Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Bavinck on "Son of Man"

by

Herman Bavink’s Reformed Dogmatics contains one of the best treatments of Christology to be found. At one point he includes a helpful discussion of the title "Son of Man."

Here are a few key quotes:

Taking all this [previously discussed exegetical material] into consideration, we realize that with this name Jesus intends to distinguish himself from and position himself above all other humans. The name also undoubtedly implies that he was truly human, akin not only to Israel, but to all humans; yet it simultaneously expresses the fact that he occupies an utterly unique place among all humans.

Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 3:250

It does not follow that the people in general, or that even the disciples, on hearing the name, immediately thought of the Messiah. The opposite is likely the case, because he was never attacked on account of this title. People perhaps understood by it only that he was special, that he was an extraordinary human being, a fact that was immediately substantiated by his words and works. But for that very reason this name afforded Jesus an opportunity to cut off in advance all misunderstanding about his person and work, and to gradually inject into that name and unite with it the peculiar meaning of the messiahship that, in accordance with the Scriptures, was inherent in it to his mind.

Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 3:250

So then Jesus chose this name for himself to make known: (1) that he was not just the Son of David and King of Israel but the Son of Man, connected with all humans and giving his life as a ransom for many; (2) that he nonetheless occupied an utterly unique place among all humans, because he had descended from above, from heaven, lived in constant communion with the Father during his stay on earth, and had power to forgive sins, to bestow eternal life, to distribute to his own all the goods of the kingdom; (3) that he could not grasp this power violence as the Jews expected their Messiah to do, but that as the Servant of the Lord, he had to suffer and die for his people; and (4) that precisely by taking this road he would attain to the glory of the resurrection and the ascension, the elevation to God’s right hand, and the coming again for judgment."

Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 3:250f.

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part 11

by

Ezekiel continued Jeremiah’s theme of destruction coming on the failed prophet, priest, and king (Eze 7:26-27; 23:26-28). Like Jeremiah, Ezekiel condemned the shepherds of Israel (Eze 34:1-10, 17-19). The oracle of judgment is divided into two parts. The hope proffered after the first oracle is Yahweh’s declaration, “I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep” (Eze 34:11-16). The hope after the second oracle of judgment is the exaltation of the Davidic king (Eze 34:20-24).

In the restoration oracle of chapter 37, the hope of the Davidic king is once again placed before the people (Eze 37:22-28). In his vision of the great city-temple Ezekiel describes a figure called the “prince.” He seems to symbolize the right rule that the people will experience during this time (cf. Eze 45:9). Interestingly this prince seems to be involved in both kingly and priestly work. He leads in Sabbath and festival worship (It is worth noting that he is able to go through the gate by which the Lord entered the temple.).

The prophet Daniel, like Ezekiel, wrote during the exile. He envisioned God establishing a kingdom that would overcome the wicked human kingdoms that controlled the world throughout human history (Dan 2:44).

This dominion was granted to a person identified as “like a son of man” (Dan 7:13-14). In Genesis 1:28 God told humans that He intended for them to rule over the beasts. After the Fall, however, man was not able to fulfill this command as God intended. Instead, as Daniel 7 indicates, man has become bestial. But the Son of Man, in Daniel’s vision, will one day rule over the beasts. He will conquer those rulers who have become bestial in their exercise of dominion. He will be the ruler who will rightly exercise dominion over all the earth.

Daniel also looked forward to the day when definitive atonement would be made (Dan 9:24) and he relates this to the cutting off of the Messiah (Dan 9:26).

Machen on Liberalism

by

Machen on why liberal concessions to naturalism were wrongheaded:

In trying to remove from Christianity everything that could possibly be objected to in the name of science, in trying to bribe off the enemy by those concessions which the enemy most desires, the apologist has really abandoned what he started out to defend.

J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, (Eerdmans, 1923), 7-8

Christianity and Liberalism for $6.50

by

Westminster bookstore is offering J. Gresham Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism for 6.50 (+S&H). This is a must read book.

Machen’s thesis is reflected in the title. Liberalism is not Christianity; it is another religion. This gets at the root of the Fundamentalist objection to ecumenical endeavors with with liberals.

For further Machen resources, see John Piper’s biographical sermon and the biographies by Hart and Nichols (Hart’s is the more detailed, but I profited more from Nichols).

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part 10

by

Jeremiah prophesied in the last days of the kingdom of Judah. He laid the judgment of the nation at the feet of the priests, kings, and prophets: “The priests did not say, ‘Where is the Lord?’ Those who handle the law did not know me; the shepherds [kings] transgressed against me; the prophets prophesied by Baal and went after things that do not profit” (Jer 2:8; cf. Jer 2:26; 4:9; 8:1; 13:13; 50:6).

It is striking that the prophet who recounts the fall of Judah, highlights the failure of all three offices. The failure of these three offices led to exile. Lamentations, traditionally ascribed to Jeremiah, recounts the judgment of God on priest, king, and prophet (Lam. 1:4, 19; 2:6f., 22; 4:1-2, 20; 5:18).

Jeremiah 23 is a diatribe against the false priests, kings, and prophets (The focus of the first four verses is on the kings, and the focus of Jer 23:9-40 is on the prophets. The priests are mentioned in passing; Jer 23:11.).

In the midst of this oracle of judgment, God reminded the people of the promised Davidic king who would rule the people righteously. The name of this king is “Yaheweh is our righteousness” (Jer 23:5-6; cf. 30:9). There is no doubt that this Davidic king will rule. The Lord declared in the strongest terms that the Davidic covenant will be fulfilled (33:14-26).

Psalm 89 reveals the necessity of the prophetic assurances that the Davidic Covenant would be fulfilled. This Psalm recounts the Davidic covenant with an emphasis on God’s faithfulness (Ps 89:1-37). But from the perspective of the exile (see Steveson, 345; Goldingay, 2:665f.), it seems that  God had cast his people off (Ps 89:38-51).

The Psalmist does not think that God has entirely repudiated his covenant (on נָאַר see Kidner, 324; with the NASB; contra ESV, NRSV, HCSB, T/NIV). He asks, “How long?” (Ps 89:46), which looks forward to a time of restoration. He calls on God to remember (Ps 89:50), which is a prayer that presumes a covenant (see Myers, 206ff.). Nevertheless the closing verses of this Psalm reveal the full sense of God’s abandonment felt by those in exile.

Sources:

  • Steveson, Peter A. Psalms. Greenville: BJU Press, 2007.
  • Goldingay, John. Psalms 42-89. Baker Commentary on Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms. Edited by Tremper Longman III. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007.
  • Kidner, Derek. Psalms 73-150. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Edited by D. J. Wiseman. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1973.
  • Myers, Vernon Edward “The Forgotten Doctrine of Divine Remembering: A Biblical Theology of God’s Remembering.” Ph.D. dissertation: Bob Jones University, 2007.

John Carrick on Edwards’ Preaching

by

The Jonathan Edwards Center notes a new book, The Preaching of Jonathan Edwards, by John Carrick of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary.

Carrick has also written a helpful “theology of sacred rhetoric,” The Imperative of Preaching. This along with a lecture posted at the GPTS website provides a helpful balance to an over-reaction by some to the moralistic approach to Scripture critiqued recently (and rightly) by Mark Ward.

Frame on the Biblical Story

by

The story of the Bible is the narrative of God coming to be with his people as their Lord, in his control, authority, and presence. After creation and fall, the story is about redemption, and thus about Jesus.

John Frame, Doctrine of the Christian Life, 273.

I like the inclusion of God’s presence in his description of the story. Here is how I would trace the theme of God’s presence through Scripture in a thumbnail sketch:

At the Fall, mankind was thrust out from the presence of God (Gen. 3:8, 23f.). The covenant with Abraham, however, contained hope that God would one day dwell with men again (Gen. 17:8).  The Tabernacle/Temple was a first step toward permitting God and man to dwell together again (c.f. Exo. 25:8; 29:35). But the Tabernacle/Temple was deficient (cf. Heb. 8:7) in that it restricted people from God’s presence even as it symbolized His presence. Furthermore, God’s presence could be lost through sin.

The themes of God’s presence, the Spirit, and the temple converge in the prophet Ezekiel. Ezekiel was given a vision of the presence of God departing from the temple in judgment upon the people’s sins (11:22-23). This is followed by the promise of God’s indwelling presence, which will remedy Israel’s sin problem (36:27; 37:14). This, in turn, is followed by a vision of a coming Temple named יהוה שמה.

The incarnation of Jesus was a major step toward fulfilling Ezekiel’s vision. Jesus was Ἐμμανουήλ, “God with us” (Matt. 1:23). Or as John put it, “The Word became flesh and dwelt [ἐσκήνωσεν] among us” (John 1:14).

Jesus’ ascension was not, however, a redemptive-historical step backward “It is to your advantage that I go away,” Jesus tells the disciples, “for if I do not go away, the παράκλητος will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you” (John 16:7). This verse recalls John 7:39. There is a giving/sending of the Spirit that could only happen after Jesus was glorified and gone away. The farewell discourse links this giving of the Spirit with continued presence of God among men.

Paul continues to connects the concepts of temple and the indwelling presence of the Spirit. In 1 Corinthians 3:16 he speaks to the local church as “God’s temple.” He tells them that “God’s Spirit dwells in you.” He makes a similar statement about the individual Christian in 1 Corinthians 6:19. In these passages the dwelling of the Holy Spirit in the church or the believer is motivation for holiness, which connects well with the new covenant promises that the Spirit will transform the lives of those in the new covenant (Eze. 36:27).

The New Jerusalem is the ultimate fulfillment of the expectation of the more-than-restored presence of God.  “Its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (Rev. 21:22). God will dwell with man for eternity.

E. J. Young on Scholarship

by

Rob Bradshaw recently posted an article by E. J. Young, “Some Thoughts on Old Testament Scholarship.” The article is supurb. It would repay careful reading. Below are a few highlights:

Christian scholarship therefore is not ashamed of its presuppositions. In fact it glories in them,for it knows well enough that all approaches have presuppositions, whether consciously or unconsciously adopted. Christian scholarship knows where it stands and what it is seeking to accomplish. It understands that there is really but one alternative to the position which it has adopted. If it does not proceed upon the assumption that God is the ultimate source of meaning in life, and hence the ultimate point of predication, it knows that the only alternative is to believe and assert the ultimacy of the human mind. The human mind, however, is something created and finite, and from a finite source knowledge of the ultimate meaning of life can never come.

. . . . . . . . . .

The same may be said of some of the views that are being presented today, views which are widely acclaimed and even received with favour by some evangelicals. These theories have not the slightest hesitation in overriding express statements of the Bible. For that reason they are not in accord with Christian presuppositions and consequently they may be dismissed as mistaken explanations of Israel’s history and religion. This is not to say that there is no value in them or that they should not be studied. But the unlearned reader who simply reads the Old Testament itself and believes it to be true has a far more profound insight into the truth of Israel’s history and religion than he will find in the positions advocated by some modern scholars. One of the saddest signs of the times is that some evangelicals do not seem to recognise that fact.

May the writer be pardoned for mentioning personal experiences? Every now and then following a lecture, some young student will approach and say something like, ‘Why didn’t you pay more attention to Mowinckel, or, Do you not think that Von Rad’s writings are showing us some exciting new things in Old Testament studies?’ Now, surely, we should pay attention to what modern scholars are writing, and surely we can learn from modern scholars, but when we are making a serious effort to understand the history of Israel and its religion we shall learn far more by a serious exegesis of the Old Testament, an exegesis undertaken in a believing spirit, than we will from the writings of men such as Von Rad and Mowinckel who hold an extremely low view of the Bible. Christian scholarship rejoices in the confines that the infallible Word of God places upon it.

. . . . . . . . . .

And this brings us to what is probably the heart of the matter. True Christian scholarship will be characterised by humility. What, however, do we mean in this connexion by humility? We mean simply obedience to God. The humble scholar is the one who is truly obedient to God. But how shall one be obedient to God? The answer is that to be obedient to God means to do His will. We learn of His will, however, in His Word. Hence, we shall follow His Word in all that it says. Even though we may not always understand all the factors involved, we shall, if our desire is truly to be Christian, allow the Word of God to be our guide in all things. Its statements will direct our investigation, and we shall never dare to go contrary to those statements, for we know that they were breathed forth by Him who is truth itself and cannot lie. Christian scholarship then would be bound by the Bible, and rejoice that such is the case.

. . . . . . . . . .

Nor need we really be afraid of the term fundamentalist. Better to be called a fundamentalist than to be found in the ranks of those who deny the Bible. In the long run the truth will prevail, and if Christian scholarship continues in devotion to God’s Word, it need not fear what man can say. Its purpose in the last analysis is the glory of God, and in seeking to accomplish this purpose it may well expect opprobrium.

. . . . . . . . . .

The Christian scholar need not endeavour to read everything. Scholars who seek to read everything are notably superficial when it comes to really fundamental matters. If a man tries to read all that is written in his field he simply cannot have the time to do the solid research that is needed if he himself is to produce something worthwhile. Discernment is needed that he may concentrate upon those works from which he may truly derive profit.

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part 9

by

Isaiah, Hosea’s contemporary in the Southern Kingdom, made the same point: God did not want any more offerings.

The blood of bulls and goats brought him no delight, and the burning of incense was an abomination to God. He said that he had not required these people to come trampling through his courts. If they were to come before God, they must first make themselves clean (1:11-17; cf. 43:23-24; 66:3). The sacrifices were insufficient to truly address Israel’s sin problem.

Yet in these same contexts God spoke of a resolution to that sin problem. Their sins, though “like scarlet” and “crimson,” could be made “white as snow” or “wool” (1:18). God promised to “blot out your transgressions for my own sake” (43:25).

Isaiah revealed how God could do this justly. God said his Servant would be made “a guilt offering” (53:10; NASB). Many would be counted righteous because the Servant bore their iniquity as their sacrifice (53:11).

The roles of prophet, priest, and king are combined in the Isaianic Servant. This Servant will, as a true prophet, mediate God’s word to the nations (42:1-4; 49:6; 50:4). In doing this he will also fulfill the priestly role that Israel failed to fill. Furthermore, He will bring justice to the nations (42:1-4). This is the work of a king. The servant will be the king to whom all the other kings in the world will be subservient (49:7).

Isaiah’s revelation about this glorious person is not limited to the Servant Songs at the end of the book. As early as the second chapter, Isaiah spoke of Yahweh ruling as king from the Davidic city of Zion (2:3; cf. 18:7, 24:23; 31:4-5; 52:7). His rule is characterized not only by kingly judgment (2:4), but also by priestly and prophetic teaching (2:3). He will be to the people of Zion a Teacher, and they will all follow his teaching (30:19-22).

The rule of Yahweh in Zion may at first glance appear to be something different that the rule of the promised Davidic king, but Isaiah connects the two (other prophets may have also made and understood this connection; see Zeph. 3:15). A person called “Mighty God” will sit on the throne of David (9:6-7). This Davidic king will not only rule the world in righteousness (11:3-5; 16:3-5), but he will also restore the earth to Edenic conditions (11:6-9). How could a descendant of David—a man—be Yahweh ruling in Zion? Isaiah provides the answer to that question also. Isaiah told a king panicked at the threat to his life (which was also a threat to the Davidic line; 7:6) that a virgin would give birth to a son who would be named “God with us.”

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part 8

by

Through the writing prophets the Lord continued to send prophets to his people, warning them of the judgment to come if they continued in their sin. “But they would not listen, but were stubborn, as their fathers had been, who did not believe in the Lord their God” (2 Kgs 17:14).

These prophets prophesied of a coming day in which God would raise up the promised Davidic king. Though Uzziah, a relatively good Davidic king, sat on Judah’s throne during the time of Amos, God considered the Davidic booth fallen. The prophet looked forward to its restoration, and he tied the restoration of the Davidic booth with the restoration of Israel to the land and a return to Edenic conditions on earth (Amos 9:11-15).

The prophet Hosea predicted that God would put an end to the kings of Israel, and the people would realize that a king was no protection against enemies when their true problem was sin. But after a long time without a king Israel would return to seek God and his promised Davidic king (3:4-5). The Israelites begged for a king in 1 Samuel 8 so he could defeat their enemies and free them from the consequences of their sin. But in exile the people would be driven to admit, “and a king—what could he do for us?” (10:3).

Hosea also criticized Israel’s sacrificial worship. The Pentateuch presented sacrifices as a way for a sinful people to make atonement before God and have their sins forgiven. But these people had a problem that ran much deeper than specific sins. Their hearts were uncircumcised (Deut. 30:6), and as a result they did not love God (cf. Deut. 6:5). Through Hosea God says, “I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burn offerings” (6:6). Since sacrifices failed to penetrate deeply enough to solve the Israelite’s true problem, the Lord refused their sacrifices (8:13).