Tilling’s Definition of Heresy

Chris Tilling has a thoughtful post about heresy. I agree with everything he says, except the degree to which he denies a principle of sound theology, traditionally summed up in the phrase tota scriptura. The example the post discusses, limited atonement, illustrates the need to recover tota scriptura; any appeal to “the general tenor of scripture” papers over rather than solves the problem. Perhaps Chris and others will enjoy reading a take on the topic a bit at odds with his.

Chris asks a rhetorical question, “Would I be a heretic to be opposed to some of the prayers prayed in the Psalms ('Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock' 137:9), or when I find myself in ethical contradiction to the 'ethnic cleansing' in the OT?”

I call this a rhetorical question because Chris assumes that practically everyone, on hearing it, will nod and say, “I too find Psalm 137:9 impossible to pray, and consider God’s reported insistence that Israel annihilate the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15 beyond the pale.”

To which I would respond: if that is the case, I expect you are also in denial about the drama the cross points to and resolves. Texts like the ones mentioned form the essential backdrop to the passion of the Christ. To use a term employed by Chris that deserves wider circulation, the assertions of Psalm 137 and 1 Samuel 15 are sublated in the assertions in the New Testament with respect to the cross. Remove the former, and you hollow out the latter.

Psalm 137 and 1 Samuel 15 are great test cases of one’s ability to grasp the nettle of the most basic structural realities of human existence. As I’ve said before, if one can embrace these texts rather than be repelled by them, then one has come close to understanding the human predicament. The fact that a prayer for tit-for-tat vengeance and a call to annihilate a nation that previously sought to annihilate yours are found in the Bible is a remarkable testimony to that body of literature’s ability to hit the reader with truth as hard as Tarantino does in Pulp Fiction or Kill Bill. Actually, the comparison is unfair. To Ps 137 and 1 Sam 15, not Tarantino.

Potentially, then, those who effectively remove Psalm 137 and 1 Samuel 15 from the word of God are on the road to heresy. But, since I’m well-aware that the majority of Christians take the easy way out and simply reject the Old Testament as passé whenever it offends their refined sensibilities, let me put it another way. Those who effectively remove Matthew 7:13-14 and Revelation 22:10-12 from the word of God are on the road to heresy.

Yes, I also believe that all of the above passages are to be interpreted in light of John 12:31-32 and 1 John 2:1-2, not the other way around. This follows from another principle of sound theology, sola gratia. And that is the basic gist of Chris’s post, or so it seems to me.

Comments

[stephen.peltz]

But surely the problem here is whether God commanded or approved of such acts. Tota scriptura is well and good. But when a text affirms something about God that is contrary to the general tenor of biblical teaching about God, that's a problem — no?

[JohnFH]

In the case of 1 Sam 15, God commanded the act. In the case of Psalm 137, God did not, historically, grant the psalmist's request, but saw to it that the prayer was preserved in our Bibles.

What is the general tenor of Scripture? According to Harnack, it's about God the Father and the infinite value of the human soul. Perhaps it is not surprising that he thought that the Old Testament is best jettisoned by Christians.

Is the general tenor of Scripture about God's fierce love for his people, with 'God's people' understood in a variety of particular senses such that God takes sides in human conflicts? I think this description of the contents of scripture is on the mark.

If so, I'm not sure how Psalm 137 and 1 Sam 15 go against the general tenor of Scripture.

[Peter Kirk]

If as you say (and I agree) "all of the above passages are to be interpreted in light of John 12:31-32 and 1 John 2:1-2, not the other way around", doesn't that mean the L petal has disappeared from your TULIP?

[JohnFH]

Pretty much, Peter.

Still, though I believe talk of "limited atonement" to be misleading, and a straw which some grasp in the hope of justifying their lack of desire to make disciples of all nations, I've noticed that universalists (those with U's of that kind among their petals) tend to justify all kinds of unbiblical notions and practices based on their Uism.

In fact, I think a great spiritual danger comfortable Christians face is that of wallowing in universalism.

I stand by my earlier redefinition of the L:

Limited atonement is a reality faced today. The consequences of sin are still born in part by sin’s perpetrators and victims. The time is coming, and is almost here, when the Lamb’s victory over sin will be universal.

[James Pate]

I don't entirely agree with Stephen's statement that God did not grant the Psalmist's request. On one hand, he is possibly right, since the Persians took Babylon without much of a fight. On the other hand, Jeremiah predicts devastation for Babylon in the name of the LORD, so the tone of Psalm 137 is upheld as God's opinion.

[JohnFH]

It was me, James, who noted that God did not grant the Psalmist's request.

You are right to point out that Jeremiah prophesies Babylon's destruction in pretty much tit-for-tat fashion.

It didn't happen. Babylon was conquered but Cyrus made a big point of NOT destroying it.

Unfulfilled prophecy of this kind is not unusual in the Hebrew Bible. It was accepted, probably with difficulty (see the book of Jonah), that God might be gracious where justice, strictly speaking, was called for. Unfulfilled prophecy of doom on enemy nations, like unanswered prayer for vengeance (Psalm 137), was considered worthy of preservation. Its truth, though counterfactual, was nonetheless affirmed.

By the way, counterfactual truth claims form a part of the warp and woof of every healthy religion. Even civil religion is based on counterfactual truth claims: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." But, as we all know, men are not created equal, far from it; and the unalienable rights are not such: people are deprived of them every day. These words tell us what should be the case, not what is the case. Biblical prophecy is a bit like that.

I touch on the question a little bit more in the "Unfulfilled Prophecy" series indexed in the left sidebar.

[stephen (aka Q)]

• Is the general tenor of Scripture about God's fierce love for his people, with 'God's people' understood in a variety of particular senses such that God takes sides in human conflicts?

You imply that there is going to be significant disagreement about what the "general tenor" of scripture actually is. I agree with you there.

Indeed, I think the principle only carries us a short distance. In my view, scripture is multivocal; ultimately it preserves different perspectives without harmonizing them. Not merely on marginal issues, but some core issues as well.

In any event, I don't think we can characterize the general tenor of scripture as God fights on behalf of God's people, right or wrong. If that were so, the OT wouldn't climax with Israel going into exile.

Moreover, Christians generally affirm (don't they?) that there is a progression outward from Israel toward an understanding that YHWH is the God of all the nations. Even prior to Christ, we have texts such as these two:

• In that day Israel will be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom the Lord of hosts has blessed, saying, "Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my inheritance" (Is. 19:24-25).

• "Are you not like the Cushites to me, O people of Israel?" declares the Lord. "Did I not bring up Israel from the land of Egypt,and the Philistines from Caphtor and the Syrians from Kir?" (Amos 9:7).

So I don't agree that the general tenor of scripture is, God commands the "ethnic cleansing" of the Amalekites because ultimately God is partial to the people of Israel.

In my view, the problem remains. Although there are texts that do depict YHWH as a warlike God who fights on behalf of Israel, I think those texts conflict with other texts, and contradict the general tenor of scripture.

[James Pate]

Sorry about that--to you and Stephen. I sometimes get the authors' names confused, probably because I'm used to seeing the name above the post. I also one time attributed a post you wrote to Iyov (imagine that!).

I read your posts on unfulfilled prophecy a while ago. I remember you saying that the prophets wrote what they thought should happen, or what God wanted to happen--I'll have to take a fresh look. What I thought at the time was that God is able to do what he wants, so the prophecies should be fulfilled. I agree more with what you said in the post above--that God is gracious and can change his mind.

[JohnFH]

Thanks, Stephen, for keeping the conversation going. We agree on all kinds of things, but in the interests of brevity, I will concentrate on our disagreements.

I don't think the Hebrew Bible "climaxes" with the people of Israel going into exile. It climaxes instead in at least two other, quite different ways. Both climaxes are forward-looking. One seems to imagine a world going into the future in which Amalekites and Israelites cleanse each other forever and ever amen. The other, ultimately, does not.

I think you are right to subordinate passages like 1 Sam 15 and Psalm 137 to the ones you cite in the context of a larger theology of hope. I would follow you completely if that is what you wish to do.

But if that is true, the conflict between 1 Sam 15 and Ps 137 and the texts you cite is the same conflict we see every day between reality as it is and reality as we pray it will be when there will be a new heavens and a new earth (in terms of the ending of the book of Isaiah or of Revelation).

The Hebrew Bible climaxes with the Pentateuch being treated as a unit to itself, such that the promises and curses of Leviticus and Deuteronomy and the command to Abram to go out from there (the diaspora) provide a metanarrative for a Jewish community that knows itself to be divided between a segment in the land and a segment outside of it. In terms of this narrative, Amalekite-on-Israelite like violence and vice-versa is taken for granted, regulated in theory, and experienced in reality in very contradictory ways.

But the Hebrew Bible also climaxes with the prophets treated as a unit in itself. Thee exile is not at all the final word here, either. Instead we find the promises and dashed hopes and renewed promises of Isa 40-66, the book of consolation of Jeremiah, Ezekiel 36-48, Zechariah, Haggai, and Malachi; and the historical narrative of Ezra-Nehemiah. Within the viscera of this tumultuous narrative, a vision of a world in which wars shall cease takes shape in a rainbow of colors.

You may know the famous midrash which resolves the conflict between the climaxes, or horizons if you will, just referred to, in an interesting way. God has just saved the people of Israel from hand of the Egyptians and the house of slavery and the Egyptians have just been drowned en masse in the Red Sea. The angels ask God if they can join with the children of Israel in their praise for salvation obtained. God answers, "No, you cannot, because as for me, I am weeping for my people Egypt."

Would you agree that the Midrash resolves the conflict in accord with the general tenor of Scripture? I think it does. But that did not stop those who created the Midrash from reading the parasha about the Amalekites year upon year, knowing full well that it too spoke an undeniable truth, even as they came and continue to come face-to-face with one Amalek after another across a blood-spattered history.

[JohnFH]

Hopefully, James, I'm progressing in my thought! Thanks for your comments.

[Chris Tilling]

Great post, thanks for the comment. I wrote this in the comments to my original post:

"That is a helpful post. Thanks. I would want to qualify my approach in light of the implication that I say Psalm 137 is not the word of God. Surely it is, but only in light of the whole biblical story. I wanted to oppose a simple proof-texting orthodoxy with my comments, one that alone, does not work for me."

Thank you for forcing me to think more carefully about how I phrase myself!

[JohnFH]

Thanks, Chris, for your thoughtful and funny blog, not to mention your post on heresy which started this conversation off.