This brief article written by William Weinrich in the Concordia Theological Quarterly (CTQ) is
a great example of the value that “theological writing” can provide for
“historical critical” enquiry and vice versa. Unfortunately, the CTQ is a Lutheran journal and as such,
its readership is mostly Lutheran affiliated organizations and very good
scholarship in it is not read more widely. This persists despite the fact that
many of contributors – mostly faculty at the Ft. Wayne Theological Seminary –
have written books that are more widely read in scholarly circles – consider,
for example the number of editors of the Ancient
Christian Commentary on Scripture series which are faculty at the seminary.
I write this review, therefore, because I have a foot in both worlds – I can
work in “theological” circles just as easily as “historical critical” – indeed,
for my own work on the New Testament and its influence, I struggle to see the
practical distinction as both have the primary goal of gleaning meaning out of the text (in theoretical
discourses, it is very important, but in practical application, the best “theology”
and the best “history” are those that construct meaning based upon internal
consistency and historical referent). I hope that this brief review will
encourage reading of this interesting article.
Weinrich explores the interest of “time” in the Hebrew Bible
and how that interest is expressed and expanded the early church. His
fundamental argument is that the Hebrew Bible saw humans as being temporal, as Weinrich expounds upon Wisdom: “That is to say that the
existence of man, precisely as that which has a future, is characterized by
time. Man does not exist in time;
rather, man is temporal.”[1]
Weinrich goes on to discuss this implication for the history of the early
church and the way that “time” is managed. What is incredibly valuable for the
historical critic is the way in which Weinrich has presented the framework of
thought that was set in motion beginning with the promise to Abraham (or
possibly yet earlier) the way in which humans were set as temporal. This
framework is the engine of the apocalyptic
interest in Jewish and Christian texts in the centuries surrounding the New
Testament. This aspect of the Hebrew Bible as expressing humans as temporal is
too often assumed in good work on the apocalyptic.[2]
Because this article is “theology” it is trying very much to present a full
“worldview” or “mindset” that lies behind the application of it in apocalyptic
eschatology – a method that is often seen as too “far reaching” or
“generalizing” for historical reconstruction.
From the time of Abraham forward (and Weinrich even suggests
from creation itself), was a people looking into the future. Weinrich borrows
Herbert Butterfield that Israel was always seen as a “timed” people because
they were always looking to the future promise that was due them:
As Butterfield noted, “the whole
history of the people had been a history based on the Promise.” That is, the
future (i.e. the promise) gave structure and significance to the history of
Israel. The future, as it were, constantly intruded upon the events of Israel
and, in doing so, moved Israel onward toward that very future. Israel was
eschatologically determined, and her fulfillment lay beyond her own history.[3]
Weinrich astutely points out that Israel was a people of
time. They built their religiosity from the start upon a temporal structure –
right now they are promised something in the future.
That temporality always was based upon the end – the future
promise would be teleologically fulfilled:
Time stretched out toward the
future, for time was not an empty vessel but was laden with meaning. It is
important to note, however, that the meaning that filled the moments of time
was determined by the final purpose
of God. For the Hebrew mind, not the beginning, but the end was decisive.[4]
The way that this can be teleologically fulfilled for
meaning in the present depends, as Weinrich points out, that time was not just
an empty place holder, but instead time had meaning. This is very much found in
the later prophets (such as Jeremiah) wherein time is set as a medium through
which God works out his plan. Abraham’s promise will be fulfilled, but it has
not been yet because God needs time to be fulfilled with its fullest meaning
before it can be concluded.
This makes logical sense why, in the Hebrew Bible, that the
meaning was found in history. If a group believes in the divine structure of
time as an unfolding of the plan of God, then it matters what has been revealed
in the past. Weinrich, once again citing Butterfield explains:
As a temporal, historical being,
man is given a life to live. In the Old Testament this life was exhibited by
practice and habit that was in obedience to the statutes and commandments of
God. Butterfield notes that when the question arose as to why Israel ought to
observe the commandments, they did not resort to ethical discourse or
philosophical explanation. They appealed yet again to their history.[5]
Here, Butterfield (and Weinrich) are discussing Deuteronomy.
The book of Deuteronomy is a call to the past to understand the present.
Weinrich is completely correct to suggest that when there was an ethical
challenge, they looked the past.
The interesting point is not that they did this, it was how they did this. The goal of the
looking back upon the past was a way of setting into their lives structure of
God’s divine manifestation of humanity as the expression of God’s action just
as much as the progression of time itself. The correlation between the “end of
time” and the “end of man” were united. Neither thing would ever “expire” they
would instead both reach their telos.
They would be fulfilled and a new type of “time” and a new type of “man” would
be expected. Weinrich shows this connection:
Not surprisingly then, therefore,
according to biblical understanding, when the true Man appears, the fullness of
times has likewise come (see Matt 3:17; Gal 4:4). The eschatological end of all
times is defined as the eschatological consummation of man.[6]
Here, Weinrich shows a key aspect of the study of both
Hebrew Bible and the New Testament – that time and humanity are theologically
linked. They both are necessary and are developing toward an eventual telos.
Now, Weinrich is very much doing theology. He is taking this
very good insight and then applying it to his view of the role of the Christian
church today having time being fulfilled and the measures of times enacted in a
new way in Christ:
Thus, there is a continuity, for
the history of Israel and the cultic celebrations of its past are not replaced,
abolished, or superseded. They yet exist and are celebrated. However, they now
exist and are celebrated as that which has found its fulfillment and
consummation.[7]
Here, he has rather interesting theological arguments that
are worth considering; however, I’d be the first to admit that I am not the one
to be considering them. As an exegete, what I am interested in is his
theological insights that can help in understanding the texts of the Old and
New Testaments.
In the New Testament, nearly all (a few minor exceptions) of
the books hold some type of apocalyptic eschatology. There is nearly always an
ideal that evil resides in the world as it is. Therefore, the time has drawn
short and Jesus will return and destroy all evil in this world so that the
people of God can live in harmony with him. This basic idea of apocalyptic
eschatology was already present in Judaism and popular at this time. Indeed,
there is even a genre of literature called an “apocalypse.” These books are
fully in this theological spectrum and have been well defined by scholars. The
classic definitions arise from John and Adele Yarbro Collins. They argue that
there is a relatively clear definition of an “apocalypse:”
A genre of revelatory literature
with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly
being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both
temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar
as it involves another, supernatural world.[8]
To interpret present, the earthly
circumstances in light of the supernatural world and of the future, and to
influence both the understanding and the behavior of the audience by means of
divine authority.[9]
Together, these two brief definitions are probably the most
popular and most cited definitions of apocalypses available. What is noteworthy
is how both of them depend so much on the issue of the temporal. Apocalypses look at time as a unified entity that
encapsulates the whole meaning of existence. Time, thus folded up and
understood together, provides the key meaning of the human experience.
What is important, then, about Weinrich’s article, is that
he shows the attitude behind an apocalypse. Time can only be viewed this way
for a group that is suffering (the usual audience of apocalypses), if there is
a preexisting theology of time and humanity as inextricably linked. Weinrich
shows how this is possible. Therefore, this article is very important and ought
to be considered when discussing “worldviews” of the readers of the New
Testament.
[1] Weinrich, 6.
[2] See for
example the work of John Collins and Adele Yarbro Collins – their analysis is
excellent, but this understanding of temporality is too often reduced or
completely absent.
[3] Weinrich, 9.
[4] Weinrich, 8.
[5] Weinrich,
7-8.
[6] Weinrich, 7.
[7] Weinrich,
11.
[8] John
Collins, Semeia, 1979.
[9] Adele Yarbro
Collins, Semeia, 1986.
No comments:
Post a Comment