JUDGING THE IMPACT OF THE REFORMATION

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

Judging the Impact of the Reformation

Future generations tend to possess greater insight into the impact of significant movements throughout history. With the advantage of seeing the events in hindsight, such movements may be analyzed and considered based on their both benefits and drawbacks. The Protestant Reformation is such a movement which may be considered with the advantage of future knowledge. To properly judge the impact of the Reformation, one must consider both positive and negative impacts, of which there certainly subsist both. Three primary areas of impact that should be considered are 1) the Reformation’s impact on congregational worship participation, 2) division in the church, and 3) exaggerated reform beyond what was necessary at the time. The positive and negative impacts of the Reformation aid in rightly judging its impact on the church both during its era and in the centuries to come.

Congregational Worship Participation

            An apparent impact of the Protestant Reformation is that which it has had on congregational worship. Prior to the Reformation, worship participation through singing was not only discouraged but not allowed in the church. The Reformation, however, brought positive changes to Christian worship by encouraging congregational participation through singing (Mac, 2020, p. 15), prayer, and the public reading of Scripture. “Emphasis on vernacular language opened the Bible and theology to the common man” (Mac, 2020, p. 30). While the Holy Scripture was set in vernacular languages prior to the Reformation, the publication of the Luther Bible in 1534[1] enjoyed the most popularity among Christians. Martin Luther (1483-1546 AD) employed action on what was seemingly a tipping point in church history; rather than claiming sole responsibility for reform in the church, Luther aided in the spread of Reformation thought and action.

            Congregational participation became vital to Christian worship during the Reformation. While Catholics have loosened their own regulations on congregational participation today, the concept grew during the Reformation.

The establishment of an enduring choral tradition is one of the hallmarks of the Lutheran Reformation. One of the key motivators for the development of such a distinctive devotional tradition that placed music and singing at the center of its worship and teaching was undoubtedly the personal affinity Martin Luther had for music (Loewe, 2013, p. 69).

Luther, a hymn-writer himself, wrote texts and composed tunes designed for congregational participation in the vernacular language, i.e. German for himself and his congregants. In fact, Luther’s excommunication from the Catholic Church likely gave him greater opportunity to employ such congregational participation among his future congregants.

            The goal of Christian worship among Protestants during the Reformation was active participation with a focus on the teaching of Scripture. For the Reformers, right Christian worship implied a return to the centrality of Scripture (Mac, 2020, p. 29). Luther’s goal was not a chasm within the church but a reform of what was practiced and a return to the purity of Christian faith. In fact, the division occurring during the Reformation saddened Martin Luther. Nonetheless, with the Reformation already in motion, it was too late to correct its course. Thus, reform came from the Protestants rather than the Catholics. The teaching of the Bible, i.e. the sermon became the central focus of Christian worship, whereas Catholic worship took on a more sacramental nature. In fact, the Lutheran model only kept two of the sacraments instead of the seven employed by Catholics: Communion and Baptism (Maag, 2017). Even the Lutheran Mass itself did not utilize all five parts of the Ordinary but only the Kyrie and the Gloria. J.S. Bach’s (1685-1750 AD) famed B-Minor Mass is significant in that the composer includes all five parts of the Mass Ordinary, although he was Lutheran himself. In such changes, it is evident that the Reformation gave rise to the centrality of Scripture and a move away from strict legalism and formality in Christian worship.

            The Reformation saw necessary shifts in Christian worship in the way of congregational participation. Where worship participation was previously reserved for the elite, educated, and only church leaders, the Reformation’s impact on Christian worship has been significant. Even now congregational participation seems to be typical and was eventually adopted by Catholics. Although no longer distinctly Protestant, the Bible taught in the vernacular language, songs sung by the congregation in the vernacular language, and congregational participation is a drastic impact of the Reformation and one that Luther (among other Reformers) saw to be necessary.

Further Division in the Church

            A seemingly negative impact of the Reformation is the vast division caused. Even for Luther, when he returned to Wittenberg from Wartburg Castle, “he found the reform had moved more quickly and radically than desired or could be sustained” (Mac, 2020, p. 24). Luther’s goal, when he posted his 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenberg (1517 AD), was not to divide the church but rather to unify her by reform, i.e. return to the basics of Christian faith. “The most important distinction for Luther’s political thought was between the lower and the higher capacities of man (nature and reason) on the one hand and grace and revelation on the other” (Mac, 2020, p. 24). Perhaps, Luther lived during a time when enough people were ready for change that his qualms with Rome began an unexpected movement throughout Europe. In an unfortunate sense, however, the church as known at the time, became perhaps further divided than ever before.

            Certainly, reform was necessary in certain areas. For example, the disallowance of priestly marriage was challenged by Luther, as he eventually married as a Protestant. In this area, Luther’s impact continued through future generations. Of John Calvin’s (1509-1564 AD) marital covenant, John Witte Jr. writes:

Building on a generation of Protestant reforms before him, Calvin constructed a comprehensive new theology and law that made marital formation and dissolution, children’s nurture and welfare, family cohesion and support, and sexual sin and crime essential concerns for both church and state. He drew the Consistory and Council of Geneva into a creative new alliance to guide and govern the reformation of the domestic sphere (Witte, 2018, p. 282).

One might question, however, whether the necessity for reform was more important than the necessity of unity. Church history reveals that from the point of the Protestant Reformation, the church has continually divided into more sects with finer distinctions than their predecessors. Secondary issues have become primary issues in many cases and have seemed to cause further division in the body of Christ. Believers should consider the benefits of the Reformation but also the costs and if they were worth the outcome.

            Reformers challenged a plurality of thoughts exuded by the Roman Catholic Church during the Reformation, many of them giving their lives for doing so; yet, the desired reforms were necessary. Perhaps, the cost of reform (namely division in the church), however, could have been avoided. One may only speculate if another solution could have been employed rather than total separation from the Catholic Church. In fact, what occurred because of the Reformation does not seem to represent the New Testament and 1^st-century church. With all the positive impacts of the Reformation, the further division in the body of Christ, which the movement brought, is among the least desired outcomes.

Exaggerated Reform beyond What Was Necessary

            Martin Luther understood the necessity of church reform, which is why he challenged the Catholic Church with not only the posting of his 95 Theses but also his teachings and sermons. When he discovered the drastic consequence the movement had in Wittenberg and across Europe, however, he grew discouraged, for what seemed to be overreach was not what he desired. “Reformation in Switzerland emphasized elements other than those championed by Luther. Far from being monolithic, the Protestant Reformation spawned many offshoots” (Mac, 2020, p. 9). In what would seem to be greater division and separation not only from the Catholic Church but also from other Protestant groups, finer miniscule differences caused more splits.

John Calvin came from a legal background and stressed the sovereignty of God. He became a formidable force in the Reformation, molding Reformed theology. Zwingli advanced a view of the Lord's supper that is reflected in New Testament language. The Anabaptists rediscovered immersion of adults as the proper design of baptism. The Anglicans favored many Catholic practices without the hierarchy. The Protestant states varied in their attitudes toward monasteries, but there was general agreement among the Protestants that monastic life was a mistaken form of Christian life (Mac, 2020, p. 9).

Although he held his own theological beliefs on secondary issues, Luther’s opinions favored a basic return to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. Such was his purpose in proposing reform. What occurred, however, was an unstoppable movement of believers who reformed even secondary doctrines and extrabiblical thought. In fact, “the Protestant Reformation has been cited by scholars of European history as contributing to the rise of nationalism, individualism, capitalism, and secularism” (Trepanier, 2010, p. 206). Luther’s reformed arguments emphasize fundamental Christian doctrine rather than the futility of secondary and extrabiblical issues.

Where most of Europe saw drastic responses to reform, English Reformers took a more subtle approach. “The early English Reformers were Catholic in their tastes, or at least eclectic…” (Rex, 1999, p. 39). The impact of the Reformation, therefore, was largely dependent on geographical location. It could be suggested that what occurred in the English Reformation is perhaps closer to what Luther desired in Wittenberg and the surrounding areas of Europe. In non-English-speaking areas:

what began as a “protest” became an advocacy for a new understanding of religious authority and Christian practice. The impact of the Reformation continues to be felt. Its tenets of faith ring loud and clear, even in a world that has gone through many revolutions of thought since the 16^th century (Mac, 2020, p. 9).

            Reformers surely desired changes in church doctrine and practice, none more than the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther. Nonetheless, from Luther’s teachings, writings, and actions, the exaggeration of reform saddened him, as his desire was for greater unity rather than division. Even Protestants held their differences in doctrinal issues. For example, while all Protestants opposed the Catholic Church, teaching salvation by faith alone, Calvin extended the doctrine to include that of predestination, which certainly caused further rifts in the church, even among Protestants. Anabaptists’ belief on immersion further separated the body of Christ by creating yet another group of Protestants. What was a good intention of the Reformation then, namely reform of fundamental issues, became exaggerated to the point of causing what seems to be further disunity. Considering the impact of the Reformation in this regard, it is right, therefore, to weigh the benefits against the detriments.

Overarching Judgment of the Reformation’s Impact

            The impact of the Reformation may be seen from both positive and negative perspectives depending on the topic considered. It is right, understanding centuries of knowledge post-Reformation, to judge the overarching impact of the movement, its strengths and weaknesses, and whether or not another solution would have been better. Certainly, one’s personal background influences his or her thought of the Reformation’s impact. Even Luther himself experienced questions regarding what occurred because of his 95 Theses. The three primary areas discussed here offer a compact and precise standard by which to judge the impact of the Reformation. The development’s sway on congregational worship, church unity (or lack thereof), and the level of reform should be deliberated when making a judgment. As with many historical events, one may point to both positives and negative results. The sum of all impacts, however, affords one the opportunity to make a right judgment on the outcomes of the Reformation and whether it was overall advantageous or damaging to the body of Christ.

References

Brooke, Sebastian (2004). Reformation Rhetoric: The Genealogye of Heresye. Reformation and Renaissance Review, Vol. 6 (No. 3), 374-393.

Lee, Trepanier (2010). The Protestant Revolution in Theology, Law, and Community. Political Science Reviewer, Vol. 39, 206-231.

Loewe, Andreas J. (2013). Why Do Lutherans Sing? Lutherans, Music, and the Gospel in the First Century of the Reformation. Church History, Vol. 28 (No. 1), 69-89.

Mac, Lynn (2020). [Course syllabus for MRS 411 The Reformation]. MRS 411 The Reformation, Nations University.

Maag, Karin (2017). The Reformation: What Did We Gain? What Did We Lose? Retrieved from https://www.thebanner.org/features/2017/09/the-reformation-what-did-we-gain-what-did-we-lose

Rex, Richard (1999). The Early Impact of Reformation Theology at Cambridge University, 1521-1547. Reformation and Renaissance Review: Journal of the Society for Reformation Studies, Issue 2, 38-71.

Searle, Joshua T. (2017). The Reformation in Ukraine and Russia and Its Relevance for Today. European Journal of Theology, Vol. 26 (No. 1), 55-64.

Steinmetz, David C. (2017). Things Old and New: Tradition and Innovation in Constructing Reformation Theology. Reformation and Renaissance Review, Vol. 19 (No. 1), 5-18.

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

Wootton, Janet, H. (2011). The Wilderness and Christian Song. International Congregational Journal, Vol. 10 (No. 1), 75-90.

---

[1] The New Testament was published earlier in 1522.

THREE TRUTHS EXPOSED IN THE RECENT US ELECTION

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

Three Truths Exposed in the Recent US Election

Today is the last Sunday after Pentecost or the last Sunday or Ordinary Time, also known as Christ the King Sunday. Next Sunday begins Advent. Today, however, is a day to recognize the authority of Christ over all dominion, i.e. all principalities and powers, human and otherwise. He is certainly the King whether people realize it or not; one day, however, all will recognize his kingship and bow to him. Believers should consider him King far above any king or ruler. In the United States, we just went through an important election. In considering Christ the King, the recent election has caused many to wonder if Christ truly is the King even in the lives of professing Christians. I believe the recent US election has exposed hard truths about American society with which we must grapple. For the scope here, I will point to three hard truths the recent US election has exposed in American society.

Idolatry

            First, idolatry has certainly been exposed through the recent US election, although such was likely seen by many even prior to the event. While many elections protrude hints of idolatry in American society, the most recent presidential election seemingly shed greater light on it than previous elections.[1] Leading up to that first Tuesday in November, the social media feeds, television commercials, and radio programming was inundated with ads paid for by campaigns attempting to criticize the opposite candidate. Often, these ads would not necessarily highlight the benefits of electing the advertising candidate but rather the negative aspects of the opposing person.

In my younger years, the Republican party seemed to hold a corner on the religious market in politics, i.e. it was assumed that Christians would vote for the Republican candidates.[2] In more recent years, however, both Democrats and Republicans (and often third parties) have claimed the Christian voting base. I would even suggest that the claim is equal across the aisle. What we have been given then is the assumption that a Christian should vote for one candidate or another on the sole basis of their party. In fact, it has become common for one party and supporters of one candidate to convey the idea that if the other is elected, society as we know it will meet its fate in a dire situation. Many of us even heard and read statements like, “How can you claim to be a Christian and vote for [insert candidate here]?” Such statements reveal the unwanted truth that most people in our society place their hope in someone or something other than God.

The seriousness of the first commandment should be considered by everyone who professes the name of Christ. Hope is not found in a politician no matter who they are. God is jealous (Exod 34:14) and demands consummate worship from his people and, in fact, all people (and will one day receive it from everyone). The fact that in the past two elections, people’s hopes and dreams appeared to be squashed completely because the candidate they did not like was elected reveals the idolatry that exists in our country even among those who claim to be followers of Christ. I do not intend to diminish the importance of having opinions and voting as American citizens; nonetheless, Americans have trusted in a false god: the god of politics and politicians. Elections have become a large game of competitive hockey in which one team boasts that they beat the other while the other practices for the next match by criticizing the opposing party for the next four years. Christians should be completely devoted to the worship of God, his glory, and the spread of his fame through the gospel. Whether people realize it or not, the recent US election has exposed many people’s idolatry in how they reacted to the outcome. Whether overjoyed or painfully despaired, one extreme or the other indicates people who falsely claim Christ as their God but truthfully idolize politicians and political parties.

Hypocrisy

            Secondly, the most recent US election has revealed the underlying truth of hypocrisy in the church. For the scope here, I submit three primary areas of hypocrisy in the church, which the recent US election has exposed: 1) hypocrisy on abortion, 2) hypocrisy on big government, and 3) hypocrisy on morality of candidates.

            I dare suggest that abortion is the single-most important issue facing our generation. The scope of this discussion is not abortion; it must, however, be mentioned. While many argue hypocrisy from the pro-life movement because they claim to be opposed to abortion yet neglect elements such as education, it should be realized that the other issues are not life issues but quality of life; one cannot have quality of life if life is not protected first. The hypocrisy on abortion, however, does not come from the left but from the right. Many claim to be pro-life and yet do little to nothing in the way of abolishing the heinous act. In fact, most Supreme Court justices when Roe vs. Wade was ruled were Republicans. Even now, it is common for politicians to claim a pro-life stance but fail to act on legislation that abolishes it. Many professing Christians hold to voting for a particular party because of their so-called pro-life stance when that party does nothing but regulate abortion rather than abolish it, which is why there exists a growing movement of abolitionists who separate themselves from the pro-life movement, which has become, in essence, an industry in itself. The recent election has exposed the hypocrisy of people who claim to be pro-life and yet continue to vote for candidates that have done and likely will do nothing on the issue of abortion.

            Another area of hypocrisy is found in the concept of big government. Republicans tend to claim a small government philosophy when they are essentially another side of the same coin. The reality is that debt has massively increased under the leadership of both parties, the deficit has increased, and government programs continue to rise to the point of controlling the American society. When enough people work for or gain their livelihood from some form of government, people will likely not vote themselves out of a job. For the Republican party to claim a small government mentality, two out of three of the biggest government decisions I have known in my lifetime have come from Republican leadership: the Patriot Act and legalizing civil forfeiture in the name of the war on drugs.[3] Those who pay attention realize that the Republican party is almost equally as big-government-minded as the Democrat party; yet, many professing Christians claim to vote for one party or the other because of their small-government philosophy.

            A third area of hypocrisy is the morality of candidates. Such hypocrisy is seen by all parties. In fact, both parties pointed to the opposing candidate as an immoral person while looking past the failures of their candidate. It has been said that Americans have had to vote for the lesser of two evils. The fact is that until Christ returns, people will always vote for the lesser of two evils. Moral failures are a part of human existence. If Christians desire to love like Christ, however, forgiveness is in order. It is also necessary to consider the failures of all candidates. Hypocrisy was revealed in the recent election not only by Christians pointing to the immortality of one candidate while looking past the other’s but also by failing to forgive as Christ forgives. May God gives us eyes like Christ, as we see people whom he loves and treat them as such. Everyone fails; how one responds to the failures of others, however, is telling about the spiritual condition of that person.

An Imperfect System

            A third item exposed through the recent US election is the imperfection of the electoral system. In suggesting this, I do not intend to diminish the greatness that is the United States, for the US system of government is far greater than others around the world. Anything apart from Christ and his kingdom, however, may only be imperfect no matter how good it is. Christians need to be okay with such a truth because until the church is with Christ after life on earth, his kingdom is seen only partially. The pitfalls of the US electoral system were revealed in the confusion after the election. Often, people have the idea that the United States Constitution is an infallible document. That title only belongs to holy Scripture. Even the documents of the United States’ founding fathers are replete with human errors. The system in which the US operates is good but imperfect, something with which believers must be okay, for God’s people should operate with the understanding that no matter how good something is, if it is of this world, it is temporary and may not be perfect, as only God’s kingdom is. The recent US election has shed light on this truth.

Christ is King, although Evidence in the American Church Suggests Otherwise

            If Christ is truly King of his people in the United States, believers must bear fruit that reveals such. The idolatry and hypocrisy of Christians (on all sides of the political aisle) suggest opposite of Christ the King. The recent US election has exposed these three truths highlighted here among others related to the American Christian subculture. Whether your candidate won or not, how you respond is telling of where lies your faith. Those who are exceedingly and disproportionately overjoyed and those who are equally in despair should examine that in which their hope lies. Such reactions are indicative of idolatry. God commands his people to worship and fear only him, for he alone is worthy of his people’s worship and fear. No matter a political situation, may Christians in the United States boldly declare that their hope is not in a political party, system, or candidate but only in Jesus Christ alone.

---

[1] I am willing to submit that such a revelation will only increase in the future.

[2] I do not suggest this to be right or wrong; I am merely making an observation.

[3] The other decision is the Affordable Care Act passed under democratic leadership and signed by President Obama.

LIVE PREPARED

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 (ESV) 

The Coming of the Lord

¹³ But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. ¹⁴ For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. ¹⁵ For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. ¹⁶ For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. ¹⁷ Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. ¹⁸ Therefore encourage one another with these words.

            It seems that many today believe the imminent return of Christ to be a sort of mythological story designed to scare people. The return of Christ, however, is certain; make no mistake that when the Father gives the command, Jesus will return whether people are ready or not. The Apostle Paul writes of Christ’s Second Coming here and paints a portrait of what will occur in that moment. Prior to this portrait, however, Paul pleads with his hearers so that they do not find themselves “uninformed” (v. 13). We too must prepare ourselves for what will surely happen. We may not be alive to see the return of Christ (or we may); either way, our preparedness is vital. Believers should live life as if Christ will return at any moment (because he will). The point of Paul’s words here is not to scare people but to give believers the hope that awaits. Beyond the amazing hope we possess now, we also hold to a future hope of our Messiah’s return, for he will return for his people to share in his glory and radiance as his redeemed bride. May the people of God stand blameless before him and live life on this earth in constant preparation and readiness for his imminent return.

THE FRUIT OF CHRIST: CHANGE FROM THE ROOT

 

The Fruit of Christ: Change from the Root

You Must Be Born Again

3 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. ² 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.” ³ 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.

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.

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.