In his book, The Progress of Redemption: The Story of Salvation from Creation to the New Jerusalem, Old Testament scholar Willem VanGemeren notes that the creation still waits to be consecrated. Upon finishing his work of creation, God declares everything to be very good, but he only consecrates the Sabbath day. Thus, though creation is very good in God's sight, it is not perfect in its original state and anticipates a move toward perfection.

For VanGemeren, creation has both a christological and an eschatological focus. He writes, 'Creation anticipates a telos, or end. The God who freely, graciously, and powerfully rules creation has a goal: the new creation in his Son Jesus Christ' (62). Right from the start, God has in mind the history of redemption culminating in the restoration and perfection (consecration) of creation, achieved through the incarnation and resurrection of Christ. Interestingly, VanGemeren observes that with the fall into sin, the consecration of creation moved from being a possibility to a necessity. I am not sure what he understands by the possibility of consecration, especially if he sees the work of Christ in consecrating creation as something planned from the beginning. But certainly the necessity is there – what has been corrupted by sin must be rescued and redeemed, or 'put to rights', to borrow a phrase from N.T. Wright.

With the promise of the consecration of creation, God's people are given the responsibility of bearing witness to the future eschatological fulfillment of that promise. '[Israel] had received a foretaste of the promises of God in their special status as a covenant people and were guaranteed a greater restoration in the Promised Land' (61). The prophets later point forward 'to the restoration of all things in the messianic age' (62), which Jesus demonstrates in a powerful way during his life on earth. At his ascension, he promises the Holy Spirit, who will guide his people in bearing witness to his coming Kingdom (Acts 1:8). We don't just wait in hope for that which is to come, but we eagerly anticipate the consecration of creation. By living in fidelity to God's rule and proclaiming the gospel of the Kingdom, we offer a foretaste of what is to come.

From VanGemeren's perspective, then,

the Garden of Eden is a prototype of the world planned by God – the world of restoration. The history of redemption, therefore, does not begin with a high point only to end up with the new earth as an equally high point. The new creation is better than the first because it will be perfect, holy, and characterized by the presence of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (Rev. 21:22)... For that purpose, we must look upon Christ as the very purpose of God's creation. He is what Berkhof calls 'the pattern of existence for which creation is intended.' His redemptive work...was fully in view when God created the world. Creation is, therefore, the beginning, or the preamble, of the history of redemption (64).

Thoughts?

Few can express the wonder of the incarnation like St Augustine can:

He, through whom time was made, was made in time; and He, older by eternity than the world itself, was younger in age than many of His servants in the world; He, who made man, was made man; He was given existence by a mother whom He brought into existence; He was carried in hands which He formed; He nursed at breasts which He filled; He cried like a babe in the manger in speechless infancy—this Word without which human eloquence is speechless!

The Gospel of John is one of the most interesting, and certainly one of the most profound books of the New Testament. On several occasions, I have heard teachers tell me that they could spend years teaching through it, and I have even once heard a pastor say he could spend his entire ministry preaching through the book of John. This gospel also played a significant role in shaping the Christology of the Early Church. Here are a few short quotes from T.E. Pollard's book, Johannine Christology and the Early Church, which I read recently. They demonstrate the importance of John's gospel in the ancient period.

In opposition to the metaphysical monotheism of the Arians, Athanasius sets as the foundation of his theology the New Testament revelation of God as the Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, a doctrine which finds its clearest expression and fullest development in St John's Gospel...Athanasius grasps the threefold emphasis of St John on the mediatorial work of Jesus Christ in creation, revelation and salvation...In the theology of Athanasius the common faith by which the church had lived from the beginning, and which found its expression in the scriptures of the New Testament and the rule of faith, namely faith in Jesus Christ as Son of God and Saviour of men, finds its first full development in the Eastern church. This common faith was the faith which Athanasius spent his life in defending against the powerful attacks of a highly speculative theology which found strong support from the imperial court, and it was St John's Gospel which provided him with the most effective and devastating weapons (244-245).

It was St John's Gospel, with the Logos-concept of the Prologue (John 1:1-18), which opened the way fro the misinterpretations of the Christian message as a Word-theology and as a Logos-theology. It was, however, the same gospel that also provided a basis for the refutation of both these misinterpretations and for the establishment of a theology in which Jesus Christ is central as the Son of God who became man for us men and our salvation (319).

I think it is helpful to read the Gospel of John with this historical context in mind, to realize the impact it had on early Christology. Thoughts?

This post will wrap up my short series on the importance of theology. I looked first at the role theology plays in forming our thinking, speaking, and acting; and secondly, at how we need not shy away from theology if we understand it properly.

To tie up some loose ends, let me begin by drawing your attention to the Early Church. What is interesting to me is how many in the Church today want to reclaim the model of the Early Church, citing it as more biblical and "back to basics." While again I can understand and appreciate the sentiment, I wonder how many realize how intense of a period this was in terms of theological development. You only need to read a little about the Christological controversies, for example, to see how involved they were in theology and how pivotal their role was in shaping our theology today. It is also helpful to look to that volatile period as an example of why theology is so necessary.

Go back before that, even, and look at Jesus. I recently came across an interesting article by Mike Gilbart-Smith in which he argued that Jesus was a sort of systematic theologian as well. He did not just quote Scripture in his teachings, but brought the passages He used to light in the broader context of the rest of the biblical revelation. Consider what Gilbart-Smith says:

Scripture is often used in Scripture in a systematic manner...in order to observe the full implications of what the Bible teaches elsewhere.

Look again at Mark 12:24-27. Jesus rebukes the Sadducees for not knowing the Scriptures, yet what he criticizes is a part of their systematic theology: they wrongly deny the resurrection. He then reads Exodus 3:6 in the light of the systematic belief that God is the God of the living, to reach the conclusion that the Pentateuch affirms the resurrection.

The statement, ‘He is not the God of the dead but the God of the living,’ is particularly pertinent to our discussion. Not a single verse in the Old Testament makes this assertion explicitly, yet when we read of God’s action in the Old Testament as a whole, that he is the God of the living is clear. Jesus is not giving new revelation when he says this. He is deducing it from a systematic reading of the Old Testament. Neither is Jesus alone a legitimate systematician, for if he were, he would not rebuke the Sadducees for wrong systematics. They too were expected to make such logical connections from Scripture. If Jesus expected it of the Sadducees, then how much more will he expect it of his redeemed people?

Frequently, people who advocate the abandonment of theology will say something like, "just the Gospel!" or, "just give me Jesus!" It is clear from the quote above, however, that Jesus' message and teaching was not limited to the Gospel alone. Theology, as we have said, is the application of God's Word by persons to all areas of life. Jesus clearly demonstrates here the necessity of understanding the biblical revelation, in part because it leads to rightly understand the message of the Gospel. In the case of the Sadducees, they lacked the orthodoxy that was essential to orthopraxy. It should be noted as well that the Gospel, that simple message itself, is interwoven with the most basic yet profound theological formulations.

Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, it is not arrogant to take a theological position. It is necessary. How are you going to live faithfully if you don't have a set of convictions that you live according to? This is one of the reasons we engage in the the task of theology, to ensure that those convictions are consistent and biblical. Theology should not be a dry, intellectual, and scientific pursuit. It is instead a process and a journey and one that is most rewarding when faithfully carried out in the community of believers. Together as the body of Christ we work towards understanding so that we may all mold ourselves into His likeness. For as we continually work to faithfully be the imago Dei we then can be more faithful in our engagement in the missio Dei.

Embrace theology. To know rightly is to worship and to live rightly. It is the knowledge and love of God's revelation to us in His most precious Word that transforms our hearts and minds. That Word reveals Jesus Christ to us in every part. Doing theology, then, is nothing less than learning how to become more like Him. There is no more wonderful pursuit than that.

One of the courses I am taking this fall is a history of the ancient church, and as part of the assignments for that class I am required to read a good number of pages from a lengthy list of books. One of the books I chose to read is entitled, Johannine Christology and the Early Church, by T.E. Pollard. I realize that unless you are interested in theology that probably sounds like a dreadfully boring book. However, the title alone intrigued me, and having just read the first paragraph I am even more eager to get into it:

At the turn of the [twentieth] century, F.C. Conybeare, in a review of Alfred Loisy's Le quatrième évangile, wrote: 'If Athanasius had not had the Fourth Gospel to draw texts from, Arius would never have been confuted.' That is however only part of the truth, for it would also be true to say that if Arius had not had the Fourth Gospel to draw texts from, he would not have needed confuting. Without in any way diminishing the importance of other biblical writings in the development of the church's doctrine, it is St. John's Gospel--and the First Epistle of St. John--that brings into sharpest focus the problems which created doctrinal controversy in the early church and which indeed still perplex the church today.

The emphasis of the Christology of the Gospel of John is markedly different than the emphases of the other three Gospels, and I have been aware for some time how influential it was on the theology of the early Church, although not altogether aware of the nuances of that influence. If you have not studied or read about it before, it is important to note that the theological debates over the person of Jesus Christ in the third and fourth centuries were incredibly intense, and the formulations they arrived at play a crucial role in how we understand Christology today. I am looking forward to the opportunity to explore it.