Skip to content

Category: covenant continuity

8

Published on 8 Comments on Jesus is LORD – not Son of LORD. Some clarifications

Dave K has asked some excellent questions of my last post on this issue.  Here they are in full.  Afterwards is my attempt to address them. 

I’ve been musing on this post over the last day. This is what I have been wondering:

This is clearly right, in many passages NT writers read Jesus in OT passages saying YHWH, as well as ascribing him the same attributes, relationships etc as YHWH in the OT.

But how do you deal with the psalm in which David says ‘The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”’? The NT writers here interpret ‘my lord’ to be Christ and, at least in Heb 1, ‘the LORD’ as ‘God’. In a way I expect you would draw on what you say that ‘there is more than one Person called LORD’. But is there a danger here that we flatten the relationship between the two persons and lose the clear emphasis of the bible that Jesus receives his authority from the Father. So while he is never called the Son of the LORD, he is called the Son of God.

Also I wonder if there how you would demonstrate that in the OT ‘most often “Lord” refers to the Son’. To me it seems that this is far from clear, and while it is clear that ‘more than one Person called LORD’ in the OT, it is not so clear that you can always confidently identify which person is being referred to. In fact, often it seems that the Trinity and one person of the Trinity is in view.

Thirdly, how confident can we be that NT references to Jesus as lord are primarily about identifying with YHWH, and not the Davidic messiah? Both are obviously in view but, again, it is a lot more murky to me than you I think.

Dave

…nervous that his attachment to the murkiness is diluting Jesus’ claims, but still struggling with the revelation of the Trinity in the OT.

 

Let me begin by trying to say a bit better what I said quite obscurely in my last post.

To say "Jesus is the Son of the God of the Old Testament" is technically true.  The Father (and the Spirit) were equally active in the OT and, just as in the NT, Jesus has always been Son of God Most High.  However it must give us pause for thought that Jesus is never called "Son of the LORD."  Instead He is consistently called LORD.  I believe that Jesus and the Apostles are telling us not simply that "Jesus is ontologically equal to the God of Israel" but that "Jesus is and always has been the God of Israel."  ie not just "Jesus has the same status, dignity and attributes as Yahweh" but that "He is and always has been Yahweh.  Here is the One who brought the Israelites out of Egypt etc"  (cf Jude 4,5)

Some further thoughts in no particular order:

  • There could be a number of reasons why NT says Jesus is the referent of OT passages saying YHWH.

   1) The second Person of the trinity was not the original referent but He is equal to the original referent (""God"") and so deserves the title.

   2) The second Person of the trinity was the original referent.

 I go for number 2) because:

A) I find the second solution much more straightforward (to be honest I find the first solution really quite strange.) 

B) I think the pre-existence of Jesus is not just a 'being' issue but a 'doing' issue.  John 5 says Jesus has been working from the beginning with His Father.  I just find it odd to say the Father was the hero of the OT while Jesus only becomes the hero in the second half.  I'm not sure that takes His pre-existence (and equal deity) seriously enough as an equality of doing as well as being.

C) I see number 2 taught in places like like Hebrews 1 ("About the Son He says...")

Basically I think that either 1) or 2) could, once assumed, account for the NT data but that actually 2) is taught.  I can't think of where 1) is taught.

  • The equation of "Jesus is Kurios" as "Jesus is YHWH" seems to me the most obvious meaning if we simply let the bible interpret the bible.  (I don't know about you but I get frustrated when commentators immediately go to Caeser Kurios as the equivalent of Jesus is Lord.  As though the Roman Empire is a more important interpretive context than the OT!?)

Certainly, as you note, the NT cites OT references to YHWH and applies them straight to Christ.  I think the 'I AM' statements also function as straightforward claims to being YHWH (see esp John 8:56-58). 

To say that 'Lord' could simply refer to the 'Davidic Messiah' begs the question about how the Israelites were to understand the High Priest at God's right hand (see the points below).  Certainly people like Philo called him the 'deuteros theos' - the second God!  And Jesus considered the Adonai of Ps 110 to be a far more exalted title than Davidic King (Mk 12:35-37).   

At the end of the day I think that a person reading the Septuagint would get a pretty good idea of what kurios meant (6818 times YHWH!)  When they turned to the Gospels they would be introduced to John the Baptist who prepared the way for the LORD (ho kurios) who was this man called Jesus.  And as they kept reading they'd see ho kurios now eating at a Pharisee's house (Luke 11:39) etc etc.  And on they'd go.  I propose that if they were reading it according to its natural sense they would simply exclaim: "The Lord God of Israel is among us"

 

  • As for how to prove that "Lord" refers predominantly to the Son, I'd say, first of all, that's virtually undisputed when it comes to NT.  But I also think the NT teaches a similar expectation for reading the OT.  When 1 Cor 8:6 says "for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist" OT usage (esp Deut 6:4) is almost certainly in view.

But I suppose you're only likely to be persuaded that LORD is mostly used of the Son in the OT if you agree with my take on Christ in the OT.  Basically I'd say that the One Word and Image of God Most High has been the eternal Mediator of all the Father's business (John 1:18).  He is the One walking in the garden, the One who appears to Abraham, who wrestles with Jacob, who brings Israel out of Egypt etc etc.  It takes 70 chapters of the bible before we are brought to the Unseen LORD on Sinai, yet we have been led by the Appearing LORD throughout.  It is He who has been revealing the divine name to us, even as this name has been given Him by the Father (Ex 23:21).  Given that this is just the same dynamic as the NT then in both testaments my default supposition is that 'Lord' refers to the Son unless proved otherwise.  Following this pattern, there's many passages that I'm confused about in the OT.  But there's also a few in the New too.  (What's going on in 2 Cor 3:16-18??)

 

  • I hear you on not flattening the distinctions between Persons!  I'm the last person to want to do that!  And the truth that Jesus is fully divine in His obedience to / dependence upon the Father is a glorious truth (with much gospel comfort actually - maybe that's for another post).

 But I also think that this truth is as much an OT as a NT truth.

So, it's as the Angel sent from the LORD (Ex 3:2) that He is the great I AM (v14) who will bring people to God (v12)

It's as the Most Excellent of Men that the Bridegroom Warrior is anointed King by God, His God (Psalm 45:6-7)

It's as the Priest at God's right hand that He is Lord. (Psalm 110)

So I affirm absolutely that His deity includes and is expressed in His dependence and difference from the Father.  I would add that this is the OT's teaching as much as the New.  And I also affirm that it's technically true that Jesus is Son of the LORD who is the Father (since all three Persons can take that name).  But the real issue is whether the Sent One of the Gospels is claiming to be the Sent One of the Torah.  This is my claim.

Jesus is the LORD who remembers meeting Abraham (John 8:56-58), who led Israel out of Egypt (Jude 4,5) and who appeared to Isaiah (John 12:40,41).  He's not simply closely related to the God of Israel.  He is the God of Israel.  And there's no better way for the NT to affirm that than to simply say Jesus is LORD.

Published on Leave a comment on Christology and hermeneutics

It's common to see a link between christology and our approach to the bible.  There are limits to this but also benefits.  Our approach to both Christ and the bible requires us to encounter something fully human which nonetheless is the Word of God.  Christology can therefore teach us a great deal about how the bible as fully human can nonetheless be a fully divine revelation.

In my last post I discussed christology.  Namely, the (chronological and methodological) priority of Nicea over Chalcedon.  What this means is that we must linger long over Nicea's declaration that Jesus (born of a virgin, crucified under Pontius Pilate) is of one being with the Father (homoousios).  The Man Jesus exists wholly within the triune relations which constitute God's being.  Whatever else Chalcedon protects - it does not protect Christ's humanity from that Nicene homoousios.  The fully human Jesus is a full participant in this divine nature.  In this way we protect against a Nestorianism which always threatens to divorce the humanity from the divinity.

What we can then say is this:

  1. Nestorianism is rejected: In Jesus' humanity (and not apart from it) God is revealed.  To put it another way: As the Man Jesus (and not in some other realm of locked-off deity) He brings divine revelation and salvation.
  2. Adoptionism is rejected: It is not the case that the humanity comes first and is then taken up into deity.  The Word became flesh, not the other way around!
  3. Docetism is rejected: It is not the case that the humanity is an unreal facade which we must push beyond to get to the real (divine) Jesus. 

What would this mean when applied to biblical interpretation (i.e. hermeneutics)?  Given our OT focus in the last few posts - what would it mean in particular for OT interpretation?

I suggest it means this: 

  1. Nestorianism is rejected: In the humanity of the OT (it's immediate context, complete Jewish-ness, thorough Hebrew-ness) its divine Object (Christ) is revealed.  As the prophetic Israelite Scripture that it is (and not in some other locked-off realm of meaning) it is Christian, i.e. a proclamation of Christ.
  2. Adoptionism is rejected: It is not the case that a lower-level of Jewish meaning comes first and is then added to as it's adopted as Christian Scripture (by the NT).  From the beginning, at the very roots of its being, the OT is Christian/Messianic.  It is not first Hebrew Scripture and then Christian revelation rather it is Christian revelation that presupposes and brings about the Hebrew Scriptures.
  3. Docetism is rejected:  Having said all this I'm in no way denying the distinctly Israelite/Hebrew/pre-Gentile-inclusion/Mosaic-administration ways in which the Christ is proclaimed.  In its own context and on its own terms the OT will proclaim Christ to us.  We do not ignore contemporary details - rather we take them very seriously as that in which Christ is made known.

 

If the christological analogy holds and if this christology is right then I think we need to rule out certain brands of hermeneutics.  In particular we should be wary of any theory of interpretation that separates out Jewish-ness and Christian-ness in the OT.

On a similar note, I recently found a great short article on this hermeneutical issue by Nathan Pitchford.  His argument is that the reformers' notion of the literal meaning of the text was not something different to its christological meaning. It was the christological meaning.  You can also check out his excellent OT series here.

.

 

10

Published on 10 Comments on Christ in the Old Testament 14

The End?

Ok time to bring these thoughts to a close (for now).

For links to the 14 posts in this series go here.

For the full text of the 14 posts go here.

Let me finish with a plea from the heart of true doctrine...  Jesus is the Word of God.  He is not the best Word.  He is not the ultimate Word.  He is not the seal of series of improving words.  He is the Word.  There is no knowledge of God that is not mediated through the Son.  Please consider these foundational verses.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made.  (John 1:1-2)

No-one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made Him known. (John 1:18)

He is the Image of the invisible God, the Firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created  (Col 1:15-16)

The context for these verses is not incarnation.  The Word became flesh long after the Word was.  The Son has been the revelation of God from before the creation of the world.  Incarnation does not make Jesus the Word, rather the pre-existing Word became flesh.  At the risk of sledge-hammer repetition: Jesus is the Word and Image of God prior to incarnation.  He has always been the one Way, Truth and Life.  To be ignorant of the Son pre or post-incarnation is to be ignorant of God.

Consider additionally these crucial passages:

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

 "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No-one knows the Son except the Father, and no-one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." (Matt 11:27)

Christ in the OT is not an irritating hobby horse that some people ride and we wish they didn't and would let us alone 'cos we all get to Jesus in the end'.  It's about the identity of Jesus.  Is He the revelation of God or is He something less? 

Is solus Christus true in revelation just as it is in salvation or is it a case of 'Jesus and...'?  Are there other ways? Other truths?  Or does Jesus retain for Himself all the glory?

Ok so what are your thoughts on this issue?  Boring?  Irrelevant? Untrue?  Are my arguments overstated? Unworkable? Old hat? Garbage?  What?

Over to you...

.

14

Published on 14 Comments on Baptism

Baptism strikes me as a good instance of how we all need to have a rich and deep theology.  To answer the question 'Should I baptize my child?' will require some pretty serious considerations of the nature of faith and salvation and church and covenant and OT/NT relations etc.  I hazard to suggest that those who say "You have your theology, I just have my bible" simply couldn't come up with an argument for paedo or credo baptism without some kind of systematic considerations.

You might have guessed (being an Anglican and a covenant theologian) that I believe in baptizing infants in Christian households.  I digress into this issue here in a sermon on Genesis 17.  To put it briefly I believe that OT saints were to circumcize all in their households (on the 8th day) as an entrance into the covenant community.  They were meant to grow up from within that covenant community as full members.  But for that very reason they were urged to inwardly own the outward sign of their belonging and to have a circumcized heart (Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4).  Without this they forgo all the benefits of the outward sign and will in the end be treated as not simply uncircumcised but as covenant-breakers - a fearful position to be in.  In this sense I believe in baptizing infants in Christian households.  I do think Col 2:11-12 makes the link between circumcision and baptism though not directly but through Christ.  I believe it is the NT sign of belonging to the covenant people.  In this sense it is appropriate to baptize youngsters, to proclaim the gospel promises over them, to treat them as full members of the church and to urge them as they grow up to own the meaning of their baptism inwardly (a baptism of the heart).  That kinda thing.

Anyway, there's a guy in our congregation who wants to talk through who we should baptize.  Anyone got any suggestions for some good books we could look at?  (From any perspective) 

 

Published on Leave a comment on Christ in the Old Testament 13

Ok, let's continue with this issue of the NT's handling of the Old.

If we take the reformation cry of sola Scriptura at all seriously we must allow the Bible to interpret the Bible. Historical-grammatical hermeneutics, archaeology, even the most careful exegesis conducted by the best scholarship must all bow to God's own word.  He determines His meaning.  He is the only fit witness to Himself.

Yet, in contemporary Biblical studies it is commonly said of New Testament writers that they re-interpret the meaning of Old Testament Scripture.  Thus, it is asserted that an Old Testament passage can be shown conclusively to mean one thing via a thorough application of historical-grammatical hermeneutics, and then when Jesus or an Apostle quote from it they invest it with a new Christological meaning.  Diligent exegesis yields one reading, the New Testament gives another.  Yet rather than bow to the Apostles and re-think their methods of exegesis, these Bible students assert without any New Testament support that these two meanings co-exist in the text.  Thus it is routinely suggested that Jesus and the Apostles did not faithfully exegete the Hebrew Scriptures (defined by contemporary models) but rather, with special license from the Holy Spirit, made Christological assertions that are not derived from exegesis itself.  Their treatment of the Old Testament is therefore not to be emulated.  What we primarily learn from their handling is the audacious apostolic authority invested in them.

But what if we were to take Jesus and the Apostles as our models in the Christian life? (radical thought!).  If we do that we'll see that the New Testament does not model a two-level exegesis of the kind: ‘David said ‘X', but now we can re-read this through Christian eyes as ‘Y''.  The New Testament simply says Abraham met Christ (John 8:56).  It states boldly that Isaiah saw Jesus (John 12:41).  It asserts that David looked ahead to the resurrection and spoke explicitly of Christ (Acts 2:31).  It declares that Christ saved the people out of Egypt and accompanied them in the wilderness (1 Cor 10:4,9; Heb 11:26; Jude 5).  The New Testament does not say ‘Abraham had an experience which we can now re-interpret as ‘meeting Christ''.  It does not say ‘Isaiah saw a vision which Christian eyes know to be Jesus'.  It does not say, ‘David looked to types of Christ later fulfilled in His Person'. It does not say, ‘retrospectively we can see signs and types of Jesus of which the Israelites were unaware but which manifested a Christ-like presence in their midst.'  Yet how often is the OT handles in this way?

If you continue, I've listed a number of New Testament texts which handle the Old Testament.  Just see the way New Testament writers read the Old.  Only the Bible can teach us to handle the Bible.  If we do not read the Old Testament the way these men did - we are wrong.  We must change.  Let these examples challenge our own reading of the Scriptures.

...continue reading "Christ in the Old Testament 13"

10

Published on 10 Comments on Christ in the Old Testament 12

By the way, I'm collecting all the posts in this series into one page - Christ in OT.

Now I'd like to share one more reason why I think this stuff matters . It's this:

When we see that the OT is already a witness to Christ before and even without the NT then we see that the prophets aren't idiots and the apostle's aren't weirdos!

It's important to counter this notion because I suspect it lurks just beneath the surface of all our thinking.  So easily we think of the prophets as groping around in a sub-Christian darkness.  And married to this idea is the one that the apostles, when interpreting the prophets as illuminated Christian witnesses, are doing something really weird.  But no, the prophets aren't idiots and the apostle's aren't weirdos!

You will have noticed that I haven't really mentioned the NT at all in these posts.  My argument is not that the Old Testament is truly Christian because Jesus and the Apostles give us a new hermeneutic with which to re-read the Hebrew Scriptures.  My argument is that the Christian meaning (that is, the messianically focussed trinitarian meaning) is the intention of the original authors and the understanding of the faithful saints.

Thus when, for instance, Paul says: "That Rock was Christ" ( 1 Cor 10:4) it's not audacious apostolic authority that's allowing him to re-read the history of Israel!!  It's the fact he's a believer who simply takes the Hebrew Scriptures seriously.  When Jude says "Jesus saved the people out of Egypt" (v5) it's not some fancy telescoping of redemptive stories, it's just the plain fact that Jesus actually led the people out of Egypt.   When John says "Isaiah saw Jesus' glory and spoke about Him." (John 12:41) it's not because he's retrospectively awarding to Isaiah an encounter with Jesus.  He's just explaining the plain fact that Isaiah actually saw His glory (Isaiah 6!) and wrote the rest of his prophesies about this King who was high and lifted up (cf Isaiah 52:13).

New Testament handling of the Old is not a novel Christianization of an otherwise sub-Christian text.  It's simply stating the obvious.  Which means - thank GOD! - that the Apostles can actually teach us how to handle the bible.  This is so important because many want to claim that Apostles are doing weird things which cannot be copied.  The argument (much caricatured!) runs something like this:

  • When I read OT passage X, I don't immediately see it as refering to Jesus
  • Instead I think the assured findings of the grammatical-historical method yield a sub-Christian meaning.  i.e. it refers to David or Solomon or 'God' in the abstract.
  • Then I come across Jesus or an apostle who simply asserts that X is speaking of Christ
  • At this point I have two options
    • A -- I can say "I was wrong about X all along."  I can confess the paucity of my passion for Christ and the foggy-ness of my spiritual vision.  I can admit that my presuppositions in reading the OT are not those of Jesus and the apostles and I can repent.   Or...
    • B -- I can say "I was right about X all along" and hold onto my sub-Christian reading of X which is given no expression anywhere in the Old or New Testaments.  I will assert that my sub-christian understanding of X is in fact the intended meaning of its author! And then I will claim that Jesus and the apostles add an unintended Christian gloss.
  • I will probably not even consider A (it shocks me how rarely "A" occurs to the people I talk to!) and will, at the speed of thought, plump for B.  My justification?  I will proffer one of two quotations with an almost biblical assurance: Either, "The New is in the Old concealed.  The Old is in the New revealed," or "They spoke better than they knew."
  • If challenged on the Scriptural warrant for this view I'll mumble something about 2 Cor 1:20 or 1 Peter 1:10-12

Well let's look at those Scriptures:

19 For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by me and Silas and Timothy, was not "Yes" and "No", but in him it has always been "Yes." 20 For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God. (2 Cor 1:19-20)

Notice here that Paul claims "In Him it has always been Yes."  I never see v19 quoted with v20 when used in these debates.  The promises of God find their Yes in Jesus Christ - and always have!

Let's look at the other oft-quoted passage:

10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11 trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. (1 Pet 1:10-12)

Astonishingly, people - intelligent godly people - can quote this verse to support the view that the prophets didn't know what they were talking about.  But look at what these prophets knew.  They knew the Spirit of Christ in them, they knew the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow, they knew that they weren't serving themselves - they weren't prophesying simply about contemporary events but knew they spoke of future gospel events.  What did they not know?  The time and circumstances.  There they were, full of the Spirit, fixed on the coming Christ - His sufferings and glories - they just didn't know when it would happen.  They would have been asking "Is this the time?"  "Are these the circumstances into which the Messiah will come?"  How on earth you get from this verse to "They didn't know what they were talking about" is truly beyond me.

So please let's see that the prophets weren't idiots and neither were the apostles weirdos.  Jesus and the apostles are not weird examples of a specially mandated NT exegesis which is off limits for us.  When we get this straight then they are seen truly as fellow exegetes with the prophets, laying bare the intended and understood meaning of the prior Scriptures and showing us how it's done.  Because if Jesus and the apostles don't teach you how to do hermeneutics, who will??

I heard of a hermeneutics professor who told his students that the Apostle Paul would have failed his class.  Well that's just backwards.  It's Paul who should have been teaching him.  But actually that's very typical of how many people think.  They know how to do exegesis (the text critics have taught them well).  Paul doesn't match up so he must be doing something weird - let's sideline him, claim that we mustn't follow the apostle and keep going with our own interpretive techniques before adding Paul's stuff as a weird extra.  But no, we must be taught everything in the Christian life including and especially how to read the Scriptures.  Let's not call them weird.  The Scriptures never claim that Jesus or the apostles are specially mandated in their interpretations.  They never ward us away from following them, quite the opposite.  They never claim to be going beyond what Moses and the prophets were saying (Acts 26:22).

So please don't buy into "The prophets spoke better than they knew."  What about this for a crazy idea - "They knew what they were talking about."  Doesn't that make a bit more sense?!  Doesn't that give you greater confidence in reading them!?  The prophets were not idiots.  And the apostles were not weirdos.

Next post...

3

Published on 3 Comments on Christ in the Old Testament 11

Quotes from Church History continued...

JOHN OWEN

Genesis 3
… a revelation was made of a distinct person in the Deity, who in a peculiar manner did manage all the concernments of the church after the entrance of sin. (Works, vol 18, 216)

He by whom all things were made, and by whom all were to be renewed that were to be brought again unto God, did in an especial and glorious manner appear unto our first parents, as he in whom this whole dispensation centred, and unto whom it was committed.  And as, after the promise 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. (ibid, p220)

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, 225)

Genesis 19:24
…in this place it is Moses that speaketh of the Lord, and he had no occasion to repeat ‘The LORD’ were it not to intimate the distinct persons unto whom that name, denoting the nature and self-existence of God, was proper; one whereof then appeared on the earth, the other manifesting his glorious presence in heaven…  There is therefore in this place an appearance of God in human shape, and that of one distinct person in the Godhead, who now represented himself unto Abraham in the form and shape wherein he would dwell amongst men, when of his seed he would be ‘made flesh’.  This was one signal means whereby Abraham saw his day and rejoiced; which Himself lays upon His pre-existence unto His incarnation, and not upon the promise of His coming, John 8:56, 58. (ibid, 225)

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, 225)

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.  Aben Ezra would have the Angel mentioned verse 2, to be another from him who is called ‘God’, verse 6: but the text will not give countenance unto any such distinction, but speaks of one and the same person throughout without any alteration; and this was no other but the Son of God. (ibid, 225)

That the faith of all believers, from the foundation of the world, had a respect unto him [Christ], I shall afterwards demonstrate; and to deny it, is to renounce both the Old Testament and the New. (Christologia, VIII)

From the giving of that promise [Genesis 3:15] the faith of the whole church was fixed on him whom God would send in our nature, to redeem and save them. Other way of acceptance with him there was none provided, none declared, but only by faith in this promise. The design of God in this promise--which was to reveal and propose the only way which in his wisdom and grace he had prepared for the deliverance of mankind from the state of sin and apostasy whereinto they were cast, with the nature of the faith and obedience of the church will not admit of any other way of salvation, but only faith in him who was thus promised to be a saviour. (ibid)

 

JONATHAN EDWARDS
From ‘A History of the Work of Redemption’

When we read in sacred history what God did, from time to time, towards His Church and people, and how He revealed Himself to them, we are to understand it especially of the Second Person of the Trinity. When we read of God appearing after the fall, in some visible form, we are ordinarily, if not universally, to understand it of the Second Person of the Trinity... John 1:18. He is therefore called the image of the invisible God - Col 1:15 - intimating that though God the Father be invisible, yet Christ is His image or representation, by which He is seen.

It is now revealed to Abraham, not only that Christ should come; but that he should be his seed; and promised, that all the families of the earth should be blessed in him.

Thus you see how much more fully the covenant of grace was revealed and confirmed in Abraham’s time than ever it had been before; by means of which Abraham seems to have had a clear view of Christ, the great Redeemer, and the future things that were to be accomplished by him.

The main subjects of these songs were the glorious things of the gospel; as is evident by the interpretation that is often put upon them in the New Testament: for there is no one book of the Old Testament that is so often quoted in the New, as the book of Psalms. … here Christ is spoken of by his ancestor David abundantly, in multitudes of songs, speaking of his incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension into heaven, his satisfaction, intercession; his prophetical, kingly, and priestly office; his glorious benefits in this life and that which is to come; his union with the church, and the blessedness of the church in him; the calling of the Gentiles and the future glory of the church near the end of the world, and Christ’s coming to the final judgment.  All these things, and many more, concerning Christ and his redemption, are abundantly spoken of in the book of Psalms.

Next post...

Published on Leave a comment on Christ in the Old Testament 10

Quotes from Church History continued...

MARTIN LUTHER

All the promises of God lead back to the first promise concerning Christ of Genesis 3:15.  The faith of the fathers in the Old Testament era, and our faith in the New Testament are one and the same faith in Christ Jesus…  The faith of the fathers was directed at Christ…  Time does not change the object of true faith, or the Holy Spirit.  There has always been and always will be one mind, one impression, one faith concerning Christ among true believers whether they live in times past, now, or in times to come. (Luther’s Commentary, Gal 3:6-7)

JOHN CALVIN

John Calvin’s three essentials to be borne in mind when reading the OT:

“First, we hold that earthly prosperity and happiness did not constitute the goal set before the Jews to which they were to aspire... Secondly, the covenant by which they were bound to the Lord was supported, not by their own merits, but solely by the mercy of the God who called them.  Thirdly, they had and knew Christ as Mediator, through whom they were joined to God and were to share in His promises.” (II.10.2).

“Holy men of old knew God only by beholding Him in His Son as in a mirror.  When I say this, I mean that God has never manifested Himself to men in any other way than through the Son, that is, His sole wisdom, light and truth.  From this fountain Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others drank all that they had of heavenly teaching.  From the same fountain, all the prophets have also drawn every heavenly oracle that they have given forth. (IV.8.5)

For Christ not only speaks of his own age, but comprehends all ages when he says: ‘This is eternal life, to know the Father to be the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent’ [John 17:3]… From this it follows that no worship has ever pleased God except that which looked to Christ. (II.6.1)

Even the Old Covenant declared that there is no faith in the gracious God apart from the Mediator…  The law plainly and openly taught believers to seek salvation nowhere else than in the atonement that Christ alone carries out.  I am only saying that the blessed and happy state of the church always had its foundation in the person of Christ…  So, then, the original adoption of the chosen people depended upon the Mediator’s grace.  Even if in Moses’ writings this was not yet expressed in clear words, still it sufficiently appears that it was commonly known to all the godly.  For before a king had been established over the people, Hannah, the mother of Samuel, describing the happiness of the godly, already says in her song: “God will give strength to his king and exalt the horn of his Messiah” [1 Samuel 2:10]…  Therefore David proclaims: “Jehovah is the strength of his people, the saving power of his Christ” [Psalm 28:8]… From this it is now clear enough that, since God cannot without the Mediator be propitious towards the human race, under the law Christ was always set before the holy fathers as the end [objectum] to which they should direct their faith.(II.6.2)

The hope of all the godly has ever reposed in Christ alone.(II.6.3)

Faith in God is faith in Christ.  God willed that the Jews should be so instructed by these prophecies that they might turn their eyes directly to Christ in order to seek deliverance…  apart from Christ the saving knowledge of God does not stand.  From the beginning of the world he had consequently been set before all the elect that they should look upon him and put their trust in him…  God is comprehended in Christ alone… So today the Turks, although they proclaim at the top of their lungs that the Creator of heaven and earth is God, still, while repudiating Christ, substitute an idol in place of the true God. (II.6.4)

The fathers, when they wished to behold God, always turned their eyes to Christ.  I mean not only that they beheld God in his eternal Logos [sermone], but also they attended with their whole mind and the whole affection of their heart to the promised manifestation of Christ. (Commentary, John 1:18)

There is no other way in which God can be known but through Christ, who is the image and pattern of his substance…  Although Jews, Turks, and other infidels boast that they worship God the Creator of heaven and earth, yet they worship an imaginary God: however obstinate they may be, they follow vague and uncertain opinions instead of truth; they grope in the dark and worship their own imagination instead of God. In short, outside of Christ, all religion is deceitful and transitory and every kind of worship ought to be abhorred and condemned. (Commentary, Isaiah 25:9)

Next post - Quotes from John Owen and Jonathan Edwards...

.

9

Published on 9 Comments on Christ in the Old Testament 9

This is part of a series on the consciously Messianic faith of the OT.

Here are quotations OT from some of the heavy-weights in church history.  In this post we'll look at Justin Martyr and Irenaeus.  Next post we'll look at Luther and Calvin, then finally John Owen and Jonathan Edwards.  I've been very selective, not wanting these posts to go on too long.  There are more at my site.  And check out Dev's collection of Justin quotes here.

JUSTIN MARTYR

Jesus, as we have already shown, while He was with them, said, “No one knoweth the Father, but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and those to whom the Son will reveal Him.” The Jews, accordingly, being throughout of opinion that it was the Father of the universe who spake to Moses, though He who spake to him was indeed the Son of God, who is called both Angel and Apostle, are justly charged, both by the Spirit of prophecy and by Christ Himself, with knowing neither the Father nor the Son. For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, for the salvation of those who believe on Him, He endured both to be set at nought and to suffer, that by dying and rising again He might conquer death.
(First Apology, chapter LXIII)

And where it has been said, ‘O God, give Thy judgment to the king,’ since Solomon was king, you say that the Psalm refers to him, although the words of the Psalm expressly proclaim that reference is made to the everlasting King, i.e., to Christ. For Christ is King, and Priest, and God, and Lord, and Angel, and Man, and Captain, and Stone, and a Son born, and first made subject to suffering, then returning to heaven, and again coming with glory, and He is preached as having the everlasting kingdom: so I prove from all the Scriptures (i.e. the OT). (Dialogue with Trypho XXXIV)

IRENAEUS

The Holy Ghost, Throughout the Old Testament Scriptures, Made Mention of No Other God or Lord, Save Him Who is the True God. Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage has it: “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.” Here the [Scripture] represents to us the Father addressing the Son; He who gave Him the inheritance of the heathen, and subjected to Him all His enemies. Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord. And again, referring to the destruction of the Sodomites, the Scripture says, “Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven.” For it here points out that the Son, who had also been talking with Abraham, had received power to judge the Sodomites for their wickedness.  (Against All Heresies, III.6.1)

With regard to Christ, the law and the prophets and the evangelists have proclaimed that He was born of a virgin, that He suffered upon a beam of wood, and that He appeared from the dead; that He also ascended to the heavens, and was glorified by the Father, and is the Eternal King; that He is the perfect Intelligence, the Word of God, who was begotten before the light; that He was the Founder of the universe, along with it (light), and the Maker of man; that He is All in all: Patriarch among the patriarchs; Law in the laws; Chief Priest among priests; Ruler among kings; the Prophet among prophets; the Angel among angels; the Man among men; Son in the Father; God in God; King to all eternity. For it is He who sailed [in the ark] along with Noah, and who guided Abraham; who was bound along with Isaac, and was a Wanderer with Jacob; the Shepherd of those who are saved, and the Bridegroom of the Church; the Chief also of the cherubim, the Prince of the angelic powers; God of God; Son of the Father; Jesus Christ; King for ever and ever. Amen. (Fragment LIII)

Next post - Quotes from Luther and Calvin...

.

Published on Leave a comment on Christ in the Old Testament 8

Ok, here are 10 11 reasons this matters.  (Dev's reminded me of an absolutely crucial one). I'm not going to spend very long elucidating any of them.  I'm sure they'll become rants of their own in future posts:

Why it's important to see the Hebrew Scriptures as already and inherently a messianically focussed trinitarian revelation:

  1. To make sense of the OT text.  I'm not sure how many passages I've quoted in the last 7 posts, maybe 40?  More?  I really don't think I've been monkeying around with the texts, but I do think that these passages get a serious stream-roller treatment when people read them as uni-Personal passages. Let's release ourselves from a basically unitarian hermeneutic of the OT because when you take these texts seriously they burst such arbitrary bonds
  2. Identifying Christ in Scripture is pretty fundamental!  To fail to correctly identify Christ in Scripture is a spiritual error, and a serious one at that.
  3. Christ is not simply the best Word of God.  He is not the ultimate revelation of God or the seal of a series of improving revelations of God.  He is the one Word and Wisdom and Image and Way and Truth of God.  The OT is a fundamental test case about whether we believe this, or whether Christ is just the 'cherry on the cake.'
  4. We refocus on the main point of the incarnation - not new information but salvation!
  5. The Old and New Testaments really belong together.  And they don't belong together simply because both are revelations of "grace".  I hope to post on this in the future but proclaiming "grace alone" without such grace being the natural outcome of "Christ alone" empties grace of its gospel character.
  6. What is Faith?  Key question. If we are to emulate father Abraham's faith are we simply to emulate the fact that he was trusting?  Isn't the Object of faith the decisive issue? We stand shoulder to shoulder with Abraham, Moses and Isaiah not because we are all believers per se but believers in the Christ.
  7. Jewish evangelism!  We do not tell the Jew that they’re basically right about their interpretation of the Scriptures but please allow us to add a meaning Moses had no idea about.  If they believed Moses they'd believe in Jesus for he wrote about Jesus.
  8. Other religions.  Let us block off entirely the claim that other religions can know God apart from Christ.  It's not unusual in debates on that issue for people to claim "Of course it's possible to know God apart from Christ - OT Israel was in just that position."  No they weren't!  There never has been a revelation of God apart from Christ.
  9. The Trinity really is the foundational truth about God.  It is not a nuance to be added to a simple doctrine of the one God as taught by Moses and the Prophets.  All revelation of God has always been trinitarian.
  10. Personal distinctions in the Trinity go all the way down. By this I mean that Christ's difference to the Father is not simply a function of the incarnation.  Often times people see the differences between Jesus and His Father as only the result of Jesus having taken flesh.  And it is a very simple step from there to a Nestorianism that says the human nature of the Son is separate from the divine nature.  But no, prior to incarnation the Sent One from the LORD is a distinct Person who nonetheless has the Father's Name dwelling in Him (Exodus 23:21).  It has always been ok for the Divine Servant to be distinct from the LORD, we don't need to assign all differences we see in Jesus to His human nature.
  11. Here's a crucial one from Dev: "Refocusing Scripture on Jesus rather than on self. Therefore living for Him and not using Him to get on with my own life."  If the law is about you - what kind of Christian life will you lead?  If Psalm 15 is about you, how will you cope?  If David slaying Goliath is a type of your battles - what's the moral?  But if the law describes Christ and His righteousness... If Psalm 15 is about Him... If David is Christ defeating the head of the house of the wicked and winning victory for the people of God... then we are put in our right place.  We confess "I am not the righteous one described in the law, but a sinner."  "I am not the Blameless One, but I have taken refuge in Him."  "I am not the victorious King, but He has won my victory for me."  (I may have misconstrued Dev's point horribly - sorry about that, but that's where my rant has led me.)

There are others but 10 11 is a nice round number.  I'm sure others can add more.  What say you?

Next post...

.

Twitter widget by Rimon Habib - BuddyPress Expert Developer