This guy really rocks!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJvUlrNa-Z8&list=QL&playnext=2
.
Tag: covenant continuity
Another Introduction to Exodus
Previously I've written an overview of Exodus.
This is an introduction from another angle:
Introduction to Exodus
Exodus is not the beginning. Exodus continues the story of God’s people.
In the beginning, the promise was given to humanity that the Offspring of the woman would crush Satan’s head, even though His own heel would be struck (Genesis 3:15). This was the first prophesy of the sufferings and glory of the coming Messiah (1 Peter 1:10-11). Though it would cause Him to suffer, the Offspring would defeat the powers that Adam and Eve had unleashed on the world.
From that point onwards, offspring in general became a consuming passion for the people of God. This is because the Offspring in particular – Christ – is our one true hope (cf Galatians 3:16,29).
In Genesis 12, Abraham is told that the Offspring will come through him (Genesis 12:7; cf Galatians 3:16). Thus Abraham’s many offspring would become the nation of Israel through whom the Offspring (the Messiah) would come. The people of the Messiah would therefore be the conduit for all God’s blessings on the world:
2 "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." (Genesis 12:2-3)
In Genesis 15 the Word of the LORD repeats the promises, reassuring Abraham that his childlessness will not be a problem (Genesis 15:1-6). His offspring would be innumerable. But just as the singular Offspring (Christ) would suffer and then be glorified, so the plural offspring (Abraham’s descendants) would suffer and be glorified. Abraham is told:
13 "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and ill-treated four hundred years. 14 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterwards they will come out with great possessions.” (Genesis 15:13-14)
The story of Exodus is the fulfilment of these verses. It’s the story of the offspring of Abraham, called up out of Egypt – the land of darkness and slavery – brought through curses and judgements, through wilderness and trial, towards the land of blessings and freedom.
Exodus therefore works on many levels.
It is a grand prophesy of the work of the Offspring, Christ. Jesus is the true Son called up out of Egypt (Matt 2:15) who accomplishes His own exodus/departure by undergoing the judgement of the cross (Luke 9:31, ‘exodus’ and ‘departure’ are the same word). Reading Exodus will show us a vivid pattern for Christ’s own sufferings and glory.
Exodus is also a presentation of the sufferings and glories of God’s people in every age. For those who trust in the Messiah – whether in Old or New Testament times – the exodus is a paradigmatic experience. Paul underlines this in 1 Corinthians 10:1-13, and insists that the events of the exodus “happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us.” (v11) We too have had an Exodus experience – once we were in the darkness and slavery of sin but have been brought out through the bloody redemption of the LORD Jesus. Now we experience wilderness times of hardship and testing before we enter the promised land of His presence. Exodus will teach us all about the Christian life.
But if the Exodus experience defines the people of God, it’s even more true to say that the Exodus experience defines the God of the people. From this event onwards, God would always be known as “the LORD who brought you up out of Egypt.” (e.g. Exodus 20:2; Leviticus 11:45; Judges 2:1). In Exodus we will see the promise-keeping, compassionate, rescuing, judging, providing, incomparable I AM who saves His people with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm.
8 He saved them for His Name's sake, to make His mighty power known. 9 He rebuked the Red Sea, and it dried up; He led them through the depths as through a desert. 10 He saved them from the hand of the foe; from the hand of the enemy He redeemed them. 11 The waters covered their adversaries; not one of them survived. 12 Then they believed His promises and sang His praise. (Psalm 106:8-12)
Our experience of Exodus should be the same – to believe His promises and sing His praise!
.
Ooo, nice, this is a Jesus bit…
I've been listening to a lot of sermons on Exodus recently. We'll be preaching through it at All Souls in the Autumn.
The great majority of preachers I've listened to are the sorts who are always saying "God's unfolding plan of redemption" and "the progressively revealed purposes of God culminating in Jesus" and "they spoke better than they knew" and all that jazz that you'd swear was in the bible, but it's not.
Nice fellas. But. You know...
What's fascinated me is that these guys preach Passover exactly like I do. Only much better. They're older saints, more experienced preachers, and their Passover sermons are tasty, filling, uplifting, glorious... They are OT sermons full of Jesus. But they stand in violent contrast to the prior sermons in the series.
I've listened to three preachers preach whole series' from chapters 1-20. And for each of the three, the sermons prior to Exodus 12 have been dull, dry, lifeless and almost completely Christless. Like, unbelievably Christless. Like - this would be kosher in a synagogue - Christless. Which actually shocked me because I thought all the 'unfolding plan' guys had sworn oaths to 'Progress' that they would always 'bridge to Jesus' for better or worse. But these guys must have been crossing their fingers cos Jesus was averaging less than one mention per sermon.
And then... Exodus 12 and the Spirit descends in glory and the angels sing.
And what really amazes me is that these are the same guys who are always saying "Christ in the Old Testament is not like Where's Wally. It's about more than a few purple passages or Messianic prophecies, it's about the whole redemptive-historical sweep."
Ok, good. So why is your preaching so uneven? Unless you really think Christ pops up only here and there?
But what if the whole Hebrew bible cries 'Behold the Lamb'?
.
Jesus Christ – the Hope of the Ages
Before this sermon I wasn't entirely sure about that Paul Blackham fellow.
And then on Christmas Eve 2000, everything changed...
I'm hoping the picture quality will improve over the next 12 hours (it did with my previous uploads).
Download Paul's original sermon here
And here's an older sermon jam I did of Paul's Philippians 3...
.
Luther on Scripture 3 – The Meaning is Christ
Taken from this paper on Luther's exegesis of Genesis 3...
The meaning is Christ
Rescuing the Scriptures from the Judaizers
‘Christ is the Lord, not the servant, the Lord of the Sabbath, of law, of all things. The Scriptures must be understood in favour of Christ, not against Him. For that reason they must either refer to Him or must not be held to be true Scripture.’ (LW34.112)
When Luther says ‘must’ in this quotation he is deadly serious. The written Word is a servant of the Eternal Word. We cannot know God except "clothed in His Word and promises , so that from the name ‘God’ we cannot exclude Christ, whom God promised to Adam and the other patriarchs." (Commentary on Psalm 51, 1532).
Luther constantly returns to Genesis 3:15 as the promise by which Adam and Eve laid hold of life, and the fountainhead of all gospel promise:
"This, therefore is the text that made Adam and Eve alive and brought them back from death into the life which they had lost through sin." (LW1.196-7)
"Never will the conscience trust in God unless it can be sure of God’s mercy and promises in Christ. Now all the promises of God lead back to the first promise concerning Christ: “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” 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, although times and conditions may differ... The faith of the fathers was directed at the Christ who was to come, while ours rests in the Christ who has come. 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. We too believe in the Christ to come as the fathers did in the Old Testament, for we look for Christ to come again on the last day to judge the quick and the dead. (Galatians commentary, 3:6)
Luther came to Genesis not primarily seeking for grammatical and historical understanding, but seeking for Christ. As he claimed above, ‘the Scriptures must be understood in favour of Christ.' For Luther, distinguishing the Church from Old Testament Israel has never been a question of adding a new, retrospectively awarded meaning to Moses. The method modelled by Jesus and His Apostles has been to declare the inherent Messianic proclamation of all Biblical revelation. Luther is completely in line with this as he repeatedly champions Genesis 3:15, not simply here, but throughout his work. Yet this confidence in the protevangelium has sounded ‘incautious’ and ‘unreal’ to more modern ears.
F. Farrar in his History of Interpretation says this:
“When Luther reads the doctrines of the Trinity, and the Incarnation, and Justification by Faith, and Reformation dogmatics and polemics, into passages written more than a thousand years before the Christian era… he is adopting an unreal method which had been rejected a millennium earlier by the clearer insight and more unbiased wisdom of the School of Antioch. As a consequence of this method, in his commentary on Genesis he adds nothing to Lyra except a misplaced dogmatic treatment of patriarchal history.” (p334)
Farrar misunderstands both Luther’s exegesis and his exegetical convictions. Luther is not claiming to read back into the text a Christological reinterpretation. His claim is that the gospel of Christ was preached, understood, trusted and passed on by the faithful throughout the Old Testament era. His convictions in making such a claim are that non-Christological interpretations are really non-interpretations. The written Word must preach the Eternal Word or it is no word worth hearing. It is worth noting though that this prior commitment also allows Luther to make the greatest sense of the literal, historical and grammatical content of the passage.
In this respect Calvin is often seen as a more 'cautious' foil to Luther's christocentric bias.
So R. Grant in A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible writes:
‘Not all the reformers carried the principles of Reformation exegesis to the conclusion which Luther reached. John Calvin, for example, vigorously maintains an ‘objective’ type of interpretation. For him, scripture itself is the authority for Christian belief, rather than any Christocentric interpretation of scripture.’ (p106, emphasis mine)
That seems a very fair assessment. And one worth ruminating upon.
Gerald Bray in Biblical Interpretation: past and present has written similarly:
“As an exegete Calvin is noted for his scrupulous honesty; he resisted the temptation to read Christological meanings into even such ‘obvious’ passages as Genesis 3:15.” (p203, emphasis mine)
Calvin’s principles of Old Testament interpretation as laid out in the Institutes (e.g. I.13; II.9-11) are admirable. Yet they are not followed through with consistency in his expositions. For instance, neither the Trinitarian (1:1,26; 3:22) nor Christological points (3:15) are picked up in Calvin’s Genesis commentary.
Lutherans in the 17th century felt so strongly about Calvin’s Old Testament exegesis that anathemas were pronounced, most notably by Aegidius Hunnius, in his Calvinus Judaizans (Wittenberg, 1693). While this was a definite over-reaction it certainly points to differing trajectories and a tendency in Calvin to underplay that on which Luther had so passionately insisted.
In our own age, evangelical scholarship is crying out for defenders of a Christian Old Testament. In John Sailhamer's excellent article The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible, he quotes Walter Kaiser as saying:
“if [the Gospel] is not in the Old Testament text, who cares how ingenious later writers are in their ability to reload the OT text with truths that it never claimed or revealed in the first place? The issue is more than hermeneutics… [the issue is that of] the authority and content of revelation itself!”
Gordon McConville comments in the same article
“the validity of a Christian understanding of the Old Testament must depend in the last analysis on [the] cogency of the argument that the Old Testament is messianic.”
We ought to re-learn from Luther the Christian meaning of Moses and the Prophets. Not that, now Moses can be read through Christian spectacles. Rather, that the only spectacles through which Scripture can be read are Christian. The issue with our modern Jewish friends is not about whether the New Testament is a valid addition and re-interpretation of the Old. The issue is the Old Testament itself. We must maintain that the Hebrew Scriptures in and of themselves are Christian Scripture written from faith in Christ and directed to evoke faith in Christ (cf. 2 Tim 3:15-17; Acts 10:36,43). Luther would be an excellent tutor for our modern age in reclaiming the Hebrew Scriptures for Jesus.
.
The End of the Law is… not us
Previously, Peter Leithart asked:
What assumptions about sex are behind the common opinion that the Song [of Songs] is only an erotic poem, only a celebration of human sexuality and marriage, full stop?
Jim Rogers of Texas A&M writes:
I think a part of the answer is this: Commentators (and many Christians more generally) come to the other parts of Scripture dealing with sex with materialist/anthrocentric assumptions, so why wouldn’t they do so also for the Song?
For example, we read Gn 2.24 as pertaining primarily to the type and not, first, to the antitype. But Paul doesn’t:
“For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be come one flesh. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.”
The first application is to the antitype – Christ and the church. The second application is the type, i.e., human marriage. (So, too, cf., 1 Co 6.15-20, although it’s a bit more blended there. Still, the focus is on the implication for our union with Christ.)
Even in the OT, there is far more extended discussion of idolatry as spiritual adultery than there is discussion of human adultery. But, still, we read the sex laws in the Law of Moses almost exclusively anthrocentrically rather than Christocentrically (or Yahwehcentrically, as the case may be).
This despite the fact that Christians know that the law reveals Christ first (Lk 24.27, 44). This means that the law on polygamy, the law on taking interest, the laws and theft and murder and etc., first reveal Christ – and I mean that it reveals to us the person of Christ directly (and his relationship with his people), not just stuff about the ethics for his people.
And don’t we see this in Moses as well? E.g., Exodus turns at the Golden Calf incident. But isn’t the bitter waters test in Nm 5 a development of the rite that Moses implemented in Ex 32.20-21ff?
Indeed, when we have entire schools of thought devoted to reading Moses with an eye to how the Law applies (or should apply) today to human relationships (whether approving Moses or disapproving Moses), why would you expect those same Christians to read the Song as anything more than a guide to human sexual relationships? All they’re doing is being consistent.
That is wonderfully, brilliantly and 100% correct.
.
None other than our Lord Jesus Christ
Here's how Robert Murray McCheyne opened his sermon on Wisdom entitled "TURN YOU AT MY REPROOF." Prov. i., 20-23.
20Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets: 21She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city she uttereth her words, saying, 22How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? 23Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.
THAT none other than our Lord Jesus Christ is intended to be minted to us under the majestic figure of Wisdom in the Book of Proverbs, is evident from the passage before us. Of whom but the Saviour could it be said so truly that he stood with outstretched hands in the streets, in the markets, and in the openings of the gates, crying after the simple ones the publicans and sinners; and the scorners the Scribes and Pharisees ; and those haters of knowledge the Jewish priesthood ? And again, of whom but the Saviour could it be said, with any truth at all, that he offered to " pour out his Spirit upon the returning sinner, and to make known his words unto him ?" Christ alone " hath ascended up on high, leading captivity captive ; and hath received gifts for men, yea, even for the rebellious, that the Lord God might dwell among them."
Full sermon here (num. XXVII).
Apart from verse 23, the view that Wisdom is the Spirit in Proverbs is a strong one. The book is about a Father training up His Young Prince to get Wisdom. Christthen becomes for us Wisdom from God since He is the Anointed One in Whom we find Wisdom for ourselves.
For those who see Wisdom as the Spirit - any thoughts on Prov 1:23?
Whether we say Wisdom is the Son or the Spirit it is vital that we not dePersonalize Wisdom - as though it were just an attribute of God. Our faith is Personal and we dare not depersonalize One who is clearly held out in Scripture as Maker, Saviour and the One we're urged to get above all things.
.
.
.
Calvin on Christ the object of OT faith
This is Calvin's preface to the French Bible. He wrote it a year after his conversion! It's full of some wonderful things but I'll just quote him on the promises and then the patterns of Christ in the OT.
Notice that Calvin considered the Old Testament saints to have consciously understood these promises and patterns. Do read the whole thing here.
Promises of Christ:
Also from the very beginning, the world was not without the hope of recovering the loss suffered in Adam. For even Adam, in spite of his incontinency after his ruin, was given the promise that the seed of the woman would crush the head of the serpent; which is to say that Jesus Christ born of a virgin would strike down and destroy the power of Satan.
After that, this promise was renewed more fully to Abraham, when God told him that all the nations of the earth would be blessed in his seed. This meant that from his seed would come Jesus Christ according to the flesh, by whose blessing all men of every land would be sanctified. And the same promise was renewed to Isaac, in the same form and in the same words; and after that it was announced often, repeated and confirmed by the testimony of the various prophets, so as to state plainly, and most reliably, of whom Christ was to be born, at what time, in what place; what afflictions and death he was to suffer, and with what glory he was to rise from the dead; what was to be his Kingdom, and to what salvation he was to bring his own.
In the first place, it is foretold for us in Isaiah, how he was to be born of a virgin, saying: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and shall bear a son, and you shall call his name Immanuel (Isa. 7:14). The time is described for us in Moses, when good Jacob says, The scepter shall not be taken from the line of Judah, nor the government from his hand, until the coming of the One who is to be sent; and the same is the expectation of the nations (Gen. 49:10). And this was verified when Jesus Christ came into the world; for the Romans, after having divested the Jews of all government and rule, had, thirty-seven years before [the coming of Christ] ordained Herod king over them, whose father was Antipater the Edomite and his mother an Arabian; he was therefore a foreigner. It had happened sometimes before that the Jews had been without a king; but they had never before been left as they were now without counselors, rulers, and lawgivers. Another numbering [of the time of Christ's birth] is given in Daniel, by the reckoning of the seventy weeks (Dan. 9:24). The place of his birth was given us clearly by Micah, who said, And thou Bethlehem Ephrata, thou are the least among the thousands of Judah; but from thee shall come for me the One who shall reign over Israel; and his coming shall be for all the days of eternity (Micah 5:2). As for the afflictions he was to bear for our deliverance and the death he was to suffer for our redemption, Isaiah and Zechariah have spoken of those matters fully and with certainty. The glory of his resurrection and the nature of his Kingdom, and the grace of the salvation he was to bring to his people – these things were fully treated by Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Zechariah.
Such promises, declared and testified to by these holy men who were filled with the Spirit of God, have been the comfort and consolation of the children and elect of God, who have nourished, supported, and sustained their hope in these promises, waiting upon the will of the Lord to show forth what he had promised. Many kings and prophets among them have desired greatly to see its accomplishment, never ceasing all the while to understand, in their hearts and spirits by faith, the things they could not see with their eyes. And, God has confirmed his people in every possible way during their long waiting for the great Messiah, by providing them with his written law, containing numerous ceremonies, purifications, and sacrifices, which were but the figures and shadows of the great blessings to come with Christ, who alone was the embodiment and truth of them. For the law was incapable of bringing anyone to perfection; it only presented Christ, and like a teacher spoke of and led to him, who was, as was said by Saint Paul, the end and fulfillment of the law.
Patterns of Christ:
Similarly, many times and in various seasons, God sent his people kings, princes, and captains, to deliver them from the power of their enemies, to govern them in peace, to recover their losses, to give them flourishing reigns, and by great prowess to make them renowned among all the other peoples. He did all this to give them a foretaste of the great miracles they were to receive from this great Messiah, who was to be endowed with all the power and might of the Kingdom of God.
But when the fullness of time had come and the period foreordained by God was ended, this great Messiah, so promised and so awaited, came; he was perfect, and accomplished all that was necessary to redeem us and save us. He was given not only to the Israelites, but to all men, of every people and every land, to the end that by him human nature might be reconciled to God. This is what is stated plainly in the next book (the New Testament), and set forth there openly. This book we have translated as faithfully as we were able according to the truth and the style of the Greek language, to enable all Christians, men and women, who know the French language, to understand and acknowledge the law they ought to obey and the faith they ought to follow.
Oh, and this bit is just awesome:
Without the gospel everything is useless and vain; without the gospel we are not Christians; without the gospel all riches is poverty, all wisdom, folly before God; strength is weakness, and all the justice of man is under the condemnation of God. But by the knowledge of the gospel we are made children of God, brothers of Jesus Christ, fellow townsmen with the saints, citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, heirs of God with Jesus Christ, by whom the poor are made rich, the weak strong, the fools wise, the sinners justified, the desolate comforted, the doubting sure, and slaves free. The gospel is the Word of life and truth. It is the power of God for the salvation of all those who believe; and the key to the knowledge of God, which opens the door of the Kingdom of Heaven to the faithful by releasing them from sins, and closes it to the unbelievers, binding them in their sins. Blessed are all they who hear the gospel and keep it; for in this way they show that they are children of God. Woe to those who will not hear it and follow it; because they are children of the devil.
.
.
How do I preach Genesis? How do I preach election?
Rich 'Bugsy' Owen has outdone himself with this sermon on Genesis 27. Highly recommended!
.
Who is Melchizedek?
Who is Melchizedek?
You know what? I'm not going to go to the stake on this. I believe Christ was active in the Old Testament. He was known as God-from-God, the Divine Mediator of the Most High. Many people met Him. All faithful Israelites trusted in Him and in His future incarnate work. But none of that commits me to saying Melchizedek was one of His titles. But, having said that, I think it's a pretty good bet!
He is a beginningless, parentless, everlasting, royal priest of God Most High. He's the King of Righteousness, King of Peace, King of Jerusalem. Ring any bells?
"Ah but what about Hebrews 7:3?" someone will say. Indeed, what about about Hebrews 7:3?
without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, and being made like to the Son of God, doth remain a priest continually. (YLT)
Is that true? Is he really without beginning of days and end of life? And does he remain a priest continually? I'm aware of more sophisticated arguments on this point but I try to be a simple sort. In which case he's either the pre-incarnate Jesus or there's four members of the trinity.
Ok, but what about "being made like to the Son of God"? Well:
a) "Son of God" is a title - and a crucial one in Hebrews. So much of the book is a comparison of "Son" to other titles: "angels", "Son of man", "servant", "high priest" etc. "King of Righteousness" is like "Son of God" especially when you consider Heb 1:8 - 'the Son' has the 'sceptre of righteousness.'
b) The perfect passive ("being made") is common in Hebrews for what happens to Jesus. So in Heb 1:4 He becomes superior to the angels because of the more excellent name He has inherited (i.e. "Son"). In Heb 2:9 He is crowned with glory and honour (high priest's clothing - Ex 28:2,40). In Heb 2:17 He is made like His brothers. In Heb 3:3 He is found worthy. In Heb 5:5 He is appointed high priest, in v9 He is made perfect, and in v10 He is desgnated high priest in the order of Melchizedek. In fact it's this verse that prompts the discussion of Melchizedek. And in Heb 6:20 it is repeated that Jesus has become high priest in the order of Melchizedek.
So Melchizedek in Genesis 14 is a type - but a type of Himself, i.e. His future incarnate work. He is indeed the King of Righteousness, the King of Peace and the eternal Priest of God Most High. And He is that as He meets Abraham.
God was not trying to deceive Abraham by having a mere man appear in such an exalted Role. So it truly was the Son of God who appeared as Melchizedek. But His appearance as Melchizedek was a foretaste of His future priestly work. This is just the same as His appearances as "The Angel (i.e. Sent One) of the LORD." They were foretastes of His future incarnate work as Sent from the Father.
So for Melchizedek to effect His true priesthood, He would need to lay hold of the Seed of Abraham (Heb 2:16), to take flesh and perform His true priestly work. In other words, He would need to be made like "the Son of God." You see He always has been Son of God, but the title while eternal is also inherited through His incarnate work! Get your head around that one if you can - but Heb 1:4 and 5:5 state it plainly. So Melchizedek (who is pre-incarnate Son of God) must be made like "the Son of God" in order to be a true Priest.
The argument of chapters 5-7 therefore is something like this: He's superior to Aaron because He is also King. And He's superior to Melchizedek because He's also man.
You might ask why He's in the order of Melchizedek. Well I think the real problem would be if He was in someone else's order. Jesus is in a class of His own! He started the club (as Priest-King) and then slotted into the fullness of the Role: incarnate-Priest-King.
That's my understanding at the moment anyway.
Of which I'm sure about 3% will make it into my Sunday sermon.
Any thoughts of your own? Tips on how to preach Hebrews 7?
.
.