Sermon Download – High Priest of the Good Things That Have Come (Leviticus 9:1-24, Heb. 9:11-14)

This Sunday I had the sobering responsibility of filling the pulpit at our church in the midst of the unfolding coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Our church is small enough that we decided to meet, but we cancelled SS and nursery. I preached on the OT priesthood in relation to Christ, taking my title from Hebrews 9:11 “high priest of the good things that have come.” I spent most of the sermon setting the stage for the first ever public worship service of the LORD described in Leviticus 9. Eventually I ended up in Hebrews 9 and we reveled in the superiority of Jesus Christ as our high priest.

I trust this sermon will be bless my readers. If you don’t have time to listen to the entire sermon (50 minutes), please do look over my notes.

Place: The Heights Church, St. Paul
Date: March 15, 2020
Title: High Priest of the Good Things That Have Come
Text: Leviticus 9:1-24, Heb. 9:11-14
Notes: Download PDF
Audio Link: Right-click to download

Sermon Download – All the Great Things He Has Done (2 Kings 8:1-6)

Earlier this month I once again had the privilege to fill the pulpit and deliver the Sunday morning message. My theme this time was on how Elisha is a type of Christ. My text was in 2 Kings. I really enjoyed the challenge of crafting this message to be clear and impactful and yet not say more than the text warrants.

I trust this sermon will be bless my readers. If you don’t have time to listen to the entire sermon (43 minutes), please do look over my notes.

Place: The Heights Church, St. Paul
Date: Oct. 13, 2019
Title: All the Great Things He Has Done
Text: 2 Kings 8:1-6
Notes: Download PDF
Audio Link: Right-click to download

Book Briefs: “The Love of Loves in the Song of Songs” by Philip Ryken

If you were to list the most popular books of the Bible — those most preached from or commented on — would Song of Solomon make your list? Probably not. In his new book The Love of Loves in the Song of Songs, Philip Ryken points out that in actuality for most of Church history (up through the 1600s), Song of Solomon would find its place near the top of that list (p. 44)! This is surprising to anyone familiar with Solomon’s Song because no book in the Bible is more sure to bring redness to the face when read aloud in mixed company! Indeed the book is a collection of love poems centering on the relationship between a man and woman, which like many love poems can be quite suggestive and evocative (almost erotic).

For those who need help in understanding and appreciating the Song of Solomon I recommend picking up Philip Ryken’s new book The Love of Loves in the Song of Songs. This book helpfully includes the entire biblical text (ESV) of Song of Solomon alongside Ryken’s easy to read devotional thoughts on this fascinating (and often troubling) book.

In earlier eras of the church, Song of Solomon was often interpreted allegorically as a way to sanctify its use in the church. Ryken approaches the Song in a similar way noting that it “awakens a desire for intimacy that can be satisfied only by a personal relationship with the living God.” (p. 44). He notes how sexual imagery is often used to describe Israel’s rejection of the exclusive worship of Jehovah. And marriage itself is a picture both of God’s relationship with Israel, and more especially (from our perspective) Christ’s relationship with the Church. Yet Ryken stops short of reading the book allegorically: there are parallels between the relationship between Christ and the Church in the relationship idealized in Song of Solomon, but there is also something to be learned with regard to human relationships as well.

The context of the love relationship described is, according to Ryken, a covenant marriage: he affirms that the book upholds traditional Christian teaching that sexuality is intended to flourish within (and only within) a marriage between a man and a woman. Ryken also holds that the book uses Solomon as an ideal figure but the relationship described is not necessarily Solomon’s. He doesn’t speak too dogmatically on that interpretive point, however. Ryken does draw out important lessons from the book with regard to singleness, purity, engagement and marriage — and more.

But Song of Solomon is more than a marriage manual or typological description of Christ and the Church. It is poetry. Ryken often describes the book as a collection of song lyrics: “Read this book the way you read the liner notes to an album of love songs” (p. 31-32). Ryken masterfully reads the poetry and follows the Hebrew text to spell out who is talking and sets the stage, so we can follow along and enjoy the love poems and their underlying story.

One other point deserves mention with respect to Ryken’s handling of the text. Ryken does not eagerly proclaim Song of Solomon as a manifesto on sexual liberation. Instead he finds its instruction on marital love appropriately muted by the poetic nature of the book, and not as graphic or explicit as quite a few modern writers envision.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading Love of Loves. It rekindled my appreciation for Solomon’s Song. I highly recommend it.

Pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers:
Westminster Bookstore, Amazon, ChristianBook.com, or direct from Crossway.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by the publisher. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.

Graeme Goldsworthy on the Old Testament’s Own Typology

I’ve been reading the latest book from Graeme Goldsworthy, Christ-Centered Biblical Theology: Hermeneutical Foundations and Principles (IVP, 2012). In the book, Goldsworthy details the foundations of his hermeneutical method and the big influence that Donald Robinson, his former professor at Moore Theological College (Sydney), has had on him. One of the fascinating points he brings up about typology is that Robinson had pointed out that the Old Testament itself is rife with typology. Let me offer here an excerpt which highlights this fact and provides ample food for thought.

————————————-

The following quotation shows with absolute clarity the importance Robinson places on the notion of the recapitulation of Israel’s earlier history… in the prophetic eschatology. This is seen as the basis for the New Testament proclamation of fulfilment in Christ:

The blessings of God’s End-time are described in the Old Testament for the most part in terms drawn from Israel’s past history. The day of the Lord would be Israel’s history all over again, but new with the newness of God. There would be a new Exodus, a new redemption from slavery and a new entry into the land of promise (Jer. 16:14, 15); a new covenant and a new law (Jer. 31:31-34). No foe would invade the promised inheritance, “but they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid” (Micah 4:4). There would be a new Jerusalem (Isa. 26:1, Ez. 40) and a new David to be God’s shepherd over Israel (Jer. 23:5, Ez. 34:23,24) and a new Temple where perfect worship would be offered and from which a perfect law would go forth (Isa. 2:2-4, Ez. 40-46). It would not be too much to say that Israel’s history, imperfectly experienced in the past, would find its perfect fulfilment “in that day.” [quoted from Donald W. B. Robinson, The Hope of Christ’s Coming (Beecroft, New South Wales: Evangelical Tracts and Publications, 1958), pg. 13]

Robinson’s typology is wider than the repetition of Israel’s history in that it sees the End as transcending and fulfilling the whole history of creation. “Indeed, nothing less than a new creation, a new heaven and a new earth, could contain all that God has in store for the End (Isa. 65:17).” There is, of course, nothing particularly original in this understanding of the Old Testament prophetic eschatology. The important thing for this discussion is the way these perspectives inform Robinson’s understanding of the New Testament.

[excerpt is from pages 173-174 of Christ-Centered Biblical Theology (IVP, 2012)]

————————————-

I think this is an important point. The NT isn’t doing something totally new with seeing OT events as typological – with the fulfillment in Christ. The NT stands in a tradition of typological interpretation of OT history, and is merely identifying in a new way what or who the true antitype is.

A Third Option for Separation: Tetreau on Type A, B & C Fundamentalism Again

Back in 2006, Pastor Joel Tetreau posted a three part series at SharperIron.org called “Three Lines in the Sand”. In it, he explained the landscape of fundamentalism in terms of Type A, Type B and Type C fundamentalists. You can still read that original series of posts at Sharper Iron: part 1, part 2 and part 3.

Type A is the traditional, hard-line fundamentalist who won’t budge on music or other cultural issues and doesn’t see any need to fellowship with those who disagree with him. Type B were those like Tetreau who didn’t mind moving beyond the boundaries of the fundamentalist movement for fellowship and cooperation, but nevertheless self-identified as fundamentalists — holding to the fundamentals and a practice of separation. Type C fundamentalists were the conservative evangelicals who shared ideals with fundamentalists but not the name and had no organic connection with the movement.

This week, Tetreau has revisited this topic and gives some more observations about where we are now, five years removed from his original series. His post is well worth the read and has already attracted a lot of interaction in the comments at Sharper Iron.

I wanted to excerpt his description of the fundamentalist types as well as his view of a “third option” for separation. Then I have a few comments on his taxonomy.

Joel’s Taxonomy

Type A fundamentalists are those fundamentalists who emphasize a first and second degree separation with militancy. Typically with these brothers, fellowship or separation is an “all or nothing” proposition. Another common characteristic with this group is a kind of sub-culture identity that not only separates them from the secular world but from the rest of evangelical Christianity. There is very much an “us vs. them” identity. Type A men would in the main not view Type C men as fundamentalists. This is probably the chief difference between Type A and Type B fundamentalists. Type A fundamentalism holds that it needs to not only protect the gospel but a specific set of sub-Christian ecclesiastical practices and forms that are especially clear in the typical Type A congregation’s corporate choice of music.

Type B fundamentalists like myself, while growing up under and holding on to much of the heritage found in Type A fundamentalism, do not believe the Scriptures teach an “all or nothing” approach to separation and unity. Type A’s generally feel that there simply is really no arena where they could have any kind of real ecclesiastical co-work with a conservative evangelical. Type B’s disagree. We believe there a variety of occasions where fundamentalists can and should have co-ministry with those that self-identify as conservative evangelicals. This is especially true of those evangelicals who are militant and even separastistic. The recent flap over the Elephant Room “second edition” demonstrates that many conservative evangelicals know how to be both militant and even separatistic from other evangelicals when the gospel or orthodoxy is blurred!

Type C fundamentalists are evangelicals who, while not participating in the more Type A or Type B fellowships and not calling themselves fundamentalists (mainly because of the way many in Type A and Type A+ fundamentalism believe and behave), are in fact part of the fundamentalist heritage because of their gospel militancy, their clear commitments to the fundamentals of the faith and the veracity of Scripture, and their willingness to do “battle royal” against an ecumenical agenda. Examples of this approach include men such as John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Mark Dever and a host of younger men who are clear on the gospel, clear on truth and willing to stand especially against evangelicals who are spineless—or clueless—on theological veracity.

Joel’s “Third Option”

Over the last few decades of ministry I have become convinced that the Type A fundamentalist’s aim to separate from all evangelicals or evangelicalism carte blanche is at best, biblically unhealthy and, at worst, sinfully schismatic to the body of the Christ. Not only have they thrown the poor baby out with the bathwater; but they’ve also condemned the whole nursery as if it was contaminated with some kind of an ecclesiastical leprosy! You slapped the initials “NE” (New Evangelical) on the poor baby’s forehead just knowing that eventually he’d be the next Billy Graham!

Some Type A’s might object that this means I must be for ecumenicalism, because they have been trained to think in the “us vs. you” mentality. They demonstrate the fallacy of the excluded middle. There is a third option that is better than “we separate from everybody or we separate from nobody.” That third option is we cooperate with brothers who love the gospel and are walking in obedience to the teachings of Scripture, even if they aren’t in our “camp” or “group.” You would think this reality would be near the Christianity 101 level.

[headings and the bolded emphasis in the last paragraph, are mine.]

I don’t want to excerpt more than this because you’re really going to want to read his whole piece. One area of difference I have with Joel (besides being a Type C fundamentalist — Joel is a Type B), is that he limits fellowship to just the Type C’s rather than those who are perhaps a Type D.  I’m referring to those who are further removed from the mindset of militancy, but who nevertheless respect the fundamentals and are confessionally based. I notice John Piper, D.A. Carson, Tim Keller and the like, are not listed as Type C fundamentalists – yet I would argue each in his own way does much to stand for the fundamentals of the faith against the inroads of modernism and liberalism (and a whole host of other -isms). They may not have that “edge” or sharpness about them in their critique of other movements in Christianity. They may not be as shrill as fundamentalists typically would like. They may not have pronounced as many anathemas over the Elephant Room 2 as some would like, perhaps, but they nevertheless are leaders who represent a mindset that Type B and C fundamentalists should respect and cooperate with.

Still, Joel’s explanation of Type A, B, and C has really helped me in my thinking through the tangled reality of fundamentalism and evangelicalism over the years. And I’m happy he is continuing to expound on his simple matrix for processing how we can “cooperate with brothers who love the gospel and are walking in obedience to the teachings of Scripture, even if they aren’t in our ‘camp’ or ‘group’.” That is the spirit I see exemplified in Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels, and embodied in his call for unity in John 17. May such a spirit of cooperation and unity continue to spread among fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals everywhere.