Recently a segment of evangelicals has been pushing for the abandonment of sola Scriptura in favor of a theological approach that relies on both Scripture and Church Tradition.

D.H. Williams is a key figure moving some evangelicals this direction. Here’s a quote that captures some of his concerns and hints toward his proposed solution:

Despite the recent attempts of a few evangelical writers to inculcate a theory of sola scriptura as the real intent of the early church, there was no question in believers’ minds that Scripture could or should function in the life of the believer apart from the church’s Tradition. Were it to do so, there was scarce assurance that an orthodox Christian faith would be the result. While many parts of Scripture were inherently perspicuous and able to be understood with little outside assistance, post-apostolic Christians would have anathematized the principle set forth in Buswell’s systematic theology, ‘The rule is then give the Bible an opportunity, in you own mind, to interpret itself,’ as setting the stage for heretical aberrations.

D. H. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 98

The October 2008 issue of First Things contains an article which reveals the difficulty of using tradition rather than Scripture as the touchstone of orthodoxy. Richard John Neuhaus’ article, “What Really Happened at Vatican II” evaluates two books about Vatican II that present different visions of the council.

Included in the article is this section which focused on a quote from Benedict XVI about the council:

The question is one of hermeneutics, says the pope. There are, he suggests, two quite different ways of understanding the council: ‘On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call ‘a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture’; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the ‘hermeneutic of reform,’ of renewal in the continuity of the one subject, the Church that the Lord has given us. She is a subject that increases in time and develops, yet always remains the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.”

p. 25

This of course raises the question: If the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church struggles over the interpretation of a church council, how can it solve the problem of rightly interpreting Scripture. Or to put it another way, how does an authoritative interpretation of Scripture help when people can’t agree on the interpretation of the interpretation.

In his epistles Paul also taught that Jesus is prophet, priest, and king.

In 2 Thessalonians he declared that Jesus will return a conquering king and a judge (1:7-10).

In 1 Corinthians he declared that Christ was sacrificed as a Passover lamb (5:7). He also declared that Christ will reign until he puts all his enemies, including death under his feet. Then he will deliver his kingdom up to the Father (15:24-28).

In Romans, Paul affirmed the Davidic rights of David (Rom 1:3). He sees these as integral to the gospel promised before by the prophets (1:2). He also recognized that Christ was the propitiatory sacrifice on behalf of men’s sins (3:25).

In Ephesians he referred to Christ’s resurrection and session as the time in which God granted the Son dominion over all things (1:20-23). Christ Jesus is the one who through his sacrifice invalidated the Old Covenant’s sacrificial ordinances (2:14).

In Philippians Paul connected the sacrifice of Christ on the cross with his exaltation (2:8-10).

Paul makes the same connection in Colossians (1:18). In the same context he refers to Christ’s sacrificial death (1:20). Later Paul returned to the exaltation and kingship themes (2:10; 3:1).

In his first letter to Timothy Paul called Christ “the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God” (1:17). In the second letter Paul spoke of believers reigning with Christ (1:11). This theme looks forward to a restoration of right dominion by mankind. Paul also looked forward to Christ returning as judge and establishing his kingdom on earth (4:1).

Jesus did not remain dead. The gospel hangs on the fact of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.

Peter connected the resurrection and ascension of Jesus with his enthronement on the Davidic throne (Acts 2:29-36). In Acts 2:30-32 Peter said that David prophesied the resurrection in Psalm 16 because he knew God’s oath to place a Davidic descendant on the Davidic throne (Ps. 132:11)—thus connecting the resurrection and the ascension to the throne. Peter also connected the resurrection to the enthronement of the Davidic Messiah predicted in Psalm 110. The connections between Psalm 2 and Psalm 110 indicate that Peter has in view the Davidic enthronement and not some other enthronement.

Peter concludes on the basis of these passages that at the resurrection/ascension God “made [this Jesus] both Lord and Christ” (2:36). In what way was Jesus made Lord and Christ? “Lord” probably refers back to Peter’s quotation of Psalm 110:1. He was made Lord at the enthronement. He was also made Christ or Messiah. In the context, this indicates that Jesus was enthroned as Messiah.

Paul likewise testified that Jesus was the Davidic king, enthroned through his resurrection (Acts 13:22-23, 32-39). Paul’s argument was similar to Peter’s, but he appealed to Psalm 2:7 rather than to Psalm 110:1 for his enthronement text. Paul said the declaration, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you” was fulfilled in the resurrection (Acts 13:33). In the context of Psalm 2, this is the declaration of enthronement. Some object that since Psalm 2 teaches the Messianic king will be enthroned on Zion, Jesus cannot be reigning as the Davidic king from heaven. This ignores that prophecies are often fulfilled in stages. Jesus will one day rule from Zion as the Davidic king, but his enthronement has commenced from heaven.

On the basis of Jesus’ enthronement as the Davidic king, the apostles and elders determined that the Gentiles could participate in the church without the rituals required of Jewish proselytizes (Acts 15:14-19). As the apostles and elders wrestled over the relation between Jews and Gentiles in the church, Amos 9:12, with its promise of parity between Israel and the nations, provided insight in how to proceed. Niehaus notes that “the implication of the present statement is that the nations will not simply come under Israelite hegemony (as before), but that they will actually become one with God’s people” (492).

The timing of this promise is significant. The apostles were not at liberty to decide that since one day God will treat Jews and Gentiles equally, they may do so at any time. James was careful to quote the time frame for this promise. This promise is connected to the reestablishment of the Davidic dynasty.

The preaching of the early church also declared Jesus to be the fulfillment of the prophetic and priestly offices. Peter taught explicitly that Jesus was the Prophet like Moses (Acts 3:22), and Stephen’s martyr sermon climaxed by implying that Jesus was the messianic Prophet (Acts 7:52-53).

Philip declared to the Ethiopian eunuch that Jesus was guilt offering for sin (Acts 8:32-35). Thus the preaching of the early church as recorded in Acts affirms that Jesus is the King, Prophet, and Priest that Israel had been expecting.

Sources

Bock, Darrell L. “Covenants in Progressive Dispensationalism.” In Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism. Edited by Herbert W. Bateman IV. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999. See especially 159f., 199f.

Gibson, Aaron J. “Until His Enemies become His Footstool: A Biblical Theology of the Davidic Covenant in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts.” Ph.D. diss., Bob Jones University, 2003. See chapter 7 of this dissertation for detailed argumentation in favor of the position outlined above.

Niehaus, Jeff.  “Amos.” The Minor Prophets. Volume 1. Edited by Thomas McComiskey. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.

Four hundred years after the last book of the OT was penned, an angel appeared to a priest named Zechariah while he was burning incense in the temple. The angel announced that Zechariah’s elderly wife would give birth to a son who would, “in the spirit and power of Elijah,” prepare the way for the Lord (Luke 1:8-17).

Six months later the angel Gabriel visited a virgin pledged to be married to Joseph, a descendent of David. She, as a virgin, would conceive a son who would be the promised David king. “He will reign over the house of Jacob, and of his kingdom there will be no end” (Luke 1:26-33). Mary responded to this great news by singing a hymn reminiscent of the one sung by Hannah so long ago (Luke 1:46-55; 1 Samuel 2:1-10).

Matthew, who opened his gospel by explicitly identifying Jesus as “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matt. 1:1), recorded the announcement to Joseph. An angel told Joseph this Son was to be named Jesus, “Yahweh saves,” because he would accomplish the great problem facing mankind from Genesis 3 throughout the rest of Scripture. He would solve the problem that no priest or king or prophet had even been able to solve. He would “save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21).

Furthermore, he is named “Yahweh saves” because he is Yahweh. The angel quotes Isaiah 7:14 to substantiate the claim that Jesus was “God with us.” Remember, Isaiah is the prophet who most clearly connects Yahweh ruling from Zion with the ruling Davidic king. These royal announcements framed Jesus birth, even though he did not begin life on earth in any particularly royal way. He was born in a stable and into an artisan’s family.

During his ministry Jesus identified himself as the Son of Man. For those with ears to hear, this was a royal declaration. His message was the message of the kingdom: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:14-15).

Much of his earthly ministry was preaching. Indeed, that was one reason Jesus came (Mark 1:38). The people recognized that he was a prophet (Matt 21:46; Mark 6:15; 8:28; Luke 7:16, 39; Luke 9:8, 19; John 4:19; 9:17). Jesus also identified himself as a prophet (Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24; 13:33). This was no insignificant identification. The people of Israel were expecting the Prophet like Moses (John 1:25; see Carson, John, PNTC, 143). In a few cases people identified Jesus with that Prophet (John 6:14; 7:40). It is worth noting that record of people ascribing the office of the Prophet to Jesus occurs in John, the gospel that testifies that Jesus is the Word. [For a convincing demonstration that Jesus is presented as the Word throughout John’s gospel see Robert H. Gundry, Jesus the Word according to John the Sectarian, 4-50.]

After Peter’s confession that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, Jesus began to prophesy his own death (Mark 8:31-38; 9:9, 30-32; 10:32-34). He used sacrificial terminology to describe his death (Matt. 20:28; 10:45). The Gospels climax with the record of Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross.

In Jesus all the Old Testament hopes for a Messiah—a prophet, priest, and king to set the world right—are realized. The excitement at the arrival of such a person is most evident in the opening chapters of Luke. The significance of Jesus’ life death, and resurrection is explained in the epistles.

Sources:

Carson, D. A.  The Gospel According to John, Pillar New Testament Commentary. Edited by D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

Gundry, Robert H. Jesus the Word according to John the Sectarian: A Paleofundamentalist Manifesto for Contemporary Evangelicalism, especially its Elites, in North America. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

But what was the difference between the teaching of Paul and the teaching of the Judaizers? What was it that gave rise to the stupendous polemic of the Epistle to the Galatains?

. . . . . . . . . . .

The difference concerned only the logical—not even, perhaps, the temporal—order of three steps. Paul said that a man (1) first believes on Christ, (2) then is justified before God, (3) then immediately proceeds to keep God’s law. The Judaizers said that a man (1) believes in Christ and (2) keeps the law of God the best he can, and then (3) is justified. The difference would seem to modern ‘practical’ Christians to be a highly subtle and intangible matter, hardly worthy of consideration at all in view of the large measure of agreement in the practical realm. What a splendid cleaning up of Gentile cities it would have been if the Judaizers had succeeded in extending to those cities the observance of the Mosaic law, even including the unfortunate ceremonial observances! Surely Paul ought to have applied to them the great principle of Christian unity.

As a matter of fact, however, Paul did nothing of the kind; and only because he (and others) did nothing of the kind does the Christian Church exist to-day.

Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, 23f.

Herman Bavink’s Reformed Dogmatics contains one of the best treatments of Christology to be found. At one point he includes a helpful discussion of the title "Son of Man."

Here are a few key quotes:

Taking all this [previously discussed exegetical material] into consideration, we realize that with this name Jesus intends to distinguish himself from and position himself above all other humans. The name also undoubtedly implies that he was truly human, akin not only to Israel, but to all humans; yet it simultaneously expresses the fact that he occupies an utterly unique place among all humans.

Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 3:250

It does not follow that the people in general, or that even the disciples, on hearing the name, immediately thought of the Messiah. The opposite is likely the case, because he was never attacked on account of this title. People perhaps understood by it only that he was special, that he was an extraordinary human being, a fact that was immediately substantiated by his words and works. But for that very reason this name afforded Jesus an opportunity to cut off in advance all misunderstanding about his person and work, and to gradually inject into that name and unite with it the peculiar meaning of the messiahship that, in accordance with the Scriptures, was inherent in it to his mind.

Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 3:250

So then Jesus chose this name for himself to make known: (1) that he was not just the Son of David and King of Israel but the Son of Man, connected with all humans and giving his life as a ransom for many; (2) that he nonetheless occupied an utterly unique place among all humans, because he had descended from above, from heaven, lived in constant communion with the Father during his stay on earth, and had power to forgive sins, to bestow eternal life, to distribute to his own all the goods of the kingdom; (3) that he could not grasp this power violence as the Jews expected their Messiah to do, but that as the Servant of the Lord, he had to suffer and die for his people; and (4) that precisely by taking this road he would attain to the glory of the resurrection and the ascension, the elevation to God’s right hand, and the coming again for judgment."

Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 3:250f.

Ezekiel continued Jeremiah’s theme of destruction coming on the failed prophet, priest, and king (Eze 7:26-27; 23:26-28). Like Jeremiah, Ezekiel condemned the shepherds of Israel (Eze 34:1-10, 17-19). The oracle of judgment is divided into two parts. The hope proffered after the first oracle is Yahweh’s declaration, “I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep” (Eze 34:11-16). The hope after the second oracle of judgment is the exaltation of the Davidic king (Eze 34:20-24).

In the restoration oracle of chapter 37, the hope of the Davidic king is once again placed before the people (Eze 37:22-28). In his vision of the great city-temple Ezekiel describes a figure called the “prince.” He seems to symbolize the right rule that the people will experience during this time (cf. Eze 45:9). Interestingly this prince seems to be involved in both kingly and priestly work. He leads in Sabbath and festival worship (It is worth noting that he is able to go through the gate by which the Lord entered the temple.).

The prophet Daniel, like Ezekiel, wrote during the exile. He envisioned God establishing a kingdom that would overcome the wicked human kingdoms that controlled the world throughout human history (Dan 2:44).

This dominion was granted to a person identified as “like a son of man” (Dan 7:13-14). In Genesis 1:28 God told humans that He intended for them to rule over the beasts. After the Fall, however, man was not able to fulfill this command as God intended. Instead, as Daniel 7 indicates, man has become bestial. But the Son of Man, in Daniel’s vision, will one day rule over the beasts. He will conquer those rulers who have become bestial in their exercise of dominion. He will be the ruler who will rightly exercise dominion over all the earth.

Daniel also looked forward to the day when definitive atonement would be made (Dan 9:24) and he relates this to the cutting off of the Messiah (Dan 9:26).

Jeremiah prophesied in the last days of the kingdom of Judah. He laid the judgment of the nation at the feet of the priests, kings, and prophets: “The priests did not say, ‘Where is the Lord?’ Those who handle the law did not know me; the shepherds [kings] transgressed against me; the prophets prophesied by Baal and went after things that do not profit” (Jer 2:8; cf. Jer 2:26; 4:9; 8:1; 13:13; 50:6).

It is striking that the prophet who recounts the fall of Judah, highlights the failure of all three offices. The failure of these three offices led to exile. Lamentations, traditionally ascribed to Jeremiah, recounts the judgment of God on priest, king, and prophet (Lam. 1:4, 19; 2:6f., 22; 4:1-2, 20; 5:18).

Jeremiah 23 is a diatribe against the false priests, kings, and prophets (The focus of the first four verses is on the kings, and the focus of Jer 23:9-40 is on the prophets. The priests are mentioned in passing; Jer 23:11.).

In the midst of this oracle of judgment, God reminded the people of the promised Davidic king who would rule the people righteously. The name of this king is “Yaheweh is our righteousness” (Jer 23:5-6; cf. 30:9). There is no doubt that this Davidic king will rule. The Lord declared in the strongest terms that the Davidic covenant will be fulfilled (33:14-26).

Psalm 89 reveals the necessity of the prophetic assurances that the Davidic Covenant would be fulfilled. This Psalm recounts the Davidic covenant with an emphasis on God’s faithfulness (Ps 89:1-37). But from the perspective of the exile (see Steveson, 345; Goldingay, 2:665f.), it seems that  God had cast his people off (Ps 89:38-51).

The Psalmist does not think that God has entirely repudiated his covenant (on נָאַר see Kidner, 324; with the NASB; contra ESV, NRSV, HCSB, T/NIV). He asks, “How long?” (Ps 89:46), which looks forward to a time of restoration. He calls on God to remember (Ps 89:50), which is a prayer that presumes a covenant (see Myers, 206ff.). Nevertheless the closing verses of this Psalm reveal the full sense of God’s abandonment felt by those in exile.

Sources:

• Steveson, Peter A. Psalms. Greenville: BJU Press, 2007.

• Goldingay, John. Psalms 42-89. Baker Commentary on Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms. Edited by Tremper Longman III. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007.

• Kidner, Derek. Psalms 73-150. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Edited by D. J. Wiseman. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1973.

• Myers, Vernon Edward “The Forgotten Doctrine of Divine Remembering: A Biblical Theology of God’s Remembering.” Ph.D. dissertation: Bob Jones University, 2007.

The Jonathan Edwards Center notes a new book, The Preaching of Jonathan Edwards, by John Carrick of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary.

Carrick has also written a helpful “theology of sacred rhetoric,” The Imperative of Preaching. This along with a lecture posted at the GPTS website provides a helpful balance to an over-reaction by some to the moralistic approach to Scripture critiqued recently (and rightly) by Mark Ward.

The story of the Bible is the narrative of God coming to be with his people as their Lord, in his control, authority, and presence. After creation and fall, the story is about redemption, and thus about Jesus.

John Frame, Doctrine of the Christian Life, 273.

I like the inclusion of God’s presence in his description of the story. Here is how I would trace the theme of God’s presence through Scripture in a thumbnail sketch:

At the Fall, mankind was thrust out from the presence of God (Gen. 3:8, 23f.). The covenant with Abraham, however, contained hope that God would one day dwell with men again (Gen. 17:8).  The Tabernacle/Temple was a first step toward permitting God and man to dwell together again (c.f. Exo. 25:8; 29:35). But the Tabernacle/Temple was deficient (cf. Heb. 8:7) in that it restricted people from God’s presence even as it symbolized His presence. Furthermore, God’s presence could be lost through sin.

The themes of God’s presence, the Spirit, and the temple converge in the prophet Ezekiel. Ezekiel was given a vision of the presence of God departing from the temple in judgment upon the people’s sins (11:22-23). This is followed by the promise of God’s indwelling presence, which will remedy Israel’s sin problem (36:27; 37:14). This, in turn, is followed by a vision of a coming Temple named יהוה שמה.

The incarnation of Jesus was a major step toward fulfilling Ezekiel’s vision. Jesus was Ἐμμανουήλ, “God with us” (Matt. 1:23). Or as John put it, “The Word became flesh and dwelt [ἐσκήνωσεν] among us” (John 1:14).

Jesus’ ascension was not, however, a redemptive-historical step backward “It is to your advantage that I go away,” Jesus tells the disciples, “for if I do not go away, the παράκλητος will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you” (John 16:7). This verse recalls John 7:39. There is a giving/sending of the Spirit that could only happen after Jesus was glorified and gone away. The farewell discourse links this giving of the Spirit with continued presence of God among men.

Paul continues to connects the concepts of temple and the indwelling presence of the Spirit. In 1 Corinthians 3:16 he speaks to the local church as “God’s temple.” He tells them that “God’s Spirit dwells in you.” He makes a similar statement about the individual Christian in 1 Corinthians 6:19. In these passages the dwelling of the Holy Spirit in the church or the believer is motivation for holiness, which connects well with the new covenant promises that the Spirit will transform the lives of those in the new covenant (Eze. 36:27).

The New Jerusalem is the ultimate fulfillment of the expectation of the more-than-restored presence of God.  “Its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (Rev. 21:22). God will dwell with man for eternity.