o-come-let-us-adore-him-november-december-1995

Editor-in-Chief Michael Horton

modern REFORMATION

Managing Editor Sara McReynolds

Editorial Consultant

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1995

Michqel Rutherford

Volume 4 Number 6

Contributing Scholars Dr. John Armstrong

Dr. S. M. Baugh

Dr. James M. Boice

Dr. D. A. Carson

Dr. Knox Chamblin

Dr. Bryan Chapell

Dr. Daniel Doriani

Dr. J. Ligon Duncan

Dr. TimQthy George

Dr. W. Robert Godfrey

Dr. John Hannah .

Dr. Darryl G. Hart

Dr. Carl F. H. Henry

The Rev. Michael Horton

Dr. Robert Kolb

Dr. Allen Mawhinney

Dr. Joel Nederhood

Dr. Roger Nicole.

The Rev. Kim Riddlebarger

Dr. Rod RosenbJadt

Dr. Robert Preus

Dr. R. C. Sprou I

Dr. Robert Strimple

Dr. Willem A. VanGemeren .

Dr. Gene E. Veith

Dr. David Wells

CURE Board of Directors Douglas Abendroth Michael E. Aldrich John G. Beauman Cheryl Biehl The Rev. Earl Blackburn Dr. W. Robert Godfrey The Rev. Michael Horton James Linnell Dr. Robert Preus

CHRISTIANS U NITED

for

R EFORMATION

© 1995 All rights reserved.

CURE is a non-profit edu catio nal foundation

committed to communicating the insights of the

16th century Reformation to the 20th century

church. For more information, call or write us at:

CHRI STIANS U NITED

for

R EFOR!\ fATION

2221 East Winston Road Suite K Anaheim, CA 92806

714-956-CURE

Come L et Us Adore Him

The Person and Work of ·C hrist 4

Heaven Came Down

The Mission ofChrist

Michael Horton

16

The Triple Cure

Jesus Christ-Our Prophet, Priest, and King Kim F-iddlebarger

22

The Glory ofthe Coming Lord

Discovering Christ in the Old Testament Edmund Clowney

27

The Divinity of Christ

Ligon Duncan

33

The Mediator is the Message

Rick Ritchie

2

In this Issue: "Who do men say that I am?"

2

Letters To The Editor

13 An Interview with Robert Strimple

What is the Jesus Seminar?

21 Book Review:

Requiem: A Lament in Three Movements

by Dr. Thomas aden Reviewed by Dr. Sheridan B. Manasen

SUBSCRIBE TO

modern REFORMATION 11 year $22.1 [i year~

COVER : Rembrandt (1633, Lowerin g Ch rist from the Cross) shows in all his work th at he was a man of the Reformati on; he neither idea li zed nature nor demea ned it.

M oreover, Rembrandt's bibli ca l base enabled him to excel in painting peo ple w ith psychological depth. Rembrandt und erstood that Chri st is the Lord of all of fife. He li ved in the midst of God's world and did not need to make himse lf God. Rath er, he co uld use God's wo rld and its form in hi s painting.

In This Issue

by Michael Hortort

«Who do meri"say that 1- ~rri??)

That continues tobethe questiofl whose answerdivides humani.ty .into "believern @d "unbeHever. n And yet, 'surveys indi­ cate that even in the churcli»,:e are increas­ ingly fuzzy on our answer: There is no bet­ ter timelo remind ourselves ofthe wonder of the God -Man than at Christmas.

In this issue, we want to sort thrbugh the variou,s v~ews that have been offered and test the'm by the claims ofeyeC' witness biblical accounts'VVhat we findis that people's an­ swers h~ye not te,~lly changed all that much>As in his own day, Jesus is considered bysome to haveheeI).(lwise moral teacherwho taughtpeoplehow to love and live, neighbors.

Others say that he was a great hero wh() w~s Willing to die in . serviceto humanity and to oppose thereligious orthodoxies ·

as

oftheday.Stillotherssaythathewasa' fl1:,~fiwhopossessedlhe '

Spirit or "Christn -consciousness iqji;reater measure than mostspiritual leaders .in history;JsHe,really God -in -the­ flesh, aunion of divine and human natures? Did he heal the sick and raise the dead by his own pow~~? Could he have sinned and would he have died a natural death? These are not just qu@'stions ofcuriosity. The way theyhifve been answered through the ages has led either to ort~ggoxy or heresy.

Many people in our day saythatitgoesn't matterwhahve believe about Jesus, sqlong as weappiywhat he taughtu,sand tryto imitate his life. After all,~(we're saved bya persori~ not a proposition," we areJold. Butd6the Scriptures allow us to have one without the other? Is it possible to really know Jesus Christ if we do not really arrive at definite conclusions about that age-old question? Who do you say that he is? ~

Next Month Liturgy Everyonehas a liturgy. Even free-wheeling groups that prid,e thems~lves on freedom and spontaneity eventually develop a predictable pattern. In a culture in which "crea­ tun~sofhab,it" equals~(boring" and "irrelevant," giving much teflectio~and attention to the regular habits of divine wor­ ship maYseem rather uncontemporary. That is, at least in . part, beCAuse we are a WQr1(fly generation. Believing that it , . does notreally m(itter how one worships" so long as he or she ~; is sincete about it, we are 'following a culture of relativism; ffere are some positive alternfltives. ~

2

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1995

BACK ON TRACK I recently received the July/August copy of modern REFORMATION. With it I received your letter explaining why your magazine isn't always on time.

Thank you for taking the time to explain why it is sometimes late. I had written a letter of concern because I thought maybe for some reason my subscription had gotten fouled up. Now that I know that at times it will be late I will patiently await its arrival. Keep up the good work.

J. R.

Florence, CO

Many thanks for your most excellent periodical. I was very glad to receive Mike Horton's cover letter! I always keenly anticipate every issue! As a disabled veteran of the Armed Forces, a periodical such as modern REFORMATION is a peculiarly felicitous!

Gnosticism sounds remarkably similar to Arminianism with its subjectivism veering into solipsism. This is why Reformed Theology is such a "Copernican Revolution" of the soul and your periodical feeds my soul dear friends!

C. F. Hamilton, OH THANK YOU! Thank you for the most recent issues of modern REFORMATION on gnosticism, evangelism, and family values. I am constantly challenged by your message, not only intellectually but emotionally, as I come to grips with difficult and tangled theological issues which require urgent insight and even sometimes personal repentance and change.

From a somewhatselfish and pragmatic standpoint, my interest in Reformation theology consists of the fact that it "scratches" where other theologies "can't scratch "-that is, in dealing with my deepest spiritual needs as a morally-warped creature desperately dependent on the sovereign, redeeming grace of God. Evangelical teaching which responds to my "felt needs" may satisfy for a time, butthere is no substitute for the brutally realistic, totally stable and objective understanding of God's salvation work which goes farthest to quiet the greatest groanings of my guilty soul. It is daunting to realize the terrible sinfulness of intellectual and theological error, but it is equally heartening to grasp the depth of God's mercy, grace, and patience toward his easily misled sheep.

£. V. San Mateo, CA

modern REFORMATION

I really appreciate the ministry of CHRISTIANS UNITED for modern REFORMATION magazine and the monthly tapes are such a refreshing oasis from the wasteland of what the popular evangelical culture is promoting these days. Your ministry helps me to be restored and encourages me to not abandon the church altogether! My friends and I go out for lunch weekly and have ourown "White Horse Inn" and discuss issues of the Reformation. We need to find a way to get you guys on the radio here in west Michigan.

REFORMATION.

M. V. Hudsonville, MI

page may have felt himself [or herself] to be? I don't know much about Bill Bright except that he has been involved with Campus Crusade for a long time. I have listened to enough of Chuck Swindoll's messages to be quite sure he doesn't have any gnostic tendencies, and modern REFORMATION was guilty of a serious slur by associating him with Madonna, the Beatles, and Harry Fosdick.

Let him who has never m isspoken, is always perfectly articulate, and unfailingly discerns his own errors cast the first stone, but let him who thinks he can do that take heed lest he also fall.

C.O. I love your radio program and magazine. They are like slabs of steak in the world of puff pastries.

Birmingham, AL

C. R. Fremont, CA

Editor's Response: The purpose of the "Gnostic Tendencies" page, consisting of a collage of quotes from sources as diverse as Madonna and various evangelicals, was not intended as a charge of heresy. The aim was to make the point that Gnosticism so infl uences our culture that its presence can be discerned even in our own circles.

Sometimes we are prone to point fingers at non­ Christians (especially New Agel'S) , while failing to see the same influences in our own churches. However, we did not intend to suggest that everyone cited was formal ly guilty of the Gnostic heresy. Part of the confusion is due to the way this term is used in the books th at helped us think through these issues. Even secular scholars refer to the "Gnostic" direction of the culture, with Yale's Harold Bloom even arguing that wh ether one is a liberal or conservative, New Age mystic or Pen tecostal, there are some basic p resuppositions that all have in common in what he calls The American Religion. Gnosticism is the tie that binds, even among those who would reject any association with th is heresy. But it is tendencies that we had in mind, not at all to suggest that everyone cited formally subscribes to the Gnostic heresy. The quotes were simply illustrative of a direction or tendency across a wide spectrum of American religious communities. Havingsaid that, itwas inappropriate for us to have cited Charles Swindoll in that connection.

We regret using that quote and wish to apologize for any confusion it may have caused. ~

GNOSTIC TENDENCIES TheJuly/AugustmodernREFoRMATIONwas, in my opinion, one of the most thought-provoking issues to date! If I had stopped reading after the "Gnostic Tendencies," I would have gotten my money's worth.

Talk about being challenged to think! I was gradually accepting some of the popular worship songs that I once despised due to the push to please the ears of both "outsiders" and members of the body. "The Pride of Simplicity" offered some serious challenges to "seeker sensitive" churches who seem to be more concerned with the attractiveness of music than with whether or not a holy God is worshipped in truth. This article served to re-stimulate my search for what true worship is and what God does require of us in this regard. Thank you, Dr. Payton, for your hard truth! We need articles like this one to sober us up.

Anonymous I thought Beyond Culture Wars was thoughtful and well done, and that's why I began subscribing to modern REFORMATION magazine. Unfortunately, modernREFORl\tlATION does not measure up to Beyond Culture Wars in quality of thought or editing. It often seems a little flip, even arrogant, in some of its statements, as if they were written by younger people who haven't lived long enough yet to realize there may be another view that makes the issue not quite so clear.

For example, the July/August issue I just received has a collection of quotations byvarious people purportingto exhibit "Gnostic Tendencies." Regardingthe quotes from Bill Bright and Chuck Swindoll, what's wrong with them, especially what Chuck is quoted as saying? What is the context from which they were taken? Are they "Gnostic Tendencies," or merely statements of a particu lar Scri ptu ral idea which were not quite as articulate as the editor of this

PLEASE SEND US YOUR LETTERS

BY MAIL, FAX, OR E-MAIL TO:

modernREFoRMAnON Letters to the Editor

2221 East Winston Road Suite K

Anaheim, California 92806

Fax: 714-956-5111

E-mail: CURElnc@netcom.com.

or CURElnc@aol.com

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1995

3

BY MICHAEL HORTON , ' H a v e n came down and glory filled my soul." Many ofus recall singing that line rom the hymn by the same title. But what do we mean by that? Do we mean that we experienced God directly, by the descent ofHeaven itselfinto our heart?

Do we really mean that glory filled our soul?

The only way this sentiment can have a biblical foundation is if(Heaven" is Jesus Christ and the « glory" that floods our soul is the goodness and sovereign mercy ofGod offered in the person and work ofGod incarnate.

In this look at the Incarnation, we will see how God came close to us and fulfilled all of the Old Testament hopes and dreams of entering into a personal relation­ ship with him. All ofour Christian spirituality flows out of this supreme self-revelation of God, and by under­ standing the mission of Christ we will have a well from which to draw throughout our Christian life.

In the Garden When Adam reached for a «higher wisdom" and a «higher knowledge" than God's revealed Word, he found himself naked and ashamed. So he fled from God's presence. Being close to God when one is conscious of one's sinfulness and rebellion is like a murderer being in the same courtroom with a victim. Or, to use a different analogy, it is like a husband being in bed with his wife just after he has committed adultery. There is some­ thing oddly disturbing about this presence, something that makes one look for the nearest exit, and that is precisely what Adam attempted. The problem was, God is everywhere. He tracked Adam down, confronted him with his guilt, and announced the verdict ofcondemna­ tion.

But God the Judge was also God the Redeemer and even in this early stage in redemptive history, he prom­ ised a Messiah (Gn 3: 15) and then clothed the couple in the skins of a sacrificial animal.

I t was this Messiah whose bloody sacrifice covered Adam and his believing posterity in the righteousness of God. It was with this Messiah in mind that Isaiah so many ages later w<\mld declare in anticipation, (,(l3ut he was pierced for O'\Ir transgressions, he was crushed for

our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.~.Yet it was the LORD'S will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will ofthe LORD will prosper in his hand... For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors" (Is 53:5, 10, 12). Centuries later, when John the Baptist was preaching and baptizing, that moment finally came: «Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" On 1:29).

The Apostle Paul similarly contrasts the first Adam with the second Adam, Christ: «For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous" (Rom 5:19). Christ obeyed his Father, and when the serpent came to offer him deification, together with all ofthe kingdoms ofthe world, the second Adam fasted instead of eating the forbidden fruit. Instead oflistening to vain promises of a «higher knowledge," the second Adam answered the serpent, «It is written: (Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God'" (Mt 4:4). He obeyed in our place, so that his life of perfect conformity to God's will is credited to every believer. Only in this way can sinners come close to God without fear ofjudgment, for they are wearing the righ­ teousness ofChrist instead ofthe fig leaves oftheir own pretensions.

When You Care Enough to Send the Very Best While Abel brought the sacrifice that God required, Cain brought an offering to the Lord that was not com­ manded. Foreshadowing the Cross ofChrist, humanity was required to bring the sacrifice of the first of the flock, just as Jesus was the firstborn of the Father. In­ stead, Cain sought his own path to God, his own form of worship, and was rejected by God. Sinful creatures cannot come to God or get close to God themselves, but must accept the ordained mediat9r and his sufficient s qrifice. Cain thought he had care<d. enough to send the v ybest, "

."

CAME

4

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1995

I

OWN modern REFORMATION

But the analogy is even more poignant. When God approached Cain after the murder of Abel, the Lord declared, «Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground" (Gn 4:10). And yet, as tender as that cry was to God's ears, we are invited «to Jesus the mediator ofa new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood ofAbel" (Heb 12:24). God cared enough to send the very best: his only-begotten Son, and for us to devise any other way to God-despite the best of intentions-is to invite God's wrath On 3:18).

Worshipping the Right God in the Right Way The people at the foot ofMount Sinai were to bewarned to «not force their way through to see the LORD and manyofthem perish" (Ex 19:21). The sight of fire and smoke, flashes oflightning, and peals of thunder terri­ fied the Israelites so that they kept their distance. Far from forcing their way into God's presence, they de­ manded a mediator: «They stayed at a distance and said to Moses, (Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die'" (Ex 20:19).

Mediating between the people and their God, Moses pleaded their case before Yahweh, just as he spoke the very word of Yahweh to the people.

And yet, as great as Moses was in his mediatorial office-even willing to substitute himself for Israel when God threatened to destroy the nation-he too was a sinful creature. Even Moses needed a mediator.

Of Christ the writer to the Hebrews declares, He was faithful to the one who appointed him, just as Moses was faithful in all God's house. Jesus has been found worthy ofgreater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself.. ..Moses was faithful as a servant in all God's house, testifying to what would be said in the future.

But Christ is faithful as a son over God's house. And we are his house, if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast. (Heb 3:2-6) Sinful Jews and Gentiles, like the Israelites atMount Sinai, cannot rush into God's presence without being consumed by divine fire. It is only by turning to the mediator who is greater than Moses that we can enter into the Holy Place. Itis his sprinkled blood that makes us acceptable to the Father and his intercessory plead­ ingat God's right hand that give us the access ofrightful heirs and children of the Most High. Like Moses, he pleads our case before the Father as our priest even as he speaks the word of his Father to us as our prophet.

Show Me Your Glory When Moses cried out for the vision of divine glory, he was told, «No one may see me and live" (Ex 33:20).

Placing Moses behind a rock, with his hand covering

the prophet's face, God allowed his glory to pass by.

How much more is Christ the «Rock ofAges"! «Rock of Ages, cleft for me. Let me hide myselfin thee"! It is true that no one can see the Divine Face and live, but «the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us" On 1:14). Like the tabernacle that moved with the chil­ dren ofIsrael, as the Divine Presence led them through the wilderness, God «tabernacled" or «pitched his tent" among us in the person ofJesus Christ. So much greater in excellence and the fulfillment ofall righteousness was the very embodiment ofGod in human flesh. Far supe­ rior was this holy visitation of God than anything ever known to Israel even in the most awe-inspiring mo­ ments of Old Testament manifestations.

«No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God," said Jesus. «Only he has seen the Father" On 6:46). This is why the writer to the Hebrews distin­ guishes Jesus' superiority over Moses in terms of sonship. Of course, Moses was, like us, an adopted son ofthe Most High, but Christ was the eternally begotten Son, the second person of the holy Trinity On 1:1-2, 3:16). Sonship was important to the Jews. One would never have spotted a «God is rad, he's my dad" bumper sticker in ancient Palestine, for to have God as a father was a serious claim. Surely it was acceptable to call oneself a child of Abraham, but Jesus was claiming more for himself. «You do not know me or my Father," he told them. «If you knew me, you would know my Father also," he dared to say in the holy precincts ofthe temple itself, where the offerings were placed On 8: 19).

These self-righteous individuals were confident that they were in God's good graces because they had, in their estimation, conformed to the divine requirements.

«Once more Jesus said to them, (I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come'" (v. 21). This is certainly not very «seeker friendly"! Where is all the talk about God begging people to keep him company, to accept his love, and to be a part ofhis family? Jesus says, in effect, «If you do notgo to the Father through me as the Son, you will die in your sin. And if you die in your sin, you cannot enter the Holy of Holies and find rest for your souls." , Even many who believed Jesus answered, «We are Abraham's descendants and 'have never been slaves ofanyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?" (v. 33). This is where we are in our day.

According to recent surveys, nearly everybody in America believes in the existence of hell, but only 11 percent fear the possibility of going there. We assume that we have a right to enter into God's presence and the suggestion that we are born into this world as enemies of God and slaves of our own sinful hearts is quite offensive, especially to those of us who are confident in their own righteousness, in their own spiritual devotion

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1995

5

or religious pedigree. When the Jews again insisted that Abraham was their father, Jesus replied, "You are doing the things your own father does," but itwas not Abraham he had in mind as their father. "Weare not illegitimate children," they answered. "The only Father we have is God himself' (v. 41). Think of the difficulty of Jesus' confrontation here. He is speaking to those who are his own flesh and blood, the chosen people of Israel. If anyone had a personal relationship with God, surely it was these devoted zealots. Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire .... The reason that you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." (vv. 42-44, 47) In a startling declaration that left no doubts in the religious leaders' mind as to his meaning, Jesus announced, "I and the Father are one" On 10:30), and, to Philip, who sought a demonstration of glory ("Show us the Father"), Jesus answered, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" On 14:9). It was not enough for those seeking "power encounters" and a theology of glory to see Jesus-God made flesh. Flesh and bone were too natural, too human, too earthly, to excite the emotions. And yet, what could have been more moving than being able to touch the very God whose face no one could see and live?

«lSStu:lle tl'li: t ",e i 'a.lve it, rigllt t/.) ellt/~:~r in_~4) C;(~41~S l.r(~§eI14:~t~ ilnel the suggesti4:'D thilt 'V4:~ .lr(~ 1.4:trll illt(t tilis ,v4)rld ,tS elleulies 4)f t;~)d illid slaves o· (t1lr (.~n sinful ilearts is tlllitJe ffellsi,re~ eSI.ecially to those of lIS ""h(~ .lre (~(tnfidellt ill their 4)"'ft;~1 rigllteousnes",'Q ' ~e

I am convinced that the principal reason for the second commandment-the prohibition of any physi­ cal representation ofGod-is because only Christ is "the image [icon] ofthe invisible God" (Col1:15).Justasthe Israelites were bored by the "dead orthodoxy" below, while Moses was having all of the fun being in the pres­ ence of God, we are often bored without immediate encounters and experiences with God in his glory. So, also like the Israelites, we create a physical representa­

6

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1995

tion of God. Out of our imagination, we mold a golden calf. Through mysticism, speculative ideas, and the works of our own hands, we carve idols of the true God so that we can experience him here and now. But when God became physical, he was not a golden calf. He was not like the idols ofthe nations. He was so fully human, in fact, that his own brothers by blood, raised together in the same family, did not believe in him until he was well into his ministry-at least thirty years ofage On 7:5).

He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-children born not of natural de­ scent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. On 1:10-13) The Israelites created the golden calf because they were tired of waiting. They were tired of waiting for Moses to come down from the mountain. They wanted to experience God directly for themselves, and since their earlier experience of God on his terms terrified them, they set out to experience God on their own terms. They could control a golden calf. It did not inspire fear, but happiness and revelry. It allowed them to "be themselves," spontaneous and free.

Waiting for God to save them was, to their mind, not unlike the modern existentialist play, Waiting for Godot, by Samuel Beckett. The two main characters, Vladimir and Estragon, sit impatiently, occasionally quarreling with each other over whether they are wait­ ing at the right time, in the right place, and on the right day. The play ends with no resolution, as the charac­ ters-neither heroes nor villains-are still waiting for Godot. They want to leave and get on with their lives, but are frozen in fear of missing the famous visitor.

The Scriptures are not unfamiliar with the anxiety of our age. Anticipating the Babylonian invasion, Jeremiah prophecies the mood ofthe enslaved children of Israel: Why are we sitting here? Gather together! Let us flee to the fortified cities and perish there! For the LORD our God has doomed us to perish and given us poisoned water to drink, because we have sinned against him. We hoped for peace, but no good has come, for a time of healing but therewasonlyterror. ..Listen to the cry ofmy people from a land far away: 'Is the LORD not in Zion? Is her King no longer there?' ... "The harvest is past, the summer has ended, and we are not saved." (Jer 8:14-15,19-20) So, the prophet laments, "Since mypeople are crushed, I am crushed; I mourn, and horror grips me. Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then is there no healing for the wound ofmy people?" (vv. 21-22) But the incarnation was worth the wait. When God

modern REFORMATION

became flesh, he was not a dumb, speechless idol, but a fully human friend and relative. He inspired fear, to be sure, as when he called Peter as a disciple. Peter re­ sponded "Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!»

(Lk 5:8). And when Jesus calmed the storm, "In fear and amazement they asked one another, 'Who is this?

He commands even the winds and the water, and they obey him'» (Lk 8: 25). But he also inspired love and devotion. While he was still the God who must be met on his own terms, his glory was clothed in humanity.

He bridged the gap between Creator and creature, un­ approachable light and intimate friendship.

Just as Moses asked to see God's glory and Philip asked Jesus to show him the Father, we too seek to experience God directly, but we need a mediator just as surely as did Israel. God did not give us a mediator who is himself sinful and under the divine curse, but he gave us the only mediator who could redeem sinners from the curse ofthe Lawbyhis own sinless sacrifice. "Forthe law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known» On 1: 17-18). To know God is to know Christ and to know God outside of Christ is to know him as a judge and destroyer. It is to wait for Godot only to lose hope of ever finding him, except in terror.

A Burning Question The resurgence of classic mysticism is powerful in our day, and this is understandable, given modern materi­ alism. Modernity has shriveled the soul, leaving us with the deadening sense that we are little more than ma­ chine, a complex but accidental bundle of neurons and chemicals that stirn ulate brain waves in predictable pat­ terns. No wonder there is a reaction in the culture, a rebellion against cold materialism and psychological or scientific determinism. The New Age movement at­ tracts rebels with a cause, but they are rushing in where angels-one of their major obsessions-fear to tread.

One of the key metaphors for this interior spiritu­ ality is fire. Wild and unpredictable, glowing flames cast their spell on us from our earliest days of sitting around the campfire. God himself appears as a fire throughout biblical revelation, and is even self-de­ scribed as "a consuming fire» (Heb 12:29). But we automatically assume that this is a good thing-this business about being consumed by heavenly fire, set aflame by divine conflagration within the spirit. Books roll off of Christian presses these days zealously invit­ ing believers into the "fire» of Divine Presence. Some even want to be "baptized» with the Holy Spirit and fire, not realizing the context. John the Baptist declares, The ax is already at the root ofthe trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and

thrown into the fire. I baptize you with water for repen­ tance. But after me will come one who is more power­ ful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.)) (Mt 3:10-12)

Clearly, the two baptisms in view here are related to two distinct ends: those baptized with the Holy Spirit will be saved from destruction, while those baptized with fire will suffer for eternity. As in so many cases, the mystical passion for "fire» is a theology of glory that ends in disaster. Those who play with fire will get burned. twas the fire that terrified the Israelites atMount Sinai, and it was when Nadab and Abihu­ Aaron's sons and high priests who had been with Moses on the mountain-offered "strange fire» that the Lord had not commanded that God turned the fire on the priests themselves. If we seek to be "em­ braced by the light,» through our own intuition or mystical encounters, we will find the goal of our quest, but it will be damnation, not glory. If, however, we seek God not as he is in his hiddenness, but as he has revealed himself-his maJesty clothed in humanity-we will find access to the Holy of Holies. Unlike those terrified Israelites at the foot of Mount Sinai, we

I

Have not come to a mountain that...is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them ...The sight was so terrifying to them that Moses said, 'I am trembling with fear.' But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. (Heb 12:18-22) Aaron, fresh from the experience of watching his two sons perish in their sacred duties, was warned by God through Moses not to enter the Most Holy Place at his leisure, "whenever he chooses" (Lv 16:2). He had to approach with a sacrifice for sin, bathe himself, and put on sacred linen garments. Then, in the performance of his office, Aaron was to take the scapegoat, laying his hands on the animal's head while confessing Israel's sins. Israel's guilt transferred to the scapegoat, the people were then freed from the judgment ofGod (seevv. 3-10, 21-22).

God was terribly severe in the Old Testament cer­ emoniallaws. Or was he? Has anything really changed?

Ofcourse, the ceremonies-being shadows ofthe real­ ity which was to come-have been fulfilled and are therefore no longer in force. And yet the reality to which these shadows pointed is just as true for us as it was for the Israelites. Like Aaron, we cannot enter the Most Holy Place of God's presence whenever and however we choose. We must enter with the precious blood of

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER J 995

7

Christ, bathed in the waters ofbaptism, and adorned in the white linen of Christ's righteousness. We dare not for a moment consider that our willing or running somehow qualifies us to be in God's presence. In doing so we will suffer the same fate as N adab and Abihu. God is still just as holy and just as insistent on being ap­ proached in the manner in which he has commanded.

Christ is the onlywayto the Father, and access is through his blood and righteousness alone. For those who enter in this way, their scapegoat-Jesus Christ-has borne the burden oftheir sins on his head. As the scapegoat was sent out ofthe city, so Jesus was crucified outside the city gates of Jerusalem. any of us recall the Bible story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal, when the prophet of God challenged the false prophets to a contest. Each party cut a bull in pieces and placed the pieces in a pit with wood. "The god who answers by fire-he is God" (1 Kgs 18:24). When Baal failed to produce the fire, Elijah ordered the sacrifice to be saturated with water: "'Do it again,' he said, and they did it again. 'Do it a third time' he ordered, and they did it the third time. The water ran down around the altar and even filled the trench" Cvv. 34-35). Elijah prayed for God to send fire to consume the sacrifice. "Then the fire of the LORD fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench. When all the people saw this, they fell pros­ trate and cried, 'The LORD -he is God! The LORD -he is God!'" (vv. 38-39). If we are seeking a theology of glory, a naked demonstration of divine power and maj­ esty, we will miss the greater aim ofthis story. Its fulfill­ ment is not merely in a "power encounter," but in the Cross itself. I t was at the Cross where the fire ofthe Lord fell and consumed the soul of Jesus Christ. It was there where the wrath of God fell from heaven and judged the Son of God-he who was without sin-to be a sinner because our sins were laid on him just as the wood was laid on Elijah's altar.

Fire, then, is judgment and wrath. Nadab and Abihu's "strange fire" was a zealous attempt to please God with a sacrifice he had not commanded and, like Cain, they learned that heart-felt spontaneity in one's approach to God does not guarantee success. Christ's high priestly work and the offering ofhimselfas a sacrifice, however, was a pleasing, sweet-smelling fragrance and his perpetual ministry in the Holy of Holies secures our way to God. Even when tongues offire descended above the heads ofthe early believers (Acts 2), it was a sign ofjudgment to the rest ofthe world that refused to embrace the person and work of the God-Man. Calling down God's fire on our souls or hearts is, therefore, an unwise request. It may have its strange attraction, but it is deadly in the end. It was, after all, because our Lord endured the fire from heaven-that

M

8

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1995

white-hot flame that licked up the sin-soaked trenches of the Cross-that we will never have to feel the scorching heat of divine displeasure.

Devoted to God In Numbers, we learn about Achan's sin of failing to destroy everyone and everything in the land of Canaan that was not set apart to God. This scourge foreshad­ owed the coming judgment at the end of the age, when God will separate the sheep from the goats and devote the latter to everlasting destruction. But Rahab, the Canaanite prostitute who accepted the promise and sheltered the Israelite spies, was set apart from idolatry to be an heir along with the rest ofIsrael. In fact, Rahab is honored in both Matthew's geneology 00esus and in Hebrews chapter eleven. Achan, however, himselfa Jew and entitled to the promise of entering the land, was devoted to destruction because of his failure to obey God's command to cleanse the land of everything that does not belong to God. Therefore, the nation, led by Joshua, took Achan and stoned him burying him with all of his stolen Canaanite goods.

A principle emerges throughout the Old Testa­ ment, the principle of substitution. Instead of judging the whole nation, God accepted the sacrifice of a rep~e­ sentative. Already implicit in the sacrificial system with the offering of animals for the sins of people, the prin­ ciple of substitution was also at work in Joshua's day.

Jesus Christ, of course, is the fulfillment of all substitu­ tionary sacrifices, and unlike Achan, he was crucified for our sins, not for his own. When the Jews were plotting to have Jesus arrested, Caiaphas the high priest told them, "y ou know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than the whole nation perish." He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one." (J n 11 :49­

53).

Without even knowing it, Caiaphas was prophesying the fulfillment ofall prophecy concerning the Cross ofChrist.

Among the terms that any discussion ofspirituality necessarily elicits is "devotion." Those who are deeply spiritual we generally regard as devoted to God, and their earnestness is even captured in their habit ofregu­ lar prayer and meditation that we call "devotions." But while these habits may be expressions of devotion, they do not constitute our devotion to God. It is God who devotes us to life or destruction, just as, through Joshua, he devoted the Canaanites and their belongings to de­ struction and devoted the Israelites to rest in the land.

He did this, we read in Deuteronomy 8, not because of

modern REFORMATION

Israel's righteousness but because ofhis unconditional grace expressed in a promise to Abraham and his de­ scendants. Before the world was created, and in view of the Fall, God decided to devote a great number of the condemned to redemption rather than to their de­ served destruction.

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-prepared for destruction? What ifhe did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects ofhis mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory-even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? (Rom 9:22-24) In eternity past, God the Father devoted us to himself.

He set us apart before the creation ofthe world to be his own adopted children (Eph 1:4-14). ut the execution of God's eternal decree in time and space required God's own per­ sonaland physical entry into time and space.

It was because Christ was devoted to God and to his Father's will throughout the entire course ofhis life that we are devoted to God in him. He carried us with him just as Adam carried the entire human race in his dis­ obedience. Theologians refer to this saving devotion of our Lord as the "active obedience" of Christ. It is not sufficient for Christ to have died for our sins, because that would only mean that we are no longer guilty. But God requires more than guiltlessness; he requires the positive righteousness that he gave in creation. When our Second Adam fasted instead of feasting and ig­ nored the serpent's invitation to glory by interposing God's Word, his resistance to Satan was credited to us as ifwe were there with him in the wilderness of temp­ tation just as we were there with Adam in his disobedi­ ence. Every victory over doubt, temptation, despair, and compromise is credited to each believer. Weare not only saved by Christ's death, but by his thirty-three years ofperfect conformity to God's will in heart, soul, mind, and strength. This means that there really was and is only one truly devoted "victorious Christian," and he devotes us to God not by showing us how to imitate his devotion, but actually and objectively de­ votes us to his Father by imputing to us his obedience in life and in death. This once more underscores the "down" escalator thrust of the Gospel: God coming down to rescue sinners. It is not the ascent of sinful creatures through greater heights of devotion, ecstasy, or commitment, but the descent of God in mercy. It is Christ's commitment-his devotion, his obedience, his fervor, his relationship with God-that secures our salvation. Because he is devoted to God and all that belongs to him is devoted to God, we too belong to God and will never be devoted to destruction.

Our Lord Jesus Christ has become for us our Achan,

B

the one man who is substituted for the rest of us. He bore our sins and propitiated divine wrath, and because he was ,devoted to God we are devoted to God-not by following his example, but by being united to him by faith alone. Before we ever speak ofour devotion to God as our active obedience, it must be seen first and fore­ most as Christ's active obedience and the effect of our union with him. In this union we share everything wi th him and he shares everything with us. His righteous­ ness is our righteousness, his life is our life, his access to the Father is our access. Furthermore, our pain is his pain, our suffering he shares, our sins he carries. In this way, "God with us" takes on even greater significance, as the writer to the Hebrews observes: Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power ofdeath - that is, the devil­ and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants. For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted (Heb 2:14-18).

In His Presence How can we comprehend the magnitude of this an­ nouncement, "The Word became flesh and [taber­ nacled] among us" On 1:14)? Blinding light, unap­ proachable glory, was veiled in human nature, and the same God whose very presence could bring disaster to sinful creatures was practically indistinguishable from his friends and relatives. None of us really knows what might have been the effect ofGod coming to earth in all ofhis glory. While God's hiddenness, as we see Christ's full humanity, left contemporaries with the sense that Jesus was no more than a man, it was infinitely better than unveiled glory.

Just a decade ago, a thick cloud of anxiety was hanging over the individual and collective psyche of Soviet and American citizens. It was the fear that at any moment tempers could flare and nuclear weapons would be launched, leaving annihilation in the wake of a dia­ bolical exchange in which there would be no winners.

Even the utter destruction of the major metropolitan areas ofthe West would not be the end ofthe misery, as a nuclear winter would then leave the creatureless to­ pography barren and grotesquely deformed. My pur­ pose here is not to debate the theories surrounding the effects of a nuclear holocaust, but to employ the image in the service ofanalogy. IfGod were to "disrobe," ifyou will (to use Luther's image of "the naked God"), and show us his glory and power, his majesty and splendor, the winds of fire would sweep across the blue planet.

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1995

9

Leaving death and destruction in its wake, this appear­ ance of God would not bring hope, but ruin. Whenever we forget ourselves, we assume that we are not separated from God by the distance of creatureliness and sinful­ ness. Seven and a half centuries before Christ, Amos prophesied against Israel,

fearful thunder), seen with their eyes (without the ter­ rible flashes oflightning), looked at and touched (with­ out the sentence ofimmediate death). Ifeven an animal touched the Holy Mountain, God commanded Israel to destroy the trespassing beast. Nevertheless, John is of­ fering courtroom testimony to the effect that he and his fellow disciples not onlywere able to survive the sight of Woe to you who long for the day of the LORD! Why do you long for the day of the LORD? That day will be God, but enjoyed his company in precisely the same darkness, not light. It will be as though a man fled from manner as that of any other human being. No doubt a lion only to meet a bear, as though he entered his Jesus and the disciples wrestled, laughed, wept, played house and rested his hand on the wall only to have a games, and recalled memories of weddings, funerals, snake bite him. Will not the day of the LORD be dark­ ness, not light-pitch-dark, without a ray of bright­ and reunions with friends and family together.

Gnosticism finds this utterly offensive, as we have ness?" (Am 5:18-20) already discovered. Too spiritual to appreciate mate­ Paul tells us that the Word of God holds together the rial, physical, earthly «stuff," Gnosticism cannot swal­ atoms ofthe universe (2 ColI: 17). Likewise, Peter warns, low the idea that God became flesh, that he was experi­ «But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The enced not in the internal emotions and ecstatic mo­ heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be ments within the soul, but in the normal, ordinary destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will events of daily human existence. be laid bare" (v. 10).

Gnosticswantto know Godwithin their own hearts, But in his first advent, God comes to us fully robed, while the disciples reported that the way they came to concealing his glory and power in our humanity. If this know God was outside oftheir own hearts, outside their had not been so- if, in other words, people experienced own experience and their inner spiritual world, in the God as he is in his majesty-the population of the particularities ofreal human even ts and activities. These Palestinian region would have been rather sharply re­ events were true, not because of the experience of the duced. «No man can see me and live," God told Moses. disciples, nor because ofthe radical change that it made And yet the disciples gave the following report, as they in their lives and the meaning, hope and sense of pur­ were battling the Gnostics: «That which was from the pose it provided. They were true because they hap­ beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen pened in history, and things that happen in history are with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands not just true for direct participants, but are true for have touched-this we proclaim concerning the Word everyone. I may not have been present at the Battle of Waterloo, but its reality as an event is indisput­ able, despite my absence. It happened whether I experienced it or not, whether I had ever been e, born or not. It is a historical fact and is therefore light~~" Ollr true for everyone, regardless of the variety of II human experiences and backgrounds. The fact that a headhunter in Iryan Jaya did not know (Ianlna,tion~not, glory.f~ about the event, or that a young woman in Min­ nesota does not believe that the Battle has any Ilo'vever~ particular relevance for her daily living, does not in any way affect the question as to whether the hiddeness~ bilS event occurred.

The claims of the disciples are not on the level of psychology, anthropology, morality, sociology, marketing, or even-at least ini­ e/ tially-theology. Theyarehistoricalclaims. They do not tell us about experiences they had, en­ oflife" (1 Jn 1:1). Each of these emphasized words was couraging us to experience the same things: «You ask a «hot button" for the Gnostics. Two observations are me how I know he lives? He lives within my heart." Nor due at this point. First, this testimony stands in sharp are their claims based on the relevance of the events: contrast to the experience of the Israelites at Mount «Jesus changed my life and he can change yours, too."

Sinai when theywere worshipping the golden calf. There, Their testimony, unlike most of the ones we hear in they too wanted a god who could be heard (without the Christian circles, was more like testimony in court than

If ,ve see), t,o be "euli.raced b:'f tbe thrGlugl1 ow-n intuition or vst,ical enco liters. "ye W'ill fiutl tile goal of our quest" I)ot it W'ill be ,ve see God not a,s he is ill Ilis I)ut as be revealed illself-lis lDa.jesty cotlle( . in bOIDa i /y -W'ewill fi.ld access to tlleltoBv of Holies. ~

10

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1995

/

modern REFORMATION

like a pitch for a product or an interview on a talk show.

The court was to make its judgment not on the basis of the psychological ormoralimpact ofthese experiences, but on the basis of whether the events that the eyewit­ nesses reported actually took place.

Let us put this in practical terms. Every year; Christmas rolls around whether we like it or not, and it is a wonderful time for many. Homecom­ ings, warm moments with the generations huddled to sing carols and for gift-giving, twinkling lights: It is a picture-perfect scene. But that is not the only side of Christmas. The holidays also become a time oftremen­ dous anxiety, depression, and disappointment for many. Family gatherings, or loneliness, can make Christ­ mas turn ugly for some people. For them, Jack Frost is roasting on an open fire instead ofthe chestnuts.

It's these folks among us who especially need the message of Christmas: Emmanuel, God With Us. The psalmist lamented the fact that there is no guarantee that believers will be happier, healthier, or wealthier than their unbelieving neighbors. In fact, he said, it seems that all the unbelievers he knows are doing well, while he is suffering. Isn't there some injustice in that, he wonders. He writes, "My feet had almost slipped; I had nearly lost my foothold. For I envied the arrogant when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. They have no struggles; their bodies are healthy and strong ... Surely in vain have I kept my heart pure; in vain have I washed my hands in innocence" (Ps 73:2-4, 13). But then he realizes the transitory nature ofearthly happiness and the eternal view of things once again restores his balance. ut the question hits a wide cross section of people not only at Christmas, but the year­ round: Where is God when it hurts? And yet it is that very Christmas message which answers that question with such power. Just as the human race was groaning under the burden ofits sin and guilt, God was wishing his Son off on a voyage across the great heav­ enly expanse, to enter time; to lay aside the glory of his divine person; to be conceived in the womb ofa simple, poor virgin daughter of Israel. In the person of Christ, the eternal meets time; the One who owns the entire universe becomes poor; the God who is incapable of experiencing human passions becomes a laughing, weeping, threatening, comforting Man among us: Emmanuel, God With Us, is one of our Lord's most salutary biblical names.

There are two words we use for how we involve ourselves with other people's problems. One word is sympathy. It comes from the Greek words for "feeling" and "together." It is my feelings agreeing with those of another person. The other word is empathy, from the Greek words for "in" and "feeling." Someone who is well-provided for materially may empathize with a

B

homeless person, but only those who have once shared in that condition of homeless ness can actually sympa­ thize with such an individual. A person without chil­ dren may be able to empathize with a couple's recent loss of a child to a disease, but only other parents will really be able to sympathize. In the same way, God is spoken of in Scripture as though he had emotions. I say "as though," because God is not subject to human emotions. Whenever we read that God was angry or wept, grieved or laughed, these are called anthropo­ morphisms, that is, words that God uses to describe himself in ways we will understand. God does not really have wings; he doesn't really have arms or legs. He is a spirit, without parts or passions. These expressions are "baby talk."

But after that still night in Bethlehem nearly two thousand years ago, these anthropomorphic expres­ sions were turned to reality. Now we really observe, in the apostolic reports, God in the flesh, truly experienc­ ing emotion, pain, suffering, and human pleasure. In the past, God had spoken through the prophets, but as the writer to the Hebrews announced, "now he has spoken to us in these last days through his own Son." In the past, God maintained his presence among his people through the cloud by day and pillar of fire by night, in his holy tabernacle-a tent that was pitched in the middle of the desert. But now, John declares, "The W9rd became flesh and pitched his tent among us."

The Tent ofMeeting, the Holy ofHolies, the Tabernacle of God's presence, is now the flesh of God incarnate.

One would have thought that this event would have immediately captured the attention ofthe ancientworld.

And yet it is almost as if the Incarnation was a bit too good. God became man in such a thorough and all­ encompassing manner that when he began his minis­ try, those who knew him responded, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph and Mary, whom we know?" In fact, his earthiness made the religious leaders uneasy. When the Pharisees were pressing Jesus for his attention to Jewish moral custom, our Lord replied, To what, then, can I compare this generation? What are

they like? They are like children sitting in the marketplace

andcallingoutto each other: "We played the flute for you,

and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not

cry." For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor

drinking wine, and you say, "He has a demon." The Son

ofMan came eating and drinking, and you say, "Here is

a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and

'sinners.'" (Lk 7:31-34)

In other words, here is the God believers have wor­ shipped since the Garden ofEden , the promise fulfilled in front of their eyes, the Word and very Presence of God pitched in the middle ofthe Palestinian wilderness.

Would we also perhaps have missed his visitation be-

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1995

11

cause we were looking for someone a bit more spiritual?

Would his earthiness have caught us by surprise, too, with our often super-spiritual piety? Here is a God who not only empathizes with our suffering, because "we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses," said the writer to the Hebrews (4: 15).

For he was "tempted in every way, just as we are-yet was without sin."

And He Walks with Me IfGod had,been formed in Mary's virgin womb without a fully human nature, Mary could not have survived the experience. If God the Son had not clothed himself in flesh, his glory would have instantly turned Pharisee and fisherman alike to ash. But instead, prostitutes ap­ proached him; thieves repented, and sinners ate with him. God even played the bartender at a wedding recep­ tion On 2:1-11) and screamed in outrage over the un­ natural horror of death On 11:38-44). Gnostics have read these texts in utter disgust. First, Jesus was affirm­ ing the goodness of creation by turning water into wine at a party. This is hardly the ascetic spirituality that characterized Gnostic abhorrence of the world. Fur­ ther, for the Gnostic, death was terrific because it meant the escape of the spirit from the prison house of the body. To them it was hardly something to lament! The resurrection ofthe body was, for the Gnostic, hell rather than heaven. Such sentiment is not altogether unfamil­ iar for those ofus who recall funerals in which mourners were encouraged to celebrate the unfettering of the spirit from the prison house of the body. ' ' Anyone who has seen me;' Jesus declared, "has seen the Father" On 14:9). Israel was taught to seek God only in antici­ pation, by types and shadows, not by direct encounters.

It was by the historical Incarnation of God the Son that the world came to know God and it is only as sinful creatures approach God through the mediation of this God-Man, through the prescribed means of grace, that they can expect to find a father rather than a judge. The "naked God" that Luther said inspired the mystics was actually "the consuming fire" (Heb 12:29), and the only way offinding salvation instead ofjudgment is through the"clothed God," Jesus Christ. "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life," Jesus declared in John 6, to the bewilderment of his original audience as well as John's readers (primarily Greeks). What a crude, earthly religion! So much for ascending the heights through super-spiritual encounters! Ifoneisto be saved, one must accept the death of individualism, inward­ ness, emotional and experiential ladders of ecstasy, merit, and speculation. "Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for [Gnostic] wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolish­

12

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1995

ness to Gen tiles, butto those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Cor 1:22-24).

It is easy, of course, for the disciples and other eyewitnesses to report that they had seen, heard, and touched the Word ofLife. But how does that help us? In other words, it is one thing to say that they experienced God because he had come in the flesh, and quite another thing for us to say the same. How many of us have actually shaken hands with this Jesus ofNazareth? He is a figure in history, so long ago in a faraway place. We sing those romantic refrains, "And he walks with me and he talks with me" in the garden "while the dew is still on the roses." But who among us has really experienced Jesus Christin the same way as the disciples experienced him as they walked and talked with him along the Galilean seashore? Has anyone of us seen the pillar of cloud or been led by the holy flame by night, as the Israelites were led in the wilderness? Have we seen Jesus turn water into wine or raise the dead? No wonder our spirituality turns inward and we seek to make up myths about direct experiences with someone we have never really met in person. No wonder men and women will travel great distances to experience the latest epiphany, whether at Lourdes or Toronto. Waiting for the Media­ tor to return from the heavenly summit, we fashion golden calves of our experience to assuage our impa­ tience. Weare like Philip, who even in the presence of God incarnate, demanded to see God's glory, and our Lord tells us, as he replied to the disciple, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." Christ is the glory of God and his Cross is the throne of divine majesty, beheld by eyewi tnesses.

But for now, situated between the first and second Advent, we must be content with the Messiah's gift, the Comforter who himself is no less divine than the Son himself. This Holy Spirit leads us to Christ and brings Christ to us through Word and sacrament. As God concealed his gloryin the physicalhumanityofhis flesh, so he comes clothed to us in the physical elements ofink and paper; in the human language of preaching; in water, bread, and wine. And there we meet with God and feed on him whose flesh is true food and whose blood is true drink, nourishing our world-weary souls with the very substance of Heaven itself. ~ Michael S. Horton is the president of CHRISTIANS UNITED for REFORMATION. Edu cated at Biola University and Westmin ster Th eologi ca l Seminary, Michael is a Ph. D . candidate at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford and the University of Coventry and is the author/editor of nine books, including The Agony of Deceit, Putting AmazinJ; Back Into Cra ce, Beyond Culture Wars, and Where in the World is the Church?: A Christian View of Culture and Your Role in It.

'. For Fwther Studyfrom CURE'S Tape Library Puttipg Amazing Back into Grace ($.19/4 tape set) . Featuring The Saving Work ofChrist.

ByMichael Horton The Reformed Tradition ($35/8 tapeset) Featl,Jring The Heart ofReformed Theology: The Work of Christ and The. Doctrine a/Faith & Covenant Theo19gy .

By Kim Riddlebarger .

Resour~e Guide available' on request/Individual Tapes $5

modern REFORMATION

What is the Jesus Seminar?

~~~~.,~-- An Interview w ith Dr. Robert Stri mple iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~~ iiiiiiiiiiiii_

Dr. Robert Strimple is professor of sys tematic theology at \Vestminster 'rheologicaJ Semi nary in California, and was its firs t president.

He studied at the University of Delaware, Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia), and the University of Toronto. After joining the vVestminster (Philadelphia) faculty in 1969, he served as professor of systematic theology and vice president for academic affairs on the Philadelphia campus until he was asked to launch th e Escondido school in 1979.

His recent publications include The 1Vlodern Search for the Real Jesus: An Introductory Survey of the Historical Roots of Gospels Criticism (P&R Publishing, 1995); "Roman Catholic Theology Today" in Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestan ts Analyze Vllhat Divides and Unites U~" (Moody Press, 1994); and "Repentance in Romans" in Christ the Lord (Baker, 1992).

MR: What is the Jesus Seminar?

STRIMPLE: The Jesus Seminar has captured the imagination of the public in our day with all the publicity given to it, and the business about the way in which these alleged scholars have voted on the sayings of Jesus re­ corded in the Gospels. Many have read how they sit there with their four-colored beads and vote by putting in the black bead if "there's no way Jesus could have said that," the gray bead if "very unlikely that Jesus would have said it," the pink if "well, just possibly," and the red if "yes, we can be confident about that." Perhaps the very way of voting has added to the interest in the Jesus Seminar.

MR: How does this differ from roulette? How does a Jesus Seminar "scholar" say this is a reliable saying of Jesus?

STRIMPLE: We all have to recognize that when we read in the press about how new all of this is, that to call into question the authenticity of the Gospels is certainly not new at all. The early pagans did that. The Gospels criticism that we call modern goes back at least two hundred years. The Jesus Seminar is based upon a method of Biblical criticism that is called form criticism that goes back to three German scholars writing soon after the First World War, about 1920. The name most important and most well-known is Rudolph Bultmann. Form criticism had as its primary goal to get behind our written Gospels to look at the oral original form which they claimed was made up of a whole series of sayings and deeds of Jesus with no interconnection among them. So, the first thing they say you have to do is to break up all the connections in the Gospel, look at each individual saying, and then the primary thing to remember about the Jesus Seminar is that it works on the basis that anything in the Gospels ascribed to Jesus of Nazareth that could be thought to be of use to the early church, that would have met a need in the early church, we then must see was written by the early church to meet that need and does not go back to Jesus himself.

MR: That's not the way we treat any other text, is it, with those kinds of prejudgments?

STRIMPLE: Certainly not. The primary test that

works on that background is called the "Criterion of Dissimilarity." This simply means that they insist that it's only those sayings ofJesus that we can see that don't relate to anything in the Old Testament Judaism, or anything in the faith or practice of the early church, it's only those sayings that relate to neither one that we can be confident had to be said by Jesus himself.

MR: That's circular reasoning. So, you rule out things before you actually look at the text as a text. You say, "It couldn't say that because we say it couldn't say that."

C. Peter Wagner at Fuller Seminary says, "People are coming to church now to do instead of to listen." Very often in churches now there is sort of a signs and wonders craze, and this could be one reason why the coinage of miracle is devaluing. A lot of skeptics come and they watch this and say, "1 don't really see a miracle here."

TIME magazine seems to have gotten the picture on the Jesus Seminar. The latest issue on miracles says, "Last month, just in time for Lent, the rebel scholars of the self­ appointed Bible tribunal called the Jesus Seminar gathered once again, this time to vote on the most explosive ques­ tion of the Christian faith: 'Did Jesus really rise from the dead?' and you will never guess what tItey voted." They voted no. Don't you find, Dr. Strimple, that's pretty remarkable, after the way the popular press has naively and superficially treated this, that now at least you find this kind of thing in TIME magazine?

STRIMPLE: Yes. We can be grateful for that kind of statement even in a source such as TIME magazine. 1 wonder if it says something even about the members of the group. 1 understand the original group was composed of something like 200 New Testament scholars. By the February vote of whether or not the Resurrection took place, they were down to 40 members. It may only have been 20 who actually voted on that, so the numbers are dwindling even in attending the seminar itself.

MR: Amazing. But it still has credibility with many journalists. You mentioned the criterion of dissimilarity.

What did you mean by that?

STRIMPLE: 1 was saying that according to the Form Critics, like the members of the Jesus Seminar, we can have

NOVEMBER/DECEMB ER 1995

13

confidence that Jesus actually spoke certain words in the Gospels only if those words do not relate to the Judaism of his time, or to the Christianity of the early church. As I say in my new book, The Modern Search for the Real Jesus, "I believe it's not a caricature to say that criterion of dissimi­ larity isolates and permits us to accept as authentic just those elements in Jesus' teaching that never seemed important to God's people, either before Jesus' birth or after his resurrection. And therefore, they had absolutely no influence on the thinking of the Christian church. I think that shows us how foolish that criterion is. In divorcing the historical Jesus from everything he held in common with Judaism, the criterion of dIssimilarity eliminates Jesus' share in his heritage as a son of the covenant, and eliminates his role as the hope of Israel, the fulfillment of the promises of God. And by divorcing Jesus from everything he held in common with the early Church, this method eliminates precisely those elements in Jesus' life and teaching that had the greatest creative effect in bringing into being the infant Christian commu­ nity, the new Israel of God." Let me make one thing clear, lest someone from the Jesus Seminar say I've misrepresented them. They would be very upset with me if I gave the impression that they were saying that the only sayings that Jesus could have said are sayings that do not tie in with Judaism or the faith of the early church. They would say, "No, what we're saying is that it's only such statements that we can have confidence that Jesus said. We can't know about the others." The fact is, in actual practice, it becomes a criterion for exclusion, and it's on that basis, as a matter of fact, that they come up with the conclusion that 80 percent of the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels were never spoken by him.

MR: What would be the difference in this and, say, a Mormon going through the text and saying, "Jesus couldn't have said, (I and my Father are one?'" Is that basically the same method?

STRIMPLE: You're point about Mormonism is that in both cases it goes back to a presupposed theology.

That's the test. As Christians we need to keep reminding ourselves as well as others that we are in submission to the Scriptures as the Word of God written. We don't tell the Scriptures what their theology should be. We learn our theology, the rule for our faith and for our life, from the Scriptures alone.

MR: Do academics take this seriously? Ray Brown, a Roman Catholic New Testament scholar, says in the L. A. Times, "As soon as I hear someone say (the Jesus Seminar' I run the other direction." When great scholarship is not on its side, buyer beware.

Once again, from an article in TIME magazine, Professor Crossan, professor of Biblical studies at DePaul

14

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1995

University, and also part of the Jesus Seminar, says ((Israel was an occupied country with a lot of poverty, malnutri­ tion, and sickness; Jesus was healing people ideologically, saying the kingdom of God is against this system. It's not your fault you're sick and overworked. Take command of your body and your destiny." Isn't it amazing that just as the old liberals looked in the mirror and turned Jesus into a German, they've turned Jesus into Oprah or Phil Donahue.

This is something Norman Vincent Peale or Robert Schuller would say. This isn't something that an ancient Palestinian Jew would say.

STRIMPLE: This has been going on for a long time.

For example, C. S. Lewis, who always has a way of putting things, back in 1943 wrote his well-known Screwtape Letters where he has the wily demon Screwtape writing his advice to his nephew Wormwood, and right at our point about the historical Jesus, he has Screwtape write: You will find that a good many Christian political writers think that Christianity began going wrong in departing from the doctrine ofits founder at a very early stage. Now this idea must be used byus to encourage once again the conception ofa "historical Jesus" to be found by clearing away later "accretions and perversions," and then to be contrasted with the whole Christian tradition. In the last generation we promoted the construction ofsuch a "his­ torical Jesus" on liberal and humanitarian lines. We are nowputtingforwardanew"historicalJesus" on Marxian, catastrophic and revolutionary lines. The advantages of these constructions, which we intend to change every thirty years or so, are manifold. In the first place they all tend to direct man's devotion to something which does not exist. Because each "historical Jesus" is unhistorical.

The documents say what they say and they cannot be added to. Each new "historical Jesus" has to be got out of them by suppression at one point and exaggeration at another point. And by that sort of guessing, brilliant is the adjective we teach humans to apply to this method, on which no one would risk ten shillings in ordinary life, the "historical Jesus" is always to be encouraged.

MR: You know, that brings up the whole question of the "Christ of Faith" versus the "Jesus of History" in historical Christian scholarship. What does that mean, and why should we be on the lookout for that kind of di­ chotomy between a "Christ of faith" and a "Jesus of History" ?

STRIMPLE: The "Jesus of History," of course, it is assumed in these critical schools, is a Jesus who could not have been more than a mere human, could not have been the incarnate Son of God, because it is assumed to be a canon of history as we know it, that all history is of a piece, shall we say, that it all has the same basic quality. That is

modern REFORMATION

that nothing that supposedly happened in another time that doesn't mesh with our own experience can be re­ ceived as actually having happened.

MR: So, if I've never seen a God-man, Jesus couldn't have been the God-Man. STRIMPLE: I haven't seen an axhead floating. I haven't seen a few fish and loaves that would feed five thousand. Therefore, it's assumed that it could have never happened. So, the Jesus of history has to be that kind of Jesus. It's so important to recognize that.

Sometimes evangelical Christians hear the phrase, "the Historical Jesus," and they say, "I believe in a Jesus who was historical, don't I?" But you were talking about "the Jesus of History," "the Christ of Faith." It's assumed by so many of these critics that the "Jesus of History" being that kind of Jesus, a man like other men, that therefore there is a great distinction, a great gap, between such a one and the Christ of the Church's faith. The Christ of the Church's faith never lived in history and certainly did rise again from the grave.

MR: We need to get back to the fact that if Christ is not raised, then we are still in our sins and Christianity is bankrupt, regardless of how it helps us raise our families.

One thing we have to point out is that most of these people are pietists. Most of them were raised in evangeli­ cal pietism, where even if there is not a belief in the truth that Christ was raised from the dead, it can still be true in the heart of a person, as a personal religious experience.

STRIMPLE: First Corinthians 15:14, "If Christ has not been raised then our preaching is vain. Your faith also is vain." That's in a context in the chapter. We can't just jump in and make that mean what we want it to mean.

Paul, you remember, has said at the beginning of this chapter, that of first importance to the Gospel that he preached is that "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and was buried," and we all know what was buried, not the spirit of Jesus, but the body of Jesus, and "he was raised on the third day." That which was raised was that which was buried. And unless that has happened, our faith is in vain.

MR: It's not enough to believe the resurrection is an experience of the early community that I also can have as an experience in my heart. I have to believe it was a literal, physical, bodily resurrection in order to have my sins forgiven.

First Corinthians 15 :12-19, Paul says, "If Christ be not raised then there is no resurrection from the dead for anyone," -Jesus included-and that means there's no resurrection for us. "Christian preaching is useless and so is your faith." So, all of the morals, politics, and ethics of Jesus are right out. Paul says we are found to be false witnesses about God; we've lied about God because we've said he raised Christ from the dead and he didn't. All of

our loved ones are lost. All those who have died in the faith before us are lost. Paul says our faith is futile because we are still in our sins. And he concludes by saying, "Weare to be pitied more than all men."

MR: One of the ancient heresies was Gnosticism, denying that God came in the flesh because the flesh is evil, and denying the bodily resurrection because it is bad that the body has been resurrected. Do we in our culture have this Gnostic, Greek, sort of influence to the extent that we don't care if Jesus rose from the dead physically, or for that matter that we'll rise from the dead physically, as long as our spiritual life is affected by this experience?

STRIMPLE: Again, if we were thinking Biblically, we would realize that the doctrine of creation has underscored the importance of the whole person, body as well as spirit, and that biblical creation is the foundation for the biblical promise of the new creation. The life that is eternal, that will be a resurrected life. Again, salvation for the whole person, body as well as spirit.

MR: Do you think that modern religion is simply coming to our emotional rescue? According to the Scrip­ ture, it's not enough for Jesus to come to our emotional rescue, he has to come physically, to bodily rescue us from the wrath of God. As Paul says, "If we have only hope for Christ in this life, then we are of all men the most to be pitied."

STRIMPLE: One of the ways this is clarified by Paul is the theme of death, dying. If we're unclear about a doctrine of sin, we need only take a visit to a cemetery. ~ A transcription of a White Horse Inn radio broadcast (WHI-226/April 9, 1995).

modernREFORMATION Order Past Issues Today!

January/February 1992

Understanding the Conversion March/April 1993

Preaching Christ July/August 1993

The Lord's Prayer January/February 1994

Heresy November/December 1994

The Word Became Flesh M ay/June 1995

Missions and Evangelism July/August 1995

Gnosticism Septem ber/October 1995

Postmodernism $4.00 each/Limited supplies

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1995

15

Jesus Christ-Our Prophet, Priest, and King

BY KIM RID D LEBARGER

T

he diagnosis is not very good: we are ignorant, guilty, and corrupt. As a litany ofbiblical texts reveals, we find ourselves as fallen sinners rav­ aged by this threefold consequence of our sins. Our foolish hearts are darkened (Rom 1:21) and our thoughts are continually evil (Gn 6:5). Our minds are clouded by sin and ignorant ofthe things ofGod (Eph 4:17-18), though in our folly we glory in our great knowledge and wisdom. We have exchanged God's truth for a lie (Rom 1:25), and our minds are «blinded by the god of this age" (2 Cor 4:4). Like a blind man in a drunken stupor, pitifully groping his way through life, so our sin has blinded us to the truth ofGod. Intoxicated with our own self-righteousness, we stumble through life seeking to justify ourselves before God. We labor under the tremendous weight ofguilt­ the penalty for our many infractions ofthe law ofGod. While many are quite adept at ignoring God's just verdict against them, many others feel like they will buckle under the weight of God's heavy hand. Not only are they guilty for their own individual violations of God's law in thought, word, and deed, but they are also rendered guilty for their participation in the sin of Adam, whose own guilt has been imputed to all those who spring from his loins (Rom 5:12,18-19). While we may delude ourselves into thinking that we have sinned against our neighbors only, David knew that this was not true. «Against you and you only have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight" (Ps 51:4), was his plaintive cry to his God. Because of our guilt, there is no way we can dare stand in the presence of God. «If you 0 Lord kept a record of sins, who could stand?" (Ps 130:3).

But ignorance and the guilt of sin are not the only things in view as we survey the Scriptures. We also suffer from the destructive pollution of this inherited sinful condition, which infects every part of us from the moment ofconception. Born in sin as the Psalmist declares (Ps 51:5), there is no good residing in us (Ps 14:1-3). Our bodies, which are fearfully and wonder­ fully made (Ps 139:14), become instruments to act out

16

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1995

the wickedness that would otherwise lie hidden in our hearts (Rom 6: 13). It is the guilt and the pollution from this sin that renders us so miserable. Life apart from God's forgiveness is described in the language of sick­ ness-the trembling, sweaty weakness of a sick body trying to fight off a high fever (Ps 32:3-4). We have no peace with either God or neighbor (Rom 3:17), and we are «separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel, and foreigners to the covenants ofthe prom­ ise, without hope and without God in the world" (Eph 2: 12). Thus sin leaves us ignorant, guilty, and polluted, and therefore utterly miserable. Indeed, while the di­ agnosis is bad, the prognosis is far worse, for this disease is always fatal and earthly doctors have no cure.

There is, however, one account of a glorious and mi­ raculous cure from this disease: The good news of the Gospel proclaims that while «this is impossible with men," nevertheless, with God, «all things are possible!"

The Development ofthe Threefold Office It was John Calvin who brought the munus triplex, or the so-called «threefold office" of Christ into promi­ nence. Picked up by most ofthe subsequent Reformed tradition, and adopted by many Lutheran theologians as well, the threefold office presents Jesus Christ as prophet, priest, and king, who in his saving work, fulfilled all the anointed offices ofthe Old Testament.!

Calvin adopted this model to accomplish several things.

First, it helped him give shape to his overall Christology, which focuses primarily on Christ's work in terms of being mediator of a covenant of redemption, the one chosen by God to be the savior ofthe elect. Second, he used the threefold office to bind together Christ's per­ son as the eternal Son of God, fully human and fully divine, to his work as redeemer, as seen in his names «Christ" and «Messiah," which themselves are indica­ tive of his being the «anointed one."2 This means that for Calvin, «the Son of God, therefore, is not properly called Christ apart from his office, for it is there, in his official capacity, that he manifests as the true fulfill­ ment of the offices of the Old Testament his threefold

modern REFORMATION

Turretin's conception is not only eloquently stated-certainly powerful evidence against the argu­ ment that scholastic theology lacks devotion-but it effectively captures the thrust ofthe biblical data con­ cerning Christ's person and work to rescue us from the horrible consequences of sin.

tion, and by his providential care over the people of Israel. Since the Old Testament prophet is "one who sees things ...who receives revelations, who is in the service ofGod, particularly as a messenger who speaks in His name,"6 our Lord Jesus exercised these func­ tions both before and after his incarnation (1 Pt 1: 11).

It was Moses who foretold ofa great prophet that "the Lord your God will raise up for you among your brothers. You must listen to him" (Dt 18:15).Anditis Peter, who immediately after the birth of the Church, applies this passage to our Lord (Acts 3:22-23). Jesus speaks ofhimselfas sucha prophet (Lk 13:33), and our Lord expressly claims to speak only what his father has told him to say On 12:49-50; 14:10,24; 15:15; 17:8,20).

Jesus speaks of the future (Mt 24:3-35), and speaks with an amazing authority unlike all others (Mt 7:29).

Indeed, our Lord's words are backed by the power of God, for his mighty works serve to confirm the truth of his message (Mt21:11, 46; Lk 7:16,24:19; In 3:2, 4:19, 7:40,9:17). In John 6:14 we are told that "after the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say, (Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.'" hrist's prophetic work does not cease, however, with the end of his earthly min­ istry at his Ascension. As Louis Berkhof notes, Christ "continues His prophetical activity through the operation ofthe Holy Spirit. His teachings are both verbal and factual, that is, He teaches not only by verbal communications, but also by the facts of revelation, such as the incarnation, His atoning death, the resurrection and ascension."? Christ is the one who sends the Holy Spirit, and as the Spirit of Christ, he is the one who "will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment" On 16:8). As Christ is the Word incarnate, and the central figure in biblical revelation, so too we cannot divorce the work of his Spirit from the written word. Since Christ fulfills the office of prophet, and since he con­ tinues to speak to us through his word-and only through his word - the Reformed are very reticent to give any credence to supposed "words from God," or "words of knowledge" from modern day schwarmer such as Pat Robertson or Benny Hinn who repeatedly make such claims to speak forth Spirit-led utterances.

Christ Our Prop het Christ's prophetic office means, in effect, that Christ represents God to man. Jesus is the light of the world On 1:4-5) , who comes to show us God the Father On 14:9). Under the Old Covenant Christ taught us by means of types and shadows, the history of redemp­

Christ Our Priest The priestly office of Christ occupies a major place in the N ewTestament and includes not only a discussion of the office itself, but also of Christ's sacrificial death to redeem sinners from their sin. The key passage in the New Testament, Hebrews 5:1 and following, lays

work as prophet, priest, and king."3 This model also offers an excellent way to connect redemptive history to systematic theology. Since Christ's three offices, prophet, priest, and king, "represent the three offices of ancient Israel to which men were appointed as servants of God," Calvin could connect the incarna­ tion directly to Christ's work as mediator. This means that "the prophet, the king, and the priest are united in Christ, are perfected, and are thereby fulfilled and brought to conclusion in the one who is both king and priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. "4 In the threefold office, Calvin offers an excellent and com­ pelling way to make sense of a large block of diverse biblical data.

Later Reformed theologians, such as Francis Turretin, introduce the threefold office of our Lord as the divinely revealed solution to the threefold disease of ignorance, guilt, and pollution described above. It is Christ, as prophet, priest, and king, who offers the three­ fold cure to our fatal disease. Turretin sets out the three­ fold office as the remedy for human sin as follows: The threefold misery ofmen introduced by sin­ ignorance, guilt, and tyranny and bondage by sin-required this conjunction of a threefold of­ fice. Ignorance is healed by the prophetic; guilt by the priestly; the tyranny and corruption of sin by the kingly office. Prophetic light scatters the dark­ ness of error; the merit of the Priest takes away guilt and procures a reconciliation for us; the Power ofthe King removes the bondage ofsin and death. The Prophet shows God to us; the Priest leads us to God; and the King joins us together and glorifies us with God. The Prophet enlightens the mind by the Spirit of illumination; the Priest by the Spirit ofconsolation tranquilizes the heart and conscience; the King by the Spirit ofsanctifi­ cation subdues rebellious affections. 5

C

NOVEMBERIDECEMBER 1995

17

out the characteristics ofa true priest. First, « every high One aspect of this, which we may easily overlook but priest is selected from among men and is appointed to which is extremely important to notice, is that not only represent them in matters related to God" (v. 1). Sec­ does Christ the high priest offer an all-sufficient sacri­ ond, such a priest is appointed byGod (v. 4). Third, the fice for sin, but he also is himself the all-sufficient high priest «offers gifts and sacrifices for sins" (v.l). In sacrifice for sin! We get a strong hint of this in the addition, the priest makes intercession for the people Mosaic epoch of biblical revelation, through the na­ (7:25), blessing them in the name of God (Lv 9:22). ture of the sacrifices that were instituted, and which themselves were mere types and shadows, pointing us Clearly, Jesus Christ is the high priest par excellence.

The 0 ld Testament predicted a coming Redeemer. to the Messiah yet to come. The sacrifices offered The Psalmist records God saying about his chosen one: during this time temporarily expiated the guilt of the «The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: sins of the people through the sacrifice of the substi­ (you are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek'" tute-in this case, an animal who was offered up to (Ps 110:4). Zechariah tells us that the coming Re­ God. But the Psalmist, who records for us the pro­ deemer «will build the temple of the Lord, and he will phetic words ofthe Messiah himself, takes this further. be clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his «Sacrifice and offering you did not desire...burnt of­ throne. And he will be a priest on ferings and sin offerings you did not require. Then I said, (Here I his throne" (Ps 6:13). There is no doubt, as Berkhof notes, that «the am, I have come-it is written about me in the scroll. I desire to Old Testament priesthood, and hilS particularly the high priest, clearly do your will, 0 my God; your law is within my heart'" (Ps 40:6-8). prefigured a priestly Messiah."8 The Messiah indicates that his The author of the book of Hebrews is clearly cognizant of own coming sacrificial death will this. Though he is the only New supersede the Old Testament sac­ rificial system. 10 Testament writer who applies the term to our Lord, he repeatedly The NewTestament quite fre­ speaks of} esus as a priest. Weare quently and powerfully makes SOl., told «to fix your thoughts on Jesus, this very point-Jesus Christ's sacrificial death is the fulfillment the apostle and high priest whom of the types and shadows of the we confess" (Heb 3:l). We are in­ fll.l~s formed that we «have a great high Mosaic system. The author ofHe­ brews, as but one example, makes priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God" it very clear that Jesus Christ, (Heb 4:14). Christ has not taken through his one sacrifice, has filld done something that the blood of upon himself«the glory ofbecom­ illlleD ing a high priest" (Heb 5:5), for bulls and goats could never ac­ (~Ilrist.~~~ the author applies the words of complish. While the blood ofani­ Psalm 110:4 to him: «he has be­ mals could not take away sin, the come ahigh priest forever, in the order ofMelchizedek" blood ofthe Messiah, on the other hand, is that through (Heb 6:20). Jesus is the kind ofhigh priest «who meets which «we have been made holy" (Heb 11:10). This is our needs-one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart a major theme throughout the New Testament. from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the Just as Christ's prophetic work did not cease when other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices he completed his earthly ministry, so neither has his day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins priestly work. Though Christ took his place at the right of the people," for this high priest «sacrificed for their hand of his Father, because his redemptive work was sins once for all when he offered himself' (Heb 7:27). finished (Heb 11: 12), Jesus Christ presently intercedes Thus Christians are able to take heart, for our high for us when we sin (1 Jn 2: 1-2). While we are correct to priest, when he had completed his work, «sat down at focus on what Christ has done for us as our high priest, the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven" we must not forget those things he is doing for us even (Heb 8:1). now. He prays for our sanctification Gn 17:17). He is A great deal of biblical data is devoted to Christ's now our «great high priest who has gone through the work as high priest, but we can only briefly survey it heavens," so too we can now «approach the throne of here. 9 The Scriptures point us in several directions. grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy

"Gc)tlh.1S f Ilfilled ",llat he p olliised: tllilt the trutl of his pronlises ,vould be reillizedio t/lle Itersoo of the Believers hilve f0110tl to I.e t.-Ile silying that 'illl the pronlises of God tlleir yea ilOtl ill

18

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1995

modern REFORMATION

- -

~$

~

- -

and find grace to help us in our time of need" (Heb /4:14-16). Even now, our great high priest is building us "into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus

Christ" (1 Pt 2:5). What comfort we can take, knowing that our Lord is in heaven, preparing for us to see his glory (J n 17:24). For the great high priest who intercedes for us never sleeps nor wearies, he never prays without full effect, and he is ever mindful of our continuing struggles with the world, the flesh, and the devil (Heb 2:18). Jesus Christ is both the author and the finisher ofour faith (Heb 12:2). He is our great high priest and the good shepherd, who even now guards his flock. Noone shall ever snatch us from his hand (J n 10:28-29), and nothing will ever separate us from his love (Rom 8:37-39).

Christ Our King The biblical writers would have been quite mystified, I think, at much of the evangelical discussion about «making Christ Lord" -as though it was through a decision on our part that Christ becomes "the Lord over our lives." And they certainly would have been perplexed by those who insist on reading the kingdom language ofthe N ewTestament through the grid ofthe American nationalism of the Christian right, or the moralistic social gospel of the Christian left. They would, I think, be equally confused by our dispensa­ tional brethren, who insiston undercutting the present reign of Christ by arguing that Christ's kingly office (especially the regnum gratiae-the "kingdom of grace") does not come fully into view until a future millennial age commences and at long last Christ supposedly begins to exercise his full authority from the earthly city of Jerusalem. Most of this confusion comes from a failure to understand this third office of Christ, his kingly rule.

The Scriptures plainly declare that "the Lord has established his throne in heaven and his kingdom rules over it" (Ps 103:19). We don't make Christ any­ thing-He is the Lord over his creation. His throne is in heaven, and he is king over creation. This kingship is therefore to be seen as "his official power to rule all things in heaven and on earth, for the glory of God, and for the execution ofGod's purpose ofsalvation." 11 If Christ is not presently ruling in this capacity, we must ask ourselves, just who exactly is minding the store? Reformed theologians usually argue that there are two aspects to this kingly rule. The first is Christ's regnum potentiae (kingdom of power) and the sec­ ond is the regnum gratiae. Unlike the dispensationalists, who argue that Christ delays the full manifestation ofhis rule in this present dispensa­

-

-

-

-----

----

tion, the Reformed argue that Christ presently exer­ cises full dominion over all, even now. He is king and his kingdom is presently a kingdom both of grace and of power. He is in full control and he is ordering all of human history as he sees fit. This means that at his Ascension, Jesus Christ ascended to the right hand of his father and even now rules over all of creation (regnum potentiae) and over his church (regnum gratiae). n the kingdom of grace, Christ is seen to rule the church of which he himself is head. As such, this rule is a spiritual rule, since it is exercised in a spiritual realm. As Berkhof puts it, "it is established in the hearts and lives ofbelievers."12 The New Testament repeatedly speaks ofChrist has "head of the church" (Eph 1:22,4:15; 5:23; Col 1:18; 2:19).

Christ's rule over his church is closely related to the mystical union formed between Christ and the church, which the Scriptures describe as his "body" (1 Cor 12:27). Christ's rule over this kingdom is based on his redemptive work. "No one is a citizen ofthis kingdom by virtue of his humanity. Only the redeemed have that honor and privilege."13 It is a spiritual kingdom, so it has no flag, no world headquarters, and no post office box. But it is certainly and powerfully present wherever Christ's people gather to hear God's word proclaimed and to receive the sacraments (Rom 14: 17).

This kingdom is identical to that which the New Tes­ tament repeatedly calls the "Kingdom of God." Lest we forget, this kingdom is a conquering kingdom (Mt 12:28), though we err greatly ifwe connectthe advance of this kingdom to cultural, economic, or political institutions (J n 18:36). The wicked will not inherit this kingdom (GaI5:21), though our own children, seen by the world as "the least of these," are already members through baptism (Lk 18:16). It is a glorious kingdom (1 Thes 2:12), and despite what some may say, it is a present reality (Mt 3:2). It is a kingdom, which as the Creed declares, "has no end" (2 Pt 1:11).

The kingdom of power, on the other hand, refers to Christ's rule or dominion over all ofcreation. In this case, as creator ofall, he is also Lord (ColI: 16-17). He orders the affairs of nations (Is 40: 17), and controls the lives and destinies of indi­ viduals (Acts 14:15-17, 17:24-27). Quite simply, the Scripture puts it this way: "Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him" (Ps 115:3). This serves as the basis for understanding all ofhistory as ultimately serving the purpose ofthe redemption ofGod's people, since we know that God is working together every­ thing after the purpose of his will (Eph 1:11) and that he is ordering all things, so that human history is racing to a great and final climax, the return of our

I

NOVEM BER/DECEMBER 1995

19

Lord to Earth for the resurrection and the final judg­ ment. It is this kingly rule of Christ that gives us com­ fort in the midst ofthe tumult ofthe signs ofthe end of the age: earthquakes, disease, wars and rumors ofwars.

Some Final Thoughts The threefold office of Christ has profound ramifica­ tions for the Christian life. First and foremost, this model enables us to connect the work of Christ, who has secured our redemption (which we discover only in the pages ofScripture) , with our present experience and struggles as Christians. As Calvin noted, the three­ fold office of Christ is certainly one ofthe best ways to explain our Lord's redemptive work, which by design overcame our ignorance, our guilt, and our corrup­ tion, and which even now provides us with illumina­ tion, redemption, and hope in the present.

Take for example, Christ's prophetic office. Christ was revealed in type and shadow in the pages ofthe Old Testament. Though he was the central character, he remained hidden. In the New Testament, however, our Lord steps out from the shadows of darkness and assumes center stage in the drama ofredemption (Gal 4:4). «That was then," some may protest, «but what does he do for us after his Ascension when he had finished his earthly ministry?" How does his prophetic office help us in the midst of our current struggles? erhaps it would be useful to think of it this way: Ifthe Scripture bears witness to Christ On 5:39) , then the Holy Spirit, who is Scripture's divine author (2 Tim 3:16), will open our minds and our hearts to hear our Lord's voice as we read his word On 16:12-15; Acts 16:14). This is what theologians have historically spoken of as illumina­ tion. Since we are blind to the things of God, the Holy Spirit must provide the understanding we need through the Scriptures. Thus, Christ our prophet certainly speaks to us today though the pages ofhis word. In fact, whenever the minister ofthe word opens the Scripture for us, there is a profound sense in which Christ our prophet is speaking to us through his word every bit as much as if he himself were standing in our presence and speaking these words audibly. Therefore in Scrip­ ture, God's word written, we find a voice that is certain, not like the extemporaneous musings of those today who claim to speak for God. The same pattern holds true for Christ's priestly work. Not only has Christ done what is necessary for our salvation through his sinless life (his active obedi­ ence) and through his sacrifice for sin (passive obedi­ ence), but at this very moment he has assumed his place at the right hand of his Father where he now intercedes for us. What comfort we derive from the

P

20

NOVEMBERIDECEMBER 1995

knowledge that he is there as our advocate and friend, pleading our case whenever we sin! It is also important to note that since he has been tempted in all the ways that we have been tempted, our great high priest not rAl only knows our weakness-and is there to help us when we ask-but in addition he has promised us that he will never give us more than we can bear and that he will always provide us a way of escape (1 Cor 10: 13).

Christ's kingly office provides us with a wealth of comfort and assurance. For while the nations rage one against another; while the earth groans beneath our feet; while there is sickness, dis­ ease, and economic hardship (Mt 24:3 ff.) Even now our Lord is ruling and reigning, until he makes his enemies his footstool (1 Cor 15:22-27). And so while unbelievers may look around at these world condi­ tions and see the apparent chaos as an excuse to scoff, saying «Where is this (coming' he promised?" (2 Pt 3:3-4), the believer can take heart, for the signs of the end are exactly that. The tumult we see around us is, in fact, proofthat Christ is reigning and that he is direct­ ing all of history toward a great and final consumma­ tion, when he will come with great glory with his an­ gels, as the great conquering king (1 Thes 4:13-5:11).

This then, is our hope and our comfort- Jesus Christ is the final prophet, the great high priest, and the conquering king. There is a miraculous cure for the disease of ignorance, guilt, and pollution after all. It is what is known by some Reformed theologians as «the triple cure." As Calvin said, in Christ «God has fulfilled what he has promised: that the truth of his promises would be realized in the person of the Son. Believers have found to be true Paul's saying that (all the prom­ ises of God find their yea and amen in Christ''' (Insti­ tutes, Il.ix.2).1 4 ~ 1 Ri chard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Creek Th eological Terms (Baker

Book House, 1985 ), p. 197.

2 Richard A. Muller, Ch rist and the Decree (Grand Rapids: Ba ker Book

House, 1988), pp . 31 ff.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid., p. 32.

5 Francis Tu rretin , Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 2 (Phill ipsburg:

Presbyteri an and Reform ed Publishing, 1994), p. 393.

6 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Th eology (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,

1986), p. 358.

7 Ibid ., p. 359 .

8 Ibid ., p. 36 2.

9 O ne of the best treatments of this is found in Leon M orris' The ApostoliC

Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdm ans, 1982); and in a

more popu lar version, The Atonem ent (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,

1985).

10 Berkh of, p. 364.

11 Ibid., p. 406.

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid. p. 407.

14 John Ca lvin, Institu tes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphi a: W estminster

Press, 1960) .

Th e Rev. Kim Riddleba rger is a gradu ate of Califo rni a State UniverSity in Fullerton,

W estminster Theological Seminary in Californ ia, and is presently a Ph . D .

candid ate at Fuller Theologica l Se minary. He isthe dean of the CUREAcademy and

a co-host of the White Horse Inn . He is a contributing scholar to Christ th e Lord:

The Reformation and Lordship Salva tion (Baker Book House) and Power Religion :

The Selling out of the Evangelical Church (M oody Press) .

modern R EFORMATION

"Book R~vi' ew RevlUiem: '~ L.ame'n t in Three Mbverrrents v

'

"

, <By Thomas C.Od~n (Nashville : Abingdon Press, 175 pages; '$16.95): " , :;Reviewed by Dr. Sheridan B. Manasen ," his little book has all the makings of a real his past intellectual intoxication. ' , ' blockbust~r f9~ what the author describes His heart goes out to lorig-~uffering believers who , as the «liberated') seminaries and church maysitinthe p~wsandhave to:suffh~\ ..theideological bureaucracies of the Reforrneda.nci L~theJ;an w~ngsof mala.rkey comillg:out of the mouths' oftJ1eir ordained •.tfe Protestant shurch. It shoul~ beteadby ev~rYlJlem~: ;niini~ters.» He w~nts them to realize that.",hat is hap­ \~'::ber ofthe dergyand ev~ry lay person who hashis9xher' pep.ing in the pt:ilpit is often a diluted trac~ 'Rf what has sand trap. The author is a long standing , been transpiring for some decade,.s in th~Jheological .' head above professor :at The Theological School, Drew University seminaries: Likewise, parishioner:smust 'understand and a majortheological shaker and mover in the United that their perception ofdemoc:ratic gridlock in regional Methodist Church. He describes himself as part of a andnationa~assembliesandtheirown powerlessness to generation of liberated theologians who consisted influence the ruling eliteSwho have the churches by the mostly of novelty-fIxated nineteen sixties revolution-throat stemsfrom the "... eccentric: wild pockets offree­ aries who applied their radical chicimaginations to floating church bureaucrats and idealists who seem

everything that seemed to themslightlYQld or ,dated. . accountabletopo one." To count~r ~he.resultant feeling

He confesses his generation's modern chauvinism in of impotencY~!1d impossibility to effect a return to

assuming that newer is better an4<Dlder is worse. classic Christianity, Oden cans uponpfil;stqtswho know

It appears that Oden b:~sdJme to his senses on a whatisgo ingoninthe chur~htQ e(Ufytheirpeoplewith variety6fissues, including his rejection of the various evidence th,).t; (1) liberated theology is dead and doesn't formSQ'fthe pseudoscientific methodology ofBi1Jlical know it and (2) there i~a :resurgence of the genuin~'> studiE.!$l<nown generically as higher criticism, whi<;h he Reformation spirit in,evangelical churches (orthodox )~ points~ '01,:1t, C< ...nonchalantly rape the text," because, Lutheran, il}cluded) w:hichis.';~eing nurtured by those " "they ar¥ideologically tilteg, anti religiously biased, who have sutyived faith-kjfling'educations in the liber­ ated semina:~ies and want tq lead: the people out of the "'-.

and historically ignorant."He regrets that he was for­ merly takenin by the "radical demythologizing biblical fleshpots of the moribund mainline denominations.. criticism ofRudolfBultmann," and as a resulthad tried The only hooker in this isthat so few pastors find what for ye~rs "to read the New Testament without the pre­ has been happening in their seminaries and denomiha­ misesof incarnation and resurrection." He seeks a tional headquarters ofmuch relevancyintheir pastoral return to the classic Protestant Bible interpretation of practice as they go around their congregations"doing \vriters such as Martin Chemnitz, John Quenstedt, and theology", or, as it is called in the aVl(l,tioh business, 'Johann Gerhard. One can only hope that there is suffi­ "flying by the seat of your pants." cient grace in the hearts ofhis readers to forgive him for Oden describes the "liberated" bureautiats and including Charles G..Pinney among that illustrious seminary elites as those who view themselves tli'\'doi;.. band. 'v trinally imaginative, liturgically expe rimenta~~ He announces thalhe has gone AWOL from the ; disdplij}arily nonjudgmental, politically.c.ottect, wholeC<.. .liberal tradition (especially in its p~cit1st,e~ - " multiculturallytolerant, morally b,toa,d:"l)lincled, sexu­ jst:ntialist, psychoanalytic, andqu~si-Marxistxnuta,-;iilylenient, permissive, and uninpibited.'; '~ions)." He has no kind wo~dsfor the~<ne,()'pagan femiOden uses the story of ther~,cerlt Re-imagining ' n~sts and permissive amoralistsand:quasi..Marxist lib- Conference iu\Minneapollsas (\.11 eJ{ample of bureau- ' "~'.erators and justification-by-equalitysyncl'etists'," w~o :!,craticmisjudgment. Funded bythePr€sb)'t~rian Church , 'wa-\1t to dismantle, disfigure, or otherwise"'(~jmpt()ve" ·' iritheU,S.A., the United Methodists, the u:ttitedChurch o.rthodox confessions of faith. ' ,' ,' Chri$l, andt~e Evangelical Lutheran Church in ,Oden is engaged in a requiem, ,a simultaneoJlsAmerica.; the conference was the?~c~sion taken by a laying to restartdcelebration of thepa$sing of the ',dutch of radical ultrafeminists a:rt<;ilesbians to push cuIture ofmo'dernityand his own lilJeration from it. His their weird I1otion of the she god Sophia to the exclu­ ...essentiallya lamentJor a friend, not a diatribe sion of Jesu$, Christ as Sorraf God. It seems that the against an enemy." He obviously finds it difficult to widespread practice ofthe ordination of'Women into denouncewhathewasatQnetimesoemphaticapattof the ministry came along with the ascendancy oftheo­ andforwhichhewaspartiaUyresPRpsible, buthestands logical liberation. It shoulp, come as no surprise to any up like allan and takes wh~teyertit~m~)s due himfor Continued on Page 26 (. .

T

the

of

,

','<'-',',.

NOVEMBER/DECEM BER 1995

21

--.--< ·lwJ

oftlwCfd6fIIimJ rJ6oU1 ~l

Discovering Christ in the

old Testament

BY EDMUND P. CLOWNEY n southern California, where snow may be seen only on the peaks of the distant San Ber­ nardino mountains, Santa Claus rides a sleigh, his illuminated plastic effigy following Rudoph's red nose across the roof tiles of a Spanish hacienda. Santa may also be found in malls and on public property, where political correctness has banned the creche­ unless, of course, the sheep and oxen are joined by Donner, Blitzen, Rudolf, the Lion King, Pocahontas, and Mickey Mouse. Yet in Vanity Fair Mall the faint background music still includes «Hark the Herald Angels Sing" and "0 Come Let Us Adore Him." Jesus the Christ, however, is not reduced to back­ ground music in our time. He was born in history; he now rules history as the risen Lord. His is not the «virtual reality" ofdigital entertainment nor the unre­ ality of multicultural myths, but the first and final reality: the personal, living God incarnate. He is the Alpha and the Omega: the creating Word who has the last word, for when he comes again, we face not a jury butthe Judge. Human history cannot contain his glory, but we need the depth dimension of Scripture history to reveal it.

On the first Easter morning, when Jesus walked, unrecognized, with Cleopas and a companion, he did not remove their doubts and fears bysaying, «Cleo pas!" as he had said «Mary!" in the garden. They needed to know more than the fact of the resurrection-they were walking away from the fact of the empty tomb and of the presence of angels reported by the women.

They needed to understand its meaning: the glory of Jesus Christ that was gained through his suffering.

What they foolishly failed to grasp was the message of Scripture.

Jesus, therefore, beginning with the books ofMoses and the prophets, explained from all the Scriptures the things concerning himself (Lk 24:27). He was not willing to show Cleopas that he was somehow alive, since in a chance universe anything can happen. The good news is not that there was once a resurrection.

I

22

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1995

The good news is «that Christ died for our sins accord­ ing to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor 15:3f).

We, too, need to know the fact ofthe resurrection in the context of its meaning. The teaching of Jesus that burned into the hearts of those two disciples has not been forever lost because Cleopas lacked a tape recorder. We have Christ's resurrection teaching dur­ ing those forty days in the inspired New Testament.

That is why the sure guide to our understanding ofthe Old Testament is the New Testament.

The Spirit of Christ spoke through the Old Testa­ ment prophets, promising the grace that has come to us (1 Pt 1:10-12). On Emmaus Road Jesus taught the message of the prophets and apostles: Christ's sufferings and glory (Acts 17:2,3; 1 Pt 1:11; 1 Cor 15:3-5).

His glory is the promised glory ofthe Lord who comes to save. The disciples perceived some ofthat glory, and for that reason could not understand how he could die like a criminal. Jesus had to show them that the glory of the coming Lord was the glory of the suffering Servant of Old Testament prophecy.

The Lord Must Come The Bible is not only from God, it is about God. The Bible story is not the history of Israel, nor the biogra­ phies of saints whose lives may inspire us. It is God's story, the account of his saving work. God speaks his promises and acts to keep them. The initiative is always his. In the Garden of Eden, after the sin of Adam and Eve, the Lord came seeking them. God promised that the Son of the woman would crush the head of the serpent, even as his heel was struck (Gil 3:15). That promise is the rationale for human history. Had God spoken his word ofjudgment rather than his promise, human history would have ended at the foot ofthe tree in the Garden. God's plan to send Christ is the reason we have the Bible; indeed, the reason there is a human race.

modern REFORMATION

J ~

0

What God promised in the Garden he prepared for in the unfolding history of his redemption. As human evil spread and deepened, God called Noah to spare him in the flood of judgment. The rainbow marked God's faithful promise. When the proud builders of Babel were scattered in clans and peoples, God called Abraham to begin a separate people through whom all the families of the earth would be blessed.

God took the initiative by coming as well as call­ ing. He came down the stairway of Jacob's dream to stand beside him (the reading in the margin) 1. Be­ cause the Lord stood there, Jacob said, "Surely the LORD is in this place, and I knew it not" (Gn 28: 16). He called it Bethel, the House of God. hen God called Moses to the flame of his presence in the burning bush, he identified himself as "I AM," the liv­ ing God ofAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who had come down to deliver their offspring from slavery in Egypt.

"I AM" names the Sovereign. He speaks and it is done.

Above all, God's word announces his presence: "I AM" means "I am here with you."

When God brought Israel to Mount Sinai, where he had appeared to Moses in the flaming bush, he made his covenant with them, sealed in blood. Yet, ~, while Moses on the mountain was receiving God's \. / plans for the tabernacle, impatient Israel concocted their own idolatrous worship. After the rebellion was put down, God proposed canceling the building of the tabernacle. In the Angel of his Presence he would go before them and lead them into the promised land, but he could not dwell in the midst of this sinful people. It was too dangerous for them (Ex 33:3).

Instead he would meet with Moses at the door of another tent, at a safe distance, outside the camp.

Moses responded in dismay: if God's presence would not go among them, there was no reason to go to the promised land, for what was the point if the Lord would not be there in their midst? He pleaded to know the Angel ofthe Lord, and to be shown the glory of the Lord.

God heard Moses' prayer and revealed himself personally to Moses. Hidden in the crevice of a rock, Moses saw the back of the Lord as he passed by.

Overwhelmed with the glory of the Lord, he heard God's Name proclaimed: "Yahweh, Yahweh God [the I AM God], merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abounding in grace and truth" (Ex 34:6).

Moses prayed in grateful acknowledgment of the presence ofthe Lord: "If nowIhavefoundfavorin thy sight, 0 LORD, let the LORD, I pray thee, go in the midst

W

of us; for it is a stiff-necked people; and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for thine inheritance" (Ex 34:9 ASV). Clinging to the promise, Moses actu­ ally asks God to go in their midst because they are a sinful people-yet not to destroy them, but to pardon their sin. With God present and sin pardoned, Moses seeks the supreme blessing: not merely that God give the land as their inheritance, but that he take them as his inheritance. That fellowship between the present Lord and his people is the heart ofbiblical religion. The tabernacle was built after all, the place ofGod's dwell­ ing in the middle of the camp, with sacrifices and the priesthood to mediate approach to the Holy One. At the end of the Exodus account, the cloud of God's glory filled the tabernacle. God was among his people.

God gave Israel the land, and dwelt there in his temple at Jerusalem. But Solomon, who dedicated the temple, also launched Israel's apostasy. For one ofhis heathen wives, he built on the Mount of Olives a shrine to Chemosh, the god of Moab. Yet God had promised through Moses that after divine judgment had culminated in exile, God would gather his people and circumcise their hearts so that they would love him with all their heart and soul and life (Dt 30:6). The Psalms and the Prophets echo the promise of the blessing to come in the latter days. But the supreme blessing can only come with the coming of the Lord.

God must come because the condition of his people is so bad that only God can reverse it. Ezekiel describes his vision ofthe congrega­ tion of God in the valley (Ez 37: 1-14). They are not alive but dead, reduced to dry bones on the valley floor. They are not even assembled as skeletons, but scattered. «Son ofman, can these bones live?" asks the Lord. Ezekiel does not give the obvious answer, butre­ plies, «0 Sovereign LORD, S(~II( f_~lll·is~/ you alone know." _~II{~ 1t).-~8son The Lord tells Ezekiel to preach the promise of BibI4~; resurrection life to the dry ind(~ed~_"lle bones. As he preaches, the reaS(.llttller4~ roar of rattling bones fills the valley; assembled skel­ ii, ,'11110811 rll(~e. etons are covered with sin­

ews and flesh. Ezekiel is told to preach again, promis­

ing the Spirit oflife to lifeless bodies. As he preaches,

breath enters them and they stand-a vast army!

The meaning of that vision appears in the proph­ ecy that precedes it. Israel's hope is not gone: God promises to bring back his scattered people: «I will sprinkle clean water on you and you will be clean .. .1

4iod!s 1.lall to is , ve ave tl'le

is

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1995

23

will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh» (Ez 36:25,26).

Notonlyis the condition ofGod's people so hope­ less that only God can remedy it; the promises of God are so great that only God can fulfill them. Noone ever disbelieved God because he promised too little. God promises the impossible. He promised to make a great

will be like God, like the Angel ofthe LORD going before them» (Zec 12:8).

The Servant Must Come

If _~.o.lwe -e /0 Inil.k(~ reasonab e proDlises: a spi.-ittlal higl ~ a teclloOque for relaxa,_~" .Jll~ a_,ax breali.., tllell a sec,u la.e age Illight (~redi _/ ,lle 'W'o.o.1 of t;lle .L\llnigllty. But ~:iod ,"oluises ane'vnatu.-e~physi(~al I-esul-re(~_/ion.,

alld

ea.·th~

a, ne,v heavell

. ·Ild ete'-Ilal Ii ·e.

nation of Abraham, but Abraham and Sarah were childless. The years went by, and when God again repeated his promise, Abraham, the man of faith, fell on his face and laughed. He was 100, Sarah was 90; God's promise was absurd. "Ifonly Ishmael migh t live under your blessing!» pleaded Abraham, who had arranged to restore God's credibility by having a son of Hagar, Sarah's handmaid.

When Sarah later heard the promise from the Angel of the Lord, she, too, laughed. Confronted by the Lord, she denied in embarrassment. But the Lord insisted. Her laughter went on record, for the Lord kept his promise, and Sarah laughed in joy, not unbe­ lief. Her son was named, "Isaac»-"laughter» (Gn 17:17; 18:21; 21:6).

IfGod were to make reasonable promises: a spiri­ tual high, a technique for relaxation, a tax break, then a secular age might credit the word of the Almighty.

But God promises a new nature, physical resurrec­ tion, a new heaven and earth, and eternal life. Super­ latives burst open as Old Testament prophets describe what God will do in the glorious future. Zechariah foresees a time when every pot in Jerusalem will be like a holy temple vessel, and when "Holiness to the LORD,» once inscribed in gold in the High Priest's tiara, will be on the bridles ofthe horses-the ancient equivalen t of bumper stickers. In that day the feeblest man in Jerusa­ lem will be like King David, "and the house of David

24

NOV EMB ER/ DECEMBER 1995

modern R EFORMATION

God, promising the tabernacle, proclaimed him­ self as the Lord, "full of grace and truth" (Ex 34:6).

John says, "The Word became flesh, and dwelt [taber­ nacled] among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" On 1:14 NKJV)2. We have received of that fullness, grace in the place ofgrace (v. 16). That is, the grace and truth that God proclaimed in the Old Tes­ tament is fulfilled in the grace and truth that came through Jesus Christ (v. 17). Moses did not see God face to face, but "God the Only Begotten, who is at the Father's side, has made him known" (v. 18 NIV margin). ith the rest of the New Testament, John's Gospel proclaims that the Lord himself has come. John the Baptist preached the coming of the Lord from Isaiah 40.

Isaiah promised God's coming, and John announced the One whose sandals he was not worthy to fasten: the Light that shines on everyone was coming into the world On 1:9,23).

When Jesus told Nicodemus that «No one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit" On 3:5), Nicodemus did not recognize the passage to which Jesus alluded (see above, Ez 36:25-27). Jesus rebuked Nicodemus, a teacher of Israel, for not understanding the promised new birth. "'" Only when God intervenes, only when his sovereign Spirit moves, can stony hearts be made to beat and dead bones be given new life.

Nicodemus said that Jesus was a teacher come from God. Yet he did not know what it meant that Jesus had come from God, nor that Jesus could tell him heavenly things. In the Book of Proverbs, the wise man Agur makes a startling admis­ sion. He says that he is the stupidest man alive. «I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge ofthe Holy One" (Prv 30:3). But his wisdom consists in knowing that he doesn't know. For who does? «Who has gone up to heaven and come down?" he asks. The anchors on our news programs seem always ready to call in a reporter on the spot. But who can call in our man in heaven, to report on the latest word from the divine council? Who does know the Holy One? «What is his name, and the name of his son? Tell me if you know!"

(Prv 30:4).

Jesus answers Agur's question: «No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son ofMan who is in heaven" On 3: 13 NKJV) 3. The one who goes up to heaven is the _, Son ofMan who has come down from heaven. Speak­ ing earlier to Nathanael, Jesus had reminded him of the angels ascending and descending on the Lord as he

W

stood beside Jacob at Bethel. So Nathanael, a true son of Jacob/Israel will see the angels ascending and de­ scending upon the Son of Man On 1:51).

But how will Jesus ascend to heaven? He will be lifted up. «As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilder­ ness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" On 3: 14, 15).

Moses lifted a bronze serpent on a staff in the wilderness when the second generation of Israelites rebelled against God, and were judged by venomous serpents. When they cried to the Lord, he told Moses to lift up a bronze figure ofa serpent; all who looked at it would be healed and live. The bronze snake was a symbol of the curse of death for sin. It was lifted up, not for adoration, but as a symbol of victory over the curse. As one might impale a snake on a spear and hold it up in triumph, so the bronze serpent was lifted up.

How can such a symbol represent the lifting up of the Son of Man to heaven? We have the answer in the words ofJesus: «And I, ifI am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself' On 12:32). John ex­ plains, «This He said, signifying by what death He would die" (v.33; In 8:28). Nicodemus did not know how Jesus came from heaven, nor how he would re­ turn to heaven. Jesus must be lifted up on a cross.

There he was made a curse for us; he was smitten by God, for the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all (Is 53:6). «Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written,

Tile all(~IIOrS flll otlr Ile"rs progranls s(~e n al'\'\iays rea y _/0 (~.: II in a r(~pf-trter on tllt~ Sp(.~./. B'~lt ,vito (~all eft in OIIr Illilli ill 1·lt~aven.,d/o report 4)0 f/II(~ latesfJvvord ~. 010 _]l(~ iville {~OUI cil? Witt:. does kIIOW_./II~~ 80 v f.' 4:!;? e/

(Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree')" (Gal 3: 13; 2 Cor 5:21).

The agonizing death of Christ does not remove his glory. Rather, by that death he is lifted up as Victor, crushing the head of the serpent. This is what God promised: «See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted" (Is 52: 13 NIV). But how will he be lifted up? In appalling suffer­ ing: «his form marred beyond human likeness-so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their

NOVEMB ER/DECEMBER 1995

25

mouths..." (v. 14f). The suffering Servant of Isaiah triumphs because he poured out his life, bearing the sin of many (Is 53: 12).

This is the glory of Jesus Christ that Peter saw in the Old Testament. Peter, who had said that Jesus must never go to the cross, came to understand that there Jesus saved him. He cites Isaiah 53 and summarizes: "He himselfbore our sins in his body on the tree" (1 Pt 2:24 NIV). Peter saw the glory ofthe cross. Jesus whose sufferings he had witnessed, was his Lord and God. Encouraging Christians, he quotes Isaiah 8:12: "Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened." The antidote to the fear of men is the glory of the Lord himself. Isaiah continues, ((The LORD of hosts, Him you shall hallow; Let Him be your fear, And let Him be your dread" (Is 8: 13 NKJV) . We "hallow" the Lord by acknowledging him to be God, set apart as the Holy

One. But where the Greek Old Testament reads, "Hal­ low the LORD himself," Peter writes, "Hallow the Lord the Christ"! So does Peter, who had worshipped Jesus in his fishing boat, confess the glory ofChrist his Lord: Hallowed be thy Name! ~ 1 The masculine pronominal suffix could refer to the stairway or to Jacob. That it does refer to Jacob is evident from the second appearance of the Lord to Jacob at Bethel (Gn 35:13; 28 :13). There the same preposition and pronoun is used to describe God's going up from " upon him."

2 The word for "dwell" is really "tented," an illusion to the Old Testament tabernacle, the issue in the passage John cites, Exodus 34:6.

3 While important manuscripts omitthe last phrase, it may well be original. See verse 18.

Pastor, writer, and seminary president (Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia), Dr. Edmund Clowney was educated at Wheaton College, Westminster Theological Seminary, Yale Divinity School, and Union Seminary in New York City. Ke is the author of The Way of the Cross, The Unfolding Mystery: Discovering Christ in the Old Testament, and his new release, The Church (Intervarsity Press). Dr. Clowney now resides with his wife Jean in Escondido, where he is Adjunct Professor of Practical Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in California.

,butth~liberatedonesthatsoineofth~((ladies» ha:veturned So what is likely to result from Oden's fragging ,Q.f nastyand,w~nt to put de~d(or live)white men)n the place the liberated camp? It is likely that they will bemu~h where theybelong-which is under a long spiked heel. disquieted but little changed by his ousting them from .The authoiviews tb~ progllosis at the seminary their doset-only a few old sots really sober up; Th.e , level~s ((dismal"al)d is o(the view~hat any meaningful laity has been duped and doped by the products spilled reform would takeciecades:to take effect because of the out by the seminaries and the hypocritical blather b1,lilt-i~mec:h.anisni~ for selX-perpetpation and the near dumped on them byhigherheadquarters. They may 4TIposslbility-'o freplacingth: curretltinhabitants with a from time to time get into the hand ringing mode anl body of cht~sical Christiaps. He t&es pains to warn wail, "Who .stole our,churcht, but by and large they prospective,seminarians of what they will likely facein have been emasculated by the organizational stru.ct:ures ', an environmentwhere((f~ndam.entalists~' are in bad in the contror of those who have become their masters. odorandBible believers are called~'literalists5' andworse. A vigilant; informed, and" caring;~mnan't of ordained . He warns that a§tudentyvho cOmes witha1,.1ything like ministry cO,uld lead a movement of reformation and an orthodox faith 'will have to survive Biblical studies renevval, but too many have given 'up on their de.no.:mi­ .,t hat represent « .. ..a.deconstruction of patriar~hal texts , riations and are running their congregations as thoqgh ~nd traditions," and suffer through:the study ofliturgy t'hey'were the kings of secure little island kingdoms experiment incplor, balloons, pO­ where "doing theology" is all that can rellsonably be that « ... becomes .. etry, and freedom." expected of them. They are large1ywitholit\he histori­ den's treatment ofthe never-ending at­ cal remembrance of their theological r oo.ts and often . ... tempt tolegitimize open ho~osexual prac­ deeply ashamed oftheir denominational origin.~>,' and . . . . tice and welcome itinto the o!dained min­ often with just cause. istry is instructive. His brief critique of the shoddy Of course, this preseht pathplogy.:Will pas~,.Oden atteh1pts skewratiori:al Biblical interpretation in fa­ points outthat there are'increasingsigns'ofa newbrand . vor of unbridled "Christian"permissiveness for of young, dassic:aIiy orien.ted Cb,tistian.tp.inkerS',and ,.homoeroti¢:beh.avior should make the guilty theolo­ writers who'n.ave su-rvivedthe darkness ofthe iibe~ated "giansblush~and would ifthey stillhad the a.bilitytoteel seminaries: He calls.them the ''youitgfogeys'' andh~·\has " guil~: As E. Michael Jones points out in, John Cardinal highhopes ihat,intime, theywill lead a newpostmodern Kro(andtHeCulturalRevolutio'I1, itwas' .notneces~aryto reformation. It '}'Vould Q(fa wonderfulthingtosee, but crassly advocateimmo:ral propositions for the culture .thert, not-all of u~havemat much timeleft to attend that toembiace them: aU that was ·necessary was to .sweep " particula.r requiem; we~ll be awaiting amuch more wop­ aside m~ral restraints and let hurrian nature slide by der.ful celebrati9n and Jexpect Thomas C. Oden will be there also. ~ , gtayity down t~e slippery slope~

·.

O

an

to

' Dr. Sh~ridanManasen r~sides in l5ennebunk, Maine.

26

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1995

modern REFORMATION

saw this to be an issue of the utmost importance. In­ deed, Christ had asked them directly: ((Who do you say that! am?" (Mt 16:15) and had explicitly told them that the proper answer was a revelation of the eternal God, with foundational significance for His kingdom. Karl Barth, no conservative evangelical mind you, rightly said that what a person thinks about Christ determines what he ultimately thinks about everything else. Suffice it to say, from any perspective, this question is not only worth asking and studying, it is one that we had better answer carefully.

I. Ligon Duncan

W

ho is Jesus? Is he divine? Such questions have exercised the minds of thoughtful inquirers for nigh unto two thousand years since Jesus ofNazareth completed his earthly ministry. His disciples, by their own admission, had wrestled with his identity during the years oftheir training. But after the ascension and Pentecost they never evidenced the slightest doubt as to the right answer. We Christians, as believers in and witnesses to Christ, must be firmly grounded in our understanding of and commitment to the deity of our Lord-not only that we might testify of Him to others, but also for His glory and our spiritual welfare.

An Important Matter The question is neither merely speculative nor of his­ torical interest alone, and it is far too important to be relegated to an intellectual trial in a philosophy of religion class, or to be glibly and irreverently scruti­ nized and dismissed by some second-rate academic pundit in the Religion 101 course at a university. It is a question with eternal consequences.

It is indisputable that Christ's immediate disciples

Mixed Signals from the Academy The current cacophony ofopinion with regard to Jesus' identity is enough to give anyone a headache. It is not hard to find competing views of Jesus in the scholarly communitytoday, unitedonlyin their mutual rejection of his divinity. Sometimes we are told that Jesus was a fraud. Various academics assure us that Jesus was the first feminist, or gay-rights activist, or the progenitor of whatever Johnny-corne-lately movement to which they wish to lend legitimacy. Meanwhile the instructor across the hall assures us, on the contrary, that Christ was the founder ofa chauvinistic, anti -environmental and hope­ lessly patriarchal religious regime. Many generic reli­ gionists will admit that he was «a Divine-Man" in some way, but certainly not God (in the traditional Christian sense). Other scholars, more disinterested and objec­ tive perhaps, assure us that we will never arrive at a final knowledge ofwho Jesus was (or claimed to be) because he is a mystery shrouded in layers oftradition. In short, they tell us, we will never really know who Jesus was because the Church «invented" him, at least as we now know him.

What is more disturbing are the noises emanating from supposedly Christian scholars who are offering estimates of Christ that differ radically from historic Christian orthodoxy. Conservative pastors and cam­ pus workers are not unaccustomed to the quizzical looks they get from confused students reporting that a religion professor has announced to them that Jesus never claimed to be God. Seminary professors and Bible department lecturers sometimes paint Christ merely as a good man or a great moral teacher. More advanced practitioners of the historical disciplines tell us that Jesus was a social and religious revolutionary, «a marginal Jew." An older form of this same story-line suggested that he was an apocalyptic prophet. In fact, the only thing the modern «mainstream" academy seems to be sure of is that Jesus Christ, whatever else he was, was not divine.

It must be stressed, however, that this phenom­ enon of teachers within the bounds of the Church rais-

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1995

27

ing doubts about the divinity of Christ is an entirely recent development. One looks in vain in the history of the earliest Christianity for signs of theological dis­ agreement on the deity of our Lord. While there were occasionally Jewish and pagan objections raised against Christ's divinity, not even heretics suggested such a possibility in Christendom for nigh unto three centu­ ries! Indeed, so profound was the unanimity of the Church's recognition of and commitment to the deity ofChrist, the major Christologicalbeliefthatthe Church struggled to ~ccept was Christ's humanity. The docetic, gnostic, and Marcionite errors stumbled on Jesus' true humanity in the first centuries of the Church's life, but not until the fourth century (with the advent of Arianism) did a major heterodoxy arise denying Jesus' divinity. When it did, it was so completely rejected and rebutted through the course of the controversy that objection to the full deity of our Lord did not break surface in Christianity for some thirteen -hundred years.

Roots ofa Current Heresy What, then, accounts for this modern assault on the deity of Christ? Aside from the enterprise of the Evil One, the logical outworking ofenlightenment rational­ ism, and the epistemic skepticism born of Kantian transcendentalism, we may suggest at least two rea­ sons, two proximate causes, for the appearance of this anti -Christian teaching against the deity 0 f Christ within the Church's pale. In the «quest for the historical Jesus"-an attempt to rediscover the nature and teach­ ing ofthe Jesus ofhistory which began in the eighteenth century and has continued in varying forms to this day-these two assumptions have exerted controlling influence. l First, it is presupposed by the devotees of the new Gospel criticism that the Church's teaching about Christ consolidated at the Council of Chalcedon (451) was an invention of theologians and philosophers, «a figment ofpious imagination." The Christ ofthe original sources, they say, is a much more human, much more ambigu­ ous Christ than the Christ of post-Nicene theology.

Thus our new academic critics now propose to save us from this «hellenized" Christ, by stripping away the theological-philosophical layering of Nicea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon (and even the Apostle Paul!) and returning to the earliest, authentic sources.

Second, the biblical critics who have given us the «new Jesus" have assumed a very different set of pri­ mary sources for the study of the person and life of Christ than have traditionally been employed by Chris­ tians in coming to an understanding of who Christ is.

The Gospels themselves, as they now stand, are no longer primary sources. Indeed, they are neither to be

28

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1995

trusted nor merely harmonized. The critics tell us, we must «get behind" the Gospels ifwe are to discover the real Jesus. The Gospels, as products ofthe early believ­ ing community (rather than divine revelation) must be unraveled for clues as to the unadorned truth about Christ.

What shall we say then?

These assumptions almost universally held in the wider community of Biblical scholars, have even made sig­ nificant inroads into evangelical thought (with its anti­ ecclesiastical, anti-historical, and anti-systematic ten­ dencies). In effect, these two presuppositions simulta­ neously require the rejection of the Church's historic and official teaching concerning Christ, and the nor­ mative authority of Holy Scripture. Such a drastic in­ vestigative starting-point betrays the audacity, indi­ vidualism, arrogance, and naivete so often characteris­ tic ofthe modern religious academy. Atleast four things must be said in response to this situation.

First, such an approach fails to understand what dogma is. Herein lies its arrogance. By operating on such a basis, the scholar implicitly rejects all three ofthe essential elements ofdogma: the social, the traditional, and the authoritative.

(1) The Church's dogma is social in that it is received

neither on the testimony of individual Christians nor even a single generation ofChristians, but is recognized by the whole. Herein lies the element of truth in the Vincentian canon ("what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all"). Only in the communion of saints maywe confidently understand and propagate the truth.

(2) Dogma is traditional in that it is based upon historical

revelation completedovernineteen centuriesago andpassed on in the Church from generation to generation under the guidingprotection ofthe Holy Spirit. However impressive the results ofthe new critical literary disciplines, they have no right to bypass or undercut the time-honored deposit of truth bequeathed in the creeds and confessions of the Church.

(3) Dogma is authoritative in that it is the embodiment ofdivine truth revealed in the word ofGod. Dogma is not «perspectivaL" Orthodox dogma, as a faithful ecclesial formulation of central Christian truth from God, about God, and for his glory, transcends the -individual opinions of theologians and church mem­ bers, and even the cultures and ages in which the Church has received and formulated it. Modern subjectivism may not like such a claim, but it must accept it or bid farewell to Christianity.

Second, such an approach fails to appreciate the necessary connection between truth and belief. When one announces to the Church that «all your great histo­

modern REFORMATION

rians and theologians have been wrong about the Christ) Jesus was a mere mortal) but not to worry) faith is the important thing) no need to get hung up on doctrines and history))) and then wonders why Christians get upset) one evidences an astounding degree of obtuse­ ness. Moderns may not think that what we believe is religiously significant or that it needs to be grounded in reality) but nobody else has ever believed such rubbish.

As Donald MacLeod has put it: "You can tell people that (the Gospels are not true) and they will believe you) but when you tell them (the Gospels are not true) but I believe them) people are) rightly) incredulous.)) hird) there is a double irony in the modern attempt to liberate the Church from the encrustation of Greek language) thought) and philosophy in its formulation of the doctrine of Christ. On the one hand) the cries that the early Ch urch capitulated to secular patterns of terminology and thought in its Chalcedonian definition ring particu­ larly hollow when they come from a generation of scholars who are philosophically committed to the most radical attempt at «contextualization)) in the his­ tory ofChristian doctrine) and who have in fact single­ handedly attempted to jettison more historic Chris­ tian formulation than any generation of heretics who ever walked the planet. On the other hand) the whole project of decoding the Gospel sources for clues to the original Jesus carries with it) of necessity) the most astounding untested personal opinions.

Fourth) the manner in which modernist critics treat the Gospels) testimony to the claims of Christ is both unhistorical and unpastoral. I do not here object to their questioning ofthe truthfulness ofthese claims.

Unbelievers do so all the time. Rather) what is so irk­ some is the unwillingness to allow the text to say what it seems to be saying) evidenced in the regular practice ofidentifying a reduced extent of «authentic)) material in the Gospels) not on exegetical grounds but because ofprior philosophical considerations (as in Funk)s so­ called «Jesus Bible))). It is unhistorical in that it ap­ proaches sources possessed of enormous historical corroboration and proceeds to subject them to a liter­ ary deconstruction unjustified by the text itself. In this way the critics are not unlike political spin-meisters who can take facts which say «black)) and make them say «white or maybe gray.)) It is unpastoral in that it raises fundamental doubts about prime articles of re­ vealed theology with no sense of the enormity of the consequent effects on the faith and life ofthe people of God) andno sense ofaccountability either to the Church or God himself.

T

The Teaching ofScripture Our thinking in these matters needs desperately to be Scripturally informed. In the grand debate over the deity ofChrist) typical evangelical quips about trusting in «a Person and not a proposition)) indicate a confu­ sion as to the nature and significance ofthe discussion) and are a woefully deficient response to current ecclesial challenges to «the faith once delivered.)) «It d6esn)t matter what you believe as long as you are sincere)) in addition to being insipid) is a profoundly mistaken sentiment) especially when the belief one is discussing is the centerpiece of redemption. We will hardly win the day in the marketplace of ideas with such an out­ look. Weare called as Christians to be witnesses to Christ) and that means first and foremost bearing tes­ timony in our lives and words to the objective revela­ tion of him in Scripture. That) of course) requires us to be knowledgeable ofthe Biblical testimony concerning the divinity of our Lord.

Four classic works are commended to readers who are interested in an extensive review of the Biblical witness to the person of Christ: H. P. Liddon)s The Divinity ofOur Lord (1867)) B. B. Warfield)s The Lord

"It I

d.)esn~t

YOI) VOl) ~

IHa,tt,er "",llat

believe a,s lollg as <I!Ii~

•

•

a,l~e SIII(~ere<u'IS /

a,

PI" onD y Illistakell selltin:lellt., especially ,vhen tile belief olleis dis(~ussing is tile (~ellt/el·piece of redellll,t/ioli. ofGlory (1907)) Geerhardus Vos) The Self-Disclosure of Jesus (1926)) and Robert L. Reymond)s Jesus) Divine Messiah: The New Testament Witness (1990). Though it is hardly possible to attempt a survey of the relevant Biblical testimony here) a briefoutline ofthe main lines of Scriptural evidence will make sufficiently clear the claims ofChrist and his contemporaries to his divinity.

Sometimes we are told that there is no verse in the New Testament that says «Jesus is God") with the im­ plication that there is no straightforward claim to his divinity to be found in its pages. Such) however) is not the case. For instance) in the following passages the deity of Christ is either explicitly asserted or strongly implied. In Titus 2:13) Paul speaks of believers «look­ ing for the blessed hope and the appearing ofthe glory

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1995

29

ofour great God and Savior, Christ Jesus." Peter opens his second epistle greeting "those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (2 Pt 1:1). Luke records Paul's words to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:29 where he reminds them that they are overseers of "the church of God which he purchased with His own blood." Such a statement makes no sense unless we

"He ,vllo ttelieves in the

divil".ity of deslls ~llrist "is i1 (~III·istiill; Ie ",,110 does Ilot., is I.rofessioll)~ (,vlta"t/evelol .IS il nlel"e e · st." ~

"

.

~

accept the full force of the doctrine of the incarnation: Christ was God in the flesh, therefore we may speak of God shedding his own blood. John testifies to Jesus (whom he calls the Word) in the foreword to his Gos­ pel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" On 1:1). John goes on to say that Jesus, the Word, is "the only begotten from the Father" On 1: 14) and then utters the astound­ ing claim that "no man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained; Him" On 1:18). Thus John not only asserts Christ's deity, but also his sole ability to reveal the Father to the world. It is thus not surprising that Thomas confesses Jesus to be "My Lord and My God" in John 20:28. The author of Hebrews identifies Jesus, the Son as the person about whom the Psalmist (Ps 45:6) said: "Thy throne, 0 God, is forever and ever" (Heb 1:8). James, the brother of our Lord, identifies himself as Jesus' "bond-servant" Oas 1:1) and refers to his brother as "the glory" in James 2: 1, neither ofwhich designations is typical of siblings or reverent Jewish believers, but both of which speak volumes about his perception ofthe divine nature ofChrist. Such passages could be multiplied (e.g. Mt 1:23, Jn 17:3, Acts 2:17 & 33, Col 2:9, 2 Thes 1:12, I Tim 1:17, and I Jn 5:20), but the ones we have just reviewed establish the teaching of Jesus' divinity from Paul, Peter, Luke, John, Thomas, the author of Hebrews, and James-a representative selection ofapostles and their understudies. All ofthese unambiguously and unanimously testify to the deity of our Lord.

Christ's divinity is set forth in Scripture in numer­ ous other places and in a variety of other ways as well.

First, the attributes of the one, true God of Israel are ascribed freely and without apology to Jesus by the writers of the New Testament. No first-century Jew

30

NOVEMB ER/DECEMBER 1995

could have done so without fully understanding the radical theological significance of such an ascription.

The author ofHebrews applies Psalm 102:25-26, which asserts the eternality ofGod, to Christ in Hebrews 1: 11­ 12 ("you are the same, and your years will not come to an end"), and as we have already seen John declares the Word's eternity in the prologue to his Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word." Our Lord's immutability is asserted in Hebrews 13:8 where we are told that Jesus Christ is "the same yesterday, and today, and forever."

Jesus himself claims the attribute of omnipresence in the Great Commission of Matthew 28:20. "I am with you always," he says. This is only possible if he is possessed of what theologians call "immensity"-an attribute ofthe God ofIsrael alone. Jesus' omniscience is regularly stressed in the Gospel records, as for in­ stance John's astounding declarations that Jesus "knew all men" and "knew what was in man" On 2:24-25) or Luke's almost incidental comment that Jesus knew what the Pharisees were thinking (Lk 6:8). The New Testament also indicates that Christ possesses the di­ vine attribute of sovereignty. Jesus himself claims un­ limited divine authority when he announces "All au­ thority has been given to me in heaven and on earth" (Mt 28: 18) and Paul reiterates the point when he says: "in [Christ] all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form ...and he is the head over all rule and authority" (Col 2:9-10). To claim that a person is eternal, immu­ table, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, is to claim that person to be divine-which is precisely what the New Testament does of Christ. second way in which the Scriptures testify to Christ's deity is that the great Old Testa­ ment names of God are applied to him.

Over and over the divine names of Israel's God are taken up by Christ or employed by his disciples in reference to him. For instance, the great Old Testament covenantal name ofGod, Yahweh, or Jehovah, which is translated Lord (kurios) in the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament) nigh unto seven thou­ sand times is applied in its fullest sense to Christ on numerous occasions. Paul indicates that the funda­ mental confession of a Christian is "Jesus is Lord" (Rom 10:9). He considers such a profession necessary for salvation, and evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit in a person's life (1 Cor 12:3). Furthermore, he indicates that there will come a day when the whole world will confess that "Jesus Christ is Lord" (Phil 2:11). This declaration of Christ's divine lordship is perhaps the earliest confession of the Church, and in the light of the Old Testament significance of the term and the early Christian's steadfast defense of Christ's unique lordship, it is apparent that "Lord" is far more

A

modern REFORMATION

than a polite title of address or mere acknowledgment thatheisour master. We may add that New Testament writers routinely apply Old Testament «Lord" pas­ sages to Jesus (e.g., Jn 12:41 says that Isaiah's vision was of Christ on the throne in Is 6: 10, see also Rom 8:34, Acts 2:34, and 1 Pt 3:22). We may mention in passing that Jesus refers to himself with the exalted «I AM" formula repeatedly in the Gospel ofJohn On 8:58, cf., 6:35,8:12, 24,11:25, 14:6, and 18:5-8), and calls him­ self «the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end" in Revelation 22:13. All these divine names, constitute an argument of significant force indicative of the New Testament's view of the deity of our Lord Third, the Scriptural writers announce that Christ does divine works, activities that are ascribed to God alone in the Old Testament. At least four examples come to mind.

(1) John, Paul, and Hebrews speak ofChrist as the agent

ofcreation and the providential upholder of all things Un 1:1-3, Col 1:15-17, and Heb 1:1, 3, 10). That God alone is the author and upholder of creation is, of course, a fundamental axiom of Hebrew theology.

(2) The Gospels indicate that Jesus performed miracles and saving acts by virtue ofhis own innatepower. Though the prophets and apostles, too, did signs and wonders, they did so with derivative power. «The Son gives life to whom he wishes" On 5:21) is not the statement of a mere disciple or holy man. «I myself will raise [them] up on the last day" On 6:40) is not the word ofeven the most exalted prophet of Israel. «Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" On 2: 19) is a challenge which admits ofno parallel amongst even the greatest of the servants of God. Jesus' disciples clearly understood this difference, as Peter explains in Acts 4:7-10. Christ's power was not only ofa different order than theirs, but also intrinsic and underived.

(3) The Gospels depict Christ as unilaterally forgiving sin. For instance, to the scribes of Capernaum, Jesus says: «in order that you may know that the Son ofMan has authority on earth to forgive sins .. .! say to you [the paralytic], rise, take up your pallet and go home" (Mk 2: 10-11). Elsewhere, he asserts his right to that author­ ity by delegating a form ofit to his disciples (Mt 116: 19, 18:18, and In 20:23). Who but the Almighty may for­ give sins or delegate such authority?

(4) The New Testament ascribes the right offinal judg­ ment ofmen and angels to Christ. In the Old Testament this is the right of God alone. As Paul says, «we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ" (2 Cor 5:10) and according to Jesus himself, the Father «has given all judgment to the Son" On5:22). True, thatsaintswilljudge with him, but in virtue oftheir relation to him and not by

inherent right. All these divine activities attributed to Christ from yet another line of witness to his deity.

Fourth, the worship of God was freely offered to Christ by his disciples, all ofwhom were Jews and who knew that to worship one other than God constituted idolatry and blasphemy. When we recognize «that the great object of Scripture is to reclaim the world from idolatry" this fact appears all the more remarkable and suggestive. The New Testament is peppered with dox­ ologies to him (e.g., Rom 9:5, 2 Tim4:18, and2 Pt3:18).

Prayers are offered to him (e.g., Acts 7:59-60, 9:13-14, and Rev 22:20). When the disciples met their resur­ rected Lord, instinctively, «they worshipped him" (Mt 28:17). John declares him to be worthy «to receive ... honor and glory and praise" (Rev 5:12).

The force of such testimony constitutes yet more incontrovertible evidence of the New Testament view ofthe deity of Christ. Other lines of argument could be marshaled: the unique role of Christ in salvation, his preexistence, the virgin birth, the resurrection, the Old Testament teaching of the divine Messiah, the testi­ monyofJohn the Baptist, the various self-designations (or titles) of Christ, the testimony of his enemies, and the Trinitarian formulas of the New Testament. How­ ever, our brief review is sufficient to indicate the weight ofevidence for the divinity ofChrist in the Gospels and Epistles. Robert L. Dabney once astutely observed: «If the Apostles did not intend to teach this doctrine they have certainly had the remarkable ill-luck ofproducing the very impression which they should have avoided, especially in a book intended to subvert idolatry."

Now the Scriptural testimony may not convince some people of the claims of Christ, to be sure. B~t it is ridiculous to even suppose that Christ's divinity is not the claim or view of the Scriptures. The ante-Nicene Fathers bear clear witness to this essential rule of faith.

Clement ofAlexandria was representative oftheir high view of Christ when he said, in the early third century, «Believe, 0 man, in him who is man and God: believe in him who suffered and is worshipped as the living god; servants, believe in him who was dead; all men believe in him who is the only God of all men: believe and receive salvation."

The Significance ofChrist's Deity The Westminster Larger Catechism asks in Question 38: «Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God?" It wisely and biblically answers: «It was requisite that the Mediator should be God, that he might sustain and keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God, and the power of death; give worth and efficacy to his

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1995

31

32

sufferings, obedience and intercession; and so satisfy God's justice, procure his favour, purchase a peculiar people, give his spirit to them; conquer all their enemies, and bring them to everlasting salvation."

power ofsin, but also decisively destroyed the might of Satan, the world, and death. This destructive work of redemption required the infinite capacities of the di­ vine Captain of the Hosts of the Lord.

Herein we may detect at least eight theological reasons for the indispensability of the deity of our Lord.

(1) Christ's divinity was necessary to bear the force ofthe atonement. The weight ofthe wrath ofGod, for the sins ofthe world,.is so great that no mere mortal could have borne it. It was Christ's lot to drink that cup to its bitter dregs. Only a divine Savior could have survived it.

(2) Christ's divinity was necessary to imbue his mediatorial labors with limitless value. An almost infi­ nite satisfaction was due God in view of the sins of humanity. No finite being could pay such a price and thus answer the full requirements of strict covenantal justice.

(3) Christ's divinity was necessary to quit God's punitive wrath. The covenant of works required perfect and personal obedience, upon penalty ofdeath. The conse­ quent defection of Adam and Eve from their covenan­ tal obligation plunged the whole race into an age-long rebellion against God. Only the Father's costly sacrifice ofhis beloved only begotten Son was adequate to fulfill the just sentence due us all from the Almighty.

(4) Christ's divinity was necessary to secure the Father's favor. Not because God had to be forced or coaxed to love his people. Not at all. Indeed, the atonement did not "make" God love us, but rather is the expression of his love and indispensable condition of his covenantal favor towards us. Nevertheless, once God set his love on us to redeem us, and infinite penalty and positive righ­ teousness was required to secure his eternal benediction.

Such an accomplishment required the divine Savior.

(5) Christ's divinity was necessary to redeem a people for himself. The divine Christ literally purchased his people Christ earned our salvation. Weare saved byworks: his works! Only a divine savior could have paid the costly purchase price for redeeming us from our bondage to sin and death.

(6) Christ's divinity was necessary for the pouring out of the Spirit on his people. It was essential that our salva­ tion be both accomplished and applied. Christ told his disciples that it was necessary that he ascend to the right hand of the Father in order to send the Holy Spirit On 16:7). Only the eternal God-man holds the rightto send the Spirit where he will, that his salvation might be applied to all his people.

(7) Christ's divinity was necessary for the conquest ofall his people's enemies. Our Lord, the Captain of our Sal­ vation, not only made satisfaction for the condemning

tially consists in the enjoyment of our Savior. He is not only the author ofour redemption, he is the matter ofit.

He is not merely the means of our salvation, he is the goal ofit. In glory we are not only made happy by him, but in him. Only a divine savior could serve as the great fountain of blessedness for all redeemed humanity.

NOVEMBERIDECEMBER 1995

(8) Christ's divinity was necessary to accomplish our everlasting salvation. Our eternal blessedness essen­

Conclusion As Dabney reminded us last century, this is a first order issue: "a prime article of revealed theology; affecting not only the subsistence of the Godhead, but the ques­ tion whether Christ is to be trusted, obeyed, and wor­ shipped as God, the nature and efficacy of His atoning offices, the constitution of the Church, and all its rites.

He who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ is a Christian; he who does not, (whatever his profession), is a mere Deist." The force of Dabney's logic is irresist­ ible. "Who is Christ?" is a question we cannot dodge.

We cannot distance ourselves from it. No one can. We cannot muse upon it in a state of detached ambiva­ lence, because we are inescapably involved in its an­ swer. We cannot be neutral about it, because Christ will not let us. We may either answer "God incarnate" and bow our knees, or we must answer something-any­ thing-else and reject him. There are no other options.

C. S. Lewis, in his classic address "What Are We To Make of Jesus Christ?," offers perspective on the per­ sonal gravity of the question. We shall leave the final word with him: '((What are we to make ofChrist? , There is no question ofwhat we can make ofHim, itis entirely a question of what he intends to make of us. You must accept or reject the story." ~ 1 The reader in search of a brief, understandable, scholarly, evangelical

synopsis of competing opinions aboutthe person of Christ should see Carl F. H.

Henry's The Identity of Jesus of Nazareth (Nashville : Broadman Press, 1992),

espeCially chapter one : "Disparate Views of jesus," pp. 9-22.

2 For excellent Reformed surveys of "the quest," see Robert B. Strimple, The

Modern Search for the Real Jesus (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed,

1995), Klaas Runia, The Present-day Christofogical Debate (Leicester: IVP,

1984), pp. 1-17.

3 These are suggested by David Wells in The Person of Christ, pp. 9-10.

4 See Louis Berkhof, Introduction to Systematic Theology(Grand Rapids: Baker

Book House, 1979), pp. 31-34 .

j. Ligon Duncan III is Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary in jackson, MS. He is a graduate of Furman University and Covenant Theological Seminary. He recently completed doctoral studies at the University of Ecfinburgh and is currently serving as the co-editor of The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, a multi-volume set of essays in remembrance of the 350th anniversary of the publication of the Confession.

modern REFORMATION

No historical Jesus, no salvation. What really happened in history matters to us.

s the Christ in which the church has put its faith the same person as the Jesus who really lived? Some theologians ofthe nineteenth and twentieth centuries have said «No." They claim that the real «Jesus ofHistory" differs greatly from the church)s «Christ of Faith." Some make this pronouncement with glee. So much the worse for Jesus. Free of the Galilean) the theologian is at liberty to spin a religion out of his own spiritual consciousness. Others who doubt the authenticity of the church)s Christ of Faith embark on a quest for the historical Jesus. So much the worse for the church. She will have to bow to new scholarly findings ifresearchers discover a «new Jesus.»

Some of my readers have probably seen books on these new Jesuses. In our day) he is always said to be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls or gnostic writings. The endorsements on the dustjackets ofthese books always claim that the new findings will «undermine the foun­ dationsofthechurch." Such a claim might well unsettle the stomach of an unwary book-browser. When you see books like this) don)t fear them. Pick them up and scan their contents. You will rarely find in these books a scholarly presentation ofnewly-discovered material.

Instead) most are filled with crackpot interpretations of familiar texts which were discovered long ago.

Publishers of such books laud their authors for being «bold and innovative." Actually) there is nothing particularly bold about these men. Their books are certain to succeed in our sensationalist culture. The truly bold scholars are those who write on such matters without making earth-shattering claims. They enter into a far more risky publishing venture.

I

The Mediator is the Message The theologian who accepts a dichotomy between the Jesus ofHistory and the Christ ofFaith will always favor one over the other. The most famous example ofopting for a Christ ofFaith over the Jesus ofHistory is found in the writings ofRudolfBultmann. Bultmann) s Christ of Faith could be believed in even by those who doubted the existence ofJesus of Nazareth.

To some of us) this sounds like a good solution to our plight. Manyofus are not confident in our ability to evaluate the historical evidence for Jesus. But Bultmann) s Christ is impervious to being disproved. If

we find that Jesus never lived) so what? The Christ presented by the gospel writers is still a compelling figure-so compelling that we ought to follow him anyway. Besides) who wants to disband their home Bible study just because the Jesus Seminar cannot agree on what Jesus said or did?

The problem with such reasoning is that the New Testament does not speak of Christ in such terms.

Bultmann) s Christ is safe because his message is more important than his person. The New Testament Christ is risky because everything depends upon his Person and work. As St. Paul says) «If Christ has not been raised) your faith is futile; you are still in your sins" (1 Cor 15:17). No historical Jesus) no salvation. What really happened in history matters to us. The Mediator is the message.

Who's Mything?

The position of a writer like Bultmann is much more dangerous than that ofother contemporary liberal theo­ logians for two reasons. First) his writing is much clearer.

More people can be led astray by him because more can understand him. Second) his claim that jettisoning the supernatural side of Christianity will not leave us with­ out something to believe in is attractive to many. Most people would like to feel as if they were both up-to-date and spiritual. Bultmann says they succeed at both if they follow his advice. The problem is that this cannot be done. While Bultmann)s method is understandable) its ramifications are difficult for many to see) and they spell disaster.

In the space of just a few pages of his book Jesus Christ and Mythology) Bultmann charts a new method ofBiblical interpretation. He calls us to question the old understanding of those passages of Scripture where God)s action was local or concrete (which Bultmann termed mythological) or where Jesus spoke of a literal end of the world and coming judgement (which Bultmann termed eschatological). He says: We must ask whether the eschatological preaching and the mythological sayings as awhole contain a still deeper meaning which is concealed under the cover ofmythol­ ogy. Ifthat is so) let us abandon the mythological concep­ tions precisely because we want to retain their deeper meaning. This method of interpretation of the New

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1995

33

Testament which tries to recover the deeper meaning behind the mythological conceptions I call de-mytholo­

gizing.I Bultmann is aware that asking people to give up even portions ofscripture would be scandalous, so he claims that even these passages are not eliminated: [My] aim is not to eliminate the mythological state­ ments but to interpret them. 2 The Bible contains a vital message under the cover of mythology. At this point Bultmann's program is still an abstract theory. We will need to see its application before we know what it will mean for theology. u ltmann does not hesitate to offer a test case.

He offers the example of those passages in scripture which seem to teach a localized heaven. He says that these passages employ mythology because their writers were not capable of abstraction.

An ancient author's only way to express transcendence was to portray it spatially: According to mythological thinking, God has his domicile in heaven. What is the meaning of this statement? The meaning is quite clear. In a crude manner it expresses the idea that God is beyond the world, that He is transcendent. 3 Ancient man thought, but he thought crudely. This understanding of the ancient mind is common. I have seen a similar example in a recent article on ancient representations of cherubim (those six-winged crea­ tures of Old Testament visions). The author says that

' B

Although ancient man understood concepts like om­ nipotence and omniscience, he did not express them in philosophical terms. Instead, he did so concretely. Man's earliest attempts to express abstract, metaphysical con­ cepts took a physical form.4 While both the author of the article and Bultmann be­ lieved that ancient man had some grasp of transcenden­ tal concepts, both believed ancient man to be a thrall to concrete expression. Bultmannsawthisasadrawbackfor modern man who had progressed beyond this point.

If Bultmann was right, then a sensitive modern interpreter is needed to understand what the ancients were trying to convey. In the case of heaven and hell, without a Bultmannian guide, moderns might even give up on the Bible, its timeless message having been lost in mythological language: These mythological conceptions ofheaven and hell are no longer acceptable for modern men since for scien­ tific thinking to speak of "above" and "below" in the universe has lost all meaning, but the idea of the tran­ scendence of God and evil is still significant. 5

34

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1995

The problem with the ancients is that they weren't scientific. Ifthey had a telescope or a space shuttle, they would have known that their conceptions were flawed.

After the heavens have been trespassed by astronauts, who can believe in a celestial cloudland?

Such thinking reminds me of the Russian cosmo­ naut who said upon his arrival in space that he did not see God. Even as a child I remember thinking how disappointed I would have been if he had. My feeling was not rooted in a deep-seated need to believe without evidence, but in an inkling ofthe grandeur ofthe divine.

Has it not occurred to Bultmann that his own concep­ tions might be analogies?

Perhaps the word "transcendence" is mythological in the same sense as the words "above" and "below."

God's relationship to the universe is unique. Theolo­ gians have chosen to give the abstract word "transcen­ dence" a peculiar meaning when it is used theologically to speak of Gods relationship to the universe. Perhaps the ancients knew how to use the language of "above" and "below" in the same unique sense. Their use would have the added advantage ofbeing recognized by most people as non-literal or analogical. Today's reader might be fooled by the word "transcendent."

I have a high opinion ofthe ancient mind. So do many who are familiar with it. One writer who was well-trained in the reading ofancient documents (he had been reading Homer in Greek since the age of 16) was C. S. Lewis.

Professor Lewis faced claims like that of Bultmann in the Church ofEngland ofhis day. Responding to the writing ofone clergyman who said that we moderns had to over­ haul our image of God, Lewis wrote: The Bishop ofW oolwhich will disturb most ofus Chris­ tian laymen less than he anticipates. We have long abandoned belief in a God who sits on a throne in a localized heaven. We call that belief anthropomor­ phism, and it was officially condemned before our time. There is something about this in Gibbon. 6 Edward Gibbon was the famous author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. The condemnation of anthropomorphism ofwhich Gibbon spoke took place in the early centuries of Christianity. Lewis argues that even in the ancient church, people could read the scrip­ tures without being led astray by concrete imagery. I propose to show that even in Old Testament times men could do this. God himself taught them how in the Old Testament writings. God "demythologized" himself without the help of a twentieth century theologian.

Today You Will Be With Me in Paradigm Our tendency to believe that we can look down on the religious expressions of ancient man from a higher summit of understanding is rooted in our modern the-

modern R EFORMATION

ology. Were the ancients here with us, they would not bow to us as to superiors. They would lament our corrupted understanding and attribute it to the fall of man. For theological superiors they would have looked back to Adam and Eve before the fall, or perhaps ahead to the glorified state, where they would learn pure theology in the «heavenly school." They woulCl have rejected the idea that mankind is embarked on a pro­ gressive quest for God. They believed in a divine quest where God has sought to bring natural idolaters from all generations to a truer knowledge of himself.

I would like to offer a test case to show how God's progressive revelation of himself in Scripture demon­ strates the ability ofthe Bible to transcend the timebound categories of its ancient authors. lowe this example to Stephen Prickett, whose book Words and the Word offers an unusuallybroad base ofobservations showing the foibles of both conservatives and liberals when it comes to Biblical interpretation. rickett finds in the story of Elijah an ex­ ample of God's progressive revelation of himself. God had begun this revelation by showing himself a superior force to the pagan gods. The pagan prophets had laid out their sacrifice before Baal, but he did not show up, even after much shouting and self-mutilation on the part ofhis prophets. Then Elijah set forth his sacrifice. Elijah doused water on the sacri­ fice to ensure that what was to happen would be a display ofgreat power. Before the prophets ofBaal , «the fire of the Lord fell and burned up the sacrifice .... " (1 Kgs 18:38). Even before this demonstration, Elijah was aware that God had a history of revealing himself through the forces of nature. But God knew that if he had terminated his self-revelation at this point in the story, even his trusted servant Elijah might think him a nature-god-certainly the most powerful of nature­ gods, perhaps the only nature god-but a mere nature­ god just the same. To counter this, God revealed his transcendence by repeating his demonstration of his command over nature, and then dissociated himself from the phenomena he had caused. God finally re­ vealed his presence in a «still, thin voice."7 Prickett explains it thus:

P

Elijah had come to Horeb with certain expectations precisely because of that sense of history that was al­ ready, in Israel, distinctively the mark of men of God. Before the assembled prophets of Baal he had already vindicated Yahweh in pyrotechnics-proving once again the power of the God who had traditionally manifested himselfby fire. N ow he had come to receive the divine revelation for which he believed he had been preparing himself. What followed was the more unex­ pected. Paradoxically, his notion of Yahweh was disconfirmed by a greater display of natural violence than any yet. But Yahweh is not a fire God. His pres­

ence, when at last it is revealed, is experienced as some­

thing mysteriously apart from the world of natural

phenomena that had been [seen] in such spectacular

convulsions. Elijah's own categories are overthrown. 8

Prickett's talk ofcategories being overthrown shows that a Kuhnian scientific revolution was possible even to ancient man. Isn't this method curiously like the one the de-mythologizer is supposed to follow? God recog­ nizes that the conception ofhim held by an ancient (in this case Elijah) contained some truth. But Elijah's conception of God's majesty was still crude. So God revealed himself in a new way to alter the old concep­ tion to a superior and more refined conception oftran­ scendence-all without the help of Rudolf Bultmann!

The]esus ofHistory Future The overall clarity ofBultmann's language obscures the difficulty ofsome ofhis concepts. When he claimes that modern man ought to be able to retain some kind of Christian faith but without mythology, this is a com­ plex claim. It involves the idea that Christianity con­ tains myth, and the idea that myth is a bad thing, at least for modern man. Both of these ideas are further com­ plicated by the fact that Bultmann offers no precise definition of myth. His examples are understandable enough by themselves, buthowis a reader to knowwhat is and isn't mythical in a given passage? Without a definition, the reader is left to decide for himself. If it is difficult to believe, it must be myth.

In Bultmann's theory the concrete side ofa myth is the flawed attempt ofan ancient mind to express a deep truth. This concrete side is rejected by Bultmann. It is untrue. To be sure, the word «myth" can be used in a pejorative sense to mean something untrue. To a theo­ logian, this is the most prominent characteristic of a myth.ltisa wrong account ofthe world. St. Paul himself uses the word in this manner (e.g. 1 Tim 4:7,2 Tim 4:4, Titus 1:14). But for St. Paul, there is no underlying kernel of truth to be found in a myth. A myth is a falsehood. That is the biblical sense of the term.

If Bultmann is using the term myth in another sense, then it would be nice to know what that sense is.

For a man like Bultmann, who claimed to be able to distinguish different kinds ofnarrative in the Bible, the obvious sense would be the word's literary sense. But was he in a position to judge this? C. S. Lewis claimed Bible critics wrote nonsense about the Bible and myth because they had never read myths. Not lack of faith, but lack of good training led to this: ...whatever these men may be as Biblical critics, I dis­

trust them as critics. They seem to me to lack literary

judgement, to be imperceptive about the very quality of

the texts they are reading ...If (a critic) tells me that

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1995

35

something in a Gospel is legend or romance, I want to know how many legends and romances he had read, how well his palate IS trained in detecting them by the

flavour. .. 9 Whatever the value ofBultmann' s judgments on a given text, his construction ofan overall theory ofdemytholo­ gizing was flawed by his unfamiliarity with myth.

Professor Lewis had read and loved both Greek and Norse mythology his whole life. His book Till We Have Faces is a reworking of the Cupid and Psyche myth. In Lewis's writing we find an awareness of the complex nature ofmyth. In our century, we are long past the time when the Greek myths could lead people astray. We can appreciate the power ofmyth to integrate experience in a waythatthe early Christians were not free to. In a myth we see an expression of something that happens in nature enacted by great beings or gods. A myth draws together many experiences which were seen as separate. ultmann sees the mythical elements of a narrative as being ofsecondary importance to a message which the narrative was written to convey. Jesus had a message and his disciples valued that message so much thattheyinvestedhis person with mythical qualities in order to draw attention to his message. Perhaps we moderns can value the message without the myth.

C. S. Lewis shows us another way to view Jesus. Not what he said, but his person and work was the message. His teaching was secondary to who he was and what he did. Better a silent Jesus who paid for our sins than a teaching Jesus who aborted his mission. Lewis is clear that Christianity is only viable if Christ is truly God. Christianity is worthless if Christ's deity and atonement were myths-falsehoods.

But if we accept the truth of Christianity, and look at myth from another angle, as something other than falsehood, then Christianity can be said to be mythic. Something of true cosmic importance is en­ acted. All of our moral experiences are explained in one event. But that is not all. Nature is involved.

There is some connection between the Resurrection and the coming of spring-a connection not lost on hymn-writers or greeting card manufacturers. But in the Resurrection, the normal relation ofmythic event to nature is reversed. Usually, the myth serves to explain the general principle. But the Resurrection was clearly not intended as explanation of a more general Resurrection principle we see happening every spring. Spring is rather a foreshadowing of the Resurrection. Christianity is the true myth that makes everyday reality seem thin by comparison.

What kind of message are we really left with if we break the connection between who Jesus was and what

B

he did? Some might say that Jesus did not have to rise from the dead for his teachings to be ofvalue. He taught us to suffer under persecution in hope. But what is that hope? Perhaps that our values will live beyond us. Jesus died, but the church survived and flourished. But if Christ is not risen, how could that principle apply to our lives? IfChrist is not risen, the success ofthe church was a grand mistake. The only principle we could draw is that if we were to suffer persecution and an onlooker were to get confused enough, he or she might create a myth about us, and our values would be promoted by unearned fame. And that's if we're lucky! Some hope.

True hope looks to the future. Faith is trust that in Christ we have a good future. We have a good future because as the Jesus of History past, he overcame death and sin and wrath. As the Jesus of History future, we expect him to be as successful in overcoming our en­ emies. He has shown himself worthy of that trust. In­ stead ofa dreary modern attempt to adjust Jesus to a so­ called scientific view of the world, let us allow God to adjust us to a better view ofthings. A real Jesus came in to the real world and gave it a real plot. Weare living in a better crafted story than any storyteller, ancient or modern could have dreamed. We live in a world where accountants and astronauts are ransomed with the blood of God; where rockets travel through an outer space transcended by a real heaven; and where small-minded people, ancient, modern, or even postmodern, can ex­ perience a great paradigm shift when confronted with a word from God. The Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith are not to be separated. The ancients were aware of this when they wrote that "We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ...begotten of his Father before all worlds ...who was crucified under Pontius Pilate." Our future de­ pends on holding fast to these ancient words. :f-'-> 1 Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology (New York: Scribner's 1958), p.18.

2 Bultmann, p. 18.

3 Bultmann, p. 20.

4 Elie Borowski, "Cherubim: God's Throne?" in Biblical Archaeology Review

(July/August 1995 : vol. 21, number 4) , p. 36.

5 Bultmann, p. 20.

6 C. S. Lewis, "Must our Image of God Go?" in Cod in the Dock: Essays on

Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdman's 1970), p. 118.

7 See 1 Kings chapter 19 for the story. Prickett says that difficult passages such

as the "still thin voice" of 1 Kings 19 :12 have suffered at the hands of

rationalistic interpreters, even when those interpreters were co nservative

evangelicals. The King James translators rendered it better, but the English

langu age has changed leaving us without a good translation of this passage.

8 Stephen Pri ckett, Words and the Word (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1986), p. ll .

9 C. S. Lewis, " Fern-Seed and Elephants, and other essays on Chri stianity," ed .

Walter Hooper, Collins (Fontana), 1975, pp. 107-108; quoted by Prickett in

Words and the Word, p. 81 .

Rick Ritchie is a CURE staff writer and is a contributing author to Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship Salvation. He is a graduate of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts.

...

36

NOVEMBERIDECEMBER 1995

For Fwthei Study from The White Horse Inn

Christ in the Law ofMoses (WHI-198)

Christ Centered Worship (WHI-199)

Christ in the Prophets (WHI -200)

,(hristin the Psalms (WHI-201)

. Who 'was Jesus? (WHI-21O) Prophet, Priest & King (WHI-212) .... Individual copies $5

modern REFORMATION

I

~' I

\~;'. . /

lAIN MURRAY

I{.ENT

HUGH ES

RIel\.. LOVE

JOliN PIPER

This conference

is one for

the books!

Ever feel like your study time is declining in the face of increased everyday ministry demands? Join the club. The 9th Annual Bethlehem Conference for Pastors will address the issue head-on. This year's theme - "The Pastor and His Study."

Join your peers and some internationally known pastor/scholars in Minneapolis as we

explore the vital link between a pastor's study time and his congregation's ability to effectively minister. Some space limitations. Call 612.338.7653 for registration and conference details today.

Jan. 29-31, 1996 : Bethlehem Baptist Church

~.

~

TIl

ANNUAL BETHLEHElVI CONFERENCE FOR PASTORS

~PJI':"'!~r-'"C'1IIt

•

:,

:C~~risti~~s l~y~ to :4~te .the<~ sec~l~~, world..Yet ·' ~~~te~~ '~f~~~~i4i~~ ~its datkn~~~ at ali ~Qsts,

: - -lrr;~;~~::;~~:::;~ff~~;t~~i\~;st~;;j~~~:;~;;~~I~:::nmr-

----I_. _ .-­. - ­ --'.~

WHERE IN THE

WORLD 1ST HE

CHURCH?

•