by Richard Barcellos | Nov 22, 2010 | Biblical Theology, Book Reviews, Books, Hermeneutics
Chapter two is entitled “The OT Witness.” Wells first discusses the argument from creation (i.e., Gen. 2:1-3) or what many call creation ordinances. I will quote him in full at this point:
Perhaps you have heard someone say that the Sabbath is a creation ordinance. What did they mean by that? Those who use the phrase appear to mean that at creation God gave commands to be carried out by all men and women throughout history. Often three are cited: marriage, labor and Sabbath. But if creation ordinance implies that all men and women must do these things, even if we suppose that Jesus needed to be an obvious exception, Paul shows us that it is not necessary that all normal people get married. In fact, he expressed a preference for singleness like his (1 Cor 7:7-8). So also the Sabbath could be an exception. (26)
I am not sure if any who advocate creation ordinances claim that marriage as instituted in Eden is a mandate for all men and women, no matter what circumstances might come onto the world-scene subsequently. If that were the case, then Jesus and Paul sinned in this area. This would be similar to arguing that the only legitimate vocation is that of Edenic garden-tending. I think the point is simply that if and when men and women unite in marriage, they are to do so monogamously. Also, though creation-based ethics (i.e., creation ordinances) are age-long ethics, the fall into sin does complicate matters. For instance, in Matt. 19, Jesus argues from the creation account to life-long monogamous marriage. However, he also acknowledges that sin has complicated matters and, thus, there is a modified application of the creation ordinance of marriage in a fallen world. In fact, due to the fall into sin and the curse, the creation ordinance of labor looks different in its post-lapsarian application (Gen. 3:17-19). Could it be the same for the Sabbath? Could it be that the Sabbath takes on various temporary nuances due to the presence of sin and God’s purposes in the unfolding drama of redemption? Obviously, I think this is the case. Due to God’s purposes in creation and redemption, the Sabbath takes on redemptive-historical nuances as it is applied in differing eras of redemptive history. Though sin may complicate or change the application of creation ordinances it does not negate them.
While discussing Gen. 2:1-3, Wells says:
To begin we see that there is nothing in Genesis 2:1-3 that commands a Sabbath for anyone. I have already said that the verses would fit in nicely with such a command. Does this prove that there was no such command? Of course not. Still there is no such command in the passage. People may imagine they hear one, but even a casual look shows that it is not there.
If we ask why people find a command here, they may tell us these verses do not stand alone but are joined with other verses in the Mosaic writings. When we look in those we find that each speaks only of what Israelites and people living in her land must do. Moses is silent on others. (26)
First, concerning the argument that since there is no command there is no command, it sure does have a prima facie appeal to it. There is no command, therefore there is no command! Case closed, end of debate, right? Not so fast. There are many things not commanded in the creation narrative that most Christians believe were, none-the-less, commands (call them moral requirements or whatever) for Adam and Eve and for all subsequent men and women. For instance, would Wells want to argue that since there is no command in the creation narrative concerning truth-telling, truth-telling was not commanded or required of Adam and Eve and all subsequent men and women? There is nothing in the creation narrative that explicitly commands truth-telling. It would fit in quite well but there is none. People may imagine they hear one, but even a casual look shows that it is not there. The same goes for monotheism, idolatry, honoring God-ordained human authorities, coveting, etc. Here’s the point, Wells’ argument is a non sequitur – it does not follow – and it actually proves too much. Wells is asking too much of a narrative. The Genesis creation account tells the story of creation; it is not an explicit, detailed ethical code. As a matter of fact, the creation narrative is scant when it comes to ethical injunctions compared to many other portions of Scripture. And even though it is not an explicit ethical code, that does not mean it does not imply ethics. For instance, we know that being an image-bearer of God has ethical implications. This is hinted at in the creation narrative (Gen. 1:26ff.) and teased-out for us elsewhere in subsequent revelation (cf. Rom. 1-2; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10; Jms. 3:9). In other words, general revelation is implicitly imperatival. The act of creation warrants, even demands man’s proper response. “Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him,” says Ps. 33:8. But why? Verse 9 says, “For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.” To what does “it” refer? “By the word of the LORD the heavens were made…” (Ps. 33:6a). In other words, the fact and act of creation is implicitly imperatival. This also shows us that subsequent revelation often makes explicit what was implicit in antecedent revelation. In other words, the Bible often expounds upon and applies itself, drawing out of previous revelation implications for the present that were always there (cf. Paul’s argument for gender-based ethics for the church in 1 Tim. 2:11ff.). And the implications it draws out are sometimes highly conditioned upon the era of redemptive history one lives in (i.e., Exod. 20:8ff.; Mk. 2:28; 1 Tim. 2:11ff.; Rev. 1:10). Wells seems to forget about general revelation and the ethical implications of creation imago Dei.
Second, Wells’ says, “these verses [Gen. 2:1-3]…do not stand alone but are joined with other verses in the Mosaic writings” and “[w]hen we look at those we find that each speaks only of what Israelites and people living in her land must do” (26). What are we to make of this? First of all, Gen. 2:1-3 is not only “joined with other verses in the Mosaic writings,” it is connected to and further explained by other portions of Holy Scripture. There are quotations/allusions to Gen. 2:1-3 outside of the Mosaic writings and these must be taken into account when seeking to understand it (cf. Mk. 2:27; Heb. 4:4, 9-10 [NOTE: Some day I want to trace the link between temple building and rest throughout the Scripture. My hunch is that I will find the first temple, the Garden, linked to rest, as well as Israel’s tabernacle/temple and the church. There was temple and rest in the Garden, there was temple and rest in Israel, there is temple and rest for the church, both in this age and in the age to come. But I digress.]).
Interestingly, Wells says elsewhere, “What could I tell others about the meaning of my keeping a Sabbath if all I had was Genesis 2:1-3?”(29). May I call a foul or throw a flag? This, too, is a non sequitur – it does not follow that since you can’t say much, therefore you can’t say anything. But also, we have much more revelation than simply Gen. 2:1-3 and limiting ourselves to it is simply dangerously myopic and a really poor hermeneutical move. The only infallible interpreter of the Holy Scripture is the Holy Spirit in the Holy Scripture. In other words, we must allow the Bible to speak concerning the canonical meaning of Gen. 2:1-3 lest we impose our own conjectures or arguments from silence upon it.
In my next post I will interact with Wells, where he says, “[w]hen we look at those [i.e., verses in Moses’ writings concerning the Sabbath] we find that each speaks only of what Israelites and people living in her land must do” (26).
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by Richard Barcellos | Nov 20, 2010 | Biblical Theology, Book Reviews, Books, Hermeneutics, New Testament, Old Testament, Practical Theology, Systematic Theology
On Friday, November 19, 2010, I received a free copy of Tom Wells’ newest book, The Christian and the Sabbath. Thanks, Tom! It is a 141 page book, including bibliography and indices. I was glad to see my name referenced on four pages and Dr. Waldron’s name referenced on 16 pages (Dr. Waldron is much older than me so that makes perfect sense :-)). Wells quotes from my In Defense of the Decalogue and Waldron’s unpublished Lectures on the Lord’s Day. I would have liked to see some interaction with our exposition of the new covenant in our book Reformed Baptist Manifesto and interaction with Waldron’s A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, but I fully realize you can’t interact with everything.
In the Foreword, Wells shares some of his personal experience related to this issue, going back about 40 years. Though I enjoy autobiography, I thought the mention of some of the personal experience was unnecessary, but that’s probably just me. I noted on the first page that Wells sets up one of those unnecessary either/or dichotomies. He says, in effect, the Decalogue is eternal law or a gift to Israel (7). Why couldn’t it be both? More on this later.
Wells brings up the issues of probable arguments and arguments from silence. He is bold to say, “Both of us [Wells and those who differ with him] will lean heavily on probable arguments, including arguments from silence” (8). I want to assert that though I admit that all human exegesis is, to a degree, conjecture and setting forth what is most plausible (at least in the mind of the exegete), I do not want to give an inch to “arguments from silence.” I do not think it best, or even good, to argue from the absence of a word or concept to the presence of a doctrinal formulation. I did not find Wells’ words, at this point, helpful.
Wells states the burden of the book at least twice in the Foreword. He says, “My point is to show that there is no such command [i.e., Sabbath command] given to Christians. No one may insist on it for other adults” (10). He goes on and adds, “…I want to show that no one may command another adult Christian to keep a Sabbath” (10). I take this to mean that his book will prove that it is wrong for Christians to believe that there is a Sabbath to observe/render for the people of God under the new covenant. As a side note, I am not sure why Wells uses the word “adult.” Is it ok to insist on a Sabbath for Christian youth? I am probably making too much of a little thing.
At the beginning of chapter 1, Wells gives two reasons for writing this book: first, “the subject is important” (11) and the “second [reason] has to do with how the Old and New Covenants relate” (11). The rest of chapter 1 takes up the issue of the relationship between the old and new covenants. One of the things Wells discusses is the change that has occurred in light of the inauguration of the new covenant. He notes, commenting on 1 Pt. 2:5, 9-10, that the new covenant is a spiritual covenant. Whereas the old covenant had a physical house, the new covenant people of God are the house of God; and whereas “certain men from a certain tribe were priests, all Christians are priests” (13). “The OT priests had physical sacrifices to offer. We offer spiritual sacrifices” (13). So far so good. But I would like to insert one comment at this point. Since there is still a house of God, and since there is still a covenantal priesthood, and since that priesthood still offers sacrifices (granting that change has occurred), could it be that there is still a Sabbath to be rendered (granting that change has occurred)?
Wells makes a point that Israel was a sacral society. As a matter of fact, he takes seven pages to do so. He discusses the nature of the Ten Commandments as national legislation and in terms of its focus on externals. He says:
If you look at the Ten Commandments, unless you read into them what is not explicitly there, you will find only one command that apparently addresses motivation, the command, “You shall no covet!” All the rest cover easily measurable events. That is what national law does in all societies. (16)
I find this interesting, in light of how Jesus (Matt. 5) seems to highlight (my conjecture) what was implicitly there all along. Remember also that Paul said the law is spiritual (Rom. 7:14), not that it has now become spiritual. Again, I ask, could it be that Israel’s law is both a gift for national Israel and representative of moral law for all men?
While watching College football this afternoon I read over ½ of chapter 2. I was disappointed with aspects of it but will wait until next time to let you in on just what disappointed me.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by Richard Barcellos | Nov 19, 2010 | Hermeneutics, Historical Theology
1. The Holy Spirit is the only infallible interpreter of the Bible. In classic, pre-critical and Reformed orthodox fashion, Owen briefly articulates his view of special hermeneutics and the Scripture:
…for although the Scripture hath many things in common with other writings wherein secular arts and sciences are declared, yet to suppose that we may attain the sense and mind of God in them by the mere use of such ways and means as we apply in the investigation of truths of other natures is to exclude all consideration of God, of Jesus Christ, of the Holy Spirit, of the end of the Scriptures themselves, of the nature and use of the things delivered in them; and, by consequent, to overthrow all religion.[1]
Owen obviously and firmly believed that the Bible should not be interpreted like any other book. How can it be, it–and it alone–is the word of God. In Owen’s BTO, he says:
The only unique, public, authentic, and infallible interpreter of Scripture is none other than the Author of Scripture Himself, by whose inspiration they are the truth, and by whom they possess their perspicuity and authority, that is, God the Holy Spirit.[2]
2. The scope of Scripture is God in Christ as Redeemer. Christ as scopus Scripturae can be seen in Owen’s writings in many ways. In his work on the Person of Christ, Owen says, “The end of the Word itself, is to instruct us in the knowledge of God in Christ.”[3] A few pages later he goes on to say:
Christ is the image of the invisible God, the express image of the person of the Father; and the principal end of the whole Scripture, especially of the Gospel, is to declare him so to be, and how he is so.[4]
In these two instances he uses the term ‘end’ in a technical sense. In other words, Christ is scopus Scripturae.
Christ as scopus Scripturae can be seen from an exegetical standpoint in Owen as well. Commenting on Genesis 3:15 as the first promise of the only means of delivery from the effects of sin–Christ, he says:
This is the very foundation of the faith of the church; and if it be denied, nothing of the economy or dispensation of God towards it from the beginning can be understood. The whole doctrine and story of the Old Testament must be rejected as useless, and no foundation be left in the truth of God for the introduction of the New.[5]
Without a soteriological/Messianic interpretation of Genesis 3:15, in the mind of Owen, subsequent Scripture makes no sense. A Christocentric hermeneutic is the foundation of proper biblical interpretation.
In Owen, Works, XVII, writing on the “Oneness of the Church” throughout redemptive history, Owen argues that the object of saving faith throughout redemptive history is “the Seed that was in the promise…”[6] In this brief exercitation, Owen argues that God first gave the promise of salvation to Adam based on Genesis 3:15. In fact, God’s Church is founded “in the promise of the Messiah given to Adam.”[7] Owen argues that all subsequent revelation serves to unfold the first promise of the gospel to Adam. This promise is the first revelation of the covenant of grace.[8] Subsequent revelation unfolds the promise of the Redeemer and, in fact depends upon it. In his treatise on the Person of Christ, Owen says:
This principle is always to be retained in our minds in reading of the Scripture,–namely, that the revelation and doctrine of the person of Christ and his office, is the foundation whereon all other instructions of the prophets and apostles for the edification of the church are built, and whereinto they are resolved; as is declared, Eph. ii. 20—22. So our Lord Jesus Christ himself at large makes it manifest, Luke xxiv. 26, 27, 45, 46. Lay aside the consideration hereof, and the Scriptures are no such thing as they pretend unto,—namely, a revelation of the glory of God in the salvation of the church; nor are those of the Old Testament so at this day unto the Jews, who own not this principle, 2 Cor. iii. 13—16. There are, therefore, such revelations of the person and glory of Christ treasured up in the Scripture, from the beginning unto the end of it, as may exercise the faith and contemplation of believers in this world, and shall never, during this life, be fully discovered or understood; and in divine meditations of these revelations doth much of the life of faith consist.[9]
For Owen, “the revelation and doctrine of the person of Christ and his office” is the hermeneutical key providing interpretive cohesiveness for all of Scripture.
Owen’s Christocentricity has been identified by several recent studies. In an article on John Owen dealing with Owen’s Dissertation on Divine Justice and subtitled “An Exercise in Christocentric Scholasticism,” Carl Trueman says, “…his theology is, at heart, thoroughly christocentric.”[10] Trueman entitles his conclusion “Owen’s Christocentrism” and says:
In asserting the necessity of Christ’s sacrifice, Owen is presenting a Reformed theology that cannot displace the historical person of the mediator from the center of the drama of redemption. There can be no eternal justification based purely on the decree: Salvation is as surely linked to history as it is to eternity. It is those who predicate the necessity of incarnation and atonement solely on the decretive will of God who run the risk of marginalizing the historical person of Christ and undermining the importance of salvation history. In this context, Owen’s scholasticism serves not to eclipse Christ but to place him at the center. Indeed, as is clear from his argument, if it was not for his Thomist understanding of God’s causal relationship to creation and his acceptance of the validity of the analogy of being, Owen would have no way of attacking his opponents’ position. While it is true that his use of such arguments depends on assumptions that he does not justify, it is also true that any rejection of their validity renders his christocentrism epistemologically unsustainable. In the context of this dispute, at least, it is the rejection of natural theology, not its acceptance, that is the enemy of Christ-centered theology.[11]
In fact, Trueman goes so far as to say that on the issue of divine justice and the incarnation, Owen “is arguably not less christocentric than [his] opponents, including Calvin himself, but actually more so.”[12]
Kelly Kapic argues that Owen’s anthropology is formulated “in a christocentric pattern, pointing to Jesus Christ as the incarnate and true image of God.”[13] Even the Sabbath is Christologically transformed by Christ, thus further displaying the Christocentricity of Owen’s thought.[14]
Sebastian Rehnman acknowledges this of Owen, “His theology has, for all its adherence to scholasticism and contrary to the argument of much modern scholarship on Reformed orthodoxy, a Christocentric and practical character.”[15]
Richard W. Daniels shows that not only redemption, but creation and providence are christocentric for Owen.[16] Commenting on the doctrines of creation and providence in Owen’s thought, Daniels says, “It is difficult to conceive of a more Christocentric view of the purpose of God in creation than this, which subjects the creation and history of the universe to the manifestation of the glory of God in its renovation by the Son.”[17] After acknowledging that Owen’s Christocentricity was not unique among the English Puritans, he then says:
In the development of this Christocentric theological system, however, Owen was unsurpassed. The lines which he traces from the doctrine of the person of Christ are bold, and long enough to reach every subject of doctrinal inquiry, showing that “by him, all things” [including all doctrinal truths] consist” (Col. 1:17).[18]
In Daniels’ concluding words to his study on Owen’s Christology, he gives this tribute to him:
it is one thing to say Christian theology ought to be Christocentric, it is quite another to actually understand the entire spectrum of theological loci Christocentrically, or to articulate one’s theology in a way that manifests this Christocentricity. Owen does this, as we have observed with regard to the knowledge of God, creation, providence, the redemption of man, the mediatorial kingdom, the church, and the Christian life.[19]
[1] Owen, Works, IV:208.
[2] Owen, BTO, 797. Cf. Ferguson, John Owen, 196-99; Howson, “Hermeneutics of John Owen,” 351-76; Lea, “The Hermeneutics of the Puritans,” 271-84; Packer, “The Puritans as Interpreters of Scripture” in Quest for Godliness, 97-105; and Leland Ryken, “The Bible” in Worldly Saints: The Puritans as they Really Were (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 137-54.
[3] Owen, Works, I:65. Emphasis added.
[4] Owen, Works, I:74. Emphasis added.
[5] Owen, Works, I:120. Cf. Daniels, Christology of John Owen, 230-61.
[6] Owen, Works, XVII:121, 142.
[7] Owen, Works, XVII:120.
[8] Owen, Works, XVII:120.
[9] Owen, Works, I:314-15.
[10] Carl R. Trueman, “John Owen’s Dissertation on Divine Justice: An Exercise in Christocentric Scholasticism,” CTJ 33 (1998): 97.
[11] Trueman, “John Owen’s Dissertation on Divine Justice,” 103.
[12] Trueman, “John Owen’s Dissertation on Divine Justice,” 103.
[13] Kapic, Communion with God, 65.
[14] Kapic, Communion with God, 212-14. Cf. Owen, Works, XVIII:263-460 for Owen’s masterful treatment of a day of sacred rest.
[15] Rehnman, Divine Discourse, 181.
[16] Daniels, Christology of Owen, 178-93.
[17] Daniels, Christology of Owen, 180.
[18] Daniels, Christology of Owen, 517.
[19] Daniels, Christology of Owen, 519.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
