James Barr on Natural Theology – Part 2

For Part 1 of my review of James Barr’s Concept of Biblical Theology, go here.

This conversation will begin to deal with Barr’s arguments in Chapter 27:  “Natural Theology within Biblical Theology”. So far, in my own estimation, this is one of the most interesting portions in the book. Barr essentially argues that natural theology is present in the bible, and that “if it turns out that natural theology is actually present within the Bible, or is at least supported by it or even only possibly implied by it, the effect is to overturn a large portion of the assumptions and value which have underlain modern biblical theology” (p.468). We will focus on the introductory portion of the chapter moving on to the meat of the chapter where Barr analyzes natural-theological paradigms in creation, legal, prophetic and wisdom texts in the OT, and some additional NT texts as well.

As a corollary to this, Barr asserts that a clearer definition and understanding of the nature of revelation in Scripture. In other words, how did the biblical authors have access to the material they wrote upon? Was it directly revealed? Common knowledge? Theological and existential reflection? The answer to these question wholly depends upon which corpora of biblical texts is in question. In the historical narratives, it isn’t unreasonable to assert as Barr does “that Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign in Jerusalem and his mother’s name was Jedidah (II Kings 22.1) is there because everyone knew this to be the case. How is that revelation? The same is true, by extension, of many other cases, including human persons ‘revealing’. Thus when ‘revelation’ becomes, as it has for many persons, an indispensable sign-word for faith, it leads to serious misunderstandings.” (p.485). In other words if natural theology was present in Scripture, it called into question the theological paradigm of the dialectic theologians notions of revelation. Theologians such as Barth denied the validity of natural theology as a valid subject of inquiry at all. It isn’t surprising he had such a vaunted view of the special nature “revelation” as ultimately being subsumed in the disclosure of Jesus Christ. Even the truthfulness, or inerrancy of Scripture, was unnecessary to support the existential force and truth of this view of revelation. His kerygmatic views support this, that the Scriptures become the authoritative, revealed Word testifying to Christ only when preached.

If, however, natural theology, or something similar to it is present in the text, then this would alter not only one’s understanding of the validity of natural theology as a subject of serious inquiry, but also one’s understanding of the nature of divine revelation and disclosure in the Scriptural record. Barr opens the chapter with two examples from Paul, both in the Lukan account of Paul’s address at the Aeropagus in Acts 17:22-34, and Paul’s opening arguments in Romans 1-2 as examples of natural theological-type paradigms in the Biblical record. In the Aeropagus adddress, Paul doesn’t utilize arguments from the OT, rather his theological discourse is grounded along the following natural or innate categories: 1) the reality of God as Creator; 2) the fact that God has no needs; 3) God has allotted humans dwelling places throughout history; 4) that man should, on the basis of Providence seek after this God; 5) that idolatrous notions of God are inappropriate; 6) that God demands repentance from men because of the reality of final judgment; and finally 7) that God’s judgment will be carried out through one man, and that this man’s authority is vindicated by the fact that God raised the man from the dead. Barr notes, “Judgment and resurrection were customary themes of ‘special’ revelation, but the way in which Paul presented his argument is a typical natural-theology approach” (p. 469). Barr utilizes a similar argument with respect to Paul’s natural theological approach in Romans, concluding his analysis with this, ” of course the passages in question are not natural theology in the fully developed and philosophical sense… But they do appear to imply that there is something validly known of God, revealed through his created works, which is accessible to all human beings through their being human, and which through the law ‘written on the heart’ forms a resource for moral decision. And even if that is not natural theology in the developed sense, it is closer to the basis of natural theology than it is to the revelation-centered, kerygmatic, theology that has bee dominant in most of the twentieth century” (p. 470).

Briefly, if natural theology, even in a rudimentary and undeveloped sense is present in the biblical text, it not only undermines the dialectical theologians’ rejection of natural theology, it undermines the radical overemphasis  on special revelational categories in modern Reformed circles (which is a departure from classic Reformed theology, which historically advocated a robust natural theology). This isn’t to diminish the value of revelation, or to militate the confessional testimony of Scripture as a divine document. However, we need to have a better sense of revelation as an internal scriptural category, and a better developed theological understanding of the nature of revelation to understand where revelation, even in Scripture is of a special or extraordinary character where it is of a more natural character. The fact is both of these modes are present in Scripture, and testify to the diverse modes of Divine self-disclosure even in our most authoritative text.

If Barr is right, the Reformed debate regarding the use and authority of Scripture outside ecclesial matters needs to change. If natural theology is not only a valid subject of philosophical inquiry, but it is upheld, and to a degree taught in Scripture, it needs to shape our understanding of the validity of natural theology, natural law, and general revelation. Are restrictions against murder or theft any less revelatory if they occur in pagan or secular laws? Or must Scripture be privileged in order to norm and clarify these matters of law? In other words, in spite of some of the protests  of theonomic and transformational types, if Scripture validates natural theology, there needs to be some compelling evidence as to why arguments against NL (especially 2k ones) are biblical themselves.

The next post will evaluate further Barr’s case for natural theology in scripture. More to come later…

Advertisement

~ by jedpaschall on February 3, 2011.