Hamilton on typology: "typological fulfillment in the life of Jesus refers to the fullest expression of a significant pattern of events."

“…typological fulfillment in the life of Jesus refers to the fullest expression of a significant pattern of events. Thus, typological interpretation sees in biblical narratives a divinely intended pattern of events. Events that take place at later points in salvation history correspond to these and intensify their significance. As Ellis writes, “typology views the relationship of OT events to those in the new dispensation not as a ‘one-to one’ equation or correspondence, in which the old is repeated or continued, but rather in terms of two principles, historical correspondence and escalation.”….

“…since the Christians conceive of themselves as those upon whom the “ends of the ages have come” (1 Cor 10:11) all things—including the fulfillment of types—take on greater significance (see also Matt 11:11, where the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than John the Baptist, the greatest OT prophet). Even in the OT the “new Exodus” will make the “former things” to be forgotten (Isa 43:18–19). Eichrodt (“Typological Exegesis,” 233–34) writes, “…typology is concerned with the depiction in advance of an eschatological, and therefore an unsurpassable, reality, which stands toward the type in the relation of something much greater or of something antithetically opposed.”…

“Ellis… writes, “Typology can be said to differ from allegorical interpretation in that it takes seriously the historical setting of an OT law or event; type and antitype identify some correspondence between different stages in a sacred history, whereas allegory elicits timeless truth from beneath the veil of the biblical ‘letter’, which may be regarded as having no reference to history.” The entry on “types” in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. is similar: “In theology, the foreshadowings of the Christian dispensation in the events and persons of the OT. . . . A Christian type differs from allegory in that the historical reference is not lost sight of. Types are looked upon, however, as having a greater significance now than was apparent in their pre-Christian OT context”… Eichrodt writes: “The so-called tupoi . . . are persons, institutions, and events of the Old Testament which are regarded as divinely established models or pre-representations of corresponding realities in the New Testament salvation history. These latter realities, on the basis of 1 Peter 3:21, are designated ‘antitypes’”. -- James Hamilton, "The Virgin Will Conceive: Typology in Isaiah and Fulfillment in Matthew, The Use of Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:18-23"

James Hamilton (again): "the OT is a messianic document, written from a messianic perspective, to sustain a messianic hope."

From Hamilton's endnotes:

“We inductively observe that there is much messianic speculation in second temple Judaism (both in the NT and the intertestamental literature). We add to this the observation that this speculation is anchored in the OT. We then set aside the possibility that ancient people were stupid, which seems to be an implicit assumption of a good deal of modern scholarship, and we seek a hypothesis that explains the data.

“Since the authors of these texts are presumably seeking to be persuasive to their contemporaries (see, e.g., John 20:31), it seems to me unlikely that their contemporaries would grant the imposition of new meanings onto these texts. One hypothesis that explains the fact that “Early Christians, rabbinic sources, and the sectarians at Qumran cite the same biblical texts in their portrayals of the royal messiah” (J. J. M. Roberts, “The Old Testament’s Contribution to Messianic Expectations,” in The Messiah [ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992], 41 n. 2) is that the OT is a messianic document, written from a messianic perspective, to sustain a messianic hope. This would mean that these disparate groups are not imposing a messianic interpretation on these texts but rightly interpreting them. This is not the only available hypothesis, but it seems to me to be the most convincing.

“I agree with John Sailhamer, who writes, “I believe the messianic thrust of the OT was the whole reason the books of the Hebrew Bible were written. In other words, the Hebrew Bible was not written as the national literature of Israel. It probably also was not written to the nation of Israel as such. It was rather written, in my opinion, as the expression of the deep-seated messianic hope of a small group of faithful prophets and their followers” (“The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44 [2001]: 23). The variations in messianic expectation show that the developing portrait of the coming Messiah was not crystal clear, but the pervasive expectation supports the hypothesis.” -- James Hamilton, "The Skull-Crushing Seed of the Woman: Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Genesis 3:15"

James Hamilton: "from start to finish, the OT is a messianic document"

“The use of the OT in the New has been much discussed, with some coming to the conclusion that, to put it simply, the authors of the NT wrongly interpreted the OT. This being the case, their exegesis cannot be legitimately imitated today. Those who come to this conclusion are sometimes mystified as to how the authors of the NT could possibly see a reference to the Messiah in texts the NT applies to him, at points even arguing that particular applications of OT texts to Jesus in the NT do not actually refer to him at all.

"Another argument against the imitation of apostolic use of the OT is that their hermeneutical methods are not valid today. This means that while an understanding of the hermeneutical milieu can help us make sense of what the authors of the NT were doing, it does not validate their method for us. Others would agree with Moisés Silva’s objection to this conclusion: “If we refuse to pattern our exegesis after that of the apostles, we are in practice denying the authoritative character of their scriptural interpretation— and to do so is to strike at the very heart of the Christian faith.”

"It seems to me that certain presuppositional starting points have the potential to ameliorate every intellectual difficulty with the way that the NT interprets the OT, regardless of the hermeneutical tools employed. I have in mind one thing in particular, namely, the hypothesis that from start to finish, the OT is a messianic document, written from a messianic perspective, to sustain a messianic hope. Adopting this perspective might go a long way toward explaining why the NT seems to regard the whole of the OT as pointing to and being fulfilled in the one it presents as the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth.

"Further, it might be in line with texts such as Luke 24:27, 44–45, which could indicate that Jesus read the OT in precisely this way (cf. also Matt 5:17 and John 5:46). If Jesus and the authors of the NT did read the OT in this way, they were apparently not alone. Craig Evans notes, “The saying of Rabbi Yohanan, though uttered in the post-NT era, probably reflects what was assumed by many in the first century: ‘Every prophet prophesied only for the days of the Messiah’ (b. Ber. 34b).”

"The only way to verify such a hypothesis is to test it against the data. The evidence is, of course, disputed. I am not suggesting that we should look for “Jesus under every rock” or in every detail of the description of the temple, a straw man which at times seems to be the only thing conceivable to certain “OT only” interpreters when they hear the kind of suggestion I am making. We need not abandon the discipline of looking carefully at what the texts actually say to see the OT as a messianic document. Nor is the objection that there is proportionally very little about the messiah in the OT necessarily devastating to this proposal, for it is always possible that a certain feature is not everywhere named in the text because it is everywhere assumed.” -- James Hamilton , "The Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman: Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Genesis 3:15"

"The traffic goes both ways."

I don't always see eye to eye with Steve Hays over at Triablogue. But he is dead on in today's post, where he again challenges late-Evangelical-turned-Catholic "philosopher" Francis Beckwith (Hays has been interacting with Beckwith and others over this issue over the past week). At issue is Sola Scriptura, championed by Protestants, despised by Catholics. Beckwith's claim, in a nutshell, is that the Scriptures alone are not sufficient enough to dispense with a heretical position such as Arianism. Hays dispenses with that claim in this post.

In a post directed at Beckwith, Hays says Beckwith and his Catholic buddies are "trying to play a game of chicken with Evangelicals. You introduce the deity of Christ as a wedge issue or pressure point to leverage our assent to the Magisterium. You then argue that, on the basis of Scripture alone, the Arian interpretation is plausible or rationally defensible such that Scripture alone is inadequate to fend of a heretical Christology like Arianism. You then double-dare the Protestant to choose between the Catholic rule of faith or the Protestant rule of faith. He can only stand by sola Scriptura on pain of admitting Arianism as a valid interpretation of NT Christology."

The comments following the post are just as enlightening. Beckwith feels challenged enough to respond, and Hays snaps off another snappy but helpful answer. And the debate continues.....

Vos: "The depth to which this seeking and saving brings him down should be measured by the distance there is between the highest in God and the lowest in man."

"The Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost." The word "came" is in itself suggestive of a previous sphere and state which he exchanged for our world, a sphere and state wherein no seeking nor saving was required, because there all live secure and blessed in God. But much more suggestive is this word when coupled with the name "Son of Man."

"It is not accidental that our Lord makes use of this self-designation in a connection like this. Elsewhere also we read that "The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto but to minister and to give his life a ransom" (Mt. 20:28). And in a number of other passages the title is associated with his abode in the world of heaven, whence he descended to these lower regions of ours. In the prophecy of Daniel, where first the phrase "Son of Man" is used to describe the Messiah, twice a "coming" is affirmed of the Person so designated: "There came with the clouds of heaven One like unto a son of man, and He came even to the Ancient of Days" (Dan. 7:13). Now, while our Lord often identifies the "coming" thus described with his return to judgment, yet he likewise once and again retrospectively associates it with his first advent, when he came out of the glory he had with the Father before the world was.

"Being told, therefore, that it was the "Son of Man," who came to seek and to save, our first thought surely should be of that unspeakable grace of our Lord, who, being rich as God alone can be rich, yet for our sake became poor as sinful man only can be poor, that by his poverty we might be made rich. The depth to which this seeking and saving brings him down should be measured by the distance there is between the highest in God and the lowest in man. To lodge with publicans and sinners might be condescension for a high-placed personage—what language will express its meaning in the case of the infinite God?

"The "Son of Man," who unites in himself all that Deity and humanity together can lend of glory to the Messianic state, he it is who came to seek and to save the lost. It was such a glorious life that was wholly given up to its very last thought, poured out to the very last residue of its strength, and that for the task of helping us, the lowest of us, who would have turned away from one another, because the sinful felt it a degradation to stoop to such as were a degree more sinful than they acknowledged themselves to be.

"When we combine this consciousness of ineffable glory sacrificed with the consciousness of absolute surrender to the service of the most despised, then, and only then, do we begin to understand somewhat of the indignation with which Jesus repudiated the charge, brought by sinful men, that it was unworthy of him to associate with publicans and sinners. With superhuman dignity the one word "Son of Man" silences that voice of murmuring in the streets of Jericho, and every echo, we may add, of that same voice from any quarter, or any age, when it presumes to criticize the gospel of Christ on the ground that it speaks in accents of the sovereign grace of God." -- Geerhardus Vos, "A Sermon on Mark 10:45"

Kleinig: "Christ has created a new cosmic choir. That choir is the church."

About the only thing I could add to these wonderful thoughts which are timely for this season is this: the difference between our song and the angels' is that the content of our song is the Person of Jesus Christ, who has redeemed for himself a choir through His vicarious atonement on behalf of a sinful people. This new choir of the new covenant sings a new song in the robes of Christ's imputed righteousness.

The Lutheran theologian Kleinig points to the hills of Bethlehem in hearing the opening notes of this new song : "The incarnation of God’s Son ushers in a new age. It is an event which evokes music and produces song. It creates a new song which began on the eve of his birth at Bethlehem and has continued ever since. That song celebrates the mystery of God’s embodiment for us and our embodiment in God.

"By his incarnation Christ has brought the song of heaven down to earth for us so that we earthlings can now join with the angels in their performance of praise in God’s presence. Through Jesus heavenly praise has become incarnate on earth. We can now perform the heavenly song bodily with our human voices and our musical instruments in the presence of our embodied God.

"And more than that! By his incarnation Christ has taken up and transformed the old song which goes back to the beginning of the world and the start of human history.  That old song is the song of the ravaged world, groaning under the burden of decay and waiting for redemption (Rom 8:19-22). It is also the song of broken humanity which sings of lost glory, heartache from ill-will, and the longing for peace on earth. Even though its wistful words and angry sounds are still overheard in the new song, they have been transposed into a different key and rearranged in a new song of petition and thanksgiving and praise. That new song which comes from God’s intervention in human history, gives glory to God together with the angelic choir and announces heavenly peace as a gift from God to the citizens of the earth.

"This has happened because we human beings were made as singing creatures. We have voices so that we can not only speak but also sing. We have been designed to be sensitive and responsive to ordered sound. Music and song connect us deeply with each other and link us wonderfully with the order of creation. They are an important part of our humanity. The incarnation of God’s Son must therefore affect us musically, if it is to touch us at all. Since Christ has taken on a human body to redeem us entirely, he engages us in music and song. Just as he has learnt our language so that we can hear him and speak to him in our own words, so he has also learnt our human song so that he can teach us to sing his song and make music together with the angels...

"...The presence of God and the gift of his blessing at the temple in Jerusalem prefigured and foreshadowed the incarnation. St John claims that, since the Word became flesh, the glory of God now tabernacles among us in the humanity of Jesus (John 1:14). It is hidden in the flesh of Jesus, rather than in a cloud. His body is now the temple of the living God, the place where God meets with us and we meet with God (John 2:21). Hence the body of Jesus is now the place for theophany and praise. There God is available to us; there we have access to God.

"The incarnation produces a new song of praise which applauds and lauds the presence of the incarnate deity. The gospel of St Luke explores this mystery in the story of the appearance of the angels to the shepherds on Christmas evening (Luke 2:8-20). That story however makes sense only in the light of the Old Testament. According to Psalm 29, the angels who stand before God in heaven and behold his glory face to face, react to their vision of God by glorifying him. Heaven was therefore the place where the angels sang doxology to God. But with the birth of Jesus something remarkable has occurred. The place for doxology has shifted from heaven to earth.

"The radiant presence of God, his glory, is now associated with Jesus. Wherever he is present, human beings can join with the angels in singing: ‘Glory the God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace among those whom he favours.’ Like the shepherds, all God’s people glorify and praise God for what they hear from Jesus and see in him. The theophany of God in that human body creates a new choir, in which people combine with the angels in the performance of doxology.

"The ramifications of this event are unfolded by St Paul in Ephesians 1:3-14. As he writes this extravagant sentence, he contrasts the new choir created by Christ with the old Levitical choir at the temple. The temple choir had been appointed to praise God for the blessings which the Israelites had received from him here on earth. Each of the musicians had been given their allotted place at the temple. Their vocation from God was to praise him whenever they were rostered for duty there at the temple.

"But now Christ has created a new cosmic choir. That choir is the church. By his incarnation he has united earthings with angels under his headship. He has redeemed people and made them holy in him. They now have the same status as Jesus. They share in his sonship and have every blessing that belongs to him as God’s Son. They join the angels in a choir which spans heaven and earth. That choir consists of both Jews and gentiles. Through the incarnation of Jesus human beings have access to the heavenly realm as they continue to live on earth. Both angels and people have the same musical vocation. Even though they are only a little like God, they show what God is like by praising him. They have then been appointed as praise-singers for God the Father here on planet earth. They are to live for the praise of God’s glory (Eph 1:6,12,14). They cannot do this apart from God and in his absence. In and through Jesus they praise God the Father as those who stand ‘holy and blameless before him’ (Eph 1:4), for he has united them bodily with himself and has taken them bodily with himself into the Godhead.

"As recipients of God’s grace they sing the song of God’s amazing grace to the world. In fact, God is so utterly good and gracious, so much more generous, philanthropic and loving that the best human being, that they can only communicate something of that grace by wholehearted, full-bodied praise. Sacred music then is full of wonder and amazement at the great mystery of the incarnation, by which the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily in Jesus, so that we humans can come to fullness of life in and through him." -- John Kleinig, "The Incarnation and Music"

Vos: Christ "took up the cross when he breathed the first breath of his earthly life."

"...our Lord affirms that he came to give his life as a ransom. The verb "came" belongs not merely to the first thing named—the ministering—but it belongs equally (as) much to the second thing named—the giving of the life by way of ransom: the Son of Man came to minister and to give. I beg you to notice this form of the statement sharply because many have tried to put upon it the weakening interpretation: Jesus came to serve and found, in the course of his life, that to serve to the full meant for him to die. But that merely makes the death the outcome of the service.

"What our Lord affirms is that it was the implication and the avowed end of the service from the outset. What he says carries the knowledge (of) his death and of the saving purpose of his death back into the initial act of his appearance upon earth: his coming was with this end and none other in view. He came to serve not merely to the possible limit of death, but to serve by the absolutely free and deliberate employment of death as the supreme instrument of his service. No one took his life from him. He gave it voluntarily. And he expected to give it from the very moment in which he received it. Hence the writer of the epistle of the Hebrews represents him as entering the world with the words of the Psalmist upon his lips: "Lo I am come to do thy will, O God" (Heb. 10:7, that is, it was God's will that he should suffer). And "a body didst thou prepare for me" (Heb. 10:5, that is, God gave him a body in order that it might be possible for him to experience death as the true sacrifice for sin).

"You see, therefore, how all this excludes the view that our Lord only late in his career began to entertain the idea that his death might be a contribution to the success of his work. No—he carried the conviction that his work centered in his death with him in the silence of his inner life all the days of his pilgrimage. From the beginning he set his face deliberately towards this goal and unswervingly shaped his course with reference to its attainment. The gospel in the mind of Jesus did not need first to develop into a gospel of the cross. He took up the cross when he breathed the first breath of his earthly life. Thank God we are justified in reading the gospels with this thought in mind. Jesus did not live the greater part of his life in a naive ignorance and unconsciousness of the web of destiny that was being woven around him. In his case, as in no other case, destiny and conscious purpose were identical. Not only that he died, but that he meant to die for us, this constitutes the preciousness of the gospel story for everyone who reads it with the eye of faith." -- Geerhardus Vos, "A Sermon on Mark 10:45"

The Pilgrim's gospel of the Table: "they heard him say and affirm, that he would not dwell in the mountain of Zion alone"

In Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress", Pilgrim comes to the Porter's Lodge where he meets the Porter and his family.  He's invited to a meal in which he engages in conversation with 3 members of the Porter's family: Piety, Prudence, and Charity.  In describing this "meal", Bunyan gives us a stunning theology of the Lord's Table:

"...they sat talking together until supper was ready. So when they had made ready, they sat down to meat. Now the table was furnished with fat things, and with wine that was well refined; and all their talk at the table was about the Lord of the hill; as, namely, about what he had done, and wherefore he did what he did, and why he had builded that house; and by what they said, I perceived that he had been a great warrior, and had fought with and slain him that had the power of death, Heb. 2:14,15; but not without great danger to himself, which made me love him the more.

"For, as they said, and as I believe, said Christian, he did it with the loss of much blood. But that which put the glory of grace into all he did, was, that he did it out of pure love to his country. And besides, there were some of them of the household that said they had been and spoke with him since he did die on the cross; and they have attested that they had it from his own lips, that he is such a lover of poor pilgrims, that the like is not to be found from the east to the west. They, moreover, gave an instance of what they affirmed; and that was, he had stripped himself of his glory that he might do this for the poor; and that they heard him say and affirm, that he would not dwell in the mountain of Zion alone." John Bunyan, "The Pilgrim's Progress"

Vos: "The law must be satisfied, because apart from keeping it there is no life."

This past Saturday, at the Biblical Theology Study Center, the class engaged in an extensive discussion about the nature of the atonement (via the blog-post of an emergent-friendly theologian). Over the past 100-150 years, from liberal theology to the New Perspective on Paul to the emergent church, "justice", as inseparable and inherent to the nature of the atonement, has been either watered down or eliminated... leaving "forgiveness" as the sole, overarching paradigm for the work of Christ's atonement applied to the recipient. As important as forgiveness of sins is in our salvation, it is only half of the story. Justice is the other half. In fact, without the satisfaction of God's justice, there is no forgiveness to grant to the sinner. And, as Vos notes in his sermon on Ephesians 2, without the satisfaction of God's just demands exacted through the law, there's no "life" to breathe into the dead sinner:

"Can God justly bestow this benefit (new life, or spiritual resurrection; crb) on a sinner, dead in transgressions, by creating a new life in him?

"The answer to this must be a decisive "no." God cannot do such a thing. It is true that his love is great and his mercy rich, but his justice is inviolable. It requires that the sinner be punished and that only the one who fulfills the demand of the law be rewarded. Justice draws its rigorous line without making distinctions between persons; on the left it assigns eternal death to the transgressor of the law and on the right eternal life to the keeper of the law.

"If a person dead in transgressions is to be raised up, two conditions must be met first. In the first place, he must be relieved of the burden of his guilt which rests on him because of his sins. He must bear the threatened punishment and empty to its dregs the cup of God's holy displeasure. As long as this does not happen, despite God's great love and rich mercy, there can be no talk of God showing favor to the sinner.

"But suppose that the punishment has been borne, the cup emptied—even that by itself is not enough. The justice of the law must be fulfilled, that is to say, it must be perfectly obeyed and observed. Only to the one who does this can God restore life and impart his Holy Spirit.

"To understand this clearly let us imagine a criminal who must bear the punishment of imprisonment designated by the law. When he is released after serving his sentence, the law has been satisfied. But is the criminal's honor restored, have his civil rights been regained, can he count on all the privileges granted to someone who keeps the law without punishment? Of course not. Although the law cannot further require penal satisfaction from him, for the most part and all too often he finds himself without civil rights and honor, disgraced and an outcast in the midst of society.

"Exactly the same justice applies in the kingdom of God. Assume that the sinner is able himself to bear the punishment of his transgression, by bearing it completely so that nothing remains to be borne. This is not the case, but assume it for a moment. What then would follow? Would this be the end of the matter for the sinner? God's wrath would be removed, but his favor would not be regained. The person would still be without citizenship and rights in God's kingdom, he would still remain a beggar who has no claim to anything. The unyielding law, with its "Do this and you shall live," would still stand—with its accusation that it has not been fulfilled and its strict prohibition against giving life to the sinner.

"You can immediately see where the great difficulty lies here. The law must be satisfied, because apart from keeping it there is no life. As far as we know, God does not grant eternal life to either angels or men on any other condition than perfect keeping of the law. But man cannot keep the law, he is dead in transgressions, spiritually impotent. If he is ever again to attain to keeping the law, it must be preceded by a creative act of God, by an infusion of life from God, whereby he is again put in a position to live according to the commandments of God.

"Thus, two things are firmly established: (1) God cannot make man alive from his spiritual death in sin, unless he has first fulfilled the law. (2) As long as God has not made man alive, he cannot fulfill the law.

"This crying contradiction demonstrates how hopeless the situation with man was. There was no solution in sight and it seemed there was nothing left for God to do but to abandon man to his miserable fate. And, indeed, if help would have had to come from man's side, it would not have appeared, not even in an eternity!

"But through his great love God knew how to find a solution. He solved the riddle in a way that caused the angels to stare in wonder and the congregation on earth, in turn, to venture in joyful rapture before the heavenly authorities and powers. When the eye of God's love could find no resting place in all of sinful humanity, then it rested upon Christ Jesus, his only begotten Son, and saw in him the possibility of unraveling the sad riddle.

"The Lord could not make us alive. We had forfeited the right to be made alive. There was no one who was worthy to be made alive—unless it be that the Son of God became man, and by becoming such, restored the possibility that man be made alive and be saved. To make us alive with Christ—that was the answer that God's great love gave to the question raised by his mercy, otherwise there was no means by which sinners could be rescued from eternal destruction.

"The two conditions just discussed were present in Christ. He was able to wipe out the debt, and he did. At the same time, because he was not dead in transgressions, by his perfect keeping of the law he acquired the right to eternal life. Him God could raise up by his sublime power and bring back in immortality. And with that the great work was accomplished in principle. Certainly there was but one point of departure found for the spiritual resurrection, but that point lay in the Mediator Christ Jesus. With Christ it is therefore possible for God to raise us up also. He took upon himself the curse and the demands of the law, we reap the fruits together with Him. In his resurrection from the dead ours is given in fact and guaranteed by right. That new life, which he received as the reward for his obedience, passes over from him, by the working of his Spirit, to all that belong to him, so that they, awakened from the sleep of sin, let Christ shine on them, say "Amen" with a living faith to all God's words of life, hunger and thirst after the righteousness of life, and end by praising God's rich mercy, which, because of his great love, even when they were dead in their transgressions, made them alive with Christ, the Lord." -- Geerhardus Vos, "The Spiritual Resurrection"

Vos: "The Psalmists are convinced that God himself desires to enter upon close fellowship with man."

Ever thought of the gathering with Christ's people as a "refuge"? Vos here shows how the Psalmists spoke of "God's house", "tabernacle", and "God's dwelling place" as a "sanctuary", a "refuge", a "taking cover beneath his wings". Such is the deep-seated intimacy between Savior and people which occurs when we gather to feed on Christ. It is "covering" and "refuge" to take "sanctuary" in the fellowship and worship of His people.

Vos on the subject:

"Figures are borrowed from the intimacies of human life, nay of animal life; figures which in point of picturesqueness and forcibleness go far beyond that of a covenant or a secret counsel here employed by the Psalmist. Such is the figure of the common house in which the believer desires to dwell with Jehovah in order that there may be between God and him something of that same closeness and intimacy of fellowship as binds the members of one household together. Of course this attaches itself to the typical expression God had given the thought of religious fellowship with himself in the structure of the tabernacle or the temple. But after all it remains interesting that precisely in the Psalms this divine thought embodied in the sanctuary is most clearly apprehended and most eagerly responded to. "A day in thy courts is better than a thousand: I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness" (Ps. 84:10). "One thing have I asked of the Lord, that will I seek after, that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to inquire in his temple. For in the day of trouble he shall keep me secretly in his pavilion: in the covert of his tent shall he hide me" (Ps. 27:4,5). And even this is surpassed in a number of other passages where the Psalmist chooses figures based on physical, bodily contact in order to satisfy himself in describing his vivid experience of standing in real personal communion with God. The two modes of statement are joined together in the 61st Psalm where David first says, "I will dwell in thy tabernacle forever" and then adds by way of climax, "I will take refuge in the covert of thy wings"; as elsewhere we read the petition, "Hide me under the shadow of thy wings" (Ps. 17:8) and three times the avowal, "Therefore, men put their trust under the shadow of thy wings" (Ps. 36:7).

"Now it is to be noticed that, notwithstanding the concrete, realistic character of such expressions, the sentiment expressed remains well within the bounds of conscious, intelligent fellowship with God. There is no lapse into false mysticism here; no desire to lose one's self in God. What the Psalmist strives after is nothing more nor less than that mutual revelation of person to person, that grasping of God himself in the various forms of his approach unto us which is the culminating act of all religion. It is safe to say that both in the guarding of this idea from every kind of mystical excess and perversion and in the thoroughness on the other hand of its application within the proper limits imposed by the personality of God, the biblical religion stands unique among the religions of the world. You may find enough elsewhere of absorption into the deity as you may find plenty in other quarters of coordination between the gods and men as if the two had separated spheres of life. But you will find nowhere such a clear grasp upon the principle that from the very nature of religion man is designed to hold converse with God and to become practically acquainted with him. Nor is it merely a subjective aspiration of man which underlies this idea of religion. At the basis of it lies the conviction that there is in God himself the possibility, nay the desire for this. Notice how our passage expresses it. The secret intercourse of the Lord is with them that fear him and he will teach them his covenant.

"It is a condescension of God not an aspiration of ourselves which renders real this crowning act of religion. The Psalmists are convinced that God himself desires to enter upon close fellowship with man; that if he institutes a covenant for his servants, it is because he is in his very nature a covenant God. In the saints upon the earth is all his delight. We have no right to say that there was any lack or deficiency in God to be supplemented by the creation of man in his image and for communion with him for that would be inconsistent with his character as God. The Scriptures teach that he is all-sufficient unto himself and forever blessed in himself. Nevertheless having created man, it is natural in God to receive man as an inmate of his house and companion of his own blessed life. God himself takes pleasure in the immediate personal fellowship with us to which he invites us. There is that in him which corresponds to the highest in our religion. The prayer of his people comes like incense before him; the lifting up of their hands as an evening sacrifice. And it is because the Psalmists realize this that their own desire to meet with God and speak with God obtains that intensely passionate character to which reference has been made." -- Geerhardus Vos, "A Sermon on Psalm 25:14"

Of course, don't make too much of the theology.....

..... it's just fiction (sic).

http://www.sacredsandwich.com/advertisement21.htm

THE RUNAWAY BESTSELLER FOR CHRISTIANS WHO NEED TO RE-IMAGINE GOD IN THEIR OWN IMAGE!

Britton: "going organic is expensive"

"…contemporary sentiment has pretty much ruled against voluntary, wholehearted acceptance of authority in general, and Christians are hardly immune to contemporary sentiment.  The extreme alternative to structured authority in the church is an attractively organic non-structure, in which the common priesthood of the believers is celebrated without the 'Big Brother' feel of a church hierarchy…"

"…the 'organic' vision…(is one) in which the absence of designated leadership is lauded… if an organic church is planted properly, 'those believers will know how to sense and follow the living, breathing headship of Jesus Christ in a meeting.  They will know how to let Him invisibly lead their gatherings…[T]hey will minister out of what Christ has shown them -- with no human leader present!'  This is a self-consciously antiestablishment vision, charged with enthusiasm and anthropological optimism, and its promoters take pride in tracing its roots to the Anabaptists and the 'Radical Reformation.'  Anything short of a spontaneous, free, and authentic group experience of the Savior is, in their view, unbiblical and pagan.

"What do we lose if we jettison a structure of authoritative leadership in the church?  No slur on farmers intended, but what is true at the grocery checkout is true in the church as well: going organic is expensive.  Here the pinch is felt not in the wallet but in the health of the body of Christ.

"Ordination, as a commission and a covenant, sets apart from the congregation selected men who promise to love and guard that local expression of Christ's body… the elders' charge is to 'pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock…[C]are for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood" (Acts 20:28).  In church discipline, Sacraments, doctrinal matters, and instruction, the oversight of elders is intended to preserve, protect, and defend the faith and the people.  Without leaders who are set apart for and dedicated to this task, the church and its proclamation of the gospel are fair game for the ravening wolves without and the wayward saints within.

"Granted, ordination brings one into a position of visibility and influence that can be gravely abused.  But although every pastor or elder is just a jar of clay, God has seen fit to entrust designated human officers, answerable to God with his gospel and his church…those who govern our congregation are themselves governed by the Lord, the Word, and one another, and my understanding that their calling is a necessary gift to the rest of us." -- Paige Britton, "A Necessary Gift", Modern Reformation, September/October 2009, pp. 23-26

Not exactly a grim reaper...Owen: "death is a messenger sent of God"

Let us take heed of being surprised with death. This is that peculiar wisdom which God calls us all unto at this day. We know not how soon we may be called upon by death. It may not come in an ordinary course, by long sickness, and give us warning; nor when we have lived to the age of a man, which is “threescore years and ten,” as the psalmist speaks; but we may be surprised with it when we look not for it.

He that hath not learned it for himself from the dealings of God at this present in the world, and in this congregation, will not believe it if one should come from the dead and tell him so. Let this, then, be fixed upon our minds, that whatsoever be our state and condition, some are strong, young, and healthy, and some of us are old and feeble, going out of the world; but there are none of us but may be surprised with it.

Take heed, therefore, that you be not surprised in an ill frame. I hope there are none of you but do understand that there is great variety in the frames of believers; sometimes they are in a good frame, — grace is active and quick, — they are ready to take impressions by the word and warnings, delighting in holy thoughts; and sometimes, again, it may be the world, temptations, or selflove, comes in, or over-valuation of our relations, and indisposes them again, and they are very unfit and lifeless for the performance of duties with delight and vigor of spirit; and these they lose, though they keep up to all their duties. I persuade myself you will confirm this with your own experience.

There is no maintaining (though there may be impressions) of a quick, holy, lively frame, but by a sedulous contemplation and constant view of things that are above. Many will tell you, that when God hath been pleased to keep up their minds unto the thoughts of things above, and draw out their affections to cleave unto them, all things have gone well with them, — every prayer had life in it, and every sermon and duty, pleasure and joy; and their hearts have lain down and arisen in peace. But when they have lost their view of spiritual things, all other things continue, but there is a kind of deadness upon them. Why, then, our wisdom in this case is, to labor to keep up this spiritual view of eternal things, in a holy contemplation of and cleaving to them in our affections, or death will be surprising; come when it will, you will be surprised by it.

But if this be our frame, what comes this messenger for? Death is a messenger sent of God; he knocks at the door, and what comes he for? To perfect the frame you are in, that you may see heavenly things more clearly. He is come to free you from that deadness you are burdened withal, that darkness you are entangled with, and to set you at perfect liberty in the enjoyment of those things your souls cleave unto. How, then, can your souls but bid this messenger welcome? Pray, then, that God would keep up your souls, by fresh supplies of his Spirit, unto a constant view of heavenly things. And you must do it by prayer, that God would give you fresh oil, to increase light in your minds and understandings.

Some can tell you by experience, that, having made it their business with all their strength and study to live in that frame, they have found their own light decay, so that it would not be so fixed and constant towards heavenly things, nor so affect the heart as it had done before. Their light would work no more, until fresh supplies from the Holy Ghost gave quickness to it, and fresh oil to increase, to discern the beauty of spiritual and heavenly things. In plain terms, I speak to dying men, that know not how soon they may die. God advise my own heart of this thing, that I should labor and watch, that death might not find me out of the view of spiritual things! If it do, — if our bellies cleave unto the dust, and our eyes are turned to the ground, — if we are filled with other things, and death approaches, — do you think it will be an easy thing to gather in your minds and affections to a compliance with it? You will not find it so.

When David was in a good frame, he could say, “Thou hast redeemed me, O LORD God of truth: O LORD, into thine hand I commit my spirit;” — “I am willing to come and lay down my tabernacle, and embrace this messenger. But David falls from his good frame, under some decays of spirit, Psalm 39, and there makes great complaint of it. Where is the readiness now of the good man, and where is his willingness of giving up his spirit into the hand of God? “Spare me a little, that I may recover my strength,” verse 13. Not his outward strength, but a better frame, fit to die in.

And if death overtake us in such a frame, the best of us will be found to cry so: “O spare me a little, to recover my strength.” — “O the entanglements that have been brought upon me by this and that temptation, and diversion; by this coldness and decay! O Lord, spare me a little.” There is mercy with God for persons in this frame; but if it were the will of God, I had rather it should be, “LORD, into thy hands I commend my spirit; for thou hast redeemed me, O LORD God of truth.” -- John Owen, The Works of John Owen, Vol. 9, Sermon, October 10, 1680.

The Sermon on the Mount and the Old Testament: Part 3

There are a couple of questions that are pertinent to the relationship between the Old Testament and the Sermon on the Mount: How does Christ understand himself in light of the Old Testament, and how does Matthew understand Christ in light of the Old Testament? Again, there is much material in just the Sermon on the Mount that could occupy us for hours, so I’m going to simply look at a couple of words that occur in the thesis statement of the Sermon. There is one related question I think will be answered along the way: How does Christ understand himself not only in relation to the Old Testament, but especially the Law? I raise these questions because they are fundamental hermeneutical principles (see G.K. Beale, “Right Doctrine from the Wrong Text?”) that will help us understand the gist of the Sermon on the Mount.

In the Sermon on the Mount, we not only have Christ quoting the Old Testament, we also have him ascending the Mount and sitting down. This is no accident. This isn’t simply, as some like Davies would have us believe, Matthew writing about an event and couching it in the imagery of a king sitting down on a throne to make us think about David. Matthew isn’t simply using crowds following and Christ ascending and teaching “ethic” to make us think about Moses. Christ himself provides Matthew the opportunity to write those things because Christ himself is orchestrating the event to in a way that brings to mind the imagery of David and Moses. The very one who gave the law to Moses on the first mount, the very one who chose David over Saul, is the one who, in the fullness of times, ascends a mount and sits down to teach and dwell among His people.

Again, much ink has been spilled on the central thought of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:17-20. Entire movements and denominations are born and die over how this passage is interpreted. And to be honest, this presentation isn't going to solve an issue that has divided the church since Christ ascended to David's throne.

Of all of these issues that arise out of this passage, I want to briefly mention one and then look at the second. The first is what to do about the word "abolish". At this point, I'm really going to cut a lot of scholarship and debate off at the chase to suggest that when it comes to both "abolish" and "fulfill", we must take into account the point in redemptive history in which the statement occurred, even as we must take into account the point in redemptive history and revelation into which Matthew writes. The latter occurs much later than the former, and we must consider both if we want to get it right.

This is not a light matter. Even some who see Torah Incarnate in the Sermon on the Mount, especially Davies, Gibbs and Lloy, interpret Christ's statement here as reason to affirm Christ's reinforcement of the Law in the New Covenant. They stumble of the New Testament’s use of Old Testament law. And indeed most of the Reformed world in which we move and reside takes Christ's statement about not abolishing the law as a transcendent universal statement, good for all times, all ages, all people everywhere.

The question is this: is this how the rest of the New Testament understands Christ's relationship to the Law? The answer is no. For time sake, I really think the key to understanding "abolish" and the reality for us today is found in 2 Corinthians 3, Hebrews 8-9, and Ephesians 2 (the latter I believe is the defining statement about the abolishment of the law). If 2 Corinthians 3, Hebrews 8-9, and Ephesians 2 are saying what we affirm here them to be saying, what do we make of Christ's statement, especially since the scriptures are not contradictory. At the end of the day, what we're affirming (something I pressed back against for a long time) is that Christ says "I have not come to abolish" and in fact, in his death and Resurrection indeed did abolish the law.

There are two ways to answer this dilemma, either of which may be true at the same time. The first is to understand Christ's statement as non-universal and confined to that period of time in which the statement occurred redemptive-historically. At that point in Christ's ministry, his purposes did not included the abolishment of the law, although it isn't too long into the Matthean narrative that Christ proclaims himself to be Lord of the Sabbath. While at that time Christ's purposes were not to abolish the law, before it was all said and done, this is precisely what he had done. Christ is not being deceptive. He is merely affirming that as long as His ministry continued, by and large, He was going to submit himself to the law as under the law. I realize that's a point that not all of us agree on, but I believe this is one of the answers to the dilemma because of what I believe to be true about the word "fulfill", which I'll get to in a minute.

The other way to answer this dilemma I think is more fundamental, more basic to what we are proposing in New Covenant theology. And that's that there's a sense in which the law and the prophets, even as the Old Testament has been abrogated as obsolete, has been subsumed in the One who filled it up. There is a sense in which the law and the prophets, the Old Testament, has not been made obsolete because those types and shadows now find their home in the One who brought all of their meaning to fruition. This doesn’t mean there hasn’t been a change in form or hasn’t been a change in the way that we relate to the Old Testament or the law. It simply means that the Old Testament “lives on” so to speak in the Person who fulfilled it, and in that sense, we can say the Law or the Prophets have not been abolished.

This is also the answer to a fundamental question posed by those in Covenant Theology: how is it that David and other OT writers referred to the law as eternal, especially if we are going to insist that the law has faded away, been made obsolete, and has been abolished? There are places in the Old Testament where David and the prophets make reference to an eternal covenant that has been made with Israel, and their context for the statement is the Mosaic Law.

If the Mosaic Law has been abolished (Ephesians 2:15, 2 Corinthians 3, Hebrews 8-10, Galatians 3-4), how is it that it can be said to be eternal (also see Romans 3:19)? Much of Reformed theology, especially from Calvin onward, affirm the Mosaic law as still in force, in part because of some of the statements about the covenant being eternal. The three categories (civil, ceremonial, and moral) were invented as a means of dealing with this issue (they’re dubious attempts to “exegete” them from scripture notwithstanding).

The answer is that the Law, not in its form, not in its Old Covenant stipulations, but in its essence, that which revealed the eternal character of God, lives on in a Person who has filled up the law to its fullest measure. And it's interesting, on that point about the Law being Incarnate, Gibbs and Lloy and a host of others, do agree with us. The One who originally penned the law and wrote the law to begin with continues the Law in His Person, even as the terms and the form are changed in the New Covenant. The law has faded away and become obsolete, because the One who fingered the original law on the first Sinai has filled it up to its fullest measure. But as I argue in just a moment, this filling up the Law in the fullness of time is progressive; that filling up will not be complete until after Christ’s death and resurrection. Since it is progressive, there is a sense in which Christ can say, at this point in redemptive history, he has not come to abolish the Law. Such abolishment will not occur until his death and resurrection have been accomplished.

Christ is law Incarnate, and eternally so. I bring this up because I don’t think those of us in New Covenant theology have done a very good job at answering this question as to how the Mosaic Covenant or Law can be considered “eternal”, especially when he says here in the Sermon on the Mount, “I have not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I think NCT has had a tendency to simply wipe this issue under the rug. But I believe this question of the law’s eternality is a legitimate question. For instance, in Romans, in the context of a discussion about “law”, Paul says the law makes all men (meaning all men everywhere in all times and in all places) accountable (Romans 3:19) to God. How is that? We have our answer, which I will more fully develop shortly. Because the Person holding all men accountable *is* the Law. When the sheep and the goats are divided, Christ doesn’t have to whip out the Mosaic law from the Old Testament in order to judge men. Christ, by His very nature, Person, and work, provides the context for the division of the sheep and the goats.

In fact, I think we can argue that the finality of the Mosaic law’s form consummates a few years after Christ’s death. And a tip off to that thought occurs in Matthew. He has an allusion to the law becoming abolished. Now, I want to state up front that I’m not going to fully develop this thought. I just want to put it on the table and suggest that more work needs to be done in this area. “I have not come to abolish the law, I am here as a lawkeeper. But oh, by the way, there will come a point in time, sooner rather than later, in which the law will be abolished”.

Remember, this word “abolish” is the same word that is translated as “destroy”. The allusion is found in Matthew 27:40, and verse 40 is set up by verse 20:

Matthew 27:20: “Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus.” Matthew here is setting up a juxtaposition in this chapter.

Matthew 27:40: “And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, “You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” Now, unlike John, Matthew places this quote on the lips of his accusers.

This quote had shown up in Christ’s trial as an accusation (and not coincidentally, is the same accusation lodged against Stephen in his trial; compare Matthew 26:61 with Acts 6:14). We know the witnesses at Christ’s trial to be false witnesses in the sense that Christ had done nothing wrong; but the accusation in and of itself is completely accurate. We know this because of the account John provides us in John 2. And here on Golgotha the accusation shows up again in the form of mockery (it’s also another form of Satan’s temptation; compare Matthew 27:40 with Matthew 4:5).

The religious leaders who held the trial persuaded the crowd to “release Barabbas and destroy Jesus”. And the irony is in Matthew’s juxtaposition. Even as they “destroy” Jesus (as he had suggested in John 2), Christ is “destroying” the temple, or at least setting the stage for it to be destroyed (in A.D. 70). And certainly, this is how Stephen understood it, if we follow what he unpacks in his sermon (Acts 7).

Now, there is more than this simple juxtaposition taking place in Matthew. This thought of “destroying” temple is connected to the word “abolish” in Matthew 5:17. And this is where more work needs to be done. One cannot have “temple” without “law”. The two are inseparable. The giving of the law resulted in the creation of the tabernacle and “law” regulated everything that occurred in the tabernacle. This is reiterated when David dedicated the tabernacle after bringing the ark of the covenant back to it (1 Chronicles 17:40), it’s confirmed at Solomon’s dedication of the temple (2 Chronicles 6:14-17), and it’s a central thought in the entire account of Josiah’s “discovery” of the law in the temple (2 Chronicles 34:14ff). Temple and law were inseparably bound to each other. So much so, that in Matthew’s use of “abolish” and “destroy”, to “destroy” the temple is to “abolish” the law. What we have in the destruction of the temple, embodied in the “destruction” of Christ’s “temple”, is the ending of the Mosaic law (and covenant: the end of the temple signals the end of the Mosaic covenant). The old law has given way to a new One, Christ himself. And the upshot of Matthew’s connection between Matthew 5:17 and 27:40, for our discussion within and without New Covenant Theology, is that Christ’s statement in Matthew 5:17 cannot be understood as a universal. There is an eschatological trajectory to the 5:17 statement which is connected to Christ’s work on the cross. Christ is not positing a truism for all places, all people, and all time, at least at it relates to the Mosaic form of the law. It must be understood within and limited to the framework of his place and his ministry in that moment in redemptive history. -- crb, "The Sermon on the Mount and the Old Testament"