Imagine yourself standing on the beach at 1:33.
19 April 2009
18 April 2009
Goppelt: Advance Signals
Leonard Goppelt, who wrote a dissertation on typology in the 1930s that became the foundation for the twentieth century's understanding of typology from a salvation-historical perspective, in his NT theology:
The typological understanding of the Old Testament was not an exegetical method but a distinctly defined angle of vision. . . . Looking back from the Christ event Paul observed in persons, institutions, or events of the Old Testament advance signals of God's activity in the end time. These types were not something like historical analogies. They were God's connections to the human being that were witnessed to by the Old Testament and that announced--positively or antithetically--a corresponding but at the same time eschatologically elevated, final connection. The announcement character rested on God's loyalty to his promise.
--Theology of the New Testament (Eerdmans 1982), 58
This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord . . . --Ephesians 3:11
The typological understanding of the Old Testament was not an exegetical method but a distinctly defined angle of vision. . . . Looking back from the Christ event Paul observed in persons, institutions, or events of the Old Testament advance signals of God's activity in the end time. These types were not something like historical analogies. They were God's connections to the human being that were witnessed to by the Old Testament and that announced--positively or antithetically--a corresponding but at the same time eschatologically elevated, final connection. The announcement character rested on God's loyalty to his promise.
--Theology of the New Testament (Eerdmans 1982), 58
This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord . . . --Ephesians 3:11
16 April 2009
The Doctor
I've been listening to Lloyd-Jones for the past year or so (when I discovered the podcast), and normally he has a unique gift to put me to sleep. Not sure why. His written sermons are different--helpful, gripping, moving. But for some reason I have the hardest time staying with him mentally when I listen to him.
But this morning I listened to the Mar 15 broadcast from the Martin Lloyd-Jones Recording Trust, "The Refuge of God Part 2," available here. I think I see now what all the fuss is about--why Piper, at the Gospel Coalition two years ago, called him the greatest preacher of the twentieth century.
But this morning I listened to the Mar 15 broadcast from the Martin Lloyd-Jones Recording Trust, "The Refuge of God Part 2," available here. I think I see now what all the fuss is about--why Piper, at the Gospel Coalition two years ago, called him the greatest preacher of the twentieth century.
13 April 2009
Unlocking Romans
Just read Daniel's Kirk's fascinating Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God (Eerdmans, 2008), a revised dissertation written under R. Hays at Duke. His thesis is that the pervasive underlying theme of and hermeneutical key to Romans is resurrection, through which Paul reinterprets the stories of Israel en route to justifying the ways of God (i.e. a theodicy). If I had to summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the book, here's what I would say. (I would be helped by the corrections of others who have read the book. Two other online reviews of the book, by Jim West and Guy Waters, can be found, respectively, here and here.)
This book has many strengths. Kirk's writing is clear and moves along at a good clip without getting bogged down, even at texts crucial to his argument--something I need to take to heart in my own dissertation writing. He reiterates his central theses time and again in a way that keeps both him and his reader on track, with one eye ever on the forest even as he tackles the thorniest of trees. Secondary literature is appropriately consulted yet without letting the footnotes get out of hand (don't bother with the name index in the back, though--it includes only a small fraction of the actual occurrences of names). An irenic tone throughout is refreshing and an ever-appropriate word in season for me. The continued recovery of the importance to Paul of Jew-gentile issues remains timely and important to current issues facing the church. Above all, Kirk has put forth an intriguing thesis as to the hermeneutical key to Romans, fleshing out a neglected dimension of Paul's theology, that of resurrection.
I must confess that it is just here, though, that at least two red flags are raised in my mind. For while the book has certainly unearthed a sorely neglected theme (excluding Gaffin) of Romans in particular and a core soteriological dimension to Pauline theology in general, he pushes his thesis to the point that it is difficult to escape the sense that he has overpressed his argument. On a macro level, how clarifying is it to proclaim resurrection to be the 'hermeneutical key' (83, 162, 209) to Romans when this entails largely ignoring 1:18-4:8? While previous generations have overly centralized these chapters, the relative inconsequentiality of resur. in these ch's may not have sufficiently sobered Kirk's claim to have unlocked Rom with this interpretive key. On a micro level, Kirk's exegesis is at times similarly strained. Is 'the one who is righteous by faith' of Hab 2:4/Rom 1:17 (47-48) or 'the one who has died' of Rom 6:7 (113) really referring to Jesus?
A similar imbalance occurs, second, in the explication of the 'gospel.' On the one hand, Kirk's emphases are most welcome. He reminds us that according to Paul, the gospel is not merely a conscience-alleviating salve for the soul but includes the good news that Christ has been raised from the dead as Lord over all. Again, though, too much is, to quote Jerry Jenkins, left behind. While he identifies legitimate neglects in evangelical Paul scholarship, Kirk's cure, if swallowed, will leave us worse off than the disease. For his gospel is all solution and no plight. While sin is mentioned at times (69, 76-80, 104-5, 207, 222), the gospel is repeatedly defined in reductionistic terms, as good news that God has raised Jesus in accord with God's promises to Israel and resulting in a unified church consisting of both Jews and gentiles (e.g. 38, 45, 130, 163-69, 206, 217). All this is true enough, and wonderful, but only 'good news' to one who sees one's own treasonous rebellion against God, divests oneself of all self-resourced efforts at partial moral recompense, and looks in trusting faith to Christ. Then one can consider, e.g., the ethnic openness of the gospel.
The problematic nature of these imbalances manifests itself in various ways. Justification, e.g., is said to be for 'those who submit to the reign of this resurrected Messiah' (54). Yet is submission to Christ a means, as Kirk seems to say, or a result of justification? Regarding final judgment, 'those who so serve God by virtue of the resurrection life of Christ are assured of final vindication' (130; similarly 204, 226). Yet is our own service the locus of assurance in the Christian life? The crucifixion, despite an attempt to alleviate this concern (45 n57), is unavoidably muted in the hermeneutically controlling fixation on the resurrection. Might we not assimilate a rejuvenated appreciation of the resurrection while duly remembering that, e.g., Paul came to Corinth intent to preach nothing but Christ and him crucified (not Christ and him raised)? And historically, Kirk falls prey to the current epidemic of Luther-persecution which has become a veritable initiation rite into the magisterium of NT studies, trotting out the usual caricatures of the reformer and reading the rest of the Reformation through this muddy lens (3-4; cf. 7, 10).
Has Kirk unlocked Rom for us? To be sure, his fascinating study gives us one very useful and neglected key for unlocking the many doors that line the Rom hallway. Yet to speak of resurrection as the hermeneutical key creates just the kind of overly controlling lens the author eschews in past generations' readings of Rom through a single lens (e.g. justification by faith). Chock full of illuminating insights and well argued exegetical proposals, Unlocking Romans ultimately fails to provide a cumulatively convincing alternative reading of Rom, pushing an otherwise helpful thesis too far and distorting several crucial elements of Paul's thought as a result.
This book has many strengths. Kirk's writing is clear and moves along at a good clip without getting bogged down, even at texts crucial to his argument--something I need to take to heart in my own dissertation writing. He reiterates his central theses time and again in a way that keeps both him and his reader on track, with one eye ever on the forest even as he tackles the thorniest of trees. Secondary literature is appropriately consulted yet without letting the footnotes get out of hand (don't bother with the name index in the back, though--it includes only a small fraction of the actual occurrences of names). An irenic tone throughout is refreshing and an ever-appropriate word in season for me. The continued recovery of the importance to Paul of Jew-gentile issues remains timely and important to current issues facing the church. Above all, Kirk has put forth an intriguing thesis as to the hermeneutical key to Romans, fleshing out a neglected dimension of Paul's theology, that of resurrection.
I must confess that it is just here, though, that at least two red flags are raised in my mind. For while the book has certainly unearthed a sorely neglected theme (excluding Gaffin) of Romans in particular and a core soteriological dimension to Pauline theology in general, he pushes his thesis to the point that it is difficult to escape the sense that he has overpressed his argument. On a macro level, how clarifying is it to proclaim resurrection to be the 'hermeneutical key' (83, 162, 209) to Romans when this entails largely ignoring 1:18-4:8? While previous generations have overly centralized these chapters, the relative inconsequentiality of resur. in these ch's may not have sufficiently sobered Kirk's claim to have unlocked Rom with this interpretive key. On a micro level, Kirk's exegesis is at times similarly strained. Is 'the one who is righteous by faith' of Hab 2:4/Rom 1:17 (47-48) or 'the one who has died' of Rom 6:7 (113) really referring to Jesus?
A similar imbalance occurs, second, in the explication of the 'gospel.' On the one hand, Kirk's emphases are most welcome. He reminds us that according to Paul, the gospel is not merely a conscience-alleviating salve for the soul but includes the good news that Christ has been raised from the dead as Lord over all. Again, though, too much is, to quote Jerry Jenkins, left behind. While he identifies legitimate neglects in evangelical Paul scholarship, Kirk's cure, if swallowed, will leave us worse off than the disease. For his gospel is all solution and no plight. While sin is mentioned at times (69, 76-80, 104-5, 207, 222), the gospel is repeatedly defined in reductionistic terms, as good news that God has raised Jesus in accord with God's promises to Israel and resulting in a unified church consisting of both Jews and gentiles (e.g. 38, 45, 130, 163-69, 206, 217). All this is true enough, and wonderful, but only 'good news' to one who sees one's own treasonous rebellion against God, divests oneself of all self-resourced efforts at partial moral recompense, and looks in trusting faith to Christ. Then one can consider, e.g., the ethnic openness of the gospel.
The problematic nature of these imbalances manifests itself in various ways. Justification, e.g., is said to be for 'those who submit to the reign of this resurrected Messiah' (54). Yet is submission to Christ a means, as Kirk seems to say, or a result of justification? Regarding final judgment, 'those who so serve God by virtue of the resurrection life of Christ are assured of final vindication' (130; similarly 204, 226). Yet is our own service the locus of assurance in the Christian life? The crucifixion, despite an attempt to alleviate this concern (45 n57), is unavoidably muted in the hermeneutically controlling fixation on the resurrection. Might we not assimilate a rejuvenated appreciation of the resurrection while duly remembering that, e.g., Paul came to Corinth intent to preach nothing but Christ and him crucified (not Christ and him raised)? And historically, Kirk falls prey to the current epidemic of Luther-persecution which has become a veritable initiation rite into the magisterium of NT studies, trotting out the usual caricatures of the reformer and reading the rest of the Reformation through this muddy lens (3-4; cf. 7, 10).
Has Kirk unlocked Rom for us? To be sure, his fascinating study gives us one very useful and neglected key for unlocking the many doors that line the Rom hallway. Yet to speak of resurrection as the hermeneutical key creates just the kind of overly controlling lens the author eschews in past generations' readings of Rom through a single lens (e.g. justification by faith). Chock full of illuminating insights and well argued exegetical proposals, Unlocking Romans ultimately fails to provide a cumulatively convincing alternative reading of Rom, pushing an otherwise helpful thesis too far and distorting several crucial elements of Paul's thought as a result.
Sanctification by Gospel
Shortly I'll note some statements made in Berkouwer's Sanctification by Faith on how justification fuels sanctification, something I'm studying these days. For now, here's a quote from a famous old sermon, "The Expulsive Power of a New Affection," by Thomas Chalmers.
The freer the gospel, the more sanctifying the gospel; and the more it is received as a doctrine of grace, the more will it be felt as a doctrine according to godliness.
HT: Of First Importance
The freer the gospel, the more sanctifying the gospel; and the more it is received as a doctrine of grace, the more will it be felt as a doctrine according to godliness.
HT: Of First Importance
Who Is the Sermon on the Mount for?
Schlatter:
Jesus pitched the Sermon on the Mount against those who condemned murder and avoided adultery as sin, not against those who murdered and followed every lust . . . against those who loved the friend, not against the selfish who loved merely themselves; against those who were ready benefactors and fasted and prayed, not against those who neglected to do so. . . . Jesus did not call the pious to repentance simply because he rejected their sin, but also because he condemned their righteousness. (The History of the Christ, 149-50)
Jesus was not preaching to the perilously immoral but the perilously moral. Not to those outside the church but inside. All through the Sermon, Jesus contrasts two kinds of people, but in each case it is not the disobedient and the obedient, but two kinds of obedience--true fasting and false fasting, true prayer and false prayer (not fasting vs. gluttony or prayer vs. prayerlessness). It is disobedient obedience and obedient obedience.
Jesus pitched the Sermon on the Mount against those who condemned murder and avoided adultery as sin, not against those who murdered and followed every lust . . . against those who loved the friend, not against the selfish who loved merely themselves; against those who were ready benefactors and fasted and prayed, not against those who neglected to do so. . . . Jesus did not call the pious to repentance simply because he rejected their sin, but also because he condemned their righteousness. (The History of the Christ, 149-50)
Jesus was not preaching to the perilously immoral but the perilously moral. Not to those outside the church but inside. All through the Sermon, Jesus contrasts two kinds of people, but in each case it is not the disobedient and the obedient, but two kinds of obedience--true fasting and false fasting, true prayer and false prayer (not fasting vs. gluttony or prayer vs. prayerlessness). It is disobedient obedience and obedient obedience.
10 April 2009
Barth and Redemptive History
In reluctant accord with the annoying trendiness of Barth in evangelicalism (or is it just here at Wheaton?), I'm reading through the engagement with Barth from an evangelical perspective of mostly British scholars and edited by a recent grad of Aberdeen (under Francis Watson) and a theology prof at Oak Hill in London. The essays have been very helpful. Mike Ovey's in particular I appreciated (on the Trinity), as I'm in a doctoral seminar at the moment on the Trinity and Barth has been our most recent theologian of discussion.
Anyhow, Andrew McGowan contributed on Barth and (what else?) covenant theology, and something he said in his conclusion was very helpful and put words to an uneasiness I've been feeling myself in my forays into Barth this year.
Barth's natural instinct to give priority to Christ over Adam is understandable. Adam was a 'type' of the one who was to come and therefore in some fundamental sense we must view Adam in the light of Christ. Nevertheless, Christ is also the second (or last) Adam. In his desire to be Christocentric, Barth has failed to take the biblical account of history seriously. Indeed, it can perhaps be argued that one of the overall weaknesses of Barth's theology is a lack of proper 'grounding' in the redemptive-historical context set out for us in Scripture.
--A. T. B. McGowan, "Karl Barth and Covenant Theology," in Engaging with Barth: Contemporary Evangelical Critiques (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 134
Anyhow, Andrew McGowan contributed on Barth and (what else?) covenant theology, and something he said in his conclusion was very helpful and put words to an uneasiness I've been feeling myself in my forays into Barth this year.
Barth's natural instinct to give priority to Christ over Adam is understandable. Adam was a 'type' of the one who was to come and therefore in some fundamental sense we must view Adam in the light of Christ. Nevertheless, Christ is also the second (or last) Adam. In his desire to be Christocentric, Barth has failed to take the biblical account of history seriously. Indeed, it can perhaps be argued that one of the overall weaknesses of Barth's theology is a lack of proper 'grounding' in the redemptive-historical context set out for us in Scripture.
--A. T. B. McGowan, "Karl Barth and Covenant Theology," in Engaging with Barth: Contemporary Evangelical Critiques (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 134
09 April 2009
C. S. Lewis: Biblical Theologian
Ok not exactly. But if this wouldn't make Ridderbos and Cullmann smile I don't know what would. Love it.
Christ's isolation is not that of a prodigy but of a pioneer. He is the first of His kind; He will not be the last.
--C. S. Lewis, Miracles (repr.; San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2001), 221
Christ's isolation is not that of a prodigy but of a pioneer. He is the first of His kind; He will not be the last.
--C. S. Lewis, Miracles (repr.; San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2001), 221
07 April 2009
Real Wine
Jesus' first miracle was turning water into wine. Not a healing, not a resurrection, not an exorcism. Providing a few extra Coronas for the party.
In the midst of the wedding, Jesus' mom comes to him and lets him know they're all out of the good stuff. How does he respond? "So? My hour has not yet come" (Jn 2:4). What's his point? He does, after all, actually respond to his mom by providing more wine, so his point is not that it was not his time to do a miracle.
Edmund Clowney has shown me that in the midst of this wedding, Jesus was looking ahead to his own wedding, where real wine would be enjoyed. He was looking ahead to his death, and, through his death, to his ultimate union with his Bride, you and me, purchased by his death. That will be the party to end all parties. Here's one of the most striking sentences from any sermon I've ever heard--Clowney says, "Jesus sat amidst all the joy sipping the coming sorrow, so that you and I today can sit amidst all this world's sorrow, sipping the coming joy."
In the midst of the wedding, Jesus' mom comes to him and lets him know they're all out of the good stuff. How does he respond? "So? My hour has not yet come" (Jn 2:4). What's his point? He does, after all, actually respond to his mom by providing more wine, so his point is not that it was not his time to do a miracle.
Edmund Clowney has shown me that in the midst of this wedding, Jesus was looking ahead to his own wedding, where real wine would be enjoyed. He was looking ahead to his death, and, through his death, to his ultimate union with his Bride, you and me, purchased by his death. That will be the party to end all parties. Here's one of the most striking sentences from any sermon I've ever heard--Clowney says, "Jesus sat amidst all the joy sipping the coming sorrow, so that you and I today can sit amidst all this world's sorrow, sipping the coming joy."
06 April 2009
Yarbrough on Schlatter
A few years ago Bob Yarbrough returned to his previous place of employment, Covenant Seminary, and gave a series of lectures on Adolf Schlatter. They can be freely downloaded here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)