Christ

Herman Bavinck and Peter Enns on an Incarnational Analogy of Scripture

/ davidsschrock

Peter Enns, in an online article about the authority of Scripture, summarizes his understanding of Scripture’s authority with a quote by Herman Bavinck.  Appealing to the systematician’s understanding that the two natures of Christ parallel the two natures of Scripture, Enns writes:

I can think of no better way of expressing this idea [the incarnational analogy] than by using (as I have used on numerous occasions in the recent past) the words of Herman Bavinck, the Dutch Reformed theologian. In volume one of his Reformed Dogmatics, Bavinck writes that a doctrine of Scripture,

….is the working out and application of the central fact of revelation: the incarnation of the Word. The Word (Logos) has become flesh (sarx), and the word has become Scripture; these two facts do not only run parallel but are most intimately connected. Christ became flesh, a servant, without form or comeliness, the most despised of human beings; he descended to the nethermost parts of the earth and became obedient even to death on the cross. So also the word, the revelation of God, entered the world of creatureliness, the life and history of humanity, in all the human forms of dream and vision, of investigation and reflection, right down into that which is humanly weak and despised and ignoble…. All this took place in order that the excellency of the power…of Scripture, may be God’s and not ours. (Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 1: Prolegomena [trans. J. Vriend; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003], 434–35; [Enns’] emphasis.)

This quote may give the impression that Bavinck and Enns are lockstep in their understanding of Scripture’s origin and nature.  For those familiar with Enns’ book, Inspiration and Incarnation, it may elicit the question, “What does Bavinck think about the human nature of Scripture?”  Does he, like Enns, press the incarnation model for all its cultural molding, or relegate the biblical texts to mythological stories copied from Israel’s neighbors?   What does Bavinck think about inerrancy? 

First, to put “inerrancy” into the mouth of the Dutch theologian would be anachronistic, though I think his theology harmonizes with and anticipates the idea (cf. Gaffin’s book ,God’s Word in Servant Form, treats Bavinck’s–and Abraham Kuyper’s–doctrine of Scripture in detail).  Likewise, in comparing these men, it must be recognized that their settings in time and location, as well as, their divergent scholastic aims, may not allow a straight-forward comparison.  Further, even Enns himself admits that Bavinck “says a lot more” on the subject of Scripture, thus Enns makes room for difference between the late theologian and himself.  Nevertheless, since the question was posed on another blogpost concerning Enns and Bavinck, I will try to show some of that distance.  

I think to answer the question of whether Bavinck and Enns would agree with one another, one simply needs to read the next paragraph in Bavinck’s dogmatic textbook.  As is usually the case, context clarifies, and in this case, it helps demonstrate that Herman Bavinck’s “incarnational analogy” is not quite the same as Peter Enns.   The former grounds his human authorship in the unerring veracity of God communicating by the Spirit of Truth, the other emphasizes the human factor so much that Divine inspiration takes on a new meaning.

Bavinck concludes the paragraph cited by Enns saying, “Everything is divine and everything is human” (435), and then he explicates this idea with an important caveat in the next paragraph (which begins a new section):

This organic view [of inspiration, which Bavinck eventually affirms with qualifications] has been repeatedly used, however to undermine the authorship of the Holy Spirit, the primary author.  The incarnation of Christ demands that we trace it down into the depths of of its humiliation, in all its weakness and contempt.  The recording of the word, of revelation, invites us to recognize that dimension of weakness and lowliness, the servant form, also in Scripture.  But just as Christ’s human nature, however weak and lowly, remained free from Sin, so also Scripture is ‘conceived without defect or stain’; totally human in all its parts but also divine in all its parts (emphasis mine, 435).

In the next section, Bavinck draws on trends in historical theology, showing sensitivity to more modern understandings of precision, and urging caution models of inspiration that slide from word, to idea, to ultimate denial.  He continues:

Yet, in many different ways, injustice has been done to that divine character of Scripture.  The history of inspiration shows us that first, till deep into the seventeenth century, it was progressively expanded even to the vowels and the punctuation (inspiratio punctualis) and in the following phase progressively shrunk, from punctuation to the words (verbal inspiration), from the individual words to the Word, the idea (Word in place of verbal inspiration).  Inspiration further shrunk from the word as idea to the subject matter of the word (inspiratio realis), then from the subject matter to the religous-ethical content, to that which has been revealed in the true sense, to the Word of God in the strict sense, to the special object of saving faith (inspiratio fundamentalis, religiosa), from these matters to the persons (inspiratio personalis), and finally from this to the denial of all inspiration as supernatural gift (435).

Think what you will of Bavinck’s historical analysis and slippery slope argument, but one thing is clear: Peter Enns and Herman Bavinck do not share the same understanding of Scripture.  In fact, in the pages that follow in Bavinck’s chapter on “The Inspiration of Scripture,” their doctrinal disparity grows.  I will conclude with just one more treatment of his illuminating work that highlights the difference.  Concluding his section on organic inspiration he again touches on the incarnational model, only here Bavinck develops it with a detail that exceeds Inspiration & Incarnation. (Admittedly, Enns has developed this approach with greater focus since I & I, see his 2007 CTJ article, but differences in their incarnational models remain).  Bavinck summarizes:

Inspiration has to be viewed organically, so that even the lowliest part has its place and meaning and at the same time is much farther removed from the center than other parts.  In the human organism nothing is accidental, neither its length, nor its breadth, not its color or its tint.  This is not, however, to say that everthing is equally closely connected with its life center.  The head and the heart occupy a much more important place in the body that the hand or the foot, and these again are greatly superior in value to the nails and the hair.  In Scripture, as well, not everything is equally close to the center.  There is a periphery, which moves in a wide path aroung the center, yet also that periphery belongs to the circle of divine thoughts.  Accordingly, there are no kinds and degrees in ‘graphic’ inspiration.  The hair of one’s head shares in the same life as the heart and the hand.  There is one and the same Spirit from whom, through consciousness of the authors, the whole Scripture has come.  But there is a difference in the manner in which the same life is present and active in the different parts of the body.  There is diversity of gifts, also in Scripture, but it is the same Spirit (438-39, emphasis mine).

In the end, appeals to men are like appeals to tradition.  They are helpful and historic, but they do not trump the Bible itself.  I think ultimately, Enns and Bavinck, would go back to the Bible to make their case.  Only, I think they would do so with divergent degrees of confidence in the Bible’s inspiration–Bavinck asserting inspiration from the unerring Spirit of Truth through men; Enns ascribing origination from men with assistance from the Spirit.  This a nuanced difference, but one that ultimately affirms or denies the authority of the Scriptures.  One makes Scripture God’s unique self-revelation, the other a error-proned attestation to the God who lisps. 

The point here is not ultimately to solve the inerrancy debate, but simply to observe the difference between Enns and Bavinck in their similar usage of the “incarnational analogy.”  For while Enns bolsters his case with citations from Bavinck, the superficial similarities do not go beyond the surface.  Both scholars employ an incarnational analogy for understanding Scripture, but they explain this analogy differently as the preceding quotations demonstrate.  In the end, Enns is not a reincarnation of Bavinck, but hopefully his scholastic dependence on the Reformed theologian will help others glean from Bavinck’s commitment to biblical inspiration and authority in ways that Enns does not.

[For more on Bavinck’s doctrine of scripture, see Richard Gaffin’s book on the subject, God’s Word in Servant Form].

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Lucifer, a Type of Christ? Michael Haykin answers a puzzling quote from Jonathan Edwards

/ davidsschrock

[This is for Chip Dean who started the whole thing].

On his Church History blog at The Andrew Fuller Center (SBTS), Dr. Michael Haykin has answered a question today concerning Jonathan Edward’s view of Lucifer as a type of Christ in his post “Jonathan Edwards on Christ and Lucifer.”  The question arose from Edwards’ miscellanies “Fall of the Angels,” in “Miscellaneous Observations on Important Theological Subjects,” Chapter XI, of The Works of Jonathan Edwards (Hendrickson Publishers, 1998), II, 609). In his biblical reflections Edwards draws parallels between Lucifer before the Fall and Christ in his glorious humanity.  Obviously, this causes orthodox believers to hesitate.  Haykins’ comments are helpful.  After quoting the pertinent sections, he commments:

A close and careful reading of the text reveals simply this: Edwards is arguing that the unfallen Lucifer is a type of glorified humanity of Christ—the chief responsibilities of Lucifer before his fall have now been given to the glorified humanity of Jesus Christ. There is nothing heretical in this, though, in true Edwards style, this is something I had never thought of before. But the latter is of no import, there is so much in Edwards that we lesser minds would never have thought of if we did not read it in Edwards. As a theologian, he was stellar. Is he right: that is another question. Again, Edwards is not exalting Lucifer over our Lord. He is simply arguing that the unfallen Lucifer has typological aspects to his character when it comes to his relationship to the glorified humanity of Christ.

Once again typology seems to be a necessary device to understanding the Bible.  What are your thoughts.  Does Edwards get it right?

Thank you, Dr. Haykin, for taking the time to respond and for helping us better understand Edwards and his biblical theology.  Read the whole thing here; read Edwards entire miscellany on Angels here .

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Colossians 1:24: Suffering for the Sake of the Body (pt. 2)

/ davidsschrock / 4 Comments

My Final Answer:

The “lack” that Paul’s sufferings are filling up is the representative absence of Christ’s redemptive sufferings. Let me expound: What Christ did on the cross was a singular event in space and time, yet it was for all time and for all people. The distance between the singular event and the fullness of humanity is the lack. The application of reconciliation needs to be extended to all people. That is where Paul’s suffering, and your suffering and my suffering come in. We suffer to fill up the lack of proclamation of Christ’s propitiation. Therefore, what Christ propitiated, we proclaim. What he did, we declare. The redemption he accomplished we make known through declaration, and as the Lord ordains our sufferings for his sake, we demonstrate his death and resurrection in our bodily afflictions.

Commenting on this, John Piper writes:

Christ has prepared a love offering for the world by suffering and dying for sinners. It is full and lacking nothing—except one thing, a personal presentation by Christ himself to the nations of the world. God’s answer to this lack is to call the people of Christ (people like Paul) to make a personal presentation of the afflictions of Christ to the world…In [our] sufferings they see Christ’s sufferings. Here is the astounding upshot: God intends for the afflictions of Christ to be presented to the world through the afflictions of his people (Desiring God, 225).

In short, Paul’s suffering validated and attested to the life-giving power of the message he proclaimed, so that in his life he demonstrated Christ’s sacrificial death and resurrection power (cf. Phil. 3:9-10).  In the church, the world is able to see the body of Christ. In the suffering of Christ’s body, they are given a living, breathing, suffering testimony of the savior who bled and died to make reconciliation with God possible. This was God’s design for his church from the beginning.  Reflecting on this call to suffer, Romanian pastor Joseph Tson comments:

[Speaking in first person, in the life of Paul, he says]: If I had remained in Antioch…nobody in Asia Minor or Europe would have been saved. In order for them to be saved, I have had t accept being beaten with rods, scourged, stoned, treated as the scum of the earth, becoming a walking death. But when I walk like this, wounded and bleeding, people see the love of God, people hear the message of the cross, and they are saved. If we stay in the safety of our affluent churches and we do not accept the cross, others may not be saved. How many are not saved because we don’t accept the cross? (Quoted by John Piper in Desiring God, 230).

Let me summarize: Christ’s sufferings redeemed; Paul’s sufferings reveal. They do not add to Christ’s all-sufficient work, but they do extend its all-sufficient power and message (cf. 2 Cor. 4:7-11). The purpose of God in Christ’s sufferings was to redeemed a people dead in trespasses and sins; the purpose of God in Paul’s sufferings was to bear witness to the sufferings of another, and amazingly Paul’s bodily afflictions were designed by God to advance that message.  So then, Paul’s sufferings for the gospel, and ours, are not supplementary, but complementary.  They are essential, not optional.

Jesus promised his followers a cross. He said that if the world hated the master, they would also hate his servants. Therefore, in telling the world about his saving work, we can expect to suffer. Yet, in that suffering we demonstrate in our flesh the power of God’s love and the very cross that we declare. When the world sees suffering, bleeding, dying Christians telling of their suffering, bleeding, dying savior with joy (“I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake,” Col. 1:24a), they are filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions—namely the representative witness of the savior’s redemption. And in so doing, we follow in the faithful footsteps of Paul and we fill up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions.

Lord Jesus, give us more grace to move towards the suffering you have designed for us to embrace in our bodies, and may the world know that while we suffer, we do it joyfully, looking forward to the resurrection of the body in the age to come.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Salvador Dali, Marriage, and the God Who is There

/ davidsschrock

In his book The God Who is There, Francis Schaeffer points to Salvador Dali as an example of someone whose world reshaped his worldview.  Unlike many whose lives are marked by inconsistency, promoting one system of thought but living out another, Salvador Dali, the twentieth century painter, readjusted his artwork to accord with his home life.  Describing this transformation, Schaeffer remarks that Dali’s loving tribute to his wife marks the time in which his paintings took on a more humane and sensible form.  He says, “So on this particular day [describing the day he painted his wife] Dali gave up his surrealism and began his new series of mystical paintings.” (71).

In his later artwork, Dali turned to Christian symbols and figures to express his non-Christian mysticism. For instance in The Sacrament of the Last Supper, he depicts a vaporous savior seated with his disciples overshadowed by a human figured on a cross, presumably Jesus, but whose head is unseen, cut off by the top of the painting.  Thus his paintings have Christian motifs but ignore the historic Christian message.  The painting that Schaeffer points to most and the one that he attributes to his remarkable “conversion” is that of his wife.   In the painting Dali depicts his wife with one breast exposed, her name prominently on the picture, and great artistic emphasis on the ring on her finger, unashamedly supporting their marital vows.  Schaeffer’s assessment is that, “his loved jarred him into a modern type of mysticism” (71). 

But if marital love moved him to some kind of transcedent mysticism, it, by implication, saved him from the suicidal nihilism of a worldview devoid of love and meaning–the worldview that accompanies surrealist art.  Dali named this painting of his wife, “A Basket of Bread.”  Interestingly, this is the same name he gave to two other “eucharistic” paintings.   It seems by such a title that he is applying eucharistic overtones to and deriving spiritual elements from his marriage.  And though Dali does not have the categories or the definitions to understand what he is seeing, in his marriage he sees something transcedent and spiritual.  In short, in his marriage he is given a picture of a greater reality–that is the mystery now revealed of Christ and the church (cf. Eph. 5:32).  Sadly Dali never embraced this greater reality, but it is apparent that his marriage made him thirst for more.  His marital union, it appears, allured him to long for more of Christ, though in the end he ignorantly revolted against the one who drew him near.

Dali’s artistry and life are illuminating.  They remind of us of the impact marriage can have and is designed to have.  It was made to awaken our senses for God.  More specifically, marriage was made by God as a witness to Jesus and his bride, the church.  It is a mystery, but every marriage–Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Wickan, or otherwise that unites one man to one woman–portrays Christ and the church.  Even those like Dali, who reject the Bible, taste and see something eternal, holy, and true in their own marriages, but without Spiritual illumination they will never comprehend that which they experience.  

Salvador Dali’s life and art is a helpful reminder that marriage beckons us to the God who is there.  Even in the lives of agnostics and atheists, marriage serves as divinely-crafted institution to assist the Great Commission and to bring unbelievers to Christ.  Consequently, Christians should see marriages as evangelistic weapons in the spiritual warfare we wage.  As we point married men and women to Christ, we can call on their own marriages to testify to their need and desire for the heavenly marriagee.  Marriage is a personally authenticating reality that testifies to the world and to those who are married (or those who long for marriage) that there is a God who is there, and that he is not silent, and that his message is a wedding invitation for all those who are willing to wear his ring (cf. Matthew 22:1-14).

May we like John the Baptist (John 3:27-30), be faithful groomsmen, calling people to come to the wedding to which all weddings foreshadow.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Adamic Imagery in Colossians 1:15-20

/ davidsschrock / 1 Comment

Colossians 1:15-20 is one of the most exalted views of Jesus Christ in all the Scriptures.  It demands doxological invocation through theological description. 

In just six verses, Paul unfolds a litany of magnificent truths that span the horizon of biblical theology and reach from the horrors of hell (Christ’s experience on the cross) to the glories of heaven (Christ’s headship in the church and His rule over all creation). Consider:  He is the image of God.  He is the firstborn son over all creation.  He is the Creator of all things.  All things!  Nothing exists without his sovereign oversight.  He upholds the universe, thus he sustains each photon of light from the star whose light has not yet reached the earth.  He is the head of the church.  And he is the firstborn from the dead.  Each truth deserves individual attention.  Taken together they crescendo in praise. 

But these truths are not vaccuous propositions devoid of context and biblical definition.  Paul writes these things to contest the false teaching erupting in Colossae.  Paul lifts up the glory of Christ to combat any notion that deficiency in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  He draws on OT concepts and language to declare Christ has come and fulfilled all things–the law (cf. Rom. 10:4); the promises (cf. 2 Cor. 1:20; the offices of the OT (cf. the book of Hebrews).  He is the God, and in him the fullness of God dwells bodily (Col. 1:19; 2:9).

In making his case, Paul conflates Jesus Christ’s eternal deity and creativity with his functional role as the second Adam.  GK Beale provides helpful commentary and analysis of this Adam-Christ relationship.  He writes:

The three descriptions for Christ in Colossians 1:15-17 (“image of God,” “firstborn,” “before all things”) are thus different ways of referring to Christ as an end-time Adam, since they were common ways of referrring to the first Adam or to those who were Adam-like figures and were given the first Adam’s task whether this be Noah, the patriarchs, or the nation of Israel (GK Beale, “Colossians,” in Commentary on the NT Use of the OT, 854).

While the first Adam imaged God and was YHWH’s firstborn son (Luke 3:38), he was not “before all things.”  In this way, Jesus Christ is a greater Adam, one who is both Creator and incarnated as the perfect image of God.  Whereas, every other son of Adam (daughter of Eve), bears in being a marred image of God, Jesus Christ is the perfect image of God, “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature” (Heb. 1:3).  Thus, we who have been redeemed by the Second Adam, who have been buried with him in baptism, and await the redemption of our bodies and to be clothed with the imperishable, are being conformed into the image of the second Adam, the perfect man.  This is the corporeal hope of the Christian life, we will be glorified in our bodies (cf. Rom. 8:29-30), when Christ comes again.

Beale goes on to speak of Jesus position of authority, for as the perfect man, he has always retained his Divine Nature (cf. Phil. 2:5-11):

This position of authority is also grounded in Paul’s acknowledgement that Christ is the sovereign Creator of he world (1:16) and sovereignly maintains its ongoing existence (1:17b).  Therefore, Christ perfectly embodies the ruling position that Adam and his flawed human successors should have held, and he is at the same time the perfect divine Creator of all thins, who is spearate fro mand sovereign over that which he has created, especially underscored by the clause ‘all things have been created through him and for him’ at the end of 1:16 (854).

As we read our Bible’s may we see the intracanonical connections that help us better understand our Savior; and as we see these Spirit-illumined truths, may our hearts be filled with joy as we consider our great and gracious Immanuel.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Last Things First: Meditations on the Image of God

/ davidsschrock

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15).

This weekend, I will be preaching from some of the richest Christological verses in the Bible, Colossians 1:15-20.  And in preparation this week, I have been reading JV Fesko’s Last Things First: Unlocking Genesis 1-3 with the Christ of Eschatology.  Fesko’s treatment of “protology,” eschatology, and Christology are incredible stimulating and illuminating.  Seeing that Genesis 1-3 is not just a polemic against Charles Darwin, nor a proof-text the age of the earth, but rather a glorious beginning to the story of Jesus Christ–his creation, redemption, and new creation.  Fesko effectively demonstrates that these passages are about the Triune God and the true man, Jesus Christ. 

Drawing on a rich history of commentators, Fesko quotes Anthony Hoekema, G.K. Beale, and John Calvin as they seek to explain the context and the concept of the Imago Dei.  Their reflections are worth pondering in order to better understand this tremendous biblical truth–namely, what it means to be made in the image of God, and that Jesus Christ himself is the Image of God!  Quoting from Hoekema’s The Image of God first, Fesko remarks: 

The image of God in man must: “be seen as involving the structure of man (his gifts, capacities, and endowments) and the functioning of man (his actions, his relationships to God and to others, and the way he uses his gifts).  To stress either of the of these at the expense of the other is to be one-sided…To see man as the image of God is to see both the task and the gifts.  But the task is primary; the gifts are secondary.  The gifts are the means for fulfilling the task” (A. Hoekema, quoted by Fesko in Last Things First, 47).

To Hoekema’s balanced representation of structure and function, Fesko incorporate’s Beale’s cultural-historical observations:

G.K. Beale explains the connection between monarchs as images of deities and explains, “ancient kings would set up images of themselves in distant lands over which they ruled in order to represent their sovereign presence.  For example, after conquering a new territory, the Assyrian king Shalmanesar ‘fashioned a mighty image of my majesty’ that he ‘set up’ on a clack obelisk, and then he virtually equates his ‘image’ with that of ‘the glory of Assur’ his god.  Likewise, Adam was created as the image of the divine king to indicate that earth was ruled over by Yahweh” (G.K. Beale, quoted by Fesko, 49).

Finally, Fesko quotes the great reformer, John Calvin, whose comments highlight the dignity bestowed upon humanity’s nature. 

The chief seat of the Divine image was in his mind and heart, where it was eminent…In the mind perfect intelligence flourished and reigned, uprightness attended as its companion, and all the senses were prepared and molded for due obedience to reason; and in the body there was a suitable corresondence with this internal order’ (John Calvin, quoted by Fesko, 50).

In short order, John Fesko, summarizes some of the most important aspects of the doctrine of humanity.  He supports a holistic definition that incorporates Calvin’s substantive understanding, that mankind has essential properties that reflect the Godhead; Hoekema’s dual understanding that mankind is made to rule (function) and that God has given mankind gifts and abilities to carry out that task (structure); and Beale’s cultural-historical understanding of humanity’s place as delegated vice-regents to rule over creation, to expand the glory of God by ruling over creation and proliferating the image of God.

Of course, there is much more to say because this original program was aborted as soon as Adam’s feet touched earth.  Humanity proceded to reflect the image of God, but in a marred and perverted way.  Nevertheless, eternal God’s intention for the true Imago Dei was never thwarted!  As highlighted by Last Things First, Scripture teaches that Jesus Christ was always the intended telos of mankind.  We are made in his image, but He is the image of God (cf. Col. 1:15; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:4; Heb. 1:3).  Fesko distills the preceding quotations well, so we will finish with his summary:

Set against the ancient Near Eastern religions in which the ‘forces of nature are divinities that may hold the human race in thralldom, our text declares man to be a free agent who has the God-given power to control nature’ (Nahum Sarna, Genesis, 13).  Moreover, no man or any other creature is a deity.  Rather, God’s image, his incommunicable attributes, were given to man so he could rule as God’s vice-regent over the creation (50).

Made in the image of Christ, may we rejoice in the True ImageoDei, Jesus, and press on to Christ-like conformity as we embrace our roles as vice-regents, looking for the day when our bodies are redeemed and we will ever reign with Christ (cf. Rom. 8:23; 2 Tim. 2:12).

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Christ-centered, Old Testament Resources

/ davidsschrock

This week Drs. Duane Garrett, Peter Gentry, and James Hamilton discussed the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament and the interpretation of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament.  The lively conversation was well-attended on the campus of Southern Seminary and the discussion raised a number of nuanced issues concerning sensius plenior, typology, allegory, interpretive methods, the duplication of apostolic hermeneutics, and the extent to which the Old Testament author’s knew they were writing of Jesus Christ.  In short, they covered a range of key interpretives features of biblical theology.  You can listen to the whole discussion here, while Jim Hamilton makes some follow up comments with pertinent link in his post: How much Christ in the Old Testament. 

Here are some other resources that may prove helpful in reading the Bible and seeing Christ and the gospel in the Old Testament.

First, James Grant highlights two helpful resources on the the Old Testament concerning its canonicity and its Narrative Structure.  You can find both of these on his blog, In Light of the Gospel: The first reference is to Richard Gaffins’ “Reading the Bible as Canon”.  The other is a link is John Woodhouse on the OT Narrative.

Second, a newer series of books offers to help biblical theologians and pastors see the gospel in the OT.  The Gospel According to the Old Testament Series looks like an incredible series of reflections that highlights, as the title says, the gospel in the Old Testament.  These books are not commentaries, though.  Instead, it seems that they take aim at OT characters.  Some of the books in the series focus on David, Ruth, Elijah & Elisha, Jonah, and others.  Some of the authors are Biblical Theology heavy hitters: Tremper Longman, Iain Duguid, Raymond Dillard, and David Jackson, to name a few. (HT: Chad Knudson)

Hope you find these prophetable!

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Otto Piper on Marriage, pt. 2

/ davidsschrock

Otto Piper’s book on marriage, The Biblical View of Sexuality and Marriage (1960), is a helpful treatise on the subject, and it is filled with refreshingly biblical explanations and meditations on sex and marriage.  Some of these ideas were posted earlier, and today we will consider a few more of his statements.

The Goal of Marriage: Piper writes, “Husband and wife can have personal fellowship by engaging in common service for others, by sharing some mutual responsibility for other people, by cultivating common friendships or by developing some common interests” (135). For the Christian nothing could be more important than the cooperative work of co-laboring in the vineyard of the Lord, to tell the world about Jesus, to serve Christ in his church, and to raise a family that reflects the love of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Piper continues accordingly, “The purpose of the marriage has been sought, among other things, in the service thereby rendered to the state or nation, or in the happiness thereby provided, or in the procreation and rearing of children. Important as these purposes are, they represent only certain aspects of marriage never indicate its ulimate goal” (137).

The conclusion Piper is driving towards is that the ultimate goal of marriage must be a life-long union that envisions glorifying Christ and the church as its chief aim. Through a marriage that reflects that Divine Union, God’s redemptive purposes are advanced and heavenly joy is imported into the Christian family.  The goal of marriage then, in a fallen world, is to cooperatively carry forth the gospel of Jesus Christ and fulfill the great commission, making disciples of the nations–which is not coincidentally similar to the original command to “be fruitful and multiply.”

Marital Discipleship is Necessary for God-Glorifying Marriages: Piper continues to elaborate on the ultimate purpose for marriage and the need to instruct young couples. For Christians, the purpose in “marriage is an alliance of two persons who, notwithstanding their physical nature and their sexuality, are members of the Body of Christ, and who therefore share the mystery of Christ’s union with the Church. It is from this fact that the standards of married life are to be derived. Of course, not all Christian couples are clearly aware of this mystery when they marry. We may even safely assume that the social function of marriage is uppermost in the minds of most couples who stand before the pastor. All the more important, therefore, is it that instruction concerning the Christian view of marriage should be given to confirmands and couples asking for a wedding if our generation is to attaind to a renewed, deepened, and genuinely Christian understanding of marriage (138). 

In a world that instructs us to rebel against God and his designs in our life and relationships, it should come as no surprise, that young couples entering into marriage are deletriously affected by their ambient culture.  Even Christian couples, on the whole, have little idea how influenced their views of sex, intimacy, communication, and happiness are by secular media, feminist ideals, and wordly philosophies.  Marriages that will most glorify God are those that from the beginning confess their ignorance and antagonism towards God’s designs.  In other words, admitting the latent patterns of sinfulness present in their unions, these married couples humbly and boldy repent of their worldliness and sin.  Turning to God’s design for marriage instead, they are through the power of the Spirit seek to grow in the grace God has given them in the reconciling work of Jesus Christ, the recreative work of the Holy Spirit, and the illuminating work of the Word of God to renew their minds and repattern their marriages after his divine design.  This is nothing new.  This is simply discipleship in the realm of marriage.

The Value of a Public Wedding: Piper also addresses the role public ceremonies for weddings serve.  “A word needs to be said here about the wedding ceremony as a means of grace . [By this he does not mean marriage as a sacrament or an infusion of grace]. The benediction pronounced by the pastor is no mere formality, or simply a nice looking appendage to the civil ceremony as many a young people seems to think. In the church ceremony the spouses publicly affirm their membership before the congregation, and thus they confess that they regard their union an expression of their Christian lives and of their desire to live them according to the Biblical understanding. The Church’s prayer and benediction form the congregation’s response to the couple’s declaration. The wedding ceremony, therefore, is not a mere public proclamation of the divine blessing promised to a Christian couple but also a valid offer of the great and real blessings that by God’s will the Church has to share with spouses. The minister communicates to them the portion they have in all those gifts of the Holy Spirit which they need in order to make theirs a Christian marriage” (171).

In this way, the public, ecclesial ceremony affords the energetic couple the chance to breath life into the congregation as they covenant together to love one another. Such a commitment reflects the Christ-church mystery, and it shows members and visitors an ultimate cosmic reality of Christ and his bride. At the same time, the church’s witness says something to the couple. It affirms the sanctity of marriage and with kingdom authority (cf. Matthew 16:18ff) it promises to enact discipline on the young couple if ever they seek divorce and defame their portrait of Christ and the church. The church is the authorized agent to hold the couple responsible to perform the vows spoken in their midst. In this way, the loving couple’s marriage is ratified by the church and the church itself is strengthened by a visible display of its forthcoming marriage to Christ.

Marriage as the Great Lighthouse: Piper writes on the role Christians should play in legislating sexuality. He says, “We believe the State acts in its own best interest by furterhing the Christian evaluations of marriage, and the Church must insist upon its right publicly to proclaim its interpretation. However, the strongest defense against un-Christian concepts of sex is to be found in Christian marriage. The light of faith shine to all in the house. By way of conduct Christians demonstrate the superiority of their ideal of marriage. Where it is lacking all prohibitions against adverse propaganda are valueless, because the Christian ideal seems to be of doubtful value to its own advocates” (181).

Piper’s evaluation is balanced and prophetic. Christian activists who lobby against same-sex marriages, but live in egalitarian marriages devoid of gender roles undermine their message.  They are imaging a heterosexual “same-sex marriage.”  Likewise, those who advocate  laws against polygamy, but who themselves are unbiblically divorced and remarried fail to see the connection.  They are serial polygamists themselves.  Consequently, Christian marriages will have the greatest voice in a dark and dying world when they begin to practice what  Bible teaches.  When Christian marriages take seriously the commands of Scripture and rest securely on the Rock of Jesus Christ, it is then that they will begin to have testimonies, in word and deed, that will catch the attention of the world.  Until then, Piper’s analysis will be the sad case because Christian marriages that fail to live up to the ideals they defend will be scoffed at by the world and ultimately discounted.  The result is that the light of Christ meant to be reflected in marriage is put under a basket (Matt. 5:15).  Since Christians are to be lighthouses (Matt. 5:14; Phil. 2:15), brightly illuminating the world with the light of Christ, we must strive with Holy Spirit power and Christ-like tenacity to see Christ and the church modeled in our homes.  For more than the preservation of our families–though for that reason, too–but in order that the world will take notice of what a true marriage is and come to see that God’s design for marriage is better than any man-made alternative, and that ultimately they who reject God’s pattern for marriage will give praise to our Father for the superior wisdom of marriage (Matt. 5:16) and that perhaps they themselves may desire to be a part of Christ’s bridal party (Matt. 22:1-14; 25:1-12).

May we all who know the Savior, strive to have such Spirit-filled, Christ-exalting, gospel-telling marriages, by the Grace of God.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Marriage: A Heavenly Sculpture Formed From Earthly Clay

/ davidsschrock


In his popular-level book on marriage, Married for God,Christopher Ash relates a story from Britain that illustrates the way that marriage is expressly intended to display the lovingkindness of God.

Some years ago I read of a dispute in Britain between the Foreign Office and the Treasury. The argument was about which British Ambassadors would be provided with a Rolls Royce for their official duties in a foreign capital [sic]. The Treasury unsurprisingly wanted the wonderful cars restricted to a few: perhaps Washington, Moscow, and Paris. The Foreign Office argued for many more and I love the reasoning. Most people in a foreign capital [sic] have never been to Britain, they said. But when they see this magnificent car gliding through the streets with the Union flag on the bonnet, they will say to themselves, “I have not been to Britain. I don’t know much about Britain. But if they make cars like that there [and in those days we did!], then Britain must be a wonderful place.

In a similar way, I like to think that men and women may say to themselves as they watch a Christian marriage: “I have never seen God. Sometimes I wonder, when I look at the world, if God is good, or if there is a God. But if he can make a man and woman love one another like this; if he can make this husband show costly faithfulness through sickness as well as health; if he can give him resoucres to love when frankly there is nothing in it for him; well, then he must be a good God. And if he can five this wife grace to submit so beautifully, with such an attractive gentle spirit under terrible trials, then again he must be a good God. If you are married or preparing for marriage, pray that others might be able to say this of you in the years ahead (Christopher Ash, Married For God:Making Your Marriage the Best It Can Be [Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 2007],96).

Christopher Ash’s analogy points to the way God has designed marriages to radiate His glory and reveal truth about His faithfulness and love. In the human clay of marriage, God has imprinted his heavenly signature, and men and women who are joined by him have the dignified privilege of serving as heavenly ambassadors in a fallen world. Such a living portrayal of God’s love is neither optional or incidental, it is God’s design and his desire for every marriage–Christian or otherwise. Of course, patterned after Jesus Christ and his bride, only those marriages founded on Christ and filled with the Spirit are able to fully reflect his glory (cf. Matt. 7; Eph. 5:18). Nevertheless, every truly Christian marriage should invite others–married couples and interested singles–to experience the increasing depths of heavenly intimacy had in the display of Jesus’ redemptive love portrayed in marriage.

Reading Ash’s account challenges those married or soon to be married to consider how your own marriage discloses or covers Christ and the Church, the love of God, and the blessed hope of union with Christ at the end of the age, to name a few. Marriage was not ultimately created to provide temporal pleasures in a rough-and-tumble world; it was created to picture a greater reality that might draw all the nations into the gracious embrace of the Risen Savior. While providing wonderful pleasures, marriage points to a greater and more lasting union– the marriage feast with the lamb of God (Rev. 19:6-10).

May our marriages grow in the glory of God’s love, and may a skeptical world be awakened by the light of Christ shining forth from our Christ-centered marriages.

Sola Deo Gloria,dss