Category: Miscellaneous biblical articles

Is There a Case for Theology Verses History?

By Joan Berry

That the Israelites conquered the Promised Land in “lightning fast military strikes” might be an exaggeration. It was more like a steady stream of attacks as they progress through the land. Joshua (chapters 1-12 NIV) related his conquests in north, central, and south Canaan, in which he gave God full credit for each victory.  In chapters 13-21, Joshua allotted the lands to the tribes, but some of these lands had areas yet to be conquered (Zondervan, 2009, pp. 235-239). Judges had a different account which alluded that Canaan was first allotted to the tribes before the conquests began.  In this essay, I will show the background of Joshua and the Judges and why the passage in Judges may be often misinterpreted concerning the conquest and allotments. 

            Joshua and Caleb were the only two people who left Egypt and entered Canaan after the 40-year sojourn in the desert after the people had sinned against God. Joshua was the military, right-hand man to Moses and chosen by God to lead the people into Canaan following Moses’ death (Zondervan, 2009, p.220).  Joshua was the main author of his book with the high priest Phinehas, an eyewitness, who wrote the concluding chapters. The time period was late Bronze Age and beginning of the Iron Age, 1250-1050 B.C. (Note in NIV on Joshua).  According to Zondervan, the conquests began in the 1240s BCE and the events written down at the time of 1Kings (p. 220). Joshua and Judges were grouped in the Old Testaments in the section of Prophets. Joshua wrote this book to record the history of the conquest of Canaan, the Promised Land of which a summary can be found in Joshua 21: 43-45 (Hill & Walton, 2009, p. 217).

            The time period for Judges is about 1220-1050 B.C. and the setting was the Promised Land, same as Joshua. This was also about the time of the rise of Samuel who was thought to haves written the Book of Judges (Zondervan, 2009, pp. 238-239). The purpose of writing Judges was to assert that the judgment of God regarding sin was absolutely certain as was His forgiveness for those who chose to repent (Note in NIV on Judges). Another purpose of Judges was to explain what theologically occurred between the times of Joshua and David (Hill & Walton, 2009, p. 239). With the death of Joshua (ca.1350 B.C.), the original conquest soldiers had generally died out and the tribes were scattered throughout the land with no centralized leadership (Zondervan, 2009, pp. 238-239; Merrill, 1991, pp.161-162). Judah resumed the conquests following Joshua’s death. In spite of Judah’s successes, Israel fell into its old pattern of disobedience by forsaking God and taking up with the local idolatry, and then followed with a period of turning back to God for deliverance from their enemies (Zondervan, 2009, pp. 238-239).

            Regarding the possible misinterpretation found in Judges about Joshua’s conquest of Canaan, the matter may reside in the possible wrong chronological order of the first two chapters, according to Merrill (1991, pp. 161-162). He suggested that Judges 1:1-7 reviewed the events of Judah’s victories following the death of Joshua. Then, he said that verse eight was the account of Judah’s conquest of Jerusalem before Joshua’s death and further said that vs. 1:9-2:7 told of the periods that followed the devastation of Jerusalem by Judah but it preceded the death of Joshua.  According to Merrill (1991), Joshua’s death was described in Judges 2:8-9 as it had been in Joshua 24: 29-30 as well as Joshua’s contemporaries being mentioned before in Joshua (pp. 161-162).

           These two narratives represent to me a very good example of why we need to seek out the exegesis and hermeneutics of biblical passages. If Merrill (1991) is correct in his opinion that the opening two chapters of Judges are out of sequence in the writer’s efforts to review Joshua’s conquests before delving into what happened next, then that makes Joshua and Judges in sync with each other (pp. 161-162). Joshua, in my opinion, knew that entering Canaan was an historic event that should be recorded and which he did. He and Phinehas were eyewitnesses and knew exactly what happened. Twenty years or more later, the account in Judges was written, probably by Samuel who may have confused the order of the events, and whose purpose was to make sure the Israelites understood that God certainly did not tolerate sin, but His forgiveness was also a certainty (Note in NIV on Judges).

A thought on theology verses history is that I quite frankly do not see them as adversaries. For example Joshua in chapter 5: 13-15, where he is confronted by a being who said that he was the commander of the Lord’s army. This indicates that the Lord will do the fighting and will enable the Israelites to possess the land. This coincides with Joshua’s giving credit God for all the victories mentioned earlier in this essay ((Hill & Walton, 2009, p. 227).  From Joshua we can learned that we need to give God credit for helping us, be faithful, obey Him, and that He keeps His promises. From Judges, we are reminded that we look to God for forgiveness of sin and to avoid it in the first place.

Conclusion

I do not find that theology verses history, generally speaking, because the combination is often complimentary. An example is Joshua: God appointed him to lead the Israelites into Canaan because God had made a promise and the Mosaic Covenant to award this land to them. God was involved all the way. Joshua gave God credit for all his victories. He followed all of God’s instructions. The conquest of Canaan was historical – the promise was kept, God’s people had a homeland. Samuel opens Judges with an account of Joshua’s conquests and immediately brings God into the equation by telling the people that God did not tolerate sin, but would forgive them if they repented.

References

Hill, A.E. & Walton, J.H. (2009). A survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan.

Life Application Study Bible (NIV). (2005). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.

Merrill, E.H. (1991). An historical survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI:             Baker Academia

Zondervan Handbook to the Bible (4^th ed.). (2009). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Generations past and present were/are taught that the Bible is only a book about the Jewish nation and moral laws that apply to all regardless of the age in which we live, and that its contents are a precursor to the arrival of the Messiah. All that mentioned is true, but not complete. It is common knowledge that some clergy, archaeologists, anthropologists, and related scholars have asserted that the Bible is not a book to be relied upon for science, accurate history, or some concepts of religion. Personally, my research does not agree with the aforementioned concepts, and will be a future topic for this site. The Bible is all that and more.

God himself exists as an unconditional, immutable state of eternity.  Unconditional means nothing can change for any reason or condition that relates to His person or presence in Heaven.  On the other hand, when man participates in a covenant, man’s part is always conditional.  God has yet to fail in keeping what He promises, man on the other hand has more often than not, broken his promise to God due to lack of faith, impatience or some other human flaw.

A covenant with God is a commitment instead of a contract that emphasizes God’s promises and laws.  The main Old Testament covenant (Ex 19-24) was at Mount Sinai, when Israel committed to obey God’s laws after He had redeemed them from slavery in Egypt.  Other covenants such as the one with Abraham (Gen 12:1-3) and his family, and the one with David (2 Samuel 7:1-17) provide a more broad context for the Sinai covenant, focusing on God’s promises.  Noah also received a covenant from God (Gen 9:8-17) that centers on a promise by God to not destroy the world with a flood again.  God also made a “covenant of peace” or an “everlasting covenant” (Ezekiel 34:25) with the people of Israel that the time would come when He would send a perfect shepherd, the Messiah, and would stop rebuking them, would restore their wealth, and would personally teach their children.  Peace in this case means more than lack of conflict it also means contentment, fulfillment, and security.

Four Unconditional Covenants:

• Noahic Covenant – God promised to Noah that he would never flood the earth again (Genesis 9:11 NIV).  There was no involvement by man in this covenant, a promise was made by God alone, and therefore it was unconditional.
• Abrahamic Covenant – Again, God made promises to Abraham, stating that “I will” each time provide a great nation, make your name great, bless those who bless you.  All promises made by God alone.  Another example of God’s unconditional covenant with man and mankind.  (Genesis 12:1-3 NIV)/
• Davidic Covenant – in this covenant God establishes the throne of David as an everlasting king sit upon the throne of David, an everlasting kingdom.  God did not require any condition from David or mankind, thus it was God’s promise soley and another example of an unconditional covenant.  (2 Samuel 7:5-17)
• Messianic Covenant – God states that a World Savior and King are coming through Israel, no conditional aspects with man regarding this covenant, just God’s promise.  (Isaiah 11:1-11

Three Conditional Covenants:

• Covenant of Circumcision (Genesis 17 NIV) presents a condition that anyone who is not circumcised will be cut off from his people.  This invokes a decision by man to be circumcised or not, therefore it is a conditional covenant.
• In (Deuteronomy 28 NIV) God requires that Israel remains faithful to Him, and threatens to put them into exile if they persistently disobey.  Their obedience is “conditional” remaining in the land.
• Mosiac Covenant – This involves God and the nation of Israel, in which God places conditions.  God reminds the people they are to obey His laws (Exodus 19:5 NIV) and the people replied they would do all that God has asked them to do (Exodus 19:8).  It is “conditional” upon the Israelites following God’s law.

“Unconditional covenants, God makes promises that are His actions only, and God never lies thus these covenants are unconditional.  “Conditional” covenants require action by man or nation to fulfill the covenant, and due to man’s sinful nature and lack of ability for patience, and being prone to follow their own lead instead of the Father’s they break the covenant.  God never lies and His unconditional covenants are forever.

By Joan Berry

In this study will be a discussion of exegetical fallacies as they appear in the epistles which should be treated as the letters that they were to the early churches. Paul did not intend for them to become systematic theology and should not be read in that manner. Much of our Christian faith is based on these letters because of the theology through orthopraxy that they offer. Paul was writing to persons in his era of the early church – his original audience – and we should not read meanings into his letters that are not based on how we think now or express any “reading between the lines” to insert our own opinions.

Fallacies to Avoid

Word meanings change over time; root fallacy should be avoided. In regard to Hebrew and Greek terms, efforts must be made to determine what a word meant at the time it was written.

          Example: In English language Bibles, the classic Hebrew use of El Shaddai in Genesis 35:11 (NIV) is translated as “God Almighty.” The root word, Shadad, means destroyer or to overpower. However, in Genesis 28:3 and 49: 25, the word takes on the meaning of being associated with God as provider.

 The second fallacy is sematic anachronism in which a more contemporary word meaning is read back into a much earlier work where the word did not have the same meaning. Try to determine how far removed in time the word is now from the selected Scripture. Prevent in the King James Version meant to precede. But in modern English, it means to stop something from happening.

           Example: Psalms 119: 147-148:

KJV:  I prevented the dawning of the morning and cried I hoped in thy word.

NIV:  I rose before the dawn and cry for help; I have put my hope in your word.

A continuation of sematic anachronism includes the error of modern-day speakers misinterpreting a Greek term with an English word that happens to have the same Greek root. D. A. Carson (1996) gave the following example from personal observation:

            Carson said the origin of dynamite comes from a Greek word translated as dynamis meaning power or miracle. But taken out of its origin of meaning, some translate it as dynamite. He recounts hearing preachers quoting Romans 1: 16 as being, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the dynamite of God unto salvation for everyone who believes” (Carson, 1996, pp. 33-34). Tongue-in-cheek, Carson commented that he did not know if Paul planned on blowing up the gospel since dynamite was used for destruction. And there is the point that dynamite was not invented until the 19^th century A.D. Points made and taken: the original meaning of power should have been used (Carson, 1996, p. 34).

The fourth semantic fallacy is the illegitimate totality transfer. This is where the importance of knowing the context of the Scriptures is apparent when you are studying. This error occurs when an exegete disregards the context as determining the meaning. The context almost always pinpoints the meaning of a particular word or phrase. Carson (1996), uses the example of Abraham to demonstrate this error by using Hebrews 11:17 – “By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son . . .”

   “Most of us know that Abraham had more than one son. He had Ishmael by Sarah’s handmaiden and more by Keturah (Gen. 25: 1-2). But, he had only one special son, the one God promised by his wife, Sarah. If the exegete did not know Abraham’s story and that it foreshadowed God’s only begotten son, the exegete would assume that Abraham had only one begotten son. The writer of Hebrews was trying to point out the importance of the specialness of the Son (Son of God and His sacrifice). Had the exegete, read the full context of the passage, he would have known that “his one and only son” had more than one meaning” (p. 31).

In Acts 13:2, the Holy Spirit’s command appears as “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them” (NASB,  KJV, NKJV, ESV, NRSV, NIV). All of these translations ignore the little word, δή (Barrick, n.d.).  The short meaning of the word is: so, then, indeed, truly. The longer meaning when it is used in a clause expressing demand is: (a) so, then, (b) indeed, (c) truly. The word “then” should be inserted following “set apart” then (or so, indeed) for me, Barnabas and Saul to do the work for which I have called them.” Barrick (n.d.) commented that combined with the imperative “set apart” there is a concept of urgency.

Conclusion

In the words of W. D. Barrick, “Every student of the Bible must attempt to interpret the text as objectively as possible. In order to maintain accuracy, the student must avoid taking shortcuts that result in committing the fallacies described in this session. Correct interpretation is the result of careful attention to details, to context, and to what the text says. Above all, the attitude of the interpreter is extremely important. We must not approach the text with academic swagger, a feeling of superiority to the ancient writers, or an unteachable spirit. Hubris can have no home in the heart of the hermeneut. We dare not make the Word “lordless” (avkurow) by our human understanding” (Matt 15:6).

References

Barrick, W.D. (n.d.). Common mistakes every student of the Bible must avoid.            http://www.ntslibrary.com/Exegetical_Fallacies.pdf

Carson, D.A. (1996). Exegeting Fallacies (2^nd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI:Baker Academics.

The NIV Study Bible (NIV). (1995). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House

 Scofield, C.I. (ed.). (1967). The new Scofield reference Bible: King James Version (KJV). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Shepherd, B. (2006) Exegetical fallacies conference. www.ntslibrary.com/Exegetical_Fallacies.pdf