Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Calvin on the Fall

by

Let no one grumble here that God could have provided better for our salvation if he had forestalled Adam’s fall. Pious minds ought to loathe this objection, because it manifests inordinate curiosity. Furthermore, the matter has to do with the secret of predestination, which will be discussed later in its proper place [3.21-24]. Let us accordingly remember to impute our ruin to depravity of nature, in order that we may not accuse God himself, the Author of nature. True, this deadly wound clings to nature, but it is a very important question whether the would has been inflicted from outside or has been present from the beginning. Yet it is evident that the would was inflicted through sin. We have therefore no reason to complain except against ourselves. Scripture has diligently noted this fact. For Ecclesiastes says: “This I know, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many devices.” [Ch. 7:29.] Obviously, man’s ruin is to be ascribed to man alone; for he, having acquired righteousness by God’s kindness, has by his own folly sunk into vanity.

Institutes, 2.1.10

Calvin on Original Sin

by

For, since it is said that we became subject to God’s judgement through Adam’s sin, we are to understand it not as if we, guiltless and undeserving, bore the guilt of his offense but in the sense that, since we through his transgression have become entangled in the curse, he is said to have made us guilty. Yet not only has punishment fallen upon us from Adam, but a contagion imparted by him resides in us, which justly deserves punishment.

Institutes, 2.1.8

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part 16

by

The three offices are all highlighted in the book of Hebrews. The opening verses indicate that not only had there arisen a prophet like Moses, but that the Son was a prophet greater than Moses. The Lord knew Moses face to face, but this prophet is characterized as “a Son” (Heb. 1:2). Furthermore, though Moses interacted with God face to face,* and even saw his glory, the Son “is the radiance of the glory of God.” The people of Israel asked for Moses to be their prophet-mediator because they were afraid to approach God directly (Ex. 20:18-21; Deut. 5:22-27; 18:15-16), but the Son is both Mediator and God. Hebrews also teaches Christ was prophet in his earthly ministry by declaring the message of salvation. Yet the prophet is not merely a preacher of new revelation from God. The prophet also mediated the covenant. Moses mediated the Old Covenant, but Christ mediates a better covenant (Heb. 8:6) (See Horton, Lord and Servant, 210f.).

Hebrews, more than any other book expounds the priestly work of Christ. His suffering and death are mentioned in the early chapters (Heb. 1:3; 2:9, 14-15). Hebrews 2:17 introduces the idea that Christ is “a merciful and faithful high priest.” This is expanded upon in the following chapters. Hebrews five and six provide an introductory exposition of Christ as High Priest. Hebrews 7:1-10 makes the case that Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchizedek and that as such He is superior to the Levitical priests. The further significance of the emergence of Christ as the Melchizedekian Priest is unpacked in 7:11-28: the Mosaic law is set aside (7:18-19), a better covenant is instituted (7:22), and Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice fulfilled and replaced the repetitious sacrifices of the Levitical system. The following chapters demonstrate that Christ’s sacrifice fulfilled and replaced the Levitical sacrifices because he accomplished what those sacrifices could not. Hebrews 10:18 is the last word of exposition in the author’s argument that Christ is the superior High Priest: “Where there is forgiveness of [sins], there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.” Jesus is the absolute fulfillment of the entire Old Testament priestly system.

Because of the Son’s priestly ministry, he is enthroned and crowned (Heb. 1:3; 2:9). Once again appeal is made to Psalm 2:7. His successful sacrifice for sin resulted in his enthronement with the words promised to the Davidic king upon his ascension. Multiple Old Testament quotations establishing the kingship of Jesus follow. The chain of quotations climaxes with Psalm 110:1, emphasizing once again the Davidic nature of Jesus’ rule. Hebrews 2:5-9, by quoting Psalm 8:4-6, links this Davidic rule back to Adam’s dominion. This dominion was corrupted by the fall, and even of Christ, the passage says, “At present we do not yet see everything in subjection to him” (Heb. 2:8; This harmonizes with Psalm 110:1 which teaches that during the Messiah’s reign enemies will need to be subdued). But the Davidic Messiah is the Second Adam who will restore the right dominion of Man to the new earth (Heb. 2:5; 1 Cor. 15:22ff.)

*Douglas Stuart describes the significance of “face to face,” “The expression ‘face to face’ (פָּנִים אֶל־פָּנִים) is an idiom. It does not mean ‘looking at each other’ or the like as if Moses actually saw God when Moses stood in the ‘tent of meeting’ and Yahweh stood in front of it in the form of the glory cloud. (This could hardly be so in light of the explicit statement of God later in v. 20, ‘You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.’) Its sense is more that of the Eng. expression ‘up close and personal.’ The Eng. idiom ‘person to person’ is relatively similar as well (because it does not imply visual perception), and the idiom ‘heart to heart’ is also analogous (because, likewise, it emphasizes the quality of intimacy of the conversation rather than any visual perception).” Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: B&H, 2006), 699, n. 111.

Calvin on forgiveness by grace alone

by

How immense the difference between the two propositions—that our iniquities were laid upon Christ, that in his own person he might expiate them, and that they are expiated by our works; that Christ is the propitiation for our sins, and that God is to be propitiated by works. . . . Those who rest satisfied with petty satisfactions form too contemptible an estimate of the justice of God, and little consider the grievous heinousness of sin, as shall afterwards be shown. Even were we to grant that they can buy off some sins by due satisfaction, still what will they do while they are overwhelmed with so many sins that not even a hundred lives, though wholly devoted to the purpose, could suffice to satisfy for them?

Institutes 3.4.27

Bavinck on Matthew 24:34

by

The preterist interpretation of the Olivet discourse rests heavily on Matthew 24:34. Mathison says,

The key to understanding the entire discourse is found in verse 34, in which Jesus tells His disciples, “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” Jesus declares that his prophecy will be fulfilled before the generation to whim He is speaking passes away. In other words, the events of which he speaks in this passage will be fulfilled by A.D. 70, one generation from the date He made the pronouncement.”

Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope, 111.

There are a number of hard passages for the preterist within the discourse (see Mathison 112-15 for his explanation of them), but Matthew 24:34 is the most difficult for the non-preterist. Bavinck’s explanation of Matthew 24:34 makes good sense:

The words “this generation” (ἡ γενεα αὑτη, hē genea hautē) cannot be understood to mean the Jewish people, but undoubtedly refer to the generation then living. On the other hand, it is clear that the words ‘all these things’ (παντα τυατα, panta tauta) do not include the parousia itself but only refer to the signs that precede and announce it. For after predicting the destruction of Jerusalem and the signs and his return and even the gathering of his elect by the angles, and therefore actually ending his eschatological discourse, Jesus proceeds in verse 32 to offer a practical application. Here he states that just as in the case of the fig tree the sprouting of the leaves announces the summer, so ‘all these things’ are signs that the end is near or that the Messiah is at the door. Here the expression panta tauta clearly refers to the signs of the coming parousia, not to the parousia itself, for else it would make no sense to say that when ‘these things’ occur, the end is ‘near.’ In verse 34 the words ‘all these things’ (panta tauta) have the same meaning. Jesus therefore does not say that his parousia will still occur within the time of the generation then living. What he says is that the signs and portents of it, as they would be visible in the destruction of Jerusalem and concomitant events, would begin to occur in the time of the generation then living.

Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4:687.

R. R. Reno on "On the Road"

by

The October issue of First Things also includes a thoughtful reflection by R. R. Reno on Kerouac’s book On the Road.

These are the paragraphs from the article that I found most thought-provoking:

The Beats were quintessential bohemians who felt the plain-Jane expectations of middle-class American life as an infecting, constraining force. Wife, career, mortgage, children, savings accounts, and quiet suburban streets: These were realities overlaid by the deadening expectations of conventional morality. Escape was essential, and, although Kerouac and the other Beats lacked Rousseau’s clarity about the constant impulse of human nature to accept and submit to social authority, they intuitively recognized the need for dramatic acts and symbols of transgression.

. . . . . . . . . .

In 1957, the New York Times review hailed the novel’s publication as “a historic occasion.” The review trumpeted that On the Road offers “the clearest and most important utterance yet made by the generation Kerouac himself named years ago as ‘beat,’ and whose principle avatar he is.” Of course, as David Brooks so cleverly observed in Bobos in Paradise, we’re all weekend beatniks now. The counterculture of transgression that dominates On the Road has thoroughly colonized our middle-class world.

Transgression and marginality have become the new normalcy. The bohemian rejection of social convention was first theorized as a normal stage of psychological development (“adolescent rebellion”), and more recently it has been made into both commercial fashions and academic dogma. Aging rock musicians go on tours and play their songs of youthful lust and rebellion to graying Baby Boomers . . . . College professors theorize transgression as an act of political freedom. It’s easy to see that Kerouac’s road that leads from the Beat fantasies of primal innocence to our own day, where white boys from the suburbs dress like drug dealers, girls like prostitutes, and millionaires like dock workers. Crotch-grabbing rap singers play the role of well-paid Dean Moriartys.

. . . . . . . . . . .

It is as if we very much want to believe in Dean, but, like Sal at the end of On the Road, we know we cannot rely on him to give us guidance. We want to believe the promises of bohemian life—to live according to our own innermost selves—but we are surrounded by the sadness of disappointed hope. The transgressive heroism of our imagination now looks as tawdry as daytime television. Bohemianism becomes banal and disappointing as it becomes dominant. We suffer the failures of the countercultural project even as we surround ourselves with its music, its rhetorical postures, and its fashions.

These paragraphs raise this question: If the current culture’s music, postures, and fashions reflect a “banal” and “tawdry” culture of transgression seeking to escape from conventional (and oftentimes Biblical) morality, then should not the church reject this culture’s music, postures, and fashions? Should not the church be culturally distinct in ways that point the surrounding society beyond its own cultural failures toward the culture of shalom that Christ will establish at his return?

Vatican II, Church Tradition, and Hermeneutics

by

Recently a segment of evangelicals has been pushing for the abandonment of sola Scriptura in favor of a theological approach that relies on both Scripture and Church Tradition.

D.H. Williams is a key figure moving some evangelicals this direction. Here’s a quote that captures some of his concerns and hints toward his proposed solution:

Despite the recent attempts of a few evangelical writers to inculcate a theory of sola scriptura as the real intent of the early church, there was no question in believers’ minds that Scripture could or should function in the life of the believer apart from the church’s Tradition. Were it to do so, there was scarce assurance that an orthodox Christian faith would be the result. While many parts of Scripture were inherently perspicuous and able to be understood with little outside assistance, post-apostolic Christians would have anathematized the principle set forth in Buswell’s systematic theology, ‘The rule is then give the Bible an opportunity, in you own mind, to interpret itself,’ as setting the stage for heretical aberrations.

D. H. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 98

The October 2008 issue of First Things contains an article which reveals the difficulty of using tradition rather than Scripture as the touchstone of orthodoxy. Richard John Neuhaus’ article, “What Really Happened at Vatican II” evaluates two books about Vatican II that present different visions of the council.

Included in the article is this section which focused on a quote from Benedict XVI about the council:

The question is one of hermeneutics, says the pope. There are, he suggests, two quite different ways of understanding the council: ‘On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call ‘a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture’; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the ‘hermeneutic of reform,’ of renewal in the continuity of the one subject, the Church that the Lord has given us. She is a subject that increases in time and develops, yet always remains the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.”

p. 25

This of course raises the question: If the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church struggles over the interpretation of a church council, how can it solve the problem of rightly interpreting Scripture. Or to put it another way, how does an authoritative interpretation of Scripture help when people can’t agree on the interpretation of the interpretation.

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part 15

by

In his epistles Paul also taught that Jesus is prophet, priest, and king.

In 2 Thessalonians he declared that Jesus will return a conquering king and a judge (1:7-10).

In 1 Corinthians he declared that Christ was sacrificed as a Passover lamb (5:7). He also declared that Christ will reign until he puts all his enemies, including death under his feet. Then he will deliver his kingdom up to the Father (15:24-28).

In Romans, Paul affirmed the Davidic rights of David (Rom 1:3). He sees these as integral to the gospel promised before by the prophets (1:2). He also recognized that Christ was the propitiatory sacrifice on behalf of men’s sins (3:25).

In Ephesians he referred to Christ’s resurrection and session as the time in which God granted the Son dominion over all things (1:20-23). Christ Jesus is the one who through his sacrifice invalidated the Old Covenant’s sacrificial ordinances (2:14).

In Philippians Paul connected the sacrifice of Christ on the cross with his exaltation (2:8-10).

Paul makes the same connection in Colossians (1:18). In the same context he refers to Christ’s sacrificial death (1:20). Later Paul returned to the exaltation and kingship themes (2:10; 3:1).

In his first letter to Timothy Paul called Christ “the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God” (1:17). In the second letter Paul spoke of believers reigning with Christ (1:11). This theme looks forward to a restoration of right dominion by mankind. Paul also looked forward to Christ returning as judge and establishing his kingdom on earth (4:1).

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part 14

by

Jesus did not remain dead. The gospel hangs on the fact of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.

Peter connected the resurrection and ascension of Jesus with his enthronement on the Davidic throne (Acts 2:29-36). In Acts 2:30-32 Peter said that David prophesied the resurrection in Psalm 16 because he knew God’s oath to place a Davidic descendant on the Davidic throne (Ps. 132:11)—thus connecting the resurrection and the ascension to the throne. Peter also connected the resurrection to the enthronement of the Davidic Messiah predicted in Psalm 110. The connections between Psalm 2 and Psalm 110 indicate that Peter has in view the Davidic enthronement and not some other enthronement.

Peter concludes on the basis of these passages that at the resurrection/ascension God “made [this Jesus] both Lord and Christ” (2:36). In what way was Jesus made Lord and Christ? “Lord” probably refers back to Peter’s quotation of Psalm 110:1. He was made Lord at the enthronement. He was also made Christ or Messiah. In the context, this indicates that Jesus was enthroned as Messiah.

Paul likewise testified that Jesus was the Davidic king, enthroned through his resurrection (Acts 13:22-23, 32-39). Paul’s argument was similar to Peter’s, but he appealed to Psalm 2:7 rather than to Psalm 110:1 for his enthronement text. Paul said the declaration, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you” was fulfilled in the resurrection (Acts 13:33). In the context of Psalm 2, this is the declaration of enthronement. Some object that since Psalm 2 teaches the Messianic king will be enthroned on Zion, Jesus cannot be reigning as the Davidic king from heaven. This ignores that prophecies are often fulfilled in stages. Jesus will one day rule from Zion as the Davidic king, but his enthronement has commenced from heaven.

On the basis of Jesus’ enthronement as the Davidic king, the apostles and elders determined that the Gentiles could participate in the church without the rituals required of Jewish proselytizes (Acts 15:14-19). As the apostles and elders wrestled over the relation between Jews and Gentiles in the church, Amos 9:12, with its promise of parity between Israel and the nations, provided insight in how to proceed. Niehaus notes that “the implication of the present statement is that the nations will not simply come under Israelite hegemony (as before), but that they will actually become one with God’s people” (492).

The timing of this promise is significant. The apostles were not at liberty to decide that since one day God will treat Jews and Gentiles equally, they may do so at any time. James was careful to quote the time frame for this promise. This promise is connected to the reestablishment of the Davidic dynasty.

The preaching of the early church also declared Jesus to be the fulfillment of the prophetic and priestly offices. Peter taught explicitly that Jesus was the Prophet like Moses (Acts 3:22), and Stephen’s martyr sermon climaxed by implying that Jesus was the messianic Prophet (Acts 7:52-53).

Philip declared to the Ethiopian eunuch that Jesus was guilt offering for sin (Acts 8:32-35). Thus the preaching of the early church as recorded in Acts affirms that Jesus is the King, Prophet, and Priest that Israel had been expecting.

Sources

Bock, Darrell L. “Covenants in Progressive Dispensationalism.” In Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism. Edited by Herbert W. Bateman IV. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999. See especially 159f., 199f.

Gibson, Aaron J. “Until His Enemies become His Footstool: A Biblical Theology of the Davidic Covenant in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts.” Ph.D. diss., Bob Jones University, 2003. See chapter 7 of this dissertation for detailed argumentation in favor of the position outlined above.

Niehaus, Jeff.  “Amos.” The Minor Prophets. Volume 1. Edited by Thomas McComiskey. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.