Monday, December 14, 2009

Emmanuel: A Trinitarian Affirmation


During the Advent/Christmas Season, we often hear the title "Emmanuel" spoken of concerning the infant Christ. But lately, I've been thinking of this term in a much broader way, and have realized that this title, which literally means "God with us," is such a rich description of God's saving work in history.

The students of the Christian Theology course I TA have been discussing the doctrine of the Trinity for the past couple of weeks, and I have been reminded of just how central this doctrine is to our faith as Christians. Sure, we rarely casually speak of God in Trinitarian language, but I would imagine, if we thought about it for a while, we'd realize just how Trinitarian the Christian faith is. As John Wesley wrote in his sermon, "On the Trinity":

"The knowledge of the Three-One God is interwoven with all true Christian faith; with all vital religion....I know not how any one can be a Christian believer till he 'hath,' as St. John speaks, 'the witness in himself;' till 'the Spirit of God witnesses with his spirit, that he is a child of God;' that is, in effect, till God the holy Ghost witnesses that God the Father has accepted him through the merits of God the Son: And, having this witness, he honours the Son, and the blessed Spirit, 'even as he honours the Father.' Not that every Christian believer adverts to this; perhaps, at first, not one in twenty: But if you ask any of them a few questions, you will easily find it is implied in what he believes."

At Christmas time, we often hear the title "Emmanuel" given to the infant Jesus, but it has occurred to me how we cannot limit giving this title to only the Second Person of the Trinity. IfChrist is "God with us," then he is "God with us." God the Father is certainly with us in God the Son. Therefore, Jesus can say, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." But it's not even just the Father and Son who is with us. (In fact, not to point out the obvious, but while Jesus was with us, he is not anymore. He has since been raised, glorified, and has ascended back into heaven.) When we today say that "God is with us," we can only mean that he is with us by his Spirit. So when we say "Emmanuel," we must also be speaking of the Holy Spirit, who is truly God with us today.

I find this very reassuring, and feel the depth of the presence of God in a new way when using the title "Emmanuel." If you're still wondering, however, what any of this has to do with anything, then let me simply draw out a couple of implications:

(1) If "Emmanuel" designates only Jesus, then we believers living today may not rightly use the term, for Jesus Christ sits at the right hand of the Father, in heaven--he is not here, he has ascended to his throne. However, we have been given the deposit of the Spirit, who is also "Emmanuel," God with us!

(2) Sometimes I think we forget about the activity of the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. During this time of the year it is easy to remember the infant Jesus, but it seems difficult to recall the work of the Holy Spirit. Let us not forget, however, to praise the Father for the sending, not only of his Son, but also the continual sending of his Spirit. We who are alive today, separated from the Incarnate Christ, are not without the presence of God, because we have been given the presence of his Spirit, "Emmanuel."

May this title, "Emmanuel," become even richer to you during this Advent/Christmas Season, and may the God who is Father-Son-Spirit be "Emmanuel" always.

Saturday, December 5, 2009

Dispensationalism Fails the Bible Test Again

For those who have tracked with this blog since its inception this past Summer, you have probably noticed that I often like to throw out a critique or two of dispensationalism--the extremely deficient "end-times" teaching that sees Israel's nation-state status gained in 1948 as a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (along with many other errant teachings). The reason I do this is not because I have nothing better to do with my life, but rather because of my concern for certain of my friends and family members who have bought into this line of "theology" without realizing what they've bought.

Well, it's time to make another biblical argument against dispensationalism. But before we do, let's recap the two fundamental errors of dispensationalists (actually, this is probably the first time I've listed them on this blog):

(1) A flat-footed, fundamentalist, "literal" interpretation of Old Testament prophecies concerning the restoration of Israel to the land of Canaan--an interpretation that contradicts the New Testament interpretation of those same prophecies.

(2) The proposition that God has two distinct peoples: (a) the physical descendants of Abraham, or Jews; (b) the Church--which also runs flatly contradictory to the New Testament witness.

These are the two cardinal errors that make dispensationalism an unbiblical theological position. And by correlation, this makes the assertion that the founding of the nation-state of Israel in 1948 is a fulfillment of God's plan for the Jews also contrary to the biblical witness (not to mention just about everything in the Left Behind and Late Great Planet Earth novels). There are many ways of arguing this, and I have already mentioned some in previous blogs, but here's one more reason why we ought to reject the claims of dispensationalists:

Dispensationalists argue that the land of Canaan (a.k.a. Israel/Palestine), as defined by biblical boundaries irrevocably belongs to the physical descendants of Abraham--namely, Jews. (Note that this theory in untenable if for no other reason than that the Bible gives more than one set of boundaries: see Abraham's promised territory vs. the territory that was to be conquered by Joshua vs. the promised territory in Ezekiel, for instance.) Thus, the establishment of the nation-state of Israel in 1948 in portions of the biblical land of Canaan constitutes, for dispensationalists, a fulfillment of the many Old Testament prophecies which speak of the inheritance of the land by Israel. In other words, the land of Canaan (modern "Israel") belongs to Jews, by divine decree. Their establishment in this land in 1948 signals that God is getting back to his plan for his primary people, which are Jews (not the Church--which is nothing more than a "parenthesis" in God's big plan for Abraham's physical descendants).

So what's wrong with this thinking? Does God promise this land to Abraham's descendants back in Genesis 15 and 17? Doesn't he affirm this promise over and over again in the Old Testament? Is that not true? Yes, that is true. The problem is when we stop with the Old Testament prophecies, and neglect how the New Testament interprets those same prophecies.

Listen to Paul in Galatians 3:26-29, and remember that he is speaking to Gentiles [non-Jews] here:

"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (I suggest reading the whole chapter, actually the whole letter, for a more thorough understanding of what Paul says.)

Paul here says that Gentiles, who have come to faith in Christ, are "Abraham's seed [descendants] and heirs according to the promise." So I ask again, Who are Abraham's descendants? Dispensationalists reply: "Jews, of course." Well, Paul replies, "all who belong to Christ." [See also v.7 in this chapter, where Paul explicitly says "Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham."]

And so another question presents itself: Who are the heirs of the promises made to Abraham, including the promise of land? Dispensationalists reply: "Jews, of course. And 1948 proves it!" Paul replies, "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise." Whose side do you want to be on?

So what about the promise to land thing, then? Does this mean that the land of Canaan, or a little plot of land about the size of New Jersey (modern-day "Israel") belongs to everyone who believes in Christ, not just Jews? Not exactly. In the same way that the New Testament authors understood Abraham's descendants in a broader, spiritual way [not only the NT authors, but remember Jesus' own words in John 8:39-41, and John the Baptist's words in Luke 3:8!], they also understood the promise to the land in a broader, more significant way than most of the OT authors could have ever dreamed.

For example, look at Jesus' own words in Matt. 5:5--a passage from the famous "Beatitudes." He says, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." You may have glanced over this text before, but we ought to stop and notice where Jesus takes these words from: He's borrowing this phrase from Psalm 37:11. But check that text out; it's wording is slightly different: "But the meek shall possess the land." Here Jesus interprets the promise of land to the promise of the whole earth!

Moreover, look at Paul's words in Romans 4:13: He writes, "It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith." We have already established that Paul sees Abraham's descendants, spiritually-speaking, as all those who believe on Christ. But where does Paul get the idea that Abraham was ever promised to be an heir of "the world"? The promise, as recorded in Gen. 17:8, quite clearly refers to the land of Canaan: "The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God." Paul is casting this promise into an eschatological light--seeing the promise of the restoration of the whole world, the New Earth (see Isaiah 65:17 and Revelation 21:1).

Finally, if you would turn to Hebrews 4, you will see that the author here also draws on the imagery of the inheritance of the promised land. Specifically, he speaks of this promise in terms of "inheriting the promised Sabbath rest." In v.6 he writes of the rebellious Israelites who came up out of Egypt under Moses' leadership: "those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in [to the land], because of their disobedience." Then, in v.11, the author of Hebrews exhorts his own congregation (presumably, both Jews and Gentiles): "Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience." How can he exhort his congregation, and the Church at large, to enter into the Sabbath rest in the land if "the land" is understood as Canaan and Jews are the only "descendants of Abraham" to whom this land belongs? Obviously, the author of Hebrews understands the Abrahamic promise of land to be a type, a shadow, of the future promise of God's People, the Church, to inherit the eternal rest of the New Earth.

Much more biblical evidence could be presented, but hopefully it is clear from the three above-mentioned texts that the New Testament interprets the promise of land to Abraham in a broader, more significant way: The fulfillment of the promise of land to Abraham and his descendants will come at the restoration of the heavens and earth, when the whole people of God, both Jews and non-Jews [the Church!!!], will enter the New Earth, where God will dwell with his one people forever.

This is the hope of God's people, especially during the Advent Season--that Christ is returning soon and he is bringing a new creative act with him. He will create a New Heaven and New Earth, in which the whole People of God will dwell with him for all eternity! Let us not be swayed from the New Testament's witness by misguided dispensationalists. Rather, let us continue to pray the prayer of the Church: Maranatha! Come quickly, Lord!