Think Wink.

So yesterday I was reading for my class on the gospels and I came across an interesting take on the gospel according to Mark. Assuming that the John Mark of the New Testament books of Acts, 1 Peter 5:13, Colossians 4:10, 2 Timothy 4:11 and Philemon 1:24 is the author of the gospel writing. And also assuming that Mark wrote from Rome to the church in Rome. And also assuming that Mark wrote around 63 AD - 68 AD. Mark we see was writing his story of Jesus to a persecuted, or about-to-be-persecuted, church under Nero. Mark was very acquainted with the apostles Paul and Peter (as referenced above) and thus probably shared in their theology. It is very likely that Mark was building upon Paul’s theological foundation in that he most likely had access to Romans, and a good possibility that he had much of the Pauline corpus. Mark would have been heavily influenced by Paul.

With that said, I want to look at the rending of the temple-curtain found in Mark 15:37-38 where Mark records for us, “But Jesus cried out with a loud voice and breathed his last. And the temple curtain was torn in two, from top to bottom” (NET). Jesus died and then the curtain was rent in two. Traditionally, and correctly I think, this has been taken to mean that the veil that represented our separation from God and only a priest could approach God has been removed. The need for the priests has been fulfilled in Christ as now he is the way to God, being God incarnate or Immanuel. This is very true. Hebrews 4:16 says in light of Jesus being our great high priest, Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” Ephesians 2:18 says that because of Christ, “we both have access in one Spirit to the Father.” We can come before God because of the work of Christ on the cross and resurrection. This is symbolized in the rending of the veil.

But I came across another interpretation that in someways pushes this traditional understanding further and it is pushed, and in other ways is quite different. Building upon the Pauline understanding of Christ, namely Christ crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2), Mark devotes most of the Passion narrative to the arrest, trials and crucifixion of Jesus. Only Mark 16:1-8 (and I am leaning to the persuasion that Mark 16:9-20 was a scribal addition not original to Mark) speaks of the resurrection and Mark only gives a single verb to assert that Christ rose from the grave in Mark 16:6, hgerthh. He emphasizes the cross, like Paul does, in his Christology. Now look at Romans 3:25 (my own translation), “whom God put forward as the place of propitiation through faith in his blood, demonstrating his righteousness because of he passed over previously committed sin.” The term I translated “as the place of propitiation” is the Greek term that is translated as “mercy seat” in the LXX. The mercy seat is where God’s glory dwelt in the tabernacle and Temple in OT Israel/NT Judea. By rending the veil, God symbolized that the mercy seat found in the Temple is no longer the place where God’s glory resides. Rather he has moved it and placed his glory in Christ crucified. He resides in Christ and we meet God for forgiveness and the atonement of sin at the cross, not in the Temple and the Ark of the Covenant.

When I heard this, my favorite passage of 2 Corinthians 4:4-6 really came alive again. Paul writes, “In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God…For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” When Paul speaks of the gospel as the glory of Christ–the image of God, he is not divorcing it from 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 but is rather defining those events as Christ being glorified (cf. John 12:23). Satan does not want us to see the glory of Christ in the gospel events. But God shines forth the knowledge of his glory in Christ into our hearts and thereby overcomes Satan’s work at the Fall that blinded us. God no longer reveals his glory in the Temple and the Yahweh cult, but rather in Christ is his glory made known to us and when God makes us see his glory in Christ on the cross, we come to him as God in all of his splendor is irresistible to us. He is of infinite delight (Psalm 16:11) and to see and tasting that delight (Psalm 34:8) we will not say no.

I might have to store this up for an Easter sermon. But I was totally blown away by this idea. Not only do we have full access to God in Christ crucified because God now resides in Christ on the cross, but the very glory that we are so desperate to see and to fellowship with and savor is in Christ, not some piece of furniture in a building. It is in the person and work of Christ. If you had not heard of this way of understanding the tearing of the veil, I hope it has blessed you as well as it did me. If you have, I hope that you are blessed again by hearing it. I close with Romans 16:25-27,

25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages 26 but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith— 27 to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.

My Favorite Sermon

Voddie Baucham and Sardis

Discipleship, Suffering & the Glory of God

This past weekend was amazing. My church had a mens retreat. All of us guys went up to a church camp in Russville, MO (I think) called “God’s Mountain.” We were there Friday evening and Saturday morning and afternoon.

Read more

A Hard Decision for Me

“Free Will Song”

Something to Chew On

Okay, this semester I am learning Hebrew among other things at school. Now I read my DG RSS feed and find this post on their blog about Reformed Theological Seminary offering free courses via iTunes U. So now I am adding to my load their course on Philosophy and Christian Thought and their course on the Gospels and Acts, if I can find it I will take the course also on the Puritans by J.I. Packer. Being a Calvinist, this is exciting. All that is offered is the audio, but that is good enough for me. I’ll report later on how much I like the two or three classes.

The Lord Is Moving

Three Requests

Translation Issues Part Two

The last few days I have been reading out of the New English Translation, NET, Bible. I really like it. It has over 60,000 notes that really get into some pretty hairy translation issues behind the texts. It really helps the reader see why certain rendering were chosen over others. The flow of the translation is very good and is easy to read. I still like my ESV to preach from, but the NET is definitely worth consulting for possible renderings outside the ESV and for the issues behind certain translations. It has really helped my Greek and Hebrew language studies. Check it out and see if you like it. You can find it here. One cool package the website offers when you buy the NET is a Greek NT to go with it, too bad I already have both the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT or else I’d consider it.

No related posts

This is the final post in the series on OS in Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. In the previous section, Calvin attributes our destruction to ourselves and that it cannot be attributed to God. He did not make mankind sinful, mankind fell into sin by their own choice. Now we turn to our final section, ICR II.i.11.

Read more

Calvin and Original Sin: Part 7

Calvin and Original Sin: Part 2

Calvin and Original Sin: Part 6

We are drawing to a close in this series as we have two more posts, one more after this post. We are examining Calvin’s arguments for OS, as found in the Institutes of the Christian Religion, in connection with Adam as a result of some discussion that started, or should I say restarted, at Theology for the Masses. In the previous post, after defining OS, Calvin briefly argued for the whole of man being corrupted by OS, not just a small part. In the next two sections, Calvin will examine how sin and our natures relate in light of this discussion. So now we look at ICR II.i.10.
Read more

Calvin and Original Sin: Part 2

Calvin and Original Sin: Part 6

Calvin and Original Sin: Part 5

We are in part six of eight in a series of posts on Calvin’s position on OS outlined in the Institutes of the Christian Religion. In the previous post, Calvin reached his full definition of original sin. Earlier he had defined it as “This is the inherited corruption, which the church fathers termed ‘original sin,’ meaning by the word ‘sin’ the depravation of a nature previously good and pure” in ICR II.i.5. Then in ICR II.i.8 Calvin defined OS as “a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God’s wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls ‘works of the flesh’ [Gal. 5:19].” In the next three sections will take us deeper into the nature of OS as Calvin understands it. Let us now turn to ICR II.i.9.
Read more

Calvin and Original Sin: Part 7

Calvin and Original Sin: Part 2

Calvin and Original Sin: Part 5

Having covered Calvin’s previous definition of OS and how it originated in Adam and how it is transferred from one generation to the subsequent generation by the divine decree of a curse upon all creation rather than imitation, we can now examine Calvin’s fuller treatment of OS in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, focusing on ICR II.i.8 where Calvin tackles this issue most specifically.
Read more

Calvin and Original Sin: Part 7

Calvin and Original Sin: Part 2

Calvin and Original Sin: Part 6

This is part four of an eight-part series on Calvin’s position on OS as found in his Institutes of the Christian Religion. This series focuses on ICR II.i.4 through II.i.11. In the previous posts we saw that Calvin defined Adam’s Fall as his unfaithfulness to God’s Word. Then we saw that the ensuing corruption of Adam’s own character that was in the image of God was decreed to encompass all of corruption. This corruption of Adam in all of his posterity is what Calvin defined OS. This corruption is not an imitation of Adam’s sin, but rather a corruption of the very nature of man. In this post we will take up the issue of how this corruption or sin is transmitted from one generation to following generation in ICR II.i.7.
Read more

Calvin and Original Sin: Part 7

Calvin and Original Sin: Part 2

Calvin and Original Sin: Part 6

This is the third part of my interaction with Calvin in the ICR. Previously, Calvin defined Adam’s sin as unfaithfulness to God’s word that led him to rise above his own allotted position to the status of god, carried by his own lusts in hearing Satan’s blasphemies. This fall corrupted all of creation (Romans 8:20-22). And thus he views the term of original sin to be, “This is the inherited corruption, which the church fathers termed ‘original sin,’ meaning by the word ‘sin’ the depravation of a nature previously good and pure” (ICR II.i.5). Now we turn to Calvin’s discussion of how OS does not rest on imitation as Pelegius and Coelestius believed in ICR II.i.6.

Read more

Calvin and Original Sin: Part 7

Calvin and Original Sin: Part 2

Calvin and Original Sin: Part 6