Here Colin Gunton is discussing the concrete act and reality of Revelation. He is juxtaposing Karl Barth’s concrete version of Revelation with Karl Rahner’s rather transcendental version (according to Gunton’s lexicon). The reason I am posting this, is because I like it! I like it because I think it gets at something that is quite important; viz. the idea that Revelation is mediated, and for the Christian that means that Revelation comes to us in a full 
bodied way when we understand that without the concrete act of God’s pen-ultimate self-revelation in the Nation of Israel, that we would not have his ultimate self-revelation in his Son, Jesus Christ — at least not in the shape and form that we do. This of course gets back to questions of election etc., but that’s not what I am getting at with this quote; really all I want to highlight is that I think that theologies or hermeneutical systems that see the Church as the Replacement of Israel are quite wrong. I see Jesus as the new Israel, not the Church; and thus Israel should not be seen as replaced, but instead given her full vocational purpose in the coming of the Messiah. And then, ironically, the Church has the same role in mediating their Messiah back to them; in the way, that they were to be mediating him to the Nations (Rom. 9–11). In short, Jesus is both personal Lord over both Israel and the Church; and, because of his free choice, his Lordship cannot be understood without the concrete, particular reality of Israel whom he becomes, both for them and then for us. Here’s the quote:
There is something here which is relevant, which I shall read to you, it was spoken by Barth to people who were just coming out of Nazi Germany in 1946 and it is about Revelation, indeed it is about the concrete nature of Revelation as distinct from whatever transcendental Revelation may be. Barth says ‘He was of necessity a Jew.’ Right! ‘We cannot be blind to this fact. He belongs to this concrete reality of God’s Word, and His revelation.’ And he ends the paragraph ‘The man who is ashamed of Israel is ashamed of Jesus Christ and therefore of his own existence.’ So the problem over transcendental Revelation is in the problem of specificity: Revelation is in the person of Jesus Christ who was from God’s chosen people. So the problem over Israel is the problem of existence itself: deny Israel, you deny yourself as made in the image of God. So Barth is much stronger on the concrete reality of Revelation than Rahner is. (Colin E. Gunton, Revelation And Reason: Prolegomena to Systematic Theology, edited by P. H. Brazier, 63)
For an excellent explication of Israel’s mediation of Christ read T. F. Torrance’s The Mediation of Christ.
Hi Bobby,
Chris turned me on to your blog – fun stuff! This quote from above (especially the first half), “I see Jesus as the new Israel, not the Church; and thus Israel should not be seen as replaced, but instead given her full vocational purpose in the coming of the Messiah,” is very much what I was thinking when studying Matthew 2:15: “Out of Egypt I have called My Son.”
Though I didn’t take the time to develop the thought in the sermon, Jesus going into and out of Egypt was, at least, “type-ical” of His union with and for the nation of Israel. I’d love to hear your thoughts on that.
Hey Pastor Daniel,
Uh oh, better be on my best behavior π . I’m glad you found my blog, now you can find out all my little theological secrets π .
I totally agree with you, and I thought you did an excellent job in the way that you did develop it in your sermon (there’s only so much time, eh)! You know Church Father, Irenaeus, really championed the interpretive method of recapitulation (re-do or re-interpret etc); that’s what I see the NT authors doing with the life of Christ vis-a-vis the nation of Israel. Except where they (Israel) fail he prevails by the Holy Spirit. One of my profs in seminary used the language of corporate solidarity to identify Christ’s relationship with Israel, esp. in our passage of Hos 11.1 and Mt 2.15. But this illustrates how I would see Israel’s salvation history taken up and given its full purpose in Christ’s life and fulfillment of which they were the promise of God’s covenant faithfulness to the Nations. This is somewhat of a “Covenantal” way of reading the Text (vs. dispensational), but that said; it does not have to be seen as Federal/Covenantal Calvinist interpretation if we choose to interpret the Text in this way. To me its more straightforward than that, we’re just following the way the NT Authors (Matthew, for example) interpreted the history of Israel through a Christ-centered lens [cf. Jn 1.18; 5.39 etc] (so recapitulation).
Does anything I just said make sense? π I’d like to hear what you think. One class I had in seminary was NT use of the OT, we worked through the quotes of the OT in many books of the NT, including Matthew. Something that is just amazing is to compare and contrast the OT context with the new NT context of usage (not just the verse but the whole contexts, both far and near); which I thought you did a really good job of in your sermon (esp. with the time constraints you had). I’m just mentioning this, because I think if folks could get a hold of this idea — of reading the NT and its OT quotes from the context that it is taken from in the OT — that people’s Bible study time would be really really enriched.
I’m glad to see you here, Pastor, comment anytime. And I hope my response provides something fruitful.
Bobby,
Yes, I can resonate with what you’re saying. One of the things I love about studying the Old Testament (particularly the prophets) is how the gracious, redemptive plan of God was both foretold and unfolding as clarified (usually) by the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. That redemtive plan is realized, ultimately, in the person of Jesus Christ. Can you imagine what it would’ve been like to have been in one of those synagogues that Paul ventured into, was asked to share, and then proceeded to unpack Jesus from the prophets? I guess we get a glimpse of that in his epistles!
As to Israel’s salvation history being fulfilled in Christ – imagine what a glorious day it will be when they realize and acknowledge that! (Thought I’d throw in a little dispe for ya!) π
Enjoying your blog – but I think you like fancy post titles! π
Pastor Daniel,
Yes, I like those $2 words every now and then ;-), it’s good for the soul. Absolutely, I do believe that there is a remnant of ethnic Jews who “will” yet still be saved (I just don’t believe like classic dispy that there are “two distinct people of God” [Jews=God’s earthly people Church=God’s heavenly people]; and I do believe that that has already started right now as well (I still have some dispy in me, it’s just progressive, I go by historic premil too ;-). What an amazing thing it must have been to hear Paul preach, for that matter what about the Emmaus road teaching by Jesus!
Thanks for your feedback, Pastor. Engage anytime you want, I like to hear from you more than on just Sundays :-). Blessings.
@Pastor Daniel,
I should say, that this blog represents my more technical theological writing; really a place where I try to introduce what we are doing with our forthcoming book. But on a personal side, just a place where I somewhat blurt out my thoughts from wherever I happen to be reading. A place for me to work out my theological sites, and try to take some ownership of what often may appear to be rather abstract ideas.
I do have a newer blog called Devotio http://devotiochristi.blogspot.com where I am intentionally trying to write in a non-technical non-$2 word way ;-). More of a place where I mostly will be reflecting on my thoughts from my scripture reading. Also I have another blog (that is no longer active, praise the Lord) where I chronicle my season of cancer year @ http://bobbygrow.com .