Football and Interpreting Scripture

 

Imagine someone's exposure and understanding of American football being composed solely of watching highlight videos of just the kicker and punter.  There would be scenes of punting on fourth down, the kick-off, extra-point kicks, and field goals.  This would allow a person to understand some things about the game of football.  A person could understand how the ball moves (sometimes) and how points are scored (at least some of the time).  But this, of course, would not be a full understanding.  Such a de-contextualized "understanding" of football would miss many of the details and connections between actions in the full game of football.  Even the significance of the actions viewed in the highlight reel would not be weighted properly--being either over-valued or under-valued.  Such a limited understanding of football would miss the center and weightiest part of scoring in football, namely the touchdown.  It would all miss the central movement of the football, namely the movement of the ball by running and passing.

This is good analogy for how some people cherry-pick a few sayings or deeds from Jesus' life without placing them in the larger pattern of his thought and life.  This is to fundamentally misunderstand Jesus.  A "pick-and-choose" approach to Jesus will miss the center of his teaching and misunderstand the connections and significance of Jesus' teaching and actions.  

To focus on the love of Jesus or his concern for the poor to the exclusion of the larger contextual themes of the Kingdom of God and the person of Christ Jesus himself is to fundamentally misunderstand Jesus and his message.  D. A. Carson's words on "love" in the Scriptures are relevant here:

I do not think that what the Bible says about the love of God can long survive at the forefront of our thinking if it is abstracted from the sovereignty of God, the holiness of God, the wrath of God, the providence of God, or the personhood of God—to mention only a few nonnegotiable elements of basic Christianity. 

The result, of course, is that the love of God in our culture has been purged of anything the culture finds uncomfortable.  The love of God has been sanitized, democratized, and above all sentimentalized.[1] 

---------------------

[1] D. A. Carson The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Crossway, 2000), 11.

Highpoints of the Bible: Introduction and Creation

* Part of a series of Bible studies on the significant pieces of the biblical storyline.

Highpoints of the Bible: Introduction and Creation

 

Introduction

 

1.    Understanding the Big Story of the Bible: Metanarrative

 

a.    Creation, Fall, Redemption, Restoration—CFRR 

 

b.    Creation, Fall, Israel, Jesus, Church, Restoration

 

2.    The CFRR lens can be used to analyze other worldviews—example: Marxism.[1]

 

3.    The true story of the world in comparison and contrast to other false narratives

 

Creation

 

1.    Three issues

 

a.    What it tells us about God

 

b.    What it tells us about humanity

 

c.     How this theme is picked up in the New Testament

 

2.    What it tells us about God

 

a.    God is the Creator of all things—Genesis 1-2

 

·     Note: There are lots of detailed debates about how to interpret the timing of the “days” of Genesis one and how to understand how modern scientific understandings integrate with the portrait in Genesis 1-2.  For some resources on this see Vern Poythress’ article: “Evangelical Interpretations of Genesis 1-2.”[2]

 

b.    Some key ideas

 

·     Creator/creature distinction

·     Creation is not God (pantheism) or co-equal with God (Panentheism)

·     Solitary Creator (monotheism)

·     Transcendent and immanent (not Deism)

·     Material world is “good”

·     God creates an environment and setting of shalom

 

“Shalom means universal flourishing, wholeness, and delight—a rich state of affairs in which natural needs are satisfied and natural gifts fruitfully employed, a state of affairs that inspires joyful wonder as its Creator and Savior opens doors and welcomes the creatures in whom he delights.  Shalom, in other words, is the ways things ought to be.”[3]

 

c.     Displays God’s wisdom and power: Psalms 33; 104 (see esp. v. 24); 2 Kings 19.15-19; Jeremiah 10.10-12; 32.17; Romans 1.20

 

d.    Displays God’s “God-ness”—only he is the Creator: Isaiah 44.24

 

3.    What it tells us about humanity[4]: Genesis 1-2; Psalm 8

 

a.    “Image of God”: Genesis 1.26-28

 

·     “It will probably amaze us to realize that when the Creator of the universe wanted to create something “in his image,” something more like himself than all the rest of creation, he made us…We are the culmination of God’s infinitely wise and skillful work of creation.”[5]

 

b.    Image of God àcrucial concept!

 

                                               i.     Actual phrase “image of God” used infrequently: Genesis 1.26-27; 9.6; 1 Corinthians 11.7; James 3.9 (see Genesis 5.1 for “likeness” language)

 

                                              ii.     What is the “image of God?”  Was it lost in the Fall?  Do all people share in the “image of God” now—believers and unbelievers?

 

                                            iii.     Some have denied that post-Fall people are in the image of God àthe image has been lost and is only renewed in coming to Christ Jesus

 

·     But see: Genesis 9.6 and James 3.9 àpost-Fall situations that do not restrict image to believers

 

                                            iv.     Structural and Functional (or, broader and narrower) aspects of image

 

1.    Structural: “In sum, then, we may say that by the image of God in the broader or structural sense we mean the entire endowment of gifts and capacities that enable man to function as he should in his various relationships and callings.”[6]

 

a.    Intellectual powers

b.    Moral sensitivity

c.     Capacity for religious worship 

d.    Responsibility

e.    Volitional power

f.     Aesthetic sense

g.    Gifts of speech and song

h.    Ability to feel; have emotions

 

2.    Functional: “Thus the image of God in the narrower sense means man’s proper functioning in harmony with God’s will for him.”[7]

 

                                              v.     Consider two sets of passages

 

1.    Genesis 9.6; James 3.9

2.    Colossians 3.10; Ephesians 4.24

 

If we put these two types of passages together, we conclude that there must be a sense in which fallen man still bears the image of God, but that there must also be a sense in which he no longer bears that image.  Hence the distinction between the broader and narrower aspects of the image is necessary.[8]

 

                                            vi.     C. John Collins outlines views on the image of God

 

1.    Resemblance: human beings like God in some aspect(s) such as intellect, moral sense, will, rationality, etc.

 

2.    Representative: humans commanded by God to rule creation on God’s behalf

 

3.    Relational: humans as male/female and in community as they manifest the “image of God”

 

·      Scholars commonly speak as if these categories are mutually exclusive.  My view is that the linguistic and exegetical details favor the idea that “in our image, after our likeness” implies that humans were made with some kind of resemblance to God, which was to enable them to represent God as benevolent rulers, and to find their fulfillment in their relationships with each other and with God.  That is, I have combined all three views,…[9]

 

c.     Relational aspect: Marriage

 

·      God creates marriage: Genesis 2.21-25

 

1.    Elements of marriage: monogamy, exclusivity, permanence

 

2.    Attack on all aspects of God’s creative design for marriage

 

a.    Male and female union: Homosexuality

 

b.    Maleness and femaleness: Transgenderism

 

c.     “Joined” (cleaving): Divorce

 

d.    “One flesh”: Adultery; Spousal abuse

 

e.    Fruit of marriage (children): Abortion

 

d.    Relational aspect: Four-fold relationships

 

 

e.    Representative aspect: We represent God as vice-regents to steward God’s creation

 

·      “In the ancient East the setting up of the king’s statue was the equivalent to the proclamation of his dominion over the sphere in which the statue was erected (cf. Dan. 3.1, 5f.).  When in the thirteenth century BC the Pharaoh Ramesses II had his image hewn out of rock at the mouth of the nahr el-kelb, on the Mediterranean north of Beirut, the image meant that he was the ruler of this area.  Accordingly, man is set in the midst of creation as God’s statue. He is evidence that God is Lord of creation; but as God’s steward he also exerts his rule, fulfilling his task not in arbitrary despotism but as a responsible agent.  His rule and his duty to rule are not autonomous; they are copies.”[10]

 

·      Cultural Mandate (or Dominion Mandate)

 

1.    “Man is called to “work” the earth in order to uncover the rich potentialities “hidden,” as it were, beneath the earth’s surface.  On the most basic, agriculturallevel, man cuts into the earth and sows seed, which grows up into plants, which when carefully tended yield fruit in their appointed seasons. Dig deeper and the earth will yield still more riches: precious stones and gold (Gen. 2:11-12; Job 28); ore which can be smelted to make metals; and basic chemical raw materials which can be synthesized into pigments and dyes for art works, fertilizers to increase crop yields, or rocket fuel to explore God’s vast universe.  Other parts of the creation can be transformed as well: wood can be fashioned into flutes for the praise of God or timbers for building; stones can be dressed and fitted into walls, etc.”[11]

 

·      Environmental stewardship

 

1.    Stewards of creation; not destroyers

 

2.    See my short article: “Habakkuk and God’s Concern for the Environment”[12]

 

4.    How is this theme of creation picked up in the New Testament?

 

a.    Jesus Christ is acknowledged as Creator: John 1.1-3; Colossians 1.15-17; 1 Corinthians 8.6

 

b.    Jesus Christ is the full image of God: Colossians 1.15; 2 Corinthians 4.4

 

c.     Image of God restored in Christ Jesus: Ephesians 4.24; Colossians 3.10

 

d.    Marriage: Matthew 19.3-9; Ephesians 5.22-33

---

     [1]See my blog post “Karl Marx and Marxism—Some Notes” White Rose Review(April 7, 2020). Online: https://whiterosereview.blogspot.com/2020/04/karl-marx-and-marxism-some-notes.html.

     [2]https://frame-poythress.org/evangelical-interpretations-of-genesis-1-2/.

     [3]Cornelius Plantinga Jr., Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995), 10.

     [4]For another study on the doctrine of humanity see my blog post “Doctrine of Humanity” White Rose Review (January 10, 2016). Online: https://whiterosereview.blogspot.com/2016/01/doctrine-of-humanity.html.

     [5]Wayne Grudem, Sytematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 449.

     [6]Anthony Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1986), 70-71.

     [7]Hoekema, Created in God’s Image, 72.

     [8]Hoekema, Created in God’s Image, 64.

     [9]C. John Collins. Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?  Who They Were and Why You Should Care (Crossway, 2011), p. 94. See also Herman Hoekema’s discussion of “structural” and “functional” aspects of the image of God in Created in God’s Image (Eerdmans/Paternoster, 1986), pp. 68-73.

     [10]Hans Walter Wolff as quoted in Peter J. Gentry and Stephen Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2012), 200.

     [11]David Bruce Hegeman, Plowing in Hope: Toward a Biblical Theology of Culture (Moscow: Canon Press, 1999), 45.

     [12]Online: http://whiterosereview.blogspot.com/2011/11/habakkuk-and-gods-concern-for.html.

"Tensions in Contemporary Theology": Some Quotations

 

Tensions in Contemporary Theology (eds. Stanley N. Gundry and Alan F. Johnson, Moody Press) was published in 1976.  Its goal was to critically analyze theological trends operative in the 1960s-1970s.  The theological landscape has changed in the last forty-five years but the essays are still interesting reading.  I haven't read all of them but I did spend time recently reading Bernard Ramm's chapter ("The Fortunes of Theology From Schleiermacher to Barth and Bultmann") as well as Harold B. Kuhn's contribution ("Secular Theology").  I then read the concluding essay by Harold O. J. Brown ("The Conservative Option").

Here a few random thoughts and quotations from the book:

1.  "Evangelicals need to be acquainted with the major theological thinkers of our time.  We cannot expect to commend our own outlook if we show ourselves completely ignorant of the position held by others.  In a certain sense we need to earn our right to disagree, and part of this earning lies in an accurate understanding and appraisal of the position of those who we differ.  One charge which evangelicals have often leveled at others is that they have presented criticism of the conservative stance that manifested very inadequate information, often based on second-hand materials and reflecting a biased approach and a caricature of what the evangelical view is.  We cannot afford to emulate this kind of onesidedness.  Since we want to be treated fairly, we owe it to ourselves and to others to treat others fairly."  Roger Nicole (from the Foreword, p. 7)

2.  "The evangelical needs to learn many important lessons, even from those with whom he disagrees.  They often have managed to make their voice heard in more effective ways than we have.  They sometimes have related themselves to problems and aspirations which may have been neglected in evangelical circles.  Thus, even in places where faithfulness to the biblical message demands that we should disagree, we may cull valuable insights into the mood and spirit of our age.  Furthermore, we ought not to reason that, because certain positions are subject to criticism, they contain no element of truth whatsoever.  In most cases views which command a wide support do embody substantial elements of truth.  We must ever remain teachable and be prepared to find valuable insights, even in places where at first  we might not have been inclined to seek teaching for ourselves.  By broadening the range of our horizon we may be in a better position to understand our own faith and commend it to others."  Roger Nicole (Foreword, pp. 7-8)

3.  "In the broadest definition possible, religious liberalism was the effort to restate the Christian faith in harmony with the Enlightenment, or from the perspective of the Enlightenment."  Bernard Ramm, 18

4.  [A]ll Christian doctrines either are reconstructed so as to conform to these philosophical criteria or are eliminated.  The locus of faith is no longer in what God says (divine revelation) or in what God does (redemption in history) but primarily in what man experiences."  Bernard Ramm, 19

5.  "It is not that liberal theology rejected Holy Scripture.  It relocated its authority.  One of the pioneers in this was S. T. Coleridge, who said that the Bible was the Word of God because it reached him more deeply than any other book.  The power of Scripture was, then, in its spiritual effect upon man and not in its objective inspiration."  Bernard Ramm, 28

6,  "As the orthodox doctrine of God and the Trinity eroded in liberal theology, new efforts were made to restate the doctrine of God.  Liberal theology really started out with pantheism in the theology of Schleiermacher--so claims H. R. Mackintosh.  But this could not be the final resting place of the liberals' doctrine of God.  In order to stress the immanence of God and yet not fall into pantheism, liberalism talked of panentheism.  "God in all things."  This would salvage the doctrine of the divine immanence which was so important to religious liberalism and yet hopefully save it from a pantheism which would be fatal to Christian theology."  Bernard Ramm, 31

7.  "Paul van Buren is usually regarded as part of the death-of-God movement,... he concerns himself with the linguistic aspect of the question.  He begins with the proposition that it is today meaningless to speak of God at all; the laws of human language have rendered the very word God inoperative

"He bases his case for the proposition, 'The word "God" is dead,' upon what he terms the 'verification principle,' by which he means that the function of a statement must determine its meaning.  He contends that the statement 'God exists' is meaningless to the person whose attitude and approach is that of secularism, for it does not fit the standards of empirical verification."  Kuhn, 168

Note: I find it ironic and a little sad that just a few years after this Alvin Plantinga would philosophically trounce the verification principle and reassert traditional theism as a viable intellectual option.  Van Buren simply lapped up the current philosophical currents rather than critically engaging them from a Christian worldview.  The verification principle is now seen to be bankrupt and Van Buren's theology is a relic of the past and has so contemporary staying power.  

8.  "Finally, attempts to erect systems of theology upon the supposed ruins of a revelation which is rejected run counter to what has been deeply felt by the Christian community.  More important still, such systems have an opponent which they refuse to see or to acknowledge--namely, the dynamic which is inherent in the inspired Word, the dynamic of the Holy Spirit, who was the agent of its inspiration."  Kuhn, 170

Note: This is one of my favorite quotations from this book.  It reminds us that theological polemics is not simply a wrangle of words.  The battle between belief and unbelief is one in which the Holy Spirit takes sides.  He is committed to exalting and glorifying Christ Jesus and his gospel (John 16.13-15).  He will not suffer the name of Jesus to be forever demeaned and dragged through the muddy waters of alien theological presuppositions.

9.  "Being a conservative evangelical and accepting the doctrine of biblical infallibility does not require any sacrificium intellectus (the sacrifice of one's understanding or intellectual integrity).  Quite the contrary is true.  It is, rather, other varieties of theology, ones that have enjoyed greater vogue in academic circles, that require such a sacrifice.  Intellectually speaking, we should defend the viewpoint that evangelical theology is not merely a viable option but a superior one."  Brown, 328

10.   "'Dialogue' only a partial possibility.  Prior to regeneration the human mind is inherently incapable of grasping, even merely intellectually, the substance of the biblical message.  Consequently, the dialogue of the believing Christian thinker with unbelieving intellectual colleagues will always operate under severe handicaps.  It is, of course, possible to present the Gospel in such a manner that the difficulty of believing it is magnified unnecessarily.  But it is never possible to present it in such a manner that every difficulty associated faith is removed, particularly in the light of the fact that at least one major impediment to belief lies neither in the message itself nor in its presentation but in the heart of the unconverted hearer.... Even when all possible intellectual roadblocks have been cleared, some barriers will remain, apart from the grace of God and the transforming work of the Holy Spirit in the unconverted heart.  The unbeliever is not prepared to see his difficulty in accepting the content of the Gospel message in these terms but will believe that certain intellectual or moral obstacles remain to be surmounted.  Thus the unbeliever may well encourage his Christian colleagues in the misapprehension that by a more skillful and subtle approach to the problem, by a more delicate and discriminating sensitivity, by a more thorough command of the attendant facts and related intellectual disciplines, they could carry the dialogue through to successful persuasion.  We must recognize that this is an illusion: when all major and minor intellectual obstacles have been removed, all questions fairly met, and no issues skirted, the Gospel will continue to be rejected 'intellectually' as long as it is not accepted spiritually, that is, as long as repentance and conversion are not present."  Brown, 329-330

11.  "The danger of intellectual respectability.  The evangelical who is concerned to show the intellectual respectability of scriptural teachings set himself a worthy goal; but unless he remembers that he can never fully secure the approval of unbelievers for his doctrine apart from their spiritual conversion, there may come a time when he is tempted to compromise the Bible's proclamation in order to secure greater agreement from the participants in the dialogue.  The greatest scholarly accuracy and the highest intellectual attainments on the part of the evangelist or apologete will not entirely free him from intellectual disrepute as long as he submits, in the final analysis, to the authority of the Bible as the Word of God and affirms the need for personal conversion and salvation by grace through faith.  In each of these doctrines there is something that offends the natural man.  That offense cannot be removed, no matter how tactful or erudite the presentation, as long as the message is not altered."  Brown, 330

12.  "A defective theology may not destroy an individual's saving faith nor his personal relationship to Christ; but it will make it difficult or impossible for him to transmit or teach the truths of the faith to those who come after him."  Brown, 331

13.  "It should now be evident that the least sophisticated fundamentalist, with a naive and perhaps even myopic acceptance of partially understood Scripture, is less likely to make errors disastrous for his faith and salvation than the refined critic who wonders whether God can speak, whether He would use human language to do so, and whether human language is capable of expressing anything unambiguous in which we can unreservedly put our trust."  Brown, 350-351

14.  "The human rebellion against the will of God has in a way proceeded serially against the persons of the Trinity: rebellion against the Holy Spirit in the rejection of inspiration in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; rebellion against the Son in the rejection of a substitutionary atonement and redemption through the blood of Christ in the nineteenth and twentieth; now, rebellion against the Father in the denial of creation and even of the objective reality of the universe in the twentieth."  Brown, 353-354