The Eighth Day New Creation

In Gen. 17:12, we read that all the children in Abraham's household were to be circumcised on the eighth day. But why the eighth day? Well, the text doesn't say explicitly. That is, the text of the immediate context doesn't give direct commentary. But with seven days of creation in the narrative background, it is hard not to suspect why, and hard not to see that the broader context does provide a plausible answer implicitly. Is it not likely that the eighth day symbolizes the new creation, on which there is a cutting away of the old? 

And likewise baptism, typified by the ark passing through the ancient flood (1 Pet. 3:21), symbolizes the new creation. Just as Noah and his family entered the new creation through the waters of judgment, so also the one baptized with Christian baptism passes through the waters of judgment (dying with Christ, who was judged) into the new creation kingdom of God.

The Priest Pronounces One Clean or Unclean

I just read through Leviticus 13 before going into work today. What can all of this clean and unclean business possibly mean, not least for twenty-first century persons?

For my part, I'm convinced that the main reason the Lord gave the likes of Leviticus is to give us categories for understanding the gospel, for understanding ourselves as sinful, for understanding his holiness, and for understanding his provision in the Christ.

What struck me as of interest in Leviticus 13 as I read it this time is that it is the priest who pronounces one clean or unclean. Here yet again, then, do we have another category given for apprehending the gospel—Christ is the ultimate priest who takes on the role of the one who declares one clean or unclean.

Go have a look. Check it out, here and there and everywhere in the Gospels, including in the upper room where Jesus declares his disciples clean (John 13). He is the ultimate priest to which all other priests point, and he alone has the prerogative of declaring you or me to be clean. 

Man under the Law

"Man under the law lives in a state of tension. He knows what is right; he approves what is right; but he lacks the power to do what is right."

—F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 331.

Take and Eat as Verbs of Salvation

Commenting on "she took . . . and ate" in Gen. 3:6, Derek Kidner says: "So simple the act, so hard its undoing. God will taste poverty and death before 'take and eat' become verbs of salvation" (Genesis, 68).

Rejecting the Godness of God

Christopher Wright comments on Gen. 3:22:

God accepts that humans have indeed breached the Creator-creature distinction. No that humans have now become gods but that they have chosen to act as though they were—defining and deciding for themselves what they will regard as good and evil. Therein lies the root of all other forms of idolatry: we deify our own capacities, and thereby make gods of ourselves and our choices and all their implications. God then shrinks in horror from the prospect of human immortality and eternal life in such a fallen state and prevents access to the "tree of life." God has a better way to bring humanity, redeemed and cleansed, to eternal life. 

At root, then, of all idolatry is human rejection of the Godness of God and the finality of God's moral authority. The fruit of that basic rebellion is to be seen in many other ways in which idolatry blurs the distinction between God and creation, to the detriment of both.

—Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible's Grand Narrative (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005), 164.

The Torah of YHWH in Psalm 1

So often so many, in my view, interpret wrongly the phrase “the torah of YHWH” (תוֹרַ֥ת יְהוָ֗ה) in Psalm 1. It is often taken simply to mean “the instruction of YHWH.” No one, to my knowledge, really doubts that the word “torah” (תּוֹרָה) does in fact often simply mean "instruction." That much is clear.

However, in Psalm 1, which sets the agenda for the whole Psalter, should we understand “the torah of YHWH” simply to mean “the instruction of YHWH”? I doubt it. I’ll not reproduce the argumentation of Mark D. Futato in his excellent handbook Interpreting the Psalms, but I will provide his conclusion, with which I joyfully concur in my inner being. He says:

So the תוֹרַ֥ת יְהוָ֗ה in Psalm 1 naturally refers to the Five Books of Moses. When we combine the sense of תּוֹרָה as ‘instruction’ with תוֹרַ֥ת יְהוָ֗ה as the Five Books of Moses, we conclude that the book of Psalms invites believers to meditate on the Five Books of Moses[1] as a source of instruction for experiencing the joy/blessings (v. 1) and prosperity/success (v. 3) held out in Psalm 1.

— Mark D. Futato, Interpreting the Psalms: An Exegetical Handbook (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 61–62.

---

[1] Italics mine.

The Angel of YHWH an OT Enigma

Commenting on the appearance of "the angel of YHWH" in Exodus 3, D. A. Carson asks and oberves:

We might well ask if, when the text before us records that "God said," it really means no more than that God spoke through this angelic messenger: after all, if the messenger speaks the words of God, then in a sense it is God himself who is speaking. But the biblical manifestations of "the angel of the LORD" do not easily fit into so neat and simplistic an explanation. It is almost as if the biblical writers want to stipulate that God himself appeared, while distancing this transcendent God from any mere appearance. The angel of the Lord remains an enigmatic figure who is identified with God, yet separable from him—an early announcement, as it were, of the eternal Word who became flesh, simultaneously God's own fellow and God's own self (John 1:1, 14).

 —For the Love of God, Vol. 1 (Wheaton: Crossway, 1998), February 20.

Following Christ in Handling Genesis

Speaking of how to approach the opening chapters of Genesis, Henri Blocher says this:

We must approach the opening chapters of Genesis as inspired texts, rich with the truth of God, clothed with the authority of God. We must also, in order to understand them better, make use of the harmony of the Scriptures. We must take advantage of the common inspiration, bringing other passages to illumine the difficulties. That we shall do. We shall trust the method of interpreting Scripture by Scripture, according to "the analogy of faith." How could we reject that method if we claim to follow Christ?

—In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis, transl. David G. Preston (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1984), 17.

True Love for God

I'm enjoying thoroughly sitting at Professor Dan Block's feet in an exegesis class on Deuteronomy at Wheaton College. And one of the main reasons for this is Dr. Block's manifest devotion to YHWH— Father, Son, and Spirit.

Commenting on the significance of Deut. 6:4-9 for contemporary life, here are some applications Block gives that rejoice my heart:

True love for God is rooted in the heart, but it is demonstrated in life, specifically in a passion to speak of one's faith in the context of the family and to declare one's allegiance publicly to the world. This passage suggests that the very decoration of our homes should bear testimony to our faith, declaring to all guests and passers-by the fundamentally theological outlook of those who live within, and serving as reminders to residents to live in dependence on God and to realize that blessing is contingent on obedience.

—Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 189.

The Broken Sinai Covenant and Pleading the Promise

More on Sinai:

This [covenant at Sinai and its priestly purpose] is an ideal picture. One serious problem remains. It is not Pharaoh this time but Israel itself. Separating the planning and description of the sanctuary (Exod. 25-31) from its construction in the middle of the camp (Exod. 35-40) is Israel’s sin (Exod. 32-34). . . . Within forty days, Israel breaks its covenant with God, violating the first and second commands. Impatient with waiting for Moses on the mountain, Israel creates an image of a golden calf to represent its God, and engages in false worship. The sin forces God to threaten to destroy Israel in agreement with the covenant and to start again with Moses. But Moses pleads (certainly not on the basis of the recently broken Sinai covenant) on the basis of the descendants promised in the covenant with Abraham as grounds for saving Israel (Exod. 32:13). It is only this reason that decisively moves God to have mercy on Israel.

—Stephen G. Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003), 104. Italics his. 

Slowing Down at Sinai

Dempster on the significance of Sinai:

After the exodus narrative the Israelites move to Mount Sinai. Mount Sinai stands in the way of Canaan, the land of their inheritance, but it is certainly no diversion, nor is it incidental. The centrality of this mountain is shown by a number of narrative signals. First and most obvious is the virtual suspension of narrative pace. Israel stays at Sinai for eleven months in real time (Exod. 19:1—Num. 10:11) and fifty-seven chapters in narrative time. This is important given the fact that sixty-eight chapters precede Sinai and fifty-nine chapters follow it. Sinai is central to the Torah.

—Stephen G. Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003), 100.

Deuteronomy, Romans, and Hammurabi

In an exegesis class on Deuteronomy at Wheaton College, Professor Dan Block was making the point that Deuteronomy is didactic material, not legal.

And in this regard, he said this today to the class: "Deuteronomy has more in common with Romans than with Hammurabi."

Choice.

Is God Concerned about Oxen?

A helpful and insightful interpretation for Paul's use of Deut. 25:4 in 1 Cor. 9:9 may be found here. And the methodology modeled there is quite instructive and sound.

Anticipation in the Pentateuch

William Dumbrell on the trajectory of the Pentateuch:

The remainder of the Pentateuch comments on Genesis 1-11. By the time that the covenantal theology of Israel is fully developed in Deuteronomy, a program to which the rest of the OT remains committed, the national failure of Israel has been anticipated. The Pentateuch makes clear, however, that this failure in no way vitiates the eschatology already developed in these books. A people of God will be constructed and will enjoy the ideal of rest in a Promised Land. God will be their God and will indwell them forever.

—The Faith of Israel: A Theological Survey of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 68.

Torah In Deuteronomy

Old Testament scholar William Dumbrell on the term torah ("law") in Deuteronomy:

The concept of torah is critical for Deuteronomy. Usually the term is understood as "teaching, instruction," but its meaning in Deuteronomy is stronger. Torah is covenantal law, the divinely authorized social order of Israel that attests its election. Deuteronomy is entirely about this law and the blessings that obedience to the law will bring.

 —The Faith of Israel: A Theological Survey of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 66.

Contemporary Myth-Making

N. T. Wright on the nonsense of popular myth-making:

The general popular belief that the early stories of Genesis were straightforwardly disproved by Charles Darwin is of course nonsense, however many times it is reinforced in contemporary myth-making. Things are just not that simple, in biblical theology or science.

—"The Letter to the Romans" (vol. 10 in The New Interpreter's Bible; Abingdon Press: Nashville, 2002), p. 526.

Sexual Intercourse, Old School

At Doug Wilson's Blog and Mablog, you'll find a fine, succinct account of marriage biblically defined. Here's a clipping:

A marriage requires two components or elements. The first is old school sexual intercourse and the second is a socially recognized set of vows, committing the couple to a legally recognized and protected state of marriage. If one or the other is missing, then so is the marriage. 

To use the language of philosophy, each of these is a necessary condition for marriage (without which, not), but not a sufficient condition. In other words, you can't have a marriage without the presence of both of these elements, but the mere presence of one of them does not constitute or create the marriage. The absence of either will result in no-marriage, but the presence of either does not automatically result in marriage. You must have both together. 

The first element is the one flesh union (Gen. 2:24).

Luther on Genesis 1

"It has been rightly said concerning the first chapter of Genesis that it's impossible to exhaust it in preaching. It's the greatest part of the Old Testament, and the New Testament is a revelation of the Old" (Luther, Works, vol. 54, p. 59).

The Un-Mission Mission

Last Lord's Day, New Covenant Church of Naperville, our home church, heard the third of three consecutive messages on the church's central mission: speading ahead the Word to triumph in the world.  "Gossiping the Gospel," as Jacob Reynolds (following Stott, I believe) put it two weeks ago. This past Sunday pastor Matt Newkirk brought a word about the Word from Genesis 11. You may listen to the exposition here, which was quite good. 

Matt gave us four characteristics of "unmission" from Genesis 11:1-9:

1) Unmission is fueled by an overestimation of self
2) Unmission is fueled by an underestimation of God
3) Unmission results in frustration
4) Unmission is cured by the Great Commission

In applying how the mission of the church works out for the corporate body, made up of many parts (Matt reminded us that the hand is not a mouth, but does have a role in relation to the mouth), Matt encouraged a corporate mentality of evangelism and missions. He said that while every member of the church is not gifted to be a mouthpiece, everyone can do the following:

1) Pray
2) Invite someone to church
3) Support a missionary financially
4) Look for opportunities to share Christ

This sort of corporate mentality in thinking about the Great Commission is, I believe, an area where at least the individualistically-oriented American church needs to grow immensely. In my judgment, we have work to do in continuing to think through more thoroughly every-member ecclesiatical evangelism and global missions. Perhaps more on this later.

Mohler on Evolution

Al Mohler on evolutionary theory in relation to Genesis and the Gospel:  "There is no way to affirm an historical Adam while holding to any mainstream model of evolution, and there is no way to affirm the Gospel without an historical Adam."  The quotation comes from Dr. Mohler's post today at AlMohler.com.  Here is the title and link: ‘Prettifying’ Darwin—A Timely Look at a Losing Strategy.