Thursday, March 26, 2015

An Exegetical Basis for Truth as Correspondence to Reality



I was fascinated the other day to notice a verse in Proverbs that seemed to provide the beginnings of an exegetical argument for a “correspondence” definition of truth. Further study convinced me that “truth” in Scripture is defined in terms of correspondence to reality.

Before I trace out the full argument, here’s the quick summary: Truth is a form of righteousness. Righteousness is the condition of measuring up to a standard. The standard for truth in Scripture is whether a statement matches or corresponds to reality. Therefore, truth is that which corresponds to reality.

Truth as Righteousness
Proverbs 12:17 reads, “He who speaks truth tells what is right, But a false witness, deceit” (nasb). Another way of translating v. 17 is, “he who breathes out truth, declares righteousness” [יָפִ֣יחַ אֱ֭מוּנָה יַגִּ֣יד צֶ֑דֶק].

Proverbs 12:17 establishes a relationship between truth and righteousness. Since righteousness as a category may denote the condition of object, persons, and statements, truth must be a subset of righteousness.

The Meaning of Righteousness
In the OT, the normal sense of “righteousness” is the condition of measuring up to a given standard. Context determines what standard is in view.

For example in Deut. 25:15, God requires a “righteous” weight, and a “righteous” measure (cf. Lev. 19:36). A weight or a measure is “righteous” when it meets the approved standard. A one lb. weight that weighs less than or more than one pound is not righteous. If it weighs one lb. then it is righteous.

In the same way a person is righteous when they measure up to the standard in view. David declares his righteousness in regard to the standard of “not doing evil to one’s friend” in Psalm 7:4-8.

To speak what is “righteous,” then, is to speak what measures up to the standard in view.

Reality as the Standard for Truth’s Righteousness
Precisely what standard Scripture has in view is clarified by Proverbs 14:5 which addresses truth-telling and lying.

Proverbs 14:5 “A trustworthy witness will not lie, But a false witness utters lies.”

The phrase translated “trustworthy witness” is more literally a “witness of truth” [עֵד אֱמוּנִים].

Whereas Pro. 12:17 gave us a positive definition of truth (=righteousness), Prov. 14:5 gives us a negative definition: speaking truth is the opposite of lying. It is a false witness who lies.

Scriptural examples of a false witness’s lies include declaring the innocent guilty or the guilty innocent (Exod. 23:7), or stating that you do not have an item when, in fact, you do have it (Lev. 6:3).

Truth-telling is subject to empirical verification
Deut. 19:18 further expands our understanding of the way in which God defines truth. When an allegation is made, God required judges to investigate carefully to determine whether the allegation was false.

In other words, the truth of an allegation must be empirically verified. That is possible only when one conceives of truth as that which corresponds to the facts of reality. What does not correspond to reality is false, and if told with the intent to deceive it constitutes “false-witnessing.”

Turning to the NT, we find Peter declaring Ananias’ statement a lie because it intentionally asserted what he knew did not correspond to reality (Acts 5:1-4).

In no instance does Scripture use the language of truth to describe a statement that fails to correspond to reality. The biblical conception of truth always entails a correspondence between the intended assertion and reality.

Kinds of Correspondences to Reality
The precise nature of the correspondence between a true assertion and reality is, of course, a function of an author’s intention. That intention is signaled by the choice of genre and vocabulary.

For example, the genre of apocalyptic literature signals that the author intends a broad scale correspondence through figurative language. The use of numbers that lack digits in the one and tens places often signals an author’s intent to offer an approximate or rounded correspondence to reality. Similiarly, when an author uses words such as “like, about, approximately” he is also signaling a general rather than precise correspondence to reality.

Poetic affirmations are no less truth bearers than historical narrative, but the modes are different and so the tools for decoding the intended correspondence to reality will be different.

New Appreciation for “Thy Word is Truth”
The following affirmations regarding Scripture have gained new salience for me in light of the above study:

2 Samuel 7:28 “O Lord GOD, … Your words are truth …”
Psalm 119:142 “… Your law is truth.”
Psalm 119:160 “The sum of Your word is truth …”
2 Timothy 2:15 “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.”

Rather than being bland, ho-hum statements that God is not lying, these verses become powerful affirmation that the Scriptures are entirely trustworthy and correspond to reality in all their particulars.

Praise God!

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Remove not the ancient landmark ... what does that mean?



KJV  Proverbs 22:28 Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.

What were the “ancient landmarks?” and why weren’t they to be moved? I have on various occasions read or heard this text referenced when talking about traditional practices created by the fathers of a particular group of people. The context in which this phrase is referenced generally is admonishing people not to make changes to such traditional practices.

For example, Nathan Bangs in 1850 speaks of the Methodist Episcopal Church’s “ancient landmarks” of “doctrine, discipline, or practical piety.” Similarly, I find a sermon published in 1886 in which the “ancient landmarks” were “noble patriotism, religion, and learning.” As recently as this semester, a college student asked me, “But what about the verse that says we aren’t to remove the ancient landmarks?” He had heard that verse quoted often in defense of the traditional lifestyle practices of his background.

A quick look at a dictionary shows that the word “landmark” in modern English may refer to some “object in the landscape that serves as a guide in the direction of one’s course.” Given this English meaning, one can easily see how Proverbs 22:28 and 23:10 in the KJV could be used metaphorically to refer to doctrine or standards that serve as guides.

However, there are at least two problems with this. First, it imports a modern English meaning into the KJV. A quick look at the Oxford English Dictionary online shows that “landmark” in the 1611 KJV referred to “the boundary of a country, estate, etc.; an object set up to mark a boundary line.” Second, it fails to account for the meaning of the Hebrew word behind “landmark,” gebul. This Hebrew word refers to the boundary of a territory or, by metonymy, to a wall or other item which marks such a boundary.

Given this information, it is easy to see the connection between Proverbs 22:28 and passages in Deuteronomy such as the following:
Deuteronomy 19:14 “You shall not move your neighbor’s boundary mark, which the ancestors have set, in your inheritance which you will inherit in the land that the LORD your God gives you to possess.”

Deuteronomy 27:17 ‘Cursed is he who moves his neighbor’s boundary mark.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’
The “landmarks” or “boundary marks” (NASB) were placed in Israel by God (cf. Josh. 13-19) to provide each tribe their inheritance in the promised land of Canaan. Within each tribe, families and individuals also received land whose boundaries were marked with “landmarks.”

Why would God curse the person who moves a neighbor’s landmark? Because it is a form of theft. If you shift the boundary markers, then you can claim more land than was actually allotted to you, or than you acquired by purchase.

In essence Pro. 22:28 is saying, “Don’t steal your neighbor’s land.” No matter how old the misuse of this verse, it cannot legitimately be used as a text to warn people against changing traditional beliefs or practices.

For those who don’t know Hebrew:
You wouldn’t need to know Hebrew to recognize that this verse is talking about property boundaries. Just compare English translations, and you’ll find “ancient boundary stone” in several. Check biblehub.com, and you’ll find plenty of commentaries that make this clear. (Not all of them get it correct, but a good majority do.) Alternately, you could search the Strong’s number associated with “landmarks” and discover that it always means something like border, coast, or limit.

Saturday, February 28, 2015

Keeping Torah and Self-indulgence

Proverbs 28:7 He who keeps the law is a discerning son, But he who is a companion of gluttons humiliates his father. (NASB)


Yahweh pronounces the keeper of His Torah discerning or understanding. Thus, Yahweh’s Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy) must reflect the path of understanding, and teach us that Yahweh Himself, who gave such understanding, is understanding.

The juxtaposition here is fascinating: a companion of gluttons vs. a keeper of Torah. Being a  keeper of Torah winnows your companions. Keeping Torah and self-indulgence are antithetical. The Torah’s understanding then teaches that gluttony is contrary to the nature of Yahweh. You, O Yahweh, are not self-indulgent, gluttonous, or undisciplined in your intake of pleasure.

Our culture teaches us that more is better. The more pleasure, the better. But Your Torah does not teach this. It teaches me that the best amount of pleasure is limited by wisdom and discipline. Beyond those bounds, pleasure becomes harmful, destructive, and thus contrary to wisdom, unlike Yahweh.

Grant me understanding to keep your Torah. Holy Spirit, guide me in self-discipline. Grant me eyes to see that enough is best, and to know when enough has been reached.

Tuesday, February 03, 2015

Progressive Revelation ≠ Progressive Inscripturation



What follows are some musings on biblical theology that I've been mulling over since grad school days. On Friday of last week I took the opportunity to run this idea past Dr. John Oswalt who was on GBSC’s campus to teach Old Testament Theology. His concurrence encouraged me to post.


Historically, some Biblical Theologians have confused the progress of revelation's inscripturation with the progress of revelation itself. The progress of inscripturated revelation is the history of the writing of Scripture. The progress of revelation, on the other hand, is the historical order in which God revealed truth. The progress of revelation can only be determined when Scripture itself explicitly states that a particular part of revelation was being given for the first time or had not been given before.

For example, Genesis 26:5 states, “because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.” Since we have no revelation regarding what commandments, statutes, and laws God gave to Abraham, we have no way of knowing which of the Mosaic commandments, statutes, and laws had already been revealed to Abraham. The history of revelation is not equal to the history of the inscripturation of revelation.

Another example with regard to biblical history: The first place in Scripture we find reference to Enoch prophesying is Jude 1:14. In the history of inscripturated revelation, this doesn’t appear until close to the end of the first century AD. However, in history itself, it occurred prior to the flood. In the history of the transmission of revelation it, apparently, was transmitted orally until it was written down in 1 Enoch c. 200-160 BC.

This same text (Jude 1:14) provides us an inspired record of the content of Enoch’s prophecy: “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

Progress of revelation: the coming of Yahweh with ten thousands of holy ones to execute judgment was known in Enoch’s time – pre-flood.
Progress of inscripturation: Perhaps the first recording of revelation similar to this is Daniel 7:10

If a biblical theologian were to try to trace the doctrine of a judgment by Yahweh accompanied with his holy ones based on the idea’s appearance in the canon, he would make this a late theological development. Yet, given the NT’s revelation, it is a theological idea that has been around at least since the time of Enoch!

Implications

Unless the text explicitly or implicitly indicates that its revelation had not been known or given before, the biblical theologian cannot know whether what is recorded in Scripture was known prior to its recording. This, it seems to me, severely limits developing a history of revelation. At best we can develop a history of the inscripturation of revelation.