I’ve got this project in mind that I hope to pursue, although I don’t know to what end (perhaps a sermon series, maybe a book, maybe something bigger, we’ll see). I do know this much: bits and pieces will certainly find their way onto this blog.So anyway, I thought I’d give a broad outline of what I have in mind and get your general impressions, so feel free to chime in about (1) whether you think the idea has merit, (2) whether there’s a different direction I might follow, (3) whether there’s a piece of the puzzle I may have missed, or (4) anything else you have in mind.
Off we go, then....
I’d like to provide a biblical-theological defense of a kind of sacrificial anthropology. By that I mean that man was created for the very purpose of sacrifice, for the very purpose of offering himself in self-giving love to God and others.
The creation account in Genesis is filled with liturgical language and priestly parallels to other portions of Scripture that are overtly cultic in nature. Adam is given a task that perfectly mirrors the role of the Levites and their stewardship of the tabernacle and temple. For this reason, scholars like Meredith Kline understand creation as a cosmic temple and Eden as its sanctuary, with Adam serving as both priest and king whose job was to extend God's kingdom and mediate his blessings to all creation.
Adam’s call to give of himself is part and parcel of his being made in the image of God who, as an eternal Father, eternally fathers the Trinitarian family, and whose eternal Son mirrors his Father by eternally displaying this self-giving love.
Due to Adam’s failure and subsequent desecration (which involves a priestly disqualification from offering acceptable sacrifice), the Son of God came as second Adam in order to fulfill man’s original role by offering of himself. We who are united to him through faith and baptism participate in that once-for-all sacrifice, and then spend our lives giving expression to it. As Paul tells the Ephesians, we are to be mimics of God, as beloved children, just as Jesus offered himself as a sweet-smelling sacrifice for our sins.
The supreme biblical example of this kind of sacrifice is that displayed by Abraham, whose willingness to offer up his son Isaac secured Yahweh’s oath that he would indeed fulfill his saving promises to and through him. The New Covenant ethic, therefore, cannot be understood apart from this element of sacrifice, according to which we willingly relinquish our own rights in order to suffer as our Lord did.
Obviously this is intended to be a very broad sketch only, and there are loads of details I have left out. But like I said, it has been on my mind a lot lately and has been growing and developing on an almost daily basis. So if you’ve got thoughts, criticisms, or further ideas, fire away.
Obviously this is intended to be a very broad sketch only, and there are loads of details I have left out. But like I said, it has been on my mind a lot lately and has been growing and developing on an almost daily basis. So if you’ve got thoughts, criticisms, or further ideas, fire away.
I'm an erratic reader of your blog but would love to see more thoughts along these lines. It coincides closely with thinking that I’ve been doing about the earthly creation as a temple (which reflects a heavenly one). In addition to functioning as priests within creation, humans (the chief glory-bearers) are corporately and individually described as temples (and stones being built into a holy temple or city).
ReplyDeleteFinally, on your more specific theme of sacrifice, here's some bad poetry that I attempted about a year ago:
Quiet waters follow green pastures.
By them, he leads me.
Pressing flank with staff, he guides me.
Under stomach, his crook retrieves me.
Valley’s fill with boulders,
Among which the shadows frighten.
But I recognize his song.
His foot strikes the path beside me.
“Father.”
“Here I am, my son.”
“The fire and the wood are here, but where is the lamb for sacrifice?”
Lambs and children know little of destinies and destinations,
Of mountaintops, of thrones, or the seats beside them.
They listen only for: “Here I am, my son.”
To such as these belong the kingdom,
And of such as these, its king.
My brother, Isaac, once nursed a lamb beside the Wyalusing.
Nuzzling and gamboling, it followed him.
Though a loving shepherd, he led it
To the town beside the river,
To the place where merchants barter,
To the time when lambs are slaughtered.
Hi Jesse,
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting the poem, good stuff.
I definitely plan to post more stuff related to this topic, but my problem is that I'm getting a bit ahead of myself. I'm about 3/4 done with a book, and once I find a publisher and it's in the editing process I'll be able to dive into this stuff more deeply.
Out of curiosity, what have you been reading on the creation-as-cosmic-temple idea?
Great topic.
ReplyDeleteIn talking about human beings as sacrificial creatures mimicking their Father, you might think of a way to work in a defense of the contingent nature of the Father's self-sacrifice. In other words, you might show that it's an essential property of ours to be sacrificial (unto the Lord and others), but that it's voluntarily taken on by God and is therefore a contingent property. It's maybe more philosophical than the direction you were thinking, but it's one option. I think it would help us Reformed people to keep vitally connected two sides: namely doctrinal precision (Creator/creature distinction), and, its outflow, practical holiness (that we are to owe no one anything except to love one another).
Oliphint's 'Reasons for Faith' has a great discussion of these distinctions in a broader setting.
Jesse again. (I can't seem to login properly.)
ReplyDeleteMeredith Kline is my initial influence here. John H. Walton argues in Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament that most cultures around Israel understood something to exist in so far as it had a divine function (i.e. served the gods) rather than in so far as it had spatial-temporal properties. Also, from a very simple and pragmatic perspective, Gene Veith's God at Work puts flesh to some of these ideas as he unpacks Luther's doctrine of vocation and the priesthood of all believers. I teach theology at a classical Christian school and most of my reading is toward that end. I look forward to seeing what you write on this topic and any reading that you recommend.
I've been thinking about man, but more in terms of a warrior. Men have a desire to fight, but instead of fighting for God's Kingdom, we fight for the Earthly kingdom via video games, politics, or war itself. So in our fallen state, we're fighting the wrong wars!
ReplyDeleteI think your sacrificial theme might be a subset in that though, because we don't fight a spiritual war with weapons, but through self sacrifice like Christ.
Out of curiosity, what have you been reading on the creation-as-cosmic-temple idea?
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised no mention of G.K. Beale's The Temple and the Church's Mission. I haven't actually read it myself, but his author's forum on it (downloadable in mp3 from this page) is probably the best theological lecture I have ever heard. I blogged an outline of it here, if you're not the .mp3-listening type.
One thought I've had which you might or might not find useful or relevant; I think it is safe to say that child sacrifice is the most heinous possible sin (SC83 LC150). But I think this is not simply because it is intrinsically immoral (more immoral than other sins), but because it is a sacreligious blasphemy against the most important event around which God organized all of history (redemptive and otherwise).
ReplyDeleteJosh,
ReplyDeleteIn talking about human beings as sacrificial creatures mimicking their Father, you might think of a way to work in a defense of the contingent nature of the Father's self-sacrifice. In other words, you might show that it's an essential property of ours to be sacrificial (unto the Lord and others), but that it's voluntarily taken on by God and is therefore a contingent property.
Hmmm. Have you read Wright's Climax of the Covenant? He's got a great chapter in there on the Christ hymn of Phil. 2:5-9 in which he argues that Jesus' refusal to use his equality with God as something to be exploited demonstrates the fact that he is in fact showing what the Father himself is like. In other words, God is (perhaps not "self-sacrificing," but) essentially self-giving, which is why he is an eternal Father who fathers a family (first a Son, and then sons).
Does that make sense?
I like the direction your thought is taking, JJS. Here's some related thoughts of mine that I formed independently: http://mliccione.blogspot.com/2010/05/another-trinity-of-days.html
ReplyDeleteBest,
Mike
JJS,
ReplyDeleteNo, I haven't read it but yes that makes sense. I think being essentially self-giving or something like that is fine. Perichoresis might be used to think about this, God in Triune fellowship, each person eternally giving of himself.
Maybe it's a close question whether this differs from being essentially self-sacrificing, since fellowship, giving love, etc. seem to obtain eternally, whereas sacrificing perhaps doesn't. Sacrifice seems to me (and this is speculative on my part) to be occasioned only by Creation, or maybe only by the Fall. I think God's sacrificing of himself is something he takes on voluntarily, not essentially. At least this is how I understand it. What do you think of Oliphint's discussion of this?
In sum, the issue would be giving as opposed to 'giving up' something already possessed in order to give.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteWilliam Dennison has a chapter in Revelation and Reason ("R&R"!) (eds. Scott Oliphint & Lane Tipton, P&R 2007) called "The Eschatological Implications of Genesis 2:15 for Apologetics." It is maybe a summary-plus of Beale & Kline along the lines of the Garden as Temple, and Adam as keeper of it.
I'm leery of your wording here:
The supreme biblical example of this kind of sacrifice is that displayed by Abraham, whose willingness to offer up his son Isaac secured Yahweh’s oath that he would indeed fulfill his saving promises to and through him.
This makes it sound as if Abraham's obedience was the necessary condition to securing God's promise. I don't think you mean that.
I'm also not sure that A's willingness to sacrifice Isaac quite corresponds to the theme of self-sacrifice that you want to develop.
Have fun!
(p.s. -- what is "bigger" than another book? a movie?)
Jason,
ReplyDeleteAs you gather your thoughts on this, consider the connection (or not) of sacrifice and worship. Are they separate? If not, can they be separated? Are they two sides of the same coin? OT sacrifice may seem to be merely jumping through hoops to avoid God's wrath. Would that be a fair assessment, or is there more to it? Does all Godly sacrifice serve as a means of worship, and do all forms of worship include sacrifice? Don't know the answers. Just attempting to provide rhetorical fodder.
P.S. I hate I had to unplug over the weekend and therefore couldn't stay engaged in the tu quoque discussion. I feel, however, winning the argument doesn't have as much to do with who provides the most "objective" defense of their tradition as you seemed to indicate in introducing the topic. For, as you know, the Incarnate Christ appears in the NT in unlikely fashion. I have an agnostic friend who sincerely seeks objective proof of God and Christ, and while I can present evidence, ultimately I can't provide what he seeks. Similarly, apostolic succession, or some other objective argument, won't be as obvious as we might would like.
I wrote something really cool, but it got lost. Short version:
ReplyDelete— John H. Walton on creation as cosmic temple.
— Lots of western theologians focus on the self-sacrificial nature of God (in Christ). And they're scattered across the spectrum—from Moltmann to Wright to Jüngel to Luther to Gregory Palamas to Alexander of Hales to Anselm of Canterbury . . .
—and especially, inundate yourself with Orthodox literature on kenosis and theosis.
Oh yeah, and any thought as to whether or not Israel was called to be the second Adam (as Wright suggests)?
ReplyDeleteTF Torrance and Colin Gunton have already developed all kinds of stuff on this; at least at the Trinitarian level --- which will be the grounding for developing a robust biblical anthropology given the imago dei. I.e. the ontological=economic, and Christ=archtypal man (e.g. homoousion, etc.).
ReplyDeletePaige,
ReplyDeleteI'm leery of your wording here:
The supreme biblical example of this kind of sacrifice is that displayed by Abraham, whose willingness to offer up his son Isaac secured Yahweh’s oath that he would indeed fulfill his saving promises to and through him.
This makes it sound as if Abraham's obedience was the necessary condition to securing God's promise. I don't think you mean that.
Here’s Gen. 22:
And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven and said, "By myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice."
It seems that the promises of Gen. 12, and the covenants of chs. 15 and 17, reached the status of unconditional oath in ch. 22 after the sacrifice of Isaac.
I'm also not sure that A's willingness to sacrifice Isaac quite corresponds to the theme of self-sacrifice that you want to develop.
Yeah, I considered that as well. But if you think about it, Isaac was Abraham’s only-begotten and well-beloved son, so it was every bit as much a self-sacrifice as it was the sacrifice of another. Like with Jacob and Benjamin (and more so because of God’s covenant), his life was bound up in the life of the boy.
Plus, consider Eph. 5:1-2, where Paul says we are to be “imitators of God” and to “walk in love, as Christ loved us and sacrificed himself.” So if the Father (and Abraham) is the Offerer and the Son is the Offering, but Paul tells us to imitate both, then it would seem that Abraham would indeed be an example to follow (especially since James cites him as such).
PS - A disertation is bigger than a book....
ReplyDeleteBrian,
ReplyDeleteAs you gather your thoughts on this, consider the connection (or not) of sacrifice and worship. Are they separate? If not, can they be separated? Are they two sides of the same coin?
Yeah, I think I will end up talking about the fact that it is only our participation (in worship) in the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ that can ever render our self-sacrifice at all acceptable to God. Worship and sacrifice definitely go together.
Chris,
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, and any thought as to whether or not Israel was called to be the second Adam (as Wright suggests)?
I agree with this. Israel, as Paul says in Rom. 2, considered themselves as a light to the nations (which is seemingly what made their hypocrisy so heinous), which harkens back to the Davidic covenant and the temple being a house of prayer for all nations (a sentiment which Jesus clearly endorses).
Of course (and I don’t think Wright would disagree), there was no sense in which Israel could have actually accomplished this missional task in their fallen condition, but it was always to be fulfilled by the true Israelite and by the true Israel of God.
As far as the idea having merit, while it's not original (that's overrated anyway) I do think it could use play in the Reformed world, not least from a writer such as yourself. I also think that much of what the Orthodox have taught over the years about this stuff can be accommodated in a good way for the Reformed, which Letham, of course, has already done. But it could use a more fresh, dare I say, even hipper presentation, not least more accessible.
ReplyDeleteI have a couple questions:
ReplyDelete1. In a prefallen state what exactly is the priestly role? If you could flush that out and distinguish that between the postfall priest role that might clear up any confusion. In some ways atonement for sin is closely attached to the role of the priest.
2. Also in regards to eschatology, where do the ideas of glory and celebration fit in with this concept of sacrifice? If sacrifice is something that is part of our innate make up then in a glorified state what does that look like? And how does that not contradict the eschatological visions of rewards, blessings and so forth?
JJS -
ReplyDeleteGood point about the "because" in Gen. 22. But I am hesitant to say that God's oath changed in any way, that it "reached the status of unconditional oath" at Mt. Moriah. If that's so, what was status did it have at the "cutting of the covenant" described in Ch. 15? I see the covenant obedience of Abraham confirming A's part, but not solidifying God's promise. I'll have to think about that one.
pax!
pb
p.s. - You have to spell better if you want to write a dissertation, I think.
p.p.s. - I am just being annoying. :)
ReplyDeletePaige,
ReplyDeleteMy spelign is just Fiennes, thanks you very mutch.
It would be too long to go into here (and I'm still coming to grips with it myself), but there's a persuasive argument to be made that the promises of Gen. 12 are progressively brought to fruition in the covenants of chs. 15, 17, and 22, and that these three covenants correspond to the three covenantal arrangements of Israel's history (the kinship covenant at Sinai, the treaty covenant in Deuteronomy, and the Davidic grant covenant in II Sam. 7).
So yes, the divine oath in Gen. 22 brings the Ab'c covenant to its final form, but before it gets there there were bilateral dimensions to it (hence the self-maledictory covenant sign in ch. 17).
I hope to develop all this once I've begun doing the work on it, but it'll be a while.
Wow, that's a new idea (to me at least), the culmination of covenants with Abraham. How would you fit in the Davidic covenant reiterated to Solomon, which sounds less unilateral, and more conditional?
ReplyDeleteJason,
ReplyDeleteYou may have already checked out Scott Hahn's journal that he edits,
http://www.salvationhistory.com/letter_and_spirit_archive/letter_and_spirit_volume_4_2008
This particular edition deals with what you are reflecting on. By the way, one of the contributors, Dr. Brant Pitre, is a pretty impressive young scholar who has a lot to offer in his article.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteAnother book Scott Hahn wrote that pertains to your subject is 'A Father Who Keeps his Promises' God's Covenant Love In Scripture.
He draws from Catholic resources, Protestant biblical scholars, ancient rabbinic and modern Jewish sources.
It is one of my favorite books which I recommend to others often.
Rube,
ReplyDeleteWow, that's a new idea (to me at least), the culmination of covenants with Abraham. How would you fit in the Davidic covenant reiterated to Solomon, which sounds less unilateral, and more conditional?
Could you be a bit more specific? Where is the Davidic covenant said to be conditional? I have always understood it to be a covenant of grant, and whatever good works that David did to bring it about he did as a type of Christ.
But I may be missing your point.
I don't have the chapter and verses at hand, but if you compare the covenant as stated (administered?) to David, it does in deed seem very grant-y, but later God reiterates David's covenant to Solomon, and then it seems more conditional.
ReplyDeleteChris,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the links to John Walton's books. Now I am out $28, but looking forward to the goods.
Of course, this was a lot less expensive than other materials featuring the aspiring author, John Walton.
Andrew, you're welcome. I can unabashedly point you to a walkthrough I've almost completed on the smaller book. You may wish to return it after reading this.
ReplyDeleteAnd had you only waited a few years, you could've watched the Waltons in toto streaming online!
I don't have the chapter and verses at hand
ReplyDeleteTo be more specific, I Sam 7 is certainly unconditional and unilateral in its language, but I Kings 9:4-9 is full of "if...then", and cursings as well as blessings. Gal 3:17 comes to mind...
Regarding creation as a temple, in addition to Kline, Walton and Beale, there is Alexander: From Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical Theology by Desmond Alexander (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2008). This book sounds like largely a summary of other work but certainly on topic. It's positively reviewed here.
ReplyDelete