Category Archives: The Gospel

A Biblical Theology of Mission

Posted on by
Reply

On Sunday mornings we are doing a class entitled The Church, the Gospel, and the Ends of the Earth; these are my notes from last Sunday’s class on a biblical theology of mission.

I. Introduction

Last week we looked at the goal of missions, namely the glory of God.  This week we are going to trace the theme of mission through Scripture as it builds from God’s promise of redemption in the garden to the nations basking in the glory of God in the New Heavens and the New Earth.  This task of tracing a theme as it develops through the narrative of Scripture is called biblical theology.

What is Biblical theology?

The easiest way to explain biblical theology is to show you how it works.  If we were to begin reading in Genesis we would immediately learn that God exists and He creates (1:1).  Then we would see that this pre-existent Creator-God exists as a Spirit (1:2), a Spirit who speaks and indeed He doesn’t just speak but by His word He speaks creation into being (1:3).  This speaking Creator-God is good and can subsequently declare that His creation conforms to His inherent goodness (1:4).  Later on we see that this God is relational (1:26ff).  Further into the story we learn that this relational Creator-God is gracious (3:9ff).  That is biblical theology.

A. Two Definitions of Biblical Theology

  • “Biblical theology is concerned with God’s saving acts and his word as these occur within the history of the people of God.  It follows the progress of revelation from the first word of God to man through to the unveiling of the full glory of Christ.”[1]
  • “Biblical Theology deals with the material from the historical standpoint, seeking to exhibit the organic growth or development of the truths of Special Revelation from the primitive preredemptive Special Revelation given in Eden to the close of the New Testament canon.”[2]

B. Five Key Aspects of Biblical Theology

  • First, biblical theology is concerned with the action undertaken by God to redeem rebellious humanity; in this sense it is synonymous with the phrase redemptive history.
  • Second, it deals with, and when codified takes the form of, process; “its principle of organizing the Biblical material is historical rather than logical.”[3]  Unlike systematic theology which organizes biblical material thematically and topically biblical theology is organized chronologically as it follows the narrative of Scripture.
  • Third, its content is the self-revelation of God, while its form may resemble that of a historical narrative its chief interest is God’s progressive revelation of Himself and His purpose over the course of history.  Just as you will learn the characteristics or attributes of a character over the course of a film or novel in the same way God’s actions in the story of Scripture demonstrate His characteristics.
  • Fourth, biblical theology deals with God’s word and so it is exegetical in nature; “its goal is the correct exegesis of the entire Bible so that each part of the whole is understood as it was originally intended to be.”[4]
  • Finally, its central focus is “the unveiling of the full glory of Christ.”[5]

What is mission?

Since we are looking at a biblical theology of mission we will not begin with a definition but will look at how this theme organically develops along the Bible’s storyline.  The storyline of Scripture can be understood within the framework of the following five points which each ask a critical question.

C. The Storyline of Scripture

  • Creation — How did we get here?
  • Fall — What went wrong?
  • Redemption — Can it be fixed?
  • Consummation — Where is it going?

II. Biblical Theology in Overview

A. Creation — How did we get here?

Last week we discussed that the goal of mission is the glory of God and so we begin in Genesis with the created world perfectly reflecting the glory of God, after all everything that God made was good.  In particular God created man as His image-bearer to both reflect and enjoy His glory as His representative and the mediator of His presence who would care for His creation.[6]

B. Fall — What went wrong?

But then something goes terribly wrong; man rebels.  Rather than reflect God’s glory man seeks to rival it.  Rather than represent God’s authority and rule man seeks to live by his own authority and to exercise his own rule.  Because of this the whole of creation is stricken with a curse.  This ground which once brought life will now bring hardship, pain, frustration, and death.  The harmony of God’s good creation is shattered and man is now at war with creation, with his fellow man, even with himself, and ultimately with God.  This perfect picture of God’s glory has become a cosmic revelation of His judgment and wrath.

C. Redemption — Can it be fixed?

1. Seeing Mission in the Garden – The Adamic Covenant

Man does not seek out God in repentance; he does not attempt to atone for his sins.  No, man hides from God in the garden.  This is still man’s tendency (Romans 3:9-18).  From this narrative it is clear that man is both unwilling and unable to turn to God in repentance on his own accord.  God must intervene and intervene He does.  “God comes into the Garden from without, seeks out Adam, and both judges and shares the redemptive promise with him . . . God was on a mission to Adam.  He had no other man to send, so he sent himself.”[7]   God is a missional God.  He seeks out rebellious man to redeem him (Genesis 3:9).  God promises and provides for redemption (Genesis 3:15).  By the shedding of blood God covers their shame (Genesis 3:21).  And it is God who provides a means by which rebellious humanity may enter into relationship with him (Genesis 4:1-5).

This is our first glimpse of mission in Scripture, this is the defining moment for everything that follows.  From the Genesis narrative it is clear that “Mission is not ours; mission is God’s.  Certainly the mission of God is the prior reality out of which flows any mission that we get involved in.  Or, as it has been nicely put, it is not so much the case that God has a mission for his church in the world but that God has a church for his mission in the world.  Mission was not made for the church; the church was made for mission—God’s mission.”[8]

Earlier we defined biblical theology and now we must add one more aspect to our understanding of it.  Biblical theology is Missional theology as God’s self-revelation of Himself through the narrative of Scripture is missionary activity.  God is the ultimate missionary, He makes Himself known.

Is Old Testament Mission Centripetal or Centrifugal?

There is a lot of debate about the distinction between OT mission and NT mission.  It is argued that the OT presents mission as the nations coming to Israel, centripetal mission, while the NT presents mission as the church going to the nations, centrifugal missions.  This is both unhelpful and fails to grasp mission as presented primarily as an act of God and secondarily as a response of God’s people to His mission.  Furthermore mission is always both centripetal and centrifugal.  God sends Himself, His Son, His Spirit, and His church and simultaneously God calls His people to a nation, a land, a city, a temple, and ultimately to Jesus Christ.  The going out and the calling in are inseparable throughout the full biblical narrative of mission.

2. Seeing Mission in the Flood – The Noaic Covenant

As man multiplied and filled the earth, rather than imaging God and representing His rule, man was characterized by self-worship and rebellion.  Indeed “every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5).  And in this context God seeks out Noah and redeems him from the wrath to come.  In God’s covenant with Noah (Genesis 6:17-22; 8:20-22; 9:8-17) we see the scope of God’s mission.  Just as the curse touched the farthest regions of God’s creation so God’s mission reaches as far as that curse is to be found.  In the flood we see both God’s judgment upon the curse and foretaste of the New Heavens and the New Earth.

3. Seeing Mission in the Calling of Abraham – The Abrahamic Covenant

In what first appears to be a dramatic narrowing of God’s mission God calls Abram and establishes a covenant with him and his offspring (Genesis 12:1-3, 7; 13:14-17; 15; 17:1-22; 18; and 22:1-18).  But this is not a narrowing of God’s mission.  God is not abandoning the nations for the sake of Israel.  He is not blessing Israel at the expense of the nations.  No, He has called and will bless Israel for the sake of the nations.  The cosmic scope of His mission remains as the means by which He accomplishes this mission narrows its focus upon the singular seed of the woman, the offspring of Abraham, and as we will see later the descendant of David in whom God’s mission finds its fulfillment.

4. Seeing Mission in the Exodus – The Mosaic Covenant

Through a series of events recorded in Genesis 37-Exodus 1 the mission seems to be lost and it appears that God’s people have been forgotten and enslaved.  But this too was all part of God’s mission to make Himself known (Genesis 15:13ff.).  God demonstrates His redemptive might to the nations as He rescues His people from pharaoh and brings them to His mountain.  God then establishes a covenant with his people (Exodus 19-24) and declares that they are to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.  Beyond God’s mission it is clear that His people, “Israel definitely had a sense of mission, not in the sense of going somewhere but of being something.”[9]  God has both a mission and a people for this mission He is making Himself know through Israel.  As a holy nation they will demonstrate God’s character and as a kingdom of priests they will mediate His presence.

5. Seeing Mission in Judgment and Restoration – Deuteronomic Covenant

The failure and faithlessness of God’s people is nothing new.  From Noah and Abraham to the constant grumblings of Israel in the Exodus this is a theme that runs through Scripture.  So as Israel prepares to enter the Promised Land God establishes another covenant with them in addition to the Mosaic Covenant (Deuteronomy 29:1).  This covenant promises both blessing for obedience as well as curses for disobedience.  But God’s mission would not fail.  He will make Himself known among the nations in Israel’s victories, as His people dispossess their enemies, and in their failures as He disciplines His people, and ultimately He will make himself known as He restores them in their eventual repentance.  This covenant gives Missional understanding to everything that follows in the history of Israel.

6. Seeing Mission in the Monarchy – The Davidic Covenant

As His people struggle to live as a holy nation and a kingdom of priests God appoints a king to represent His rule, both to Israel and the nations.  Despite his many failures David “typified theocratic kingship”[10] and became the standard by which future kings were judged.  God establishes a covenant with David (II Samuel 7:8-16, 23:5; Psalm 89:34-37).  The covenant with David echoes many of the promises made to Abraham and so it becomes clear that the cosmic restoration pictured in the flood and the blessing of the nations promised to Abraham would come through the eternal kingship promised to David and his offspring.

7. Seeing Mission in the Prophetic Hope – The New Covenant

A Brief Outline of the Prophetic Hope:

  • Reconciliation with God – Throughout Scripture God promises that if His rebellious people would turn to Him in repentance then He will return to them as their God and will gather them as His people (II Chronicles 7:13-14; Jeremiah 30:8-22; 31:1; Ezekiel 34:30-31).
  • Return to the Promised Land – Furthermore, they are also promised a return to and the expansion of the promised land (Isaiah 54:1-3; Jeremiah 30:3; Ezekiel 34:11-16).
  • Reestablishment of Davidic Kingship – There is also an emphasis upon the renewal of the promises of the Davidic Covenant with particular emphasis placed upon the rule of the Davidic King (Jeremiah 23:5-6; 30:9; Ezekiel 34:23-24).
  • Rebuilding of the Temple – Also included in the emphasis upon the renewal of the promises of the Davidic Covenant is the promise that a new temple will be built within a New Jerusalem and that God’s glory will return and He will dwell among His people forever (Ezekiel 40-48).
  • The New Covenant – However, the most significant occurrence during this time is not the prophetic word concerning covenant renewal but the promise of a new and better covenant whereby the people will be indwelt by the law of the Lord and will dwell with Him in an eternal city (Jeremiah 31:31-40).

All of this is brought about by the mission of Christ.  Just as God seeks out rebellious Adam and Eve in the Garden so Jesus comes to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10).  Jesus inaugurates the New Covenant, in Jesus we are reconciled to God; He is the Promised Land, the Davidic king, and the new temple.  Jesus fulfills the mission of God!

D. Consummation — Where is it going?

In Revelation 22:1-5 we will see the great end towards which all of God’s mission is working.  This passage points us to the fulfillment of all that we have studied.  Looking back to the fall of man and the cursing of creation we read in verse 3 that “No longer will there be anything accursed.”  Also in verse 3 we see that man’s relationship with God has been restored as “his servants will worship him.”  Looking back to God’s covenant with Abraham we see that indeed the nations are blessed as verse 2 tells us of the tree of life whose leaves are for “for the healing of the nations.”  Thinking of God’s covenant with David and the promise of an everlasting kingdom and throne we read of “throne of God and of the Lamb” in verse 1 and verse 5 closes with the promise that God with His people “will reign forever and ever.”

E. Application — What now?

Stating the profoundly important role of narrative Alasdair MacIntyre writes, “I can only answer the question ‘What am I to do?’ if I can answer the prior question “Of what story or stories do I find myself apart?’”[11]  We stand between the giving of the New Covenant, in Christ, and the consummation of the covenants at His return.  This is not just the story of God’s mission this is also our story and subsequently our mission.

I left out a critical aspect of the New Covenant mission of God above.  The same God who seeks out man in the Garden, the same God who sends His Son, also sends His Spirit to indwell His church, and just as God sent His Son, in the power of the Spirit, God now sends His Spirit-empowered church out to call the nations to glorify God.  This mission is not new, indeed it is very old, as “what blossoms and flourishes in the New Testament proclamation of the Gospel to convert all persons to discipleship to Jesus Christ is anticipated in the Old Testament’s proclamation of the goodness and grace of God.”[12]  And like Israel we too are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (I Peter 2:9).

[1]Graeme Goldsworthy, According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1991), 32.
[2]Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1948) preface.
[3]Ibid.
[4]Goldsworthy, According to Plan, 35.
[5]Ibid., 32.
[6]Stanley J. Grenz, “The Social God and the Relational Self: Toward a Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei,” in Trinitarian Soundings in Systematic Theology (New York: T & T Clark, 2005), 88.
[7]Francis M. DuBose, God Who Sends: A Fresh Quest for Biblical Mission (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1983), 57.
[8]Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 62.
[9]Wright, The Mission of God, 504.
[10]Willem VanGemeren, The Progress of Redemption: The Story of Salvation from Creation to the New Jerusalem (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1988), 222.
[11]Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, 2nd ed. (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984), 216.
[12]Patrick D. Miller Jr., “’Enthroned on the Praises of Israel’: The Praise of God in Old Testament Theology,” Interpretation 39 (1985): 8.

Abortion and the Illusion of Sovereignty: Addressing the Real Issue

Posted on by
3

This Sunday’s cover story, “The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy”, for The New York Times Magazine is nothing new. I wrote several years ago, in “When the Fertility Clinic Meets the Abortion Clinic: A Modern Paradox,” about a similar article in the Los Angeles Times. In fact the only thing that has changed in these four years are the numbers. The reasons and the response are the same things that have been around since the first abortion and if we were to go back further to the origins of infanticide. When reading these articles, or the responses to them, they are so predictable that they almost appear to be scripted. With that I hope to take a departure from the typical response and argue that the real issue here is not life, it is not choice, and it is not even murder. The real issue is sovereignty.

Let me explain what I mean. In her June article, “Yes, Abortion is Killing. But It’s the Lesser Evil,” Antonia Senior explains how having a child changed her perspective regarding abortion. After explaining the lack of a consensus regarding a scientific or philosophical definition of life she concludes,

What seems increasingly clear to me is that, in the absence of an objective definition, a foetus is a life by any subjective measure. My daughter was formed at conception, and all the barely understood alchemy that turned the happy accident of that particular sperm meeting that particular egg into my darling, personality-packed toddler took place at that moment. She is so unmistakably herself, her own person — forged in my womb, not by my mothering.

Any other conclusion is a convenient lie that we on the pro-choice side of the debate tell ourselves to make us feel better about the action of taking a life. That little seahorse shape floating in a willing womb is a growing miracle of life

She then explains that such conclusions have resulted in a movement aimed at separating feminism from “fertility control.” However, she views this as entirely incompatible with the central aim of feminism exclaiming, “The single biggest factor in women’s liberation was our newly found ability to impose our will on our biology.” The freedom of women then depends upon one thing the unencumbered exercise of the will.

With a shocking candor she concludes,

As ever, when an issue we thought was black and white becomes more nuanced, the answer lies in choosing the lesser evil. The nearly 200,000 aborted babies in the UK each year are the lesser evil, no matter how you define life, or death, for that matter. If you are willing to die for a cause, you must be prepared to kill for it, too.

For Antonia Senior, and I would argue for all of us, the principal issue is sovereignty, a woman’s ultimate right to impose her will upon herself and upon others.

Sovereignty occurs vertically in the form of worship, we could use other words but the concept remains the same. We either rejoice in the sovereignty of the God in whose image we are made or we deny it by worshipping any number of god’s made in our image. Horizontally human interaction exists upon a continuum of two extremes; escape and conflict. Both extremes end in death and both are false exercises of sovereignty. At the extreme end of escape is suicide where the sovereign self claims sovereignty over the self by taking one’s life. At the extreme end of conflict lies murder where the sovereign self claims sovereignty over another by taking another’s life.

The first two articles mentioned, “The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy” and “The abortion debate brought home,” regarding reduction, which let’s be honest is a clever play on words to sanitize something far more grisly and sinister, bring another exercise of sovereignty into the question, namely in vitro fertilization and the creation of life. Imposing one’s will upon one’s own biology may require medical assistance and donated eggs which is where our current discussion often begins. With in vitro fertilization, when multiple embryos are transferred, there is always the possibility of multiple embryos implanting and when multiple babies are not wanted or the mother is unable to give birth to multiple children then one or more of them must be put to death. In 1988 Dr. Mark Evans penned guidelines for this procedure stating that “most reductions below twins violated ethical principles.” Things have changed over the past 23 years; the medical community has rethought its ethics and is now willing and able to reduce your pregnancy to one. “The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy” ends with a counterintuitive conclusion. After choosing to reduce their pregnancy to one child the author asks the women what would happen if they miscarried to which one of them replied, “I’ve come to realize there’s only so much we can control. There’s a point where you just have to let nature take its course.”

After all this talk of a woman’s complete control of her own fertility comes the tragic conclusion that “there’s only so much we can control.” Ultimately you cannot impose your will upon your biology because ultimately you are not sovereign. Your sovereignty is an illusion.

How are we to respond to this? Should we call our senator or state representative? Should we start building picket signs and begin protesting abortion clinics? No, we must respond with the Gospel, in word and deed. We must respond in the same way that God responds to humanity’s first act of false sovereignty in the garden, with grace and the promise that in Christ we will be liberated not unto self but from self and sin and set free to worship the one true Sovereign. Any other response is incalculably inadequate and nearsighted.

Believe It or Not I Still Blog

Posted on by
Reply

Below are the posts I have written for our church blog, provPRESS, over the past year. I have been writing several posts for Missio Dei that will be up soon as well as a 24 week Bible study that should be completed this summer. I hope the following posts will tide you over in the mean time.

Soteriology II – Doctrine of Salvation

Posted on by
Reply

On Sunday nights we are working through the church’s doctrinal statement; these are my notes from last Sunday. I hope you enjoy them.

―Justification, Regeneration, Repentance, and Faith―

V. Of Justification

We believe that the great Gospel blessing which Christ secures to such as believe in Him is Justification; that Justification includes the pardon of sin, and the promise of eternal life on principles of righteousness; that it is bestowed, not in consideration of any works of righteousness which we have done, but solely through faith in the Redeemer’s blood; by virtue of which faith His perfect righteousness is freely imputed to us of God; that it brings us into a state of most blessed peace and favor with God, and secures every other blessing needful for time and eternity.

VII. Of Grace In Regeneration

We believe that, in order to be saved, sinners must be regenerated, or born again; that regeneration consists in giving a holy disposition to the mind; that it is effected in a manner above our comprehension by the power of the Holy Spirit, in connection with divine truth, so as to secure our voluntary obedience to the gospel; and that its proper evidence appears in the holy fruits of repentance, and faith, and newness of life.

VIII. Of Repentance And Faith

We believe that Repentance and Faith are sacred duties, and also inseparable graces, wrought in our souls by the regenerating Spirit of God; whereby being deeply convinced of our guilt, danger and helplessness, and of the way of salvation by Christ, we turn to God with unfeigned contrition, confession, and supplication for mercy; at the same time heartily receiving the Lord Jesus Christ as our Prophet, Priest and King, and relying on Him alone as the only and all sufficient Savior.

Introduction

A Humbling Reminder ― I Corinthians 6:9-11

I think it is helpful to begin any discussion of salvation with the realization that we are in desperate need of it and that it is not something which we can carry out for ourselves; rather, salvation is something which has been carried out on our behalf, it is both divine in origin and accomplishment. God has, is, and will save us.

The Order of Salvation ― Beginning with the order of salvation helps us in several respects.

  • It results in praise.
  • It fosters humility.
  • It guards against error.

Next to each term is the Roman numeral to which it corresponds in our doctrinal statement. These topics are covered in both Community Training and in Wayne Grudem’s Christian Beliefs: Twenty Basics Every Christian Should Know which you read for community training.

Election (IX)

Gospel Call (VI)

Effectual Call (VI) ― Regeneration (VII)

Repentance and Faith (VIII) ― Justification (V) ― Adoption ― Sanctification (X) ― Perseverance (XI)

Glorification (XVIII)

I. Regeneration

A. Definition

Regenerating is the act of God by which the spiritually dead are brought to life, “thus restoring the person’s intellectual, volitional, moral, emotional, and relational capacities to know, love, and serve God.”[1] Within scripture this is often spoken of in terms of new life or new birth.

B. Explanation

  • First and foremost regeneration is a monergistic act (Ezekiel 36:26; John 1:13).
  • Second, regeneration is wholly an act of grace (Ephesians 2:1-10).
  • Third, regeneration is a result of the gospel (I Peter 1:23).
  • Fourth, regeneration is mysterious (John 3:8).
  • Fifth, regeneration is inextricably connected with our union with Christ (I Corinthians 15:23).
  • Sixth, regeneration results in faith, repentance, and obedience (Galatians 5:22-23; Ephesians 2:10; I John 3:9, 5:1).

C. Regeneration and the Effectual Call

Regeneration and effectual calling are two sides of the same coin. One speaks to the divine call (John 6:44) and the other to the divine enablement to respond to that call (John 6:65). “Effective calling is thus God the father speaking powerfully to us, and regeneration is God the Father and God the Holy Spirit working powerfully in us.”[2]

II. Repentance and Faith

A. Preliminary Considerations

Repentance and faith are inseparable; they are two sides of the same coin. Grudem explains that they are both related to the word “turning;” we turn from sin (repentance) and turn towards Christ (faith).[3] In such a sequence neither precedes the other; this is simultaneously a turning to and a turning from.

B. Repentance

1. Old Testament Terminology

  • nacham – “to become remorseful . . . to regret something”[4] (Job 42:5-6)
  • shub – “to turn around, repent” (II Coronicles 7:14)

2. New Testament Terminology

  • metamelomai – “to regret”[5] (Matthew 21:32)
  • metanoeo – “to change one’s mind or purpose, hence, to repent”[6] (Matthew 3:2)

At the most basic level repentance “involves a change in the outward life because such a change is a result of the change of inward opinions.”[7]

3. Definition

Repentance is therefore the abandonment of sin which results from godly sorrow over one’s sin.

Biblical repentance has intellectual, emotional and physical properties. It requires a radical change in both our way of thinking, feeling, and living.

4. Explanation

  • First, repentance is a voluntary act enabled by regeneration; therefore maintaining both divine sovereignty and human responsibility (See “Regeneration” above).
  • Second, repentance is necessary for salvation (Mark 1:14-15; Acts 3:18-20; see Romans 2:4-5 for a description of the unrepentant).
  • Third, while repentance marks the beginning of new life it must also continue throughout life (Matthew 6:12).
  • Fourth, repentance is a result of hearing the gospel.

C. Faith

1. Terminology

Within the New Testament there are two terms used to express the idea of faith; the verb, pisteuo, and the noun, pistis. They carry the basic meaning of faith, trust, confidence, or belief.

2. Definition

A biblical definition of faith has three aspects an action, a content, and an object. With this in mind I think it is best to define faith as a confidence (action) that Jesus Christ (object) has accomplished what He has promised in the gospel (content).

3. Explanation

  • First, faith is a voluntary act enabled by regeneration; therefore maintaining both divine sovereignty and human responsibility (See “Regeneration” above).
  • Second, faith is necessary for salvation (John 3:16).
  • Third, while faith marks the beginning of new life it must also continue throughout life (Galatians 2:20).
  • Fourth, faith is a result of hearing the gospel (Romans 10:17; Hebrews 4:2).

III. Justification

A. Old Testament Terminology

  • sadaq (hiphil form) – “declare righteous, justify . . . vindicate the cause of . . . make righteous, turn to righteousness.”[8]

B. New Testament Terminology

  • dikaioo – “to declare, pronounce righteous.”[9]

C. Definition

“Justification is God’s action pronouncing sinners righteous in his sight. We have been forgiven and declared to have fulfilled all that God’s law requires of us.”[10]

D. Explanation

I want to take this definition and break it down into several smaller statements which we can clearly see in Romans 3:20-26.

  • First, justification is a declarative act of God (Romans 3:20).
  • Second, justification is possible because of Christ’s propitiatory work (Romans 3:22, 24, 25) not because of personal merit. Furthermore, this maintains God’s justice as the sentence for our rebellion has been carried out on Christ.
  • Third, in justification God imputes Christ righteousness to us (Romans 3:22).

II Corinthians 5:21 also illustrates the link between justification and imputation. Would someone please read that for us? How does this relate to Romans 3?

Colossians 2:13-14 illustrates another stunning fact about justification, would someone read that for us?

  • Fourth, in justification God cancels our record of debt and its sentence of condemnation (Colossians 2:13-14). We read that He has canceled the record of debt that opposed us as well as its legal demands. Debtors would usually write their own records of indebtedness. Here Paul uses the word χειρόγραφον which is a combination of two words “χειρ” meaning hand and “γραφή” meaning writing. So we have this handwritten record which actively opposes us. Paul also mentions the legal demands of this record. The word here is δόγμα, which is where we get the word dogmatic. A dogmatic position is one which you are unwilling to give up. The legal demands which Paul is describing are unwavering and fixed. God has canceled this debt and these demands. Ancient scribes would write upon paper made of papyrus or vellum and unlike modern ink, ancient ink did not absorb into the paper but rather sat on top of the paper. As paper was expensive, scribes would often wipe this ink off and reuse the paper. That is what the word “canceling” means God has literally wiped our slate clean.

Application

•

•

•

•

•

•

[1]Bruce Demarest, The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of Salvation, Foundations of Evangelical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1997), 293.

[2]Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Bible Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 700.

[3]Ibid., 709.

[4]Ludwig Koehler and Walters Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. and trans. Johann Jakob Stamm, Benedikt Hartmann, Ze’Ev Ben-Hayyim, Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher, Philippe Reymond, and M. E. J. Richardson (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers, 2001), s.v. “נחם.”

[5]Ibid., s.v. “שׁוב.”

[6]G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (New York: T & T Clark, 1999), s.v. “μεταμέλομαι.”

[7]Ibid., s.v. “μετανοέω.”

[8]James P. Boice, Abstract of Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1887), 383.

[9]Koehler and Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, s.v. “צָדֵק.”

[10]Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, s.v. “δικαιόω.”

[11]Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 968.

Acts 8:26-40: Philip and the Sexual Deviant Part 2 — Responding to Alternate Interpretations

Posted on by
6

This is the second post in a series (Part 1) explaining Acts 8:26-40. This post in particular is aimed at addressing Brian McLaren’s post “Synchro-blogging on Sexuality.” He begins by explaining:

I knew from my many years as a pastor that sexual orientation was not a choice . . . So, I was uncomfortable with the conventional approach, but I was unsure how to construct an alternative that was equally faithful to Scripture and faithful to the reality I saw in human beings who came to me as their pastor, friend, and family member. Over many years, that alternative has become more and more clear, and surprisingly (to some), it was a passage of Scripture that opened the way for me to see it.

He goes on to tell that “Acts 8 was waiting with a story that is more powerful than many have realized.”

What follows is his explanation of Acts 8:26-40 and its implications for our understanding of human sexuality. Prior to addressing his explanation his motivation must be examined. He begins by explaining that he knew, by means of experiential knowledge, that sexual orientation was not a choice. Furthermore he sought out Scripture which would conform to his experience of reality. Yes, Scripture should accurately describe reality; however, we must also recognize what Scripture has to say about reality as we experience it. It is expressly clear from Scripture that the reality which we experience is a world at war. It is a world where man is at enmity with God, where man is at enmity with his fellow man, where man is even at enmity with himself, and where man is at enmity with creation. Within such a world these questions cannot be answered by experience rather they must be revealed by one who is not plagued by the curse which has beset our world. Answers based upon experience are like developing a theory of human sexuality based upon the horrors of D-Day. McLaren’s mistake is that he views his experience within a fallen world as normative. This thought will be returned to in part 3 of this series.

Turning to McLaren’s explanation of Acts 8 there aspects of his argument that we can agree with, although at points necessary critique will be given. Ironically at the outset McLaren makes much of the eunuch’s inability to fit within “the traditional family,” “to become heterosexual,” and to be “categorized in traditional sexual roles” he also notes that the eunuch exists in a “not-part-of-the-created-order sexual category.” This admission has no bearing upon what follows in his argument; although he admits that this man’s sexual identity has been profoundly affected by the fall he does little to speak of how redemption in Christ addresses this issue. McLaren also notes that:

He [the Ethiopian eunuch] has come to Jerusalem to worship God, but has, no doubt, been turned away- first because of his race and second because of his sexual identity: the Hebrew Scriptures explicitly excluded both Gentiles and people in his nontraditional, not-part-of-the-created-order sexual category.

One would have hoped that McLaren would have done his homework at this point and note the greatness of redemption in Christ, sadly he does not. There is no mention of Old Testament prophecy concerning eunuchs and foreigners or of prophecy concerning the coming Messiah whose inheritance is the nations, whose salvation will be made known among the nations, and around whom the nations will gather in praise. Instead McLaren gives the impression that the Old Testament has nothing to offer except condemnation. Furthermore the text itself paints a far different picture that the one given by McLaren. Rather than being turned away from worshipping in Jerusalem it would appear that he actually worshipped in Jerusalem and obtained a fairly costly scroll containing some or all of Isaiah’s prophecy. This mistake is poor exegesis at best or pure eisegesis at worst.

McLaren continues to explain the text as he tells of how Philip ran to the eunuch’s chariot and asked if he understood what he was reading. Then he explains:

The man invites Philip into the chariot and asks if the writer was writing about himself or someone else – a question that suggests this man feels the prophet is talking about him in his sexual otherness: he too will have no descendants; he too has been rejected, misunderstood, despised, shamed … he too has been brought like a sheep or lamb before people with cutting instruments.

At this point McLaren’s exposition is laughable both in his treatment of the New Testament narrative and the Old Testament prophecy. Even a cursory reading of Isaiah 53 lends itself to quite a different understanding of the text than McLaren’s suggested lamentation of “sexual otherness.” The propitiatory tone of the text is unmistakable. Thus the eunuch’s question becomes one which asks “Who is it that has taken our grief, our sorrows, our transgressions, our iniquities, and given himself as an offering for our guilt so that we may be accounted righteous and have peace with God? Is it the writer or another of whom he speaks?” McLaren also notes that like the eunuch this “man of sorrows” had no descendants (v.8). Again McLaren has failed to do his homework. The word here means generation (דור) if Isaiah had intended to speak of His descendants he would have used זרע as found in verse 10. He appears to be using the NIV which poorly renders verse 8 and stands at odds with most other translations by translation דור as descendants. What the text is asking is “Did any of his contemporaries, the people of that generation, consider that he had been put to death for their sins?” The text is not mourning his inability to have children. Even more problematic for McLaren’s translation is that verse 10 speaks of how this suffering servant will see His offspring whose iniquities He has bore and whom He has made righteous. The text is clearly at odds with McLaren’s interpretation.

McLaren continues, “Philip explains that this passage can be read to describe Jesus, and he shares the good news of Jesus and the kingdom of God.” McLaren so distains exegetical certainty that he must put words into Philip’s mouth at this point as he notes that Philip explains “the good news of Jesus and the kingdom of God” as one of many readings of Isaiah 53. This is a messianic prophecy it is not enough to say that it “can be read to describe Jesus” this text describes Jesus, that is what the text is doing and any reading which does otherwise is not faithful to the text.

Ultimately McLaren concludes:

Neither race nor sexual identity was an obstacle for the apostles in welcoming a new brother into the community of faith. . . That’s why I am among those who dissent from the conventional approach and attitude, appealing back to Philip’s even more ancient church tradition.

Simply saying that “neither race nor sexual identity was an obstacle for the apostles” fails to do justice to the issue as we find it presented in Scripture. These were big issues that they took time to work through as they grasped the nature of redemption within the New Covenant. So we cannot say that these were non-issues it took time for them to understand the extent of redemption in Christ. At the same time we must recognize that ultimately Scripture declares, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). The gospel transcends the barriers which previously separated humanity, these barriers are still real and yet they have been overcome by the unity brought about by redemption in Christ. Ultimately, however, McLaren’s conclusion is both incorrect and it belittles the Gospel because of its failure to take into account the pervasive affects of the fall and the glorious riches of redemption in Christ.

In the upcoming and third post in this series we will examine the pervasive affects of the fall and the glorious riches of redemption in Christ as we seek to correctly understand what Scripture has to say on this issue.