Storms, Sleepers, and Substitutes–Jonah As a Type of Christ

I have finally started listening to the sermons from Desiring God’s recent conference (I blogged about that here). Well, toward the end of Tim Keller’s message he mentioned a parallel between Christ and Jonah I had never before considered. I thought it was a great example of the typographical element so often found in OT Scripture. The OT Scriptures are not written in a vacuum, but rather are part of an overarching scheme of a history of Redemption.

Jonah was asleep during a great storm which put the lives of the  ship’s crew in danger of destruction. He had to be awakened, and was rebuked for not caring about the potential  danger to everyone’s lives. Jonah was appointed by God as being the cause of the storm (through the use of lots), and Jonah owned up to his guilt. Jonah then asked to be thrown overboard since this would stop the storm. The sailors tried to make it on their own, but ultimately came to trust in Jonah’s offer as a last result. They threw him overboard and were gloriously saved from their terrible predicament. Destruction was averted.

Jesus, too was asleep in a great storm (Mark 4), during which the lives of the disciples, who were piloting the ship, were in danger of destruction. He had to be awakened, and was rebuked for not caring for his disciples’ plight. Jesus then calmed the storm, and miraculously the danger was averted.

Ah, but the parallel is more than this. Jesus was ultimately sacrificed, just like Jonah, to save the lives of all from complete destruction. And while Jonah was legitimately guilty, Jesus took on himself our guilt. Jesus took our destruction that we might be spared. The words of Psalm 69:1-2 (which  psalm is applied by Jesus to himself and his ministry in the New Testament)  were true of Jesus as he hung on the cross:

Save me, O God! For the waters have come up to my neck. I sink in deep mire, where there is no foothold; I have come into deep waters, and the flood sweeps over me.

This picture does much to convey the wonder of the gospel. And I do not think that the parallel to Jonah’s situation from the events in Mark 4 is a stretch. I believe it was intended to point us back to that picture from Jonah’s life. In so doing we see the great terror that Jesus saved us from. We comprehend with great clarity the substitutionary death of Christ on our behalf. And we can see that God’s wrath for our sin was placed on Him. Indeed, Jesus drew the parallel between the duration of time Jonah spent under the water and inside the whale with the time Jesus would spend in the belly of the earth in death’s fast hold.

To make clear to all that this is not a recent innovation by myself leaning on Tim Keller, let me provide a couple quotes from older  commentaries which bring attention to this point.

“Herein Jonah is a type of Messiah, the one man who offered Himself to die, in order to allay the stormy flood of God’s wrath (compare Ps 69:1,2, as to Messiah), which otherwise must have engulfed all other men.”

[Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary on verse 12, online here.]

“The reason he gives is, For I know that for my sake this great tempest is upon you. See how ready Jonah is to take all the guilt upon himself, and to look upon all the trouble as theirs: “It is purely for my sake, who have sinned, that this tempest is upon you; therefore cast me forth into the sea; for,” 1. “I deserve it. I have wickedly departed from my God, and it is upon my account that he is angry with you. Surely I am unworthy to breathe in that air which for my sake has been hurried with winds, to live in that ship which for my sake has been thus tossed. Cast me into the sea after the wares which for my sake you have thrown into it. Drowning is too good for me; a single death is punishment too little for such a complicated offence.” 2. “Therefore there is no way of having the sea calm. If it is I that have raised the storm, it is not casting the wares into the sea that will lay it again; no, you must cast me thither.” When conscience is awakened, and a storm raised there, nothing will turn it into a calm but parting with the sin that occasioned the disturbance, and abandoning that. It is not parting with our money that will pacify conscience; no, it is the Jonah that be thrown overboard. Jonah is herein a type of Christ, that he gives his life a ransom for many; but with this material difference, that the storm Jonah gave himself up to still was of his own raising, but that storm which Christ gave himself up to still was of our raising. Yet, as Jonah delivered himself up to be cast into a raging sea that it might be calm, so did our Lord Jesus, when he died that we might live.”

[Matthew Henry’s Commentary on 1:12, online here.]

A Few More Points: I forgot to mention a few other parallels.    First, Jonah did not just jump in, instead he told the sailors a saving “gospel” message: throw me in and you’ll live. Then, the sailors refused to heed the message at first, and tried to save themselves from the storm. This parallels the fact that the lost often try to atone for their own sin or to work their way to heaven. Thirdly, just before the sailors finally sacrifice Jonah, they declare they are innocent of his blood. This parallels Pilate’s declaration that he was innocent of the blood of Jesus, and the Jews’ declaration that they wanted to be guilty of his blood. Pilate and the Jews, however, were guilty of the blood, while the sailors were actually innocent of Jonah’s blood. Fourthly, a parallel could be given in that Jonah did not excuse his sin or offer any defense, and likewise Jesus willingly took our sin, not offering a defense of his own innocence. There are probably more, and for some of these I drew from JFB and Henry and possibly other commentaries.

Recommended Reads

The last couple weeks have left me a bit disconnected from the blog world. I have yet to catch up on my reading (I probably won’t read everything I could or would like to). This week, too, I have been a little under the weather.  

 

Well, as I get caught up and refocused on my blog, I thought I’d pass along some good reading that I have found recently. This post is not exhaustive, just a few recommended reads.  

 

Vote for Me!!!

You may have heard of the Reformed T-Shirt hoopla, and it seems to have all started with the man in the “Jonathan Edwards is my home boy” T-shirt on the  front cover of Christianity Today a month or so ago. Well, I am in the running for a free shirt compliments of Frank Turk (a.k.a. Centuri0n) of Pyromaniacs.  

You can check out the contest details here. But the time limit has already  expired for entering the contest. However, since I already entered, it is possible that I might win! The winner is the person whose shirt idea (which could not have been one Frank was already selling when he decided to begin the contest) sells the most merchandise this month. You can see the list of competing slogans here. And you can see all the merchandise for my idea: “Charles Finney is Not my home boy”, here. [If you are aghast that I would come up with that slogan, check out this post.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I fear that not many will be willing to fork out the money required for one of these shirts, but they do look pretty cool. And Christmas is around the corner. Hey, maybe we could buy a few of these and distribute them at the local hyper  fundamentalist institution! Okay, just kidding!

Lest some accuse me of undue pressure placed on my readers to fork out massive quantities of the green stuff, let me inform you of some free music! Sovereign Grace Ministries has produced a new  Christmas CD, Savior,  which seems very good. They are offering an mp3 download of one of the songs from that CD, “Hope has Come” for free. I really like the song, and since it is free, what can you lose by downloading it? Just click here and proceed to the checkout. (HT: Mathew Sims) Also, if you head over to Bob Kauflin’s blog, Worship Matters, he is currently offering a free download of one of the songs from the recent Sovereign Grace Ministries CD release, Valley of Vision. The song is “O Great God”, and you can find a link on his sidebar where you can right-click and select “save target as” to download the music to your computer. (Thanks Bob Kauflin & Sovereign Grace!)


∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Nicely Packaged Garbage

How do you like your garbage? Because that is what you are getting here at Fundamentally Reformed. Let me tell you! Garbage, garbage, and more garbage—it’s all garbage around here. It might look pretty, but its really rotten—and definitely ugly.

Pardon me, but I am ranting a bit here. I am a little worked up about a certain detractor of mine who has mentioned me on his blog, again. [The “garbage” line comes from a comment under that post, more on that comment later.] I have had various interactions with this person since my break with fundamentalism–some debates on blogs, a round of emails, and no matter what I say, this person refuses to believe me. (I say this in case you run into this fellow. Please contact me for my side of the story—I’ll leave it at that.)

Anyways, this time he started off by exploring why “the left” seems so appealing. He went on to note that among conservatives, those who are culturally “liberal” will not quote from or link to any people/blogs who are culturally “conservative”. Or if they do, he notes, they will do so with “disdain”. Now I am not exactly sure why he is all worked up about this curiosity,  but I do  know  that he has his own blog and a team blog besides, and he has gotten into quite a number of blog brawls on  a couple of  theologically conservative blogs I read.

At this point, then, he claims that my blog was one of the things that got him thinking about this (that cultural liberals disdain and ignore cultural conservatives). Why? Because he has noticed that I have been regularly linked to and quoted from “major evangelical and ‘fundamental’ blogs”. When I had  calmed down  after reading his post, I wondered if some big evangelical blog had started linking to me! I checked Technorati and my stats for referring links with no pleasant surprise. Nope, I am still linked to from mostly small blogs which often deal with much of the same content I do.  

Maybe he is so frustrated at my blog that he just isn’t thinking straight. Perhaps he has misinterpreted a few facts. As this is one of several misrepresentations  of me in his post, let me pause here and prove that he is wrong. He mentioned “fundamental” blogs, and I think he has in mind blogs associated with Sharper Iron. I double checked to be sure, and I am only linked to from 2 of 19 blogs currently listed on Sharper Iron’s blogroll. I think he might be referring to two other things, however. 1) I have joined a few different aggregators (listed toward the bottom of my sidebar), and one of those in particular, the League of Reformed Bloggers, gives me quite a few links in Technorati’s tally. It is simple to join the League of Reformed Bloggers,  and a  good many members  on the list link to the entire blogroll in their sidebars. I would list the blogroll too, but WordPress doesn’t let me do that as easy as Blogger did. So while this means I have many links,  the links in no way endorse me, because most of those bloggers have never even looked at my blog. 2) I have recently been linked to from Pyromaniacs a few times. But those were merely blogspotting posts where Phil links to as many decent blogs as quote him during the week as he can. Sure it sent more people my way, but it was not an endorsement of my blog, per se. And if my detractor wanted to, he could link to Pyromaniacs and be delighted to receive a spot in their next blogspot post. The same goes for a recent link from a Pulpit Live blogspotting post. Now all this is not to say that I haven’t had a few blogs link to me independently. I have, and I am glad they did. (Thank you for reading!) But most of my regular readers and most of the blogs who link to and endorse my blog are those interested in my topic—reforming fundamentalism. And I should add that many of my readers do not agree with me on a number of things, but they appreciate (I think) many things I share here, nonetheless, otherwise they would just be ignoring me.

Anyway, back to my real beef with his post. I want to quote two sections of his rant against me and show that he is not honest with his facts.

He takes the hottest cultural positions—booze OK, dancing OK, immodesty OK, most television and movies OK, and to him music is essentially amoral. He hardly misses a favored cultural liberalism among those theologically conservative. For that, he is mightily rewarded in blogdom. Even those who don’t side with him, in every one of these cultural leftisms, will include him at their table. He has the compromise to make the connection.

Hopefully, some of you just raised your eyebrows a little. Have you ever read anything on my blog which condones immodesty, most movies, and dancing? Now I have discussed booze and music at some depth here, but he makes it seem like  I defend every practice he mentions.    Dancing has only received a passing “endorsement” from me. I have claimed that dancing to music is found in Scripture as a good thing (think David dancing before God in 1 Chron. 15-16). I have never claimed that dancing with someone of the opposite sex in a way that is designed to incite sensual passions is “OK”.  

Regarding TV and movies, I have only claimed that I see no Biblical reason not to go into a movie theater. I did claim that The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was a good movie. But you will search in vain for me defending “most” TV and movies as being “OK”. I’ll go on record here saying that most TV and movies are NOT OK. My wife and I have not watched virtually any prime time TV. We might watch a game show or a football game, now and then. I do like to watch Public Television specials, and we record some of the decent  “weekly movies” which might be aired on Saturday nights or something. And yes, we are careful about what movies we rent or borrow from the Library. (By the way, check out kids-in-mind.com. It is a great rating tool for movies.)

And on the immodesty point, I am really upset. I have never said anything which could even be twisted into an endorsement of immodesty. That is just a patent falsehood aimed at trashing my reputation. I do claim that women should be allowed to wear pants, but that does not mean every pair of pants is acceptable for my wife to wear. Just like skirts/dresses, there are modest and immodest pants. In fact, many pants are more modest than dresses. My wife and I do not condone mixed swimming, and she does not go around in a swimsuit or revealing clothes in other’s presence at all. I am against immodesty. I have not come out with a detailed definition of immodesty, but that does not mean I endorse immodesty. Now on to the second snippet from his post.

I’m using this just as an example. I think it only represents something consistently occurring. This brings me to that original question….What makes the cultural left so appealing?…One could call the cultural left the lustful left. We all are allured by the dark side. It’s fun. It feels good. It’s easy. It actually allows a conservative either politically or theologically to fit into the world. You can get acceptance here (cultural liberalism) on earth and still get heaven (theological conservatism).

How do they justify all this?…They scoff at cultural conservatives like the apostates in 2 Peter 3, mocking while they walk after their own lusts, making space for their lifestyles. They don’t argue Scripturally on these issues. They use mockery and ridicule, which are often effective, you may have noticed. The cultural liberal calls this unity. They say we shouldn’t divide on cultural issues, only theological. They say that these cultural issues are second or third tier, so that those who separate on these issues are misguided and divisive. The cultural separatists, often called personal separatists, especially are spoiling their fun, what they call liberty to make it sound like something theological….

Just from reading this section, I can guess you might be thinking that you know why “culturally liberal” conservatives ignore people like this guy. He does go on to say, “My own opinion is that this is the major tool of apostasy today, this separation of theology from culture.” It is obvious that when he says “liberal” he has in mind almost any departure from his fundamentalist cultural positions. To deviate a little is to earn some pretty strong statements of rebuke. So who is censuring whom?

Since I am mentioned in all of this, I take exception to his statement “They don’t argue Scripturally on these issues.” Have you read my blog even a little? You may disagree with me, but please don’t tell me I am not using Scripture. Just look at my defense of my positions in my long letter (“my story”), it is loaded with Scriptural arguments. I have yet to have anyone provide any serious rebuttal to my Scripture-loaded post on the wine/alcohol debate. I have had plenty express their disdain for my position, but no one has argued with my Scriptural arguments to any degree.

One last point to mention here, is his claim that “cultural liberals” are “making space for their lifestyles” and see people like him as “spoiling their fun”. These are loaded statements. Could it possibly be that some of these “liberals” have actually come to their positions from a study of Scripture and concluded that their lifestyles are okay. I would venture to say that many of these so called liberals are totally willing to change their lifestyle based on Scripture, and many have in different areas.  

Recently someone gave the following interesting comment under my long letter explaining why I left fundamentalism (“my story”): “Thank you for your transparency, I almost began to laugh when you made a comment that your friends would think your change flippant. You had just spent page after page describing how you had come to this point, it would be ridiculous to call the change flippant.” Yes, people do think it flippant. My detractor repeatedly claims that I plotted to leave fundamentalism to make room for my lifestyle of choice. Yet everything I say in my letter contradicts that. I was convinced against my will that the positions I held to dearly on various cultural and doctrinal points were wrong. I make this very clear in my letter, and I do so also in my whole treatment of the alcohol debate. I make it abundantly clear that even after I came to believe from all of the Scriptural evidence that drinking alcohol was okay, I was still loathe to do it. I made the plunge only because I felt that not to drink was to spurn what God said He gave us for our joy. It is not that I always wanted to drink, and now I found the perfect excuse. And I know that my case is not alone. Many “cultural liberals” were once conservatives and changed due to their study of  God’s Word and not out of a desire to have their cake and eat it too.

Before I go, I should mention the comment that birthed the title of this post and the first paragraph. A commenter on my detractor’s blog said the following:

His blog looks sharp, and he does have the time to put lengthy “well-researched” (highly footnoted) posts together. And honestly, he can write decently well. I guess some are beguiled by good presentation, even if it’s garbage that they’re being offered.

So there you have it folks, I hope you like the garbage you’re getting! Just like you can sort through trash and determine what is worth keeping, I am confident that my readers will be able to ignore anything I say that is unBiblical and unwise, and stick to what they find to be true and helpful. Or maybe it’s all just plain garbage!


∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

The Kidnapper, Kim Jong Il

North KoreaThis is a rare political post for me. But I thought the concise sentiments of Norbert Vollertsen, a German doctor and human-rights activist who has worked in North Korea, quoted in the cover article of last week’s World magazine edition (pg. 19) was worth repeating. The comments are concise but clearly convey the obvious and tragic reality concerning North Korea and its leader Kim Jong Il.

“The current nuclear crisis with North Korea is a ‘chance’—to end the evil regime of Kim Jong Il. Since 2001 we human-rights activists were looking for more exposure of the human-rights violations of Kim Jong Il. Nobody cared. Then came 9/11 and the Iraq war and North Korea was called one member of the ‘axis of evil.’ It now has proved to really belong there.

We have also to refocus on human-right issues again. The ordinary North Korean people are nice human beings who are taken hostage and brainwashed by the criminal mafia clan around Kim Jong Il. And like any ordinary kidnapper he is threatening his victims, and blackmailing the outside world with his weapons.

Like any ordinary kidnapper: You can talk with him, negotiate, even make a deal to release his hostages—but in the end you have to arrest him.

How true and yet how sad. May God remove Kim Jong Il and usher in a great time of peace for North Korea and in so doing provide those people with the only message that provides for lasting and perfect peace—the Gospel of Jesus Christ. May Jesus be exalted in that country by whatever means God knows is best. Amen!

UPDATE: Check out this post on mission work being done in North Korea. The link at the bottom of that post takes you to a page where you can view a video of a North Korean execution (it is filmed from a long distance away and not very graphic, but viewer discretion is advised). After the shooting, the North Korean official in charge said these words to the onlooking crowd: “You have witnessed how miserable fools end up. Traitors who betray the nation and its people end up like this.” This video is more evidence that all of North Korea is hostage to the regime of Kim Jong Il, a mad kidnapper. Let us all  purpose to  pray for the work the believers and missionaries in North Korea.

Picture taken from here.


∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7