Skip to content

Tag: covenant continuity

Published on Leave a comment on Christ in the Other Territories

[vimeo http://www.vimeo.com/21322739 w=400&h=225]

CrossReference+ Episode 1 from HeadHeartHand Media on Vimeo.

I can't imagine these kinds of video being produced and then widely propagated in evangelical circles in Australia or England.  Not right now anyway.  But Scots and Americans (and the Welsh?) seem to be far more open to Christ in the Old Testament.  Why is that?

Anyway, look out for more videos from David Murray's blog.

And to give a flavour of his position, here he is reviewing Alec Motyer's Roots: Let the Old Testament Speak

I would also have preferred more Christ-centeredness. While Motyer’s first chapter is “Starting with Jesus,” and he says that the book will show how the Old Testament moves “forward to the climactic flowering in Jesus,” there is not much of Jesus nor of the Gospel in the rest of the book. There are some good Messiah-centered expositions of a few key themes (e.g. the Servant of the Lord), and of a few passages such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 110, but not much else of that nature. In fact, in one place (p. 77), Motyer denies that the Old Testament believers believed in the coming Messiah through the typology of the sacrifices. Instead, he says that “the sin-offering provided for forgiveness,” and traces their salvation to the offeror’s faith in the promise of forgiveness through that sacrifice. Only from Isaiah 53 forwards, says Motyer, did believers understand that the sacrifice was to be a person. I strongly disagree. “Person-centered” faith was present from Genesis 3:15 onwards, as God focused all attention on the promised seed (offspring) of the woman.

In a rather confusing paragraph, he also denies that the Old Testament appearances of the Angel of the Lord were pre-incarnate appearances of Christ, or in any sense “a divine condescension – God taking human form to ‘accommodate’ himself to mankind” (p. 84). He seems to link these theophanies to the image of God in man and the dignity of the body.

I suppose this all comes down to the frequently unanswered (even unasked) question in Old Testament studies. How were Old Testament believers saved? By faith, by works, or by a mixture of both? By faith in the sacrifices, by faith in God (in general), or by faith in the Messiah (in particular)? If Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are sitting at the same heavenly table as New Testament believers (Matt. 8:11), are the New Testament believers giving all glory to Christ while the Old Testament believers are polishing their own medals? Or getting to know Christ for the first time?

He's also got audio on Preaching Christ in the OT here.  I look forward to listening to it.

Published on Leave a comment on Guess the source of these quotes…

"All prophets prophesied only for the days of the Messiah"

"The world was created only for the Messiah."

 

Answer: The Talmud.

In particular: Sanhedrin 99a; 98b.

Christ alone is the meaning of Scripture and the meaning of the world.  The Hebrew Scriptures themselves teach this!

Source: here - a fascinating read!

Published on Leave a comment on Your questions

Last month I asked people to submit questions they might have regarding faith in Christ in the OT.  Here's 22 questions that have been generated.  If I've missed yours, please add it in the comments.

I'm going to open out the answering of these questions to others.  (Otherwise, at my current rate of blogging here I won't be done before 2015!)If you'd like to have a go at answering these, please email me: glenscrivener [at] gmail [dot] com

I'm thinking the answers shouldn't be too long - after all you can thrash things out a bit more in comments.  Perhaps I'll put an 800 word limit on it?  Something like that.

Drop me a line and tell me roughly how you'd go about answering the question and I'll assign them to people in the next week or so.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Is Jesus The Wisdom in the wisdom literature? Or is Wisdom heavenly information to help us live for God?

2) What is the message of Job?

3) What is new about the new covenant?  Is it better?  In what way?

4) Were OT saints worse off, or have anything ‘less’ than NT saints?

5) What was the ministry of the Spirit in the OT?  Has it changed?  In what way?

6) How do we deal with the promises of the OT - especially of physical prosperity and revival?

7) Is John the Baptist ‘least of all the saints’ because he was from the OT era?8) Isn’t it obvious that we have progressed in sanctification since the OT since today we would never invite a Samson to preach?

9) What is the mystery that Paul speaks of which was not revealed in OT times?

10) The answer to Israel's backsliding is often presented as the New Covenant ministry of the Spirit.  Why then has the church seemed to be just as bad?

11) In what sense does the new wine burst the old wineskins?

12) Why does the gospel appear much clearer in the NT?

13) Does the incarnation give us any more revelation about God?

14) Does this position downplay or even reject the special role of Israel?

15) How should we get folks to love the OT as Christian?

16) Why don’t we get the clear Trinitarian formulations in the OT that we get in the NT? eg Matt 28:19, 2 Cor 13:14.

17) If the Old Testament is clearly and overtly Christocentric, then why isn’t it all that obvious to most people?

18) Can you show that in the OT the God who saves, and the human/people through whom he would save would be the same person?

19) In what ways does Jesus fulfil laws that seem not to apply to Him?  (e.g. the uncleanness of women after childbirth).

20) Would contemporary Jews have understood the temple of Ezekiel 40-48 to represent the Messiah and His work?

21) If OT saints trusted in Christ, what kind of knowledge of Christ did they have?  And how, if it was through types or symbols, is it not idolatry?

22) When I see LORD in the OT how do I know whether it’s referring to the Father or to the Son?

 

Published on Leave a comment on When I don't desire the LORD… the King does [repost]

Following on from last Thursday's post - Psalms are about Christ.   They tell of the interaction between the LORD, the King through Whom He rules, the righteous who hide in Him and the wicked who rebel.

These interactions are pictured from many angles.  But one key perspective is for the King Himself to speak.  This most often happens in the Psalms 'Of David'.

Of course all the kings reigned under the knowledge that they were simply throne-warmers for the King to Whom universal tribute was due. (Gen 49:10)  But David was the most idealized of these kings.  The Messiah is often spoken of simply as David.  (e.g. Ezekiel 34:23f; 37:25).  And David himself is aware of his idealized role.  Just before his death he said: "The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me; His word was on my tongue." (2 Sam 23:2)  He didn't speak better than he knew, but he certainly spoke better than he lived. In the Psalms the king most often spoke as The King.  The anointed one spoke most often as The Anointed One.

Peter confirms this for us in Acts 2.  Even when David spoke in the first person he was speaking the words of Christ (see Acts 2:25).  Quoting Psalm 16, Peter makes it clear that David was not describing his own experience. (Paul underlines this in Acts 13:36-37).  Rather, David "was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ" (Acts 2:30-31).

Does this mean that such Psalms have no application to David?  No of course they do - but such application runs from Christ to David rather than David to Christ.  This is the nature of the whole of David's life -  from shepherd boy to rejected ruler, to reigning king to his death, he is a shadow of the Coming King.

This is my understanding anyway.  Whether you take the Psalms from David to Christ or Christ to David, I hope we can all agree that the emotions and experiences of 'The King' are ultimately taken up and owned by Christ.

All of this is just a precursor to what I really want to discuss...  What do we do with the Psalmist's intense desire for the LORD?

On one level that's simple - copy it.  Be challenged by it.  Be inspired by it.  Seek it for yourself.

Well, yes, ok.  But here's the question - what do I do when I don't earnestly desire the LORD?  Because maybe once or twice in your life your white hot devotion to God has dipped below the zeal of the Psalmist.  What do you do then?

Here's the first level of my response:  When I don't desire God, first I need to see that Christ does.  And He does so for me.

What do I mean?

Well take a favourite Psalm of mine: Psalm 63

Here the Psalmist says:

1 O God, you are my God,
earnestly I seek you;
my soul thirsts for you,
my body longs for you,
in a dry and weary land
where there is no water.

2 I have seen you in the sanctuary
and beheld your power and your glory.

3 Because your love is better than life,
my lips will glorify you.

4 I will praise you as long as I live,
and in your name I will lift up my hands.

Now be honest, doesn't some part of you go "Really?  Have I really beheld His power and glory?  Really?  Have I in the past and will I in the future praise Him so wholeheartedly?  Really?  As long as I live?  Am I perjuring myself here??"

But friend, read on to the final verse...

11 But the king will rejoice in God

These are the words of the king - the king on whose lips are the words of The King.  And He has beheld the power and glory of the LORD in the ultimate sanctuary.  He is the ultimate, white-hot Worshipper of God.  These words are not a guide to human worship so much as a window onto divine worship.

So what should be our response?

Sit back and be awed by The King's desire for the LORD.  You don't yet feel such intense passion.  Well alright.  In the deepest sense you never can match His devotion.  But let the King's worship be enough for you.  Don't despise his devotion like Michal (2 Sam 6:16).  Simply allow your King to offer what you cannot summon up yourself.  Know that He offers in your place a worship you could never initiate.  And if the Praise-Worthy does not elicit your praise, let the Praise-Giver show the way.  In ourselves we could never work up the right response.  In Christ we see what reckless and joyful abandon to God looks like.

He is like the first Dancer onto the floor, moved by the Music, laughing and clapping and dancing as we never could.  The more you watch Him dance, the more your foot starts to tap, then you start clapping.  Pretty soon you'll link arms and join in.  The Music itself should get you on the dance floor.  But in fact the Music never does - not really.  It's the Dancer who inspires, who links arms and who leads.

Read Psalm 63 again.  And add your own Amen.  For now that is enough.  If these words were simply the prayer diary of an ancient near eastern ruler, your Amen would mean nothing.  If these were just passionate words from an inspired and inspiring devotee they could only judge your apathy.  But they're not.  This is the worship of The King.  Your King.   This is Christ your Substitute, your Priest, your Vicarious Worshipper.  He bears your name on His heart as He comes before the LORD in joyful abandon.  For now just allow Him to offer the praise you cannot find in yourself.  In time you'll join the dance.

For more on Christ offering worship on our behalf, here's a half hour talk I gave recently.

 

2

Published on 2 Comments on When I don’t desire the LORD… the King does [repost]

Following on from last Thursday's post - Psalms are about Christ.   They tell of the interaction between the LORD, the King through Whom He rules, the righteous who hide in Him and the wicked who rebel.

These interactions are pictured from many angles.  But one key perspective is for the King Himself to speak.  This most often happens in the Psalms 'Of David'.

Of course all the kings reigned under the knowledge that they were simply throne-warmers for the King to Whom universal tribute was due. (Gen 49:10)  But David was the most idealized of these kings.  The Messiah is often spoken of simply as David.  (e.g. Ezekiel 34:23f; 37:25).  And David himself is aware of his idealized role.  Just before his death he said: "The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me; His word was on my tongue." (2 Sam 23:2)  He didn't speak better than he knew, but he certainly spoke better than he lived. In the Psalms the king most often spoke as The King.  The anointed one spoke most often as The Anointed One.

Peter confirms this for us in Acts 2.  Even when David spoke in the first person he was speaking the words of Christ (see Acts 2:25).  Quoting Psalm 16, Peter makes it clear that David was not describing his own experience. (Paul underlines this in Acts 13:36-37).  Rather, David "was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ" (Acts 2:30-31).

Does this mean that such Psalms have no application to David?  No of course they do - but such application runs from Christ to David rather than David to Christ.  This is the nature of the whole of David's life -  from shepherd boy to rejected ruler, to reigning king to his death, he is a shadow of the Coming King.

This is my understanding anyway.  Whether you take the Psalms from David to Christ or Christ to David, I hope we can all agree that the emotions and experiences of 'The King' are ultimately taken up and owned by Christ.

All of this is just a precursor to what I really want to discuss...  What do we do with the Psalmist's intense desire for the LORD?

On one level that's simple - copy it.  Be challenged by it.  Be inspired by it.  Seek it for yourself.

Well, yes, ok.  But here's the question - what do I do when I don't earnestly desire the LORD?  Because maybe once or twice in your life your white hot devotion to God has dipped below the zeal of the Psalmist.  What do you do then?

Here's the first level of my response:  When I don't desire God, first I need to see that Christ does.  And He does so for me.

What do I mean?

Well take a favourite Psalm of mine: Psalm 63

Here the Psalmist says:

1 O God, you are my God,
earnestly I seek you;
my soul thirsts for you,
my body longs for you,
in a dry and weary land
where there is no water.

2 I have seen you in the sanctuary
and beheld your power and your glory.

3 Because your love is better than life,
my lips will glorify you.

4 I will praise you as long as I live,
and in your name I will lift up my hands.

Now be honest, doesn't some part of you go "Really?  Have I really beheld His power and glory?  Really?  Have I in the past and will I in the future praise Him so wholeheartedly?  Really?  As long as I live?  Am I perjuring myself here??"

But friend, read on to the final verse...

11 But the king will rejoice in God

These are the words of the king - the king on whose lips are the words of The King.  And He has beheld the power and glory of the LORD in the ultimate sanctuary.  He is the ultimate, white-hot Worshipper of God.  These words are not a guide to human worship so much as a window onto divine worship.

So what should be our response?

Sit back and be awed by The King's desire for the LORD.  You don't yet feel such intense passion.  Well alright.  In the deepest sense you never can match His devotion.  But let the King's worship be enough for you.  Don't despise his devotion like Michal (2 Sam 6:16).  Simply allow your King to offer what you cannot summon up yourself.  Know that He offers in your place a worship you could never initiate.  And if the Praise-Worthy does not elicit your praise, let the Praise-Giver show the way.  In ourselves we could never work up the right response.  In Christ we see what reckless and joyful abandon to God looks like.

He is like the first Dancer onto the floor, moved by the Music, laughing and clapping and dancing as we never could.  The more you watch Him dance, the more your foot starts to tap, then you start clapping.  Pretty soon you'll link arms and join in.  The Music itself should get you on the dance floor.  But in fact the Music never does - not really.  It's the Dancer who inspires, who links arms and who leads.

Read Psalm 63 again.  And add your own Amen.  For now that is enough.  If these words were simply the prayer diary of an ancient near eastern ruler, your Amen would mean nothing.  If these were just passionate words from an inspired and inspiring devotee they could only judge your apathy.  But they're not.  This is the worship of The King.  Your King.   This is Christ your Substitute, your Priest, your Vicarious Worshipper.  He bears your name on His heart as He comes before the LORD in joyful abandon.  For now just allow Him to offer the praise you cannot find in yourself.  In time you'll join the dance.

For more on Christ offering worship on our behalf, here's a half hour talk I gave recently.

 

9

Published on 9 Comments on Psalms: The Players (repost)

In Proverbs you've got four main players: The King, His Son, and the alternative choices for bride: Wisdom and Folly. (See this sermon for instance).

In Psalms you've also got four players and they're introduced in Psalms 1 and 2.  (I discuss this more in a sermon on Psalms 1 and 2).

(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.

.

45

Published on 45 Comments on Any questions?

I've written a fair bit about the bible being a thoroughly Christian book.  (See for instance the Christ in OT tab above).  My position might be summarized like this:

Jesus is the one Revelation of an otherwise unknowable God.  It is therefore Christ who has always been the appearing, hands-on LORD and He has always been the true and consciously-trusted Object of faith for all believers in all ages. Saving faith has always been personal trust in the Person of the Mediator.  And whatever progress in explanation or understanding there may have been throughout the OT - it is the progress of the LORD Christ Himself marching towards His own incarnation.

As far as I can see the good guys in church history have agreed. But unfortunately, at least in the circles I move in, people are more familiar with a kind of pop-biblical-theology that has lost touch with this historical position.  And so people naturally enough have questions.  One reader has emailed me a number of them and I'm sure others of you have more.  I thought I'd compile a list of FAQs and then I (and hopefully some others) would have a go at answering them.

Here are the questions emailed to me:

- Is Jesus The Wisdom in the wisdom literature? Or is Wisdom heavenly information to help us live for God?

- What is the message of Job?

- Is the New Covenant better than the Old?  In what way?

- Were OT saints more worse off, or have anything ‘less’ than NT saints in any way?

- It is clear throughout Romans that without the Spirit of God indwelling man he cannot know Him. Do you think this is solely a New Testament prerequisite? Surely King David (with all his sin) was only kept because he had the redeeming, indwelling Spirit which would not let him go, and wasn’t this the definitive difference between him and Saul?

-How should we deal with the physical prosperity promises in the OT? Are they promises that can be claimed today? What about the revival promises of the OT e.g. 2 Chron 7. If my people humble themselves etc. Can these be claimed today?

- Should a result of us having the NT and, therefore, more detail of certain doctrines of God be that we can know more of Him? Is this how we are better off?

-Is John the Baptist ‘least of all the saints’ because he was from the OT era?

- Isn't it obvious that we have progressed in sanctification since the OT since today we would never invite a Samson to preach?

.
Please add other questions you would like to see answers to, and/or tell me which of these you'd particularly like to hear about...

13

Published on 13 Comments on Christ in all of Scripture – by an 11 year old

[youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8ThjXX08RY"]

Don't just teach your youth the bible.

Teach them Christ in the bible.

Can you imagine if he'd tried to unify the bible with any other grand theme?  We'd have said, "Cor, that kid's got a good memory!"  Or "Gosh, that's an interesting common denominator."

Instead he preaches Christ and we say "What a Saviour!"

 

 

Published on Leave a comment on The literal IS the christocentric (repost)

I recently re-read Nathan Pitchford's excellent short article on the reformers' hermeneutic.

His basic point is that Sola Scriptura always leads to Solus Christus.  The literal reading simply is the christocentric reading.

For Luther, the grammatical-historical hermeneutic was simply the interpretation of scripture that “drives home Christ.” As he once expressed it, “He who would read the Bible must simply take heed that he does not err, for the Scripture may permit itself to be stretched and led, but let no one lead it according to his own inclinations but let him lead it to its source, that is, the cross of Christ. Then he will surely strike the center.” To read the scriptures with a grammatical-historical sense is nothing other than to read them with Christ at the center.

And yet, claims Pitchford, many evangelicals today have a basically un-Christian reading of the OT.

[What I mean is]...  they employ a hermeneutic that does not have as its goal to trace every verse to its ultimate reference point: the cross of Christ. All of creation, history, and reality was designed for the purpose of the unveiling and glorification of the triune God, by means of the work of redemption accomplished by the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The bible is simply the book that tells us how to see Christ and his cross at the center of everything. It tells us who God is by showing us the person and work of Christ, who alone reveals the invisible God. If we do not intentionally ask ourselves, “How may I see Christ more clearly by this passage,” in our reading of every verse of scripture, then we are not operating under the guidance of Luther’s grammatical-historical hermeneutic. If we would follow in the steps of the reformers, we must realize that a literal reading of scriptures does not mean a naturalistic reading. A naturalistic reading says that the full extent of meaning in the account of Moses’ striking the rock is apprehended in understanding the historical event. The literal reading, in the Christ-centered sense of the Reformation, recognizes that this historical account is meaningless to us until we understand how the God of history was using it to reveal Christ to his people. The naturalistic reading of the Song of Solomon is content with the observation that it speaks of the marital-bliss of Solomon and his wife; the literal reading of the reformers recognizes that it has ultimately to do with the marital bliss between Christ and his bride, the Church. And so we could continue, citing example after example from the Old Testament.

So what went wrong?  How come the reformers' understanding of a "literal hermeneutic" gets used today to justify un -Christian interpretation?  Well, historically the influence of academic liberalism turned 'the literal reading' into 'thenaturalistic reading'.  And that's quite a different thing.

Nathan ends with 6 points at which the naturalistic reading fails:

1. A naturalistic hermeneutic effectively denies God’s ultimate authorship of the bible, by giving practical precedence to human authorial intent.

2. A naturalistic hermeneutic undercuts the typological significance which often inheres in the one story that God is telling in the bible (see Galatians 4:21-31, for example).

3. A naturalistic hermeneutic does not allow for Paul’s assertion that a natural man cannot know the spiritual things which the Holy Spirit teaches in the bible – that is, the things about Jesus Christ and him crucified (I Corinthians 2).

4. A naturalistic hermeneutic is at odds with the clear example of the New Testament authors and apostles as they interpret the Old Testament (cf. Peter’s sermon in Acts 2, Paul’s interpretations in Romans 4 and Galatians 4, James’ citing of Amos 9 during the Jerusalem council of Acts 15, the various Old Testament usages in Hebrews, etc.).

5. A naturalistic hermeneutic disallows a full-orbed operation of the analogy of faith principle of the Reformation, by its insistence that every text demands a reading “on its own terms”.

6. A naturalistic hermeneutic does not allow for everything to have its ultimate reference point in Christ, and is in direct opposition to Ephesians 1:10, Colossians 1:16-18, and Christ’s own teachings in John 5:39, Luke 24:25-27.

.

Really great stuff, go read the whole thing.

.

Twitter widget by Rimon Habib - BuddyPress Expert Developer