Excerpt

Excerpt from A Theological-Political Treatise [Part III], by Benedictus de Spinoza

(2) If we examine the style of the Epistles, we shall find it totally
different from that employed by the prophets.

(3) The prophets are continually asserting that they speak by the command of
God: "Thus saith the Lord," "The Lord of hosts saith," "The command of the
Lord," &c.; and this was their habit not only in assemblies of the prophets,
but also in their epistles containing revelations, as appears from the epistle
of Elijah to Jehoram, 2 Chron. xxi:12, which begins, "Thus saith the Lord."

(4) In the Apostolic Epistles we find nothing of the sort. (5) Contrariwise,
in I Cor. vii:40 Paul speaks according to his own opinion and in many
passages we come across doubtful and perplexed phrase; such as, "We think,
therefore," Rom. iii:28; "Now I think," [Endnote 24], Rom. viii:18, and so
on. (6) Besides these, other expressions are met with very different from
those used by the prophets. (7) For instance, 1 Cor. vii:6, "But I speak
this by permission, not by commandment;" "I give my judgment as one that
hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful" (1 Cor. vii:25), and so on
in many other passages. (8) We must also remark that in the aforesaid
chapter the Apostle says that when he states that he has or has
not the precept or commandment of God, he does not mean the precept or
commandment of God revealed to himself, but only the words uttered by Christ
in His Sermon on the Mount. (9) Furthermore, if we examine the manner in
which the Apostles give out evangelical doctrine, we shall see that it
differs materially from the method adopted by the prophets. (10) The
Apostles everywhere reason as if they were arguing rather than prophesying;
the prophecies, on the other hand, contain only dogmas and commands. (11)
God is therein introduced not as speaking to reason, but as issuing decrees
by His absolute fiat. (12) The authority of the prophets does not submit to
discussion, for whosoever wishes to find rational ground for his arguments,
by that very wish submits them to everyone's private judgment. (13) This
Paul, inasmuch as he uses reason, appears to have done, for he says in 1
Cor. x:15, "I speak as to wise men, judge ye what I say." (14) The prophets,
as we showed at the end of Chapter I., did not perceive what was revealed by
virtue of their natural reason, and though there are certain passages in the
Pentateuch which seem to be appeals to induction, they turn out, on nearer
examination, to be nothing but peremptory commands. (15) For instance, when
Moses says, Deut. xxxi:27, "Behold, while I am yet alive with you, this day
ye have been rebellious against the Lord; and how much more after
my death," we must by no means conclude that Moses wished to convince the
Israelites by reason that they would necessarily fall away from the worship
of the Lord after his death; for the argument would have been false, as
Scripture itself shows: the Israelites continued faithful during the lives
of Joshua and the elders, and afterwards during the time of Samuel, David,
and Solomon. (16) Therefore the words of Moses are merely a moral
injunction, in which he predicts rhetorically the future backsliding of the
people so as to impress it vividly on their imagination. (17) I say that
Moses spoke of himself in order to lend likelihood to his prediction, and
not as a prophet by revelation, because in verse 21 of the same chapter we
are told that God revealed the same thing to Moses in different words, and
there was no need to make Moses certain by argument of God's prediction and
decree; it was only necessary that it should be vividly impressed on
his imagination, and this could not be better accomplished than by
imagining the existing contumacy of the people, of which he had had frequent
experience, as likely to extend into the future.

---

Explanation

Detailed Explanation of Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise (Excerpt from Part III)

This excerpt from Benedictus de Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise (1670) is a key passage in his broader argument about biblical interpretation, prophecy, and the distinction between divine revelation and human reason. Spinoza, a Dutch rationalist philosopher of Jewish-Portuguese descent, wrote this work to challenge traditional religious authority, advocate for freedom of thought, and promote a secular, rational approach to Scripture. The treatise was controversial in its time, as it questioned the literal authority of the Bible and the divine origin of prophecy, aligning with Spinoza’s broader pantheistic and deterministic philosophy (as later developed in his Ethics).

This particular section (Part III) compares the style and authority of the Old Testament prophets with that of the New Testament apostles, particularly Paul. Spinoza’s goal is to demonstrate that prophecy is not a matter of superior knowledge or divine reason but of vivid imagination and moral exhortation, whereas the apostles (especially Paul) engage in rational argumentation, suggesting a different kind of divine inspiration—one more aligned with human reasoning.

---

Key Themes in the Excerpt

1. The Nature of Prophecy vs. Apostolic Teaching

   • Spinoza argues that prophets (e.g., Moses, Elijah) speak with absolute divine authority, using phrases like "Thus saith the Lord" to convey direct commands from God, not reasoned arguments.
   • The apostles (e.g., Paul), by contrast, reason, debate, and express personal opinions, showing that their authority is not purely divine but also human and rational.

2. Divine Authority vs. Human Reason

   • Prophets do not appeal to reason but to divine decree—their words are peremptory (absolute and unquestionable).
   • The apostles, however, invite judgment and discussion (e.g., Paul saying, "Judge ye what I say" in 1 Cor. 10:15), suggesting that their teachings are subject to human scrutiny.

3. The Role of Imagination in Prophecy

   • Spinoza claims that prophets do not receive divine knowledge through reason but through vivid imaginative visions (as argued in TTP Chapter I).
   • Example: Moses’ prediction of Israel’s rebellion (Deut. 31:27) is not a logical argument but a rhetorical device to impress the people emotionally.

4. The Shift from Law to Reason in Christianity

   • The Old Testament prophets deliver laws and commands without explanation.
   • The New Testament apostles engage in theological reasoning, suggesting a progression from blind obedience to rational faith.

5. The Problem of Biblical Literalism

   • Spinoza critiques the idea that all biblical statements are literally true or divinely dictated.
   • He shows that even within Scripture, there are contradictions and human elements, undermining the claim that the Bible is a single, unified divine text.

---

Literary and Rhetorical Devices

1. Contrast & Juxtaposition

   • Spinoza sharpens his argument by placing prophets and apostles in opposition:
     • Prophets: "Thus saith the Lord" (absolute authority, no reasoning).
     • Apostles: "I think," "We judge" (reasoned, tentative, open to debate).
   • This binary structure reinforces his claim that prophecy is not about superior knowledge but about imaginative moral influence.

2. Appeal to Scriptural Evidence

   • Spinoza cites specific biblical passages (e.g., 2 Chron. 21:12, 1 Cor. 7:6, Rom. 3:28) to support his claims empirically, making his argument textually grounded rather than purely philosophical.
   • This was a radical method at the time, as most theologians treated the Bible as infallible and beyond critical analysis.

3. Rhetorical Questions & Refutation

   • In §15-16, Spinoza dismantles a potential counterargument:
     • If Moses was using reason in Deut. 31:27, why was his prediction wrong?
     • He concludes that Moses was not reasoning but using rhetorical exaggeration to make a moral point.

4. Irony & Subtle Critique

   • When Spinoza says (§12), "whosoever wishes to find rational ground for his arguments, by that very wish submits them to everyone's private judgment," he is implicitly criticizing religious dogmatism.
   • His point: If prophecy were truly divine, it wouldn’t need human reasoning—but since the apostles reason, their authority is partly human.

5. Historical & Contextual Analysis

   • Spinoza examines the historical context of biblical passages (e.g., why Moses might have spoken the way he did).
   • This historical-critical method was revolutionary and laid the groundwork for modern biblical scholarship.

---

Significance of the Passage

1. Challenge to Religious Authority

   • Spinoza undermines the idea that the Bible is a single, divinely dictated text.
   • By showing that prophets and apostles speak differently, he suggests that Scripture is a human document shaped by historical and cultural contexts.

2. Foundation for Biblical Criticism

   • This passage is an early example of higher criticism (the study of the Bible as a historical text rather than divine revelation).
   • Later scholars (e.g., Julius Wellhausen, Rudolf Bultmann) would expand on Spinoza’s methods.

3. Defense of Freedom of Thought

   • Spinoza’s argument justifies intellectual freedom by showing that even the apostles reasoned and debated.
   • This aligns with his broader political philosophy, which advocates for secular governance and freedom of speech.

4. Distinction Between Faith and Reason

   • Spinoza separates prophecy (imagination, morality) from philosophy (reason, truth).
   • This dualism would influence later thinkers like Kant (who distinguished between practical faith and theoretical reason).

5. Impact on Modern Theology & Philosophy

   • Spinoza’s naturalistic explanation of prophecy (as imagination, not supernatural knowledge) challenged traditional theology.
   • His work influenced Enlightenment thinkers (e.g., Voltaire, Lessing) and liberal theology in the 19th-20th centuries.

---

Line-by-Line Breakdown (Key Sections)

§2-4: The Prophets’ Style vs. the Apostles’ Style

• Prophets use authoritative divine speech ("Thus saith the Lord"), presenting their words as direct commands from God.
• Apostles (e.g., Paul) use tentative, personal language ("I think," "We judge"), suggesting human reasoning rather than divine dictation.

Why does this matter? Spinoza is showing that prophecy is not about transmitting divine knowledge but about delivering moral commands in an authoritative way.

§5-8: Paul’s Human Reasoning

• Paul admits when he is giving his own opinion (1 Cor. 7:40, 7:6, 7:25).
• He does not claim direct divine revelation but appeals to Christ’s teachings (Sermon on the Mount) as his source.

Implication: The apostles do not have the same kind of prophecy as the Old Testament prophets; their authority is more rational and less absolute.

§9-11: Prophets vs. Apostles in Teaching Method

• Prophets: Deliver dogmas and commands without explanation.
• Apostles: Argue, reason, and persuade like philosophers.

Key Quote:"The Apostles everywhere reason as if they were arguing rather than prophesying."

Significance: This suggests that Christianity (as taught by the apostles) is more compatible with reason than Judaism (as taught by the prophets)—a controversial claim in Spinoza’s time.

§12-14: The Problem of Prophetic Authority

• Prophets do not allow discussion—their authority is absolute.
• Paul, however, invites judgment ("Judge ye what I say").

Spinoza’s Argument: If prophecy were truly divine, it would not need human reasoning—but since the apostles reason, their teachings are partly human.

§15-17: Moses’ Rhetoric, Not Reason

• Spinoza analyzes Deut. 31:27, where Moses predicts Israel’s rebellion.
• He argues that Moses is not making a logical argument (since the prediction was wrong—Israel remained faithful for generations).
• Instead, Moses is using rhetorical exaggeration to impress the people emotionally.

Why is this important? It shows that prophecy is about moral persuasion, not divine foreknowledge.

---

Conclusion: Spinoza’s Radical Message

This excerpt is not just a literary analysis but a philosophical and theological bombshell. Spinoza is arguing that:

1. Prophecy is not divine knowledge but imaginative moral teaching.
2. The Bible is a human document, not a single divine text.
3. Religious authority should be subject to reason and critical examination.
4. Freedom of thought is essential, even (or especially) in matters of faith.

His work laid the foundation for modern biblical criticism, secularism, and the Enlightenment’s emphasis on reason over dogma. By distinguishing between prophetic imagination and apostolic reasoning, Spinoza challenged the very foundations of religious authority, paving the way for a more rational, humanistic approach to Scripture and theology.

Would you like further elaboration on any specific aspect (e.g., Spinoza’s broader philosophy, historical reception, or comparisons with later biblical criticism)?