Propitiation--Word Study

While this particular topic is much larger than can be expressed in a blog post, I want to try and focus in on the word “propitiation” and why it should be used in various places rather than some of the alternatives that exist.  The topic of the atonement is much larger and many books are written on the subject.  I do not intend at this point to summarize all of the possible views of the atonement, but rather I will declare the Reformation position of penal-substitution as the reference point for my discussion.

To begin, it is helpful to understand the penal-substitution theory of the atonement.  The issue here is exactly what did Christ accomplish on the Cross.  This question is the foundation of the Christian faith.  Surprisingly, there may be a dozen widely disseminated views on this event.  The Reformation view has two key elements in it that combine two of the better views into one.  The point is that Jesus Christ, the God-Man, is a precious commodity for the Godhead to sacrifice willy-nilly; therefore, the reason has to be great to justify the event.  Otherwise, God comes off as a cruel tyrant rather than a just sovereign.

The first element of penal-substitution is the idea of satisfaction.  The sin of man made such a grievous insult of God, that God’s honor must be satisfied.  This is a concept far greater than mere atonement, or covering up.  In his death, Jesus dies in the place of man suffering the just punishment for the sins of the world.  This is the substitution portion of the equation.  There must be a penal, or punishment, aspect of the deal, and Jesus substitutes for the elect in this transaction with God.  The legal or accounting transaction that is proposed here is difficult for many to accept.  But to the reformers, it is the only reason sufficient to justify us to God, offering a satisfactory sacrifice for our sin.

The second element is the idea of propitiation.  Jesus, by his death, because of the highest quality of His sacrifice, not only atones for our sins, but he reconciles us to God.  He repairs the damaged relationship between God and sinners.  This reconciliation is a vital component of the Atonement in the eyes of the reformers.   In some translations, the word expiation appears.  The concept of expiation is the washing away of sin, the cleansing of sin.  The problem is that expiation is an action done on sin, while propitiation is an action done on the sinner.  Propitiation includes the reconciliation component of the atonement that is lacking in the idea of expiation.

The Greek word translated to propitiation is hilasterion.  In this form and conjugation, it appears in four places in the Bible.  Variations on the root appear in about a dozen other places, particularly in the Old Testament.  Given the different moments in redemptive history between OT and NT, we must be careful in interpreting the OT uses of the word in light of our knowledge of the Gospel.  Remember that the OT writers did not have the benefit of knowing the end of the story.  Therefore, their usage of some of the words may not covey the same richness of texture in the OT that can and should be applied to the NT usages.

Paul is the first to use the word in the New Testament in Romans 3:25.  Remember that Paul has just finished, in the first 2 ½ chapters, leveling all of mankind, hammering home the doctrine of original sin as described by Isaiah and Jeremiah.  Next, from the latter half of chapter 3 through chapter 5, Paul outlined the formula for salvation, defining justification and sanctification.  The key passage in question is Paul’s summary of the purpose of Christ’s work on the cross.  All of the key elements are present in this passage.  Justification is introduced as a result of the Grace of Jesus Christ, the redeemer.  Redemption connotes salvation.  God puts forth Jesus as a propitiation by His blood to be received by faith.  Clearly, we can see the penal portion of this equation given the reference to blood.  Justice can only be satisfied by an appropriate punishment, which is provided for us in Christ, and is received by us through faith.  Chapter 4 develops the Abrahamic Covenant, recalling the promise to Abraham through his seed.  By invoking this covenant language, Paul gives us the reconciliatory component, declaring us just inheritors of the promise.  Both of these concepts are tied back into the word propitiation that is the key word in this section of the Epistle. 

The writer of Hebrews uses the word in a similar fashion.  Hebrews 2:17 comes in a passage that first of all is about the Holy Priesthood of Christ, specifically making reference to the sacrifice that He makes both as priest and as sacrifice and in actuality, to Himself, being all parts of the drama for us.  But the whole passage is a discussion of Salvation, which again includes the element of reconciliation to God.  Therefore, once again, both of the key components of propitiation are central to the passage.

John uses the word twice in his first epistle, in 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10.  It is not my purpose at this time to discuss the components of Sanctification in terms of Wesleyan or Roman Catholic arguments on this passage, but rather to focus on the use of propitiation by John.  The key to the way John uses the word is found in the section preceding chapter 2.  We get two ideas there: the expiation of our sin and the forgiveness of our sins from Christ.  He combines these two ideas in the word propitiation in the next section and goes on to make the statement not only personal, but general.  The implications of this statement towards election I’ll cover in a subsequent post.  In chapter 4, John refers to propitiation, but here he does not further develop the concept, but rather he uses it as a fully understood concept in the development of his argument concerning God’s love.

What is interesting at this point is to notice where various translations have removed the word propitiation, substituting it most commonly with atonement or less commonly with expiation.  The Amplified Bible goes the extra mile in Romans to include the Mercy-Seat along with propitiation, presumably making sure that all the bases are covered.  The NIV goes with sacrifice of atonement, stripping much of the texture and depth from the passage.  The KJV, as always, sounds rather stilted, but does use the word propitiation in the same context as the newer English Standard Version.  The importance of the much maligned King James Version in this debate is its historical proximity to the Reformation.  The KJV was written in the early 17^th century, within 100 years of Luther and Calvin and within 50 years of the Council of Trent.  It was among the first few Bibles commissioned in English, well within this 100 year period.  The Geneva Bible, the direct antecedent to the KJV, uses the words reconciliation through faith in His blood in this verse, emphasizing the portion actually omitted in so many of the other versions.

The omission of the word propitiation from recent English versions of the Bible and from the newer rites of the Episcopal BCP demonstrates an insidious shift in theology away from Reformed thinking.  The elimination of the component of reconciliation, the component explicitly included in the Geneva Bible, demonstrates the theological pressures on translation that will shape religious thought in the near future.  The release of the ESV in 2001 has been heralded as an important development in reformed circles, and in most passages, it seems to be a worthy successor to the KJV.  In terms of the doctrine of propitiation, the inclusion of the word propitiation is more consistent with the usage of the Greek word hilasterion as well as the context of the passages.

--Troll--

Foundational Elements

Astutely, one recent email I received pointed to Original Sin and Free Will as the hard problems.  Absolutely, I agree.  In truth, the whole essence and fullness of the Reformed doctrines of Justification and Sanctification hinge upon these two elements.  If you get Original Sin wrong, or if you gut it of its fullness and the depth of its despairing nature, then you will not in turn receive the fullness and height of the Gospel.  Contrast is important.  Contrast and extremes help to give some just cause for the extreme measures of the Cross.  I have spoken on these issues before, but let’s go in greater depth.

Can one understand Original Sin without "believing in" Adam and Eve?  Indeed, was there a historical Adam?  In my piece on Genesis and Framework theory, I mentioned the idea of a literary genre that we can call creation genre.  If the framework theory is correct, the historical model of creation is what is at issue, not the primary fatherhood of Adam.  The Bible has more than one purpose in naming a primary genetic father.  The first is the selection of a federal representative of man.  But for all intent and purpose, Adam can be the prototype man without being the primary genealogical man.  In Romans, Paul suggests that not only would we have made the same mistake as Adam, but that we were there with Adam and did make that mistake.  The Original Sin is thus inherited genetically, federally and actually by commission by all man.  But the historic Adam is also important in establishing the human line that will become the royal family.  Abram is a direct descendant from Adam and these genealogies are important in the Old Testament as they lead to the connection to Jesus as shown in Matthew 1.  But since the Matthew 1 genealogy begins with Abraham, it can be argued that Adam's primacy in this regard is less important.  The conditional covenant with Adam is not the covenant of Grace that begins with Abraham.  Therefore, the genealogical ties of Jesus to Adam are less important than those same ties to Abraham, with whom the Covenant of Grace was cut.  Whether you believe in the primacy of Adam is not nearly as important as accepting the federal representation of Adam in the creation story.

The free will question becomes one of definition.  We all know that we make decisions.  Our days are full of decisions from the mundane to the relatively important.  A decision is an exercise in selection based upon our mind assessing the best option.  The criteria for this decision are evaluation of the options based upon moral and secular values as well as any other determinant known to our minds.  The issue then is one of defining the mind.  If the mind is inseparable from the body both physically and in our definition of what it is to be human, then free will is nothing but the exercise of making a decision.  The moral scale and values upon which a decision is made are determined by the perception of what is moral or what has secular value by the mind.  Since the mind is inseparable from the body in the condition we call human, then free will is also bound up in this formula.  If the body and therefore also the mind are contained with the set of things that are human, then they along with free will are in the set of things human that are in Adam.  This is how reformed theology views free will.  Because the basis of the exercise of free will is the constructs that are formulated from observation by the mind, then the decision process that is free will is also within the boundaries of what is human, and therefore subject to being in Adam and under the curse.

The Law is considered as being imprinted upon us by natural revelation, which is that all men have an inherent knowledge of morals and the Law.  This is why Adam can be said to be in Covenant relationship with God in Eden.  The Law is known to all man without having it specifically spelled out to him.  The Law is a conditional covenant that Adam breaks in Eden.  Adam was made capable of fulfilling the Law.  In fact, it can be said that Adam, and through Adam all men, experienced the only moment of uncorrupted free will in history.  But Sin does enter the world through Adam. 

There is an inherent relationship between creator and creature that the creature must obey the creator.  Disobedience is breaking of the inherent Law covenant between them.  The creature is created fully capable of fulfilling the Law, but fails.  Because Adam is prototype, or federal representative, we all fail.  The Law that is written into the heart of man is articulated at Sinai, which is actually just a reiteration and documentation of natural revelation.  Special revelation is used for the Gospel or Covenant of Grace.  Special revelation implies that it is not inherently known to all man, but instead must be learned specifically.  This has particular importance to the whole formula of redemption.  While all man may exercise free will, and choose to ignore or suppress God, as these are the only options he can make on his own after the fall, special revelation allows man to receive the gift of Grace.  God through the Holy Spirit actively chooses some for election by special revelation while passively passing over others who remain dead in natural revelation and sin.  Therefore, the active agent in salvation of the elect is the Holy Spirit, while the active agent in the reprobate is the free will of man.  This is as close as I can come to Luther’s position on this, and I think that it still reflects the reformed position as well.

This whole post is going to get the hackles up of literalistic interpreters of Genesis 1-3.  This insistence upon a young earth literalism that drives the dispensational view of the Bible runs aground in several places in the discussion of eschatology.  Kim Riddlebarger develops this theme quite thoroughly in his book A Case for Amillennialism.  The argument that is made is that only a literalistic handling of this passage preserves the authority of scripture.  Most Reformed theologians do not view it this way.  Since it is doubtful that first century Jews viewed their oral history in this manner, it does seem logical to view the text as creation genre which is more consistent with the oral tradition as discussed by Jewish scholars.  The authority of scripture is not compromised because the presentation is intended to accomplish giving a federal account of the fall of man.  This is all that I believe this passage attempts to do and therefore its authority is completely intact.  You can get lost in genesis 1-2 arguments, and many people do.  The whole summer on the blogosphere seemed dedicated to this debate.  In the framework theory, the big event is not the nuts and bolts of creation, but the order in creation.  By this, I do not mean chronological order, but order in opposition to chaos.  This leads to the big event, the fall, in Genesis 3.  How you view Genesis 3 and 15 will determine how you read the rest of the Bible and how you construct your theology.

And so we come to the final question, has Troll quickly dismissed free will as corrupt?  No, I don’t think that man comes to the necessary revelation of this corruption easily.  One of the great moments in the New Testament is Paul discovering that his self righteousness as a Pharisee is a mere shadow of the righteousness required by God for salvation.  The idea that the heart is corrupt is a thread throughout the whole Old Testament and particularly the Prophets.  But Paul brings this down like a 16 ton weight in Romans 3.  There is no conclusion possible concerning free will except that free will is corrupted by the fall after reading this passage.  No, dear reader, Troll did not accept this knowledge easily.  The full measure of the 16 tons was required to bring that home. 

--Troll--

Choose your teachers well

Today has been a weird day for me in the bloggosphere.  After my former favorite blog chose to go chomping on my current favorite blog, I was left with a very foul taste in my mouth.  In every letter, blog post, or piece of prose of any stripe, there is an intended audience and then there is a wider audience.  I have been discovering this truth for myself as I take up this blog writing habit.  It is with great frustration that I will write a piece and then receive responses that were not from the intended target that go off on a tangent.  I can see how this particular problem has taken a toll on Dan Phillips and Frank Turk.  It was their reaction to posters, particularly that of Dan, that sent me away from their posts.  I still read Phil from time to time, but I just cannot be bothered to read teachers who have so little regard for the people they supposedly intend to enlighten, and are so quick to brandish the label of "unteachable."

And so I come to the last two days on the two blogs in question.  Yesterday, Frank Turk wrote an open letter to Michael Horton.  The letter itself was reasonably respectful...for Frank.  The tone of the meta was typical Pyromaniacs with Dan being his usually caustic self.  The impression I have of Frank's letter is that he completely fails to see the audience of the White Horse Inn in the same way that the WHI foursome sees their audience.  They have a very clear mission statement and they have stuck to it.  Astutely, Frank points out that he at least envisions that their church ministries might have a more rounded presentation than the WHI format.  As well he should, since at least Kim Riddlebarger posts his sermons on the web, and from the evidence I've heard, he practices what he preaches (or preaches what he says he should preach.)

(There is clearly a point of departure from any one source of learning for all students.  That is actually the point of bibliographies IMHO.  I am one of those who actually purchases and reads the recommended books and select items from bibliographies.  One does this to broaden your foundation in the direction of your interest or line of study.)

Frank does not seem to understand the audience for WHI.  Horton's comments today seem out of place.  I wish that he had not chosen to respond at all.  Frank will read them and state dogmatically that Mike didn't answer his questions, as if his questions were so profound as to demand answers.  Mike responds in character and on point as you would expect from him, and yet in a tone that is almost sad.  He implies that several friends, readers or students asked him to respond and he finds the exercise...almost dirty.

I read Pyromaniacs for about a year and a half.  I have discovered where my differences are and where the similarities are.  We are certainly brothers in Christ, but with very different world views.  I read and listen to WHI now.  I have a larger overlap with these guys, and they turn me on to a better and wider bibliography.  Enough of the name calling already.  Frank, that letter was unnecessary.  Mike, you really should not have responded.

--Ogre--

The Heretics: Charles Finney

This article originally appeared in Modern Reformation in 1995.  It is a detailed overview of Finney's theology and what is wrong with it.  Finney remains one of the most influential people in American Evangelicalism.  This is one of the main reasons that a Modern Reformation is needed.  Enjoy.

The Legacy of Charles Finney

--Troll--

Free Will

Yes, this post is about freeing Willy, well, in a manner of speaking.  Free will.  It is what makes an Arminian instead of a Calvinist.  Let’s start from the beginning and build up to this most important of issues.  Adam had free will.  Look what Adam did with his free will.

Let us consider Romans 5 for a moment.  In this passage, it is clear that Adam represents man federally and genetically.  His sin has the consequence of a condition of sin for all mankind.  We inherit this sin from the moment of conception.  The concept of free will is bound up in the identity of man.  Free will is a part of man, it is inseparable from man.  Therefore, free will is flawed by sin as are all parts of man.  Can we choose God on our own?  Is it possible for a man to have done otherwise in Eden?  Paul says no to that in Romans 3, a quote from a number of OT sources including Psalms 53:3.  So, if a man’s free will is corrupted by sin, corrupted to the point where he cannot choose God, does not want to choose God, what good is free will?

Freed Willy?

A better question is what is the true state of our will.  Our will is in bondage to sin.  Our minds, bodies and souls are in bondage to sin.  That was the curse of Adam.  The wage of sin is death and we have earned it federally through Adam and specifically with our own deeds.  Every effort we make is corrupted by sin, since we live in the condition of sin.  If we do good works in the eyes of man, that is wonderful.  But these same deeds earn us nothing with God.  Either by motive or consequence, these deeds are corrupted, so that what seems to be a good deed before man condemns us before God.  Even our good intentions condemn us before our Righteous and Holy God.

But God knows our heart.  He just wants us to be sincere.  Try these verses on for size.  Genesis 6:5, Jeremiah 7:24, Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21.  Am I just proof texting?  Sure, but it is good proof texting, isn’t it!  And that was just scratching the tip of the iceberg.  The purpose of the law is to point out our sin, to define it, to make it known.  Therefore, who among us is without sin?  Who then has a pure heart, a good heart?  Whose will is free from sin?  None but Christ!

How does man come to believe in God and in the Gospel of Jesus Christ?  There is only one way.  The Holy Spirit, through the Word and sacraments, enters into the elect and transforms these hearts.  The Holy Spirit at Baptism breaks the bonds of sin, freeing us to be able to obey the Law.  The Holy Spirit points the way to Christ and to obedience to His will.  Because we remain in these earthly bodies that are still under the curse of Adam, we will falter, and we will sin.  But we will recognize the sin for what it is, and we will seek forgiveness.  This is the struggle of Christian living.  This is the struggle that will continue until death.  The resurrected body is not under the curse of Adam.  In that era, in that time, we will be able to live sinlessly for eternity.

Why doesn’t the Holy Spirit unbind the hearts of all men?  God says in scripture that he will keep an elect remnant to himself, more numerous than can be counted, but a remnant all the same.  Scripture says that these elect were predestined before the beginning of time.  Why?  That answer we are not given.  I’ve talked about the fairness issue before, but let’s do it again for us stubborn egalitarian Americans.

Through Adam, we are all doomed to a sinful state.  Through Adam, we all sin.  Due to this sin, we are all worthily, fairly and justly condemned to death.  Proof is available in the local cemetery.  We will all die.  Death and taxes, maybe, but always death.  From this graveyard of humanity, God saves some for Himself.  This is merciful.  This is gracious.  This is Good News!  We are not worthy.  It is not fair.  It is not just.  That’s the purpose of Christ’s ministry of reconciliation on this earth.  His sacrifice makes us worthy.  His sacrifice makes this just.  Don’t ask for fair.  You don’t want fair.  Fair means death.  Fair means the Wrath of God in the form of eternal separation from God.  No one really wants fair.  It is the mercy and Grace of the triune God that we most desire.

Free will?  No, thank you.  I’ll have a bit of that Holy Spirit, trust in Jesus, and enjoy my Gift from God.  Christian liberty means we are free to obey.

--Ogre--

Paul, Tell me your story…part 3

The post that just won’t die.  The question today is not about Paul.  The question is about telling my story.  Why not tell my story?  In order to start to answer this question, let me tell you Troll’s story; it is much more interesting.

Once upon a time, stories about trolls always start this way, there was a troll that lived under a bridge.  You would think that he’d get an apartment or something from all of the cash he’s made from blogging, but this was once upon a time, and that implies that it was long ago, before blogging, before the internet, but not before roast mutton sandwiches with a thin slice of tomato.  Troll was minding his own business, collecting tolls and eating things, when an ogre came to his bridge.  The Ogre started to tell him a story about why Troll shouldn’t try to eat him.  For one thing, there was some doubt as to which would do the eating.  Secondly, Ogre was feeling nauseous that day, having gotten hold of some rather rancid pork, and he just wasn’t up to fighting.  Troll had not had that experience with pork, in fact, pigs and hogs were more like appetizers to him, hardly worth chewing.  There was just no way that Troll was going to be able to have the same experience eating pork that Ogre had.  So, Troll was getting ready for a good old fashioned melee.  Ogre was determined to deter Troll, because not only was he nauseous, but had a ham bone stuck between his teeth, and it was giving him a headache.  Finally, Ogre decided to tell Troll that he could have eternal life in Jesus.  Now, Trolls live particularly long lives, longer than most empires last in fact.  But Troll was intrigued with this Jesus fellow.  Ogre talked for a long time and Troll began to understand about justification and imputation.  He learned about sin and reconciliation.  Ogre was very elegant and thoughtful in his presentation…for an Ogre.  Troll realized, not quite of his own choosing, that there was truth in the Words that Ogre spoke.  Later that week, on Thursday, a bit after 7 in the evening, Troll was Baptized, right there, under the bridge, by a passing bishop with whom he bargained for the sacrament.  Now, a few decades later, Troll insists on telling the Gospel to any who chance upon his bridge.  It is a steep price for travelers to pay, listening to Troll talk, but it is far better than being eaten.

Let’s analyze this story, shall we?  Is there anything particularly profound about Ogre’s story?  Troll wasn’t impressed.  It didn’t seem likely that Ogre’s experience, while impressive to Ogre, was going to be shared by Troll.  In much the same way, our own experiences are not likely to be duplicated by those to whom we witness.  Every person is unique.  The sharing of experiences and feelings recruits the listener to share the experience and feeling.  What if they can’t have that feeling?  What if they have the feeling, or something that sounds like it might be the experience, but that feeling is gone by next Tuesday?  What sort of argument is an experience or a feeling?

The Gospel is external to us.  It is historical fact.  I know that some will argue that it is easier to defend a personal experience than a fact.  True.  But what does a personal experience of yours prove to me?  Nothing.  Facts might prove something.  Facts require a bit of work, yes.  You have to know the facts.  You have to have build a system of facts that is logical and can stand up to argument.  You have to learn how to build an argument and defend an argument.  My goodness, that’s starting to sound like work!  Yes, it is.

Let me show you something amazing.  Acts 2.  Peter appeals to scripture.  He appeals to fulfilled prophesy.  He testifies to the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  This is Peter!  Name a person, just one, whose personal testimony you think just might be fairly persuasive.  Is Peter pretty close to the top of that list?  Sorry, then.  Peter thinks talking about fulfilled prophesy and the resurrection is more important by far.  That is the proper example.  That is the testimony that is Worthy of Christ.  Yes, it is the harder road.  Yes, there just might be an amazing conversion experience at the end of it.  But when the warm fuzzies fade away, there will be a sound structure built from scripture and historical facts left in the listener.

For completeness, let me lay out one more negative thought of personal experience, just a little thicker.  Oh, the arrogance!  You have the story of the greatest life ever lived on earth at your disposal, and you think that your life has greater significance?!  Really?  You think that because you are so special, talking about yourself is actually going to move someone to read about some other guy that neither of you has met.  You would have a friend build a relationship with someone based upon your experience with that someone without your friend having any significant knowledge of that person.  Please!  I want you to tell me that you would marry a person without learning anything about them based solely on how you feel about them.  Yes, I know, it is done.  What are the odds of those relationships lasting a long time.  What if you marry someone that you’ve known a long time, someone who is becoming your best friend?  What are the odds of those relationships lasting a long time.

The example of the Apostles is my point.  Lay out your argument.  Use scripture.  Use facts.  Appeal to Christian evidences.  Tell the Gospel.  Leave the pronoun “I” out of it.  If it is the Greatest Story Ever Told, then tell it.  You may not have time to tell it all in one encounter.  It may not be your encounter that the person remembers later.  The Holy Spirit does NOT witness about you.  The Holy Spirit witnesses about Christ.  Tell the Gospel.  It is the best argument you have going.

--Ogre--

Paul, tell me your story…part 2

It is not often that I’ll write something and then find the need to expound on my rather lengthy prose so shortly thereafter.  This is such a moment.  Only a week ago, I asked not to be burdened with your story, but rather that we should all defer to The Story as revealed in the Bible.  Once again, the example of Paul has been raised up as a defense of using our testimonies rather than scripture and Christian evidences for Evangelism and Apologetics.  I shall try again with Paul to demonstrate that Paul does nothing of the sort.  The confusion lies in the distinction of Paul’s unique position in redemptive history as the Apostle to the Gentiles from our own lives.

Paul wrote twelve letters that are included in the Canon.  If Paul wrote Hebrews, then this only helps my argument, but let’s say that he didn’t for my purpose here.  In nine of the epistles, Paul begins by claiming that he is an Apostle of Christ Jesus; in one other, he refers to himself as an apostle in the body of the letter.  Therefore, the cornerstone of this debate is the defining of the word Apostle.  

According to the Bible, an Apostle is one in authority.  Matthew 10 is the great passage where Jesus commissions the first twelve apostles for ministry within the Royal family, the Jews.  He also differentiates between apostles and disciples in Matthew 10:24-25.  In Mark 3:14-15, Jesus says that apostles preach and have the authority to cast out demons.  Luke 9 gives us a similar commission of the apostles.  This remains the mission statement of the Apostles until after the resurrection when Christ assigns a new mission for the twelve.  Matthew 28:19-20, Mark 16:15-18, and Luke 24:48 proclaim the new plan also known as the Great Commission: you are witnesses, so spread the Gospel.

It is clear that after the Resurrection and Pentecost, the mission of the apostles has changed.  Acts 4:33 talks about the apostles giving their testimony of the resurrection.  Once Peter begins to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles, the direction of the whole mission of the apostles and the church shifts again.  Paul’s reinterpretation of Old Testament scripture and prophets is presented to the Counsel of Jerusalem, in light of the work of the Holy Spirit through both Peter and Paul.  The Jerusalem Counsel confirms the work of Peter and Paul among the Gentiles.

How does Paul lay claim to the title of Apostle?  The key lines are Acts 4:33 and Acts 9:15-16.  The apostles witness to the resurrection.  In order to give testimony to an event, a person must be an eyewitness in order to have credibility.  It is this area that Paul’s testimony is germane.  Because Paul is the only person after Pentecost who actually gives eyewitness testimony to the resurrection, his testimony is vitally important.  Paul is a hostile witness.  As a member of the Pharisees, and particularly to the more militant branch, Paul’s credentials as being hostile to Christians is well earned.  He has motive and opportunity to continue on the course he had been living.  He had no worldly incentive to change his path.  This is the instrument that Christ selects to be His final witness to His resurrection until the Last Day.  Paul’s suffering is foretold .  It is part and parcel to his testimony.  The calling of Paul is wrapped up into two parts: Paul did witness the Resurrected Jesus, and Paul will be taught the meaning of suffering.  But the key item is his eyewitness account.

Can we then draw a parallel between Paul’s defense of his apostleship in several of his epistles and the idea of our own testimony?  The answer to this question is obvious to me.  Can anyone of us actually give an eyewitness account to the resurrected Christ?  Until such a time, our own testimony is unnecessary and irrelevant.  We are not Apostles.  Christ is sitting at the Right Hand of God until He comes again in Glory to judge the living and the dead.  When he comes back, that’s called the Last Day, the end of this era.  It is a great and terrible day.  Until that time, we do not witness to his resurrection except from scripture that gives the accounts of the actual witnesses, the Apostles.  Our testimony is the scripture.

And so, once again, spare me your story, and I’ll spare you mine.  Instead, let’s get busy with telling the Greatest Story ever told, the Gospel.  The Word and the Spirit through the Word are where all of the power resides in this world.

--Ogre--

2 Corinthians 5

Bible study this week for us will be on this key passage, 2 Corinthians 5.  The arguments leading up to this section in chapters 3 and 4 have laid the groundwork for the imagery of chapter 5.  We have seen the New Covenant in Christ proclaimed and that the witness to this Gospel is the Holy spirit.  We have seen the two kingdom motif laid out and the idea of our earthly bodies being mere jars of clay that are cracked by sin and doomed to decay and break.  We have the idea that the Holy Spirit indwells the elect, making us transformed and capable of sharing this information with others, but we realize that it is the Holy Spirit within that transforms, not the vessel that carries the Gospel in this world.  In chapter 5, Paul is hammering home the authorship of this salvation.  At the same time, he is reminding us that we are all charged with the ministry of spreading the Gospel.  What I have laid out below is a paragraph by paragraph paraphrasing of this chapter, adding antecedent concepts back into the argument for clarity and developing this argument in view of what Paul has said to the Corinthians and others before.

5:1 For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, 3 if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. 4 For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.

We know that if we die (these jars of clay break) and leave these earthly bodies behind, we have a resurrection body for us on the Last Day that will last forever in Heaven.  While we remain in this world, we look forward to the world yet to come.  By virtue of our faith in the promise of the world yet to come for the elect through Jesus’ work on the Cross, we will be redeemed.  While we remain in this world in these bodies under the curse of Adam, we look to the resurrection, but with full knowledge that we are secure in our regeneration and salvation.  God has done all the work, has arranged all of the events for our salvation; they are finished, objective and historical facts, and the Holy Spirit gives testimony to these facts.

OK, is that really what Paul said?  Much of what he is stating here is in shorthand.  He has already revealed the formula for salvation through faith alone in the redeeming work of Christ alone due to His Grace alone for the Glory of God alone.  That is the formula that underlies this whole passage.  Paul will hit every point of it along the way in this passage, but it helps to remember that this whole formula is always in the forefront of the mind of Paul in this discussion.

6 So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, 7 for we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9 So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

So we are bold in our faith.  We realize that as long as we remain in this world, and though we are citizens of the world to come by faith, we remain separated from God as long as we have these earthly bodies.  We are strong in our faith and long for the day that the Lord Jesus Christ returns in Judgment.  In our recognition of this faith in the Sufficiency of the Blood of Jesus Propitiating for us for our Sin and in our Gratitude for this Gift, we strive to obey the commandments of God.  We will all appear before God in Judgment on the Last Day, and each will be judged according to their righteousness. (It is understood here that the elect will be judged by the imputed righteousness of Christ from earlier arguments.)

Does Paul ever deny the Judgment on the Last Day?  No.  Never.  Does he ever infer that God will be anything but a Just God on that day?  No.  Never.  Does he ever imply, infer, suggest or outright say that we are capable of fulfilling the Law and actually receiving a just judgment of life from God?  No.  Never.  The fact that we will be judged according to our righteousness is terrible news.  This is horrible beyond belief!  This is not meant to be encouraging to man; this is meant to be a heavy handed threat of the Wrath of God.  This paragraph is about our faith, a faith that is manifest in a transformation of the heart by the Holy Spirit, a transformation that cannot be seen by man, but only by God.  This transformation is by the power of the Holy Spirit through knowledge and faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, who has died in propitiation for our sins, reconciling us to God, a perfect sacrifice for the whole world.  Paul is reminding us that our justification is through the Blood of Christ on the Cross.

11 Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others. But what we are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience. 12 We are not commending ourselves to you again but giving you cause to boast about us, so that you may be able to answer those who boast about outward appearance and not about what is in the heart. 13 For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. 14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; 15 and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

Therefore, knowing that God is Just and Righteous, and that all men are imputed sin through Adam, all men should rightly fear the Wrath of God for our sin.  It is our duty to educate others to this reality.  God knows the heart of man, and that is the problem.  It is only through the imputed righteousness of Jesus that we may be judged worthy of salvation.  This transformation in Christ is written in the heart and is not visible to the eye.  The arguments concerning outward appearance and civic righteousness under the law of man do not fool God.  God sees the heart of man and he knows where the Holy Spirit dwells.  If it seems that our arguments are contrary to the logic of man, it is because the mind of God holds us to a different standard.  God’s reasons are hidden to man.  We act in obedience to Christ out of gratitude for his Gift: Jesus Christ died in propitiation for our sin, reconciling us to God, and in arising from the dead, He has secured victory over death for us for eternity.  We no longer live for ourselves, but rather for Him who has secured this eternal victory for us.

16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.  The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Therefore, we no longer regard men by the outer body of this world, but rather by the transformed person that remains hidden while still in the world, because although Christ was once wholly man and of this world, He is also wholly God and of the world yet to come.  When we are made regenerated men by authentic Baptism and true faith through the Holy Spirit acting in us, we become new beings, reborn into the kingdom yet to come.  The old self is gone, though the body hangs on for a time, and the new self is hidden within the body of this world, but now has come through the promise to the world yet to come.  All this is a gift from God.  God through His Son Jesus Christ has accomplished this ministry of reconciliation on our behalf while we were still sinners.  This was done external to us, with no help from us, for us and for our salvation.  It is extrinsic to us.  It is historical fact.  And most importantly, when all of this was going on, we were still sinners, enemies of God.  God has made us His messengers, His ambassadors for Christ.  He has entrusted us with this mission.  And this is the message on behalf of Jesus Christ: Be reconciled to God.  For our sake, God made Jesus to be human, who having no sin and therefore being the Perfect Sacrifice for the whole world, through substitutionary atonement, imputed our sin to Jesus, and the righteousness of Christ to us, propitiated for us with God so that we may be judged righteous and sinless on the Last Day, imparting His victory over death to His elect so that we may live forever with Him in resurrected bodies in the redeemed world.

Why does this sound so repetitive when you read it?  Because, this is a big deal.  This is the Gospel.  Paul repeats himself to make sure we understand it.  I’ve added back the full promise every time Paul refers to the promise to make sure that you understand what is at stake in this passage.  And I could have added the full formula more than I have, and it would have been applicable to the passage.  Faith must have an object.  I can say that I have faith.  You can ask, faith in what?  I might reply faith in Jesus.  You might say, that’s nice.  So, what?  Why should you have faith in Jesus?  What did he do?

I just love (heavy sarcasm) those WWJD bracelets.  They absolutely and totally miss the point and misdirect the person.  It is not about what Jesus would do; it is about what Jesus has already done.  It is finished.  While we were still sinners, He did all of this for us.  That is the good news; that is the Gospel.  Therefore, the whole formula is necessary before we can start using shorthand to describe and articulate our faith.  That is the purpose of creeds.  That is the purpose of liturgy.  That is the purpose of a concise and Biblical statement of faith.  That is what Paul has been doing in 2 Corinthians 5.

--Troll--

The Holy Spirit Right Now

The Holy Spirit is the third part of the Holy Trinity.  We all know the story of Pentecost, where the Holy Spirit comes to the Apostles.  The goal of this post is to review the purpose of the Holy Spirit, the issue of Sanctification, the sufficiency of the Resurrection, the purpose of the Sacraments and the Spiritual gifts.  As this is an absolutely huge topic.  While there is an overwhelming urge in some to leap to 1 Corinthians to discuss the Holy Spirit, let us instead begin in Acts.

The Holy Spirit is given to Apostles, first by way of introduction in Acts 1, and then in actuality in Acts 2:1-13.  The Spirit comes as if tongues of fire rested on each one of them and they began speaking different tongues.  This is the first reference to speaking in tongues in the Bible.  Read closely what follows in Acts 2:5-13.  They miraculously were speaking the various languages of the Jews from all parts of the world who were in Jerusalem in that time.  What can we say about this?  First, the gift of tongues was an Apostolic gift; it was given specifically to the Apostles.  Second, the gift of tongues means foreign languages in its initial presentation.  Any change in that concept has to be as clearly stated as it is in Acts 2 to alter this perception.

Third, let’s deal with Acts 2:37-41.  In response to Peter’s Pentecost Sermon, Jews ask the Apostles what to do.  The response is to be Baptized in the name of Jesus and to receive the Holy Spirit.  What is absolutely clear in this passage is that the Holy Spirit is conferred upon believers at the time of Baptism.  Acts 2:39 “For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” Now this is huge on a number of levels.  This is a generational promise, to the children of believers.  This is also a promise to those who are far off.  This might be Jews who are geographically far away.  But as we shall see later, Paul has a different idea of what this means; he is referring to the Gentiles.  This is clearly covenant language as well.  Peter is speaking of the promise.  We know from previous study that he is referring to the promise of God to Abraham, manifest in Christ Jesus and now demonstrated in the Holy Spirit indwelling in all believers.  So far, so good.  Not much controversy yet.  Let’s plow on.

Acts 5:1-11 is the story of Ananias and Sapphira.  I am bringing up this account for selfish reasons as well as this being a window into understanding James.  Without a proper hermeneutic to handle this story, it was a very real stumbling block to me in my systemic theology undertaking.  Let’s examine this story.  The couple profess to have true faith.  They withhold a part of their earthly treasure.  Peter accuses them of lying to the Holy Spirit and they are stricken dead.  Does this mean that tithing is not enough, but we have to do as the Apostles did, give up everything and follow Christ?  If that is the case, how do you reconcile Jesus’ teaching about the Law?  Let’s try a different understanding of this passage.  Let’s look at it in terms of true faith, a theme that James will develop in great detail.  This couple did not place their faith in Christ.  They held back, not just their treasure, but their true faith.  By their disobedience, they demonstrated where their true faith resided, in the things of this world.  Since this was a rejection of Grace, Peter merely allowed their death sentence under the Law to be brought forward to the present time in order to instruct on the wages of sin.  This Law passage is not intended to be an instruction concerning tithing or Sanctification.  This is a passage about true faith.  This couple clearly did not have the Holy Spirit indwelling; therefore, Peter did not want them dwelling in and among the disciples. 

In Acts 5:32, Peter again lectures the Jewish leadership after the Sadducees had caused the arrest of the Apostles.  He is saying here that the Holy Spirit witnesses to these things.  This is important, to which things does the Holy Spirit witness?  God raised Jesus, who was killed by the Jewish leadership.  God exalted Jesus to His right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 

Let’s break this down.  The resurrection is the key.  The Holy Spirit is given as a witness to the resurrection.  Jesus is now on the Right Hand of God. (This is an important passage for the arguments against dispensationalism, but that’s for another day.) Jesus is Leader and Savior; He is prophet, priest and King.  That’s pretty much a statement of messiah.  He gives repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.  Who can forgive sins?  God, therefore, Jesus is God.  Putting this all together: The Holy Spirit witnesses to these Truths: Jesus is God, Jesus is messiah, and proof of these is that Jesus was resurrected and is seated at the right hand of the God.

Therefore, (and remember what “therefore” means,) any reference to the Holy Spirit or spiritual gifts must be thought of in the context of these definitions.  If an interpretation of either is contrary to these passages, then we have not used a proper hermeneutic in interpretation of those later passages.

Let’s switch gears for a moment and discuss Sanctification and the Sacraments.  Sanctification begins with Baptism.  We know this from many sources, but Paul explains that Justification and Sanctification are both external to us, through Jesus alone, and that the elect will be moved by the Holy Spirit to receive these gifts.  So, Paul clarifies the purpose of the Holy Spirit, that is, the Holy Spirit makes us aware of the true nature of these gifts (Justification and Sanctification) and allows us to receive them.  In so far as the Great Commission is concerned, the Holy Spirit in us assists us in the spreading of the Gospel.  The Gospel, again, is the Good News that Jesus is God and messiah, and that the resurrection really happened.   It is not up to us how that message is received.  If the Holy Spirit moves the listener, either immediately or in the future, it is no act of ours, either as speaker or as listener.  It is all up to the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit seeks out the elect and moves them towards the Gospel.

The Sacraments, Baptism and Holy Communion (or the Lord’s Supper), are more than just public demonstrations of faith.  It is clear from Peter, that Baptism is the mechanism to receive the Holy Spirit.  Holy Communion is our covenant renewal ceremony wherein we receive small boosts of Grace that assist us in our Sanctification.   Listening to the Gospel preached to us is the other mechanism in which we receive our Sanctifying doses of Grace.  To what does the Holy Spirit witness?  To the Gospel!  Therefore, the Gospel is not just for the unregenerated or not yet regenerated, but it is also for the transformed elect!  We must regularly hear the Gospel preached correctly and receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion.  The Holy Spirit always reveals that which is past, the external and saving events of the Gospel.  One final note about the notion of receiving Grace: I am not referring to the Roman Catholic notion of discrete, quantifiable doses of grace that contribute to the overall equation of a works based sanctification.  These doses of Grace are more of a continual renewal, like filling up the tank.  This is not meant to undermine justification, but to support sanctification.

OK, now let’s get controversial.  Some of you are Pentecostal and subscribe to a different theology.  It begins with the idea that the Holy Spirit is given after Sanctification and the evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit must be seen in public displays of “spiritual gifts” such as glossolalia.  Expression of such “gifts” is seen as evidence of the person attaining a higher or fuller level of believer.  If a person fails to exhibit one of these higher “spiritual gifts,” they remain a “carnal Christian” and remain in a lower level of Heaven for eternity come Judgment Day.  In a minute, we’ll plow through some key passages, but for now, let’s talk about the logical outcome of this type of theology.  Is the resurrection of Christ sufficient for your salvation?  If yes, why do you need to demonstrate something in the flesh?  If no, then you have just gutted the Gospel.  It really is that simple.  There is no Biblical support for this notion of a carnal Christian.  This theology is oppressive, idolatrous, unbiblical and heretical.  Is that emphatic enough?  Practice flows from theology, not the other way round.

Either Jesus is Lord and Savior, Who was resurrected on the third day, so that He could provide for His elect, through substitutionary atonement, propitiation for our sin, and this was a completely sufficient sacrifice for us and for our salvation; or He isn’t.  You decide.  A negative response is all about you.  It is the only answer you can come by on your own.  A positive response is indicative of the Holy Spirit at work in you.  You could not have truly answered positively otherwise.

Read that last paragraph again.  It is the key to understanding the Holy Spirit.

Now, we are ready to discuss the gifts of the Holy Spirit.  There are a few lists of these gifts and we need to be complete.  They are divided into two types: ministry gifts and spiritual gifts.  All of these gifts are given to us to use for what purpose?  There can be only one purpose: to proclaim and witness to the Gospel.  If the body of Christ has needs, needs that ultimately facilitate this primary end, the answer to those needs will appear within the body of Christ.  These gifts might be as mundane as secretarial skills.  In fact, it is far more likely that these gifts will be mundane.  Exciting, supernatural skills are rarely needed and rarely provided.  Even in the recording of Acts, supernatural gifts faded in frequency.  The expectation of the supernatural is akin to what was asked of Jesus in His trial.  How did He respond?  He said that the sign of Jonah was the last sign they would have.  The next thing Jesus did was not just a sign, it was the whole enchilada: he arose from the dead and walked on this earth again in His glorified and resurrected body.

In order to handle the debate about the more supernatural gifts, these categories are helpful: continuation, dormancy and cessation. Continuation means that the spiritual gifts continue into the present day. Dormancy means that the spiritual gifts are in a period when they are not needed, but that they will return as we approach the Second Coming in the period of the Apostasy.  Cessation means that they have not manifest since the time of the early first century church.  The frequency of the use of these gifts was less frequent as we wind through the book of Acts.  These gifts were specifically offered to the 12 Apostles in Acts 2, a position that is supported in scripture. Throughout Acts, no disciple except for Ananias in Acts 9 has such gifts, and that instance is given not just by the Holy Spirit, but by either the Father or the Risen Lord Himself.  Otherwise, it is only in the twelve that they are manifest in Acts.

Before we plow through the lists, remember the definitions supplied above concerning the purpose of the Holy Spirit.  Any manifestation of a spiritual gift must satisfy those criteria to be authentic.  The Holy Spirit is not going to help you choose friends, win at sports, generate worldly goods or even heal your ailments unless there is a direct and obvious connection to proclaiming the Gospel.  Evangelism is for the unconverted and prophecy is for the elect.  In each of these regards, manifestations of the Holy Spirit will work to proclaim the Gospel.  That is the stated purpose of the Holy Spirit in Scripture in the red letters of Christ.

Ephesians 4 lists the ministry gifts, whose purpose is to "equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ:" Apostles, prophets, evangelists and teachers.  There is nothing particularly supernatural that is translated to the modern era in this list. The Apostles are a specific set of people who had their time and are gone.  Prophets are rooted in time also, but with some allowance given for prophecy near the time of the apostasy.  Evangelists and teachers are not particularly supernatural other than receiving the inspiration of the Holy Spirit through Baptism. These people are tasked with the ministry of the Body of Christ. It can be argued that there are specific offices that are set up to minister.  Paul’s epistles to Timothy and Titus come to mind in this regard.  There is also the idea that every member of the body of Christ is expected to minister.  Is there value to particular offices in the church if everyone is evangelizing and teaching?  Absolutely!  The sacraments are vital parts of the life of a Christian.  In addition, the preaching of the Word from the pulpit is an inspired office that through the Holy Spirit imparts the renewal of Grace to Christians.  While I may attempt to teach, this is not preaching.  These offices in the church are essential in these two capacities.

The arguments for spiritual gifts in the present age are rooted in 1 Corinthians 12-14.  In this passage, Paul is answering a query from the church in Corinth.  We do not know the exact question that was asked, but we can draw a couple of inferences.  First, worship in Corinth had become unruly and disorderly.  Paul was an ex-Pharisee.  He didn’t much like disorder.  Therefore, a good deal of the discussion in this section is about order in the church.

Paul quotes Joel 2:28-31 in 1 Corinthians 12:4-11.  The point of this is the context of the idea of prophesy in Joel.  It is clear that the prophesy in this passage concerns the period of the apostasy.  Likely, since this is the modus operandi of Paul to quote OT scripture and reinterpret them in the context of Christ, this passage in Corinthians is meant to chasten the Corinthians.  He is educating them as to the purpose of these gifts.  We’ll come to this idea again at the end of this argument.

Wisdom and knowledge are polemics against Greek paganism. The wisdom and knowledge of Christ is a public knowledge of His resurrection, while the Greek wisdom is hidden.

Concerning healing: we will all be bodily healed on Judgment Day, and this may be the purpose of this passage. In some cases, the causes and outcomes of disease are obvious, and in other cases they remain unknown. The context of healing that occurs both by Jesus and the Apostles in Acts has a couple of distinct features. First, the purpose of these healings is always in order to advance the Gospel. The benefit to the individual who is healed is secondary to the benefit to the whole body of Christ. See verse 7. For the common good means for the body of Christ, not for the individual glorification of any one member of the body. If these same gifts appear to glorify an individual, you can be sure that it is NOT the Holy Spirit operating there. Second, all of these healings are accomplished in a public place, often in view of hostile, non-believing witnesses who have both motive and opportunity to offer contradictory accounts of these events.  Take Acts 3-4 for example. Whether it was Peter or John who did the healing, the point is that it was done very publically. Also, Peter was given an opportunity to advance the Kingdom of God from the event. So, when evaluating healing and any other spiritual gift, ask whether the event in question satisfies these two points.

As Paul winds up his argument in 1 Corinthians 14, in verse 23 he quotes Isaiah 28:11.  Again, the OT context implies a foreign language rather than glossolalia, but that still is not the point.  In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul is completing his argument for order. The last verse of the section cannot be more explicit.  The church in Corinth is in utter chaos. Paul is trying to put things in order. This is not so much an instruction to have everyone speak in tongues, but rather an instruction on orderly worship. And finally, remember my first rule. All gifts of the spirit are supposed to witness to the Gospel. If the gifts cause division within the church, you will know that these tongues are NOT the inspired gifts of the Holy Spirit. God wants order. Paul really is lecturing the Corinthians on order in worship.  Read 36-40.

36 Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. 38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. 39 So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But all things should be done decently and in order.

If this is Paul’s summary of this section, shouldn’t also be ours?  Verses 36-37 are particularly important.  It is the implied “therefore” of Paul.  If you do not accept all of Paul’s teachings, then are you truly a prophet?  Are you really the only ones to whom the Word of God came?  It is an intense section of rebuke when you read the whole passage.  

When watching periods of glossolalia or even simple prayer in some Pentecostal churches, the thing that usually strikes me is the complete lack of orderly worship.  Everyone is speaking different things at once, and it is encouraged.  Remember that the summary of this section of Paul’s Epistle is a rebuke.  There is a large difference between earnestly desiring to prophesy and actually doing it.  Remember what Christ himself said in Acts 1:7-8.

7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

The Holy Spirit is about witnessing to the Gospel; nothing more, and nothing less.  Amen.

--Troll--

Paul, Tell me your Story.

One of my beloved and respected teachers made a comment about Paul that struck me as being at odds with my ideas about evangelism.  If you know Ogre, you know that I never take anything from any teacher as Gospel unless it dovetails with my understanding of Scripture.  This is not mean as disrespect or arrogance, although both may be perceived, but rather as an inquisitive student who pushes the envelope of any and all he encounters.  That’s why I’m the Ogre.

Paul is known as the Apostle to the Gentiles.  What is also true is that he spent the majority of his ministry visiting and writing churches that were predominantly made up of Jewish converts.  It was well known that Paul was not of the original twelve.  The use of the label “Apostle” on Paul was not received with the same sort of validation of authenticity as it was when referencing Peter or John.  Therefore, Paul often began his Epistles with a defense of his calling as an Apostle.

It has been said that this was an example of Paul telling his story to spread the Gospel.  This is the statement that I will be arguing against.  Starting with Romans, the first Pauline Epistle, Paul discusses his credentials as an Apostle for about one paragraph, then he dives into doctrine.  Paul, in his discussions of doctrine, ALWAYS grounds his arguments in scripture.  The Old Testament is cited by Paul either by direct quote or paraphrase over 70 times in the book of Romans.  Once Paul has finished defending his credentials, which he unfortunately has to do, Paul’s arguments are ALWAYS grounded in scripture, NOT in his experience.  This is an important distinction.

Jesus quoted scripture.  Jesus acted in accordance with what the Old Testament prophets, His prophets, stated would be the actions of the messiah.  Jesus grounded His earthly ministry in Scripture.  Paul always does the same.  He always grounds his arguments in Scripture.

Paul’s letters are a part of scripture.  All of the epistles are Apostolic utterances that have been included in the Canon.  Therefore, Paul's defense of his Apostleship is germane today for his validation as an author of scripture.  Once he has established his Apostolic credentials, his arguments for the Gospel are always about Jesus and His fulfillment of scripture.  He does NOT use his experience as an argument for the Gospel.

What example, then, can we take from the Bible in general, and Paul in particular, for our own evangelistic style?  Peter in his Pentecost sermon in Acts 2 reasons and argues from Scripture.  He doesn’t tell his story.  Granted, many listening know who he is, but his arguments are from Scripture.  Paul argues for the Gospel from Scripture and gives the Christian Evidences, the most important of which is the resurrection.  As a witness to the resurrected Christ, this one portion of Paul’s testimony is relevant.  All of the Apostles have the same portion of their testimony, and it is relevant.  We have these accounts recorded for us in the Bible.  They are the testimonies that are relevant. 

My testimony, as exciting and earth moving as it is to me, is not relevant.  My faith never has converted anyone, nor will it.  My testimony is about as useful as a soaking wet bath towel.  It is the Holy Spirit that converts the elect.  The Holy Spirit works to confirm the Gospel.  Why waste time and space with discussions of my own fascinating and non-reproducible story of conversion when the real Christian evidences are at my disposal.  They are timeless, topical, useful, effective, Scriptural, well documented and appropriate.  Plus, the Holy Spirit doesn’t lift up me or my experience.  The Holy Spirit lifts up the Gospel.

So, please.  Spare me your testimony and I’ll spare you mine.  Evangelism means to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not the story of Ogre, not even the story of Paul.

--Ogre--

Jars of Clay

Reformed theology provides categories that enable us to handle tough passages in the Bible with a great deal more ease.  One of the more important groups of categories is based on the amillennial eschatology idea of two kingdoms.  Eschatology is the study of redemptive history as revealed in scripture.  Amillennialism takes its name from the idea that the 1000 years of Revelations 20 may not be a literal 1000 years, but rather a figurative number that means a long time.  After all, 2 Peter 3:8 suggests just this sort of inexactitude, and Matthew 25 hammers home the fact that the Second Coming and Judgment happen together with no 1000 year gap.  However, amillennialism represents far more than this limited statement about time.  The two kingdom model changes how we read scripture and opens up much of the riches of the Bible that are hidden to the casual observer.

Jesus sets out early in His ministry discussing the Kingdom of Heaven, the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom yet to come.  These are all synonymous.  The other kingdom is the domain of man, the already, the right now, the world of man.  When reading both Old Testament prophets and New Testament Gospel and Epistles, pay particular attention to differences drawn between the world of man and the Kingdom of God.  All of the Gospels are thick with this language, particularly John.  Paul’s arguments are particularly rich in this imagery as well.  The prototype genre of the New Testament for these delineations is the parable.

Parables usually are working on three levels.  Let us take for example the parable of the rich young ruler.  In this parable, the man asks Jesus how to inherit the Kingdom of heaven.  Jesus answers him on several levels.  First, He states that there is only One who is good, meaning Himself as the One who kept the Law.  He refers the man to the Law and the Commandments, the Covenant of Sinai.  The man makes the typical mistake of the Pharisee assuming that he has always kept the Law.  Paul certainly recognized this error after his conversion.  What else, the man asks?  “If you would be perfect….” Jesus amps up the Law in order to demonstrate the full extent of the Law and the futility of man keeping the Law.

Most everyone focuses attention on the man’s wealth.  This is the surface layer.  Coupling this wealth with the eye of a needle comment, the assumption is that wealth is an idol that rules man and, therefore, it is nearly impossible for the wealthy to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.  This is a shallow, sort of an Aesop’s fables approach, with some moral point to make, and it just plain misses the mark.  The next level of understanding concerns the Pharisees.  In most parables, Jesus is talking to the Pharisees, who are the logical foil for Jesus as they embody the Covenant of Law.  Therefore, in each parable, the Pharisees easily see themselves in the parable represented as a character that ultimately is doomed.  The rich young ruler is clearly a Pharisee, a keeper of the Law.  

The third level is that of eschatology, the story of redemptive history unfolding.  The contrasts in the parables between the Covenants of Law and Grace parallel the contrasts between the already and the not yet, the world of man and the Kingdom of God.  This is particularly clear in the prodigal son analogy.  The young man returns and throws himself at the mercy of his father (Our Father) who sees him through the eyes of the Promise and offers him the full inheritance.  The older son, who has kept the Law, is jealous of the younger son who has done nothing and still gets the inheritance.  We see this same jealousy operating in the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard.  The man who arrives last gets a full wage and the first present are jealous.  These parables paint a true picture of the Kingdom of Heaven.  The Jews, the older son and the early arrivers, who believe that they are the true Israel are jealous of the Gentiles who come late.  Jesus is demonstrating through the parables that the true Israel is in Him.  He may choose whomever He will. 

After the Resurrection, Jesus becomes the first member of the Kingdom of Heaven in a resurrected body.  Jesus Christ ushers in the Kingdom of God.  The amillennial view is that all of the time from Pentecost to the Second Coming and Judgment is the millennial time.  During that time, Christians are members of both kingdoms.  By virtue of their Baptism and faith alone in Jesus alone through Grace alone, Christians are transformed.  The problem is that we still inhabit these earthly bodies.  These earthly bodies are still bound by the Fall of Adam.  Therefore, we have a tension set up between our bodies in Adam and our transformation in Christ.  We are simultaneously members of both the kingdom of this world, the Creation, and the Kingdom of God.  We have dual citizenship, so to speak.

This is not to say that our souls are part of the Kingdom of God while our bodies are of Adam.  That is the Gnostic heresy.  When we become members of the Body of Christ, we become transformed.  When we inherit our resurrected bodies on the Last Day, those new resurrection bodies are reunited with our souls to create the perfection in Christ that is the promise.  Both body and soul are part of the promise.

Therefore, having set up the concept of the Two Kingdoms, each existing now with us Christians having dual citizenship, we return to the passage referenced in the title.  Paul writes to the church in Corinth concerning a number of topics.  In chapter 4, he refers to the Light of the Gospel that is in all Christians.  This light is held within Jars of Clay, our earthly bodies in Adam.  These bodies are fragile and break (die.)  When they do break, the Light within is released and goes on to the Kingdom of God, no longer bound by the Adamic Covenant.  Notice the language of verses 16-18.  The outer self is wasting away while the inner self is being renewed.  How do we renew this inner self?  By receiving Grace regularly (weekly) through receiving the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper and by the hearing of the Gospel preached to us correctly.  We do not look to that which is seen, this earthly body, but rather to that which is unseen, the Gospel and the promise of the resurrection.

If the Jars of Clay that are Christian jars of clay contain the Light of the Gospel, evangelism is the spreading of this Light.  The amazing thing about Light is that it fills all of the available space.  Therefore, the not yet converted can fill their empty jars from your jar, full of the Light of the Gospel.  What is also true is that the jars of clay of the reprobate remain empty.  So, focus on the Light within, unseen and yet clearly present.  That, the Great Commission, is our ministry as Christians according to Jesus, Paul and the Bible.

--Troll--