The following is a response to Nick to his comments on my previous post.
Here is what Nick said:
Hi,
I'd like to make a few comments on some of what you said.
You said: "For Luther, there are really only two legitimate options to obtaining a right standing before God. The first is to perfectly obey the demands of the Law. The second is to rely on the work of another; namely, the perfect law-keeping merits of Christ in one’s place."
Nick: I believe this is a false dilemma. The Law never was designed to save, even if kept perfectly, so whether you or Christ (in your place) keeps it doesn't translate into salvation. Gal 2:21; 3:17,21,25 explain the Law was temporal and never designed to save.
You said: The Reformers maintained, with St. Augustine, that Adam’s sin was imputed, or reckon, to all his progenies.
Nick: This is incorrect, Adam's guilt was not "imputed" to others, that's not a teaching of Scripture (because it never uses "impute" in that manner) and not accurate to St Augustine. Original Sin is true, it does affect all, but it is not "imputed." Think of it more as a genetic disease, which makes someone physically unable to do good works.
Further, the dispute with Pelagius went deeper than you and most other Protestants realize. The issue was a battle between nature and grace, which Augustine and Catholics see as grace added to nature, with original sin stripping grace from nature. With Pelagius, he denied grace added to nature, and saw only nature, so when Adam "fell" Pelagius saw nothing to fall from. The alternative to Pelagius' conclusion is the path Protestantism took, which was that human nature itself became corrupt. So while it might sound surprising, Protestantism is actually founded upon Pelagianism, because they start off with the same pre-fallen view of Adam.
And this is in fact the heart of the Catholic-Protestant dispute. We have the doctor diagnosing TWO DIFFERENT illnesses (two understandings of original sin), and thus there are TWO DIFFERENT treatments given (corresponding to each disease that needs to be cured). This leads to the two different views of justification.
You said: "In Romans 4:5, Paul tells us that God “justifies the ungodly.” How can this be?"
Nick: The Protestant interpretation doesn't make much sense here, because if justification is a declaration only, then God is saying "you unrighteous man are righteous," which is a lie. If righteousness is imputed to the sinner's account, then God is not looking at a unrighteous man but a righteous one, contradicting the "ungodly" term used.
The Catholic interpretation is that of God transforming the sinner so that they are righteous, seen nicely in 1 Cor 6:10-11.
You said: Here, we move to the center of the doctrine justification; namely, the reckoning of Christ’s righteousness on sin stricken, guilty sinners.
Nick: Though many don't realize it, the Bible never says "christ's righteousness" is imputed. That simply isn't found in Scripture.
You said: "What is meant by imputation? The Reformers often appealed to 2 Corinthians 5:21...there is only a twofold imputation found"
Nick: The main problem here is that the term "impute" is not used here, it's projected on this verse, which is invalid exegesis. The Bible never says sin is "impute" to Christ or that Adam's sin is "imputed" to us, nor that Christ's Righteousness is imputed. It might make the theology easier to speak like this, but Scripture does not use such terminology. Paul was well aware of the term "impute," so given that he never used it in this sense is problematic for your argument.
You said: "The good news of the gospel is that God has done for us what we could not do for ourselves; Christ obeyed the demands of God’s perfect law and he took the punishment that we deserve to present us as faultless before the Father."
Nick: Nowhere does the Bible say Christ obeyed the Law 'in our place', nor does it say Jesus was punished in our place in the Penal Substitution sense. Unfortunately, these things are repeated so often people begin to think the Bible teaches them.
Nick said...
In my study on this topic, the Greek term "logizomai" is the English term for "reckon/impute/credit/etc," (all terms are basically equivalently used) and when I look up that term in a popular Protestant Lexicon here is what it is defined as:
----------------
QUOTE: "This word deals with reality. If I "logizomai" or reckon that my bank book has $25 in it, it has $25 in it. Otherwise I am deceiving myself. This word refers to facts not suppositions."
http://tinyurl.com/r92dch
----------------
The Protestant Lexicon states this term first and foremost refers to the actual status of something. So if Abraham's faith is "logizomai as righteouness," it must be an actually righteous act of faith, otherwise (as the Lexicon says) "I am deceiving myself." This seems to rule out any notion of an alien righteousness, and instead points to a local/inherent righteousness.
The Lexicon gives other examples where "logizomai" appears, here are 3 examples:
-------------------
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude [logizomai] that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 6:11 Likewise reckon [logizomai] ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rom 8:18 For I reckon [logizomai] that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
-------------------
Notice in these examples that "logizomai" means to consider the actual truth of an object. In 3:28 Paul 'reckons' faith saves while the Law does not, this is a fact, the Law never saves. In 6:11 the Christian is 'reckoned' dead to sin because he is in fact dead to sin. In 8:18 Paul 'reckons' the present sufferings as having no comparison to Heavenly glory, and that is true because nothing compares to Heavenly glory.
To use logizomai in the "alien status" way would mean in: (1) 3:28 faith doesn't really save apart from works, but we are going to go ahead and say it does; (2) 6:11 that we are not really dead to sin but are going to say we are; (3) 8:18 the present sufferings are comparable to Heaven's glory.
This cannot be right.
So when the text plainly says "faith is logizomai as righteousness," I must read that as 'faith is reckoned as a truly righteous act', and that is precisely how Paul explains that phrase in 4:18-22. That despite the doubts that could be raised in Abraham's heart, his faith grew strong and convinced and "that is why his faith was credited as righteousness" (v4:22).
Here is my response:
Hi Nick:
First, I want to thank you for taking the time to respond to my post, your zealousness is commendable. I hope to have/continue this stimulating dialogue about the doctrine of Justification. With that in mind, let me respond to some of the comments you made here:
(i) You are correct to point out that the Law does not save (Gal. 2:21; 3:17, 21, 25). Why is this so? It is because humans, affected by the Fall, cannot naturally keep it. This is why it is by faith alone that we are justified, apart from the works of the Law, i.e., we are incapable of fulfilling it. The Law serves to reveal our sinfulness and bring us to Christ (Gal. 3:24); the one who fulfilled it for us (Matt. 5:17).
(ii) I am astonished with your claim that “Protestantism is actually founded upon Pelagianism, because they start off with the same pre-fallen view of Adam.” This claim is unsubstantiated in my opinion. Reformation theology maintains that Adam was created holy and upright in nature contra Pelagius, who taught that Adam was created neither upright nor evil. Furthermore, contrary to your assessment, Augustine believed that humans were born with a fallen nature as a result of the Fall, which is upheld by the Reformers. In this regard, the Reformers do not start with Pelagius’ “pre-fallen view of Adam”, but Augustine’s view.
You said, “think of it more as a generic disease, which makes someone physically unable to do good works.” It seems to me that Scripture goes beyond a physical incapability. It further asserts that humans “became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body” (Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. 6, cf. Eph. 2:1; Tit. 1:15; Gen. 6:5; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 3:10-18 etc.). Moreover, the Scriptures teach that Adam’s sin is counted on our behalf. Take for instance Romans 5:12-19. Here we are explicitly informed that Adam’s trespass led to condemnation to all men. It is as if all men were present in Adam’s sinning.
(iii) Romans 4:5, I maintain, is a passage that demonstrates man’s utter need for the grace of God. It says that the ungodly cannot in any manner contribute to their salvation. Imputed righteousness here does not annul Paul’s claim that God “justifies the ungodly,” as you supposed. Once a sinner believes (he is justified on account of Christ righteousness), yet he is not immediately, intrinsically perfected at that moment. Hence, he may be considered justified because of Christ and, simultaneously, “ungodly.” This is paradoxical, but not contradictory.
It seems that your interpretation may in fact be the one in error. Nowhere in the passage is “transformation” being discussed. If God justifies according to our righteousness, then he is not “justifying the ungodly,” but the “godly.” If your analysis is correct, then you must employ the same with Romans 4:7-8. It says, “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against the Lord will not count his sin” (emphasis mine). Furthermore, your citation of 1 Corinthians 6:10-11 does not support your position here. Yes, unrighteousness will not inherit the kingdom of God, but the Paul does not appeal to our own righteousness for justification. He appeals to believers being “justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (v. 11).
(iv) True, Scripture never says “Christ’s righteousness” is imputed, but the idea is there. J.V. Fesko rightly points out, “One of the most common theological contructs that theologians employ is the term, ‘Trinity.’ The term occurs nowhere in the Scriptures, yet it is universally employed to give expression to the idea that God is one in essence and three in person. The same may be said of the righteousness of Christ” (Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine, p. 154).
(v) Again, your objection to my exegesis of 2 Corinthians 5:21 is unfounded because you fail to recognize the connection between the theological terminology and the meaning of the passage. The meaning of the passage is conveyed in the theological terminology. Therefore, they are compatible.
(vi) Once again, you are transfixed on the idea that because the word is not there, the meaning is not there. There are plenty of passages that present the message of “Christ obeyed the Law ‘in our place,’…Jesus was punished in our place in the Penal Substitution sense.” Here are a few of them: 1 Pet. 2:21-25; Gal. 3:10-14; Isa. 53; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 3:21-28.
(vii) I appreciated your word study of “logizomai.” However, there seems to be some problems with your exegesis here. You mentioned that “if Abraham’s faith is ‘logizomai as righteousness,’ it must be an actually righteous act of faith.” Do you mean that faith then justifies in its own act or essence? I think not. To separate faith and its object, namely Christ, would be totally absurd. Listen to what Herman Bavinck has to say: “If faith justified on account of itself, the object of that faith (that is, Christ) would totally lose its value” (Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 4, p. 211).
Furthermore, you failed to mention that “logizomai” can also mean “to pass to one’s account.” However, Reformation theology never regards all the places where “logizomai” occurs as having such meaning, therefore, your examples are invalid cases against Reformed theology. The meaning of the word is rendered according to the context. Again, Bavinck is helpful here:
“The word Logizesthai can certaintly mean ‘to hold or consider a person for what he or she is’ (1 Cor. 4:1; 2 Cor. 12:6). However, it can also have the sense of ‘to credit to a person something one does not personally possess.’ Thus the sins of those who believe are not counted against them although they do have them (Rom. 4:8; 2 Cor. 5:19; cf. 2 Tim. 4:16); and thus they are counted against Christ, although he was without sin (Isa. 53:4-6; Matt. 20:28; Rom. 3:25; 8:3; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13; 1 Tim. 2:6).” (Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 4, p. 211-212)
Certainly, when closely examined, your case for using “logizomai” in the exact same way is incorrect. It must be understood according to the context.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
The Reformed Doctrine of Justification: the Heart of the Christian Gospel
The doctrine of justification today has been largely forgotten, or even despised, in the evangelical world. However, if the Protestant Reformers were right in asserting that justification is the entrance into the kingdom of God, then the recovery of this doctrine is absolutely necessary for preaching, evangelism, ethics, good works, assurance, and, in fact, all piety towards God and neighbors. This is perhaps an incredibly bold claim in our pluralistic world, but the exclusivity of the Gospel is to be safeguarded if the church is to see the world come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, the only name by which we might be saved. What exactly is justification? Question 70 in the Westminster Larger Catechism answers this question in this way: “Justification is an act of God's free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.” To put it differently, justification is the legal and forensic declaration that a sinner is righteous only on account of Christ’s perfect life, death, and resurrection. This paper will thus argue that the heart of the Christian Gospel is the doctrine of justification. I will first consider the importance of justification in Martin Luther’s theology and several proceeding theologians. Second, I will examine the relationship between justification and original sin, imputation, faith, and grace to further develop a more robust understanding of justification. Then, thirdly, I will respond several objections and opposing views, especially the New Perspective on Paul.
One may not need to search hard to see the centrality of justification in the thoughts of the Reformers, as well as theologians after them. In the 16th Century, the Reformers deemed the doctrine of justification as the chief article by which man may be reconciled to God. The question that they were primarily wrestling with was this: “How can a wrath deserving sinner have a right standing before a holy God, who does not tolerate sin?” This was the question that plagued the Augustinian monk, Martin Luther. For Luther, there are really only two legitimate options to obtaining a right standing before God. The first is to perfectly obey the demands of the Law. The second is to rely on the work of another; namely, the perfect law-keeping merits of Christ in one’s place. After studying the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, he concluded, “For we hold, recognize and affirm, we conclude from what is said that a man is justified, reckoned righteous before God, whether Greek or Jew, by faith, apart from works of the law, without the help and necessity of the works of the law.” The doctrine of justification, in Luther’s theology, is the Gospel! Likewise, we also find similar assertions from Calvin, a second generation reformer. The doctrine of justification is, according to Calvin, “the main hinge on which religion turns.” The same may be said of those who have followed in the footsteps of the Reformers. J.I. Packer, a modern reformer in his own right, has famously said, “For the doctrine of justification by faith is like Atlas. It bears a whole world on its shoulders, the entire evangelical knowledge of God the Saviour.”
Before we proceed to consider the contents of the doctrine, let us first consider the way the Reformers understood sin and its consequential outworking. The doctrine of sin was hugely important for them. Centuries after, Reformed theologians have all affirmed this notion. Herman Bavinck, being one of them, said, “The doctrine of original sin is one of the weightiest and most difficult subjects in all of Christian theology.” The Reformers maintained, with St. Augustine, that Adam’s sin was imputed, or reckon, to all his progenies. As a result, all are condemned for the sin of one man as the Apostle Paul teaches us in Romans. In other words, as Berkhof explains, “Adam sinned not only as the father of the human race, but also as the representative head of all his descendants; and therefore the guilt of his sin is placed to their account, so that they are all liable to the punishment of death.” On the contrary, those who embrace the error Pelagianism, teach that man was not represented by Adam on an ontological sense, but only as a reprehensible illustration. The denial of original sin entails massive consequences in relations to one’s justification. The need to flesh out the entire controversy between St. Augustine and the English monk, Pelagius, is here unnecessary. So, we shall only note several main articles that affect the way justification is understood: (1) Pelagius, with his contention with St. Augustine, denied that sin was not passed to his descendants; (2) Adam’s sin was only a bad moral example; and (3) the merit of justification is obtainable by one’s good works.
With original sin as the backdrop to man’s condition in the courtroom of God, the Reformers saw a guilty verdict against humanity at the forefront. Of course this meant that man, in the end, is unable to save himself because of the sin nature that he has inherited in Adam. It has so corrupted him that even his will, as Calvin puts it, “…cannot move toward good, much less apply itself thereto; for a movement of this sort is the beginning of conversion to God, which in Scripture is ascribed entirely to God’s grace.” In Romans 4:5, Paul tells us that God “justifies the ungodly.” How can this be? Here, we encounter one of the cries of the Reformation, sola gratia, or grace alone. What they meant by this was that salvation must be only credited to God’s grace, not to any work that man performs. The Reformers argued that man must wholly be dependent on the grace of God, as Augustine proposed. They saw the need for God’s grace if man is to be saved from the impending judgment. It is the sole initiation of God alone that sinners can be justified; his grace is the origin of man’s justification. According to later Reformed theology, which builds from the theology of the Reformers, the grace that God bestows to man came in a covenantal construction, which they called the “covenant of grace.” In the covenant of grace, according the Westminster Larger Catechism, “…He (God) freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ.” We see here that the confession tells us that life and salvation are the benefits from God’s grace. Furthermore, it tells us that it is by Jesus Christ that we attain such benefits. “…Only Christ’s sacrifice could make satisfaction for our sins,” as Edmund Clowney correctly observes, “so, too, only Christ’s obedience can merit eternal life (Rom. 6:23).” Clowney reminds us that it is only Christ’s merit and atonement that we can have both our sins forgiven and eternal life to come. This takes us to the next logical question: “What is the nature of how these benefits are given?”
Here, we move to the center of the doctrine justification; namely, the reckoning of Christ’s righteousness on sin stricken, guilty sinners. If the heart of the Gospel is the doctrine of justification, as I am arguing, then the doctrine of imputation is the heart of the doctrine of justification. What is meant by imputation? The Reformers often appealed to 2 Corinthians 5:21, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God,” to demonstrate this doctrine. Chapter 11 of the Westminster Confession of Faith explains this divine transaction: “Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to His Father’s justice in their behalf. Yet, inasmuch as He was given by the Father for them; and His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead; and both freely, not for anything in them; their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice, and rich grace of God, might be glorified in the justification of sinners.” Notice that the confession mentions the “exact justice” and “rich grace of God” with relations to what has taken place. It is God’s chief purpose that his justice and grace be displayed our justification in Christ. Moreover, the confession tells us that the punishment that our sins have merited was paid by Christ for us, and the righteousness that he merited, in return, gets credited to us.
Although there is only a twofold imputation found in 2 Corinthians 5:21. Nevertheless, B.B. Warfield notes of a “threefold doctrine of imputation” found in Scripture. Let us consider the threefold imputation that Warfield spoke of: (1) the imputation of Adam’s sin onto humanity, (2) the imputation of our sins onto Christ, and (3) the imputation of Christ’s righteousness onto sinners. We began by surveying original sin because the repercussions for denying it are deadly. We noted that Adam’s sin was counted in our account (original sin), if we deny this we cannot partake on the two imputations above mentioned because the execution is the same. In other words, if deny cry out unfairness to original sin, we must logically say the same with the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and our sins imputed to him, as found in 2 Corinthians 5:21. If it is not already clear, Warfield clarifies, “In the proper understanding of the conception, it is important to bear in mind that the divine act called “imputation” is in itself precisely the same in each of the three great transactions into which it enters as a constituent part.” What follows is that if God cannot reckon Adam’s sin to us, then it is impossible to reason that God can give us the righteousness that Christ merited for us and, furthermore, God cannot have “made him (Christ) to be sin who knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21a). Now that we have established the source of justification, let us turn to the instrument by which sinners received this justification we have been speaking of.
With the Roman Catholic Church’s emphasis on faith and merits as the instruments by which sinners are justified, the Reformers came to a different conclusion. They saw from Scripture that sinners are justified sola fide, or by faith alone. This is yet another crucial element in the Protestant Reformation, which today has turned into a mere slogan without substance in many Protestant churches. Yet in the time of the Reformation, it was of supreme importance. “Justification by faith alone” is well-known, but why is it by faith alone? What of faith that makes it the only instrument by which we are declared righteous? It is an open hand that receives all the benefits that Christ merited for us, responded the Reformers. Faith is the only instrument by which sinners can receive the righteousness that Christ earned for us. Furthermore, it is the only instrument by which our sins are regarded stricken in Christ. In other words, the imputation transaction above is effective only through faith, nothing else. Our works do not merit anything good in the courtroom of God, only Christ’s perfect work can we appear blameless on judgment day. We are saved by works, Christ’s perfect work.
There have been those in opposition to the Reformed doctrine of justification from its conception; from the Judaizers and antinomians in Paul’s day to the Roman Catholic Church in the time of the Protestant Reformation. Many may be surprised to hear that the Roman Catholic Church unmistakably understood what the Reformers were saying, and they condemned it. In the Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic Church pronounced judgment against the Protestant churches when they said, “If anyone says people are justified either solely by the attribution of Christ’s justice, or by the forgiveness of sins alone, to the exclusion of the grace and charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Spirit and abides in them…let him be anathema.” Furthermore, Trent declared, “If anyone says that the faith which justifies is nothing else but in the divine mercy, which pardons sins because of Christ; or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified: let him be anathema.”
Today, one of opposition that has been gaining ground, even in some Reformed circles, is the so-called New Perspective on Paul. A lengthy exposition of this perspective is here unnecessary, so we will only briefly examine the position, and then present a Reformed critique. Fesko informs us that this new interpretation of justification finds its origin with Krister Stendahl, who argued that scholars “were reading him (Paul), not in the light of his immediate first-century context, but through the lens of Martin Luther.” But it was in E.P. Sanders’ famous work, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, which the New Perspective began to take shape. Sanders’ main contribution was his shift from the soteriological concerns of the Reformation i.e., how one is saved, to an ecclesiological one i.e., the recognition of who is in the church. “The query, ‘What can I do to be saved?’ is one which,” according to Sanders, “is not prominent in the (Rabbinic) literature.” As Fesko notes, “Sanders researched the literature of the second temple and concluded that Judaism was not a works-righteousness-based religion but one of grace, which he termed ‘covenantal nomism’: ‘The view that one’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression.’” What then is the problem with Judaism? According to Sanders, “…it is not Christianity.”
James Dunn, following Sanders, mainly agreed with Sander’s concern, however, he contended that the “covenant nomism” that Sanders spoke of is not antithetical to Paul’s theology. In doing so, Dunn was forced to rework Sanders original thesis. He maintained that “covenant nomism” of the Jews “…functioned as badges of covenant membership.” They were, for Dunn, “identity markers” that identified the Jews as God’s people. Now, according to Dunn, after Christ has come, the new badge is faith in Christ, rather than circumcision, food laws, the Sabbath, etc. This brings us the most prominent proponent of the New Perspective, N. T. Wright.
Wright for the most part, agrees with Sanders and Dunn’s assessment of Paul’s theology. Fesko rightly points out that “Wright believes that the Jews saw their entrance into the covenant on the basis of God’s grace and their obedience to the Torah was merely response to the divine initiative, not an attempt to merit entrance into the covenant.” Hence, Wright is essentially echoing Sanders and Dunn by appealing to Judaism as religion of grace, not works. It is important to note here that the New Perspective has radically changed the traditional understanding of Paul’s usage of “works of the law” and “righteousness.” What Wright proposes, as well as many of those who hold to the New Perspective, is that “works of the law” is nothing more than the “identity markers” that Dunn previously spoke of. “The righteousness of God,” for Wright, according to Fesko, “then, is primarily a demonstration of his covenantal faithfulness.” Thus, Wright affirms the notion that justification is more about being identified with the church, rather than salvation. If justification is about the society of the church, then there is no need for the “righteous imputation of Christ.” This denial, of course, is one of the primary reasons why Reformation theology is so concerned about this movement. The New Perspective essentially rips out the heart of the Gospel, as the Reformers understood it. Justification, according to Wright, is not an “alien righteousness,” as Luther claimed, that is credited to us, rather it is the declaration that we are part of the covenantal people of God. So, Wright asserts that at the eschaton people will be judged according, to what Piper says, “…the obedience of our lives that is produced by the Holy Spirit through faith.” This is contrary to the way the Reformers understood the doctrine of justification. In fact, it is a return to the Roman Catholic position.
Although, the Reformers would agree to a certain extent of taking into account the second temple Judaism literature of Paul’s day, as Sanders, Dunn, and Wright have done, however, they are not the final authority for interpreting Paul. Fesko rightly points out that J. Gresham Machen observed that “…Paul seeks testimonies to the universal sinfulness of man, he looks not to contemporary Judaism, but to the Old Testament. At this point, as elsewhere, Paulinism is based not upon later developments but upon the religion of the Prophets and the Psalms.” What this means for us here is that Paul could not have derived his theology from second-temple Judaism because he is primarily dealing with the Old Testament Scripture. There is, as Fesko brilliantly observes, a major problem with the New Perspective’s claim that second-temple Judaism has rightly interpreted the Old Testament. Fesko puts it this way, “If the NT redefined Israel’s expectation, then first-century Judaism has correctly interpreted the OT, but Christ and the apostles have redefined it. In other words, Christ and the apostles correct the view of the OT. Or first century Judaism has misinterpreted the OT, and it was first-century opinion that required correction.” This dilemma, in my opinion, is a huge stumbling block that cannot be ignored.
Furthermore, it seems rather odd that the New Perspective proponents are so eager to dismiss the Reformers’ interaction with medieval Catholicism as somewhat irrelevant. Yet, it is apparent that the New Perspective is noticeably similar to that of medieval Catholic soteriology. Even though Wright’s proposal that justification in the eschaton is purely by the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives, it seems to imply justification by our works rather than Christ’s work. If we speak of our final justification based on the Spirit wrought obedience of the saints, it undermines the gravity of sin and God’s justice. How much work is acceptable before God can say, “Not guilty”? The reality is that God does not tolerate sin! In the final analysis, the New Perspective fails to account for this major chasm between our imperfect righteousness, even as believers, and the perfect judgment of God. To say the least, Roman Catholicism has developed a system of “purgatory” to relieve their inconsistency. But it seems the New Perspective is deficient to explain and harmonize these ideas.
In conclusion, if we do away with the doctrine of justification as the Reformers understood it, we do away with the Gospel itself. What is the good news in knowing that, in the end, we are judged according to our obedience, even if they are Spirit wrought? The good news of the gospel is that God has done for us what we could not do for ourselves; Christ obeyed the demands of God’s perfect law and he took the punishment that we deserve to present us as faultless before the Father. By faith alone, we receive what God freely gives in Christ.
Bibliography
Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: Holy Spirit Church and New Creation. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Vol. 4. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2008.
Beeke, Joel R. The Quest for Full Assurance: the Legacy of Calvin and his Successors. Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1999.
Boice, James Montgomery. Foundations of the Christian Faith: a Comprehensive and Readable Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986.
Calvin, John. Institute of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.
Carson, D. A., ed. Right With God: Justification in the Bible and the World. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992.
Edwards, Jonathan. The Works of Jonathan Edwards. Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2003.
Dunn, James D. G. Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians, Louisville, KS: Westminster John Knox, 1990.
Fesko, J. V. Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2008.
—. "A More Perfect Union?: Justification and Union with Christ." Modern Reformation, June 2007: 32-35, 38.
Horton, Michael. God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2006.
—. "Does Justification Still Matter?" Modern Reformation, September 2007: 11-17.
—. Putting Amazing Back Into Grace: Embracing the Heart of the Gospel. Second Edition. Grand Rapids , MI: Baker Book House Co., 2002.
Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. One With God: Salvation as Deification and Justification. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2004.
Machen, J. Gresham. What is Faith? Grand Rapids , MI: Wm. B. Eerdsman Publishing Company, 1946.
McGrath, Alister E., ed. The Christian Theology Reader. Third Edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.
Packer, J. I. Knowing God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973.
Piper, John. Counted Righteous in Christ: Should we Abandon the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness? Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2002.
—. The Future of Justification: a Response to N. T. Wright. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007.
Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1977.
Sproul, R. C. Essential Truths of the Christian Faith. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1992.
Sproul, R.C., ed. The Reformation Study Bible. English Standard Version. Lake Mary, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2005.
Stott, John R. W. The Cross of Christ. 20th Anniversary Edition. Downers Grove, IL: InterVasity Press, 2006.
Vos, Geerhardus. Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998.
Warfield, Benjamin B. Biblical and Theological Studies. Edited by Samuel G. Craig. Philadelphia, PA: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1968.
Watson, Thomas
. A Body of Divinity. Carlisle, Pennslvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2003.
Westminster Confession of Faith. glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 2001.
Williamson, G.I. The Heidelberg Catechism: A Study Guide. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1993.
Wright, N. T. What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdsman Publishing Company, 1997.
One may not need to search hard to see the centrality of justification in the thoughts of the Reformers, as well as theologians after them. In the 16th Century, the Reformers deemed the doctrine of justification as the chief article by which man may be reconciled to God. The question that they were primarily wrestling with was this: “How can a wrath deserving sinner have a right standing before a holy God, who does not tolerate sin?” This was the question that plagued the Augustinian monk, Martin Luther. For Luther, there are really only two legitimate options to obtaining a right standing before God. The first is to perfectly obey the demands of the Law. The second is to rely on the work of another; namely, the perfect law-keeping merits of Christ in one’s place. After studying the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, he concluded, “For we hold, recognize and affirm, we conclude from what is said that a man is justified, reckoned righteous before God, whether Greek or Jew, by faith, apart from works of the law, without the help and necessity of the works of the law.” The doctrine of justification, in Luther’s theology, is the Gospel! Likewise, we also find similar assertions from Calvin, a second generation reformer. The doctrine of justification is, according to Calvin, “the main hinge on which religion turns.” The same may be said of those who have followed in the footsteps of the Reformers. J.I. Packer, a modern reformer in his own right, has famously said, “For the doctrine of justification by faith is like Atlas. It bears a whole world on its shoulders, the entire evangelical knowledge of God the Saviour.”
Before we proceed to consider the contents of the doctrine, let us first consider the way the Reformers understood sin and its consequential outworking. The doctrine of sin was hugely important for them. Centuries after, Reformed theologians have all affirmed this notion. Herman Bavinck, being one of them, said, “The doctrine of original sin is one of the weightiest and most difficult subjects in all of Christian theology.” The Reformers maintained, with St. Augustine, that Adam’s sin was imputed, or reckon, to all his progenies. As a result, all are condemned for the sin of one man as the Apostle Paul teaches us in Romans. In other words, as Berkhof explains, “Adam sinned not only as the father of the human race, but also as the representative head of all his descendants; and therefore the guilt of his sin is placed to their account, so that they are all liable to the punishment of death.” On the contrary, those who embrace the error Pelagianism, teach that man was not represented by Adam on an ontological sense, but only as a reprehensible illustration. The denial of original sin entails massive consequences in relations to one’s justification. The need to flesh out the entire controversy between St. Augustine and the English monk, Pelagius, is here unnecessary. So, we shall only note several main articles that affect the way justification is understood: (1) Pelagius, with his contention with St. Augustine, denied that sin was not passed to his descendants; (2) Adam’s sin was only a bad moral example; and (3) the merit of justification is obtainable by one’s good works.
With original sin as the backdrop to man’s condition in the courtroom of God, the Reformers saw a guilty verdict against humanity at the forefront. Of course this meant that man, in the end, is unable to save himself because of the sin nature that he has inherited in Adam. It has so corrupted him that even his will, as Calvin puts it, “…cannot move toward good, much less apply itself thereto; for a movement of this sort is the beginning of conversion to God, which in Scripture is ascribed entirely to God’s grace.” In Romans 4:5, Paul tells us that God “justifies the ungodly.” How can this be? Here, we encounter one of the cries of the Reformation, sola gratia, or grace alone. What they meant by this was that salvation must be only credited to God’s grace, not to any work that man performs. The Reformers argued that man must wholly be dependent on the grace of God, as Augustine proposed. They saw the need for God’s grace if man is to be saved from the impending judgment. It is the sole initiation of God alone that sinners can be justified; his grace is the origin of man’s justification. According to later Reformed theology, which builds from the theology of the Reformers, the grace that God bestows to man came in a covenantal construction, which they called the “covenant of grace.” In the covenant of grace, according the Westminster Larger Catechism, “…He (God) freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ.” We see here that the confession tells us that life and salvation are the benefits from God’s grace. Furthermore, it tells us that it is by Jesus Christ that we attain such benefits. “…Only Christ’s sacrifice could make satisfaction for our sins,” as Edmund Clowney correctly observes, “so, too, only Christ’s obedience can merit eternal life (Rom. 6:23).” Clowney reminds us that it is only Christ’s merit and atonement that we can have both our sins forgiven and eternal life to come. This takes us to the next logical question: “What is the nature of how these benefits are given?”
Here, we move to the center of the doctrine justification; namely, the reckoning of Christ’s righteousness on sin stricken, guilty sinners. If the heart of the Gospel is the doctrine of justification, as I am arguing, then the doctrine of imputation is the heart of the doctrine of justification. What is meant by imputation? The Reformers often appealed to 2 Corinthians 5:21, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God,” to demonstrate this doctrine. Chapter 11 of the Westminster Confession of Faith explains this divine transaction: “Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to His Father’s justice in their behalf. Yet, inasmuch as He was given by the Father for them; and His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead; and both freely, not for anything in them; their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice, and rich grace of God, might be glorified in the justification of sinners.” Notice that the confession mentions the “exact justice” and “rich grace of God” with relations to what has taken place. It is God’s chief purpose that his justice and grace be displayed our justification in Christ. Moreover, the confession tells us that the punishment that our sins have merited was paid by Christ for us, and the righteousness that he merited, in return, gets credited to us.
Although there is only a twofold imputation found in 2 Corinthians 5:21. Nevertheless, B.B. Warfield notes of a “threefold doctrine of imputation” found in Scripture. Let us consider the threefold imputation that Warfield spoke of: (1) the imputation of Adam’s sin onto humanity, (2) the imputation of our sins onto Christ, and (3) the imputation of Christ’s righteousness onto sinners. We began by surveying original sin because the repercussions for denying it are deadly. We noted that Adam’s sin was counted in our account (original sin), if we deny this we cannot partake on the two imputations above mentioned because the execution is the same. In other words, if deny cry out unfairness to original sin, we must logically say the same with the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and our sins imputed to him, as found in 2 Corinthians 5:21. If it is not already clear, Warfield clarifies, “In the proper understanding of the conception, it is important to bear in mind that the divine act called “imputation” is in itself precisely the same in each of the three great transactions into which it enters as a constituent part.” What follows is that if God cannot reckon Adam’s sin to us, then it is impossible to reason that God can give us the righteousness that Christ merited for us and, furthermore, God cannot have “made him (Christ) to be sin who knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21a). Now that we have established the source of justification, let us turn to the instrument by which sinners received this justification we have been speaking of.
With the Roman Catholic Church’s emphasis on faith and merits as the instruments by which sinners are justified, the Reformers came to a different conclusion. They saw from Scripture that sinners are justified sola fide, or by faith alone. This is yet another crucial element in the Protestant Reformation, which today has turned into a mere slogan without substance in many Protestant churches. Yet in the time of the Reformation, it was of supreme importance. “Justification by faith alone” is well-known, but why is it by faith alone? What of faith that makes it the only instrument by which we are declared righteous? It is an open hand that receives all the benefits that Christ merited for us, responded the Reformers. Faith is the only instrument by which sinners can receive the righteousness that Christ earned for us. Furthermore, it is the only instrument by which our sins are regarded stricken in Christ. In other words, the imputation transaction above is effective only through faith, nothing else. Our works do not merit anything good in the courtroom of God, only Christ’s perfect work can we appear blameless on judgment day. We are saved by works, Christ’s perfect work.
There have been those in opposition to the Reformed doctrine of justification from its conception; from the Judaizers and antinomians in Paul’s day to the Roman Catholic Church in the time of the Protestant Reformation. Many may be surprised to hear that the Roman Catholic Church unmistakably understood what the Reformers were saying, and they condemned it. In the Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic Church pronounced judgment against the Protestant churches when they said, “If anyone says people are justified either solely by the attribution of Christ’s justice, or by the forgiveness of sins alone, to the exclusion of the grace and charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Spirit and abides in them…let him be anathema.” Furthermore, Trent declared, “If anyone says that the faith which justifies is nothing else but in the divine mercy, which pardons sins because of Christ; or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified: let him be anathema.”
Today, one of opposition that has been gaining ground, even in some Reformed circles, is the so-called New Perspective on Paul. A lengthy exposition of this perspective is here unnecessary, so we will only briefly examine the position, and then present a Reformed critique. Fesko informs us that this new interpretation of justification finds its origin with Krister Stendahl, who argued that scholars “were reading him (Paul), not in the light of his immediate first-century context, but through the lens of Martin Luther.” But it was in E.P. Sanders’ famous work, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, which the New Perspective began to take shape. Sanders’ main contribution was his shift from the soteriological concerns of the Reformation i.e., how one is saved, to an ecclesiological one i.e., the recognition of who is in the church. “The query, ‘What can I do to be saved?’ is one which,” according to Sanders, “is not prominent in the (Rabbinic) literature.” As Fesko notes, “Sanders researched the literature of the second temple and concluded that Judaism was not a works-righteousness-based religion but one of grace, which he termed ‘covenantal nomism’: ‘The view that one’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression.’” What then is the problem with Judaism? According to Sanders, “…it is not Christianity.”
James Dunn, following Sanders, mainly agreed with Sander’s concern, however, he contended that the “covenant nomism” that Sanders spoke of is not antithetical to Paul’s theology. In doing so, Dunn was forced to rework Sanders original thesis. He maintained that “covenant nomism” of the Jews “…functioned as badges of covenant membership.” They were, for Dunn, “identity markers” that identified the Jews as God’s people. Now, according to Dunn, after Christ has come, the new badge is faith in Christ, rather than circumcision, food laws, the Sabbath, etc. This brings us the most prominent proponent of the New Perspective, N. T. Wright.
Wright for the most part, agrees with Sanders and Dunn’s assessment of Paul’s theology. Fesko rightly points out that “Wright believes that the Jews saw their entrance into the covenant on the basis of God’s grace and their obedience to the Torah was merely response to the divine initiative, not an attempt to merit entrance into the covenant.” Hence, Wright is essentially echoing Sanders and Dunn by appealing to Judaism as religion of grace, not works. It is important to note here that the New Perspective has radically changed the traditional understanding of Paul’s usage of “works of the law” and “righteousness.” What Wright proposes, as well as many of those who hold to the New Perspective, is that “works of the law” is nothing more than the “identity markers” that Dunn previously spoke of. “The righteousness of God,” for Wright, according to Fesko, “then, is primarily a demonstration of his covenantal faithfulness.” Thus, Wright affirms the notion that justification is more about being identified with the church, rather than salvation. If justification is about the society of the church, then there is no need for the “righteous imputation of Christ.” This denial, of course, is one of the primary reasons why Reformation theology is so concerned about this movement. The New Perspective essentially rips out the heart of the Gospel, as the Reformers understood it. Justification, according to Wright, is not an “alien righteousness,” as Luther claimed, that is credited to us, rather it is the declaration that we are part of the covenantal people of God. So, Wright asserts that at the eschaton people will be judged according, to what Piper says, “…the obedience of our lives that is produced by the Holy Spirit through faith.” This is contrary to the way the Reformers understood the doctrine of justification. In fact, it is a return to the Roman Catholic position.
Although, the Reformers would agree to a certain extent of taking into account the second temple Judaism literature of Paul’s day, as Sanders, Dunn, and Wright have done, however, they are not the final authority for interpreting Paul. Fesko rightly points out that J. Gresham Machen observed that “…Paul seeks testimonies to the universal sinfulness of man, he looks not to contemporary Judaism, but to the Old Testament. At this point, as elsewhere, Paulinism is based not upon later developments but upon the religion of the Prophets and the Psalms.” What this means for us here is that Paul could not have derived his theology from second-temple Judaism because he is primarily dealing with the Old Testament Scripture. There is, as Fesko brilliantly observes, a major problem with the New Perspective’s claim that second-temple Judaism has rightly interpreted the Old Testament. Fesko puts it this way, “If the NT redefined Israel’s expectation, then first-century Judaism has correctly interpreted the OT, but Christ and the apostles have redefined it. In other words, Christ and the apostles correct the view of the OT. Or first century Judaism has misinterpreted the OT, and it was first-century opinion that required correction.” This dilemma, in my opinion, is a huge stumbling block that cannot be ignored.
Furthermore, it seems rather odd that the New Perspective proponents are so eager to dismiss the Reformers’ interaction with medieval Catholicism as somewhat irrelevant. Yet, it is apparent that the New Perspective is noticeably similar to that of medieval Catholic soteriology. Even though Wright’s proposal that justification in the eschaton is purely by the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives, it seems to imply justification by our works rather than Christ’s work. If we speak of our final justification based on the Spirit wrought obedience of the saints, it undermines the gravity of sin and God’s justice. How much work is acceptable before God can say, “Not guilty”? The reality is that God does not tolerate sin! In the final analysis, the New Perspective fails to account for this major chasm between our imperfect righteousness, even as believers, and the perfect judgment of God. To say the least, Roman Catholicism has developed a system of “purgatory” to relieve their inconsistency. But it seems the New Perspective is deficient to explain and harmonize these ideas.
In conclusion, if we do away with the doctrine of justification as the Reformers understood it, we do away with the Gospel itself. What is the good news in knowing that, in the end, we are judged according to our obedience, even if they are Spirit wrought? The good news of the gospel is that God has done for us what we could not do for ourselves; Christ obeyed the demands of God’s perfect law and he took the punishment that we deserve to present us as faultless before the Father. By faith alone, we receive what God freely gives in Christ.
Bibliography
Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: Holy Spirit Church and New Creation. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Vol. 4. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2008.
Beeke, Joel R. The Quest for Full Assurance: the Legacy of Calvin and his Successors. Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1999.
Boice, James Montgomery. Foundations of the Christian Faith: a Comprehensive and Readable Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986.
Calvin, John. Institute of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.
Carson, D. A., ed. Right With God: Justification in the Bible and the World. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992.
Edwards, Jonathan. The Works of Jonathan Edwards. Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2003.
Dunn, James D. G. Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians, Louisville, KS: Westminster John Knox, 1990.
Fesko, J. V. Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2008.
—. "A More Perfect Union?: Justification and Union with Christ." Modern Reformation, June 2007: 32-35, 38.
Horton, Michael. God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2006.
—. "Does Justification Still Matter?" Modern Reformation, September 2007: 11-17.
—. Putting Amazing Back Into Grace: Embracing the Heart of the Gospel. Second Edition. Grand Rapids , MI: Baker Book House Co., 2002.
Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. One With God: Salvation as Deification and Justification. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2004.
Machen, J. Gresham. What is Faith? Grand Rapids , MI: Wm. B. Eerdsman Publishing Company, 1946.
McGrath, Alister E., ed. The Christian Theology Reader. Third Edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.
Packer, J. I. Knowing God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973.
Piper, John. Counted Righteous in Christ: Should we Abandon the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness? Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2002.
—. The Future of Justification: a Response to N. T. Wright. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007.
Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1977.
Sproul, R. C. Essential Truths of the Christian Faith. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1992.
Sproul, R.C., ed. The Reformation Study Bible. English Standard Version. Lake Mary, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2005.
Stott, John R. W. The Cross of Christ. 20th Anniversary Edition. Downers Grove, IL: InterVasity Press, 2006.
Vos, Geerhardus. Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998.
Warfield, Benjamin B. Biblical and Theological Studies. Edited by Samuel G. Craig. Philadelphia, PA: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1968.
Watson, Thomas
. A Body of Divinity. Carlisle, Pennslvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2003.
Westminster Confession of Faith. glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 2001.
Williamson, G.I. The Heidelberg Catechism: A Study Guide. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1993.
Wright, N. T. What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdsman Publishing Company, 1997.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
An Assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Doctrine of Deification from a Reformed Perspective
To the Reformed ear, the word deification, or theosis, conjures up all sorts of negative undertones. The pagan notion of actually and ontologically becoming gods immediately arises from Western spectacles. Emperors and heroes in the ancient world, especially in the Greek culture, are said to have undergone such a process that they were transformed into deities and were worshipped accordingly. This would be a warranted presumption if taken from a strictly Hellenistic conception. But as Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen points out, “It was not a Christian word first, nor was it only employed by Christians even after they made it central. But they cleaned it up and filled it up with a Christian meaning.” In other words, the early Christians made use of a foreign and pagan concept by transforming it in a way that corresponded with Christian vocabulary and theology. Therefore, Reformed Christians ought not to be afraid of such language, instead they must learn the meaning behind it. Correspondingly, the Eastern Church must likewise learn the Reformed language. Despite the fact that this is primarily written for Reformed people to informed them of the doctrine of deification, nevertheless, it is of benefit to Eastern Orthodox who may want to see the commonality and differences between the two positions. A complementary reciprocity of learning is required for any helpful discussions. In doing so, the results will be fruitful as dialogues between the two sides emerge. What this paper intends to accomplish is to present a concise assessment of the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis in order to evaluate points of agreement and contention with the Reformed tradition. Firstly, the historical and theological dimension of theosis will be examined accordingly, but focusing largely on the latter for the purpose of this paper. Secondly, we shall investigate the fundamental issues that unite and separate Orthodoxy and the Reformed on this crucial issue.
The idea of deification in the ancient world was utterly pagan in nature, but the origin of the word in the Christian world dates back to Clement of Alexandria, who was the first to utilize it writing. However, he did not see a need to articulate a technical definition; as a result, no formal explanation was given until the sixth century when the need to clarify its meaning arose. It was at this time when Dionysius the Areopogite gave a definition. Russell tells us that Dionysius defined it this way: “…‘Deification (θέωσις) is the attaining of likeness to God and union with him so far as is possible.’” Furthermore, no theological discourse with regards to deification was presented until the time of Maximus the Confessor in the seventh century. Since then, it has been a central doctrine in the Orthodox Church, but has been mostly forgotten or lost in the West.
Although there have been many contributors to the doctrine of deification in the history of Christianity, two important figures in its development will be considered. First, Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-200) was one who made a pivotal step into the formulation of this doctrine. His understanding of the incarnation of Jesus Christ may have been a key to the idea of deification. Irenaeus described the relationship between the incarnation and deification in this way: “How shall man pass into God, unless God has passed into man?” In other words, the incarnation was the initial action that God took to divinized humanity. God could not have begun such a process unless He Himself became man, this is central in Irenaeus’ view of salvation. Interestingly, Irenaeus is thus forced to conclude that Christ necessarily had to die at an old age to secure the salvation of the elderly. It is important to note here that Irenaeus is not at all denying the Creator and creature distinction between God and man, as it may appear at first glance. Jonathan Hill tells us, “The fundamental distinction between Creator and creation is never abolished, but we can share in the divine qualities and the divine life.”
Second, another important figure in the advancement of theosis is the church father Athanasius (c. 293-373). His primary contribution to the doctrine is his famous ‘exchange formula,’ which stated, “He (Christ) became human that we might become divine.” It is essentially another way of phrasing what Irenaeus previously stated. Theosis is the pathway in which humanity is once again set forth in the right track to divinity; the track that humanity wandered away from in the Fall of Adam. It is an ongoing process back to the union that humans were created to participate in.
The transition from the historical aspect of deification to its theological aspect is to simply further developed the doctrine’s internal components. What exactly does the word theosis convey? Here, we will explore the following: the means by which deification is accomplished and centrality of deification in salvation.
What are the means by which the church is deified? This is an important question before us. According to Orthodox antiquity, deification is entirely wrought by the Holy Spirit as a result of God’s grace. In other words, the Holy Spirit is the agent by which all the benefits of deification—i.e., immortality, incorruptibility, and Christ-likeness—are gained by believers. Or, to put it in another way, “… the Orthodox regard[s] theosis as being, first and foremost, the result of the Holy Spirit’s activity in people.” Cyril of Alexandria, for example, recognizes that the Holy Spirit plays a pivotal part in our union with God. Russell, speaking of the role of the Holy Spirit in Cyril’s theology, mentions, “Participation in the Spirit conforms us to Christ, and enables us to be ‘described as children of God and gods.” Still, a further question remains: How does the Holy Spirit confer the benefits of deification onto the church?
Fairbairn answers the above question straightforward, he says, “To the Orthodox, the primary means by which the Holy Spirit works to give grace and deify people are the church’s sacraments and human effort.” We see here the centrality of the church sacraments. They are means by which the Holy Spirit dispenses grace in the life of the church—the Reformed tradition would refer to the sacraments as “means of grace.” The idea of grace flowing from the sacraments is too often times ignored or even denied in the broad evangelical landscape, where the sacraments communicate nothing more than mere symbols or remembrance.
Baptism, according to the Orthodox position, is a means by which the Christian begins the process of deification. Unlike its Evangelical counterpart, who sharply insist on the prior experience of conversion before the event of baptism, Orthodoxy sees an inseparable marriage between the water (physical) and reality (spiritual). And the Eucharist (Communion) is the sacrament that brings believers into the life of Christ by uniting them to the Father and one another; it is the supreme expression of the church’s union with the incarnate Son of God. There is real presence and union with Christ in the Eucharist. Bishop Kallistos Ware explains, “… the Orthodox Church believes that after consecration the bread and wine become in very the Body and Blood of Christ: they are not mere symbols, but the reality.”
Human effort also plays a significant role in the deification of believers. Here, Orthodoxy takes a synergistic position, where God does His part and man does his part, in the deifying of man. In other words, the means by which believers are deified is one of participation. Man’s free will must be exercised for any progress to occur. Orthodox theology essentially makes human autonomy the preeminent substance that God will never impose upon. Vladimir Lossky strongly affirms this view, he maintains, “God becomes powerless before human freedom; He cannot violate it since it flows from His own omnipotence. Certainly man was created by the will of God alone; but he cannot be deified by it alone.” It is important to note here that Orthodoxy maneuvers itself away from the Pelagian heresy by asserting that good works alone do not merit union with the incarnate Christ. Good works are means that the Holy Spirit uses transform believers, but they are not of themselves meritorious.
By now it is apparent that the Orthodox Church’s understanding of salvation revolves around the doctrine of Theosis. Orthodoxy ultimately centralizes the human process of divination in the salvific purpose of the Triune God. To say it differently, the process of becoming more Christ-like is salvation. The change that is wrought upon believers is much more emphasized in Orthodoxy. Nassif thus correctly distinguishes, “…the East adopted a ‘transformational’ model that places emphasis on who Christ is (i.e., the person of Christ, his resurrection, and his triumphant victory over sin and death—the Christus Victor theme).
As mentioned above, the word deification need not be a dreadful word to the Reformed ear. If properly understood, one may see words in the Reformed tradition that are quite equivocal to its meaning. Don Fairbairn points us to a few terms, he says, “…deification corresponds somewhat to concepts which evangelicals describe using the terms sanctification, eternal life, and fellowship or relationship with God.” What then can the Reformed Christian learn from the Orthodox understanding of deification? In light of the previous discourse about theosis, let us therefore answer this crucial question by analyzing the major principles that Reformed Christians can affirm and reject.
Reformed Christians heartily agree with the principle that deification, or sanctification, to use a more familiar term, is an ongoing process by which believers are transformed into the image of Christ. Reformed theologians have always maintained this to be the case. The Westminster Confession of Faith describes this principal as the process by which believers “more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life.” According to Orthodoxy, deification remains largely imperfect—the process of divination will not be completed in this life. The same idea is present in Reformed theology. Here, this shared theological conviction distinguishes the two sides from the error of Christian perfectionism —the view that believers may earn a perfect status in the sight of God. However differently grace is defined by both sides, it remains clear that the process theosis, or sanctification, is credited entirely as the work of the Holy Spirit. This remains a significant agreement that separates and disassociates the two traditions from Pelagianism, which too many Evangelicals have fallen victim of. Reformed and Orthodox alliance may serve as a loud warning to the rest of Evangelicalism to reevaluate the role of grace in their personal transformation and growth.
Furthermore, the central role of the sacraments in the transformation of believers is another important theme shared by the respective positions. An element in the evangelical world that is almost all together absent. Reformed theology, like Orthodoxy, sees a real mystical union with Christ that occurs in the bread and wine, not mere symbols of commemoration. And course both sides would sharply separate themselves from the Roman Catholic doctrine transubstantiation.
However much concurrence this discourse between Orthodox and Reformed theology, regarding deification, has produced, many sharp and significant theological disagreements, like the role of human effort and sacraments, exist. But the focus here will be largely on the overarching function of deification in salvation—this is where the central difference lies. Before we move forward, it is important to ask whether this soteriological antithesis even matters. In the Reformation, the issue of salvation would have mattered immensely. The place where people stood was a church-splitting consequence. Today, however, the same cannot be said about the modern evangelical world; it is more concerned with personal piety, prosperity, and therapy, instead of the universal and object reality of the church’s salvation in the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. For those who recognize the magnitude of our salvation in Christ, will also perceive that our theological conclusions will greatly affect the way we view the Gospel. Consequently, our differences will separate us for the cause of the Gospel. Michael Horton keenly explains, “Our disagreements lie at the heart of our confession, not at the periphery.” Others are convinced that both positions can in fact be harmonious rather than contentious. Kärkkäinen argues, “The New Testament canon itself gives legitimacy to various conceptions of salvation.”
Orthodoxy, as already mentioned, centralizes deification in salvation. Transformation is the dominant theme upon which salvation rest, whereas the emphasis in Reformed theology is in justification or the “transactional” dimension of salvation. However, Nassif claims that both camp do not reject either theological concepts, rather they simply emphasize one above the other. Kärkkäinen is further convinced that there may be ecumenical convergence between both sides, due to the fact that deification and justification do not annul one another. He rejects the idea of distinguishing between justification and sanctification, the way Reformation theology does. For Kärkkäinen and others, justification (the declaration of God that sinners are righteous on account of Christ’s righteousness) is deification.
Others remain hesitant to affirm such a conclusion, however. With such assertions made by Kärkkäinen and others, Horton rightly criticizes such an understanding as “collapsing justification with sanctification.” The confusion and blurred lines between justification and deification has monumental consequences for the church’s right standing before our holy Creator. Granted that our deification is our justification, as some suggest; what difference does it make? The most important thing to not here is that if this is true, then completely deified life will never occur in this lifetime. Thus, R. Scott Clark concludes, “If justification is divinization, then we are not justified.” For the Reformers, however, justification is the root by which the fruits of deification, or sanctification, flow from. The mistaking of one for the other is an error of colossal significance.
Moreover, for the reason that Orthodoxy, it is argued, understands justification differently than that of the Reformers, it never really affirms the doctrine at all, but actually denies it. Fairbairn notes George Florovsky’s critique of the way Martin Luther understood justification. He (Florovsky) says, “For Luther ‘to justify’ meant to declare on righteous or just, not ‘to make’ righteous or just—it is an appeal to an extrinsic justice which in reality is a spiritual fiction.” Is this not essentially the same argument that Rome used at the time of the Reformation? It is a denial of the “…purely forensic declaration based on the imputation of Christ’s ‘alien righteousness.’” Furthermore, Florovsky’s assertion strips any personal dimension in the Reformation view of justification. A legal declaration does not necessarily mean that there is no personal dimension in the event. Take for instance the idea that God “adopts” us. Adoption is clearly a legal matter, but it is also incredibly personal, as deification is personal.
Much more can be said about the theological agreements and disagreements between Orthodoxy and Reformed Christianity regarding deification. We have seen places where the two traditions can indeed stand alongside one another in the theological surface, but there are other places where parting ways may be the best option for the sake of the kingdom. Yet, it does not follow that dialogues between the two theological perspective ought not to continue. There is yet undiscovered theological landscapes that both sides can learn from one another. Let us explore in humility, patience, and love to the glory of God in the Gospel of our Lord.
Bibliography:
Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: Holy Spirit Church and New Creation. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Vol. 4. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2008.
Clark, R. Scott. "Iustitia Imputata Christi: Alien or Proper to Luther's Doctrine of Justification?" Concordia Theological Quaterly, 2006: 269-310.
Fairbairn, Donald. Eastern Orthodoxy Through Western Eyes. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.
Fairbairn, Donald. "Salvation as Theosis: The Teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy." Themelios, 1998: 42-54.
Hill, Jonathan. The History of Christian Thought: The Fascination Story of the Great Christian Thinkers and How They Helped Shape the World as We Know it Today. Downers Grove , IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. One With God: Salvation as Deification and Justification. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2004.
Nassif, Bradley, Michael Horton, Vladimir Berzonsky, George Hancock-Stefan, and Edward Rommen. Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004.
Russell, Norman. The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Ware, Timothy. The Orthodox Church. London, England: Penguin Books, 1997.
Westminster Confession of Faith. glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 2001.
The idea of deification in the ancient world was utterly pagan in nature, but the origin of the word in the Christian world dates back to Clement of Alexandria, who was the first to utilize it writing. However, he did not see a need to articulate a technical definition; as a result, no formal explanation was given until the sixth century when the need to clarify its meaning arose. It was at this time when Dionysius the Areopogite gave a definition. Russell tells us that Dionysius defined it this way: “…‘Deification (θέωσις) is the attaining of likeness to God and union with him so far as is possible.’” Furthermore, no theological discourse with regards to deification was presented until the time of Maximus the Confessor in the seventh century. Since then, it has been a central doctrine in the Orthodox Church, but has been mostly forgotten or lost in the West.
Although there have been many contributors to the doctrine of deification in the history of Christianity, two important figures in its development will be considered. First, Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-200) was one who made a pivotal step into the formulation of this doctrine. His understanding of the incarnation of Jesus Christ may have been a key to the idea of deification. Irenaeus described the relationship between the incarnation and deification in this way: “How shall man pass into God, unless God has passed into man?” In other words, the incarnation was the initial action that God took to divinized humanity. God could not have begun such a process unless He Himself became man, this is central in Irenaeus’ view of salvation. Interestingly, Irenaeus is thus forced to conclude that Christ necessarily had to die at an old age to secure the salvation of the elderly. It is important to note here that Irenaeus is not at all denying the Creator and creature distinction between God and man, as it may appear at first glance. Jonathan Hill tells us, “The fundamental distinction between Creator and creation is never abolished, but we can share in the divine qualities and the divine life.”
Second, another important figure in the advancement of theosis is the church father Athanasius (c. 293-373). His primary contribution to the doctrine is his famous ‘exchange formula,’ which stated, “He (Christ) became human that we might become divine.” It is essentially another way of phrasing what Irenaeus previously stated. Theosis is the pathway in which humanity is once again set forth in the right track to divinity; the track that humanity wandered away from in the Fall of Adam. It is an ongoing process back to the union that humans were created to participate in.
The transition from the historical aspect of deification to its theological aspect is to simply further developed the doctrine’s internal components. What exactly does the word theosis convey? Here, we will explore the following: the means by which deification is accomplished and centrality of deification in salvation.
What are the means by which the church is deified? This is an important question before us. According to Orthodox antiquity, deification is entirely wrought by the Holy Spirit as a result of God’s grace. In other words, the Holy Spirit is the agent by which all the benefits of deification—i.e., immortality, incorruptibility, and Christ-likeness—are gained by believers. Or, to put it in another way, “… the Orthodox regard[s] theosis as being, first and foremost, the result of the Holy Spirit’s activity in people.” Cyril of Alexandria, for example, recognizes that the Holy Spirit plays a pivotal part in our union with God. Russell, speaking of the role of the Holy Spirit in Cyril’s theology, mentions, “Participation in the Spirit conforms us to Christ, and enables us to be ‘described as children of God and gods.” Still, a further question remains: How does the Holy Spirit confer the benefits of deification onto the church?
Fairbairn answers the above question straightforward, he says, “To the Orthodox, the primary means by which the Holy Spirit works to give grace and deify people are the church’s sacraments and human effort.” We see here the centrality of the church sacraments. They are means by which the Holy Spirit dispenses grace in the life of the church—the Reformed tradition would refer to the sacraments as “means of grace.” The idea of grace flowing from the sacraments is too often times ignored or even denied in the broad evangelical landscape, where the sacraments communicate nothing more than mere symbols or remembrance.
Baptism, according to the Orthodox position, is a means by which the Christian begins the process of deification. Unlike its Evangelical counterpart, who sharply insist on the prior experience of conversion before the event of baptism, Orthodoxy sees an inseparable marriage between the water (physical) and reality (spiritual). And the Eucharist (Communion) is the sacrament that brings believers into the life of Christ by uniting them to the Father and one another; it is the supreme expression of the church’s union with the incarnate Son of God. There is real presence and union with Christ in the Eucharist. Bishop Kallistos Ware explains, “… the Orthodox Church believes that after consecration the bread and wine become in very the Body and Blood of Christ: they are not mere symbols, but the reality.”
Human effort also plays a significant role in the deification of believers. Here, Orthodoxy takes a synergistic position, where God does His part and man does his part, in the deifying of man. In other words, the means by which believers are deified is one of participation. Man’s free will must be exercised for any progress to occur. Orthodox theology essentially makes human autonomy the preeminent substance that God will never impose upon. Vladimir Lossky strongly affirms this view, he maintains, “God becomes powerless before human freedom; He cannot violate it since it flows from His own omnipotence. Certainly man was created by the will of God alone; but he cannot be deified by it alone.” It is important to note here that Orthodoxy maneuvers itself away from the Pelagian heresy by asserting that good works alone do not merit union with the incarnate Christ. Good works are means that the Holy Spirit uses transform believers, but they are not of themselves meritorious.
By now it is apparent that the Orthodox Church’s understanding of salvation revolves around the doctrine of Theosis. Orthodoxy ultimately centralizes the human process of divination in the salvific purpose of the Triune God. To say it differently, the process of becoming more Christ-like is salvation. The change that is wrought upon believers is much more emphasized in Orthodoxy. Nassif thus correctly distinguishes, “…the East adopted a ‘transformational’ model that places emphasis on who Christ is (i.e., the person of Christ, his resurrection, and his triumphant victory over sin and death—the Christus Victor theme).
As mentioned above, the word deification need not be a dreadful word to the Reformed ear. If properly understood, one may see words in the Reformed tradition that are quite equivocal to its meaning. Don Fairbairn points us to a few terms, he says, “…deification corresponds somewhat to concepts which evangelicals describe using the terms sanctification, eternal life, and fellowship or relationship with God.” What then can the Reformed Christian learn from the Orthodox understanding of deification? In light of the previous discourse about theosis, let us therefore answer this crucial question by analyzing the major principles that Reformed Christians can affirm and reject.
Reformed Christians heartily agree with the principle that deification, or sanctification, to use a more familiar term, is an ongoing process by which believers are transformed into the image of Christ. Reformed theologians have always maintained this to be the case. The Westminster Confession of Faith describes this principal as the process by which believers “more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life.” According to Orthodoxy, deification remains largely imperfect—the process of divination will not be completed in this life. The same idea is present in Reformed theology. Here, this shared theological conviction distinguishes the two sides from the error of Christian perfectionism —the view that believers may earn a perfect status in the sight of God. However differently grace is defined by both sides, it remains clear that the process theosis, or sanctification, is credited entirely as the work of the Holy Spirit. This remains a significant agreement that separates and disassociates the two traditions from Pelagianism, which too many Evangelicals have fallen victim of. Reformed and Orthodox alliance may serve as a loud warning to the rest of Evangelicalism to reevaluate the role of grace in their personal transformation and growth.
Furthermore, the central role of the sacraments in the transformation of believers is another important theme shared by the respective positions. An element in the evangelical world that is almost all together absent. Reformed theology, like Orthodoxy, sees a real mystical union with Christ that occurs in the bread and wine, not mere symbols of commemoration. And course both sides would sharply separate themselves from the Roman Catholic doctrine transubstantiation.
However much concurrence this discourse between Orthodox and Reformed theology, regarding deification, has produced, many sharp and significant theological disagreements, like the role of human effort and sacraments, exist. But the focus here will be largely on the overarching function of deification in salvation—this is where the central difference lies. Before we move forward, it is important to ask whether this soteriological antithesis even matters. In the Reformation, the issue of salvation would have mattered immensely. The place where people stood was a church-splitting consequence. Today, however, the same cannot be said about the modern evangelical world; it is more concerned with personal piety, prosperity, and therapy, instead of the universal and object reality of the church’s salvation in the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. For those who recognize the magnitude of our salvation in Christ, will also perceive that our theological conclusions will greatly affect the way we view the Gospel. Consequently, our differences will separate us for the cause of the Gospel. Michael Horton keenly explains, “Our disagreements lie at the heart of our confession, not at the periphery.” Others are convinced that both positions can in fact be harmonious rather than contentious. Kärkkäinen argues, “The New Testament canon itself gives legitimacy to various conceptions of salvation.”
Orthodoxy, as already mentioned, centralizes deification in salvation. Transformation is the dominant theme upon which salvation rest, whereas the emphasis in Reformed theology is in justification or the “transactional” dimension of salvation. However, Nassif claims that both camp do not reject either theological concepts, rather they simply emphasize one above the other. Kärkkäinen is further convinced that there may be ecumenical convergence between both sides, due to the fact that deification and justification do not annul one another. He rejects the idea of distinguishing between justification and sanctification, the way Reformation theology does. For Kärkkäinen and others, justification (the declaration of God that sinners are righteous on account of Christ’s righteousness) is deification.
Others remain hesitant to affirm such a conclusion, however. With such assertions made by Kärkkäinen and others, Horton rightly criticizes such an understanding as “collapsing justification with sanctification.” The confusion and blurred lines between justification and deification has monumental consequences for the church’s right standing before our holy Creator. Granted that our deification is our justification, as some suggest; what difference does it make? The most important thing to not here is that if this is true, then completely deified life will never occur in this lifetime. Thus, R. Scott Clark concludes, “If justification is divinization, then we are not justified.” For the Reformers, however, justification is the root by which the fruits of deification, or sanctification, flow from. The mistaking of one for the other is an error of colossal significance.
Moreover, for the reason that Orthodoxy, it is argued, understands justification differently than that of the Reformers, it never really affirms the doctrine at all, but actually denies it. Fairbairn notes George Florovsky’s critique of the way Martin Luther understood justification. He (Florovsky) says, “For Luther ‘to justify’ meant to declare on righteous or just, not ‘to make’ righteous or just—it is an appeal to an extrinsic justice which in reality is a spiritual fiction.” Is this not essentially the same argument that Rome used at the time of the Reformation? It is a denial of the “…purely forensic declaration based on the imputation of Christ’s ‘alien righteousness.’” Furthermore, Florovsky’s assertion strips any personal dimension in the Reformation view of justification. A legal declaration does not necessarily mean that there is no personal dimension in the event. Take for instance the idea that God “adopts” us. Adoption is clearly a legal matter, but it is also incredibly personal, as deification is personal.
Much more can be said about the theological agreements and disagreements between Orthodoxy and Reformed Christianity regarding deification. We have seen places where the two traditions can indeed stand alongside one another in the theological surface, but there are other places where parting ways may be the best option for the sake of the kingdom. Yet, it does not follow that dialogues between the two theological perspective ought not to continue. There is yet undiscovered theological landscapes that both sides can learn from one another. Let us explore in humility, patience, and love to the glory of God in the Gospel of our Lord.
Bibliography:
Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: Holy Spirit Church and New Creation. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Vol. 4. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2008.
Clark, R. Scott. "Iustitia Imputata Christi: Alien or Proper to Luther's Doctrine of Justification?" Concordia Theological Quaterly, 2006: 269-310.
Fairbairn, Donald. Eastern Orthodoxy Through Western Eyes. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.
Fairbairn, Donald. "Salvation as Theosis: The Teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy." Themelios, 1998: 42-54.
Hill, Jonathan. The History of Christian Thought: The Fascination Story of the Great Christian Thinkers and How They Helped Shape the World as We Know it Today. Downers Grove , IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. One With God: Salvation as Deification and Justification. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2004.
Nassif, Bradley, Michael Horton, Vladimir Berzonsky, George Hancock-Stefan, and Edward Rommen. Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004.
Russell, Norman. The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Ware, Timothy. The Orthodox Church. London, England: Penguin Books, 1997.
Westminster Confession of Faith. glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 2001.
Labels:
Deification,
Eastern Orthodox,
Justification,
Sanctification
Sunday, March 8, 2009
An Introduction to the Eastern Orthodox Church
The Eastern Orthodox Church is rich and robust in its culture, arts, history, tradition, and theology. There is indeed much to say about the roots and foundation of the Orthodox faith, but for the sake of simplicity and the introductory nature of this paper, this essay will primarily address its historical background and theological infrastructure. The historical portion will include a synopsis of the early Byzantine era and conclude the twentieth Century Orthodoxy. As for the content, it is important to note that only significant events related to Orthodoxy will be examined as concise as possible. The latter half of this paper will conclude with a brief examination of the theological infrastructure of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
As we begin to flesh out the history of the Eastern Orthodox Church, it is important to highlight that the conception of the Christian Byzantine Empire occurred after the conversion of the Roman Emperor, Constantine. In the year 325 A.D., Constantine became the first to gather an ecumenical council that came to be known as the Council of Nicaea. The first Council of Nicaea became one of the seven councils held during 325 A.D. and 787 A.D., which are of supreme importance, not only to the Eastern Orthodox Church, but Christendom as a whole. The first six councils were essentially a clear and concise refutation of the Alexandrian priest, Arius, that later became known as Arianism. Arius desired to defend, as Ware notes, “the uniqueness and the transcendence of God,”1 but the result was the denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ. Here, the council decisively concluded that Christ was not merely an exalted creature, but Christ was “‘one in essence’ (homoousios) with the Father,”2 which resulted in the formulation of the Nicene Creed. In 381 A.D., Constantinople, the Nicene Creed was further developed in the Second Ecumenical Council, with the articulation of the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The Nestorian heresy, which separated the unity of the Divine and humanity of Christ, arose in 431 A.D. that provoked yet another council that consequently defended the incarnation of Christ and Mary as the “‘Mother of God’ (Theotokos).”3 Shortly after, another heresy arose in Ephesus that came to be known as ‘Monophysite.’ The successor of Cyril in Alexandria, Dioscurus, in responding to Eutyches, proposed and insisted upon the “one Person” of Christ, but in doing so, he greatly erred by confusing the two natures of Christ – i.e., Christ’s divinity and humanity. Hence, the Chalcedon Council was forced to formulate a statement that defended the church from the Monophysite error. In which the council proclaimed in a sweeping summary, “…the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.”4 The fifth and sixth councils were essentially reiterations of the fourth council; the fifth council took place in 553 A.D. under Emperor Justinian and in 680-1 A.D., the sixth council was arranged by Emperor Constantine IV. The seventh and final council was held in 787 A.D. over the issue of icons in the church, upon which the Ecumenical Council concluded that “…are [icons] to be kept in churches and honoured with the same relative veneration as is shown to other material symbols such as the ‘precious and life-giving Cross’ and the Book of Gospels.”5
At this point many different factors have been prevalent between the Eastern Church and the Western Church. Key differences included: language barrier, ecclesiastical orientations, cultural characteristics, and political agendas. The Eastern Church primarily spoke Greek while the Western Church spoke Latin. With regards to their ecclesiastical orientations, the west insisted on a single ruling bishop, the bishop of Rome, who later became the Pope of Rome, and the east insisted on multiple bishops to administrate the church. Furthermore, there were theological disagreements between the two sides. The Eastern Church greatly opposed the Western Church’s insistent on the infallibility of the bishop of Rome (Pope) with regards to the doctrinal issues of the church. Several other theological issues were greatly debated amongst the two churches and eventually rejected by the Eastern Church: the Western Church doctrine of Purgatory, the unwarranted addition of the filioque6 in the Nicene Creed, and the Pope’s universal authority over the entire church. With such overwhelming disagreements between the two, in the year 1054 A.D., the unity of the One Holy Orthodox Catholic Church collapsed. The Eastern Church became the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Western Church became the Roman Catholic Church. This historic separation became known as the Great Schism.
Before we move into the theological portion, let me first highlight other key components worth mentioning, without overly explaining them; particular Eastern Orthodox history that help usher us in the twentieth century. First, in 988 A.D., the conversion of the Russian Empire began. An event that helped established the Eastern Orthodox Church in Russia, an effect that still resonates today. Secondly, after the Great Schism, the Roman Catholic Church initiated the Crusades, which further distances the already separated Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church. And lastly, it is important to note the end of the Byzantine Empire with the Turkish invasion of Constantinople.
Much of Eastern Orthodox Church theology is derived from the all-important doctrine of the Trinity. For Orthodoxy, the doctrine of the Trinity is not simply an abstract theological formulation but is also immanently practical for the lives of Christians. According to Ware, “The human person, so the Bible teaches, is made in the image of God, and to Christians God means the Trinity: thus it is only in the light of the dogma of the Trinity that we can understand who we are and what God intends us to be.”7 In other words, the way the church understands the Trinity has direct correlation to the way it sees itself.
Worship in the Eastern Orthodox Church centers in primarily in the sacraments because it is immanently liturgical. To understand the Orthodox view of worship, one must understand its sacramental theology. Very much like the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodoxy observes seven distinct sacraments: Baptism, Chrismation or Confirmation, the Eucharist, Holy Orders or Ordination, Repentance or Confession, Marriage or Holy Matrimony, and the Anointing to the Sick or Holy Unction. It is essential to understand that the majority of the sacraments are framed with the understanding that the physical, or material, is indeed a sufficient means to the spiritual. Consequently, the sacraments are visible manifestation of the remembrance of the Incarnation of Christ, who took on flesh (physical) and used it as a means to the spiritual. Although the seven sacraments, mentioned above, are all important in the sacramental theology of the church, here, we will examine two of the most significant sacraments, the Eucharist and Baptism.
The central sacrament of the Eastern Orthodox Church is the sacrament of the Eucharist, or the Divine Liturgy. It is the communal celebration of Lord Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection on the Sabbath and Holy day. Hence, it has been known as the “Sacrament of Sacrament.” In the tradition of the Patristic Father, Cyril, who, as Nassif notes, believed that “…the real communion with God was [is] possible through the Eucharist because of the mystery that God ontologically united himself to humanity through the incarnation of Jesus Christ.”8 Finding an inseparable correlation between the sacrament of the Eucharist and Christology, the church, therefore, teaches the real presence of Christ in the sacrament. Although it teaches the real presence of Christ body and blood in the Eucharist, it is important to note that the Orthodox Church is not teaching the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist – i.e., the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. In contrast, the Eastern Church appeals to the mystery of the reality of the Eucharist. Moreover, it recognizes this sacrament as sacrifice.
Baptism is a sacramental initiation into the church, upon which one is made partaker of the Body of Christ and is introduced into the life of the Holy Trinity. The water is a physical representation of renewal of life and spiritual cleansing. As with the Roman Catholic Church, as well as the early Christian community, the Eastern Orthodox Church practices the baptism of infants. Two crucial acts are accorded with the sacrament of Baptism: first, the priest calls upon God’s presence by invoking the Name of the Holy Trinity, and second, the three-fold immersion into the water of Baptism. By partaking in the sacrament of Baptism, the individual publicly identifies with the atoning death and triumphant resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Along with the prescribed sacraments of the church, another important feature must be addressed to properly understand the Orthodox theology of worship, namely, the veneration of the Holy Icons. Through the medium of art, the Orthodox Christian is given a sight of the spiritual realm; not mere arousal of emotions from the beauty of the icons. The essence of the veneration of the Holy Icons may be described in this way: the substance of the Holy Icons is not to be venerated, but because they share likeness with person represented, the prototype is to be venerated through them. The veneration of the Holy Icons is within the context of Tradition and is thus confined by prescribed rules of the church. A Christian painter may not reproduce his own artistic interpretation, but he must reflect the mind of the church.
Given the above historical and theological background, it is easy to see the richness and stability of the Eastern Orthodox Church, especially in its theology and worship. From the conception of the Christian Church to the present, the Eastern Orthodox Church has remained essentially the same.
Footnotes:
1. See Timothy (Kallistos) Ware, The Orthodox Church (London, England: The Penguin Group, 1997) p. 22.
2. Ibid., p. 22.
3. Ibid., p. 25.
4. Italics mine. A citation of the Chalcedonian Definition in Stephen W. Need, Truly Divine and Truly Human (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008) p. 100.
5. The Orthodox Church, p. 31.
6. For a definition of filioque, see the glossary in Truly Divine and Truly Human, p. 165.
7. The Orthodox Church, p. 208.
8. See Bradley Nassif, Three Views On Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism, ed. Stanley N. Gundry and James Stamoolis (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004) p. 50.
As we begin to flesh out the history of the Eastern Orthodox Church, it is important to highlight that the conception of the Christian Byzantine Empire occurred after the conversion of the Roman Emperor, Constantine. In the year 325 A.D., Constantine became the first to gather an ecumenical council that came to be known as the Council of Nicaea. The first Council of Nicaea became one of the seven councils held during 325 A.D. and 787 A.D., which are of supreme importance, not only to the Eastern Orthodox Church, but Christendom as a whole. The first six councils were essentially a clear and concise refutation of the Alexandrian priest, Arius, that later became known as Arianism. Arius desired to defend, as Ware notes, “the uniqueness and the transcendence of God,”1 but the result was the denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ. Here, the council decisively concluded that Christ was not merely an exalted creature, but Christ was “‘one in essence’ (homoousios) with the Father,”2 which resulted in the formulation of the Nicene Creed. In 381 A.D., Constantinople, the Nicene Creed was further developed in the Second Ecumenical Council, with the articulation of the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The Nestorian heresy, which separated the unity of the Divine and humanity of Christ, arose in 431 A.D. that provoked yet another council that consequently defended the incarnation of Christ and Mary as the “‘Mother of God’ (Theotokos).”3 Shortly after, another heresy arose in Ephesus that came to be known as ‘Monophysite.’ The successor of Cyril in Alexandria, Dioscurus, in responding to Eutyches, proposed and insisted upon the “one Person” of Christ, but in doing so, he greatly erred by confusing the two natures of Christ – i.e., Christ’s divinity and humanity. Hence, the Chalcedon Council was forced to formulate a statement that defended the church from the Monophysite error. In which the council proclaimed in a sweeping summary, “…the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.”4 The fifth and sixth councils were essentially reiterations of the fourth council; the fifth council took place in 553 A.D. under Emperor Justinian and in 680-1 A.D., the sixth council was arranged by Emperor Constantine IV. The seventh and final council was held in 787 A.D. over the issue of icons in the church, upon which the Ecumenical Council concluded that “…are [icons] to be kept in churches and honoured with the same relative veneration as is shown to other material symbols such as the ‘precious and life-giving Cross’ and the Book of Gospels.”5
At this point many different factors have been prevalent between the Eastern Church and the Western Church. Key differences included: language barrier, ecclesiastical orientations, cultural characteristics, and political agendas. The Eastern Church primarily spoke Greek while the Western Church spoke Latin. With regards to their ecclesiastical orientations, the west insisted on a single ruling bishop, the bishop of Rome, who later became the Pope of Rome, and the east insisted on multiple bishops to administrate the church. Furthermore, there were theological disagreements between the two sides. The Eastern Church greatly opposed the Western Church’s insistent on the infallibility of the bishop of Rome (Pope) with regards to the doctrinal issues of the church. Several other theological issues were greatly debated amongst the two churches and eventually rejected by the Eastern Church: the Western Church doctrine of Purgatory, the unwarranted addition of the filioque6 in the Nicene Creed, and the Pope’s universal authority over the entire church. With such overwhelming disagreements between the two, in the year 1054 A.D., the unity of the One Holy Orthodox Catholic Church collapsed. The Eastern Church became the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Western Church became the Roman Catholic Church. This historic separation became known as the Great Schism.
Before we move into the theological portion, let me first highlight other key components worth mentioning, without overly explaining them; particular Eastern Orthodox history that help usher us in the twentieth century. First, in 988 A.D., the conversion of the Russian Empire began. An event that helped established the Eastern Orthodox Church in Russia, an effect that still resonates today. Secondly, after the Great Schism, the Roman Catholic Church initiated the Crusades, which further distances the already separated Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church. And lastly, it is important to note the end of the Byzantine Empire with the Turkish invasion of Constantinople.
Much of Eastern Orthodox Church theology is derived from the all-important doctrine of the Trinity. For Orthodoxy, the doctrine of the Trinity is not simply an abstract theological formulation but is also immanently practical for the lives of Christians. According to Ware, “The human person, so the Bible teaches, is made in the image of God, and to Christians God means the Trinity: thus it is only in the light of the dogma of the Trinity that we can understand who we are and what God intends us to be.”7 In other words, the way the church understands the Trinity has direct correlation to the way it sees itself.
Worship in the Eastern Orthodox Church centers in primarily in the sacraments because it is immanently liturgical. To understand the Orthodox view of worship, one must understand its sacramental theology. Very much like the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodoxy observes seven distinct sacraments: Baptism, Chrismation or Confirmation, the Eucharist, Holy Orders or Ordination, Repentance or Confession, Marriage or Holy Matrimony, and the Anointing to the Sick or Holy Unction. It is essential to understand that the majority of the sacraments are framed with the understanding that the physical, or material, is indeed a sufficient means to the spiritual. Consequently, the sacraments are visible manifestation of the remembrance of the Incarnation of Christ, who took on flesh (physical) and used it as a means to the spiritual. Although the seven sacraments, mentioned above, are all important in the sacramental theology of the church, here, we will examine two of the most significant sacraments, the Eucharist and Baptism.
The central sacrament of the Eastern Orthodox Church is the sacrament of the Eucharist, or the Divine Liturgy. It is the communal celebration of Lord Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection on the Sabbath and Holy day. Hence, it has been known as the “Sacrament of Sacrament.” In the tradition of the Patristic Father, Cyril, who, as Nassif notes, believed that “…the real communion with God was [is] possible through the Eucharist because of the mystery that God ontologically united himself to humanity through the incarnation of Jesus Christ.”8 Finding an inseparable correlation between the sacrament of the Eucharist and Christology, the church, therefore, teaches the real presence of Christ in the sacrament. Although it teaches the real presence of Christ body and blood in the Eucharist, it is important to note that the Orthodox Church is not teaching the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist – i.e., the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. In contrast, the Eastern Church appeals to the mystery of the reality of the Eucharist. Moreover, it recognizes this sacrament as sacrifice.
Baptism is a sacramental initiation into the church, upon which one is made partaker of the Body of Christ and is introduced into the life of the Holy Trinity. The water is a physical representation of renewal of life and spiritual cleansing. As with the Roman Catholic Church, as well as the early Christian community, the Eastern Orthodox Church practices the baptism of infants. Two crucial acts are accorded with the sacrament of Baptism: first, the priest calls upon God’s presence by invoking the Name of the Holy Trinity, and second, the three-fold immersion into the water of Baptism. By partaking in the sacrament of Baptism, the individual publicly identifies with the atoning death and triumphant resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Along with the prescribed sacraments of the church, another important feature must be addressed to properly understand the Orthodox theology of worship, namely, the veneration of the Holy Icons. Through the medium of art, the Orthodox Christian is given a sight of the spiritual realm; not mere arousal of emotions from the beauty of the icons. The essence of the veneration of the Holy Icons may be described in this way: the substance of the Holy Icons is not to be venerated, but because they share likeness with person represented, the prototype is to be venerated through them. The veneration of the Holy Icons is within the context of Tradition and is thus confined by prescribed rules of the church. A Christian painter may not reproduce his own artistic interpretation, but he must reflect the mind of the church.
Given the above historical and theological background, it is easy to see the richness and stability of the Eastern Orthodox Church, especially in its theology and worship. From the conception of the Christian Church to the present, the Eastern Orthodox Church has remained essentially the same.
Footnotes:
1. See Timothy (Kallistos) Ware, The Orthodox Church (London, England: The Penguin Group, 1997) p. 22.
2. Ibid., p. 22.
3. Ibid., p. 25.
4. Italics mine. A citation of the Chalcedonian Definition in Stephen W. Need, Truly Divine and Truly Human (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008) p. 100.
5. The Orthodox Church, p. 31.
6. For a definition of filioque, see the glossary in Truly Divine and Truly Human, p. 165.
7. The Orthodox Church, p. 208.
8. See Bradley Nassif, Three Views On Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism, ed. Stanley N. Gundry and James Stamoolis (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004) p. 50.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Horton's Questions for American Christians
“Does Christ come merely to improve our existence in Adam or to end it, sweeping us into his new creation? Is Christianity all about spiritual and moral makeovers or about death and resurrection — radical judgment and radical grace? Is the Word of God a resource for what we have already decided we want and need, or is it God’s living and active criticism of our religion, morality, and pious experience? In other words, is the Bible God’s story, centering on Christ’s redeeming work, that rewrites our stories, or is it something we use to make our stories a little more exciting and interesting?”
- Michael Horton, Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church (Grand Rapids, Mi.: Baker Books, 2008), 24.
(HT:Of First Importance)
- Michael Horton, Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church (Grand Rapids, Mi.: Baker Books, 2008), 24.
(HT:Of First Importance)
Monday, December 15, 2008
Christmas Giveaway
Trevin Wax is giving away his 10 favorite books of the year. Find out how to enter here!
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Acts 15: The Significance of Justification by Faith Alone in the Mission of God
Approaching the fifteenth chapter of the book of Acts, the passages before us, with a missional hermeneutic is no small task because of the many themes that must be taken into account. In order to see the manifold beauty of the glistening facets of God’s mission, this essay will address, in no particular order, the following themes: The mission of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the mission of the catholic church, and God’s overarching mission to manifest his refulgent glory to the world.1 These themes are not only similar, but also interconnected to sweeping mission that God is accomplishing in the world. This chapter in the book of Acts is essentially God’s continuing revelatory mission of making Himself known as the sovereign and triune God who saves sinners through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is through faith alone that sinners are to receive this Gospel. Furthermore, it is also a glimpse of God’s sovereign purpose for His church to preach and defend the Gospel.
Preparatory work. Before we examine the passages in Acts fifteen, it is crucial to establish some preparatory work. Thus, it is critical to state the fundamental framework that this essay will be operating from. The hermeneutical framework that will be employed, for the benefit of understanding the overall purpose of God’s mission, is found in Christopher J. H. Wright’s book, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative.2 According to Wright, mission is ultimately rooted in God’s ultimate purpose for the world; it is the sacred mission that the Lord is accomplishing. This may be ascertained in the bounds of revelation alone. It is the Scriptures that present to us the revealed mission of God for His church and the world. Hence, the church’s mission to “Go into the world and proclaim the Gospel to the whole creation” (Mark 16:15), is properly a participation in God’s mission, rather than a disconnected mandate from God to His people to accomplish on their own. The people of God find their mission subordinate to the mission of God. With God’s unveiled mission from the Scriptures as the center of divine purpose, all other missions ultimately gravitate around God’s mission. Wright explains that the aim of The Mission of God is to engage and examine the Lord’s global mission. He summates, “It could be said that the mission of this book (The Mission of God) is to explore that divine mission and all that lies behind it and flows from it in relation to God himself, God’s people and God’s world, insofar as it is revealed to us in God’s Word.”3
Another preparatory work that is extremely important, in terms of comprehending this chapter more fully, is establishing its purpose and context. There is a twofold purpose to Luke’s account of the spread of the Gospel and the early formation of the Christian church. First, it is the expansion of the work of God “in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8), as promised by the Lord. As the Gospel was preached, so the expansion of the work of God increased. With the progression of the Gospel, the church progressed. Second, the book of Acts also traces the development of the early church. This is essentially Luke’s historical depiction of what took place at the time of the Apostles. Hence, the title of the book is the “Acts of the Apostles.”
In terms of context, the entire book may properly be divided between Peter’s ministry and Paul’s ministry. The former part of the book deals extensively with Peter’s ministry to the Jews that resided in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria (Acts 1:1-12:24). As for the latter, it deals primarily with Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles (12:25-28:31). Luke begins by instructing the disciples to wait for the promise of the Holy Spirit. Then, in chapter two through seven, he expounds the event of Pentecost and Peter’s sermon and Stephan’s martyrdom. Soon afterwards, the church is faced with harsh persecutions that results in its dispersion to Palestine and Syria. The apostle Paul is also converted during this time. And finally, the first missionary journeys are realized.
The significance of justification by faith alone in God’s mission. These opening sentences of Acts 15 are of supreme value to the church, for they address a defense for God’s most important mission: God’s will to be known through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This Gospel is what the Apostle Paul calls “of first importance” (1 Cor. 15:3). Indeed, the glory of God and the mission for His church shine forth from the Gospel. In Jesus Christ, whom the “whole fullness of deity dwells bodily…” (Col. 2:9), God’s glory is made manifest. As Wright points out, “Where Jesus is preached, the very glory of God shines through.”4 And, the purpose of the church is to share the good news that Jesus Christ has satisfied the wrath of God for those who would believe in His name; God’s redemptive purpose has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Therefore, the defense of this Gospel is crucial to the very mission of God in redemptive history. Not only was this a relevant issue in the days of the Apostles, it is also a relevant issue today and in the future of Christendom.
With the conquest of the Gospel amongst the Gentile nations, a crucial problem has arisen. Namely, certain brothers, presumably of Jewish backgrounds, have infiltrated the church with a most serious doctrinal error. Here, we are told that these certain men were advocating, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). In other words, according to these men, in order to be saved from the wrath of God, Gentiles must not only have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, but they must also perform the law given to Moses and be circumcised like the Jews before them. Faith in Christ is inadequate; observance of the Old Covenant is necessary; not by faith alone, but by faith and works.5 The Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians provides for us a detailed account of the severity of this debate. In which he boldly proclaims that those who are preaching works as a ground for our right standing with God are actually preaching a contrary Gospel.
Why is this issue so important? On the surface, this may seem like a menial, theological discourse between some of the Apostles (Paul and Barnabas) present and the men ensconced with this particular error, but the implications of this error are massive to the mission of God in Christ for His glorification and our justification. A consideration of what is at stake when one affirms that salvation is by faith and works, as the Roman Catholic Church teaches, is necessary to understand why this issue is treated with utmost care in the early church. Evident from the fact that a council was established to settle the matter (Acts 15:6). Throughout church history, especially during the time of the Reformation, the doctrine of justification has been of prime importance. Thus, many historical confessions articulate the significance of this teaching. For instance, the Westminster Confession of Faith beautifully articulates: “Q. 70. What is justification? A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone”6 Here, three interconnected, vital issues are of supreme importance:7
(i) The sinfulness of the human race. Firstly, the introduction of works to the Gospel compromises the sinfulness of the human race. The ground of this heresy presupposes that one is fully able to observe the law given to Moses. Not only does this ideology make the law unholy but it also ignores the clear teachings of the Bible about man. Namely, man is completely ruined in sin via Adam’s sin and actual sin. Therefore, he cannot perform the law without introducing sin to the picture. The Apostle Paul argues, “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). Contrary to the Apostle Paul, these men, who erroneously teach that observing the law is a requirement to be saved, are in essence asking believers to embark in an impossible task. It is to downplay, to say the least, the severity of the human condition. Therefore, in agreement to the Apostle Paul, the Apostle Peter gives the following insight: “…why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will” (Acts 16:10-11). And, at the heart of this error, denies the all important doctrine of original sin.
(ii) Nullifies the imputation of Jesus Christ. With the undermining of human sinfulness and denial of original sin via Adam’s sin, this deviation necessarily nullifies the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to guilty sinners.8 If Christ’s righteousness is not ultimately transferred to our account, rendering us sinless before God, then our own righteousness must atone for our sin. This is in fact a blasphemous and prideful ideology of man. Biblical revelation declares that God has come down to save sinners, not sinners climbing up to God.
(iii) The satisfaction of Jesus Christ. Secondly, and most importantly, the complete satisfaction of Jesus Christ is altogether abrogated with the affirmation of works as a ground to our justification before God. If, before the tribunal of God, our works are presented as evidence of our righteousness, Christ would have suffered on the cross for no purpose. In essence, what these men are proposing is this: “Christ was only an example.” In other words, Christ did not satisfy, or make “propitiation” (cf. Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 1 John 4:10), for our sins on the cross. It is to ultimately empty the cross of its power to redeemed sinners. However, the biblical narratives reveal to us that the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ is of central importance in our redemption. As Wright points out, “Only in the cross is there forgiveness, justification and cleansing for guilty sinners.”9
The mission of the church. In the tradition of the early church, the Gospel is to be preached and defended with the greatest of sincerity. Any deviation from the free grace of the Gospel must entirely be resisted to uphold the glory of Christ, the central mission of God. Furthermore, the church’s evangelism stands on the foundation of the doctrine of justification because the Gospel is only ‘good news’ if God Himself is the one who atones the wrath-deserving sin that we are consumed by, instead of our futile exertion of perfectly obeying the law. Therefore, it is the church’s mission to proclaim the all sufficient Gospel that saves through faith alone. Those who put their trust in the perfect obedience of Christ may gain a right standing with God; it is the sweetest of exchange; the sinner receives the righteousness of Christ and Christ pays the penalty of his sin! Evangelism is a participation of sharing to other fallen sinners that God has done for them what they could not do for themselves; namely, they could not atone for their sins. The Gospels liberates us from our sin and brings us to a sanctified union with God. That, indeed, is the mission of the church.
Conclusion. In light of the significance of the doctrine of justification to the early, present, and future church of Christ, as articulated from the above discourse, it is evident that the redemptive mission of God pivots on this all important doctrine. That is why the church has always been adamant in its preservation. Not only is it central in God’s redemptive purposes, it is also central in God’s glorification in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If mission seeks to make known the glory of God to the world, then opposition to this teaching is not to be tolerated, but corrected. Therefore, to distort the doctrine of justification is not simply erroneous, but a defiance to the overarching mission of God.
Footnotes:
1. This list of themes is a simplified adaptation of Christopher J. H. Wright’s ‘missional hermeneutic.’ Wright, Christopher J.H. 2006. The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative. Downers Grove, IL. InterVarsity Press.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid., p. 23.
4. Ibid., p. 123.
5. I realize that there are those who cannot reconcile the teachings of the Apostle Paul and the Apostle James on this issue. Thus, disunity is argued for in the New Testament with regards to justification. However, upon further examination and exegesis, agreement between the teachings of the two apostles may be established. For further information on the ‘Paul and James controversy,’ see Sproul, R.C. 1997. Knowing Scripture. InterVarsity Press, pp. 83-84; Fung, Ronald Y.K. 1992. Right With God: Justification in the Bible and the World. D.A. Carson, ed. UK, World Evangelical Fellowship, pp.146-162.; Berkhof, Louis. 1996. Systematic Theology. New Combined Ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Wm. B. Eerdsmans, p. 521.
6. Westminster Confession of Faith. 2001. Alexander McPherson, ed. Glasgow, Free Presbyterian Publications, p. 163.
7. The following themes are raised by B.B. Warfield. See Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge. 1968. Biblical and Theological Studies. Samuel G. Craig, ed. Philadelphia, PA. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, pp. 262-269.
8. For more information on ‘imputation,’ see Biblical and Theological Studies, pp. 262-269.
9. The Mission of God, p. 315.
Preparatory work. Before we examine the passages in Acts fifteen, it is crucial to establish some preparatory work. Thus, it is critical to state the fundamental framework that this essay will be operating from. The hermeneutical framework that will be employed, for the benefit of understanding the overall purpose of God’s mission, is found in Christopher J. H. Wright’s book, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative.2 According to Wright, mission is ultimately rooted in God’s ultimate purpose for the world; it is the sacred mission that the Lord is accomplishing. This may be ascertained in the bounds of revelation alone. It is the Scriptures that present to us the revealed mission of God for His church and the world. Hence, the church’s mission to “Go into the world and proclaim the Gospel to the whole creation” (Mark 16:15), is properly a participation in God’s mission, rather than a disconnected mandate from God to His people to accomplish on their own. The people of God find their mission subordinate to the mission of God. With God’s unveiled mission from the Scriptures as the center of divine purpose, all other missions ultimately gravitate around God’s mission. Wright explains that the aim of The Mission of God is to engage and examine the Lord’s global mission. He summates, “It could be said that the mission of this book (The Mission of God) is to explore that divine mission and all that lies behind it and flows from it in relation to God himself, God’s people and God’s world, insofar as it is revealed to us in God’s Word.”3
Another preparatory work that is extremely important, in terms of comprehending this chapter more fully, is establishing its purpose and context. There is a twofold purpose to Luke’s account of the spread of the Gospel and the early formation of the Christian church. First, it is the expansion of the work of God “in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8), as promised by the Lord. As the Gospel was preached, so the expansion of the work of God increased. With the progression of the Gospel, the church progressed. Second, the book of Acts also traces the development of the early church. This is essentially Luke’s historical depiction of what took place at the time of the Apostles. Hence, the title of the book is the “Acts of the Apostles.”
In terms of context, the entire book may properly be divided between Peter’s ministry and Paul’s ministry. The former part of the book deals extensively with Peter’s ministry to the Jews that resided in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria (Acts 1:1-12:24). As for the latter, it deals primarily with Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles (12:25-28:31). Luke begins by instructing the disciples to wait for the promise of the Holy Spirit. Then, in chapter two through seven, he expounds the event of Pentecost and Peter’s sermon and Stephan’s martyrdom. Soon afterwards, the church is faced with harsh persecutions that results in its dispersion to Palestine and Syria. The apostle Paul is also converted during this time. And finally, the first missionary journeys are realized.
The significance of justification by faith alone in God’s mission. These opening sentences of Acts 15 are of supreme value to the church, for they address a defense for God’s most important mission: God’s will to be known through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This Gospel is what the Apostle Paul calls “of first importance” (1 Cor. 15:3). Indeed, the glory of God and the mission for His church shine forth from the Gospel. In Jesus Christ, whom the “whole fullness of deity dwells bodily…” (Col. 2:9), God’s glory is made manifest. As Wright points out, “Where Jesus is preached, the very glory of God shines through.”4 And, the purpose of the church is to share the good news that Jesus Christ has satisfied the wrath of God for those who would believe in His name; God’s redemptive purpose has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Therefore, the defense of this Gospel is crucial to the very mission of God in redemptive history. Not only was this a relevant issue in the days of the Apostles, it is also a relevant issue today and in the future of Christendom.
With the conquest of the Gospel amongst the Gentile nations, a crucial problem has arisen. Namely, certain brothers, presumably of Jewish backgrounds, have infiltrated the church with a most serious doctrinal error. Here, we are told that these certain men were advocating, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). In other words, according to these men, in order to be saved from the wrath of God, Gentiles must not only have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, but they must also perform the law given to Moses and be circumcised like the Jews before them. Faith in Christ is inadequate; observance of the Old Covenant is necessary; not by faith alone, but by faith and works.5 The Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians provides for us a detailed account of the severity of this debate. In which he boldly proclaims that those who are preaching works as a ground for our right standing with God are actually preaching a contrary Gospel.
Why is this issue so important? On the surface, this may seem like a menial, theological discourse between some of the Apostles (Paul and Barnabas) present and the men ensconced with this particular error, but the implications of this error are massive to the mission of God in Christ for His glorification and our justification. A consideration of what is at stake when one affirms that salvation is by faith and works, as the Roman Catholic Church teaches, is necessary to understand why this issue is treated with utmost care in the early church. Evident from the fact that a council was established to settle the matter (Acts 15:6). Throughout church history, especially during the time of the Reformation, the doctrine of justification has been of prime importance. Thus, many historical confessions articulate the significance of this teaching. For instance, the Westminster Confession of Faith beautifully articulates: “Q. 70. What is justification? A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone”6 Here, three interconnected, vital issues are of supreme importance:7
(i) The sinfulness of the human race. Firstly, the introduction of works to the Gospel compromises the sinfulness of the human race. The ground of this heresy presupposes that one is fully able to observe the law given to Moses. Not only does this ideology make the law unholy but it also ignores the clear teachings of the Bible about man. Namely, man is completely ruined in sin via Adam’s sin and actual sin. Therefore, he cannot perform the law without introducing sin to the picture. The Apostle Paul argues, “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). Contrary to the Apostle Paul, these men, who erroneously teach that observing the law is a requirement to be saved, are in essence asking believers to embark in an impossible task. It is to downplay, to say the least, the severity of the human condition. Therefore, in agreement to the Apostle Paul, the Apostle Peter gives the following insight: “…why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will” (Acts 16:10-11). And, at the heart of this error, denies the all important doctrine of original sin.
(ii) Nullifies the imputation of Jesus Christ. With the undermining of human sinfulness and denial of original sin via Adam’s sin, this deviation necessarily nullifies the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to guilty sinners.8 If Christ’s righteousness is not ultimately transferred to our account, rendering us sinless before God, then our own righteousness must atone for our sin. This is in fact a blasphemous and prideful ideology of man. Biblical revelation declares that God has come down to save sinners, not sinners climbing up to God.
(iii) The satisfaction of Jesus Christ. Secondly, and most importantly, the complete satisfaction of Jesus Christ is altogether abrogated with the affirmation of works as a ground to our justification before God. If, before the tribunal of God, our works are presented as evidence of our righteousness, Christ would have suffered on the cross for no purpose. In essence, what these men are proposing is this: “Christ was only an example.” In other words, Christ did not satisfy, or make “propitiation” (cf. Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 1 John 4:10), for our sins on the cross. It is to ultimately empty the cross of its power to redeemed sinners. However, the biblical narratives reveal to us that the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ is of central importance in our redemption. As Wright points out, “Only in the cross is there forgiveness, justification and cleansing for guilty sinners.”9
The mission of the church. In the tradition of the early church, the Gospel is to be preached and defended with the greatest of sincerity. Any deviation from the free grace of the Gospel must entirely be resisted to uphold the glory of Christ, the central mission of God. Furthermore, the church’s evangelism stands on the foundation of the doctrine of justification because the Gospel is only ‘good news’ if God Himself is the one who atones the wrath-deserving sin that we are consumed by, instead of our futile exertion of perfectly obeying the law. Therefore, it is the church’s mission to proclaim the all sufficient Gospel that saves through faith alone. Those who put their trust in the perfect obedience of Christ may gain a right standing with God; it is the sweetest of exchange; the sinner receives the righteousness of Christ and Christ pays the penalty of his sin! Evangelism is a participation of sharing to other fallen sinners that God has done for them what they could not do for themselves; namely, they could not atone for their sins. The Gospels liberates us from our sin and brings us to a sanctified union with God. That, indeed, is the mission of the church.
Conclusion. In light of the significance of the doctrine of justification to the early, present, and future church of Christ, as articulated from the above discourse, it is evident that the redemptive mission of God pivots on this all important doctrine. That is why the church has always been adamant in its preservation. Not only is it central in God’s redemptive purposes, it is also central in God’s glorification in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If mission seeks to make known the glory of God to the world, then opposition to this teaching is not to be tolerated, but corrected. Therefore, to distort the doctrine of justification is not simply erroneous, but a defiance to the overarching mission of God.
Footnotes:
1. This list of themes is a simplified adaptation of Christopher J. H. Wright’s ‘missional hermeneutic.’ Wright, Christopher J.H. 2006. The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative. Downers Grove, IL. InterVarsity Press.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid., p. 23.
4. Ibid., p. 123.
5. I realize that there are those who cannot reconcile the teachings of the Apostle Paul and the Apostle James on this issue. Thus, disunity is argued for in the New Testament with regards to justification. However, upon further examination and exegesis, agreement between the teachings of the two apostles may be established. For further information on the ‘Paul and James controversy,’ see Sproul, R.C. 1997. Knowing Scripture. InterVarsity Press, pp. 83-84; Fung, Ronald Y.K. 1992. Right With God: Justification in the Bible and the World. D.A. Carson, ed. UK, World Evangelical Fellowship, pp.146-162.; Berkhof, Louis. 1996. Systematic Theology. New Combined Ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Wm. B. Eerdsmans, p. 521.
6. Westminster Confession of Faith. 2001. Alexander McPherson, ed. Glasgow, Free Presbyterian Publications, p. 163.
7. The following themes are raised by B.B. Warfield. See Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge. 1968. Biblical and Theological Studies. Samuel G. Craig, ed. Philadelphia, PA. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, pp. 262-269.
8. For more information on ‘imputation,’ see Biblical and Theological Studies, pp. 262-269.
9. The Mission of God, p. 315.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Joel: A Glimpse of The Pattern of Redemptive History
The book of Joel may properly be separated into three distinct parts: A call for repentance to God’s people because the day of the Lord is soon to come with judgment against them (Joel 1:2-2:17), God promises his covenant restoration with His people (Joel 2:18-2:32), and judgment is rendered to the nations and blessings to His covenant people. A helpful way of understanding the prophetic mission of Joel is to divide the texts into different categories: prosecute, persuade, and predict. As suggested by Sandy.1 The book is a solemn reminder that sin will not be tolerated by God. However, their present hopelessness is not overseen by God; God has remembered His covenant promises to their forefathers. This is consistent with the Bible’s overarching story: Man has fallen in the sin of Adam, but God has made a covenant to save mankind through the cross of Christ, the second Adam (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:45). It may then be argued that Joel’s primary message is to point us to Jesus Christ as a judge and a savior. Hence, the chief mission of the Book of Joel is to warn Israel of the impending day of the Lord, which is not only a message of judgment so that Israel will repent from their sins, but is also a message of God’s covenant promises which are ultimately fulfilled in Christ, in order that His people may have faith.
A Christ-centered hermeneutic. Firstly, the idea of Jesus Christ as the central message of the Old Testament needs to be defended. Although this essay will utilize much of D. Brent Sandy’s hermeneutical methodology in Plowshares and Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic, 2 one additional form of interpretation that is of great significance that will be employed is a Christ-centered hermeneutic of the Bible, 3 which includes the genre of prophecy and apocalyptic. All prophecy and apocalyptic languages are ultimately pointers to the Messiah of God. This hermeneutical proposition essentially argues that the proper interpretation of the Old Testament requires a New Testament perspective. 4 The New Testament gives to us a greater revelation redemptive history. A post-cross lens as it were. This is the proper Christian interpretation. To demonstrate that this hermeneutical principle is not just another imaginative conception, we must consider Jesus’ and the apostolic interpretation of the Old Testament. According to the New Testament, all of the Hebrew Scriptures testify of Christ (cf. John 5:39; John 5:46; John 856; Luke 10:24; Luke 24:27; Luke 24:44-47; Heb. 11:24-26; Rom. 1:2-3; 1 Pet. 1:10-12).
One of the most compelling passages is perhaps John 5:39-40, where Jesus condemns the Pharisees for committing a most erroneous interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. He sternly rebukes them and says, “You search the Scriptures (the Hebrew Scriptures) because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” There are several conclusions that we can draw from this text: The Pharisees did not ‘see’ Christ in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Hebrew Scriptures are ultimately about Christ, and salvation is through Christ alone. Moreover, the New Testament tells us that Abraham anticipated the coming of Jesus. Jesus said to the Jews, “Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” And they responded, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" (John 8:56-57). Moses also anticipated the coming of Christ, he even wrote of Him (John 5:46). The writer to the Hebrews tells us, “He (Moses) considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward” (Hebrews 11:26). Therefore, it is not absurd to presuppose Christ in the heart of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Book of Joel is no exception.
Joel 1:2-2:17. This section of the book primarily considers the wickedness of Israel and God’s righteous judgment; God calls Israel to repentance. There are manifold difficulties presented before us in this passage. The interpretation of what the locusts are in this passage is particularly challenging because the language seems to be ambiguous. As Sandy points out, the interpreter must determine whether the prophetic language is literal or figurative. 5 What are these locusts and what do they represent? For one thing, throughout the Scriptures, from both testaments, God uses locusts as literal and metaphorical utensils for executing judgment against wickedness (Deut. 28:38; Amos 7:1; Isa 33:4; Rev. 9:1-11). Locusts are one of the plagues that God utilized in the Exodus account to judge Egypt and deliver Israel. In that particular instance, the locusts are not metaphorical or figurative, but literal. However, there are also passages where locusts are used metaphorically. For instance, in the Book of Revelation, there is fantastic imagery of locusts with horse-like bodies and human faces that render punishment on those who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads (Rev. 9:1-11).
In the context of Joel, the evidence for a literal interpretation is compelling: The fields are ruined, the wine is dried up, and the trees are destroyed from the locusts. The devastation of the locusts appears to be a physical calamity upon the covenant-breaking Israel. However, there is simultaneously a metaphorical description of what these locusts are like. They are described as a nation with power and numbers to destroy everything set in its path (Joel 1:6-7). The locusts should have been a luminous sign of God’s judgment against His people. Yet, in their stupidity and wickedness, they did not take heed of God’s temporal judgment. The prophet Joel calls the covenant community to turn to the Lord. This is certainly a characteristic of the prophetic mission of prosecution, prediction, and persuasion. In other words, Joel pronounces God’s utter hatred of the wicked acts in the covenant community (Joel 1:13-1:20). Then, he moves to predict an apocalyptic and metaphorical description of the locusts in the day of the Lord. It is a bone-shattering, eschatological anticipation of God’s final judgment against sin. The temporal gives insight to the conclusion. The imagery of this nation of locusts, as previously examined, is that of a conquering army. If God’s people will not consider His present judgment with actual locust, then God will threaten them with a future judgment that none can endure (Joel 2:1-2:11). Nevertheless, Joel exhorts the people of God to come and return to God, for He is gracious and merciful (Joel 2:12-17). At this point, a question arises: “How do these passages reveal to us Christ?” The answer is profoundly simple. Christ is the judge of the world (John 5:22; 2 Cor. 5:10; Matt. 7:21-23; 35:31-33; Rom. 2:16). Hence, all the judgment passages are pointers to Christ’s authoritative justice against those who are disobedient.
Joel 2:18-32. The focus here are the covenant promises God has previously made with Israel. God declares his covenant restoration with His people if they will repent from their former ways and have faith in what He promises. Yet again, one of the problems of prophetic interpretation is before us. In this case, we must determine whether the promises by God are based upon human merit and obedience, or if they are unconditional in nature. 6 At this point, Sandy’s approach to the matter is not very helpful. He essentially questions whether God’s communication to man can also have hidden indications of conditionality, which are far too common within man’s communicative principles. 7 The problem is that Sandy paints God as capricious in the way He deals with His people. To properly understand the nature of the way God deals with His chosen people, we must examine the nature of His covenants given to them. In doing so, we can better interpret the passages before us.
To be brief, there are two covenants that must be taken into account. The first is a covenant based on the law (Sinaitic) to which the people of Israel responded, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient” (Exod. 24:7). It is primarily a covenant based on performance; perfect obedience is required. In contrast, there is the other covenant based on promise (Abrahamic) to which God swears an oath to be their God. 8 Both covenants serve to point us to Christ. As Michael Horton points out, “The Abrahamic covenant leads to Christ and thus the heavenly realities of everlasting liberty; the Sinaitic covenant was a ‘Schoolmaster’ (Gal. 3:24 KJV) leading to Christ by types and shadows and by showing that we could not keep it.” 9 To miss this point is fatal to understanding the big picture because it is an overarching theme throughout the Scriptures. These same covenants, underneath the surface, are present in the book of Joel. They are precisely the framework whereby the conditional and unconditional language is to be understood.
Therefore, in light of the covenantal distinctions, the judgment passages are proper consequences of Israel’s covenant-breaking; the breaking of the Sanaitic covenant. And the blessing passages are properly God’s faithfulness to His covenant; God’s faithfulness to His covenant with Abraham. God’s promises are vindicated through His own fulfillment of the Sanaitic covenant in the life, death, and resurrection of His Son. Hence, Paul can say, “For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory” (2 Cor. 1:20). In the context of Joel, the promises of God are to be sought out by faith in God’s coming Messiah to do what they could not do for themselves, namely, to fulfill their covenant with God (Sanaitic covenant). According to Sandy, this is a general characteristic of prophecy. The fulfillments of certain prophecies are later fulfilled in unexpected passages. He calls it a “translucence” prediction. 10 For instance, Joel 2:28-32 gives us a prophecy concerning God’s future outpouring of His Spirit and salvation of his people. And Peter, in Acts 2:14-21, makes clear that this prophecy is fulfilled at Pentecost, after the first advent of Jesus. The significance of this is apparent: Because Christ has fulfilled for us all righteousness, all who trust in His perfect merit, including Gentiles, can be saved. Thus, we may properly conclude that Christ is the covenant satisfier that finally brings all of God’s promises, including salvation, into reality.
Joel 3:1-21. The final chapter of the book of Joel is primarily concerned with the eschatological consummation of Israel and the nations. 11 The surrounding nations are here judged by God, and as noted above, Christ has been given the authority to judge the nations. There is a twofold, contrary dispensation that takes place in this latter section of the book. To understand the metaphoric language before us, we First, God’s righteous wrath is here depicted with great detail, explained through symbolism and metaphors. The metaphors in the first half of chapter three explicate the wrath of God against idolatry. The nations are called into combat against the mighty power of the sovereign God. The nations are told, “Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruning hooks into spears” (Joel 3:10). John Calvin comments, “Field labor will cease, and all will strenuously apply themselves to war.” 12 This war is essentially an invitation to enter the wrath of God. There is, however, a sense of persuasion being employed by the prophet in these passages. It is a persuasion for the idolatry and wickedness of the people to be abandoned in light of the coming judgment of God against them. Our evil provokes God to go to war with us. The imagery of going to war against God is pathetic indeed, and this is precisely the point. There is another side to this story, however. Contrary to the former dispensation, the latter deals with the future glory bestowed to God’s people. Covenant promises here are dispensed with great joy. And, once again, the clear teaching of the New Testament is that the covenant promises here find there confirmation in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Conclusion. The Christ-centered hermeneutical principal applied in this brief essay fits harmoniously with the entire canonical structure and the pattern of redemptive history. All history is aimed to glorify God through Jesus Christ, the Alpha and Omega. The book of Joel is a segment to this end. It reminds us that sin deserves the righteous wrath of God and His promises find their culmination in Christ, who is both our judge and redeemer.
Footnotes:
1. See Figure 6.1 Role of the Prophets in Sandy, D. Brent. 2002. Plowshares and Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic. Downers Grove, IL. InterVarsity Press, p. 132.
2. Sandy, Plowshares and Pruning Hooks.
3. For further information on a ‘Christ-centered hermeneutic of the Bible,’ see Clark, R. Scott. 2007. What the Bible is All About. Modern Reformation 16 (2): 20-24. Vos, Geerhardus. 1975. Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
4. It is helpful here incorporate Christ as a ‘type’ and a ‘pre-incarnate actor’ in the Old Testament. R. Scott Clark, notes, “The question is not whether the Bible is Christ-centered but how? Following the pattern established by Jesus and the apostles, we find that Christ is revealed by an extensive series of types (illustrations of the reality to come) in the history of redemption. Jesus and the Apostles, however, have clued us in to an even more profound way of reading Scripture whereby Jesus does not simply appear typologically, but as a pre-incarnate actor in the drama of creation, fall, and redemption. He was the agent of creation.” Clark, R. Scott. What the Bible All About, p. 24.
5. See Problem 2: Literal or Figurative in Sandy, Plowshares and Pruning Hook, pp 37-41.
6. See Problem 4: Conditional or Unconditional. Ibid., pp. 44-47.
7. Ibid., p. 47
8. See Berkhof, Louis. 1996. Systematic Theology. New Combined Ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Wm. B. Eerdsmans Publishing Co.; Horton, Michael. 2006. God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Baker Books, pp. 262-299; see also Paul’s argument against those who confuse the covenants in his epistle to the Galatians.
9. Horton, Michael. God of Promise, p. 38.
10. Sandy, Plowshares and Pruning Hooks, pp 136-154.
11. It is important to note that the distinctions here between Israel and the nations is not national Israel and the Gentiles, but God’s chosen people, including Gentiles, over against those who do not have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
12. Calvin, John. Calvin’s Commentary on the Bible. Biblestudyguide.org. http://www.biblestudyguide.org/comment/calvin/comm_vol27/htm/iii.iv.v.htm. (Accessed October 20, 2008)
A Christ-centered hermeneutic. Firstly, the idea of Jesus Christ as the central message of the Old Testament needs to be defended. Although this essay will utilize much of D. Brent Sandy’s hermeneutical methodology in Plowshares and Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic, 2 one additional form of interpretation that is of great significance that will be employed is a Christ-centered hermeneutic of the Bible, 3 which includes the genre of prophecy and apocalyptic. All prophecy and apocalyptic languages are ultimately pointers to the Messiah of God. This hermeneutical proposition essentially argues that the proper interpretation of the Old Testament requires a New Testament perspective. 4 The New Testament gives to us a greater revelation redemptive history. A post-cross lens as it were. This is the proper Christian interpretation. To demonstrate that this hermeneutical principle is not just another imaginative conception, we must consider Jesus’ and the apostolic interpretation of the Old Testament. According to the New Testament, all of the Hebrew Scriptures testify of Christ (cf. John 5:39; John 5:46; John 856; Luke 10:24; Luke 24:27; Luke 24:44-47; Heb. 11:24-26; Rom. 1:2-3; 1 Pet. 1:10-12).
One of the most compelling passages is perhaps John 5:39-40, where Jesus condemns the Pharisees for committing a most erroneous interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. He sternly rebukes them and says, “You search the Scriptures (the Hebrew Scriptures) because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” There are several conclusions that we can draw from this text: The Pharisees did not ‘see’ Christ in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Hebrew Scriptures are ultimately about Christ, and salvation is through Christ alone. Moreover, the New Testament tells us that Abraham anticipated the coming of Jesus. Jesus said to the Jews, “Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” And they responded, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" (John 8:56-57). Moses also anticipated the coming of Christ, he even wrote of Him (John 5:46). The writer to the Hebrews tells us, “He (Moses) considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward” (Hebrews 11:26). Therefore, it is not absurd to presuppose Christ in the heart of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Book of Joel is no exception.
Joel 1:2-2:17. This section of the book primarily considers the wickedness of Israel and God’s righteous judgment; God calls Israel to repentance. There are manifold difficulties presented before us in this passage. The interpretation of what the locusts are in this passage is particularly challenging because the language seems to be ambiguous. As Sandy points out, the interpreter must determine whether the prophetic language is literal or figurative. 5 What are these locusts and what do they represent? For one thing, throughout the Scriptures, from both testaments, God uses locusts as literal and metaphorical utensils for executing judgment against wickedness (Deut. 28:38; Amos 7:1; Isa 33:4; Rev. 9:1-11). Locusts are one of the plagues that God utilized in the Exodus account to judge Egypt and deliver Israel. In that particular instance, the locusts are not metaphorical or figurative, but literal. However, there are also passages where locusts are used metaphorically. For instance, in the Book of Revelation, there is fantastic imagery of locusts with horse-like bodies and human faces that render punishment on those who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads (Rev. 9:1-11).
In the context of Joel, the evidence for a literal interpretation is compelling: The fields are ruined, the wine is dried up, and the trees are destroyed from the locusts. The devastation of the locusts appears to be a physical calamity upon the covenant-breaking Israel. However, there is simultaneously a metaphorical description of what these locusts are like. They are described as a nation with power and numbers to destroy everything set in its path (Joel 1:6-7). The locusts should have been a luminous sign of God’s judgment against His people. Yet, in their stupidity and wickedness, they did not take heed of God’s temporal judgment. The prophet Joel calls the covenant community to turn to the Lord. This is certainly a characteristic of the prophetic mission of prosecution, prediction, and persuasion. In other words, Joel pronounces God’s utter hatred of the wicked acts in the covenant community (Joel 1:13-1:20). Then, he moves to predict an apocalyptic and metaphorical description of the locusts in the day of the Lord. It is a bone-shattering, eschatological anticipation of God’s final judgment against sin. The temporal gives insight to the conclusion. The imagery of this nation of locusts, as previously examined, is that of a conquering army. If God’s people will not consider His present judgment with actual locust, then God will threaten them with a future judgment that none can endure (Joel 2:1-2:11). Nevertheless, Joel exhorts the people of God to come and return to God, for He is gracious and merciful (Joel 2:12-17). At this point, a question arises: “How do these passages reveal to us Christ?” The answer is profoundly simple. Christ is the judge of the world (John 5:22; 2 Cor. 5:10; Matt. 7:21-23; 35:31-33; Rom. 2:16). Hence, all the judgment passages are pointers to Christ’s authoritative justice against those who are disobedient.
Joel 2:18-32. The focus here are the covenant promises God has previously made with Israel. God declares his covenant restoration with His people if they will repent from their former ways and have faith in what He promises. Yet again, one of the problems of prophetic interpretation is before us. In this case, we must determine whether the promises by God are based upon human merit and obedience, or if they are unconditional in nature. 6 At this point, Sandy’s approach to the matter is not very helpful. He essentially questions whether God’s communication to man can also have hidden indications of conditionality, which are far too common within man’s communicative principles. 7 The problem is that Sandy paints God as capricious in the way He deals with His people. To properly understand the nature of the way God deals with His chosen people, we must examine the nature of His covenants given to them. In doing so, we can better interpret the passages before us.
To be brief, there are two covenants that must be taken into account. The first is a covenant based on the law (Sinaitic) to which the people of Israel responded, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient” (Exod. 24:7). It is primarily a covenant based on performance; perfect obedience is required. In contrast, there is the other covenant based on promise (Abrahamic) to which God swears an oath to be their God. 8 Both covenants serve to point us to Christ. As Michael Horton points out, “The Abrahamic covenant leads to Christ and thus the heavenly realities of everlasting liberty; the Sinaitic covenant was a ‘Schoolmaster’ (Gal. 3:24 KJV) leading to Christ by types and shadows and by showing that we could not keep it.” 9 To miss this point is fatal to understanding the big picture because it is an overarching theme throughout the Scriptures. These same covenants, underneath the surface, are present in the book of Joel. They are precisely the framework whereby the conditional and unconditional language is to be understood.
Therefore, in light of the covenantal distinctions, the judgment passages are proper consequences of Israel’s covenant-breaking; the breaking of the Sanaitic covenant. And the blessing passages are properly God’s faithfulness to His covenant; God’s faithfulness to His covenant with Abraham. God’s promises are vindicated through His own fulfillment of the Sanaitic covenant in the life, death, and resurrection of His Son. Hence, Paul can say, “For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory” (2 Cor. 1:20). In the context of Joel, the promises of God are to be sought out by faith in God’s coming Messiah to do what they could not do for themselves, namely, to fulfill their covenant with God (Sanaitic covenant). According to Sandy, this is a general characteristic of prophecy. The fulfillments of certain prophecies are later fulfilled in unexpected passages. He calls it a “translucence” prediction. 10 For instance, Joel 2:28-32 gives us a prophecy concerning God’s future outpouring of His Spirit and salvation of his people. And Peter, in Acts 2:14-21, makes clear that this prophecy is fulfilled at Pentecost, after the first advent of Jesus. The significance of this is apparent: Because Christ has fulfilled for us all righteousness, all who trust in His perfect merit, including Gentiles, can be saved. Thus, we may properly conclude that Christ is the covenant satisfier that finally brings all of God’s promises, including salvation, into reality.
Joel 3:1-21. The final chapter of the book of Joel is primarily concerned with the eschatological consummation of Israel and the nations. 11 The surrounding nations are here judged by God, and as noted above, Christ has been given the authority to judge the nations. There is a twofold, contrary dispensation that takes place in this latter section of the book. To understand the metaphoric language before us, we First, God’s righteous wrath is here depicted with great detail, explained through symbolism and metaphors. The metaphors in the first half of chapter three explicate the wrath of God against idolatry. The nations are called into combat against the mighty power of the sovereign God. The nations are told, “Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruning hooks into spears” (Joel 3:10). John Calvin comments, “Field labor will cease, and all will strenuously apply themselves to war.” 12 This war is essentially an invitation to enter the wrath of God. There is, however, a sense of persuasion being employed by the prophet in these passages. It is a persuasion for the idolatry and wickedness of the people to be abandoned in light of the coming judgment of God against them. Our evil provokes God to go to war with us. The imagery of going to war against God is pathetic indeed, and this is precisely the point. There is another side to this story, however. Contrary to the former dispensation, the latter deals with the future glory bestowed to God’s people. Covenant promises here are dispensed with great joy. And, once again, the clear teaching of the New Testament is that the covenant promises here find there confirmation in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Conclusion. The Christ-centered hermeneutical principal applied in this brief essay fits harmoniously with the entire canonical structure and the pattern of redemptive history. All history is aimed to glorify God through Jesus Christ, the Alpha and Omega. The book of Joel is a segment to this end. It reminds us that sin deserves the righteous wrath of God and His promises find their culmination in Christ, who is both our judge and redeemer.
Footnotes:
1. See Figure 6.1 Role of the Prophets in Sandy, D. Brent. 2002. Plowshares and Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic. Downers Grove, IL. InterVarsity Press, p. 132.
2. Sandy, Plowshares and Pruning Hooks.
3. For further information on a ‘Christ-centered hermeneutic of the Bible,’ see Clark, R. Scott. 2007. What the Bible is All About. Modern Reformation 16 (2): 20-24. Vos, Geerhardus. 1975. Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
4. It is helpful here incorporate Christ as a ‘type’ and a ‘pre-incarnate actor’ in the Old Testament. R. Scott Clark, notes, “The question is not whether the Bible is Christ-centered but how? Following the pattern established by Jesus and the apostles, we find that Christ is revealed by an extensive series of types (illustrations of the reality to come) in the history of redemption. Jesus and the Apostles, however, have clued us in to an even more profound way of reading Scripture whereby Jesus does not simply appear typologically, but as a pre-incarnate actor in the drama of creation, fall, and redemption. He was the agent of creation.” Clark, R. Scott. What the Bible All About, p. 24.
5. See Problem 2: Literal or Figurative in Sandy, Plowshares and Pruning Hook, pp 37-41.
6. See Problem 4: Conditional or Unconditional. Ibid., pp. 44-47.
7. Ibid., p. 47
8. See Berkhof, Louis. 1996. Systematic Theology. New Combined Ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Wm. B. Eerdsmans Publishing Co.; Horton, Michael. 2006. God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Baker Books, pp. 262-299; see also Paul’s argument against those who confuse the covenants in his epistle to the Galatians.
9. Horton, Michael. God of Promise, p. 38.
10. Sandy, Plowshares and Pruning Hooks, pp 136-154.
11. It is important to note that the distinctions here between Israel and the nations is not national Israel and the Gentiles, but God’s chosen people, including Gentiles, over against those who do not have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
12. Calvin, John. Calvin’s Commentary on the Bible. Biblestudyguide.org. http://www.biblestudyguide.org/comment/calvin/comm_vol27/htm/iii.iv.v.htm. (Accessed October 20, 2008)
Monday, September 8, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
Dr. Kim Riddlebarger Coming to Chicago
I am so excited that Dr. Kim Riddlebarger is coming to Chicago! More information here. So, if you live in the Chicago area, come to this event to learn more about Reformed Eschatology!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
