The Impact Of Reason On Faith, Ethics And Belief

By Geran F. Dodson

The purpose of the book is to examine the theological claims of ethics, faith and belief from a philosophical perspective. The Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants of the Old Testament, Jesus of the synoptic gospels, and Paul’s writings serve as the frame of reference in examining a biblical expression of reason and structured logic.
The m

• Language: English
• Publisher: Vernon Press
• Release date: Aug 11, 2016
• ISBN: 9781622730759

Geran F. Dodson

Geran F. Dodson is an adjunct professor at the University of North Georgia, Gainesville, GA, and Strayer University, Atlanta, GA. An instructor in the College of Arts and Letters and the College of Business at both universities, he teaches Philosophy, Religion, Humanities, Economics, and Business. His degrees include the Bachelor of Arts from Millsaps College, Jackson, MS; Master of Divinity, Lexington Theological Seminary, Lexington, KY; Master of Business Administration, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; and Post-graduate studies in New Testament, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.

Book preview

Introduction

Recently the media reported on a tornado that tore through north Georgia killing several people. Television cameras showed concrete foundations where homes once stood, naked buildings with only steel girders standing, and forests with trees striped of leaves and branches. Cars had been flung thrown through the air, bridges were rearranged over muddy waters, and highways were missing chunks of asphalt. Interviewing one of the residents of the area the reporter asked about the damage inflicted. Well, the tornado took our house and everything we owned. The same happened to most of our neighbors. Our family wasn’t hurt. We prayed to God and he protected us, but the family next door was not so lucky. They lost their lives.

As I listened to the explanation of events it reminded me that we create our own view of the world and then apply our perception of interpretation. For anyone to perceive the world from a delusional, biased, or idealistic posture is the ultimate act of insanity. If God spared the lives of this gentleman’s family, why were the lives of a father, mother, and two children from next door taken?

The human mind is a fascinating creation that has a tendency to break the various aspects of life into the categories of natural versus supernatural, good versus evil, worldly versus heavenly, and temporal versus eternal. Often the mind goes on a joy ride and never invites logic along and other times the mind is so logical that it refuses to accept anything that is not empirically proven. People maintain longstanding beliefs but when some inexplicable event occurs the event is often moved to the realm of faith where no explanations are required. Faith thus becomes the scapegoat of belief.

The Biblical covenants of Abraham and God, Moses and God, Jesus and God, and Paul and God are the foundation on which to base an inquiry into the relationship of God and humanity. An investigation into this relationship requires insights of philosophy and theology, and although theology and philosophy frequently step on each other’s toes, philosophy offers observations and insights that often challenge theological positions.

The history of Israel is the story of a people in relationship with YHWH that began with the creation of the world and wove its way through hundreds of years of history. Israel’s story is told within the framework of covenants between God and humanity beginning with the Adamic Covenant and ending with the Pauline Covenant in the New Testament. There are stories within stories, such as Abraham who was commanded to sacrifice his son Isaac, the struggles of Moses leading Israel through forty years in the desert, and Joshua as he led Israel into battle against foreign enemies.

There is Job who underwent a test of faithfulness to God, Jeremiah as he tried to turn the tide of spiritual depravity of Israel, Hosea who compared the unfaithfulness of Israel to a harlot, and Judah Maccabee as he led the people in revolt against foreign rule. In the New Testament Jesus spoke of the immediacy of repentance and the Kingdom of God and there was Paul who nurtured churches, systematized Christian thought, and developed the last biblical covenant.

The Bible encompasses a number of covenantal stories within the greater context of Israel’s relationship to God. Its story is broken down chronologically into smaller ones that recount events and personages within the context of legends and myths. Although presented within the framework of chronology that was not intended to be historically accurate, it is in reality a theological interpretation of that relationship with God. The stories highlight the struggles of the faith and belief of individuals and the nation of Israel as they seek to be obedient to God. With the coming of Jesus and Paul the content of faith took on a different twist and was the beginning of the separation of Old Testament Israel from New Testament Israel. From a Jewish perspective the Old Testament story is continuing today.

Philosophical theology approaches the study of theology with philosophical reflection, methods, and language. The objective is to investigate the truth of theological claims apart from spiritual insight and divine revelation and to test the credibility of theological claims. Logic is necessary to understand the language of scripture and the concepts of faith, belief, and ethics. Consequently, much of the discussion centers in the use of logic in scripture, the validity of theological arguments viewed from a philosophical perspective, and the nature of theological language.

The inquiry explores the theological supposition that propositions are based on spiritual insight and divine revelation as opposed to evidence based proof. Scripture shows that Jesus was a master logician who employed hypothetical, conditional, inductive, and causal logic in his teachings. Categorical deductive syllogistic logic is the one form of logic that defies application regarding proof of the existence of God.

An examination of the nature of philosophical ethics led to investigating the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants and the ethical foundations of Jesus and Paul. Ethics in the New Testament exhibits characteristics of philosophical ethics with regard to teleology, deontology, and virtue ethics. Abraham and Moses acted on the belief that the laws given to Israel were reflective of the nature of God and worthy of imitation. The driving force in Paul’s ethics was to seek the will of God in every situation whereas Jesus sought that which was good and pleasing to God.

Faith and belief are based on spiritual experiences and divine revelation. Abraham and Moses believed God was real because of their spiritual experience and they expressed it by following their vision’s directives. Jesus and Paul believed they were messengers of God and expressed that belief in action, Jesus in the message of the Kingdom of God and Paul in the message of the risen Christ. The existence of an omnipotent God was the ultimate authority as the author of experiences and revelation as attested to by faith and belief.

The Jesus Covenant was founded on the life, ministry, and death of Jesus, and its message was repentance and the arrival of the present Kingdom of God. The Kingdom was the new covenant as promised by the prophets in the Old Testament. Paul’s covenant was grounded in the belief that Jesus of Nazareth was the risen Christ and that the resurrection was the gift of the Spirit that brought eternal life.

Several questions arose regarding the identity of God. The Ugarit tablets, anthropomorphism, evolutionary psychology of religion, atheism, and new religious movements contributed to understanding that identity. Yahweh is El of the Ugaritic text, is dependent on human attributes, changes identity over time, and cannot be known as ultimate reality except by revelation. Investigations into anthropomorphism, evolutionary psychology of religion, atheism, and new religious movements provided a great deal of important information regarding the identity of God.

An examination of the psychology of belief and humanity’s religious identity in relationship to God’s identity provided insight into the nature of humanity’s identity. Whether one is oriented around intuition or seeks evidence based proof is a function of one’s cultural, education, and social orientation.

Finally, the question arises whether reason can expand the horizons of faith by the impact of the knowable on the unknowable. Theological truths lie within the context of faith, and reason stands apart from faith and infers only that which can be proven based on evidence. That which is knowable by faith cannot be known by reason since reason cannot validate that which is not proven to exist.

A word about methodology is in order. First, only the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are used in the investigation into the life and ministry of Jesus because they present a united and common view of Jesus. The gospel of John depicts a Jesus who was the creation of the evangelist and a reflection of the Christian community of which John was a member. The sayings of Jesus presented in John are unreliable and cannot be traced back to the historical Jesus as presented in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. John’s account is Christological, not historical, and portrays a Jesus whose main mission was to reveal the true nature of God. The synoptic gospels are the cornerstone of scholarly insight into the life and ministry of Jesus.

Second, although the word God may seem a bit general, I have used it synonymously with the spelling of the Hebrew word YHWH (Yahweh). The same sense of the word is used in sections with Jesus and Paul. In addition I have distinguished the word YHWH from polytheistic deities by using the lower case god. In the section of God’s identity I found it necessary for exactness to use YHWH on several occasions in reference to God.

There are many different translations of the Bible that represent either changes in the English language over time or new and different translation methodologies from Greek into English. I have used many of these translations from time to time and I am not passing judgment on which translation is the best one, although I prefer the language flow of the New International Version (NIV). Unless otherwise noted, all scripture quotations are taken from the NIV.

As a student I sat at the feet of some of the most astute philosophical and theological minds of the twentieth century. In my intellectual development I felt the influence of those masters on my philosophical and theological thought process. A subtle merging of thoughts and ideas has occurred over the years to the point that it is difficult to distinguish my thinking from that of my mentors. Numerous external references and sources had a profound impact on my thinking as I researched this book. I have gleaned much from those sources and have been diligent in referring to and citing them.

Although each chapter could be a book in itself, more intense research and analysis would be required to complete that task. Those who have an enthusiasm for philosophical and theological thinking will find this work to be a springboard for further discussion. As a theologian I seek to understand the implications of covenantal living. As a philosopher I seek to understand anything of which a question can be asked.

It is my hope this book will be helpful in the quest for knowledge. A lot of ground will be covered beginning with the beginning, and although the journey may be a bit tedious at times, I am reminded that no one ever promised that philosophy or theology was a piece of cake.

CHAPTER 1

The Abrahamic

and Mosaic Covenants

Israel’s history is that of a people chosen by God to be a nation set apart from other nations. Old Testament history recounts the stories of Abraham and Sarah, the Exodus, Moses’ leadership and the Ten Commandments, the land of Canaan, the Judges, and prophetic voices all spoke of Israel’s correct relationship with God. The religions of the world share many elements in common regarding the existence of creation stories, a system of proper worship and rituals, rules of proper living, thoughts about the end times and the fate of one’s soul or essence after death. However the distinguishing element that sets Israel apart from other religions is the unique covenantal relationship between God and humanity.

A few years before the birth of Jesus a new approach toward scriptural understanding appeared that sought to interpret the Law regarding special circumstances that the Law did not address. Represented by the schools of Hillel and Shammai, two leading Jewish teachers who founded opposing schools of Jewish thought known as the House of Shammai and House of Hillel, matters of theology were shaped that contributed to the oral law tradition and the Talmud (first century BCE to first century CE).

The reason assigned for their respective tendencies is a psychological one. The Hillelites were, like the founder of their school (Ber. 60a; Shab. 31a; Ab. i. 12 et seq.), quiet, peace-loving men, accommodating themselves to circumstances and times, and being determined only upon fostering the Law and bringing man nearer to his God and to his neighbor. The Shammaites, on the other hand, stern and unbending like the originator of their school, emulated and even exceeded his severity. To them it seemed impossible to be sufficiently stringent in religious prohibitions. The disciples of Hillel, the pious and gentle follower of Ezra (Sanh. 11a), evinced in all their public dealings the peacefulness, gentleness, and conciliatory spirit which had distinguished their great master; and by the same characteristic qualities they were guided during the political storms which convulsed their country. The Shammaites, on the contrary, were intensely patriotic, and would not bow to foreign rule. They advocated the interdiction of any and all intercourse with those who either were Romans or in any way contributed toward the furtherance of Roman power or influences.(1)

Israel understood its relationship with God as a matter of life and death as it lived under God’s laws and rules. The two schools showed a renewed dedication and commitment to an interpretation of God’s laws that had guided life over the past two thousand years. The Patriarchs, Judges, and Prophets of the Old Testament functioned primarily as administrators of the law and provided interpretations in specific situations for which there was no clear application, and that tradition was built upon by Hillel and Shammai.

At the outset it seems prudent to offer a hermeneutical methodology for examining scripture. One possible methodology is an exegetical approach in which principles of exegesis are applied to critically draw out the intended meaning of the various texts. The attempt would be to reach back to the thoughts of the original author and audience in order to understand the intended meaning of the text. Usually that is a historical task that requires an understanding of the original language in which the text was written. It also demands that the text under consideration be kept in context with the time in which was written and in relationship to the full manuscript. In a similar manner one can approach texts from a textual criticism perspective, which is defined as the examination of the origins and history of texts in the attempt to incorporate an analysis of the grammatical features of the text.

Another possible approach deals with the theory of biblical text interpretation and utilizes a philosophical perspective of interpretation. It focuses on discovering appropriate rules for understanding the texts from the perspective of interpreting what the author has written. As such it takes into account various types of communication, assumptions surrounding the text, existing understandings of the people, places, and deity involved in the text. In the process it is an exegetical methodology but seeks to make application of other methods of interpretation.

Several noted philosophers have approached interpretation of scripture from differing and creative philosophical perspectives. Paul Ricoeur(2) postulated that a study of scripture and human reality should incorporate phenomenological descriptions with hermeneutic interpretation that utilized various interpretations of language. In the process the use of signs, symbols, and the text provide understanding coincident with the interpretation found in them. His philosophical approach questions the traditional subjective side of hermeneutics and replaces it with an examination of its relationship to the external world. This hermeneutical method begins with an understanding of the meaning of the text as a whole and then recognizes the relationship of its parts to the whole. To fully understand a text is to move beyond what the text is actually talking about in order to grasp a new definition of explanation and understanding. In so doing one experiences time in two ways: by linear succession that is expressed by the movement of time from past to present to future, and by cosmological time which is understood as phenomenological time.

The deconstruction of Jacques Derrida(3) approaches textual interpretation by investigating the text from all perspectives possible so that every bit of information in the text is examined. Epistemology is redefined as the entirety of all the relationships that can be determined in the text. Thus there is no absolute meaning of a text but it is given meaning depending on what the interpreter uncovers in his investigation.

The methodologies of Ricoeur and Derrida call historical narratives into question and examine texts for their authority and legitimacy. It is no longer taken for granted that authenticity and historicity surround a text and as a result objective truth is thereby replaced with hermeneutic truth.

The hermeneutical method ultimately chosen to examine scripture throughout this book places primary emphasis on accepting the texts as written and asking questions of the texts from a philosophical perspective. Needless to say, an understanding of the original language in which the texts are written is essential in interpreting and understanding the background, thought patterns, customs, and theology of the time in which they are written. Ricour’s use of symbols, myths, and stories, combined with methods of language transmission, and Derrida’s approach with emphasis on text interpretation by investigating the text from all perspectives possible so that every bit of information in the text is examined, have exacerbated the tension between observational interpretation and exegetical analysis. With the hermeneutical and exegetical method employed in this book, emphasis is placed on reasoned interpretation in order to interpret the Old and New Testament meaning of the situation at the time it occurred. Thus the context in which a text has been created and its function and purpose at the time are important in order to allow a proper understanding of the text (its Sitz im Lebem). Ricoeur and Derrida seem to have as an end game a practical application of their proprietary interpretations; however, it is not the intent of this author to produce a homiletical discourse on a modern day application of scripture.

An important question arises concerning different hermeneutical communities being able to articulate roles for reason, or the different types of reason, based on particular historical situations. It must be emphasized that the role of reason should not be contingent upon particular historical situations because rules of logic should be applied universally to all situations. To do otherwise is to pick and choose which rules apply and the universality of reason demands that it be applied objectively to all situations. Any other approach borders on a relativistic perspective of the application of reason and leans toward interpretative theological assumptions rather than evidence based conclusions.

The legalism of Israel’s early years originated in the covenant between God and humanity and formed a mindset for the parties. The appearance of the two schools was the product of social and cultural change. Israel was increasingly interacting with an innovative and changing environment in which association with new societies was growing. Interaction with Greeks and Romans resulted with innovative changes in its legalistic system, a system that was first begun with the Abrahamic covenant. What was the nature of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants?

I. Abraham

Israel believed that God had established a special contract with Abraham, the only person in the Bible called the friend of God. It is believed that Abraham lived in Mesopotamia in either the Ur III (2112-2004 BCE) or Dynasty of Isin (2017-1787 BCE), although there is more agreement with the Dynasty of Isin dating. Gen 12 speaks of God’s call to Abraham to leave his homeland and family and travel to the new land God had selected for him. In Gen 15: 1-18 we read of the covenant:

After this, is, the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your very great reward. But Abram said, Sovereign Lord, what can you give me since I remain childless and the one who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus? And Abram said, You have given me no children; so a servant in my household will be my heir. Then the word of the Lord came to him: This man will not be your heir, but a son who is your own flesh and blood will be your heir. He took him outside and said, Look up at the sky and count the stars—if indeed you can count them. Then he said to him, So shall your offspring be. Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness. He also said to him, I am the Lord, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it. But Abram said, Sovereign Lord, how can I know that I will gain possession of it? So the Lord said to him, Bring me a heifer, a goat and a ram, each three years old, along with a dove and a young pigeon. Abram brought all these to him, cut them in two and arranged the halves opposite each other; the birds, however, he did not cut in half. Then birds of prey came down on the carcasses, but Abram drove them away… When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces. On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates...(4)

An ancient covenant ceremony generally contracted between two people, or two parties, was called the cutting of a covenant. It meant that both would be responsible to protect the covenant partner and partner’s family even in the face of death. They exchanged names, took the name of the covenant partner, cut into the palm of their hand and clasped hands with the partner so the blood would mingle, and then rubbed ashes into the wound to make a covenant scar.

Covenants were legal instruments and covenant terms were précise, detailed, and included specific duties and liabilities of the partners. The Hebrew word for cut meant to cut a pact or to create a legal instrument. Covenants created a formal relationship even though non-covenantal parties might be mentioned in the body of the covenant. The covenant defined the obligations of the parties, listed the benefits that would accrue should the covenant not be broken, and contained penalties for the offending party. Sacrifice was part of the cutting ceremony and often involved passing between sacrificial body parts. The commingling of blood would be a purification of the bond between the parties and symbolized the elimination of hostility that might exist.(5)

The only person on earth one would