Christ’s Triumph over Earthly Powers

Scholars have begun to think about the way that Jesus and Paul called the Roman Empire into question.  I think that it was this Christian Century article from 2005 that turned me on to the trend.  Peter Leithart’s article in First Things also explored the idea of Paul’s assertion of Christ’s triumph over earthly powers:

Paul taught Christians to expect a lot from the gospel, politically as well as personally. He taught that the crucifixion of Jesus had a direct impact on the powers-that-be. He told the Colossians that Jesus went to the cross as the firstborn—the only-begotten of the Father, the new Israel, the heir, the Passover sacrifice—to pacify the powers. The same Son who created the powers (Col. 1:16) has “made peace through the blood of His cross” by reconciling powers in heaven and earth to Himself (Col. 1:20).

Paul borrows from the propaganda of the Roman Empire to make his point. According to Roman imperial ideology, the emperor was a cosmic “peace-maker,” bringing to earth an image of heavenly peace. The apostle says, on the contrary, that God has his own peace-maker, another Lord who reconciles all things. As Paul says later in Colossians, Jesus renovates all things and unites Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, slave and free (Col. 3:10-11), extending his empire even to “barbarians” (Col. 3:10-11).

Scholars have debated inconclusively about whether the powers are angels or demons or social “forces” or human authorities, but in the end it doesn’t matter for Paul. If there are visible powers and authorities, the Son who made them subdues them (Col. 1:16). If there are invisible angelic or demonic powers, or more abstract forces in the human world, their fate is the same. The key thing for Paul is not to identify the powers, but to say that they have all been created and they have all been conquered. It’s a universal truth: Whatever rules over humanity has been tamed by the cross of Jesus.

Paul reiterates the same point in more extreme terms in the following chapter. Jesus, he claims, has “stripped” the rulers and authorities and made a public display of them (Col. 2:15). Paul is making an ironic reference to the actual event of Jesus’ crucifixion. If CNN had captured the crucifixion, the film clip would have shown Jesus Himself stripped, crucified naked and exposed. According to Paul, what actually happening was the opposite: Jesus stripped the powers. Paul again borrows from Roman imperial custom in saying that Jesus makes a “public display” of the powers, having triumphed over him in the cross.” By his death, Jesus leads the powers in a triumphal procession, displaying them as the trophies of his conquest, the plunder of Egypt.

Leithart believes that this has indeed happened, and discusses the Christian Church’s victory over Rome’s tyranny and the polytheistic religions of the ancient world.  At the same time, he writes that governments and cultures can be not only defeated, but reconciled to God’s rule, rejecting the Anabaptist idea that Christians must always be opposed to power.  Of the times where the Church has sinned in its triumph, he writes,

Paul also means that through the cross the Church is delivered from everything else that dominates and distorts human life. The true man Jesus redeems slaves to tradition, slaves to blood and nation, slaves to fashion, slaves to public opinion, and forms a community of free citizens, of truly human humans. If the Church has often bowed to the idols of nationalism, traditionalism, or trendiness, it is because we have too often forgotten our exodus and returned to Egypt.

Leithart believes (in my understanding) that the Church can bring Christ’s kingdom here on by baptizing nations and bringing the world under God’s rule, fulfilling the Great Commission.  I believe in the Great Commission, of course, but I’m not yet convinced of the Christendom model that he embraces.  I’m not sure that the Bible teaches that Christians are to set up an earthly kingdom, but I haven’t done a lot of study on the topic.  Nevertheless, I found his reflection on Christ’s victory edifying and the historical context in which he places Paul’s writings to be quite helpful.

Leithart also posted a couple of really deep reflections here and here on the meaning of worship within the last month, which I mostly want to link to so I can recall them.  I hope that you find them helpful as well.  Thanks, Joel, for putting me in touch with Leithart’s writings!

Jesus on the Cross = Penal Substitution AND Sanctification

My evening readings were in 1 Pt. 1-2 and there is so much precious truth in it all, however 1 Pt 2:24 sticks out  for me today:

“He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.”

I had the chance to visit with a dear brother this morning who is a missionary to the Ukraine and we ended up spending some time talking about the work of Jesus upon the cross. I informed him that the doctrine of penal substitution (Jesus satisfied our penalty for sin on the cross) is under attack today. He was shocked.

“How could they do that? Why did Jesus come to die then?” he asked.

I gave him the reasons and he was appalled that people have a problem with the idea that Jesus actually took our sin, its filth, the Father’s wrath against it, everything with Him into His body on that cross. You are left with an empty cross… a most unfortunate martyrdom that the Father had nothing to do with. How is this glorious?

Anyhow, Peter tells us plainly that Jesus bore our sins in His body. That is glorious in and of itself, however the good news doesn’t end there. Peter adds a purpose clause following that great statement, “…that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.”

Jesus not only satisfies the penalty and wrath for our sin, but purchases on the cross sanctifying power for the believer to die to sin and live for Him. This is great news!!! He not only forgives us, but empowers us to live a life pleasing to Him for His glory. 1 Peter has several important imperatives that help shape exactly how the ‘justified’ believer is to live out ’sanctification’. Let us praise our Lord that He truly “healed” us on that cross through the wounds He endured.

Prayer-

Thank you for saving me and not appointing me to destruction, but rather unto newness of life. Thank you for choosing to come and carry out the mission that the Father gave you to purchase me. Thank you for enduring every stripe and wound for my sin. As I ponder your wounded body, may I see in it the death of my own flesh and the power to live for You. I live for you Lord…for Your glory. I am not ashamed of the cross…it is a stumbling block for many, but you have made it precious in my sight. I have tasted Your sweet goodness and I long for more. May Your goodness shape me as a vessel to be used for Your glory. Amen.

Happy Ascension Day!!!

Ascension Day often gets overlooked, but it is a most glorious truth that we celebrate today…the risen, exalted Christ, reigning from on high, expanding His kingdom and subdoing His enemies.

ESV Study Bible Article on Christ’s Full Deity + Humanity, Council of Chalcedon

 

The following article is from the newly released ESV Study Bible. I highly commend this study Bible to your collection…its study notes are thorough and Evangelical, and its articles cover a suprinsingly vast number of topics from Theology to Ethics, and everything inbetween. Visit esvstudybible.org.

The Person of Christ

Four statements must be understood and affirmed in order to attain a complete biblical picture of the person of Jesus Christ:

1. Jesus Christ is fully and completely divine.
2. Jesus Christ is fully and completely human.
3. The divine and human natures of Christ are distinct.
4. The divine and human natures of Christ are completely united in one person.

The Deity of Christ

Many passages of Scripture demonstrate that Jesus is fully and completely God:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:1, 14).

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known (John 1:18).

Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).

To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen (Rom. 9:5).

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not countequality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men (Phil. 2:5–7).

. . . waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13).

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power (Heb. 1:3).

But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.” . . . And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands” (Heb. 1:8, 10).

Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 1:1).

Jesus’ Understanding of His Own Deity

Even though the passages cited above clearly teach the deity of Christ, this truth is often challenged. Some say that Jesus never claimed to be God and that these verses were written by his disciples who deified him because of the impact he had on their lives. Jesus, it is claimed, only saw himself as a great moral teacher on a par with other religious leaders. However, Jesus’ understanding of his own deity in the Gospels does not support this perspective. He clearly saw himself as God. This can be seen primarily in six ways.

1. Jesus taught with divine authority. At the end of the Sermon on the Mount, “the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he wasteaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes” (Matt. 7:28–29). The teachers of the law in Jesus’ day had no authority of their own. Their authority came from their use of earlier authorities. Even Moses and the other OT prophets and authors did not speak in their own authority, but would say, “This is what the Lord says.” Jesus, on the other hand, interprets the law by saying, “You have heard that it was said. . . . But I say to you” (see Matt. 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44). This divine authority is shown with staggering clarity when he speaks of himself as the Lord who will judge the whole earth and will say to the wicked, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness” (Matt. 7:23). No wonder the crowd was amazed at the authority with which Jesus spoke. Jesus recognized that his words carried divine weight. He acknowledged the permanent authority of the law (Matt. 5:18) and put his words on an equal plane with it: “For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (Matt. 5:18); “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (Matt. 24:35).

Dead Sea Stone and the resurrection

The New York Times reports that a 3-foot-tall stone tablet found near the Dead Sea in Jordan contains writings that mention the Messiah and the resurrection. Scholars believe that the writing on the stone talks about the Messiah, “prince of princes,” who “in three days…shall live” after being killed.

Two things were particularly interesting to me about this story. First, the stone dates to a few decades before the birth of Jesus. Second, it was Jewish and secular scholars—not Christian—who reported the findings. I pray that God will use this stone to point many Jewish people to the Stone, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Book Review Part 8 of Dan Lioy’s “Jesus as Torah in John 1-12″; Chp. 5 “Jesus as Torah in John 5-6″

  

Chapter 5 “Jesus as Torah in John 5-6”

Part 1 (Examining treatment of Jesus as Torah in John 5)

Dr. Lioy views a shift in John’s emphasis from chps. 1-4 as emphasizing Jesus as the eternal Tanakh against the backdrops of Jewish piety and history towards a comparison of Jesus with some of the major festivals of Judaism.

Gospel According to Bono from U2…knows Gospel Better than Many Pastors

You can find Bono’s explanation of the Gospel at the following link:  http://www.worldmag.com/articles/10892

Here is a summary of some things Bono states:

 ”The point of the death of Christ is that Christ took on the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death,” replies Bono. “It’s not our own good works that get us through the gates of Heaven.”

“Look, the secular response to the Christ story always goes like this: He was a great prophet, obviously a very interesting guy, had a lot to say along the lines of other great prophets, be they Elijah, Muhammad, Buddha, or Confucius. But actually Christ doesn’t allow you that. He doesn’t let you off that hook. Christ says, No. I’m not saying I’m a teacher, don’t call me teacher. I’m not saying I’m a prophet. I’m saying: ‘I’m the Messiah.’ I’m saying: ‘I am God incarnate.’ . . . So what you’re left with is either Christ was who He said He was—the Messiah—or a complete nutcase. . . . The idea that the entire course of civilization for over half of the globe could have its fate changed and turned upside-down by a nutcase, for me that’s farfetched.”

3/20/08 Devotional: What is Maundy Thursday???

 

A lot of people will notice that the calendar notes that today is both Maundy Thursday and the first day of Spring. First of all, some of you may be wondering what “Maundy” means and think it insignifiant since everyone is working, the kids are in school, and the mailman will pay a visit. BUT, Maundy Thursday is indeed important, because it is supposed to remind us of the Lord’s words to love one another. John Piper posted the following regarding today (http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1136_thursday_of_the_commandment),

3/18/08 Devotional – Psalm 22 “Jesus sought joy in going to the cross!?!?”

 

Psa 22:1-31  To the choirmaster: according to The Doe of the Dawn. A Psalm of David. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?  (2)  O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer, and by night, but I find no rest.  (3)  Yet you are holy, enthroned on the praises of Israel.  (4)  In you our fathers trusted; they trusted, and you delivered them.  (5)  To you they cried and were rescued; in you they trusted and were not put to shame.  (6)  But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by mankind and despised by the people.  (7)  All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads;  (8)  “He trusts in the LORD; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him!” 

Movie Review of “The Guardian”, A Glorious Picture of Particular Atonement

This video gives the movie away as does what I am about to say. Kevin Costner willingly died to save Ashton Kutcher. The only consolation for Costner was to know that he was indeed giving his life to save the life of another.

Jesus, likewise, went to the cross with His sheep on his heart and mind. Jesus was not dying to “open the door” or make salvation possible. Jesus died to save sinners. He saved me. He was thinking of me on the cross and died to secure my salvation definitely. While watching the end of this film, I can’t help but see Jesus leaving his disciples and going to the cross. He died so that I might live. Praise Him!!!

Book Review Part 7 of Dan Lioy’s “Jesus as Torah in John 1-12″; Chp. 4 “Jesus as Torah in John 2-4: The Samaritan Woman’s Conversation with Jesus as Torah (John 4:1-26)”

The Samaritan Woman’s Conversation with Jesus as Torah (John 4:1-26) 

Lioy makes two suggestions of how Jesus is seen as Torah in His encounter with the Samaritan woman that I find intriguing. First off, Lioy points to Ng (2001), who in “Water Symbolism in John: An Eschatological Interpretation”, examines the use of “water”  to refer to “Torah” in Jewish literature. I was unaware of this and really need to read Ng’s work to better asses this possible connection. Even so, I doubt that Jesus has “Torah” in mind or that the Samaritan woman thought such when Jesus offered “living water” to her. I will have to research further into this because I do acknowledge that “water” shows up with the Can miracle, with Jesus’ discourse to Nicodemus, and again here to the Samaritan woman.

The second connection that Lioy makes with Jesus as Torah is the omniscience Jesus evidences in His discourse with the Samaritan woman. Lioy states, “The omniscient Torah of God affirmed the truthfulness of the woman’s statement, adding that she had been divorced five times and was now living immorally…” (p. 99). 

The Torah that had been given to Israel said much about God and His desire for His people, while this living Torah is able to peer into the heart of this Samaritan woman and reveal all. Jesus is the living breathing Word of God who knows all and reveals all that He so chooses.

 

Book Review Part 6 of Dan Lioy’s “Jesus as Torah in John 1-12″; Chp. 4 “Jesus as Torah in John 2-4: Jesus as Torah Teaching Nicodemus (John 2:23-3:21)”

Jesus as Torah Teaching Nicodemus (John 2:23-3:21) 

This incident, in my estimation, is persuasive to Lioy’s premise that Jesus is Torah. Nicodemus was a Pharisee and member of the Sanhedrin. Lioy also notes that Nicodemus was “Israel’s teacher” (p. 89). Lioy comments, “This reference has led some to think that he had a special position as the premier instructor to the nation. The more likely option is that Jesus affirmed the status of Nicodemus as a highly esteemed rabbi among his religious peers” (p. 89).

Either way, Nicodemus represents the cream of the crop as a rabbi and teacher of the Torah. His encounter with Jesus, who is the fullness of the Torah, makes him look like a confused child. Jesus even shows some shock that Nicodemus was clueless with what was said. Jesus told him that one must be born again or born from above, to which Jesus further adds that we must be born of both water and Spirit. Nicodemus was confused and Jesus offers further clarification. It is unclear whether Nicodemus full got it, but the fact that Nicodemus later defended Jesus and assisted in his burial shows that he, at the very least, respected Jesus.

Lioy comments well on this encounter of one rabbi standing before the infinitely superior Rabbi, who Himself is the Torah, Jesus:

“Thankfully for Nicodemus, he was talking with someone who could speak with authority regarding eternal matters. While the Jews possessed God’s revelation in the Mosaic law (cf. Rom. 9:4), no one but the Son of Man had ever gone into heaven or come back to describe it (cf. John 1:51; 3:31; 6:41-42). Also, because Jesus is the divine, incarnate Torah, He alone can unveil heaven’s true nature to humanity (3:13)” (p. 92).

 

Book Review Part 5 of Dan Lioy’s “Jesus as Torah in John 1-12″; Chp. 4 “Jesus as Torah in John 2-4: Jesus as Torah Clearing the Temple Courts (John 2:12-22)”

“Jesus as Torah Clearing the Temple Courts” (John 2:12-22)” 

Now talk about extremes– Jesus first miracle is performed quietly and privately, while the clearing of the temple courts is loud and very public.

Lioy dialogues with some of the various views regarding whether Jesus cleared the temple once or twice. The fact that John records this event early in his gospel and the synoptic gospels record a similar event late in Jesus ministry appears to be a conflict for some readers. Whatever view one takes, it is evident that John records this event early in his gospel because of theological intent, “…there is theological significance to the clearing of the temple courts as one of Jesus’ first public acts….the old order, represented by the temple built by Herod the Great, would give way to the new order, represented by the temple of Jesus’ body” (p. 83-84).

I have always loved John’s gospel because he paints a beautiful picture of Jesus being the greatest Theophany ever. He came and “tabernacled” among us (Jn 1:14), then proceeds to “curse” the temple, later to be confirmed in His response to the Samaritan woman that God was no longer worshipped in a particular place, only to be made evidently clear that He alone was the “way” to the Father (Jn. 14:6). Jesus was essentially deeming worship at the temple as irrelevant in favor for true worship through Himself. Lioy connects this incident with the premise of Jesus as Torah in that Jesus was the “…Messenger of the covenant about whom Malachi 3:1-4 said would come to spiritually purify and morally refine God’s people” (p. 86). Also, when asked for a sign, Jesus pointed forward to His eventual death and resurrection as he declared that He would rebuild the temple in 3 days. His disciples later recalled the  comment regarding the rebuilding of the temple and thus, “What the embodiment of the Tanakh had prophesied, fulfilled what God had promised in the Old Testament” (p. 88).

Book Review Part 4 of Dan Lioy’s “Jesus as Torah in John 1-12″; Chp. 4 “Jesus as Torah in John 2-4: Jesus as Torah Changing Water into Wine (John 2:1-11)”

Dr. Lioy would like to encourage interested readers of Rick’s blog to recommend Jesus as Torah in John 1-12 to acquisition librarians in their area. Often, the latter are very open to receive suggestions for new titles to include in their library holdings, and this involves no direct cost to the person making the recommendation. It also has the added benefit of making new works such as Dr. Lioy’s more widely available through interlibrary loan at no cost to interested readers. The following is the typical information acquisition librarians would want provided:

Title: Jesus as Torah in John 1-12
Author: Dan Lioy
Year of publication: 2007
Description: English Book Book ix, 307 p. ; 23 cm.
Publisher: Eugene, OR : Wipf & Stock Pubs.
ISBN-10: 1556354754
ISBN-13: 9781556354755

Due to the length of the chapter and my comments on such, I will divide my review of this chapter up into 6 different mini reviews. This is the first.

“Jesus as Torah Changing Water into Wine (John 2:1-11)” 

Commenting on Jesus’ participation in the Cana wedding, Lioy states that “The marriage celebration was a symbolic reminder that the age of Messiah had dawned…” (p. 76).  It is interesting to note that only John records this miracle and that it sort of serves as the coming out party for Jesus. If it was in fact John’s intent to symbolically connect the wedding theme with the advent of the Messiah’s reign, then it can be seen why it comes as Jesus first miracle in John’s gospel.

Mary appeals to her son for help, probably because the bride was a family friend, and Jesus’ response evidences a reluctance to get involved. Anyhow, we know how the story plays out. Jesus instructs that 6 jars be filled with water and then served to the host, who is impressed. Lioy reasons that this first miracle served more as a discovery for the few who were even aware of what took place…that he was not interested in drawing the attention of the crowd, “Jesus did not call for a pause in the festivities , and He did not summon everyone’s attention…Jesus performed His miracle in a quiet and humble manner” (p. 80).

Lioy sums that Jesus’ glory was seen in two aspects in this particular miracle: “…His love for the neighborhood people and His control over the elements of nature” (p. 81). I can see why sinners liked hanging with Jesus; He cared about people. He aided in the celebration of a peasant’s wedding and therefore shows us that He is full of love…an extraordinary love that reaches out to us no matter our situation or status.

 

Dr. Dan Lioy Responds to My Book Review on “Jesus as Torah”

For my intial review, please see:  http://endued.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/book-review-part-3-of-dan-lioys-jesus-as-torah-in-john-1-12-chp-3-jesus-as-torah-in-john-1/

Dr. Lioy was gracious enough to respond to some of my questions. His response is below:

Rick,

Your ongoing review of my monograph is appreciated. In it you wondered whether John’s first century AD audience would have connected the notion of “light” with that of “Torah.” I would answer *yes*. For instance, I note in chapter 6 of the monograph (page 150) that “in the first century AD, light was regarded as a symbol of the law” (cf. Pss. 43:3; 119:105, 130; Isa. 51:4; Wis. 7:26; 18:3-4). Jesus, in turn, during the Feast of Tabernacles, “declared Himself to be the Light of the world” (cf. John 8:12; 9:5). I also note that the “implication is that the Son, as eschatological light and life, is the realization of what was promised/expected in Torah.”

Moreover, I state in the first chapter of the monograph (“Framework and Intent of the Study”) that there is a longstanding conceptual correspondence between *logos* (“word”) and *torah* (“law”, “teaching”; see especially pages 8-10, including the extensive footnotes). I also note on page 10 that “Jesus as Torah functions as a dominant leitmotif (together with Logos) to conceptualize the totality of the person and work of the Son.” Moreover, I maintain that “Jesus as Torah” is “a powerful Christological symbol that illumines all the other major themes appearing in the Fourth Gospel,” including that of “light.”

Furthermore, I point out on page 11 that “Jesus, as the final expression of God’s Tanakh, created all things and is the source of light and life (John 1:1-13)” and that “the children of light are those who put their trust in the Messiah (12:35-36) and receive eternal life (3:36).” I state in chapter 3 (page 51) that “Jesus directly referred to Himself as a light that has come into the world so that all those who believed in Him would not remain in darkness.” As well, “through His Incarnation, the Son brings the light of divine truth to a sin-cursed world and in so doing discloses the spiritual need all people have for salvation.”

Later in your review, you note my discussion about various witnesses in affirmation of Jesus, including John the Baptizer. As I state in various places in my monograph, the latter material is part of a larger lawsuit / trial motif appearing in the Fourth Gospel. I think it is a *very* important aspect of the Fourth Gospel. For the places in my work where I discuss this motif in more detail, be sure to check out the Subject Index at the end. In fact, I would recommend consulting it for other major subjects, such as the concept of “light,” or for that matter such subjects as Judaism, the Mosaic law, Moses traditions and typology, and so on.

I trust you will find this and other material appearing throughout the monograph to be helpful, clarifying, and edifying.

Dan Lioy

Book Review Part 3 of Dan Lioy’s “Jesus as Torah in John 1-12″: Chp. 3 “Jesus as Torah in John 1″

 

Dr. Lioy engages the 1st chapter of John’s gospel to expound the premise of this volume that Jesus is Torah. Lioy mentions that one of John’s intents in authoring this Gospel was to confront false teachers who denied that Jesus was the divine Son of God. Accordingly, “One is left with the impression that throughout Jesus’ ministry, He was on trial, a situation that mirrors the courtroom language of the Old Testament (see Isa 43-48)” (p. 59).

Also, “For the apostle John, it was imperative to establish numerous eyewitnesses to testify that Jesus is the Messiah” (p. 50).

Having stated John’s redactive aims, Lioy points out how the 1st chapter wastes no time getting to the point. In it, we are introduced to witness number 1, John the Baptist. It is also worth mentioning that Jesus genealogy in John’s gospel goes straight to His eternal pre-existence from the Father. Such being the case, John is striving to portray Jesus as divine and eternal as a response to false teachers who denied such. John the Baptist, though older, even asserts that Jesus was preeminent.

Lioy deals with the “light” theme found in John’s gospel and sees in it significance pointing to Jesus as Torah. Lioy states, “…the Son brings the light of divine truth to a sin-cursed world….Only those who believe in Him are enlightened in the truest sense of the word” (p. 51).

I can’t help but recall the following verses in Psalm 119:

Psa 119:105 Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.

Psa 119:130 The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple.

That Torah is connected with light, a guiding light, it is only fitting that Jesus is called light. Jesus light shows us the path to walk in. We are to live in this light. It will keep us from stumbling. I wonder if John’s audience would connect the theme of “light” with Torah? or if “light” would connote something else. If “light” didn’t connect with Torah, then the premise of this book, at least on this point, would have to be questioned. Is it John’s intent to portray Jesus as Torah to a Gentile audience?

Lioy states that one reason for Jesus incarnation and saving mission was to make God know and accessible to mankind, “The saving mission of Jesus and the culmination of the Torah included making God known and accessible to mankind” (p. 52). This comments invokes in my mind the promise of God in Jeremiah regarding a new covenant in which we would not need to teach one another but that we would all have the word of God internalized in our hearts. While some debate the exact application of this promise in Jeremiah, it is applied to the New Covenant that was inaugurated by Jesus. Jesus baptizes us with the Spirit, ushering us into a new relationship in which we walk in light and newness of life.

Regarding the establishing of witness to Jesus as Torah, Lioy points out 4 main testimonies: “John the Baptizer, the Son’s own miracles, God the Father, and Scripture…” (p. 60). This accords with the whole of John’s gospel, especially when he admits that al was written so that we might believe that Jesus is who He claimed Himself to be.

John the Baptist is a significant witness in that he prepared the way for Jesus, attested to His Divine stature, claimed Him to be a lamb, and testified to a great coming baptism of the Spirit. John also baptized Jesus, and heard the voice of the Father and saw the descending Dove.

Beyond John the Baptist, we are given an account of Jesus first followers: Andrew, John, Peter, Philip, and Nathaniel. Nathaniel’s declaration of Jesus as the “Son of God” and as the “king of Israel” are significant considering his initial skepticism. It is a picture of all who are skeptical and are drawn in by Jesus extraordinary signs…which convinced Nathaniel when Jesus declared that Nathaniel had been sitting under a tree. This also accords with John’s intent to show miracles as a verifying witness to Jesus divine nature:

Joh 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;

Joh 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Is Jesus the “light”, the “lamb”, the Torah? It all boils down to whether John’s gospel is trustworthy. We are a juror in the grand scheme of things and if we proclaim “faith”, then we are made children of God, brought into the light from darkness, receive forgiveness of sins. The Torah is but a type in its laws, sacrificial guidance, and such which points to the reality of Jesus. He is the “end of the law”…the culminating reality and substance of it. 

Book Review Part 2 of Dan Lioy’s “Jesus as Torah in John 1-12″: Chp. 2 “The Moral Law in Christ-Centered Perspective”

This is my second review of this book by Dr. Dan Lioy. To see part one, check: http://endued.wordpress.com/2007/12/05/book-review-part-1-of-dan-lioys-jesus-as-torah-in-john-1-12/ 

If interested in purchasing this volume, check out the following link:  http://wipfandstock.com/store/Jesus_as_Torah_in_John_112

This second chapter covered a LOT!!! Dr. Lioy broaches many issues in this chapter, all of which merit much reflection in Biblical Theology. The various uses of the law are reviewed, the nature of the law is discussed, the relation of Christ to the various aspects of the law are mentioned, and the believer’s relation to the law is also discussed. In addition to these weighty issues, Dr. Lioy engages the issues raised by the NPP (New Perspectives on Paul) regarding justification and righteousness. Related to this, Dr. Lioy discusses the relationship of justification and good works, spending time examining the relationship between Paul and James’ use of Abraham’s faith in Genesis.

Some of the excerpts that I found of personal interest are listed and commented on:

“Clearly, the holy God revealed in the Old Testament is the same Lord disclosed in the New Testament” (p. 22).

Dr. Lioy makes clear that he believes that progressive revelation attests to the same Lord. I am assuming that he sides more with a covenantal approach to Scripture, which emphasizes continuity in God’s progressive revelation; whereas Dispensationalists would emphasize the discontinuity. Obviously the early church struggled with this very issue and would fall on the extremes of Judiazing on one hand, and deleting the Old Testament like Marcion, on the other hand.

“In short, the covenant and law go hand in hand to create a unified and holy community of the redeemed down through the ages (cf. Heb 12:18-29). Not surprisingly, then, the ethical instruction given by Jesus and His apostles reflects an affirmation of the Mosaic legal code and its reapplication to believers this side of Calvary” (p. 23).

Dr. Lioy makes a strong case for this comment. It is seen clearly in both James and 1 John that there is an expectation among the New Covenant community to take their cues from previous revelation, primarily in Moses, for our own ethics…whether it be caring for widows and orphans, loving our believing family, or trusting in and acting on God’s word like our great patriarch Abraham. Abraham is set forth as a model for New Covenant faith…a faith that trusts and is ever compelled to follow God.

“Ultimately, there is a strong correspondence and continuity between the testaments with respect to the compassion and faithfulness of the Lord that He made available to the faith community” (p. 28).

It is so critical to note this important truth that the same Lord that saves us by grace alone today is the same Lord who showed loving-kindness and faithfulness to those who trusted in Him before Jesus. His mercies and graces begin in Genesis and are found throughout all of Scripture. I was once taught to disregard the Old Testament as being binding or informative for New Covenant faith and I am grateful for a mentor who showed my God’s grace in the Old Testament and God’s law in the New Testament. It was so freeing to know that I can read all of Scripture and find the same Lord on all the pages of Scripture.

“All that the law anticipated and declared is embodied in the Messiah” (p. 29).

That Dr. Lioy would dub Jesus as the Torah would seem to be a fair deduction from this very statement that the Messiah is the embodiment of the law. Jesus is called the Word, and is the final revelation from God for His people. He is therefore the finality, the substance, the fullness of what the law was pointing forward to. Dr. Lioy suggests as much, “What the law of Moses could not elucidate about the triune God has now been fully unveiled in Jesus as Tanakh. Only He could reveal the essential being of the Godhead, for the Messiah alone is the image of the invisible God”(Col 1:15), the “exact representation of [God's] being” (Heb 1:3), and the One in whom “all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Col 2:9). We should not be surprised, then, that Jesus said to Philip, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9)” (p. 30).

“When people trust in the Son, a miraculous exchange occurs. Their guilty status as condemned sinners is transferred to the Messiah on the cross and His perfect righteousness is transferred to them. Through this exchange, the requirements of the law are met in full. Jesus’ righteousness operating in believers enables them to consistently live according to the Spirit of God, rather than according to the sinful nature” (p. 32).

The most glorious doctrine for the sinner is the imputed righteousness of Christ and the offering up of Himself as the propitation for our sin. Not to be missed in this transaction is the very presence of the Holy Spirit working in our lives to put to death the flesh and increasingly grow in righteousness. The distinction between justification and sanctification are made by Dr. Lioy. He states that Jesus’ righteousness is at work in us, not only to impute and grant us positional righteousness, but also alive to empower our living out of righteousness. This qualification is made clear by Paul in Romans where he qualifies believers as those who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit (Rom 8). Lioy summarizes this view as follows, “…those who trust in the Son and operate in the power of the Spirit are declared righteous” (p. 33, emphasis mine). This doesn’t contradict justification by faith alone because it assumes that saving faith is of a particular nature…alive and working. When our faith “works”, our righteousness is vindicated. This is James’ whole point in using Abraham’s acts of working faith to vindicate his standing with God. The whole point is that Demons believe God cognitively, but the friends of God are those who act rightly on such knowledge. Saving faith is alive and looks a certain way…unlike the demons. Lioy further comments, “It is worth noting that John also insisted on the inseparable connection between genuine faith and righteous deeds. He wrote that loving God meant keeping His commands (1 John 5:3). The idea is that love for God has less to do with emotions than with a complete compliance with His universal ethical absolutes” (p. 47).

Some questions I would have for the author, that may be dealt with in later chapters, is how sabbath observance is understood in relation to the New Covenant. Is the Sabbath part of the moral law? Was it abrogated in Christ?

Another question I would have for the author is whether the salvation experienced in the Old Covenant was less glorious. Was the Old Covenant believer’s relation to the life of the Spirit in sanctification qualitatively the same or different? Basically, what distinguishes the New Covenant as being better and of greater sufficiency for the covenant people? Does it lay in the object of our faith, our salvific experience, both?

 

Book Review part 1 of Dan Lioy’s “Jesus as Torah in John 1-12″

 

For more on author, visit site: http://danlioy.googlepages.com/

If interested in purchasing this book, visit: http://wipfandstock.com/store/Jesus_as_Torah_in_John_112

Book Review Part 1 (covering chp. 1, “The Framework and Intent of This Study”)

Dr. Lioy first contends that there exists prevailing moral frameworks, namely those of “entitlement” and “merit”. Quoting, “Both a culture of entitlement (“it’s all about me”) and a culture of merit (“you only get what you earn”) embody a religion of self in which people believe they are the measure of all things” (p. 3)

Sadly, I would have to admit that such paradigms exist within Evangelicalism. Lioy notes the existence of such as well, whether it be the contemporary fascination with being in God’s blessing and living a happy life, or earning God’s favor through strict aestheticism and legalism. Both paradigms are self-centered. One feels obligated to God’s blessing, while another seeks to earn God’s blessing. Both make much of self.

Lioy suggests that a better alternative is “humility”, a simple acknowledgment of our subordinate role in God’s purposes. This definitely contrasts the triumphalism and entitlement mentality found in the “word of faith” movement, that views God as a vending machine that drops blessings at our command. Humility also contrasts the wicked pride that grows in one who, by legalism, thinks himself more worthy than others…thus boasting in ones works as the deciding factor in God’s disposition towards us.

I hate the piety that flows from these two negative paradigms. Both understand the Gospel as God making much of us, when the glorious Gospel is really us being able to make much of Him in sheer delight and ever-increasing joy.

The superiority of Jesus is noted by Lioy, “During his lifetime, Moses beheld God’s glory, especially in the giving of the law at Sinai. The Messiah’s followers see an even greater manifestation of God’s glory in Jesus as Torah (1:14). Beginning with John the Baptizer, they bear witness to the Son in a way that mirrors the testimony Moses gave to the law (1:6–8, 15)” (p. 12)

Lioy goes on to contend that Jesus is the embodiment of the Father’s glory, the living breathing Torah, the purset manifestation of God’s word and truth. Our relationship with God and piety should be marked by humble submission to all that Jesus is, even if it be foolish in the world’s eyes.

Stay tuned for further reviews of this book chapter by chapter.

Did God Die on the Cross? by guest blogger Joe Lamay

Is the cross of Christ (i.e. what he gave up and experienced) diminished by affirming that God the Son died as a human being but his divine nature did not die?

That’s what my response to an email is about.

Yesterday I preached on the Incarnation of Christ: One Person, Two Natures ( see audio 11-25-07 at http://www.agccsouthbay.org/listen.html). I must say what a joy it is to have people so engrossed in a Sunday morning sermon that deals with the toughest of all theological topics. After a two-hour discussion with Peter, where he was trying to work through but not yet buying my statement that “the divine nature of Jesus did not die on the cross,” he sent me the following link and asked me “how I would respond” to it. So read the short statement of John MacArthur here http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1301-T-12.htm: then read my response down below.

Your comments or criticisms are a welcome reply.

The following “Question” was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California, and “Answered” by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed by Anjela Paje of Spokane, WA, from the tape, GC 1301-T, titled “Bible Questions and Answers Part 22.” A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE. ©1982. All Rights Reserved.

Question

Did God die on the cross, or just the humanness of Christ die, and if no, then what was the purpose of the incarnation?

Answer

Did God die on the cross? For a moment, we have to say yes. Because Jesus died on the cross and Jesus was God. And, death, basically, means what? Separation from God. Was Jesus separated from God? ‘My God, My God, why hast thou what? Forsaken me?’ He was separated from God. He died. And, the Bible says He died, over and over, and over, and over, and over, doesn’t it? He died. He died. He died, and He was Jesus Christ. You cannot separate Jesus Christ’s humanness from His deity. You cannot cut Him up. He was Jesus Christ, the God-man and He died. So, yes, God died on the cross.

Now, how you separate one member of the trinity from the rest, I don’t know, but I do not really worry about it because if God expected me to know it, He would have told me, or given me the ability to think it through, and I haven’t. All I know is, He did die on the cross. He was separated from the Father, and, yet, one with the Father, and I don’t understand that, and I am not going to be worried about not understanding it. It is not God’s problem. It is mine. I just do not have what it takes.

Question continues

But, it is important to know that God did die on the cross, right?

Answer

Well, of course. Otherwise, all you’ve got is a human sacrifice, a human martyr up there. The weight of sin of all the sins, of all the world killed Jesus Christ.

Question continues

So, the death of just the humanness of Christ would not have atoned for all the sins of the world?

Answer

There is nothing about Jesus that you can separate out and talk only of His humanness. He is a whole person.

Question continues

I just want to get that clarified because a lot of people said that He did die just in His humanness and I said, “No.”

Answer

No. But, you see, His spirit isn’t dead because when His body is dead on the cross, as we saw earlier, His spirit descends and proclaims a victory over the demons, and so, yes, He died, but remember now, this is not our definition necessarily, or our perception. But, surely, He died. It says He died, and He was separated from the Father.

Joe’s Response: I find what I read of MacArthur’s answer to be shallow. The answer lacks such theological precision that his answer is open to real non-sense concerning the nature of the God-Head. And the answer seems to not want to interact at all with the Chalcedonian creed of 451…..and that’s problematic.

I know what it is to “Know” that I am a monotheist. Yet there are many non-christian people in general and Jews and Muslems in particular that would say to me that because I believe that God (the One true God) is “One in essence” and “Three in person” (the Essence is One and the Persons are distinct from each other) that it is nonsense and I am not a monotheist. What do I do? I know that if they intellectually and spiritually understood what I meant and what I see when I talk like that, then they would say “ah ha.” But I will continue to fear (especially as a preaching pastor) to deny the truth that God is a Trinity from all eternity.

Anyone who would say that I contend that it was someone less than God himself who died on the cross would be either deliberately mis-representing me or showing (like non-trinitarians) they have not yet “Come to Terms” (“How to Read a Book” by Mortimer J. Adler, pp.96-113) with what I and Orthodox christianity are saying.

Over serious topics, I hate ambiguity. And I found the transcript of the questions and John M. answers to be filled with ambiguity. In other words, I wonder if what Mac. and the questioner think that what they are trying to protect against is the heretical teaching from the 4th and 5th centuries that would teach there was a Divine Jesus and a Human Jesus and the person who died was the human Jesus and not the divine Jesus. If that is what they mean, then I I fully agree that we should come against such unbiblical teaching.

One reason God the Son had to become human was because God (i.e. the nature of Godness) can’t die. So how is it that God the son could become the savior through a sacrificial death? Answer “He” (there is only one “He”) had to become human. So on the cross that one “He” (God the Son) Died. Joe, are you saying that God himself did not die and bear the wrath of God? NO!!!!!!!! I’m saying that God Himself did bear the wrath of God and did suffer our punishment and died. But the essence of God, i.e. the “nature” of God did not die because that’s an impossibility. That’s why God became “Man”….took to His one Person “true Humanity”. So that the eternal second “Person” of the Trinity could become the second “Adam” “Man” and thus be our representitive as the first “Adam” was. One of the main things He did was to make propitiation for our sins…i.e., as the sinless substitute, He bore (received, experienced) the wrath of God against sinners. Who experienced this unimaginable separation from the father because of our sin? Answer: God the Son did! The second person of the Holy Trinity did! No one less than He. How was he able to do that? Answer by becoming human.

So we can say that in his human nature, God the Son Died. But with respect to his Divine Nature, that nature did not die……..because it was impossible for the divine nature to die.

So the one eternal second person of the Trinity really, actually, experienced separation from the Father (“my God, my God, why have you forsaken me”; me who? The one who has eternally enjoyed delightful communion with the Father). Besides the spiritual separation, this one divine person in his human nature experienced a death that is like the one we as believers experience. And it is not correct to say that Jesus’ divine nature died, or could die if by “die” we mean a cessation of activity, consciousness working through a human brain.

In my sermon on Sunday I said very deliberately and purposefully that what is true or experienced by one or the other of Jesus’ two distinct natures is to be affirmed about the one person. So I’m not willing to say that the essence of the God head died (Three persons, One essence; that one essence didn’t die). Yet, because of the union with His human nature (i.e. a union united in the One Person) His divine nature somehow tasted the horrific impact of the wrath of God and human suffering and death…….without God, who is One, ceasing to exist or becoming anything less than God…who by definition is Trinity. I’m willing to live with mystery with out becoming nonsensical by saying that the divine nature died. I’m willing to go as far as Wayne Grudem in his Systematic Theology: “Therefore, even though Jesus’ divine nature did not actually die, Jesus went through the experience of death as a whole person [there is only one], and both human and divine natures somehow shared in that experience.” What is true of the experience of the one person in his human nature is to be affirmed of the one person who also has a full divine nature…and what is true of the experience of the one person in his divine nature is to be affirmed of the one person who also (now) has a full human nature.