I would wish that every believer becomes familiar with the OT development of the theme from Adam to Israel to the Davidic line. It helps us understand the Old Testament better, grounds Jesus in the OT, and clarifies tricky passages such as Rom In terms of insights, I was pleasantly surprised by the many connections of the title to the New Creation, not having seen them before. These are not the same thing! By beginning in familiar territory, the study is less overwhelming.
However, I suspect this approach has led to a few missteps due to the NT guiding the reading of the OT. We must both read backwards and forwards. I suspect this is due to his Gospels-first approach missing the significance of the angelic OT background to statements in the Gospels. Thus, angelic sons of God are not addressed. Goldsworthy recognizes that Jesus exceeds the human definition of Son of God seen most clearly in John , so could it be that the angelic beings recognize this deeper meaning? That is, He is different from other heavenly beings known by that title, just as YHWH is different from all other Elohim, despite sharing the title.
This could also have implications for the application of the title for believers, especially in Rom where our glorification is recognized as an unveiling of our status as sons of God. In the new creation, we will be higher than angelic beings Heb ; 1 Cor Perhaps this is directly tied to our revelation as sons of God? More problematic is the reading level. It will require a concentrated reader to avoid getting lost. Speaking personally, I found the train of thought difficult to follow, and I read academic works for fun that are much more rigorous! From there, I tried in vain to find where the original thread resumes!
I found my opinion confirmed by the recent Gospel Coalition review. In my review of D. Although The Son of God and the New Creation is similarly-small, studying this concise but wide-ranging book will reap inordinate fruit.
One will never regret working through a Christological theme as it opens our eyes to the entirety of Scripture. If one is persistent, it will be a fruitful effort. Many thanks to Crossway for providing a digital copy of this book in exchange for a review. Their generosity has not affected my opinion of the book. All rights reserved. My Digital Seminary. Early Christianity and ancient Judaism before it were both light-years ahead of their cultures regarding the treatment of women.
On the other hand; secularists have been shown to be anti-female. Many evolutionists, including Darwin, have argued that women are inferior to men, 21 since the weaker men are eliminated by war and other things, but weaker women are not eliminated by such forces—instead, men protect weak women.
One evolutionist even argued that females were closer to animals than to males. Indeed, sexual equality would be totally unexpected under consistent evolutionary theory, since males and females throughout the biosphere experienced different selective pressures. We see the fruits of this with the widespread abortion of baby girls. This positive view of women is seen throughout Scripture. That Christians with a biblical view of God insist on calling Him by the male names He has given Himself in no way reflects negatively on the biblical view of women, because both men and women are created in the image of God.
Because of this, Christians are commanded to treat both men and women with proper dignity and respect. Replacing biblical language for God with unbiblical female names and terminology does not elevate women, but is an attempt to redefine God Himself. If we are free to redefine even one word of Scripture, not one word of it is unchangeable. We have supplied this link to an article on an external website in good faith. But we cannot assume responsibility for, nor be taken as endorsing in any way, any other content or links on any such site.
Even the article we are directing you to could, in principle, change without notice on sites we do not control. Also Available in:. This article is from Journal of Creation 23 2 —58, August Browse our latest digital issue Subscribe. Related Articles London Times reports that the Bible is not anti-female: is this news?
The divine gender controversy Are women genetically superior to men? References Matthews, K. Return to text. Wenham, G. Wenham, ref. Cosner, L. Creation 22 2 —, ; creation. Cole, D. Hartley, J. Hartley, ref. Knight, G. Moo, D.
In The Son of God and the New Creation, Goldsworthy aims to “investigate the title “Son of God” and other related sonship titles in order to deepen our is right to draw upon the Old Testament resonances and their significance. grounds Jesus in the OT, and clarifies tricky passages (such as Rom ). The new creation (Gk καινὴ κτίσις) is a concept found in the New Testament, related to the new life (ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς) and new man (referring to the spiritual rebirth through Christ Jesus) (καινός ἄνθρωπος) but with reference also to the Genesis "old creation. Other references to the concept include the language Ephesians , "For.
Chapter 9; in: Piper, J. Wilshire, L. Knight deals only with the verb, while Wilshire deals with all words with the authen— root. Lampe, G. Carson, D. Neff, D.
Christianity Today 39 2 , February Gross, R. Apologia 5 2 :5—20,; p.
Stinson, R. Jeffery, D. Taylor, C.
Bott, M. Apologia 5 2 :5—20, ; p. Bergman, J. Creation 14 1 —, Helpful Resources. Case for Creation, 3 DVD set. Hard cover. Soft cover. Authenticity of the Book of Genesis. Stranger on the Road to Emmaus. Angela C. US September 14th, This article has some great information. I have read that,in the Ancient Near East, divination was sometimes practiced by "reading" a sheep's liver. The Bible calls for the liver to be burned as part of the sacrifice. What seems sexist to the 21st century mind was probably instituted to protect the Israelites from the "detestable practices" of the pagans around them.
Murk P. CA December 3rd, Lita—amazing article. Thank you, keep up the good work! Graham P. NZ December 3rd, Excellent piece. How hard it is to address such absurd new-age nonsense, and still retain some dignity! Mark J. US December 4th, Feminists often insist that lesser authority necessarily implies lesser ability, even lesser value as a human being. But even a brief look at the world around us shows that this is not true at all. Suppose a policeman is directing traffic, because the traffic light is broken or there is unusually heavy traffic or whatever.
Drivers are legally required to obey his directions. Surely we would agree that obeying him is a good thing: Without his direction, if everyone tried to decide for himself when it was safe to proceed, traffic would surely be slower and the risk of accidents would be higher. The policeman is in a position of authority. Obviously not.
Suppose that one of the drivers at this intersection was the state director of highways. The same is true in many situations throughout any society. I have often had jobs where I believed that I was way smarter than the boss. If my present employer happens to read this, not in this case of course! I always understood that this was irrelevant. If everyone did whatever he thought best, the company would be in chaos. Imagine if the person running the factory was trying to make candy bars while the person ordering supplies decided that the company should be making shoes and so ordered only leather and glue!
Would you want to eat the candy bars they produced?
Indeed, in some cases an arbitrary choice is best, precisely because it eliminates any discussion of innate inferiority. I presume that God also made this decree because, as the creator of human beings, he built certain relative abilities into each. To say that one person is a better leader is not at all the same as saying that he is more important or a more valuable human being.
Everyone has things they are good at and things they are not so good at. I am totally incompetent as an artist. The question is meaningless. By what standard do you measure? Dustin A. CA December 4th, I appreciate this article for both its intent and Biblical accuracy. Yes, the Bible is explicit and unyielding when it comes to the defining of roles within marital and family units, but as this article so accurately states, the Bible never implies the inferiority of women.
In fact, I have always taught and preached that Jesus was a true revolutionary for the genuine rights of women; the church was birthed from day one with both men and women. I believe in the Biblical model for proper roles within the family unit; I also believe that women are in no way inferior to men … just different … on purpose … Thank God!
Thank you for publishing this well documented, intelligent article.
An 2to avoid inconsistencies such as these. With respect to female judges, Barak refuses to go to battle unless Deborah accompanies him, showing that he believes that God is with her Judges 4. Simply put, the bible is a marriage of two traditions. Guinness, Os. John Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. To add after they got out of the garden they went to a cave. Later, in various parts of scripture, God commands all people to work to the degree they are able.
Kathy P. Some people claim that the Law of Moses declaring women to be "unclean" because of menstruation or childbirth is unfair to women. However, I have read probably on this website , that the laws are actually quite beneficial to women, in that while they are "put apart for their uncleanness" the restrictions basically give the week or month or more off from any sort of housework, including cooking. Sounds good to me! Matthew G. Thank you for this article. It is very timely for me to come across this.
Chandrasekaran M. AU December 4th, As this article shows that the Bible does not devalue women for that matter even young or old or even based on intellectual levels. Critics equate status with roles. But Jesus appointed different roles to men and women therefore equipped them appropriately differently though not completely different.
Jesus is not feminist or chauvinist and not partial to either one but He created all of us.