Tag: interpretation

A Gospel-Centered Reading of Genesis

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

My daily Bible plan has me reading through Genesis currently. So far, I’ve been refreshed by many Gospel themes I’m finding therein. I’ve been helped in making Gospel connections, by a series of blog posts I stumbled across recently. Dr. John Davis, at TheGospelFirst.com has been blogging his way through Genesis in a series highlighting the Gospel Story and the City.

His devotional take on Genesis is refreshing, and the entries are fairly brief. The posts complement my reading thru the chapters covered and help me to be seeing Genesis through Gospel-eyes. Not only does Davis help people to see the Gospel in the text, he helps them to make application to the context of living in the city. Davis is partnering with his brother Steve to reach the city of Philadelphia. As I find myself in the city of St. Paul, many of his applications hit home.

I encourage you to take advantage of Davis’ series on the Gospel as you read through Genesis. Here are links to the posts that are currently available.

Quotes to Note 23: Calvin on Christ-Centered Bible Reading

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

With the New Year, many of us have chosen our new daily Bible reading plan. With that in mind, I recently stumbled across an important quote from John Calvin that bears on how we approach our Bible reading. I thought sharing it with you all would be especailly appropriate, on this first Monday of 2011.

Commenting on John 5:39, Calvin notes:

…we are taught by this passage, that if we wish to obtain the knowledge of Christ, we must seek it from the Scriptures…. First, then, we ought to believe that Christ cannot be properly known in any other way than from the Scriptures; and if it be so, it follows that we ought to read the Scriptures with the express design of finding Christ in them. Whoever shall turn aside from this object, though he may weary himself throughout his whole life in learning, will never attain the knowledge of the truth; for what wisdom can we have without the wisdom of God? Next, as we are commanded to seek Christ in the Scriptures, so he declares in this passage that our labors shall not be fruitless; for the Father testifies in them concerning his Son in such a manner that He will manifest him to us beyond all doubt. But what hinders the greater part of men from profiting is, that they give to the subject nothing more than a superficial and cursory glance. Yet it requires the utmost attention, and, therefore, Christ enjoins us to search diligently for this hidden treasure…. By the Scriptures, it is well known, is here meant the Old Testament; for it was not in the Gospel that Christ first began to be manifested, but, having received testimony from the Law and the Prophets, he was openly exhibited in the Gospel.

“Faith in the Face of Apostasy: The Gospel According to Elijah & Elisha” by Raymond B. Dillard

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

In today’s church, the Old Testament is often overlooked. When attention is drawn to it, the focus tends to be on creation science, Proverbs for daily living, Psalms for devotional nourishment, and character studies for us to emulate. The Christian church largely focuses on the New Testament for its teaching and preaching. In a sense this is natural, because the New Testament is so definitive for church life. Yet the NT spends a lot of time focusing on the Old Testament, and the early church’s Bible was primarily the OT. In fact, the more one understands and appreciates the message of the Old Testament, the better he or she will be prepared to really be impacted by the teaching of the New Testament.

Thankfully, the last twenty or thirty years have seen a revival of interest in the Old Testament and the recovery of preaching it as a Christian testament. Moralistic surveys of the characters of the Old Testament might have some use, but they are being set aside today in favor of a biblical theological approach that sees a unity in the Bible as a whole. The narrative of Scripture is being seen again as thoroughly Christocentric, and countless believers are being revitalized in their faith through finding the glory of God in the Old Testament afresh.

A big factor in the renaissance of the study of the OT has been the impact of good Christian books. P & R Publishing has produced a series of helpful books on OT themes called The Gospel According to the Old Testament series. The first book in that series is Faith in the Face of Apostasy: The Gospel According to Elijah and Elisha by Raymond B. Dillard.

Dillard’s book and the series as a whole, parts ways from a simple anthropocentric approach to the OT. Such an approach centers on people and their needs, and looks to the OT for examples to follow, and life-lessons to learn. Dillard’s approach, in contrast, focuses on what we can learn about God from the story, remembering that all OT stories have the unique quality of being divine revelation. The “first question” in this approach, “will not be ‘What’s here for me?’ but rather ‘What do I learn about God from this passage?'” Once we learn “about what God is like” from the passage, we are then prepared to ask “How we should I respond to this God?” Dillard then goes a bit further. “For Christian readers of the Old Testament”, he says, “there is yet another step to take…. We need to ask, How can we see God in Christ reconciling the world to himself in the pages of the Hebrew Scriptures? That is, in addition to anthropocentric and theocentric ways of reading the Bible, there is also a Christocentric approach.” (pg. 124-125)

With these goals in mind, the book begins with a historical overview of the time period of Elisha and Elijah and the likely time when Kings was written (the Babylonian exile period). It is interesting to note that Elijah and Elisha are singled out and given almost 1/3 of the space of the entire book of 1-2 Kings. Dillard also traces how later Scripture uses the account of Elijah and Elisha, focusing particularly on the parallels Matthew draws between Elijah and John the Baptist, and Jesus and Elisha.

The book moves on to a treatment of all the texts in 1 and 2 Kings where Elijah and Elisha have an important role. Each chapter contains, two or three passages (quoted entirely) which are discussed individually followed by questions for further reflection. Having the Biblical text included allows for the book’s easy use as a devotional guide. The study questions make it handy for a small group study, and the material covered is simple and direct enough to allow for several uses. The themes developed and traced often throughout Scripture, make this an accessible theological resource, and the brief nature of the thoughts shared make it a perfect tool for pastors, who could easily prepare a longer sermon using the material Dillard offers as their starting point.

Dillard’s exegesis is sound and the application he draws is challenging, relevant and helpful. I particularly enjoyed how he brought to bear a detailed understanding of the historic worship of Baal (from the Ugaritic texts) and how this highlights many of the points made in the stories of Elijah and Elisha. From crossing the Jordan, to the chariot of fire, from the rain being stopped and with fire coming from heaven, all of this relates to the alleged domain and limits of the god Baal. Dillard also excels at translating the concerns of the agrarian age of Elijah and Elisha to our own contemporary problems. Along the way he also develops a thoroughly God-centered approach.

The anticipatory function of Elijah and Elisha (e.g., the confrontation with Baal on the spot of the future battle of Armageddon, the feeding of a hundred men from 20 loaves with food “left over”, and etc.) is highlighted well in this book, even as parallels with Christ are carefully and judiciously drawn. Sometimes more explicit NT connections are left for the discussion questions, and I credit the author with stopping short of stretching too far in finding types and analogies of NT truths in the stories. I was intrigued too by the fascinating parallels drawn between Elijah and Moses when they went to Mount Horeb, and the discussion of the redemptive role of miracles — restoring creation to how it was intended to be.

The stories of Elijah and Elisha are breathtaking, and life-giving in themselves. Just as Elisha’s bones brought a man to life, so too will this book bring life to your spiritual soul as you see those stories in a fresh and faith-filled way. The book may open your eyes to a Christian understanding of the Old Testament that you were unaware of. At the very least it will thrill you to the wonderful, covenant keeping God we serve, and His Son Jesus Christ. I highly recommend this book and others like it in The Gospel According to the Old Testament series.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Pick up a copy of this book at Westminster Bookstore, Amazon.com, or through P & R direct.

Galatians 6:16 and “The Israel of God”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 16 Comments

The phrase “the Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 has long been a matter of contention. Scholars and theologians, as well as pastors and church leaders have debated whether or not the Church should be included in Paul’s descriptor “the Israel of God”. Dispensationalists in particular are very concerned that we not include the Church as part of “the Israel of God”. Obviously the interpretation of this verse has theological implications.

What I find interesting is how much trouble has been spent on this verse to avoid the Church (believing Gentiles and Jews) being referred to by the precise term “Israel”. Why should that term be more important than the following terms which all clearly teach that the Church shares much continuity with Old Testament, believing Israel?

Gentile Christians (who, in part make up “the Church”) are called:

  • those who share “the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all”, and thus share in “the promise” (Rom. 4:16, with vs. 13)
  • Jews (Rom. 2:27-29, compare Rev. 2:9, 3:9)
  • “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:29)
  • children of “the Jerusalem above” who is “our mother” (Gal. 4:26)
  • “like Isaac”, they are “children of promise” (Gal. 4:28)
  • formerly, Gentile Christians were “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise” now they are “no longer strangers and aliens” but are “fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (Eph. 2:12,19)
  • “the real circumcision” (Phil. 3:3)
  • “the offspring of Abraham” for whom Christ died (Heb. 2:16)
  • recipients of the “new covenant” (Hebrews chapters 8 & 10, and 2 Cor. 3:6, compare Jer. 31:31-34)
  • “the twelve tribes in the Dispersion“, “elect exiles“, “sojourners and exiles” (James 1:1, 1 Pet. 1:1, 2:11)
  • “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession” (1 Pet. 2:9 compare Ex. 19:5-6)
  • formerly they were “not a people, but now” they “are God’s people“; formerly they “had not received mercy, but now” they “have received mercy” (1 Pet. 2:10 compare Hosea 1:6-10)
  • “a kingdom, priests to… God” (Rev. 1:6, compare 1 Pet. 2:9, Ex. 19:5-6)

This list doesn’t include the sacrifices Gentile Christians bring to God (Rom. 12:1-2, Heb. 12:15-16) nor the idea of the Church being a temple of God indwelt by the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 6:16, Eph. 2:20-22, 1 Pet. 2:4-5). Sure one or two of the terms in the list above might be open to dispute. But the cumulative result of all of the titles above seems to be undeniable — Gentile Christians share many titles and privileges with believing Israel of old.

Given this wider Scriptural context, should it be surprising that in Galatians, a book where Paul goes out of his way to affirm in no uncertain terms the equality all believers (Jew and Gentile) share in Christ, that he would call the Church, “the Israel of God”? Again consider Paul’s statements below:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. (3:28-29)

For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. (6:15)

Contextually in Galatians, Paul is arguing for the unity of believers in Christ, and the last part of chapter 6 is a summation of his argument. An unconditional blessing given to a Jewish “Israel of God” seems out of line with the rest of the book. Furthermore, “all who walk by this rule” (stated in vs. 15) seems to qualify the receivers of the “peace and mercy”.

I have read and reviewed O. Palmer Robertson’s book The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow and found his arguments concerning the verse quite compelling. Recently I came across 2 additional articles which deal well with this question.

G.K. Beale’s “Peace and Mercy Upon the Israel of God: The Old Testament Background of Galatians 6:16b” (Biblica 80, [1999], pg. 204-223) is fantastic. He shows that Isaiah 54:10 is most likely alluded to in Paul’s very unusual linking of the terms peace and mercy. He demonstrates that the terms are not commonly found together and demonstrates convincingly that the “new creation” motif of Isaiah 54 is likely in Paul’s mind when he penned Galatians 6:16. His analysis sides with the view that “the Israel of God” refers to all believing Jews and Gentiles together (i.e., the Church).

Andreas Köstenberger around the same time as Beale, independently worked on an article entitled: “The Identity of ‘Ισραηλ  Ï„ου Θεου (Israel of God) in Galatians 6:16″ (Faith & Mission 19/1 [2001], pg. 3-24). His article approaches the issue from a wider angle analyzing the passage syntactically and theologically. He concludes that the term refers to all the believing Church, whereas the “them” earlier in the verse is more specifically focused on believers at Galatia. He also shows how this verse harmonizes with Rom. 9-11 and Paul’s emphasis there.

The articles above (as well as the book mentioned previously) would be a good read for this topic. Michael Marlowe also includes some historic quotations from earlier commentators on this particular question, at bible-researcher.com.

I don’t think that the term “Israel of God” by itself settles the dispensationalist/covenant theology debate. But I would have to think some nuancing is required for strict dispensationalists. For more on the dispensational / covenant debate, I would also point you to my series “Understanding the Land Promise“.

Albertus Pieters, C.I. Scofield and “Homiletical Certainty”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 10 Comments

Recently, I read a fascinating review of the 1917 Scofield Reference Bible by Albertus Pieters, written in 1938. The book is small, since it was actually a lecture delivered to the Ministerial Association of the Christian Reformed Church at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, MI.

One of the points which most struck me, was Pieters’ objection to “the oracular and authoritative tone employed throughout” Scofield’s work. I see the same tendency among conservative pastors and teachers. I call the problem “homiletical certainty”.

In matters where a variance of opinion exists among Bible-believing evangelical Christians, I think pastors ought to be somewhat tentative in affirming their own position. Instead, the mere existence of differing interpretations is rarely even acknowledged, let alone mentioned. There is a sense that ministers have a duty to be dogmatic on every point they address behind the pulpit. I’m not so sure that this dogmatism really serves the church in the end.

I am not postmodern or emergent by any stretch, mind you. But a certain amount of theological and homiletical uncertainty is healthy. What is wrong with saying, “this is my opinion for these reasons, but other good Christians disagree”? In fact, finding out why others think the way they do, helps us to truly understand the opposing view. And even when we disagree, we can appreciate differing perspectives. We shouldn’t fear the truth, and if our position really is true, it will withstand any test.

So with this in mind, let me provide some excerpts from Albertus Pieters’ speech about the Scofield Bible. This isn’t so much a rant on Scofield as it is a corrective for the homiletical practices of many preachers today.

Another thing that goes far to explain the widespread use and great influence of this work, is the oracular and authoritative tone employed throughout. Here we come to something we can not praise, although we admit its effectiveness with superficial Bible students — as most people are. Dr. Scofield never by any chance intimates that he may be mistaken, or that any other view is possible but the one he lays down. In one place I did find him presenting three possible alternative explanations, without deciding which was right, but this is a rare exception. For the most part, no infallible Pope could speak with greater certainty and authority than he; and this is true no matter what the subject under discussion. Whether dealing with the great doctrines which are the common confession of all Christendom, or with obscure and doubtful points of eschatology, where the most learned and competent expositors confess themselves at a loss, everywhere it is the same “ipse dixit” style….

In line with this authoritative attitude, and necessitated by it, is the fact that Dr. Scofield never argues, never explains, never apologizes, and never assigns any reasons for asserting that this or that is true…. Had he given his reasons, the intelligent reader would have begun to judge whether these reasons were convincing: by withholding all reasons he gives the impression that, if he did give them, they would be found satisfactory….

Now there are certainly times, places, and circumstances where this is the correct procedure. In teaching small children one can speak thus. The man who proclaims the great Christian doctrines is entitled to speak positively and with authority. He has the Holy Scriptures and the consensus of the Christian church from the beginning with him and behind him as he preaches these truths…. Besides this, any one called to the office of a Christian pastor in a given denomination has both the right and the duty to affirm, in his own pulpit, the distinctive doctrines of his own denomination, without qualification or apology. That is what he is there for; what he has been called to do; what his people want him to do, and understand that he is doing. He speaks not as an individual, but as an official teacher, the mouth-piece of his denomination….

In the case of the Scofield Bible, however, these considerations do not apply. He is not dealing with children, nor is he speaking in any sense in an official and representative capacity. In his presentation of the great central doctrines, he has the whole church behind him, but in a large part of his teachings he represents a minority of a minority, teaching a millennialism which no Christian church has ever admitted to its creed, and of that millennialism a special form which many of the wisest millenarians repudiate. Yet in all of this, as also in his remarks on chronology, and general Bible knowledge, he maintains the same oracular “I know it all” attitude. As a method of inspiring confidence among ignorant people, the method has merits, its effectiveness can not be denied; but from a moral standpoint it deserves severe condemnation. Dr. Scofield had no right thus to assume superiority over his brethren, to whom the Holy Spirit was given as well as to him, and many of whom had qualifications of scholarship far beyond anything he could claim.

In the field of Systematic Theology he is good, for there he utilizes the fruits of the standard Protestant and Calvinistic thinking; but in general Bible knowledge he makes many mistakes, and in his eschatology he goes far astray from anything the church has ever believed. Undoubtedly this oracular and authoritative manner has been effective, but it is not to be excused for that reason. It seems like a harsh judgement, but in the interests of truth it must be uttered: Dr. Scofield in this was acting the part of an intellectual charlatan, a fraud who pretends to knowledge which he does not possess; like a quack doctor, who is ready with a confident diagnosis in many cases where a competent physician is unable to decide. (pg. 7-11)

Read Pieter’s lecture online, and you can reference the 1909 Scofield Reference Bible online too, via Google Books.