Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be considered to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, we must profess of the books of scripture that they teach with certainty, with fidelity and without error the truth which God wanted recorded in the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.

Of course, I found it amusing – and I told them so – that atheists who believe that morality is relative and there is no absolute, universal moral standard of conduct, would charge God – or anyone, for that matter – with being immoral. Its funny how atheists will take the moral high ground when they’re attacking God. Suddenly, “everyone knows”, or at least every “normal person knows,” that genocide and dashing babies against rocks is wrong. But, I have asked time and again: what is “wrong” and what is a “normal” person given chance, change over time, and a closed universe? The rest of the argument along these lines, which I set forth, also come up in this book by Tim Keller and this video of a debate between Doug Wilson and Christopher Hitchens.

But beyond that, here is an example of where knowing the full scope of biblical revelation as the unfolding of God’s plan of redemption in history becomes so helpful. The assumption of the atheist or skeptic is that babies are innocent and as such do not deserve death. Even us Reformed folk have a hard time thinking otherwise! After all, the death of a baby can be one of the most tragic things that a family can experience. The mere idea of a baby dying, no less being dashed against rocks, hits us at the heart. However, the Bible is very clear, there was only one baby born innocent in all of history. Everyone is not only born in sin, but conceived in sin, having the the sin, guilt, and corruption of Adam imputed to them. That means even babies are sinful and under the curse of God deserving his full wrath and anger. If it were otherwise, then babies wouldn’t die. But they do die, therefore they must have the sin of another imputed to them.

Given this, we know then that God has no obligations to allow anyone to live. We all deserve his wrath and the curse of our sin, which is death. Therefore, it ought not to surprise us that God would order the death of an entire people group. He is simply carrying out the sentence which sinners deserve, but which has been delayed since the fall. There is nothing immoral about God’s acts of genocide. It is he carrying out his justice. It serves as a foreshadow of the eternal wrath of God coming to all who are found outside his gracious covenant.

But now, inevitably, the point comes up: so that means that religious people have a precedent for today carrying out acts of genocide. In fact, atheists argue, just about any time we see genocide committee today its in the name of religion. Of course, historically, that’s not completely true. After all, atheistic Russia was able to commit genocide with the best of ‘em. But it is true, much blood has been shed in history in the name of religion.

However, that can’t be blamed on the Bible. And once again, a redemptive-historical hermeneutic is of help to us. When did God order Israel to do the things they did? He did so in the Old dispensation. He did so in the time of revelation. He spoke directly to his people through the prophets commanding them to take up the sword and slaughter in his name. However, we no longer live in that dispensation, nor in the time of revelation. God does not reveal himself directly with new revelations today. All that is contained in God’s revelation for his church is already in the Bible. Therefore, if someone picks up a sword and says “God told be to slaughter all the Irishman in American,” you ought to be just a little suspicious of that someone. God just ain’t revealing new things like that today.

But what is more, we have the new and final revelation of the New Covenant. And there we are told explicitly that God’s Kingdom is not fought with carnal weapons of swords, armies, or – if you will – tanks, guns, and missals. Rather, our warfare is spiritual and it is fought with the proclamation of the Gospel and God’s offer to be reconciled to him and one another through Jesus Christ and by faith alone in him.

So, a robust Biblical Theology, far from offering us problems as Christians actually offers us solutions. Furthermore, no need to fear the skeptical attacks of atheists. What on the surface may seem to be a problem set up to take down our faith, is nothing more than self-defeating folly upon closer examination of the text of Scripture.

The Catholic doctrine of sanctifying grace is contained in the declarations of the Council of Trent.  Here it is stated, against the Reformers’ conception of justification, that justification truly blots out a man’s sins, so that he ceases to be a sinner and becomes just, and that solely by God’s deed in the grace of Christ which can never be exacted and never merited… This forgiveness effects an interior transformation and sanctification of a man; grace and the gifts really become his own (which does not mean that he can do what he will with them), so that this grace is called “infused”, “inherent”, and this *justice of God is the only formal cause of justification…  The theological *virtues are either identical with sanctifying grace or connected with it.  Being truly “infused” into man and gratuitously produced by God’s “efficient causality” it is considered to be a “created” quality and is thus contrasted with uncreated grace.

I found it interesting that Rahner and Vorgrimler use the language of “effecting” when relating the forgiveness found in justification to the grace of sanctification.  Though the undergirding conception of grace is vastly different from the reformed, it seems that even post-Vatican II theologians were interested in discussing their relation.

I have several volumes in this series already and have used them in my sermon prep and study. While I haven’t seen the Dearman volume yet, it has already received some good reviews, and if in line with the rest of the series it will be marked by high scholarship from a generally evangelical perspective. Of course, what counts as an “evangelical perspective” with regards to OT studies anymore, who knows!

But I’ve also learned a lot about God’s Word. And the more I live – and consequently see people I know sin, suffer, and die – the more I am convinced that we are all much too attached to this present age and so easily lose our focus on the age to come.

This has become very clear to me over 8 years of teaching and preaching through the Bible. And as I better understand the Bible I realize all the more that Christ is really what everything is all about. For those who have not yet heard Sinclair Ferguson’s sermon at this year PCRT on the Christ of History, you must do everything in your power to listen to it. Dr. Ferguson used to tell us in his class on the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit that if we do not yet own Abraham Kuyper’s book on the Holy Spirit, we must do everything we can to get it, even if it means robbing or pillaging to get it! Calm down, he was only joking. But the same applies here to this message on the Christ of History. Do what it takes, even if it means pawning your wedding ring. It was far and away the best sermon I’ve ever heard Ferguson preach (and I’ve heard many great ones). In fact, it may have been the best sermon I’ve ever heard – period.

You see, the good Scottish Doctor begins with Genesis 3:15. And from there he unfolds for us the grand scheme of redemptive history. He declares Christ as the great leitmotif, the metanarrative, of Scripture. Edmund Clowney would have been proud!

But my point – following Ferguson – is this. Christ is not just the center of Scripture, but also the center of everything, of all of history. For him, to him, by him are all things, and in him they all hold together. This is not some strange kind of pantheism, but the teleology taught by the Bible. Everything that happens in history, everything that happens in redemptive history, is to the end that God’s people would know and dwell with Christ forever. For this we were made. For this we were redeemed.

And if we preach anything in abstraction from this grand overarching significance of all things, we are really preaching our own particular agendas and will thus leave the people of God with something short of the full Christ, and the fullness of Christ. And that is simply unacceptable.

Now, lest one think that this is some hair-brained scheme of preaching invented in the 20th century and which is an aberration from the Old Reformed Paths, I assure you its not. John Owen was trying to hit this point home, as far as I can understand (which, granted, may not be very far!), when he speaks about the idea of the beatific vision. Owen, and the Reformed, do not forsake the notion passing it off as some Romish doctrine. But they, of course, Reform it. The visio Dei for Owen is the great end for which God created the World (this is also the same for Edwards as well). Everything drives to the end that God’s people might forever behold and enjoy and glorify the Glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. So, what we will enjoy forever is not some bare divine nature, but we will enjoy God through the one by whom he has perfectly revealed himself. To see Christ is to see God, even though God still forever remains incomprehensible to us. In Christ we see God perfectly, even if not exhaustively.

So, you see, this what the Bible is all about. And this can be agreed upon by both R-H preachers and so-called neo-Puritan or experimental preachers. In fact, I would argue, true R-H preaching must be experimental (is there anything more stirring or moving than holding up Christ in all his Glory for your people to see), and true experimental preaching must be R-H. Moralisms, self-helps, and trite platitudes will not do. Show them Jesus!! From the OT, show them Jesus! From the NT, show them Jesus! From Genesis 1, show them Jesus! From Esther, Ruth, the Proverbs, and the Song of Solomon . . . lift up Christ in all his Glory to the people of God. They need to see him by faith. They need to behold him daily. They need to exalt him, worship him, and obey him. But they will not unless you resolve to know nothing but Christ and him crucified.

Now, I know what your thinking. Oh, no, he wants to advocate allegorical hermeneutics in which we force Jesus into every grain of sand mentioned, or into the threads of the temple, or into the minute details communicated. After all, how can I preach Christ from Esther or Proverbs when he’s not even mentioned there? Good question. A question that only a Christ-centered biblical theologian can answer or figure out. When I get to those book, I’ll share with you what I learn. But I do know this, without performing eisegesis on the text, those books are about Christ. And yes, that is an a priori commitment. And you know what? The NT tells me that’s OK to do. More later . . .

For Ferguson’s Sermon go here.

For Clowney’s great book on the subject, go here.

It is clear to me that Thornwell in his debate with Hodge has won the day in the OPC today, whereas the PCA seems more Hodgean. Ironic? Perhaps not if we consider the fact that the founder of the OPC was himself a Southerner!

You can read more about it in Dr. Hart and John Muether’s book, Seeking A Better Country.

This polemic works itself out in the particular emphases of Deuteronomy.  They are the centralization of worship, the rejection of idolatry, the encouragement and development of covenant theology, and the warning of retribution theology.  The law of centralization is focused in Deut 12 which states “You shall surely destroy the places [of foreign/false worship]” (Deut 12:2).

Covenant and election meet with worship.  God has called out a specific people to enter a specific place.  He has also demanded right worship (1st, 2nd and 3rd commandments) including provisions for the location of that worship.  The law of centralization is a recurring theme through the Deuteronomistic History as kings and judges are often measured according to their faithfulness to this principle.  But this law is not limited to the typological period.  It comes to bear on eschatological realities as it finds prophetic and eschatological fulfillment in the person of Christ and heavenly Mt. Zion (Isa 2; Mic 4; Heb 12).

Noth built upon the work of J. Wellhausen and G. von Rad.  Wellhausen’s documentary hypothesis divided the Pentateuch into four sources: JED and P.  Deuteronomy was the “D” source.  Von Rad attempted to trad this source’s connections beyond the Pentateuch into the history books.  Noth advanced the work of these scholars as he presented a hypothesis that a single author-redactor used existing sources to compile and shape a Deuteornomistic History (DH).  The specific purpose of this activity was to berate or chastise exilic Israelites by explaining to them their failures and subsequent need of exile.  The exilic author-redactor shaped the DH to this end.

This figure is known as the Deuteronomist (Dtr).  He takes themes from the book of Deuteronomy and weaves them throughout the books of Joshua-Kings thereby forming a collected and coherent work in service of his tendenz or purpose.  This work is then known as the Deuteronomistic History (DH).

To create the DH, the Dtr compiled several sources and “stitched” them together by composing new sections.  The Dtr took an early form of Deuteronomy Noth called Deuteronomium (a name that sounds like it comes from the period table of elements) and filled in the gaps with his own work.  These “seams” constructed by the Dtr to bring together his sources are often called the programmatic speeches.  Noth finds them in Deut 1-4; Josh 1; Josh 23; 1 Sam 12; 2 Sam 7; and 1 Kgs 8:22-53.  According to Noth, these texts stick out since they are very simple Hebrew, use a small vocabulary, and share several rhetorical similarities.  Because they connect his sources and are particular constructions of the Dtr, they provide a key to interpreting the DH.

Noth’s hypothesis has not gone unchallenged and untouched.  Cross approached Noth’s hypothesis and modified it with the addition of a second redactor.  According to Cross, the first edition of the DH was compiled and shaped by Dtr¹ who worked during the time of Josiah’s reforms.  This edition takes on a character aimed at facilitating the reformed and providing lasting change.  The second redactor, Dtr², completed a second edition of the DH during the exile.  In effect, Cross parsed and front-loaded some of the work of Noth’s Dtr on to an earlier Josianic Dtr¹.

Cross wasn’t the only scholar to tweak Noth’s hypothesis.  Smend modified the hypothesis even further to incorporate a third redactor.  Smend’s three editors were DtrH, DtrP, and DtrN.  DtrH compiled the initial material, composing primarily a history work.  DtrP added, among others, the material on the prophets Elijah and Elisha.  DtrN was the redactor concerned with the law material.  Smend’s hypothesis is too dependent upon form and content.  It is perhaps too wooden to think there must be different Dtrs for prophetic history and law material.  Perhaps there is opportunity for someone to gain some notoriety by incrementing the number of redactors by one.  I anticipate a new anachronistic Dtr hypothesis based on the technological insights afforded by Wikipedia.  We might call this DtrWiki, or even Smend++.

But Noth hasn’t won over every scholar.  Iain Provan rejects Noth’s and related hypotheses, and submits that each book is an independent unit that functions on its own.  The similarities between books simply reflect the shared historical, cultural, and religious context.  The presence of a Dtr is simply unnecessary for Provan – at least as a means of explaining the shared themes in the so-called DH.

I sympathize with Provan’s concern, though I lean more toward some version of Noth’s proposal.  Deuteronomy presents its own theology and themes (Deuteornomic theology).  But you can conceivably say the same thing for the books of Judges, Joshua, etc.  All of Scripture is God-breathed.  This is not only true of the whole, but also each individual book.

We must read each passage in light of its ordered context.  That means we read from sentence to paragraph, to pericope, to book, to section of the canon, on to the canon available at the book’s writing, and finally to the entire canon.  Each layer of relation will present its own theological insights.  This is true for any two biblical books we might compare because the phenomena is a function ultimately of God’s inspiring and revelational activity.  We are necessarily going to find shared themes and emphases because God is revealing his one plan of redemption in Jesus Christ through each of these books.

That being said, features within the text suggest the work of a redactor.  An initial clue is that Deuteronomy seems to point to a narrator.  Furthermore, it is most plausible someone compiled these texts together.  They did not simply appear.  Moreover, they were compiled for a specific purpose: the edification of God’s people.  In my understanding, it is likely someone like Noth’s Dtr compiled sources under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit – perhaps even adding material for historiographical and interpretive reasons.  This would account fo the heavy emphasis on centralized worship, rejection of idolatry, covenant theology, and retributive theology that appear to be deliberate and particularly strong in the DH.

Joshua stresses YHWH’s provision and presents testimony to YHWH’s greatness and faithfulness.  It works within the covenant theology framework (see particularly the covenant renewal in Josh 23-24).  It also stresses right/centralized worship and rejects idolatry (e.g. the account of Achan).  Judges, though without a programmatic speech, brings into view the covenant (2:1-5) and the failure of the people to drive out the nations (Ex 23; Jdg 2).  Therefore, they live with their mistake and are punished accordingly (the theme of retributive justice).  Furthermore, Samuel and Kings measure and evaluate the kings based on their adherence to the Deuteronomistic themes.  Covenant is key (1 Sam 12; 2 Sam 7; 1 Kgs 8:22ff), and the kings are repeatedly told to tear down the asherah (right worship).

All of the books in the proposed DH share common characteristics beyond shared cultural and religious contexts.  It is clear that ultimately a divine mind is behind each of these texts, but it also appears he inspired a servant to compile and shape this particular section of his Word.

In a more theological sense, Torah is the record of God’s covenant dealings specifically recorded for the purpose of setting the trajectory of proper living, and for the maintenance of corporate solidarity and covenantal memory.  Under this conception, Torah contains both law and gospel. There is an indicative/imperative relationship even within the “law” books.  If we follow Kline, we can see a works principle republished for God’s typological son Israel given for covenantal and pedagogical purposes.

Torah, and more specifically Deuteronomy, is a covenantal organizing document.  It says who YHWH is, brings the people together, declares God’s law, has the covenant mediator apply that law to the context, and offers the hope of blessing (Deut 28), but also curses for failure.

But Torah also encourages the faithful to look to YHWH for their eschatological hope.  YHWH commands the people to circumcise their hearts (Deut 10), but he also says they are unable to do so.  Notwithstanding, YHWH promises to graciously circumcise their hearts for them (Deut 30).

Torah, while regulating typological life, does so for the purpose of anticipating eschatological life. The people are to trust YHWH, remember all he has done (Deut 8), pass the teaching to their children, all the while looking forward to the fullness of blessing from YHWH (Deut 28; cf Isa 65:17ff).