Carson's 'The Gagging of God'

Great insights from Carson 'The Gagging of God.'

Some may have inferred from my previous post that not much is gained from Carson’s ‘The Gagging of God.’ That is just not true. Apart from the fantastic and novel title - the Gagging of God. Which pictures for some the handkerchief stuffed in the mouth of God to prevent him speaking to us – and well, it may just be that on a postmodernistic reading of the bible because the bible on their hermeneutic just ends up being what they want to hear. But really the gagging also picks up Revelation 3 where man’s behavior in the church at Laodicea elicits from God a gagging – and he spews them out of his mouth. But there are other gems in this great tome. On page 467-468 he talks about how a missionary told him of his release from his background of an abusive father which had left him with a distorted view of Father, and found it difficult to give and receive love, especially about feeling the love of Christ, a release which came about by a practice called “rebirthing”. How pastorally sensitive is Carson by affirming he is glad his life is more integrated and then with great insight pointing out that this person has settled for something second best, as best and at worst he has been seduced by idolatry. Boy, those are tough words, but in a context of expressed care for the man. Carson says

My dear brother, all the emotional catharsis. All the tears, all the healing integration, might well have been yours along biblical lines. …. [ sadly] the fact of the matter is that you now associate your emotional release not with the cross, but with rebirthing techniques. You will be less inclined to think of the gospel as that which is the power of God unto salvation. You will think of the gospel as providing some sort of pardon, and rebirthing techniques as providing healing, power, restoration. All the associational links are wrong. They are diverting. They bring you some measure of relief, while distracting you from the cross.” Pg 468-469.

The danger of postmodernism, along with biblical illiteracy are two major dangers facing the present church. But what of the therapeutic understanding where sin and salvation are interpreted in terms of solely healing me and my problems instead of Christ making me right with God? As Carson says “the therapeutic culture, designed to make people feel helped, has taken over.” As the Scriptures remind us, Christ has given us all we need for life and godliness. The ramifications of that, are worth pondering.

In Christ,
Gary

How to reach Postmoderns with the Truth

How to reach postmodernists with the Truth?

For many people these days to talk about reaching postmoderns with the truth is a contradiction in terms, especially for those of a postmodernistic bent. For those who enthuse about postmodernism there is no “Absolute Truth” and yet they are confronted by the fact that Christianity unashamedly proclaims that there is Absolute Truth. There is only one God and only one way to Him as John 14:6 and Acts 4:14 declare.

What is one to do in the face of Postmodernism?

This is the question which all Christians and most importantly pastors have to work through in our present culture. Our task is to consider how we can reach Postmoderns in a biblically faithful and effective manner. By engaging with Vincent McCann’s ‘How can Christians Proclaim Absolute Truth in a Post Modern World?’  and Don Carson’s ‘The Gagging of God’ we can glean a way forward and not merely offer sound bites that whilst orthodox don’t seriously impact the unbeliever and leave him feeling secure in his own position.

Gregory J. Laughery wrote an article ‘Evangelicalism and Philosophy’ where he considers the lack of Christian interaction with Philosophy and so an understanding of how to converse with those who hold to different worldviews. We do not as Christians despise the intellect, in fact we ought to seek to improve our intellectual prowess in honour of God as much as possible. Though the challenge of our world may be a call to being open minded, as I love to say, this doesn’t mean we are to be empty headed. We must think and ask questions as wisely as possible. Asking the right questions becomes critical when dealing with secular worldviews such as postmodernism. Far too often as I hope to show below Christians jump on the latest bandwagon without critical assessment of the ideas being set forth.                 

This seems to have happened by and large with postmodernism. Too many have been ready to declare postmodernism a worthy reaction against modernism. However it may be better to describe the present mood to rather be supra modernism. With all the suggested epistemological difference there remains really a deep rooted desire to determine one’s own life irrespective of others. After all, the postmodern angst is more against religion and morality than against anything else. The present generation still loves the fruit of certainty delivered by modernism in the areas of Technology and Science with their ipods and ipads and iphones. Moreover, when something serious in life happens and they visit the doctor, they don’t dismiss the doctor’s advice as subjective twaddle but they clutch the script and head for the chemist. The Doctor almost takes over the role of God. This in itself is a good place for further discussion, but for the present let’s assume the postmodern child of modernism as described in the current debate. Whether he is illegitimate we will leave for another time, so let’s just assume for the moment the definition of Carson that postmodernism is a reaction against modernism. Even at this point it seems to me it is only the reaction of a child who hasn’t been raised with boundaries in life and finds out the hard way what this means in reality as he runs kicking and screaming through the community trying to live out his own self-determined rules, and then complaining when they don’t play by his rules.

Reaching the postmodern generation:

Rarely, in the abundance of postmodern literature do we have a consideration of the way the Christian is fruitfully able to reach the postmodern advocate. Vincent McCann’s article is an exception. In ‘How can ChristiansProclaim Absolute Truth in a Post Modern World?’  he deals with the complexities of the issue. I value his fairly succinct overview of the nature of Postmodernism, however at times his solution is not altogether orthodox. Particularly in regard to “experience” as typified in the ”Toronto Blessing” being an inroad to those decrying the certainty of knowledge.[i] 

This lack of certainty is a perspective which not merely infects our culture but is also spreading like leaven within the Church.

After giving a worthy description of Postmodernism McCann rightly says the Church “cannot compromise its proclamation that Jesus is the only way to God.” Secondly he claims there is a bridge that can link Christian belief and the Postmodern outlook because postmodernism includes some “elements of truth”. At this point he is presumably thinking of Postmodernisms rejection of the attitude of the Enlightenment that prevailed in modernism, the attitude that human reason alone is able to be the Arbiter of Truth, that modernistic mood that man has sure foundations for all knowledge and truth. Because McCann sees the Church similarly rejecting this understanding of Reason as the arbiter of Truth he sees a commonality with Postmoderns objections at this point.

Thirdly, he then mentions that one response the Church can take is the addressing of subjectivism, which “leads to a destruction of both intellectual honesty and life itself”. Furthermore McCann suggests there’s agreement between us in the limitations of human knowledge. But I would suggest the reasons underlying this argument and the conclusions derived from them are for unbeliever and believer polar opposites. Christians argue that knowledge and certainty are indeed limited due to our Creatureliness, however since we are created in the image of God we are able to know truly. This is not the case of the unbeliever in his worldview. The unbeliever says involved in the nature of knowledge is the notion that nothing is certain. Certainly we can agree the post Enlightenment attitude was one of over confidence. Amazingly McCann then suggests that ecstatic experiences like the Toronto Blessing may be one avenue to breaking through this negativity towards human reason. A fifth major response is to focus not on expository preaching but rather on “story”, a common suggestion now making the rounds in Christian circles. Lastly the truth the Church believes must be lived out in their lives or else it will fail to impact postmoderns.

What am I to make of this? At least Vincent makes an attempt to address this perplexing issue of reaching postmoderns. Many who write on postmodernism rarely or with clarity address how a Christian can reach the postmodern crowd with the Christian message.

Before reflecting upon Vincent’s approaches to reaching out to postmoderns and suggesting a couple of further approaches it will be of benefit for us to reflect upon his description of postmodernism and interact with it.

Certainly postmodernism is essentially anti-modern, to which as I pointed out above Carson’s helpful description of it is as a mood! Central to postmodernism is the idea that each individual is part of a community and all texts ( and here, even a persons actions are taken to be texts ) are to be interpreted in light of that community. This notion I might point out, has grave implications for hermeneutics, and leads to the rejection of meaning residing in the intentions of the author, and suggests instead that meaning is given to the text by the interpreter. It is exactly at this point that many fail to note the inconsistency of postmodern advocates in that the authors of postmodernism arguments assume the reader will understand their intentions and not read anything into the text. Indeed they tend to get upset when you don’t take what they have written in context and seriously. One idea which is a correlate of this notion of little “t” truth residing in local communities is the view that metanarratives are thus rejected. However, again many fail to see that Postmodernism is a metanarrative itself and it is just as exclusive as Christianity. They make absolute claims such as “all truths are equally valid and there is no universal standpoint which gives one the power to say this is wrong or that is right.”

The reason for Postmoderns decrying metanarratives, is that they are oppressive of minorities such as gays and women. However postmodernism is itself a metanarrative, declaring that this is the way that one should read a text. It seems to me that Postmoderns border on Gnosticism, a bit like Plato’s Philosopher Kings who decree what is right and good for everyone.

What should be raised with postmodern advocates is how they escape the conditioning of the “truth” of one’s group or social context to arrive at such a metanarrative as postmodernism?

Postmoderns when taking the approach of denigrating metanarratives would do well to read ‘Alice in Wonderland’ about making words mean anything and everything. Language, which is how we communicate with others our lofty thoughts and deep feelings becomes nonsense on this approach. Further, they seem to be in the same boat as the adherents to Scientific Positivism which philosophically imploded upon itself when it argued that nothing was true except that which is able to be demonstrated by Science. But this proposition itself was unable to be so demonstrated by Science. This type of nonsense we rightly call a self defeating argument.

And don’t let philosophers dismissively wave this aside saying this objection is only a relatively minor issue. It’s true that it can be an easily voiced argument but it should alert you to the serious problems of the view being proffered.

Still the real and present danger for us is with the postmodern assumption that the meaning of the text resides in the reader. From this assumption a whole new hermeneutical theory is created contrary to hermeneutics as it has been historically understood, and one which undermines biblical hermeneutics in particular.

Let’s see how taking into account the hermeneutics of Postmodernism itself undermines McCann’s suggestion of the fruitfulness for Christians resorting to “story” to proclaim the Gospel message to Postmoderns. Sure Jesus told stories, sure the Gospels in a limited sense are “story” ( they are actually theology, not chronological histories of Jesus’ life and ministry. ) however the postmodern hermeneutic allows him to interpret the story in a way which allows him to continue in his rebellion against God and to remain comfortable in his disobedience, all because he believes that meaning resides in the reader. And he is free to do this with any “story” he hears from the Christian evangelist. The very core of postmodernism undermines any cogent attempt to tell the Gospel to unbelievers who hold to postmodernism  because all meaning resides in the reader / hearer and not in the text. Yet Christianity unashamedly declares the Bible to be God’s Word, His revelation to man, and the meaning of it resides in the intention of the Author, God himself. The antithesis between Christian and postmodern rightly continues because the unbelieving worldview is at odds with the Sovereign Lord of all Creation.

The reality of this is a wakeup call to Preachers succumbing to the postmodern lie that story is the way forward in our current cultural climate. Steven D Degner, a Lutheran who has pondered much of the present Western Culture with amazing insight nonetheless considers story to be one of the ways forward for interacting with postmoderns. Not Ashamed of the Gospel in a Postmodern Age Again my concern with Degner is he doesn’t seem to understand the postmodern’s hermeneutic negates the Biblical message of What God is saying.

Given the above I find some of McCanns suggestions are inadequate and misplaced given the worldview of postmodernism itself.

Before we move on from this, we need to recognise further that the call by some to narrative preaching as the real kicker to reaching postmoderns fails for exactly the same reason. It just does not deal with the postmodern approach that meaning resides in the reader or hearer. They can interpret the narrative to suit themselves and never be challenged with the actual message of the Biblical teaching. Now hear me clearly on this, I am not ignoring or ruling out the work of the Holy Spirit to bring such a person to understanding and repentance, but I take it that Christian’s are also to bring down opposing strongholds and fortresses and make them captive to Christ. We are in a spiritual battle, which God equips us for, yet the battle is also carried out at the intellectual level, so “we demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God.” 2 Cor 10:4-5. In love we bring the Truth to bear upon unbelievers and their rebellious worldview so that there is no place to stand, except as Christians will argue, upon the sure Word of God. Certainly it is the Holy Spirit who convicts and brings to repentance. We convert no one, but God has chosen to use us in the endeavour of bringing His Word to unbelievers, and we need to do this wisely and with insight. This is merely seeing what Paul did in Acts 17 as a good model for dealing with unbelievers. Along with the central passage of 1 Peter 3 where we are to offer a defence of the faith in gentleness and respect.

Historically we find many who have lived a life fuelled by emotions and feelings and so are very difficult to reach with the Gospel message, something especially true of those who have drifted out of a Pentecostal environment. But then, those of Paul’s first century had also lived a life of excessive emotionalism and feelings directed in frenzy pagan worship. And Paul does not resort to story in that case but a clear apologetic.  What we hold to as back then is a clear declaration of the Gospel message and the destructive nature of such a pagan lifestyle, and wait to see the Holy Spirit convict the person.

Narrative Preaching - Ref Martin Weber an Adventist? ‘Reaching Postmodern Society’ Outlook September 2006 pg 7 suggests this, but so do many Anglicans and Calvinists.

Does Carson offer us a way to reach postmoderns?

Carson’s great tome, all 640 pages of it, looks at postmodernism and secularism in depth but the nuggets of how to reach postmoderns are hidden to a large extent within its pages. Sure he outlines in chapter 12 on page 494 a way forward for Christians. He lists four ways for us to proclaim the gospel message.

 A) He suggests the intellectual, moral, and existential bankruptcy of our age is to be ‘critiqued’. Here he suggests focusing on the human emptiness that arises from the postmodern worldview. Pg 495.

B) Further our evangelical endeavour must recognise what’s been labelled as the ‘paradigm shift’ in worldviews which has taken place in the West. Then we like Paul must modify our presentation to address that reality. Carson refers to Paul on Mars Hill Acts 17 ( pg 496-501 ) and then Biblical theology pg 501f.

C) The rudiments of the historic gospel must be proclaimed with authority and courtesy.

D)  Lastly, we need to live out the Gospel, not merely give lip service to it.

The overall impression from his book is that its aim is to critique and explain the contours of postmodernism and secondly adhere to his Biblical and Calvinistic theology. These are indeed great aims and I don’t want to denigrate them but I think he fails to deal with those Scriptures that talk about apologetics and also the role of Christians to “destroy fortresses and bring down strongholds” and intellectually and intelligently deal with the unbelievers worldview. At that level Carson is frustrating and light on in giving us a clear response to the postmodernist.

Indeed he seems to not understand the impact of postmodernism on the general culture when he expresses his belief that postmodernism will quickly die out as University scholars see the incoherence of it. But that ignores the “life” such a belief has taken on within our Western Culture. It may be generations before postmodernism warps into another fractured worldview, keeping to the downward spiral of the fruit of a darkened mind. Carson does say we must continue to preach the truth, and in one sense this is perfectly true, in that God’s Spirit is the one who convicts and changes people. But what are we to make of this current framework where postmoderns won’t even discuss evidences for the truth of Christianity, historical or otherwise and their worldview which hermeneutically doesn’t allow for objective truth but rather truth is whatever “the reader” thinks and not the intentions of the author?

Consider again his four suggestions for reaching postmoderns.

A) He suggests the intellectual, moral, and existential bankruptcy of our age is to be ‘critiqued’. Here he suggests focusing on the human emptiness that arises from the postmodern worldview. Pg 495. Carson however speaks in expansive generalities such as “the critique of this age must not be merely intellectual but [speak to] the bankruptcy of the moral, ethical, relational and spiritual dimensions” in a loving manner. Pg 496. Yet we must point out here that we need to seriously and intellectually grapple with the postmodern hermeneutics which controls the unbelievers response to our presentation of the gospel message and the Christian worldview.

B) Further our evangelical endeavour must recognise what’s been labelled as the ‘paradigm shift’ in worldviews which has taken place in the West. Then we like Paul must modify our presentation to address that reality. Carson refers to Paul on Mars Hill Acts 17 ( pg 496-501 ) and then Biblical theology pg 501f. Still as I will point out below, the issue is more than educating biblical illiterates, however true that may be.

C) The rudiments of the historic gospel must be proclaimed with authority and courtesy.  Here on pg 505 Carson alludes to being a herald, however the Christian is to be more than this, he is to be an apologist. 1 Peter 3.

All is not lost for the careful reader however. Hidden in a story in Carson’s work is a further hint of an approach to take with postmodernistic thinking whether it be in the Church or outside. He talks about a Ph’d student who cornered him after teaching on hermeneutics and insisting “that true knowledge is possible, even to finite, culture-bound creatures.” She insisted he was “escaping from the dreaded positivism of the 19^th century. Ardently arguing for the new hermeneutic she was not amused when he tongue in cheek said “I see what you are saying, you are using delicious irony to affirm the objectivity of truth”. She responded more heatedly when he said “he was delighted to find someone using irony so cleverly in order to affirm the possibility of objective knowledge.”  She became quite upset as she considered Carson was not taking her words for what she was saying, she then exploded in anger when he said “it’s marvellous that you can add emotion to your irony.”   
It sunk home when he quietly explained “but this is how I am reading you” As he then explained to her, “You are a deconstructionist .. but you expect me to interpret your words aright.” page 102-3. The point is one cannot have it both ways. To espouse a worldview that is self contradictory and self defeating and unliveable leaves a person either open to seriously considering a worldview that is liveable, and consistent and gives an account for truth or to remain intellectually vacuous and left on the futility of  their thinking because of their rebellion against God.

What Carson does there is an example from apologetics of an internal critique of the unbelievers worldview pointing out its internal incoherence and also that in the end it is un-liveable, that it just does not comport with reality.  And then offering an external critique from the Christian worldview. Biblically this is grounded in Proverbs 26 verse 5 that says “Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes” for an internal critique, and then Proverbs 26 verse 4 “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him” for the external critique where the Christian declares the Christian worldview and Gospel. As Greg Bahnsen points out, this means saying to the unbeliever, ”let’s assume your position – what follows from it? Is it coherent? Is it liveable? Does it agree with reality?” And then after having done this, don’t answer a fool according to his folly means let’s now not accept what you say, but let me now offer you a view that is coherent, that is liveable, that does comport with the way things are! Does my Christian worldview explain why you are the way you are and why such views as you hold flourish even in the face of being incoherent and unliveable.

This approach is sadly lacking in the Church today. We need to take it up with vigour for when our children go off to University they are no longer presented arguments as to why their Christian beliefs are wrong, but merely ridiculed and called intolerant from the perspective of the Postmodern worldview and its assumptions. Our Christian youth are then left confused about the coherence and intellectual foundation of the Christian faith.

We also need to take up this approach ourselves with our work colleagues and friends and family who are unbelievers. They have bought a worldview without considering its cogency or coherence or whether it is indeed liveable.

In the end what postmoderns reject is exactly the stance that Eve took in the Garden of Eden “Has God said?”

You may not like what God has said, and the unbeliever will reject it at his own peril, but we must never ignore what God has said and present it with honesty and clarity so that he may repent and worship his Creator.

We as Christians need to realise that the affliction of the world is a malignant hermeneutics, and indeed the battleground for the next 50 years within the church is hermeneutics, just as we see happening right now,

In Christ
Gary.

---

[i]  No doubt this can be attributed to his involvement with the demonic before becoming a Christian. Though not aware of all the details of his release from bondage, I have read his testimony on the blog, and would at this stage just mention that the Gospel message is what is to be used to bring a person into the Kingdom and a Christian can be oppressed but not possessed by demons.

 

Romans 15 real acceptance of one another

What does it mean to accept one another? That's the issue that covers Romans 14 and 15.
Peter Heyward on sunday gave a really important point about all this. Accepting is quite different to tolerate. Our world says we must tolerate one another, but in the church we are to do far more.

Indeed, Peter turned our attention to Romans 15 verse 7 - what a difference if we replaced accept with tolerate !

May we all learn from this.

In Christ,
Gary

An Outline for Preaching Luke chapters 9 -12

Luke an Outline chapters 9 -12

Important turning point in Luke's Gospel occurs with Peter’s declaration of Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ 9:21

The Jews had a warped understanding of the role of the Messiah as coming conquering King, largely Isaiah 1-39 whereas Jesus came as suffering servant Isaiah 40-66

Israel at the time believed their biggest problem was the Roman occupation, they looked for political redemption, but Jesus the Messiah came as spiritual redemption. Their biggest problem was sin.

SO 9:22 opposition coming from elders Priests and teachers of the law,

And this begins to be seen in 10:25 with the lawyer – a teacher of the law. Setting out to test Jesus.

But also central to what follows is 9:23 the Priorities Jesus gives Kingdom people, disciples of the King, and so Christians, To be a disciple of Jesus is to deny self and take up your cross daily = death to self and follow Jesus.

Leaving aside some passages and centering on only a few to show the development of the priorities, what it means to deny self and take up your cross daily.

a)    Transfiguration – “Listen to Him”

b)    Cost of following Jesus 9:58f

c)    Good Samaritan 10:25f eternal life is the BIG issue of life, the big Question about life worth asking and answering. Good Samaritan is Who loves like this?, who is neighbourly, Who can love beyond measure, we cannot in our own strength. Jesus’ command to lawyer “Go and Do likewise” should have evoked question but how can I? The answer in Old Testament terms would have been “heart of flesh, not a heart of stone”  - is what God gives!

d)    Then story of Martha and Mary. Point is: what is the Priority when the time is short – Jesus about to die! So best thing – listen to Him. For us, life is short! Listen to Jesus.

e)    The passage on Prayer: Priority of talking to God. Notice 11:14. God will give His Holy Spirit – knowing what to say? empowering? Comforting?

f)     Demonic affliction – evidence the Kingdom of God has come near you ( in the King / Messiah Jesus ) 11:14-28

g)    etc.

Genre and Hermeneutics in relation to the book of Revelation

Genre is certainly the dominating hermeneutic these days in interpreting the book of Revelation, no more clearly evident than among evangelicals, however evangelical commentaries frequently ignore the need for clarifying exactly what this apocalyptic being spoken of is [1] and how a lack of clarification of apocalyptic impacts ones understanding of the book of Revelation, leaving aside the ever present problems of defining genre itself. [2]


Nowhere is this confusion clearer than when scholars question how we can claim the book of Revelation is apocalyptic when some 30 of the 31 base characteristics used to define apocalyptic could just as rightly be said to be the marks of prophecy! Indeed the naming of the author of the book, [3] which Revelation does, and the use of epistolary sections which the book of Revelation also has, marks it more as prophecy than apocalyptic! The nail in the coffin here is that the opening verse which declares it is prophecy! In the face of this many today are opting to say the book is a mixture [4] of these genres while others go so far into the nether region as to proclaim that its meaning is to be determined by comparing it with non-biblical apocalyptic texts!

Robert Thomas notes “most distinctive of all, however, is the fact that the book calls itself a prophecy ( 1:3, 22:7,10,18,19 ).” [5] To neglect, or ignore such a clear pronouncement is to undermine all ones attempts to understand Scripture.

Again Robert Thomas gives all who study the book of Revelation an astute reminder when he states in his Commentary on Revelation that too often we meet ‘genre override’. We do well to heed his warning as already far too many purported scholars are relying upon genre when the exegesis and consideration of the text in context fails to meet their preconceived theology. What we encounter is amillennialist’s arbitrarily resorting to “apocalyptic genre” to justify not taking the text literally even when there are no grammatical indicators to suggest a given passage is not literal. It is basic hermeneutics to take careful note of such indicators as the words “like” or “as” in the text, for example as seen in chapter 13:2, or when the text already clearly indicates that what is said is figurative as seen in chapter 11 which explicitly says “figuratively called Sodom and Egypt” where also ‘their Lord was crucified’ 11:8 or again when the text declares to the reader that a “sign” is being given as in Rev 12:1, Indeed in Rev 1:1 we are already told that it was signified to his servants, that is, “shown by a sign”. Again, just consider the usage of numbers in chapter 21. Many have found issue with the number 1000 in chapter 20, yet the text frequently clarifies exactly the literal nuance to be understood when a number is not symbolic, as in chapter 21 verse 17 it tells us it was 144 cubits thick by man’s measurement! And in 21:16 it has told us “found to be 12000 stadia in length” and height and width. Given the careful use of such grammatical markers or when the author has repetitive use of the same number without any contextual indication that it is to be taken symbolically, one should be hesitant to assume a number is symbolic. [6]

The arbitrariness of interpreting Revelation literally at one point and then symbolically at another without any grammatical justification is evident when genre driven interpreters get to chapter 11. Most Commentators I have read take the two witnesses as two people. After all the context clearly explains, they are literally two. It says in verse 4 “they are the two olive trees and the two lampstands”. They are protected from harm vs 5, they are crucified in Jerusalem 11:8. And they are two prophets vs 10. Yet on their [7] hermeneutic one could just as easily say they are symbolic, that the point being made is legal witness, for 2 are required to stand as legal witness against another. Lo and behold are we surprised when Gentry develops this thought by saying the two witnesses “probably represent a small body of Christians who remained in Jerusalem to testify against” the temple. “They are portrayed as two, in that they are legal witnesses to the covenant curses.” [8] The trouble is that the reader is at a loss to determine much of what the book of Revelation is on about when there are so many possible interpretations. The incredible diversity found in those that advocate apocalyptic Genre indicate the problems remains of deciding which interpretation is likely. Here, the number two on Gentry’s interpretation means “a small number”. If they are to be taken as “a small number in Jerusalem”, then what historical evidence do we have of them being crucified ( Rev 11:8 ) in AD70, which is also what Gentry, a Preterist says the book of Revelation relates.

Commentators such as Mickelsen, Gordon D Fee & Douglas Stuart, Leland Ryken, M Robert Mulholland, Beasley-Murray, Mounce and Leon Morris ( those who combine a idealist and futurist approach ) [9] arbitrarily switch in their hermeneutical stride from Symbolic or figurative to literal and so reveal a dire hermeneutical inconsistency. Too often they take this approach and yet are silent in regard to providing justification for doing this.[10] It is hermeneutical gymnastics and further, methodologically undermines a rational approach to God’s revealed Word. [11] Appeal to apocalyptic genre just won’t overcome firstly, the subjective manner of being literal on whim, often ignoring context and secondly, the prevailing differences of a multiplicity of varying interpretations between them on such passages meaning. We see this frequently also in Paul Barnett’s book ‘Apocalypse: Now and Then’: We acknowledge his stated aim is to provide a “devotional commentary” for families and individuals to read, however, declaring Revelation to be a confusing book, and reinforcing this in the mind of the reader by saying that one needs a key to decipher it, he should provide a little more justification for some of his more questionable claims or at least admit there are people who differ with him on these points.

For example his book follows an idealist / future interpretation and his [ layered ] seven fold structure follows closely that argued by Hoekema with his recapitulative theory of Revelation which finds its genesis in Augustine.

As to this recapitulative theory evidenced in the structure, one fraught with disagreement, one commentator astutely asks ”why a 7 fold structure and not 3 or 10?” [12]
Concerning the recapitulative theory, it is Hoekema himself who admits that if you don’t assume that Rev 20:1-6 describes what takes place during the history of the Church then you would need to admit that the 1000 years reign of Christ coming after his return, and it is only when one assumes 20:1-6 describes the history of the church that it follows that Revelation follows a progressive parallelism structure. [13] The question is “can one come to the meaning of the text that Hoekema gives us on a natural contextual reading of the text”? If not, it isn’t much of an unveiling!


Another serious deficit not even addressed is the problem acknowledged by commentators on how you understand the two resurrections in Revelation 20. Can they plausibly be understood as spiritualizing the first resurrection, whilst taking the second one literally as a physical resurrection? Are people who make one symbolic and the other literal really dealing with the context in any grammatically meaningful way? I believe not.

Lastly, I find Wood's arguments on how to deal with numbers especially relevant given how Barnett lays so much interpretive weight upon his meaning of numbers in the book of Revelation. Again Barnett fails to explain why numbers mean what he says they mean, and this justification is crucial when there are Greek expressions available for John to declare something to be “a very long time” without using the numeric 1000. Woods points out [14] that the phrase, “ a long time” has been used by Matthew in Matt 25:19 to “depict the duration of the Lord’s absence prior to his second advent”, and given its context in Matthew this is indeed intriguing, so much so that one might have expected John to use it here. Even in the book of Revelation itself, John has used a phrase to indicate the temporal shortness of time as in his use of “a little while”, which occurs in Rev 17:11 and his use of it again in Rev 12:12 where it is said of satan that “he is filled with the fury because he knows that his time is short.” Instead of using “symbolic numbers” it seems to me to suggest that John is quite deliberate in both his use of such grammatical temporal phrases and in his choice of numbers.  

Ryken’s comments on how one approaches the book of Revelation is characteristic of many preaching evangelicals today who see it as combining not merely the idealist and furturist but also the preterist and continuous historical. In essence he wants to have it all ways. He says: “Because of the literary form of the book, which portrays events symbolically, its relevance extends throughout the history of the world.” Thomas pg 89

Even whilst saying the book portrays events symbolically, he yet wants to keep references to the second coming of Jesus as literal. So while looking at chapters 4-18 in a very symbolic way, having interpreted so much of it under the idealistic rubric, [15] when they come to chapter 19:11-16 they want to see it as the literal physical return of Jesus to earth. If they remained true to their idealistic hermeneutic they would see Christ’s coming as metaphor for peoples moral and spiritual enlightenment much as the 19th Century liberals did with Jesus taking him purely as an enlightened man with a true sense of God. Of course taking chapter 19 in this way would mean it’s only about personal transformation and illumination, which is the end is pure mysticism.

The above is just a small investigation of the issues involved.

References:
[1] See Michael G. Michael Macquarie University, At. S.W Australia The Genre of the Apocalypse:What are they saying now? Bulletin of Biblical Studies Vol 18 Jul-Dec 1999


[2] See David E Aune ‘The Apocalypse of John and the problem of genre’ Semeia 36 ( 1986 ) pg 66

[3] Thus contravening apocalyptic as pseudonymity. See Robert Thomas ‘Literary Genre and Hermeneutics of the apocalypse’. Pg 82. See also his Wycliffe Commentary on Revelation. Tmsj2e.pdf

[4] This is seen in saying it is Prophecy and Apocalyptic and Epistle. Cf C. L Blomberg ‘NT Genre criticism for the 1990’s’ Themelios 15/2 ( Jan / Feb 1990 ) pg 45. By conflating the three, who knew what it was saying until the 1980’s and thereafter?

[5] Robert Thomas ‘Literary Genre … ‘ pg 82

[6] Yet Paul Barnett does exactly this, ignoring context and the books use of numbers and without any supporting argument unilaterally declares numbers mean what he posits. So 1000 in Rev 20 is “a great number or a very long period”, indicating he takes it as both numeric and as temporal! That on the face of it is mind boggling.

[7] Ammillenialists for example.

[8] Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 421-22. This is an approach exemplified in the New Hermeneutic. See D A Carson. ‘The Gagging of God’ pg 106

[9] See R Thomas ‘Literary Genre..’ pg 88

[10] Apart from a bland appeal to “genre” as apocalyptic.

[11] In other words it exhibits irrationalism. As to the accusation that my approach in this summary is mired in modernism that rejoinder will be dealt with in another article, but I believe others have pointed out the failures of postmodernism etc eg D A Carson in ‘the Gagging of God’ and William J Larkin’s book ‘Culture and Biblical Hermeneutics.

[12] See Steve Lewis, ‘Theological Presuppositions and the Interpretation of Revelation’. Conservative Theological Journal August 2003 pg 4.

[13] See Steve Lewis, ‘Theological Presuppositions and the Interpretation of Revelation’. Conservative Theological Journal August 2003. pg 3

[14] Andy Woods pg 9. 'A Case for the futurist interpretation of the book of Revelation' www.pretrib.org/data/pdf/woods-ACaseFortheFuturistl.pdf  and 85.pdf
[15] So Leon Morris sees the trumpet plagues as something that has been “true throughout the ages and it will be until the End.” Morris Revelation pg 123 cited in Thomas ‘literary genre ..’ pg 89

John Dickson's oral tradition argument and understanding teach in 1 Timothy 2 vs 12

The Elephant in the room.


So far no one I have noticed has remarked on or dealt with the elephant in the room that is politely being ignored and yet we all are in danger of being squashed by it. The elephant is revealed in Dickson’s short statement that “I hope readers will find that the following historical observations, none of which are controversial in scholarship today, will clarify rather than confuse the meaning of 1 Tim 2” reference - Dickson chapter 2 ‘laying it down: what teaching really is.’

What isn’t controversial for Dickson is both the dating of the Gospels and the Oral Tradition and he immediately goes on to talk about the oral tradition in section 2.3. I have no problem with the dating of the Gospels as I see that as subsidiary to the issue before us, my main beef is with moving from how oral traditions are passed on via story etc to the notion that these somehow influence the meaning and content of NT passages.

But before I deal with the question of the content of these oral traditions, what about the support of scholarship regarding oral traditions. Dickson infers they support his thinking regarding 1 Timothy 2:12 but does it?

Of course I thank Dickson for making me read Dunn’s ‘Jesus Remembered ‘ even if it has been done rather too quickly and I am in danger of misunderstanding some of Dunn’s arguments. Even so I am sure some will generously point out my misreadings and mistakes.

Central to Dunn’s approach is to build upon the so called fruits of form criticism. Fruits which I myself take to be rotten because they are grounded in Kantian ideals and enlightenment ideas. I too had to study and write essays on form criticism as a requirement of my Bth but that doesn’t mean I agreed with the assumptions and approach of form criticism. It is just in my mind merely a nefarious notion.

We see form criticism mentioned frequently in Dunn, picking up as he does the advent of the oral tradition enquiry beginning with Bultmann and form criticism, Dunn page 193, But let’s be gracious and for the moment assume form criticism is a viable approach. And let’s also take Dunn as representative of the oral tradition hypothesis even though I admit I would do well to read Keener and Bauckham. But time for the non academic is of the essence and other priorities often must take precedence.

What I see Dunn saying in regard to oral tradition has more to do with the methods of transmission of oral traditions and how they work out in communities. I do not see it evidencing the content as to oral traditions or in particular the oral traditions of the apostles, and nor does Dunn provide any evidence of what those traditions were. Even when talking about Paul and his conversion Dunn is still very much only concerned with character and transmission of oral traditions. And even at that level he makes assumptions that can be regarded as controversial.

For example, using the three accounts of Paul’s conversion as attested in Acts 9, 22 and 26 Dunn sees them as valuable examples of the way oral tradition functioned. It seems for Dunn that central to his analysis of the biblical accounts is his assumption from Bailey that the significant thing to focus in on as evidence of an oral tradition is the core element, one can readily acknowledge this core even when there may be a difference in supporting details. However in regard to Acts 9, 22 and 26 this assumes that Luke is not using Paul’s conversion theologically. That is, he is being truthful to the facts of the event of Paul’s conversion but selecting details to make a point within the movement of his Book. Why assume these passages reflect the ‘oral principle of variation within the same’ pg 212 rather than it is Luke’s inspired use of the essential reality of Paul’s conversion which Luke sourced out from eyewitnesses? Luke 1:2 Further we need to ask what is the practical application of assuming the passages are examples of the way oral traditions functioned. Even if we go so far as to grant the possibility of the source of the event Luke uses to be an oral tradition one has to be careful in how they use this to determine the meaning of the passage. Far too often they are in danger of missing the point drawn out by the supporting details eg Paul before Ananias in chp 26, that Luke is making and settling instead for some generic understanding and application. This approach can be likened to how some take from the three parallel accounts of the Gospel stories where they dealt with as similar instance and preaching an amalgamated message.

At the one point Dunn veers more towards considering the content of the oral traditions, namely in the post Easter emphasis of the Jesus tradition that Moule’s work focuses on, but even then there is little by way of the content of those traditions discussed and certainly no compelling evidence presented.

So as far as I can see Dunn addresses the character and transmission of oral traditions but doesn’t speak of the content of those traditions.

The point I then have to ask is how one determines what the content of these oral traditions are when there is no extant documentation of their content. To presume that the content is the New Testament is to presume too much. It is pure speculation. It becomes even more precarious when Dickson claims that the oral traditions of the Apostles were so important that special care had to be taken in passing them on to others, and thus the implied restriction of teaching oral traditions by women. Yet we must ask, if these traditions are so important as to their content how come there are no sources regarding their content, either in the period before the writing of the New Testament or even via way of commentary by Church Fathers. An reference to Papias does not support the importance or content of these apostolic traditions and that reference in Dunn only picks up on his statement that snatches of prayer and hymnody flow in and out of the texture of pastoral exhortation. However to presume that such an expression in writing must have some causal link to oral traditions because oral traditions reflect a similar character makes a big assumption that is without supporting justification. Be that as it may, Papias still doesn’t mention content regarding the oral traditions of the apostles. See Dunn. ‘Jesus Remembered’ Pg223 and footnote 216. I would have thought if these apostolic traditions were so authoritatively important someone would have made notes somewhere and these sources would have been found. It is sounding far too much like an argument from silence.

Consider how Dickson sees the historical support of the oral tradition as working out in his argument.

He says “Christian doctrine in the early decades of the church was maintained, for the most part, not in writings but through the memorizing and rehearsing of all the fixed information the apostles had laid down for the churches”, and says we see a glimpse of this in the Lord’s Supper of 1 Cor 11 “as I passed on to you”.

He then makes the remarkable statement “Epistles like 1 Corinthians were not the principle means of laying down the apostolic traditions; they functioned as written supplements to an oral tradition that had already been ‘delivered to’ and ‘received by’ the churches over many years. This may require some imagination to think through but it cannot really be disputed.”

I may have misconstrued Dickson’s point here in thinking the above statement seems to put more weight and importance on the oral traditions than the New Testament Scriptures, they are just “supplements”. But however we take this, it remains strange that such weighty and authoritative traditions have no extant documentation nor are mentioned by the Church fathers. That is an historical gap the size of a black hole – nothing is left but supposition or as Dickson says a bit of imagination.

Let me make one final point which is not at all related to historical scholarship. See how Dickson moves his argument regarding 1 Timothy 2:12. First that oral traditions were in play before the writing of the New Testament documents. Second, that there were oral traditions of the apostles in play. Third, that he then takes “teach” in 1 Tim 2:12 in a technical sense so that Paul equates teach with the passing on and laying down these oral traditions of the apostles. What he needs to show clearly is that this was Paul’s intent in using the word teach. That Paul clearly links the word teach with apostolic traditions and their passing on. But Paul doesn’t do that. Indeed he says in the Pastoral Epistles which Dickson wants to say is the documentary range for considering this notion of teach, that in Titus Paul says women can teach other younger women. One would then have to conclude that the limitation in 1 Tim 2:12 has to do with men and women in meeting together, not the restricted role of such teaching to men! Of course Dickson could say that teach in Titus 2:3 is a compound of teach and good, so it’s “teach what is good” and so is not used in the technical sense he gives teach in 1 Tim 2:12.

Just my two cents worth in a very limited time frame. Certainly John Dickson has stimulated me in thinking about such references in the epistles that speak of the prior teachings of the apostles to the Churches before the inscripturation of the New Testament.

In Christ
Gary

John Dickson's oral tradition argument in relation to teach in 1 Tim 2:12

Just when I thought I was getting somewhere in the study of Hermeneutics for my study of Ricoeur, my friend Sean said I must read the latest booklet on 1 Tim 2:12 by John Dickson.

You can at present download it from Amazon, I actually was able to get the kindle free version which one can read in a kindle app that loads onto your PC.

You can get a fair appraisal of his argument over at Lionel Windsor's blog and there you will also read replies to it by John Dickson and critiques by Peter Bolt over on Mark Thompson's blog.
I will post my reply I put on Lionel's blog tomorrow. In a nutshell I just think that to claim teach in 1 Tim 2:12 is used by Paul in a technical sense of passing on the traditions of the apostles has no grounding in the historical investigation of oral traditions. John Dickson in my thinking offers a novel interpretation but has no evidence to justify it. But you can see my concerns and make up your own mind.

In Christ,
Gary