A Current Debate
For several weeks now, I've been involved in a debate concerning the interpretation of Romans chapters 9 through 11. The contention: These passages speak only of the corporate election of Israel, not of individual election, nor of any "spiritual Israel" for that matter.
The underlying presupposition that brings about this interpretation is that Jesus and Paul understood and spoke in terms of Second Temple Judaism. Advocates of this position are of those from the "New Perspective on Paul". (NPP is a much bigger issue, of which I am not fully informed of, therefore, will not try to tackle this subject at this point.)
Second Temple Judaism
Well, I must admit. I don't know what Second Temple Judaism (STJ hereafter) is or what it teaches. It would be unwise for me to refute or accept any teachings from STJ at this point since I would be doing so from a position of blindness. However, whether or not I know anything of STJ, I still cannot hold fully to the claims being made concerning it. That is, the more we know about STJ, the better we are able to interpret Scripture. Let me clarify.
Those who hold to this position claim that when approaching the New Testament, we must first understand the thoughts and ideas of STJ. After all, that is the time that Jesus and Paul live in, so it would be good to know the thoughts and definitions of words that would be used by the Jews living in the 1st century. By knowing these things, we can then import them into Scripture and apply them to what Jesus and Paul are saying. Now, did anyone catch the problem?
I do affirm the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, but not to the degree that the opposition would use it. You see, history is not infallible. The thoughts of men are not infallible. If STJ becomes the full foundation of interpreting the infallible Word of God, then we would be importing errors into the text, interpreting them in light of those errors, and do nothing but compound them.
STJ is fallible. But how would we know it is fallible? Well, if the standard of measure is Scripture, then we can show that STJ is fallible. The tricky thing about this is, if Scripture is subject to STJ, then how would you know that Scripture is against STJ? The advocate of this position would never be able to find anything wrong with STJ, making STJ infallible!
I've brought this up and I have yet to receive a reply.
Now, does this mean I should throw STJ completely out of the picture when it comes to a better understanding of Scripture? No, of course not. Importing and applying thoughts and ideas from STJ in such an intensive way is the problem I see with this kind of hermeneutic. It should not be the presupposition. Rather, Scripture is what we presuppose first, and information from STJ would either confirm or deny its teachings. That is what the value of STJ should be. It may affirm some things of Scripture, and it can also contrast against it, but it should never be the very guiding principle of understanding it.
There Is No "Spiritual Israel"
From what I understand from the opposition is that, in light of STJ, Romans 9 through 11 is talking about "corporate election", not "individual election". That is, in those very 3 chapters, it is talking about the "corporate election" of ethnic Israel, not some "individual election" of believers in general. The thought is that since STJ and the Mediterranean cultures of that time held to ideas of a corporate body (as opposed to our rugged, Western individualism), Romans 9 through 11 must also be talking of a corporate body, namely ethnic Israel. Therefore, all this talk about there being a "spiritual Israel" is nonesense. But is it?
Since the idea of "spiritual Israel" has been dimissed, they conclude that there is only 1 meaning for Israel in these chapters. And that meaning is ethnic Israel. But when one reads Romans 9:6, does it make any sense if there is only 1 meaning?
For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, Romans 9:6b
With only 1 meaning, it would read: "For they are not all ethnic Israel who are of ethnic Israel."
Ok, so if you descend from ethnic Cambodia, can you also be not an ethnic Cambodian? How does one escape from being who they are? There has got to be nuance or sense of the word being used that is different in order to make sense of Romans 9:6. In fact, in Romans 9:7, Paul iterates something quite similar to verse 6, yet very familiar from what we know of the Gospels. We read in verse 7:
nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham. Romans 9:7
We read from Jesus:
"Abraham is our father," they [the Jews] answered.
"If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the things your own father does."
"We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."
"You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. " John 8:39-41, 44
The Jews lay claim to their genealogical heritage, yet Jesus addresses them concerning the spiritual hertiage of Abraham, which is faith. In reply, the Jews then lay claim to their spiritual hertiage by saying that God is their father, yet Jesus counters that notion by telling them that they belong to their faither, the devil. What we see in this exchange is that the Jews are still seeds of Abraham, but in the spiritual sense, they are not his children. If they were, they would be doing the things Abraham did, and that is have faith. Instead, they are considered children of the devil.
What we see in Romans 9:6-7 is the idea that you can be a physical descendant of the ethnic nation of Israel, yet not truly be of Israel. This flies in the face of the idea of a one definition of Israel in these 3 chapters. And from there, it can be shown in Romans 9 that Paul is talking about particular, individual election. I will post my analysis on this next time.
Conclusion
STJ is valuable in lending background in interpretation, but not direct it thoroughly. To do so is to invite error into reading into Scripture. Interestingly enough, this type of application of STJ is supposed to combat error.
We must understand that for centuries, multitudes of cultures did not have the kind of resources we have today at our disposal. Is God so blind as to not provide this "important" background that would help communicate the very teachings of God to the lost men of this world? But as we see with the import of "corporate election", such a background would make men even more lost in understanding His Word. And who knows what kind of heresies have been kept alive because we didn't have all this information.
But perhaps God is so awesome as to make Scripture sufficient for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training the Christian apart from STJ? (2 Timothy 3:16-17) God may have chosen to breathe out Scripture through such fallible means (men, STJ), but I think God can make clear His teachings apart from any culture and transcend them. Scripture alone is sufficient.
In Christ,
Victor
The underlying presupposition that brings about this interpretation is that Jesus and Paul understood and spoke in terms of Second Temple Judaism. Advocates of this position are of those from the "New Perspective on Paul". (NPP is a much bigger issue, of which I am not fully informed of, therefore, will not try to tackle this subject at this point.)
Second Temple Judaism
Well, I must admit. I don't know what Second Temple Judaism (STJ hereafter) is or what it teaches. It would be unwise for me to refute or accept any teachings from STJ at this point since I would be doing so from a position of blindness. However, whether or not I know anything of STJ, I still cannot hold fully to the claims being made concerning it. That is, the more we know about STJ, the better we are able to interpret Scripture. Let me clarify.
Those who hold to this position claim that when approaching the New Testament, we must first understand the thoughts and ideas of STJ. After all, that is the time that Jesus and Paul live in, so it would be good to know the thoughts and definitions of words that would be used by the Jews living in the 1st century. By knowing these things, we can then import them into Scripture and apply them to what Jesus and Paul are saying. Now, did anyone catch the problem?
I do affirm the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, but not to the degree that the opposition would use it. You see, history is not infallible. The thoughts of men are not infallible. If STJ becomes the full foundation of interpreting the infallible Word of God, then we would be importing errors into the text, interpreting them in light of those errors, and do nothing but compound them.
STJ is fallible. But how would we know it is fallible? Well, if the standard of measure is Scripture, then we can show that STJ is fallible. The tricky thing about this is, if Scripture is subject to STJ, then how would you know that Scripture is against STJ? The advocate of this position would never be able to find anything wrong with STJ, making STJ infallible!
I've brought this up and I have yet to receive a reply.
Now, does this mean I should throw STJ completely out of the picture when it comes to a better understanding of Scripture? No, of course not. Importing and applying thoughts and ideas from STJ in such an intensive way is the problem I see with this kind of hermeneutic. It should not be the presupposition. Rather, Scripture is what we presuppose first, and information from STJ would either confirm or deny its teachings. That is what the value of STJ should be. It may affirm some things of Scripture, and it can also contrast against it, but it should never be the very guiding principle of understanding it.
There Is No "Spiritual Israel"
From what I understand from the opposition is that, in light of STJ, Romans 9 through 11 is talking about "corporate election", not "individual election". That is, in those very 3 chapters, it is talking about the "corporate election" of ethnic Israel, not some "individual election" of believers in general. The thought is that since STJ and the Mediterranean cultures of that time held to ideas of a corporate body (as opposed to our rugged, Western individualism), Romans 9 through 11 must also be talking of a corporate body, namely ethnic Israel. Therefore, all this talk about there being a "spiritual Israel" is nonesense. But is it?
Since the idea of "spiritual Israel" has been dimissed, they conclude that there is only 1 meaning for Israel in these chapters. And that meaning is ethnic Israel. But when one reads Romans 9:6, does it make any sense if there is only 1 meaning?
For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, Romans 9:6b
With only 1 meaning, it would read: "For they are not all ethnic Israel who are of ethnic Israel."
Ok, so if you descend from ethnic Cambodia, can you also be not an ethnic Cambodian? How does one escape from being who they are? There has got to be nuance or sense of the word being used that is different in order to make sense of Romans 9:6. In fact, in Romans 9:7, Paul iterates something quite similar to verse 6, yet very familiar from what we know of the Gospels. We read in verse 7:
nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham. Romans 9:7
We read from Jesus:
"Abraham is our father," they [the Jews] answered.
"If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the things your own father does."
"We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."
"You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. " John 8:39-41, 44
The Jews lay claim to their genealogical heritage, yet Jesus addresses them concerning the spiritual hertiage of Abraham, which is faith. In reply, the Jews then lay claim to their spiritual hertiage by saying that God is their father, yet Jesus counters that notion by telling them that they belong to their faither, the devil. What we see in this exchange is that the Jews are still seeds of Abraham, but in the spiritual sense, they are not his children. If they were, they would be doing the things Abraham did, and that is have faith. Instead, they are considered children of the devil.
What we see in Romans 9:6-7 is the idea that you can be a physical descendant of the ethnic nation of Israel, yet not truly be of Israel. This flies in the face of the idea of a one definition of Israel in these 3 chapters. And from there, it can be shown in Romans 9 that Paul is talking about particular, individual election. I will post my analysis on this next time.
Conclusion
STJ is valuable in lending background in interpretation, but not direct it thoroughly. To do so is to invite error into reading into Scripture. Interestingly enough, this type of application of STJ is supposed to combat error.
We must understand that for centuries, multitudes of cultures did not have the kind of resources we have today at our disposal. Is God so blind as to not provide this "important" background that would help communicate the very teachings of God to the lost men of this world? But as we see with the import of "corporate election", such a background would make men even more lost in understanding His Word. And who knows what kind of heresies have been kept alive because we didn't have all this information.
But perhaps God is so awesome as to make Scripture sufficient for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training the Christian apart from STJ? (2 Timothy 3:16-17) God may have chosen to breathe out Scripture through such fallible means (men, STJ), but I think God can make clear His teachings apart from any culture and transcend them. Scripture alone is sufficient.
In Christ,
Victor
posted by Soli Deo Gloria | 6/20/2005 02:36:00 AM
|
32
comments
