David Murray - Leadership for Servants
Tag Archive - Christ in OT

A picture is worth a thousand words

Mar 13, 2012 • By David Murray • 2 Comments

On this week’s episode of the Connected Kingdom Podcast I take on Tim Challies’ challenge to explain Typology in 7-8 minutes!  You can read a partial transcript below or if you chose to listen in you’ll hear some of Tim’s interaction with me.

Download here.

A picture is worth a thousand words.”

How?

Pictures help us remember, understand, and look forward.

When we want to remember our wedding, we don’t get our diaries or journals out; we open the photo album. When we want to understand how a rocket works, we don’t get NASA’s instruction manual out; we look for some pictures. When we are looking forward to our vacation, we don’t look up Wikipedia; we look up Google images.

“A picture is worth a thousand words.” It helps us remember better, it helps us understand better, and it helps us anticipate the future better.

That’s why God used so many pictures in the Old Testament. Vivid visuals like the Passover lamb, or the flood, or the Tabernacle helped Israel remember better, understand better, and look forward better.

The study of how God used pictures to teach His people is usually called “Typology,” not the kind of word that we are terribly familiar with. Basically it means “Picture-ology.” Or as a famous blogger once put it “Visual Theology.”

Let’s try to define a type and see if it helps us to understand typology better:

A type is a real person, place, object, or event that God ordained to act as a predictive pattern or resemblance of Christ’s person and work.

Let’s unpack that a little:

  • A type is a real person, place, object or event: it is true, real, and factual (not made-up)
  • That God ordained: it does not resemble Christ’s person or work by mere coincidence but by divine plan (mere resemblance is not enough; it has to be divinely ordained resemblance)
  • To act as a predictive pattern or resemblance: the same truth is found in the original picture and the ultimate fulfillment
  • Of Christ’s person and work: the truth in the picture is enlarged, heightened, and clarified in the fulfillment by Christ.

In some ways Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are pictures of truth. The difference between OT and NT pictures is that OT pictures look forward to Christ’s person and work whereas NT pictures look back to Christ’s person and work.

Two disadvantages

Our 21st Century Western minds encounter two major obstacles when we come to think about OT Picture-ology.

First, we don’t do pictures. We are quite good at words and numbers – reading, science, technology, logic, and arithmetic. We like precision, clarity, and brevity.

But we don’t really do picture; art, symbol, metaphor, meditation, poetry, etc., are strange and suspect to most of us. Propositional theology = good; visual theology = bad!

That, of course, doesn’t help when it comes to interpreting the OT, which contains so many pictures, symbols and metaphors. However, pictures really played to the strengths of the original readers, the Israelites, who like most Eastern cultures of that day, were very familiar with the idea of using pictures, symbols, song, etc., to remember the past, learn in the present, and anticipate the future.

Second, we don’t fully appreciate how future-focused the Old Testament was. From Genesis 3:15 onwards, the expectation and anticipation of a Savior was being continually fostered by God and His servants. However much Israel were reminded of the past, and taught for the present, they were always peering over the horizon for the coming Savior, variously known as “the Seed of the woman,” “the Seed of Abraham,” and “the Son of David.” And they used the Old Testament types – persons, place, objects, events – as glasses to help them look in the right direction and look for the right person.

Take the Passover lamb as an example. It reminded Israel of God’s past deliverance.  It also taught them vital present truths: (1) God’s anger against sin, (2) God’s anger can be turned away by the sacrificial blood of a perfect substitute, (3) God grants safety only to those who are “under” the blood, (4) God’s salvation redeems from bondage.

But Israelites with faith used the Passover Lamb as a lens to anticipate a greater, clearer and climactic expression of these truths in the future Messiah’s person and work. As John the Baptist said: “Behold the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world.”

Or take the Tabernacle. When the Israelites looked at it, they learned much about God – that God desired to live among them in a similar way to them – in tents. But Israelites with faith looked ahead to the Messiah’s person and work displaying and demonstrating these truths in an even greater and fuller measure. As John the Apostle said: “The Word was made flesh and dwelt (lit. tabernacled) among us.”

So whether you are reading about sacrifices, the priesthood, prophets, priests, kings, the Tabernacle, the Exodus, the Exile, the life of Joseph, the life of Ruth, the life of David, or whatever, you should always be asking yourself two questions.

1. What did this teach the Israelites about God?

2. What did this teach the Israelites to expect from God in the future?

It’s as if GOSPEL was spelled in 12-point font in the OT and in 1200-point in the NT! Or we might say it was pictured in the OT using thumbnails, but blown up to poster size in the New.

If you’d like to give us feedback or join in the discussion, go ahead and look up our Facebook Group or leave a comment right here. You will always be able to find the most recent episode here on the blog. If you would like to subscribe via iTunes, you can do that here or if you want to subscribe with another audio player, you can try this RSS link.

7 Tips For Balanced Biographical Preaching

Feb 6, 2012 • By David Murray • 4 Comments

Is the drawing of too many moral and ethical lessons from the biographies of Old Testament believers one of the greatest dangers facing today’s church? To judge by the number and volume of the voices expressing concerns, many seem to think so. Here are some of the criticisms I’ve gathered together from various places recently:

1. The biographical approach is man-centered, changing the focus of God’s word from God to man. It tends to put man and his needs in the foreground, but God and His glory in the background.

2. The biographical approach is moralistic. It turns the Old Testament into a list of “do’s and don’ts” or “be and don’t be’s,” promoting a new kind of legalism. It focuses on what we should and shouldn’t do rather than on what God has done and is doing.

3. The biographical approach is too subjective. We should simply read the text and understand it without trying to make personal application. Indeed, such “additions” to the text are harmful because it makes people seek assurance in introverted self-examination. “I’m supposed to be brave like Daniel. But I’m not. So I can’t be a Christian.”

4. The biographical approach fragments the Bible. It isolates the passage from the historical and literary context, focusing on small, individual “atoms” of Scripture rather than connecting them with the big picture. Unless we view the Bible as a single unit about the one work of God, it becomes a fragmented mosaic of different bits – theological bits, devotional bits, moral bits, historical bits, etc.

5. The biographical approach is Christ-less. When the Old Testament is detached from the sweep of redemptive history, it results in a Christ-less religion. At best, we may speak of God rather than man, but such Christ-less results would suit a Muslim or a Mormon as much as a Christian.

6. The biographical approach skips over the original meaning. It often fails to ask the intention of the original author for the original readers. It draws a straight line from the biblical character to ourselves and omits the important question, “What was the author’s message for Israel?”

7. The biographical approach is too individualistic. It emphasizes short-term personal piety to the exclusion of corporate responsibility, a biblical worldview, and an eternal perspective.

Over-reaction to legitimate concerns
These are legitimate concerns; in some biographical sermons all seven of these problems can be present (kind of a perfect imperfection). But let’s not rush to the other extreme by insisting that the biblical narratives simply teach us lessons about God, with no, or virtually no, ethical or moral significance.

For example, in The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text, Sidney Greidanus urged that we “ought to employ biblical characters the way the Bible employs them, not as ethical models, not as heroes for emulation or examples for warning, but as people whose story has been taken up into the Bible in order to reveal what God is doing for and through them. Their personal history must be seen as part of the greater story of Israel’s national history, which, in turn, is part of the even greater story of redemptive history” (118).

Notice that Gredianus does not say: “We should not use the Old Testament characters only as ethical models or heroes for emulaton, etc.” He says we should not use them in that way at all.

More recently, in Chapter 2 of Reclaiming the Old Testament for Christian Preaching, Paul Kissling wrote: “To focus on the human characters is potentially to endanger the interpretative process by majoring on the minor. Another way to say this is to affirm that God is the only character in the Hebrew Bible who should be the focus of interpretation.” (31).

Kissling’s chapter has much excellent material in it, but notice again the overstatement. He does not say that God is the major character to focus interpretation on, but that He is the only  character who should be the focus of interpretation.

And within the past few weeks, Matt Chandler’s Gospel Project video has had the impact of devaluing or at least minimizing the moral or ethical lessons to be drawn from the David and Goliath narrative. Matt is not quite as negative in his comments as Greidanus and Kissling, but judging by my email Inbox, I’m afraid that his comments may further contribute to this trajectory of virtually eliminating the exemplary element of the Old Testament characters.

Balanced reaction to legitimate concerns
As I’ve already said, I’m sympathetic to the concerns of these theologians. I like the way that they are helping the church to transform biographical preaching into theological preaching, and especially into redemptive preaching. All three men give us extremely helpful methods to move us from the personal story to Israel’s story, to God’s story of redemption. However, they go too far by by eliminating altogether the moral and ethical lessons from these spiritual biographies.

The Bible does use personal biographies to teach us how to believe and act. For example, Paul highlights how the Old Testament described Abraham’s faith for our benefit (Rom. 4:22-24). Paul views the whole Old Testament as exemplary (Rom. 15:4), and the history of Israel in particular (1 Cor. 10:1, 6, 11). The Apostle James points to Job and Elijah as examples (James 5:10, 17). The writer to the Hebrews held up Christ and His Old Testament saints as examples of faith and works (Heb. 11:1-12:2). In fact the Lord Himself warned, “Remember Lot’s wife” (Luke 17:32). As John Owen said, “Old Testament examples are New Testament instructions.”

So, we need a third way, a way that values the exemplary moral and ethical principles and practice of Old Testament characters but also moves on to the theological and redemptive purposes and plans of God in Christ. Instead of biographical or theological/redemptive, we should be thinking biographical and theological/redemptive. Here are seven tips that will help us to address the seven legitimate concerns in a balanced way:

  1. While giving full weight to the human biography, keep God, not man, in the foreground.
  2. Distinguish Christian morality from mere moralism by emphasizing that we need Christ’s grace to obey any moral requirements, and His forgiveness when we fail.
  3. Avoid an unbalanced introspective subjectivism by encouraging believers to look away to Christ for grace far more than looking within for evidences of grace.
  4. Read every story in its immediate and also its redemptive context. As Bryan Chapell says in Christ-centered Preaching: “No aspect of revelation can be thoroughly understood or explained in isolation from some aspect of Christ’s redeeming work” (276).
  5. See Christ even when studying Christ’s people. He was the Savior of Old Testament saints as well, and any good they accomplished was by the power of Christ’s Spirit alone.
  6. Don’t jump straight from OT character to the 21st century Christian. Rather, pause to discern the original purpose for the original audience/readers, usually Israel, the OT Church (Acts 7:38).
  7. Include the corporate perspective, explain how the passage impacts our worldview, and project the story forward to include the endtimes/eternal unfolding of the story.

Each of these could be expounded further, but I hope these hints will at least begin to re-balance some of these recent over-emphases.

Update: Here’s a review of Chapter 1: Preaching Narratives from Reclaiming the Old Testament for Christian Preaching

Love Wins (no not that one)

Jan 19, 2012 • By David Murray • 1 Comment

In The Messianic Music of the Song of Songs, Dr Jim Hamilton persuasively argues that the original readers of the Song of Solomon viewed the author as the “ultimate expression of David’s royal seed…the Davidic King, with all the messianic connotations that status carries.”[1] In other words, when they read the book or sang the Song they saw more than the best human king’s best human love. They entered into God’s gracious love expressed through His anointed King to His undeserving people. Despite all their failures and faults the Song assured the Israelites that Love would win through the Messiah alone.

In that excellent article, Jim argues against the allegorical approach, but he also expresses reluctance about seeing any typology in it:

This messianic understanding of Canticles is not allegorical, nor need it even be typological, it is strictly historical and canonical. It assumes that the Song of Songs was written from the hope for an anointed king reflected in the rest of the OT, but it neither imposes foreign concepts nor imports the NT into the interpretation of the poetry.

To me it seems such a tiny step to go from the “historical and canonical” Messianic understanding of the Song to a typological understanding, that I’m not quite sure why we would would to hold back from this. Perhaps it’s because of the way the song has been “over-allegorized” or “over-typologized” in the past. But we needn’t be afraid of opening the door to this if we use a sound definition of typology to keep us on track. Try this one:

A type is a real person, place, object, or event that God ordained to act as a predictive pattern or resemblance of Christ’s person and work (or of opposition to it).

Let’s unpack that a little:

  • A type is a real person, place, object or event: it is true, real, and factual
  • That God ordained: it does not resemble Christ’s person or work by mere coincidence but by divine plan
  • To act as a predictive pattern or resemblance: the same truth is found in the picture and the fulfillment
  • Of Christ’s person and work: the truth in the picture is enlarged, heightened, and clarified in the fulfillment
  • (or of opposition to it): God also gave prophetic pictures of Christ’s enemies.

The Song is a little different to normal typological literature in that it is written as poetry rather than pure historical narrative. However, there is a substantial historical element to it; a true, real, and factual relationship forms the basis for it. Add that definition of typology to the contextual and genre considerations we’ve been proposing and we are well on the way to recovering a sane Christ-centered interpretation of the Song of Solomon to the Church. And it should help a few marriages along the way as well.

Anyway, as I said yesterday, I’ll finish this short series of four posts (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) on interpreting and preaching the Song of Solomon with a few sample sermon outlines that reflect the historical, canonical, and literary approaches we’ve been advocating, but which also take that extra little step to typological (not allegorical) understanding. And remember we’re trying to resist the temptation of trying to find an exact spiritual parallel or marriage parallel for every detail.

He is everything to me (1:1-17)

  • He is beautiful but I am damaged (1:2-7)
  • He is generous in praise and gifts (1:8-11)
  • He refreshes me (1:12-14)
  • He returns my love (1:15-16)
  • He enriches my life (1:17)

A taste of heaven on earth (2:1-17)

  • Love is beautiful/fragrant (2:1-2)
  • Love nourishes (2:3-6)
  • Love is patient/sensitive (2:7)
  • Love is enthusiastic (2:8-9)
  • Love invites (2:10-13)
  • Love is bashful (2:14)
  • Love is tender (2:15)
  • Love is possessive (2:16)
  • Love is imperfect on earth (2:17)

He is all-over lovely (5:10-16)

  • He is outstanding (5:10)
  • He is noble/royal (5:11)
  • He is tender (5:12)
  • He is fragrant (5:13)
  • He is rich (5:14)
  • He is strong/solid (5:14)
  • He is authoritative (5:15)
  • He is affectionate (5:16)

Love Wins (8:5-14)

  • Love returns to its roots (8:5)
  • Love reflects on its strengths (8:6-7)
  • Love relies on the protection and support of close friends (8:8-10)
  • Love re-prioritizes relationships (8:11-12)
  • Love recognizes that it has not yet won (8:13-14)

How to Sing the Song of Songs

Jan 16, 2012 • By David Murray • 2 Comments

The two most important factors in interpreting any piece of literature are context and genre.

Last week I argued that the Christ-focused Old Testament context of the Song of Solomon demanded a Christ-focused interpretation.

But how do we interpret the Song in a Christ-focused way? That’s where literary genre comes in, and I want to introduce this by recounting an incident that transformed my own approach to the Song.

A few years ago, in my Old Testament exegesis class, I was working my way through the arguments about whether the Song was to be interpreted literally, allegorically, or typologically, when I noticed one of my students smiling and shaking his head – thankfully quite a rare occurrence.

Eventually I stopped and asked this usually courteous young man what was wrong. He explained a little about his Middle Eastern agricultural background (probably very close to the Song’s original location) and how he had also studied his own ancient culture’s literature at a Master’s level. He then went on to (very politely) express his horror at the way we were approaching this ancient Eastern literature with such a modern Western mindset!

He said that such love-songs were very common in his culture and that they were to be primarily interpreted by the emotions and impressions they evoke rather than by dissecting the words with dictionaries, lexicons, grammars, etc. These songs, he said, were primarily to provoke and stimulate emotions rather than be subjected to cold logical analysis.

That immediately jived with something I remembered that Vern Poythress had previously written on the similar disadvantage Western minds find themselves at when interpreting Biblical typology.

We in the West are not very much at ease with symbolism ourselves. We live in an in­dustrialized society dominated by scientific and technological forms of knowledge. Such knowledge minimizes the play of metaphors and the personal depth dimensions of human living. For many people “real” truth means technological truth, that is, truth swept free of metaphor and sym­bolism…I am convinced that God does not share our general cultural aver­sion to metaphors and symbols. He wrote the Old Testament, which contains a good deal of poetry and many uses of metaphor. Jesus spoke in parables, which are a kind of extended metaphor. Godly Israelites of Old Testament times were able to appreciate His language, whereas we have a hard time with it. We must adapt to the fact that symbols and metaphors can speak truly and powerfully without speaking with pedan­tic scientific precision. A symbol may suggest a deep truth or even a cluster of related truths without blurting everything out in plain talk and making everything crystal clear…To appreciate a symbol, we must let our imaginations play a little, and ask what the symbol suggests. What does it bring to mind? What is it like? What does it remind me of in my own past experience? What does it allude to in other writings by the same author? We must explore all these questions, but endeavor to do so like an Israelite, not like a twentieth-century Westerner.[i]

Though speaking about two different kinds of biblical literature, my student and Poythress are really making the same point: if we are ever going to understand the original message of the Song, we have to make a difficult journey across cultures and centuries, and be much more imaginative and impressionistic than scientific (And who’s to say which approach is morally superior? It all depends on the divine intention.)

With the Song in particular, we have to dial down the Western academic analysis (and also the Western obsession with sex) and aim to stir up some Eastern emotions and moods. Instead of parsing every word, every tree, every flower, and every body part under a microscope, we should take a step back, let a few verses be sung, and ask ourselves, “What impression is this intended to make upon me? What emotion does this evoke?  What feeling is this calling me to experience or enjoy?” And as this is a Christ-centered song, especially ask, “What emotion is it calling me to feel towards Christ?” and also, “What is it saying about Christ’s feelings towards me?”

This is not easy or comfortable for most of us Westerners who have been taught to suppress emotions and suspect impressions. But why not open the Song, “sing” a few verses and see what happens?!  In the next few days I’ll come back to this and flesh it out a bit more.

[i] Vern Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1991), 38-39.

God’s Bread

Dec 9, 2011 • By David Murray • 3 Comments

Time: March 1406 BC, 40 years after the Exodus.
Setting: The nation of Israel is encamped on the Plains of Moab, awaiting the order to enter the Promised Land.
Characters: Priest Elnathan, 10-year-old Jerusha, and her two parents, Baruch and Deborah.
Previous Episodes: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.

Jerusha’s enthusiasm for the Tabernacle had spread among her friends. Priest Elnathan’s Tabernacle class had now grown to seven students. But today Priest Elnathan had some bad news for his students. The children had been enjoying the visual aids he had been using recently to teach them. They had lingered beside the brass altar and then the brass bath as he had explained the Messiah-centered meaning of these pieces of furniture. Today the children were looking forward to seeing what was in the Holy Place, the tented room in the middle of the Tabernacle. But, as he reached the curtained entrance, Elnathan turned around and said, “I’m sorry, children, but only the priests can go into the Holy Place. I can tell you what is in it, but I can’t take you inside.”

Disappointment spread across every face. But Elnathan knew from previous classes that this disappointment could be turned to his advantage. If there was one way to arouse children’s curiosity about something, it was to tell them they could not see it! So, as the children tried to squint between the curtains, Elnathan began to describe what was on the other side.

“My beloved students,” Elnathan began, “Although the outside of the tent looks very plain, the inside is very different. There, on the roof and walls, hang blue, purple, and scarlet curtains covered with beautifully embroidered, golden cherubim. There is no sound in this sacred place; silence reigns. A large, golden lamp casts its yellow light on a golden altar and a golden table. The table is 3 feet long, 18 inches broad, and 2 feet 3 inches high. Around the edge of the table are two handbreadth-high golden rims — they look like crowns and stop things from falling off the table. And what is on the table, children? Does anyone know?”

Just at that point, a group of twelve priests arrived. They were each carrying a large loaf of unleavened bread. Others carried bowls of wine.

One of the older children shot up his hand and asked, “Mr. Elnathan, do these loaves go on the table?” “That’s right, Benjamin,” Elnathan smiled. “On the table are twelve large loaves of unleavened bread, set out in two rows. Every Sabbath the priests put fresh bread on the table. But what does all this mean, children?” The children’s eyes widened as the priests passed through the curtain and into the Holy Place with their bread and bowls. They peered in, trying to catch a glimpse of this mysterious place. Elnathan had timed the lesson perfectly. He now had the children captivated with rapt attention. “My dear students, let me tell you about the ‘Four Fs.’”

For God
“First of all, this bread is for God. It is an offering from our nation to God.[i] Although this is only a small part of our crops and produce, we offer it as a sample of all we have, and so acknowledge that all we have is for God. Why twelve loaves? Well, they represent everyone in the twelve tribes. So, when the priests put the twelve loaves on the golden table and sprinkle them with the sweet rising fragrance of frankincense, we are acknowledging that we are all for God. We exist for Him and live to Him.

“Now, as you know, this bread has a special name. It is called ‘Shewbread,’ which means ‘the bread of presence.’ And, just as the shewbread is continually on show in His presence, so our twelve tribes are reminded that we too and we all are continually before Him. This theme of remembering is underlined by the frankincense, which is on the bread for ‘a memorial.’[ii] Its sweet fragrance rises up to heaven and reminds us that we are constantly in the heavenly presence of God.

“Some of you look a bit worried about always being in God’s presence. Maybe you should be! However, if you are living a life for God, the ‘bread of presence’ should actually bring you much comfort. Remember what is around the table? A protective crown of gold rims the table and makes sure that nothing falls off. My dear believing children, no man shall be able to pluck you out of the Lord’s hand.[iii] His presence is your protection.

“And, don’t forget, the Tabernacle and its furniture ultimately pictures the Messiah. He will be the Bread of Presence. When He comes, He will live with God and for God perfectly. I sometimes wonder if the fine flour we use to bake this bread tells us something about the Messiah. We sift it eleven times to make sure it is free from grit and imperfection. Could that tell us something about the Savior? And what about the bread being baked in a hot oven — does that contain any lessons? I don’t have all the answers, children. A day will come when these things will become clearer. May our gracious God hasten the day!”

From God
“But we must hurry on. Your parents will soon be here to pick you up. The second ‘F’ is from God. People in the nations beside us regularly bring produce to supply their kings’ tables. This is their way of acknowledging that their piece of land and its resulting produce is the king’s gift to them, as is the security and peace of the land.

“Likewise, by offering the shewbread to God, we are acknowledging that all our bread is from our heavenly King. We are returning to God what He has given us. We are saying that all our support and sustenance is from Him. The twelve loaves always in God’s presence signify that all twelve tribes are always dependent on Him.

“But, there is a spiritual lesson here, too, my little ones. Just as God provides for Israel’s physical needs, so He provides for the believer’s spiritual needs. And God’s ultimate provision for His people’s spiritual nourishment is the Messiah who will be ‘of and from God.’ Let us look in faith towards the bread of God who will come down from heaven, and give life to the world.[iv]

Fellowship with God
“Thirdly, the shewbread represents fellowship with God. As you know, our family tables are places of fellowship, places where our families gather to talk and share. But here we have a golden table, a symbol of royal fellowship. And it’s fitting, isn’t it, that in God’s royal palace and dwelling place there should be a royal table?

“Some of you are wondering why the priests are taking so long in there, aren’t you? Do you know what is keeping them? They are eating the old shewbread before replacing it with the new bread. This again underlines the link between fellowship and the shewbread. I love it when my name is on the roster to change the shewbread. My best times of spiritual fellowship have been in the Holy Place, eating the sacred bread of presence, drinking the wine from the bowls, and discussing the meaning of the bread, the wine, and the table with some of the older priests. I can’t wait until it’s my turn again!

“Are some of you thinking that it’s a bit unfair that only the priests are allowed this privilege? Well, you’ll be glad to know that the older priests believe that when the Messiah comes, all of God’s people will be priests, and they will all eat of the bread of God. What a table of love and fellowship that will be!”[v]

Future with God
“Finally, the shewbread speaks of the future with God. God’s gracious supply of physical and spiritual nourishment on earth encourages the believer to look forward to heaven, when he will eat and drink at Messiah’s table in His heavenly Temple. Is this not what we sing of in the Psalms, ‘In your presence is fullness of joy; at your right hand there are pleasures for evermore’?[vi]

“I see your parents at the door of the Tabernacle. But, before you run off, take down the following words and memorize them for next week.

‘How precious is your lovingkindness, O God! Therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of your wings. They are abundantly satisfied with the fullness of your house, And you give them drink from the river of your pleasures. For with you is the fountain of life; In your light we see light..’[vii]

“And…there is a prize for anyone who can tell me how many pieces of Tabernacle furniture are hinted at in these words!

“Let us conclude with prayer: Our heavenly Provider, we thank you for all your provision for our physical and spiritual needs. We thank you for the shewbread which reminds us of the source of all our bread on earth, and which makes us long for the bread of God to come down from heaven. Please give us deeper and wider and longer fellowship with you on earth. And increase our desires for eternal fellowship with you in heaven. Look on the face of your Anointed and hear our prayers. Amen.”

Tune in next week for the remaining four episodes of God’s Home.

[i] Leviticus 24:9, [ii] Leviticus 24:7, [iii] John 10:29, [iv] John 6:33, [v] Luke 22:19-22, [vi] Psalm 16:11, [vii] Psalm 36:7-9

The Puritan Practice of Redemptive Historical Preaching (2)

Apr 22, 2011 • By David Murray • 0 Comments

Having looked yesterday at the Puritan principles of redemptive-historical preaching, this fifth and last post in the series will consider the Puritan practice of redemptive-historical preaching, as exemplified by Jonathan Edwards.

There is no substitute for reading Edwards’ History of the Work of Redemption. However, here I would like to highlight just a few extracts to give you samples of what I believe is an even more Christ-honoring kind of “redemptive-historical” preaching. Notice that Edwards preaches Christ from Old Testament histories without always linking these histories to Christ’s first coming. Edwards’ History does advance step-by-step to Christ’s physical comings, but he also finds Christ in each and every step along the way.

The First Salvation
Edwards finds Christ as early as Genesis 3, in the first salvation of the Bible:

As soon as ever man fell, Christ the eternal Son of God clothed himself with his mediatorial character and therein presented himself before the Father. He immediately stepped in between an holy, infinite, offended majesty and offending mankind, and was accepted in his interposition; and so wrath was prevented from going forth in the full execution of that ensuing curse that man had brought on himself.  ‘Tis manifest that Christ began to exercise the office of mediator between God and man as soon as man fell because mercy began to be exercised towards man immedi­ately.[1]

Edwards goes on to show how Genesis 3:15ff revealed Christ to Adam and Eve in His three offices, of prophet (the promise of a seed to defeat the devil), priest (the institution of sacrifices), and king (the salvation of Adam and Eve).

Thus ‘tis exceeding probable if not evident that as Christ took on him the work of Mediator as soon as man fell… He now immediately began his Work of Redemption in its effect. And that he immediately banished his great enemy the devil, whom he had undertaken to conquer, and rescued those two first captives of his… hands.[2]

The First Sacrifice
From the life of Abel, Edwards establishes that sacrifices were appointed by God to be a type of Christ, and that when offered through faith in Christ they were pleasing to God. (more…)

The Puritan view of Redemptive-Historical Preaching (1)

Apr 21, 2011 • By David Murray • 1 Comment

Modern redemptive-historical preaching makes Christ the end-point of the Old Testament. It sees all of history leading to Christ. As we have seen (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3), this is true, but also somewhat limited. The Puritan version of redemptive-historical preaching sees Christ not just at the end of redemptive history, but in it and throughout it. For the Puritans, Christ was not just the last chapter that all the others were setting the scene for, but rather Christ was present from the very first chapter, and in every chapter of redemptive history.

Modern redemptive-historical preaching tends to invest significance in Old Testament people and events, only insofar as they relate to Christ’s incarnation. It tends to see little significance in the people and events in and of themselves. Rather, they are but stepping-stones to be quickly skipped over in order to reach the summits of Christ’s first and second comings. Passages and verses are but springboards to spectacular retrospective and prospective surveys of the Bible.

Blossom, bud, and fruit
The Puritans, on the other hand, preached Christ from Old Testament events and people without consciously and deliberately relating them to Christ’s first and second comings. They did not underestimate the climactic nature of Christ’s incarnation. They did not deny that Christ’s person and work at His first coming was necessary to give redemptive significance to the Old Testament. They agreed that no Old Testament saint could ever have been saved without Christ’s coming to this earth. However, they freely preached Christ from the Old Testament historical narratives without seeing the constant need to whisk everything and everyone backwards to the Fall and forwards to Bethlehem and Calvary. They did not view the Old Testament events as only stepping-stones to Christ. They saw Christ in the stepping-stones themselves. They did not see the need to relate everything to “the big picture,” as they could find the “big picture” even in the “small pictures.” They could appreciate the beauty of the blossom without having to relate it backwards to the bud and forwards to the fruit.

Jonathan Edwards is perhaps the most obvious exponent of Puritan redemptive-historical preaching. (more…)

The Strengths of Redemptive-Historical Preaching

Apr 19, 2011 • By David Murray • 0 Comments

Exponents of redemptive-historical preaching (see yesterday’s introduction for definition) have many worthy aims and desires in promoting it as a valid form of preaching. For example, they say that:

1. It shows how the whole Bible witnesses to Christ
Redemptive-historical preaching has the great and worthy aim of showing Christ in all of Scripture. It aims to bring Christ to sinners from every part of His Word. Greidanus corals Luther’s support for this view:

Luther begins with the premise that Christ is the heart of the Bible. In countless works he states his conviction that the Old Testament, too, is about Christ: “In the whole Scripture there is nothing but Christ, either in plain words or involved words…The entire Old Testament refers to Christ and agrees with Him.”[1]

Thus exegetes of Scripture must go beyond asking, “What was the original meaning?” and ask, “How does this relate to and lead to Christ?” This is vital for, as Greidanus warns, “If we fail to preach Christ from the Old Testament, we have missed its essence.”[2]

2. It demonstrates God’s redemptive purpose in all history
Instead of viewing redemptive history as beginning with Christ, redemptive historical preaching shows that God has been acting redemptively from the beginning of history, and that He had the end in view from the beginning. Greidanus points to the way that Donald Miller likens God’s design in redemptive history to a play.

As a playwright works into the earlier scenes of his play certain ideas which are only per­plexing at the time they are introduced, but which are made clear as one looks back to them from the standpoint of the climax, God was working into the earlier acts of the drama of redemption elements which, when re­capitulated in a higher key in Jesus, received a clarity which they did not have in their original setting…Because God progressively works out his redemptive plan in hu­man history, the New Testament writers can preach Christ from the Old Testament as the culmination of a long series of redemptive acts.[3]

This is why the Christian is interested in Old Testament history far more than in American, African, or Indian history. It is because it is the prequel to the climax of Christ’s incarnation. It is because you cannot understand the climax without knowledge of the prequel. 

3. It widens the meaning of preaching Christ (more…)

Introduction to Redemptive-Historical Preaching

Apr 18, 2011 • By David Murray • 0 Comments

Today, I’d like to introduce a short series on redemptive-historical preaching from the Old Testament, a genre of preaching that focuses on Christ as the end of redemptive history, as someone whom all redemptive history was pointing towards.

Definition of “redemptive-historical preaching”
By linking Old Testament redemptive events to Christ’s first and second comings, redemptive-historical preaching emphasizes how Christ is the destiny and climax of Old Testament history, the one that everything else was preparatory for. 

While reformed theologians have always viewed Christ as the destiny and climax of Old Testament history, and reformed preachers have always attempted to incorporate this fact into their preaching, the idea of this becoming the sum and substance of Old Testament preaching is a relatively recent development. It came to prominence in the Reformed churches in the Netherlands in the early part of the 20th century, as an over-reaction to what was called “exemplarist” preaching – preaching in which the lives of Old Testament characters were set forth as examples (or anti-examples) of how a Christian should (or shouldn’t) live. 

Redemptive-historical preachers assert that God did not give the Old Testament narratives to set forth moral examples, but rather to reveal the coming Messiah in prophecies, types and shadows. They propose that Old Testament narratives should be understood at three levels – personal history, national history, and redemptive history. In other words, the personal history must be seen as part of the greater story of Israel’s national history, which, in turn, is part of the even greater story of redemptive history.  

Defense of “redemptive-historical preaching”
Advocates of redemptive-historical preaching point to a number of New Testament texts to support their practice. (more…)

CrossReference: Spiritual Heartburn

Apr 6, 2011 • By David Murray • 0 Comments

Here’s the second in our preview series of ten films on the Old Testament appearances of Christ in the Old Testament. If you missed the first, here it is.

The first two videos will be permanently available online. From next week, the weekly releases will be available for online viewing for seven days.

Visit Ligonier to pre-order DVD of all ten films ($15) and Study Guide ($5), or download the films in HD from HeadHeartHand Media ($5).

Christ in the Old Testament: New video series

Mar 29, 2011 • By David Murray • 1 Comment

Printsample2

Want to find and worship Christ in the Old Testament?

Need a weekly Bible Study that’s doctrinal, devotional, and doable?

Trying to help your children study the Bible on a Sunday afternoon, but they aren’t great readers?

Looking for a Sunday school series that marries “old” theology with new technology?

The CrossReference series of films from Head Heart Hand Media may be for you.

The first DVD & Study Guide will launch on April 12 at the Gospel Coalition Conference. But come back tomorrow for pre-launch preview and special offer.

HeadHeartHand Media.

Grace Administration: Under New Management

Jan 28, 2011 • By David Murray • 0 Comments

After further wrestling with this portion of Scripture, I’ve re-written this post.

Did anyone, apart from Christ, know the Old Testament better than Paul – “a Hebrew of the Hebrews” (Phil. 3:5)? So, what did Paul think it was all about?

Paul discusses the relationship between the Old and New Testaments in 2 Corinthians 3:6-16. And on the face of it, he seems to paint a very stark contrast between them.

He describes the Old Testament and its effects using the following phrases:  “the letter kills” (v. 6),  “the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones” (v. 7), and “the ministration of condemnation” (v. 9).

His description of the New Testament is quite a contrast: “the spirit gives life” (v. 6), “the ministration of the spirit” (v. 8), “the ministration of righteousness” (v. 9). This comparison raises two questions: 

Question 1: Is Paul describing all of the Old Testament or simply one part of it?

Paul is not referring to the whole Old Testament, but to the moral law, the Ten Commandments, which were “written and engraved in stones” (v. 7). 

Question 2: Paul says that the Ten Commandments killed and condemned. Is that what God designed, or was it the result of a misunderstanding and misuse of the law of Moses?

Let’s just recap before we answer this question. You will remember how Jesus said that Moses and the other prophets spoke of Him (Lk. 24: 27, 44; Jn. 5:39, 46).

Peter confirmed this in 1 Peter 1:10-12. In fact, earlier in his ministry, Peter looked back at the times of Moses and said that despite the burden of religious ceremonies then, there were also those who by grace believed in Jesus (Acts 15:10-11).

Paul also taught that the law of Moses witnessed to Jesus Christ as the saving righteousness of God (Rom. 3:21). And remember, Paul taught elsewhere that the Sinai covenant did not cancel grace but rather revealed and furthered it (Gal. 3 & 4). So the Sinai covenant, taken as a whole, was a revelation of the covenant of grace, not a contradiction or cancellation of it. 

Ripped out of context
However, in 2 Corinthians 3, Paul is focusing on the moral law, the Ten Commandments, ripped from their gracious context and taken in isolation. It’s not that the Sinai covenant as a whole was a killing and condemning covenant. Rather, by taking one part of the Sinai covenant, the moral law, and divorcing it from the gracious redemption that brought the Israelites into a gracious relationship with God, they turned it into a condemning and killing covenant.

This fits the context of Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 3. (more…)

What’s the Old Testament all about? Peter responds.

Jan 27, 2011 • By David Murray • 2 Comments

Yesterday we asked Jesus what the Old Testament was all about. His answer? “Me!”

Today we start asking the same question to those who knew Jesus best – the Apostles. Let’s start with Peter, and let’s break into the first chapter of his letter, where he’s talking about the message of the Old Testament prophets.

Peter taught that the Old Testament prophets made predictions, studied the predictions, and understood the predictions (1 Peter 1:10-12). Let’s look more closely at these three stages of prophetic experience.

First, the prophets made predictions. The “Spirit of Christ”, or the Holy Spirit, was in the Old Testament prophets (v. 11). In his commentary on 1 Peter, Wayne Grudem argues that the title “Spirit of Christ” “suggests that predicting the coming Messiah was the primary focus of his [the Holy Spirit’s] activity in the Old Testament prophets.” This unbreakable bond between all Scripture, Christ, and the Holy Spirit is described succinctly by the apostle John: “…the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Rev. 19:10).

We should not, therefore, be surprised to read that, like the New Testament Apostles, the Old Testament prophets were focused on “salvation” (v. 10), and also “prophesied of the grace that should come” (v. 10). And indeed, not only did they preach salvation by grace, but they also preached the way this would be accomplished – by a suffering Messiah (v. 11).

So, through the prophets, the Spirit of Christ “testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow” (v. 11). The Spirit took the things of Christ and showed them to the prophets (John 16:15). Regarding the Scriptural location of these predictions, Grudem writes:

If we are to look for examples of this predicting activity, we may in fact look through the whole of the Old Testament, for the New Testament authors can sometimes speak of the whole of the Old Testament as the writings of ‘the prophets’ (see Lk. 24:27; also Acts 2:30 on David as a prophet). In this sense the predictions of the sufferings of the Messiah begin with the prediction of the ‘seed’ of the woman who would be bruised in the heel by the serpent (Gn. 3:15), and continue through much of the Old Testament writings…Yet all these verses are only a beginning, for they do not include the ‘acted-out prophecies’ seen in the historical events of the Old Testament, where in the lives of people like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Jonah, and often the nation of Israel generally, God brought to pass events which foreshadowed a pattern of life that would be later followed by ‘one greater than Solomon,’ one who was David’s greater Son (Grudem, 1 Peter, 70).

Second, the prophets studied their predictions. (more…)

What’s the Old Testament all about?

Jan 26, 2011 • By David Murray • 2 Comments

If we wanted to know what the Old Testament was all about, we should be on pretty safe ground if we asked the author, don’t you think?

“But how can we ask Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc?”

We can’t. And we don’t have to. Because the Old Testament also had a divine author, and he came to this world and told us what the Old Testament was all about. He said it was all about Himself. And, as we shall see later this week, those who spent the most time with Him, said the same.
 
Take for example, what the resurrected Christ said to his still-mourning disciples on the Emmaus Road (Luke 24:25-32). Having patiently listened to their sob-story, Christ eventually rebuked their foolish ignorance and unbelief: “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:  Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?” (vv. 25-26).

Jesus told them that their account of Christ’s life and death exactly matched the predictions of the Old Testament prophets. They had believed some of the prophets’ writings – the parts that spoke of the Messiah’s glory. But they had not believed all that the prophets had spoken – especially the parts that spoke of the Messiah’s sufferings and death.

Having rebuked their foolish ignorance, Christ then gave the disciples a full interpretation of the Old Testament Scriptures in the light of recent events. Notice that! It’s absolutely critical. Christ used New Testament light to interpret the Old Testament Scriptures. He used the light of New Testament events to preach from the Old Testament. As Graeme Goldsworthy says:

We do not start at Genesis 1 and work our way forward until we discover where it is all leading. Rather we first come to Christ, and he directs us to study the Old Testament in the light of the gospel. The gospel will interpret the Old Testament by showing us its goal and meaning. The Old Testament will increase our understand­ing of the gospel by showing us what Christ fulfills (According to Plan, 54-55). 

Christ entitles His sermon, The Things Concerning Himself. He took a big text – Moses, all the prophets, and all the scriptures (v. 27; cf. v. 44). And it had two main points – His sufferings and His glory. In other words, the whole Old Testament, from Genesis to Malachi, concerned Himself, specifically His sufferings and His glory.

And this note didn’t just emerge at the end of Christ’s ministry. Right from the start He presented Himself not as a contrast to the Old Testament but as its climax (Matt. 5:17-18).

He described Abraham’s faith as something more than general theism. It was Messiah-centered: “Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad” (Jn. 8:56).

When did that happen? When did Abraham see Christ’s day with joy? He began to see it when God called him out of Ur. That call is often portrayed as something “out of the blue.” However, it must be remembered that it came in the biblical context of the promise to Eve of a Redeemer that would arise out of her seed and bless the world by defeating Satan (Gen. 3:15). God was building upon that Gospel promise when he called  Abraham to leave Ur: “In you all families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen. 12:3).

But, how can we be sure that Abraham saw the good news of Christ in this promise? Well, because the Apostle Paul tells us:

And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed” (Gal. 3:8).

Genesis 12:1-3 was not the whole Gospel, but it was enough of the Gospel to enable Abraham to not only obey God’s call (Heb. 11:8-9), but also to see Christ’s day and be glad. Iain Duguid goes further and sees more of Christ promised in verse 7 of Genesis 12.

Genesis 12…also points forward to the coming of Christ. The key to making the connection is found in Galatians 3:16, where Paul says this: “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed.” The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, “who is Christ.” In other words, according to Paul, the promises made to Abraham already have Christ in view. When God says to Abram in Genesis 12:7, “To your offspring [lit., seed] I will give this land,” he is talking about Christ (Living in the Gap between Promise and Reality, 24-25).

If the Holy Spirit revealed the Gospel meaning of “your seed” to Paul, surely it’s very likely that the Holy Spirit also revealed this meaning to Abraham, the original hearer of the words and receiver of the promise. If God gave Paul hindsight, could He not have given Abraham foresight, a foresight that was extended and clarified by further covenant promises in Genesis 15, 17 and 22.

So when we ask Jesus what he thought the Old Testament was about. His answer is, “Me!”

You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.…For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. (Jn. 5:39, 46).

What about asking those who knew Jesus best? What did the Apostles think the Old Testament was all about? We’ll hear Peter’s answer tomorrow.

The Key to the Old Testament

Jan 25, 2011 • By David Murray • 0 Comments

Yesterday I highlighted eight reasons why there is so little Old Testament preaching today. And I spotlighted the eighth reason above all – the lack of a Christ-centered understanding of the Old Testament.

I also said that the long road back to a more balanced spiritual diet had to begin with the New Testament. Failure to do so is one of the main reasons, perhaps the main reason, for so many Christ-less Old Testament sermons today. Knowing the New Testament better, and especially the Christ of the New Testament, will help us find Christ in the Old Testament. Dr Michael Barrett explains:

Part of the problem with many Christians is that their inability to find Christ in the Old Testament stems from their limited knowledge of who He is and what He is like. If I am told to pick someone out of a crowd and I have no idea what that someone looks like, it becomes purely a guessing game. Indeed I could be looking right at him and not know it. If we do not know what we are looking for, we will most likely find nothing. Looking for nothing in particular, we find nothing in particular (Beginning at Moses, 19).

We must know Christ personally and intimately on a daily basis if we are to recognize Him when He is revealed in the Old Testament.

But, you may say, “Why spend time in the Old Testament shadows when the New Testament sun has arisen.” Thomas Guthrie heard the same question in his day, and answered: 

Why look at the shadow when you possess the substance? What artist studies a landscape in the gray dawn, when he may see it in the blaze of day? True. Yet such study has its advantages. It not seldom happens that a portrait brings to view certain shades of expression which we had not previously observed in the face of the veritable man; and when some magnificent form of architecture, or the serried ridges and rocky peaks of a mountain, have stood up between us and the lingering lights of day, though the minor beauties of fluted columns or frowning crags were lost in the shades of evening, yet, drawn in sharp clear outline against a twilight sky, the effect of the whole was more impressive than when eyed in the glare of noon. Thus it may be well, at least occasionally, to examine the Gospel in the broad shadows and strongly defined outlines of an old economy (The Gospel in Ezekiel).

Tomorrow we will begin to turn the New Testament key to the Old Testament, by asking it’s divine author, “What’s the Old Testament all about?”

Where did the Old Testament go?

Jan 24, 2011 • By David Murray • 7 Comments

“You’ll find our text today in the Old Testament…”

I know this is a rare announcement, but when you heard it last, what did you think?

“Oh no! Not another historical lecture.”

“We’re going to get another whipping with the law today.”

“Why? I came to church to hear about Jesus.”

“What’s Israel and Babylon got to do with my family struggles?”

Or maybe you didn’t just think it. You said it or emailed it to the pastor afterward. And pastors are feeling the pressure. Some surveys put the ratio of Old Testament to New Testament sermons at 1 to 10. Some would like it to get nearer zero to 10.

But might this imbalance in the spiritual diet of most Christians explain many of the spiritual problems in the modern Church and in the modern Christian? Or as Gleason Archer puts it: “How can Christian pastors hope to feed their flock on a well-balanced spiritual diet if they completely neglect the 39 books of Holy Scripture on which Christ and all the New Testament authors received their own spiritual nourishment?”

It wasn’t always like this. The Church used to have a much more balanced diet. So how did we get here? Let me give you eight answers:

1. Liberalism
There has been a prolonged and sustained attack on the Old Testament by liberal scholars. This has shaken the confidence of many preachers and hearers alike in this part of the Holy Scriptures.

2. Ignorance
It is almost impossible to preach from large parts of the Old Testament without knowledge of the historical context and geographical setting. However, while this knowledge was once widespread, many now know little or nothing of biblical history, and preachers find it hard to interest their hearers in it.

3. Irrelevance
Some look at the historical and geographical details and wonder what possible relevance can events and places from thousands of years ago have for me? And anyway, the New Testament makes it clear that many Old Testament practices are now terminated. So, why study them?

4. Dispensationalism
Although unintended, the dispensational division of Scripture into different eras tends to relegate the Old Testament to a minor role in the life of the Church and of the individual Christian. But even some Reformed preachers are practical dispensationalists!

5. Bad Examples
Bad examples of Old Testament preaching are easy to find and even easier to ridicule. However, the malpractice of some should not lead to the non-practice of others.

6. Missing Models
Many pastors want to preach from the Old Testament, and they feel guilty about their failure to do so. However, when they look around for preaching models to follow, they find few men whose practice they can learn from.

7. Laziness
Preaching from the Old Testament is more demanding than preaching from the New Testament. For a busy pastor with two or three sermons to prepare each week, the well-worn paths of the New Testament seem much more inviting than Leviticus, 2 Chronicles, or Nahum!

8. Christ-less
The last and the biggest reason for so little Old Testament preaching is that there has been so much Christ-less Old Testament preaching. At a popular level, Old Testament preaching has often degenerated into mere moralism (e.g. “Ten lessons from the life of Moses”), and that’s just wearisome. At an academic level, there seems to be a determination to downplay and even remove any possibility of Christ-centeredness in the Old Testament. That’s equally wearisome. Little surprise then that preachers turn away from the Old Testament and towards the New in order to “find Jesus” and “preach Christ crucified.”

Solution?
What then is the solution to this crisis in Old Testament preaching? How can we fight and even reverse these trends? Well, we must combat liberal theology. We must teach our congregations biblical history and geography, while also demonstrating the abiding relevance of the Old Testament. We must resist both patent and latent Dispensationalism. We must identify and avoid bad practice, however inviting it may appear. We must search for, value, and learn from good preaching models. And we must be willing to put in the hours, the sweat, the toil, and the tears, as we break up the long-untilled ground of the Old Testament.

But, above all, we must, in faith, stand against Christ-less moralism and Christ-less academia. We must stand in front of the JCB’s of the scholarly community and refuse to let them scoop Christ out of the Old Testament.

But how?

Well it’s a wrong road back. But we must begin with the New Testament. Yes, the New Testament! And I’ll show you why tomorrow.