Subscribe: Quadrilateral Thoughts
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
atonement  chapter  christ  creation  faith  god  hebrews  jesus  melchizedek  new testament  new  priest  sin  testament  theology 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Quadrilateral Thoughts

Common Denominator

Learn, innovate, push

Updated: 2018-02-21T06:44:48.900-05:00


5. A Biblical Theology of Israel


5.1 One God, One People"Four pillars" of deuteronomistic theology: henotheism, election, covenant, landWe have already talked about the henotheism of Israel and its progression. Exodus 20 seems to be patterned on a suzerainty treaty.Deut. 32:8-9 speaks of God choosing Israel in the great nation matching (election). We've already talked about deuteronomistic theology and the blessings and curses of Deut. 28.Psalm 82 pictures YHWH as king of the gods.Israel initially was an amphictyony. Then it was a monarchy. Then the Law took a certain center stage and it was run by priests centered in the temple.Israel was not greatly eschatological but had more of a cyclical view of history. The apocalypticists of the late 200s/early 100s BC introduced the linear components that would become characteristic of Christianity.5.2 A Biblical Theology of the LawThe cultic parts of the Law were fulfilled in Christ.The civil parts of the Law were heavily ensconced in the Ancient Near East."Christ's law" is the law of love, which includes most but not all of the Ten Commandments.Sexual ethics seem to occupy an ambiguous zone in relation to Paul's broader view of the Law but are retained as part of NT ethics.The early church debated what we might call "Jew-specific laws," laws that especially pertained to the ethnic boundary between Jews and Gentiles (circumcision, food laws, most purity laws, Sabbath observance). Paul considers these not binding on Gentile believers although other early Christian leaders seem to have disagreed.5.3 Parting of the Ways?Neither Paul nor any of the original disciples of Jesus saw faith in Jesus as a parting with the faith of Israel or its Scriptures. That is, the New Testament is not supercessionist.None of the biblical authors ceased believing in one God. The way that Jesus related to the one God is debated. Those who hold to an early high Christology see Jesus as included in some way within the one God. Others see this inclusion taking place later in a Gentile context.The election of Israel seems to be a central feature of much of the New Testament even though the gospel is universalized. Matthew sees the mission to the world emerging from Israel. Luke-Acts see us in a middle time, "times of the Gentiles," but with Jerusalem and its temple as the center of the mission. Paul says that Israel's election is "without repentance" (Rom. 11:29).Three positions on Romans 11: a) replacement theory, b) the true ethnic Israel reading, and c) the final return reading. Perhaps the third one fits Romans 11:26 best. But we are left with 1) the fact that current Israel is not believing Israel--it is not yet the Israel of promise and 2) we must remain somewhat agnostic about God's current plan with regard to the events of the last century. We will know when it is all finished.The Gospel of John seems to come the closest to the boundaries of Judaism: 1) it most equates Jesus with God the Father; 2) it most most distances Jesus from Judaism ("your law"); 3) it most has the feel of Christianity as a wholesale replacement for the Jewish festivals in addition to the temple; 4) it distances the worship of God from Jerusalem and makes it a matter of the Spirit.Previous "chapters"Chapter 1: What is Biblical Theology?Chapter 2: Theology of GodChapter 3: Creation and Consummation4.1-3 Sin and the Fall4.4 Sin in the Old Testament4.5 Sin in the New Testament4.6 Atonement in the Old Testament4.7 Atonement in the New Testament[...]

4.7 Atonement in the New Testament


4.7.1 Christ's Death as SatisfactionHistorically, metaphors of Christ's death as a sacrifice probably came first. In Paul, we have, the image of Christ's death as a passover sacrifice (1 Cor. 5:7), as a sin offering (2 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 8:3), and as the Day of Atonement sacrifice (Rom. 3:25).There are debates over the meaning of 2 Corinthians 5:21. Cf. N. T. WrightThere are debates over the meaning of hilasterion in Romans 3:25 (Is it propitiation, expiation, sacrifice of atonement, place of atonement?)In Mark 10:45 we have Jesus death as a ransom.Luke 22:20 looks at Christ's death as a new covenant inaugurating sacrifice.Understanding Christ's death as a sacrifice is of course a metaphor. For us it is a dead metaphor but for them it was a very live metaphor.The Maccabean literature might have provided an ideological precedent for this understanding (cf. 2 Macc. 7:38; 4 Macc. 17:22).From a slightly different perspective, there is the sense of Christ's death satisfying God's justice (Rom. 3:25-26; 2 Cor. 5:21).Of course Hebrews provides the fulchrum point for Christ's death as the definitive atonement/sacrifice for sins. See 4.6.1. Also explore the interpretation of David Moffitt with Christ's blood offering as an offering of life rather than death.4.7.2 Christ as Representative HumanityThe idea of "substitutionary atonement" is another one of the major theories of atonement.The idea of being "in Christ" is fundamental to Paul. We die with Christ; we rise with Christ (Gal. 2:20).Hebrews 2:5-18 probably gives us insight into Paul's inner logic. Humanity was created for glory but "all have sinned and are lacking the glory of God." Christ became human and tasted death for everyone.Christ as Last Adam is a fundamental theme in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. As Last Adam he undoes for humanity what Adam did at the beginning.4.7.3 Christ as Demonstration of God's LoveRomans 5:8 certainly views Christ's death as an expression of God's love.Parable of the Prodigal Son is the fulchrum point here. Explore theologically any sense that God "had" to atone in a particular way.Explore Joel Green and Mark Baker's analysis of penal substitution. Cf. Recovering the Scandal of the Cross.4.7.4 Defeating the Devil (Christus Victor)Jesus' exorcist ministry was a beginning of the arrival of the kingdom of God (Luke 11:20)Hebrews 2:14 - The defeat of the Devil was a defeat of the one holding the power of death.Colossians 1 - Christ's supremacy over all evil powers. Cf. Eph. 6: Broadening Scope of Christ's AtonementRestoring the Kingdom of Israel? (Acts 1:6)Dead in Christ will rise (1 Cor. 15)Hebrews - all old covenant sins atoned through Christ, not so clear about the futureWe need to look into the debates of the first few centuries to find exhaustive atonement (Novatian and Donatist controversies).Previous "chapters"Chapter 1: What is Biblical Theology?Chapter 2: Theology of GodChapter 3: Creation and Consummation4.1-3 Sin and the Fall4.4 Sin in the Old Testament4.5 Sin in the New Testament4.6 Atonement in the Old Testament[...]

8. Superior Sanctuary and Sacrifice (Hebrews 8:1-10:18)


See bottom.2. A Superior Sacrifice and Sanctuary (8:1-10:18)     a. The Main Point (8:1-2)Nice that Hebrews tells us what the main point of its argument is. The main point is that we have a great high priest.Jesus is high priest in a heavenly sanctuary rather than an earthly one. There are four basic approaches to the sanctuary in Hebrews: 1) a Platonic archetype (few would accept this option even if Hebrews may use some quasi-Platonic language; 2) an actual structure (like Jewish apocalyptic literature--commands a lot of support right now although I am very unconvinced); 3) the temple of the cosmos (this comes closest to any literal referent on the part of the author; 4) a somewhat shifting metaphor (my choice).I assume the "Lord" here is God the Father, who made all things (3:4).     b. Mediator of a New Covenant (8:3-13)8:3. Reiterates the function of a high priest--to offer gifts and sacrifices.8:4. If Jesus were on earth, he would not be a priest because he is not descended from Levi. He is a heavenly high priest.8:5. This is the key verse for those who argue for a Platonic tabernacle in heaven as the archetype for the earthly sanctuary. The verse is often translated "copy" and "shadow." But the argument for "copy" is very weak. The word has the sense of an example (cf. 4:11). So the heavenly sanctuary is a "shadowy example."Moses does make the earthly sanctuary after the "type" shown him in the mountain, but we are not told how exact a correspondence there is between heavenly pattern and earthly antitype.It should also be mentioned that Philo mixes to together Exodus 25:40 and 25:9 together in the same exact way that Hebrews does here.8:6. The new covenant is superior to the old covenant, and Jesus is the mediator of it.8:7. It would be wrong to think that God only instituted the new covenant because the first covenant failed, even though one could take the verse this way. Jesus was always the plan.8:8-12. This is the longest Old Testament quote in the New Testament. It is re-quoted in an inclusio in 10:16-17. The key points reiterated are about putting God's laws on our hearts and remembering our sins no more. This would seem to be the main points of the quote, aside from the idea of a new covenant itself.8:13. This verse places us in the "now" and "not yet." The old is disappearing but we still are on earth. The new has started but is not yet fully here. What is sure is that the old Levitical system is disappearing. This verse does not prove that the temple is still standing because few Jews would have thought the temple was gone forever at this time. After all, it was rebuilt after the Babylonians destroyed it.     c. The Two Atonement Systems (9:1-28)9:1-5. This paragraph contrasts with 9:6-10 by way of a "men-de" construction in Greek ("on the one hand," "on the other"). The first paragraph describes the contents of the earthly wilderness tabernacle.9:2. Curiously, Hebrews speaks of the two rooms of the tabernacle as the "first tent" and the "second tent." Quite possibly, this language sets up the allegory the author will make in 9:6-10, where the first tent is removed to make clear the way into the second.9:5 says that "it is not now to speak in detail." The author could mean that these items are not around any more to know in detail. Perhaps more likely, the author could say quite a bit more about the allegorical meaning of these items, but now is not the time to do so.9:4 puts the altar of incense inside the veil, which is not its location in the Old Testament. However, if this altar relates to prayers, then the author may be signifying that prayer still relates to the new covenant.9:6-10. This paragraph now talks about the operations of the wilderness tabernacle at their allegorical significance. 9:6-7. Regular priests went into the first tent continually. But once a year, the high priest alone went into the second tent. Here we hear an allusion once again to the "many" versus "singular" contrast of Chr[...]

Friday Science 3d: Principles of Quantum Mechanics


Sixth installment summarizing Susskind's, Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum.Chapter 1: Dirac was much smarter than I (introducing linear algebra).Chapter 2: Quantum States (a.k.a., more linear algebra)Chapter 3a: Linear OperatorsChapter 3b: EigenvectorsChapter 3c: Hermitians and Fundamental Theorem of QM1. Again there is the sense that if I can just make it a little further, he'll connect this stream of math to something concrete so that all the rest will click. I feel like I'm reading 1 John.Principle 1: Observable quantities in quantum mechanics are represented by linear operators. These have to be Hermitian as well.Principle 2: The possible results of a measurement are the eigenvalues of the operator that relates to that observable. If a system is in the eigenstate ∣λ〉 , the result of a measurement has to be λ .Principle 3: Distinguishable states are orthogonal vectors.Principle 4: The probability of observing a value λ is 〈A∣λ〉2 That is the probability of observing a particular eigenvalue is the square of the overlap between the eigenvalue and that state in general.2. So Susskind uses the spin operator as an example. A spin operator provides information about the spin component in a specific direction. There is a spin operator for each direction in which the measuring apparatus can be oriented.So he asks what an appropriate "spin operator" might be for the "up-down" aspect of spin. For up, the value will be one for up and zero for down. For down, the value will be zero for up and -1 for down. This corresponds to the following matrix:z matrix (up down)This satisfies the conditions: 1) it represents one component of the spin, 2) the possible results are +1 and -1. These are the eigenvalues of this matrix. 3) up and down are orthogonal.3. He derives the matrices for the "right left" and "in out" components as well. These three matrices constitute the "Pauli matrices."x matrix (left-right)y matrix (in out)[...]

4.6 Atonement in the Old Testament


In my biblical theology classes, I have often covered atonement immediately after I have covered sin. I was noticing this morning that there is a tension in this order. A systematic theologian would surely cover atonement after Christology, as a matter of soteriology. Of course atonement is not related to Christology in the theology of the OT. Still processing.

4.6 Atonement in the Old Testament

4.6.1 The Perspective of Hebrews
The author of Hebrews gives us the canonical perspective on the OT sacrifices. Hebrews 10:2-3 is especially determinative. None of the OT sacrifices were actually able to take away sins. Although we often hear talk about how "without blood there is no remission of sins," Hebrews goes on to indicate that none of the blood of the OT actually worked.

The OT sacrifices were thus all foreshadowings of the one effective sacrifice of Christ. "raincheck" One thus wonders how much investment God actually had in blood sacrifice or whether this was God meeting the human psyche where it was. In the end, God does away with it.

4.6.2 Priests versus Prophets
In this section I would talk about the tension between prophetic passages that say things like "I desire mercy not sacrifice" (Hos. 6:6; 1 Sam. 15:22; cf. Matt 9:13), it's justice and mercy, not sacrifice (Mic. 6:6-8; Isa. 1:12-18; Ps. ). The prophets know nothing of a necessary sacrifice (cf. Jer. 7:3-4; 21-22). They more seem to think that Israelites sometimes hid behind sacrifices as an excuse not to do justice.

Yet there were lots of sacrifices in the OT, even if the Law might represent somewhat of a standardization. The first chapters of Leviticus give us the five main types (which were not all for atonement). Day of Atonement, Passover, hyssop, red heifer, inauguration (mention NT correspondences). There also seems to be a deuteronomistic sense of atonement by death (e.g., Achan).

Previous "chapters"
Chapter 1: What is Biblical Theology?
Chapter 2: Theology of God
Chapter 3: Creation and Consummation

4.1-3 Sin and the Fall

A Litany from God's Throne Room


Using this litany this morning in the School of Theology and Ministry:

A Litany from God's Throne Room
Leader: At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it.

All: And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and ruby.

Leader: Surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty-four elders.

All: Around the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered with eyes, in front and in back.

Leader: Day and night they never stop saying:

All: Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.

Leader: They lay their crowns before the throne and say:

All: You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.

Leader: And I saw a mighty angel in a loud voice, “Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll?”

All: Then I saw a Lamb, looking slain, standing at the center of the throne.

Leader: And they sang a new song, saying:

All: You are worthy to take the scroll, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God people from every tribe and language and people and nation.

Leader: After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count

All: from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. 

Leader: And they cried out in a loud voice:

All: Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.

Leader: All the angels and the elders and the four living creatures fell down on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying:

All: Praise and glory and wisdom and thanks and honor and power and strength be to our God for ever and ever. Amen!

4.5 Sin in the New Testament


See the bottom for previous posts.

4.4 Sin in the New Testament

4.4.1 Defining Sin
  • The standard for right is to love God and love neighbor (Matt. 22:37-40; Rom. 13:8-10). 
  • Therefore, a sin is contrary either to love of God or neighbor. This constitutes wrongdoing (1 John 5:17) and lawlessness (1 John 3:4)
  • In the New Testament, sin is (predominantly) an act of will (Jas 1:13-14).
  • Temptation is thus not sin (cf. Jesus; Heb. 4:15).
  • Sin is a matter of the heart (volition) far more than the act itself (Mark 7:18-23; Matt. 5:27-28)
  • Feelings are not sin, although they can be a source of temptation (cf. Eph. 4:26).
  • Sin is thus any act of the will that either is out of faith with God or contrary to love of neighbor/enemy. Cf. Rom. 14:23
  • There are sins of commission and sins of omission (cf. Jas. 4:17).
  • Sin is not imperfection. Mistakes are not intrinsically sinful (although they can reflect prior choices).
  • Unintentional sin should probably remain a category, referring to acts that are unintentionally unloving toward others, including God.
    4.4.2 Sin as a Power
    • The human body, skin, "flesh" is not intrinsically sinful (contra Gnostics) Cf. Mark 14:13
    • Because of Adam, human flesh and the creation are under the power of Sin (Rom. 7:14-18).
    • Sin acts are acts of the will. The power of Sin is a power that drives us to sin (sometimes called sin principle or sin nature, although this is really Augustine rather than Paul)
    • Romans 6-8 does not teach that sin should reign in a believer's life--more to come, but cf. Rom. 7:5
    4.4.3 Sins to Death
    • 1 John 5:16-17 (where the Catholic Church gets mortal and venial sins)
    • Explain 1 John 1:8-10 and 3:9. "Having" sin is not doing sin but is 1 John's equivalent of "all have sinned." 3:9 should be given the present tense connotation of "be sinning" or "continue to sin."
    • The unpardonable sin of Matthew 12:31-32 (since the HS brings repentance, no one who is drawn to repent has committed such a sin).
    • Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26; 12:16-17. Parable of the Prodigal Son is the fulcrum text on this question. Schrodinger's backslider
    Previous "chapters"
    Chapter 1: What is Biblical Theology?
    Chapter 2: Theology of God
    Chapter 3: Creation and Consummation

    4.1-3 Sin and the Fall

    Sermon Starters: Waiting on the Lord


    Title: Waiting on the Lord
    Text: Isaiah 40:27-31

    • An old song
    • The context of Isaiah 40--return from Babylon
    • Remember Jeremiah 29:11?
    • Israel had been waiting almost fifty years.
    • God doesn't get weary. We shouldn't either.
    1. The yesterday of waiting
    • Reconciliation is accomplished. 
    • All the promises in God are yes. (2 Corinthians 1:18)
    • By contrast, illustration of human things we may not be sure will come through. Battle of the Bulge--will they show up?
    • The situation of Hebrews: a promise has been given--enter into his rest. (Hebrews 3-4). We are currently in the wilderness. We are wandering. We are headed for the Promised Land. 
    • Christ will come again. (Hebrews 10) 
    2. The tomorrow of waiting
    • Abraham (make you a great nation)
    • Paul (will Jesus come back before I die)
    • Judah in captivity (imagine those born at the beginning, the middle, and the end)
    • What are we planting for those who come after?
    • "A great society is one where the old plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit under." Greek proverb
    • Hebrew 11
    3. The today of waiting
    • We need to enter God's rest every day called today (Heb. 3).
    • The Parable of the Ten Virgins
    • No temptation has taken you (1 Cor. 10:13)
    • I will never leave you or forsake you (Hebrews 13:5)
    • We have a comforter (John 14)
    • Wait with confidence (not like waiting from pay day to pay day)
    • Remember it's a done deal. (Jer. 29)
    • Lay up for the future.
    • Enter every day (buy land)

      The Path to (Original) Biblical Expertise


      There are four competencies for an expert on the original meaning of the Bible.
      • knowledge of the relevant languages
      • knowledge of the relevant historical background
      • knowledge of the relevant history of interpretation
      • hermeneutical competency
      1. A New Testament expert must know Greek. A Hebrew Scriptures expert must know Hebrew and/or Aramaic. A New Testament expert is normally expected to know Hebrew as well, since such knowledge can be relevant for some NT interpretation.

      An OT scholar will often know some of the associated Semitic languages: Aramaic, Ugaritic, Akkadian.

      2. Historical background is extensive. For a NT scholar, there is Jewish history, intertestamental history, Greco-Roman history. There are extensive bodies of literature--Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, rhetoricians, Oxyrhynchus papyri, Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo and Josephus, perhaps the relevant rabbinic literature, although it is later. There is socio-cultural knowledge.

      For an OT scholar there are inscriptions and the key Ancient Near Eastern collections.

      3. The history of interpretation primarily refers to the scholarship of the last two hundred years and especially the last few decades. Pre-critical interpretation is of a different sort. It may be helpful spiritually but usually is not of much help for determining the original meaning.

      It goes without question that a real biblical scholar will know about manuscripts and how to determine how the most likely initial reading. The true scholar will know source hypotheses. He or she will have an up to date sense of genre and how oral tradition works. They will know how redaction works. Further they will know how to analyze narratives as stories. They will know how to bring sociology and anthropology to bear on interpretation.

      4. Finally, an original meaning biblical expert will be able to operate with historical-cultural excellence. They will resist theological anachronism. They will not have artificial boundaries about what the text can and cannot mean. They will read the text in the light of the world behind the text, not the preoccupations or concerns of the last hundred years. They will bring historical and literary evidence to bear on interpretive questions, and draw the most likely contextual conclusion, not twist the evidence to fit their preconceptions.

      4.4 Sin in the Old Testament


      See the bottom for previous posts.4.4 Sin in the Old Testament4.4.1 Unintentional SinNumbers 14:22-31 immediately shows us the distance between our Western worldview and that of the Ancient Near East with regard to sin and the need for atonement. The Hebrew word here is ḥaṭa’ (chata’) – do wrong, sin.This passage begins with atonement for corporate sins. We tend to see sin only in individualistic terms.This passage really only focuses on unintentional sin, while we focus overwhelmingly on intentional sin. There is no atonement in this passage for intentional sin.I will argue in the next section that the trajectory of Scripture is toward intentional sin and away from the category of unintentional sin. The New Testament has almost nothing to say about unintentional sin. It operates almost entirely from a sense of intentional wrongdoing. Wesley is a fine starting point: "A willful transgression against a known law of God." I will define sin in terms of the standard of loving God and loving neighbor. Unintentional sin is a valid theological category, but should be understood in terms of unintentionally wronging others or unintentionally dishonoring God. God's concern is with our intentional sins, not our unintentional ones, except insofar as they have adverse consequences toward others. We should note that while the Law does not provide much room for atonement for intentional sin, the narratives indicate that it is possible. David is forgiven for his affair with Bathsheba and the death of Uriah.4.4.2 Corporate Sin and GuiltCorporate sin is not a natural category for Western individualists, although more recent discussions of corporate guilt in terms of things like racism and sexism have revived the older category. Christian confessions often incorporate a corporate confession of sin that goes beyond the individuals or the sum of individuals. Nevertheless, here even in the Old Testament we see some progression from the collective guilt and punishment of Deuteronomy 5:9-10 to the individual punishment and guilt of Ezekiel 18:2-4 and Jeremiah 31). We tend to modernize these passages, "de- and re-culturize" them so to speak. Corporate guilt is intrinsic to deuteronomistic theology and thus to the Deuteronomistic history of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. I perhaps will want to have an excursus here on deuteronomistic theology and the idea of the Deuterononistic History.So we see Deuteronomy 5:9-10 in terms of consequences (genetics and environment). I think there was more going on in the OT context. Explain the context of Ezekiel Sin and Uncleannessa. Although sin and uncleanness are distinct categories in the Pentateuch, there is a certain blurring of the two. Both require cleansing rituals in the OT. (cf. Lev 12-15; Num 19)I have found Mary Douglas incredibly helpful in getting out of my Western categories and at least in a more likely direction for the categories of the Ancient Near East. Jonathan Haidt has also been very helpful in identifying the "sanctity" category of much human moral thinking (see material on holiness in the chapter on God)."Dirt is matter out of place." A terd is okay outside. Not so much in the living room. It makes my living room unclean. See food laws (Lev. 11, 17; Deut. 14)Fish without fins and scales aren't right. UncleanBirds that can't fly aren't right. UncleanBlood belongs in and has magical life properties. Unclean if in the wrong place but full of life-giving power if properly channeled.Pigs go with Philistines and their gods--defiling. Sheep go with Israel and YHWH, good and scrumptious.Male with male doesn't fit. Unclean... abomination (to'evah)b. I need to do more research on whether Leviticus thinks of the sexual prohibitions in terms of uncleanness rather than sin (Lev. 18). Certainly Numbers has no sacrifice for sexual sins s[...]

      Friday Science 3c. Hermitians and Fundamental Theorem of Quantum Mechanics


      Fifth installment summarizing Susskind's, Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum.Chapter 1: Dirac was much smarter than I (introducing linear algebra).Chapter 2: Quantum States (a.k.a., more linear algebra)Chapter 3a: Linear OperatorsChapter 3b: EigenvectorsMore on chapter 3. I increasingly get the sense that this book should have been written somewhat in the reverse order that he did. Typical linear, building block thinking. Most human minds--especially those this book is allegedly written for, like me--work on a "need to know" basis. That's how this book should be written.1. Made some progress this week in the book. Think I'm further than I've ever been in it, understanding more than I ever had. Probably could handle a re-read. Since I'm making good progress, I'll try just to jot down some notes.A "Hermitian" conjugate is like the complex conjugate of a matrix. You do two things to a matrix to find its Hermitian conjugate:Interchange the rows and columns (so m23 becomes m32)Complex conjugate each matrix element.A Hermitian conjugate is denoted by a dagger. So the Hermitian conjugage of M is M† . The matrix might have a T in its upper right hand (for "transposed").So you might say that M† = [MT]*    (transposed and conjugates).So if M∣A〉 = B then 〈A∣M† = 〈B∣2. A Hermitian operator is one that is equal to its Hermitian conjugate: M = M†The eigenvalues of a Hermitian operator are all real.3. We now get to what Susskind calls the fundamental theorem of quantum mechanics. It amounts to this: "Observable quantities in quantum mechanics are represented by Hermitian operators" (64). Another way to put it is that "The eigenvectors of a Hermitian operator form an orthonormal basis."Here is my interpretation of how he unpacks it:The possible vectors for a Hermitian operator are all of its eigenvectors and their sums.The unequal eigenvalues of a Hermitian are orthogonal.Even equal eigenvalues can be analyzed as orthogonal. In other words, two eigenvectors can have the same eigenvalue. This is called "degeneracy."If a space is N-dimensional, there will be N orthonormal eigenvectors.4. The Gram-Schmidt procedure is a procedure for teasing out orthonormal sets that relate to degenerated eigenvectors with the same eigenvalues. Here is the procedure:Divide vector one by its own length to get the first orthonormal basis of unit length."Project" the second vector onto that unit vector by taking the inner product with it. 〈V2∣v1〉. Subtract this from the second vector.Then divide the result by the length of the second vector to get an orthonormal basis for the second vector of unit length.I don't entirely follow, but I'm making progress.[...]

      7. Concentrated Hebrews (7:1-28--Melchizedek)


      See bottom for previous posts.d. The Order of Melchizedek (7:1-28)     1. OverviewChapter 7 resumes where 5:10 left off. Jesus is a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. The author's strategy in this central argument of Hebrews (7:1-10:18) is three fold: 1) Christ is a superior priest, 2) in a superior sanctuary, 3) offering a superior sacrifice. So there is no more need for any Levitical system at all for Jesus has not only fulfilled it. He is actually the reality to which it pointed.The early Christians understood Psalm 110:1 as a verse about Jesus. The author of Hebrews, perhaps uniquely, understood Psalm 110:4 as about Jesus too. The author understood this verse to say that the Messiah would be a priest after the order of Melchizedek.But what is a priest after the order of Melchizedek? This is the question that Hebrews 7 seeks to answer.To answer this question, the author goes to the only other passage in the Old Testament (his Scriptures) where Melchizedek is mentioned, namely, Genesis 14. This is thus a kind of gezerah shewah, "catchword" argument.There are three basic approaches to Melchizedek: 1) to see him as a Christophany, an appearance of Jesus in the Old Testament, 2) to see him as an archangel of sorts (following the possible lead of 11QMelchizedek), and 3) that Hebrews is doing midrash here, answering an exegetical question in Psalm 110:4 by interpreting the text of Genesis 14.I favor the last option. First, there is no indication in Hebrews 7 that Jesus was Melchizedek. Rather, the Genesis text "likens" Melchizedek to Jesus. Second, if Melchizedek were an angel, surely Hebrews would say that Jesus was greater than he. Or why didn't Melchizedek provide atonement. Neither of these options seems likely.What does seem likely is that Hebrews is using Genesis 14 to identify what a priest after the order of Melchizedek is. He is doing a midrash on the Genesis text far more than investigating the historical Melchizedek. This distinction is often lost on those who read the Bible in a pre-modern way anyway.      2. Characteristics of a Melchizedekian Priest (7:1-3)7:1-3. These verses begin with some preliminary allegorical readings of the Genesis 14 text. What is a priest after the order of Melchizedek? If we take the name Melchizedek as an indication of what such a priest is, then a priest after the order of Melchizedek is a "king of righteousness. If you take the name of the village Salem symbolically, such a priest is a "king of peace."7:3. With regard to Melchizedek, these seem to constitute a non in thora non in mundo argument, "if it is not in the Torah, it does not exist." This exegetical technique allows you to use the silence of the text in order to draw a conclusion. So the Genesis text does not mention a priestly genealogy for Melchizedek. It does not mention when he started or ended serving as a priest. So, following Jewish midrash, we can conclude that a priest after the order of Melchizedek has no priestly father, mother, or genealogy. Such a person does not start or end their service according to a designated plan. These comments are not, in my opinion, meant to suggest that the historical Melchizedek existed from eternity past to eternity future. In that sense, Melchizedek himself was not truly or fully a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Only Jesus is.But this allegorical interpretation of the Genesis text tells us what a priest after the order of Melchizedek is. It is a priest who is not from a Levitical parentage. Most especially, it is a priest with an indestructible life who remains in office forever. Not having a beginning of days could be a reference to Christ's pre-existence.Jerome Neyrey has argued that 7:3 would have been im[...]

      6. Concentrated Hebrews (5:11-6:20--Central Exhortation)


      See bottom for posts thus far.c. The Central Exhortation (5:11-6:20)     1) The Warning (5:11-6:8)5:11. Throughout Hebrews so far, the author has alternated between teaching and preaching. At 5:11 we get the most pointed warning yet to the audience, the central exhortation of the sermon.Melchizedek is what sets it off, suggesting that the audience’s weak understanding of Jesus’ atonement stands at the center of their problem. More to come.5:12. They have been believers for some time--should be teachers by now.The author shames them by saying they need to go back to the ABCs of faith.5:13. The use of milk-meat is a commonplace of ancient rhetoric (Philo, Epictetus)6:1. They need to go on to maturity, "perfection." (not referring to an instantaneous event, however).The author seems to suggest that the items that follow were beginning ABCs for the audience. But these are not things a Jew would have learned when coming to Christ. They are things that a Gentile would have learned when coming to Christ. This is the strongest evidence that the audience may actually be predominantly Gentile.6:1-2. Most of these are common Jewish beliefs: repentance of sinful deeds, faith in God, resurrection, eternal judgment.Baptisms, plural, could refer to baptism in water and in the Holy SpiritLaying on hands was an early Christian practice of anointing and commissioning for service.6:3-6. These are the key verses in the Bible on the issue of "second repentance." That is to say, can you return to Christ if you have fallen away?There are four key interpretations of these verses and others like them in Hebrews (10:26; 12:16-17): a) that it means what it says (if you apostatize, you cannot return), b) that it is an idle threat that would never happen (what's the point of the threat then), c) that they had not really become Christians but only "tasted" a little (Jesus "tasted" death in 2:9 but really died), and d) they only appeared to be Christians but really weren't (if so, Hebrews doesn't know about this possibility).The Parable of the Prodigal Son is the central passage on this topic. Anyone who longs to return can. This is true not least because it is the Holy Spirit who empowers repentance (cf. Rom. 2:4). In other words, only God allows a person to have the power to repent (6:3), a power that Wesleyans call "prevenient grace."I have found the paradox of Schroedinger's cat helpful here. You don't know whether the cat is alive or dead until you open the box. In a sense, you don't know whether you have ever fallen away until you die. For those who endure to the end, the cat has never ultimately fallen away.6:4-5. Various descriptions of truly coming to Christ: being enlightened, tasting of the heavenly gift, namely partaking of Holy Spirit, tasting of the powers of the coming age and the goodness of the word of God.6:6. To abandon Christ is to crucify him all over again, exposing him to public disgrace (honor-shame language).6:7-8. Hebrews uses a farming image of watering ground. If you keep watering but only get thorns and thistles, eventually you burn the ground.     2) The Assurance (6:9-20)6:9. In the end, the author does not think the audience is going to fall away or that God is going to abandon the congregation. 6:10. For one, they have been noble in their faithfulness in the past--a striking invocation of merit!6:11-12. They need to endure to the end. This section ends with an inclusio alluding back to their dullness in 5:11.6:13-20. These verses are a "cool-down" after the very pointed exhortation of the previous verses. The author gives words of encouragement that slide back to the topic of Melchizedek in Hebrews 7.6:13-15. Abraham is invoked as an example of how God keeps [...]

      4. Sin and the Fall


      Previous posts
      Chapter 1: What is Biblical Theology?
      Chapter 2: Theology of God
      Chapter 3: Creation and Consummation

      Chapter 4: Sin and the Fall
      4.1 Rule of Faith on the Fall
      • God created the world good but with the potential for evil.
      • Adam's default state was without sin but capable of sin (posse non peccare).
      • Adam and Eve were created in the image of God (imago dei).
      • Adam sinned and brought the power of Sin over humanity and the world. The world thus is not as it should be or could be.
      • We now sin like Adam. We now die like Adam.
      4.2 Genesis and Romans
      • Genesis three is an etiology of snakes, wives, and husbands. Debate over whether it is descriptive or prescriptive, whether it is punishment or consequence. Debate over whether it indicates hierarchy as consequence or damaged relationship between wives and husbands. Death seems to be the default to which the Tree of Life was an antidote.
      • Romans 5 introduces new terminology and broadens the scope (the Fall plays no real role in the theology of the OT as a whole): sin, disobedience, condemnation, Sin as a power (flesh sometimes mistranslated as sinful nature), cosmic scope (creation in bondage to corruption and decay), death as new element rather than one to which the Tree of Life was the antidote.
      • Augustinian elements introduced: original sin, total depravity, sinful nature, 
      • 1 Timothy 2 and this text.
      4.3 Excursus: The Fall and Evolution
      • Clearly unforeseen by the Genesis or Pauline texts, as are strategies such as the gap theory. Whether this fact is fatal or not depends on your understanding of inspiration and/or your understanding of genre. Many would argue that the question is simply beyond the scope of what Genesis 1 meant to address in context. What is the genre of Genesis 1?
      • Romans 5 is more difficult for evolution than Genesis 1. Evolution requires lots of death, yet Paul seems to say that death is a consequence of Adam and Eve's sin. Some say Paul is referring to spiritual death, but 1 Corinthians 15 makes this reading difficult.
      • Science has of course problematized a literal reading. The most recent difficulty is the human genome, which seems to indicate that the human genetic pool could not have come from one man and one woman at the same time. 
      • The most clever solution is that of John Walton, who argues that Adam and Eve were king-priests living in Africa several tens of thousands of years ago before homo sapiens left Africa. As representatives of the human race, they sinned and brought the consequences on the human race as a whole.
      • One might then argue that they brought the power of Sin on the earth, including the prevalence of Satan and the demonic over the earth. And while humanity might have enjoyed eternal life, now we die as the progenitors of humanity did.
      • This discussion no doubt is not yet over in the church.

      3.3.2 Heavenly Beings cont.


      Continued from here

      3.3.2 YHWH's Allies in the Old Testament
      • There are angels in the Pentateuch (rescue Lot, Jacob wrestles)
      • Angel of the LORD (e.g., burning bush)
      • The destroyer (Exodus)
      • The LORD of hosts (YHWH Sabaoth)
      • Cherubim (Ark of the Covenant; Garden of Eden)
      • Seraphim (Isaiah 6)
      • Archangels in Daniel 
      3.3.3 YHWH's Enemies in the Old Testament
      • There are other gods in the OT, but perhaps we should think of them as demons (Ps. 82; 1 Cor. 10).
      • The Satan in Job, Zechariah, 2 Chronicles 21
      3.3.4 Heavenly Beings in the New Testament
      • Archangels
      • Satan 
      • Demons and Evil Spirits
      • Angelic Judgment (1 Cor. 6; 1 Pet. 3; Rev. 20:10)
      3.4 The Redemption/Consummation of Creation
      • Intermediate State (2 Cor. 5; Phil. 1; Luke 20; Rev 6)
      • Resurrection/Glorified Bodies (Rom 8; 1 Cor. 15; Phil 3)
      • Redemption of Creation (Rom 8)
      Previous posts
      Chapter 1: What is Biblical Theology?
      Chapter 2: Theology of God
      See the here.

      Chapter 3: Creation and Consummation
      3.1 The Creation Rule of Faith 1
            Creation Rule of Faith 2

      3.2 The Life of Creation
      3.3 Heavenly Beings
           3.3.1 The Rule of Faith

      Steps to Schrodinger's Equation


      On my bucket list is to understanding Schrodinger's wave equation. I'm closer than even. Here are the steps and their components as I currently understand them.

      1. The story of Ernst Schrodinger's equation
      2. The basic point of the equation
      3. Total energy (the Hamiltonian)
          --kinetic energy
          --momentum reformulation
          --potential energy
      4. The Wave Equation
          --simple harmonic motion
          --taking derivatives
          --second derivatives
          --implicit differentiation
          --partial derivatives
          --derivatives of transcendental functions
      5. The e form of the Wave Equation
          --cos x + i sin x = e to the ix
          --so psi equals e to the i times (kx-omega t)
      6. Second derivative of psi function with respect to x
          --derivatives of e
          --Planck's constant and h bar
      7. Time Independent Schrodinger Equation
      8. Time Dependent Schrodinger Equation
      9. The ket version
      10. Dirac's relativistic version

      Friday Science 3b: Eigenvectors


      (image) Fourth installment summarizing Susskind's, Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum.

      Chapter 1: Dirac was much smarter than I (introducing linear algebra).
      Chapter 2: Quantum States (a.k.a., more linear algebra)
      Chapter 3a: Linear Operators

      So I continue working through chapter 3.

      1. I think I have seen the term "eigenvectors" and "eigenvalues" since high school. These are more of the words I have heard for decades... they're familiar... but I haven't had any sense of what they meant (other such words include Fourier analysis, which I know a little now, the "Hamiltonian," and more).

      So an eigenvector is one that you can put into a matrix machine and it's just like multiplying the matrix by a number.

      So if the following matrix
      is multiplied by the following vector
      The answer for the top row is (1 x 1) + (2 x -1) = 1 - 2 = -1 .

      The answer for the bottom row is (2 x 1) + (1 x -1) = 1 .

      2. Now what is fun is that multiplying the matrix above by the vector is the same as multiplying the top and bottom of the vector by -1. So we say that the 1, -1 vector is an "eigenvector" of the first matrix and that -1 is the "eigenvalue" that goes along with the eigenvector.

      In formal language, an eigenvector of M is a vector  ∣λ〉 such that

      M∣λ〉 = λ∣λ〉 

      and λ is the eigenvalue.

      Not much, but it will have to do this week.

      5. Concentrated Hebrews (Hebrews 4:14-5:10)


      Posts thus far at the bottom.B. A Superior Priest (4:14-7:28)     1. Hold Fast (4:14-16)This is a hinge in Hebrews. 10:19-25 says very similar things. It is not exactly an inclusio, since 10:19 begins a new section rather than ending this one.The common elements with 10:19-25 include 1) the exhortation for the audience to hold fast to the confession, 2) an exhortation to approach Jesus the high priest, and 3) passage through the heavens/the heavenly sanctuary.4:15. Jesus is again said to be a high priest who can sympathize with our weaknesses (mainly our temptations).This is the classic verse indicating that Jesus did not have sin while on earth.2. Appointed High Priest (5:1-10)5:1. The chapter begins by describing what a high priest is. High priests offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.5:2-3. They have mercy on those who have gone astray. Hint to the audience: Jesus is there for you as you are wavering in your faith. Earthly priests can of course identify with the sinfulness of those who come to them, which is not true of Jesus, who sympathizes with their temptation but not their sin. The earthly high priests have to offer sacrifices for themselves too.5:4. You have to be appointed a high priest. It's not something you can run for. It's not something you can decide to do. You have to have the right lineage and be appointed.5:5-6. These two quotes transition us from the earlier part of Hebrews that focused on Jesus as a Son to the next part which focuses on Jesus as a priest. The quotation of Psalm 2 hearkens back to Hebrews 1:5. Then the author quotes Psalm 110:4 to move to the next phase of the argument: Jesus as priest.5:7. Jesus sounds like a priestly intercessor here, although he will not fully assume this office until after his exaltation (see 5:10). It is natural to think of the Garden of Gethsemane when you read this verse, although it is not actually mentioned.Jesus' prayer to be saved "out of" death was heard because of his godliness. This is a reminder that the "faith of Jesus" is a model for us. Hebrews certainly means for Jesus to be a model of faith for the audience. Being saved out of death is likely a reference to Jesus' resurrection, since obviously Jesus did not escape dying.5:8. This can be a puzzling verse. How could Jesus learn obedience? A key is to remember that the author wishes the audience to identify with Jesus here. They are the sons and daughters of God too. They are not too good to undergo suffering since Jesus himself did. He obeyed during a time of persecution, so can they.Learning obedience refers to Jesus undergoing an event requiring obedience. It is not about him learning per se, unless perhaps the author is thinking of experiential learning. On the other hand, the author could simply be saying that Jesus obeyed. Of course the New Testament does not teach that Jesus was omniscient while he was on earth (cf. Mark 13:32). As Christians we believe he must have remained omniscient in some sense, but he chose not to access this knowledge fully while he was on earth. I like to think that he didn't access it at all, but played it by the human rules, showing us what is possible through the Holy Spirit. If so, then the additional knowledge he did have on earth came through the Holy Spirit, just as our knowledge can.5:9. The perfection of Jesus in Hebrews, as we saw in chapter 2, is about Jesus being fully ready to serve as our high priest, as the one who reconciles us to God, as the means of our atonement and life. He is not "locked and loaded" for salvation until after he has died, risen, and been exalted at God's righ[...]

      3.2 Humanity and Angels in Creation 1


      3.2 The Life of Creation
      3.2.1 Humanity in Creation
      What was humanity like before the Fall? (discussion of evolution in next chapter)
      • good
      • not slaves to Sin
      • in community with God/holy
      • not destined for death
      • finite
      • image of God
      • male and female
      3.2.1 The Other Life God Created
      • Plants
      • Animals
      • Micro-organisms
      • Other Life in the Universe?
      3.3 Heavenly Beings
      3.3.1 Rule of Faith
      • God created spiritual beings as well as animals and humans (Nicene Creed--things seen and unseen).
      • God created them good, but with the capacity to choose, just as humans.
      • Satan ("Lucifer") made the wrong choice, as did about a third of the angels (Revelation, Isaiah 14?).
      • Fallen angels are demons, the "gods" of the other nations.
      • In the first age and the old covenant, angels are ministering spirits sent for those about to inherit salvation (Heb. 1:14).
      • Jesus' exorcisms were the beginning of their ouster (Luke 11:20).
      • Jesus' death defeated the Devil (Heb. 2).
      • Jesus pronounced victory over them after his resurrection (1 Peter 3).
      • Christians will judge (fallen) angels (1 Cor. 6:2-3).
      • The "lake of fire" was created for them (Revelation).
      • Angels will worship God forever (Heb. 12).
      Previous posts
      Chapter 1: What is Biblical Theology?
      Chapter 2: Theology of God
      See the here.

      Chapter 3: Creation and Consummation
      3.1 The Creation Rule of Faith 1
      Creation Rule of Faith 2

      Friday Science: 3a. Linear Operators


      Third installment reviewing Susskind's, Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum. Chapter 1: Dirac was much smarter than I (introducing linear algebra).Chapter 2: Quantum States (a.k.a., more linear algebra)1.  So on to chapter 3 (a.k.a., even more linear algebra). This is really as far as I've gotten in the several times I've started plodding through this book. This week I want to summarize a first few pages from chapter 3. It will probably take two more weeks to finish the chapter.The first half of the chapter is a mathematical interlude. Once again, I think these interludes are most effective after you have introduced a problem you need to solve. Then the math makes sense as a way to solve the problem. Oh well.2. I think I'm beginning to get a better sense of what bras and kets are. That it is so simple to say is part of my frustration with Susskind's pedagogy. In laypeople's language, a ket like ∣A〉 is a collection of complex numbers (I could explain complex numbers). By convention, they are written in an up and down matrix like this:We still don't really know why we would want such a collection, but we are calling this a vector.Bras are written as horizontal collections of complex numbers and are the complex conjugates of the bra equivalent (I could explain complex conjugates). We call them vectors too. They are written like this:The "inner product" of a bra and a ket is simply the matrix multiplication of the two (I could explain matrix multiplication).3. Machines and MatricesSo linear operators are basically matrices that bras and kets are multiplied by using matrix multiplication. John Wheeler, a famous twentieth century physicist, called them "machines." Again, Susskind hasn't really given any sense of why we would need these or when we would use them.But you basically use them to "operate" on bras and kets. For example, here's a linear operator that you might multiply a bra or ket by:"Operating" this on a bra or ket is like plugging a number into an equation, except we are multiplying a bra or ket by this matrix.In notation, we might say M∣A〉 = ∣B〉 . The operator M takes the input and spits out the output. ∣A〉 and ∣B〉 are kets.4. Linear operators 1) relate to observable features in quantum mechanics (=real not imaginary stuff), 2) are like functions--you need to get an output for every imput, 3) multiplying the input by something needs to get the output multiplied by that something, and 4) whether you do the machine on the sum of vectors to begin with or do it on the sum of the outputs, the result should be the same.Some of the "observables" you use these in relation to include: position of a particle, its energy, its momentum, its angular momentum, or an electric field at a point in space.I read more than the six pages this post covers (51-56). If I get a chance before next Friday, I may blog some more, but gotta fly.[...]

      4. Concentrated Hebrews (Hebrews 3:1-4:13)


      So far in this series:I. Sermon Introduction (1:1-2:18)     A. Exordium (1:1-4)     B. Celebration of the Enthroned Son (1:5-14)     C. Background of Salvation (2:1-18)___________________II. The Argument (3:1-10:18)     A. Enter into God's Rest (3:1-4:13)1. A Greater Than Moses (3:1-6)3:1. I would say that the argument of Hebrews proper begins here. The author will interrupt it once and twice before he gets going full steam, but the thread of the priestly argument starts here.Jesus is called "apostle" and "high priest" of our confession. Scholars debate whether a specific confession is in mind (e.g., "Jesus is the Son of God" or "Jesus is Lord").3:2. God "made" Jesus, often translated as "appointed."The angels mediated the first covenant to Moses, and Hebrews 1 has declared Jesus greater than they. Now we get to Moses, the mediator of the old covenant par excellence. And we will see again that Jesus is greater than he.3:3-6 Hebrews makes a word play on the word house. The primary meaning is "household." Moses was a servant in God's household (Num. 12:7). But Jesus was a Son. The Son in a household is more worthy than the servant.3:4. God is the one who built everything. Interesting tension here with 1:2 and 1:10 (cf. also 2:10). I have wondered if this tension suggests that the image of Christ as agent of creation is a metonymy--Christ is God's wisdom, which God used to create the world. 3:5. Moses the servant gave witness to "the things going to be spoken." The things going to be spoken were spoken through Jesus (cf. 2:3).3:6. We are God's household if we hold fast our confidence in what we are hoping for. Hebrews knows nothing of an eternal security. Only those who persist to the end will be part of the kingdom.2. Hear His Voice Today (3:7-4:11)     a. Don't Harden Hearts (3:7-19)Mentioning Moses raises the question of the wilderness generation. Israel left Egypt, but almost none of them reached the Promised Land of Canaan. The author uses this as a parable for the journey of the audience. They have left Egypt. But they will not make it to the unshakeable kingdom (12:28) unless they persist to the end.3:14. Two verses highlight the conditional nature of their belonging to God's household and their participation in Christ. We have already seen one--3:6. The other is 3:14: "We have become and remain partakers of the Christ if indeed we hold fast the beginning of substance firm until the end." The perfect tense suggests that while they fully became partakers at some point in the past (completed action), that completed result only continues as long as they persist in faith. If they fall away like the wilderness generation, then they cease to be partakers of the Christ.3:7. "as the Holy Spirit says." Hebrews sees Scripture as the mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit. This is not a past word but a living word directly to the audience today ("says").3:7-11. This is a quote of Psalm 95:7-11. The psalm is of course a call to ancient Israel to persist in faith and not be like the wilderness generation before them. Hebrews appropriately reapplies it to his audience as well.3:12. The problem of the wilderness generation was "an evil heart of unbelief." A lack of faith, in other words--a lack of faith that did not move forward to the Promised Land. The audience is also tempted not to continue through with what may lie ahead. Jesus is a sympathetic priest as he was tempted not to go forward with the [...]

      3.2 The Creation Rule of Faith 2


      Continuing my notes

      Chapter 1: What is Biblical Theology?
      Chapter 2: Theology of God
      See the previous post.

      Chapter 3: Creation and Consummation
      3.1 The Creation Rule of Faith

      The elements I ended up including in the rule of faith were:
      • The triune God is the sole creator.
      • God created the universe out of nothing (complete nothingness).
      • God created the universe by his Word (see below).
      • What he created was good.
      • "The heavens declare the glory of God" (Psalm 19:1). In other words, there is a place for natural revelation.
      3.2 Tracing Ex Nihilo
      • Genesis 1:1-2, comparison with Enuma Elish and other creation stories
      • Cf. Isaiah 45:18 should be compared (mention gap theory)
      • Cf. Other "mythological" imagery (Isa. 51:9; Ps. 74:13-14)
      • The incarnated picture of the world (Psalm 104:2, 6, 14)
      • 2 Maccabees 7:14
      • Hebrews 11:3
      3.3 Creation by God's Wisdom and Word
      • Proverbs 8:27-30
      • Psalm 33:6
      • John 1:3
      • 1 Cor. 8:6
      • Hebrews 1:2, 10
      • Hebrews 11:3
      • Colossians 1:15-17
      end this sort of section with summary of development of doctrine

      3.1 The Creation Rule of Faith 1


      Thus far in the outline:Chapter 1: What is Biblical Theology?Chapter 2: Theology of GodSee the previous post.Chapter 3: Creation and Consummation3.1 The Creation Rule of Faith1. With regard to creation, the Apostle's Creed simply states, "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth." The Nicene Creed only adds, "of all things visible and invisible." The Christians of the centuries have taken these words in the most literal of senses: there is nothing that exists that was not created by God.As we will see, what is included in the "everything" and what it means to create has perhaps expanded over time. Creating may have merely meant something like "forming" to the Old Testament authors, perhaps even the New Testament authors.Take 2 Maccabees 7:28, which says, "Look at the sky and the land and when you see all the things in them know that God did not make them out of things that are." Given our current understanding, it would be easy to assume that this verse speaks of creation out of nothing as we think of it. But many would suggest that 2 Maccabees is only arguing that God did not make the world out of already formed materials.So when someone builds a house, they may buy bricks or planks and other materials in bulk from some business. They are making the house out of things that "are" and forming them into a house. In this interpretation, 2 Maccabees would be suggesting that God made the bricks and planks themselves. He would have made them from more fundamental materials that "do not appear" today (cf. Heb. 11:3).2. It was in the late 100s AD that the Gnostic controversy seems to have pushed both Jews and Christians to a more radical and consistent understanding of creation out of nothing, creatio ex nihilo. The Gnostics of course believed that matter was evil. Already in the New Testament we find the early stages of this teaching. John 1:14, 6:54, 20:27; 1 John 4:2 all may very well address a rising sense that Jesus could not have been pure if he had flesh. If the underlying materials of the universe are evil, so the Gnostic line of thinking went, then only spirit can be pure, not anything material or made of flesh.After the Gnostic controversy, creation is no longer just forming but the creation of the underlying raw materials themselves. Creation is now truly out of nothing. The Christians of the centuries pictured creation as God taking empty space and creating material that had not previously existed in any form whatsoever.After developments in physics in the twentieth century, our sense of what creation out of nothing might mean becomes even greater. Again, the sense that God is the creator has remained constant from Genesis to today. But our sense of what it must mean for God to be creator has possibly changed as our sense of the creation has expanded.So twentieth century physics introduces two new dimensions to the discussion that no individual in history had apparently thought prior to 1900. The first is Einstein's general theory of relativity, introduced in 1915. Space is no longer a fixed emptiness. Now, space itself can expand and contract. For example, around a massive object like the sun, space gets smaller.The second is the idea of cosmic inflation. Around 1980, Alan Guth suggested that, in the first .00000000000000000000000000000001 seconds, the universe went from being a point to something close to its current size. In other words, space did not exist before creation. If this theory is correct,[...]

      2.5 God in the New Testament


      The book outline so far:

      Chapter 1: What is Biblical Theology?
      See previous posts for outline

      Chapter 2: Theology of God
      2.1a The Rule of Faith of God, part 1
      2.1b The Rule of Faith of God, part 2
      2.2 Progress of the Biblical Understanding of God
      2.4 The Old Testament Witness 

      2.5 The New Testament Witness

      2.5.1 God as Father

      2.5.2 God as King
      • sovereignty of God
      2.5.3 The Righteousness of God
      • God as holy, light, perfect
      2.5.4 God is love.

      2.5.5 God's power, wisdom, and knowledge

      2.5.6 God is Spirit

      2.4 God in the Old Testament


      Trying to outline a future book project while teaching a course in biblical theology. Modifying the outline a little as I go.

      Chapter 1: What is Biblical Theology?
      1.1 Introduction
      1.2 Basic Approaches
      1.3 History of Biblical Theology
      1.4 This Book's Approach

      Chapter 2: Theology of God
      2.1a The Rule of Faith of God, part 1
      2.1b The Rule of Faith of God, part 2
      2.2 Progress of the Biblical Understanding of God
      2.4 The Old Testament Witness 

      2.4.1 The Oneness of God
      So I think I will shuffle the order of presentation a little. Since in class I am almost done with an Old Testament theology of God, let me just present an outline for future filling in.
      • Shema needs to feature here, including the covenant relationship of Yahweh with Israel.
      • Deuteronomy 32 should be mentioned, especially the text critical issue at 32:8.
      2.4.2 The Holiness of God
      • The key text here is Isaiah 6. Also interact with passages like Leviticus 11:44 and my sense of what the holiness of God is. Mention Mt. Sinai and Uzzah.
      2.4.3 Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament
      • Did they take it as such, as most of us do?
      • Or did they take it literally, but we should take it metaphorically?
      • Or was it literal and we should become open theists and think God has a body?
      2.4.4 The Power of God
      • An assumption of the divine in general
      • Yahweh Sabaoth (e.g., 1 Sam 1:3), God as warrior
      • Genesis 18:14; Psalm 24:8
      • God as king and judge
      • God as creator, Isaiah 55:11
      2.4.5 The Knowledge and Presence of God
      • Psalm 139 is a locus classicus here. Isaiah 46:9-10
      • including the Spirit of God in the Old Testament
      • the angel of the LORD and other intermediaries
      2.4.6 The Hesed of God
      • "The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love (Exod. 34:6; Ps. 103:8, 145:8; Jon. 4:2).
      • Toward Israel (Deuteronomy 6), election
      • The progressive understanding of Satan
      2.4.7 The Wrath of God
      • God and the conquest
      • God and other nations
      • God's wrath toward Israel
      2.4.8 Other Pictures of God
      • God as father/mother, healer, gardener, shepherd...