Tag: Christianity

Graeme Goldsworthy on the Old Testament’s Own Typology

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

I’ve been reading the latest book from Graeme Goldsworthy, Christ-Centered Biblical Theology: Hermeneutical Foundations and Principles (IVP, 2012). In the book, Goldsworthy details the foundations of his hermeneutical method and the big influence that Donald Robinson, his former professor at Moore Theological College (Sydney), has had on him. One of the fascinating points he brings up about typology is that Robinson had pointed out that the Old Testament itself is rife with typology. Let me offer here an excerpt which highlights this fact and provides ample food for thought.

————————————-

The following quotation shows with absolute clarity the importance Robinson places on the notion of the recapitulation of Israel’s earlier history… in the prophetic eschatology. This is seen as the basis for the New Testament proclamation of fulfilment in Christ:

The blessings of God’s End-time are described in the Old Testament for the most part in terms drawn from Israel’s past history. The day of the Lord would be Israel’s history all over again, but new with the newness of God. There would be a new Exodus, a new redemption from slavery and a new entry into the land of promise (Jer. 16:14, 15); a new covenant and a new law (Jer. 31:31-34). No foe would invade the promised inheritance, “but they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid” (Micah 4:4). There would be a new Jerusalem (Isa. 26:1, Ez. 40) and a new David to be God’s shepherd over Israel (Jer. 23:5, Ez. 34:23,24) and a new Temple where perfect worship would be offered and from which a perfect law would go forth (Isa. 2:2-4, Ez. 40-46). It would not be too much to say that Israel’s history, imperfectly experienced in the past, would find its perfect fulfilment “in that day.” [quoted from Donald W. B. Robinson, The Hope of Christ’s Coming (Beecroft, New South Wales: Evangelical Tracts and Publications, 1958), pg. 13]

Robinson’s typology is wider than the repetition of Israel’s history in that it sees the End as transcending and fulfilling the whole history of creation. “Indeed, nothing less than a new creation, a new heaven and a new earth, could contain all that God has in store for the End (Isa. 65:17).” There is, of course, nothing particularly original in this understanding of the Old Testament prophetic eschatology. The important thing for this discussion is the way these perspectives inform Robinson’s understanding of the New Testament.

[excerpt is from pages 173-174 of Christ-Centered Biblical Theology (IVP, 2012)]

————————————-

I think this is an important point. The NT isn’t doing something totally new with seeing OT events as typological – with the fulfillment in Christ. The NT stands in a tradition of typological interpretation of OT history, and is merely identifying in a new way what or who the true antitype is.

How Important is the Old Earth vs. New Earth Debate?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 21 Comments

Justin Taylor recently posted a video clip from the 2012 Ligonier Conference. The clip was a portion of a panel discussion on how Christians should understand the age of the earth.

The full discussion on this question, available on video here, starts at 42:09 on the video and lasts through 75:40 (the end). It is mostly R.C. Sproul Sr., Stephen Meyer (a Christian scientist and author who subscribes to Intelligent Design), and Del Tackett (known for Focus on the Family’s The Truth Project), although Michael Horton and R.C. Sproul Jr. also make some brief comments.

I appreciated both R.C. Sproul Sr. and Stephen Meyer’s emphasis that this debate should be intramural and congenial. Good people can disagree on this issue and still mutually affirm the inerrancy of Scripture and stand against the materialistic drive of this age.

Taylor went on to quote from and point us to a report from the 2000 PCA report on the question of differing interpretations of the days of Creation. That report carefully defines terms, explains most of the various positions which aim to remain true to the text, and evaluates each view helpfully. A historical review of the position of the Church on the days of creation is also provided. The PCA concludes that this issue shouldn’t divide their church and aims to show that people holding to the various views can have unity in standing for Biblical supernaturalism when it comes to creation, and against a naturalistic worldview. I recommend you check out that paper.

In recent years, this debate has become more and more caustic. And some of the participants have moved farther and farther afield from the Bible’s account of creation. Peter Enns has gone so far as to deny the existence of Adam, and the historicity of the Exodus and much, much more! That being said, although a slippery slope does exist, the Church has always had varying positions on this issue. Holding to supernatural creation is more important than holding to a young earth or literal 24 hour days. There are many exegetical reasons offered against the young earth view, and some of them, in my mind, are convincing. But as Stephen Meyer points out in the panel’s discussion, the Church has to be careful not to get sidetracked into an intramural debate over the days of Creation instead of confronting head-on the new atheists denials of the existence of God and the Bible’s supernatural claims.

I expect my readers hold a variety of positions on this issue as well, so drop a comment and we can discuss this further. Just how important is the age of the earth when it comes to defending the Bible’s claims that God created the world?

Giving in to “Weaker Brothers”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

I came across an interesting post that raises a good question. Is it really okay to modify your actions based on the weaker consciences of some?

Here’s the post:

In 1857 a few white members of the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa asked permission to celebrate the Lord’s Supper separately from their black brothers and sisters. The General Assembly believed their request was wrong, but it acquiesced “due to the weakness of some.” This concession soon became the norm, as white Christians increasingly chose to observe the Lord’s Supper without their black siblings. Their racism prompted the unwanted black Christians to leave and start their own churches. And so the South African church, divided by race, eventually became a vocal supporter of apartheid. In 1924 the DRC argued that the races must remain separate, for “competition between black and white on economic levels…leads to poverty, friction, misunderstanding, suspicion, and bitterness.”

How might the history of South Africa be different if the church had not conceded to the sinful request of a few “weaker brothers”? We are thankful for leaders such as Nelson Mandela who gave their lives to end apartheid. But it’s a shame on the church that their sacrifice was even needed.

Peter gave in to the “weaker brothers” in Antioch. He knew they were wrong to insist that Gentiles live like Jews, but afraid of what they might say, he refused to eat with Gentiles when these Judaizers came to town. Paul recognized this was a big deal, for the reason these Jews split from the Gentiles put the gospel at risk. How would the history of Christianity be different if Paul had not stood up to Peter’s shameful concession?

It’s never right to do wrong because others think it’s right. We must not violate our conscience on the flimsy ground that “They wouldn’t understand,” “It’s what they expect,” or “Just this once, what will it hurt?” It may seem easier to give in, but our concession will make life harder down the road.

–Read the original post from Mike Wittmer

I think you can definitely get in trouble if you’re always giving in to “weaker brothers”. It’s one thing to aim not to offend, it’s quite another to live your life with the weaker brother always potentially popping up at every turn.

What do you think? Is Mike Witmer way off base here? Am I?

Dr. Bruce Ware on Fundamentalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

I recently came across an interview of Dr. Bruce Ware, one of the professors at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville. And 25 minutes of the interview was devoted to his thoughts on Fundamentalism and the differences between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. [HT: Andy Naselli]

I appreciated his explanation of Evangelicalism and generally agree with his characterization of the differing mindsets of the two movements. You’ll find the clip of this portion of the interview below, but there’s a lot more to the interview. I’m interested in your thoughts on this clip. I find myself basically in agreement with most of what Ware says.

Master’s Tournament Winner Bubba Watson and His Faith

~ Bob Hayton

I had the opportunity to watch some of the Master’s Tournament this year. I love watching golf (and try to play my hand at it, albeit rather poorly). So I caught some of the Master’s on Saturday, and was able to watch the conclusion of it on Sunday.

I was impressed with Bubba Watson’s win, and was thoroughly amazed by his unbelievable shot out of the woods and hooking onto the green to capture the victory. But I was unaware of the fact that Watson is a Christian.

He seems to be a solid Christian who is vocal about his faith, and I just wanted to point my readers in the direction of a few articles that make this point clear. I love the name Bubba, and his personality sure is winsome. But knowing we share a common faith makes me respect him even more.

Here are some links for additional reading: