Comments on: Big question. Bigger consequences.

By: Shawn Anderson

Shawn Anderson — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 22:45:18 +0000

Thought this quote was pertinent:The great importance of the sacrifices prescribed by the law may be inferred to a great extent, apart from the fact that sacrifice in general was founded upon the dependence of man upon God, and his desire for the restoration of that living fellowship with Him which had been disturbed by sin, from the circumstantiality and care with which both the choice of the sacrifices and the mode of presenting them are most minutely prescribed. But their special meaning and importance in relation to the economy of the Old Covenant are placed beyond all question by the position they assumed in the ritual of the Israelites, forming as they did the centre of all their worship, so that scarcely any sacred action was performed without sacrifice, whilst they were also the medium through which forgiveness of sin and reconciliation with the Lord were obtained, either by each individual Israelite, or by the congregation as a whole. This significance, which was deeply rooted in the spiritual life of Israel, is entirely destroyed by those who lay exclusive stress upon the notion of presentation or gift, and can see nothing more in the sacrifices than a “renunciation of one’s own property,” for the purpose of “expressing reverence and devotion, love and gratitude to God by such a surrender, and at the same time of earning and securing His favour.” (K&D on Lev 1)

By: Jim Hamilton

Jim Hamilton — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 23:57:44 +0000

Thanks for your note, David, just a quick response on Mary and the Baptist. You say "It all came together for them," but when? I think that Mary was probably with his family in Mark 3:21 (cf. 3:31, "his mother and brothers") who thought Jesus was "out of his mind." And the Baptist sent those messengers to ask if he was the one to come . . . Again, I think they've embraced the conquering Messiah but they're having trouble with Jesus indicating that he's going to be the suffering Messiah and pursuing this decidedly unexpected course of action. In my book God's Indwelling Presence, I argue that the disciples have circumcised hearts and that their dropping of the nets to follow Jesus is evidence of genuine faith. They are not, however, as good at doing Old Testament Theology as Jesus is. They need him to open their minds to understand the Scriptures. Then, I think, it all comes together for them, and they pass on the interpretation of the OT that Jesus taught them in their writings, which now comprise the NT. Blessings!Jim

By: David Murray

David Murray — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 23:44:55 +0000

Good questions, Jim! The disciples are such a conundrum aren’t they (aren’t we all). At times you wonder if they were all converted (am I allowed to wonder that?). On the other hand there are times when sight is clear and confession is bold (Matt. 16:16). I’d like some time to think on your challenging questions and come back to this again. But let me give some initial thoughts for the moment:1. Maybe I haven’t made it clear enough that OT believers faith was still a “shadow-faith.” I don’t want to suggest that OT faith was as clear/bright/steady as a NT believer post-Pentecost. However, I do want to hold on to “same in essence, though not in degree.”2. In some ways I think it was perhaps harder for the disciples to believe than the OT believers. The Messiah in theory may have been more believable than the Messiah in reality. What do I mean by that? Well, in some ways it was a disadvantage to be so familiar with the humanity of Christ. He was just so human, so flesh and blood, so lowly, so Nazareth, so “ordinary.” Many seemed to stumble over this. 3. Added to this is the political background where the Jewish Messianic hope had got so tied up with military deliverance from Roman oppression. This context/culture also militated against faith in a suffering Messiah. It imbalanced their view of the Messiah so much that they lost sight of the suffering theme.4. However, there were OT believers who did get it: Anna, Simeon, Elizabeth, Zachariah, Mary, John the Baptist. It all came together for them. 5. Allowing for the moment that Luke 24:16 is a divine passive, Calvin explains it as follows: Our members do indeed possess their natural properties; but to make us more fully sensible that they are held by us at the will of another, God retains in his own hand the use of them, so that we ought ever to reckon it to be one of his daily favors, that our ears hear and our eyes see; for if he does not every hour quicken our senses, all their power will immediately give way. I readily acknowledge that our senses are not frequently held in the same manner as happened at that time, so as to make so gross a mistake about an object presented to us; but by a single example God shows that it is in his power to direct the faculties which he has. bestowed, so as to assure us that nature is subject to his will…etc.But, I haven’t addressed all your questions, Jim. So please let me think further and see if I can add to the above. Appreciate your patience and grace.David.

By: Jim Hamilton

Jim Hamilton — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 20:59:37 +0000

Thanks for this interaction, David, I have some questions for you, however: Even though Jesus repeatedly told his disciples that he was going to Jerusalem to die, they never seemed to understand that teaching (until after the resurrection). And then when it happened (before the resurrection), they seem devastated. Then when Jesus met the guys on the road to Emmaus, Luke writes that they “were kept from recognizing him” (Lk 24:16). Is this what we would expect if things were as clear to OT saints as you suggest above? I agree that they were saved by faith. I agree that the sacrificial system taught them penal substitution. I also agree that they hoped for the coming seed of the woman who would crush the head of the woman and bring to fulfillment the promises to Abraham (see my essay, “The Seed of the Woman and the Blessing of Abraham”). I’m not sure they had it all put together. I’m not sure they were clear on how all this would come to pass. When Jesus first tells his disciples that he’s going to Jerusalem to die, they don’t have an “aha!” moment and exclaim: so that’s how the serpent is going to bruise your heel and Isaiah 53 and Daniel 9:26 and Zech 12:10; 13:7 are all going to be fulfilled as you become the final sacrifice to which the Levitical cult has pointed! No, when he tells them that, Peter says: this will never happen to you, Lord. I think it took Jesus opening their minds to understand the Scriptures, beginning from Moses (Luke 24), for them to get all this put together. This also leads me to think that while the members of the remnant with circumcised hearts under the old covenant believed that the seed of the woman was coming, and while they believed they needed to offer those sacrifices that were penal and substitionary, they didn’t necessarily have the two things put together. Can you show me some OT texts that would contradict what I’m saying? Do you see how what I’m saying fits with Luke 24? Please hear me: there is a suffering messiah theme in the OT, and there is a conquering messiah theme in the OT. I think the evidence from the gospels indicates that the old covenant remnant was pretty focused on the conquering messiah theme and pretty puzzled by the suffering messiah theme. It’s adumbrated by Simeon telling Mary that a sword is going to pierce her soul, but the disciples don’t seem to expect Jesus to suffer. . . I know Jesus calls them foolish and slow of heart to believe in Luke 24:25, but I see that standing in tension with the divine passive in 24:16 (“they were kept from recognizing him”) and with their need to have Jesus interpret the Scriptures for them (24:17), open their eyes (24:31–32), and open their minds to understand (24:45). I submit that my arithmetic pretty well matches what the OT and NT texts do and do not say. I’d love to be shown where it’s faulty, because if it is I want to fix it. Every blessing to you in Christ Jesus,Jim

By: Paul Blackham

Paul Blackham — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 17:19:06 +0000

Very helpful points. Quite often people speak as if Christ came to save people from the Old Testament! The Old Testament is just as gospel and Christ centred as the New. The fact we even have to say that is a worry. Christ has always been the object of saving faith… from Alpha to Omega, from Genesis to Revelation. As long as the Suffering Messiah is the object of faith, then the details of that are not the big issue. I would imagine that a member of the ancient Israelite church who was offering animal sacrifices throughout the year would have a more substantial appreciation of blood sacrifice than many modern believers who struggle to grasp the reality of this. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and forever – He is the author and perfecter of our faith, whether with Abraham, David, Paul or us today. Glory to Jesus.

By: Shawn Anderson

Shawn Anderson — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 16:48:48 +0000

I am actually doing a sermon series, “Redemption in the Details” going through the Tabernacle, Sacrifices and Festivals. Great timing! Thanks for the helpful points.Hope you are doing well, David. We continue to pray for you.