Brueggemann on the Epistemology of Oath

 Another jewel from Brueggemann’s Theology of the Old Testament (p. 173).

“All of these [OT redemptive] promises of Yahweh, of every sort, on every subject, intend that Israel should not surrender its life or its destiny to the present circumstance, especially when that present circumstance is deathly and appears insurmountable.”

The alternative to accepting the dark circumstances of life is “to rely on Yahweh’s oath as a resolve to override circumstance, so that it is the oath and not the circumstance that tells the truth about reality.  In this theological intentionality, Israel embraces this uttered testimony as the true version of its life.”

“This testimony would have been odd and daring in the ancient world, because lived circumstance has a certain credibility on the face of it.  Thus this testimony is accepted publicly only by the boldest.  One may indeed conclude that this testimony is even more odd and more daring in our contemporary world.  In our current theological work we recognize that the epistemological assumptions of our world tilt our inclination toward visible circumstance.  Indeed, the epistemology of modernity has, as much as possible, banished promise from our world.”

“It has become evident, however, that when promise is banished and circumstance governs, we are most likely left with nothing but despair, whether that despair of the self-sufficient or of the disempowered. And despair is no basis for a viable social community.  Thus our recovery of these texts brings a wonderment about whether such old utterance is a credible antidote to our ready embrace of despair.  Such utterance may strike us as remote from our circumstance. But then, it has always struck Israel as remote from circumstance.  In the end, our consideration of these, promissory statements is as it always was for Israel: A massive assurance grounded in the flimsy evidence of the witnesses.”

The Christian epistemology of God’s oath: in Horton’s great terms, it is a covenantal epistemology.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Brueggemann: Israelite Hope vs Enlightenment Despair

The following quote is well worth reading through carefully. Enjoy!

“At the culmination of Israel’s portrayal of reality is a certitude and a vision of newness, a full restoration to well-being that runs beyond any old well-being.  This culmination in well-being, assured by the resolve of Yahweh, is articulated in the conclusion of most psalms of complaint and in prophetic promises that eventuate in messianic and apocalyptic expectations.  Israel’s speech witnesses to profound hope, based in the promise-maker and promise-keeper for whom all things are possible.”

“Israel refuses to accept that any context of nullity – exile, death, chaos – is a permanent conclusion to reality.  Israel, in such circumstance, articulated hope rooted, not in any discernable signs in the circumstance, but in the character of Yahweh (based on old experience), who was not a prisoner of circumstance, but was able to override circumstance in order to implement promises.  This hope is not incidental in Israel’s life; it is a bedrock, identity-giving conviction, nurtured in nullity, that Yahweh’s good intentions have not and will not be defeated.  As a consequence, complainers anticipate well-being and praise.  Israel awaits homecoming, the dead look to new life, creation expects reordering.”

“All of this requires confidence in an agent outside the system of defeat.  Enlightenment liberalism, which sets the liberated, self-sufficient human agent at the center of reality, can entertain or credit no such agent outside the system.  Without such an agent who exists in and through Israel’s core testimony, there are no new gifts to be given and no new possibilities to be received.  Thus, put simply the alternative to Israelite hope is Enlightenment despair.  In such a  metanarrative, when human capacity is exhausted, all is exhausted.  Ultimate trust is placed in human capacity, human ingenuity, and human technology.”

“It is self-evident that such a trust cannot deliver, and so ends in despair, for self-sufficiency is only a whisker away from despair.  Such a reading of reality engenders fear and hate, self-hate, and brutality.  But Israel, inside its peculiar testimony, refuses such a reading.”

From Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), 561-2.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Liturgy, Order, and Chaos

When considering liturgy, order is good. To be sure, are many excellent biblical arguments that advocate an orderly worship service. Walter Brueggemann opens our eyes to yet one more reason why order is good in worship.

“In such an arena of disorder [in which Israel/we live], which may indeed be large and deep and ominous, it is not surprising that one should look to Yahweh, the Creator of heaven and earth, to counter the chaos with a powerful ordering and continual reordering of creation. More specifically, it is plausible that the ordering activity of Yahweh, in the face of such a threat, should be activated in public worship, where life may be experienced in order, symmetry, coherence, and propriety.”

He emphasizes: “The enactment of such worship serves as a powerful counter-act to the threat of disorder. Thus much of the ‘command of order’ is given as an instrument to the priests, so that the priests can wisely and rightly order worship space, time, and activity, whereby worship becomes an environment for a God-given order available nowhere else. We may imagine that the depth, intensity, and specificity of order authorized in the text are commensurate to experienced disorder, even to a degree that we might regard as punctilious. It is crucial that the authorized enactment of order should fully match – or perhaps overmatch – the concrete threat of disorder.”

In other words, as a minister stands and calls the people of God to worship, he is reminding them that though the earth be moved, God is the ordered ruler yet. Or, still in other words, the Christian lives a whirlwind week, full of chaos, disorder, unexpected disturbances, and little rest. On Sunday, however, in the liturgy that same disoriented Christian is reordered, reoriented, and reminded that God calms the whirlwind and the chaos. Why would we want worship that reflects our busy & chaotic weekday lives?

Quotes taken from Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), 191.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Jon Levenson on the Historical Prologue of the Treaty

Jewish OT scholar Jon Levenson again shines as he discusses the suzerainty treaty/covenant in the ancient Near East/OT.  Here he is speaking specifically of the historical prologue.  This is worth reading a few times!

“Israel began to infer and to affirm her identity by telling a story.  To be sure, the story has implications that can be stated as propositions.  For example, the intended implication of the historical prologue is that YHWH is faithful, that Israel can rely on God as a vassal must rely upon his suzerain.  But Israel does not begin with the statement that YHWH is faithful; she infers it from a story.  And unlike the statement, the story is not universal.  It is Israel’s story, with all the particularities of time, place, and dramatis personae one associates with a story and avoids in a statement that aims at universal applicability.”

“In other words, if there is a universal truth of the sort philosophers and even some religions aim to state, Israel seems to have thought that such truth will come through the medium of history, through the structure of public knowledge, through time, and not in spite of these.  History, the arena of public events (as opposed to private, mystical revelation and to philosophical speculation), and time are not illusions or distractions from essential reality.  They are means to the knowledge of God.  The historical prologue is a miniature theology of history” (Jon D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible [New York: Harper Collins, 1985], 39-40).

Wow.  This statement has huge implications for systematic theology, hermeneutics, homiletics, and so forth.  Similarly, notice how Brueggemann talks about “strong verbs:” the OT focus on verbs, he says, “commits us in profound ways to a narrative portrayal of Yahweh, in which Yahweh is the one who is said to have done these deeds” (Walter Brueggeman, Theology of the Old Testament [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997], 145).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Brueggemann: The Good, Bad, the Ugly

Here’s one reason why I love Brueggemann: he totally demolishes OT historical criticism.  He says that historical criticism is a child of the Enlightenment with objective, scientific, and positivistic epistemological assumptions.  Historical critics attempt to explain everything away – including the text itself, Brueggemann laments.

“Such an enterprise…is…incongruent with the text itself.  The text is saturated with the odd, the hidden, the dense, and the inscrutable — the things of God.  Thus, in principle, historical criticism runs the risk that the methods and assumptions to which it is committed may miss the primary intentionality of the text.  Having missed that, the commentaries are filled with unhelpful philological comment, endless redactional explanations, and tedious comparisons with other materials.  Because the primal Subject of the text has been ruled out in principle, scholars are left to deal with these much less interesting questions.”  In other words, the methodology of historical criticism excludes what the text itself says (intends to do).  They’ve missed the major and focus on the minutia.

Here’s why I can’t stand Brueggemann: “It is clear on my reading that the Old Testament is not a witness to Jesus Christ, in any primary or direct sense…unless one is prepared to sacrifice more of the text than is credible.” 

I’ll keep reading Brueggemann, to be sure, but his books that I own are marked with just as many question marks (?) as little stars (*).

Quotes taken from Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), 104, 107.

shane

sunnyside wa

Brueggemann on Using Yahweh

Though one might not always agree with Walter Brueggemann, he is well worth the read.  Check out this section from Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), 184-5.  It has to do with “using” God for our ends/purposes.

“…The possibility of a viable alternative to Egyptian slavery requires a Holy God who, as a critical principle, deabsolutizes every other claimant to ultimate power.  Thus the first three commands (Exod 20:2-7) assert the oddity of Yahweh, who has no utilitarian value and who cannot be recruited or used for any social or human agenda.  The God who commands Israel is an end to be honored and obeyed, and not as a means to be used and exploited…. We may see in the prohibition of images an assertion of the unfettered character of Yahweh, who will not be captured, contained, assigned, or managed by anyone or anything, for any purpose” (emphasis his).

Michael Horton also deals with “using” God in various places of his little book, Too Good to be True (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006).

shane

sunnyside wa