The Bible in a Sentence

This was an interesting exercise in summarizing the Bible in one sentence. My favorite was:

Mark Dever:

God has made promises to bring His people to Himself and He is fulfilling them all through Christ.

With honorable mention to

Kevin DeYoung:

A holy God sends his righteous Son to die for unrighteous sinners so we can be holy and live happily with God forever.

And if I might say this, Doug Wilson's answer was the most ridiculous, making the Bible sound like a bad medieval fairy-tale. However, it does illustrate the wackyness of FV guys who seem to want to show off their poetic or symbolic language wrapped in obscure theology:

Doug Wilson:

Scripture tells us the story of how a Garden is transformed into a Garden City, but only after a dragon had turned that Garden into a howling wilderness, a haunt of owls and jackals, which lasted until an appointed warrior came to slay the dragon, giving up his life in the process, but with his blood effecting the transformation of the wilderness into the Garden City.

Athanasius on Sola Scriptura

[The Scriptures] are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.'

...But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.

What is the Bible About?

Justin Taylor posted a Youtube video that takes a clip from a talk by Tim Keller (pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian PCA in New York) to answer that question. [I like the content even if I'm not a fan of all the iconography the compiler used, and thought I would largely repost it because the content is so good]:

Jesus is the true and better Adam who passed the test in the garden and whose obedience is imputed to us.

Jesus is the true and better Abel who, though innocently slain, has blood now that cries out, not for our condemnation, but for acquittal.

Jesus is the true and better Abraham who answered the call of God to leave all the comfortable and familiar and go out into the void not knowing wither he went to create a new people of God.

Jesus is the true and better Isaac who was not just offered up by his father on the mount but was truly sacrificed for us. And when God said to Abraham, “Now I know you love me because you did not withhold your son, your only son whom you love from me,” now we can look at God taking his son up the mountain and sacrificing him and say, “Now we know that you love us because you did not withhold your son, your only son, whom you love from us.”

Jesus is the true and better Jacob who wrestled and took the blow of justice we deserved, so we, like Jacob, only receive the wounds of grace to wake us up and discipline us.

Jesus is the true and better Joseph who, at the right hand of the king, forgives those who betrayed and sold him and uses his new power to save them.

Jesus is the true and better Moses who stands in the gap between the people and the Lord and who mediates a new covenant.

Jesus is the true and better Rock of Moses who, struck with the rod of God’s justice, now gives us water in the desert.

Jesus is the true and better Job, the truly innocent sufferer, who then intercedes for and saves his stupid friends.

Jesus is the true and better David whose victory becomes his people’s victory, though they never lifted a stone to accomplish it themselves.

Jesus is the true and better Esther who didn’t just risk leaving an earthly palace but lost the ultimate and heavenly one, who didn’t just risk his life, but gave his life to save his people.

Jesus is the true and better Jonah who was cast out into the storm so that we could be brought in.

Jesus is the real Rock of Moses, the real Passover Lamb, innocent, perfect, helpless, slain so the angel of death will pass over us. He’s the true temple, the true prophet, the true priest, the true king, the true sacrifice, the true lamb, the true light, the true bread.

The Bible’s really not about you—it’s about him.

HT: Justin Taylor

Questions and Answers on Israel and the Church

This is a great look at Scripture concerning Israel and the Church in the form of a Catechism. Questions are asked and then Scripture is given verbatim for the answer:

http://katekomen.gpts.edu/2010/03/some-questions-regarding-nature-of.html

For Example:

Q.1. Who is a Jew?

A. “He is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart” (Romans 2:28-29).

Fulfillment Fridays: The Cleansing Priest

Priestly Defilement

Zec 3:1-10 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?" Now Joshua was standing before the angel, clothed with filthy garments. And the angel said to those who were standing before him, "Remove the filthy garments from him." And to him he said, "Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you, and I will clothe you with pure vestments." And I said, "Let them put a clean turban on his head." So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the LORD was standing by.

And the angel of the LORD solemnly assured Joshua, "Thus says the LORD of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my charge, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here. Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, you and your friends who sit before you, for they are men who are a sign: behold, I will bring my servant the Branch. For behold, on the stone that I have set before Joshua, on a single stone with seven eyes, I will engrave its inscription, declares the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of this land in a single day. In that day, declares the LORD of hosts, every one of you will invite his neighbor to come under his vine and under his fig tree."

The Final Perfect Priest

Heb 7:11-28 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." 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.

And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, 'You are a priest forever.'" This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.

John Calvin on John 5:39

John 5:39 "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about Me."

If we wish to obtain the knowledge of Christ, we must seek it from the Scriptures; for they who imagine whatever they choose concerning Christ will ultimately have nothing instead of him but a shadowy phantom. First, then, we ought to believe that Christ cannot be properly known in any other way than from the Scriptures; and if it be so, it follows that we ought to read the Scriptures with the express design of finding Christ in them. Whoever shall turn aside from this object, though he may weary himself throughout his whole life in learning, will never attain the knowledge of the truth; for what wisdom can we have without the wisdom of God? Next, as we are commanded to seek Christ in the Scriptures, so he declares in this passage that our labors shall not be fruitless; for the Father testifies in them concerning his Son in such a manner that He will manifest him to us beyond all doubt. But what hinders the greater part of men from profiting is, that they give to the subject nothing more than a superficial and cursory glance. Yet it requires the utmost attention, and, therefore, Christ enjoins us to search diligently for this hidden treasure. Consequently, the deep abhorrence of Christ which is entertained by the Jews, who have the Law constantly in their hands, must be imputed to their indolence. For the lustre of the glory of God shines brightly in Moses, but they choose to have a vail to obscure that lustre. By the Scriptures, it is well known, is here meant the Old Testament; for it was not in the Gospel that Christ first began to be manifested, but, having received testimony from the Law and the Prophets, he was openly exhibited in the Gospel.

-John Calvin on John 5:39

The Christ of Micah

I've been pretty sparce on original material lately. I have been churning out papers for the end of the semester, and have about 30 pages worth to go before Tuesday, which wouldn't be so bad if one of them wasn't a Hebrew paper. Anyway, I thought if I were to post anything it would be from a paper.

I just finished a paper on Micah following a method that kept everything within a historical-grammatical-only method, which I distain (see here). Last time this happened with Job I went back through the book to see what it really meant by the criteria of Christ (John 5:39; Luke 24:44-45) rather than old German Liberal methods, and I found Christ has something to do with Job! Anyway, I threw this paragraph on the end of the paper on Micah as my conclusion just for fun and truth's sake:

Micah is not rightly read or understood until it leads to Christ. (DTS Doctrinal Statement Article 1) Christ is the climax of Micah’s restoration. The labor pains of judgment for sin give birth to Christ, in predicted Bethlehem. (Matt 2:1-6; Micah 5:2) Micah predicts a greater restoration of the Temple than Ezra records. (Ezra 3:12; Micah 4:1) Jesus points to Himself as that Temple, greater than the Temple built in the restoration. (Matthew 12:6) Micah’s greater ruler, who’s ways were from ancient days, is the eternal second Person of the Trinity. (Micah 5:2) Micah’s great shepherd is the Good Shepherd. (Micah 5:4; John 10) Christ is the firstborn, sacrificed where Israel’s would not do. (Micah 6:7) Some of the promises of Micah await fulfillment in full, such as the bringing of peace to all the earth (Micah 4:3). Whether these promises have been realized, begun to be realized or await another day, nothing could be more sure than that they all find their fulfillment and realization in Jesus the Messiah. (John 5:39; Luke 24:44-45) The ultimate resolution to the argument of Micah, then, is Christ.

What is the Bible about?

Who said this?

"We believe that all the Scriptures center about the Lord Jesus Christ in His person and work in His first and second coming, and hence that no portion, even of the Old Testament, is properly read, or understood, until it leads to Him."

Ignatius of Antioch on Interpretation

Ignatius of Antioch was likely trained by the Apostles themselves. He had the unenviable task of shepherding the church after the Apostles were gone. A controversy arose in which Christians were debating the proper interpretation of the Old Testament Scriptures (which they refered to as the archives). Some people were arguing with Ignatius' proclamation that Jesus was the subject and controlling hermeneutic of the Old Testament:

Ignatius Letter to the Philladelphians 8:2-9:2 -

"I urge you do nothing in a spirit of contentiousness, but in accordance with the teaching of Christ. For I heard some people say, "If I do not find it in the archives, I do not believe it in the gospel." And when I said to them, "It is written," they answered, "That is precisely the question." But for me, the 'archives' are Jesus Christ, the unalterable archives are His cross and death and His resurrection and the faith comes through Him; by these things I want, through your prayers, to be justified.

The priests, too, were good, but the High Priest, entrusted with the Holy of Holies, is better; He alone has been entrusted with the hidden things of God, for He Himself is the door of the Father, through which Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and the prophets and the apostles and the church enter in.. All these come together in the unity of God. But the gospel possesses something distinctive, namely, the coming of the Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ, His suffering, and the resurrection. For the beloved prophets preached in anticipation of Him, but the gospel is the imperishable finished work. All these things together are good, if you believe with love."

De Bres on Church Authority

Guido de Bres was one of the principle authors of the Belgic Confession. Recently, I found an excerpt on a blog from an episode of his life that bares interest. In May, Guido was tried before the Spanish Inquisition. When Guido was asked to recant his beliefs, based on the authority of the officials of the Church, Guido replied:

"I still hold the same position that I did at the time when by quick testimony from the Word of God, you made me appear to be contrary. As I have said, I am not stubborn, and do not prefer my judgment to the judgment of the Church. But I do certainly prefer with clear thinking and just cause the ancient and early Church in which the Apostles set up all things according to the ordinance of Christ. I prefer that to the church of our time which is loaded with a vast number of human traditions, and which has degenerated itself in a remarkable way from the early Church. With good reason, I say, I hold to that which the Apostles first received. For Jesus Christ, in Revelation 2, says to those in Thyatira that they should beware of the profound trickeries of Satan, to beware of false doctrine. He says, “I will put on you no other burden, only that which you have already, hold fast to this until I come.” He would not have spoken thus if it would have been necessary to receive all the novelties which the Roman church has fabricated and daily put forth as a divine commission. Indeed, I honor greatly the learned and holy persons who have preceded us, but especially the Apostles and Prophets, and their testimony is certain and indubitable."

Guido was executed by hanging on May 31, 1565.

Putting my Bible Back Together

It is a cliche today to speak of the Bible as a coherent story, from Genesis to Revelation. But as I've said before, we may think of the Bible more through the lens of what is disunified rather than unified, especially between Old and New Testaments. The details of how we put the Bible together, however, is the real work of Biblical Theology. There have been multiple explanations that I have heard. What is the story about? Most will say "God" but we must be more specific than that when answering: What is the unifying narrative theme of the Bible?

Is it the Kingdom?

This is the first theme I heard when someone was trying to explain the Biblical Narrative. This sees the Bible as narrating the reign of God. This explanation, however, seems to not account for all the data. The goal of the preacher would be to declare God's Lordship, calling for obedience. But the Bible narrates so much disobedience and inability on the part of man. If the theme is God's Kingdom and God's giving man dominion, then most of the Bible is a narrative of the failure of that project.

"The movement of God towards man"

This answer was given by a professor I admire. I think this may be closer to the heart of the answer. However, it also seems to miss the narrative of man's flight from God. It is too vague.


History of Redemption

From Genesis 3 onward, man rebels. If God's kingdom was his only concern, he ought to have killed man in justice and started over with better subjects. If it is a general movement of God towards man, we can see this, but God was nearest man in Genesis. I think it is better to think of the narrative of the Bible as the history of redemption.

Genesis - man and God are in communion, but man sins.

Revelation - man is restored to an even better home and communion than the garden.

In between - the story of God's character revealed in love for His people through His Son ensues.

But how do we plug the details of the story into this narrative? A few books that have helped me:

Biblical Theology - Geerhardus Vos

Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation (Essays) by Geerhardus Vos

Redemptive History and the New Testament by Herman Ridderbos

Paul: An Outline of His Theology by Herman Ridderbos

A History of the Work of Redemption by Jonathan Edwards

Semi-Marcionism

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness"
-2 Timothy 3:16

Nearly daily, I find myself in a seminary context. I've been having a re-occuring reaction when discussing theological issues with Christians (especially strict old school dispensationalists). Many times an issue that will come up where most every other Evangelical friend I have will take a different stand. This may be the issue of the Sabbath, or how a covenant works, or the nature and method of worship. Every conversation is starting to end the same way. I quote or exegete Scripture and the other person says that Scripture is not authoritative or binding. They don't say it in that way, but the effect is the same. You see, when this happens, I tend to be quoting or exegeting the Old Testament.

I want to call it Marcionism, but that is too harsh. Marcion saw the Old Testament as containing a different God. This Semi-Marcionism of today sees the same God in the Old Testament, but with a different system of religion, so not authoritative today. The buzz words are "fulfillment" and "radical discontinuity." These words usually communicate that the Old Testament may have been fine in its day, but now is passe. Back then, God was concerned about those things, but He got over it.

If one argues that "there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God," one is told either that is Old Testament and not repeated in the New Testament (even though my wording is a quote from Hebrews 4:9) or that Christ fulfilled the Law and we don't need to worry about it anymore.

If one argues that worship is covenant renewal based on Exodus 24, one is told that is Old Testament worship and New Testament worship is completely different. Different how? Now it is "in Spirit" (whatever that means). Why? Because it is. Fulfillment! Radical Discontinuity! New Covenant trumps old covenant!

Let's be honest. Most American Evangelicals treat the Old Testament as Apocryphal. It contains some interesting history and background, but it is not really Scripture and authoritative like the true canon: The New Testament. True, it is never stated that way. Instead, it is either couched in language of "fulfillment" or the new covenant trumping the old. But the effect is the same. The Old Testament's theology is seen as no longer binding or true unless stated in the New Testament. Radical discontinunity becomes a convenient way to disregard 2/3's of the Bible.

Fulfillment is certainly a Scriptural concept. I know Christ fulfilled the Law (Matthew 5:21). Some of that mean that there are some things in the Old Testament that no longer apply (such as national or ceremonial Law). But fulfillment does not mean abolish. (Matt 5:17) By thinking fulfillment means abolish, the concept has been applied too broadly and come to merely mean: the Old Testament has no authority. The Old Testament is pictured as a different religion of the Jews. Even if the Old Testament presents a doctrine in a certain way, our particular understanding of the New Testament is all that counts. Christianity is seen to contradict the old (read: outdated) ways and so "fulfillment" is just another word for abolishing a bad thing rather than development of a good thing. The Sabbath, how a covenant works and the method and nature of worship are then all bad things we don't like, that God finally got right in the New Testament. We quote Augustine: "The New is in the Old contained, and the Old is in the New explained." We don't mean it though. We really mean: " The New is in the Old in certain parts, and the Old is in the New explained away."

The real reasons we dismiss the Old Testament:

1) We don't read the Old Testament.

Our time answers to the demands of real life. This is legit, to a degree. Life requires work. But when we get a free moment, we'd rather not think, but unwind. So we watch television and surf the web. If we do devotions they are from the New Testament, and when we read the Old Testament, it is not as someone under authority, but as story.

2) We aren't taught the Old Testament

Measure your Old Testament sermons compared to New Testament sermons. Then, when the Old Testament is taught, how often is theology in view rather than marriage tips from Song of Solomon and Ruth, parenting tips from the Patriarchs, and trusting God generically in generic situations?

3) We don't like the Old Testament world

The Old Testament deals with people as a group. As nations and families. We function as individuals. There is a distinction between clergy and laypeople. We hate hierarchy and authority. There are kings. We are democrats. People go to war in the Old Testament. We like peaceful and happy Jesus, not wrathful and angry Yahweh. The Old Testament contains these people called prophets, and we think prophecy is just prediction. If we ever read the prophets, we find more judgment and commands than we desired, and when we come to the prophets we find they don't "prophecy" like Nostradamus and the prophecies do not become "fulfilled" in the way we think they should be. So, we ignore and neglect the prophets and merely assume it is for scholars to confirm and give us the two sentence version.

4) The Old Testament is long

We have the New Testament at about half the length of the Old Testament. We prefer to read the New Testament instead...though we really merely repeat what we've heard other people say about it because,

5) We prefer a tradition of supposed biblicism (we'd rather claim to be Biblical than read the Bible)

We hear others talk about the Bible and give us a few conclusions. We trust them and think by doing so, we are Biblical. So if something else is argued, even if the Bible is referenced, we think it is not "Biblical." Nevermind "searching the Scriptures to see if it is so."

We ought to be honest. Either Evangelicals should relabel their Old Testaments as Apocrypha or start taking them seriously. I don't know what is meant by fulfillment and radical discontinuity anymore other than that person does not think the Old Testament functions as Scripture. We must have a theology of the Old Testament that recognizes what Paul said about the Old Testament: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Ad Fontes.

Ignorance of Scripture is Ignorance of Christ

I love this selection from Jerome I came across recently. Jerome states a principle we ought to honor as a true axiom of our age: Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. No one can neglect Scripture and claim a devotion to Christ or claim personal relationship over study, reading and knowledge of the Scriptures.

Jerome's introduction to the Book of Isaiah:

“I interpret as I should, following the command of Christ: Search the Scriptures, and Seek and you shall find. Christ will not say to me what he said to the Jews: You erred, not knowing the Scriptures and not knowing the power of God. For if, as Paul says, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God, and if the man who does not know Scripture does not know the power and wisdom of God, then ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.

Therefore, I will imitate the head of a household who brings out of his storehouse things both new and old, and says to his spouse in the Song of Songs: I have kept for you things new and old, my beloved. In this way permit me to explain Isaiah, showing that he was not only a prophet, but an evangelist and an apostle as well. For he says about himself and the other evangelists: How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news, of those who announce peace. And God speaks to him as if he were an apostle: Whom shall I send, who will go to my people? And he answers: Here I am; send me.

No one should think that I mean to explain the entire subject matter of this great book of Scripture in one brief sermon, since it contains all the mysteries of the Lord. It prophesies that Emmanuel is to be born of a virgin and accomplish marvellous works and signs. It predicts his death, burial and resurrection from the dead as the Savior of all men. I need say nothing about the natural sciences, ethics and logic. Whatever is proper to holy Scripture, whatever can be expressed in human language and understood by the human mind, is contained in the book of Isaiah...

it was not the air vibrating with the human voice that reached their ears , but rather it was God speaking within the soul of the prophets, just as another prophet says: It is an angel who spoke in me; and again, Crying out in our hearts, Abba, Father’, and I shall listen to what the Lord God says within me.” — Jerome’s Commentary on Isaiah (Nn. 1.2: CCL 73, 1-3)

HT: Cyberbrethren

Exile, Circumcised Hearts and Christ

Reformed Forum has a fascinating discussion (after the first 5 minutes for book reviews) on the promise of return from exile and the disappointment of Ezra-Nehemiah in return, for it was not the full fulfillment to come 400 years later in Christ.

Also, an interesting exploration of the tension of Circumcision of the heart as command:

Deu 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn.

And circumcision of the heart as promise:

Deu 30:6 And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.

That the command of the requirement for Israel of obedience to get the promise, must be given by God in His promise before the stipulation may be met. God demands, yet God gives all that He demands. I would add, the only one to perfectly circumcise his heart is Christ, the True Israel, and His obedience grants us the promise of a circumcised heart.

Listen below:


Audio here

Once for All Given to the Saints

Dr. D. Jeffrey Bingham on the virtue of orthodox faith:

Does the Bible teach Limited Atonement?

It may, and has been, alleged that Scripture does not teach Limited Atonement, but that Limited Atonement is a product of Calvinist Scholasticism. That Limited Atonement is a product of cold rationalism.

Let us first define what we mean by “Limited Atonement.” Limited refers to the aim, scope or purpose for which the atonement was commissioned. Calvinists contend that the Atonement was commissioned for the purpose of redeeming the number of the elect, and that it was actual in accomplishing and redeeming those people. This is why Scripture speaks of Jesus the Messiah in this way:

Matthew 1:21 “ you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."”

What is lauded as great and glorious in the work of God is not potential or that Jesus “may or might” accomplish His aim, but that He did accomplish His aim. The effects of the atonement are then limited to that number of the elect that are His people and not for the unelect. The Father chose those whom He would save and the Son commenced His work to redeem and to actually save those lost persons. The reward of Christ's death is the number of those elect.

I have already made the case that the term “world” refers to the diversity of peoples in that number of the elect, and not “every single person” as many English or Latin glosses of the word suggest. But this may be said to make the case that these verses that speak of Jesus dying for the “world” or being “Savior of the world” are not proof texts for Unlimited or Universal Atonement, but does not make the case that the Scripture explicitly teaches a particular aim of the Atonement for the number of the elect rather than every single person. Fair enough.

I would like to make my case thusly: In the case of “Limited,” how does the Scripture talk about the particularity of Christ's work. Is it spoke of as excluding, or all encompassing? Secondly, does this also apply when speaking of the death of Christ?

[I make no claims on originality in basic argument, though the words and commentary are mine, some of this line of reasoning is found in The Death of Death by John Owen]

LIMITED INTERCESSION

First, let us agree on the way that Christ's intercession is spokenof. In other words, can we say Christ intercedes for the elect and not for the unelect? This issue is important, for the link between the death of Christ and the intercession on behalf of those for whom Christ died is explicit from the Old Testament to the New Testament.

Few Christians would object that Isaiah 53 speaks of the Messiah. The end of Isaiah 53 concludes that the work of the Suffering Servant is “he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors. ” Here we see the work of Messiah can be said to be of two offices in redeeming the lost: First, the Messiah is to “bare sin.” We know this is the teaching of Isaiah 53 concerning the atoning death of Christ. The second office is making “intercession for the transgressors.” This refers to Christ, as John puts it, being an Advocate with the Father to stand in place of us for our sins (1 John 2:1). It is a matter of assurance for the believer that Christ makes intercession for them. This is not general, for then all persons would be saved. It is particular to the elect. We know this for Paul says such:

Rom 8:33 Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.
Rom 8:34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died--more than that, who was raised--who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.

Therefore, unless we are Universalist (believing all persons obtain eternal life) we know that the way we are able to stand without charge is the intercession, the mediatorial work of Christ on our behalf. This is due to a particular work for the elect, that is not for the the unelect. How do we know Christ does not intercede for the unelect? First, Paul tells us the pardon for the elect is assured by Christ's intercession. Second, we would have to believe the Father is not accepting the work of Christ as sufficient to answer Christ's request (The Father would be denying the Son's worthiness to make such a request) and Finally, Jesus Himself tells us, in His High Priestly Prayer to the Father that He does not pray for the unelect world, but merely the world of the elect:

Joh 17:9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.

Joh 17:19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be
sanctified in truth.

LIMITED ATONEMENT

It is my contention that Christ intercedes only for the elect, for He died only for the elect. His work is not divided. The work of Christ is commissioned only for the elect, not part of it commissioned for every single person and part of it commissioned for only the elect. Jesus, even before His death, specified the particularity of His mission, and responded to the unelect telling them:

Joh 10:25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me,
Joh 10:26 but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock.
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
Joh 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

The work of Christ is here said to be for His flock. This is not a potential flock. This is an actual flock, a set number given to Christ from His Father. The suggestion that they come in and out of His possession at their own will is counted as insulting: “no one will snatch them out of my hand.” For to lose a sheep from the flock would be to impugn the goodness of the shepherd:

Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me,
Joh 10:15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.

If Christ loses His sheep, we must say He is not a good enough or strong enough shepherd to keep them. But Christ knows His sheep (10:14), for they are the ones for which Christ “lays down his life” (10:11). No one for whom Christ lays down His life will be lost. If Christ died for every single person, and any person is lost, Christ is a liar.

Another way this is communicated by Biblical authors is by Paul's language of the particular love Christ has for His church. The love of Christ is analogous to this love in Ephesians 5:25:

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

What principle is able to be derived for Christians if Christ gave Himself up for those other than His Church? Are Husbands here told to love their wives as they would love any other random woman? Are our wives to be told that we love them the same amount, and give our love to them in the same way as we do to all women? As intimate as the love of a husband is for a wife, so is the particular love of Christ that compels Christ to give up His life in death for her, in a way that He does not do for those who are not His bride. It is a particular, not general or universal love that God speaks of with his bride, not of any inherent worth of His bride but:

Deu 7:7-8a It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the LORD loves you

God loves His people, Christ loves His bride, because: He loves her. God's love determines His people, God's love is not determined by people. It is to a particular people, not every single person that Scripture assures:

Act 20:28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

Heb 9:23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
Heb 9:25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,
Heb 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Bible: Explicit Content

Over the past three years, I have studied Scripture in a way that I only pretended to before. Such a project has yielded quite a few surprises. Prophecy does not work the way I thought it would. The narrative has a finer point, and a more singular theme, than I assumed. And the content is not as family friendly as expected.

It is a cliché today that if the Bible was made into a movie, it would at least be rated R. We say that mostly because of episodes of violence such as most of the book of Joshua. We may even mean hints of sexual immorality in characters like Judah and David. It is well known that some graphic episodes are recorded.

This is not what I am talking about. What I mean is the words of men, speaking on behalf of God, saying things that would get them an "explicit content" warning if they put it on a CD, or a “banned” status in a church library. Not that you have noticed these things, because the English translators tend to protect our tender ears. Three passages have stood out to me, that when I have studied them more closely have shocked me at their actual content, none of which comes across in modern English translations, like say, in the ESV or NIV.

The legitimate question arises: to what degree does a Christian have the right to shock with their language and in what way? What may be helpful is to see how the Bible does so, assuming of course that the Bible is not to be condemned for its language. The point is to see what the Bible does in its language as a pattern for our own limits of speech, not to look at “naughty” parts in the Bible for shock or “giggle” effect.

We'll start off tame.

First is a familiar verse.

Phillipians 3:8:

Php 3:8 ESV - "Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ."

THE IMAGE: The word translated as “rubbish” is much more specific. The word “σκύβαλον” or skubalon refers to, according to the NET note, “a vulgar term for fecal matter.” Wycliffe chose the word “turds” for his medieval English translation. A closer translation would be, (as privately explained by a Greek expert) a harsher term than crap, closer to “sh*t.” Martin Luther used an equivalent in his German translation of the Bible. (and Daniel Wallace concurs in a word study on σκύβαλον)

THE PURPOSE: Paul is using sh*t as an image of what is produced apart from Christ. It has no worth or value. It is considered to be as worthy of honor as feces. Paul does not use this image as a teenager might for the “naughty” or “giggle” factor, but to shock his audience that may be tempted to honor their works. He wants them to know their works are not just worth a little less, but worthless. As worthy as of a place in their trophy case as their excrement.

ISAIAH 64:6

Isaiah 64:6 ESV - We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

THE IMAGE: The word translated “polluted garment” or in other versions “filthy rags” also is much more specific. The NET, again, is more literal: “all our so-called righteous acts are like a menstrual rag in your sight.” BDB confirms the word translated “filthy” is purposefully mistranslated, instead means “menstrual.” The image is one of a soiled rag used during female menstration. In our modern speech, it would be more understood as “a used tampon.”

THE PURPOSE: Paul learns his explicit language from Isaiah who is using his language in the same way. Isaiah is comparing the best, the “righteousness acts,” of the people of God to something that is valueless. They have the market value of “used tampons.” Not a positive value, but a negative value. Isaiah uses this imagery to shock Israel into a re-evaluation of their own goodness.

EZEKIEL 23:20

Eze 23:19-20 ESV - Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses.

THE IMAGE: The ESV extremely sanitizes the image of Ez 23:20 to the point that the translation no longer communicates the message. The translators of the ESV might as well have left the verse in the original Hebrew. Multiple words are archaicly translated or mistranslated to hide the meaning. “paramours” are concubines, prostitutes or as the ESV translates it in other places: whores. “Members” is the word that can be translated "flesh" or here meaning “penis.” And the word “issue” is so opaque as to hide the true definition: “semen discharge.” One can see why the ESV (and most other modern) translators wished to keep it vague. If your child had a book that read, “she lusted after whores, whose penises were like those of donkeys, and whose semen discharge was like that of horses” you probably would freak out a little.

THE PURPOSE: Ezekiel is a strange book to me. Revelation has nothing on it in my mind. This is one image I truly read and wonder what was the purpose. It seems nearly to be shock for the sake of shock. Yet the image does have a striking and powerful point. The point is that Israel had committed idolatry, and an image so disgusting had to be painted in order to show just how offended God was by their behavior. This was not a small matter, a small offense, something God was just supposed to shrug off. The image is of an act of adultery so shocking and vial as to make one completely sure that it was unforgiveable. The grace of God is only shocking, and loved and something to shead tears over in pursuing, and obtaining, when the weight of our own sin is personally felt, disgusting to us, and mourned.

WHY THE LANGUAGE?

In seeing three examples (and there are more in that barely-cracked OT section of your Bible), we see Paul, Isaiah, and Ezekiel using images that are hard to read, and definitely not comforting. They were not meant to be. Which pushes us to a few natural questions:

1)Why do translators protect us from Isaiah, Ezekiel and Paul's offensive language?

Is it to sanitize the Bible so as to make it “family friendly” or to purposeful hide the message? The former is almost certainly so. Modern translators are not conspiring to hide God's truth. They probably wish not to be offense to the reader. But sanitizing the Bible also has another effect. In the American church, sin is not mourned, and when it is, it is rather hated in easily identifyable and foreign terms. It is identified as the acts of those outside the church (read: homosexuality, drug use, etc.) and not as Paul, Isaiah and Ezekiel identify it: as acts of those in the church. The church could use some shocking language of their own sin.

2)To what degree should such explicit language be used by Christians communicating the kerygma?

This is a harder question. Perhaps the most famous of “shock quotes” comes from Tony Campolo who said in a few speeches:

"I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a sh*t. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said 'sh*t' than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.”

One of my favorite artists, Derek Webb, used a similar line (“give a sh*t”) in a new song of his. The question is: are Derek Webb and Tony Campolo being like Paul, Isaiah and Ezekiel?

Not exactly. I think the use is more crude with Campolo. Paul uses the word with a direct comparison. Skubala = what you value that came before Christ. For Campolo, the word is merely an explative. Phrases such as “give a sh*t” or “what the f*&$” are merely vulgar without a shocking comparison. The words do not fill in or compare to something that we are offended are being compared to it. The purpose is shock for the sake of shock and showing a comparison of your shock at one offense at another. It is comparing two sins, my vulgarity and your apathy, rather than comparing your sin to something. Perhaps a good rhetorical device, but not exactly on the level of Paul or Isaiah. I don't necessarily condemn it though, as a use in art (Webb's new song) or as a speech to a certain audience (Campolo). However it is a different question than:

Should a preacher use such language? Here, I think my answer must be yes/no. The Campolo use (shock for the sake of shock) is not the job of a preacher. Paul did not say “you don't give a sh*t about the gospel!” or “what the f*%k are you Galatians doing abandoning the gospel?!” Rather, Paul used the word to shock his readers in a comparison of values. What you value is worthless. Worse than worthless, it is feces. So too, with Isaiah. Ezekiel uses his image to show not that he can shock with language, but how shocking the sin of the people of God is, as shocking as an explicit image of adultery. When used this way, when following the text, the preacher should use explicit language to expose the hidden idolatry and shocking sin of his congregation. The Bible does so and the Bible is the text of the preacher's proclamation.

The lesson from looking at this text is not to be shocking for its own sake, at least in the pulpit. Rather, it is to be selectively shocking. The preacher must be careful not to desensitize the audience to explicit and shocking images, but to indeed expound them when presented in Scripture to the end that Scripture demands. Scripture demands we be shocked about our idolatry, sin and misguided affections. Scripture does not merely give us warrant to be shocking from the pulpit for the shear effect. So while I like Derek Webb's music, and he is free to do things in his music a preacher would not do, I would not quote it in the pulpit. Now Isaiah is an entirely different matter...

Hymn: Gospel in the Word

There are actually few hymns that specifically mention the Word, especially written. Isaac Watt's "Laden with Guilt and Full of Fears" is an exception. The hymn also includes what what is sought in Scripture: "Here I behold my Savior's face, in every page."


1. Laden with guilt and full of fears,
I fly to Thee, my Lord,
And not a glimpse of hope appears,
But in Thy written Word
The volumes of my Father’s grace
Does all my griefs assuage
Here I behold my Savior’s face
In every page.

2. This is the field where, hidden, lies
The pearl of price unknown
That merchant is divinely wise
Who makes the pearl his own
Here consecrated water flows
To quench my thirst of sin
Here the fair tree of knowledge grows,
No danger dwells within.

3. This is the judge that ends the strife,
Where wit and reason fail
My guide to everlasting life
Through all this gloomy vale
Oh may Thy counsels, mighty God,
My roving feet command,
Nor I forsake the happy road
That leads to Thy right hand.

Christ in Job

A friend of mine, after completing a degree in Theology, found an element missing from his education in reading the Bible. Certainly the degree he received had a course in Bible Study Methods, and several classes where Biblical historical and language skills were cultivated. Yet, as he explained, it was outside of those classes where he learned the most important aspect of Bible Study that he was missing: the point. The point or end or goal of all Scripture was the story of Redemption as accomplished in Christ. Post-graduation, he started personal study to see this in particular books in the Old Testament, such as Jonah and Habakkuk.

I have had a similar feeling of something missing, especially heightened over the past semester, if a previous post was not enough of a clue. I spent 3 and a half hours listening to lectures on the book of Job and at the end, Christ had not been mentioned once.

When I came to a more Reformation understanding of salvation years ago, besides Ephesians, one of my favorite books became Job. Such a statement seems strange, I have heard few say that Job is a favorite Biblical book. I had read the book before and not loved it, yet after understanding salvation, I now loved it. Why?

Job is a story of suffering and conversation. After Job's possessions are taken away, his children are dead and his health goes bad, Job has three friends that come to comfort him. Job opens his mouth and airs his complaint. He did not deserve this. He was righteous and worshiped God, so why does he get this in repayment? But not only that. Job has lived long enough to see that life is not fair. Justice seems thwarted when evil men succeed in life and honest men are robbed and die young.

Job's friends have horrible answers. They basically deny that anything bad does happen to righteous men. They are like the friend that, when something bad happens to you, asks you how you sinned to cause it. Or like the disciples in John 9:2 that ask whose sin caused the blind man to lose his sight. Their words are met with perhaps the best rebuke from Job in the book: "No doubt you are the people, and wisdom will die with you." (Job 12:2) Sarcasm must be Job's spiritual gift. The answer deserves a punch in the eye, it has no grip on reality. Righteous people do suffer, evil men do prosper.

Elihu, starting in chapter 32, begins his response. Elihu gives several possible answers to why suffering might occur. But Elihu himself does not have an answer for why Job personally suffers. In chapters 38-41, God Himself questions Job, asking Job if he has done what God has done or knows what God knows. Then Job shuts his mouth, and has some degree of restoration.

What was the book of Job's answer? When Job asks why good men suffer and bad men prosper, why death reigns and pain affects all men, what is the answer to Job's question?

There are two main possibilities:

1. Elihu - This view says Job has sinned in his reaction to his pain. And so Elihu is the mediator that Job was longing for (Job 9:32-33). Elihu thus gives many possibilities for why suffering occurs:

Suffering can be for the purpose of education, preventing something else, corrective, for God's glory, to change one's priorities, a stimulus to prayer, or it can be judgment.

So while Job was righteous before the pain, Job is seen to have sinned in his response to pain. Elihu is seen as the rebuker of Job's sin in pain and introduces God who then continues the rebuke of Job's unrighteousness in pain. Job's fault is that he didn't take it like a man.

I do not take this view for a few reasons. One, it shows Satan was right. In the beginning of the book the whole point of the trials of Job was for God to demonstrate to Satan that indeed Job trusted God, and not merely because God had given Job much. If Job was sinning in offering his complaints (though obviously in some of the hyperbolic ways he says it), then Satan was right.

Two, it would make Job 42:7 a very odd verse indeed:

Job 42:7 - After the LORD had spoken these words to Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite: "My anger burns against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has."

How has Job spoken rightly? Let's look at the second possibility:


2. The book of Job gives no final answer.

This answer seems to be wrong on its face. I will, however, try to explain why I think it is the right answer. Certainly, Elihu does give many good possibilities for what God may be doing in the midst of suffering. Elihu's answers are certainly possibilities. Yet, they are not sufficient.

To merely look for fault in Job, and say that Job sinned and the point of the book is to shut up when you experience pain, ignores the seriousness of Job's case and why this book would bother with 30 chapters exploring Job's complaint. Job states his problems directly and with a true resonating force:

The evil prosper:

Job 21:29-34: "Have you not asked those who travel the roads, and do you not accept their testimony that the evil man is spared in the day of calamity, that he is rescued in the day of wrath? Who declares his way to His face, and who repays him for what he has done? When he is carried to the grave, watch is kept over his tomb. The clods of the valley are sweet to him; all mankind follows after him, and those who go before him are innumerable. How then will you comfort me with empty nothings? There is nothing left of your answers but falsehood."


The problem of death

Job 14:10-12: "But a man dies and is laid low; man breathes his last, and where is he? As waters fail from a lake and a river wastes away and dries up, so a man lies down and rises not again; till the heavens are no more he will not awake or be roused out of his sleep."

The problem of cleansing

Job 14:4 "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one."


The problem of a distant God.

Job 23:3 "Oh, that I knew where I might find Him, that I might come even to His seat!"


The problems of the people of God

Job 16:2 "I have heard many such things; miserable comforters are you all."

Job 12:4 - "I am one mocked by his friends."

The problem of Revelation

Job 28:12 "But where shall wisdom be found? And where is the place of understanding?


The problem of mediation

Job 9:32-33 "For He is not a man, as I am, that I might answer Him, that we should come to trial together. There is no arbiter between us, who might lay his hand on us both."


The problem of wisdom not answering the problem of pain

Job 13:12 "Your maxims are proverbs of ashes; your defenses are defenses of clay. "

But how has Job spoken rightly? (Job 42:7) Was it merely the repentance? No, God is evaluating the conversation between Job and his friends. Thus, what Job's friends said on whole is not what was true, but what Job said on whole was. Job's friends had looked at Job as having to have done something particularly wrong himself that now Job was getting his due punishment for. It is much like the disciples in John 9:2 asking who sinned to make the man be blind. Instead, Job says the way the world works right now has something deeply wrong with it.

Certainly, we can all share this observation. G.K. Chesterton compared the human condition to a man ship wrecked on an island, yet with him has washed up artifacts from his civilized world. We are in a primitive and harsh world, yet we have things that tell us this is not how it was supposed to be. We have moments of beauty and love that make pain, suffering and injustice a problem. They are evidences that something is deeply wrong.

Job speaks rightly because Job diagnoses the problem of the fallen world. All the things Job cites ARE problems, not things to be ignored or said don't really affect the righteous. They do affect the righteous. They are problems in this world begging for an answer.

In the midst of Job's suffering, even though he cites all these real problems, Job also declares,

Job 19:25-27 - "For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last He will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God, whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another. My heart faints within me!"

Job doesn't know exactly how, but Job knows in his frustrations that the problems he cites will be addressed, and not just spiritually, but "in the flesh."

We know more fully now how that problem is addressed, and Who Job's Redeemer is. To the problem of death, Christ brings resurrection. To the problem of injustice, Christ will bring final judgment with the sword. To the problem of the poor comforts of the people of God, Christ is born under the Law, into the people of God, bringing perfect comfort and bringing the Comforter, the Spirit. To the problem of mediation between God and man, Christ, the God-man, brings Himself. To the problem of the defects of wisdom in answering the problem of pain, Christ Himself is the wisdom of God revealed and vindicated. To the problem of a distant God, Christ Himself is Immanuel, God with us. And to the problem of cleansing, Christ Himself comes to "wash us in water with the word."

Ultimately, the book of Job is unsatisfactory unless Christ is applied. To merely say that suffering is corrective or educational does not suffice. The world is not as it should be, and the existence of love and beauty and truth in the world point beyond themselves to restoration, not to become satisfactory in the present. Job is discontent with the world as it is, his friends try to justify it rather than look to its redemption. Job is truer in that Job's words beg for the Redeemer, while his friends words are false because they fail to recognize the need of a Redeemer.

Job's friends stand condemned. Elihu may offer helpful rebuke to the over-reaction of Job, yet we cannot look to him as the ultimate mediator between God and man. And God's dialogue does not just tell Job to shut up, but tells Job that He is the God of Creation, and so to trust Him that he can be the God of re-creation. In this way, the book of Job gives no final answer to the problem of pain. The book of Job and Job himself speaks truly because he asks the right questions. Job's questions wait for a further revelation. Job speaks rightly to identify the problems of a fallen world, and speaks even more rightly to identify the only thing he can hold onto, "I know that my Redeemer lives."

The cult of "historical-gramatical"

A presumption today is that an historical-grammatical approach to Biblical interpretation translates into solid, healthy, orthodox Christianity. Such is the assumption in evaluating sermons, constructing small group Bible studies and teaching college and seminary level courses on the Bible. In all these venues, one's exegesis is deemed "conservative" and orthodox if it relies on the grammatical structure (looking at how the words function in a particular Biblical passage) and the historical context (looking at the historical background and original understanding of a text when the Biblical book was written). These are the two elements of interpretation, and no others, for many exegetes.


I would, however, like to suggest that the historical-grammatical-only approach is not only not the only valid approach to interpretation, but when used by itself is anemic to Christian growth and a truly Christian and biblical reading of Scripture. But before you label me a liberal, let me explain:


Problems:

The historical-grammatical-only approach to Scripture has problems which mitigate against it.

1) It is wholly modern and novel

Though many respected teachers argue that an exegetical approach to the text of Scripture derived from historical-grammatical principles alone are the basis of correct interpretation, such an approach is very new in Christian Biblical interpretation. Even those seen as reading “close to the text” like Chrysostom did not employ this method alone. Old puritans, who one would think would teach the Scripture this way, teach the Song of Solomon as ultimately about Christ, something teachers ranging from Mark Driscoll to Tommy Nelson mock.

Yet, it is not merely because my beloved "Dead Theologians" don't use historical-grammatical alone, therefore I won't do it. There are even bigger reasons.


2) Historical-grammatical-only is a method not draw from Scripture

"Biblical Preaching" should at some point have a claim to "biblical" justification. Yet, our search of the Scriptures find no such thing. When Paul instructs Timothy, though Paul tells Timothy that Scripture is "God-breathed" and useful in all sorts of ways, no instruction is given to be careful only to teach Scripture as it was historically understood when it was written and how it is grammatically constructed. Paul's specific instructions, though lacking this, DO have instructions for Christian preachers.

Paul repeatedly gives the criteria for judging a Christian, biblical message: Christ is preached (1 Cor 1:23, Eph 3:8, Php 1:15, Rom 15:20, etc). This is the consistent content of the message of bible teachers for Paul.

But are these two things (historical-grammatical-only, and preaching Christ) opposed? Yes, for


3) Historical-Grammatical-only argues against a Christotelic reading of Scripture

Since reading it in several sources (Peter Enns, and G.K. Beale) my favorite example to display the unscriptural nature of an historical-grammatical-only approach is Matthew 2:15, where Matthew says that Christ fulfilled what is written in Hosea 11:1, "Out of Egypt, I have called my son."

Here's my challenge. Read Hosea 11. Show me how this can be read in an historical-grammatical-only way to see Christ. The passage actually speaks of Israel, not Christ. Historically, no Jew had read this passage as being about Christ. Grammatically, it makes no sense to see Christ in Hosea 11:1. We now have two possibilities: We can say that Matthew is a poor exegete of Scripture. Or, we can say that we have a flawed method of interpretation.

[I have shown elsewhere how we understand this passage if this problem just gave you an ulser]

Even if we say Matthew can do things differently than us, because he was inspired and had the Holy Spirit there to give him permission to do something we can never do (violate Historical-Grammatical-only interpretation) then we have done something else serious:


4) Historical-Grammatical-only undermines plenary inspiration

The Historical-Grammatical interperation is largely a modernist method for Bible study which assumes the authors of Scripture are human, ignoring divine inspiration. If we truly believe that Scripture is divinely guided, inspired beyond the knowledge of capability of human authors, then the original author and audience is not sufficient to understand all that Scripture is saying. Hosea 11:1 is understood by Hosea and Israel at the time to be refering to Israel. As Enns points out, after the Christ-event, Matthew would have to instruct Hosea on the full meaning of his words. Hosea and historical Israel are not the authority of final appeal on the meaning of Scripture. If they were the only authors and audience, then we could say so, but they are not.


Alternative?


Is there an alternative to reading Scripture only within a modernist Historical-Grammatical method? First we must say that, for as much as I have maligned it, the Historical-Grammatical method of inquiring into the original meaning of the text with historical and linguistic methods is not bad, and is in fact necessary to understanding Scripture. It is NOT, however, the end of our quest for the meaning of a text. Two passages come to mind on the final meaning of any major passage of Scripture.


First, Jesus appeared to two men after his resurrection:

Luke 24:44-45 - Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,

Second, Jesus also had some direct teaching for the Pharisees in John 5:

John 5:39-40 - "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life."

Christ gives us the biblical approach to reading and preaching Scripture: it points to Christ. How is this done without doing violence to a text? Here are a few quick suggestions in reading:


1) Pointed reading

Christ said that he came to fulfill the Law (Matt 5:17). Therefore, the Law has a particular assignment in Scripture to point to Christ in some way. If a Law is ceremonial about the sacrificial system, the sacrifice ultimately points to the need for a perfect sacrifice that did not need repeating, but is fulfilled in Christ. If the Law is civil dealing with governing or the kingdom, then the Law points to Christ as King, in His role as governing and his authority to rule. If the Law is moral, then it points to the character of Christ, a perfect moral Person, exercising justice and mercy perfectly in his Person and work.

And if it is prophetic...then hey, it's easy!


2) Typographical reading

Sometimes the Scripture will contain a narrative. There, the characters in the story will in some way point to Christ, either as type or anti-type. Even in direct typography, such as Christ as the New Adam (Romans 5) or the new David, the imperfections of the first are perfected in Christ, just as the command to Israel in Hosea 11:1 was to a disobedient son, while the command to Matthew was to an obedient son.


3) Theological reading

Sometimes a Scripture may just speak of the condition of man or the world. Such is the case with large portions of Job or Ecclesiates, where the state of man and the world are lamented. Here we see the result of Genesis 3 on everything, and we feel the angst that ultimately is resolved in Christ. We see concepts in Scripture that ultimately resolve theologically in Christ


4) Historical Redemptive Reading

The story of Scripture is one of redemption. From start to end, it is a story of sin, fall, calamity, and redemption and restoration. No matter where you are in the text of Scripture, one can find where one is in that story.

There's certainly more, but I am still a student of Scripture. I have not come to the end of how Scripture reveals Christ to the church, though I do know it is through more than a modernist historical-grammatical method.