Bad Language Warning! Watch it with the volume turned off if you'd rather not hear some crude cussing.
And what's the deal with the propellor caps and big lollipops?
Monday, October 22, 2007
This is my Brother's World
For many the Christian world view is relatively simple.
1. God created the world and man.
2. Man was created to obey God.
3. Man disobeyed and so God justly punished him.
4. But God mercifully decided to send his Son into the world to save man.
5. The Son then became man at the appropriate time for man's salvation.
6. Now those who trust the Son can go to heaven when they die.
For some #4-6 are important to understand for the purposes of attaining eternal life. But when Christians think about and interact with their culture, it is sufficient to impress upon people the fact that the world and man have been created by God and things would go better for everyone if we heeded his moral law. Getting people to confess the existence of a "Creator" is what really matters.
I'm overstating this, of course. But only a little bit. We tend to read Genesis one with deistic results. Even though the text talks explicitly about the participation of the Spirit in creation and on the sixth day the Creator says, "Let us make man in our image," nevertheless, we resist reading the creation account with trinitarian eyes.
But according to the inspired commentary given to us in the New Testament, the Son and Spirit do not begin their association with the world and humanity only after the fall. The eternal Son was intimately involved with creation from the start. More than that even, the Son was the reason God the Father created the world in the first place. The Father created the world as a gift for his Son. He created humanity to be the Son's brother, or if we think about humanity as whole as feminine, then we were created to be the Son's wife.
Now, there's all sorts of things to say about this. But I'll settle for a few brief comments.
First, according to the New Testament, the eternal Son was/is the original Image of God the Father (2 Cor. 4:1-6; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:2-3; ). Actually, "image" is just another way of saying "son" (see Gen. 5:2 or Luke 3:38). Adam was a created son. Jesus was the eternal Son. The model or archetype for Adam was the original Image, the eternal Son. In other words, humanity was made to be like the eternal Son. There was a special affinity between the Son and humanity, an affinity which makes the Son's incarnation fitting.
Second, the NT makes is abundantly clear that the Son was a participant in the work of creation. When John tells us that "all things were made through him" (that is the Word) and apart from him nothing was made (John 1:3), he is drawing out the full meaning of the narrative of Genesis one. God fashioned the world by speaking, as we here in Psalm 33:6, "By the word of Yahweh the heavens were made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth." The Son/Word was a divine agent of creation, according to Col. 1:16, 1 Cor. 8:6, Eph. 3:9, and Heb. 1:2.
Third, more than that, however, according to the inspired commentary in the NT, the Son not only participated in the act of creation but he was the reason for creation. It is not enough to say that he was there and acted with the Father and the Spirit during the process of creation. The astonishing revelation in the NT is that "all things were created for him" (Col. 1:16). God the Father created all things FOR the Son. Let's be clear about this. Even before the fall, God the Father intended the created world to be for his Son. The created world was intended to be a gift for his Son.
This has huge implications for the way we present the Christian world view. We are not being faithful to the nature and purpose of created reality if we are content to talk simply about a generic God creating the world. It's much more complex than that. And the complexity introduces richness into the vision. Our vision is not like Islam's. The world is related to God in richly complex ways because God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This rich trinitarian vision (which I've not really even begun to unpack) has great evangelistic potential, IMHO.
1. God created the world and man.
2. Man was created to obey God.
3. Man disobeyed and so God justly punished him.
4. But God mercifully decided to send his Son into the world to save man.
5. The Son then became man at the appropriate time for man's salvation.
6. Now those who trust the Son can go to heaven when they die.
For some #4-6 are important to understand for the purposes of attaining eternal life. But when Christians think about and interact with their culture, it is sufficient to impress upon people the fact that the world and man have been created by God and things would go better for everyone if we heeded his moral law. Getting people to confess the existence of a "Creator" is what really matters.
I'm overstating this, of course. But only a little bit. We tend to read Genesis one with deistic results. Even though the text talks explicitly about the participation of the Spirit in creation and on the sixth day the Creator says, "Let us make man in our image," nevertheless, we resist reading the creation account with trinitarian eyes.But according to the inspired commentary given to us in the New Testament, the Son and Spirit do not begin their association with the world and humanity only after the fall. The eternal Son was intimately involved with creation from the start. More than that even, the Son was the reason God the Father created the world in the first place. The Father created the world as a gift for his Son. He created humanity to be the Son's brother, or if we think about humanity as whole as feminine, then we were created to be the Son's wife.
Now, there's all sorts of things to say about this. But I'll settle for a few brief comments.
First, according to the New Testament, the eternal Son was/is the original Image of God the Father (2 Cor. 4:1-6; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:2-3; ). Actually, "image" is just another way of saying "son" (see Gen. 5:2 or Luke 3:38). Adam was a created son. Jesus was the eternal Son. The model or archetype for Adam was the original Image, the eternal Son. In other words, humanity was made to be like the eternal Son. There was a special affinity between the Son and humanity, an affinity which makes the Son's incarnation fitting.
Second, the NT makes is abundantly clear that the Son was a participant in the work of creation. When John tells us that "all things were made through him" (that is the Word) and apart from him nothing was made (John 1:3), he is drawing out the full meaning of the narrative of Genesis one. God fashioned the world by speaking, as we here in Psalm 33:6, "By the word of Yahweh the heavens were made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth." The Son/Word was a divine agent of creation, according to Col. 1:16, 1 Cor. 8:6, Eph. 3:9, and Heb. 1:2.
Third, more than that, however, according to the inspired commentary in the NT, the Son not only participated in the act of creation but he was the reason for creation. It is not enough to say that he was there and acted with the Father and the Spirit during the process of creation. The astonishing revelation in the NT is that "all things were created for him" (Col. 1:16). God the Father created all things FOR the Son. Let's be clear about this. Even before the fall, God the Father intended the created world to be for his Son. The created world was intended to be a gift for his Son.
This has huge implications for the way we present the Christian world view. We are not being faithful to the nature and purpose of created reality if we are content to talk simply about a generic God creating the world. It's much more complex than that. And the complexity introduces richness into the vision. Our vision is not like Islam's. The world is related to God in richly complex ways because God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This rich trinitarian vision (which I've not really even begun to unpack) has great evangelistic potential, IMHO.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
The Son of God - Part VIII
Continued from Part VII
The Davidic Seed as Royal Son: Psalm 2:6-9
What I will discuss in this post is crucial for understanding not only Romans 1:4 but the biblical theology of Jesus' Sonship in the New Testament.
In Psalm 2 we not only discover many of the same images from 2 Sam. 7, but the vision is greatly enriched. The Psalm is explicitly tied to 2 Samuel 7 by the Psalmist’s description of the decree of Yahweh in v. 7. A comparison of 2 Sam. 7:14 and Psalm 2:7 shows the connection:
"I will tell of the decree: Yahweh said to me, 'You are my son; today I have begotten you.'" (Psalm 2:7)
"I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son" (2 Sam. 7:14)
The author of Hebrews makes the connection explicit, quoting both passages side by side: “For to which of the angels did He ever say: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You’? And again: ‘I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son’? (Heb. 1:5).
What we see, therefore in Psalm 2 is the conceptual connections we noted earlier in 2 Sam. 7 made explicit and even enlarged. “My Son” is “My king” (Ps. 2:6). Sonship entitles one to rule (Ps. 2:9). The establishment of Yahweh’s rule will be accomplished by means of the Son’s quelling of his enemies’ rebellious uprising (2:1-3), either by the exercise of his wrath or by the humble submission of the enemies (2:10-12).
And again, we have the reign of Yahweh coordinated and implemented by the Son, so that by serving the Son one serves Yahweh (2:11-12). Yahweh is enthroned in heaven (2:4), but he mediates his rule by means of his Son, who is installed “on Zion, my holy hill” (2:6). When the Son of David rules on Zion, the reign of Yahweh is properly on earth (1 Chron. 28:5; 29:23; 2 Chron. 9:8).
The Psalmist's mention of Zion and Yahweh’s holy mountain is one example of the way he enlarges upon, or better, unpacks the relational/symbolic connections associated with the Davidic Son. Now we learn that the Son as King is installed on Zion, Yahweh’s holy mountain). Of course, we knew from 1 Kings 7:1 and 9:10 that David’s son, Solomon, not only constructed a house/palace for Yahweh, but he also built a palace for himself adjacent to the Yahweh’s temple. These are often mentioned in tandem (e.g. 2 Kings 23:14), because they were built side by side.
The temple of Yahweh contained the ark of God which was his “footstool” (1 Chron. 28:2; Ps. 99:5; Lam. 2:1). He reigns from heaven but his presence or “dwelling place” is situated at his footstool, the ark in the temple (Ps. 132:7; Acts 7:49). Solomon’s house/palace also had a throne with a “golden” footstool (remember ark was covered with gold, 1 Chron. 28:18; Heb. 9:4) as well as two guardian lions which were poised over the footstool on the arm rests (2 Chron. 9:18), calling to mind the two Cherubim guardians covering the ark. All of this not only suggests once again the close connection between Yahweh’s house/throne and the Royal son of David’s, but the architectural imagery was no doubt striking in its symbolism.
Yahweh’s heavenly throne’s footstool terminated in his earthly temple on Mt. Zion and right next to it on that same holy mountain was his son’s palace and throne. Architecturally, then, the son reigned at the right hand of Yahweh. Thus, when the old Mosaic symbolic world of the tabernacle was transfigured into the Davidic covenantal arrangement with the permanent, stone temple at its center, the new covenantal polity was made visible in the symbolic architecture of Yahweh’s temple and beside it the palace of the Davidic king.
The son of David, then, is the son of Yahweh’s right hand, and as such he is ruler (see Psalm 80:14, 17, where the “son” is the man at God’s right hand, who has been “strengthened ” or “raised up”; cf. Jer. 22:24). The right hand is the position of power and rule (Ex. 15:6, 12; Ps. 20:6, and the many references in the Psalms to the security and deliverance found in the “right hand” of Yahweh). We might understand better now why Psalm 110 is associated with Psalm 2 in the minds of the Apostles as prophetic of the resurrection and enthronement of Jesus (Mark 16:19; Acts 22:33. 34; 5:33; 7:55; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22), and why even Jesus himself understood his coming exaltation as being a positioning at the right hand of his Father (Matt. 26:64; Mk. 14:62; Luke 22:26).
Moreover, the son at God’s right hand, is the son that will inherit the Father’s blessing (Gen. 48:13, 14, 17, 18, “And Joseph said to his father, “Not so, my father; for this one is the first-born; put your right hand upon his head”). Which means that the Davidic son is also inheritor, according to Ps. 2:8 (“Ask of me, and I will me the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession”). Both of these Hebrew words are associated with “inheritance”—the first typically with land and the second also with land, but sometimes with persons (eg. Ps. 37:18; 74:2; 79:1; Isa. 19:25; Ez. 36:12; 44:28; Micah 7:14, 18) and other more intangible “possessions” like blessings, the family or tribal name, etc (Gen. 31:14; Num. 18:21-26; Ps. 127:3). In Psalm 2 the son is promised “the nations” and “the ends of the earth” for his inherited possession.
Furthermore, in context these nations are the foreign powers aligned against Yahweh and his “anointed one” (Ps. 2:1-5). A more comprehensive vision can hardly be conceived. The Royal son gets all the nations and every square inch of land on earth. Such a conception of world dominion (Ps. 18:43-47; 72:8-11; 89:25), although not fully achieved by any Judahite king, is nevertheless not simply exaggeration, but remained “hidden” and prophetic of the reign of the Greater Son of David. Not surprisingly, Paul references the mission of the appointed Son of God as bringing about “the obedience of faith among all the nations/Gentiles” (Rom. 1:5), precisely what is said to be promised to the Son as his inheritance upon his enthronement in Psalm 2:8 (“the nations for your inheritance”). In the New Testament, the Son/Image of God is one who has the rights and inheritance of the Firstborn (Ex. 4:22; Ps. 89:27; Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15-20; Heb. 12:23; Rev. 1:5).
Mention of the world-wide extent of the son of David’s rule also ties in with the original mandate and promise given to Adam, the son of God. Whatever else Adam’s being made in the “image and likeness” of God entailed, according to the context of Genesis 1:26, it involved “ruling” over all the earth. It is given to Adam as a mandate: “Let us make man in our image and let them rule over the. . . earth ” (1:26) and “Rule over the fish. . .” (1:28). In addition, we learn from Genesis 5:3 and Luke 3:38 that being an image-bearer is linked to sonship. Man as the image of God means man is a son of God. The New Testament makes this clear when it brings the terms “son” and “image” together when it describes Christ. And as we have seen, one function of being a son/image of God was dominion or ruling. Adam was created to rule over the entire earth as God’s son, his vicegerent. This was not to happen. Man fell.
What does this have to do with the Son of David? The two are connected by the phrases “the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. 2:9, 17; 3:5) and “knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:5). The phrase is not used very often in the Old Testament. In Deut. 1:39, 2 Sam. 19:35, and Isa. 7:15, 16 when one lacks the knowledge of good and evil it is evidence of childhood and immaturity, of the lack of discernment and inability to govern wisely. In 2 Sam. 19:35 Samuel complains that because he is 80 years old he can no longer “know good and evil.” Old age makes one unfit for the discernment required for governing. All these references so far have concerned the ability to adjudicate and discern right from wrong, something essential for those who rule. The phrase, then, refers to what is foundational to governing, the competence to “judge between good and evil.” This would suggest that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was associated with mature judgment and rule. Satan’s challenge to Adam and Eve—that they upon eating from the tree they would be “like gods” (elohim) is not entirely inaccurate since the title is often used in the Old Testament to refer to human rulers/judges (Ex. 21:6; 22:8, 9, 28; Ps. 58:1; Ps. 82: 6-7; cf. Jn. 10:34). The knowledge of good and evil is what a son needs to rule. According to 1 Kings 3:9 it is precisely what David’s son, Solomon, asks for when given the chance to request anything of Yahweh:
Moreover, Solomon is presented as an Adamic king in the Bible. Just as Adam named the animals (Gen. 2:19-20) so also Solomon gained wisdom as he investigated the creation. “Also he spoke of trees, from the cedar tree of Lebanon even to the hyssop that springs out of the wall; he spoke also of animals, of birds, of creeping things, and of fish” (1 Kings 4:33). The kingship of Solomon, in other words, was a fulfilment not only of the promises made to Abraham and Israel, but of God’s commission to Adam as well. Just so, Solomon, the son of David—indeed, as we have seen, son of Yahweh’s—becomes the typological model for the Greater Son of David’s rule as the Second Adam.
Jesus is appointed Son of God with power when he is gifted with ruling over all of creation as man. “He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born over all creation” (Col. 1:15). In fact, the scope of Jesus dominion is much greater than Solomon’s. It embraces the entire creation. Another reference to Jesus as the resurrected Lord who rules over all as the “second man” or Adam is 1 Cor. 15:20-57. This passage, of course, has christological and soteriological significance that goes well beyond our narrow concerns here; nevertheless, royal sonship imagery is not peripheral to Paul’s purpose (note the references to Christ’s kingdom, 1 Cor. 15:24; his reign, 15:25; the vanquishing of his enemies, 15:27 [Ps. 110:1]; and the references to Jesus as the “last Adam,” 15:45-49, whose “image” we shall all bear when we are “raised in power” like he has been, 15:43, 49).
The Davidic Seed as Royal Son: Psalm 2:6-9
What I will discuss in this post is crucial for understanding not only Romans 1:4 but the biblical theology of Jesus' Sonship in the New Testament.
In Psalm 2 we not only discover many of the same images from 2 Sam. 7, but the vision is greatly enriched. The Psalm is explicitly tied to 2 Samuel 7 by the Psalmist’s description of the decree of Yahweh in v. 7. A comparison of 2 Sam. 7:14 and Psalm 2:7 shows the connection:
"I will tell of the decree: Yahweh said to me, 'You are my son; today I have begotten you.'" (Psalm 2:7)
"I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son" (2 Sam. 7:14)
The author of Hebrews makes the connection explicit, quoting both passages side by side: “For to which of the angels did He ever say: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You’? And again: ‘I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son’? (Heb. 1:5).
What we see, therefore in Psalm 2 is the conceptual connections we noted earlier in 2 Sam. 7 made explicit and even enlarged. “My Son” is “My king” (Ps. 2:6). Sonship entitles one to rule (Ps. 2:9). The establishment of Yahweh’s rule will be accomplished by means of the Son’s quelling of his enemies’ rebellious uprising (2:1-3), either by the exercise of his wrath or by the humble submission of the enemies (2:10-12).
And again, we have the reign of Yahweh coordinated and implemented by the Son, so that by serving the Son one serves Yahweh (2:11-12). Yahweh is enthroned in heaven (2:4), but he mediates his rule by means of his Son, who is installed “on Zion, my holy hill” (2:6). When the Son of David rules on Zion, the reign of Yahweh is properly on earth (1 Chron. 28:5; 29:23; 2 Chron. 9:8).
The Psalmist's mention of Zion and Yahweh’s holy mountain is one example of the way he enlarges upon, or better, unpacks the relational/symbolic connections associated with the Davidic Son. Now we learn that the Son as King is installed on Zion, Yahweh’s holy mountain). Of course, we knew from 1 Kings 7:1 and 9:10 that David’s son, Solomon, not only constructed a house/palace for Yahweh, but he also built a palace for himself adjacent to the Yahweh’s temple. These are often mentioned in tandem (e.g. 2 Kings 23:14), because they were built side by side.
The temple of Yahweh contained the ark of God which was his “footstool” (1 Chron. 28:2; Ps. 99:5; Lam. 2:1). He reigns from heaven but his presence or “dwelling place” is situated at his footstool, the ark in the temple (Ps. 132:7; Acts 7:49). Solomon’s house/palace also had a throne with a “golden” footstool (remember ark was covered with gold, 1 Chron. 28:18; Heb. 9:4) as well as two guardian lions which were poised over the footstool on the arm rests (2 Chron. 9:18), calling to mind the two Cherubim guardians covering the ark. All of this not only suggests once again the close connection between Yahweh’s house/throne and the Royal son of David’s, but the architectural imagery was no doubt striking in its symbolism.
Yahweh’s heavenly throne’s footstool terminated in his earthly temple on Mt. Zion and right next to it on that same holy mountain was his son’s palace and throne. Architecturally, then, the son reigned at the right hand of Yahweh. Thus, when the old Mosaic symbolic world of the tabernacle was transfigured into the Davidic covenantal arrangement with the permanent, stone temple at its center, the new covenantal polity was made visible in the symbolic architecture of Yahweh’s temple and beside it the palace of the Davidic king.
The son of David, then, is the son of Yahweh’s right hand, and as such he is ruler (see Psalm 80:14, 17, where the “son” is the man at God’s right hand, who has been “strengthened ” or “raised up”; cf. Jer. 22:24). The right hand is the position of power and rule (Ex. 15:6, 12; Ps. 20:6, and the many references in the Psalms to the security and deliverance found in the “right hand” of Yahweh). We might understand better now why Psalm 110 is associated with Psalm 2 in the minds of the Apostles as prophetic of the resurrection and enthronement of Jesus (Mark 16:19; Acts 22:33. 34; 5:33; 7:55; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22), and why even Jesus himself understood his coming exaltation as being a positioning at the right hand of his Father (Matt. 26:64; Mk. 14:62; Luke 22:26).
Moreover, the son at God’s right hand, is the son that will inherit the Father’s blessing (Gen. 48:13, 14, 17, 18, “And Joseph said to his father, “Not so, my father; for this one is the first-born; put your right hand upon his head”). Which means that the Davidic son is also inheritor, according to Ps. 2:8 (“Ask of me, and I will me the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession”). Both of these Hebrew words are associated with “inheritance”—the first typically with land and the second also with land, but sometimes with persons (eg. Ps. 37:18; 74:2; 79:1; Isa. 19:25; Ez. 36:12; 44:28; Micah 7:14, 18) and other more intangible “possessions” like blessings, the family or tribal name, etc (Gen. 31:14; Num. 18:21-26; Ps. 127:3). In Psalm 2 the son is promised “the nations” and “the ends of the earth” for his inherited possession.
Furthermore, in context these nations are the foreign powers aligned against Yahweh and his “anointed one” (Ps. 2:1-5). A more comprehensive vision can hardly be conceived. The Royal son gets all the nations and every square inch of land on earth. Such a conception of world dominion (Ps. 18:43-47; 72:8-11; 89:25), although not fully achieved by any Judahite king, is nevertheless not simply exaggeration, but remained “hidden” and prophetic of the reign of the Greater Son of David. Not surprisingly, Paul references the mission of the appointed Son of God as bringing about “the obedience of faith among all the nations/Gentiles” (Rom. 1:5), precisely what is said to be promised to the Son as his inheritance upon his enthronement in Psalm 2:8 (“the nations for your inheritance”). In the New Testament, the Son/Image of God is one who has the rights and inheritance of the Firstborn (Ex. 4:22; Ps. 89:27; Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15-20; Heb. 12:23; Rev. 1:5).
Mention of the world-wide extent of the son of David’s rule also ties in with the original mandate and promise given to Adam, the son of God. Whatever else Adam’s being made in the “image and likeness” of God entailed, according to the context of Genesis 1:26, it involved “ruling” over all the earth. It is given to Adam as a mandate: “Let us make man in our image and let them rule over the. . . earth ” (1:26) and “Rule over the fish. . .” (1:28). In addition, we learn from Genesis 5:3 and Luke 3:38 that being an image-bearer is linked to sonship. Man as the image of God means man is a son of God. The New Testament makes this clear when it brings the terms “son” and “image” together when it describes Christ. And as we have seen, one function of being a son/image of God was dominion or ruling. Adam was created to rule over the entire earth as God’s son, his vicegerent. This was not to happen. Man fell.
What does this have to do with the Son of David? The two are connected by the phrases “the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. 2:9, 17; 3:5) and “knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:5). The phrase is not used very often in the Old Testament. In Deut. 1:39, 2 Sam. 19:35, and Isa. 7:15, 16 when one lacks the knowledge of good and evil it is evidence of childhood and immaturity, of the lack of discernment and inability to govern wisely. In 2 Sam. 19:35 Samuel complains that because he is 80 years old he can no longer “know good and evil.” Old age makes one unfit for the discernment required for governing. All these references so far have concerned the ability to adjudicate and discern right from wrong, something essential for those who rule. The phrase, then, refers to what is foundational to governing, the competence to “judge between good and evil.” This would suggest that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was associated with mature judgment and rule. Satan’s challenge to Adam and Eve—that they upon eating from the tree they would be “like gods” (elohim) is not entirely inaccurate since the title is often used in the Old Testament to refer to human rulers/judges (Ex. 21:6; 22:8, 9, 28; Ps. 58:1; Ps. 82: 6-7; cf. Jn. 10:34). The knowledge of good and evil is what a son needs to rule. According to 1 Kings 3:9 it is precisely what David’s son, Solomon, asks for when given the chance to request anything of Yahweh:
Give to your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people,Solomon does not assume that he already possesses this discernment, but ask Yahweh to gift him with it. Once God grants Solomon’s appropriate, kingly request we immediately see him exercise his judicial wisdom (3:28). Solomon has been gifted with what Adam impatiently grasped for in Genesis 3. As the new son/image of Yahweh, he has been granted the wise discernment (“the knowledge of good and evil”) necessary to rule over men.
that I may know good and evil,
for who is able to rule this your great people?
Moreover, Solomon is presented as an Adamic king in the Bible. Just as Adam named the animals (Gen. 2:19-20) so also Solomon gained wisdom as he investigated the creation. “Also he spoke of trees, from the cedar tree of Lebanon even to the hyssop that springs out of the wall; he spoke also of animals, of birds, of creeping things, and of fish” (1 Kings 4:33). The kingship of Solomon, in other words, was a fulfilment not only of the promises made to Abraham and Israel, but of God’s commission to Adam as well. Just so, Solomon, the son of David—indeed, as we have seen, son of Yahweh’s—becomes the typological model for the Greater Son of David’s rule as the Second Adam.
Jesus is appointed Son of God with power when he is gifted with ruling over all of creation as man. “He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born over all creation” (Col. 1:15). In fact, the scope of Jesus dominion is much greater than Solomon’s. It embraces the entire creation. Another reference to Jesus as the resurrected Lord who rules over all as the “second man” or Adam is 1 Cor. 15:20-57. This passage, of course, has christological and soteriological significance that goes well beyond our narrow concerns here; nevertheless, royal sonship imagery is not peripheral to Paul’s purpose (note the references to Christ’s kingdom, 1 Cor. 15:24; his reign, 15:25; the vanquishing of his enemies, 15:27 [Ps. 110:1]; and the references to Jesus as the “last Adam,” 15:45-49, whose “image” we shall all bear when we are “raised in power” like he has been, 15:43, 49).
Saturday, October 20, 2007
So what?
So J. K. Rowling thinks Dumbledore is gay. As it's being reported, she "outed him" Friday night at Carnegie Hall in New York.
But what difference does this make? None whatsoever. First, because Dumbledore's homosexuality remained in the author's mind and never shows up in the text itself. You can go back and read the novels and look for signs, but you'll find nothing even close to explicit. It's not part of the story line.
Second, as a friend of mine has noted, why not also out Neville Longbottom? Or Snape? Or MadEye Moody? Or Dobby? Or anyone else for that matter who doesn't have a girlfriend or a wife in the novels? Whatever thoughts Rowling may have had in her mind about a character, what the reader must pay attention to is the text of the story. Rowling may reveal one day that all the magical powers possessed by the witches and wizards of her novels' world were actually gifts given to certain humans by extraterrestrials when they visited to help the Egyptians build the pyramids. But this never shows up in the texts of her novels, so it is irrelevant. It makes no difference whatsoever in the actual story line.
Authorial intent is overrated. The text has it's own life.
But what difference does this make? None whatsoever. First, because Dumbledore's homosexuality remained in the author's mind and never shows up in the text itself. You can go back and read the novels and look for signs, but you'll find nothing even close to explicit. It's not part of the story line.
Second, as a friend of mine has noted, why not also out Neville Longbottom? Or Snape? Or MadEye Moody? Or Dobby? Or anyone else for that matter who doesn't have a girlfriend or a wife in the novels? Whatever thoughts Rowling may have had in her mind about a character, what the reader must pay attention to is the text of the story. Rowling may reveal one day that all the magical powers possessed by the witches and wizards of her novels' world were actually gifts given to certain humans by extraterrestrials when they visited to help the Egyptians build the pyramids. But this never shows up in the texts of her novels, so it is irrelevant. It makes no difference whatsoever in the actual story line.
Authorial intent is overrated. The text has it's own life.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Books & Movies
A few days ago I began to read, actually listen to Jon Krakauer's Into the Wild, the story of Chistopher McCandless's two-year "walk about" that ended in his death in 1992. I started it because a friend recommended it. I had no idea that they were making it into a movie. Last night as we were driving back from Taco Bell I saw the title on one of the local movie theater's placard.
I don't know. Nosing around the movie's web site makes me suspicious. It looks like they've taken some liberties with the story. And Sean Penn wrote the screenplay and directed the movie. Aach.
Interestingly, just after I finished The Kite Runner a few weeks ago I saw that it too was about to be released as a movie. I'm not sure I connected with The Kite Runner. It required me to suspend disbelief at too many key junctures. After a while, I just finished it because I don't like to start a book and then set it aside unless it's really bad. The Kite Runner is not really bad. It's not really even bad. Just not my kind of novel. I haven't looked, but I suspect it was one of Oprah's picks. It's that kind of book. Maybe the movie will be better.
I don't know. Nosing around the movie's web site makes me suspicious. It looks like they've taken some liberties with the story. And Sean Penn wrote the screenplay and directed the movie. Aach.
Interestingly, just after I finished The Kite Runner a few weeks ago I saw that it too was about to be released as a movie. I'm not sure I connected with The Kite Runner. It required me to suspend disbelief at too many key junctures. After a while, I just finished it because I don't like to start a book and then set it aside unless it's really bad. The Kite Runner is not really bad. It's not really even bad. Just not my kind of novel. I haven't looked, but I suspect it was one of Oprah's picks. It's that kind of book. Maybe the movie will be better.
Unbelievable PR Jujitsu
The top bid is now up over 2 million dollars!
What a hoot! And great news for the families of fallen Marines!
What a hoot! And great news for the families of fallen Marines!
The Son of God - Part VII
Continued from Part VI
The Davidic Seed as Royal Son: 1 Sam. 7:13-16
I've have already noted in my brief survey of the OT above a connection between ruling and sonship (Job 1:6; 2:1; Ps. 89:26-27). The Davidic Covenant makes that association explicit. The relevant passages are 2 Sam. 7:13-16, Ps. 2:1-12, Psalm 89:26-27.
2 Samuel 7 begins with the historical assessment that the king (David) dwelt securely in his house/palace because Yahweh has given him rest from all his enemies. David, however, feels uneasy about this and tells Nathan the prophet, “See now, I dwell in a house/palace of cedar, but the ark of God dwells in a tent” (7:2). Nathan advises David to do all that is in his heart since Yahweh is with him. But the word of Yahweh comes to David in a dream instructing David that he is not the one to build the house. Rather, Yahweh will build David a house/palace through his seed (7:12), which is explained as “I will establish his kingdom." Furthermore, it will be the seed/son of David who will build the house/palace for the Name of Yahweh (v. 13) and Yahweh will thereby establish “the throne of his kingdom forever” (7:13b).
All of this house-building and kingdom/throne-establishing for the “seed” of David is then summarized as “I will be his father, and he will be my son” (7:14a; cf. Heb. 1:8, “about the Son he says, ‘Your throne. . .”; 3:6, “But Christ is faithful as a son over God’s house.”). Thus, it is the seed as son whose throne and house/kingdom will be established forever (7:16).
Significantly, since earlier in Yahweh’s recounting of the history of his presence with Israel (7:5-11a), his central concern seems to have been to remind David that he has indeed “dwelt” and been “with” his people (7:9) even if it was by means of a mobile tabernacle (7:7) and rotating judges (7:11), from now on, however, his Name and presence will be mediated through the throne of his newly established “house” of David’s son. This is why, even though it is occupied by human rulers, the Davidic throne can be identified with the royal throne of Yahweh himself (1 Chron. 28:5; 29:23; 2 Chron. 9:8). When the son of David rules on earth, the reign of Yahweh is properly on earth.
There are many interesting details related to the interpretation of 2 Sam. 7:1-16 that we cannot pursue here. What we should note for our purposes is that many of the motifs that are central to Old Testament redemptive history—those dealing with kingship, kingdom, throne, house, house-building, seed, rest from enemies, and the covenantal promise that Yahweh will “be with” his people—these are all correlated here to the prophetic promise to David that his “seed” would be given the full rights of Sonship by Yahweh his Father. Yahweh promised to elevate David’s seed to reign upon the throne as son, thereby establishing both his and David’s house and kingdom forever.
Even though provision is made by Yahweh for sinful human “sons” of David who would need to be “punished with the rod” when they misuse their new exalted status (7:14b), clearly the reader’s expectations are heightened by Yahweh’s use of front-end loaded words like “seed” and “kingdom” that hearken back to central covenantal promises of the past (Gen. 3:15; 9:9; 12:7; 13:15-16; 17:7-12; 22:17-18) as well language that cannot but point toward some definitive future fulfillment. The same can be said for certain passages from the prophets, such as Isaiah 9, which is connected with the promise of 2 Sam. 7:12-16 that David’s offspring/son will reign on his throne and establish his kingdom: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called ‘Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace’” (Isa. 9:6)
There is no reason to think that an Israelite reading these passages before there was access to the Holy Spirit-inspired apostolic interpretation would be able to decipher precisely how this would all work out (1 Pet. 1:10-12), but he surely would be encouraged that somehow, sometime in the future, one of David’s sons, a seed from his own body (7:12), would establish Yahweh’s kingdom forever. We, of course, who have the benefit of hind-sight and the infallible apostolic witness know that these promises were indeed fulfilled when God raised up Jesus, the seed of David, to reign over a new house and kingdom forever (Acts 2:29-36; 13:32-41; 15:16; 2 Tim. 2:8; Heb. 1:2, 5, 8; 2: 6:3:6; 4:14; 5:5, 8; Rev. 3:7; 5:5; 22:16; etc.).
This is what Romans 1:3-4 is all about.
The Davidic Seed as Royal Son: 1 Sam. 7:13-16
I've have already noted in my brief survey of the OT above a connection between ruling and sonship (Job 1:6; 2:1; Ps. 89:26-27). The Davidic Covenant makes that association explicit. The relevant passages are 2 Sam. 7:13-16, Ps. 2:1-12, Psalm 89:26-27.
2 Samuel 7 begins with the historical assessment that the king (David) dwelt securely in his house/palace because Yahweh has given him rest from all his enemies. David, however, feels uneasy about this and tells Nathan the prophet, “See now, I dwell in a house/palace of cedar, but the ark of God dwells in a tent” (7:2). Nathan advises David to do all that is in his heart since Yahweh is with him. But the word of Yahweh comes to David in a dream instructing David that he is not the one to build the house. Rather, Yahweh will build David a house/palace through his seed (7:12), which is explained as “I will establish his kingdom." Furthermore, it will be the seed/son of David who will build the house/palace for the Name of Yahweh (v. 13) and Yahweh will thereby establish “the throne of his kingdom forever” (7:13b). All of this house-building and kingdom/throne-establishing for the “seed” of David is then summarized as “I will be his father, and he will be my son” (7:14a; cf. Heb. 1:8, “about the Son he says, ‘Your throne. . .”; 3:6, “But Christ is faithful as a son over God’s house.”). Thus, it is the seed as son whose throne and house/kingdom will be established forever (7:16).
Significantly, since earlier in Yahweh’s recounting of the history of his presence with Israel (7:5-11a), his central concern seems to have been to remind David that he has indeed “dwelt” and been “with” his people (7:9) even if it was by means of a mobile tabernacle (7:7) and rotating judges (7:11), from now on, however, his Name and presence will be mediated through the throne of his newly established “house” of David’s son. This is why, even though it is occupied by human rulers, the Davidic throne can be identified with the royal throne of Yahweh himself (1 Chron. 28:5; 29:23; 2 Chron. 9:8). When the son of David rules on earth, the reign of Yahweh is properly on earth.
There are many interesting details related to the interpretation of 2 Sam. 7:1-16 that we cannot pursue here. What we should note for our purposes is that many of the motifs that are central to Old Testament redemptive history—those dealing with kingship, kingdom, throne, house, house-building, seed, rest from enemies, and the covenantal promise that Yahweh will “be with” his people—these are all correlated here to the prophetic promise to David that his “seed” would be given the full rights of Sonship by Yahweh his Father. Yahweh promised to elevate David’s seed to reign upon the throne as son, thereby establishing both his and David’s house and kingdom forever.
Even though provision is made by Yahweh for sinful human “sons” of David who would need to be “punished with the rod” when they misuse their new exalted status (7:14b), clearly the reader’s expectations are heightened by Yahweh’s use of front-end loaded words like “seed” and “kingdom” that hearken back to central covenantal promises of the past (Gen. 3:15; 9:9; 12:7; 13:15-16; 17:7-12; 22:17-18) as well language that cannot but point toward some definitive future fulfillment. The same can be said for certain passages from the prophets, such as Isaiah 9, which is connected with the promise of 2 Sam. 7:12-16 that David’s offspring/son will reign on his throne and establish his kingdom: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called ‘Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace’” (Isa. 9:6)
There is no reason to think that an Israelite reading these passages before there was access to the Holy Spirit-inspired apostolic interpretation would be able to decipher precisely how this would all work out (1 Pet. 1:10-12), but he surely would be encouraged that somehow, sometime in the future, one of David’s sons, a seed from his own body (7:12), would establish Yahweh’s kingdom forever. We, of course, who have the benefit of hind-sight and the infallible apostolic witness know that these promises were indeed fulfilled when God raised up Jesus, the seed of David, to reign over a new house and kingdom forever (Acts 2:29-36; 13:32-41; 15:16; 2 Tim. 2:8; Heb. 1:2, 5, 8; 2: 6:3:6; 4:14; 5:5, 8; Rev. 3:7; 5:5; 22:16; etc.).
This is what Romans 1:3-4 is all about.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Savior of the World
What does 1 Tim. 4:10 mean? This is not everything that it means, but it is a significant part that is often overlooked—from my 2007 Good Friday sermon notes:
1. If Jesus had not died, the world would not have been saved. Because Jesus died the world was indeed delivered. He died so that you might live. Not merely in some vague spiritual sense. But you are alive right now and not dead, because Jesus died. That's true for everybody!
Almost 2000 years of human history all because Jesus died and rose again.
John 3.17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
John 4.42 They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.”
I Tim. 4:10, ". . . because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe."
1 John 2.2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
Parallel with Genesis 8 and 9. The first thing Noah does when he gets off the ark is offer up some of all of the clean animals and clean birds. Based on THAT sacrifice, AFTER he smells the pleasing aroma, Yahweh promises that he would never again curse the ground! The grace proffered to all men is not some generalized “common grace” but God’s changed attitude founded on the covenantal sacrifice of Noah. So also with Christ's death on the cross. God delivered the world from destruction and preserves the entire cosmos because of the cross of Jesus. Common grace is not grace that is administered apart from, or along side of the cross. Common grace is the grace of God in Christ.
2. If Jesus had not died, pagan culture and life would not have been replaced. The old world would never have been changed.
Let's just say, for the sake of the argument, that the world and human history would have continued, had Jesus not died. What would it be like? This is what it means when the Bible says that by his death Jesus destroyed the work of Satan. What was destroyed was the archaic, pre-Christian way of organizing human life - Paganism.
The Ruler of the kingdoms of the world (Matt. 4) was defeated on the cross. His demons were the gods of ancient world (1 Cor. 8). The demonic activity was designed to keep humanity in a perpetual state of adolescent immaturity. So the wars and sexual perversion so prominent in ancient cultures.
Acts 26.15 And I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness. . . I am sending you to the Gentiles, to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins
Heb. 2:14-15, "that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.Rev. 20.2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,Paul says that before Jesus' work "death reigned" (Rom. 5)
Life would have been very different. LIFE, not just our inner religious sensibilities. We take for granted a way of life with one another that we often think is just common sense. This is the "natural" way for people to live together. And we expect to be afforded common courtesies and treated with humane respect by others as if these were rooted in the natural order of things and have nothing to do with Jesus or the cross. Wrong. This is the result of Christ's death and transformation of the world. Jesus saved the world and changed human history.
Battle star Galactica - human culture that developed in another star system with an odd polytheistic religious system. One of the characters in a recent episode made a speech that simply couldn't have been made in such a culture because it presupposed the cross and the transformation of human culture that has come about in the West because of the cross.
If Jesus had not died on the cross there would have been no deliverance from the horror of cultures not founded on or informed by the Christian understanding of mercy and justice. As disappointing as things can get in Christian countries, that is nothing compared to what might have been had Jesus not died.
These are just raw notes. Download the whole sermon if you want a fuller explanation (8.6 MB mp3 file).
1. If Jesus had not died, the world would not have been saved. Because Jesus died the world was indeed delivered. He died so that you might live. Not merely in some vague spiritual sense. But you are alive right now and not dead, because Jesus died. That's true for everybody!
Almost 2000 years of human history all because Jesus died and rose again.
John 3.17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
John 4.42 They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.”
I Tim. 4:10, ". . . because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe."
1 John 2.2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
Parallel with Genesis 8 and 9. The first thing Noah does when he gets off the ark is offer up some of all of the clean animals and clean birds. Based on THAT sacrifice, AFTER he smells the pleasing aroma, Yahweh promises that he would never again curse the ground! The grace proffered to all men is not some generalized “common grace” but God’s changed attitude founded on the covenantal sacrifice of Noah. So also with Christ's death on the cross. God delivered the world from destruction and preserves the entire cosmos because of the cross of Jesus. Common grace is not grace that is administered apart from, or along side of the cross. Common grace is the grace of God in Christ.
2. If Jesus had not died, pagan culture and life would not have been replaced. The old world would never have been changed.
Let's just say, for the sake of the argument, that the world and human history would have continued, had Jesus not died. What would it be like? This is what it means when the Bible says that by his death Jesus destroyed the work of Satan. What was destroyed was the archaic, pre-Christian way of organizing human life - Paganism.
The Ruler of the kingdoms of the world (Matt. 4) was defeated on the cross. His demons were the gods of ancient world (1 Cor. 8). The demonic activity was designed to keep humanity in a perpetual state of adolescent immaturity. So the wars and sexual perversion so prominent in ancient cultures.
Acts 26.15 And I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness. . . I am sending you to the Gentiles, to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins
Heb. 2:14-15, "that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.Rev. 20.2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,Paul says that before Jesus' work "death reigned" (Rom. 5)
Life would have been very different. LIFE, not just our inner religious sensibilities. We take for granted a way of life with one another that we often think is just common sense. This is the "natural" way for people to live together. And we expect to be afforded common courtesies and treated with humane respect by others as if these were rooted in the natural order of things and have nothing to do with Jesus or the cross. Wrong. This is the result of Christ's death and transformation of the world. Jesus saved the world and changed human history.
Battle star Galactica - human culture that developed in another star system with an odd polytheistic religious system. One of the characters in a recent episode made a speech that simply couldn't have been made in such a culture because it presupposed the cross and the transformation of human culture that has come about in the West because of the cross.
If Jesus had not died on the cross there would have been no deliverance from the horror of cultures not founded on or informed by the Christian understanding of mercy and justice. As disappointing as things can get in Christian countries, that is nothing compared to what might have been had Jesus not died.
These are just raw notes. Download the whole sermon if you want a fuller explanation (8.6 MB mp3 file).
Tongues
The way modern "tongues" are used today by many Christians is not really analogous to the function of glossalalia in the Apostolic church. The Apostolic gift of tongues has no revelance in the church today. The reason is that the Spirit is no longer gifting people to speak in non-Hebraic languages in order to instruct the ethnoi (Acts 2), confirm his gifts to them (Acts 10, etc.), or manifest his judgment against the Jews by confronting them with foreign tongues/languages (Deut. 28:49; 32:19-22; Isa. 28:11, 12; 66:18; 1 Cor. 14:20-25). Carefully consider that string of texts, beginning with Deut. 28. These are the passages that make sense of what is happening in the Apostolic age as God deals with unbelieving Jews. He speaks to them in foreign, non-Hebrew "tongues." It's a judgment and a means of provoking them to jealousy.
But today the Jew-Gentile division is gone. The Bible has been completed and written in tongues (Greek). The Apostolic phenomenon of tongues have ceased. The need for the gift to speak miraculously in non-Hebrew tongues is not needed. There may be an anology between tongues and other forms of ministerial communication (preaching, teaching), but the analogy between what is called modern "tongues" and the NT gift is tenuous at best.
One has to come to grips with the purpose of tongues at the inauguration of the New Covenant era. Tongues are languages, more precisely, non-Hebrew languages. They were miraculously given to provoke the unbelieving Jews to jealously, according to explicit Old Testament prophesies (1 Cor. 14:20ff.; Deut. 28:49; 32:19-22; Isa. 28:11, 12; 66:18). One again, that list of passages.
Have you ever asked: Why were tongues so prominent in the church at Corinth? They seem to be the only community that has such an interest in tongues, where tongues have broken out with such publicity. It's because the church met right next door to the synagogue (Acts 18:7)! The "unbelievers" in 1 Cor. 14:22 are the stiff-necked Jews, not simply generic non-Christians. The context of Isa. 28, which Paul quotes in 1 Cor. 14, makes that pretty clear. Lot's of provocation going on there in Corinth! If that is the case, then perhaps one can see how tongues (=miraculously given non-Hebrew utterances) serve no purpose today. During the transition period (mainly from 30-70 AD, but also a bit beyond that) when God was forming a new international church and the unbelieving Jews were resisting that (as they did all through the Apostolic age), God provoked them to jealousy with these foreign tongues/languages. Every time anyone spoke in tongues in the book of Acts, for example, the Jews are in view somehow.
But today the Jew-Gentile division is gone. The Bible has been completed and written in tongues (Greek). The Apostolic phenomenon of tongues have ceased. The need for the gift to speak miraculously in non-Hebrew tongues is not needed. There may be an anology between tongues and other forms of ministerial communication (preaching, teaching), but the analogy between what is called modern "tongues" and the NT gift is tenuous at best.
One has to come to grips with the purpose of tongues at the inauguration of the New Covenant era. Tongues are languages, more precisely, non-Hebrew languages. They were miraculously given to provoke the unbelieving Jews to jealously, according to explicit Old Testament prophesies (1 Cor. 14:20ff.; Deut. 28:49; 32:19-22; Isa. 28:11, 12; 66:18). One again, that list of passages.
Have you ever asked: Why were tongues so prominent in the church at Corinth? They seem to be the only community that has such an interest in tongues, where tongues have broken out with such publicity. It's because the church met right next door to the synagogue (Acts 18:7)! The "unbelievers" in 1 Cor. 14:22 are the stiff-necked Jews, not simply generic non-Christians. The context of Isa. 28, which Paul quotes in 1 Cor. 14, makes that pretty clear. Lot's of provocation going on there in Corinth! If that is the case, then perhaps one can see how tongues (=miraculously given non-Hebrew utterances) serve no purpose today. During the transition period (mainly from 30-70 AD, but also a bit beyond that) when God was forming a new international church and the unbelieving Jews were resisting that (as they did all through the Apostolic age), God provoked them to jealousy with these foreign tongues/languages. Every time anyone spoke in tongues in the book of Acts, for example, the Jews are in view somehow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)