NewCovenantTheology

Don't fear the big words: God is an amazing Story Creator

noreply@blogger.com (Chad Richard Bresson) — Fri, 21 Nov 2014 21:07:00 +0000

Eschatology is a big word. Just hearing the word gives some headaches. Others are inclined to tune out lofty verbiage. Its meaning is at the same time both simple and profound. Eschatology is "the study of last things." As we pointed out in a previous post, while eschatology is a study of the end, eschatology in the Bible begins in the very first verse, "In the beginning."

Why is this a big deal? Because if the New Heavens and New Earth have something to do with the Garden of Eden, then the way we think about the Garden and the creation story must account for the New Heaven and New Earth. In fact, everything between the Garden and the New Heaven and New Earth must take into account that what happens at the end of the Bible impacts all of the in-between.

Vos points out in "The Pauline Eschatology" that, from the beginning, all of redemptive history (the history we find recorded in the Bible) has been moving toward the end of all things as if the end of all things is the goal (emphasis is mine).

"Eschatology is the 'doctrine of the last things.' It deals with the teaching or belief, that the world-movement, religiously considered, tends towards a definite final goal, beyond which a new order of affairs will be established, frequently with the further implication, that this new order of affairs will not be subject to any further change, but will partake of the static character of the eternal." - Geerhardus Vos (Pauline Eschatology, p. 1)

Vos then wonders whether eschatology as the Bible describes it "is a purely chronological designation, or whether there enters into it likewise the idea of 'eventuation', 'issue of a foregoing process'." After giving numerous examples, Vos concludes that eschatology, which is most visibly seen in the Bible's use of the phrase "end of days" or "last days", indeed is the "idea of progression toward a fixed end..." (PE, pp. 1-2)

From Genesis to Exodus to Samuel to Daniel to Malachi, eschatology is a part of the written Word, moving toward the fixed end, the New Heaven and New Earth. It is a "progression." Even if the hints are faint, what is coming in the future (fueled by expectations set in Genesis 3:15) at the very least gives much hope when things look really bad.

God's promises given along the way keep the idea of the last days from being relegated to some vauge or "indefinite" point in a nebulous future (in spite of what some liberal theologians have claimed about Jewish theology of the Old Testament).

For Vos, eschatology "does not signify some indefinitely subsequent point or period or complication of events. The note of epochal finality is never missing in it. This should, however, not be confounded with the idea of chronological fixity. It is peculiar to the Old Testament that it makes this "acherith" (final or last days) a sort of movable complex, capable of being pushed forward along the line of prophetic vision." (PE, p. 5)

Seems like a theological mouthful, but it is simply this: "the last days" is not a fixed point at the end of time, but is always present and always moving toward the end of time. This "prophetic vision" term used by Vos is none other than a designation not only for the revelation handed down to Israel's prophets, but of the entire Bible. All of inspired revelation is intersecting with the "last days" in some form, whether it is anticipating the last days or describing it.

In fact, it is the progressive unfolding of revelation from Job to Moses to Samuel to David to Isaiah to Daniel that is carrying along the study of the last days and moving it along the Bible's unfolding historical and chronological trajectory. Because all of the Bible is the development and progression of an unfolding story that points to a reality in the future -- Christ, his work, his reign, and his people -- all of revelation (even those parts that are considered narrative literature, like Exodus or Samuel or Kings) is "prophetic".

Everything that is written down and everything that happens in the Bible is prophetically speaking of, or moving toward, or anticipating what is coming at the end: history's full and final realization in Jesus. Even as the events unfold God, through the writers, is narrating to us in the shadows: he is telling us what he is doing and will do in the coming Messiah.

This is why the Old Testament is thoroughly typological (another big word: shadows of the Old Testament are types of what is to come in the antitype, Jesus). The Old Testament is pre-Incarnate revelation which everywhere anticipates the Christ Event (the Second Person of the Godhead's humiliation in birth, life, ministry, death and exaltation in resurrection, ascension, and enthronement in time and space) and the eventual Consummation.

Further, Vos also sees the future pushing backward into the past and present, meaning the past and present are always eschatological in some fashion, just as revelation is: "The eschatological point of view is, of course, originally historical and dramatic; a new world can come only with the new age and therefore lies at first in the future. But the coming age has begun to be present with the death and resurrection of Christ. From this it follows that of the coming world likewise a present existence can be affirmed. Here, then, the scheme of two successive worlds makes place for the scheme of two coexisting worlds. Still further, it must be remembered that Christ has through His resurrection carried the center of this new world into heaven, where He reigns and whence He extends its influence and boundaries. The two coexisting worlds therefore broadly coincide with the spheres of heaven and earth." (Vos, Shorter Writings, p. 115; I would note that this is why it is important to note that Christ has carried into heaven a *physical* body. In bringing heaven and earth together, in taking this world into the heavenlies, there is a physical and "time-space" element now residing in the eternal heavenlies).

So what? For starters, the Old Testament isn't simply a collection of boring and not-so-boring stories. Or unrelated data points that have been collected as a record of a particular history. When I read about some woman driving a tent peg through a bad guy's brains or some Hebrew boys refusing to eat the bad guy's food I know there's something more. This history has something to do with the end goal and the end goal is actually affecting how the story unfolds. For example, in the case of the tent peg a foreshadowing of the "gruesomely grotesque" judgment on God's enemies; or better yet, a foreshadowing of the kind of judgment I will *not* experience because Someone Else has done so on my behalf. The last days have a vested interest in what happens to Sisera.

Second, God's an amazing story creator. He didn't just have men record history this way. He orchestrated history to be recorded this way. It's not an accident or incident of history that the birth of John the Baptist just so happens to look like the birth of Isaac (parents who are waaaayyyy too old to have kids). The later birth was set up by the previous. And God made it happen that way. God's sovereignty isn't some esoteric or transcendent reality with no bearing on the moment. All of history has been infused with his plan to glorify himself through Christ. He crafted history to be Christ's story, a story that culminates in the New Heaven and New Earth.

Last, we're in the midst of that story. The church is eschatological, a brief glimpse of the glorious end. Whether my life is mundane or dramatic, full of suffering or a season of relief, God has orchestrated my redemption and is orchestrating my affairs to move toward the end goal of glorifying Christ in the New Heaven and New Earth. My destiny is not my own. Christ's destiny has become my destiny, bought and paid for in his life, death, resurrection, and exaltation/ascension. That's some story.

God "working all things for our good and His glory" (Romans 8:28) isn't some impervious comfort phrase to throw around after the funeral or in the middle of a crisis. The promise is a summary description of the church's grand story. It is eschatological. I have confidence and comfort because I know life now, even if it doesn't look like it in any given moment, is being orchestrated to that grand "fixed end".

Don't fear the big word. Eschatology has everything to do with what is happening with you right now. We know this because Adam could say the same thing. Jael could say the same thing. Jonathan could say the same thing. Theophilus could say the same thing. Our salvation bears resemblance to the end because the end has always been involved; our new life in Christ is the "stuff" of the New Heaven and New Earth.

The Entire Bible is Eschatological

noreply@blogger.com (Chad Richard Bresson) — Wed, 12 Nov 2014 21:46:00 +0000

Don't fear the big words. What do you think of when you hear the word "eschatology"? For some of us, it's simply another fancy-schmancy theological mumbo-jumbo word that the eggheads like to throw around in pastor-pontifi-speak. Some of us just want to tune out whatever comes next because that word just doesn't give us the warm fuzzies. I get that.

For some of us, we have conditioned ourselves to conjure up images of Hal Lindsey's "Late Great Planet Earth" when we hear that word. For others, it conjures up images from the "who told them they could act?" movie, "Thief in the Night" that gave us classic charts and the unforgettable "sing with full gusto" tune, "I Wish We'd All Been Ready". For others who hear that word, the latest "Oil and Armageddon" Conference on Ready-Baked and Individually-Tailored One-size-fits-me Biblical Prophecy is brought to mind.

Seriously, many of us almost subconsciously connect the word "eschatology" and the end of the earth as we know it. There's a reason for that. The word itself means "the study of last things". The dictionary gives us this: "that part of theology concerned with judgment, death, the final destiny of the soul and of mankind" or (from Dictionary.com) "any system of doctrines concerning last, or final, matters, as death, the Judgment, the future state." To break the word down... "logy" = study and "eschato" = last or final. Literally, the study of the last. As a result, we have tended to always place the word in the context of what happens at the very end of time. Eschatology is the study or doctrine of end times, and by implication, the theology or study of what comes at the very end of time.

Eschatology from the beginning of the Bible

Or is it? The whole Bible is eschatological. Eschatology is unfolding from the very first moments of time. The end has a stake in the beginning. A very easy way to see this is to note the similarities between the first and last gardens, the garden of Eden in Genesis 1-2 and the New Heavens and New Earth in Revelation 21-22. There are hints of the end of time embedded in the creation story. Everything in between those two gardens is a movement toward the final goal: life with Jesus in the New Heavens and New Earth.

William Dumbrell begins his treatment of eschatology in the whole Bible ("The Search for Order") thusly:"Coined in the nineteenth century by a German writer and brought into English about 1845, the word eschatology refers to knowledge of the end. The Oxford English Dictionary defines eschatology as "the department of theological science concerned with 'the last four things: death, judgment, heaven, and hell.'" But the word has both broader and narrower meanings. Some use the word eschatology exclusively in the narrow sense of the end of history and the commencement of the new age. Others use the word in the broad sense of the goal of history toward which the Bible moves and of biblical factors and events bearing on that goal... but just what are the issues that bear on the goal of history?

"Interpretation of the Bible demands a framework within which the details are set. We need to know the big picture before we look at the details. The Bible is a book about the future in light of the human failures of the past and present. In this sense the entire Bible is eschatological, since it focuses upon the ushering in of the kingdom of God, the fulfilling of the divine intention for humanity and society. In very broad terms the biblical sweep is from creation to the new creation by way of redemption, which is, in effect the renewing of creation. yet the end is not merely a return to the beginning, for the Bible reveals a great deal more about the divine intention than what is shown at the beginning of Genesis. Regarding eschatology, we must recognize how the Bible develops its theme of God's purpose from the beginning in Genesis to the end in Revelation." -- William Dumbrell, "The Search for Order: Biblical Eschatology in Focus", p. 9

Because eschatology isn't merely about the specifics of the very end of time, but also about those things which are pointing to and bringing about the end of time, the entirety of the Bible is eschatological. Everywhere we go in the pages of the text is not only centered on the story of Jesus but moving toward the final goal, life with Jesus at the end. The new and final garden resides in the shadows of the original. The one great act at the apex of the story, Christ's life, death, and resurrection guarantees the end.

Eschatology in the present

Having broken the chains of sin and death that wrecked the original, Christ's resurrection constitutes the final state of life eternal (that which is outside of time and at the end of time) breaking into and giving new life to us in the here and now. When the Spirit regenerates us, the life we are given is life from Christ's resurrection, which is itself, life from outside of this world's time and space. Our eternal life has its source in the past (Christ's resurrection), the present (Christ in the eternal heavens), and the future (Christ in the New Heaven and New Earth).

That's a lot to think about. But that's what gives perspective to all the bad things we see happening in the world around us or even to us. Christ came to give us life outside of ourselves, eternal life (John 10:10). And not just eternal life, but eternal life in "abundance." There's more to life than "here and now". Our lives are bound up with what Jesus is doing right now in the heavens: ruling and reigning and interceding on our behalf. And our lives are an overflow of the eternal life we've been given to others around us in the grace and love and forgiveness and compassion and peace we bring into their lives.

If all of the Bible is eschatological, all of life is eschatological because the Bible is describing our life in Christ. Our lives in the present are made up of the last age or days moving toward their final end in the last garden and its Creator, Jesus Christ. It may sound like fancy schmancy theo-lingo. But the reality is very simple and practical: every day is a day to live the abundant life we've been given in Christ.

Unbelief's effect on Jesus: Jesus wept

noreply@blogger.com (Chad Richard Bresson) — Sun, 09 Nov 2014 17:24:00 +0000

Jesus: Lazarus has died. I’m glad for you that I wasn’t there so that you may believe.

Martha: if You had been here, my brother wouldn’t have died.

Mary: if You had been here, my brother would not have died!

The crowd: Couldn’t He who opened the blind man’s eyes also have kept this man from dying?

Jesus wept.

Lord, help my unbelief.

The Incarnation: "He whose right it is" Has Come.

noreply@blogger.com (Chad Richard Bresson) — Tue, 04 Nov 2014 01:01:00 +0000

"The scepter will not depart from Judah or the staff from between his feet until He whose right it is comes and the obedience of the peoples belongs to Him." Genesis 49:10 (HCSB)

Ever think about the importance of the word "until" in that Jacobian prophecy? It means all that precedes it is moving toward whatever lies behind the "until". "Until", then, is given a heightened sense of anticipation or even wonder, landing with full weight on whatever lies behind it.

Here's what Vos says about what lies behind "until":

"The 'Shiloh,' that is 'the One to whom Judah's sceptre and ruler's staff belong' appears here (Genesis 49:10; crb) as the ultimate embodiment and virtually as the eternalizerof Judah's preeminence among the tribes. In other words the One later called the Messiah is a Consummator in more than a purely chronological sense."

Vos then notes Moses' use of "until" in connected to his use of "the last days" idea of Genesis 49:1:

"..in Genesis…the idea of progression towards a fixed end is marked by the word 'until.' To be sure the term 'acherith' ("the days to come", or as it is used around the OT, "the last days"; crb) stands in Genesis 49:1 at the head of the prophecy with general reference to what is foretold concerning all the tribes, yet it is meant virtually so that in Judah's destiny alone it is realized to the full extent of its import." Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, p. 2-3

And…so what?

Three things stand out about from the implications of Genesis 49

The "days to come" or "last days" are specifically tied to the coming of "Shiloh". The "days to come" are ushered in by the coming of "Shiloh". Christ's incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and (most importantly to Genesis 49) ascension/exaltation heralds the arrival of the "days to come", the acherith, or last days. We live in the "already"/"not yet" on the other side of the "unitl". The "Shiloh" rules and reigns at the right hand of the Father. The obedience of the peoples belongs to Him.
Everything about Judah and David is anticipating, moving toward, and finds final significance and meaning in "until". The Old Testament is the story of the movement of history toward the "until" of Genesis 49:10. This is especially true as the Old Testament story is developed through Judah, David, and Solomon.
"Ultimate embodiment." "The Eternalizer." "The Consummator." Christ is the glorious fulfillment of Judah's destiny. All of Jacob and Judah's hopes and dreams are realized in the Shiloh who walked among us.

Nothing happens in my life today that "He whose right it is" doesn't know about, doesn't care about, and didn't come to die and rise for.

Dawson: "A spiritualized Jesus...allows the church to run after the things of the world."

noreply@blogger.com (Chad Richard Bresson) — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 01:35:00 +0000

Christ still has a body. A resurrected body, to be sure. But nevertheless, Christ has a human body. In the heavens. On His throne.

It's easy to forget. Just because Christ is physically absent, does not for a second mean that he somehow is disconnected from real time and space. Or reality, for that matter. He still has a flesh and blood body. He still bears the scars inflicted by those who represented us during the darkest days of world history.

As sure as President Obama is in the White House, or a British terrorist is sharpening his knife (again), Christ literally and physically occupies His throne in the heavens. It's not a "spiritual" or "mystical" reality, in the sense that it belongs to the ethereal. Or even only to "faith". The incarnation, which we celebrate every December 25, is permanent.

The continuing Incarnation of Christ has many, many implications as to how we understand reality. One of these implications is the "temporariness" of government and culture.

Gerrit Scott Dawson, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Baton Rouge, wrote a masterpiece on the Ascension of Christ, "Jesus Ascended: The Meaning of Christ's Continuing Incarnation."

Here's an excerpt from that book:

"One of the first acts of the enthroned Jesus was to open the treasure trove of his love and bring forth a gem of inestimable value. In his bountiful rule, the King of kings showers a priceless gift from his infinite largesse upon his subjects. He receives the Holy Spirit from the Father and pours him out upon the disciples (Acts 2:33). The Spirit, who gives himself to be so poured, becomes the bond between the still-incarnate Son in heaven and his people still sojourning on earth. By this boon, the physically absent King establishes a living tie between himself and his subjects. The head pours his life-giving energies and constant direction throughout his body (i.e. into his people) through his Spirit...Jesus himself understood his departure from his disciples as involving entry into a kingdom...

"The King's story has placed his people under tension. He is not here for us to see, yet he is always about to return. The church is under pressure, by the breath of his Spirit, both as an updraft and a downdraft. On the one hand, we are pushed upward by the commands of the sovereign to look to him as we enact mission in his name. We surge into the future on the wind of his triumph as we live and proclaim the gospel. But, on the other hand, our work is never finished, never to be seen as complete in itself. We are demonstrating the kingdom on earth but not creating the final realm. So, the church labors under the downward pressure of a future that draws nigh, shaping the church, encouraging her in times of resistance and persecution with the promise that the new heavens and the new earth are on the way.

"(There is a) human tendency to spiritualize the ascension. At first thought this seems a result of our metaphysical concerns about the seeming split between the spiritual and material realms. But in fact, the mind's balking at Jesus' going up in the body may well result from the revolt in heart and will against the sovereignty of Jesus which his ascension implies. We may desire to reduce the 'eschatological tension' of his absence and imminent return by dismissing his continuing incarnation... (Douglas) Farrow notes that if we spiritualize the ascension, and get Jesus safely diffused and dissolved into the heavens, then he no longer seems a threat to the rulers of the world. Rather, we can neatly divide the regions of authority between the spiritual and the worldly. We can build the wall between public and private truth which protects us from the claims of God. A spiritualized Jesus allows the kings of the world to run free without restraint from the church, and allows the church to run after the things of the world without the downdraft pressure of the return of the embodied Jesus.

"A continuing incarnation, however, enthrones Jesus in direct relationship to the world and its rulers. There is a real, human king who reigns over the world from heaven. A man who once walked among us is on the throne, and he is not aloof from the affairs of his realm below. All other powers on earth, therefore, are merely temporary and derived. As Paul asserted, 'there is no authority except that which God has established' (Romans 13:1). This, then, is truly a threatening message to any who make claims of their own sovereignty. It is no wonder that earthly rulers wish to silence the church with violence...

"Jesus in ascending has been crowned as the sovereign of this world. Cleaving to this reality, the church has from the beginning been able to thrive amidst the worst persecution. So an old man exiled on a barren island could send comfort to suffering congregations in the name of 'Jesus Christ ... the firstborn from the dead, the ruler of the kings of the earth' (Revelation 1:5)...

"With this understanding, the church cannot simply go after the world in its pursuit of the pleasures of the moment, nor can the church let the world go unchecked in its injustice and destructiveness. Today, even as the church loses its voice in the culture, we may recover the understanding of the ascension as a triumphant enthronement. In this way, we may strengthen our identity as citizens of heaven in exile, acting now as loving subversives for the kingdom of Christ..." Gerrit Scott Dawson, "Jesus Ascended: The Meaning of Christ's Continuing Incarnation"

Tamar: "There is no cult prostitute here."

noreply@blogger.com (Chad Richard Bresson) — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 22:36:00 +0000

Tamar is among the most enigmatic characters in Scripture. A prostitute who is commended for her righteous actions. Even as we attempt to understand the purpose of Genesis 38 -- and why it appears "jammed" into the story of Joseph -- one thing that should not be overlooked: the scandal.

Don't forget the scandal.

Grace in the midst of vile

This is one of those chapters in which parents of the West are tempted to say at the end of chapter 37, "OK, kids; off to bed. We'll read chapter 39 tomorrow night." Genesis 38 functions as shock factor. The entire chapter. Sordid. Divine execution. A defiant sex act. Betrayal. Seduction. Prostitution. Hypocrisy.

The sleaze factor in Genesis 38 does not provide the real scandal. The real scandal is how Moses wants us to see grace at work in the midst of the vile. In Genesis 38, there is an avalanche of grace flowing out of the debauchery. Brilliant faith. Justification. Redemption.

Oh yes. In the midst of Judah's self-inflicted cesspool, grace cascades. The one great storyline of redemption through the Seed isn't simply unorthodox. It's unwanted. It undermines, no, it smashes a self-righteousness we've convinced ourselves is righteous.

The seed

It is true that Moses is not writing about the moralityof seducing someone who Is not your husband. It's also true that Moses is highlighting the divine preservation of the Genesis 3:15 promised "Seed of the woman" in the storyline, especially the storyline as it unfolds through Judah in the book of Genesis. The birth of Perez belongs to the OT stories of "miracle" births of sons in the pedigree of the coming Messiah. It is unexpected. It occurs in the midst of extenuating and extraordinary circumstances. The story of Genesis 38 most certainly is about "the seed, the heir, the firstborn." In this story, Moses is interested in making sure his readers are not in the dark regarding the origins of the still-yet-to-be-realized royal bloodline traced through Judah and his son, Perez.

But it's not simply about the seed. 1 Corinthians 10 tells us that these OT stories were meant to be examples for us. However, the "examples" for us are not morality plays, but part of the great unfolding story of redemption in the Old Testament. The "examples", as Hebrews 11 demonstrates, are aimed at eliciting saving faith in the community, faith that wraps its hopes around the promise of a Messiah.

Tamar is certainly best understood against the backdrop of Genesis 3:15. All of the Old Testament progresses the Genesis 3:15 storyline to its culmination in the Person and work of Jesus. There are grace and faith elements in this story that Moses draws attention to for the sake of his audience.

A couple of hermeneutical considerations

There are a couple of hermeneutical considerations underlying the story of Tamar and Judah that spotlight grace and salvific faith. One is an idea Paul picks up on in Romans 11. The role of Gentiles in redemptive history is meant to provoke Israel to repentance and faith. This is fundamental to understanding the story of Jonah. It's certainly at the heart of the story of Namaan. The book of Ruth also has "Gentile provocation" as an undercurrent. Throughout redemptive history, God has used Gentiles who embrace the true God of Israel as their own as provocative motivation for Israel to repent and confess their fidelity to the one true God. When we find a Gentile or "pagan" confessing allegiance to Israel's God or expressing the kind of faith expressed by Abraham (see Genesis 15:6), we can be sure that the story has been included in sacred revelation to not only show that "salvation has come to the Gentiles" (i.e. foreshadowing the great inclusion of Gentiles as True Israel in the New Covenant), but also "to make Israel jealous." (Romans 11:11)

The otherconsideration is what I call "the Pharisee factor." Israel in the Old Testament. Pharisees in the New. Both Israel and the Pharisees suffered from acute self-righteousness. Much of recorded revelation is aimed at ridding Israel (and us) of its natural inclination to promote self. We most clearly see such heart attitude on display when scandal is present in the text. A comment recorded by Luke could function as a thesis statement which underlies Israel's self-righteousness. When a woman of ill repute washes Jesus' feet with her tears and anoints them with fragrance, the Pharisee who invited Christ to the dinner expresses centuries of Israel's self-righteousness toward the scandalous: "This man, if He were a prophet, would know who and what kind of woman this is who is touching Him—she’s a sinner!” (Luke 7:39). Israel's preoccupation with self-importance as the "apple of God's eye" led them to look down on the scandalous. This is a running theme in Jonah, can be found in Job, and litters the indictments of the prophets, especially Amos and Hosea. The inclusion of Gentiles in the redemption storyline is aimed at knocking Israel's inflated ego down a few pegs.

Five scandalous elements in the Tamar story

The above considerations relate to the story of Tamar in the following five ways:

Tamar is a Gentile. This can easily be missed. It's not mentioned in the text, but the entire backdrop of this story occurs among the Canaanites, or more specifically, the Adullamites. It's also easy to overlook Tamar because initially, she is introduced into the story as simply a supporting character.

Tamar is a woman. This can also easily be missed, especially in a day in which women in the West enjoy the kind of life that would be quite foreign to the women of the ancient near east. Early in this story, Tamar "is given" to Judah's son to be his wife. As the story reaches its climax and resolution, we find Tamar in the proverbial driver's seat. For a woman to take this kind of initiative in that culture was quite risky, especially when facing the charges Tamar was facing (the death penalty). A woman who takes initiative in a public way belongs in the same societal "class" as prostitutes.

Tamar seduced Judah. Her actions are described in the text, by her own kind (or by her own mouth, we are not told) as that of a prostitute. The activity by which she secures the royal line of Judah is deception, which seems even more spectacular than that of Jacob stealing Esau's birthright. Even Judah's initial judgment of capital punishment is that which is reserved for those who engage in sexual promiscuity (Leviticus 21:9).

Tamar is commended. Judah's declaration of "not guilty" isn't simply an acknowledgment that Tamar is a better person. Judah's statement carries implications beyond its initial event. "She is more righteous than I" recalls Genesis 15:6: it was counted to her for righteousness. Judah's statement also doubles as his own indictment. If Tamar is not guilty, then it is Judah who is guilty of a lifetime of covenant faithlessness, manifested in the way he has put Abraham's posterity in jeopardy. Her commendation is later picked up by the women of Bethlehem in the book of Ruth, pronouncing blessing on Naomi (and Ruth) after the same kind of generational blessings enjoyed by Tamar (Ruth 4:12).

Tamar acted in faith. As the scope of the narrative widens out after the initial deception and legal pronouncement of innocence by Judah, and we begin to see the place of Genesis 38 in the wider plotline being traced by Moses, Tamar plays the role of the one being aligned with the "Seed of the Woman" in the unfolding plan of redemption (see Genesis 3:15). She is more righteous than Judah. She, not he, has been acting in faith. Childless, she exercises her faith and ends up in the Royal line of David that eventually produces the Messiah.

Gentile + woman + prostitute + commendation + faith = scandal.

An Old Testament "Pharisee" would have blanched at such a thought. Commended as *more* "righteous"? Shameful. A Gentile who not only prostitutes herself in seducing one of Israel's Big 12, but is "let off the hook"? Preposterous. Commendation in place of the expected condemnation? Offensive. Perez as a blessed child of The Promise? Disgraceful. The coming Savior of Israel rides on the actions of a Gentile prostitute? Absolutely scandalous. What a despicable affront to any who might begin to believe in Israel's "exceptionalism" as exhaustively exclusive. “This Moses, if he were a prophet, would know who and what kind of woman this is who is being commended as righteous—she’s a sinner!”

But that's precisely the point: a sinner declared righteous. Three times the result of the search for Tamar is described as they "didn't find her". Twice in the middle of this story the statement is made, "there is no cult prostitute here." At the end of the story, Tamar is commended as being "righteous".

"There is no cult prostitute here." That statement screams across the pages of this sordid tale too good to not be true. "There is no cult prostitute here." They couldn't find her; they didn't find her; they'll never find her. Ever.

When Tamar plays her card as the keeper who bears the finery of her "king", the true prostitute is exposed as the one pointing the finger. The indictment is devastating. Judah is no better than his sons. God executes judgment (Genesis 38:7,10) . Judah orders judgment in the same fashion. (Genesis 38:24b).

But there is no cult prostitute here. The story has moved from barren widow (Tamar) to one declared righteous (Tamar) to a blessed child of promise (Perez). Rather than being an object to be tossed on worthless heap, Tamar is a recipient of divine favor exposing the Hebrew charlatan for who he is. Carrying a child who perpetuates the Promise, the sinner is declared righteous.

A sinner who is declared righteous. How scandalous is that?

One other scandalous feature of this chapter should be considered:

Tamar saves Judah. If it's not scandalous enough for a "seduction" to be commended as "righteous", try "Gentile becomes catalyst for Hebrew's redemption" on for size. In this regard, the figure of Tamar in Judah's story is of the same cloth as Rahab and Ruth. Like them, her faith expressed in speech and action is used to bring about the redemption of Israelites, in this case, Judah. Exposed by Tamar's righteous deed, from this point on, a chastised and repentant Judah begins to live out his destiny as one through whom Israel's future king and redeemer would come.

Grace doesn't always show up cloaked in the pretty. We would do well to avoid the morality play that acknowledges grace in this story, but does so along the lines of God making lemonade out of lemons (i.e. Because I'm the great God I am, I'm going to grace the story with Perez in spite of all the filthy sinners here). It's true that God does providentially work grace in the midst of the mess, but he does so in a way that is not arbitrary, but shocking.

One legitimate question arises from Moses portrayal of grace against the backdrop of scandal: how far are we willing to go for the sake of the gospel? Tamar could have been killed for what she pulled off. A woman? Seduction? She put it all on the line on the road to Timnah because something bigger than herself was at stake. Like others listed in Hebrews 11, Tamar is an example to us of faith that doesn't walk by sight.

But we also must ask ourselves: how far are we willing to go to see ourselves as the recipients of cascading grace in the midst of our mess? We embrace the scandal of Genesis 38 as part of the unfolding of the grand story of Jesus because Matthew does so in Matthew 1. Tamar (along with Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, and Mary) is specifically mentioned in the pedigree of Jesus because in Matthew 1, Christ's own scandal is unfolding in the story of his birth. The disgrace of (supposed) illegitimacy dogged Jesus all the way to the cross. Thus, in Christ's life and death, scandal becomes part of our identity in Christ.

In Christ, "there is no cult prostitute here". We know we're guilty. Prostitutes all are we. But Christ died bearing our guilt. And we're declared righteous.

Scandalous.

Vos: The Chief Actor came upon the Scene and occupied central place

noreply@blogger.com (Chad Richard Bresson) — Mon, 01 Sep 2014 11:35:00 +0000

"When the time came to completion..." - Galatians 4:4 (HCSB)

How often have we heard a sermon on Galatians 4:4, and listened to the preacher wax eloquent on how the timing of Christ's birth was simply perfect? The Greek language was universal, the Roman infrastructure was pervasive, communication via pen had become common, somebody had finally invented crucifixion as a means of execution, etc. Sometimes it sounds a bit like Christianized astrology: "When the stars and planets were finally aligned, God sent His Son." Things were simply peachy-keen for the Father to send the Son to fix the mess.

In his "Pauline Eshcatology", Vos puts this utilitarian notion to rest:

“...the 'fullness of time' has nothing to do in the first place with the idea of 'ripeness of the times'; it designates the arrival of the present dispensation of time at its predetermined goal of fulfillment through the appearance of the Messiah (Gal. 4:4; see also Eph. 1:10.

“This straight horizontal way of looking at the eschatological progress was not with Paul a purely-formal thing. There belongs to it a grandiose sweep and impressive inclusiveness with regard to the whole of history. When filled with the content of the latter it acquires the character of the most intense dramatic realism." (Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, p. 26)

Vos is pointing out that "eschatological progress", or the progress of revelation and redemption toward its end goal in Christ and his resolution of all things in the New Heavens and New Earth, is "filled" up with the content of history. The events of history that have been recorded in the Bible, especially those in the Old Testament, are even better than real. Those events, even those that would seem mundane, are supernatural. They really happened, but they happened by design to bring about God's salvation of His people in Christ.

Long before Vanhoozer and Horton, Vos posits that this progress of redemption through the stages of history is a divine "drama", the one grand story of Jesus unfolding in the events and words of Scripture:

"It is drama, and, besides that, drama hastening on with accelerated movement to the point of denouement and consummation. Hence it engages the Apostle’s most practical religious interest no less than that it moulds his theoretical view concerning the structure of the Christian faith.

“…to Paul the chief actor in this drama had come upon the scene; the Messiah had been made present, and could not but be looked upon as henceforth the dominating figure in all further developments. And Christ was to Paul so close, so all-comprehensive and all-pervasive, that nothing could remain peripheral wherein He occupied the central place…" (Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, pp. 27-28)

It wasn't that 4 B.C. or 6 B.C. or whenever it is that Christ actually left the heavens and took on the lot of humanity that things were just so perfect Christ finally could get done what he needed to do. Such an idea reduces Jesus to simply another actor on the stage with the Father reacting to the hand he and the Son had been dealt. In fact, Galatians 4:4's language mitigates against this. "Completion" connotes the sense of something being brought to an end or a climax.

"Fullness" is the word used by the ESV. All of the events and revealed words of the Old Testament had been filled up and brought to their end goal: Jesus. "Fullness" like "completion", carries the sense of being filled up to having nothing more left to reveal regarding redemption. Paul sees salvation history like a cup, being filled to overflowing of all the historical events or acts and God's self-revelation in Scripture that were orchestrated by God to bring about the Person and work of Jesus.

When all of those Messianically-charged historical events, people, shadows, rituals, poetry, prophecy, and revelation reached their "fullness", Christ came as the Final Act of fulfillment on center stage.

Christ occupies the "central place" of this grand drama of redemption. The Incarnation is everything. In the Incarnation, Christ takes center stage of all of history, "filling up" the meaning of all of reality. Vos is right to suggest that this "filling up" includes the "eschatological progress" of Old Testament revelation and redemption.

So what? If Christ fills up the meaning of all of history, whatever happens today, good or bad, has meaning. It finds its meaning in who Christ is, what Christ has done for His people, and who I am in him. It also means that whatever happens today is within the scope of Jesus working to bring history to its ultimate conclusion. It may not look pretty today. It may be filled with sorrow and a temporary sense of senselessness. But it will not always be. The One who took on flesh in the fullness of time is the consummate Alpha and Omega. Time and its history find their meaning in Jesus. That's real hope... in the Fullness of Time.

Vos: Infinite Care in the Revelation of Our Salvation

noreply@blogger.com (Chad Richard Bresson) — Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:20:00 +0000

The amazing thing about the following statement is that Vos actually said it. The prefatory note says this about the occasion of Vos's Inaugural Address at Princeton: "The Rev. Geerhardus Vos was elected Professor of Biblical Theology in Princeton Theological Seminary at the spring meeting of the Board of Directors, 1893, and assumed the duties of the chair provisionally from September, 1893. His formal induction into the chair took place on Tuesday, May 8, 1894, at 12 o'clock, in the First Presbyterian Church of Princeton."

1894. As James Dennison has pointed out, even at Princeton "the morass of liberal and radical biblical theology was evident not only to the more astute among them, but to the "man in the pew." By the last decade of the nineteenth century, so-called biblical theology of the critical stripe had eviscerated the theology from the Bible."

So when Vos takes aim at dispensing with "objective knowledge", he faces those who were quite adept in the "dispensive" arts:

"...true religion cannot dispense with a solid basis of objective knowledge of the truth. There is no better means of silencing the supercilious cant that right believing is of small importance in the matter of religion, than by showing what infinite care our Father in heaven has taken to reveal unto us, in the utmost perfection, the knowledge of what He is and does for our salvation." Geerhardus Vos, "The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological Discipline"; Vos's Inaugural Address as Professor of Biblical Theology in Princeton Theological Seminary, delivered May 8, 1894

Peters: "The local assembly and the individual believer belong organically together."

noreply@blogger.com (Chad Richard Bresson) — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 11:24:00 +0000

One of the implications of the continuity of church ministry down through the centuries is a very real connection to the original ministry of the apostles. But one of the characteristics that has been lost in recent times is the centrality of the local church and the corporate nature of gospel ministry.

In "A Biblical Theology of Missions", George Peters makes the case from 2 Corinthians 8 and Philippians 2, and even as the priesthood of the believer as a fundamental truth of Scripture is to be maintained, there is no *authoritative" autonomy of the individual believer in the ministry of the gospel. Or, drawing upon an analogy from the legendary history of the Lone Star State, the Bible knows of no lone ranger cowboys in the work of the gospel.

So Peters:

"We must be careful...not to..put the congregation as an organization between Christ and the individual believer in such a manner that it destroys the precious doctrine of the personal relationship and individual priesthood of the believer. The Christ-church-individual relationship is not a salvation relationship, as indicated before; it is an authority relationship and refers to service rather than salvation. But neither must the individual priesthood of the believer be elevated above the church as the mystic body of Christ or local congregation of believers. One danger is as perilous as the other.

"We have reached here another one of the New Testament’s seeming paradoxes where only the spiritual mind can deliver us from contradictions and frustrations. The local assembly and the individual believer belong organically together, and they must function harmoniously if the full biblical truth is to be manifested. While there is governmental autonomy of the local church, there is no such governmental autonomy of the individual believer. Neither is there governmental autonomy of the individual missionary when it relates to his service.

"The missionary is always a sent one and remains under authority of the church or church-delegated agency. He is always only a representative of authority, never an authority in himself. The authority of Christ seems to be delegated and transferred to the local congregation of believers. No one lives unto himself nor is anyone a law or authority unto himself.

"Thus, while the call of Christ comes directly to the individual and there is a sending forth by Christ Himself, a spiritual church will also sense the call either directly or indirectly. And, a humble and spiritually minded individual will gladly submit to the authoritive commissioning by the local assembly as the representative body of Christ and sustain a responsible relationship to the sending authority." - George Peters, A Biblical Theology of Missions, pp. 222-223

Vos: The cross and resurrection "would speak even if left to speak for themselves"

noreply@blogger.com (Chad Richard Bresson) — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:55:00 +0000

In his Inaugural Address at Princeton, Vos makes the case that Biblical Theology is an exegetical enterprise. It is inherently tied to the text of Scripture and arises from the text itself. He argues that Biblical Theology follows the progress of revelation, chronologically and organically, from Genesis to Revelation.

Along the way, Vos makes one of those earth-shattering, astounding, observations regarding God's supernatural, salvific acts of redemption in history: the Exodus, the cross, and Christ's resurrection are self-revelatory; better yet, self-interpreting.

"The first feature characteristic of supernatural revelation is its *historical progress*. God has not communicated to us the knowledge of the truth as it appears in the calm light of eternity to His own timeless vision. He has not given it in the form of abstract propositions logically correlated and systematized. The simple fact that it is the task of Systematic Theology to reproduce revealed truth in such form, shows that it does not possess this form from the beginning.

"The self-revelation of God is a work covering ages, proceeding in a sequence of revealing words and acts, appearing in a long perspective of time....Revelation is not an isolated act of God, existing without connection with all the other divine acts of supernatural character. It constitutes a part of that great process of the new creation through which the present universe as an organic whole shall be redeemed from the consequences of sin and restored to its ideal state, which it had originally in the intention of God.

"Now, this new creation, in the objective, universal sense, is not something completed by a single act all at once, but is a history with its own law of organic development..the disclosure of truth in general follows the course of the history of redemption.

"We now must add that in not a few cases revelation is identified with history. Besides making use of words, God has also employed acts to reveal great principles of truth. It is not so much the prophetic visions or miracles in the narrower sense that we think of in this connection. We refer more specially to those great, supernatural, history-making acts of which we have examples in the redemption of the covenant-people from Egypt, or in the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.

"In these cases the history itself forms a part of revelation. There is a self-disclosure of God in such acts. They would speak even if left to speak for themselves. Forming part of history, these revealing acts necessarily assume historical relations among themselves, and succeed one another according to a well-defined principle of historical sequence.

"Furthermore, we observe that this system of revelation-acts is not interpolated into the larger system of biblical history after a fanciful and mechanical fashion. The relation between the two systems is vital and organic. These miraculous interferences of God to which we ascribe a revealing character, furnish the great joints and ligaments by which the whole framework of sacred history is held together, and its entire structure determined.

"God's saving deeds mark the critical epochs of history, and as such, have continued to shape its course for centuries after their occurrence."

Having made the argument that God's great acts of redemption are themselves revelation and belong to the work of the Bible expositor, Vos then summarizes his definition of Biblical Theology, a discipline, he argues that belongs to the realm of exegesis:

"Biblical Theology...is that part of Exegetical Theology which deals with the revelation of God in its historic continuity...Biblical Theology, rightly defined, is nothing else than the exhibition of the organic progress of supernatural revelation in its historic continuity and multiformity." - Geerhardus Vos, "The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological Discipline"; Vos's Inaugural Address as Professor of Biblical Theology in Princeton Theological Seminary, delivered May 8, 1894 (http://www.biblicaltheology.org/ibt.pdf).

The great salvation acts of God in history, especially those of the Christ Event (Christ's incarnation, life, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension/exaltation), are interconnected with everything else in his supernatural revelation we call the Bible. No text in the Bible is isolated or arbitrary. No text exists for its own sake, but for the ongoing progression of the one story of the Bible, that of the Person and work of Jesus.

Peters: "The church and the individual missionary become bound"

noreply@blogger.com (Chad Richard Bresson) — Mon, 18 Aug 2014 23:00:00 +0000

Continuing to make my way through Peters' "A Biblical Theology of Mission", I'm struck by the (exegetical) strength of his argument for what he says is "the centrality of the church" in missions. Most poignant are his comments regarding the laying on of hands.

Laying on of hands in the Old Testament had a variety of applications. But almost all of the applications involved any one of three things: transference (usually of guilt - see the Day of Atonement goat - or authority - see Moses and Joshua), blessing, and sacrifice (including setting aside). When we get to the New Testament, all three of these concepts are bound up together in the laying on of hands.

This biblical theology of the laying on of hands sits behind George Peters' comments regarding the laying on of hands and the missionary:

"The biblical rite of laying on of hands is a symbol of deep spiritual and soteriological significance. In relation to ordination, it is an event of serious consequence to the church as well as to the recipient. In this relationship the ordinance points at least in two directions. On the one hand, it speaks of the priority and authority of the church as the mediating sending agency of God. It presents the church as the responsible missionary body assuming her position and place in missions under the authority of Christ.

On the other hand, the rite speaks of authentication, identification, and the creation of a representative by delegation. By this rite the church is publicly authenticating the call of God; she is constituting a rightful and responsible representative, and she is declaring her identification with the representative in his call and ministry. In the person of the ordained individual, the church by substitution goes forth into the ministry.

By the laying on of hands, the church and the individual missionary become bound in a bond of common purpose and mutual responsibility. It is thus not only a privilege and service; it is also the exercise of an authority and the acceptance of a tremendous responsibility. The identification of the church with the sent-forth representative is inclusive doctrinally, spiritually, physically and materially. It is the constituting of a rightful representative who will be able and who is responsible to function as a representative of the church."

The church, therefore, by the laying on of hands, declares herself ready to stand by and make such representation possible. This should include the prayers and the finances required for such a representative ministry."

Peters recognized the implications of what he was saying:

"It is my solid conviction that the proper exercise of this biblical principle by the churches would do more to boost the morale of our missionaries and the flow of missionary candidates than many other factors combined. Should our young people realize that not only does “my church go with me, but my church goes in my person, stands with me, prays with me, sacrifices with me, and underwrites my support,” the challenge would become inescapable. Here is the church’s real opportunity, responsibility and challenge to herself and to the young people. Laying on of hands is not a favor we extend, but a divine authority we exercise and a responsibility we assume. A church should think soberly before it performs the act." - George Peters, A Biblical Theology of Missions, pp. 221-222

Vos: "The life above possesses for the believer the highest kind of actuality."

noreply@blogger.com (Chad Richard Bresson) — Sun, 17 Aug 2014 00:40:00 +0000

“Man belongs to two spheres. And Scripture not only teaches that these two spheres are distinct, it also teaches what estimate of relative importance ought to be placed upon them. Heaven is the primordial, earth the secondary creation.

In heaven are the supreme realities; what surrounds us here below is a copy and shadow of the celestial things. Because the relation between the two spheres is positive, and not negative, not mutually repulsive, heavenly-mindedness can never give rise to neglect of the duties pertaining to the present life. It is the ordinance and will of God, that not apart from, but on the basis of, and in contact with, the earthly sphere man shall work out his heavenly destiny.

Still the lower may never supplant the higher in our affections. In the heart of man time calls for eternity, earth for heaven. He must, if normal, seek the things above, as the flower’s face is attracted by the sun, and the water-courses are drawn to the ocean.

Heavenly-mindedness, so far from blunting or killing the natural desires, produces in the believer a finer organization, with more delicate sensibilities, larger capacities, a stronger pulse of life. It does not spell impoverishment, but enrichment of nature.

The spirit of the entire epistle (of Hebrews) shows this. The use of the words ‘city’ and ‘country’ is evidence of it. These are terms that stand for the accumulation, the efflorescence, the intensive enjoyment of values.

Nor should we overlook the social note in the representation. A perfect communion in a perfect society is promised. In the city of the living God believers are joined to the general assembly and church of the first-born, and mingle with the spirits of just men made perfect.

And all this faith recognizes. It does not first need the storms and stress that invade to quicken its desire for such things. Being the sum and substance of all the positive gifts of God to us in their highest form, heaven is of itself able to evoke in our hearts positive love, such absorbing love as can render us at times forgetful of the earthly strife. In such moments the transcendent beauty of the other shore and the irresistible current of our deepest life lift us above every regard of wind or wave. We know that through weather fair or foul our ship is bound straight for its eternal port.

Next to the positiveness of its object the high degree of actuality in the working of this grace should be considered. Through the faith of heavenly-mindedness the things above reveal themselves to the believer, are present with him, and communicate themselves to him.

Though as yet a pilgrim, the Christian is never wholly separated from the land of promise. His tents are pitched in close view of the city of God. Heaven is present to the believer’s experience in no less real a sense than Canaan with its fair hills and valleys lay close to the vision of Abraham. He walks in the light of the heavenly world and is made acquainted with the kindred spirits inhabiting it.

And since the word ‘actual’ in its literal sense means ‘that which works’, the life above possesses for the believer the highest kind of actuality. He is given to taste the powers of the world to come, as Abraham breathed the air of Canaan, and was refreshed by the dews descending on its fields. The roots of the Christian’s life are fed from those rich and perennial springs that lie deep in the recesses of converse (engagement; crb) with God, where prayers ascend and divine graces descend, so that after each season of tryst he issues, a new man, from the secrecy of his tent.” – Geerhardus Vos, Grace and Glory, pp. 112, 113.

The problem of "cheap law"

noreply@blogger.com (Chad Richard Bresson) — Wed, 14 May 2014 00:43:00 +0000

I once had a Christian leader tell me that the biggest issue in our churches today is a failure to preach obedience. Our churches, he told me, are full of people who are not living as if they are Christians. So they need for us to dogmatically and emphatically preach ethics and morality. And that was his response to my suggestion that our churches and pulpits need more gospel.

So the millenia-old debate continues. Here are some extended quotes from an excellent post on law vs. gospel by Tullian Tchividjian over at the Gospel Coalition's blog:

"Lawlessness and moral laxity happen, not when we hear too much grace, but when we hear too little of it."

"We’re being both theologically AND existentially simplistic and naive when we assume that simply telling people what they need to do has the power to make them want to do it. Telling people they need to change can’t change them; exhorting people to obey (which we should definitely do) doesn’t generate obedience. Even God’s command to love him with all of our heart, mind, soul, and strength is not itself what causes actual love for him. What causes actual love for God is God’s love for us."

Quoting Jono Linebaugh: "'God doesn’t serve mixed drinks. The divine cocktail is not law mixed with gospel. God serves two separate shots: law then gospel.'"

"Regardless of how well I think I’m doing in the sanctification project or how much progress I think I’ve made since I first became a Christian, like Paul in Romans 7, when God’s perfect law becomes the standard and not 'how much I’ve improved over the years', I realize that I’m a lot worse than I realize. Whatever I think my greatest vice is, God’s law shows me that my situation is much graver: if I think it’s anger, the law shows me that it’s actually murder; if I think it’s lust, the law shows me that it’s actually adultery; if I think it’s impatience, the law shows me that it’s actually idolatry (read Matthew 5:17-48). No matter how decent I think I’m becoming–how much better I think I’m getting–when I’m graciously confronted by God’s law, I can’t help but cry out, 'Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death” (Romans 7:24).'"

"Grace, for many Christians, is the reduction of God’s expectations of us. Because of grace, we think, we just need to try hard. Grace becomes this law-cheapening agent, attempting to make the law easier to follow. 'Love the Lord with all your heart' becomes 'try to love God more than sports.' 'Be perfect' gets cheapened into 'do your best.'"

"It’s a low view of the law that produces legalism, since a low view of the law causes us to conclude we can do it—the bar is low enough for us to jump over. A low view of the law makes us think the standards are attainable, the goals reachable, the demands doable. This means, contrary to what some Christians would have you believe, the biggest problem facing the church today is not 'cheap grace' but 'cheap law'—the idea that God accepts anything less than the perfect righteousness of Jesus."

The power of life transformation is not in the law. The only real help we can provide anyone who is beaten down and beset by sin is in the gospel. The only real help we can provide ourselves and our sheep day in and day out is in Christ and His Good News. We can't. He did. He does. He will. That's our hope. That's true help for moral ineptitude in the church.

Read the whole thing here: Acknowledging Failure IS A Virtue

Jesus is An Army of One

noreply@blogger.com (Chad Richard Bresson) — Sat, 10 May 2014 14:08:00 +0000

The LORD’s single-handed incarnational judgment and salvation

Exodus 14:
“The LORD will fight for you.”

“I will receive glory by means of Pharaoh”
“The Egyptians will know that I am Yahweh”
“I will receive glory through Pharaoh”

The Angel of God moved and went behind Israel, coming between the Egyptian and Israelite forces
The LORD drove the sea back
The LORD looked down on the Egyptian forces from the pillar of fire and cloud
The LORD threw them into confusion
The LORD caused their chariot wheels to swerve
The LORD made them drive with difficulty.

“Yahweh is fighting for Israel against Egypt!”

The LORD threw the Egyptians into the sea
The LORD saved Israel from the power of the Egyptians
The LORD used great power against the Egyptians

Jude 5:
Jesus first saved a people out of Egypt.

Jesus is An Army of One.
Jesus not only fought the Egyptians single-handedly on the night of the Passover and delivered his people from slavery in Egypt (as The Angel of God, the second person of the Godhead Pre-Incarnate), he finished and completed the deliverance of His people in the cross and resurrection. Against the serpent. Against the forces of evil. Against sin. Against death. Jesus was and is An Army of One.

It's true. The God of angel armies is always by my side (thank you Chris Tomlin). It's also very true that Emmanuel *is* an Angel Army always by my side. We are an Exodus people, delivered from Egypt and headed to Canaan via the single-handed work of our Savior, Deliverer, Warrior. This is the gospel of Exodus 14.

Jesus was, has been, still is, and ever will be an Army of One.

The Bible is a missionary book

noreply@blogger.com (Chad Richard Bresson) — Fri, 08 Nov 2013 21:31:00 +0000

Cross-cultural church planting necessitates getting the Word right. This means church-planting missionaries must have the kind of Word skills necessary for populating hard-to-get-to places with kingdom people. Missiology must be married to theology so that the worker being ekballoed (Greek word for propelled, Matthew 9:38) into Christ’s harvest is fully equipped to do the work of church planting.

This marriage of mission and theology is based on the pattern established in the Scriptures. The Bible itself is a missionary book. “The Bible is not a book about theology as such, but rather, a record of theology in mission—God in action in behalf of the salvation of mankind.”[1](George Peters, A Biblical Theology of Missions, p. 9). Thus, the community brought to life by the Spirit through the missionary Scriptures has “mission” in its DNA. Ambassadors who represent their King are brought together in community in order to reproduce themselves through proclamation. Because the Bible and its people are inherently tied to the mission of God in the world, “the church is in a missionary situation everywhere.”[2] (Lesslie Newbigin, The Theology of the Christian Mission, p. xi)

The Scriptures themselves were inspired “in mission”. George Peters, in A Biblical Theology of Missions, points out that the Bible and the theology embedded in it flow out of missionary endeavor:

“The missionary theology of the New Testament (outside of the gospels) is not difficult to establish. We need only remind ourselves of the fact that the book of Acts is the authentic missionary record of the apostles and the early church and that all epistles were written to churches established through missionary endeavors. Were Christianity not a missionary religion and had the apostles not been missionaries, we would have no book of Acts and no epistles. With the exception of Matthew, even the gospels were written to missionary churches. The New Testament is a missionary book in address, content, spirit and design. This is a simple fact but it also is a fact of reality and profound significance. The New Testament is theology in motion more than it is theology in reason and concept. It is ‘missionary theology.’

“To establish the theology of missions in the New Testament one simply accepts the New Testament for what it is. No reader can remain untouched by its missionary thrust and design. There is perhaps little theology of missions as such in the New Testament because it is in its totality a missionary theology, the theology of a group of missionaries and a theology in missionary movement. Thus it does not present a theology of missions; it is a missionary theology.”[3](George Peters, A Biblical Theology of Missions, p. 131)

Because the Bible is missionary, exposition of the Word is at the heart of church planting. Exposition gets at “what the Word is saying” as the foundation for properly understanding the text and its gospel message. Expository teaching and preaching is “in mission” because its context is the proclamation of the Word by the gathered community “in mission”. The apostle Paul believed exposition and its resulting theology (“knowledge of the truth”) was indispensable to church planting in mission (Colossians 1:10, 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Timothy 2:25). Without a proper understanding of who Jesus is and what He came to accomplish, church planting is impossible.

(from Exposition in Mission, Ekballo magazine, September 2013, p. 20-22)

[1]Peters, G. (1972). A biblical theology of missions.Chicago: Moody Press. p. 9
[2]Newbigin, L. (1961). The Theology of the Christian Mission. (G. Anderson, Ed.) Nashville, TN: Abingdon. p. xi
[3]Peters, G. (1972). A biblical theology of missions. Chicago: Moody Press. p. 131

Gentry and Wellum: Unlike previous covenants, Christ's relationship with his people has changed

noreply@blogger.com (Chad Richard Bresson) — Thu, 07 Nov 2013 05:04:00 +0000

Over at the Gospel Coalition blog, Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum have responded to reviews from Doug Moo, Darrell Bock, and Michael Horton regarding their book, Kingdom Through Covenant. This response provides Gentry and Wellum opportunity to once again highlight the heart of the disagreements over the New Covenant: the uniqueness of the New Covenant in its own right, especially in Christ as the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises and types.

Gentry and Wellum:

"...in the progress of the covenants, Christ is the fulfillment of all the previous covenant mediators. He comes as the last Adam, the true son of Abraham, the true Israel, and David's greater Son. However, unlike the previous covenants, the relationship with his people has been transformed.

"...in the new covenant, those in union with Christ and thus participants in the new covenant are people of faith, born of the Spirit. There is no evidence that one is a member of the new covenant apart from repenting of sin and believing the gospel. Thus when it comes to the covenant communities, namely Israel and the church, under their respective covenants, the nature of the communities is not the same. No doubt this is an argument that includes typological structures, but it is grounded in a larger argument about how the covenants interrelate to each other, unfold, and find their telos in Christ." Gentry and Wellum, 'Kingdom through Covenant' Authors Respond to Bock, Moo, Horton

Unfolding Revelation as Christ's Mission

noreply@blogger.com (Chad Richard Bresson) — Tue, 05 Nov 2013 22:02:00 +0000

Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. He is in its DNA. He himself said so. In Luke 24, Christ chides and comforts disciples struggling in the aftermath of his death and resurrection with the declaration that all of the Old Testament is about him. It's as if, in the progressive unfolding of God's self-revelation, Christ arises from and walks out of the Old Testament pages onto the Grand Stage of history on a mission to redeem for himself His people.

Christ is so intertwined with the Old Testament story, George Peters says, "Jesus Christ constantly related Himself, His message and His mission to the Old Testament. He did not contradict or destroy but modified, enriched, expanded, and in many ways transformed and glorified the Old Testament." (Peters, A Biblical Theology of Mission, p. 83)

The Christocentricity of the inspired text cannot be separated from Christ's salvific mission to fill the earth with his image bearers. When God the Second Person pierced and invaded the silence of the garden with "Adam, where are you?", his mission to reconcile all things to himself had begun. This mission is articulated in the great first promise, what is known as the protevangelium, in Genesis 3:15. And from this promise emerges the grand storyline of redemption that courses through the veins of the Old Testament.

Again, George Peters is helpful:

"The universality of the protevangelium is basic to Old Testament revelation. It is the soteriological leitmotif (dominant, unifying, all-inclusive thrust and intent) and hermeneutical principle governing Old Testament interpretation. It cannot be revoked or modified, for it rests on the unconditional 'I will' of the eternal God in whom there is no variableness. It becomes the guiding star throughout history and prophecy of the Old Testament until it finds its fulfillment in Christ, the seed of the woman.

"The leitmotif gives coherence to the Bible, integrates it into a progressive structure, gives it direction and purpose as a whole, and clarifies the meaning of each individual section and part. Only as the leitmotif is grasped clearly and applied consistently does the Old Testament yield its rich and true fruitage to the reader." (George Peters, A Biblical Theology of Missions, p. 86)

Trace the Genesis 3:15 leitmotif through the unfolding revelation of the Old Testament and you will trace Christ's mission to win a kingdom for himself, a kingdom from all people groups in every corner of the globe. God's activity in the Old Testament is missional activity. The divine orchestration of the drama from Abraham to David to Daniel culminates in the heaven-to-earth mission of Emmanuel, come to save His people from their sins.

The incarnation-cross-resurrection event: Enthroned Grace enters human life

noreply@blogger.com (Chad Richard Bresson) — Sun, 03 Nov 2013 15:15:00 +0000

Our salvation is a Person. The incarnation of Christ assured the realization of our salvation in real time and space. All of life's meaning, indeed the church's hope and transformation, is dependent on Christ taking on flesh to win salvation for us in his life, death, resurrection, and exaltation. But it is not simply an objective reality "to be wondered at". Christ invades our space and transforms us, uniting us to himself and gathering us to his church. This is the lifeblood of the gospel we preach.

Thus, George Peters:

"The incarnation-cross-resurrection event is crucial to the interpretation of history. It is focal in biblical revelation. Here the Old and New Testaments merge and divide. This event is central to the divine history of salvation (Heilsgeschichte). Here promise exchanges for fulfillment—shadow gives way to reality—sin is judged—forgiveness is offered. Here wrath is propitiated, grace is enthroned, death is defeated, and life and immortality come to light.

"...The incarnation-cross-resurrection event is the cosmic divide that separates darkness from light, the temporal from the eternal, the carnal from the spiritual, death from immortality, perdition from life, condemnation from presence, and hell from heaven. The incarnation-cross-resurrection event is the fountain and foundation of the salvation of God, the only hope for mankind.

"It is the pinnacle of Christ’s self-giving love for mankind. It is a spectacle to the world, a stumbling block to the Jews, foolishness to the Greeks, a rock of offense to the disobedient, and a mystery to the angels. It is the manifestation of the holiness and righteousness of God in relation to sin, and the language of the love of God in relation to the guilt and lostness of the sinner.

"In the incarnation-cross-resurrection event, holiness, righteousness and love blend in beautiful harmony for the glory of God and the welfare of man, bringing about salvation and making propitiation, reconciliation, redemption, restoration and glorification divine realities and assuring their eventual realization.

"...The salvation of God is rooted in eternity and actualized in time. Eternity with its spiritual glory, fullness and blessings is invading time and humanity. Salvation for man is here now. God in Christ Jesus and through the Holy Spirit enters human life. He is entering me. Salvation is not merely an objective reality to be wondered at, a theological dictum to be debated about, a philosophical theory to be speculated about—not even merely a marvelous subject to be preached about.

"It is a divine reality entering the human being to transform his fundamental disposition, cleanse him from sin and unrighteousness, redeem him from bondage and corruption, impart to him the nature of God, recreate in him the image of Christ, make him a child of God, a member of the household of God, and qualify him through the gift of the Holy Spirit to live a life of true discipleship in the midst of a world almost destitute of the consciousness of God and eternity.

"Salvation is not a detached gift of God in some gracious and miraculous way bestowed upon man. Salvation is Christ, and to experience salvation is to experience Christ. Salvation is person-centered. It is Christ-identification. It is not the experience of something, but rather, the experience of Someone. The Bible does not teach that Christ has salvation and dispenses it like a benevolent master giving gifts to his servants who obey him. Christ is our salvation and gives Himself to us as our salvation.

"Salvation is not a bundle of costly gifts which the Lord distributes freely and from which we select whatever we like or find. It is rather the experience of a Person in whom all the fullness of the Godhead dwells. Thus in Christ I am becoming the recipient of the fullness of God. He is our life; He is our strength; He is our peace; He is our joy; He is our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption. Jesus Christ Himself is the content of our salvation.

"...Christianity is not primarily a philosophy of religion, a way of life, or a set of beliefs and practices. It is a Person, and the experience of salvation is the experience of the person of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ—not a gift from Him, or a part of Him. He can neither be divided in Himself nor separated from His salvation." - George Peters, A Biblical Theology of Missions, p. 62-65

The Kingdom where the Light is Always On

noreply@blogger.com (Chad Richard Bresson) — Thu, 31 Oct 2013 21:37:00 +0000

(Reposted from October 25, 2005) It's always interesting to read the news reports, blog posts, Facebook updates, and tweets regarding the American church and her "position" on Halloween. Do we, or don't we?

An overlooked alternative to what I think tends to be isolationist abstention (self-righteous in some instances) is participation in trick or treating itself. Halloween is mandatory at our house. The last thing our block needs is a shuttered house that, contrary to what can be a puffy-chested "we make sure we're not home that night" self-righteousness that somehow thinks it is making a statement against Satan, sends the message that our house is the last place to turn to for help in time of need. Halloween night, our house is wide-open with smiles AND candy galore. Our kids are dressed to make a candy haul (of course, in time, they'll regret the pix of them wearing Cincinnati Bengals regalia) because this is the one night of the year my neighbor's societally-induced walls are down and I want them to know I'm up the street if they need me.

Yeah... I've heard all of the "pagan" reasons Christians should avoid Halloween. The question is whether we are actually particpating in Samhain when we participate in Halloween? Who or what makes the "Witch's League of Public Awareness" the definers of what Halloween is, either now or historically? Such a connection between Samhain and my daughter as a ladybug or my son as a Bengals Boy is highly dubious, IMHO. I can just as easily make the case from history that my daughter is participating in a historically Christian event rooted in Roman Catholic customs tied to "All Souls Day": "It started with two early European customs called "mumming" and "souling," which merged into the lighthearted practice we know today. "Mummers" were mischievous revelers who dressed in outlandish costumes and demanded payment to restrain themselves. During the same time of year, families baked sweet cakes, or "soul cakes," and gave them to family members and neighbors in exchange for prayers for relatives who had died."

The “mumming” on “All Souls Day” was a church event. Apparently, the church believed that one can do Halloween without participating in the pagan event. Halloween is as much historically a church event as pagan... it depends on what you as a person decide you want to tie it to. The "Christian" roots of Halloween are not in attempts to Christianize a pagan festival, but are squarely rooted in vigil observances tied to the Catholic "All Hallows Day" that took place the night before. Hallow's Eve is a Christian designation for that church event which was held the day before All Soul's Day, so the name itself is Christian in origin. Our Halloweening has more "root" in the religious (which does include going door to door asking for food in return for a prayer for the dead the next day... it was called "Souling") than it does in paganism, albeit praying for the dead - a church event - could itself be tied to the pagan... but... I digress. Evangelicals today who attempt to "reclaim" Halloween are doing precisely what the Catholic church has been doing for hundreds of years in All Hallows Day.

Halloween is not "Satan's holiday", as some evangelicals are fond of calling it. "Satan's holiday" is every day and has been since Adam abdicated his dominion. It is especially so when Satan can get Christians in a tither about one night a year, and make nary a peep about 364 nights of cheating on taxes, cheating on wives, screaming at kids, gossipping, unneighborly spitefulness... all as much "from darkness" (or more) as putting on a Tweety Bird costume and asking neighbors for Butterfingers.

And what of the alternative? One of the most important events of Christian history took place on Halloween: the recovery of the gospel. On October 31, 1517 Martin Luther posted ("nailed" is pure Hollywood) his 95 gripes about indulgences on the bulletin board at the Wittenberg church, knowing parishioners would be there later that night for their All Hallows vigil and related activities. Certainly, Reformation Day (October 31) festivities are a wonderful alternative that provide the opportunity to showcase Christ and the proclamation of His story. I've often wondered why Reformation Day isn't celebrated more, given that Christ is at the heart of an event that turned the world upside down. But for too many, at the expense of being salt and light, Reformation Day "dress up" and "fellowship" has been an "isolationist" alternative to Halloween. As if the kingdom is somehow advanced and culture transformed by our Christianized "baptism" of the Halloween event.

We're missing the bigger picture, I think. I've come to believe that our participation in Halloween is not about reclaiming. It's about reconciliation. We live in a fractured society. Broken homes mean broken neighborhoods. Urban sprawl not only means driving a half hour to church or work, but it also means I no longer spend much time over the back fence. Homes go up for sale, are occupied, then sold again, and I can't even remember the neighbor's first name. It's not that I have no desire to be the good neighbor. Our culture wants it that way... likes it that way. Space is a prized commodity.

Whether we "fundymentalists" like it or not, Halloween is the one night a year when the walls come down and the space is open for all comers. Americans drop the barriers on Halloween night. It is the one night a year I am welcome on my neighbor's porch no questions asked. I insist on taking my daughter and son round the block and over the back fence. While it's true one can be a good neighbor at all times of the year, it's not true that being a good neighbor is welcome at all times of the year. Halloween is the one night a year, without forcing myself into an unwelcome intrusion of space, I can shake a hand, exchange pleasantries, and if possible... even for that brief moment, let the neighbor know at least one guy on the block cares about who they are and is glad to be their neighbor. It is the one night that I know they will be at my door wide open exchanging similar pleasantries. Halloween is our culture's built-in block party and as a lesser light of The Light on a hill, I insist on being part of it.

I hear some of my fellow Christians gush in that "spiritual sort of way" about the one place they won't be on Halloween night: home. And if they are home, the light will most certainly be "off". What kind of message does it send to the rest of the neighborhood? How is that counter-culture? Our fractured society needs "homes" where the porch light is always blazing. Of all the houses on the block, mine should be the one that the neighbors know is a welcome center. If we had a sniper shooting on our block, I want my house to be "grief central". We have a domestic disturbance home on the block. Come Halloween, Luke and Noelle in their get-ups will be my ticket into a shuttered home.

One night does not a neighbor make (and one night does not a pagan make), but Halloween is the one night of the year where the good neighborliness that flows from being in Christ is communicated and reinforced. We are citizens of another Kingdom where The Light is always on.

Blake White: "We cannot approach the Old Testament as if the New Testament had not been written"

noreply@blogger.com (Chad Richard Bresson) — Thu, 17 Oct 2013 12:16:00 +0000

"I take 2 Corinthians 1:20 literally: 'For no matter how many promises God has made, they are 'Yes' in Christ.' (NIV) I am advocating a 'Christotelic' hermeneutic.

Peter Enns notes, 'To read the OT 'Christotelicly' is to read it already knowing that Christ is somehow the end (telos) to which the OT story is heading; in other words, to read the OT in light of the exclamation point of the history of revelation, the death and resurrection of Christ.'

The New Testament provides God-breathed commentary on what the Old Testament means. We must interpret the Old Testament as Christian disciples. For Christian interpreters, we cannot approach the Old Testament as if the New Testament had not been written." -- Blake White, The Abrahamic Promises in Galatians, p. 12

Christocentric Mission: "'what are your doctrines?’ ‘There they stand incarnate.'"

noreply@blogger.com (Chad Richard Bresson) — Tue, 15 Oct 2013 22:40:00 +0000

What is it we take to the world? Of course, it is the gospel. Who Christ is, what Christ has done for his people, what Christ has done in and through his people, AND what He offers those who do not know him is the essence of the gospel message. But those *facts* are much more than data points in a conversation or sermon. Those facts arise from a Person. We take to the world a Person by means of those facts. Charles Spurgeon summed up the Person and His Mission best 154 years ago standing in front of a crowd at a YMCA:

“What is the faith? Strange to say, the faith of Christians is a person. Our faith is a person; the gospel that we have to preach is a person; and go wherever we may, we have something solid and tangible to preach, for our gospel is a person.

"If you had asked the twelve Apostles in their day, ‘What do you believe in?’ they would not have stopped to go round about with a long sermon, but they would have pointed to their Master and they would have said, ‘We believe him.’ ‘But what are your doctrines?’ ‘There they stand incarnate.’ ‘But what is your practice?’ ‘There stands our practice. He is our example.’ ‘What then do you believe?’ Hear the glorious answer of the Apostle Paul, ‘We preach Christ crucified.’

"Our creed, our body of divinity, our whole theology is summed up in the person of Christ Jesus. The Apostle preached doctrine; but the doctrine was Christ: he preached practice; but the practice was all in Christ. There is no summary of the faith of a Christian that can compass all he believes, except that word Christ; and that is the alpha and omega of our creed, that is the first and the last rule of our practice - Christ, even Christ crucified.

"To spread the faith, then, is to spread the knowledge of Christ crucified. It is, in fact, to bring men, through the agency of God's Spirit, to feel their need of Christ, to seek Christ, to believe in Christ, to love Christ, and then to live for Christ.

"We cannot propagate the faith, unless it be in the heart. Our faith does not grow in men's heads; it is here it grows, in the inmost soul. A faith which merely concerns the brain, and deals with dull, cold logic, may be the faith of the many, but it is not the faith of God's elect. That faith is a living thing - nay, it is life; it is Christ, and 'Christ is the way, the truth, and the life'.

"The faith is never spread unless Christ is begotten in our hearts, the hope of glory; unless he reigns there supreme, Lord paramount of all.” -- Charles Spurgeon, De Propaganda Fide, Lecture at the YMCA, January 1859

Christ as "content" and "interpretation": "The Old Testament reveals Christ while He unveils it."

noreply@blogger.com (Chad Richard Bresson) — Tue, 15 Oct 2013 04:48:00 +0000

"Where did Christ find His missionary idea? How was His mind molded into a missionary mind? Was it intuitive or scriptural? Did He learn it from the Old Testament? Was it special illumination?

"It is a fact that Christ claimed to have come to fulfill the Old Testament. It was His Bible, His guide, and His stay. He used it richly; He preached it freely; He honored it humbly; He believed it firmly. The Old Testament was for Him the very Word of God written. While He was its heart and content and all Scripture pointed to Him, He was also its true Interpreter. Indeed, the Old Testament reveals Christ while He unveils it. He is both its content and interpretation.

"But it is also true that He found not only His major theological concepts here but also the scope of God’s redemptive plan. The latter was universalistic and included the totality of mankind, not merely a nation. This is the thesis we need to establish, for it seems strange to make such a claim for the Old Testament. However, even the Old Testament does not fully disclose the secret of Christ’s missionary mind and purpose.

"It is evident to every reader of the gospel records that Christ lived in a unique God-consciousness and self-consciousness. He knew Himself to be the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father. He walked and labored in the full consciousness of having been sent into the world, of having entered the earthly realm from a higher realm. He had come here on a very specific mission, a mission essential to the consummation of the eternal purpose of God." - George Peters, A Biblical Theology of Missions, p. 53

Peters: Christ did not come to be the perfect pattern for life

noreply@blogger.com (Chad Richard Bresson) — Sun, 13 Oct 2013 10:39:00 +0000

"Did Christ come into the world to give mankind a perfect pattern of life? Did He live to declare to man the way of God? Did Christ come to manifest the Father by living and to unveil Him by teaching? To all these questions we must give an affirmative answer. Yes, Christ is our pattern; He is the way; He is the supreme, perfect and final image and manifestation of the Father.

"However, in all of these ministries He would only quantitatively distinguish Himself from the prophets of old. They, too, upheld ideals in the way of God and unveiled God in His person and purpose before man. As significant and marvelous as the contributions of Christ are in these areas, He is not absolutely unique in this field. This, therefore, neither fully explains nor justifies the great fact of incarnation. Neither does the New Testament make this central to His coming.

"John the Baptist focuses the thrust of the New Testament when he points to Christ and declares, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” This is in keeping with the declared purpose of our Lord when He says, “For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” Explicitly, he tells us that the good Shepherd lays down His life for the sheep (Jn 1:29; 10:11; Mk 10:45).

"Here is the real purpose of the coming of Christ. Here is the heart of the incarnation. Christ Jesus came to deal effectively with sin, to become the atonement for sin, the liquidator of man’s guilt, as well as the Conqueror and Annihilator of sin. That He did so is objectively evident in His resurrection and enthronement at the right hand of God the Father. Subjectively it is convincing in the experience of forgiveness of sin and deliverance from the power of sin of believers in Him who learn to appropriate His merits and power." - George Peters, A Biblical Theology of Missions (pp. 45–46)

The Bracketology of Matthew

noreply@blogger.com (Chad Richard Bresson) — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 13:01:00 +0000

The stage has been set. The brackets have been expended. Bracketology is winding down. The brackets have served their purposes. There will be a final conclusion. The American college basketball season will draw to a close.

But there is a different kind of bracketology employed by biblical writers. And this kind of bracketology points us to mission in the New Covenant. The bracketology of Matthew. This bracketology expresses the mission of Jesus. An explanation is in order (and jumping back to English 101 for most of us).

We use brackets all the time. We use brackets in our sentences to set off a thought or phrase. Some moms use two gates in their home to bracket off a particular room to confine a toddler to one play-safe room. Some of us need the bowling rails as brackets to confine our bowling balls to the lane, rather than the gutters. Brackets are used to contain something of value to a singular unit, space, thought, etc.

Literature has its brackets. We call them chapters and paragraphs, using indentation, capitalization, and spacing to confine thoughts and ideas and action to singular "units". This kind of organizing helps make text easier to understand. The literature of the Bible has its own "bracketology", albeit of a different kind.

Our English Bibles are organized into sections called chapters and verses. The Bible wasn't always organized this way. The writers of the Bible had their own way of organizing the text so that it was meaningful to the original audiences who heard the Bible read in the clan meetings, the synagogue, the tabernacle, or temple. Usually this involved repeating words or phrases or thoughts.

The book of Genesis is a popular example. The book of Genesis is marked off in sections by use of the word "generations". This word is repeated throughout the book of Genesis as Moses gave literary and theological structure to his writing. If one includes Genesis 1:1 (the word "beginning" carries the same thought), there are 12 of these words throughout Genesis (1:1, 2:4 (records), 5:1, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:12, 25:19, 36:1, 36:9, and 37:2. The use of "generations" (Hebrew: toledot) are the brackets used by the author Moses to organize the book.

These kinds of literary devices are all over the Scripture. They are not hidden. We miss them simply because we are not ancient Hebrew worshipers used to following the organization of the Scriptures this way. (Linguists and theologians calls these literary markers "inclusios".) Repetition in our Bibles is a big deal. Repetition, parallelism, and literary markers (brackets or inclusios) were used to organize the Bible in a meaningful way for the ancient cultures. A good habit for any Bible student is to make note of the repetitions and parallels as the Bible is read. It's a quick way of discerning what was important to the biblical author writing under the inspiration of the Spirit.

This parallelism begins and ends Christ's commissioning of the disciples found in Matthew. Do you see it?

Jesus Christ's "Missionary Discourse" is bracketed off from preceding and succeeding sections in the book of Matthew. The apostle Matthew uses a literary device (what we're calling "brackets") to highlight what is important for the original audience, the early church in the New Covenant, to understand, believe, and do in this section of his book.

In order to understand what the apostle Matthew was highlighting for the early church, a very brief bracketology lesson is in order. These repetitive brackets which begin and end Bible passages are part and parcel to Hebrew parallelism. This parallelism is not only a feature of Hebrew poetry, but all manner of ancient Hebrew writing, prose included (if you're interested in knowing more about Hebrew parallelism, go here and here and here and here, or if you're really bent on finding out more, go here; keep in mind, this kind of parallelism is not exclusive to Hebrew poetry). When one finds a repeated sentence, thought, or sometimes imagery at the top and bottom of a Scripture passage, not only is one probably dealing with parallelism, but also the brackets (inclusios).

Not only do these markers help organize passages of Scripture, they carry meaning. Embedded in these markers are the theology, eschatology, and worldview of the inspired writers of the Scriptures. These "brackets" point to the intention of the author, highlighting "what it is" he wants the original audience to hear and understand. Identifying the parallelism (in similarity or contrast) at the top and bottom of a passage goes a long way in identifying the what the biblical writer wanted his original audience to know, understand, believe, and/or do. It also goes a long way in helping us rightly interpret the Scriptures by keeping thoughts, ideas, events, and instructions in their proper context.

One such place is in the great missionary passage found in the book of Matthew, beginning in chapter 9 verse 35 and ending in chapter 11 verse 1. This so-called missionary passage in Matthew 9:35-11:1 picks up on a theme of proclaiming gospel and kingdom begun by Matthew in 4:23: "Jesus was going all over Galillee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every sickness among the people."(HCSB)

Matthew presents Jesus as the expected but unexpected Messiah-King who has come to save his people from their sins and inaugurate His (upside-down) kingdom in fulfillment of the Old Testament promises. Christ comes on mission, but his mission is not what Israel expected of its Messiah. Christ comes "teaching" and "preaching" the "good news of the kingdom." This mission is not to overthrow Rome, but to gather a people to Himself among whom He will dwell as their king. This Messiah-King comes "healing", reversing the curse and ushering in a New Creation.

In chapter 9, we see Matthew's summary statement of Christ's mission repeated as an introduction to a new section of Matthew. Verse 35: "Then Jesus went to all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every sickness." (HCSB) First century Christians hearing Matthew's epistle in their gathering would have perked up their ears on hearing this. They've heard this already from Matthew, in 4:23. The repetition here means Matthew is emphasizing a point. And then the theme is repeated again in Matthew 11:1: "When Jesus had finished giving orders to His 12 disciples, He moved on from there to teach and preach in their towns." (HCSB)

What does Matthew want his audience to understand, believe, and do by way of these repetitions or "brackets"?

The apostle Matthew uses a literary device (what we’re calling “brackets”) to highlight what is important for the original audience, the early church, to understand, believe, and do in this section of his book.

We have previously noted that there are similarities between Matthew 4:23, Matthew 9:35, and Matthew 11:1:

Matthew 4:23: "Jesus was going all over Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people."

Matthew 9:35: "Jesus went to all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every sickness."

Matthew 11:1: "When Jesus had finished giving orders to His 12 disciples, He moved on from there to teach and preach in their towns."

Each summary statement notes Christ's preaching and teaching (of the kingdom of God), his healing of the sick (minus a mention in 11:1), and his movement from town to town with His gospel message and ministry. The apostle Matthew uses these summary statements to highlight for the early church to whom he is writing the nature of Christ's ministry as the Unexpected Messiah proclaiming an Upside-Down Kingdom.

It is fair to ask: why are Matthew's "brackets" important? Even more to the point: why bother with the discussion at all? The answer lies in the reason Matthew has placed these literary markers where he has in the overall setting of the book of Matthew. His structure of the text is a major clue for understanding what he intended for the early church to know, believe, and do.

We've already noted that Matthew 9:35 and 11:1 provide the beginning and ending points for what has been called Matthew's "Missionary Discourse". This mission text thus looks like this:

"Then Jesus went to all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every sickness." (Matthew 9:35)

Narrative and discourse (Matthew 9:36-10:42)

"When Jesus had finished giving orders to His 12 disciples, He moved on from there to teach and preach in their towns." (Matthew 11:1)

What follows the summary statement in Matthew 9:35 is Christ's commission and sending of the twelve disciples in Matthew 10:5, a commission that mimics Christ's mission. Christ's sending (apesteilen) of the disciples is anticipated in the "summoning" of the twelve apostles (apostolon). These Christ sends (apostello) as sheep among wolves just as Christ has done previously and will continue to do throughout the book of Matthew.

All of the elements of those Matthean summary statements (4:23, 9:35, 11:1) are here in the commission of chapter 10. The disciples are to "announce" (preach and teach) the kingdom (vs. 7). They are given authority to heal and cast out demons (vs. 1,8). The disciples are to carry out this activity in the "towns" of the Jewish people in Israel (vs. 5-6). Eventually, they will be bearing witness of Christ to the nations, an indication that their mission will someday include Samaritans and Gentiles (vs. 18). For some of these disciples, the mission will cost them their lives (vs. 16,21). These elements of activity, place, and message inherent to the apostles' mission (healing, proclamation, "towns", kingdom) are themes found in Matthew's summary statements of Christ's mission in Matthew 4:23 and Matthew 9:35. And the common language being used in these passages means Christ's commission and sending of the disciples in Matthew 10:5-8 is parallel to Matthew 4:23, Matthew 9:35, and Matthew 11:1, with Matthew 9:35 and Matthew 11:1 being used as brackets for the entire commissioning section in the great mission chapter (Matthew 10).

Christ's mission becomes the mission of the apostles. The disciples become the answer to the prayer of Matthew 9:38: Pray that the Lord of the harvest ekballo (propel, thrust) workers into His harvest. The Lord of the harvest does precisely that with the apostles in chapter 10, but they will accomplish much more than is first expected. They begin on mission to Israel, but it does not end there. Theirs is a mission that will spread Christ's glory to all nations over the expanse of the globe.

What does any of this have to do with missionary activity, reaching the unreached, or carrying the gospel message to remote corners of the world?

Christ sends his disciples on mission, proclaiming the kingdom of gospel of Christ's kingdom.

Matthew's "Missionary Discourse" is bracketed by two summary statements. The structure of this section of his book begins and ends with Christ's proclamation mission of the kingdom. And in between we find Christ commissioning his disciples with the same message. The discourse includes Christ's commission of his disciples, which looks much like Christ's own mission:

“Then Jesus went to all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every sickness.” (Matthew 9:35)

Jesus sent out these 12 after giving them instructions...“Don’t take the road leading to other nations, and don’t enter any Samaritan town. 6 Instead, go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 As you go, announce this: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those with skin diseases, drive out demons." (Matthew 10:5-7)

“When Jesus had finished giving orders to His 12 disciples, He moved on from there to teach and preach in their towns.” (Matthew 11:1)

The commission given by Christ matches the summary statements from Matthew regarding Christ's ministry. Christ proclaims. The disciples are to announce. Christ goes to "towns". The disciples go to the towns of the lost sheep of Israel. Christ proclaims the kingdom. The disciples announce "the kingdom of God is near". The brackets of Christ's mission (Matthew 9:35, Matthew 11:1) are pointing to the commission of the disciples (Matthew 10:5-7). Christ's mission becomes the mission of the disciples to proclaim the arrival of the kingdom in the Person and work of the Messiah-King Jesus.

But so what? What does any of this have to do with missionary activity, reaching the unreached, or carrying the gospel message to remote corners of the world? What does Matthew's bracketology have to do with our mission?

Here are some takeaways from the Matthew 9:35-11:1 passage:

The brackets in this section of Matthew (9:35 and 11:11) are Matthew's way of making sure that the church to whom he was sending his account of Christ's first advent (his life, death, resurrection, and exaltation) would continue to notice that Christ came into this world on mission. Emmanuel's mission is other-worldly. The "descension" from heaven is the divine activity of Father sending the Son into the world to take on human flesh in order to "save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). God is With Us, comes from heaven bringing heaven with him: the kingdom he is inaugurating is the kingdom of heaven. Matthew's Messiah-King is establishing His kingdom in fulfillment of the Old Testament promises through mission.

"Saving his people from their sins" involves missionary activity. Early in the book of Matthew, "Jesus was going all over Galilee, teaching"… and "preaching the good news of the kingdom" (Matthew 4:23). In Matthew 9, the mission is again noted by Matthew: "Jesus went to all the towns and villages…"teaching" and "preaching" the good news of the kingdom." (Matthew 9:35). The movement that began from heaven to earth in the Incarnation of Emmanuel continues toward His people, a harvest (Matthew 9:38). Initially, we find the Messiah in Matthew gathering his people from among Israel (Matthew 4:23; his preaching and teaching is in "the synagogues"). But that mission eventually will include the Gentiles (Matthew 4:15). The mission that began in heaven will encompass the whole earth (Matthew 28:18) and engulf all nations (Matthew 28:19).

Christ's mission has a message. The Son of David's mission to "save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21) is in and of itself Good News. The King's people are being "called to repentance" (Matthew 9:13). This "Light that has Dawned" (Matthew 4:16) continues to preach and teach the good news of the kingdom (Matthew 4:17), fulfilling the Old Testament promises which anticipated his coming (Matthew 1:23, 2:15, 2:23, 3:15, 4:14, 5:17, 8:17, 12:17, 13:35, 21:4, 26:56, 27:9). The old order, along with its leaders and oppressive religion, is out. A new day has come, ushered in by a Messiah-King who is establishing His rule and reign among a people with whom he dwells. Absent from the Son of Man is the blaze of glory anticipated in Daniel. Instead, God has condescended himself to man by putting on human flesh and becoming a servant who gives his life a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28). Where this message is proclaimed through "preaching" and "teaching", the Messiah-King is establishing a church against which the gates of Hell cannot prevail (Matthew 16:18). The proclamation of who this Messiah-King is, what he has done for His people, and what he calls his people to do is to be taken to every corner of the globe. This is the message of the mission until Emmanuel's kingdom is realized in its fullest measure (Matthew 28:18-20).

Christ's disciples have the same mission as his. This is the thrust of the parallels. It is the heart of Matthew's missionary bracketology. Christ's own mission (Matthew 9:35 and Matthew 11:1) is found in his commission of the disciples (Matthew 10:5-7). As the disciples mimic their teacher (Matthew 10:24-25), Christ's mission becomes the disciples' mission. Christ sends the disciples on mission with the same activities in the same kinds of places with the same message as He has been doing and proclaiming since the beginning of the book of Matthew (4:23). Thus, Christ's message is the disciples' message. Christ is going to the synagogues in the towns and villages. The disciples too. The Messiah-King is proclaiming the good news of an other-worldly kingdom being established through the salvation of His people from their sins. The disciples too. Whatever Jesus has been doing in preaching and teaching and healing and confronting the demonic activity, the disciples are sent by Jesus to do the same thing. They are to immerse themselves in His mission to Israel (and ultimately, to the ends of the earth). Like teacher, like student. The disciples become participants in the Messiah-King's mission to establish His kingdom among His people.

But this isn't simply mission duplication. It is true that 12 can accomplish more than 1. But that's not what the disciples are to understand, nor is it what the early church is to be seeing in Matthew's words. This is mission transfer. Christ soon will die, rise, and be exalted as King of Kings and Lord of Lords at the right hand of the Father. The disciples will remain on earth to finish the mission. What the early church must see and what we must see in the commissioning of the disciples is that the disciples are on mission on behalf of the King. The disciples are on mission accomplishing "more" than the King. We get this from the mission summary in Matthew 28. Christ's mission included Gentiles, but his focus throughout much of the book of Matthew is to the Jewish people. In fact, in Matthew 10, when he commissions the 12, he specifically excludes the Gentiles (Matthew 10:5-6). But having inaugurated heaven's kingdom through His sacrificial death, he has no such familial limitations in his command to the disciples in Matthew 28. The mission is to spread over the whole earth to all people groups. Through the disciples, Christ's mission becomes the mission of the church: gathering His people from among all people groups over the entire globe.

There's one other way the brackets and the parallelism in this section highlight Christ's mission as the disciples' mission: eventually this mission will cost the Son of David his life (Matthew 26:28). The disciples too (Matthew 10:21,22). Christ does not send the disciples on a mission that He himself isn't willing to undertake. The disciples, in answer to the mission prayer (Matthew 9:38), are being "ekballoed" (propelled) into Christ's harvest of a kingdom people. But the One who sends is the One who Himself will be "ekballoed" from the harvest (Matthew 21:39,41). The Lord of the Harvest will die for the Harvest. Emmanuel's mission, which began in heaven when the Father sent the Son, culminates in his death to procure for his people salvation, forgiveness of sins, and the inauguration of a New Covenant and kingdom. The Son of Man dies on mission. Christ's death is so integral to his mission from heaven, the early church can do nothing but conclude that without His death, there is no mission.

While the disciples cannot die for the forgiveness of sins, the mission they are given in Matthew 10:5 is embedded with suffering, hardship, and death for the sake of Christ. Mission has been embodied by Christ. And that Pattern is where the disciples and the early church were to find their mission identity. As Christ unpacks for his disciples what it means for the Lord of the harvest to ekballo workers into a harvest of His people, it becomes very clear that the very act of "ekballo" involves suffering and death. "I'm sending you out like sheep among wolves...people will hand you over...and flog you...brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will even rise up against their parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by everyone because of My name." The disciples and all who follow after them can expect their mission and message and suffering to be like Christ's because they are united to the Lord of the Harvest who was first on mission to gather to himself a people through the proclamation of the gospel.

This is Matthew's missional bracketology. It's not the kind of a bracketology that generates office pools and pizza parties. But it is one that is fueling a generation of Reformed millenials to abandon the white picket fence and two-car garage to run to the fields where a harvest of Christ's people awaits. Christ's mission is the New Covenant mission for the church. New Covenant mission is the church engaging itself in Christ's mission to proclaim the gospel of the kingdom to the ends of the earth. No longer simply to the "towns" of Israel, the New Covenant community proclaims the world over to Jews and Gentiles alike, "Christ's kingdom is here, inaugurated by the blood of the covenant in His death." (Matthew 10:5-7, Matthew 26:28). Christ rules and reigns on his throne and His people are charged with the mission of the proclamation of the gospel to all people groups everywhere.

3 billion people around the world have never heard the good news of Jesus. These 3 billion will be born, live their lives, and die before anyone tells them about Jesus. They are unreached. They have no access to the gospel. And they are unengaged: no church or Christian organization is going to them with the good news of Jesus. Each one of the 3 billion who have never heard of Jesus have a story. Christ's mission is our mission to take the gospel to many of the 3 billion unreached. We are a people of the brackets. Matthew would have us find ourselves standing next to the disciples, hearing Christ say, I'm sending you, the church, as sheep among wolves, to proclaim the Good News of Jesus and his kingdom to the ends of the earth. Emmanuel's mission continues to be our mission.

O'Donnell's sermon prep questions

noreply@blogger.com (Chad Richard Bresson) — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:01:00 +0000

Here at the Simeon Trust Workshop on Biblical Exposition in Columbus this week, Douglas O'Donnell passed along a set of 11 questions he asks of his study of the text in his sermon preparation:

Did you take at least half a day to make your own observations on the text?
Did you find the skeletal structure of the text?
Did you seek to understand how the original audience understood God’s Word to them before you applied it to your hearers?
Did you interpret Scripture with Scripture (i.e., the analogy of faith), the unclear by the clear, and implicit by the explicit? Did you examine the text’s context – its immediate context, the book’s context, historical context (when and by whom it was written, if known), and literary context (genre)?
Did you examine the text in light of the main message of the book?
Did you examine the text in light of the main message of The Book? That is, did you relate the text to the centerpiece of the canon – the person and work of Christ?
Did you, without straying from the historical Christian orthodoxy (i.e., the rule of faith), allow the text to shape and change, if needed, your theological framework?
Did you read solid commentaries to help with difficult issues, correct your interpretation, and add exegetical insights?
Did your applications come from the text itself, or did you add your own legalisms or liberalisms to the Bible?
Did you take another half day to make more of your own observations of the text (see first question, repeat)?

The OT in the NT

Blake White — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 09:17:00 +0000

The other day I posted this on Facebook:

Christian, want to elevate your view of Jesus and deepen your appreciation for Scripture? In your reading, when the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, go back and read the whole chapter in which the particular Old Testament verse verse is found.
I wanted to give just one example. The following is an excerpt from a forthcoming book I am writing on Israel and the church:

The Fig-less Fig Tree, the New Temple, and the Den of Robbers

On the way back into Jerusalem, Jesus sees a fig tree that had no figs on it and says, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again” (Mark 11:14). I once heard a man teach that this is just a random inclusion to show that Jesus was frustrated at times. Um, not quite. Jesus sees himself as a new Jeremiah, warning unrepentant Israel. Right after the cursing of the fig tree, Jesus cleanses the temple, in an enacted parable of judgment. Jesus knocks over the tables and scathes his unrepentant people “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers” (Mark 11:17). Here, Jesus alludes to two OT passages: Isaiah 56 and Jeremiah 7.[1]

Doubtless, Jesus has the larger context of those verses in mind when he cites them. Recall that Isaiah 56 is the promise of the salvation of Israel and of Gentiles who join themselves to the Lord. Then it speaks of these foreigners becoming priests and ministering to the Lord as his servants (Isa. 56:6). The very next verse says, “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples,” which Jesus quotes. Jeremiah 7 was Jeremiah’s “temple sermon.” The Lord had told Jeremiah to stand at the gate of the temple and preach. Jeremiah was to warn the people of God: “Amend your ways and your deeds” (Jer. 7:3). He warned Judah that if they amend their wicked ways, God would let them dwell in that place. Then the Lord asks,

Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Go now to my place that was in Shiloh, where I made my name dwell at first, and see what I did to it because of the evil of my people Israel. And now, because you have done all these things, declares the LORD, and when I spoke to you persistently you did not listen, and when I called you, you did not answer, therefore I will do to the house that is called by my name, and in which you trust, and to the place that I gave to you and to your fathers, as I did to Shiloh. And I will cast you out of my sight, as I cast out all your kinsmen, all the offspring of Ephraim. (Jer. 7:11-15)

Shiloh was the sanctuary before the monarchy that God judged through the Philistines (Ps. 78:60-64). If they do not repent, God will once again destroy the temple through judgment. The “robbers” are those who trust in the temple but offer corrupt worship.

So Jesus has a double message in mind when he combines these two passages. He picks up Isaiah to say that the vision of foreigners coming to do priestly service in a new temple is coming but currently the temple and its leadership is corrupt and, like at Shiloh, is on the verge of being destroyed. Elijah had come and warned but Israel had not amended their ways. So Jesus would destroy the temple (Mark 13) and build a new one where the nations would gather, he himself being the keystone.

Which is why the very next episode in the story is a return to the fig tree. Now the tree has “withered away to its roots” (Mark 11:20). The fig tree is a symbol of idolatrous Israel. Jesus is alluding to Jeremiah’s judgment oracle on unrepentant Judah. They will be punished and overthrown. “When I would gather them, declares the LORD, there are no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree; even the leaves are withered, and what I gave them has passed away from them” (Jer. 8:13, cf. Micah 7:1). The messenger had come before the great and terrible day of the Lord but the Jewish people did to him “whatever they pleased” (Mark 9:13). So the Lord would come and curse the land and the figless fig tree is a sobering illustration. Mark sandwiches the enacted judgment on the temple in between the fig tree teaching to make is point dramatically clear.

[1]Hays, Reading Backwards, 6-12.

Recent Conference Audio/Video

Blake White — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 11:20:00 +0000

For those interested, here are some links to some recent content from a couple conferences, one on Philippians and one on new covenant ethics:

2015 Cross to Crown Conference Audio/Video

2015 Heritage NCT Conference Audio

God Had Come Back in Jesus

Blake White — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 15:21:00 +0000

"Paul believed that the return of YHWH had happened in Jesus. He believed that this continues to happen when he made the announcement about Jesus. God had come back in the person of Jesus; God was coming, to the whole world, in the presence and power of his Spirit whenever the good news was announced. And one day, God - the God now made known in Jesus - would come back to finish the task, to be all in all, to fill the world with his glory and love, to transform everything, to rectify everything, to heal everything with his powerful love."

N.T. Wright, Simply Good News, 34

Get the Gospel Right & Everything Else Follows

Blake White — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 15:18:00 +0000

"Once people grasp that the events of the Messiah's death and resurrection have transformed everything and that they are now living between that initial explosive event and God's final setting right of the world (when God is 'all in all'), then everything will change: belief, behavior, attitudes, expectations, and not least a new love, a real sense of belonging, which springs up among those who share all this. That is what so much of Paul's writing is about. Get the gospel right, and everything else will come right."

N.T. Wright, Simply Good News, 26-27.

Colossians Outline

Blake White — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:31:00 +0000

I am teaching through Colossians in 8 weeks this Fall and am always helped by outlining the book to keep the big pic in mind. Here it is:

COLOSSIANS OUTLINE

I. Greeting 1:1-2

II. Thanksgiving 1:3-8

III. Christ & His Work Related to the False Teaching 1:9-2:5

A. Prayer for Wisdom and Growth 1:9-14

B. Christ the Lord over creation and the Church 1:15-20

C. Reconciliation and Perseverance 1:21-23

D. Paul's Ministry 1:24-2:5

IV. Walk in Him: The Gospel-Centered Life 2:6-4:6

A. Life in Christ 2:6-15

B. Don’t Be Enslaved to Man-Made Rules 2:16-23

C. Raised with Christ 3:1-4

D. Put Sin to Death 3:5-11

E. Put on Goodness 3:12-17

F. Christ in the House 3:18-4:1

G. Missional Living 4:2-6

V. Greetings and instructions 4:7-18

Who is the "Israel of God" in Galatians 6:16?

Blake White — Mon, 24 Aug 2015 16:04:00 +0000

At the end of his letter to the Galatians, Paul closes with:

Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God. (Gal. 6:15-16)

Lots of debate has surrounded the phrase "Israel of God." Who is Paul referring to? Is he referring strictly to ethnic Jews or the church - Jews and Gentiles? I think it is pretty clear that Paul is referring to the church. Two main reasons lead me to this conclusion: the larger context and the immediate context.

First, the larger context. The rule of exegesis is the same as that of real estate: location, location, location. On this question, the grammar and syntax are ambiguous so, as with every interpretive decision, context must be determinative. We must examine the conclusion of the letter in light of the whole letter. And in many ways, the point of the letter is that there is in fact no distinction between Jews and Gentiles. Remember that the anti-gospel missionaries had come along and were trying to force the Gentiles to "Judaize" (ἰουδαΐζειν), that is "to follow Jewish customs" (Gal. 2:14 NIV). They were saying to be come the true people of God, one must essentially become a Jew. Paul disagrees. Sharply.

So Paul is at pains to show that their teaching is emphatically false. It is anti-gospel. To force Gentiles to live like Jews is not walking in step with the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2:14). He shows again and again that Gentiles become part of the children of God through faith in the Messiah. One becomes a child of Abraham - that is, a Jew - by being united to the Jewish King. Notice how pervasive this truth is throughout the letter:

Galatians 3:7 - "Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham." This is the exact same thing as saying that believers are Jews. The church is Israel because of faith in Jesus.

Galatians 3:28 - "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Again, the clarity is crystal. There is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. All are one in Christ Jesus. One, not two.

Galatians 3:29 - "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." Who is the seed of Abraham? Who is Israel? Who are the Jews? Those who belong to Christ. The church is the heir of the promise made to Abraham.

Galatians 4:28 - "Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise." The Gentiles are the children of promise if they are in Christ.

Galatians 4:31 - "Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman." The Galatian believers are children of the free woman. Sarah's offspring is the church.

I am not really sure how Paul could be any clearer. He's flogging a flat-lined pony here. To make a distinction between Jews and Gentiles stands at odds with the warp and woof of the whole letter.

Second, the immediate context shows that the "Israel of God" includes Jews and Gentiles. Notice the structure of verses 15 and 16: in verse 15 Paul lays out the "rule" (κανών) of the new creation: "neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything." In other words, ethnicity means nada. Paul uses this same "rule" in two other places: Galatians 5:6 and 1 Corinthians 7:19. "What counts is the new creation" (Gal. 6:15). After laying out this "rule," Paul wishes peace and mercy on all who follow it, namely the Israel of God:

Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God. (Gal. 6:15-16)

What is striking here is that the prayer for peace and mercy is excluded from those who would posit that ethnicity matters; that circumcision and uncircumcision do matter; that there is a distinction between Jews and Gentiles in the economy of God!

So if Paul is wishing peace and mercy on those who follow the rule of the new creation, the rule that says in essence what he already said: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile", then he cannot be making a distinction between Jew and Gentile with the phrase "Israel of God" at the conclusion of this letter! This would not make sense in light of the immediate context. In fact, it would undermine everything he has said so far in the letter. All throughout, he has shown that all who are in Christ by faith are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

Therefore, based upon the larger and immediate context, the Israel of God in Galatians 6:16 includes any who are in Christ, Jew or Gentile.

________________________________________
A couple of my books on Galatians:

The Abrahamic Promises in Galatians

Galatians: A Theological Interpretation

The 'Old Perspective' on Paul is Actually Quite Old!

Blake White — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 12:52:00 +0000

If you are familiar with the academic debates on Paul and Judaism, you'll know that most advocates of the "new perspective" on Paul (NPP) are a tad left of Evangelical. For various reasons, most NPP advocates have denied that Paul wrote Ephesians, Colossians, and the Pastorals. This is no small thing. One of the linchpins of the NPP is seeing "works of the law" (erga nomou - ἔργων νόμου) as Jewish boundary markers, namely circumcision, Sabbath, and food laws – and not human works in general. So for them, Paul was not so much opposed to human effort to gain righteousness as he was to ethnocentrism. But those letters supposedly not written by Paul do not fit the NPP paradigm. They speak more generally of human works and not merely to "works of the law." For example:

2 Timothy 1:9 - God "who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began."

Titus 3:5 - "He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit."

Ephesians 2:8-9 - "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

In the book by E.P. Sanders (Paul and Palestinian Judaism) that started it all, in 449 pages there is one footnote on Ephesians 2:8-9. Other than that, there is not a single mention of these passages. Neither is there a single mention in Sanders’ 630 page Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, or in James Dunn’s Jesus, Paul, and the Law or in N.T. Wright’s The Climax of the Covenant![i] That's one way to do scholarship: merely ignore any evidence that doesn't fit your system.

But listen to this admission by one of the NPP big guns: James Dunn writes,

In all these cases [Phil 3, Rom, Gal], therefore, it is difficult to sustain the claim that Paul was polemicizing against ‘self-achieved righteousness.’ Of course the texts just reviewed can be read that way. The only question is whether those who read them that way have shifted the issue from one of Israel’s works of the law vis-à-vis Gentile acceptability to the more fundamental one of the terms of human acceptability by God. That may have happened already in Eph. 2.8-9, where the issue does seem to have moved from one of works of the law to one of human effort. But when the texts in the undisputed Pauline letters are read within the context of Paul’s mission emerging from its Jewish matrix, the resulting picture is rather different.[ii]

The shift from a concern over merely Jewish badges and "boundary markers" to works as in self-achievement "may have happened already" by the writing of Ephesians?! Some NPP advocates argue that "old perspective" advocates are pulling Paul out of his context and modernizing him and distorting him with our Western "introspective consciences." But here, NPP's poster boy says that Paul was being modernized . . . . in the 1^st Century!

While acknowledging that the NPP has brought many truths to the surface, I submit that the NPP advocates are the ones guilty of modernizing Paul on this particular issue. Away with sin, guilt, and blood. Replace those with community and unity, and dare not say anything remotely negative towards the Jews. Paul ends up sounding like a Postmodern, post-holocaust Protestant liberal. Surprise surprise. So when we bow the knee to all of God’s self-revelation, we see that seeking justification by works is a universal human problem, as we see from Ephesians and the Pastorals, as well as in Galatians and Romans.

[i] Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul, 406.

[ii] James Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 371.

Romans 7

Blake White — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 19:00:00 +0000

Romans 7 is notoriously controversial. Good Bible people land on both sides of just who this chapter is referring to. Does it refer to a Christian's experience or the experience of the unbelieving Jewish struggle to obey the Mosaic law? I think the latter.

For me, there are three main reasons, the biggest being that the new covenant believer is not under the Law of Moses and that whole chapter is about the struggle to keep that law. He starts in 7:1 saying he is speaking to Jews: those who know the law. Then in 7:6 he says we are released from the law. So in my view it cannot refer to the Christian struggle to keep the law because we are released from that law. We "serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code" (7:6).

The second main point that pushes me this way is the absence of the Spirit in Ch. 7 and the abundance of "Spirit" language in ch. 8. The word "Spirit" occurs 34 times in the book of Romans and 21 of those occur in chapter 8! The Spirit as the gift of the new covenant is the solution to why a Jew could not obey. The Spirit is mentioned in 7:6 about being free from the law then not mentioned again until 8:2. I think 7:5 is unpacked in 7:7-25 and 7:6 is unpacked in 8:1-17.

The third reason is that a "Christian" reading of 7 seems to contradict what Paul writes in ch. 6 and 8 about the believer:

Rom 7:14 - "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin."

But:

Rom 6:18 - "and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness."

Rom 6:22 - "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God"

Rom 7:5 - "For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death."

Rom 8:9 - "You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you."

Also, note the contrast between 7:23 and 8:2:

Rom 7:23 - "but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members."

Rom 8:2 - "For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death."

I do not think Rom 7:14 can be true of a believer. The dilemma of 7 is resolved in 8 through the work of Christ (Ch. 6) and the Spirit (Ch. 8).

(For theologians who take this view, see the work of Moo, Fee, Robert Reymond, Hays, Wright, Ridderbos, Longenecker, Chrysostom, Hoekema)

Citizens & Saints – Father You Are All We Need

Blake White — Tue, 21 Jul 2015 10:19:00 +0000

Acts 21:17-26

Blake White — Fri, 17 Jul 2015 16:39:00 +0000

I get asked about Acts 21 a lot. What exactly is going on there? The rest of the NT is univocal on the fact that new covenant Christians are not under the Mosaic law, but here it seems as if at least Jewish believers were supposed to keep the law. Here is the passage:

When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly. 18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, 21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. 22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law. 25 But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.” 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them. (Acts 21:17-26 ESV)

There were rumors among the Jerusalem church that Paul taught that Jewish believers should not circumcise their children. The rumors were false. Paul had no problem with Jewish believers circumcising their children. In fact, recall that he himself had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3)! Circumcision is a matter of indifference. Three different times Paul writes that circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing (Gal. 5:6, 6:15, 1 Cor. 7:19).

What Paul took issue with was people teaching or thinking that circumcision contributed to one's righteousness before God. What brought Paul's fangs out was when people sought to add to the gospel. Any addition to the gospel is a subtraction. This is why he refused to have Titus circumcised (Gal. 2:3). Paul's attitude was the same towards observing days on the Jewish calendar and abstaining from meat: "Who are you to pass judgement on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. . . . One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind" (Rom 14:4-5). If you eat and observe, do it for the Lord. If you abstain, do that for the Lord. Just don't judge one another on these indifferent matters.

Back in Jerusalem, to prove that Paul had no problem with Jewish believers voluntarily following the law, he joins and funds some men who were taking a Nazirite vow (Num. 6:1-21). The elders of the church in Jerusalem were not requiring Jewish believers to keep the Law and certainly were not asking Gentiles to do so (see Acts 15).

And Paul certainly didn't have to go along with their proposal. Perhaps he was wrong. But what we see is consistent with his practice and theology. He would rather go out of his way than cause believers to stumble. It was his aim to "give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God" and to try and "please everyone in everything" "not seeking [his] own advantage but that of many, that they may be saved. Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ" (1 Cor 10:32-11:1).

Also keep in mind that elsewhere, Paul will call such Jewish believers "weak" in faith, but encourages the strong to welcome them (Rom. 14:1). Those Jewish believers are wrong theologically but the strong ones are called to lay down their right for the edification of the many. What matters is walking in love (Rom. 14:15). "It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble" (Rom 14:21). The strong believer has an obligation to bear with the weak, to not please self, to please their neighbor, and to build them up - because that is exactly what Jesus did for us (Rom 15:1-3). Paul's actions in Acts 21 are consistent with his theology and practice. As F.F. Bruce once put it, "a truly emancipated spirit such as Paul's is not in bondage to its own emancipation."

So this is merely another example of Paul's missional lifestyle. He is willing to become all things to all people that he might further promote the gospel: "For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings" (1 Cor 9:19-23). In Acts 21, we merely see Paul "become as a Jew."

What I love about this passage is the Christ-centered attitude of two significant leaders in the early church - one over Jews and one over Gentiles. James rejoices with the news of what God (not Paul) is doing among the Gentiles. Paul is happy to lay down his rights to avoid a conflict with James and to avoid mass Jewish stumbling.

One may question the "rightness" of the Jews who were still zealous for the law, the "rightness" of the proposal by James and the elders, or the "rightness" of Paul's course of action. But one may not question the coherence of Scripture. There is nothing in this account that contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture on the topic of the law elsewhere. It is a beautiful description of a brilliant missionary-pastor driven by the cross.

Baptism Links

Blake White — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:37:00 +0000

I had a meeting with a friend today who has a paedobaptist background but is interested in joining our church. He wanted to dig deeper so I put together some links I have found helpful. Thought I'd share them here:

Superb article on the relationship of the covenants. This comes from this book on baptism, which is really good.
Interview with Stephen Wellum on baptism.
Interview with Tom Schreiner on baptism.
A blog post I wrote about the historic positions on the NT faith/baptism link.
Debate between Schreiner and VanDrunen. Here are parts one and two on YouTube.
Debate between Sproul and MacArthur on YouTube. You can purchase it here.
My book that shows that the new covenant is new, not merely renewed.

Paul was First of All a Missionary

Blake White — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 16:17:00 +0000

"Paul was first of all a missionary, an organizer of far-flung little communities around the Mediterranean that united clusters of disparate people in the startling confession that God had raised a crucified man, Jesus, from the dead and thus initiated a new age in which the whole world was to be transformed.. The letters of Paul that survive in the New Testament are his pastoral communications with these mission outposts. Though separated from them, he continued to offer them exhortation and counsel about how to conduct their common life 'in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ' (Phil. 1:27)."

-Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the NT, 16.

What is New Covenant Theology?

Blake White — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 15:12:00 +0000

In short, New Covenant Theology (NCT) is Christ-centered biblical theology. It is a theological system that seeks to keep Christ central in every area, seeks to be exegetically grounded on every point, takes the progressive nature of Scripture seriously, and views the new covenant that Jesus inaugurated as the goal and climax of the previous biblical covenants. The Bible is not about Israel. The Bible is not about covenants. The Bible is about King Jesus.

I have sought to capture the seven core essentials on NCT in my little book What is New Covenant Theology? For that book, I wanted to make sure that these seven points were agreeable to all major NCT proponents I know. That is why the book has a disproportionate amount of blurbs for its size!

There are two other major theological systems: Covenant Theology (CT) and Dispensationalism. Whether they know it or not, all Christians land in one of these three camps. Of course each system is not completely uniform, but how one answers certain questions about certain passages will land a person in one of these three camps. Some of the following points fit right into the system of Dispensationalism. Others will gain a hearty amen from a Covenant Theologian. But taken altogether, they constitute a distinct third way.

Here is a summary of the seven points of NCT:

1. There is one plan of God centered in Jesus Christ.

This point is in contrast to both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. The former's view amounts to two plans: one for Israel and one for the church. Plan A for Israel did not work so God inserts a parentheses for the church, then removes Plan B to focus back on Plan A. NCT teaches that the body of Christ was always the point. Or as the Apostle Paul says, the plan hidden for ages was that "through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known and this was according to God's "eternal purpose" that is now realized in Christ Jesus (Eph. 3:10-11). Jesus and his body was always plan A.

CT does not see two plans, but uses the language of the "covenant of grace" to describe this one plan. The danger in seeing one over-arching covenant of grace is that such a concept tends to "flatten out" the various biblical covenants. The Bible speaks of covenants - plural - not of the covenant (Rom. 9:4, Eph. 2:12).

We are most jealous to guard the newness of the new covenant. The new covenant is not simply a new administration of the same old covenant of grace. It is not renewed. It is new. When Jeremiah was promising a new covenant, he explicitly said "not like the covenant" God made with Israel (Jer. 31:32). Jesus brings about change. There is one plan of God, unfolded through the covenants, centered in Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:10).

2. The Old Testament should be interpreted in light of the centrality of Jesus.

This is the fundamental axiom of NCT. Jesus and his Apostles teach us how to do exegesis. We follow him in life and we follow him in hermeneutics. He said that the whole of Scripture was about him (Luke 24:25-27, 44-48, John 5:46). The preacher who wrote Hebrews said that God spoke long ago at many times and in many ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son. Jesus is the pinnacle of divine revelation.

Virtually every page of the New Testament shows how the Old Testament pointed forward to and is now fulfilled in Jesus. So, if a rigid grammatical-historical hermeneutic of the Old Testament puts an interpreter at odds with the God-breathed, Christ-centered hermeneutic of the authoritative Apostles who learned from their King, we need to go back to the drawing board. In that instance, it is our hermeneutic that has gone astray, not that of the Apostles.

The Bible really is all about Jesus and we must read it all in light of his supremacy. I love the story of the Transfiguration. There you have Peter, James, John, Jesus, Moses (representing the law), and Elijah (representing the prophets). A cloud overshadows them and God says, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him." "Beloved son" comes from Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7 about the coming Davidic King. "Well pleased" points back to the servant who will come, suffer, and restore Israel in Isaiah 42:1. "Listen to him" comes from Deuteronomy 18:15 and the coming of an authoritative prophet like Moses. All the streams of redemptive history flow to the feet of the royal Galilean and we can never look back at those streams without him in mind. And when the cloud passed, and when the disciples "lifted up their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus only" (Matt 17:8). The law and the prophets - indeed the whole Old Testament - points to and gives way to the Anointed One. We now must read everything in light of him.

3. The old covenant was temporary by divine design.

This point and the next two are mostly in dialogue with CT. The old covenant law was never meant to be "God's eternal moral will." Galatians 3 is most helpful in this regard. There we learn that the law had a definite starting point - 430 years after the promise to Abraham, and a definite ending point - when the Messiah came (Gal. 3:17-19). It was never meant to be eternal. It was a parenthesis in God's plan. Or to use the language of Galatians 3 again, the law was our babysitter. It was our guardian (Gal. 3:24). Babysitters are great for children, but once they reach maturity, the babysitter has served their purpose.

Hebrews 8 also shows us that the old covenant was never intended to last forever. He says that if the old covenant would have been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second (Heb. 8:7). He then quotes the passage in Jeremiah about a coming new covenant and concludes by saying, "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (Heb. 8:13). The new covenant replaces the old covenant. Jesus brings about a better one.

4. The law is a unit.

CT follows Calvin, who followed Aquinas in the breaking up of the law into three aspects: the civil, ceremonial, and moral. Some covenant theologians say that Jesus only fulfilled the ceremonial and the moral and civil remain, but most covenant theologians argue that the civil and ceremonial are fulfilled by Christ but the moral law of God, encapsulated in the Ten Commandments, is eternal and therefore binding on Christians.

NCT denies this three-fold distinction, finding such a division nowhere in Scripture - or in Jewish tradition for that matter. Rather, everywhere it is stated and assumed that the law is a unit (Gal. 5:3, James 2:10, Heb. 7:11-12).

5. Christians are not under the law of Moses but under the law of Christ.

This point is an obvious entailment of the previous two points. If the law is a unit and was divinely instituted to be in place until the Messiah came, then clearly Christians are not bound to the old covenant law.

This point is easily demonstrable from the Word. We'll just mention a few. First Corinthians 9:20-21 is explicit. There Paul writes, "To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law." Here, Paul says that he is not under the law, but not outside the law of God but under the law of Christ. So there are three categories:

Those under the law (Jews)
Those outside the law (Gentiles)
Those under the law of Christ (Christians)

This verse makes it clear that Christians are not under the law of Moses. It also makes clear that the "law of God" can no longer be equated with the Law of Moses. Now, to be inside the law of God is to be under the law of Christ (literally in-lawed to Christ). Clearly, the ethical standard has changed from old covenant to new covenant.

Romans 6:14 says we are no longer under law but under grace. In the next chapter, Paul says that Christians have "died to the law" and have been "released from the law" and that we now "serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code" (Rom. 7:4-6).

As shocking as this may sound, this even means that Christians are not bound by the Ten Commandments. NCT has no problem with obeying nine of the ten, but the rubber meets the road with the 4th Commandment: the Sabbath commandment. There is no textual evidence that the Sabbath has switched from Saturday to Sunday and the New Testament is very clear that the Sabbath is fulfilled in Jesus. Colossians 2 says that the Sabbath was a shadow but the body belongs to Christ (Col. 2:16-17). Romans 14:5 is a far cry from commanding those who break the Sabbath to be killed by rocks. There, concerning the Sabbath, we read that each one should be fully convinced in his own mind! Hebrews 3-4 shows that the rest of the Sabbath pointed forward to finding rest in Jesus. The Sabbath was a signpost. One needs no sign pointing to DC when in Capitol Hill.

But, it is important to note that being without the Law does not lead to being outlaws. To be Law-less does not lead to being lawless. There are an abundance of commands in the new covenant, the primary one being the love command.

6. All members of the new covenant community (the church) are fully forgiven of their sins and are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

For the most part, NCT and Dispensationalism are on the same page here. CT teaches that an infant becomes part of the new covenant community through baptism. They argue this because they see the continuity of the covenant of grace and see baptism and replacing circumcision. They believe the new covenant community is "mixed," consisting of believers and unbelievers. This is a key place where NCT sees discontinuity between the old and new covenants. NCT teaches that only those who have faith are part of the new covenant community. One enters the new covenant community by faith, which infants cannot exercise. In Jeremiah's new covenant promise, he prophesies that the nature of the covenant community will change. It will move from being a "mixed" community of believers and unbelievers to a "regenerate" community. He writes, "And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD" (Jer. 31:34).

There are several Old Testament prophecies that predict the pouring out of the Spirit on Israel when God returns and restores them. These are fulfilled when Jesus pours out the Spirit at Pentecost (note how Peter interprets Joel 2 in Acts 2). The Spirit regenerates and indwells every person when they trust in Jesus and join the new covenant community, which is in striking contrast to the old covenant. As John Reisinger likes to say, the old covenant did not come with batteries included. Every member of the new covenant community is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who enables us to live a life pleasing to God.

7. By virtue of union with Christ, the church is the end-time Israel.

Dispensationalism teaches that the church and Israel are separate. This is a hard case to make from Scripture. CT teaches that the church is Israel and Israel is the church. NCT is much closer to CT here but teaches that Israel is summed up in her Messiah, who then opens the gates of Israel to any and all who trust him as Lord. NCT centers the Christ/church relationship on union with Christ. It really is all about him.

All the promises of God are yes in Christ (2 Cor. 1:20). The story of Israel finds its resolution in the story of Jesus. Matthew starts the New Testament with the bold assertion that this biography will be about the Messiah who is both the son of David and the son of Abraham (Matt. 1:1). He sums up Israel in himself. He is the singular offspring of Abraham (Gal. 3:16) who bears the curses and inherits all the promises and then shares them will all who trust in him. We are co-heirs with Christ. If you are of Christ then you are heirs of the promises to Abraham (Gal. 3:29). Ephesians 2:11 and following clearly say that the two have become one because of the cross-work of Christ. Romans 2 redefines Jewishness around the Spirit: "For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter" (Rom. 2:28-29).

Sometimes, NCT is accused of replacement theology. That is just a straw man. We teach inclusion theology. All the promises of God about him coming back to regather Israel begin to be fulfilled in the first coming of Jesus - God-made-flesh - who comes and restores Israel. Just take a glance at the cross references in Mark 1 to see how many Old Testament verses are alluded to there. He begins with 12 disciples, alluding to the reconstituting of the 12 tribes, then expands his kingdom to include all who come to him. The Messiah came to his own people but his own people did not receive him but to any and all who did receive him - regardless of ethnicity - to them he gave the right to become Israel, who were born not of bloodlines but of God (John 1:12-13). Jesus came to restore Israel and redefine Israel around himself, expanding its borders to any who are joined to him by faith.

Each of these points begs to be unpacked further, but to my mind, and the minds of many others, these are the seven core essentials of new covenant theology.

Other NCT Resources:

My Books

An Interview on NCT

Other 'NCT' Books

15 Important Articles for NCT

Radio Interview on NCT

Cross to Crown Ministries

A Panel Discussion on the book Kingdom Through Covenant with the authors.

Three Talks Unpacking these points:

What is NCT?
The Place of the Law in Redemptive History
The Newness of the New Covenant and the Law of Christ

What is Sin?

Blake White — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 16:13:00 +0000

John Piper answers:

"The glory of God is not honored.

The holiness of God is not reverenced.

The greatness of God is not admired.

The power of God is not praised.

The truth of God is not sought.

The wisdom of God is not esteemed.

The beauty of God is not treasured.

The goodness of God is not savored.

The faithfulness of God is not trusted.

The promises of God are not relied upon.

The commandments of God are not obeyed.

The justice of God is not respected.

The wrath of God is not feared.

The grace of God is not cherished.

The presence of God is not prized.

The person of God is not loved."

What is the Law of Christ?

Blake White — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 21:35:00 +0000

What exactly did the Apostle Paul mean when he spoke of "the law of Christ?"A lot of debate surrounds this little phrase, probably due to the fact that it only occurs one time in the whole New Testament. Galatians 6:2 says, "Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ" [ton nomon tou Christou] (ESV). Paul uses a very similar phrase in 1 Corinthians 9:21: "To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ [ennomos Christou]) that I might win those outside the law." This verse could be translated "in-lawed to Christ."

Based upon these two occurrences and their surrounding contexts, I define the law of Christ as the pattern of rights-renouncing, self-giving love exemplified by Jesus on the cross.

Let's start with the Galatians passage. The first question to ask is what Paul means by "law?" He has used the word all over the letter and the vast majority of the time he is referring to the law of Moses given to Israel. Because of past usage in the letter, many think Paul is talking about the law of Moses here, just in light of Christ or some other variation. I don't think Paul is talking about the law of Moses in Galatians 6:2. First and foremost because he says law of Christ. Plus, throughout the letter, Paul has put Christ and the law in opposition to one another. This would be the first time to use them together in a positive way. The final reason that I think Paul is referring to some "other" law here comes from the passage we will look at next.There we will see that Paul explicitly says that the law of Christ and the law of Moses are distinct.

What then does he mean by "law of Christ"? Some think he means all the teaching of Jesus, a Messianic Torah of sorts. I simply do not think that much can be packed into these two verses. While it is obviously true that new covenant believers are bound to the teaching of Jesus, I just do not think that is what Paul means here by "the law of Christ."

Rather, I think Paul is pointing us to the example of Jesus. More specifically, the "pattern" Jesus shows us. Paul often uses word-plays and that's what he is doing here with "law" in Galatians 6:2. Right away, we see that fulfilling the law of Christ has something to do with bearing one another's burdens. It is by bearing one another's burdens that we fulfill the law of Christ. And Paul has shown again and again in this letter that Christ is the ultimate burden-bearer. He dies for our sake. He gives of self for our good - our salvation. That's what biblical love is: giving of self for the good of another. "This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters" (NIV). He is the paradigmatic burden-bearer. He gave himself for our sins in order to deliver us from the present evil age (Gal 1:4). He gave of self for our good. He loved us and gave himself for us (Gal 2:20). Jesus redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. He gives of self for our good, bearing our burden. We, in turn, our called to do the same, thus fulfilling the pattern of Jesus.

Now, let's consider our second occurrence in 1 Corinthians 9. For a little more context, read 1 Corinthians 9:19-22: "For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some."

We see clearly here that the law of Christ and the law of Moses are distinct. He says that he is not under the law, meaning law of Moses, but is under the law of God, which now means being in-lawed to Christ. He is neither under the law, nor outside the law. He is in another place altogether: in-lawed to Christ. He is law-less, not lawless but under the jurisdiction of Jesus.

These verses and their larger context in 1 Corinthians 8-11 are where I get the "rights-renouncing" part of the definition. A large portion of these chapters deal with food. With regard to eating food offered to idols, love should be the operating principle. Give up your right to eat to keep your brother from stumbling. "Take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak" (1 Cor 8:9). Give up your rights for the sake of love for one another. If food makes another stumble, Paul says "I will never eat meat" (1 Cor 8:13). Chapter 9 is all about Paul's rights as an apostle. First Corinthians 9:4-5 says, "Do we not have the right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife?" Later he says he has a "rightful claim" to receive money for his labor, "nevertheless, we have not made use of this right" (1 Cor 9:12). The Apostle has all kinds of rights and claims "I have made no use of any of these rights" (1 Cor 9:15).

Which leads us back to our main passage in 1 Corinthians. He is free from all. He has that right, but he gives it up and becomes a servant of all to win as many as possible. To the weak he becomes weak. He becomes all things to all people to save some. He renounces his rights and gives of self for the good of others. That's precisely what it means to be "in-lawed to Christ."

Moving onto chapter 10, he basically defines the law of Christ for us: "Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor" (1 Cor 10:24). Sounds like the Golden Rule, doesn't it? Or the Great Commandment? Must be onto something. At the end of the chapter he unpacks this pattern of Christ further: "I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved." He bears burdens, renounces rights, and gives of self. Then, overlooking the unfortunate chapter break, he ends this section with a command: "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ" (1 Cor 11:1). Imitate me in this renouncing of rights and this giving of self because I am simply imitating Christ. I am simply fulfilling the law of Christ.

More could be said. More passages could be unpacked. Though the phrase "law of Christ" is not mentioned, I can't help but mention one more passage. The Christ hymn of Philippians 2 lays out this law of Christ beautifully. There Paul exhorts the Philippian believers to consider others better than themselves and to put the interests of others before their own. In other words, to give of self for the good of others. Then he commands them to have the mind of Christ, who though in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be used for his own advantage. Rather he emptied himself, took on human form, and died on a cross. Though he had rights (the form of God) he gave of self and bore our burden.

This is already long enough, but I think this view is easily confirmed by the writings of John. In fact, I think Paul is probably thinking of the episode recorded in John 13 where Jesus renounces his right to have his feet washed, "takes upon the form of a slave," and gives of self for the good of his disciples. Then the chapter ends with the new commandment to love others just as Jesus loved us. I hope a brief reflection on the context of the only two passages that mention the law of Christ is enough to see the validity of seeing it as the pattern of the rights-renouncing, self-giving love of Jesus - for the good of others and the glory of God.

Now Why This Fear?

Blake White — Wed, 20 May 2015 13:20:00 +0000

Warfield on the Functional Centrality of the Gospel

Blake White — Wed, 13 May 2015 15:53:00 +0000

"We must always be accepted for Christ’s sake, or we cannot ever be accepted at all. This is not true of us only 'when we believe.' It is just as true after we have believed. It will continue to be true as long as we live. Our need of Christ does not cease with our believing; nor does the nature of our relation to Him or to God through Him ever alter, no matter what our attainments in Christian graces or our achievements in Christian behavior may be. It is always on His “blood and righteousness” alone that we can rest. There is never anything that we are or have or do that can take His place, or that can take a place along with Him. We are always unworthy, and all that we have or do of good is always of pure grace. Though blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ, we are still in ourselves just 'miserable sinners': 'miserable sinners' saved by grace to be sure, but 'miserable sinners' still, deserving in ourselves nothing but everlasting wrath. That is the attitude which the Reformers took, and that is the attitude which the Protestant world has learned from the Reformers to take, toward the relation of believers to Christ. There is emphasized in this attitude the believer’s continued sinfulness in fact and in act; and his continued sense of his sinfulness. And this carries with it recognition of the necessity of unbroken penitence throughout life. The Christian is conceived fundamentally in other words as a penitent sinner.

But that is not all that is to be said: it is not even the main thing that must be said. It is therefore gravely inadequate to describe the spirit of 'miserable sinner Christianity' as 'the spirit of continuous but not unhopeful penitence.' It is not merely that it is too negative a description, and that we must at least say, 'the spirit of continuous though hopeful penitence.' It is wholly uncomprehending description, and misplaces the emphasis altogether. The spirit of this Christianity is a spirit of penitent indeed, but overmastering exultation. The attitude of the 'miserable sinner' is not only not one of despair; it is not even one of depression; and not even one of hesitation or doubt; hope is too weak a word to apply to it.

It is an attitude of exultant joy. Only this joy has its ground not in ourselves but in our Savior. We are sinners and we know ourselves to be sinners, lost and helpless in ourselves. But we are saved sinners; and it is our salvation which gives the tone to our life, a tone of joy which swells in exact proportion to the sense we have of our ill-desert; for it is he to whom much is forgiven who loves much, and who, loving, rejoices much."

[The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, vol. 7, pp. 113-114.]

The Story of the NT

Blake White — Fri, 10 Apr 2015 09:55:00 +0000

According to Richard Hays:

"The God of Israel, the creator of the world, has acted (astoundingly) to rescue a lost and broken world through the death and resurrection of Jesus; the full scope of that rescue is not yet apparent, but God has created a community of witnesses to this good news, the church. While awaiting the grand conclusion of the story, the church, empowered by the Holy Spirit, is called to reenact the loving obedience of Jesus Christ and thus to serve as a sign of God's redemptive purposes for the world."

in The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 193.

One Another

Blake White — Wed, 08 Apr 2015 09:04:00 +0000

Preaching from an iPad

Blake White — Fri, 12 Dec 2014 15:45:00 +0000

So, this blog barely exists anymore. My bad. It is dang hard to blog well in the midst of full time ministry. Speaking of which, I recently made the jump to preaching from my iPad and after three weeks, I'm sold.

Typically, I'm old school. I prefer hardback to Kindle all day. But the more I thought about it the more sense it made to go digital for preaching notes. My practice has consistently been to carry one piece of paper with notes printed on both sides to the pulpit. I would do my best to fit it all on that one sheet so that I did not have to deal with flipping through pages. Just one page flip.

I typically preach for 30 minutes and write a rough manuscript, meaning that pretty much everything I plan to say is in my notes, but there will be some shorthand. I try to know my material well enough that I treat the manuscript as an outline, but it is all there in case I need it. I'd also just bold the verse number then read it from my Bible. So my main motive in moving to the iPad was so I could expand my notes and not worry about space while at the same time not having to deal with multiple pages or a notebook of notes. There are other perks, of course, but this was my main motive.

So here is the process that is working well for me so far. I have a PC so I write my manuscript in Word. A final product is usually 3-5 pages in 12 point font. I jack up the font size to 16 and save it as a PDF. I then email it to myself, and open it up in iBooks, which allows you to swipe to turn pages rather than scroll. I love this part. No pages to deal with; just a swipe of the finger.

Before preaching I turn it to airplane mode, turn the volume down, and invert the colors so that there is no glare from my glasses. I bought a nice Pad and Quill cover because it makes the iPad look like a book. And I still carry my Bible with me and read the text in full from my Bible. Though I may not always do this, for now I think it is helpful as a visual reminder that what I am about to say comes from God's authority - not mine.

Check on Challies' helpful post on the topic here.

The Messiah

Blake White — Fri, 03 Oct 2014 08:26:00 +0000

What Does the Bible Say about Alcohol

Blake White — Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:32:00 +0000

Let the steady hands of Dr. Preston Spinkle guide you:

Piece for Relevant:

What Does the Bible Really Say About Alcohol?

5 Part Series:

Part One - Wine

Part Two - Beer

Part Three - Cabernet Sauvignon

Part Four - O'Douls

Part Five - Belgium Trippel Ale

Discipleship Today

Blake White — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 15:49:00 +0000

"All this seems a far cry from present-day Christian discipleship as we know it in the West, where minister's energy is devoted to inducing people to join up, not to dissuading them, where discipleship seems to cost nothing but an occasional modest financial contribution, if even that, and where the only obvious difference between the average Christian and his or her neighbours is that strange habit of going out to church on Sunday mornings. Of course present-day disciples cannot be called literally to give up their homes to travel round with Jesus, and they will probably not be sent out to exorcize demons. But we may well wonder what has happened to the all-or-nothing commitment Jesus demanded, the conspicuously different way of life outlined in the Beatitudes, the mutual love and humility, and the practical day-to-day dependence on God which were to the hallmark of those who followed Jesus. A 'city built on a hill cannot be hidden', said Jesus, but modern Western Christianity seems to have perfected the art of camouflage."

-RT France, Jesus the Radical, 74-75

Mark's Story

Blake White — Tue, 09 Sep 2014 14:54:00 +0000

I am getting ready to begin preaching through the Gospel according to Mark. I came across this nugget-paragraph summary of the Gospel in France's beast-mode commentary:

"Mark's gospel is the story of how Jesus sowed this good seed into the varied soil of Roman Palestine, and of the varied way in which its human inhabitants responded. In particular it is the story of how one selected group of men were given privileged access to God's thoughts, and of their struggle, still largely unsuccessful even at the end of the story, to transcend their human thoughts so that the good seed of God's kingship might grow and flourish in them and though them until it could be seen to have come with power. When Mark's story closes that time seems to remain still in the future."

March Update!

Tue, 17 Mar 2015 00:28:36 +0000

The following is from our latest newsletter:

The Journal

Many of you have asked about when to expect the rebirth of Sound of Grace. We did, after all, state that as part of our plans. And it is. But only God’s plan always comes about as intended, right? We are working on it, but other things have had to take priority. Lord willing, we will resume the journal soon. We will keep you posted.

New Book Announcement

We are publishing our first book by A. Blake White, and we couldn’t be more excited. It’s a devotional journey through Paul’s letter to the Philippians, written with Blake’s usual clarity, insight, and pastoral care. If you come to our conference in June, you will receive a free copy. The public release will come later.

The post March Update! appeared first on Cross to Crown Ministries.

Why Should You Come to the Cross to Crown Conference?

Fri, 20 Feb 2015 18:54:04 +0000

First, a little history. As you probably know by now, Sovereign Grace/New Covenant Ministries (John Reisinger) and Cross to Crown Ministries have merged. In addition to combining resources, Cross to Crown has the privilege of continuing the legacy of the John Bunyan Conference. We have dropped the “Bunyan” name, but we hope to build on its foundation of powerful, Christ-centered preaching. Our first gathering will be June 24-26. (REGISTER)

With that, let me answer the question I asked in the title of this post. Here are five reasons you should come:

1. Christ-Exalting, Biblical Preaching

During the seven main sessions of the conference, we will walk through the book of Philippians together. Blake White, Joshua Waltz, and I will expound the whole letter, looking through the lens of Proclaiming Christ! in everything.

Blake White is a familiar name, and you may know a bit about me, but Joshua Waltz is probably new to you. I can’t say enough about how blessed I am that Joshua is joining us. He is a great friend and a fantastic preacher of the Scripture. He will strengthen your love for Jesus. (Joshua’s sermons)

All three of us will preach for the glory and majesty of Jesus Christ.