"Terry M. Gray" wrote:
> Burgy, Shuan, et al.
>
> Robert Rogland, David Campbell, and others have given able
> explanations of some of the ethically difficult Old Testament
> accounts. I wish to contribute to that discussion by posting a
> lengthy quote from Meredith G. Kline's Structure of Biblical
> Authority and his discussion of intrusion ethics. The bottom line is
> that these seemingly unethical acts that seem to be commanded by God
> are "intrusions" of the final judgment destruction of the wicked into
> the present age. Please read Kline's general argument carefully, then
> the particular applications (imprecatory Psalms and the conquest of
> Canaan in the section I am sending).
>
> Some of us hear scripture's teaching about itself--"Thy Word is
> truth"; "All scripture is God-breathed..."; "For prophecy never had
> its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God..."; "His
> letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which
> ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other
> Scriptures, to their own destruction."--and do not feel so free
> simply to say that the Bible contains errors or that parts of the
> Bible are sub-Christian. Thus we put more effort into understanding
> how these things might be consistent with the totality of God's
> revelation of himself--the result is accomodationism, intrusion
> ethics, the framework hypothesis, etc.
>
> The ASA statement of faith sets forth a view of scripture which
> members have assented to: "We accept the divine inspiration,
> trustworthiness and authority of the Bible in matters of faith and
> conduct." This statement is broad enough to cover most (but not
> necessarily all) of the views being expressed on this list. The
> debate over inerrancy was carried out in the ASA several decades ago
> and the inerrancy view did not prevail--this is obvious from the
> wording of the Statement of Faith. I will readily admit that my view
> is narrower than the ASA's view. However, I will also assert that the
> view expressed in the ASA statement of faith leans toward the
> evangelical right rather than toward the liberal left. A study of the
> history of the ASA will bear this out.
>
> I would argue that dismissing the various Old Testament passages that
> pose certain ethical problems does not even conform to the broader
> ASA statement of faith concerning scripture. Thus, efforts such as
> the one I share below continue to be necessary. At the same time I
> will count myself among those who admit that some of these issues are
> difficult. Perhaps we can't come up with a good solution. For myself,
> I would rather say "I don't know how to explain that" than to say
> that scripture is any less than what it says about itself or to
> compromise the clearer ethical teachings.
>
> TG
Terry,
I very much appreciate your post and your emphasis on providing a better
understanding of the ethical problems perceived in the Old Testament. I
fully agree with your engagement for a full understanding of biblical
inspiration and the unity of God's Word. Meredith Kline apparently shows
a similar engagement, and the extract you present from his Structure of
Biblical Authority provides a very interesting perspective, much of
which was new to me.
However, I am uneasy about an aspect in his argument which I perceive as
a fundamental flaw. He writes (in part):
> The Concept of Intrusion
>
> It is by tracing the unfolding eschatology of Scripture that we can most
> deftly unravel the strands of Old
> Testament religion and discover what is essential and distinctive in it.
> For eschatology antedates redemption. The pattern for eschatology goes
> back to creation. Since the creature must pattern his ways after his
> Creator's, and since the Creator rested only after he had worked, it was
> a covenant of works which was proffered to Adam as the means by which to
> arrive at the consummation. In the sense that it was the door to the
> consummation, this original Covenant of Creation was eschatological.
>
> That door, however, was never opened. It was not the Fall in itself that
> delayed the consummation. According to the conditions of the Covenant of
> Creation the prospective consummation was either/or. It was either
> eternal glory by covenantal confirmation of original righteousness or
> eternal perdition by covenant-breaking repudiation of it. The Fall,
> therefore, might have been followed at once by a consummation of the
> curse of the covenant. The delay was due rather to the principle and
> purpose of divine compassion by which a new way of arriving at the
> consummation was introduced, the way of redemptive covenant with common
> grace as its historical corollary.
Kline assumes (or has he argued for it earlier in his book?) that
"eschatology antedates redemption", that "the Creator rested only after
he had worked", that "since the creature must pattern his ways after his
Creator's, ... it was a covenant of works which was proffered to Adam as
the means by which to arrive at the consummation", and that "the way of
redemptive covenant with common grace" represented a secondary
"intrusion".
I am uneasy about the claimed primacy of a "covenant of works" over the
"covenant of grace" as an afterthought, so to speak. Although I disagree
with some of George Murphy's theology, I consider his main emphasis on a
"theology of the cross" to be of paramount importance. I think even
creation and eschatology have to take second place after God's
revelation of his grace in the cross of Christ.
Maybe Kline was misled by a traditional but questionable understanding
of God's creative "work" and "subsequent rest". But this is just an
aside here.
Paul's emphasis in Gal.2:16 that "a [hu]man is not justified by works of
the law but through faith in Jesus Christ" tells us what is the
foundation for God's dealing with us, not just in the present
"dispensation", but from beginning to end. God made various covenants
with [certain of] his people, but never in contrast to this principle.
Paul says in Gal.1:8 that "even if we, or an angel from heaven, should
preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let
him be accursed." I'm certainly not suggesting Kline is doing this, but
even the Old Testament covenants must be viewed in the light of
unmerited grace and of faith in Christ's redeeming substitutionary death
on the cross, never of a law that would permit man to arrive, on the
basis of works of the law, at the consummation intended by God.
As God transcends time, he knew from before the beginning of creation
that his Son must die on the cross as a propitiation for our sin. This
would eliminate any possibility of an eschatology grounded in creation
alone, without redemption. Of course, foreknowledge is not
predestination.
Note that even if redemption is built into God's way with humans from
the beginning, the possibility of an intrusion of eschatology into the
time of grace envisioned by Kline is still a viable and important
insight contributing to a solution of the ethics problem.
Peter Ruest
-- Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland <pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution "..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 03 2002 - 14:40:12 EDT