oakleys.org.uk

Available at Amazon and Covenant Media Foundation…

The Baptism of Jesus the Christ by Ralph Allan Smith

Description:

The baptism of Jesus by John the Baptizer is one of the theologically richest narratives in the Gospels, touching the transition from the old to the new covenant, the doctrines of water and Holy Spirit baptism, and the doctrine of the Trinity, to name only the most significant of topics.

In The Baptism of Jesus the Christ, Ralph Allan Smith addresses each of these areas, aiming in particular to respond to James D. G. Dunn’s view that Jesus’ baptism and the gift of the Spirit are fundamentally distinct events, to revive John Calvin’s view of the baptism of Jesus as central to understanding Christian baptism, and to suggest directions for re-thinking the doctrine of God’s attributes in the light of the fully personal interaction of Father, Son, and Spirit reflected in the baptismal narrative.

From the book:

I intend to discuss the baptism of Jesus in four dimensions, that is, four different but overlapping and interrelated perspectives. First, I will introduce the Messianic dimension of Jesus’ baptism and show that John was consecrating Jesus as Messiah of Israel. Second, I will offer a discussion of the Adamic dimension of Jesus’ baptism, relating Israel’s Messiah to the new Adam. These first two dimensions can be described as the biblical theology of Jesus’ baptism. The last two dimensions are extensions of the biblical theological analysis, but view the baptism of Jesus more in terms of systematic theology, while maintaining exegetical roots. Thus, the third dimension is the Trinitarian dimension of the baptism of Jesus, for in the synoptic accounts, we see all three persons of the Trinity in mutual relationship. Fourth, I hope to show how all of these dimensions come together in the Christian dimension, so that we will learn to look at Jesus’ baptism to understand our own.

James B. Jordan talks about the book:

“In this outstanding and very helpful book we have an excellent summary and analysis of various Catholic and Protestant views of Christian baptism and of Jesus’ own baptism. More, we have a very full explication of the Biblical world-view that underlies the concept of water baptism and its meaning. Perhaps most importantly, however, is the fact that the author is a missionary on the front lines of Christian evangelism, who consequently must think about the meaning of baptism very frequently, with the result that his discussion teems with practical and pastoral insights.”

About the author:

Ralph Allan Smith is the pastor of the Mitaka Evangelical Church in Tokyo, Japan, and the Director of the Covenant Worldview Institute. He is the author of Paradox and Truth (2003), and Trinity and Reality (2004).

Now available at Amazon: Bible Matrix by Mike Bull

From the publisher’s overview:

“The Bible is one story told over and over again, with many variations on the same theme. This structure is the Bible’s DNA. This basic seven-point pattern is the heartbeat of the Creation. It is the cycle of a human day and a human life. It is the pattern of the Tabernacle. It is the process of agriculture. It undergirds the speeches and Laws of God. It orders the rise and fall of nations and empires. It is also the structure of our worship. It is the rhythm of Christ, and it will open the Bible for you like never before.”

From the book:

The Bible is a very strange book to modern minds. Even the passages we know very well contain a great number of oddities and we allow them to grow familiar without gaining an understanding of why they are there.

Those brave enough to regularly read the Old Testament often find themselves wondering what on earth is going on. “Just keep reading your Bible” our pastors tell us. Do you ever get the feeling they don’t have a big grip on it either? “Just stick to the basics. The rest doesn’t matter.”

A few years ago, I discovered the not-very-well-known theologian James B. Jordan. I didn’t understand everything he said, but I did realize that this was partly because he spoke just like the Bible: matter-of-fact, flesh-and-blood, and every now and then, outright bizarre.

He got me thinking, and I found that even the most curious things he spoke of became continuous threads. Jordan identifies what he calls the “universals”—themes that are repeated, not unlike a musical motif. After listening to many of his lectures, I began to recognize these themes myself, much as you would recognize the signature music when a hero or villain appears once again in a movie. Except the Bible does it a lot better.

The most amazing discovery, to me, was Jordan’s understanding of the Creation Week as a common literary structure in the Bible. There is no better way to research something than to write a book about it, so I started one. I intended to show how this 7-point pattern structured the major events of the Bible. I got to Abraham and found that the pattern was operating not only at a grand, over-arching level but also at levels within the larger cycles. And all in perfect harmony.

This incredible structuring means that the Bible is a “fractal,” a rough geometrical shape that can be split into parts, each of which is a smaller version of the whole.

Although the Bible’s literature often appears disorganized to us, it has in fact been extremely carefully crafted. Yet for the last hundred years or so, many scholars have treated the Scriptures as a shoddy, primitive jumble.

Analysis of the Bible’s literary structures has proven these scholars wrong. It has shown that this Book is smarter than we are. We have been harsh critics of something we didn’t understand—like drinkers of cheap beer ridiculing the wine fair.

Now, before you class me with the people who spend their time searching for hidden codes in the Bible (often while they calmly ignore its very clear and intended messages), this renewed interest in literary structure has some very solid benefits for Christians. This is not about hunting for mysterious patterns; it is about learning how to read the Bible in the way it was meant to be read.

From the foreward by Peter J. Leithart:

“Mike Bull does more than show us the big story of the Bible, the movement from glorious beginning to the greater glory of the end. That is a story so obvious that even academic Bible scholars can see it. But Bull sees what few have seen, namely, that this big story is present seminally in the opening chapter of the Bible, and, more than that, that the glorification of the world is not only the big story of Scripture but also the shape of nearly every little story of the Bible as well. Seed, tree, and every leaf and branch of the tree, is imprinted with the same Triune pattern.

“Bible Matrix connects pieces of the Bible that might have looked like scattered fragments. It shows coherence and recurring sequences where you might have seen only randomness and confusion. It gives the world in a grain of sand, as Bull explains how each passage and portion of the Bible is a lens through which the whole is uniquely refracted. Bull roots around in the genetics of Scripture and everywhere discovers not a circle of identical return, but the chiastically coiled DNA that moves creation from glory to glory.”

About the author:

Mike Bull is a graphic designer who lives and works in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney, Australia. His passion is understanding and teaching the Bible. Visit his blog here.

The previous essay on “Monocovenantalism” brought up this matter, so a few comments here. In this area also the mindless militants have perverted the conversation. The notion that the death of Jesus was insufficient for our justification and that we must also have an imputation of His perfect life in order to be declared just is a notion found in none of the Reformed Confessions. It was debated at the Westminster Assembly, with people on both sides, and the Assembly decided to write nothing about it and leave it as adiaphora.

Like American political liberals who find the right to abortion hidden in the Constitution, today’s militants have found this doctrine hidden in the penumbra and interstices of the Reformed faith and are determined to pronounce as heretics anyone who differs from it. Never mind that their behavior makes the entire Westminster Assembly into heretics!

I’m rather dubious about this doctrine myself, since I cannot find it in the Bible. Perhaps it is there by implication, as indeed may be the case. I do think, however, that there are some underlying issues that play into the matter, and these I wish simply to note here.

One issue  is the incarnation. The early church and the Nicene Creed affirm that the incarnation was “for us” as well as “for our salvation.” The Son was not incarnated as man only to save us from sin, but also to “bring many sons to glory.” In other words, the incarnation was planned all along, sin or no sin. God created humanity as a bride for His Son, and it was always going to be the Son who would come into the world and bring His bride to full glory. Notice the Creed:

Who for us men,

          And for our salvation,

Came down from heaven,

And was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,

And was made man;

          ALSO [etiam] was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,

          And suffered….

Together with this is the effective rejection of Romans 8:30, where “justified and glorified” are in the same tense. There is present glorification just as there is future justification. As 2 Corinthians 3:18 assures us, we are presently growing from glory to glory. The early church called glorification “deification.” The passages used nowadays to show imputed righteousness, such as the robing of Jeshua in Zechariah 3, are actually about glorification (as is obvious).

God killed an animal to cover Adam’s sin in the garden, and then clothed them in tunics, a royal garment. This “same” tunic of royal rule was stripped from Jesus at the cross and the soldiers cast lots for it.

The “day of atonement” in Leviticus 16 is actually literally the Day of Coverings, plural. Blood covers the Ark-Cover, removing sin, and then the priest is covered in his glory garments.

I lean my hand upon the sacrificial animal, but he does not turn around and put his innocent paw upon me. Rather, he dies and his blood is displayed. That’s justification. Then, however, the sacrifice enters into God’s fiery shekinah presence inside the “altar” (communion site) and ascends up to the throne. That’s glorification.

My robes are white in the BLOOD of the Lamb, not from “imputed righteousness.” The Lord’s Supper displays Jesus’ DEATH to the Father until He comes.

Jesus receives my liability to sin and thus dies, His blood displayed. What I receive from Him is union with His glorification by the Spirit. It is His new life, resurrection and transfigured life, that is given to me. It is the well nigh universal failure of the Reformed faith to take this Biblical data into account that is behind the confusion over justification. Jesus died for me. That’s why I’m forgiven. That’s enough.

Repeatedly over the last several years a variety of characters have accused the so-called “Federal Vision” of being “monocovenantal.” Many other wild and unsubstantiated accusations against the “Federal Vision” have been made, of course. Recently I learned that two of the men on the Orthodox Presbyterian Church’s study committee on “Federal Vision” did not even know that there was a book called The Federal Vision. These men had read next to nothing, if anything, about the “Federal Vision,” but actively wrote a report full of lies and misrepresentations of it.

The lies about the “Federal Vision” early on took on a life of their own. Those repeating them, marching mindlessly in lock step, never bother to consult any “FV” representatives. They just issue report after report repeating the same lies. After a while it becomes, “Well, how could so many churches be wrong about the Federal Vision? Hey look, ALL the denominations have condemned it!”

The answer is simple: the people on the committees are mindless marchers. They march in step with the mindless marchers who have told them these lies. Seldom do they read anything written by the people they supposedly are investigating. They publish wild reports, filled with amazing lies, and when called to account they say this, “Well, those men say that they don’t believe these things; but we know that they really do.”

How do you answer such evil men?  They cannot find that you’ve ever written XYZ, and they cannot find that you’ve ever said XYZ, but they accuse you of it anyway. When you say you don’t believe XYZ, they call you a liar. I wish I were wrong about this, but it seems that these are the kind of men who staff the theological committees of pretty much all the “conservative” “Reformed” denominations these days. There is no charity, no benefit of the doubt, not even a phone call. The attitude is pretty clear; as Luther put it:  They proudly say, “Now, where is he That shall our speech forbid us? By right or might we shall prevail; What we determine cannot fail; We own no lord and master!” (Luther, Psalm 12)

Among the lies constantly reiterated by the unthinking marchers is the charge of “monocovenantalism.” According to them, “Federal Visionaries” deny that there are two covenants in human history. Since nobody has ever said this, the charge is a lie. Somebody started up this lie, and the mindless marchers, too lazy to check into it for themselves, simply repeat it over and over.

Reformed theology does say, of course, that the three persons of God exist in covenant with each other. They exist with each other in other ways also, but they are indeed covenantally united. This follows from the Biblical doctrine of creation. There is nothing in the creation that does not have its archetype in God, because there is nothing outside of God that God could look at when making the creation. Covenants exist in human life because the three persons of God are in covenant with one another. This is standard, garden-variety Calvinistic teaching, and anyone who denies it is not Reformed in any way, shape, or fashion.

So, ultimately, in God there is one covenant. This is an inescapable fact that anyone with the least knowledge of systematic theology should know. In history, however, there are phases in God’s administration of His relationship with man and there are two overarching covenants. (Oh by the way, “Federal Visionists” despise systematic theology as “inherently rationalistic” we are told!)

The human race was created in covenant fellowship with God, but in a child form of that relationship. Human beings were under “law” administered by angels until they grew up. When the human race was ready, God entered into a new covenant, an adult covenant with humanity. The first covenant was in Adam and in the human beings that came from him, including Jesus the Christ. Jesus was born into the first covenant, and then through death and resurrection brought the new covenant, the covenant of maturity or glory. So, there are two overall covenants.

Nobody denies this. To say that “Federal Visionists” deny this is a lie. Nobody has ever denied it.

Of course, beyond this, we recognize a succession of covenantal administrations in history: the Adamic, Noahic, Patriarchal, Sinaitic, Kingdom, Prophetic, and Oikumenical covenants, which precede and lead down to the New Covenant. Each of these previous covenants reiterates the “angel/law” world of the childhood covenant, but each also reveals and progressively partly manifests the adult world of the mature covenant. And, because of the fall of man into sin, each of the older covenants reveals the coming salvation of the world from death and sin, which will make possible the entrance into the New Mature Covenant.

Beyond this, each of these eight covenants has an initial and then a full form. The Adamic covenant is “not good” until Adam has gone through a kind of death-sleep and then been glorified with a bride; then the covenant is “very good.” Similarly, the Sinaitic covenant has a first phase, in which the Ten Words are written on stone and in which the bride is merely part of the husband’s house in the Tenth Word; and then after the death and resurrection of Israel in the wilderness comes the full phase of the Sinaitic covenant, in which the Ten Words are now put in flesh through the voice of Moses and in which the bride is elevated in the Tenth Word to co-rule with her husband over the house.  The same kind of move from initial to full form can be seen in each of the covenant administrations, once it is recognized that the “bride” is the community. Hence, again, the Prophetic covenant starts with Elijah as soloist, but after his departure, Elisha is seen always in community.

The point of this essay is not to give a full explication of genuine Biblical and Reformed covenantal theology. The point is that there are no monocovenantalists. As far as I know, there never have been any.

BIBLICAL HORIZONS 2010 BIBLE CONFERENCE
July 19-23   - Peter Leithart: Stuff on Sex and Politics in the Song of Songs
- Jeffrey Meyers: Stuff on Acts
- James Jordan: Stuff So Amazing We Cannot Disclose It - Bill DeJong: Ritual and Character Development
- Others to be announced.
- Begins Monday evening at 7:00 pm; ends Friday at 1:00 pm.
- Registration: $100 per person; $125 per family.
- Sung Vespers each evening, with “chanted” psalmody. 

- Local airport is Northwest Florida Air Terminal (VPS).

- WARNING: By now it is almost certain that the beaches will be oil-fouled and that people will not be permitted to go to the beach. You may wish to take that into account when you decide where to stay, as some motels have pools. All those listed below have pools. There are recreational parks near the church that have access to the water of the bay, which should be fine.

Meeting place: Trinity Presbyterian Church, 44 Southview Ave., Valparaiso, FL 32580 www.trinvalp.com 

PLEASE NOTE: Trinity Presbyterian has graciously allowed the BH Conference to meet on its premises for 20 years. Trinity is NOT, however, a sponsor of the Conference. Questions about the Conference need to be addressed to Biblical Horizons, not to Trinity Presbyterian. Contact: jbjordan4@cox.net; 850-897-5299.

Better motels that are near the church:

Holiday Inn Express:

http://www.hiexpress.com/hotels/us/en/ncvfl/hoteldetail

Quality Inn:

http://www.qualityinn.com/hotel-niceville-florida-FL453?

Comfort Suites:

http://www.comfortsuites.com/hotel-niceville-florida-FLA61

If these are too expensive and you want a cheapo motel, contact us.

The sin of Ham in Genesis 9 continues to elicit comment, since it seems mysterious. We read in 9:21-23 that Noah uncovered himself inside (the covering of) his tent, that Ham (entered the privacy of Noah’s tent) and saw his father’s (not “Noah’s”, n.b.) nakedness, that Ham told his two brothers outside, and that the brothers walked backwards with a garment on their shoulders and covered their father’s (not “Noah’s”, n.b.) nakedness. When Noah awoke and learned what his youngest son (not “Ham,” n.b.) had done, he cursed Ham’s youngest son.

It seems clear that this passage is about authority. It is about how a son treats a father. One son sees his father naked and talks about it; the other sons cover their father’s nakedness. I have analyzed this entire passage at length here http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-96-the-sin-of-ham-and-the-curse-of-canaan-part-1/ together with the two succeeding issues.

Some are unsatisfied. There is a perennial suggestion that sex of some sort was involved. The justification for this is the use of “uncover nakedness” language in Leviticus 18 & 20 to denote sexual relations; including in one place “see nakedness” (Lev. 20:17) with the same sexual connotation. Since Ham saw his father’s nakedness, this means he sodomized his father, and then bragged about it. Or, since uncovering a man’s nakedness can refer to having sex with a man’s wife, then this means that Ham had sex with his own mother while his father slept.

It is certainly true that when a son assaults his father’s bed, generally having sex with a wife other than his own mother, that is a way of saying that the old man is weak and it’s time for the son to be put in charge. Reuben did this to Jacob, and Absalom to David. In both of those stories, however, the text is quite clear about what happened. To read the sin of Ham sexually it is necessary to import the sexual aspect without any direct evidence, and, perhaps importantly, to read back into this literary record language that is not introduced until much later in history, in the Biblical deposit of revelation.

The other two sons of Noah placed a garment on their father to cover his nakedness, “and their faces were backwards so that they did not see their father’s nakedness” (Gen. 9:23). Does this mean that their faces were turned away so that they did not sodomize Noah, or have sex with their mother? Clearly not. It means they did not look.

Much of this event has to do with rebellion against authority. Japheth and Shem hold up the garment on their shoulders (an action of exalting a person) and cover their father. The judgment placed on Canaan makes him a slave, not a ruler. Japheth and Shem, however, will have “tents,” like Noah.

What I’d like to add to my previous analysis is this: The passage opposes looking at the secrets of God with listening to the word of God. The eye is the organ of dominion, and that is why we do not worship through icons and images. The ear is the organ of submission. Noah, the human “elohim,” the junior godlike authority, the “father,” is in charge. He sees what his sons do and passes judgment; they do not “see” him and judge him. The Bible uses “elohim” for human rulers, and here in this story is it Noah who is like God: planting a garden, withdrawing from the scene, returning to find that sin has been committed, and passing judgment.

The situation is just like that in the Tabernacle. God is enthroned naked in the Holy of Holies, but the priests are never to see Him. When they move the Tabernacle, they unhook the Veil and carry it backwards to cover the Throne. When they set up the Tabernacle, they pull off the Veil carefully and walk forward and hook it up without looking. On the Day of Coverings (Lev. 16), when Aaron does go into the Holy of Holies, God wraps Himself in His cloud. God is not to be seen in His tent, but God does speak from His throne. The same is true of Noah: when he awakes, he speaks.

The situation is also true in human life. It is inappropriate for a son to see his father’s genitals. When a child is a baby, his parents will see him and bathe him, dress him, etc. When the child becomes self-conscious, the parents should not be looking any longer. And children do not want to look at their parents naked, and don’t like to think about their parents having sex. Gary DeMar commented to me once that when young he had gone to some Christian youth camp, and in the morning when all the other highschool boys were showering in the common shower, the main speaker at the camp, an older man, joined them. Gary said that it was much harder for him to listen to the man lecture thereafter.

When Ham entered Noah’s tent, he may have been spying, or he might have entered just without thinking. But when he glimpsed his father, he did not instantly avert his eyes and withdraw, keeping quiet. Rather he looked and then told his brothers. Did he snicker? Or was there some darker purpose in what he said? We are not told, and it is not important. The point is that he did not conceal what was an embarrassing situation but rather exposed it.

When we expose our secrets to someone, we give them power over us. That’s why we are careful when we do so, and so angry and humiliated when we are betrayed. And rightly so. If someone accidently finds out one of our secrets — “sees” our secret —  and then tells others, that is an assault on us. There was no sin in Noah’s resting naked covered by his tent; the sin was in Ham’s exposing it and uncovering Noah from the covering of his tent.

The sexual interpretation of this story is a red herring that draws us away from its real, and very practical, meaning.