Reflections on order

Respondeo

Category: Uncategorized Page 2 of 3

Christ fulfills the law: He Inaugurates a Spiritual Kingdom

The Second Part of  “Christ fulfills the law.”

The Land of Israel is intimately connected with the tabernacle system.  If you pay attention to where men offered sacrifices in the scriptures after the time of Abraham, it is consistently in the land of Israel.  The land is special and holy to God. God commands Israel in Deuteronomy to set up two stones and write the law on them, then set them up on Mt. Ebal in the holy land.  These were witnesses between the land and the people of Israel.   The Israelites are told in Leviticus 18 that if they sin against God the land would vomit them out.   The land turns against Israel when she sins through famine and through infertility.  If God is going to dwell in the land it must remain holy.

The role of the land in the Old Testament helps us to understand Holy War in the Old Testament.  The Canaanites had thoroughly defiled the land, so God used the Israelites as a judgment against them.  The role of the land also helps us understand why so many sins received capital punishment, especially the reason why idolaters received capital punishment.  If the land was defiled it brought judgment on the whole nation of Israel.  We can think of the sin of Achin and how that affected the entire Israelite community when they attacked Ai.  Achin’s sin had defiled the camp. The sin of the people defiled the land of Israel. The land had to remain pure because God desired to dwell among his people.

To understand Christ’s fulfillment of the land, we need to understand what the kingdom of God is and further on, the church.

Christ comes to inaugurate the kingdom of God.  This is Christ’s opening announcement in the gospels.  The kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom.  We can see it visibly in members of the church of Christ, laboring in whatever position God has called them too. But the kingdom is also invisible.  In fact, it is primarily invisible.  It is the work of the Spirit in transforming the hearts of the regenerate so that they love and serve their king.  As Christ says to his disciples in Luke 17: 21, “Nor will they say, “look here it is,” or “it’s over there!” for the kingdom of God is already among you.

In the Old Testament, that kingdom had definite boundaries.  In the New Testament, that kingdom is wherever believers are.  Our king is Christ. Christ is the anchor that keeps us rooted from above.  Christ is the ark according to 1 Peter 3, who keeps us safe in the troubled waters of our own day. We are citizens of heaven.  We cannot defile the land in the same way.  There remains a promise that the saints will inherit the earth, but our orientation to the land is different.  God bound the Jews to the land and the purity of the land.  God binds us together by the Spirit of Christ, as the church of God, to Christ’s body in heaven.

The Jews furthered the kingdom of Israel through obedience to God’s call to holiness so that the nations would be blessed by her.  Christians further the kingdom of God by calling all the people of the earth to become citizens of the kingdom of heaven.

We also need to understand what the church is in order to understand how Christ fulfilled the role of the land.  The church is the gathering of the citizens of the kingdom so that they may worship God.  The Greek word for church is a political word, referring to a gathering of citizens in order to make decisions for a city. The church gathers in Christ.  They come as men and women born of the spirit of Christ.  The purity of the church depends on the purity of her members.

Once again we can ask how the church is to order her life according to God’s law in the Old Testament.  This time his word about the land. The church is called to purity through the use of church discipline.  The church is the gathering of a spiritual kingdom.  That means that she doesn’t use the sword to punish her offending members as they did in the Old Testament.

Rather the church uses spiritual means.  She guards the purity of the church through the preaching of the word. There is a possibility he may have to remove members from the fellowship at the Lord’s Table. She needs to remove those members of Christ, not from the land. This is how the church keeps herself pure. If she does not, it’s not the land that vomits her out, but God.  Think of Revelation 3: 15, where God threatens to vomit out the church of Laodicea if she does not repent.

At the same time, the promise to the church is that she will inherit the earth. God calls the church to wage a spiritual holy war against the lies of this world. We heard that this. She is called to do this in her own midst in order to protect her people.  God also calls her to apply the redemptive work of Christ in rescuing people from the lies of the devil.  Just as the church is the temple of Christ, so the church is the land of Christ, where people can be safe from the wrath of God.

Did God make a Covenant with Adam?

In attempting to answer this question, I use the definition of the covenant I wrote of in the past. A covenant is a formalization of a personal relationship.  This leads me to answer both “yes” and “no.”  It depends on how you approach the Adamic administration.  If you look at the creation of Adam in terms of paternity and sonship, the tendency is to say “no.”  If you look at the creation of Adam in terms of Creator and creature, the tendency is to say “yes.”

This question would be very easy to answer if the Adamic administration was referred to as a covenant in scripture.  It is not.  There is the possibility that Hosea 6:7 refers to a covenant with Adam.  It may also refer to a more general covenant with mankind, such as the Noahic covenant.  It is more responsible to prove that the Adamic administration fits the concept of the word covenant before we argue for one interpretation or the other in Hosea 6:7.

I want to argue first that the Adamic administration is revealed as a father-son relationship.  Though this relationship is covenant-like, it is not necessarily a covenant.   For this, I use the arguments of Jason Van Vliet in his graduate work.

He draws from a number of places in scripture to prove that the image of God is revealed in Adam’s sonship to God. Luke is most explicit.  In the genealogy that Luke gives for Christ at the end of Luke three, Luke refers to Adam as a son of God, just as Seth was the son of Adam.

Where did Luke get this from?  It is likely that Luke got this from his understanding of the image of God in Genesis 1.  God makes Adam in his image. When the genealogy of Adam is given in Genesis 5, we are told that Seth is made in the image and likeness of Adam.  The image of God seems to be about a father-son relationship.

Is a father-son relationship a covenant? I’ve already suggested that it is hard to call it a covenant.  I believe that an adoption can be properly termed a covenant. Adoption is a legal process, which allows two individuals to act as Father and son.  This is what happens in the covenant made after sin.  By Christ, God worked it so that we may have the relationship of son and father that Adam had lost.  There is no formalization to the relationship of a natural-born son to his natural father, however.  If it is a covenant, it is one that springs from the way things are and does not need a legal creation.  We could employ the distinction between nature and culture here.  The father-son relationship springs from nature.  Covenants are cultural, they build on natural bonds.

Compare it to marriage. In marriage, there is a creation of a new type of relationship, which the two type of individuals did not have before.  In the case of a son or daughter, there is not a moment of the son’s existence, where he does not relate as a son to his father.  One is natural.  One is cultural.  The father-son relationship is covenant-like.  Marriage is a covenant.

Father-son relationships are covenant-like in that the relationship can be broken.  The father or the son may forget their natural duties toward one another and betray one another’s trust. The father is called to rule well and the son to obedience and submission, at least in his growing years.  Again, there is growth in that relationship, but there are also duties according to what we might call the created order.   Thinking about Adam and God in this sense would suggest that covenant is not the best way to describe their relationship.

However, we must understand that this is an analogy.  This is obviously true.  God is God.  Adam is a man.  Adam is in the image of God. The children of Adam may even be referred to as gods, as they are in Psalm 82, but that means that they share the character of God, not the substance of God.  This means that there is another legitimate way to think about the covenantal character of the creation of Adam.

When we begin with Creator God rather than Father God, a dramatic distance opens between God and Adam. God is eternal, infallible and unfailingly holy.  Adam is none of those things.  God grants Adam the image of God. God is intentionally creating a relationship between himself and Adam, which is formalized by sharing his image with Adam.  From this perspective there is a covenant between God and Adam.

It is natural, or informal, in the sense that it springs from God’s imprint of his image upon Adam.  But it is also formal in the sense that God chose that this should be the nature of his relationship with Adam.  It is formal in the sense that God ordained that Adam should be in his image.  When men have children they do not choose to have children in their image.

It is ultimately because God is not bound by his own created order, that we can understand his relationship with Adam as a covenant.

How should we speak of the Adamic administration then?  Is it a covenant or is it not?  It depends.  Those theologians who wish to speak in Biblical terms as much as possible will be suspicious of calling it a covenant.  I would count myself as one of those.  However, it is important to recognize that there is a legitimacy in calling it a covenant as well, according to our philosophical understanding of what is happening in scripture.  Such a way of speaking is not anti-scriptural.  My preference is that covenant would not be the primary category for speaking of God’s relationship with Adam.  Instead, we should think of that administration in terms of a father and a son. That is how God chose to teach us about his creation of Adam.

n.b.  I’m not sure if the nature and culture distinction I mentioned works that well. The problem is Marriage is not merely cultural, it has a grounding in nature.  If culture builds on and is rooted in nature, however, that is not a huge problem. The problem is with the popular understanding of culture today.  We see culture as added to nature, not grounded in nature.

Theses on Natural Law and its Recovery

In this post, I want to give some initial thoughts on natural law itself and the recent recovery of natural law.

  1. Reading many contemporary proponents of natural law, I am impressed by their ability to interact with 16th and 17th century sources.  They are particularly impressive in their understanding of the protestant scholastics and their forebears. They give a robust defense of natural law as something biblical. Further, they prove that natural has the stamp of the best of Christian tradition.  Unfortunately, I don’t see a willingness to critically interact with classical natural law theory of the 16th and 17th century.  It may be that the proponents of the 16th and 17th century got natural law right.  Even if they did, there should be room to talk about natural law with greater specificity than those in the past.  Natural law can be a highly ambiguous term.
  2.  (a) One of the most egregious examples of an inability to interact with natural law critically is the lack of interaction with the Van Tillian critique of natural law.  I realize that the Van Tillian critique is guilty of a dependence on bad historiagraphy.  Van Til relied on a poor reading of Thomas Aquinas, as well, as a poor historical understanding of the development of natural law.  Even so they were dealing with a contemporary form of natural law that had twisted what the Protestant scholastics taught.  Contemporaries of Van Til would use their theories of natural law to undermine the faith.   (b) This lack of interaction is combined with a lack of understanding: Van Til was dealing with men who were using natural law to defend things like old earth creationism and liberalism in the churches in general.  I say this, not to exonerate Van Til and Rushdoony, but to give context to what he was fighting.
  3. This thesis is more of a pet peeve of mine.  If natural law is a reality then unbelievers also have access to God’s truth in their interactions with God’s world.  This means Christians can learn from unbelievers, who had many things wrong about God.  My thesis is this: contemporary unbelievers should be just as helpful in finding truth, perhaps even more so, as past unbelievers.
  4. Now we come to the critique of classical natural law theory.  I want to argue that natural law is an aspect of God’s relationship to his creation, not a particular something in itself.  In my reading so far I have not seen a clear recognition of this in the scholastics.  If this is not clearly laid out natural law can slowly be separated from God and gain an authority of its own.  It can begin to compete with the Scriptures as a source of authority.  If we immediately define as an aspect of God’s relationship, this becomes impossible.
  5. Against the Protestant Scholastics, I want to argue that natural law is mutable. If the cosmos changes, natural law changes.  This is a change in creation relative to God that changes the configuration of natural law.  One example would be the necessity of sacrifice after Adam fell into sin.   This was because the human race changed in relation to God.
  6. Behind all this is a certain theory of the universe.  We can think of the universe in terms of a puzzle or legos. A world made on the analogy of legos contains a number of possibilities for design.  A box of legos has the potential for several different shapes.  The natural law legos can be kept in the same configuration even if the rest of the legos are re-configurated.  If creation is more like a puzzle, then each piece is contingent on the other pieces.  If a part of the puzzle is re-configurated then the whole puzzle is reconfigurated.  Natural law is the aspect of “rightly fitting together” according to the maker’s design.   Like the legos, the puzzle pieces have reality in themselves. Unlike the legos they are contingent on one another for the completeness of the puzzle.  I argue that the universe is a puzzle. (I wonder if this is behind Van Til’s argument that unbelievers cannot have capital-T truth.  Van Til thinks of truth radically contingent on knowing Christ as the centre and expllanation of the universe.  The problem with this is that you can still know part of the puzzle as something that is truly part of the puzzle.  You just don’t have the key to the puzzle; Jesus Christ.  It is a hermeneutical problem, not an epistomological problem.)
  7. My boldest thesis: I would suggest that the term “created order” replace the term “natural law.”  I believe that the understanding of the term “natural law” can quickly turn to a semi-autonomous force. In reality, “natural law” is radically contingent on the creator.  The term “created order” emphasizes that contingency.

How many senses?

A quick thought:

Even though I would defend multiple levels of meaning of scripture, I want to be careful.  There is a strong insight in the argument that there is only one sense in scripture.  The basic truth behind this insight is that Scripture cannot mean something that is contradictory to its plain or literal sense. Even though we can discern different levels of meaning this does not mean that meaning of scripture is not one. Scripture has one unified message and that is the salvation we all find in Christ.

Finding Wisdom 1

One of the themes of the book of Proverbs is the hiddenness of wisdom.  In some sense, she is easy to find.  In another sense, it takes time and money to find her.

The important thing to remember is the beginning of wisdom.  In order to find wisdom, you need the right starting point.  That starting point is the fear of the Lord.  Solomon tells us that repeatedly, but particularly at the beginning of the book.  He already tells in the first chapter the seventh verse that the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord.

When you fear the Lord in a sense you already have wisdom, but that is only the beginning. She is out in the marketplace calling in chapter 1 of Proverbe, but approaching her seat is only the beginning.

There is a wisdom to learn within the wisdom that is given.  We have the creation of God.  We have the Word of God.  Both are places where Solomon goes to find wisdom.  In Chapter 8 of Proverbs, Solomon speaks of how God built the foundation of the world with wisdom.  Throughout the book of Proverbs Solomon will talk about lessons he learns from the animals (i.e. go to the ant, you sluggard). One also learns wisdom by remembering the law of their father and mother.  God provides authorities on this earth to give us wisdom.

The ultimate wisdom is “to trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding (Proverbs 3:5).”   Wisdom begins with the Lord and ends with the Lord. But the goal is not thoughtless submission.  That is clear from all the different things that Solomon calls us to consider.  The goal is deep reflection, deep understanding of the goodness that the Lord has given.

Proverbs is a challenge to listen.  It is a challenge to learn and reflect on the commandments that the Lord has given us; to apply that word so that we may discern between good and evil. Ultimately it is a challenge to search out wisdom, to move from wisdom to greater wisdom.   (It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out (Proverbs 25:2).

Conversation with the Fathers 2: Denying the Role of Reason.

I believe that conversation with the fathers of the faith is under attack.

I want to note three different ways the conversation has come under attack.  I believe that each way ultimately undermines the role of reason in responding to the authority of scripture.   They undermine the role of reason because they lose the possibility of having a conversation about the meaning of scripture with fellow saints.

The first attack comes from rationalists.  They are more popularly known as liberal Christians.  The rationalists attack this understanding by exalting human reason.  Human reason is the ultimate authority, not scripture.  They deny the singular authority of scripture.  In this way scripture just becomes one of the many voices that leads us to truth.  Rather than a discussion about a firm revelation, we have a discussion that guesses at what might have been revealed. Because there is no firm authority your guess is as good as mine.

Conversation concerning scripture comes under attack because there is no shared “center” for conversation. There is no foundation for conversation   Because conversation is under attack, reason also comes under attack.  To understand this, we need to understand the purpose of reason.  Reason is a tool to persuade one another.  If you do not have a foundation upon which to rest your reason you will have no ability to persuade another person of your view.  In this way, reason is lost in interpreting the scriptures.

Consider a discussion on Genesis 1.  Rationalists often reject what Genesis 1 contains because it does not fit their experience.  Or maybe because a God like God could not have created the world in that way.  Suddenly they begin to find whatever they want in Genesis 1.

Another attack comes from Christian radical individualism.  In this view, the individual reader becomes the most important interpreter of scripture.  Conversation with fellow saints both of the past and of the present is lost because “me and my Bible” are the most important pair out there.  The problems with this understanding are well documented today, in part because this understanding is very common in North America.

Loss of conversation leads to the loss of reason once again.  Any reasonable argument can be rejected on the basis of my reading of scripture.  Even though Christian radical individualism accepts the authority of scripture, it borrows from rationalism. Like rationalism, this individualism understands that its interpretive authority is primary.

Consider a discussion on the book of Revelation 11.  The fact that there are two witnesses is unquestioned. The radical individualist will tenaciously hold to his interpretation of these two witnesses, even if he cannot support his understanding through well-reasoned arguments.

Finally, we come to traditionalism.  At first, it doesn’t make sense that traditionalism would reject conversation with the fathers.  Traditionalistic churches have a huge respect for the fathers.  They certainly don’t reject the opinions of the fathers.  Rather, they reject the conversation with the fathers.  A well-reasoned argument can not overturn a well-established opinion.  They never find Calvin wrong.  John of Damascus is sublime on every point.  Thomas Aquinas is absolutely rigorous in every doctrine he developed. They reject the tool of reason in discerning whether the fathers were right, partly right, or plain wrong on a certain issue.

Traditionalism is a plague to all Christians, but there are churches that mandate traditionalism in their confessional material.  The result is silence before tradition, not conversation.  One must repeat after the fathers or be silent.

A classic example here would be the doctrines that have accumulated around the Virgin Mary.  Even though these have very little or even no support from scripture, they are treated as authoritative doctrine because certain fathers discerned teaching about Mary in certain scripture passages.

What I would prefer is a conversation. We are fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, sisters and brothers, discussing and seeking to discern the meaning of the Holy Book that God has given to us. This doesn’t mean we have to apply our reason to every issue, rather we use the reason that God has given to us unto those issues that the Spirit have led us to.

n.b. These categories are meant for a helpful overview.  I believe that most denominations will have all the categories listed above, even though they may officially lean toward one of these understandings. This is true of individuals as well.

Losing History

In a former post, I argued that we should hold to both a literary reading and a historical reading of Genesis 1.  I argued against those who try to divide these two, either picking the literary reading or the historical reading. Further, when you do this to Genesis 1 it opens the door for people to do it with the gospels. That post is here.

Just today I saw a post on postbarthian.com which argued this very thing.  They argued for the reality of the of the open tomb and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Meanwhile, the gospel accounts were literary (legend-like) accounts of that basic truth.

Again, I want to affirm both the literary and the historical nature of those parts of scripture.  If we affirm literary, without the historical, we begin to argue over what precise amount of theological content can be affirmed from this literary account.  If we affirm both, we have fullness.

Involved in Providence

A short excerpt from a paper I recently wrote on an article by Robert Jenson.  Here is one way to think about how prayer works.  Prayer is a means in the plan of redemption and it moves along the plan of redemption.

Christians, through prayer, really are involved in providence.

When we understand this within the immutability of God’s decree, we see that God brings all things to be through his good pleasure.  As beings in time, we can be confident in the certainty of God’s immutability; that he will always remain faithful. At the same time, we can, as part of God’s immutable plan, be certain that our prayers are means that truly are significant in God bringing out his plan of redemption.  We can trust this is true, because God is not before us temporally, but is before us as the eternal king.  He is both the beginning and the end.  This means we don’t need to be fatalists.  As Christians, we are living, breathing, free means within the immutable plan of redemption.

We have Direct Access to our Lord Jesus.

A little bit of exposition from Colossians 1:16:

Through Christ, God the Father has created everything.  Paul emphasizes that through the words, “heaven and earth.” In other words, the whole universe.  Also, “visible and invisible.” That means, angels too.  Then he gives us a number of descriptors of things that are created through Christ.  These are “thrones and authorities, principalities and powers.”  These could be human kings and emperors, but they can also refer to angelic powers behind the thrones and authorities.  Paul probably means to include both.  The church, just like the Jews of Paul’s time, is always tempted to give too much value to these created authorities. The fact is, these were created through Jesus.  These powers owe allegiance to Jesus.

We are told later on that, in particular, the principalities and powers have been conquered through Jesus’ death. Colossians 2:15, “Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it,” that is, in the cross.

There is something big going on here.  In the time of the Old Testament, the world was under the guardianship of angels.  In particular, we know that the law of the Old Covenant was administered by angels. Hebrews 2:2, Acts 7: 53 and Galatians 3: 19 all confirm this.  We know from the visions of Daniel in Daniel 7-11 that other nations had their angelic powers (perhaps even demonic powers) as well.   Now Jesus has come.  He has lived under the law that had been established through these angels.  And he has fulfilled that law. He broke the power of that law and supplanted the authority of the angels who administered it.

That means that there is no hierarchy between us and Jesus anymore. We, as sons of God, have outgrown our tutor, the law of the OT, according to Galatians four, and we directly serve our Saviour Jesus Christ. Colossians 2: 14 confirms this, “He has nailed it (the handwriting of the requirements that were against us) to the cross of Christ.   We are no longer subjected to these authorities and powers, but we are directly subjected to Christ through his death and resurrection.  As we are told in the very next verse, “he is the head of the church.”  This means that these powers have no control over the world anymore, not even an intermediary power.

Narrative, Poetry, and Prophecy

I recently wrote a blog post on telescoping and argued that typology would be a better way of talking about what was to come. I believe I was wrong and I was right.

There is truth in telescoping, in the idea that both author and reader could see beyond the first fulfillment.  I did not need to condemn telescoping.  They could see the greater mountain peak behind the first fulfillment. Perhaps they could even guess at a greater mountain peak behind that one.  In prophetic literature, it is often the Lord himself who gave the prophecy.  The prophet would have seen the fulfillment of the Lord’s words, but as he studied those words it is likely he would have seen the promise of greater fulfillment.

The problem with telescoping is that it is a hermeneutical principle that is limited to prophesy.

I want to propose that both typology and telescoping apply to every genre of biblical literature.  When David writes in Psalm 110, “The Lord said to my Lord, sit down at my right hand,” he wrote because of what the Lord had done in his time and in his life.  At the same time, he guesses at the further mountain peaks, which will fulfill that poetic truth he has written down.  This is not a prophecy, it is a poem.  When Moses sits down and writes down the story of his early life, he guesses at what further things God will do, based on what God has done in his life. Telescoping is not limited to prophecy.  Typology is not limited to narrative.  The Word of the Lord, in whatever genre, allows its readers to guess at what is coming in the future and at the same time to recognize the type when it comes.

Page 2 of 3

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén