Trinity & Reality: An Introduction to the Christian Faith

Trinity and Reality Copyrighted material Copyrighted material TRINITY AND REALITY A N I N T R O D U C T I O N TO ...

Author: Ralph A. Smith

128 downloads 1328 Views 30MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Trinity and Reality

Copyrighted material


TRINITY AND

REALITY

A N I N T R O D U C T I O N TO T H E CHRISTIAN FAITH

Ralph A. Smith

1

LK,.

A

C A N O N PRESS H f l H

Mosrow. /¿lio


Ralph A. Smith, Trinity and Reality: An Introduction to the Christian

Taitk

© 2004 by Ralph A, Smith Published by Canon Press, PC, Box 8741, Moscow, ID 83843 800-488-2034 / www.canoiiprcss.org 04 05 06 07 08 09

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Printed in the United Stares of America. Cover design by Paige Arwuod, Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations jne from the New King James Version, All rights reserved. N o part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without prior permission of the author, except as provided by USA copyright law.

Library

oj Congress Cataloging-! n-Puhik alien

Data

Smith, Ralph Allan. Trinitv and reality : an introduction to the Christian faith / Ralph Smith, p. cm. Includes bibliographical references, ISBN I-59I28-024-9 (pbk.) L Trinity. I . Title, B T I I L 3 . S 6 7 2004 23 ] \044—dc.22

2004011978


T h i s book is dedicated to my beloved daughter, Emeth Hesed,

m

ptxr bm r

r I *

4 ™

™

™

naxi ion ++ppq++

n++

"pr? m^rs Dans Proverbs 3:3



Contents 1 nl m n i i r t m n

T

vr

Rasir I r i n i r a r i a n i s r n

1

2. P e r s o n h o o d a n d H a r m o n y

17

i

^\

4it Conflict. See Norman L. Geisler and William D, Watkins, Worlds Apart; A Handbook on World Views, second edition (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989); Ths- Universe ,\vxf Door; A Bosic Worldview Catalogue (Downers Grove; Inter/Varsity Press, J 976J; Ronald H . Nash, Worldvtev-s in Conflict: Choosing Chrislinnily in a World of Idem fGrand Rapids: Xo rider van, 1 9 9 2 ) . /


INTRODUCTION

h * A

xm

T r m i t a n a n i s m , moreover, has specific and wide-ranging implications for a Christian discussion of worldview. T h e neglected h u t nevertheless p r o f o u n d tact is that all t r u t h finds its source i n the t r u t h o f the triune G o d , I n this b o o k we w i l l explore the meaning of the doctrine o f the T r i n i t y for the C h r i s t i a n w o r l d v i e w , a i m i n g at an e x p o s i t i o n of

the C h r i s t i a n

understanding o f the w o r l d that is b o t h biblical and God-centered, and also ^be forewarnedl) clear and practical, w i t h strong implications for the Christian life. A t n n i t a r i a n view o f the Christian worldview is more theological and biblical than typical w o r l d v i e w presentations, b u t it could not be otherwise and remain f a i t h f u l to the real meaning o f " C h r i s t i a n " in the expression " C h r i s t i a n worldview. ' For n o n - C h r i s nans, p h i l o s o p h i c a l categories or 1

abstract ideas may suffice as the framework for a discussion o f worldview, b u t for Christians n o t h i n g b u t G o d H i m s e l f can be the basis—not G o d as an idea or a vague and general benevolent power, but the G o d o f the Bible as Father, Son, and Spirit. T h i s brings u p a special p r o b l e m , T h o u g h the w o r d worldview is used in this book, the nature o f Christian t r u t h is such that the w o r d worldview l i m i t s the h o r i z o n o f the discussion more than is appropriate. T h e Bible docs teach us how to view the w o r l d , b u t the Bible also communicates much more. Its commandments lay o u t a way o f life. Its history is n o t only the story o f the w o r l d ; i t is also our story. Biblical poetry guides our aesthetics as well as our religious sensibility. M o r e than all of this, in the Bible we confront the triune G o d H i m s e l f , w h o has invested H i s word w i t h power. T h e Christian faith, then, is n o t simply a " v i e w " o n the w o r l d , and the T r i n i t y is more than just a doctrine. T h e advantage of the w o r d worldview is that it is so o f t e n used to communicate religious ideas in a broad, comparative context. Keeping in m i n d its limitations, I am using i t here i n a pregnant sense, including meanings o f "story o f the w o r l d , " "ethical standard," and " a t t i t u d e o n life/' T h e Christian worldview defines the w o r l d in which Christians live. Since, however, we arc still learning about that w o r l d , and our understanding o f i t matures over time, calling it a " v i e w ' ' is n o t altogether inappropriate i n spite o f the limitations o f the optical metaphor. Finally, I should state f r o m the beginning that m y remarks about n o n Christian religions i n this b o o k are f o r the purpose o f illustration, i n order to help us t h i n k about the T r i n i t y more clearly. 1 realize that these remarks


XIV

INTRODUCTION

are general and chat Islam, H i n d u i s m , and Buddhism arc too complex to deal w i t h in passing. I hope, however, that even superficially contrasting the biblical worldview w i t h other worldviews w i l l be helpful in clarifying Christian t h i n k i n g about the triune G o d ,


I. Basic Trinitarianism F O R Tf \\i Christian, t h e T r m i t v is a basic t r u t h — o n e o f the first t r u t h s that we learn, even i f we d o n o t learn it as a theological statement. H o w is that so? L i k e Christians since the age o f the apostles, we begin o u r Christian walk confessing that Jesus—and H e alone—can save us f r o m our sins: "There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved'' (Acts 4 : 1 2 ) , A t the same time, since the earliest days o f the Church, it has been clearly understood that only G o d can save. T w o propositions: Jesus is my Savior and Only Cod can saw; T h e inescapable conclusion was reflected in the faith o f the first Christians: Jesus is L o r d ( 1 C o r . 12:3). T h e apostle Paul, therefore, q u o t e d f r o m the f o l l o w i n g passage i n Isaiah when he spoke o f the L o r d Jesus.

Assemble yourselves and come; Draw near together, You who have escaped hrom the nations. They have no knowledge, Who carry the wood o f iheir earved image, And pray to a god that cannot save. Tell and bring forth your ease; Yes, let them take counsel together, Who has declared this from ancient time: Who has told it from that time: Have not I , the Luiii);

1


2

CHAPTHK ONH

And there is no other God besides Me, A just God ,md a Savior; There is none besides Me. Look to Me, and he saved. All you ends of die earth! For I am God, and there IS no Other, I have sworn by Myself; I he word has gone out o f M y mouth in righteousness, And shall not return, That to Me every knee shall bow, livery tongue shall take an oath, (Is- 45:20—23) Therefore God also has highly exalted 1 l i m and given 1 Jim the name which is above every name, rhat at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those i n heaven, and o f those on earth, and o f those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (PhiL 2:4-1 I ) W e may say that confessing faith i n the t r u t h o f the T r i n i t y is a fuller and more theologically sophisticated way o f confessing faith in Jesus as Savior, To deny the Trinity, therefore, is t o deny Jesus,

Biblical Basis of Trinity N o t a few w h o claim t o be Christians deny the T r i n i t y because, they say, the T r i n i t y is n o t biblical- Sometimes these are confused young Christians who are troubled by the iact that the w o r d Trinity is n o t f o u n d in the Bible. M o r e often these are people like modernist Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses, or M o r m o n s who are ensnared i n false ideologies fundamentally contrary t o the teaching o f Scripture- Given the confusion that exists about the doctrine of the T r i n i t y , i t is i m p o r t a n t t o preface our discussion o f its implications by briefly setting f o r t h the basis f o r our belief in the Trinity, M o s t Christians are familiar w i t h one or more o f the ancient creedsThese statements o f trinitarian doctrine are carefully worded formulations, theologically den.se and complex. T o appreciate any one o f them fully w o u l d require extensive exposition, b u t the essence o f what they express can be stated simply. T h e ancient creeds are all based u p o n clear biblical teaching that can be summed u p i n a short series o f propositions. A l l Christians


3

HASIC T R I N I T A R I A N ISM

agree o n each of the basic p r o p o s i t i o n s that f o r m the f o u n d a t i o n f o r trinitarian ism, though Christians sometimes disagree o n ( I ) how to explain the relationships between these basic statements and ( 2 ) what other biblical teachings m i g h t be added t o the basic list t o fill o u t the doctrine of the T r i n i t y - T h i s implies that

The Word Trinity, though It is

all branches o f the Church are unified in their

not found in the Bible, ¡5 used

basic confession o f the T r i n i t y so that whatever

as "theological shorthand."

variations exist d o n o t undermine the confession o f trinitarian faith. I t means that Christians arc u n i t e d in their view o f w h o G o d is. T h e Church is one. I t also means that whoever docs not agree w i t h these basic biblical foundations for the trinitarian faith is, by definition, n o t a Christian. Before stating these basic propositions, i t is i m p o r t a n t t o say a few words about the often-noted tact that the w o r d Trinity is n o t f o u n d i n the Bible, Christians ask o r are asked why, ii the word is n o t in the Bible, do they use i t : T h e answer is simple and has n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h some conspiracy t o add something t o the Bible that really is n o t there. T h e word Trinity is used for theological and practical convenience—it is "theological s h o r t h a n d " a single word that sums up a scries o f biblical teachings. Instead o f repeating the whole series every rime we speak o f G o d , we substitute a single w o r d that summarizes the t r u t h . W h a t , then, arc these basic biblical propositions? T h e basic t r u t h , which all Christians agree u p o n , can be expressed in five propositions, 1. There is one God. 2. The Father is God, 3. The Son i.s God, 4. The Spirit is God. 5. The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinguishable persons in relationship with one another. They are not merely different names for the one God. By way o f i n t r o d u c t i o n t o the doctrine of the T r i n i t y , i t is appropriate to demonstrate briefly that these five propositions are truly biblical. T h e f o l l o w i n g is certainly n o t a comprehensive demonstration, for the biblical evidence f o r the t r u t h o f the T r i n i t y is far too copious t o be set f o r t h in any short essay, o r even i n a short b o o k . T o illustrate the abundance o f the evidence, one theologian offered this analogy: Crystals o f salt that appear


4

CHAPTHK O N H

on the beach after the tide has receded may be the most apparent p r o o f that the sea is saltwater, but every bucket o f water drawn f r o m the ocean testifies clearly t o the fact. À f u l l exposition o f the T r i n i t y w o u l d require volumes; 1

icre are a few crystals, L T h e r e is one God (Deut. 6:4; 1 Sam, 2:2; 2 Kgs. 19:15; Is, 37:16; 44:8; M k , 12:28-34; I Cor, 8:4-6; I T i m , 2:5; Jas. 2:19). That tht* Bible teaches this proposition is not disputed. 2. T h e Father is God (Rom- 1:7; 1 Cor, 1:3; 8:6; 15:24; 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph, 4:6; Phil. 4:20). Again, this proposition is seldom disputed. 3. T h e Son is God- Because this proposition is frequently denied, I give a fuller statement ol the evidence, but it still only scratches the surlace, a. T h e Son is called God (Jn. h i ; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5;TLt, 2:13; Heb. 1:8). b. 1 he Son is given divine names (Jn, 1:1, 18; Acts 5:31; I Cor. 2:8; Jas, 2:1; Rev. 1:8; 21:6; 22:13), c. T h e Son has divine attributes. i.

Eternity (Jn. 1:2; 8:58; 17:5; Rev. 1:8, 17; 22:13).

ii.

Immutability CHcb. 1:11, 12; 13:8).

MÍ. Omnipresence (Jn. 3:13; M t . 18:20; 28:20). iv. Omniscience ( M t . 11:27; Jn. 2:23-25; 21:17; Rev. 2:23). v.

Omnipotence (Jn. 5:17; Heb. 1:3; Rev, 1:8; 11:17),

d. The Son does divine works. i.

Creation (Jn. 1:3, 10; Col, 1:16—17).

ii.

Salvation (Acts 4:12; 2 T i m , 1:10; Heb. 5:9),

üi. Judgment (Jn. 5:22; 2 Cor. 5:10; M t . 2 5 : 3 1 - 3 2 ) . e. T h e Son is worshipped as God (Jn, 5:22-13;

20:28; 1 Cor. 1:2; Phil,

2:9-10; Heb. 1:6). 4. T h e Spirit is God, Those who accept the biblical evidence for the deity of the Son seldom have trouble understanding the evidence for the deity of the Spirit, a. T h e Spirit is called God (Acts 5:3-4; 2 Cor. 3:17). b. T h e Spirit is given divine names ( M t . 12:28). c. T h e Spirit has divine attributes ( I Cor. 2:13—14; Gal. 5:22; I T i m . 4 : 1 ; Heb. 3:7; 9:14; I Jn. 5 : 6 - 7 ) .

Benjamin B. Warfïcld refers to a "remark" of Dr. Dale in "'The Dcirv of Christ/ Stlrfttd Shorter Writings of Bfnjtmttn B. Warfi?ld vol. 1 (Nudev. N . Presbvtcrian and Reformed, 1970). [53. r

t



5

d. The Spirit does divine works (Jn. 6:33; 14:17, 26; 16:13; Acts 1:8; 2:17¬ 18; 16:6; Rom. 8:26; 15:19; I Cor. 12:7-11). c. The Spirit is worshipped as God ( M t . 12:32), 5,The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinguishable p m o n s in relationship with one another. They are not merely different names for the one God. a. The Son prays to the Father (Jn. 11:41—42; 17; M t , 26:39 ff.), b. The Father speaks to the Son (jn. 12:27—28). c. The Father, Son, and S p i r i t — a l l three—appear together, but are clearly distinct Irom ont' another ( M t . 3:16—17), d. I he bather sends the Son and the Spirit, and the Son sends the Spirit (Jn. 3:17; 4:34; 5:30; 6:39; 14:26; 15:26; 16:7). e. T h e Father and Son love one another (Jn. 3:35; 5:20; 10:17; 14:31; 15:9¬ 10; 17:24). T h i s small fraction o f the larger biblical basis t o r believing in the T r i n i t y is clear enough and should suffice as a starting p o i n t f o r anyone w h o is w i l l i n g to learn. N o w that the biblical basis f o r believing these five propositions has been set f o r t h , we may restate t h e m as t w o : ( 1 ) G o d is one, and ( 2 ) G o d is also three persons i n relationship as Father, Son, and Spirit. T h i s is the essence o f the doctrine o f the T r i n i t y . I n various branches o f the Church, slightly different language has been used t o express this t r u t h , but the doctrine is the same. There is one and only one G o d , and the one true G o d is three persons—Father, Son, and H o l y Spirit,

The Trinity and Logic T h o u g h it is clearly the teaching o f the Bible, cultic groups and atheists often complain that the Christian doctrine o f the T r i n i t y is a contradiction. H o w can there be one G o d and at the same time three w h o are called God? Christians seem t o be saying that J 4- J 4- J — J . T h i s is simply bad arithmetic* we are t o l d , n o t p r o f o u n d theology. T h e fact is, however, that the doctrine o f the T r i n i t y neither involves nor implies a contradiction. H o w , then, does a Christian explain that G o d is b o t h one and three at the same time? T h e answer, i n part, is that H e is n o t one i n precisely the same way that H e is three. T r i m tan amsm w o u l d be a contradiction i f i t affirmed that G o d is one and three in precisely the same sense, but no one in the history o f the Church has ever taught such a view. A l l the same, this is only a partial answer.


o

CHAPTHK O N H

T h e deeper problem w i t h every Christian attempt t o define t h e T r m i t y is the brute reality that G o d is very hard to describe, especially if we t r y to reduce our d e f i n i t i o n t o philosophically precise terms. W e can say that G o d Is three x and one y b u t t r y i n g t o develop f u l l and precise definitions f o r x t

and y becomes exceptionally complicated. However, to conclude con-

There is a very great difference between

tradiction f r o m complexity is rash

something being a demonstrated contradic-

folly.There is a very great difference

tion and something being incomprehensible.

between something being a demonstrated contradiction and something being incomprehensible.The doctrine o f the T r i n i t y c o u l d be demonstrated to be a c o n t r a d i c t i o n i f one c o u l d show that Christians are claiming something like "p and not-//' at one and the same time and i n precisely the same sense—which is n o t the Christian idea at all.

Mystery T h e T r i n i t y is a mystery, a t r u t h beyond our comprehension. But some object that words like "incomprehensible" arc just a nice way o f saying "contradiction." W h a t is the difference between a mystery and a contradiction? W e have defined a contradiction as the assertion of p and nov-p at the same t i m e and i n the -same relationship. A mvsterv mav be defined as a r i l l paradox, something that looks like i t m i g h t be a contradiction b u t for which we have g o o d grounds t o believe t o be true. T h e doctrine o f the T r i n i t y appears to us t o be a contradiction because in the h u m a n w o r l d , a personal being is mono-personal. W e w o u l d nor believe that G o d is three persons i n 2

one being unless we had reasons. W h a t are our grounds f o r believing the T r i n i t y t o be true? T h e tact that the Bible teaches us the five truths cited above is the foundational evidence o f the t r u t h o f the T r i n i t y . Unless a person believes that the Bible is revelation f r o m G o d H i m s e l f — i n s e n p t u r a t e d t r u t h — t h e r e c o u l d be no compelling reasons t o r believing i n a mystery so sublime. The n o t i o n o f the Bible as t r u t h , however, is n o t what is ultimately persuasive. A theological t r u t h w o u l d hardly satisfy us i f we d i d n o t know Jesus H i m s e l f . As H e p u t it, H i s sheep hear H i s voice because they k n o w H i m I his is true even of those with J so-called "multiple personality disorder." 1


IUSIC T R I N I T A R I A N ISM

7

(Jn, 10:4, I 4). T o k n o w Jesus is Co k n o w H i m t o be G o d the Son. Because we believe in H i m , we receive H i s testimony about the bather and the Spirit, O u r knowledge of G o d is also dependent o n the H o l y Spirit, f o r the Spirit bears witness w i t h our spirit ( R o m , 8:16). G o d the Father, the Creator and L o r d , manifests H i m s e l f in the w o r l d around us and in our very souls so that we cannot escape k n o w i n g H i m ( R o m . 1:18—20; Ps. 19), T h u s , our knowledge o f the doctrine o f the T r i n i t y and our confession o f its t r u t h depend i n the final analysis o n the fact that we have a personal knowledge o f the triune G o d H i m s e l f D a v i d said, "Jn T h y light we see l i g h t " (Ps, 3 6 : 9 ) . So also, because we k n o w G o d H i m s e l f , we are able t o learn the Scriptures and receive their testimony. For some, i t is offensive t o t h i n k that the Christian faith has at its very center a mystery, an incomprehensible t r u t h - T o them, Christians seem t o be calling for a sacrifice of the intellect o n the altar of religious confession- I n reality, trínítarían faith demands something quite different, i t is n o t a sacrifice of the intellect, but the sacrifice of the pretense of intellectual autonomy: the n o t i o n that the m i n d or reason o f man is the ultimate judge o f t r u t h . T h e t r u t h of t h c T r i n i t y requires us t o accept what we cannot fully comprehend. W h y should that be thought so extraordinary- There is no branch o f knowledge, be it physics or biology or history or literature, that does not confront us w i t h paradox i n some f o r m or other. W h y should the Christian doctrine of G o d the triune Creator be any less difficult to state and comprehend than truths o f physical science or postulations of secular philosophyPhysics, f o r example, may be science, but i t also has its mysterious side, and n o t just for the uninitiated. Consider a few illustrations from this epitome o f hard science and rational explanation- Steven Weinberg, N o b e l prizew i n n i n g physicist, claims that "we t h i n k we arc beginning t o catch glimpses o f the outlines o f a final t h e o r y , " w h i c h w o u l d mean, among other things, "quantitative understanding o f phenomena." T h i s means a theory in w h i c h 4

everything is explained i n numbers and formulas i n accordance w i t h the p r i n ciples o f rational science- T o be final

the theory m u s t be total. However,

Weinberg also writes, " T h e most extreme hope for science is that we w i l l be able t o trace the explanations o f all natural phenomena to final laws and

Steven Weinberg, Dreams cf ,i tinat Th-cry: Lhe Search fcr the timdamenhit Laws oj N,uttre ^London; Vintage, 199.1), ix. Ibid., 4. 3

4


CHAPTER ON H historical accidents." ' Given the sheer quantity o f historical factuality, this 1

"most extreme h o p e " threatens t o set the l i m i t s o f explanation far short o f totality. H a v i n g already radically qualified the hope o f a final theory, Weinberg further adds, " N o t only is i t possible that w h a t we now regard as arbitrary initial conditions may ultimately be deduced f r o m universal l a w s — i t is also conversely possible that principles that we now regard as universal laws w i l l eventually t u r n o u t t o represent historical accidents."

6

W h e r e docs this leave us? N o t only can we never, even i n our most extreme hope, imagine that we w i l l get beyond the brute tact o f

"accident,"

which i n the nature o f the case is beyond explanation, we also cannot be certain that some o f what we now regard as universal principles o f science w i l l n o t t u r n o u t t o be the haphazard play o f historical flux! W h e n all is said and done, Weinberg is telling us that we cannot avoid m y s t e r y — t h e inexplicable, the accidental. T h o u g h Weinberg may not be altogether straightforward about a d m i t ting the reality o f mystery in our " t o t a l t h e o r y " he is very frank i n a d m i t t i n g his problems w i t h at least one aspect of q u a n t u m mechanics, Heisenberg's work: " I f the reader is mystified at what Heisenbcrg was d o i n g , he or she is n o t alone, 1 have tried several times t o read the paper that Heisenbcrg wrote on r e t u r n i n g f r o m H e l g o l a n d , and, although I t h i n k I understand q u a n t u m mechanics, I have never understood Heisenberg's motivations f o r the m a t h ematical steps in his paper,"' Weinberg, in a very i m p o r t a n t sense, cannot f o l l o w Heisenberg's math. It's a mystery. We need to reflect very briefly o n a broader p o i n t , the importance o f Heisenberg f o r m o d e r n physics, w h i c h is clearly stated by one o f the twentieth century's foremost physicists, Richard Fcynman, I he uncertainty principle "protects" £]uanturn mechanics, Heisenberg recognized that i f it were possible to measure the momentum and the position simultaneously wilh ;i greater accuracy, the ipantmn mechanics would collapse. So he proposed that it must be impossible. Then people sat down

' Ibid., 2 & Emphasis in the original. '' Ibid., 29. Emphasis in the original Ibid,, 53. Noli- thai Weinberg is not speaking of the whole notion of ihe uncertainty principle, but of the mathematics of the 1925 paper, which he refers to as ''pure maîc.' More is involved than just the motivations behind the steps; 1 Icisenberg and physicists like him "do not seem to be reasoning at all."


9


and tried to figure our ways o f doing ir, and nobody could figure out a way ro measure the position and the momentum of anything—a screen, an electron, a billiard ball, anything—with any grearer accuracy. Quantum mechanics maintains its perilous but accurate existence/ Does i t sound like g o o d o l d rationality t o say that the certainty o f uncertainty protects q u a n t u m mechanics? A t this p o i n t , we have seen that notions like uncertainty and accident are essential t o the most essential science, physics. But there is more. We have t o add Bells theorem t o the picture. W h a t is Bells theorem? Contrary t o what physicists n o r m a l l y t h i n k about the way gravity and other forces w o r k in the w o r l d , John Stewart Bell proposed that reality is non-local. Local forces, such as the electromagnetic force and gravity, become weaker as distance increases—the farther away one is f r o m the earth, the less he is influenced by earth's gravity. T h a t is part of what we mean when we say a force is "local." Bell claims, however, that underlying what we regard as everyday local reality is a web o f non-local forces and causes- W h a t his theorem means has been stated like this; " o u r phenomenally local w o r l d is in actuality supported by an invisible reality which is unmediated, unmitigated, and faster than l i g h t . " W h a t does this 9

mean? " A non-local interaction jumps f r o m b o d y A t o b o d y B w i t h o u t touching anything En between.'' Even light travels t h r o u g h space in a local fashion, " t o u c h i n g ' things, and its speed can be measured. H o w , then, m i g h t 1

we illustrate a non-local interaction? W e are t o l d , " V o o d o o injury is an example o f a non-local interaction. '

1 0

Bell's theorem may sound like a sideshow i n physics, b u t it is "based o n the same EPR experiment used by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen t o demonstrate the existence o f hidden 'elements o f reality' which quantum theory neglects t o describe."" Physicists have n o t been able t o refute the argument of the EPR experiment o r explain the "elements of reality," so we have what is called the " E P R

paradox." W i t h o u t going i n t o the details of h o w Bell

started f r o m the E P R paradox and concluded that reality is non-local, the Richard R Feynman, Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physns Fxplained by Its Most Brillen Teaehet (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1994), 138, ' Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality: Beyond she \ew Physirs; An Excursion into Mftaphysirs and tbt Meaning of Reality (New York: Doublcday, 1985), 227. Ibid,, 213. Ibid.. 215 i

10

11


10

CHAPTHK ONH

sum o f the matter, according t o N i c k H e r b e r t , is that "Bells result docs n o t depend on the t r u t h o f q u a n t u m theory. - - » W h e n q u a n t u m theory joins the ranks o f phlogiston, caloric, and the luminiferous ether i n the physics junkyard. Bells theorem w i l l still be valid. Because it is based o n facts, Bells theorem is here to stay-" T h u s , in m o d e r n physics, one o f the most solid 12

and certain theorems posits a non-local universe—a w o r l d which superficially appears t o be controlled by local forces, b u t is actually characterized by forces that work i n a mariner similar t o " v o o d o o injury.'

1

One c o u l d illustrate ad infinilwti the fact that all disciplines of knowledge c o n f r o n t paradox. As we have seen, even physics, the heart o f m o d e r n rationalistic science, proposes as one o f its most indubitable theses a belief in the inexplicable o n the basis o f what we t h i n k we know, w i t h the provision that what many n o w regard as universal laws may t u r n o u t t o be historical happenstance. I f John Bell can believe i n something akin t o v o o d o o and Steven Weinberg can confess that what he n o w believes t o be a universal law oi physics may t u r n o u t t o have been a spastic convulsion o f the cosmos, I cannot imagine anv reason in the w o r l d why 1, as a Christian, should feel the least b i t embarrassed about the fact that I believe in the revealed mystery o f the T r i m tyJ

Faith hven more fundamental than the fact that everyone faces mystery is that all men, no matter h o w rational they believe themselves or their science to be, cannot overcome the fact that they live by faith. Contrary t o the hopes o f rationalists o f past days, Descartes' highly respected m e t h o d o f d o u b t does n o t lead t o rational foundations f o r t h o u g h t . M o d e r n philosophy generally recognizes the points made by L u d w i g Wittgenstein when he asserted, " I f you are n o t certain o f any fact, you cannot be certain o f the meaning o f your words either." A n d , " I f you tried to d o u b t everything y o u w o u l d n o t get as tar as d o u b t i n g anything. T h e game o f d o u b t i n g itself presupposes certainty.

'Mbicf, 227. •' Ludwig WilTgL-nsrcin, ON Certainly, ed. t i . M Ansi'ombc and Ci.H. von Wright, Denis Paul and G, E. M . Anscombe (Oxford: Basil Blackwdl, 1969), 17e-18e,

trans.


II


Wittgenstein is n o t speaking o f a certainty that is based u p o n rational proof o f the foundations o f our beliefs. Rather, Wittgenstein believes that we all have what he calls a " w o r l d - p i c t u r e " that we have learned f r o m c h i l d h o o d . I t is n o t acquired t h r o u g h a process of d o u b t and proof but through faith in what our parents and others taught us and the c o n f i r m a t i o n o f our beliefs by experience—a circular and uncertain process. Philosophical justification must come to an end i n belief A c c o r d i n g to Wittgenstein,

"The

d i f f i c u l t y is to realize the groundlessness o f our b e l i e v i n g , " 1

Wittgenstein's p o i n t may be illustrated f r o m a fundamental assumption called "the principle o f i n d u c t i o n . " Bertrand Russell explains what i t means: It is obvious that i f we are asked why we believe that the sun will use tomorrow, we shall naturally answer. "Because it alwavs has risen every dav." Wc have a firm belief that it w ill rise in the future, because it has risen in the past. I f we are challenged as to why we believe lhal it will continue to rise as heretofore, we may appeal to the laws of morion: the earth, we shall say, is a freely rotating body, and such bodies do nor cease to rotate unless something interferes from outside, and there is nothing outside to interfere with the earth between now and to-morrow. O f course it might be doubted whether we are quite certain that there rs nothing outsrde to interfere, but this is not the interesting doubt. The interesting doubt is as to whether the laws of motion will remain in operation until to-morrow. If this doubt is raised, we find ourselves in the same position as when the doubt about the sunrise was first raised. J

To this problem, Russell answers, " T h e only reason f o r believing that the laws o f m o t i o n w i l l remain in operation is that they have operated hitherto, so far as our knowledge o f the past enables us to judge." B u t then, our knowledge o f the past has no empirical authority for the future. A n d i t w i l l n o t w o r k to say that in our past experience the future has always t u r n e d o u t to be like the past, t o r our past experience of what was then future cannot tell us anything about our future experience o f the future. T h i s is n o t to say that philosophy recommends that we should n o t believe tn the principle o f Ibid., 24L\ Believing is "groundless" in the sense that philosophers cannot build the kind of "foundation" rhat rhe rarionalist SL-eks. For the Oirisrian, of course, God Himself is [he ground of our faiih. Bin a revealed mystery thai can be known only in a living personal relationship is not the kind of "foundation" a rationalist admits. Bertrand Russell, Lh Problems of Philosophy JTokyo: Maruzen, 1959), 61. 14


12

CHAPTHK ONH

i n d u c t i o n . O n the contrary, what Russell recommends \sjaitk. Starting with the common beliefs o f daily life, we can be driven back from point to point, until we come to some general principle, or some instance of a general principle, which seems luminously evident, and is not itself capable of being deduced from anyrhing more evidenr. . . . But beyond that the rnducrive prinrrple], there seems to be no further regress. The principle itself is constantly used in our reasoning, sometimes consciously, somet i m e s unconsciously; but there is no reasoning which, starting from some simpler self-evident principle, leads to the principle of induction as its conclusion. And the same holds for other logical principles^' In other words, we w i l l have t o accept a great deal on faith in order t o be able t o t h i n k philosophically at all. N o t just the law o f i n d u c t i o n is based u p o n f a i t h — a l l other logical laws are t o o . W e cannot prove the laws o f logic w i t h o u t presupposing t h e m . W e must first believe t h e m even t o discuss them. A l l of this illustrates the p o i n t ; faith is n o t the enemy o f reason; i t is the prerequisite. T h i s relates to the issue o f paradox, too. I t should be abundantly apparent by n o w that although we do n o t have t o accept every paradox that the experts proclaim, i f we attempt t o reject all that appears paradoxical, our perspective w i l l be so grotesquely narrow we w i l l n o t f i n d r o o m t o stand. Even the n o n - C h r i s t i a n cable and p a r a d o x i c a l

m u s t admit the inexpliNo

C3H Overcome th&

more basic and i m p o r - fact that he lives by Christian, n o less than

faith.

into his worldview. T h e r a n t issue is the n o n the Christian, is forced to

live by faith, however much he wishes i t otherwise. A t some p o i n t , there must be an end to the question " H o w d o you k n o w ; " A n d there are always questions that cannot be answered—some " n o t yet" and others

"maybe

never." T h e n o n - C h r i s t i a n ends the quest f o r ultimate answers i n various ways, but in each case, he cannot avoid saving, essentially, " T h i s is a far as I can go; beyond this p o i n t , there is no choice b u t faith." For the Christian, however, faith does n o t mean "groundlessness." T h e end o f the Christian quest is nor simply acquiescence, as i f t o say, " W e l l , we have t o stop the questions somewhere, and i t m i g h t as well be here." For the

ibid,, n i - 1 2 .


13


Christian, mystery is never ultimate. T h e non-Christian may t h i n k he is imposing rational order o n a w o r l d that is ultimately mysterious, b u t the Christian knows the G o d w h o is n o t a mystery to H i m s e l f T h e p r o b l e m o f the " O n e and the M a n y , " ' w h i c h leaves us befuddled, is nor equally a co1

n u n d r u m t o G o d . H e perfectly knows H i m s e l f and the w o r l d . W h e n we k n o w H i m , therefore, we arc living in the l i g h t o f H i s knowledge and t r u t h . T h e w o r l d is ultimately rational and meaningful, for the Christian confesses w i t h the certainty o f faith, " I k n o w the O n e w h o is the T r u t h , or, rather, H e has made H i m s e l f k n o w n t o me." Is this a less satisfying answer than the non-Christian's? I f astronomy and nuclear physics amaze us w i t h mysteries and d u m b f o u n d us w i t h the unfathomable aspects o f the physical universe, should i t seem so o d d that the Christian doctrine o f the universes Creator contains paradoxes? W h y should Christians alone be required t o render the inscrutable scru table:

A Basic Implication of Trinitarianism T h e t r u t h that defines a Christian as a Christian, o u r faith in the triune G o d , is revealed t r u t h . I t cannot be discovered by scientific or empirical methods, though science may offer interesting illustrations. T h e only way f o r the doctrine o f the T r i n i t y to be k n o w n is f o r G o d H i m s e l f to tell us. A n d since G o d is a person, that makes g o o d sense. A f t e r all, we can only k n o w a person t o the degree that he opens u p t o us and tells us about h i m s e l f — what he really thinks, what his purposes and desires are.

lri

I f our c o m m o n

experience shows that we cannot k n o w a m a n unless he is w i l l i n g t o show us who he is, why should anyone find i t strange that we cannot k n o w G o d unless H e reveals H i m s e l f t o us? Furthermore, i f the central t r u t h o f the Christian religion can be k n o w n only by s u b m i t t i n g one s m i n d t o a message f r o m G o d , we s h o u l d n o t be surprised to discover that the less important truths o f the Christian worldview also must be k n o w n t h r o u g h f a i t h i n H i m . I n the same way that we k n o w persons largely through their self-revelation t o us, we also k n o w their works through their words. A p a r t f r o m a mans explanation o f why he is d o i n g For an explanation of the problem of the "One and the Manv," see die next chapter. O f coarse, we can accurately guess a great deal about a person from the way he looks, dresses, ele. People do accidenik' reveal (hingü about themselves ihey didn'i intend to tell. 17

Ia


14

CHAPTHK

ONH

what he is doing, what he seeks, what his fundamental m o t i v a t i o n is, and w hat he regards t o be the ultimate meaning o f his w o r k , 1 may n o t be able to guess ( t h o u g h i t is true that i n the case of a man, I have other less direct means at m y disposal). W h e n we are speaking o f the i n f i n i t e G o d , who transcends our knowledge and understanding, i t is far more clearly the case that H e must reveal the meaning o f his works for us t o know t h e m . Christianity, therefore, is a religion o f revelation. T h i s does n o t mean—as it has t o o often been thought and taught to m e a n — t h a t only the t r u t h about G o d H i m s e l f and the way o f salvation must be revealed, as i f we c o u l d find o u t the rest for ourselves. I t is n o t that simple. A l l t r u t h must be grounded in God's self-revelation and checked against the standard o f H i s W o r d . T h u s , the Apostle Paul says that in Christ "are hidden all the treasures of w i s d o m and knowledge" ( C o l . 2:3). H o w could i t be otherwise, when we k n o w that " A l l things were created t h r o u g h H i m and for H i m . A n d H e is before all things, and in H i m all things consist" ( C o l . 1:16—17)? Jesus is the secret of the w o r l d , the hidden yet revealed t r u t h that underlies, fills, and surrounds all other t r u t h - A n d the Father is sharing that secret w i t h us all in H i s W o r d . Scripture is the key that unlocks every treasure c h e s t — n o t just the treasures of theology, b u t also those of biology, history, literature, and child psychology. T h i s does n o t mean that the Bible teaches us all we need to know about all of these subjects, nor does it mean that research and study o f sources other than the Bible is illegitimate or u n i m p o r t a n t - I t means that God's revelation i n H i s W o r d is our u l t i m a t e standard for j u d g i n g all that we know and learn, while i t presupposes that G o d is revealing H i m s e l f in every t h i n g that H e created and in the process o f history as well. A trinitarian w o r l d v i c w is a revealed worldview, a perspective that comes t o us as personal knowledge, w h i c h is granted t o us by grace. Just as the Father loved Jesus and therefore showed H i m all things (Jn. 5 : 2 0 ) , the Father loves us and shows us all that we need to k n o w t o live our lives in happiness and joy (Jn. 14:21—23). T o k n o w the t r u t h , we must seek i t first i n God's W o r d and then also in the w o r l d that H e has created- G o d is n o t stingy- H e does not w i t h h o l d H i s W o r d , b u t manifests H i m s e l i everywhere. The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork.


15


Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge, There is no speech nor language Where their voice is nor heard. Their line has gone out through all rhe earth, And their words to the end of the world. In them He has set a tabernacle tor the sun, Which is like a bridegroom coming our of his chamber, And rejoices like a strong man to run its race. Its rising is from one end of heaven, And its circuit to the other end; And there is nothing hidden from irs hear. (Ps. 19:1—6^

Review Questions 1,

How do Christians first come to know the doctrine of rhe Trinity:

2.

Outline the biblical basis for believing in rhe Triniry.

3,

Outline rhe reasons for believing in the deity o f Christ.

4.

Outline the evidence that the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct persons.

5,

Why do some people claim that the Trinity is a contradiction?

6,

What is the difference between a mvsterv and a contradiction:

7.

What is the contradiction implied in Weinberg's "most extreme hope"?

8,

What is Bell's theorem;

9.

Explain why all men must live by faith.

10. What does it mean to say that Christianity is a revealed worldvicw;



2. Personhood and Harmony Tf ir;

IMPLICATIONS

o r che doctrine o f the T r i n i t y are far-reaching and deep.

H o w could it be otherwise; G o d is the infinite, incomprehensible, transcendent L o r d - H e is also the Father, w h o is always near us. W h e n we consider the implications o f trmitarianism, we are m e d i t a t i n g o n w h o H e is and how H e reveals H i m s e l f to us- Because o f H i s majesty and greatness, we are confronted w i t h m y s t e r y — b u r the mystery is neither dark nor foggy- I t is the radiant luster of G o d s l i g h t that overwhelms us. T h e Christian G o d is a mystery to us b u t n o t to H i m s e l f . T h e Persons o f the T r i n i t y have an absolute knowledge of one another. In the m i n d o f G o d , t r u t h is an entirely rational and perfect system, for G o d cannot contradict H i m s e l f ( 2 T i m . 2:13; T i t . 1:2; Jas, 1:13,

17).

To fully u n f o l d the meaning or the implications o f the doctrine o f the T r i n i t y is n o t possible for us, b u t we can seek l i g h t in H i s l i g h t and discover basic truths that are neither d i f f i c u l t nor controversial, t h o u g h often neglected i n discussions o f the Christian worldview. Specifically, f r o m the simple confession of the T r i n i t y we considered i n the last chapter, we find that at least t w o i m p o r t a n t and fundamental implications flow. One, the Christian worldview is a radically personal worldview. Two, in the Christian doctrine o f the T r i n i t y , Christians find the solution to the most íundamental p r o b lem f o r understanding reality. I n this chapter, we w i l l briefly consider each of these.

17


18

CHAPTHRTWO

A Personal God and a Personal World O f all the gods in all the religions o f the w o r l d , only the triune G o d o f the Bible is t r u l y and w h o l l y personal.This p o i n t is often n o t recognized, -so we w i l l dwell o n i t briefly. First, consider the n o n - C h r i s t i a n theism embraced by Jews' and M u s l i m s , the belief i n a single g o d who rules the w o r l d . By itself, theism w i l l n o t suffice t o give us a t r u l y personal god, for a god who is utterly and simply o n e — a mere monad—fails

t o have the qualities we

know t o be essential to personality. A l t h o u g h an absolute m o n a d , like the god o f Islam, is the most exalted n o n - C h r i s t i a n idea o f deity, a m o n a d is a being w h o is eternally a l o n e — w i t h no other t o love, no other w i t h w h o m to communicate, and n o other w i t h w h o m t o have fellowship. I n the case o f such a solitary god, love, fellowship, and c o m munication cannot be essential to his being. I n -

A god who h" Utterly 2X\i

deed, they are n o part o f the m o n a d at alb B u t

simply One fails tO have quali-

w i t h o u t these qualities i t is d i f f i c u l t t o imagine

ties essential tO personality,

that the deity so understood is i n any meaningful sense personal.To conceive of a god w h o docs n o t k n o w love, a god who has never shared, a g o d for w h o m a relationship w i t h another is eternally irrelevant, is t o conceive o f an abstraction, an idea or a t h i n g more than a person.

2

If, t o make his god more personal, a believer i n such a deity suggested chat his g o d loved the w o r l d after he created it, the result w o u l d be a g o d who changes i n time and who needs the w o r l d i n order to grow i n t o his selfrealization as a god o f love—a god w h o becomes personal only w i t h the help o f the creation. Suppose one asserted that the m o n a d loved the w o r l d

Although I place Jews together with Muslims here, the Jewish doctrine of God is more complicated. Jews do less "theology" and moie wrestling with what God is doing. Some are quirt- speculative ;fnd virtually "Muslim" in their docrrine »f die G»a\ bur urhers eschew rhc possibility of a doctrine of God. Love itself rakes on a different meaning in such religions. Tor example, speaking of rhc concept o f love in Islamic mysticism, Josef van Ess writes: " f hough love as a religious category may take a very prominent place in mysticism, still this is not, on the whole, a love between e outward manifestation. ' The Doctrine of Cod i Edinburgh; Banner oi Truth, 1977), 317—] 3. Bavinck s work was first published in Dutch near the end of the nineteenth century. 1

31


32

CHAPTHR THRKH

leading i n history, G o d is manifesting H i m s e l f . H e does n o t hide f r o m us but shines the light o f H i s glory so that we can seek and k n o w H i m . M e n fail t o see H i m n o t because H e is far o f f b u t because s i n f u l man w i l l f u l l y shuts his eyes t o the light. Second, we w i l l l o o k i n t o the implications of an ancient theological word—perickoresis in Greek, cinttmincessio in L a t i n — t h a t points t o an i m p o r tant aspect o f the T r i n i t y . T h e theological terms are technical, b u t the t r u t h expressed is straightforward: each o f the Persons o f t h e T r i n i r y dwells in the others. T h i s comes t o expression most frequently i n the Gospel of John, where our L o r d repeatedly says that H e is " i n the Father" and the Father is Si" '• T f¬ in H i m .

God Shows Himself I t is n o t simply that whatever G o d does must, i n the nature o f the case, reveal something about w h o H e is. A s we shall see i n a later chapter, H e reveals H i m s e l f because revelation is an essential aspect o f H i s t r i n i t a n a n nature.The triune G o d shows H i m s e l f to us because H e delights t o have us draw near t o H i m i n a real personal relationship. I n the beginning, before the Fall, this was evident i n the fact that G o d placed A d a m i n a gardensanctuary t o dwell w i t h H i m . A f t e r the Fall, i t meant that God's self-revelation was redemptive. God's works i n the w o r l d The most frequently employed

and i n history abundantly manifest H i s nature,

biblical device for Structuring

and H i s self-revelation in Scripture expounds H i s

history ÍS the Covenant

works so that we can clearly see what H e is saying t o us. T h o u g h there arc depths t o what H e

shows us about H i m s e l f that may be d i f f i c u l t t o reach, most o f what H e reveals o f H i m s e l f is plain enough to be understood even by children. Paradoxically, because this perspicuous revelation is totally personal, i t is also hidden f r o m those w h o hate H i m ( M t . 13:11—17). T h e incomprehensible d e p t h and transparent clarity o f God's self-revelation are united in the revelation that H e has given t o us in H i s Son. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as o f the only begotten o f the f ather, full o f grace and truth. . , , N o one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom o f the Father, H e has declared H i m . (John 1:14, 18")


33

THH COVHNANTA!. COD

Is there a biblical w o r d that sums u p God's self-revelation i n h i s t o r y ; N o d o u b t there is more than one perspective f r o m which t o view the subject, b u t the most frequently employed biblical device f o r structuring history is the covenant. F r o m the Garden o f Eden t o the end o f the w o r l d , G o d establishes covenants that define H i s relationship w i t h man, and H e never relates to man apart f r o m a covenant. T h i s rshc^ a question about G o d H i m s e l f : D o these covenants reveal G o d s nature? T h e answer t o that question is given, i n part, i n the fact that the relationship between the Father and the Son embraces a l l the elements o f the biblical idea o f covenant and reveals most deeply its meaning.

The Elements of a Covenant T h o u g h G o d reveals H i m s e l f i n all o l H i s works t h r o u g h o u t history, it is appropriate t o begin w i t h H i s glorious manifestation o f H i m s e l f in Christ, for o n l y i n the l i g h t o f the knowledge o f Christ can we grasp, f o r what it truly is, everything else G o d has done i n history- Jesus is the center o f our calendar because H e is the center o f all. I n the Bible the ccntralitv o f Christ is seen i n the tact that the entire O l d Testament era is spent waiting f o r the coming o f the Messiah, w i t h the prophets declaring various aspects o l H i s saving w o r k and proclaiming the glories o f H i s reign and the histories foreshadowing H i s person and w o r k , f r o m the fall o f A d a m onward, the whole o f biblical revelation is focused o n the seed o f the woman ( G e n , 3:15), So many detailed prophecies were f u l f i l l e d i n the l i f e o f C h r i s t that we cannot d o u b t that G o d has a plan f o r history and that Jesus is the center of that plan. W e may note i n passing that biblical prophecy demonstrates God's c o n t r o l over w o r l d history. W e see this b o t h i n g r a n d prophetic visions o f the f u t u r e a n d i n predictions o f specific events. N o other relig i o n or worldview, f o r example, offers anything like the biblical b o o k o f D a n i e l and its p r e d i c t i o n o f the rise and fall o f the Babylonian, Persian, Greek and R o m a n empires ( D a n . 2:36—45). B u t prophecy i n general and D a n i e l i n particular is n o t about politics or amazing stones o f the future. T h e empires D a n i e l predicted were p a r t o f God's p r o g r a m t o prepare the w o r l d f o r the Messiah. T h e w o r l d l y principalities and powers existed f o r H i m and H i s purposes- Even the small details o f b i b l i c a l prophecy m a n i fest G o d s w o r k i n g in the w o r l d . R o m a n soldiers gambled over the Messiah's


34

CHAPTHR THRKH

c l o t h i n g , unconsciously f u l f i l l i n g Scripture that had been w r i t t e n hundreds or years before (Jn. 19:24). Both the great and small of prophecy come together when Peter rebukes the Jews f o r c r u c i f y i n g Jesus: " H i m , being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge o f G o d , you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and p u t t o death" (Acts 2 : 2 3 ) , God's Lordship is evident in the rise and fall o f the empires, as well as in the perversity o f the soldiers and the hardhearredness o f H i s o w n people. But even t h o u g h G o d directs the affairs o f men, Peter reminds us that we are accountable and responsible for all we do. W h e n we carefully consider the revelation that G o d has given us i n H i s Son, i t becomes clear that one o f the overarching themes o f the O l d Testament is the idea o f covenant. T h e covenant theme structures the f o r m and content o f the O l d T c s t a m c n t from Genesis t o M a l a c h i and finds its unique f u l f i l l m e n t i n Jesus. T h e Gospel writers d o n o t explicitly emphasize the covenant idea, instead they use language that presupposes it and they set f o r t h the basic elements that are familiar f r o m the O l d Testament. T h e f o l l o w i n g summary of the covenant between the Son and the Father is one way t o outline the elements o f a covenant,

/. Lordship G o d s t o t a l plan f o r history focuses o n the Messiah and is seen most clearly in H i m . In the Messiah we learn about G o d H i m s e l f . T h r o u g h o u t the Bible, but especially in the Psalms, G o d is extolled as L o r d and K i n g . H i s transcendent glory and power are such that all the nations o f the w o r l d are like a d r o p in a bucket o r dust o n scales (Is. 4 0 : 1 5 ) . W h e n they rage i n rebellion, H e laughs (Ps. 2:4), As the greatest k i n g o f the ancient w o r l d confessed, I blessed the most High, and I praised and honored him that liveth tor over, whose dominion rs an everlasting dominion, and hrs kingdom rs from generation to generation: And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to hrs will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doesr rhou? (Dan. 4:34—35) 2. Hierarchy

W h e n we consider the gospel accounts, especially the Gospel o f John, another aspect o f God's self-revelation t h r o u g h the incarnation o f Christ be-

Gopyrighted material

THH

35

COVHNANTA!. COD

comes clear. One o f the most frequently repeated themes i n the Gospels is that the father sent the Son into the world ( M t . 10:40; 15:24; M k . 9:37; Lk. 4 : 4 3 ; 9 : 4 8 ; 10:16; Jn. 3 : 1 7 ; 4 : 3 4 ; 5 : 2 3 , 2 4 , 3 0 , 3 6 , 3 7 ; 6:29, 3 8 , 3 9 , 4 0 ; 7:16,

18; and others). T h i s fact has a number of significant implications,

but one o f the most simple and obvious is that there is a hierarchy w i t h i n t h c T n n i t v . T h e bather sends the S o n . T h e Son submits to the bather's w i l l . I n the words o f Jesus, " A n d H e w h o sent M e is w i t h M e . T h e Father has n o t left M e alone, f o r I always do those things that please H i m ' [Jn. 8:29). O f 1

course, the very name Father and Sen i m p l y the hierarchical relationship, expressed so frequently in the Gospels as Jesus' obedience to the Father and H i s seeking the Father s h o n o r and glory. T h o u g h i t is n o t emphasized, the same relationship can be seen between the S p i r i t and the Son, for the Son, together w i t h the Father, sends the Spirit, and the S p i r i t glorifies the Son > . 15:26; 1 6 : 7 , 1 4 ) . Hierarchy in relationship means that the Father is greater than the Son in H i s office only, n o t i n H i s being. T h e Father sends the Son, but the Son does n o t send the Father. T h e Father and the Son send the Spirit, b u t the Spirit does not send the Father and the S o n . T h e official hierarchy o f the Persons is their eternal relationship. It does n o t imply that the Son is less powerful or that H e does n o t fully share the omniscience of the Father. O n the contrary, the Son and the H o l y Spirit possess all the attributes o f G o d to the same infinite degree as the bather. T h e Persons o f the T r i n i t y are equal in their being but different in their personhood, existing in a hierarchy o f bather, Son, and Spirit.

3. Commandments and Obedience T h e hierarchical relationships in the T r i n i t y come t o concrete expression in the f o r m o f commandments, a centra] feature o f the covenants in the O l d Testament. T h e Father has commanded the Son what to d o (Jn. 5:36;

9:4;

10:25, 32, 3 7 ) and what to speak (Jn. 12:49; 17:8). T h e Sons obedience to the Father is therefore comprehensive. N o t only was every miracle done according to the Fathers plan and direction, even seemingly u n i m p o r t a n t events are included. W h e n Jesus stopped by the roadside to speak w i t h the Samaritan woman, H e explained to H i s surprised disciples: " M y f o o d is to do the w i l l o f H i m w h o sent M e , and to finish H i s w o r k " (Jn. 4:34),


36

CHAPTHR THRKH

4. Blessing T h e Father sent the Son to do the work H e had planned before the foundat i o n of the w o r l d , and the Son, i n frill and perfect obedience t o the Father, fulfilled that work. W e are n o t surprised therefore when we read the prayer our L o r d prayed before H i s betrayal, which shows that H e knew the Father w o u l d accept H i s work and reward i t . Jesus spoke o f the Father g l o r i f y i n g the Son (Jn.

The elements of the covenant in

17:1,

5 ) b u t even more o f the fact that the

the structure of Deuteronomy are

C h u r c h , the people f o r w h o m Jesus died,

fundamental woridview categories.

w o u l d be the g i f t o f the Father t o the Son (Jn. 17:2, 6 , 9 , I I , 12, 2 4 ) . Just as Jesus' obedience t o the Father was the expression o f holy love, so also the Fathers reward t o the Son was the expression o f H i s perfect delight in the Son and H i s acceptance o f the work o f redemption, 5. Succession Jesus' sacrifice was perfect and H e pronounced H i s w o r k o f substitutionary suffering finished (Jn. 19:30), b u t there was other work that H e d i d n o t finish. H e passed i t o n t o H i s disciples i n the same way that G o d , i n the beginning when H e created the w o r l d , left the d o m i n i o n project unfinished so that man as H i s coworker could complete the task. Therefore, the Son said t o H i s disciples: "As the bather has sent M e , 1 also send y o u ' ( J n , 1

2 0 : 2 1 ) . I n the b o o k of Acts, we see H i s apostles p e r f o r m i n g works similar [o those o f Jesus and also suffering at the hands o f G o d s enemies, even u n t o death. T h e y inherited H i s work and, in t u r n , passed i t o n t o others after t h e m . A n d so it has continued all the way t o our o w n day.

W h a t we have summarized here about the relationship between the incarnate Son and the Father follows the same outline that structures the b o o k o f Deuteronomy as i t defines the covenant relationship between G o d and H i s people. ( I ) Lordship: G o d is the covenant L o r d who grants the covenant ( D c u t , 1:1—8). ( 2 ) Hierarchy. H e directs H i s people through leaders that H e has appointed t o represent H i m (Deut. 1:9—4:43). ( 3 ) Commandments: H e gives commandments f o r b o t h the leaders and the people ( D e u t . 4:44—26:19). ( 4 ) Sanctions: I f the people are f a i t h f u l , they w i l l be blessed, b u t i f they reject H i s goodness and love, they b r i n g u p o n themselves a curse ( D e u t . 27—30). ( 5 )


37

THH COVHNANTA!. COI)

Suecession: God's prophet, Moses, passes o n the work, o f the covenant t o his successor, Joshua, and to the next generation o f Israel ( D c u t . 31—32). T h e elements o f the covenant in the structure o f D e u t e r o n o m y are fun¬ damental worldview categories, t h o u g h they may be stated i n different terms and the individual elements themselves may be expressed in broader or narrower terms. W h e n m o d e r n scholars o f comparative religion, for example, consider the h i s t o r y o f religion and attempt t o describe the data, they develop a remarkably similar account o f the elements o f a worldview. W i l l i a m E. Paden, in his popular textbook o n comparative religion, sees all religions as i n c l u d i n g something about gods, m y t h (stories o f the relationship o f men and the gods), systems o f p u r i t y (rules), and ritual and time {methods o f a f f i r m i n g blessing and curse). T o restate the covenant outline i n the 1

more general terms o f worldview: ( I ) A l l worldviews involve some n o t i o n o f ultimacy. ( 2 ) T h e ultimate being o r power must come i n t o concrete contact w i t h the w o r l d t h r o u g h a representative oi some k i n d . ( 3 ) Every worldview has its o w n view of r i g h t and w r o n g and commands obedience to the ultimate and penultimate authorities- ( 4 ) Law w i t h o u t sanction cannot stand, in any worldview, at any t i m e . Blessings and curses are always i n cluded and the ceremonial aspect o f religion focuses u p o n them. ( 5 ) Every worldview has some view o f the goal of history and some m e t h o d f o r one generation t o pass o n its work t o the next. W e s h o u l d add that worldviews are n o t taught t h r o u g h five-point outlines; they arc passed on f r o m one generation t o the next in stones and the ceremonies, celebrations, and customs that are based u p o n those stories.

The Essence of a Covenant Since all men are created in God's image, the fact that n o n - C h r i s t i a n religions and worldviews have ideas that are similar t o the biblical covenantal idea, especially in their political and socio-cultural religious systems, p r o vokes no surprise- However, t h o u g h every religion and worldview contains ' W i l l i a m 0. Padcn, Religions

Worlds: the Comparative Study of Reiigion

r

second cd. [^Boston:

Beacon Press, ] 9 9 4 \ I have changed die order o f Paden's topics in order t o make the parallel with tin- hihfic.il covenants! s t m a u r e apparent, N i n i a n S m a r t s analysis also firs rhe biblical covenant structure w i t h o n l y slight adjustments. N i n i a n Smart, Dimensions of the Sacred: An Anatomy of the World's Beliefs (Berkeley: University o f C a l i f o r n i a . 1 9 9 6 ) .


38

CHAPTHR THRKH

the elements o r a covenant, the bibiical worldview contrasts sharply w i t h non-Christian woridviews. I n the Bible, the covenant idea is first o f all a theological idea, n o t a p o l i t i c a l or religious one. T h e covenant is a revelation o f the very life o f the triune G o d , T h e differences become especially clear when we consider the essence o f the covenant relationship. W h a t is the essence of the biblical idea of covenant? T h e answer often given is misleading, t h o u g h n o t w h o l l y false. A c o m m o n d e f i n i t i o n o f covenant is "agreement' since the Bible uses the w o r d covenant to describe various 1

agreements made by men. But this sense o f the w o r d is altogether inadequate t o express what the w o r d means when the Bible speaks o f G o d and H i s covenant w i t h man, o r when i t speaks o f a covenant among the Persons o f the T r i n i t y . T h e t n n i t a n a n covenant is n o t a mere agreement among the three Persons. Covenant means relationship, and the essence o f the covenant relationship is love. To understand the nature o f a covenant, the most helpful and meaningfill

biblical example is the marriage relationship- Marriage is an ''agree-

m e n t " but it is a very special k i n d o f agreement. Marriage, unlike contractual agreements, is entered i n t o w i t h an o a t h . T h e marriage oath expresses beaut i f u l l y what a covenant really is, a promise to love and cherish one another u n t i l death. T h e oath expresses t o t a l c o m m i t m e n t , a self-sacrificial giving o f oneself in love,There is

n o "escape" clause i f

one party decides he is

Covenant means relationship,

n o t g e t t i n g w h a t he

wanted f r o m the agree-

and the essence of the COV-

m e r i t , T h e words " u n -

til death" suggest that as

enant relationship is love.

f

is concerned, there is no

a ra

s

i,f

e m

c

h , world s

time l i m i t . T h o u g h the

marriage covenant can be broken and dissolved, i t is still not really accurate to call i t a " c o n d i t i o n a l " covenant, f o r the promises o f the marriage oath do n o t really constitute conditions. H u m a n marriage at best, however, is only a faint image o f God's covenant. God's covenant love f o r H i s people reflects something much deeper and more w o n d e r f u l : the eternal self-denying love that each o f the Persons o f the T r i n i t y has for the others. T h i s is the love that G o d expressed to H i s people Israel t h r o u g h the gift oi the covenant. F o r y o u are a h o l y p e o p l e t o t h e LORD y o u r G o d ; t h e LORD y o u r G o d has d i o s e n y o u r o be a p e o p l e f o r H i m s e l f , a special treasure above a l l t h e peoples


39

THH COVHNANTA!. COD

on the face o f the earth.The L O R D did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were rhe least of all peoples; but because the L O R D loves you, and because He would keep rhe oath winch He swore to your fathers, the I . O R O has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Kgypt. (l>eur. 7:6—8' Since G o d chose Israel and gave H i m s e l f t o her in love, the one t h i n g He demanded was the covenant response o f love. You shall love the

LORD

your God with all your heart, with all your soul,

and with all your strength. (Dcut, 6:5^ And now, Israel, what does the L O R D your God require of you, bur to fear rhe L O R D your God, to walk in all His ways and to love H i m , to serve rhe I_OR.r> your God with ,iJI your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments of the L O R H and His statutes which I command you today for your good? (Deut. 10:12-13) T h o u g h it is clear f r o m these verses that the essence o f God's covenant relationship w i t h Israel was love, everyone w h o knows the Bible is aware that the idea o f covenant, especially the covenant given t h r o u g h Moses, is also associated w i t h law and righteousness. Indeed, the expression " L a w o f Moses" is virtually equivalent t o the expression

"Mosaic covenant." Should we t h i n k

o f the Mosaic covenant primarily as l a w or primarily as love: A l t h o u g h to 4

some, there seems t o be a great difference between the n o t i o n of covenant as a relationship o f love and covenant as a relationship o f law, this is actually a false dichotomy. Once again, marriage provides an appropriate analogy. Marriage is a legal relationship w i t h b i n d i n g rules and m u t u a l obligations publicly expressed and legally ratified. T h i s does n o t suggest t o anyone that marriage is primarily or merely a legal relationship. I t does n o t occur t o us to t h i n k that somehow the legal aspect of the b o n d interferes w i t h the relational

' A further complication is rhe fact rhuc the Hebrew word translated "law" (torahj means ' instruction" rather than "law" or "principle," The Law of Moses is the instruction that God gave t o Israel through Moses, f t certainly is a "legally binding' instruction and therefore "law" or "covenants' liar the word "law" alone is too often understood as if we had a bare command rather ih;m [he loving insiniciion of our F;nher. Biblical law is never merely "rules' imposed by authority.


40

CHAPTHR THRKH

aspect/ Obviously the legal b o n d is a seal of the love relationship, m a k i n g i t more solemn and exalting rather than detracting f r o m it. I n the same way, G o d s relationship w i t h Israel is b o t h a relationship o f law and a relationship o f love. Israel is a n a t i o n and G o d is her king. T o give her a righteous and wise law is an act o f love on the part o f the heavenly king, w h o regards Israel n o t as political subjects but as H i s dear children ( D e u t . 14:1). H e i n t u r n is their heavenly Father. Remember that the L o r d instructed Moses, " T h e n you shall say t o Pharaoh, T h u s says the LORD; Israel is M y son, M y firstborn" ( E x o d . 4 : 2 2 ) . W e miss the biblical view o f G o d i f we d o n o t see H i s kingship and fatherhood together, just as we miss the biblical view o f covenant i f we t h i n k o f law as p o l i t i c a l rather than as loving instruction- B o t h elements are involved i n the M o s a i c covenant, but as we see f r o m D e u t e r o n o m y 10:12—13, the legal and political never take precedence over the personal. Some have suggested that the essence o f the covenant changes f r o m law in the O l d Testament t o love in the N e w Testament* Certainly there is g r o w t h in covenantal revelation; the N e w Covenant era emphasizes love and the inward knowledge o f the w i l l o f G o d more than the O l d Covenant. But the inseparable relationship between law and love is manifest in the N e w T c s t a ment no less than in the O l d , since the NewTesrament itself points back to the OldTestament as the model for covenant

Love

and righteousness are tWO

understanding, bor example, Jesus alludes t o

different and mutually defining per-

God's relationship w i t h Israel and the love

Spedves On a right relationship.

o f the covenant when H e instructs H i s disciples t o " a b i d e " in H i m (Jn. 15:1—16). H e

refers t o H i m s e l f as the Vine, a symbol o f Israel and her covenant relationship w i t h G o d (Ps* 8 0 ; Is. 5; etc.). Even more i m p o r t a n t , in John 15 Jesus clearly indicates that our covenant relationship t o H i m is parallel t o H i s covenant relationship w i t h the Father. T h e same law-love relationship that characterizes the O l d T e s t a m e n t defines the relationship among the Three Persons of the T r i n i t y and as our relationship t o G o d as well,

"'• Imagine [he youny woman who w o u l d sav, "IE you really loved me, von w o u l d not swear before G o d and men t o be f a i t h f u l t o me for the rest o f vour life, to love and cherish me. You w o u l d not share your p r o p e r t y w i t h me and take care o f my physical needs and those o f our children. I f y o u really loved me, you w o u l d not harness me w i t h rhat r i n g , your money, and a house. I f y o u love me, emote! Forget t h i s legal s t u f f ! "


41

THH COVHNANTA!. COD

As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in M y love. I f you keep My commandments, you will abide in M y love, just as I have kept M y Father's commandments and abide in His love. (Jn. 15:9— 10j U n d o u b t e d l y Jesus kept the Fathers commandments because H e loved the bather. T h e i r relationship has a definite structure.The Father is the First Person. T h e Son, though equal in being, is under the Fathers authority. But this is n o t a political or legal relationship in the sense of a relationship determined by naked law and rigid rules imposed f r o m above, nor d o the commands represent what we w o u l d call " c o n d i t i o n s . " T h e Father commands the Son because H e loves H i m . Just as G o d said to Israel that H i s commandments were tor their g o o d — a n expression o l H i s fatherly l o v e — so also the Father expresses fatherly love by instructing the Son. T h e Sons obedience is H i s response o f love. Keeping commandments in the covenant falls i n t o the categories of law and righteousness, o f course. But i n the biblical covenant, the n o t i o n o f b i n d ing obligation in law is never separated from the personal care and love o f family relationship. Love and righteousness are two different and mutually defining perspectives o n a right relationship. T h e y emphasize different aspects, but neither is meaningful w i t h o u t the other. A love that flagrantly breaks the commandments o f G o d w o u l d n o t be love any more than a righteousness that is cold, superficial c o n f o r m i t y w o u l d be real righteousness.

Conclusion T h e elements that define a covenant all appear i n the Gospels' depiction of the relationship between the Son and the Father, indicating that the biblical doctrine or the covenant finds its roots in the doctrine o f t h c T r i n i t y . Father, Son, and Spirit relate to one another in a structured and hierarchical relationship, but the essence o f that relationship is love. Because G o d is the G o d o f the covenant, man, God's image, thinks in covenantal terms. T h e elements o f the covenant come to expression in human psychology, religion, and society, f o r they have been i m p r i n t e d i n t o the circuits o f man's covenantal being. T h e Bible differs so much f r o m n o n - C h r i s t i a n worldviews and religions because in the Bible the elements o f the covenant converge in the trinitarian G o d in the eternal c o m m i t m e n t of covenantal love.


42

CHAPTHR THRKH

Perichoresis Btrichoresis is a d i f f i c u l t w o r d that expresses a deep t r u t h . Like ah t r u t h about G o d , i t transcends o u r grasp, though its meaning can be simply stated. T h e w o r d perichoresis refers t o the fact that Father, Son, and S p i r i t mutually indwell one another. T h i s theme appears quite explicitly i n the Gospel o f John, b u t t o appreciate the f u l l meaning o f the n o t i o n o f indwelling, we have t o consider the history o f G o d s self-revelation. W h e n biblical writers speak o f being " i n " someone o r something, they employ the analogy o f physical space t o convey the intimacy o f covenant u n i o n . T h i s concept is i m p o r t a n t for the C h r i s t i a n w o r l d view i n many respects, b u t particularly because i t shows f r o m a different perspective what i t means t o say that the Christian G o d is a covenantal G o d and that the Christian worldview is a covenantal wo rid view.

The Son in the Father W e are familiar w i t h the frequent expressions i n the Gospel o f John that speak o f the m u t u a l "in-ness" o f the persons of the T r i n i t y , I n the i n t r o d u c t i o n t o the Gospel, f o r example, we are t o l d that Jesus is able t o "declare" the bather because H e is in the bosom o f the bather (Jn. 1:18). Jesus H i m self speaks most often o f this relationship. W h e n H e sought t o persuade the Jews t o believe in H i m ,

Perichoresis refers to the fact

H e said, " I f I d o n o t d o the works o f M y Fa-

that Father, Son, and Spirit

ther, d o n o t believe M e ; b u t i f 1 do, t h o u g h you

mutually indwell one another.

do n o t believe M e , believe the works, that y o u may k n o w and believe that the Father is i n M e , and I i n H i m ' (Jn. 10:37— 1

. Interestingly, H e uses essentially the same sort o f reasoning when speaking t o H i s disciples o n the night o f H i s betrayal. P h i l i p asked Jesus t o show t h e m the Father. Jesus' answer p o i n t e d t o the m u t u a l indwelling o f the persons o f the Godhead. Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the father; so how can you say, Show us the Father'? D o you not believe that 1 am in the Father, ;ind the f ather in Me?The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Mo does the works. Believe Mc


THH

43

COVHNANTA!. COD

that. I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves. (Jn. 14:9—1 I ) So f u l l and perfect is the m u t u a l indwelling o f Jesus and the Father that to see Jesus is t o see the Father, Every w o r d that Jesus speaks and every deed that H e performs arc n o less the w o r d o r deed o f the Father than they are the word o r deed o f the Son. T h i s was a n o t i o n hard f o r the disciples to grasp, b u t Jesus promised that when the H o l y S p i r i t came, they w o u l d u n derstand: " A t that day you w i l l k n o w that I a m i n M y Father, and you i n M e , and 1 i n y o u " (Jn. 14:20). W h a t docs i t mean f o r the bather and the Son t o " d w e l l " in one another; Is G o d a different class o f being, i n w h i c h persons can entirely interpenetrate one another, something n o t conceivable i n h u m a n relationships? N o d o u b t we are c o n f r o n t e d here w i t h the mystery o f G o d s being and the fact that three Persons arc one G o d . T h e Persons o f the T r i n i t y are not separate f r o m each other even t h o u g h they are distinguishable. T h o u g h they are three distinct Persons, yet they are so fully and absolutely u n i t e d that they are also one G o d . T h e language o f m u t u a l indwelling expresses these unfathomable truths. A n o t h e r essential aspect o f this language is that indwelling is also a metaphor for covenantal relationship. Again, it is Jesus H i m s e l f w h o points us i n this direction. W h e n H e prayed f o r H i s Church, H e prayed f o r unity, in language that l i n k e d u n i t y possible i n h u m a n relationships t o the m u t u a l indwelling o f the Persons or the Trinity, I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I inYou; that they also may be one in l i s , that the world may believe thai You sent Me, And the glory which You gave Me 1 have given them, that they may be one just as We are one; 1 in rhem, and You m Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and rhar the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me. (Jn, 17:20—23) T h a t Jesus is speaking o f a covenantal relationship is clear from the fact that unity, love, and i n d w e l l i n g are l i n k e d here i n the same way that obedience t o God's commands, love, and i n d w e l l i n g are l i n k e d i n John 15, I t is also apparent t h a t f o r h u m a n persons t o interpenetrate

one another


44

C H A P T H R THRHE-

ontologically is n o t even remotely conceivable. W h a t Jesus is speaking o f is the intimacy o f the covenant, the essence of which is love.

God with Us and in Us W h a t I p o i n t e d our about the covenantal meaning o f John 1 7 , b o t h as i t applies t o the T r i n i t y a n d as i t applies to the relationship o f G o d s people, reflects the covenantal development of biblical history and the symbolism o f the covenant En the O l d Testament- B o t h o f these, i n t u r n , f i n d their fulfillmenr i n one o f the mosr w e l l - k n o w n realities o f the N e w Covenant: the indwelling o f the S p i r i t i n the C h u r c h . To sec h o w this development unfolds, we must return t o the Garden o f Eden- Eden is where G o d placed man i n order that they m i g h t enjoy i n t i mate covenant fellowship. I t was the place where G o d w o u l d dwell w i t h man (Gen. 2 : 8 ) . T h e Garden was the sanctuary, b o t h the spiritual and physical center o f the original w o r l d . T h i s is alluded t o i n the later design o f the tabernacle and temple, b o t h o f w h i c h through Edenic s y m b o l i s m pointed back t o the Garden as the true sanctuary o f G o d . I n contrast t o Hden, however, man is o n the outside o f the tabernacle and temple. H e is not perm i t t e d t o enter the M o s t H o l y Place, the sanctuary o f Eden, because o l his sins- Nevertheless, by grace, G o d dwelt w i t h Israel a n d blessed her o n the basis o f the a t o n i n g work o f the Messiah w h o was t o come. One of the most frequently repeated expressions i n the Bible points t o God's covenant love f o r H i s people. T h e covenant f o r m u l a , " G o d w i t h us," appears i n various forms t h r o u g h o u t rhe O l d T e s r a m e n t as an expression o f G o d s covenantal presence and blessing. ' I t finds its highest expression as a 1

name f o r the Messiah, ' ' I m m a n u e l , " w h i c h M a t t h e w translates, " G o d w i t h us" ( M t . 1 : 2 3 ) . Jesus alluded t o the covenant f o r m u l a and promised that the blessing o f the covenant w o u l d be intensified i n the N e w Covenant era

b

See Gen. 26:3, 24. 28; 28:15, 20; 31:3; 39:2. 3, 21, 23; 48:21; E x o d 3:12; 10:10;

18:19; 20:20; Num. 14:9; 16:3; 23:21; Dent. 32:12; Josh, 1:5, 9, 17; 3:7; 6-27; 22:31; Jiidg. 1:19, 22; 6:12, 13, 16; Ruth 2:4; 1 Sam. 3:19; [0:7; 14:7; 16:18; 17:37; [8:12, 14, 28;20:13; 2 Sam. 7:3; 14:17; 1 Kg*. 1:37; S;57; 11:38; 2 Kg*. 3:12; 10:15; 18:7; 1 Chr. 9:20; 1 7:2; 22:1 f, 16; 28:20; 2 Chr. 1:1; 13:12; 15:2,9; 17:3; 19:11: 20:17; 36:23; Ezra 1:3; Ps, 118:6. 7; Is. 8:10; 41:10; 43:2, 5; 45:14; Jer. 1:8, 19; 15:20; 20:11:30:11:42:11; 46:28; Zcph, 3:17; Hag, 1:13: 2:4; Zeth. 8:23; 10:5; and in the Nov Testament, cf. also Mr. 1:23; Lk. 1:28; Acts 7:9; 10:38; 18:10; 2 Thcs. 3:16; 2 T i m . 4:22; Rev. 21:3.


THH

COVHNANTA!. COD

45

hen the S p i r i t o f G o d w o u l d come i n a greater way, " f o r H e dwells w i t h you and w i l l be in y o u " (Jn. 14:1 7), Paul expounds the meaning of the N e w Covenant promise by alluding to the O l d Testament, especially the symbolism o f the temple- H e emphasized that our N e w Covenant relationship w i t h G o d realizes the meaning o f God's covenant indwelling, f o r he tells us that the Spirit o f G o d dwells in Christians in a manner analogous t o the Spirit's dwelling i n the temple ( I Cor. 3:16; 6:19). G o d is our G o d and we are H i s people because we are collectively the temple (and individually the temples) that H e indwells ( 2 Cor. 6:16). Since the f o r m u l a " I w i l l be their G o d " and similar expressions define the covenant (Jer. 31:33; H e b . 8 : 1 0 ) , b o t h O l d T e s t a m e n t and N e w Testament witness t o the fact that indwelling speaks o f a covenant relationship- W e sec that the indwelling o f the S p i r i t in Israel s tabernacle and temple was typological prophecy of the future indwelling o f the Spirit in the Church, T o indwell is t o be in covenant and t o be i n covenant is t o dwell together. T h u s the language o f indwelling in its various uses is quintessential covenantal language- T h i s language is used b o t h f o r Christ's relationship to G o d and for our relationship t o G o d , suggesting an analogy between the mutual indwelling of the Persons of t h e T r i n i t y as a covenantal relationship and the covenantal relationship between the triune G o d and H i s people- I n other words, G o d i n H i s saving grace brings H i s people into that same covenantal love that is shared bv the Persons o f t h e T r i n i t y . T h e lan-

The unity of covenantal oneness, expressed

guage o f indwelling obviously does

perfectly in the mutual indwelling of the Per¬

not

sons of die Trinity, is granted to us in Christ

mean

that

we b e c o m e

ontologically one w i t h H i m . T h e d i s t i n c t i o n between Creator and creature is absolute and eternal. O n e of the most i m p o r t a n t basic issues i n the Christian worldview is that the categories o f eternity and time are never mixed. Jesus is b o t h G o d and man. H e is not a m i x t u r e o f d i v i n i t y and humanity, a t h i n g neither G o d nor man, but halfway between the t w o . O n t o logical u n i t y between Creator and creature is n o t conceivable in the biblical view. However, that does n o t mean that G o d is tar f r o m us o r t h a t we cannot deeply relate t o H i m . T h e u n i t y o f covenantal oneness, expressed perfectly in the m u t u a l indwelling o f the Persons o f the T r i n i t y , is granted t o us in Christ. W e are i n H i m and H e is i n us by H i s Spirit, I n the covenant, G o d and man are u n i t e d i n love.


46


One in Him In the covenant, man and man are also united Q n . 17:20—23). U n i o n i n G o d grounds our m u t u a l u n i o n in one another. In fact, man is a covenanta! being, even when be does n o t k n o w G o d or acknowledge H i s covenant. So, for example, close human relations even among non-Christians reflect the covenanral n o t i o n of indwelling. T h e analogy is n o t exact o f course, but all people experience something o f what it means for another person t o " i n d w e l l " them. N o d o u b t most o f them are seldom aware of this indwelling, b u t when a close friend or a beloved family member dies, they feel that a p a r t o f [heir life has died also. T h i s is actually more than a feeling; those we are close w i t h arc indeed a part o f us. T h e i r departure means we lose a relationship that c o n t r i b u t e d t o the c o n s t i t u t i o n of our very self. Christians experience oneness w i t h one another i n w o r s h i p p i n g G o d , in serving H i m , and i n the fellowship they enjoy i n Christ. A l l o f this is an extension o f oneness w i t h Christ, a chief aspect o f the Gospel proclamation. To them Cod willed to make known what arc the riches of the glorv o f this mystery among rhe Gentiles: which is Christ i n you, the hope of glory. (Col. 1-27)

Conclusion T h e structure of covenant relationship, used t h r o u g h o u t the Bible when it speaks of man's relationship w i t h G o d , and the covenant idea of indwelling, present f r o m the time o f the Garden o f Eden, b o t h apply t o the relationships oi the Persons o f the T r i n i t y . G o d the Father and Jesus appear in the Gospels n o t only as G o d and the human Messiah but as divine Persons who manifest i n t i m e w h o thev are in eternirv. W h e n Testis asserted their mutual indwelling, H e defined the origin of the whole covenantal idea o f indwelling i n the mystery o f the mutually interpenetrating Persons of G o d , 7

These facts, of course, must f o r m our standard for considering the meaning o f the covenant idea. Certainly, if the covenant describes the eternal relationships of the Persons o f the T r i n i t y , then the p r i m a r y meaning o f the covenant cannot be merely "agreement" or "contract," Rather, the covenant is a relationship o f love in which each party commits h i m s e l f t o sacrifice


THH

COVHNANTA!. COD

47

and self-denial f o r the blessing o f the other. In this way, the T r i n i t y i l l u mines our understanding o f the covenant and the covenant elucidates the relationships o f the Persons o f t h e T r i n i t y . W e sense even more the wonder of G o d s love i n creating man in H i s image and redeeming h i m , in order to b r i n g a new race o f men into the most intimate covenant fellowship o f love, Christ brings H i s people i n t o the covenantal fellowship o f the Godhead, T h i s has other ramifications for the Christian worldview as well. We realize clearly how the biblical teaching that G o d is love harmonizes w i t h the teaching that G o d is holy and righteous, for these t r u t h s meet i n the doctrine o f the covenant. As a result, a fundamental u n i t y exists between love and righteousness, relationship and law, and personal fellowship and t r u t h . A covenantal understanding o f G o d brings us t o a deeper understanding o f m a n as well, f o r m a n is the image o f G o d , and his individual and social psychology arc inescapably covenantal. T o k n o w man, we must k n o w G o d . For G o d is n o t simply " o u t there." H e confronts all men in the creation and dwells in H i s people. N o other worldview o r religion has a view o f G o d that allows, let alone teaches, such a perspective. T h e Christian G o d is a G o d i n covenant relationship, because H e is a G o d i n w h o m three Persons m u t u a l l y indwell one another in a covenant fellowship of love. Because G o d is equally and u l t i mately three and one, the covenant is essential t o H i s nature. N e i t h e r polytheism nor the doctrine of the monad can ever truly incorporate this concept. T h e polytheistic gods s u p p o r t their pcrsonhood through their competition w i t h one another, n o t through love and mutual sacrifice. Whatever oneness may exist in a polytheistic worldview comes f r o m a force or being more ultimate than thegods.Thc monad o f religions like Islam loses its personhood in a different way, for the love that is the essence o f the covenant cannot be essential t o an unrelated m o n a d . T h e b o t t o m line is that the relationship between man and the m o n a d or man and the gods is n o t an ethical relationship that reflects the ultimate t r u t h o f reality. W i t h o u t the u n i t y o f covenant love between G o d and man, the idea of salvation never attains the biblical aim of the perfection o f love and beauty i n the k i n g d o m o f r i g h teousness. T h e Persons o f t h e T n n i t v share a covenant o f love and bestow that love on man. Trinirarianism offers us a doctrine o f a G o d w h o is in contact w i t h us and the everyday realities o f our w o r l d . As we shall see in subsequent


48


chapters, the fact that G o d dwells in H i s people has broad implications that further distinguish the Christian worldvicw.

Review Questions L

W h v is G o d ' s s e l f - r e v e l a t i o n i n h i s t o r v relevant co the d o c t r i n e o f the T r i n i t v : J / J

2.

H o w docs G o d reveal H i m s e l f i n h i s t o r y :

3.

W h a t are the elements o f a c o v e n a n t :

4.

S h o w t h a t the F a t h e r s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e S o n was a covenant.

5.

S h o w h o w the e l e m e n t s o f rhe covenant relate t o the b o o k o f

Deuteronomy. I

6.

State the e l e m e n t s o f t h e covenant as e l e m e n t s o f a w o r l d view,

7.

W h a t is d i e essence o f a covenant?

8.

E x p l a i n h o w t h e m a r r i a g e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f f e r s a g o o d i l l u s t r a t i o n o f the b i b l i c a l covenant between G o d a n d m a n .

9.

W h a t does rhe w o r d pcrkharesis

mean;

10.

E x p l a i n the m e a n i n g o f the f a t h e r b e i n g i n the S o n and the Son i n the Father.

1 1 . E x p l a i n t h e idea o f G o d i n d w e l l i n g H i s p e o p l e a n d h o w i t relates t o pcrtchoresis, 12.

W h a t does i t m e a n f o r the C h u r c h t o be one i n G o d ?


4.Trinity and Creation " W l 1F,RF. D I D we come f r o m ? " "Arc wc alone?" Harth origins and extraterrestrial life are connected problems i n the m o d e r n worldview, and the government o f the U n i t e d States o f America is engaged in a project t o discover the answer t o these basic questions- T h i s is n o t some secret bBI X-Files

project

like box M u l d e r ' s quest for his long-lost sister. T h e questions above come f r o m a document published by N A S A , which includes an " O r i g i n s Subcommittee" that works w i t h people all over the U n i t e d States n o t only to search for the answers t o these questions b u t also t o create educational programs t o r the nation's youth based o n this research and discovery.' T h e question o f origins is very much alive. I t is a question that everyone must answer t o b u i l d a comprehensive worldview.

Cosmogony and Worldview T h e w o r d cosmogony comes f r o m t w o Greek words, cosmos, referring t o the ordered universe, and genesis^ meaning "beginning/ Cosmogony is the doc1

trine o f the beginning o f the universe, w h i c h was conveyed i n the ancient w o r l d t h r o u g h creation myths. T h e similar w o r d cosmology means one's doctrine o f the cosmos. Cosmology is rooted in cosmogony and sometimes is 7

7

used t o include i t . Worldview is a more vague t e r m , since i t is n o t always a

1

Sec h t t p : / / o r [pins, jpljiasa.gov/.

49


50

CHAPTHH

HOUR

developed or clearly held doctrine. I n substance, however, worldvicw and cosmology arc very close. I n the religions o f the ancient w o r l d , stones o f the w o r l d s creation that we n o w regard as myths were then foundations f o r empires. I n the story o f the w o r l d s beginning, the theology o f the society became concrete i n a manner that provided ultimate justification for a way o f life, i n c l u d i n g the authority o f priests and kings. I n the secular worldview o f the m o d e r n West, we have our o w n version o f the creation story. T h e presently reigning m y t h is the story o f the Big Bang." T h e Big Bang and an expanding universe that gradually cools makes fascinating television and, coupled w i t h D a r w i n i a n evolution, the Big Bang allows m o d e r n men t o " e x p l a i n " the existence The question of Origins is One

o f the universe and m a n — w i t h o u t recourse

that everyone must answer to

t o G o d W h a t docs that mean f o r the m o d e r n

build a Comprehensive WOrldvieW.

worldview? I t means that man is the measure o f all things.There is n o lawgiver, n o l o r d , n o

absolute authority above m a n t o w h o m man must answer. T h e r e is n o meaning i n the w o r l d except the meaning that m a n creates- There is n o purpose i n the w o r l d or i n human history beyond the purposes o f individual men or societies. N e i t h e r the Big Bang theory o f the o r i g i n o f the universe n o r the Darw i n i a n theory o f the o r i g i n o f species is a scientific theory in the strict sense o f the t e r m . T h e Big Bang is n o t subject t o experimental verification, nor can D a r w i n i a n evolution be reproduced in the laboratory, hven i f they were [he k i n d o f t h i n g that c o u l d be reproduced i n a laboratory, that w o u l d n o t change the fact that the o r i g i n o f the universe is a historical issue. Even i f scientists were able t o demonstrate that there arc many possible ways t o r a universe t o begin, i t w o u l d not tell us h o w our o w n universe did begin. M o r e over, the secular myths that constitute the religious cosmogony o f the m o d e r n w o r l d are b u i l t u p o n a s s u m p t i o n s

a b o u t t h e way t h i n g s m u s t

be—assumptions that exclude G o d f r o m the beginning. W h e n we begin our investigation o f reality w i t h assured confidence that the only t h i n g that can and does exist is the material w o r l d , the discovery that we c a n — i n a mannet oi speaking—explain all things w i t h o u t G o d should come as n o surprise.

Srring Theory is n o t yet included in rhc standard, " o n c e - u p o n - a - r i m e " science prog ram for [he children because i i is simply l o o comple;v. 1


51

TRINITY AND CRKATION

W c s h o u l d n o t e , h o w e v e r , c h a t t h e m a t e r i a l i s t f a i t h is u n s t a b l e a n d i n c o n sistent. B e r t r a n d Russell d e p i c t e d the place o f m a n i n the scientific

cosmos

i n language t h a t has o f t e n b e e n q u o t e d .

T h a t m a n is the p r o d u c t , o f causes w h i c h h a d n o p r e v i s i o n o f t h e e n d t h e y were a c h i e v i n g ; t h a t his o r i g i n , his g r o w t h , his hopes a n d fears, his loves a n d his beliefs, are b u t t h e o u t c o m e o f a c c i d e n t a l c o l l o c a t i o n s o f a t o m s ;

that

n o f i r e , n o h e r o i s m , n o i n t e n s i t y o f t h o u g h t a n d f e e l i n g , can preserve an i n d i v i d u a l l i f e b e y o n d t h e grave; t h a t a l l the labors o f the ages, a l l t h e d e v o t i o n , a l l the i n s p i r a t i o n , a l l the n o o n d a y b r i g h t n e s s o f h u m a n genius

are

destined t o e x t i n c t i o n i n the vast death o t the solar svstem, a n d t h a t the w h o l e t e m p l e o f man's a c h i e v e m e n t m u s t i n e v i t a b l y be b u r i e d beneath the debris o f a universe i n r u i n s — a l l these t h i n g s , i f n o t q u i t e b e y o n d d i s p u t e , are yet so nearly c e r t a i n t h a i n o p h i l o s o p h y w h i c h rejects t h e m can h o p e t o stand. O n l y w i t h i n t h e s c a f f o l d i n g o f these t r u t h s , o n l y o n the f i r m f o u n d a t i o n o f u n y i e l d i n g despair, can t h e soul's h a b i t a t i o n h e n c e f o r t h be safely built/

1

H a v i n g made this grand statement, Russell then goes on to speak o f g o o d and evil, of renunciation, o f love and worship and liberation. Russell seems unaware o f the irony that none of these words can have anv real meaning i n a world view built u p o n m o d e r n cosmogony. W h y should Russell retain these ethical notions? Once the Christian faith and its noble truths have been introduced to a society, they take such a deep h o l d that even its most passionate enemies pay Christianity the c o m p l i m e n t o f stealing f r o m its Bible in order to oppose its teachings. But i f wc are going to have a w o r l d that began w i t h a Big Bang and developed through a process o f evolutionary accident, we cannot get beyond the despair. W e are the unfortunate animals w h o k n o w that we must die. O u r education consists i n learning that the universe is a fascinating b u t tragic farce, w h i c h holds f o r t h the m o c k i n g promise o f meaning only to deny i t to those w h o really understand. I t is hardly surprising that early in the twentieth century m e n like A l d o u s H u x l e y already saw that " N o philosophy is completely disinterested. The pure love o f t r u t h is always mingled to some extent w i t h the need, consciously or unconsciously felt by even the noblest and most intelligent philosophers, to Bertrand Russell, " A free Mail's Worship," Why I Anr Not & Christian and Qihtr Essays on Religion and Related Snhjeets ( N e w Y o r k : S i m o n and Schuster, 1 9 5 7 ) ,

107,


52

CHAPTHH HOUR

justify a given f o r m o f personal or social behaviour, to rationalize the traditional prejudices o f a given class or community. ' Huxley applied this thinking 4

to h i m s e l f when he explained that he and most o f his friends had accepted the theory of evolution as a means of escaping f r o m Christianity/" I f evolu1

tion was true, man was liberated f r o m any sort o f meaning for the w o r l d , especially the Christian meaning, Alas, however, the elimination o f meaning at the cosmic level meant that man, as the only creator o f meaning and the definer o f g o o d and evil, was free t o create " l o c a l " meaning i n places like N a z i Germany, H u x l e y observed that those who "accept the doctrine o f absolute mcaninglessncss tend in a short time t o become so m u c h dissatisfied w i t h their philosophy ( i n spite o f the services i t renders) that they w i l l exchange it f o r any dogma, however manifestly nonsensical, w h i c h restores meaning i f only t o a part o f the universe."' I n the end, H u x l e y himself 1

dropped the idea o f evolution as a theory o f meaninglessness and turned to the idea that in the impersonal cosmos, m a n can find a meaning t h r o u g h mystical experience, like the great mystics o f the past, b o t h East and West. As early as 1938 we can find an evolutionist espousing a new-age m y s t i cism.' W h a t he apparently d i d n o t realize is that something very similar to his mysticism was the intellectual background f o r Hitler's N a t i o n a l Socialism/ Cosmogony and cosmology w i l l n o t go away, nor w i l l they be l i m i t e d to nice stones about h o w everything began. I f we say, " I n the beginning, Bang!" our confession o f faith w i l l lead t o moral, ethical, social, and political consequences. A n i m a l rights, a b o r t i o n , infanticide, and euthanasia are p a r t and parcel o f a new ethical system that is being p r o m o t e d at Princeton University, A crucial assumption o f Peter Singers popular ethics textbook is a J

4

A i d o us H u x l e y , Ends and Means: An Etiqitiry into the S'atnre of ideals an¿ into the Methods Employed

for therr Realization ( L o n d o n : Charro and W i n d n s , 1 9 3 8 ' ,

212.

5

Ibid., 273.

6

Ibid., 275.

3

H e speaks o f "direct i n t u i t i o n o f an impersonal spiritual reality, underlying all bcina"

and he seems certain that personal reality is " n o t an u l t i m a t e fact.' Meditación leads t o the 7

mystical experience o f oneness. A n d rhis "cosmology has its c o r r c b r e d ethic." w h i c h is that " G o o d is that which makes for unity; E v i l is that w h i c h makes for separatencss." I b i d . , 2 9 4 , 295, 11

303.

George L . Masse, " I he M y s t i c a l O r i g i n s o f N a t i o n a l Socialism," Journal of the //fiJorv of

Ideas 22, no. I ( J a n . - M a r , 1 9 6 1 ) : 8 1 - 9 6 . 3

Peter Singer, Prattiial Ethks, second ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 ^ 9 . '


TRINITY A M ) CRKATION

53

logical conclusion or evolution: there is no reason t o assume the superiority o f the human race above other species. Besides p r o m o t i n g political policies that involve the redistribution o f wealth and restrictive laws t o protect the environment, Singer advocates legislation t o l i m i t the use o f animals f o r experiments, while at the same t i m e liberalizing our rights t o terminate h u man life. O f course, n o t all evolutionists agree w i t h Singer, but his views show us the kinds o f practical issues that bring cosmogony and worldview into the p o l i t i c a l arena. I n the end, the battle f o r the hearts and minds o f men is never separated f r o m the story o f the beginning.

Creation and Covenant Christians o f t e n argue f o r the scientific validity o f the biblical story, and their arguments have made a c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the understanding o f the Bible and history. B u t i n a discussion o f the Christian worldview, the science o f the b o o k o f Genesis is nor the focus. A l l that scientific apologetics f o r the b o o k o f Genesis gives us is the basic t r u t h that G o d created the w o r l d . I n a worldview discussion, this fact is certainly fundamental. Also, the historicity of the Genesis account is taken f o r granted f o r the simple reason that the Bible takes i t f o r granted. T h e historicity o f the original account, i n other words, is already an element in the w o r l d v i e w o f the Bible, W h a t is i m p o r tant f o r a deeper understanding is some consideration 01 the account itself and what i t teaches us about the w o r l d ,

Covenantal Structure W h e n we look at the actual narrative o f creation, we are struck by the way G o d docs things. M o d e r n men often scoff at the biblical account because they t h i n k the idea that G o d created the w o r l d i n just six days is absurd, as i f it should have taken longer. I f we know who the biblical G o d is, however, the problem is precisely the opposite. W h y d i d i t take G o d any longer than a mere instant: W h y d i d G o d create over a period of days? W h y d i d G o d speak to things that d i d n o t yet exist and command them to exist? W h y d i d G o d go through an almost ceremonial process o f evaluating what H e made each day and pronouncing it good? T h e narrative draws our attention to the process itself indicating its importance for our knowledge o f G o d and the world.


54

CHAPTHH HOUR

H o w shall we describe the course o f creation; I n a word, the process is eovenantal. Consider: G o d the L o r d commands the world i n t o existence. W h a t does creation by c o m m a n d mean? First, creation by c o m m a n d teaches G o d s transcendent sovereignty. T h e w o r l d does n o t emanate f r o m G o d s being o r evolve f r o m eternally existing stuff, as in the myths o f the ancient w o r l d . N o r does G o d merely m o l d preexisting things i n t o the forms H e desires, G o d makes the n o t h i n g i n t o something by H i s absolute command, demonstrating H i s sovereignty. H e is the L o r d above all, the L o r d o n w h o m all depends f o r its subsistence. I n d i s t i n c t i o n f r o m all the stories o f the ancient w o r l d around Israel, i n the Bible, G o d and the creation are never mixed. H i s transcendence and the dependence o f all things u p o n H i m is part o f what the Bible means when i t speaks o f H i m as Creator. T h e creative W o r d exhibits H i s L o r d s h i p over all. Second, wc can say that creation by c o m m a n d b o t h presupposes and establishes a relationship.The command presupposes something because G o d addresses H i s c o m m a n d s t o specific entities, such as l i g h t . W h e n G o d commands the light, w h i c h does n o t yet physically exist as light, clearly it does in fact exist in the plan o f G o d . G o d is b r i n g i n g about H i s o w n w i l l and plan when H e creates by c o m m a n d . T h e command establishes a relationship i n the sense that

God's c o m m a n d deter-

mines H i s lordship over

In a word»the process Of

that

commanded. We m i g h t

Creation ¡5 tOVenantal.

say that the very exist-

ence of" light constitutes

which

H e has

a special sort o f exist-

ence, existence as being-in-obedience" t o the L o r d s c o m m a n d . L i g h t is Jl

nor ontologically primitive. G o d d i d n o t take something already there and bend i t t o H i s purpose. Its existence is obedient existence. Needless t o say, that is true n o t just o f light, b u t o f the whole creation.To exist En obedience to G o d the L o r d is to exist i n covenant w i t h H i m . T o p u t i t i n different words, creation by c o m m a n d means that H e created the w o r l d i n t o the covenant relationship. G o d d i d n o t give a covenant t o the w o r l d after H e created it. T h e verv existence o f the created w o r l d is eovenantal. T h i r d , creation by c o m m a n d leads t o a natural eovenantal sequence, the almost ceremonial process o f creation that we see i n Genesis. W h e r e there is a command, there is naturally judgment. G o d looks t o see i f the light has obeved H i s c o m m a n d . W h e r e there is evaluation, there is naturallv sanction, God

blesses a l l that H e has created. Anyone familiar w i t h the Bible w i l l


TRINITY A N D CRKATION

55

recognize that c o m m a n d , evaluation, and sanction is the characteristic covcnantal sequence. G o d the covenant L o r d commands the w o r l d , w hich obeys and comes i n t o existence, G o d looks o n what H e has created and then blesses the w o r l d that H e has made. T h e covenantal p r o g r e s s i o n — c o m mand, evaluation, and blessing—not only shows us the relationship between G o d and the w o r l d , i t reveals the way G o d works and shows us what k i n d o f G o d the Creator is. I t is clear also that the progression moves generally f r o m the "lesser" to the "greater." G o d first creates the w o r l d , then fills it w i t h plants, and then creates animals. Finally H e creates m a n . T h e hierarchy i m p l i c i t here is made clear when G o d makes man the l o r d o f the w o r l d , the representative head under G o d (Gen. 1:28—30). G o d gave the whole w o r l d t o A d a m and Eve and w i t h it the task o f b r i n g i n g i t t o greater glory. Representation and hierarchy, structural elements o f the covenant, are an i m p o r t a n t aspect of the creation o f m a n and his responsibility in the w o r l d . F r o m the perspective o f cosmogony and cosmology, what we see i n Genesis is n o t just a story about what happened l o n g ago. W e see and understand the covenant relationship that G o d has w i t h the w o r l d and w i t h man, and the place of man as representative covenant head o f the w o r l d . Genesis tells n o r merely of the beginning o f the w o r l d , b u t also the nature o f the w o r l d — t h e way things are, G o d created by H i s W o r d (Ps. 33:6; H e b . 11:3; 2 Pet, 3:5). N o w H e rules by H i s W o r d (Ps. 103:20; 1 0 7 : 2 4 - 2 6 ; 147:15¬ 18; 148:5—6, 8; etc.). T h e b o o k of Hebrews points t o the covenantal nature o f the w o r l d when i t tells us that Jesus is " u p h o l d i n g all things by the w o r d o f H i s p o w e r " ( H e b . 1:3), T h e original w o r l d was created i n t o the covenant by the W o r d o f G o d , and since then G o d , in H i s providential direction o f the w o r l d , continues t o guide i t by H i s covenantal W o r d .

Covenantal Meaning I f the w o r l d is created i n t o a covenant w i t h G o d and i f m a n is set over the w o r l d as God's covenantal representative, then there is a fundamental covenantal meaning t o the w o r l d . T o fully appreciate the creation narrative i r o m a Christian perspective, we must consider i t i n light o f the N e w Testament revelation o f G o d , f o r what the N e w T e s t a m e n t shows us about the T r i n i t y is vital t o our understanding o f the creation.


56

CHAPTHH HOUR

Trinitarian Love T h e creation o f the w o r l d is a trinitarian w o r k . T h i s is .seen as early as Genesis 1:2 where the w o r k o f the H o l y S p i r i t i n creation is introduced (see also Ps, 104:30; Is. 4 0 : 1 3 ) . However, i t is n o t u n t i l the revelation we call the N e w Testament that we can f u l l y appreciate the meaning o f the Genesis account.The N e w T c s t a m e n t states that G o d created the w o r l d ( h p h . 3:9), and here " G o d " clearly refers t o the Father, But we read that the Son created the w o r l d (Jn. 1:3; C o l . 1:16). Just as Scripture teaches that Father, Son, and Spirit cooperated i n the creation of the w o r l d , so i t also depicts t h e m as w o r k i n g together t o save the w o r l d , which the N e w T c s t a m e n t calls the recreation o f the w o r l d . R e d e m p t i o n entails a new creation ( G a l . 6:15; 2 Cor. 5:17), a new heaven ( 2 Pet. 3 : 1 3 ) , a new earth (Rev. 2 1 : 1 ) , a new covenant ( H c b . 9:15), and a new Jerusalem (Rev, 2 1 : 2 ) . I n Christ, all things have become new. W h e n the trinitarian work o f redemption is called a new creation, i t suggests a repetition and renewal o f the trinitarian w o r k o f the original creation. I n other words, G o d works i n similar ways i n creation and redempt i o n . W h a t docs this mean concretely? Consider what Paul tells us: n o t only was the w o r l d created by Christ, b u t " f o r " o r " u n t o " C h r i s t ( C o l 1 : 1 6 ) . WTiat does that i m -

The Father, Son, and Spirit CO-

ply? T h e key t o understanding what i t means

operate in both the Creation

that the first creation was " f o r " Christ mav be

and re-creation of the World,

10

seen in the doctrine o f the new creation. In the doctrine o f redemption, we see that G o d saved a w o r l d o f men and gave them t o Christ (Jn. 17:2, 6, 9, 1 1 , 2 4 ; Ps. 2:8). So also, Jesus tells us that men can only come u n t o H i m when the Father draws t h e m (Jn. 6:44, 4 5 ,

" Please note rhat J only address one trinitarian peispecrive on creation. It seems t o me the mrt.sr obvious and rich perspective, hut there arc others. For example, the Bible repeatedly says that G o d created the w o r l d through Christ. T f i is statement is nor elucidated in derail, but the fact that the Son is called the W o r d o f G o d and that the creation of the w o r l d is ascribed to the W o r d suggests that we mav regard G o d the l ather as the one who speaks tfie W o r d , the Son as the W o r d spoken, and the Spirit as the breath of G o d which delivers, the W o r d to ils dcsiinLition, W e also have repeated examples o f FLU her as ihe one who plans, ihe Son a: rfie one who executes, and the Spirit as the one who applies. These and other trinitarian descriptions arc relevant t o creation and redemption. James Jordan suggests other trinitarian aspects o f creation i n his Creation in Six Days: A Defense of ihe Traditional Reading of Genesis Out (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 1 9 9 9 ) .



57

65). To fully appreciate this and complete the biblical picture, we must consider the w o r k o f the Spirit, T h e Spirit's w o r k is as vital in the new creation as i n the o l d . T h e Father brings men to Christ and gives m e n t o Christ only through the w o r k o f the H o l y Spirit (Jn. 3 : 5 - 6 ; Is. 4 4 : 3 - 4 ; Hzek. 3 6 : 2 5 - 2 7 ) . T h e S p i r i t brings the Bride to the Son. T h e n the Son sanctifies the Bride bv the Spirit ( h p h . 5:25— 27; R o m . 15:16; 1 Cor, 6 : 1 1 ; 2 T h e s . 2 : 1 3 ) , W h e n the Church is perfected and Christ's w o r k in the w o r l d is completed at the end o f history, H e w i l l present all things back to G o d the Father ( I Cor. 1 5 : 2 8 ) . T h u s , the S p i r i t is seen b r i n g i n g the Bride b o t h f r o m the Father to the Son and f r o m the Son to the Father. N o w the tnnitarian pattern is unambiguous: f r o m the Father by the Spirit to the Son, then from the Son by the S p i r i t to the Father. T h i s applies to the original creation and to the r e d e m p t i o n o f the w o r l d i n Christ also. T h e Father gives the church and the new world u n t o Christ by the Spirit. Christ sanctifies the redeemed w o r l d by the S p i r i t and then offers i t back to the Father. Redemption is b u i l t u p o n this mutual giving, showing us w i t h greater clarity what had been the pattern f o r the t r i n i t a r i a n w o r k or the original creation. F r o m the beginning, G o d created the world for Christ as well as through Christ ( C o l . 1 : 1 6 ) — w h i c h means that the w o r l d was given to the Son as a g i f t f r o m the Father. T h e Son, i n t u r n , was to have worked in the world by the H o l y S p i r i t through h u m a n i t y to f u l f i l l the purpose o f creation and offer the w o r l d back to the bather. T h e sin of A d a m and hve i n t e r r u p t e d the process ( i n a manner o f speaking); however, their sin d i d n o t u n d o the plan o f G o d . Because o f man's sin, the w o r k o f the Son in perfecting the creation in order to give i t back to the Father must include the work o f redemption. So, when the w o r l d was lost, the Father gave the Son to the w o r l d t h r o u g h the w o r k o f the S p i r i t ( M t . 1:18, 20; L k , 1:35). T h e Son died f o r the sins o f the w o r l d , rose f r o m the dead, and ascended o n high to work w i t h a new human race, b r i n g i n g the w o r l d back to the Father t h r o u g h the S p i r i t (Jn. 3 : 1 6 - 1 7 ; 1 2 : 3 1 - 3 3 ; 1 6 : 8 - 1 5 ; M t . 2 8 : 1 8 - 2 0 ) . T h e m u t u a l giving o f the covenant characterizes b o t h the original and the new creations, because m u t u a l giving defines the covenant as the expression o f love. G o d so loved the world that H e gave H i s Son. Paul says that the Son of G o d "loved me, and gave h i m s e l f f o r m e " (Gal. 2 : 2 0 ) . I n the same way, the greatest love a m a n can show is to give his life for his friends (Jn,


58

CHAPTHH

HOUR

15:13). M o r e than that, because o f the love and grace given to us in the gospel, each of us should respond in love, which means we should present our bodies as living sacrifices u n t o G o d ( R o m . 12:1—2). T h e theology o f the cross is nor only the theology o f sacrifice as the payment for s i n — though it is certainly and even p r i m a r i l y t h a t — i t is also the theology o f sacrifice as love and giving: " w a l k in love, just as Christ also loved y o u and gave H i m s e l f u p for us, an o f f e r i n g and a sacrifice to G o d as a fragrant aroma' ( E p h . 5:2), A l l o f this in t u r n is grounded in the love o f the trinitarian 1

covenant- I n the eternal love o f the covenant, the Father gives H i m s e l f to the Son by the S p i r i t and the Son gives H i m s e l f to the Father by the Spirit, Therefore, when G o d creates the w o r l d , the same relationships come to expression: G o d creates the w o r l d f o r the Son by the S p i r i t and the Son completes the w o r l d for the Father by the S p i r i t . T h e covenantal meaning o f the w o r l d , then, is that the w o r l d is the love g i f t of the Father t h r o u g h the Spirit to the Son. I t is an expression o f the covenantal fellowship o f love in the T r i n i n ' , an aspect of their m u t u a l enjoyment of one another.

Symbols of God Related to this love gift is a second aspect o f the meaning of the w o r l d . T h e w o r l d is created to manifest G o d , to show H i s glory: " T h e heavens declare the glory of G o d " (Ps. 19:1). But i t is n o t just the heavens—the Bible tells us that every created being and t h i n g reveals God- hven the events of history that we f i n d most distasteful are lessons to us f r o m G o d , T h e tents o f t h e destroyers prosper, a n d those w h o p r o v o k e G o d arc

se-

cure, w h o m G o d b r i n g s i n t o t h e i r p o w e r B u i n o w ask the beasts, a n d let t h e m teach y o u : a n d t h e b i r d s o f t h e heavens, a n d let t h e m t e l l y o n . O r speak t o the e a r t h , a n d 1er i t reach y o u ; a n d let t h e f i s h o f the sea declare t o y o u . W h o a m o n g a l l these does n o r k n o w t h a t the h a n d o f the L O R D has d o n e t h i s : i n w h o s e h a n d is the life o f every l i v i n g t h i n g , a n d the breath o f all m a n k i n d ? D o e s n o r the ear test w o r d s , as the palate tastes its f o o d ? (Joh

12:6-11)

Job's p o i n t is n o t simply " G o d d i d i t . " Job is saying that in all o f these matters—the animals and the very dust o f the earth that G o d created, as well as the mysterious and unpleasant facts o f the world's h i s t o r y — w e see the hand o f G o d and come to k n o w H i m . G o d confronts us t h r o u g h H i s


59


creation. Pan! .says that the invisible things o f G o d are k n o w n since the creation of the w o r l d because the world reveals God's invisible attributes (Rom. 1:19-20). To state this more specifically, we must say that all of the w o r l d and every fact and created t h i n g is a general symbol o f G o d in the sense that everything represents H i m , manifesting w h o H e is and c o n f r o n t i n g us w i t h H i s presence. M a n is G o d s special symbol, H i s i m age (Gen 1:26—28). As such, "Man is the only symbol that is also a symbol-maker." T h e w o r l d and history arc J1

Symbolism creates reality, not Vice Versa,

symbols because G o d created t h e m t o reveal H i m . M a n is G o d s special symbol because G o d created man as H i s representative i n creation, H i s very image. I n the biblical creationist worldview, symbol and representation are p r o f o u n d l y significant. James Jordan expresses i t i n these words, " I n a very real sense, symbolism is more i m p o r t a n t than anyt h i n g else for the life o f m a n , "

12

T h e power of s y m b o l i s m is the power o f worldview presuppositions. I t is the greatest power i n the w o r l d . A l l o f language is symbolic, o f course, b u t symbolism is n o t limited to words. S y m b o l i s m creates realitv, n o t vice versa. T h i s is another way o f saying that essence precedes existence. G o d determined h o w things should be, and then they were.

13

As we p o i n t e d o u t above, God's plan t o create light and H i s i n t e n t i o n for light precede the existence o f light itself. But there is m o r e . T h e creation o f the w o r l d as a symbol o f G o d also means that the whole w o r l d o f symbols is a l i n k e d network that reveals G o d in one manner or another. Animals, plants, rocks, planets, and suns all reveal G o d in their o w n distinctive ways, b u t they also reveal H i m as they are integrated i n t o a symbolic system that proclaims the name o f the Creator. T h e center o f this network is m a n k i n d , G o d s special symbol and symholizer. W e learn o f G o d through the w o r l d and imitate G o d s s y m b o l i z i n g in our daily life. W e make special days, special clothes, and special documents that communicate various meanings that we assign t o them. O u r ceremonies

11

Jame\ B. Jordan, Through JVW TTyrj: Developing a P,ihlieal View of the WorU ( B r e n r w i i o d . Term,:

WoUrcmuth and Hyarc, 1988), T h e entire section here on symbolism is based upon [ordan's work, which is flic besr inrroducrion t o biblical symbolism as the key of rhc biblical worldview. 1 1

Ibid., 30

13

Ibid., 32.


60

CHAPTHH

HOUR

commemorate special Historical events. We celebrate birthdays and anniversaries. I n all o f these activities, we are being distinctly G o d - l i k e . H e is the ultimate svmbolizer. O u r w o r k i n history is always modeled after—con¬ sciously or u n c o n s c i o u s l y — H i s p r i o r s y m b o l i z i n g w o r k i n creation. T h i s suggests that man's t h i n k i n g cannot be confined t o the k i n d of rational processes we find in philosophical logic, because t h i n k i n g involves [he whole man i n ways that are too messy for a syllogism. O u r conscious chinking reflects our dreams and fears, our family backgrounds, our culture, our relationships w i t h friends and enemies, our o w n physical bodies and appetites, not t o m e n t i o n an i n f i n i t e number of detailed factors of heredity, experience, aesthetic sensitivities, and t o o many other things to list. H o w ever, the most fundamental aspect o f our true inner reality is our relationship w i t h G o d . T h e Bible says that we either fear G o d — u n d e r s t a n d i n g 'tear" as love, trust, and reverence t o our Father i n heaven—or we hate H i m (Prov. 1:7; R o m . 8:7). U n d e r the influence o f this basic attitude, man's thoughts connect and develop i n an i n f i n i t e variety o f ways. T h u s , neither scientific discovery nor logical deduction can be l i m i t e d exclusively t o the rational processes that m o d e r n man believes are his special dignity. O n the contrary, scientific discovery and everyday attempts t o figure o u t our difficulties include all sorts of i n t u i t i o n a l , social, and other essentially non-rational factors. I n particular, what we call metaphor is n o t just a matter o f poetry, i t is an inescapable part of our hardware, for we are attuned t o the symbols o f the w o r l d that G o d has created. W e feel the presence o f G o d in the w o r l d , whether we can f i n d the r i g h t chain o f reasoning to explain what we feel or not. W e see more than we can tell i n syllogisms. We t h i n k in part by rational deduction and i n d u c t i o n , b u t we also discover by i n t u i t i n g the associations of the symbolic system of God's world. W h a t we have seen about the w o r k i n g o f mans m i n d also teaches us something about G o d . W e must n o t t h i n k o f H i m as the grand computer, an i n f i n i t e digital system. I t is true that G o d is w h o l l y rational and there is n o t h i n g H e does n o t f u l l y know. N e i t h e r the w o r l d nor history contains mystery for G o d . T o H i m , the whole is a logical system, but the links o f the system are n o t impersonal.The system is n o t definable i n formulas. G o d the omniscient one is also the grand artist w h o made a beautiful w o r l d that symbolizes H i m s e l f and reveals H i s glory. T h i s revelation is n o t for man



fil

only. I f the w o r l d is the g i f t of the Father t o the Son t h r o u g h the Spirit, then the world reveals the glory o f the Father t o the Son and o f the Son t o the Father. T h e revelation o f God's glory is first and foremost an aspect of intertrinitarian fellowship and c o m m u n i o n , M a n may never k n o w the f u l l meaning of the symbols o f the w o r l d , f o r the ramifications o f each and every symbol resonate w i t h the whole in an unfathomably complex matrix o f t r u t h . B u t G o d knows the f u l l meaning, and that is what matters. T h e Persons o f the T r i n i t y share their enjoyment o f the w o r l d w i t h one another as the w o r l d reflects the beauty o f G o d , T h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of sin into the w o r l d brings f u r t h e r complexity. W i t h o u t sin, harmony, beauty, and glory w o u l d have increased u n t i l the end when the w o r l d w o u l d have f u l f i l l e d its potential and G o d w o u l d have been wholly satisfied w i t h H i s creation. I n a symbolic w o r l d , sin has symbolic manifestations. I t follows that the fallen w o r l d includes symbolic representations

of

God's wrath against man's sin and rebellion. As we shall later see, w r a t h is outraged love. I t is the love o f the Father f o r the Son that w i l l n o t allow H i s name t o be tarnished. T h e blasphemy o f the H o l y Spirit w i l l n o t be forgiven. In G o d s wrath, then, what we sec is the same covcnantaJ

fellowship

o f love that characterized the original creation, n o w w o r k i n g t h r o u g h the history of fallen man. W h e n we understand that the symbolism of the w o r l d is primarily an aspect of the trínítarían conversation and fellowship, we are ready t o appreciate how p r o f o u n d l y significant it is that G o d reveals H i m s e l f t o man. I t is n o t so much that G o d condescends to speak t o man, as i t is that G o d lifts man u p into the heavenly conversation. T h e symbolizing w o r k o f c r e a t i o n — the glorious expression o f God's infinite and m a n i f o l d beauty—is first o f all a fellowship o f love between the Persons o f the T r i n i t y . But G o d brings man i n t o that fellowship. T o be i n covenant w i t h G o d is t o be i n dialogue w i t h H i m . I n this way, we are allowed t o k n o w what G o d knows and enjoy what H e enjoys: "Taste and see that the L o r d is g o o d ! " (Ps. 3 4 : 8 ) .

Covenantal Purpose T r i n i t a r i a n love as the essence o f the covenant and symbolism as covenantal revelation f o r m the broad covenantal context for the doctrine o f man. W h e n G o d created man, there was a t r i n i t a r i a n counsel: " L e t us make man i n our


62

CHAPTHH HOUR

own image and according t o o u r o w n likeness" (Gen. 1 : 2 6 ) . T h i s is fulfilled immediately; " G o d created man i n H i s o w n image, in the image o f G o d H e created h i m ; male and female H e created t h e m " (Gen. 1:27). M a n was created i n the image of God, n o t o f G o d and the angels.

13

Furthermore, m a n

images G o d n o t merely as an individual, b u t as a society. A d a m and bvc together, covenantally united i n marriage, are the image o f G o d . Together [hey are H i s covenantal representatives i n the w o r l d . A l l their children after [hem w o u l d have been part o f the same covenantal family and fellowship had A d a m n o t sinned. W h e n we come t o the story o f the creation o f man, we understand f o r the first time the meaning o f creation i n six days. G o d could have created the w o r l d i n an instant, b u t H e d i d n o t . H e d i d the work o f creation n o t only t o b r i n g things i n t o existence, but, more importantly, t o b r i n g things into a special k i n d o f existence, and t o d o i t i n way that w o u l d establish a pattern for man t o follow. G o d worked six days and rested one t o show man how t o finish the work o f g l o r i f y i n g the w o r l d . Just as G o d created the w o r l d as an act o f intertrinitarian fellowship, H e gave the world t o m a n as g i f t o f love, f o r man is H i s image. G o d worked in the world t o manifest H i m s e l f each Person of the T r i n i t y b r i n g i n g glory to the others. H a v i n g been created i n t o a covenant relationship, m a n shares that same fellowship o f love. G o d gives h i m the w o r l d that H e has made i n six days and says to man, i n effect, " I m i t a t e M e . W o r k Tlie essence Of mail's

six days and rest one and complete the work I have be-

WQfk IS worship.

gun." T h i s is mans historical task, a w o r k o f covenantal fellowship, finishing the work o f creation by bringing to

mature expression the glory that G o d placed i n the w o r l d . G o l d is a good example o f the meaning o f this w o r k . G o d h i d g o l d in the earth so that man could mine i t f r o m the g r o u n d , refine i t , and then use it t o make objects o f beauty that manifest the glory o f G o d and b r i n g pleasure to b o t h G o d and man. Man's sin i n the Garden d i d n o t suspend the historical task. N o a h is given the same commission that A d a m was (Gen. 9:1—7). But man cannot truly f u l f i l l his task apart f r o m Ghnst, íor the essence o f mans w o r k is worship. G o d gives the w o r l d t o man as a gift o f love. M a n responds t o God's •' T h i s is the interpretation o f " L e r u s " suggested by many Jewish thinkers and n o t a few Chrisrians.



63

love by presenting h i m s e l f and his w o r k back t o God- H i s labor is sharing III i the covcnantal fellowship o f the T r i n i t y ; T o offer one's w o r k t o G o d as a response to H i s i n f i n i t e love in Christ is what i t means f o r a Christian t o live out H i s calling i n the this w o r l d . T h u s Paul says, " F o r we are his w o r k m a n ship, created i n Christ Jesus f o r g o o d works, which G o d before prepared that we should walk in t h e m " ( H p h . 2 : 1 0 ) . I n a w o r l d o f sin, giving ourselves t o G o d requires dying t o self T h e vain attempt to p u t ourselves first, above G o d a n d all other men, exhibits the very heart o f our s i n f u l nature. Jesus had t o die t o save us f r o m sin, taking the curse that our sins deserve. We d o not die for our o w n sins or for the sins o f others, b u t we are called t o walk i n the way o f the cross. T h e way o f the cross is a life o f self-denial, presenting ourselves u n t o G o d as living sacrifices ( R o m . 12:1—2). I t this aspect o f our labor for G o d is missing, all our works w i l l be i n v a i n — t h a t is, as far as we are concerned. G o d uses the works o f all men, i n c l u d i n g the wicked, t o further H i s k i n g d o m program, but only those deeds that are done i n righteousness are accepted as expressions o f covenanral love and fellowship, Paul tells us that the resurrection v i c t o r y o f Christ is the guarantee that God's plan w i l l be accomplished. Jesus d i d n o t just die for sin. H e also rose f r o m the dead and is n o w seated at the r i g h t hand o f G o d . There, H e rules the w o r l d and works through H i s b o d y the C h u r c h t o finish the w o r k that G o d began when H e created the w o r l d . Jesus, the last A d a m , w i l l finish the work that H e H i m s e l f began i n H i s life and by H i s death and resurrection. Just as a sinless A d a m w o u l d have been a covenantal partner o f G o d to complete the w o r k o f m a k i n g a glorious w o r l d , so m a n i n Christ is made a covcnantal partner t o fight the g o o d fight and t o rebuild the ruined city, Christ "the head'' works t h r o u g h the S p i r i t i n H i s body, the Church, so that G o d and m a n i n covenantal u n i o n w i l l b r i n g about the glorious realization o f God's original creation purpose.

Kor since b y m a n came death, by m a n came also t h e r e s u r r e c t i o n o f t h e dead. f o r as i n A d a m all d i e , so also i n C h r i s t s h a l l a l l be m a d e alive. Bur each i n his o w n o r d e r : C h r i s t t h e first/fruits; t h e n t h e y t h a t are C h r i s t ' s , at h i s c o m i n g . T h e n cometh rhe end.


64

CHAPTHH

HOUR

w h e n he shall d e l i v e r u p t h e k i n g d o m t o G o d , even the F a t h e r ; w h e n he s h a l l have a b o l i s h e d a l l r u l e a n d a l l a u t h o r i t y ' a n d power, F o r he m u s t reign, n i l he h a t h p u t all his enemies u n d e r his feet. T h e last enemy t h a t shall be a b o l i s h e d is d e a t h . For, H e p u t a l l t h i n g s i n s u b j e c t i o n u n d e r his feet. B u t w h e n he s a i t h . A l l t h i n g s are p u t i n s u b j e c t i o n , it is evident t h a t he is excepted w h o d i d subject a l l t h i n g s u n t o h i m . A n d w h e n a l l t h i n g s have been s u b j e c t e d u n t o h i m , [ h e n shall the S o n also h i m s e l f be s u b j e c t e d t o h r m t h a t d i d subject a l l t h i n g s u n t o h i m , t h a t G o d m a y be a l l i n a l l . ; i Cor.

15:21-28)

Conclusion T h e biblical view of creation has i m p o r t a n t implications that we w i l l explore in the rest of this book, b u t t w o of those implications may be stated briefly here since they w i l l n o t be considered further. Hirst, we should consider the meaning of this view o f creation for science. T h e biblical view o f creation as the g i f t o f the Father to the Son t h r o u g h the S p i r i t augments the t r u t h expressed in an earlier chapter that the Christian worldview is totally personal. Since creation itself and history arc under the authority o f God's W o r d , the trinitarian G o d H i m s e l f is obviously the heart of the Christian "theory o f every t h i n g . There are no impersonal laws, only G o d s habits. But 1

[his view does n o t render science irrelevant or less i m p o r t a n t . O n the contrary, the Christian view o f a rational and personal w o r l d was the basis for the b i r t h of science, and it is the only real f o u n d a t i o n for c o n t i n u i n g to pursue science in our day. As Stanley Jaki demonstrated:

G r e a t c u l t u r e s , where t h e s c i e n t i f i c e n t e r p r i s e came t o a s t a n d s t i l l , i n v a r i a b l y failed t o f o r m u l a t e the n o t i o n o f p h y s i c a l law, o r t h e law o f n a t u r e . 1 heirs was a t h e o l o g y w i t h n o b e l i e f i n a p e r s o n a l , r a t i o n a l , a b s o l u t e t r a n s c e n d e n t L a w g i v e r , o r C r e a t o r . T h e i r c o s m o l o g y reflected a p a n t h e i s t i c a n d a n i m i s t i c view o f n a t u r e c a u g h t i n the t r e a d m i l l o f p e r e n n i a l , inexorable r e t u r n s . T h e scientific quest f o u n d f e r t i l e s o i l o n l y w h e n t h i s f a i t h i n a p e r s o n a l , r a t i o n a l C r e a t o r h a d t r u l y p e r m e a t e d a w h o l e c u l t u r e , b e g i n n i n g w i t h the c e n t u r i e s o f t h e H i g h M i d d l e Ages. I t was t h a t f a i t h w h i c h p r o v i d e d , i n s u f f i c i e n t measure, c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e r a t i o n a l i t y o f the universe, t r u s t i n progress, a n d


65


a p p r e c i a t i o n o f the q u a n t i t a t i v e m e t h o d , all indispensable

ingredients

of

the s c i e n t i f i c quest.

T h i s view of creation also makes the purpose o f science very clear. Science is n o t the pursuit o f ultimate answers, b u t penultimate answers—answers that w i l l make us better stewards o f the w o r l d - Science gives us tools that extend our understanding in order t o gain w i s d o m for d o m i n i o n , f rom a Christian perspective, therefore, the w o r k o f science is a vital aspect of mans f u l f i l l m e n t o f his historical destiny. M a n cannot develop the creation t o its f u l l potential w i t h o u t the w o r k of science. Scientific knowledge enables us t o use our resources more wisely and productively, which i n t u r n allows us to b u i l d a w o r l d in w h i c h disease, poverty, and many other ravages o f mans sin may be reduced. Science ties into works o f charity, n o t only through medicine b u t also t h r o u g h technology, energy-related science, and agriculture, t o name only a tew o f the most obvious aspects. Science extends the c o m f o r t and blessings o f our lives as it extends d o m i n i o n . W i t h planes, trains, and automobiles, we are freed in part f r o m the burdens o f travel and the l i m i t s o f time. Refrigerators,

computers,

televisions, and washing machines release us from some o f the time-consuming tasks o f the past and give us more time t o enjoy the blessings o f t h i s l i f e — a n essential aspect o f God's plan i n creating the w o r l d . H e made foods w i t h different flavors so that we c o u l d t u r n the simple act o f obtaining necessary nourishment i n t o gastronomic delight and fellowship. A meal can be a w o r k of art i n which we rejoice i n the goodness o f G o d . I t is an example o f how we take H i s gifts, combine them i n new ways, and t r a n s f o r m them i n t o something even more glorious. I n our day, a repast of fine cuisine depends u p o n the advances o f science and technology. A n o t h e r i m p l i c a t i o n of this view of creation is a Christian view o f the environment."'There

k

is an oft-repeated slander that C h r i s t i a n i t y endorses

" Stanlcv Jaki, Seietiee and Creation, rev. cd. ( E d i n b u r g h : Scottish Academic Press, 1986).

viri. N o t e that Jaki thinks o f law in terms o f die personal c o m m a n d o f the Creator, n o t as 3ii impersonal principle ro which b o t h G o d and man musr submit. In this .sense, his perspective is more o r less the same as that presented here, t h a t natural law as such does n o t exist. W h a t we call laws arc God's covenants! ways. Jaki is correct, however, i n insisting that God's ways are regular and law-like, for man could n o t exercise d o m i n i o n i f they were not. l 6

T w o books that deal w i t h i m p o r t a n t environmental issues a i t Peter Huber's Hard Green:

Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists (New

Y o r k ; ftasie Books, 1 9 9 9 )

and

ftjwrn


6(i

CHAPTHH

HOUR

the "rape o f the world/' since it says that man is l o r d and he can do what he pleases. T h i s is similar to the slander that says because Christianity teaches that man is the head o f his home, it permits m e n to abuse their wives. W h a t the Bible really teaches is very different. A c c o r d i n g to the Bible, to be the leader means to sacrifice oneself f o r the other, as Christ sacrificed H i m s e l f for the Church- I f Christ is the pattern for the h u s b a n d — a n d H e i s — t h e n what the Bible calls for is self-sacrificial love that glorifies the wife. T h i s is nor a view that promotes abuse o f any k i n d . I n the same way, i f we view the w o r l d as the g i f t of the Father to the Son t h r o u g h the Spirit, we cannot treat the w o r l d w i t h reckless abandon. Q u i t e the contrary, we should w o r k to glorify i t and bring o u t its potential so that, i n u n i o n w i t h Christ, we can offer it back to G o d in gratitude f o r H i s goodness. I n ancient Israel, G o d gave a parcel o f land to each family- T h e i r responsibility was to w o r k the land to develop i t and b r i n g o u t its potential, a w o r k that w o u l d require generations o f labor. Each generation had the responsibility to take what i t inherited and improve i t f o r the next generation, so that 7

each generation w o u l d receive more n o t less, better n o t worse, than what the previous generation inherited. Generational g r o w t h and progress i n the care of the land was the rule. T h i s obviously included protecting one's property as a part of God's creation. G i v i n g rest t o the land and the animals, taking care n o t to pollute the land, and similar issues are all dealt w i t h i n the law of G o d f o r Israel. T h o u g h O l d Testament land laws arc n o t something that we are t o apply directly to m o d e r n societies, we can apply their w i s d o m in chinking t h r o u g h our o w n situation so that we can g l o r i f y G o d t h r o u g h the creation. Even i f the details are complicated and vary according to historical circumstances, one basic principle can be stated simply; T h e best steward o f land and p r o p e r t y is the family. T h e family has the k i n d o f loving interest that motivates one generation to labor self-sacnfinally f o r the blessing o f the next. N o other i n s t i t u t i o n is more fit f o r the role o f primary owner o f Lomborg, The Skcpiiea! Euvirvinnenialist; Measuring ihe foal Sidle of ¡he llkrld (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2001). Neither of these books presents a specifically Christian view of the environment, and it is not my intention to endorse all rhey have to say. But both books show that what comes to us in the popular media as "facts" are often highly biased distortions of the real situation, and what are promoted as solutions are frequency neither necessary nor practical and sometimes may even be harmful to the environment, nor to mention economically unfeasible.


67


property and steward of the land. T h e state has a role to play in making laws that protect property and punish those w h o abuse God's creation.The church has a role i n t r a i n i n g the family to understand its generational responsibility. But ownership o f land should be p r i m a r i l y a family affair. These and other issues deserve fuller development, b u t our p o i n t here is to suggest something of the fullness and richness o f the practical applications o f the Christian doctrine o f creation as the cosmogony u p o n w h i c h the Christian view o f the w o r l d is built.

Review Questions

2,

Define and explain the differences between the words costaogou^ and uWJvjfw. hxplam the importance of cosmogony for one's worldview.

3,

What do wc learn from the way God created the world:

1,

cosmology,

4, Explain the significance of creation by command. 5, How is trimtarian love seen in the creation of the world; (-). Relate the ideas of giving and love in the gospel and creation. 7.

Explain what |ames Jordan means when he says, "symbolism is more important than anything else for the life of man."

8.

What are the implications of the idea that man is not only a symbol but also a symbol izey?

9. What was God s original covenants! purpose for man and creation? 10. How did the introduction of sin into the world affect God's original covenantal purpose;



5.Trinity and Revelation O K ! [ Of- THE MOST respected names m the field o f comparative religion, W i l f r e d Cantwell S m i t h , in an erudite volume entitled What is Scripture? A Comparative Approach, characterizes "scripture" as a " h u m a n and an historical fact."

1

For S m i t h and m o d e r n comparative religionists in general, "scrip-

t u r e " means simply "sacred book, ' or a religiously authoritative b o o k — o n e 1

the c o m m u n i t y accepts, f o r w i t h o u t "a c o m m u n i t y reception and preservation of it, i t is otiose." T h i s sounds reasonable at first glance. W i t h o u t a 2

c o m m u n i t y that believes and preserves a sacred book, the b o o k disappears. Sacred books, therefore, depend u p o n the religious c o m m u n i t y . But to define things i n this manner is t o ignore the most decisive issues. H o w can we separate the question o f Scripture from the question o f revelation or the even more fundamental question o f the nature o f G o d ; Christians arc often t o l d that every religion has its " b i b l e " but in fact, only the religion o f the B i b l e — C h r i s t i a n i t y — o r religions that are to some degree based u p o n the Bible, such as Christian cults, Judaism, and Islam, have any real n o t i o n o f Scripture. Even among these, Christianity alone has a meaningful doctrine o f Scripture, because only Christianity has a meaningful doctrine o f revelation, one that is an expression oi its understanding o f G o d . Contrary to the approach o f scholars o f comparative religion, the

1

What rs Scripture? A Comparative Approach ( M i n n e a p o l i s : fortress, 1 9 9 3 j . 21.

69


70

CHAPTHR

hJVK

Christian claim is that apart f r o m the doctrine o f t h e T r i n i t y , a meaningful doctrine o f revelation and Scripture cannot be f o r m u l a t e d .

The Problem of God and Revelation T o appreciate the issues involved, i t may help t o consider the p r o b l e m o f G o d and revelation f r o m the perspective o f various religions. Before we can do that, however, we must first define the p r o b l e m of G o d and revelation. T o do this, we must consider t w o f u r t h e r questions, the first being more general: W h y w o u l d G o d reveal H i m s e l f ? T h e second more specific quest i o n relates revelation directly t o the matter o f scripture: W h y w o u l d G o d reveal H i m s e l f i n words? I f every religion has its o w n "bible," then every religion must have answers t o these questions. O n l y a god w h o has a reason t o reveal himsrlf in words w o u l d give m a n k i n d a bible. But what sort o f god is that? A s k i n g these questions írom the perspective o f each oí the great religions throws more light o n the issue. H o w m i g h t a Buddhist answer? B u d d h i s m cannot even begin t o address these questions, for in Buddhism there is n o G o d and n o t h i n g properly analogous t o the Christian idea o f the Bible, I t is true that Buddhists have holy b o o k s — m o r e

than any other

religion, more than any m a n can read

Only a god who has a reason to reveal him-

in one lifetime/ But Buddhists do not

self in words would give mankind a bible.

claim that these books constitute revelation f r o m G o d , T h e y are merely books o f w i s d o m that are supposed to [each us the r i g h t path. Since, f o r the Buddhist, there is n o G o d above to reveal H i m s e l f , "God's W o r d " does n o t exist, except as an illusion i n the minds o f non-Buddhists. M u s l i m s and Jews, o n the other hand, believe in one G o d and claim to believe in the G o d o f the Bible." But because they deny the T r i n i t y they have 1

a p r o b l e m when they c o n f r o n t the biblical n o t i o n o f revelation. W h y should 5

" I n che whole panorama* rhe first matter that strikes a comparativist observer is the

stupendous quantities o f Ruddhisr scriprures, . , . One may he confident that no one has ever read everything included in rhe Ruddhisr scripmral realm (or ever k n o w n all rhe languages needed t o do so?); o r ever wanted t o , " I b i d . , 146—47. 4

J sav " c l a i m ' because Jesus taught that those who d o n o t believe in H i m do n o t know the

true G o d o r even really believe i n rhe writings o f Moses: " D o nor t h i n k that I shall accuse you t o the Father; there is one w h o accuses y o u — M o s e s , i n w h o m y o u t r u s t . F o r i f you


TRINITY A N D KHVKLATION'

71

an eternal monad communicate when c o m m u n i c a t i o n w o u l d be contrary to its very nature? À monad w o u l d bave no reason to communicate, at least u n t i l the creation o f rational beings. Even then, c o m m u n i cation w o u l d n o t be necessary- I f one says, as some M u s l i m s do, that the K o r a n was "beside A l l a h f o r all eternity," we have to ask why. W h e r e d i d this impulse to c o m municate come f r o m ; In the case oi A l l a h , the only ones to w h o m he could have communicated are men, angels, and the various and sundry other rational creatures in the M u s l i m cosmos. C o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h created beings, o f course, is not eternal. But if c o m m u n i c a t i o n is so essential to A l l a h that the Koran is eternal, then A l l a h is dependent o n his creation f o r the realization o f his desire to communicate. A l l a h , w i t h the Koran beside h i m , would he compelkd to create in order f o r his c o m m u n i c a t i o n to be meaningful. For a M u s l i m t o acknowledge this, o f course, w o u l d be to deny A l l a h s transcendence. We still have no satisfactory answer to the question o f revelation or to our related question: W h y should an absolute m o n a d , i n w h o m there is no plurality whatsoever, communicate in words} Allah, after all, could have used any number o f nonverbal means to communicate w i t h his creatures, and he could have done so in a way that d i d n o t involve contaminating his eternal monadic p u r i t y w i t h the c o r r u p t i o n o f plurality. For example, many Buddhist pantheists believe in an immediate act o f i n t u i t i o n as a means to draw near to the One. W h e n this and other means are available, why should a m o n a d prefer a m e t h o d that involves plurality ? Furthermore, since plurality can never be ultimate when G o d is a monad, how could plural words communicate the n o n p l u r a l ultimate truth? I n Islam, words and every other form

o f m u l t i p l i c i t y arc inseparably connected w i t h the creation. H e r e i n

lies the problem f o r Islam; the Koran is supposedly an eternal plurality o f words—revealed by the essentially nonverbal One. W h y w o u l d the One who is silent f r o m eternity seek to communicate? T h e contradiction is p r o found. D i f f e r e n t b u t no less serious problems c o n f r o n t polytheistic religions, such as popular H i n d u i s m . T h o u g h i t is possible to imagine that the gods believed Moses, you w o u l d believe M e ; for he wrote abour M e . Eur i f you do not believe bis wE itings, h o w w i l l y o u believe M y words?" (John 5 : 4 5 ^ 7 ; c f 8:19; 14:7; l(r.3).

We see how

wrong is the c o m m o n idea among O i r i \ r i , i n \ rhar the Jew* believe in rhe C o d u f rhe O l d Testament and Christians i n the G o d o f the New. A c c o r d i n g t o Jesus, whoever denies the Son docs n o t k n o w the true G o d at all.


72

CHAPTHR

hJVH

communicate w i t h one another, i t is n o t possible to imagine that a unified word comes f r o m the gods. In the biblical idea, Scripture is a self-consistent, comprehensive, integrated w o r d . But the gods o f polytheism contradict one another, and even the most p o w e r f u l can never be sure that his o r her plan w i l l prevail in history. T h e gods do n o t and cannot k n o w the future. I t is beyond their c o n t r o l . Polytheistic revelation, then, however communicated, cannot be t r u t h . A t best, i t could only be the hopes, fears, opinions, or pontifications o f one finite b u t relatively p o w e r f u l being to another, who, at least f o r a while, is metaphysically lower o n the ontological scale. Here, then, we see the real p r o b l e m o f Scripture that S m i t h tailed t o address: the p r o b l e m o f the nature o f revelation and the nature o f the G o d w h o reveals H i m s e l f . T h e biblical answer is so different f r o m that o f the other religions that we w o u l d expect i t t o be o f t e n remarked u p o n , b u t we w o u l d be wrong. I t is usually ignored. Even scholars w h o have given the subject some t h o u g h t d o n o t seem t o fully grasp it. For whatever reason, i t is n o t adequately understood that C h r i s t i a n i t y has unique and compelling answers t o the fundamental questions about revelation. W h y should G o d reveal H i m s e l f • Because H e is a triune G o d for w h o m the fellowship and mutual c o m m u n i c a t i o n o f Father, Son, and Spirit is essential. I t is n o t possible t o imagine the Christian G o d n o t communicating, because c o m m u n i c a t i o n is an aspect o f H i s covenantal life as G o d . W h v w o u l d G o d reveal H i m s e l f in words? Because there is something about human language that is so perfectly analogous t o the c o m m u n i c a t i o n of the Persons o f the T r i n i t y that the Second Person may Communication is an aspect

be called the W o r d o f G o d . H u m a n language is

of God^S COVeoantal life.

the created analogue o f one o f the modes, perhaps the most i m p o r t a n t , o f divine communica-

t i o n . For G o d t o have given us verbal revelation, then, is what we w o u l d have expected. Once we posit that the Christian G o d creates man i n H i s image and gives m a n the g i f t o f language, i t follows ineluctably that the Christian G o d must communicate verbally t o H i s image, even as the Persons o f the T r i n i t y communicate among themselves."

5

Obviously, the Persons o f the T r i n i t y d o n o t literally speak words, for G o d is a s p i r i t and

H e does not possess the physical apparatus for verbalizing as we do. But it w o u l d be perverse to assume that is a l i m i t a t i o n . F r o m rhc Christian perspective, the i m p o r t a n t p o i n t is that G o d created man i n H i s own image. I n so doing, H e invites us t o a n t h r o p o m o r p h i z e . I t is


TRINITY AND RHVKLATION

73

The God Who Communicates In non-Christian religions and i n d i s t o r t i o n s o f biblical religion, tbe gods may or may not speak ( o r there may be no god at all), b u t verbal c o m m u n i cation itself rarely, i f ever, becomes a subject for theological reflection. W h e n we consider the G o d o f the Bible, however, the question o f verbal c o m m u nication is essential, f o r the biblical G o d typically acts by speaking—as when H e created the w o r l d by c o m m a n d i n g creatures i n t o existence. L a n g u a g e — spoken and w r i t t e n — i s obviously something much more fundamental f o r the biblical worldview than i t can be for n o n - t r i n i t a r i a n religions o r a secular w o r l d view. T h i s is n o t t o suggest that G o d only reveals H i m s e l f by words, for the Bible is clear that G o d reveals H i m s e l f i n other ways as well. I t is c o m m o n i n Christian theology t o speak o f general and special revelation, meaning revelation that comes through the w o r l d G o d has created and revelation that comes t h r o u g h words. I t is better, however, t o consider revelat i o n f r o m a threefold perspective, f o r i n H i s self-revelation, G o d s trinitarian character is manifest/' T h o u g h a f u l l biblical analysis o f the idea o f revelation is n o t possible here, understanding the basic trinitarian nature o f revelation is essential to appreciating the place o f revelation i n the Christian worldview. À trinitarian approach t o the biblical idea o f revelation must emphasize that revelation is through H i s presence, through H i s words, and through H i s deeds. In other words, G o d reveals H i m s e l f ( 1 ) as a Person, ( 2 ) i n H i s words, and ( 3 ) h i manifestations o f power. T h i s threefold revelation o f H i m s e l f to m a n is grounded i n the fellowship o f the T r i n i t y . The. G o d o f the Bible is the G o d for w h o m self-giving and fellowship, c o m m u n i c a t i o n and sharing, are essential t o H i s triune covenantal beino.

The Son and the Father As we have seen in a previous chapter, the relationship between Christ and the bather shows us n o t merely the relationship between the incarnate Son not simply that wc have no other way t o speak about G o d , it is. rather, that H e desires us to jpeak o f H i m i n these terms. T h e o l o g i c a l

a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m presupposes the p r i o r

t h c o m o r p h k creation. s

James Jordan offers a much fuller starcmcnr o f a trim ran an perspective on revelation m

his newsletter Open Book, n o . 3 0 - 3 4 ^ h t i p ; / / w w w . b i b l i e a l h o r i z o n s , c o m ) .


74

CHAPTHR H V H

and G o d . It also provides insight into the relationship among the Persons o f the Godhead. W e m i g h t t h i n k o f the relationship between Jesus and the Father and the relationship between the Son and the Father as relatively distinct. As Jesus, the perfect man, our Savior has a relationship t o G o d that is analogous t o that of other men. As Son o f G o d , H i s relationship t o the bather is an aspect o f the eternal trinitarian fellowship o f G o d . T h i s distinction should n o t be overemphasized, for Christ is one person, n o t t w o . W e may distinguish the natures o f Christ, b u t we must n o t divide the person. W e must also keep in m i n d that G o d created man as H i s image in order for man t o share in the covenantal fellowship o f the T r i n i t y . T h e incarnation demonstrates the closeness o f G o d and man. W h e t h e r we t h i n k o f Jesus as Son o f G o d o r as h u m a n Messiah, the relationship between Christ and the Father opens the d o o r t o trinitarian t r u t h . T h e Gospel o f John, more than any other book, speaks o f the relationship between Father and Son and shows the nature o f trinitarian c o m m u n i cation. T h e very first verse o f the Gospel sets this f o r t h i n memorable language: " I n the beginning was the W o r d , and the W o r d was w i t h G o d , and the W o r d was G o d ' ' T h e r e is more here than we can possibly expound. For our purposes, the expression " w i t h G o d ' ' in the second clause is particularly i m p o r t a n t . I t is n o t the n o r m a l Greek w o r d for " w i t h . " T h o u g h the c o m m o n Greek w o r d for " w i t h " implies God reveals Himself (I) as a Person, (2) in

covenantal fellowship and relation-

His words,and (3) in manifestations of power,

ship, the w o r d used here intensifies the n o t i o n o f personal relationship,

suggesting that the W o r d shares intimate, face-to-face fellowship w i t h G o d .

7

T h i s same idea o f complete and f u l l relationship and fellowship is repeated later in the preface of John's Gospel; " N o one has seen G o d at any t i m e . T h e only begotten Son, w h o is i n the bosom of the Father, H e has declared H i m " ( 1 : 1 8 ) . Jesus t o l d the Jews H e speaks what H e has "seen" w i t h H i s Father ( 8 : 3 8 ) . H e expressed the fullness o f the m u t u a l relationship in these words; "As the Father knows M e , even so I k n o w the Father" ( I 0 : I 5 ) , T h i s perfect m u t u a l knowledge among the Persons o f the T r i n i t y is grounded in the fact that they indwell one another and are completely open w i t h one another. Verichorcstsconnotes communication w i t h o u t reserve {cf. 17:20—23).

7

"Pros w i t h the accusative presents a plane o f equality and intimacy, face t o face w i t h each

other." A . T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Lesmmcni C G r a n d Rapids: Baker, 1960).


TRINITY A N D RHVKLATION'

75

T h e fullness o f pcnchoretic fellowship includes b u t is n o t l i m i t e d t o the verbal* T h e verbal aspect must be accentuated, however, because it stands in such stark contrast to the t h i n k i n g o f m o d e r n man, f o r w h o m words and language are thought t o hinder true communication. T h e cultural and personal relativity o f language, the various limitations o f particular languages, and the presupposition that there must be some higher f o r m o f c o m m u n i cation all combine to f o r m the m o d e r n dogma that the most real f o r m s o f communication must be nonverbal. T h i s is n o t the Christian perspective, t o r i t nonverbal c o m m u n i c a t i o n were superior, the Son's fellowship w i t h the Father w o u l d have taken some other f o r m . Rather than depreciate verbal fellowship, the Bible emphasizes it, w i t h o u t o f course i m p l y i n g that the relationship between the Father and the Son is exclusively verbal. N o t h i n g exhibits the p r o f u n d i t y o f the verbal dimension o f i n t e r t r i n i t a r i a n fellowship more than the fact that the Son is called "the W o r d , " speaking o f H i s relationship t o the Father (Jn. 1:1), Also, when Jesus says i n the Gospel o f John that the Father gave the Son the words H e was t o speak ( 1 7 : 8 ) , we are n o t t o t h i n k o f a daily supply o f text, ]esus is referring to the commission that was given t o H i m before the f o u n dation o f the w o r l d / A l l o f this clearly shows that in the Christian worldview, G o d is a G o d who communicates verbally. T h e rich fellowship o f personal oneness and love in t h e T r i n i t y comes t o expression in words. Because G o d is this sort o f G o d , H e created the w o r l d by speaking and gave man the g i f t of language. T h e m u t u a l indwelling o f the Persons o f the T r i n i t y is the background for understanding the meaning o f God's d w e l l i n g in us, and the ultimate basis for the idea that words can communicate t r u t h .

Threefold Revelation in the World I n the creation o f the w o r l d , G o d reveals H i m s e l f i n a threefold manner corresponding t o the distinctive properties and operations o f the Persons ' f o r various aspects o f the relationship o f the f a t h e r and the Son, all o f w h i c h i m p l y or specifically state the fullness and intimacy o f their fellowship, see John 3:35; 5:1 7, 19—23, 26-27, 30, 3 6 - 3 7 ; 6:27, 37. 39. 46, 57; 8:16, 13-19, 2 8 - 2 9 , 38, 42. 49, 54; 10:15. 30, 36-38; 12:26-28, 4 9 - 5 0 ; 13:3; 14:6-7, 9 - I I , 13, 20-21, 23, 31; 15:9; 16:15, 23, 32; 17:1, 5, I I . 21. 2 4 - 2 5 .


76

C H A P T H R HIVH

of the T r i n i t y . G o d the Father is preeminently the Person. G o d the Son is preeminently the W o r d . G o d the S p i r i t is preeminently the Power, O f course, all three Persons are equally personal, verbal, powerful, and active. I n the Bible, however, the focus of G o d as Person is o n the Father. T h e name " W o r d " belongs distinctly t o the Son. God's works of power are typically w r o u g h t through the H o l y Spirit- Genesis provides an excellent example o f this pattern. G o d spoke an o m n i p o t e n t W o r d and created the w o r l d , over which the Spirit hovered. Here we have the Speaker, the Spoken, and the Breath o f G o d . These distinctions also appear in the story of salvation, which is the new creation. I n Scripture, we repeatedly see this pattern o f G o d the Father planning, the Son executing, and the S p i r i t applying the plan o f G o d . A l l three Persons are involved i n every aspect o f God's work, but a particular w o r k c o m m o n l y has a special association w i t h one o f the Persons. T h i s pattern suggests the manner i n w h i c h G o d reveals H i m s e l f in the world also.'

1

Person G o d reveals H i m s e l f as a Person through the symbolism o f creation, which points to the heavenly Father " f r o m w h o m the whole family o f creation is named" ( E p h . 3:14—15). H e is mysteriously present i n the stars above, the mountains and seas around us, and the plants and animals. These all testify t o H i s invisible attributes, H i s power, and Godhead ( R o m . 1:20). God's image is man, the special symbol o f G o d w h o reveals H i m in a fuller sense. Every m a n reveals G o d in some way, even the sinner w h o rejects H i m . But o f all men, G o d s anointed servants revealed G o d most fully. Prophets, priests, and kings were chosen t o be extra-special symbols o f the true G o d — t h o u g h many of t h e m f u l f i l l e d their historical roles poorly. Also, in the O l d Covenant era, G o d the Son H i m s e l f appeared i n various f o r m s . Two examples are the b u r n i n g bush that Moses saw ( E x o d . 3:1—6) and the man that spoke t o Samson's parents (Judg. 13:1—21), These appearances provided men w i t h something akin t o a direct vision of G o d , b u t n o t u n t i l Jesus was b o r n into the world was there a prophet, priest, and k i n g who perfectly fulfilled H i s historical calling and revealed G o d wholly. Christ, w h o is "the brightness o f '' We confess this distinct w o r k i n g every time wc confess the Apostles' Creed, T h e Creed says that G o d the f a t h e r is Creator, that the Son became man t o die and rise f r o m the dead t o save us, and that the H o l y Spirit; is the giver o f life t o God's people.



77

H i s glory and the express image or H i s person, ' revealed G o d as no other 1

man c o u l d , for H e was not mcrelv man, b u t G o d and man. In the Person o f Christ, we k n o w G o d face-ro-face. Jesus revealed the Father so perfectly that H e could say t o Philip, " H e w h o has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). Word T h e Bible is the W o r d o f G o d , bur i t is only part o f God's broader verbal revelation. W h e n G o d created A d a m , H e spoke to h i m , which means that A d a m was created w i t h the g i f t of language f r o m the beginning. Language is a necessary aspect o f man's being created i n the image o f G o d . Since G o d communicates w i t h i n the Trinity, verbal revelation is essential to the covenantal relationship between G o d and man, n o t to m e n t i o n relationships among men. T h u s we see t h r o u g h o u t history that G o d spoke to H i s people in various ways, n o t just through the prophets. M u c h o f what G o d said t h r o u g h the prophets was specific revelation for a particular time and place, w h i c h was therefore n o t inscripturared. B u t G o d also caused H i s W o r d to be written and preserved in H o l y Scripture.The H o l y Spirit worked through chosen vessels, leading t h e m t o w r i t e what G o d intended ( 2 Pet. 1:19—21), T h e Bible as G o d s w r i t t e n W o r d is an objectively recorded W o r d f r o m G o d , Jesus refers t o i t as " T h y T r u t h " (John 1 7 : 1 7 ) and Paul tells us i t was " i n spired ' (actually "God-breathed," 2 T i m . 3;16), 1

As we pointed o u t earlier, the idea that G o d speaks to us is one o f the basic distinctions between Christianity and most o f the religions o f the world. Consequently, the written w o r d o f Christian Scripture is

fiindamen-

tally distinct f r o m the ideas o f holy writings in n o n - C h r i s t i a n religions, Even Judaism and Islam, w h i c h b o t h claim to be based u p o n the Bible, cannot really attain a biblical view o f revelation because they do n o t accept the idea o f G o d as T h r e e Persons w h o communicate by virtue o f their perfect m u t u a l indwelling. A related aspect o f revelation is also i m p o r t a n t . We referred above to the fact that Paul called the W o r d o f G o d "inspired." W h a t d o we mean by inspiration o f Scripture? W i t h o u t the biblical view o f the Trinity, inspirat i o n becomes n o t h i n g more than divine i m p o s i t i o n oi w i l l on human subjects, as G o d overrules h u m a n freedom and selfhood in order to get his message through. I n this case, h u m a n agency virtually disappears and man


78

CHAPTHH

hJVK

becomes more like a mechanical instrument. ( A t times, G o d actually d i d dictate Scripture and the human author served mostly as a secretary, but dictation is n o t the p r i m a r y means by which G o d gave Scripture,) I n another version of n o n t r i n i t a r i a n inspiration, G o d gives H i s w o r d t o a human author w h o tries t o understand i t . T h c n he writes what he believes G o d said, but because o f human l i m i t a t i o n s , what he actually conveys is a c o m p r o mised message at best. B o t h o f these views o f inspiration are wrong. A trinitarian approach opens the path to understanding, even though mystery remains. W h e n we consider the idea o f conveying a message f r o m G o d t h r o u g h a human author, we c o n f r o n t the p r o b l e m o f m u l t i p l e authorship. T h e i n spired p r o d u c t is b o t h the w o r d o f man and the W o r d o f G o d . H o w can that be possible? I n a w o r l d v i e w where G o d is a m o n a d , the idea of m u l t i p l e authorship is an anomaly, a contradiction o f the naked sovereignty o f the monad. As we have seen, the absolute distance between the m o n a d and the plurality o f the creation makes it n o t only d i f f i c u l t t o imagine why i t w o u l d communicate, b u t also h o w i t c o u l d communicate t h r o u g h a h u m a n partner. By contrast, the Bible teaches us that three Persons share their k n o w l w i t h one another in the fellowship o f their m u t u a l indwelling. T h e Father is i n the Son and therefore the Son knows and reveals the Fa-

The trinitarian multiple"authorship" of Gods

t h e r Q n . 1:18). T h e Spirit is one w i t h

plan for the world stands behind the no-

the Father and the Son and there-

lion of the multiple authorship of Scripture,

fore H e knows the "deep things o f G o d " ( 1 C o n 2 : 1 0 ) , Rather than cancel o u t personality, mutual indwelling sustains and enhances it. Everything that G o d is and does, H e is and does as One G o d En w h o m three m u t u a l l y indwelling Persons cooperate in all that G o d does. God's plan, therefore, has m u l t i p l e authors. T h e trinitarian m u l tiple " a u t h o r s h i p " o f God's plan for the w o r l d stands behind the whole n o t i o n o f the m u l t i p l e authorship o f Scripture. We cannot h i l l y explain how i t works, b u t we k n o w that when the H o l y Spirit indwells a man, H e is able t o become one w i t h the m a n H e leads t o such a degree that their thoughts become one, while at the same time n o t d i m i n i s h i n g the human person and his individual qualities. Q u i t e the cont r a r y — j u s t as the Son is most perfectly the Son because H e is the express image o f the Father, so also a m a n under the inspiration o f the S p i r i t is led



79

t o be his best and truest self H e is able t o enter i n t o the m i n d of G o d bv the indwelling o f the S p i r i t . T h e m i n d and message o f G o d become truly his as well, and what he writes is God's W o r d every b i t as m u c h as it is his o w n . T h e S p i r i t s indwelling and H i s special leading guarantee that the message is true, clear, and comprehensive. A d d t o this the fact that G o d in H i s w i s d o m endowed H i s chosen servants w i t h unique gifts and personality traits and prepared them, t h r o u g h education and experience, t o be able t o write precisely the w o r d G o d intended for t h e m to write. J

Finally, according t o Paul, not only is the W o r d inspired, i t is also " p r o f itable t o r doctrine, f o r reproof, f o r correction, f o r i n s t r u c t i o n i n righteousness, that the m a n o f G o d may be complete, thoroughly equipped f o r every good w o r k " (2 T i m . 3:16—17). So saying that the Bible is true is n o t enough, for a w o r d may be true but irrelevant or relevant only t o a l i m i t e d degree. But Paul says that the Bible equips us " f o r every g o o d work.'' I f G o d is the Creator o f the world and i f H e created all things by H i s W o r d , then H i s W o r d has inherent and comprehensive relevance. G o d s revelation i n Scripture, i n other words, is n o t alone. I t must be taken together w i t h H i s revelat i o n i n the creation and t h r o u g h history. These three forms of revelation 'person/creation, word, deeds/history) constitute a coherent whole, a network o f infinitely complex links and relations. Every thread in the web of T r u t h ties i n t o every other thread t o f o r m the whole. N o f o r m of revelation stands by itself. Hach depends on the others. But the W o r d has a certain p r i o r i t y . I t is the key that unlocks the secrets of the w o r l d , f o r i t shows us through stories, poetry, law, letters, visions, and prophecy h o w all things relate t o the Covenant L o r d , our Father i n heaven.

Spirit G o d also reveals H i m s e l f in deeds. I n a general sense, every event in history is a revelation o f G o d . Because o f s i n , however, n o t every event is a direct or simple manifestation o f the k i n d o f G o d H e is. W e cannot l o o k at the preponderance of war i n history, for example, and conclude that G o d loves war. W h a t the Bible shows us instead is that when men forsake G o d and true worship, they t u r n to idols and fall i n t o increasingly perverse folly, including war ( R o m . 1:18—32). T h e pervasiveness o f c o n f l i c t in man's hist o r y testifies t o the fact that m a n has perverted what i t means t o be G o d s image. A t the same time, ironically, war provides the setting for many o f the


80

C H A P T H H hJVK

most inspiring displays o f human Jove, self-sacrifice, devotion, and courage, Hven in the midst o f his grossest folly, man often displays a peculiar nobil¬ ity. G o d is revealed i n history as the S p i r i t unfolds H i s plan. I n the b o o k o f Daniel, f o r instance, the rise and fall o f the empires o f Babylon, Persia. Greece, and Rome were part o f God's plan t o b r i n g the Messiah into the w o r l d . W e are n o t to t h i n k that ancient China and the empires o f South America were outside o f H i s purposes simply because they bear n o direct relationship t o the Messiah. N o r arc we t o t h i n k there was no witness t o the t r u t h among them, f o r H e always gave t h e m a witness o f H i m s e l f (Acts 14:17; R o m , 1:18 f i ) . T h e deeds in history that reveal G o d most clearly are the deeds o f Christ H i m s e l f F r o m H i s virgin b i r t h t o H i s resurrection, Jesus' lite was f u l l o f extraordinary manifestations o t divine power. H i s deeds manifested the Father and demonstrated that H e was the only-begotten Son o f G o d . H i s deeds also show us the way o f life, f o r they reveal t r u t h . W h a t is true o f Jesus' miracles i n particular is true o f history i n general. A l l creation is a symbol of G o d and all history manifests G o d . I n the biblical perspective, G o d the Spirit is at w o r k i n all of history, revealing the m a n i f o l d glory o f G o d , W h e n we are considering the revealing w o r k o f the Spirit, the difference between our daily routines, spectacular historical events, and the miracles o f Jesus is one o f degree more than one o f k i n d .

Understanding God's Revelation W e have emphasized f r o m the beginning that the Christian worldview is a revealed worldview, t o r the heart of the Christian w o r l d v i e w is the T r i n i t y , a t r u t h that can be k n o w n only t h r o u g h God's revelation. T h e C h r i s t i a n worldview also teaches us that we live i n a w o r l d that reveals G o d , a w o r l d that everywhere manifests H i s glory and does i t so abundantly that all can see i t clearly ( R o m . 1:18—21). T h o u g h men may claim that they d o n o t k n o w or cannot understand, the Bible pronounces t h e m ' ' w i t h o u t excuse." T h e i r ignorance, in other words, is w i l l f u l blindness for which they are m o r ally accountable. Just as men deny the clarity o f the revelation o f G o d in the creation or i n history, they assert that the Bible does n o t reallv constitute revelation since the Bible s message can be made t o mean anything that the



ol

interpreter wants it t o mean. Controversy about the teaching o f the Bible continues even t o this day. H o w can the Christian claim that G o d has given us a perspicuous statement o f H i s will? T h e answer, i n part, lies i n l o o k i n g at the matter o f d i f f e r i n g interpretations f r o m a broader perspective. T h e more we l o o k at the details, the more disparity seems t o appear, b u t when we step back and consider things at the worldview level, the disagreement among Christians is m u c h less significant than we m i g h t t h i n k . T r i n i t a r i a n i s m unites Christians o f various traditions in the confession o f the central and most i m p o r t a n t issue o f theology and worldview. Twentieth-century Christians f r o m countries as diverse as the U n i t e d States, India, and Russia read works by the Africans T e r t u l l i a n and Augustine, the Italian T h o m a s Aquinas, the German M a r t i n Luther, the Frenchman John Calvin, or the Englishman John Wesley. W e may disagree w i t h some things these men say, b u t we know that we arc reading people who believe i n and worship the same G o d . T h e y believe that the triune G o d is the only true G o d , that the Father created the w o r l d , that Jesus Christ was b o r n o f a virgin and

The indwelling Spirit enables

died for the sins o f men so that those w h o be-

US tO Understand the Word,

heve in H i m m i g h t be saved, that H e rose f r o m the dead and sits at the r i g h t hand o f G o d , and that H e w i l l r e t u r n at the end o f history t o judge all men. T h e y believe in the H o l y S p i r i t and in H i s work in history t o g l o r i f y the Father and the S o n . T o agree in all o f this is to agree on the fundamentals of a worldview., or to say the same t h i n g in different words, the Apostles' Creed is a worldview confession. T h a t all branches o f o r t h o d o x Christians—Protestant,

Catholic, and Eastern O r t h o -

dox—agree o n the Apostles' Creed demonstrates the basic unity of all Christians, a u n i t y based u p o n Scriptural revelation. T h e u n i t y o f Christian confession, moreover, immeasurably surpasses that o f world religions like Buddhism and H i n d u i s m . W h e n we understand the broader u n i t y o f those w h o embrace the Apostles' Creed, we can address the matter o f interpretation. For God's revelation does need t o be interpreted and applied t o life. Since Christians believe that G o d communicates t o us so that we can understand, enjoy, and gain w i s d o m f r o m H i s t r u t h , we m u s t be able t o explain h o w it is possible for a twenty-first-century believer t o really understand the writings o f a Hebrew prophet f r o m the tenth century B.C. W e must be able t o explain how


82

CHAPTHR

hJVK

our m o d e r n translations o f the Bible can t r u l y represent the t h i n k i n g o f these ancient men f r o m different cultures, w i t h different customs, p o l i t i c a l structures, art forms, and lifestyles. T h e f u l l answer t o these questions w o u l d require a b o o k i n itself b u t the basic answer is t r i n i t a r i a n . T h e G o d w h o spoke the W o r d d i d n o t speak in vain and H e w i l l n o t allow H i s W o r d t o faih I t comes t o us as a living and powerful W o r d , like the W o r d that G o d spoke when H e said, " L e t there be l i g h t ! " Paul tells us that the W o r d is able t o "discern the thoughts and intents o f the heart" ( H e b . 4 : 1 2 ) so that i t speaks t o the very depths o f our being in a way that no other b o o k can. Just as the W o r d o f G o d has a special power to reach the hidden recesses o f the human soul, i t is also uniquely able t o b r i n g us i n t o the presence o f G o d H i m s e l f . Scripture does n o t just give us i n f o r m a t i o n or teach us about G o d . T h e preaching of the Gospel o f Christ transforms men because o f the very presence o f G o d i n H i s W o r d ; ' T o r i t is the G o d w h o commanded hght t o shine o u t o f darkness, w h o has shone i n our hearts t o give the light o f the knowledge o f the glory of G o d in the face of Jesus C h r i s t " ( 2 Cor. 4 : 6 ) . T h e living W o r d , in spire o f the imperfections o f translation, brings us t o H i m . A l t h o u g h it is i m p o r t a n t t o stress that the H o l y Spirit o f G o d is always involved when the Father speaks the W o r d , that is n o t enough. T h e w o r k of the S p i r i t is n o t solely confined t o the objective aspects of revelation such as creating the W o r d as an objective book o f t r u t h . H e also works subjectively in the hearts o f men w h o hear, so that the W o r d w i l l communicate the [ r u t h . T h e Spirit is nor merely whispering in our ears. H e dwells w i t h i n us to [each us i n ways we cannot comprehend. T h e internal witness o f the S p i r i t ensures that the W o r d w i l l not remain merely objective t r u t h or c o l d doct r i n e — o u t s i d e of us and d i s t a n t — b u t that i t w i l l actually enter our hearts and b r i n g us t o the Father. T h e indwelling S p i r i t enables us to understand the W o r d and brings us i n t o the presence o f the Father. Person, W o r d , and Spirit must come t o us together o r we w i l l n o t understand God's revelation in Scripture, To state this f r o m a d i f f e r e n t perspective, our response t o Scripture must be in accord w i t h the nature o f Scripture. T h e Bible is n o t s i m p l y an instruction manual in wise living. I t is the b o o k that brings us i n t o a covenant relationship w i t h G o d . O u r response t o the w r i t t e n w o r d is a response to the author. Unless we respond t o H i m , the written text may become a



83

mere book t o LIS. " H e who has M y commandments and keeps them, it is be who loves M e . A n d he w h o loves M e w i l l be loved by M y Father, and I w i l l love h i m and manifest Myself t o h i m , . . . I f anyone loves M e , he w i l l keep M y w o r d ; and M y Father w i l l love h i m , and W e w i l l come t o h i m and make O u r home w i t h h i m " (Jn, 1 4 : 2 1 , 2 3 ) . O n l y when the S p i r i t o f G o d dwells in us docs H e b r i n g an internal witness and testimony. H e manifests Jesus to us so that we g r o w i n our relationship and fellowship w i t h G o d . N o n e o f this is to deny that the Bible is indeed a b o o k and t o a large degree i t is t o be interpreted in the same way that we interpret any other b o o k . But since i t comes t o us as a covenantal W o r d , i t asserts authority over us and demands that our t h i n k i n g and daily life c o n f o r m to its t r u t h . I t is a personal word, revealing the heart and m i n d o f our heavenly Father. Therefore, biblical interpretation must n o t be reduced t o a technique, applying rules o f interpretation t o get the right results. Personal knowledge and a close relationship t o G o d i n f o r m the man w h o loves Christ and obeys H i s W o r d , so that he is led t o deeper insight and understanding as he thinks, studies, and prays. O u r Father shares H i m s e l f w i t h us t h r o u g h the W o r d by the indwelling S p i r i t . In G o d , the f u l l knowledge o f the t n n i t a r i a n Persons is a reflection o f their utter self-giving in mutual indwelling. Covenantal perichoresis means perfect communication, for the Speaker, the Spoken, and the Breath o f G o d are One. Since the m u t u a l indwelling of the Persons o f the T r i n i t y is so fundamental t o their perfect mutual understanding, we should n o t be surprised that f o r man, the Spirit's covenantal indwelling and i l l u m i n i n g w o r k is essential for h i m t o k n o w G o d and the revelation H e gives in Scripture, But Scripture is only one aspect of G o d s revelation. We also have to understand the W o r d En relationship t o other aspects o f God's self-manifestation in the w o r l d and in history. T h e Person o f G o d revealed i n the sym¬ bolism o f creation, and the mysterious w o r k i n g o f G o d s S p i r i t in history, are planned f r o m before the f o u n d a t i o n o f the w o r l d t o be i n harmony w i t h the verbal revelation o f God's W o r d . Also, our minds are designed t o respond t o every aspect o f God's revelation. T h e processes o f logical induct i o n and deduction, the more ambiguous processes o f discovering analogies and reasoning metaphorically, and the even more obscure processes o f i n t u i t i o n all combine t o enable us t o understand God's W o r d , b u t only i n the context of comprehensive covenantal revelation. Unless everything revealed


CHAPTHR

hJVK

G o d , Scripture could n o t . But since everything docs reveal G o d , we must y the Scriptures to all o f life. T h o u g h we cannot yet see how all things cohere i n the plan o f G o d , we can be certain that the symbolic and mysterious manifestation o f H i s presence i n the w o r l d , the W o r d o f Scripture, and H i s w o r k i n history h a r m o nize perfectly- N o t h i n g in the creation contradicts Scripture and n o t h i n g in history fads t o manifest the G o d o f the Bible. Since we are i n the m i d d l e o f [he story, however, and n o t at the end, many things are n o t yet clear. Finally, in the same way that individuals grow over t i m e and learn t h r o u g h their relationship w i t h G o d , Christ is also leading H i s C h u r c h by the S p i r i t so that over time she w i l l grow i n holiness, knowledge, and w i s d o m . O u r lives are t o o short and our knowledge o f the w o r l d t o o imperfect f o r us to see this generational g r o w t h t h r o u g h the lens o f our o w n experience. But the Bible assures us that Jesus works i n the Church t o sanctify and perfect i t . T h r o u g h the W o r d and S p i r i t we were b o r n i n t o new life ( I Pet. 1:23; Jn. 3:5—8). T h r o u g h the W o r d and S p i r i t we are sanctified (Jn. 17:17; 2 T h e s , 2:13). T h r o u g h the same W o r d and Spirit o u r eyes are opened t o see the whole world as the symbol o f G o d and the revelation o f H i s goodness. I n the same way the whole Church o f Jesus Christ grows i n understanding, love, and holiness over rime as the Savior sanctifies and instructs H i s bride (Eph. 5:25-27).

Conclusion I n this chapter, we have seen that comparing revelations and holy books f r o m different religions ultimately means comparing different ideas o f G o d , for the basic questions o f r e v e l a t i o n — W h y should G o d communicate? W h y w o u l d H e communicate by words?—are actually questions about the nature o f G o d . Also, we have seen that the p r o b l e m o f interpretation is grounded in the question o f G o d . T h e Christian view o f G o d as a T n m t y provides the basis for our understanding o f w h o H e is. W e k n o w that H e is a G o d who communicates—communication

is essential t o H i s triune being. Verbal com-

munication is only one aspect o f G o d s self-revelation, but i t is especially i m p o r t a n t because i t is in the W o r d that we discern the meaning o f othet forms o f revelation. T h e p r o b l e m o f interpretation is a p r o b l e m f o r man because o f the blindness o f his sin, b u t the G o d o f the covenant indwells us.



o5

H e surrounds us w i t h the testimony of H i s greatness, power, and love in the world and opens our hearts t o receive it. M o d e r n c o m m u n i c a t i o n theorists argue about the relative importance for c o m m u n i c a t i o n o f the various factors involved in c o m m u n i c a t i o n : the i n t e n t i o n of the speaker, the meaning of the verbal utterance, and the receptor's interpretation. A l l three factors are obviously essential t o true communication, but the u n i t y necessary for true c o m m u n i c a t i o n presupposes the t r i m t a n a n G o d , H e is the one in w h o m i n t e n t i o n (Person), utterance ( W o r d ) , and reception ( S p i r i t ) perfectly cohere because the diree Persons o f G o d indwell one another. Because H e has created man as H i s image, man t o o can communicate, though the sinfulness o f man creates severe barriers to real c o m m u n i c a t i o n apart f r o m Christ. U n i q u e among the religions and worldviews o f man, the Bible teaches of a trinitarian G o d w h o indwells man i n covcnantal oneness t o lead man into the fellowship o f love that characterizes the divine society. O u r interpretat i o n o f G o d s t r u t h cannot stray too far, for G o d is w i t h those w h o love H i m and keep H i s commandments. H e n o t only speaks the W o r d , H e explains it t o us f r o m the inside. T h e S p i r i t leads us t o see how the connections between the svmbolism o f creation, the w r i t t e n W o r d , and the truths of history and daily life, f o r m analogies that open new (albeit o l d ) avenues for understanding. Just as the m u t u a l indwelling o f the three Persons does n o t interfere w i t h freedom and true personhood, b u t instead brings f u l l and perfect mutual understanding, so also God's dwelling in us does n o t take away from our individuality. Rather it ensures that, t h r o u g h understanding H i s W o r d , we w i l l grow and develop i n t o fuller and better persons, more Christ-like in perfect love and goodness.This is H i s plan ( f i p h . 4 : 1 1 f f . ) and it w i l l n o t be thwarted, n o t even by the sin and folly of those w h o love H i m ,

Review Questions 1.

What are the basic questions we must answer to adequately consider rhe subject of revelation:

2,

How do different non-Christian religions answer the question of God's selfrc vf latum:


86

CHAPTHR

hJVK

3.

How do different non-Christian religions answer the question of revelation by words:

4, 5. 6,

I low do Christians answer the question of God's self-revelation through words? What are rhe three basic modes of God's self-revelation: What do we learn from rhe Gospel o f [ohn a hour the father's communication to the Son:

7.

What does it mean to speak of God revealing Himself as a Person?

8, ).

How does the doctrine of the Trinity help us understand verbal revelation: What does it mean to speak o f Ciod revealing Himself i n deeds:

L

10. How do the various forms of revelation relate? 11. How can Christians claim that the Bible is a clear revelation: 12. I low does the doctrine of the Trinity help us understand interpretation of the Bible?


6.Trinity and History: Beginnings I T IS NOT u n c o m m o n to regard stories as mere illustrations or ornamentat i o n f o r t r u t h that can be stated i n philosophical propositions. A s a matter o f fact, however, stories are more fundamental than any other f o r m o f world view synthesis. Ancient men rarefy attempted to communicate their world views in complicated chains o f reasoning, and even in the m o d e r n world no philosophical perspective can be influential unless i t can be converted i n t o a narrative. W e do n o t find f o r m a l systems o f philosophy as such in many societies, b u t there is no tribe o r g r o u p o f people so backward or " p r i m i t i v e " that they d o n o t possess stones. People w h o have no written language, w h o lack all the higher elements o f culture and are savagely cruel, w i l l still have stories—myths that tell how the w o r l d began and explain the place of the tribe i n that w o r l d . M o d e r n evolutionists, too, tell the story o f the evolution o f the w o r l d using sophisticated computer graphics and cinematic special effects to show children (and adults) the " t r u e " story o f the world. W e should add that stories are n o less vital to individual psychology than they are to societies. We understand ourselves and interpret our o w n pasts t h r o u g h stories because they are an essential aspect o f the very hardware o f the human being. Therefore, stories are the typical means i o r communicating w o r l d views. I n the m o d e r n West, especially in the U n i t e d States, t w o competing stories vie f o r the right to define our w o r l d . O n e of t h e m is the age-old story of the Bible. T h e other is the story of human evolution, first t o l d as scientific

87


88

C H A P T K R -SIX

myth by Charles D a r w i n , but a part o f religious and philosophical t h i n k i n g f r o m ancient times. In the m o d e r n w o r l d , the theory o f evolution is usually a story o f a h o t " B i g Bang" followed by the gradual c o o l i n g o f the universe, after w h i c h the planets f o r m and life emerges, gradually developing through stages up t o the b i r t h o f the human species. A f t e r man became a distinct species, his own psychological and social life arc said to have evolved as well. Societies that d i d n o t develop higher culture are examples o f groups that, for one reason o r another, ceased to evolve. By studying these groups, we are supposed to be learning the history of all h u m a n societies—for at one time, we were all supposedly at the same p o i n t . Also, by studying animal groups, we learn deep t r u t h about h u m a n psychology, f o r we are also supposed to be closely related to the animals through a c o m m o n ancestor. T h i s story has p r o f o u n d practical significance. I f our problems, social and psychological, genetic and behavioral, have their roots i n our animal past, then the solutions are t o be f o u n d t h r o u g h understanding our animal nature and overcoming its defects. T h e biblical storv is fundamentally different from evolution m y t h . T h e difference goes far beyond the simple fact that G o d initiated the creation. T h e whole drama o f biblical revelation is the story of paradise lost and regained. I n this biblical story, culture, language, and religion f o l l o w an entirely different course f r o m what is c o m m o n l y believed by people i n our day. In contrast t o the evolutionary view, the Bible recounts the story o f a specific historical link between all ancient cultures and societies. I t tells us o f an ancient garden para-

Jh whole drama Of biblical e

dise that was lost. I t does nor urge us to r e t u r n t o revelation ¡5 the story of that paradise, b u t to seek a heavenly city to come,

paradise lost and regained.

I n the biblical story, man d i d n o t gradually evolve from an animal past; he was created directly by G o d w i t h no intermediate stages o f development. Animals are n o t our biological cousins, t h o u g h we are taught t o l o o k to the animals for w i s d o m . But i t is t o G o d we l o o k to understand ourselves fully, f o r we are like H i m . T h e story begins w i t h G o d creating m a n as H i s image. A t the center o f biblical history is the story o f the Messiah and what H e has done t o save the w o r l d .


T R I N I T Y A N D HISTORY: HKGINNJNGS

89

Elements of the Biblical Story Like alJ g o o d stories, the biblical -story o f redemption has an i n t r o d u c t i o n , basic themes, a plot, and a climax. Seeing the biblical worfdvicw i n story f o r m helps us understand the history o f the w o r l d and our o w n place and purpose i n i t , T h e biblical story is also dangerous. I t exposes the prevailing culture t o criticism and subverts elements En the m o d e r n perspective that are contrary t o the biblical worldvicw. Just as Jesus' stories infuriated the Pharisees, the stories o f the Bible tend t o frustrate m o d e r n men and o f f e n d their cultural sensibilities. Consider, for example, the parable Jesus t o l d the Pharisees about t w o sons.

Bur w h a t d o y o u t h i n k : A m a n h a d t w o sons, a n d he came t o t h e first a n d said, " S o n , g o , w o r k t o d a y in m y v i n e y a r d , " H e answered a n d -sard, " I w i l l nor,"

b u t a f t e r w a r d he r e g r e t t e d ir a n d w e n t . T h e n he came t o t h e s e c o n d

and

said h k f w i . s e . A n d he answered a n d said, " I g o , sir," b u t he d i d n o t s?o.

( M t , 21:28-30)

H e asked the Pharisees which o f the t w o sons d i d the father's w i l l and they answered, " T h e first, 'Jesus then explained the story. 1

Assuredly, I say t o y o u t h a t tax c o l l e c t o r s a n d h a r l o t s enter t h e k i n g d o m o f G o d b e f o r e y o u . F o r J o h n came t o y o u i n t h e w a y o f righteousness, a n d y o u d i d n o t believe h i m ; h u t l a x c o l l e c t o r s a n d h a r l o t s believed h i m ; a n d w h e n you saw i t , y o u d i d n o t a f t e r w a r d relent a n d believe h i m , ( M r , 2 1 : 3 1 — 3 2 }

Here is a simple story that exposes the Pharisees f o r what they really were—self-righteous hypocrites. T h e parable sounded innocent enough at first and the Pharisees answered Jesus' question w i t h o u t hesitation. But when Jesus explained the story, the Pharisees were publicly undressed. T h e hated tax collectors and despised harlots were closer t o the k i n g d o m than the religious leaders? H o w can such a t h i n g be? People f r o m the "underclass" had responded t o the message o f John the Baptist and repented. T h e Pharisees, by contrast, detested b o t h the message o f John and the repentance o f the c o m m o n people w h o respected h i m . Jesus' story presented a completely different perspective on what is i m portant, what is truly real, and w h o m i t is that G o d loves. Hearers who accepted Jesus story as true were freed f r o m the spiritual hegemony o f the 1


90

C H A P T K K -SIX

Pharisees, even i f they still had to obey them in the practical affairs of life ( M r . 23:1—4). In the same way- believing the biblical story today reorients our lives and sets us apart f r o m the d o m i n a n t , a n t i - C h r i s t i a n culture. W e are freed from the w o r l d s message and the power structures that enforce i t . But we are n o t at liberty t o do or t h i n k whatever we want- We must learn f r o m the harlots and tax collectors w h o repented at John's message and t u r n e d t o Jesus. T h e y d i d n o t repent in words only, d o i n g whatever they pleased when "the church service," so t o speak, was over. T h e y devoted their lives to Christ and lived by H i s W o r d - By g o i n g o u t i n t o the field and d o i n g what their Father commanded, their righteousness exceeded that of the Pharisees ( M t , 5:20).

Introduction to the Biblical Story T h e biblical story has an i n t r o d u c t i o n , which, as in any well-written story, sets before the reader all the basic themes that w i l l appear- I n the i n t r o d u c t i o n , we gain our first impressions of the major characters, learning somet h i n g about their concerns and the major themes of the ensuing story- A l l of this and more appears in the first three chapters o f the Bible, which recount the story o f the beginning- Here we learn h o w our w o r l d came to be, what its meaning and purpose are, and why i t is the way i t is. History's d o m i n a n t themes are introduced, along w i t h the three major characters— G o d , man, and the devil. H o w G o d H i m s e l f is revealed has been the focus o f our chapters o n creation and revelation. W e now t u r n our attention t o the story o f m a n and his world.

The World

I n the beginning, G o d created the heavens and the earth and all the creatures and plant life that inhabit them. M a n was the last creature, but his special dwelling place—Eden, the Garden o f G o d — w a s n o t established u n t i l after man himself had been created. Eden is rightly called paradise, b u t even so, it was n o t what many t h i n k i t was like, f t was n o t merely a garden paradise where man had all the food that he needed, a comfortable environment, and an easy l i f e — a view more like the M u s l i m idea o f paradise i n the w o r l d t o come- Eden is n o t the l o n g lost ideal w o r l d , and r e t u r n i n g t o Eden is n o t the goal of biblical history. Hden and the w o r l d around it represented



91

neither an ideal nor an end, b u t a beginning. T o appreciate the meaning o f the w o r l d into which A d a m was placed, we should understand at least six i m p o r t a n t truths. First, the w o r l d was created o u t of n o t h i n g and therefore had a beginn i n g in time. T h e Christian worldview teaches an absolute d i s t i n c t i o n between the Creator and the creature, G o d is eternal- H i s creation is temporal. T h e second t r u t h follows f r o m this d i s t i n c t i o n : the w o r l d is wholly dependent u p o n G o d for its existence and sustenance. I f G o d in H i s providence d i d n o t u p h o l d the w o r l d , i t w o u l d disappear i n t o nonexistence. T h i r d , the material, physical w o r l d isgood. A t the end o f each day, G o d looked o n what H e had created and pronounced i t good. I n the Christian view, the physical world itself is holy, pure, and beautiful. F o u r t h , the w o r l d as created was perfect i n the sense that i t was undefiled, The beauty Of the Garden Of Eden

b u t i t was n o t perfect in the sense o f being

was the beauty of God's sanctuary,

fully developed. A c h i l d just o u t o f his mother s w o m b may be a perfect baby, but

it is still a baby. Even so, the w o r l d that G o d created was a perfect, b u t immature w o r l d , waiting for man t o n u r t u r e i t t o its f u l l historical destiny. T h i s brings us t o the f i f t h p o i n t , that the w o r l d was created for man, t o be ruled by h i m . G o d prepared all things t o be placed under the covenantal authority o f H i s representative- T h u s , next t o G o d H i m s e l f , man is the central character in the biblical drama o f historv. T h e sixth p o i n t overlaps the biblical picture o f man in the first three chapters o f Genesis, G o d created the w o r l d w i t h beauty and f u n c t i o n and the Garden o f Eden was H i s dwelling place w i t h mam T h e r e is everywhere an excess o f beauty compared t o f u n c t i o n , strictly speaking. But beauty is functional in its own way because i t expresses the glory o f G o d (Ps. I 9 ; I ) and leads to the worship o f G o d . T h i s p o i n t is far more i m p o r t a n t than m o d e r n men realize. T h e beauty o f the Garden o f Eden was the beauty o f God's sanctuary. M a n was t o share the Garden w i t h G o d . I t was the first temple, the most holy place i n the original w o r l d . T h e Genesis story implies that the Garden was a m o u n t a i n t o p paradise, f o r the f o u r great rivers flowed f r o m Eden d o w n t h r o u g h the whole world- We k n o w that the Garden had walls and a gate, for after man fell i n t o sin, C h e r u b i m guarded the gate to prevent man f r o m r e t u r n i n g t o the sanctuary. I f we pay careful attention, we notice that the temple s y m b o l i s m in the rest o f the Bible finds its roots i n


92

CHAPTKR

-SIX

the .story of the Garden. T h e glory and bcanty o f Hden, then, was specifically intended t o enhance man's enjoyment of the presence o f G o d in H i s garden-sanctuary. T h e garden-as-sancruary theme is central t o Scripture, for man was created t o dwell w i t h G o d .

1

Man T h e significance o f the sanctuary for the Christian worldview cannot be overestimated. M u c h o f the story of history in the Bible centers o n the restoration of a sanctuary where G o d can dwell w i t h man. But our concern now is w i t h the meaning o f sanctuary f o r m a n himself. First, the Genesis account shows us m a n n o t as homo sapiens but as homo adorans, M a n was created t o worship G o d and have covenantal fellowship w i t h H i m in the Garden, t o live i n a sanctuary in which he w o u l d enjoy G o d s presence. W e see something o i what this means in the prayer o f D a v i d :

O n e t h i n g 1 have desired o f the LORD, T h a t w i l l I seek: T h a t I m a y d w e l l i n the house o f the I-ORli

All the days of m y life, T o b e h o l d t h e beauty o f the LOEUi. And t o i n q u i r e in His t e m p l e . (Ps.

27:4)

hor D a v i d t o dwell in the house of G o d — t o live in the t e m p l e — i s to behold the beauty o f G o d and t o pray u n t o H i m , W o r s h i p in the Bible z

involves the whole b o d y and soul in song, dance, prayer, and feasting—the body and the soul. G o d tells the people o f Israel t o come before H i m and rejoice (Lev. 2 3 : 4 0 ; D e u t . 12:7, 12, 18; 14:26; 1 6 : 1 1 , 1 4 - 1 5 ; 2 6 : 1 1 ; 27:7; etc.). T h i s is n o t a call t o the g r i m and somber activity that some consider worship t o be. N o r is i t a secondary activity, something we do when our schedule a l l o w s — w h e n there is no golf, or football, o r company c o m i n g for dinner. T o the contrary, worship is the most essential activity o f man. I t is what he was created t o d o . I n worship, man comes face t o face w i t h the • For a fuller study o f the Garden o f Hden and its symbolism, as well as its meaning tor the Christian worldview, see J;UTK\S l i , Jordan, Through A f w Eyes, and PCUT J, L e i i h a r i , A House far

My A if "if. 1

N o t e that when D a v i d wrote this, the rem pic was nor yer b u i l t , f Ic is obviously t h i n k i n g

in terms o f the symbolism and meaning o f the temple, n o t an actual building.



93

eternal God- H e has fellowship and c o m m u n i o n w i t h the Infinite One- A l l o f man's deepest desires for life, f o r blessing, for knowledge, and for glory meet their highest and most holy expression i n true worship- W h e n m a n does n o t worship, he denies a fundamental aspect o f his humanity- H e degrades his spirit and starves his soul, Second, we sec in the creation narrative that man was created as a single race. A l l humanity is a single race " i n A d a m " and f r o m A d a m , w h o is the original man, the father o f us all. O u r c o m m o n ancestry i n A d a m is the basis f o r the covenantal u n i t y of the human race. I t is the reason that Adam's representative work in the Garden had such p r o f o u n d impact o n all men. As much as some may dislike and deny the fact o f representation by A d a m , representation itself con-

tinues t o be an inescap-

able reality o f life. I f lead-

Worship is the mOSt GS-

crs o f a g o v e r n m e n t

make a decision, i t affects

sential activity of man.

all those they represent,

whether for good or ilk We

can change our p o l i t i -

cal representatives by voting new ones i n t o office, o r we can move t o a different c o u n t r y where we t h i n k the p o l i t i c a l climate is better, b u t either way we arc still subject t o representation. O f course, Adam's representation is more basic than that o f p o l i t i c a l leaders, A d a m is the father o f m a n k i n d . T o be h u m a n is t o be his c h i l d . W e cannot pick a new A d a m or transfer our membership t o another species. A n o t h e r aspect of man's racial u n i t y is the f a m i l y structure that G o d granted f r o m the beginning. As a race, man was ordained t o g r o w and i n crease i n monogamous families. G o d created one man, and t h r o u g h the man, one w o m a n t o be his wife. A l l others are their children, members o f the one f a m i l y o f man. T h i s is the paradigm o f male and female relationships. A man has one mother, many sisters, and one wife. A woman has one father, many brothers, and one husband. Sexual relationships are restricted to marriage. Sex is holy because i t is set apart. I t is n o t the c o m m o n p r o p erty o f all, b u t a special relationship i n the context o f husband and wife only, ordained t o express the t o t a l self-giving o f marital love. T h e t h i r d t r u t h that the biblical story o f mans creation makes clear is J

that man was created for a purpose. G o d commissioned man t o be f r u i t f u l and m u l t i p l y , t o fill the earth and have d o m i n i o n over all { G e n . 1:26—28). I t is clear from the context o f G o d s six davs o f w o r k and one dav o f rest that man was t o imitate G o d . T h e w o r l d was originally w i t h o u t l i g h t , empty, and


94

CHAPTKR

-SIX

w i t h o u t f o r m (Gen. 1:2). D u r i n g the first six days, G o d gave the light and formed the earth and created all living things, and gave the w o r l d its f o r m , but still the earth was n o t " f u l l . " I t remained for m a n t o b r i n g creation to maturity by i m i t a t i n g G o d s pattern of w o r k and rest- M a n was t o ride the creation in the way a farmer rules his land, n o t as a plunderer w h o rapes and pillages, b u t as a husbandman who nurtures the land so that it m i g h t p r o duce glorious and beautiful harvests that bring joy t o G o d and man. T h a t man was created w i t h a purpose is i m p o r t a n t , for it means that man lives w i t h a v i s i o n . W e do n o t yearn f o r the past.Wc w i l l n o t f i n d our true paradisc there. O u r aiming and striving are f o r the paradise yet t o come, f o r we are called to b u i l d the garden city o f the future, the N e w Jerusalem. F o u r t h , m a n was created g o o d and holy. T h e h u m a n race is n o t i n t r i n sically evil. N e i t h e r the b o d y nor the fact of man's finiteness provokes us to d o i l l . T h e Bible teaches t h a t A d a m was righteous i f n o t mature. T h e n how d i d evil come i n t o the world? T h i s is a f u n d a m e n t a l w o r l d v i e w quest i o n . T h e Bible answers w i t h the story o f the fall o f man. I n this story, evil is n o t a " t h i n g ' * ; i t is n o t something t h a t "exists," W h a t A d a m was supposed to have learned t h r o u g h the tree o f the knowledge o f g o o d and evil and what we arc supposed t o understand t h r o u g h the s t o r y o f the fall o f A d a m is that the words evil and good are words o f relation. A r i g h t relationship t o G o d is the essence of g o o d and a w r o n g relationship to G o d is the essence o f evil. In order f o r A d a m t o become mature, f o r h i m t o be n o t just g o o d b u t c o n f i r m e d in goodness, he had t o make an intelligent choice o f the good. Herein we see the meaning o f the test i n the Garden o f Eden. G o d d i d n o t set a trap t o r A d a m s r u i n a t i o n . T h e c o m m a n d n o t t o cat f r o m the tree o f the knowledge o f g o o d and evil was a test similar t o the one G o d gave to A d a m before the creation o f Eve. I n that first test, G o d commanded A d a m to name the animals. A d a m d i d n o t simply number the animals or assign nonsense syllables to t h e m ; he gave the animals names that expressed their very nature (Gen. 2 : 1 9 ) . T h r o u g h passing that test, A d a m learned the radical b i o - c u l t u r a l differences between himself and the animal creation, and was thereby psychologically and spiritually prepared for marriage t o Eve. I n the same way, the p r o h i b i t i o n o f the tree o f the knowledge o f g o o d and evil was given for educational reasons. A d a m was n o t yet morally mature; therefore he could n o t partake o f the tree that symbolized moral maturity. T h o u g h


95


he was good by nature, be d i d not yet understand the nature o f g o o d and evil, nor was bis goodness c o n f i r m e d by his o w n positive m o r a l cboice.Tbe serpent s questions should have opened A d a m s eyes t o the t r u t h . T h e serpent attacked G o d s love and goodness, suggesting that G o d feared the freedom

and blessing that A d a m w o u l d enjoy t h r o u g h the knowledge o f g o o d

and

evil- hven before hve t o o k the f r u i t i n t o her hand, A d a m had swallowed

Satan's lie. A c c o r d i n g t o the Apostle Paul, she was deceived bur A d a m was not.

A d a m allowed her t o eat and watched t o see what w o u l d h a p p e n —

mankind's first scientific experiment. W h e n A d a m saw that n o t h i n g happened t o her, he ate of the f r u i t also. T h e story o f the Fall illustrates the nature o f sin.

Adam's l u s t — w h e t h e r

it be understood as sexual lust, or lust f o r power, knowledge, or g l o r y — w a s not

the p r i m a r y issue. T h e beginning o f Adam's sin was unbelief H e ac-

cepted Satan's lie about G o d . Satan accused G o d of being selfish and unloving,

thereby revealing his o w n antipathy toward G o d . Unbeliei is hatred o f

God,

Paul referred precisely t o this attitude when he wrote: " T h e m i n d of

the flesh [i.e., ' o l d nature,' n o t 'body'] is enmity against G o d " ( R o m . 8:7), Man

w i l l f u l l y sets himself against G o d , primarily a matter o f spirit, not a

matter o f his physical body. Satan is a fallen angel w i t h no physical appetites t o satisfy. T h e body, therefore, is n o t the source o f our errors. Rather, it is the heart that misleads the hand. A f t e r the ball, man becomes a more psychologically complex creature. On

the one hand, he is still the image o f G o d . H e still seeks H i m , as he

seeks eternity, infinity, glory, and t r u t h . Even while seeking G o d , however, he also hates H i m and flees f r o m every manifestation o f H i s glory and goodness. Because man is at enmity w i t h G o d , he is also at odds w i t h himself, f o r the reflection of the

The beginning ofAdanfs

true G o d is stamped o n every man's soul. T o be at

Slffl W3i Unbelief,

enmity w i t h G o d is also t o be at enmity w i t h society, for

m a n images G o d as groups, societies, and the race as a whole. I n simple

terms, because he loves and hates G o d , m a n also loves and hates h i m s e l f loves and hates the human race, and loves and hates the rest of creation. T h e story o f the ball leads to the i d th and final t r u t h we need t o emphasize here. F r o m the Fall to the end o f time, the historv o f man is the storv o f a spiritual war. W h e n man fell i n t o sin, G o d called h i m t o account, A d a m blamed his sin o n Eve; Eve blamed hers o n the serpent. Eve was


96

CHAPTKR

-SIX

deceived, b o t h were guilty* But G o d was gracious. H e pronounced j u d g ment o n the serpent b u t promised mercy f o r man. T wrfl pul enmity between thee and the woman, md between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shaft bruise his heel. (Gen 3:15^ F r o m this m o m e n t o n i n the biblical story, m a n k i n d is divided. T h e seed o f the serpent follows the way of the serpent, envying and hating G o d , denying H i s goodness and love. T h e seed o f the w o m a n repents and trusts in God's mercy. T h e very first story of man after the fall, the story o f Cain and A b e l (Gen* 4 ) , shows the t w o seeds in stark contrast and illustrates the enmity between them* T h e story is archetypical and paradigmatic, revealing n o t only the human heart b u t the history o f man as well. H i s t o r y has a greater story t o tell, a story w i t h much deeper meaning and significance. T h e seed o f the woman is also a prophecy o f a Great Seed who w i l l defeat the devil and destroy his works. H e w i l l also redeem H i s people and shower t h e m w i t h the spoils o f victory- T h e biblical history o f man is the drama o f this great redemption. T h e warfare between these t w o kingdoms focuses o n the seed o f the woman, the Messiah, whose heel is bruised t h o u g h H e H i m s e l f crushes the head o f the serpent. I n the biblical drama f r o m the Fall onward, everything anticipates and looks f o r w a r d t o the c o m i n g o f the O n e w h o w i l l b r i n g salvation t o the world.

Many Stories, One Story T h e prophecy o f the Messiah and the anticipation o f God's saving w o r k gives unity t o the biblical story. F r o m Genesis chapter 3 onward, man waits and longs f o r the Savior. In this sense, the biblical story is one story, but i t is also many stories, each w i t h its o w n special problems, its o w n heroes and villains. I f we do n o t understand how the O n e and the M a n y relate, the Bible may appear t o be a mere collection o f talc^, an anthology w i t h no u n i f y i n g theme. U p o n reflection, however, we understand how the many stones are versions o f the one story, and the one story provides the template for the rest. T h e one story itself is m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l , comprising a plurality o f themes that f i n d their u n i t y and m u l t i p l i c i t y in the person o f Christ Himself,


T R I N I T Y A N D HISTORY:

HKGINNJNGS

97

We need t o consider in more detail the m u l t i p l e x nature o f the Bible. It is not d i f f i c u l t t o understand what i t means to sav that the biblical story is many stories. Everyone is familiar w i t h the fact that the Bible tells stories about the n a t i o n of Israel c o m i n g o u t o f Egypt, conquering Canaan, develo p i n g as a nation, and eventually coming under God's judgment in the days o f the prophets. We k n o w that the story of Israel begins w i t h the stories o f A b r a h a m , Isaac, and Jacob, W e also k n o w that the Bible gives a great deal o f attention t o heroes o f the f a i t h — M o s e s , Joshua, D a v i d , D a n i e l and too many others even t o list. N o doubt, the Bible is a b o o k of stories. But what docs i t mean t o sav that these are all one storv; Beginning after the Fall w i t h the promise that Eves seed w o u l d crush the serpent s head, the whole focus o f Scripture is o n the coming One. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are i m p o r t a n t because G o d promised that t h r o u g h t h e m the Messiah w o u l d come. T h e history o f IsThe many Stories are Versions of

rael is i m p o r t a n t because she was the vehicle

the One Story, and the One Story

through w h i c h G o d w o u l d preserve the sa-

provides the template for the rest

cred line o f the Savior, T h e figures o f Moses, Aaron, and David are i m p o r t a n t because the

Messiah, as the A n o i n t e d O n e , is the f u l f i l l m e n t o f their individual roles o f prophet, priest, and king. A l l the stories o f the heroes of the faith foreshadow the one true H e r o , Jesus Christ H i m s e l f Some o f the O l d T c s t a m c n t stones foreshadow the coming Messiah more specifically so that i t is easy t o sec the one-story pattern.Take the story o f Joseph, f o r example. H i s brothers hated h i m because o f his special relationship w i t h his father. T h e y envied h i m so m u c h they conspired to get r i d o f h i m . G o d , however, raised h i m up f r o m eventual death in an Egyptian prison and set h i m o n a throne at Pharaoh's r i g h t hand. F r o m this l o f t y throne, Joseph eventually was able t o save his brothers. T h e story o f Joseph is also the story o f Jesus, as are all the other great stories o f the Bible, even when they are n o t so obvious. T h e Bible stones also serve t o illustrate man's historical predicament and G o d s redeeming grace. A b r a h a m went d o w n t o E g y p t w i t h his b r i d e . T h e r e he was persecuted and nearly killed, but G o d saved h i m and delivered h i m w i t h spoil. T h i s paradigm is repeated in the story o f Isaac in Philistia. Later, when Jacob flees f r o m his brother Esau only t o be persecuted by his o w n relative, Laban, G o d saves h i m f r o m persecution and brings h i m o u t of the


98

C H A P T K R -SIX

land w i t h great treasure. These stories o f the three patriarchs arc the story of the n a t i o n of Israel. She went into E g y p t t o escape the f a m i n e i n the days of Jacob bur was later p u t i n bondage. G o d sent a savior, Moses, t o deliver H i s children f r o m the hands of Pharaoh. T h e y came o u t o f E g y p t i n great t r i u m p h , b r i n g i n g the spoils o f v i c t o r y . T h e same story is t o l d in the b o o k o f Samuel when the ark o f G o d is taken i n t o captivity in Philistia and again in the books o f Kings and Chronicles when Israel falls i n t o captivity to Assyria and Babylon. T h e c o m m o n themes o f these stories—themes o f fall, captivity, grace, and s a l v a t i o n — a l l combine t o f o r m the overarching story o f man. T h e p r o b l e m w i t h each o l d covenant story o f r e d e m p t i o n is that the sin o f A d a m so dominates man that however p r o m i s i n g the beginning seems to be, it is n o t l o n g before we read of another f a l l . A case in p o i n t is Solomon, a great k i n g w h o reigned w i t h w i s d o m and glory. H e b u i l t the temple of G o d and brought the world t o the verge o f an age o f u n t o l d blessing, b u t this wise king married pagan women who turned his heart t o idolatry, bringing d o w n his whole k i n g d o m in the days o f his son. L i k e A d a m , S o l o m o n fell and lost the Garden. T h e spiritual warfare between the k i n g d o m o f the serpent and the k i n g d o m of Christ includes every dimension of the k i n g d o m i n t r o d u c e d in Eden. T h e serpent attacked the bride (Gen. 12), H e u n d e r m i n e d the k i n g d o m ( I Kgs. 11:1—8). H e led astray the priests and ruined the temple ( I Sam. 2; 1 2 f f ; bzek. 8:6 f f ) . T h e r e was war over the c o m p o s i t i o n o f the holy family (Ezra 9—10). T h r o u g h o u t the O l d Covenant era, the specter o f A d a m s fall haunted G o d s people. T h e y needed a new A d a m , someone greater than Solomon, someone w h o c o u l d establish a new covenant.This w o u l d require a new creation and a new people o f G o d united under a new covenant head. Obviously the people o f Israel c o u l d n o t bring about such changes o n their own. G o d intervenes t o b r i n g the biblical story to its climax in g i f t o f Jesus. Jesus had much in c o m m o n w i t h the biblical patriarchs and prophets before H i m . H i s b i r t h , like that of Isaac, Samson, and Samuel, was unusual. Like Joseph and Moses, H e was hated and despised by his brothers and those w h o should have loved H i m . H i s o w n people even p u t H i m t o death. But, unlike all the heroes and saviors oi the O l d Covenant era, Jesus resisted the devil. H e d i d n o t fall when H e was tempted. H e was f a i t h f u l u n t o death, even the death o f the cross. Therefore, H e was able t o defeat sin and death,


99


rising f r o m the dead and establishing a k i n g d o m o f righteousness. N o w , He is seated at the right hand o f G o d and all authority in heaven and o n earth is H i s , T h o s e w h o believe in H i m become citizens i n H i s k i n g d o m and are saved f r o m Pharaoh, E g y p t , and B a b y l o n — t h e k i n g d o m o f this w o r l d . Jesus docs n o t save H i s people in order t o take t h e m o u t o f the w o r l d , however* Instead, H e sends them i n t o the world t o transform i t so that the Edemc commission can finally be accomplished t h r o u g h the work o f a new race o f men. T h i s new race stands before G o d under a new covenant head. T h e y worship in a new heavenly temple and seek a new, everlasting city. T h e basic themes introduced in the story o f Eden f i n d their ultimate realization in the N e w Jerusalem. T h e story o f the Garden is the story o f the creation o f man as God's image and the g i f t o f a commission t o b u i l d G o d s k i n g d o m . Covcnantal headship, the temple-garden, marriage and family, and stewardship over the w o r l d are fulfilled in Christ and H i s Bride, the Church, T h u s , history in the Bible is the drama o f redemption, the drama o f the war between t w o kingdoms, ending i n the v i c t o r y of the N e w Covenant humanity. I n the biblical view of history, the end is seen f r o m the beginning ' G e n . 3:15; Rev. 13:8). Causality in this drama runs in a fundamentally different direction than causality in the worldview o f m o d e r n secular man. For m o d e r n man, all present reality is the result o f past causes. T h e laws of chemistry and physics w h o l l y determine the future or the future is altogcther uncertain because random elements may affect the chain o f causality in ways that are unpredictable and incomprehensible. In either case, causality is only i n the past and present. I n the biblical worldview, i t is the future coming o f the Messiah that dominates the flow o f O l d Covenant history. T h e nations of the w o r l d rise and fall t o prepare the way t o r H i s coming ^Dau. 7, etc.). N o w that H e has come, i t is H i s goal, the realization o f the N e w Jerusalem, w h i c h propels history onward. T h u s , history flows backward f r o m the future t h r o u g h the present and i n t o the past. Causality is n o t only in the future, but the future is fundamental.'

1

T o say that the future "causes" the present is a figurative way o f speaking. I t is n o t the

future per se t h a t is the cause, b u t G o d , who h.is a plan. H e works in [he present t o lead ir toward the future H e i n r e n d ^ T h e p o i n t o f emphasizing rhc future, however, is ro help us realize rhar we should n o t simply l o o k into the past t o cry ro undersrand the present G o d is ofren d o i n g things (or reasons we eannor possibly fathom beeause rhey lie in a furrm.- beyond our imagination.


TOO

C H A P T K R -SIX

A Trinitarian Story T h e biblical story is also rrinitarian. I n order t o h i l l y understand the book o f Genesis, we must read i t in the light o f the Gospel and the f u l f i l l m e n t o f history i n Jesus Christ, T h e t n n i t a r i a n themes of the first creation come fully into view when seen in the lens o f the first creation. M a n is created i n the image o f a triune G o d . W h e n we consider the beginning i n the l i g h t o f the doctrine o f the T r i n i t y , we gain a better understanding o f what i t means t o be created in the image o f G o d ,

One and Many Genesis tells us that G o d said, " L e t U s make man in O u r image, according t o O u r likeness" ( G e n . 1 : 2 6 a ) . T h e use o f plural language w i t h reference t o G o d is problematic t o many. Is this a " p l u r a l o f majesty' similar t o the 1

usage o f the plural p r o n o u n by the K i n g o f England, f o r example? O r is G o d addressing the angels, perhaps? N e i t h e r o f these answers suffices. M a n is n o t the image o f G o d and the angels, b u t the image o f G o d H i m s e l f , Moreover, angels are n o t a race, which seems t o be an i m p o r t a n t aspect o f man's imaging G o d . T h o u g h a plural o f majesty w o u l d n o t be i n a p p r o p r i ate, there is n o t sufficient evidence t o indicate i t is a typical Hebrew usage. T h o u g h often dismissed o u t o f hand, a rrinitarian explanation at least deserves consideration. T h e verse immediately f o l l o w i n g reads, "So G o d created m a n i n H i s own image; i n the image o f G o d H e created h i m ; male and female H e created t h e m " (Gen, 1:27). M a n was created as G o d s image b o t h as i n d i v i d u a l — " H e created h i m " — a n d as a r a c e — " H e created them." h v e r y man as an individual is the image o f G o d , b u t the human race as a whole also images G o d . T h e latter aspect comes t o concrete expression i n all levels o f h u m a n society- Families image G o d n o t as a collection o f individuals, b u t as a social unity, a group whose oneness is coveuantalbecause i t is grounded in the covenant oath o f marriage. I t is also " o n t o l o g i c a l " i n the sense that there is an obvious biological and genetic u n i t y i n the family. But the oneness o f the family is n o t merely f o r m a l - T h e r e are depths o f u n i t y that we d o n o t nor¬ mally notice or t h i n k about u n t i l we l o o k back and reflect o n the way things



101

were. I n a deep .sense, what is experienced i n the family is experienced at some level in almost every social group. W h a t the Genesis story is p o i n t i n g to, i n other words, is that man, like G o d is b o t h one and many. G o d is three Persons in one Being, so that H i s f

u n i t y transcends and is fundamentally different f r o m the u n i t y o f the h u man race. I t is ontological as well as covcnantal. God's threcness, too, is fuller and richer than h u m a n diversity c o u l d ever be. N o n e o f us as indi¬ viduals is ever so fully individual as a Person o f the T r i n i t y . But that is what we should expect—we arc only the image o f G o d , n o t H i s exact representat i o n . W e are also like H i m because, as a race, we image b o t h the plurality and unity o f G o d . We are individuals who can become our true selves only in the relationships we have i n social groups. Ultimately, in Christ, Christians comprise a single new race.

Homo Adorons M a n images the trinitarian nature o f G o d i n other respects, t o o . We have already seen that man is homo adorans, one created for worship. H o w does this relate t o the idea o f man as image? H o w does the fact that man worships reflect G o d H i m s e l f : O f course, i t w o u l d be perfectly legitimate t o define " w o r s h i p " as a relationship that can exist only between creature and Creator, but that d e f i n i t i o n is n o t necessary and m i g h t even be misleading, f o r we shall see that one

Han W3J Created 35 God's image

o f the central and distinguishing aspects o f

both as individual and as a race.

Christian worship appears clearly in the relationships a m o n g the t r i n i t a r i a n persons. W i t h the c o m i n g of Christ and the revelation o f the T r i n i t y , we learn that h u m a n worship is an analogy o f trinitarian fellowship, b u t because i t is an analogy enacted in the sphere o f the h u m a n relationship w i t h G o d , i t naturally has its o w n distinct aspects. W h a t is this t r i n i t a r i a n fellowship? A s the Gospels repeatedly show us, the Son seeks the glory o f the Father. Moreover, they are clearly speaking o f something more than Jesus' human relationship t o G o d the bather. For the Father, too, seeks the glory o f the Son, as does the Spirit when H e comes into the w o r l d . Both the Father and the Son revere the S p i r i t and h o n o r H i s name, for all blasphemy may be forgiven, except the blasphemy o f the H o l y Spirit ( M r . 1 2 : 3 1 ) * T h e one w h o comes last is treated as the first.


102

CHAPTKR

-SIX

Because G o d is the k i n d o f G o d i n w h o m the three Persons seek each other's glory and honor, so the human race was created to worship G o d and seek H i s glory and honor. I n worship, we imitate trinitarian fellowship at a creaturely level-That this has p r o f o u n d meaning for the Christian worldview can be -seen when we contrast Christian worship to that of other religious worldviews. Take, for example, another monotheistic religion c o m m o n l y thought to be close to Christianity. I n Islam, when man seeks God's glory, he does something wholly unlike what A l l a h himself w o u l d ever do. A l l a h w o u l d never bow t o another o r u p h o l d another. W h e n the M u s l i m bows before A l l a h — a t that very m o m e n t when he is supposed to be the closest— he is most unlike and farthest f r o m the nature In worship, W imitate trinitarian fellowship at a creaturely level.

and being o f his god. But when a Christian bows down to the Father and praises H i s H o l y Name, he is n o t only closest to G o d by the power o f

the H o l y Spirit w o r k i n g in the Church, he is also in special fellowship w i t h theTrinity, reflecting i n his o w n creaturely action something essentially similar to the relationship that the Persons o f G o d share i n eternity. Indeed, since worship is offered to the Father, in the name o f Christ and by the power o f the Spirit, it is participation in t r i n i t a r i a n fellowship. G o d n o t only receives our worship, H e works in i t and t h r o u g h i t , thus constituting it t r u l y Christian, T h i s means that Christian worship has implications f o r our relationships w i t h other men as well. Righteously seeking the honor and blessing o f other people is an aspect o f biblical love and an i m i t a t i o n o f the T r i n i t y in our daily lives. N o other religion o r worldview is capable o f expressing, much less teaching, this t r u t h . O n l y in biblical religion can the worship o f G o d and the love expressed in our daily lives be related to the nature of G o d H i m s e l f because only i n biblical religion is worship an extension o f the eternal fellowship o f the triune G o d .

Work W o r k is basic to the Christian w o r l d v i e w . T h e Bible begins w i t h G o d w o r k ing six days and resting one, setting a pattern for human life and society but, more importantly, revealing what k i n d o f a G o d H e truly is. G o d is a G o d w h o works, and all H i s w o r k is emphatically trinitarian. T h e Father created



103

HKGINNJNGS

the world through the Son, while the Spirit hovered over the waters. As we saw previously, the Father also created the w o r l d for the Son, w h o works to glorify the creation by the power o f the Spirit, Finally the Son presents the completed w o r k t o the Father. T h e Persons o f the T r i n i t y w o r k with each other, for each other, and through each other. But w h y does G o d w o r k at all? W o r k is n o t essential to H i s life, as i f H e w o u l d n o t have f o o d to eat i f H e d i d n o t w o r k . W h a t is w o r k f o r God? T h e answer is that G o d works because H e delights in i t . I t is the joy o f trinitarian fellowship- G o d works even though i t is n o t necessary because the Persons o f the T r i n i t y enjoy w o r k i n g together. T h e words " p l a y " and " f u n " are too light to adequately express the t r u t h that G o d is a G o d o f joy but they do f

p o i n t to i m p o r t a n t aspects o f h u m a n life where man images G o d - Play and f u n arc n o t only

In good works, We image the

forms o f recreation and relaxation, they can also

trinitarian life of God by WOrk-

describe our attitude toward w o r L I f man had

ing with and for 0116 another,

n o t sinned, our w o r k would not be cursed. W o r k w o u l d be a different f o r m o f ' play"—as, indeed, it already is, by the grace o f G o d , f o r many people in advanced nations, where men o r women can choose w o r k they enjoy and devote themselves t o their jobs because they derive a sense of f u l f i l l m e n t f r o m them. T h e essence o f w o r k is muiual service. Jesus gave us a basic principle o f social and economic life when H e taught that he w h o w o u l d be greatest must be the servant o f all- In this, H e was p o i n t i n g to the principle o f H i s own life, for H e came nor to be served, b u t t o serve and give H i s life a ransom f o r many ( M k . 1 0 : 4 2 ^ f 5 ) . H i s example o f selfless service expresses the true nature of work- G o d has called us to serve one another and to seek m u t u a l blessing through our labor. T h e H o l y S p i r i t has given each o f us gifts to exercise for the g o o d o f all { I Cor. 12). M a n as worker expresses the trinitarian life o f the G o d w h o works: " M y Father has been w o r k i n g u n t i l now, and I have been w o r k i n g . " (John 5 : 1 7 ) . I n particular, G o d has called us to w o r k and labor f o r H i s k i n g d o m and glory, ' T o r we are H i s w o r k m a n ship, created in Christ Jesus t o r g o o d works, w h i c h G o d prepared beforehand that we should walk in t h e m " ( E p h . 2:10). I n these good works, we image the trinitarian life o f G o d by w o r k i n g w i t h one another and for one another- True Christian w o r k is n o t performed in a vacuum, w h i c h is t o say that all w o r k deserving the name " g o o d " is


104

C H A P T K R -SIX

inherently trinitarian in character and inescapably social. We learn t o work f r o m others as we watch them w o r k or as they teach us something. We learn that w o r k usually involves some f o r m o f cooperation w i t h other people and usually depends u p o n their i n p u t before i t can be completed. W e w o r k for others, too, in more ways than one. W h e n we provide products f o r the market, we arc w o r k i n g f o r all those w h o buy our product. In a different sense, we are w o r k i n g f o r our families. W o r k , therefore, is always an other-directed and social activity. I n w o r k i n g righteously, we also have special fellowship w i t h G o d . W h e n the Bible says we have been called t o w o r k t o r H i m , i t means that our works have their ultimate aims in H i m . A n d when i t teaches we are to w o r k w i t h H i m , we are reminded that our works must be done i n the power o f the H o l y S p i r i t t o be t r u l y g o o d . Finally, our future resurrection guarantees that our labor i n the L o r d cannot be in vain ( I Cor. 15:58).

Rule Rule is another aspect o f man as God's image that may n o t appear at first to be t r i n i t a n a n . U p o n consideration, however, the connection is obvious. We need only remember that the Gospels speak o f the Father sending the Son and the Son sending the Spirit. T h e hierarchy i n the personal relationships o f the T r i n i t y is m i r r o r e d in the hierarchy of life in creation. N o t all things are created equal. M a n is set at the t o p of all God's creatures, l o r d and king over the whole w o r l d . A m o n g men, too, there is hierarchy. N a t i o n s , tribes, groups, families, and other types o f h u m a n organization all have their rules, b o t h f o r m a l and i n f o r m a l , that define h o w their leaders are chosen and h o w the members relate t o each other. Even i n f o r m a l groups and casual gatherings tend t o a natural expression o f hierarchy, however mulnfaceted and dynamic i t mav be. H u m a n sin, however, has perverted the n o t i o n of rule t o such a degree that the very w o r d rule is offensive t o some. I t signifies oppression. T h e idea oi hierarchy is considered antithetical t o g o o d human relationships. W h a t we really need, we are t o l d , is "equality. 'There should be no d i c h o t o m y 1

between hierarchy and equality among men, because they are n o t i n tension in G o d . I t is because o f sin that equality and hierarchy in human relationships come into conflict. In the story o f creation—before man sinned—we



HhGlNNJNGS

105

Find the proper perspective on rule, one that illumines the n o t i o n o f authority' and hierarchy in G o d as well, I

i

I n Genesis we read, " T h e n the L O R D G o d t o o k the man, and p u t h i m into the garden o f Eden t o dress i t and t o keep i t ' (Gen. 2 : 1 5 ) . W h e r e the f

K i n g James Version translates "dress" m o d e r n versions use such words as " t e n d " or "cultivate.'Thesc translations arc n o t w r o n g in context, b u t i t is i m p o r t a n t f o r the reader t o k n o w that the H e b r e w w o r d i n the original is "serve," A d a m was t o serve the Garden, W h a t does serve mean? Practically speaking, i t means " t e n d " or "cultivate." B u t the w o r d serve points t o the essence o f leadership and rule En the Bible. T h e ruler is the one w h o serves others, as we saw above i n the teaching o f Jesus. Rule and authority mean responsibility before G o d , for our rule is always under H i s rule. W e are to rule in the sense that we arc t o "serve the garden" that G o d has given us. I n serving the garden, we serve H i m and our fellow man. For the Father " r u l e s " the Son only for the Son, in order t o bless and g l o r i f y H i m . T h e Son and the S p i r i t s u b m i t t o the rule o f the Father because they love the Father, Rule and authority a m o n g m e n as well as man's rule over the rest o f creation were designed t o be a f o r m o f service f o r the blessing o f all.

The Trinity and Evil h v i l is also an i m p o r t a n t part o f the Bible's story. M a n y consider i t the most d i f f i c u l t part o f the story t o accept. N o n - C h r i s t i a n s often object t o Christianity because o f the existence o f evil. I f G o d is so good, why does evil exist? W h y d i d H e create it? Ironically, proponents o f the p r o b l e m o f evil as a refutation o f Christianity iuadvertentlv trivialize their o w n objection.They believe in a w o r l d that evolved by chance where the " e v i l " that upsets t h e m so m u c h has no real d e f i n i t i o n , meaning, o r s o l u t i o n . A f t e r all, i n the evolutionary worldview, m a n is an animal who has come t o his present p o s i t i o n by a cosmic accident. Whatever he does is simply an expression o f his nature, no more w o r t h y o f ethical condemnation than the actions o f a l i o n or a dog. A t best, ethics is a collection o f racial choices for survival, imposed u p o n societies by a power elite. But there is n o guarantee that the elite, the ones m a k i n g the final decisions, make the r i g h t decisions or that what they proclaim t o be g o o d and evil are really for the l o n g - t e r m g o o d o f the race. T h e social rebel or outcast may be the harbinger o f the future and a savior.


106

C H A P T E R SIX

Hvíl is very real f o r the Christian, however, and also p a i n f u l and horrible. There is mystery in evil, as in all things, but we are n o t left to ponder in despair. E v i l has a meaning and a s o l u t i o n . Part of the Christian answer to the p r o b l e m o f evil is f o u n d i n the observation that, f r o m a Christian perspective, evil does n o t literally "exist."That is, evil is n o t a created t h i n g . E v i l is something very different f r o m what most people imagine. In order t o understand why there is evil in the w o r l d and what i t means, we must understand the relationship between evil and the T r i n i t y . To begin w i t h , evil is only possible for persons. ( T h e fact that angels are charged w i t h sin indicates that at least i n some sense, they arc also God's image, though n o t exactly in the same sense men are.) Dogs may be disobedient and some cows or pigs may be meaner than others, b u t animals are n o t charged w i t h sin. There is no m o r a l judgment against " b a d " animals. T o say, however, that evil is only possible t o r persons is t o make the k i n d o f distinction between m a n and animal the Bible demands and evolution, in principle, resists. But exactlv what is evil; E v i l is an improper relationship w i t h G o d . A l l we call morally w r o n g is primarily sin against G o d h i m s e l f Because the w o r d evil describes a p a r t i c u lar k i n d o f relationship, it is n o t an entity. A n d because evil is a w o r d d e f i n i n g a particular k i n d

BeOUSC the w d

ev$ describes

o f relationship, we also have t o say creating m a n

a particular kind of relation¬

in God's image entailed the possibility o f evil,

ship, it ¡S not an entity.

for man c o u l d n o t be the image o f G o d i f he d i d n o t have true m o r a l freedom. For man t o be t r u l y good, he must choose the g o o d o u t o f love f o r G o d . T h e test w i t h the serpent confronted m a n w i t h m o r a l choice. I n G o d , the possibility o t evil does n o t exist because G o d is love, and the three Persons o f the T r i n i t y have never been morally immature. T h e choice o f loving the others is an eternal choice essential to the being o f G o d and to the d e f i n i t i o n o f the Persons themselves. Therefore, they can relate to one another only in love and t r u t h . I f , however, we imagine the

impossible—the

Persons in G o d n o t loving each another—we can see what we m i g h t call the t n n i t a n a n background íor evil. T h e very idea o f relationship includes the abstract possibility o f a perverse relationship, that is, we can imagine such a relationship. For m a n t o be created in God's i m a g e — l i k e G o d i n a very real sense, t h o u g h o f course, separated f r o m G o d by the i n f i n i t e ontological gap


107


that divides Creator f r o m creature—includes the fact that man is a person in relationship to G o d . In that sense, man is a person like the Persons o f the T r i n i t y , b u t a contingent person, a mere image o f the true Persons, W h a t we can imagine o n l y in the abstract when we t h i n k o f G o d is a real possibility for man. T h e Persons o f the T r i n i t v cannot violate their mutual love, b u t man can betray G o d . One m i g h t even say that f o r man t o have the choice to relate wrongly was essential. For man to be mature, t o be a person w h o selfconsciously loves G o d , he had to be given the o p p o r t u n i t y to make a mature decision t o f o l l o w love and t r u t h . But this includes the opposite possibility also. T h u s , creating m a n i n the image o f the triune G o d entails the possibility o f evil, f o r the free m a n may choose to rebel against G o d . Since G o d is mans psychological center and social gyroscope, the choice t o rebel had consequences that extended far beyond strictly religious and m o r a l implications. N o t relating rightly t o G o d means n o t relating rightly t o H i s image, whether ourselves or others. I t also means n o t relating r i g h t l y t o H i s creation. T h e perversion of the most fundamental relationship results ineluctably in the perversion o f all relationships. We also must add that the choice t o rebel against G o d robbed A d a m of his freedom as well. Freedom only exists in living f o r G o d and as the creatures H e created us t o be. I f A d a m had chosen t o obey G o d , he w o u l d have c o n f i r m e d himself i n freedom. Instead, b o t h he and his descendents fell i n t o bondage. Satan's t e m p t a t i o n in the Garden illustrates the essential issue. M a n was created t o worship G o d and s u b m i t lovingly and whole hearredly t o H i m . Bur Satan proposed that A d a m c o u l d be his o w n god, deciding g o o d and evil for himself. W h e n men truly worship G o d , they fit i n t o the proper 4

place in the divine scheme—under G o d with one another and over the w o r l d . W h e n man exalts himself over G o d , he loses his place in the w o r l d and is no longer able t o c o n f o r m t o the T r u t h . H e must manufacture his o w n t r u t h , deciding g o o d and evil for himself. W h a t then? T h i s would-be g o d finds that n o t being o m n i p o t e n t or omniscient is a severe handicap. H e must compete w i t h other would-be gods w h o d o n o t always want t o acknowledge his divinity. T h e result is that the w o r l d becomes mysterious. T h o u g h the

' T h e words in Gem-sis arc " k n o w i n g good and evil!' bur rtV word know here may hi- used in a wide sense, as i i often is in Scripurre, including much more than mere c o g n i t i o n .


108

C H A P T K K -SIX

world testifies to its Creator, man can no longer hear the clarion call o f G o d - T h e symphony o f creation sounds like cacophony to sinful mans cars. Remarkably, n o n - C h r i s t i a n religions tend to offer the p r o b l e m itself as the solution. B u d d h i s m teaches that the essence of enlightenment is the realization that one is a god and promises the f a i t h f u l that they w i l l become gods ( t h o u g h " g o d " has its o w n special meaning in the pantheistic context), M o r m o n i s m , too, has its o w n peculiar version o f salvation as deification. Even the secular evolutionist aims at a godlike state. T h e evolutionist s p r o u d pretence is disguised in p a r t by the apparently humble assumption o f a place w i t h the animals. But man is the only animal w i t h self-consciousness. T h i s gives m a n the r i g h t and the responsibility to decide g o o d and evil for himself. There is n o higher power or greater intelligence before w h o m man must bow the k n e e — t h o u g h the " e l i t e " tend to demand something like worship. I n non-Christian religions and philosophy, then, we sec the very essence o f evil, the lust for self-deification masquerading as the quest for t r u t h or salvation. T h i s does n o t solve the intellectual problems related to evil, b u t i t does, perhaps, indicate how i t is that evil is a meaningful possibility only in the world that was created by the triune G o d . O n Christian premises, evil is a possibility because A d a m was a person w h o was given the choice to love the Creator and live f o r H i s k i n g d o m or to reject H i m and attempt to create his own k i n g d o m . In Christianity, evil has meaning and a solution. In the worlds o f non-Christians faiths, the problem of evil is unsolvabfc. A m o n a d like the M u s l i m god cannot be the ultimate standard f o r relationships among persons because the whole n o t i o n o f relationship is foreign to A l l a h . T h e existence o f evil is an utter mystery, t h o u g h i t is simply p a r t o f the larger mystery of the existence o f plurality. I n pantheism, evil tends to be identified w i t h p l u r a l i t y itself and the meaning o f evil is denied. Salvat i o n f r o m plurality and evil is attained by a r e t u r n to the One, a metaphysical salvation. W h y the plural ever came i n t o existence to begin w i t h is beyond comprehension.

Conclusion A review o f the beginnings o f the biblical story already sets the biblical worldview squarely against much m o d e r n thought* T h e theory of evolution,


109


of course, contrasts sharply w i t h the miraculous creation o f the w o r l d in si x days and man's special creation as the image o f God- T h e story o f A d a m and Eve as the o r i g i n a l family stands in stark, i f i m p l i c i t , o p p o s i t i o n t o all forms o f racism, feminists' denial of different sexual roles for male and female, homosexuality, and polygamy, t o name only a few areas in which contemporary t h o u g h t clashes w i t h the Christian worldview. Theories

of

man that see the basic problems o f human life as psychological or sociological are u n d e r m i n e d by the t r u t h that m a n is homo adomns by nature, and that all of his problems trace their source t o Adam's sin. D e n y i n g that the human b o d y is g o o d or asserting that our problems arise f r o m our animal past also contradict the biblical narrative. T h e simple story o f the creation o f the w o r l d and mans place in it has p r o f o u n d implications f o r the way life should be lived-These u n f o l d as the biblical storv continues-To b u i l d our worldview i n terms o f the Bibles teaching requires us t o stand f i r m against most o f the t h i n k i n g o f our day, especially in the academy, where opposit i o n t o C h r i s t i a n i t y is deep and widespread. T h e story o f the Big B a n g — i n the West the "scientific" alternative to the biblical story, which posits initial conditions, an explosion, and a p r o Cess o f development, all enshrouded in unfathomable mystery

tells o f a

world of impersonal forces that by accident or by some deterministic formula produced the w o r l d we live i n today. There is no special meaning i n the big-bang w o r l d , no special purpose, and no explanation for the way things are, including all the misery and suffering o f the w o r l d - W h a t we sec is what is, n o t h i n g more and n o t h i n g less. W h y s h o u l d m e n choose this view? Because o f the inescapable demand o f science? H a r d l y . M e n choose t o anchor their souls in the sands o f nothingness and despair rather than t u r n t o the G o d w h o created them. T h e y arc just what the book of Genesis and the rest o f the Bible shows us all to be s i n n e r s who prefer their o w n false and empty f

hopes t o the divine promise o f eternal life t h r o u g h faith i n the G o d o f all grace. T h e biblical story of creation, fall, and redemption is a story that exalts man above the animal k i n g d o m and gives h i m the astonishing q u a l i t y of godhkeness. Personhood makes evil possible, for persons have the power to choose, and A d a m chose t o pervert the covenant relationship. Because o f mans sin, the history o f the w o r l d includes p r o f o u n d tragedy, b u t the story of G o d s grace in redemption is the story of v i c t o r y over tragedy. I t is i n -


no

C H A P T K K -SIX

deed the greatest story ever t o l d . It is the story o f the Son of G o d w h o became a man and died f o r our sins i n order to save LIS f r o m sin and the devil and remake us i n t o a new covenant people. A l l w h o believe i n Christ are new creatures, created f o r a new covenant i n a new creation. T h e biblical story finds its climax in the story o f the incarnation o f G o d and the saving work o f Jesus, which ushers i n a new w o r l d , the k i n g d o m o f G o d .

Review Questions 1.

W h y are stories i m p o r t a n t :

2.

W h a t are t h e c o m p e t i n g s t o n e s i n t h e W e s t t o d a y :

3.

W h a t was the e f f e c t o f Jesus' s t o n e s o n t h e Pharisees;

4.

W h a t d o we l e a r n a b o u t t h e w o r l d i n t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e b i b l i c a l s t o r y ;

5.

W h a t d o we l e a r n a b o u t m a n t h r o u g h t h e s t o r y o f c r e a t i o n :

6.

W h a t d o we l e a r n a b o u t m a n t h r o u g h t h e s t o r y o f t h e F a l l ;

7*

S h o w h o w t h e m a n y stories o f t h e Bible are o n e s t o r y o f t h e M e s s i a h .

8,

W h a t docs i t m e a n t o say t h a t m a n k i n d reflects t h e u n i t y a n d d i v e r s i t y o f G o d ;

9.

E x p l a i n the t r i n i t a r i a n significance o f w o r s h i p .

TO. E x p l a i n t h e t r i n i t a n a n significance o f w o r k , 11. E x p l a i n t h e t r i n i r a r i a n s i g n i f i c a n c e o f r u l e . 12. E x p l a i n t h e differences b e t w e e n a t r i n i t a n a n a n d a n o n - C h r i s t i a n v i e w o f evil.


7.Trinity and History:The Pivot PAUL SAID that the Greeks seek w i s d o m and the Jews seek signs ( I Cor. 1:22). Jesus was the wisest o f men, wiser even than Solomon, and H e performed

enough miracles t o fill a b o o k (Jn. 2 1 : 2 5 ) , b u t the Greeks rejected

H i s w i s d o m and the Jews d i d not believe H i s signs. F r o m the Jewish perspective, the cross invalidated the signs that Jesus was the Messiah. F r o m the Greco-Roman perspective, crucifixion as a criminal meant that the Nazarene could n o t even be a great man, let alone Savior. B u t Paul preached a crucified Messiah as the Savior o f the w o r l d . In H i s own day, Jesus was reviled by the religious and political leaders and revered by the c o m m o n people, even t h o u g h they t o o t u r n e d against H i m i n the end. Some people believe that i f Jesus came i n t o the w o r l d today, H e w o u l d be welcomed. N o t h i n g c o u l d be f u r t h e r f r o m the t r u t h . H e m i g h t even be less welcome today than H e was i n H i s o w n day, t h o u g h for different reasons. W h a t w o u l d m o d e r n intellectual and political leaders do w i t h someone who performed miracles like Jesus did? W h a t i f this miracleworker had a habit o f saying things that embarrassed the powerful b u t i n vigorated and empowered the c o m m o n man? W h a t i t H e clearly believed the world was created by G o d and spoke about N o a h as i f he were a real historical figure? W h a t i f H e accepted the Jewish worldview o f the O l d Testament as true a n d at the same t i m e claimed H e was equal w i t h G o d : W h a t i f H e said H e was the only way for men t o be saved, and that all other would-be saviors were false? W h a t i f H e t u r n e d water i n t o wine and sat

III


112

CHAPTER

SKVKN

d o w n t o cat and d r i n k w i t h sinners: A man like Jesus w o u l d probably not f i t well into a society o f sinful man anywhere at any time. F r o m the m o d e r n perspective, the miracles o f Jesus are particularly o f fensive- B u t H i s teachings, also, contain many elements that w o u l d have to be purged in order f o r H i m t o be accepted in our day. H i s claims about H i s special relationship w i t h G o d and H i s dogmatic pronouncements

about

righteousness, sin, judgment, and hell are especially offensive a n d distastef u l . D i d Jesus really say all the things attributed t o H i m in the Gospels? D i d H e really mean them? Jesus was a nice guy w h o loved H i s neighbor, right? T h e Jesus En the Gospels is completely different f r o m the m o d e r n idea o f a savior, a n d the things H e said are so comprehensively challenging t o the m o d e r n {and p o s t m o d e r n ) perspective, that i t is extremely d i f f i c u l t f o r men in our day t o k n o w what t o d o w i t h H i m . J

I f we cannot really handle H i m , why can we n o t simply ignore H i m : T h i s also presents a challenge. A t the same time H e offends us, H e also haunts and attracts us. H e says things that captivate even those w h o hate H i m . A n d H i s impact o n h i s t o r y is simply t o o great t o ignore- T h e civilizations and cultures o f most o f the w o r l d have been influenced by H i m to such a degree that we arc all forced t o a d m i t there is an elephant in the living r o o m . T h u s , the offense o f Jesus is counterbalanced by the undeniable n o b i l i t y of H i s person and the impact o f H i s presence here o n earth. So then, rather than simply reject Jesus, the way o f m o d e r n scholarship is t o revise H i m . T h e search f o r the "historical Jesus" and the so-called " c r i t i c a l " approaches t o the Gospels are i n reality attempts to force Jesus i n t o the skeptics' m o l d . Since m o d e r n scholars cannot tolerate the Jesus o f the Gospels as H e is, they t r i m a little here, stretch a little there, and b e h o l d — H e fits the Procrustean bed perfectly! O r , at least, almost perfectly.' The problem is that H i s miracles and teachings constitute a worldvicwlevel challenge, confronting the whole idea o f who man is and what his basic problems are. W h a t d o we do? O u r options are really very limited. W e must altogether deny H i m , as atheists do, or significantly revise H i m , as ancient Jews, medieval M u s l i m s , and m o d e r n unbelieving scholars have done. O r wc must believe in H i m and change ourselves and our worldviews t o fit H i s m o l d . ' Both the bed and the reconstructed imatrc o t Jesus have to be changed each generation. T h e "historical Jesus" o f the critics is not the Jesus w h o lived i n history. H e is the Jesus who I I J S

been upgraded t o f i t our history.


T R I N I T Y A N D H I S TORY: T H H

PIVOT

113

Miracles Miracles are scumbling blocks co the contemporary m i n d . Liberal scholars and theologians w o u l d like t o revise the Bible by removing embarrassing stones o f Jesus raising Lazarus f r o m the dead o r feeding five thousand people w i t h five loaves o f bread and t w o fish. But the " p r o b l e m " — i f that is the way we t h i n k o f i t — o f biblical miracles goes m u c h deeper- T h e incarnation o f the Second Person of the Godhead is the central miracle of the Christian faith. Inseparably linked w i t h i t are the miracles o f Jesus' virgin b i r t h , H i s resurrection f r o m the dead, and H i s ascension t o the r i g h t hand o f G o d , H i s c r u c i f i x i o n as a sacrifice for the sin o f the w o r l d is so closely tied

Christianity is inCSQpably a religion of miracles,

t o the miracle of the resurrection that denial o f the resurrection w o u l d n u l l i f y the biblical meaning o f the cross. I f miracles per se are the s t u m b l i n g block, then no revision o f the Christian narrative w i l l be able t o satisfy the objector. Miracles are n o t secondary t o Christianity. Christianity is inescapably a religion o f miracles, or, more properly, it is the religion o f the m i r a c l e — t h e incarnation o f G o d , There are three basic questions about miracles and Christianity. First, are miracles possible? Second, d i d the miracles recorded in the Bible actually occur? Answer either o f these questions in the negative and you deny Christianity. Philosophical arguments against the miracles o f the Bible often address the first question and deny miracles arc possible. In t h a t case, Christianity, a religion o f miracles, c o u l d n o t be true. Others may grant the possibility of the miraculous b u t deny the miracles of the Bible occurred. I n this case also, Christianity c o u l d n o t be true. Obviously the Christian answers these questions in the affirmative. T h e i m p o r t a n t question f o r the Christian is the t h i r d one: W h a t do the biblical miracles mean?

Miracles and Worldview T h i s is n o t the place t o address in detail the many philosophical and h i s t o r i cal questions about miracles,The essential p o i n t is that one's conception o f miracles is b o u n d u p w i t h ones worldview. I n a w o r l d w i t h o u t G o d , there are obviously n o "miracles" i n the C h r i s t i a n sense o f the word. For the Christian, a true miracle is a w o r k o f G o d — w h i c h is t o say, a Christian


114

CHAPTHR

SKVKN

cannot be satisfied w i t h a "general ' d e f i n i t i o n o f miracle that leaves open 1

the question of w h o is ultimately responsible f o r the inexplicable or the mysterious. Someone w i t h a different worldview m i g h t object that the Christian d e f i n i t i o n is unfair in that i t prejudges the case. But for Christians what arc properly called miracles arc always and only works o f G o d . T h e doctrine o f miracles is so b o u n d up w i t h our understanding o f G o d that anything other than a theological d e f i n i t i o n o f miracles w o u l d be tantamount to defining the w o r d in a manner inconsistent w i t h Christian faith. I n other words, a Christian cannot speak about miracles w i t h o u t also speaking about the k i n d o f G o d he believes i n . T h e t w o ideas f u n c t i o n together w i t h i n an integrated whole so that the d e f i n i t i o n o f miracles is necessarily a worldview issue also. I n a d d i t i o n t o the complications that arc involved i n the problem o f defining miracles, further complications arise f r o m h u m a n psychology, i m perfectly u n d e r s t o o d — o r even utterly b a f f l i n g — n a t u r a l phenomena, fraud, and malevolent spirits. D e l u s i o n , hysteria, w i l l power, self-deception, and all sorts o f personal and individual psychological quirks are related t o the p r o b lem o f understanding apparently supernatural or unusual phenomena. T h e Christian historian is perfectly r i g h t to take i n t o account the psychological aspects o f reports of supernatural phenomena. W e also must n o t ignore the fact that things happen w h i c h we cannot explain but w h i c h may be understood in the future. A n y Christian theologian o r historian attempting t o offer a comprehensive theology of miracles w o u l d have t o address concerns about human psychology and inexplicable natural phenomena. A far more i m p o r t a n t issue, however, is the influence o f evil s p i r i t s , T h i s is an aspect o f the discussion we must not forget. Belief in angels, including Satan and evil spirits, is as essential t o Christian belief as the doctrine o f sin. I t is also p r o f o u n d l y relevant t o the question o f miracles. Angels and evil spirits are "supernatural" beings w i t h influence and powers that defy our naturalistic science. T h e y have power t o do exceedingly strange and wonderful things. T h e Bible specifically addresses the matter o f Satanic "miracles" and tells us that Satan's "miracles" and God's miracles arc n o t alwavs distin¬ guishable o n the surface ( M t . 2 4 : 2 4 ) . I n a d d i t i o n t o these issues, we must distinguish true miracles f r o m fake miracles and other frauds perpetrated by various and sundry " f a i t h healers," charlatans, and religious hucksters. Even some of these may prove d i f f i c u l t


115

T R I N I T Y A N D H I S TORY: T H H P I V O T

t o discern. But just as the existence o f a counterfeit dollar docs n o t disprove the existence o f true dollars, the existence o f demonic miracles and counterfeit miracles—even an abundance o f counterfeit miracles—does nor detract f r o m the t r u t h , value, and meaning o f the genuine article. W i t h this in m i n d , we return t o the issue o f the possibility o f miracles. Arguments denying the possibility o f miracles may appear t o be arguments about the rationality o f the w o r l d or scientific m e t h o d , bur they are actually worldview arguments. I n one f o r m or another, those w h o deny the possibility o f miracles are simply applying their presuppositions about the w o r l d to the question o f miracles and concluding that the Christian view o f miracles must be false. I n other words,

Many WDfldvieWS by

those w h o deny Christian miracles may appear t o do so

definition rule OUt the

o n some established scientific o r historical basis used

possibility of mirades.

t o judge the possibility or i m p o s s i b i l i t y o f the miraculous. But what we really find is that the deck has been stacked. T h e starting p o i n t o f the argument is stated in such a way that miracles w o u l d be impossible i n the w o r l d i n w h i c h we live. T h e standards are designed t o get the desired results. W h e n the argument concludes that miracles are impossible, we should n o t be surprised. A simple f o r m o f this k i n d of argument can be stated i n the f o l l o w i n g syllogism.

1 . T h e laws o f physics cannot be violated, 2. Miracles are a v i o l a t i o n o f the laws o f phy sics, 3. Therefore, miracles cannot occur. Obviously, i f we define the laws o f physics as inviolable and then define miracles as a v i o l a t i o n o f physical laws, i t is a short and easy step t o the conclusion, f o r the conclusion is already included i n the definitions that f o r m the premises. I n itself this sort o f argument is n o t very interesting, but it does h i g h l i g h t the issue we have been emphasizing: U n d e r l y i n g the n o t i o n o f miracle is worldview. M a n y worldviews by d e f i n i t i o n rule o u t the possib i l i t y o f miracles, and people w h o h o l d t o those worldviews w i l l be inclined t o deny any evidence, however forceful, that suggests that a miracle may have actually happened. Buddhism, f o r example, denies the existence o f G o d . I n the Buddhist w o r l d , strange t h i n g s — o f the sort that m i g h t make an interesting television


116

CHAPTHR

SKVKN

s h o w — o f t e n happen, b u t miracles as Christians define t h e m arc impossible for the simple reason that there is no G o d . Miracles in Judaism and Islam are fundamentally different from the meaning o f a miracle i n a religion like B u d d h i s m and much closer i n meaning t o Christian miracles. I n Judaism and Islam, a miracle is a w o r k o f the one true G o d . I t testifies of H i s power, H i s goodness, and H i s special care f o r H i s creatures. In these respects, their cheolosv o f miracle is very similar t o that o f Christianity, but it differs i n [his one fundamental and i m p o r t a n t respect: miracles i n the Bible have a special meaning grounded in a distinctly Christian understanding that their ultimate reference p o i n t is the incarnation o f G o d in Jesus Christ.

Miracles and the Laws of Physics Biblical miracles are not exceptions t o the laws o f physics; they are simply instances o f G o d d o i n g things o u t o f the ordinary. F r o m the perspective o f the Christian worldview, the whole n o t i o n of physical laws must be denied. T h e w o r l d is nor under the c o n t r o l of "forces" such as gravity, the weak and strong forces, and the electromagnetic force. T h e Christian worldview denies

these as independent forces. W h y ? Listen t o Steven Weinberg:

"[OJur

discovery of the connected and convergent pattern o f scientific explanations has done the very great service of teaching us that there is no r o o m i n nature for astrology or telekinesis or creationism or other superstitions. "

2

Like many today, Weinberg believes that science is discovering "explanations b u i l t i n t o the logical structure o f nature."' H e is offended, therefore, when a philosopher such as Wittgenstein suggests "at the basis o f the whole m o d e r n view o f the w o r l d lies the illusion that the so-called laws o f nature arc the explanations of natural phenomena."

1

But Wittgenstein is r i g h t . T h c m o d e r n w o r l d v i e w presupposes that there are objective laws and forces r u l i n g the w o r l d . These are believed t o be built into the logical structure o f nature. Since what we are actually t a l k i n g about is man's interpretation o f the w o r l d , what the so-called "laws o f nature" explain is n o t the way the w o r l d works, b u t what men believe about the way the w o r l d works. I n other words, what is offensive t o Weinberg is that 1

Drams of a Finai Theory, 39.

1

Ibid.. 6.

1

Ibid,, 21.


T R I N I T Y A N D H I S TORY: T H H PIVOT

117

Wittgenstein calls i n t o question his religious presuppositions. Weinberg believes in a worldview f o r which he has no ultimate proof. H i s certainty that Christianity and creatiomsm are superstitions that we no longer have to be burdened w i t h is a certainty grounded i n his presuppositions about nature. But we m i g h t ask, how do we k n o w the universe has a logical structure; O r , how do we k n o w the m i n d o f man has any real connection to the facts o f the outside world? Is n o t the only reality we k n o w the reality that we perceive? I f so, then is i t n o t also true that all our "scientific facts" are only as g o o d as our perception of reality? liven when we use instruments to extend our perception, we cannot design, construct, read, or interpret our instruments apart f r o m the whole interpretive framework b u i l t i n t o our senses. Given the presuppositions o f a chance universe, evolving purely at r a n d o m , aimed at no particular purpose or meaning, how d o we k n o w our minds and the scientific laws we create have any meaning at all? H o w do we k n o w they are " t r u e ' o r that the idea o f " t r u t h ' itself has any meaning? h o t 1

1

Weinberg's worldview, these are n o t easy questions to answer. W h a t shall the n o n - C h r i s t i a n do? C o n t r a r y to Weinberg's delusions about the rationality o f his worldview, when it comes to the most basic or ultimate questions, he answers by f a i t h . H e believes in a worldview that is essentially religious. For the one w h o disparages f a i t h , the fact that everything comes back to a faith-based starting p o i n t is a basic and inescapable problem, a " w o r l d v i e w levcf" dilemma. I f reason is g o d , man cannot afford to be stuck in a w o r l d where, like it or not, he must live by f a i t h . O f course, the Christian also must stand o n faith, but that is n o t an embarrassment for his worldview, f o r in the Christian worldview, man's reason and experience are n o t the ultimate source o f knowledge or w i s d o m . M a n is God's creature, designed to live by f a i t h in God's revelation and to reason in terms o f that f a i t h . T h i s differs just as radically f r o m worldviews that propose an irrational leap o f faith as it does f r o m the rationalist's claim to knowledge independent f r o m G o d . T h e Christian view o f G o d and the w o r l d also means there are n o scientific laws w i t h objective status giving us insight into the "logical structure" o f the universe. A n intelligent Christian does not and cannot believe that the fundamental forces o f physics direct the whole w o r l d . G o d the Creator controls the w o r l d . Whatever secondary means H e pleases to use, H i s u l t i mate manner o f c o n t r o l is revealed i n the creation story as covenantal. I n a d d i t i o n , G o d has b o u n d H i m s e l f , in the N o a h i c covenant, to u p h o l d the


118

ı V

CHAPTHR

SKVKN

*gular cycles o f the w o r l d . İn this sense, then, the universe does have what

we m i g h t call a "logical structure," and it is regular. But the structure o f the w o r l d and the regularities o f its movement are covenanral. T h e y express the personal rule o f G o d and H i s faithfulness, n o t impersonal forces and laws. Covenantal c o n t r o l differs f r o m the idea o f impersonal forces and laws in important ways, hirst, covenantal regularities, much more than the scientists b l i n d faith i n impersonal laws, offer a f o u n d a t i o n for scientific research. We have G o d s promise that H e w i l l rule the w o r l d i n a regular and p r i n c i p l e d manner so that man can rule the w o r l d under H i m . T h i s is the whole point o f the " l a w - l i k e " nature o f the w o r l d . We are able t o study H i s "schedule" and H i s ways, and then fit our ways to H i s . T h u s , the denial o f impersonal law and forces is n o t by any means the denial o f science or scientific study. Rather, i t is the recognition that the w o r k o f science fits i n t o a distinct framework that gives science its singular significance, Covenantal c o n t r o l is also personal. G o d is involved in the w o r l d . T h e Creator G o d o f the Bible, w h o knows when a sparrow falls t o the g r o u n d and numbers the hairs o n our heads, is a G o d w h o is close t o and intimately involved w i t h H i s creation. H e has n o t c o m m i t t e d i t t o the c o n t r o l o f i m personal forces, n o r is H e "breaking a l a w " of some sort when H e does something o u t o f the ordinary. Obviously, i f miracles were n o t extraordi nary, that is, i f they happened all the time everyUlC Structure Of the World

where, we w o u l d find p r e d i c t i n g the conditions o f

and theregularitiesof İtS

the physical world extremely d i f f i c u l t , in which case,

movement are covenantal.

we w o u l d n o t be able t o rule the w o r l d as G o d s vice-regents and successfully f u l f i l l the commission

H e gave us. B u t the need t o r regularity En the w o r l d is not something that puts G o d i n a b i n d . H e does what H e wills when H e wills. Since covenantal control is personal, requiring G o d s involvement w i t h the w o r l d , miracles are expected, i f unusual, occurrences f r o m the Christian perspective. A cov enantal G o d naturally shows H i m s e l f and gives signs o f H i s covenantal rule to guide our hearts t o H i m and remind us o f w h o H e is.

Kinds of Miracles Miracles must be distinguished f r o m G o d s providential rule and H i s an swers t o prayer. I n one sense, we can properly say that G o d has done a



119

miracle whenever we .sec what seems Co be a remarkable answer t o prayer. But the Bible does n o t usually record this sort o f event as a miracle. T h o u g h die Bible does record G o d answering the prayers of H i s people, it also records cases where their prayers seem t o go unanswered. Also, G o d s answer t o the prayers o f an individual may appear spectacular t o that individual but entirely ordinary t o others around h i m . W h e n , f o r example, G o d saved D a v i d f r o m Saul, we k n o w there was a special w o r k i n g o f God's providence that l e d the Philistines to attack

The miracles in the Bible

the land at just the r i g h t t i m e ( 1 Sam. 2 3 : 2 7 - 2 8 ) .

are covenant Signs.

People indisposed t o believe i n G o d easily explain away such events as happenstance. B u t the fact that relatively similar providential events abound i n history is undeniable, f o r G o d acts daily t o carry o u t H i s w i l l . G o d also answers prayer, and so Christians are n o t w r o n g t o sec H i s hand at w o r k i n the everyday affairs o f life. W h a t the Bible records as miracles are something essentially different. T h e y are special signs and manifestations o f G o d s power but, more than that, signs o f H i s covenant. T h e covenantal meaning o f miracles is the reason they d o n o t occur w i t h regular frequency t h r o u g h o u t the h i s t o i y of the 7

world. I n the Bible, we see that G o d w o r k s miracles at special times: W h e n G o d b r o u g h t covenantal judgment o n the w o r l d i n the days o f N o a h , when H e gave a N e w Covenant t o Abraham, when H e led Israel o u t o f Egypt, and when G o d was about t o b r i n g judgment on the N o r t h e r n K i n g d o m o f Israel. These were all times o f covenantal transition. W h e n G o d brings one covenantal era t o an end i n order t o inaugurate a new one, H e "comes near'

1

and, as the children o f Israel observed i n the wilderness, H i s presence is glorious. Biblical miracles were all associated w i t h God's covenantal presence i n special blessing and judgment. I t is this covenantal connection that makes the miracles o f Jesus so significant, for they publicly vindicated H i m as the Messiah, the one t h r o u g h w h o m G o d was bringing a new covenant. I n like manner, the apostles t h r o u g h their miracles authenticated Christ as Messiah and themselves as H i s special representatives. T h e miracles i n the Bible, then, are n o t merely powerful and amazing works that fill us w i t h wonder, nor are they simply exceptional ways o i meeting o u r needs. T h e y are covenant signs. T h e covenant is the key t o distinguishing biblical miracles f r o m what we often call miraculous events. O f course, we may use the w o r d


120

CHÀPTHR

SKVKN

wimele t o refer to various kinds o f events, but when we d o it is i m p o r t a n t to remember that the miracles in the Bible are qualitatively different because they are covenant signs.

Miracles and the Covenant T h e relationship between miracles and the covenant merits further consideration. T h e connection between miracles and the covenant is apparent in the O l d Testament when we explore the n o t i o n of a covenantal sign. T h e first such sign that G o d gave t o m a n was the rainbow, the sign o f the covenant that H e granted to N o a h and t o the whole race t h r o u g h h i m (Gen. 9:12—13, 17). Circumcision, too, was given as a covenant sign (Gen. 17:11), Also, the miracles that Moses d i d i n E g y p t were covenant signs ( E x o d . 4:8¬ 28; 7:3; 8:23; 10:1—2) associated w i t h non-miraculous covenant signs like the Passover feast and the Sabbath (Exod. 13:14—16; 31:12—17; Deut. 5:15). I n the same way, miraculous events in the history of Israel are invariably associated w i t h G o d s covenantal blessings and curses- Extraordinary blessings and curses usually attend times of extraordinary apostasy-They arc also associated w i t h the g i f t o f a new covenant. For example, Elijah and Elisha ministered t o Israel i n a t i m e o f covenantal judgment, and the signs they performed testified f o r the believing remnant and against the apostate majority. T h e miracles o f Jesus and H i s apostles, too, were signs o f the covenant The Israel of Jesus' day, like Israel in the day s of Ahab, had departed f r o m the faith and her leaders were corrupt. T h e people needed healing in every way, not just for their physical diseases, Jesus worked H i s miracles solely for Israel s benefit because H e was the Messiah who had come t o restore Israel t o her priesdy role. Diseases like leprosy and blindness disqualified the people f r o m priestly service and temple worship. By healing their diseases, Jesus was offering H i s Messianic credentials and calling the Jews into a new covenant. Miracles, then, are n o t merely works of power or answers t o prayer. T h e y are specific signs o f the covenant, similar t o other covenantal signs and part oi the covenantal system o f blessings and curses. G o d promised H i s people that i f they kept the covenant, H e w o u l d bless them, and i f they broke the covenant, H e w o u l d curse t h e m (Lev. 26; D e u t . 2 8 ) . T h e blessings and curses o f the covenant include what m o d e r n non-Christians regard as matters under the rule o f natural forces—rain (Lev. 26:4; D e u t . 28:12, 23—24),



fertility

121

(Lev. 2 6 : 1 9 ; Dent. 28:4, 1 1 , 3 8 - 4 1 ) , w i l d animals (Lev. 2 6 : 2 2 ) , and

disease (Lev. 2 6 : 1 6 ; D c u t . 28:21—22, 27, 3 5 ) — o r historical forces—economics (Lev. 2 6 : 2 6 ; D e u t . 28:8, 12—I3 3 0 - 3 2 ) and politics (Lev, 26:7—8, f

17, 25, 31—33; D e n t . 28:7, 2 5 , 32—33, 36—37). I n all o f these matters, God's c o n t r o l and leading are the real "secret" t o the w o r k i n g o f the w o r l d . I n the n o r m a l process of history, individual men, groups, and nations are blessed, disciplined, or cursed by G o d , T h o u g h G o d s involvement is b o t h direct and indirect, it is usually n o t obvious. Miracles, too, may use means, as when G o d b r o u g h t a w i n d t o part the Red Sea and Jesus used the five loaves o f bread t o teed five thousand men ^not including women and children), or be accomplished w i t h o u t means, as when Jesus commanded dead Lazarus t o come o u t o f his t o m b . W h a t the Bible frequently calls "signs" and what we call "miracles" should be regarded as extensions o f the n o r m a l blessings and curses o t the covenant. W h e n G o d brings an end t o one covenant or ushers in a new one, H e often manifests H i s presence in blessings and curses in an exceptional manner. Miracles differ f r o m ordinary providence only i n being special manifestations that publicly testify of God's power and presence. F r o m the perspective o f the Christian world view, we should t h i n k it o d d if, at extraordinary times, G o d d i d n o t manifest H i s covenant blessing and curse i n extraordinary ways. W h e n the covenantal situation in the w o r l d J

J

calls for a response by G o d , H e shows H i s people H e is n o t far o f f H e brings judgment and blessing and saves H i s p e o p l e . T h r o u g h o u t the era o f the O l d Covenant, f r o m the time o f A d a m t o Christ, G o d repeatedly m a n i fested H i s presence at special times and saved H i s people i n special ways. But there is something more basic than this. Miracles arc associated w i t h the blessing and curse of the covenant, b u t not during " o r d i n a r y times." Miracles occur d u r i n g times o f covenantal transition. W h e n G o d makes a new covenant. H e H i m s e l f comes near. Miracles manifest H i s presence and authenticate H i s messengers. H o w w o u l d the children o f Israel have recognized Moses as a prophet f r o m G o d i t n o t for the miracles that demonstrated t o t h e m that G o d was w i t h h i m and w o r k i n g t h r o u g h h i m t o judge Egypt and b r i n g a new covenant t o Israel.The covenant L o r d H i m s e l f must be present, in person o r t h r o u g h H i s representatives, in order t o grant a new covenant. Miracles are the powerful manifestation o f the presence o f the L o r d o f Creation in times of covenantal transition.


122

CHAPTHR

SKVKN

Miracles and the Incarnation There is n o greater miracle than the incarnation. T h e fact that G o d makes H i s presence k n o w n i n saving H i s people takes o n a w h o l l y new and deeper meaning i n the incarnation o f Christ, N o n e o f the covenants i n the O l d Covenant era i r o m the time o f A d a m t o the time o f Christ was " n e w " in the full sense o f the word. T h e y were extensions o f the original covenant w i t h A d a m that renewed the promise o f the "seed o f the w o m a n " (Gen. 3:15), O n l y i n the incarnation o f Christ d o we see the h i l l meaning o f God's intention o f g r a n t i n g H i s covenant t o a new race o f man. In Christ, the new humanity is one w i t h G o d . Jesus is inmianuel, " G o d w i t h us" ( M r . 1:23). H i s identity as the covenant L o r d , however, was partially disguised. Rather than presenting H i m s e l f to the w o r l d i n p o m p and glorv and overwhelming the R o m a n h m p i r e w i t h signs o f H i s great power, H e came i n the f o r m of a lowlv, humble man, a carpenter h o r n Nazareth, H e repeatedly warned H i s disciples n o t t o tell people w h o H e was ( M t . 8:4; 16:20; 17:9; M L 7:36; 8:30; 9:9; L k , 5:14; 8:56; 9:21), f o r they d i d n o t understand the true meaning o f H i s signs. Nowhere is this clearer than i n John chapter 6, when Jesus fed the multitudes w i t h a few loaves o f bread. T h e y immediately saw the significance o f a miraculous provision o f bread in the wilderness and understood Jesus was a new Moses, the promised Messiah ( 6 : 1 4 ) . B u t t o t h e m the salvation the Messiah w o u l d b r i n g was political deliverance f r o m Rome ( 6 : 1 5 ) . W h e n Jesus explained the meaning oi the N e w Covenant, they all forsook h i m ( 6 : 6 6 ) . The Pharisees d i d n o t deny Jesus miracles; they simply claimed that H e 1

d i d t h e m by the power o f the devil ( M t . 12:24). G o d , however, was manifesting H i s power and presence i n a new and entirely different way. H e came into the world as a man. H e d i d n o t terrify the Jews w i t h the glory of H i s presence, as H e had done at M o u n t Sinai. H e was now one o f us, our elder brother. For those w h o had eyes t o see, G o d indeed "tabernacled" (Jn. 1:14) among us just as H e had done i n the wilderness, b u t H e manifested H i s f

glorv in a new and wonderful manner. A l l the miracles in the O l d Covenant era were i n fact p o i n t i n g forward to the t i m e when G o d w o u l d come t o us and become one w i t h us through the incarnation, hvery renewal o f the O l d Covenant was a promise o f the N e w Covenant t o come i n Christ. W h e n the N e w Covenant was given, therefore, i t came w i t h signs and wonders, c o n f i r m i n g that G o d was indeed bringing i n the definitive new era,



123

unlike anything that had ever happened before. T h a t was the meaning behind the miracles o f Jesus and H i s disciples. It was also the meaning o f the miracle of Jesus' virgin b i r t h — t h e G o d o f the covenant had come to save H i s covenant people. G o d sent H i s o w n Son to be b o r n o f a virgin t o become flesh and b l o o d like us. T h e Son o f G o d d i d not come for a visit; H e became the second covenant head, the leader o f a new race o f man. I n H i s b i r t h , the Second Person t o o k u p o n H i m s e l f a f u l l human nature. Like A d a m at the time o f his creation, Jesus was a man w i t h o u t sin. Unlike A d a m , Jesus lived a life o f faithfulness t o God.

I n the miracle o f the resurrection, Jesus d i d

Jesus* miracles are essential to the Christian WOrldvieW.

n o t simply come back to life. H e defeated sin and death and became the heir to a new life. Since H e died as a covenant representative t o replace A d a m , the o l d creation, the O l d Covenant, and the o l d world system all died in H i s death. W i t h H i s resurrection and ascension t o the right hand o f G o d , all was made new. H i s miracles announced and prepared the way

for a N e w Covenant, a N e w Jerusalem, a new Israel, and a new temple. T h e miracles o f Jesus, then, are an essential aspect o f the Christian

world view* T h e y demonstrate that the G o d o f the covenant rules history according t o H i s perfect covcnantal plan. Jesus miracles calf men t o cov1

enants! faith and obedience. T h e v announce that G o d has become one w i t h J

man i n the incarnation. T h i s most p r o f o u n d o f t r u t h s is central t o a proper Christian understanding o f the w o r l d .

Incarnation and Worldview Before discussing the worldview implications o f the incarnation, we need to understand exactly what the doctrine o f the incarnation is. T h e Christian consensus cannot be taken t o r granted, f o r the w o r d incarnation is used i n various ways, a n d i n the academic discipline o f comparative religion, the n o t i o n o f incarnation is vague. Since the English w o r d incarnation comes f r o m the L a t i n incarnatio, w h i c h means "being i n flesh,'' any sort o f "being in flesh" can be called an incarnation. I n H i n d u i s m , f o r example, Vishnu appears at various times as a great boar, a giant fish, a m a n - l i o n , and a d w a r f to name only a few o f his various manifestations. H i s most popular appearances are as Krishna and Rama, b o t h w a r r i o r heroes w h o came t o defeat demons that oppressed the earth. A l l o f Vishnu's various forms have been


124

CHAPTHR

SKVKN

referred t o as "incarnations." For some Buddhists, Siddhartha

Gnatama—

k n o w n as the Buddha because o f his attaining enlightenment—was the i n carnation o f the Eternal Buddha. I n ancient E g y p t and ancient Japan, the k i n g — P h a r a o h i n Egypt, Emperor in Japan—was considered an incarnation o f deity, in a manner o f speaking. These and similar "incarnations" are often considered t o be parallel t o the Christian idea o f the incarnation o f G o d i n Christ. John H i c k , a w e l l - k n o w n philosopher o f religion, is one o f those who regard the n o t i o n o f incarnation as the c o m m o n possession o f many ancient cultures. A c c o r d i n g t o H i c k , the idea o f a special human who is regarded as a "son o f G o d " is metaphorical. T h e p r o b l e m w i t h Christianity is that somewhere along the line someone understood the poetry as prose and constructed a metaphysical doctrine in the place of the metaphorical idea. T h u s , H i c k considers the o r t h o d o x Christian theology o f incarnation t o be a sort oi religious heresy that "has l o n g poisoned relationships b o t h between Christians and Jews and between Christians and M u s l i m s , as well as affecting the history o f Christian imperialism i n the Far East, India, Africa, and elsewhere."" We need to understand very clearly that i f incarnation means no more than John H i c k thinks i t does, then Christianity is n o t only n o t superior to other religions, i t is a false religion and a fraud. I t was not, as H i c k asserts, the Church of later centuries that t o o k the poetry o f the Bible and made i t into prose.Thomas was a disciple o f Jesus and a strictly monotheistic Jew, yet he bowed d o w n before Jesus and exclaimed, " M y L o r d and my G o d ! ' [Jn, 2 0 : 2 8 ) , Paul, a Pharisee o f the Pharisees, was n o t the type t o use an expression like " L o r d o f g l o r y " t o refer t o a mere creature ( I Cor. 2:8). T h e Church d i d n o t t r a n s f o r m a metaphor i n t o a theological doctrine. She simply followed the monotheistic Jewish apostles o f Jesus, w h o claimed t o have met a man w h o was G o d i n the f l e s h — s o m e t h i n g they w o u l d never have t h o u g h t of before encountering Jesus, because Jews were n o t like the rest o f the people i n the ancient w o r l d f o r w h o m the line between the gods and man was rather vague. T h e Jews believed in a transcendent G o d , separate and distinct f r o m the w o r l d , w h o had created all things i r o m n o t h i n g . W h a t is so s t a r t l i n g about the biblical n o t i o n of incarnation is that John tells us

'John

H i c k . G ^ H ^ A ^ H v A ' ^ ^ i P h i l L H i c l p h i ^ W c M m i r i i U T , 1 9 8 2 ) , 8.



125

that the Htcrnal W o r d , w h o created all things w i t h o u t exception, d i d H i m self become flesh and dwell among Lis Q n . 1:1—3, 14). I f this is n o t true, then the whole Christian religion is false and the Christian worldview is a chimera, C h r i s t i a n i t y cannot be separated f r o m the incarnation and merged w i t h other religions by reinterpreting the biblical language o f the incarnat i o n as metaphor, h i t h e r Christ is the metaphy sical Son o f G o d , distinct in Person and equal w i t h the Father in being and attributes, or Christianity is a sham.

Incarnation Defined T h e Bible describes Jesus to us in clear b u t conceptually d i f f i c u l t language. O n the one hand, i t is patent that Jesus is a real man, b o r n f r o m M a r y . H e lived a n o r m a l life as a child and worked as a carpenter u n t i l H e was thirty. Like any other man, H e ate and slept. H e got tired. H e wept over the suffering o f H i s friends. A f t e r about three years o f ministry, H e was crucified. H e died and was buried. Three days later, H e rose again f r o m the dead i n the same body in which H e was crucified. H e appeared to H i s disciples for f o r t y days, teaching them and t r a i n i n g them for their m i n i s t r y (Acts

1:3),

T h e n , H e ascended b o d i l y i n t o heaven, where H e was given the place of honor at the r i g h t hand o f G o d , H e w i l l r e t u r n b o d i l y at the end o f history. A n d H e w i l l dwell b o d i l v w i t h the Church f o r etcrnitv as her L o r d , T h e assumption of h u m a n i t y by the second Person of the T r i n i t y was n o t temporary or partial. T h e Son o f G o d is a real man and H e is a real man forever. But that does n o t mean that H e has ceased to be G o d . T h e Bible emphasizes the t r u t h of Jesus' real divinity no less than that o f H i s true humanity. T h e Gospels show us a divine Person, the Son o f G o d , who became a man. H e was the timeless W o r d f r o m eternity past (Jn. 1:1), though H e was b o r n in time to the V i r g i n M a r y . A l l of this is the testimony o f Scripture.The problem for the early Church was how to p u t the whole testimony o f Scripture i n t o a single statement, how to summarize it f r o m Scripture. Some w h o claimed to be Christians considered the idea o f the incarnation offensive. H o w could the infinite G o d assume a finite body? W h y w o u l d H e do so; T h e material w o r l d was considered c o r r u p t and evil. Jesus, they said, merely appeared to have a physical body, but since H e was G o d , H e could never actually have been a


CHAPTHR

SKVKN

man. T h e Apostle John addressed a heresy o f this sort when he said that whoever denies that Jesus has come in the flesh is an antichrist ( I Jn. 4:2—3; 2 Jn. 7 ) . Other heresies arose as well. Some denied the deity o f Christ, others denied H i s humanity. Some virtually regarded H i m as t w o persons, one human and one divine. Others mixed H i s divine and human natures. Eventually, the Church was forced t o come u p w i t h a summary statement o f the biblical teaching about Christ, i n the same way that i t had come u p w i t h a summary statement about G o d . T h e Creed o f Chalccdon ( A . D . 4 5 1 ) was the Church's definitive statement o f the doctrine o f Christ.

We, then,

following

t h e h n l y Fathers, n i l w i r h o n e consent, reach m e n t o

confess o n e a n d t h e same S o n . o u r L o r d Jesus C h r i s t , t h e same perfect i n G o d h e a d a n d also perfect in m a n h o o d ; r r u l y C j o d a n d r r u l y m a n , o f a reasonable soul a n d b o d y ; c o n s u b s t a n t i a l Godhead, a n d consubstantial

w i t h the Father according to the

w i r h us a c c o r d i n g t o t h e M a n h o o d ; i n a l l

t h i n g s l i k e u n t o us, w i t h o u t s i n ; b e g o t t e n b e f o r e a l l ages a c c o r d i n g t o t h e G o d h e a d , a n d in these l a t t e r days, f o r us a n d f o r o u r s a l v a t i o n , b o r n o f t h e I

V i r g i n M a r y , the M o t h e r o f G o d , according t o the M a n h o o d ; one and the same C h r i s t , S o n , L o r d , O n l y - b e g o t t e n , t o be a c k n o w l e d g e d tures; i n c o n f u s e d l y . unchangeably,

i n t w o na-

i n d i v i s i b l y . inseparably; t h e d i s t i n c t i o n

of natures being; b y n o means t a k e n away b y t h e u n i o n , b u r rather t h e p r o p e r t y o f each nature b e i n g preserved, a n d c o n c u r r i n g i n o n e Person a n d o n e Subsistence, n o t p a r t e d o r d i v i d e d i n t o t w o persons, b u t o n e a n d t h e S o n , and o n l y b e g o t t e n , G o d t h e W o r d , t h e L o r d Jesus C h r i s t , as t h e p r o p h e t s f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g have declared c o n c e r n i n g h i m , a n d t h e L o r d Jesus C h r i s t h i m s e l f has t a u g h t us, a n d t h e C r e e d o f t h e h o l y Fathers has h a n d e d d o w n t o us,

Here the Church offered a clear confession o f the faith set f o r t h i n the N e w Testament. T h i s confession confronts us w i t h what is paradoxical and beyond o u r comprehension. Just as we cannot f a t h o m the doctrine o f the Trinity, we cannot actually grasp what it means that one Person has t w o natures, a human and a divine nature, w i t h o u t mixture o r confusion. Rut we can confess what we k n o w t o be true. T h e testimony o f Scripture is clear and our o w n conscience responds t o the w o r d of t r u t h w i r h the " A m e n ' ' o f faith.


T R I N I T Y A N D HISTOKY: T H H PIVOT

127

Incarnation Applied T h e implications o f the doctrine o f the incarnation are p r o f o u n d . I f Jesus is G o d incarnate, the Creator o f the w o r l d manifest in human flesh, H e is the O n e w h o defines t r u t h in every realm. I n Paul's words, " a l l the treasures of w i s d o m and knowledge" are hidden i n Christ ( C o l . 2 : 4 ) . O n l y t h r o u g h the incarnation d i d m a n come t o k n o w the t r u t h o f the T r i n i t y . T h u s , to expound the Christian worldview as a trinitarian w o r l d v i e w includes u n f o l d i n g the implications o f the incarnation.

Jesus

and Religion

Religion is just one o f many areas where C h r i s t i a n i t y is considered o f f e n sive. I f Jesus is the Son of G o d incarnate, then H e is the only way t o r men to be saved. Jesus H i m s e l f asserted, " I a m t h e way, the t r u t h , and the life. N o one comes t o the Father, b u t by M e . " (Jn. 14:6). A c c o r d i n g t o Jesus, Judaism, Islam, H i n d u i s m , Buddhism, and all the other religions o f the world that d o n o t confess H i m as the Eternal Son o f G o d are false religions that lead men astray. These religions cannot save. T h e i r doctrines are n o t true. I t is i m p o r t a n t here t o understand that i f Jesus were simply a teacher of t r u t h , there m i g h t be other teachers also, and there may be many d i f f e r ent perspectives on the " t r u t h . " But Jesus claimed t o be far more than a mere teacher o f the t r u t h . H e presented H i m s e l f as the t r u t h that must be taught. T h e name o f G o d includes " t r u t h " and the S p i r i t is t r u t h ( E x o d . 34:5—7; 1 Jn. 5:6—7), F o r Christianity, t r u t h is the trinitarian G o d H i m s e l f T h e incarnation means that t o k n o w the t r u t h is n o t simply having right ideas or a f o r m u l a that summarizes the relationship between energy and matter. I f man is t o k n o w the t r u t h , he must have a real r e l a t i o n s h i p — a covenantal r e l a t i o n s h i p — w i t h the O n e w h o is t r u t h . Ideas and formulas are n o t necessarily w r o n g o r irrelevant, b u t they are only one aspect o f our relationship w i t h the t r i n i t a r i a n G o d , T o k n o w the O n e w h o is t r u t h is to have eternal life (Jn. 17:3). T h e most p r o f o u n d religious truths, the T r i n i t y and the incarnation, i m p l y that religious t r u t h can never be reduced t o mere philosophical ideas. G o d does n o t save us simply by teaching us r i g h t attitudes and action. H e became one o f us and lived and walked a m o n g us, revealing the ultimate t r u t h in H i s o w n person and the reality o f G o d s love through H i s death f o r o u r sins o n the cross.


128

CHAPTHR

SKVKN

Cosmic Justice T h e death o f the Son o f G o d had a cosmic significance.The Bible tells us Jesus died for the sins o f the w o r l d . H e d i d nor die because o f H i s o w n sins or because death is a natural event that eventually overtakes us all. Accord¬ ing to the Bible, death is n o t natural. I t is a punishment inflicted on the human race because o f the sin o f A d a m . Jesus died o n the cross as a substitute for the sins o f men, so that our sins c o u l d be forgiven i f we believe i n H i m . Salvation is grounded i n G o d s perfect justice n o less than i n G o d s great love. God's absolute righteousness is such that H e w i l l n o t forgive unless the just penalty has been paid. H i s love is so great that H e t o o k the penalty u p o n H i m s e l f sending H i s Son to die i n our stead. N o other religion offers an explanation for the world's problems while also providing a fully satisfying judgment against the evil in the w o r l d . For most forms o f B u d d h i s m and H i n d u i s m , the essence of mans problems is found in the way the w o r l d is. We sufier simply because i t is in the nature o f the w o r l d to cause suffering. Suffering and evil are cosmic realities. T o be saved is to be saved f r o m existence in this w o r l d . For other religions, such as Islam, salvation and forgiveness arc gifts o f Aílah, b u t there is no basis in justice for A l l a h to forgive ( t h o u g h it must be added that the concept of sin m Islam is so shallow that A l l a h does n o t have as m u c h to forgive). Judaism is an unfinished religion. T h e O l d Testament sacrificial system testified that w i t h o u t the shedding o f b l o o d

presented Himself flOt as a mere teacher of truth but ft the Truth that must be taught

JesUS

there can be n o forgiveness, b u t the continual offering also showed that the b l o o d o f bulls and goats c o u l d never take away sin. W i t h the destruction of the temple, its sacrifices ceased almost two thousand years ago. Judaism became a quasi-religion, losing the very center o f its worship system. T h e b o o k o f Leviticus demands

atonement,

but m o d e r n Judaism has no m e t h o d f o r atonement, and the strict demands o f justice require a sacrifice greater than that o f bulls and goats ( H e b . 10:4). O n l y the death of the Messiah as a substitute for H i s people can f u l f i l l the real meaning of the Lcvitical system,

Ethics

T h e life of Christ sets the example o f true h u m a n i t y and true righteousness. John said, " H e w h o says he abides in H i m o u g h t himself also to walk



129

just as H e walked'' ( I Jn. 2:6}* I t is clear in the context what John means ( I ] n . 2:3—8; c f Jn. 15:1 — 16}. H e is n o t saying all Christians arc t o w o r k miracles o r t o become special servants o f G o d , John points t o the life o f Jesus as a m o d e l f o r keeping G o d s commandments (Jn, 15:10), But John is n o t t a l k i n g about superficial o r merely outward obedience. T h e greatest command was the c o m m a n d t o love G o d w i t h our whole self and t o love our brother as Jesus loves h i m ( 1 Jn. 2:9—10; 3:16). Once again, n o other religion has a leader t o compare w i t h Jesus. Read the K o r a n and the M u s l i m accounts o f the life o f M o h a m m e d , o r Buddhist accounts o f the lite of the Buddha. These and other great religious leaders o f the past were men whose charismatic charm, brilliance, devotion t o the cause, and superior gifts attracted a f o l l o w i n g . But they simply do n o t compare t o Jesus, Mohammed's polygamy, i n c l u d i n g m a r r y i n g a g i r l o f about ten years o f age, was more o r less acceptable i n his d a y — t h o u g h after he revealed the law that a m a n should only m a r r y four w o m e n at the most, he con-

The life of Christ Sets the example ot

veniently received special i n s t r u c t i o n

true humanity and true righteousness.

f r o m G o d t o m a r r y the rest o f his many wives. Also, his w a r r i o r ethics and his ancient Arabian f a m i l y structure can¬ n o t stand the test o f time. Islam is burdened w i t h a polygamous warriorprophet as the example o f godly living. T h e life o f Buddha, o n the other hand, was much more a life o f self-denial, at least as far as the t r a d i t i o n teaches i t . But we really k n o w very little about the man himself, and his teaching calls f o r neither love o f G o d n o r neighbor. I t is a radical denial o f self and the w o r l d t o obtain salvation f r o m the cycle o f r e b i r t h , the fundamental metaphysical reality o f suffering. O f course, a true ethic o f love requires a view o f reality i n w h i c h love has ultimate meaning. O n l y m n i t a r i a n Christianity provides that view o f reality and only the incarnation o f Christ offers a concrete image o f love. O n l y the Fathers g i f t o f love t o us, the ultimate self-sacrifice o f the Son o n the cross, and the i l l u m i n a t i o n o f the H o l y Spirit, show us the true meaning o f love. Politics Jesus came preaching that " T h e time is fulfilled and the k i n g d o m o f G o d is at h a n d " ( M k . 1:15). But about three years later, instead o f being crowned in Jerusalem o r leading a Jewish army t o conquer Rome, H e was nailed t o a


130

CHAPTHR

SKVKN

cross as a c r i m i n a l . I f this had been the end o f the whole story, we w o u l d probably n o t have even heard H i s name. H i s whole m i n i s t r y and the announcement o f the k i n g d o m of G o d w o u l d have been regarded as a colossal blunder or perverse fraud. Anyone w h o proclaims H i m s e l f as the one t o usher i n the k i n g d o m o f G o d and save the w o r l d but ends u p dead instead is n o t a man w o r t h y o f great honor, balse mcssiahs abound i n Jewish history, and none o f them is treated as a great man. But death was n o t the end o f Jesus. H e rose again f r o m the grave. T h e resurrection vindicated Jesus' announcement o f the k i n g d o m o f G o d . T h e crucifixion appeared t o be n o t h i n g more than the R o m a n E m p i r e putting another Jewish insurrectionist to death. I n reality, i t was G o d w o r k i n g through the Romans to b r i n g about the judgment o f sin and Satan, laying the f o u n dations f o r H i s k i n g d o m . Jesus b y H i s death defeated death and sin. H e rose f r o m the dead because H e had w o n the victory. W h e n H e rose from the dead, H e d i d n o t simply return t o everyday life in Palestine, as Lazarus d i d , n o r d i d H e have the same m o r t a l body, as Lazarus did. Lazarus came back t o life and returned home t o live as he had lived before, after which he died again and was buried again. Jesus rose f r o m the dead never t o die again. H i s resurrection body was a new body, the body o f the new world and the N e w Covenant. I n H i s new creation body, Jesus spent f o r t y days teaching H i s disciples. H e then ascended into heaven and was seated at the right hand o f G o d . T h e death o f Jesus was n o t the end o f H i s life nor the end o f H i s ministry; it was the foundation for H i s k i n g d o m . By defeating Satan, sin, and death through H i s death, Jesus w o n H i s right t o the throne. T h e victory o f the cross is seen i n the resurrection and ascension. T h e gospel that Christians proclaim, then, is i n the same message Jesus preached. H e announced, " T h e k i n g d o m o f G o d is at hand!'' H i s disciples proclaim, " T h e k i n g d o m has come!" and "Jesus is L o r d . " I n Jesus' words, " A l l authority has been given t o me i n heaven and earth!" T h e gospel is an announcement o f Jesus' victory and the coming o f God's k i n g d o m in heaven and o n earth. T h e announcement o f the k i n g d o m obviously has political implications. I f Christ is the K i n g w i t h all authority in heaven and o n earth, then the kings o f the world owe allegiance t o H i m as the K i n g o f kings. I f Christ is K i n g and L o r d , then H i s L a w - W o r d is the ultimate standard for all civil law. T h e practical implications o f this f o r government are broad and deserve a m u l t i - v o l u m e treatment.



131

But even more than the relatively direct applications o f biblical teaching in this area, the indirect implications o f biblical ethics p r o f o u n d l y affect society and eventually come t o expression i n politics and law. T o take just one example, monogamy is one o f the most i m p o r t a n t basic t r u t h s o f b i b lical ethics, so much so that it is included in theTen Commandments* W h e n the percentage o f Christians i n a society is sufficiently high, monogamy naturally becomes the social standard and the law. J

I n a truly monogamous society, all that undermines

The announcement of the

m o n o g a m y — a d u l t e r y , p r o s t i t u t i o n , homosexuality,

kingdom obviously has

and pornography, f o r exam

pic—

w o u

i d be f o r b i d -

political implications,

den by law. O n the positive side, laws that protect family property, inheritance, and civil rights w o u l d naturally follow. W h e n a man is m a r r i e d t o one woman, he devotes his life t o w o r k f o r her and their children.Together they seek t o pass an inheritance o n t o their children and the sum o f social wealth increases f r o m generation t o generation. M o n o g a m y and property laws i n the context o f Christian faith and ethics were the foundation

for the wealth and freedom o f the West,

Covenant T h e establishment o f the k i n g d o m o f G o d means something far more than saving a few i n d i v i d u a l souls o r i n t r o d u c i n g a new religion i n t o the w o r l d , G o d sent Jesus t o save the w o r l d (Jn. 3:16—18), b u t saving men f r o m sin is n o t just canceling a d e b t — i t includes the restoration o f the original meaning and order o f creation. Even more than that, i t is the transformation o f the o r i g i n a l creation i n t o the new creation. G o d created m a n i n covenantal u n i o n w i t h H i m s e l f . M a n s commission was t o g r o w and mature i n realization o f the covenant fellowship o f love. Man's transgression ruined the original covenant, but G o d i n H i s grace provided a way o f salvation. N o t only was man forgiven, b u t he was also raised t o ovenantal u n i o n w i t h G o d . Christ is the G o d - m a n , the O n e i n w h o m G o d and m a n are perfectly united. F r o m the t i m e o f the incarnation, Christ is man forever. H i s incarnation was not a temporary assumption o f human nature f o r the purpose o f revealing G o d i n this w o r l d o r dying o n the cross. Jesus assumed our nature in order t o be the head o f a new human race, a race " i n Christ'' rather than " i n A d a m . ' T h e new human race fulfills the commission that G o d gave A d a m , b r i n g i n g the w o r l d t o its fullness and completing man's historical


132

CHAPTHR

SKVKN

task. T h e new m a n k i n d , the bride o f Christ, is brought i n t o the covenant fellowship o f the T r i n i t y . U n i o n w i t h G o d is n o t ontological p r o m o t i o n but covenanral fellowship- M a n is accepted as a partner i n the covenant love and communion of God,

Conclusion To deny biblical miracles is t o deny that G o d is near and that H e works i n history and manifests H i s presence i n the g i f t o f the covenant- For every miracle is a witness to the new creation. T h e i r denial is an aspect o f mans attempt t o escape f r o m his Creator and Judge. N o secular or n o n - C h r i s t i a n worldview can tolerate the miracles o f Jesus because o f their w o r l d v i c w significance; they must be denied at all costs. I t is harder t o deny Jesus H i m s e l f T h e m o d e r n answer has been the attempt t o separate the person o f Jesus f r o m H i s miracles and írom those aspects o f H i s teaching men f i n d unpalatable, while preserving those things H e said which, i n the m o d e r n context, c o n f i r m m o d e r n prejudices. T h i s defanged, liberal Jesus is n o threat t o m o d ern sensibilities. But the Jesus o f the Bible w h o performed miracles and claimed t o be G o d is dangerous. H e claims even now to be L o r d o f lords and K i n g o f kings and H e demands that we submit t o H i m in our thoughts, words, and deeds. T h e incarnation o f Christ is the greatest miracle o f history and the central t r u t h o f God's saving w o r k - T h e incarnation was necessary i n order to save m a n , for w i t h o u t a sinless substitute t o bear the penalty f o r our sins, sin could never really be forgiven. A t the same time, our substitute must be able to offer a sacrifice o f i n f i n i t e value, a sacrifice adequate t o redeem a whole race and cleanse the w o r l d o f sin. O n l y the sacrifice of G o d H i m s e l f could satisfy the demands o f G o d s justice. O n l y the incarnation o f G o d H i m s e l f could open the way for salvation. B u t Christ came for a greater purpose than death o n a cross. Jesus became man i n order t o reveal G o d t o us and b r i n g a new race o f men i n t o covenant u n i o n w i t h G o d - T h e S o n o f G o d became man so that a new race o f men m i g h t become sons o f G o d . H e became man to b u i l d H i s church and inaugurate a new k i n g d o m .



133

Review Questions L

W h a t is the challenge o f the m i r a c l e s o f Jesus?

2.

H o w i m p o r t a n t are m i r a c l e s f o r C h r i s t i a n f a i t h :

3.

h x p l a m t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between miracles a n d w o r l d v r e w .

4.

W h a t is t h e t y p i c a l a n t i - C h r i s t i a n a p p r o a c h t o m i r a c l e s i n t h e m o d e r n W e s t :

5.

K x p l a m w h v miracles are n o r v i o l a t i o n s o f rhe Jaws o f

6.

W h a t are some of t h e d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f

7.

E x p l a i n h o w m i r a c l e s relate t o the c o v e n a n t .

8.

W h y are Jesus' miracles especially i m p o r t a n t ?

9.

W h a t are s o m e of the d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e C h r i s t i a n use of t h e w o r d incur-

physics.

miracles;

nation a n d n o n - C h r i s t i a n uses o f the word? 10. O f f e r a b i b l i c a l d e f i n i t i o n o f the i n c a r n a t i o n . 11. H o w does rhc i n c a r n a t i o n a f f e c t o u r view o f religion? 12. C h o o s e a t o p i c a m o n g d i e f o l l o w i n g a n d e x p l a i n its r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the i n c a r n a t i o n , c o m p a r i n g C h r i s t i a n a n d non-C . h n s t r a n views: c o s m i c justice, crhics, p o l i tics, covenant.



8.Trinity and Kingdom T f ir; Cf

I R J S T J A N GOHPIL L

is the proclamation o f Christocracy—Christ's reign.

T h e k i n g d o m focus and purpose o f Christianity, however, have been lost in the m o d e r n West. W h y ? Partly because Christians themselves have t u r n e d f r o m their high calling and compromised w i t h the w o r l d . Also, an aggressive secular humanistic competitor has attacked Christian foundations and stolen Christian social distinctives, m o d i f y i n g t h e m t o f i t the secular program. N o w , we are taught that the so-called "Wars of R e l i g i o n " i n the period f o l l o w i n g the R e f o r m a t i o n demonstrated once and for all that religion and politics do n o t m i x . O u r political salvation is t o be f o u n d in the separation o f religion f r o m politics. For the humanistic political theory o f the Enlightenment, the public square is open t o all b u t Christ and H i s apostles. Free and open debate is the ideal, b u t q u o t i n g Scripture is n o t allowed. Tolerance, after all, can extend only so far. As l o n g as the West was p r i m a r i l y Christian, the m o r a l foundations o f the Wêst were secure. M i n o r players like Judaism, secular humanism, and various and sundry cults shared the m o r a l and religious stage, b u t Christian ethics dominated. Judaism and Christianity shared the Ten Commandments, M o s t secular humanists had enough o f a Christian hangover to go along w i t h the Ten Commandments, f o r their mothers and grandmothers were Christians. T h e cults, sects, and other marginal groups occasionally rejected one or more o f the c o m m a n d m e n t s — l i k e the M o r m o n rejection o f m o n o g a m y — b u t their social impact was negligible.

135


136

CHAPTHK HIGH J

T h e p o s t m o d e r n w o r l d presents us w i t h a new reality. Buddhism, Islam, and other religions and philosophies, even witchcraft and the so-called N e w Age sects, n o w compete o n the open market o f t r u t h , each p r o c l a i m i n g not merely different understandings o f worship and the Lord's Supper or the proper subjects of baptism, b u t w h o l l y different worldvicws. As a result, the secular humanist vision f o r society confronts a challenge arising f r o m the consequences o f its o w n doctrine o f tolerance. Tolerance o f any and every religious o p i n i o n undermines the very foundations o f the West, foundations solidly laid by the Law o f Moses. Ironically, as the case o f Islam clearly shows, i t also undermines the basis f o r toleration itself.The doctrine o f religious equality, w h i c h i n principle demands the recognition o f even the most bizarre and perverse faiths, w o u l d reduce to very real absurdity i f consistently practiced. I n tact, philosophical and religious confusion c o m bined w i t h social pragmatism plays a greater role i n the public sphere today than principle.

The Kingdom Idea A central feature o f every w o r l d v i c w is some type o f " k i n g d o m " n o t i o n , since every worldview must integrate its view o f society and h u m a n i t y w i t h the larger picture o f reality. Even i n the secular humanist West o f our day, where the k i n g d o m n o t i o n may seem t o have been t o p p l e d w i t h the kings themselves, there is still a comparable idea. W h a t can the " k i n g d o m " be when m e n believe i n a universe that came about by chance, where the h u m a n race is a

Every WOrldvieW must integrate

local accident i n a larger impersonal (and

its view of SOCitty and humanity

accidental) cosmos? O n e o p t i o n is t o view

with the larger picture of reality,

our planet as "spaceship earth," a mere ball o f d i r t d r i f t i n g along in the i n f i n i t e expanse w i t h n o particular goal and n o special meaning beyond what we give i t . H i s t o r y , i n this scheme, ends when the sun dies. I n this naturalistic view, m a n k i n d is one because the whole race is biologically one. Diverse societies rooted i n diverse histories, languages, tribal customs, and religions compose the brute reality created by the accident o f our history. Given the lack o f meaning and purpose, this is a rather dark and barren. K i t nonetheless c o m m o n , perspective. The Islamic view differs greatly f r o m the secular humanist perspective.


TRINITY AND KINGDOM

137

Borrowing f r o m Judaism and Christianity, Islam declares itself to be the one true religion, the fulfillment o f the best in all other religions and, more particularly, the fulfillment o f Judaism and Christianity- Its theology o f history is underdeveloped and lacks systematic integration i n part because M o h a m m e d did n o t borrow carefully enough. T h e outlines, however, come f r o m various parts o f the Bible. Imitating the NewTestament doctrine that Jesus fulfills the OldTestament prophecies, Islam claims M o h a m m e d fulfills prophecies f r o m b o t h O l d and N e w Testaments, T h e Bible teaches that Jesus brought in a new age, the final age of history. Islam claims i t was M o h a m m e d , not Jesus, who brought in the new age. Just as Christians reconstructed the calendar to reflect the centrality o f Christ for their view o f the world, M u s l i m s have their o w n calendar that sees Mohammed's flight ( i n the Arabic, Hegira) f r o m Mecca to Medina as the beginning o f the new world ( A . D . 6 2 2 ) . ' Muslims have a problem in that they wish to accept the Bible and Jesus as at least partially true. But Jesus claimed to be G o d . H i s deity would disprove Mohammed's claim to be the one who fulfills all. T o deny the finality and centrality o f Jesus, one must deny H i s deity. Islam, therefore, teaches that Christianity as the confession o f rrimtarian faith is a d i s t o r t i o n o f the truth, largely invented by the Apostle Paul. Paul is the true originator o f "Christiani t y . ' T h e real Jesus d i d n o t die o n the cross and rise again. H e d i d n o t claim to be anything more than a prophet or to offer anything more than a new teaching. In spite o f demoting h i m to the status o f a mere prophet, M u s l i m s nevertheless believe their Jesus w i l l come again at the end o f history to usher in the great resurrection, the final judgment, and an everlasting paradise specifically designed for the tastes o f seventh-century Arabic men: "maids o f m o d est glance w h o m no man nor jinn has deflowered before'' ( K o r a n 5 5 : 5 6 ) ; "gardens o f pleasure , . . gold-weft couches, reclining o n t h e m face to face. A r o u n d t h e m shall go eternal youths, w i t h goblets and ewers and a cup o f flowing

wine; no headache shall they feel therefrom, nor shall their wits be

d i m m e d ! A n d fruits such as they deem the best; and flesh o f f o w l as they desire; and bright and large-eyed maids like hidden pearls; a reward tor that which ye have done!" ( 5 6 : 1 0 , 1 5 — 2 4 ) ; and "gardens, and vineyards, and girls w i t h swelling breasts " ( 7 8 : 3 2 ) .

1

2

T hort is no umnimirv among them, however, on the precise caltrufitions,

*The Koran, trans. E . H , Palmer (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1953 [1900]). 465, 466, 513-514.


138

CHAPTHK HIGH T

I n trie I s l a m i c view, the w o r l d is d i v i d e d i n t o two: the h o u s e of I s l a m a n d the h o u s e o f u n b e l i e f It is the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f M u s l i m s to b r i n g the w h o l e w o r l d i n t o the h o u s e of I s l a m — w h i c h is to sav that I s l a m has its o w n v e r s i o n of the " G r e a t C o m m i s s i o n , " a c o m m a n d to change the w o r l d . H o w ever, the M u s l i m c o m m i s s i o n is p o l e s a p a r t f r o m the C h r i s t i a n

vision.

T h r o u g h m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g the s i g n i f i c a n c e of w a r in the Bible, M o h a m m e d created the M u s l i m view o f H o l y War—Jihad. A p p a r e n t l y he t h o u g h t

the

wars b e t w e e n g o d l y Jews a n d the G e n t i l e pagans were b i b l i c a l examples o f s p r e a d i n g the t r u t h by m i l i t a r y c o n q u e s t . L e t the pagans c o n v e r t o r dicJ T h u s , in conservative I s l a m , t h e c o m m i s s i o n to change the w o r l d i n c l u d e s calls to actual war.

Kur when the sacred months are passed away kill the idolaters wherever ye may find thctn; and rake them, and besiege rhem, and lie in wait tor them in every place o f observation; but if they repent, and arc steadfast in prayer, and give alms, then let them go their way; verity, G o d is forgiving and mer ciful

3

(9:5)

C l a s s i c a l B u d d h i s m has a n o t h e r v i e w o f the w o r l d . A c c o r d i n g to B u d d h i s m , the w o r l d is d i v i d e d i n t o various ages, b u t B u d d h i s t t h e o l o g i c a l tra d i t i o n s diverge o n this m a t t e r as o n a l m o s t every other. I n the o l d e r sects o f B u d d h i s m , h u m a n society is d i v i d e d b e t w e e n those w h o are m e m b e r s o f the p r i e s t h o o d a n d devote t h e i r lives to the t r u t h , a n d the rest o f h u m a n i t y w h o lead s e c o n d a r y lives m o r e o r less d e f i l e d bv desire. I n cither case, there is little to w o r r y a b o u t in a n y u l t i m a t e sense. T h o s e in this w o r l d w i t h o u t e n l i g h t e n m e n t w i l l be s t u c k in the cycle o f d e a t h a n d r e b i r t h u n t i l they finally attain e n l i g h t e n m e n t . E v e n t u a l l y the w h o l e w o r l d w i l l be e n l i g h t e n e d and h i s t o r y w i l l progress to a n e w age. I n s o m e v e r s i o n s o f B u d d h i s m , the end o f h i s t o r y b r i n g s us back to the b e g i n n i n g , so that we can repeat the w h o l e , l o n g p r o c e s s . H i s t o r y i t s e l f is a n eternal cycle. A f t e r a l l , o n c e y o u get to the e n d , w h a t else İs there to d o :

' T h e Konin, trans. K. H . Palmer, 15ft,This is only one of many places in the Koran that could be died.

T h e verse from chapter 9 quoted above is from one of the later recited

chapters of the Koran. When Mohammed first bcân ro recite, he was in Mecca and a member of a small persecuted group. After moving to Medina and gaining control, the ex I lor ration s to patience were gradual lv replaced with commands to seli-defense and then violent aggression.


139

TRINITY AND KINGDOM

In the Buddhist view, one m i g h t say the goal o f h i s t o r y is the enlightenment o f the whole world- ( I f at that p o i n t history comes to an end and we are n o t forced t o repeat the whole story forever, then there is some sort o f goal and end.) Exactly what this means, however, is n o t clear. T o attain enlightenment i n a pantheistic w o r l d is t o cease being an individual. A l l individual persons are absorbed into the impersonal, all-inclusive O n e . Reincarnation also eliminates the meaning o f the individual person. W h i c h o f the many reincarnations a man lives t h r o u g h is really "he"? For Buddhists, the answer seems t o be " N o n e . " T h e r e can be no real " y o u " I n our day, the k i n g d o m ideas or secular humanism, Islam, and Budd h i s m provide the major alternatives t o the Christian worldview. Cults and new age religions offer variations o n and combinations o f the Bible, secularism, and pantheism. Because o f distortions o f the media, public education, p o p culture, and the arts, Christians i n the m o d e r n West are often confused about the larger k i n g d o m picture o f their o w n worldview. There is, therefore, a very real need t o recover the biblical view o f the k i n g d o m in order to recover a Christian view o f man and his life i n this w o r l d .

The Biblical Kingdom As we have already seen, G o d created the world as H i s k i n g d o m , A d a m and Eve were t o rule over the k i n g d o m as H i s covenantal representatives (Gen, 1:26).They were H i s vicegerents over the rest o f creation.Their descendents, too, were t o rule over the k i n g d o m , b u t A d a m s sin disrupted the k i n g d o m program. D e facto rule fell into the hands o f Satan, t o w h o m A d a m had submitted in the Tall, and m a n k i n d in A d a m was unable t o b u i l d the k i n g d o m o f G o d . Therefore, G o d sent the new A d a m , Jesus Christ, t o be the covenant head o f a new race that w o u l d build a new world. We see, then, that the biblical story o f fall and redemption is the story o f the k i n g d o m o f G o d . I n its original f o r m , the k i n g d o m was lost through sin. Christ came t o build a new k i n g d o m , one that w i l l spread into all the w o r l d and endure forever.

The Principle of the Kingdom T h e principle o f the original k i n g d o m was the flesh. I f A d a m had n o t sinned, the wordflesh w o u l d n o t have taken o n the pejorative connotations i t


140

CHAPTHK

HIGH ï

now has. I t w o u l d simply have p o i n t e d t o the facts that A d a m was a man o f flesh, that rive was created f r o m H i s flesh, and that the rest o f humanity and human institutions grew o u t o f the relationships o f the flesh. Because of Adam's sin, however, the w o r d flesh carries w i t h i t other implications. We t h i n k o f sin, c o r r u p t i o n , and death. T h e first creation, the first covenant, and everything associated w i t h them are tainted w i t h the sin o f A d a m and the c o r r u p t i o n and death that came f r o m his sin. Christ came i n the flesh. H e was a true son o f A d a m and under the covenant i n A d a m , t h o u g h w i t h o u t sin (Gal. 4:4). T o redeem us f r o m our sins, H e t o o k u p o n H i m s e l f the sins o f the w o r l d - T h e curse o f the O l d Covenant had t o be satisfied before a N e w Covenant and a new w o r l d could come. Jesus death brought the o l d w o r l d t o an 1

The biblical Story of foil and

cni

^- H

| S

resurrection introduced the new w o r l d , a

redemption is the Story Of

brand new creation, under the new principle o f

the kingdom Of God,

the Spirit. T h e g i f t o f the H o l y S p i r i t o f G o d o n the day o f Pentecost, therefore, was n o t a mere

'religious'' event. I t was a definitive and objective change i n the history o f the w o r l d . By p o u r i n g o u t the S p i r i t o n the Church, Jesus inaugurated the N e w Covenant for the new creation. As in the w o r l d o f the O l d Covenant, everything ultimately developed f r o m the " f l e s h " o f A d a m , so i n the w o r l d of the N e w Covenant, everything springs f r o m the Spirit o f G o d .

The Institutions of the Kingdom A l l this discussion o f the flesh and the S p i r i t may sound t o o abstract. T o understand very clearly what this all means, we need t o consider the institu¬ tions o f the k i n g d o m . W h a t arc they?They are the three social institutions established by a covenant oath. T h e family, as an i n s t i t u t i o n , is based u p o n the covenant oath o f marriage. T h e civil authority and its various branches are grounded i n oaths o f loyalty and t r u t h . T h e church, as an i n s t i t u t i o n , is built u p o n the oaths o f baptism, the Lord's Supper, and the o r d i n a t i o n oaths o f its leaders. Every society w i l l have other institutions as well, and they are all i m p o r t a n t , but they d o n o t n o r m a l l y require an oath, f o r good reason. There is n o biblical g r o u n d , for example, for demanding all carpenters t o take an oath and j o i n a g u i l d that requires them t o protect one another f r o m n o n - g u i l d c o m p e t i t i o n . O n the other hand, Christians cannot


T R I N I T Y AND KINGDOM

141

escape the i n s t i t u t i o n o f the local church or the oaths o f baptism and the Lord's Supper, The OU Covenant As we have already noted, the principle o f the flesh dominated the k i n g d o m under the first creation. A d a m was a man o f flesh and hve was created out o f his flesh. I n the Garden o f Eden, the only covenanral i n s t i t u t i o n was the family, the i n s t i t u t i o n o f the flesh. W h e n husband and wife marry, they become one flesh. T h e k i n g d o m grew by G o d blessing the flesh. A d a m and Eve had children w h o also married and had other children. T h e original institutions o f civil a u t h o r i t y and religion were grounded in the family and were an o u t g r o w t h o f the principle o f the flesh. I f there had been n o sin, this w o u l d have all tended toward g o o d . Because of Adam's sin, the family became a source of curse as m u c h as a source of blessing, f o r the flesh as a principle was corrupted in A d a m . T h e family, therefore, t h r o u g h o u t the history o f the w o r l d d u r i n g the O l d Covenant failed to be f a i t h f u l to the k i n g d o m . T h e story o f the first brothers, Cain and A b e l , is a case in p o i n t . Also, Israel, the chosen nation, was the seed o f Abraham, H e was their father in the flesh, and the inheritance, t h o u g h n o t l i m i t e d to the fleshly seed, was p r i m a r i l y t h o u g h t o f in terms of physical descendants. T i m e and again, Abrahams seed failed to 4

truly serve G o d . In the realm o f government, we see the same pattern o f repeated failure. D a v i d had the promise o f blessing for himself and his royal seed, b u t the story o f his seed was the same as the history o f the seed o f A b r a h a m and the seed o f A d a m . T h e realm o f religious authority fared no better. T h e tribe o f Levi was chosen because of their zeal and faithfulness for G o d ( L x o d . 32:25—29). T h e family o f Aaron among them was given special blessing. A c c o r d i n g to the principle o f the covenant, office and responsibility were inherited by the physical seed and according to the corr u p t i o n o f the physical seed through A d a m , the tribe o f Levi and the family

' IW rhi." rime rhe children o f Jacob fcfr Hgypr, mosr o f rhem were probably nor lirerally rhc "children oJ Jacob." D u r i n g the years of c j p i i v i t v , (he staves that Jacob and his sons brought wirh rhem ro E^ypr bad been absorbed i n t o rhc twelve tribes. I n rhat sense, rhc principle was covenanral rarhcr rhan physical. Moreover, physical descent f r o m Abraham d i d nor guarantee the inheritance o f blessing. Nevertheless, flesh remains rhc paradigm, hven rhose not descended from Abraham are called his seed and the whole narion Thinks o f itself as a family


142

CHAPTHK

HIGH J

of A a r o n turned aw ay f r o m G o d , like every other .seed-based i n s t i t u t i o n . A l l of this failure and sin does n o t mean, however, that wherever we see the w o r d "flesh " we should t h i n k first of c o r r u p t i o n . O u r primary association w i t h the w o r d " f l e s h " should be " O l d Covenant." O t h e r associations follow. The New Covenant I n the N e w Covenant, the r u l i n g principle is the S p i r i t o f G o d , T h i s means chat the N e w Covenant is n o t built u p o n marriage, child-bearing, and b l o o d inheritance as the O l d Covenant was. Rather, the church w i t h its ceremony o f b a p t i s m — a d o p t i o n into the family o f G o d — i s fundamental. T h e church as the central i n s t i t u t i o n o f the N e w Covenant is called u p o n to spread the blessing o f the Spirit. I n d o i n g so, she refashions the o l d creation i n t o the N e w Covenant k i n g d o m o f G o d , John the Baptist announced the c o m i n g o f the new age when he said the Jews should not trust i n the flesh, f o r G o d could raise up seed for Abraham from an entirely different quarter ( M t . 3:9). John said his baptism was merely water baptism, b u t the O n e was c o m i n g after h i m w o u l d baptize w i t h the Spirit and fire ( M t . 3 : 1 1 ) . Jesus fulfilled John's wolds when H e poured o u t the H o l y S p i r i t o n the day o f Pentecost, the official first day o f the new age, and when H e poured our fire o n Jerusalem i n A . D . 70, b r i n g i n g to an end the ceremonial system of the O l d Covenant. A f t e r Pentecost water baptism is a covenantal sign of the g i f t o f the Spirit, w h i c h is the reason that baptism w i t h water and the S p i r i t arc so closely associated in the N e w Testament. A s a covenant i n i t i a t i o n ceremony, water baptism is the ceremony whereby one takes u p o n himself the t r i n i t a r i a n oath o f the Christian confession. U n d e r the O l d Covenant, the f a m i l y was the central i n s t i t u t i o n . N o one could become a covenant member w i t h o u t being b o r n f r o m A d a m . T h e first married pair were the f o u n d a t i o n o f all else. I n the N e w Covenant era, there is a new f o u n d a t i o n . T h e resurrected Christ poured o u t H i s S p i r i t and created a new race o f men, a new family. Baptism is the a d o p t i o n ceremony that officially places us i n t o the new humanity. T o be a member o f the N e w Covenant, therefore, one must ordinarily have the seal oí the new b i r t h by the Spirit, water baptism. T h e C h u r c h , by administering water baptism as the symbol of S p i r i t baptism, becomes the basic i n s t i t u t i o n . T h e principle o f the flesh is changed to the principle of the Spirit, and the f a m i l y is replaced by the Church as the central i n s t i t u t i o n .


TRINITY AND KINGDOM

143

T h i s must n o t be misunderstood. A u t h o r i t y over other institutions is not what is meant when we say the Church is the central i n s t i t u t i o n o f the New

Covenant k i n g d o m . T h e Church, i n the later M i d d l e Ages, assumed an

authority that transgressed the biblical bounds o f propriety. Bur just as the ccntrality or the family in the O l d Covenant system d i d n o t undermine the authority of other oath-based institutions, so also the ccntrality of the Church as the i n s t i t u t i o n that builds the k i n g d o m does n o t mean that family o r civil authority is insignificant or that their leaders are under the control o f the C h u r c h - T h e three institutions exist as equals under the W o r d of G o d w i t h each one having a distinct k i n g d o m task w i t h i n its o w n realm o f authority. I f , then, each instination has been given equal authority under

|n the

New Covenant, the ruling principle is the Spirit of God.

G o d , what docs i t mean to be the central institution? I t means that n o one can enter i n t o the k i n g d o m o f Christ w i t h o u t being b o r n oi the S p i r i t (Jn. 3:3—8), just as no one could enter the o l d k i n g d o m i n A d a m w i t h o u t being b o r n o f the flesh. Baptism as the symbol and seal of that spiritual b i r t h is the ceremony by w h i c h we are officially brought into the k i n g d o m of the Spirit, just as circumcision, a fleshly o r d i nance, was the i n i t i a t i o n ceremony for the AbrahamiC covenant, an exten7

sion o f the post-fall repetition o f the A d a m i c covenant and its animal sacrifices (Gen, 3 : I 4 - 2 4 ) .

:

Jesus promised that the gift o f the Spirit would be given to those who believed in H i m . John explains that Jesus was talking about what w o u l d happen after H i s resurrection {Jn. 7:37—39). T h r o u g h H i s faithfulness to the Father, the Son H i m s e l f had to w i n the blessing o f the k i n g d o m before H e could bestow i t o n H i s Church. A f t e r Jesus rose f r o m the dead and ascended to sit at the right hand o f G o d , H e poured o u t the blessing o f the Spirit as the essential blessing o f the new age, bringing H i s church into covenantaJ oneness w i t h G o d . T h e present age, therefore, is the age o f the H o l y Spirit. To say the new age is the age o f the H o l y Spirit is to say i t is decidedly t r i n i t a r i a n . T h i s age is grounded in the Father's g i f t o f the Son, w h o became

1

A n i m a l sacrifice became central l o ;mcieni religion I r o m the time o i ihe Fall when G o d

clothed A d a m and Eve w i t h animal skins. N o a h knew rhc d i s t i n c t i o n between clean and unclean animals, that is, w h i c h animals were appropriate for sacrifice and which were n o t en. 7:2; 8:20—22}. I t h i n k we should assume these distinctions were established after the Fall and became Common knowledge.


144

CHAPTHK HIGH J

one o f us t o suffer and die o n the cross f o r us, but i t could n o t be established until the bather and the risen Son together gave us the S p i r i t . T h i s is what i t means that G o d has become one w i t h m a n i n the N e w Covenant. T h e Son has been given t o m a n k i n d as a member of our race, a new head and the f o u n t o f a new h u m a n i t y - T h a t alone, however, is n o t enough-True covenantal oneness requires the Spirit. T h e Son is the image o f the bather, but the S p i r i t is the personal love proceeding f r o m the Father t o the Son and f r o m the Son back again t o the Father, I n order f o r G o d and man t o be one in the covenant, we must have the S p i r i t o f G o d d w e l l i n g i n us. H i s w o r k is to unite us t o G o d by shedding abroad i n our hearts the love o f G o d ( R o m . 5:5), by w h i c h also H e creates a responsive love i n us ( I Jn. 4 : 1 9 ) . T h i s is what is so i m p o r t a n t about the N e w Testament teaching that the Spirit indwells the Church and each individual Christian as w e l l - T h e H o l y Spirit is the personal covenant b o n d o f love, u n i t i n g the Father and the Son in the t n n i t a r i a n covenant o f love. So, also, through H i s indwelling, the Spirit unites G o d and man, b r i n g i n g m a n into the covenantal fellowship o f the T r i n i t y . Therefore, through the Spirit s sanctifying indwelling, the Son is united w i t h H i s bride the Church and the Father is made one w i t h H i s children, w h o by the Spirit cry out u n t o H i m , "Abba, bather'' ( R o m - 8:1 5 ) . W e could n o t be truly one w i t h G o d unless we were made to be like Christ ( R o m , 8 : 2 9 ) — n o t an ontological likeness, b u t ethical one; n o t a likeness that eliminates individuality b u t a likeness in love by which our individuality is fully developed—which is the w o r k o f the S p i r i t through H i s indwelling.

The Kingdom Proclamation O n the day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter preached the first distinctly Christian sermon- I t was also a distinctly trinitarian sermon. Jewish people w h o had come f r o m far reaches o f the R o m a n Empire and beyond heard the disciples praising G o d in their o w n tongues and supposed they were d r u n k . Peter said i t was n o t d r i n k that h a d inspired them, b u t the S p i r i t o f G o d , w h o m Jesus o f N a z a r e t h — a

m a n approved o f G o d by signs and w o n -

ders—had bestowed u p o n them i n f u l f i l l m e n t o f prophecy. " Y o u killed H i m , " Peter said, " b u t G o d raised H i m f r o m the dead, seated H i m at H i s own r i g h t hand, and made H i m b o t h L o r d and Christ. I t is this resurrected Jesus, n o w become L o r d , w h o has poured o u t H i s S p i r i t u p o n us." Peter's


TRINITY AND KINGDOM

145

message was filled w i t h quotations f r o m the O l d Testament and was so emphatically Jewish in content that m o d e r n Christians often have a hard time f o l l o w i n g i t . I t is vital to understand its basic themes, however, for this message is the f o u n d a t i o n a l sermon repeated i n various f o r m s throughout the book o f Acts. Paul's epistles proclaim and apply the same gospel, though we tend t o read h i m as i f he were less Jewish than Peter. We need to understand that b o t h Peter and Paul preached a worldview message that challenged their hearers and offered far more than b a l m for weary hearts and a promise o f rest i n heaven. T o appreciate the f u l l impact of the gospel, we must first take a brief l o o k at Jesus' teaching.

Jesus and the Kingdom We have become so accustomed t o t h i n k i n g o f the gospel as a message o f salvation for the individual soul that we often forget what Jesus actually said. T h e Gospel o f M a r k begins by telling us that Jesus proclaimed the gospel of the k i n g d o m o f G o d ( M k . 1:14). M a r k records these words of Jesus: " T h e time is f u l f i l l e d , and the k i n g d o m o f G o d is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel" ( M k . I : I 5 ) , T h i s raises at least t w o basic ques¬ tions. W h a t d i d Jesus mean by "the k i n g d o m of God"? A n d , since Jesus said i t was near, we wonder, what happened? D i d i t come? W h e n we answer these questions, we w i l l understand the answer t o a t h i r d question: W h y is the gospel said t o be the proclamation of the k i n g d o m o f G o d ; As we have seen, the k i n g d o m o f G o d is a major theme o f the Bible and a central aspect o f a biblical view o f the w o r l d . T h e expression " k i n g d o m o f G o d " and its equivalents occur frequently in Scripture, b u t i t is used in more than one sense. First, the k i n g d o m o f G o d refers t o the whole w o r l d that G o d created and rules over. I n this broad sense, the k i n g d o m was established at creation

The kingdom Jesus announced was a restoration of the kingdom God had given to man at the original creation.

and continues forever. Second, when G o d created the w o r l d , H e granted representative rule and authority t o A d a m and Eve ( G e n . 1:26—28). But when man sinned, de facto rule fell into the hands of Satan. F r o m the time of the fall of A d a m u n t i l the coming of Christ, the k i n g d o m o f G o d was in captivity, so t o speak, Satan c o u l d offer the kingdoms of this world t o Jesus ( M t . 4:8—9) because he was actually


146

CHAPTHK HIGH J

( t h o u g h not ultimately} in charge of them. T h i r d , w hen Jesus announced that the k i n g d o m o f G o d was near, H e was referring to the restored k i n g d o m that H e promised to b u i l d . Satan w o u l d be overthrown and the k i n g d o m w o u l d be restored to man. But the w o r k o f restoration w o u l d be i n stages. Just as the individual believer grows in w i s d o m and grace in the process of sanctification, so, too, the k i n g d o m o f G o d comes in stages— [he initial definitive stage, the progressive realization stage, and the

final

glorious stage. T h e k i n g d o m that Jesus announced, then, was a restoration o f the k i n g d o m that G o d had given to man at the original creation. T h e subsequent invasion o f that k i n g d o m by Satan and the revolt o f man against the heavenly K i n g d i d n o t remove G o d f r o m H i s throne, b u t i t d i d undermine the recognition of H i s kingship among men. Satan so utterly dominated the w o r l d after A d a m that by the time of N o a h , only one family i n the entire world was f a i t h f u l to G o d . Even after G o d restored the k i n g d o m through Abraham and his descendents, mankind's tendency to sin still dominated history u n t i l the time o f Christ. W h e n Jesus announced that the k i n g d o m was near, H e was alluding to Daniel's prophecies o f the four successive k i n g d o m s — B a b y l o n , Persia, Greece, and Rome

that w o u l d be central to

G o d s covenant p r o g r a m u n t i l the Messiah came f r o m heaven to establish a neverending k i n g d o m ( D a n . 2:34—35, 4 4 ) . T h i s very brief survey o f the meaning of the phrase " k i n g d o m of G o d ' ' reveals how i m p o r t a n t the concept is in the Christian worldvicw, f o r i t encompasses the whole o f w o r l d history. I t is also i m p o r t a n t f o r another reason. We p o i n t e d o u t that G o d established m a n as H i s representative o n earth to rule the creation. Representation is the very essence o f the covenant. G o d the triune L o r d created the w o r l d as H i s k i n g d o m and gave the k i n g d o m to m a n so that m a n could share in God's rule and authority. T h e k i n g d o m is a vital aspect o f what i t means f o r m a n to be created in the image o f the triune G o d and to be brought i n t o the fellowship o f the trinitarian Persons. A d a m disobeyed G o d and rejected the covenant, thereby losing the k i n g d o m . Christ, the Last A d a m ( I Cor. 15:45), was f a i t h f u l to the bather, even unto death, and w o n the blessing oi the covenant: the r i g h t to rule the k i n g d o m ( M t . 2 8 : 1 8 ) . T h i s leads to our second question: D i d the k i n g d o m actually come? I t should be clear that i f it d i d n o t come, then the gospel that Jesus announced


TRINITY AND KINGDOM

147

would be rendered invalid and so w o u l d H i s w o r k and ministry. However, Paul tells us clearly that the k i n g d o m d i d come. Let this mind be in you which was also in (..host Jesus, who, being in the form o f God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself o f no reputation, taking the form o f a bondservant, and coming in the likeness o f men- And being found tn appearance as a man, 1 \c humbled Himself and became obedient ro the point o f death, even the death of the cross. Therefore, God also has highly exalted H u n and given H i m the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, i)f rhose in heaven, and o f those on earth, and o f those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father- (Phil. 2:5-11) W e see why the church i n the b o o k o f Acts emphasized the resurrection o f Christ. W i t h o u t the resurrection, Jesus w o u l d have been n o more than a Messianic pretender, another in a l o n g list o f failed heroes. But Jesus d i d not fail. H e rose f r o m the dead and ascended i n t o heaven t o sit at the r i g h t hand o f G o d . A l l power i n heaven and earth was given t o H i m ( M t , 2 8 : 1 8 ) . D i d the k i n g d o m H e announced comer Yes, i t d i d . I n his earthly life, Jesus proclaimed that the k i n g d o m was near. A f t e r the resurrection, Paul and the apostles proclaimed that the k i n g d o m had come. O f course, the apostles preached the message o f salvation for the individual by grace t h r o u g h faith, b u t this message was n o t really new. Moses and D a v i d also taught salvation by grace t h r o u g h faith ( R o m . 4 ) . W h a t was new was the message that the Messiah had come, as G o d had promised, and that H e had defeated all H i s enemies o n the cross, and that G o d had raised H i m f r o m the dead and exalted H i m t o the r i g h t hand o f the majesty o n high. W i t h the resurrection of Jesus, a new age had come. T h e k i n g d o m o f G o d was established i n history, and the failure o f the o l d A d a m had been reversed by the new A d a m . U n d e r the N e w Covenant, Jesus is n o w b u i l d i n g a new temple and leading H i s people ro a N e w Jerusalem,

The Gospel and the Kingdom T h e gospel is the proclamation that the evil o f Satan and the sin o f A d a m have been reversed. T h e sin o f A d a m brought judgment n o t only o n A d a m


148

CHAPTHK HIGH J

personally b u t also o n the entire w o r l d he represented, i n c l u d i n g the human race and the rest o f creation under his authority. Because o f Adam's sin, the O l d Covenant c o u l d o n l y b r i n g a curse and the whole era o f the O l d Covenant was under the curse. Jesus Christ came n o t merely t o save a few lost souls o u t o f the w o r l d , b u t t o take away the curse and b r i n g in a completely new w o r l d . I t is not a question o f either saving the w o r l d or saving sinners. T h e most frequently quoted verse i n the N e w Testament is followed by a verse that shows that the salvation o f individuals and the salvation o f the w o r l d go together. f o r God so loved rhc world that He gave H i s only begotten Son, that whoever believes in H i m should nor perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through H i m might be saved. (Jn. 3:16—17^ T h e Son o f G o d came t o save each individual w h o believes i n H i m and to save the w o r l d . T h u s , the angels announcing Jesus' b i r t h spoke o f peace o n earth and good w i l l among men [ X L 2 : 1 4 ) . G o d was in Christ "reconciling the world t o H i m s e l f " ( 2 Cor. 5:19). Hlsewhcre, Paul explains that it pleased the Father t o reconcile all things to H i m s e l f t h r o u g h Christ, whether things o n earth or things in heaven ( C o l . 1:20). I t is hard t o imagine a more c o m prehensive statement. W h e n we speak o f the gospel as a declaration o f the k i n g d o m , therefore, we are saying i t has worldview significance. I t is a declaration o f G o d s work in history that defines the w o r l d in w h i c h we live and the meaning and role o f the C h u r c h . M o s t Christians arc accustomed t o t h i n k o f salvation as something that happens only to individual believers, n o t as God's overall

both to save individuals aid to 53VC the world.

JesJS

came

work t o reconcile the w o r l d t o H i m s e l f I n Paul s day, the opposite was probably t r u e — t h a t G o d s w o r k i n history was the overarching perspective. Given our orientation, however, i t may help us t o understand the larger picture o f salvation i f we first review the process o f individual salvation. W h e n we believe i n Christ, we are justified ( R o m . 5:1). T h i s is God's definitive declaration that our sins are forgiven and we are accepted as r i g h teous before H i m . Justification is objective, outside o f us. But salvation has a subjective side also. T h e H o l y S p i r i t works in our hearts t o lead us t o faith


TRINITY AND KINGDOM

149

and make us new creatures in Christ. Whereas we used t o hate G o d , H e has definitively changed us i n t o those w h o love H i m * T h i s change i n our hearts begins a process o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n that is called sanctification. I n sanctifi¬ cation, the H o l y S p i r i t works i n us t o change our hearts so that day by day we become more like Christ. O u r salvation w i l l be complete when the Last Day comes and Christ raises all men f r o m the dead. W e shall be given a new resurrection body and live w i t h G o d forever. T h i s is g l o r i f i c a t i o n . M o s t Christians are well acquainted w i t h this three-stage picture o f salvation. Referring t o different aspects o f God's saving grace, we can say

I have been saved (justification). I a m being saved (sanctification). I shall be saved ( g l o r i f i c a t i o n ) . T h e N e w Testament perspective o n history and the k i n g d o m o f G o d follows a similar three-stage process. T h e Bible speaks o f the k i n g d o m of G o d as past, present, and future. I t was established in the past by Jesus' death and resurrection. I t is being established today t h r o u g h the w o r k o f the H o l y Spirit in the C h u r c h . I t w i l l be established in the future when Christ returns in glory. W h e n Paul says that all things have been reconciled t o G o d through Jesus' death, he is speaking o f that past and definitive salvation. W h e n Paul says that Jesus is n o w seated at God's right hand, f i g h t i n g to overcome every enemy, he is speaking o f the present process o f h i s t o r y as the o u t w o r k i n g o f k i n g d o m salvation ( 1 Cor. 15:25). W h e n Paul says that the w o r l d w i l l be transformed at Jesus' coming, he is speaking o f the c u l m i nation o f the w o r k o f salvation.The gospel, then, is the g o o d news that the Son o f G o d has come and transformed the w o r l d by b r i n g i n g in the k i n g d o m o f G o d . Because the salvation o f the individual is i n c o r p o r a t i o n into that k i n g d o m , Paul says G o d "delivered us f r o m the d o m a i n o f darkness and transferred us i n t o the k i n g d o m o f the Son o f H i s love'' ( C o l . 1:13). W e have been freed f r o m the shackles of the evil k i n g d o m and led i n t o the k i n g d o m o f God's love. A l t h o u g h we are new creatures in Christ, the sin o f A d a m still clings to us. O u r o l d and new natures w i l l battle each other u n t i l our redemption i n Christ is complete. I n the same way, t w o ages exist simultaneously d u r i n g the present era. O n the one hand, the w o r l d o f the O l d Covenant continues.


150

CHAPTHK

HIGH J

Satan is the god o f this age ( 2 C o n 4 : 4 ) . T h e rulers o f the w o r l d are the rulers o f this age, an age which is passing away ( I C o n 2:6, 8 ) . O n the other hand, Christ has defeated the devil. Jesus is K i n g o f kings and L o r d o f lords. H e has inherited a k i n g d o m that w i l l never pass away- N o w , a l l power and authority arc H i s as H e sits o n the throne at God's right hand. We now understand the deeper meaning of the gospel, when Jesus p r o claimed that the k i n g d o m o f G o d was near. W e also see why the early church so emphasized the r e s u r r e c t i o n — I t was t h r o u g h Christ's resurrection and ascension that the k i n g d o m o f G o d was established.The original k i n g d o m o f G o d , created i n the beginning and c o r r u p t e d through the sin o f A d a m , has now been redeemed by the w o r k o f Jesus. H e brought i n a new age and commanded H i s church to w o r k w i t h H i m t o complete the vision o f the new k i n g d o m .

The Great Commission and the Kingdom Every Christian is familiar w i t h the Great C o m m i s s i o n . I t is the subject o f countless sermons but i t is n o t often understood as a k i n g d o m mandate. I t has been separated f r o m the k i n g d o m Jesus proclaimed as the gospel and treated as i f i t were something entirely different: a message o f salvation f o r the individual alone. T h i s undermines the true meaning a n d place o f the Great Commission i n the Christian worldvicw. I n order t o appreciate its broader wo rid view significance, we w i l l reconsider the Great Commission i n [he light o f the k i n g d o m message o f the N e w Testament, Here are the words o f the commission as recorded by M a t t h e w : IJ A l l authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 2J Go Therefore and make disciples o f all the n a t i o n s , _3] baptizing them into t h e name o f the Father a n d o f the Son and o f rhe Holy Spirit, |4| teaching rhem t o observe all rhmgs that I have c o m m a n d e d y o u ; [5_ and l o , I am with you always, even t o t h e end ot the age, ( M t , 28:18—20) First, each o f the five sections o f the commission m u s t be interpreted i n the k i n g d o m context that the commission itself demands, as can be seen from the very first words. I n the i n t r o d u c t o r y words o f the commission we sec that Jesus' c o m m a n d is grounded in H i s claim t o have all authority i n heaven and on e a r t h . T h i s is an unambiguous claim t o kingship. T h e words


TRINITY AND KINGDOM

¡1

Iin

151

heaven and on earth ' define Hi.s realm as broadly as possible: H e rules 1

the whole o f created reality. T h e words " a l l a u t h o r i t y " mean H e has the highest conceivable authority w i t h i n the broadest possible realm. W h e n Paul confesses Christ as L o r d , he is confessing that Jesus has supreme a u t h o r i t y in heaven and o n earth* T h e Great C o m m i s s i o n , therefore, is a mandate f r o m an absolute k i n g and sovereign. Second, we need t o carefully define the c o m m a n d itself lesus d i d n o t say that the disciples should go into all the nations and w i n a few souls for heaven- T h e Greek w o r d translated i n t o English as "make disciples o f " could be translated as a verb, so that the c o m m a n d w o u l d read, " D i s c i p l e the nations. 'This makes the English m u c h closer t o the actual Greek mean1

ing o f b r i n g i n g all the nations o f the w o r l d into submission t o Christ, for the object o f

The Great Commission must be in-

the Greek verb "disciple" is " a l l the nations."

tetpreted in the kingdom context

Every nation i n the w o r l d must be trans¬ formed i n t o a n a t i o n o f Christ's disciples. I n other words, the K i n g o f kings is c o m m a n d i n g H i s apostles t o conquer the w o r l d . T h i s is surely n o t a war t o be fought w i t h the carnal weapons o f the flesh, b u t we completely misunderstand the Great C o m m i s s i o n i f we sec i t as anything less than a command t o convert the w o r l d i n t o Jesus' k i n g d o m . I t must be n o t e d also that the w o r d disapk here means "Christian.'' T h i r d , Jesus t o l d H i s disciples t o baptize the nations into the name o f the triune G o d . Baptism is an oath-taking ceremony, i n which the person baptized swears allegiance t o the triune Lord.^ H e confesses t o believe in the one name o f the Father, and o f the Son, and o f the H o l y Spirit. By receiving baptism, he takes a covenant oath and is officially and publicly ("where t w o or more are gathered") declared a Christian. I n the book o f Acts, we see how the early church carried o u t baptism. W h e n , f o r example, the Philippian jailer and his family believed, they were baptized immediately, i n the m i d d l e o f the n i g h t i n their o w n home (Acts 16:31—34). Profession o f faith and

6

CliiirJS

Lfe3

everyone lives by ]_Q

51

symbolism and 4 4 i

91

God (be ground o f

education

materialist

I I

51

church and

173-174

not groundlessness

family and

169

prerequisite o f reason 12j

Eintighlenmeni

science and

idea o f progress

193

KPR I'xperunent EPR paradox

13 5

65-66

Fall, the 3 Z

9

96,

33,

98,

94,

95,

139,

IS

164

covenantal i n s t i t u t i o n discipline i n

Christ's example

I2tt-I2 J

evolution and

174 52—53,

education and 105

170 169-170

environment and

13 J

hierarchy i n

66

lort-169

polities and L L I

images G o d

society and

1 5 8 - 1 (SO

kingdom insi m r n o n

T r i n i t y and

l_6i

love and

191

defined

100,

1M I 40

107

165

LJidaincd structure

106

society and

167—I7J

hither- i f f G o d the Father

hell and

rem in ism

problem o f relational

94,

T r i n i t y and noluiion

I0.S-T()6

167-168

93

does n o t literally exist LQii 185

[41-142

lofl-169

most basic relation

as self-deification

167—171

171

economics and

L

economics and

evÜ

95¬

family

ethics

law and

IIS

in G o d , requires i r i n i t v l i ]

9

Ess, Josef van

11 7

faithfulness

religion and politics and cnvironmentalism

64,

1_2

109

l evnman, Richard

8,

9

106

105-108, Kit.

50

God- & G o d the Father; G o d the

as m y t h 3 7 - 8 8

Son;

contrasted t o biblical story M , ethics and 53,

1Ü5

human problems and

ll>J

^

G o d the Spirit; T r i n i t y

G o d the bather.

See ako

and redemption 83

authority o f 4_L

lrinity

52 169

Gopyrighted material

212

GENERAL INDEX

blesses the Sun

36

teaching on hell

com ma nets the Son

41

covenant w i t h Son deity o f

1

unifies biblical story

34^37

;r7

4

12:24 n'8

122 4

f - M

1Ü2

Ezckicl 9£

36 7S-77

52

Ï7-1?

LZ2

7:36

[¿20

¿£

175

57

4

1:19

179

2 8 : 1 8 . 147

8:23

L£

16:18

26:39

44

Ü Ü

35

25:41-43

44

43:7.

44 3 - 4

TW4

25:31-32

44

hU M

411:15

¿2

18:17-20

171

29:15

223

INDHX

-34

U13 4

122

5

Luke 1-78

44

1-35

52

HA

148

4-4 -K

35

5:14

122

8:56

122

±21

122

948

35

Copyrighled material

224

SCKIPTUKK

10:16

35

14:75-7.7

1S2

John Li

4. 75. 125

1:1-5

125

L2

4

L3

4,56

L10

4

L14

3 2 , 122, 125

L M

4.32,42.74.78

2:23-25

4

3:3-8

143

3:5-6

52

3:5-8

84 4

3[6- J 7

5 7 , 148

V | 6 - -|8

L U

3-17

5, 35

3:35

5, Z5

4'34

5, 35

S;17

4, 7 5 . 103, 196

5 i l 5 - -23

Z5

5:20

5. 14. 9 0

5:22

4

^« r y X

23

523

35

524

15

4

5:7.6- -37

Z5

5 ^ 8 - -?5

isa

5:30

5, 3 5 , Z5

5:36

35

5:36- -37 5:37

35

S45- 4 7 6

75 Z]

122

6-14

122

fvT5

173

(S;?,7

Z5

629

3^

623

5

6:37 fi;38

35

(S-39

5, 3 5 , Z5

INDKX

6-40

35

14:20

644

5L

I 4:70—7. T

.••45

56

14:21

646

22

14:21-23

6-57

15

14:23

7 5 , 83

57

1426

5

6-66

122

14:31

£

7:T6

35

15

7;18

35

15:1-16

Zi37— 8-16

143

8:J9

75

2i ¿2

S3

75

15£

4 0 , 129

Z5

Z5

41

15:10

129

15:13

5S

1524

35

15:76

5, 35

2o

8:38

74. Z5

8:47

Z5

16i7

8:49

75

16:8-15

8:54

Zh

l£ii3

8-^8

4

16:14

35

, 15

16:15

Z5

:

Li2£

25 75

10;4

14

40,43

8:29

9:4

Z5

15:9-10

Z5

8 : 1 8 - 19

43

Zl 5, 35 57

10:14

7

16:32

10:15

74. 75

17

10:17

5

17:1

36, 75

10:25

35

122

36, 5 6

I0-3Q

Z5

122

128

[0-32

35

IZii

4,36,Z5

IZ6

36, 5 6

17:8

35, 75 36, 5 6

-38 in-17

Z5

35

5,44.200

10-37. - 3 8

42

1£9

I1-41- -47

5

UiU

36, 56, 75

1 7.-76- ">8 (7-77,

Z5

17:12

36

5

17:17

ZZ, S4

] 2:31- - 3 3

5Z

1 7:20-23

Z5

1221

25 5,36,56

17 4 9

4 3 , 4 6 . Z4

35

1749- -SO 13-3

15

1224

14:6

127

17:24-25

75

LL24

34

19:30

36

7.0:71

36

20:28

4, 1 2 4

21:17

4

21:25

in


225

SCKJPTUKK INIDKX

Acts

12 125 LS 5 2:17-18 5 2:23 34 223 122 IA1 122 422 LA S:3-4 4 5:31 4 M 44 L22 822 L22 8:36 L22 8:38 1 M B 44 30 [4J2

I

15:16

51

L529

5

Corinthians

4 4 153

3:16-17

ißl

123 52 45

4:15

621 6:19 8:4-6

4

8^ 4 11:23-3? 123 L2 1_03 L22 I 12:7-11 5 12:32 5 15:21.28

ao

t:18-2I

ao

1:18-29

183 Z9 53

1:18-32 T: 1 9 - 2 0

Z£ IA1

52

148

52

144, 122

82

60,

1Ä4

8:15

144, 173

82£

2

8:26

5

829

144,201

2

64

15:25

149. 195 57

15:45

[46

15:58

104

Corinthians

L2

4

3:17

4 150 32 1 56

4^5

520 527

148 6:16

Galatians

4^ ~140 4:19 173 5:22 4 ¿115 56 Ephesians

LL1 £6 150 22 4. 124, 150. 177 220 28 2:13-14 4 3:16 45

Z, 1S3

^5

126 176

1:22

T:Ift-20

4

r3:l-6 [3:3-4

1:20-25

omans

1:20

58, 63

L2 12

1&6 16:11-34 151. 122 [7:6-8 177 17:26 L64 18:8 L22 T8:10 44 202 LZ3 20:28 4 22: J 6 152. 122

12 LIS

12:1-2

L l l b 21 2:10 63, 103 3^ 56 3:10 199 3:14-15 Zfi 3: (4-21 L54 3:16 199 4^ 4 4iM 85 52 53 525 lii^ 5:25-27 52, 04 M 173 Philippians

2:5-11 147 2:9-10 4 2:9-11 2 420 4 Colossians

L13 149 [;I6 56, 57 1:16-17 4, 14, 21 1:20 148 [22 46 22 14, 122, 124 I T h e s s a l o n ians

22 123 2:11 173

45

4


226

SCKIPTUKK INDKX

2 Thessalonians

2:13 3:16

lames

57, 84 44

1:13 17 1:17 17 2:1 4 2:19 4, 184

1 Timothy

2:5 4:1

4 4

1

Peter

1:23

84

21:3-4 200 21:6 4 21:7 20G 21:22-23 200 21:22-27 199 21:23 196 22:3 196 22:3-5 200 22:13 4

2 Timothy

1:10 4 2:13 17 3:15-17 178 3:16 77 3:16-17 79, 174 4:1-2 175 4:22 44

2

1:19-21 77 3:5 55 3:13 56 1

John

1:8-10 187 2:3-8 129 2:6 129, 153 2:9-10 129 3:16 129 4:2-3 126 4:19 144 5:6-7 4, 111

Titus

1:2 17 2:13 4 H e b rews

1:3 4, 55 1:6 4 1:8 4 1 1:11 1:12 4 3:7 4 4:12 82 t 5:9 7:2 175 7:4 [75 8:10 1-5 9:14 1 9:15 56 10:4 128 11:3 55 13:7 173 13:8 J 13:17 173

Peter

1

John

7

126

Revelation

1:8 4 1:17 4 2:23 4 11:17 4 13:8 99 17:14 177 19-22 195 19:11-16 179 19:16 177 20:12-13 186 2J:I 5fi 21:2 56 21:3 44
















1

THE TRINITY S THE HEART of the Christian gospel, but Father, Son, and Holy Spirit seldom occupies that position in contemporary discussions of the Christian worldview. This book helps fill the need by unveiling the Trinity at the center of reality, Ralph Smith shows how Trinitarian life shapes covenants, creation, revelalion, miracle, kingdom, self, church, and eternity. He compares the Trinity to opposing viewpoints, including secularism and other religions, highlighting the practical implications of Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian views for the individual and society. This book provides basic training for all

I

Christians, especially students, high school and up, who desire to transform the foundations of culture.

RALPH A. SMITH (M.Div;.GrateTheoiagical Seminary) Is pastoroi Mitaka EvangelJcai.Church in Tokyo, Japan and serves-as. director of (he Covenant Worldview Institute. He ¡5 the author of Eternal Covenant: How the Jrinity Reshapes Covenant Jheology and Paradox and Truth: Rethinking \lon HI on the Heantihis wife Sylvia have three-child r R

ISBN

1-59128-024-9 I

9

78159".

51600

d material

Trinity & Reality: An Introduction to the Christian Faith

Trinity & Reality: An Introduction to the Christian Faith

The Faith Of The Christian Church: An Introduction To Theology

An Introduction to Christian Economics

Science and the Trinity: The Christian Encounter with Reality

Science and the Trinity: The Christian Encounter with Reality

Science and the Trinity: The Christian Encounter with Reality

Science and the Trinity: The Christian Encounter with Reality

Christian Theology: An Introduction

Christian philosophy: an introduction

An Introduction to Jewish-Christian Relations (Introduction to Religion)

An Invitation to Faith

Appearance and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Physics

Bearing False Witness?: An Introduction to the Christian Countercult

An Introduction to Medical Radiesthesia & Radionics

An Introduction to Topology & Homotopy

An Introduction to Analog & Digital Communications

A Christian Faith for Today

Christian Symbol and Ritual: An Introduction

Christian Symbol and Ritual: An Introduction

Sacred Power, Sacred Space: An Introduction to Christian Architecture

An Introduction to the Hadith

An Introduction to the Invertebrates

Sacred Power, Sacred Space: An Introduction to Christian Architecture

An Introduction to the Bible

An introduction to the invertebrates

An Introduction to Confucianism (Introduction to Religion)

An Introduction to Judaism (Introduction to Religion)

An Introduction to Mormonism (Introduction to Religion)

An Introduction to Confucianism (Introduction to Religion)

An Introduction to Judaism (Introduction to Religion)

Trinity & Reality: An Introduction to the Christian Faith