During the Enlightenment a shift (or multiple shifts?) took place when it came to the question of worldview. two major worldviews took the stage, pushing the Christian theistic worldview further off stage: deism and naturalism.
James Sire (author of The Universe Next Door: A Catalogue of Worldviews) describes deists as holding to the idea that a transcendent god created the universe, but then left it to run on its own. Often the god of deism is described as the master clock maker and the world as his clock. The creator god built the world, wound it up, and left it to run undisturbed. Deism allows for a god to exist insofar as he created what is seen. This god can be known somewhat by studying what he made. However, deism does not allow for special revelation, because the god of deism does not communicate with people.
In essence then, Scripture cannot give any additional information to man about god excluded from what is already made known via creation. The deist conception of god could not break into history, nor could he be known through history, as the Christian theistic worldview and Scripture portray Him. Also, because of the stance towards special revelation, the concept of sin and the fall into sin as presented in the Scripture is denied, as well as, the revelation of Jesus Christ being both true God and true Man in One Person.
It does not appear that Gabler held to every aspect of what is being described as the deistic worldview. It seems Gabler lies somewhere in between the worldview of Irenaeus and this deistic worldview. Certainly, it can be seen that Gabler places more emphasis on man’s capability to separate out the “unchanging truth of the bible from the mythical imagery that shrouds it.”(Ben C. Ollenburger, The Flowering of Old Testament Theology, 5)
Within the deistic worldview, interpretation of Scripture effectively becomes unwarranted. Rather than Scripture, the natural sciences emerge as the guiding principle. This strategy abandons any notion of the miraculous events of Scripture because they cannot be scientifically proven. The miracles contained in Scripture were either removed entirely as found in Jefferson’s Bible, or explained away via science.
Rev. Jacob Hercamp St. Peter’s Lutheran Church La Grange, MO
Near the end of the eighteenth century, a man by the name of Johann Phillip Gabler spoke about the subjects of historical interpretation and Biblical theology. He proposed that Biblical and dogmatic theology are different tasks. For Gabler, Biblical theology is the primary goal when interpreting Scripture. He described Biblical theology as first consisting of historical exposition that treats the Biblical statement within the author’s historical setting. After the historical context is understood, then the philosophically informed explanation of the statement is provided that determines the abiding Biblical truth.
As can be seen from Gabler, Scripture was not taken at face value to be true and abiding on its own right by itself. That determination is now supplied by the reader. Also, as part of this proposal, Gabler “borrowed from the classical and Biblical scholars Heyne and Eichorn, that people in more primitive stages of development expressed themselves in ways suited to their limited rational powers, namely in mythical images.”
If Gabler is correct, the Old Testament was to be considered inferior to the New Testament. The unity of the Two Testaments is in jeopardy because the OT is inferior to the NT simply because it was from an earlier era. As Gabler’s one time colleague Georg Lorenz Bauer would argue, “a separate theology would have to be written for each of them.” (Ben C. Ollenburger, The Flowering of Old Testament Theology, 5) This idea certainly goes against that of the early church interpreters and those of a more conventional Christian theistic worldview. The interpreters of the late eighteenth century relied much more on their rational mind than in trusting that the words of Scripture did record accurate accounts of history.
Rev. Jacob Hercamp St. Peter’s Lutheran Church La Grange, MO
The first and major shift of interpretation and worldview came during the seventeenth century. The question rested in that of knowledge and authority. Where does knowledge come from? And who has the authority speak on it? No longer did Scripture hold the authority as the medium of knowledge concerning the divine, rather a person’s own reason could seek out God and truth without a guide. Perhaps the first man to bring this to light was Benedict de Spinoza. Spinoza shows himself to be a rationalist and seminal figure of the Enlightenment. For Spinoza, reason, and not Scripture, holds the high place in man’s search for knowledge. As a matter of fact, Scripture is not a source of natural or speculative or historical knowledge. “Scripture only seeks to inculcate piety and obedience to God.” (Hans Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, 42)
Notice the difference between Spinoza and Irenaeus or Luther. Spinoza’s worldview is light years away from the Christian theistic worldview. Christian theism was not thrown away entirely during these later centuries, however a couple of new worldviews came on the scene in rapid succession seeking to overthrow it, specifically deism and naturalism. Both of these could be put under the larger umbrella of rationalism. In both deism and naturalism, special revelation is, to a greater or lesser extent, denied. Knowledge is gained through human reason and scientific methods. As these two rationalistic worldviews came into vogue, the historical-critical method of interpretation rose along with them. It is difficult to determine what came first, the worldviews or the method. What can be seen is that many of the interpreters of the seventeenth century and later began to move away from the conventional Christian theistic worldview as described earlier.
Frei notes too that the literal sense moved further and further away from figurative interpretation. Literal sense would ultimately come to mean the opposite of a figural sense of Scripture. The literal sense would come to be equated to the single meaning of statements.
Rev. Jacob Hercamp St. Peter’s Lutheran Church La Grange, MO
When Luther came on the scene, he broke away from the fourfold meaning of Scripture. It is no mystery that Luther repudiated allegory and spoke favorably of typology. However, in practice, Luther still utilized allegory while interpreting Scripture passages. One only needs to read some of his commentaries to see that he does use allegory as part of his exegetical process. Go to his discussion about the doves on Noah’s ark for instance. Or pick up CPH’s two volume set: A Year in the Gospels with Martin Luther. There you will often see sections titled: Allegories.
So is Luther a hypocrite? No. As long as allegory agreed with the analogy of faith and gave comfort to troubled consciences, allegory was free to stand. This idea of allegory is not far removed from the way typology is commonly used in today’s context. Nor is it far from the middle of the road commentators from Alexandria, like Cyril. Though Luther speaks against Origen’s use of allegory, that it is not connected to the analogy of faith, Luther is thankful that Origen’s allegories are most often connected to morality. For Luther, these interpretations should always be compatible with and informed principally by Christ and to a lesser extent, the church. Luther praises Peter and Paul’s use of allegory concerning the flood (1 Pt 3) and the Red Sea (1 Cor 10) because it ‘serves to comfort hearts.
Luther appears to take what is good from the Alexandrian interpretative tradition and the best of Antioch and builds his own method. Luther asserts the historical account is the literal sense as well as the spiritual sense in his Genesis lectures, but understands allegory (or would modern scholars understand it as typology?) can work well and assist, as was shown above. Luther held to a Christology more along the lines of Cyril of Alexandria. Christological doctrine is born from exegesis of Scripture. As long as the allegory was connected to, illustrated the historical account, and agrees with the analogy of faith, allegory is permitted.
Rev. Jacob Hercamp St. Peter’s Lutheran Church La Grange, MO
Encore Post: The word Torah (תרה) found in the Old Testament is actually pretty difficult to translate because it carries so much theological weight.
So what can Torah mean? Well, you look at the first books of the bible (Genesis through Deuteronomy) that is called the Torah. It’s sometimes called the Law of Moses. Torah means Law.
But then you may be asking yourself, how is Law defined? That is a very good question. In Lutheran circles we understand the Law of God to have 3 uses. The second use is the most common because it is the one that accuses us of our sins. But the books of Moses are not just made up of that kind of Law. So we need a broader definition.
Torah means God’s Law in the sense that it is His Word. Understood in this way Torah is Law and Gospel. The Old Testament has both Law and Gospel throughout.
God’s Torah then is both Law and Gospel. It contains the 10 commandments and the all the purity laws of Leviticus, but it also has the Gospel that points us to Jesus’ atoning death on the cross. Think to Leviticus 16, Genesis 3:15, Numbers 21, to name a few.
So if God’s Torah is understood as God’s Word, then when Jesus who is called the Word of God incarnate, another way to say it is that Jesus is the Torah Incarnate. This idea comes through in the Gospel of John most prominently, and come to think of it in Matthew’s account of the Sermon on the Mount. For Jesus in both John and Matthew states the Law and then explains it and further intensifies it. We only need to think about the sin of adultery, for instance.
Rev. Jacob Hercamp St. Peter’s Lutheran Church La Grange, MO
Encore Post: You might remember the Ebionites and those who followed Marcion from earlier posts. In this post I want to introduce the two theological schools that ruled the day and effectively have left marks on the way we interpret the Bible still today.
But why are they called schools? Don’t think of them so much as buildings but the way of thinking. The first is Alexandria. The other is Antioch. Both cities were centers of Christian thought. Paul and other apostles spent time in Antioch, and Alexandria was known throughout the world as another great center of learning.
So what was the difference between Antioch and Alexandria? Well, let’s look at Alexandria first. Alexandria was the melting pot of cultures. Greek philosophy was alive and well. Many theologians, Origen, for example, had a background in philosophy. If you were to read Origen’s writings that we have at our disposal you would see him interpreting the text not just literally but also philosophically or in an allegorical fashion. Words meant more than just the literal word for him and others that came after him in the Alexandria School. Now this is not always a bad thing, but we need to always be careful to always consider the literal text.
Antioch and the theologians there were of a different style. They interpreted scripture in a literal, historical sense. Antioch generally steered clear of the allegorical approach to interpreting Scripture. That being said, they did not always have a lot of opportunities to find Christ in the Old Testament.
Both schools had men fall of either side of the the proverbial horse. Origen allowed his mind to go too far. Some men in Antioch did not go far enough to find Christ in the text, and questioned some of the Old Testament’s use for the Christian. Again, we should be looking back to what Jesus says. The Scriptures are all about him. He fulfills what was said in the Law, Prophets, and Psalms. If we keep that in mind, we ought to be able to see Christ not only in the New Testament but also the Old.
Rev. Jacob Hercamp St. Peter’s Lutheran Church La Grange, MO
Encore Post: If we think of a pendulum, it swings one way or the other. Let’s imagine the Ebionites to one extreme. At the other extreme would be the man named Marcion.
Unfortunately, to my knowledge we do not have any of Marcion’s own writings at our disposal. However, we have the early Church Fathers and their writings against his teachings. Ireaneaus of Lyon wrote against him in his work Against Heresies.
From Ireaneaus and some of the other Apostolic Fathers we learn that Marcion held to the idea that the the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New were not the same. Marcion saw the god of the Testament as a lesser Creator god who even was possibly evil. The god of the Old Testament was the Jewish God, and not the Father of the True Christ. The Old Testament may have prophesied about a Christ, but not the true one.
For Marcion, Jesus (the true Christ) came to subvert the Creator and overthrow the law and the prophets. Marcion even went so far as to change the words of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew to make Jesus say, “I have not come to fulfill the law but to abolish it.” This is the exact opposite of what Jesus says He came to do.
Encore Post: As we begin digging into the history of Christianity and how the Old Testament came to be understood by Christians (Remember we hold to what Jesus said and how Jesus used the Old Testament, namely that He is the fulfillment of it), we first come across the group that we know as the Ebionites or as we know them from Galatians, the Judaizers.
The question presented to Christians, especially of Jewish background was how the law of Moses was supposed to be understood. Should the Christian follow it still? To what extent?
If we remember the laws of Moses come in three varieties: Moral, Civil, and Ceremonial. Some of the Ebionites did not force these laws on everyone else, but from Galatians 2 we hear of a pretty vocal group. This group appeared to hold to all three varieties of the laws of Moses. They certainly held to the moral and ceremonial.
Jesus himself dealt with some of this during his earthly ministry. Paul and his companions certainly did. The first council of the church (Acts 15) dealt with the question of the ceremonial law.
We need to be aware of the trappings of what the Ebionites taught, especially about the Old Testament and the law contained therein. While the Ebionites wanted to maintain the laws of Moses in their entirety, the next push came from a man named Marcion who wanted to do the exact opposite. We will talk more about him next.
Rev. Jacob Hercamp
St. Peter’s Lutheran Church
La Grange, MO
Encore Post: This is the beginning of some wandering deeper into the Old Testament. As I stated before I love the Old Testament, so much I earned my Master’s of Sacred Theology in Old Testament Exegesis.
In my reading for such a degree, I was always confronted in one way or another with the question: “What is the Old Testament? And how are Christians supposed to read it?”
Many a theologian has asked those questions. Especially since the Old Testament is the sacred text for the Jewish religion as well as Christianity. How can the same books be read and people come to a different conclusion? How ought the Old Testament be understood? The obvious answer to that question for us is to follow in the way of Jesus, and how He read and understood the Old Testament.
But we humans and our sinful nature try to do it on our own, and that leads us into trouble. We will try to highlight some of those along the way as we see and learn how the greatest exegete, Jesus, explains and interprets the Old Testament showing us that He is the fulfillment of it (John 5:37-40; John 6:44-48; John 8:48-59; Luke 24:26-27; Luke 24:44-48).
Rev. Jacob Hercamp
St. Peter’s Lutheran Church
La Grange, MO
Perhaps you have been in places that bring back a flood of memories. Maybe its an old barn where you threw haybales with Grandpa before the days of round bailers. Maybe it’s Grandma and Grandpa’s old farm house kitchen where you and your cousins got to sit again for Easter brunch. We associate memories with places. The memories associated with the upper room were likely still vivid for the Disciples. The upper room, the place that Peter valiantly swore He would not betray Jesus. That they all would rather die than fall away from Jesus. And here they are, sitting around in fear in the evening.
The men had heard the news. They saw the empty tomb. The empty tomb did not give them joy. The idea of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus was not something joyful to them. And the resurrection of Jesus is nothing to glory in, in and of itself. The disciples were wallowing in self-pity because they failed Jesus. They did not live up to their word. They played a good game with words, but their actions could cash the checks their mouths wrote. Think about how many times the disciples failed Jesus. How often they argued over who would be the greatest among them. How often they didn’t pay enough attention to Jesus as He patiently taught them. And of course, how horrible of them to have run away from Him when He needed their aid the most. How pitiful and disgraceful.
Throw in fear they had for the Jews, who had overseen the crucifixion of Jesus, and you can begin to understand what was going on. Heck, you already had another disciple leave the company. Thomas wasn’t even gathered with them when the Lord first came. He had left the company, gone back to whatever life he had before Jesus.
Fear all around, thick enough to cut with a knife. They feared because of sin all around them and even in them. Their hearts heavy with grief and fear.
And then the risen Lord Jesus Christ shows up. And He stood among them. I bet when they recognized him, the room was suddenly hushed, if it wasn’t already. The hair on the back of their necks likely standing. What would Jesus say?
‘Peace be with you.” “Peace be with you.” That is what He said, and when He said this, He showed them His hands and His side. Only then, where the disciples glad when they saw the Lord. Why might you ask?
Well, they saw the nail marks and the thrust of the spear, they knew and believed that Jesus took those blows for them. That Jesus went to the cross for their sins. That Jesus still bears the marks of His cross for them that He might bring them peace. Peace that comes only from the forgiveness of sins. This is a peace which is offered nowhere else. Jesus shows up in His resurrected body bearing the marks of His cross here to bring peace to those disciples, soon to be sent out to proclaim this peace to all the world. Just as the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.
And when He said this, He breathed on them, and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.” Jesus gives them the Divine mandate, the great commission of John to go out and preach forgiveness in the Name of the crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ, who is as Thomas finally calls Him, “my Lord and my God.”
The marks of the cross matter. Being in worship on Good Friday matters. Pondering the work of Jesus on the cross matters. Seeing His marks as the marks of love for you, that you might have peace matters. Those marks are the only way you have forgiveness of sins. And it is because of those marks that the disciples are glad. So we too should be glad.
From those marks flow the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Christ as He went to cross gave up His Spirit, and thus in His resurrection breathes upon His beloved and gives the Holy Spirit. Just as He does for you. See here the connection to the beginning of Genesis. The man was created, and the Lord God breathed into the man the breath of life. Jesus breathes the breath of life, that is the Holy Spirit, into His disciples on that first day of the week, the evening of His resurrection from the dead.
But 2 were missing that day. Judas who did not believe that he could be forgiven, who killed himself out of his despair, and Thomas who seemed to have gone back to his life before Jesus. He was not there with his brothers in the upper room. And He would not have been there the next Lord’s Day either. But someone cared enough to tell him, “We have seen the Lord.” I want to believe that the same man who told Nathaniel, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph,” that would be Philip, also came to Thomas to tell him, ‘Come and see.” Come to the upper room, come to the church and see the crucified and risen Lord for yourself. He is not here to hurt you. He is not here to destroy you. You may be afraid but Jesus is not here to cause you harm. He is here to give you peace.
But that peace comes with a bit of price. Not to you, but to Him. Christ bears the marks of the cross that you may have peace. And its in those Holy Wounds that we find healing. Fear is vanquished. Sin is atoned for and forgiven. We are given new life. And when we are confronted again with fear and the accusations of sin which would cause us worry, we can and should be unafraid to come to the Lord Jesus where He promises to be, and confess them, but also confess, “Christ for me was wounded.” And rejoice and be glad like the disciples were that first Easter evening and every Lord’s day ever since. Do not miss. And do not forget to pray for those who are long absent. We all have failed our brothers and sisters. I am chief among you in this regard. I am your pastor, undershepherd of the Good Shepherd Jesus. Many of our flock have wondered, going their own way. It hurts to see, and it hurts me to see how I have failed, just like the disciples hurt when they saw their own failings to keep their word to the Lord. The vows made at ordination and installation confront and give direction. It also acts as mirror like the 10 commandments. Your pastor fails. But the gospel is the same for me as it was for the disciples this day. And it is the same for you now.
Whatever failing you have committed. Whatever opportunity you had and blew in the past for speaking up about the importance of Christ and being where He promises to be to bring peace in a chaotic world. Where sin is forgiven. Do not fear. Christ forgives you. He loves you. He wants you here. He wants you look upon his wounds and know He went to the cross for you. Be renewed in the knowledge of His love for you, he bore the cross for you. And His marks still bear His love. And now His love is given you in His supper, you are brought to His table, welcomed as His own. And He speaks His peace to you, He wipes your tears away as He says, “Take and eat, take and drink. Your sins are forgiven be at peace.”
And having been filled with His peace and His love, we pray that we be motivated to speak the proclamation of the disciples, “we have seen the Lord.” No, we have not seen the physical Lord Jesus in His resurrected state, but we do see Him with the eyes of faith in His Supper. And Christ calls us the blessed ones. So we do the best thing we can do for those who in the world walking about as if they have no hope. We say, “Come and see.” Yes, come and see the grace and mercy of our Lord in those holy wounds which our Lord still bears for us. Those wounds are glorious to us, and they make us glad, for they are what tell us Christ comes to bring us forgiveness and peace everlasting.
Alleluia! Christ is risen! He is risen indeed! Alleluia!
Rev. Jacob Hercamp St. Peter’s Lutheran Church La Grange, MO
