Today I discuss the meaning of the first person plurals in Genesis 1:26 and how this might give us a more developed understanding of the image of God.
Over the Christmas period, I will be posting videos exploring biblical echoes and symmetries in the stories of the nativity in the gospels. This first video explores some connections between Christ’s birth and his death and resurrection. For more on this, see here.
A number of years ago there was a lot of debate in certain circles in the UK revolving around these topics: the degree to which Christ/the Trinity is explicitly present in the OT; the nature of the Angel of the Lord; relatedly the object of believers’ faith in the OT (did OT saints trust consciously and explicitly in the Son?); the degree to which revelation is progressive from the OT to the NT. A lot of these threads were explored in the Blackham-Goldsworthy debate: http://www.theologian.org.uk/bible/blackham.html
What are your views on these topics? Some more specific questions might be:
– Does the OT, read on its own terms, clearly present a unipersonal God or a binitatian/Trinitarian God? Or does it murkily present the latter?
– How were OT believers saved? Through explicit faith in the Son, or through other means?
– Who is the Angel of the Lord?
I discuss Meredith Kline’s wonderful little book, Images of the Spirit.
I would like to ask a two-part question: (a) could you give a defense from the Scripture for figural preaching and typological reading; (b) how would you respond to the criticism of typological exegesis as a way seeking hidden meanings and connection that probably no one else has noticed, thus focused a lot on novelty?
Today I answer a question about the classical doctrine of the Trinity. There is much that I’d love to say more clearly or carefully than I do in this video, or to elaborate upon further, so feel free to send me follow-up questions in the comments here or over on Curious Cat.