A Biblical Epistemology

THE MASTER’S SEMINARY

A BIBLICAL EPISTEMOLOGY

A PROJECT SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF DIVINITY

BY RYAN LYLE QUEY BOX #52

SUN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA JULY 2013

INTRODUCTION As philosophers have argued over epistemology (the study of knowledge and belief, including the topics of how much a human can actually know) oftentimes the Christian will be tempted to respond in a like manner to the philosophers, seeking to show how the latest philosophy actually fits within what the Bible has to say. However, instead of reacting to whatever the latest wisdom of the world proclaims as the boundaries of knowledge, perhaps it would be wise to take a step back and seek to discern what the Bible has to say for itself. This paper will seek to determine the boundaries of knowledge as the Bible defines them. Terminology from today’s world will inevitably be used in order to discuss the biblical ideas, and the connotations attached to these terms risk superimposing modern categories onto biblical thought; such a danger must be taken into account. The importance of this kind of study includes applications for the content and the method of apologetics, both for those who do not believe and for those who are believers already but might be doubting or wondering about why we believe. In the end, it will be concluded that while the Bible is up front about difficulties in humanity’s pursuit of knowledge, the Bible does not promote its truths as unreasonable. However, sin creates a bias against the truth (especially for the unbeliever, but for believers as well), and so there must be a removal of that bias by the Holy Spirit so that human reason can function without that hindrance in order for there to be access to the truth. Even still, there is a subjective element above and beyond that work of removing the negative effects of sin, which makes complete confidence in the acceptance of God’s Word possible.

1

HUMAN ABILITY OF OBSERVATION Limits of Knowledge through Observation and Experience In light of the fact that the Bible itself begins by affirming limits in the human ability to observe and reason (assuming Job to be written by one of Job’s contemporaries, during the time of the patriarchs), limits are a natural place to start. Although there is some overlap between categories, this paper will start with limits to ability to observe, and then from there deal with limits to reasoning ability. First of all, there are limits to what we are able to observe due to finiteness. Although the Kantian and Cartesian idea that the senses themselves cannot be trusted seems to be absent from Scripture, there are plenty of limits to what one can know from observation even still. A given individual human cannot observe what goes on in heaven,1 cannot observe all that happened in history or that continues to happen today (e.g., Job 15:7; 38-39; Isa 40:12-14; 1 Cor 2:11, 16; Prov 30:1-4), and cannot know the future.2 Second, observed events require interpretation, which means that there is possibility that the observation could be misinterpreted.3 This can be demonstrated to be true based on the fact that events are very commonly misinterpreted. Examples of misinterpreted events include Job’s suffering, which is misinterpreted by Job and his friends, the correlation between the absence of                                                                                                                 1  Cf.  Job,  where  the  heavenly

scene in 1-2 creates dramatic irony that is never resolved throughout the book. See Craig G. Bartholomew and Ryan O’Dowd, Old Testament Wisdom Literature: A Theological Introduction (Downers Grove, IL: Apollos, an Imprint of InverVarsity Press, 2011), 154-55. Indeed, Job is especially focused around the limits of human observation, and Job 28 seems to be an extended speech which expresses this frustration. 2 Job and his friends run into this problem as they know God is just, but since they do not know that it will be carried out in the future instead of in the present, they are led to all kinds of conclusions. Many of the wishes that Job expresses are therefore future looking (e.g., Job 14:13-17; 19:25-29), but he is not always confident that his hopes for the future will come due to a lack of special revelation. 3 Ian W. Scott, Implicit Epistemology in the Letters of Paul: Story, Experience and the Spirit, Wissenscaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 205 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 124; Bartholomew and O’Dowd, 278. Bartholomew and O’Dowd go on to claim that the idea of a tabula rasa (blank slate) is rejected

2

sacrifice to false gods and misfortune (Jer 44:18-23),4 the meaning of various signs and wonders (e.g., Matt 24:22-25), the life and work of Christ,5 and the message of the cross (cf. 1 Cor 1:182:16). All of these indicate that observations require alone is too limited to come to the correct conclusion. Additionally, it is worth noting that biblical wisdom is not derived from experience, but from prior theological beliefs. This means that instead, beliefs should interpret events, rather than allowing events to change beliefs.6 As Bartholomew and O’Dowd explain: Wisdom's epistemology is not autonomous or empirical in the strict sense. Many of the sages' teachings undoubtedly derive from the observations of generations of wise men but were always shaped in accordance with prior ethical-religious principles. Whatever the actual source of their teaching, the sages do not, according to Michael V. Fox, offer their experience as the source of new knowledge, and they rarely invoke experiential arguments. The rare appeal to what is seen is a rhetorical strategy and not a fundamental methodological procedure. Fox refers to Proverbs 24:30-34, 7:6-20 and 6:6-8 as examples. The first two passages contain references to what the teacher 'saw,' in the one case with respect to what happened to a lazy man's field, and in the other he 'saw' a woman enticing a youth to fornication. As Fox points out, in Proverbs 24:30-34 the observation is followed by a lesson, but the observation calls the truth to mind rather than the truth being discovered or inferred from the observation.7 This indicates the need for special revelation to interpret the events so that God’s people                                                                                                                 by wisdom literature; events do not interpret themselves. Note that this topic is related to the limits of human reason also (a separate section discussed below), but the need for observation to be interpreted will be dealt with here. 4 Jaco Gericke, The Hebrew Bible and Philosophy of Religion, ed. Susan Ackerman, Society of Biblical Literature: Resources for Biblical Study 70 (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), 384-86. Ironically, Gericke takes this observation (that the wicked Israelites see a false causation relationship here) and misinterprets this observation, which results in a faulty conclusion. He sees this as meaning that the wicked Israelites had no way of knowing that they were wrong, whereas if one considers the promises God gave in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28, it becomes clear that the Israelites should have known the correct reason why they were experiencing these troubles. 5 Cf. 2 Cor 5:16. See Scott, 124; there are two ways of viewing Christ here, either according to the flesh (which Paul rejects) or not according to the flesh. For an in depth discussion of this passage an epistemology see also J. Louis Martyn, “Epistemology at the Turn of the Ages: 2 Corinthians 5: 16,” in Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox, ed. W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, and R. R. Niebuhr (London: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 269–88. 6 Biblical wisdom leaves room for events to influence or nuance beliefs, but not to drastically change them; this will be discussed under the below section: “Biblical Affirmation of Human Ability to Observe” 7 Bartholomew and O’Dowd, 276. For a similar view, see also Michael V. Fox, “The Epistemology of the Book of Proverbs,” Journal of Biblical Literature 126, no. 4 (2007): 673.

3

can live skillfully in the world. Knowledge Gained Through Observation and Experience While there is much to be said against the acquisition of knowledge from observation according to the Bible, there is also a positive role that observation plays. This section will be divided up into 1) experiences for the purpose of shaping reality; 2) experiences for the purpose of establishing belief or indicating the reality of some truth; 3) experiences which are for the purpose of proving the legitimacy of a message; 4) experiences which are for the purpose of causing one to question prior beliefs; and 5) experiences which can develop personal character. First, there are experiences for the purpose of shaping reality. Although this might seem unrelated to epistemology, the fact is that it is important to establish that the historicity of events is important, and belief in them is important, for the historicity of these events determines whether or not certain theological realities are true. For example, God’s historical covenants with Abraham (Gen 12; 15; 17), Israel (Exodus 19-24; Leviticus; etc.), David (2 Sam 7; 1 Chron 17) are the basis for expressions of hope in the future and praise (e.g., Ps 89; 105; 106). This does not answer the question of how one can come to the point of belief that these events happened though; that must be dealt with elsewhere. Second, there are experiences for the purpose of establishing belief or indicating the reality of some truth. For example, YHWH’s ability to act is cited as evidence for YHWH’s power and existence as opposed to false gods (e.g., 1 Kgs 18; Isa 41:17-20).8 The reasoning behind the use of empirical evidence in this way seems to be that if there is a situation where empirical evidence for God would be expected, then absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Other experience of this type would be blessings and curses, which were to indicate divine

4

displeasure.9 Although Israel misinterprets this experience at times (see discussion of Jer 44 above), they were to have understood this event to indicate that God was cursing them for their covenant disobedience. Signs and wonders are also often given to teach God’s power and matchlessness, for instance in the Exodus (cf. Exod 7:5; 9:13-16; 10:1-2), or to instill the fear of YHWH among the Isrealites (cf. Deut 4:10-19). Third, there are also experiences which are for the purpose of proving the legitimacy of a message. God would often accompany a message with a sign to indicate the message’s divine origin (e.g., Exod 4:1-9, 30-31; Isa 7:10-25; Acts 3:1-4:22). Throughout Scripture, the very criteria that is to be used to verify a prophet are based on experiences, whether it is the character of a prophet (Deut 13:1-5; Matt 7:13-20; 1 John 4:1-6). The teaching of the prophet must also align with reality (Deut 18:20-22). The Bible also views experiences as something which can cause a person to question previously held beliefs, even beliefs derived from special revelation. In the end, these experiences do not are shown to not overturn special revelation, but do force one to see if their particular interpretation of the special revelation is correct. For instance, Job’s experiences caused him and his friends to rethink their beliefs on divine retribution, and the exile caused Israel to question their belief regarding God’s faithfulness to them and His sovereignty (hence, the argument in the books of Kings and Chronicles). Fox states, “It is when old truths are being challenged that individual experience becomes most important, almost as a last resort. It may serve either to probe the givens or to confirm them.”10 Finally, experiences can also develop personal character. Although this might seem                                                                                                                 8

Gericke, 374-75 Ibid., 384-86, although he takes a different view than that offered here at some points. 10 Fox, Proverbs, 674. 9

5

somewhat unrelated to belief, the fact is that one should be careful in separating knowledge and action, and experiences are often the cited as the way to truly learn and know such things as hope, faith, and perseverance (Ps 119:71; Rom 5:3-5; James 1:2-4). This brief survey shows that experiences are not completely unnecessary, but must be interpreted by an external source (i.e., special revelation).

HUMAN ABILITY OF REASON Limits to Human Ability of Reason11 First of all, building off of the limits to human ability of observation as discussed above, people do not have all the facts, which means that even a rational system which is coherent in all the information which is known by all of humanity (a feat in itself) cannot be guaranteed to be able to explain everything. First of all, there are biblical limits to natural theology. Psalm 19 affirms that while some things (such as some of the glory of God) can be learned through what can be seen from Creation (Ps 19:1-6), special revelation is needed for wisdom, warning, and knowledge of God’s commands (Ps 19:7-14). Romans 1:18-20 is more explicit, teaching that from Creation man can know God’s divinity and eternal power, and 2:12-16 speak of the conscience that all men will be held accountable to.12 Beyond that though, the Bible does not have a high view of human’s ability to reason accurately without guidance from special revelation. First of all, the complexity of the universe                                                                                                                 11

The term reason is a loaded one due to its use over the centuries in all kinds of various ways (including as a technical term), but for the sake of this paper the term will be used to refer to the ability to relate ideas and come to conclusions. 12 Perhaps the positive statements that Psalm 119 has regarding Scripture can also be taken to imply that there are certain things that cannot be known without Scripture. More study would need to be done to confirm this,

6

complicates human ability to reason accurately. O’Dowd comments that “The Proverbs…deny the certainty and dogmatism sought by skeptics. In their variety, they represent the range of voices that constitute the multivalency of the wisdom literature. . . . The knower is to recognize the ambiguity and mystery that are inherent in human life.”13 The reality that O’Dowd is referring to are the Proverbs such as 26:3-4, which at first glance seems contradictory, but upon further reflection is just an admission of the complexity of life. As mentioned before, God argues for Job’s ignorance from the complexity of Creation in Job 39 and Paul expresses similar sentiments in Romans 11:33-35.This indicates that even if humanity had access to all knowledge (as was argued against already), the complexity of the universe would deny the possibility of certainty without special revelation. There are also limitations due to sin’s biasing effect against certain truths, further twisting an already finite human mind. From Isaiah 6:10 all the way through his book, there is a recurring theme of blindness to the truth due to sin. This is picked up in part by Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:182:16 (he quotes Isa 40:13 in 2:16) where he discusses how the wisdom of the world considers the reality (i.e., God’s plan through the cross) to be foolish, and so therefore cannot know it (1 Cor 2:14). 2 Corinthians 3:12-4:6 continues the theme of spiritual blindness by using the metaphor of the veil. Satan’s part in this is also alluded to (2 Cor 4:4). Romans 1:18-23, though affirming the ability to know certain qualities of God through Creation (as discussed previously), simultaneously affirms that mankind, due to sin, suppresses these truths.14 In Pauline theology,                                                                                                                 however.

13

Ryan O’Dowd, The Wisdom of Torah: Epistemology in Deuteronomy and the Wisdom Literature, Forschungen Zur Religion Und Literatur Des Alten Und Neuen Testaments (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 136. 14 See Scott, 19-22.

7

human reason is not an “impartial arbiter” capable of objective rationality.15 In addition, as will be discussed later, the Gospel according to John deals heavily with the concept of sin’s effect on reason. There is also the whole concept of ‘forgetting’. Biblically, forgetting occurs not just because of human finiteness, but also because of the biasing influence of sin (Deut 4:1-40; 5:2833). An implication of the reality of forgetting is that although signs and miracles are often used to teach certain truths (e.g., Deut 1:29-31), they are ineffective for changing the heart of man and so ultimately are insufficient for true belief (e.g., Deut 1:32-33).16 Therefore, while those who witness miracles are held to a higher level of accountability (e.g., Matt 11:20-24), miracles in themselves are insufficient to bring someone to belief. Biblical Affirmation of Human Ability to Reason At the same time, just as there still is a place for observation, there is also still a place for human reason. Biblical authors use rational arguments in order to persuade, rather than just stating the facts and demanding acceptance.17 Scott mentions that Paul sees conversion to Christianity as the result of a process of rational inference, but that such inference is always resisted by human beings because of our moral corruption. The Spirit would thus be responsible for faith in the sense that he restores the human moral constitution, making it possible for human beings to follow the logic which leads to the Gospel.                                                                                                                 15

Ibid., 22. Other examples of this reality include Noah’s drunkenness and Ham’s sin after the flood, the tower of Babel in Genesis 11, the Israelites’ grumbling and rebellion in the wilderness even after God delivered them from Egypt, false teachers’ forgetting of the flood (2 Pet 3:1-13. This topic will be discussed more in a later section on John’s gospel as well. 17 Cf. 2 Cor 5:11. See Scott, 58-60 for more discussion on this. Other examples of the use of reason in argumentation include 2 Cor 5:14-15 16

8

Such is consistent with the flow of thought in 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16.18 The Bible does not present the truths presented in it as irrational and requiring one to leave behind reason, but rather that its reasonableness is not always understood by finite and sinful man. With the bias of sin removed by the Spirit though, at least then the sinful bias is removed, which even makes it possible for the believer to rationally and accurately evaluate the truth claims of others (1 Cor 2:15). Indeed, when pitted against the enemies of God in rational debate, God’s prophets and apostles are consistently shown to come out as victorious.19 The Bible is shown to be the most reasonable explanation to account for the realities that are seen around us. Summary Thus far, it has been demonstrated that the limits to the acquisition of knowledge through observation and reason are great. Indeed, without special revelation, reason and experience can hardly be trusted. On the other hand, with special revelation and with the removal of the bias of sin through the Holy Spirit so that one can accept the teachings of the special revelation, true knowledge of the world can be attained, at least within the limits of what the special revelation has revealed. Even still, what gives the believer confidence that what they believe is actually correct? How can the God-fearer know that he is not simply deceiving himself into believing in something in order to find meaning or hope, as various critics of Christianity might claim? Even the most reasonable explanation cannot give complete confidence (of the sort that will lead                                                                                                                 18

For more discussion on this passage, see Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 2000), 147-285. 19 E.g., Acts 17; 21:27-26:32, noting especially Agrippa’s comment at 26:32. Cf. also 2 Cor 10:3-5, and

9

someone to sacrifice their life), especially since it is recognized (by both the Word and the world) that mankind’s reason is limited and subject to biases. This tension creates the need for a subjective aspect of verification on top of everything else.

SUBJECTIVE AFFIRMATION OF THE TRUTH There are indications that God provides subjective verification to the believer with the result that can give confidence despite the believer’s self-acknowledge of his or her own limited observation and reasoning ability. First of all, both Romans 8:14-17 and Galatians 4:6 teach that the Holy Spirit affirms to believers, in a seemingly subjective way, that we are sons of God. Second of all, the book of John as a whole discusses the idea of belief in recurrently. Major ideas in the book include that God is not understandable apart from Christ, but that Christ explains Him (John 1:18; 5:37; 6:46), that Christ is the truth and so therefore rejection of Him means rejection of the truth (1:9-14),20 and that signs lead to belief (1:46-51; 2:11; 10:37-38). However, not all ‘belief’ is true belief, hence many believe because of signs yet will later leave (2:23-25), due to a love of darkness and sin (3:1-21; 12:37-43), a desire for Christ to be nothing more than a provider for themselves (6:14-15, 22-66), or a rejection of some aspect of Christ’s teaching such as condemnation of their sin (8:30-59; cf. 7:7). Many believe all of Jesus’ teachings, but end up revealing their actual lack of belief through disobedience (12:42-43; 16:25-32; cf. 14:15, 21 which connects true belief with obedience). Therefore, rejection is ultimately caused by sin and results in blatant misunderstanding of obvious facts in order to try to make their understanding cohere (7:35; 8:43, 52-53), often causing the unbeliever to resort to irrational reasoning such as                                                                                                                 Scott, 61-2, who discusses it.

10

making up false ad hominem attacks (8:49, 52; 9:34). In the end, the only way to true belief is through hearing and complete acceptance of the Word. Signs are not just insufficient for true belief but are also not necessary (John 4:41-42, 4753; 5:24; 7:40; 8:31-59).21 John 10:1-30 is a sort of climax to this theme, asserting that the real underlying difference between belief and unbelief is that His sheep hear His voice.22 This true belief is shown to be only fully possible after the cross and resurrection (e.g., 2:22; 12:16) when the Holy Spirit’s New Covenant ministry is initiated (16:12-15, 25, 29-30; cf. 1 John 5:6). Today, acceptance is not of Christ in the flesh, whom we no longer see, but His word as recorded in Scripture, which passes on Jesus’ teachings (John 14-16). CONCLUSION Reason and observation are limited, especially when twisted by sin, but sin’s bias can be removed by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit and His internal subjective work in our hearts allows believers to have full confidence in their beliefs, beyond just that Christianity is the most reasonable religion among the rest.

                                                                                                                20

See Andreas J. Kostenberger, “‘What Is Truth?’ Pilate’s Question in Its Johannine and Larger Biblical Context,” in Whatever Happened to Truth?, ed. Andreas Kostenberger (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2005), 19– 52. 21 Note especially 4:41-42, where it is appropriation of the word that is key rather than acceptance based on signs. 8:31-59 is probably the most extended discussion of the role of the subjective acceptance of the Word, which happens not because of reason but because of one’s relationship to God. 22 For an excellent discussion on John 10, see Andreas J. Kostenberger, John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, a Division of Baker Publishing Group, 2004), 297-319

11

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bartholomew, Craig G., and Ryan O’Dowd. Old Testament Wisdom Literature: A Theological Introduction. Downers Grove, IL: Apollos, an Imprint of InverVarsity Press, 2011. Fox, Michael V. “The Epistemology of the Book of Proverbs.” Journal of Biblical Literature 126, no. 4 (2007): 669–84. – – –. “Qohelet’s Epistemology.” Hebrew Union College Annual no. 58 (1987): 137–56. Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003. Gericke, Jaco. The Hebrew Bible and Philosophy of Religion. Edited by Susan Ackerman. Society of Biblical Literature: Resources for Biblical Study 70. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. Jewett, Robert. “Review of Gnosticism in Corinth: An Investigation of the Letters to the Corinthians, by Walter Schmithals and Paul & the Gnostics, by Walter Schmithals.” Journal of Biblical Literature no. 93 (1974): 630–32. Kaiser, Walter C. “A Neglected Text in Bibliology Discussions: I Corinthians 2:6-16.” Westminster Theological Journal no. 43 (1981): 301–19. Kostenberger, Andreas J. “‘What Is Truth?’ Pilate’s Question in Its Johannine and Larger Biblical Context.” In Whatever Happened to Truth?, edited by Andreas Kostenberger, 19–52. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2005. – – –. John. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, a Division of Baker Publishing Group, 2004. Malcolm, Lois. “The Wisdom of the Cross.” In Reason and the Reasons of Faith, edited by Paul J. Griffiths and Reinhard Hutter, 86–118. Theology for the Twenty-First Century. New York: T & T Clark International, 2005. Marcus, Joel. “Mark 4:10-12 and Marcan Epistemology.” Journal of Biblical Literature 103, no. 4 (1984): 557–74. Martyn, J. Louis. “Epistemology at the Turn of the Ages: 2 Corinthians 5: 16.” In Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox, edited by W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, and R. R. Niebuhr, 269–88. London: Cambridge University Press, 1967. O’Dowd, Ryan. The Wisdom of Torah: Epistemology in Deuteronomy and the Wisdom Literature. Forschungen Zur Religion Und Literatur Des Alten Und Neuen Testaments. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009.

12

Scott, Ian W. Implicit Epistemology in the Letters of Paul: Story, Experience and the Spirit. Wissenscaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 205. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Sire, James W. Why Should Anyone Believe Anything at All? Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994. Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. Westphal, Merold. “Taking St. Paul Seriously: Sin as an Epistemological Category.” In Christian Philosophy, edited by Thomas P. Flint, 200–26. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990.

13