Some quotes from Calvin on covenant and election issues.
"So it was in France, Italy, Germany, Spain and England after the Lord established his covenant there. When those countries were oppressed by the tyranny of the Antichrist, the Lord used two means to keep his covenant inviolable. First, he maintained baptism there, a witness to this covenant; consecrated by his own mouth, it retains its force despite the impiety of men. Secondly, by his own providence he caused other vestiges to remain, that the church might not utterly die.”
[Calvin, Institutes, IV.II.11 (2:1051-1052)]
“But there is also another reason in our case, when God receives us into his favour; for we were covenant-breakers under the Papacy; there was not one of us who had not departed from the pledge of his baptism."
[Calvin, Commentaries, (13:115)]
“For when they claimed for themselves the name “church,” they wanted belief in the gospel to depend upon their decision. Today, in like manner, the papists with this false pretext would willingly substitute themselves for God. Paul, although he admits that, by virtue of the covenant, the offspring of Abraham are holy, still contends that many among them are outside of it. And that is not only because they degenerate from legitimate children to bastards but also because God’s special election towers and rules over all, alone ratifying his adoption.”
[Calvin, Institutes, III.XXI.7 (2:931)]
So, for Calvin,
a. Baptism does something - it witnesses to the covenant and brings with it the obligation to abide by the terms of the covenant.
b. By virtue of the covenant someone can be 'holy' in a way but really be an outsider from the perspective of special election.
c. There is such a thing as covenant-breaking in the new covenant.
d. God's special electing grace is sovereign over adoption and apostasy.
Good.
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Friday, May 09, 2008
Law and Gospel
Stumbled across this helpful, sensible, simple introduction to the law-gospel issue:
Law and Gospel by John Frame
A particularly good paragraph says
So gospel includes law in an important sense: God’s kingdom authority, his demand to repent. Even on the view of those most committed to the law/gospel distinction, the gospel includes a command to believe. We tend to think of that command as in a different class from the commands of the decalogue. But that too is a command, after all. Generically it is law. And, like the decalogue, that law can be terrifying to someone who wants to trust only on his own resources, rather than resting on the mercy of another. And the demand of faith includes other requirements: the conduct becoming the gospel that I mentioned earlier. Faith itself works through love (Gal. 5:6) and is dead without good works (James 2:17).
I also particularly liked his statement that 'law itself in Scripture comes to us wrapped in grace.' [emphasis mine]
It's amazing where you find the law-gospel antithesis crop up, even among those who should really know better . Frame is writing in disagreement with some US Reformed theologians who think unless you buy their sharp distinction between the law and the gospel you've lost the gospel.
I blogged on the law a while ago here.
Law and Gospel by John Frame
A particularly good paragraph says
So gospel includes law in an important sense: God’s kingdom authority, his demand to repent. Even on the view of those most committed to the law/gospel distinction, the gospel includes a command to believe. We tend to think of that command as in a different class from the commands of the decalogue. But that too is a command, after all. Generically it is law. And, like the decalogue, that law can be terrifying to someone who wants to trust only on his own resources, rather than resting on the mercy of another. And the demand of faith includes other requirements: the conduct becoming the gospel that I mentioned earlier. Faith itself works through love (Gal. 5:6) and is dead without good works (James 2:17).
I also particularly liked his statement that 'law itself in Scripture comes to us wrapped in grace.' [emphasis mine]
It's amazing where you find the law-gospel antithesis crop up, even among those who should really know better . Frame is writing in disagreement with some US Reformed theologians who think unless you buy their sharp distinction between the law and the gospel you've lost the gospel.
I blogged on the law a while ago here.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
More on Covenant/Election in Hebrews
Q: Does Hebrews distinguish types of covenant membership?
I think it does:
Q: But isn't some of this 'you're in the covenant' language hypothetical?
Well, take a particular example - one of the warning passages in Hebrews.
Heb. 10:28-29: Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?
I must admit to finding this passage still fairly difficult, (especially since I'm convinced of limited atonement, which closes down the options for interpreting this verse). But, the trouble with ‘sanctified’ being hypothetical is that wouldn’t that mean everything else is hypothetical too? So the passage would be saying something like this:
"The bad news for apostates is that they profane [but they don’t really profane] the blood of the covenant [which covenant they were never a part of] by which they were sanctified [though they were never actually sanctified by it]. Man, someone who has done [i.e. not really done] any of that will face a far worse punishment than the Israelite under the old covenant who disobeyed the law [which they actually were obliged to obey as part of the old covenant, because the old covenant did have members who were not decretally elect to eternal salvation, unlike the new covenant]."
In short, the new covenant brings worse punishments for non-members who disobey its terms than the old did for those who really were members and disobeyed. Which doesn't make sense to me.
It could be, of course, that the passage does not mean 'sanctification' in the exact same way that some other parts of the bible and some confessions of faith and various (important) theological discussions mean it. In that sense they were never sanctified, sure. But maybe that’s not the only thing signified by 'sanctified,' nor is it the only kind of sanctification the covenant has on offer.
Which means we're back to distinguishing (though not separating) covenant and election, and discussing types of covenant membership.
I think it does:
- You can be a son or an illegitimate child (12:8).
- You can fall away from the living God (3:12)
- You can be the sort of land that drinks in the rain but produces thorns and thistles (6:8)
- You can drift from what you've heard (2:2)
- You can be Esau and sell your birthright (12:16).
- It’s possible to leave Egypt but fail to enter the land (Chapters 3-4).
- You can be enlightened, taste the heavenly gift, share in the Spirit, taste the goodness of the word and the powers of the age to come, and yet fall away irrevocably (6:4-6)
- You can shrink back and be destroyed (10:39)
- You can have come to Zion but refuse to listen to the one who speaks from heaven (12:25).
- You can show contempt for the blood of the covenant that sanctified you (10:28-29).
- And yet, it's only if we endure that we are his house/ partakers of Christ (3:6, 14).
Q: But isn't some of this 'you're in the covenant' language hypothetical?
Well, take a particular example - one of the warning passages in Hebrews.
Heb. 10:28-29: Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?
I must admit to finding this passage still fairly difficult, (especially since I'm convinced of limited atonement, which closes down the options for interpreting this verse). But, the trouble with ‘sanctified’ being hypothetical is that wouldn’t that mean everything else is hypothetical too? So the passage would be saying something like this:
"The bad news for apostates is that they profane [but they don’t really profane] the blood of the covenant [which covenant they were never a part of] by which they were sanctified [though they were never actually sanctified by it]. Man, someone who has done [i.e. not really done] any of that will face a far worse punishment than the Israelite under the old covenant who disobeyed the law [which they actually were obliged to obey as part of the old covenant, because the old covenant did have members who were not decretally elect to eternal salvation, unlike the new covenant]."
In short, the new covenant brings worse punishments for non-members who disobey its terms than the old did for those who really were members and disobeyed. Which doesn't make sense to me.
It could be, of course, that the passage does not mean 'sanctification' in the exact same way that some other parts of the bible and some confessions of faith and various (important) theological discussions mean it. In that sense they were never sanctified, sure. But maybe that’s not the only thing signified by 'sanctified,' nor is it the only kind of sanctification the covenant has on offer.
Which means we're back to distinguishing (though not separating) covenant and election, and discussing types of covenant membership.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Covenant and Election in Hebrews
Hebrews is also of help to us in thinking about the whole covenant-election thing.
Q: Is the new covenant unbreakable? [i.e. are the only people in the covenant those who cannot fall from it]
If yes, then you’d expect the logic in Hebrews to be: The new covenant is unbreakable, so you can’t break it, so you’re fine. In others words, to argue from the covenant to security, but not from the covenant to the danger of falling.
So, how come the logic is: Jesus brings in a new covenant, so don’t be a covenant-breaker, because that’s far worse than being a covenant-breaker under the old [Hebrews 2:1-4, Hebrews 12:18-29]. That is, Hebrews is written to people in the new covenant warning them not to become covenant-breakers.
Ok, so maybe therefore you could put it like this:
The new covenant is unbreakable, so make sure you don’t break it, because if you break it you prove that you’ve never been in it (because, after all, the new covenant is unbreakable). After all, doesn't Hebrews say something like this in 3:6, 14.
Which is fine, but only if we are able to distinguish types of being ‘in’ the covenant. Otherwise I don’t think it works. They’re spoken to on the basis of being in the covenant, not on the basis of maybe being in the covenant. They have come to Mount Zion where they can hear the voice of the Son of God speaking to them.
And if we’re able to distinguish types of being ‘in the covenant’ then it is possible to be a covenant-breaker.
[More to come later...]
Q: Is the new covenant unbreakable? [i.e. are the only people in the covenant those who cannot fall from it]
If yes, then you’d expect the logic in Hebrews to be: The new covenant is unbreakable, so you can’t break it, so you’re fine. In others words, to argue from the covenant to security, but not from the covenant to the danger of falling.
So, how come the logic is: Jesus brings in a new covenant, so don’t be a covenant-breaker, because that’s far worse than being a covenant-breaker under the old [Hebrews 2:1-4, Hebrews 12:18-29]. That is, Hebrews is written to people in the new covenant warning them not to become covenant-breakers.
Ok, so maybe therefore you could put it like this:
The new covenant is unbreakable, so make sure you don’t break it, because if you break it you prove that you’ve never been in it (because, after all, the new covenant is unbreakable). After all, doesn't Hebrews say something like this in 3:6, 14.
Which is fine, but only if we are able to distinguish types of being ‘in’ the covenant. Otherwise I don’t think it works. They’re spoken to on the basis of being in the covenant, not on the basis of maybe being in the covenant. They have come to Mount Zion where they can hear the voice of the Son of God speaking to them.
And if we’re able to distinguish types of being ‘in the covenant’ then it is possible to be a covenant-breaker.
[More to come later...]
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Church in Hebrews 7
More on Church life in the epistle to the Hebrews:
Throughout the course of the letter the author explores what such corporate perseverance in faith involves, to which we turn in the next two headings.
2. Identification with the persecuted.
The author emphasises the need to live in Christian fellowship even if that requires identifying with persecuted Christians. In 10:32-34 the Hebrew’s “hard struggle” in the past had involved public reproach and identification with those likewise suffering, including those imprisoned. It is precisely this kind of response the author is wishing to exhort them to recommence. Perhaps it was the fear of continuing persecution that caused some of the Hebrews to neglect congregational life (10:25). A similar picture is painted in 13:3 where it is abundantly clear that those imprisoned are fellow members of the church. Moreover, 13:12-14 links these ideas with the sufferings of Christ. Part of following his faithful example is living life as suffering outsiders – the very essence of endurance in hope that the author has been exhorting (13:14).[1]
3. Access and Worship
One of the models the author employs for describing persevering faith in congregational life is the tabernacle. This brings a particular emphasis on the twin ideas of ‘access’ and ‘worship’.
An emphasis on access accords with the dominant Christological theme of the letter - Christ’s priesthood,[2] and the correspondingly significant role the tabernacle plays in the letter’s Christology. We see therefore that the emphasis on Christ’s ministry leads to a particular understanding of the nature of the Church, which in turn leads to specific forms of Church life. It is no surprise in this context that ‘approach’ occurs at several major junctions in the letter - most notably in 4:14-16 and 10:19-25.[3] In the latter the 1st person plural present subjunctive of προσερχομαι heads up an extended exhortation. As with the Christological priestly material, this notion of approach is drawn from and yet also contrasted with the tabernacle life of Israel (10:2) and the Sinai experience (12:18-24). Here we again see how central ‘Church’ is to the basic response to Christ the author is seeking. Corporately drawing near to God as his people is a holding fast onto the hope inaugurated in Christ’s priestly work: the ‘hope’ of 6:19-20 is somehow (at least in part) realised and ‘lived out’ in 10:19-25. We should also note that while it could be argued the drawing near of 10:22 certainly involves more than congregational meetings it cannot be ascertained that it is less. Rather, the proximity of προσερχομαι and e˙kklhsi÷a in 12:22-23 suggests otherwise, since here ‘church’ is explicitly bound together with ‘approach’. The eschatological/ heavenly reality to which the Hebrews have arrived ought to find expression in communal approach to God in the here and now.[4]
This, of course, does not mean that the epistle limits Church life to formal meetings as often experienced in the modern west.[5] Rather, 10:19-25 weaves drawing near to God with the basic responses of faith, hope and love. What is more, we have seen that Church life for the author involves daily exhortation. In relation to this, the second aspect of ‘tabernacle life’ reflected in the life of the Church as the eschatological Israel is ‘worship’. In the author’s mind this is the obvious response to the eschatological reality of 12:18-24. This reality, which he describes in 12:28 as ‘receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken’, should provoke gratitude and, like Israel before her, the offering by the Church of “acceptable worship” to the God who is a “consuming fire” (12:28-29). This worship is described in 13 as encompassing many different areas of life. Not only are these instructions expressed in the plural, but many of the activities envisaged are inherently corporate, for example - “brotherly love”, “hospitality”, identification with imprisoned members of the body, “all” honouring marriage, respect and obedience towards leaders, and the sharing of goods.[6] That the tabernacle worship of Israel is still in the background is clear not just from the wider context, but also in 13:15-16’s offerings and sacrifices. Corporate praise of God and communal life are the priestly work of God’s people.[7]
[1] These verses could be further support for a preterist/AD70 reading, since ‘outside the camp’ refers to the camp of Israel. The Hebrews must not align themselves with soon-to-be judged apostate Israel/Jerusalem, but rather Christ, who suffered and died as an outsider to the nation. Guthrie argues that a return to Judaism was a danger for the Hebrews, which would be strengthened by a preterist reading. Guthrie, Hebrews, 20.
[2] The theme appears first in 1:3, is implied in 1:5, then returned to again in 2:17, 3:1-6. It comes into particular focus in the exhortation of 4:14-16 from where it dominates until chapter 11 (a brief excursion from 5:11to roughly 6:18 being the exception). The theme resurfaces in 12:24 and then again in 13:8-16.
[3] Guthrie highlights these passages in the structure of the book. Guthrie, Hebrews, 39-40, 173, 340.
[4] “[T]his passage speaks of end-time existence as present possibility for the believer.” Giles, Church, 156.
[5] It is not less than such formal meetings however. Giles, Church, 158.
[6] Attridge understands chapter 13 to be about ‘worship’ and notes the connection between worship and congregational life. Attridge, Hebrews, 384-385.
[7] Likewise, 13:10 is unmistakably drawing on the image of the old covenant priesthood, and may be a reference to communion. See Leviticus 6:26.
Church in Hebrews 6
The second half of my essay focussed on what Hebrews has to teach regarding Church life and practice.
As already seen above, Hebrews is an interplay between expository and hortatory material. In this section we will focus more particularly on the exhortatory, though this is dependent upon the expository material. In a similar way, this second half of the essay is built upon the first half. The nature of the church as eschatological Israel is the paradigm within which the letter’s picture of Church life is found and from which it flows.
1. Perseverance as a corporate responsibility
The main exhortation of the letter is a call to persevere in fidelity to the word received from the Son, though this is expressed in a variety of ways.[1] This perseverance is envisaged as a corporate responsibility. Not only are most of the commands and exhortations given in the plural (for example, 10:19-25),[2] but in several passages the members of the Christian family are entrusted with responsibility for one another’s endurance (13:7, 17; 3:13-14; 10:24-25; 12:15-16). Firstly, in maintaining a proper response to the word members of the Church should imitate and submit to leaders (13:7, 17). Whatever we may postulate about the form this leadership took, we can assert that Hebrews envisages some kind of recognised leadership within the Church as an aid to the perseverance of the whole community in the faith.[3] Secondly however, the responsibilities of leaders to keep watch (13:17) are not to be set over against the more dominant theme of the responsibility of all in this regard. Rather, living as God’s people involves daily mutual exhortation.[4] The author would know nothing of the Christian life as a solo project. It seems therefore that ‘doing/being the Church’ is the response the author is seeking.[5] We may state this more generally that ‘Church’ is in some sense the appropriate gospel response.
[1] See e.g. 2:1-3; 3:6, 12-15; 4:11, 14-16; 6:11-12; 10:19-25, 35-39; 12:1-3, 12-16, 25, 28.
[2] See for e.g. 2:1-3; 4:11, 14-16; 10:19-25; 12:1.
[3] Some argue from the simplistic language used to describe leaders that the Church was institutionally simple at the time the epistle was written. E.g. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 68. Giles, Church, 158-159. This is almost an argument from silence (i.e. the lack of the words for presbyters and deacons found in e.g. the pastoral epistles) and lacks any real conclusive power.
[4] 3:13
[5] Terminology derived from James Halstead, personal communication.
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.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Religious Worldliness
In 1 John 2:12-14 John tells the believers that he is writing to them for three reasons, reasons which define them as true believers over against the false ones he’s writing against.
a. Your sins are forgiven for his name’s sake.
b. You know him who is from the beginning.
c. You have overcome the evil one (you are strong, the word of God abides in you).
By contrast, it seems the false believers were in love with the things of the world, which john also describes in three ways. It seems to me that these in some way ‘map onto’ the three defining features of the believers above. They 'love the world,' i.e.
a. The desires of the flesh (rather than forgiveness, giving in to sin).
b. The desires of the eyes (living by sight, not by faith, focussing on what the eyes desire, rather than ‘desiring God’).
c. Pride of life (strong in oneself, rather than in the word, so proud like the evil one rather than experiencing victory over him).
But what’s also interesting is that there’s a definite allusion to Ezekiel 24:21 and the description of the temple which God was about to destroy (I’ve altered the order from Ezekiel 24 to highlight the connection with 1 John). The Israelites loved the temple, but it was a misplaced love, a foolish presumptuous faith that they’d be ok despite their sin. The temple is described as
a. The yearning of your soul.
b. The delight of your eyes.
c. The pride of your power.
This is especially poignant, given the connection in John’s gospel between faithless Israel and the ‘world’. And then there’s a further connection with Genesis 3:6 and the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
a. It was good for food (the desires of the flesh? Yes, food is good, but not when God says 'don't eat').
b. And a delight to the eyes.
c. Desirable to make one wise (self-sufficiency for life rather than God-dependency).
Does all of this help to explain, then,
1. Why loving the world is utterly opposed to being a Christian. It’s an inversion of the benefits found in Christ, a ‘false faith’ if you like?
2. How the sin of the Israelites in their trusting in the mere possession of the temple despite their ongoing sin, was a repeat of the mistake of Eve in the garden, and deserving of the same punishment (expulsion from the garden/ land)?
3. In other words, being like the world in the 1 John 2:16 sense, and like Eve in the Genesis 3 sense, and not at all like a true believer should be in the 1 John 2:12-14 sense, might at times look extremely religious and pious, but in reality be like the presumptuous ‘false faith’ of Ezekiel 24:21?
[Also, the connection with Ezekiel 24 (and 'world' in John's gospel) might suggest a 'run up to AD70' setting for the epistle. Could the false teachers and believers have been apostate Israelites or Judaisers? Like Israel in Ezekiel's day they loved the world and the things in it, i.e. they clung to the temple in false faith?]
a. Your sins are forgiven for his name’s sake.
b. You know him who is from the beginning.
c. You have overcome the evil one (you are strong, the word of God abides in you).
By contrast, it seems the false believers were in love with the things of the world, which john also describes in three ways. It seems to me that these in some way ‘map onto’ the three defining features of the believers above. They 'love the world,' i.e.
a. The desires of the flesh (rather than forgiveness, giving in to sin).
b. The desires of the eyes (living by sight, not by faith, focussing on what the eyes desire, rather than ‘desiring God’).
c. Pride of life (strong in oneself, rather than in the word, so proud like the evil one rather than experiencing victory over him).
But what’s also interesting is that there’s a definite allusion to Ezekiel 24:21 and the description of the temple which God was about to destroy (I’ve altered the order from Ezekiel 24 to highlight the connection with 1 John). The Israelites loved the temple, but it was a misplaced love, a foolish presumptuous faith that they’d be ok despite their sin. The temple is described as
a. The yearning of your soul.
b. The delight of your eyes.
c. The pride of your power.
This is especially poignant, given the connection in John’s gospel between faithless Israel and the ‘world’. And then there’s a further connection with Genesis 3:6 and the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
a. It was good for food (the desires of the flesh? Yes, food is good, but not when God says 'don't eat').
b. And a delight to the eyes.
c. Desirable to make one wise (self-sufficiency for life rather than God-dependency).
Does all of this help to explain, then,
1. Why loving the world is utterly opposed to being a Christian. It’s an inversion of the benefits found in Christ, a ‘false faith’ if you like?
2. How the sin of the Israelites in their trusting in the mere possession of the temple despite their ongoing sin, was a repeat of the mistake of Eve in the garden, and deserving of the same punishment (expulsion from the garden/ land)?
3. In other words, being like the world in the 1 John 2:16 sense, and like Eve in the Genesis 3 sense, and not at all like a true believer should be in the 1 John 2:12-14 sense, might at times look extremely religious and pious, but in reality be like the presumptuous ‘false faith’ of Ezekiel 24:21?
[Also, the connection with Ezekiel 24 (and 'world' in John's gospel) might suggest a 'run up to AD70' setting for the epistle. Could the false teachers and believers have been apostate Israelites or Judaisers? Like Israel in Ezekiel's day they loved the world and the things in it, i.e. they clung to the temple in false faith?]
Monday, January 28, 2008
Final Semester
2008 is here. Semester 2, year 3 begins today. While fighting off the mild panic (I only have x number of weeks left to make the most of this important phase in training for ministry) here's what I'll be studying:
The Doctrine of Salvation. Does what it says on the tin. Doctrine, plenty of it, and about salvation.
Psalms. Final attempt to get my Hebrew at least functional amidst immersion in the bible's hymn-book.
Puritan Models of Ministry. Learning from the heirs of the reformation. Last year's module handouts can be found here.
The Doctrine of Salvation. Does what it says on the tin. Doctrine, plenty of it, and about salvation.
Psalms. Final attempt to get my Hebrew at least functional amidst immersion in the bible's hymn-book.
Puritan Models of Ministry. Learning from the heirs of the reformation. Last year's module handouts can be found here.
Friday, January 25, 2008
10 on the Law
One of THE single most important theological and pastoral issues is the relationship between Christian living and the law.
Here's ten words giving some of my reasons why I reject an absolute antithesis between law and gospel and some sort of summary of how I think we should relate to the OT law.
1. The law was never intended as a system of meriting salvation. In fact, the sacrificial system and priesthood at the centre of the law were about grace, forgiveness, propitiation.
2. One way of summarising the gospel is 'Jesus Christ is Lord.' This means immediately that the concept of 'law' (i.e. commands you really must obey) is included within the gospel itself. I can't say I believe that Jesus is Lord and then totally willfully persistently ignore everything the Lord wants me to do. It just doesn't make sense.
3. Then, add to 2. the fact that obedience to Jesus Christ is often described using commands from the Old Testament law (yes, modified and transformed by the salvation-history context)...
4. ...then add to 2. and 3. the fact that the Christian's love-response to Jesus Christ is described as fulfilling the law...
5. ....then add to 2., 3. and 4. the fact that Christ himself thought he was fulfilling the law in his life and in his teaching....
6. ...and what do you get? I think you get the idea that the Christian is, although not under the law (i.e. we don't live under the Mosaic administration of the covenant, we are not living between Sinai and the cross, but between the cross and eternity), under Christ, but, that being under Christ means being under someone whose commands are the fulfillment of the law.
7. In other words Christians should relate to the Mosaic law in the same basic way that we relate to all of the Old Testament - through Christ. The law comes to us, not in exactly the same way it did to the Israelites as they stood at the foot of Mount Sinai, but transformed, renewed, changed, by the fact that the law has found its climax in the life and work and revelation of Jesus Christ the Lord. The law is for us because it speaks of Christ, by showing us our need of him by exposing sin, by helping us fill out the content of what obedience to Christ looks like, etc. The law is there to instruct and train us in righteous living.
8. Point 7. will look quite different depending (in part) on the law in question. The way I approach the food laws of Leviticus will look quite different to the way I approach 'do not murder' but in neither case can I write off the law as irrelevant to Christian living, nor can I simply lift the law straight out of the Old Testament without reflection on the fact that Christ has brought things to a climax.
9. 'Spirit vs. law' is ultimately a non-starter too, since the Spirit writes the law on our hearts.
10. Were the writers of psalm 19 and psalm 119 simply off their heads, or were they the worst sort of pharisaical legalists? Or could it be that for the living-by-grace Christian the law is a great friend since it communicates the wise requirements of our loving and holy King?
Here's ten words giving some of my reasons why I reject an absolute antithesis between law and gospel and some sort of summary of how I think we should relate to the OT law.
1. The law was never intended as a system of meriting salvation. In fact, the sacrificial system and priesthood at the centre of the law were about grace, forgiveness, propitiation.
2. One way of summarising the gospel is 'Jesus Christ is Lord.' This means immediately that the concept of 'law' (i.e. commands you really must obey) is included within the gospel itself. I can't say I believe that Jesus is Lord and then totally willfully persistently ignore everything the Lord wants me to do. It just doesn't make sense.
3. Then, add to 2. the fact that obedience to Jesus Christ is often described using commands from the Old Testament law (yes, modified and transformed by the salvation-history context)...
4. ...then add to 2. and 3. the fact that the Christian's love-response to Jesus Christ is described as fulfilling the law...
5. ....then add to 2., 3. and 4. the fact that Christ himself thought he was fulfilling the law in his life and in his teaching....
6. ...and what do you get? I think you get the idea that the Christian is, although not under the law (i.e. we don't live under the Mosaic administration of the covenant, we are not living between Sinai and the cross, but between the cross and eternity), under Christ, but, that being under Christ means being under someone whose commands are the fulfillment of the law.
7. In other words Christians should relate to the Mosaic law in the same basic way that we relate to all of the Old Testament - through Christ. The law comes to us, not in exactly the same way it did to the Israelites as they stood at the foot of Mount Sinai, but transformed, renewed, changed, by the fact that the law has found its climax in the life and work and revelation of Jesus Christ the Lord. The law is for us because it speaks of Christ, by showing us our need of him by exposing sin, by helping us fill out the content of what obedience to Christ looks like, etc. The law is there to instruct and train us in righteous living.
8. Point 7. will look quite different depending (in part) on the law in question. The way I approach the food laws of Leviticus will look quite different to the way I approach 'do not murder' but in neither case can I write off the law as irrelevant to Christian living, nor can I simply lift the law straight out of the Old Testament without reflection on the fact that Christ has brought things to a climax.
9. 'Spirit vs. law' is ultimately a non-starter too, since the Spirit writes the law on our hearts.
10. Were the writers of psalm 19 and psalm 119 simply off their heads, or were they the worst sort of pharisaical legalists? Or could it be that for the living-by-grace Christian the law is a great friend since it communicates the wise requirements of our loving and holy King?
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Why do we have lions?
More from Doctrine revision...
- Creation is there to reveal God. It's why creation exists.
- This includes the words of the bible, which are themselves a part of creation, and talk about God with created words which reference other parts of creation ('God is a rock').
- So, one of the things we can say about creation is that God made it this way so that the bible could say what it does say in the way that it says it.
- So, why do lions exist? Because of the Lord Jesus Christ (Revelation 5:5).
- Creation is there to reveal God. It's why creation exists.
- This includes the words of the bible, which are themselves a part of creation, and talk about God with created words which reference other parts of creation ('God is a rock').
- So, one of the things we can say about creation is that God made it this way so that the bible could say what it does say in the way that it says it.
- So, why do lions exist? Because of the Lord Jesus Christ (Revelation 5:5).
From revision for the Doctrine of God exam...
Why is communication possible? Because God is a Trinity.
1. All speech is somewhat analogical (when I say 'dog' to you, there's enough similarity between the picture of a barking beast in your head and the same picture in my head that I'm signifying by the word 'dog' for us to meaningfully communicate, but my 'dog' and your 'dog' are not exactly the same thing).
2. So all speech requires a world where things reflect other things.
3. Only a God who himself is a reflection of himself could create a world full of reflection (otherwise, where'd he get the 'idea' of reflection from if it didn't somehow exist within himself 'before' he made the world).
4. Only a trinitarian God can be, within himself, an eternal reflection of himself (the Father reflects the Son and so on).
5. People who believe in a divine Monad (Islam, Judaism) have no basis for communication. They are unable to account for why we have a world where communication is possible, or why human beings communicate.
[6. So, unless you believe in the Trinity, you might as well keep quiet :) ]
1. All speech is somewhat analogical (when I say 'dog' to you, there's enough similarity between the picture of a barking beast in your head and the same picture in my head that I'm signifying by the word 'dog' for us to meaningfully communicate, but my 'dog' and your 'dog' are not exactly the same thing).
2. So all speech requires a world where things reflect other things.
3. Only a God who himself is a reflection of himself could create a world full of reflection (otherwise, where'd he get the 'idea' of reflection from if it didn't somehow exist within himself 'before' he made the world).
4. Only a trinitarian God can be, within himself, an eternal reflection of himself (the Father reflects the Son and so on).
5. People who believe in a divine Monad (Islam, Judaism) have no basis for communication. They are unable to account for why we have a world where communication is possible, or why human beings communicate.
[6. So, unless you believe in the Trinity, you might as well keep quiet :) ]
Friday, November 30, 2007
Gospel Optimism 9: Headlines and Eschatology
Simply put, one of the reasons optimistic eschatology fell from a place of dominance to occupy the sidelines of the evangelical world was that two world wars and the social-moral upheavals of the 20th century seemed to suggest things really could only get worse. But of course, it's bad news for theology to be based on the newspaper headlines rather than thoughtful, careful examination of the scriptures.
The Jollyblogger thinks postmillenialism might be making a comeback, and that this might be linked to brighter headlines in the US. He (not a post-mill) thinks it would be quite a good thing for postmillenialism to come back, but that any comeback shouldn't be based on the news headlines. I (a post-mill) agree with him on both counts.
Also of note, the article he links to includes an intriguing comment;
These days many evangelicals talk like premillennialists but act like postmillennialists. They expect the world to get worse and worse but preach the gospel, lobby politicians, and fight for social justice in order to make it a better place.
The Jollyblogger thinks postmillenialism might be making a comeback, and that this might be linked to brighter headlines in the US. He (not a post-mill) thinks it would be quite a good thing for postmillenialism to come back, but that any comeback shouldn't be based on the news headlines. I (a post-mill) agree with him on both counts.
Also of note, the article he links to includes an intriguing comment;
These days many evangelicals talk like premillennialists but act like postmillennialists. They expect the world to get worse and worse but preach the gospel, lobby politicians, and fight for social justice in order to make it a better place.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Postmillenialism and Suffering 3 (updated)
The Christian life is characterised by the cross. Does this refute postmillenialism - the idea that the gospel will triumph in history?
1. Of course, we must affirm that the Christian life is characterised by the cross. To say anything less is an over-realised eschatology. However, we can say more (and a-mill brothers and sisters would of course want to agree with this) – the Christian life is characterised by the cross because of union with Christ.
2. Union is with the whole of him, and therefore his resurrection as well as his cross.
3. In fact the two (cross and resurrection) cannot be separated. For the cross is the route to glory, the cross is (because of the resurrection) an example of victory through suffering. The Christian life is a life of cross and resurrection.
4. But what shape does this victory/resurrection aspect of the Christian life take in the present (i.e. before its ultimate in bodily resurrection at the 2nd coming)?
a. Patient endurance despite persecution and suffering.
b. Justification.
c. Regeneration.
d. Sanctification (progressive, though not perfect, victory over sin in the life of the believer, increasing moral conformity to Christ, etc.).
Few would disagree with a. through d. However, are there any other manifestations of resurrection-life/victory-through suffering spoken of in the scripture? I would say yes. Consider these verses from 1 Peter - an epistle in some ways majoring on the 'Christian life involves suffering and persecution' theme;
1 Peter 2:11-12. The suffering of the Christian under persecution results in the conversion of the persecutor.
1 Peter 2:15. The good living under fire of the Christian silences the ignorance of the persecutor.
1 Peter 5:10. God establishes and strengthens the church after she has suffered for a little while.
The poignant thing here is how these promises of victory are connected to persecution. Now, we could argue forever about ‘when’ 5:10 happens – is it within history or only at the 2nd coming? But, it is pretty hard to argue that 1 Peter 2:11-12 and 15 are only to be experienced at the 2nd coming. Even if ‘the day of visitation’ is ‘end of time judgment day’ (which I don’t think it is) then what is being predicted in that verse is still undoubtedly conversion – a within-history victory of the gospel over some of the church’s persecutors.
Also, just because Peter seems only to be putting forward 2:11-12 as a possibility doesn’t undermine the point. It’s clearly something that does happen (Saul of Tarsus anyone?) – I assume Peter’s uncertainty to be related to his not knowing the elect status of the specific persecutor’s in mind, rather than his doubting that this is a strategy for gospel growth that God uses! That he even puts it forward as a possibility shows that we have a further category to add to a. to d. with regard to the sort of victory that the Church can experience within history.
e. Gospel-conquest through the cross-living of the Church.
Peter doesn’t see this silencing and converting of former persecutors as being in conflict with the cross-shaped reality of the Christian life. Rather he sees the cross-living of Christians as instrumental in the whole thing.
The point is not that these verses somehow prove postmillenialism (there are many other passages and themes that we could turn to for mounting that argument) but rather that, even before considering 'proof-texts' for postmillenialism it can be demonstrated that e. is a part of the resurrection/victory side of union with Christ experienced by the Church prior to Christ's return. That the Christian life is cross-shaped does not mean the gospel won't win, or that persecution can't be reduced by that victory. Postmillennialism argues that what the apostle Peter is suggesting could happen on a local scale for the believers in Asia Minor, the bible elsewhere predicts will eventually and gradually happen on a massive scale before Jesus Christ returns. Cross-shaped living is instrumental in the victory of the gospel.
1. Of course, we must affirm that the Christian life is characterised by the cross. To say anything less is an over-realised eschatology. However, we can say more (and a-mill brothers and sisters would of course want to agree with this) – the Christian life is characterised by the cross because of union with Christ.
2. Union is with the whole of him, and therefore his resurrection as well as his cross.
3. In fact the two (cross and resurrection) cannot be separated. For the cross is the route to glory, the cross is (because of the resurrection) an example of victory through suffering. The Christian life is a life of cross and resurrection.
4. But what shape does this victory/resurrection aspect of the Christian life take in the present (i.e. before its ultimate in bodily resurrection at the 2nd coming)?
a. Patient endurance despite persecution and suffering.
b. Justification.
c. Regeneration.
d. Sanctification (progressive, though not perfect, victory over sin in the life of the believer, increasing moral conformity to Christ, etc.).
Few would disagree with a. through d. However, are there any other manifestations of resurrection-life/victory-through suffering spoken of in the scripture? I would say yes. Consider these verses from 1 Peter - an epistle in some ways majoring on the 'Christian life involves suffering and persecution' theme;
1 Peter 2:11-12. The suffering of the Christian under persecution results in the conversion of the persecutor.
1 Peter 2:15. The good living under fire of the Christian silences the ignorance of the persecutor.
1 Peter 5:10. God establishes and strengthens the church after she has suffered for a little while.
The poignant thing here is how these promises of victory are connected to persecution. Now, we could argue forever about ‘when’ 5:10 happens – is it within history or only at the 2nd coming? But, it is pretty hard to argue that 1 Peter 2:11-12 and 15 are only to be experienced at the 2nd coming. Even if ‘the day of visitation’ is ‘end of time judgment day’ (which I don’t think it is) then what is being predicted in that verse is still undoubtedly conversion – a within-history victory of the gospel over some of the church’s persecutors.
Also, just because Peter seems only to be putting forward 2:11-12 as a possibility doesn’t undermine the point. It’s clearly something that does happen (Saul of Tarsus anyone?) – I assume Peter’s uncertainty to be related to his not knowing the elect status of the specific persecutor’s in mind, rather than his doubting that this is a strategy for gospel growth that God uses! That he even puts it forward as a possibility shows that we have a further category to add to a. to d. with regard to the sort of victory that the Church can experience within history.
e. Gospel-conquest through the cross-living of the Church.
Peter doesn’t see this silencing and converting of former persecutors as being in conflict with the cross-shaped reality of the Christian life. Rather he sees the cross-living of Christians as instrumental in the whole thing.
The point is not that these verses somehow prove postmillenialism (there are many other passages and themes that we could turn to for mounting that argument) but rather that, even before considering 'proof-texts' for postmillenialism it can be demonstrated that e. is a part of the resurrection/victory side of union with Christ experienced by the Church prior to Christ's return. That the Christian life is cross-shaped does not mean the gospel won't win, or that persecution can't be reduced by that victory. Postmillennialism argues that what the apostle Peter is suggesting could happen on a local scale for the believers in Asia Minor, the bible elsewhere predicts will eventually and gradually happen on a massive scale before Jesus Christ returns. Cross-shaped living is instrumental in the victory of the gospel.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
God is Love
Today in Doctrine of God we had a disputation (a bit like a debate) on the following proposition;
'God is an eternal trinity of love. This means that it is unthinkable for him to act toward any creature in a way that does not pursue that creature’s highest good. We cannot, therefore, believe in the Calvinist doctrine of election, the limitation of the atonement to the elect, or the abhorrent idea that anyone might be abandoned to eternal punishment.'
How should such a statement be argued against? Some of the points emerging from class-time were;
'God is an eternal trinity of love. This means that it is unthinkable for him to act toward any creature in a way that does not pursue that creature’s highest good. We cannot, therefore, believe in the Calvinist doctrine of election, the limitation of the atonement to the elect, or the abhorrent idea that anyone might be abandoned to eternal punishment.'
How should such a statement be argued against? Some of the points emerging from class-time were;
- All depends how you define 'good' and 'love'.
- God is love, but he's also a lot of other things too. These attributes are not in competition - God is 'simple' in this sense.
- A lot of biblical texts seem to talk about election/ particular redemption/ eternal punishment. How can we just write them off?
- God is most concerned for his glory. That is, his trinitarian love commits him to seeking the good/ honour/glorification of himself. He is glorified when he punishes sinners as well as when he saves them.
- The Father really really loves the Son and wants him to be firstborn of many brothers.
- The Father really really loves the Son and that is bad news for those who disobey the Son.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Limited Atonement in Hebrews 2:13-15
Limited atonement (which really should be renamed 'powerful atonement' or something like that) is often accused of being 'a doctrine without a text'. Whilst this is in many ways a non-argument (who seriously wants to limit 'what the bible teaches' to 'what can be proved from proof texts'?) and Romans 8:32 is a proof-text of sorts, there are also a number of texts that suggest that Jesus' cross-work was undertaken with the specific purpose of saving the elect.
I think Hebrews 2:13-15 is probably one of those sort of texts. It strongly implies the doctrine of limited atonement.
13 And again, "I will put my trust in him." And again, "Behold, I and the children God has given me." 14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.
vs 13 envisages those who belong to Christ as family members as 'the children' given to him by God. Then vs 14 says that it was because of the humanity of specifically these children that the Son also adopted a human nature (flesh and blood) in order to die a death that rescued them from slavery.
In other words we have atonement explicitly linked with election. Christ's cross-work flowed out of the Father's giving to the Son. It was very definitely 'for us and for our salvation' that the Son was made incarnate and went to his Satan-whupping death.
I think Hebrews 2:13-15 is probably one of those sort of texts. It strongly implies the doctrine of limited atonement.
13 And again, "I will put my trust in him." And again, "Behold, I and the children God has given me." 14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.
vs 13 envisages those who belong to Christ as family members as 'the children' given to him by God. Then vs 14 says that it was because of the humanity of specifically these children that the Son also adopted a human nature (flesh and blood) in order to die a death that rescued them from slavery.
In other words we have atonement explicitly linked with election. Christ's cross-work flowed out of the Father's giving to the Son. It was very definitely 'for us and for our salvation' that the Son was made incarnate and went to his Satan-whupping death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
