Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love...

Genesis 22:1-2 - After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here am I.” He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”



I am teaching a Sunday School lesson on Genesis 22 and thought I would offer a few thoughts here.

We read this narrative and think:

“How can it be that God would require Abraham to sacrifice his all, his prosperity, his full love of his heart, his treasure, his son?!”

We see Abraham’s detailed meticulous preparation, over a long period of time, readying the sacrifice, preparing for the place and time of the sacrifice of his son for the sin’s of Adam’s race.

Yet, at the last moment, God stays Abraham’s arm and provides a substitute. A male sheep, a ram, a lamb of God.

But the Lamb was not the final substitute. The sacrifices continue throughout the story of the Old Testament.

Finally, when we reach the New Testament, we have a repetition of the themes of Genesis 22:

Genesis 22:2 He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love…

Matthew 3:17 And behold! A voice out of the heaven saying, “This is My Son, my Beloved, in whom I have been delighting.”
_________________________
Genesis 22:6 “And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son. And he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So they went up both of them together.”

John 19:17 and [Jesus] went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called The Place of a Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha.
____________________________
Genesis 22:8 Abraham said, “God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” So they went both of them together.

John 1:29 The next day [John] saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"

____________________________________________

Genesis 22:12b – “for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”

Romans 8:32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?

John 3:16-17 "For God loved the world in this way, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
_________________________________________
As Tim Keller put it: “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.”

We began asking:

“How can it be that God would require Abraham to sacrifice his all, his prosperity, his full love of his heart, his treasure, his son?!”

Now we are wondering:

“How can it be that God would supply what he required of Abraham, to sacrifice His all, His prosperity, His full love of His heart, His treasure, His Son?!”

The story of the Old Testament is God’s detailed meticulous preparation, over a long period of time, readying the sacrifice, preparing for the place and time of the sacrifice of His Son for the sins of Adam’s race.

And can it be that I should gain
An interest in the Savior's blood!
Died he for me? who caused his pain!
For me? who him to death pursued?
Amazing love! How can it be
that thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

The Hurtfulness of Not Preaching Christ

The Hurtfulness of Not Preaching Christ, and Distinguishing Duly Between Law and Gospel

a Poem by Ralph Erkine

Hell cares not how crude holiness be preach'd,
If sinner's match with Christ be never reach'd;
Knowing their holiness is but a sham,
Who ne'er are marry'd to the holy Lamb.

Let words have never such a pious shew,
And blaze aloft in rude professor's view,
With sacred aromatics richly spic'd,
If they but drown in silence glorious Christ;

Or, if he may some vacant room supply,
Make him a subject only by the by;
They mar true holiness with tickling chat,
To breed a bastard Pharisaic brat.

They wofully the gospel message-broke,
Make fearful havock of their Master's flock;
Yet please themselves and the blind multitude,
By whom the gospel's little understood.

Rude souls, perhaps, imagine little odds
Between the legal and the gospel roads:
But vainly men attempt to blend the two;
They differ more than Christ and Moses do.

Moses, evangelizing in a shade,
By types the news of light approaching spread;
But from the law of works, by him proclaim'd,
No ray of gospel-grace or mercy gleam'd.

By nature's light the law to all is known,
But lightsome news of gospel-grace to none.
The doing cov'nant now, in part or whole,
Is strong to damn, but weak to save a soul.

It hurts, and cannot help, but as it tends
Through mercy to subserve some gospel-ends.
Law-thunder roughly to the gospel tames,
The gospel mildly to the law reclaims.

The fiery law, as 'tis a covenant,
Schools men to see the gospel-aid they want;
Then gospel-aid does sweetly them incline
Back to the law, as 'tis a rule divine.

Heaven's healing work is oft commenc'd with wounds,
Terror begins what loving-kindness crowns.
Preachers may therefore press the fiery law,
To strike the Christless men with dreadful awe.

Law-threats which for his sins to hell depress.
Yea, damn him for his rotten righteousness;
That while he views the law exceeding broad,
He fain may wed the righteousness of God.

But, ah! to press the law-works as terms of life,
was ne'er the way to court the Lamb a wife.
To urge conditions in the legal frame,
Is to renew the vain old cov'nant game.

The law is good, when lawfully 'tis used,
But most destructive, when it is abused.
They set not duties in the proper sphere,
Who duly law and gospel don't sever;

But under many chains let sinners lie,
As tributaries, or to DO or DIE.
Nor make the law a squaring rule of life,
But in the gospel-throat a bloody knife.

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

God without Christ?

Came across this great quote on Reverand Paul McCain's Website:

He who wants to know God, love God, worship God, and serve God should learn to know Christ aright, should love Christ, should worship Christ, and serve Him. To know, love, worship, or serve God without Christ is impossible.

-Martin Luther

"High-Church" Preaching?

“You have a high-church approach to preaching, which is fine, but we're more used to practical preaching.”

This was what I was told after outlining my plan to preach that the story of Jacob and Esau was about gracious election in Christ. In this class on preaching, I was told that contrasting the merit-based love of Isaac to the gracious love of God was not wrong, just high minded. It was fine, but depended on the forum. It was a thing of higher thinking, more complex with abstract connections.

I wondered: is that true? Is being theological or Christocentric/Christotelic (preaching with the end biblical theme of Christ) “high-church”? The person knew I was Presbyterian, and so perhaps that is where the comment came from. Most Presbyterians, however, would be quite surprised to hear they were high-church, having descended from non-conformists that thought the Anglican church was too high church. Still, Presbyterianism seems high church compared to typical non-denominational/charismatic worship.

Still, I truly wondered if it was true. Could people other than the highly educated 'get' a theological sermon? Depending on the audience, did one need to keep it simple, give some pithy imperatives and walk the congregation through some super specific hypothetical applications and wrap up with a fun story?

If this is true, Protestantism is false. Theology makes up a good portion of the Scriptures - all of it in some sense, but a good portion in a proper sense. Are Paul's letters to be neglected in preaching? Are they to be translated into fun stories? Is Hebrews a book of shadows for the typical congregant? Protestantism believes in the intelligibility/perspicuity of Scripture. If it is not, we ought to be Gnostics or Catholics, but I repeat myself.

I preached my sermon on election, without ever even saying the word (we allow God to 'choose to love' even if we don't allow him to “elect”). It wasn't the best sermon in world. It wasn't my favorite of the ones I preached. It probably wasn't even the best delivered that day of three. But I was encouraged when one person caught me afterward and asked if I have opportunities to preach somewhere.

“Occasionally,” I replied.

“You should use that one, I needed it.”

Maybe doctrine and the Gospel are practical. Even with the flaws my sermon had, I do believe God rewards preaching the word of Christ, for “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” (Rom 10:17) If that's high church preaching, I think I'm in good company with Paul.

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."

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

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

Bavinck on Christ as Word of God

"He [Christ] is the Logos in an utterly unique sense, revealer and revelation alike. In him, all revelations of God, all words of God, in nature and history, in creation and re-creation, under the Old and New Testaments, have their ground, their unity and center. He is the sun; the particular words of God are its rays. The word of God in nature, in Israel, in the New Testament, in Scripture may not for a moment be detached or thought about apart from Him. God’s revelation exists only because He is the Logos. He is the principium cognoscendi [the principle of knowing], in the general sense of all knowledge, in the special sense, as logos ensarkos [the word infleshed], of all knowledge of God, of religion and theology."

-Herman Bavinck. Reformed Dogmatics Volume 1. pg 402.

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.

Reformed Spirituality: Defining Spirituality

In exploring the topic of Spirituality, our first question is: “What is Spirituality?” In consulting many non-religious sources, most gave a definition of

1) There is no definition

Or

2) An Experience with the Divine

The first definition is of course nonsense. The second however is telling. Spirituality is an existential concept in popular thought. Our concern, however, is Christian Spirituality. Therefore, our concern is not merely with a “Divine” essence in general, but the Christian God in particular. Consulting various Christian definitions given by people such as Alister McGrath and Richard Foster, a broadly Christian definition tends to include at least 3 aspects:

1) Involves Spirit, (since it is called spirituality)
2) experience of God
3) is about the Christian Life over time.

If we want to find something less generic and more Reformed, we will find these elements to be insufficient. In constructing our definition, we need to look at more than Christian Spiritual Gurus and to the principles of Reformed Christianity.

Reformed Christians generally accepted and took up the name “Reformed” not merely as a reforming of Catholicism, but from their principle that the human person must be “Reformed by the Word.” By this, we understand that Spirituality must be based on the Word made flesh (Christ) and the Word written (Scripture). Since we know Christ by means of the Scripture, a Reformed approach to Spirituality must be Scriptural. Because our approach must be Scriptural, our definition is as follows:

Spirituality is the Christian Life centering on Christ by the power of the Spirit as Christ reveals God to us as taught by and through Scripture.

The focal idea here is that the principle object of our contemplation, affection and instruction is Christ. Our shorthand definition then can be:

• “Encountering God in Christ.”

This may bring up certain objections and questions. First, if our approach must be scriptural, why do you draw the conclusion that it must be centered on Christ? Wouldn’t it be centered on Scripture? Scripture indeed is our true guide in the faith. But it is our guide to somewhere else. Jesus tells the Pharisees in John 5:37-40

“the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen, and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. 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."

The role of Scripture is to testify and lead one to Christ. Our center then is not on Scripture, but through Scripture to Christ.

Secondly, if we are talking about Spirituality, why is the Spirit not the focus of our contemplation, guidance and instruction? In John 15:26, Christ teaches his disciples what the role of the Spirit is:

"But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.”

The role of the Spirit, like Scripture and working with Scripture is to lead the believer to Christ. The Spirit works through the Scripture to bring the believer to Christ for substance. A Reformed, or we might merely say Scriptural, view of Spirituality then is a pursuit of how we understand the principle need, source and means of Spirituality. In all, Spirituality is about “Encountering God in Christ.”

Why I cannot be Roman Catholic (Part 4): I believe Mary is the Theotokos

My summer free time reading has been filled with Historical Theology. In reading the history of doctrine, I noticed I had a blind spot: Mary. My attention to Mary, mother of Jesus, only consisted in the fact that she was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. Beyond that, what was there to learn from her? Soon, I realized there was much to learn from her.

First, what did it mean that she was the mother of Jesus? In the Christological debates asking about the deity of Christ, the most orthodox thing to say about Mary was that she was "Θεοτόκος" (Theo=God, tokos=bearer). This does not mean Mary is "God the Mother” (as I heard one person attack the term), but that Mary is “God-bearer.” This title contains the baffling paradox, that a teenage single mother carried inside her the One who created her, Who created the earth she walked on and the universe in which that earth hung. The Creator was held in a creature.

Second, I had to learn that Mary was supreme in her commitment to Jesus. Before any signs, Mary knew her son’s mission, commanding others to do “whatever he says” at the wedding in John 2. Mary was there at the beginning of Christ’s ministry, and even at the end at the cross in John 19:25-27, even when the “great” disciples had run off. Though Mary may have had a lapse of judgment back at the temple in Jesus’ youth (leaving him, then scolding him), Mary was committed to her son’s adult ministry from start to finish. Christ’s mother and earthly authority was supremely submissive to her Son’s authority and duty.

Throughout my studies, I found Mary to be someone of honor in the early church, and continuing in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, who lifted up Mary as a supreme example of holiness, and I had to agree: Mary was the Theotokos and truly a saint worthy of imitation.

That was until my reading encountered the post-Thomas Aquinas Latin church. During Thomas’ time, a new teaching arose that declared that Mary was conceived immaculately herself. Both Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux opposed this new teaching, for if she was conceived this way, and born without original sin and herself was sinless, then she also would need no redemption, and all humans need redemption, even the mother of the Redeemer.

The Latin Church, however, pushed a noble honor of Mary into idolatry. They changed the accepted interpretation of Scripture. Originally, Proverbs 8:22-31 had always been interpreted as pointing to Christ, the wisdom of God (see the debate with Arius). Now Mary was the wisdom of God according to Nicholas of Cusa. Richard of St. Lawrance could even insert Mary’s name into John 3:16 - “that Mary so loved the world that she gave her only son” …Mary was “my only hope” [Thomas a Kempis] and exercised “maternal authority over God.” [Gerson] Finally, Mary could be “adored as God” according to Nicholas of Cusa, a mediatrix between Christ the Mediator and humanity. Despite the honor given to writers like Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux who opposed some of this, the cult of Mary dominated the scene. The paradox of a creature carrying God, became herself the god of many.

Despite my deference to the development of the treatment of Mary in the East, even to the point of not finding the “ever-Virginity” of Mary to be a doctrine worth fighting over for those who hold it, yet the Latin Church went beyond the bounds of devotion. Saints make up a “great cloud of witnesses” but their primary job is to be witnesses. The lives of the saints abound in rich treasures of contextual gospel living, worship and devotion, but if their actions do not point upward, they are distractions. God shares his Glory with no one, and no one is worthy of worship other than God. (Ps 115:1, Isa 42:8) It is quite important to keep the title of Mary as Theotokos, especially for its Christological importance, but most importantly to point to the object of worship which she bore, not to herself. The cult of Mary as it arose in Latin Christendom is neither catholic, nor Christian. Mary’s greatness is found in her bearing not a mere man who rose to greatness, but bearing the great God who condescended to humility and suffering.

Truly and simply this is why I cannot be Roman: Romanism too often fails to keep the main thing the main thing. It places a man (or a woman) in the place of satifier, of ultimate authority, and of worship. The center of our life and worship is Christ. Theology is not primarily a reflection on the words of Calvin or Aquinas or papal encyclicals or Ecumenical Councils or Creeds or even Scripture - it is a reflection on the Word. Theology is understood by, points to, resolves in and professes the Word as Person, in Christ. He is our Mediator. His Spirit is our guide. His Father, the Son reveals; for the Triune God is revealed in and by Christ. The Scriptures are His word. The Church is His Bride. Religious reflection can often obsess over Soteriology or Ecclesiology - and this might be acceptable, if it is obsessively looking for Christ. A man who may be too often an idol himself once said: “men are born idol makers.” We may place trust in many things as Christians: a preacher, an upbringing, a teacher, in a Pope, or a Reformer or tradition. Yet none of these is worthy of our trust in the same way as Christ. The highest they can attain to is a pointer to God in Christ.

Is God our Gospel?

While in the touristy West End district of Dallas, I encountered a team of “missionaries.” These men were engaged in various jobs, some doing a faux magic show, one on a chair preaching and others handing out tracts (an experience I recounted in an earlier post). I took a tract from a man who seemed a little unsure of what he was doing, allowing the printed word to interact with this sea of people rather than the spoken word.

When I returned home, I read the tract. It began interesting enough: Are you a good person? Seems that nothing I do is good enough (I wonder how many people suffered mother-in-law flash backs while reading the tract). The proof for this given by a lengthy discussion about how we all violate the 10 commandments. Then at the end, on two three-inch by two-inch pages it gave the good news! A man named Jesus died and if you believe that, you get to go to heaven. Now, boiling down the gospel into a short presentation is a difficult task, and an admirable project. Yet, the focus of the gospel in this tract was clear: There’s a problem with what you do, some vague event happened with a man named Jesus and now things are better and you get to live forever. This tract exposes some huge blindspots in the way evangelicals present the gospel and even makes me wonder about a decision made on such facts for three reasons:.

1) The focus was on what you do (sin) and not who you are (a sinner)

2) There was no mention about why one would want to be in heaven, namely that God is there to be enjoyed.

3) Most importantly, the tract only gives a few lines to who Jesus is, and never mentions that Jesus was God!

When I married my wife, I wanted to have some sort of “take away” that shared our faith with our guests beyond the homily. I looked through some tracts, but all seemed to have this problem. So, I decided to give the guests a small version of the Gospel of John. The reason? John’s gospel is different from the gospel of most tracts.

A recent fad in Evangelical circles has been looking at John for techniques of how to do evangelism according to Jesus. Best scenario to look at? The woman at the well, where Jesus offers her the bread of life. Principles are drawn out such as meeting someone where they are, or getting into their lives. Yet, we may have missed the message: “seek the bread of life.” Those doing their reading of John 4 as part of their daily devotion might miss the tension of discovering what this bread of life is. The reader must wait until John 6 until this is revealed.

In John 6, after Christ fed a crowd of thousands, the people follow him across the lake to Capernaum (John 6:24). Jesus, perceiving their intentions, pointed to the bread he had given them and told them they should not follow him for food, but Himself. (John 6:26-27) When the crowd again asked for food and another sign in addition to the food already given, Christ knew they did not follow Him for His own sake, but for earthly reward. He was using the bread as an analogy for Himself, declaring: “I am the bread of life.” (John 6:35)

Instead of trying to perceive the truth Christ was pointing to, the crowd asks “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52) Christ, instead of explaining further to the crowd that is now mocking Him, presses the metaphor without explaining it to the level of the ridiculous and ludicrous, insisting that unless they eat his flesh and drink His blood, they will die. (John 6:53) Most of the crowd leaves, and so this becomes a technique I have not heard imitated much in Evangelical seminars…

In John 6:53, Jesus uses language that sounds very Eucharistic, speaking of blood and flesh. The concept being communicated, however, is not the necessity of the Eucharist for salvation, but the necessity of Christ for salvation. Bread is a common metaphor for sustenance. In Psalm 104:14, the Psalmist specifically says God gave “bread [that] sustains the heart of man.” Both the Eucharist and this teaching point to the sustaining aspect of Christ as gained by belief. By Christ all things have their very existence (1 Cor 8:6). On one level all have their very existence in Christ, but those who believe are fed eternally with a manna that does not rot like that of Moses in the desert. (Ex 16) As John Calvin puts it: “Christ is the bread on which we must feed.”

If Christ is our center, the object of our worship and affections, He should be more than a gear, a link, a bridge or a means in our conception of the gospel. Christ certainly provides the way. Did not Christ say he was the Way? The question then is not “Is Christ the means to salvation.” He certainly is. But is Christ also the end of our quest, the prize of our salvation? God tells us He is our reward (Gen 15:1) and the image of our salvation is partaking of God Himself (2 Pet 1:4). Indeed, if we are Reformed, why do we not communicate that our end is to glorify God, and enjoy Him forever? (WC Q1)
.

Christ and Scripture

The Evangelical Theological Society began with one doctrine to affirm: the inerrancy of the Scriptures. Since the Modernist-Fundamentalist debates of the early 20th Century, it is nearly indisputable that the defining characteristic and center focus of Evangelicalism in America is Bibliology. The evidence is hard to miss. Look at the first doctrine of most churches. Look at the signs and symbols of many Evangelical seminaries (like here and here) and institutions and can even dominate the images and signs of churches. I even saw on the back of a Christian catalog this phrase: “The Bible alone is the Word of God”

And what else would we expect? Isn’t the Bible the Word of God and the basis of our knowledge of God? I would like to suggest such a formulation, and especially that phrase I quoted from the back of the catalog, is insufficient and under-developed. The Christian faith certainly centers around the Word of God, but the Word of God is not primarily defined as a book...I would also like to contend, that this American Bible-central focus is not healthy and not, at heart, Reformed.


One may get the impression that Reformed theology deserves some credit for this Bible focus. Take a look at the major Reformed Confessions, and you will see the first Article is usually one on Scripture. This is wholly appropriate. For the foundation of our particulars of our theology of God is based on written Scripture.

Scripture itself, however, does not testify to itself as the pinicle and end of faith. For Muslims, the Koran is the perfect Word of God and the means of salvation. We are not Muslims, and the Bible is not merely the Christian Koran. Jesus Christ tells the Pharisees that this was their great sin. John 5:39 puts it beautifully: “You search the Scriptures, for you think in them you have everlasting life. And they are the ones witnessing concerning Me.”

At minimum, we should see the Scriptures do not claim themselves as the center of our faith, but are our sure and faithful guide to our true center: God, especially revealed in the Second Person of the Trinity, Christ.

I say nothing new here, in fact I say things very old. Perhaps so old we have forgotten them. And perhaps we would readily agree that the Scriptures point to Christ. Would we go further and admit that we have sometimes neglected to assign to Christ a title given to Him by those Scriptures: Word of God?

But of course, Christ is the Word of God in John 1, and so the Word of God incarnate. The Scriptures on the other hand are the Word of God written, a totally different discussion. They need not be thought of in the same thought, let alone the same class, day, month or even year.

This seemingly valid distinction has unfortunately become a division. If we trace the language of “Word of God” in the Early Church, we find not a division, but a union so tightly knit together that it confuses the modern reader. Take for instance Clement of Alexandria. When quoting Scripture, Clement often used phraseology like: “The Logos has proclaimed this loudly through Moses…” Clement uses Logos, not as an inanimate noun, but as a Personality that proclaims. The Word of God incarnate was so closely associated with the Word of God written, the two occupied the same thought and breath so intricately that to speak of Scripture proclaiming something was to see the words as imputed to Christ Himself. The starting point of faith was in the Personality rather than the written word. The inspiration of Scripture was based on the divine nature of the Logos as God rather than any internal structure. Our Bibliology requires a foundation in our Christiology, as part of the work of Christ:

Our reading of the Scriptures lack this close association. Read Hebrews 4:12. Does this immediately first make you think of Christ or Scripture? I have yet to find an early church father that took this as pointing to Scripture, all see Christ. From the entirety of the canon, this interpretation follows the Biblical usage, as this phraseology is actually used of Christ first in Luke 2. Is the Bible a piercing sword? Yes. Is Christ a piercing sword? Yes. Because the Word of God is a piercing sword.

But again, I claim no new teaching in this regard. Pelikan summed up the mind of the early church on this matter thusly:

'Word of God' was, of course, one of the most important technical terms for Jesus Christ in his relation to the Father; and when 'the gospel' or 'Scripture' was equated with the 'word of God,' the presence of Christ in this means of grace was seen as in some way analogous to his presence in the flesh...Christ was the preaching of God." (Christian Tradition Vol 1 - pg 161)

But also importantly for us, this is not merely the teaching of the early Church. Dutch Reformed theologican Herman Bavinck writes:

He [Christ] is the Logos in an utterly unique sense, revealer and revelation alike. In him, all revelations of God, all words of God, in nature and history, in creation and re-creation, under the Old and New Testaments, have their ground, their unity and center. He is the sun; the particular words of God are its rays. The word of God in nature, in Israel, in the New Testament, in Scripture may not for a moment be detached or thought about apart from Him. God’s revelation exists only because He is the Logos. He is the principium cognoscendi [the principle of knowing], in the general sense of all knowledge, in the special sense, as logos ensarkos [the word infleshed], of all knowledge of God, of religion and theology, Matt 11:27. (Reformed Dogmatics - Vol 1, pg 402)

So I stand by my original blog post: Christ is the center of our faith. Even as the Scriptures are our text to understand our faith, even as our Christian epistemology may wonder if our Scriptures are the only true basis for our knowing - ultimately Christ is the basis of our knowing.

The important question we have to ask is: have we allowed the "Word of God" merely to mean God's commands or instructions in a book? Or does "Word of God" mean a Person who pierces us to our soul and look for this Person in our Scriptures. Muslims believe in the Word of God as revealed writings, but we are Christians and we believe in the Word of God made flesh. This does not lessen our view of Scripture, instead the Scriptures gain more power when we realize that in reading them, we are not ruled by a book, but by the Lord Christ that book reveals, and Whose words they are.
.

At the Center: The Foundation of Christian Theology

It seems different traditions will have a different central focus. Roman Catholicism starts with Ecclesiology and build a theology from there. Restorationist Stone-Campbellites seem to do the same. Open theism builds a theology from a certain concept of the will. Dispensationalism emphasizes eschatology and much of American evangelicalism seems built on Bibliology or a certain concept of a gospel offer.

Even within the Reformed camp there seems to be a debate on the “center” of the faith. There is a large TULIP-happy, soteriologically-centered crowd that sees everything centered around the Reformed concept of Soteriology and predestination. Another crowd seems to have, what I would term, a Theo-centric view. This sees God as transcendent and grand and builds everything off of such a view, with much talk about how not to view things as man-centric.

Both of these approaches are correct in their teaching, yet also slightly askew as the question of emphasis, center, and the foundation of your theology affects how you look at other aspects of theology, even if the basics are the same. The Soteriology-centered crowd seems to have little concern for the detail of worship, other than mentioning our depravity often and never giving an invitation. The Theo-centric crowd can sometimes talk of God in such grand ways as to make God impersonal, and while God may be too humanized in other parts of evangelicalism, a full swing to the other extreme is problematic as well.

I’ve been stuck as I study theology how true is the statement of Karl Barth: “show me your Christology, and I will show you the rest of your theology.” Concurrently, while reading Alister McGrath’s Iustitia Dei, I was struck by his description of Calvin’s approach to theology. While Luther centered everything around justification and Beza had more of the Theo-centric approach (like above), Calvin centered all talk of ecclesiology, Soteriology, and Theology Proper around the person of Christ. It was more than a throw away line about how important Jesus is, or an add on line to please the folks who prefer to talk to God through Jesus “thank you Jesus, help me Jesus, Come Lord Jesus, etc.” No, every aspect of Salvation related to the question, “how does Christ teach us about salvation?” Christ becomes type, teacher and image in any discussion. Ecclesiology is a question about: how do we understand the church as the Bride of Christ, or the Body of Christ? Theology proper is about how do we learn about God through Christ. Soteriology is about how Christ saves us. Some do not realize the title of the last book of the Bible is a great method to Theology. It is “the Revelation of Jesus Christ.” In Greek, we learned that the use of the genitive in the title means it can also be translated: “Jesus Christ reveals.” I like three word theological guides (see “God saves sinners.”) While "God saves sinners" can be a good summary of theology, "Jesus Christ reveals" can be a beginning to a hermeneutic or methodology within our theological study. This emphasis has particularly hit me over the past year. Before that, I had a well developed Soteriology, a poor Theology Proper, a non-existent Ecclesiology and a skeletal Bibliology. All of which was due to an underdeveloped Christology; and all of which I have seen invigorated by robust, and centric Christology. At the least, it is a good question to ask when looking at a new area of theology: What does Jesus Christ reveal about this…

Awesome Article

Michael Horton impresses me the more I read him. Check out this awesome article from Modern Reformation that begins with this paragraph:

What would things look like if Satan actually took over a city? The first frames in our imaginative slide show probably depict mayhem on a massive scale: Widespread violence, deviant sexualities, pornography in every vending machine, churches closed down and worshipers dragged off to City Hall. Over a half-century ago, Donald Grey Barnhouse, pastor of Philadelphia's Tenth Presbyterian Church, gave his CBS radio audience a different picture of what it would look like if Satan took control of a town in America. He said that all of the bars and pool halls would be closed, pornography banished, pristine streets and sidewalks would be occupied by tidy pedestrians who smiled at each other. There would be no swearing. The kids would answer "Yes, sir," "No, ma'am," and the churches would be full on Sunday ... where Christ is not preached.

Quote of the Week: The centrality of Christ

A full week of having no assignments has allowed me to turn my studies to my own pet interests. So this week, I began my journey through the 5 volumes of Jaroslav Pelikan's History of Doctrine starting with: "The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, 100-600 a.d."

Within the first few hundred years, one sees the unity of the church on several issues of interpretation, especially as all sorts of heresy develop. One of the greatest points of early orthodoxy was the centrality of Christ in all areas of theology. Here is an example when Pelikan addresses the issue of Scripture:

"'Word of God' was, of course, one of the most important technical terms for Jesus Christ in his relation to the Father; and when 'the gospel' or 'Scripture' was equated with the 'word of God,' the presence of Christ in this means of grace was seen as in some way analogous to his presence in the
flesh...Christ was the preaching of God." (pg 161)

In reaction to liberalism that questioned the accuracy of the Bible, some have placed the Bible as the foundation to the Christian faith. However, we find when looking at the early Church that their foundation was Christ and the Scriptures depended on Him, led to Him and were His words. The primary doctrine of the Early Church was the inerrancy of Christ that made the Scriptures valid, not the inerrancy of Scriptures that made Christ valid.

The close relationship of Scripture and Christ may make distinctions of which one claims primacy seem technical (if both are inerrant, why quible?). But I have come to the conviction that it is important. We read in Luke 2, Simeon declares about Christ:

“Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which will be spoken against (yes, a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”

Then we read Hebrews 4:12 -

"For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

Have we allowed the "Word of God" merely to mean God's commands or instructions in a book? Or does "Word of God" mean a Person who pierces us to our soul and look for this Person in our Scriptures. Muslims believe in the Word of God as revealed writings, but we are Christians and we believe in the Word of God made flesh. This does not lessen our view of Scripture, instead the Scriptures gain more power when we realize that in reading them, we are not ruled by a book, but by the Lord Christ that book reveals and Whose words they are.

On my desk sits the image to the left. It is a picture of Christ holding the Scriptures. The Greek reads: "The Light-Giver." The picture reminds me of my favorite part of the DTS doctrinal statement:

"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."