By the grace of God, I have recently finished reading the Old Testament, as part of a 90-day Bible reading program some of us at our church are participating in. Yesterday, someone at my church asked me if I "understood" it—if I understood the Old Testament. Do I understand it all? Absolutely not! But thanks be to the Lord our God that the Holy Spirit has given me enough to have a general idea. There seem to be three tracks to the Hebrew Scriptures:
(1) The holiness, righteousness, and justice of God, made manifest in His covenants, His laws, His precepts, and above all His sovereign will, working itself out even at the level of using nations and kings to work out His will (Isaiah, Habakkuk). This is the God we fear (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14), and with good reason, for he alone is perfect, holy, and righteous; and we, quite simply, are none of those! This is the God who gave us the Law, and who judges our conduct in the Prophets. This is the thrice holy God (Isaiah 6:3) from whose throne pours a river of fire (Daniel 7:10).
(2) The flawedness, sinfulness, imperfection, and open hostility towards—and rebellion against—God by man. This manifests itself on almost every page of Scripture and in every sinful act, and every demonstration of lack of faith or trust in God (even in the likes of Moses at Meribah, or Gideon and his fleece). It expresses itself most poignantly in the book of Judges, in the endless cycle of falling away, repentance, and restoration. It even pops up in Nehemiah 13, when even the faithful remnant that voluntarily came out of exile to restore the Temple begins to fall away, while Nehemiah is out of town for a couple of years to attend to business. It is because of our human tendency to sinful rebellion against God that the Promised Land fell to Assyria and Babylon.
(3) The grace, mercy, and lovingkindness of God. This is the God of Samuel (1 Sam 15:22), David (Psalm 51:16-17), Hosea (6:6), and Micah (6:6-8), the God who does not delight in sacrifices or burnt offerings, but in repentance and a broken and contrite heart. This is the God of Rahab (Joshua 2) and Ruth. This is the God of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-33), who has the power to save and redeem through His grace alone (Ezekiel 37:5-6; Hosea 13:14; Jonah 2:6, 2:9; Joel 2:32). This is the God who preserves a Holy remnant to himself and calls the faithful out of every nation to worship at His Holy Mountain, as promised through practically every prophet. This is the God out of whose holy city flows the water of life (Ezekiel 47), and who breathes life into man (Genesis 2:7; Ezekiel 37:10).
And now, as I begin to read the New Testament, I read of the promised Messiah, who it would turn out, is the Son of God. He is the thrice anointed Prophet, Priest, and King, in the line of (and greater than) Moses and Elijah; Melchizedek; and David. He is the fulfilment of the Prophets (especially Isaiah, Daniel, Micah, and Zechariah), but he also speaks as one with prophetic authority, embodying both the kindness of God: the call to repentance, and the offer of mercy to sinners (the third track mentioned above), and in his pronouncements against "whitewashed tombs" and prophesying the destruction of the Temple and the last days, the severity of God (the first track). And He is not merely God incarnate, fully God and fully man in one moment on earth, but he is the eternal, living Christ, sitting at the right hand of God.
And as if all that were not enough, Jesus Christ is also—as I will soon read—the only perfect fulfiller of the Law, and it was through his sacrificial atonement, his suffering, death, and resurrection, that the Lord God Almighty imputes His Son's righteousness to us, and covers our sins—and not only of those who were personally saved by Jesus Christ during His ministry on earth, or of those who were born after Him, but even of those to whom God extended His grace, who died before His Son came into the world.
Having finished the Old Testament is not a source of pride for me, but one of humility, astonishment, joy, and thanksgiving. I am humbled by the piercing, convicting Word of God, and by His grace and mercy—by His power to save sinners. I am astonished that I finished it at all, but it's because it wasn't by the power of my flesh that I accomplished this, but solely by the work of the indwelling Holy Spirit. And I am joyful that I have now done this, and thankful to God for giving me the determination, perseverance, and daily grace to finish this. All praise be to the Lord our God.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
I'm going to be out of town on a business trip for a couple of days, so I may not be able reply promptly to comments.
The Lord be praised for giving you that new heart, that heart that seeks to know Him through His word as He reveals Himself in the face of His Son.
I am glad that you are now pushing on with the NT. It's the finishing touch on a really good meal, a cordial that fits perfectly the table of the Lord.
I also think you touched on why many people do not read the OT. They're afraid that they will not understand it. But, that is really not the point, is it? The Word of God is active and powerful piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit. We cannot do that, but as we read the Spirit applies the Word to our flesh, and breaks in upon darkness because God has sent it forth for that purpose.
My wife is using a 'through the bible in a year,' bible. I am so excited for her, because for twenty years I have longed for her to read it through. Something she has not done though she was saved at seven. Since coming to the Doctrines of Grace, her love for the Word has come alive. Now, the Lord is putting her through the discipline of the whole council of the Word and the lights are coming on concerning many things that caused her confusion.
God, bless you, and thanks for convicting me that I need to renew my subscription ;)
Mark, Strong Tower:
Thanks for your comments and encouragement!
ST: Yes, thanks be to God that the Holy Spirit is able to transcend our fleshly weaknesses, and illuminate that which once appeared dark to us.
That's great..and inspires me to attempt this with the OT later. Believe it or not, I never have read "cover to cover," but instead hopped around out of order. Even more fun would be reading the OT in the order arranged within a Jewish Bible.
I recently began a study of Ephesians, which has always been a favorite book of mine along with Romans. I love the emphasis on renewing the mind, being filled with Christ, and the impact being filled with Christ has on your daily walk.
Stefan, you really need to post something new, dude! November?
I have to admit that while I have attempted reading end to end thru the OT on several occasions, I have never yet been able to stay on task to complete it. Oh, I've read thru every OT book. Just not all at once. Seems like I lose focus somewhere in Leviticus and can't seem to reclaim it.
Sola, Doulos: A belated thanks for your remarks.
Doulous: Ah, yes, the old "bogged down in Leviticus conundrum"! Somehow, I was able to get through that, by the grace of God, but I got stuck in 2 Samuel, of all places. I'm not quite sure what happened now, in hindsight, but I stopped reading altogether for some 3 or 4 weeks, before I could muster up the resolve to keep going.
having just returned from easter service, the question on my mind is this: can anyone in 21st century America really understand animal sacrifice? how do you, as a software engineer (which i am, too) get past that hurdle - that somehow an unseen God is appeased by a blood sacrifice? and how did you get past the hurdle of believing that, if one of your kids told a lie, you could reasonably say you saw why you would need to kill one of the other ones to forgive him?
and i ask these in all sincerity. i wrote a piece on my blog last year about a couple of hindu priests who sacrificed two goats on an airport tarmac to get a 757 working (btw, it did start working after they held the sacrifice). our reaction in 21st century america is, perhaps to a person, that's insane. and yet that's exactly what Christianity is built on: that there is a God who would not act until we killed something.
all the solas and flowery theological phrases aside - which, imo, is just another form of human pride, a little more my-poop-doesn't-smell-quite-as-bad-as-everyone-else's - pride in reverse, if you will - how did you come to terms with a spirit God needing a fleshly death?
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, use
mikerucker.wordpress.com
Mike:
You ask a really good question. At the very heart of the Gospel, after all, is Christ's substitutionary atoning sacrifice for our sins. How does this make sense in a 21st-century setting?
I sort of have an answer, but I'll have to provide it in a few hours, as I have to run right now. Stay tuned....
Some passages to consider before you answer this:
Hebrews 10; Galatians 3:19; Exodus 15: 22-26; Genesis 4: 1-7
Hi mike! You never sent me your link ;)
Just an opinion here: There is only one sacrifice that is acceptable all the rest only increase transgression. Two opposing principles: life and good versus evil and death. So that: "For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings." Suppose that what God had desired out of the Israelites was their love not sacrifice. Suppose that what he wanted was not their pledge to keep the law as they gave at the end of Deuteronomy and Joshua, but rather, that he desired that they throw themselves upon the mercy of God as sinners who could not keep the law. Moses says that their pleadge to keep the law was a testimony against them, Joshua repeats the curse of their mouths.
Now, what evil wants evil gets. And what evil wanted was sacrifice, blood, death. So, that is what God gives. But, God's plans are far above that of his creation, so it is fulfilled what was written: "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today." How prophetic of the evil men who crucified the Lord.
So, God gave them the desire of their heart, a god who is a harsh task master reaping where he does not sow and demanding sacrifices that can never satisfy the blood lust.
On the other end God has prepared his own, his own Son, who instead of offering a sacrifice of another, offers himself. Because as it was in the beginning so it is in the end. God is the only Governor of life and of death. Both have their beginning and end in him. So, there never can be something that man can or should do to bring about that which only God can.
So, no, God does not need anything: "I perceived that whatever God does endures forever; nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it. God has done it, so that people fear before him." "If you have sinned, what do you accomplish against him?
And if your transgressions are multiplied, what do you do to him?If you are righteous, what do you give to him? Or what does he receive from your hand? Your wickedness concerns a man like yourself, and your righteousness a son of man.
The sacrifices are there to show us that we are evil and evil we will do. They are there to show us the God of mercy, who by grace has given us all things according to his good pleasure.
So as Jesus said: "Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners...And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.”
It is not God that requires a blood sacrifice, it is man, and more to the point, it is the evil in man such that Jesus said of man: "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies." They were seeking to kill and kill him they would. In the end all the sacrifices that man desires are to men evil in the sight of God. The only sacrifice that is acceptable is the One that the Lord provides; Himself.
Mike:
Thomas Twitchell makes the point that animal sacrifices were never perfectly acceptable to God, and that is true, but let's work through it ourselves.
Hebrews 10:1-18 points out that these sacrifices were never sufficient in and of themselves; it was necessary for the priests to continually offer them, as man cannot help but to sin. The institution of sacrificial offering was a preparation for, a foreshadowing of, the perfect sacrificial atonement to come, which could only be fulfilled by One who was perfectly righteous: the incarnate Christ Jesus. His sacrifice was a once-for-all offering, so that those who respond in faith will be saved. God imputes our sin to the sinless Jesus Christ, who bore it on the Cross and whose perfect righteousness and fulfilment of the Law is then imputed to us (2 Corinthians 5:21), so that God considers us as if we had never sinned.
Even during the Old Testament times, the sacrificial offerings only abeyed God's wrath at our sinfulness. There was always the avenue open, of salvation by grace through faith in the promises of God. Hence, passages like 1 Samuel 15:22, Psalm 51:16-17, Hosea 6:6, and Micah 6:6-8. And then there are passages like Isaiah 1:10-17 and Amos 5:21-24, which point out that when offerings were carried out by people who are just hypocritically going through the motions, it made their standing even worse in God's eyes (or so it would appear).
But let's leave all that aside for the time being. Abel offered the firstborn of His flock, and the Lord considered it acceptable and superior to Cain's grain offering, as it was offered in faith (Hebrews 11:4). The Lord commanded Abraham to offer up his son Isaac, and Abraham obeyed; at the last moment, the Lord stopped him, and provided a ram to offer in place of his son. On the night of the Exodus, God commanded that each Jewish family sacrifice a lamb and smear their doorposts with the lamb's blood; the angel of the Lord would then pass over their homes while taking the life of all the firstborn sons of Egypt. And in Leviticus, and entire institution of sacrificial offerings was commanded, all of which would ultimately prove to be insufficient (as God knew it would be) in addressing our sinful natures, but would serve as a preparation for what Jesus Christ would do, who would be the antitype in equal parts of the sacrificial goat and scapegoat of the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) and the Passover Lamb, the ultimate expressions of the sacrificial system.
So regardless of the ultimate insufficiency of the sacrificial system and its relationship to the Law, which was designed to increase our condemnation, forcing us to turn to the grace of God alone to save us; we still have the problem of having to explain to a modern audience why this practice was demanded in the first place. Here's an answer:
The ancient Israelites were agrarian nomads. The wealth of Abraham and his descendants would have been counted in numbers of animals. God commanded that His subjects make a costly offering in appeasing His wrath. He commanded that animals without blemish be offered: these would have been the most precious and prized to ancient cattle farmers. He commanded that the firstborn be offered, along with the firstfruits of the land: that would mean offering up the best to God, and first, before rewarding oneself with the fruits of one's labour. The fat portions are the most delicious part of an animal, and so God commanded that those be offered up in particular. Blood is the life-giving substance that courses through animal's veins, and it is God who ultimately gives life and takes it away, so blood had to be treated specially, and offered back to God through sprinkling.
And even allowing animal offerings was an act of grace on God's part: His holiness and righteousness and our sinfulness and rebellion meant that His early followers were offering the lives of animals in place of their own lives. They were staying the wrath of God.
As you mentioned, other pagan societies have practiced animal sacrifice as well, but only in ancient Judaism was it perfected by the decrees of God, as a form of worship and devotion to the One True God, the Lord of the Universe. And even then, it was a mere preparation for the perfect sacrifice to come, the offering up of the incarnate Christ Jesus's earthly life in place of our own—a once-and-for-all sacrificial atonement through which those who have faith in the saving power of Jesus Christ will receive the assurance of eternal life.
thanks, stefan, for the lengthy response.
my main point, guys, is that regardless of what we read, not having come from a society where animal sacrifice is common, we are limited in what we can really understand.
a couple of comments:
a) i'm familiar with all of what you wrote (lifelong baptist, seminary graduate), but the verse that seems to be key is, "without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin." why? why would this be the rule? how is God "constrained" to this? and how could we ever nod our heads and say, "yeah - that makes sense."
b) God did not command Cain and Abel to offer sacrifices. is it possible that the sacrifices of ancient Israel were perhaps written back into the adam and eve myths?
c) could the truth really be what is in passages like psalm 40 and micah 6, where God says "look - i'm sick of all these animals! live your frickin' faith, bozos! man, i wonder if i can trade you jews in for another chosen people...". granted, if we look at Jesus as slain "before the foundation of the world" - which has its own questions - perhaps God realized the work was already done.
what has gone through my mind recently is that we in the 21st century can look at things as "silly" or "barbaric," but to some extent we're imposing our culture on other cultures of another place and time. and, perhaps, the whole animal sacrificial system is legit - i mean, it isn't limited to israel, as we know - and it's we who are misguided.
that being said, how then do we begin to comprehend Jesus HAVING to die?
thomas, link to my blog is below.
just some thoughts.
and, on another subject, the pastor y'day repeated what i think is an invalid claim: "people will not die for a lie." tell the muslims who strap bombs to themselves that - or the japanese kamikazes - or any of a host of fanatics throughout history. not that i'm discounting the apostles' faith, i just get irritated when pastors' speak falsely from the pulpit...
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com
without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin." why? why would this be the rule? how is God "constrained" to this?
God is not subject to ordering or rules and regulation. To make him so is to blaspheme and bring him down to the level of the creation.
What God requires he is not constrained by. Nothing is necessity for God, what God does is necessary for he is God. His foreordination does not constrain him, he is the orderer of it, not ordered by it.
"God did not command Cain and Abel to offer sacrifices. is it possible that the sacrifices of ancient Israel were perhaps written back into the adam and eve myths?"
Two presumptions: That God did not command the sacrifice- How do you know?
That Adam and Eve are myths? Prove the contention.
"live your frickin' faith"
For one thing, God is not flippant in his attitude, his purposes never fail. Second, man is dead, and cannot live his faith if that faith is the product of man. However, if Faith is by the Spirit, a new man made to live, then the purposes of God will always be lived through him. But, free-will baptists will not get the meaining of Faith since they believe creation to be ordered by man's choice.
"silly" or "barbaric," but to some extent we're imposing our culture on other cultures of another place and time. and, perhaps, the whole animal sacrificial system is legit - i mean, it isn't limited to israel, as we know - and it's we who are misguided."
It is not merely silly or barbaric, it is evil. As I explained above. This is man's requirement that blood be spilled. It is twisting the purpose of God to put the remission of sin by the murder of Christ as the action of God. The remission of sin by the blood sacrifice, is necessitated by evil, not God. However, it is God's pleasure to make fools of men by men's devices. It was devil and not God who was a murderer in the beginning. And Jesus being the sacrifice Lamb is the answer, not the cause of the evil that Satan intilled in the minds of man.
"that being said, how then do we begin to comprehend Jesus HAVING to die?"
God is not man. His perfect justice requires perfect propitiation. On the other hand, mercy requires nothing. Yet, God is both. To save some by mercy still requires the perfect penalty be paid. Mercy is freely given, but justice being necessary to God necessitates by its nature just recompense for wrong done. So, we begin to understand the requirement of payment in Christ by God's own nature.
One other thing Stefen. No sacrifice of the OT could turn away the wrath of God: We have all become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. There is no one who calls upon your name, who rouses himself to take hold of you; for you have hidden your face from us, and have made us melt in the hand of our iniquities.
Put together with what Jesus said that there is only one who is Good. No sacrifice that was ever offered except that of Christ, could ever turn away the wrath of God.
Thanks for the link mike!
Thomas: Your last point to me is well taken. Hebrews 101!
Mike: I second Thomas's reply. The idea of vicarious atonement may seem alien to us in the 21st century, but it is fundamental to the Gospel, and so we must wrestle to come to terms with it. There's no way around it.
stefan wrote...
The idea of vicarious atonement may seem alien to us in the 21st century, but it is fundamental to the Gospel, and so we must wrestle to come to terms with it. There's no way around it.
perhaps. but is that what t-squared is saying? maybe i'm reading it wrong, but his comments seem to imply that Jesus didn't have to die. or is that too simplistic of a reduction? and t's statement, "what evil wants evil gets" - is this a universal truth i missed? it makes for a good screenplay, but what does it look like in tennis shoes?
thanks for the conversation, guys. working through things like everyone - sometimes the calendar makes us look at things a little closer than we may have before.
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com
Mike:
I just wrote out a long answer, tried posting it, and lost it. Always remember to copy a message before posting in Blogger, in case it gets lost!
Now I have no time to reply to you, until this evening. Sheesh! ...But I'll try anyhow. In a nutshell, regarding what Thomas Twitchell/Strong Tower is saying, remember that the whole institution of sacrificial atonement in the Old Testament was merely a foreshadowing of and preparation for the perfect substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ. So the pertinent question is, was it necessary for Jesus Christ to be crucified, and if so, why?
To be honest, I hadn't thought deeply enough about the relationship between human evil and divine foreknowledge as it applies to sacrificial atonement, until TT/ST commented here. He seems to be saying that sacrificial atonement satisfies a human sense of justice (which God could nevertheless use for His own didactic purposes), but the entire institution was brought in under the Law—the same Law that Paul says merely serves to increase man's condemnation and bring him to the point where he has no way out except by the grace of God. In this sense, the crucifixion of Jesus was the ultimate expression of human bloodlust: deicide. And yet, God ordained that it would happen, in order to propitiate His righteous wrath at human sinfulness, in the only perfect satisfaction of the Law that could ever be possible.
Consider a "case study" in the passion of Jesus Christ: Judas' betrayal. What Judas did was unspeakably evil, and he came to a bitter end soon after his action. And yet, without Judas, Jesus Christ would not have been crucified, the Law would not have been fulfilled and mankind today would still be without hope of reconciliation to a thrice holy God. We hold that God is never the author or direct cause of evil, but we also hold that He is sovereign over all events in time and space, past, present, and future. Therefore, He foreknew what Judas would do, but allowed it to happen, since out of the midst of an evil act, the covenant of grace would be consummated.
If we can get our heads around that, then we can begin to get the idea that sacrificial atonement is something that was necessary and ordained by God, yet not wholly desirable. It was made necessary by human sinfulness: if there had been no fall from Eden, there would have been no need for such a dramatic restoration of the relationship between ourselves and God.
Well, that's all I've got for now. There more we discuss this, the more complicated it gets! Hopefully Strong Tower can jump in and clear things up for us.
those are good thoughts, stefan. i think i mentioned i was a software engineer by trade - where everything is either 0 or 1, right? i believe this one-or-the-other mindset has made following Jesus more difficult for me than for the average bear. i've always believed that the reductionism we do - making salvation = the sinner's prayer, so that the one who once was lost is now found - is ridiculous when laid beside the book of Romans, and all the aspects Paul discusses.
that's an interesting thought. perhaps not required by God, but in the ultimate fulfillment of romans 8:28 God takes the last great act of defiance by man and turns it into something ... good.
wow. pretty neat. this theology stuff is pretty deep once you get past all the recitation theologians and apologists...
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com
what evil wants evil gets-
This is just an encapsulation of: "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’ But you are brought down to Sheol, to the far reaches of the pit." That which is not God showing himself to be God can only be that which God is not. God is the Only Good, and that which exalts itself against such knowledge is evil. So, Jesus said, "You are of your father the devil...he does what he is, and he gets what he does"... my paraphrase. In the end this Scripture in Isaiah is fulfilled. To attempt to transcend God can land you in the only place that is left, HELL.
How God takes care of us is answered in Christ in that, having been born again we are seated with him in the heavenly realm. With welcome we enter the throne room of grace, taken up in his arms we rest in the Bosom of Abraham. That such is the kingdom of God like little children, and who ever will humble himself like one of them, such are the greatest. And, what greater place to be but on his lap.
"maybe i'm reading it wrong, but his comments seem to imply that Jesus didn't have to die."
You're reading me wrong. God determined before creation that the shedding of blood would be the propitiation (it is actually all of the passion, not just the blood). There are two things that we look at in the "will" of God. The eternal where no man can peer. Then we have the word of God that gives us some insight to the etenal knowledge of God, but also gives us an historic account.
There is a whole area of discussion over lapsarianism. Generally, this deals with the logical temporal sequencing of decrees. I avoid the entanglement but tend to come down on the sublapsarian side. I rather think of myself as pan-lapsarian, just chalking the whole of the decreedal logistics to "God Knows."
Most Reformed believers I think, are sub lapsarian, others, typically hyper-calvinists tend to be supra-lapsarian, but not all supras are hyper. Regardless, the necessity flows out of the logical order or decree, such that God from all time knew man would fall, then the means of salvation is ordained. Either way you go, we know from Scripture that God has done it this way.
Was it necessary, which is another entire question. Jesus seems to give us an answer: "And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham."
God is neither increased nor decreased by anything that He or his creation does. If he "wanted" he could wipe out the whole and begin again. On the other hand, he is true to himself and has promised with a promise that is gauranteed in his nature that the promises given through prophecy is the means by which he is recreating.
The promises necessitate the means, but they are not a necessity in that God is not bound by anything outside himself.
I hope I haven't fully mirkied the waters now.
Mike: Yes, as a fellow software engineer, I know exactly what you mean. There are binaries in the real world: truth and falsehood, for example; things that exalt God and things that do not exalt Him; and so on. But yes, I agree with you that beyond the reductive (is that a word?) truths that God Himself proclaims through His word, there is a human propensity to try to reduce things which are complex...or complicate things that are simple!
Maybe that's why I'm a product manager now and no longer a software engineer...working with the grey areas of real-world customer needs, rather than the black and white of program logic. (There should be "trinary" logic: true, false, and invalid; or true, false, and unknown. Can you imagine how much that would simplify program design!?)
Strong Tower: It's too late to worry about making things murkier, brother. ;) But your comments and insights are more than welcome, and you've got us all thinking a lot more deeply about these things. "Not all supras are hyper"—no, some are quite mellow! (Ba-da-dum!)
If there's one thing our Father has shown me time and time again, it's His faithfulness to provide answers to questions about Himself and how to draw closer to Him. As addressed on the TeamPyro blog (and there is no need to cringe at your enthusiasm on your referenced older comment) and even here again tonight. I have spent a good deal of time just tonight, standing outside in the midst of His glorious handiwork (in the moonlight of my front and back yards out here in rural Georgia)asking Him about His various attributes, asking for a better understanding and knowledge of the Son...and by the time I got to your beginning outline of the themes of the OT, I was smiling to myself. I'm no longer surprised when He does that, but I pray I never cease to be amazed by it.
Thank you, and God bless.
Barbara:
Thanks for popping by, and for your comment. I'm glad to learn that it dovetailed so perfectly with where your thoughts were leading you!
The wonderful (and at first glance surprising) thing about the Old Testament is how infused it is with God's grace.
There is, in one sense, nothing really "new" in the New Testament, because it's all there in the Old Testament. (You probably also know that most conservative scholars hold appearances of God or the "Angel of God" in the Old Testament to be appearances of the pre-incarnate Christ.)
Of course, the New Testament is the record of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ; the coming of the Holy Spirit into the world; and the instution of the New Covenant, and that's all new; but it was all promised and foreshadowed in the Old Testament (especially Isaiah 52-53, Joel 2, and Jeremiah 31 respectively).
God doesn't change—He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and His promises are sure!
God doesn't change—He is the same yesterday, today, and forever...
while this may be theologically true, to believe that the bible paints the OT God and the NT Jesus similarly is denying the obvious. the OT God who offers capital punishment for everything bears little resemblance to the forgive-seventy-times-seven, turn-the-other-cheek, let-him-without-sin-cast-the-first-stone Jesus. only when we've adopted the theological position that they are the same do we then go back and try to tap dance around the harsh reality and make it fit into our framework. our ability to make a common picture of the God-man relationship in the two testaments is predicated on our ability to read theology into the text and not vice versa.
mike rucker
fairburn, ga, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com
Hogwash Mikey-
Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, “Come, gather for the great supper of God, to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great.” And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.
This is Speaking of Jesus. And just because we do not today have judges in Israel and God's direct words of condemnation and judgement in the execution of his wrath does not mean that God is not bringing judgement upon men both saved and unsaved. In fact, you directly contradict Romans 1: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. But also Hebrews 12: For whom the Lord loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives." Scourges is a term for whipping and does not refer to persecution but judgement against sin. As well as 1 Peter 4:17: For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?
It really is that you have started with certain presuppostitions and brought them to the text. For instance: among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme...you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord...
I know that you would like to say that it is isn't the same God who is doing this but that these things are really the same things in diverse ways that we see in the OT. And you're dead wrong.
We could go on to mention Judas, Ananias and Sapphira or Harrod: Now Herod was angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon, and they came to him with one accord, and having persuaded Blastus, the king's chamberlain, they asked for peace, because their country depended on the king's country for food. On an appointed day Herod put on his royal robes, took his seat upon the throne, and delivered an oration to them. And the people were shouting, “The voice of a god, and not of a man!” Immediately an angel of the Lord struck him down, because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and breathed his last.
Judgement comes in many ways and one of them is God withholding the favor of understanding his word.
Hi Stefan!
Hi, Mike and Strong Tower.
Do you guys have me on some kind of subscription service or what?
Mike, just to make things clear on where I come from, I spent the first 36 years of my life thinking that the Bible was fiction from beginning to end; and that Jesus was simply an enlightened Jewish teacher who'd been completely misunderstood by Paul, who as a Hellenic Jew, "invented" Christianity as a religion for Gentile Christians. All that wrath and judgement stuff was just made up by men, I thought. That is really, truly what I believed, and I thank God that He has had mercy on my soul for my stubborn doubts about Him.
I came from a background where I thought the only reliable things that Jesus actually said were in the Sermon on the Mount (and maybe not even that, if you go by Luke's Sermon on the Plain instead!).
But everything changed when I was reborn in Christ. When I went back to reread the Old Testament, I saw the grace of God screaming through on practically every page: see my original post up above for Scriptural citations. Even Leviticus...for what is that about except the blood of Christ, shed for our sins, even though we don't deserve it?
And in the New Testament, the unavoidable fact emerges that, as Strong Tower mentioned, the judgement and wrath of God comes through as well.
Behold the kindness and severity of God (Romans 11:22): alas, we can't have one without the other. God is holy and righteous; we are stiff-necked rebels. He would not be just if His wrath were not kindled at our sinfulness. We deserve only one thing from God, and He would be perfectly within His rights as our creator to give us nothing more than our just deserts.
But His Son has come to earth, to live as a man, a wholly righteous man such as we could never be. He was piereced for our transgressions, and with His stripes we are healed. He bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors. He who is perfect and blameless, died for our sins, on our behalf. Now He sits at the right hand of God, and He will return to judge the living and the dead. It is by the grace of the Father and the shed blood of the Son that we are saved and have eternal life, for we could never do anything to reconcile our sinful selves to our holy and righteous God. That's the Gospel, and that's what the central message of the Bible is, from Genesis to Revelation.
Their still awake in Canada?
Did I forget to mention grace? The grace of God is so great that he treats us as sons. Great grace that we have been chosen also to suffer with Him :)
And yes, I am still subscribed to this post. :P
Do you guys have me on some kind of subscription service or what?
we're like bad pennies... people in heaven who checked 'email follow-up comments to me' still get updates on changes to this post.
strong tower, eloquent as always.
stefan, my journey is yours in reverse.
somehow you're both missing that 'the fear of God' in the OT was corrected by Jesus' 'Abba, Father.' it took me becoming a parent myself to start seeing clearly some of the God-impugning character traits we like to heap upon Him. which shouldn't be too surprising, since it took God himself becoming man to try to straighten all that out.
i would never deny that there is a God of grace in the OT - somehow the patriarchal fearmongers whose view of God got handed down to us allowed a real imageo Dei to creep in occasionally. the psalms appeal to us because they reflect that tension we have of God-must-be-judgmental-but-God-forgives in our own hearts and minds.
thanks for the thoughts.
mike rucker
fairburn, ga, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com
A lot of things have been coming together for me lately, on the question of what the Word of God is all about. Here's a first attempt at putting it all together: The Gospel.
Post a Comment