# Royal Marines, U.S. Marines, ROK Marines and Klinean Theology...



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 28, 2008)

Well, I hope I got your attention with that thread title.

I have been bothered by an aspect of Klinean's utilization of Hittite treaties for some time and just figured out a way to express my concern while I was working out yesterday. I'll build an analogy and hope that somebody can interact with it and tell me what I'm missing.

The U.S. Marines were formed in 1775 by the Continental Congress. The Navy and Marines were patterned identically to the British Royal Navy and Royal Marines. The Royal Marines pre-date our Marine Corps by over 100 years.

Following the Korean War and the establishment of the Republic of Korea in South Korea, the country established a Marine Corps - the ROK Marines. They are patterned after our Marine Corps as are a number of countries in the Far East and Central America. The ROK Marines, however, are probably most alike the U.S. Marines and, due to having a common Commander in the region, train together constantly.

This is all said to note that there are great similarities in the respective Marine Corps of Britain, the United States, and the Republic of Korea. Yet, it would be a huge mistake to study the ROK Marine Corps that still beats their Marines and has a distinctively Korean attitude toward things to conclude information about the U.S. Marine Corps.

Imagine, then, that 1000 years from now the U.S. and ROK are ancient civilizations. Several publications from 1990-2008 of the U.S. Marine Corps are preserved and still in use and studied. One day, however, an archeologist discovers the ancient ruins of the ROK Headquarters Marine Corps that contains archived material about the ROK Marines from 1990-2008. Suddenly you have historians who are reading the ROK Marine manuals and trying to shed new light on what the U.S. Marine manuals really mean.

I think this would be a problem.

What I'm driving at is that I've never understood why we think we have confidence that the Hittites Suzerain treaties would be a reliable way to shed light toward the Scripture. This was a pagan culture. I have no doubt that they might have imitated the Israelites but why do we have such confidence that their patterns/use are correct? I know it resembles the Scriptures but it seems as if we're willing to reform long-standing understandings of the text of Scripture based on the text of Hittite treaties.

Thoughts?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 28, 2008)

Wow Rich. That is an excellent analogy. Though as an anecdotal story I played for the Base Soccer team at Henderson Hall (and in Iwakuni) and we once scrimmaged a Royal Marine Soccer Team and beat them. Thereby proving once again that the U.S. Marines are better than the Royals. 

Where am I going with all that? Well suffice to say that just because the Royal Marines were here first and our customs are similar does not mean they are better.


----------



## Zenas (Aug 28, 2008)

Wow. 

When I clicked on this thread I wasn't sure what to expect. Truly, I wasn't suprised to find out I was completely suprised by what I read. 

I follow your analogy though. 

It's like using English common law to understand American common law. While one is based on the other, they're not indenticle and have developed differently since the inception of the latter. Thusly, they can't be used as a comprehensive guide to understanding their counter-part.


----------



## Zenas (Aug 28, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Wow Rich. That is an excellent analogy. Though as an anecdotal story I played for the Base Soccer team at Henderson Hall (and in Iwakuni) and we once scrimmaged a Royal Marine Soccer Team and beat them. Thereby proving once again that the U.S. Marines are better than the Royals.
> 
> Where am I going with all that? Well suffice to say that just because the Royal Marines were here first and our customs are similar does not mean they are better.



Americans beat British in soccer? Indeed, only the Marines could pull that one off. You all should be playing for our Olympic team. Maybe we'd beat someone then.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Aug 28, 2008)

I like the analogy. Nice.

So how do you build upon that? In other words, what model replaces that of the Hittite theory? Just curious.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 28, 2008)

You should have seen the after-party. That was one event the Royal Marines are champions par excellant...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 28, 2008)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> I like the analogy. Nice.
> 
> So how do you build upon that? In other words, what model replaces that of the Hittite theory? Just curious.



I'm not sure what you mean. Until Kline suggested that we ought to understand Law/Gospel using the ideas found in the Hittite treaties it wasn't "needed" as a model to understand the Scriptures.

It seems that a lot of attention is spent studying the way the Hittites used the treaties and then it is assumed that this must be the way God interacts in the Covenant. I've seen presentations that describe the Royal Grant in some detail and it is simply posited that this is what God is doing with Abraham. It is simply asserted and I'm trying to figure out why we should think this is the case. Even folks like Edersheim and other scholars that had read Jewish tradition never suggested some of these models until we found the Hittite treaties.


----------



## turmeric (Aug 28, 2008)

I'm not terribly familliar with Kline - what long-standing understandings of Scripture does he change? I'm embarrased to admit I've never read him, and I'm beginning to think that it's necessary in order to understand the modern Reformed theological scene, if not ancient covenants!


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Aug 28, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Southern Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > I like the analogy. Nice.
> ...



OK, I think I missed what you were saying in the OP. I thought perhaps you were going to suggest a different paradigm, but what you are really doing is discounting the idea that we have to have some extra-biblical source of knowledge to validate Scripture. I see now. Didn't mean to muddy the waters.


----------



## TimV (Aug 28, 2008)

I've never read even a full article by Kline, but every time I hear of something by him it is something off the wall.

_I have no doubt that they might have imitated the Israelites but why do we have such confidence that their patterns/use are correct? _

Did that come from Kline? The Hittites had a huge and sophisticated empire while the Hebrews were slaves in Egypt, so if anything, the Hebrews would have copied them.

But why? The Hittites were Indo-European, and Semite law was miles away from those traditions. Just off the cuff, I'd say a closer analogy to the Marine one would be "We can learn much about the technology of the Lunar landing by studying Polynesian outriggers".


----------



## turmeric (Aug 28, 2008)

Wouldn't God have used a form of covenant that Abraham would have recognized - i.e. a Syrian form? Even so, what He did with it goes way beyond what a Syrian or Hittite would have envisioned, Calling it a "royal land grant" seems to diminish it somehow...


----------



## timmopussycat (Aug 28, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Even folks like Edersheim and other scholars that had read Jewish tradition never suggested some of these models until we found the Hittite treaties.



I don't know enough about Hittite treaties or Kline's take on them to comment on the larger issue, but we do know that while the OT contains all necessary to relate with God in the Sinai covenant, it is not an exhaustive compilation of all that the OT Jews knew (e.g, certain books are mentioned in it as then existing that seem to have been lost at the captivity). So it is quite possible that Jewish tradition lost the knowledge that Sinai was modelled after Hittite treaties.


----------



## timmopussycat (Aug 28, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Well, I hope I got your attention with that thread title.
> 
> I have been bothered by an aspect of Klinean's utilization of Hittite treaties for some time and just figured out a way to express my concern while I was working out yesterday. I'll build an analogy and hope that somebody can interact with it and tell me what I'm missing.
> 
> ...



According to Wikipedia, the Hittites pre-dated Sinai and may have pre-dated Abraham. If that is correct, your analogy is flawed. In terms of your analogy, the future scholars have been studying RoK manuals throughout the interim, but have just now discovered US Marine manuals.


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 28, 2008)

I'm probably being way too simple-minded on this thing, but I have always thought that applying Hittite culture to scripture was the same as trying to apply Gilgamesh to Genesis. 

So I think your analogy is fair, Rich.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 28, 2008)

This brings up the larger issue of how much archaeology can shine light on the Scripture. It does seem like it can.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 28, 2008)

timmopussycat said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Even folks like Edersheim and other scholars that had read Jewish tradition never suggested some of these models until we found the Hittite treaties.
> ...



I'm not suggesting that the Jewish tradition is exhaustive - although I've heard some indicate that the oral tradition of the Jews might pre-date Abraham.

The point of your "quite possible" is just that. Are we left to bare conjecture? We can make a lot of guesses but it seems to me that this is what we're left with. My question is: Why _must_ we assume that the Covenants are modeled after Hittite treaties?

My point about imitation is that I think there may be something to the fact that the Hittite treaties resemble Sinai due to the light of nature. Precise dating is obviously difficult but it could be that the ideas come from our common ancestry in Adam and our Covenantal nature. If the Hittites mis-stepped in their utilization of the light of nature then we're re-orienting our understanding of special revelation on the basis of their understanding of Covenant.


----------



## Poimen (Aug 29, 2008)

I am going to weigh in here - even while I am on vacation (this bit of information is necessary to point out that I am away from my books so correction is encouraged if I have misstepped):

I believe that it was Cornelius Van Til who said that extra scriptural research/information/history etc. may be the occasion for our interpretation of scripture but never the grounds. 

So what Kline has done or pointed out should help us to understand the context and the meaning of the scripture's presentation of covenants which could, in no way, appear in a vacuum at the the time the events took place. So many of the events and customs of the Bible are conditioned by the culture that we must take care not to read our 21st century biases into it. That biblical covenants, therefore, should appear if not to clearly reflect the nature of covenants in that day and age should not surprise us. In fact it should inspire us to remember that God uses history and even man's fallible ways to speak to us about His eternal purposes. 

Furthermore, Kline is not the only one to point these things out. C. Vander Wal (who is not a 'Klinean' by any stretch of the imagination) in his book "The Covenantal Gospel" sketches the biblical covenants as parallel to that of the Hittite treaties. I believe other OT scholars (including other conservatives) have patterned their research in this vein as well. 

Finally it should also be remembered that Kline points out the differences between the covenants where the contrast is most important. I can't recall any examples at this time but perhaps someone else can. 

But I do appreciate Rich's point insofar as it warns us about making too much out of the Hittite treaties and not enough of exegesis from the text itself.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 29, 2008)

Thanks Daniel.

I'm not advocating a rejection of utilizing extra-bilbical sources to provide a context for the Scriptures but it seems like the rail is sometimes jumped from describing the Hittite treaties and asserting that this is how we ought to understand the Abrahamic/Sinaitic treaties. Some even prefer to re-name Law/Gospel as Suzerain/Royal Grant. Folks will describe the nature of a Royal Grant and how a pagan monarch would act and then simply assert that this is the nature of God's interaction with Abraham.

Similarities I can grant but using a Hittite treaty to describe God's interaction with Abraham? Using a Hittite treaty to re-name Law/Gospel? Something just doesn't seem right.


----------



## A5pointer (Aug 30, 2008)

Rich, I do not understand why this troubles you. It makes perfect sense to me that God would use existing understood structures to deal with His people. These treaties were decried by kings. YHWH steps into history and reveals himself as the "Great King" unlike and more powerful than any king known by men. These structural observations shed light on interpretation and should give us confidence as to how they are to be understood. As has been said, God reveals himself to mankind in space time and context that can be understood. We in our age are very fortunate to have historical and acrheological discoveries of paralell literature and customs to aid our interpretation. We need not fear new discoveries just because they are "new". Seems to me that these ideas are rejected only because they may lead to examining the historical concept of "one covenant".


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 30, 2008)

The Hittite Treaty/Royal Grant typology sounds an awful lot like the Theistic Evolutionary argument.


----------



## kceaster (Aug 30, 2008)

Great analogy and good history, too! Semper Fi!

Just because we live in the century of all centuries; the pinnacle of man's existence; the golden age of science and technology; the highest understanding man has ever achieved of his world and universe... (said with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek) doesn't mean that we understand anything about suzerainty treaties.

We apply our idioms to their language. We translate their words using our limited understanding of what they mean. I think it completely laughable when some people make bold statements about what something written 4000 years ago means. We have no clue. Our statements should always include disclaimers of complete speculation. It is the height of arrogance to say we definitively know anything about any culture more than a millenia ago. (might even go closer than a 1000 years.)

But, you say, we can apply the same thing to Scripture. How do we know that what we interpret is what was meant and that we're getting it right? Because the Scriptures are the only book that can truly make this claim: The Holy Spirit who inspired it, illumines it as well. Other books may say that, but only our God can make it true. And, I'm not aware of any promise of God stating that He would help us understand 4000 year old secular writings. If we have any knowledge, it must come from Him. And we would never say He was giving anyone an infallible look into the past, simply because they're a well published theologian.

Therefore, we should never mix the secular with the sacred in a dogmatic sense unless it comes from Scripture itself. And, we should never use a secular source as a corroborating witness to prove the Scriptures are true. The moment we do, our theology becomes farce and our fact becomes fiction.

I know that Kline did not mean to say that these treaties prove the biblical account of covenants. (At least, I'm pretty sure.) However, it is not him I worry about. The 2nd generation is always the most dangerous when it comes to theological formulations. Because as history proves, the ones closest to genius are often the ones who were the first to misunderstand it.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## A5pointer (Aug 30, 2008)

kceaster said:


> Great analogy and good history, too! Semper Fi!
> 
> Just because we live in the century of all centuries; the pinnacle of man's existence; the golden age of science and technology; the highest understanding man has ever achieved of his world and universe... (said with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek) doesn't mean that we understand anything about suzerainty treaties.
> 
> ...



This is a false argument. The scriptures do not promise Spirit illumination in interpretation and our experience confirms it is not true. Look around Christiandom at the differences in theology. Look on this board in differences over Baptism. If what you posit is true we would not need translations, commentaries and other biblical tools.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 30, 2008)

I think we need to remember that the covenant concept was first understood exegetically. It is remarkable how similar the Westminster divines argued for covenant in the same way Kline does, yet without the archaeology. Sure, Kline may go overboard with his discoveries and language, but his findings do shed light on how Ancient Near Eastern people (not just Hittites) thought. Mesopotamians and Egyptians made covenants too. These cultures knew about each other and interacted. Moses was schooled in all the wisdom of Egypt. In studying that archaeology we are studying what Moses studied long ago. And it's only fitting that God would use Moses and the circumstances that God providentially placed him in, to adequately convey his revelation and covenant relationship to the people of God. But Kline's (and others) findings in archaeology only clarify what we have understood exegetically. None of their findings have overthrown how we already understood covenant theology. It may be that later research disproves some of Klines insights, but it will not overthrow the covenant concept in Scripture or the law/gospel distinctions.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 30, 2008)

A5pointer said:


> Rich, I do not understand why this troubles you. It makes perfect sense to me that God would use existing understood structures to deal with His people. These treaties were decried by kings. YHWH steps into history and reveals himself as the "Great King" unlike and more powerful than any king known by men. These structural observations shed light on interpretation and should give us confidence as to how they are to be understood. As has been said, God reveals himself to mankind in space time and context that can be understood. We in our age are very fortunate to have historical and acrheological discoveries of paralell literature and customs to aid our interpretation. We need not fear new discoveries just because they are "new". Seems to me that these ideas are rejected only because they may lead to examining the historical concept of "one covenant".



Bruce,

It appears to me that you missed the entire point.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 30, 2008)

Puritan Sailor said:


> I think we need to remember that the covenant concept was first understood exegetically. It is remarkable how similar the Westminster divines argued for covenant in the same way Kline does, yet without the archaeology. Sure, Kline may go overboard with his discoveries and language, but his findings do shed light on how Ancient Near Eastern people (not just Hittites) thought. Mesopotamians and Egyptians made covenants too. These cultures knew about each other and interacted. Moses was schooled in all the wisdom of Egypt. In studying that archaeology we are studying what Moses studied long ago. And it's only fitting that God would use Moses and the circumstances that God providentially placed him in, to adequately convey his revelation and covenant relationship to the people of God. But Kline's (and others) findings in archaeology only clarify what we have understood exegetically. None of their findings have overthrown how we already understood covenant theology. It may be that later research disproves some of Klines insights, but it will not overthrow the covenant concept in Scripture or the law/gospel distinctions.



Patrick,

It's the "overboard" part that I'm concerned about. I think kceaster rightly noted that it's the second generation that speculates to extremes.

There are responsible ways to use history and help us shed light on the Scriptures but we all are aware of very irresponsible ways. The NPP, for instance, is an example of N.T. Wright and others saying that they understand Second Temple Judaism better than Paul himself and that we need to completely re-cast our understanding of his writings in light of it.

I don't believe that some of the uses of the Hittite treaties are quite so egregious. Nevertheless, haven't we all read various shades of Kline's disciples simply describe a Suzerein/Royal Grant treaty and then conclude that this is how we ought to understand the Scriptures?

Again, I believe that the light of nature may have guided the formation of these treaties. I'm worried, however, about the inferences we draw from them where they went astray.

Also, I don't accept the speculation that God imitated a form that He thought Abraham and Moses would have liked/understood. If anything, God is Covenantal and man imitates him and not the other way around. If I'm going to speculate then I speculate that the Hittites and those in Mesopotamia had a common father in Adam whose God made Covenants at the creation.


----------



## Mushroom (Aug 30, 2008)

> Also, I don't accept the speculation that God imitated a form that He thought Abraham and Moses would have liked/understood. If anything, God is Covenantal and man imitates him and not the other way around. If I'm going to speculate then I speculate that the Hittites and those in Mesopotamia had a common father in Adam whose God made Covenants at the creation.


Exactly what I was thinking in reading this thread. God didn't "step in to time", but has always been intimately involved with His creation. Any similarities between Hittite practice and God's covenants would be a result of their imitation of Him rather than the other way around.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 30, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> > I think we need to remember that the covenant concept was first understood exegetically. It is remarkable how similar the Westminster divines argued for covenant in the same way Kline does, yet without the archaeology. Sure, Kline may go overboard with his discoveries and language, but his findings do shed light on how Ancient Near Eastern people (not just Hittites) thought. Mesopotamians and Egyptians made covenants too. These cultures knew about each other and interacted. Moses was schooled in all the wisdom of Egypt. In studying that archaeology we are studying what Moses studied long ago. And it's only fitting that God would use Moses and the circumstances that God providentially placed him in, to adequately convey his revelation and covenant relationship to the people of God. But Kline's (and others) findings in archaeology only clarify what we have understood exegetically. None of their findings have overthrown how we already understood covenant theology. It may be that later research disproves some of Klines insights, but it will not overthrow the covenant concept in Scripture or the law/gospel distinctions.
> ...



Oh, no doubt, God providentially oversaw the developments of man, for the express purpose of communicating himself to men. He organized history to give man a covenant structure to society, which just so happens to reflect his own dealings with men. Either way, God is in control. The problem is that we don't think like Semites any more. Though the Church in the past has deduced most of covenant theology from the Scriptural data, archaeology helps to fine tune it. 

And is it a coincidence that the suzerain/vassal relationship looks so remarkably similar to the covenant relation of God and man found in Scripture? I agree, to import that language from archaeology is unnecessary and when carried to far can probably lead to more confusion because of the non-biblical language. But it does help in exegesis and sermon prep. I don't think that language should ever be used in a sermon (just my opinion btw). 

As for your analogy, yes there are differences between all those Marines, but the nature of 20th-century warfare and the effective role of Marines in that warfare are pretty common. Yes some do it better than others, but most military folks understand the unique role of Marines, despite the differences between national military forces. I think we could say the same about ANE treatises. We can see the developments over the centuries and how they functioned and despite the differences there are remarkable similarities which confirm that the Biblical data was not a foreign concept to that age. it helps in our apologetics against liberalism in the very least.


----------



## TimV (Aug 30, 2008)

> The problem is that we don't think like Semites any more. Though the Church in the past has deduced most of covenant theology from the Scriptural data, archaeology helps to fine tune it.


 
My point was that the Hittites didn't think like Semites either; nothing like them at all.


----------



## kceaster (Aug 30, 2008)

A5pointer said:


> This is a false argument. The scriptures do not promise Spirit illumination in interpretation and our experience confirms it is not true. Look around Christiandom at the differences in theology. Look on this board in differences over Baptism. If what you posit is true we would not need translations, commentaries and other biblical tools.



Bruce, I was referring to passages like John 16:13. Jesus promised us that the Spirit would guide us into all truth. What is truth? Whatever God says it is. Where has He recorded His revealed truth? In the writings of Hittite kings? In the hieroglyphs of ancient Egypt? If the Spirit guides us into any truth, it STARTS with the Scriptures. And, only with the Scriptures can we say anything truthful about our world and especially about ancient cultures we have so little knowledge of.

Additionally, Paul writes in 1 Cor 2:6-16, we can see a further explanation of the illumination of the Spirit. This is not infallible knowledge. And Paul is not saying that the Spirit will illumine each person in the same way to the same degree. But Paul is saying that if we know any spiritual truth, the Spirit, through the Word of God, has revealed it to us. We didn't stumble across it, or have some corner of the market on a secret of God.

So, I would adamantly disagree with you that God does not promise in the Scriptures that the Holy Spirit will illumine us. If He doesn't illumine us, then we have no light at all.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## A5pointer (Aug 30, 2008)

kceaster said:


> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> > This is a false argument. The scriptures do not promise Spirit illumination in interpretation and our experience confirms it is not true. Look around Christiandom at the differences in theology. Look on this board in differences over Baptism. If what you posit is true we would not need translations, commentaries and other biblical tools.
> ...



Check your context, Jesus audience in John is the apostles who would go on to be the source of new revalation of the new covenant, Paul is speaking of the Spirit's illuniation to believe the gospel not broad sweeping understanding of the scriptures as you alledge. I am thinking almost all here use extra biblical resources when studying or preparing to teach and preach. This certainly would be uneccessary if your theory is true.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 30, 2008)

TimV said:


> > The problem is that we don't think like Semites any more. Though the Church in the past has deduced most of covenant theology from the Scriptural data, archaeology helps to fine tune it.
> 
> 
> 
> My point was that the Hittites didn't think like Semites either; nothing like them at all.



Perhaps, but the Hittites were closer to them than we are and they interacted with them extensively, especially around Palestine. That's not to say that they are the only significant source to study. I think Egyptian thought also played a significant role as well. John Currid has argued that point rather well in his Pentateuch commentaries and his book on Ancient Egypt.


----------

