What is it about your spouse that first caused you to love him or her? Was it who he or she was, or what he or she did? I think this is an interesting question. Can the answer be both? Michael Barber says, “A man might reveal his feelings for a woman by leaving her a bouquet of roses. We have all heard the phrase ‘actions speak louder than words,’ so we know that through our actions we truly reveal ourselves to other people. At the same time, we also understand another persons’ actions much better once we come to truly know that person. The woman who received the roses will understand more clearly the other actions of the man who gave them to her. Before he gave them to her, she might have noticed that he acted quirky around her, but now she realizes that he is nervous because he cares for her. She knows why he blushes, why he laughs so hard at all her jokes, and why he is always offering to do her favors. After he reveals his heart to her, she can better understand the things that he does.”1
If you want to truly know someone, watch what they do. If you want to know why people do what they do, get to know them. This is also true of God. If you want to know who God is, look at what He has done. If you want to know why God does what He does, study who He is.
Ladies, if your husband sends you flowers, what does it usually mean? For some it might be an expression of deepest love. For others, it might mean that the husband has messed up big time. Based on how much the wife knows her husband she will either be appreciative or suspicious.
I hate to break it to you fellas, but rarely do flowers and chocolates get us off the hook if we have done something bone headed. Our wives know us too well for that. Our actions are usually interpreted in light of who we are.
Let’s think about the Lord in those terms. How do you interpret the greatest gift ever given? The heavenly Father sent His only begotten Son to die a horrible death on a cross to be the atonement for our sins. He lived perfectly and, as representative head of humanity, became the mediator of The New Covenant so that in Him, we might be ushered into the Presence of the Father. What do God's saving actions teach us about Him? God is love – perfect self giving, self-sacrificing love. Because of Jesus’ passion we can be adopted into God’s family. God becomes our Father – and we share in His divine nature.
When I say the word “economy,” what comes to your mind? Of course we think of the current recession our country and the world are enduring. We think of commerce and business. In Scriptural terms, the word economy means God’s Fatherly plan. We may think of God's economy as His saving acts throughout history. Paul uses the term "economy" in 1 Timothy 1:4.
Theology and economy are different, but linked. Theology is the study of who God is. If you want to understand theology, you must study what God does – God’s economy. If you want to understand why God does what He does - economy, you must be familiar with God’s Character – that is, theology.
John 3:16 is an excellent place to test this idea. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that anyone who believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
First – why did God send His only begotten Son? The answer is found in the first sentence:“For God so loved the world.” We see that God acts out of His love for the world. God is love. That is great place to start theologically.
Second, what did God do because He is love? “He sent His only Son!” This is God’s economy - His plan to redeem humankind.
If you want to know God – look at what He does. If you want to know why God does what He does – learn who He is.
So, as we conclude, here is your final exam. What word describes our understanding of who God is? THEOLOGY
What word describes God’s saving actions on our behalf – His plan to redeem mankind? ECONOMY
Our country needs an economic recovery, but I am not talking about business. We need to learn HIStory. For when we learn the Truth of God’s acts, we will understand our Lord even better.
1. Michael Barber, Singing in the Reign p. 32-33
Friday, June 12, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
Apply Within
When you think of “The Gospel,” what comes to your mind? What is the “Good News” proclaimed by the Scriptures for the salvation of mankind? Because I am a pastor’s son I grew up hearing stories about Jesus. We attended Bible study and worship every time the doors were open. In those formative years I was taught that the Gospel consisted of the following:
Jesus died on the cross and on the third day rose again. In doing this, He paid the price for our sins and if we believe in Him, when we die, we will be raised like Jesus to live in heaven forever.
Does that match what you were taught? While those are indeed vital components of the Gospel, there is another component to the Gospel message that is not so readily taught. This concept was central to the Hebrew understanding of sacrifice and it is spelled out for us in the pages of the New Testament. But somehow this important aspect of the Gospel has been minimized as the centuries have passed. In this article we will revisit this concept and I pray that it will bring God’s great plan of salvation history into clearer focus.
In order to present this most meaningfully we really need to look back at the Old Covenant concept of sacrifice. Of all the sacrifices offered by the Hebrew people, none held more significance than the one offered on the Day of Atonement. On that day, the High Priest would take part in the ceremonial killing of a bull to atone for his own sins and then sacrifice a goat for Israel’s sins. Thomas Nash writes, “He would apply the blood of the bull and one goat as sin offerings to Yahweh’s mercy seat in the Holy of Holies.” The Day of Atonement was the only day that the High Priest could enter the Most Holy Place – a room deep in the temple curtained off from everyone but the High Priest and closely guarded by the Levitical Priests. Note here that the sacrifice consisted of two parts and was not complete until both actions had been taken. First the sacrifice was made – the animal was killed and his blood collected. Second, the High Priest would take the animal's blood into the Holy of Holies and apply the blood to God’s mercy seat. Both aspects are vital for the sacrificial mandate of God to be fulfilled.
The fact that this Old Covenant sacrifice had to be repeated every year demonstrates its inability to atone satisfactorily for Israel’s sins. But, the final sacrifice was coming as the Old Covenant was fulfilled in Jesus and His ushering in of the New and everlasting Covenant. Consider how Jesus’ sacrifice follows in the pattern shown to us in the Old Testament, particularly Leviticus 16. We will see that Jesus did become the atoning sacrifice and His blood was spilled. But, remember, the blood must be applied within the Temple – in the most Holy Place. Let’s turn to Hebrews 9:11-12 to see if this is what happens.
11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.
Jesus enters the Heavenly Temple and the Heavenly Holy of Holies and applies His blood to God’s mercy seat. He is there even now, mediating the new covenant. This helps explain John’s vision in Revelation 5:6. Jesus appears, “like a lamb as if slain.” Jesus was the sacrificial victim – the Lamb of God – but He is also the High Priest – whose ministry is that of mediating the New Covenant in the heavenly sanctuary – the ultimate Holy of Holies.
As a young Christian I was never taught the second part of Jesus’ sacrifice. We do a great job of teaching the cross and Jesus’ earthly task of dying for us was finished there. But, without the heavenly application of the blood, the sacrifice is not complete. Therefore, the resurrection and the ascension are absolutely vital. Without the ongoing priesthood of Jesus, mediating the New Covenant, the atoning sacrifice of the cross would not be available to us. The blood must be applied – to the mercy seat of God, and to our hearts. Hebrews 10:19-23 brings it all into focus:
19Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. 23Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful.
Jesus died on the cross and on the third day rose again. In doing this, He paid the price for our sins and if we believe in Him, when we die, we will be raised like Jesus to live in heaven forever.
Does that match what you were taught? While those are indeed vital components of the Gospel, there is another component to the Gospel message that is not so readily taught. This concept was central to the Hebrew understanding of sacrifice and it is spelled out for us in the pages of the New Testament. But somehow this important aspect of the Gospel has been minimized as the centuries have passed. In this article we will revisit this concept and I pray that it will bring God’s great plan of salvation history into clearer focus.
In order to present this most meaningfully we really need to look back at the Old Covenant concept of sacrifice. Of all the sacrifices offered by the Hebrew people, none held more significance than the one offered on the Day of Atonement. On that day, the High Priest would take part in the ceremonial killing of a bull to atone for his own sins and then sacrifice a goat for Israel’s sins. Thomas Nash writes, “He would apply the blood of the bull and one goat as sin offerings to Yahweh’s mercy seat in the Holy of Holies.” The Day of Atonement was the only day that the High Priest could enter the Most Holy Place – a room deep in the temple curtained off from everyone but the High Priest and closely guarded by the Levitical Priests. Note here that the sacrifice consisted of two parts and was not complete until both actions had been taken. First the sacrifice was made – the animal was killed and his blood collected. Second, the High Priest would take the animal's blood into the Holy of Holies and apply the blood to God’s mercy seat. Both aspects are vital for the sacrificial mandate of God to be fulfilled.
The fact that this Old Covenant sacrifice had to be repeated every year demonstrates its inability to atone satisfactorily for Israel’s sins. But, the final sacrifice was coming as the Old Covenant was fulfilled in Jesus and His ushering in of the New and everlasting Covenant. Consider how Jesus’ sacrifice follows in the pattern shown to us in the Old Testament, particularly Leviticus 16. We will see that Jesus did become the atoning sacrifice and His blood was spilled. But, remember, the blood must be applied within the Temple – in the most Holy Place. Let’s turn to Hebrews 9:11-12 to see if this is what happens.
11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.
Jesus enters the Heavenly Temple and the Heavenly Holy of Holies and applies His blood to God’s mercy seat. He is there even now, mediating the new covenant. This helps explain John’s vision in Revelation 5:6. Jesus appears, “like a lamb as if slain.” Jesus was the sacrificial victim – the Lamb of God – but He is also the High Priest – whose ministry is that of mediating the New Covenant in the heavenly sanctuary – the ultimate Holy of Holies.
As a young Christian I was never taught the second part of Jesus’ sacrifice. We do a great job of teaching the cross and Jesus’ earthly task of dying for us was finished there. But, without the heavenly application of the blood, the sacrifice is not complete. Therefore, the resurrection and the ascension are absolutely vital. Without the ongoing priesthood of Jesus, mediating the New Covenant, the atoning sacrifice of the cross would not be available to us. The blood must be applied – to the mercy seat of God, and to our hearts. Hebrews 10:19-23 brings it all into focus:
19Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. 23Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
The Pattern for Authentic Spirituality
What is spirituality? We live in a culture that claims to be highly spiritual. For many, spirituality is an inward quest for God. Or, it is an attempt to find oneness with the life force of the universe. But for Christians, what does it mean that we are spiritual? For disciples of Jesus, spirituality is not rooted in some esoteric existential experience. Rather, it is to be found in unity with Christ. Robert Webber taught that we must "ponder and participate" in the salvific narrative of Christ. Becoming immersed in Christ means that we are taken up into HIStory - the Gospel. Further, as we are united to Christ we share in the divine nature of God (2 Peter 1:4). The Scriptures give no clearer image of this than baptism.
Spirituality centered in the concept of baptism focuses our attention not on water alone (even though there are many typologies of water and God's saving work), but on the cross and the empty tomb. Expressed simply, our spirituality may be seen in terms of "creation, fall and recreation." Obviously, God made humanity in His image at the creation. This image was broken by the sin of Adam and Eve. The subsequent curse infected all of humanity. Jesus came, as representative head of humanity, to recreate or restore us to the Edenic ideal. His sacrificial death on the cross and subsequent resurrection defeated sin, death and hell - thereby offering an antidote to the Adamic curse. Eugene Peterson said, "The Christian life...is a recovery of what was lost at the fall." Ranald McCaulay wrote similarly, "The whole purpose of the Christian life is the recovery of the original image of God." Baptismal images are evident in the creation as the spirit hovers over the waters. This typology springs to life at Jesus’ baptism – when the Spirit descended upon God's Son in that watery scene. Jesus' baptism served to identify Him with fallen humanity, and prefigure His death and resurrection.
Baptism is commended to US. Like the Eucharist, baptism is commanded by the Lord Himself which means IT IS VERY IMPORTANT. In fact, in the "Great Commission" baptism is one of two main tasks given to the Apostles as they were sent out to the world. Why is it so important? In Romans 5 and 6, Paul teaches an amazing mystery. He uses this same idea of "creation, fall, and recreation." Paul speaks of Adam's curse coming to all men and how Jesus reverses the curse. How does Paul say that we receive this restoration from Adam's rebellion? Our recreation, he declares, is found in connecting with the cross and empty tomb through baptism. In baptism we are united to Christ's death and resurrection. Webber claimed that baptism is a performative symbol. That is, it enacts what it signifies. Without Jesus' death and resurrection offered to us as we are united with Him in baptism, we would most assuredly perish under Adam's curse.
How does baptism, a one time rite, express and enact our ongoing spiritual lives rooted in Christ. We are baptized into Christ once - but we must die to self daily. Therefore the Scriptural mandate of "living out ones' baptism." This may be the easiest yet most profound way to communicate the essential truths of "creation, fall and recreation." Martin Luther concurred that the pattern of creation, fall and recreation in Christ is a worthy one by which to live. He said, "...in Baptism, every Christian has enough to study and to practice all his life. He always has enough to do to believe firmly what baptism promises and brings -- victory over death and the devil, forgiveness of sin, God's grace, the entire Christ, and the Holy Spirit with his gifts." Luther also said that baptism is to become..."the daily garment which the disciple is to wear all the time,...every day suppressing the old person and growing up in the new."
In an era when spirituality is suffering under the corrupting influences of man-made traditions and pseudo spiritual systems, we would do well to return to the ancient pattern of spirituality laid out for us in the Scriptures. Jesus said, "If you want to be my disciple you must deny yourself, take up your cross daily and follow me." This pattern is perfectly pictured in death, burial and resurrection - at Calvary and in a watery tomb.
Spirituality centered in the concept of baptism focuses our attention not on water alone (even though there are many typologies of water and God's saving work), but on the cross and the empty tomb. Expressed simply, our spirituality may be seen in terms of "creation, fall and recreation." Obviously, God made humanity in His image at the creation. This image was broken by the sin of Adam and Eve. The subsequent curse infected all of humanity. Jesus came, as representative head of humanity, to recreate or restore us to the Edenic ideal. His sacrificial death on the cross and subsequent resurrection defeated sin, death and hell - thereby offering an antidote to the Adamic curse. Eugene Peterson said, "The Christian life...is a recovery of what was lost at the fall." Ranald McCaulay wrote similarly, "The whole purpose of the Christian life is the recovery of the original image of God." Baptismal images are evident in the creation as the spirit hovers over the waters. This typology springs to life at Jesus’ baptism – when the Spirit descended upon God's Son in that watery scene. Jesus' baptism served to identify Him with fallen humanity, and prefigure His death and resurrection.
Baptism is commended to US. Like the Eucharist, baptism is commanded by the Lord Himself which means IT IS VERY IMPORTANT. In fact, in the "Great Commission" baptism is one of two main tasks given to the Apostles as they were sent out to the world. Why is it so important? In Romans 5 and 6, Paul teaches an amazing mystery. He uses this same idea of "creation, fall, and recreation." Paul speaks of Adam's curse coming to all men and how Jesus reverses the curse. How does Paul say that we receive this restoration from Adam's rebellion? Our recreation, he declares, is found in connecting with the cross and empty tomb through baptism. In baptism we are united to Christ's death and resurrection. Webber claimed that baptism is a performative symbol. That is, it enacts what it signifies. Without Jesus' death and resurrection offered to us as we are united with Him in baptism, we would most assuredly perish under Adam's curse.
How does baptism, a one time rite, express and enact our ongoing spiritual lives rooted in Christ. We are baptized into Christ once - but we must die to self daily. Therefore the Scriptural mandate of "living out ones' baptism." This may be the easiest yet most profound way to communicate the essential truths of "creation, fall and recreation." Martin Luther concurred that the pattern of creation, fall and recreation in Christ is a worthy one by which to live. He said, "...in Baptism, every Christian has enough to study and to practice all his life. He always has enough to do to believe firmly what baptism promises and brings -- victory over death and the devil, forgiveness of sin, God's grace, the entire Christ, and the Holy Spirit with his gifts." Luther also said that baptism is to become..."the daily garment which the disciple is to wear all the time,...every day suppressing the old person and growing up in the new."
In an era when spirituality is suffering under the corrupting influences of man-made traditions and pseudo spiritual systems, we would do well to return to the ancient pattern of spirituality laid out for us in the Scriptures. Jesus said, "If you want to be my disciple you must deny yourself, take up your cross daily and follow me." This pattern is perfectly pictured in death, burial and resurrection - at Calvary and in a watery tomb.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Righteousness - Declaring or Making?
In my recent attempts to discover orthodoxy concerning “justification” and salvation, I have run across an interesting disconnect. Ultimately it all boils down to the meaning of "to justify" (Dikaioo in Greek). It should come as no surprise that there is disagreement on its meaning. Reformed thinkers have long held that it means "to declare righteous."
L. Berkhof in his Systematic Theology said, "The verb means in general 'to declare a person to be just…it is to declare forensically that the demands of the law…are fully satisfied with regard to a person…to justify…is to effect an objective relation, the state of righteousness by a judicial sentence. This can be done…by imputing to a person the righteousness of another, that is, by accounting him righteous though he is inwardly unrighteous." This understanding as stated by Berkhof is a commonly held position by many after the Reformation. The ancient interpretation and understanding of "to justify" is quite different, however. Rather than a simple declaration of righteousness, justification meant "to make righteous." While it is true that God is a righteous and holy judge who demands justice for sin, the Scriptures seem more focused on God’s role as a loving Father who desires to make us His children.
To understand this, one must go back to the beginning. The Trinity was and is a perfect divine family even before anything else existed. When God created mankind, he created them male and female (in His image and nature). He instructed them to become one flesh - to be fruitful and multiply. Their union as man and wife in the marriage covenant drew them into God's nature even further as they took part in creation (creatio continua). Two came together as one within a covenantal union and a third proceeded from that union. The resulting family reflects - in human terms - the image of God. This first family was bound by a covenant which established their familial bonds.
After the fall, God reached out to humanity so as to redeem them to Himself - to reclaim them as His children. Throughout history God has established covenants to restore fallen humanity. Covenants have two components - Word and Sign. The word of the covenant contains the expectations and blessings for compliance and the curses for not fulfilling the expectations of the covenant. "Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people." This covenantal language dominates salvation history. We will look at the sign later.
In order to understand the place of forensics within covenants, we must first understand the purpose of God’s covenants. God wanted a restored family. Without this at the core of our thinking we can not proceed. With God as Father (first and foremost) in our minds, now we move to His role as holy Judge. Someone must objectively administer the covenant. The only one qualified to do this is God, Himself. God is the greater of the parties in the covenants He institutes with fallen humanity. Therefore, He is the only viable Judge. There is none greater than God. His role as judge is secondary and subservient, however, to His role as Father.
Jesus ushers in the New Covenant with His sacrificial death and resurrection. Jesus said to His disciples, “This is the New Covenant in my blood.” This New Covenant retired the Mosaic covenant and restored the Abrahamic Covenant and fulfilled the Davidic Covenant. God’s covenant with Abraham was ALL ABOUT FAMILY. The New covenant is also ALL ABOUT FAMILY. The Davidic Covenant found its vibrancy in identifying with royal lineage. David’s royal family blood line was at the center. In the New Covenant, this is also the case as we become joint heirs with the King of kings.
Forensic justification which declares us righteous but leaves us fundamentally in a state of sin, does not coincide with adoption into God’s family and nature. Forensics, in this instance, must be seen in light of God’s designs to make us His sons and daughters. To be grafted into God’s family means that His lifeblood flows into us. No graft can take without receiving life from the source. Just taping a branch onto a vine does not make it alive!
When God declares something to be – it IS SO. God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. Jesus said, “Lazarus, come forth,” and Lazarus came forth. Jesus did not say in an ambiguous way, “Come forth,” because all of the dead would have arisen. God’s Word enacts what it declares. When God declares us righteous – it IS SO. We are made righteous.
Second, justification and regeneration are closely tied to Baptism. This is because the New Covenant, has a Word and a Sign or Signs. Baptism is a sign of the New Covenant (along with the Eucharist). Consider the following passages:
“But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:4-7). As seen here, water and the spirit are connected with Baptism. This juxtaposition is also found in other Scriptural scenes, like: the creation account in Genesis with the spirit hovering over the waters, the dove coming back to Noah as they were saved from the flood waters, the cloud protecting the Israelites as they passed through the waters of the Red Sea, as Jesus was in the waters of the Jordan – the Spirit descended like a dove, and as Jesus said to Nicodemus, “You must be born of water and the Spirit.” Again, we see these two concepts linked in Paul’s discussion of regeneration here in Titus 3.
Romans 5 and 6 are even stronger connections. Chapter 5:18 and following says, “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.”
How are we made righteous? Look at Romans chapter 6:1-14. “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.
Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.
In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.”
Romans 5 declares that we are all under the curse of Adam. Jesus, in the New Covenant, reverses the curse. How do we come into the New Covenant? Romans 6 contains the answer. When we are Baptized into Christ, the old man is crucified and we are united with Jesus in His death. Original sin (Adam’s curse – the old man) is washed away. Further, we are now “under grace” (v. 14). We are restored to favor with God. The old Gospel hymn says it better than I could, “My sins were washed away and my night was turned to day.”
As Jesus said to Nicodemus, “…unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Later he says, “…unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
As outlined in the Scriptures above, Baptism is connected to justification for it is the “washing of regeneration.” 1 Peter 3:20-21 says after discussing Noah and the eight saved “through the water,” that the water in that narrative is a type of baptismal water. “God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also…”
To conclude, God is an eternal Father who wants to be reconciled with fallen humanity. Jesus comes as the representative head to take mankind’s place in bearing the curse for Adam’s transgression. Justificaiton is reserved for those who come into Christ (baptism is the initiation rite into Christ). God adopts us as His children and we are united with the Lord.
Paul said, in 1 Corinthians 6:17, “But anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.” That sounds like more than an external declaration from a judge and much more like the blessing of being adopted into the covenant family. What do you think?
L. Berkhof in his Systematic Theology said, "The verb means in general 'to declare a person to be just…it is to declare forensically that the demands of the law…are fully satisfied with regard to a person…to justify…is to effect an objective relation, the state of righteousness by a judicial sentence. This can be done…by imputing to a person the righteousness of another, that is, by accounting him righteous though he is inwardly unrighteous." This understanding as stated by Berkhof is a commonly held position by many after the Reformation. The ancient interpretation and understanding of "to justify" is quite different, however. Rather than a simple declaration of righteousness, justification meant "to make righteous." While it is true that God is a righteous and holy judge who demands justice for sin, the Scriptures seem more focused on God’s role as a loving Father who desires to make us His children.
To understand this, one must go back to the beginning. The Trinity was and is a perfect divine family even before anything else existed. When God created mankind, he created them male and female (in His image and nature). He instructed them to become one flesh - to be fruitful and multiply. Their union as man and wife in the marriage covenant drew them into God's nature even further as they took part in creation (creatio continua). Two came together as one within a covenantal union and a third proceeded from that union. The resulting family reflects - in human terms - the image of God. This first family was bound by a covenant which established their familial bonds.
After the fall, God reached out to humanity so as to redeem them to Himself - to reclaim them as His children. Throughout history God has established covenants to restore fallen humanity. Covenants have two components - Word and Sign. The word of the covenant contains the expectations and blessings for compliance and the curses for not fulfilling the expectations of the covenant. "Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people." This covenantal language dominates salvation history. We will look at the sign later.
In order to understand the place of forensics within covenants, we must first understand the purpose of God’s covenants. God wanted a restored family. Without this at the core of our thinking we can not proceed. With God as Father (first and foremost) in our minds, now we move to His role as holy Judge. Someone must objectively administer the covenant. The only one qualified to do this is God, Himself. God is the greater of the parties in the covenants He institutes with fallen humanity. Therefore, He is the only viable Judge. There is none greater than God. His role as judge is secondary and subservient, however, to His role as Father.
Jesus ushers in the New Covenant with His sacrificial death and resurrection. Jesus said to His disciples, “This is the New Covenant in my blood.” This New Covenant retired the Mosaic covenant and restored the Abrahamic Covenant and fulfilled the Davidic Covenant. God’s covenant with Abraham was ALL ABOUT FAMILY. The New covenant is also ALL ABOUT FAMILY. The Davidic Covenant found its vibrancy in identifying with royal lineage. David’s royal family blood line was at the center. In the New Covenant, this is also the case as we become joint heirs with the King of kings.
Forensic justification which declares us righteous but leaves us fundamentally in a state of sin, does not coincide with adoption into God’s family and nature. Forensics, in this instance, must be seen in light of God’s designs to make us His sons and daughters. To be grafted into God’s family means that His lifeblood flows into us. No graft can take without receiving life from the source. Just taping a branch onto a vine does not make it alive!
When God declares something to be – it IS SO. God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. Jesus said, “Lazarus, come forth,” and Lazarus came forth. Jesus did not say in an ambiguous way, “Come forth,” because all of the dead would have arisen. God’s Word enacts what it declares. When God declares us righteous – it IS SO. We are made righteous.
Second, justification and regeneration are closely tied to Baptism. This is because the New Covenant, has a Word and a Sign or Signs. Baptism is a sign of the New Covenant (along with the Eucharist). Consider the following passages:
“But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:4-7). As seen here, water and the spirit are connected with Baptism. This juxtaposition is also found in other Scriptural scenes, like: the creation account in Genesis with the spirit hovering over the waters, the dove coming back to Noah as they were saved from the flood waters, the cloud protecting the Israelites as they passed through the waters of the Red Sea, as Jesus was in the waters of the Jordan – the Spirit descended like a dove, and as Jesus said to Nicodemus, “You must be born of water and the Spirit.” Again, we see these two concepts linked in Paul’s discussion of regeneration here in Titus 3.
Romans 5 and 6 are even stronger connections. Chapter 5:18 and following says, “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.”
How are we made righteous? Look at Romans chapter 6:1-14. “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.
Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.
In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.”
Romans 5 declares that we are all under the curse of Adam. Jesus, in the New Covenant, reverses the curse. How do we come into the New Covenant? Romans 6 contains the answer. When we are Baptized into Christ, the old man is crucified and we are united with Jesus in His death. Original sin (Adam’s curse – the old man) is washed away. Further, we are now “under grace” (v. 14). We are restored to favor with God. The old Gospel hymn says it better than I could, “My sins were washed away and my night was turned to day.”
As Jesus said to Nicodemus, “…unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Later he says, “…unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
As outlined in the Scriptures above, Baptism is connected to justification for it is the “washing of regeneration.” 1 Peter 3:20-21 says after discussing Noah and the eight saved “through the water,” that the water in that narrative is a type of baptismal water. “God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also…”
To conclude, God is an eternal Father who wants to be reconciled with fallen humanity. Jesus comes as the representative head to take mankind’s place in bearing the curse for Adam’s transgression. Justificaiton is reserved for those who come into Christ (baptism is the initiation rite into Christ). God adopts us as His children and we are united with the Lord.
Paul said, in 1 Corinthians 6:17, “But anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.” That sounds like more than an external declaration from a judge and much more like the blessing of being adopted into the covenant family. What do you think?
Thursday, December 18, 2008
A Frosty Face, A Birthday Bash, and A Cuddle in the Creche
Glenn Pease tells the story of a fairly typical last minute Christmas shopper. With little shopping time left, this bargain hunter was running furiously from store to store. Suddenly she became aware that the pudgy little hand of her three year old son was no longer clutched in hers. In a panic she retraced her steps and found him standing with his little nose pressed flatly against a frosty window. He was gazing at a manger scene. Hearing his mother’s near hysterical call, he turned and shouted with innocent glee: "Look Mommy! It’s Jesus - baby Jesus in the hay.” With obvious indifference to his joy and wonder, she impatiently jerked him away saying, "We don’t have time for that!"
What are we making time for this Advent season as we prepare for the celebration of Christmas? You see, how we spend our time reveals our priorities. And our priorities reveal our values. Are you like the mother in this story who did not have time to “ponder these things in her heart.” Or, are you like the little boy – nose smudging the frosty window trying to get a clearer view of little baby Jesus?
As parents and grandparents, our children are taking cues from us on the worth and meaning of Advent and Christmas. They see the way we are spending our time. They can easily discern our values as they watch us operate in this busy season of preparation leading to the celebration of Jesus’ birthday. The way many adults preparate for Christmas, you would think it was their children or grandchildren’s birthday celebration. Very early on, children learn to focus on themselves - “what they are getting.” Often the first question children ask each other is, “what did you get this year?” Where do they learn that Christmas is all about them? They learn it from us…because, sadly, we may have also been taught that it is all about us and we are passing that misguided notion right down the line.
Aaron Burgess shares that a family celebrated Christmas every year with a birthday party for Jesus. An extra chair of honor at the table became the family’s reminder of Jesus’ Presence. A cake with candles, along with the singing of "Happy Birthday" expressed the family’s joy in Jesus’ closeness. One year on Christmas afternoon a visitor to the home asked the five-year-old girl, "Did you get everything you wanted for Christmas?" After a moment’s hesitation, she answered, "No, but then it’s not my birthday!" What an extraordinary answer.
Are we doing enough to place Jesus at the heart of our celebration? It’s about time we did that.
Finally, a poignant illustration by Jim Kane. He writes that in 1994 two Americans answered an invitation from the Russian Department of Education to teach morals and ethics (based on Biblical principles) in the public schools. They were also invited to teach at prisons, businesses, the fire and police departments, and a large orphanage.
It was nearing Christmas and for the orphans it was their first time to hear the traditional Christmas story. The two Americans told them about Mary and Joseph arriving in Bethlehem and finding no room in the inn, and how the couple went to a stable, where Jesus was born and placed in the manger.
Throughout the story, the children, according to one of the Americans, “sat in amazement as they listened. Some sat on the edges of their stools, trying to grasp every word.”
As a follow-up activity to the story, each child was given three small pieces of cardboard to make a crude manger. Each child was also given a small paper square, cut from yellow napkins which the children tore into strips. The paper was then carefully laid in the manger for straw. Small squares of flannel from a thrown away nightgown were used for the baby’s blanket. From pieces of tan felt a doll-like baby was made.
As they made their way around the room to observe the children this is what one of the Americans noted, “All went well until I got to one table where little Misha sat. He looked to be about 6 years old and had finished his project. As I looked at the little boy’s manger, I was startled to see, not one but two babies in the manger. Quickly, I called for the translator to ask the lad why there were two babies in the manger.” The observer goes on to note that Misha very accurately recalled the story that had been told until he came to the part where Mary put Jesus in the manger. “Then Misha started to ad-lib. He made up his own ending to the story as he said, “And when Mary laid the baby in the manger, Jesus looked at me and asked me if I had a place to stay. I told him I have no momma and I have no papa, so I don’t have any place. Then Jesus told me I could stay with him. But I told him I couldn’t because I didn’t have a gift to give him like everybody else did. But I wanted to stay with Jesus so much, so I thought about what I had that maybe I could use for a gift. I thought maybe if I kept him warm, that would be a good gift. So I asked Jesus, “If I keep you warm, will that be a good enough gift?” And Jesus told me, “If you keep me warm, that will be the best gift anybody ever gave me. So I got into the manger, and then Jesus looked at me and he told me I could stay with him – for always.” As little Misha finished his story, his eyes brimmed full of tears that splashed down his little cheeks. Putting his hand over his face, his head dropped to the table and his shoulders shook as he sobbed and sobbed. The little orphan had found someone who would never abandon or abuse him, someone who would stay with him – FOR ALWAYS!”
Our children and grandchildren must hear this story from us. They must see themselves in this story and like little Misha realize that Jesus will never leave them or forsake them…FOR ALWAYS.
How will you spend your time this Advent and Christmas? Will you join the crowds at the mall who are much more interested in getting a good deal on gifts than sharing the best gift ever given? The day after thanksgiving, black Friday, a store clerk who was attempting to open the doors of the store for business, lost his life as rabid shoppers trampled him to death. What does this say about our culture's values at Christmas? I pray we will be consumed with letting our light shine before men – that they will see Jesus. We may need a fresh frosty face, an appropriately directed birthday bash, and a warm cuddle in the creche. Merry Christmas everyone!
What are we making time for this Advent season as we prepare for the celebration of Christmas? You see, how we spend our time reveals our priorities. And our priorities reveal our values. Are you like the mother in this story who did not have time to “ponder these things in her heart.” Or, are you like the little boy – nose smudging the frosty window trying to get a clearer view of little baby Jesus?
As parents and grandparents, our children are taking cues from us on the worth and meaning of Advent and Christmas. They see the way we are spending our time. They can easily discern our values as they watch us operate in this busy season of preparation leading to the celebration of Jesus’ birthday. The way many adults preparate for Christmas, you would think it was their children or grandchildren’s birthday celebration. Very early on, children learn to focus on themselves - “what they are getting.” Often the first question children ask each other is, “what did you get this year?” Where do they learn that Christmas is all about them? They learn it from us…because, sadly, we may have also been taught that it is all about us and we are passing that misguided notion right down the line.
Aaron Burgess shares that a family celebrated Christmas every year with a birthday party for Jesus. An extra chair of honor at the table became the family’s reminder of Jesus’ Presence. A cake with candles, along with the singing of "Happy Birthday" expressed the family’s joy in Jesus’ closeness. One year on Christmas afternoon a visitor to the home asked the five-year-old girl, "Did you get everything you wanted for Christmas?" After a moment’s hesitation, she answered, "No, but then it’s not my birthday!" What an extraordinary answer.
Are we doing enough to place Jesus at the heart of our celebration? It’s about time we did that.
Finally, a poignant illustration by Jim Kane. He writes that in 1994 two Americans answered an invitation from the Russian Department of Education to teach morals and ethics (based on Biblical principles) in the public schools. They were also invited to teach at prisons, businesses, the fire and police departments, and a large orphanage.
It was nearing Christmas and for the orphans it was their first time to hear the traditional Christmas story. The two Americans told them about Mary and Joseph arriving in Bethlehem and finding no room in the inn, and how the couple went to a stable, where Jesus was born and placed in the manger.
Throughout the story, the children, according to one of the Americans, “sat in amazement as they listened. Some sat on the edges of their stools, trying to grasp every word.”
As a follow-up activity to the story, each child was given three small pieces of cardboard to make a crude manger. Each child was also given a small paper square, cut from yellow napkins which the children tore into strips. The paper was then carefully laid in the manger for straw. Small squares of flannel from a thrown away nightgown were used for the baby’s blanket. From pieces of tan felt a doll-like baby was made.
As they made their way around the room to observe the children this is what one of the Americans noted, “All went well until I got to one table where little Misha sat. He looked to be about 6 years old and had finished his project. As I looked at the little boy’s manger, I was startled to see, not one but two babies in the manger. Quickly, I called for the translator to ask the lad why there were two babies in the manger.” The observer goes on to note that Misha very accurately recalled the story that had been told until he came to the part where Mary put Jesus in the manger. “Then Misha started to ad-lib. He made up his own ending to the story as he said, “And when Mary laid the baby in the manger, Jesus looked at me and asked me if I had a place to stay. I told him I have no momma and I have no papa, so I don’t have any place. Then Jesus told me I could stay with him. But I told him I couldn’t because I didn’t have a gift to give him like everybody else did. But I wanted to stay with Jesus so much, so I thought about what I had that maybe I could use for a gift. I thought maybe if I kept him warm, that would be a good gift. So I asked Jesus, “If I keep you warm, will that be a good enough gift?” And Jesus told me, “If you keep me warm, that will be the best gift anybody ever gave me. So I got into the manger, and then Jesus looked at me and he told me I could stay with him – for always.” As little Misha finished his story, his eyes brimmed full of tears that splashed down his little cheeks. Putting his hand over his face, his head dropped to the table and his shoulders shook as he sobbed and sobbed. The little orphan had found someone who would never abandon or abuse him, someone who would stay with him – FOR ALWAYS!”
Our children and grandchildren must hear this story from us. They must see themselves in this story and like little Misha realize that Jesus will never leave them or forsake them…FOR ALWAYS.
How will you spend your time this Advent and Christmas? Will you join the crowds at the mall who are much more interested in getting a good deal on gifts than sharing the best gift ever given? The day after thanksgiving, black Friday, a store clerk who was attempting to open the doors of the store for business, lost his life as rabid shoppers trampled him to death. What does this say about our culture's values at Christmas? I pray we will be consumed with letting our light shine before men – that they will see Jesus. We may need a fresh frosty face, an appropriately directed birthday bash, and a warm cuddle in the creche. Merry Christmas everyone!
Friday, November 21, 2008
The Main Event: Rock vs. Pebble
My quest for the truth of Christian Orthodoxy (what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all) has led me down some strange paths. Remaining open to what I find on this journey has made me do a double-take more than once. There may be no greater example than what I discovered while studying Matthew 16:13-19.
In this passage, Jesus asks the disciples, “Who do men say that that the Son of man is?” Their responses include John the Baptist, Elijah and Jeremiah among other prophets. Jesus turns to Simon and asks, “What about you? Who do you say I am?” Simon responds, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replies, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Judah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.” Then Jesus says, “I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” He goes on to say, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
For years I have been exposed to this passage of Scripture from a Protestant hermeneutic. Essentially the understanding of this passage goes like this:
Jesus’ question elicits an array of answers from the Disciples. Jesus turns to Simon because he is the most outspoken of the group. Simon’s correct response prompts Jesus to affirm that this was revealed to Simon by God. When Jesus says that Simon will now be known as Peter – he is using a Greek term (Petros) which means small rock or pebble. Jesus goes on to say that upon this rock (Petra), which means large rock or immovable boulder, I will build my church. Two things are usually pointed out here. First – Jesus is affirming Peter’s faith and not making any pronouncement concerning Peter alone. Second, Jesus is not saying He will build the Church on Peter. By using the word Petros for the new name of Peter, and the word Petra for the rock upon which the church would be built, Jesus could not have meant the church would be built on Peter. The two rocks – one small and one large – rule Peter out as a possibility. What did Jesus mean? One of two things is usually espoused. Jesus either meant the church would be built on Peter’s faith, or upon Jesus, Himself.
When Jesus says that he is going to give the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter, it is asserted that these keys are given to all Christians. They represent the gospel which is to be preached to everyone. The keys are a general gift given to the entire church and when received by the repentant sinner, open the door to heaven.
Finally, the statement that, “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven,” simply means that the Gospel message has the power to condemn or to save. Again, this is a general statement that all believers have the capacity to share the Gospel which has eternal implications for those who hear depending on their acceptance or rejection.
This interpretation seems somewhat minimal but plausible and satisfactorily settles the interpretation of this passage for many. As I began to look for other interpretations I found that this understanding of Matthew 16:13-19 is not shared by all Christians. For centuries another view has been embraced. Exploring this alternate view is the cause for my double-take and I offer you my findings as a platform for discussion – not as a definitive conclusion.
First, the issue of the little rock (or pebble) and big rock (or boulder) should not apply to this passage. Ostensibly, the Greek word used by Jesus for rock was the feminine Petra. Because Simon is a man, the translators had to make a choice. They could use a feminine word for a man, or they could use the masculine form of the word – Petros. The discrepancy arises because of a translation issue. Compounding the problem in English is the complete loss of any connection between the two words. Peter and Rock have no obvious connection. What’s more, Jesus would have spoken Aramaic, not Greek. In Aramaic, Jesus used Kepha for both Simon’s new name, and for the rock upon which the church was to be built. To be accurate, Jesus said, “You are Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my church…” There is no difference. Apparently, the Pebble versus Rock idea is invalid. Jesus used the same word to give Peter his new name and to name the one upon whom the church would be built.
Second, Jesus gives Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.” This interesting gift has a Scriptural precedent in Isaiah 22:20-22. "In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” In this passage Eliakim is made Prime Minister in the realm of King Hezekiah. As the second in command, he will run the affairs of the Kingdom. This passage is a clear parallel to Matthew 16. When Jesus offers Peter the keys to the kingdom, does it stand to reason that he is giving him earthly authority to run the affairs of His kingdom, the Church?
Third, what about the “binding and loosing?” This is a rabbinical term which gave authority to the rabbis to interpret what was permitted or not permitted under the Law. In offering this capacity to Peter, and later the Apostles (Matthew 18:18), is Jesus giving them the responsibility to interpret and preserve the truths of the New Covenant so that orthodoxy would be preserved? Jesus says, as recorded in John 20:21-23, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." What an astounding statement. This was rarely quoted in my childhood Sunday School classes. Taken together, the evidence seems strong that Jesus appointed Peter to the office of Prime Minister – to run the earthly affairs of God’s Kingdom, and placed the Apostles as his assistants in this endeavor. Their tasks include, according to these passages, interpreting and preserving orthodoxy and the priestly role of reconciliation.
These discoveries bring up several questions for me. Why does the clear connection between Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22 receive such scant discussion as a possibility within the Protestant hermeneutic? Without the Pebble vs. Rock argument, what happens to the Protestant understanding of Matthew 16? What if Jesus is giving this office to Peter? Should this be ignored?
In this passage, Jesus asks the disciples, “Who do men say that that the Son of man is?” Their responses include John the Baptist, Elijah and Jeremiah among other prophets. Jesus turns to Simon and asks, “What about you? Who do you say I am?” Simon responds, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replies, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Judah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.” Then Jesus says, “I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” He goes on to say, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
For years I have been exposed to this passage of Scripture from a Protestant hermeneutic. Essentially the understanding of this passage goes like this:
Jesus’ question elicits an array of answers from the Disciples. Jesus turns to Simon because he is the most outspoken of the group. Simon’s correct response prompts Jesus to affirm that this was revealed to Simon by God. When Jesus says that Simon will now be known as Peter – he is using a Greek term (Petros) which means small rock or pebble. Jesus goes on to say that upon this rock (Petra), which means large rock or immovable boulder, I will build my church. Two things are usually pointed out here. First – Jesus is affirming Peter’s faith and not making any pronouncement concerning Peter alone. Second, Jesus is not saying He will build the Church on Peter. By using the word Petros for the new name of Peter, and the word Petra for the rock upon which the church would be built, Jesus could not have meant the church would be built on Peter. The two rocks – one small and one large – rule Peter out as a possibility. What did Jesus mean? One of two things is usually espoused. Jesus either meant the church would be built on Peter’s faith, or upon Jesus, Himself.
When Jesus says that he is going to give the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter, it is asserted that these keys are given to all Christians. They represent the gospel which is to be preached to everyone. The keys are a general gift given to the entire church and when received by the repentant sinner, open the door to heaven.
Finally, the statement that, “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven,” simply means that the Gospel message has the power to condemn or to save. Again, this is a general statement that all believers have the capacity to share the Gospel which has eternal implications for those who hear depending on their acceptance or rejection.
This interpretation seems somewhat minimal but plausible and satisfactorily settles the interpretation of this passage for many. As I began to look for other interpretations I found that this understanding of Matthew 16:13-19 is not shared by all Christians. For centuries another view has been embraced. Exploring this alternate view is the cause for my double-take and I offer you my findings as a platform for discussion – not as a definitive conclusion.
First, the issue of the little rock (or pebble) and big rock (or boulder) should not apply to this passage. Ostensibly, the Greek word used by Jesus for rock was the feminine Petra. Because Simon is a man, the translators had to make a choice. They could use a feminine word for a man, or they could use the masculine form of the word – Petros. The discrepancy arises because of a translation issue. Compounding the problem in English is the complete loss of any connection between the two words. Peter and Rock have no obvious connection. What’s more, Jesus would have spoken Aramaic, not Greek. In Aramaic, Jesus used Kepha for both Simon’s new name, and for the rock upon which the church was to be built. To be accurate, Jesus said, “You are Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my church…” There is no difference. Apparently, the Pebble versus Rock idea is invalid. Jesus used the same word to give Peter his new name and to name the one upon whom the church would be built.
Second, Jesus gives Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.” This interesting gift has a Scriptural precedent in Isaiah 22:20-22. "In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” In this passage Eliakim is made Prime Minister in the realm of King Hezekiah. As the second in command, he will run the affairs of the Kingdom. This passage is a clear parallel to Matthew 16. When Jesus offers Peter the keys to the kingdom, does it stand to reason that he is giving him earthly authority to run the affairs of His kingdom, the Church?
Third, what about the “binding and loosing?” This is a rabbinical term which gave authority to the rabbis to interpret what was permitted or not permitted under the Law. In offering this capacity to Peter, and later the Apostles (Matthew 18:18), is Jesus giving them the responsibility to interpret and preserve the truths of the New Covenant so that orthodoxy would be preserved? Jesus says, as recorded in John 20:21-23, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." What an astounding statement. This was rarely quoted in my childhood Sunday School classes. Taken together, the evidence seems strong that Jesus appointed Peter to the office of Prime Minister – to run the earthly affairs of God’s Kingdom, and placed the Apostles as his assistants in this endeavor. Their tasks include, according to these passages, interpreting and preserving orthodoxy and the priestly role of reconciliation.
These discoveries bring up several questions for me. Why does the clear connection between Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22 receive such scant discussion as a possibility within the Protestant hermeneutic? Without the Pebble vs. Rock argument, what happens to the Protestant understanding of Matthew 16? What if Jesus is giving this office to Peter? Should this be ignored?
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
What is Orthodoxy and Who Decides?
This question has haunted me for some time. If you read on, realize that I am struggling with this issue. In my attempt to answer it, I have tried to use the Scriptures exclusively to find the answer. So, if you want to procede, please understand the depth of my struggle. Your suggestions would be most helpful in dealing with the question, "What is Orthodoxy and who decides?"
My quest begins with another question: How can it be that a vast majority of Protestant churches claim that Scripture is their sole authority (sola Scriptura) in spiritual matters – and yet thousands of denominations exist because they can’t agree on what the Bible says? The Scriptures teach that there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:5). Yet, in reality, there are many denominations, many versions of the faith, and many understandings of baptism. The Scriptures teach, “Let there be no division among you” (1 Cor. 1:10)… yet because there is no oversight of orthodoxy, and many believers see themselves as autonomous, Scriptural truths are up for grabs. In democratically operated churches, interpretation of truth may be subject to majority vote. Please show me in the Scriptures a model for church democracy. Where in the Bible is the truth subject to majority vote? Because of the lack of authority, Christians are free to interpret as they will,hence; we have thousands of disagreeing, disengaged, diverse denominations. The one loaf has become many little wafers. I believe the reason for division is that there is no authority other than "my opinion."
Do the Scriptures teach that the Bible is the only authority in spiritual matters? I know the Scriptures are “profitable for doctrine…,” but is that the same as being the only authority? Does "Profitable" equate to "exclusive?"
What does the Bible say about this? The Bible does not claim that it is the only arbiter of truth, but it does claim that there is a “pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15).” The Scriptures teach that this distinction and responsibility belongs to the Church. Is this observable in the life of the Church as recorded in the Scriptures? Yes, I believe it is. Consider the teaching of Matthew 18 concerning discipline. It admonishes us to go to a person if we are having an issue with them and discuss the problem. If that doesn’t work, we are to take one or two others with us. “And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the Church.” If these two Christians belong to churches of differing denominations, to which church should they go for resolution? THE Church is presented as the final authority in these matters. When Paul returned to Jerusalem, a council of the Church including apostles and elders was convened. Acts 15:6 says, “So the apostles and elders met together to resolve the issue.” Acts 16:4 is instructive. “Then they (Paul and Timothy) went from town to town, instructing the believers to follow the decisions made by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. So the Churches were strengthened in their faith and grew larger everyday.” This is the teaching of Scripture concerning proper authority… “The pillar and foundation of truth” is the Church…we do not find authority vested in everyone as autonomous individuals…but rather, all believers are in subjection to the decisions of the apostles and elders.
This is so important because it moves us from “me reading my Bible and reinventing the wheel,” to asking the question, “What has the Church said about this…How has the church always interpreted this passage of Scripture.” Further, it introduces discipline into the reading of Scripture. I am not free to reinterpret the Scriptures to suit my fancy. And, if I disagree with a brother, or I am confused about a passage, I know where to go…to the authority…the Church.
In the Old Testament we find a three pronged approach to orthodoxy. There was the Law. There was the teaching of Moses called the “seat of Moses” (Exodus 18:13, Matthew 23:2), and there was the Oral Tradition.
In the New Testament I believe this three legged stool of authority remained. There was the written Word, the Oral Tradition or “Kerygma” (*2 Thes. 2:15) and the teaching ministry of the Church (expressed through the councils and creeds - Acts 6:2, 15:4-11, 16:4).
*“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”
This is what I find in the Scriptures concerning Church order and authority. What is orthodoxy and who decides? While the question remains…the answers are really causing me problems because they don’t look very familiar.
Please offer me some help on this one!
My quest begins with another question: How can it be that a vast majority of Protestant churches claim that Scripture is their sole authority (sola Scriptura) in spiritual matters – and yet thousands of denominations exist because they can’t agree on what the Bible says? The Scriptures teach that there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:5). Yet, in reality, there are many denominations, many versions of the faith, and many understandings of baptism. The Scriptures teach, “Let there be no division among you” (1 Cor. 1:10)… yet because there is no oversight of orthodoxy, and many believers see themselves as autonomous, Scriptural truths are up for grabs. In democratically operated churches, interpretation of truth may be subject to majority vote. Please show me in the Scriptures a model for church democracy. Where in the Bible is the truth subject to majority vote? Because of the lack of authority, Christians are free to interpret as they will,hence; we have thousands of disagreeing, disengaged, diverse denominations. The one loaf has become many little wafers. I believe the reason for division is that there is no authority other than "my opinion."
Do the Scriptures teach that the Bible is the only authority in spiritual matters? I know the Scriptures are “profitable for doctrine…,” but is that the same as being the only authority? Does "Profitable" equate to "exclusive?"
What does the Bible say about this? The Bible does not claim that it is the only arbiter of truth, but it does claim that there is a “pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15).” The Scriptures teach that this distinction and responsibility belongs to the Church. Is this observable in the life of the Church as recorded in the Scriptures? Yes, I believe it is. Consider the teaching of Matthew 18 concerning discipline. It admonishes us to go to a person if we are having an issue with them and discuss the problem. If that doesn’t work, we are to take one or two others with us. “And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the Church.” If these two Christians belong to churches of differing denominations, to which church should they go for resolution? THE Church is presented as the final authority in these matters. When Paul returned to Jerusalem, a council of the Church including apostles and elders was convened. Acts 15:6 says, “So the apostles and elders met together to resolve the issue.” Acts 16:4 is instructive. “Then they (Paul and Timothy) went from town to town, instructing the believers to follow the decisions made by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. So the Churches were strengthened in their faith and grew larger everyday.” This is the teaching of Scripture concerning proper authority… “The pillar and foundation of truth” is the Church…we do not find authority vested in everyone as autonomous individuals…but rather, all believers are in subjection to the decisions of the apostles and elders.
This is so important because it moves us from “me reading my Bible and reinventing the wheel,” to asking the question, “What has the Church said about this…How has the church always interpreted this passage of Scripture.” Further, it introduces discipline into the reading of Scripture. I am not free to reinterpret the Scriptures to suit my fancy. And, if I disagree with a brother, or I am confused about a passage, I know where to go…to the authority…the Church.
In the Old Testament we find a three pronged approach to orthodoxy. There was the Law. There was the teaching of Moses called the “seat of Moses” (Exodus 18:13, Matthew 23:2), and there was the Oral Tradition.
In the New Testament I believe this three legged stool of authority remained. There was the written Word, the Oral Tradition or “Kerygma” (*2 Thes. 2:15) and the teaching ministry of the Church (expressed through the councils and creeds - Acts 6:2, 15:4-11, 16:4).
*“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”
This is what I find in the Scriptures concerning Church order and authority. What is orthodoxy and who decides? While the question remains…the answers are really causing me problems because they don’t look very familiar.
Please offer me some help on this one!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)