New Testament

Gathercole’s The Preexistent Son: Excellent Exegesis, Transcendent Theology, and a Methodological Model

/ davidsschrock / 8 Comments

Gathercole, Simon. The Pre-Existent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

In The Pre-Existent Son, British New Testament scholar, Simon Gathercole, makes a convincing exegetical argument for Christ’s pre-existence as the eternal Son of God in the synoptic gospels. As he puts it, “The really controversial point to be made in this book is that the preexistence of Christ—which he defines as ‘the life of the Son prior to his birth’—can be found in the Synoptic Gospels” (1, emphasis his). The significance of his research is that Matthew, Mark, and Luke have been regarded by scholars as possessing a lower Christology than John, Hebrews, or Revelation. His aim is to argue against this notion and prove exegetically that the Synoptics possess a high Christology. His method is four-fold: 1) historically, he argues that Paul’s influence promoted pre-existence; 2) textually, the “I have come” + purpose statements indicate a heavenly preexistence; 3) theologically, he surveys the terrain of wisdom Christology; and 4) lexically, he examines four Christological titles (messiah, Lord, Son of man, Son of God) searching for evidence for pre-existence.

In Chapter 1, Gathercole aims to prove that preexistence was commonplace in early Christianity and should be “expected” in the writings of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. He appeals to Paul, the letter to the Hebrews, and Jude to make a simple background argument that the notion of preexistence was already extant. Continuing his background work in chapter 2, Gathercole “[offers] evidence that the Synoptic Gospels present Jesus as a transcendent, heavenly divine figure” (46). Appealing to the heaven-earth and Creator-creation distinctions found in these three books (47), Gathercole overwhelms the reader with evidence for Jesus transcendence and primes the pump for his next section.

Chapters 3-7 unfold the centerpiece of Gathercole’s argument. Chapter 3 introduces his thesis that the “I have come” + purpose statements are the primary evidence for pre-existence in the synoptic gospels. In chapters 4-6, Gathercole defends his thesis against potential defeaters. He summarizes on page 87:

  • None of the other scholarly options [i.e. the idiom of a prophet; merely an aramaic idiom, locative reference to Nazareth; simply the words of a leader] can be considered plausible (chapter 4).
  • The ‘I have come’ + purpose formula of the Gospels is most clearly, and most abundantly, paralleled in the announcement of angels of their comings from heaven (chapter 5)
  • The preexistence interpretation is confirmed by the content and literary context—in particular, the heavenly and dynamic features (chapter 6)

Gathercole denotes the similarities and differences between angelic visitations and Christ’s coming to earth in chapter 5.[1] Then in chapter 6, he posits a “new reading” of the “I have come” + purpose formula, basically asserting that the ‘cosmic scope’ (i.e. heaven to earth) and the ‘dynamic movement’ (i.e. the salvific intention to save, to ransom, to preach, etc) find their best understanding in the pre-existence of the Son (149ff). Gathercole adds support to his findings in Chapter 7 as he surveys those references which speak of Divine ‘sending.’ On their own, Gathercole does not think they constitute a belief in pre-existence, but taken together with the “I have come” + purpose statements, they add weight to the claim.

In section three (chapters 8-9), Gathercole critiques the prevalent notion today of wisdom Christology and argues from Matthew 23:37, a text with allusions to wisdom literature, that the Son of God is preexistent. Against wisdom Christology, he explains that the feminine, created, and anti-personal attributions of wisdom do not comport with the eternal, person of Jesus Christ. Therefore, wisdom cannot advocate pre-existence on its own, while doing justice to the New Testament vision of Jesus. Instead, Gathercole quotes Jesus words in Matthew, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem…how long I have desired to gather your children” (23:37), and shows how this quotation with its wisdom parallels attests to Jesus as “a trans-historical figure” (211-14).

Finally, in chapters 10-13, Gathercole considers whether the four titles—Messiah, Lord, Son of Man, Son of God—connote preexistence. Drawing particular attention to Luke 1:78, he asserts that “Messiah” in the Synoptics is more than simply royal, Davidic language; rather, like Melchizedek, the anointed one does not find his origin on earth—Jesus comes from heaven. Similarly, like YHWH in the OT, Jesus comes down to visit the earth.

Concerning the language of “Lordship,” he shows convincingly that OT references to YHWH are applied to Jesus and that instances of Father-Son conversation are heavenly court conversation. He concludes by asking if these evidences do not point to preexistence. From each gospel, Gathercole shows how the “Son of Man” is linked into the eternal purposes of redemption (Mark 10:45; Matt. 20:28; Luke 19:10). Moreover, in Matthew the predominate kingdom motif shows the son of man as an eternal king in conjunction with an eternal kingdom (6:10; 25:34). Finally, concerning “Son of God,” Gathercole shows how the age-old spiritual beings, Satan and his demons, and God himself address Jesus with knowledge that extends to the heavenly places. The former do this at the temptation and in direct confrontation; the latter does this at Jesus’ baptism and the transfiguration.

Overall, The Pre-existent Son presents the historic Christian position that Jesus of Nazareth existed eternally before he was born of the flesh. In this, it will find a sympathetic reading from Bible-believing Christians and will hopefully give academic skeptics something to chew on. The lasting value Gathercole’s work is not in anything novel or innovative, but in its painstaking and precise exegetical detail. It bolsters confidence in God’s word and shows attention to nuanced details of Scripture result in powerful presentations of doctrine. Likewise, his attention to the early Synoptics helps convince readers that the Christological doctrine of preexistence did not materialize later; it was always a part of the faith. In this way, Gathercole destroys any notion that preexistence is reserved for John and his gospel, while at the same time, he illustrates how high Matthew, Mark, and Luke’s Christology really is. Moreover, Gathercole’s method of argumentation is exemplary. In his thorough treatment of the subject, our trans-Atlantic brother has shown us how to craft an argument and how exegetical-theological research ought to be done.

Selah.

After writing the book review, it hit me that as important as it is to consider arguments about pre-existence, it is more edifying and soul-enriching to consider the Pre-Existent One Himself. 

Dwelling on the One in whom the fullness of God dwelled bodily (Col. 2:9) enlarges the mind and quickens the heart.  It is far more spiritually salubrious that simply assessing theological polemics and regurgitating the thoughts of others.  For Christ’s Pre-existence means is truly unfathomable.  It is a truth that we can believe, but one we will never fully grasp.  He had no beginning.  God the Son is autotheos.  Thus, his incarnation is all the more majestic. 

So, as much as I am thankful for Gathercole’s treatment of the subject of Pre-Existence of the Incarnate Word, I am even more thankful for the almighty, omnipotent, indomitable truth that Jesus Christ (God in the flesh) existed from all eternity and coming into time, he has promised to be our eternal mediator to approach God the Father.  We can trust that because, he is eternally God, full of grace and truth, eternally powerful and able to save.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

[1] For the record, Gathercole does not promote an angel-Christology. Rather, he cites their origin and their sender to demonstrate that like angels, Jesus Christ the Pre-existent Son of God is coming from heaven at the sending of the Father.

Three Views on the NT Use of the OT: Walter Kaiser

/ davidsschrock

nt-ot

[In Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, Peter Enns, Darrell Bock, and Walter Kaiser present three different approaches to biblical interpretation.  They address questions concerning sensius plenior, typology, Jewish methods of interpretation, matters of contextual interpretation, and whether or not we today can interpret the Bible like the New Testament authors.  Some of the discussion involves technical concepts and language, but anyone who reads the book will have a better understanding of matters to consider in reading the Bible in context.]

Walter Kaiser: Single Meaning, Unified Referrents

Kaiser, Old Testament scholar and former president of Gordon-Conwell, is a careful theologian and true biblical exegete.  Citing a host of OT-NT connections, Kaiser’s chapter simply unpacks Scripture to make his case.  The other scholars cite Scriptural examples, but appeal more often to hermeneutical philosophies (Bock) and second temple Judaism’s methods of interpretation (Enns).  In fact, both Bock and Enns chastise Kaiser for his simplistic reading of Scripture (92, 97). 

The great strength of Kaiser’s chapter is his demonstration of how to interpret the OT in its context and then to show that the NT authors read their OT correctly.  He argues for an antecedent theology that informs every OT passage.  As opposed to Enns, who must go to the NT to find ultimate, Christotelic meaning, Kaiser goes to Genesis 3:15ff to show the “Promise-Plan” of God provides ample Messianic witness in the OT itself.  This is a crucial distinction, and for me at least, a tremedously convincing argument for Kaiser and against Enns: the gospel is not just explained in the NT, it is to be found from the very beginning, pointing forward to the Promised Seed. 

To summarize, Kaiser argues for reading each passage in its historical context, he denies Sensius Plenior, he appeals to making analogy between OT and NT (in this way there is a sense of greater fulfillment, when NT patterns or echoes (R. Hays) are picked up), and he appeals to the unfolding plan of God within the OT to make sense of the OT context and that NT writers did that very thing.  The problems of reconciling OT with NT do not lie with the writers themselves; they lie in us and our inability to rightly divide the word, so that we can say that the OT writers did not write better then they knew (Sensius Plenior), rather they wrote better than we know.  As biblical interpreters, it is our prayerful responsibility to learn from them what they knew and what the Spirit was testifying to them and through them (cf. 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2 Tim. 3:16-17).

May we, with Walter Kaiser, labor to understand the grammar and historical setting of the Bible, and may we go on to see how all Scripture is fulfilled in Christ (John 5:39).

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Three Views on the NT Use of the OT: Peter Enns

/ davidsschrock / 1 Comment

nt-otIn Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, Peter Enns, Darrell Bock, and Walter Kaiser present three different approaches to biblical interpretation.  They address questions concerning sensius plenior, typology, Jewish methods of interpretation, matters of contextual interpretation, and whether or not we today can interpret the Bible like the New Testament authors.  Some of the discussion involves technical concepts and language, but anyone who reads the book will have a better understanding of matters to consider in reading the Bible in context.

What follows is simply a synopsis of their arguments, plus a list of further reading.

Peter Enns: Fuller Meaning, Single Goal

Enns, former Old Testament professor at Westminster Seminary, before being let go because of his questionable methods of interpretation (cf. Inspiration and Incarnation), spends exorbitant detail on matters unhelpful for putting the OT and NT together–a 15 page discussion on Deuteronomy 33:2 and the problem of understanding the law, angels, and traditions in Judaism.  He emphasizes Second Temple Judaism as a pre-requisite for understanding the NT.  Understanding this historical period and its literature and worldview nearly trumps OT reading and understanding.  Shocking!  He writes:

Rather, from a hermeneutical point of view at least, it is better to think of the NT as part of a larger group of texts of Jewish provenance–all of which, despite their real and important differences, together make up a distinct but diverse collection of texts we call ‘Second Temple literature’ (178)

The problem with this is that Enns blurs the boundaries of canon.  He reformulates the NT documents into a portion of a larger and more important (?) body of literature.  He goes on: “The focus of this essay is more on similarities between the NT and other Second Temple texts” (178).  I thought that this book was about the Old Testament and the New?  Clearly, Enns is shaping his reading of the Bible along the lines of extra-biblical literature–this trend always leads to hermeneutical and doctrinal deviation.  This kind of deviation can be seen more evidently in his statement on the previous page (177) that again confuses inspired revelation and other Second Temple literature when he says that both are “God-given.”  Is this a 2 Timothy 3:16 kind of “God-given”?

To be fair, Enns does make some positive contributions.  His emphasis on reading the Bible eschatologically and in light of the death and resurrection of Christ show how important the whole storyline of Scripture is to understanding individual passages and the Bible’s inter-textuality.  Still, Enns roots all his meaning in the NT, almost stripping the OT of any content or standing on its own.  I appreciate his Christotelic view, but he begins in the wrong place.  It would be better to begin in Genesis 1 and move forward finding God’s progressive revelation of the Promised Seed, the son of blessing, the prophet like Moses, the royal Davidite; instead he goes straight to the NT and returns to explain the OT.  To borrow a technological metaphor, he makes the programs of the OT absolutely dependent on the applications of the NT.

In sum, he supports typology and sensius plenior and he makes mention of them in passing, but the takeaway from his essay is the need to understand the NT in the light of Second Temple Judaism and to read the Scriptures knowing the rest of the story.  After reading his section, I was more convinced of Kaiser’s exegetically secure position, that may lack modern nuances in interpretive method, but that exalts in the sufficiency of the Scriptures.  Moreover, I was appreciative of Bock’s recognition of Second Temple Judaism, but also his ability to put on the brakes and not be completely swept away by extra-biblical informants.

Finally, I will say that I appreciate Enns ecclesial sensitivity and pastoral admonition to take more time in church to teach our people the whole counsel of Scripture (216).  This concluding word is a fitting way to end a chapter on how to read the OT and the NT.  Since our churches are filled with biblically illiterate people today, we who teach God’s Word must be willing to patiently and wisely instruct them with all 66 Christ-centered books of the canon.  This is not optional, but essential and part of the task of being a faithful expositor–to help church members read the Bible better.

More to come…

 Sola Deo Gloria, dss

The Biblical Theology of Irenaeus [4]

/ davidsschrock / 1 Comment

Irenaeus5 [This post is the fourth in a series on the biblical theology of Irenaeus of Lyons found in Against Heresies].

Working against an atomistic reading of Scripture, Irenaeus appeals to the variegated testimony of the Old Testament that finds unity in Christ (cf. Eph. 1:10).[8] Drawing on these OT witnesses, Irenaeus vindicates the virgin conception of Jesus in a variety of ways. He points to Isaiah for giving the church a “sign” of its coming Lord,[9] Daniel for “foreseeing [Jesus] advent” in the stone cut without hands,[10] Moses for “giving a type” when he “cast his rod upon the earth, in order that it, by becoming flesh, might expose and swallow up all the opposition of the Egyptians,”[11] and Jeremiah for explaining in history how the Messiah could not be the biological son of Joseph, because Jesus earthly father was, in fact, the descendent of the disinherited Jechoniah.[12] In this logical exposition of the Old Testament text, Irenaeus calls attention to divinely-ordained symbolism, predictive prophecy, typology, and historical deduction based on the revealed will of God. In all of these modes of interpretation, Irenaeus presupposes the Old Testament as a divinely-intended foreshadow of things to come.

Naturally this leads to a very strong sense of recapitulation in his biblical theology. His typology commonly posits Jesus as the divine antitype who recapitulates OT people, events, and institutions. Quoting from Romans 5, Irenaeus comments, “[just as] Adam had his substance from untilled and as yet virgin soil…so did He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth…from Mary, who was as yet a virgin.”[13] Likewise, Irenaeus sees Jesus blood as recapitulating the “innocent” blood of Abel shed at the hands of his brother Cain,[14] and Jesus entire lifework “sum[s] up all things, both waging war against our enemy, and crushing him who had at the beginning led us away captives in Adam.”[15] Summarizing the kind of revelation found in the OT, he writes:

For the prophets prefigured in themselves all these things, because of their love to God, and on account of His word. For since they themselves were members of Christ, each one of them in his place as a member did, in accordance with this, set forth the prophecy [assigned him]; all of them, although many, prefiguring only one, and proclaiming the things which pertain to one.[16]

In a litany of OT citations, Irenaeus quotes nine OT authors,[17] grouping these oracles according to four intertextual themes—the glories of the Messiah, His sufferings, His resurrection, and the establishment of a new covenant (cf. Luke 24:26, 46-47). In arranging these predictive prophecies in this way, Irenaeus shows a tremendous grasp of the Hebrew Scriptures, but more than that he expounds a Christ-centered, Gospel-contoured (life, death, resurrection), textually-derived biblical theology. Graeme Goldsworthy summarizes Irenaenus’ interpretation:

In the early church we see attempts to understand the essential unity of the Bible from the epicentre of the person and work of Jesus Christ. These early Christological interpretations of the Old Testament were driven partly by the apologetic needs to counter Judaism…[and in the case of Irenaeus], to oppose Gnosticism by showing the unity of the Testaments.[18]

Irenaeus’ hermeneutic unashamedly unites all things in Jesus Christ. For him, “the Old Testament and the New Testament represented a unity. The prophets were fulfilled in Christ. The apostles, meaning the entire New Testament (the apostolic preaching), in turn preached the same God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and the same economy of salvation.”[19] Over against the Gnostics whose selective Bible reading led them to posit a false God and a damning form of religion, Irenaeus’ biblical theology led him to see in every person, event, and institution a divinely intended type or shadow of Jesus Christ.[20]

Irenaeus understood typology to be a primary means by which YHWH instructed the people of Israel (OT) and the church (NT). Quoting 1 Corinthians 10:11, he comments, “For by means of types they learned to fear God, and to continue to devoted to His service.”[21] Speaking of the saints in the Old Testament, he argues that all that they received in the law—circumcision and the Sabbath,[22] covenantal stipulations,[23] and the sacrificial system[24]—were given to represent later and greater Spiritual realities. He writes:

Moreover, [God] instructed the people…by repeated appeals to persevere and serve God, calling them to the things of primary importance by means of those which were secondary; that is, to thing that are real, by means of those that are typical [typological]; and by things temporal, to eternal; and by the carnal to the spiritual; and by the earthly to the heavenly; as was also said to Moses, “Thou shalt make all things after the pattern of those things which thou sawest in the mount.”[25]

[1] Deuteronomy 6:4; Mark 12:29-30; Hebrews 13:8; James 1:17.

[2] David Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now, 59.

[3]Michael Haykin, Defence of the Truth, 37.

[4] See Irenaeus vehement accusation against Marcion in Irenaeus Adversus haereses 1.27.4.

[5] Michael Haykin, Defence of the Truth, 37.

[6] See Irenaeus prolix argument for the unified message of he Bible in Adversus haereses 4.5-15.

[7] Irenaenus Adversus haereses 4.11.4.

[8] Irenaeus Adversus haereses 4.33.10.

[9] Ibid., 3.21.6.

[10] Ibid., 3.21.7.

[11] This type Moses explains was a part of “the pre-arranged plan of God; that the Egyptians themselves might testify that it is the finger of God which works salvation for the people, and not the son of Joseph [in the flesh]. For if He were the son of Joseph, how could he be greater than Solomon…Jonah…or David” (Irenaeus Adversus haereses 3.21.8).

[12] Irenaeus intratextual argument posits that while Joseph was cut off from the Davidic covenant because of his patriarchal lineage and connection with the accursed Jeconiah (Jer. 22:24-25, 28; 36:30-31), Jesus is not disqualified because he is not his biological heir. He was virgin born. In the flesh, he was the son of Mary, who did not descend from Jechoniah (cf. Matt. 1:1-17, the genealogy of Joseph; Luke 3:23-38, the genealogy of Mary). This intratextual argument exemplifies Irenaeus’s commitment to the biblical text (Irenaeus Adversus haereses 3.21.9).

[13] Irenaeus Adversus haereses 3.21.10.

[14] Ibid., 5.14.1.

[15] Irenaeus’ recapitulation, though primarily accomplished by Jesus Christ, does extend to other aspects of redemptive history (Irenaeus Adversus haereses 5.21.1). In Irenaeus Adversus haereses 5.19.1, he compares Eve to Mary, and asserts how the latter obediently reenacts—he does not use “recapitulate”— the life of the first woman, whose “virginal disobedience” led to death, but now “has been balanced by virginal obedience.”

[16] Ibid., 4.33.10.

[17] The full list includes Amos, Daniel, David, Ezekiel, Habakkuk, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel, and Zechariah; and includes some of the prominent typological and prophetic passages associated with these inspired writers (Irenaeus Adversus haereses 3.23.9-15).

[18] Graeme Goldsworthy, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles for Evangelical Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007), 236.

[19] David Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now, 69.

[20] In his exhaustive work on the word typos in the New Testament, Richard Davidson says of the early church fathers, “Throughout the patristic literature the Scriptural ‘types’ are generally understood to consist of divinely-designed prefigurations of Christ or of the realities of the Gospel brought about by Christ” in Typology in Scripture: A study of hermeneutical TYPOS structures (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1981), 19.

[21] Irenaeus Adversus haereses 3.14.2.

[22] Ibid., 3.16.1-2. Concerning circumcision and the Sabbath, Irenaeus posits, “These things, then, were given for a sign; but the signs were not unsymbolical, that is, neither unmeaning nor to no purpose, inasmuch as they were given by a wise Artist; but the circumcision after the flesh typified that after the Spirit” (Irenaeus Adversus haereses 3:16.1).

[23] Ibid., 3.16.3-5. Speaking of the instructive and eschatological nature of the Law, Irenaeus writes, “These things [i.e. the Law], therefore, which were given for bondage, and for a sign to them, He cancelled by the new covenant” (Irenaeus Adversus haereses 3.16.2).

[24] Ibid., 3.17-18.

[25] Ibid., 3.14. 2.

Irenaeus: Against Heresies

/ davidsschrock

Irenaeus1 [For the next week, I am going to post a series on Irenaeus’ and his view of Scripture, his use of biblical theology, and his employment of typology in his polemic work: Against Heresies.  The content is not ground-breaking, but a simple attempt to understand how this Apostolic Father read Scripture and put the two testaments together.  Hopefully, it will help us better appreciate the shoulders that we stand on and how we might better interpret the Scriptures.]

[The bulk of these posts are from a paper I wrote earlier this semester on the subject.  Reading Against Heresies proved to be very enriching, and I hope that if you follow the analysis presented here over the next few days as it relates to Biblical Theology and biblical interpretation that you would be spurred on to read his book, Against Heresies.  The first two books are very hard to read as they deal with the intricacies of Gnosticism; the final three books are incredibly insightful and full of biblical exposition.  I highly recommend them.]

In Against Heresies,[1] Irenaeus of Lyons presents a biblically rigorous defense of historic Christianity in the face of second-century Gnosticism. Over the course of this week we will examine Irenaeus’ interpretive method in Against Heresies, and assert that contemporary Bible scholars, theologians, and pastors would do well to consider Irenaeus’ theological hermeneutics and to imitate those interpretive methods that prove faithful to Scripture (cf. Heb. 13:7). Of his interpretive methods, three deserve unreserved affirmation: 1) against Gnosticism, Irenaeus rejects theological accommodation that superimposes philosophical systems onto the biblical text; 2) against Valentinus, the Bishop of Lyons affirms Sola Scriptura with its doctrinal entailments—inspiration, inerrancy, sufficiency, and authority; and 3) against Marcion, Irenaeus defends the Bible’s unity by proposing a robust biblical theology. Expanding this last point, we will analyze Irenaeus’ typology asserting that his typological method should be adopted with some significant modifications and caveats.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

[1] Irenaeus Adversus haereses, trans. A. Roberts and J. Donaldson under the title Irenaus Against Heresies, in The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Ante-Nicene Fathers [ANF], American ed., vol. 1 (United States: Christian Literature, 1885; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 309-567.

2 Corinthians 5:11-21: The Overriding Priority of Being Christ’s Ambassador

/ davidsschrock / 1 Comment

This is a Guest Post from Garrett Wishall, a good friend, a fellow student at SBTS, and the managing editor for Southern’s Towers Magazine.

Life is full of choices. Should I hit the snooze or get up? Will I go with hazelnut, mocha or Jamaican bean coffee this morning? Do I watch football or have a conversation with my wife? Do I have “the talk” with my son today or do I put it off? When I see my neighbor do I ask him about the yelling I heard from his house last night or do I avert my eyes and comment about the weather?

Our priorities shape how we make such choices. What is truly important to us comes through in what we do and don’t do what we say and don’t say. And it is motivations and heart desires that drive and define our priorities and, in turn, our decision-making.

In 2 Corinthians 5:11-21, Paul discusses a fundamental, overriding priority for every Christian: being an ambassador for Christ. An ambassador is one who represents another, one who acts as an emissary. For example, when President-elect Barack Obama settles into office, he will begin sending ambassadors to foreign nations. Those men and women will go with his commission: they will speak in his place and represent his beliefs. What they say will come with his stamp of approval.

Every believer in Christ serves as an ambassador for Christ, for good or for ill. 2 Corinthians 5:20 says that God makes His appeal through us, through believers. Thus, what we say should align with what Christ would say. What we do should align with what He would do.

In this passage, Paul provides three motivations that shape his prioritization of the role of being an ambassador for Christ.

First, Paul says that he knows the fear of the Lord (2 Cor 5:11). Paul is aware that he once walked in darkness, before the God who called light into existence shined the light of the knowledge of the glory of Christ into his heart. Paul says that He thus proclaims Christ as Lord, and himself as a servant for Christ’s sake (2 Cor 4:5-6). Paul knows fearing the Lord centers on submission to Christ and he persuades others to do just that.

Second, Paul says the love of Christ controlled him (ESV) or compelled him (NIV). Paul notes that since one man, Christ, died for all men, all men have thus died. Christ died for all that those who live might then live for Him and not for themselves (2 Cor. 5:14-15). The logic is simple: one righteous man dies for men dead in sin. All who respond to this news with repentance of sin and belief in this one man receive their lives back. How could we not then live for Christ’s sake and not our own?

This touches on the area of Christian freedom. Paul is saying that Christian freedom rightly employed prioritizes the glory of God and exaltation of Christ, not selfish gain. Too often Christian freedom is equated with being able to watch certain movies and drink certain beverages. The central purpose of Christ setting people free is that they might enter His kingdom, be conformed to His image and glorify God. In shorthand: He died that we die to sin and live for God (Rom 6:10-11).

This reality did not simply make logical sense to Paul: it moved him. In 2 Corinthians 6, Paul recounts the ways the love of Christ, being an ambassador of Christ, shaped his actions toward the church at Corinth. Through imprisonments, beatings and other afflictions, Paul was insistent in faithfully representing Christ. Paul concludes that the Corinthians believers are not restricted by him, but in their own affections.

The church at Corinth thus knew about the sacrifice of Christ, but it did not shape their lives. They were aware of His death on their behalf, but were not rightly moved to live on His behalf. We, God’s people, today are prone to respond to Christ’s sacrifice more like the Corinthians than like Paul. May we rend our hearts and ask the Lord to do a work in us. May we meditate upon the riches of Christ and may our lives then explode with gratitude and devoted service.

Finally, Paul was motivated to be a faithful ambassador for Christ because this ministry came from God (2 Cor 5:18). The message that every believer is Christ’s ambassador did not originate with your college mentor. It did not originate with John Piper or Mark Dever or whoever your favorite Bible teacher is.  The role of ambassador for Christ originates with the same God who spoke the world into existence and sustains it by the power of His Word. There is no authority that can override this Authority.

The fear of the Lord, the love of Christ and the authority of God thus drove Paul to prioritize his role as an ambassador of Christ. Such a prioritization should characterize the life of every believer, for we are all ambassadors of Christ.

Life is full of choices. But God does not leave us without direction for such choices. Instead, He gives us priorities that make the way clear. Every believer is Christ’s ambassador. Thus, everything we do and say reflects positively or negatively on Him.

In 2 Corinthians 5:11-21, Paul shows how the fear of the Lord, the love of Christ and the authority of God compel him to prioritize his role as Christ’s ambassador. Let us pray that the Lord will give us the grace to respond in a like manner. Then perhaps we can faithfully represent Christ in the words we say, the things we do and the choices we make each day.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

N.T. Wright: The New Testament and the People of God

/ davidsschrock / 4 Comments

new-testament-and-the-people

N.T. Wright.  The New Testament and the People of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God.  Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992.

In N.T. Wright’s first book in a series of three (with two more projected), the British New Testament scholar gives a full-orbed presentation (535 pp.) on the history, culture, and worldview of the land and the people into which Jesus was born and from which Christianity arose.

Part I introduces the book and the extended project.  He attempts to show that premodern, modern, and postmodern attempts at interpreting Scripture are all deficient, and that a synthesis of premodern’s authority, modernity’s critical eye, and postmodernity’s subjective impulse are needed to rightly understand the Bible.  He procedes to layout a three-fold method for considering the NT–examining its history, literature, and theology, which he unites with studies about Jesus, the gospels, and Paul, respectively. 

Part II picks up these three evaluative lens.  After dealing with issues of epistemology in chapter 2, Wright develops his understandings of history (3), literature (4), and theology and authority (5).  His interpretive grid is that of a “critical realist” (44-46) and he argues that we should understand the Bible according to its meta- and micro- narratives (this is developed further in chapters 13-14: “The Stories in Christianity”).   In his chapter on “Literature, Story, and Worldview,” Wright addresses the problems of hermeneutics, language, and reading.  He suggests a hermeneutic of love and goes on to propose a worldview-informing narrative hermeneutic.  Reading the Bible as an interactive story upholds the immutable Bible and the interpretive challenges of an everchanging world–in this Wright seems to fuse modern and postmodern tendencies.  Chapters 4 develops the view that history is never objective and that intrinsically it should be seen as historiography, history delivered with specific authorial intent to shape the account through selectivity, sequencing, and shaping.  Chapter 5 finishes his introductory section by considering the worldview-shaping effects of narrative theology.

Part III is comprised of five chapters that recreate the world of second temple Judaism (fourth century BC – first century AD).  In Chapter 6, Wright gives an historical account of the Greco-Roman world that dominates the landscape for the Jewish people.  Chapter 7 subdivides the Jewish thoughtlife, societal structures, and political machinations to show the diversity of second-temple Judaism.  While chapters 8-10, unfold the Jewish heritage, highlighting the stories, symbols, and praxis that shape their day-to-day life (8), tracing the storyline that informs contemporary beliefs (9), and referencing the apocalyptic hope that the Jew’s maintained in the face of enemy oppression (10).  

Wright bases much of his findings on the works of Josephus and much intertestamental Jewish writings.  His analyses contravene many historical positions on the 1st Century Judaism, while helpfully demonstrating the variations of Jewish belief at the time of Jesus’ birth.  Nevertheless, it is evident that he is clearing the way for New Perspective teachings on Paul (aka E.P. Sanders and James Dunn), which deny any kind of works-based righteousness–which will redefine justification by faith alone– and promotes a responsive covenantal nominianism (law-keeping)–that advocates a kind of “gracious” law-keeping.  (For a response to this see: John Piper’s The Future of Justification).

Wright juxtaposes the Jews with the oppression of the Roman empire and shows why covenantal markers are so important to the Jewish people.  He articulates that since the zenith of the covenant is dwelling in God’s presence (i.e. in the land and within the Temple), and that when this function is disable or at least inhibited by sin that leads to exile that leads to indwelling opposition in the land, that the Jews recast dwelling with God with covenantal markers (i.e. circumcision, Sabbath, ritualistic days, etc).  The difference between OT and NT is not type and fulfillment, but spacio-temporal, obeying the Torah becomes preeminent to keep covenant.  Entering the covenant is assumed by birthright.   Wright’s emphasis is clearly more corporate, to the detrimental exclusion individuals and their need to be reconciled to God.  While emphasizing the covenantal and corporate elements of salvation (of which he speaks in exodus language, restoration from exile), he minimizes the doctrine of personal salvation.  Moreover, nowhere in his lengthy discussion does he include matters of personal guilt, individual transgression, or need for atonement (cf. Ezek. 18; Leviticus 1-6, 16), leaving essential matters of redemption out of his discussion.   Consequently, he seems to be working with a semi-Pelagian understanding (anachronistically applied to second-temple Judaism, I understand) of the Jewish nations ability to keep covenant.

The value of Part III is its illuminating descriptions of second temple Judaism; the criticisms are clearly the New Perspective emphases which undermine the Reformation doctrines of salvation.

Part IV is the most helpful section in the book.  Chapter 12 begins with a discussion of praxis, symbols, and worldview that informed second-temple Judaism, but more pertinently shaped the first-century Christian community.  Looking particularly at the significance of the Land, the Temple, and the Torah, Wright asserts that all were updated in Christ, so that in the NT they take on metaphorical realities.  His approach in this chapter is overtly cultural-historical-sociological, not biblical-theological.  (This is a trait that runs throughout the book.  Wright devotes most of his energy retelling the story of the people from a sociological angle, not an exegetical outworking of the Biblical canon).  Nonetheless, his typological applicatons to Christ do stress the OT shape of the NT.

Chapters 13 and 14 unfold the message(s) of the biblical authors.  Chapter 13 examines the form and function of the synoptic gospels, the Pauline letters, Hebrews, and the Johannine corpus.  This chapter masterfully displays the wisdom and the logic of the NT writers, who retell the story of Israel in the person and work of Jesus Christ.  For instance, Wright compares Luke’s gospel to the work of Josephus–both of whom are making an apology to the Roman empire–and he goes on to show how the doctor recaptures the Samuel narratives to provide the outline of his Davidic biography.  Moreover, Matthew seems to employ Deuteronomy to construct his gospel, and Mark utilized Daniel as an apocalyptic narrative.  These intracanonical connections demonstrate the NT use and dependence on the OT.  In so doing, Wright argues that this more that simple typology.  It is rather a kind of mindset that sees the history of Israel being recapitulated (my word, not his) in the life of Jesus and the church.  Paul further does this in inviting Gentiles into the story of Jesus, the Israel of God.

Chapter 14 moves from the larger units (NT books) to the contents of those books–Jesus teaching, miracle stories, parables, etc.  He argues that these did not develop over time, but from the beginning they were well-formed.  He explains why this is so, using simply analogous logic, appealing to the ways stories are told and retold.

Finally, Wright concludes with an overarching description of first-century Christianity in “The Early Christians: A Preliminary Sketch” (15).  The take away point is that Christianity’s identity is fully Jewish.  The earliest church was shaped not by the historical events of Jesus life only.  Rather Jesus life and the birth of the church were understood, defined, and developed according to the well established patterns and promises of the OT, so that the life, death, and resurrection–an old testament pattern of exodus–was “according to the Scriptures.”  Without hesitation, this is the most helpful aspect of the book.  It makes the reader more aware of the intracanonical connections by way of appeal to historical-cultural-sociological expectations of the Jews.

The book is long and filled with abberrant teaching about the doctrines of justification and sin, but its Jewish reading of the Scriptures is very helpful and worth perusing.  I look forward to reading, with cautious selectivity, the other books in this series.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Christianity goes back…back…back…back

/ davidsschrock

bockIn a pluralistic world and in a divided Christian church, how do you know that Christianity that is considered historic and called “orthodox” is indeed true?  It is because Darrell Bock answers, quoting the great theologian Chris Berman, “it goes back…back…back…back…”

This week, Dr. Darrell Bock, DTS Professor and author of Breaking the DaVinci Code, commentaries on Luke, and Jesus According to Scripture, has delivered a series of Gheens lectures as Southern Seminary.  In this lectures, Dr. Bock has argued for the authenticity of orthodox Christianity, over against alternative Christianity’s seen on the History Channel, in Barnes & Noble, and found in university settings.  Today, in his most stimulating lecture, Bock drew on the the historicity of 1st century Christianity and argued that “orthodoxy in an oral culture without a sacred and written text” is indeed possible, and after looking at the evidence is in fact warranted.  In short, he is arguing that even before a recognized canon, the message of Christianity was certain and singular.

To aid in his efforts, Bock adduced five alliterated ways in which the early church would taught a singular and unified doctrine.  These five ways contend against the notion, espoused by secular media and academia, that the earliest Christianity was pluriform.  These historically certifiable means of instruction serve to evidence that the message of the Bible was original to the earliest converts and not created after the fact–as has been maintained lately in books like The DaVinci Code. 

Here are five ways for early church instruction:

  1. Scriptures:  In the Hebrew Bible, God has revealed himself to the people of Israel and given promises and prefigurations that found telic fulfillment in Jesus Christ.  THe earliest Christian community read these regularly in corporate settings and would have depended heavily on them to understand Jesus the Messiah of Israel (see Matthew 1-2 for ways in which Jesus “fulfilled” OT Scripture; cf. 2 Cor. 1:20; John 5:39)
  2. Schooling:  In the early church, short, theologically-informing confessions and creeds helped retain, defend, and the instruct the church of God.  Written for the purpose of educating converts, these terse statements can be found today in the NT. Examples of these are in 1 Corinthians 15:1ff; 8:4-6; 1 Timothy 3:16.
  3. Singing:  Through hymns the church learned core doctrine and worshiped the triune God.  Two examples can be found in Philippians 2:5-11 and Colossians 1:15-20.  These ancient hymns, predate Paul’s letters and take us back to the first decade after Pentecost.
  4. Sacraments: Jesus left his church with two gospel-revealing ordinances–baptism and the Lord’s supper.  Both of these are to be regular parts of worship.  The first being recapitulated as often as a new convert professes faith; the latter being done on regular basis within the life of the church.  In the NT, these ‘sacraments,’ occur in places like Luke 22; 1 Corinthians 11 (Lord’s supper); and Romans 6; Colossians 2; and 1 Peter 3 (Baptism).  Every time these reenactments commenced they retold the story of a believer’s union with Christ–his death and resurrection and the hope of eternal life with Christ.
  5. Supervisors:  Finally, God gave apostles to the church to supervise the doctrine and the teaching (cf. Eph. 2:20-21; 4:11ff).  This is why the requirement in Acts 1 was that the 12th apostle replacing Judas be one who was a witness of Jesus’ life from the beginning.  They had to be eye witnesses of all Jesus did and taught to ground the earliest church in the truth of Christianity.

Listening to Dr. Bock’s lectures this week was not only informative, but entertaining.  Bock is a gifted speaker, and today’s lecture was superb.  It not only informed the mind, but warmed the affections for the glory and greatness of the resurrected Christ.  All of them are worth listening to, but today’s especially.  You can listen to them here.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Bible Arc dot com, a Review and Infomercial

/ davidsschrock / 6 Comments

image 

It was a life-changing revelation to me when I discovered that Paul, for example, did not merely make a collection of divine pronouncements, but that he argued. This meant, for me, a whole new approach to Bible reading. No longer did I just read or memorize verses. I sought also to understand and memorize arguments. This involved finding the main point of each literary unit and then seeing how each proposition fit together to unfold and support the main point. (”Biblical Exegesis: Discovering the Meaning of Scriptural Texts,” pg. 18)

If you are familiar with John Piper’s preaching and method of exegesis, than you are probably familiar with his use of “arcing.”  Piper’s statement above reflects the way he reads the NT epistles, and the benefits of systematically interrogating the argument in each NT letter.  To that end, Pastor Piper has commended Daniel Fuller’s method of Biblical Arcing.  In short, it is an excellent means by which students of the Bible can hone in on the author’s intent.  I bring attention to this exegetical device, because recently, an online web site has been developed for the sole purpose of “arcing” New Testament passages.

Biblearc.com has many strengths.  For starters, it furnishes all the tools necessary to complete the arcing process.  It provides helpful sidebars with navigable widgets and buttons that provide great opportunity to use the arcing nomenclature — which is a little foreign for beginners.  It provides Greek, ESV, NASB, KJV translations, as well as the possibility of providing your own translation.  Moreover, it provides more than 2 hours worth of introduction and training.

Another interesting feature that is forthcoming will be the sharing feature, where completed “Arcs” will be posted, and discussion about their accuracy will be moderated on the website.  This could certainly provide some rich exegetical conversations.

While this method of Bible study is excellent in the dense theological material of Paul’s letters or other New Testament Epistles, it is probably less fruitful for NT narrative passages, or Old Testament literature.  In fact, currently this only works with the New Testament.  Though, even in gospel writing, a device like this still helps us microwave Christians to slow down and let the passage simmer in our minds.  Finally, the point-and-click arcing is more cumbersome than what you would do with paper and ink, but with all the tools in front of you, and with help just a few clicks away, this program looks to be very helpful for the novice “Arcer” (like me), not Archer (like Nimrod). 

In sum, the online capabilities of Bible Arc dot com are really quite impressive.  And for only ten dollars you can setup a yearly account that will save your work and come back to it at a later date.  Additionally, you can print your documents to a PDF file for your own record keeping, and with its note-taking possibilities, Bible Arc dot com provides a great platform for personal Bible study or sermon preparation.

Hats off to all those who created this web gem.  If you are serious about Bible studies, I encourage you to drop the ten bucks and avail yourself of this helpful resource.

(HT: Johnathon Bowers) 

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

Zondervan Quiz, Three Views Book, and Other Resources on OT/NT Hermeneutics

/ davidsschrock / 2 Comments

This Fall Zondervan is set to publish another book in its Counterpoints series.  The book, Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, is a survey of differing ways evangelical Christians read the Scriptures.  Darrell Bock of Dallas Theological Seminary, Peter Enns formerly of Westminster Seminary, and Walter Kaiser formerly of TEDS and Gordon-Conwell are its three contributors. 

In preparation for this release, Zondervan’s Koinonia blog has set up a seven question quiz that can help you determine what position best describes your biblical-theological hermeneutic.  It will peg you as either a Fuller Meaning, Single Goal View (Enns), Single Meaning, Unified Referents View (Kaiser), or a Single Meaning, Multiple Contexts and Referents View (Bock).  According to my responses, I am the last–which means, that in reading the OT/NT, I consider the authorial intent of the Old Testament writers to have historical and literary significance for them and their audience in their varied Ancient Near Eastern settings.  At the same time, inspired by the Spirit, I believe that they were aware that what they wrote was eschatologically pointing forward to Jesus Christ.  In other words, they wrote better than they knew.  Peter says as much in 1 Peter 1:10-12 when he writes, “Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.”   Likewise, this seems to be the way that Jesus reads the OT, identifying himself by means of these OT writers who pointed forward to him (cf. John 5:39; Luke 24:27, 44).  Moreover, Paul and Jude employ this same hermeneutic when they read Christ into the OT (respectively, 1 Cor. 10:4; Jude 6).

All that to say, if these things interest you as they do me, and they should–putting the Bible together OT and NT is one of the most vital ways we can understand the God who has revealed himself and offered us salvation in his Son–then be sure to check out this multi-sided book.  In the meantime, you can also take the quiz here.

Other helpful resources on the subject include: G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson’s Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament; G.K. Beale’s The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Text? ; Graeme Goldsworthy’s Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics.

I look forward to reading the arguments in the upcoming Zondervan book, but i am still more excited to simply read my Bible and see Jesus in the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. 

Sola Deo Gloria, dss