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.
Showing posts with label Essay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Essay. Show all posts
Sunday, November 30, 2008
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)
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Counterfeit Tenderness: A Biblical View of Othello's love for Desdemona
*[note] This is a paper written for my English 102 class (Shakespeare orientated class). For those who are not familiar with the story of Othello, it is one of Shakespeare's tragedy plays; a story of jealousy and revenge. In this essay I attempt to examine Othello's characteristics to the Biblical view of love, as well as humanity as a whole.
Counterfeit Tenderness: A Biblical View of Othello’s love for Desdemona
Upon careful examination of the biblical concept of true love, it is evident that the authenticity of true love is absent in Othello’s character and seemingly demonstrates counterfeit tenderness towards Desdemona, namely, Othello exhibits a jealous, selfish and angry spirit instead of a benevolent, self-giving, and joyful spirit. I will contend that Desdemona, Othello’s so-called love, was not given access to his mind, therefore, was not actually loved in the heart; for there is no dichotomy between the mind and the heart in matters of love. It is also my intention to contrast certain attributes that Othello manifested concerning his actions and motives to Desdemona, as to whether they conflict with a biblical worldview, in hopes to persuade one to reconsider their understanding of love in light of the biblical perspective. Also, it seems relevant to the era in which Shakespeare lived in and as well as any time period of human history.
Counterfeit Tenderness: A Biblical View of Othello’s love for Desdemona
Upon careful examination of the biblical concept of true love, it is evident that the authenticity of true love is absent in Othello’s character and seemingly demonstrates counterfeit tenderness towards Desdemona, namely, Othello exhibits a jealous, selfish and angry spirit instead of a benevolent, self-giving, and joyful spirit. I will contend that Desdemona, Othello’s so-called love, was not given access to his mind, therefore, was not actually loved in the heart; for there is no dichotomy between the mind and the heart in matters of love. It is also my intention to contrast certain attributes that Othello manifested concerning his actions and motives to Desdemona, as to whether they conflict with a biblical worldview, in hopes to persuade one to reconsider their understanding of love in light of the biblical perspective. Also, it seems relevant to the era in which Shakespeare lived in and as well as any time period of human history.
It is essential that I begin with a brief description of the biblical concept of love because it will be the ground upon I will analyze Othello’s love and affections for Desdemona, as well as humanity.
Although it is a claim of absolute exclusivity, and certainly offensive to many, I would argue that everyone holds to an exclusive claim of what love really looks like. Therefore, I feel justified in holding to the Biblical claim of love, whether it is accepted or rejected, so long as I am convinced of it in my conscience that it is logical and truthful.
According to Christian orthodoxy, love is first and foremost rooted in the Triune God, apart from Him there is no love, for God is the fountain from which all true love flows from. And the ultimate revelation of God’s love and glory is only found in Jesus Christ alone. Love is not merely God’s emotional expression, but He Himself is known to be love, it is in His divine nature. He is not merely loving because of He performs acts of love, but, because He is love, therefore He performs acts of love. It is then self-evident that any form of love that does not rest upon Him is not true love, but mere deceit, whether intentional or unintentional.
Therefore, when exercising an examination of genuine love, we must primary consider it in its relation to God. Jonathan Edwards, the great American Puritan and Reformed theologian, so eloquently described love, in accordance to God and man, in this manner:
When God is loved aright, he is loved for his excellency, and the beauty of his nature, especially the holiness of his nature; and it is from the same motive that the saints are loved—for holiness’ sake. And all things that are loved with a truly holy love, are loved from the same respect to God. Love to God is the foundation of gracious love to men; and men are loved either because they are in some respect like God, in the possession of his nature and spiritual image, or because of the relation they stand in to him as his children or creatures––as those who are blessed of him, or to whom his mercy is offered, or in some other way from regard to him. (5-6)
One of the clearest passages, to understand what true love is, is found in the Apostle Paul’s first letter to the Corinthian church in the thirteenth chapter; which has been known to Christians as the “love chapter” in Holy Scriptures. I will certainly not exegetically expound on its entire context, but here, one will find that the Bible’s summation, as to what love truly looks like, is diametrically opposed to the world’s understanding of love and is contrary to Othello’s temperament concerning Desdemona.
A common misunderstanding is that people often assign a dichotomy between the mind and the heart when dealing with love, but this is an altogether foreign ideology in the Scriptures. Rather, this misconception is birthed from the deceitful scheming of man. It is solely based upon faulty traditions rather than a firm exegesis of the Scriptures. Even many Christians, along with the world, have become enchanted with the idea that doctrinal truths separate us and love is what brings us together, but this idea is radically false and deceitful because they, the mind and the heart, are always found in the outworking of real love.
Nowhere do we see the mind and the heart being divorced when engaged with true charity, or love. It is clear that where one finds true meaning of love in Scripture, there is always an impregnation of both mind and heart. We can assuredly detect this concept within the context of 1 Corinthians 13. In verses 4-6, the Apostle Paul describes this idea vividly in this way, “Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.” He gives a list of what love is and is not with varies actions that derive from the heart; to envy, to boast, to be arrogant, to be rude, to be insistent on its own way, to be irritable, to be resentful, and to rejoice are all affections are all consistent with the overflow of the heart, but notice the latter part of verse 6, “…rejoices with the truth.” this is a prime example of what it means to love with ones’ mind and heart.
The reality of truth must first be perceived by the mind because the mind is the channel to the heart which expresses acts of love; all true acts of commitments to love must ultimately be born out of delight in the truth. John Piper, Evangelical Pastor and Theologian, renders love similarly, saying, “Love is not a bare choice or mere act. It involves the affections. It does not just do the truth. Nor does it just choose the right. It rejoices in the way of truth…we must ‘love kindness!’” (114-115).
Acts of love alone do not satisfy the qualifications of genuine love and affections. They must ultimately be grounded with acceptance and rejoicing in the truth. This is what is meant in verse 3 in 1 Corinthians. There is a way in which a person can give everything—even ones’ own life—yet, profits nothing without love. How can this be? Only if these acts of love were to deviate from the truth and do not revel in the truth can they not profit anything, they would not be even worthy to be associated with genuine love. I emphasize this point so strongly because it will further clarify my examination of Othello’s alleged love for Desdemona.
Given the prior summation of genuine love, I will now proceed to analyze Othello’s character and motives, and compare them to the biblical account. A task, I believe, worthy of consideration because of the relevant connection it brings to the table in life’s engagement with charity.
In light of the biblical view of love, it is clear that Othello was not in a state of genuine love but was in a state of rage and jealousy in and through his utterly corrupted knowledge.
In his essay, Characters of Shakespeare’s Plays, William Hazlitt, an acclaimed Shakespearian scholar, observes, “The third act of Othello is his master-piece, not of knowledge or passion separately, but of the two combined, of the knowledge of character with the expression of passion, of consummate art in the keeping up of appearances with the profound workings of nature, and the convulsive movements of uncontrollable agony, of the power of inflicting torture and of suffering it. Not only is the tumult of passion heaved up from the very bottom of the soul, but every the slightest undulation of feeling is seen on the surface, as it arises from the impulses of imagination or the different probabilities maliciously suggested by Iago”(Hazlitt).
Regardless of the fact that he perceived it in a secular approach, Hazlitt’s assessment of Othello’s condition is thoroughly accurate. It is astounding to observe, that he adheres to the reality that the motives of the mind, as to whether they receive the truth, are ultimately involved upon the condition of the heart, and its acts of love or even hate. Despite the lack of knowledge of Othello’s assent with the Christian truth, regarding love, it would remain relevant to examine his adherence to general truth, in this instance; the deception was received in his heart rather than the truth, which resulted in tragedy and bloodshed.
Hazlitt is absolutely veracious in raising Iago’s impact upon Othello’s mind. Iago, throughout the play, manipulates Othello’s understanding, even to the extent of his murderous revenged on Desdemona. This—Iago’s manipulation— brings to surface all his hatred towards her and Cassio; which originated in his mind, and eventually manifested itself in his actions. I want to suggest that Othello was motivated by his own evil desires, rather than genuine tenderness. Despite Iago’s cruel manipulations, his motives coupled with corrupted knowledge—motives filled with jealousy, anger, and selfishness— were ultimately the final determinant for his malicious actions.
In Amanda Mabillard’s “Othello Analysis,” an argument that she strongly propagates is Othello’s accountability for his wrongdoing; although there is some ground for shifting the blame upon Iago, Othello remains blameworthy for the consequences. Mabillard also upholds a well-argued indictment on Othello’s motives for the murder of Desdemona.
I refer to Hazlitt and Mabillard, two non-Christian scholars, to demonstrate that there is yet validity in the Christian claim of the mind and the heart being intertwined in the marriage of genuine love in the world, although the claim would remain valid despite the lack of affirmation. I find that this idea is stunningly tenable with the bible’s account of love, in analyzing Othello’s character, despite the apparent differences in theology or lack thereof.
In revisiting the Scriptures analysis of true charity, we find that Othello’s jealousy and anger cannot be justified, despite his ignorance of the truth throughout the play, because it was compelled from his selfishness, rather than his love for Desdemona. It pleased Othello to assume that Desdemona has been unfaithful to him, in retrospect; it was he who was to be unfaithful. It is a recurring theme throughout the play, his love for unrighteousness consistently brought for false accusations. Perhaps it was due to his military cultivation that he persistently sought for violence, but in any regards, it is still blatantly evil. Although, for a season in the play, Othello seemed rather tender-hearted towards Desdemona but in the test of genuine love, his counterfeit affections finally surface.
“Love never ends,” declare the Scriptures. This is a message of cataclysm, not merely for Othello, but for the all of humanity. Othello surely failed to live up to love’s expectation. True love is ongoing, despite life’s pressures to stir up wickedness in one’s soul. Everyone, in some form of another, has dealt with the extremity of the temptations of sin; in fact, it is a habitual affair common to humanity, not merely Othello. And all, if they are to observe love, are obliged to overcome and conquer every temptation.
Yet, all are under the indictment of the two greatest commands in the Scriptures: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” and “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Subjected to these commands, we all stand condemned, for we have greatly failed to uphold them. They ought to strike terror in the hearts of men, like a helpless rodent in the presence of a deadly serpent.
What are we to attain in reflecting upon Othello’s association with the biblical view of love? Is this not a hopeless task because of love’s demand of perfection? Yet, there is great gain in the effort to understand what love truly looks like in Scripture. Pondering the true meaning of love and conforming to it, transforms our relationships. This was true in Shakespeare’s era and still abides true today; for fruits of love do not change.
Throughout history, the fruits of love have been and will continue to be of the sweetest taste known to the human soul, therefore to exercise our minds to search within ourselves (namely, the heart), as to whether we are in fact loving, is one of the greatest duty that man is obligated to perform. This exercise is not merely an individual exercise, although it must start with individuals. It escalates from individuals to family to friendships to society and indeed to the rest of humanity.
Examining ourselves in the principle of love is primarily an edifying exercise because it serves to bring us to ponder love’s correlation between God and ourselves. The biblical understanding of love is, undoubtedly, dreadful to the human soul, for its pinnacle reaches heights too wonderful; its depth is bottomless. Love’s demand is much too great. To conquer it with feeble minds and hearts, inclined to a sinful disposition, is inconceivable. Upon the examination of our failure to truly love, ought to give us a sense of our need for a great savior and our utter helplessness. Yet, there is great hope for those who are unable to fulfill love’s demands.
The God of love sent his only Son, despite man’s ruin, to satisfy all the requirements of love for those who would receive Him; to bring us to God, who is love. This is the glorious Christian Gospel, good news profoundly rooted in God’s beautiful grace, manifested in the Cross of Christ. Jesus Christ upheld all of love’s demands and the consequences of sin, in order that we may receive the pardon for our offenses towards God. John Stott renders it in this manner, “Moved by the perfection of his holy love, God in Christ substituted himself for us sinners. That is the heart of the cross of Christ.” (165).
His love is the redemption of our unloveliness. Therefore, let the sinner consider this gracious love before them, rather than their own alleged piety, for this is the love of God that ultimately reconstruct s us to His very own image; an image of perfect love.
As I imagine a world immersed in the biblical understanding of love, thoughts of overwhelming sweetness consume me; with beauty and glory abounding in all things. This, in fact, is the picture given in the Scriptures concerning heaven. Perhaps the greatest contemplations of heaven I have ever read, outside of the Scriptures, is in Jonathan Edwards’ memoirs: “Heaven appeared exceedingly delightful, as a world of love; and that all happiness consisted in living in pure, humble heavenly, divine love.” (xiv). This is undoubtedly in accordance with the Bible’s account of heaven, a place where divine love is finally consummated in its fullness, for the God who is love will everlastingly commune with His creation, in everlasting love without the hindrance of sin. All the brokenness and ruin of this sin-sick world is gloriously mended in heaven, the dwelling place of love.
Works Cited
Edwards, Jonathan. Charity and its Fruits. Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1969.
---. The Works of Jonathan Edwards (vol. 1). Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974.
Hazlitt, William. Character of Shakespeare’s Plays. London: C. H. Reynell, 1817. 18 Nov. 2007
Mabillard, Amanda. "Othello Analysis." Shakespeare Online. 19 Mar. 2000. 19 Nov. 2007 <>
Piper, John. Desiring God. Colorado Springs, CO: Multnomah Books, 2003.
Stott, John. The Cross of Christ (20th Anniversary edition). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984.
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2001.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
