Category: covenant continuity

At the end of this thread Paul makes bold to interpret my position.

Some might say he needs to add such words because my own have been so confused and inconsistent.  That's certainly a possibility.  But I think if you approach my words with the expectation that I know what I'm saying it'll make more sense.

Some might say that Paul is proclaiming something new.  Well certainly his words convey an insight and depth that is peculiar to him.  But from my perspective he's just saying what I've been saying (because really, I'm just saying what he's always been saying!).

In between my original authorship and his authoritative summary there have been ten days of mixed reception.  Well that happens doesn't it?  It's a blog after all.  But it's been interesting that occasionally a commenter has gotten the wrong end of the stick about what I'm saying.  But when that's been corrected their response has been to impugn the original clarity of my position.  Apparently I've needed to progress in my revelation of these thoughts.

Well that's a possibility.  But another possibility is that I was clear and consistent in the beginning and the confusion has come in the reception not the revelation.

The bottom line is whether the original author can stand up and say of the authoritative summary: Yes indeed, this is what I was always on about.

And indeed I can.  Here's Paul's summary.

As far as I can see, Glen’s proposal is clear enough. The issue is not that everybody or even most people trusted Jesus as Moses and the Prophets intended them to do. The faithful remnant might have been a very small remnant.

I don’t think that is the main point… but I may have misunderstood this.

As far as I can see, the issue here is about a correct exegesis of the Hebrew Scriptures. The simple claim is that the apostles preached Jesus *out* of the Hebrew Scriptures rather than preaching Him *into* those Scriptures.

Glen is saying that Jesus is *exegeting* the Scriptures as Moses and the Prophets originally intended. In other words, Jesus is not reading meaning *back* but reading meaning *out*.

The reason that myth 2 is a problem is that it gives support to and is typically consciously joined to the notion that Jesus was not the Messiah that the Hebrew Scriptures intended. I remember recently hearing a speaker who with great passion and excitement claimed that Jesus, in a brilliant creative move, joined together ideas of suffering/sacrifice with triumph/glory in a way that *nobody had ever seen before*. This was intended as a kind of compliment to the creative genius of Jesus… and yet if it is true it means that Jesus was wrong in His little Bible Overviews.

As far as I can see, Jesus seems to say that His reading of the Hebrew Scriptures is the one that everyone must take and that was held by Moses and the Prophets.

As we have often said in this thread, Jesus Himself, both before and after His crucifixion/resurrection summed up the Hebrew Scriptures with a clear statement about His own life of suffering, death, resurrection and glory –

“see Matthew 16:21; Matthew 26:24; Matthew 26:53-54; Mark 8:31; Mark 9:12; Mark 9:31; Mark 10:32-34; Mark 10:45; Mark 14:21; Luke 9:22; Luke 18:31-33 – “Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, “We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.” Luke 24:6-7; Luke 24:25-27; Luke 24:44-45.”

Again, as we have said in this thread, Peter says that the ancient saints were looking forward to the sufferings first and then the glory of Christ.

Over the years I have been in different conferences and forums when I have said something like “The Hebrew Scriptures teach that Christ will suffer, die and then be resurrected. This is the Biblical Faith of the Old Testament church and it is still the faith of the church today.” Nearly every time that I have said that kind of thing, somebody [and sometimes many people] come up to me or post after me that this was *not* the faith of the Old Testament and that they didn’t know or intend or understand those things about Christ. Usually they point to Biblical or extra-Biblical examples of teaching/people who did not think like Jesus about the Scriptures. Yet, again, that isn’t the point. We all know of many, many, many examples of teaching about Jesus/Hebrew Scriptures in every age that is different to His own teaching about Himself.

The claim is that Jesus’ own simple Bible Overview is a *correct* statement of Hebrew Scriptures as they were originally intended… and that this understanding of Christ is what He Himself expects from His people in every age. He expected the church of His own day to trust Him in that way… regardless of whether many did.

Jesus is angry about other views of the Scriptures/Himself [no matter how embalmed in tradition or popular they are] because He is the object of saving faith.

If someone says that the Hebrew Scriptures were not *intended* to be about Jesus but we should preach them as if they are about Jesus, then I’m left really confused.

As far as I can see, Glen is not saying anything more than Jesus Himself is saying in His simple Bible Overviews. Glen is not making any massive claims about the views of *everybody* at any point in history. He doesn’t seem to be saying anything about the kind of extra-biblical teaching that might or might not have been around at any time in history.

He simply seems to be saying that Moses and the Prophets intended to speak about Jesus Christ in the way that Jesus Himself understood them… and that this understanding was expected of the church in every age. How many people or what percentage of the visible church really did trust Christ in this saving way… who knows?

At the end of this thread Paul makes bold to interpret my position.

Some might say he needs to add such words because my own have been so confused and inconsistent.  That's certainly a possibility.  But I think if you approach my words with the expectation that I know what I'm saying it'll make more sense.

Some might say that Paul is proclaiming something new.  Well certainly his words convey an insight and depth that is peculiar to him.  But from my perspective he's just saying what I've been saying (because really, I'm just saying what he's always been saying!).

In between my original authorship and his authoritative summary there have been ten days of mixed reception.  Well that happens doesn't it?  It's a blog after all.  But it's been interesting that occasionally a commenter has gotten the wrong end of the stick about what I'm saying.  But when that's been corrected their response has been to impugn the original clarity of my position.  Apparently I've needed to progress in my revelation of these thoughts.

Well that's a possibility.  But another possibility is that I was clear and consistent in the beginning and the confusion has come in the reception not the revelation.

The bottom line is whether the original author can stand up and say of the authoritative summary: Yes indeed, this is what I was always on about.

And indeed I can.  Here's Paul's summary.

As far as I can see, Glen’s proposal is clear enough. The issue is not that everybody or even most people trusted Jesus as Moses and the Prophets intended them to do. The faithful remnant might have been a very small remnant.

I don’t think that is the main point… but I may have misunderstood this.

As far as I can see, the issue here is about a correct exegesis of the Hebrew Scriptures. The simple claim is that the apostles preached Jesus *out* of the Hebrew Scriptures rather than preaching Him *into* those Scriptures.

Glen is saying that Jesus is *exegeting* the Scriptures as Moses and the Prophets originally intended. In other words, Jesus is not reading meaning *back* but reading meaning *out*.

The reason that myth 2 is a problem is that it gives support to and is typically consciously joined to the notion that Jesus was not the Messiah that the Hebrew Scriptures intended. I remember recently hearing a speaker who with great passion and excitement claimed that Jesus, in a brilliant creative move, joined together ideas of suffering/sacrifice with triumph/glory in a way that *nobody had ever seen before*. This was intended as a kind of compliment to the creative genius of Jesus… and yet if it is true it means that Jesus was wrong in His little Bible Overviews.

As far as I can see, Jesus seems to say that His reading of the Hebrew Scriptures is the one that everyone must take and that was held by Moses and the Prophets.

As we have often said in this thread, Jesus Himself, both before and after His crucifixion/resurrection summed up the Hebrew Scriptures with a clear statement about His own life of suffering, death, resurrection and glory –

“see Matthew 16:21; Matthew 26:24; Matthew 26:53-54; Mark 8:31; Mark 9:12; Mark 9:31; Mark 10:32-34; Mark 10:45; Mark 14:21; Luke 9:22; Luke 18:31-33 – “Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, “We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.” Luke 24:6-7; Luke 24:25-27; Luke 24:44-45.”

Again, as we have said in this thread, Peter says that the ancient saints were looking forward to the sufferings first and then the glory of Christ.

Over the years I have been in different conferences and forums when I have said something like “The Hebrew Scriptures teach that Christ will suffer, die and then be resurrected. This is the Biblical Faith of the Old Testament church and it is still the faith of the church today.” Nearly every time that I have said that kind of thing, somebody [and sometimes many people] come up to me or post after me that this was *not* the faith of the Old Testament and that they didn’t know or intend or understand those things about Christ. Usually they point to Biblical or extra-Biblical examples of teaching/people who did not think like Jesus about the Scriptures. Yet, again, that isn’t the point. We all know of many, many, many examples of teaching about Jesus/Hebrew Scriptures in every age that is different to His own teaching about Himself.

The claim is that Jesus’ own simple Bible Overview is a *correct* statement of Hebrew Scriptures as they were originally intended… and that this understanding of Christ is what He Himself expects from His people in every age. He expected the church of His own day to trust Him in that way… regardless of whether many did.

Jesus is angry about other views of the Scriptures/Himself [no matter how embalmed in tradition or popular they are] because He is the object of saving faith.

If someone says that the Hebrew Scriptures were not *intended* to be about Jesus but we should preach them as if they are about Jesus, then I’m left really confused.

As far as I can see, Glen is not saying anything more than Jesus Himself is saying in His simple Bible Overviews. Glen is not making any massive claims about the views of *everybody* at any point in history. He doesn’t seem to be saying anything about the kind of extra-biblical teaching that might or might not have been around at any time in history.

He simply seems to be saying that Moses and the Prophets intended to speak about Jesus Christ in the way that Jesus Himself understood them… and that this understanding was expected of the church in every age. How many people or what percentage of the visible church really did trust Christ in this saving way… who knows?

I fear that there are a great number of theologians - evangelicals - who want to turn Christianity into a Jewish sect.  Let me explain...

Before Felix, Paul says:

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 sect within some broader category of messianically-ambivalent-Jewish-religion.  Christianity is not a smaller, more specific kind of Judaism that just happens to follow the Messiah.  It 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.  Paul does not follow a sect within a larger entity called Judaism.   He follows the suffering, rising and reigning Christ - just as the fathers did.  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.

And yet how often do we hear - from evangelicals - that Paul retrospectively awards messianic meaning to Moses!?  In direct contradiction to his plain words here!

How common to hear that the law and the prophets were originally non-messianic!?

How common to hear that Moses would not have understood the Way in his own day?  That, practically speaking, his beliefs would have matched up far more with a non-messianic Jew than with Paul!

That, essentially, the OT in its own context does belong in the synagogue, but the NT has audaciously re-interpreted it.

And what does this imply?  It implies that Christianity is a sect within Judaism.  A true sect.  A divinely authorized sect.  But a sect.

I tell you, we are not a sect.  We are the Way.  The Ancient Way.  And there has never been any other.

.

Here's Tremper Longman III on why "son" is not capitalized in the new NIV translation of Psalm 2.

Question: What difference does it make if we capitalize ‘son’ in Psalm 2?

Well, the difference that it makes is that if you capitalize son in Psalm 2 it shows you don’t understand the psalm. The son in Psalm 2 is the Davidic descendant who assumes the throne. [The psalm] was likely sung at inauguration services and other royal ceremonies. We can see this by the allusions to 2 Samuel 7, which speaks of David having a son on the throne forever.

Of course, as readers of the New Testament we know that Psalm 2 has a deeper significance that probably wasn’t known by its original composer or audience. After the monarchy failed, the faithful realized that the fulfillment of 2 Samuel 7 was not found in the line of Davidic descendants whose rule came to an end in 586 BC. Thus, particularly in the late Old Testament time period and into the Intertestamental period, the eschatological significance of the Davidic covenant and the royal psalms were emphasized. Jesus is the greater son of David who is the ultimate fulfillment of the Davidic covenant and also of course of Psalm 2 as the numerous references to the psalm in the New Testament indicates. However, Psalm 2 is not a messianic prophecy, which would be the only reason to capitalize son in this psalm.

I am utterly speechless!

.

There's a bit of a bloggy hubbub over the new NIV translation of 1 Timothy 2 (eg).

But here's what Psalm 2 says in the new translation:

⁷ I will proclaim the LORD’s decree:

He said to me, “You are my son;
today I have become your father.
⁸ Ask me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.
⁹ You will break them with a rod of iron;
you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”

...

¹² Kiss his son, or he will be angry
and your way will lead to your destruction,
for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

Notice, "Son" is no longer capitalized (as it was in the old NIV - and in the great majority of translations today and historically!!).

And here's why the translators have gone this way:

...The problem with capitalizing son in Psalm 2:7 is that it cuts straight from from 2 Samuel 7 to Jesus. It’s great to get to Jesus, but the short cut keeps readers from seeing the typological development that grows and deepens through the accounts of the sons of David. This can keep us from understanding what Jesus meant when he declared that one greater than Solomon had arrived (cf. Matt 12:42).

So capitalizing son in Psalm 2:7 gets the termination point right, but it can keep us from feeling the buildup of the development that swells and plunges between David and Jesus.

I've just left a little comment:

But what if the 'progression' is pre-emptively and explicitly taught within the OT?  Genesis 49:10 sets up the kings as mere throne-warmers for the universal Christ.  Before there was kingship at all there was Messianic expectation for the Universal King.  When David writes Psalm 2 and speaks in such universal terms of the Anointed do we really imagine that he was so unfaithful as to intend a mere earthly successor?

And if you really think that, then why not translate 'eretz' as 'land' in v8??  If you are so concerned to maintain some kind of 'original' local meaning then the following verses make a nonsense of the whole enterprise.

Is that unfair?  Well, have your own say...

But whatever you think about it, I'll be interested to see whether there's more brouhaha over women preaching than Christ.

.