity (amongst other foibles) – most of which grew from his Platonic philosphy. He wrote lots, learned Hebrew, and put together a parallel translation of the Old Testament. His translations of the Hebrew were discussed in Augustine’s conversation with Jerome (about Jerome’s own translations – Jerome thought following Origen was a good idea, Augustine thought he was a little iffy). His exegetical method was pretty sound, and he only really used allegory as a last resort (and more typographically and Christologically than others). Origen’s exegetical approach, as he looked for hidden meaning in texts, included focusing on the meanings of proper nouns within the OT. He preached through the Old Testament, and while he was into finding hidden meanings in the text, he wasn’t a gnostic (and he wrote against them), he thought historical context wasn’t hugely important, and in a way he was proto-Barthian. He was rigorously committed to the Scriptures, and all his teachings were at least tied to some text or another. He was a theologian (some suggest the world’s first), who was also committed to integrating Christianity with philosophy and ethics. Most of his failings theologically come from this philosophical commitment and arise when his Platonic thoughts about the nature of the soul (for example, that it pre-exists the body) encroach on his theology and exegesis. His ecclesiology was pretty sound. He recognised two churches – the “church of angels” (those in Christ) and the wider church, which also sheltered sinners. A physical church, and a spiritual church. Another pretty Platonic (though correct) idea. His approach to Christian teaching was very similar to Augustine’s, he sought to syncretise the scientific and philosophical understandings of his day with Christian belief. And was committed to his students receiving a broad “liberal arts” education of the classical Roman variety. He wrote against ideas like soul sleep, and Ggnosticism, but his positives, so far as the later church was concerned, were outweighed by his heresies. Origen was tortured as a Christian during the Decian persecution, and he died three years later from the injuries he sustained.

Cyprian was the bishop of Carthage in the mid-third century. His thinking was influenced by Tertullian (both were north Africans, so were from the “Latin West”). He was a trained orator, who taught rhetoric before he became a Christian. He wrote heaps of stuff that has survived – and he was obviously a pragmatist, because while debate was raging within the church about how to handle Roman persecution he bolted. He didn’t stick around for the decision on whether to participate in the sacrifices for Deciu, or to engage in civil disobedience. He ran for the hills, and ruled his church from afar via a messenger. Obviously he wasn’t a complete coward though (which some accused him of being) because he was eventually martyred. Controversially, and somewhat hypocritically, Cyprian didn’t treat other people who avoided persecution by leaving the church very well, or at least he didn’t want to let them straight back in when the persecution ended. He insisted on “earnest repentance,” when some disobeyed him (including a deacon from Carthage) he excommunicated them, and created a bit of a schism. A council of North-African bishops in Carthage sided with Cyprian on the treatment of “lapsed” Christians – and they could only be readmitted to the church on their deathbeds (though this decision was softened somewhat). Church leaders who had sacrificed to the emperor could not be restored to their original posts.

A debate about baptism flared up in 255, where the church believed baptism was ok if done in a church and in the name of the trinity, Cyprian believed any baptisms conducted by heretics were invalid – in this way he was a precursor to Donatism, which emerged later. At this point, his adversary Stephen, Bishop of Rome tried to trump Cyprian’s position on the basis of his geographic situation. Cyprian didn’t like that very much. He said that all bishops were equal. He died bravely in a new bout of persecution under Valerian. Going willingly to his execution

November 10, 2010