Job, the Philosopher, and the Exegete

I recently received a compilation of Calvin College’s and Calvin Theological Seminary’s Stob Lectures (1986-1998). The Stob lectures, in honor of the late Henry Stob of Calvin Theological Seminary, feature the latest work of renowned Christian thinkers (philosophers, ethicists, theologians, etc.) in their respective fields. I highly recommend these lectures. 

I just finished Eleonore Stump’s (Philosopher – St. Louis University) lecture Faith and the Problem of Evil. Back in 2003, she delivered the venerable Gifford Lectures (to be published by Oxford) on much the same topic. There’s so much to say about her Stob Lectures, but I will limit myself. In much of her work on the philosophical problem of evil, Stump’s proposals do not fit within the established western philosophical paradigm and dialectic traditionally brought to bear on evil, pain, and suffering. I consider this to be a good thing. This is no less the case in her Stob Lectures. She makes much of what she terms a second-person account, and possible philosophical fruits that second-person accounts share over both first-person and third-person accounts. I do not have the time to spell this out. If it’s something that interests you, you should familiarize yourself with her work. She then applies this second-person account to the text of Job, arguing that this OT wisdom book that always finds its way into discussions of the problem of evil offers a second-person response to the problem of evil. She uses the Anchor Bible Commentary on the book of Job as a foil for her interpretive proposal. In the second installment of her Stob Lectures she briefly summarizes this approach, which I here quote: 

“In “Second-person Accounts and the Problem of Evil,” I discussed the problem of evil in a preliminary way. I raised a methodological  issue regarding philosophical problems such as the problem of evil, and I argued that at least sometimes an important role in their examination can be played by what I called (adapting a phrase from Avishai Margalit) ‘a second-person account.’ A second-person experience is the sort of experience I have when I have personal interaction of a direct and unmediated kind with another conscious person. A second-person account is a representing of such a second-person experience in a form which helps someone who was not part of that experience to simulate what it would have been like for him if he had been a bystander in it. I went on to argue that the book of Job is a second-person account of Job’s interactions with God, and that God’s speeches to Job are themselves a second-person account of God’s interactions with his creatures. I tried to show that, contrary to common opinion, there is a theodicy in the book of Job but that it is in the form of a second-person account. Such a second-person account will have much more weight with believers than non-believers because, like Job, believers have their own second-person experiences of God, of one sort or another, to draw on. So, I argued in the last lecture, believers and non-believers will and should approach the problem of evil in different ways. Believers should bring to bear on the problem not only the usual array of philosophical and theological considerations but also their own religious experience of God and their interpretations of second-person accounts involving God, especially biblical narratives. To do so is to approach the problem of evil with the stance Job takes towards God at the end of the book.” (Eleonore Stump, “Faith and the Problem of Evil,” in Seeking Understanding: The Stob Lectures (1986-1998), p. 530).

So, what does this have to do with my title? It’s quite simple; philosophers and exegetes (and theologians and psychologists . . .) need to be in conversation with one another. Oftentimes, philosophers engage in sloppy exegesis in their research and writing. Oftentimes, exegetes forget that they bring certain philosophical assumptions to the biblical text, some of which may be philosophically suspect. One thing we all need to keep in mind is the Medieval idea of the unity of all truth, and that all truth is God's truth. Interdisciplinary dialogue is and will be fruitful. What is interesting about Stump’s Stob Lectures is that I think she is adding a necessary and exegetically warranted layer of nuance to the interpretation of the “God speaks” sections in the text of Job. She uses the Anchor Bible Commentary as a foil for her interpretative proposals. I’m neither an exegetical scholar nor an expert on Job, but I think Stump is on to something with her interpretation of Job. All I really want to say, then, is that future commentaries on Job would do well to interact with Stump’s second-person assessment and how this functions as a response to the problem of evil within the framework of scriptural premises. What emerges from this interpretation is different from some of the other extant interpretive proposals (I say this with some measure of caution given that I have not sampled most of the commentaries on Job. I’ll put it in the form of a conditional then—if commentators have not pursued something akin to Stump’s proposal, then they should explore this further). 

Far from being a callous, vindictive God who cares not what his creatures of dust suffer, God in the whirlwind, who speaks of even inanimate and non-human sentient creatures that do not share in the imago dei in motherly, tender terms, is intimately interested in his image bearers, so interested that he communes with them, giving them, indeed us, you and me, an encounter with himself. His interaction with Job is a demonstration of his power, to be sure. But this power is balanced by his intricate personal care, a care that is revealed through these second-person accounts. This is no third-person response to the problem of evil, where we come to know why pain, suffering, and evil is the salient feature in some state of affairs x (the concern of traditional treatments of evil), but it is an answer on a different, probably more important level. I look forward to concluding Stump's second installment within the next few days, as it has already proven well worthwhile.

Volume IV of 'Reformed Dogmatics' is Here!

Yesterday, I received the final installment of the English translation of Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics. It is subtitled Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation. There are numerous systematic theologies available from multiple theological perspectives; in my humble assessment (my academic area of specialty is neither theology nor systematics) this is one of the best. Irrespective of your own theological paradigm, I cannot recommend this work highly enough, as it is substantive, rigorous, faithful, etc. It's not in my schedule right now to read extensively in these four volumes, but I do dabble here and there, and someday plan to work through all of it. 

Hermeneutics and Preaching: Redemptive History and Christ-Centeredness

In mid-June I will continue a sermon series in Ecclesiastes that I began several years ago at Crestview Bible Church in Hutchinson, KS. Given that I only preach a few times a year, it could be a very long sermon series! My wife and I met in that church, our families are members there, and we have beloved friends there also. Phil Auxier, the pastor at Crestview and our friend, graciously extends these invitations to me every so often. 

In my exegetical preparation (there are other equally indispensible elements to sermon preparation, for example, prayer and meditation) for this sermon, I am examining the normal checklist of resources (i.e., Scripture (goes without saying), a dozen or so commentaries on Ecclesiastes, and some general biblical reference works including the recently released Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (eds., G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson). I am also, however, spending some time with a few works on biblical theology and the redemptive-historical approach to Scripture as these topics come to bear on biblical interpretation in general and preaching specifically. Finally, I am again reflecting on what expository preaching (I like the term “biblical” better) means for preaching different biblical genres. A verse-by-verse linear approach, for example, probably fits the epistles nicely. Although even here, when one approaches some of the more ethical, Christian living principles in, say, the latter parts of some of the epistles during later installments of the sermon series, one will want to remind his hearers of the theological and Gospel underpinnings of those principles that were examined in earlier parts of the series. Ecclesiastes, given its structure (or seeming lack thereof) makes this whole task difficult. Since I have started in a linear fashion I will probably continue down that path. This does not mean that I’ve stopped thinking about how best to preach through a book like Ecclesiastes. 

But back to the redemptive-historical point, it is not always clear what to do with the Old Testament, either in one’s private use of God’s Word or in the context of proclaiming that Word in corporate worship, and this “problem” is only accentuated with the wisdom book of Ecclesiastes. Very often (especially in OT narrative contexts), preachers exclusively draw moral and lifestyle applications for Christian living from the examples of Old Testament saints. To be sure, this has some legitimacy. However, if this is all that is done, one has neglected more substantive issues like [i] the nature of the biblical canon and, therefore, [ii] where and how the narrative, account, passage, etc. functions in redemptive history, and specifically [iii] how does this passage link to the incarnation and especially the Gospel. 

[iii] above is especially important. Wherever we are in the Old Testament, we need to keep the following questions in mind: How does this passage function in redemptive history? How does this passage come to bear on Christ’s person and work? This is not to advocate an unmitigated and uncritical reading back into the Old Testament anything we want. Neither is it meant to minimize real differences and certain discontinuities between the Testaments. Rather, it takes the words of Scripture and Christ himself seriously in that remarkable encounter with a few of his disciples on the road to Emmaus where, after they filled him in on their conversation, the text says, “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). Christ himself advocates what we might call a Christocentric Hermeneutic, whereby one takes the person and work of Christ as a central part of one’s understanding of the Old Testament and the information contained in the span from Genesis to Malachi, from the Law to the Writings to the Prophets. We bring the same construct to bear on the New Testament. Of course, this opens up many hermeneutical questions, and precisely what a Christocentric hermeneutic means and how it is fleshed out will be more nuanced. Taking the teaching of Jesus here seriously and then discussing the fuller extent of what this means for exegesis are distinct issues though. We need not have the second issue settled before affirming that the first issue is important. So, we at least must begin with what Christ himself says about his relationship to the Old Testament. 

On this note, I want to share a passage from a book I’ve been reading in preparation for the sermon, Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture by Graeme Goldsworthy. I would recommend it to preachers and “non-preachers” alike. 

“Luke shows plainly that the encounter with the risen Christ makes the difference. Whatever transpired in the hermeneutical lecture that Jesus gave when he “interpreted to them the things about himself in the Scriptures” (Luke 24:27), it must have formed the basis for the later apostolic ministry. As Jesus speaks to the larger group of disciples and opens their minds to understand the Scriptures, it would appear that Luke intends us to understand the centrality of his suffering and resurrection for hermeneutics (Luke 24:45-47). This point cannot be emphasized enough for it signifies that the meaning of all the Scriptures is unlocked by the death and resurrection of Jesus. The practical issue for the preacher is whether we can afford to assume that people will understand this without being reminded of it. Can we truly and faithfully expound any text of Scripture apart from this heart of the gospel event? And, once again, if we believe that the link must be made, how do we avoid predictability and sameness in our application?” (pp. 54-55)

A Couple of Quotes

I've been really sick for the last several days with some sort of viral infection. It hasn't been fun. I've been using some of this time, when I feel up to it, to read in a couple of books I recently purchased: Biblical Theology by Geerhardus Vos and Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church by N. T. Wright. I've really enjoyed what I've read so far. For some time now, I've been interested in the subject of biblical theology and how it relates to systematic theology. I anticipate Vos will continue to help me here, as he has already done in Chapter One. Additionally, I think much of what Wright has to say in his recent book nicely addresses some rather poor theology rampant in evangelicalism and abroad when it comes to our future hope and what that entails. Here are some choice nuggets from each.

"God's self-revelation to us was not made for a primarily intellectual purpose. It is not to be overlooked, of course, that the truly pious mind may through an intellectual contemplation of the divine perfections glorify God. This would be just as truly religious as the intensest occupation of the will in the service of God. But it would not be the full-orbed religion at which, as a whole, revelation aims. It is true, the Gospel teaches that to know God is life eternal. But the concept of 'knowledge' here is not to be understood in its Hellenic sense, but in the Shemitic sense. According to the former, 'to know' means to mirror the reality of a thing in one's consciousness. The Shemitic and Biblical idea is to have the reality of something practically interwoven with the inner experience of life. Hence 'to know' can stand in the Biblical idiom for 'to love', 'to single out in love'. Because God desires to be known after this fashion, He has caused His revelation to take place in the milieu of the historical life of a people. The circle of revelation is not a school, but a 'covenant'. To speak of revelation as an 'education' of humanity is a rationalistic and utterly un-scriptural way of speaking. All that God disclosed of Himself has come in response to the practical religious needs of His people as these emerged in the course of history."

(Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments, pp. 8-9)

"A survey of beliefs about life after death conducted in Britain in 1995 indicated that though most people believed in some kind of continuing life, only a tiny minority, even among churchgoers, believed in the classic Christian position, that of a future bodily resurrection. Indeed, I often find that though Christians still use the word resurrection, they treat it as a synonym for "life after death" or "going to heaven" and that, when pressed, they often share the confusion of the wider world on the subject."

(N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope, p. xii)

"Instead of talking vaguely about heaven and then trying to fit the language of resurrection into that, we should talk with biblical precision about the resurrection and reorganize our language about heaven around that."

(N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope, p. 148)

Coming Soon . . . Volume IV of Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics

I am very excited for the May release of the English translation of the great Dutch Reformed theologian, Herman Bavinck's, fourth volume of Reformed Dogmatics. You can check out the Table of Contents and Editor's Introduction here. I initially came across this bit of information at Reformation 21. I have dabbled in the first three volumes of the series, and have greatly profited from the little that I've read. Someday, I hope to read the entirety of all four volumes with some folks that want to do the same.

N. T. Wright on Heaven: Poorly Framed by Time, but Nicely Done by Wright

In a recent interview with N. T. Wright on Time's website, the current Bishop of Durham answers some questions about heaven. The interview itself is actually pretty good. Wright has some substantive things to say. The really disturbing aspect of the article however, is how the topic is framed. The article is titled, "Christians Wrong About Heaven, says Bishop," when a more accurate title should be something like "The Popular Cultural View of Heaven (Mixed with a Couple Probable Distortions from the Medieval Era) that Some Christians Adopt Because They are Theologically, Historically, and Exegetically Naive Due to Sloth and Laziness in Scriptural Matters . . . IS WRONG!" The nature of the title is clarified a bit in the second paragraph, and yet the damage has already been done. This is just another instance demonstrating that Historic, Orthodox Christianity is very often poorly understood and represented in the culture at large.

But if we're honest, a substantial portion of the blame falls at our own Christian doorsteps. Many in our midst are almost entirely illiterate on theological matters even though they can rattle off the last 5 'American Idol' winners along with the last 5 'Survivor' winners and the latest twist on 'Lost' (I love 'Lost' by the way). In the new heavens and earth (yes, I said "earth") we are not going to be floating around singing as disembodied souls. We will have resurrected bodies. One of my favorite seminary professors used to say that we will drive cars in heaven. He said this, partly to shock students ought of the Greek and Gnostic assumptions that creep into notions of heaven, but partly because he actually believes it. The nature of what our lives of worship will be like in the new heavens and earth is for another time though. Suffice it to say for now, that worship will take multiple forms.

A very short biblical theology of the inherent goodness of matter [you know, physical stuff]: step [1]: God created the physical universe (He even called it good) . . . and God does not create evil things, step [2]: The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, took on human flesh and dwelt (tabernacled) among us (God cannot be joined to anything evil, He was "joined" to flesh, therefore, flesh must not be evil), step [3]: Jesus Christ, the God-man, had a physical resurrection body which He will have forever and ever, step [4]: There will be a new heavens and earth, and God's redeemed, in physical resurrection bodies, will reign there forever with their King. Matter is not inherently evil. God created it, and it will continue to be part of God's created reality even through the process of redemption and eventual transformation into a time when sin and death and evil are no more.

For a nice comparison of the "Greek" view of the immortality of the soul vs. the Biblical view of resurrection, see Oscar Cullmann, Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? The Witness of the New Testament (London: The Epworth Press, 1960).

The Reality of Brokenness, but . . .

We live in a broken world. This is another way of saying we live in a fallen or cursed world. A new heaven and earth is coming. God’s will is in the process of being done on earth as it is in heaven. God’s kingdom is marching on. And yet, we do not currently experience this reality so beautifully portrayed in Revelation 21, where it depicts our tears being wiped away by our Lord. History has yet to be consummated. It’s coming sure as you’re breathing, but it’s not here yet. “Come Lord Jesus.”

In the meantime we hurt. We weep. We sometimes despair. We sin. We hurt others and we hurt ourselves. We rarely admit this though. Brokenness is all around us. And yes, this is even a reality for those whom the Lord has adopted as His beloved children, although we are in the process of being sanctified. Sanctification presupposes that we have a profound need of being sanctified. Right? Yes, it does and we do. There are still remnants of brokenness and sin in our lives, which, while being slowly yet surely removed, will be a reality to be wrestled with and mortified this side of glory. I think we often deceive ourselves about just how much we stand in need of this divinely governed process, and those things about us that are in need of sanctifying grace. We are good at putting up fronts, aren’t we? We know the Christian lingo and how to act out a seemingly vibrant Christian life. We are good at confessing just enough sin to appear honest and humble, when, in fact, deeper, ugly realities lurk within our hearts. We are superficial with ourselves and with others. I am just such a person.

The Christian context in which I have spent the last four years has taught me greatly in this respect. Sin and brokenness are taken seriously, but the story doesn’t end there. Hope through the Gospel is proclaimed and lived out. The church where my family attends is a safe place to confess and admit just how horrible we can be. When I have done this, I have been met overwhelmingly by love. Equally as important, I am exhorted to repent, believe, and constantly remember the Gospel. People are committed . . . truly committed . . . to me as I am to them. It appears to me that in this community there are few illusions about the sin and brokenness in our lives. But more importantly, sin and brokenness are consistently met with the Gospel, with love and the call to repent and believe in Christ, in terms of what He has done for us and the life to which He calls us. Is this the perfect church? No reply is needed. If there ever were a rhetorical question, that is one! However, there is a deliberate and sincere attempt to be substantive, honest, and authentic in all facets of life as members of Christ's Body (theologically, existentially, etc.)

We, as those claiming to be followers of Christ, need to think long and hard about what the Body of Christ means and what it entails for how we live out our lives under the sun. We have let far too many western individualistic assumptions creep into and distort our thinking about the Church. This, in turn, damages our lives, our families, not to mention that it fails to glorify our Lord who died for His Church. It’s uncomfortable at first to begin to cast these assumptions aside and replace them with more biblical and corporate assumptions, but it’s good and healthy.

Okay, so I have a couple of different lines of thought in this post: [1] brokenness and, [2] the need for the right kind of community (i.e., the Body of Christ as it’s supposed to function). [2] is the solution to [1]. It is only the radical love of Christ flowing through lives in proper community as the Gospel is preached and lived out that will address the profound brokenness in our world in its various manifestations.

We, who are redeemed by the grace of God, have a broken world as our context. How are we responding to this fact? I’ll speak for myself . . . not very well. The adjectives that often describe me: self-absorbed, callous, uncaring, distracted, lazy. May the Lord give us hearts for broken people. May we venture out of our comfortable lives, rubbing shoulders, getting dirty, getting involved with those of our fellow humanity who are made in the image of God. The thought of this scares me. Only the grace of God and the love of Christ can make this a reality. Let's begin to pray more to this end.

Having said this, I want to direct your attention to a website that shares a moving story of brokenness and hope. The RUF (Reformed University Fellowship) campus minister here at OU (Doug Serven) mentioned this site earlier this week. Some of the language (at least one expletive) or the way the story is told may not resonate with how you think as a Christian, but I hope it will grip you to the core as it has me. Check out To Write Love on Her Arms.