[Vision2020] Old vs. New Covenant IV

[nickgier at adelphia.net]

Note: Some of this list don’t like theological debates on the Vision.  For them there is always the delete key.  

By way of defense, I would say that interpretations of Christianity divide this community as well as many others.  Sadly, most American Christians are theologically illiterate, and they are not aware of the wide range of Christian belief open to them.  Many atheists and agnostics also have a poor understanding of what they are rejecting.

Fortunately, Ralph Nielsen is not that kind of unbeliever, and I’m grateful to him for answering some of the Princess’ points so effectively.  I gave away most of books on biblical scholarship to my Indian Christian student, so I would have had to go to the library to get some of this material.  So thanks, Ralph.

The first thing I want to do is to call the Princess on her unnecessary self-depreciation.  She is a very intelligent person, a self-made biblical theologian; in a word, an intellectual (gasp!).  Therefore, she should just cut out this “dumb schmuck” routine.  The anti-intellectualism of conservatives on this list is wearing very, very thin.

The Princess’ school of biblical hermeneutics is well known.  It proposes an intricate web of Bible verses in which each verse is cleverly but loosely connected to hundreds of other verses, regardless of their historical or authorial context, violating one of the first rules of general hermeneutics. 

The Princess’ school of biblical interpretation is one whose sole goal is to support a specific theological agenda, which turns into a desperate search to validate one passage of scripture by another passage.  The New Testament writers did this as well, and Matthew gets the grand prize for stretching many passages from the Hebrew Bible into allusions to Christ.  The Princess simply continues the mistakes of Matthew.

I do not deny that there is plurality in the Hebrew Godhead, but this either a leftover polytheism (best termed “henotheism”) or an internal dynamic that is usually dyadic not trinitarian. If offer the examples of Yahweh and the Angel of the Lord, Yahweh and Divine Wisdom (Proverbs 8:30), or Yahweh and Satan.  More on the latter later.  I know of no Hebrew dyad, however, that involves a divine Son.  The Hebrew is not divine, and Luther knew Hebrew well enough to translate Is. 9.6 as "power hero" instead of the very misleading "mighty god," which should read "mighty as God."

It’s obvious that the Princess didn’t bother reading my debate with Jones on the Trinity (www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/trinity.htm) or my other article on Hebrew Henotheism (www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/henotheism.htm.) Gen. 1.27 is an especially weak reference for the Princess to use, because the general scholarly consensus is that “Let us make” is a grammatical plural not an ontological one. Even good evangelical scholars agree on this.

The whole business about human relationality reflecting divine relationality is “right up my alley” (as my mother would say), because I’m a process theologian and the process God is a dynamic, relational being, intimately involved in the world.  The Princess and other orthodox Christians have trapped themselves in a view of radical divine transcendence (left over Greek philosophy!) that makes it impossible for them to explain how God can relate to the world at all.  Again I give you the reference to my essay on process theology at www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/process.htm. 

The Princess is echoing Doug Jones in his debate with Forrest Church in assuming that Unitarians believe that we believe in an isolated divine monad.  It simply is not true, your highness, so just cut it out, you hear?

The theory of Progressive Revelation is just that, a theory, an ad hoc hypothesis that allows biblical harmonizers such as the Princess to explain the fact that the Jews did not know about all these Christian doctrines.  Like most ad hoc hypotheses, this is just too convenient and too sneaky, so we should reject this view if we have any respect for these marvelous texts, each with its own author(s) and cultural, religious provenance. Assuming a theological unity among all these texts is simply not possible.

The Princess can’t say that Robert Grant is only half right because his one-sentence conclusion is a logical unity and limits his analysis to the first 200 years.  The first known Greek text of the Apostle’s Creed is from Marcellus of Ancyra in 341CE. The New Testament allusions to threeness (there is no NT Greek word for “trinity”) simply don’t count as a doctrine.  

The Princess should know that before the Council of Nicea, the early Christian church contained a great many different beliefs.  For example, many scholars believe that a majority of Christian bishops were Arians and only by great political maneuvers (by a early incarnation of Karl Rove?) was the Trinity as we know it was affirmed.  

I simply don’t accept the Princess’ “concatenation of verses” to prove that the Serpent is Satan.  It is precisely those later New Testament interpretations that I’m disputing!  I note with great satisfaction that the Princess could not produce a single reference in the Hebrew Bible to the Fall of Adam and Eve.  Of course, there are references to sinners in the Hebrew Bible, but not an Original Sin in which all humans participate because of the sin of Adam.

The Princess challenges my interpretation of Luther, but it comes right out of my graduate seminar on that great theologian. My notes are from 1968, and obviously I have no computer files from that time.  If my memory serves me well (I’m in Edmonton away from my books and notes), my main reference was Gordon Rupp’s classic work "The Righteousness of God."  I can dig these notes out when I get home, but only if the Princess reveals herself to me for a personal hand off.  

Today’s Lutherans aren’t taught this, just as they believe that Luther somehow supports the freedom of the will.  Also, his filthy Table Talk and vitriolic anti-Semitism are pretty much under wraps as well. “The Satan” as a function of God rather than a separate evil being is well attested in the story of Balaam and his ass (The Angel of the Lord appearing as “the Satan” [Num. 22:22]). The Princess quotes Zechariah 3:2, but Ralph’s Jewish translation demonstrates that this internal dynamic of Angel of the Lord and the “Accuser” is consistent with the Balaam story.   Finally, when Yahweh asks “who will entice Ahab?" in 1 Kgs. 22:20, it is “lying spirit” (=the Satan) from among the heavenly hosts who does the dastardly deed (v. 22).  

By the way, Princess, this is not a “dualist” view of the origin of evil.  Bible scholars usually call it a “dialectical” view.  I’m afraid the dualist view of evil can be found in the implicit Manicheanism found in most Christians when they say that “the Devil made me do it,” as if God was not involved at all.  

On this point Luther is most honest Christian theologian that I know: “Since God moves and does all, we must take it that he moves and acts even in Satan and the godless;...evil things are done with God himself setting them in motion.”  Sounds like direct cause to me, Princess, with none of your wishy-washy secondary or mediate causes.  Few Christians have been willing to confront the full implications of divine omnipotence.

Princess, I’m surprised at your poor reasoning skills. Bringing in postmillennialism does not fulfill Jewish expectations for the Messiah.  A merely human Jesus does not rule an earthly kingdom and the enemies of Israel appear to be stronger than ever.

Ralph has already referenced two anti-Semitic passages in the New Testament.  More could be cited, but I would like to say a little bit more about this one: “His blood [will] be on us and our children!” (27:25), which Matthew, incredibly enough, has the Jews confessing. The attribution sounds fishy because, once again, Matthew is ripping a Hebrew passage (2 Sam. 1.16) out of context and falsely making it a Messianic prophecy.  This passage clearly describes the death of Saul "the anointed" rather than some future Messiah. Princess, the “brazen distortion” was committed by the author(s) of Matthew, not by me.

The Princess claims that the Old Covenant died in Adam, but it is mentioned throughout the Hebrew Bible (what’s this business about the Ark of the Covenant??), and Jews still celebrate it today. They would be shocked to learn that the Princess believes that “the world of the Hebrew scriptures is quite useless to modern Judaism,”  and “the true heir of ancient Judaism--i.e., Judaism based on and faithful to the scriptures--is unquestionably the Christian faith.” Wow, I wish Phil Nisbet were still alive and still on the Vision.  As a well informed and practicing Jew, he would have certainly given the Princess a piece of his mind and he would have certainly leveled the charge of anti-Semitism.

The Princess ends her discussion with a batch of insults that are simply not befitting her fair sex or her royal stature. (The Bible scholars on which I rely would not think much of her crapometer!) Why is she so mean?  Is this the sign of a good Christian?  One would think not.

Nick Gier, Intolerista Par Excellence
“Intolerance is a virtue only when one is intolerant of intolerance.”
(Someone great said that, but I don’t know who.)