I spent last week at the Biblical Horizons Conference in Valparaiso, FL. Here are some highlights that left a lingering impression upon me. By the way, the Vespers services alone were worth the trip.
The conference theme was "The Beginning of the Apostolic Age". Speakers proposed fresh readings for New Testament books of Acts, Matthew, and James that draw a closer connection to the early Jewish context. James Jordan showed how the narrative of Acts closely parallel's the narrative of Luke. Advances in the scope of Jesus' mission to the world, come through patterns of death-and-resurrection, first in himself, and then through His apostles. Each kind of "death and resurrection" brings in more of the new world and advances the glory of God's kingdom. Jordan asks whether we can see this pattern of death-and-resurrection in the process of the structuring of creation itself; not something that's simply the result of the fall (e.g. the alternating cycles of day and night in the creation week, and Adam's death-like sleep from which Eve is made). The fall gave death "sting": sin/separation from God. Jesus therefore had to die two kinds of deaths, the first to deal with sin; the second to bring creation into the new creation. Jordan had much more to say, but as Rich Bledsoe says, "Summarizing Jim Jordan is like summarizing War and Peace."
Peter Leithart furthered his thesis that Matthew is the first written Gospel, published shortly after Pentecost, for Jewish believers. He gave evidence to his thesis that from beginning to end Matthew shows how Jesus is true Israel, and fulfills Israel's entire history through successive stages of his ministry. Baptism through Sermon on the Mount represents the Mosaic phase. Chapters 8 through the giving of his authority over demons to his 12 apostles is the Joshua phase (12 apostles representing 12 tribes engaging in holy war). Matthew 12 and the parables of Jesus (ch. 13) represent King Jesus as the new David and greater Solomon, respectively. The Elijah/Elisha phase follows, largely to do with feeding and other kingdom signs showing Jesus to be a "leadership prophet". Then comes the apocalyptic phase (his presence and preaching against the Temple). Followed by Exile and Restoration (his death and resurrection). Dr. Leithart also suggests a parallel between Matthew and Chronicles (the last book in the Hebrew canon). Both begin with genealogies and end with the commission of the King who has received authority from God. Both are summaries of Isreal's history.
Jeff Meyers expounded the implications of reading James as written by James the Son of Zebeddee to the Jewish Christians after the first major persecution of the church (the death of Stephen). One thing that I had never considered is taking the address to the "brothers" as a way of speaking primarily to the Christians leaders (e.g. 3.1 literally "let not many become teachers, my brothers, for we who teach..."). That added a dimension to the text with other plausible implications (e.g. 3.2 "bridle the whole body" could have reference to the whole church, not just to an individual's body).
Bill DeJong and Rich Bledsoe also gave lectures. Bill expounded the last chapters of 1 Samuel, how David must trust God to bring in the kingdom, and not give in to the temptation to take the kingdom for himself by killing Saul (or Saul-like Nabal). In the end, Saul represents Israel as a nation as a whole, who rejects true Messiahship, and dies like the Philistine nation they fight against. Christ's death likewise, dies the death of God's enemy, but in sacrificial love, and not as a means to hold on to his own authority.
Rich Bledsoe spoke on how the new creation brought by Jesus is the real reason why no one seems to know how to relate to each other any more. He has "messed everything up" so that all relationships in the world can no longer be organized around the creation, but must now be organized around Himself for the glory of God. The point of creation, even before the fall, was to allow for man to mature in communion with the Trinity, who has perfect communion within Himself. That suggests that creation expected to receive the incarnation of God's Son, from the beginning. Creation was pouring itself into mankind until Christ. Since Christ, man has begun pouring himself into creation.
Bledsoe suggests, that new reorientation and reorganization for the whole world must begin with "giving thanks for all things", rather than further analysis. The basic nature of analysis is deconstructive, rather than constructive. Church history and gospel emphasis can be roughly divided into Hope (Augustine), Love (Medieval), and Faith (Luther-Reformation) periods. We are at a point where the relationship between globalization and localization most resembles the early Christian church period. This suggests that the world is in fresh need of "hope" today. The gospel of "hope" is the way forward for Christian church. It must triumph especially over the cities of the world, which are the international "nerve centers" of the world. Paul preached not only to barbarians but also to the wise. Europe is the future frontier for missions. Bledsoe exhorts that the church must not only speak to primitive "tribes" but also to the ancient "wise" of the world; until she effectively does so, she will simply be endlessly repeating history and not making the final progress to which we were called.
Few evangelicals today would find fault in the Church of the Latter-Day Saints' 30-minute movie production on the gospel of Christ. "Finding Faith in Christ" is narrated from the perspective of Thomas who counsels a friend embittered over the death of his Christian wife and carries a doubting-Thomas attitude towards the Christian faith. Much of the dialogue between Thomas and his friend consists of quotes from Scripture weaved into the conversation. Thomas's story seems to cover all the main facts about Christ that call for faith in him: the OT expectation, his ability to heal the sick and perceive thoughts of others, his surpreme example of love and service, his authoritative teachings, his blood atonement[*] and resurrection. When asked, "Why did most not believe in him?" Thomas begins with "I don't know" and proceeds to explain the significance of his crucifixion and death, which most saw as a failure of his power: "he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him." The only major incongruity, in my mind, is nothing I can particularly verify: the blue-eyed, King-James-only Jesus seemed stereotypically sentimental and soft-spoken.
Thomas's conversation with the man seems like a conversation we might have today with an unbeliever. This, in my opinion, is both the movie's strongest appeal and greatest weakness. Thomas's manner seems far removed from the events he speaks about, as if it had happened long ago, as if they only thing he had to go on was his "faith". On the one hand, this helps their conversation about "faith" seem more relavent to us living 2000 years later. Thomas summarizes "faith" as "the belief that good will come of whatever happens to us" is perhaps not so much an absolute definition, but geared towards the condition of his friend in the loss of his wife. However, Thomas' character lacks the confidence that Jesus is ruling and present in a mighty way and abiding way with his apostles. Gone is any sense of Acts and Paul, and their foundational work on His behalf.
What we are left is the feeling that we need to find "faith in Christ" more than we need to find Christ. This sense of existential "gap" between us and the Jesus we've heard "rumors" about, serves well to introduce people to the "Church of the (so-called) Latter-Day Saints". The movie ends fading with (something like) these words:
The crucified, resurrected Jesus still lives today...
He still loves us...
and has again reached out with his gospel to restore the church in our day. To find out more about the teachings of Christ and his ministry...(call 1-800-666-WOLF)
To fill the void of some faithfuless sense of the absence of Jesus from His church for hundreds and hundreds of years is what these cult-restoration movements all have in common. Resurrection equals absence: an absence to be bridged by our faith plus some new work of His revelation, new apostles and prophets, new people, new religion. A divided kingdom cannot stand. You cannot say with one side of your mouth, "the Bible has the gospel" and on the other side of your mouth, "Jesus has again reached out with his gospel to restore the church." Listen, folks! That is not a "Lord" worthy of the worship that belongs to the Son of God Omipotent. That is resurrection Impotent. Gospel resurrection and ascension means that God has once-and-for-all installed his king upon his throne forever to bring about a new creation which is, was and shall continue through His church until He returns to finish what He began. Resurrection equals once-for-all restoration. Can we lose a "gospel" that has always been with us? Can a House standing on a Rock remove the Rock upon which it stands? We cannot rid the victorious presence of Christ from His universal church on earth any more than we can cast him from his authority of heaven AND earth and crucify Him again. Do you think He needs to die for his church a second time?
to body and
to Body and
to BODY
the mouth and mind of a babe cleaves and cries for strength until
"He silences foes and avengers with perfected praise."
from BODY and
from Body and
from body,
the leprous mind and mouth severs from self until
"it passes through waterless places, seeking rest,
but does not find it."