Jesus is the Word of God
The issue is not progress of knowledge but object of faith.
Amen! Amen!
Go and enjoy this post but I dunno - maybe comment here rather than there. Your call. But some blogs aren't as much free-for-alls as Christ the Truth. Both kinds of blogs have their place and it's good to respect the differences.
.
A flurry of recent blogging on Christ in the OT. A whole swathe of posts written in the past. Why?
I write on this the same reason I write on pastoral theology, on doctrine of God, on evangelism, on preaching, on everything:
.
That's why.
.
A flurry of recent blogging on Christ in the OT. A whole swathe of posts written in the past. Why?
I write on this the same reason I write on pastoral theology, on doctrine of God, on evangelism, on preaching, on everything:
.
That's why.
.
I've been involved in a blog discussion about the Angel of the LORD. 94 comments and still going strong.
I'd like to clarify a couple of things about the Angel of the LORD:
The Angel of the LORD is not by any means the only title under which Christ appears in the OT. He also appears simply as 'the LORD' or as 'the Word of the LORD' or 'the Commander of the LORD's host'. Christ has many names.
I don't believe that actual appearances are the only meaningful ways of talking about Christ in the OT (there's also the promises and types).
When you hear "Angel" don't automatically think 'creature'. Literally the name means 'Sent One' and it has come to mean 'Messenger' (good titles for Christ!)
There are lots of other angels in Scripture. But just as there are many 'sent ones' from God - THE ONE Sent from God is a divine title.
Now. Why bother talking about Him?
Let me just give one reason for now (I speak at great length here on the subject):
When you realize that both OT authors and OT saints appreciated the divine identity of the Angel it forces you to rethink a kind of default unitarianism innate to much of our OT understanding. Once you know that the Angel is both of the LORD and is the LORD, He is from God and is God, distinct and divine, you see that OT saints did have a conceptual framework which allowed for conscious faith in the distinct Person of the Sent Mediator.
If that all sounds like jargon, later on I'll post something much simpler.
.
By promise
By prototype
By presence
Genesis 22 is a good example of Christ being there in all three senses.
By promise, He is there in the Seed, first promised in 3:15, threatened through sacrificial death but renewed so that in Abraham's Seed all nations will be blessed (22:18).
He is also promised very strikingly in v14. Abraham said the LORD would provide a lamb (v7-8). On this occasion a ram is provided (v13). And "So Abraham caled the name of that place "The LORD will provide." As it is said to this day, "On the mount of the LORD it shall be provided." The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world will be provided on that mountain in the region of Moriah (Jerusalem - cf 2 Chron 3:1). And everybody knew about it. They kept saying 'On that mountain the LORD shall provide Himself the lamb.' (It's a reflexive verb, tricky to translate but fascinating all the same!)
By prototype, there is Isaac the very first promised offspring of Abraham. The beloved son. The heir of the promises. He carries the wood on his back up the hill while his father holds the tools of judgement (v6). He is laid on the wood for sacrifice, but through divine intervention Abraham receives him back from death (cf Heb 11:19). And all of this on the third day (v4)
By presence, the Angel of the LORD intervenes. In v12 He sees that Abraham fears God because he didn't withhold his son from Himself (that is, from the Angel). In verses 15-18 the Angel speaks as the LORD, swears by Himself and promises to bless Abraham as above. He both is the LORD but He is also clearly distinct from another Person called LORD. Interesting isn't it - this is the only time the Angel is said to speak from heaven. Christ chose not to come down to this pre-enactment of the cross.
So Christ is present in a mixture of these three ways throughout the OT.
And it's important to highlight all three and to relate them to one another. The Angel is present not as a freaky apparition but as a portent of the gospel work He would do as the promised Seed, the promised Isaac etc. Check out these quotes by John Owen that interweave Christ as actually present and Christ as promised:
"After the promise [of Gen 3:15] was given, he appeared ‘in human form’ to instruct the Church in the mystery of his future incarnation, and under the name of Angel, to shadow out his office as sent unto it and employed in it by the Father; so here, before the promise, he discovered his distinct glorious person, as the eternal Voice of the Father. (John Owen's Works, Volume 18, p220)
[On the LORD's appearance in Genesis 18] Neither is there any ground for the late exposition of this and the like places, namely, that a created angel representing the person of God doth speak and act in his name, and is called Jehovah; an invention to evade the appearances of the Son of God under the old testament, contrary to the sense of all antiquity, nor is any reason or instance produced to make it good. (ibid, p221)
[On Genesis 32:24-30] From what hath been spoken, it is evident that he who appeared unto Jacob, with whom he earnestly wrestled, by tears and supplications was God; and because he was sent as the angel of God, it must be some distinct person in the Deity condescending unto that office; and appearing in the form of a man, he represented his future assumption of our human nature. And by all this did God instruct the church in the mystery of the person of the Messiah, and who it was that they were to look for in the blessing of the promised Seed. (ibid, p225)
[On Exodus 3:1-6] He is expressly called an “Angel” Exod. 3:2 – namely, the Angel of the covenant, the great Angel of the presence of God, in whom was the name and nature of God. And he thus appeared that the Church might know and consider who it was that was to work out their spiritual and eternal salvation, whereof that deliverance which then he would effect was a type and pledge. (ibid, p225)
When we highlight the presence of Christ with the people it is not to minimize the importance of the promise nor the proto-types. Christ is present among them that He Himself might prefigure His promised work. So the OT is not various promises and types moving towards Christ but is Christ Himself striding towards His own incarnation. (Blackham's phrase).
But then why specifically highlight the presence verses?
Well often when I speak about Christ in the OT I mention the promises and people say "Ah yes, but they spoke better than they knew." Sometimes they'll bring up 2 Cor 1:20 and say 'There were lots of promises about all kinds of stuff but, unbeknown to the OT saints, these promises ended up being about Christ.' Of course they never quote v19 which says 'These promises have always been 'Yes' in Christ.' But still the 'promises' route seems to slide off people's backs.
The proto-types route very readily slides off backs too. 'David was David' they say, 'No-one had to know he prefigured the divine Messiah.' Now of course you can quote Gen 49:10, you can point to the immensely exalted ways David is spoken of in the OT, you can do what Jesus did and quote Ps 110 or what Peter did and quote Psalm 16, but still people don't want to admit that the OT saints consciously knew about the typology in which they participated.
And so we turn to the presence verses. And here there is still resistance - "Ok so Jacob knew that the name of the God of Abraham was the Angel (the Sent One) and He was the Source of blessing (Gen 48:15-16). So what?"
But my hope is that banging on this particular point may just soften up an assumption that resists this teaching very strongly. The assumption is that OT saints could not have understood that the divine Visitor who encountered them was Himself LORD and also sent from the LORD. It is assumed that OT saints are effectively unitarian in their understanding. It is assumed that the OT saints had no ability to conceive of 'God from God' the way we do and therefore no conceptual framework for knowing and trusting the distinct Person of the divine Mediator.
My hope is that banging on these verses may just loosen up such a tight set of assumptions, because those assumptions really do straight-jacket these discussions.
It's not by any means the only way by which we should speak of Christ in the OT but it's a significant plank in the argument.
.
I'm the sort of person who bangs a drum for Christ in the OT. Specifically I think it's important to maintain that knowledge of God is always in Christ.
In my experience there are three ways to do this:
1) From the OT forwards
Basically you point out where the OT reveals an Appearing LORD, the Angel of the LORD, the Commander of the LORD's army etc. And you say 'Look - there He is.'
2) From the NT backwards
Basically you show how Jesus and the Apostles just assumed that the OT saints knew Christ.
3) Systematically
Here you point out how Christ is the Image, Word, Way, Truth and Life of God - and always has been.
Typically I encounter these kinds of resistance.
Against 1) I tend to find an underlying assumption something like:
The OT saints could not have even a proto-trinitarian understanding of deity in distinction among multiple Persons called 'LORD'. They (therefore) could not have an understanding of the distinct Person of Christ.
Of course there is no Scriptural warrant for this. It is just an assumption. But a very strong one. Quite rarely will this assumption yield even when confronted with a barrage of OT texts.
If it is finally conceded that Christ in His distinct deity is present in the text, the interlocutor will typically say "Ah but nobody at the time realised it."
Again this is not a Scriptural assertion, but it has tremendous force on your interlocutor. They may even argue as though "They spoke better than they knew" was in the bible. It's not in the bible. And it's an extremely poor assessment of the bible's teaching on OT faith and prophecy.
Against 2) I find an underlying assumption something like:
Whenever Jesus and the NT speak of Christ-focused faith and experience in the OT, they are always re-reading the OT in a way that was neither intended nor grasped by the OT saints.
Here's a frustrating little quirk! Bring up a barrage of NT texts that say something like "Seeing what was ahead David spoke of the resurrection of the Christ" (Acts 2:31) and you will receive a reply something like "Ah yes, Peter said that, but only with Pentecostal eyes of faith."
Um... [scratch head]... so David saw and spoke of Christ and His resurrection but... only once Pentecost happened? ...?
Against 3) I reckon the underlying assumption is something like:
You don't really need to know Jesus to know God. Obviously it's best. But not essential.
To be honest I think this is the one that really throbs beneath much of these discussions.
I don't mind if people have false assumptions 1) or 2). I'm fairly optimistic that eventually the Scriptures will do their work here. I find false assumption 3) to be the most intransigent and the most worrying.
Go here to read quotes from history firmly opposed to such an idea.
Go here to read a debate we're having on just this topic - we're up to 67 comments!
And keep reading the blog - because that's what 'Christ the Truth' is all about.
.
The history of redemption according to Galatians 3:
.
Dave reminded me of this talk on OT law. These diagrams may help explain it a bit.
And here's the tabernacle:
And remember:
When there is a change in the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. (Heb 7:12)
.
Yet another conversation containing the names Goldsworthy and Blackham has collapsed under the weight of pointed comments that got out of hand. And I was the chief commenter.
[deep exhale]
And this is precisely why people hate the issue being brought up.
It aggravates old wounds.
Wrong response 1: We should be able to discuss such things dispassionately.
No, actually. If we're not emotionally engaged it's obviously not an issue close to the heart of the gospel. Dispassionate disagreements are not worth having at all. But I think this is an issue touching on the nature of faith, our doctrine of God, the supremacy of Christ. If those things don't tug on heart strings there's something wrong. Dispassionate engagement is not an option. But Christian engagement is a necessity. Dying to self. Crucifying the flesh with its desires. Giving our lives up for others. Paul said he'd go veggie for life if it protected non-meat-eating brothers. (1 Cor 8:13) That's not dispassionate engagement, it's a costly love for those with whom we disagree. We should feel strongly and make the conscious effort to swallow pride, to abandon the need to be right, to look on people we feel are mistaken and love them (Mark 10:21). Such disagreements among believers should be prime opportunities to give and receive grace.
Wrong response 2: Given the aggro that attends it, it's always wrong to raise this issue.
Well - maybe on the Paul-going-veggie example, we should just go vegan! And Paul says he'd do it for life. There will be seasons when we just have to go veggie. And this must not be with the thought of regrouping for our next assault. It must be with the thought, "I will shut my mouth indefinitely on this issue if that is in their best interests." But then of course Paul did actually side with the strong and taught accordingly. There must be ways of raising the issue while at the same time making every effort to serve those with whom we disagree. We have to find ways of doing that.
What we really need to do is go on mission together. Like in the best buddy movies, we need to go into the front lines as a rag-tag bunch of awkward, mistrustful rejects. But as the heat of the battle presses us together, as we start sticking up for each other, as we see each other's gifts serve the common good, then we'll have that common love and respect for each other that is the ground not the goal of such discussions.
But we're very sick at heart you know...
.
From an old sermon on Psalms 1 and 2. These Psalms, as a gateway to the Psalter, introduce us to the four main players:
(1) the LORD;
(2) the Christ, the Blessed Man;
(3) The Righteous who take refuge in Him; and
(4) The Wicked who oppose Him.
The subsequent Psalms reveal the interaction of these four groups.
In some, like Psalm 1, the Blessed Man is shown before the LORD and then the righteous and the wicked are contrasted.
In some, like Psalm 2, the righteous complain to the LORD about the wicked and then He reminds them about the Blessed Man, Christ.
In some we have simply the words of Christ.
In others we have the words of the LORD to Christ.
In some we simply have the words of sinners like us taking refuge in Him.
But all of the Psalms are about the inter-relation of these four groups. And they all work together to speak to us of Christ.
.