Jesus

From Sinai to Chile to Zion: Why Visual Aids Do and Do Not Help Us See Christ in the Bible

/ davidsschrock

I am not a big fan of visual aids.  So, when I preach or teach, I do not use powerpoint and rarely use other forms of multimedia to explicate the biblical text.  There is much to debate here, but as a personal conviction, I aim at–i.e. pray for and work at– letting the Word of God speak in and through the words that I speak.  Why?  Because the word of God is effective and the Spirit is able.  Likewise, visual imagery has a way of overshadowing the text and effectively dulling us from the power and precision of God’s Word (Heb. 4:12-13). 

Yet, with that said, there are still times when visual imagery helps us discern Scriptural truth, where without the “visual aid” we would not understand the biblical text as well.  For instance, in 2005, as I stood on the Mount of Olives overlooking the temple mount, the Kidron Valley, and the Valley of Hinnom, the drama of Jesus’ last supper, arrest, and trials before Pilate and Herod took shape in my mind as I imagined him walking with his disciples to the Garden of Gethsemane and then back through the City of David to encounter the unrighteous judgments of his accusers.  All told, passages of Scripture like Matthew 26-28 and John 13-19 were illumined by the geographical imagery of Jerusalem

Still, coming back from Israel, I realized that a “holy land experience” is not necessary for understanding the Bible, even if it provides visual images for biblical texts.  Thus, I learned in a fresh way, that the word of God is sufficient for everything I need to know and love God.  As 2 Peter 1:4 says, through our knowledge of Christ (as found in Scripture), God has given us everything we need for life and godliness (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16-17; Deut. 29:29). So while my travels in Israel were profitable for visualizing the Bible, such a pilgrimmage is not necessary for salvation and sanctification. 

With that grid in place–namely that visual aids can be selectively helpful for understanding the Bible– I introduce a ‘visual aid’ that I ran across today, and which prompted thoughts of Exodus 19-24 and Hebrews 12.

01_chaitenv

Lightning bolts appear above and around the Chaiten volcano as seen from Chana, some 30 kms (19 miles) north of the volcano, as it began its first eruption in thousands of years, in southern Chile May 2, 2008. Picture taken May 2, 2008. (Carlos Gutierrez)

As you ponder the picture, consider Moses words in front of Mount Sinai:

On the morning of the third day there were thunders and lightnings and a thick cloud on the mountain and a very loud trumpet blast, so that all the people in the camp trembled. Then Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God, and they took their stand at the foot of the mountain. Now Mount Sinai was wrapped in smoke because the Lord had descended on it in fire. The smoke of it went up like the smoke of a kiln, and the whole mountain trembled greatly. And as the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered him in thunder. The Lord came down on Mount Sinai, to the top of the mountain. And the Lord called Moses to the top of the mountain, and Moses went up (Ex. 19:16-20).

This electrifying image of a thunderstorm on top of a volcano in Chile provokes images of  what it must have been like to encounter the living God at Sinai.  Yet, that historical event, which may have looked something like this, is not spectacular because of its atmospheric power,  as much as its redemptive-historical significance.  Consequently, as terrifying as such an image is, Scripture tells us that the people did not fear the cosmological occurence, nearly as much as the One who stood behind the smoking curtain and SPOKE (cf. Deut. 4:33).  What terrified the people was not just the smoke on the mountain, but the Word of God itself.  Listen to their plea:

Now when all the people saw the thunder and the flashes of lightning and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking, the people were afraid and trembled, and they stood far off and said to Moses, “You speak to us, and we will listen; but do not let God speak to us, lest we die.” Moses said to the people, “Do not fear, for God has come to test you, that the fear of him may be before you, that you may not sin.” The people stood far off, while Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was (Ex. 20:18-21).

What this picture and these texts remind us is that God’s world is frightening, and he is present in the world; but his word is even more fear-producing and his presence to save and to judge is mediated through his Word.  Accordingly, the people of God begged Moses for a mediator, and God was pleased to speak to them through Moses (Deut. 5:28-33).  The people’s fears were both incited by God’s Holy Word, and allayed by God’s merciful mediator.

The same is and should be true for us.  In the fullness of time, God sent another mediator, a greater Word, His own Son, Jesus Christ to confirm the words spoken at Sinai and to speak to God’s people as a sympathetic mediator.  Hebrews 12, in fact, says this very thing recalling the temptuous events at Sinai to beckon us to believe in Jesus Christ with greater fear and faith.  Consider these fearful words

For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them. For they could not endure the order that was given, “If even a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.” Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I tremble with fear.” But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven (Heb. 12:18-25).

While we can picture Sinai, we have no way to preview Zion, but here is where the sufficiency and severity of God’s word is most powerful: The truth of the matter is that Zion is more awesome–terrible and glorious–than anything visible today.  Visual aids cannot helps us discern Zion, only God’s word can do that.   We can only apprehend Zion’s reality by faith in God’s word.  Thus we prepare ourselves for the kingdom’s arrival by meditating on God’s Word and prayerfully anticipating the coming of Jesus Christ, the final Word and the perfect mediator.

Thus as we look on the image of this Chilean mountain we are helped to imagine what it must have been like for the people of Israel to stand before God, but our hearts must not be contented to only look backwards.  By the revelation of God’s word, we are beckoned to look forward to the coming, unshakeable kingdom of God, remembering this fact: Our God is a Consuming Fire!  What happened at Sinai is only a foreshadowing of things to come.  In this respect, the visual aid above both furthers our understanding of Exodus 19-24, but fails to do the same for us and our impending encounter with God.  It is only God’s Word, written and incarnate (cf. John 1:14), that enables us to envision Zion and the reality of entering God’s presence.  Thus with fear and faith, may we respond in faith to the Holy Word of God (cf. Heb. 4:2).

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Book Review: The Kingdom of God

/ davidsschrock

Bright, John. The Kingdom of God: The Biblical Concept and Its Meaning For the Church.  Nashville: Abingdon,1953.

If you like Graeme Goldsworthy, you will like John Bright; and if you come to John Bright’s book, The Kingdom of God, already familiar with Goldsworthy’s According to Plan, you will recognize some similar elements.  Bright unites the entire Bible along the lines of the kingdom of God, which he defines in many places as the people of God under the rule of God.  (He does not make quite as explicit the place of God, as Goldsworthy does).  Nevertheless, the two books share some common elements, which should not be entirely surprising because of the Union Theological Seminary connection, where Bright taught and Goldsworthy studied.

In the The Kingdom of God, Bright traces the kingdom from its origins in Israel to its already, but not yet manifestation in the Church of Jesus Christ, and in so doing he has aimed to assist the “general reader of the Bible” (11) understand the continuous aspects of the Scriptures.  Wary of the History of Religion school and the hyper-typology of those like Wilhelm Vischer, Bright’s hope is to do justice to the texts of Scripture while showing how the Kingdom of God resides in them all, “in one way or another” (11).  In short, his goal in writing this book is to be faithful to the Bible, stimulating to the church, and helpful for biblical theology.  Without being overly congratulatory, I think he hits his mark.

The book is broken down into 9 chapters.  The first six are devoted to the OT, while the last three address the NT.  Of these nine, the final chapter actually becomes sermonic and makes biblical application for the contemporary church (circa 1950’s).

In the first chapter, Bright moves from the Exodus to the reign of David tracing Israel’s religion, Israel’s historical development, and the rise of kingship in Israel.  Instead of speculating about the royal themes inchoate in Genesis, Bright moves right to the Exodus and the birth of the Israelite nation.  He sets up the context of the Ancient Near East, and the ways in which God elected Israel and made covenant with them.  With rapid succession, Bright moves to the Davidic Covenant so that Genesis – 2 Samuel are covered in the first chapter of the book.

In chapters 2, Bright moves to the Davidic Kingship under God’s judgment.  He outlines the history of the day, retelling the works of the Assyrian empire and the threat they brought to Israel.  He spends much time in the book of Amos, following the argument of the prophet, who shows that all nations are under judgment and failed attempts at ethical living can only postpone the judgment of God for so long.  What is needed is a new covenant.  In this chapter, Bright asserts the distinction between Israel and the kingdom of God–they are not coextensive.  This is something he will belabor throughout his work, namely that not all Israel is Israel.

In chapters 3-5, Bright moves from the judgment of Israel to the Exile and back again.  Showing an extraordinary grasp of the history, each chapter begins by setting Israel in its geo-political context.  He explains the rise to power of foreign nations and what effect this has on Israel’s kingdom.  In this historical context, he exposits the theological message of Isaiah, Hosea, and Micah (ch. 3), and then Jeremiah and Ezekiel (ch. 4-5).  He highlights theme of “remnant” that develops in this historical context, and from a barrage of biblical texts shows how the hopes of Israel are moving forward.  Eschatological anticipation is growing along with a hope for a promised Messiah to save Israel.  Simultaneous with this messianic hope is the hope and desire for a new covenant.

Finishing the OT and moving into the Intertestamental period (i.e. Second Temple Judaism), Bright recounts Israel’s return to Jerusalem and the minimal realization of the eschatological promises.  In chapter 6, Bright once again distinguishes himself as an excellent historian by showing how two inter-locking trends developed in the corporate mindset of Israel in the centuries leading up to Christ.  First, an apocalyptic hope emerged, whereby Jews began to believe and anticipate YHWH’s fiery intervention to establish his kingdom once again in Israel.  This was coupled with a second trend in which Israelites devoted themselves to the preservation (and expansion) of the law and the keeping of Torah.  The former is reflected in Daniel, the latter can be seen developing in Ezra and Nehemiah.  Both of these are also seen in other apocryphal literature, and manifested in the various Jewish sects present in Jesus own day (i.e. Qumran, the zealots, the scribes and Pharisees).  Bright’s analysis is that these two separate themes, apocalypticism and devotion to the law, actually served to support one another–the devotion to God’s law was thought to invite God’s intervention.   Likewise, these dual ideologies served to protect the national identity of Israel in the face of Hellenism and other foreign influences. 

It was in this historical millieu that Israel’s long-awaited Messiah was born.  In chapter 7, Bright surveys the gospel accounts of Jesus coming and fulfillment of OT promises.  Chapter 8 then speaks of the birth of the church and the way in which God’s people relate to the OT community and the Messiah himself.  Bright conceives of the kingdom of God as being already but not yet, and provides a good explanation of the way in which the kingdom is transferred from the Old to New Covenant, though his Presbyterianism comes out in that within the church itself, like ancient Israel, there remains a spiritual remnant.  He interprets the field of Matthew 13:38 as the church, not the world.  Other than this, his explanation is helpful.  Again, his strong suit is his painstaking historical detail.

Finally, chapter 9 moves from the lecture hall to the pulpit.  Bright applies the biblical, historical theology of the kingdom of God to the church today.  Unashamedly, he applies much of the kingdom theology to current political events in his era.  Thus communism and the Soviet Union get much attention, but really the evils of Red Russia serve as a foil to show how the judgment of God is coming on all nations of all time, because only the kingdom of Jesus Christ will eternally stand.

In the end, his book is very helpful, especially in situating the kingdom of God in the historical contexts of the Old and New Testaments.  Bright makes constant reference of his scholastic mentor, biblical historian, William Albright.  Albright’s influence is evident, as each chapter is started with many pages of historical notes and annotations.  Bright is faithful to the Bible, showing only occasional moderate leanings (i.e. Second Isaiah, a late dating of Daniel), but his unified project affirms the authority, inspiration, and unity of the Bible.  Moreover, his writing is very readable and he often incredibly witty, using common vernacular to explain scholastic points.  One final criticism, is his theological understanding of the church.  He abstracts the kingdom of God in the New Testament to be an spiritual, invisible community, much like the spiritual remnant of the Old Testament.  I suppose this is better than equating the church with the kingdom, but I believe George E. Ladd’s work on the church-kingdom relationship, where the church serves as visible manifestations of the kingdom, kingdom outposts, if you will, is a better conception.

All said, Bright’s work The Kingdom of God: The Biblical Concept and Its Meaning For the Church is an excellent and enriching read, one that I highly recommend.  While other books on biblical theology do well to recapture the covenantal and literary structures of the Bible, you would be hard pressed to find another book that gives such rigorous attention to the historical details of the Bible.  At the same time, Bright’s emphasis on the later history of the kingdom of Israel during the time of the prophets stands out as an excellent treatment of that material. 

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Will the real Jesus please stand up?!

/ davidsschrock / 2 Comments

Today Kevin DeYoung summarized his message from this year’s Next Conference. In his message on the “Life of Christ” he includes a thought-provoking and sadly revealing list of Jesus makeovers found throughout the bulging corridors of American evangelicalism.  Some of the false Jesuses on his list include Republican Jesus, Democrat Jesus, Therapist Jesus, Starbucks Jesus, Open-Minded Jesus, Touchdown Jesus… Hippie Jesus, Yuppie Jesus, and on it goes. 

In place of these extrabiblical examples, DeYoung turns to the language of biblical promise and fulfillment to describe who Jesus is.  Instead of painting a velvet Elvis, fad Jesus to enforce any number of partisan policies, DeYoung simply turns to the Bible to say that the Messiah is

the Son of David and Abraham’s chosen seed, the one to deliver us from captivity, the goal of the Mosaic law, Yahweh in the flesh, the one to establish God’s reign and rule, the one to heal the sick, give sight to the blind, freedom to the prisoners and proclaim good news to the poor, the lamb of God come to take away the sins of the world…

He embodied the covenant, fulfilled the commandments, and reversed the curse. This Jesus is the Christ that God spoke of to the serpent, the Christ prefigured to Noah in the flood, the Christ promised to Abraham, the Christ prophesied through Balaam before the Moabites, the Christ guaranteed to Moses before he died, the Christ promised to David when he was king, the Christ revealed to Isaiah as a suffering servant, the Christ predicted through the prophets and prepared for through John the Baptist.

Reading this catena of descriptions, I was reminded of the simple fact that apart from the Bible in general and the Old Testament in particular, we cannot know Jesus as the Christ.  Just to name the name of Jesus is not enough.  Even to simply quote an isolated verse, “Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life,” may not be enough, if this verse is removed from its canonical context and antecedent meaning.  The question that has to be asked then is, “Which Jesus are you talking about?”

In a world of competing Jesuses, Kevin DeYoung calls us back to a biblical portrait of Jesus, so that we might not confuse Jesus the Christ with Jesus the brand name, Jesus the salesman, or Jesus the talisman.  May we endeavor more to know the Christ of the Bible and the Bible which all points to Christ.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss


 

The Trinity in Biblical Theological Perspective (2)

/ davidsschrock

The Trinity in Biblical Theological Reflection: New Testament Appropriations of Old Testament Evidence 

Three NT passages that are often used to support the doctrine of the Trinity are Matthew 28:19; John 1:1-8; and 1 Corinthians 8:1-6.  They show the New Testament revelation of the Trinity–one God, three persons.  However, as will be evidenced below these passages are not merely New Testament irruptions, rather they find dependence on earlier Old Testament passages.  The point being made then is that while the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly made in the OT, there are incomplete revelations in the Hebrew Bible that prepare the soul for the Christian revelation of the Triune God.  Let us consider these passages together. 

Matthew 28:19.  The Great Commission is the most explicit Trinitarian verse in the Bible.  While there are other triads,[1] no other passage of Scripture so clearly and concisely delineates the three persons of the Godhead.  It reads, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”  Here all three members of the Godhead are listed in order and united under a singular name,[2] and as was referenced previously this New Testament postulations depends upon Old Testament revelation, in at least three ways.  In short order, Matthew 28:18-20 has a typological precedent in 2 Chronicles 36:22-23,[3] a literary precursor in the three-fold, baptismal benediction found in the Aaronic blessing (Num. 6:22-26);[4] and a view of the Godhead that corresponds with the eschatological vision in Daniel 7:13-14.[5]  In each of these Old Testament passages there are glimpses of what is fully conceived in Matthew 28:18-20.   More to the point theologically, the significance of God’s name cannot be undervalued.  That the “I am” is now the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, marks a seismic shift in Theology Proper; nonetheless, it is one that was anticipated in the OT (cf. Isa. 7:14; Jer. 23:6; cf. Isa. 43:25 –> Phil. 2:9-11).[6]

John 1:1-18.  John’s prologue is another lucid example of the way OT ideas of Word and Wisdom were taken and applied to Jesus, so that God the Father and God the Son were inseparably united and yet hypostatically distinguished.  Consider John’s use of Genesis 1 as he introduces Jesus as the eternal Word of God—the one in whom “all things were made,” the source of all life, and the light of the world (1:1-5).[7]  That the Word, the Son of God, Jesus Christ is responsible for creation, life, and light is a clear testimony to his uncreated eternality and the fact that he is the unnamed divine agent in the Old Testament.  Köstenberger summarizes, “The prologue’s portrayal of the Word’s creative agency thus establishes an important theme [in John]… While the Word is personally distinct from God, the work he performs is nonetheless nothing but the work of God.”[8]  

Then, using imagery from the revelation on Mt. Sinai, John compares Jesus intimate knowledge of the Father with Moses fiery encounter in Exodus 19-20.  Moses was permitted into God’s presence, but he was disallowed from seeing God’s face, or later entering into his presence (i.e. the promised land).  Alternatively, Jesus Christ, “is in the bosom of the Father” (1:18 NASB).  He is the “one-of-a-kind Son” who alone has seen God and now is explaining him to the world.  In this comparison, Jesus is not a New Moses.  Rather, if the imagery from Sinai holds, he himself is YHWH in the flesh.  So that as Bauckham concludes,

Without contradicting or rejecting any of the existing features of Jewish monotheism, the Fourth Gospel, therefore redefines Jewish monotheism as Christological monotheism….in which the relationship the relationship of Jesus the Son to his Father is integral to the definition of who the one true God is.[9]

1 Corinthians 8:1-6.  Like John, Paul in his letter to the Corinthians expands the static notion of monotheism to include Jesus Christ.  Quoting the shema (Deut. 6:4) in 1 Corinthians 8:4, he argues against idolatry in verse 6 saying, “yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”  It is absolutely fascinating to see Paul reject the existence of other (so-called) gods in one verse and then to turn and insert into the singular deity of God two names—God and the Lord Jesus, the Father and the Son.  Certainly, this Christology interpretation was a result of his Dasmascus Road experience with the risen Lord.  Richard Bauckham’s balanced explanation summarizes Paul’s thought process here,

The only possible way to understand Paul as maintaining monotheism is to understand him to be including Jesus in the unique identity of the one God affirmed in the Shema.  But this is, in any case, clear from the fact that the term ‘Lord’, applied here to Jesus as the ‘one Lord’, is taken from the Shema itself.  Paul is not adding to the one God of the Shema a ‘Lord’ whom the Shema affirms to be one.  In this unprecedented reformulation of the Shema, the unique identity of the one God consists of the one God, the Father, and the one Lord, his Messiah (who is implicitly regarded as the Son of the Father).[10]

While it has been argued by some that the semantic range of the word ehad allows for complexity,[11] this is a shocking statement.  Still, it is this kind of OT-dependent reading that best explains how we are to understand the traces of the Trinity in the Old Testament.  For nowhere in the shema is there a negation of a Triune God.  Rather, there is a firm affirmation of God’s unity, which orthodox Trinitarians also hold.  What Paul does in 1 Corinthians 8:6, however, is to unpack the unity of God in the OT in a way that fits with the greater revelation of Jesus as God (cf. Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13).  That the Spirit is not present in this passage does not deny the Trinitarian nature of the verse, it simply indicates that like the OT, aspects of the Godhead can be spoken of in isolation, though never upheld ontologically as independent or separate.

These are not the only passages either.  Other relevant Trinitarian passages in the NT that appeal to the OT  include Acts 2:17-21, where Peter quotes the prophecy in Joel to explain the events of Pentecost and the coming of God’s Spirit; Philippians 2:9-11, where Paul applies Isaiah 45:23, which speaks of YHWH, and applies it to Jesus saying God “bestowed on [Jesus] the name that is above every name;”[12] and 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30 and Colossians 2:3 which call Jesus “the wisdom of God,” the one “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”  Each of these passages develops Old Testament evidences for the Trinity—the coming of the Spirit, the Name of God, and the Wisdom of God. 

And I am sure that there are others.  Can you think of any? 

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

[1] Matt. 3:16-17; 1 Cor. 12:4-6; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Pet. 1:2; Jude 20-21; Rev. 1:4-5.

 

[2]  For more on the significance of ordered relationships in the Godhead see Bruce Ware, Father, Son, & Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, & Relevance.  (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005).

 

[3] G.K. Beale makes this often overlooked connection in The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A biblical theology of the dwelling place of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 169-80.  He writes, “This passage [2 Chron. 36:22-23] has three things in common with Matthew 28:18-20: (1) both Cyrus and Jesus assert authority over all the earth; (2) the commission to ‘go’; and (3) the assurance of divine presence to fulfill the commission…the 2 Chronicles passage would be viewed as a historical event to commission a temple that foreshadowed typologically the much greater event of Jesus’ ‘Great Commision’ to build a greater temple” (176-77).  This observation is very informative for understanding the work of the Trinity expounded in Matthew 28, where the Son is building the temple, the Spirit is indwelling the temple, and ultimately the temple is for God the Father (cf. 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19).

 

[4] Viviano cites Luise Abramowski’s research and summarizes her work showing the relationship between the Aaronic blessing, the Nazarite vow, and the rite of baptism.  He writes, “Crucial to her case is the placing or putting of God’s name on the people.  This then links up with baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit” (Viviano, “The Trinity in the Old Testament,” 16). 

 

[5] Craig Blomberg writes, “Jesus’ closing ‘Great Commission’ of his apostles seems to allude to Daniel 7:14.  Jesus whose favorite title for himself throughout the Gospel has been ‘Son of Man,’ is given all authority on heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18), just as the Son of Man in Daniel’s vision received an identical universal authority.  It is even possible that the Trinitarian formula in 28:19 reflects a modification of the triad of Ancient of Days (God the Father), Son of Man (God the Son), and angels as God’s spiritual servants as the implied agents of the Son of Man being led into God’s presence (and thus functioning analogous to the Holy Spirit), also found in Dan. 7:13-14” (“Matthew” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D.A. Carson [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007], 100.

 

[6] For more on the names of God see John Frame, The Doctrine of God, 343-61; cf. John Piper, The Pleasures of God (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2000), 98, 193-94.

 

[7] Andreas Köstenberger, “John” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D.A. Carson [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007], 421; see also Carson’s comments and detailed exegesis in The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1991), 111-39.

 

[8] Andreas Köstenberger, The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: The Trinity and John’s Gospel (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2008), 115.

[9] Richard Bauckham, “Monotheism and Christology in the Gospel of John” in Contours of Christology in the New Testament, ed. Richard Longenecker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 165.

 

[10] Richard Bauckham,  Jesus and the God of Israel, 101.  This quotation comes from an entire section devoted to solving this theological riddle, see pp. 97-105.

 

[11] The task of demonstrating God’s singularity and unity in the OT is more challenging than may first appear.  OT scholars like Michael Heiser are pressing for a reappraisal of traditional OT monotheism, where an OT binitarianism is asserted over against the classic understanding of monotheism. See his dissertation “The divine council in late canonical and non-canonical Second Temple Jewish literature” Ph.D. diss., The University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004 and his weblog devoted to the subject, http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeaven.  In his recent article “Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible” in Bulletin for Biblical Research  18.1 (2008), 1-30, Heiser concludes, “It is my hope that scholars will be encouraged to re-evaluate their assumptions about the reality of divine plurality in Israel’s worldview and how to parse that reality in understanding Israelite religion” (30).

 

[12]

The Trinity in Biblical Theological Perspective: A Mystery without mysterion

/ davidsschrock / 5 Comments

(This is an excerpt from a recent paper I wrote, “The Trinity in the Old Testament: A Present But Elusive Mystery.” It suggests that the development of the Trinity in the Bible follows a mystery-revelation pattern.)

Mystery without mysterion

In his essay entitled “Mystery and Fulfillment” in Justification and Variegated Nomism, vol. 2, D. A. Carson includes a section called “Mystery without mysterion,” where he asserts that the idea of mystery—something hidden now revealed (cf. Matt. 13:10-17, 34-35)—can occur in NT literature in places where the word, mysterion, is not used explicitly.  He suggests this to be the case in fourth gospel where “although John never uses the term mysterion he sometimes provides fresh revelation that has clearly been hidden in time past, but which is some how said to be connected to the very Scriptures in which it has been hidden (e.g. John 2:19-22).”[1]  From this general description, Carson references Philip Kramer’s 2004 dissertation on the subject,[2] and produces four criteria to evaluate mystery-language:  “(1) [the] referent mysterion is the gospel or some part of it; (2) the disclosure of this mystery may be traced, at least in part, to the Christophany Paul experienced on the Damascus Road; (3) the text makes it clear that this mysterion was once hidden but is now revealed; (4) the Old Testament Scriptures constitute the medium in which the mysterion was hidden and by which it is revealed.”[3]  This taxonomy fits very well when applied to the Trinity’s development from the Old Testament into the New Testament. 

First, as John Piper has proclaimed, “God is the Gospel!”[4]  There is no part of the gospel that is not Trinitarian, and each member of the Trinity functions in their unique role to call, atone, and regenerate (cf. Eph. 1:3-14).  Moreover, in the Old Testament, the characteristics ascribed to the Father, the Word of God, the Spirit of God, and the coming Messiah are consistent with the Incarnation and Pentecost.  In other words, what was foretold through types, shadows, and veiled allusions, is now manifest in Jesus and the Spirit.

Second, the Trinity is defined and explained by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ and the arrival of his Spirit.  In fact, without these, the verbal expressions of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are incomplete, at best.  For instance, the union of three persons is most clear in passages like John 14:16-17 where Jesus says, “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another [of the same kind] Helper…the Spirit of Truth” (cf. John 15:26).  Though Kramer’s criterion delimits the disclosure of the mystery to Paul’s Damascus road experience, this restriction is too narrow.  While it fits his specific subject in Galatians, it should be broadened across the New Testament.  It should be remembered, Paul had a Damascus road experience because he was lacking the necessary apostolic ‘credentials’ that all the other disciples received (cf. Mark 3: 13-14; Acts 1:21-22).[5]  Consequently, the corroborating NT evidence is not isolated to one man’s encounter with Jesus, it is the composite person and work of Jesus Christ that makes sense of the Old Testament in general, and the Trinity, in particular.  In this Augustine was right, “[God’s] grace hid itself under a veil in the Old Testament, but it has been revealed in the New Testament according to the most perfectly ordered dispensation of the ages.”[6]  Therefore, recognizing the Trinity in the OT depends upon NT Christology.[7]

Third, the doctrine of the Trinity was hidden in the OT and revealed in the NT.  While the component parts were scattered throughout the OT, the necessary historical events (i.e. Incarnation and Pentecost) were lacking to make sense of the mysterious pluralities, theophanies, and eschatological promises.  Even into the church age, it took over three centuries to sort out the biblical doctrine of the Trinity and its ontological entailments.  Yet, this should not be surprising.  It is the natural state of affairs with biblical mysteries.  Proverbs 25:2 enlightens us, “It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.”  Likewise, 1 Corinthians 2:7 says, “We impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory.”  It is the wisdom and glory of God to hide his Triune nature from those without the Spirit, and to reveal himself to those united to Christ—it should not be forgotten that these are NT realities.[8]

Fourth, New Testament authors consistently appeal to the Old Testament to explain the rise of Trinitarian thought, thus proving the mysterious nature of God’s hiddenness and revelation in the OT.  Moreover, traces of the Trinity in the OT are not scant.  Rather, the most illustrious Trinitarian passages in the NT are often dependent upon or giving explanation to OT passages (cf. Matt. 28:18-20 –> Dan. 7:13-14; 2 Chronicles 36:22-23; Num. 6:22-26; John 1:1-18 –> Gen. 1:1; Ex. 19-20; 1 Cor. 8:1-6 –> Deut. 6:4).  Thus it seems that in God’s wise providence he has revealed his Triune nature perfectly and progressively, and as we study his Scripture we have the blessed privilege of seeing his mystery and revelation, ultimately revealed in and through Jesus Christ (John 1:18; Heb. 1:1-2).

Tomorrow, I will post a reflection on these intertextual considerations.    Until then, may we take this Lord’s Day to worship the God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

[1] D.A. Carson, “Mystery and Fulfillment” in Justification and Varigated Nominianism: The Paradoxes of Paul, vol. 2, ed. D.A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 424. 

 

[2] Philip Kramer, “Mystery without mystery in Galatians: An examination of the relationship between revelatory language in Galatians 1:11–17 and scriptural references in Galatians 3:6–18, 4:21–31” Ph.D. diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2004

 

[3] Carson, “Mystery and Fulfillment,” 425, footnote 91.

 

[4] John Piper, God is the Gospel: Meditations on God’s Love as the Gift of Himself (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2005).  

 

[5] The requirements outlined by Peter in Acts 1 make more sense in light of this mysterion discussion, that the mysteries of the OT, which foretold the gospel (Gal. 3:8), could only be understood through a comprehensive knowledge of Jesus Christ (cf. Luke 24:25-27, 44-49).  This is complicit with Paul’s apostolic ministry which faithfully expounded the OT Scriptures (cf. Acts 17:2).

 

[6] Augustine, “A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter” in Anti-Pelagian Writing, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, American ed., vol. 5 (United States: Christian Literature, 1887; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004),  95.

 

[7] Alec Motyer puts it this way, “It was Jesus who came from the outside as the incarnate Son of God, Jesus who was raised from the dead as the Son of God with power, who chose to validate the Old Testament in retrospect and the New Testament in prospect, and who is himself the grand theme of the ‘story-line’ of both Testaments, the focal-point giving coherence to the total ‘picture’ in all its complexities” (Look to the Rock: An Old Testament Background to Our Understanding of Christ [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996], 22).

 

[8] For more on the condition of the believer in the OT, see Jim Hamilton, God’s Indwelling Presence.

 

King David: The High Point of Old Testament Typology

/ davidsschrock / 2 Comments

For the last few weeks I have been considering the subject of typology and Christology in the OT, asking the question: Is there a progressive and increasing nature to the conception of typology in the Old Testament?  Looking particularly at personal types of Christ in the OT (i.e. Adam, Noah, Abraham, David, etc…), I believe that there is an element in which the mediatorial leaders marked out by the Spirit in the OT do in fact show more and more likeness to the Christ as redemptive history moves forward towards Christ.  So that, we can say that David depicts Christ in a more full way than does Abraham or Adam.   That is my hypothesis, at least. 

I have found some very illuminating and helpful contributions to this subject, but perhaps no more succinct and enriching as Herman Bavinck’s consideration of David as the highpoint of OT typology (and Christology).  He writes in general of typology,

The Old Testament does not contain just a few isolated messianic texts; on the contrary, the entire Old Testament dispensation with its leading persons, and events, its offices and institutions, its laws and ceremonies, is a pointer to and movement toward the fulfillment in the New Testament (Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ [trans. J. Vriend; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006], 243).

Then he highlights Davidic typology as the zenith of the OT revelation for the person of Christ to come,

Especially the office of king achieved such typical [i.e. typological] significance in Israel.  The theocratic king, embodied especially in David with his humble beginnings, many sided experience of life, deep emotions, poetic disposition, unflinching courage, and brilliant victories, was a Son of God (2 Sam. 7:14; Pss. 2:6-7; 89:27), the anointed one par excellence (Pss. 2:2; 18:50).  People wished for him all kinds of physical and spiritual blessings (Pss. 2:8f; 21, 45, 72), and he was even addressed as “Elohim” (Ps. 45:6).  The king is the bearer of the highest–of divine–dignity on earth.  Theocratic kingship…found its purest embodiment in David; for that reason the kingship will remain in his house (2 Sam. 7:8-16).  This promise to David, accordingly, is the foundation and center of all subsequent expectation and prophecy (244).

Bavinck’s comprehensive survey of Davidic typology affirms what the entire OT is seeking demonstrate–the coming of a Davidic son who will reign on the throne.  From Genesis to 1-2 Samuel, the Spirit of Christ is inspiring Biblical writers to anticipate David:  The covenantal promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob point to the emergence of mighty king (Gen. 17:6, 16; 35:11; 49:9-12); Deuteronomy 17 makes legal preparations for the rule of this king; Numbers 24:15-24 announces a scepter who will rise from Israel who will rule over the nations; in Judges the nation of Israel spirals out of control without a king in Israel (21:25); while the book of Ruth chronicles YHWH’s providential control of history that results in a Davidic genealogy (4:18-22).  Moreover, when David comes onto the seen in 1-2 Samuel (and Chronicles), his life is a divinely-intended adumbration of the Christ who is to come.  In this, the account of David’s life is genuinely historical.  Yet, all the while, it typifies the life of Christ to come.

In his treatment of this subject, Bavinck arrticulates how preexilic and postexilic prophets develop this Davidic typology.  Moving from the historic David to the more excellent prophecies about his greater Son, Bavinck points out that the prophecies consistently take on a Davidic shape, 

Prophecy, which is added to interpret typology, looks out from the past and present to the future and ever more clearly portrays the — to be expected — son of David in his person and work.  To the degree that kingship in Israel and Judah answered less to the idea of it, to that degree prophecy took up the promise of 2 Samuel 7 and clung to it (Amos 9:11; Hosea 1:11; 3:5; Mic. 5:1-2; Isa. 9:6-7; 11:1-2, 10; Jer. 23:5; 30:9; 33:17, 20-22, 26; Ezek. 34:23-24; 37:22-24).  This anointed king will arise from the dynasty of David when–in utter decay and thrust from the throne–it will resemble a hewn trunk (Isa. 11:1-2; Mic. 5:1-2; Ezek. 17:22).  God will cause him to grow as a branch from David’s house (Jer. 23:5-6; 33:14-17), so that he himself will bear the name “Branch” (Zech. 3:8; 6:12).  Despite his humble birth, he will be the true and authentic theocratic king.  Coming from despised little Dethlehem, where the royal house od Savid origniated and to which, driven from the throne, it withdrew (Mic. 5:2; cf. 3:12; 4:8, 13), the Messiah will nevertheless be a ruler over Israel; his origins as ruler–proceeding from God–go back to the distant past, to the days of old.  He is God-given, an eternal king, bears the name Wonderful, Counselor, mighty God (cf. Isa. 10:21; Deut. 10:17; Jer. 32:18), everlasting Father (for his people), Prince of Peace (Isa. 9:6-7).  He is anointed with the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, of counsel and courage, of knowledge and the fear of the Lord (Isa. 11:2) and laid as a tested, precious foundation stone in Zion (Isa. 28:16).  He is just victorious, meek, a king riding on a donkey; as king he isnot proud of his power but sustained by God (Jer. 33:17, 20, 22, 26; Zech. 9:9f.), a king whom the people call and acknowledge as “the Lord our righteousness” (Jer. 23:6f–cf. 33:16, where Jerusalem is called the city in which Yahweh causes his righteous to dwell).  he will be a warrior like David, and his house will be like God, like the angel of the Lord who at the time of the exodus led Israel’s army (Zech. 12:8; cf. Mal. 3:1).  He will reign forever; found a kingdom of righteousness, peace, and prosperity; and also extend his domain over the Gentiles to the ends of the earth (Pss. 2, 45, 72; Ezek. 37:25; Zech. 6:13; 9:10; etc.) (244-45).

All in all, I believe that the entire OT finds organic, covenantal ties (historically) and inscripturated revelation (textually) that point to or build off David’s person and kingdom.  Resultantly, it seems legitimate to conclude that one of the reasons why Jesus can say that all Scripture speaks of him (John 5:39), is because of David’s central role in the canon of the OT.  Since Jesus is the greater David, he fulfills in a more exalted way, the mediatorial role (i.e. prophet, priest, and king) lived out by Israel’s first true king, thus fulfilling the typological life of David in the OT, as well as all the other covenantal mediators in th OT.  In this way, David is the greatest personal type of Christ in the Old Testament, or at least that is what I am arguing.  Would love to hear your thoughts.

If this Davidic typology peaks your interest, I encourage you to listen or read  Jim Hamilton’s “The Typology of David’s Rise to Power: Messianic Patterns in the Book of Samuel.”

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Bauckham’s Jesus and The God of Israel (pt. 2): Other Studies in NT Christology

/ davidsschrock

Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.

Chapters 2-8

Chapter 2 was first published in Out of Egypt, volume 5 in the Scripture and Hermeneutics series, and addresses the “problems of monotheism” in recent interpretation. Bauckham spends over twenty pages addressing current opponents of biblical monotheism (i.e. Nathan McDonald: monotheism as an organizing principle (Enlightenment); Robert Gnuse: monotheism as evolutionary model (history of religions)), and then appeals to early sources and the biblical canon to show how monotheism is understood biblically. Scripture reserves unique and unparalleled language for God. Moving from Old to New, Bauckham shows how NT texts like Rom. 28-30; 1 Cor. 8:1-6; John 10:30 use monotheistic texts from the OT in ways that preserve the singular nature of God and yet expand the application to include the identity of Jesus.

Chapters 3-5 consider three biblical concepts or themes that relate to the topic of monotheism and Jesus identity. Chapter 3 makes the case that El Elyon is not akin to the gods of Greek mythology, who exist in some kind of pantheon or divine council. Rather in the biblical witness, El Elyon refers to the God who is utterly transcendent, unique, and solely Divine. Bauckham distinguishes between ‘exclusive’ and ‘inclusive’ monotheism (108), and proves from texts like Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and other Jewish literature that the God of Israel is exclusively God. Moving from uniqueness in name and identity to uniqueness in worship, Bauckham considers the worship of Jesus in chapter 4. Since worship is absolutely reserved for God alone (cf. Ex. 20:1-3), it would be forbidden for Jesus to receive worship unless he was God. Bauckham points this out and then describes the historical records to prove how the early church unanimously worshiped Christ, proving again the mutual identification of Jesus and God. Finally, in chapter 5, Bauckham considers the “throne of God and the worship of Jesus.” Like in the last chapter, worship of Jesus proves his identification with God, but now Bauckham goes a step further highlighting the way Jesus shares in God’s throne. Speaking of Daniel 7, he writes, “the Son of Man participates in God’s unique sovereignty, and accordingly portrays him seated on the divine throne” (170). This OT vision is corroborated by the New Testament’s unique use of Psalm 110 and John’s apocalypse, where both indicate a kind of shared throne. Bauckham’s conclusion is that this again proves his thesis.

Finally, chapters 6-8 each look at a different NT author and the way they worked out Jesus divine identity. Chapter 6 looks at the apostle Paul; chapter 7 examines Hebrews; and chapter 8 finishes with a study of Mark. With Paul, Bauckham finds that his interpretations are unique and unprecedented in antecedent Jewish literature. Therefore, the kind of exegetical method he employed is not appropriated from his culture, but was revealed to him—probably on the road to Damascus, certainly by the Spirit of Christ. This interpretive novelty resulted in theological formulations of Christ’s divine Sonship that transcend Jewish contemporaries. The book of Hebrews is no different. From the “full divinity of the Lord” described in the opening chapters, to the heavenly mediation of his priesthood, to the simple ascription of Jesus unchanging nature (13:8), all of Hebrews points to Jesus identity as God. In chapter 8, Bauckham concludes with a brief exegetical consideration of Mark’s portrayal of the passion. He concludes once more that Jesus is identified with God in the book and that this theme reaches its zenith at the cross, where ironically as God fades in view, God’s son is revealing the very heart of God—“self-giving love.”[1]

In the end, there are points where Bauckham overstates his case and the steady drum he beats becomes drone-like.  Yet, this weakness only complements his greatest strength, which is convincingly proving his point and expounding his thesis—“the inclusion of Jesus in the unique divine identity” (19).  The reader, this one at least, comes away from the book feeling very compelled by his argument–Jesus shares the Divine Identity with the Father.  (I must insert here that Andrew Chester, in his book Messiah and Exaltation, is less convinced than this reader by some of Bauckham’s handling of Jewish literature–no doubt because he knows this material much better than I.  See Jim Hamilton’s book review, especially his notes on chapter 2, for a synopsis–or take out a loan and buy the book, $200+).

In all his biblical research, his arguments touch on many systematic doctrines—Christology, Theology Proper, and Theological Hermeneutics, being a few—yet, staying in his field of expertise, he has not interfaced his conclusions with doctrinal formulation. In this way, his conclusions seem to be most directed toward the biblical exegete. Therefore, there is much that can and should be done with this data to integrate it with other more philosophical and theoretical Christologies. Applications for Trinitarian research and theological method are only two possibilities. Moreover, how does the Holy Spirit fit into the paradigm?  And, how does this Christology of identity interface or improve functional and ontic Christologies?  Bauckham wants to dismiss these categories, I would prefer to reform/inform with more biblical data.

On the whole, Bauckham’s book is a fine work. He is a meticulous scholar, whose biblical theological insights are well-researched and spiritually-enriching. I look forward to the completion of his project on this subject.

[1] Here again, I hesitate, because I am not sure what Bauckham is saying about God (i.e. Theology Proper). Much of his language does not distinguish God the Father and God the Son; it only speaks of God and Jesus. This kind of generic language for the cross is unhelpful, because it was God the Son, alone, who died on the cross. Ironically, while Bauckham, in his whole presentation, is comparing Jesus to God, I recall little Trinitarian notions of Son and Father. It is primarily Jesus (the man) and God (the divine).  But I will not fault him greatly, because his work is intentionally exegetical, not systematic.

Worship Tests Truth :: Doctrine Determines Doxology

/ davidsschrock / 1 Comment

In Richard Bauckham’s book Jesus and the God of Israel (2008), the British NT scholar quotes John MacIntrye to make his final appeal that the worship of Jesus in the early church signifies a first-century consensus that Jesus was God, and that the notion of Jewish monotheism included Jesus.  Though Bauckham’s presentation deals with the history of theology, his point bears personal inquiry and application for those in the church today.  Here is the illuminating quote:

[We] shall not be satisfied with any christological analysis which eliminates from its conception of who he [Jesus Christ] is all valid basis for an attitude of worship to him.  It is on this very score that humanistic interpretations [read: the Jesus Seminar, Protestant liberalism, and strands of the emergent church] of the person of Jesus Christ fail, that they present to us someone who cannot sustain human worship; admiration, perhaps, even a sense of wonder at the courage he had in the face of danger and death, but never worship.  That is given only to God.

Theology that does not purify and empower doxology is false!  For worship is a telling litmus test for doctrine; and the veracity of any truth-claim must always generate worship.  Remember, believers worship in spirit and truth (John 4:24), and if our worship is weak, the cause may be the truths we believe.

Sadly, this worship-doctrine connection is often overlooked.  Many Christians have substandard beliefs about God and wonder why they struggle to have a quiet time.  They assume that their failing worship requires a newer and more sensational experience, but in truth, their hunger for God lags, because they have tasted vaporous imitations and turn again to empty substitutes.  Moreover, they, we, buy into the latest fads in evangelicalism, without considering how these new spiritualities of theological notions might impact their worship.  But as we are created to worship, surely, true truth must convince the mind and move the heart. 

So, the next time you encounter something about Jesus the Christ, ask yourself, is this a vision of God that will fuel my worship.  If the answer cannot be quickly affirmed, reconsidered the matter, and take pause before buying into the speaker, the system, or the soundbite.  Instead, return to the Scriptures to see the inspired revelation of God, Jesus Christ, who is the glorious Son of God, the eternal lamb, the desire of the nations, and the only one who can sustain a lifetime of white-hot worship.  Fill your heart with truths about Jesus, for nothing else will satisfy (cf. John 10:10).

May our worship purify our theology, and may all of our theology fuel worship.

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

The Bible in 3-D: Miles Van Pelt’s Biblical Theology

/ davidsschrock / 2 Comments

“From morning till evening [Paul] expounded to them, testifying of the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets (Acts 28:23).

In the last week, responsibilities at work have entailed a great amount of computer-related number crunching and data entry/processing. This is the kind of computer work that leaves your eyes bleary and your brain numb. But it is also a time when I can close the door, get the work done, and listen to some very edifying audio resources. This week’s choice has been Dr. Miles Van Pelt’s “hermeneutical” introduction to the Old Testament . A PhD graduate from SBTS and now a professor of Old Testament at RTS, Dr. Van Pelt, joins Craig Blomberg, and Thomas Schreiner in presenting 19 classroom lectures on the subject biblical theology.

To put it mildly, I have immensely enjoyed the rich canonical treatment of the Hebrew Scriptures and the intelligent pedagogical devises Dr. Van Pelt has employed to teach the subject clearly and faithfully. In fact, apart from a two-minute egalitarian-esque rant on Ruth as a “woman of power,” I commend this treatment very highly.

The most helpful section may have come in his second lecture, which Van Pelt calls “The Purpose Driven Bible.” In this lecture, Van Pelt takes extra time to unpack Acts 28:23 showing how the kingdom of God, the person of Jesus Christ, and the Law and the Prophets make up the three-dimensional center of the whole Scriptures. This approach is very compelling because it offers a singular vision of the Bible’s storyline while retaining the Bible’s vivid diversity and development. He offers a number of helpful illustrations to explain his biblical theology. One of them he frames bodily, that the central message is liken unto skin, a heart, and a skeleton. Let me explain.

Van Pelt likens the Kingdom of God to the skin of a person. In other words, you cannot know, see, touch, or come in contact with a person in any way in which you are not making encountering their skin. In the same way, nowhere in the Bible can you escape the the kingdom of God. It is the skin that holds everything together. The law is the law of the kingdom, the psalms are the songs of the kingdom, the history is the royal lineage to David, through David, to Christ the King, and so.

Next, he associates Jesus Christ with the heart. Jesus is the life-giving centerpiece of the Scriptures in whom all things find their life and meaning (cf. Luke 24:27; John 5:39). Take away the heart and you have a frigid, dead corpse. Take away Jesus Christ and the Bible becomes a lifeless book of antiquity.

Last, the OT is comprised of the Law and Prophets. Just like the skeletone gives shape to the body, these Old Testament books provide structure, support, and shape. Just as the skin takes on the shape of the skeleton, so the Kingdom of God is shaped by the canonical shape of the law and the prophets. Furthermore, as the heart fills the flesh and bones of the body, so Jesus Christ fills the Old Testament Scriptures.

Perhaps this description is a little visceral, but as Russell Moore has reminded us many times, the Son of God has hair, eyelashes, and fingernails. The Bible is an incarnational revelation of God, and I think Miles Van Pelt’s faithfully depicts this reality. Moreover, his whole argument is exegetical. Drawing his three-dimensional biblical theology from Luke’s account of Paul’s ministry in Acts 28:23: “From morning till evening he [Paul] expounded to them, testifying of the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.

Today, I go back to work and face many more computer operations, but I go knowing that I will get to hear more great biblical theology. Better than that, though, is the reality that the heart of the Scriptures, the one who reigns in the flesh and whose shadow is seen in all the Law and the Prophets, the man Jesus Christ, will go with me. That is good news and I pray in the spirit of Acts 28:23, that I too may from morning to evening tell others about the kingdom of God and persuade them that Jesus is the Christ.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss