The Politics of Life and Death

Nietzsche said God is dead, but notice how quickly that has become “death is god.”

The legislation and ethos of our day are nothing short of a death cult. We are obsessed with the politics of fruitlessness. In the wake of Neitzsche, we have seen the acceptance of no-fault divorce; the proliferation of any and all forms of birth control and a declining birth rate; the acceptance and celebration of so-called same-sex marriage (which is, by definition, a fruitless union); the acceptance and romanticization of assisted suicide; and now we distribute abortion around the globe as the glad tidings of the false gospel around which we worship.

But the gospel of Jesus is that he has overcome the grave. Jesus beat death. In his death, death has died. The more this truth is worked out in our lives, marriages, homes, and legal systems, the more we will know the joy of worshipping the God who is alive, the God who grants birth and new, spiritual birth; and then we will ultimately taste eternal life in him whose presence is the path of life…fullness of joy and pleasures forevermore (Ps 16:11).

Old Testament Shape Revisited

A day off, chillin’ contentedly in a clothing store as my wife tries on some clothes, with One Direction “Drag me Down” on the radio (great song) and my mind turns to the Old Testament…like it does so often these days…

One of my particular interests is to consider the original arrangement of the Old Testament and tease out any implications of that arrangement when it comes to “putting your Bible together” as they say. The standard order of books in basically every Christian Bible starts with the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy) and then moves into the Histories from Joshua to Esther with books like Ruth and Chronicles spliced in chronologically.

However, there is really good evidence, actually overwhelming evidence, that the Old Testament the early church inherited was arranged like this:

1. Pentateuch
2. (Former Prophets) Joshua, Judges, 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings and then (Latter Peophets) Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Twelve minor prophets.
3. Then the collection finished with the Writings, which was something of a catch-all: Psalms, Proverbs, Ruth, Somg of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Job, Daniel, Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah, and 1-2 Chronicles.

The Hebrew collection (also called the Tanakh) was threefold – Law, Prophets, and Writings – and it was arranged with less of a strict chronology compared to our English order, which follows an order found in Septuagintal codices (compilations of Greek manuscripts). For example, in the Hebrew Bible, Ruth was lumped in with Psalms and Proverbs likely due to its connection to David (Boaz was David’s great grandpa) rather than after the Judges, even though it recounts events in the time period of the Judges. 

The books that made up the Writings probably were written on individual scrolls housed in a chest and so it’s best not to make too much of their specific arrangement within the third section. That said, these books do seem, by and large, to be organized thematically around King David and his son Solomon.

So what?

The first thing to say is that the books themselves are inspired, not their order in the collection. So any considerations of order and arrangement are questions of secondary importance. These matters have some consequence for how we put our Bibles together and how we do biblical theology, but they do not affect significant doctrines of the faith.

With that caveat, the significance of the threefold structure of the collection is that the Pentateuch is the primary foundation of the entire Bible – it is God’s foundational disclosure of himself and his will; the Prophets are an extended commentary on the Law, meant to drive home the implications of that Law in the society and the governance of the nation; finally, the third section – the Writings aka “Hagiographa” – are all an extended meditation about the Messiah and “the good life” – the life of wisdom lived under the Law. This third collection is meant to show us what it means to have a heart that is governed by the good and gracious rule of God.

That is why this arrangement is such a beautiful thing. Sometimes a chronological preoccupation can obscure a rich thematic arrangement. The Law is primary and then it gets driven into politics and then driven into the heart.

Your thoughts? Comment below.

“Nobody nobody – with your love nobody’s gonna drag me down.”

Bible Interpretation: Apocalyptic 101

To “get” Daniel 7-12 read it in light of Daniel 1-6; similarly, to “get” Revelation 4-22 read it in light of the letters to the churches in Rev 1-3. How would the churches in Asia Minor have understood this imagery? How would Daniel’s contemporaries have understood the imagery?

Apocalyptic imagery is fantastic for sure, but it’s always historically tethered and the history provides the window to gaze into the heavenlies. Both of these texts contain history. So consider reading Revelation 1-3 in between every other chapter of the book. Blend the history with the heavenly to get the important points for today – and there are many.

By the way, the essential message in both cases is to faithfully trust in God, who rules history, rather than getting seduced by the world that seeks to assimilate the faithful into it’s perversion and judgment. It’s all, at it’s core, a contrast between two cities – Babylon and Jerusalem – and then an invitation to decide which city you want to live in. Babyolon, the pleasurable, but doomed one? Or Jerusalem, the difficult and often painful, but ultimately blessed one?

Why does this matter so much? It matters because there are so many wackos and wing-nuts out there saying ridiculous and foolish things today about this imagery. (For example, the “mark of the beast” isn’t a micro chip inserted into your hand. The mark of the beast is a life lived in selfishness, pride, lust, and revelry – a life lived in allegiance to Satan.)

The outcome is that they mute the relevance of these texts and rob them from sweet and level-headed Christians who should be reading them rather than dismissing them (in troubled times when they need to hear from their God).

For those taking an interest in this. This is the only place to start: https://www.amazon.ca/Four-Views-Book-Revelation-Counterpoints-ebook/dp/B003TFE8MY

N.T. Wright – A Helpful Illustration

“Five people are describing the same event. One says ‘I was aware of a blur of colour and a sudden loud noise.’ The next says ‘I saw and heard a vehicle driving noisily down the road.’ The next says ‘I saw an ambulance on its way to the hospital.’ The fourth says ‘I have just witnessed a tragedy.’ The fifth says ‘This is the end of the world for me.’ The same event gives rise to five true statements, with each successive one having more ‘meaning’ than the one before.” (The New Testament and the People of God, 282-83).

Right there, my friends, is why the Old Testament and the New Testament are speaking about exactly the same thing; namely, the death and resurrection of Jesus with all its implications. Jeremiah and Peter had different vantage points on the same event.

Failure to get this has led, outside the church, to endless writing on the “contradictions” in Scripture; inside the church, it led to old-school dispensationalism. Oh bother.

A Second TULIP

(It should be noted at the outset that this article does not necessarily represent exactly the Fellowship Baptist Statement of Faith, a movement of which I am both a member and an employee. However, I might add, it certainly is not in conflict with it.)

Calvinism is a system of theological beliefs about the way salvation happens; specifically, it is the belief that God predestines some to salvation and others to judgment. God, not man, has the ultimate say in who “gets saved.” I am a card-carrying Calvinist. A “Five-Point” Calvinist. No, actually I am a seven point Calvinist. I like my Calvinism the same way I like my coffee – bold, black, and even a little bitter. I love it all. Even the parts that are hard to swallow. John Calvin was a great man who deserves to be read widely.

But with all that said, the last thing I am interested in is the Calvinist club. I hate the Calvinist club. Jesus alone is the sole basis of Christian unity. We always need to remember that. In fact, some of the dearest people in my family – and the most admired by me – are strong Christians but are certainly not card-carrying Calvinists.

To the point…

The classic summary of Calvinistic thought regarding salvation (“soteriology”) is called the TULIP. The mnemonic stands for Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. Check it out: TULIP. Those are the “five points.”

Today I want to propose that all Calvinists adopt a second TULIP to go along with the first. A bouquet…because sadly there is far too much arrogance, club-mentality, and coldness among Calvinists. The stereotypes are often true.

1. Total Humility

The doctrine of Total Depravity  teaches that sin affects every part of us. It’s NOT that we are utterly and completely sinful – it’s that sin has gotten into every part of us, tainting and polluting every aspect of our nature. That means we have nothing to offer God – we are totally resting on his mercy alone to justify and save us. And if we really believe this it should produce total humility. If we are all severely affected by sin, even at the very core of our will such that we won’t choose God, then salvation is totally a gift and that means there is no room for arrogance or bragging. Take the logic one step further: if we are justified totally by grace, then the theological system of Calvinism is also a grace that we are ill-deserving of. So we must treat even our calvinistic soteriology as a gift to share rather than a club to clobbering.

2. Unconditional Gospel Proclamation

The belief in Unconditional Election is that before the foundation of the earth God chose believers to be saved, not on the basis of anything in us but solely on the basis of his immense love (Ephesians 1:4). This doctrine should motivate us to herald the gospel and the reason is because God has already gone before us to determine who will respond to our message. This was the belief that motivated the father of modern missions, William Carey. Indeed, God told Paul to go to Corinth for “I have many in this city who are my people.” (Acts 18:10). Some people really mess this one up and think that unconditional election teaches that God plays favourites and chooses the best of people – actually that’s the consistent conclusion of Arminianism (God looks down the tunnel of time and chooses those who were ______ enough to chose him of their own free will). No. Unconditional election teaches that God chose us on no other basis than his sheer grace and his great love and that is a cause to share the gospel freely with all because we can rest assured that God will sort out how people respond to our message. Real Calvinism is not fatalism – it preaches and offers grace to all unreservedly.

3. Limited Snarkiness 

The doctrine of Limited Atonement, which is poorly named, teaches that when Jesus died, his death was intended particularly for those who will become Christians – so the atonement that Jesus affected at Calvary was a real accomplishment, in and of itself, and not something we get to apply to ourselves by our own choosing. Instead of “limited atonement” it should be called “decisive atonement” or “intentional atonement” or perhaps an older term, “particular atonement.” Even a few Sundays ago I was struck by a verse in Luke which says that the cross was an “accomplishment” (Luke 9:31). Particular atonement contains the idea that Jesus intentionally laid down his life, not for everyone indiscriminately, but for his bride, his sheep, his elect (Eph 5:25, Jn 10:11-16). As it has often been said, Arminianism limits the extent of the atonement (since not all are saved) and Calvinism limits the intent of the atonement. Another way of saying all this is that salvation is Trinitarian – the Father elects, Jesus atones, and the Spirit applies. Limited atonement is the very centre of Calvinistic thinking. God chose you. Jesus intended to die for you. When we come to terms with just how much we are loved, the glorious wonder of that truth should remove the kind of snarky, critical, bitter, holier-than-thou attitude of so much of the Calvinist club. Jesus loved you that much – so spread that kind of love to others. If God has loved you that much, why do you get such a bang out of being an internet troll?

4. Irresistible Humor

The fourth point of the TULIP is Irresistible Grace. The doctrine teaches that God’s grace is eventually going to affect every part of you – whether you want it to or not! God’s grace is greater and more powerful than your sin and it will go to work everywhere. This is a wonderful doctrine and I believe that for a calvinist to really appropriate it means growing in joy, happiness, and humor. If God’s grace gets everywhere and into everything then it will get into your sense of humor! So learn some jokes. Have a laugh. Be creative. Dance with your wife. God has predestined you to have some fun…

5. Perseverance in the Fear of God 

The final point of the TULIP is well known – the Perseverance of the Saints. It’s the doctrine that God will ultimately save all of those who were truly converted to begin with. You can’t lose your salvation. Those whom God predestines, he also calls, justifies, and glorifies – there is a straight line from your predestination before the earth was made to your glorification when you are on the new earth (Rom 8:28). But the sad fact is for many this amazing doctrine becomes an excuse to sit back with a relaxed posture of “once saved, always saved.” No! Those who truly love the Lord also fear the Lord. As Scripture says, “it’s a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb 10:31). And “without holiness no one will see the Lord” (Heb 12:14). The problem with much of Calvinism is that it intellectualizes away a real, vibrant fear of God by abstracting God to the world of ideas. We need to reject this. And the place to start involves some trembling.

At any rate, I love Calvinism. To quote Doug Wilson, “I get up in the morning and thing, yay Calvinism!” The more I read Scripture the more I see it all over the place. I also believe Calvinism is the moderating position as a theology of salvation. Arminianism (“free-will” thinking) teaches that if man chooses, then God must not be choosing; on the other hand, hyper-calvinism (“fatalism”) teaches that if God chooses, then man must not be choosing. These are equal and opposite errors – they both make the mistake in thinking that the choice of one must necessarily displace the choice of the other. But properly understood, Calvinism embraces a greater, more mysterious understanding of the interaction between our will and God’s will – God chooses some for salvation and His this choice is greater than ours and it even encompasses man’s response as he also, in turn, chooses God. So, God is the great author of the human story. To steal an illustration from Grudem, who destroyed the one ring to rule them all? Frodo? Or Tolkien? Both of course.

Go dance with your wife.

Ezekiel’s Temple Vision: The Most Puzzling Part of the Bible?

Given what I wrote on Bible interpretation in my earlier post this week, I figured I would follow it up and write something on the vision Ezekiel has at the end of the book. Who knows? Some desperate soul might google “Ezekiel Temple” and find something that is helpful on this challenging, but fascinating topic.

There is no passage is Scripture that makes me scratch my head more that the end of Ezekiel.

Ezekiel closes his prophecy with nine chapters that give a detailed, elaborate vision of a temple. Ezekiel lives in Babylon and he is transported by a heavenly guide who reveals to him a magnificent temple with all the temple rituals going on inside. The temple is beautiful. There is a stream flowing from it. The vision contains detailed description of the animal sacrifices and the priesthood and operations in the temple. The vision tells us about “the prince” and it tells how the land will be divided up between the tribes of Israel. It is also details the measurements of the walls, gates, and courts, which, interestingly, are of different proportions than Solomon’s temple, which we read about in the history books.

The head-scratching part is that this temple has never been built. It wasn’t Solomon’s temple for that was already destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. Furthermore, when the Jews came back from exile under Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah the temple they built utterly paled in comparison to Ezekiel’s vision.

Some have suggested that the temple was only ever hypothetical and conditional – it was a reality that would only happen if Israel had obeyed Yahweh. I want to reject that notion. It is an easy solution but it is simply not how prophecy works in the Old Testament. When God gives a vision, promising to do something, he always accomplishes it.

When you take this all together it makes us ask some hard questions: will this temple be built in the future? Is this temple some kind of symbolic portrayal of the church in Jesus?

There are actually two dominant views on the topic: many think that this temple will be built one day in the millennial reign of Jesus on earth. But that view has some big problems: why would animal sacrifice for atonement return under Jesus, especially since Hebrews says that it is done (Ezek 45:18; Heb 10:1-18)? Moreover, why, if the New Testament tells us we are the temple of God, do we need another temple for God’s presence will dwell – does he not already dwell in us by his Spirit (Rom 8)?

The other view is that this is simply a spiritual description of the Church, or the Church age, which is elsewhere called “the temple” of God (1 Cor 3:16; 1 Pet 2:5ff.). But if that is the case then why is there so much elaborate detail on animal sacrifices and priestly rituals and careful measurements? What do those symbols point to?

The first thing to say is that the challenges in this topic that are thousands of years old. In fact, around the time of Christ, there were Jewish Rabbis who had a very hard time dealing with this prophecy since Herod’s temple was being sacked. In a sense, this problem is pre-Christian. And that is reason to go slow on it. In fact, John Calvin  (one of my heroes) never addressed this in his commentary because he died before getting to it…

With all that said, I want to propose that what Ezekiel is describing, in symbolic terms, is nothing other than the New Creation – the restoration of all things through Christ – the New Heavens and the New Earth.

Note that Ezekiel opened his prophecy with a vision of God’s presence on wheels, travelling to and fro around the earth (ch. 1-2). The point of that prophecy was to show the exiled people of God that God’s temple – his presence – is not anchored to one location, especially for a people soon to be living in Babylon. But now at the end of his prophecy we see that the temple – the dwelling presence of God – has come off it’s wheels and come to rest on the entire creation – a wasteland now turned into a tropical paradise. Context. Context. Context. The book points in this direction.

On top of that, the twin themes in Scripture of creation and temple (God’s blessing presence) are intertwined all through the Old Testament. The Garden of Eden, where God walked in the cool of the day, was a sort of temple that housed the presence of God. Furthermore, the temple contained all sorts of trees in it’s art and gold work – it harkened back to Eden. Moreover, the temple was where God sit enthroned between the cherubim – his shekinah glory radiated there. It is no coincidence that God places a cherib outside the temple…er…the garden, after Adam’s sin.

Now some would object that this view simply does not do justice to the meticulous description of the temple in Ezekiel – if this is really portraying the New Creation, then when is it described in terms of a temple? Here are two answers:

• When God speaks, he accommodates himself to the context, the culture, and the language of the people to whom he speaks. It makes sense for God to portray glorious New Covenant realities in Old Covenant terms like sacrifice, priest, and prince. To many this seems like a cop-out. But it isn’t. When God told Eve that her offspring would crush the head of the snake he wasn’t lying. But the snake is actually a dragon and the offspring is actually God himself. God accommodated his promise to language Eve would understand and trust in.
• The vision itself is prophetic and apocalyptic, not legal or historical. One reason I believe that people get confused on this vision is that we are used to reading temple instructions and measurements in the Pentateuch or in Kings and so we switch into thinking that this apocalyptic vision is actually a legal code. But it isn’t. Apocalyptic imagery always has a degree of fluidity to it when you apply it to future or past events. For example, in Daniel the statue of iron, clay, bronze, silver, and gold is not a literal statue. The symbols represent reality of course – they represent empires – but the vision is not to be taken literally. And neither is Ezekiel’s vision.

Finally, this view rests on a symbolic understanding of the vision in Ezekiel, and here are two final, supporting reasons for understanding this vision symbolically:

• The vision has symbolic, or non-literal, aspects already. The stream flows and gives life to the land (Ezek 47:8-12). That, I believe, is the key to grasping the meaning of this thing. The temple emits a stream that leads to the healing of the nations, the return of prosperity, plants, and animals, and ultimately to the portioning up of the land among God’s people (Ezek 47:13ff.). When you contrast this language with the way Isaiah speaks it becomes evident pretty fast that this is highly eschatological language and it is highly new-creational language (See Isaiah 25 and 66).
• The detailed measurements given to describe the temple have the purpose of heightening hope in God’s grace. The detail in Ezekiel’s temple vision is meant to do at least two things: it is meant to teach us something about the meticulous way God’s grace affects everything in the New Creation. Interestingly, we also find detailed measurements in the book of Revelation about the temple and that temple is in fact the “bride” of God that is inhabited by the glorious presence of God himself (Revelation 21). In this way, there is good precedent for taking the measurements of Ezekiel as pointers towards symbolic realities. They speak to the totality of God’s redemption and to his meticulous grace. Furthermore, these details are also meant to heighten the anticipation of the people of God in Ezekiel’s day, who are looking forward in hope for what God has in store – the details bolster their hope, just as the book of Revelation, with all it’s amazing detail, was given to Christians in the midst of intense persecution to bolster their anticipation and to fortify their faith.

What Ezekiel foresees at the end of his book is nothing short of the New Creation, the Restoration of all things. This is glorious.

Putting Your Bible Together with More Than a Hammer

 

If today’s Bible readers are like home builders, there are many who frame the house well but forget the drywall, the light fixtures, and the flooring. They have the skills to pound nails – important skills – but there is more to building a house than that. What I am talking about is a certain approach to Old Testament prophecy that looks at every prophecy as having an exact, literalistic fulfillment in the future. Everything has a one-to-one fulfillment or no fulfillment at all. It’s almost mathematical.

Now of course, that sort of exact, literal fulfillment happens all the time in the Bible. Let me give an example: when the Old Testament prophet Zechariah says, in chapter 9 verse 9, that Jerusalem’s king will come in “lowly and riding on a donkey” there is an exact fulfillment, a one-to-one correspondence, between that passage and Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem on a donkey (Matt 21). Jesus fulfilled that prophecy literally. His literal fulfillment of this prophecy, and dozens of others, validates his ministry as the Messiah, the Saviour-King of Israel. So this approach is fundamentally good, useful, valid, necessary, and needed.

Every house needs a frame – and all you need is a hammer and a strong arm to get going – but we must not end there. We need to rediscover a couple more tools in this area:

Tool 1: Corporate prophecy funnelling into individual fulfillment   

One of the key points in the opening of Matthew’s Gospel is that Jesus fulfills the identity of the people of Israel. That is to say, the corporate entity that is Israel (and Judah) is taken up, summarized, and recapitulated by Jesus the individual. This is no literal, wooden fulfillment. Matthew’s point is that the story of Israel is the story of Jesus. He fulfills every part of it. Jesus is the great sequel – the finale to what happened in Act One. Let me show you what Matthew says in 2:13-18:

“…an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to look for the child to kill him.” Then he got up, took the child and his mother during the night, and went to Egypt. He stayed there until Herod died. In this way what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet was fulfilled: “I called my Son out of Egypt.”

When Herod saw that he had been tricked… [h]e sent men to kill all the children in Bethlehem and throughout the surrounding region from the age of two and under, according to the time he had learned from the wise men. Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled:

“A voice was heard in Ramah,
weeping and loud wailing,
Rachel weeping for her children,
and she did not want to be comforted, because they were gone” (NET).

 

Herod was a maniac and a loose-canon, but God orchestrated his lunacy to fulfill, in Jesus, the promises he gave to Israel. In the first text, Matthew says that when Jesus’ parents took him to Egypt in hiding, their return fulfilled Israel’s exodus – the great, miraculous event when Israel, God’s “firstborn son,” was delivered from Egypt through the sea (Ex. 4:22). Likewise, when Herod the despot slaughtered all the little children, Matthew says that was, for Jesus, really a second exile – the text quoted (“weeping in Ramah”) is from Jeremiah 31:15 and is all about the exile when God’s people are taken captive to Babylon. Jesus fulfills that too.

So there you have it – Jesus fulfills the identity of Israel. This is no literal, mathematical fulfillment – it is the corporate identity and the story of the nation of Israel funnelled into the identity and life events of Jesus.

This is exactly the thing Paul is saying in Galatians 3:16 where he writes: “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say ‘and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ” (NIV). Elsewhere Paul writes that “all the promises of God find their Yes in him” that is, in Christ (2 Cor 1:20). The point is exactly the same as in Matthew – Jesus individually fulfills all the promises spoken to Abraham. Jesus is the great recapitulater. This approach to Bible interpretation has many implications for us as we seek to put our Bibles together, so to speak.

And there is another tool to use:

Tool 2: Typology

Typology is a fancy word that simply means Old Testament people, images, or events point to, or foreshadow, New Testament people or images or events. In many ways this sort of pattern-fulfillment “typology” was the linchpin that held the Old Testament and the New Testament together in the minds of the New Testament authors. For example, in Romans 5:14 Paul says that Adam was “a type” (Greek: typos) of the one to come (Jesus). Adam brought death to all; Jesus, the second Adam, bring life to all. The idea is that Adam is a foreshadow of Jesus – Adam’s “anti-type.” David also fits this category. David is an anointed king. Jesus is an anointed King. God has layered history with pictures of Jesus before he even came on the scene. This sort of thing is all over the place – Paul says that when Israel drank from a rock that rock was Christ (1 Cor 10:4). Jesus himself says that when he is lifted up on the cross he will save his people just like when Moses lifted up the bronze serpent in the wilderness so that whoever looked on it would be saved (John 3:14-15).

The entire Bible points to Jesus. He is the anti-type – the fulfillment – of hundreds of Old Testament types:

• Adam fell to temptation in a garden. Jesus resisted temptation, to the point of sweating blood, in a garden.
• The Israelites spent forty years in the wilderness testing God. Jesus spent forty days in the wilderness refusing to put him to the test.
• David defeated a giant. Jesus defeated the giant.
• Jonah spent three nights in a whale. Jesus spent three nights in the grave.

I could go on…

The idea is that the second thing we need to see is that the entire Old Testament story line is a magnificent, multi-faceted narrative that culminates in Jesus. The entire layering of Old Testament history is a straight line to Jesus.

So yes, there are many instances where Scripture shows Jesus fulfilling prophecy in an exact, literal way. But that is only one approach that the New Testament takes to the Old Testament. Without these other approaches it’s like we are building a house without drywall. We need to employ not merely a literalistic approach to Old Testament prophecy-fulfillment but also the great multi-faceted, narratival, and thoroughly Jesus-centered approach that the New Testament authors also used.

 

Why Pacifism is Dead Wrong: A Response to Jeff McConnell

*Posted with the editorial assistance of Brittany Evans*

As an introduction, I would like to start this post with a Hallmark quotation from 2 Samuel 8:2:

“[David] defeated the Moabites. He made them lie on the ground and then used a rope to measure them off. He put two-thirds of them to death and spared the other third. The Moabites became David’s subjects and brought tribute” (NET).

I just had to get that out of my system to start a post on pacifism. David…the man after God. I just can’t believe he did that…

Anyway.

My dear brother, Jeff McConnell, has written a post here entitled “Why I Am A Conservative, Calvinist, Baptist, Evangelical Fundamentalist, and a Pacifist” and he has given me permission to write a response to his post. For whatever value labels have (and all of those can be grossly misunderstood) I want to sign up wholeheartedly to those first four; and that is enough to put Jeff and I on the same tiny corner of the vast, evangelical iceberg. That is also why I want to respond to the fifth label – “pacifist” – a label that I completely disagree with. Since I have been meaning to chat with Jeff on this point for some time now, we might as well just have some blog interaction so others can eavesdrop. It should clarify some things. (I may, in fact, need to change some of my views…wouldn’t be the first time.)

The other reason I want to respond to this is because Jeff is a great guy and we do ministry together frequently. A few weeks ago we were both sharing about our faith in Christ with a receptive listener on Whyte Ave in Edmonton when a guy pulled a knife out just down the block from us – a big knife too. Jeff (and others) handled the situation magnificently (with far more confidence than I could muster), and, largely because of Jeff’s manly intervention, the situation was contained and the knife-wielder was arrested. That’s the second reason I want to respond to this – it’s a rare thing to have any passionate disagreement on secondary issues, while maintaining the centrality of the gospel. That gospel proclamation is something which I intend to keep doing with Jeff, Lord-willing for years to come. Hopefully the knife thing won’t be a reoccurring problem.

Finally, the other wonderful thing about Jeff is that, unlike so many today, he can separate one issue from another. In our day when every religious and political issue seems to be coupled, and “the party line” must be toed, Jeff can see distinctions. He would be the last person to make the kind of typical ad hominem internet attack and call me some backwoods, redneck fascist for disagreeing with his pacifism. And I would be the last to call him a pot-smoking, deadlocked, granola-eating hippie for it. Strange how many people go to those extremes though, isn’t it?

Ok. Enough bromance and on to the topic at hand.

Christian pacifism has a long history, especially within the Anabaptist movement (Mennonites, Hutterites and the baptists that emerged during the Magisterial Reformation on the European continent). In light of this long, established history, we need to reject the notion that holding to pacifism makes you, by definition, a coward. I have a lot of respect for an older man I once knew (who passed away not too long ago) who was a Mennonite of the old school variety and who was sent to a work camp here in Canada because he was a pacifistic, conscientious objector in World War Two. He was a great guy. I have no reason to believe this man was a coward. He was a man of principle and conviction, and he must have taken a lot of hits for that conviction. Thus, it is possible to have a pacifism made of titanium. And it’s possible for me to respect that kind of thing…as much as I can.

In his post, Jeff argues that under the Old Covenant, violence, war, and the like “coincided with the will of God in that particular covenant.” But now,  in the New Covenant era, violence is incompatible with Christian faith. In this way, Jeff roots his pacifism in his New Covenant Theology – a particular school of thought (with proponents like John Piper, Don Carson, Doug Moo, and Tom Schreiner) that really emphasizes the newness of the New Covenant (sort of a via media between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism). I hold to the same New Covenant Theology but I work it out somewhat differently. Here are my seven reasons for rejecting “covenantal pacifism,” mirroring the points Jeff made in his article, interacting with the texts he put forward:
First, our principle text is the Sermon on the Mount/Plain in Matthew 5:38-48 and Luke 6:27-46 where Jesus says loving your enemies is the fulfilled and better way to understand lex talionis – “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” The first thing to say is “amen” to the sermon. These are words that we really need to come to grips with. Then we need to recognize the context in which Jesus’ message was given. Jesus delivered this sermon to his followers as the ethical manifesto of the newly inaugurated, counter-cultural kingdom of God. This message pertains to kingdom life – it has to do with personal interactions and with love conquering the evil escalations that can quickly emerge between people. We ought not confuse personal vengeance, which Jesus is addressing, with civic polity, or national and international justice. There is a time for a “just war” (more below). But we must ask, “is Jesus rejecting lex talionis on the civil level?” No he isn’t. The principle of lex talionis must always remain the basis of good governance and retributive justice.

Let’s go to the second key text – Romans 13:1-7. This chapter teaches us that governing authorities are appointed by God and that this authority “does not bear the sword in vain” for it is “God’s servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer” (NET). There is an inescapable connection in this passage between justice and death. Read that last sentence again. The sword is an instrument of death (which is also why I don’t oppose the death penalty). And that sword is “appointed.” If the Apostle Paul were a pacifist he simply could not write such a thing. I don’t believe he could. Not with that language. The point is clear – the governing authorities derive their authority from God, and part of that God-given authority is justice, even to death. If the Scripture affirms that in such positive language, why would that office be denied to a Christian? So this is the thought experiment: imagine there is a country where the gospel has taken hold so effectively that you had a strong Christian majority in the nation – say 95%. Would that country be allowed to have a police force or a military? The answer to me is a definite yes – and they would need Christians to work those jobs. There will always be wars and rumors of wars, so defense will always be needed and civil order will always need to be upheld. Christians are not barred from these roles.

Third, we need to consider afresh what Martin Luther called the “Two Kingdoms.” By this Luther meant that we always have one foot firmly planted in Christ as citizens of heaven and the other firmly planted in our current circumstances as citizens of our country. We have an obligation to both kingdoms. This can be a problematic notion that sometimes makes people think they can follow Jesus “spiritually” and do whatever they please “socially.” But that is not what Luther meant – Jesus is Lord over every sphere and every kingdom. What Luther meant is that there is a real difference between our engagement and our terms of reference in the kingdom of God and our terms of reference in earthly government. We cannot afford to blur the distinction between the two spheres, for, as Jesus said to Pilate, “my kingdom is not of this world…” (John 18:36). So a Christian should never pick up arms for the sake of Christ or the gospel. That is a different kingdom. There is no theological category for a Christian holy war or a Christian jihad. It doesn’t exist. But I can think of many circumstances (like WWII) where Christians (Christian men…) should go to war for king and country. Jeff also went to 1 Peter as an example of how we ought to suffer instead of fight as Christians, but I actually think the texts from 1 Peter totally support this theology of the two kingdoms. 1 Peter 2:13-17 articulates our obligation to be subject to the state, one kingdom, which exists to punish “the wrongdoer” (NET). Then the passage Jeff cited, 1 Peter 3:8-17, beautifully lays out our obligation as members of the new covenant community to embrace suffering for the cause of Christ in the other kingdom. In sum, Christians have multiple hats to wear. Always. And Jesus is Lord over all of them.

Fourth, I agree that Christ and his followers modeled a posture of non-violence in their ministry. A big part of that is because they were not revolutionaries and zealots – that was another contemporaneous movement. However, before his crucifixion, Jesus told his followers to sell their cloaks and buy a sword (Luke 22:36). Admittedly, this is a difficult passage to interpret. But I’m pretty sure the sword wasn’t for cutting vegetables. On the other hand, Jesus said that two swords were more than enough, not eleven, which suggests he has a restrained view of self-defense in mind.

Fifth, this leads me to a key differences between Jeff and me on this matter. I agree with Jeff that we are under the New Covenant and not the Old. I am a card-carrying believer in “New Covenant Theology.” In other words, we are under the law of Christ now and we have no binding obligation to the Law of Moses, for it not longer has jurisdiction over us since Christ is the end, the telos, of the Torah (nomos) (Romans 10:4; cf. 7:1-6). That said, we still need to appropriate the wisdom of the law, for our good and profit, through Christ. For Matthew in particular, “fulfillment” is the name of the game – the entire Law of Moses is fulfilled in Christ. So it is obsolete in its jurisdiction – it’s done. But it is far from irrelevant in its profitability and usefulness, for God “exhaled” it (2 Tim 3:16). So then Exodus 22:2-3 says, “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no blood guilt for him. If the sun has risen on him, then there is blood guilt for him.” I see no reason why Jesus did not love and believe, and even cherish, this passage – he loved the law. I also don’t see why a New Covenant believer cannot glean principles from this case-law; namely, that the principle of self-defense is a civic virtue. Take this virtue and apply it on a national level. If you can defend your home, why can’t you defend your country?

Sixth, Jeff had some soul-stirring, evocative points about living out the gospel. He said love for enemies is central to the good news. Yes it is. I was an enemy of God and Jesus died for me. I totally agree and I think we need to embody his love in everything we do. The trouble is, again, the two kingdoms. I think it’s possible to embody the grace and love of Christ in every sphere. Even policing and military. I know that seems provocative. What I mean is that the gospel must speak to our ethics in war. There is a way to bring the gospel to bear on even your civic duty. That is why we need Christians in policing and corrections and security and military. An example might be a soldier who respects the dignity of the enemy instead of a soldier who openly mocks the enemy. Additionally, there are many ways in which fighting and laying down your life for another if need be is actually a reflection of the gospel. On the cross, Jesus laid his life down for his bride (Ephesians 5:25). Jesus is coming back for her, and will ultimately fight a war for her on a white horse (Revelation 19:11ff.). That is a just war. If marriage is a picture of Christ and the church then certainly fighting for the defense of your wife and family, whether that means in your house or on a battlefield, must also be a picture of the gospel. The gospel is a jewel with many sides. Jeff’s point was that suffering for your enemies is a picture of the gospel. But it’s not the only picture.

And that leads me to my last and final point (and I suspect this might be the first point where Jeff might really agree with me). My pastor recently pointed out to me that Jesus rides on that white horse accompanied: “…the armies that are in heaven, dressed in white, clean, fine linen, [will be] following him on white horses” (Rev 19:14 NET). I always assumed that he was accompanied by angels. But the white garments motif in the Apocalypse suggests that humans are there too. That means the day will come when Christian pacifists won’t be pacifists any longer. I look forward to the day when I ride side by side with my buddy Jeff.

ADOPTION: The Highest Blessing and Privilege of the Gospel

It is not an understatement that the highest privilege God has given us in the gospel is the reality of adoption – we have been made sons of God![1]  In this short, reflective essay I will not lay any theological foundation for the reality of adoption – for an explanation of it I would refer readers to Sinclair Ferguson’s Children of the Living God and Michael Milton’s What is the Doctrine of Adoption? [2] Instead, I will simply unpack seven ways that the doctrine of adoption impacts life and ministry, making a few references to Scripture and to these two books.

First, the doctrine of adoption confirms to us that we are totally secure in our salvation.

Michael Milton opens his book with a prayer for the reader – that we would know that we are happy, secure children.[3] There is absolutely nothing that can change the reality that we are now in God’s family. What a tremendous blessing it is to know, not just intellectually, but also emotionally, that we are safe in the Father’s care – present and future. This means that whatever worry, grief, suffering, or difficulty we may encounter in life and ministry, our Father has his protective, providential arms around us. We have absolutely no reason for any insecurity. We belong to God. We belong with God.

Second, the doctrine of adoption confirms to us that we have been completely embraced by the lavish, overwhelming, gracious love of God.

The love of God is not contingent on our actions and attitudes – it is contingent only on the immovable, rock-solid union that we have with Christ – in other words, it’s not contingent at all. Now that we are “in” Jesus, the Son of God, the Father regards us with the same love and affection he has for Jesus. Ponder that last sentence again slowly. By the Spirit, we now have the same access to “Abba” that Jesus had (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6). What a wonderful reality to embrace in the challenges of daily life – how much more does our Heavenly Father freely give to us than our earthly fathers (Matt 7:11)?

Third, the doctrine of adoption confirms to us that all our longings for intimacy are satisfied in God the Father.[4]

What do we desire more than to be known and to be loved? Many people know us who don’t love us. And others love us who don’t really know us. But God the Father both fully knows us and fully loves us. It is only the doctrine of adoption that provides that level of intimacy.

Fourth, the doctrine of adoption confirms to us that we have God’s favour.

We don’t need to earn God’s favour. We never needed to. It was given. The same favour when God said, “This is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased” is now given to us (Matt 7:13).[5] What a tremendously liberating thought for life and ministry. How many church leaders are slaving away seeking to earn God’s favour? We work so hard to please God, and in one sense that is right – we should always seek to please him (Heb 11:6; 1 Thess 2:4). But we must be careful in this, lest we take on the heart of a prodigal striving for fatherly acceptance. At the most foundational level, we only please God by virtue of the fact that we are sons of God in Christ! Therefore we have all the fatherly acceptance we could ever ask for. We have all the favour we could ever want.

Fifth, the doctrine of adoption confirms to us that we no longer need to be driven by any slavish fears.

“So you have not received a spirit that makes you fearful slaves. Instead, you received God’s Spirit when he adopted you as his own children. Now we call him, ‘Abba, Father.’” (Rom 8:15 NLT). The doctrine of adoption does not remove our fear of God – he is still an awesome and terrifying King. However, if that same fear is a servile, hyper-submissive, groveling fear that makes us scared to enter the presence of God then we have not come to realize what the doctrine of adoption really means. We are no longer slaves; we are sons. We now have a dignified intimacy with the most terrifying and majestic Being in the universe. This is a wonderful truth because it means that we have full access to God the Father as sons. We can come before his throne of grace boldly (Heb 4:16). And this is something we need to remember in life and ministry. Satan can make no more claims on us. He will entice us to question our adoption. But his accusations that we are illegitimate sons are ultimately unfounded because we will have already lost our slavish fear of God and it has been replaced with the witness of the Holy Spirit, who confirms the witness of our own spirit, that we in fact are true sons.[6]

Sixth, the doctrine of adoption confirms to us that we have a new freedom, a new humility, and a new direction, in this new family.

My friend Phil Webb told me yesterday that in the Christian life we first belong, then we find our identity, and then we find our purpose.[7] How true is this when we consider adoption? We belong in God’s family. And that gives us a rare and sublime freedom. In that belonging we also discover our identity in humility. We are just little kids playing with our “Abba” Father. The pressure to perform is off – for He is strong and we are weak. So this new identity as tiny, dependent children means that we get to have fun with God as we serve him. There is nothing to prove. Finally, arising from this new filial connection to God we find our purpose. Freedom and humility give way to direction as we serve our Father, resting in the assurance of his good favour. This is particularly important in ministry. We do not need to be driven by the fear of man, always pleasing people and seeking to earn their favour. Instead, we need to experience the freedom of being kids again, and then lead and serve from that place of security and dependency on the Father.

Seventh, the doctrine of adoption confirms to us that we are united to a new family, the church.

One of the best chapters in Ferguson’s Children of the Living God was chapter four, which is entitled “family traits.” The idea is that in a family, the siblings have unifying features and also distinguishing features. I am so different from my two brothers, Gareth and Stanley, and yet in many ways we are profoundly similar. For example, we are all quite musical…and lanky. Yet my older brother is passionate about medicine; my younger brother is passionate about mechanics; and I am passionate about theology. What the doctrine of adoption means is that in the local church we should expect a similar sort of unity and diversity in God’s family. We are all to grow up into the image and likeness of Jesus, our Elder Brother, and so we should increasingly be displaying some of the same traits – godliness, holiness, faith, and love. And yet we ought to recognize our differences! There should be no sibling rivalry between us, only brotherly affection (Rom 12:10). We ought to recognize and appreciate the way that we all contribute differently, serve differently, lead differently, and we also interpret events, situations, and even the implications of truth differently. As my pastor, Jason Hagen, recently said, we need to realize that the devil is always substituting unity for uniformity.[8] And we need to reject the latter. The local church should never be uniform, but it should be united. So we need to grow in our sense of belonging with one another, and unity, despite the ever-present differences in temperament, personality, and interpretation of events that can so quickly divide us.

Conclusion

I can think of no higher blessing and privilege that being adopted by God. This doctrine is what produces the most meaningful and emotional songs of praise to God. The prodigals have come home. The fattened calf has been killed. The robe and the ring have been placed on us. And our job now is to learn how to embrace all the many implications of this wonderful new identity that is ours by virtue of our union with Christ.

[1] A brief comment on gender pronouns in this paper: I use the word “sons” here rather than “sons and daughters” not to be insensitive to women but rather because I am about to write for six pages unpacking the reality of “sonship” which really has nothing to do with gender but everything to do with status. We are all sons of God because Jesus is the Son of God. I like the word “children” but again, it is really the biblical notion of “sonship” that I am really trying to get at – a notion that relates, to our gender, but to the new identity we have because of grace, as men, women, boys, and girls, within the pre-existing Trinitarian relationship between The Father and The Son.

[2] Sinclair B. Ferguson, Children of the Living God (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1989); Michael A. Milton, What is the Doctrine of Adoption? (Philipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2012).

[3] Milton, What is the Doctrine of Adoption?, 12.

[4] Ibid., 24.

[5] All scripture citations are taken from the English Standard Version.

[6] Milton, What is the Doctrine of Adoption?, 35.

[7] Personal conversation, November 4, 2015.

[8] Jason shared this thought in a church meeting on Sunday night, November 1, 2015 in discussion the integration of our Spanish and English congregations.

Justification by an Imputed Righteousness

As we prepare our hearts to receive the Lord’s Supper today I want to simply reflect on one particular aspect of Jesus work on the cross.

And I want to start by looking at a few passages of Scripture we find in the New Testament.

First, 2 Corinthians 5:21: “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

Second, Romans 3:23-36: “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”

Third, Romans 8:1 “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

The first thing to point out is that justification is a legal declaration.

Let me give you an example. If a man commits a murder, he is morally guilty and he knows it. But he is not legally guilty until the trial continues and they court declares the man guilty. His legal status changed on the basis of the declaration. He has a new legal status.

Moreover, this declaration really has nothing to do with the actual nature of the person involved.

Switch the analogy: in a wedding ceremony, the man and the woman are two separate people and then the minister declares, “I now pronounce you husband and wife, you may kiss the bride.” Well there is a legal declaration there and it confers a new legal status. But the man is the same man. The wife is the same woman. There was no magical wife-ness infused into the wife. The husband didn’t have some sort of husband juice poured into him. No one minute he was single, the next he was married. And nothing changed in him, but a declaration outside of him brought him a new status.

When it comes to our standing before God it is the same way. Our nature is not involved in the legal declaration. God declares us legally righteous even though we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. It is only after this declaration that we begin to change and become more holy. Again, it is akin to marriage – it is only after that legal declaration that you get to kiss the bride and enjoy the privileges and responsibilities of the marriage.

The God Who Wants to Condemn and Doesn’t Want to Condemn

On what basis then, can God declare us righteous, even though we are sinners? This is a real problem people have with the doctrine of justification! If we are truly guilty, how can God declare us to be not guilty, without himself becoming guilty? Well what I have just described is the real problem of Romans chapter 3 – God wanted to save us – he wanted to legally declare us to be righteous! And yet his justice demanded that we be condemned for our guilt! He wanted to condemn, and not condemn at the same time! So what is he to do? Well the answer from the Romans 3 passage that I just read is that in order to be just and also the justifier is that God put forth Jesus, his own Son, who was fully God, to take the punishment that we ought to have for our sin. So justice was done. And then what he did is, for anyone who would come to believe in Jesus, God legally declared that our status would be conferred to Jesus and also legally declared that Jesus’ status would be conferred to us! And the old word for that is imputation. God thinks of us differently than what we actually are. He imputes the standing of Jesus to us as if we had earned it. It’s not just that we are forgiven and we have a morally neutral state – no we have a righteous standing, a morally positive state. And we did nothing for it.

So our dirty robes are taken off and placed on the back of Jesus. And Jesus clean and royal robes are placed on our backs.

And so then because of this exchange, we have forgiveness, and God keeps his justice! So we are free to walk out of the courtroom totally righteous in our status. That’s glorious! Amen? “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

Three Imputations

So salvation then actually comes down to three legal imputations. When we are born we are imputed with the sin of Adam. He is our forefather – he is our head to use the language of the Bible. As our head we inherited his legal status. But then because of Jesus, if we trust in him in faith, the legal status we have in Adam is declared to now belong to Jesus. And then, third, the legal status of Jesus, before God, is declared to be ours! So our actual righteousness, our actual deeds have no role to play in this interaction whatsoever! The only thing that we need to do is have faith in Jesus – and that faith, by the way, is God’s gift – it’s his work, his doing.

And that brings us to this table. To have a seat at this table is only possible because of the work of Jesus. It is all gift. It is all grace. We did nothing. We have no righteousness in which to place our hope if we are to stand before God. So I want to encourage you to turn to Jesus, to be baptized, and then to receive this feast in thanksgiving for God and what he has done for us in Christ. And if you have not yet believed in Jesus and responded to him in baptism then I would ask you to let this bread and juice pass by and then take some time to reflect on all I have just said.