I call upon You, Lord, God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob and Israel, You who are the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the God who, through the abundance of your mercy, was well-pleased towards us so that we may know You, who made heaven and earth, who rules over all, You who are the one and the true God, above whom there is no other God; You who, by our Lord Jesus Christ gave us the gift of the Holy Spirit, give to every one who reads this writing to know You, that You alone are God, to be strengthened in You, and to avoid every heretical and godless and impious teaching.

St Irenaeus of Lyons, Against the Heresies 3:6:4


Showing posts with label Covenant Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Covenant Theology. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

THE BIBLICAL ONTOLOGY: GROUNDING THE FAMILY





What are the theological foundations of the family? As St. Paul declared in doxological jubilee, speaking of the triune Majesty, the living and true God revealed in the cosmos, Canon, and Christ: “For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen” (Rom. 11:36). Since, according to scripture, history, and experience, the family is the central sphere of these “all things,” it follows that the family is rooted and deeply grounded in the nature of the holy Trinity.
Family: Rooted in the Nature of God
The family is rooted and grounded in the nature of the triune God. Human beings, individually and socially, are created in the imago Dei, the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26—28; cf. Ps. 8, etc.). In addition to the constitutional aspects of human nature, e.g., being rational, moral, spiritual beings, etc., this imago has a profoundly relational dimension.
Trinity and Family
Man is made to reflect God’s nature and glory, in a creaturely sense, not rationally only but also relationally. This relational reflection is firstly and obviously Godward, vertically, as the temporal fulfillment of God’s originally-good purposes for humanity hung on Adam’s perfect and personal covenant-keeping obedience to YHWH’s law-word. Similarly, man’s interpersonal relationships are what they are as humans display God’s moral attributes toward each other and enjoy the gracious metaphysical common ground people enjoy between themselves, as God’s image bearers.
Less obvious to many Christians, however, is the second horizontal plane of man’s relational image reflecting function, which is to “replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over [it]” and to “dress” and “keep” the garden-temple that YHWH had planted and wherein he originally placed man, “eastward in Eden” (Gen. 1:28; 2:8, 15). So, the object of man’s relational reflection of the image of God is tripartite: Godward, and also toward both his fellows and the rest of the non-human creation.  
            Man’s divine mandate was to cultivate and expand the garden-temple, rule over it in a God-like way, and fill the earth with subsequent image-bearing progeny—man was not, is not  to be, nor ever will be “an island to himself” (Gen. 1:28). This is because God himself is not an “island”; he is not a monad, an abstract point of singularity, as he is idolatrously conceptualized of in Judaism, Islam, and the later German idealism that come out of the Enlightenment. Rather, God is tri-unity. God is both unity and plurality; he’s the ultimate One and the Many. God is one with respect to the “what” question; yet he is many—three to be exact—with respect to the “who” question. He is one in his essential nature, yet three, i.e., Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in the three co-equal, co-eternal, and co-glory-worthy persons. God is thus the ultimate and absolute Society or Community.
            As God created, ordered, and evaluated his creational works in the beginning, he pronounced that things—as they conformed and operated according to his law-word ordinances to reflect his glory—were “good” no less than seven times in Genesis chapter one. “Good” is God’s ordo rerum, his design and ordering of things. Nevertheless, in chapter two of Genesis, YHWH sees a moment in his creation that an aspect of his creation is “not good,” namely that man, God’s image-bearer, “was alone” (Gen. 2:18). Man as individual was insufficient to reflect God’s image and glory. This is not surprising, since in the nature of the Godhead, and therefore the nature of the case, aloneness is eternally impossible.
             God therefore created Adam his ezer-woman, his “help meet” (2:18). Eve was Adam’s co-equal in terms of her nature, dignity, and moral value, as she enjoyed an equal share in the honor, majesty and mystery of the divine image of her Creator. Similarly, in obedience to the culture-dominion mandate of Genesis 1:28, as Adam and Eve became “fruitful and multiplied,” they produced image-bearing progeny, according to the purposes of God. Man’s co-mission therefore requires a plurality of persons; it requires a micro-society, a family. Thus, the triune Majesty—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost—created humanity in his very image, to reflect both the unity and the plurality of the Godhead.  So, according to their very nature—human nature—each member of the human family, the father, mother, and child(ren), share equal dignity and value, according to their mutually equivalent participation in the imago Dei.                                  
Family: Multi-Personal Image-Bearing
            Apart from the necessity of the family as the uni-plural image-bearer, for sake of the realization of God’s purposes expressed in the cultural mandate (Gen. 1:28) there are manifold ways that the family reflects the image of the ontological Trinity (i.e., the a se Godhead, in and of himself, apart from any creature) in the ordinary rhythms of the family’s daily, covenantal life together. One such example comes by way of daily private family worship in the home.
            For eternity past each person of the Trinity has enjoyed the full communion, love,  and unmediated glory of the other two. This absolute spiritual love and unity is reflected, imaged, mirrored in a creaturely way, when the father, mother, and child(ren) come around the Word of God, listen to the voice of God, in the Spirit of God. In this harmonious fellowship and worship, the family reflects in glory and harmony of the intra-Trinitarian communion, love and fellowship, which is for the mutual good and honor of the others. Thus, being created in the image of God, the family subsequently reflects God’s nature through their private worship, revealing the love, harmony and sweet communion of the three persons of the triune God.

Saturday, March 8, 2014

Calvin on Matthew 5:17—22, an Abridgment

“We must keep in mind the object which Christ had in view. While he invites and exhorts the Jews to receive the Gospel, he still retains them in obedience to the Law…

“I am not come to destroy. God had, indeed, promised a new covenant at the coming of Christ; but had, at the same time, showed, that it would not be different from the first, but that, on the contrary, its design was, to give a perpetual sanction to the covenant, which he had made from the beginning, with his own people.

“I will write my law, (says he,) in their hearts,
and I will remember their iniquities no more,” (Jeremiah 31:33, 34).

 “By these words he is so far from departing from the former covenant, that, on the contrary, he declares, that it will be confirmed and ratified, when it shall be succeeded by the new. This is also the meaning of Christ’s words, when he says, that he came to fulfill the law: for he actually fulfilled it, by quickening, with his Spirit, the dead letter, and then exhibiting, in reality, what had hitherto appeared only in figure.

“With respect to doctrine, we must not imagine that the coming of Christ has freed us from the authority of the law: for it is the eternal rule of a devout and holy life, and must, therefore, be as unchangeable, as the justice of God, which it embraced, is constant and uniform…

“Let us therefore learn to maintain inviolable this sacred tie between the law and the Gospel, which many improperly attempt to break. For it contributes not a little to confirm the authority of the Gospel, when we learn, that it is nothing else than a fulfillment of the law; so that both, with one consent, declare God to be their Author.

“Whoever then shall break Christ here speaks expressly of the commandments of life, or the ten words, which all the children of God ought to take as the rule of their life. He therefore declares, that they are false and deceitful teachers, who do not restrain their disciples within obedience to the law, and that they are unworthy to occupy a place in the Church, who weaken, in the slightest degree, the authority of the law; and, on the other hand, that they are honest and faithful ministers of God, who recommend, both by word and by example, the keeping of the law…Those who shall pour contempt on the doctrine of the law, or on a single syllable of it, will be rejected as the lowest of men…

“The kingdom of heaven means the renovation of the Church, or the prosperous condition of the Church, such as was then beginning to appear by the preaching of the Gospel…The meaning of that phrase is, that God, restoring the world by the hand of his Son, has completely established his kingdom. Christ declares that, when his Church shall have been renewed, no teachers must be admitted to it, but those who are faithful expounders of the law, and who labor to maintain its doctrine entire…Again, we must observe the description he gives of good and holy teachers: that not only by words, but chiefly by the example of life, they exhort men to keep the law…

“The principal charge brought by Christ against their doctrine may be easily learned from what follows in the discourse, where he removes from the law their false and wicked interpretations, and restores it to its purity…

“It has been a prevailing opinion, that the beginning of righteousness was laid down in the ancient law, but that the perfection of it is pointed out in the Gospel. But nothing was farther from the design of Christ, than to alter or innovate any thing in the commandments of the law. There God has once fixed the rule of life which he will never retract. But as the law had been corrupted by false expositions, and turned to a profane meaning, Christ vindicates it against such corruptions, and points out its true meaning, from which the Jews had departed.

“That the doctrine of the law not only commences, but brings to perfection, a holy life, may be inferred from a single fact, that it requires a perfect love of God and of our neighbor, (Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18.) He who possesses such a love wants nothing of the highest perfection. So far as respects the rules of a holy life, the law conducts men to the goal, or farthest point, of righteousness…

“That Christ, on the other hand, intended to make no correction in the precepts of the law, is very clear from other passages: for to those who desire to enter into life by their good works, he gives no other injunction, than to, keep the commandments of the law, (Matthew 19:17.) From no other source do the Apostles, as well as Christ himself, draw the rules for a devout and holy life. It is doing a grievous injury to God, the author of the Law, to imagine that the eyes, and hands, and feet alone, are trained by it to a hypocritical appearance of good works, and that it is only in the Gospel that we are taught to love God with the heart. Away, then, with that error, ‘The deficiencies of the law are here supplied by Christ.’

Sunday, January 12, 2014

In Yeshua, YHWH Saves



And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS:[1] for (γαρ; grounds clause) he [himself][2] shall save his people from their sins (Matt. 1:21 KJV).

Here are some gleanings from my message prep for the Second Sunday in Epiphany (which is also Sanctity of Human Life Sunday).

Matt. 1:21 is the fulfillment of the promise of Is. 49:1d, “From the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.” So, naturally, it has weighed in on my studies.

I’ve always found this verse to be one of the strongest indirect proofs for Jesus’ deity, similar to Matt. 11:27, St. Matthew’s so-called logion. And there is a transparent word play intended in Jesus’ name in Matt. 1:21 (see fn. 1).

The command to name the Messiah Jesus (Arm. Yesuah or Joshua) is premised or grounded on the fact that “he himself will save his people from their sins” (1:21b). I’ve always struggled to put Jesus’ deity from indirect texts into a sound and valid syllogism. For instance, consider the synthesis of the following verses.

St. John 1:9 calls Jesus “the true Light.” Likewise, in 1 Jn. 1:5 we learn that “God is light.” It seems that these two could be brought into a meaningful deductive relation.

1. Jesus is the true Light;
2. God is Light;
3. Therefore, Jesus is God.

The apparent problem with this is that it creates a formal fallacy, the undistributed middle. No manner of arrangement has proven to be free of either logical or theological fallacies, as far as I can tell. It is clearer when we use other subjects.

1. My Jeep is blue;
2. The sky is blue;
3. Therefore, my jeep is the sky.

Despite these past blunders in trying to create a cogent argument from indirect biblical data, a discussion with Beaner this morning revealed that Matt. 1:21 provides just such a possibility.

            1. Yeshua is Savior of Israel (Matt. 1:21)
            2. The only Savior of Israel is YHWH (Is. 43:11; 45:15, 21, etc.)
            3. Therefore, Yeshua is YHWH.

As far as I can see, this argument is both sound and valid; it is free from logical fallacies. Additionally, it is perfectly consistent with the NT authors’ regular attribution of kurios to Jesus, which are in their OT contexts attributed to YHWH.


[1] NAS text note: Jesus is the Gk form of the Hb name “Joshua,” which = “The Lord saves” or “Yahweh saves.”

[2] NAS text note: Lit. He Himself.  

Saturday, December 21, 2013

A Thought on the Meaning of "Covenant" Marriage...and What It Can't Mean.



 
Today we often stress the covenantal nature of marriage by pointing to the mutual vows between the two entering therein. We oft illustrate it by talking of other social contracts. In this modernized conception, the gay marriage proponents find some degree of traction; it also neutralizes beefy objections coming from orthodoxy. In some of the marriage debates of his own day, Jesus points his opponents to Genesis 2 (Matt 19). There we find YHWH "cutting" the covenant; he divided Adam’s flesh, which became the covenant sacrifice. It was from this flesh cutting-division that YHWH ratified the covenant, and from which he established a new covenantal relation.

This event became the archetype of OT covenant theology (cp. Gen 15). From the divided flesh, God made a new and different flesh. Only if the "twain" were different could their union remake them into "one flesh" again. So, from this perspective on marriage, as based on the archetypal "cutting" rite in Gen 2, the argument for gay marriage in the Christian context is nonsensical, since in same-sex unions the cutting of the covenant is impossible, as it is a picture of the one (kind of) flesh becoming (rather remaining) one flesh. Thus gay "marriage" is biblically and covenantally impossible. This may help to displace the tired cliché, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," which simplistically points to creation rather than covenant.