Time to Respond June 24
Well, this blog has been up and running for a little over a month. I would like to make this more responsive to your interests. So I am asking for you to feel free to put in requests for issues to be covered and comment for brief follow up on existing blogs.
Well, this blog has been up and running for a little over a month. I would like to make this more responsive to your interests. So I am asking for you to feel free to put in requests for issues to be covered and comment for brief follow up on existing blogs. The questions should involve Jesus issues, NT issues, or the interface of Christianity and culture. There are comment buttons that will allow you to do this. I cannot guarantee I will respond to everything, but would like to address issues of interest to you. The only rules are that the questions should be focused, so I can respond in a paragraph or two. (No God and the universe questions). So let’s see how we do.
12 Comments
Jatfla
Progressive Dispensationalism
I would like to have you present in blog *snippets*, studies concerning your theology of Progressive Dispensationalism. I have both of your’s and Blaising’s books on the topic. What I understand makes so much SENSE!! Even without your interpretation/explanations, over the years red flags went up regarding certain passages, but there wasn’t anything else *out there* but as soon as I began to read your books, the light bulbs began to go off and the Scriptures *fit*. But I don’t dare bring it up to my two Dallas Seminary Pastors.
There is so much information available on the internet that attempts to refute your interpretations, but very little (that I can find) to answer their arguments. And I’m not really interested in debate. Just small points that I can study and digest slowly. After 27 yrs. of Schofield, Chafer, Bob Theime, Walvoord, and Pentecost…putting it all together is kinda’ hard.
I guess I’m more interested in Biblical Study than Christianity and current events. There’s a lot of that out here already.
Thanks for your blog.
lmathew2
I am very glad to see the
I am very glad to see the church and scholars alike shy away from classical dispensationalism. People have been looking like idiots for centuries trying to predict the return of Christ, and my whole life, evangelicalism has been so eschatological oriented and not worried about the present. Dr. Bock, thank you for not conforming to the “system” and adhering to every belief that your school says to and teaches to believe in. I am still mostly uneducated on classical dispensationalism, progressive dispensationalism, and covenantal theology, but I have grown up hearing the classical version and always wondering about it and now I know I don’t have to look at every single text eschatologically. Frankly, it’s quite freeing. I understand I will still have to hear the classical jargon at DTS in a year, but I can line it up with the rest of Scripture and don’t have to believe it since I know of other interpretations. When I first heard how dispensational DTS was, it scared me b/c of how outspoken they were about it and I thought they needed to be more dogmatic on more important issues. Now I hear and read that DTS is shying away from the classical definition (not all professors), and many students are even coming out of there leaning more towards the covenantal side or PD side. This excites me and assures me that DTS is open-minded and lines things up with the rest of Scripture instead of forcing you to believe something and teaching it’s truth when it’s really not. Thanks Dr. Bock for your study and for guiding DTS closer to the truth!
bock
dlb- Glad to See
Matthew:
I think you will find your time at DTS well spent. Dispensatinalism and the discussion with Covenant theology is an important question in putting the Scripture together. You will get a good sense of the scope of discussion, but you will also get a solid introduction to many other key issues that deal with both the historical Christian faith and with issues abotu theology today. Above all, you will learn how to undetstand both Scripture and how the variety of views work with it as we all seek to be faithful to Him.
csheidler
Dr. Bock–Ministries such as
Dr. Bock–Ministries such as yours have meant a great deal to me, particularly in the course of various debates and discussions I’ve engaged in with others online, and I’d like your opinion, if you don’t mind, about something…
I’ve often used Irenaeus as a key early witness for the testimony of Christ as reported in the canonical Gospels (and indeed also for the early acceptance of what are now recognized as the canonical Gospels). Someone I was debating on a message board online, though, pointed out something that’s given me a lot of pause in using Irenaeus as a credible source, and I wanted to ask your opinion of it:
In 2.22 of Against Heresies, Irenaeus makes more than a passing reference to a tradition (to which he seems to lend a great deal of credence!) that insists that Jesus lived to a very old age before being crucified:
Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be “the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence,” the Prince of life, existing before all, and going before all….For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: “Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,” when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify.”(emphases added)
The difficulty I have with this passage (assuming that I read it correctly) is, I think, fairly clear–the New Testament (again, provided that I’m reading it correctly) fixes Jesus’ death fairly firmly at around 30 AD…but if Irenaeus is correct, and Jesus lived to be 50 years old or older, then this simply cannot be! Furthermore, not only does Irenaeus himself seem to believe this tradition; he seems to accord it the same authority as Scripture!
Were this a simple matter of Irenaeus reporting an example of a belief that wasn’t mainstream, it probably wouldn’t bother me a great deal in terms of his overall credibility as a witness…yet in his own words, this is the unanimous testimony of “the Gospel and all the elders.”
Not, of course, that this amounts to anything substantial to the average skeptic–in the meanwhile I’m perfectly content to follow along (for example) with Gary Habermas’ splendid argument about the ancient testimony of 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 (one of my favorite passages in Scripture), or with Edwin Yamauchi’s unbelievably comprehensive archaeological proofs…but Irenaeus has been such a splendid resource!!! Could you please shed some light for me on what’s going on in this Irenaeus passage? I appreciate your time and assistance!
“When Christ calls a man, He bids him come and die.”
–Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Darrell Bock
Jesus’ Age
If I read this correctly, the remark reads like the way we use centuries. So once Jesus passed 30, he was in his “forties”. Tis is wht the NT also suggests. Jesus was probably born in 6 BC (the difference is because of calendrical errors in the original calculations back to AD 1 in the medieval period). He lived to either AD 30-33, making him 36 -39 when he died. He, then is in his “forties” decade. Note the first sentnece where 30 is the “breakpoint.” So I think Irenaeus is not as wrong as youyr friend suggested. Hope this helps.
lmathew2
something to think about
The average age, due to lack of medical care, etc, during the period when Jesus lived was about 35-40 years old. The average age in America today is about 75 or so I believe. Do you consider 75 years old to be an old age? I sure do! But that’s the average, some live 100, some 50, some 10, some 1. We’re dealing with the same thing during Biblical times. Some people got up there in age above 50 or 60 or so, but the average was about 35-40. Tradition holds Jesus died at about 33 years old, which would give him the senior discount at restaurants in Capernaum (Jesus’ home…Mark 2). Remember now, women got married as early as 12 or 13, and they didn’t have birth control so they had babies at young ages. There wasn’t any, “I’m gonna wait til I graduate, get a job for a couple of years and save money, then I’ll get married and have children” crap. Things just happened at younger ages due to life expectancy. I dare adventure to say that people over 30 were looked at as advanced beyond their years and as sages. I may be way off the mark here…Dr. Bock, what say you?
Brother Dave
Hope this may answer your question on Irenaeus
On Irenaeus:
Irenaeus conceived the humanity of Christ not as a mere corporeality, though he often contends for this alone against the Gnostics, but as true humanity, embracing body, soul, and spirit. He places Christ in the same relation to the regenerate race, which Adam bears to the natural, and regards him as the absolute, universal man, the prototype and summing up of the whole race. Connected with this is his beautiful thought, found also in Hippolytus in the tenth book of the Philosophumena, that Christ made the circuit of all the stages of human life, to redeem and sanctify all. To apply this to advanced age, he singularly extended the life of Jesus to fifty years, and endeavored to prove this view from the Gospels, against the Valentinians (He appeals to tradition and to the loose conjecture of the Jews that Christ was near fifty years, John 8:57. The Valentinian Gnostics allowed only thirty years to Christ, corresponding to the number of their aeons). The full communion of Christ with men involved his participation in all their evils and sufferings, his death, and his descent into the abode of the dead.
Schaff, P., & Schaff, D. S. (1997). History of the Christian church. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
Brother Dave
Second on Irenaeus
Here is a bit more from Mathew Henrys Commentary on John:
(John 8:57) Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Here, First, They suppose that if Abraham saw him and his day he also had seen Abraham, which yet was not a necessary innuendo, but this turn of his words would best serve to expose him; yet it was true that Christ had seen Abraham, and had talked with him as a man talks with his friend. Secondly, They suppose it a very absurd thing for him to pretend to have seen Abraham, who was dead so many ages before he was born. The state of the dead is an invisible state; but here they ran upon the old mistake, understanding that corporally which Christ spoke spiritually. Now this gave them occasion to despise his youth, and to upbraid him with it, as if he were but of yesterday, and knew nothing: Thou art not yet fifty years old. They might as well have said, Thou art not forty; for he was now but thirty-two or thirty-three years old. As to this, Irenaeus, one of the first fathers, with this passage supports the tradition which he says he had from some that had conversed with St. John, that our Saviour lived to be fifty years old, which he contends for, Advers. Haeres. lib. 2, cap. 39, 40. See what little credit is to be given to tradition; and, as to this here, the Jews spoke at random; some year they would mention, and therefore pitched upon one that they thought he was far enough short of; he did not look to be forty, but they were sure he could not be fifty, much less contemporary with Abraham. Old age is reckoned to begin at fifty (Num. 4:47), so that they meant no more than this, “Thou art not to be reckoned an old man; many of us are much thy seniors, and yet pretend not to have seen Abraham.’’ Some think that his countenance was so altered, with grief and watching, that, together with the gravity of his aspect, it made him look like a man of fifty years old: his visage was so marred, Isa. 52:14.
Henry, M. (1996, c1991). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible : Complete and unabridged in one volume (Jn 8:51). Peabody: Hendrickson.
gsheryl
Recommended Commentaries
Dr. Bock,
I think these commentary recommendations are helpful. Thank you for them.
Brett Williams
Question on blessing/cursing of nation of Israel
There is much discussion of the Christian’s responsibility to support the nation of Israel. This is partially based on the OT blessing/cursing promised to those nations that blessed/cursed Israel.
Based on Paul’s language in Romans 11 — that the nation has been temporarily removed from their privileged position — would you say that the blessing/cursing promise is still in effect during the Church Age?
Brett Williams
Teacher Assistant
Piedmont Bible College
debbiewimmers
Breaking the DeVinci Code
Dr. Bock
I really enjoyed your book. I can’t wait to read the next one. I think you have really helped a lot of pastors give great sermons on the deception of the DaVinci Code. i heard Jeff Bingham at FBC-Dallas a few weeks ago and asked if you two had done some work together on it. I would really love to hear what all you two had done together.
bock
Breaking the Code – July 29 July 29
We have done some podcasts together on this topic. Go to http://www.dts.edu and then to podcasts to find the material.