Total Depravity Verse List by Travis Carden

"The doctrine of total depravity (or total inability) says that all men, as a consequence of the Fall, are born morally corrupt, enslaved to sin, at enmity with God, and unable to please Him or even of themselves to turn to Christ for salvation. (Thus the necessity of a gracious, unconditional election.) Here is a sweeping survey of the biblical support for the doctrine."  See Travis' site for a generous list of passages that forcefully teach this crucial doctrine. 

O Fools, and Slow of Heart to Believe All that the Prophets have Spoken

Yesterday, Justin Taylor posted two bits from recent antiquity on seeing Jesus in all of the Scripture on his GC blog, showing that it is not a Johnny-come-lately fad.  The first was from the 1878 Niagara Creed and the second was from Calvin.  Oddly, last night, as I was reading Ryle’s Knots Untied on the Kindle, I found the same beautiful expression of Christ as the hermeneutical key to all of Scripture.  Ryle put it like this.

But one golden chain runs through the whole volume (of the Canon): no salvation excepting by Jesus Christ.  The bruising of the serpent’s head foretold in the day of the fall; the clothing of our first parents with skins; the sacrifices of Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the Passover, and all the particulars of the Jewish law—the high priests, the alter, the daily offering of the lamb, the holy of holies entered only by blood, the scape-goat, the cities of refuge—all are so many witnesses to the truth set forth in the text (of Acts 4:12).  All preach with one voice, salvation only by Christ. 

In fact, this truth appears to be the grand object of the Bible, and all the different parts and portions of the book are meant to pour light upon it.  I can gather from it no ideas of pardon and peace with God excepting in connection with this truth (loc. 621—630). 

In the section wherein this portion is found, Ryle has been arguing for the exclusivity of Christ as the only means of salvation; this quote is part of his third premise.  No compromising position is safe in his survey, as everything from Romanism to less-than-pure Protestantism comes into his crosshairs.  Ryle’s thesis is as simple as it is pure truth.  In his opening, he says he could cut short this section with one simple argument: Only in Christ is there salvation, because “God says so!” (loc. 563).  However, in concession to the critical reader, Ryle premises his argument on three supporting points (which is simply another way of saying, "God says so!" which I love!).

The doctrine of exclusivity, as declared by St. Peter in Acts 4:12, must be true, because...

            1. Man is what man is (i.e., from total depravity)

            2. God is what God is (i.e., from God’s omnipotence, holiness, and justice)

3. The Bible is what the Bible is (e.g., if we take not this text’s truth, the Bible must be disregarded altogether, as it points decisively to the truth of this doctrine from cover to cover, as the quotation above argues)

Why I Like the KJV

After having spent the first few years following my conversion in the NIV, and several subsequent years in the NKJV, I have come to settle on three primary translations for both devotion and study. However, I try to keep several of the important versions at my fingertips. 

My primary versions are the KJV and the ESV, however, I find the NRSV a pleasure when reading large chunks of sweeping narrative and the Psalms. I always tell people that I am far from a KJVOnlyist (far from it; I have about 80 different Bibles in about every translation).  Nevertheless, if I were stranded on a deserted island, was commissioned to write a commentary there, and could have only one Bible, I would choose the KJV. 

I say this for both the English of the receptor language and the textual basis. The ancient Hebrew frame of reference was a thought world of concrete realism; the modern world is full of abstractions. That is to say, the biblical authors used real-life, phenomenological categories and metaphors in their thinking, speaking, and not least, their literature. We, however, are accustom to using abstract concepts to communicate. The point with this observation is to suggest that the KJV like no other translation allows those concrete Hebraism to carry over into the receptor language. Let me illustrate this.

Consider John 1:18, where the KJV has the revelatory Word “in the bosom of the Father,” whereas modern translations have him “at the Father’s side” (see, e.g., ESV, NIV, etc.). Do both of these renderings basically mean the same thing? Sure. However, I may be “at the…side” of many people or inanimate objects with no real relation to the things except a spatial one. However, the “bosom” refers to a loose part of the garment, beneath the arm, bunched up by a sash; it is where one might imagine carrying a baby today. Thus, the literal KJV rendering on John 1:18 is loaded with connotations of nearness and personal intimacy. “At the Father’s side” simply does not communicate the same.

Another example where recent translations lose a bit in favoring the concepts of the modern audience is 1 Peter 1:13. The modern translations have “prepare your minds for action,” whereas the KJV again preserves the Hebraic metaphor “gird up the loins of your mind.” Notice the difference between another concrete metaphor of dress “gird up the loins” versus the abstract concept of preparation. The gird up, of course, refers to taking the long ends of a tunic or robe, lifting them up, and tucking them into a girdle like a big diaper almost. This would give the ancient freedom of mobility, making running easier (one thinks of the father of the prodigal son). 

Beyond the contemporary word-picture that Peter was communicating through, the gird-up metaphor points past the dress metaphor to the most significant event in Israel’s history prior to the coming of Jesus, the exodus. The exodus motif is crucial to a correct understanding of 1 Peter, and the KJV rightly retains the language that reveals this theme was constantly in Peter mind in writing, even in this short phrase. What text, though, was Peter alluding to? Exodus 12:11 reads, “And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the LORD’S Passover” (KJV). More than that, this is confirmed by the fact that Peter couches this metaphor in the context of Jesus as the Lamb (1:19). So, in this case, not only does the retention of the concrete language of the original shed light on our understanding of the author’s thought-world and therefore the meaning, it also aids the reader to place the passage in its proper redemptive-historical context.

Granted, I spend an equal amount of time in the ESV, NRSV, and sometimes the NIV (just got a new single column NIV yesterday, which is great for reading through big books). However, I believe that any student of the English Bible should spend a goodish bit of time in the KJV, because the unfamiliar metaphors drive the student to deeper study, better reflect the thought-world of the author and thus his mind, and it elucidates the hook terms and phrases that flag important biblical-theological motifs. 

Marriage: The Unity Principle

Concerning marriage, it must be said that it is the one-ness or unity of the relationship that grounds its permanency, connoting an indivisible entity in the cohesion of the former two; and, this perpetuity of the unit itself is grounded in the nature of the relationship being made in the image of God, as it reflects the triune interrelationships within the Godhead, known by the archaic theological term, perichoresis.  My reasons for these convictions are reflected in what follows.  

The marriage is the primary covenantal, social unit; the married couple too is a triune God image-bearing reality.  Jesus made it clear that spiritual/covenantal relations take precedence over biological ones (Matt 12:48—50).  Marriage is just such a relationship.

This is further buttressed by the language and thrust of Gen 2:24, which Jesus (Matt 19:5 // Mk 10:7) and Paul (Eph 5:31) both cite in their teaching on the meaning of marriage.  The language of “leave” and “cleave” in these texts could not be stronger.  “Leave” is an active indicative verb, meaning to leave behind, depart from, abandon, forsake, and so on.  The object of this verb, as you know, is “his father and his mother.”  Contrariwise, the term “cleave” or “hold fast” means to glue together, to laminate, etc., thus creating a whole new unit that is stronger than its parts individually.

Furthermore, following Genesis, Jesus prefaces these remarks with “for this reason” or “therefore.”  So, the purpose or reason for man’s creation as complimentary man and woman is the marriage covenant.  And since humanity, in general, was created to reflect God’s glorious image throughout creation; and, man’s creation in two sexes is to be glued together in the marriage covenant, it is not hard to see how the marriage covenant is to be a reflection of God’s tri-unity.

The purpose of creating two sexual identities is that they leave and cleave—marriage.  The very next verse (Matt 19:6) begins with the conjunction ‘so,’ “so they are no longer two but one flesh.”  This conjunction is signaling the purpose/result of the marriage union—two distinct persons becoming one flesh, one being!   Distinct persons sharing a single being, sound familiar?  That’s right, the Trinity!  This “oneness” and the strength of this language and reasoning has only one other analogy in our experience.

The only other relationship that we can have in life that speaks with this sort of solidarity and uncompromising commitment is our union with Jesus himself.  In Lk 14:26, Jesus says that unless we are willing to completely abandon our filial relationships for his sake and the kingdom’s, we cannot be his disciples.  Our love for him will so pale all other relationships as to make them seem as hatred; so also with a man and his wife.  This is precisely why Paul could use Christ’s relationship to the Church as a corresponding analogy for covenantal marriage, and vice versa (Eph 5:22ff). 

New Exodus Typological Observations on Acts 12:1—24: Peter’s exodus and the judgment of Herod Agrippa I

1. Hints from the gospels (Matt and Lk). A Herod representing an antitypal Pharaoh has precedents in the early gospel traditions. Matt 2:13—18 provides a clear example of Herod serving as an antitypal Pharaoh, who tries to kill God’s firstborn Son, Jesus, True Israel.[1] Also, with great peculiarity, Luke, the author of our considered text, uses the term ἔξοδον "exodus" (Lk 9:31) to refer to Jesus’ death, resurrection, and exaltation he was about to “fulfill in Jerusalem” (πληροῦν ἐν ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ) (rightly so, NEB).

2. There is a broad framing of this pericope (Acts 12:1—24) that also serves to hint toward the original exodus. First, according to historical criticism, the story is a somewhat questionable, perhaps non-chronological interpolation couched between Paul and Barnabas commissioning and departure from the church in Antioch Syria (11:19—30) and their return from the famine relief mission to the Judean church(es) in 12:25. (There are dating questions with respect to the famine in Palestine [A.D. 41?] and the death of Agrippa I [A.D. 44?] that raise questions about the chronological ‘fit’ of the story of Peter’s imprisonment within the broader flow of the book.) Second, there is the conceptual inclusio that frames the pericope proper. This inclusio begins with Herod stretching out his hands in violence against the church; he killed James of Zebedee, and imprisoned Peter (vv. 1—3). The end cap of the story presents the angel of the Lord stretching out his hands and strikes Herod dead in poetic justice (think lex talionis, of course). A strikingly similar framework surrounds the first exodus story. Exodus 1 – 2 tell of Pharaoh’s tireless efforts to kill all the firstborn of Israel. This section of the book closes with Israel’s Mighty Warrior, YHWH, striking dead the firstborn of Pharaoh and all of Egypt (Ex 12:29—32). Luke, like Moses, frames his pericope with ironic judicial inclusio.

3. Another stirring feature of the narrative that evokes the exodus motif in the reader’s mind is the parenthetical clause of 12:3b, which disrupts the flow of the report. “…[Herod] proceeded to arrest Peter / This was during the days of Unleavened Bread / And when he had seized him…” (vv. 3, 4a, italics added). By the time of writing, the festival of Unleavened Bread and the Passover had nearly become the same event (compare with v 4c). This feature conjures all the cultic imagery of Ex 12:43—13:16. The feast of Unleavened Bread was to be perpetually kept by Israel so as to recapitulate the event when “By strength of hand the LORD brought us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage” (Ex 13:14b KJV, italics added). One can hardly imagine a more appropriate paradigm for the telling of Peter’s deliverance or exodus.

---

[1]See Peter Leithart’s Jesus as Israel: The Typological Structure of Matthew’s Gospel here, http://www.leithart.com/pdf/jesus-as-israel-the-typological-structure-of-matthew-s-gospel.pdf

Dr. Richard Pratt Jr. is Coming to Rivermont!

I am both thrilled and proud to share that our church, Rivermont Presbyterian Church, in Lynchburg, VA will be hosting Dr. Richard Pratt April 18 and 19. Dr. Pratt is the founder of Third Millennium Ministries; he chaired the Old Testament Dept. and taught at Reformed Theological Seminary for 21 years; and has authored a number of great books, including Every Thought Captive, one of the best primer texts for introducing presuppositionalist apologetics.

“The goal will be to provide an inspiring portrait of the ‘big picture’ of our biblical faith, focusing on the unfolding of God’s purpose for our lives as his people.”

The schedule:

Sunday 8:30 and 11:00 AM: The Vision of Christ in the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:5—15)

Sunday School at 9:35 AM: God Original Plan for the World (Gen 1:26—28)

Sunday Evening at 6:30 PM: The Unfrozen Chosen in God’s Plan (Gen 12:1—3)

Monday Evening at 7:00 PM: Fighting for Victory (Josh 1:6—9)

IRENAEUS: ADAM, CHRIST, AND REDEMPTIVE HISTORY

I love patrology (i.e., the study of the early Church Fathers); I love apologetics; I love good theology, and I love a redemptive-historical view of the Bible, one that holds Jesus high and centered. These are just a few reasons why I love Irenaeus and his works.

Reading the patristics often requires a critical eye. Few early Church fathers were thoroughly orthodox in their theology, oftimes, being influenced by their heritage and saturation in Platonism and the spirit of the age. With Irenaeus, however, one may relax and enjoy. His mind and subsequently his theology were radically transformed by the Rule of Faith (i.e., the essential gospel) and a Christological reading of all the Scriptures.

James Dennison, Jr. has written an insightful piece titled “Irenaeus and Redemptive History”, which covers Irenaeus and his redemptive-historical hermeneutic, particularly the “recapitulation” theme. Something very central to Irenaeus’ eschatology, Christology, anthropology, and soteriology—in a word all his theology.

Salvation History Overview Article From The ESV Study Bible

Clicking here will take you to a wonderful article, which is also found in the recently released ESV Study Bible from Crossway Bibles. Appropriately, Crossway placed the article just before the Old Testament. It’s concise but robust. The sections are as follows:

God’s Plan for History
Christ in the Old Testament
The Promises of God
Warnings and Curses
Covenants
Offspring
Christ as the Last Adam
Shadows, Prefigures, and “Types”
Christ the Mediator

Those initiated in biblical theology will rightly recognize the subject matter as topics of the same. You’ll also notice the stress on Christ in all the Scriptures, as well as the continuity of the Old and New Covenants.

Sadly, few Christians have even a cursory understanding of the systematic theology they profess; and worse, fewer still can give a cogent expression of any of the topics listed above.

This article is a great contribution to the greatest study Bible available anywhere. The English Standard Version is, I believe, the finest expression of Holy Writ in the English language. And the commentary notes are as good as it gets. I can’t recommend this Bible enough. But even if I didn’t get the ESV Study Bible, I’d print this article and read it at least once a year. The themes discussed therein are to the Bible what an engine is to your car—the driving power behind every movement!

The Advent in Matthew III

In the last post we concluded that one reason for Matthew’s careful tripartite arrangement of fourteen generation sections is an apologetic and rhetorical feature to 1) rectify Jesus’ regal right to the throne and covenant promises of David, and 2) that with Yahweh’s covenants Abraham and David, the Babylonian Exile was a judicial-redemptive-historical event that made clear that there was no longer hope for the promised Davidic King to arise by means of ordinary providence; Yahweh alone could save Israel, which is precisely who and what Jesus Christ was doing in history.

A second and closely related point is the apparently intended presence of gematria in connection with “fourteen” and the name David. Gematria was a widespread literary phenomenon of Matthew’s culture. It is a tool for symbolism, using an alphanumeric value system. Simply put, each letter of a given alphabet also carries its relative numeric value, e.g., A = 1, B = 2, C = 3, and so on. This works with both the Greek and Hebrew languages. Many argue that this instrument was used when John wrote the elusive “666” in Revelation, which is the only other likely occasion of gematria in the NT.

Accordingly, the consonants of David’s name in Hebrew are D = 4, W = 6 and D = 4. Thus, the alphanumeric value of David is 14. In addition to this, David’s name is the fourteenth in the list. For us modern readers, this appears peculiar at best, having little significance. But our question should first be, “What would this have meant to the original audience?”

The gematria would have 1) been another means of stressing that Jesus is the coming Davidic Son, the Messiah, and 2) provided a mnemonic tool to aid the memorization of the genealogy.

The mnemonic aspect, I think, should be teased out a bit.

Matthew often uses triadic arrangements to ease and encourage memorization. There are the three fourteens here in the genealogy, Satan’s three temptations with Jesus’ three corresponding scriptural rebuts (4:1—11), the three cities of woe (11:20—24), three symbolic, living parables (21:1—22), three polemical parables (21:28—22:14), threefold prayer and return (26:36—46), Peter’s three-time denial (26:69—75) to name a few.

But why would Matthew see the genealogy as a crucial part of his gospel to put to memory? Well, I think one reason could be apologetic (I know, what else would I think?).

Today, Christians are encouraged to memorize various arguments for God’s existence, certain facts about OT prophecy and how Jesus fulfills them, the historical facts surrounding the resurrection of Jesus, the textual evidences for the Bible we possess today, and in addition to these, all the major objections that are raised against the rote evidences. Today, these are relevant points of contention that believers find themselves challenged with by unbelievers. For Matthew’s audience, however, the questions were not preeminently, Was Jesus divine? Are the scriptures reliable? Was Jesus raised from the dead? Instead, Matthew’s readers would first and foremost have to answer this: “Was Jesus the Davidic Messiah?” Additionally, the meticulous record keeping of ancestral descent among Jews made Matthew’s account all the more important. When antagonistic Judaic opponents attacked the Hebrew Christians of the Matthean community, Jesus’ pedigree would have supplied the believers with a first line of defense.

While the average Christian won’t find him/herself toe to toe with a Jewish rabbi, I think there is an application we can draw that is universal in its utility.

I’m not insisting that we memorize the genealogy, though that would certainly be a profitable exercise. More needful, I believe, is understanding it better. For the first century Jewish Christian, this battery of names had immediate content. These names had significance in the Hebrew community’s self-consciousness. Today in the West, however, especially with the popular emphasis on the discontinuity between the two Testaments, most of these names don’t inform our understanding of Jesus but simply challenge our pronunciatory prowess.

If anything is to be taken from the last few posts it should be that we cannot rightly understand Jesus, the Messiah, without being acquainted with the organic development of the Father’s plan to reveal him “in the fullness of time” (Gal 4:4). These names, for various reasons, are mileposts in the progressively unfolding story of redemption and are therefore persons we should become familiar and conversant with.

What better time than the Advent season to do this? So, here's my challenge: If we would begin tomorrow, with a good Bible dictionary, and choose just two names from the genealogy a day, reading the entries and go to the scriptures with the important references found in the article, how greatly broadened would our horizon become? The significance of these names, though, must be kept in contact with its culminating terminus, Jesus Christ; viewing the micronarratives in terms of the epinarrative, and vise versa.

The application, then, is twofold. We have gained a better understanding of God’s providential and redemptive acts in the lives of OT saints (and sinners), each foreshadowing his final salvific work in Christ, in order to bring ultimate redemption to us through his Son. Secondly, I am absolutely convinced that the weakest link in the Christian witness and apologetic today is our general ignorance of the Bible’s “story line.” In other words, the better one does biblical theology, the better one can explain and defend the message they extend to the lost. Especially within our postmodern context, internal coherence and personal credulity are touchstone criteria for plausibility. Our audience is biblically illiterate. If we cannot communicate the continuity of the Bible’s plot, thus challenging the unbelievers’ “big story” and sharing ours, then the Gospel is simply incoherent.

The Advent in Matthew II

There are a couple of other noteworthy features in Matthew’s genealogy, which invite one into a deeper study and contemplation of the importance of this tether to salvation history.

Notice that the evangelist sums up Jesus’ impressive pedigree with these words:

“So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations” (1:17).

The question is “Why?” I think there are several reasons, I’ll share only one here and a couple tomorrow, Lord willing.

One reason is that Matthew was, of course, proving Jesus’ legitimate claim to the Davidic throne; Jesus is, in fact, David’s Greater Son. The ‘son of David’ motif is plain throughout Matthew. But the rhetorical point of Matthew’s framing of the genealogy is even more sublime.

The hopes and expectations bound up with the omni-blessing Seed of Abraham finds a more specific identity in the Davidic covenant. This narrowing specificity is, nonetheless, anticipated in earlier prophecies, such as Gen 49:10, the Scepter of Judah, and the “star/scepter” sign in Balaam’s fourth oracle. Abraham’s coming Seed was to be a ruler, a king.

These promises are made explicit in Yahweh’s covenant with David. “And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me [Yahweh]. Your throne shall be established forever” (2 Sam 7:16).

Now there was one of two ways this promise could be fulfilled. Either Solomon would inaugurate a perpetual dynasty, one that would augment the rule of Yahweh’s kingly co-regent in both space and time, or the promise would find its realization in a peculiar One who could sustain that rule without end. This dilemma is answered by Matthew’s next generational junction—“from David to the deportation to Babylon.”

This junction in the pattern eliminates the possibility of the perpetual line of kings. The Babylonian siege and resultant exile terminated the hope of an everlasting line of ruler’s from David’s loins.

The OT prophets, writing before, during and after the exile, began to point the faithful ones forward to the second option above (see also Ps 89, etc). The Davidic dynasty would be restored, but not through means of ordinary generation. Rather Yahweh’s Servant—David’s true Son, who is also David’s Lord (Ps 110)—would arrive in history, finally and fully establishing God rule, God’s Kingdom. Moreover, the Jewish apocalypticism of the Second Temple period was rife with messianic expectations. All the hopes of Israel rested in the Advent of Yahweh’s promised Messiah, and with him, the greatly anticipated “last days,” the fulfillment of the messianic age.

It seems, therefore, that if Abraham’s Seed would more specifically be the fulfillment of the promised king from the Davidic dynasty, and the “deportation to Babylon” and its entailments would demand that the sure promises made to David could only be realized in the Messiah, then Matthew’s ‘3 times 14’ framework, and especially its summary statement in 1:17, is a rhetorical case that 2000 years of Israelite history and hope had culminated and been fulfilled in the Advent of Jesus Christ. The waiting was over, the messianic age had arrive. Jesus is the greater Son of David, King of Israel.

Solomon, in spite of all his wisdom and riches, could not discharge the role of ‘Son of David.’ But, Shema!, Hear O’ Israel, “something greater than Solomon is here” (Matt 12:42)! Amid great strife and competition with a self-made impostor, Adonijah, Solomon was hastily made king of the Jews (1 Kings 1); David’s greater Son, against the Roman-made imposter, Herod, was “born king of the Jews” (2:2). Concerning Solomon, a message from Yahweh was carried by the prophet Nathan, naming the child Jedidiah, “beloved of the Lord” (2 Sam 12:24—25); concerning the Messiah, a direct edict came from Heaven for all to hear, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Matt 3:17; cf. 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7; Is 42:1), and so his name was to be “Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” (Matt 1:21). And because Jesus would save his people from the captivity of their sins, “they shall call his name Immanuel (which means, God with us)” (Matt 1:23).

Although many of the people had returned from the land of Babylon, the land to which they had returned was now ruled by a new Babylon, Rome. Their nationalistic souls were provoked day and night by the promised land’s defilement and uncleanness, trodden underfoot by the iron-clay soles of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream idol (Dan 2). They had returned to the land, but the exile wasn’t over!

First century Judaism had morphed the old covenant religion into an infinite series of laws, but no liberty. It offered meticulous jurisprudence, but no justice. It had sacrifice, but no mercy. The elders of Israel, with their religion and false king, had succeeded only in giving God’s people another unbearable yoke, in addition to Rome’s yoke of bondage. There was Sabbath upon Sabbath, but no rest for the wearied souls of God's heritage.

Matthew’s point, however, was that the exile was now over with the Advent of Jesus and the subsequent inauguration of the messianic age. The provisional temple of the restoration had now finished its archetypical course; its antitype had arrived to give real substance to its shadowy proleptic purpose, “something greater than the temple is here” (12:6). For those with ears to hear, the cry went out, “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls” (11:28—29). The real return from exile, then, was not coming out of Babylon, but coming to Jesus. In Jesus alone is there eschatological Rest for God’s people.

King David had establish a kingdom by the blood of his sword; his greater Son, King Jesus, has come and established a Kingdom by the blood of his cross, giving his people rest from their enemies.

Matthew 1:17, therefore, is the evangelist’s bottom line, his apologetic absolute. The present age was closing and the long awaited messianic age has dawned in Jesus Christ’s Advent. The rest of Matthew’s Gospel is an argument for and demonstration of this fact.

The Advent in Matthew I

The other day, Fanny and I were discussing the genealogy of our Lord recorded in Matthew’s gospel and the profound significance it has in connection with the first Advent of our Lord in history. In the next few posts, I'll share some of those observations.

Matthew 1:1 is a flag, evoking in the readers’ hearts millennia of salvation history. Approximately 2000 years before, God covenanted a people for himself. Through the loins of Abraham would come One through whom God would bless “all nations” (Gen 22:18); and through this coming One, Abraham would, with all his spiritual children “inherit the world” (Rom 4:13). Matt 1:1 is the cry that salvation history was climaxing...the coming One had come!

If the Promise-Fulfillment paradigm for understanding the unity between the Old and New Testaments is taken up, few verses could challenge the sheer volume of that motif when compared to Matt 1:1.

From v. 2 through v. 16, Matthew gives us a detailed catalogue of names. The Advent of the Messiah was not happenstance; it was sovereign Providence. Furthermore, despite a history of bitter warfare and all the best efforts of the “seed of the serpent,” the “Seed of the woman” (Gen 3:15) had arrived; he had come to take possession of the “gate of his enemy” (Gen 22:17). This covenant promise of God to Abraham, that his seed would posses the gate of his enemy, was also a blessing over Isaac’s—“the son of Abraham”—bride, Rebekah (Gen 24:60). In it’s fulfillment, the same blessing is given to Jesus’—the Greater “Son of Abraham”—bride, the Church (Matt 16:18).

How often do we slog and plod through this genealogy (if not simply skip it altogether) in order to get to the “good stuff”? But this is the “good stuff”! Matthew did not include this list merely to prove Jesus regal right to David’s throne. That’s one purpose to be sure, but that’s not all.

From the time of Yahweh’s special, redemptive promises and purposes, beginning in his sovereign election of Abram (Gen 12), til the climax and fulfillment of that covenant in the Person and work of Jesus, the epinarrative of history—historia salutis—was being wrought by God through the micronarratives of the lives behind these names. This is Gospel! This was the soil in which the Seed of the woman, of David, of Abraham would be planted; from this loamy heritage the “Root of Jesse” would shoot forth his branches, creating a plant so great that “all nations” would come and find their eschatological Rest beneath its boughs (Matt13:32).

The chapters immediately preceding the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham (Gen 10, 11) and his Seed is the table of “all the nations” in rebellion to God, God’s judgment and his turning from “all nations” to one nation—one family, Israel. Matthew’s genealogy takes us from that great turning point and its Promise to the Great turning point and its Fulfillment, when God’s Kingdom would turn again. Thus in the chapters that follow Matthew 1, we see God through Jesus turning from that one nation in judgement to again adopt and baptize “all nations” (Matt 28:19) into his one family, the New Israel.

And who is at the center? Christ Jesus our Lord, King of Israel, King of Kings, King of Glory. Promise at one foot and Fulfillment at the other, they bow and kiss the Son:

A. Abrahamic Covenant (Promise – Gen 12 – 22)

B. Davidic Covenant (Promise – 2 Sam 7; Ps 89)

C. “Jesus Christ, the son...” (Matt 1:1a)

B'. “...of David...” (Fulfillment – 1:1b)

A'. “...of Abraham.” (Fulfillment – 1:1c)

Matthew’s genealogy, therefore, is a list of those who “all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar...And all these, though commended through their faith, did not received what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect” (Heb 11:13, 39—40).

“And if you are Christ’s then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29). And through your adoption “in Christ Jesus you are all son’s of God, through faith!” (3:26).

Therefore, the names we too often slog and plod through are the first half of the Great Drama of Grace, the story of redemption; it’s their story and it’s our story too. In Christ, the Center, their promises are ours, and his fulfillment becomes theirs. We share their history, they share our future. It’s the history and the future of a people created and redeemed by God, for his glory. Christ, the Center, is Father’s gift to us; we are the Father’s gift to him, the Bride of his choosing.
Redemptive history is not over; it’s accomplished in Christ, being fulfilled by the Holy Spirit daily in our micronarratives and throughout the world in God’s epinarrative. “Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham” is at the center of the latter, by grace, O’ Lord, let him be at the center of the former!

“Talking Back” to Mcloughlin

This post is one of many editorial letters that we have written in response to a particularly zealous and outspoken atheist who lives near Lynchburg. He’s another Village Atheist who parrots the hate-filled verbiage so common with popular level writers, such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. In many of his letters, he’s not been above calling Christians and Christianity “a virus that is infecting our species.”

The introductory paragraph offers some context, so I hope you find it helpful.


The following is another response to a past letter submitted by David Mcloughlin. The dilemma he proposed in that letter was that Christians are inconsistent in maintaining that Exodus 21:17, for example, which reads, “Whoever curses his mother or his father shall be put to death,” is an inspired word from God, and yet at the same time aren’t killing their children for—as he puts it—“talking back.” Nevertheless, is this a true dilemma?

Mcloughlin’s challenge, in large measure, depends on a wrongheaded understanding of the term “curse,” taken to mean “talking back.” Indeed, especially in modern English parlance, “curse” can denote verbal abuse; however, this verse is simply a negative expression of the fifth commandment: “Honor your father and mother...” (Ex 20:12). In this case the term “curse” is the opposite of “honor,” which is surely not meant to convey mere verbal honor. Rather, “curse” means to repudiate, disesteem, despise, disregard.

This meaning of the term is clearly evidenced by a statement made by God in I Samuel 2:30. Therein the same Hebrew words behind the English words “honor” and “curse” are used in an ancient literary devise known as a parallelism: “[F]or those who honor (same Hebrew word used in the fifth commandment) me I will honor, and those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed” (or “disgraced,” the same word for “curse” in Exodus 21:17). The force of the statement depends on “honor” and “lightly esteemed” (“curse” in Exodus 21:17) being antithetical, contrary to one another; and “lightly esteemed” and “despise” being synonymous. Therefore, the term “curse” has to do with one’s attitude toward and treatment of one’s parents, not merely “talking back.”

We see that a right understanding of the term “curse,” as how one treats parents, not what they say, eliminates half of Mcloughlin’s argument. But what about the seemingly difficult penal stipulation, “Whoever curses...shall be put to death”? What are we to make of this?

It first needs to be recognized that the temporal, retributive action of this command is part of a larger covenantal framework, were God has become the King of the new theocratic nation Israel, by means of his graciously delivering them from Egyptian bondage (Exodus 20:2). After the peoples’ voluntary agreement to the terms of the covenant, it was ratified by blood and became the law of the community, under their new King (Exodus 24:7—8). Secondly, with the exception of first degree murder, there is evidence that there were “ransom/redemption” options available for those who committed crimes worthy of capital punishment under the covenant (e.g., Exodus 21:30; Numbers 35:31). Moreover, the “cursing” child was not subject to the whimsical disposition of the parents, for there was a due process. This is clear from the “rebellious son” section in Deuteronomy 21:18—21.

This passage indicates three important points. The first is that it is adult children that are in view. In both Jewish and pagan cultures official right and responsibility under the Law (or laws in pagan contexts) came at an age which inaugurated manhood (e.g., the bar mitzvah in Jewish tradition). Therefore, the breeching of this commandment entails much more than sassy talk from a small child. Moreover, in the ancient Near East, the eldest son of the household was given full rights over the family’s estate long before the death of the parents. It was then the responsibility of the “firstborn son” to insure the provision and well being of the parents and the whole family. This is largely what is meant by “honoring” the parents; with “cursing” its opposite. This is exactly how Jesus himself interpreted both Exodus 20:12 and 21:17. He quoted them in order to demonstrate that the Jewish leaders of his day had “left...rejected...made void the word of God,” namely the two commands we are considering, in order to hold on to a tradition that prevented adult children from caring for their aging parents (Mark 7:1—13).

Secondly, there was a due process in which the entire community was involved, because the foundation and structure of the entire community was in jeopardy through such flagrant disregard of the covenant which bound them to one another and their covenant King, Yahweh. Last, and thirdly, titling a son of the covenant “a glutton and a drunkard” was an official and legal charge that warranted death. This much is clear and is important for understanding certain words of Jesus himself.

The Old Testament Law was not merely a legal code, it also pointed to something progressive, something beyond itself. Jesus, in Matthew 5:17 said that he came to “fulfill” the Law. Now in Matthew the term “fulfill” always has prophetic connotations; that is, the Law pointed forward to something greater, namely Jesus himself. So also in Matthew 11:13 Jesus states: “For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John (the Baptist).” In 11:19 Jesus indicates what law he had in mind—Deuteronomy 21:18f—the ‘rebellious son’ passage. For he quotes his opponents as laying against him the official, legal charge of being “a glutton and a drunkard,” presenting it as further justification for their desire to put him to death. Jesus’ radical deeds and claims failed to “honor” the Jewish elders’ traditions and disrupted the Jewish community. Thus, Jesus was declared the “rebellious son.”

This part of Deuteronomy (21:15—23) was crucial for the New Testament authors’ understanding and exposition of Jesus’ work and function in God’s unfolding plan of redemption. Verses 15—17 concern the inheritance rights of “the first born.” Something important for understanding Jesus’ relationship to both the Father and his creation/new creation (see: Psalm 89:26f, Romans 8:28; Colossians 1:15—20; Hebrews 1:5—6; Revelation 1:5, etc). Then just after the “rebellious son” passage is the law regarding hanged criminals (Deuteronomy 21:22—23). These verses became precedents for understanding the Cross of Jesus, for Paul cites v. 23 in Galatians 3:13 saying, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.’” Hence, Deuteronomy 21 helps to interpret even the vicarious, atoning death of Jesus Christ on the cross for all who believe him.

Finally, in one historic confession of the faith it is recognized that while the judicial penalties of the case laws (Exodus 21—23) were for the theocratic structures of ancient Israel, they still have “general equity” applicable in the modern world (WMC XIX:III). For instance, our topic is expressed as such in I Timothy 5:3—8. Here Paul says that children and grandchildren should demonstrate their godliness by caring for their widowed mothers, “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Paul is simply understanding and applying the “general equity,” that is, the principle meaning of the Old Testament laws we have been considering, and taking them from the temporal realm to the eternal, in light of the New Covenant through Jesus Christ.

This has shown that Mcloughlin’s hope of exposing Christians as living with contradictory beliefs is absurd. The term “curse” has next to nothing to do with “talking back.” Adult children rightfully caring for their aging parents is what is in view with regard to the punitive statutes. Because of Jesus’ atoning death on the cross and his resurrection, those who trust him alone for their redemption can consistently live out the principle equity of such laws in the power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Mcloughlin’s challenge has no bearing upon the Bible’s inerrancy or Christian life and practice. In other words, it is irrelevant to the discussion of both! Nevertheless, surly the question is reversible.

Mr. Mcloughlin, given your perspective, the evolutionary process of time and chance acting upon “eternal” matter, what justification do you have for even questioning parents killing their young. What is the basis for morality in the context of your view of the world? If “survival of the fittest” is the case, then it seems that both the “reality” and logical consistency of your worldview would demand the death of the younger and weaker, in order to eliminate their competition for food, mates, etc. Perhaps you should deal with the “beam” that is stuck in the eye of your own worldview before questioning the “speck” in that of others!

IMAGO DEI: Its Meaning, Implication and Application

I. THE MEANING OF BEING MADE IN GOD’S IMAGE

A. The broader meaning of being made in God’s image lies in the simple fact that man is in a creaturely sense “like” God and “represents” God. So, in some sense man is an idol made in the image of the One who made him; a favor man has been try to reverse and return of ever since. Although man’s Fall severely defaced and distorted the image he bears, the particulars of the broader category are still residual in fallen man, every fallen man.

1. The fact that we are created “like” God means that man shares certain qualities that are similar to God himself. Such qualities may be set in three classes. Man is, in a creaturely capacity, like God metaphysically, mentally and morally. First, man is similar to God metaphysically. One factor that differentiates man from the rest of the created order is that he is a spiritual being;he is made irreversibly immortal, existing somewhere, for better of worse, forever. It is also this aspect of the image that allows us to enjoy fellowship with our Creator—loving, worshiping and sharing meaningful communication with him. This also indicates that there lies within man an immaterial reality to which he is responsible for maintaining and keeping properly orientated to and in the right relationship with God.

Second, man is similar to God in his mental capacities. For millennia man has sought to understand and explain, apart from the “image” factor, his dignifying ability to reason abstractly and discursively. From Plato’s idealism to today’s New Age “cosmic god—mind” and every philosophy and religion in between, has met utter failure in their search for the why and how of human rationality. However, Christian theism is not bankrupt in offering an answer to this question. Human reasoning, both inductive and deductive, in the biblical context makes perfect sense. The triune God of the Bible reveals himself as having all knowledge (omniscience). If, then, this God creates beings in his own image, they too would have knowledge, yet in a limited capacity—true knowledge, though not exhaustive. Also, God gives his creatures a mandate to explore and subdue the rest of created order expanding and adorning it to God’s glory, thus, man would require reasoning abilities for this task. The simplicity of the Christian’s answer for knowledge and rationality in no wise voids its profundity. Our answer is perhaps simple on the face of it, but the only other options are completely irrational, even at their deepest depths!

Lastly, man is a volitional creature sharing moral qualities with God.

Superficially, many other of God’s sentient creatures seemingly reflect some measure of morality (as many naturalistic atheists would be quick to point out). However, the actions and “decisions” of the brute creatures are not innately moral, they are learned behaviors based upon a fear of negative stimulus or in hope of the positive opposite. It is not so with man. A dog on a walk with its master does not stroll past an animal shelter and mourn the dilemma that faces dog-kind. Neither will a dog bark and growl in righteous indignation at the sight of another of the same species suffering at the end of a six foot long chain, being without food, water or shelter. Injustice means nothing to the lower animals; however, it is an aching reality in the very bosom of the image bearer. The only creature who knows and innately senses right-ness and wrong-ness is man, and the only reason is that he is “like” God morally.

In summery, the meaning of our being “God-like” has subtleties far beyond what is offered here, but most if not all may fit into these three categories: metaphysical, mental and moral.

2. The weight and responsibility of being “like” God is magnified by the fact that man is also created to “represent” God. In the historical context of the ancient Near East, the worldview into which Moses wrote, the term “image” would have communicated and “expressed the ‘presence’ of an absent lord (humanly speaking) in the sphere of his own dominion.” This observation helps us to view “image” in the way in which it would have been understood in its originally intended meaning. The trans-cultural nature of this understanding of “representative image” can be seen in Jesus’ dispute with the Pharisees and Herodians over the Roman taxation of Palestinian Jews. Jesus escapes the horns of a dilemma by first pointing out the agreed upon premise: “Whose image and inscription is this?” “Caesar’s” they answered. Therefore, that which bears the Emperor’s “image” (KJV best) reflects his authority, control and presence where ever it is found in the empire (Mt 22:15—22). Jesus escapes the horns of this dilemma by arguing a fortiori, from the lesser (Caesar’s image on the denarius) to the greater (God’s image as stamped upon every human being), thus avoiding the implications of the dilemma posed to him—either the charge of blasphemy from the Jews on the one hand, or the charge sedition from the Romans on the other. Just as Caesar’s presence is represented in his “image” on every denarius, so too God is representatively present in every creature stamped with his own “image.”

Hence, given the goodness of man’s original constitution, it is as if one could have asked the Creator, “what are you like?” and God would have been able to point the inquirer to his image bearers and say, “That is what I am like, for man is the reflection and representation of myself on the earth.” In this our parents failed, as do we all; however, One did not. It is this facet of the “image bearing” that becomes the interpretive backdrop of passages that rightly say of Jesus in his humanity, he bears, perfectly and expressedly, God’s image (Col 1:15; Heb 1:3). Moreover, the same is true when Jesus tells Thomas: “If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him” (Jn 14:7). Thus, we are also able to hear the “ring of truth” in Pilate’s proclamation: “Ecce Homo!” (“Behold, THE MAN!” Jn 19:5).

Therefore, God has given to man as part of the image bearing capacity the responsibility to represent him, the Creator. As God exercises his rule and dominion over the whole of the cosmos, God gives to man, as his viceroy, the role of reflecting that ruling glory over the earth (Gen 1:28; Ps 8:5—8; 115:16).

B. The narrow meaning of being created in the image of God speaks of the image bearing qualities lost at man’s Fall. A biblical view of man and things tells us, even if only intuitively and experientially, things are now abnormal—put out of rights with how they ought to be. Although the OT makes several allusions to ways in which the image of God has been corrupted and some capacities of it even lost when man fell, it is not until God’s revelation about man progresses to Paul’s epistles do we find the specifics.

Certainly one of the most fundamental goals of God’s plan of redeeming man is that they, individually and collectively, “be conformed into the image of his (God’s) Son” (Rom 8:29). Elsewhere, Paul tells us of three qualities which fit squarely into and mirror in a particular way the three categories mentioned above: metaphysical, mental, and moral. These would consist of “true (genuine, God-like) righteousness (moral) and holiness (metaphysical)” and “knowledge (mental) after the image of its creator” (Eph 4:24 and Col 3:10 respectively).

The language Paul uses in Eph 4; “renewed” (v. 23; cf. Col 3:10), “created,” “likeness” (v.24), as well as Col 3; “image of its creator” (v. 10), all points back to man’s originally “good” created constitution of our first parents as found in Gen 1 and 2. This is further bolstered by Paul juxtaposing the “old man” (Adamic) with the “new man” (renewed in, and like Christ). This is not to say that fallen man has utter lost all residual traces of righteousness, holiness and knowledge, for God, in his common grace and by way of man remaining in his image do still posses these characteristics, more or less given the individual, in some sense. However, unregenerate man, that is, fallen man as such, never ever bears them “in truth” (Eph 4:24, NASB), which is the only way God finds them acceptable. Hence, our regeneration in Christ, through the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, and our continued renewal and progressive conformity to Christ’s image is the integral part of God’s Great Plan to bring his whole creation back into a completely restored relationship to himself. The great joy believers know experimentally now points back to a time when things were right (Gen 1 -- 2) and forward to a time when they with be put to rights again (Rev 21 -- 22).

II. IMPLICATION AND APPLICATION

One implication of these reflections on the imago Dei is the responsibility of every image bearer to “be like...represent” God the Creator perfectly. This implication has great value and application in the task of defending and sharing the faith today.

Many of our modern evangelistic efforts are foiled by the sheer fact of our cultural/temporal setting. Our society is currently in what I call the final wave of the “Christian echo.” For instance, thirty to forty years ago a Christian could use terms such as God, sin, cross and salvation when speaking to an unbeliever because of the Christian heritage they both shared by virtue of living in a wave closer to the center of the Christian echo; thus, they shared in large measure an agreed definition of these terms. Today however, the Gospel proper; preaching sin, judgment, Christ’s death and resurrection, has little life transforming effect. This is not to say that the Gospel itself has lost effectiveness and must be changed to reach our generation. God forbid! Rather, it is to say that because most unbelievers no longer share any level of biblical literacy or the slightest understanding of the “Christian story” (the biblical plot-line; major turns in redemptive history, etc) the mere terms of the Gospel miss their mark in the heart and mind of the hearers. Allowing the sinner to translate and redefine the terms on the grounds of their own understanding of their “problem(s),” without filling those terms with biblical content and presenting them in the biblical context is a sure fire way to see hands go up and get cards signed; however, as I said, few of those lives will go on to bear any sustaining fruit of true conversion.

One Christian thinker identifies the people in this generation of the Christian echo as no longer having the “plausibility structure” in their thinking in which the Gospel terms may fit. For instance, to tell average person in America today that “Jesus died for them” might generate a response like this: “Well...that sounds really nice and all, but why would he need to go and do something like that?!?” “Well,” one might reply, “because God loves you!” Yet again, as amazing as that statement is to those of us who know man’s “real problem” and precisely how intrinsically unlovable we truly are, to the unbeliever today, they view themselves as worthy objects of God’s love by virtue of being born in America or some such thing. Attempting to hang the Gospel truths on the average unbeliever’s “plausibility structure” is like trying to drive a nail in a sheered sheet of granite. I would contend that today the terms of the Gospel must be presented in conjunction with the concepts and biblical definitions of those same terms. One such way is to begin by presenting the “Christian story” in its fullness, something that will start with the “image bearing” theme, and how that image looks today; even in their own life. Not until God’s own diagnosis of the problem is made clear in the mind of unbelievers will God’s wondrous gift of his own Son—the Solution to the image bearers problem—make real sense.

It is the image bearing capacity in man that makes sin recognizable for all its vile wickedness. If then, we are Created in God’s image and as such we are, creaturely speaking, like him and are to represent him as a dependant stand in here on earth, when we sin, even the “small ones,” its is nothing less than directly maligning of God’s name, character and holiness! Every person on earth has the responsibility to represent God in this capacity, to glorify the Creator through their rightly reflecting and representing him, thus, to sin is to tell the whole world that: “THIS IS WHAT GOD IS LIKE...HE IS A LIAR; HE HAS WICKED THOUGHTS; HE LUSTS; HE HATES WITHOUT CAUSE...ETC.” Now, this is not how we normally think of sin I know; but given the “image factor” how could it be anything less?!?

Once, therefore, this concept has found its mark in the image bearer one is attempting to evangelizing, the Gospel (God’s offer of a perfect substitute for their maligning representation of him) makes PERFECT sense!

WHEN DID THE CHURCH BEGIN?

The question ‘when did the church beginning is a complex one. It is similar to being asked, ‘Kevin, have you stopped beating your wife?’ No matter how I would answer this question, whether yes or no, I will be in hot water! That is because there lies behind the first question another, have I ever ‘beat my wife’. So the answer to this last question, ‘have I ever?’, is what will inform, even define, the answer to the first, ‘have I stopped?’. ‘When did the church begin’ is not altogether different. There is another question subtly lurking behind this one and that is: ‘what is the church?’ Thus, the original question, ‘when...church’, is answered by the definition of the latter, ‘what...church’.

To begin with, we must first consider the term itself, ‘church’. By mere definition the word simply means called out (ones), an assembly gathered for a purpose, a congregation of people, etc. But this does little in advancing an understanding of what the church is, apart from an assembly of people, called out for a purpose. This definition could aptly be applied to the whole of God’s redeemed people across all times. However, Robert Lightner, in his summary of Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker. 1986. p. 217), argues that the church is constrained to be a NT-only concept. One reason, among others, is because “the word church does not appear in the Old Testament.” In spite of Dr. Lightner’s important contributions to theological studies, this premise must be dismissed for at least two reasons. First, given such strictures as the etymology of a word in the English Bible, we are also bound to reject the doctrine of the Trinity, for this important term is found in neither the OT nor the New. But this, a most central doctrine, is revealed ubiquitously in concept throughout the scriptures. Second, a careful reading of the KJV has the word ‘church’ coming from both, Stephen, in reference to Israel in their wilderness experience (Acts 7:38), as well as the writer of Hebrews, quoting the words of David, “in the midst of the ‘church’, I will sing your praises” (2:12b cf. Ps 22:22). These two citations do not, in themselves, completely circumvent Lightner’s remarks, for both are still found in the NT. However, they do cause us to pause and ask what word is here being translated ‘church’, because in the original writings the actual word ‘church’ never occurs.

The Greek word back of the English word church is ekklēsia. The real question, therefore, is whether or not this term found in the OT? It is, in fact, in a number of places. Ekklēsia, in the Septuagint (the Greek OT, translated c. 200 B.C.), is the word which translates the Hebrew word qāhāl. (See: Deut 4:10; 9:10; 18:16; 23:2ff, 9; 31:30; Josh 9:2; Jda. 20:2; 21:5, 8; Judg 20:2; 21:5, 8; 1 Sam 17:47; 19:20; 1 Kgs 8:14, 22, 55, 65; 1 Chr 13:2, 4; 28:2, 8; 29:1, 10, 20; 2 Chr 1:3, 5; 6:3, 12f; 7:8; 10:3; 20:5, 14; 23:3; 28:14; 29:23, 28, 31f; 30:2, 4, 13, 17, 23ff; Ezra 2:64; 10:1, 8, 12, 14; Neh 5:7, 13; 7:66; 8:2, 17; 13:1; Ps 21:23, 26; 25:5, 12; 34:18; 39:10; 67:27; 88:6; 106:32; 149:1; Prov 5:14; Job 30:28; Mic 2:5; Joel 2:16; Lam 1:10). As such, the terms seldom refer to anything other than God’s covenant community.

A very noteworthy passage from the list above is Deut 18:15—19, where, in the midst of a clear prophecy from Moses concerning the coming Prophet, Jesus, Moses pointed the people back to the covenant-making event of Sinai (or Horeb as in 4:10) as “day of the assembly, ekklēsia or literally “the day of the ‘church’”. Therefore, based on the application of the word ‘church’ in the original languages, it is safe to conclude that the church transcends the NT, at least in the sense of being God’s people whom he has redeemed and enters into covenant with, despite the variations in the administrations of those covenants. This concept is further supported by multiple NT passages that stress the continuity of the people of God, a point to which I will now turn.

In positing a general continuity among God’s redeemed, throughout the ages, I am not purposing that the NT church has ‘become’ Israel or that the two are without distinctions. I do suggest, however, that to evaluate all the biblical data over the issue through the “Israel-ethnic-nationalism (OT)—over and against—Church-spiritual-universal (NT)” lens leads to severe oversimplification, if not an outright false dichotomy. Rom 9:6—8 seems to prevent us from making such hasty generalizations, as does the passage in Gal 3:15—29, with its parallel theme—not all Israel is Israel/the children of God.

In these and other passages, there is clear evidence that the NT writers made a distinction, not only between Israel and the church (i.e., contemporaneous Judaism and Christianity), but also between Israel (blood and soil) and Israel (those faithful to the covenant of promise, like their father Abraham). Paul, in Eph 2, reminds Gentiles of a time when they were “separated from Christ” (v.12), something that he further connects with being “alienated” and “strangers” from “the commonwealth of Israel” and the “covenants of promise”. However, now “in Christ” they have been “brought near”, and made to be “fellow citizens with the saints and members of God’s household” (vv. 13, 19), what he later refers to as “a holy temple in the Lord”. In these verses Paul appears to view the church, not as a parenthesis in God’s redemptive plan, but the full realization of it—the anticipation and hope of all the OT revealed religion (see also: Acts 7, 13:13—41).

Heb 11, the ‘hall of faith’ chapter, also tends to blur the line between OT and NT saints. Although the OT saints mentioned in this chapter “died in faith, not having received the things promised” (v.13), they, namely Moses, nevertheless, “considered the reproach of Christ greater...for [they were] he was looking forward to the reward” (v. 26). Thus, there is a general continuity in God’s covenantal people. Moreover, Galatians 3 teaches us that both the OT and NT saints share the same Gospel (v. 8), same kind of faith (v.6—7, 11), same blessings (v. 9) and same kind of redemption (v. 13—14). This is so that the Son, the Messiah and his finished work, might be the very center of all God’s purposes, both in creating and re-creating a people for himself. The greatest distinction being temporal perspectives, they (OT) looked forward; we now look both back and forward.

“It must be admitted by all evangelicals”, says Lightner, “that something new and unique began on the day of Pentecost”. To this, indeed, we all say AMEN! But does it follow from “new—unique” that something altogether different occurred, that is, from a redemptive perspective? Does a radical swing in the Spirit’s administrative or economical work necessitate what Lightner calls a “distinct program”? (Ibid.).

Was not the Holy Spirit at work under the old covenant when he came upon prophets, priests, kings, judges (Jdg 3:10), the elders of Israel (Num 11:25—26), even artisans (Ex 28:3; 31:3) and pagan prophets (e.g., Balaam, Num 24:5)? In fact, the events that surrounded and followed Pentecost were not only prophesied by Joel (2:28ff), but prayed for by Moses (Num 11:29), that “all Yahweh’s people” would enjoy the fullness of the Holy Spirit.

To be sure, something incredibly unique happened on that day (Pentecost), but not something of a different kind, or necessarily a “distinct program”, but perhaps better, the temporal fulfillment of all the types, hopes and anticipations of the OT assembly (or “church”). This is why Peter can refer to the NT church in distinctly OT categories: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (I Pet 2:9; cf. Ex 19:5—6; Deut 7:6; 10:15; Is 43:20—21; 61:6; 66:21; Mal 3:17). Such is a fitting definition of the true people of God, his church and their mission, in both the Old and New Testaments.

While the living God never changes, his dealings with his people does. Over the ages he has used various means of disclosing himself and his purposes in history and redemption, climaxing in the greatest revelation of all, his gracious Self-disclosure in his Son, Christ Jesus (Heb 1:1—2). Therefore, the church may be defined as the assembly of God’s people, who believing his promises, enjoy the benefits of him being their God and them being his people, a promise that permeates the whole Bible and is made to his people in all dispensations. This assembly is an organic entity, one which grew in the OT era as Yahweh progressively revealed himself to them, culminating in Christ. Having God’s full revelation now, this group of called-out-ones continues to grow, in breadth and by grace, in depth. Thus, given the above, the inter-testamental use of ekklēsia, church, and the solidarity of God’s redeemed throughout the ages, I think it is safe to conclude that the church, in incipient form albeit, began perhaps as early as Abel, being cultivated by God’s progressive self revelation and promises at pivotal junctures in redemptive history (e.g., Abrahamic covenant, the Exodus/Sinai, Davidic covenant, the promised coming of the New Covenant [Jer 31:31ff]), being, finally and fully, realized or completed in Christ’s death, resurrection and exaltation and experienced by his people at the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost (“the promise of the Father” Acts 1:4; 2:33). From Pentecost forward, the “tree” (Rom 11:17ff), the church, has reached its full fruit bearing capacity. Nevertheless, even in its “seed” form (Gen 3:15; Gen 17, 22), it was still a tree; as it was as a promising sprout (Is 11:1, 10), still a tree. Today, that tree is living and bearing fruit in fullness of Christ and his Spirit.