Unsettled Christianity

One blog to rule them all, One blog to find them, One blog to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
December 25th, 2012

John Chrysostom’s Christmas Homily

Mosaic in the northern tympanon depicting Sain...
Image via Wikipedia

I have come to admire the Golden Mouth, John Chrysostom, from a homiletic standpoint as well as an interpretative standpoint. He is sound in many of this thoughts, and although we may arrive at a different view of the Godhead, it would be difficult at best to find that difference in this homily.

BEHOLD a new and wondrous mystery. My ears resound to the Shepherd’s song, piping no soft melody, but chanting full forth a heavenly hymn. The Angels sing. The Archangels blend their voice in harmony. The Cherubim hymn their joyful praise. The Seraphim exalt His glory. All join to praise this holy feast, beholding the Godhead here on earth, and man in heaven. He Who is above, now for our redemption dwells here below; and he that was lowly is by divine mercy raised.

Bethlehem this day resembles heaven; hearing from the stars the singing of angelic voices; and in place of the sun, enfolds within itself on every side, the Sun of justice. And ask not how: for where God wills, the order of nature yields. For He willed; He had the power; He descended; He redeemed; all things yielded in obedience to God. This day He Who is, is Born; and He Who is, becomes what He was not. For when He was God, He became man; yet not departing from the Godhead that is His. Nor yet by any loss of divinity became He man, nor through increase became He God from man; but being the Word He became flesh, His nature, because of impassability, remaining unchanged.

And so the kings have come, and they have seen the heavenly King that has come upon the earth, not bringing with Him Angels, nor Archangels, nor Thrones, nor Dominations, nor Powers, nor Principalities, but, treading a new and solitary path, He has come forth from a spotless womb.

Since this heavenly birth cannot be described, neither does His coming amongst us in these days permit of too curious scrutiny. Though I know that a Virgin this day gave birth, and I believe that God was begotten before all time, yet the manner of this generation I have learned to venerate in silence and I accept that this is not to be probed too curiously with wordy speech.

For with God we look not for the order of nature, but rest our faith in the power of Him who works.

What shall I say to you; what shall I tell you? I behold a Mother who has brought forth; I see a Child come to this light by birth. The manner of His conception I cannot comprehend.

Nature here rested, while the Will of God labored. O ineffable grace! The Only Begotten, Who is before all ages, Who cannot be touched or be perceived, Who is simple, without body, has now put on my body, that is visible and liable to corruption. For what reason? That coming amongst us he may teach us, and teaching, lead us by the hand to the things that men cannot see. For since men believe that the eyes are more trustworthy than the ears, they doubt of that which they do not see, and so He has deigned to show Himself in bodily presence, that He may remove all doubt.

Christ, finding the holy body and soul of the Virgin, builds for Himself a living temple, and as He had willed, formed there a man from the Virgin; and, putting Him on, this day came forth; unashamed of the lowliness of our nature.

For it was to Him no lowering to put on what He Himself had made. Let that handiwork be forever glorified, which became the cloak of its own Creator. For as in the first creation of flesh, man could not be made before the clay had come into His hand, so neither could this corruptible body be glorified, until it had first become the garment of its Maker.

What shall I say! And how shall I describe this Birth to you? For this wonder fills me with astonishment. The Ancient of Days has become an infant. He Who sits upon the sublime and heavenly Throne, now lies in a manger. And He Who cannot be touched, Who is simple, without complexity, and incorporeal, now lies subject to the hands of men. He Who has broken the bonds of sinners, is now bound by an infants bands. But He has decreed that ignominy shall become honor, infamy be clothed with glory, and total humiliation the measure of His Goodness.

For this He assumed my body, that I may become capable of His Word; taking my flesh, He gives me His spirit; and so He bestowing and I receiving, He prepares for me the treasure of Life. He takes my flesh, to sanctify me; He gives me His Spirit, that He may save me.

Come, then, let us observe the Feast. Truly wondrous is the whole chronicle of the Nativity. For this day the ancient slavery is ended, the devil confounded, the demons take to flight, the power of death is broken, paradise is unlocked, the curse is taken away, sin is removed from us, error driven out, truth has been brought back, the speech of kindliness diffused, and spreads on every side, a heavenly way of life has been ¡in planted on the earth, angels communicate with men without fear, and men now hold speech with angels.

Why is this? Because God is now on earth, and man in heaven; on every side all things commingle. He became Flesh. He did not become God. He was God. Wherefore He became flesh, so that He Whom heaven did not contain, a manger would this day receive. He was placed in a manger, so that He, by whom all things arc nourished, may receive an infant’s food from His Virgin Mother. So, the Father of all ages, as an infant at the breast, nestles in the virginal arms, that the Magi may more easily see Him. Since this day the Magi too have come, and made a beginning of withstanding tyranny; and the heavens give glory, as the Lord is revealed by a star.

To Him, then, Who out of confusion has wrought a clear path, to Christ, to the Father, and to the Holy Ghost, we offer all praise, now and for ever. Amen.

St. John Chrysostom, “Homily on Christmas Morning”

HT.

Enhanced by Zemanta
December 25th, 2012

Christmas with Augustine

Brooklyn Museum - The Birth of Our Lord Jesus ...
Image via Wikipedia

This is and excerpt from a sermon by St. Augustine (Sermo 185: PL 38, 997-999) on the mystery of the incarnation which is used by some on Christmas:

Awake, mankind! For your sake God has become man. Awake, you who sleep, rise up from the dead, and Christ will enlighten you. I tell you again: for your sake, God became man.

You would have suffered eternal death, had he not been born in time. Never would you have been freed from sinful flesh, had he not taken on himself the likeness of sinful flesh. You would have suffered everlasting unhappiness, had it not been for this mercy. You would never have returned to life, had he not shared your death. You would have been lost if he had not hastened ‘to your aid. You would have perished, had he not come.

Let us then joyfully celebrate the coming of our salvation and redemption. Let us celebrate the festive day on which he who is the great and eternal day came from the great and endless day of eternity into our own short day of time.

He has become our justice, our sanctification, our redemption, so that, as it is written: Let him who glories glory in the Lord.

Truth, then, has arisen from the earth: Christ who said, I am the Truth, was born of the Virgin. And justice looked down from heaven: because believing in this new-born child, man is justified not by himself but by God.

Truth has arisen from the earth: because the Word was made flesh. And justice looked down from heaven: because every good gift and every perfect gift is from above.

Truth has arisen from the earth: flesh from Mary. And justice looked down from heaven: for man can receive nothing unless it has been given him from heaven.

Justified by faith, let us be at peace with God: for justice and peace have embraced one another. Through our Lord Jesus Christ: for Truth has arisen from the earth. Through whom we have access to that grace in which we stand, and our boast is in our hope of God’s glory. He does not say: “of our glory”, but of God’s glory: for justice has not come out of us but has looked down from heaven. Therefore he who glories, let him glory, not in himself, but in the Lord.

For this reason, when our Lord was born of the Virgin, the message of the angelic voices was: Glory to God in the highest, and peace to men of good will.

For how could there be peace on earth unless Truth has arisen from the earth, that is, unless Christ were born of our flesh? And he is our peace who made the two into one: that we might be men of good will, sweetly linked by the bond of unity.

Let us then rejoice in this grace, so that our glorying may bear witness to our good conscience by which we glory, not in ourselves, but in the Lord. That is why Scripture says: He is my glory, the one who lifts up my head. For what greater grace could God have made to dawn on us than to make his only Son become the son of man, so that a son of man might in his turn become son of God?

Ask if this were merited; ask for its reason, for its justification, and see whether you will find any other answer but sheer grace.

Enhanced by Zemanta
December 8th, 2010

D.M. Baillie – The Need to Study the Historical Jesus

Click to Order

Recently, I found Baillie’s monumental book on Christology and while flipping through it, I’ve found several interesting quotes that I thought I would share.

With all its emphasis on the incursion of the Divine into human life once for all in Jesus Christ, [neo-confessionalist theology] has no interest in studying the resultant life as an historical phenomenon; and this is not because it would put back the hands of the clock by rejecting modern historical criticism (far from it!) but because ‘the Jesus of history is not the same as the Christ of faith’ (Brunner). I do not believe that this can be a stable position for theology. It would ultimately stultify the whole doctrine of the Incarnation. ‘If righteousness is by the Law,’ said St. Paul to the first Christian generation, ‘then Christ died for nothing’; and we might now say, in this twentieth century: If revelation is by the Word alone, then Christ lived for nothing, and the Word was made flesh in vain. That is the ultimate answer to our question as to whether we can dispense with the Jesus of history. (pp. 53-4)

Thus, the reason for the study of the historical Jesus is equally important to Christology as the study of theology.

One of the disagreeable points that I have with Dr. McGrath’s book, The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context, is his inclusion and allowance of development of doctrinal thought which may or may not be contrary to the study and realization of the Historical Jesus. (I guess you’ll have to read his book to find out what I mean). But if Baillie is correct that all Christology/Theology must begin with the Historical Jesus an indispensable part, what then if we find out that our doctrine is either too simplistic, and thus lacking, or too complicated, and thus over-developed? What if studies such as those done by McGrath, Dunn, Hurtado and the like which begin with the historical Jesus serves as call for us back to a better theology? Baillie, in this book published in 1948, was a contemporary of Barth, Brunner, and Bultmann, and thus theological-scholasticism, or the such. I try to keep that in mind as I read Baillie’s theological legacy.

I waiver on the study of the Historical Jesus myself. Timothy Luke Johnson wishes us to dispense with it, but the E.P. Sanders and his ilk demand that we pay attention to the Palestinian Jew 2000 years removed from us. Only those with an agenda either way (i.e., the Creationists, er Mythicists, and the Creationists, er, ‘Fundamentalists who believe that History and Current Thought must not be questioned because thus it is now and thus it has always been’) generally seek to do away with the Historical reality of Jesus Christ.

Enhanced by Zemanta
December 7th, 2010

D.M. Baillie – Theology of Christology

Click to Order

Last night at our congregation’s charge conference (i.e., business meeting), I discovered a book on one of the lamp stands between the sofas. Originally published in 1948, it is tackles many of the relevant issues we are facing today. D.M. Baillie’s essay on incarnation on atonement immediately grasped me, and as I flipped through the pages, several statements caught my eyes…

If Jesus was right in what He reported, if God is really such as Jesus said, then we are involved in saying something more about Jesus Himself and His relation to God, and we must pass beyond words like ‘discovery’ and even ‘revelation’ to words like ‘incarnation.’ ‘In order to give us authentic tidings of the character of God’, I quoted from a philosopher, ‘Jesus did not require actually to be God.’ Is that, then, all that Jesus did–to bring us authentic tidings, as from a distant realm, of a God who takes no initiative Himself to seek us out? If God is like that, then Jesus was wrong about Him, the tidings He brought were not authentic, and He was not even a true discoverer. But if He was right, then there is something more to be said, something Christological; and if we leave it out, we are leaving out not only something vital about Jesus, but something vital about God. That is to say, if we have not a sound Christology, we cannot have a sound theology either. (pp. 64-5)

Further, he writes,

That is the perennial task of theology: to think out the meaning of the Christian conviction that God was incarnate in Jesus, that is Jesus God and Man. (p83)

Like all good theologians, Baillie was Scottish, and like all good scholars, taught at St. Mary’s, University of St. Andrews. (ahhh… if only….)

I suspect that I’ll post more on this book for a while. (in the mean time… here)

Enhanced by Zemanta
May 28th, 2010

Incarnational Fulfillment of the Prophets – A Conversation (Repost)

Rob Reid and Paula Fether have burst unto the scene, or seen?, with a conversation concerning prophecies. He would:

“like to engage in a scholarly dialogue about whether in fact there are hundreds or any direct messianic prophecies in the “Old Testament” (ironically, such a term is pejorative on its face!). Thus, I would like anyone who holds similar beliefs to articulate exactly what was predicted and where in the Hebrew Bible and then argue for how exactly “hundreds” of these were fulfilled. I am eliciting a hermeneutical query. I have no intention on entertaining whether or not Jesus was/is the Messiah. I personally believe he was. However, that is not to say that he is found under every nook and cranny of Hebrew Bible texts.”

Paula self-identifies as one who believes that:

“Jesus is the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament, as proven by hundreds of fulfilled prophecies, his miracles, and his bodily resurrection from the dead.”

I cannot stay away from a good conversation – so I want to input a tiny part of the dialogue. I agree with the statement that Christ is the Messiah expected through the Hebrew Scriptures.

Usually, we think of prophecies as something which is foretold, something hidden in mystery, and shroud in secrecy; however, not once in the Gospel do we find the word προφητεία (prophecy) applied to the signs pointing to Christ as foretold by the Hebrew Prophets. This is our definition of them, and indeed, several times, such as the apocalyptic passages in the Hebrew Bible and the book of Revelation, words fall into our neat category; however, I believe that the early followers of Christ understood the overall sayings of the Prophets in a much different way. Further, if foretelling was acknowledged, it was generally in accordance with the people (apostate Israel) who challenged Christ (cf. Matthew 15.7). Additionally, Christ was encouraged from time to time to prophesy, therefore it is safe to say that the writers of the Gospels knew the word as they employed it in our sense. For them, it was not about foretelling, but retelling.

The Virgin Birth is a historical and vital sign that Christ is the Messiah promised by God. Indeed, it is the first sign mentioned in Matthew:

Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet:

“BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.” (Mat 1:22-23 NASB)

While the word ‘prophesy’ was in use, this was never the phrase used to signal a completion of the words of the Prophets. The phrase which I wish to briefly examine is, ‘γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθη (took place to fulfill).’ It signals the reader to a passage from the prophets which is about to be completed. Just as Herod did, they began to look for different connections between the here and now to the words of the prophets. This is different from a prophecy about what will happen. Literally, we could translate the phrase as ‘in order to complete.’ The event in the past serves not as a direct foretelling of the thing(s) to come, but as something more like a measuring tool. Isaiah was not prophesying about the Messiah, but his words found completion in the Messiah. It might be better said that events, instead of actual words, were the center of Messianic signatures.

Before we move further, we should note that the office of a Prophet was rarely used to tell the far distant future. Instead, the person acted as a messenger of God for that moment.

Then Amos replied to Amaziah, “I am not a prophet, nor am I the son of a prophet; for I am a herdsman and a grower of sycamore figs. (Amos 7:14)

In Hebrew, the word prophet is ‘נָבִיא’. If we remove the theological language, it would simply be spokesperson, not a fore-teller of things to come. Rarely in what is commonly identified as prophecies do we see an instance of something on the horizon. (Note, 1st Samuel 9.9 indicates an ancient shift between the role of seer and that of the office of prophet.) If you read the Twelve Prophets, they deal primarily with the abuses of Israel and Judah to the covenant, calling for justice for this group or that group, while attempting to at once turn away the wrath of God and warn of the wrath of God. Essentially, they – both men and women – brought a current message.

Let us examine another passage, this time with minimal influence of the Divine (By that, I mean the lack of miracles). In the second chapter of Matthew, we find two markers of the Messianic, both including dreams. First, the Magi and Herod, with a dream from God not to return. Second, we find a dream given to Joseph which drove him to Egypt:

Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the Child to destroy Him.” So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt. He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON.” (Mat 2:13-15 NASB)

While the matter may be semantics to some, I must force the difference. First, a prophecy, as used in apocalyptic writings is a foretelling wrapped in language meant to be hidden. We find here Messianic signs which are going to be used to judge the Messiah – yet, rarely if ever applied to Messianic Expectation writings.

The above marker comes from Hosea:

When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son. (Hosea 11:1 NASB)

This is a passage written to rest squarely on Israel as a whole, much like the Servant’s Song found in Isaiah 53. It does not stand out as a prophecy or a cue to something hidden within the meaning, yet, Matthew felt compelled that indeed, this was a sure sign that this Jesus was the Messiah because of His family’s departure from Egypt. This refers to no one but Israel as the Son of God – and would not, unless relayed by Matthew, stand as anything remotely related to the coming Messiah.

It can be reasonably said that Israel did not always expect a Messiah. Further, we can see a progression through the prophets of the understanding of God’s justice, revealed by the prophets, and then the need of a Messianic figure to liberate Israel – not of spiritual bondage, but of physical bondage, and began to be fully recognized in the ‘inter-testamental’ period. Second, the Messianic figure would be one to establish God’s kingdom on earth, with Israel as the center. But again, this was not really seen in the Hebrew Prophets – until the coming of Christ.

Returning to the idea that statements about a personified Israel can be placed on Christ, we find the Servant’s Song in Isaiah 52:13-53:12 in which we read of the punishment for sins as a near destruction to the body of the Servant.

Throughout Isaiah we find the phrase עֶ֫בֶד (my servant) used in relation to historical figures, such as David, or even the prophet himself.

“But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, Descendant of Abraham My friend, You whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, And called from its remotest parts And said to you, ‘You are My servant, I have chosen you and not rejected you. (Isa 41:8-9 NASB)

The phrase – unless referring to the examples above – refers to the Israel of Isaiah’s time. Yet, we know that it was transferred to the body of the New Testament Jesus.

As a final example we read the mother’s appeal in Matthew 20.20-23:

Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus with her sons, bowing down and making a request of Him. And He said to her, “What do you wish?” She said to Him, “Command that in Your kingdom these two sons of mine may sit one on Your right and one on Your left.” But Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” They said to Him, “We are able.” He said to them, “My cup you shall drink; but to sit on My right and on My left, this is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by My Father.” (Mat 20:20-23 NAU)

Arguably, the question of canon faced not only the Church, at a later date, but the Jews as well. One of the discarded books by the Jews, and held in reservation by the early Church was the book of Great Wisdom (of Solomon). In it, we find a hint at the Messianic anticipation of the mother:

For though in the sight of men they were punished, their hope is full of immortality. Having been disciplined a little, they will receive great good, because God tested them and found them worthy of himself; like gold in the furnace he tried them, and like a sacrificial burnt offering he accepted them. In the time of their visitation they will shine forth, and will run like sparks through the stubble. They will govern nations and rule over peoples, and the Lord will reign over them for ever. Those who trust in him will understand truth, and the faithful will abide with him in love, because grace and mercy are upon his elect, and he watches over his holy ones. (Wis 3:4-9 RSV)

The reason I use this is to set the example – Messianic Expectation included not the idea that the Hebrew prophets foretold Christ in an apocalyptic manner with prophetic language, but that communities expected the Messianic figure to exemplify, to personify, the words of the Hebrew Prophets found in various writings considered sacred by the sects. In other words, the record of sacred writings was the mirror of the Messiah. If the Messiah could not be said to be the personification of rare and obscure passages of the prophets, then the person was a fraud.

Only later did certain segments become more prophetic in understanding, such as the Balaam’s star (Numbers 24.17-19) and Bar Kochba. It is worth mentioning that with the mention of the star in the East in Matthew, this was not connected to Balaam’s star. We know that apocalyptic communities later focused on the star in Numbers and connected to the Messiah – yet, we do not find this connection in the Gospels; however, do find it in pseudepigraphical writings of the period, including the Testament of the Patriarchs, which came to the final conclusion in the 2nd century after Christ.

And after this there shall arise for you a star from Jacob in peace. And a man shall arise from my posterity like the sun of righteousness, walking with the sons of men in gentleness and righteousness, and in him will be found no sin. And the heavens will be opened upon him to pour out the spirit as a blessing of the holy Father. And he will pour out the spirit of grace on you. This is the shoot of God most high; this is the fountain of life of all humanity. Then he will illumine the scepter of my kingdom, and from your root will arise the shoot, and through it will arise the rod of righteousness for the nations, to judge and to save all that call on the Lord. (Testament of Judah 24.1-6)

Further, we see it earlier in the Qumran Community,

And the star is the seeker of the Law who came to Damascus, because it was written A star has came forth out of Jacob and a scepter has risen out of Israel. The scepter stands for the prince of the congregation. At his coming he shall break down all the sons of Sheth. (Damascus Document 7.18-21)

A meditating time frame, we find the Targum Onkelos (c.110), which does connect Balaam’s Star to the Messiah,

I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not nigh. When a king shall arise out of Jakob, And the Meshiha be anointed from Israel, He will slay the princes of Moab, and reign over all the children of men; (Num 24:17)

I note that by it was during the period which saw the development of the Testament of Judah was finalized and the writing of the Targum Onkelos, Simon Bar Kochba (c132) was declared Messiah, nicknamed ‘son of the Star’ and led the Jewish people into final defeat against the Romans. For many of the later commentators, the star in Numbers is a key sign to Christ – yet, nothing of it is found in the Gospels.

The Gospel writers and the early apostolic communities in the Jesus Way began to see the entire corpus of sacred writings as pointing to Christ – not just segments of obscure language, and not in a foretelling sense, but all of the writings, especially of the prophets. For them, everything the prophets said could be said to be incarnated into the person of Christ. This is highlighted in the words of Christ,

“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; (John 5:39 NASB)

Christ was not merely speaking of certain prophecies, but of the proto-canon – it all testified of Him. Further, we see from different authors ques connecting the life of Christ to the story of Israel – not the blatant ones, but ones such as

who, appearing in glory, were speaking of His departure (ἔξοδον exodus) which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. (Luke 9.:31 NASB)

οἳ ὀφθέντες ἐν δόξῃ ἔλεγον τὴν ἔξοδον αὐτοῦ, ἣν ἤμελλεν πληροῦν ἐν Ἰερουσαλήμ. (NA-27)

Here, we find Luke sees the soon death/departure as a sign of the Exodus – which should have brought to the mind of his readers the release from slavery after the Passover. (Also see the use of  ‘ἐδόξαζον τὸν θεὸν’ as a queue by Luke to the Hebrew Scriptures.) For the primitive followers of the Messiah, they were not so concerned with ‘prophecies’ such as those of His returning (which are true prophecies) but of connecting His life and work to the collected writings of the prophets. They didn’t look for foretellings, but retellings. Comparing Him to Moses, Solomon, Jonah, and David was not unheard of in the Gospel. While they were the shadow of things to come, He was the archetype.

Finally, we take as evidence of this case, Jonah.

But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Mat 12:39-40 NASB)

This is not a prophesy of the Messiah, and in no way was thought to point to the coming Messianic figure; however, Christ took history from the sacred writings, and applied it to Himself. No one can easily say that Jonah prophesied about Christ, yet his sign was completed, incarnated, in Christ. It is not that the Gospel writers and the primitive communities of believers backwards wrote the Messiah, but it was only through history that Christ was identified as the Messiah. As Luke recounts,

Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. (Luk 24:45-47 NASB)

Written where? In one specific passage? Not hardly, but written in the entire corpus of Scripture. It was not minute passages of prophetic material which pointed to Christ, but the entire recognized work. He did not fulfill prophecy, but completed the Hebrew Prophets.

I am sure I have left out a key to the argument somewhere, or perhaps made no argument at all, so feel free to bruise and crush me as you see fit. For those who would desire to see me torn apart and laid upon the altar of pseudo-academia, please remember I bruise easily and I’ve been known to cry if my feelings are hurt.

November 2nd, 2009

Historical Critical Interpretation Reveals Christian Distortion of the Old Testament?

Oh, this is just too rich -

Gerd Lüdemann has an op-ed at The Bible and Interpretation website pointing out one of the obvious benefits of the historical critical method. That is, the historical critical method exposed a quite prevalent claim of New Testament and other early Christian writers – that the Old Testament predicted or prophesied or otherwise pointed to Jesus of Nazareth – to be a false claim.

via Historical Critical Interpretation Reveals Christian Distortion of the Old Testament « The Dunedin School.

Have you ever seen such offal? Whew…good thing we have this historical critical method to tell us that everyone for 2000 years got it wrong when they viewed Christ as the Incarnation of many of the ‘prophecies‘ of the Old Testament. Frankly, Gerd might need to do a bit more studying in the ‘mad house’ before he attempts anything else.

September 22nd, 2009

Defending the Deity of Christ with the New Living Translation (NLT)

This week, we are examining key Christian doctrines with the New Living Translation. The most important doctrine of all is the doctrine of the deity of Christ. This doctrine separates and divides, and most be guarded as the paramount doctrine of the Church. Before we talk about the various understandings of the Godhead, we must first agree that Christ is God, not merely a high angel, or a god among gods, but God.

One of my favorite passages in the New Testament is the Christ hymn found in Philippians 2.5-8, in which Paul is writing about humility, compassion and love, but in doing so, he speaks volumes of theology as well.

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (Philippians 2:5-8 KJV)

Read the rest of this entry »

September 21st, 2009

Review: Incarnation, The Person and Life of Christ

Click to Order

Click to Order

I would like to thank IVP-Academic for this review copy of Thomas F. Torrance’s work on the Incarnation, which is comprised primarily of lectures given over the course of his tenure, as compiled and edited by Robert T. Walker (who is in a rare position as an editor, he is also Torrance’s nephew).

  • Hardcover: 371 pages
  • Publisher: IVP Academic (November 30, 2008)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0830828915
  • ISBN-13: 978-0830828913
  • Product Dimensions: 9 x 6.2 x 1.6 inches

The book was completed posthumously by the author’s nephew, but includes an Author’s Introduction, perhaps Torrance’s last written word to the world. In it, he describes in humble language his resume, but it is noticeable, however, his closeness to his mentor, Karl Barth.

The editor gives a forward, an outline of the book, and an introduction in which he gives you general topics, focusing on Torrance’s theology and methods. In describing Torrance’s view of the importance of the deity of Christ, Walker writes,

Read the rest of this entry »

September 21st, 2009

Torrance on the Existence of Christ

Click to Order

Click to Order

I am currently reading through Thomas F. Torrance’s work on the Incarnation, which is comprised primarily of lectures given over the course of his tenure, as compiled and edited by Robert T. Walker (who is in a rare position as an editor, he is also Torrance’s nephew). It is published by IVP-Academic. In these quotes, Torrance, expresses my doctrine of the Godhead and my search of the Patristic authors mixed with my tepid search of the Reformers.

But here, in the Word become flesh in the unity of God and man in Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ is God. Jesus Christ has no existence apart from or different from or parallel to God’s existence. He has his existence only in the divine acts of condescension in which God gathers man into coexistence with himself. That means that here in the Word made flesh God and man are so related in Jesus Christ, so that Jesus exists as man only so far as he exists as God, and yet as God he also has existence as flesh… (pg67) There needs to be a reconstruction of the whole classical doctrine of Christ in such a way as to bring together the Patristic emphasis on the being-of-God-in-his-acts and the Reformation emphasis on the acts-of-God-in-his-being. (pg85)

I am still amazed that Torrance’s work did not make the rounds of the blogosphere, especially those of the Reformed doctrine. I hope that you will be encouraged to pick up this work yourself, Reformed or not.

September 16th, 2009

Quote on Karl Rahner on the Incarnation

“What does it mean that the Word of God became human? Isn’t God unchanging? What we have to say is that God, who is unchangeable in Godself, can become changeable in something else. The divine freedom means that God can become not-God, finite, Other-than-God. In emptying Godself and giving Godself away, God can make the other his own reality. Everything that God makes has, as a result of God’s self-giving love, the potential to become an expression of God and God’s love. All theology, says Rahner, is therefore anthropology, and all anthropology is Christology. To know what it is to be human is to know Christ, and to know Christ is to know God.” (From  Marika, the host of Theologies blog. In attempting to explain Rahner)

HT.

September 15th, 2009

Torrance on the Historical Jesus

Click to Order

Click to Order

I am currently reading through Thomas F. Torrance’s work on the Incarnation, which is comprised primarily of lectures given over the course of his tenure, as compiled and edited by Robert T. Walker (who is in a rare position as an editor, he is also Torrance’s nephew). It is published by IVP-Academic.

Overall, and I am barely scratching the service of the book, Torrance is deeply respectful of the subject, speaking not just to students of the ministry, but to the lay person who has a rich love of the doctrine of the Incarnation – of course, if you do not already have the love of the Incarnation, it is quite possible that you will after reading this book.) It is lectures, as I mentioned, and hand outs given to students – sometime long before I was born.

I want to share with you a quote which struck me -

Read the rest of this entry »