“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)
Monday, March 2, 2009
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!
Monday, August 11, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
Small Group Questions - Acts 8
Acts 8:1-8
Why do you think God allows the church to suffer persecution? Thus far, the church has remained in Jerusalem, but persecution has scattered them in the regions of Judea and Samaria (v. 1b). Is this the way you expected the great commission to be fulfilled (Acts 1:8)?
Notice that Stephen is not condemned (v. 2), but is honored, despite all the consequential persecution. How would you respond to Stephen’s actions?
Saul, who later becomes Paul, is the one ravaging the church. What can we learn about our enemies and how might we treat them in light of that?
Relevant Scriptures:
But before all this they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors for my name’s sake. This will be your opportunity to bear witness. (Luke 21:12-13)
When facing persecution and suffering, do you see yourself with the opportunity to bear witness of the Lord Jesus Christ?
Statement to consider:
“God spurs the church into missionary service by the suffering she endures. Therefore we must not judge too quickly the apparent setbacks and tactical "defeats" of the church.” (John Piper)
Application:
In light of our experiences, does persecution strengthen or weaken our witness/faith? What sort of attitudes should we have when we face persecution?
What dangers do we face when we become complacent in our ease, comfort, and prosperity? What state do you think the church is in now?
Acts 8:9-24
What are your impressions of Simon?
Simon, evidently believes, is baptized, and even follows Phillip (v. 13). But what do we learn about him? What was the object of Simon’s faith?
What does verse 22 reveal about him with regards to his faith? Is there a faith that does not save?
Relevant Scriptures:
When Jesus was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs which he did; but Jesus did not trust himself to them, because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man. (John 2:23–25)
What similarities are there between the passages above and the passages in Acts?
Statement to consider:
Faith is not our saviour. It was not faith that was born at Bethlehem and died on Golgotha for us. It was not faith that loved us, and gave itself for us; that bore our sins in its own body on the tree; that died and rose again for our sins. Faith is one thing, the Saviour is another. Faith is one thing, and the cross is another. Let us not confound them, nor ascribe to a poor, imperfect act of man, that which belongs exclusively to the Son of the Living God. (Horatius Bonar)
Application:
What are your thoughts on the above statement? Is there a tendency for us to misplace our faith unto something other than the Gospel? Even have faith in our faith?
Acts 8:26-40
What are the barriers that Phillip had to face when evangelizing the Ethiopian eunuch?
Phillip explains the meaning of the Scriptures, how important is this when we evangelize? Does theology matter when we attempt to reach the lost?
Statement to consider:
All true theology has an evangelistic thrust, and all true evangelism is theology in action...In the last analysis there is only one means of evangelism: namely, the gospel of Christ explained and applied. (J. I. Packer)
Application:
Why is it so difficult to evangelize people different than you? How are we to approach evangelizing our neighbors, especially in a diverse city as Chicago?
Why do you think God allows the church to suffer persecution? Thus far, the church has remained in Jerusalem, but persecution has scattered them in the regions of Judea and Samaria (v. 1b). Is this the way you expected the great commission to be fulfilled (Acts 1:8)?
Notice that Stephen is not condemned (v. 2), but is honored, despite all the consequential persecution. How would you respond to Stephen’s actions?
Saul, who later becomes Paul, is the one ravaging the church. What can we learn about our enemies and how might we treat them in light of that?
Relevant Scriptures:
But before all this they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors for my name’s sake. This will be your opportunity to bear witness. (Luke 21:12-13)
When facing persecution and suffering, do you see yourself with the opportunity to bear witness of the Lord Jesus Christ?
Statement to consider:
“God spurs the church into missionary service by the suffering she endures. Therefore we must not judge too quickly the apparent setbacks and tactical "defeats" of the church.” (John Piper)
Application:
In light of our experiences, does persecution strengthen or weaken our witness/faith? What sort of attitudes should we have when we face persecution?
What dangers do we face when we become complacent in our ease, comfort, and prosperity? What state do you think the church is in now?
Acts 8:9-24
What are your impressions of Simon?
Simon, evidently believes, is baptized, and even follows Phillip (v. 13). But what do we learn about him? What was the object of Simon’s faith?
What does verse 22 reveal about him with regards to his faith? Is there a faith that does not save?
Relevant Scriptures:
When Jesus was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs which he did; but Jesus did not trust himself to them, because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man. (John 2:23–25)
What similarities are there between the passages above and the passages in Acts?
Statement to consider:
Faith is not our saviour. It was not faith that was born at Bethlehem and died on Golgotha for us. It was not faith that loved us, and gave itself for us; that bore our sins in its own body on the tree; that died and rose again for our sins. Faith is one thing, the Saviour is another. Faith is one thing, and the cross is another. Let us not confound them, nor ascribe to a poor, imperfect act of man, that which belongs exclusively to the Son of the Living God. (Horatius Bonar)
Application:
What are your thoughts on the above statement? Is there a tendency for us to misplace our faith unto something other than the Gospel? Even have faith in our faith?
Acts 8:26-40
What are the barriers that Phillip had to face when evangelizing the Ethiopian eunuch?
Phillip explains the meaning of the Scriptures, how important is this when we evangelize? Does theology matter when we attempt to reach the lost?
Statement to consider:
All true theology has an evangelistic thrust, and all true evangelism is theology in action...In the last analysis there is only one means of evangelism: namely, the gospel of Christ explained and applied. (J. I. Packer)
Application:
Why is it so difficult to evangelize people different than you? How are we to approach evangelizing our neighbors, especially in a diverse city as Chicago?
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Of His Fullness
"Because He gives us our being. "It is He who has made us." We think it a great kindness in a man to spare our life—but what kindness is it in God to give us our life! We draw our breath from Him; and as life, so all the comforts of life are from Him. He gives us health, which is the sauce to sweeten our life. He gives us food, which is the oil that nourishes the lamp of life. If all we receive is from His bounty, is it not reasonable we should glorify Him? Should we not live to Him, seeing we live by Him? "For of Him, and through Him, are all things." All we have, is of His fullness, all we have is through His free grace; and therefore to Him should be all. It follows, therefore, "To him be glory forever!" God is not our only benefactor—but our founder, just as rivers which come from the sea empty their silver streams into the sea again"
-Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity, pg.
Thus far I, with the help of Thomas Watson's writings, have examined what it means to glorify God. Now the proceeding question arises: "Why must we glorify God?" If, as Christians, it is our prime duty to grorify God, we must give a proper account as to why it must be done; otherwise, we grorify in ignorance. But, on the contrary, God calls us to a reasonable faith and service, fully exposed in the light; He calls us to see, and not to remain in our blindness. To know the reasons why we glorify God also gives Him glory.
Our existence is given by the Lord of glory. We did not come into existence by blind chance, as the evolutionist propose, but it was God, the omnipotent one, who created us by His might. Not only did He sovereignly create us, but He also sovereignly sustains us; as Watson says, "we draw our breath from Him." So, in every moment of our existence we remain dependant upon our creator. All our necessities come from Him, even our luxuries. How dare we resist Him if this is so? And oppose Him to His face, as if He had not the power to do as He pleases, when we do not get want we want from Him. But let us examine this precious truth that we may think and live accordingly; God's life giving and sustaining kindness ought to be a significant reason to give Him glory. Out of His fullness we have our being.
-Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity, pg.
Thus far I, with the help of Thomas Watson's writings, have examined what it means to glorify God. Now the proceeding question arises: "Why must we glorify God?" If, as Christians, it is our prime duty to grorify God, we must give a proper account as to why it must be done; otherwise, we grorify in ignorance. But, on the contrary, God calls us to a reasonable faith and service, fully exposed in the light; He calls us to see, and not to remain in our blindness. To know the reasons why we glorify God also gives Him glory.
Our existence is given by the Lord of glory. We did not come into existence by blind chance, as the evolutionist propose, but it was God, the omnipotent one, who created us by His might. Not only did He sovereignly create us, but He also sovereignly sustains us; as Watson says, "we draw our breath from Him." So, in every moment of our existence we remain dependant upon our creator. All our necessities come from Him, even our luxuries. How dare we resist Him if this is so? And oppose Him to His face, as if He had not the power to do as He pleases, when we do not get want we want from Him. But let us examine this precious truth that we may think and live accordingly; God's life giving and sustaining kindness ought to be a significant reason to give Him glory. Out of His fullness we have our being.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Dr. Kim Riddlebarger on Baptism
My road to Reformed Theology has been a bumpy one. Perhaps the greatest obstacle for me to overcome has been on the issue of baptism: paedobaptism or credobaptism? Which is scriptural?
Coming from a Roman Catholic background, infant baptism has never appeared strange to me, but upon my conversion, in a Pentecostal church, it suddenly became a foreign practice. I guess it was a reaction to the faulty understanding of Catholicism's view on the sacrament of baptism. Thus, embracing infant baptism, as the Reformed have always taught, has been unsettling in my theology. Dr. Kim Riddlebarger's lecture on the sacraments have been invaluable and revolutionary in my thinking, especially with the covenantal aspects of the sacrament of baptism. The link below is Dr. Kim Riddlebarger's, also the Reformed, response to the common Baptist objections and criticisms to infant baptism, or paedobaptism.
Baptist Objections to Infant Baptism and the Reformed Response
Coming from a Roman Catholic background, infant baptism has never appeared strange to me, but upon my conversion, in a Pentecostal church, it suddenly became a foreign practice. I guess it was a reaction to the faulty understanding of Catholicism's view on the sacrament of baptism. Thus, embracing infant baptism, as the Reformed have always taught, has been unsettling in my theology. Dr. Kim Riddlebarger's lecture on the sacraments have been invaluable and revolutionary in my thinking, especially with the covenantal aspects of the sacrament of baptism. The link below is Dr. Kim Riddlebarger's, also the Reformed, response to the common Baptist objections and criticisms to infant baptism, or paedobaptism.
Baptist Objections to Infant Baptism and the Reformed Response
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
