Saturday, October 31, 2020

THE FRUIT OF CHRIST: CHANGE FROM THE ROOT

 

The Fruit of Christ: Change from the Root

You Must Be Born Again

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

            Jesus’ reply to Nicodemus here drives into the root of evidence for those who profess Christ: namely change, i.e. life-change originates at the core of a person as if to begin anew. I admit to be a failure in this regard often, as we all are because we are not yet perfected in our glorified bodies (Phil 1:6). The truth of faith’s evidence, nonetheless, is found in what is seen externally.[1] The concept of being born again was likely a startling remark to Nicodemus, as it would be to anyone including those of us in modern society had we never heard such a phrase. Nicodemus, in genuine concern, approaches Jesus as a teacher. To his (likely) shock, Jesus says that being born again is required for seeing the kingdom of God. Such a phrase is not literal in the physical sense but certainly in the spiritual sense. It is figurative physically, for no one may reenter a mother’s womb for rebirth; yet, spiritually (truly the real realm in which Christians operate), one must be born again in Christ, i.e. the depth of change from Jesus occurs at the root. One cannot see the kingdom of God with surface-level change; life-change must include a severing of everything that remains of the old life and a total restart of something new. Christ does not merely help people in their old way of life but rather makes them a completely new creation (2 Cor 5:17). Being born again encompasses riddance of everything old, e.g. thinking, ways of life, outlook, perspective, etc. Rebirth in Christ equates to total newness. The paradox in this thought is that while believers are not yet perfected, they are continuously being made new until the day of complete, i.e. newness is a process. Believer, take heart that Christ is working on you and making you new. You have been born again, the depth of change occurring at the root of who you are.



[1] This is not to say that external works are what saves someone or that one who does not reveal external works is not saved, although the latter is indicative of a heart not changed by Christ.

Sunday, October 25, 2020

SALVATION THROUGH JESUS THE DIVINE

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

Salvation through Jesus the Divine

A fundamental belief of the Christian faith is the exceeding and incomprehensible love of God in Jesus Christ. The Gospels detail the life and ministry of Christ on earth and are replete with instances which convey the matchless love and care of Jesus. One such account is found in Luke’s Gospel (Luke 7:36-50). The account details an experience at dinner with a Pharisee (Simon) in which Jesus declares forgiveness upon a woman who was apparently known by all as a wretched sinner. Underneath the surface, however, the story also reveals Jesus’ love for all including the Pharisee who invited him to dinner. In this account, the truth is borne that whether respected or despised, Jesus loves and offers forgiveness to everyone equally, for everyone is equally in need of his mercy. Unpacking the Luke’s account is certainly beneficial in clarifying the gospel truth and understanding the questions that may arise from the text. Three primary imperatives are offered from these verses that stem from the overarching truth of Jesus’ great love for everyone.

Jesus’ Concern Is for Everyone (vv. 36-38)

            In the text here, the Son of God is invited to dinner by a Pharisee. Jesus’ heated encounters with the Pharisees throughout the Gospel accounts could spawn the question of why he was invited and why he accepted the invitation. The text does not suggest either reason; yet, it is clear that, perhaps contrary to popular opinion, Jesus’ concern is not only for the despised and hurting in the world but also for the (seemingly) respected and dignified. A Pharisee would certainly fit such a description. Jesus does not neglect his ministry to every person with whom he interacts but embraces any opportunity to love everyone.

            Jesus’ act of reclining at the table is apparently significant to Luke. Luke, a physician by trade, finds the (likely cultural) practice of reclining at the table significant. While the text does not suggest why Jesus reclines at the table during dinner, it could be that the practice is normal in that culture. Jesus’ action then is indicative of his desire to love and be found with all in need of him, i.e. everyone. Said another way, Jesus accepts the invitation to the Pharisee’s house for dinner and engages in culturally appropriate practices and, in essence, reveals his love for everyone, not only those who are hurting, broken, and needy.

            The Pharisees were known as perhaps the most religiously devout Jews in the New Testament world. In fact, a position as a Pharisee was likely a coveted position. While the New Testament often seems to portray Pharisees in a negative light, a Pharisee was a man who was respected among his peers and in society in general, not necessarily because of his character but because of his status as a Pharisee. Jesus often has harsh words for Pharisees and rebukes them (Matt 23:16-17 among other references). If the entirety of the New Testament is not considered, one might easily conclude that Jesus exuded disdain and hatred toward the Pharisees; nonetheless, the account here in Luke exposes a God who cares not only for those who are despised and rejected in the world but also those who are among the most respected and dignified. External factors are not connected to Jesus’ love for humanity; Luke’s account here supports that fact.

            Furthermore, the story here in Luke describes Jesus’ concern for the woman. The author is careful to point out the sinfulness of the woman (v. 37). Luke’s claim is significant in that the New Testament and even Jesus himself continuously remind readers that all are sinful. One might wonder, therefore, why the woman’s sinfulness is highlighted in the passage. While the text does not specify why the woman’s sinfulness is drawn from everyone else in the story, it could be that her sinfulness is unique in that she is known in the community as exceptional in her sin, e.g. a prostitute perhaps. Luke’s point, however, is not the degree of sin the woman has committed but the fact that the is known as a sinner and despised and rejected because of that status.

            Jesus, nevertheless, shows greatest love and compassion for the woman. In the midst of a respected Pharisee (and likely his dignified company), Jesus reveals great care and concern. Jesus’ love for both the woman and the Pharisee remind the reader that the Son of God’s love for people is not connected to any external factors. Whether rich or poor, despised or rejected, or one of great or little sin, Jesus loves his people equally.

            Luke’s narrative in this passage, offers readers a glimpse into the magnificent love of God. God’s love truly cannot be described to its fullest by human words. Jesus’ actions in the story, however, grant the twofold truth that Jesus’ love is offered to everyone no matter the external factors and that everyone is equally in need of his mercy. The Pharisee, whether he realizes it or not, is equally as separated from God as the sinful woman and in need of the grace of God. Jesus shows his love for the Pharisee in having dinner with him and for the woman in his forgiving actions toward her. Therefore, whether respected or despised, Jesus loves and offers forgiveness to everyone equally, for everyone is equally in need of his mercy.

Great Forgiveness Demands Great Love (vv. 39-47)

            The author describes the sinful woman’s actions, which seem to be derived from her brokenness, humility, and realization of her own sin. The woman might have intended to anoint Jesus’ head but began to sob out of a sober realization of her sin and, thus, began to wipe her own tears from Jesus’ feet with her hair. Her understanding of her own sin precedes the forgiving act of Jesus.

            Additionally, Jesus unfalteringly connects forgiveness and love. “Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little” (v. 47), says Jesus. In essence, one’s love for God is dependent upon his or her reception of forgiveness from God. Luke’s details of the sinful woman are significant in revealing someone who is repentant and, therefore, forgiven.

            The woman’s actions offended the Pharisee who says, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is…” (v. 39). What Simon the Pharisee offers here is an untrue belief, for Jesus, in his divinity, certainly knows who the woman is and everything about her and, in fact, has in mind to forgive her (as revealed later in the text). This portion of the text is ironic because while Simon’s statement reference Jesus’ lack of knowledge, as Luke mentions, the Pharisee utters this statement to himself and Jesus responds indicating his own perception of Simon’s thoughts; Jesus, therefore, certainly knows not only who the woman is but also the thoughts of Simon himself. Luke’s Gospel then stresses Simon’s claim as untrue next to that of what Jesus says and does.

Lest Jesus’ words be distorted to mean that some people are forgiven more than others, the context of the account presents the reader with both Jesus’ love for the woman and for the Pharisee. Thus, Jesus’ words are likely a reminder that everyone is equally deserving of punishment but forgiven much.[1] Jesus proceeds to give a parable. The purpose of the parable is evidently to emphasize his point to Simon, those present with him in that setting, and the readers of the account. Simon answers correctly in his knowledge that the one (in the parable) who was forgiven more also loved more. The sinful woman interacting with Jesus in Luke’s account is obviously represented by one who has been forgiven much. According to Jesus’ words, the quantity of one’s love for God is suggestive of his or her realization of the depth of forgiveness granted. The sinful woman’s state of being forgiven is preceded by her repentant heart and actions which reveal such repentance. Jesus then offers her incredible forgiveness, which offends the Pharisee so Christ proceeds to offer a parable and allow his hearers to see the correct perspective.

The woman’s actions reveal that great forgiveness demands great love; Jesus, however, clarifies this truth in the parable he tells. While the woman holds a reputation as a wicked sinner, she is forgiven to the same degree and, therefore, grateful. Whether Simon realizes it or not, he is also equally in need of God’s mercy. Jesus, in making his point known to his hearers, concurrently offers the same level of forgiveness to all who would receive him. A derivative of Jesus’ forgiveness and indeed the fruit thereof is one’s love toward the Lord manifested in obedience to him (John 14:15). Jesus here offers bountiful forgiveness to the sinful woman and also to the Pharisee, both of whom are in desperate need of it.

Salvation Is by Faith Alone (v. 50)

            Luke’s account of the sinful woman might initially seem to suggest that the woman’s actions save her. Nonetheless, it is surely her faith that saves, which Jesus reveals (v. 50), i.e. the woman’s actions should be considered a derivative of her faith. The truth portrayed from the text then is that salvation is by faith alone. One of the basic tenets of the Christian faith and indeed a foundational cry of the Reformation, faith alone, stands as that through which salvation is granted to all believers.

Being careful not to disconnect the effect of works, it should be clear that while works themselves do not save the woman, her actions are conceived by her faith. Luke’s text seems to follow a reverse-linear trajectory moving from action to salvation to faith (when the sequence of events is reversed in reality).[2] The effect of her faith, therefore, is salvation to which she responds with action, i.e. the woman is grateful and expresses such gratitude by her act of anointing Christ. The woman loves much because she is forgiven much (v. 47); her faith, however, is that through which salvation comes from Christ alone.

      Luke’s account additionally clearly alludes to Jesus’ divinity by declaring the woman’s sins forgiven. Even those present at dinner ponder who Jesus is. Luke writes, “…‘Who is this, who even forgives sins?’” (v. 49) Jesus does not neglect declaring his divinity throughout the Gospels. This account is one such instance where he places himself as a co-equal with God the Father by forgiving sin. Declaring the woman’s sins forgiven is a miraculous act but one that apparently caught the attention of many people including the author of Luke’s Gospel. It is significant enough an instance that Luke desires to include it in his perspective but also that those present at dinner began to speak amongst themselves. The power to forgive may only come from God himself, for it is a divine act, which no human may replicate. Jesus authoritatively forgives the woman of her sin and, in doing so, divulges the fact that he is co-equal with God the Father and is, in fact, God himself.

      The gospel truth that salvation is by faith alone is revealed in Luke’s text here but, furthermore, points to the one in whom faith must be placed: namely Jesus Christ. The sinful woman, repentant of sin and with complete faith in Jesus, acts in response to who Jesus is. While Jesus’ verbal declaration of forgiveness appears later in the text and after the woman’s act of faith, it should not be forgotten that Jesus says one who loves little has been forgiven little (v. 47). In the same verse, however, Jesus says that the woman’s sins are forgiven “…for she loved much….” One might assume then that the woman was forgiven because of her great love shown toward Christ contradicting the truth of the passage that faith alone saves. Thus, to properly interpret Jesus’ statement (in verse 47), the reverse-linear context of the passage should be considered. As the passage moves from action to salvation to faith when faith is first, then salvation, then action. This portion of verse 47 then should be considered in the same manner, for the woman’s act of love is in response to what she has been forgiven. In fact, the English translation of the Bible seems to separate “for she loved much” from the rest of the statement perhaps to highlight the sequence of events in recognition that she was first forgiven.

As the sinful woman was forgiven much, believers should place themselves as the characters in the story. Truly, both the woman and the Pharisee are equally in need of Christ. While their sins are different and perhaps even viewed differently among their peers, they are, nonetheless, separated from God because of their own evil hearts. The encouraging truth revealed in Luke’s passage here is that salvation is by faith alone in God the Son, Jesus Christ. The woman understands such truth and acts accordingly because she has been forgiven greatly.

Exceeding Love beyond all Comprehension

            Luke’s passage exudes Jesus’ love for all people, whether respected or despised, and, furthermore, offers the fruit of great forgiveness: namely great love. One who has been forgiven much will, in effect, love much. Such forgiveness, however, comes only by faith. One is not forgiven apart from faith; only through faith in Christ are believers the recipients of exceeding forgiveness from God. Further, Jesus’ acceptance of Simon’s invitation to dinner reminds readers that, perhaps contrary to popular opinion, Jesus loves even the respected and dignified. The common thought might be that Jesus loves the despised, rejected, and reputably sinful more than the opposite; nevertheless, Jesus’ love extends beyond the realm of human understanding and is irrespective of external factors. Jesus, in fact, loves everyone equally regardless of what one has or has not done. Luke’s account provides insight into the depths of Jesus’ love for all people and reminds readers that whether respected or despised, Jesus loves and offers forgiveness to everyone equally, for everyone is equally in need of his mercy.



[1] This is not to suggest that individual human sins cannot vary in degree (Paul, for example, references himself as the chief of sinners in 1 Tim 1:15) and consequence but rather that all sin separates humanity from God equally.

[2] In the text, the woman first, in realization of her sin, takes a repentant position and humbly anoints Jesus while weeping and wiping his feet with her hair; she is then forgiven by the Lord; finally, Jesus declares that her faith has saved her.

Sunday, October 18, 2020

FIGHTING AGAINST THE IDOLATRY OF POLITICS


Fighting against the Idolatry of Politics


Matthew 22:15-22 (English Standard Version)

Paying Taxes to Caesar

15 Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his words. 16 And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone's opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances. 17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” 18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. 20 And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” 21 They said, “Caesar's.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” 22 When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away.

            As the (infamous) impending election approaches, there are many who are ready for it to be finished already; I am such a person. In my interactions with various people, it is clear to me that some hold politics dearer to their hearts than others. I am careful not to elevate politics to the level of God and, thus, make it an idol; yet, that is precisely what many Americans do. I certainly have political stances and issues on which I disagree with others. Nonetheless, political issues are often secondary. For example, I am adamant that socialism is an ignorant way of life and one that holds greater potential to cause harm to a society than that of a Republic, as should be the United States according to our Constitution. I am, however, willing to admit that there is nothing inherently evil about socialism, i.e. nothing in Scripture supports such a claim so to declare Christianity a religion that inherently fights against socialism would be to lie. Why then do so many people passionately offer hatred and disdain to those of different political persuasions, often even more passionately than their own theological holdings or responsibility to share Christ with the world? Perhaps, it is because many in our society have made politics an idol without even realizing it.

In this passage, Jesus is not caught off guard when the Pharisees try to trap him and reveals the fact that the kingdom of God is at the forefront of his mind and indeed his entire life while political issues (including taxes) are secondary. He does so to the point where he concedes to pay taxes. “…render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s,” (v. 21) he says. To the logical Christian, it is apparent that everything belongs to God so even in paying taxes, one is not taking money from God. According to Romans 13, governmental authorities are set in place by God no matter the setting and no matter the evil that might dwell within their hearts. Paul, in fact, lived under some of the most evil regimes in history and yet preaches to submit to governmental authorities. That is because he knew that nothing exists apart from God’s sovereign command and that he will ultimately have his way even in the midst of evil.

Moreover, Paul suggests to the Corinthians to be all things to all people (1 Cor 9:19-23). He understands the need to keep secondary things secondary and the kingdom of God at the forefront, particularly when we only have limited time on this earth. We must all be reminded of this during this time of incredible political discourse. Perhaps, many who idolize politics as if they have nothing else for which to live do so because they do not love God. Therefore, politics literally is all they have for which to live. In this passage, Jesus, in essence, diminishes the issue of paying taxes as if to say, “Just do it; it is a secondary issue. The kingdom of God is primary, and nothing else matters.” Let us keep God and his kingdom at the forefront of our minds and lives and not loose focus of its importance with the many political distractions flung at us each day.

A PRIMER ON BIBLICAL LITERARY GENRE

 A Primer on Biblical Literary Genre


Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.


Biblical hermeneutics are attached to a wide array of external factors such as one’s traditional upbringing, previous instruction, personal contexts, e.g. family, work, and school, and (perhaps more than the rest) literary genre. Many Christians seem to make the mistake of interpreting biblical texts without proper understanding of the literary genre they read. Such an understanding is imperative, nonetheless, to a correct interpretation. One cannot read the metaphors of poetry, for example, as literal history. Various genres exist in the canon of Scripture. This paper will examine each of the major genres of the Bible in an overarching fashion and ultimately call believers to excellence in biblical interpretation.

Narrative

            The narrative genre might be named synonymously with history, i.e. a narrative offers a text within the framework of a historical account. Narrative is the most employed genre in biblical writing and is certainly more prevalent in the New Testament than in the Old Testament. It could be suggested that the entirety of the Bible is framed within the narrative genre, for the text of Scripture, from beginning to end, presents a narrative: the story of God and his work in the lives of his people.

            Narratives often yield a point or a plurality of points to be acquired by the reader. The Gospels, for example, give accounts of the life of Christ from the authors’ various perspectives yet often hold the same trajectory and aim in teaching.[1] The account of Jesus feeding the multitude varies in all four of the gospels. Nonetheless, the truth that Jesus provides for his people and performs spectacular miracles is evident in all four accounts.

            Narrative should be considered the support of biblical revelation. Said another way, the narrative genre provides substance to the mysterious workings of God throughout Scripture. Because of factual and historical accounts of God’s work throughout human history through narrative, even the skeptic may be assured that the holy text of the Bible is accurate and reliable. Narrative then lays the foundation for what God does through his miracles in Scripture.

            Because narrative does not take liberties in the use of metaphor, the reader should interpret the text through the lens of precision, i.e. narrative is intended to be taken literally. With the account of Moses’ parting of the Red Sea (Exod 14), some might make the mistake of approaching the text as hyperbole or metaphor; nonetheless, the account is factual history and should be taken literally. While miraculous in nature, the aim of the story is not to be stretched into a mere metaphor but to provide a historical account of the reality of God’s miracle and work in the lives of his people. Narrative must be interpreted not as a figure of speech but as literal and historical accounts.

Wisdom

            Wisdom is a biblical literary genre found uniquely in the Old Testament. While Ecclesiastes, Job, and Proverbs are traditionally considered the wisdom texts of the Bible, some of the psalms and writings within Song of Solomon enjoy the same category. Wisdom texts in the Bible are devoted to divine morality and right choices, which are only derived from obedience to God. Wisdom literature points the reader to a sometimes difficult but right decision and often a blessing for heeding its call. In this genre, wisdom is sometimes personified and grants a call to its hearers. The purpose then of wisdom literature is to present the blessing of making godly choices and heeding the call of God to obey him.

            Unlike narrative, wisdom literature does not provide historical prose but instead grants a variety of scenarios and choices and consequences attached to them. Much of the guidance offered in wisdom literature stems from the personal experiences of the authors. For example, Ecclesiastes is traditionally thought to have been authored by Solomon himself. Thus, many of the experiences listed in the book are likely his own. In such a case, Solomon presents sound reason based upon his own experience, to which readers may or may not relate but should observe as godly truth. While it took a lifetime of experiences for Solomon to gain understanding in the areas about which he writes, the wisdom of the text allows believers to avoid learning those truths in such a difficult way.

            To properly interpret wisdom literature, the readers should be mindful of the broad scope. The wisdom genre may not give explicit commands but instead propose to the reader the benefit of godly choices in a plurality of circumstances. Therefore, interpretation should be gained in a broad way, i.e. the interpreter should not mistake single portions of wisdom literature for specific directions for individual believers but rather as broad recommendations based on the author’s experience.

Poetry

            Poetry holds the purpose of praise, worship, and often liturgy and prayer. The Psalms, for example, might be considered the hymnal of Israel. The New Testament, in fact, references the Psalms as usage in liturgical and worship settings (Eph 5:19). Biblical books in the category of poetry would be Psalms, Song of Solomon, and Lamentations. While Lamentations takes a disparate approach in the usage of poetry than Psalms and Song of Solomon, it is poetry often in the form of prayer. Poetry, nevertheless, may be found in other biblical books. The Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55), for example, is a form of poetry set within the bounds of Luke’s Gospel. Poetry employs metaphor to paint a picture in its aim, e.g. lament, praise, prayer, etc.

            To properly interpret poetry, the reader should consider the aspect of metaphor significantly. David, in Psalm 18:2, for example, compares God to a rock. The reader should not take such a comparison literally, for it is a use of metaphor. God is the David’s spiritual rock and fortress. Furthermore, Solomon compares his love’s neck to the tower of David (Song 4:5). Such a comparison also is not literal but a figure of speech in metaphor. The reader should look beyond the metaphor itself to the point the author desires to make. Rather than taking poetry literally, the interpreter should approach the text from a broad perspective with a specific use. Whether the poetry is intended for lament, praise, or prayer, poetry conveys an intentional use of language and often expands literal truth to a hyperbolic picture to achieve a specific aim.

Prophecy

            Biblical prophecy has the purpose of giving a specific message to a specific people during a specific era. The prophet is a messenger from God preaching a message and giving people the opportunity to repent. Nonetheless, New Testament and Old Testament prophecies should be distinguished by the interpreter. It is helpful to examine New Testament prophecies next to Old Testament prophecies, i.e. looking back to determine what has been fulfilled. As an example, Isaiah vividly describes the Messiah who would save his people from their sin (Isa 53). New Testament writings reveal the fulfilling of the Messiah in Jesus Christ.

            It would be incorrect to consider prophetic writings as merely foretelling the future, for prophecies present a message from God that, although intended for a specific group of people in a specific era, is relevant to God’s people throughout history. A common theme in prophetic writings is the message of repentance. God often gives people a choice to repent or face the consequences of disobedience, i.e. the Day of the Lord. Most Old Testament prophecies were preached to God’s people: Israel. Nevertheless, there subsist Old Testament prophecies for other groups of people. Jonah, for example, was called to proclaim a message of repentance to the people of Nineveh. After first disobeying God, he reluctantly went to Nineveh and preached. The people of Nineveh repented, causing God to relent in his destruction of them. Jonah’s message then should be interpreted as the extension of God’s words to the people of Nineveh and yet one which is broadly relevant to all people.

            Prophecies should additionally be interpreted with the realization that God’s final revelation to his people has already been given through the canon of Scripture. That is to say that no further revelation exists. Therefore, any word classified as prophesy in the current era should be a mere proclamation of what has already been presented in the Bible. While New Testament and Old Testament prophecies are disparate in nature, the two are similar in that they testify to Jesus Christ and his work among his people.

Gospels and Parables

            The gospel genre consists of firsthand accounts of the life of Christ during his ministry on earth.[2] There exist four gospel writings in the Bible: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. John is the most unique in literary form. The other three Gospels are known as the Synoptic Gospels. Accounts within these three writings are often similar and sometimes verbatim. The purpose of gospel literature is to declare the earthly life of Jesus Christ, his work, his miracles, his miraculous birth, his death, and his resurrection from the dead.

            In interpreting gospel texts, the reader should be aware of the audience to whom Jesus speaks and the type of speech he gives. Jesus commonly speaks in parables, which are not necessarily true stories, although they certainly could occur. Parables, nonetheless, are stories Jesus uses to provide a lesson to his audience. Parables usually contain some aspect about the kingdom of God. Interpreters should be careful to examine parables as fictitious stories, which offer a lesson rather than historical accounts.

            Moreover, gospel texts point the reader directly to the central focus of the entire Bible: Jesus Christ. The prophets testify to Christ; biblical historical literature point to the Messiah who would redeem the people of God; and throughout the Old Testament subsists types of the one who would come in Christ Jesus. The gospel message itself and indeed the entire Bible revolve around the person and work of Jesus Christ. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, therefore, boldly and vividly tell of who he is from firsthand accounts.

Epistles

            Epistles claim a far more theological tone than do the other biblical genres. Working knowledge of languages, setting, and background are crucial to properly interpreting epistles. Most of the New Testament books are epistles; therefore, examining the New Testament in its entirety should involve the realization of theological premises. Unique to the epistles is the fact that despite specific instruction for specific groups of people, e.g. the Church at Corinth, the theological truth epistles possess reach broadly across all of Christianity. Epistles are often penned as letters to churches or people and should be interpreted with such in mind.
            Epistles are specific in that they are often written in response to a specific circumstance and expect a response from that audience to such a circumstance. Most epistle writings come from Paul; yet, there are other epistle letters as well. Epistles support the overarching focus of the Bible: the person and work of Jesus Christ. Nonetheless, epistles also address difficult theological topics and concepts. Much of the content of epistle texts has been debated by theologians for centuries and still does not have a broad resolution to the diversity of thought and opinion, which is why interpretation of epistles demands attention to details such as audience, context, background, and language.

Apocalyptic

            The genre of apocalyptic writing is perhaps one of the most misunderstood genres in the Bible. Where prophesy declares a message to a group of people with the intention of repentance, apocalyptic literature indeed proclaims future events, often in the context of end times. Most apocalyptic literature was composed during the latter days of the Old Testament, in the intertestamental period, and at the end of the New Testament. Some Old Testament prophetic literature includes elements of apocalypse, e.g. Joel, Amos, Zechariah, and Daniel. Most people, however, seem to think primarily of Revelation regarding apocalyptic writing. Revelation certainly stands as uniquely apocalyptic in nature. Nonetheless, Revelation is not the only apocalyptic book; the latter prophets also often speak of eschatological events.

A common thread running through all apocalyptic literature is symbolism. The interpreter should be careful not to elevate symbolism to literality but should instead determine the meaning behind the symbolism. Additionally, one should realize that apocalyptic writers often saw visions occurring in the future and wrote with the best description possible given their own limited knowledge in their era of time. Therefore, apocalyptic literature is contextual in two ways: 1) the text was composed thousands of years before the future events described and 2) the best description of future events possible is blurred and hazy at best.

Lest one consider the apocalyptic genre to be mere entertaining stories, the genre itself should be understood to have the purpose of declaring what is to come upon the return of Christ. For God’s people, apocalyptic messages should be hopeful; for those who do not know Christ, however, the genre is suggestive of a warning and a call to repentance before it is too late.

A Call to Every Believer for Precise Hermeneutics

            Everyone has a hermeneutic whether from personal context, past instructors, or background and tradition. Certainly, those external factors which impact one’s hermeneutic may changer over a span of time; yet, there does not exist an uninterpreted text, lesson, or commentary. The believer’s goal in hermeneutics then should be to interpret the biblical text as precisely as possible by understanding the text first and foremost but also the grid of external factors and literary genres through which the text is written. Whether a theologian, a pastor, or a lay-person, the call to every believer in understanding the scriptures is excellence and precision in hermeneutics.



[1] Gospel writings might be considered narrative but also hold their own unique genre called gospel, which will be discussed later in the paper.

[2] Parables are stalwartly connected to gospel literature so the two genres are approached here together.

Sunday, October 11, 2020

THE GOD WHO GOES BEFORE US


The God Who Goes before Us

Exodus 33:12-17 (ESV)

Moses' Intercession

12 Moses said to the Lord, “See, you say to me, ‘Bring up this people,’ but you have not let me know whom you will send with me. Yet you have said, ‘I know you by name, and you have also found favor in my sight.’ 13 Now therefore, if I have found favor in your sight, please show me now your ways, that I may know you in order to find favor in your sight. Consider too that this nation is your people.” 14 And he said, “My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest.” 15 And he said to him, “If your presence will not go with me, do not bring us up from here. 16 For how shall it be known that I have found favor in your sight, I and your people? Is it not in your going with us, so that we are distinct, I and your people, from every other people on the face of the earth?”

17 And the Lord said to Moses, “This very thing that you have spoken I will do, for you have found favor in my sight, and I know you by name.”

            When God calls his people to a task, he also provides for them. That is to say that God will never lead someone to a place for which has not already prepared them. Moses’ encounter with God, in this passage, illustrates the assurance all believers have that God goes with them. In fact, Moses indicates that he refuses to go anywhere God will not go with him (v. 15). How often do we make excuses to accomplish a task to which God has called us out of fear that we are not prepared, that we will fail, or that God will fail us? The polar-opposite is true, especially regarding God ever failing us; he has never failed and never will and is, in fact, incapable of failure. To be people of obedience, we must be people who trust in God’s certain provision and who lean not on our own understanding (Prov 3:5) but on the mission to which God has called us. It is not that he has never failed us yet but that he has never and will never fail us period. May we ever seek his guidance and obey him with full confidence that he goes before us and prepares the way.

DEPENDENCE ON GOD


Philippians 3:4-14

though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— 10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

Straining Toward the Goal

12 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. 13 Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

            I believe most people, despite what they say or think, have the luxury of depending on themselves in life (or so they think). Said another way, most people can rely on their own gifts and abilities to accomplish what they believe God calls them to do. I know few people of whom such is not true; I am one of them for various reasons. This is not to diminish anyone’s skill or ability but to offer a glimpse into the hearts of humans. We may say that we depend completely on God; yet, we do not internalize the truth that we have nothing apart from him. It is only when we are brought to our rope’s end that we realize our complete dependence on God. I can relate to what Paul says here. He lists his accomplishments and worth in the flesh; yet, in God’s economy, none of this matters, for God examines the heart (1 Sam 16:7). Let us be careful to avoid pride and the foolish thought that we do not depend on God or only depend on him for a little, for reality is that we literally depend on God for everything. Thank him for his grace and live in the reality that nothing good is from yourself in any way, shape, or form.

Saturday, October 3, 2020

COVENANT DOCTRINE AND THEOLOGY

 Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

Covenant Doctrine and Theology

Both Scripture and human history are replete with derivatives of covenant and (especially) God’s covenant with his people. The old covenant and new covenant are commonly considered in covenant theology; yet, framed within the bounds of the old covenant are also individual covenants, e.g. the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant, and the Davidic covenant. The aim of this paper is to secure a theology of covenant in an overarching manner. Preceding the covenant of grace between God and his people and that upon which it is founded is the covenant of redemption between the three members of the Godhead. Stemming then from such a covenant is the covenant of grace, which encompasses both God’s sovereign plan and the responsibility of humankind. Upon this covenant of grace rests the entirety of God’s workings. Therefore, the foundation of God’s work throughout human history is his covenant with his people. Realizing the foundational doctrine of covenant is vital to the Christian faith and life in Christ, for covenant subsists as the foundation of Christian faith.

The Covenant of Redemption: The Foundation of Grace

            In the Exodus narrative, God acts based not primarily upon the prayers of his people but upon the covenant he made with them (Exod 2:23-25)[1]. While various covenants subsist throughout the Old Testament, John Calvin asserts, “after the fall, there is only one covenant: the covenant of grace. This, however, presents itself in the progressive unfolding of the Abrahamic covenant. The Mosaic, Davidic, and new covenants are but a progressive revelation of what Yahweh initiated with the patriarchs” (Macedo, 2016, p. 121). God’s covenant with his people, i.e. the covenant of grace, then might be viewed as manifested through various individual Old Testament covenants and then finalized and made permanent through the new covenant in Christ. Nonetheless, a reformed formulation of not only the covenant of grace but the covenant of redemption, or pactum salitus (Bird, 2016, p. 5), provides the foundation upon which God’s covenant of grace rests. The view that in eternity past, the three members of the Godhead made a pact with one another as to how the redeemed people would be saved was formulated during the era of Puritan, John Owen (Bird, 2016, p. 5), but also holds biblical support primarily in the book of John based on Christ’s common mention of the work which the Father sent him to do. The pact between the three members of the Godhead then (or the covenant of redemption) is foundational to God’s work in his covenant of grace with his people.

            Whereas the covenant commonly considered by most believers is the overarching covenant of grace, of which a plurality of manifestations subsist in the biblical narrative, the covenant of redemption, often referred to as the (Latin) pactus salitus, differs in that it is the pact made in eternity past between all three members of the Godhead regarding how the chosen people (the church) would be redeemed; the covenant of redemption, therefore, precedes the covenant of grace and is, in fact, the basis for the covenant of grace. The basis for the covenant of redemption, however, is the three-way love relationship between the Father, Son, and Spirit.

“[John] Owen often speaks of the Father as the fountainhead of the Trinity; therefore, the Father’s distinct work ad intra (though never separate from the other members) is as the master designer of creation and salvation” (Rippee, 2016, pp. 89-90). In the covenant of redemption then, out of love for the Son, the Father gives a people; out of love for the Father, the Son redeems the people; and out of love for both the Father and the Son, the Spirit calls, convicts, and guides the people. All actions are born of and based upon love between members of the triune Godhead for each other.

            One might question the biblical basis for such a covenant. “During the post-Reformation era, English Puritan theologians developed an exegetical theology of the covenant of redemption, in part because earlier writers were ‘generally silent about this mysterious transaction: but Scriptures are very pregnant and evident” (Parr, 2020, p. 55). Nonetheless, by right admission, there does not exist explicit references to the covenant of redemption; it is, however, a central part of reformed theology.

Although the term “Covenant of Redemption” is not a biblical designation, the teaching that, from before the creation of the world, the persons of the Trinity entered into a solemn pact to accomplish the work of redemption, the Father promising to give a people to the Son as his inheritance, the Son undertaking to accomplish their redemption, and the Spirit covenanting to testify to Christ, and apply his redemption to his people's hearts, is most evidently biblical. Thus, according to the divine testimony, the Lamb was already considered as “slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev 13:8) so certainly was the agreement to accomplish redemption established before history (Monergism).

Additionally, there subsists biblical support for the covenant of redemption by way of inference. Psalm 2, for example, “depicts Christ relating the terms of the Covenant that the Father had established with him. Isaiah 53:10-12 also speaks of the covenantal agreement between the Father and the Son in the accomplishing the work of redemption; and Ephesians 1:3-14 gives a trinitarian picture of the roles that each person of the Godhead undertook from eternity to perform” (Monergism). Many, however, view the gospel of John as the clearest portrait which points to the covenant of redemption, as Jesus repeatedly speaks of the work given to him by the Father, e.g. John 5:17-31, 36-37, 43; 6:37-40, 57; 7:28-29, 38-39; 8:16-19, 26-29, 38, 42, 49-54; 9:4; 10:14-18, 25-30, 36-38; 12:23-28, 44-50; 13:3, 20, 31-32; 14:9-14, 16-20, 24-26; 15:8-15, 24-27; 16:7-16, 27-28; 17 (Monergism).

            The remainder of the text here will focus on the covenant of grace; yet, to understand covenant, believers must understand that all triune God’s workings rest upon the foundation of his own glory and the threefold love relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The covenant of grace (or the pact between God and his people), therefore, is founded primarily upon the preceding covenant of the Godhead in eternity past. Lest humans supersede the glory of God by elevating their own importance, God’s love for his people is derived from his love for himself, i.e. the manner which God glorifies himself is by loving the bride of Christ beyond measure. Covenant is the foundation of God’s work and the covenant of redemption the foundation of the covenant of grace.

God’s Sovereignty: The Unconditional Promise of God’s Covenant

            God’s covenant with his people is referenced in Romans 9:14-16, which makes clear the fact that God’s covenant is unconditional, i.e. no matter what his people have or have not done, he is merciful toward them. Understanding the text of these verses ameliorates the understanding one has of God’s unconditional promise in the bounds of his covenant.

            The Apostle Paul seems to emphasize the sovereignty of God here in his letter to the Romans. In saying, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” (Rom 9:15), God’s sovereignty in his covenant is made clear. Though it might be easy to consider the various manifestations of God’s covenant throughout Scripture as separate individual covenants, each covenant is truly a manifestation of God’s overarching covenant of grace, which was finalized and made permanent in the new covenant.

The essential nature of the new covenant is nowhere more clearly articulated than in Jeremiah 31:31–34. In fact, it is the only Old Testament text to utilize the term new covenant. The writer to the Hebrews, quoting this verse at length, teaches that this covenant has been inaugurated in the blood of Christ, finding fulfillment in the church (Heb. 8:8–12; 10:16–17) (Thompson, 2019, p. 25).

In this manner, each individual biblical covenant, e.g. the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant, the Davidic covenant, etc. should be considered as parts of a whole. As circumcision was the physical sign of the Abrahamic covenant, (Gen 17:11) the argument could be made that baptism has become the sign of grace in the new covenant. Whereas the new covenant is better than the old covenant, (Heb 8:6) baptism is a better sign since it does not depend on either gender nor genealogy, i.e. no longer must God’s people come from a particular heritage and no longer is the sign reserved only for males; God’s people are cleansed in Jesus Christ and signify their spiritual death in the ordinance of baptism.

            In both the old covenant and new covenant, God acts sovereignly, i.e. he employs his grace according to what will glorify him. What Paul’s words, in Romans 9:14-16, therefore, emphasize is God’s sovereign role in his covenant with his people. Such an understanding, however, should not yield a false understanding that humankind holds no responsibility, for a covenant implies a pact between two parties. Nevertheless, God’s saving works exist for his own glory. His covenant with his people, therefore, is unconditional, i.e. not based on anything they have or have not done. God’s unconditional promises precede the parts of the covenant which are conditional and are indeed the foundation upon which his love for his people rests. Lest Christians assume they are saved because of anything they may do, it should be eternally realized that God is sovereign in his covenant and indeed initiates such a pact between himself and his people.

Humankind’s Responsibility: The Conditional Promise of God’s Covenant

            Since covenant lies as the foundation of God’s work throughout human history, a properly rounded view of the topic should be understood by Christians. Joshua 24:14-28 provides an account of God’s people given a choice to follow him or not, which is to suggest that although God is sovereign in his unconditional covenant, humankind still has the responsibility to respond, i.e. the conditional promises of God’s covenant. Understanding this passage in Joshua yields the necessary understanding of the paradox that God’s covenant is both unconditional and conditional; God is sovereign and humankind concurrently responsible.

Christian theologians had long emphasized two main covenants at work in the Bible: (1) the covenant of works whereby the chosen people of Israel, through obedience to God’s law, are promised eternal salvation and blessing; and (2) the covenant of grace whereby the elect, through faith in Christ’s incarnation and atonement, are promised eternal salvation and beatitude (Witte, 2018, pp. 283-284).

While God’s covenant with his people then holds the aspect of his sovereign choice, Christians are also given a responsibility in the covenant. Aaron Clay Denlinger offers the following explanation in reconciling the unconditional and conditional aspects of God’s covenant:

The covenant of God in general is a promise of grace under some settled condition. The legal covenant is the promise of eternal life under the condition of our own lawful works. The gratuitous covenant is the promise of both justice, which was lost through the Fall, and eternal life, under the condition of satisfaction for an offence committed, not a satisfaction of our own, but that rendered by Christ the mediator, which must nevertheless be apprehended by our faith (Denlinger, 2013, p. 202).

Christ’s mediating sacrifice, therefore, is not only the ultimate display of love but the final work in fulfilling the promise of covenant, for God’s people are incapable of obedience to the law.

            In discussing a historical understanding of covenant, Howard Marshall observes that Christian thinking in distinguishing between the old and new covenants is both instructive and ironic; it is ironic in that it merely serves as a footnote in early Christianity and instructive in that it clearly articulates the meaning Jesus gave to his own death (Saucy, 2014, pp. 344-345). Modern believers then have the luxury of a complete understanding of God’s covenant, for the topic has morphed to become not a mere footnote but a foundation of Christian theology and indeed God’s work throughout human history. Stalwartly linked to that understanding, however, is the understanding that God’s people hold responsibility which is compatible with God’s sovereign work in covenant.

            Paul discusses the law as a curse; yet, although God’s people are not capable of keeping his law, Christ has redeemed his bride from the curse by becoming a curse on her behalf (Gal 3:13). “Paul rejects the works of the law because of his anthropological conviction that humans are unable to fulfill the law” (Cowan, 2020, p. 211). The responsibility of Christians then is not to be saved by works of the law but to reflect the already-achieved redemption of Christ in the covenant of grace; the church is to live in light of who she is: a redeemed people.

            While Joshua 24:14-28 provides an account of old covenant people being given a choice to follow or reject the ways of the Lord, those redeemed in the new covenant hold the same responsibility but as a reflection of God’s character rather than an obligation for salvation. God is certainly sovereign in his covenant work; yet, God’s people also have responsibility; and the two ideas are mysteriously compatible. Covenant implies a pact between two parties. In the covenant of grace, God initiates a relationship with his people and his people respond in faith to him, both actions providing the foundation of Christian faith.

Covenant: The Foundation of Faith

            Covenant is foundational to the Christian faith in that upon the covenant of redemption rests the covenant of grace and upon the covenant of grace rests the entire Christian faith and God’s work in the lives of his people. The foundation of God’s work throughout human history is his covenant with his people. God’s sovereign initiation of covenant is still compatible with the responsibility of his people in the covenant of grace. Additionally, the foundational covenant between God and his people is supported by and derived from the pact made in eternity past between the three members of the Godhead. The vitality of covenant then should not be diminished in the Christian faith, for covenant is the basis of God’s work throughout human history.

References

Bird, Benedict (2016). The Covenant of Redemption According to John Owen and Patrick Gillespie. Foundations, Vol. 70, 5-30.

Cho, Youngchun (2017). A Study of Puritan Covenant Theology. Puritan Reformed Journal, Vol. 9 (No. 2), 191-210.

Cowan, Andrew J. (2020). The Curse of the Law, the Covenant, and Anthropology in Galatians 3:10-14: An Examination of Paul’s Use of Deuteronomy 27:26. Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 139 (No. 1), 211-229.

Denlinger, Aaron Clay (2013). Robert Rollock on Covenant and Sacrament. Reformation and Renaissance Review: Journal of the Society for Reformation Studies, Vol. 15 (No. 2), 199-211.

Dumbrell, William J. (2013). Covenant and Creation: An Old Testament Covenant Theology. London: Paternoster.

Gentry, Peter J. and Stephen J. Wellum (2015). God’s Kingdom through God’s Covenants: A Concise Biblical Theology. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

Is there a biblical basis for the Covenant of Redemption. Retrieved from https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/covredemp.html.

Macedo, Breno (2016). Covenant Theology in the Thought of John Calvin: From the Covenant of Works to the Abrahamic Covenant. Fides Reformata, Vol. 21 (No. 1), 121-148.

O’Donnell III, Laurence R. (2012). The Holy Spirit’s Role in John Owen’s “Covenant of the Mediator” Formulation: A Case Study in Reformed Orthodox Formulations of the Pactum Salitus. Puritan Reformed Journal, Vol. 4 (No. 1), 91-115.

Parr, Thomas (2020). English Puritans and the Covenant of Redemption: The Exegetical Arguments of John Flavel and William Strong. Puritan Reformed Journal, Vol. 12 (No. 1), 55-74.

Rippe, Ryan L. (2016). John Owen on the Work of God the Father. Puritan Reformed Journal, Vol. 8 (No. 2), 86-103.

Robertson, Palmer O. (1980). The Christ of the Covenants. USA: O. Palmer Robertson.

Saucy, Mark (2014). Personal Ethics of the New Covenant: How Does the Spirit Change Us? Evangelical Quarterly, Vol. 86 (No. 4), 343-357.

Thompson, Nicholas J. (2019). Infant Baptism and the Unbreakability of the New Covenant. Puritan Reformed Journal, Vol. 11 (No. 1), 25-39.

Witte, John (2018). The Marital Covenant in John Calvin’s Geneva. Political Theology, Vol. 19 (No. 4), 282-299.



[1] All biblical references are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible unless otherwise noted.