Here is a sermon of mine on Psalm 24:1-10, entitled Dwelling in the Presence of the King of Glory.
Showing posts with label Steven Coxhead. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Steven Coxhead. Show all posts
29 March 2010
My Approach to the Old Testament
I have been teaching the Old Testament and Biblical Hebrew at a couple of theological colleges in Sydney, Australia, for the last nine years. Perhaps some of you might be interested in my approach to teaching the Old Testament, so here goes:
I strongly advocate that we need to respect the exegetical details of each particular text (even when it challenges our preconceived ideas), but at the same time we always need to place the exegetical details of each particular passage in the context of the bigger picture of the book in which it is found, and indeed the Old Testament as a whole. My general approach to the teaching of individual books of the Old Testament involves considering the historical background of the book in question, summarizing its structure and content, and identifying its major themes. My experience is that students are generally cognizant of the details of many of the more familiar stories of the Old Testament, but where they need to be challenged to think further is in considering the bigger picture of the Old Testament, how the parts fit into the whole.
In terms of the bigger picture, I link the purpose of creation and the outworking of history with God’s desire to reveal himself to humanity through the building of the kingdom of God on earth. Within this overarching purpose, the Old Testament is primarily a story of rebellion and the promise of restoration and realization in the context of God’s relationship with Israel.
The Pentateuch is primarily concerned with the historical background to and the establishment of the Sinaitic and Deuteronomic covenants, which were covenants made exclusively between Yahweh and Israel. Given this covenantal emphasis in the Pentateuch, the key to understanding God’s relationship with old covenant Israel is understanding the nature and function of the Mosaic covenants. Israel’s obligation (both corporate and individual) under these covenants was faith expressed in a holistic way. This was typically talked about in terms of obedience, which was to be pursued in the context of the grace of redemption and atonement. The Mosaic call to obedience was a call for Israel to be loyal to God and his covenant.
If the Pentateuch explains the background to and the nature of God’s covenant relationship with Israel, then the Prophets (i.e., the Former and Latter Prophets) are primarily concerned to trace the historical failure of the covenant relationship between God and Israel. As covenant spokesmen for Yahweh, one of the major functions of the Old Testament prophets was to remind Israel of the nature of the relationship that she was in with God. The four main kinds of prophetic oracle (i.e., indictment, judgment, instruction, and restoration) all presuppose the operation of the Mosaic covenant, and reflect the relational dynamics spelled out in the Pentateuch.
But the message of the Old Testament prophets is quite clear. The Old Testament as a whole is concerned to show that the nation of Israel did not stay loyal to God and his covenant. This covenant disobedience was problematic as, according to the way in which God had structured the covenant with Israel, the efficacy of the system of atonement, and the realization of the blessings of the covenant, were conditional upon Israel’s continuing covenant loyalty.
The consequence of Israel’s covenant rebellion was that the curses of the covenant came down upon the nation, the climax being the military defeat and exile of Israel and Judah. But in a wonderful way, at the lowest ebb of God’s relationship with Israel, God spoke graciously through his prophets of how he would one day act to rectify the situation. According to the Old Testament prophets, the solution to the problem of the covenant disobedience of Israel would be the new covenant, which would involve God sending his Suffering Spirit-filled Servant to Israel, to make full atonement for sin, and to bring Israel and the nations back in faith and obedience to Yahweh, in order that the fullness of the covenant blessings might be realized:
In this way, the restoration oracles of the Old Testament prophets are prophecies of the gospel, which is the proclamation of the establishment of the new covenant in Christ, the royal announcement of the realization and consummation of the kingdom of God on earth and the fulfillment of God’s promises of blessing.
I strongly advocate that we need to respect the exegetical details of each particular text (even when it challenges our preconceived ideas), but at the same time we always need to place the exegetical details of each particular passage in the context of the bigger picture of the book in which it is found, and indeed the Old Testament as a whole. My general approach to the teaching of individual books of the Old Testament involves considering the historical background of the book in question, summarizing its structure and content, and identifying its major themes. My experience is that students are generally cognizant of the details of many of the more familiar stories of the Old Testament, but where they need to be challenged to think further is in considering the bigger picture of the Old Testament, how the parts fit into the whole.
In terms of the bigger picture, I link the purpose of creation and the outworking of history with God’s desire to reveal himself to humanity through the building of the kingdom of God on earth. Within this overarching purpose, the Old Testament is primarily a story of rebellion and the promise of restoration and realization in the context of God’s relationship with Israel.
The Pentateuch is primarily concerned with the historical background to and the establishment of the Sinaitic and Deuteronomic covenants, which were covenants made exclusively between Yahweh and Israel. Given this covenantal emphasis in the Pentateuch, the key to understanding God’s relationship with old covenant Israel is understanding the nature and function of the Mosaic covenants. Israel’s obligation (both corporate and individual) under these covenants was faith expressed in a holistic way. This was typically talked about in terms of obedience, which was to be pursued in the context of the grace of redemption and atonement. The Mosaic call to obedience was a call for Israel to be loyal to God and his covenant.
If the Pentateuch explains the background to and the nature of God’s covenant relationship with Israel, then the Prophets (i.e., the Former and Latter Prophets) are primarily concerned to trace the historical failure of the covenant relationship between God and Israel. As covenant spokesmen for Yahweh, one of the major functions of the Old Testament prophets was to remind Israel of the nature of the relationship that she was in with God. The four main kinds of prophetic oracle (i.e., indictment, judgment, instruction, and restoration) all presuppose the operation of the Mosaic covenant, and reflect the relational dynamics spelled out in the Pentateuch.
But the message of the Old Testament prophets is quite clear. The Old Testament as a whole is concerned to show that the nation of Israel did not stay loyal to God and his covenant. This covenant disobedience was problematic as, according to the way in which God had structured the covenant with Israel, the efficacy of the system of atonement, and the realization of the blessings of the covenant, were conditional upon Israel’s continuing covenant loyalty.
The consequence of Israel’s covenant rebellion was that the curses of the covenant came down upon the nation, the climax being the military defeat and exile of Israel and Judah. But in a wonderful way, at the lowest ebb of God’s relationship with Israel, God spoke graciously through his prophets of how he would one day act to rectify the situation. According to the Old Testament prophets, the solution to the problem of the covenant disobedience of Israel would be the new covenant, which would involve God sending his Suffering Spirit-filled Servant to Israel, to make full atonement for sin, and to bring Israel and the nations back in faith and obedience to Yahweh, in order that the fullness of the covenant blessings might be realized:
“And now Yahweh says, he who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him … he says: ‘It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth’” (Isa 49:5–6).
In this way, the restoration oracles of the Old Testament prophets are prophecies of the gospel, which is the proclamation of the establishment of the new covenant in Christ, the royal announcement of the realization and consummation of the kingdom of God on earth and the fulfillment of God’s promises of blessing.
27 December 2009
Dave Woolcott's Critique of My View of Justification
Dave Woolcott has recently offered a critique of how he understands my view of justification, and has suggested that we publish each others posts on this issue. So, the text below (in gray) is a copy of the relevant post from Dave Woolcott's blog: A response to Steven Coxhead’s “Absolute and Covenant Righteousness Reconciled”. My response to Dave's critique will follow in the next few posts.
Now for something completely different! This is a bit heavy, I guess, but I believe important to discuss.
Steven Coxhead has posted on his website these 32 Theses regarding what is essentially his understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith. Steven is a lecturer at our theological college, the PTC, and a link to Steven’s website can be found at the PTC Blog. For a number of years students at the PTC have been confused by Steven’s teaching, and I appreciate his attempt to publicise what he believes so that is can be weighed against scripture. You might like to read Steven’s Theses before reading my response, otherwise it will not make much sense!
My Response!
In his introduction Steven claims that he is not denying that justification is by faith alone. This is because he is using the terms “faith” and “works” covenantly, rather than anthropologically. The question needs to be asked though, “Is there a difference?” In my view, what Steven writes does undermine justification by faith alone, no matter how he claims to be using the terms “faith” and “works”, especially because he has not clarified the difference that this ‘covenant’ view has to the ‘anthropological’ when Paul does not appear to make such distinctions.
I believe there are a number of errors in Steven’s thinking. The major flaws are outlined below.
1 – Steven claims that there is a fundamental difference between the law of Moses and God’s covenant with Adam (pt 3). In many ways, this difference is at the heart of what Steven is trying to reconcile, but is there anything to reconcile? As we continue hopefully we will see that what Steven tries to reconcile is the same thing.
2 – The main difference that Steven is referring to is that the covenant with Adam did not deal with sin, but that the sacrificial system under the law of Moses did. The problem with this thinking is that the sacrificial system never dealt with sin (c.f. Psalm 40:6, Hosea 6:6, Hebrews 10:1-5). It should be noted that death was the result of sin for Adam, and Paul reminds us in Romans that the wages of sin are still death. At the same time, the Covenant with Adam did not refer to “immediate” death as claimed by Steven (pt 3).
3 – Steven believes that righteousness comes through works of the law (pt 6), but seems to forget that Jesus is the only one to whom this truth can be applied (pt 2). Paul himself uses Abram as an example against this very thinking. Abram, before the law of Moses (and after Adam), was considered righteous by God because he believed God (Genesis 15:6).
4 – Steven believes that there is more than one type of justification and more than one type of righteousness that need to be reconciled (pt 7). This is due to the difference Steven sees in the Adamic Covenant and the Mosaic law (pt 3, 4, 5). As I mentioned earlier, I do not believe the difference he claims is there, and in the same way I believe that Steven is mistaken if he believes there is more than one type of justification or righteousness. It is difficult for me to prove that something does not exist, and so the burden of proof is on Steven to produce evidence for this. My understanding of Scripture is that we are either absolutely of the light or absolutely of the darkness. We cannot be partially justified.
5 – Steven speaks as though it is our relationship with the covenant that is important in the OT (pt 8, 9, 10). In actual fact it is our relationship with God that is important. The covenant simply defines to some degree what the relationship is. It is a covenant relationship.
6 – Steven is under the impression that works of the law come before “absolute justification/righteousness” (pt 12, 22). Scripture gives a different understanding. Biblically it is always as a result of salvation that good works are performed. God certainly appears to work from this understanding in Exodus 20:2, when before the 10 commandments are given God reminds Israel that he is the God who has saved them. In Romans 12:1 Paul exhorts the church in Rome to be living sacrifices in view of God’s mercy.
7 – No one has ever kept covenant with God. Even Moses failed to enter the promised land. In point 19 Steven suggests that the key difference between the old covenant and the new is that the mediator was Moses in the old, and is Jesus in the new. Moses, however, was a failed leader, an unworthy mediator. Jesus is the perfect prophet, priest and king, and ultimately the prophet, priest and king that Israel, even Moses, was waiting for.
8 – It is not an issue of correctly balancing two types of justification/righteousness, or for that matter, balancing the right combination of works and faith in Christ (pt 32). Even if you say that greater weight should be given to righteousness through faith in Christ, it is not about a balancing act. Rather it is about one coming before the other (though in the reverse order to what Steven claims in pt 28). It is through what God has done in Christ that believers are empowered to do good works – to become slaves to righteousness. John reminds us that we love because God first loved us (1 John 4:19). In Christ we are taught how to love – how to fulfil the law (1 Thessalonians 4:9). With regards to the law, Paul says in Galatians 5:1 that “It is for freedom that Christ has set you free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” Through Ezekiel God made it clear that he would work in our heart with a new Spirit and that this would incline our hearts to follow his commands (Ezekiel 36:26-27).
9 – Steven does not realise that being under the law increases sin. Steven is working with a paradigm that suggests that being under the law will increase good works and even play a part in the process of salvation. Paul is very clear in Romans 7:7-11. When the law is combined with our flesh, sin and death are the result. How can Steven say that the law will bring the opposite BEFORE salvation? As a result, there is no good pastoral reason to point people towards works completely outside of the context of grace (pt 30, 31, 32).
10 – Under the ‘system’ that Steven proposes I wonder who it is that judges the correct balance between faith in Christ and works of the law. How does one know if they have the balance right? What assurance is there when it is not simply salvation/righteousness/justification through faith in Christ alone? I ask the question from both a covenantal and anthropological perspective.
In Conclusion, if I have misunderstood Steven or been unfair to him I would love to be corrected. I believe that this whole topic is central to our understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and well worth discussing!
Now for something completely different! This is a bit heavy, I guess, but I believe important to discuss.
Steven Coxhead has posted on his website these 32 Theses regarding what is essentially his understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith. Steven is a lecturer at our theological college, the PTC, and a link to Steven’s website can be found at the PTC Blog. For a number of years students at the PTC have been confused by Steven’s teaching, and I appreciate his attempt to publicise what he believes so that is can be weighed against scripture. You might like to read Steven’s Theses before reading my response, otherwise it will not make much sense!
My Response!
In his introduction Steven claims that he is not denying that justification is by faith alone. This is because he is using the terms “faith” and “works” covenantly, rather than anthropologically. The question needs to be asked though, “Is there a difference?” In my view, what Steven writes does undermine justification by faith alone, no matter how he claims to be using the terms “faith” and “works”, especially because he has not clarified the difference that this ‘covenant’ view has to the ‘anthropological’ when Paul does not appear to make such distinctions.
I believe there are a number of errors in Steven’s thinking. The major flaws are outlined below.
1 – Steven claims that there is a fundamental difference between the law of Moses and God’s covenant with Adam (pt 3). In many ways, this difference is at the heart of what Steven is trying to reconcile, but is there anything to reconcile? As we continue hopefully we will see that what Steven tries to reconcile is the same thing.
2 – The main difference that Steven is referring to is that the covenant with Adam did not deal with sin, but that the sacrificial system under the law of Moses did. The problem with this thinking is that the sacrificial system never dealt with sin (c.f. Psalm 40:6, Hosea 6:6, Hebrews 10:1-5). It should be noted that death was the result of sin for Adam, and Paul reminds us in Romans that the wages of sin are still death. At the same time, the Covenant with Adam did not refer to “immediate” death as claimed by Steven (pt 3).
3 – Steven believes that righteousness comes through works of the law (pt 6), but seems to forget that Jesus is the only one to whom this truth can be applied (pt 2). Paul himself uses Abram as an example against this very thinking. Abram, before the law of Moses (and after Adam), was considered righteous by God because he believed God (Genesis 15:6).
4 – Steven believes that there is more than one type of justification and more than one type of righteousness that need to be reconciled (pt 7). This is due to the difference Steven sees in the Adamic Covenant and the Mosaic law (pt 3, 4, 5). As I mentioned earlier, I do not believe the difference he claims is there, and in the same way I believe that Steven is mistaken if he believes there is more than one type of justification or righteousness. It is difficult for me to prove that something does not exist, and so the burden of proof is on Steven to produce evidence for this. My understanding of Scripture is that we are either absolutely of the light or absolutely of the darkness. We cannot be partially justified.
5 – Steven speaks as though it is our relationship with the covenant that is important in the OT (pt 8, 9, 10). In actual fact it is our relationship with God that is important. The covenant simply defines to some degree what the relationship is. It is a covenant relationship.
6 – Steven is under the impression that works of the law come before “absolute justification/righteousness” (pt 12, 22). Scripture gives a different understanding. Biblically it is always as a result of salvation that good works are performed. God certainly appears to work from this understanding in Exodus 20:2, when before the 10 commandments are given God reminds Israel that he is the God who has saved them. In Romans 12:1 Paul exhorts the church in Rome to be living sacrifices in view of God’s mercy.
7 – No one has ever kept covenant with God. Even Moses failed to enter the promised land. In point 19 Steven suggests that the key difference between the old covenant and the new is that the mediator was Moses in the old, and is Jesus in the new. Moses, however, was a failed leader, an unworthy mediator. Jesus is the perfect prophet, priest and king, and ultimately the prophet, priest and king that Israel, even Moses, was waiting for.
8 – It is not an issue of correctly balancing two types of justification/righteousness, or for that matter, balancing the right combination of works and faith in Christ (pt 32). Even if you say that greater weight should be given to righteousness through faith in Christ, it is not about a balancing act. Rather it is about one coming before the other (though in the reverse order to what Steven claims in pt 28). It is through what God has done in Christ that believers are empowered to do good works – to become slaves to righteousness. John reminds us that we love because God first loved us (1 John 4:19). In Christ we are taught how to love – how to fulfil the law (1 Thessalonians 4:9). With regards to the law, Paul says in Galatians 5:1 that “It is for freedom that Christ has set you free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” Through Ezekiel God made it clear that he would work in our heart with a new Spirit and that this would incline our hearts to follow his commands (Ezekiel 36:26-27).
9 – Steven does not realise that being under the law increases sin. Steven is working with a paradigm that suggests that being under the law will increase good works and even play a part in the process of salvation. Paul is very clear in Romans 7:7-11. When the law is combined with our flesh, sin and death are the result. How can Steven say that the law will bring the opposite BEFORE salvation? As a result, there is no good pastoral reason to point people towards works completely outside of the context of grace (pt 30, 31, 32).
10 – Under the ‘system’ that Steven proposes I wonder who it is that judges the correct balance between faith in Christ and works of the law. How does one know if they have the balance right? What assurance is there when it is not simply salvation/righteousness/justification through faith in Christ alone? I ask the question from both a covenantal and anthropological perspective.
In Conclusion, if I have misunderstood Steven or been unfair to him I would love to be corrected. I believe that this whole topic is central to our understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and well worth discussing!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)