"The ROCK that followed them was Christ" 1 Corinthians 10:4. That COULD have been one of those SHADOW concepts - except for the context which talks of their drinking actual water from a SUPERNATURAL Rock. BUT - that is not just "the supernatural Rock that FOLLOWED them" - so we are talking about a POWER of provision, we're talking about JESUS. Not only that - a provision that follows a people - ready to provide. That is a covenant concept - protection and provision. Again, we see Jesus AS the Covenant. (And - that was in what we generally refer to as Old Covenant times.)
Jesus claimed, "I AM the manna come down from heaven" and we CAN make that a spiritual concept of Jesus using an OT picture to make a new Testament picture complete. That is, UNLESS we already saw the concept of God's providence in Jesus in the OT as a continuing fact. Then, it is not JUST a picture, but a personal presence of God in Christ, which is what the "rock picture concept" seems to suggest. To be consistent, then we must see MANY OT things as shadows of Christ - feasts, new moons, sacrifices and even identities in Trumpets and Tabernacles. BUT - there are OTHER things which seem to suggest that Christ Himself was present "in Person" to provide and protect and even direct. Focus on the "Cloud and fire" covering - which was God's way of leading and stopping and doing other covering concepts like "shade in hot sun" and "blanket in cold night" facts of life. The Psalms especially give us that kind of picture. Most of those pictures are not fully comprehended because they are Hebrew Covenant concepts in their presentation and description. For today, let's focus in on ONE concept - JESUS represents Himself as being actual covenant provision for Israel. ADD to that, all those shadows which have their substance in Christ and we have quite an involved activity of Jesus from beginning until incarnation.
Some OT scholars have contended that Jesus is all the expression of God's involvement in all ages. I can see that as a general concept - with exceptions in a limited way. Jesus is the "creator" Paul taught us in Colossians 1:16. BUT - the idea of that scripture includes God the Father - creating through Jesus and for Jesus. We just cannot separate the "Deity" which is spoken of as being fully embodied in Christ (Colossians 2:9) and we don't NEED to. As the Hebrews very basically said, "The Lord our God, the Lord is One" - but they used the term Elohim to express that and it is a plural concept. The almost FIRST time we see the concept of God, He is saying, "Let US make man." Us Western thinkers like to separate concepts that may not be intended to be separated. BUT - separate or non - both concepts are cogent in their own sense. We can encompass both with ease if we try. So - don't hear me saying the concepts of Jesus in the OT have to be a certain way - they include several facets of God's dealings with us humans. The "covenant idea" is part of the picture and without it, many NT concepts loose their force, More on that as we continue.
However - let us see clearly what Scripture DOES say - JESUS was covenant provision for Israel in the water and manna and other pictures - either in shadow or in actuality or parts of both. Jesus used the picture of the brazen snake to picture Himself . . .and I'll try to deal with that down the road - but it is meant to be used for OUR LEARNING - and we can learn facets of Jesus' provision and God's involvement if we try.
When Jesus said, "I AM The Way, The Truth, The Life - nobody gets to God except THROUGH Me" John 14:6 - HE was claiming a singular focus -very narrow. Christians have used a facet of this concept to EXCLUDE everyone in the whole world - even believers in Christ. However - we should use the concept to point to Jesus as OUR EVERYTHING - then we'll be Biblical. Problem is - many Christians do NOT think Jesus is everything - and it has been that way since the first centuries - our doctrine and positions became more important than Jesus HIMSELF. "If one cannot figure out OUR position, then obviously they cannot be TRUE CHRISTIANS." However - Christ is the ONLY everything. HE is the only real or ultimate focus.
So - someone responds - you don't think doctrine is important - right? WRONG - dead wrong.
Doctrine is supposed to SERVE us - to help us understand Jesus and how we became part of the new creation. IT is not THE focus - Jesus is. Don't allow anyone to steer you away from Jesus to some doctrine about what YOU DO or do not do - as Paul said, "These have an appearance of wisdom - but are of NO value." Colossians 2:23. Christ is our "YES" and those who follow Him - those who are indwelt by Him; those who are "in Him" - will be led by the Spirit and WILL NOT yield to the flesh. (Galatians 5:16.) That is simply a part of our "maturation" as God's actual sons. As John would write later - "those of the Spirit cannot continually live in sin" 1 John 5:18.
But - read through 1 John sometime in one setting - about 5 times John says - "life is in the Son" "he who has the Son, has life - he who does not have the Son does not have life" - and frankly I think it is LIFE we are after. So - do you have Christ - that should be our main theme and question. (Especially if we actually believe what John wrote. But - also what Paul wrote about God wanting to give preeminence in everything to JESUS.) My personal belief is that Christendom has failed to some degree in this regard. I plead guilty and promise to focus more on Christ in my future. Join me ?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I’ve never been convinced that “Elohim” was an intentional reference to the Trinity, similarly with the “let us” expression in Genesis. Some commentators argue that “Elohim” is a plural of majesty, the sort of language a monarch would use. I say this because nowhere in the OT is a plural pronoun (for, example, “they” or “them”) as a reference to Elohim, save for Genesis 1: “Let us” may allude to the heavenly, divine council (I Kings 22:19) and not specifically to the Godhead. But the intent of the OT writer was often not what NT writers saw in these references and other passages in the OT. For instance, Matthew takes Jesus’s return from Egypt with his parents as a fulfillment of Hosea 11:1: “out of Egypt I called my Son,” a reference to Israel being called out of captivity in Egypt. Similar readings of OT passages occur throughout the NT. Some Christians have asked whether it is legitimate to see references to Jesus in the OT when passages have not been cited as such by NT writers. That seems to me to be an attempt to legitimize what otherwise might be viewed with contemporary eyes as an abuse of scripture. Seeing hidden meanings in scripture was very common in NT times and later. So do I have a problem with Christians seeing Jesus in Genesis 1:26, 27? No. But we need to be careful that we don’t read into the OT allusions that are not consistent with the NT. That aside, Christians are fully warranted in finding references to Jesus in the OT. The Bible tells us so.
I'm having a little trouble getting my head around two sentences in your blog: "Christ is the ONLY everything. HE is the only real or ultimate focus." This raises issues about the God-Jesus-Holy Spirit relationship. I'll leave the Holy Spirit out of my reflections, not because he isn't important, but because it simplifies things. The human mind is not capable of understanding the Trinity, nor can I understand how Jesus is our ultimate focus unless God and Jesus are, together, the paramount focus. (I realize I'm having difficulties explaining my quandary.) The doctrine of the Trinity does suggest that what God does Jesus does, that what God is Jesus is. So we might argue that if Jesus is our ultimate focus so is God, the Father. The gospel of John speaks of Jesus' self-realization that he and God are one, yet Jesus never loses sight of the Father, as if he and the Father are in some mysterious way separate individuals. Indeed, Philippians 2:6 seems to speak both of the equality of God and Jesus and of their separateness, an individuality specifically manifested in the incarnation. It is the Son not the Father who dies on the cross. It is the Father to whom Jesus looks for deliverance and comfort as he prays in the garden of Gethsemane. It is the Father to whom he commends his spirit as he dies. It is to the Father that he cries, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me." It is the Father to whom we pray in Jesus' name. It appears that Jesus' ultimate focus was on the Father. If so, shouldn't the Father be our ultimate focus?
Post a Comment