New Testament

Sermon Notes: Christ’s Consecration is Our Confidence (NT)

/ davidsschrock

Picking up where we left off, the New Testament comes in looking backward, looking at God’s covenantal promises, and then it begins to show how Christ fulfills them all.  So we move from prophetic anticipation, to Christotelic (Christ in the end) fulfillment.

4. Christ fulfills Zechariah 3.  Not simply by being a perfect Levitical priest, Jesus far exceeds the old system.  Hebrews records that he is a priest not because of genealogy, but because of living a perfect life.  He is called a priest after the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 7:1-9. Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. For it is witnessed of him, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek” [Psalm 110].  For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.

But even more to the point, in connection with the consecration of the high priest, is Hebrews 10. There, the priest it says is not acceptable to God on the basis of a sacrifice or sacrifices made for him.  He doesn’t need a sacrifice.  Christ is accepted because of his perfect obedience.

Hebrews 10:1-10. For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins?  But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year.  For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said,

 “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.'”

When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

The beauty of Hebrews 10, in relation to Exodus 29, is that Christ does not need to be cleansed of sin.  He is clean.  Thus, his consecration does not depend on the blood of animals; his purity emits from a life that has displayed perfect obedience to the father.  God accepts Christ’s priestly sacrifice and representation, because he is His Son, in whom he is well-pleased.  This is far better than the Levitical system.

 5. The Gospel: We have a priest that is acceptable to God and sympathetic to us.  The promises and invitations to approach the Lord in Hebrews about this are astounding.  Hebrews 7:25, “He lives to intercede for us.”  What does that mean?  Consider how he prays in John 17.

(1) He prays for our protection from the world (17:15)
(2) He prays for our sanctification (17:17)
(3) He prays for the effectiveness of our evangelism (17:20)… which means
(4) He prays for the salvation of those given to him
(5) He prays for the unity of the church (17:23)
(6) He prays for his saints to know his love (17:26)

6. The Application: Draw Near With Confidence.  The New Testament calls us to draw near to God (James 4:8), but such a command would have been absolutely terrifying to the Old Testament people (and maybe even the priests).  Entering God’s presence in any unclean manner resulted in death (cf. Lev 10:1-3).  However, Christ takes away that threat.  Through his perfect consecration, he stands at God’s right hand and bids us come.  He clothes us, who trust in him, with his righteousness and makes us acceptable in God’s sight. Thus, Christian have full access and assurance that our prayers, petitions, and confessions will be heard and received.  This is great news, and one that comes at the end of the line that begins in Exodus 29 passes through the OT and finds fulfillment in Christ in the NT.

May we draw near to God in Christ today, because of his perfect consecration.

Soli Deo Gloria, dss

Through the Bible in 2010: Evidence of God’s Grace

/ davidsschrock

How important is Bible reading and interpretation?

Consider this: On the day that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead–arguably the most significant day in world history–Jesus spent 1/8, maybe 1/6, of the day interpreting Scripture to two wayward disciples on the way to Emmaus.  Over the course of a few hours, Jesus showed these disciples how all the Scriptures should be interpreted in the light of himself.  As he walked with the two runaway followers (Luke 24), he walked them through the Old Testament.  Beginning with Moses, he explained how he fulfilled the types, promises, and prefigurations found throughout the Old Testament (Luke 24:27).  In a word: All Scripture points to Jesus (John 5:39). The effect was to replace the disciple’s doubt and disappointment with burning hearts ignited by the Word of Christ and for the Christ of the Word.

Luke 24, from which this blog gets its name, is a powerful testimony for the importance of Christ-centered Bible interpretation and Bible reading.

This year, following our Savior’s example, I led our Wednesday night Bible study through the Scriptures with eyes towards Christ.  Last week, by God’s grace, we finished our year-long journey.  It was amazing to see how faithful God was to help us walk through the Scriptures in one year.  With the exception of 1-2 Chronicles and Lamentations, we surveyed every book in the Bible and how each book helps us know and love Christ.

For me, this course of study was rewarding and I would recommend it to anyone who pastors, teaches a Sunday School class, or leads a small group.  Those who attended were grateful for the 30,000 foot exposition of the Scriptures, and I was greatly stretched to better understand how all the books of the Bible point to Christ (Eph 1:10). Make no mistake, it was challenging and I grew weary in the process.  In fact, as I look back I realize that I probably bit off more than I could chew, but God was faithful and gave me time and grace to prepare lessons each week.  By his grace, we made it through the whole Bible. Here are the notes from the New Testament.  You can find all the handouts here.

Gospels-Acts
Matthew: The King and His Kingdom (September 22, 2010)
Mark: Seeing the Christ of the Cross (September 29, 2010)
Luke: The Messiah Must Go To Mount Zion (October 6, 2010)
Acts: Taking the Gospel From Zion to Zimbabwe (October 13, 2010)
John: Jesus, The Son of God, The Messiah of Israel, and The Savior of the World (October 20 & 27, 2010)

The Letters and Revelation
Paul (1): The Apostle to the Gentiles (November 3 & 10, 2010)
Paul (2): The Prison Epistles and Philemon (November 17, 2010) — compiled by David Crater
Hebrews: Believe and Draw Near, For Jesus Christ is Greater Still (December 8, 2010)
General Epistles: James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, and Jude (December 15, 2010)
Revelation: The Revelation of Jesus Christ (December 22, 2010)

Tomorrow, I will post a few thoughts on tips and tools for anyone who has thought or is thinking about teaching through the Bible in a year.

Soli Deo Gloria, dss

The Bible Doesn’t Say ‘Join a Church,’ So Why Should I?

/ davidsschrock / 31 Comments

I have a friend who has been attending church regularly but is unconvinced about the need for church membership?  He challenges, “Show me where it says in the Bible, ‘ Thou shalt become a church member.'”  And truthfully, I cannot point to verse that says that one must become a church member.  Nevertheless, I am convinced that church membership is spiritually advantageous and even compulsory for the believer.  To say it another way, without church membership individual believers will not mature in their Christian faith, and local churches will be deficient of Spiritually-gifted members.

Still, what biblical data is there to support the need for church membership?  Let me suggest five reasons for the vital necessity of church membership based on New Testament principles:

  1. Membership is a NT Pattern.  When converts repented, believed, and were baptized in the book of Acts, they were added to the number of the church (Acts 2:41, 47).  This means that the church in Jerusalem knew the number of believers in their church.  So did the church at Corinth–how else could they assess when the “whole church” met together (1 Cor 14:23)?  New Testament churches were comprised of members assembling locally, as evidenced by the church discipline in 1 Cor 5 and the recognition of members leaving the congregation (1 John 2:19).  In order, for church discipline to work, churches had to be aware of their membership.
  2. Membership secures participation in the Kingdom of God.  Jesus spoke of the church on two occassions (Matthew 16:13-20; 18:15-20), and in both instances, he stated that the keys to the kingdom have been given to the church.  I take this to mean that spiritual access into the kingdom of heaven has been entrusted to the church.  That is to say, the gospel message has been given to the church, and only the church foretastes and foresees kingdom realities.  In this way, the church serves as the instrument of the kingdom.  It is not identical with the kingdom, but each true, local church functions as a kingdom outpost–proclaiming the gospel of kingdom, partaking of the kingdom ordinances (baptism and the Lord’s Supper), enacting kingdom discipline, and demonstating what Spirit-led, kingdom life is like.  Church membership matters because kingdom life is foreseen and ‘fore-tasted’ in the local church. 
  3. Membership provides spiritual protection.  God has appointed pastor-teachers to instruct believers and equip saints for the work of service.  Moreover, pastor-teacher-elders are those who watch over the souls of the local church.  It would be foolish to forego this ministry of mercy.  As Hebrews 13:17 says, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account.”  Likewise, church deacons are installed to help meet physical needs and to minister to saints in need (cf. Acts 6:1-7).  And finally, church discipline falls into this category.  None of us are strong enough to contend against the wiles of Satan.  We need to formative discipline provided through the regular administration of the Word of God in the local church, but there are also times when we need the accountability of a fellow member to call us back to Christ.  Even more powerful, we may need the unified testimony of the entire church to call us back to Christ.  Church discipline is not merely a punitive action against a backslidden Christians; it is a means of protecting those sheep who wander from the fold.  Satan has come to kill, steal, and destroy.  He often does this through division and isolation!  By submitting ourselves to the accountability of the local church in church membership, we are inviting the loving and protective correction of our brothers and sisters in Christ.  This is a means of grace, intended by our loving God as a preserving force against our wicked and unruly hearts.
  4. Membership is for our spiritual maturity.  Ephesians 4 makes it abundantly clear, we do not grow by oursleves.  Just like the human body, we do not develop as individual cells soaking up nutriment in a petri dish.  No, we grow, develop, and mature as we are united to the body of Christ (Eph 4:15-16).  Church membership entails that we are in the proper context for growth.  We are stretched to use our gifts for the corporate good (1 Cor 12:7); we are challenged to consider others more important than ourselves (Phil 2:3-4).  All the while, we are benefitted by the gifts of others.  Without membership in a local body, we are not guaranteed these things.  Growth can happen in a weekly Bible study, a parachurch group, or through a school-sponsored mission trip, but without the dynamics of the local church, most of the growth fostered in these other arenas will provide only lop-sided or imbalanced growth.  Moreover, the local church is the best context whereby we can exercise and obey the one another commands.  (For a full list see my handout: ‘The One Another’s).  Doing life together in the local church stretches us to grow in ways that no other man-made institution or intensive study program can.
  5. Membership is for our spiritual fulfillment.  Membership in the local church is God’s intended platform for you to use your gifts, skills, and passions for the upbuilding of God’s church (1 Cor. 12:7).  If you are born again and filled with the Holy Spirit, God has equipped you with one or more spiritual gifts (1 Pet 4:10-11), and truth be told, your greatest joys will come when you use your giftedness for the good of others!  So, in order to increase your joy as a Christian, you should pursue church membership and serve faithful.  As Jesus said, it is more blessed to give than receive.

Surely, these five reasons can be added to and improved upon.  I would love to hear your thoughts on why church membership is essential in the life of a Christian believer, or how God has convinced you of this truth from the Bible.  It took me a long time to learn some of these things, and I am still learning…but I am learning with and in the body of Christ as a member of a local church.

Soli Deo Gloria, dss

John Bright on Biblical Intertextuality

/ davidsschrock

John Bright, in his book The Kingdom of God, offers a very historically-enriching and theologically-astute presentation of the kingdom which unifies the entire Bible.  I have benefitted much from reading it, especially in the way that he looks at the people under God’s rule as a unified and yet developing body of believers.  In this outline, he is much like Graeme Goldsworthy, who emphasizes God’s people, under God’s rule, in God’s place, but Bright’s pages are more comprehensive in scope, being filled with copious details about the kings of Israel, the dynasties of foreign nations, and the who’s, the when’s, and the how’s of Israel’s history. (It is noteworthy that Goldsworthy references Bright’s work at the end of many chapters in his book According to Plan). 

In The Kingdom of God, there are many helpful subjects, but I found this description of the Bible’s intertextuality most helpful.   He writes,

The Old Testament is, therefore, as it were, an incomplete book.  It is a story whose Author has not yet written the ending; it is a signpost pointing down a road whose destination–and surely its destination is a city, the City of God (Heb. 11:10, 16)–lies out of sight around many a bend.  [The OT] is a noble building indeed–but it lack a roof!

That roof, by its own affirmation, the New Testament supplies: in announcing in Christ the fulfillment of the hope of Israel it stands as the completion of the Old Testament.  But–and this must not be forgotten–to say that is at the same time to say that it cannot be understood to itself alone apart from the Old Testament.  If the Old Testament be a building without a roof, the New Testament alone may be very like a roof without a building–and that is a structure very hard to comprehend and very hard to hold up!  It is a structure that may be put to all sorts of uses and may shelter all sorts of things, but it is a structure which may be easily be knocked down.  By this we certainly do not mean to say the New Testament is merely an appendage of the Old, or to deny Christ is himself the cornerstone of a mighty building (1 Cor. 3:11; 1 Pet. 2:4-7), but only to insist that it is impossible to set the New Testament apart and to construct a purely New Testament religion without regard to the faith of Israel.

The New Testament rests on and is rooted in the Old.  To ignore this fact is a serious error in method, and one that is bound to lead to a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bible message.  he who commits it has disregarded the central affirmation of the New Testament gospel itself, namely Christ had come to make actual what the Old Testament hoped for, not to destroy it and replace it with a new and better faith (John Bright, The Kingdom of God [Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1953]).

May we never stop marveling at the wisdom and beauty of God’s holy Word.

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

4Gospels for You

/ davidsschrock / 1 Comment

How many gospels are there?  One… Four…  More?  A new website hosted by Peter Williams, Simon Gathercole, and other Cambridge scholars looks at this question and other gospel-related subjects in their new website, 4Gospels.com.  From the looks of it, this site will serve as an excellent resource for biblical scholars and Bible readers interested in understanding one gospel in four witnesses over against a plethora of other competitors.  Here is how they describe their website: 

Welcome to 4Gospels.com, a site run by scholars and postgraduate students based mainly in Cambridge, England, providing accessible information on the 4 Gospels in the New Testament as well as many other writings which are or have been called gospels.

More importantly, these young scholars are outspoken in their affirmation of the inspiration and authority of the biblical canon and will serve the church well with what they have written and what, Lord willing, they will write in years to come.  When Via Emmaus gets an overhaul at the end of the summer, this site will definitely find a place in its recommended resources. 

For an interesting and illimunating peek into the scholastic world of Williams and Gathercole, check out their 9Marks interview with Mark Dever (Nov. 2006).

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

(HT: Owen Strachan).

Herman Bavinck on Scripture’s Fuller Sense

/ davidsschrock

In volume 1 of his Reformed Dogmatics, Herman Bavinck reflects on the multiple ways in which the New Testament authors use and apply the Old Testament.  In the discussions that swirl today on this subject, it is noteworthy that he writes in favor of sensus plenior.  He says,

In the case of Jesus and the apostles, this exegesis of the OT in the NT assumes the understanding that a word or sentence can have a much deeper meaning and a much father reaching thrust than the original author suspected or put into it.  This is often the case in classical authors as well.  No one will think that Goethe, in writing down his classical poetry, consciously had before his mind the things that are now found in it.  “Surely that person has not gotten far in poetry / In whose verses there is nothing more than what he had [consciously] written into them.”

In Scripture this is even much more strongly the case since, in the conviction of Jesus and the apostles, it has the Holy Spirit as its primary author and bears a teleological character.  Not only in the few verses cited above [verses from the NT that employ the OT is various fashions] but in its entire view and interpretation of the OT, the NT is undergirded by the thought that the Israelitish dispensation had its fulfillment in the Christian.  The whole economy of the old covenant, with all its statutes and ordinances and throughout its history, points forward to the dispensation of the new covenant.  Not Talmudism [i.e. Judaism] but Christianity is the rightful heir of the treasures of salvation promised to Abraham and his seed (Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena, vol. 1 [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003], 396-97; Bavinck also includes a broad bibliography on this subject from Dutch, German, and English-speaking scholars).

Two things should be noted from his statement.  (1) While Bavinck  supports a view allowing for the expansion of meaning in the text as that ‘word or sentence’ is read in the light of later revelation, namely in the coming of Christ; his own theological method does not overdo this proposition.  He is rigorous, even ‘scientific’ (a term he uses positively), in his attention to the original meaning of the text in his doctrinal formulation.   Thus, it seems that in comparison with his own method interpretation, his sensus plenior is controlled by further biblical revelation (i.e. the canonical horizon) and not by spurious philosophies or extra-biblical ideas.  In fact, large sections of volume 1 are devoted to ardently rejecting theological methods that depend on such eisegesis.

(2) Bavinck’s appeal to Goethe does appear, at least today, to support a postmodern hermeneutic, namely that the reader can and should bring their own meaning to the text.  However, in Bavinck’s defense, it must be remembered that he is writing decades before the influence of postmodern literary theory with its influnence on theology. And again, the proof is in the pudding: Does Bavinck himself believe, encourage, or legitimate a reader-centered hermeneutic?  I don’t think so. 

In short, Bavinck’s quotation is helpful to reveal his own method of interpretation and to remind us of the organic unity and eschatological nature of the OT which finds its telos in Jesus Christ.  Likewise, this statement shows why the Reformed Dogmatics are so good; Bavinck recognized the progressive nature of revelation and undergirds his dogmatics with a biblical-theological framework that collects the sparks of doctrine of in the Old Testament and sets them ablaze as he moves into the New. (A great example see his section on the Trinity).

Sola Deo Gloria, dss

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.