Theologically Driven

A Road Vlach on Wellum & Gentry’s Via Media?

Jared Compton — Fri, 24 May 2013 11:00:41 +0000

In the latest ed. of the Master’s Seminary Journal (avail. free online), Michael Vlach of The Master’s Seminary reviews Wellum & Gentry’s biblical theology Kingdom through Covenant (KtC). It’s one of the more thorough reviews of the book I’ve seen lately (see also, e.g., here). After nicely summarizing the book’s argument and then stating a handful of specific points of appreciation (e.g., the covenants do form the framework for the Bible’s storyline), Vlach levies three broad critiques. I’d like to briefly sketch them here, largely without comment. If you’re interested in more, you’ll have to read the entire piece—preferably after working through KtC on your own. If you’d like to push back here or there, please do so in the comments.

(1) Structural Issue: Where is the New Testament?

For starters, Vlach complains that a book offering a whole-Bible theology really ought to deal more thoroughly with the entire Bible. (What’s a few hundred more pp., right?) Here he echoes a similar point made by other reviewers (see, e.g., Darrell Bock and Doug Moo’s reviews here and here). It’s true, Gentry does offer one chapter on Eph 4; however, Vlach rightly concludes that a bit more was needed and, moreover, that this particular chapter does surprisingly little to advance KtC’s argument.

(2) Theological Issues

Vlach offers the heart of his critique here, along four, closely-related lines, all of which, I think, nicely get to the nub of Wellum & Gentry’s fresh proposal. He takes issue (a) with KtC’s denial of future significance for Israel and her land, claiming, instead, that both the OT and, esp., the NT continue to talk as if Israel—as a nation and, thus, from a specific place—has a role to play in the Bible’s unfolding story (see, e.g., Rom 11:11–12 and Matt 24:15ff.); (b) with KtC’s claim that Jesus replaces Israel (i.e., Jesus, the antitype, fulfills and, thus, negates Israel, the type), insisting, rather, that Jesus represents (corporate solidarity) and restores Israel for the good of the world (see, e.g., Isa 49:3–6); (c) with KtC’s claim that the nations join and, thus, redefine Israel, when, rather, the nations join the people of God, along with Israel, and, therefore, both Israel and the nations retain their national identities; (d) with KtC’s insistence that the NT transforms OT eschatology, when, rather, it often explicitly reaffirms it. (This last critique leads Vlach to conclude that KtC “see[s] too much discontinuity between Old Testament expectation and the New Testament fulfillment.”)

(3) Other Issues

Vlach concludes with three additional critiques. He thinks, rightly, that KtC places too much emphasis on the importance of land for Dispensationalism, when instead they’d have been better off focusing on the role of Israel and the nations in the eschaton. Land, Vlach notes, is simply the “platform” for Israel’s role of mediating blessing to the nations. He also thinks KtC should have focused a bit more thoroughly on the “Kingdom”-part of their title, specifically how their view of kingdom relates to the three major millennial views. Vlach then ends with a note about Gentry’s exegesis of Dan 9:24–27, concluding that the context of Daniel and the entire canon indicates that “Messiah the Prince” and “the prince to come” refer to separate individuals, namely Jesus and the future anti-Christ.

For another review from a similar perspective, see my post here and talk (w/ transcript) here and here. Also, see Mark Snoeberger’s review art. in the latest DBSJ here.

Living In Light of Death: Ecclesiastes 9:7–10

Bob McCabe — Wed, 22 May 2013 11:00:02 +0000

Can you imagine the shock when an usher escorts you out of a church service to be told that your mother had just died? Because my mother was forty-four years old at that time and had become a Christian a few years earlier, I was emotionally devastated when I was greeted with this news. I was twenty-two and in my first year of seminary. For the first time in my life I faced the reality that someone who was intimately connected to me had unexpectedly died. Though I knew a few other people who had died, none had been as close to me as my mother, and this news affected me in such a way that I ached for many days. I was faced with a reality that death is no respecter of persons. We all face the reality of death many times in our lives. We see our loved ones die, people in our community, those we work with, and fellow believers. And, we will die! This is the type of context where Solomon commands his audience to joyfully make the most of God’s basic gifts. In Ecclesiastes 9:7–10 he gives a series of commands that not only applied to his generation but also to all other generations, including ours. Notice his advice:

[7] Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do. [8] Let your garments be always white. Let not oil be lacking on your head. [9] Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain life that he has given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun. [10] Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going (ESV).

Though Solomon has previously treated the subject of death on other occasions in Ecclesiastes, he devotes more space to this in 9:1–6 and 11–12. Verses 7–10 are the core of a pericope that extends from 9:1 through 9:12. The regenerate and unregenerate alike, in vv. 2–6, inevitably face death. Like fish and birds, people, in vv. 11–12, cannot predict when they will die. In the context of vv. 7–10, Solomon gives his advice by using a series of imperatives: three commands in v. 7 focus on food and drink; three in vv. 8–9 on nice clothes, oil, and one’s wife; and one in v. 10 on living wholeheartedly.

The first imperative in v. 7, “go,” is an interjectory use that focuses on the two following imperatives “eat” and “drink.” Finding satisfaction in what one eats and drinks was previously commended in four earlier passages: 2:24, 3:13, 5:18–19 (Heb. vv. 17–18), and 8:15. In this context two objects are added: “bread,” lehem, with eating and “wine,” yayin, with drinking. In this verse the prepositional phrases that qualify the commands to eat bread and to drink wine, “with joy” and “with a merry heart,” reflect the celebratory nature of both imperatives. The theocentric nature of this verse should also be noted: “for God has already approved what you do.”

Solomon gives three other commands in vv. 8–9: “let [your garments] be white,” “let [not oil] be lacking,” and “enjoy.” While the third command is an imperative, the first two are jussive forms used as commands. Each of these commands extols the enjoyment of new elements in Ecclesiastes (for a listing of the other gifts to enjoy, see the other carpe diem, or enjoyment-of-life, passages: 2:24–26; 3:12–13, 22; 5:18–20 [Heb. 5:17–19]; 8:15; 9:7–10; 11:9–12:1): garments being white, no deficiency of oil, and enjoying life with one’s wife.

The first command is a command to wear white clothes. In contrast to the black robes of mourning, the white garments reflect a celebratory mood. The second one highlights the regularity of anointing one’s head with oil. Like Psalm 45:7, this is associated with joy. The commands in this verse about white clothing and oil, like other carpe diem passages in Ecclesiastes, presuppose that Solomon derives his theology from the early chapters of Genesis. The final command is a call to enjoy life with one’s beloved wife. However, the ESV’s translation of hebel as “vain” is unfortunate. It is preferable to translate this Hebrew term as “enigmatic,” or an equivalent (though the nature of this blog post does not permit a justification of this rendering, I would recommend two sources that give solid defenses of this translation value: Graham Ogden’s “‘Vanity’ It Certainly Is Not,” The Bible Translator 38 [July 1987]: 301–7; and Jason DeRouchie’s “Shepherding Wind and One Wise Shepherd: Grasping for Breath in Ecclesiastes,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 15 [Fall 2011]: 4–25). With this understanding, Solomon commands men to enjoy life with their beloved wives during their enigmatic days on earth. Solomon’s use of hebel as “enigmatic” reinforces the book’s focus on the puzzling nature of life.

In addition to the commands in vv. 7–9, Solomon has one more in v. 10: “do.” More specifically, this command is to accomplish “whatever your hand finds to do…with your might.” In other words, one should wholeheartedly pursue, as God enables, the specifics of what is detailed in the carpe diem passages (eating, drinking, working along with the benefits from it, wisdom, adorning nice clothes, lavishly using oil, enjoying one’s wife, and living wholeheartedly) with intelligence and wisdom, as the last half of v. 10 implies.

By Solomon using a series of imperatives in vv. 7–10, he authoritatively calls us to judiciously enjoy life. When these verses are set in the immediate context of 9:1–12, this passage reflects the contrast between life and death. This tension is not only reflective of this unit of verses but also the overall design of Ecclesiastes with its dialectical scheme. Solomon’s overall sketch in this book mirrors the paradoxical nature of this world that was cursed at the Fall with unsolvable conflicts and disjointedness, yet it also affirms that God is renewing creation and man. Solomon uses vv. 7–10, as well as the other carpe diem passages, to affirm this renewal.

As Ecclesiastes describes, we will also face issues with death as well as other results of the curse, such as suffering. And, as we work through these issues, may we return to Solomon’s advice by embracing our God and enjoying the gifts he has bestowed on us.

Days that Changed the Course of History…and an Ordinary Year: Two Different Approaches to History

John Aloisi — Mon, 20 May 2013 11:00:49 +0000

Over at the Gospel Coalition blog, Joe Carter recently wrote about how four leading church historians responded to the question: “After AD 70, what day most changed the course of Christian history?” The respondents proposed four different answers. Two of the replies had to do with the advance of Islam. Specifically, one writer pointed to the Muslim invasion of the Middle East around 650 and the other to the fall of Constantinople on May 29, 1453. A third historian suggested the conversion of Constantine to Christianity in the early fourth century. And the final correspondent identified George Whitefield’s preaching at the church pastored by Jonathan Edwards on October 19, 1740, as the day that most changed the course of church history. I tend to think George Marsden’s brief answer is the best (though perhaps the least “interesting”) of the four, but you’ll have to read that post if you want to know which date Marsden proposed.

Reading Carter’s post reminded me of a book I read several years ago. I was reminded of the book, not because it focused on a pivotal day or a key event, but actually because it was written from a very different perspective. In 2009, Giusto Traina’s book 428 AD: An Ordinary Year at the End of the Roman Empire appeared in English translation (from Italian). As the title suggests, Traina chose to focus his work on a relatively “ordinary” year—one of those years that is silently passed over in most history books. In 428 the Roman Empire was in the midst of slow but steady decline. Rome itself was still the symbolic center of the empire. But practically speaking, political power had been transferred to Ravenna in the West and Constantinople in the East. The city of Rome had been sacked by the Visigoths some eighteen years prior, and in less than thirty years the Vandals would come knocking as well.

By 428 Christianity had been the official religion of the empire for about a generation, and some church fathers were inclined to speak about the spread of the Christian faith in triumphal language. However, as Traina points out, paganism was still alive and well in some parts of the empire, even if it had gone largely underground. Of course, lots of things happened in 428. But for the most part, the things that happened were not the sort of things that usually make it into history textbooks. Traina’s book is both different and helpful because it provides a snapshot of the Roman Empire during the empire’s declining years. The book is a fairly quick and interesting read. It provides a sort of counterbalance to posts and books that focus on the “big events” of church history.

Studying major events like those mentioned by the four historians in Carter’s post is key to understanding the development of Christianity. But Traina’s book reminds us that history is largely composed of fairly “ordinary” years. During such years many unknown Christians have loved and served God, and Christ has providentially superintended the growth of his church.

Religious Liberty

Bill Combs — Fri, 17 May 2013 16:02:35 +0000

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY is being redefined in America, or at least many would like it to be. Our secular establishment wants to reduce the autonomy of religious institutions and limit the influence of faith in the public square. The reason is not hard to grasp. In America, “religion” largely means Christianity, and today our secular culture views orthodox Christian churches as troublesome, retrograde, and reactionary forces. They’re seen as anti-science, anti-gay, and anti-women—which is to say anti-progress as the Left defines progress. Not surprisingly, then, the Left believes society will be best served if Christians are limited in their influence on public life. And in the short run this view is likely to succeed. There will be many arguments urging Christians to keep their religion strictly religious rather than “political.” And there won’t just be arguments; there will be laws as well. We’re in the midst of climate change—one that’s getting colder and colder toward religion.

This is the introduction to a very insightful essay by R. R. Reno, the editor of First Things, which was first given as a speech on February 20, 2013, at Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Bonita Springs, Florida. It is well worth your reading.

HT: Denny Burk

Sanctification, Homosexuality, and the Church

Mark Snoeberger — Wed, 15 May 2013 11:00:39 +0000

In this post my goal is to utilize the issue of homosexuality as a case study to demonstrate that the “Jesus + Nothing = Everything” approach to sanctification is not merely an academic wrinkle, but an error of such prodigious import that it threatens the very essence of the Christian church.

American culture has apparently reached a tipping point when it comes to homosexuality. It’s OK to be homosexual now. In fact, those of us who aren’t homosexual are apparently supposed to trip all over ourselves in our affirmation of homosexuals to make up for all those years in which American consensus stood against this vice. Blah, Blah, Blech. I’m disappointed, but not particularly devastated: this kind of thing really is an inevitable result of the non-foundational, democratic, and relativist worldview that America has been cultivating for decades.

What is devastating to me, though, is some of the Christian responses to the problem that have recently been raised: applause for believers who have “come out” to unabashedly affirm (not to repent of, mind you, but to affirm) their homosexual status; gracious acceptance of and commiseration with homosexuals who sit beside us as fellow-members of the Christian church; etc. The new angle is that Christian homosexuals are a growing part of the Christian community and we need to be attentive to, not contemptuous of, their peculiar needs.

This conclusion is a necessary one if we hold to a “Jesus + Nothing = Everything,” “Preach-Justification-to-Yourself” approach to sanctification. At the point of salvation, we are told, nothing really happens to us: we still are what we were, with the only notable difference being that we have been declared righteous. If I was a thief before I was converted, I’m still a thief, but a thief saved by grace. If I was a drunkard before I was converted, I’m still a drunkard, but a drunkard saved by grace. If I was a homosexual before I was converted, I’m still a homosexual, but a homosexual saved by grace. And so forth. But this is an inaccurate explanation of the Christian experience. Note with me the following from 1 Corinthians 6:9–11:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

In these verses Paul clearly states that thieves, drunkards, and homosexuals (and a bunch of other sinner-types) will not inherit the kingdom of God. This does not mean that believers who feel acutely the temptation to steal, drink to excess, or to act homosexually are barred from heaven, but it does mean that anyone who unashamedly and persistently self-identifies as a thief, a drunkard, a homosexual, etc., is unconverted, should be excluded from membership in the Christian church, and must be handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh (1 Cor 5:5). What Paul excludes here is any possibility of the kind of sanctification in which one “comes out” about what he irremediably is and then excuses his identity by musing repeatedly on what he has been declared to be in Christ. Instead, Paul’s vision of sanctification involves the repudiation of what one once was in Adam (the old man) and the embrace of the new creation in Christ that now is (the new man).

Paul does not allow Christians to self-identify as sinners. The church is not comprised of thieves, drunkards, homosexuals, etc.; instead, the church is comprised of Christians who once were thieves, drunkards, homosexuals, etc., but who are no longer what they once were. The church is to be populated by new creatures in Christ who have become “spirit people”—people who still sin, but whose dominant trajectory of life is upward. Christians persevere in their identity as spirit people, repent when they fail to live out their new identity, and beat and enslave their bodies lest they be disqualified for the prize (1 Cor 9:27). Anyone who fails to do this will not inherit the kingdom of God. Period.

Of course we are rightly chastened by Paul’s reminder that we too were once enslaved by such sins. As such we should expect unbelievers to be thieves, drunkards, homosexuals, etc., and should treat them no differently than any other sinner—there’s nothing here to suggest that more sanitary sinners such as “the greedy” will fare any better than homosexuals at the Great White Throne. Further, we are sobered by Paul’s observation that all believers have lingering sinful tendencies (like stealing, drinking to excess, and acting on homosexual impulses) that need to be addressed with exhortation, discipline, encouragement, and love. There is no room here for sequestering particular kinds of sins as more contemptible or “yucky” than others. The church must surely learn this virtue and quickly.

But those churches who would accept sinners “as they are” (whether homosexuals or any other variety of sinner) into their memberships, and who would encourage such sinners to ponder the glories of justification rather than repent, engage in a great evil. Such acceptance violates this and every biblical text on church discipline, destroys the purity of the church by including in its ranks those who will not inherit the kingdom of God, and injures severely the witness of the people of God. The problem is not a minor one.

How Should Christians Respond to Other Religions

Ben Edwards — Mon, 13 May 2013 11:00:16 +0000

Recent decades have provided Christians with an increasing evaluation of and interaction with various world religions. The growth of immigration from non-Christian nations combined with a greater global awareness through travel and communication have confronted Christians with the reality of diversity in faith and practice. Protestant Christians have responded in different ways to this reality. Often, these responses are grouped in three broad categories. However, with the rise of postmodernism a fourth category has appeared. I will endeavor to explain and evaluate these four approaches below, concluding with the approach I believe best adheres with biblical Christianity.

Universalism

The first approach to world religions may be classified as universalism. Universalism proposes that all religions are more or less equal, with no one religion able to claim supremacy. Two common illustrations are used when explaining this approach, but provide slightly different nuances. The first is to picture salvation or truth as a mountain top and various religions as paths up the mountain. At points along the way these paths may appear different, but when followed to the end they lead to the same place. Thus, all religions ultimately teach the same thing. If adherents merely took the time to interact with one another they would discover how much they actually agreed. This perspective would eschew proselytizing, opting instead for simple dialogue.

Another picture is of a group of blind men approaching an elephant, with each man grabbing a different part of the animal and concluding partially true statements about it. However, none of them fully understands the elephant. In this illustration, no one religion has a claim to all truth. Instead, one must recognize that all religions have part of the truth, so the best approach is to incorporate beliefs from different religions.

Though this approach is popular among more liberal Protestants, attempts to defend it biblically are scarce. This scarcity is not surprising since there is little to no biblical support for universalism. Throughout the Old Testament, the God of the Jews is set in opposition to the gods of the surrounding peoples. The first commandment in the Decalogue places Yahweh as the supreme God. The nation is called to abandon other gods for the true God. In the New Testament, Jesus points to himself as “the way,” claiming that “no one comes to the Father except by [him].” Paul refers to the worship of idols as the worship of demons and applauds the Thessalonians for turning from idols to serve the true and living God. Nor are believers called to look to other religions to gain a better understanding of God. Jesus claimed that those who knew him knew God and that those who rejected him rejected God.

Universalism also creates logical difficulties. A thorough study of the different religions reveals that they do not all teach the same thing but often proclaim explicitly contradictory truths. Some religions are monotheistic, while others are polytheistic or pantheistic. Some believe that life is cyclical, while others hold to a linear view of history. Clearly all religions are not teaching the same thing. Arguing that all religions only have part of the truth does not ultimately solve this dilemma, for the only way to know that each religion has part of the truth is to have access to all of the truth. Those who hold universalism may have a laudable goal of reducing conflict by emphasizing unity, but they do injustice to the Bible and to other religions.

Relativism

With the rise of postmodernism a modification of universalism has emerged that could be classified as relativism. Whereas universalism claims that all religions lead to the truth or contain part of the truth, relativism says that all religions have their own truths. In essence, a relativist would say that religions are not different paths up one mountain but different mountains altogether. This approach recognizes the clear differences between religions, but states that these different truths are not ultimately contradictory because they are true in themselves. There is no universal truth by which to judge the truths of the various religions. Again, the relativist sees no need for proselytizing, since no religion could be judged as better than another.

The relativist approach runs into the same biblical problem as the universalist approach. Christ not only claimed to be “the way” but also “the truth.” He called his followers to go throughout the world making disciples, which entails conversion to the truth. God is never portrayed as one choice among many but as the only God.

Ultimately, a relativistic approach to religions crumbles under the same difficulty as relativism in general—it is a self-defeating philosophy. Relativism proceeds on the idea that ultimate or universal truth is non-existent, but the claim that there is no universal truth is itself a universal truth. Further, relativism is incapable of condemning any action or attitude, since there is no standard by which to judge. In relativism, acts of terrorism and acts of charity are equally valid ways to demonstrate one’s commitment to religion. However, most people easily recognize these acts are not equally valid because of their universal sense of right and wrong. Though some may argue for a relativistic approach to religion, they never fully embrace it out because of these difficulties.

Inclusivism

A third approach to religion is inclusivism. In inclusivism, one’s own religion is the supreme religion, but other religions have truths that will ultimately lead to the truth found in the supreme religion. From a Christian perspective, that means that one can only be saved in Christ, but the Bible is not the only revelation of Christ. On the more liberal end of this perspective, proponents argue that sincere worshippers in other religions may be saved if they follow their religion and never have a chance to hear of Christ and Christianity. They believe the Quran has truths in it inspired by the Holy Spirit, so a devout Muslim who never hears of Christ may be saved by following these inspired truths in the Quran. On the more conservative end of this approach, proponents believe that someone may become a Christian by believing the gospel of Christ but continue to worship in their original religion. Thus, a Muslim may put faith in Christ but continue to practice as a Muslim because of the inspired truths in the Quran. An inclusivist would practice proselytizing but may not consider it an urgent matter.

Inclusivism does take seriously the biblical teaching that salvation is in Christ alone. It also recognizes the biblical teaching that some revelation of God has gone out to all people, i.e., general revelation. However, it fails to incorporate the Bible’s teaching on how an individual is saved through Christ. There are no biblical examples of a person being saved without knowledge of Christ. Rather, Paul states that people cannot believe in someone of whom they have never heard. Jesus’ command to go and make disciples would be less significant if salvation were possible apart from the proclamation of the Gospel. Inclusivism actually makes general revelation salvific in nature when the Bible never indicates that general revelation is able to lead to salvation. Romans 1 and 2 both point to general revelation as important for the condemnation of all people, since people universally suppress the truth God has revealed about himself and his moral law, leaving unbelievers with no excuse.

On the more conservative end, proponents fail to incorporate the biblical teaching of conversion. Though they rightly recognize that salvation comes through faith in Christ, they minimize the transformative effects of that salvation. Salvation includes regeneration, which enables believers to turn from their sinful ways and turn to serve Christ alone. One of the evidences of regeneration is a rejection of false religion to embrace biblical Christianity. The proponents also distort the teaching of inspiration. The Bible claims inspiration for itself but does not extend that inspiration outside of itself. Any truth in other religions can be traced to general revelation and common grace rather than inspiration.

Exclusivism

The final approach to world religions is exclusivism. This approach teaches that there is only one true religion and only one way of salvation. For a Christian, Christ is the only way of salvation and the Bible is the only source of saving revelation today. Other religions are sourced in man’s rebellion against God and/or demonic influence. Though other religions may have some truths in them, they are not saving truths. Exclusivism encourages proselytizing since it is the only hope for adherents of other religions to be saved.

This approach best lines up with the teachings of Scripture and of the beliefs held by the majority of Christians in church history. A potential danger in this approach is that one may develop an arrogant attitude that assumes possession of the truth entails superiority. However, a true understanding of salvation in Christianity minimizes this danger. Since the Bible teaches that salvation is a work of God graciously given to unworthy sinners, those who have been saved have no grounds for boasting. They do not have the truth because they have greater intelligence, morality, or wealth. Rather, they have the truth because they received grace and mercy and should desire to see others experience that same grace and mercy.

Hidden in Plain View: Mystery and Fulfillment in Colossians 1:25–26

Jared Compton — Fri, 10 May 2013 11:00:52 +0000

I have become [the church’s] servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness—²⁶the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord’s people”—Col 1:25–26 (NIV)

Here I’ll make three observations on this text before turning to a broader reflection on biblical theology.

First, “mystery” at the beginning of v. 26 is in apposition to “the word of God” in v. 25. It is, in other words, further describing what that word is. Specifically, it’s something that had been hidden and was now revealed. Second, “the word of God” here probably refers to the gospel, which Paul has earlier described as “the word of truth” (1:5, NASB) and will later call “the word of Christ” (3:16, NASB). It’s also possible that the phrase refers to the OT, considering its use, e.g., in Rom 9:6 (“It’s not as though God’s word [cf. 9:4–5] had failed”). A decision, in fact, isn’t all that necessary in light of the way Paul describes the gospel, e.g., in 1 Cor 15:3ff.: the gospel comprises events that transpired according to the Scriptures. It’s the sort of continuity we’d expect, since both were “spoken” by the same God (see, esp., Heb 1:1–2). Third, the phrase “to present to you the word of God in its fullness” in v. 25 gives the content of Paul’s commission. Moreover, the specific task Paul had been given is more formally rendered “to fulfill [πληρῶσαι] the word of God,” even while most English versions prefer something more like what the NIV has here (see, e.g., NASB’s “so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God,” emphasis original) based on the assumed equivalence of “word of God” with the gospel and the near-parallel in Rom 15:19 (“So from Jerusalem . . . to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed [πεπληρωκέναι] the gospel of Christ”). Considering the close relationship between this “word” and the OT—whether directly (“word of God” = OT) or indirectly (“word of God” = gospel, which is in accord with the OT), it’s just possible, it seems to me, that Paul meant “fulfill” in a more overtly eschatological sense: Paul’s commission was to bring about or to completion God’s word/promise.

The implications of this text for biblical theology should be fairly clear already. Let me offer the more plausible version first. Paul says that his commission was to proclaim a message (i.e., the gospel), which was a mystery, one that had been hidden but was now revealed. Elsewhere (1 Cor 15:3ff.), Paul says this same message was in accord with the OT. Thus, Paul’s gospel was simultaneously hidden before Christ’s advent (i.e., before the “disclos[ure] to the Lord’s people”) and in accordance with the OT. Or, Paul says that his commission was to fulfill the OT, specifically a mystery, one that had been hidden—ostensibly in the OT—and only now revealed. Again, I suspect the former reading is the more likely, even while both lead to the same conclusion: what God did in Christ was anticipated in the OT, even though it was hidden until Christ’s advent. This, of course, corresponds with what Paul says, e.g., in Rom 16:25–26, where he notes that not only was his gospel previously hidden and only now revealed but also that it was revealed through the prophetic Scriptures (γραφῶν προφητικῶν). It had been, in other words, “hidden in plain view” until the Christian era. Both texts underscore, therefore, just how difficult it is summarize Paul’s hermeneutic and, more broadly, the relationship between the testaments with only one label, whether continuity (i.e., “acc. to the Scriptures”) or discontinuity (hidden/revealed), which probably explains why Paul often concludes these sorts of reflections marveling at God’s manifold wisdom (see, e.g., Rom 16:27; Rom 11:33–36; cf. also Eph 3:10).

Note: For more on this, see, esp., Carson’s essay “Mystery and Fulfillment . . . ,” which you can find here, and my related reflection here.

Summer School Starts May 21

Bill Combs — Wed, 08 May 2013 11:00:55 +0000

The first session of the DBTS Summer School begins May 21 and lasts for two weeks (till May 31). Two classes will be offered: 2 Peter & Jude (Greek exegesis), taught by Dr. Bruce Compton, and Theology and Practice of Leadership, taught by Dr. David Doran. The second session runs from June 4–14 and the class is Ecclesiastes: English Bible, taught by Dr. Robert McCabe. The final session, Advanced Issues in Pneumatology, taught by Dr. Mark Snoeberger, runs from June 18–28. Classes meet Tuesday–Friday from 8 a.m. to 12 noon. The schedule with complete info can be found here. If you are interested in registering for any of these classes, you can call the seminary at 313-381-0111, or email to info@dbts.edu.

Also, don’t forget the free Greek refresher course that will be meet for 1 hr. every Friday at 7 a.m. for 6 weeks, beginning May 24. See here for complete details.

When Jesus Plus Nothing Doesn’t Equal Everything

Mark Snoeberger — Mon, 06 May 2013 15:52:30 +0000

I am not a handy person. The tool chest in my basement contains only a few basic tools, many of which were given to me by my dad when I left home. Next to my tool chest is a 1995 edition of Home Depot’s very useful book Home Improvement 1–2–3, also given to me by my dad just after we bought our first house. Shortly after I received this book I decided to replace the light in our dining room with a combination ceiling fan/light: one wall switch/wire to govern two functions. I was perplexed. So I called my dad. And he asked me, “Mark, what did your Home Improvement 1–2–3 book say?” Good question. I looked it up, and viola! The book gave me a list of tools (which, thanks to my dad, I already had), several carefully illustrated steps, and a little meter that told me exactly how long it would take for a novice to complete the task.

Notice that my dad played a significant role in this little project. He gave me the tools and he gave me the book. And when I asked him for help, he told me to consult the book. And yet I would not go so far as to say that “Dad + Nothing = Everything.”

Now there are some things about which I can say “Dad + Nothing = Everything.” According to John 1:13, my natural existence is due to “decision of a man.” My surname is mine by paternal grant. But when it came to home maintenance, the “Dad + Nothing = Everything” equation is inadequate. In this case, “Everything” is the sum of “Dad + tools + a step-by-step guidebook + a telephone number + parental encouragement to personal industry.”

That’s how a lot of things work. That’s how the Christian experience works. Now if we are talking about our Christian standing and the Christian condition (justification and regeneration, respectively), then yes, Jesus + Nothing = Everything. That’s what theologians mean when they use the phrases Sola Gratia and Solus Christus. It’s the heart of the Protestant Reformation. It’s the essence of the Gospel. But when it comes to sanctification, that formula is not quite accurate. Yes, God in Christ is vitally involved in every part of the formula for sanctification, but there’s a bit more complexity involved than “Jesus + Nothing = Everything.” Note the following:

In 2 Peter 1:3 the author tells us that God has “given us everything we need for life and godliness.” He then goes on to tell us what addends one must accumulate to result in this sum total of “everything”:

An experimental knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord (vv. 2–3)
The fulfilled promise of God that we become partakers of the divine nature (v. 4)
The fulfilled promise of God that we have escaped the corruption of total inability (v. 4)
The Scriptures (perhaps a contextual stretch, but I think vv. 19–21 are broadly part of Peter’s formula).

Peter then encourages us (“therefore”—v. 5) to use all of this equipment to add to our faith a host of virtues and disciplines (vv. 5–7). This is the essence of sanctification. And the equation looks remarkably like the equation offered above:

Everything = God + tools + a step-by-step guidebook + prayer + divine encouragement to personal industry.

Next Week: How this teaching affects the Church’s approach to the issue of Homosexuality.

Four Guidelines for Prayer

John Aloisi — Sat, 04 May 2013 12:00:08 +0000

A couple of weeks ago, I blogged about six reasons for prayer drawn from John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion (3.20.3). In addition to these reasons for prayer, and in fact immediately following them, Calvin also put forward four rules or guidelines for prayer. Here are those guidelines:

Calvin suggested, first, that those who pray “be disposed in mind and heart as befits those who enter conversation with God” (3.20.4). In other words, believers should approach God reverently. Although God has invited us to call him our Father, he is not one of our peers, much less our “buddy.” God is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. Our prayers to him should never be marked by irreverence or a casual attitude.

Second, Calvin said that when we pray we should “ever sense our own insufficiency, and earnestly pondering how we need all that we seek, join with this prayer an earnest—nay, burning—desire to attain it” (3.20.6). We should not pray out of mere habit or sense of duty. God is pleased when his children pray to him out of need. Our prayers should be marked by urgency and dependence. When we pray we are talking to the one who can do what no one else can do.

Third, Calvin suggested that in prayer we should put away all pride and self-assurance (3.20.8). God does not owe us anything. We should approach him as those asking for mercy, not our due.

And fourth, Calvin explained that having been “cast down and overcome by true humility, we should be nonetheless encouraged to pray by a sure hope that our prayer will be answered” (3.20.11). Although God does not owe us anything, he is a good Father who graciously gives good things to his children. We should approach God reverently, earnestly, and humbly. But we should also approach him confidently—not confident in ourselves, but fully confident in the fact that he is good, wise, and generous.

If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! (Matt 7:11)

Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows (Jas 1:17).