Category: covenant continuity

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. (Hebrews 1:1-3)

In these verses we read of the eternal glory of the Son. Christ is the Creator and Inheritor of the cosmos. He is the Shining-Out of God's goodness and the perfect Image of the Father. It is the Son's powerful word that sustains all things. But then, what about verse 1? Is this saying that Old Testament saints were ignorant of God's eternal Glory - His Creator, Sustainer, Revealer and Heir?

That would be a strange position to take especially since the writer immediately goes on to quote the OT as a consciously Christ-centred Scripture.  All his quotations in chapter 1 treat the OT as trinitarian revelation with distinct Persons interacting and speaking in the various Scriptures.

1:5 - Psalm 2 is a conversation between Father and Son

1:5 - David's Seed in 2 Samuel 7:14 is the Son

1:6 - Deuteronomy 32:43 concerns the Son

1:8-9 - Psalm 45 is about God the Son, whose 'God' anoints Him

1:10-12 - The Creator Lord of Psalm 102 is the Son

1:13 - Psalm 110 is a conversation between Father and Son

Later he'll call the OT revelation 'the gospel’ (Heb 4:2) and will hold up Moses as one who "chose disgrace for the sake of Christ." (Heb 11:26).

So even within Hebrews 1 it seems out of the question that the writer intends us to think of the OT saints as ignorant of Christ.  How could the OT saints know God without His Eternal Revealer?  How could Scriptures like Psalm 45 be read concerning any other than Christ?  How could Moses forsake the glories of Egypt and choose disgrace, if he was ignorant of the One who makes such choices worthwhile?

And if we move out of Hebrews, what about Matthew 11:27; John 1:18; 14:6; Colossians 1:15. If Christ is the only revelation of the Father (which these verses insist upon), then how can we deny knowledge of Christ to Old Testament saints? Certainly folks like Justin, Irenaeus, Luther, Calvin, Owen and Edwards were adamant that Christ was known and trusted in all ages by the faithful.

So then, what kind of distinction is Hebrews 1:1-2 trying to make?

Well it's a carefully crafted parallel:

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, //
but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son

"In the past" is compared to "in these last days"

"our ancestors" is compared to "us"

"the prophets" is compared to "his Son"

And without doubt something earth-shattering has happened to usher in "these last days." The Son has appeared in a once and for all way (in contrast to the "many and various ways" of the prophetic communications).  He came as His own Prophet to address "us" in a way that He didn't address "our ancestors."

In the past, the Son didn't address Israel. He had His prophets do that for Him.  Think of Jeremiah 1:

4 The word of the Lord came to me, saying,

5 ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.’

6 ‘Alas, Sovereign Lord,’ I said, ‘I do not know how to speak; I am too young.’

7 But the Lord said to me, ‘Do not say, “I am too young.” You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. 8 Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you,’ declares the Lord.

9 Then the Lord reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, ‘I have put my words in your mouth.10 See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant.’

So the Word of the LORD is spoken of as a Person - a Person with things to say. Additionally He speaks and is addressed as a divine Person - He is "of" the LORD and He is the LORD. And this Divine Word of God puts His words into Jeremiah's mouth so that Jeremiah can take the words of the Word to Israel.

That's how things were "in the past."  "Our ancestors" (as a rule) didn't get to meet the Son.  But occasionally He appeared to the prophets. And the prophets took his words to the nation.

If you were an OT prophet you might have been privileged enough to meet with the Son (like Abraham, Moses, Isaiah etc).  But for "our ancestors" that wasn't their experience.  They listened to the prophets about the Son and trusted Him through that mediated word.

"In these last days" something monumental has happened. The Son has gotten rid of the prophetic middle-men, just as He's gotten rid of the priestly middle-men (see the rest of Hebrews). Now He has appeared as His own 'Jeremiah' in the flesh. The Son has addressed Israel in person.  This once and for all coming has ushered in "the last days".

So it's not that Now we know God through Jesus and before they knew a Christ-less revelation of God. No, Christ is the Representation of God. How could there be Christ-less revelation in the OT?

There is a profound shift between the prophetic age and the arrival of the Son. But that shift is not about Christ becoming  Mediator. It's about Him clearing away those temporary middle-men of the Mosaic Covenant.  He is the eternal Radiance of God's glory (as Hebrews 1 affirms). Therefore all knowledge of God has always involved Him.  As Calvin has said:

“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. (Institutes IV.8.5)

The Real Presence of the Son Before Christ: Revisiting an Old Approach to Old Testament Christology by Charles A. Gieschen

Gieschen's conclusion gives his reason for writing:

If we are convinced that the Son is central to the identity of YHWH as he speaks and acts throughout the Old Testament, we can and should show forth the pre-incarnate Son when preaching from the Old Testament. To do this we do not need to have a messianic or typological prophecy in the text, nor do we need to set up elaborate comparisons between God in the Old Testament and then fast-forward to Christ in the New Testament. We can also let those to whom we preach see Christ by showing them the real presence of the Son in Old Testament events and speech.

Interesting within the article is Gieschen's recognition of Augustine as deviating from the christocentric OT interpretation prevalent in the early church:

It was Augustine who solidified the position against seeing the Son, or any other person of the Trinity, as visibly present in the theophanies of the Old Testament. He argued that the manifestations of God in Old Testament events were mediated by angels:

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, since it is in no way changeable, can in no way in its proper self be visible. It is manifest, accordingly, that all those appearances to the fathers, when God was presented to them according to his own dispensation, suitable to the times, were wrought through the creature. And if we cannot discern in what manner he wrought them by ministry of angels, yet we say that they were wrought by angels. (On the Trinity 3.21-22)

Augustine, writing between A.D. 400-420, is obviously reacting against those who were using the theophanies to prove the created nature of the Son or the difference of his essence from the Father. Unlike the Formula of Sirmium in the mid-fourth century, which included anathemas against anyone who denied that it was the Son who appeared to Abraham and Jacob, Augustine called for a much more moderate understanding:

We should not be dogmatic in deciding which person of the three appeared in any bodily form or likeness to this or that patriarch or prophet, unless the whole context of the narrative provides us with probable indications. In any case, that nature or substance, or essence, or whatever else you may call that which God is, whatever it may be, cannot physically be seen; but on the other hand we must believe that by creature control the Father, as well as the Son and the Holy Spirit, could offer the senses of mortal men a token representation of himself in bodily guise or likeness. (On the Trinity 3.25)

Last week I wrote about three myths of OT interpretation:

1) The prophets spoke better than they knew

2) No-one could have anticipated the kind of Messiah Jesus was

3) The Apostles read unintended Messianic meaning into the prophets

To these, let me add two more...

4) Antiquarian means unitarian

As we interpret the Scriptures, it's always helpful to remember there is no preface to the bible.  The Spirit has not authored a little introduction with some notes on theological features, background assumptions, what to look for... etc.  We just dive into Moses and away we go.

This point is worth meditating on.  But sometimes people use it as proof that Moses couldn't have had conscious messianic faith because, well, apart from a Messianic preface where would OT saints get that idea from?

Once the conversation starts going this way it's no use pointing to any actual OT texts because, as myth 1 states so eloquently, they spoke better than they knew.  And it's no use pointing to any NT texts because, as myth 3 insists, those verses tell us nothing of the original intent of the OT authors.

So, the argument goes, in the absence of a messianically focussed, trinitarian preface (preferably written with Nicene vocabulary), we ought to assume an essentially sub-messianic, unitarian faith.

Well now.  The fact that there's no preface cuts both ways.  If your default assumption is that belief evolves from more primitive forms into messianic faith then surely you have an unwritten preface. One with a very particular theological outlook of your own.  But why should we accept such a preface?  Why should antiquarian equal unitarian?  Why not just dive into Moses and the Prophets assuming they're talking about the very same Most High God revealed in the One Mediator, the Divine Angel, the Visible God, the LORD Messiah?  Since we've all got unwritten prefaces, why not have this one?  Sounds a lot more biblical to me than assuming they were unitarian!  I know that comparative religion teachers would have a heart attack, but what biblical reason could we have for rejecting such an unwritten preface?

So often people assume Moses' doctrine of God was essentially Maimonides'. There's an assumption that trinitarianism is the fruit of a progressive revelation of truth.  Yet no-one says this in the bible.  Or anything like it.

In fact the NT records no doctrinal struggles whatsoever with a multi-Personal doctrine of God.  Kosher diet - that's tricky.  Circumcision - that's a dilly of a pickle.  But trinity - no worries.

So rather than seeing trinitarianism as the fruit of progressive revelation, why not assume that modern Judaism's unitarianism is the fruit of regressive reception?  (That's a phrase of Rev Andy Saville's and it describes my view too.)

It is not obvious to anyone within the Scriptures that OT faith was essentially unitarian - why has that become the default  assumption for so many modern biblical scholars?

See here for more on the trinitarian OT.

.

5) Progress precludes prescience

Here's another strong assumption in these discussions...

Christ fulfills OT shadows.  Therefore there is progress in the bible - kings that come and go before The King arrives; temples set up before The Temple appears; lambs that are sacrificed before The Lamb is slain; etc; etc...

All this is true and wonderful and helpful.

The trouble comes when this logical leap is attempted:

...because there is such progress, it is obvious that OT saints trusted only the shadows and were ignorant of their Fulfilment.

But why should this be the case?  It just doesn't follow. In fact, consider how these shadows were set up in the OT:

Before a lamb was ever offered, it was promised "God Himself will provide the lamb" (Gen 22:8)

Before a king ever held the sceptre it was prophesied "He will come to Whom it belongs (Gen 49:10)

Before an article of the tabernacle was produced, Moses was told it was "according to a pattern." (Ex 25:9,40)

Progress does not preclude prescience.  I'm sure there were many who looked only to the shadows and not to the Substance (just as there are many who today might trust in the sacraments and not Christ).  But there's nothing about the fact of progress that means OT faith terminated on a sub-Christian object.

.

So then, let's make it five myths.

1) The prophets spoke better than they knew

2) No-one could have anticipated the kind of Messiah Jesus was

3) The Apostles read unintended Messianic meaning into the prophets

4) Antiquarian means unitarian

5) Progress precludes prescience

These are powerful assumptions. But if we can question them first, perhaps we can loosen their grip on these discussions and allow the OT to speak as the NT claims it does: with clear and conscious Christ-focus.

Where does Christianity fit in the grand scheme of world religions?

Are we merely a branch - though perhaps the truest branch - in the family tree of "Abrahamic faiths"?

Are we a part - though perhaps the most faithful part - of a broader "Judeo-Christian" consensus?

Do we have one take - though perhaps the most complete take - on OT interpretation?

When Paul is before Felix, he makes a fascinating distinction between Christianity "a sect" and Christianity "the Way":

I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets  (Acts 24:14).

Paul's opponents want to understand him as part of a Jewish sect.  Paul rejects that understanding.  He follows the Way.  The Ancient Way - the Way of the Law and the Prophets.

In front of Agrippa, Paul unpacks a couple of things from that quote.  First he shows what a sect is.

...according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee.  (Acts 26:5)

This is what Paul means by sect: a small part of a greater whole (in modern usage it has the added meaning of a part that claims to be the whole.)

Pharisaism is a good example of a sect within Judaism.

But Paul insists, Christianity is not a competing sect within some broader category of Abrahamic faith.  Christianity is not a smaller, more specific kind of OT faith that just happens to follow the Messiah.  Messianic faith is the Way.  The Way of the fathers, the Way of the law and the prophets. The Way it's always been.

How can Paul say this?  Well, Paul simply explains what the law and the prophets have always testified:

I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen--  that the Christ would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and to the Gentiles."  (Acts 26:22-23)

This is Christianity - the Ancient Way.  The Way of Moses and the Prophets.  This is not a sect within a larger entity called Judaism but the one way of the suffering, rising and reigning Christ - the way the fathers have always travelled.  According to Paul you cannot and must not understand Christianity as a smaller part of a broader Scriptural story, for then you misunderstand the law and the prophets themselves.

Paul says explicitly that he has not put a Christian gloss on a pre-existing sub-messianic revelation.  He is simply following the Way of Moses.

If someone does not follow the suffering, rising, reigning Christ they are not following the Way of Moses.  And, note well, this is not a new state of affairs according to Paul.   This is not Paul reading messianic meaning into Moses.  Paul is saying nothing beyond the original meaning and intention of the Prophets and Moses.

Anyone, in any age, who is not trusting in the promised Messiah is not part of the Way.  They are the sect.

That's Paul's understanding. Is it our understanding?  Or do we think of the Law and the Prophets as part of a broader religious movement into which Jesus fits?

No, Jesus - our suffering, dying and reigning Messiah - is the Way.  The Ancient Way.  And there has never been any other.