The Study of the Scriptures
Session 5,
Wednesday 25 MAR 2015
Faith
Baptist Fellowship Church
Lake Ariel,
PA
Review Sessions 1-4
1. Placing trust in God: The ability of God and the sufficiency of the Scriptures — Coming to the Scriptures with Faith
2. Putting man in his place: The inability of fallen man and an understanding of the responses of the creature to the revelation of God — Coming to the Scriptures with Humility
3. The Unity of the Word of God and the First, Progressive, and Full Mention Principles of Interpretation — Coming to the Scriptures with Hope
4. The Diversity of the Contexts within the Canon of Scripture — Coming to the Scriptures with Respect
Session 5: The
Humiliation of Incarnational Hermeneutics
Introduction:
Are we given examples in the Scriptures of where others
went wrong in their understanding of God’s Word, or the lack of understanding?
What we can learn from those examples?
Are the same errors occurring in our midst today, and on
the same basis?
Whatever we do in Bible study, whatever principles we
employ, our goal must not just be a positive one, i.e., to gain an
understanding of the true meaning of the Scriptures. We must also at the same time
have a negative goal, i.e., to avoid adding to, taking away from, twisting, or
wrongly dividing the Word of God. In other words, given our sinful tendencies,
and the darkness of our minds apart from the illumination of the Holy Spirit,
extreme care must be taken to avoid the errors that have been made, are being
made, and will be made as people handle the Scriptures. We must seek the truth,
but we must always guard against error. Neither the sword nor the shield are
sufficient without the other.
Where we have been: contexts within contexts!
Where we will go now: canons within the Canon.
1. Historical canons within the Canon: The Humiliation
of Incarnational Hermeneutics — A Lesson to be Learned, and an Error to be
Avoided
canons within
the Canon[1]
Canon - the whole counsel of God
“The English word canon goes back to the Greek word kanon and
then to the Hebrew qaneh. Its basic meaning is reed, our
English word cane being derived from it. Since a reed was sometimes used as a
measuring rod, the word kanon came to mean a standard or rule. It was also used
to refer to a list or index, and when so applied to the Bible denotes the list
of books which are received as Holy Scripture. Thus if one speaks of the
canonical writings, he is speaking of those books which are regarded as having
divine authority and which comprise our Bible.”[2]
“canon within the Canon”
1) “canon within
the Canon” defined
A “canon within
the Canon” is a text that is superposed over others in such a way that the
meaning of the other texts is forced into a box created by the “canon within”
text.
(1) The imposition of one context on another, or on all
others.
(2) The elevation of one meaning, with the subordination
or denial of all others.
(3) The construction of an “either/or” framework or box,
when the truth demands a “both/and.”
This has been
defined as: “A subset of scriptures taught in exclusion of those that would
result in true doctrine.”[3]
The Trinity? Is God one or is
God three?
Have I failed to mention thus
far in our study the Trinitarian Test of
Truth?
“Union without confusion, and
distinction without division.”
In other words,
“Unity in diversity, and diversity in unity.”
The Christ? Is Christ God or is
Christ man?
The Bible? Is the Bible the Word
of God or is it the words of men?
What we will observe where this fallacy occurs is that
one context may be rightly handled and understood, but then other contexts are
violated by the imposition of what has been understood elsewhere upon them.
The humiliation of
incarnational hermeneutics
2) “canon within
the Canon” exemplified
In the “Introduction” to this session I asked:
Are we given examples in the Scriptures of where others
went wrong in their understanding of God’s Word, or the lack of understanding?
What we can learn from those examples?
In the Gospels we learn of the first century disciples of
Christ repeatedly failing to understand that Two Advents were prophesied,
specifically the Humiliation preceding the Exaltation of the Lord Jesus Christ,
e.g., as seen especially in the presentation
of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah.
The humiliation of
incarnational hermeneutics
Text: Isaiah 61:1-2 — 1 The
Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me;
because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath
sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and
the opening of the prison to them that
are bound; 2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of
vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
Text: Luke 4:14-29 — 14
And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee:
and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about. 15 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all. 16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and,
as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up
for to read. 17 And there was
delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the
book, he found the place where it was written, 18 The Spirit of the Lord is
upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath
sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and
recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 20 And he closed
the book, and he gave it again to the
minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue
were fastened on him. 21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture
fulfilled in your ears. 22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words
which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son? 23 And he said
unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself:
whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country. 24 And he said,
Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country. 25 But I tell you
of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven
was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all
the land; 26 But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. 27 And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the
prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian. 28 And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things,
were filled with wrath, 29 And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto
the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him
down headlong.
Did anybody get it? Are there any exceptions to this
misunderstanding?
What about the wise men and the shepherds at Bethlehem, or
Simeon and Anna in Jerusalem? — They
recognized the reality of the incarnation at his Birth. However, this does not
necessarily carry with it an understanding that the crucifixion was the purpose
of this incarnation.
Satan and demons! — They had no doubt who He was, and
what He intended. They acknowledged Him for who He was in fact, and Satan
attempted to prevent Him from following through with His intent.
In the meantime His followers at times acknowledged Him
as the Messiah, and as sent by God, but never understand or acknowledged prior
to the crucifixion that this event could possibly be His goal. Rather, they
denied it, at times even vehemently and violently. A hermeneutical error that
had been rooted in centuries of Bible study had brought them to this conclusion
concerning the First Advent, with the consequent inability to process the clear
teaching of Christ about it, and the distinction between the two Advents.
What is involved here? Unfulfilled prophecy! The
fulfillment of unfulfilled prophecy! Eschatology!
Here is where we need to be very careful, and very humble,
so that we are not guilty of missing the teachings of the Scriptures just as
they did!
The humiliation of
incarnational hermeneutics
2. The Concept of Corporate
Solidarity[4]
This concept, foreign to the culture and thought of much
of the western and modern worlds, is nevertheless implicitly understood in the
Ancient Near East, and tribal and clan cultures throughout history. Crossing the two millennia plus year old gap
on a historical-cultural bridge to comprehend the Scriptures requires moving
into such a mindset while casting off the independent person oriented fixation
of the modern western culture. This
concept is a critical factor in rightly comprehending what is taught in Romans
5, but it is not just there. The
Scriptural usage of terms like Israel, Servant and Temple are also involved.
Examples of
Scriptural teachings or concepts where Corporate
Solidarity should be understood:
1) Israel
There are at least five usages for “Israel” that may be
found in the Scriptures. The term is
often used for:
(1) The individual so renamed
(Gen. 32:28; 35:10);
(2) Israel’s physical descendants,
i.e., the nation of the twelve tribes descended from the individual so named (Gen.
32:32; 34:7; 49:16, 28; Ex. 1:8; Rom. 11:25; etc.);
(3) The elect descendants, i.e., the remnant, or “true” Israel from
the twelve tribes descended from the individual so named (Ps. 73:1; Rom. 9:6;
Gal. 6:16; Rev. 21:12);
(4) The northern ten tribes of
the divided nation — contrasted with the southern tribes, Judah allied with
Benjamin (1 Kings 12; Jer. 31:31; Heb. 8:8; etc.); and,
(5) Christ in corporate
solidarity with the nation (Is. 49:3; Hos. 11:1; Mt. 2:15; cp. also Ex. 4:22;
etc.).[5]
Note: It is not
uncommon for two or more of these usages to be found in the same context. Such back and forth movement between
considerations of various aspects of the same corporate entity was natural to
the cultures of the Ancient Near East. This subject will be referred to below.
2) The Suffering Servant
The Suffering Servant portions of Isaiah involve a
shifting between the nation Israel as the Suffering Servant and an individual
Suffering Servant presented as the person of the Messiah in union with and
representing the nation. At a minimum
the revelation of this corporate identity involves the Suffering Servant Songs of Is. 42:1-4; 49:1-6; 50:4-9; and
52:13-52:12. The entirety of Is. 42-53
serves as the larger context for these Songs.
3) The Temple
The Temple imagery involving a corporate identity of
believers in the Church under the New Covenant has no partial counterpart like
that of the metaphor involving the building and the parts of the building, and
the body and the members of the body that is found in some of the same
passages. The “one” and the “many” has
everything to do with rightly understanding not only the grammar, but also the
intended application of such passages as 1 Cor. 3:16-17 (9-17); 1 Cor. 6:19
(12-20); and 2 Cor. 6:16 (14-18). See
also 1 Pet 2:4-12; Heb. 3:1-6; etc. These passages were addressed in Session 4.
Note: I would
posit that, apart from the supernatural healing of grace, sin inevitably
fractures true community relationships.
Even in cultures that are not inherently as individualistic as modern
America their native/natural “groups” may, due to sin, often interfere with
true supernatural body life in fellowship with other believers. This was evidenced in the 1st century church
at Corinth (e.g., 1 Cor. 3, 6, 11), and elsewhere (e.g., Gal. 5; Jas. 2-5; 3
Jn.; Jude).
Examples of
significant Scripture passages where Corporate
Solidarity must be understood:
1) The
subordination of the Levitical priesthood to that of Melchizedek proved by Levi,
in the loins of Abraham, paying tithes to Mechizedek
Hebrews
7:6-10 — “6 But he whose descent is not counted
from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. 7 And
without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. 8 And
here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. 9 And as
I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. 10 For he
was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.”
2) The union of
New Covenant believers in Christ seen in the accusation of Saul persecuting
Christ
Acts 9:4-5 — “4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him,
Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5 And he said, Who art
thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the
pricks.”
3) The entire human
race seen in Adam, and therefore fallen, condemned in sin, and dead; and the
redeemed of the human race seen in Christ, and therefore justified as righteous
and reigning in life.
Romans 5:12-19 — “12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not
imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them
that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the
figure of him that was to come. 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the
offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace,
which is by one man, Jesus Christ,
hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was
by one that sinned, so is the gift:
for the judgment was by one to
condemnation, but the free gift is of
many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more
they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall
reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the
righteousness of one the free gift came
upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one
man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall
many be made righteous.”
The humiliation of
incarnational hermeneutics
3. Modern canons within the Canon: Exegetical and
Theological Errors that violate Corporate
Solidarity due to “canons within the Canon” — Lessons to be Learned and
Errors to be Avoided
In the “Introduction” to this session I asked:
Are we given examples in the Scriptures of where others
went wrong in their understanding of God’s Word, or the lack of understanding?
What we can learn from those examples?
Are the same errors occurring in our midst today, and on
the same basis?
We have already considered the first of these questions.
We must now consider the third question while applying what we learned in
addressing the first two.
In the examples that follow the same error may be
observed that was found in the “historical canons within the Canon” already
considered. In other words, many modern Bible scholars are guilty of committing
the same error regarding other subjects that the disciples did in the first
century regarding the First Advent of Christ.
1) Seed[6]
What do many do today with the meaning of the seed in the Bible?
How do they arrive at that conclusion?
Israel is no longer the seed, if indeed, they ever were.
Christ, and the Church in Christ is the seed/seeds. The physical descendants of
Abraham may only be seen as seeds of Abraham when they are regenerated in the
Church.
Text: Galatians 3:16-19,
28-29 — 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith
not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And
this I say, that the covenant, that
was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and
thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none
effect.
18 For if
the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. 19 Wherefore
then serveth the law? It was added
because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was
made; and it was ordained by angels
in the hand of a mediator….28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there
is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one
in Christ Jesus. 29 And if
ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's
seed, and heirs according to the promise.
2) Israel[7]
What do many do today with the meaning of Israel in the Bible?
How do they arrive at that conclusion?
The Church is the true Israel. Israel as a nation as
understood in the Old Testament has been replaced, or superseded, or fulfilled
in the Church.
Text: Galatians 6:16 — “And as
many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and
upon the Israel of God.”
Romans 2:28-29 — “28 For he
is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he
is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and
circumcision is that of the heart, in
the spirit, and not in the letter;
whose praise is not of men, but of
God.”
A related term involved with this “canon within the
Canon” treatment of “Israel” is found in Obadiah 17-21 — 17 But upon mount Zion shall be deliverance,
and there shall be holiness; and the house of Jacob shall possess their
possessions. 18 And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them;
and there shall not be any remaining
of the house of Esau; for the LORD hath spoken it. 19 And they of the south shall possess the mount of Esau; and they of the
plain the Philistines: and they shall possess the fields of Ephraim, and the fields of Samaria: and Benjamin shall possess Gilead. 20 And the captivity of this host of the children of Israel shall possess that of the Canaanites, even unto Zarephath; and the captivity of Jerusalem, which is in Sepharad, shall possess the cities of the south. 21 And saviours
shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the LORD'S.
What proper nouns may we legitimately see as
spiritual realities or symbols in these verses?
What
are we to think of “mount Zion”? Should we impose the following passages as
“canons within the Canon,” and see what Obadiah is prophesying as something
other than the physical, earthly Mount Zion?
Galatians 4:25-26 — 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and
answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of
us all.
Hebrews 12:22 — But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto
the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable
company of angels,
“the city of my
God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven”
“the holy
city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven”
“that
great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God”
— Revelation
3:12; 21:2, 10.
Why is that so
many single out only those proper nouns that refer to the people and land of Israel
as symbols or types to be interpreted/reinterpreted as spiritual entities, and
do not do the same with the other proper nouns here?
If we allow
Scripture to interpret Scripture without such inconsistent imposing of a “canon
within the Canon” on the text, wouldn’t we see 2 Samuel 5:7, 1 Kings 8:1; 1
Chronicles 11:5; and 2 Chronicles 5:2 as defining what is meant here by “Mount
Zion”?
“Nevertheless David took the
strong hold of Zion: the same is the city of David.” (2 Samuel 5:7)
“Then Solomon assembled the
elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the fathers of
the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in Jerusalem, that they might bring
up the ark of the covenant of the LORD out of the city of David, which is
Zion.” (1 Kings 8:1)
“And the inhabitants of Jebus
said to David, Thou shalt not come hither. Nevertheless David took the castle
of Zion, which is the city of David.” (1 Chronicles 11:5)
“Then Solomon assembled the
elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the fathers of
the children of Israel, unto Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of
the LORD out of the city of David, which is Zion.” (2 Chronicles 5:2)
Elsewhere
throughout the Old Testament Zion is paralleled with the earthly city of
Jerusalem. What exegetical warrant is there to depart from that understanding
here, while refusing to handle the other proper nouns in the same fashion?
3) Kingdom[8]
What do many do today with the meaning of the kingdom in the Bible?
How do they arrive at that conclusion?
The kingdom of God is a heavenly kingdom, and is within
you. The kingdom is spiritual, and neither natural nor earthly. Therefore there is not now, nor shall there ever
be any earthly kingdom of God.
Text:
Matthew 21:43 — “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be
taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”
Text: Luke 17:21 — “Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the
kingdom of God is within you.”
Text: John 18:36 — “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this
world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the
Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”
4) Other modern
examples (open theism, and evangelical feminism):
"Second,
open theists erect interpretive centers or controlling metaphors. An
interpretive center is the establishment of one portion of Scripture as a basis
for interpreting other sections of Scripture.” [22]
22 “Thomas,
Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old, 482-85.”
“In other words,
one key verse or concept is used as a filter for viewing and understanding the
rest of biblical data.” [23]
23 “Evangelical feminist's use the same hermeneutical method when they interpret New Testament gender role distinctions through the lens of Gal 3:28.”
23 “Evangelical feminist's use the same hermeneutical method when they interpret New Testament gender role distinctions through the lens of Gal 3:28.”
“The interpretive
center used by open theists in building their doctrine of God is 1 John 4:8,
which says, “God is love.””[9]
The humiliation of
incarnational hermeneutics
I have a very dear friend, whom I love and respect
greatly, who has asserted on numerous occasions, “If all I had was the Old
Testament, I would be a Dispensationalist!” As strange as it may seem to many
today, the only Bible that John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and Paul had was what we now refer to as the Old Testament! That would
lead me to the conclusion that they were Dispensationalists when it came to the
seed, Israel, and the kingdom!
They had part of their eschatology right, and only erred initially (prior to
Pentecost) when it came to the First Advent due to the “canon within the Canon”
error.
Conclusion: These
erroneous approaches to the Scriptures are identical in kind to that followed
by those who deny the Trinity, the true deity and humanity of Christ, and the
inspiration of the Word of God.
If we:
1) humbly empathize with the followers of Christ in the
first century A.D., and strive to carefully avoid their errors;
2) maintain an awareness of our fleshly tendency to take
a simplistic or reductionist approach to truth, i.e. realizing that in this cases it is not an either/or
consideration, but rather both/and must be maintained at one and the same time;
and,
3) bring our tentative conclusions to the touchstone of
the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Bible; then we may steer clear of
twisting the Scriptures.
The humiliation of
incarnational hermeneutics
Sola Scriptura, Soli Deo Gloria,
John T. “Jack” Jeffery
Pastor, Wayside Gospel Chapel
Greentown, PA
24 MAR 2015
Revised:
25 MAR 2015
26 MAR 2015
Appendix A: Recommended Sources on “canons within the
Canon”
1. D. A. Carson, “The Problem Of The Canon Within The Canon,” in Biblical Interpretation And The Church: The Problem of Contextualization, ed. D. A. Carson (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984; reprint ed. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002), pp. 20-24. This entire chapter by Carson, “A Sketch of the Factors Determining Current Hermeneutical Debate in Cross-Cultural Contexts,” pp. 11-29, is available online at http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/carson/1984_sketch_of_factors.pdf [accessed 25 MAR 2015].
In this chapter
Carson references two of his previous writings on this subject:
D. A. Carson,
“Hermeneutics: A brief assessment of some recent trends,” Themelios 5:2 (JAN 1980), pp. 12-20; reprinted in Evangelical Review of Theology 5 (1981),
pp. 8-25.
D.
A. Carson, “Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: On the Possibility of
Systematic Theology,” Scripture and Truth,
eds. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids and Leicester 1983), pp.
65-95, 368-375; online at http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/carson/1983_unity_and_diversity_in_NT.pdf [accessed 25 MAR 2015].
2. Robert L. Thomas, “The Fallacy of the Interpretive Center,” in Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old, ed. Robert L. Thomas (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2002), pp. 482-485; see also pp. 86, 104 note 48, and 377-380.
See also:
Robert L. Thomas,
“The Hermeneutics Of “Open Theism”,” The Master’s
Seminary Journal 12:2 (Fall
2001), pp. 179-203; on The Master’s Seminary at http://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj12i.pdf [accessed 24 MAR 2015].
Appendix B: Resources on the Concept of Corporate Solidarity
G. K. Beale, A New
Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), pp. 179, 192-193, 395, 713.[10]
Abner Chou, “Corporate Solidarity: A Heuristic Grid For
New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” paper delivered at the Far West
Regional Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, May, 2, 2003, at Sun
Valley, CA.[11]
E. Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1957), pp. 58-60, 72-73, 95,
132-133, 136, and 139.
Mehrdad
Fatehi, The Spirit's Relation to the
Risen Lord in Paul (Mohr Siebeck, 2000).
David
Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck, eds., Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing, 2000), pp. 285-287, s.v. “Corporate Personality.”
Morna Dorothy Hooker, Jesus and the Servant: The
Influence of the Servant Concept of Deutero-Isaiah in the New Testament (London:
SPCK, 1959).
Aubrey R. Johnson, The
One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God (Cardiff: University of
Wales Press, 1960).[12]
Arthur H. Lewis, “Resurgent Semitisms In The Testament
Theology”, Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 17:1 (Winter 1974), pp. 3-10.
Kenneth D. Litwak, “The Use Of Quotations From Isaiah
52:13-53:12 In The New Testament,” Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society 26:4 (DEC 1983), pp. 385-394.
Richard Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the
Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975).
John Murray “The Imputation Of Adam’s Sin”, Westminster
Theological Journal 18:2 (MAY 1956), pp.146-162, and Westminster
Theological Journal 19:1
(NOV 1956), pp. 25-44.
C. R. North, Isaiah
40–55 (London:
SCM, 1952).
C. R. North, The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah (London:
Oxford University Press, 1948).
Douglas A. Oss, “The Interpretation Of The
"Stone" Passages By Peter And Paul: A Comparative Study”, Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society 32:2 (JUN 1989), pp. 181-200.
Johannes Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture, Vol. 28 in South Florida Studies in the
History of Judaism (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991).
Henry Wheeler Robinson, The Christian Doctrine of Man (1934).
Henry Wheeler Robinson, Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel (1935; reprint
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973, 1980).[13]
Henry Wheeler Robinson, The Old Testament: Its Making and Meaning (1937).
Henry Wheeler Robinson, The History of Israel: Its Fact and Factors (1938).
Henry Wheeler Robinson, The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament (1956).
H. H. Rowley, The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on
the Old Testament (London: Lutterworth, 1957.
Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul,
Apostle of God's Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology (Downers Grove, IL:
IVP Academic, 2001), pp. 156-159, s.v. “In Christ”.[14]
Russell Phillip Shedd, Man in Community: A Study of St. Paul’s Application of Old Testament
and Early Jewish Conceptions of Human Solidarity (London: Epworth Press,
1958).
Klyne Snodgrass, “The Use of the Old Testament in the New,”
in New Testament Criticism and Interpretation,
eds. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), pg.
416.[15]
Thomas F. Torrance, Incarnation: The Person and Life of Christ, ed. Robert T. Walker (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2008), pp. 137-138.[16]
Sang-Won (Aaron) Son, Corporate Elements in Pauline
Anthropology (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2001).[17]
Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and
Institutions (London: Darton,
Longman & Todd, 1973).
Objections: [18]
Joshua R.
Porter, “The Legal Aspects of the Concept of ‘Corporate Personality’ in the Old
Testament,” Vetus Testamentum 15 (1965), pp. 361-380.
John W.
Rogerson, “The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality: A Re-examination,” Journal
of Theological Studies 21 (1970), pp. 1-16.[19]
Stanley E.
Porter, “Two Myths: Corporate Personality and Language/Mentality Determinism,” Scottish
Journal of Theology 43 (1990), pp. 289-307.[20]
Appendix C: Excerpts on the Concept of Corporate Solidarity
Arthur H. Lewis, “Resurgent Semitisms In The Testament
Theology,” Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 17:1 (Winter 1974), pp. 3-10.
Pg. 7 -
"In all of these sources from early Judaism certain
broad themes may be pointed out. I would like to mention three of them, the
first being the Jewish deep-seated feeling for corporate personality. The subject
first came to mean something to me during an overland trip into Greece and the
Near East. My three companions were professors who had completed their doctoral
studies in Europe: Earle Ellis, Russell Shedd, and John Stam. Earl’s Book on Paul’s Understanding
of the Old Testament and Russell Shedd’s Man in Community had
already been published and were well received, particularly by the European
scholars. I listened to long discussions on the solidarity principle as it
emerges in the salvation doctrines of the New Testament. Today, ten years after
that trip, the evidence is stronger than ever that key theological themes in the New Testament are best understood in their
relationship to the old semitic, patriarchal sense of family and national unity.
To the Hebrew mind it would not seem strange to say,
"As in Adam all die," or "Christ is the vine," or
"Jacob is Israel and Esau is Edom." Dr. Shedd writes, "We need
not repeat what is self-evident, namely, that the foundational background of
these concepts is the Hebrew view of
man as more then [sic] an individual." Could anything sound more
un-american than this?"
Pg. 8 -
One corollary of corporate personality is the essential
oneness of the Body of Christ and the continuity of the true people of God
throughout the ages, before and after Christ. Our honored guest, F. F. Bruce
will permit me, I trust, to quote from his recently published book, New Testament
Development of Old Testament Themes on this same subject.
"When Jesus chose the twelve, their number implied
that they represented the faithful remnent [sic] of the old Israel who would be
also the foundation of the new. Hence, the New Testament people of God, while
preserving its continuity with the Old Testament people of God, is at the same
time a new creation."
This oneness is supported by the carryover of the old,
Hebrew term for the ‘congregation’ of Israel, qahal, as ecclesia in
the Septuagint and books of the New Testament. Paul and the early Christians saw
themselves as the extension of the true people of God, not as a novel
community, unique and separate from the saints of the Old Testament.
If we take this principle of corporate personality as
Paul applied it to the church, we will not fragmentize redemptive history so as
to separate Old Testament sinners from the grace of God or Jewish saints from
Gentile citizens in the Kingdom of God."
******************************************************************************
Kenneth D. Litwak, “The Use Of Quotations From Isaiah
52:13-53:12 In The New Testament,” Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society 26:4 (December 1983), pp. 385-394.
pg. 385 -
“The key to understanding the
concept of the Servant, I believe, is corporate personality, first developed fully
by H. W. Robinson. The whole community can stand for an individual and vice
versa.
(Note 4) This of course is something of an oversimplification. C. R. North
follows Robinson in seeing a fluid concept of the Servant in the Servant songs.
The concept moves from collective Israel in Isaiah 42 to an
individual in chap. 53. (Note 5) Rowley identifies the Servant similarly to
North. Unlike North, Rowley sees not only linear development in the concept but
oscillation as
pg. 386 -
well. (Note 6) Franz Delitzsch likened the Servant
conception in the Songs to a pyramid with Israel at its base and Christ at its
apex. North extends the lines of the first pyramid into a second with Christ at
the zenith and the Church at the base. (Note 7) The conception of the Servant
in this paper is a modified form of this taken from W. C. Williams.”
(Notes 8 and 9)
“4. Hooker, Jesus 42; cf. J. Pedersen, Israel, and
R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, on solidarity.
[Note: from footnote 2 the first reference is to M. D.
Hooker, Jesus and the Servant (London: SPCK, 1959)]
5. C. R. North, The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah (London:
Oxford University Press, 1948) 216.
6. H. H. Rowley, The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays
on the Old Testament (London: Lutterworth, 1957) 52-53. Rowley says that
the Servant as an individual can be none other than a future figure but, while
the fourth song deals with an individual, Israel as a collective body enters
into his mission (p. 54).
7. C. R. North, Isaiah
40–55 (London:
SCM, 1952) 36.
8. Taken from unpublished lecture notes (Costa Mesa, 1976).
9. The identity of the Servant as an individual is much
disputed. F. F. Bruce understands the significance of the Servant in Isa
52:13–53:12
to point to a king. Comparing this to 55:3 he sees the Servant as the
messianic Davidic King (This Is That [London: Paternoster, 1968] 88-89).
Rejecting a kingly figure per se, Zimmerli identifies him simply as an
individual, prophetic figure (J. Jeremias and W. Zimmerli, The Servant of
God [Naperville: Alienson, 1957] 28).”
******************************************************************************
Douglas A. Oss, “The
Interpretation Of The "Stone" Passages By Peter And Paul: A
Comparative Study,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 32:2
(June 1989), pp. 181-200.
Pg. 193 -
“The Petrine exegesis, furthermore, gives clear
expression to the common Jewish understanding of the OT stone imagery as being
descriptive of the community. [35] This unique
understanding of the stone imagery is founded on Peter’s Jewish-Christian
presupposition of corporate solidarity. [36]
Identification of Christ with the Church is a common motif in Paul as well,
being expressed in numerous passages with a wide variety of imagery. One quite
similar idea from the Pauline corpus is found in Galatians where Christ is the
"seed" of Abraham (Gal 3:16), and because of the believers’ position
in him they too are "Abraham’s seed" (3:29; the seed motif occurs in
our immediate context as well, cf. I Pet 1:23). So if Christ is the living
stone, then we are living stones also (2:4-5).”
Note 35. 1QS viii 7-8; 1QH vi 26; cited in Longenecker, Exegesis
203.
Note 36. Bruce, “Stone” 235; Longenecker, Exegesis 121.
Appendix D: Basic Bible Study Materials — A
Suggested Bibliography (with links to Amazon)
This is the book
that I recommend as collateral reading for the "Scripture Study
Seminar":
Sinclair
Ferguson, From the Mouth of God (Carlisle, PA: Banner of
Truth, 2014); paperback (no Kindle available at this time) for $10.59 on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/Mouth-God-Sinclair-B-Ferguson/dp/1848712421/ [accessed 18 JAN 2015].
1. In addition to Sinclair Ferguson's work
that I am recommending as collateral reading the following five recent works on
the subject may be the most helpful:
J. Scott Duvall, and J. Daniel Hays, Journey into God's Word: Your Guide to Understanding and Applying the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008);
J. Scott Duvall, and J. Daniel Hays, Journey into God's Word: Your Guide to Understanding and Applying the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008);
on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/Journey-into-Gods-Word-Understanding-ebook/dp/B000SEJRJI [accessed 14 JAN 2015].
Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding the Bible, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1982, 1993, 2003, 2014);
on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Bible-All-Worth-ebook/dp/B00GS084YA/ [accessed 18 JAN
2015].
Peter Krol, Knowable Word: Helping Ordinary People Learn to Study the Bible (Minneapolis: Cruciform Press, 2014);
on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/Knowable-Word-Helping-Ordinary-People/dp/1936760894/ [accessed 10 NOV 2014].
Grant Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1991, 2006);
on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/Hermeneutical-Spiral-Comprehensive-Introduction-Interpretation/dp/0830828265/ref=sr_1_sc_1 [accessed 10 NOV 2014].
R. C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1977, 2009);
on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/Knowing-Scripture-R-C-Sproul/dp/083083723X
[accessed 10 NOV 2014].
2. Here are five recommended older works whose
value does not fade!
James M. Gray, How to Master the English Bible: An Experience, a Method, a Result, an Illustration (London: Oliphant Anderson & Ferrier, 1907);
James M. Gray, How to Master the English Bible: An Experience, a Method, a Result, an Illustration (London: Oliphant Anderson & Ferrier, 1907);
in public domain, available online or as a
free downloadable digital file (PDF or ePub) on Google Books at http://books.google.com/books?id=AOUOAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
[accessed 18 FEB 2012].
J. Edwin Hartill, Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1947);
available online or as a free PDF file download (60
mb) on Seminario
LAMB at http://seminariolamb.com/biblioteca/lib/lib-biblical%20analysis/Principles%20of%20Biblical%20Hermeneutics%20-%20J%20Edwin%20Hartill.pdf [accessed
9 MAR 2014];
print editions available on Amazon at
[accessed 18 JAN 2015].
Arthur T. Pierson, The Bible and Spiritual Criticism: Being the Second Series of Exeter Hall Lectures on the Bible Delivered in London, England in the Months of February, March and April, 1904 (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., n.d.; 1970 reprint of 1905 original by The Baker and Taylor Co., New York);
Arthur T. Pierson, The Bible and Spiritual Criticism: Being the Second Series of Exeter Hall Lectures on the Bible Delivered in London, England in the Months of February, March and April, 1904 (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., n.d.; 1970 reprint of 1905 original by The Baker and Taylor Co., New York);
on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Spiritual-Criticism-Arthur-Pierson/dp/B0045PPI6W/
[accessed 18 JAN 2015].
Robert A. Traina, Methodical Bible Study: A New Approach to Hermeneutics (Wilmore, KY: self-published, 1952; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980);
on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/Methodical-Bible-Study-Robert-Traina/dp/0310246024 [accessed 9 MAY 2014].
Oletta Wald, The New Joy of Discovery in Bible Study, rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2002);
on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/New-Joy-Discovery-Bible-Study/dp/080664429X/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1 [accessed 9 MAY 2014].
Note: This newly revised edition is
also available in Kindle.
Compiled
by:
John T.
“Jack” Jeffery
Pastor,
Wayside Gospel Chapel
Greentown,
PA
End notes:
[1] “The Fallacy of the Interpretive Center” (Robert L.
Thomas). See Appendix A: Recommended Sources on “canons within the Canon.”
[2] Neil R. Lightfoot, “The Canon of the
Scriptures,” from How We Got The Bible
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1970); on The
Bible Study at http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/50.htm [accessed 25 MAR 2015].
[3] Jeff Fenske, “D. A. Carson: The Problem of the Canon
Within the Canon — A subset of scriptures taught in exclusion of those that
would result in true doctrine. “We badly need to listen to one another, especially
when we least like what we hear.”” (21 JAN 2011), on One can happen at http://onecanhappen.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/d-a-carson-the-problem-of-the-canon-within-the-canon-%E2%80%94-a-subset-of-scriptures-are-taught-in-exclusion-of-those-that-would-result-in-true-doctrine/ [accessed 25 MAR 2015].
[4] Other ways of expressing this concept:
“representative or corporate christology” and “corporate personality”
(Schreiner), “incarnational solidarity” (Torrance), “corporate solidarity and
representation” (Beale). A related term is “corporate personality,” which Beale
and others have objected to. These sources are listed below in Appendix B: Resources
on the Concept of Corporate Solidarity.
See also Appendix C: Excerpts on the Concept of Corporate Solidarity.
[5] "In session 11, Gregory Beale showed that
Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 (in Matthew 2:15) is not a haphazard misquoting of
the Old Testament. Rather, Matthew is carefully considering Hosea’s argument
based on Numbers 23-24." Nathan Busenitz, “Summit on Inerrancy - Recap” (9
MAR 2015), on Preachers & Preaching
at http://www.tms.edu/preachersandpreaching/summit-on-inerrancy-recap/ [accessed 26 MAR 2015].
G. K. Beale, “Matthew’s
use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15” (5 MAR 2015), General Session
11, 2015 Shepherds Conference: The Inerrancy Summit (Sun Valley, CA); full summary posted by Nathan
Busenitz, “Summit Liveblog: Session 11 (Beale),” posted 5 MAR 2015 on Preachers & Preaching at http://www.tms.edu/preachersandpreaching/summit-liveblog-session-11-beale/ [accessed 26 MAR 2015]; video on Vimeo at https://vimeo.com/channels/887255/121513966 [accessed 26 MAR 2015]; on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_1ExKCUAZw&index=11&list=PLDDt4jvDpjath3OM4rkYyfZAvefVjk4x5 [accessed 26 MAR 2015]; and linked from The Master's Seminary at http://www.tms.edu/resources/media/ [accessed 26 MAR 2015], see “Gregory Beale — Hosea
11:1, Matthew 2:15, Inerrancy Summit - General Session 11.”
[6] S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’:
An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study.” in Essays in Honor of J.
Dwight Pentecost, eds. Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer (Chicago:
Moody Press,1986), pp. 181-196; reprinted in The Master's Seminary Journal 20:1 (Spring 2009), pp. 41-55; on The Master's Seminary at http://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj20c.pdf [accessed 26 MAR 2015].
Albertus Pieters, The Seed of Abraham: A Biblical Study of Israel, the
Church, and the Jew (Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1950).
John G. Reisinger, Abraham's Four Seeds (Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 1998).
Michael Riccardi, “The
Seed of Abraham: A Theological Analysis of Galatians 3 and its Implications for
Israel,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 25:1 (Spring 2014, pp. 51-64; on The Master’s Seminary at http://www.tms.edu/m/msj25d.pdf [accessed 26 MAR 2015].
[7] Barry Horner, Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be
Challenged, New American
Commentary Studies in Bible and Theology, series ed. E. Ray Clendenen
(Nashville: B&H Academic, 2007). Note: 2006 ed. on Bunyan Ministries at http://www.bunyanministries.org/books/Future%20Israel.pdf [accessed 26 MAY 2015].
Renald E. Showers, The Coming Apocalypse: A Study of Replacement Theology
vs. God’s Faithfulness in the End-Times (Bellmawr, NJ: The Friends of Israel, Inc., 2009).
Michael J. Vlach, Has the Church Replaced Israel? A Theological
Evaluation (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010). See
also Michael J. Vlach's Resource
Library on "Supersessionism" on Theological Studies at http://theologicalstudies.org/resource-library/supersessionism [accessed 26 MAR 2015].
[8] Darrell L. Bock, “The Kingdom of God in New Testament
Theology,” in Looking into the Future: Evangelical Studies in
Eschatology, ed. David W. Baker,
series: Evangelical Theological Society Studies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001),
pp. 28-60.
Charles L. Feinberg, Millennialism: The Two Major Views, The Premillennial
and Amillennial Systems of Interpretation Analyzed & Compared, 3rd ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1936, 1954, 1961,
1980).
Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom: An Inductive Study of
the Kingdom of God (Winona
Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1959).
[9] Andy
Woods, “An Introduction to the Open Theism Controversy” (2004), pp. 5-6; paper
presented at a workshop of the Grace
Evangelical Society conference held on February 23, 2004; available on Spirit
and Truth at http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/documents/articles/13/13.pdf?x=x [accessed 25 MAR 2015]. Caveat: I certainly do not endorse everything in this source, the Grace Evangelical Society, or Jeff
Fenske's opinions in the source cited previously! On the errors of open theism
see especially Robert L. Thomas, “The Hermeneutics
Of “Open Theism”,” The Master’s
Seminary Journal
12:2 (Fall 2001), pp. 179-203; on The Master’s Seminary at http://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj12i.pdf [accessed
24 MAR 2015].
[10] Beale refers to “the
biblical concept of “the one and the many” or of “corporate representation.””
Op. cit., pg. 179. “The concept of corporate personality rightly has been
qualified by later critics; it is better to speak of corporate solidarity and
representation.” Ibid., footnote 56. See
also pg. 395, footnote 24.
[11] Available from the Theological Research Exchange Network (TREN) at http://www.tren.com/e-docs/search.cfm?pETS-1613 [accessed 25 MAR 2015]. Reference TREN Product
#ETS-161.
[12] Noted by Beale, op. cit.,
pg. 179, footnote 56, and pg. 395, footnote 24.
[13] The seminal works by Henry Wheeler Robinson
(1872-1945), and this one in particular, may shed light on his origin and
development of this concept. Beale refers the reader to the bibliography
attached to the 1980 ed. of this work by Robinson for “discussion of this
concept”. Op. cit., pg. 179, footnote 56. See Beale’s caution concerning
Robinson and others who followed him in referring to this as “corporate
personality” in footnote 9 above.
[14] Schreiner uses the
phrases “representative or corporate christology” and “corporate personality”.
Op. cit., pg. 158.
[15] Cited in Robert L. Plummer, 40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible, in 40 Questions Series, series ed. Benjamin L. Merkle (Grand Rapids:
Kregel Academic & Professional, 2010), pg. 206-207.
[16] Torrance uses the phrase,
“incarnational solidarity”. Op. cit., pg. 137.
[17] Cited in E. Earle Ellis, "Perspectives On Biblical Interpretation: A
Review Article", Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 45:3 (SEP 2002), pp. 489,
note 134.
[18] Noted by Beale, op. cit., pg. 395, footnote 24.
[19] Also noted by Schreiner, op.
cit., pp. 158, footnote 11.
[20] See note 14.
No comments:
Post a Comment