BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 81
January, 1996
Copyright 1996 Biblical Horizons
A couple of decades ago, when I was a young Reconstructionist (instead of a middle-aged post-Reconstructionist), I coined the phrase "political polytheism" to describe how modern evangelical Christians approach matters of social law and politics. Christians want the Bible for Church and family life, but turn to other gods for society. Their social theory is syncretistic, a blend of the notions of Roman, Greek, and Enlightenment ideas like "natural law" and "social contract," not to mention the blurry and nebulous (and contentless) notion of "common grace." Gary North wrote an excellent first exploration of this whole question in his aptly named book, Political Polytheism, available from the Institute for Christian Economics, Box 8000, Tyler, TX 75711.
Sadly, the evangelical and Reformed world is also too much aflicted with hermeneutical polytheism as well. In this brief essay I want to encourage the reader not to be swept away by this tendency.
Hermeneutical polytheism occurs when the Bible is broken up into various "genres" or types of literature. The result of hermeneutical polytheism is that the various parts of the Bible are not properly interpreted because walls have been built between one part of the Bible and other parts.
What I am concerned with will be clearer if I give illustrations. In one recent book we find that there is one way to interpret the "historical" parts of the Bible, another way to interpret "poetry," another way to interpret the "gospel genre," and another way to interpret the "epistle genre." Another illustration would be the attention given to so-called "apocalyptic" literature in the Bible. Yet another would be the desire of the strict theonomists to divide the "moral law" from the "restorative law."
If these distinctions are only rules of thumb, then well and good: They can help us come to grips with the Bible. But when they are elevated into types of literature and rules are provided for each type, I believe there are real dangers.
Consider "apocalyptic." First of all, there is no apocalyptic literature in the Bible. Apocalypticism, originally a form of Jewish gnosticism, taught that the world is coming to an end and therefore we should retreat and wait for deliverance. (Apocalypticism is one of the major heresies of American evangelicalism, of course.) The prophetic passages of the Bible teach the opposite. They always teach that the world is coming to a new beginning, and therefore we must get to work.
What fools too many scholars is that the later prophetic books of the Bible (those of the Restoration and New Covenant eras; that is, the two phases of the Latter Days) are written in symbolic language, and so is apocalyptic literature. The large majority of commentators on these books misinterpret them seriously for two reasons.
First, they do not recognize that the symbolism in these books comes from the structures established in Genesis 1, the Tabernacle and sacrificial system, the Temple of Solomon, and especially the visionary and symbolic Temple in Ezekiel. In other words, by separating the "ceremonial law" from "apocalyptic" as two different genres, they cannot interpret these prophetic books.
Second, by and large the interpreters do not take into account the historical background of these books, and thus do not see the immediate relevance of them. For instance, several aspects of Zechariah 1-6, as well as Ezekiel 38-39, are fulfilled in Esther. But these scholars have Esther pegged as a "historical novella," and don’t link it with these prophetic books. Also, they don’t see the connection between the palace of Ahasuerus in Esther and the Temple of Yahweh. Similarly, they do not link the book of Revelation with the book of Acts, which they should do.
To take another illustration: the Law. The Law is a seamless garment, and is seamless with the rest of the Bible. To pigeonhole some parts of it as "ceremonial" and others as "moral" does violence to the text. You cannot understand the penalties in the "moral" law unless you connect them with the killing of the animals in the "ceremonial" law. Our tradition betrays us here, because it is common in evangelical and Reformed thought to say that the "ceremonial" law was fulfilled in Christ and thus is done away with. Rather, we should say that because Christ fulfilled it, it is now applied in a new and greater way in the life and worship of the Church. One of the greatest failures of "theonomy" lies just at this point, as I mentioned above.
One of the worst forms of hermeneutical polytheism comes from Meredith G. Kline and his notion that the so-called Old Testament is one "canon" and the so-called New Testament is another. Thus we have two canons, two rules of life. Not so. The Bible never hints that it is to be divided into two "testaments." There is only one Bible, a through-composed book, seamless and inseparable. And thus there is only one canon, one rule of life.
To be sure, Paul has one style, Ezra another, and Samuel another. And to be sure, each book is a unit with particular concerns. And to be sure, the books that were produced for one period or another have different themes and concerns appropriate to each stage of covenant history. It is legitimate to take account of these, but only if we always remember that God is the Final Author and that the Bible is one unified book.
There are no true "genres" in the Bible, because the Bible breaks all merely human molds. It is the written word of the Word of God Himself, and sui generis. So-called "genre criticism," whether practised by liberals or conservatives, is a red herring that diverts attention from the true structures in the Biblical text.
Ultimately, such approaches treat God as speaking with many different voices, and approach a kind of polytheism. At its extreme, hermeneutical polytheism actually pits parts of the Bible against one another. One evangelical commentator on Chronicles says that when the Chronicler tells that a king had many wives, he intends that as a sign of God’s blessing! Thus, the Chronicler contradicts Genesis 2:24, Leviticus 18:18, and especially Deuteronomy 17:17, all of which prohibit second wives, especially for kings.
Objection: God is Three and One, so we should be sensitive to various "genres." Yes, but it is also true that "all of God does all that God does." However pointedly different various parts of the Bible appear from one another, they are all part of one unified story.
Hermeneutical polytheism, like political polytheism, is a tendency, not a formal heresy. All the same, it is a serious error, and one we must be aware of, and beware.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 81
January, 1996
Copyright 1996 Biblical Horizons
Gary North has from time to time taken note of some of the differences between contracts and covenants. For him, one of the most important is the oath-character of a covenant. Naturally, the English terms "contract" and "covenant" can be used with varying nuances by different writers, and their zone of meaning overlaps considerably.
As a contribution to our ongoing reflection on this matter, here are some comments from Rosenstock-Huessy’s The Multiformity of Man (Norwich, VT: Argo Books [1936] 1973), pp. 54-55. Rosenstock-Huessy notes the four forms of nouns: singular, dual, plural, and collective. Since humanity is created in the image of the Word of God, human social life also manifests these four dimensions. The following remarks are from his chapter on dual relationships.
In a sale the two partners to the contract think of their own advantage. The whole content of a real marriage might be summed up in the statement that the two who are partners are each expected to care more for the other partner’s happiness than for their own! No marriage could survive twenty-four hours if the couple should apply the rule of the law of contracts to their common life. While in business everybody minds his own business, in any dual [relationship] one partner minds the other partner’s business. A wife shall care for her man’s health more than for her own, and her husband shall care more for her comfort than for his own. To judge a marriage on the basis of the law of contract is an aberration from logical thinking. There is another side to the question. The duties derived from a contract are fixed in the beginning. The duties in any true partnership are in permanent flux; they are the result not of the words spoken at the beginning but of the acts of the partners to the relationship while it lasts. These actions have a polarizing effect upon the two. The more you become my friend, the more I shall become yours. The mutual dependence is graded, and in the normal evolution of dual relations the two individuals are more and more encircled and transformed into the foci of one ellipse. Consequently, the action of each partner is shaping the form of the dual [relationship]. The polarity is established more definitely each time. Finally, the two are agents of a corporated body for which they stand, for from it they derive their activities. This becomes very clear in cases of absence or death of one partner. Then not only does one try to represent the other but also the general reaction of the partner who is left behind is that of stressing the point of view, the line of action, and the interest of the partner who has passed away. In a contract, however, I am free when the other party ceases of exist. It is a pluralistic or individualistic arrangement. Under the dual [arrangement] I am spellbound by the law of polarization. I remain the other half the more my second self is in decline or is prevented from taking his place. So we can say that a contract by which one party surrenders to the other would be void. Contracts are and must remain temporary arrangements for the individual forms of our existence, fleeting conglomerations for work and against nature outside. But in matrimony a wife surrenders her beauty and health to her husband for better, for worse. And the man surrenders his adventures, his infinite chances. How can such a perilous exposure of the whole being be treated as the result of a willful arrangement between two individuals? In a contract I try to get as much as possible, and to remain as unchanged as possible. In any partnership [covenant] I throw in my lot today without knowing where I shall be tomorrow.
Thus far Rosenstock-Huessy. A few comments of my own, now. First, as Jeffrey Meyers taught us in last summer’s conference, each member of the Holy Trinity humbles and sacrifices Himself for the glory of the other two. This is the ultimate root of the concept of sacrifice. And since this is who God is and what God, as God, does, then it is not really strange that God should humble and sacrifice Himself because of His love for His daughter and bride.
A true relationship among the images of God, then, has this characteristic also. This is the ultimate root of the realities to which Rosenstock-Huessy calls attention.
According to Rosenstock-Huessy, these are dual relationships. Applying this matter to God, it is not so much that the Son humbles Himself to glorify the Father & Spirit together, but rather that He humbles Himself to glorify the Father, with whom He has one dual relationship; and also that He humbles Himself to glorify the Spirit, when whom He has another dual relationship. Because the Father and the Spirit are infinitely distinct as Divine Persons, the Son cannot humble Himself before them both, because that would mean humbling Himself before an abstraction. Rather, the Son glorifies the Father, and also glorifies the Spirit. The same can be said for each of the other two Persons. (I shall return to this below.)
Second, these dual relationships can be official (formal), or unofficial (informal). Rosenstock-Huessy’s second point is discussed in terms of informal relationships, like friendship, but it applies to formal ones as well, like marriage. Marriage is, indeed, qualified by the covenant fixed in the beginning, but the relationship is not exhausted by it. Or, to put it another way, the marriage covenant establishes a total and unbounded relationship. Friendship, by way of contrast, has no official beginning point. But in both cases, mutual interaction causes the dual relationship to grow in strength. Thus, the Bible tells the husband to lay down his life for his wife, and that a loving man will lay down his life for his friend.
Thus, marriage is a covenant and friendship is not, but friendship partakes of the qualities of a covenant except for the oath and sanctions.
Third, and this is most interesting, Rosenstock-Huessy points out that in dual relationships there is representation, and that this representation is strengthened when one party is absent or dead. A newly widowed husband, for instance, will constantly think of what his wife would have done in a given circumstance, and will tend to honor her wishes over his own, even though she is no longer present in this life. The same is true when one partner is away for a season. Now, consider how this principle applies to the bride of Christ during the time that her Husband is away in heaven.
Fourth, it is a fact that men will sacrifice themselves not only for other individuals in a dual relationship, but also for groups, such as the church or their nation on the battlefield. I think that this is, or should be, only because such "institutions" are actually corporate persons. The Church is the body of Christ, and a nation is really a body politic. Both individual churches and nations have "faces" (for instance, Rev. 2-3). This is because God is Three and One, three Persons and yet, in some other way, one Person as well (yet not four persons). Thus, there is a dual relationship between an individual person and such corporate persons as churches and nations.
Fifth, this brings up the question we left off in my first observation above. I asserted that the Son, for instance, does not humble Himself to glorify the Father & Spirit together, but rather humbles Himself to glorify each one individually. If we don’t put it that way, when we have to say that Father & Spirit form one corporate Person distinct from the Son, which would give us a Heptameron rather than a Trinity, to wit:
God
God the Father
God the Father & Son
God the Father & Spirit
God the Son
God the Son & Spirit
God the Spirit
But there is no Biblical foundation for such a notion. It is only as three that God is one. Speaking in the midst of His sacrifice on the cross, Jesus did not address the Father and the Spirit together as one God, but cried out, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" When David first prayed these words in Psalm 22, the reiteration was surely for emphasis; but when Jesus prays these same words, a trinitarian reference is inescapable. Jesus cannot have been praying to the One Person of God, for He would have been praying to Himself. Thus, His "My God, My God" implies a reference to the Father and to the Spirit.
And so finally, it seems to me that the dual relationship is deceptive. There is really always a third party, whose presence makes the two into three, and thus into one corporate person with one face. That third partner is God Himself. In history, God is present with every marriage and friendship, even though unacknowledged, and even among unbelievers, for God gives life to all. After the final judgment, all human relationships will self-consciously include God as the third party, while those who reject God will have no relationships with anyone at all.
Well, I hope that the thoughts in this essay advance your thinking about these matters. I have surely not written the last word on the subject!
Biblical Chronology Vol. 8, No. 1
January, 1996
Copyright James B. Jordan 1996
The contents of this article will be published in a commentary. If you wish to be notified when the commentary becomes available, please click the link below and send a blank e-mail to the webmaster. Thank you.
webmaster@biblicalhorizons.com
