Bible

Christ is a Superior High Priest: Three Reasons Why Jesus Is Greater Than Aaron

/ davidsschrock / Leave a comment

jason-betz-274375-unsplashIt has been testified somewhere, “What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him? You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor, putting everything in subjection under his feet.” Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. 
— Hebrews 2:6–9 —

The key idea in Hebrews is priesthood. However, I believe sonship is equally important to understanding the flow of the book, not to mention the nature of Christ’s priesthood. In other words, Jesus is a greater priest because he is a greater son (see 4:14; 7:28).

Making a similar point, B. B. Warfield once commented on Hebrews 2:6–9:

The emphasis is upon the completeness of the identification of the Son of God with the sons of men . . . The perfection of His identification with us consisted just in this, that He did not . . .  assume merely the appearance of man or even merely that position and destiny of man, but the reality of humanity. (The Power of God Unto Salvation, 5, 10; cited in Zaspel, The Theology of B.B. Warfield, 256).

Highlighting the personal nature of Christ’s union with his people, Warfield touches on the very weakness of the priesthood of Aaron. And in so doing, he highlights three ways Christ’s priesthood is greater than that of Aaron. Continue reading →

Why Non-Pastors Should Study the Pastoral Epistles

/ davidsschrock / Leave a comment

livingchurchThis Sunday our church begins a new series in the book of 1 Timothy. In six chapters, 1 Timothy contains a great deal of instruction about the gospel, false teaching, men and women, life together in the church, and how to recognize godly leaders.

1 Timothy is often grouped with two other Epistles– 2 Timothy and Titus. Together these three letters are known as the “Pastoral Epistles.” They are written to two of Paul’s sons in the faith (1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim 1:2; Titus 1:4), ministers of the gospel sent by Paul to Ephesus and Crete for the purpose of building up those churches. As a matter of fact, Timothy and Titus are not so much pastors themselves but envoys sent out by Paul to confront error (1 Tim 1:3-7), preach sound doctrine (2 Tim 1:13; Titus 2:1, 15), further the faith of God’s elect (Titus 1:2), and give health and life to the household of God (1 Tim 3:14–16).

From this synopsis, one might get the impression the Pastoral Epistles are only for pastors, or at least for those working in the ministry. One might conclude they have little relevance for the stay-at-home mom or the data analyst. Such a conclusion would be premature, for they actually have great application for all Christians. And what follows are five reasons why every Christian should read them, study them, and apply them. Continue reading →

Jesus and ‘Those Who Are With Him’: 1 Samuel, Mark 2, and Two Kinds of Typology

/ davidsschrock / Leave a comment

tanner-mardis-612668-unsplash (1).jpgIn his illuminating study Jesus the Priest, Nicholas Perrin argues for a priestly reading of Mark 2:23–28, the passage where  “those who were with [Jesus]” (repeated twice in vv. 25 and 26) ate grain on Sabbath. In his commentary, Perrin argues for a deep typology between 1 Samuel and Mark’s Gospel.

That Mark intends a general comparison between David and Jesus is supported by at least a handful of typological comparisons, occurring, for example, in Mark’s account of the latter’s last week in Jerusalem which resembles the Jerusalem-based consolidation of kingship under the former. As he enters the Holy City in the style of Solomon (11.1—8), Jesus is hailed as the Son of David (11.9-10), only later to be identified with David (12.10 us 118.22—23)). Later still he is crucified as a Davidic ‘King of the Jews’ (15.26) Finally, in his expiring moments he utters his last prayer in words drawn from a Davidic psalm (15.34 (Ps. 22.1)). Through his shameful death on Roman cross, Mark insists, Jesus has become Israel’s king on the pattern of David.

Yet the Jesus-David analogy also extends to Mark’s sequencing of events as a comparison of their respective careers makes clear. One recalls that in 1 Samuel, David is anointed as king of Israel (1 Samuel 16), thrust into combat with Israel’s arch-enemy (Goliath) (1 Samuel 17) and shortly thereafter put to flight by the reigning pretender Saul (1 Samuel 18-20), with an excursion to Nob (1 Samuel 21) marking one of the first stops in his itinerant exile. The early action of the Gospel is parallel in its broad strokes.

In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is anointed the Davidic-messianic king (Mark 1.9-11), thrust into combat with Israel’s true arch-enemy (the Satan) (1.12—13) and shortly thereafter embroiled in a series of conflicts complete with its own Nob-like experience (2.23-28). Such structural similarities between the Gospel and the Davidic narrative are not unrelated to more far-reaching thematic comparisons. If David was anointed king but denied any immediate right to reign, so it was with Jesus. If David’s band was time and time again forced to go on the run, Jesus and his followers were no less a band on the run. Finally, if David’s exile eventually paved the way for the throne, the same goes for Jesus — even if in a curious, paradoxical way. Whatever scriptures and traditions shaped Mark’s Christology of suffer, the contribution of the Davidic narrative can hardly be denied.

Once Mark’s appropriation of the cycle from 1-2 Samuel is brought to bear on our interpretation of his grainfield incident, Jesus’ appeal to David (vv. 25-26) quickly comes into view as an effort to frame the controversy a recapitulation of a distinctively Davidic conflict. Mark 2.23-28’s position within a set of post-baptism conflicts stories, in grand analogy to David’s experience, points to nothing less. No sooner is David anointed king of Israel than he is ironically persecuted: no sooner is Jesus anointed king of Israel through baptism than he is, with equal irony, persecuted. Meanwhile, if the analogy between the two anointed-but-beleaguered kings effectively links the conflict dialogues of Mark to the travails of David, then Jesus’ self-comparison with David at Nob within the episode of 2:23-28 is the weld which seals that link. This is no arbitrary exercise in typology. By embedding Jesus’ sufferings within the context of David’s suffering, Mark hopes to justify the controverted quality of Jesus’ messiahship. (Jesus the Priest, 196-97)

Because of my passion for priesthood and typology, I love the way Perrin reads this passage. But more technically, I appreciate the way he shows how Mark wrote his Gospel on the basis of previous Scripture. I believe we can see this kind of typology all over the Gospels, and this is a great example. At the same time, Perrin’s observation about typology help us think more carefully about typology and how the inspired authors wrote Scripture. Continue reading →

Genesis 24 and God’s Plan for the World

/ davidsschrock / 2 Comments

sylwia-bartyzel-9217-unsplashGenesis 24 is the longest chapter in Genesis. And rather than recounting some revelation about God or some aspect of his covenant with Abraham, it spins a tail of how Isaac got a wife. Indeed, the longest narrative event in Genesis is a love story, one that seems Dickens-like in its profusion of extraneous information.

Certainly, as the promises of God are given to Abraham and his offspring, the marriage of his son is no small matter. Yet, it seems as though the account of the servant traveling back to Mesopotamia to find a wife for Isaac is prolix detour from the rest of Genesis. At least, it is not as crisp as the equally-important, but shorter accounts of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1–9) and the meeting with Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18–24).

So why the long drama of finding Isaac a wife? My answer is that this story reflects God’s story for the world, and the long-time-in-coming union between God’s beloved son with his bride. Let’s consider. Continue reading →

Via Emmaus Podcast: Two New Episodes (Genesis & Matthew)

/ davidsschrock / Leave a comment

podcastlogo

We are still working out the bugs on our new podcast, but here are two new podcasts that discuss passages of Scripture in Genesis and Matthew. This podcast was begun  to help our church and anyone else read the Bible better.

If you have any questions for this podcast, feel free to ask here.

NEW EPISODES

EPISODE 03OT: Genesis 8–14 |  January 21, 2019  |  Anton Brooks & David Schrock

In this episode we discuss the curse of Ham, the tower of Babel, Abraham’s tithe to Abraham, and more from the book of Genesis. For more on Genesis, see

EPISODE 03NT: Matthew 8–13 |  January 21, 2019  |  Anton Brooks & David Schrock

In this episode we discuss Jesus’s acts of healing, the meaning of an apostle, point of parables, and more from the book of Matthew. For more on Matthew, see

Continue reading →

A Biblical View of the Body

/ davidsschrock / Leave a comment

ltbSo glorify God in your body. 
— 1 Corinthians 6:20 —

Last night our church discussed the book Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions about Life and Sexuality by Nancy Pearcey. I cannot stress how important this book is.

In a room of 30 church-going men and women, few could remember a time when a pastor or church had taught a series on the body. Most instead reflected on the way churches have focused on the soul/spirit to the neglect of the body. Though Scripture has much to say about creation and God’s view of the body, many in the church have been fed a diet of Gnostic wisdom.

Gnosticism is the ancient philosophy that denigrated the material world and the body. It valued the spirit, the mind, the soul; it rejected the material as impure and unholy. Probably more by accident than intention, evangelicals have followed this way of thinking. We have not done a good job teaching a positive view of the body, and we must look to Pope John Paul II to find a robust theology of the body.

In a hyper-confused world that denies the significance of the body, Christians need to give attention to the body. This is why Love Thy Body is so needed, as it tackles all sorts of subjects related to the body. It gives a grid (Francis Schaeffer’s Upper Story and Lower Story House) for understanding why so many hate the body. And it helps Christians to embrace a unified worldview that appreciates the material and immaterial part of mankind. For all these reasons, I would recommend Pearcey’s book.

I would also encouraged believers to arm themselves with Scripture that speaks about the body. To that end, I share this four-fold list. Following the pattern of creation-fall-redemption-resurrection, it gives a number of key texts for appreciating what Scripture says about the body.

Take time to read these verses and what they mean for your body. I am not including any commentary on the verses, but let me encourage you to think about how they give us a realistic and comprehensive view of the body. Continue reading →

The Four Seeds of Abraham: Natural, National, Christ, and “In Christ”

/ davidsschrock / 2 Comments

thibaut-marquis-97935-unsplash.jpg

Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring.
It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one,
“And to your offspring,” who is Christ.
— Galatians 3:16 —

Who is Abraham’s offspring? Or is it, Who are Abraham’s offspring? Is it one or many? Or both?

In the Bible one of the most important realities to grasp is how the Bible presents itself. In other words, because Scripture is the inspired interpretation of God’s actions in the world—even as God’s Word is itself a divine action—it is vital to see how God’s earlier revelation prepares the way for his later purposes.

Sometimes this is called an “eschatological” reading of Scripture. That may sound complicated, but it’s not. Eschatology means “the study of last things” (eschatos = last), and most of the time people immediately jump to what they perceive are the “last things” in the Bible. However, if we consider that God stands outside of time and created all things for the purpose putting them under his Son’s feet (see Ephesians 1:10), then we must read the Bible as one unified-but-unfolding plan of redemption.

In this way, eschatology doesn’t begin in Revelation, or Daniel, or Zechariah, it begins in Genesis. And from Genesis to Revelation, God is working all things for the purposes of his people—the offspring of Abraham.

But who is/are Abraham’s offspring? Continue reading →

Let Scripture Interpret Scripture

/ davidsschrock / Leave a comment

bibleIn our recent podcast on Genesis and Matthew, we considered how various aspects of the ancient Near East inform our understanding of Genesis. Indeed, there are many reasons to compare the Old Testament to the ancient Near East (and the New Testament to Second Temple Judaism). In both testaments, the historical background give us insight into the Scriptures.

That said, there is more insight that comes from comparing Scripture to Scripture, by reading the Old Testament with the light of the new, by reading the New Testament with the background of the Old Testament, and reading both testaments as mutually-interpreting books of God’s inspired word.

In fact, on that very point New Testament scholar Grant Macaskill makes this wise observation:

New Testament scholars are usually very good at examining the context and backgrounds provided by Graeco-Roman and Jewish literature, but we are generally less successful at examining that provided by other New Testament writings and bringing these to bear on our exegesis. There is a vast amount of literature that reads Paul in the light of Qumran; there is rather less that reads Paul in the light of Peter.

The objection, of course, is that we run the risk of conflating the distinctive theology of each and doing so without sensitivity to the timelines on which they are located. But these texts are the products of a movement with a certain cohesion, generated within a compact period of time. It is, then, necessary to the historical task for us to consider how they may relate to one another and to reflect upon the ways in which even their diversity may emerge from a basic unity of thought. (Grant Macaskill, Union with Christ in the New Testament, 2)

I am not a New Testament scholar, but I believe his point applies to us all. The best interpreter of Scripture is Scripture, and so we should give equal—even greater!—attention to the rest of the Bible when interpreting Scripture. Sure, let’s read extra-biblical texts that inform Scripture, but even more lets immerse ourselves in the Bible, so that our interpretations are saturated with the Bible and not just the latest academic fad or archaeological discovery.

Soli Deo Gloria, ds

*Knowing* and *Being Known*: A Word Best Understood in Covenantal Context

/ davidsschrock / 2 Comments

stars.jpgNot everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
— Matthew 7:21–23 —

I suspect that Jesus words in Matthew 7:21–23 might raise some questions if one does not have a basic understanding of God’s knowledge. What does it mean that Jesus never knew you? Certainly, God knows all things, and because Jesus is God the Son, he must know all things. So what do his words mean?

The answer comes from knowing the way knowledge is spoken of in the Bible. Going back to Genesis 4, we find knowledge often describes covenantal relations—either between two people (as in marriage) or between God and man. Either way, knowledge is a relational term and one that consistently carries the idea of covenant-making and covenant-keeping.

In what follows, I share a handful of examples and come back to Matthew 7. Continue reading →

Of Spaceships and City Streets: G.K. Beale on Two Kinds of “Literal” Reading

/ davidsschrock / Leave a comment

In his massive and massively helpful A New Testament Biblical Theology, G. K. Beale spends the opening chapters outlining the storyline of the Bible and the eschatological nature of the Old Testament. Rather than defining eschatology as merely that category of doctrine that describes future events, he rightly explains how the original creation came with “eschatological potential” (89). Still, what is most helpful in his approach to reading the Bible eschatologically is his approach to reading the Bible “literally.”

Much debate continues on this point today, and to quote the “theologian” Mandy Patinkin (of Princess Bride fame), I do not believe most people who demand a literal reading know what that word means. Or at least, their definition and use only consider one aspect of a literal reading—namely, a narrow reading of individual texts, without considering how a literal reading can also be applied to whole books, including the whole canon itself. Continue reading →