Sunday, October 11, 2020

DEPENDENCE ON GOD


Philippians 3:4-14

4 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: 5 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; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. 7 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 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 9 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.

Saturday, September 26, 2020

ON REMEMBERING THE FAITHFULNESS OF GOD


On Remembering the Faithfulness of God

Water from the Rock

17 All the congregation of the people of Israel moved on from the wilderness of Sin by stages, according to the commandment of the Lord, and camped at Rephidim, but there was no water for the people to drink. 2 Therefore the people quarreled with Moses and said, “Give us water to drink.” And Moses said to them, “Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you test the Lord?” 3 But the people thirsted there for water, and the people grumbled against Moses and said, “Why did you bring us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our livestock with thirst?” 4 So Moses cried to the Lord, “What shall I do with this people? They are almost ready to stone me.” 5 And the Lord said to Moses, “Pass on before the people, taking with you some of the elders of Israel, and take in your hand the staff with which you struck the Nile, and go. 6 Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb, and you shall strike the rock, and water shall come out of it, and the people will drink.” And Moses did so, in the sight of the elders of Israel. 7 And he called the name of the place Massah and Meribah, because of the quarreling of the people of Israel, and because they tested the Lord by saying, “Is the Lord among us or not?”

            This account of God providing for the Israelites often reminds me of myself. I dare suggest that it should remind all of us of ourselves, for we too are people so easily swayed by circumstance and so easily forgetful of the promises of God. God had recently brought his people out of bondage in Egypt led by Moses; yet, they quarreled with him and made demands of him. Moses even suggests that they test the Lord (v. 2). To brilliantly reveal the patience and grace of our God, however, he provides for them in a miraculous manner by drawing water out of a rock of all instruments. This account affords us to further understand the patience and mercy of God as well as the ignorance and impatience of people. Faith in God is developed over the course of a lifetime and is not complete until his people are with Christ Jesus. Until then, we persistently struggle with faith and patience; yet, God is faithful and continuously transforms us into his image. We should not, however, neglect our responsibility in spiritual development. While we are imperfect, we should strive for a perfect faith in God. Let us not forget his promises and his faithfulness to us even when we have been unfaithful. God is good; let us then be a people who honor God and remember his works in our own lives and in the lives of numerous believers throughout human history.

Sunday, August 9, 2020

CONTINUITY AND INTEGRATION OF THE BIBLE WITH A FOCUS ON THE NEW TESTAMENT

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

Continuity and Integration of the Bible with a Focus on the New Testament

            Disparities of Scripture-reading and interpretation subsist within the life of the church. On one extreme, one may read mere portions of the Bible with preconceived notions and make grave errors in interpreting the text. On the other extreme, however, one may pursue scholarly excellence and yet still with preconceived notions, which lend themselves to a negative and even false interpretation. Regarding New Testament study, it is clear that its writings should be examined with the metanarrative of the entire Bible in mind.

            Culturally, the New Testament was written in a vastly different era and from an exceedingly different perspective than modern Western civilization. Often, Bible students are guilty of studying the New Testament in “much the same way as it would operate in our own society” (Malina, 2001, xi). Cultural perspectives are inevitable and, therefore, give every reader of the New Testament a hermeneutic, i.e. no uninterpreted extrabiblical text or commentary is possible to exist. The danger is that such interpretations are often the bedrock of shaping an entire people. Interpretation then should be as accurate and informed as possible.

            Discrepancies found in the New Testament are often boldly noted by critics; contrarily, those who only understand New Testament writings based on singular passages or verses run the risk of perpetuating and perhaps enhancing the arguments of those critics. The paradoxical issues of the New Testament may be reconciled, however, on the basis of its overarching thematic content and its continuity of such thematic material in content. In this essay, I will submit the basis for both the New Testament’s continuity and integration to conclude its persuasion by the resilience of the text.

Continuity in Quality

            The New Testament’s continuity primarily comes in the way of quality. To examine the New Testament properly is to consider it as a part of a whole, i.e. the metanarrative of the entire Bible must surely be considered when examining individual passages or even verses within the New Testament writings. When this occurs, paradoxical issues tend to become clearly connected and sensible to even the most skeptical of readers. Often, skeptics seem to disconnect New Testament writings from those of the Old Testament. Unless the New Testament is viewed in light of the entirety of Scripture, it will certainly seem disconnected. The foundational reasons for this are 1) the employment of metaphor in the New Testament and 2) the seeming chasm between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament; both include the same God; yet, the difference in the old covenant and the new covenant require reconciliation.

            The New Testament is replete with metaphorical writings. Even Jesus’ use of parables often includes metaphor. While metaphors could easily create the illusion of contradictions, determining what texts include metaphor and how to interpret them is vital to a proper understanding of New Testament continuity. Scripture often uses metaphor or even poetry to suggest a key theme. “…biblical poetry offers a precise language for focusing on the narrative’s central themes, themes that are extended throughout the plot—throughout the various actions of the characters—but then gathered and compacted together into poetic lines” (Whitlock, 2015, p. 87). Jesus claims to be the door (John 10:9). One would be a fool, however, to believe that his claim references a literal door. Although the dividing line between metaphor and literal interpretation could be blurry, I contend that most instances are clear; nonetheless, one must determine these instances to see the continuity of the New Testament.

            Further, the New Testament uses many metaphors to reveal an overarching theme within the framework of Christianity. The New Testament, for example, speaks of Jesus as light (1 John 1:5), as the shepherd (John 10), unbelief as darkness and night (John 3:19), and Christians as fruit-bearing trees (Matt 7:17-18) (Kamagaraj, 2006, pp. 121-122). When the use of metaphor is separated from the New Testament’s use of literality, one may more easily see and understand the continuity of quality that exists in its text.

            The second solution to understanding the New Testament’s continuity is reconciling the disparate approaches of the Old Testament God and the New Testament God. Both testaments include the same God; nothing about him changes (Heb 13:8). Arguments against Christianity often include references to Old Testament laws which do not seem to apply in the New Testament. One should, however, know and understand the threefold division of the law under the old covenant: the moral law, the ceremonial law, and the civil law. God’s moral law includes edicts which are transcendent through time as a part of his character; ceremonial and civil laws are not necessarily linked to God’s character. Such is the reason homosexuality is still considered to be sin in New Testament writings but eating (what was once considered) unclean food is no longer sinful (Acts 10:9-16). “Uncleanness is perceived in its essence as disorder, a threat to social harmony and decency, an element tolerable only at the margins, but preferably completely beyond the borders maintained by a society” (Passakos, 2002, p. 277). Such rules against eating unclean food were given by God for a specified time and people under Old Testament law and greatly (and perhaps unnecessarily) enhanced by religious leaders. Under the new covenant in Christ, however, laws like this, which are not connected to God’s character, are nullified and void.

            It is incorrect to say that God changed in the New Testament, for even under the new covenant, his wrath is understood to be given to those who do not receive Christ. Under Old Testament laws, ceremonial animal sacrifices were made in atonement for sin; under the new covenant, Christ has become the permanent and better atoning sacrificial lamb. Therefore, the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament is reconciled as the same God. Moreover, the Old Testament laws which are seemingly absent from the New Testament may be reconciled with an understanding of the complete plan of God, i.e. the finalized new covenant in Christ. In the new covenant, laws which were not connected to God’s character were fulfilled by Jesus (Matt 5:17); laws which are transcendent through time as a part of God’s character, however, remain in effect and should be employed by God’s people as an extension of his nature.

            New Testament paradoxes are seemingly problematic; yet, when examined considering the entirety of the Bible, the continuity in quality is evident. God’s complete plan of salvation is made evident through all writings in the Bible. Perspectives certainly vary, e.g. the disparate approaches of each gospel writers; yet, each perspective points to the same overarching theme: namely the lordship and deity of Jesus Christ around whom all of Scripture centers.

Integration of Christ the Son

            By way of integration, the New Testament centers around Christ, his lordship, and his Sonship. John’s Gospel even begins by presenting Jesus as the word from the beginning who made all things (John 1:1-2). The metanarrative of Scripture extends from Jesus, who he is, and his work in the lives of his people. All of Scripture then holds the same theme; even individual portions of the Bible ultimately point to Christ. “…this is what unified the two Testaments: it was not simply content, pulled apart from the seams of its narrative, but the narrative itself that was important” (Embry, 2002, p. 103). All content within the Bible centers around Christ. What the New Testament then does is offer God as a person: Jesus. While Christ is certainly present in the Old Testament, in the New Testament, the Christ is Jesus.

            Critics might point to a discrepancy between the means of salvation in the Old Testament and that of the New Testament. Nevertheless, “New Testament authors took over both the terminology and theological implications [of justification] from the Jewish heritage” (Popkes, 2005, 121); therefore, reconciliation is offered there. Furthermore, James seems to differ from Paul on the means of justification, for the author speaks of works in a significant manner. When James’ letter is examined closely, however, it becomes clear that his concept of works is that of what is derived from something deeper: namely justification by Christ alone.

            New Testament writings surely include paradoxes but paradoxes which are reconciled in light of the gospel and the entirety of the Bible. The overarching theme throughout the New Testament is Jesus Christ. While the details of New Testament paradoxes should certainly be addressed, one should not lose sight of the theme: Jesus, his lordship, and his Sonship. Christ the Son is replete throughout the New Testament. Thus, the integration thereof is certainly plain.

Persuasion by Resilience of the Text

            What the biblical canon has overcome historically is a feat of endurance in itself. The fact that the text has been preserved for thousands of years should grant readers a sense of security in its reliability. The resilience of the text speaks volumes to the accuracy and reliability of the New Testament. While various approaches are taken in interpreting Scripture, it is right for professing Christians to question those who ridicule the Bible and its legitimacy. “It is indisputable that the Holy Bible forms the basis and foundation of faith for all Christian churches and confessions. At the same time we cannot overlook the fact that with the passing of the centuries this foundation has continually suffered from various alterations, misinterpretations, and distortions” (Nikolakopoulos, 2002, 339). The New Testament holds a secure continuity in its quality, i.e. despite a plurality of paradoxes, reconciliation thereof is possible and necessary when the New Testament is read with the metanarrative of the gospel and of the entire Bible in mind. Additionally, the integration of Christ’s lordship and Sonship is replete throughout the New Testament writings as a resounding theme worthy to be studied, read, and believed. When New Testament seeming discrepancies are resolved, the reader must decide for himself or herself which course of action to take: believe on the name of Jesus for salvation or continue to reject the one who indisputably lived and died for the sins of his people.

References

Embry, Brad (2002). The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament: Intertextuality and the Need for a Re-Evaluation. Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 13 (No. 2), 99-136.

Enuwosa, Joseph (2005). African Cultural Hermeneutics: Interpreting the New Testament in a Cultural Context. Black Theology, 3:1, 88-98.

Epp, Eldon Jay (1974). The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism. Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 93 (No. 3), 386-414.

Kanagaraj, Jey J. (2006). Use of New Testament Metaphors in Mission. Transformation, Vol. 23 (No. 2), 118-128.

Kinyua, Johnson Kiriaku (2013). A Postcolonial Translation of Bible Analysis and Its Effectiveness in Shaping and Enhancing the Discourse of Colonialism and the Discourse of Resistance: The Gikuyu New Testament – A Case Study. Black Theology, Vol. 11 (No. 1), 58-95.

Malina, Bruce J. (2001). The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Nikolakopoulos, Konstantin (2002). An Orthodox Critique of Some Radical Approaches in New Testament Studies. Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 47 (1-4), 339-355.

Passakos, Demetrios, C. (2002). Clean and Unclean in the New Testament: Implications for Contemporary Liturgical Practices. Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 47 (1-4), 277-293.

Popkes, Wiard (2005). Two “Interpretations” of Justification in the New Testament Reflections on Galatians 2:15-21 and James 2:21-25. Studia Theologica, 59, 129-146.

Whitlock, Matthew G. (2015). Acts 1:15-26 and the Craft of New Testament Poetry. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 77, 87-106.

Saturday, August 1, 2020

THE SCOPE OF ROMANS 13

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

The Scope of Romans 13


Discussions of Romans 13 have arisen significantly considering the vast manifestations of executive orders that have been offered during the prevalence of COVID-19. I dare suggest that Romans 13, along with a few other passages and verses of Scripture, is one of the most misused scriptures in the entire biblical canon. Submission to authorities is vital to godliness; yet, the scope of Romans 13 is perhaps not what many understand.

            In the time Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, government was corrupt and even persecuted Christians. Paul, however, instructs believers to submit or be subject to the governing authorities. The Greek word for “be subject” is hupotasso, which literally means to place or rank under. The term implies an intentional effort. It is similar to what Paul commands believers in Philippians 2: to have the same mind as Christ Jesus, namely a mind of humility considering others better (Phil 2:5). These instructions do not mean that one certainly is less than another person but that Christians are to act as if that is the case, as Jesus did in his earthly ministry; no greater example of humility may be found except that of Christ Jesus. To be subject to the authorities then is to consider the governing bodies God ordained to be higher in rank.

            Understanding that being subject to the authorities is an explicit instruction given to God’s people, Romans 13 must be interpreted. Are Paul’s instructions part of a blanket command to blindly obey the governing authorities, or is the scope narrower? To answer this question, there are four primary elements to consider. I will examine these elements here and then determine the scope of Romans 13.

An Individual Basis Rather Than over the Church

            Paul begins his instructions in Romans 13 with, “Let every person…” (Rom 13:1), i.e. the Apostle is directing individuals rather than a group of people, although the letter was certainly written to a group of Christians. Christians (individually) are surely called to be subject to the governing authorities; yet, even Romans 13 is seemingly directed toward individuals rather than the church as a whole. Furthermore, as John MacArthur recently contended, the Bible nowhere grants the government authority over the church. In fact, the three institutions presented in the Bible are the government, the family, and the church; in Scripture, they seem to be separate from one another so that one does not control the other. When a government or executive issues a decree or order, individuals should comply assuming it is not unethical, immoral, or against the commands of God;[1] yet, employing such orders is the responsibility of individuals to comply rather than the church. When considering the scope of Romans 13, one’s hermeneutic must include the fact that the portion of Paul’s letter is addressed specifically to individuals in the church rather than the entire body. A church’s civil disobedience, in times in injustice, then is right. Determining when, nonetheless, is a matter of seeking the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

Romans 13 Assumes Just Laws

            In the scope of Romans 13, Paul obviously contends for a government which executes justice; yet, one might question what should be done in the case of unjust laws. Certainly, degrees of unjust laws subsist. Nonetheless, Romans 13 is not an overarching grant for the government to decree anything desired; nor, is it a requirement for Christians to blindly abide by such laws of injustice.[2] A recent example is the closure of public worship gatherings in local churches by many state and municipal governments. Christians hold the responsibility to determine whether such a decree is just or unjust.[3] Edicts which violate the commands of God should surely be considered unjust and offer believers the opportunity to stand and fight for the cause of the Lord.

I tend to err on the side of freedom when determining what is just and unjust. There are surely blatantly obvious injustices, e.g. murder, racism, etc.; nevertheless, there are also issues which are not as clear, e.g. forsaking the assembling for public worship, wearing masks, etc. (to use recent examples). The US Constitution was constructed with individual liberty in mind and, further, individual liberty based upon the liberty God affords; thus, it is based with Judeo-Christian principles at its foundation. My personal criteria for justice then leans toward decrees that do not violate individual liberty, not only those that include slightly inconvenient practices, i.e. to suggest that inconvenience does not constitute a violation of individual liberty is false, for the loss of freedom occurs slowly rather than rapidly.

While many in modern society, including professing Christians, would suggest futility in the practice of civil disobedience by the church, it is good and right to stand for the causes of the Lord and to even cause divisiveness (between the church and society) on such issues. Believers should remember the call to holiness or being set apart, i.e. a catering to society on issues which violate the commands of God is not only unnecessary but also wrong. Under just laws, Romans 13 commands Christians to be subject to the governing authorities; yet, under unjust laws, Christians have the responsibility to defy orders and civilly disobey, for governing authorities hold no power except form God (Rom 13:1).

Hermeneutics Must Be Mindful of Cultural Differences

            Cultural differences between modern Western society and the society of Romans 13 should be considered in the scope of Paul’s letter. Not only is the era vastly different, so also is the type of government to which the Apostle refers. The US, for example, is a Republic, which was non-existent in the time of Romans 13. Moreover, Paul’s idea of government in the chapter centers around a federal-style government, whereas US ideas include federal, state, and municipal. The concept of municipal police is absent from Romans 13. In biblical Roman society, the government’s role includes execution of the law rather than mere enforcement of the law. An example of this is the following: when a police officer stops a driver for speeding, he or she often makes a decision to issue a citation. The citation, however, is not the execution of the law but the enforcement; the execution of the law comes in the judgment. While many use Romans 13 to justify police actions, the concept of local (state or national) police does not exist in Romans 13, and modern police roles are limited to enforcement rather than execution of sentencing requirements. This is not to say that Romans 13 may not be applied to police; it should, however, be considered in the scope of the chapter. The people to whom Paul writes abided in a vastly disparate culture and society; further, governing authorities held a greater ability to execute justice, i.e. their role was one of execution rather than mere enforcement.

Degrees of Law Apply

            A common usage of Romans 13 is that of applying it to every instance of breaking the law. Speeding, for example, is a common hypothetical situation discussed when referring to Romans 13. The idea is usually that if one speeds, he or she is sinning because they are, in fact, breaking the law of the land. Varying degrees of law, however, should be considered when examining the scope of Romans 13. There surely exists a threefold division of the law in Scripture: the moral law, the ceremonial law, and the civil law. Jewish culture would (rightly) consider breaking any part of this threefold division sinful in the eyes of the Lord, i.e. breaking the law is breaking the law no matter which part is broken.[4] One might wonder why certain Old Testament laws do not seem to apply in modern society. The threefold division of the law is an excellent explanation. God’s moral law is certainly transcendent through time because it is related to his character, whereas the ceremonial and civil laws might change over time depending on circumstances.

            Furthermore, laws hold varying degrees. God’s moral law is surely the most vital and nonnegotiable. Thus, breaking a civil law should not be considered inherently evil as is breaking the moral law. It is certainly possible (and common) for a civil law to have nothing to do with godliness. This is not to say that civil laws are always unjust, although many are; there are, nonetheless, vast differences in breaking God’s moral law and a manmade civil law. In relation (specifically) to speeding, for example, I suggest that speeding is not evil as murder is, although the two are often equated when using Romans 13 to justify corrupt governmental authority actions. Moreover, disobedience (especially) to the civil law does not negate subjection to authority, for even when one breaks the law, he or she is still subject to authority and may face the consequences of disobedience. When determining the scope of Romans 13, however, the degree of law must be considered.

To Use Romans 13 as a Blanket Argument for Blindly Honoring the Request of the State Is Both Lazy and Idolatry

            Christians should certainly be mindful of Romans 13 and heed the instructions of the Apostle Paul; yet, to use the chapter as a blanket argument for blindly honoring the request of the government and its authorities is both lazy and idolatry. To truly do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God (Mic 6:8) is to honor God first and then honor governmental authorities within the parameters of justice. The US celebration of Independence Day occurred last month. Many churches chose to display nationalistic items and center their supposed services of worship around the event. Many are offended by those who refuse to pledge allegiance to the American flag. I do not believe that the Pledge of Allegiance in itself, is wrong nor that celebrating American freedom is wrong. Early Christians, however, would likely be baffled and angry at the thought that Western Christians would dare bow or give allegiance to the state, especially in the context of Christian worship. We must be careful that patriotism does not become severe nationalism and, therefore, idolatry. Romans 13 certainly applies to modern life. Its scope, nevertheless, should be considered before using it as a blanket passage to support injustice.



[1] It is my opinion that many of the broad-sweeping executive orders issued during the global pandemic we now face are against the commands of God, e.g. churches neglecting to meet together for worship.

[2] I openly admit that the line between just and unjust laws may be blurry and interpretive at best. In most cases, it is clear; yet, there are surely times when people must determine, for themselves, what constitutes a just or an unjust law and, furthermore, pick which issues upon which to act.

[3] I personally take this as a blatantly (and likely intentionally in many cases) unjust decree.

[4] I argue that Christ came to fulfill the law rather than abolish it (Matt 5:17) so the law no longer applies. Rather, obedience to the law continues in that Christians, from an overflow of holiness, conform to God’s transcendent character rather than a set of rules.

Saturday, July 25, 2020

GOVERNMENT'S BIBLICAL ROLE

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

GOVERNMENT'S BIBLICAL ROLE

            In my Libertarian views, often a discussion of the role of government arises in various conversations. I do not believe my view is vastly different from what the framers of the US Constitution desired. The topic itself holds the potential to be divisive; yet, clear obligations are set aside for government both constitutionally and biblically. The scope here is to focus on the biblical role of government; nevertheless, I will briefly discuss the constitutional role of government as well.

Constitutional Role

            The United States Constitution is a unique document. It is not infallible by any stretch; yet, it is one of the most precise and intentional documents in history. Personally, I believe the framers of the Constitution had in mind particular protections which are transcendent through time and circumstances, i.e. the Bill of Rights and articles of the US Constitution were not intended for one era but for all time. While the scope of my material here is not the constitutional role of government, I would like to briefly mention a few items for consideration.

            Constitutionally, the government exists to protect freedoms and liberties. The Constitution gives three types of power to the federal government: delegated (or numerated) powers, implied powers, and inherent powers.[1] Included in the delegated powers are the power to coin money, to regulate commerce, to declare war, and to maintain armed forces; the implied powers are not explicitly stated in the Constitution but are rather inferred from what is “necessary and proper” (Article 1, Section 8);[2] and the inherent powers are not specifically listed in the text of the Constitution but are derived from the fundamental necessity for a federal government. While these matters might be discussed in incredible detail, suffice it to say that the constitutional role of government, with state and municipal governments stemming from what is not granted to the federal government, is the protection of citizens’ liberties and freedoms. Seemingly, American government has grown massively and has become an entity that has reached far beyond the bounds of its constitutional role; yet, its foundational purpose for existence is to protect the liberties and freedoms of the people.

Biblical Role

            The scope of the material here is primarily the biblical role of government. While much of what is mentioned relates to federal government, these elements apply also to both state and municipal governments. Scripture does not necessarily distinguish between the three; yet, in an overarching sense, the model for government should be applied to all forms. One might suggest that the biblical model for government is one of a theocratic variety. Such a claim certainly holds weight; yet, I believe biblical theocracies only existed by God’s allowance, not necessarily because God himself demands such. An entire nation that honors God is to be commended; yet, morality should not be legislated, for if it is, it is no true morality at all. I suggest four underlying biblical roles of government: protection, justice, equality, and order.

Protection

            The clearest biblical role of government is the protection of its citizens. Paul discusses the power of the sword (Rom 13:4); the plainest example of this is the waging of war. Solomon confesses that there is indeed a time for war (Eccl 3:8). Since Paul instructs believers to be at peace with all men if possible (Rom 12:18), the implication is that war should be avoided as much as possible but also that it is not always possible to do so. Biblical models of government reveal a role that centers around the protection of its citizens. A government that does not protect its citizens is an unjust government and one which dishonors God. While modern societies attempt to grant numerous other roles to government, the most foundational role is protection.

Justice

            In a strikingly connected manner, justice is the second primary role of government. Scripture makes clear that governors are sent by God to “punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good” (1 Pet 2:14). Furthermore, Paul contends that governmental authorities carry out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer (Rom 13:4). An inference from these biblical texts is that civilian citizens should not execute legal justice themselves, for vengeance belongs to God (Deut 32:35) through the employment of government. Everyone is held accountable; God’s plan for holding people accountable on this earth is through the process of government. Even on a large scale, government is called to execute justice among its people. If a nation is attacked or wronged, it is government’s responsibility to issue justice toward those who have wronged its people. An unjust government will be severely disciplined by God; thus, the role of justice should be taken seriously by every level of government.

Equality

            Equality is yet another function of government. God is just and does not show favoritism (Rom 2:11); therefore, no government should do so as well. It would be right, however, to consider what biblical equality looks like. As an order of morality, I personally do not believe equality should be legislated among private entities, e.g. private businesses. Government, nonetheless, should strive for equality and perhaps even legislate such in its inner-workings. Equality is vital, for not only is God equal toward his people but, in response to him, his people are called to submit to one another in reverence (Eph 5:21). Equality is a matter of godliness. While government should not mandate private citizens and businesses to manage their operations in any single fashion, e.g. who to hire, how to hire, reasons for termination, etc. (for morality should not be legislated), government should play a crucial role in the protection of human rights and equal opportunity.[3] Equality then is a primary role of government.

Order

            Finally, government’s role is also order. God is a God of order rather than confusion (1 Cor 14:33). Scripture is replete with references to order, self-control, and peace. Part of government’s role is to manage society in such a way that order is a result. While Paul’s instructions, in 1 Corinthians 14, are related to order in corporate worship, because God is a God of order, a good and functioning society should be so also. Without order is chaos and godlessness. I identify as a Libertarian but am often astounded by how many people link Libertarian views to anarchy. I do not know a single Libertarian who supports anarchy; yet, we all support the most limited government possible while still advocating for a government which manages a society of order. Biblically, government’s responsibility is to order a people justly and rightly.

An Overreaching Government, No Matter How Good the Intentions, Is Unconstitutional and Unbiblical

            What is meant by the title statement here is that while theocracies certainly exist in the Bible, God’s plan is never to legislate morality. Simply because a biblical society, e.g. a society or people in the Bible does something does not mean that the act itself is biblical, e.g. right. The material here does not argue for a theocracy. It is God, nevertheless, who ultimately executes perfect judgment. He has ordained government as an extension of his justice; yet, it is his justice alone that reigns supreme. “For the Lord is our judge; the Lord is our lawgiver; the Lord is our king; he will save us” (Isa 33:22). The both constitutional and biblical roles of government extend then from its God-ordained function whether in a society which honors God or not. Consider the Apostle Paul who instructed believers to be subject to the governing authorities in a godless society which killed Christians. Even then, God has positioned leaders who do not exist apart from him. In such a circumstance, the government is overreaching. I dare suggest, in fact, that a government which extends its reach beyond the bounds of its constitutional and biblical roles, no matter how good the intentions may be, is actually unconstitutional and unbiblical. Perspectives on what overreach looks like vary; yet, overreach is possible and occurs. The overarching roles presented here offer the fundamental purposes of government, which should be considered and employed for the good of a people.



[1] Such powers are discussed in Article 1, Section 8.

[2] Since these powers are not explicitly discussed in the Constitution, courts are often left to determine their reach.

[3] The discussion of this topic includes a variety of perspectives, which lends itself to common controversy. What is shared here is merely opinion.