I have just finished reading Peter Leithart's OT survey 'A House for My Name'. Besides being suitably pacy, readable, and popular-but-scholarly, the book is a fine example of Christological biblical theology.Infact, together with the Goldsworthy trilogy and Through New Eyes, AHFMN is now in my all-time top three introductions to biblical theology.
Although in some sense it's unfair to compare these three great books (they are written to serve differing purposes, for differing audiences, and AHFMN is only an OT survey), doing so does highlight some of the relative strengths of AHFMN.
In comparison to Goldsworthy's 'Gospel and Kingdom', AHFMN is less concerned with finding precise repetition of a particular pattern. So whereas Goldsworthy's 'people-place-blessing' can at times feel a little forced, or limited by its generality, AHFMN sits lightly enough to its unifying theme (the building of the house of the Lord) as to allow for a greater level of detail. Leithart's journey through the bible allows for more taking in of the scenery, without losing an overall sense of the journey's direction.
In comparison to Jordan's 'Through New Eyes,' AHFMN employs a more restrained interpretive maximalism. The result is greater accessibility and (for those used to breathing the more minimalist air of contemporary UK conservative evangelicalism) believability. Where some will be put off by several of Jordan's wilder assertions, Leithart's challenge to employ more maximal readings of scripture almost slips under the radar, since even at his most (for some) eyebrow-raising his conclusions are difficult to write off as speculative. Part of this is because Leithart argues his case more frequently (Jordan deliberately doesn't, and wouldn't have the space to either).
Those who read should read all three, but perhaps Goldsworthy first, then Leithart, then Jordan.
Showing posts with label Biblical Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Biblical Theology. Show all posts
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Church in Hebrews 5
In conclusion to the (1st) half of my essay devoted to the nature of the Church in Hebrews I wrote:
We may summarise what we have discovered about the ecclesiology of the letter to the Hebrews as follows. In Christ a word is spoken and a salvation achieved, which word and salvation stand as a teleological climax to the word and salvation offered in the Old covenant to Israel. Through right response to his word, the Church stands in a similar teleological and climactic relation to old covenant Israel. What Israel was promised, what faithful Israelites looked for, is the possession of the Church by virtue of Christ’s completion in his death-resurrection-ascension of what Israelite religion foreshadowed. That the Church is the eschatological Israel is arguably the key concept in the writer’s theology of the nature of the Church.
We may summarise what we have discovered about the ecclesiology of the letter to the Hebrews as follows. In Christ a word is spoken and a salvation achieved, which word and salvation stand as a teleological climax to the word and salvation offered in the Old covenant to Israel. Through right response to his word, the Church stands in a similar teleological and climactic relation to old covenant Israel. What Israel was promised, what faithful Israelites looked for, is the possession of the Church by virtue of Christ’s completion in his death-resurrection-ascension of what Israelite religion foreshadowed. That the Church is the eschatological Israel is arguably the key concept in the writer’s theology of the nature of the Church.
Church in Hebrews 4
[NB. If you have it/ want it, then these posts are better read using Firefox as your browser]
More of my efforts to show that according to Hebrews the Church is in a relation of eschatological fulfilment to Israel of the Old Testament.
3. Two e˙kklhsi÷a passages
Both uses of the word e˙kklhsi÷a in Hebrews are references to the ‘end times’ hope of Israel and should be read in accord with the promise-inheritance dynamic of the passages cited above.[1]
With 2:12, the surrounding text contains a number of descriptions of the people of God, together emphasising the familial connection between Christ and Church, but doing so in ‘Israel language.’ The “brothers” in the e˙kklhsi÷a of Psalm 22 (quoted in 2:12) are the Israelites gathered around the vindicated suffering King, whilst the “children” in 2:12 are from Isaiah 8 where Isaiah and his family function as a ‘true Israel’ within Israel - displaying the kind of patient faith that should have characterised the entire nation. Like Isaiah, Christ is “ a rallying point” for faith, and those who gather around him are ‘Israel’ in the truest sense.[2] In this context the reference to those who receive help from the Son’s priesthood as “the offspring of Abraham” in 2:16 seems entirely natural. Moreover, in 2:11 both Christ (the sanctifier) and Church (those he sanctifies) are of one origin, that is, have a sonship[3] based on God’s exaltation of them.[4] Hence, in 2:10 the Church is the “many sons” (like Israel was the son of God, Exodus 4:22) who are brought to glory by the perfected Son. The ‘church’ of 2:12 is thus qualified by a number of further descriptions which emphasise the arrival of eternal salvation (sanctification-glory-perfection-inheritance) through Christ for the ‘Israel’ gathered around him.
In 12:18-24 the Hebrews are contrasted with Israel at Sinai. Rather than being gathered at the foot of Sinai, they have come to Zion, the eschatological Jerusalem.[5] This, together with the reference to perfection (12:23), indicates that the hope of Abraham and other old covenant saints for a heavenly city/country is in view.[6] The ruling body[7] of this heavenly Jerusalem is the church of the firstborn enrolled in heaven (12:22), who have access to God himself through Jesus the better mediator (12:23-24). This is summarised in 12:28 as them receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken.[8] The Church is thus contrasted with Israel, but the contrast is by way of fulfilment – what makes the Church ‘different’ is that what Israel hoped for the Church in some sense possesses. Whilst this obviously awaits consummation, because the foundational, unique and guaranteeing priestly work has been done, the Church may truly be said to have ‘arrived’ at where Israel wanted to ‘be’ as embodied in her Zion theology. The new world, the promised rest, the heavenly city, the glorified ‘perfection’ that faithful Israelites hoped for, is all, through Christ’s mediatorial work, the possession of the Church. As Giles concludes, the Church is “Israel of the last days.”[9]
[1] In both passages ideas of inheritance are found in close proximity. See 2:16 and 12:17, 28.
[2] Quotation from Lane, Hebrews, 60. Attridge, Hebrews, 90-91.
[3] Asymmetrical but related nonetheless.
[4] Attridge argues that πάντες includes “both parties in v 11”, though ἑνὸς is ambiguous. Atttridge thinks ἑνὸς is intentionally ambiguous, much like the identity of the son of man in 2:8-9, to be revealed later. Given the verbal link with 10 (where God is the source of τὰ πάντα) and the familial language frequent in the rest of the writer’s exposition of this solidarity, it seems likely that the referent is God. Lane, Hebrews, 58. 51. Attridge, Hebrews, p88-89.
[5] See Psalm 2 or Psalm 46 for an example of Jerusalem idealised. Attridge states that in eschatological tradition Zion “became paired with Sinai as the ultimate point of God’s manifestation”, which traditions Paul and other early Christian authors adapted. Attridge, Hebrews, 374.
[6] Cf. 11:8-10, 13-16.
[7] This ‘political’ meaning for e˙kklhsi÷a can be found, for example, in Jonathan Stephen, “Introduction,” in Tales of Two Cities – Christianity and Politics (ed. Stephen Clark; Leicester: IVP, 2005), 9.
[8] This is probably itself a contrast with the old covenant system, which is about to be removed (8:13, 12:27, also 8:2-5, 9:11). This ‘preterist’ reading of the epistle assumes a pre-AD70 dating. John Owen is one of the more famous figures from Church history to propose such a reading. Rather than engaging in the lengthy process of trying to justify a preterist reading for Hebrews, we simply note here that reading the epistle as written in the context of the imminent covenant-transitional events of AD70 would strengthen the overall argument being made in this essay about the relation of the Church to Israel. The overall ‘new Israel theology’ on display here does not depend on preterism however. See David Field, “Interpretive approaches to the apocalypse” (Unpublished Lecture Handout. Oak Hill College, 2007). Also John Owen, Hebrews – The Epistle to the Hebrews, the Messiah, the Jewish Church (vol. XVII of The Works of John Owen; 1854-55; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1991), 96-101.
[9] Giles, Church, 159.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Church in Hebrews 3
[NB. If you have it/ want it, then these posts are better read using Firefox as your browser]
More of my efforts to show that according to Hebrews the Church is in a relation of eschatological fulfilment to Israel of the Old Testament.
2. Christ, the Church, and Israel
So far we have seen at the very least that the Church is deeply analogous to Old Testament Israel, and that this is so by virtue of the Church’s connection to Christ. However, more can be said here, since the importance of Christ in the Church’s identity has further implications for the Church’s relation to Israel. Christ’s work is described throughout Hebrews as fulfilling promises, types, shadows, offices and rituals that were given to Israel in the Old Testament.[1] This basic relation of Christ to Israelite history is also true for the Church. The community that benefits from Christ’s fulfilling of Israel’s shadows is therefore a part of this fulfilment of Israel and her history. In the Church Israel’s salvation history, her covenant, her promises, reach their teleological climax.[2] The Church is in this sense the ‘true’ or ‘new’ Israel, and that by virtue of Christ.[3]
This can be established at several places in the text, but we will start with Hebrews 8 since in this section (8:1-10:18) we find some of Hebrews’ more sustained reflection on Christ’s relation to the old covenant order.[4] In 8:1 the discussion of Christ as High priest in the order of Melchizedek comes to a head with the commencement of a comparison between “the true tent’ in which Christ serves and that which is described as a shadow of it, namely the earthly tabernacle built by Moses (8:5).[5] As high priest in this true tent Christ mediates a better covenant (8:2-6). This covenant (and the deficiencies of the old one) were spoken of in Jeremiah 31:31-34 (quoted in 8:8-12). Christ’s unique priesthood, fulfilling the shadows of the old covenant, guarantees for the Church the new covenant of Jeremiah’s prophecy.[6] In 9:15 this is described in terms of inheritance, which indicates these ideas are an expansion of what has been already asserted in more compact form in 2:16 where Christ as high priest helps Abraham’s offspring. The same themes can also be found in 6:13-20 where the promise to Abraham is expounded. Taken together, these passages show that what the Church receives from Christ’s high priestly ministry is what was promised to Abraham, and what was promised for a renewed Israel in Jeremiah 31. Hebrews 11:39-40 makes this even more explicit, where it is claimed that the saints of the Old Testament “did not receive what was promised” but only attained perfection[7] along with the Church. The same pattern is displayed in negative form in the discussion of God’s rest (3:7-4:14).[8] What faithful Israelites looked forward to, what faithless Israelites forfeited, is the possession of the Church.
[1] See discussion below for a fuller explanation. But see also discussion of typology and the Old Testament in Giles, Church, 154-155.
[2] That is, their intended ‘goal.’ This concept is clear in 11: 39-40 with regard to the promises and covenants given to faithful Israelites. See also Giles, Church, 153-159.
[3] “New’ alone would imply the Church was a new version, a second, a renewed Israel. That does not account for the fulfilment/climax motif found throughout Hebrews.
[4] Guthrie sees 8:3-10:18 as forming the second major half (5:1-10 with 7:1-28 forming the first half) of material in Hebrews on Christ’s “[r]elation to the Earthly Sacrificial System” – material which runs from 4:14 to 10:25 in total. 8:3-10:18 he designates as dealing with the superiority of Christ’s offering. Guthrie, Hebrews, 39-40.
[5] Guthrie sees 8:1-2 as a moment of transition and summary. Guthrie, Hebrews, 278-279.
[6] See also 7: 22. The significance of the priesthood as the guarantee of the whole covenant whether old or new) comes from Charles Anderson, Lectures on Hebrews, October-December 2007.
[7] That is, “cleansing of conscience, sanctification, and ultimate glorification” only “made possible by Christ’s sacrifice”[7] Attridge, Hebrews, 352.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Church in Hebrews 2
This section aims to show that according to Hebrews the Church is in a relation of eschatological fulfilment to Israel of the Old Testament.[1]
1. The Hebrews are like and unlike Israel
That there is a close connection between the recipients of the letter and “historic Israel”[2] is apparent from the very start of the letter. 1:1 describes the recipients of previous revelation as “our fathers” and the remainder of the introductory paragraph continues to draw a parallel between this revelation and the revelation given to the recipients of the letter through the Son (1:1-4). In one sense this sets the tone for the rest of the letter; the recipients are like Israel in the sense that they have received a gospel proclamation (4:2), and response to this word can either bring salvation or terrible judgment (2:1-4, 10:28-29, 12:25). Hence the Hebrews[3] are compared to the recipients of the Exodus deliverance in 2:14-15, to Israel in the wilderness in chapters 3-4, and the promises and warnings given to Israel in Psalm 95 and Jeremiah 31 are applied directly to them.[4] In fact, a similarity to Israel is implicit throughout, as evidenced by the frequent quotation from the Old Testament.[5]
However, the warning and judgment passages noted above are more than simply a ‘since them, then also us’ argument.[6] The Hebrews are like Israel but also unlike them.[7] This ‘unlikeness’ is based on the finality and climactic nature of the word spoken to them through the Son.[8] Accordingly, the salvation and judgment offered in the Son is both comparable to, and yet at the same time greater than, that experienced by Israel (1:2-4, 2:1-3, 10:28-29, 11:39-40).[9] Secondly, it can be clearly demonstrated that this connection to Israel is conceived as being in and through the recipients’ connection to Christ, whose relation to the old covenant itself receives a great deal of attention throughout the letter.[10]
[1] See e.g. Giles, Church, 159.
[2] Giles uses this expression. Giles, Church, 159.
[3] At various points we will use the term ‘the Hebrews’ to designate the recipients of the letter.
[4] Giles, Church, 153-154.
[5] Giles, Church, 152-153 highlights this.
[6] This does not mean they are less than such an argument, nor that they aren’t framed so as to read as such. Rather, we are asserting that there is more to be said than might appear at face value.
[7] This is a facet of the broader theme of the continuity and discontinuity between the covenants. See e.g. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 68-69.
[8] E.g. 1:1-2. Guthrie describes this as revelatory climax. Guthrie, Hebrews, 45.
[9] This understanding of Hebrews has been influenced by Charles Anderson, Lectures on Hebrews, October-December 2007.
[10] This is almost so all-pervasive as to not require confirmation by naming specific texts (we could cite the whole epistle in this regard). However, passages that specifically speak of Christ and the old covenant include 7:22-8:7; 9:15-26; 10:1-18.
Church in Hebrews 1
A while ago I did an essay on the doctrine of the Church in Hebrews. Over the next few posts I’ll be putting up edited selections from that essay, for anyone who’s interested.
My essay was essentially divided along the lines of two (ultimately inseparable) themes:
- Hebrews and the Nature of the Church
- Hebrews and Church Life
My main point on 1. Can be summarised like this:
Hebrews teaches that the Church stands in a teleological and climactic relation to old covenant Israel. What Israel was promised, what faithful Israelites looked for, is the possession of the Church by virtue of Christ’s completion in his death-resurrection-ascension of what Israelite religion foreshadowed. That the Church is the eschatological Israel[1] is arguably the key concept in the writer’s theology of the nature of the Church.
[1] I use this phrase to denote a similar idea to Giles’ “Israel of the last days”. Giles, Church, 159.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
John Owen: The purpose of God in the call of Abraham
Biblical theology and 'missiological readings of the bible story' are nothing new. Here's John Owen on Abraham and the nation of Israel:
“God having from the foundation of the world promised to bring forth the 'Seed of the woman,' to work out the redemption of his elect in the conquest of Satan, did, in the separation of Abraham from the rest of the world, begin to make provision of a peculiar stock, from whence the Seed of the woman should spring. That this was the cause and end of his call and separation is evident from hence, that immediately thereupon God assures him that ‘in his seed all the kindreds of the earth should be blessed,’ Gen xii. 1-3, xxii. 18; which is all one as if he had expressly said to him ‘For this cause have I chosen and called thee, that in thee I might lay a foundation of bringing forth the promised Seed, by whom the curse is to be taken away, and the blessing of everlasting life procured,’ as Gal iii. 13, 14. For this cause was his posterity continued in a state of separation from the rest of the world, that He might seek a godly seed to himself, Num. xxiii. 9; Mal. ii. 15: for this cause did he raise them into a civil, regal, and church state, that he might in them typify and prefigure the offices and benefits of the promised Messiah, who was to gather to himself the nations that were to be blessed in the seed of Abraham, Gen. xlix. 10; Ps xlv.; Hos. iii. 5; Ezek. xxxiv. 23. And all their sacrifices did but shadow out that great expiation of sin which he was to make in his own person…”
From: John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Vol III. p13.
“God having from the foundation of the world promised to bring forth the 'Seed of the woman,' to work out the redemption of his elect in the conquest of Satan, did, in the separation of Abraham from the rest of the world, begin to make provision of a peculiar stock, from whence the Seed of the woman should spring. That this was the cause and end of his call and separation is evident from hence, that immediately thereupon God assures him that ‘in his seed all the kindreds of the earth should be blessed,’ Gen xii. 1-3, xxii. 18; which is all one as if he had expressly said to him ‘For this cause have I chosen and called thee, that in thee I might lay a foundation of bringing forth the promised Seed, by whom the curse is to be taken away, and the blessing of everlasting life procured,’ as Gal iii. 13, 14. For this cause was his posterity continued in a state of separation from the rest of the world, that He might seek a godly seed to himself, Num. xxiii. 9; Mal. ii. 15: for this cause did he raise them into a civil, regal, and church state, that he might in them typify and prefigure the offices and benefits of the promised Messiah, who was to gather to himself the nations that were to be blessed in the seed of Abraham, Gen. xlix. 10; Ps xlv.; Hos. iii. 5; Ezek. xxxiv. 23. And all their sacrifices did but shadow out that great expiation of sin which he was to make in his own person…”
From: John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Vol III. p13.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Til we have built Jerusalem...
I've never noticed before that in Isaiah 40:9 it is Zion/ Jerusalem that is the herald of the good news of the end of the exile.
I think this paves the way for the church on earth, not just as gathered in heaven, being considered 'Zion', since it is the church as gathered on earth that proclaims the good news of Jesus' exile-ending cross and resurrection.
It seems to me that this might help a little bit with the apparent 'tension' between the OT and NT perspectives on mission. Isaiah 2:1-4 views mission as the word going out from Jerusalem and bringing people in to Jerusalem. However, the NT sees the word going out from Jerusalem, sure, but it seems to stays out, creating localised congregations everywhere it goes. Where is the vision of the nations being brought into Jerusalem? Answers include
1. Jesus 'is' Jerusalem - the word draws people to him.
2. The new Jerusalem 'is' Jerusalem, the word draws people to this heavenly city.
To which I can now joyfully add a third
3. The Church on earth 'is' Jerusalem. The word goes out from her and draws people to her.
I don't think this says anything new at all. But I like this way of thinking about it since it helps us to see that mission work isn't just something that takes effect in the heavenlies, but also something that is manifested on the earth. We really do gather people to Zion, the community gathered around Jesus on earth (as it is in heaven). We might even say that part of experiencing salvation is experiencing the church as she is now on earth.
Which tells us something we all knew all along anyway - church-planting is part of the fufillment of Isaiah 2. Great.
I think this paves the way for the church on earth, not just as gathered in heaven, being considered 'Zion', since it is the church as gathered on earth that proclaims the good news of Jesus' exile-ending cross and resurrection.
It seems to me that this might help a little bit with the apparent 'tension' between the OT and NT perspectives on mission. Isaiah 2:1-4 views mission as the word going out from Jerusalem and bringing people in to Jerusalem. However, the NT sees the word going out from Jerusalem, sure, but it seems to stays out, creating localised congregations everywhere it goes. Where is the vision of the nations being brought into Jerusalem? Answers include
1. Jesus 'is' Jerusalem - the word draws people to him.
2. The new Jerusalem 'is' Jerusalem, the word draws people to this heavenly city.
To which I can now joyfully add a third
3. The Church on earth 'is' Jerusalem. The word goes out from her and draws people to her.
I don't think this says anything new at all. But I like this way of thinking about it since it helps us to see that mission work isn't just something that takes effect in the heavenlies, but also something that is manifested on the earth. We really do gather people to Zion, the community gathered around Jesus on earth (as it is in heaven). We might even say that part of experiencing salvation is experiencing the church as she is now on earth.
Which tells us something we all knew all along anyway - church-planting is part of the fufillment of Isaiah 2. Great.
Friday, November 30, 2007
"Be still and know that I am God"
Really great stuff yesterday in chapel on Psalm 46 where (watery) chaos in creation and rebellious chaos among the nations are linked together. Psalm 46 shows that the God who can subdue creation with his word, will also subdue the nations, save his city, end war. And he'll do that by his word also - his command to be still and know that he is God. The echoes of Psalm 2 (the raging of the nations) lead us to expect that God to do it all through his anointed Son/King.
Of particular help on thursday, therefore, was the connection made between vs10 and Mark 4:36-41. Jesus calms the storm as the Son/King with God's authority to rule. The calming of the storm thus indicates not only (!) Jesus' power over the physical elements of creation as the one who can speak chaos into order, but, in the light of Psalm 46:10, we should link that same 'chaos into order' re-creational authority with his destiny to be exalted among the nations. The Lord Jesus is the master of all the chaos in his creation, whether that's human rebellion or natural disaster.
So it's not surprising that in Mark the calming of the storm comes straight after a section which emphasises the need to trust the word of the king to build the kingdom, despite apparent failure and the rejected/ hidden identity of the King himself. The Psalm 46-echoing events out at sea were a visible manifestation of the kingdom-establishing, creation-restoring, God's people-protecting authority and potency of Jesus' words. The waves were told to be still, and the disciples should've known that here in the boat was their God.
Psalm 46:10 continues to be the Lord Jesus' command to all that is chaotic in his creation.
“Be still, and know that I am God.
I will be exalted among the nations,
I will be exalted in the earth!”
Of particular help on thursday, therefore, was the connection made between vs10 and Mark 4:36-41. Jesus calms the storm as the Son/King with God's authority to rule. The calming of the storm thus indicates not only (!) Jesus' power over the physical elements of creation as the one who can speak chaos into order, but, in the light of Psalm 46:10, we should link that same 'chaos into order' re-creational authority with his destiny to be exalted among the nations. The Lord Jesus is the master of all the chaos in his creation, whether that's human rebellion or natural disaster.
So it's not surprising that in Mark the calming of the storm comes straight after a section which emphasises the need to trust the word of the king to build the kingdom, despite apparent failure and the rejected/ hidden identity of the King himself. The Psalm 46-echoing events out at sea were a visible manifestation of the kingdom-establishing, creation-restoring, God's people-protecting authority and potency of Jesus' words. The waves were told to be still, and the disciples should've known that here in the boat was their God.
Psalm 46:10 continues to be the Lord Jesus' command to all that is chaotic in his creation.
“Be still, and know that I am God.
I will be exalted among the nations,
I will be exalted in the earth!”
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Jacob, Leah and Rachel
I had the privilege of preaching on Genesis 29:21-30 this morning in chapel. Here's the gist of it.
The passage is not really about Jacob getting a taste of his own medicine, but comes as part of a wider narrative which emphasises the hardship the LORD puts him through en route to promised blessing. Genesis is more positive than negative about Jacob - every time the LORD speaks to or about him it is to promise blessing. He has, after all, chosen Jacob over Esau, and Jacob is described as a 'blameless' or 'complete' man back in 25:27 ('quiet' in the ESV seems an odd translation).
The route to blessing in the land is paved with hardship as a sojourner and a servant (32:4) in a foreign land. Jacob faces exclusion from his family (Laban treats him as a hired hand), deception and exploitation, and has his claims to being heir mocked by Laban (in 29:26 Laban echoes God's choice of Jacob over Esau and says 'that's not how we do it round here mate!'). The one whom the nations were supposed to serve (27:29) becomes a servant himself.
Yet, this is the LORD's doing. In fact, the LORD uses the hardship instrumentally in his fulfilling of the Abrahamic promise. All four women mentioned in the passage feature in the very next section as mothers to Jacob's children- the patriarchs of Israel. Whatever we may want to say in another context about polygamy, here the LORD turns Laban's deception into Jacob's blessing. A similar pattern follows, such that when Jacob leaves Laban Exodus-style to head to the promised land he has wives, servants, children and sheep all in tow.
As such, Jacob serves as an echo of Israel's own experience in Egypt and eventually in exile too. Moreover, the heir par excellence to the Abrahamic promises undergoes treatment like that Jacob faced. He is the heir who takes the place of a servant, who submits to his enemies deception and exploitation in order to win his bride, is excluded from his family and has his claims to sonship mocked. Yet, this is all used by God to fulfill the promise to Abraham. The Son will have his bride, his children and his land. The nations will bow down and serve him.
As God's heirs we too should expect to receive the blessings of the covenant via hardship. Whether it is blessings we experience now or the final blessing in the new creation-land, the route there is paved with hardship. We know that, whatever hard times we go through, God has designed them to be our necessary route to glory and blessing. So, we must learn to be like Jacob by grabbing a hold of Jesus' coat tails and following him.
The passage is not really about Jacob getting a taste of his own medicine, but comes as part of a wider narrative which emphasises the hardship the LORD puts him through en route to promised blessing. Genesis is more positive than negative about Jacob - every time the LORD speaks to or about him it is to promise blessing. He has, after all, chosen Jacob over Esau, and Jacob is described as a 'blameless' or 'complete' man back in 25:27 ('quiet' in the ESV seems an odd translation).
The route to blessing in the land is paved with hardship as a sojourner and a servant (32:4) in a foreign land. Jacob faces exclusion from his family (Laban treats him as a hired hand), deception and exploitation, and has his claims to being heir mocked by Laban (in 29:26 Laban echoes God's choice of Jacob over Esau and says 'that's not how we do it round here mate!'). The one whom the nations were supposed to serve (27:29) becomes a servant himself.
Yet, this is the LORD's doing. In fact, the LORD uses the hardship instrumentally in his fulfilling of the Abrahamic promise. All four women mentioned in the passage feature in the very next section as mothers to Jacob's children- the patriarchs of Israel. Whatever we may want to say in another context about polygamy, here the LORD turns Laban's deception into Jacob's blessing. A similar pattern follows, such that when Jacob leaves Laban Exodus-style to head to the promised land he has wives, servants, children and sheep all in tow.
As such, Jacob serves as an echo of Israel's own experience in Egypt and eventually in exile too. Moreover, the heir par excellence to the Abrahamic promises undergoes treatment like that Jacob faced. He is the heir who takes the place of a servant, who submits to his enemies deception and exploitation in order to win his bride, is excluded from his family and has his claims to sonship mocked. Yet, this is all used by God to fulfill the promise to Abraham. The Son will have his bride, his children and his land. The nations will bow down and serve him.
As God's heirs we too should expect to receive the blessings of the covenant via hardship. Whether it is blessings we experience now or the final blessing in the new creation-land, the route there is paved with hardship. We know that, whatever hard times we go through, God has designed them to be our necessary route to glory and blessing. So, we must learn to be like Jacob by grabbing a hold of Jesus' coat tails and following him.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Typology and my 'never gonna do it' phd.
I sometimes wonder that if I had the inclination/ discipline/ ability/ time to do a phd, I would do it on something to do with typology (here for some stuff on someone else's thought on typology).
I'd want to investigate the possibility that typology (as a view of history) is the fundamental presupposition/ basis for the way the different phases of the bible relate to one another, in particular for the relationship between the new and the old testaments. I'd probably want to investigate in particular my hunch that typology undergirds the ways the apostles and other NT authors interpreted the OT, and that all the different ways of describing how we 'get to Christ' from the OT are bound together by typology in some way.
I think some of the cash-value would be;
I'd want to investigate the possibility that typology (as a view of history) is the fundamental presupposition/ basis for the way the different phases of the bible relate to one another, in particular for the relationship between the new and the old testaments. I'd probably want to investigate in particular my hunch that typology undergirds the ways the apostles and other NT authors interpreted the OT, and that all the different ways of describing how we 'get to Christ' from the OT are bound together by typology in some way.
I think some of the cash-value would be;
- Rescuing apostolic exegesis from those who want to say we can't imitate their methods.
- Opening up a greater appreciation for some patristic exegesis (and providing a proper framework for assessing when analogical stuff goes too far).
- Moving towards developing a philosophy of history that is biblical and Christological.
- Increasing people's appreciation (including my own) for Hebrew narrative (which, it strikes me, has a fair bit of typology in it).
- Thinking through issues of referent and fulfilment(s) of prophecy in all the bible.
- Opening up levels of typological allusion that will enrich the church's understanding of scripture and combat exegetical minimalism.
- Moving towards providing a framework for a balanced assessment of maximalism and its proper bounds.
- Give some tools for genuine word ministry among not-so-wordy cultures (I suspect typology, with its associational way of thinking has lots to help 'less booky' people)..
Monday, November 05, 2007
Ephesians and the Armour of God
We've just come back from a great weekend in the peak district with Christ Church Central. Humble, lucid, timely teaching from Ephesians was provided by Simon Austen from Carlisle.
Simon focussed on what we learn about the Church in Ephesians . We saw that the Church is the
So, Christ sits victoriously enthroned above all powers (Eph 1:20-22), and through his church (which is dressed in his armour - no wonder since it's his body, 1:22-23) wages war on the very same powers and authorities (6:12). As the church stands against the schemes of the devil and pushes forward with the sword of the Spirit, Christ is bringing all things under himself in accordance with the Father's plan (1:10, 20-22).
I'll try and remember that the next time I feel disappointed with/ tired of or grumpy about [the] [C/]church.
Simon focussed on what we learn about the Church in Ephesians . We saw that the Church is the
- apologetic for the power of the gospel
- new humanity/temple/household built on Christ in the Spirit
- outpost of the kingdom of Christ
- plan of God for creation and history
- product and agent of gospel progress
So, Christ sits victoriously enthroned above all powers (Eph 1:20-22), and through his church (which is dressed in his armour - no wonder since it's his body, 1:22-23) wages war on the very same powers and authorities (6:12). As the church stands against the schemes of the devil and pushes forward with the sword of the Spirit, Christ is bringing all things under himself in accordance with the Father's plan (1:10, 20-22).
I'll try and remember that the next time I feel disappointed with/ tired of or grumpy about [the] [C/]church.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Exodus; Tabernacle & Creation
Peter Enns, in his helpful commentary on Exodus points out that the tabernacle is paralleled with creation.
1. There are seven 'The LORD said to Moses' instructions re. the building of the tabernacle and accompaniments (25:1; 30:11, 17, 22, 34; 31:1; 31:12).
2. The seventh (31:12) is an instruction not so much about the tabernacle (on the face of it) but rather about the sabbath. The instruction here highlights the link to creation clearly (31:17).
3. Enns is unsure about the order of the other six and is reluctant to see them tied too directly to the days of creation, stating that the overall point is made clear simply by the structure of seven climaxing in sabbath rest. I haven't thought a lot further, but it is interesting that the sixth 'The LORD said' instruction is regarding Oholiab and Bezalel, two men filled with God's breath/Spirit/spirit and commissioned to build the tabernacle (cf. Genesis 1:26-30 = Day 6 and creation of humanity, commissioned to have dominion. cf. Genesis 2:7, 15 = Man created and filled with God's breath, commissioned to tend God's garden-sanctuary).
4. Following the Golden Calf incident and following (32-34), there is yet again mention of the sabbath (35:1-3) and then a narrative of the actual building of the temple, under Moses instructions, through the obedience of the Israelites, all according to the heavenly pattern.
5. When all the building is done we are told that 'Moses finished the work' (40:33) in a (surely) deliberate echo of Genesis 2:2.
So, the tabernacle was a model restoration of creation order, a microcosm (Enn's word) of creation, showing how things could and should be with Yahweh as King. How exciting that, by extension/fulfilment/typology/union with Christ, the Church is the tabernacle/temple.
1. There are seven 'The LORD said to Moses' instructions re. the building of the tabernacle and accompaniments (25:1; 30:11, 17, 22, 34; 31:1; 31:12).
2. The seventh (31:12) is an instruction not so much about the tabernacle (on the face of it) but rather about the sabbath. The instruction here highlights the link to creation clearly (31:17).
3. Enns is unsure about the order of the other six and is reluctant to see them tied too directly to the days of creation, stating that the overall point is made clear simply by the structure of seven climaxing in sabbath rest. I haven't thought a lot further, but it is interesting that the sixth 'The LORD said' instruction is regarding Oholiab and Bezalel, two men filled with God's breath/Spirit/spirit and commissioned to build the tabernacle (cf. Genesis 1:26-30 = Day 6 and creation of humanity, commissioned to have dominion. cf. Genesis 2:7, 15 = Man created and filled with God's breath, commissioned to tend God's garden-sanctuary).
4. Following the Golden Calf incident and following (32-34), there is yet again mention of the sabbath (35:1-3) and then a narrative of the actual building of the temple, under Moses instructions, through the obedience of the Israelites, all according to the heavenly pattern.
5. When all the building is done we are told that 'Moses finished the work' (40:33) in a (surely) deliberate echo of Genesis 2:2.
So, the tabernacle was a model restoration of creation order, a microcosm (Enn's word) of creation, showing how things could and should be with Yahweh as King. How exciting that, by extension/fulfilment/typology/union with Christ, the Church is the tabernacle/temple.
Exodus: Talks and passages
Here is the rough breakdown of my series on 'Exodus - The Great Escape' for camp (starts saturday, 9-12 yr olds).
1. Exodus 1 (&2). God keeps his promises (intro to the series)
2. Exodus 3 (&4). Meet the LORD (i.e., what's he like? Holy/Saving/Reliable)
3. Exodus 7-11. The Big Fight - Pharaoh vs God (God is God of all the earth)
4. Exodus 12. Passover - Rescue through Blood (Mainly about PSA this talk)
5. Exodus 14. The Red Sea - Rescue through Victory (God beats his people's enemies)
6. Exodus 20:1-17. Living God's Way (How should rescued people live? Point of rescue was from slavery in egypt to Yahweh's kingship etc.)
7. Exodus 25, 29, 40:34ff. God with us (Tabernacle, God dwelling with his people as the goal of redemption, God guiding Israel all the way to the promised land etc. etc.)
It has really struck me in preparation just how much stuff there is in Exodus. Along the way we'll meet (at times only briefly, alas) with such themes and doctrines as;
- God's sovereignty and human responsibility (talks 3&4 mainly)
- Salvation as new creation (talks 5, 6, 7 mainly)
- Judgment (and in fact sin) as de-creation (mainly talk 3, but it could so easily be in 5 too)
- The Perseverence of the Saints (talk 7)
And of course, Covenant/Promise, Penal Substitutionary Atonement, Death/Resurrection, Law/Grace, Lordship, Kingdom, Christus Victor, Revelation and so on...
Basically, there's quite a lot in Exodus, and I've only started to scratch the surface.
1. Exodus 1 (&2). God keeps his promises (intro to the series)
2. Exodus 3 (&4). Meet the LORD (i.e., what's he like? Holy/Saving/Reliable)
3. Exodus 7-11. The Big Fight - Pharaoh vs God (God is God of all the earth)
4. Exodus 12. Passover - Rescue through Blood (Mainly about PSA this talk)
5. Exodus 14. The Red Sea - Rescue through Victory (God beats his people's enemies)
6. Exodus 20:1-17. Living God's Way (How should rescued people live? Point of rescue was from slavery in egypt to Yahweh's kingship etc.)
7. Exodus 25, 29, 40:34ff. God with us (Tabernacle, God dwelling with his people as the goal of redemption, God guiding Israel all the way to the promised land etc. etc.)
It has really struck me in preparation just how much stuff there is in Exodus. Along the way we'll meet (at times only briefly, alas) with such themes and doctrines as;
- God's sovereignty and human responsibility (talks 3&4 mainly)
- Salvation as new creation (talks 5, 6, 7 mainly)
- Judgment (and in fact sin) as de-creation (mainly talk 3, but it could so easily be in 5 too)
- The Perseverence of the Saints (talk 7)
And of course, Covenant/Promise, Penal Substitutionary Atonement, Death/Resurrection, Law/Grace, Lordship, Kingdom, Christus Victor, Revelation and so on...
Basically, there's quite a lot in Exodus, and I've only started to scratch the surface.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Exodus - The gospel according to Moses
This is the first of what I hope will turn into several posts on Exodus to help me get myself clear(er) in time for talks next week at camp. First up, some general points which will govern all my teaching from Exodus.
1. Exodus follows Genesis.
The book of Exodus is self-consciously a continuation of the story begun in the first book of the bible. The story of Creation-Fall-Abraham and ff. is always in the background either explicitly or implicitly. In short, I'll be aiming to teach Exodus as part of the story of God pursuing his original plans for his creation through the family line of Abraham.
2. Exodus is 'about' Jesus
This is because the story begun in Genesis and continued in Exodus reaches its climax in what God did/is doing through the Lord Jesus Christ. This is obvious and more familiar in some parts (Christ as the passover lamb of Exodus 12) but I'm guessing there will be less familiar discoveries along the way too.
3. Exodus is Gospel
In a very real and significant way, therefore, Exodus is a proclamation of the gospel, both in terms of types and shadows (the tabernacle, the passover) but also in terms of its exposition, expansion and exploration of the gospel promises already announced to Abraham and co. in the covenant(s) of Genesis 12, 15, 17 etc. and its further revelation of the gospel/covenant-proclaiming and fulfilling God. This assumption will prove especially important when teaching the 'law bits'. One of the things I hope to help the children see is that 'His commands are not burdensome' (1 John 5:3).
1. Exodus follows Genesis.
The book of Exodus is self-consciously a continuation of the story begun in the first book of the bible. The story of Creation-Fall-Abraham and ff. is always in the background either explicitly or implicitly. In short, I'll be aiming to teach Exodus as part of the story of God pursuing his original plans for his creation through the family line of Abraham.
2. Exodus is 'about' Jesus
This is because the story begun in Genesis and continued in Exodus reaches its climax in what God did/is doing through the Lord Jesus Christ. This is obvious and more familiar in some parts (Christ as the passover lamb of Exodus 12) but I'm guessing there will be less familiar discoveries along the way too.
3. Exodus is Gospel
In a very real and significant way, therefore, Exodus is a proclamation of the gospel, both in terms of types and shadows (the tabernacle, the passover) but also in terms of its exposition, expansion and exploration of the gospel promises already announced to Abraham and co. in the covenant(s) of Genesis 12, 15, 17 etc. and its further revelation of the gospel/covenant-proclaiming and fulfilling God. This assumption will prove especially important when teaching the 'law bits'. One of the things I hope to help the children see is that 'His commands are not burdensome' (1 John 5:3).
Monday, June 18, 2007
Through New Eyes 3
In 'Through New Eyes' James Jordan aims to help his readers become re-familiarised with the language and thought forms of the bible. Part 2 focuses on the basic elements of creation. After a chapter on the world in general as God’s house, chapter 5 moves to the Sun, Moon and Stars.
Heavenly Bodies
Jordan’s basic text is Genesis 1:14-18 which describes the heavenly bodies as lights, signs, governors of time, seasons and days. Stemming from their position in the heavenlies and their function as rulers of time and seasons, the heavenly bodies have a symbolic function in the bible as representing angelic and human rulers and authorities (e.g. Job 38:7, Isaiah 14:13).
Following from this, Jordan highlights a popular misinterpretation of several bible passages referring to the sun, moon and stars. Most passages which speak of the shaking/falling/removal of heavenly bodies are interpreted as referring (somewhat, but not entirely literally) to the end of the physical world/collapse of the cosmos. Jordan argues that such passages (especially prevalent in the prophets and in Jesus’ teaching) actually represent the collapse of a nation/ruler/kingdom. If the end of the world is on view it is often “the end of the “world” in a socio-political sense.” Jordan cites several examples, such as Isaiah 13:9-10, which, in context, is clearly about the end of the Babylonian kingdom (Isaiah 13:17).
In this vein, Jordan argues that Revelation 6:12-13 and Matthew 24:29 refer to the events surrounding and following the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. Additionally, he suggests that the phrase ‘new heavens and new earth’ can refer to both a transfigured/renewed creation and also a new world order (new people, new rulers, new government).
Applying this imagery to the promise to Abraham (Genesis 15:5), Jordan suggests that the LORD promised that Abraham’s descendants would be ‘like the stars’ i.e. seated in the heavenlies (Ephesians 2:6) and given rule over the nations. This would suggest that Romans 4:13 is faithful to the original meaning of the Abrahamic covenant - Abraham's offspring will inherit the world (greek /kosmos/)
Heavenly Bodies
Jordan’s basic text is Genesis 1:14-18 which describes the heavenly bodies as lights, signs, governors of time, seasons and days. Stemming from their position in the heavenlies and their function as rulers of time and seasons, the heavenly bodies have a symbolic function in the bible as representing angelic and human rulers and authorities (e.g. Job 38:7, Isaiah 14:13).
Following from this, Jordan highlights a popular misinterpretation of several bible passages referring to the sun, moon and stars. Most passages which speak of the shaking/falling/removal of heavenly bodies are interpreted as referring (somewhat, but not entirely literally) to the end of the physical world/collapse of the cosmos. Jordan argues that such passages (especially prevalent in the prophets and in Jesus’ teaching) actually represent the collapse of a nation/ruler/kingdom. If the end of the world is on view it is often “the end of the “world” in a socio-political sense.” Jordan cites several examples, such as Isaiah 13:9-10, which, in context, is clearly about the end of the Babylonian kingdom (Isaiah 13:17).
In this vein, Jordan argues that Revelation 6:12-13 and Matthew 24:29 refer to the events surrounding and following the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. Additionally, he suggests that the phrase ‘new heavens and new earth’ can refer to both a transfigured/renewed creation and also a new world order (new people, new rulers, new government).
Applying this imagery to the promise to Abraham (Genesis 15:5), Jordan suggests that the LORD promised that Abraham’s descendants would be ‘like the stars’ i.e. seated in the heavenlies (Ephesians 2:6) and given rule over the nations. This would suggest that Romans 4:13 is faithful to the original meaning of the Abrahamic covenant - Abraham's offspring will inherit the world (greek /kosmos/)
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Through New Eyes 2
It has been a long time since the first post on this book.
Typology
One of the things that really attracts me to Jordan's work is the importance he places on typology. Typology has long been neglected, often for (an understandable but misguided) fear of descending into uncontrolled allegorising (I remember my Dad's indignation when an elder (!) at the church I grew up told him that he thought typology was 'tripeology').
For Jordan, typology is related to the symbolic nature of the whole creation and even history itself. Man, as God's image-bearer, has the task of building civilisations, the blueprint for which is Heaven itself (i.e. not heaven = sky). In creation God himself was working to lay the foundations and set the pattern for this glorification of earth.
Moreover, Jordan argues, at various stages in history God gave visions of Heaven as blueprints for the task of glorifying the earth. These successive visions are 'types' or patterns, with each one more glorious than the last (Tabernacle-Temple-Ezekiel’s Temple-New Jerusalem). Not surprisingly then, history too is intrinsically typological:
"Typology is the fundamental Biblical philosophy of history…It means that the successive stages of world history have a meaning, a meaning related to the heavenly pattern and God’s purpose to glorify man and the world progressively."
Therefore
"The key to unlocking the meaning of history lies in the typological blueprint of heaven, as heaven progressively is impressed upon the earth, and as the Heavenly Man, Jesus Christ, is progressively impressed upon His people.” (p50-51)
Jordan helpfully notes how typology was central to the exegesis of the Church Fathers, not least because it was able to answer both Gnostics (since typology shows that the bible has an essential, historical and covenantal unity) and Judaisers (since typology shows how the New transcends and fulfills the Old).
Typology then, is a much needed perspective on the bible if we are to undertake the task we pray about in the Lord's prayer;
Our Father in heaven
Hallowed be your name
Your Kingdom come
Your will be done
On earth as in heaven
Typology
One of the things that really attracts me to Jordan's work is the importance he places on typology. Typology has long been neglected, often for (an understandable but misguided) fear of descending into uncontrolled allegorising (I remember my Dad's indignation when an elder (!) at the church I grew up told him that he thought typology was 'tripeology').
For Jordan, typology is related to the symbolic nature of the whole creation and even history itself. Man, as God's image-bearer, has the task of building civilisations, the blueprint for which is Heaven itself (i.e. not heaven = sky). In creation God himself was working to lay the foundations and set the pattern for this glorification of earth.
Moreover, Jordan argues, at various stages in history God gave visions of Heaven as blueprints for the task of glorifying the earth. These successive visions are 'types' or patterns, with each one more glorious than the last (Tabernacle-Temple-Ezekiel’s Temple-New Jerusalem). Not surprisingly then, history too is intrinsically typological:
"Typology is the fundamental Biblical philosophy of history…It means that the successive stages of world history have a meaning, a meaning related to the heavenly pattern and God’s purpose to glorify man and the world progressively."
Therefore
"The key to unlocking the meaning of history lies in the typological blueprint of heaven, as heaven progressively is impressed upon the earth, and as the Heavenly Man, Jesus Christ, is progressively impressed upon His people.” (p50-51)
Jordan helpfully notes how typology was central to the exegesis of the Church Fathers, not least because it was able to answer both Gnostics (since typology shows that the bible has an essential, historical and covenantal unity) and Judaisers (since typology shows how the New transcends and fulfills the Old).
Typology then, is a much needed perspective on the bible if we are to undertake the task we pray about in the Lord's prayer;
Our Father in heaven
Hallowed be your name
Your Kingdom come
Your will be done
On earth as in heaven
Thursday, May 24, 2007
New or Renewed Creation
So, during conversational theology time today (normal people call it a coffee break) the following came up;
Where would you take someone (in the bible) to persuade them that this earth continues and that the new heavens and the new earth are 'renewed/transfigured/perfected/cleansed' versions of this creation rather than totally 'new'? (NB. some people think that this earth is trashed and God makes a new one, hence our discussion)
We came up with
A. Jesus' resurrection body was his 'old' one resurrected (and he is the beginning of the new creation see 2 Cor 5:17).
B. There is continuity between our bodies now and our resurrected bodies (otherwise it's not a resurrection is it?).
And that was sort of it (someone said some good stuff about AD70 too but it would take me a long time to explain it on this blog and I'm tired). Which is a poor show really.
Having thought since then I reckon I'd add a further suggestion
C. Unless this earth continues then God has sort of been thwarted in his original creaton intentions hasn't he? The one he originally made and was good has been totally ruined by sin and so he has to rubbish it and get a new one.
D. Romans 8:20-21 and the liberation of the (present) creation from bondage to decay when the sons of God are revealed in glory. It would be odd if this 'liberation' took the form of total abolition.
But really it's a poor show, especially if there are biblicists to be persuaded. So, help needed, and lots of lovely lovely texts, please post suggestions.
Where would you take someone (in the bible) to persuade them that this earth continues and that the new heavens and the new earth are 'renewed/transfigured/perfected/cleansed' versions of this creation rather than totally 'new'? (NB. some people think that this earth is trashed and God makes a new one, hence our discussion)
We came up with
A. Jesus' resurrection body was his 'old' one resurrected (and he is the beginning of the new creation see 2 Cor 5:17).
B. There is continuity between our bodies now and our resurrected bodies (otherwise it's not a resurrection is it?).
And that was sort of it (someone said some good stuff about AD70 too but it would take me a long time to explain it on this blog and I'm tired). Which is a poor show really.
Having thought since then I reckon I'd add a further suggestion
C. Unless this earth continues then God has sort of been thwarted in his original creaton intentions hasn't he? The one he originally made and was good has been totally ruined by sin and so he has to rubbish it and get a new one.
D. Romans 8:20-21 and the liberation of the (present) creation from bondage to decay when the sons of God are revealed in glory. It would be odd if this 'liberation' took the form of total abolition.
But really it's a poor show, especially if there are biblicists to be persuaded. So, help needed, and lots of lovely lovely texts, please post suggestions.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
'Through New Eyes' 1
During the Christmas holidays I read ‘Through New Eyes’ by James B. Jordan. Several people have commended the book to me as a seminal work in the field of biblical theology. This is the first post of my reflections on the book. I’ll try to summarise Jordan’s views cogently and make my own comments constructive to those who have or will read the book.
Jordan’s aim (p. 4) is not ‘to try and set out a Christian philosophical worldview’ (though he thinks that’s important of course) but to ‘get into the bible and become as familiar as possible with the Bible’s own worldview, language and thought forms.’[1] His methodology is more ‘shock and awe’ than careful argument of every point. In some senses this makes for an exhilarating and at times frustrating ride, especially for the student, as Jordan lays before our eyes his understanding of Biblical symbolism. Details for further study and debate are reserved intentionally for the footnotes, which, I would argue, must therefore be read along with the main text.
Jordan’s task of helping us view the world from the bible’s perspective kicks off with a helpful discussion on the difference between a merely symbolic reading of Genesis 1 which excludes the possibility of the literal, and one that views the chapter as using ‘the language of visual appearances’ to both describe the world as it actually is (‘the sun is a great light’ after all) and also ‘sets up a worldview grid that is used later on in Scripture for symbolic purposes.’ (I must confess this made me think again about whether indeed the ‘days’ of Genesis might not in fact be literal periods of 24 hours). Jordan argues that the symbolic significance of the physical world stems from it being designed to reveal the creator and give instruction to humanity (pp. 9-13).
For Jordan this way of looking at the world fits with a generally ‘associational’ way of reading the imagery found in the bible that pays attention to metaphors, typology, allusions, literary structure and device, number symbolism and so forth. This does not reduce the bible into some kind of code but does mean we must interpret the bible’s symbolism in terms of its own ‘presuppositions and philosophy’ rather than, for example, the Platonic-allegorical method of the Alexandrians (and the naturalistic-scientific worldview of the modern west) (pp. 14-17, also 9-10).
Part one concludes that ‘we need to learn again’ how to understand ‘God’s created symbols’ which means paying attention to the primary symbols God has given us (his Word, the Sacraments and Humanity) all of which are gifts of grace. Only restoration of these primary ‘powers’ in creation will lead to Church renewal and thus also to cultural renewal (p. 30-38) as reality is shaped by a redeemed humanity understanding and interpreting the world through God’s eyes.
In one sense these early chapters are the most significant, though in another sense it is only really when the basic principles within them are applied and unfolded in the rest of the book that we see the value. At the very end of this series of posts I will make some comments about the enormous value to the Church of Jordan’s thesis that we pay attention to metaphor, typology and allusion as well as principles, commands and statements. For the moment it is worth noting that the basic presupposition is a reformation one, flowing inevitably from the conviction that the bible is the Word of God. If we believe that the form as well as the doctrine of the bible is God-breathed, we will want to pay great attention to its thought-forms, symbolism and metaphor. And, along with the Reformers, we will seek to interpret scripture by scripture itself. This means more than the necessary task of pondering apparent tension or contradiction and making the necessary distinctions and formulations (the task of systematic theology in some ways); it will also mean interpreting scriptural symbols within the symbolic worldview of scripture itself. None of this is controversial per se, but, understood properly, taking scripture’s detail seriously in this way makes the task of exegesis, interpretation and application a lot broader (and therefore a lot richer) than is customarily thought.
A question remains in my mind from these early chapters as to the way in which the creation reveals the Creator. One of the main texts employed by Jordan is Romans 1: 18-23 (pp13, 20-23). Following discussions in doctrine lectures last semester, I’m not convinced it will stand up to the weight here laid on it, since the very things revealed about God in those verses are his 'unlikeness' to anything created (his deity and eternality). exactly how does the created order reveal God to us. That it does is well established, not only in Romans but in the many ways in which God employs the symbolism of creation in his word to describe himself in some way, but I for one feel the need for some more rigorous thought on this one.[2]
[1] NB. It should be noted that this entails that we look to the bible not just for doctrinal instruction but also for hermeneutics and epistemology. This contradicts those, for e.g., who argue that whilst we follow the apostle’s teaching we should not follow their thought forms, especially their use of the Old Testament. Jordan’s point is that we see the world biblically when we think ‘the way people thought in Bible times.’
[2] And of course, Jordan is clear that sin has marred our perceptions, and, along with Calvin, that the bible is needed for a proper reading of the symbolism of creation. See e.g. 26, 31. With regard to Romans 1:20ff., it may be that Jordan's use of Romans rather than his basic point is what needs revising, since the created order is quite clearly all to be interpreted within the knowledge and fear of the LORD.
Jordan’s aim (p. 4) is not ‘to try and set out a Christian philosophical worldview’ (though he thinks that’s important of course) but to ‘get into the bible and become as familiar as possible with the Bible’s own worldview, language and thought forms.’[1] His methodology is more ‘shock and awe’ than careful argument of every point. In some senses this makes for an exhilarating and at times frustrating ride, especially for the student, as Jordan lays before our eyes his understanding of Biblical symbolism. Details for further study and debate are reserved intentionally for the footnotes, which, I would argue, must therefore be read along with the main text.
Jordan’s task of helping us view the world from the bible’s perspective kicks off with a helpful discussion on the difference between a merely symbolic reading of Genesis 1 which excludes the possibility of the literal, and one that views the chapter as using ‘the language of visual appearances’ to both describe the world as it actually is (‘the sun is a great light’ after all) and also ‘sets up a worldview grid that is used later on in Scripture for symbolic purposes.’ (I must confess this made me think again about whether indeed the ‘days’ of Genesis might not in fact be literal periods of 24 hours). Jordan argues that the symbolic significance of the physical world stems from it being designed to reveal the creator and give instruction to humanity (pp. 9-13).
For Jordan this way of looking at the world fits with a generally ‘associational’ way of reading the imagery found in the bible that pays attention to metaphors, typology, allusions, literary structure and device, number symbolism and so forth. This does not reduce the bible into some kind of code but does mean we must interpret the bible’s symbolism in terms of its own ‘presuppositions and philosophy’ rather than, for example, the Platonic-allegorical method of the Alexandrians (and the naturalistic-scientific worldview of the modern west) (pp. 14-17, also 9-10).
Part one concludes that ‘we need to learn again’ how to understand ‘God’s created symbols’ which means paying attention to the primary symbols God has given us (his Word, the Sacraments and Humanity) all of which are gifts of grace. Only restoration of these primary ‘powers’ in creation will lead to Church renewal and thus also to cultural renewal (p. 30-38) as reality is shaped by a redeemed humanity understanding and interpreting the world through God’s eyes.
In one sense these early chapters are the most significant, though in another sense it is only really when the basic principles within them are applied and unfolded in the rest of the book that we see the value. At the very end of this series of posts I will make some comments about the enormous value to the Church of Jordan’s thesis that we pay attention to metaphor, typology and allusion as well as principles, commands and statements. For the moment it is worth noting that the basic presupposition is a reformation one, flowing inevitably from the conviction that the bible is the Word of God. If we believe that the form as well as the doctrine of the bible is God-breathed, we will want to pay great attention to its thought-forms, symbolism and metaphor. And, along with the Reformers, we will seek to interpret scripture by scripture itself. This means more than the necessary task of pondering apparent tension or contradiction and making the necessary distinctions and formulations (the task of systematic theology in some ways); it will also mean interpreting scriptural symbols within the symbolic worldview of scripture itself. None of this is controversial per se, but, understood properly, taking scripture’s detail seriously in this way makes the task of exegesis, interpretation and application a lot broader (and therefore a lot richer) than is customarily thought.
A question remains in my mind from these early chapters as to the way in which the creation reveals the Creator. One of the main texts employed by Jordan is Romans 1: 18-23 (pp13, 20-23). Following discussions in doctrine lectures last semester, I’m not convinced it will stand up to the weight here laid on it, since the very things revealed about God in those verses are his 'unlikeness' to anything created (his deity and eternality). exactly how does the created order reveal God to us. That it does is well established, not only in Romans but in the many ways in which God employs the symbolism of creation in his word to describe himself in some way, but I for one feel the need for some more rigorous thought on this one.[2]
[1] NB. It should be noted that this entails that we look to the bible not just for doctrinal instruction but also for hermeneutics and epistemology. This contradicts those, for e.g., who argue that whilst we follow the apostle’s teaching we should not follow their thought forms, especially their use of the Old Testament. Jordan’s point is that we see the world biblically when we think ‘the way people thought in Bible times.’
[2] And of course, Jordan is clear that sin has marred our perceptions, and, along with Calvin, that the bible is needed for a proper reading of the symbolism of creation. See e.g. 26, 31. With regard to Romans 1:20ff., it may be that Jordan's use of Romans rather than his basic point is what needs revising, since the created order is quite clearly all to be interpreted within the knowledge and fear of the LORD.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Ever read anything good on the Song of Songs?
This should be more than worth a read (warning, it's quite long as it's a masters dissertation). Elsewhere on the blogosphere it is being rated as the best thing around on the Song of Songs. And, knowing the author and her general premise on this sadly neglected book of the bible, I'm guessing it probably is. It's a pdf file so don't know if that creates problems for mac users or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
