Category: Theology

Classic Arm Chair Theology at its best (or should that read worst?)

Gregory Beale on the Temple, Living Water and the Holy Spirit in John’s Gospel

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Yesterday I was reminded again of the connection between the “living water” that is referred to in John 4 and John 7 and the prophesied end-times Temple.  In the Gospel of John, Jesus is the Word who “became flesh and dwelt among us” (1:14).  “Dwelt” is literally “tabernacled” among us.  Jesus is the true Tabernacle.  Then in chapter 2, Jesus’ body is the true Temple (see 2:18-22).

Gregory Beale’s work on tracing out the Temple theme throughout Scripture highlights how John continues to allude to Jesus’ identity as the true Temple by means of the “living water” motif.  I’ll quote from two of Beale’s books here.  I’ve read the first one, and am currently reading through the second one.  After giving the quotes I’ll make a few more comments.  I think you’ll agree that this insight is profound and really quite helpful in seeing the significance of Jesus’ claims in John 4 and John 7.

Temple imagery may also be expressed when Jesus tells the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well that he is the source of “living water” which will “spring up to eternal life” for those drinking from him (John 4:10-14).  Just as water had its source in the first sanctuary in Eden and flowed down and became a life-giving element, likewise Ezekiel, alluding to the Garden of Eden, prophesied that the same thing would be the case with the end-time temple to be built in this new Jerusalem (Ezek. 47:1-12): “Then he brought me back to the door of the house [the holy of holies]; and behold, water was flowing from under the threshold of the house toward the east” (v. 1); “so everything will live where the river goes” (v. 9b; so also v. 12).  Joel 3:18 (“a spring will go out from the house of the LORD”) and Zechariah 14:8 (“living waters will flow out of Jerusalem”) prophesy the same reality.  John’s Apocalypse sees the consummate future fulfillment of Ezekiel’s, Joel’s and Zechariah’s prophecies and restoration of an escalated Eden, in which “a river of the water of life, clear as crystal”, comes “from the throne of God and of the Lamb” (Rev. 22:1), who just a few verses earlier have been identified as the “sanctuary” (Rev. 21:22).

In light of this background and of the discussion so far about Jesus as the new temple in John’s Gospel, Jesus’ offer of “living water” to the Samaritan woman should be viewed as another reference to him being the beginning form of the true temple from which true life in God’s presence proceeds.  John 7:37-39 confirms this connection.  Teaching in the temple on the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, Jesus says, “If any man is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink.  He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water.’  But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive, for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”

In verse 38 Jesus alludes to the prophecy of water flowing from the temple in Ezekiel, Joel and Zechariah.  The “innermost being” from which “flow rivers of living water” is Jesus himself as the new “holy of holies” and not the one who believes in Jesus.  This is apparent, first, from recalling that the Old Testament prophecies identify the source of the water to be from the innermost part of the temple (i.e., the holy of holies) where Yahweh’s presence had dwelt in the past and would dwell again in the latter-day temple.  Jesus was that presence on earth.  Secondly, John 7:39 interprets the “living water” to be the Spirit poured out at Pentecost by Jesus himself to all those who would believe in him (see Acts 2:32-38).

[G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004), pg. 196-197]

In his latest book, Beale develops this a bit further and shows how Jesus’ statement about true worship in John 4:21-24 also ties in with his “living water” discussion.

…Jesus is saying that the place for true worship now and in the future is no longer in one location, such as Jerusalem, but rather is extended.  But to where is it extended?  True worship is any place where the end-time Spirit is or where worship in the sphere of that Spirit takes place: the time has come and will continue when true worshipers will worship the Father in the sphere of the promised Spirit and end-time truth that has come in Christ (4:23; so also 4:24).  Thus, to worship “in spirit and truth” is not a reference to “truly sincere” worshipers or worshipers who are “sincere in their spirit about the truth” …but is a reference to the Spirit, who has come in fulfillment of OT promises….  Here God’s presence in Israel’s localized temple is viewed as foreshadowing God’s tabernacling presence in Jesus now and his people later, after his resurrection and the sending of the Spirit….

The notion in John 4:23-24 of the expanding geography of the place of the true temple and of true worship in the inaugurated new age is likely a continuation of the earlier narrative about the “living water” from Zech. 14 and is part of the anticipation of John 7:37-39, and thus its roots are in the idea of the expanding temple and its holiness prophesied in Zech. 14 and Ezek. 47, as well as elsewhere in the OT.  Specifically, God’s special revelatory presnece in the form of the Spirit will no longer be located in the holy of holies of Israel’s temple but instead will break out of its architectural shackeles in the eschaton and spread throughout the earth.  The true temple and true place of worship and true worshipers can be found wherever the extending form of God’s holy of holies presence in the Spirit goes and among whoever is included in its sphere.  Consequently, wherever a true believer is, there also is the Spirit, as John 7:37-39 affirms.

[G.K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2011), pg. 134-135]

Personally, seeing that Christ dwells in our hearts by faith, and we have the indwelling Spirit, I don’t see a problem with seeing the river of life flowing from the innermost being of believers – but ultimately the source is Jesus Christ.  Also, even if you don’t take “worship in the Spirit” as referring to the Holy Spirit, the ideas of the extension of the temple and that wherever true believers are there is true worship, still hold.  Also I should stress that Beale is not saying there is no future and greater fulfillment of these prophecies, but that Jesus’ coming has ushered in this age of the unfolding of the prophecy of all these end-times events.  The end-times Temple is in the process of being built and we believers are “living stones” being built on top of the Living Stone – the true Cornerstone – Jesus Christ (see 2 Pet. 2:4-5, 7).

I hope this adds to the richness of these passages for you.  It certainly does for me.  Seeing how these OT passages stand behind Jesus’ offer of living water and our experience of the Holy Spirit and the special presence of God in Christ — all this leads to greater worship and wonder and praise.  We should aim to keep our bodies holy and our churches (a corporate Temple) holy and we should realize how many spiritual blessings we truly have.

Furthermore, this river of life has trees on either side, according to Ezekiel, whose leaves are for the healing of the nations.  These trees do not wither – a direct allusion to Jeremiah 17:7-8 (and also to Psalm 1:2-3).  Our lives are to bring healing to the nations and to withstand the heat of the world and its troubles.  The Spirit cleanses and renews us and allows our lives to be a healing influence on this world as we live out and share the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

A Third Option for Separation: Tetreau on Type A, B & C Fundamentalism Again

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Back in 2006, Pastor Joel Tetreau posted a three part series at SharperIron.org called “Three Lines in the Sand”. In it, he explained the landscape of fundamentalism in terms of Type A, Type B and Type C fundamentalists. You can still read that original series of posts at Sharper Iron: part 1, part 2 and part 3.

Type A is the traditional, hard-line fundamentalist who won’t budge on music or other cultural issues and doesn’t see any need to fellowship with those who disagree with him. Type B were those like Tetreau who didn’t mind moving beyond the boundaries of the fundamentalist movement for fellowship and cooperation, but nevertheless self-identified as fundamentalists — holding to the fundamentals and a practice of separation. Type C fundamentalists were the conservative evangelicals who shared ideals with fundamentalists but not the name and had no organic connection with the movement.

This week, Tetreau has revisited this topic and gives some more observations about where we are now, five years removed from his original series. His post is well worth the read and has already attracted a lot of interaction in the comments at Sharper Iron.

I wanted to excerpt his description of the fundamentalist types as well as his view of a “third option” for separation. Then I have a few comments on his taxonomy.

Joel’s Taxonomy

Type A fundamentalists are those fundamentalists who emphasize a first and second degree separation with militancy. Typically with these brothers, fellowship or separation is an “all or nothing” proposition. Another common characteristic with this group is a kind of sub-culture identity that not only separates them from the secular world but from the rest of evangelical Christianity. There is very much an “us vs. them” identity. Type A men would in the main not view Type C men as fundamentalists. This is probably the chief difference between Type A and Type B fundamentalists. Type A fundamentalism holds that it needs to not only protect the gospel but a specific set of sub-Christian ecclesiastical practices and forms that are especially clear in the typical Type A congregation’s corporate choice of music.

Type B fundamentalists like myself, while growing up under and holding on to much of the heritage found in Type A fundamentalism, do not believe the Scriptures teach an “all or nothing” approach to separation and unity. Type A’s generally feel that there simply is really no arena where they could have any kind of real ecclesiastical co-work with a conservative evangelical. Type B’s disagree. We believe there a variety of occasions where fundamentalists can and should have co-ministry with those that self-identify as conservative evangelicals. This is especially true of those evangelicals who are militant and even separastistic. The recent flap over the Elephant Room “second edition” demonstrates that many conservative evangelicals know how to be both militant and even separatistic from other evangelicals when the gospel or orthodoxy is blurred!

Type C fundamentalists are evangelicals who, while not participating in the more Type A or Type B fellowships and not calling themselves fundamentalists (mainly because of the way many in Type A and Type A+ fundamentalism believe and behave), are in fact part of the fundamentalist heritage because of their gospel militancy, their clear commitments to the fundamentals of the faith and the veracity of Scripture, and their willingness to do “battle royal” against an ecumenical agenda. Examples of this approach include men such as John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Mark Dever and a host of younger men who are clear on the gospel, clear on truth and willing to stand especially against evangelicals who are spineless—or clueless—on theological veracity.

Joel’s “Third Option”

Over the last few decades of ministry I have become convinced that the Type A fundamentalist’s aim to separate from all evangelicals or evangelicalism carte blanche is at best, biblically unhealthy and, at worst, sinfully schismatic to the body of the Christ. Not only have they thrown the poor baby out with the bathwater; but they’ve also condemned the whole nursery as if it was contaminated with some kind of an ecclesiastical leprosy! You slapped the initials “NE” (New Evangelical) on the poor baby’s forehead just knowing that eventually he’d be the next Billy Graham!

Some Type A’s might object that this means I must be for ecumenicalism, because they have been trained to think in the “us vs. you” mentality. They demonstrate the fallacy of the excluded middle. There is a third option that is better than “we separate from everybody or we separate from nobody.” That third option is we cooperate with brothers who love the gospel and are walking in obedience to the teachings of Scripture, even if they aren’t in our “camp” or “group.” You would think this reality would be near the Christianity 101 level.

[headings and the bolded emphasis in the last paragraph, are mine.]

I don’t want to excerpt more than this because you’re really going to want to read his whole piece. One area of difference I have with Joel (besides being a Type C fundamentalist — Joel is a Type B), is that he limits fellowship to just the Type C’s rather than those who are perhaps a Type D.  I’m referring to those who are further removed from the mindset of militancy, but who nevertheless respect the fundamentals and are confessionally based. I notice John Piper, D.A. Carson, Tim Keller and the like, are not listed as Type C fundamentalists – yet I would argue each in his own way does much to stand for the fundamentals of the faith against the inroads of modernism and liberalism (and a whole host of other -isms). They may not have that “edge” or sharpness about them in their critique of other movements in Christianity. They may not be as shrill as fundamentalists typically would like. They may not have pronounced as many anathemas over the Elephant Room 2 as some would like, perhaps, but they nevertheless are leaders who represent a mindset that Type B and C fundamentalists should respect and cooperate with.

Still, Joel’s explanation of Type A, B, and C has really helped me in my thinking through the tangled reality of fundamentalism and evangelicalism over the years. And I’m happy he is continuing to expound on his simple matrix for processing how we can “cooperate with brothers who love the gospel and are walking in obedience to the teachings of Scripture, even if they aren’t in our ‘camp’ or ‘group’.” That is the spirit I see exemplified in Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels, and embodied in his call for unity in John 17. May such a spirit of cooperation and unity continue to spread among fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals everywhere.

More Info on the Discovery of the 1st Century MSS Fragment of Mark

~ Bob Hayton

Recently, Dr. Dan Wallace made news about the discovery of what is possibly the earliest NT MSS fragment ever found. I gave details on the find here.

Well, Dr. Wallace was recently interviewed by Hugh Hewitt on his radio show about the discovery and gave additional details. We now know the MSS contains part of one papyrus leaf, written on both sides. From the sound of it, it is most of one leaf so several verses but not much more. It was also found in Egypt — all seven of these MSS finds were found there. Dr. Wallace will also be on of the authors of the book that will publish all seven papyri fragments in early 2013.

Wallace continues to consider this a truly monumental manuscript find, as the following snippet from the full interview makes clear:

HH: Wow. Now in terms of, for the lay audience, Professor Daniel Wallace, the significance of this work when it appears, how would you grade it, with an A being a Dead Sea Scroll sort of significance, and you know, flunking, it just doesn’t matter?

DW: I would grade it at least an A, maybe an A+.

HH: And will the rest of the scholarly world agree with you on that assessment, do you think?

DW: I think that when they understand the ramifications of the entire nature of this manuscript that I’m not at liberty to mention, yes. They’re going to understand. At least those that will accept that date. Since the manuscript doesn’t have a date stamp on it, it says it was done this year, there are always going to be dissenters. But to do the work of paleography takes thousands and thousands of hours of research to do one.

I’m not sure the discovery will prove to be the equal of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I’m cautiously optimistic that it will prove to be very consequential.

I also got an update from Matthew Hamilton who I quoted in my earlier post on this. From his information and that of Wallace from this interview, the following looks to be the list of the 7 manuscripts. Many of these would be the earliest textual witness we have of that Biblical book, if the dates hold true.

  1. 2nd century homily (sermon) on Hebrews 11
  2. 2nd century frg. with I Corinthians 8-10
  3. 2nd century frg. with Matthew
  4. 2nd century frg. with Romans 9-10
  5. 2nd century frg. from Hebrews, one side contains 9:19-22
  6. 2nd century frg. with Luke
  7. 1st century frg. [part of one leaf] with Mark

For more details read the entire transcript of the Hewitt – Wallace interview, and keep an eye on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog.

Dr. Kevin Bauder Interviewed on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism

~ Bob Hayton

My friend, Scott Oakland, recently interviewed Dr. Kevin Bauder who was a contributing author to Four Views on The Spectrum of Evangelicalism (Zondervan, 2011). You can download the interview from Scott’s ReformedCast.com. I’ll be listening to this interview this week. I really enjoyed the book and especially Dr. Bauder’s chapter.

Illustrated Video Clip Highlighting the Four Major Views on the Millennium

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Dr. David P. Murray, professor of Old Testament and Practical Theology at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, narrated an illustrated video clip (11 minutes long) that walks through each of the four major views on the millennium. I’ve previously recommended his ebook explaining the four views of the millennium because he makes the discussion very clear with graphics and illustrations, and he does an excellent job presenting the views in a way that stays true to each position. In this video clip, you can not really tell which position he takes.

The big takeaway I had from this video clip was how similar all four views are when it comes to the big things: Jesus’ death, the importance of the church age, Jesus’ return, resurrection from the dead, judgement of all men, Jesus’ glorious reign on the new earth in the eternal kingdom. If you have a few minutes, take the time and watch this video. Then download the ebook for future reading.