Bavinck on the New Creation

Here’s my favorite part from Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 4 :

All that is true, honorable, just, pure, pleasing, and commendable in the whole creation, in heaven and on earth, is gathered up in the future city of God-renewed, re-created, boosted to its highest glory.

The substance [of the city of God] is present in this creation. Just as the caterpillar becomes a butterfly, as a carbon is converted into diamond, as the grain of wheat upon dying in the ground produces other grains of wheat, as all of nature revives in the spring and dresses up in celebrative clothing, as the believing community is formed out of Adam’s falen race, as the resurrection body is raised from the body that is dead and buried in the earth, so too, by the re-creating power of Christ, the new heaven and the new earth will one day emerge from the fire-purged elements of this world, radiant in enduring glory and forever set free from the ‘bondage to decay’ (…Rom. 8:21). More glorious than this beautiful earth, more glorious than the earthly Jerusalem, more glorious even than paradise will be the glory of the new Jerusalem, whose architect and builder is God himself.

An Ancient Strategy, Part 3: Conclusion

The Procession, Logic, and Content of the Serpent’s “Argument”

As we move through the text, we see that the serpent leads up to his argument against the truth and authority of the commandment by questioning 1.)its authorship and 2.)content (i.e. its logical integrity). Genesis 3:4-5 reads:

“Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Having no other recourse, the serpent attacks the moral integrity of God, implying that the commandment was birthed out of nothing more than His own desire to withhold a certain privilege from the woman. The procession seems to begin with reasonable questions, only ending with a fallacious argument against the truth of God’s Word. However, while the question of authorship is a valid question, the question of content is fallacious in that it is an example of equivocation, seeing as the serpent uses a different definition of the phrase “every tree” than that which is used by God in 2:16-17.

What is interesting, almost ironically anticlimactic, is that the most obvious error in logic, the serpent’s ad hominem “argument” against the truth of the commandment, is what convinces the woman to break the commandment. Despite her swiftness to confidently assert its divine authorship and clarify (to some extent) its content, she nonetheless is deceived by a groundless assertion about God’s moral character. Really?

As I reread this passage, I found myself remembering conversational debates that seemed to run in this same cycle: authorship (reasonable)-content(fallacious)-authority(fallacious). The more questions I honestly answered, the more my opponents chose to berate the character of God, mangling the Scripturesin order to do so, in an attempt to thereby disprove the veracity of the scriptures. This same style of “argumentation”, however, can be seen in the most contemporary popular atheists who, failing to provide a valid argument against the truth of God’s Word, resort to calling God a “tyrannical despot” who makes unreasonable demands from the humans He interacts with. Sound familiar?

I believe that Genesis 3:1-5 provides believers with an outline of an ancient strategy of attack. Not only this, but it seems to purposefully underscore the logical errors involved in the serpent’s questions of content and authority (respectively, equivocation and an ad hominem), for our benefit. What we should, therefore, also take heed to pay attention to is that the woman failed to see the error in his final “argument”, which aimed to play upon her subordinate position to God; for this is, I believe, where we are most vulnerable.

How should we respond? Where the woman failed is in her inability to again point to the commandment and respond to the serpent. If she trusted Adam to truthfully report its authorship and content, then why could she not trust the Author of life Himself? As it concerns us, I’ll ask: If we can show that the Bible is the Word of God and defend its content (by careful study and textual analysis), then should we have any reason to doubt the Word of God? No. Yet, at times we often fail to patiently weigh out the words of those who would seek to prove God wrong.

When we are confronted in a conversational debate, there are some things that we should watch for:

1. Interrogative Ambiguity: Although I interpreted the serpent’s opening question as being two questions, the fact is that it is difficult to determine what he is asking. What does evidence, however, is a possible question of authority and a possible use of equivocation. This is a purposeful strategy and is meant to drive his opponent into a trap.

2. De-contextualization: The serpent’s use of equivocation stems from his de-contextualization of the phrase “every tree”. This is also a trap, meaning to lead the woman to the conclusion that the commandment was inherently contradictory. This is, in my own experience, a very popular (and lazy) attack on the Bible. Learning how to spot it, therefore, is pertinent.
3. Ad Hominem Argumentation: As I noted earlier, this is typically the last recourse, although it surfaces immediately in some cases (see, The God Delusion).

Final Note: A very good example of a popular piece of atheist literature that incorporates all three of these errors is Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith.

–by Hiram Diaz

An Ancient Strategy, Part 1

The following series was written by my friend, and fellow Christian thinker, Hiram Diaz:

Introduction: If there is one book of the Bible whose content never ceases to grab my attention in new ways, it is the book of Genesis. Recently, as I reread the Fall Narrative, I began to think over the dialogue between the serpent and Eve (Genesis 3:1-5), which is, in effect, an ancient, conversational debate over the authorship, content and authority of the Word of God. I found that the relevance of the dialogue lays primarily in its presentation of 1.) how skeptical enquiry typically proceeds, 2.) the logical fallacies that believers should look out for when engaged in debate, and 3.)the serpent’s claim that God’s law is the product of a despot who commands abstinence only for the sake of maintaining His own privilege and power.

While all three of these points are universal (i.e. for all times and all peoples), the third is particularly compelling in that it is not similar to what many contemporary critics of the Bible would say, but nearly a direct quote from any one of their writings. What we encounter in the serpent’s final critique of the Word of God is almost wholly in step with the claims of postmodern critics of the Bible. Many, if not all, of these critics see it as the product of a privileged male class who sought to maintain their power and privilege by forcing the marginalized of their society (e.g. women) into subservient roles via the threat of violence and/or explusion from the community altogether. Ironically, this case is made by pointing to the Fall Narrative!

This criticism of God’s Word as being the mechanism of the oppression of marginalized groups within society, moreover, has found clear articulation in films such as Zeitgeist and The Da Vinci Code, and secondarily in popular (non-academic) atheistic literature (e.g. the works of Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins). However, the attack, as I will show, is far from novel. Contrary to contemporary caricatures of the Fall Narrative that would seek to equate it with the stock mythologies of its day, I will demonstrate that it is a detailed and complex analysis of an ancient strategy of attack launched against the Word of God by the enemy, and subsequent enemies, of God Almighty.

An Ancient Strategy, Part 2

The Authorship & Content

“Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”- Gen. 3:1

The opening question of this primeval debate allows us, I believe, to see the serpent’s question as two intertwined questions: a.) the question of authorship, and b.) the question of content. This is due to the ambiguity of the serpent’s question, which is rooted in his inversion of the allowances and restrictions stated within the commandment.[1] Is he asking the woman if God authored the commandment? Or is he presenting himself as trying to clarify what he had somehow heard God has said? To put it another way: Is he asking the woman about the authorship of the commandment, or the commandment’s content?

By approaching the woman, who was given the commandment secondarily by means of oral transmission via Adam, the serpent makes it evident that his question could lean in either direction. The woman did not receive the commandment directly from God (at least the text does not give us good reason to believe she did), but was given the commandment by Adam (which could serve to explain why she distorts the commandment by adding an additional restriction in 3:2-3).[2] Therefore, questioning the authorship of the commandment would be an effective means of deceiving her. His question could then be read as: Did God author this commandment or did Adam?

The pertinence of this exchange for Christians lies precisely in the question of authorship. If we have received the Word of God secondarily, via oral transmission (at least initially), then how do we know who authored it? We stand in much the same position that the woman did, having to give an account for the authorship of the Word of God. What is her response? The woman confidently asserts that God has said and then tries to correct the serpent’s inversion of the commandment, but unfortunately adds another restriction. What is our response?

The serpent’s question of content, in spite of the woman’s reply, still needs to be addressed. If God did author the commandment, did He forbid the woman to eat of “every tree” of the garden? This question is particularly crafty because it uses language directly taken from the commandment itself [3]. The serpent’s intention is to touch upon the logical integrity of the commandment by pointing out that God did not say that Adam and the woman were not to eat of “every tree” but, in fact, stated: “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat.” The seemingly contradictory nature of God’s commandment can be seen in its allowances (“every” tree) and its restriction (“the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” – obviously situated within the garden).

Is God’s commandment inherently contradictory? There are two reasons why God’s commandment is not inherently contradictory. Firstly, the phrase “every tree of the garden” is immediately qualified by the phrase “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil…[etc]”, indicating that God’s use of “every” was not meant to be all inclusive but served to signify the abundance of trees to which the couple had legal access. The serpent’s understanding of the phrase as meaning “all inclusive”, therefore, is unwarranted by the commandment itself. The question of content must always be assessed in light of context.

The second reason why God’s commandment is not inherently contradictory is given in the woman’s response to the serpent’s question. In 3:2-3, she states:

“We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”[4]

By differentiating between “the trees of the garden” and “the tree which is in the midst of the garden” we again see that God’s commandment does not lack logical integrity, but simply communicates the same information differently. Whereas the first defense of the commandment’s logical integrity depends upon the context of the phrase “every tree”, the second depends upon the type of communication being employed by God. The commandment was given in the narratival context of relationship (between God, man, and woman), and is, therefore, spoken accordingly.[5]

–Hiram Diaz

---

[1] Genesis 2:16-17 informs us that God grants Adam the freedom to “eat of every tree” of the Garden, while the serpent asks if God has prohibited him to “eat of every tree of the Garden”.

[2] Gen. 3:2-3:  And the woman said to the serpent, “We may the fruit of the trees in the garden; but of the tree which is in the midst of the Garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die’” (emphasis mine).

[3] cf. Gen. 2:16-17 & Gen. 3:1

[4] It is true that the text states this clearly in 2:9; however, this is not direct dialogue but the narrator.

[5] Compare this to Gen. 2:9, where the narrator, in his description of the geography of the land, closely parallels the woman’s description of the “trees of the garden” and the tree “which is in the midst of the garden”.

Why Theology is Important

Recently a friend inquired of me regarding theology. Why is theology important? Is theology important? etc. below is my reply:

Thanks for the email questions, ___. I do appreciate your asking me to clarify things.

First, I think that before I answer the question of why theology is important, I’d better define what I mean by “theology” itself. This is important because you may (potentially) be using a different meaning of the word than I am, and that would lead us to be speaking past one another.

As you’re probably already aware of, the word theology is a combination of two Greek words, theos (“God”) and logos (“word”, “discourse” or “study”). So, strictly, speaking, theology means the word on/study of God. In broader terms, theology has come to mean the study of God and His dealings with His creation. It’s when we add this second phrase (“…and His dealings with His creation”) that we come to include discussions on creation, Christ, the church, etc.

The first part of my answer to the question of theology’s importance is that the Bible commands that we “do” theology. The biblical motivation for “doing” theology comes from passages that call us to “be transformed by the renewing of our mind” (Rom. 12:2), to “do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15), to love God with all of our minds (Mark 12:30), and to watch our life and doctrine closely (1 Timothy 4:16, see also all of 1 & 2 Tim. and Titus, especially Titus 2:1: “But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine.”).

This takes me to my second point: theology and doctrine are important in helping us to understand the Bible. Doctrine means little more than “teaching.” We all do theology, some do it unconsciously, and others apply themselves to doing it well. The best counter for bad doctrine (or bad theology) isn’t to avoid it, but rather to work at good or sound doctrine. If we want to know about salvation, then we need to know about the God who saves us. If we think of Jesus as merely a prophet or a wise man, we miss the Bible’s portrait of Jesus as both fully God and fully and perfectly human. Worst of all, we miss the heart of God’s saving work. The better we grasp right doctrine (what’s also known as “orthodoxy”) the better readers of the Bible we become.

Now, that having been said, sometimes theology can get quite complex. Not all passages or sections of Scripture are easy to understand (2 Pet. 3:15-17). The second reason for the complexity of some theology is simple (that is, the reason is simple, not the theology J). My theological mentor, John Frame, defines theology this way: Theology is the application of the Word of God, by persons, to all aspects of life. With this definition in mind, we can see that much of our theology is formed in response to the questions we bring to Scripture. The tougher, more technical, and sophisticated the questions, the tougher, more complex, and “meatier” are the responses. The whole point is to help people understand the richness of God’s word, at their level of sophistication.

Well, maybe…

The whole point of theology isn’t merely to fill our minds (as important as that is), but to fill our hearts as well. Theology focuses on God, a person. We strive to learn more about God, so that our heart will be filled with love for God Himself. A good example of this comes in Romans 11. Most biblical scholars agree that one of the hardest units in the book of Romans are chapters 9-11. There Paul speaks of election, predestination, the relationship between Jews and Gentiles and several other things. Painstakingly Paul addresses each issue, and provides God’s answer to it all. What’s amazing to note is that when all is said and done, Paul doesn’t say, “Well, there you have it, everything’s explained…no more mystery.” Instead he bursts into praise and worship (11:33-36).

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

“For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?”

“Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?”

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

You see, as we come to understand God’s word, rather than becoming dusty old library people, we should become people of praise and love toward God. And mystery doesn’t go away. In fact the more we come to learn, the more and more we realize the vast gulf between our knowledge and God’s knowledge (“For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?”).

Theology is a discipline. Just like we are to pray, praise, and practice fellowship, so we are to learn and feast on the treasures of God’s word.

Here’s a great little book to start on your journey:

G. K. Beale Resources

Just passing along this great link. Is a fantastic listing of audio and written resources from leading biblical-theologian G. K. Beale. Beale is the author of arguably the finest commentary on the book of Revelation. He’s also penned The Temple and the Church’s Mission, We Become What We Worship, and The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism.

The Case For The Resurrection of Christ – Dr. Gary Habermas

N. T. Wright on the Resurrection

Why I Believe in the Resurrection

Just in time for Easter:

First,  I believe in the resurrection because when I looked at the rest of the Scripture (the OT), the fact that this God would work to bring life out of death makes perfect sense. In other words, the internal logic of the Bible is consistent. The God who brought Israel from the death of captivity in Egypt to life in the promised Land is the same God who can bring Jesus back from the dead.

Second,  I believe in the resurrection because early Christians claimed to have been eyewitness to the resurrected Christ (Lk. 1:2, 1 Jn. 1:1-3). Contrary to popular belief, the early Christians were not gullible, and were able to distinguish between myth and real history (Lk. 1:1-4, 2 Pet. 1:16)B. Neither can we say that they drew source material from the surrounding cultures. Not all Jews believed in a physical resurrection (the Saducees), and those that did (most of all the others) held to a general resurrection at the end of history, not the resurrection of a single individual in the middle of history.

Hellenistic culture generally swung back and forth between two poles. One pole was materalist (ex: the Epicurians and the Atomists) and believed that when you died, you stayed dead. The other pole was dualist (Gnosticism, Platonism, and Neo-Platonism), believing the immaterial spirit was good and pure, and the physical world (especially the human body) was base. They would have been appaled by the thought of returning to body, which they thought of as the “prision house of the soul.” While some surrounding groups believed in a life after death (the continued existence of a disembodied spirit), but would never have called this type of existence “resurrection.”

Likewise, there was to much to lose socially from publically confessing belief in the resurrection. Yet, the early Christians (Jews) continued to maintain the belief that Christ was raised from the died.Jews were thrown out of the synogogue for their belief in Christ. Christians were presecuted by  the Romans because they refused to engage in Emperor worship. The implication of the resurrection, according to Peter, was that the risen Jesus, was “both Lord and Christ” (compare Acts 2:36),  causing a direct confrontation with the claims of the Roman Emperor, whose claim was “Caesar is Lord.” Many of the Apostles were in fact killed because of maintaining their Christian faith and belief in the resurrection. Now we ask, why continue to maintain the belief in the resurrection despite it’s politically incorrect status? Because it was the truth.

Now, one may ask, why should I believe that these men weren’t lying, conconcting a story to start a religion and amass power for themselves? Considering both the moral character of these individuals, and their eventual martyrdom, it is unlikely that they invented the resurrection story. The cost-benefit analysis just doesn’t come out on their side.

Third, I believe in the resurection because the tomb of Jesus was empty, and the body has never been recovered. There is no serious debate over whether Jesus’ tomb was empty, both sides agree. Jesus’ disciples claimed it was empty, and it caused them much grief (Jn. 20:1-10). Jesus’ enemies admitted that it was empty but claimed that the body was stolen (Matt. 28:11-15) The Toledoth Yeshu, (an early collection of Jewish writings), claims that Christ’s body was stolen, as does the record of a second century debate between the Christian Justin Martyrs and Trypho the Jew (Dialogue with Trypho, chapter CVII), “his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven.”

This explanation is, of course, highly implausible. Are we really expected to believe that a group of depressed, militarily untrained fishermen (who didn’t even expect Christ to be resurrected!) to outsmart, and overpowered a band of Roman guards trained in the art of death?

Let’s think of another possible scenerio. Maybe the disciples looked into the wrong tomb, found it empty and thought Christ arose. Well, first that ignores the eyewitness testimony, and it assumes that the disciples were fools. But that doesn’t explain why no one else found the body. Had the body been recovered by the enemies of the faith, Christianity as a Messianic movement would have been crushed early on, the body would have been paraded around to silence the apostles.

Lastly, in the process of retelling the resurrection story, the Gospel writers include material that would have been counter-productive if their goal was to launch an upstart religion.   First, the account of “doubting Thomas.” Why present one of the pillars of the faith as a doubter? Secondly, the first eyewitnesses to the empty tomb were women, who were not considered viable legal witness. Notice how evem Paul in his account of the resurrection in 1 Cor. 15 leaves out the detail about the women. He didn’t deny that it happened, but realized that it wasn’t a apologetically useful bit of information. The Gospel authors, on the other hand, were recording history, and had to “tell it like it is.” And finally, Matthew includes the odd fact that, even after the resurrection some doubted (Matt. 28:17). 

D. A. Carson on the Biblical Narrative

Here’s D. A. Carson’s excellent summary of the narrative of Scripture:

Thus the gospel is integrally tied to the Bible’s story-line. Indeed, it is incomprehensible without understanding that story-line. God is the sovereign, transcendent and personal God who has made the universe, including us, his image-bearers. Our misery lies in our rebellion, our alienation from God, which, despite his forbearance, attracts his implacable wrath. But God, precisely because love is of the very essence of his character, takes the initiative and prepared for the coming of his own Son by raising up a people who, by covenantal stipulations, temple worship, systems of sacrifice and of priesthood, by kings and by prophets, are taught something of what God is planning and what he expects. In the fullness of time his Son comes and takes on human nature. He comes not, in the first instance, to judge but to save: he dies the death of his people, rises from the grave and, in returning to his heavenly Father, bequeaths the Holy Spirit as the down payment and guarantee of the ultimate gift he has secured for them—an eternity of bliss in the presence of God himself, in a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness. The only alternative is to be shut out from the presence of this God forever, in the torments of hell. What men and women must do, before it is too late, is repent and trust Christ; the alternative is to disobey the gospel. (Romans 10:16; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; 1 Peter 4:17).

(HT: Justin Taylor)

ESV Study Bible free online for March

Crossway announced yesterday that they were making the Online ESV Study Bible available free to anywhere, anywhere, for the entire month of March.

A couple of features worth noting:

• You can listen to the audio of the ESV from narrator David Cochran Heath.
• You can take and save your own notes in the Online ESVSB.
• You can highlight words and verses in several different colors.

I’ve included below links to everything in the Study Bible, along with contributors:

Introduction

• Introduction: A User’s Guide to the ESV Study Bible
• Contributors
• Preface to the English Standard Version

• Overview of the Bible: A Survey of the History of Salvation (Poythress)

• Maps, Charts, and Illustrations

The Old Testament

• The Theology of the Old Testament (Collins)
• Old Testament Timeline: An Overview
• The Hebrew Calendar Compared to the Gregorian (Modern) Calendar (chart)
• The Date of the Exodus
• History of Salvation in the Old Testament (notes by Poythress on how OT passages point to Christ)

PentateuchIntroduction to the Pentateuch (Wenham)

 

• Genesis (Alexander)
• Exodus (Harris)
• Leviticus (Currid, Kiuchi, Sklar)
• Numbers (Wenham)
• Deuteronomy (Barker)

Historical Books

Introduction to the Historical Books (Howard)

• Joshua (Long)
• Judges (Howard)
• Ruth (Bergey)
• 1 Samuel – 2 Samuel (Tsumura)
• 1 Kings – 2 Kings (Provan)
• 1 Chronicles – 2 Chronicles (Kelly)
• Ezra, Nehemiah (McConville)
• Esther (Webb)

Poetic and Wisdom Literature

Introduction to the Poetic and Wisdom Literature (Reimer)

• Job (Harris, Konkel)
• Psalms (Collins)
• Proverbs (Garrett, Harris)
• Ecclesiastes (Rogland)
• Song of Solomon (Collins, Stewart)

Major Prophets

Introduction to the Prophetic Books (House)

• Isaiah (Ortlund)
• Jeremiah, Lamentations (House)
• Ezekiel (Reimer)
• Daniel (Duguid, Wegner)

Minor Prophets

• Hosea (Vasholz)
• Joel (Aucker)
• Amos (Oswalt)
• Obadiah (Raabe)
• Jonah (Futato)
• Micah (Aucker, Magary)
• Nahum (Maier)
• Habakkuk (Wegner)
• Zephaniah (Baker)
• Haggai (Aucker)
• Zechariah (Duguid)
• Malachi (Hugenberger)

Background to the New Testament

• The Time between the Testaments (Scott)
• Jewish and Roman Rulers (chart)
• Intertestamental Events Timeline
• The Herodian Dynasty (chart)
• The Roman Empire and the Greco-Roman World at the Time of the New Testament (Chapman)
• Jewish Groups at the Time of the New Testament (DelHousaye)

The New Testament

• The Theology of the New Testament (Schreiner)
• New Testament Timeline
• The Date of Jesus’ Crucifixion

Gospels and Acts

Reading the Gospels and Acts (Bock)

• Matthew (Wilkins)
• Mark (Bayer)
• Luke (Grudem, Schreiner)
• John (Kostenberger)
• Acts (Polhill)

Epistles

Reading the Epistles (Schreiner)

• Romans (Schreiner)
• 1 Corinthians (Thielman)
• 2 Corinthians (Hafemann)
• Galatians (Gathercole)
• Ephesians (Baugh)
• Philippians (McDonough)
• Colossians, Philemon (Arnold)
• 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians (Nicholl)
• 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus (Van Neste)
• Hebrews (Chapman)
• James (Osborne)
• 1 Peter (Schreiner)
• 2 Peter (Oss, Schreiner)
• 1 John, 2 John, 3 John (Yarbrough)
• Jude (Oss, Schreiner)

• Revelation (Johnson)

Articles

• God’s Plan of Salvation (Dever)

• Biblical Doctrine: An Overview (Thoennes)
• True Theology: Knowing and Loving God
• The Bible and Revelation
• What It Means to Know God
• The Character of God
• The Trinity
• The Person of Christ
• The Holy Spirit
• The Work of Christ
• Mankind
• God’s Relationship with Creation
• Sin
• Salvation
• The Church
• Last Things

• Biblical Ethics: An Overview (Grudem, Heimbach, Mitchell, and Mitchell)
• Biblical Ethics: An Introduction
• The Beginning of Life and Abortion
• Bioethics
• The End of Life
• Marriage and Sexual Morality
• Divorce and Remarriage
• Homosexuality
• Civil Government
• Capital Punishment
• War
• Lying and Telling the Truth
• Racial Discrimination
• Stewardship

• Interpreting the Bible
• Interpreting the Bible: An Introduction (Doriani)
• Interpreting the Bible: A Historical Overview (Hannah)

• Reading the Bible
• Reading the Bible Theologically (Packer)
• Reading the Bible as Literature (Ryken)
• Reading the Bible in Prayer and Communion with God (Piper)
• Reading the Bible for Personal Application (Powlison)
• Reading the Bible for Preaching and Worship (Hughes)

• The Canon of Scripture
• The Canon of the Old Testament (Beckwith)
• The Canon of the New Testament (Hill)

• The Reliability of Bible Manuscripts
• The Reliability of the Old Testament Manuscripts (Wegner)
• The Reliability of the New Testament Manuscripts (Wallace)

• Archaeology and the Bible
• Archaeology and the Old Testament (Currid)
• Archaeology and the New Testament (Chapman)

• The Original Languages of the Bible
• Hebrew and Aramaic, and How They Work (Williams)
• Greek, and How It Works (Black)

• The Septuagint (Gentry)

• How the New Testament Quotes and Interprets the Old Testament (Collins)

• The Bible in Christianity
• Roman Catholicism (Gregg)
• Eastern Orthodoxy (Letham)
• Liberal Protestantism (Ware)
• Evangelical Protestantism (Ware)
• Evangelical Protestantism and Global Christianity (Netland)

• The Bible and World Religions
• The Bible and Contemporary Judaism (Wilson)
• The Bible and Other World Religions (Netland)
• The Bible and Islam (Tennent)

• The Bible and Religious Cults
• Mormonism (Rhodes)
• Jehovah’s Witnesses (Rhodes)
• Christian Science (Rhodes)
• New Age Movement (Rhodes)

Maps in the back of the Bible.

(HT: Justin Taylor)

“These are the Days of your Servant David”?

We live during a time very similiar to that of David and Solomon. Both kings lived during an era in which God’s promises were experienced in overwheleming measure. In Gen. 3:15 we learn that God will address the world’s problem through the seed of the woman. Near the close of Genesis, we learn that this seed will be funneled through Jacob’s son, Judah. David and Solomon were from this very line.

During the time of the united kingdom (i.e. before the northern 10 tribes split from the Judah in the south), the kindgom of God was profoundly manifested as God’s people (a united nationa of God’s covenant people, Israel), were in God’s place (Palestine, with it’s capital in Jerusalem), under God’s rule (the law of Moses as enforced by the king from Judah). From the Old Testament point of view, this was the culmilnation of God’s promises to Abraham. (from more on this definition of God’s kingdom, see Graeme Goldsworthy’s According to Plan)

But we know the rest of the Old Testament story. David and Solomon may have been the high points, but the rest of national Israel’s history was down hill from there, and this plummet began even before the death of Solomon.

We too, this side of the cross of Jesus Christ, are living in a time in which we are experiencing untold blessings of God’s covenant promises. The ministry of Christ has ushered in God’s great end-time plan for saving and redeeming creation. Here we are, with so many of God’s wonderful promises being pouring out in front of us. Yet so many remain to be fulfilled to the utmost. Peace on Earth has yet to arrive. Death is yet to be defeated. Every knee is yet to bow, and every tongue is yet to confess that Christ is Lord.

So, we face a similiar temption as did the ancient Israelites. Will we trust God’s promises? In light of the pressures to conform to the cultures around us, will we compromise our testimony? Will we bow the knee to the idols of the nations?  Will we doubt when it doesn’t seem as if God is doing everything on our schedule?  Will we drop the ball?

Living in light of the “already” and the “not yet,” we face all kinds of tensions. Let’s strive toward faithfulness in Christ, knowing that while greater fulfillment awaits us, He has accomplished enough for us to know that He is will accomplish the rest.

For more on the history of the united kingdom of Israel and the fulfillment of God’s promises see:

  

Peter Leithart on “The City”

I just found this on Peter Leithart’s blog, and it’s so close to some of the recent studies I’ve delved into that I thought I’d share. It’s pretty short, so I’ll quote it in full. It’s from his blog enty, “The City.”

Some reflections in spired by a paper on the biblical theology of the city by a student, Lisa Beyeler.

1) Genesis 1-11 is often treated as a “prologue” to Israel’s history, but that tends to detach it as “natural history” as opposed to “redemptive history.” It is a preparation for the history of Israel, but not because it is detached from Israel’s history.  Rather, Genesis 1-11 sets up the problems that Israel is designed to solve. Abram is called right after the collapse of the Babel project, and Hebrews 11:10 says that he looks for a “better city, whose builder and maker is God.” Abram never built a city, of course, but he’s an urban visionary.

2) After the flood, Noah planted a vineyard. That is, he doesn’t do what Cain did, immediately establishing a city. He starts over again with a garden. Abram does the same: After Babel collapses, he doesn’t immediately found a city, but moves from place to place, worshiping in garden-groves.  This might provide a way of making room for a form of tactical or strategic move from the city. After an urban civilization collapses, a return to the garden is the beginning of a new cycle of garden-to-city.  This is not to endorse an ideological agrarianism – the notion that country life is inherently superior to city life, a notion that the Bible nowhere endorses.  Noah’s vineyard was the beginning of a new progress toward a better city, and so were Abram’s altars.

3) Arguably, the same pattern is evident in the establishment of a tabernacle.  After the highly developed civilization of Egypt collapses by force of Yahweh’s plagues, Yahweh doesn’t immediately tell His people to found a city, but instead instructs them to build an architectural garden, the tabernacle.  They take the treasures of an urban civilization and begin to start over, aiming to form a new city.

The Gospel of Christmas (Part 2)

In the first post in this Christmas series, I mentioned that this series follows a Christmas sermon I recently heard from Tim Keller. The first point was that the story of Christmas isn’t good advice, it’s good news.

Point 2: All the best stories are true

Now, we’ll focus on hope the Christmas story shows that all the best stories are true. This statement that needs unpacking.  Think of the greatest stories that we’re familiar with, sleepy beauty, Lord of the Rings, ancient stories or dying and rising gods, etc. The underlying messages of these myths and legends are familiar to most of us: The themes of an eternal love, a returning King, a seeming defeated hero who comes back to defeat his evil foe, the final defeat of death, etc.

C.S. Lewis made the vital that the gospel is the “true myth.” Many have dismissed the gospel narratives as mere fables because of their similarities to these other stories. But this is to miss the real point of what’s happening at Christmas, and the true relation of the Christmas story to these tales. The kernels of truth in these myths, fantasies, and fables are a memory trace of the “epic of Eden.” Deep down, we long for an eternal beauty to love us forever, to free us from slavery from an evil power, and to take everything wrong with the world and “make it all untrue.”

So, the gospel narratives aren’t borrowing from these other pagan myths, but fulfill the truest themes found in them all. When Christ came to us in the humble form of helpless a babe, it both affirmed our deepest hopes and rebukes all of our dependencies on anything other than God Himself to save us.

The Gospel of Christmas (Part 1)

In a recent sermon for the Christmas season, based on the genealogy of Jesus found in Matthew chapter 1, Tim Keller made a number of helpful and instructive points about the “gospel of Christmas” that deserve to be shared. Here, and in the next few posts, I’ll touch on Keller’s points, and add some elaboration of my own.

Point 1: Christmas is about good news, not good advice

Notice how Matthew’s account of his gospel starts, “The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah…” This is truly radical. In contrast to the stuff of mythology and folklore, the story of Christmas claims to be rooted in real, space-time history. It doesn’t start with, “Once upon a time.” Tales that open in such a fashion to be stories that inspire us to be better people, to do great things. There is always some moralistic kernel aimed at stirring us up to “be better.” Now, compare this to the story of Christmas. How does it inspire us? It’s about a poor family, a child born in a dirty stable, shepherds, etc. etc. How does it inspire us to be? What does it inspire us to do? I don’t know!

This is because it not about instructing us to “be better.” It’s an announcement, good news, not good advice. Matthew’s proclamation is about the faithfulness of God, despite the unfaithfulness of humanity. It’s not a warm and fuzzy, world-affirming story about general “good will toward men.” Christmas challenges us at the deepest level. We are so backward from God’s design, so loss is sin, that God had to come down to earth Himself to address the problem.

But, of course, Christmas as well highlights the over-the-top, prodigal love of God toward rebels that deserve no mercy. Christmas speaks of God’s commitment to His fallen creation, and His original design to fill the earth with the knowledge of God as the waters cover the sea.