Category Archives: Covenant Theology

Noah: A Review and Analysis

Noah

Noah – Here is a PDF version of my review for printing, sharing, etc.

Introduction

This Friday, March 28th, I decided to go see the Noah movie in theaters with a good friend from my church. I had previously read reviews of the script and the analysis that many Christians leaders had given from their perspective. And as I usually do, I respect what they have to say and consider them genuine and trustworthy in their opinions, even when I disagree with their tone or some of their interpretations. But given that many people always prefer that those commenting on a film should watch it themselves, I was not going to leave myself unable to provide respectable input on a film of this magnitude.  I wanted to be able to offer people my own review and therefore decided to attend a showing of the film myself. What follows are some of the important things I took away from the film after seeing it this weekend.

First, before spoilers, I would like to say that I will leave a highlighted note below of where one should stop their reading this review – if they are intending to see the film themselves and would prefer a ‘tabula rasa’ reception of watching the film. That being said, I would like to discuss whether or not Christians should pay for a movie ticket to see this film before it comes out on Red Box for $1.50 on Blu-Ray.

Therefore, after seeing the film, I would recommend that any Christian who cares to offer a respected critique to fellow co-workers and friends should certainly attend the movie soon while people are talking about. But, if you don’t care to involve yourself in those discussions right now, no worries, just wait till you can rent it or don’t worry about seeing it at all. Second, if you feel that any retelling of an Old Testament story – that leaves something out, or even slightly implies something different – is actually evil, demonic, or heresy… you should obviously just stick with the other reviewers for your information and not harm your conscience by seeing Noah for yourself. I mean that with all sincerity, as I understand that some of my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ are not edified by watching a ‘Bible’ movie (made by Hollywood) because of the lack of consistency these movies tend to have with the text of Scripture itself. And to all you other Christians, don’t be so quick to encourage others to harm their conscience about such things!

But, other than those warnings, I would not see it a completely terrible thing to watch the movie yourself at some point in time and consider how an atheist writer and director retold the Noah story from his own perspective of trying to incorporate the Scripture’s explicit material within his own thoughts about the world, man, justice and mercy.

All of us who have read the headlines know that the writer/director, Darren Aronofsky, is an avowed atheist. He has a worldview and agenda that is antithetical to the Bible, the Gospel, and all the goodness of God that Christians uphold as the treasure of their very life and existence. Yet, it always pleases me to say that every atheist is made in the Image of God and has the Law of God written on his heart even though he suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Therefore, no matter how much Aronofsky may have wanted to make an “unbiblical Biblical movie” that was more secular than sacred… he cannot escape the common grace of God or what following the explicit data of Scripture does to his own movie making. Given those facts about Aronofsky, it was guaranteed by God’s rule that this atheist would teach some important truths about mankind and the creation by attempting to retell the story of Noah in this way.

SPOILER ALERT – A this point in the review, all parts of the movie that I can recall are now game for the rest of my analysis. If you plan to see the film and don’t want to know some of these items yet, save this or e-mail it to yourself and read what follows after you see the film.

The Good

Noah depicts the flood events of the Biblical epic as global, just like the Scripture teaches. No matter what some scholars would like to argue about the text and the science of the flood story, the whole earth is destroyed and the explicit language of the Scripture teaches that Noah is the Second Adam, leading humanity into a type and likeness of the new creation that the “Last Adam”, Jesus, is bringing about with his own life, death and resurrection (Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15). Any retelling of the flood that takes into account Noah as a son of Adam, in the lineage of Seth (Genesis 5), will always come away teaching that Noah restarted the human race as a new ‘Adam’ figure.

Noah depicts the wickedness of humanity with great faithfulness. There is no doubt that anyone who sees this film will come away thinking that mankind has great evil, or potential of evil, within his own heart. No matter where I might have disagreed with how the story of the flood was retold in Noah, I cannot help but acknowledge that everyone in the film was shown to be a sinner, even Noah, himself. This reminds us and teaches us that Adam’s sin corrupted all of us and that we cannot escape that corruption without the help of God in Jesus Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit.

Noah shows us, on the big screen, some of the massive weight of power and judgment that God showed all of humanity on the day the flood began. God, the Creator, repented of making mankind and decided to wipe them all out, excepting Noah and his family (Read Genesis 6 and following). Seeing the global flood in excellent CGI and artistry was powerful and moving. Men, women, children, and babies were all slaughtered by the One, Holy, Triune God as the flood waters covered the land and washed away the stain that was sinful humanity. Both the mercy (saving Noah) and the justice of God (destroying evil mankind) were displayed to everyone. And since I don’t believe God needs to be defended for His judgment and decisions, it is not as concerning to me that the movie didn’t seek to explicitly ‘preach’ an orthodox view of God’s justice in wiping out humanity. Do I wish it did? Sure, but God still doesn’t need our defense to justify His actions. He is our judge and we are not His.

The movie actually did grapple with the reality that God destroyed all kinds of people, young and old, who may not have been as evil as some other people in their day. Some, like Russell Crowe himself (who starred as Noah in the film), may come away thinking Noah wasn’t a good man or that God wasn’t very merciful… but that is the very point of the flood story! Noah was still a sinner, even though he was a ‘righteous man’ and God executed justice on humanity for all their evils. No Christian should ever try to lessen the weight of God’s judgment when proclaiming the truth of the flood events to non Christians. The flood makes the Gospel of Jesus even better news for people considering why Christians believe that God wiped mankind out in a global flood that renewed the creation and restarted the human race with the lineage of Seth, from which the Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, comes. (Luke 3:23-38) As Christians, we should never be hesitant to help others understand why we call the work of Jesus “good news” or “Gospel.”

The Bad

At this point, I will turn to the negative and unhelpful aspects of Noah.

Noah depicted several things in ways that are not very consistent with a Christian interpretation of Genesis. And while C.S. Lewis might have more heartily commended the film – because he believed Genesis chapters 1 through 11 (until you get to Abraham) were ‘true myth’ – I am reviewing this from the perspective that Moses wrote Genesis in the genres of historical narrative and that any attempt to say that Genesis involves itself with fictional accounts is simply unfounded and inconsistent with the text’s own linguistic structure. You can view my apologetics presentation here online:  Genesis as History

Noah, in its creative license, ended up leaving out some key aspects of the story in Genesis. First (in the Bible), the angelic ‘sons of God’ only came down because they found the ‘daughters of man to be attractive’ (Genesis 6). Noah claims that they came down to help mankind because they felt sorry for them because of how harsh the world was going to be after the Creator kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden. These fallen angels were also not represented correctly, though I certainly enjoyed the ‘rock monster’ effect and how it was incorporated into the story of the film. For those interested in my view, the most helpful understanding of the ‘sons of God’ passage is this: The fallen angels, attracted to women and mankind, left their places of authority and possessed men who had authority, taking for themselves many wives and raising for themselves many children that became ‘giants’ in the land – either by their greatness of power or their actual physical height and strength, or both. From them come all the ancients myths of the ‘men of renowned’ – such as Hercules, Achilles, Dionysius, Perseus, and any other culture that recounts stories of mighty men who were the product of ‘gods’ having sex with beautiful women and producing children. Unfortunately, none of these explicit citations in Genesis are addressed in the pre-flood movie world of Noah.

Noah also left out the fact that God told Noah to bring on the ark more than simply ‘two of each kind’ of animal. God also said, “Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals” (Genesis 7). This was not mentioned, which left a large gap in the explicit narrative of Genesis that addresses clean and unclean animals throughout. Even the presence of an ‘unclean’ snake/dragon in the garden is significant for a proper interpretation of the fall of mankind in Genesis chapter 3. This signifies what Adam was not doing in protecting the garden from the unclean serpent. And while I feel this was a ‘minor’ negative, it is worth noting that Noah clearly reflects the interpretations of an atheist writer who doesn’t care about what Scripture cares about. And I will also admit that you don’t usually have time to get into the clean/unclean pattern in a movie with 2 hours of runtime!

Noah most notably didn’t make clear the explanations that Genesis gives about God revealing himself to Noah and his sons. Throughout the movie, Noah was only given limited information about what God intended to do with him and his family after the flood. It was also not clear to Noah, in the film, as to whether God wanted to save him when the prophecy of the flood was first revealed to Noah in a vision. This is not the picture that Genesis paints when God clearly states (Genesis 6:9) that Noah was a “righteous man”, “blameless in his generation” and that he “walked with God”, just like Enoch did (in Genesis 5). Further, in Genesis chapter 7, Noah is told that he and his family are being saved because God had seen that Noah was a ‘righteous man.’ On the contrary, in the film, Noah enters the ark depressed and despairing of life for his family. He is depicted as believing he and his sons won’t have any more children and that God only really means to save the innocent animals, since all of man (including his kids) are unredeemable. Now, this makes for a very powerful question of “is man worth saving?” Still, it does not reflect well on the Genesis account or on God’s clarity in speaking to his chosen people with trustworthy revelation. I can only hope that those who view the film will refresh their memories of the actually account in Genesis rather than assume that God wasn’t clear about humanity’s future with Noah and his family.

The Worthy

Now, I would like to address some interesting points in the film and why I found some of them worthy of contemplation. These may or may not be significant to the overall story of Noah that Aronofsky is telling, but I found them to be important to dwell on as I watched the film myself.

First, on a fun point of interpretation, in Noah we see an old Methuselah who recounts the prophecies of his father, Enoch, the man who walked with God and was no more, because God took him to be with him at an early age (see Genesis 5). When Noah is telling Methuselah of the coming judgment on man and Methuselah says that Enoch told him the world would be ‘destroyed by fire.’ Noah proceeds to tell him, ‘No, not by fire. But by water.’ Puzzled, Methuselah moves on to help Noah figure things out, but I found this worthy of notice because it is actually a very accurate point of Biblical prophecy. You see, Jude and 2 Peter (two of the Catholic Epistles in the New Testament) explain the end of this current age in which we live. Peter tells us in 2 Peter 3 that the world is being reserved for fire, since God promised never to deluge the world with water again. Peter says that God will eventually bring a final judgment on all people throughout history at the resurrection, with the consummation of the New Heavens and New Earth. Jude, telling of similar judgments, actually refers to an apocryphal account of Enoch, the preacher of righteousness, who foretells of the second coming of Jesus to judge the world. So, Methuselah was right to mention judgment by fire as prophesied by Enoch, his father. He simply did not understand yet that the judgment by fire was not going to happen until the end of the ages, or that the flood was a type of things to come with Jesus. This is an extremely important type and anti-type that flows throughout the Scripture. Impressively enough, an atheist writer picked up on this in his research and creatively incorporated it into the film of Noah.

Noah challenges us to incorporate an interpretive consideration regarding how man’s wickedness actually affected the creation. While Aronofsky is very interested in ecological preservation and what some call ‘tree hugging’ and ‘animal worship’, the Genesis account very clearly states that man was to be the ruling caretaker over all the creation – both plants and animals. Thankfully, I felt while watching the movie that Aronofsky didn’t make as big a deal out of this as I thought he would. This leaves many Christians and viewers the opportunity to consider how they are in fact created to care for others and not abuse the world we live in. Further, Adam was given the task of expanding the garden throughout the world in Genesis chapter 1 and 2 by filling the earth with his children, but when Adam sinned and condemned all his children to working the ground in toil and sweat, man’s abuse of the creation was solidified and eventually man was rightly wiped out by the flood event. Why? For all of man’s sins – against God, other humans and the rest of creation. Aronofsky’s green interpretation might be a turn-off for some Christians, but I found it a helpful reminder to remember God’s calling for man when he created them ‘in His image.’ This still applies to all people today and Christians need to remember this, even when they have to grapple with creation-worshipping atheists.

Noah may actually accomplish one important thing – getting people to read God’s word again and consider what it actually says. Now this may be a novel expectation, but I would encourage all of my readers to read the Genesis account before they go see the movie and after they go see the movie. You should be able to critically analyze the film to find out what was ‘gotten right’ and what was ‘gotten wrong’ by Noah. Studying God’s word and seeking its judgment of us (not our judgment of it) is one of the most important acts of obedience in the Christian life. If we can be moved to learn God’s word better, then our viewing and discussions of Noah will have benefited our lives for the better and not for evil.

One important point of reading Genesis and the rest of the Bible’s commentary on Noah is to notice that some Christians are actually getting frustrated by the portrayal of Noah NOT as a preacher of repentance. Inferred in this position is the interpretation of 1 Peter 3: 18ff that says Noah was the one who preached to the ‘spirits now in prison’ by the Spirit of Christ in him. They claim he called people to repentance before the flood came. But this is actually not what I believe Peter is telling us when he talked about Jesus going “by the Spirit” to proclaim/preach to the spirits of the imprisoned. And while I’m not going to have room here to explain a full account of exegesis, the interpretive key for 1 Peter 3 is the phrase that Jesus was “made alive in the Spirit, in which he went.” I believe this is a reference to Jesus’ resurrection, and that what Jesus does in ‘preaching’ or ‘proclaiming’ to the ‘spirits now in prison’ is actually a declaration that occurred in Christ’s ascension to heaven to sit on the throne of God. This would mean that the ‘spirits’ – be they man or angelic – were being told that the God-man, Jesus, was now ruling over the creation and had done what all men before him could never do – fulfill the covenant that Adam broke, that Noah and his sons couldn’t maintain, that Abraham’s descendants rebelled against… Jesus finally fulfilled the eternal covenant by his perfect life, his death, and his resurrection on behalf of all of us who believe and obey His Gospel.

Christians shouldn’t be upset because Noah isn’t shown walking around calling for people to repent of their sins and be saved and enter the ark. By all accounts in the Bible, Noah never did such a thing, nor was he asked to do it. God judged mankind in an un-revocable way AND THEN he declared to Noah that only he and his family would be saved on the ark with all the animals (follow the flow of Genesis 6 to see it). Interestingly, this was a fundamental aspect of Noah, regardless of interpretive problems by the atheist writer and director.  Noah was shown to have no hope for saving the rest of humanity, even when they wanted to run into the ark while the rain was falling. Noah was even depicted as slaughtering any who attempted to enter the door. Regardless of the likelihood that Noah killed people, it is more consistent with Genesis than those Christians who misinterpret the 1 Peter 3 recounting of Noah and the relationship these events have to Jesus, baptism, and the resurrection. Even more, as my friend pointed out, Noah truly gives us a good consideration as to what psychological effects the flood might have had on Noah. Could Aronofsky have hit the metaphorical head of the nail by taking the entire thrust of Noah’s personal experience shown in the film to explain why he got drunk in his new garden? The entire human race was destroyed before his very eyes and only he and his family were left. If anything, this movie compels us to consider exactly how Noah could have felt, even in the face of the grace of God that saved him.

Conclusion

Noah is a secular film more than it is faithful to Christian interpretation of the flood story. But even with its errors and omissions, I was still able to benefit from viewing the movie on the big screen. I highly recommend that this film be seen with others and not ‘by your lonesome’. You should plan on going out after the movie and discussing your likes and dislikes, where it matched the Genesis and Biblical accounts, along with where the writer used substantial creative license. If you can’t convince yourself to pay the cash to Hollywood, don’t worry, just wait until it comes out for cheap on Red Box or Netflix and watch it then.

I certainly don’t believe we Christians should rely on movies like this to replace our own proclamation of the Gospel to the world. But since the movie has been made and many non-Christians are going to see it, I would highly suggest that you as a Christian be able to respectfully respond to others who have seen it by seeing it for yourself. This will maximize your ability to teach others what the Scriptures actually tell us about Noah and his relationship to Jesus and the Gospel. It will give you more of a hearing with others who don’t agree with you or your worldview.

Lastly, pray for other Christians and any of the opportunities this may give them to have fruitful conversations with other people, both Christians and non-Christians. We live at a turning point in American and Western history, where Christians are marginalized for their faith in Jesus and their belief that Scripture is the revelation of God and our sole guide for life and godliness. The more people can respect our worldview, the less likely they will be able to turn against us when the powers and authorities in high places seek to punish Christians for their lifestyle and worldview.

Concerning Same Sex Adoptions

Yesterday, a friend’s question on social media in response to an article I shared about children in same sex households provoked the following thoughts on the issue of adoption, even dealing with single parent adoptions and the detriment to the child (not to mention the selfishness they expose). Here is the article I shared:

Here are my thoughts on the issue of same sex couple adoption and single parent adoption, as well as the destructive force they (in particular same sex couple adoptions) have on children and on society:

Yes, I am opposed to single parent adoptions. Though, I will firmly argue that a single parent is less destructive than homosexual parents – who effectively guarantee the perversion of the child’s mind from naturally understanding God as their Father and the Church as their Mother. For no one can have God as their Father if they do not have the Church as their mother.

Further, at least a child with a single mother or father can have a motherly or fatherly figure (respective of the one missing) enter their lives through other relatives or friends or future marriage. Same sex couples are claiming to be married and in need of no other member of the opposite sex to be required in the household (though I’m sure some single parent adopters have thought the same thing, wrongly).

Now, I say this not to disregard the grace of God in saving people out of their twisted thinking and broken upbringings… I am saying this as a point of genuine natural law and civil society. As Christians – by conceding this to be acceptable – we further degrade and destroy our society and our witness to those who would seek to understand what a true human society should look like.

For those of you who might think that (simply) 2 is better than 1… This thinking ultimately breaks down because all children in America today (who are not being held captive by criminals of course) have plenty of people helping to raise them in their lives – whether it is school teachers, grandparents, neighbors, fellow church members, etc.

This issue, from a Christian perspective, has everything to do with nature, the created order, and human salvation – and NOT anything to do with having enough people to help a child have some kind of ‘better’ life. For a child who has a better life and ends up not worshiping God will receive more damnation in hell than the child who was poor and needy, yet still did not believe. For we are all going to be judged according to our deeds – either for rewards in heaven or punishments in hell.

By nature – on the adoption issue – any child raised in a single parent or same sex couple situation is going to be devoid of any real life experience of how God created them to grow up naturally – thus the basic problem of allowing either kind of people to adopt. Therefore, as Christians, to have any part in “okaying” or affirming such practices in adoptive circumstances is to rip apart the very fabric of our civil society. It not only harms the child, but it also puts one more stumbling block in the way of that child growing up to see these two fundamental truths of reality:

  1. No one can have God as their Father who does not have the Church as their Mother. (Galatians 4:26)
  2. Marriage between a man and a woman has always stood to show this mystery – the relationship between Christ and the Church. (Ephesians 5:32)

And as we all should recall here… Jesus said, “It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.” (Luke 17:2)

Third Millennium Ministries & Free Seminary Curriculum

The Primeval History

Today I was browsing Richard Pratt’s ministry web site, Third Millennium Ministries, and came upon a wondful discovery! They have recently redesigned their minsitry web site and now they are offering all of their seminary video curriculum for FREE DOWNLOAD!

It is great news and I highly recommend that you consider downloading at least one of their video series to see how good their curriculum really is. Above, you will notice that I have posted the picture of one of their video series that I am currently going through in conjunction with a seminary class at Reformed Theological Seminary (where I attend). It is very good and if you are interested in learning more about the Old Testament, I would encourage you to start there with this video series.

Here are the links to the mp3 audio of the Primeval History video series for your listening pleasure:

Conference on the Gospel and Children

From June 2008, at First Presbyterian Church in Columbia, SC:

  • The Gospel for Children – Part 1 (William Mackenzie)
  • The Gospel for Children – Part 2 (Carine Mackenzie)
  • Let the Children Come (Sinclair Ferguson)
  • The Church and Children – Part 1 (William Mackenzie)
  • The Church and Children – Part 2 (Carine Mackenzie)
  • Question & Discussion Session
  • Christian Parenting – Part 1 (William Mackenzie)
  • Christian Parenting – Part 2 (Carine Mackenzie)
  • Can Our Children Survive the World? (William Mackenzie)

[HT: JT]

Bavinck’s Covenant Christology

Covenant Christology: Herman Bavinck and the Pactum Salutis
By Rev. Mark Jones, Leiden Universiteit

For Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) ‘the doctrine of the covenant is of the greatest importance.’ Behind the temporal covenants of works and grace stands the pretemporal pactum salutis (counsel of peace/covenant of redemption). The pactum salutis is an intratrinitarian covenant between the Father, Son and Spirit that provides the eternal, inviolable foundation for the temporal covenant of grace (foedus gratiae). The Reformed orthodox in particular, since the sixteenth century, used the pactum salutis as an argument for the ad intra trinitarian grounding for the ad extra work of salvation. Thus, soteriology is decidedly trinitarian, that is, ‘salvation is an undertaking of the one God in three persons in which all cooperate and each one performs a special task.’ Consequently, this doctrine is the starting-point for any Christological discussion of the person and work of the Mediator, Jesus Christ.

In defending and giving expression to the pactum salutis, Bavinck is conscious that this doctrine has a fairly long and illustrious history among Reformed covenant theologians. And though this doctrine is ‘rooted in a scriptural idea’, Bavinck suggests that not a few of the Reformed were guilty of ‘scholastic subtlety’ by quoting various Scriptural passages (e.g. Zech. 6:13, translated by the Latin Vulgate as consilium pacis) that did not have reference to the pactum salutis. Thus, while clearly appreciative of his Reformed heritage, Bavinck is not uncritical of various formulations of the pactum salutis.

In order to understand why Bavinck gives such prominence to the pactum salutis, something of this doctrine’s history must be understood, which will show, among other things, that his theology reflects the broad parameters and concerns of the Reformed interpretive tradition.

(Continue Reading…)

[HT: James Grant]

The N.T. Wright Project

Some students from Princton Theological Seminary have started a research project for the purpose of studying the foundational works of theology by N.T. Wright. Here is their description of the project:

Rarely in the course of our seminary study do we have the opportunity to study theologians whose work is currently transforming the life of the church. Tom Wright is one such theologian, and a small group of us at Princeton Theological Seminary, together with one of our professors, Ross Wagner, have decided to spend this semester immersed in Wright’s work. We hope to carefully read some of his most foundational writings and to engage each other through this blog on the issues and ideas which emerge from this study. From time to time we will have guest authors from a wide spectrum contribute, and we also invite those of you in church, parachurch, or seminary communities to read and respond to our blog posts as a way of keeping this project closely grounded in the church today. Welcome and enjoy!

I encourage everyone to keep up with this blog, especially if you don’t have the ability to read Bishop Wright’s works in full by yourself. These students will be summarizing and analysing and discussing much of what he has written and I think we will all benefit from their work. May God bless this project!

LORD, Language, & Liturgy

Pastor Jeff Meyers, over at Corrigenda Denuo, has posted three very helpful articles (12 points in all) on the topic of the Hebrew name for God, Yahweh. This is a very interesting subject to me and I encourage you all to read it and consider what he has to say about it. I would tend to agree that there is no reason we should keep translating the word “LORD” or “Lord” when that is not specifically what the name means. Yahweh is not simply a title, as “Lord” or “LORD” is. It is God’s covenant name and we need to recognize that when we study, teach, and worship the Triune God with that name.

Here are the articles:

Lord, Language, & Liturgy – Part I
Lord, Language, & Liturgy – Part II
Lord, Language, & Liturgy – Part III

Here is a good excerpt regarding what I mentioned above:

1. Yahweh was given to Israel as God’s “memorial name” (Exod. 3:15). This personal name of God was revealed to Israel so that they might use it in prayer and thus remind God of his covenant so he would act for them. God’s personal name for Israel was not “Lord” but “Yahweh.” As Psalm 20 says, “Some trust in chariots and some in horses but we will memorialize the name of Yahweh our God.” The name of the God of Israel was not “Lord” or “LORD” but Yahweh. They were to call on God to remember (that’s what “memorialize” means) his covenant by using the name he gave them for that purpose. I should say here also that all the gnostic theologizing about what this name really “means” is a distraction. Yahweh is not a “term” that refers to something else, like God’s infinite majesty or whatever. Yahweh is a concrete name given to the Israelites to use, to call out in prayer and praise in their worship.

2. “Lord” is a title not a name. You can make the word “Lord” into all caps, italicize it, bold it, or whatever, but that doesn’t change the fact that it means “Master” or “Sir” and is not a name, certainly not God’s revealed personal name. So when one translates passages like “Let them praise the name of Yahweh” as “Let them praise the name of the LORD” you muck up the meaning badly. In fact, this is not really a translation at all but an altering of the text for some external purpose. God’s revealed name in the Hebrew Scriptures is not “Lord” or “LORD” but Yahweh.

3. The abbreviation YAH is not replaced with LORD in our English translations. We still say and sing “hallelujah,” which means “praise Yah[weh].” Why don’t we sing “hallelu-LORD”? Silly, you say? Just as silly as replacing YHWH with Lord. If saying the whole name is so spiritually hazardous, why isn’t saying part of the name just as dangerous? But YAH was not even replaced by superstitious Jews who refused to say the whole name for fear of judgment. In addition to Hallelujah we still have all the proper names that include Yahweh in them, like Joshua (Heb: Yah-shua – “Yahweh saves”). The best we can say is this is inconsistent; the worst is that it’s evidence of how stupid this superstitious avoidance of the name Yahweh really was and is.

4. Later Jews superstitiously refused to vocalize the name. I’ll get to when this happened in a moment. But the practice of replacing Yahweh with Lord was an act of rebellion, pure and simple. God gave this name for the Jews to use in memorial prayers, Psalms, and worship. Not using it means that they thought they were wiser than God. This is part and parcel with the Pharisaical “fencing of the law.” In order to avoid transgressing the 3rd Word (“taking the name of Yahweh in vain”) the wily Pharisaical Jews decided to just avoid the word altogether. And we want to follow that tradition?

The Trinitarian Love of God

From John Owen’s Christologia

No small part of the eternal blessedness of the holy God consisteth in the mutual love of the Father and the Son, by the Spirit. As he is the only-begotten of the Father, he is the first, necessary, adequate, complete object of the whole love of the Father. Hence he says of himself, that from eternity he was “by him, as one brought up with him: and was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him,” Proverbs 8:30 – which place was opened before. In him was the ineffable, eternal, unchangeable delight and complacency of the Father, as the full object of his love. The same is expressed in that description of him, John 1:18, “The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.” His being the only-begotten Son declares his eternal relation unto the person of the Father, of whom he was begotten in the entire communication of the whole divine nature. Hereon he is in the bosom of the Father – in the eternal embraces of his love, as his only-begotten Son. The Father loves, and cannot but love, his own nature and essential image in him.

Herein originally is God love: “For God is love,” 1 John 4:8. This is the fountain and prototype of all love, as being eternal and necessary. All other acts of love are in God but emanations from hence, and effects of it. As he does good because he is good, so he loveth because he is love. He is love eternally and necessarily in this love of the Son; and all other workings of love are but acts of his will, whereby somewhat of it is outwardly expressed. And all love in the creation was introduced from this fountain, to give a shadow and resemblance of it.

Love is that which contemplative men have always almost adored. Many things have they spoken to evince it to be the light, life, lustre and glory of the whole creation. But the original and pattern of it was always hid from the wisest philosophers of old. Something they reached after about God’s love unto himself, with rest and complacency in his own infinite excellencies; but of this ineffable mutual love of the Father and the Son, both in and by that Spirit which proceeds from them both, they had neither apprehension nor conjecture. Yet, as herein does the principal part (if we may so speak) of the blessedness of the holy God consist, so is it the only fountain and prototype of all that is truly called love; – a blessing and glory which the creation had never been made partaker of, but only to express, according to the capacity of their several natures, this infinite and eternal love of God! For God’s love of himself – which is natural and necessary unto the Divine Being – consists in the mutual complacency of the Father and the Son by the Spirit. And it was to express himself, that God made any thing without himself. He made the heavens and the earth to express his being, goodness, and power. He created man “in his own image,” to express his holiness and righteousness; and he implanted love in our natures to express this eternal mutual love of the holy persons of the Trinity. But we must leave it under the veil of infinite incomprehensibleness; though admiration and adoration of it be not without the highest spiritual satisfaction.

Again, he is the peculiar object of the love of the Father, of the love of God, as he is incarnate — as he has taken on him, and has now discharged, the work of mediation, or continues in the discharge of it; that is, the person of Christ, as God-man, is the peculiar object of the divine love of the Father. The person of Christ in his divine nature is the adequate object of that love of the Father which is “ad intra” — a natural necessary act of the divine essence in its distinct personal existence; and the person of Christ as incarnate, as clothed with human nature, is the first and full object of the love of the Father in those acts of it which are “ad extra”, or are towards anything without himself. So he declares himself in the prospect of his future incarnation and work, “Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth,” Isaiah 42:1. The delight of the soul of God, his rest and complacency — which are the great effects of love — are in the Lord Christ, as his elect and servant in the work of mediation. And the testimony hereof he renewed twice from heaven afterwards, Matthew 3:17, “Lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased;” as it is again repeated, Matthew 17:5. All things are disposed to give a due sense unto us of this love of God unto him. The testimony concerning it is twice repeated in the same words from heaven. And the words of it are emphatical unto the utmost of our comprehension: “My Son, my servant, mine elect, my beloved Son, in whom I rest, in whom I delight, and am well pleased.” It is the will of God to leave upon our hearts a sense of this love unto Christ; for his voice came from heaven, not for his sake, who was always filled with a sense of this divine love, but for ours, that we might believe it. This he pleaded as the foundation of all the trust reposed in him, and all the power committed unto him. “The Father loveth the Son, and has given all things into his hand,” John 3:35. “The Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself does,” John 5:20. And the sense or due apprehension of it is the foundation of Christian religion. Hence he prays that we may know that God has loved him, John 17:23, 26. In this sense, the person of Christ is the “prooton dektikon” — the first recipient subject of all that divine love which extends itself unto the church. It is all, the whole of it, in the first place fixed upon him, and by and through him is communicated unto the church. Whatever it receives in grace and glory, it is but the streams of this fountain — love unto himself.

[HT: The Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies]

New Horizons: Herman Bavinck

Jason Button points out that New Horizons, the monthly publication of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, has dedicated the current issue to the life, theology, and legacy of Herman Bavinck. Below are the contents for the October 2008 issue.

[HT: James Grant]