Jun
24
2012
TGCW12 - Sunday Morning Plenary Sessions
Through the Open Door: The Transcendent and Redeeming God (Revelation 4-5)
Kathleen B. Nielson
Quotes from the session:
"Maybe the reason we don't understand Revelation is because we haven't read enough of the rest of the Bible."
"No outline can get us even close to who God is. Revelation does not give us an outline, it gives a picture."
"The Throne [in Revelation] symbolizes the sovereign rule of God. . . that's the reason this picture exists: Everything exists in relation to the Throne."
See also: Liveblogging notes by Tara Barthel.
Home at Last: The Spectacular God at the Center (Revelation 21-22)
Don Carson
"One of the reasons the Bible uses so much symbolism is because we are dead to God."
"Heaven is going to include work and challenges we can't even conceive of."
"Omnniscience is not an attribute God shares. . . In heaven we'll enter another stage of learning and challenges."
"God is the supreme peacemaker. If you show yourself to be a peacemaker you are showing yourself to be a son of God."
"Hell is not filled with people who are deeply sorry for their sins but of people shaking their puny fists at God."
"You often hear people say, 'I want to be in hell since all my friends will be there.' But there are no friends in hell."
"The intimacies and joys---even sexual joys---are merely a tiny picture of the intimacies to come when Christ is joined with the church."
See also: Liveblogging notes by Tara Barthel.
8 Comments
"Let Her Be Called the Son of God" is my motto.
I was interested to hear Dr. Carson’s explanation of sonship during the second plenary session this morning. I agree with what he said, but want to take it a step further. It is true that, in some cases, “sons” can be replaced with the more inclusive “sons and daughters” or “children” without harming the meaning of the passage; however, in other cases (as in the Revelation 21 passage), to make such a change disregards the theological import of the word and empties the message of its meaning. In these passages, the author uses the word “sons” because that is the only word that rightly identifies the relationship between God and a Christian. What’s more, the biblical relation in always expressed in terms of the notion of Father to first born son. “First born son” is the relationship of cultural significance that in scripture is made more intense as it describes that one saved by grace through Jesus Christ.
In the cultural sense of the term, the first born son was the child who enjoyed a unique intimate relationship with the father. The first born son received a double inheritance, more than what his siblings received. The first born also had the obligation of showing particular faithfulness toward the father. These same characteristics are evident in the biblical definition of the term, but there is a greater, almost exponential depth, given to the term.
In scripture, the first born son is the one who is elected, redeemed and faithful. Genesis is filled with examples of God’s choice of who is first born, a choice that supersedes that of the birth order within a family (Seth over Cain; Isaac over Ishmael; Jacob over Esau; Judah over Rueben and Joseph). The elected family of Genesis becomes the elected nation of the Exodus and Moses is to say to Pharaoh that Israel is God’s first born son. (Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son, and I say to you, “Let my son go that he may serve me.” Exodus 4:22-23). The elected nation becomes the redeemed nation saved out of bondage in Egypt. The Law, then, provides the requirements of faithful behavior that first born son must obey in serving God. But, over and over again, the elected and redeemed first born son shows himself to be the unfaithful first born son.
In Jesus, we have the perfect first born Son. Jesus is elected (see his baptism and the Transfiguration, but really from before the foundation of the world). Jesus is redeemed (see Matthew 3 – Jesus is brought out of Egypt, a redemption that copies the redemption of the OT). Jesus is perfect in obedience, doing what Israel under the Law was unable to do.
The one who is in Christ, whether a man or a woman, is as much a first born son as is Jesus. The Christian is elected (from before the foundation of the world) and redeemed (by the shed blood of Jesus Christ). The Christian is called to be a faithful servant. God “chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him” (Eph 1:4).
Like the cultural notion of old, the Christian enjoys a unique and intimate relationship with the Father, but more extraordinary and passionate. And like the cultural notion of old, the Christian (as a joint heir with Christ ) receives an inheritance that is not merely a double inheritance, but is an overabundant inheritance. In the New Heavens and the New Earth, “I will be his God and he will be my first born son.”
Speaking as a woman, I insist on being called a first born son of God.
"And a son you shall be called", dear Constance.
Thanks for your post, reading it was worth its length. I really enjoyed the inter-canonical approach towards the issue of the 'first-born son' showing it biblically points towards God's sovereign election and therefore His stupendous grace! And of course since being a 'first-born son' transcends the order of birth, it would be consistent to think it would transcend gender, class and race as well ("For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" -Galatians 3:26-28).
It is thus our UNITY with the first-born Son 'par excellence' through faith that graciously enables us to adopt that same title as well.
It is based on my last comment however, that I would like to offer a slight push back on this statement you made: "Jesus is redeemed (see Matthew 3 – Jesus is brought out of Egypt, a redemption that copies the redemption of the OT)".
I think you are referring to Matt 2:13-15, 19-20. However, reading those verses carefully we should observe that there is both a continuity and discontinuity going on. The continuity is obvious (and warrants Matthew’s quotation from Hos 11:1) i.e. Israel is God’s son and so is Jesus, and just as Israel came out of Egypt, so does Jesus. However, in this particular case that is where the continuity ends. Because, unlike Israel who were in bondage in the Exodus, Jesus’ flight from Egypt was not in a personal redemptive sense. Again, what is common is that God's Son (Israel or our Lord) did come OUT of Egypt, but the manner or reason for their coming out are certainly not the same. In Israel's case the passover lamb was their 'ransom' paid, however, our Lord became the Ransom for His people, no ransom was paid on His behalf because there was no need to. Israel were redeemed out of Egypt, our Lord went out of Egypt to be our Redemption on the cross.
A very similar case of this continuity and discontinuity tension is found in the Davidic covenant in 2Sa 7. We know that the covenant is fulfilled in the greater David –our Lord, however, we cannot apply everything in those verses to Him. Some of them can only be applied to the other kings in the royal Davidic line that ultimately terminates in Jesus. For example vs 14a (“I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.”) should be applied to and is certainly fulfilled in our Lord, but 14b (“When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men”), certainly does not be apply to the One who knew no sin.
So the caution I am presenting really is that in trying to make the inter-canonical parallels, we do not end up collapsing the discontinuities into the continuities.
My apologies if this criticism seems to undermine what I had said about my experience reading your post earlier. I was just stopped in my tracks when I saw "Jesus is redeemed", and decided to share my thoughts on it. But other than that I repeat that it was a thoroughly enjoyable and edifying read.
God bless
Femi
Aligning myself with Constance here, knowing that I am a “son of God”, particularly as for the eternal spiritual inheritance to come, yet---how glad I am that God calls me His daughter. Otherwise I would be inclined to believe that in the eyes of God being a man would carry more weight than being a woman.
And whenever I call Him there's no need for guessing; currently, any moment I need our awesome God, He is there with His comfort in states of health and sickness (the latter is true by now), the spirit carries on even when I am suffering physically.
First, let me respond to Susanne. Do not confuse a biblical symbol that helps us understand the depths of a theological truth with who you are as a person. I cannot say this is like comparing apples and oranges, but more like comparing apples and bicycles. The one has nothing to do with the other. Being called a first born son of God is not tantamount to saying that a man carries more weight than a woman with God. May it never be! Is a male’s manhood diminished when he is called the bride of Christ? What then should we make of being called sheep? branch? The symbol is used to express truth; it says nothing about maleness or femaleness. Scripture is clear on the equal value of each gender. Mankind was created male and female in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Each gender is an expression of the image of God. One gender cannot and must not claim a superior position over the other.
And in response to Femi. First, thank you, it is Matthew 2 (my error). If the focus of both Hosea and Matthew was bondage, I would agree with your criticism. However, the focus is not bondage, but sonship. Let me flesh out a bit more carefully what I mean.
Joseph with Mary and Jesus fled to Egypt to escape Herod. The fleeing part is not the primary part here, but rather the fact that they went to Egypt. They were not merely escaping somewhere, anywhere, but to Egypt. It makes a vital difference that Jesus was brought into Egypt. Jesus had to be called out of Egypt and only Egypt. Further, it is “my son” who was to be called out of Egypt. Matthew quotes Hosea with an obvious reference both to God bringing Israel out of bondage from Egypt and to Israel’s relationship to God as son.
We should use Hosea as a stepping stone back to Exodus 3-4 before Moses approached Pharaoh and before any of the plagues took place. It is evident that the basis for the exodus is found on God’s relationship to Israel. Sonship is the key to the exodus when God’s first born son was preserved and redeemed. Egypt’s first born son experienced no such preservation, but was judged. Israel’s first born was given life. Egypt’s experienced only death. It was only as son that Israel knew preservation, redemption and life. In striking down the first born of Pharaoh/Egypt, God was sanctifying Israel. (In much the same way that the destruction of the nations on the Day of the Lord is seen as a sacrifice on behalf of God’s people.) Israel was set apart for God to be his faithful son. But Israel failed miserably and in Hosea we see God’s heart as tender toward Israel, his son. All of God’s emotion in Hosea is because Israel is God’s son.
The focus of both Exodus 3-4 and Hosea 11 is sonship and the key to understanding Matthew 2 is sonship. Of both Israel and Jesus it is said, “Out of Egypt did I call my son.” When God called Israel out of Egypt, Israel was sanctified, set apart to serve God. When Jesus was called out of Egypt, Jesus was declared sanctified as God’s first born son, set apart to worship and obey God. Matthew’s Jewish audience would have seen this connection clearly. Jesus was called out of Egypt as a vindication of his sonship. The emphasis is being preserved in Egypt in order to be called out. Matthew’s use of Hosea here is a declaration that Jesus is Messiah. If Israel was God’s first born son, how much more is Messiah God’s first born son.
It may help to think of redemption as in terms of the care and preservation of life for a specific purpose. Israel was preserved, sanctified, redeemed to serve God, Jesus was preserved, sanctified, redeemed to serve God and so we are preserved, sanctified, redeemed to serve God. In each case, sonship is the main focus.
Nice to hear from you Constance.
Again, I enjoyed reading your reply -I really did - and I could not agree more with you about most of what you said, except again I think the ending bit is where it does not stack Nice to hear from you Constance.
Again, I enjoyed reading your reply -I really did - and I could not agree more with you about most of what you said, except again I think the ending bit is where it does not stack up for me. My issue is certainly not about 'sonship', I get that and I think I referred to it in my post as to where the continuity lies. In fact I would argue that the whole theme of God's covenant son 'going in and out' of Egypt specifically does not begin with the Exodus, but with Jacob/Israel in Ge 46: 2-4, where the promise to come out is given before he (they) even went in. Joseph promised Israel to 'bring him out of Egypt' in Ge 47:29-31 and fulfilled it in Ge 50:12-13, but the nation returned back in Ge 50:14 and would need to be delivered in their next coming out. So whether it is the typological Israel as a person or nation, OR the antitypical Israel as a Person (Christ) or Nation (church), God's covenant son must always come out of Egypt. This is the sonship-exodus argument which I offer no rebuttal to.
However, I maintain that redemption cannot be indiscriminately added to this relationship because it does have a specific meaning and it is never a synonym for 'coming out'. Redemption as a biblical term is always tied to a ransom being paid to appease the one who is being owed. Yes, redemption as a theme is strongly related to Israel's (and the church's) exodus, but that does not mean it must be related to Jesus' exodus as well. I think this is very important. You said: "It may help to think of redemption as in terms of the care and preservation of life for a specific purpose", but do we really have to? A comprehensive view of the Exodus from Egypt, must take into account the bondage of the people, the deliverer of the people, the Passover-redemption of the people, etc. And what I am saying we need not make a comprehensive parallel between Israel and Christ in order to understand Hosea 11 and Matthew 2. To say Christ was redeemed, we need to state what He was redeemed with, who He was redeemed from and why He had to be redeemed. In other words, let redeemed mean, redeemed.
One more example about inter-canonical continuity and discontinuity. Heb 5:1-6 and 7 parallels, but also contrasts the priesthood of Aaron and that of Christ. The continuities of function and consecration are readily observed, yet the writer makes pains to show there are discontinuities as well. One offers sacrifice for himself, the Other does not. One offers a sacrifices other than himself, the Other offers the Sacrifice of Himself. One priesthood is a lineage, the Other is eternal etc So when dealing with OT types and NT antitypes we must be careful to notice both the continuities and discontinuities.
And so in a nutshell all I am saying is though there is continuity of the sonship-exodus relationship from Israel to Christ, we will be definitely saying too much if we extend the sonship-exodus-redemption experience of Israel unto Christ.
God bless
But you cannot use just Hosea and Matthew without going back to Exodus. The three passages are connected. Otherwise, what does it mean when Matthew writes that in Jesus coming out of Egypt there is fulfillment of the prophet (especially when the Hosea verses are not a future prophecy but a backward reflection that is made complete in Christ)?
I agree that continuity and discontinuity need to be accounted for. There is tremendous theological import in the discontinuity. But, in this case, the fulfillment in Matthew of Hosea's words referring back to Exodus serves to stregthen the continuity. Matthew makes it clear that Jesus is fulfiling/completing what Israel did not do (according to the prophet). To do this, Jesus must come out of Egypt as a Son just as Israel did in all respects. How else would you explain that the prophets words are fulfilled in this event?
Constance
Do you know when the podcasts from the weekend will be posted?
Kyle,
I think if you were there you would have been aware of the very worshipful attitude of the Sunday Morning sessions. If by "go to church" you mean actually attending a service at a church, can you imagine the logistics of transporting 3,500 women to the many local churches that would have to have been involved? and on time! I think the last thing that could be said is that TGC was "encouraging" women not to go to church. TCG could have called the Sunday sessions "Sunday Morning Worship," but that would not have changed anything. Maybe your concern is merely one of semantics rather than one of the TGC minimizing the importance of gathering for worship (i.e. church).
Constance