Subjects begging for a book

... although there probably are already books on them. If so please do tell.

1. A Biblical Theology of Christ the prophet

We've all heard plenty on how Christ fulfils the Levitical (and Melchizedek's) priesthood. We know that Christ was great David's greater son, the King of the Jews, and all things will be put under him. Traditionally though there are three offices of Christ; priest, prophet and king. However, how much do you appreciate how Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy. I often hear some vague Barthian notions about Christ as the Word of God, and the ultimate revelation of God is in his death and resurrection, but what about the rich detail, and real connections with the OT? Specifically I have in mind Elisha's ministry which parallels Jesus' to an amazing degree. It seems to me a howling hole in historical Jesus studies, and Christology. Maybe I'm showing my ignorance, but does anyone know of any resources on this as I can't work it out on my own.

2. A study on the relationship of the signs and wonders of the Apostles and Moses

Beginning with Moses highlights a recent book on Signs and Wonders and a look down the contents is sadly unsurprisingly focused only on the NT and contemporary world. A search of occurrences of the phrase in the bible (e.g. in ESV) shows how the phrase was especially applied to the miracles and plagues that Moses performed in Egypt. It seems crazy to me to undertake a study of the miracles of Jesus and especially the Apostles without giving this serious thought. God’s works through Moses brought salvation a people and judgment to another and so demonstrated who was truly God. I can see many parallels with Jesus, the Apostles, the Jews, the Gentiles and sinners (cf. Leithart). Is there also a link here with Elisha, his miracles amongst the gentiles, and his condemnation of a corrupt nation?

As you can see my thoughts are garbled, I need help! But seriously though, this is not just idle speculation or intellectual games we are playing. All these ponderings are centred on Christ and a muffled desire to know him better, and the wish to have a wider vocabulary with which to praise him. Any suggestions are welcome.

A handful of quotes

John Piper's comments on Islam and the NPP have caused a mild stir in the blogosphere. Piper begins with identifying the key issue in Muslim-Christian dialogue:

Listening to an interview by Mark Dever with Thabiti Anyabwile, I heard Mark use an illustration that I found tremendously helpful. It relates to the question whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God under different names.

He said that we should picture two old classmates from college discussing a common friend from thirty years ago. They begin to wonder if they are talking about the same person. One of them is convinced they are, and the other keeps thinking this is not quite the way he remembers the friend. Finally, they decide to dig out an old yearbook and settle the issue. They open the book, and as soon as they see the picture of their classmate, one says, “No, that’s not who I am talking about.” So it was not the same person after all.

Mark said that Jesus, as he is revealed in the Bible, is the picture in the yearbook. When a Muslim and a Christian, who have been discussing whether they are worshiping the same God, look at God in the yearbook, it settles the matter: “No,” says the Muslim, “that’s not who I am talking about.”

Mark Horne has the most helpful post on the subject I have seen. By altering Piper's comments so they are about a mythical New Perspective on Moses rather than the NPP he shows how Piper's main concern that in interfaith dialogue the person of our God should be central actually demonstrates that the supposed side-lining of justification by faith in the NPP is not that big a deal after all. As Mark says: 'The Bible talks about the true religion v. false religion many times in the Bible without making that the key issue.' [note I've edited the above because of an embarrassing oversight earlier, see the comments]

The ever brilliant Peter Leithart comments that:

Unbelievers and pagans often understand the political import of Christianity more clearly than Christians. Jews persecuted the early Christians because they threatened to change Jewish customs, and thereby threatened the future of Israel. Romans persecuted Christians because they proclaimed that Jesus, not Caesar, was king. Innumerable modern believers have been slaughtered for the same reason. The gospel isn't "apolitical." It simply proclaims a different politics. Jesus called His disciples, as NT Wright puts it, to a "revolutionary way of being revolutionary."

Finally, my friend Steve Wenham pointed out a random commencement address which seems to have been banging around the web. The best bit is encapsulated in the following

So let's talk about the single most pervasive cliché in the commencement speech genre, which is that a liberal arts education is not so much about filling you up with knowledge as it is about quote teaching you how to think. If you're like me as a student, you've never liked hearing this, and you tend to feel a bit insulted by the claim that you needed anybody to teach you how to think, since the fact that you even got admitted to a college this good seems like proof that you already know how to think. But I'm going to posit to you that the liberal arts cliché turns out not to be insulting at all, because the really significant education in thinking that we're supposed to get in a place like this isn't really about the capacity to think, but rather about the choice of what to think about. If your total freedom of choice regarding what to think about seems too obvious to waste time discussing, I'd ask you to think about fish and water, and to bracket for just a few minutes your skepticism about the value of the totally obvious.

I will post something a bit better over the weekend.

Personal notes

• I've recently realised again how good it is to simply read scripture (specifically the Psalms) to God, rather than to learn about him and his ways. My recent reading has included a book by John Barton (not very good by the way), and he reminded me the bible is not only prophetic (he said 'not always) but is also liturgical (he said 'sometimes liturgical'). I have found difficulties with my understanding of scripture force themselves before my eyes more when I make the words my own, but this really can lead to more praise. The imprecatory psalms have been particularly difficult (I'm looking forward to reading this), but it is releasing to not agonise over them, but pray them with the confidence that God is righteous and trustworthy.

• Another recent and happy event is introducing a friend to John Piper and his sermons on Romans 8:28. There is nothing like a great God to set a heart aflame.

• Also I'm finally getting into the habit of learning to play the piano/keyboard. I'm only taking my first steps but it is a nice thing to return from work and make music (even if its banal). I used to play the violin many years ago but it seems I can still read music quite well.

• There have been sadder notes in my life recently, but I am already boring you all I'm sure, and it's best not to dwell.

Is bibliolatry a valid criticism?

Bibliolatry is not a criticism often taken very seriously by Evangelicals. Partly this is because it can be difficult to understand how to distinguish it from a high view of scripture. I think this quote demonstrates what it looks like in practice:

Many who reacted in anger to the Bishop of Durham's remarks about the empty tomb in 1985 were not, I believe, interested in what he had to say about the resurrection as such, but much more with the fact that he was contradicting statements made in the New Testament. That, rather than any doctrinal question, was what worried them. The fact that it was the resurrection about which historical questions were being raised was really a side-issue, for from such a perspective the resurrection is really no more important than any other event recorded in Scripture; it is the factual accuracy of Scripture as such that matters. It is at this point that one begins to see why some people would describe fundamentalism as a heresy – that is, a kind of single-issue fanaticism which destroys the structure of the Christian faith.

(p. 40, John Barton, People of the Book? The authority of the bible in Christianity, London: SPCK)

It's a damning indictment (I think). But are we acting any different in current debates?

Temple and tabernacle

I have often thought of the only notable difference between the tabernacle and the Temple to be the settled nature of the latter symbolising the rest that God through David provided for the people (if only a shadow of the reality). A more careful reading of the bible reveals my ignorance. In fact the anointing of David, and YHWH’s covenant with him is also central to the building of the temple. There are a number of ways this is demonstrated, and here are a couple I have picked up in recent reading.

1. The link to the king’s palace

One of the main differences between the tabernacle and the temple is that the king’s house is part of the temple area. 1 Kings 6:1 begins the record of the building of the Lord’s house, and this does not end until 7:51, which says that "all the work that King Solomon performed in the house of the Lord was finished." Between 6:1 and 7:51, though, the writer tells not only about the temple but about Solomon’s palace and other buildings that Solomon built for himself (7:1-8). The description of Solomon’s palace comes right in the middle of the passage talking about building talking about building the "house of Yahweh." The means that Solomon’s house and the temple are both parts of something called the "house of Yahweh." Nothing like this has happened in Israel before.

(p.156, Leithart, Peter J., A House for my Name: A Survey of the OT)

2. The two massive pillars at the entrance

It is possible that the two pillars that flanked the entrance of Solomon’s temple were large incense altars, perhaps symbolic reminders of the divine presence in the wilderness by means of the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night (Exod. 14:24; 33:9-10; Deut 31:15). But the two pillars also may have had yet another symbolic function. Since the Hebrew form of the name Jachin ("he will establish") appears also in 2 Sam. 7:12-16 ("he will establish David’s throne forever"), and Boaz ("in the strength of") appears in Ps. 21:1 ("in the strength of Yahweh shall the king rjoice"), it is possible that the pillars were also symbols of the relationship between the king and Yahweh. The pillars, located in the front of the royal chapel, may have functioned as symbols of the authority of the Davidic dynasty.

(DeVries, LaMoine F.; "Jachin and Boaz" in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible)

Let's start at the very beginning...

...A very good place to start

It's a famous quote, but worth repeating:

‘Indeed, the simple truth is that the resurrection cannot be accommodated in any way of understanding the world except one of which it is the starting point’

( p.11, Lesslie Newbigin, Truth to Tell: the Gospel as Public Truth, London, SPCK, 1991)

Thanks to Chris Wright to reminding me of it.