Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Two new books from Bob Jones University Seminary

by

BJU Press announced today the release of two new books from professors at BJU’s seminary.

Upright Downtime: Making Wise Choices About Entertainment
Upright Downtime: Making Wise Choices About Entertainment
by Brian Hand
Price: $9.95
ISBN: 978-1-59166-856-5
Publisher: BJU Press, 2008
Length: 116 pp.
Format: softbound

See the table of contents and first chapter here.

Christian and Drinking, The: A Biblical Perspective
Christian and Drinking, The: A Biblical Perspective
by Randy Jaeggli
Price: $9.95
ISBN: 978-1-59166-919-7
Publisher: BJU Press, 2008
Length: 80 pp.
Format: softbound

See the table of contents and first chapter here.

John Frame on Enjoying God Forever – Part 5

by

So our life with God is in the deepest sense an enjoyment of him…. In the end, one cannot glorify God without enjoying him. The goal expressed by WSC, 1, is, in the most profound sense, not twofold, but one. God desires to share his glory with his people, his image, his sons and daughters, his bride. He is not like Molech (Lev. 18:21), the false god who demanded human sacrifice. Rather, our God delights in the fulfillment of human potential.

Grudging obedience is not what he desires of us. It may be better than no obedience at all, but it is seriously defective. We should seek, not only to obey him, but also to delight in obedience. That delight comes from prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, through immersion in the words of Scripture and the hearts of the great saints of redemptive history, and through fellowship of the church in Word and sacrament.

John Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life, 306.

John Frame on Enjoying God Forever – Part 4

by

Scripture does condemn selfishness and preoccupation with our own comfort and pleasure (Matt. 6:24-34; 1 Cor. 6:13; Phil. 3:19; 1 Tim. 5:6; James 5:5). It demands self-sacrifice, even enduring hardship (Matt. 24:13; Mark 10:29-30; 2 Tim 2:3; 4:5; Heb. 12:7; James 1:12; 1 Peter 2:19), and persecution (Matt. 5:10-12, 44; 10
:23; 13:21; John 15:20; Rom. 8:35; 12:14; 1 Cor. 4:12; 2 Cor. 12:10; 2 Thess. 1:4; 2 Tim. 3:12). But some of the passages that describe most graphically the rigors and difficulties of the Christians life also emphasize its rewards. [Frame notes Matthew 5:10-12; James 1:12; Mark 10:29-30; 2 Corinthians 12:10.] Evidently, then, the biblical principle is that the pleasures of serving God are not primarily short-term, but long term, though of course God gives us many short-term blessings as well. Note the ‘little while’ by which Peter describes the length of our hardship: [here Frame cites 1 Peter 3:1-9]. Compare with this Paul’s reference to his ‘slight momentary affliction’ that is ‘preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison’ (2 Cor. 4:17; cf. Rom. 8:18-25, 35-39). Although our suffering in the present may seem sometimes to outweigh the blessing of God, in eternity those troubles will seem tiny. And through God’s Word we are able to view the present time in the light of eternity, recognizing the true proportions of things. In that light, those like Paul are able to say, even in the midst of terrible suffering [see 2 Cor. 11:24-33], that it is light and momentary.

John Frame, Doctrine of the Christian Life, 306.

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.

Things I don’t get

by

I don’t get the common evangelical impulse to find whatever good can be salvaged from the wrecks of popular culture. The most recent example I’ve stumbled across is in the September issue of CT [print edition, p. 93].

Craig Finn, lead singer and songwriter for Brooklyn’s the Hold Steady, writes about drug addiction, casual sex, and Jesus. There’s lots of debauchery as well as religious iconography in most of these songs. . . . Stay Positive is a gritty, supremely uncomfortable masterpiece, a Christ-haunted work that finds glimmers of glory even in the gutter.

Of course good can be found in many depraved people and activities. The doctrine of total depravity does not teach that all men are as bad as possible. Thus it seems as though asking "is there anything good that can be found in this?" is the wrong question to ask of popular culture. If that is the question, the answer will always be yes.

John Frame on Enjoying God Forever – Part 3

by

Even God’s law, which we often regard as a stern taskmaster, is a delight to the redeemed heart (Pss. 1:2; 119:97; Rom. 7:22), a gift of God’s grace (Ps. 119:29). It is our way of life, not in the sense that it brings us eternal life apart from grace, but in the sense that it brings fullness of  blessing to those who are saved by grace and walk in God’s ways (Lev. 18:5; Deut. 5:33; 8:3; 11:13-15; 28:1-4; 30:11-20). God has given the law for our good (Deut. 10:12-13; 4:40; 12:28).

John Frame, Doctrine of the Christian Life, 304.

John Frame on Enjoying God Forever – Part 2

by

The second prescriptive [of the WSC, viz. to enjoy God forever] is entirely scriptural. To redeemed human beings, glorifying God is a delight. In chapter 16, I showed how often Scripture mentions the rewards that God has promised to those who love him. Those rewards are delightful beyond our imagining, and they are a powerful motivation to obedience. In that chapter, I emphasized, that the Christian ethic is far removed from Kantian deontology, in which we do our duty for duty’s sake, with no thought of reward. Rather, in the Christian life, we seek to do God’s will for God’s rewards.

John Frame, Doctrine of the Christian Life, 304.

Here are Frame’s comments from Chapter 16:

God promises rewards to his people, and they receive those rewards when Jesus returns. That promise serves as an additional motivation (Ps. 19:11; Matt. 5:12, 46; 6:1-6; 10:41-42; Rom 14:10; 1 Cor. 3:8-15; 9:17-25; 2 Cor. 5:10; Eph. 6:7-8; Col. 3:23-25; 2 Tim. 4:8; 1 Peter 5:4; James 1:12; 2 John 8; Rev. 11:18).

I confess that I was surprised by the number of times Scripture uses rewards to motivate obedience. Like many of us, I tend toward the Kantian notion that we should simply do our duty for duty’s sake and never think about reward. But that notion is quite unbiblical. If God takes the trouble (this many times!) to urge our obedience by a promise of reward, we should embrace that promise with thanks, not despise it. That is, we should not only do good works, but we should do them for this reason.

 

This teaching, of course, is not salvation by works or merit. Although the word reward is used in these passages, there is no suggestion that we have earned the reward in the sense that we have paid God what the reward is worth. Jesus says that even when we have done everything commanded of us (and not one of us has done that), we have none no more than our duty (Luke 17:7-10). Indeed, in that case we are ‘unworthy’ servants. Elsewhere, Scripture represents the reward as something out of all proportion to the service rendered (Matt. 19:29; 20:1-16; 24:45-47; 25:21-30; Luke 7:36-50; 12:37).

 

Nevertheless, there is some sort of gradation in the rewards given to individuals. . . . The parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14-30; cf. Luke 19:11-27) provides the best argument for proportionate rewards. One cannot argue, however, that the degree of investment success ascribed to the first two servants entitles them, as a strict payment, to the master’s rewards. Rather, the master acts generously, out of the goodness of his heart. This is to say that here, as with every transaction we have with God, we deal with him as a person, not with an impersonal principle of cause and effect.

 

Essentially, the reward is the kingdom itself (Matt. 5:3, 10; 25:34), which comes by electing grace (Matt. 25:34; Luke 12:31-32). Good works follow, rather than precede, this gift (Luke 12:33-48). TO put it differently, the Lord himself is the inheritance of his people (Pss. 16:5; 73:24-26; Lam. 3:24). He is the inheritance of every believer. If there are differences of degree, they are differences of intimacy with the Lord himself. If some glorified saints lie closer than others to God’s heart, no one else will be jealous or angry, for the eternal kingdom excludes such emotions. Rather, the lesser members of that kingdom will rejoice t the greater blessings given to others, and those who are greatest will serve the lesser—beginning with the Lord himself [Luke 12:37] . . . . Who would not want as much intimacy as possible with such a wonderful Lord? Here is a reward that profoundly motivates holiness of heart and life.

John Frame, Doctrine of the Christian Life, 283-85.

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part 13

by

Four hundred years after the last book of the OT was penned, an angel appeared to a priest named Zechariah while he was burning incense in the temple. The angel announced that Zechariah’s elderly wife would give birth to a son who would, “in the spirit and power of Elijah,” prepare the way for the Lord (Luke 1:8-17).

Six months later the angel Gabriel visited a virgin pledged to be married to Joseph, a descendent of David. She, as a virgin, would conceive a son who would be the promised David king. “He will reign over the house of Jacob, and of his kingdom there will be no end” (Luke 1:26-33). Mary responded to this great news by singing a hymn reminiscent of the one sung by Hannah so long ago (Luke 1:46-55; 1 Samuel 2:1-10).

Matthew, who opened his gospel by explicitly identifying Jesus as “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matt. 1:1), recorded the announcement to Joseph. An angel told Joseph this Son was to be named Jesus, “Yahweh saves,” because he would accomplish the great problem facing mankind from Genesis 3 throughout the rest of Scripture. He would solve the problem that no priest or king or prophet had even been able to solve. He would “save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21).

Furthermore, he is named “Yahweh saves” because he is Yahweh. The angel quotes Isaiah 7:14 to substantiate the claim that Jesus was “God with us.” Remember, Isaiah is the prophet who most clearly connects Yahweh ruling from Zion with the ruling Davidic king. These royal announcements framed Jesus birth, even though he did not begin life on earth in any particularly royal way. He was born in a stable and into an artisan’s family.

During his ministry Jesus identified himself as the Son of Man. For those with ears to hear, this was a royal declaration. His message was the message of the kingdom: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:14-15).

Much of his earthly ministry was preaching. Indeed, that was one reason Jesus came (Mark 1:38). The people recognized that he was a prophet (Matt 21:46; Mark 6:15; 8:28; Luke 7:16, 39; Luke 9:8, 19; John 4:19; 9:17). Jesus also identified himself as a prophet (Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24; 13:33). This was no insignificant identification. The people of Israel were expecting the Prophet like Moses (John 1:25; see Carson, John, PNTC, 143). In a few cases people identified Jesus with that Prophet (John 6:14; 7:40). It is worth noting that record of people ascribing the office of the Prophet to Jesus occurs in John, the gospel that testifies that Jesus is the Word. [For a convincing demonstration that Jesus is presented as the Word throughout John’s gospel see Robert H. Gundry, Jesus the Word according to John the Sectarian, 4-50.]

After Peter’s confession that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, Jesus began to prophesy his own death (Mark 8:31-38; 9:9, 30-32; 10:32-34). He used sacrificial terminology to describe his death (Matt. 20:28; 10:45). The Gospels climax with the record of Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross.

In Jesus all the Old Testament hopes for a Messiah—a prophet, priest, and king to set the world right—are realized. The excitement at the arrival of such a person is most evident in the opening chapters of Luke. The significance of Jesus’ life death, and resurrection is explained in the epistles.

Sources:

Carson, D. A.  The Gospel According to John, Pillar New Testament Commentary. Edited by D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

Gundry, Robert H. Jesus the Word according to John the Sectarian: A Paleofundamentalist Manifesto for Contemporary Evangelicalism, especially its Elites, in North America. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

John Frame on Enjoying God Forever

by

But the Catechism adds a second phrase to its formulation of our chief end: ‘to enjoy him forever.’ At first it is difficult to see how these two phrases fit together. The first is theocentric, but the second appears to be anthropocentric. The first is distinctly biblical, but the second sounds rather like the goal of pleasure in secular teleological ethics.

 

It helps to notice, however, that even the second phrase is centered on God. We are not to enjoy ourselves, but to enjoy him. So the second phrase calls us to find our chief enjoyment in God, not in the world. To embrace the enjoyment of God as the goal of life is to sing with Asaph:

 

Whom have I in heaven but you?

   And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you.

My flesh and my heart may fail,

   but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.

For behold, those who are far from you shall perish;

  you put an end to everyone who is unfaithful to you.

But for me it is good to be near God;

   I have made the Lord GOD my refuge,

   that I may tell of all your works. (Ps. 73:25-28)

 

Although Asaph uses forms of the first person pronoun ten times in this passage, and thirty-three times in the whole psalm, these verses are profoundly theocentric. So when the Catechism moves from the first phrase to the second, it is not moving form God-centeredness to man-centeredness. Rather, it is looking at God-centeredness from two perspectives.

John Frame, Doctrine of the Christian Life, 303f.

Machen on Liberals and Judaizers

by

But what was the difference between the teaching of Paul and the teaching of the Judaizers? What was it that gave rise to the stupendous polemic of the Epistle to the Galatains?

. . . . . . . . . . .

The difference concerned only the logical—not even, perhaps, the temporal—order of three steps. Paul said that a man (1) first believes on Christ, (2) then is justified before God, (3) then immediately proceeds to keep God’s law. The Judaizers said that a man (1) believes in Christ and (2) keeps the law of God the best he can, and then (3) is justified. The difference would seem to modern ‘practical’ Christians to be a highly subtle and intangible matter, hardly worthy of consideration at all in view of the large measure of agreement in the practical realm. What a splendid cleaning up of Gentile cities it would have been if the Judaizers had succeeded in extending to those cities the observance of the Mosaic law, even including the unfortunate ceremonial observances! Surely Paul ought to have applied to them the great principle of Christian unity.

As a matter of fact, however, Paul did nothing of the kind; and only because he (and others) did nothing of the kind does the Christian Church exist to-day.

Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, 23f.