Saturday, 1 February 2020

The Sufficiency Of Scripture In Counseling

By Wayne A. Mack [1]

Program Director and Professor of Biblical Counseling, The Master’s College

A belief in Biblical inerrancy entails an affirmation of Scripture’s sufficiency for understanding and resolving the non-physical problems of man. Counseling that is truly Christian must be Christ-centered, church-centered, and Bible-based. Various contemporary approaches to counseling question the sufficiency of Scripture, namely the two-book, the no-book, and the filtering device approaches. All three join in affirming that the traditional biblical resources for dealing with man’s problems are not enough. They fail to take into account, however, the finiteness of man’s knowledge, the depravity of human nature, and the sufficiency of Scripture. Psalm 19:7–11, 2 Timothy 3:15–17, and 2 Peter 1:2–7 affirm clearly the sufficiency of Scripture and Christ in dealing with man’s problems. Secular psychological principles are unnecessary and may even be harmful in trying to understand and help people.

* * * * *

The Chicago statement on biblical inerrancy states that “the authority of Scripture is a key issue for the Christian Church in this and every age. Those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are called to show the reality of their discipleship by humbly and faithfully obeying God’s written Word. To stray from Scripture in faith and conduct is disloyalty to our Master. Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority.”

As a Christian, I wholeheartedly agree with every aspect of this general statement on biblical inerrancy and authority. For me, the inerrancy of Scripture and the authority of Scripture are like Siamese twins—they are inseparably joined to each other. Holy Scripture, being God’s law and testimony, is true and should therefore serve as our standard for all matters of faith and practice (Isa 8:19–20). God’s Word being both truthful (John 17:17) and authoritative calls us to humble and faithful obedience in every area of which it speaks. There is no authority that is higher than that in Scripture. Wherever and on whatever subject the Scriptures speak, one must regard them as both inerrant and authoritative.

As a Christian, it is precisely because I affirm the preceding convictions that I believe in the sufficiency of Scripture in the area of counseling. Scripture is not silent about its own sufficiency for both understanding man and his non-physical problems and for resolving those problems. To me, those issues are crystal clear. And because this is what I understand Scripture to be teaching about itself, my profession of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior compels me to submit to this sufficiency teaching. As I see it, doing anything less would make me disloyal to my Master.

Many in our day and previously have affirmed the inerrancy and authority of Scripture in matters of faith and practice, but have not affirmed the sufficiency of Scripture for understanding and resolving the spiritual (non-physical) problems of man. They believe that we need the insights of psychology to understand and help people. In essence, they believe that when it comes to these matters, the Bible is fundamentally deficient. They believe that God did not design the Bible for this purpose and so we must rely on extrabiblical, psychological theories and insights. For many Christians, the Bible has titular (given a title and respected in name) rather than functional (actual, practical, real, respected in practice) authority in the area of counseling. They acknowledge it to be the Word of God and therefore worthy of our respect, but when it comes to understanding and resolving many of the real issues of life, they give it limited value.

A Definition Of Christian Counseling

Christian Counseling Is Christ-Centered

The attitude that many Christians have toward the Scriptures was vividly illustrated by a person who came to interview me about the kind of counseling I did. This person was traveling around the United States questioning various Christians who did counseling about their views on what constitutes Christian counseling. In the interview, I said I believed that any counseling worthy of the name “Christian” should be conscientiously and comprehensively Christ-centered. It will make much of who and what Christ is, what He has done for us in His life and death and resurrection and in sending the Holy Spirit, what He is doing for us right now in His session at the Father’s right hand, and what He will yet do for us in the future.

In Christian counseling, the Christ of the Bible will not be an appendage, a “tack on” for surviving life in the “fast lane.” He will be the center as well as the circumference of our counseling. Understanding the nature and causes of our human difficulties will include understanding ways in which we are unlike Christ in our values, aspirations, desires, thoughts, feelings, choices, attitudes, actions, responses, and other aspects of our lives. Resolving those sin-related difficulties will include being redeemed and justified through Christ, receiving God’s forgiveness through Christ, and acquiring from Christ enabling power to replace unchristlike (sinful) patterns of life with Christlike, godly ways of life.

In his book on Our Sufficiency in Christ, John MacArthur tells a story about a man who was shut out of a house on a cold night. He suffered some unpleasant consequences during the ordeal, all of which he could have avoided had he known the key to the house was in his pocket. Dr. MacArthur writes,
That true story illustrates the predicament of Christians who try to gain access to God’s blessings through human means, all the while possessing Christ, who is the key to every spiritual blessing. He alone fulfills the deepest longing of our hearts and supplies every spiritual resource we need. 
Believers have in Christ everything they will ever need to meet any trial, any craving, any difficulty they might ever encounter in this life. Even the newest convert possesses sufficient resources for every spiritual need. From the moment of salvation each believer is in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17) and Christ is in the believer (Colossians 1:27). The Holy Spirit abides within as well (Romans 8:9)—the Christian is His temple (1 Corinthians 6:19). “Of His fulness we have all received, and grace upon grace” (John 1:16). So every Christian is a self contained treasury of divinely bestowed spiritual affluence. There is nothing more—no great transcendental secret, no ecstatic experience, no hidden spiritual wisdom—that can take Christians to some higher plane of spiritual life. “His divine power has granted us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us” (2 Peter 1:3, emphasis added). “The true knowledge of Him” refers to saving knowledge. To seek something more is like frantically knocking on a door, seeking what is inside, not realizing you hold the key in your pocket. 
No higher knowledge, no hidden truth, nothing besides the all-sufficient resources that we find in Christ exists that can change the human heart. 
Any counselor who desires to honor God and be effective must see the goal of his efforts as leading a person to the sufficiency of Christ. The view that man is capable of solving his own problems, or that people can help one another by “therapy” or other human means, denies the doctrine of human depravity and man’s need for God. It replaces the Spirit’s transforming power with impotent human wisdom.[2]
For Christian counseling to occur, the people doing the counseling must be individuals who are conscientiously and comprehensively Christian in their outlook on life. Truly Christian counseling is done by people who have experienced the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, who have come to Christ in repentance and faith, who have acknowledged Him as Lord and Savior of their lives and who want to live lives of obedience to Him. Their main concern in life is to exalt Him and bring glory to His name. They believe that because God did not spare His own Son (from the cross) but delivered Him up (to the cross and death) for us (on our behalf as our substitute), He will freely give us—through Christ—all that we need for effective and productive living (for transforming us into the likeness of His Son). Truly Christian counseling is done by those whose theological convictions impact, permeate, and control their personal lives and their counseling theory and practice.

Christian Counseling Is Church-Centered

Another major distinctive of truly Christian counseling that I mentioned to my interviewer was that it will be conscientiously and comprehensively church-centered. The Scriptures clearly teach that the local church is the primary means by which God intends to accomplish His work in the world. The local church is His ordained instrument for calling the lost to Himself. It is also the context in which He sanctifies and changes His people into the very likeness of Christ. According to Scripture, the church is His household, the pillar and ground of the truth, and the instrument he uses in helping His people to put off the old manner of life (pre-Christian habit patterns and lifestyles, ways of thinking, feeling, choosing, and acting) and to put on the new self (a new manner of life, Christlike thoughts, feelings, choices, actions, values, and responses—Eph 4:1–32).

Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will lead a person to the conclusion that the church is at the center of God’s program for His people. Jesus Christ, who proclaimed that He would build His church (Matt 16:18), invested in it authority to act with the imprimatur of heaven (Matt 18:17–20) and ultimately revealed that His plan was to fill the world with local bodies of believers (Matt 28:18–20).

When trying to capture and project his conception of the role of the church in God’s program and with God’s people, John Calvin made this impassioned assertion:
Because it is now our intention to discuss the visible church, let us learn from the simple title “mother” how useful, indeed necessary, it is that we should know her. For there is no other way to enter life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give us birth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly, unless she keep us under her care and guidance until, putting off mortal flesh, we become like the angels (Matthew 22:30). Our weakness does not allow us to be dismissed from her school until we have been pupils all our lives…. God’s fatherly favor and the especial witness of spiritual life are limited to his flock, so that it is always disastrous to leave the church.[3]
This statement about the church by John Calvin was not specifically directed toward the issue of counseling. It does, however, indicate Calvin’s perspective on the importance of the church in the lives of believers. His view concurs with the ideas that the church is responsible for providing counseling and that Christians are responsible for seeking care and guidance for their personal lives. Calvin’s study of the Scriptures convinced him that the nurture, edification, and sanctification of believers was to be church-centered. I wholeheartedly agree with this emphasis because I believe this is the unmistakable teaching of Holy Scripture.[4]

Christian Counseling is Bible-based

As I continued to explain my views on Christian counseling, I told my visitor that truly Christian counseling will be conscientiously and comprehensively Bible-based, deriving from the Bible its understanding of who man is, the nature of his main problems, why he has these problems, and how to resolve them. For counseling to be worthy of the name of Christ, the counselor must be conscientiously and comprehensively committed to the sufficiency of Scripture for understanding and resolving all of the non-physical personal and interpersonal sin-related difficulties of man.

Questioning The Sufficiency Of Scripture

At this point, the individual who had come to ask about my views on Christian counseling responded by saying, “Well, what you’re saying about all of these things is nice, but what do you think should be done when people have really serious problems?”

Now, consider what this person—who claimed to be a Christian—was implying by that question. She was implying that the factors I had mentioned might prove helpful with people who have minor problems, but certainly they are not enough for resolving the really serious problems of life. She was intimating that the approach I had described was rather simplistic. She was suggesting that the resources that God prescribes in His Word for ministering to needy people are not adequate. She was insinuating that the substantial insights necessary for ministering to people with major difficulties must come from sources other than the ones I had mentioned.

Unfortunately, at least from my perspective, her views represent the opinions of many professing Christians. In a book entitled, Introduction to Biblical Counseling, Douglas Bookman describes the way many professing Christians think about the sufficiency of Scripture in counseling:
Any Christian who sets out to counsel another individual is aware that the counsel offered must be true. Counseling is by definition and impulse a helping ministry. It assumes that someone is confronted with some measure of confusion, disappointment, or despair and that a second person who endeavors to help by analyzing the counselee’s situation, sorting out the issues involved, and then offering helpful and healing advice and direction. But the efficacy of all that the counselor undertakes to do is dependent at least on this one thing: that his analysis and counsel is true. Thus, any thoughtful consideration of the ministry of counseling must begin with the most basic of all philosophical questions, that question articulated by a Roman procurator two thousand years ago, “What is truth?” 
Ever since its genesis as a distinguishable discipline almost four decades ago, the school of thought and ministry broadly known as Christian Psychology has been convulsed by the issue of its own epistemological construct. (That is, where ought/may Christians to go to find the truth necessary to help people who are hurting?) Because that discipline grew up largely within the broad limits of evangelical Christianity, there has been a universal acknowledgment of the veracity of Jesus’ answer to the question of truth when, as He addressed His heavenly Father in prayer, He stated simply, “Thy Word is truth.” 
But for most that answer alone has not sufficed. The persuasion continues—articulated, justified, and applied in various ways—that there is truth that is at least profitable and perhaps even necessary to the counseling effort. This truth is to be discovered beyond the pages of Scripture. Christians who are thus persuaded are anxious to affirm Jesus’ simple but profound declaration, yet they feel compelled to qualify that affirmation with the proposition that Scriptural truths may (or even must) be supplemented by truths that have been discovered by human investigation and observation. This persuasion lies at the heart of the integrationist impulse of Christian Psychology. 
By all accounts, this integrationist tendency is rather recent in origin. Throughout much of the twentieth century a spirit of mutual mistrust and even contempt existed between the worlds of secular psychology and Christian theology. But that hostility began to thaw in certain circles sometime in the middle of this century, and by this last decade of the twentieth century there exists an obvious attitude of reconciliation between Christianity and psychology in many quarters. Indeed, many devotees of Christian psychology evidence a greater measure of fraternity with the secular psychological community than with those Christians who are compelled by their theology to reject the discipline of secular psychotherapy.[5]
The Two-Book Approach

Bookman then proceeds to delineate several ways in which Christians who do not believe in the sufficiency of Scripture for counseling actually do regard and use God’s Word in counseling. One approach to the integration issue is called the two-book or the general versus special revelation approach. The argument that is often used to support this theory is that God reveals truth to us in two primary ways: through “nonpropositional truth deposited by God in the created order of things” which “must be investigated and discovered by mankind” and through “the propositional truth recorded in Scripture.” The idea is that since all truth is God’s truth it really does not matter where that truth is found. Those who hold to this view believe that “the truth accurately derived from the consideration of the natural order of things (general revelation) is just as true as that derived from Scripture. When applied to the area of counseling, the proponents of this approach affirm that “any defensible truth that is derived by means of psychological research into the order of mankind is truth derived from general revelation, thus truth derived from God, and thus truth as dependable and authoritative as truth exegeted from Scripture.”[6]

A representative quote from Harold Ellens, a defender of this two-book view, clearly illustrates the thrust of this position. He asserts,
Theology and Psychology are both sciences in their own right, stand legitimately on their own foundations, read carefully are the two books of God’s Revelation… 
Wherever truth is disclosed it is always God’s truth. Whether it is found in General Revelation or Special Revelation, it is truth which has equal warrant with all other truth. Some truth may have greater weight than other truth in a specific situation, but there is no difference in its warrant as truth.[7]
In another publication, Ellens gives additional information about the nature and rationale for the two-book perspective. In keeping with this idea that general and special revelation are complementary, serving different purposes and being equally authoritative, he makes the following comments:
I believe the Bible to be an internally coherent testimony of the believing community throughout a 2000 to 3000 year period regarding the mighty acts of God’s redemption in the community’s experience. I believe that testimony is normative and authoritative for us in matters of faith and life because it is a warrantable testimony and is God’s universalized truth. This does not, however, force me to agree that the Bible is authoritative truth in matters which are not the focus and burden of that spirit-inspired, redemptive testimony of the historic believers. Moreover, because the Bible is a testimony incarnated in the human fabric of historical and cultural material, just as God’s testimony in the Son of God himself was incarnated in that same human stuff, it is imperative that its human limitations and historical anomalies be differentiated from its redemptively revelational material. Jesus, for example, … spoke quite erroneously in terms of a three-storied universe, an imminent second coming, and the like. Humanness radically conditioned him with cultural-historical limitations as regards issues that were not central to the single truth of God’s testimony in him, that is, that God is for us, not against us. Why are those who insist on inerrancy as the only foundation for authority in Scripture afraid to have a Bible that is at least as culturally bound as was the incarnate Son of God himself …? 
Sound psychological theory and practice genuinely enhance the patient’s personhood. God designed what that is. Christians perceive it to varying degrees. Full-orbed personhood may be achieved by patients to varying levels of functionality. Sound psychology, which brings the patient, for example, out of depression to emotional resilience and stability is just as Christian at that level as at the level affording the final stages of maturity…. Even if that deliverance from depression is done by a secularist, it is a Kingdom act and a Christian enterprise… 
What makes practice in the helping professions Christian is less the imparting of biblical information or religious practices to the patient, and more the enhancement of healthy functionality of the human as person: in the direction of completeness in body, mind and spirit. That practice of the helping professions that is preoccupied with the final step of wholeness, spiritual maturity, will short-circuit the therapeutic process and put the religious dynamic of the patient or therapist straight into the religious person’s pathology.[8]
The No-Book Approach

Another approach to the integration issue might be called the no-book approach, which suggests that we cannot really be sure our understanding of the Bible is accurate because our interpretive efforts are always colored by our own perspectives. Bookman explains this approach in this way:
All human knowledge is flawed by definition. There is no reason to be any more suspicious of science than of theology (i.e., of the theories and facts derived by human investigation than of supposed truths derived from Scripture) simply because Scripture is no less liable to the limitations of human participation than is any other truth source. 
Regardless of the authority and/or veracity of the truth source, human knowing of truth can only approach greater and greater levels of probability; certainty is propositionally unthinkable.[9]
Though this viewpoint may seem incredulous to most Christians, it is likely to become the dominant view of so-called “Christian counseling” in the years ahead. This viewpoint already dominates post-critical hermeneutics and will most likely continue to filter down into the arena of pastoral and religious counseling.

The Filtering-Device Approach

Some Christians who are not comfortable with either of the previously mentioned perspectives assert that the Bible should be used as a rule book or filtering device for identifying counseling truth. According to the advocates of this view,
All truth claims that are the result of human cogitations, investigations, and theorizing must be subjected to the Word of God that alone will be allowed to pass judgment on the veracity and applicability of those truth claims. The Bible and the Bible alone will be granted the role of falsification; that is, if a truth-claim is discerned to contradict or compromise a truth established in Scripture, that competing truth-claim is to be adjudged false.[10] 
Truth derived from the study of any segment of general revelation, whether psychology or any other field, is not as trustworthy as the truth found in Scriptures. This is the reason that the integrationist will filter psychological truth through biblical truth and will accept only that which is not contradictory to God’s special revelation.[11]
This view is sometimes called “spoiling the Egyptians”—a phrase from Exod 12:36 used in reference to what the Israelites did when they were delivered from their Egyptian captivity. This incident is used to illustrate and give some biblical warrant to the practice of accepting and benefitting from extrabiblical insights in the realm of counseling theory and practice. The idea is that since the Israelites did not reject the silver and gold that came from ungodly Egyptians (in fact, they were commanded by God to take all of the silver and gold they could get—Exod 3:21–22), we should not reject counseling theories and practices discovered and used by unbelievers.

Though proponents of these three major approaches to Christian counseling differ on some issues, they are all agreed on one major point: the traditional biblical resources for dealing with man’s problems are not enough; they simply are not adequate. We must use insights and ideas and techniques that are not taught by nor found in God’s Word. Bookman and others have written excellent resources that expose the errors of such thinking, and I recommend their writings to you for further illumination and refutation.[12]

The Shortcomings Of Extrabiblical Insights

Limitations of Human Knowledge

I have three reasons for rejecting the idea that Christian counselors need extrabiblical insights to do truly effective counseling. The first reason is related to the finiteness of man’s knowledge. The fact that man is finite necessarily limits the extent and validity of his knowledge. Even Adam, the first man, was a finite human being who needed God’s revelation for a correct understanding of God, himself, what was right and wrong, what was true and what was false, what should be believed and what should not be believed (Gen 1:26–28; 2:15–17, 24).

An old fable about six blind men who all bumped into and felt different parts of the same elephant illustrates the futility of man’s attempts to find absolute truth by the usual means of intuition, reason or logic, or empirical research. As the story goes, one man approached the elephant from the front and grasped his trunk and said, “An elephant is like a fire hose.” A second blind man happened to touch one of the animals tusks and said, “An elephant is like a thick spear.” The third blind man felt the elephant’s side and said, “An elephant is like a wall.” The fourth blind man approached the elephant from the rear and, gripping its tail, said, “An elephant is like a rope.” The fifth man grabbed one of the elephant’s legs and said, “An elephant is like the trunk of a tree.” The sixth man who was a very tall grabbed one of the elephant’s ears said, “An elephant is like a fan.”

Which of these depictions of an elephant was correct? None of them! Why? Because each of them encountered or experienced only a limited portion the whole elephant. Their knowledge of what an elephant was like was restricted and even erroneous because of the limitations of their experience and perception. And so it is and always must be with finite mortal man when it comes to the matter of discerning absolute truth apart from revelation from the living God, who knows all things and sees the whole picture clearly and perfectly.

A recent newspaper article reminded me of the futility of thinking that finite man can discover absolute truth apart from divine revelation. In the “tongue in cheek” article entitled “Education’s Duplicity, Uselessness,” Russell Baker writes,
Pluto may not be a planet. Can you believe it? Is everything we learn in school a lie? 
This Pluto business is the last straw in the duplicity and uselessness of education. Now I have to deal with Plutonic revisionism, and I haven’t even recovered from the discovery that you should not eat a good breakfast. 
“Always eat a good breakfast.” That’s what they taught us in school. They said it was good for us. 
Well, you know it, I know it, we all know it: they were wrong. We now know a good breakfast is bad for you. Those eggs sunny side up, that crisp bacon, the butter-soaked toast covered with jelly—bad for you. 
So now we always eat a bad breakfast because they say a bad breakfast is good for you. 
And remember the milk? Remember paying the milk money and having milk served right there in the class room? What kind of milk was it? 
Was it skim milk? Was it low fat milk? Hah! You know it wasn’t. It was milk with all the evil left in. 
And they said it was good for you. Good for you! It was clogging your arteries and hastening your trip to the grave. 
And they called that an education! 
The older you get the clearer it becomes that education for the young may not only be useless, but downright dangerous.[13]
At this point in the article, Baker goes on to make a few more “tongue in cheek” remarks about the way what we once considered to be truth has been revised. And then having done this, he concludes with these words:
Many people become as irked as I do about the incessant need to keep up with today’s wisdom by abandoning or revising yesterday’s. And of course today’s wisdom will just as inevitably have to be abandoned or revised as the future bears down upon us. 
You can bet the world has not faced the last revision of knowledge about Pluto, or about what constitutes a good breakfast. The revising of what we think of as knowledge goes on forever, and always has. 
The truth about knowledge seems to be that its truth is only a sometimes thing, that what we accept as truth this year will have to be abandoned as the world turns. 
This endless abandonment and revision is usually said to result from progress. But suppose progress is also an idea doomed to be abandoned. What if there is no such thing as progress, but only change?[14]
In this article, Russell Baker astutely identifies the tentative nature of our humanly discovered knowledge or “truth” as he asserts that “what we accept as truth this year will have to be abandoned or revised.” And why is humanly discovered “truth … only a sometimes thing”? One reason is that man’s finiteness necessarily limits the extent and validity of his knowledge.

Depravity of Human Nature

A second factor that causes me to reject the idea that Christian counselors should welcome and depend on extra biblical insights and therapies connects to the biblical teaching about the depravity of man’s nature since the fall of Adam in Genesis 3. Any biblical discussion of how man comes to know truth must include a consideration of what theologians often refer to as the “noëtic”[15] effects of sin. Scripture clearly teaches that sin has affected every aspect of man’s being. Man’s character, speech, and behavior have all been perverted by sin[16] —as well as his emotions and desires, his conscience and will, his intellect, his thought processes, his goals and motives, the way he views and interprets life. None of man’s faculties has escaped the corrupting, corrosive, perverting, and debilitating impact of sin.

In reference to the cognitive, motivational and emotional aspects of man’s being, Scripture asserts that
  • The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it? (Jer 17:9).
  • The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if there are any who understands … (Ps 53:2).
  • For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness…. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever…. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind … (Rom 1:18, 22, 25, 28).
  • The mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God … (Rom 8:7).
  • You were formerly alienated and hostile in your mind … (Col 1:21).
  • To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their consciences are defiled (Tit 1:15).
  • Out of the heart come evil thoughts… (Matt 15:19).
In commenting on the noëtic effects of sin, Edward Reynolds wrote,
Look into the mind; you shall find it full of vanity, wasting and wearying itself in childishness, impertinent, unprofitable notions, ‘full of ignorance and darkness’; no man knoweth, nay no man hath so much acknowledged, as to enquire or seek after God in the way whereby he will be found. Nay more, when God breaks in upon the mind, by some notable testimony from his creatures, judgments, or providence—yet they like it not, they hold it down, they reduce themselves back again to foolish hearts, to reprobate and undiscerning minds, as naturally as hot water returns to its former coldness. Full of curiosity, rash, unprofitable enquiries, foolish and unlearned questions, profane babblings … perverse disputes, all the fruits of corrupt and rotten minds. Full of pride and contradiction against the truth, ‘oppositions of science,’ that is, setting up of philosophy and vain deceits, imaginations, thoughts, fleshly reasonings against the spirit and truth which is in Jesus. Full of … fleshly wisdom, human inventions … of rules and methods of its own to … come to happiness. Full of inconstancy and roving swarms of empty and foolish thoughts, slipperiness, and unstableness…[17]
What a clear description of the effects of sin on the mind of man! “But,” you may ask, “what does this teaching about the noëtic effect of sin have to do with whether or not Christian counselors should accept and use extrabiblical insights in their counseling efforts?”

The answer to that question is simple: Scripture teaches that the minds of unredeemed men have been adversely affected by sin and, as a result, even if they observe something accurately, they are likely to interpret it wrongly. Having the kind of mind (including all the cognitive, motivational, and emotional aspects previously mentioned) described in the previous verses, unregenerate—and even to some extent regenerate—men will tend to distort truth. The only way we can think rightly is to allow the Holy Spirit to renew our minds so that we will learn to look at, interpret, and understand life through the lens of Scripture (Pss 119:104; 36:9; Isa 8:19, 20; Rom 1:18–32; 12:2; Eph 4:23).

When he commented on the role that secular disciplines should play in biblical counseling, David Powlison vividly describes the noëtic impact of sin on man’s thinking processes:
Secular disciplines may serve us well as they describe people; they may challenge us by how they seek to explain, guide, and change people; but they seriously mislead us when we take them at face value because they are secular. They explain people, define what people ought to be like, and try to solve people’s problems without considering God and man’s relationship to God. Secular disciplines have made a systematic commitment to being wrong. 
This is not to deny that secular people are often brilliant observers of other human beings. They are often ingenious critics and theoreticians. But they also distort what they see and mislead by what they teach and do, because from God’s point of view the wisdom of the world has fundamental folly written through it. They will not acknowledge that God has created human beings as God-related and God accountable creatures. The mind set of secularity is like a power saw with a set that deviates from the right angle. It may be a powerful saw, and it may cut a lot of wood, but every board comes out crooked.[18]
Because of our finiteness and sinfulness, our understanding of man and his problems can be trusted only as our thoughts and insights reflect the teaching of Holy Scripture. We simply are not able to ascertain truth apart from Divine revelation. In another work, I wrote,
We have no standard by which we can evaluate whether something is true or false except the Word of God. Thus while we can be confident that whatever we share with our counselees from the Word of God is true, we should have a healthy skepticism about any theory or insight that does not proceed from Scripture. If it is not taught by the Word of God alone, it may be error.[19]
In his book Every Thought Captive, Richard Pratt explains man’s epistemological predicament apart from Divine revelation this way:
All that can properly be called truth, not just ‘religious truth’ resides first in God and men know truly only as they come to God’s revelation of Himself as the source of truth. .. (Psalm 94:10)…. This dependence on God in the area of knowledge does not mean that men are without the true ability to think and reason…. Men do actually think, yet true knowledge is dependent on and derived from God’s knowledge as it has been revealed to man.[20]
“But,” someone may ask, “what about those statements that finite and sinful men make that seem to be a reiteration of concepts and ideas taught by Scripture? Must we regard these observations as false because the person did not get them from the Bible?” Those questions may be answered in several ways:
  1. People may have been influenced by biblical teaching through various means and not even be aware of it, nor do they give the Bible credit for their insights. But even if this occurs, they will always distort Scriptural teaching and put their own spin on it. They may, for example, talk about the importance of God, prayer, forgiveness, dealing with guilt, of taking responsibility, love, confession, or the spiritual dimension in life. On the surface, a person’s teaching on these concepts may seem very biblical, but on further investigation the theologically, biblically trained person will discover that not everything that sounds the same is the same. People may use the same words or seem to be presenting the same concepts that God does in His Word, but fill those words and concepts with completely different meanings. Inevitably, the Bible indicates that men will suppress, pervert, devalue, deny, and distort the truth even if it is staring them in the face (Rom 1:18; 1 Cor 2:14).
  2. Extrabiblical statements that seem to reflect biblical truth must be regarded as false because, as Richard Pratt states, “They are not the result of voluntary obedience to God’s revelation…”[21
  3. “Beyond this,” Pratt continues, “the statements are falsified by the non-Christian framework of meaning and therefore lead away from the worship of God. If nothing else, the mere commitment to human independence falsifies the non-Christian’s statements.”[22]
The Sufficiency of Scripture

My third reason for rejecting the idea that Christian counselors need extrabiblical insights to do effective counseling is that the Bible says God has given us—in our union with Christ and in His Word—everything that is necessary for living and for godliness (2 Pet 1:3). Scripture clearly says that it contains all the principles and practical insights that are necessary for understanding people and their problems (as we’ll see in a moment). So, apart from the question of whether it is possible to integrate the ideas of man with the truths of God’s Word is the issue of whether or not it is necessary. On this matter, I am convinced the Scripture’s own testimony about its sufficiency, adequacy, and superiority is abundantly plain.

To demonstrate the biblical accuracy of this third truth, I could cite numerous passages of Scripture, but for the sake of time and space, I will refer to only three representative passages: one from the OT and two from the NT. Psalm 19:7–11 makes numerous statements about the Bible that no one would ever consider making about the ideas of any man. This text makes assertions that set the Bible in a class all by itself—statements that unmistakably demonstrate the Bible’s sufficiency and superiority over any of man’s theories. Consider carefully what this passage declares about what Scripture is and what it can do, and then think of the counseling implications of these assertions. According to Ps 19:7–11, Scripture
  1. Is perfect (whole, complete, sufficient, lacking nothing) and therefore able to restore (transform, renew, restore) the soul (the inner man, the real self)—v. 7.
  2. Is a sure (trustworthy, reliable, dependable) witness and therefore able to make wise the simple (people who lack a proper understanding of life, of God, of themselves, of others)—v. 7.
  3. Contains the precepts (principles, guidelines, rules for character and conduct) that are right (correct, in accord with what is just and good, appropriate and fitting) and therefore able to cause the heart (the totality of man’s inner non-physical self) to rejoice (to experience a sense of well being, serenity, tranquility, and peace)—v. 8.
  4. Is authoritative (it gives mandates and directives that are always correct) and pure (clear, untainted with evil or error) and therefore able to bring light into man’s chaos and confusion, to replace man’s ignorance and lack of understanding with clear direction, perspective and insight—v. 8.
  5. Is clean (uncontaminated, free from impurity, defilement) and enduring (permanent, unchanging, relevant, up to date, never outdated, never in need of alteration) and therefore able to produce the fear of the Lord (a wholesome and incredibly practical and positive reverence for God)—v. 9.
  6. Provides insights about God, man, life, and everything needed for living and godliness that are altogether true (they correspond to and accurately reflect reality, they tell it like it really is) and righteous (they reflect that which is right, good and holy, that which is truly just and fair) and therefore lead men to understand and practice what is truly real and right—v. 9.
  7. Being “more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold” is able to produce in us a kind of prosperity that is more valuable than all the material riches of the world—v. 10.
  8. Being “sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb” is able to remove the sourness, acidity, and bitterness caused by sin and to produce in us a sweetness of life that surpasses anything the world can provide—v. 10.
  9. Possessing all of the previously noted qualities, is able to infallibly warn and protect us from the numerous dangers and disasters of life caused by ignorance of what is truly right—v. 11.
  10. Possessing all of the previously noted characteristics, is able to preserve us from temptation, sin, error, false teaching, and every other threat to the health and well being of our inner man—our thoughts, emotions, affections, and attitudes—v. 11.
Believing as I do in the inspiration and inerrancy and authority of the Scriptures, Ps 19:7–11 settles the sufficiency issue for me. If words mean anything, how could I come to any other conclusion? But there’s more—much more. And some of that “more” is found in 2 Tim 3:1–17. In the first thirteen verses of this chapter, Paul delineates a host of problems representative of what counselors often encounter in their attempts to help people. Many people who require counseling do so because they are struggling with difficulties that stem from one or many of the sinful attitudes, desires, and actions that Paul mentions in this rich passage.

Some people seek counseling because of problems that are associated with being “lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, lacking in self control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God” (vv. 2–4). Some individuals need counseling because they are “holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power” (v. 5). Some are struggling because they are “weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses” (v. 6). Many experience severe difficulties in their lives that are related to pride, opposition to and rebellion against God’s truth, ungodly thoughts, deceitful patterns of living, and people-relationships. Unpleasant, distressing difficulties that motivate people to seek counseling occur because they are “always learning and never able to come to the truth” or because they live in the midst of a society of people who are evil and hypocritical, people who are going “from bad to worse” (vv. 6–13). People need counseling either because they are personally experiencing and manifesting sinful attitudes, desires, and behaviors or they are personally suffering from the impact of associating with people who manifest the sinful patterns depicted in this passage.

Where do we turn for resources to minister to these kinds of people? What do we need for understanding and resolving their problems? Paul answers those questions in verses 14–17. At this point in his epistle, he turns from a description of the kinds of problems that people experience in this sin-cursed world to a description of the resources Christians have for ministering to the people he has just described in the first thirteen verses. In clear and unmistakable words, Paul tells us that Scripture contains the resources we need for ministering to people who live in a 2 Tim 3:1–13 society. In concise and direct terms, he extols the Bible’s total adequacy for ministering to people whose lives are characterized and/or affected by the things mentioned in verses 1–13.

Why Is Scripture Adequate?

Paul emphasizes the total adequacy of God’s Word in 2 Tim 3:14–17 in the following manner:

1. It is holy or sacred (v.15). It is set apart from any other writing or literary production; it is unique; it is in a class all by itself. No other writing can compare with what is written in the Scriptures.

2. It is able (v.15). It has power to do things to and in people. “It is,” as Jay Adams has written, “the Holy Spirit’s tool for working in the minds and hearts of men and women to make them like Christ. Being peculiarly associated with the Spirit both in its composition and in its use, the Bible is powerful, able to transform our lives.”[23]

3. It is inspired by God (v. 16). Literally, the Greek word translated “inspired” means “God-breathed.” So Paul is telling us that the Bible is unique and able because its truths had their origin in God; they are not merely some man’s opinions or discoveries or insights. As Peter said, “No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pet 1:20–21). That is why when quoting a portion of Psalm 2—a psalm written by David—the early Christians said that the truth found in this psalm came by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of David (Acts 4:24–26). To the early Christians, the words of Scripture were authoritative and sufficient because, though coming through the agency of holy men, they ultimately had their origin in God.

4. It is profitable or useful (v. 16). It has utilitarian value; it enhances life; it is profitable in every way—for time and eternity, for our relationship with God and our relationship with our fellow man, for our spiritual and emotional and mental well-being, for our marriages and families, for our goals and motivations, for guidance and direction, for comfort and challenge, for preventing and resolving our inner and interpersonal problems, for all of life. It is useful for teaching; it is the instrument the Holy Spirit uses to provide for us a standard of what is right and wrong, good and bad, true and false about all of the truly important matters of life.
Scripture is useful for reproof; it is the instrument the Holy Spirit uses to convict us of sin, to show us where and how we are wrong in our thinking, motives, desires, attitudes, feelings, values, actions, and reactions. It is the instrument the Holy Spirit uses to bring us under conviction and motivate us to want to repent and change. 
God’s Word is useful for correction; it is the instrument the Holy Spirit uses to point us in the right direction and correct our sinful thoughts, motives, feelings, actions, and speech. Scripture not only shows us where and how we need to change, but actually tells us how to change and what to change to. And Scripture is profitable for training; it is the instrument the Holy Spirit uses to help us develop new patterns of life. It makes that which is unnatural—living righteously—natural and makes that which is difficult—living God’s way—easier. It helps us develop strength in the areas in which we are weak.
5. It can thoroughly equip the man of God for every good work (v. 17). Through Scripture, the Holy Spirit thoroughly equips His servants—people of God—to do everything He wants them to do in the kind of society described in 2 Tim 3:1–13. Do God’s people need anything more than the Scripture to minister effectively to the people living in the world he has described? Is anything else really necessary? Absolutely not! Scripture can thoroughly equip every believer. In Scripture, Christians have everything they need to understand people and their problems and to help them resolve the same.[24]

John Murray draws the following conclusion from 2 Tim 3:15–17: “There is no situation in which we (as men of God) are placed, no demand that arises for which Scripture as the deposit of the manifold wisdom of God is not adequate and sufficient.”[25]

Our Sufficiency In Christ

Perhaps there is no better summary of the Bible’s teaching about our complete sufficiency in Christ than the one given by the apostle Peter when he wrote that by His divine power God “has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness” (2 Pet 1:3). “Life” has to do with everything that we experience on the horizontal plain—in terms of what it takes to live effectively and biblically in our daily activities and relationships with our environment and other people. “Godliness” has to do with our relationship with God—with living a God-centered, God-conscious life marked by godly character and conduct.

Peter proceeds to define “everything pertaining to life and godliness” as “becom[ing] partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4–8, emphasis added). It involves being born again or from above, becoming a new creation in Christ Jesus, receiving from God a new nature with new dispositions, desires, interests, potential, and power; putting on the new self; and being renewed in the image of God (John 3:1–8; Rom 6:1–11; 2 Cor 5:17; Col 3:10; 1 Pet 1:23; 2 Pet 1:4). It involves the capacity to “escape the corruption that is in the world caused by evil desires” (2 Pet 1:4). It involves developing the qualities of faith, moral excellence, true knowledge, self control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and Christian love (2 Pet 1:4–7) so that you might live a useful life for Christ (2 Pet 1:8–10).

Life and godliness also involves being able to deal successfully with issues that are present in the lives of people who seek counseling. People who need counseling lack the qualities that Peter mentions in 2 Pet 1:4–7 and need help in developing them. It is interesting to observe that people whose lives reflect these qualities do not need much formal counseling. This passage is pregnant with counseling implications.

Notice that Peter says that God has, by His divine power, “granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness” (2 Pet 1:3, emphasis added). Everything that is needed to develop this kind of life and acquire this kind of life and acquire the qualities in verses 4–7 has been granted to us by God. And how do we tap into these powerful, all-sufficient resources? Peter declared that these divine resources become ours through the true knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord and through the medium of His precious and magnificent promises (2 Pet 1:2–4). In other words, the repository of the everything we need for life and godliness is found in our glorious and excellent God and His precious and magnificent word (2 Pet 1:2–4).

Our sufficiency in Christ is found in a deeper, fuller, applicatory, life-changing knowledge of the glory and excellence of God and the magnificence and preciousness of His promises. According to Green, God has called us to share “something of His moral excellence in this life, and of His glory hereafter…. The triple agency of the promises, the power and the Person of the Lord regenerate a man and make him a sharer in God’s own nature, so that the family likeness begins to be seen in him.”[26]

Worthy Of Full Confidence

In light of what we have learned from Ps 19:7–11, 2 Tim 3:15–17, and 2 Pet 1:3–7, I ask this question: Could God have stated more clearly the sufficiency of our resources in Christ and in His Word? What more could He have said to get the message through to us that we do not need any extrabiblical resources to understand people and their problems and help them to develop the qualities, attitudes, desires, values, feelings, and behavior that are proper for relating to and living before God in a way that pleases and honors Him.

A consideration of the truths presented in these three passages and many other sections of Scripture forces me to draw three conclusions:
  1. The inerrant Bible to which Christians are committed as an authority in life teaches that God has provided for us in His Word whatever is true and necessary for successful living. It declares that God has given us, in the Bible, everything we need for being in right relationship with God, ourselves, and other people.
  2. Because this is true, professing Christians have two options: either they must yield to its teaching on this matter or they must abandon the idea that the Bible is inerrant and authoritative. It is either inerrant and authoritative and also sufficient or it is none of these things. If the Bible claims to be sufficient in the ways and for the purposes previously delineated and it is not, then you cannot say it is inerrant and authoritative. Given what the Bible teaches about itself, you simply cannot have it both ways.
  3. This final conclusion is a natural concomitant of accepting the truthfulness of the first conclusion: Because the Bible asserts its own sufficiency for counseling-related issues, secular psychology has nothing to offer for understanding or providing solutions to the non-physical problems of people. When it comes to counseling people, we have no reason for depending on the insights of finite and fallen men. Rather, we have every reason to place our confidence in the sure, dependable, and entirely trustworthy revelation of God given to us in Holy Scripture. That is because it contains a God-ordained, sufficient, comprehensive system of theoretical commitments, principles, insights, goals, and appropriate methods for understanding and resolving the non-physical problems of people. It provides for us a model that needs no supplement. God, the expert on helping people, has given us in Scripture counseling perspectives and methodology that are wholly adequate for resolving our sin-related problems.
The Need For Caution

David Powlison has stated well the danger of including extrabiblical ideas in the counsel offered to or by Christians:
Let us clarify first what we mean by counseling methodology. A counseling methodology is a system of theoretical commitments, principles, goals, and appropriate methods. It is a set of interconnected things; it is not a collection of random and eclectic bits of observation or technique. A counseling methodology is an organized, committed way of understanding and tackling people’s problems. 
Do secular disciplines have anything to offer to the methodology of biblical counseling? The answer is a flat no. Scriptures provide the system for Biblical counseling. Other disciplines—history, anthropology, literature, sociology, psychology, biology, business, political science—may be useful in a variety of secondary ways to the pastor and the biblical counselor, but such discipline can never provide a system of understanding and counseling people. 
God is the expert when it comes to people, and He has spoken and acted to change us and equip us to help others change.[27]
Secular psychology may play an illustrative (providing examples and details that, when carefully and radically reinterpreted, illustrate the biblical model) or provocative (challenging us to study the Scriptures more thoroughly to develop our model in areas we have not thought about or have neglected or misconstrued) function, but, because of man’s finiteness and fallenness, the insights, methodologies, and practices of secular psychology are in many instances dangerously unbiblical and dishonoring to God and harmful to people. Other aspects of secular psychology are at best neutral and therefore unnecessary.

None of the illustrations, observations, or details that secularists present are really necessary for the task of understanding and helping people. We already have all we need—the authoritative, indispensable, perspicuous, sufficient, and superior revelation of God in His Word (Isa 8:19–20). Why then would any Christian think that we must turn to or place our dependence on the extrabiblical theories or practices of men for understanding and promoting change in people?[28]

Notes
  1. This essay is adapted from the chapter “What Is Biblical Counseling?,” Totally Sufficient, Ed Hinson and Howard Eyrich, gen eds. (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House 1997). It is used by permission.
  2. John MacArthur, Jr., Our Sufficiency in Christ (Dallas: Word, 1991) 27, 72. In the last paragraph quoted, MacArthur is referring to attempts to help people based on secular humanistic theories, techniques, and therapies. He is not referring to the kind of counseling being described in this chapter, as is evidenced from many of his other writings, from his co-editing a book titled Introduction to Biblical Counseling, as well as from the facts that the church he pastors has a very active counselor training and counseling ministry and that The Master’s College, of which he is the president, has an undergraduate major in biblical counseling and a graduate program leading to an MA in biblical counseling.
  3. John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion (reprint, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960) 2:1012.
  4. More about the role of the church in the lives of believers may be found in the book by Wayne Mack and David Swavely, Life in the Father’s House: A Member’s Guide to the Local Church (Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1996).
  5. Douglas Bookman, “The Scriptures and Biblical Counseling,” Introduction to Biblical Counseling, John F. MacArthur, Jr., and Wayne A. Mack, eds. (Dallas: Word, 1994) 63-65.
  6. Ibid., 69.
  7. J. Harold Ellens, “Biblical Themes in Psychological Theory and Practice,” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 6/2 (1980):2, as cited by Bookman, “The Scriptures and Biblical Counseling” 71.
  8. J. Harold Ellens, “Biblical Authority and Christian Psychology,” Journal of Psychology and Theology 9/4 (1981):320.
  9. Bookman, “The Scriptures and Biblical Counseling” 90.
  10. Ibid., 90.
  11. William F. English, “An Integrationist’s Critique of and Challenge to the Bobgan’s View of Counseling Psychotherapy,” Journal of Psychology and Theology 18/3 (1990):229, as cited by Bookman, “The Scriptures and Biblical Counseling” 91.
  12. Important critiques related to integrationist attempts are found in Introduction to Biblical Counseling 63–97; Michael S. Horton, ed., Power Religion, chap. 8 by David Powlison and chap. 9 by Edward Welch (Chicago: Moody, 1992) 191-218, 219–43; David Powlison, Journal of Psychology and Theology 12/4 (1984):270-78; Jay Adams, Competent to Counsel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970); Jay Adams, A Theology of Christian Counseling (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979); Jay Adams, Teaching To Observe (Woodruff, S. C.: Timeless Texts, 1995); Edward Bulkley, Why Christians Can’t Trust Psychology (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1993); Gary Almy, Addicted to Recovery (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1994); David F. Wells, No Place For Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993); John MacArthur, Our Sufficiency in Christ, (Dallas: Word, 1991); John MacArthur, The Vanishing Conscience (Dallas: Word, 1994); John MacArthur, Reckless Faith (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1994); Noel Weeks, The Sufficiency of Scripture (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1988), 3–46, 76–90, 167–82; James Owen, Christian Psychology’s War On God’s Word (Santa Barbara, Calif.: East Gate, 1993).
  13. Russell Baker, “Education’s Duplicity, uselessness,” New York Times, March 16, 1996.
  14. Ibid.
  15. The word “noëtic” is related to the Greek word nous, which in English means “mind.” This Greek word denotes “the seat of reflection, consciousness, comprising the faculties of perception and understanding, and those of feeling, judging and determining” (W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words [Westwood, N. J.: Revell, 1957] 69).
  16. Cf. Rom 1:18–3:23; 8:8; 1 Kgs 8:46; Pss 14:1–13; 51:5; 58:3; Isa 53:6; 64:6; Eph 2:1–3.
  17. Edward Reynolds, The Sinfulness of Sin (1826 reprint, Ligonier, Pa.: Sola Deo Gloria, 1992). 123 [emphasis added].
  18. David Powlison, “Frequently Asked Questions about Biblical Counseling,” Introduction to Biblical Counseling 365–66.
  19. Wayne A. Mack, “Providing Instruction through Biblical Counseling,” in Introduction to Biblical Counseling 254.
  20. Richard Pratt, Every Thought Captive (Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1979) 17.
  21. Ibid., 17.
  22. Ibid.
  23. Jay Adams, How to Help People Change (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986) 23-24.
  24. See Jay Adams’ book, How to Help People Change, for a fuller explanation and application of 2 Tim 3:14–17.
  25. John Murray, Collected Writings, 3:261, cited by Michael Green, Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968) 64.
  26. Michael Green, The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968) 64.
  27. Powlison, “Frequently Asked Questions about Biblical Counseling” 365–66.
  28. The purpose of this article has been to demonstrate that the Bible asserts its sufficiency for understanding and resolving the kinds of issues that counselors (Christian or non-Christian) deal with in their attempts to help people. It has not been my intention in this article to demonstrate how the Scriptures are sufficient, i.e., to provide specific examples of how they actually help to understand man and his problems and provide details about a biblical methodology for resolving the variety of problems that people encounter. For those who want to pursue this ‘how to’ aspect more fully I will list some representative resources: John F. MacArthur, Jr., and Wayne A. Mack, eds., Introduction to Biblical Counseling (Dallas: Word, 1994), chaps. 10–16, 20; I have developed many books and audio and video tapes of counseling courses plus tapes dealing with a biblical approach to counseling on a variety of specific issues (a catalog listing these materials is available by writing to the author at 21726 W. Placerita Canyon Road, Newhall, CA 91322); The Master’s College offers an undergraduate emphasis leading to a BA and a graduate program leading to an MA in biblical counseling (P.O. Box 278, 21726 W. Placerita Canyon Road, Newhall, CA 91322); Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation West has video tapes of several counseling courses, plus they offer numerous training courses (3495 College Avenue, San Diego, CA 92115); Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation East offers courses on biblical counseling and produces an excellent journal, The Biblical Counseling Journal, for biblical counselors (1803 East Willow Grove Avenue, Laverock, PA 19118); the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors (NANC) sponsors conferences, produces a biblical counseling publication, and has audio and video tapes on numerous ‘how to’ issues (NANC, 5526 State Road 26 East, Lafayette, IN 47905); Jay Adams has written numerous books and produced many audio and video tapes on various biblical counseling issues (Woodruff, S. C.: Timeless Texts); Gary Almy, Addicted to Recovery (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1994); Edward Bulkley, Only God Can Heal the Wounded Heart (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1995); David Powlison, Power Encounters (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995); Edward Welch, Counselor’s Guide to the Brain and Its Disorders: Knowing the Difference Between Sin and Disease (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991); Richard Baxter, A Christian Directory (1877; reprint, Pittsburgh: Solo Deo Gloria); William Playfair, The Useful Lie (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1991); William Bridge, A Lifting up of the Downcast (reprint, Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth, 1979); Jeremiah Burroughs, The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment (reprint, Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth, 1979); D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Spiritual Depression: Its Causes and Its Cure (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965); Michael Bobick, From Slavery to Sonship: A Biblical Psychology for Pastoral Counseling (available from Grace Book Shack, 13248 Roscoe Boulevard, Sun Valley, CA 91352); Sound Word Cassettes (430 Boyd Circle, P.O. Box 2035, Mail Station, Michigan City, IN 46360) carries many audio and video tapes on counseling various problems biblically; Westminster Theological Seminary (Chestnut Hill, P.O. Box 27009, Philadelphia, PA 19118 and 1725 Bear Valley Parkway, Escondido, CA 92027) offers many counseling courses that provide a biblical approach on various counseling issues. In these resources, you will find information about a biblical counseling methodology for understanding and resolving the problems of people biblically. In these resources you will find case studies and teaching that illustrate the sufficiency of Scripture for people who claim to be suffering from multiple personality disorder (MPD); various kinds of eating disorders; sexual sins such as incest, homosexuality, transvestism, transexualism, slavery to pornography and lust; depression; anxiety; anger; bizarre, schizophrenic behavior; drug abuse, including slavery to alcohol; and what secularists would call obsessive, compulsive disorders. You will find biblically based information on counseling and the problems of the past, self-esteem problems, chronic fatigue, demon possession, chemical imbalance, victimization, suffering, human defensiveness, women in menopause, women and PMS, confidentiality in counseling, crisis counseling, guilt, panic attacks, inordinate fears, psychological testing, ADHD, rebuilding a marriage after adultery, counseling various kinds of marriage and family problems, and many other counseling issues.

Israel’s Mission To The Nations In Isaiah 40-55

By Michael A. Grisanti

Associate Professor of Old Testament

In describing Israel’s relationship to the nations, Isaiah 40–55 represents three loci of tension: either divine blessings for Israel alone or for the entire world also, Israel as either an active witness or a passive one, and either the nations as subject to Israel or as coequal with Israel in their standing before God. Israel’s mission to the world is either centripetal (inward moving) or centrifugal (outward moving). Biblical scholars have debated which it is. Attempts to explain fluctuation in the prophet’s message between the two possibilities have included elimination of certain passages, consideration of redactional layers, redefinition of terms, and pointing out external circumstances in the prophet’s time. A correct understanding does not consist in explaining away one side of the tension, but in recognizing God’s future restoration of the nation as a means of extending redemptive benefits to the nations, His blessing of the nations after their judgment, and His use of Israel to rule the nations at the same time that His chosen people are a vehicle to bless the nations.

* * * * *

Both the beginning and end of Scripture emphasize a concern for people of “every nation and tribe and tongue and people” (Rev 14:6), forming a grand envelope structure framing the entire story of Scripture. Genesis 1–11 provides an overview of the origins and early history of all humankind, and Revelation ends the canon with a book in which God’s purposes are equally related to the whole created order.[1]

Then a new development takes place at Genesis 12 with the call of Abraham. Clearly related to God’s dealings with the nations and placed specifically in the context of the disintegration of human society and dispersion of the nations in Genesis 11, the call of Abraham shifts the focus of attention from the entire created order to God’s election of and dealings with a chosen people.[2] Yahweh establishes a covenant with the nation of Abraham (Israel). By means of this unilateral agreement, the Lord details the way in which He will bless all peoples.

In the remainder of the Old Testament, a degree of tension exists between Israel and the nations, that is, between the fact of Israel’s election and the concept of world mission. Throughout her history Israel had to grapple with the reality that she was related to all the nations through creation and that God had also called her to be separate from them.[3] The Abrahamic Covenant, which gives Israel an exalted place in God’s program for the world, promises that Israel will be a channel of blessing to “all peoples on earth” (Gen 12:3). In His choice of Israel to be His elect people, Yahweh bestows on them both blessings and responsibilities. He promises to give His elect people a position of power and prominence in the world. Yahweh intends to utilize Israel as His servant nation to carry out His plan for all humanity.

In Exod 19:4–6, Yahweh presents Israel with a unique and sobering challenge (before revealing to them the Law, i.e., the Mosaic Covenant). Doubtless, their conformity to the Law would have caused them to be a distinct nation among the pagan nations of the world. However, that distinctiveness was not an end in itself. From the very outset, this divinely-intended distinctiveness carried with it worldwide implications. By conducting their lives in conformity with the demands of the Law, the nation of Israel would have been able to function as God’s servant nation, representing God and His character before the surrounding nations of the world.

Various aspects of her national existence also contributed to Israel’s consciousness of her distinctiveness. Jacob and his descendants enjoyed a separate existence in Egypt (in the land of Goshen—Gen 46:31–34) for a number of years. By means of the Law, Yahweh clearly demonstrated that Israel’s relationship with Him demanded a moral and ritual distinctiveness (Lev 11:44–45; 19:2). Prior to their entrance into Canaan, Yahweh instructed His chosen people to exterminate all the inhabitants and to avoid every pagan custom in order to maintain their uniqueness. As the nation of Israel developed, certain Gentiles enjoyed divine redemptive benefits only by virtue of their access to Israel.

This tension between Israel’s election and her worldwide witness reached a climax in Isaiah 40–55. In the years leading up to Isaiah’s prophetic ministry, the nation of Israel often failed to live in accordance with her God-given function, i.e., serving as Yahweh’s servant nation. As a nation she became characterized by covenant rebellion. The northern ten tribes (also called Israel) were soon to go into Assyrian exile, and the southern two tribes (Judah) would be left alone in the land. In Isaiah 1–39 Yahweh delivered His stinging indictment against the nation Israel (focusing on the southern kingdom): divine judgment is coming because of your covenant treachery! As with any nation that refused to submit to Yahweh’s sovereignty (cf. Isaiah 13–23), Israel’s covenant Lord promised to punish her arrogance. However, Israel’s disobedient conduct was especially reprehensible. As God’s covenant partner, God’s chosen nation had become like an adulterous wife.

In chapters 40–66 the prophet Isaiah looked to Israel’s more distant future. What will happen after God’s judgment on His covenant nation is completed? Is God through with His obstinate and stiff-necked people? Will He allow them to remain forever in exile, cut off from any enjoyment of promised covenantal blessings? The prophet Isaiah answered these (and other) fateful questions in chapters 40–55. In these chapters he envisioned the nation of Israel in the midst of the Babylonian exile. He introduced this section by telling God’s exiled people that their punishment for covenant treachery had satisfied the demands of God’s wrath. The prophet comforted God’s people by promising them that God would bring them back to their beloved land of promise. In the face of Israel’s skepticism, Isaiah described Yahweh as the one and only true God who is willing and able to bring to pass this promise. Unlike the “do-nothing” pagan gods, Yahweh alone is able to predict and bring to pass events, a case in point being His call of Cyrus several decades before his birth. As the prophet addressed God’s people who are depicted as being in the midst of exile, Isaiah had to deal with the other nations of the world. How will Yahweh treat those nations that resist the accomplishment of His intentions? How will the restoration of Israel to national and international prominence affect the Gentiles? Is there any potential for Gentile participation in any of God’s abundant blessings on Israel?

More specifically, does the prophet Isaiah give God’s chosen people a new and unique commission to be missionaries to the Gentiles? Or is he an ardent nationalist who only has Israel’s welfare in view? A clear understanding of Isaiah’s depiction of Israel’s relationship with the nations depends on asking the right questions. What are the primary issues in this discussion? What terms accurately describe the potential interpretive options? In order to understand better the tension between “nationalism” and “universalism” in Isaiah 40–55, this article seeks to provide a summary and a historical survey of this debate.

A Summary Of The Debate

Only a clear presentation of the constitutive issues and a comprehension of the terminology common to this debate will produce a precise and accurate understanding of this realm of theological discussion.

Foundational Issues: Potential Points of Tension

Certain passages in Isaiah 40–55 affirm that the nations who fight against Israel will be defeated (41:11–13; 49:25; 51:22–23; 54:15–17), are expendable as a ransom for Israel’s sake (43:3–4), will come before Israel in chains, lick the dust off Israel’s feet, and even eat their own flesh (45:14; 49:23, 26a), while Yahweh addresses Israel in intimate terms. On the other hand, Yahweh calls upon the nations to turn and be saved (45:22–23), appoints the servant as “a light of the nations” (42:6; 49:6), and declares that His salvation will reach to all peoples who wait to receive His instruction and deliverance (42:4, 23; 49:6; 51:4–6). The nations will be amazed at the salvation which the Lord has accomplished for Israel (41:5; 42:10–12; 45:6; 52:10), and recognizing Yahweh as God, they will run of their own accord to serve Israel, God’s witness people. In light of this tension scholars have repeatedly asked a probing question concerning this section of Isaiah: “What relationship does Israel have with the nations of the world and what does God have in store for these two entities?” Isaiah 40–55 brings to the fore at least three related loci of tension with regard to Israel and the nations as represented in Figure 1: extent, function, and relationship.

Figure 1: Three Related Loci of Tension in Isaiah 40–55


How comprehensive are Yahweh’s redemptive promises (extent), what is Israel’s role in any provision of divine blessings to non-Jews (function), and what is the relationship of Israel to the nations which become the beneficiaries of those promises (relationship)? In other words, does the prophet offer salvation to the entire world, and if so, will those non-Jewish peoples still be subject to God’s chosen people? And what role does Israel play with regard to this extension of salvation to the Gentile world? Does Isaiah regard Israel as commissioned to bring salvation to the nations as an active participant, or does he view Israel simply as a passive witness? Finally, is the nation of Israel the primary beneficiary of divine blessings or has God promised to bless equally all peoples, whether Jew or Gentile? Do God’s chosen people occupy an exalted position in a yet future period of God’s domain, or will they share equally their blessedness and prominence with the nations?

Terminology

Scholars who have wrestled over the years with Isaiah’s depiction of Israel’s relationship with the nations have sought for descriptive terms that represent the key issues in this debate. Certain terms are necessary to provide objective boundaries for this discussion, whether or not one agrees that the chosen terms satisfy the breadth of the discussion.

Two positions form the outer parameters for the debate concerning Israel and the nations in Isaiah 40–55. Did the prophet possess a missionary spirit according to which he exhorted God’s chosen people to become “a nation of world-traversing missionaries” (referred to as universalism in the context of this debate)?[4] Or was Isaiah an intensely nationalistic prophet[5] who sought to preserve the faith and integrity of the Israelites scattered among the nations and to encourage them with the hope of their restoration at the nations’ expense (referred to as nationalism/particularism/exclusivism)?[6]

In their purest forms, the terms “universalism” (God’s redemptive blessings available for all peoples regardless of ethnicity) and “nationalism” (God’s redemptive blessings reserved for Israel alone) contribute to the issue of extent. In other words, to whom are divine redemptive blessings given? As was stated earlier, the matter of extent is only one of the significant issues at stake in the prophet’s message concerning Israel and the nations. If the nations will receive redemptive blessings akin to those originally promised to Israel, by what means does this take place (function)?[7] Once the nations become recipients of these blessings, is there a total merging of Israel with the nations or will the Gentiles be subject to God’s chosen people for a time (relationship)?

Vogels categorizes Israel’s role and mission with regard to the world as either centripetal (inward moving) or centrifugal (outward moving) universalism.[8] Centripetal universalism is found in biblical texts that attribute to Israel the role of being a sign and witness, of attracting others. The attracted nations come to the “center,” to Israel (Zion, Jerusalem), to receive instruction and revelation (e.g., Psalm 87; Isa 2:2–3; 25:6ff; 55:3b–5; Mic 4:1–2.). Centrifugal universalism describes Israel’s active involvement in bringing God’s redemptive message to the world. This latter set of terms concerns the questions of extent and function, but does not directly contribute to the issue of relationship. Does this “centrifugal universalism” result in total equality for Israel and the nations, or will there still exist some manner of Jewish priority and distinctiveness of identity?

Since the common bipolar descriptive terms only partially delineate the issues relevant to the debate, the interpreter must ask additional questions concerning the issues of extent, role, and relationship.

A Historical Survey Of The Debate

Several works delineate the history of scholarship with regard to this discussion (nationalism versus universalism in Isaiah 40–55, see below).[9] For the sake of completeness, this article will survey the earlier stages of discussion, albeit briefly. It will devote more attention to the last half of the twentieth century in order to highlight the more recent developments with regard to this issue.

The following description frames the debate with the two polar positions (nationalism and universalism) only to provide structure. Divergent answers to the issues of extent, role, and relationship will make apparent a certain degree of diversity within each general position. This survey of interpretive options considers two issues: Isaiah’s depiction of Israel’s relationship to the nations and several attempts made to explain the fluctuation between universalism/nationalism and blessing/subjugation in the prophet’s message.

Isaiah’s Depiction of Israel’s Relationship to the Nations

Isaiah as a Missionary Prophet (Centrifugal Universalism)

Prior to 1950, most biblical scholars agreed that in Isaiah 40–55 the prophet envisioned the extension of salvation to the nations. The New Testament (Acts 13:47),[10] certain Reformation writers,[11] and several scholars from the critical era (nineteenth-twentieth centuries)[12] perpetuated this view. According to them, the prophet teaches that Israel will become a missionary to the nations of the world. Isaiah is regarded as the father of Jewish missionary activity[13] and is called the “missionary prophet of the Old Testament.”[14]

Isaiah’s introduction of centrifugal universalism. In the early part of this century, Volz argued that the prophet demonstrates a peculiar advancement in the biblical presentation of God’s plan for the world.[15] After describing Israel’s function as a passive witness to the nations, Isaiah looks forward to “the eschatological turning point” at which time “the propagation of God’s kingdom should be carried out in an intentional and active fashion by Israel.”[16] Volz titles his treatment of the first three servant songs with the heading “the founder of mission,” and identifies the missionary outreach of Israel as the central concern of these songs.[17] In a later volume, Volz asserts that the readers of the first servant song stand “at the origin of mission, at the source of world missionary activity.”[18] In general, the prophet presents “… the divine missionary intention and the God-ordained missionary duty of Israel.”[19]

The theological foundation for centrifugal universalism. Monotheism and God’s election of Israel serve as the theological foundation for this view of the prophet Isaiah.[20] From the belief that Yahweh is the only God, the prophet implies that all nations must know Him and that Israel’s duty is to make His name known to the ends of the earth.[21]

Jacob asserts that God’s election of Israel (in Abraham) leads of necessity to a missionary duty.[22] Israel’s commission to be holy (distinct from other nations), as well as the regular presence of external military threats, hindered the outworking of this responsibility. The concern to be unique and the need to defend herself against invading armies forced Israel to have an inwardly focused perspective. From the time of the conquest of Canaan until the sixth century B.C. (the time of “Deutero-Isaiah” [according to the critics]), this missionary duty was only centripetal.[23] Though Jacob understands that the final triumph of Yahweh over all the peoples belongs to the eschaton,[24] he argues that Isaiah once again brings to the forefront Israel’s compelling missionary duty. In addition to Israel’s power of attraction (Isa 54:1-3), the elect nation will exercise a more active mission by means of her role as the light of the nations and, less directly, through the Servant’s ministry.[25] In fact, by sacrifice and death, the Servant rediscovers the election and its indispensable corollary, the mission.[26]

Others echo that understanding of the prophet’s explanation of the transition from passive to active witness. Torrey asserts that Isaiah’s new truth involves the inclusion of the whole Gentile world, side by side with Israel, in the family of the one God.[27] Manson writes that the prophet exhorts Israel “to conquer the world … by spiritual power … to bring men under the sway of Jehovah … to attract individual men and women to voluntary acceptance of Israel’s King as their king.”[28]

Debate concerning terminology. In the last several decades of this century, certain scholars have preferred the terms “centripetal-centrifugal” rather than “nationalism-universalism” to describe the development of Israel’s function in God’s program. Besides the works by Vogels cited above, Dussel takes that position, contending that in contrast to the centripetal preaching common in the OT (with Jerusalem as center), the servant songs preach centrifugal universalism that knows no boundaries. All nations and islands are worthy of God’s mercy.[29] In more recent times Wodecki finds biblical legitimation for worldwide missions throughout the book of Isaiah.[30] Not only is Isaiah, to use Martin-Achard’s description, “the outstanding missionary prophet,”[31] but Wodecki contends that the motif of universalism is central to the entire book of Isaiah.[32] There is a gradual deepening of this motif as one moves from the first to the second half of the book. According to Wodecki, in the first half of Isaiah (chaps. 1-39) the majority of passages speak generally of the acceptance of belief in Yahweh by the foreign peoples and of their pilgrimage to Zion. In the second part (chaps. 40-55) the servant (whom Wodecki identifies as the Messiah) will bring God’s law and teaching to the most distant peoples, and God’s people will function as His witnesses before those nations.[33] Looking forward to the New Testament, Wodecki argues, “[T]he book of Isaiah constitutes an extremely important means for realizing God’s plan of salvation. It appears as a prepared prelude to the missionary instructions of Christ … and its realization in the missionary activity of the universal Church.”[34]

Feuillet, Gelin, and Regodón contend that the servant songs delineate a decentralized universalism which constitutes a departure from the customary royal mediation found in antecedent Scriptures (e.g., Psalm 72).[35] These scholars prefer the descriptive term “decentralized universalism” over the customary pair, centripetal-centrifugal universalism, in order to avoid any connotations of proselytism in this anticipated mission of Israe1.[36] Regodón maintains that the prophet did not explicitly intend to discuss universalism, but that this perspective is a consequence of his announcement of deliverance for Israel. He places the emphasis on mediation rather than centrality. He explains, “In this sense it is a universalism of mediation: the salvation of Israel will be such that it will reach the nations one way or another.”[37] Consequently, he suggests that Israel’s mission consists of being a passive witness for its own existence and thereby, the greatness of Yahweh. According to Feuillet, this decentralized universalism is one “where the Temple no longer plays any role,”[38] and “where the Davidic Messiah has no place and where the chosen people have only the role of a passive witness to God, the eschatological Savior.”[39] Feuillet highlights the differences between the message of Isaiah 40-55 and that of the servant songs, primarily seen in the transition from emphasis on Israel’s mediation to the ministry of the messianic servant figure.[40] Although somewhat limited by the nationalistic aims of Isaiah 40-55, Feuillet argues that decentralized universalism “truly attains its most perfect expression with the songs of the Servant.[41] He argues that Israel is not without connection to the extension of divine redemption in the eschaton nor do they mediate that redemption. According to Feuillet, Yahweh will make Israel to be a bĕrît ʿam (cf. Isa 42:6; 49:8), “that is to say, the point of departure of a new union or alliance with humanity, simply by restoring the chosen people.[42] Isaiah 44:3–5 describes this new unity of Jews and Gentiles where pagans join themselves to the chosen people.[43] Feuillet asserts that in this description “[w]e have there quite simply the realization of the universal promises which have to do with the numerous descendants of the patriarchs and the participation of the nations in the privileges of the chosen people (Gen 12:2–3; cf. Isa 51:2–3).”[44] Decentralized universalism contends that the ministry of the servant figure replaces Israel in her mediatorial role.

Isaiah as a Nationalistic Prophet (Centripetal Universalism)

In the 1950’s the tide of scholarly consensus began to turn away from a universalistic understanding of the Isaiah 40–55. The other primary alternative for depicting Israel’s relationship to the nations describes Isaiah as a strident prophet of nationalism, only preaching of Israel’s glorious future. As with the preceding alternative (Isaiah as a missionary prophet), a spectrum of views exists among those who contend that Isaiah primarily addressed Israel’s redemptive destiny. In general, all those who argue that Israel’s national future is the primary agenda of Isaiah 40–55 affirm (to varying degrees) that any “universalistic” emphases are secondary or peripheral. Regardless, they all make a careful distinction between the terms “proselytism,”[45] “universalism,[46] and “mission.”[47] Beyond that, proponents of a more nationalistic perspective fall into two categories: those who affirm that Isaiah offers no salvation for the Gentiles and those who maintain that the prophet Isaiah picks up a motif from earlier biblical material (e.g., Exod 19:4–6) and reminds the nation of her divine commission to be a passive witness to the pagan nations of the world.

Any “Universalistic” Tendencies Are Merely Peripheral

Unlike those who regard monotheism and universalism as Isaiah’s primary themes, Martin-Achard maintains that the “heart of the prophet’s message is by no means the declaration that there is only one God and that He is the God of the Jews; it is the proclamation that God’s People will be restored to its own land thanks to the merciful intervention of Yahweh.”[48] He also argues that the prophet’s chief concern “is not the salvation of the Gentiles but the liberation of his own people and its triumphant return to Jerusalem; the heathen are scarcely more than an instrument in the hands of Israel’s God.[49] Stuhlmueller affirms that the prophet “did not announce the conversion of the Gentiles to Yahweh, only their admiration for the way that Yahweh was bringing his elect people out of their midst.”[50] Further on he argues that any universalistic tendencies derive from the fact that the prophet “was addressing himself to Israel and exclusively to their salvation .... He saw the world implications of what Yahweh would be doing for his chosen people.”[51] Sheriffs suggests that the prophet presents a Zion-centered form of nationalism deliberately composed as a polemic against the competing Babylon-centered nationalism enveloping the Judean exiles. Consequently, the polemic slant of the prophet’s ideology of nationalism is intended to convince the Israelites rather than convert Babylonians. Isaiah intends to catch the attention of God’s chosen people and support positive affirmations of a return to the Judean cult-center and its worship.[52]

Certain scholars who view Isaiah as a prophet of nationalism suggest that the various universalistic terms employed by the prophet[53] simply function much like a hymnic style of utterance.[54] For example, the psalmist urges “all the earth” (Ps 96:1) and the “families of nations” to sing to Yahweh and to ascribe Him glory (cf. Psalm 98). De Boer contends that all the references to distant regions or peoples by Isaiah (cf. 41:1–5; 42:4, 10–12; 43:9, 20; 45:22; 48:14; 49:1; 51:5) are rhetorical expressions for totality.[55] All nations are invited to the court of judgment to witness Yahweh’s victory. However, these nations are only offered the opportunity to view God’s redemption, not the chance to participate in it. These universal terms in no way indicate Israel’s function as a missionary nation.

The Basic Argumentation

N. H. Snaith was one of the first to argue that the prophet is
essentially nationalistic in attitude. He is actually responsible for the narrow and exclusive attitude of post-exilic days .... The whole prophecy is concerned with the restoration and exaltation of Jacob-Israel, the Servant of the Lord, the Righteous Remnant, and any place which the heathen have in the new order is entirely and debasingly subservient.[56]
De Boer also firmly contends that
Second-Isaiah’s only purpose is to proclaim deliverance for the Judean people. 
…. Foreign nations are but mentioned as peoples to be conquered, in whose hands the cup of wrath will be put, li 23; or as the instrument of Yhwh to deliver his people; or, in rhetorical manner of speaking, to be witness of Yhwh’s glory. Yhwh’s glory will be shown only in his elected people, raised up from their humiliation.[57]
According to Orlinsky, the nations are either Yahweh’s instrument of punishment for His erring people or helpless witnesses to God’s exclusive love and protection of His people, just like the heavens and the earth and the mountains.[58]

No Salvation for the Gentiles

Schoors contends that there is no offer of Gentile salvation in Isaiah 40–55 when he writes, “There is some universalism in them [Isaiah’s prophecies], in this sense that Yahwe is considered the creator of the universe, of all nations and kings, of the ends of the earth. But there is no expectation of salvation on behalf of the Gentiles. The salvation announced in the genre of salvation words is meant only for Israel.”[59] More recently, Whybray concludes that “the general context of Deutero-Isaiah’s otherwise extremely consistent line of thought makes it most probable that nothing more than a submission of the nations to Yahweh’s universal sovereignty is envisaged.”[60]

Israel Is a Passive Witness to the Nations

Several posit that Isaiah 40–55 contains a commission for Israel to be a passive witness. In other words, Israel is not commanded to do missionary work, but to serve as a sign of God’s glory among the nations.[61] Israel has no other mission to the heathen than to be the chosen people. Martin-Achard argues that “it is by means of the life of His people that the God of Israel produces the light of the world” (i.e., Gentiles-Isa 49:6).[62] By its very existence in the world, Israel will assume its mediatorial function of representing Yahweh to the world. Gottwald explains that the ministry of the Servant is
hardly the evangelizing, missionary commission which has traditionally been assigned to the prophet. Israel does not proselytize. Rather she capitalizes on the largesse of Cyrus in turning the peoples politically subject to him to support of the Yahweh cult .... The establishment of the universal Yahweh cult will be a triumph of imperial policy and of national conversion. The conversion will, however, not be due so much to what Israel says as to what Israel is.[63]
Oswalt writes that
Israel’s function is that of witness as opposed to proselytizer .... Israel, by its life and words, is to demonstrate what God is like and what he is doing. Beyond this, it is God who will do the drawing and the bringing of the nations to himself …. If Israel will simply be the Israel of God, the nations will be drawn to him.[64]
McKnight contends that “Judaism never developed a clear mission to the Gentiles that had as its goal the conversion of the world,” nor is there “evidence that could lead to the conclusion that Judaism was a ‘missionary religion’ in the sense of aggressive attempts to convert Gentiles.”[65]

Attempts At Explaining Fluctuations In The Prophet’s Message

In their investigation of Isaiah’s message, many scholars have encountered a tension between the motifs of nationalism/universalism and subjugation/blessing. Why do certain passages appear to offer redemptive blessings to all peoples and others focus on Israel alone? How can Gentile nations be promised both subjugation and blessing? Many interpreters do not regard the motifs as complementary concepts and resolve this tension in one of several ways delineated below.[66]

The Elimination of Certain Passages

Later additions by a glossator/editor could account for the conceptual tension in Isaiah 40-55. Since Duhm argues that the nations’ salvation excludes the possibility of their submission to the exalted Israel, DeBoer also contends that Duhm was one of the first to propose that a glossator positioned the texts which envisage the submission of the nations.[67]

Torrey suggests that the prophet sought to present a new truth, “the inclusion of the whole Gentile world, side by side with Israel, in the family of the One God.”[68] This message, however, met with resistance[69] and occasioned the insertion of certain texts that envision Israel’s domination of the nations.[70]

A Consideration of Redactional Layers

Several scholars contend that the compositional history of these chapters explains the conceptual tension in the received canonical text. Dion argues that Isaiah 40-55 has five layers of redaction and he suggests that the first stratum contains a primitive universalism which is refined in the following redactions. The primitive nature of the prophet’s universalistic conceptions at the time of the first stratum explains whatever nationalism is present in those chapters.[71] On the other hand, Canellas suggests that “several of the ‘nationalistic’ passages in Isaiah 40-55 [e.g., 42:13; 47:3f; 49:26; 51:22 f.] carry the stamp of a retouching that came from the hand of a strict nationalistic spirit.[72]

A Redefinition of Terms

For certain writers, only the precise definition of the significant terms (e.g., Israel, nations) can resolve the tension between the bipolar motifs: universalism and nationalism. Halas, who concludes that the prophet teaches no nationalism whatsoever,[73] but only salvation for all, argues that the terms “nations” and “Israel” have no ethnic connotations and signify ungodly and godly individuals respectively (whether Jews or Gentiles).[74] The prophet’s message is that the nations (ungodly Jews and Gentiles) will experience judgment, while Israel (godly Jews and Gentiles) will enjoy God’s redemptive benefits.

Hollenberg contends that Isaiah is a purely nationalistic prophet by suggesting that “nations” is a flexible term, at times meaning “Gentiles” and at other times the “crypto-Israelites.” According to Hollenberg, “Crypto-Israelites are those scattered Jews who have been able to accommodate themselves to an existence in the midst of Gentiles.”[75] In his delineation of various passages in Isaiah 40–55, “nations” means “Gentiles” whenever the destruction or the submission of the nations is in view, and it means “crypto-Israelites” whenever salvation is promised to the “nations.”[76]

The Situation in the Prophet’s Time

Several scholars posit that the conditions external to the prophet occasioned the fluctuation between the motifs of universalism/nationalism and blessing/subjugation. Bewer maintains that Israel’s resistance to a universalistic message encouraged the prophet to appeal to the nation’s pride by returning to a nationalistic ideology.[77]

Lindblom argues that the instability of Isaiah’s time caused this variation in motifs. As Israel’s circumstances changed, so did the prophet’s declarations to them.[78]

Hempel suggests that the prophet’s reference to the retributive “cup of reeling” (51:22 ff.) and the enslavement of Egyptians (45:14 ff.) are manifestations of his falling back into the vengeful hatred felt by many Jews as a consequence of their recent subjugation at the hands of the Gentiles. He writes that during the exilic period, when an abundance of hate against Babylon and Edom had accumulated, “Deutero-Isaiah does not indeed escape this danger [of lapsing back into vengeful hatred] when he, in maintenance of belief in the election of the people (e.g., the Davidic dynasty (55:3), and Jerusalem, promises the retribution reflected in drinking the cup of reeling (51:22f.) and the enslavement of Egypt.”[79]

Begrich contends that the prophet merely inserted universalistic material into the preexisting nationalistic traditions. Since Israel’s nationalistic hope was so integral to their traditions, the prophet made no efforts to peel away the obsolete centripetal motifs. He suggests that
In view of these existing realities it might be more accurate to recognize that Deutero-Isaiah received a previously established tradition and that he was not able to single out parts that he did not like .... The only thing that remained for him was to shift this tension under the dominant point of view of the glorification of Yahweh. One cannot deny that this adoption of a wider reference was equivalent to an independent tradition by him.[80]
Along with Begrich, Gelston argues that this nationalistic material represented an inherited tradition which the prophet was unable to transcend or repudiate.[81]

Stuhlmueller separates the message of Second Isaiah from that of the servant songs. Because of the pejorative treatment of the Gentiles in other passages (Isa 40:15-20; 41:11; 43:3, 8-13; 44:9-20), many of the prophet’s expressions about the nations’ recognizing Yahweh (40:5; 42:12; 52:10) are to be regarded as merely stylistic and exaggerated ways of presenting the wondrous work of Yahweh within Israel. Of three passages that seem to refer to Gentile conversion, two are explained away[82] and the third (45:22) is ignored.[83] An extraordinary leap toward universalism is made in the servant songs (whether written late in what Stuhlmueller calls “Second Isaiah’s” ministry or by his disciples), only to be ignored by the post-exilic community.[84]

Finally, Blenkinsopp also identifies developments toward universalism in Isaiah 40-66, which were occasioned by changing historical and social circumstances.[85] In chapters 40-48 the prophet depicts the Gentiles being admitted as proselytes to a confessional community (as opposed to a nation-state).[86] In the next section (chaps. 49-55) Cyrus is given the task of repatriating the dispersed Jews. Having failed in this task, the responsibility reverts to the exilic community and its prophetic representatives. Due to its ethnic and cultural mixture, the post-exilic community sought to accommodate these new peoples (chaps. 56-66).[87]

The Recognition of Israel as God’s Servant Nation

All of the above approaches address the conceptual tension in Isaiah 40-55 by unnecessarily explaining away one of the bipolar themes, rather than retaining both sides of the tension.[88] As Christensen contends, “The dialectic within the prophetic literature of the OT in terms of nationalism and universalism is part of the very structure of the canon itself. It is not to be removed by scholarly reconstruction of the biblical text, nor is it to be explained away by semantics.”[89] Recognizing the nation of Israel as God’s chosen instrument of blessing the nations offers a possible resolution of the conceptual tension in the prophet’s message.

First of all, the prophet Isaiah intentionally emphasizes God’s future restoration of His chosen people as well as the extension of redemptive benefits to the nations. Through the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12) Yahweh chose Abraham’s descendants as a special people for Himself There He promised to bless this special people and proclaimed His intention to bless all nations of the world through them. Yahweh constituted them as a nation by means of their Exodus from Egypt and His provision of the Mosaic Law. Yahweh gave Israel this legal code so that she, by living in accordance with its demands, might be a nation distinct from all other nations around her. As Exod 19:4–6 explains, by so doing the chosen people would function as a “treasured possession,” “a kingdom of priests,” and “a holy nation.” Yahweh intended that Israel function in a mediatorial or representative role before the nations. The prophet Isaiah built his argument upon this foundation. Isaiah’s primary message for God’s people is that Yahweh intends to deliver them from Babylonian exile and restore them to great power and glory in their homeland. Yahweh’s intervention on their behalf will have obvious worldwide implications.

As part of His promise to restore His chosen people, Yahweh reassured His children that He would intervene on their behalf as a Warrior (41:8–10; 13–14; 42:13), totally annihilating Israel’s enemies (41:11–12, 15–16; 49:25–26b). He would use Israel as an instrument of divine judgment against the nations. Like a threshing sled rips apart the stalks to release the grain, Israel will decimate the Gentiles that refuse to submit to Yahweh (41:15–16). This divine judgment upon the nations was likened to the transformation of an oasis to a desert (42:15). Because He values His people so highly, Yahweh promised to give nations as ransom for Israel (43:3b–4).[90]

Secondly, the blessing upon the nations chronologically follows their judgment/subjugation. After Yahweh crushes all those Gentiles who stand in opposition to the extension of His kingdom throughout the earth, as the uncontested Sovereign of the universe He will also offer His redemptive benefits to the Gentiles who will submit to Him (45:22–25).[91] He will liberate the nations from oppression and enable them to live in a world where His equity and justice are commonplace. Whether the Messiah or some form of national Israel serve as the referent of the servant figure in the servant songs,[92] Israel clearly exercises a prominent role in the realization of Yahweh’s intentions for the entire world.

Finally, Israel functions as Yahweh’s vehicle to bless the nations at the same time as she holds a place of priority over them.[93] After judging recalcitrant Gentiles, the Lord will sovereignly cause the nations to expedite the return of scattered Israelites to their homeland (43:5–7; 49:22–23a). These surviving Gentiles will bring tribute to Israel and be subject to her (45:14; 49:22b), recognizing Israel’s role as God’s servant nation. They will care for Israel as parents care for their child (49:22b). Nations that do not know Israel will hasten to her because of her relationship with Yahweh (55:5). And after the Lord opens the floodgates of divine blessings for both Jews and Gentiles, Israel will function as “the mediatory nation at the head of the nations.”[94]

Bremer suggests that Israel’s relationship with the nations has always been dialectical. God’s chosen people are both set apart from the nations and chosen by God to mediate blessing to the nations. He writes, “Israel is at once the people of the exodus and the people of reconciliation. Israel is set apart, and Israel brings blessing. And the blessing is not to be distinguished from the separation. It is precisely as the people of the separation that Israel bears the blessing.”[95] It is Israel, as God’s chosen, separate nation, that God will use as His vehicle for mediating redemptive blessings to the nations of the world (e.g., New Covenant provisions). Isaiah’s emphasis on Israel’s blessing alongside the nations’ subjugation is just another manifestation of the divinely established dialectic in Israel’s relationship with the nations. It is as God’s chosen people that Israel serves as His agent of blessing upon the nations. The redemptive meeting between Yahweh and the nations depends on the existence of Israel in the midst of the nations. By living for Yahweh the chosen nation lives for the world.

Several nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholars have recognized that the prophet envisages the salvation of the nations as well as the exaltation of Israel over the nations.[96] In his discussion of Israel’s relationship with the nations, Ringgren emphasizes that “there is an important restriction on this universalism: Israel is the dominant nation, and the Gentiles will serve Israel and its God.[97]

More recently, Van Winkle asserts that
the salvation of the nations does not preclude their submission to Israel. The prophet does not envisage the co-equality of Jews and Gentiles. He expects that Israel will be exalted, and that she will become Yahweh’s agent who will rule the nations in such a way that justice is established and mercy is shown. This rule is both that for which the nations wait expectantly and that to which they submit.[98]
Oswalt maintains that blessing and judgment coming upon the Gentiles are coordinate rather than mutually exclusive concepts (not either-or, but both-and).[99] He writes, “To those who come in submission and acceptance he [God] offers a blessed parent-child relationship. But, to those who insist on taking his gifts by force, he shows nothing but implacable hostility.”[100] Zion is at the same time a source of life and a source of death to the nations.

Both divine judgment and blessing will come upon the nations of the world. The Gentiles will enjoy these blessings by virtue of Israel’s mediatorial function and at the same time they will be subject to God’s chosen people.

Conclusion

In his recent overview of “the nations” as a biblical motif, Christensen affirms that the
study of the nations within the canonical tradition of ancient Israel leads inevitably to the primary tension between the concepts of nationalism and universalism. On the one hand, particularly within the prophetic literature, there are passages which express the narrowest self-interest and even hatred for Israel’s enemies among the nations. But alongside these stand passages expressing an exalted vision of worldwide salvation for “the nations.”[101]
Isaiah 40–55 contains passages that manifest both sides of this tension. The customary descriptive terms, “nationalism” and “universalism,” do not sufficiently reveal the constitutive issues in this debate. The role of Israel in Yahweh’s extension of redemptive benefits to the nations as well as the consequent relationship of Israel and the nations demand attention in addition to the issue of the extent of those redemptive blessings.

Assertions that the prophet is the “missionary prophet of the Old Testament” or that he is an ardent nationalist without any concern for the nations frame this debate. Between these two extremes, the prophet Isaiah neither depicts Israel as a nation of world-traversing missionaries, nor does he exclude the nations from participation in divine redemption. Consonant with relevant antecedent Scriptures, the prophet argues that God’s special dealings with His chosen people not only benefit Israel, but also carry significance for all nations. Isaiah underscores Israel’s role in providing a witness to the nations. This witness function is not in the New Testament sense of bringing the message of Yahweh to the nations, but “in the sense of being a people of God whose life shall draw nations to inquire after Yahweh”[102] (cf. Isa 2:1–4; 43:10–11). It is as God’s chosen people that Israel can exercise a mediatorial role with regard to the nations. Isaiah’s fervent desire for Israel is that they will respond to God’s intervention on her behalf and carry out her role as God’s servant nation before the world.

Notes
  1. Charles H. H. Scobie, “Israel and the Nations,” Tyndale Bulletin 43 (1992):285.
  2. Ibid.
  3. R. Bryan Widbin, “Salvation for People Outside Israel’s Covenant?,” Through No Fault of Their Own? The Fate of Those Who Have Never Heard, W. V. Crockett and J. G. Sigountos, eds. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991) 74.
  4. T. K. Cheyne, Introduction to the Book of Isaiah (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1895) 244. This use of “universalism” predates the theological discussion that deals with the question, “Are the heathen really lost?” For further comment on the problems caused by disparate uses of the term “universalism,” see n. 6. Herbert G. May defines “theological universalism” as “belief in one God who is to be worshipped by all peoples, Jew and Gentile alike. It comprehends a single world religion and a common religious culture; it implies a single cultus” (“Theological Universalism in the Old Testament,” Journal of Bible and Religion 16 [1948]:100). Against the OT backdrop of divine blessings promised to Israel, this term concerns itself with the question of whether the nations of the world will also share in those privileges. Two kinds of universalism are considered below: centripetal universalism (movement toward the center—the nations attracted to Yahweh by means of Israel’s devotion to Yahweh) and centrifugal universalism (movement away from the center—the outward movement by Israel to confront the nations with Yahweh’s expectations).
  5. Nationalism or particularism can be defined as that “tendency in religion according to which a certain group enjoys a special privilege in relation to God which sets it apart from the rest of humanity” (Julian Morgenstern, “Universalism and Particularism,” The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, I. Landman, ed. [New York: Universal Jewish Encyclopedia Company, 1943] 10:357). “Nationalism” defies a fixed definition, but draws its nuance from its historical and cultural setting (Deryck C. T. Sheriffs, “‘A Tale of Two Cities’—Nationalism in Zion and Babylon,” Tyndale Bulletin 39 [ 1988]:19). Sheriffs suggests that in a general sense “nationalism” is an “ideology, that is, a set of ideas used to express a nation’s aspirations by an influential group within it” (ibid.). It is an ideology that unifies the smaller elements (clans, tribes, villages, cities) in a greater whole, the nation-state.
  6. This debate surrounding nationalism and universalism is complicated by the disparate use of these terms. This is especially true for universalism. Does “universalism” signify Israel’s active participation in the preaching of the gospel to the world, the nations’ free acceptance of divine blessings, or simply the nations’ recognition of Yahweh’s sovereignty? Regardless, this is not the meaning of the universalism so frequently referred to in contemporary discussions. The universalism in recent discussion, in one way or another, denies that the “heathen” are really lost. For a survey of this debate, see Millard Erickson, “The State of the Question,” Through No Fault of Their Own? The Fate of Those Who Have Never Heard, W. V. Crockett and J. G. Sigountos, eds. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991) 23-33. In the present work “universalism” does not refer to the spiritual lostness of the nations, but rather to the extent of the offer of divine salvation. At issue is the question, “is redemption only for Israel or does Isaiah teach that it is for all nations?”
  7. It is not the purpose of this article to delineate the blessings that Israel and the nations will share equally and those that have a more direct impact on Israel. In light of OT references to a restored national presence for Israel, the millennial restoration of the Jerusalem Temple, and indications of an Israelite functional priority during the millennium, it appears that Israel will directly participate in certain blessings, blessings which will less directly impact the nations. For example, the fulfillment of land promises to Israel will impact Gentiles also during the millennium.
  8. Walter Vogels, “Covenant and Universalism: Guide for a Missionary Reading of the Old Testament,” Zeitschrift fur Missionswissenschaft and Religionswissenschaft 57 (1973):31. For a fuller explanation of his approach to this issue, see his God’s Universal Covenant: A Biblical Study (Ottawa: University of Ottawa, 1979).
  9. It is noteworthy that the debate concerning nationalism-universalism also rages outside Isaiah 40–55. H. Wheeler Robinson (The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament, Studies in Theology [London: Duckworth, 1913] 206) and T. W. Manson (The Teaching of Jesus: Studies of Its Form and Content, 2d ed. [Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1948] 181) identify a great contrast between the message of Isaiah and that of Ezekiel. They contend that Isaiah teaches nationalism and presents the concept of a saved remnant while Ezekiel conveys universalism and sets forth a saving remnant.
  10. Paul quotes Isa 49:6b in an attempt to convince the Jews of Antioch Pisidia that God was indeed behind the extension of redemptive blessings to the Gentiles (apart from any process of proselytism).
  11. Martin Luther, “Lectures on Isaiah: Chapters 40–66,” Luther’s Works, H. T. A. Bowman, trans. (St. Louis: Concordia, 1954–75) 17:135; John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, W. Pringle, trans. (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1850–54) 3:424–25.
  12. Gustav Friedrich Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament, G. E. Day, rev. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1873; reprint, Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1978) 516-21; Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia: übersetzt and erklärt [The Book of Isaiah: Translated and Explained], 4th ed., Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922) 345, 376; J. Skinner, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah: Chapters XL-LXVI, Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1917) lxiii; Georg Fohrer, Das Buch Jesaja [The Book of Isaiah], Zürcher Bibel Kommentare (Zürich: Verlag Zwingli, 1964) 3:96; James Muilenburg, “Introduction to and Exegesis of the Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40–66,” IB, G. A. Buttrick, ed. (New York: Abingdon, 1955) 5:532; Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, D. M. G. Stalker, trans., OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969) 100-101.
  13. E. Sellin, “Der Missionsgedanke im Alten Testament” [“The Concept of Missions in the Old Testament], Neue Allgemeine Missionszeitschrift 2 (1925):68 ff.
  14. Edmond Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, A. W. Heathcote and P. J. Allcock, trans. (New York: Harper and Row, 1958) 220.
  15. Paul Volz, Jesaja II, ülbersetzt and erklärt [Second Isaiah: Translated and Explained], KAT (Leipzig: A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung D. Werner Scholl, 1932) 24.
  16. Ibid. All English translations of foreign articles are by the author of this article.
  17. Ibid., 149.
  18. Paul Volz, Prophetengestalten des Alten Testament: Sendung and Botschaft der alttestamentlichen Gotteszeugen [Prophetic Forms of the Old Testament: The Program and Message of the Old Testament Divine Witnesses] (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1949) 316.
  19. Ibid.
  20. H. H. Rowley (The Faith of Israel: Aspects of Old Testament Thought [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1957] 185) argues that for the prophet “universalism was the corollary of monotheism, and the world-wide mission of Israel the corollary of her election.”
  21. Rowley (The Missionary Message of the Old Testament [London: Carey, 19441 50) cites Isa 45:21 ff. as one of several passages where the appeal to the world rests firmly upon the truth of monotheism.
  22. Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament 217.
  23. Ibid., 219.
  24. Jacob contends that Israel, for the most part, was unable to attain the prophet’s ideal because of the practical limitations of the postexilic community and the consequent reworking of the prophet’s material to give it a more nationalistic emphasis (ibid., 220).
  25. Rowley (Missionary Message 51) states that just as Yahweh sent Moses to call Israel to Himself, He sends Israel to call the world to Himself. He goes on to assert that “the fundamental purpose of Israel’s election was that she should mediate the revelation of God to men.”
  26. Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament 220.
  27. C. C. Torrey, The Second Isaiah: A New Interpretation (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1928) 118.
  28. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus: Studies of Its Form and Content 180. After his comparison of Isaiah 40-55 and cuneiform royal inscriptions, Shalom M. Paul argues that Israel’s mission is “not one of world conquest as in the Mesopotamian inscriptions … but rather one of world salvation” (“Deutero-Isaiah and Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 88 [1968]:186).
  29. Enrique Dussel, “Universalismo y Misión en los Poemas del Siervo de Jahveh [Universalism and Mission in the Poems of the Servant of Yahweh,]” Ciencia y Fe 20 (1964):419-64.
  30. Bernard Wodecki, “Heilsuniversalismus im Buch des Propheten Jesaja” [“Universal Salvation in the Book of the Prophet Isaiah,]” Dein Wort Beachten: Alttestamentliche Aufsiitze, J. Reindl and G. Hentschel, eds. (Leipzig: St. Benno-Verlag, 1981) 76-101. Wodecki’s viewpoint concerning the entire book is an outgrowth of his 1977 dissertation which dealt with universal salvation in First Isaiah, “Der Heil suniversalismus beim Propheten Proto-Jesaja,” [the German title of the Polish dissertation; Eng., “Universal Salvation According to the Prophet Proto-Isaiah”] (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Warsaw, 1977).
  31. Robert Martin-Achard, A Light to the Nations: A Study of the Old Testament Conception of Israel’s Mission to the World, J. P. Smith, trans. (London: Oliver and Boyd, 1962) 6.
  32. Wodecki, “Heilsuniversalismus im Buch des Propheten Jesaja” [“Universal Salvation in the Book of the Prophet Isaiah”] 99. He writes, “[T]he spirit of universal salvation permeates the entire book of Isaiah.”
  33. Ibid., 100.
  34. Ibid., 101 [emphasis added].
  35. Supplement au Dictionnaire de la Bible, s.v. “Isafe (le livre d’)” [“The Book of Isaiah”], by A. Feuillet, 4 (1949):706-11; A. Gélin, “The Latter Prophets,” Introduction to the Old Testament, P. Skehan, et al., trans. (New York: Desclee, 1968) 341-42; Jacinto Núnez Regodón, “El Universalismo de Los Cantos del Siervo” [“The Universalism of the Songs of the Servant”], Palabra Y Vida: Homenaje a José Alonso Diaz en su 70 cumpleaños, A. Vargas-Machuca and G. Ruiz, eds. (Madrid: UPCM, 1984) 75-76.
  36. Regodón, “El Universalismo de Los Cantos del Siervo” [“The Universalism of the Songs of the Servant”] 75.
  37. Ibid., 75. Vogels (God’s Universal Covenant 131) also affirms that “all nations will share in [Yahweh’s salvation] through the mediation of the servant.”
  38. Supplement au Dictionnaire de la Bible, s.v. “Isaie (le livre d’)” [“The Book of Isaiah”], by A. Feuillet, 4 (1949):706.
  39. Ibid., 709.
  40. Ibid., 710. The following points highlight a few of those differences: Isaiah 40–55, Servant Songs, The iniquity of God’s people is expiated. Expiation for Israel’s sin yet awaits. Political and religious salvation are connected. Political and religious salvation are unrelated. Literal captivity and liberation Spiritual captivity and liberation Israel’s salvation occasions the conversion of the Gentiles. The servant’s ministry occasions the conversion of the Gentiles.
  41. Ibid.
  42. Ibid., 709.
  43. Contra Feuillet, the present author concludes in another work (Michael A. Grisanti, “The Relationship of Israel and the Nations in Isaiah 40–55” [PhD dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1993] 78-90) that only Israelites are in view in Isaiah 44:1–5.
  44. Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible, s.v. “Isaïe (le livre d’)” [“The Book of Isaiah”], by A. Feuillet, 4 (1949):707.
  45. They are careful not to confuse proselytism (the incorporation of individual Gentiles into the community of Israel) that always existed in Israel’s religious traditions with some kind of a missionary commission. Martin-Achard (A Light to the Nations 5) writes, “In a certain sense Jewish proselytism is a private enterprise undertaken by individuals and concerned with particular persons, while the concept of mission involves the belief that the whole community has a task to fulfill on behalf of all mankind.”
  46. In defining universalism, Martin-Achard (A Light to the Nations 3) “asserts that the God of Israel is the Lord of all the earth, but does not propose that the Chosen People should take any particular action towards converting the nations to Him.” Universalism merely refers to the extent of God’s program, not to the actual extension of redemptive blessings to anyone outside of Israel.
  47. Albert Gélin (The Religion of Israel, J. R. Foster, trans. [New York: Hawthorn, 1959] 79) concludes that the Bible sets forth a concept of universalism that does not precisely develop into a missionary attitude, that is, human participation in converting the races of the world. An earlier passage from the same volume clouds his attempt to distinguish between these terms (universalism versus mission). There he writes, “The call to proselytize is the particular message of the Second Isaias (Isaias 45.22-4; 44.5)” (ibid., 72). As a result of Isaiah’s prophetic ministry, Israel moves from a witness function (drawing a few into the Jewish fold by their testimony to God’s character) to a missionary focus (active proselytizing). Israel’s role was to cause the Gentiles to recognize Yahweh’s glory (by their restoration to the land). This would serve as the starting-point for a massive conversion of Gentiles to Yahweh (ibid., 83-84).
  48. Martin-Achard, A Light to the Nations 12.
  49. Ibid., 13. He also affirms that “it is not a matter of conversion but of the homage due by the whole of creation toYahweh for what He has wrought on His people’s behalf’ (ibid., 16).
  50. Carroll Stuhlmueller, “Israel’s Election and World Salvation,” The Biblical Function for Mission, D. Senior and C. Stuhlmueller, eds. (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1983) 101.
  51. Ibid., 102.
  52. Sheriffs, “‘A Tale of Two Cities’—Nationalism in Zion and Babylon” 54.
  53. These scholars refer, for example, to the prophet’s use of “isles” (41:1), the “ends of the earth” (42:10), the “distant people” (49:1), and so on, calling the nations to give heed to Yahweh’s purposes and to praise the God who has redeemed Israel.
  54. Martin-Achard, A Light to the Nations 16.
  55. P. A. H. De Boer, Second Isaiah’s Message, OTS, no. 11 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1956) 88 ff.
  56. Norman H. Snaith, “The Servant of the Lord in Deutero-Isaiah,” Studies in Old Testament Prophecy, H. H. Rowley, ed. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1950) 191. Another significant essay by Snaith is “Isaiah 40–66: A Study of the Teaching of the Second Isaiah and Its Consequences,” in Studies on the Second Part of the Book of Isaiah, VTSup, no. 14 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967) 135-264.
  57. De Boer, Second Isaiah’s Message 90.
  58. Harry M. Orlinsky, “The So-Called ‘Servant of the Lord’ and ‘Suffering Servant’ in Second Isaiah,” Studies on the Second Part of the Book of Isaiah, VTSup, no. 14 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967) 1 16. Orlinsky has been especially prolific on this issue of nationalism versus universalism (particularly in Isaiah 40–55).
  59. Antoon Schoors, I Am God Your Saviour: A Form-Critical Study of the Main Genres in Is. XL-GV, VTSup, no. 24 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973) 302 [emphasis added].
  60. R. N. Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1978; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 32, cf. 26–70.
  61. A. De Groot, The Bible on the Salvation of Nations, F. Vander Heijden, trans. (De Pere, Wis.: St. Norbert Abbey, 1966) 68-76.
  62. Robert Martin-Achard, “La Signification théologique de 1’élection d’Israël” [“The Theological Meaning of Israel’s Election”], Theologische Zeitschrift 16 (1960):341 [emphasis added]. This point is part of Martin-Achard’s argument for a collective identification of the servant.
  63. Norman K. Gottwald, All the Kingdoms of the Earth: Israelite Prophecy and International Relations in the Ancient Near East (New York: Harper & Row, 1964) 344. Gottwald appears to limit this passive witness of Israel to the historical time of Deutero-Isaiah (6th century B.C.).
  64. John N. Oswalt, “The Mission of Israel to the Nations,” Through No Fault of Their Own? The Fate of Those Who Have Never Heard, W. V. Crockett and J. G. Sigountos, eds. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991) 95.
  65. Scot McKnight, A Light among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1991) 117. Instead of a missionary religion, McKnight argues that Judaism was “a light among the nations—a ‘light’ because Judaism was fully assured that truth was on its side; ‘among the nations’ because Jews were thoroughly woven into the fabric of the Roman world.”
  66. J. Lindblom (Prophecy in Ancient Israel [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1962] 401-2) epitomizes this approach to the tension in his remarks: “It is, in the opinion of the present author, difficult to imagine that the prophet proclaimed at the same time conversion or salvation of the Gentiles and their subjugation or annihilation.”
  67. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia: ubersetzt and erklärt [The Book of Isaiah: Translated and Explained] 345, 376. De Boer (Second Isaiah’s Message 90) argues that a glossator corrupted the prophet’s nationalistic message with expressions of Gentile redemption, a “corpus alienum in the book of Second Isaiah”; cf. J. Morgenstern, “Isaiah 49–55, ” HUCA 36 (1965):3, 19.
  68. Torrey, The Second Isaiah: A New Interpretation 118.
  69. Torrey (ibid., 119–20) writes: “The prophet’s large-hearted view of the Gentile world, giving the heathen an equal share with the chosen people in the blessings of the Coming Age, and reserving for the elder brother, Israel, only the added glory and privilege of the leader and benefactor … must have been unacceptable to many of those who held fast to inherited notions …”
  70. According to Torrey (ibid., 119–20), “To have a portion with the great and divide the spoil with the strong was hardly enough; there must be such exaltation above the former oppressors as to make it clear that the relative positions have been reversed. This feeling finds expression in certain insertions in the text, made at an early date.” Consequently, these nationalistic passages are not part of the prophet’s original message. By “early date,” Torrey refers to a time in the post-exilic period soon after the completion of “Deutero-Isaiah’s” prophetic ministry.
  71. Paul E Dion, “L’universalisme religieux dans les différentes couches rédactionelles d’Isaïe 40–55” [“The Religious Universalism in the Different Redactional Settings of Isaiah 40–55”], Bib 51 (1970):161-82. Cf Seizo Sekine (“A Sketch of the Redaction History of the Second Isaiah,” Seishogaku Ronshu 13 [1978]:32-69; abstracted in OTA 1 [1978]:264) for another redactional alternative.
  72. Gabriel Cañellas, “El universalismo en el Deuteroisaias” [“Universalism in Deutero-Isaiah”], Cultura Biblica 35 (1978):14.
  73. Ibid., 162.
  74. Roman Halas, “The Universalism of Isaias,” CBQ 12 (1950):170.
  75. SD. E. Hollenberg, “Nationalism and ‘the Nations’ in Isaiah XL-LV,” VT 19 (1969):26-29. In other words, at times the prophet uses the term “nations” to refer to the children of Israel who had become so swallowed up within the nations that he can describe them as foster children (49:22 f.).
  76. Ibid., 27-29.
  77. Julius A. Bewer, The Literature of the Old Testament, 3d. ed., Records of Civilization: Sources and Studies, no. 25 (New York: Columbia University, 1962) 222.
  78. J. Lindblom, The Servant Songs in Deutero-Isaiah: A New Attempt to Solve an Old Problem, Lunds Universitets Arsskrift N.F. Avd. 1. Bd 47. Nr 5. (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1951) 67. Lindblom later asserts that the tension between these motifs is humanly incomprehensible and will only be resolved one day by God Himself.
  79. Johannes Hempel, “Die Wurzeln des Missionswillens im Glauben des AT” [“The Roots of the Missionary Intention in the Faith of the Old Testament”], ZAW 66 (1954):263.
  80. Joachim Begrich, Studien zu Deuterojesaja [Studies about Deutero-Isaiah], ThB, no. 20 (München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1963) 86.
  81. “Surely it is truer to say that the prophet discerned in moments of high vision the glorious fact that Yahweh’s salvation was for all the world, while at other times he sank back to a more traditional and superior attitude towards the Gentiles” (A. Gelston, “The Missionary Message of Second Isaiah,” SJT 18 [1965]:316. Georg Fohrer (History of Israelite Religion, D. E. Green, trans. [Nashville: Abingdon, 1972] 327), argues that besides the prophet’s emphasis on universalism, his preaching also contained “questionable nationalistic and materialistic elements” (because of his reliance on earlier prophets).
  82. Isaiah 44:5 refers to the conversion of scattered Jews and the universalistic elements in 51:3–8 are redactionally removed.
  83. Carroll Stuhlmueller, “God in the Witness of Israel’s Salvation,” God in Contemporary Thought: A Philosophical Perspective, S. A. Matczak, ed., Philosophical Questions Series, no. 10 (New York: Learned Publications, 1977) 372-73.
  84. Ibid., 376; cf. Christopher R. North, The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah: An Historical and Critical Study, 2d ed. (Oxford: Oxford University, 1956) 184; Sigmund Mowinckel, He That Cometh, G. W. Anderson, trans. (New York: Abingdon, 1956) 250-55.
  85. J. Blenkinsopp, “Second Isaiah-Prophet of Universalism,” JSOT 41 (1988):83-103.
  86. Ibid., 85-86.
  87. Ibid., 90-98.
  88. The retention of both sides of this tension requires that Isaiah 40–55 be viewed as a unit with a coherent message. Several scholars have recently argued that the final or full form, entire book of Isaiah deserves attention (cf. R. E. Clements, “The Unity of the Book of Isaiah,” Interpretation 36 [1982]:117-29; Rolf Rendtorff, “Zur Komposition des Buches Jesaja” [“Concerning the Composition of the Book of Isaiah”], Vetus Testamentum 34 [1984]:295-320; idem, The Old Testament: An Introduction [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986] 198-200; Christopher R. Seitz, “Isaiah 1–66: Making Sense of the Whole,” Reading and Preaching the Book of Isaiah, Christopher R. Seitz, ed. [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988] 105-12). They contend that the growth of the book took place with an eye to its final shape.
  89. Anchor Bible Dictionary, s.v. “Nations,” 4 (1992):1046.
  90. In Isaiah 43:1–7 Yahweh promised to do all that is necessary to accomplish the deliverance of His chosen people. Egypt, Cush, and Seba are nations He will give as ransom as part of His deliverance of Israel from any threatening, destructive force.
  91. The prophet Zechariah also affirms that only those “survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem” (Zech 14:16) will worship before the Lord and keep the Feast of Tabernacles.
  92. Whether the servant figure represents an individual or a collective entity, this figure has an intimate relationship with Israel. The prophet calls the servant “Israel” (49:3) and presents the servant as the epitome of all that Yahweh desired that Israel be. In another work (Grisanti, “The Relationship of Israel and the Nations” 185–96), the present author argues that the Servant in Isaiah 40–55 is a mediatorial Davidic figure who comes to be known as the Messiah.
  93. Oehler (Theology of the Old Testament 501–504, 516–21) argues that this interplay between subjugation and blessing will occur simultaneously as well as consequentially. God’s judgment upon the wicked nations occurs in a punctiliar fashion, wiping out those Gentiles that resist His intentions. However, the subjugation of the nations to Israel continues throughout the remainder of history. In this sense, not only does God’s blessing upon the nations follow His judgment upon them, but is also co-existent with their subjugation to Israel.
  94. Ibid., 518.
  95. Hendrik Bremer, “Israel and the Nations,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 32 (1950):54.
  96. A. Knobel, Der Prophet Jesaia [The Prophet Isaiah], Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament (Leipzig: Weidmann’sche Buchhandlung, 1843) 322, 324, 344; Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament 516–21; S. R. Driver, Isaiah: His Life and Times, rev. 2d ed. (London: Francis Griffiths, 1904) 140, 144, 150, 156.
  97. Helmer Ringgren, Israelite Religion, D. E. Green, trans. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966) 292.
  98. Dwight Wayne Van Winkle, “The Relationship of the Nations to Yahweh and to Israel in Isaiah XL-LV,” Vetus Testamentum 35 (1985):457.
  99. Oswalt (“The Mission of Israel to the Nations” 85–105) traces this coordination of these motifs throughout the prophets.
  100. Ibid., 89.
  101. Anchor Bible Dictionary, s.v. “Nations,” 4:1037.
  102. Elmer Martens, God’s Design: A Focus on Old Testament Theology, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994).