Home Papers Sermons Creative Devotional Links About Me

...Other Papers

Christ in the Old Testament

What follows is a collection of my blog posts on the topic of Christ in the Old Testament. Links to all the posts are collected together here. The text is below. If you click on the headings you will find the post in its original setting. Scroll down to the bottom to find the discussions that followed each of these posts.

Introduction

When we confess that Jesus is our Substitute most people mean this:

Jesus stands in our place - living the life we should have lived, dying the death we should have died

I wonder though how many also have this understanding of Jesus’ substitution:

He sits on the bench for the first half before the Coach brings Him on as match-winner in the closing stages.

I find that many Christians, though believing in the pre-existence of Christ, function with an understanding akin to this latter belief. 

Though we shout from the roof-tops the centrality of Christ, we affirm His exclusivity, His supremacy, His full deity, in practice our gospel has Jesus coming late to the game to solve a problem He’s had nothing to do with.  We insist that He is the crux, the ultimate, the final, the greatest, the fulfilment but somehow lose that He is the Beginning, the Author, the Logos, the Creator, the Head etc.

In such theology Jesus becomes the Kappa and the Omega, the Middle and the End.  The foundations are laid.  God is defined (monadically).  Humanity is defined (apart from the true Man).  The God-man relation is taken for granted (according to these Christ-less definitions).  Sin, law, wrath, sacrifice, blessings, hope etc are slotted into place.  And then Jesus comes to find His place within this pre-fab mould.

But we know this can’t be right.  Jesus is not merely the cherry on the cake.  He is the flour, eggs, sugar, butter and everything else besides.  We know this because we have come to experience life in Christ.  And it is not the experience of Jesus-the-bridge-to-something-else.  He has not taken us by the hand to another reality (heaven, glory, forgiveness, God), He Himself is our all in all.  All those other things find their meaning in Him and only in Him. 

Now it seems to me there are three ways that this christocentricity can be argued:

1. Systematically
2. From the New Testament back
3. From the Old Testament forwards

Systematically we point to verses like Matthew 11:25-30 or John 1:18 or Colossians 1:15 and say Christ is, was and ever shall be the one and only Mediator of the Father in revelation and salvation.  This, when grasped, opens our eyes to see that all of history, all of theology and all of God to His very depths is truly trinitarian and christocentric.  Glory!

But of course, people will soon ask you to show it from the bible.  So often people appeal to the New Testament.  Jesus was constantly saying things like He was the One who spoke with Abraham (John 8:56), He was the One the prophets persecuted (Matt 5:11-12), He was David’s Lord (Matt 22:42-45), He was the One who kept pursuing Jerusalem (Matt 23:37).  Or Paul would say Christ accompanied Israel in the wilderness (1 Cor 10:4,9), Hebrews insists Moses trusted Christ (Hebrews 11:26), Jude asserts that Jesus saved Israel out of Egypt (Jude 5).  And this gets people excited.  For a while. 

And then someone says: “Ahhh, with what freedom the Apostles imposed christocentricity on the Hebrew Scriptures.”  And all of a sudden you get odd things asserted like: “It’s ok for Apostles to retrospectively award a Christ-focus to the OT even though the Jewish authors intended nothing of the sort.”  And thus a rarely substantiated but practically unimpeachable maxim is born: “They spoke better than they knew.” 

Rather than rant polemically about the laughible paucity of Scriptural warrant for this view, or the ethical conundrum of Apostles modelling such dodgy hermeneutics or the logical absurdity of retrospectively awarding Abraham or Isaiah or Israel an encounter with Christ I will side-step a stomach ulcer and move to the third argument.  Because if I can show that the OT by itself proclaims Christ then all such nonsense will be shown to be completely unnecessary.

So here’s my assertion that I will seek to unpack over a long series of posts: The OT on its own grounds, in its own context, according to its own intention is a plain and understood revelation of Christ.  I will seek to argue that,

• Christ is active pre-incarnation
• He is the Mediator in Old Testament times as well as New
• He Mediates as a distinct Person, divine and yet differentiated from God Most High
• He was trusted by (the faithful) OT saints as their LORD and as the One who was to come to save
• In this way the object of saving faith has always been Christ
• And in this way the experience of true faith has always been irreducibly trinitarian and christological.

If Jesus tarries I will, in my next few posts, have a look at the Angel of the LORD passages before moving onto some other key multiple-Person OT verses.  I’ll look at the very natural way in which the NT picks up on this.  I’ll give quotes from church history and I’ll draw out some implications.

And having made such a commitment, I immediately wish I hadn’t.  Ah well, it’ll do me good to get it all off my chest! (click here for comments)

The Angel of the LORD part 1

Who is the Angel of the LORD?

In my last post I laid out my intention to show from the Old Testament that Christ has always been the one Mediator between God and man. 

I find the easiest place to start in these discussions is with the Angel of the LORD.  If a person cannot see from Scripture that this is a title belonging to Christ then the conversation will not get very far.  So I wonder whether you have a view?

Perhaps the first thing to say is - don’t be thrown by the title.  Angel (malak) just means ‘Sent One’ or ‘Messenger’ (as most translations render it in Malachi 3:1).  So literally the Angel of the LORD is the One Sent from the LORD.  And already we should be hearing resonances with Jesus’ self-descriptions.  In John’s Gospel for instance Jesus is described as the One Sent from God 40 times!  That might be significant!

The second thing to say is that not every angel is The Angel.  There are many created angelic beings in the bible.  But when Scripture speaks of the Angel we know who we’re talking about.  In the same way there are many ones sent from God in a general sense.  But when you talk about ‘the One sent from the Father’ you are talking about Jesus.

But really the proof is in the eating.  So get a load of these verses. 

Genesis 16:9-14; Genesis 21:17-20; Genesis 22:11-18; Genesis 24:7,40; Genesis 31:11-13; Genesis 48:15-16; Exodus 3:1-6; Exodus 13:21 <=> Exodus 14:19; Exodus 23:20-23; Exodus 32:34; 33:2 <=> 34:9; Num 20:16; Num 22:22-35; Judges 2:1-5; Judges 5:23; Judges 6:11-24; Judges 13:3-23; 2 Sam 24:16-17; 1 Kings 19:5,7; 2 Kings 1:3,15; 1 Chron 21:11-20; Psalm 34:7,9; Psalm 35:5-6; Isaiah 37:36; Isaiah 63:9; Daniel 3:28; Daniel 6:22; Hosea 12:4-5 <=> Genesis 32:24-30; Zechariah 1:9-19; Zechariah 3:1-10; Zechariah 4:1-6; Zechariah 12:8; Malachi 3:1

See also these verse where people are said to be like the Angel and so are said to be like Christ: 

1 Sam 29:9; 2 Sam 14:17,20; 2 Sam 19:27; Gal 4:14

As you see the Angel is not an insignificant figure in the Old Testament.  I’m not expecting you to check out all the references but thought it might be useful to have them all together.  Over the next few posts I’ll pick out some key passages to highlight some fundamental truths.  At bottom this is where these verses take us:

· The Angel is divine - He is very often called the LORD and God, He speaks as the LORD, acts as the LORD and accepts divine worship.

· The Angel is distinct from another Person called ‘LORD’ or ‘God’ or ‘God Most High.’

· The Angel acts on behalf of God Most High in revelation and salvation.

· The Angel is correctly identified by the OT saints as a distinct, divine Person

· He is feared, trusted and hoped for by the faithful.

The Angel is God from God.  Light from Light.  True God from True God.  That’s clear from the biblical portrait.  To fail to see His identity is, I think, a real problem. 

What always strikes me in discussions about the Angel’s identity is that the Scriptures are so unambiguous in naming Him LORD.  I would go so far as to say that the Old Testament is even clearer on the divine identity of the Angel than the New Testament is on the identity of Jesus. But of course once we grasp who the Angel is in the OT the NT pictures of Christ’s divinity become much more apparent.

When Jesus claims to be the One sent from the Father He is not merely defering to divinity - He is claiming it.  His divine identity in the New Testament is so much easier to see for those who have already grasped it in the Old.

In the next post I’ll have a look at some of the key Angel passages.  Let me leave you with a Calvin quote who sums up the history of Christian interpretation on this issue:

 The orthodox doctors of the Church have correctly and wisely expounded, that the Word of God was the supreme angel, who then began, as it were by anticipation, to perform the office of Mediator. For though he were not clothed with flesh, yet he descended as in an intermediate form, that he might have more familiar access to the faithful. This closer intercourse procured for him the name of the Angel; still, however, he retained the character which justly belonged to him - that of the God of ineffable glory. (Instit. I.xiii.10)

(Click here for comments)

The Angel of the LORD part 2

The Angel of the LORD continued…

Let’s look at the Angel in action in Genesis and Exodus.

His first appearance is to the Egyptian, Hagar:

Then the Angel of the LORD told her, “Go back to your mistress and submit to her.” The Angel added, “I will so increase your descendants that they will be too numerous to count.” The Angel of the LORD also said to her: “You are now with child and you will have a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the LORD has heard of your misery… She gave this name to the LORD who spoke to her: “You are the God who sees me,” for she said, “I have now seen the One who sees me.” (Gen 16:9-14)

Here the Angel speaks of another Person called the LORD who has heard Hagar.  This is typical in the OT - God hears and sends His Angel to deliver.  See Gen 21:17; Ex 2:23ff; Num 20:16; Judges 13:9 - also similar is Dan 3:28; 6:22.

But even though the Angel is distinctly called of the LORD He can also own the name ‘LORD’ Himself.  In verse 13 even the narrator calls the Angel “LORD” and Hagar calls Him “the God who sees me.”  He is from God but He also is God - in fact He is the visible God for Hagar is astonished that she has seen Him. 

Read on to Genesis 22 and here we see that the Angel of the LORD is the One who intercepts the judgement of father Abraham on his son.

But the Angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!” “Here I am,” he replied. “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.” Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided.” The Angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time and said, “I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore.

Difficult to read these verses if you’re a unitarian!  ‘Now I know that you fear God because you haven’t witheld your son from Me.’  The Angel clearly thinks the offering is to Himself and later in v16 He clearly thinks that He is the LORD who will bless Abraham.  But He also clearly speaks of ‘God’ as another Person in the equation.  There’s much more to be said about Genesis 22, but we must move on.

In Genesis 32, Jacob wrestles with a man (’ish) who is clearly a source of blessing (v26) and is in fact God (v28).  Jacob rightly identifies Him as ‘God face to face’ (perhaps best understood as a divine title?).  Why are we looking at this passage while considering the Angel?  Because of what Hosea 12:3-5 makes of this incident.

…[Jacob] struggled with God. He struggled with the Angel and overcame Him; he wept and begged for His favour. He found Him at Bethel and talked with Him there– the LORD God Almighty, the LORD is His name of renown!

Hosea knows how it is that Jacob could actually wrestle with God and see Him face to face.  He knows that Jacob wrestled with the Angel.  But Hosea also knows that such a name is not a diminutive title for this figure. The Angel is Himself the LORD God Almighty (Yahweh the God of Hosts).  What’s interesting is not only Hosea’s high christology but also how OT saints thought through the issues of how God is mediated.  It was clear to Hosea, even though Genesis does not mention the name, that Jacob wrestled ‘the Angel.’  OT saints are able to make such distinctions and properly interpreted their own Scriptures christologically centuries after the events and centuries before the incarnation.

Moving on in Genesis we come to Jacob’s blessing of his grandsons.  Just as he sought the Angel’s blessing for himself (Gen 32:26,29) so now he wants the Angel’s blessing for Ephraim and Manasseh:

“May the God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my Shepherd all my life to this day, the Angel who has delivered me from all harm–may He bless these boys.  (Gen 48:15-16)

Who is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?  This is a massive question today.  Can we please have the courage to proclaim from Genesis that Christ is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  He is the Deliverer God before Whom the patriarchs walked.  The Angel is God and Shepherd, Deliverer and the Source of all blessing.  The Angel is God from God and the One to Whom the patriarchs looked.

I can’t see a) any way around this, b) any reason you’d want to get around this!

Let’s move on briefly to Exodus.  And here again we see the pattern whereby people call out to God, God hears (Exod 2:23-24) and in response He sends His Deliverer.  And who is the Deliverer?

² There the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. ³ So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight– why the bush does not burn up.” ⁴ When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!” And Moses said, “Here I am.” ⁵ “Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” ⁶ Then He said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God. (Ex 3:2-6)

The Angel is Him who dwelt in the burning bush (Deut 33:16).  He is, v4,  LORD and God and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  Furthermore He is the great I AM (v14) who saves His people.  When Jesus claims to be I AM He isn’t (as many seem to say) audaciously applying to Himself a title belonging to “”God”".  He’s saying - I’m ‘Him who dwelt in the burning bush.’  He’s not just saying ‘I have the same name as Israel’s Redeemer, He’s saying - You know the whole burning bush, plagues, Red Sea thing?  That was me!’

Notice how in Exodus 3:12 the Angel says:

“I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain.”

The Angel will save a people and bring them to God.  That is the story of salvation.  And does the Angel deliver on His promise?  Yes! He is the LORD who goes at their head:

By day the LORD went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night. (Ex 13:21)

How do we know that this is the Angel?

Then the Angel of God, who had been travelling in front of Israel’s army, withdrew and went behind them. The pillar of cloud also moved from in front and stood behind them (Ex 14:19)

So the Deliverer is the Angel who is of the LORD and who is the LORD.  Exodus 23:20-23 tells us how the Angel relates to the Most High God: ‘My Name is in Him’ says the LORD on top of the mountain.  The Angel is the One the people should follow knowing that He has been sent from the LORD on high with the very character of the unseen God.  To hear the Angel (v22) is to know the favour and salvation of God Most High.

The Exodus was wrought at the initiative of God the Father hearing His people’s cries for mercy.  Out of His compassion He sent His Angel to deliver His people and bring them back to the Mountain to worship Him. 

And just to drive home the point even further, let’s look at one last reference.  When all is done and dusted and Scripture looks back on the redemption out of Egypt, who is it who takes the credit?

The Angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bokim and said, “I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land that I swore to give to your forefathers. I said,`I will never break my covenant with you, and you shall not make a covenant with the people of this land, but you shall break down their altars.’ Yet you have disobeyed me. Why have you done this? Now therefore I tell you that I will not drive them out before you; they will be thorns in your sides and their gods will be a snare to you.”  When the Angel of the LORD had spoken these things to all the Israelites, the people wept aloud. (Judges 2:1-4)

At this point I feel like pulling a CS Lewis - when the Angel makes such incredible claims, He’s either mad, bad or the LORD.  So who is He??

I hope it’s obvious.  But I hope we also see that these things are plain on their own terms and in their own context.  I haven’t needed to do any NT ‘re-reading’.  I hope you see this isn’t a conjuring act it’s simply taking these verses seriously. And allowing them to say what they say without forcing them into a pre-fab unitarian mould.

I think it’s clear (don’t you?) the Angel is clearly divine, clearly Israel’s Deliverer, clearly trusted in.  But also note - He is also clearly distinct from another called LORD or God (we’ll see this more and more as we go on).  And He has His identity as the Sent One (malak - Messenger).  To see Him is to be immediately drawn into knowledge of the Sender whose Name He bears.  His very being is defined by relationship to Another.  He is a divine Person who belongs to another divine Person.  Israel’s LORD is God from God. 

And if this is true then the OT doctrine of God is nothing like the modern Jew’s god, nothing like the philosopher’s god, nothing like allah.  The God of the OT is inescapably and irreducibly trinitarian in nature and christocentric in focus.

One more post on the Angel to come and then we’ll look at some other fun stuff.

(Click here for comments)

The Angel of the LORD part 3

The Angel of the LORD continued…

One more post on the Angel, then we’ll look at some other multiple-LORD passages.

Check out Judges 6:11-24:

¹¹ The Angel of the LORD came and sat down under the oak in Ophrah that belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, where his son Gideon was threshing wheat in a winepress to keep it from the Midianites. ¹² When the Angel of the LORD appeared to Gideon, he said, “The LORD is with you, mighty warrior.” ¹³ “But sir (Lord, Adonai),” Gideon replied, “if the LORD (Yahweh) is with us, why has all this happened to us? Where are all His wonders that our fathers told us about when they said,`Did not the LORD bring us up out of Egypt?’ But now the LORD has abandoned us and put us into the hand of Midian.” ¹⁴ The LORD turned to him and said, “Go in the strength you have and save Israel out of Midian’s hand. Am I not sending you?” ¹⁵ “But Lord (Adonai),” Gideon asked, “how can I save Israel? My clan is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my family.” ¹⁶ The LORD answered, “I will be with you, and you will strike down all the Midianites together.” ¹⁷ Gideon replied, “If now I have found favour in your eyes, give me a sign that it is really you talking to me. ¹⁸ Please do not go away until I come back and bring my offering and set it before you.” And the LORD said, “I will wait until you return.” ¹⁹ Gideon went in, prepared a young goat, and from an ephah of flour he made bread without yeast. Putting the meat in a basket and its broth in a pot, he brought them out and offered them to Him under the oak. ²⁰ The Angel of God said to him, “Take the meat and the unleavened bread, place them on this rock, and pour out the broth.” And Gideon did so. ²¹ With the tip of the staff that was in his hand, the Angel of the LORD touched the meat and the unleavened bread. Fire flared from the rock, consuming the meat and the bread. And the Angel of the LORD disappeared. ²² When Gideon realised that it was the Angel of the LORD, he exclaimed, “Ah, Sovereign LORD (Adonai Yahweh)! I have seen the Angel of the LORD face to face!” ²³ But the LORD said to him, “Peace! Do not be afraid. You are not going to die.” ²⁴ So Gideon built an altar to the LORD there and called it The LORD is Peace. To this day it stands in Ophrah of the Abiezrites. 

As we saw in our last post, the Angel proclaimed Himself to be the LORD who saved Israel out of Egypt in Judges 2:1-5.  Here the Angel is called ‘Angel’, ‘Lord (Adonai)’ and ‘LORD (Yahweh)’ interchangeably.  Verse 14 is clearly the same Character now ‘facing’ Gideon. His re-assurance to Gideon concerns Himself: “Am I not sending you?…I will be with you”.  Gideon’s hope rests in this Person: “If now I have found favour in your eyes, give me a sign that it is really you talking to me.” (v17)

Here the Angel comes in a particularly priestly way.  He pronounces to Gideon the blessing of Another called LORD (v12) and mediates Gideon’s sacrifice to this LORD, v21. Not only is He priest – mediating the Father’s peace to Gideon and Gideon’s sacrifice to the LORD – He also ascends in the sacrifice.  He is Lord and Priest and in a funny sort of way, sacrifice.  When Gideon sees this he really gets the identity of the Angel (which was the point of this sign, v17).

When Gideon realised that it was the Angel of the LORD, he exclaimed, “Ah, Sovereign LORD (Adonai Yahweh)! I have seen the Angel of the LORD face to face!” (v22)  It is his expectation that seeing such a Figure should result in death.  This face to face encounter is clearly not something mortals expect to endure when it comes to the Sovereign LORD (Adonai Yahweh).  God Most High on the mountaintop had told Moses:

“you cannot see my face, for no-one may see me and live… my face must not be seen.” (Exod 33:20-23)

Yet in the same chapter Moses and Joshua are described as having regular face to face encounters with the LORD in the tent of meeting (Ex 33:7-11).  Within the OT there is a visible LORD who mediates the business of the unseen LORD.  On this occasion Gideon calls out in alarm to the unseen LORD that He had seen the glory of the Angel.  I think it’s most straightforward to see the LORD of v23 to be the Angel Himself, Christ.  I won’t be very disappointed if proved wrong but my reasoning is:

1)     In this incident it is the Angel who calls the unseen God, ‘LORD’ while it is the narrator who calls the Angel ‘LORD’ or ‘Lord’.  When the narrator wants to tell us he’s referring to the unseen God he calls Him ‘Sovereign Lord.’

2)     The whole incident is modeling how it is the Angel who provides peace for Gideon.

So, for me, v23 is Christ interposing on the basis of the sacrifice (in which He ascended) and proclaiming Himself to be peace.  You can chew on that and let me know what you think. 

Moving on to Judges 13 we see an extended passage about the Angel. In v3 He appears to Mrs Manoah who consistently describes Him as a man (v6, 10) as does the narrator (v11).  He comes again when God hears the cry of His people and sends Him in response (v9).  Just like with Jacob, He is coy about His name (v18, cf Gen 32:29).  But just as in Judges 6, He ascends in the sacrifice to the LORD.  At this Mr Manoah exclaims:

“We are doomed to die!” he said to his wife. “We have seen God!” (Judges 13:22)

His wife has more sense:

But his wife answered, “If the LORD had meant to kill us, he would not have accepted a burnt offering and grain offering from our hands, nor shown us all these things or now told us this.” (Judges 13:23)

The Angel is described as God.  And the expectation is that to see God is to die.  And yet they do see God the Angel and Mrs Manoah identifies the basis on which they can still be accepted: sacrifice.

I could go on about the Angel but perhaps you can follow up the other references that I’ve listed yourself.  Let me just draw your attention to one more passage.  Because here we see that the Angel was set forth not simply as the Mediator for Israel there and then, He was also trusted in as the One who was to come – the Messiah.

“See, I will send my messenger (malak), who will prepare the way before Me. Then suddenly the Lord (Adonai) you are seeking will come to His temple; the Messenger (malak, Angel) of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the LORD Almighty (Yahweh of hosts). (Malachi 3:1)

The messenger (Elijah/John the Baptist, cf 4:5) will precede the coming of the Lord who is the Angel.  Here we see that the Lord who the people are seeking is the Angel of the covenant. He is their desire according to Malachi 3.

Enough on the Angel.  Next post will be a re-working of a previous post on the trinitarian OT. And for those who are wondering, I’ll also soon do a ‘so what’ piece listing reasons this stuff matters!

(Click here for comments)

The Trinitarian Old Testament

This is basically a repost of ‘The Trinitarian Old Testament’ from November last year. I think it’s worth laying out the same material in the context of this series. We are investigating the claim that the Hebrew Scriptures themselves reveal on their own terms and in their own context the eternal Son, our God from God, Jesus Christ. We are accustomed to thinking of trinitarian formulations growing out of the necessity to confess the deity of Jesus Christ. This is of course true. But we will see that this is not simply a New Testament necessity. Once we confess the deity of the Angel for instance we will also have to ensure that our confession of the OT doctrine of God is similarly trinitarian. It is not the New Testament that forces us to be trinitarian, it is Jesus. And Jesus, as this series is demonstrating, is not confined to the New Testament. This is why we now need to consider the trinity in the OT. In this post I will simply (and very briefly) draw attention to 24 passages in which we see plainly a multi-Personal revelation.

My point is not that the OT betrays hints, shapes and shadows of triune structure

My point is not that NT eyes can see trinitarian themes in the OT

My point is not that we go back as Christians and now retrospectively read the trinity into the OT

My point is not that the OT gives us partial suggestions of trinitarian life that are then developed by NT fulfillment

My point is that these texts read on their own terms and in their own context (as the Jewish, Hebrew Scriptures that they are) demand to be understood as the revelation of a multi-Personal God. The only proper way to understand these texts is as trinitarian revelation. These texts are either to be understood triunely or they are mis-understood - on their own terms or any others! What I am setting out to do is to simply open up the OT and show what is actually there. I have already acknowledged that I have a dogmatic commitment to christocentric revelation, but I hope to show that the OT texts themselves bear this out.

Just before we dive into the texts I would simply ask the reader to question their own dogmatic commitments. I may be expecting to see a multi-Personal God in the OT, but I assure you - you are expecting to see a certain kind of God also. What is it? Are you expecting to see a revelation of the one God? A uni-Personal God? Are you accustomed to thinking of the OT God as equivalent to the God of the modern Jew? Unitarian? Perhaps not, perhaps you recoil at the idea (I hope so). But it’s worth all of us asking ourselves ‘What are our pre-suppositions?’ as we read ‘In the Beginning.’ The “God” of Genesis 1:1 is a certain kind of God. What do we assume about His being? What will we allow Him to be, do and say as we read chapter 1, chapter 2, chapter 3…? Do we think it’s “obvious” that the God of Genesis 1 is the uncreated Creator? Do we assume that the God being revealed by Moses is basically the God of the modern Jew? The philosophical theist? Something like the Muslim ‘God’? Perhaps we think (as so many Christians do) that “the One God” is a foundational doctrine to which trinitarian concepts are added? Perhaps then we see the OT as portraying this basic ‘God’ before trinitarian nuances are added?

I have often had the experience of being criticised for bringing trinitarian assumptions to the OT text when, at the same time, my Christian friend was bringing equally strong and equally controlling assumptions to bear themselves - assumptions that God (or His revelation) must progress from primitive unitarianism to developed trinitarianism. Pre-suppositions are inevitable. The issue is not ‘Who has purged themselves of all dogmatic bias and is a pure biblical scholar!’ The issue is ‘Which pre-suppositions can actually handle what’s on the page and which do damage to the text?’ My contention is that the trinitarian pre-supposition is the only one that makes sense of the OT data.

Ok. Here we go - 24 Scriptures to consider:

Genesis 1. Verse 1: “In the beginning Elohiym… ” Here is the God to Whom we’re introduced. A plural noun! One that takes a singular verb. The grammatical oddity is meant to make us sit up and take notice. Our plural God acts as one. And His plural counsel (v26) “Let us…” gives rise to a united creation of a plural humanity - male and female to image His own life.

Genesis 3. The Voice of the LORD God (v8) who comes to walk with Adam and Eve is also the LORD God (v9)

Genesis 16. The Angel of the LORD (v9) is also LORD and God (v13)

Genesis 18&19. The LORD who appears to Abraham (18:1) is Judge of all the earth (18:25), yet He excercises His divine prerogative in union with “the LORD out of the heavens.” (19:24)

Genesis 32. Jacob wrestles with the Man (v24) who is the Angel (Hosea 12:4) who is God (Gen 32:28,30)

Genesis 48. The God who is God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who is Shepherd and the source of blessing (v15) is the Angel of God (v16).

Exodus 3. The God of the burning bush is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (v6) and the great I AM (v14). He is also the Angel of the LORD (v2) and will bring the people to worship God on the mountain (v12).

Exodus 19. The LORD on the mountain (v10) warns Moses that in three days the LORD will come to the mountain (v11) and things will be very different then. Sure enough, three days later, the LORD descends on the mountain (v18) and then the LORD descends on the mountain (v20)!

Exodus 33. Moses meets face to face with the LORD in the tent of meeting (v11) but the LORD on the top of the mountain he must never see (v20-22).

Joshua 5&6. The Commander of the LORD’s army (5:14) who fights for Israel to deliver her is also the LORD who is worthy of worship (5:15; 6:2)

Judges 2. The Angel of the LORD brought them out of Egypt and established His covenant with them. (v1-4)

Judges 6. The Angel of the LORD (v11-12) brings the LORD’s blessing (one who is Sovereign LORD, v22). Yet the Angel, as another Person is Himself the LORD (v14) with the same divine majesty (v22-24).

Judges 13. God sends the Angel of the LORD (e.g. v9) who is Himself God (e.g. v22). And the Spirit fills Samson (v25)

Psalm 2. The Son Whom we are to kiss and find refuge in (v12) is the Anointed Son of the Father through Whom is exercised all divine rule and authority.

Psalm 45. The most excellent of men who rules the nations as Champion and King is called ‘Lord’ by His bride and ‘God‘ by His God. (v6,7)

Psalm 110. David knows two Lords who converse in their rule of the nations. There is the LORD and there is the Kingly Priest who is David’s Lord.

Proverbs. The Wisdom of God who creates (8:30) and gives new life (8:35) through granting the Spirit (1:23) is also possessed by the LORD (8:22)

Isaiah 9. The government of God’s righteous kingdom will be on the shoulders of the Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace (v6). Yet He is One who is born and through Whom the zeal of the LORD will accomplish His work (v7)

Isaiah 48. The great I AM, the first and the last who created the heavens and the earth and who called Israel (v12,13) is One who is sent from the Lord GOD along with His Spirit (v16)

Isaiah 63. The Saviour sends the Angel to save, yet they grieve His Holy Spirit (v9-10)

Ezekiel 34. The Shepherd of Ezekiel’s prophesy will be the LORD Himself (v12-22), yet this loving, kingly rule is exercised through the Prince, His Servant David (v23-24) who does all that the LORD is said to do as Shepherd and who rules for the LORD.

Daniel 7. The Possessor and rightful Ruler of the Kingdom that shall never pass away is the Son of Man (v13,14) who inherits the kingdom from the Ancient of Days (v9-12).

Micah 2. The Shepherd who will gather the remnant of Israel is the LORD (v12) who will set at their head a King who is also called ‘LORD’ (v13)

Zechariah 2. The One Sent from the LORD Almighty (v7,9,11) is the LORD Himself to live among the Israelites as the gentle, righteous, saving King of 9:9 (compare with 2:10)!

In all this my argument is not that these are hints of trinity but that they are texts that can only ever be understood from the perspective of a multi-Personal God. When two Persons called LORD are interacting in the text (when we see plainly “true God from true God”) then an understanding of God as uni-Personal is just dead wrong. It must always have been dead wrong for it could never account for the Hebrew Scriptures as written.

The only God there is is trinitarian and His revelation has always been such.

(Click here for comments)

Some more multi-Personal passages: Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah

Ok lets look at a few more key OT passages. 

Here’s a favourite of a friend of mine who uses it on Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Genesis 19:24

Then the LORD rained down burning sulphur on Sodom and Gomorrah from the LORD out of the heavens.

This even works in the New World Translation:

Then Jehovah made it rain sulphur and fire from Jehovah from the heavens

Having turned it up in their Watchtower bibles my friend asks: “To which Jehovah are you witnessing, the one on earth or the one in the heavens??”  Brilliant.

Because as even the New World Translation admits, it is the LORD (Jehovah!) who appears to Abraham in Gen 18:1, who along with two angels (cf Gen 19:1) eats the food Abraham and Sarah prepares (18:8).  While Abraham intercedes with this LORD the two angels go onto Sodom (Gen 19).  In verses 1-23 we see the angels get Lot out of Sodom and then… The LORD rains down judgement from the LORD out of the heavens.  This raining down is in the hiphil stem - it is not a reflexive.  The LORD who ate with Abraham now judges Sodom with fire from the LORD from heaven.  To which LORD do we witness?  Here we are presented with two divine Persons working in concert.  The Father has entrusted all judgement to the Son!

Another one that works in JW bibles is Exodus 33.  Here we see in the same chapter two Persons called LORD.  First, parenthetically, Moses tells us what used to happen in the tent of meeting (Ex 33:7-11).

Moses used to take a tent and pitch it outside the camp some distance away, calling it the “tent of meeting”. Anyone enquiring of the LORD would go to the tent of meeting outside the camp… The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young assistant Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent.

The narrative has been following events on top of the mountain but here Moses deems it necessary to tell us about his previous face-to-face encounters with the LORD in the tent.  This is so that we get the full importance of his meeting with the LORD on the mountain. Because this Person says to Moses unequivocally:

“You cannot see My face, for no-one may see Me and live.” ²¹ Then the LORD said, “There is a place near Me where you may stand on a rock. ²² When My glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. ²³ Then I will remove My hand and you will see My back; but My face must not be seen.”

Now Moses has gone out of his way to lay side by side these two incidents: Face to face fellowship with the LORD in the tent and then a meeting with the LORD on the mountain who says His face must never be seen.  I haven’t had the chance to do this yet, but the next JW that comes knocking will definitely be asked, “To which Jehovah are you witnessing?  The face-to-face Jehovah or the unseen Jehovah??”

Interestingly Moses had been asking the LORD on the mountain who would go with the Israelites.  He is told ‘My Presence (Face, paniym) will go with you.’ (v14, cf Deut 4:37; Ps 51:11; 139:7; Isaiah 63:9).  Moses considers this essential.  Unless the Presence of the LORD continues to deliver them he prefers to rot in the desert.  Later, when the unseen LORD declares His Name (Ex 34:6-7), Moses understands that the Name of the unseen LORD is in the promised Presence of the LORD (cf 23:21).  He realizes that in the Angel who has delivered them they already have the fulness of deity in their midst.  And so, satisfied, he says:

“O Lord, if I have found favour in Your eyes,” he said, “then let the Lord go with us.” (Ex 34:9)

The unseen Lord delivers them through the Lord in their midst who is His Presence and Angel in Whom dwells His name and nature.

When we get to Isaiah we see that his vision of the LORD’s future deliverance is patterned upon this trinitarian exodus:

⁷ I will tell of the kindnesses of the LORD, the deeds for which He is to be praised, according to all the LORD has done for us–yes, the many good things He has done for the house of Israel, according to His compassion and many kindnesses. ⁸ He said, “Surely they are My people, sons who will not be false to Me”; and so He became their Saviour. ⁹ In all their distress He too was distressed, and the Angel of His Presence saved them. In His love and mercy He redeemed them; He lifted them up and carried them all the days of old. ¹⁰ Yet they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit. So He turned and became their enemy and He himself fought against them. ¹¹ Then His people recalled the days of old, the days of Moses and His people–where is He who brought them through the sea, with the Shepherd of His flock? Where is He who set his Holy Spirit among them, ¹² who sent His glorious arm of power to be at Moses’ right hand, who divided the waters before them, to gain for Himself everlasting renown, ¹³ who led them through the depths? Like a horse in open country, they did not stumble; ¹⁴ like cattle that go down to the plain, they were given rest by the Spirit of the LORD. This is how You guided Your people to make for Yourself a glorious name.  (Isaiah 63:7-14)

Isaiah looks back upon this trinitarian salvation and claims that the future deliverance will be along the same lines.  See for instance Isaiah 48.  Verse 12 introduces us to One who says:

I am he; I am the first and I am the last

Read on and the I AM says this:

And now the Sovereign LORD (Adonai Yahweh) has sent Me, with His Spirit.

He is the great I AM sent from the Sovereign LORD with the Spirit.  In the power of the Spirit, the I AM accomplishes the Sovereign LORD’s salvation.  And of course Isaiah has just told us that the Sovereign LORD anoints One called ‘the Servant’ with His Spirit:

“Here is My Servant, whom I uphold, My chosen one in Whom I delight; I will put My Spirit on Him and He will bring justice to the nations.” (Is 42:1)

The Servant and the I AM seem to be the same Spirit anointed Person.  Other Isaiah passages pick up the essential empowerment of the Spirit in the work of the divine Servant.

A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit. ² The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him–the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD– ³ and He will delight in the fear of the LORD. He will not judge by what He sees with His eyes, or decide by what He hears with His ears; ⁴ but with righteousness He will judge the needy, with justice He will give decisions for the poor of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth; with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked. ⁵ Righteousness will be His belt and faithfulness the sash round His waist. (Is 11:1-5)

The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on Me, because the LORD has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent Me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, ² to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favour and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn, ³ and provide for those who grieve in Zion–to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair.” (Is 61:1-3)

It is the work of the Sovereign LORD’s Servant in the power of the Spirit to bring about His cosmic redemption.

Ok, enough for now.  If you want to study some more why not just pick up the book of Zechariah.  All of it!  Check out the Angel.  See how He is described, how He relates to another called LORD, how He is called LORD and speaks as the LORD.  See how the LORD says He is sent from the LORD (eg 2:9,11) and… well, check it out yourself. It’s an absolute treasure trove.  And then just read the whole OT and see if you don’t spot trinity everywhere!  Once you put aside the expectation of a monadic doctrine of God you release the OT from a unitarian straight-jacket and allow it to speak as the Christian revelation it has always been.

Next post I’ll list some ’so what’ implications and then I’ll give some juicy quotes from church history.

(Click here for comments)

Christ in the Psalms

Might be worth a little mini-post on Psalms.

It would be tempting to highlight “particularly Messianic” Psalms and say “There, see, Jesus is spoken of here and there in the psalter.”  But I’m not sure that’s right.  I once told a friend I was helping preach through an 8 week series called “Jesus in the Psalms”.  He said “Right, so you’ll get through Psalms 1-8, when are you going to do the other 142??”  I was chastened!  That’s absolutely right.  It’s not like Messianic Psalms form a sub-division of the psalter: like there’s imprecatory Psalms, Psalms of lament and messianic Psalms.  You’d never think of having the ‘God Psalms’ as a sub-category! Christ is not a sub-category of Christian revelation or experience.

And that’s the real danger with all of these posts I’ve been writing.  I’ve been quoting specific passages in the OT to show that messianically-focussed trinitarian faith is plainly taught there.  But I don’t want to give the impression that it’s only in those passages.  Rather those passages are meant to show us the dynamics that are inherent to the whole of the Scriptures. 

Think of the doctine of sola fide (faith alone) for instance.  There are a number of passages that we can readily turn up to demonstrate its truth.  And a paper on sola fide will spend time going through those specific passages, but not so as to prove that sola fide holds in those cases alone.  We look to the specific passages to show that this pattern holds for all God’s dealings with man.  And it holds even for those parts of the Scripture which opponents may erroneously claim refutes it.  It’s like this with solus Christus (Christ alone).  We look at the specifics to demonstrate a divine dynamic which holds for all Scripture.

So as we think about Christ in the Psalms we’re not going to pick out messianic mentions here and there.  Instead we’re going to look at Psalms 1 and 2 and see how these model for us what to expect in the rest of the Psalter.

Psalms 1 and 2 are often called the gateway to the Psalms.  They belong together for many reasons not least the “blessed”s at the beginning and end.  Just as with the Sermon on the Mount, the “blessed”s tell us who’s in on what’s about to be discussed.  In the Sermon on the Mount, the “blessed”s tell us who’s in the kingdom which Jesus describes?  In the Psalter, Psalms 1 and 2 tell us who’s in on the worship of the living God?  And who is the blessed man??

Well He is an ‘ish - a representative man.  In fact He is the Man.  This is an audacious claim.  (I rarely even claim to be a man!)  Verse 2 says He is a night-and-day Bible-meditator, which makes Him a king (cf Deut 17:18-20; Josh 1:8).  Verse 3, He is also like a tree (think ‘Branch’ or ‘Root’ or ‘Vine’ - kings are described like this).  Not only this but He can make others become prosperous (causative hiphil stem).

This one Man, this definitive Man, is contrasted in v4 to the many wicked. The Psalm does not begin by comparing righteous people to wicked people but rather The Righteous Man is contrasted with the wicked masses.  Then (presumably through the Man/Tree-of-Life causing many others to prosper like Him) we hear about other righteous ones (v5-6).

When we turn to Psalm 2 we see the Man given more names.  The LORD’s King (v6) is here called “Anointed One” (Messiah, v2), and “Son” (v7).  Though He is raged against, He will be poured out on Zion (v6) and publicly vindicated by the Father (v7) before claiming universal rule. (v8-9)  All must love and take refuge in Him - both Judge and Saviour. (v10-12) 

Here is the gateway to the Psalms.  We ought not to rush into the Psalter without stopping here and asking who is welcome in the Psalter.  And the answer is: “Blessed is the Man… and Blessed are all who take refuge in Him.”  We must be rightly related to Christ to be welcome in the worship of the living God.  He, supremely, is the Scripture-meditating, righteous, flourishing, tree-of-life-like Worshipper.  But as Calvin comments on Psalm 22:22, He also is the heavenly choir-master who tunes our hearts to sing God’s praises. 

Now what implications does this have for how we read the rest of the Psalter?  Well one big help we have received in this, the gateway, is that we’ve been introduced to the four main characters in the Psalms.  Here we have: 

(1)   the LORD;

(2)   the Christ, the Blessed Man;

(3)   The Righteous who take refuge in Him; and

(4)   The Wicked who oppose Him. 

 All the Psalms are about the interaction of these four groups.  In some, like Psalm 1, the Blessed Man is shown before the LORD and then the righteous and the wicked are contrasted.  In some, like Psalm 2, the righteous complain to the LORD about the wicked and then He reminds them about the Blessed Man, Christ.  In some we have simply the words of Christ.  In others we have the words of the LORD to Christ.  In some we simply have the words of sinners like us taking refuge in Him.  But all of the Psalms are about the inter-relation of these four groups.  And they all work together to speak to us of Christ. Let’s be alert to that as we read the Psalms, they are related to Christ.

Here’s a sermon manuscript of mine on Psalms 1 and 2

And here’s Mike Reeves on Psalm 1 - brilliant stuff!

Next post I’ll get down to the implications of all this…. (promises, promises…)

(Click here for comments)

Eleven reasons this stuff matters

11 reasons this matters.  (Thanks to Dev for the last one).  I’m not going to spend very long elucidating any of them.  I’m sure they’ll become rants of their own in future posts:

Why it’s important to see the Hebrew Scriptures as already and inherently a messianically focussed trinitarian revelation:

1) To make sense of the OT text.  I’m not sure how many passages I’ve quoted in the last 7 posts, maybe 40?  More?  I really don’t think I’ve been monkeying around with the texts, but I do think that these passages get a serious stream-roller treatment when people read them as uni-Personal passages. Let’s release ourselves from a basically unitarian hermeneutic of the OT because when you take these texts seriously they burst such arbitrary bonds.

2) Identifying Christ in Scripture is pretty fundamental!  To fail to correctly identify Christ in Scripture is a spiritual error, and a serious one at that.

3) Christ is not simply the best Word of God.  He is not the ultimate revelation of God or the seal of a series of improving revelations of God.  He is the one Word and Wisdom and Image and Way and Truth of God.  The OT is a fundamental test case about whether we believe this, or whether Christ is just the ‘cherry on the cake.’

4) We refocus on the main point of the incarnation - not new information but salvation!

5) The Old and New Testaments really belong together.  And they don’t belong together simply because both are revelations of “grace”.  I hope to post on this in the future but proclaiming “grace alone” without such grace being the natural outcome of “Christ alone” empties grace of its gospel character.

6) What is Faith?  Key question. If we are to emulate father Abraham’s faith are we simply to emulate the fact that he was trusting?  Isn’t the Object of faith the decisive issue? We stand shoulder to shoulder with Abraham, Moses and Isaiah not because we are all believers per se but believers in the Christ. 

7) Jewish evangelism!  We do not tell the Jew that they’re basically right about their interpretation of the Scriptures but please allow us to add a meaning Moses had no idea about.  If they believed Moses they’d believe in Jesus for he wrote about Jesus. 

8) Other religions.  Let us block off entirely the claim that other religions can know God apart from Christ.  It’s not unusual in debates on that issue for people to claim “Of course it’s possible to know God apart from Christ - OT Israel was in just that position.”  No they weren’t!  There never has been a revelation of God apart from Christ.

9) The Trinity really is the foundational truth about God.  It is not a nuance to be added to a simple doctrine of the one God as taught by Moses and the Prophets.  All revelation of God has always been trinitarian.

10) Personal distinctions in the Trinity go all the way down. By this I mean that Christ’s difference to the Father is not simply a function of the incarnation.  Often times people see the differences between Jesus and His Father as only the result of Jesus having taken flesh.  And it is a very simple step from there to a Nestorianism that says the human nature of the Son is separate from the divine nature.  But no, prior to incarnation the Sent One from the LORD is a distinct Person who nonetheless has the Father’s Name dwelling in Him (Exodus 23:21).  It has always been ok for the Divine Servant to be distinct from the LORD, we don’t need to assign all differences we see in Jesus to His human nature.

11) We must refocus Scripture on Jesus rather on self. If the law is about you - what kind of Christian life will you lead?  If Psalm 15 is about you, how will you cope?  If David slaying Goliath is a type of your battles - what’s the moral?  But if the law describes Christ and His righteousness… If Psalm 15 is about Him… If David is Christ defeating the head of the house of the wicked and winning victory for the people of God… then we are put in our right place.  We confess “I am not the righteous one described in the law, but a sinner.”  “I am not the Blameless One, but I have taken refuge in Him.”  “I am not the victorious King, but He has won my victory for me.” 

(Click here for comments)

Quotes from Justin Martyr and Irenaeus

Here are some quotations about Christ in the OT from heavy-weights in church history.  In this post we’ll look at Justin Martyr and Irenaeus.  Next post we’ll look at Luther and Calvin, then finally John Owen and Jonathan Edwards.  I’ve been very selective, not wanting these posts to go on too long.  There are more at my site.  And check out Dev’s collection of Justin quotes here.

JUSTIN MARTYR

Jesus, as we have already shown, while He was with them, said, “No one knoweth the Father, but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and those to whom the Son will reveal Him.” The Jews, accordingly, being throughout of opinion that it was the Father of the universe who spake to Moses, though He who spake to him was indeed the Son of God, who is called both Angel and Apostle, are justly charged, both by the Spirit of prophecy and by Christ Himself, with knowing neither the Father nor the Son. For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, for the salvation of those who believe on Him, He endured both to be set at nought and to suffer, that by dying and rising again He might conquer death.  (First Apology, chapter LXIII)

 And where it has been said, ‘O God, give Thy judgment to the king,’ since Solomon was king, you say that the Psalm refers to him, although the words of the Psalm expressly proclaim that reference is made to the everlasting King, i.e., to Christ. For Christ is King, and Priest, and God, and Lord, and Angel, and Man, and Captain, and Stone, and a Son born, and first made subject to suffering, then returning to heaven, and again coming with glory, and He is preached as having the everlasting kingdom: so I prove from all the Scriptures (i.e. the OT). (Dialogue with Trypho XXXIV)

IRENAEUS

The Holy Ghost, Throughout the Old Testament Scriptures, Made Mention of No Other God or Lord, Save Him Who is the True God. Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage has it: “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.” Here the [Scripture] represents to us the Father addressing the Son; He who gave Him the inheritance of the heathen, and subjected to Him all His enemies. Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord. And again, referring to the destruction of the Sodomites, the Scripture says, “Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven.” For it here points out that the Son, who had also been talking with Abraham, had received power to judge the Sodomites for their wickedness.  (Against All Heresies, III.6.1)

With regard to Christ, the law and the prophets and the evangelists have proclaimed that He was born of a virgin, that He suffered upon a beam of wood, and that He appeared from the dead; that He also ascended to the heavens, and was glorified by the Father, and is the Eternal King; that He is the perfect Intelligence, the Word of God, who was begotten before the light; that He was the Founder of the universe, along with it (light), and the Maker of man; that He is All in all: Patriarch among the patriarchs; Law in the laws; Chief Priest among priests; Ruler among kings; the Prophet among prophets; the Angel among angels; the Man among men; Son in the Father; God in God; King to all eternity. For it is He who sailed [in the ark] along with Noah, and who guided Abraham; who was bound along with Isaac, and was a Wanderer with Jacob; the Shepherd of those who are saved, and the Bridegroom of the Church; the Chief also of the cherubim, the Prince of the angelic powers; God of God; Son of the Father; Jesus Christ; King for ever and ever. Amen. (Fragment LIII)

(Click here for comments)

Quotes from Martin Luther and John Calvn

MARTIN LUTHER

All the promises of God lead back to the first promise concerning Christ of Genesis 3:15.  The faith of the fathers in the Old Testament era, and our faith in the New Testament are one and the same faith in Christ Jesus…  The faith of the fathers was directed at Christ…  Time does not change the object of true faith, or the Holy Spirit.  There has always been and always will be one mind, one impression, one faith concerning Christ among true believers whether they live in times past, now, or in times to come. (Luther’s Commentary, Gal 3:6-7)

JOHN CALVIN

John Calvin’s three essentials to be borne in mind when reading the OT: 

“First, we hold that earthly prosperity and happiness did not constitute the goal set before the Jews to which they were to aspire… Secondly, the covenant by which they were bound to the Lord was supported, not by their own merits, but solely by the mercy of the God who called them.  Thirdly, they had and knew Christ as Mediator, through whom they were joined to God and were to share in His promises.” (II.10.2).

“Holy men of old knew God only by beholding Him in His Son as in a mirror.  When I say this, I mean that God has never manifested Himself to men in any other way than through the Son, that is, His sole wisdom, light and truth.  From this fountain Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others drank all that they had of heavenly teaching.  From the same fountain, all the prophets have also drawn every heavenly oracle that they have given forth. (IV.8.5)

For Christ not only speaks of his own age, but comprehends all ages when he says: ‘This is eternal life, to know the Father to be the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent’ [John 17:3]… From this it follows that no worship has ever pleased God except that which looked to Christ. (II.6.1)

Even the Old Covenant declared that there is no faith in the gracious God apart from the Mediator…  The law plainly and openly taught believers to seek salvation nowhere else than in the atonement that Christ alone carries out.  I am only saying that the blessed and happy state of the church always had its foundation in the person of Christ…  So, then, the original adoption of the chosen people depended upon the Mediator’s grace.  Even if in Moses’ writings this was not yet expressed in clear words, still it sufficiently appears that it was commonly known to all the godly.  For before a king had been established over the people, Hannah, the mother of Samuel, describing the happiness of the godly, already says in her song: “God will give strength to his king and exalt the horn of his Messiah” [1 Samuel 2:10]…  Therefore David proclaims: “Jehovah is the strength of his people, the saving power of his Christ” [Psalm 28:8]… From this it is now clear enough that, since God cannot without the Mediator be propitious towards the human race, under the law Christ was always set before the holy fathers as the end [objectum] to which they should direct their faith.(II.6.2)

The hope of all the godly has ever reposed in Christ alone.(II.6.3)

Faith in God is faith in Christ.  God willed that the Jews should be so instructed by these prophecies that they might turn their eyes directly to Christ in order to seek deliverance…  apart from Christ the saving knowledge of God does not stand.  From the beginning of the world he had consequently been set before all the elect that they should look upon him and put their trust in him…  God is comprehended in Christ alone… So today the Turks, although they proclaim at the top of their lungs that the Creator of heaven and earth is God, still, while repudiating Christ, substitute an idol in place of the true God. (II.6.4)

The fathers, when they wished to behold God, always turned their eyes to Christ.  I mean not only that they beheld God in his eternal Logos [sermone], but also they attended with their whole mind and the whole affection of their heart to the promised manifestation of Christ. (Commentary, John 1:18)

There is no other way in which God can be known but through Christ, who is the image and pattern of his substance…  Although Jews, Turks, and other infidels boast that they worship God the Creator of heaven and earth, yet they worship an imaginary God: however obstinate they may be, they follow vague and uncertain opinions instead of truth; they grope in the dark and worship their own imagination instead of God.  In short, outside of Christ, all religion is deceitful and transitory and every kind of worship ought to be abhorred and condemned. (Commentary, Isaiah 25:9)

Quotes from John Owen and Jonathan Edwards

JOHN OWEN

Genesis 3

… a revelation was made of a distinct person in the Deity, who in a peculiar manner did manage all the concernments of the church after the entrance of sin. (Works, vol 18, 216)

He by whom all things were made, and by whom all were to be renewed that were to be brought again unto God, did in an especial and glorious manner appear unto our first parents, as he in whom this whole dispensation centred, and unto whom it was committed.  And as, after the promise given, he appeared ‘in human form’ to instruct the Church in the mystery of his future incarnation, and under the name of Angel, to shadow out his office as sent unto it and employed in it by the Father; so here, before the promise, he discovered his distinct glorious person, as the eternal Voice of the Father. (ibid, p220)

Genesis 18

Neither is there any ground for the late exposition of this and the like places, namely, that a created angel representing the person of God doth speak and act in his name, and is called Jehovah; an invention to evade the appearances of the Son of God under the old testament, contrary to the sense of all antiquity, nor is any reason or instance produced to make it good. (ibid, 225)

Genesis 19:24

…in this place it is Moses that speaketh of the Lord, and he had no occasion to repeat ‘The LORD’ were it not to intimate the distinct persons unto whom that name, denoting the nature and self-existence of God, was proper; one whereof then appeared on the earth, the other manifesting his glorious presence in heaven…  There is therefore in this place an appearance of God in human shape, and that of one distinct person in the Godhead, who now represented himself unto Abraham in the form and shape wherein he would dwell amongst men, when of his seed he would be ‘made flesh’.  This was one signal means whereby Abraham saw his day and rejoiced; which Himself lays upon His pre-existence unto His incarnation, and not upon the promise of His coming, John 8:56, 58. (ibid, 225)

Genesis 32:24-30

From what hath been spoken, it is evident that he who appeared unto Jacob, with whom he earnestly wrestled, by tears and supplications was God; and because he was sent as the angel of God, it must be some distinct person in the Deity condescending unto that office; and appearing in the form of a man, he represented his future assumption of our human nature.  And by all this did God instruct the church in the mystery of the person of the Messiah, and who it was that they were to look for in the blessing of the promised Seed. (ibid, 225)

Exodus 3:1-6

He is expressly called an “Angel” Exod. 3:2 – namely, the Angel of the covenant, the great Angel of the presence of God, in whom was the name and nature of God.  And he thus appeared that the Church might know and consider who it was that was to work out their spiritual and eternal salvation, whereof that deliverance which then he would effect was a type and pledge.  Aben Ezra would have the Angel mentioned verse 2, to be another from him who is called ‘God’, verse 6: but the text will not give countenance unto any such distinction, but speaks of one and the same person throughout without any alteration; and this was no other but the Son of God. (ibid, 225)

That the faith of all believers, from the foundation of the world, had a respect unto him [Christ], I shall afterwards demonstrate; and to deny it, is to renounce both the Old Testament and the New. (Christologia, VIII)

From the giving of that promise [Genesis 3:15] the faith of the whole church was fixed on him whom God would send in our nature, to redeem and save them. Other way of acceptance with him there was none provided, none declared, but only by faith in this promise. The design of God in this promise–which was to reveal and propose the only way which in his wisdom and grace he had prepared for the deliverance of mankind from the state of sin and apostasy whereinto they were cast, with the nature of the faith and obedience of the church will not admit of any other way of salvation, but only faith in him who was thus promised to be a saviour. (ibid)

JONATHAN EDWARDS

From ‘A History of the Work of Redemption’

When we read in sacred history what God did, from time to time, towards His Church and people, and how He revealed Himself to them, we are to understand it especially of the Second Person of the Trinity. When we read of God appearing after the fall, in some visible form, we are ordinarily, if not universally, to understand it of the Second Person of the Trinity… John 1:18. He is therefore called the image of the invisible God - Col 1:15 - intimating that though God the Father be invisible, yet Christ is His image or representation, by which He is seen.

It is now revealed to Abraham, not only that Christ should come; but that he should be his seed; and promised, that all the families of the earth should be blessed in him.

Thus you see how much more fully the covenant of grace was revealed and confirmed in Abraham’s time than ever it had been before; by means of which Abraham seems to have had a clear view of Christ, the great Redeemer, and the future things that were to be accomplished by him.

The main subjects of these songs were the glorious things of the gospel; as is evident by the interpretation that is often put upon them in the New Testament: for there is no one book of the Old Testament that is so often quoted in the New, as the book of Psalms. … here Christ is spoken of by his ancestor David abundantly, in multitudes of songs, speaking of his incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension into heaven, his satisfaction, intercession; his prophetical, kingly, and priestly office; his glorious benefits in this life and that which is to come; his union with the church, and the blessedness of the church in him; the calling of the Gentiles and the future glory of the church near the end of the world, and Christ’s coming to the final judgment.  All these things, and many more, concerning Christ and his redemption, are abundantly spoken of in the book of Psalms.

(Click here for comments)

The New Testament’s understanding of the Old part 1

Now I’d like to share one more reason why I think this stuff matters . It’s this:

When we see that the OT is already a witness to Christ before and even without the NT then we see that the prophets aren’t idiots and the apostle’s aren’t weirdos!  

It’s important to counter this notion because I suspect it lurks just beneath the surface of all our thinking.  So easily we think of the prophets as groping around in a sub-Christian darkness.  And married to this idea is the one that the apostles, when interpreting the prophets as illuminated Christian witnesses, are doing something really weird.  But no, the prophets aren’t idiots and the apostle’s aren’t weirdos!

You will have noticed that I haven’t really mentioned the NT at all in these posts.  My argument is not that the Old Testament is truly Christian because Jesus and the Apostles give us a new hermeneutic with which to re-read the Hebrew Scriptures.  My argument is that the Christian meaning (that is, the messianically focussed trinitarian meaning) is the intention of the original authors and the understanding of the faithful saints. 

Thus when, for instance, Paul says: “That Rock was Christ” ( 1 Cor 10:4) it’s not audacious apostolic authority that’s allowing him to re-read the history of Israel!!  It’s the fact he’s a believer who simply takes the Hebrew Scriptures seriously.  When Jude says “Jesus saved the people out of Egypt” (v5) it’s not some fancy telescoping of redemptive stories, it’s just the plain fact that Jesus actually led the people out of Egypt.   When John says “Isaiah saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about Him.” (John 12:41) it’s not because he’s retrospectively awarding to Isaiah an encounter with Jesus.  He’s just explaining the plain fact that Isaiah actually saw His glory (Isaiah 6!) and wrote the rest of his prophesies about this King who was high and lifted up (cf Isaiah 52:13).

New Testament handling of the Old is not a novel Christianization of an otherwise sub-Christian text.  It’s simply stating the obvious.  Which means - thank GOD! - that the Apostles can actually teach us how to handle the bible.  This is so important because many want to claim that Apostles are doing weird things which cannot be copied.  The argument (much caricatured!) runs something like this:

• When I read OT passage X, I don’t immediately see it as refering to Jesus
• Instead I think the assured findings of the grammatical-historical method yield a sub-Christian meaning.  i.e. it refers to David or Solomon or ‘God’ in the abstract.
• Then I come across Jesus or an apostle who simply asserts that X is speaking of Christ
• At this point I have two options
• A – I can say “I was wrong about X all along.”  I can confess the paucity of my passion for Christ and the foggy-ness of my spiritual vision.  I can admit that my presuppositions in reading the OT are not those of Jesus and the apostles and I can repent.   Or…
• B — I can say “I was right about X all along” and hold onto my sub-Christian reading of X which is given no expression anywhere in the Old or New Testaments.  I will assert that my sub-christian understanding of X is in fact the intended meaning of its author! And then I will claim that Jesus and the apostles add an unintended Christian gloss.
• I will probably not even consider A (it shocks me how rarely “A” occurs to the people I talk to!) and will, at the speed of thought, plump for B.  My justification?  I will proffer one of two quotations with an almost biblical assurance: Either, “The New is in the Old concealed.  The Old is in the New revealed,” or “They spoke better than they knew.”
• If challenged on the Scriptural warrant for this view I’ll mumble something about 2 Cor 1:20 or 1 Peter 1:10-12

Well let’s look at those Scriptures:

¹⁹ For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by me and Silas and Timothy, was not “Yes” and “No”, but in him it has always been “Yes.” ²⁰ For no matter how many promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ. And so through him the “Amen” is spoken by us to the glory of God.  (2 Cor 1:19-20)

Notice here that Paul claims “In Him it has always been Yes.”  I never see v19 quoted with v20 when used in these debates.  The promises of God find their Yes in Jesus Christ - and always have!

Let’s look at the other oft-quoted passage:

¹⁰ Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, ¹¹ trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. ¹² It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. (1 Pet 1:10-12)

Astonishingly, people - intelligent godly people - can quote this verse to support the view that the prophets didn’t know what they were talking about.  But look at what these prophets knew.  They knew the Spirit of Christ in them, they knew the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow, they knew that they weren’t serving themselves - they weren’t prophesying simply about contemporary events but knew they spoke of future gospel events.  What did they not know?  The time and circumstances.  There they were, full of the Spirit, fixed on the coming Christ - His sufferings and glories - they just didn’t know when it would happen.  They would have been asking “Is this the time?”  “Are these the circumstances into which the Messiah will come?”  How on earth you get from this verse to “They didn’t know what they were talking about” is truly beyond me.

So please let’s see that the prophets weren’t idiots and neither were the apostles weirdos.  Jesus and the apostles are not weird examples of a specially mandated NT exegesis which is off limits for us.  When we get this straight then they are seen truly as fellow exegetes with the prophets, laying bare the intended and understood meaning of the prior Scriptures and showing us how it’s done.  Because if Jesus and the apostles don’t teach you how to do hermeneutics, who will?? 

I heard of a hermeneutics professor who told his students that the Apostle Paul would have failed his class.  Well that’s just backwards.  It’s Paul who should have been teaching him.  But actually that’s very typical of how many people think.  They know how to do exegesis (the text critics have taught them well).  Paul doesn’t match up so he must be doing something weird - let’s sideline him, claim that we mustn’t follow the apostle and keep going with our own interpretive techniques before adding Paul’s stuff as a weird extra.  But no, we must be taught everything in the Christian life including and especially how to read the Scriptures.  Let’s not call them weird.  The Scriptures never claim that Jesus or the apostles are specially mandated in their interpretations.  They never ward us away from following them, quite the opposite.  They never claim to be going beyond what Moses and the prophets were saying (Acts 26:22). 

So please don’t buy into “The prophets spoke better than they knew.”  What about this for a crazy idea - “They knew what they were talking about.”  Doesn’t that make a bit more sense?!  Doesn’t that give you greater confidence in reading them!?  The prophets were not idiots.  And the apostles were not weirdos.

(Click here for comments)

The New Testament’s handling of the Old part 2

Ok, let’s continue with this issue of the NT’s handling of the Old. 

If we take the reformation cry of sola Scriptura at all seriously we must allow the Bible to interpret the Bible. Historical-grammatical hermeneutics, archaeology, even the most careful exegesis conducted by the best scholarship must all bow to God’s own word.  He determines His meaning.  He is the only fit witness to Himself.

Yet, in contemporary Biblical studies it is commonly said of New Testament writers that they re-interpret the meaning of Old Testament Scripture.  Thus, it is asserted that an Old Testament passage can be shown conclusively to mean one thing via a thorough application of historical-grammatical hermeneutics, and then when Jesus or an Apostle quote from it they invest it with a new Christological meaning.  Diligent exegesis yields one reading, the New Testament gives another.  Yet rather than bow to the Apostles and re-think their methods of exegesis, these Bible students assert without any New Testament support that these two meanings co-exist in the text.  Thus it is routinely suggested that Jesus and the Apostles did not faithfully exegete the Hebrew Scriptures (defined by contemporary models) but rather, with special license from the Holy Spirit, made Christological assertions that are not derived from exegesis itself.  Their treatment of the Old Testament is therefore not to be emulated.  What we primarily learn from their handling is the audacious apostolic authority invested in them. 

But what if we were to take Jesus and the Apostles as our models in the Christian life? (radical thought!).  If we do that we’ll see that the New Testament does not model a two-level exegesis of the kind: ‘David said ‘X’, but now we can re-read this through Christian eyes as ‘Y”.  The New Testament simply says Abraham met Christ (John 8:56).  It states boldly that Isaiah saw Jesus (John 12:41).  It asserts that David looked ahead to the resurrection and spoke explicitly of Christ (Acts 2:31).  It declares that Christ saved the people out of Egypt and accompanied them in the wilderness (1 Cor 10:4,9; Heb 11:26; Jude 5).  The New Testament does not say ‘Abraham had an experience which we can now re-interpret as ‘meeting Christ”.  It does not say ‘Isaiah saw a vision which Christian eyes know to be Jesus’.  It does not say, ‘David looked to types of Christ later fulfilled in His Person’. It does not say, ‘retrospectively we can see signs and types of Jesus of which the Israelites were unaware but which manifested a Christ-like presence in their midst.’  Yet how often is the OT handles in this way?

If you continue, I’ve listed a number of New Testament texts which handle the Old Testament.  Just see the way New Testament writers read the Old.  Only the Bible can teach us to handle the Bible.  If we do not read the Old Testament the way these men did - we are wrong.  We must change.  Let these examples challenge our own reading of the Scriptures.

“No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made Him known.”  (John 1:18)

• Was there ever a time when God the Father has been seen?
• Who then did Adam, Eve, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Isaiah etc etc etc see?
• How is God made known? (also see John 6:46; John 14:8,9)
• Did Abraham know God?
• How?

[Jesus said] “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. I do not accept praise from men, but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts.  I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him.  How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?  “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”  (John 5:39-47)

• Is diligently studying the Scriptures enough to get their true meaning? (v39)
• What is the testimony of the (Old Testament) Scriptures (v39)
• What did Jesus expect to be the outcome of studying the Old Testament? (v40)
• Can Moses accuse the Jews of not believing in Christ if he didn’t?? (v45)
• What did Moses write about? (v46)
• Given Jesus’ attitude to these Jews, did He think that they had an excuse for not believing because the OT was unclear?
• Was Jesus telling the Jews they had to understand Him to understand Moses (as the whole “re-reading” hermeneutic would have it) or was Jesus telling them they had to understand Moses to understand Him?

 “He answered, `Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ “Abraham replied, `They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ “`No, father Abraham,’ he said, `but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’  “He said to him, `If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”  (Luke 16:27-31)

• Did Jesus think that unbelievers had an excuse for not believing in Him?  If not, why not?  What exactly is it that Jesus considers sufficient warning for an unbelieving world?
• What is more able to give someone faith in Christ- to have witnessed the resurrection or to read the Old Testament? 
• If you had the choice of giving an enquirer “Who Moved the Stone?” or the Old Testament which would you choose?  Which do you think Jesus would choose?”

“He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself…  He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”  Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.  He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:25-27; 44-47)

•  Did Jesus sympathise with people who didn’t read the OT Christologically? (v25)
• Given this, is Jesus claiming to re-interpret these Scriptures or to be plainly expounding them?
• What had the prophets spoken?
• Given that the risen Christ was standing right there with this couple- what is surprising about how Jesus reveals Himself to them? 
• How does this relate to Jesus’ conclusion to Luke 16?
• Would verses 46 and 47 provide a fair outline of an evangelistic talk?  What is the source for this gospel outline?

“But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.  All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”  (2 Timothy 3:14-17)

• What Scriptures is Timothy acquainted with from infancy?
• What are these ancient Scriptures able to do? (v15)
• Does this help explain why Jesus rebuked those who read the Old Testament but didn’t trust in Him? (e.g. John 5, Luke 16, Luke 24)

“You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all… All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” (Acts 10:36, 43)

• What was the message God sent to the people of Israel? (v36)
• What did the prophets testify about? (v43)
• What is the prophets’ understanding of the proper object of saving faith? (v43)

“But I have had God’s help to this very day, and so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen– that the Christ would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and to the Gentiles.”  (Acts 26:22,23)

• Does Paul’s theology ever go beyond what the OT said would happen? (cf 1 Cor 4:6)
• What is it that both Moses and the prophets were on about?
• On Paul’s logic, could Moses have given a similarly Christian sermon to King Agrippa if he’d been tele-ported there?

“Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”  (Acts 17:11)

• Why are these Berean’s praised?
• Does Paul interpret the OT or does the OT interpret Paul?
• As Paul went to the Jews first and proclaimed Christ from the OT alone, did he do so by saying “You were right about Moses, but let me, by special license from Jesus, add another Christian gloss on that text which was unintended by Moses.”?

“He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn–and I would heal them.” Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him. (John 12:40,41)

 John quotes from Isaiah 6 where the prophet sees the LORD in the temple.

• Who is the seen LORD?
• Does John’s identification surprise us given John 1:18?
• Who did Isaiah write about?
• As Isaiah later writes about the Servant of the LORD in great detail, does Isaiah know of whom he writes? 
• What Biblical reason would there be for saying that Isaiah didn’t know of whom He spoke?

“For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert. Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in pagan revelry.” We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did–and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. We should not test the Lord [early manuscripts say "Christ"], as some of them did–and were killed by snakes. And do not grumble, as some of them did–and were killed by the destroying Angel.” (1 Corinthians 10:1-10)

• Note the repeated use of “Don’t ______  as they did.” (vv 6-10)  Why is Paul using OT believers as an example/warning for the Corinthians?
• In verses 1-4, were the Israelite’s spiritual experiences any different from ours?
• Was their spiritual nourishment from a different source than ours?
• What was their object of faith? (v4)
• Who accompanied them in the desert?

“[Moses] regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward.” (Hebrews 11:26)

 So Moses seems to have made a little cost-benefit analysis about leaving Egypt.

• For what reason did Moses choose disgrace?
• Can Moses have not known Christ and yet been motivated to act for His sake?  Can something which is unknown to us motivate us?
• Given that he did not enter the promised land- what was the reward which kept Moses going?
• Was it the same as Abraham’s (cf Hebrews 11:8-10), who, the Bible tells us was “looking forward to the city with foundations whose architect and builder is God”?
• Were these two models of Christian faith trusting in the shadows or the reality according to Hebrews?

“For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord [early manuscripts say "Jesus"] delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.”  (Jude 1:4-5)

• Who delivered his people out of Egypt?
• How is “Lord” to be understood given verse 4?

“Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”  “You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”  At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.”  (John 8:56-59)

• What did Abraham see? (v56)
• How do the Jews understand this ‘seeing’? (v57)
• Given Jesus’ response in v58, are they on the right track when they understand that Jesus is talking about physically meeting Abraham?
• Who does Jesus claim to be in v58?  What is the significance of the name “I AM”?  Where does it come from and who is this Angel of the LORD (who is also the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) who claims the name “I AM” for Himself (Exodus 3)?

“But about the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.’” (Heb 1:8-9)

• According to the writer, who is the God of Psalm 45:6 who is also the Bridegroom, Anointed King and most excellent of men?
• Given that this God has a God who anoints Him, could the writer have come to any other conclusion?
• Could this Psalm have ever referred to anyone other than the Son?
• Does the writer in any of his OT quotations imply that they first had a non-Christocentric meaning to which he was adding another layer?
• If these Psalms were not originally about the Son, would his argument for the superiority of the Son work?  Wouldn’t his opponents say “That was never about the Son” if it wasn’t clear to all that they did in fact speak of Christ?
• Look at his OT quotations in chapter 1-3.  How trinitarian is the writer’s view of the OT.

Some at this point claim that the writer is implicitly modelling a “re-reading” hermeneutic but just not “showing his workings.”  This is an argument from silence (deafening silence at that!).  But let’s look at an instance of the apostles actually showing us their workings.  Let’s see what Peter does on the day of Pentecost…

David said about him [Jesus, v22]: 

“‘I saw the Lord always before me.  Because he is at my right hand, I will not be shaken. Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will live in hope, because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay. You have made known to me the paths of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence.’  

“Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.  Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.   (Acts 25-32)

• Who did David write about?
• If you say he wrote about himself, what problem do you run into in v29?  (cf Acts 13:36-37)
• If you say he wrote unwittingly about Jesus what problem do you run into in v31?
• How did David write with such clarity?

“While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, “How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: ” ‘The Lord said to my Lord: ”Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.” ‘ David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?” (Mark 12:35-37)

• How did David write with such clarity?
• Did Jesus think that the two “Lord”s of Psalm 110 were meant to be understood?
• Who was David’s Lord?

The New Testament does not teach a “re-reading” hermeneutic.  Instead Jesus and the Apostles appeal to the Hebrew Scriptures as that which interprets them. (cf Acts 17:11; 26:22).  They claim to be giving the prima facie, originally intended, Christian meaning which should always have been understood by the faithful.  The two-step move from sub-Christian interpretation to Christian simply is not found in Jesus or the Apostles.  When someone claims we must follow such a hermeneutic they have read that in to the bible.  Which, let’s face it, is bad hermeneutics! 

(Click here for comments)

The End?

Ok time to bring these thoughts to a close (for now).

For links to the 14 posts in this series go here.

For the full text of the 14 posts go here.

Let me finish with a plea from the heart of true doctrine...  Jesus is the Word of God.  He is not the best Word.  He is not the ultimate Word.  He is not the seal of series of improving words.  He is the Word.  There is no knowledge of God that is not mediated through the Son.  Please consider these foundational verses.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made.  (John 1:1-2)

No-one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made Him known. (John 1:18)

He is the Image of the invisible God, the Firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created  (Col 1:15-16)

The context for these verses is not incarnation.  The Word became flesh long after the Word was.  The Son has been the revelation of God from before the creation of the world.  Incarnation does not make Jesus the Word, rather the pre-existing Word became flesh.  At the risk of sledge-hammer repetition: Jesus is the Word and Image of God prior to incarnation.  He has always been the one Way, Truth and Life.  To be ignorant of the Son pre or post-incarnation is to be ignorant of God.

Consider additionally these crucial passages:

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

 "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No-one knows the Son except the Father, and no-one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." (Matt 11:27)

Christ in the OT is not an irritating hobby horse that some people ride and we wish they didn't and would let us alone 'cos we all get to Jesus in the end'.  It's about the identity of Jesus.  Is He the revelation of God or is He something less?  Is solus Christus true in revelation just as it is in salvation or is it a case of 'Jesus and...'  Are there other ways? Other truths?  Or does Jesus retain for Himself all the glory?

 (Click here for comments)

---

Back to other papers

---

Home	The God who is...	Sermons and Bible Studies
Common Objections	Quotes from History	Extras
Not yet a Christian?	Links	Contact

Copyright 2007 Christ the Truth