LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

See for example Finkelstein and Silberman, Bible Unearthed.

29. John Milbank makes a similar point about sociology and modern political theory in relationship to Christian theology. See Milbank, Theology and Social Theory. Also see this critique of the modern liberal tradition in MacIntyre, Whose Justice?

30. See for example the wealth of data uncovered by modern biblical archaeology. Keller’s Bible as History is somewhat of an older study and therefore has some problems, but is generally still good. Also see a more up-to-date version in K. A. Kitchen, Reliability of the Old Testament, 449–500. It should be born in mind that Kitchen is an Egyptologist and not a biblical scholar. His expertise is in the Ancient Near East and therefore he has more knowledge of the era than many modern biblical scholars. Kitchen observes that Wellhausen among the other founders of modern biblical scholarship insisted upon evolutionary models of the development of Israelite religion. He had no access to the majority of the evidence we have now which makes the historical claims of the Old Testament (though we might say scripture in general) seem very credible even without a prior commitment to scriptural inerrancy. Kitchen derides the fact that modern biblical scholars continue to hold onto the old, developmental models even with massive amounts of evidence contradicting them and validating the historicity of the Bible. Beyond the aforementioned studies of the Old Testament, we might mention N. T. Wright’s demonstration of the historicity of the Gospels in his Christian Origins, and also Richard Bauckham’s demonstration that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts in his Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.

31. Marquart, Anatomy of an Explosion, 113.

32. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament; von Rad, Old Testament Theology. Beyond these two main approaches to Old Testament theology, see the following works: Anderson, Contours of Old Testament; Archer, Survey of Old Testament; Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament; Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty; Drane, Introducing the Old Testament; Goldingay, Old Testament Theology; R. Gordon, Christ as made known; Gunneweg, Biblische Theologie; R. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament; Hummel, Word becoming Flesh; Jacob, Grundfragen Alttestamentlicher Theologie; Kittel, Handbuch der Alttestamentlichen Theologie; Löhr, Alttestamentliche Religions Geschichte; Martens, God’s Design; Möller, Biblische Theologie; Niditch, Ancient Israelite Religion; Perdue, Collapse of History; Rendtorff, Canonical Hebrew Bible; Riehm, Alttestamentliche Theologie; Schmidt, Altes Testament; Schofield, Introducing Old Testament; H. Schultz, Die Offenbarungsreligion; Stade, Biblische Theologie; Watts, Basic Patterns; Westermann, Elements of Old Testament; Youngblood, Heart of the Old Testament; Zummerli, Grundriss der Alttestamentlichen Theologie.

33. Beale, Temple, 120–21.

34. N. T. Wright, Christian Origins, 1:263.

35. Ibid., 3:720. Wright lists the example of Gen12:2, 17:2–8, 22:16, 26:3, 26:24, 28:3, 35:11, 47:27, 48:3.

36. Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1:131.

37. R. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 859.

38. Beale, Temple, 335–54.

39. R. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1127–32.

40. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 2:515.

41. Beale, Temple, 144–53.

42. See an interesting summary of their activity in Prenter, Creation and Redemption, 315–23.

43. Gerhard agrees that the two natures are spoken of in the protevangelium:

      Wherever the sacred writings of the Old Testament discuss the Messiah, they almost always explain the duality of the two natures and the unity of the person in the same place, lest people deny the duality of natures because of the unity of the person or claim that there are plural persons in Christ because of the duality of His natures. In the protevangelium (Gen 3:15), the promised Messiah is called “the seed of the woman,” because, as true man, He was going to be born of the Virgin. To Him is attributed the bruising of the serpent’s head, because, as true God, He was going to destroy with His divine power the kingdom of Satan and restore the good things that had been lost in the fall. (On Christ, 35)

44. The older Melanchthon (in the heat of battle against Osiander) summed up the reasons for the two natures well:

      First, note that inasmuch as mankind fell into sin, the one to be punished and to pay the penalty had to be a man, but one without sin. Secondly, in order for the payment to be equal and even better, the one who pays is not simply a man or an angel, but is a divine person. Thirdly, no angel and no man could have borne the great burden of divine wrath against our sin. For that reason, the Son of God, who is omnipotent, out of immeasurable love and mercy toward men, laid upon himself this great wrath. Fourthly, no angel and no man is able to walk in the mysterious counsel of the divine Majesty. The Mediator prays for all men and especially for every petitioner, and the divine Majesty hears their desires, and then acts accordingly. All this pertains to an omnipotent person. In the Letter to the Hebrews, when only the High Priest enters into the Sanctum sanctorum (Holy of Holies), when only the High Priest, and no one else, is allowed to go into the secret altar in the temple, it means that only the Redeemer is to be in the secret counsel of divine Majesty, and wholly see and know the heart of the Father. Fifthly, no angel and no man might have conquered death and taken life again, for this belongs only to an omnipotent person. Sixthly, the Redeemer is to be a power [kräftig] within us; he bears and sustains our weak nature, beholds the hearts of all men, hears all sighs, prays for all, is and lives in the faithful, and creates in them new obedience, righteousness, and eternal life. All this pertains only to an omnipotent person; Immanuel, i.e. God with us and in us. (Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine, 33)

45. Scaer, Christology, 34–35. Luther also makes the same observation in AE 15:318–21.

46. See thorough discussion of the messianic nature of the protevangelium in Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 1:17–30. Also see discussion in Leupold, Genesis, 1:163–70.

47. FC SD 3; CT 935.

48. Durham, Exodus, 303.

49. Ibid., 304–5.

50. See comment in Houtman, Exodus, 78.

51. Dozeman, Exodus,

Скачать книгу