Responding to the Response

In writing this blog post, I think it is important first to be sure that we all understand exactly what Rick Perry has documented as his reasons for this event.  From the event website, we find the following information. 

On August 6, the nation will come together at Reliant Stadium in Houston, Texas for a solemn gathering of prayer and fasting for our country.

We believe that America is in a state of crisis. Not just politically, financially or morally, but because we are a nation that has not honored God in our successes or humbly called on Him in our struggles.

According to the Bible, the answer to a nation in such crisis is to gather in humility and repentance and ask God to intervene. The Response will be a historic gathering of people from across the nation to pray and fast for America.

In the video message on the home page as well as elsewhere on the site, Perry likens our current political crisis to Israel in the book of Joel.  Let’s look at the statement above carefully from a Biblical context as well as his assertions from the book of Joel, and then examine some of the various responses that we have heard.

Notice on this page, Perry’s exposition of Joel 2.  He also makes reference to Acts 2 and 13 as well as the First and Second Great Awakenings.  To wade through this mishmash of theological and secular references, we should start with a proper exposition of Joel 2, and then proceed to that which Perry asserts.

The large question of the book of Joel asks about Judgment Day.  Joel is one of the Minor Prophets.  It is argued that this book was probably written during the early period after the Second Temple was built.  The first chapter can be viewed in a number of ways, and this leaves open a number of directions for misinterpretation as well.  Are the locusts of chapter one natural events of the past or future?  Or is this allegory for invasion by an army past or future, worldly or eternal?  It would seem that two versions are the most likely.  There has been a literal and natural disaster that has impacted the tithes for the Temple.  And there has been a literal Babylonian army that laid waste to the First Temple, and threatens the Second Temple.  The Large question of Joel 1 is to what is the prophet referring when he says The Day of the Lord is near.

The second chapter has four parts.  The first part would seem to answer the Large question of chapter one concerning the Day of the Lord.  With the mention of Zion and the imagery of the horses, one has a hard time missing the obvious references to Judgment Day, the Last Day.  This certainly appears to be an Apocalyptic passage.  The real question of Joel 2 starts in verse 12: to whom shall God grant the opportunity for repentance.  The call to Zion again, the heavenly mountain, keeps the passage rooted in the Apocalyptic genre, Zion referring to those who will be saved.  Still, there is no clear indication who those people might be.  Through verse 17, the question remains open.  Who are His people?  Starting in verse 18, there is a clear change in tone.  It seems very much a covenant renewal of the Law and the Mosaic type land promise.  But again, Zion is referenced, drawing question on this interpretation.  The allegory of armies and enemies being to the north is perpetuated even through Revelation.  It is not necessary to assume that Joel speaks to Second Temple Israel alone. 

Finally, the imagery of God among us and pouring out His Spirit on all flesh is a clear reference to Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, the Paracletes.  The final verses of chapter 2 are a return to the imagery of the Last Day and Revelations.  Therefore, it is reasonable to extrapolate Joel to a more universal prophesy concerning Salvation and the broader meaning of Israel under Zion.  This is consistent with way in which the Major Prophets handled their discussion of post Second Temple prophecy.  Certainly, Paul universalizes the prophets to have this broader meaning in Christ.

The key to determining whether Rick Perry has exposited Joel 2 correctly perhaps lies within Joel 3.  There is clear geographical reference to a specific land called Eden with known rivers named.  There is no question that dispensationalists will point to this passage as a post-rapture Armageddon scene as much as a discussion of the coming of the messiah, or the coming of Judgment on the Last Day.  Often the OT prophets looking forward into the future see the messiah, and also the Last Day.  But because they are so close to the event of the messiah right in front of them, they cannot see that the Last Day is a separate event far into the future.  It is like coming before a mountain and not seeing the mountain behind the first mountain.  We have the benefit of altitude and we can see that there are two mountains, while the prophet could not discern this clearly.  This is why several passages of prophesy would seem to have duel meaning.  They are describing simultaneously the First and Second Comings of Jesus as if they were one event.

Going back to the beginning of Joel, the prophet reports on a past evil event and warns Israel to repent.  Zion will receive salvation through the Grace of the Lord.  Israel is now all who call on the name of the Lord for salvation, all believers from all nations who believe in the redeeming work of the Lord Jesus Christ on the Cross.  Zion is the Heavenly Kingdom, the heavenly Jerusalem its great city.  The whole of the book is allegorical and prophetic, dovetailing with the other prophets, universalizing the promise through Zion, not Sinai.

Rick Perry makes several assertions that need to be addressed.  He asserts that Joel speaks to “a” nation in crisis.  No, he speaks to Israel, a specific nation.  Even when universalizing the prophesy as I have done, Joel speaks to a newly defined but still distinct group of believers called Israel, containing both native and wild branches from all nations grafted into the family tree.  This is not an arbitrary call for any random political entity to repent.  This is a specific covenantal appeal to those who believe.  The Lutheran distinction of two kingdoms is very important here.  Joel is in every way making a Kingdom of the Right appeal, not a Kingdom of the Left appeal.  As a civil magistrate, Rick Perry, in his office of Governor, has authority in the Kingdom of the Left.  But he is not a priest, pastor or bishop.  He has no authority in the Kingdom of the Right.  We will come back to that point soon.

Perry asserts that the foundational point of the covenantal language is morality and faith.  This is, of course, the Wesleyan, the Roman Catholic and the Pelagian view of Righteousness and Salvation.  It is not surprising that repentance is confused with morality in that context.  But, the standard of the Law is perfection, and we are all guilty.  We all need to repent prior to receiving the gift of faith in the Holy One of Israel and His meritorious work on the Cross.  The Law convicts, the Gospel saves.  The Law tells us how to behave, but it doesn’t give us the ability to do it.  The Gospel offers a free gift of faith to those whom the Holy Spirit chooses.  This alien righteousness through this external gift from God is the basis of our covenantal claim to Abraham, regardless of our national origin.  The basis of this righteousness is faith alone, not morality.

The next issue is that of national salvation in juxtaposition to personal salvation.  The only national covenant ever made in the Bible was with Mosaic Israel.  All other covenants are based upon the individual and his faith.  One of the great confusions of two kingdoms is this assuming some sort of national covenant by extrapolating events of the Pentateuch to the present.  It is wrong when people use this sort of maneuver for various Liberation theologies, and it is wrong when applying this maneuver to nations.  Perry states that God wants people to understand that a lack of morality is the problem.  God views sin as the problem, and this is not the same thing.  Any moral code in a Biblical sense is beyond our ability to comply.  This leaves all of us in sin and in need of God’s intervention.  Perry says that God intervenes as a response to prayer.  Joel and the other prophets say that God intervenes as a result of his Covenant promise to Abraham.

Finally, it is important to realize that Israel was a theocracy.  The United States is not a theocracy.  After Christ, it is clear that there is no longer a single (Christian) theocracy in the world, but a spiritual Israel consisting of believers from all nations of the world.  Therefore, while leaders in Israel were often both King and Priest, though only Jesus was Prophet, Priest and King, no one in the history of this country has been in the authoritative position of both civil magistrate and priest simultaneously in terms of a theocracy.  Not only does the Bible lead us to a two kingdom distinction, but our own Constitution calls for a separation of church and state.  It is noteworthy that Perry does not even attempt to make a Biblical appeal for his church authority.  Instead, he appeals to civic, national precedent.  Never mind that the Constitution is clear on the point.  A precedent of error does not justify his actions.

Now, there have been a list of criticisms of Perry for this event.  Which criticisms hold water either in a civic sense or in a theological sense?  One criticism is that Perry is holding this rally for political gains.  If this is the case, I would suggest that he fire his campaign manager.  Polarizing the electorate and loosing the middle is not the way to win elections.  How many counter assemblies are being held for one reason or another?  If unifying the electorate to his political cause was his goal, then he isn’t very good at it.

Some argue that a national day of prayer and other events such as this are a violation of the separation of church and state.  I would agree.  Think of the point of view of Ben Laden after the First Gulf War.  Islam has no two kingdom distinction and therefore all governments are theocracies.  He viewed an infidel nation placing an infidel army on his Holy Land, the Arab Peninsula.  When our President appeals to God and Christian righteousness, and One Nation Under God, what else would Ben Laden think.  After 9-11, Bush stood in an edifice called the “National Cathedral” and declared that this nation is united by God and prays for justice.  He has both violated the Constitution and violated the doctrine of two Kingdoms.  When Christian leaders stand with a president who makes these sorts of statements, they are failing in their offices as ministers of Christ’s Word.  The truth is that this is a nation of freedoms including religious freedoms.  We have the World’s largest population of Jews outside of Israel.  We have a huge Muslim population.  We are Catholics, Protestants, Wesleyans, Pelagians, Atheists, Buddhists, Shinto, Hindu and other creeds.  We are not a Christian theocracy.  It is not appropriate for civic magistrates to declare days, hours, minutes or seconds of prayer.  It is outside of both their civic and religious authority to do so.

One final aside, Perry refers to the First and Second Great Awakenings as great moments of prayer that resulted in national revival.  That statement leaves me dumbfounded.  He truly needs a history lesson.  The ignominious birth of Protestant Liberalism is not a cause célèbre.  Nothing has done more harm in this country to Christian doctrine than those two philosophical and social movements.

Am I saying that is wrong to pray for the nation?  Absolutely not.  Many churches pray for the civic governments to use wisdom and mercy in exercising their authority.  Jesus and the Apostles gave the stamp of approval on this form of prayer.  The authority for such prayer, though, resides within the church, not within the state.  A protest of misguided brothers and sisters is beside the point.  We do need, however, to educate our brothers and sisters as to the true message of the Gospel.  Rick Perry is not a Gospel authority, and he should not have exercised his civic authority to organize this event.

--Ogre--

Two Kingdoms: VanDrunen Audio

Fair warning:  this is the advanced introduction to VanDrunen's book on the Two Kingdoms.  This is very heavy listening and Mark Dever is a thorough and difficult interviewer.  David VanDrunen is essentially Dutch Reformed, although he is a Presbyterian minister teaching at Westminster, California.  Dever is one of the 9 Marks guys from the SBC.  The level of the discussion is not introductory two kingdoms; this is serious theology.  The run time of the interview is about an hour.  If you feel up to the challenge, this really tackles well some of the historical as well as formative background of the Reformed doctrine of Two Kingdoms.

--Troll--

For Susan

One of the lines that I often use is "until I die or the Second Coming, whichever comes first." At the end of every life, there comes that moment when the phrase becomes "until the Second Coming." In recent years, there has been a lot of noise about not mourning a death, but instead, celebrating a life.  I want to mourn a death.

I only met her once.  She was 88 and very pleasant.  I'm not sure she remembered me after I walked out of the room, or knew who I was.  I met her on Easter, four days ago.  She died today.  I can't celebrate her life, because I hardly knew her in life.  I can mourn her death.

Some people cry at weddings, any wedding.  This morning, people will be awakening early to watch a wedding of people they will never meet, getting married several thousand miles away.  And they will cry.  Most people cry at funerals.  Strangely, my family seems to be exceedingly British in this regard and tries to maintain a stiff upper lip, as they say.  But we do mourn, in our own way.  Why do we cry at weddings?  Why do we mourn at funerals?

Jesus is called our bridegroom in scripture.  The wedding is used as an analogy for the relationship between Jesus and his elect.  We cry at weddings perhaps because in this analogy, we understand and appreciate the sacrifice that Jesus has made for us to be our bridegroom.  The timing of this wedding after Easter surely was not accidental.  The symbolism is unmistakable.  The bridegroom who sacrifices all for His bride moves us to tears.  At each wedding, we can see that symbolism on display as we listen to the vows.

At death, we suffer the penalty for our condition of sin.  At death, we who survive get a glimpse of the meaning of the Wrath of God.  We are separated from those we love.  And that separation has a permanance to it.  That death cannot be undone by our meager means.  At death, we have every reason to mourn.  That death awaits us, too.  That is why we might cry at any funeral.  Every funeral reminds us that all of us are Covenant members with Adam.

Easter was four days ago.  On that day, some 2000 odd years ago, something different happened.  Death was defeated.  God, whose Wrath we have so justly earned, went on a rescue mission.  We needed saving and He had to do it.  The saving had to be by God, and it needed to be by a human.  Jesus was both.  He died.  But on the third day, He rose again.  He became the firstborn from the dead.  When we talk about Jesus as the firstborn, this doesn't mean that He was in existance before Adam, but after the Father.  It means that of all humans, He was the firstborn from the dead.  He had to be both fully God and fully human to pull off that deed.  But, it is done.

Now, the rest of the humans still die.  We still die because we are all still in the Covenant of Adam.  We are still under the curse.  We will remain under the curse until we die or the Second Coming of Jesus, whichever comes first.  We, the elect, will still die.  For one person who died today, it is now until the Second Coming.  I will mourn her death.  But I will await His Coming in Glory.  In That Death and Firstborn, there is a life worth celebrating.  We will inherit that life on the Last Day, or when we die, whichever comes first.

--Ogre--

National Apostasy by John Keble

Today’s saint from our homily was John Keble, whose sermon on the relationship between the church and the state in 1833 is honored to this day by the Church of England.  Here is a link to an online version of that sermon.  The lessons and the saint are not strongly related today so we will deal with them separately.

The sermon by Keble needs to be put in historical context, denominational and doctrinal context and redemptive historical context.  First, the year 1833 is important from the perspective of the relationship between the monarchy and parliament as well as the Church of England and government.  This was very much a transition period in English government with a further loss of power of the monarchy to Parliament causing a concomitant loss of influence of the Church.  In fact, there was a good deal of secular and even atheistic backlash against the Church.  Second, this is the Church of England which is a Sacerdotal model, believing that priests act as mediators between God and the laity, so that some of the categories for consideration are different.  Whether or not a true two kingdom doctrine existed in early nineteenth century England is beyond my ability to check.  If the current evidence is to be believed, the answer is no, but that is not fair given the doctrinal erosion of the last 60 years.  Finally, this is pre-1948 by a century.  The Holocaust and the post-War establishment of a Jewish state were not even dreamed of being possible considerations by the most premillennial theologian of that day.  Therefore, the specific arguments that are made concerning the treatment of the Old Testament, while interesting, may not reflect current tensions, nor truly reformed categories.

Having said that, after bemoaning the decay not only of the civic moral standard, but also of the doctrinal sophistication of the laity, Keble poses two questions.  First, he asks if a theocracy is necessarily desirable.  This is an interesting question considering all of the historical issues and the title of the sermon.  But a question that bears a look.  Using reformed categories, this is a very simple discussion.  In a two kingdom model with Christians being members in both kingdoms, it is clear that government, being in the Present Age, the Kingdom of this world, is not subject to the Laws of God, but rather to the laws of man.  This in no way lessens the Christian’s obligation to participate in this realm, bringing to bear any and all principles he holds dear, including Christian ethics, such as they are.  It is important, though, to have both a clear Law and Gospel distinction and a two kingdom model with its categories before determining how to impose Law in civic decision making.  Still, as an institution, there is no particular interest of the church in the affairs of state, except in specific issues in which the Law is clearly at question.  There is a great danger for the church being draw into pietistic missions that can run contrary to the Great Commission, which is the true mission of the church.  The Oxford movement seems to have been grounded in this distinction, whether or not the reformed categories existed within the movement.

Secondly, he asks how an individual placed in a position of civic responsibility who is also a Christian should behave in issues where civic interest are in conflict with Law.  Again, this seems to be a discussion greatly helped by the reformed categories and the two kingdom model.  The number of potential conflicts is greatly reduced after sifting through much of the pietistic baggage and reevaluating in light of Law and Gospel distinction, Christian liberty and the reformed categories of justification and sanctification.  In issues that still seem to present a dilemma to the Christian, Keble encourages Englishmen to stick to their principles, regardless of the odds.  I would maintain that no issue of this present age in terms of civic righteousness is sufficient to sacrifice a belief based on the knowledge of Jesus’ redemptive work on the Cross as revealed by scripture.

The relationship between the Episcopal Church USA and the federal government is well documented.  However, it has been a great violation of two kingdom thinking that allowed this to persevere.  The mission of the church has nothing to do with the national government of any nation, including Israel.  The theocracy known as Israel was destroyed utterly in 70 A.D.  The current state of Israel is a geopolitical entity created by man, not by an edict of God, and is not in any Covenant relationship with God.  The juxtaposition of the US flag and the cross in many Episcopal churches is a clear intrusion of this present age in the one place where the Age to Come is supposed to be most visibly intruding into this present Age.  This is man intruding into God’s space, God’s sovereign ground.  Whether symbolically, or in terms of actual corporate influence, this situation should be remedied and viewed as anathema.

Totally switching gears, the messages for today are listed on this website for your perusal.  It is an interesting group of readings.  This is clearly one of those lists that we get because it is almost always Lent for this feast.  All of the passages are Law passages.  Surprisingly, it is the Psalter that gives the best glimpse of redemptive history of the lot.  The Matthew passage stops too soon and Romans 12 without Romans 1-11 is similarly Law without being anchored by the indicatives.  I’ve railed on about his Law-Gospel distinction plenty of times, so I will let it go for tonight.

--Ogre--

Imputation follow up

First of all, this is a response to a comment on another post.  My comment was too long to put there, so here it is now.  I may delete this later, as it doesn't really fit with my usually post type, so read, copy or whatever before it's gone.

Here is the original post with the comment in question.

And now here is the quote of the comment.

I have only one potential argument - the rest, we are in full agreement on.
What is your stance on this? You say that on Judgement Day we will be made righteous. Do you not agree that we were already made righteous when Christ finished His work on the Cross?

If you don't, then here is my rebuttal:
Because of our vital union with Christ, His death is our death, His life is our life, and His exaltation is ours. Our physical position may be on earth, but our spiritual position is “in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.”

All of the verbs in regard to our vital union in Christ are in the past tense. The apostle Paul is stating what has already taken place, not what is future. The resurrection, the quickening and raising up of Christ’s people were in an important sense accomplished when He rose from the dead and sat down at the right hand of God.

The believer is vitally related to the body whose head is Christ. The life of the whole body is in the head, and therefore when the head rose, the body rose. The first to rise from the dead was Christ. Then we who are in Christ positionally rose and are seated with Him.

Paul describes this new life in Christ as being “raised up with Him.” We now have this life in a present spiritual sense, and we also look forward to the future bodily resurrection. Christ made us alive, even when we were dead in trespasses and sins. He accomplished this spiritual resurrection by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Our spiritual resurrection places us in union with Christ. God made us alive together with Christ. We are now united together with Him (Eph. 1:22-23), and we now share His resurrection life and power (vv. 19–20).

“Raised up with Him,” and “seated” enthroned with Christ in heaven. The glorified body of Jesus Christ is now in heaven in the presence of God the Father.

We are even now described as citizens of heaven (Phil. 3:20). Because we are in Christ we have a right to the privileges, blessings, and responsibilities of citizens of the kingdom of God. Even now, spiritually we occupy the heavenly city. We have a foretaste of what it shall be like in glory with Christ.

This post was about imputation.  Imputation is a major component of justification.  The two go hand in hand.  Justification is about judgment.  While it is certainly true that the Gospel of Christ crucified is external to us and historical, it is also true that the Last Day has not arrived.  While I agree with the idea that we are justified by actions of Christ in the past tense, it is also true that those actions will be accounted to the elect, as I wrote, on the Last Day, when judgment occurs.

Therefore, I thought that I agreed with you, more or less, until I read your “rebuttal” in which you flesh out this opinion of a separation of body and spirit.  At first read, I thought this sounded Gnostic, but I’m not sure that’s what it is that sounded strange.  After careful review, I think that I can state your position as follows.

From some unnamed point in the life of an individual, presumably Baptism since that is the imagery you evoked, we have “union” with Christ spiritually, already in heaven.  In the mean time, our body remains here on earth awaiting death, burial and resurrection, at which point body and soul are reunited.

If I got that wrong, let me know.  My rebuttal will start at that point.  BTW, when you say you disagree with me, please understand that you are saying that you disagree with the Reformation position that I am attempting to articulate.  This is a key point.  My bibliography is posted here and elsewhere.  I'm not sitting in my house making this stuff up on my own.  At the end of the day, the most important issue in this blog exercise for me is sorting out a consistent systematic theology.  I've written on that issue before, to which I refer you again.

I am not aware of any place in the Bible where either Jesus or any Apostle discusses a spiritual separation from the body.  All of the passages that discuss union with Christ are talking about a Covenant relationship with Christ. “This is My blood of the New Covenant….” It is through this covenant relationship that we have access by faith alone to the work of the Cross.  The Holy Spirit did not move to open my eyes 2000 years ago.  I’m not that old.  So while the events that justify us are past tense, our own justification is instantaneous at Baptism, if it is the Baptism of a truly elect person, and is looking towards judgment.  Our sanctification is both instantaneous and a lifelong process, a process that is outside the scope of this post.

What else happens by being in the covenant relationship?  Through it, I am freed from the bondage of sin.  This allows me liberty to act without fear that my actions will be imperfect, safe in the knowledge that my justification is secure.  My gratitude towards and obedience to my covenant master will direct my actions.  But my actions are not relevant to my justification.  When my actions are less than perfect, in other words, all the time, I repent of these sins, seek forgiveness, receive absolution, accept Grace through the Word and Sacraments, and go out and do it all over again.  Once again, Paul describes this Christian struggle in Romans 6-8.  This is the life of a Christian.

Concerning resurrection, this is a Last Day and Judgment phenomenon.  The reuniting of body and soul would obviously occur at that point.  We seem to have no problems with this idea.

The problem is the idea of being simultaneously a member of both this Age and the Age to Come.  You seem to infer that our spirit is in the Age to Come while our body remains in this Age.  I disagree.  Nowhere is there a separation of body from soul.  Body and soul remain united in this world until either death or the Last Day, whichever comes first.  At that point, the Last Day, we have union of soul with our resurrection body, as revealed to the Disciples at the Transfiguration, Mathew 17:1-8, (celebrated last Sunday on the Episcopal calendar.)

In redemptive history, when we speak of the body of Christ, whose head is Jesus, we are speaking of the church.  I’ve never seen, read or heard otherwise until now.  While we all live as members of the New Covenant in Christ, I would not presume that I have already ascended to heaven in any part while I remain under the curse of Adam.  No one still under that curse may enter heaven, body or spirit.  That is sort of the point of the resurrection, to deliver us from Evil, sin, so that we may be perfectly made in His Holy Name.  We have to shed this body to enter into His presence.

This idea that we are seated with Him now seems very presumptuous to me.  The elect will get there either at death or on the Last Day, but not while we are on this earth and the Last Day has not yet come.  I think you have been reading the new perspective guys on Paul.  I just do not see how you can draw the conclusions that you draw from the passages that you cite.

Yes, Jesus is there in heaven right now, as you said.  By the way, I don’t see how you can be a dispensationalist and still hold that thought, but that, again, is for another day.  Since I agree with that point, let us put it aside.

Yes, we are citizens of this Age and the Age to Come.  That’s exact what Philippians 3:20-21 and a host of other passages say.  This does not say that we are already seated with Jesus in heaven.  I have the ESV and I’ve reread that verse five times.  There is absolutely no mention of us being there now.  It does say that we await Jesus, who is from there, to come and transform our bodies so that we may join Him.  We await Him because of our citizenship in the Age to Come.  I just don’t see what you see at all.

Ephesians 1 is similar.  We now know or our inheritance in Christ (verse 17-18,) but it doesn’t say that we already have it, either spiritually or bodily.  The spirit of revelation of the knowledge of Him is the Holy Spirit doing what the Holy Spirit does: reveal the Gospel of Jesus Christ to His elect.  Yes, Jesus is the first member of the Age to Come (verse 20-21.) But it says nothing about us already being there with Him.

I have heard this idea of living like resurrection people.  This is sort of synonymous with the idea of Christian Liberty.  This does not mean that we are already resurrected.  I hope that you can see the difference.  You seem to have been taught that the Holy Spirit does things other than what Jesus says that It does, and that our own spirits do things other than what Paul says that they do.  If I misinterpreted your position, I’ll delete this and try again.

--Ogre--

The Rock

…whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This phrase appears in Matthew twice, in 16:19 and 18:18.  The context of each passage is very different, but it is Jesus speaking both times.  Let us look at the first passage concerning Peter.  We’ll look at other Biblical references, at theories of the rock, and at the perspective of redemptive history.  We will likewise examine the second passage concerning the resolution of disputes.  We’ll look at the same three categories with this verse.  Finally, after taking a step back, with the backdrop of redemptive history in mind, we will examine this phrase in the larger context of Jesus’ work on the cross.  The idea of the Two Kingdoms will be used as a tool for understanding redemptive history.

In the first Matthew passage, Jesus is revealing part of his role in redemptive history.  The Son of Man is an OT name for the messiah.  While the phrase has a different meaning in Ezekiel, Daniel begins to change the meaning of the phrase in chapters 7 and 8.  It has eschatological meaning as the messiah from those passages.  Jesus always refers to himself as the Son of Man, using this messianic declaration.  Because it can also be viewed as a general reference to humanity, there can be confusion over the meaning.  In Matthew 16:16, Peter makes this direct link between the Son of Man and Jesus, and that He is the Christ, the messiah. 

It is interesting that there is actually discussion of the word rock after Jesus renames Simon as Peter or rock.  Many view this passage as stating that the church is built upon Peter specifically.  If Peter is the rock, specifically, why does Jesus undress him so severely in the same discussion in Matthew 16:23.  Others will say that the rock is the pronouncement by Peter that Jesus is the messiah.  Still others will refer to passages about the chief cornerstone, which are referenced in all of the Synoptics, and say that Jesus is referring to himself in this passage.  Let us stay with Peter for a moment, or perhaps Peter’s proclamation of Jesus, and continue onward.

The next verse starts with the reference to keys of the gates of heaven.  Who is receiving these keys?  It seems clear that this is initially granted to Peter.  The Roman Catholics use this verse as the grounds for Peter being the first Pope.  Peter is the first Apostle to preach to the Jews after Pentecost in Acts 2.  Peter is the first to preach to the Samaritans in Acts 8.  Peter is the first to preach to the Gentiles in Acts 10.  But Peter continues to report back to the Jerusalem council.  In fact, it seems in Acts 15 that James has the last word at that council.  Furthermore, in Ephesians 2:20, Paul is fleshing out this foundation idea with Jesus as the cornerstone and all of the Apostles and prophets forming the foundation.  Therefore, this office of preaching or proclaiming of the Gospel has been delegated to all of the Apostles early on in Acts, and eventually is delegated to others because the Apostles will certainly and eventually die.

Now there is a second aspect of the keys of heaven.  The Pharisees were in the habit of locking everyone out of the Holy of Holies, but Peter is charged with binding only some.  Those who he binds on earth will be bound in heaven.  Clearly, this is an office that must be passed onward as well as preaching.  Whether Jesus intended this to mean that Peter is in charge of church discipline or rather in the role of excommunication is difficult to ascertain from this passage alone.  In Galatians, Paul pronounced preachers of false gospel as accursed.  We will return to that passage later.  But let’s now go on to the other place that this first phrase appears, Matthew 18.

In Matthew 18, we are in a section concerning the resolution of disputes between Christians.  In this section, there is a discussion of witnesses and so forth.  Notice carefully the use of the word church in verse 17. 

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Therefore, when we arrive at verse 18, the antecedent of the pronoun you has become the church.  We all become responsible for the discipline of our brothers in Christ.  This is part of the Ministry of Reconciliation of which Paul speaks in 2 Corinthians 5.  Not only are we to preach the Gospel, to teach about Christ’s reconciling us to Him by His work on the cross, but in doing so, we will also minister to each other in the church as part of the fruits of the Spirit.  We will help each other walk the walk.  These works are not works towards our justification.  These works are the necessary result of a people who recognize their sinful nature in Adam, but also know that through faith we are reconciled to Christ.

Notice John 20:23.  This occurs after Jesus reappears to the Apostles.  Whether or not Peter is the first to preach, it is clear that the office is given to all of the Apostles, and by extension, to all who are called to preach the Word and to give Absolution.  Two of the most important portions of the Sunday service are the Confession of sins and the  Absolution pronounced by the priest or pastor, parts of the service that are nonexistent in many Evangelical and Pentecostal churches.  Whether we look at these events as the actual loosening of these people in absolution for their sins, or as a mini drama of repentance and absolution through the justification provided by Jesus’ work on the cross, which occurs next in the service, it is important that God’s people are reminded each week that through faith in Jesus, we are justified, reconciled, offered atonement and propitiation, sanctified and saved.  Jesus was pretty busy on Easter.

How does a reformed person, of Covenant theology and Amillennial eschatology apply the concepts of the Two Kingdoms to these passages?  In Matthew 16, this is an eschatological passage, as Jesus is referring to himself as the Son of Man, a messianic title.  Therefore, this passage should be interpreted in terms of the Age to Come, or the Kingdom of Heaven.  The question here is whether verse 19 implies that Peter will pass judgment on individual men in terms of salvation.  Rome clearly reads this passage in that the Church and, more specifically, the Papacy, as the direct theological descendent of Peter, have this office.  The Reformation view does not agree.  The argument here is that Peter first, and then all of the Apostles, as per Ephesians 2:20 and John 20:23, are given the office of preacher, by which they spread the Word to the world, making salvation possible by the hearing of the Word and the movement of the Holy Spirit in elect hearers of this preaching.  The binding is not so much in terms of the denial of salvation, but rather in the correction of members of the church.  But this office of correction is not only given to the Apostles, and their preacher descendants, but to the church as a whole, as per Matthew 18:17.

And now, tying this into Matthew 18:18, a passage that is clearly about this Age and this world, Jesus here is discussing the settling of disputes on this earth.  He gives this authority to the church.  In this case, binding again becomes a question considering the action of making the offender be as a Gentile or tax collector.  Jesus used these same examples in Chapter 5 in a similar context.  It must be remembered that at this point in redemptive history, Jesus and the Apostles are preaching to Jews.  Therefore, these two groups represent outcasts, those considered unsaved under the Old Covenant.  One has to be careful in over reading Jesus’ intension in this section considering the company he keeps, the role of the tax collector in Luke 18, the ministry that comes first from Peter to the Gentiles, and the previous occupation of the Apostle Matthew (tax collector.) Still, the implication of discipline remains.

Therefore, in summary, we can say that this phrase

…whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

is a complex phrase in the Gospel of Matthew.  The interpretation can seem to mean several things.  What it is important to keep in mind are basic principles, particularly the Sovereignty of God.  Salvation is not an issue for man to determine.  Salvation is of God, by God, through God and at the whim of God.  This binding may be a delegation of some level of authority concerning the disciplining of the church membership, but it cannot mean a delegation of the determination of Salvation.  Even with Paul’s remarks in Galatians, let him be accursed is more of an expectation of an adverse judgment rather than actually rendering that judgment upon the false teachers.  The difference is huge.  And so, in the Age to Come, that began on Pentecost and will be fully realized on the Last Day, the Apostles and those that serve in the office of preacher are empowered to deliver the Word of God to the ends of the earth.  And in the Present Age, on this world, the church is charged with the discipline of its own membership.  Remember also that the church is charged with the teaching of Christ’s Ministry of Reconciliation, so that with discipline, we offer repentance and then receive reconciliation.

--Troll--

Let Go and Let God

In just two months, I have learned that blogs take on a life of their own.  Also, I have learned to be careful whom I quote, they might read it.  This post is a response to a query at this morning’s homily.

The readings for this week were from the Episcopal Liturgical Cycle, Year A, Eighth Sunday after Epiphany.  The Epistle is 1 Corinthians 4:1-5 and the Gospel is Matthew 6:24-34.  For completeness, the OT reading is Isaiah 49:8-16a.  Actually, as the Liturgy is rather reformed in its construction, let’s start with the OT reading as it is important.  In part one, then, I am going to lay out the significance of the prophesy in Isaiah 49 in terms of redemptive history.  In part 2, we will revisit the Sermon on the Mount once again, comparing Jesus' remarks with those of Paul in 1 Corinthians.

In Isaiah, we find the Israelites in captivity in Babylon, the temple destroyed.  This is important to understand in on a number of levels.  To begin, it can be argued that this period in time is clear evidence that the theocracy of national and ethnic Israel has violated the terms of the Sinai covenant.  The punishment aspects of Sinai have been enforced.  Israel is out of the land, scattered and in captivity; the temple has been destroyed.  And yet, in God’s infinite Grace, Isaiah tells of God’s plans to return to Zion and rebuild the temple.

This is a very important shift in redemptive history, easily overlooked, and yet crucial to the understanding of eschatology.  God is promising not to forget Zion.  This is a key moment.  Israel self identifies with Zion, but it is important to understand the difference between what Israel represents and what Zion represents.  There are several ways to set up the two types of covenants in the Bible.  Isaiah is pointing to the symbolism of two mountains: Sinai and Zion.  Through Sinai, Israel received the Law and the Mosaic Covenant.  Israel was intended to be a worldly demonstration of the Kingdom.  Through Zion, the heavenly mount, Israel will receive Salvation.  At this point in redemptive history, God’s ultimate plan has not been revealed, but Isaiah is starting to tell the tale.

Therefore, this discussion of Zion rather than Israel is a direct reference to ultimate Salvation for the people of God.  Now, in verses 11-12, God talks about gathering His people from all corners of the world.  The question is who are His people?  Israel has clearly broken the Sinai covenant, and so it can be argued that Isaiah is foreshadowing a much grander redemptive plan than just national and ethnic Israel.  God will rebuild his temple in Jerusalem one last time, as discussed in Daniel.  But the purpose of Jerusalem this last time will be to play a role in the life and death of Jesus.  This is not so much a renewal of Sinai as an introduction of the Covenant of Grace.  In order to fully understand Grace, the Law must stand in juxtaposition.  And still, it is Zion, not Israel and not Sinai, that God upholds in this passage.

In 1 Corinthians 4:1-5, Paul is discussing the particular role of the Apostle.  He describes the Apostles as servants of Jesus and stewards of God’s mysteries.  Without dwelling for now on the translation of servant, nor on the content of these mysteries, I want to focus on the issue of verse 5.  This is a passage that is a clear reference to judgment on the Last Day.  Paul refers to Jesus revealing what is in the heart, and judgment being based on this and on the works of each person.  This is a LAW passage.  All men in Adam will be judged justly and righteously under the LAW.  It is only through the penal substitution and propitiation of Christ through His death and resurrection that anyone of us can stand judgment in confidence, clothed not in our own self-righteousness, but clothed instead in the true Righteousness of Christ Jesus.  In the absence of the Great Mediator and Advocate, any man will face judgment with no hope of salvation.  

Finally, we return yet again to the Sermon on the Mount.  In our last two trips to this passage, we looked at Matthew 5:17-20 and 5:48.  Reminding you of those points, and here, Jesus did not come to abolish the Law; he came to fulfill the Law.  The standard for fulfilling the Law is perfection.  With that in mind, let’s look at 6:24-34.

Starting with verse 24, we cannot serve two masters.  Either we serve God or we serve sin.  This takes us back to the issue of the translation of the word servant, where the idea is more probably slave.  The relationship between slave and master is what is being referenced here.  In Adam, all men are slaves to sin.  This has been Jesus’ point throughout this sermon.  He is saying, once again, that no man truly serves God.  Note the similarity to Paul in Romans 3:1-20.  And since no man truly serves God, man is in a pickle.  What does Jesus say about this dilemma?

Consider the lily.  Consider the birds.  God provides for them.  Are not men more valued than animals and plants?  Surely God will provide for man.  This is not just a superficial look at food and clothing; this is a snapshot of God’s redemptive plan.  God will provide.  God will do all of the work for us in our Salvation.  God will justify us.  God will sanctify us.  God will do all of this for His people.  This is our first glimpse of Christian liberty.  Don’t sweat the details of this life.  Jesus has you covered for the Age to Come.

And finally, we come to application.  Is Jesus suggesting that we let go and trust God for food, clothing and shelter?  Not at all.  Jesus has much bigger fish to fry.  Jesus is concerned for the Salvation of His Elect.  James says this about this topic: What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes.  The point is not to live irresponsibly in this world; the point is that the Age to Come is a much larger issue.  That is the Kingdom of Eternity.  That is where our concerns should lie.  Verse 33:  But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.  So, if we have trust in Jesus, we have no need for concern.  He has us covered.

The question that was asked this week was this: based on these passages, should we let go and let God?  Or rather, should we continue to be good stewards of this world?  Are they mutually exclusive or simultaneously true?  My answer is that they are descriptions of our actions in terms of the Two Kingdoms.  In terms of the Kingdom of God, let go and let God.  He has already done the work.  We have nothing to contribute to our own salvation.  In that very important, most important venue, we must Let Go and Let God.  In terms of this world, obey the Law: Love God and Love your neighbor.  You will fail from time to time.  Paul describes the Christian conundrum in Romans 6-8.  You accept justification by faith alone, but then you find yourself still in Adam and still unable to keep the Law.  You are distressed and turn back to Jesus.  You are reassured and are confident once again.  This cycle continues until your death or the Second Coming, whichever comes first.  The problem with most discussion of Matthew 5-7 is that people are still looking for a cookbook, seven steps for success, the path to salvation.  Jesus tells the crowd that we are missing the point.  We are all doomed under the Law.  Only through Him will we find salvation.  Remember this exchange between Jesus and Peter at the end of John 6:

60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

--Ogre--

Kline on Framework

I was digging through the online archives of Meredith Kline and came across this treasure.  Framework theology is now the label for this two-register cosmology that Kline is discussing.  This is a great read.  Enjoy!

--Troll--

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--

Gossip: a symptom of bad theology

Last night I was reading an involved exchange between friends concerning the damages of gossip.  The point was raised that gossip was horrible, but gossip within the church can break people.  I've seen gossip at work at my church, I think most of us have, and I agree with this assertion.  Let's look at the theological issues at work here and see if fixing the theology rather than railing against the sin might have a better outcome.

The theology of gossip works something like this.  Subconsciously or perhaps consciously, a person recognizes that they fall short of the perfection required by God for Salvation.  Therefore, an accounting game ensues.  If I can just point out the faults, foibles and frailties of all of my neighbors, perhaps my own sin will look less bad by comparison.  It could also be a distraction tactic or slight of hand.  People (or God) will not notice my short comings if they are focused on someone else's shortcomings.

The first problem here is there is a lack of separation into two Kingdoms.  Civic righteousness is not in anyway quantifiable as righteousness before God.  Is it possible for a non-Christian to do good deeds that warrant praise among men?  Absolutely, Oprah has made a career of doing amazing things among men.  The theology of Oprah is plainly not Christian.  Oprah deserves praise and consideration as righteous among men.  Oprah has no righteous standing with God based upon these deeds.  The Two Kingdom motif flows quickly into the concept of Works righteousness.  If our justification or sanctification is based upon any action of our own, we are gutting the sufficiency of the resurrection.  Justification is an external, historical truth that we claim at Baptism.  Sanctification begins at Baptism and increases throughout our lives by the work of the Holy Spirit through receiving Grace in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and in the hearing of the Gospel preached correctly.  Our works have nothing to do with righteousness.  Our works are the result of our gratitude to Christ for His work.  They are the natural outflow of a slave who has been claimed by a new master.  The slave cannot change his standing with his master, he can only act in obedience.  We are grateful to have this new and wonderful master who has given us everything He is and everything He owns.  Therefore, we act and work in a manner that reflects His Glory.

The gossip does not see Salvation in terms of a theology of Grace.  

The second problem is the itemization of sins in the various lists in the Bible.  Let's use Romans 1:18-32 for an example.  What was that last word in verse 29?  So, basically, before we start pointing out where others sit on that list, perhaps we should notice the prominent place gossip occupies on the Romans sin list.  Who among us survives Romans 1?  Only the self righteous in their own minds, but not before God.  Paul goes on to pick on the Jews in Romans 2, but that serves a particular purpose of demonstrating that the only possible outcome of the Law is death.  Romans 3:10-12 levels all of us, leaving no one righteous before God.  Gossips perform an unnecessary and redundant task.  Gossip about me and my response is to attempt to teach you the Gospel.  Gossip about my friends and family and I will show you the Gospel.  Gossip about me and I will show you the Grace of God in my kindness towards you.  And if I fail in these endeavors, I know that my righteousness is not measured in terms of my works.  My righteousness is seen through Jesus Christ and, therefore, is measured as the true perfection required by God.

So, the next time you are the victim of Gossip at church, that is your opportunity to explain the Gospel!  Practice now and be ready!

--Ogre--

Marriage in the Two Kingdoms

First of all, I think it is important to define the two kingdoms. The first kingdom is of this world. This world consists of our current condition in this body on this planet. It is the now, the world as we each perceive it. This is the world of the philosopher. The kingdom yet to come is that world that we enter in resurrected bodies. It is not of this world. It is the post-judgment world.

As Christians, we are citizens of both worlds, the world of right now and the world of not yet. The world of not yet actually started when Jesus was resurrected on the third day. He became the first member of that kingdom. The not yet bleeds over into this world when we are Baptized. If the Holy Spirit demonstrates to us the reality of the not yet, we get to move fully into that world either upon death or on the last day. (This theological issue is actually not that important to us who are still in the right now!) Until that time, we live a dual citizenship, members of both kingdoms.

Marriage has application in both kingdoms. The meaning of marriage has traditional roots in most cultures. It is between a man and a woman. This kingdom, the already, has made steps towards changing that definition. At this point, it is important to determine what is possible and what is not possible from the perspective of definitions. What is possible is for man, in the kingdom of right now, to redefine marriage. What is not possible is for the church, in the kingdom of not yet bleeding into the already and right now, to change its definition of marriage, as this would require rewriting scripture.

Therefore, whether or not marriage gets a new definition in our society either officially or merely in our culture, the church has no business changing its definition. The very idea of rewriting scripture is blasphemous. The blessing of or performance of same sex unions by the church is heresy. This is not to say that civil unions may not occur. As Christians, we certainly may not agree with the idea. But we are citizens of both kingdoms. In the kingdom of the right now, we only get one vote each. If we lose, so be it. But the church should never agree to participate in these unions. Sin is sin, and Ogre is hungry anyway.

Think of it this way. If you (secularists) want separation of church and state, fine, we have that. But if we lose the vote in your world, that does not mean we lose the vote in our world. You (secularists) don’t get a vote in our world. Neither do we (not yet citizens) for that matter. God decrees and we obey in our world. Separate issues and unrelated results are the rule when separation of church and state exists. You have no ability to legislate or amend our scripture. There are the Ten Commandments in the Bible, not the first ten amendments.

So, in summary, we will vote against you in this present world. If we lose, so be it. But you have no vote in the world to come, none of us have a vote. There, we listen, and we obey.

--Troll--