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.

Springboarding off the last post, I want to say one more thing. It actually should go without saying, but I already briefly alluded to it last time and I think it bears mention again---the implications of what we believe and confess about the person of Jesus Christ will have an enormous impact on how we live.

Those of you who frequent this blog know that I unashamedly and unapologetically believe and confess the truths about the person of Jesus Christ as found in the Nicene Creed:

[I believe] in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

This Christological confession has been the bedrock of orthodox Christianity since the time of the apostles, and it too is the ultimate foundation of my faith. This is the Jesus that all of Scripture bears witness to, and the Jesus that we come to know through the Gospel accounts. However, in the last several hundred years, this Jesus has come into question in the scholarship of such figures as Reimarus, Schweitzer, and now the scholars of the Jesus Seminar. Was Jesus a real, historical figure? How much of what He is quoted as saying in the Gospels can we take to be His true words? Are the Gospels not just fictional accounts birthed out of the messianic expectations of the Jews of that time? How do we break away from the Jesus of scholarly fabrication and traditional Christianity and find out who (or if) He really was?

These are some of the questions that have been posed in the ongoing "Quest for the Historical Jesus." I will not get into the entire discussion that has arisen from the quest; if you want a very brief overview of it, check out the Wikipedia article I have linked to here. If you want a more comprehensive overview, check out Jon Swales’ article on the subject, and if you want an even further in-depth appraisal and critique of it I encourage you to read Robert Strimple’s book, The Modern Search for the Real Jesus. I can see the merits of the quest to some degree, such as the heightened awareness it has produced in regard to historical and cultural background study to the text of the New Testament, as well as seeing the text itself as an object of study. These have proven themselves to be valuable in the study of the New Testament. However, when taken too far or done in the wrong context they pose a problem.

A number of things trouble me about this quest aside from the most notable problem--its sometimes subtle, sometimes explicit rejection of the Jesus of Scripture. First, because it is rooted in the Enlightenment it discredits knowledge based on faith. One of the foundational premises of Enlightenment thought was that to properly know something we had think and discover for ourselves in the realm of autonomous rationality what the objective reality of something was. In this case that meant breaking Jesus out of the traditional molds cast by faith and by the Church in order to discover who He really was. There was Jesus as he appeared in the constructs of traditional Christianity, but we needed to get behind those subjective appearances because they offered a distorted portrayal of Jesus. The use of reason or rationalism was the only method of discovery. Any source of revelation (particularly the Bible) had little, if any, weight authoritatively.

Secondly, in the quest to discover who Jesus really was, to free Him from the constructs and encasement of the traditional, orthodox understanding, the scholarship of this movement ends up also casting Him in a mold, and we see Jesus emerging often as a sort of liberal, bourgeois figure. Granted, orthodox Christianity has cast Jesus in molds too--think of the Renaissance era “Swedish” Jesus--the soft, gentle, blue-eyed, blond man holding a little lamb and smiling, for example. I spoke about the tendency to make Jesus into something we want Him to be in an earlier post. But this, I am confident, is a tendency we can break free of. Through the eyes of faith and by the illumination of the Spirit, we can see Jesus as He really is. I think it is a fallacy to suppose that our cultural context always influences how we understand the revelation of Jesus in the Scriptures. It is an important thing to recognize, I agree, but I am confident that the Spirit gives us the ability to see things holistically.

My intention is not to offer a polemical treatise against the quest, but just to point out a few things. There certainly are many different critiques of this movement--some good and some not--and among those, the one major objection to the authority of the quest that I resonate with has to be its lack of answers. It has been over three-hundred years, and that field of scholarship has yet to provide an answer as to who the real Jesus is. Contrast this with the Christology that finds its orthodox expression in the ecumenical creeds formulated nearly two-thousand years ago. Some wish to continue to give scholars involved in the quest the benefit of the doubt; however, the authority of historical tradition cannot be easily dismissed here, especially since it is grounded firmly in Scripture.

Anne Rice, at the end of her book, Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt, talks about her time spent in these reconstructionist circles. "In sum," she says,

the whole case for the non-divine Jesus who stumbled into Jerusalem and somehow got crucified by nobody and had nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and would be horrified by it if he knew about it--that whole picture which had floated in the liberal circles I frequented as an atheist for 30 years--that case was not made. Not only was it not made, I discovered in this field some of the worst and most biased scholarship I'd ever read.

I saw almost no skeptical scholarship that was convincing, and the Gospels, shredded by the critics, lost all intensity when reconstructed by various theorists. They were in no way compelling when treated as composites and records of later ‘communities’ (313-314).

Rice here makes the implication that individual parts of Scripture cannot be taken out, dissected, and understood apart from the whole. This is because all of Scripture is an organic whole, and is self-attesting (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Not only do the writers of the Bible themselves testify to its coherence, but the text does as well, coming together in a unified whole. This is of great importance, and in the very first paragraph of his chapter on Scripture in his book, Studies in Theology, Loraine Boettner makes the point that our conception of Christianity varies significantly depending on our view of the Bible. He later states that "since all of the other Christian doctrines are derived from the Bible and rest upon it for their authority, this doctrine is, as it were, the mother and guardian of all others" (49). It is the Spirit who testifies in our hearts to the authority, wholeness, and truth of the Word of God.

Further, all of Scripture points to and speaks of Jesus Christ. He is the center of the whole of the biblical revelation. It certainly is easy to take a story or a narrative on its own and turn it into a moralistic lesson or an ethical teaching, but the fact is that every part of Scripture bears witness to Jesus Christ and the work of redemption and salvation brought through Him. As Graeme Goldsworthy says in the first volume of The Goldsworthy Trilogy (entitled Gospel and Kingdom), the entire story of redemption begins and ends with Christ, and the whole Bible needs to be understood in the light of the the Gospel. Indeed, "Jesus Christ is the key to the interpretation of the whole Bible" (105).

As a biblical theologian, this is a point that Goldsworthy draws out frequently and you can find wonderfully expressed in many of his books, such as According to Plan and Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture. The Reformer John Calvin says also, "The Scriptures should be read with the aim of finding Christ in them. Whoever turns aside from this object, even though he wears himself out all his life in learning, he will never reach the knowledge of the truth."

On the question of Christology I am firmly and unwaveringly orthodox. There is absolutely nothing that can make me question the historical reality of Jesus and the faithful testimony of who He is as found in the biblical revelation. You simply cannot fabricate an idea of Jesus to meet your needs, be it political, socioeconomic, or scholarly. He is the Word made flesh (John 1:1-14). He is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb. 13:8). He is indwelled with the fullness of God, and the One in whom all things hold together (Col. 1:15-23). Any Jesus other than the Jesus of Scripture simply is not Jesus.

You cannot underestimate how crucial it is that the doctrine of Jesus Christ be understood correctly. A proper understanding of Christ is necessary to properly understand the biblical story because He is the center of it. Further, orthodox Christology is essential for ortho-doxology. We cannot truly worship Christ unless we truly understand who He is. So you can see that the title of this post is a bit of a play on words. There is no need for us to ask, "Will the real Jesus please stand up?" Why? Because that Jesus, the real Jesus, is the Jesus of Scripture. He has already made Himself known. And so along with Peter we must confess, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16).

Herman Ridderbos, in his book, The Coming of the Kingdom, discusses the present character of the kingdom of God and the Messianic work of bringing the "lost sheep" together in Christ, quoting Matthew 11:28, "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are very laden, and I will give you rest," and then stating the following:

'Those that labor' and are 'laden' are troubled, not by their 'cares' or their 'sins,' but very particularly by the 'burden' of the Pharisaical prescriptions. They are to be looked upon as 'sheep without a shepherd' in this particular sense. It is not a timeless message of rest for their souls, but these words originate from the consciousness that the great turning-point of the times has come, and that the Divine redemption can be sought and found only in Christ. In these words of the Savior God holds out his arms to his wandering people. That is why here the kingdom is present, notwithstanding all its mystery and its preliminary character.

Any attempt, therefore, to build up a doctrine of redemption which has not been based on the person and the work of Jesus as the Christ must be rejected. On the ground of these sayings about the seeking of those who were lost there would then be merely the message of God's fatherly love which, however, would be in glaring conflict with the redemptive-historical character of the gospel. That the lost sheep are sought, that the prodigal son can return, that salvation is preached to publicans and sinners, is only true and possible because Jesus is the Christ, and in him the kingdom of God has come. This is the great presupposition of Jesus' words as the Savior with respect to that which was lost. If we detach these words from this presupposition we deprive the gospel of its basis. No doubt this also implies that as the Christ Jesus is not only the coming judge of the world, the Son of Man upon the clouds of heaven. But the Christological character of the entire gospel, including 'the gospel to sinners,' should be beyond dispute (155).

The centrality of Christ to our faith cannot be understated. As Ridderbos declares, the gospel cannot stand without the person and work of Christ; neither, consequently, can our faith. This is why, with the apostle Paul, we must proclaim the supremacy of Christ realizing that it is "through Christ [that] we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand" (Rom. 5:2). For that reason we must bow the knee to the one who declares, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).