In the so far ongoing epistemology comments, Abraham was mentioned in regard to his sacrifice of Isaac. This reminded me of the paper that I wrote for Dr. Davis' Epistemology class, in which I refer to Abraham (albeit a different incident). I'm not sure that it has much to do with what's being said; I only put it here because I happened to think about it. I've made some minor stylistic changes and have also incorporated the footnotes into the main text, both references and comments. Other than that, it is substantially the same. Since writing it, I have continued to study the implications of the covenants. Consequently, I don't know that I would have written it the same way now or that I would still defend every point. As many who have taken Dr. Davis will know, non-Philosopophy majors, or those doubling in something else, were required to focus their papers on the other major. I had to write something relating Epistemology to Biblical Studies. The title should explain enough to determine if you want to continue reading or just go on to your next scheduled blog.
*****************************************************************
It is a peculiar feature of the Christian life that, as our satisfaction with the things of God increases, so does our desire for them. The more we mature in our knowledge of God, the more ignorant we realize we are. This principle can be seen in Genesis 15. In this chapter, God appears to Abraham and assures him that his offspring will be as the stars in the heavens. It is recorded in vs. 6 (NIV) that "Abraham believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness." It is important to note here that this is the passage that Paul quotes to indicate that Abraham had saving faith. One would think that no further assurances would be necessary. But then a surprising thing happens. God goes on to tell Abraham that he will take possession of the land that he is in, whereupon Abraham asks, "How can I know that I will gain possession of it?" If Abraham already had faith in what God had said, and that a saving faith, then why this request for further assurance?
It would be a mistake to conclude that Abraham only had faith in the part about descendants but not about possession of the land. These are not two separate promises but aspects of the same promise. This promise is first given in Genesis 12:1-3— The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."
This is the Covenant promise, which is mentioned in the New Testament as "the promise." Paul refers to it in Galatians 3:29-If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
In his sermon at Pentecost, Peter connects this promise with the sacrament of baptism. Acts 2:38,39- "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."
So then, back to the original question. Why the necessity to be more sure of what one already believes? Geerhardus Vos observes the following concerning this account of Abraham:
Faith and a desire for faith frequently go hand in hand. The reason is that through faith we lay hold upon God, and in grasping the infinite object, the utter inadequacy of each single act of approbation immediately reveals itself in the very act. It is the same in the Gospel:
'Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief [Mark 9.24] (Biblical Theology, p.83).
The important thing to notice now is the manner in which God answers Abraham. He does so through sacramental means. Because a sacrament is used to answer a request for increased assurance, I would like to argue that it is a function of sacraments to ground our faith and, in so doing, to act as a source of warrant for our knowledge of the truths of that faith. This is accomplished in two ways. First, as signs, the sacraments, just like the Scriptures, are examples of special revelation. Second, as seals, they confirm what has already been promised. Finally, I would like to suggest a way in which people come to know that the sacraments mean something to them.
In his chapter entitled The Content of Pre-Redemptive Special Revelation, Vos argues for special revelation that is not the same as God's Word:
Everything connected with this disclosure is exceedingly primitive. It is largely symbolical, that is, not expressed in words so much as in tokens; and these tokens partake of the general character of Biblical symbolism in that, besides being means of instruction, they are also typical, that is, sacramental, prefigurations conveying assurance concerning the future realization of the things symbolized. The symbolism, however, does not lie in the account as a literary form, which would involve denial of the historical reality of the transactions. It is a real symbolism embodied in actual things (BT, p.27).
Three things should be readily noticed here: l) Sacraments are Symbols, 2) they convey assurance of the things symbolized, and 3) the symbolism is found in the actual things, not in the account of these things. This last point is important if the sacraments are not going to be a superfluous addendum to scripture.
There were, according to Vos, three sacraments (or sacramental Symbols) before the fall. The tree of life, symbolizing the principle of life; the tree of knowledge of good and evil, symbolizing the principle of probation; and the serpent, symbolizing the principle of temptation and sin.
It is important to note that none of these are sacramental to us. For us, there is no distinction between the Symbols and their record in scripture. However, to Adam and Eve, the people alive at that period of history in which they were given, these were sacraments. In much the same way, circumcision and the Passover are not, in their particular historical forms, sacramental to us. We come to know what they meant to God's people in a certain historical epoch by reading their account in scripture. The sacramental significance was to those who were circumcised and to those who partook of the Passover.
Why is this important? Because if the sacramental significance of a thing is found only in its account rather than in its necessary tie to an historical epoch, the sacraments that have been given to the people in that epoch become superfluous. Both sacraments and scripture are special revelation. As the revelation of God is either fulfilled or added onto verbally, the sacraments of prior epochs become obsolete. Newer revelation conveys the same thing. Circumcision and the Passover were both fulfilled in the revelation of Christ. We are now living in the period of God's final revelation, in which he has spoken unto us by his Son. However, because we are also living before the consummation of all things, we too have been provided with sacraments.
Baptism and Communion are the sacraments given to us at this time in history. As such, it must be assumed that they convey a special meaning to us that cannot be gleaned through scripture alone. If this were not the case, then, just as we can sufficiently understand the sacraments of the past by reading about them, so too could we understand those of the present simply by reading about them. Why actually partake of the Lord's Supper when doing so is no more advantageous than hearing a biblical explanation of it?
The sacraments of a given period in history are special revelation to the people therein. Because we can assume that special revelation comes from God and that whatever God reveals is true, we can be warranted in the knowledge that this provides us.
A second way in which the sacraments warrant knowledge is by confirming to us what God has already revealed in his Word. Calvin has the following to say in his Institutes of the Christian Religion IV. 14.5:
Nor are those to be listened to who oppose this view with a more subtle than solid dilemma. They argue thus: We either know that the word of God which precedes the sacrament is the true will of God, or we do not know it. If we know it, we learn nothing new from the sacrament which succeeds. If we do not know it, we cannot learn it from the sacrament, whose whole efficacy depends on the word. Our brief reply is:
The seals which are affixed to diplomas, and other public deeds, are nothing considered in themselves, and would be affixed to no purpose if nothing was written on the parchment, and yet this does not prevent them from sealing and confirming when they are appended to writings. It cannot be alleged that this comparison is a recent fiction of our own, since Paul himself used it, terming circumcision a seal, (Rom. 4: 11,) where he expressly maintains that the circumcision of Abraham was not for justifications but was an attestation to the covenant, by the faith of which he had been previously justified. And how, pray, can any one be greatly offended when we teach that the promise is sealed by the sacrament, since it is plain, from the promises themselves, that one promise confirms another?
We can see this confirmation of a promise by going back to Genesis 15. After
believing the promise made to him by God, Abraham, in asking God how he can know, is essentially asking God to ratify what he has promised. What God does has a two-fold significance. It is in keeping with the contemporary covenant ratification practices of the time: covenants in that day are typically cut. And it sacramentally symbolizes God's final ratification of this covenant, which is his own death.
Whereas, in order to give greater assurance that we intend to keep our word, we might affix our signature to it, the process was different in Abraham's day. The covenant in question was that between a superior and an inferior. Essentially, the superior would make certain promises to the inferior, such as protection from enemies, in exchange for obedience to a list of conditions. Since both parties had obligations, both typically ratified the covenant. The bodies of various animals were cut in two while both sides involved in the covenant walked between them. The idea being that, if any one of them broke the terms of the covenant, they would become like those animals. This time it was different. After Abraham had cut the animals in half, he fell into a deep sleep. God then walked between the pieces alone, signifying that he alone would bear the covenant curse no matter who broke it. This is the unconditional covenant; the covenant of grace.
We know through God's Word, and Abraham knew both sacramentally and through God's Word, that what God said was sure. Hebrews 6:17-19— Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged. We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure.
We are still left with the conditional covenant; that of works. This is most clearly seen in the subsequent if/then propositions that God makes to his people, most, if not all, of which are contained in the Law. But it is not as if the Law was arbitrarily added. God wasn't going back on his word. The covenant curse under which God placed himself makes no sense apart from the Law. The covenant of works came first. This was the covenant symbolized to Adam in pre-redemptive special revelation. Meredith Kline observes that, "Coherence can be achieved in Covenant Theology only by the Subordination of grace to law" (By Oath Consigned, p.35).
Because a covenant rests upon the word of God, who cannot lie, he was not at liberty to throw out the covenant of works in favor of a new improved version. This should provide a measure of comfort to those who realize that his character also prevents him from discarding the covenant of grace.
Because the covenant of grace did not replace that of works but was concurrent, another sacramental sign was given in Genesis 17. That circumcision is primarily symbolic of the covenant of works can be seen in the penalty for not being circumcised: being cut off from his people for breaking the covenant.
In the years since the first advent of Christ, baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant. But this should not be taken to mean that somehow grace has been given the primacy over works. Far from being benign, baptism finds its roots in ancient water ordeals:
Illustrative is the case dealt with in the second law of Hammurapi's Code. The accused was required to cast himself into the river. The word used for river in this law is preceded by the determinative for deity. The concept was, therefore, that the accused was casting himself into the hands of the divine judge who would declare the verdict. Emergence from the divine waters of ordeal would signify vindication: "If the River shows that man to be innocent and he comes forth safe," he shall dispossess his false accuser and the latter shall be put to death. But, "if the River overpowers him, his accuser shall take possession of his estate" (BOC, p. 55).
John the Baptist was the last of the Old Testament prophets. The Messiah was
about to come in judgment upon his people unless they kept the terms of the covenant. John's "baptism was not an ordinance to be observed by Israel in their generations but a special sign for that terminal generation epitomizing the particular crises in covenant history represented by John as messenger of the Lord's Ultimatum" (BOC, p. 61). The baptism of John was sacramental within a particular historical epoch.
It is significant that "the passing of Jesus through the divine judgment in the water rite in the Jordan meant to John's baptism what the passing of Yahweh through the curse of the knife rite of Genesis 15 meant to Abraham's circumcision" (BOC, p. 61). This is how the covenants of works and of grace are harmonized. God takes upon himself the penalty due us when the covenant of works was broken. In so doing, he enters into a covenant of grace with his people. Again, Kline, "In each case the divine action constituted an invitation to all recipients of these covenant signs of consecration to identify themselves by faith with the Lord himself in their passage through the ordeal."
Although Christian baptism is not identical to that ofJ ohn, it does derive much of its significance from it. The sacrament of baptism, as did that of circumcision, conveys a two-fold message. For those who are covenant breakers, it is the assurance that they will one day be cut off though the judgment of God. To those who in faith have been identified with Christ, it is the assurance that Christ has kept the covenant for them.
It has not been within the scope of this paper to deal very much with the sacrament of communion. I do, however, believe it to carry the same kind of covenanantal significance. Jesus did call it the New Covenant in his blood and Paul speaks of eating and drinking damnation to ourselves. As it has been seen, the sacraments convey warrant for belief both in their functions as signs and as seals. However, both ways beg the question of subjectivity. For the former, how do we know that God is actually the one behind the special revelation? For the latter, how do we distinguish genuine faith from a subjective feeling of identification with Christ? The answer, I believe, is found in the fact that the Holy Spirit gives us the ability to perceive the things of God, as though we had a spiritual sense.
If we believe that man is not just physical, that he has a spiritual nature;
if we believe that spiritual beings, such as angels, have the capacity to sense the world around them; then it shouldn't be a stretch to believe that God can create in our spiritual natures the ability to perceive spiritual truths. Calvin says in the Institutes IV. 14.9:
But suppose it is true that what sight does in our eyes for seeing light, and what hearing does in our ears for perceiving a voice, are analogous to the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, which is to conceive, sustain, nourish, and establish faith. Then both of these things follow: the sacraments profit not a whit without the power of the Holy Spirit, and nothing prevents them from strengthening and enlarging faith in hearts already taught by that Schoolmaster. There is only this difference: that our ears and eyes have naturally received the faculty of hearing and seeing; but Christ does the same thing in our hearts by special grace beyond the measure of nature.
That the sacraments are a means of grace is seen to be all the more true. The Holy Spirit uses both the sacraments and the sacramental aspect of preaching to effect our regeneration. It is in this regeneration that he gives us the eyes and ears of faith. Our faith then perceives what is revealed through the sacraments and grows thereby. Belief in the things of God is not the result of a rationalistic process. It comes about simply by perceiving what God has placed in front of us. Belief is no more a work than is seeing or hearing our natural world. But it only comes to those to whom God has given eyes to see and ears to hear.
Posted by kcourter at setembro 21, 2003 1:39 AM