A Letter to Martin Luther: Why James Belongs in the New Testament Canon

 

 

LETTER TO MARTIN LUTHER

Why James Belongs in the New Testament Canon  

Introduction

Dear Doctor Luther, I hope this letter finds you in good spirits and that you are currently enjoying the peace and rest that come from Christ alone, as I know you have been steadily engaged in a worthwhile battle for the purity and simplicity of the gospel, which has undoubtedly won you more enemies than friends.  As one of your friends, although a friend from the future, I wanted to both encourage you in your important work and engage you on the topic of the epistle of James. I am aware that you are not fond of this epistle, and that you believe it contradicts the declaration that salvation comes by way of grace alone, and because of this its place in the NT canon should be reconsidered. My goal is to present what I believe to be sound arguments for how we might understand James in a way that respects his original intent and his appeal to good works, while still allowing for him to be understood in a way that compliments the fact that salvation is by grace alone, and therefore recognizing his epistle ought not be disregarded on grounds that it teaches a works-based salvation. 

Recognizing the Tension

First off, let me begin by recognizing the tension you rightly observe. It is not easy to simply brush off the weight of James’ argument when he states so forcefully and clearly that “…a person is justified by works and not by faith alone (Ja. 2:24).” I recognize how this choice of words and line of argumentations seems to go directly against what you have been working for, namely a recovery of the gospel message so clearly taught as the consistent NT message: that sinners are saved by grace through faith, and not according to works. This is seen explicitly in Paul’s writings over and over again just to name one of the clearest lines of teaching in the NT on the topic where Paul says in Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, for example, that it is God’s grace through the work of Christ which saves sinners, and it is this grace which is received as a gift by faith, were works play no part in justification (Rom. 3:24-25, 5:8-11; Gal. 2:15-16; Eph. 2:8-9).

A Friendly Challenge

            I wanted to offer a friendly challenge. The work you are doing is incredibly important and as a friend from the future, I can tell you that it will bear much fruit to the glory of God. That said, perhaps it is worth considering how focused you are currently on opposing any idea that justification comes by way of works rather than grace through faith and how this focus may potentially be a blind spot in your hermeneutical sensitivity towards anything which might suggest works are any part of God’s salvific work in our lives. Perhaps there is room to recognize a distinction between an active faith which includes works, and a dead faith, which is ultimately not genuine if it does not produce the fruit of grace, which is obedience to the heart of the law through Christ. It seems there is room for such a distinction upon exegetical grounds looking at James 2:14-26.

Exegetical Observations

            When looking at this passage in James, as mentioned above, there is a recognizable tension present. However, there are exegetical observations worth noting in understanding what James was communicating and how his message is consistent with the overarching message of the NT that justification is by grace through faith. The following observations will include looking to grammatical and word meaning clues, as they are important exegetical keys to understanding how James is likely not arguing for a justification that comes through works rather than faith alone as the justifying mechanism.

            To begin these observations, I submit to you that in my estimation, the strongest line of argumentation that supports the conclusion that James is not actually saying that justification comes by works rather than faith alone is the argument that the kind of faith James is describing and rejecting is not genuine faith. Therefore, if he is not exchanging genuine faith for works as the basis of justification, then it follows that one must deal with exactly what kind of faith James is dismissing as grounds for justification. This is not to say that he is not pushing on the concept of what ought to be understood as genuine eschatological and saving faith, but that he is pushing back on what can be understood as an underdeveloped view of such saving faith, a view that would allow for genuine faith to be present and have no impact on the believer which in James’ view would be a dead faith and unfruitful faith.

            It is helpful to consider the words James uses and how he uses them here in making what I believe to be his point: that such a lonely faith cannot be understood as genuine faith. I agree with those who might believe that James was taking issue not with faith alone, but with a faith that was alone. However, there is a way in which it could be said that James was also arguing against faith in faith. This is something a scholar of my time recognizes, namely that the sense of the passage is more likely a problem with faith that is “in itself” rather than simply “by itself” where such faith is not merely outwardly inoperative, but inwardly dead.[1] In this way James can be understood as pushing back on a person who would put their hope in their faith to save them when such a faith is dead and far from what would rightly be called genuine faith that is both inwardly and outwardly alive and bearing fruit.

And for this reason, the Greek word James employs is νεκρός or nekrós to describe this kind of faith which fails to bear fruit where it is both by itself and in itself, and is ultimately dead, useless, and ineffective.[2] This faith has not died because it failed to produce good works, but rather it is inherently dead and therefore does not either bear fruit of good works or serve as a legitimate example of genuine saving faith, and therefore is a poor object of one’s hope. So, the point ought to be made that James is not contrasting a living faith that has works and a living faith that does not have works, but rather he is definitively declaring that a faith that does not have works is not living faith, but a dead faith and therefore we can deduce it is also not genuine faith.

This observation follows from the grammatical structure of James’ line of argumentation as he labors to show how the faith which he is describing is dead as he provides multiple examples of what this dead faith looks like in the Christian community where known needs willingly go unmet as well as provides examples of active faith of those who obeyed God in genuine faith. But seeing the issue is dead faith rather than living faith void of works helps protect against the false formulation of (faith + works = salvation), which I believe you rightly reject! A helpful analogy might be that faith is like a seed and when a living seed is planted it produces living things, but a dead seed produces nothing.[3] This conclusion finds agreement with a French theologian of whom you may have heard, John Calvin, who makes the point that James is arguing that faith cannot be separated from love and that James intends to refute the one who imagines they have faith, for James does not begin by saying “if a person has faith”, but rather “if a person says he has faith”, so as to make the point that there is no such thing as this dead image of faith and therefore it is no wonder James would deny that salvation could be connected with such a supposed faith.[4]

Recognized Theological Symmetry

            To conclude, I think it is helpful to consider how this interpretation of James is consistent with the rest of the NT’s teaching on the effects of genuine saving faith, which is that genuine saving faith produces a change in a person, including love for others and obedience to God. As I mentioned above, it is clear that the NT message is that salvation is not by works, but by grace through faith. And having established that James was not refuting a genuine faith which simply lacked works but was refuting imagined faith which lacked love and action because it was dead, it is necessary to show that what James then was saying is consistent with what Paul and others have also said.

It is also worth pointing out that James appears to be using “justification” in the sense of proving one’s faith when he uses Abraham as an example because proving one’s faith is genuine for James is in light of not discriminating against the poor. On the other hand, Paul uses Abraham as an example of justification by faith because his “justification” came before the law and so Paul is pushing back on those who would discriminate against gentiles who had not been circumcised as a poor test of genuine faith. Therefore, both Paul and James are concerned with genuine faith, and both are pushing back on different concepts of justification as well while ultimately arguing salvation must be accompanied by true saving faith.

            Paul makes it clear in his writings that the good works in which we walk are a result of our having been saved by grace. The key passage is Eph. 2:8-10 where Paul states the good works were prepared for us in advance to walk in, following our having been made alive in Christ by grace through faith, and the verb he uses to describe this walking in good works is περιπατέω  or peripatéō, which describes the intended way of life of the believer as “walking” represents the new life as a whole rather than a simple single good work. Likewise, Paul heavily emphasizes in Galatians that the fruit of the Spirit, which includes love for one another, and is a mark of one who is led by the Spirit (5:14-25) having been saved by grace and now lives this life in the flesh by faith in Christ (2:20). 1 John says that practicing unrighteousness and a lack of love for one’s brother is evidence that one is not of God, but rather a child of the devil (1 John 3:8-24).

All of this to say: the message of James is not that salvation is the product of faith plus works, but rather that genuine saving faith is neither empty faith in itself, nor dead faith which, like a dead seed, produces nothing. The message of James says that genuine faith produces action, not least of which is love for thy brother, and this message is consistent with the NT message of salvation by grace through faith which clearly produces Spirit-filled love for God and fellow man. While much more could be said, I hope this is sufficient to persuade you to consider the message of James to be consistent with the gospel message of salvation being by grace alone through faith alone, and therefore the epistle of James rightly belongs in the NT canon.

-       Safe in Christ, your friend from the future, Rob Lewis

Bibliography

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of James. Vol. XXII, in Calvin's Commentaries 23 Vol. Set: Hebrews, I Peter, I John, James, II Peter, Jude, 276-362. Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 2009.

Louw, Johnannes P., and Eugene A. Nida, . GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains. Vol. II. II vols. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989.

Moo, Douglas J. The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Letter of James. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2000.

Plummer, Robert L. James. Vol. 12, in Expository Commentary: Hebrews-Revelation, 219-286. Wheaton: Crossway, 2018.

[1] Moo, Douglas J. The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Letter of James. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. 126.

[2] Louw, Johnannes P., and Eugene A. Nida, . GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains. Vol. II. II vols. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989. 167.

[3] Plummer, Robert L. James. Vol. 12, in Expository Commentary: Hebrews-Revelation, 219-286. Wheaton: Crossway, 2018. 251.

[4] Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of James. Vol. XXII, in Calvin's Commentaries 23 Vol. Set: Hebrews, I Peter, I John, James, II Peter, Jude, 276-362. Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 2009. 310-311

Divorce & Remarriage: A Biblical/Pastoral Consideration

1 Corinthians 7 as a Case Study

Introduction

This short essay aims to provide an overview of the cultural, social, and theological background of 1 Corinthians chapter seven, with an emphasis on the issue of divorce and remarriage. These background issues are important to consider for rightly interpreting the text, which has significant practical implications for the church in the twenty-first century where divorce and remarriage is common and clear biblical guidance on the topic is needed theologically, personally, and pastorally. This essay will argue that Paul’s intention, in line with the teaching of Jesus, was not to forbid divorce in all cases, or to equally forbid remarriage in all cases, but rather to stress the importance of covenant faithfulness and contentment in one’s current relational position.

Historical Context of 1 Corinthians

The date of the first epistle to the Corinthians being between 54-55 A.D. means the historical context is in the world of the Roman ruled first century not long after the ministry and resurrection of Christ. The city of Corinth is said to have been a fairly prosperous port city, making it a place of commerce, banking, and artistic production for local artisans.[1] The church in Corinth would have been largely Gentile believers as the city was comprised of a mixed population of Greeks and Romans, as well as others from around the Mediterranean.[2]

Paul’s writing shows that he would have been intimately acquainted with the church in Corinth. This follows his having spent a year and a half establishing it upon leaving Philippi as recorded in Acts 16-17, which would have likely been in 51 A.D., and his addressing so many areas of concern, including the place of marriage, shows that he knew this church well and what her issues were.[3] So Paul, a Jew, is writing to Gentiles on the topic of singleness, divorce, and remarriage, and offers instruction on how to see each of these rightly in light of the teaching of Jesus and the current cultural context of first century Corinth. This context included existing cultural norms around marriage and divorce, namely those found in Greek and Roman culture, with which the saints in Corinth would have been familiar. It is important to spend time exploring what those expectations and norms would have been, in addition to the popular Jewish perspectives on the matter, in order to see what may have been behind Paul’s need to address what appears to be a polarized congregation on this issue.

Divorce in Jewish, Roman/Greek Culture

In chapter seven of 1 Corinthians, Paul deals with the topic of divorce and remarriage in light of relational contentment, arguing that believers ought not seek to change their status, whether single, married to a believer, divorced, or even married to an unbeliever. While the text does not provide specific case studies for cultural insight, it is still known that there were varying opinions which could have been influential on the way they were approaching the topic, to which Paul’s instruction was given as a helpful and necessary response.

The Old Testament established grounds for divorce in Deuteronomy 24, which would have been recognized by the Jewish leaders in Paul’s lifetime, and certainly would have been an issue with which he was familiar as a Pharisee. While Paul does not appeal directly to Deuteronomy 24 in his letter, he does appeal to the teachings of Christ, which were in direct relation to that famous passage in the law of Moses. For the time being, it is necessary to consider first the Jewish thoughts on divorce generally, and the Roman/Greek thoughts on the topic as well, before exploring Christ’s teaching specifically. The two main schools of thought were named after their respective leaders: the Hillel perspective which taught that divorce was permissible for basically any reason, and the Shammai perspective, which allowed for a man to divorce his wife only in the case of sexual immorality.[4]

To more fully present a look into the Jewish perspective, both Philo and Josephus are helpful. Josephus notes that a man may divorce his wife and, for any reason, in doing so he must present her with a certificate of divorce so that she might be at liberty to remarry. Josephus states, “He that desires to be divorced from his wife for any cause whatsoever, let him in writing give assurance that he will never use her as his wife anymore; for by this means she may be at liberty to marry another husband…(Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews).[5] So, it is clear that Josephus expects a traditional Jewish perspective to be that a woman who was divorced by her husband was free to remarry, and it was the obligation of the man from whom she was divorced to give her written release for the purpose of such a lawful remarriage.

Philo offers additional perspective on this topic, showing that a man who was consumed with passion for another man’s wife and who violates the social structure of close friendships and neighbors in this way ought to be put to death as enemies of mankind, and to keep them from teaching others to practice the same fearless evil (Philo, Special Laws).[6]Philo goes on to note that the penalty for adultery and child abuse were the same, “death for such wickedness”, and that a man was bound to support his wife and children and could only be freed from this vow by order of the high priest (Philo, Hypothetica).[7] Such background provides insight into the religious context from the Jewish perspective, which Paul, himself a Jew, would have been familiar with.

Last, it is worth noting the cultural perspective in the Greco-Roman world on marriage and divorce, for this would be the perspective the Corinthians would have been familiar with as Greeks and Romans in Corinth. Social standing might be improved through marriage where women who bore three or more children received special status and privilege under Augustan laws, and divorce did not have a negative social stigma associated with it unless it was on account of adultery.[8] There were Roman civil laws which promoted marriage and child bearing by penalizing childlessness, as well as rewarding marriage, remarriage, and childbearing, including a path to citizenship for slaves who married and had a child which survived its first year, and at the same time adultery was criminalized, and if a husband allowed it he would be charged for prostituting his wife.[9] Ancient Roman law also allowed for the husband to decide the punishment for his wife if she was found guilty of adultery, including the ability to put her and his children to death after calling a family court to session to publicly address the crime.[10]

Likewise, in the first century, both Jews and Romans thought remarriage was to be the goal for most divorcees and, in particular, if a Roman citizen did not get remarried within two years they could face fines as part of the incentive to foster social stability within the society. Jews expected divorcees to remarry on account of fulfilling the command to be fruitful and multiply.[11] However, where in Jewish culture only men had the right to initiate a divorce, the women could and did initiate divorces in the Greco-Roman world in Paul’s time.[12] Divorce was not a formal process, but only required either a verbal or written notice by both parties.[13] It was also likely that many church members in Corinth had been remarried before their conversion, as divorce in Corinth was very common. Given first marriages were normally arranged by parents, it could have been that these Christians had not personally chosen to marry unbelievers.[14] This was the cultural and social context of the first-century Greco-Roman world in which the first epistle to the Corinthians was written, which is helpful in rightly understanding Paul’s instruction on marriage, divorce, and remarriage in this passage.

Teachings of Jesus on Divorce

Given the fact that Jesus lived and taught before, yet relatively close to, the time of Paul’s writing, and that he explicitly references the teachings of Christ on the topic at hand, it is important to spend time at least briefly providing an overview of the teachings of Christ on marriage and divorce focusing on the exception clause of Matthew chapter five as it provides what might be considered a contradiction to Paul’s position in first Corinthians seven.

The argument being put forth is that Jesus did in fact offer grounds for legitimate divorce and remarriage, namely on grounds of adultery. The underlying Greek words used for the exception and the outcome of what would otherwise be an illegitimate divorce are πορνείας (translated sexual immorality) and μοιχᾶται (translated adultery). There is consensus among commentators and lexicons as to the intention of the word porneia referring to adultery, including the BDAG which states, “Of the sexual unfaithfulness of a married woman Mat 5:32; 19:9…no need to adopt obscure definitions of porneia, such as marriage within the forbidden degrees…The specific word for adultery does not appear in the exceptive phrase simply because a general expression occurs in Deuteronomy.”[15] A longer explanation from the New Testament Dictionary of Theology is also helpful:

…unchastity, prostitution, immorality…It is not clear whether porneia in the so-called ‘exceptive clause’ (Matt. 5:32; 19:9) is to be understood simply as extramarital sexual intercourse in the same sense of moicheia or as including prostitution. Most interpreters tend to favor the former interpretation. In this clause, Matt. Is dealing with a vital question that MK. and LK. do not consider, namely the question of remarriage after divorce for marital unfaithfulness…The Mosaic law was not concerned with divorce for adultery (for which death was the prescribed penalty) so it did not need to consider the question of remarriage in such an event. Jesus, therefore, felt a need to give God’s will on this issue.[16]

The point being the semantic range of the word porneia does include the concept of marital unfaithfulness, which is certainly categorically related to adultery as used in the context of Matthew 5:32, thus signifying that Jesus allowed for legitimate divorce on grounds of marital unfaithfulness, and therefore what follows is a freedom to remarry without it being an act of adultery. As Calvin summarized, the exception was added to show that if the husband was the victim of adultery, he would be set at liberty to remarry, yet those who unjustly abandon their wife are guilty of prostituting her to others.[17]

Craig Blomberg’s conclusion is similar concerning the meaning of the passage being a legitimate exception, while at the same time concluding that Jesus was in fact presenting a more exact standard than was practiced in his day. He also recognizes the different ways scholars have interpreted this passage, with some concluding the use of porneia being significant as to communicate a discovery of premarital unfaithfulness. However, he believes the use of porneia over moicheia was not significant in that way, but was rather probably a more common term used to describe female infidelity and that Jesus’ teaching was radical because he considered a man’s infidelity as equally grievous.[18] Divorce ought not be, but Christ allows for the gracious out for victims of adultery while at the same time not requiring divorce even in such cases, for all divorce is against God’s created order. As D.J. Atkins notes that divorce is covenant unfaithfulness and is a serious and sinful act, yet there seem to be circumstances in which divorce may be permitted as a last resort, “Matthew is careful to include the exception. The exceptive clause points to the sort of concession to which Deuteronomy 24:1-4 also referred. It recognizes that, despite a sinful departure from God’s intention for marriage, divorce may sometimes be permitted in a sinful world.”[19] This is not to argue that those who are sinned against in adultery or who are abandoned are therefore guilty of sin in being divorced, but that divorce itself misses the mark of God’s intentions for marriage and therefore is sinful.

Blomberg goes on to note that this passage should not be taken as Jesus clarifying all grounds for divorce, but rather he was responding to a particular debate in his time and Paul would have understood this to be the case when he offers an additional ground for divorce in 1 Corinthians 7:15.[20] For these reasons, Paul’s single exception of abandonment should be understood in light of Jesus’ exception given in Matthew 5:32 and, in particular, Paul’s address is considered in light of its own unique context. This will be the focus of the following section.

Thoughts on Paul’s Purposes

Considering all of the above, it is necessary to consider Paul’s intention and purpose in his teaching on the topic of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. First, his overarching emphasis is contentment in whatever the current marital status might be; singleness with prudence, marriage, and singleness in divorce are clearly communicated in the first part of the chapter, namely 7:8-14 and stated again in 7:20. Yet, he allows for divorce on grounds of an unbelieving spouse leaving the marriage in 7:15, and he explicitly allows for remarriage in the case of widows as seen 7:39 with the explicit clause of remarriage in the Lord.

In light of the cultural context of divorce being common, and lacking a negative stigma where not just men, but women could and did divorce their husbands in the Greco-Roman world, Paul is offering a view of marriage which is decidedly Christian in that he aligns himself with the teaching of Christ that divorce should not be, but due to sinfulness of man, there are legitimate grounds for divorce where remarriage is also a legitimate option. Alluding back to the concept of a certificate of divorce being given where the divorcee was free to remarry, Instone-Brewer argues that in the same way as those certificates would have explicitly stated remarriage was to be to a Jew, Paul’s view is that a widow has the same right as a divorcee to remarry, but they were additionally released from the levirate marriage and were free to marry whomever they wanted as long as he was a Christian man.[21]

To further follow this thought of Paul’s intention of offering an additional exception for divorce, it is important to recognize that he is providing the exception in the case of an unbeliever leaving the marriage where the non-believer takes the initiative to leave the marriage and where the Christian does not need to stand in the way of such a divorce. In such a sad case the forced divorce leaves the one abandoned just as if their partner were dead and therefore are no longer “bound” to the marriage.[22] In contrast, his clear command is that for believers, divorce is not an option and seeking divorce so as to be married to someone else is an inappropriate motivation, thus his call to be reconciled to the first spouse is his explicit allowance for remarriage between Christians.[23]

Two final thoughts need to be considered in this section on Paul’s intention. The first is the issue of a believer staying married to an unbeliever. Paul offers comfort in fear of being defiled by staying married to an unbeliever, and actually declares the opposite true in that the marriage is made holy on account of the believer. So rather than being grounds for separation out of fear of defilement, sanctification becomes grounds for staying. Not unlike those in Corinth, this is something even new converts today ought to be instructed in, lest they feel the need to start over and go find a believing spouse, something Paul was advising against.[24] Yet, in that society, the religion of the husband was the religion of the household, and for a wife to be a believer, and therefore go against the religion of her husband, would have been a point of friction, and her allowing him to go would have been in the interest of peace.[25]

Second, in Roman law, physical distance, which was established with the intent to end the marriage, was enough to amount to divorce with no need for formal court appearance.[26] This meant that Paul encouraged believers to stay and pursue reconciliation rather than divorce, even when they were married to an unbeliever. Yet, for the sake of peace, the abandoned believer was not to pursue their unbelieving spouse, and to let them go was effectively to be divorced upon such separation without the need for further litigation.

Concluding Thoughts: Divorce & Remarriage According to Jesus & Paul

It would be incorrect to assume that Paul is in disagreement with the Old Testament on the issue of divorce, for he clearly refers to the teaching of Christ on divorce in this passage, which ought to be considered an authoritative interpretation of Deuteronomy 24, meaning divorce, while not ideal, is within the bounds of biblical ethics.[27] Paul and Jesus are in alignment in that in instances where the fundamental integrity of the marriage has been damaged through one partner’s refusal to maintain the marital commitment, divorce is justified.[28] In both cases, Jesus and Paul suggest that divorce and remarriage are permissible in the case of infidelity or a spouse being deserted.[29] And while Paul does not explicitly address the issue of infidelity, since he draws on the words of Jesus and he himself allows for an exception, it follows that he would also allow for divorce on grounds of adultery just as Jesus did.[30] The point being, while reconciliation is to be pursued, and believers should not initiate divorce, there are grounds for legitimate divorce and remarriage in cases of unrepentant covenant separation.

Conclusion

The aim of this essay was to provide relevant historical and cultural context for understanding chapter seven of the first epistle to the Corinthians, namely dealing with the issue of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. It has been shown that in the Greco-Roman world divorce was not only common, but easily initiated. And while marriage, childbearing, and marital faithfulness was encouraged in the pagan culture, there were legitimate questions concerning what Christian marriage looked like for the church members in Corinth who may have found themselves married to unbelievers, abandoned, or widowed. Paul’s message was to stay as you are, yet, just as Christ taught, marriage was good and divorce ought not be, but in certain instances, divorce and remarriage were permissible.

 Pastorally, I would argue that the topic of divorce and remarriage ought to be handled with great gentleness and care. While Scripture clearly offers explicit cases where divorce is legitimate, and while it argues for believers to seek reconciliation rather than divorce, it also does not raise divorce to the level of some great disqualifying sin that should haunt a person the rest of their life. If a person has been divorced, even for sinful reasons, there is forgiveness and healing available. I understand here is debate around this topic, but when Scripture speaks of qualifications for elders and deacons, my conviction is that it is speaking to the character of the man more than sum of his past. If a man has been divorced, namely because his spouse was unfaithful or abandoned him, there seems to be no reason why this should disqualify him from serving the church.

And if he had been divorced in the past, even illegitimately, yet today is in a faithful marriage, demonstrating the character of a one-woman man, meaning he is faithful to his wife, and devoted only to her, then there also seems to be no reason why he cannot serve the church if his congregation so calls him considering the matter with grace and prudence. To argue the inverse, certainly a man may have only one wife and yet fail to currently demonstrate the desired character of a one-woman man, while technically being a “one-woman” man. As with all the other qualifications, the character is the focus rather than a single point of consideration, for who has never lost their temper? Yet no one would disqualify a man from serving on grounds of not being a gentle, self-controlled man because he had lost his temper in the past. In the same way, I believe current character is the concern over a formulaic qualification of divorce or remarriage; a man who loves his wife in the same way Christ loves the church is the kind of person Paul is telling Timothy and Titus to look for.[31]

The end of the matter is that God has given man the covenant of marriage which is to be an indissoluble union, for life. Yet, because of sin, even in this He has provided gracious ways out of this union and allows for remarriage where at least one party is not guilty of sin in divorce and remarriage. May we never justify our sin on grounds of God’s grace, yet above all this, the grace of God and the power of the gospel can bring healing and renewal so that even what began in sin, can become something honoring and glorifying to Him through humble repentance and faithful covenant commitment.

Bibliography

Atkinson, D.J. "Remarriage." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 1007-1008. Grand Prapids: Baker Academic, 201.

Blomberg, Craig L. The New American Commentary: Matthew. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992.

Brooks, James A. The New American Bible Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture - Mark. Nashvillle: Broadman Press, 1991.

Calvin, John. Calvin's Commentaries: Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Vol. XVI. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009.

Carson, D.A., and Douglas Moo. An Introduction to The New Testament . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.

Ciampa, Roy E., and Brian S. Rosner. The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The First Letter to the Corinthians. Edited by D.A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2010.

Cohick, Lynn H. "Women, Children, and Families in the Greco-Roman World." In The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, edited by Joel B. Green, & Lee Martin McDonald, 179-187. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.

D'Angelo, Mary R. "Roman 'Family Values' and the Apologetic Concerns of Philo and Paul: Reading the Sixth Commandment." New Testament Studies (Cambridge) 61, no. 4 (10 2015): 525-546.

Danker, Frederick William, ed. A Greek-English Lexicon of The New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature: Third Edition (BDAG). University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Fee, Gordon D. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1987.

Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity . Grand Rapids: Wm, B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003.

Gardner, Paul. Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: 1 Corinthians. Edited by Clinton E. Arnold. Grand Raipds: Zondervan Academic, 2018.

Instone-Brewer, David. Divorce and Remarriage in the Church. Downers Grove: IVP, 2003.

Josephus, Flavious. The Life and Works of Flavious Josephus. Philadelphia : The John C. Winston Company, 1957.

Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2014.

Longman III, Tremper, and David E. Garland. The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Romans-Galatians. Edited by Tremper Longman III, & David E. Garland. Vol. 11. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008.

Naselli, Andrew D. 1 Corinthians. Vol. 10, in The ESV Bible Expository Commentary: Romans-Galatians, 209-394. Wheaton: Crossway, 2020.

Philo. The Works of Philo: New Updated Edition Complete and Unabridged in One Volume. Edited by Trasnlated by C.D. Yonge. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993.

Schreiner, Thomas R. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: 1 Corinthians. Vol. 7. Downers Grove: IVP, 2018.

Verbrugge, Verlyn D., ed. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology: Abridged Edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

von Bone, Emese. "The historical development of grounds for divorce in the French and Dutch Civil Codes." Fundamina: a journal of legal history 20, no. 2 (2014): 1006-1014.

Yarbrough, Robert W. The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Letters to Timothy and Titus. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eermans, 2018.

Footnotes

[1] Gardner, Paul. Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: 1 Corinthians. Edited by Clinton E. Arnold. Grand Raipds: Zondervan Academic, 2018. 24-25.

[2] Ibid. 25.

[3] Carson, D.A., and Douglas Moo. An Introduction to The New Testament . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005. 421.

[4] Brooks, James A. The New American Bible Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture - Mark. Nashvillle: Broadman Press, 1991. 156.

[5] Josephus, Flavious. The Life and Works of Flavious Josephus. Philadelphia : The John C. Winston Company, 1957. IV.VIII.23. 134.

[6] Philo. The Works of Philo: New Updated Edition Complete and Unabridged in One Volume. Trasnlated by C.D. Yonge. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993. The Special Laws III, II. 595.

[7] Ibid. Hypothetica Apology for the Jews. 7.1, 7.4. 743.

[8] Cohick, Lynn H. "Women, Children, and Families in the Greco-Roman World." In The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, edited by Joel B. Green, & Lee Martin McDonald, 179-187. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013. 182.

[9] D'Angelo, Mary R. "Roman 'Family Values' and the Apologetic Concerns of Philo and Paul: Reading the Sixth Commandment." New Testament Studies (Cambridge) 61, no. 4 (10 2015): 525-546. 528.

[10] von Bone, Emese. "The historical development of grounds for divorce in the French and Dutch Civil Codes." Fundamina: a journal of legal history 20, no. 2 (2014): 1006-1014. 1007.

[11] Instone-Brewer, David. Divorce and Remarriage in the Church. Downers Grove: IVP, 2003. 110.

[12] Fee, Gordon D. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1987. 325.

[13] Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity . Grand Rapids: Wm, B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003. 75.

[14] Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2014. 474.

[15] Danker, Frederick William, ed. “Porneia”  In A Greek-English Lexicon of The New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature: Third Edition (BDAG). University of Chicago Press, 2000. 854.

[16] Verbrugge, Verlyn D., ed. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology: Abridged Edition.Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000. 485-486.

[17] Calvin, John. Calvin's Commentaries: Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Vol. XVI. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009. 293.

[18] Blomberg, Craig L. The New American Commentary: Matthew. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992. 111.

[19] Atkinson, D.J. "Divorce." In The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 345-348. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. 348.

[20] Blomberg, Craig L. The New American Commentary: Matthew. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992. 111-112.

[21] Instone-Brewer, David. Divorce and Remarriage in the Church. Downers Grove: IVP, 2003. 111.

[22] Gardner, Paul. Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: 1 Corinthians. Edited by Clinton E. Arnold. Grand Raipds: Zondervan Academic, 2018. 316-317.

[23] Fee, Gordon D. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1987. 327.

[24] Ciampa, Roy E., and Brian S. Rosner. The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The First Letter to the Corinthians. Edited by D.A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2010. 303.

[25] Longman III, Tremper, and David E. Garland. The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Romans-Galatians. Edited by Tremper Longman III, & David E. Garland. Vol. 11. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008. 319.

[26] Naselli, Andrew D. 1 Corinthians. Vol. 10, in The ESV Bible Expository Commentary: Romans-Galatians, 209-394. Wheaton: Crossway, 2020. 281.

[27] Ibid. 291.

[28] Ibid. 293.

[29] Schreiner, Thomas R. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: 1 Corinthians. Vol. 7. Downers Grove: IVP, 2018. 145.

[30] Ibid. 142.

[31] Yarbrough, Robert W. The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Letters to Timothy and Titus. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eermans, 2018. 481.

Good Friday - Evidence of God's Love

Love

What is it that we want more than anything? What is it that children crave, and teens awkwardly seek, and adults often try to earn? Is it not love and acceptance? What a difference love and acceptance make in the life of a child. The stories of children in over run orphanages in Russia who die because of not receiving love and attention they desperately need, even though they have their basic physical needs met. The stories of youth despairing because they feel rejection and as if there is nowhere for them to belong and be loved. The stories of adults giving away the best years of their lives in pursuit of success which they hope will enable them to feel loved and accepted.

The Cross of Christ

The story of the cross is one of love, but not just love and acceptance, but true love which has destroyed the barriers to life and acceptance. The cross of Christ, by way of His substitutionary death has secured for us forgiveness because He took upon himself our guilt. If He is only man, then he cannot do this for he would be an unaffiliated third party. But being God, Jesus is uniquely qualified to be the one who forgives because ultimately all sin is against God and only the one offended can forgive the offense. And since God is righteous, all sin must be dealt with and not simply winked at and let slide. So, on the cross we see love, mercy, justice, and righteousness meet so that we might be forgiven, restored, and shown how much we are loved. But the story doesn’t end there. The resurrection of Christ shows us hope for the future…but for today, this Good Friday, we celebrate the death of Christ for by it we know that we are loved of God. We don’t have to earn it. For God loved when we were as far off as we could be. But praise God we have been brought home by the love of God through the reconciling death of Christ. We have what we need most, a true, informed, and unconditional love from the one whose opinion of us matters most.

God’s Word

And in this line of thought, it is good to meditate on God’s Word which tells us of this great love.

Eph 2:4-5 “But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved.”

Eph 3:18-19 “may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.”

Gal 2:20 “And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”

1 John 4:16-21 “16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17 By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.

What a blessing it is to have God’s Word which tells us of the love of God which changes us, gives us hope, and leads us to worship.

Rob

Covenant Continuity: OT Law & NT Grace

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DIVINITY

Research Paper: Covenant Continuity between the Old and New Testaments

Submitted to Dr. Fuhr

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the completion of

OBST 815 – Old Testament Law

In the Bible Exposition Ph.D. Program

By

Rob Lewis

10/9/2022

Contents

Introduction

1.     The Role of the Torah in the Old Testament Generally

2.     Old Testament Law in Ancient Israel

3.     The Meaning & Canonical Role of the Pentateuch

4.     Covenant Continuity

Old vs. New

Centrality of Faith

5.     Old Testament Law and The Church

Law Distinctions

Keeping the Law

6.     Conclusion

Works Cited

Introduction

What is the purpose of the law both as a book and as legal code? In light of this purpose, is there reason to see two disconnected and completely different covenants between God as law and gospel? Does the law present a different way of salvation than what is presented in the New Testament so as to be understood as teaching legalism? The aim of this paper is to show that even in light of a particular purpose and function of the Old Testament law in the event space of ancient Israel, the overall purpose of the law and its being fulfilled in Christ is an expression of God’s covenant faithfulness and grace, which is consistent throughout the entire canon of Scripture. This covenant continuity is why the Old Testament law remains relevant for the New Testament Christian, and therefore the concept of covenant continuity will be explored in this paper in arguing that grace, rather than legalism, has always been grounds for communion between God and His people, and this grace leads to a love for God and obedience to His commands both in the Old and New Testaments.

1.     The Role of the Torah in the Old Testament Generally

The first five books of the Bible, known as the Pentateuch, are generally considered the corpus of Old Testament Law. This means that not only does the law include books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy, which might be seen as explicit books of the law, but the law includes Exodus, Numbers, and, perhaps less intuitively, the book of Genesis. Holistically, the Pentateuch represents Old Testament law with its instruction for the nation of Israel on how to live in covenant with a holy God. It is important to note that the law is both a book comprised of five individual books, known as the Pentateuch, and a group of specific laws contained in this collective book, which were given to Israel to guide them as the chosen nation who covenanted with God.

As Robert Alter notes, the common traditional name for these first five books is Torah, with its place being the foundation of the Hebrew Bible with both its teachings and laws: “Torah means ‘teaching’, or in biblical contexts involving specific laws….”[1] The idea being that the Torah, with its law and teachings, became the foundation for the rest of the Old Testament and the first part of what is known as the Tanakh, as Alter explains: “After Deuteronomy was brought together editorially with the four previous books, the designation Torah came to extended to all five. In the traditional Hebrew division, the Torah the constituted the first, foundational unit of the three large units that make up the Hebrew Bible, which is called acronymically the Tanakh­–that is, Torah, Nevi’im (the Prophets, Former and Latter), and Ketuvim (the Writings, which is to say, everything else).”[2]

The role of the Torah then was to provide the foundation for the other writings, which make up the rest of the Hebrew Bible: the Christian Old Testament. The historical narrative of Genesis is just as much an essential part of the foundation of the Old Testament as is Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. It is here where the concept of covenanting with God originates. The nature of this foundation is therefore relational before it is logical or even legal in nature. As Roy Gane argues, the Old Testament law was given by authority with the expectation that, in following its instruction, Israel would be expressing loving submission and acceptance of God’s authority over them rather than simply agreeing to rational order or prohibited behaviors with related penalties for committing them.[3]

This idea of how the Torah is foundational to the rest of the Old Testament will be fleshed out more thoroughly in the next section, as it has a direct relationship to how it functioned in the event space of ancient Israel. However, it should be noted in line with Gane’s argument, the Torah served as the basis for the covenant relationship between God and Israel, and this covenant would be the theme and grounds of the entire Old Testament from the prophets who came in the name of the LORD to address God’s covenant people, to wisdom literature which brought to remembrance and instructed the people in practical ways of living in fear of the LORD in all wisdom.

Iain Duguid, providing insight into the nature of this covenant, states, “Essentially, a covenant is a relationship based on surrender of control.”[4] It was Abram who recognized God as his sovereign and, in entering this covenant, he made his life an offering. Duguid goes on to add, “This is the relationship between God and Abram that is on offer in Genesis 17. God almighty appeared to Abram and declared his sovereign willingness to be Abram’s covenant overlord, his suzerain.”[5] Abram was no longer his own; he had entered into covenant with God, surrendering control of his own life and necessarily trusting God with his future.

This is a theme of the rest of the Torah, and the broader Old Testament in general as Israel lived in the shadow of Sania in light of its covenant relationship with God.  With this introduction to the law as it functioned in the Old Testament generally in mind, it is clear that without the Torah there would be no grounds for speaking of covenant faithfulness or the grace of God as the one who redeems and delivers, sets apart, and loves His chosen people. Therefore, the law functioned both as a monument to the covenant between Israel and God and as the legal, moral, and religious guide for a people called by God. With all of this in mind, the next section will focus on how the Old Testament law functioned in the event space of ancient Israel.

2.     Old Testament Law in Ancient Israel

To further explore the concept of the Torah being foundational, it is important to consider how it functioned in the event space of ancient Israel. It is necessary to begin with the concept of identity. The Torah, as a book with its covenant and legal codes, did not simply function as a rule of legal expectations, but rather it functioned as the basis of identity for a people chosen by God to live in covenant community with Him. As Alter points out, the five books of the Torah serve as an account of the origin, definition, and identity of a people who accepted a covenant with God, and with this a trajectory is established and the biblical writers assumed Israel’s covenant with God would be realized through both institutional arrangements as well as historical acts.[6]

This is a critical observation to explore: that the covenant would be realized both institutionally and historically. With this the Torah served as the basis and evidence of the intentionality of God. John Sailhamer notes, “Every word spoken within Israel’s history has a horizontal (historical) range of meaning as well as a vertical (messianic) one. Within Israel’s own unique salvation history, not only are biblical words fraught with divine intentionality, but so also are the actual historical events that constituted that history.”[7] It is clear that Old Testament law was undeniably a testimony of divine intentionality and God’s covenant faithfulness, recounting God’s creative power, the election of Israel, and His covenant with them all grounded in historical acts which support the institutional establishment and definitions.

The first explicit calling of Abraham in Genesis 12 is the genesis of this covenant which began to be expressed in historical terms. There was a definitive place and time when God called one man to enter into a relationship of trust and obedience, and ultimately blessing and providential care. Then in Genesis 15 we see the formal covenant making act of God where God takes upon Himself the burden of fulfilling the covenant. As Duguid notes, “The one who would give the law here showed that grace comes first, for this was a totally one-sided covenant. It depended entirely on God for its fulfillment.”[8] The key observation being not only the fact that the covenant’s fulfillment depended upon God, but it was God who made this covenant of grace before He would give Israel the Mosaic law. This will be an idea worth exploring later, yet it is an important observation in making the point that from the beginning the Old Testament law was based on a covenant relationship of God’s grace where God’s faithfulness rather than Israel’s would be what realized the covenant’s fulfillment.

To say it another way, before Moses there was Abraham, the one with whom God originally entered into covenant, and this based not on Abraham’s faithfulness, but God’s. God’s faithfulness would be seen in His providing a son of promise, Isaac, yet not without divine testing which included waiting on the LORD and holding nothing from the LORD. Then throughout the lives of the patriarchs Isaac and Jacob there was covenant renewal, an expression of covenant continuity. And it is this concept of covenant continuity which is key to seeing that in both the Old and New Testament the substance of the covenant is the same, namely God’s grace and His covenant faithfulness ultimately realized in Jesus Christ. 

This is described by Sailhamer as promise theology, which is tied to covenant blessings. Sailhamer states, “Central to the theological formation of the Pentateuch is the ‘prophetic’ word spoken to Abraham and introduced in Genesis 15:1 by the words ‘And after those things the word of the LORD came to Abraham, saying….’”[9] The point being, this prophetic word is the foundation for the concept of covenant promise. Sailhamer goes on to make the point that God’s promise is covenant promise and this covenant is divine commitment to Abraham in a way that goes further than the basic understanding of promise and fulfillment we see between the Old Testament and New Testament.[10] In this way, according to Sailhamer, the promise is a present tense reality of God’s relationship with Abraham as much as it was a future reality to be actualized in the blessing of humanity. A theme of covenant continuity is the realization of God’s constant intentionality and relationship with His people, the heart of the covenant established in the Torah, not simply God’s far off promise fulfilment. The covenant maker is the continually active party, bringing about all that the covenant promise entails.

However, the Old Testament law was normative and provided instruction and expectation for social and moral behavior in light of God’s character and purposes. It was more than wise instruction or what one might consider as modern positive law designed to regulate behavior alone, yet they were covenant stipulations which provided public and event specific paradigmatic guidance for Israel.[11] All of this tied directly to fact that YHWH is the God of Israel whose character is holiness and love which is expressed in the heart of Old Testament law, as Gane notes, underlies the call to live in social harmony under God with justice, integrity, honesty, and faithfulness.[12]

Interestingly, there has been much debate on whether or not God intended for there to be so many additional laws beyond Sinai, and according to Sailhammer, the Pentateuch’s overall strategy suggests that it was not God’s original plan to include the vast collections of law beyond the covenant at Sinai, but rather they were added because of the transgressions of Israel in the wilderness (cf. Matt. 19:8).[13] Time does not permit to explore whether or not the additional laws were part of God’s original design, however, it is worth noting that the additional laws do appear to move further into priestly code as a result of Israel’s failure to keep the covenant code.[14]

However, the identity of Israel is grounded in the covenant nature of Old Testament law. The essential concept of God walking with His people is foundational to how the Old Testament law functioned in the event space of ancient Israel. As Clowney notes, “The grace of God’s covenant promise is the source and heart of redemptive history. God declares, ‘I will walk among you and be your God and you will be my people’ (Lev. 26:12).”[15] Why did Israel submit to the Old Testament law? Because they recognized their covenant relationship with God, to whom they had submitted. Not only had they submitted to God, but God had taken possession of them in love! Clowney goes on, “We hear the language of divine love: he loved them because he loved them! (Deut. 7:7-8). Further, God has sealed his love to his people by his oath. The Old Testament term is chesed, an oath-bound commitment expressing freely given love…He revealed his name as Yahweh the God full of chesed (covenant devotion) and truth and faithfulness. He promised to go in the midst of his people, and not just ahead of them.”[16] This was in light of their inability to keep the covenant code. God’s covenant faithfulness is seen even in Israel’s failure to obey. Israel’s identity was grounded in God’s covenant love for them, which was expressed in God’s law given to them.

All of this ties into the concept of a trajectory: a metanarrative focused on God’s covenant faithfulness which provides the basis of an Old Testament biblical theology. It was not simply a matter of reflecting on the past alone, but a hope and an anticipation of God’s continued work in the future based on present divine covenant relationship, whether that be the promised land, or the Messiah. From the Old through the New Testament, there is a clear continuity of God’s purpose which began in the Torah. This Clowney describes as God’s one great plan for human history and redemption.[17] This concept of past, present, and future covenant reality as it relates to the entirety of Scripture will be the focus of the next section.

3.     The Meaning & Canonical Role of the Pentateuch

The meaning and role of the Pentateuch in the whole of the canon of Scripture is an important facet to consider when accounting for how Old Testament law is to be understood not only in the event space of ancient Israel, but in the New Testament church as well. This understanding is fundamental to the argument that there is covenant continuity. Norman Geisler argues that the most basic division of the Bible is that of testaments or covenants between God and His people, and is not to be seen apart from Christ who provides the continuity between them as both are centered on Christ because, “The Old Testament views Christ by way of anticipation; the New Testament views him by way of realization.”[18] Accordingly, the Old Testament law as a book with its legal instruction is the foundation for the coming of Christ, as Geisler goes on to note, that the Torah is the foundation laid by God for this purpose, “in that God here effects the election (Gen.), redemption (Exod.), sanctification (Lev.), direction (Num.), and the instruction (Deut.), of the Jewish people through whom He will bring into the world its two most treasured gifts, the Living Word (Christ) and the Written Word (Scripture).”[19]

This foundation, which the law, both as a book and as legal code and instruction, provides, is in part how the meaning and role of the Pentateuch in the canon of Scripture is to be discovered. The larger picture of biblical theology and the theme of redemption are all grounded in the law, both as a book as well as including elements of legal code, namely the priestly code, which is related to messianic vision and fulfilment found in the New Testament. Likewise, even the Torah itself was understood as forward looking, and both Moses and other prophets understood it in this way. Sailhamer notes that there was great anticipation of the future and new works of God along Messianic lines, yet even this was grounded in what he calls the two seams, or redactional glue of law and wisdom seen as the meaning of the law and source of wisdom which also grounds faithful waiting for God’s future work, “How does one live in the present while waiting for God’s new work in the future? These seams refocus the reader’s attention from the present to the future arrival of a great prophet like Moses (Deut. 34:10), whose way is prepared by another great prophet, Elijah…”[20] This great prophet is understood to be Christ, yet even so the meaning of the law is seen in the wisdom gained through meditating on God’s law in anticipation of God’s continued covenant faithfulness, yet future.

Abner Chou echoes this sentiment and argues that Moses himself understood his own writings in light of the bigger theological picture of God’s plans for Israel, “Moses’s view of his writings is much larger than just the immediate situation…He understands his situation in light of God’s work in the past…This shapes Moses’s view of the present…Accordingly Moses points Israel to the future.”[21] This future would include the rest of the biblical canon of Scripture, which found its meaning and foundation inseparably tied to the meaning and role of the law. Chou goes on to note that the psalmists, Daniel, and the post exile prophets all understood their contexts and contemporary events in light of God doing exactly what the covenant anticipated, thereby connecting the present and future with the past, namely the Mosaic covenant where God had promised covenant faithfulness to Israel.[22] All of this once again points towards Christ, the Messiah who would be revealed in the New Testament as will be explored in the next section.

However, this concept of Messianic vision is an important, if not the most important, clue to how the meaning and role of Old Testament law in the broader canon of Scripture is to be found. Sailhamer articulates this clearly as a significant element of the Pentateuch’s compositional strategy: “In the Pentateuch the Messiah is a prophetic priest-king modeled after Moses who will reign over God’s kingdom, bring salvation to Israel and the nations, and fulfill God’s covenants. This messianic vision is part of the compositional strategy of Pentateuch…The Prophets and Writings sections of the Tanak are a detailed exposition of the Pentateuch’s messianism.”[23] The point being that the centrality of the messianic vision of the law as a book was exposited in the rest of the Old Testament, and therefore shows clearly that the law was not simply legal code, but played a foundational role as the context for the rest of the Old and, as we will see later, the context of the New Testament. And as legal code, its representation of the character of God also expresses the role of the law in the canon of Scripture. With this in mind the next section will focus on demonstrating the evidence for covenant continuity between the Old and New Testaments based on the meaning and role of the Torah, which is not only concerned with messianic vision, but also the centrality of faith and the fulfillment of God’s covenant promise established in the Torah.

4.     Covenant Continuity  

Old vs. New

While there are differences between the Old and New Testaments, there is covenant continuity which flows through and binds them. In this line of thought, what began in the Old Testament law is carried into the New Testament where the laying of the foundation for faith, holiness, and the grace and love of God in the Old Testament is realized in the New Testament. The argument is that there is one covenant of grace, and it began with the Old Testament law. This is seen first off in how the New Testament begins. Sailhamer makes the important observation that, “Matthew’s gospel, which follows immediately after the last Old Testament word, begins, like Chronicles, with a genealogy, this one identifying Jesus as the Christ (Messiah), the son of David, who is Emanuel, ‘God with us.”[24] As it was shown in the previous section, messianic vision was first presented in the law and then exposited in the rest of the Old Testament, and it is picked back up immediately in the New Testament. There is no new covenant offered fundamentally, but a demonstrable continuity and fulfillment of the old in the new which is recognizable in the opening of the New Testament.

There is certainly a difference between contexts of the old and the new, but they are not unrelated and completely separate covenants. Gane argues that those who would make sharp distinctions between the old and new covenants to the point of dismissing continuity do so by failing to adequately take into account biblical evidence that there is direct continuity grounded in the character of God, by which the law of Christ operates in light of the Mosiac Law and the promised Messiah: “First, the new covenant, under which the law of Christ operates, is in direct continuity with the Old Testament covenant’s phases, including the covenant at Sinai, under which the so-called Mosaic Law functioned.”[25] His point is that the New Testament builds upon and fulfills the gospel message of the Old Testament, rather than stands alone as a completely separate or new covenant.

Bavink makes explicit that while there were differences between the Old and New Testaments, they are different dispensations of the same covenant of grace whereby believers from the Old and New Testaments walked the same road in different dispensations of the same covenant related as promise and fulfilment.[26] Sailhamer, Gane, and Bavink are in agreement that there is really one covenant of grace which is grounded in the Torah and not simply a new concept which only appears in the New Testament. This is a concept argued by Calvin as well. He argues that the covenant made with all the fathers and with New Testament believers is of the same substance. Therefore, there is one covenant, and the Law and prophets were simply the means of communicating hope of immortality and assurance of adoption, and therefore the reconciliation the fathers enjoyed was not founded on merits of their own, but solely on the mercy of God.[27]

This raises the question as to whether or not the law was a covenant of works or a true covenant of grace. This is important for the concept and argument of continuity because if the law was a covenant of works then there is little continuity with a covenant of grace we clearly see in the New Testament. On answering this question, Bavink would also make the distinction that the covenant of works was before the fall.[28] This is important unless we equate the covenant of Sinai as a covenant of works, which seems to be along the lines of what Luther could be understood as concluding in his gospel-law contrast.[29] Luther says there are two sermons, the law of God and the gospel, and these two sermons are not the same and therefore the commandments found in Moses do not apply to New Testament believers[30], and that the gospel does not preach what we are to do or avoid. Luther says about the gospel, “It sets up no requirements but reverses the approach of the law…For the gospel teaches exclusively what has been given us by God, and not – as in the case of the law­–what we are to give to God.”[31] The argument being made in this paper, to use Luther’s words, is that there really is only one sermon, and that is the grace of God through His covenant faithfulness first expressed in the law, just as Calvin argued, that reconciliation has always and only come through the mercy and grace of God, which is fully revealed in Christ to whom the Law and prophets testify.

To continue the argument of continuity, it is important to note that even the structure and literary feel of the Old Testament canon points forward towards realization yet future. This is an observation Iain Duguid offers in tying the promise of God first made in the Torah to its realization found in Christ. He notes that the incompleteness of the Old Testament and its ending prepares the reader to look forward and ties it back to Deuteronomy 18, where, “…God promises to send his people another prophet like Moses. This promise was partially fulfilled through a series of Old Testament Prophets resembling Moses in important ways, yet it is only truly fulfilled in Christ.”[32] As John O’Keefe and R. R. Reno point out in the same line of fulfillment awareness, this was the interpretive principle of the early church fathers, such as Irenaeus, for whom Christ’s coming was the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham and the end to the ritual laws of Israel.[33]

The argument is moved further along by considering the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament. If the Old Testament as a whole was grounded in, and largely an exposition of, the Torah, then it follows that the New Testament’s appeal and use of the Old Testament is an expression of continuity between the two testaments, and therefore evidence of covenant continuity. Abner Chou describes this way of thinking along the lines of hermeneutical continuity. He states that hermeneutical continuity is defended by going through examples of the New Testament’s use of the Old, where what we find is that rather than a new reading or interpretation, we find the apostles quoting and using the Old Testament as the grounds and rationale for their arguments and conclusions[34], culminating in the conclusion that, “The law of the prophet in Deuteronomy 18:15-18 is used in reference to Christ. He is the One, like Moses, whom God will raise up (cf. Acts 3:22-23; 7:37, 52).”[35]

Centrality of Faith

            The centrality of faith is another clear point of covenant continuity between the Old Testament law and the message of the New Testament. The law as in the Torah or the Pentateuch, makes explicit the requirement of faith rather than the merits of those who would be the people of God. And this requirement is the same in the New Testament, even though there are differences in the context of how faith is exercised. This is a point Sailhamer makes clear in pointing out the unified “faith theme” stressed in the Pentateuch, which ties faith and obedience to the prophetic notion of the new covenant as part of the Pentateuch’s compositional strategy: “This emphasis on the role of faith, so clearly New Testament in its outlook, is found at key locations in the compositional strategy of the Pentateuch. Often it lies along the compositional seams that tie together the whole of the book.”[36] The theme of faith is a fundamental element of the Old Testament law and Israel’s identity and submission to it. Therefore, it is not a novel New Testament concept, but a shared theme which provides continuity.

            While the word “faith” is rarely used in the Old Testament, the concept of trust and confidence-based obedience is explicit in the Pentateuch. Benjamin Warfield provides helpful insight into this issue of the centrality of faith being a key concept to the Old Testament law even in light of the word faith and even the call “to believe” being largely absent. Warfield states, “The extreme rarity of the noun ‘faith’ in the Old Testament may prepare us to note that even the verb ‘to believe’ is far from common in it…”[37] He continues by showing that God Himself is the object of Old Testament faith and upon His very person rests faithful believing, “…it is to Him as a faithful witness that faithful believing turns (Deut. Ix. 23, Isa, xliii. 10)…it is upon His very person that faith rests in assured confidence (Gen. xv 6, Ex. Xiv. 31, Num. xiv).”[38] Warfield argues that the covenant of Genesis 15 into which Abraham entered with God was a covenant of faith, “The object of Abraham’s faith, as here set forth, was not the promise…what it rested on was God Himself, and not merely as the giver of the promise…but as His servant’s shield and great reward (Gen xv. 1).”[39] He concludes that despite the infrequency of the terms “faith”, and “to believe”, in the Old Testament, it is obvious that the religion of the Old Testament was equally fundamentally a religion of faith as that of New Testament.[40] Grace and faith therefore fueled obedience, and for this reason the New Testament writers look back and see righteousness credited on account of faith rather than adherence to the law even though the law was to be obeyed. Yet, as has been argued, at no point was justification grounded in obedience to the law, rather it was grounded in faith in God. This is a critical point in the argument that there is covenant continuity between the law and the gospel, for both share faith in God as the foundation for justification and covenant fulfillment.

5.     Old Testament Law and The Church

Law Distinctions

With all of this in mind it is important to address the question of the relevance of Old Testament law and the New Testament Church. To begin, it is important to first note that the law as a book has obvious relevance for the church being part of the canon of Scripture. In light of this truth, we recognize that there is no Christ without the law as a book. There is no messianic vision, and no promise fulfillment without the law, for it is there we find the covenants of God with His people, ultimately being the covenant of grace after the fall as He works out His redemptive purposes and promises, calling His people to trust and believe in Him.

In addition, every time we celebrate baptism and the Lord’s Supper, we are memorializing Christ as the Passover Lamb who atones for the sins of His people, as both sacrifice and priest. Sinclair Ferguson rightly argues that it takes the whole of the Old Testament to understand this work of Christ on our behalf, “If you want to understand Jesus, then you need to know: 1. Jesus was a lamb without blemish or defect who was slain for us. We need to understand the Old Testament sacrificial system to see what this means…”[41] As Albert Mohler points out, the Old Testament saints had a forward-looking faith by which they would recognize the fulfilment of God’s promises, ultimately eschatologically through the blood of Christ.[42] Carl F. H. Henry recognizes the messianic promise and fulfilment which centers on Christ as the master key of the whole of Scripture, which is a manifestation of the unity of Scripture and the meaning and purpose of God’s redemptive activity which Scripture contains.[43]

However, in light of the law-gospel contrast which can be made, it is important to show that not only is the law as a book relevant for the Church, but the heart of the law as legal code is relevant as well. Gane is helpful in showing that some, like Dispensationalists and Lutherans who do not recognize continuity between the Old Testament and New Testament covenant, would separate law and gospel, while others, such as those in the Reformed tradition, recognize levels of continuity concerning the law of God.[44] Reformed distinctions found in the Westminster standard divide the law into three categories: moral, civil, and ceremonial. There are difficulties in recognizing these distinctions for some. J. Daniel Hays, for example, sees these distinctions as arbitrary on grounds that the Old Testament law does not make sharp distinctions between moral and other categories, and it is also difficult to separate the law from the covenant.[45]

While there is merit to the objections raised by Hays and those in agreement with his position, there is yet grounds for recognizing the validity of these distinctions when one considers the consistent teaching of the New Testament. Many of the civil and ceremonial laws are actually no longer required or forbidden. We see this in the case of circumcision in Paul’s writings, and certainly this was as much tied to the covenant as anything, yet Paul argues that it is no longer necessary in Galatians. We see in Hebrews where Christ is named the once for all sacrifice, speaking directly to the ceremonial law and priestly code. In Acts we also see a paradigm shift concerning what is clean and unclean, and in chapter 15 the call to not burden Gentiles with the law. Therefore, there does seem to be sound reason to believe that there is some warrant for recognizing distinctions when applying the law to the New Testament Church.

Keeping the Law

With these basic distinctions in mind, namely moral, civil, and ceremonial, it is necessary to touch on practical application concerning what obligation there is on the New Testament Church and believers to keep the law. Few evangelicals seem to argue that Christians are still bound by the civil and ceremonial laws of the Old Testament such as rules of diet, cleanliness, and offering sacrifices. There seems to be a strong consensus that rather than either being free from the law or being burdened with the letter of the law, Christians are to fulfill the heart of the law through Christ. Gane notes that it is the law which is necessary in the redemptive process so that sinners realize the need for redemption through Christ received by faith (Rom. 3:20; 7:7-13, 3:21–26).[46] He goes on to argue that a Christian’s growing in holiness includes moral character and love (1 Thess. 3:12­–13), “and therefore makes progress in emulating divine love (cf. 1 John 4:8, 16). This is the process of sanctification, which begins at conversion…”[47] He then ties this love to obedience to Christ, which results from faith and works working together in a converted person who is abiding in the love of Christ, “This love brings the Christian into harmony with God’s character and law of love. To receive God’s gift is to accept, cooperate with, and live out the moral transformation that he offers. The strength that he makes available.”[48]

This powerful concept finds agreement with Block, who recognizes the links between fearing God, loving God, and walking in His ways. This love-based obedience is not an outdated Old Testament concept, but an essential element of New Testament worship which follows from the life offered to believers, and this is the fulfilment and climax of what God began with Israel.[49] Chou also agrees with this concept and adds that, “The New Testament writers maintained the same interpretive paradigm. They quoted the law in order to instruct people about the changeless nature of the Creator (cf. Rom. 7:7).”[50] He goes on to note that even though Christians might not live out the precise mandates of the law, there are times when they do, as in cases of the moral law, yet it is not because they are obligated to keep the mosaic law, but to live out the logic the law intends.[51]

To come back to the concept of love, Karl Barth argues that loving others and loving God is fulfillment of the law, “Those who do what the Law requires in relation to their neighbors, and therefore those who love them, confirm and prove in this way that they are those who fulfill the law and therefore love God.”[52] Barth adds that reception of justification by faith alone cannot be separated from love.[53] These are critical observations which provide practical insight into how Christians might recognize the tension of being required fulfill the logic of the Old Testament law through loving obedience, while not being required to obey the letter of the mosaic law. Christians are enabled to obey God’s commands through Christ who fulfilled the law. Those who are in Christ are both freed from the law and enabled to fulfill the heart of the law, which we might call the law of Christ.

To this point, Lloyd-Jones states that confusion exists between law and grace as if they are opposed, but the law was never meant to save anyone, “because it could not….In Paul’s words it was meant to be our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ. You see, therefore, that the law has a great deal of prophecy in it, and a great deal of the gospel. It is full of grace leading me to Christ….”[54] His point is that grace has delivered Christians from the curse of the law and at the same time enables them to keep the law because this grace brings the believer to love God and therefore love and keep His commandments.[55] Lloyd-Jones’ conclusion is the same as Gane’s, namely that God’s law and our love for Him provides both direction and motivation through Christ. Lloyd-Jones concludes, “Without the power of the Spirit we would lack the love for God that energizes us to keep his law. But without the law of God our love for him would lack direction. Thus, we discover that the way of Christ leads us more and more into obedience into God’s law.”[56] Gane concludes in the same line of thought that converted Christians become obedient from the heart for whom God’s commandments are not burdensome.[57]

6.     Conclusion

The aim of this paper has been to show that, in line with the meaning, purpose, and role of the Old Testament law in both ancient Israel and the canon of Scripture, covenant continuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament exists in a way that demonstrates God’s covenant faithfulness and grace rather than a law and gospel separation. Because the law functioned as identity, history, and messianic promise, as well as a moral guide based on God’s character, it is the logic of both the Old and New Testaments, and its realization and fulfillment in Christ is the evidence of covenant continuity. Therefore, it should be seen as relevant for the covenant people of God who love Him and who have been called to walk in faith and holiness with Him, according to His divine love.

Works Cited

Alter, Robert. The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary: The Book's of Moses. Vol. I. III vols. New York: W. W. Horton & Company, 2019.

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of Reconciliation. Vol. IV.2. V.1 vols. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2010.

Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: Sin and Salvation in Christ. Vol. Three. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.

Block, Daniel I. The Gospel According to Moses: Theological and Ethical Reflections on the Book of Deuteronomy.Eugene: Cascade Books, 2012.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009.

Chou, Abner. The Hermenuitics of the Biblical Writers. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2018.

Clowney, Edmund P. Preaching Christ in All of Scripture. Wheaton: Crossway, 2003.

Duguid, Iain M. Is Jesus in the Old Testament? Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing , 2013.

—. Living Between the Gap Between Promise and Reality: The Gospel According to Abraham. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2015.

Gane, Roy E. Old Testament Law for Christians: Original Context and Enduring Application. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017.

Geisler, Norman L. A Popular Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.

Henry, Carl F. H. God Revelation and Authority: God Who Speaks and Shows - Fifteen Theses, Part Three. Vol. IV. VI vols. Wheaton: Crossway, 1999.

Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn. Studies In The Sermon On The Mount. Mansfield Centre: Martino Publishing, 2011.

Luther, Martin. Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings. Edited by Timothy F Lull, & William R. Russel. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012.

Mohler, Albert R. Jr. Christ-Centered Exposition: Exaulting Jesus in Hebrews. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2017.

O'keefe, John J., and R.R. Reno. Sanctified Vision: An Introduction to Early Christian Interpretation of the Bible.Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005.

Sailhamer, John. The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composisition and Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press , 2009.

Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge. The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield: Biblical Doctrines. Vol. II. X vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991.

[1] Alter, Robert. The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary: The Book's of Moses. Vol. I. III vols. New York: W. W. Horton & Company, 2019. xliv.

[2] Ibid. xliv.

[3] Gane, Roy E. Old Testament Law for Christians: Original Context and Enduring Application. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017. 17-18.

[4] Duguid, Iain M. Living Between the Gap Between Promise and Reality: The Gospel According to Abraham. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2015. 78.

[5] Ibid. 78.

[6] Alter, Robert. The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary: The Book's of Moses. Vol. I. III vols. New York: W. W. Horton & Company, 2019. xlvii

[7] Sailhamer, John. The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composisition and Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press , 2009. 231.

[8] Duguid, Iain M. Living Between the Gap Between Promise and Reality: The Gospel According to Abraham. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2015. 58.

[9] Sailhamer, John. The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composisition and Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press , 2009. 434.

[10] Ibid. 436.

[11] Gane, Roy E. Old Testament Law for Christians: Original Context and Enduring Application. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017. 32-33.

[12] Ibid. 40.

[13] Sailhamer, John. The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composisition and Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press , 2009. 42.

[14] Ibid. 45.

[15] Clowney, Edmund P. Preaching Christ in All of Scripture. Wheaton: Crossway, 2003. 37.

[16] Ibid. 37-38.

[17] Ibid 37.

[18] Geisler, Norman L. A Popular Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. 20.

[19] Ibid. 21.

[20] Sailhamer, John. The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composisition and Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press , 2009. 218.

[21] Chou, Abner. The Hermenuitics of the Biblical Writers. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2018. 99.

[22] Ibid. 100-101.

[23] Sailhamer, John. The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composisition and Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press , 2009. 236–237.

[24] Ibid. 237.

[25] Gane, Roy E. Old Testament Law for Christians: Original Context and Enduring Application. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017. 170.

[26] Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: Sin and Salvation in Christ. Vol. Three. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. 223.

[27] Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009. 274.

[28] Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: Sin and Salvation in Christ. Vol. Three. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. 225.

[29] Block, Daniel I. The Gospel According to Moses: Theological and Ethical Reflections on the Book of Deuteronomy. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2012. 297.

[30] Luther, Martin. Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings. Edited by Timothy F Lull, & William R. Russel. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012. 111.

[31] Ibid. 108.

[32] Duguid, Iain M. Is Jesus in the Old Testament? Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing , 2013. 23.

[33] O'keefe, John J., and R.R. Reno. Sanctified Vision: An Introduction to Early Christian Interpretation of the Bible. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005. 38.

[34] Chou, Abner. The Hermenuitics of the Biblical Writers. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2018. 122.

[35] Ibid. 125.

[36] Sailhamer, John. The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composisition and Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press , 2009. 244.

[37] Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge. The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield: Biblical Doctrines. Vol. II. X vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991. 470.

[38] Ibid. 470.

[39] Ibid. 471.

[40] Ibid 484.

[41] Ferguson, Sinclair B. Devoted to God: Blueprints for Sanctification. Carlisle: Banner of Truth Trust, 2016. 24.

[42] Mohler, Albert R. Jr. Christ-Centered Exposition: Exaulting Jesus in Hebrews. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2017. 192.

[43] Henry, Carl F. H. God Revelation and Authority: God Who Speaks and Shows - Fifteen Theses, Part Three. Vol. IV. VI vols. Wheaton: Crossway, 1999. 469.

[44] Gane, Roy E. Old Testament Law for Christians: Original Context and Enduring Application. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017. 172–173.

[45] Ibid. 174–175.

[46] Ibid. 51.

[47] Ibid. 394.

[48] Ibid 401–403.

[49] Block, Daniel I. The Gospel According to Moses: Theological and Ethical Reflections on the Book of Deuteronomy. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2012. 296–298.

[50] Chou, Abner. The Hermenuitics of the Biblical Writers. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2018. 217.

[51] Ibid. 217–218.

[52] Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of Reconciliation. Vol. IV.2. V.1 vols. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2010. 732.

[53] Ibid. 733.

[54] Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn. Studies In The Sermon On The Mount. Mansfield Centre: Martino Publishing, 2011. 196–197.

[55] Ibid 197.

[56] Ibid 187.

[57] Gane, Roy E. Old Testament Law for Christians: Original Context and Enduring Application. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017. 399.

The Reformation - Looking Back On How It Began

The Protestant Reformation: The Divide Over Indulgences

by

Rob Lewis

Submitted to Dr. Sean McDowell

Historical Theology CSSR514

BIOLA University-Apologetics/Science and Religion Program

Date

4-23-19

The Apologetic Aim

            The medieval church had grown in power and influence, and many look back to that time and see it as an example of how organized religion is really about power and money. With an honest view of the medieval church in mind, anyone today who would be looking for an example of religion being used to control and exploit the common man would find a fitting example there. It is true that there was much corruption, power grabbing and political and financial gain to be had through securing an office in the Church. It is also true that the power of the Pope had become so great that when a corrupt Pope was in power they were able to exercise great authority over the people as they acted as the mediator between God and man. The apologetic aim then is to show that this part of Church history is an example of a perversion of true Christianity, and that the Reformation was a response to this perversion. And while some look to the medieval church for proof that organized religion is simply a means to an end for power and money, others look to the Reformation as a negative event that split the Western Church unnecessarily. This paper will respond to both of these issues, primarily showing that the Reformation was a response to the valid complaint that in our history there has been corruption and exploitation, and in this same line of thought, the Reformation was necessary in restoring to the Church the gospel message that the Church is called to preach in submission to Christ through a unified submission to Scripture. 

Early Signs of Church Reformation 

            The Church universal enjoyed over a thousand years of wide and meaningful influence in western civilization before the Protestant Reformation began. The Reformation must be seen in light of this reality as the Church as a whole had been a true light in the world, bringing about much good through caring for the poor, teaching, copying and preserving Scripture, and calling the world to a life of holiness and reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ. The Church raised up many important theologians who took up the cause to systematically approach complex theological ideas, as well as to take a stance to defend essential Christian doctrines. This can be seen in the great councils convened long before the Reformation. These councils took a biblical stance on important theological truths and doctrines, such as the divinity of Christ at Nicea in 325 A.D., which was in response to the Arian controversy. These great teachers and theologians not only attended these councils of the Church, but also took a stand in articulating precise and biblical responses to these critical controversies, paving the way for a unified orthodoxy for generations to come through the creeds they produced.  

            With all of the good in mind, there arose signs of trouble as Christianity became increasingly formalized in leadership hierarchy, which was not without political pressures and corruption. The papacy was born out of the new order that formed under the conversion and influence of Constantine in the fourth century. Some of these changes are well noted by the church historian Justo Gonzalez. 

Until Constantine’s time, Christian worship had been relatively simple. At first, Christians gathered to worship in private homes…After Constantine’s conversion, Christian worship began to be influenced by imperial protocol. Incense, which was used as a sign of respect for the emperor, began appearing in Christian churches. Officiating ministers, who until then had worn everyday clothes, began dressing in more luxurious garments-and soon were called ‘priests,’ in imitation of their pagan counterparts…Eventually, the congregation came to have a less active role in worship.[1]

As Gonzales stated, there became an increasingly formal element to worship, including an elevated status of the minister. Throughout medieval Christianity the struggle would continue as simony (the buying of church offices) would become common and clergy would increasingly give into political and personal corruption. As Nicholas of Oresme put it in 1363 A.D., the church needed reform for, “From the sole of the foot to the crown of the head there is no health in it.”[2]

The Early Reformers

This is where the first signs of a need for reform would present itself, namely with the clergy and the power of the papacy. Two early reformers would pay dearly in calling for the church to be reformed from within, and their ideas would be influential in the Protestant Reformation led by Luther in the following years after their influential calls for reform. The first was the Englishman John Wycliffe (1320-1384), who took a stand against the corrupt church in the 14th century, and was condemned in 1377 A.D. for attacking the power of the pope. Wycliffe argued that every man, whether a priest or layman, had an equal place in God’s eyes, and thus Wycliffe anticipated the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone with his doctrine of “dominion founded on grace”, which attacked the medieval barrier between the individual and God found in the papacy, which Wycliffe referred to as the principle of falsehood.[3] Also, Wycliffe believed that common people, “craftsmen and peasants”, should have the Bible in their own language, and so he led a group of Scholars at Oxford in translating the Bible from Latin into English.[4]

The second important voice calling for reform within the clergy was the Czech John Hus (1369-1415), a voice that would be silenced on July 6th 1415 A.D. when he was unjustly executed by being burned at the stake for heresies he never taught after being led past a pile of his books being burned in the church yard.[5] His execution was just over one hundred years prior to the start of the Protestant Reformation which began in 1517 A.D. Hus believed that Christ, rather than the pope was the head of the church, and in the early 15th century he aimed at bringing about a restoration of the Christian life, starting with the clergy returning it to its highest ideals, by attacking the highest ranks of the church who were known to have purchased posts, practiced fornication, were largely absent, and enriched themselves at the expense of the people.[6] These were the practices of those trusted and authorized to be the spiritual leaders of the people of God, and who would also be seen as the mediators between God and man. Late-Medieval theology held that the Pope was above bishops, councils and emperors, and since the Bible’s true meaning could only be known through papally approved interpretation, the Pope was above not only the Church, but above Scripture too.[7]  

The issue of the Pope’s power and how a person could access God would be a point of contention in the dawn of the Reformation, and it would be related to one of the three great principals of the Protestant Reformation, namely the principle that every believer belonged to the priesthood and had direct access to God. This was exactly what Wycliffe had been arguing in his doctrine of the dominion of grace. The Protestant Reformation would aim to reform the Church through directly questioning the authority of the Pope, and giving the lay believers permission to approach God directly as well as to preach the gospel to others, which would also directly relate to the issue of lay access to Scripture. Wycliffe had already begun to respond to this when he began producing his English translation of the Bible with his group of Oxford scholars.  

However, for many years, even after Wycliffe and Hus, the church controlled the translation and lay access to Scripture before the Protestant Reformation. The church historian Philip Schaff notes, “Archbishop Berthold, of Mainz, in an edict of January 4th, 1486, threatened with excommunication all who ventured to translate and circulate translations of sacred books, especially the Bible, without his permission.”[8] And it is here again that we recognize the need for one of the three great theological principals of the Protestant Reformation already recognized by Wycliffe: the principle that Scripture belongs in the hands of every believer. This would be one of the early tasks of the Protestant Reformation: translating and distributing the Bible in German, namely Luther’s Bible, which would become a formative resource for lay believers during the Reformation era. For Luther, the Word of God held supreme authority, even over the Church, as he argued that Scripture gives a more trustworthy witness to the gospel than the pope’s corrupt church, and Christian traditions, the Bible therefore has authority over the pope, church, and tradition.[9] As well, Luther thought that the Word must be preached and not simply read in private and that there is no other Word of God but the Scriptures as Mark Thompson notes:

However, alongside such bold statements about the oral character of the Word of God and the particular efficacy of public preaching in contrast to simply reading privately, Luther continued to speak of the Scriptures as the Word of God…in the midst of the controversy with Rome he wrote Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So Called in which he insisted, ‘we have no other word than Scripture (Nu haben wyr keyn wort denn die schrifft). That is why all the wicked should be reproved with it…Furthermore, I ask whether or not St. Paul’s word and order are derived from God’s word and order? I think that the pope himself, with all his devils, even though he suppresses every word of God, cannot deny that St. Paul’s word is God’s word and that his order is the order of the Holy Spirit.’[10]

We see clearly that there was a need to respond to the corruption in the church in several ways, namely in the way that papal authority had grown in an unhealthy manner, and in the treatment of lay access to the Bible in the common languages of the people. While all of this influenced the response of the Protestant Reformation, there was yet one more critical issue that truly served as the spark that lit the flames of the Protestant Reformation, and that is the sale and use of indulgences. 

The Sale of Indulgences

As the 16th century dawned, the construction of St. Peter’s Dome began and was funded by the sale of indulgences. The sale of indulgences is what sparked the protest of the Reformation, and what ultimately would lead to the great split in the Western Church as Catholics and Protestants would go their separate ways after the Reformation. The practice of selling indulgences arose in England under Archbishop Theodore of Canterbury in 609 A.D., and according to Philp Schaff, was used by popes during and after the Crusades as a means to increase their power, and was premised on the sacrament of penance, which included the sinner bearing temporal punishment, either in this life or in purgatory. These punishments are under the control of the church, specifically the pope as its legitimate head, while works of supererogation, performed by Christ and by the saints, constitute the treasury from which the pope, the treasurer, can dispense indulgences for money.[11] The belief was that even though God alone could forgive sins completely and eternally, the sinner must repent and, in some form, pay for their sins. However, if one purchased an indulgence, they could be spared from punishment in this life and in purgatory, and would be promised entrance into heaven. It was no wonder that some would question this teaching and ask which of the two God loved more, justice or money? 

Under corrupt papal power held by Julius II and Pope Leo X, the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Church provided the opportunity for selling indulgences in order to fund the building program. Johann Tetzel was a primary preacher and seller of indulgences and he is the primary character who provoked Luther to respond in protest, even though Tetzel himself was neither named in Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses, nor the cause, he along with his fervent preaching and pedaling indulgences was certainly what lit the fire of the Reformation. Schaff says, 

He was received like a messenger from heaven. Priests, monks, and magistrates, men and women, old and young, marched in solemn procession with songs, flags, and candles under the ringing of bells to meet him…the papal bull on a velvet cushion was placed on the high alter, a red cross with a silken banner bearing papal arms was erected before it, and a large iron chest was put beneath the cross for the indulgence money…The preachers by daily sermons, hymns, and processions, urged the people, with great extravagant laudations of the Pope’s bull, to purchase letters of indulgence for their own benefit, and at the same time played upon their sympathies for departed relatives and friends whom they might release from their sufferings in purgatory ‘as soon as the penny tinkles in the box.’[12]

Tetzel, under the authority of the Pope, was busy raising money through selling indulgences, preying upon people who trusted in the Church and the Pope. This was the context in which the Protestant Reformation began. Any who would look to the corrupt practices of the medieval church, must also recognize that there were faithful witnesses to the true gospel message who were also willing to stand against this power and corruption. The leading witness was a German monk named Martin Luther who was born in 1483, who in 1517 posted his famous invitation to theological debate, which would quickly turn into the seed of the Protestant Reformation.

The Protestant Reformation & Luther’s 95 Theses

With all of this in mind, it is time to turn to perhaps the most central theme of the Protestant Reformation, the first great principle of the Reformation, justification by faith alone. This theme gave birth to the Protestant Reformation and was born out of Luther’s work which dealt directly with the sale and use of indulgences. The official title of this most famous work was Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences, summarized as simply Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses. Luther felt that the sale of indulgences was an abuse and exploitation of the people who were trusting the spiritual and religious leaders. This was what Luther so boldly responded to, and this was the cause that soon took on the powerful Catholic church, aiming finally at the authority of the Pope. For Luther, the selling of indulgences not only exploited the people, but it compromised the whole gospel message found in Scripture that says we are saved by faith in Christ alone! The practice of indulgences effectively turned the grace of God into something to be bought and sold without reference to true repentance and faith. 

What began as an invitation to debate the sale and use of indulgences, quickly turned into Luther being excommunicated for questioning the authority of the Pope. Luther would be given several opportunities to recant his beliefs and to denounce his writings, but Luther stood by his conviction that Scripture was the final authority and there the gospel message of salvation was clearly defined as faith in Christ apart from any works man could produce. Luther’s stand became known as the Protestant Reformation, and the root of the word protestant means to protest, which is exactly what Luther led, a protest against the false teaching and abuse of the corrupt church leaders. This protest was neither needless nor unfounded. And precisely the fact that it was founded serves as evidence that the abuse of the Church leaders was in error and not to be equated with the expression of true Christian religion. Every person today who recoils at the abuse and exploitation found in the medieval church are justified in their response, and at the same time must recognize that the Protestant Reformation was the way in which true reform was brought to the church, calling these errors into account.

Even though Luther was excommunicated, he survived the trial at the Diet of Worms in 1521, and out of the Ninety-Five Theses emerged the central tenants of Luther’s theology, including the belief that humans are dead in their sin and are saved by trusting in God’s Word, which unites them to Christ. This meant that preaching the Word became a vital part of the Christian life in the Reformation, “The preacher had to proclaim first the law, to remind his hearers of how far short of God’s holiness they fell, and then the gospel, to the point them to the promise of salvation in Christ, who had done all things for them.”[13] What was clear was that the gospel message had been lost in the medieval church Luther protested against. It was for this reason that the Protestant Reformation was desperately needed in order to restore the most vital message the Church has been charged with preaching, that Christ died for sinners who cannot save themselves through good works, and salvation comes only through faith in Christ by the grace of God who has mercy on sinners. Sinners are justified by faith alone, the reformers argued. 

Conclusion

            It has been the aim of this paper to show that the history of the Church includes times when corruption and exploitation were the norm, when men used the spiritual and political influence of their office for personal gain, and when salvation was being commoditized. In showing this to be the case, it has also been the aim of this paper to show that one of the most significant splits in the Western Church was in response to this reality. Those who would use the past failures found in Church history as proof that there is no such thing as true religion must also face the reality that true Christianity must be measured by the teaching of Scripture, not the faithfulness of religious men. This truth is at the heart of the Reformation.

References 

Bray, Gerald. "Late-Medieval Theology." In Reformation Theology: A Systematic Summary, 67-110. Wheaton: Crossway, 2017.

Gonzales, Justo L. The Story of Christianity: The Reformation to the Present Day. Vol. 2. New York: Harper One Publishers, 2010.

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. New York: Haper One, 2010.

Shaff, Philip. History of the Church. Vol. 7. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006.

Shelly, Bruce L. Church History in PLain Language. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1995.

Thompson, Mark D. "Reformation Perspectives on Scripture: The Written Word of God." The Reformed Theological Review 57, no. 3 (December 1998): 105-120.

Trueman, Carl R., and Eunjin Kim. "The Reformers and Their Reformations." In Reformation Theology: A Systematic Approach, 111-141. Wheaton: Crossway, 2017.

Woodbridge, John D., and Framnk A. III James. Church History: From Pre-Reforamtion to the Present Day, The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013.

[1] Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. New York: Haper One, 2010. p143-144.

[2] Woodbridge, John D., and Framnk A. III James. Church History: From Pre-Reforamtion to the Present Day, The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013. p51. 

[3] Shelly, Bruce L. Church History in PLain Language. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1995. p226-227.

[4] Ibid. Shelly, Bruce L. 1995. p230.  

[5] Ibid. Shelly, Bruce L. 1995. p232.  

[6] Ibid. Gonzalez, Justo L., 2010. p415.

[7] Bray, Gerald. "Late-Medieval Theology." In Reformation Theology: A Systematic Summary, 67-110. Wheaton: Crossway, 2017. p107.

[8] Shaff, Philip. History of the Church. Vol. 7. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006. p18. 

[9] Gonzales, Justo L. The Story of Christianity: The Reformation to the Present Day. Vol. 2. New York: Harper One Publishers, 2010. p48. 

[10] Thompson, Mark D. "Reformation Perspectives on Scripture: The Written Word of God." The Reformed Theological Review 57, no. 3 (December 1998): 105-120. p108.

[11] Ibid. Shaff, Philip. History of the Church. Vol. 7. p.147-148. 

[12] Ibid. Shaff, Philip. History of the Church. Vol. 7. p.153.

[13] Trueman, Carl R., and Eunjin Kim. "The Reformers and Their Reformations." In Reformation Theology: A Systematic Approach, 111-141. Wheaton: Crossway, 2017. p114.

Does God Love You Now That You Are Saved?

God’s Love in Salvation:

It is critical that we get the gospel right and part of getting the gospel right is getting the love of God right. Often we think that somehow God loves us now that we are saved, when in reality it was the love of God that saved us in the first place. It was the love of God moving in history to secure for himself a people who would know his love and mercy. God the Father moved by his love for us sent the Son, who loved us and gave his life up for us, and the Holy Spirit who is the expression of the love of God regenerates us, sealing us as children of God. John 3:16, 1 Peter 1:3-5, Ephesians. 1:3-15, Romans 5:6-11

I love what P.T. Forsyth said on the topic in his work The Cruciality of the Cross: “The atonement did not procure grace, it flowed from it.” And likewise J.I. Packer expresses this truth wonderfully in his book Weakness Is the Way: “It is overwhelmingly awesome, almost beyond belief. It is holy love in action-the holy love of the Father, who sent his Son into the world to die for our sins; the holy love of the Son, love for everyone whose sins he bore; and the holy love of the Holy Spirit, who works in our hearts to create and sustain the faith that brings the blessing of reconciliation and acceptance home to us as the supreme gift of divine grace.”

From start to finish this is the gospel message - God does not love you because you are saved. You are saved because God loved you. Preach this gospel to yourself, and preach it just as often to others.

The Trinity Is Like...

C'mon Patrick!

Probably one of the most difficult and least understood doctrines of God is that of the Trinity. There are many analogies we use all the time to attempt to distill this mystery down into something we can comprehend. However, thanks to some witty folks, like those over at LuthernSatire, we can laugh at some of them while recognizing how terrible they are! This video was posted in a discussion board by my current theology professor Kevin Lewis, over at BIOLA. It had to be shared here on CASE! Enjoy!

-Rob

Who Is Jesus? - An Easter Reflection From Mike Burns

The Question:

"Who is Jesus?", the senior pastor of our church asked during our membership interview. At the time, I didn't think much about the question, and answered rather hastily. In the weeks that followed, however, I realized this singular question may be the most important question in the universe. Even Jesus asked his disciples, "Who do you say I am?". This is a question of eternal significance. Was Jesus merely a good teacher? A good moral example? Or is he something else? Consider for a moment what Jesus has done for you in light of the gospel.

You are more wicked and sinful than you ever thought, but more loved and delighted in Jesus that you ever dreamed. We are so sinful that it took nothing less than the Son of God to descend from heaven, taking on the nature of a man, living the life we should've lived, and dying the death we deserved to die. But we are so loved that he wanted to come. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, taking upon himself our penalty, and bringing us near to God. The gospel humbles us to the core when we see the depths of our sin. It also tells us we are accepted, embraced, and loved.

We are wicked, miserable creatures in desperate need of a savior. God is holy, but we are not. Without the grace of God in Jesus, you and I would spend eternity in the lake of fire, cast away from the presence of God. God would be completely just in casting us off, in turning us over to ourselves, and giving us the due consequence for our sin. The smallest sin you've ever committed is an act of cosmic treason against an infinitely holy God. We are wicked not only in our disobedience, but our obedience. We've sinned not only by running away from God, but by staying close to him and thinking we can be our own savior. This, too, warrants eternal condemnation.

Yet God delights in us through his Son. By the work of Jesus, you and I are reconciled to God the Father. And not only restored, but brought into the family of God and called "child". Jesus condescended not only to the angels, but to his people. And not only to those in authority, but destitute creatures like you and I. He came and lived among us and died for us. By his death on the cross, he separated our sins from us as far as the east is from the west and buried them in the depths of the sea. And by his perfect life, God credited to us the righteousness of Christ. How wonderful is his grace!

This Easter, I entreat you to consider the magnitude of Jesus' work on your behalf. By rising from the dead, he conquered death for us and brought us nigh to God. I beg you to lay aside any notion that you can somehow earn God's favor by your works. Jesus alone performed the work. You should not walk, but run to Christ! For he is a strong foundation, an inexhaustible treasure. He alone is sufficient to answer the necessities of your soul. Cast yourself upon him, for he cares for you.

Mike Burns

Michael Burns is a theologian, inventor and lay leader. Michael holds degrees from Oklahoma State University, and the University of Colorado. He is also a former finance manager for the U.S. Air Force. He and his wife Stefanie live in Houston Texas with their three children. 

Theology & Evangelism

Current State:

In our churches today it is not uncommon for people think of evangelism as some special program or activity that takes place only when we see people come to faith in Christ, as if the work of evangelism is complete once a person becomes a believer. This idea needs to be gently questioned, and supplemented with the idea that evangelism is more than seeing people trust in Christ in a single finite moment. There is a vital relationship between evangelism and discipleship. You cannot have one without the other in true biblical community. 

 I am currently working on a MA in Science & Religion at Biola, and in one of my current classes, essential Christian Doctrine, our professor Kevin Lewis made a really important point in the prolegomena where he states that teaching theology is to fulfill the great commission, and this is done through both evangelism and teaching doctrine. The prolegomena stated, "The church is commanded to evangelize and then teach the Faith, that is, give doctrine to the disciples."

I think this is a critical observation and clearly a vital element in discipleship. It is not enough to simply see people come to faith in Christ. We must be growing in our knowledge of Christ, and helping new believers do the same, namely through teaching them sound doctrine upon which they can build Christian living. This sound doctrine comes from a biblical systematic theology. We fail in making disciples if we leave as soon as someone trusts in Christ. We need to see the relationship between teaching doctrine and discipleship. Our sermons and Sunday school lessons must go beyond life coaching. They must drive us deeper into the Scriptures, showing us how to think about God, which in turn equips us to live the true Christian life with both our hearts and our minds. 

The Process: 

The first step is to evangelize, which is to preach the gospel, and then to teach the faith, which is teaching doctrine to the disciples. Disciples are those who are students of Christ. I love what J.I. Packer notes in his book, The Quest for Godliness,

"The puritan practitioners of evangelism were pastors with captive audiences (for church-going was part of national life in those days), and their evangelism of those who sat regularly in the pews was to the pastors no more, just as it was no less, than a main part of their larger task of building up the whole congregation in Christ. Their program as evangelists was no more specialized than this: to teach and apply the Scriptures in a patient, thorough way, ranging wide in their declarations of the whole counsel of God..." -The Quest For Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life, Crossway, 1990, p299.

This is an incredible insight into what it means to make disciples, first converts to Christ, and then students of the Scripture who seek to understand the whole counsel of God. I believe that when our evangelism is combined with teaching doctrine to the convert, we are effective in making disciples.  Seeing people come to faith is only the first step in what it means to be a Christian actively evangelizing. 

Rob

The Wedding Invitation: A Call to the Broken and Poor - Michael Burns

I had the opportunity to share the Parable of the Wedding Banquet found in Matthew 22 last week with my adult Sunday School class at Christ Church in Katy, TX. In preparing for this discussion, I was reminded of the beauty of the gospel and the importance of evangelism.

I’ve been to numerous wedding receptions in my lifetime.  None, however, have turned out quite like this one. I think in this parable Jesus is pointing us to the invitation of the gospel, and what awaits us if we don’t accept his call to repent.

This is a shocking parable. If you recall, a King sends his invitations out to his royal list, and NOT A SINGLE PERSON shows up! So, what does the King do? He sends another invitation reminding them. But one person went to work in his field, and another at his business. These people were indifferent toward the invitation. Others even mistreated the King’s servants.

The King is outraged.  On the very day of his son’s wedding, he sends his armies and burns down their entire city. He then sends his invitations out to the highways and byways to anyone who happens to be standing there. And the wedding hall is filled with guests.

God has spread an amazing feast for us in the gospel. It was very costly for him; it cost him his son. He’s invited all to come. And when we reject his offer - either by indifference or direct opposition - it is unacceptable. An entire city burned to the ground is trivial in comparison to the final judgment that awaits those who reject the gospel.

Is Christianity making a difference in your life? Or are you largely indifferent toward the things of God?  Do you long to spend time with him in his Word? Do you wait with expectation for the coming Lord’s Day? Do you spend time with him in prayer?

Isn’t it ironic that those who should be ready for the kingdom find themselves ill-prepared? So the Lord calls on those who have received no invitation - representing those outside God’s covenant with Israel. These are not people of rank or importance. These are poor people. They are destitute people. These are people undeserving of sitting at the King’s table. And yet, the King gives them a place at the table.

I love these words of Jonathan Edwards: “God did not make this feast for those who were excellent and worthy to be invited to such a royal feast, but for those that were filthy, those who were loathsome creatures clothed in rags, or rather naked, and defiled with filth. He did not invite those that were happy already, but poor beggars that were scattered, wandering in the highways and dwelling under the hedges, those that were halt and blind.

The parable ends somewhat mysteriously with the man in the missing wedding wardrobe. The King orders his servants to bind him up and cast him into outer darkness. Why is such a harsh command given for simply wearing the wrong clothing?

The guest who does not have the wedding clothes represents the self-righteous Pharisee. He refused the King’s offer of clothing and was without excuse. He doesn’t need to be cleansed by the blood of Jesus. He has done everything right, so he thinks.

This is opposite from what we find in the gospel. Salvation is found for those who admit they can’t earn God’s favor apart from the work of Jesus. Jesus lived the life we should’ve lived and died the death we deserved to die. It is resting upon Him that we will enjoy in that eternal feast prepared for us in heaven.

Michael Burns is a theologian, inventor and lay leader. Michael holds degrees from Oklahoma State University, and the University of Colorado. He is also a former finance manager for the U.S. Air Force. He and his wife Stefanie live in Houston Texas with their three children. 

The Simple Gospel:

The very word evangelism refers to the preaching, or the proclamation of the gospel. Sometimes we forget what the gospel actually is, and what it means to have benefited from it ourselves as beleivers. The Puritan Richard Sibbes said it so well in his book The Bruised Reed, "Christ chose those to preach mercy who had felt most mercy, as Peter and Paul, that they might be examples of what they taught." What a beautiful insight into evangelism! It is simple, those who have personally felt the mercy of God, sharing this hope with others! Preaching this hope, not in theory, but as examples of what they preach!

A few months ago I preached on 1 Peter 1:3-5 at the evening service at our campus in Owasso, and as I preached, I was overwhelmed with sweet thankfulness, and humility recognizing that I was unqualified to be there if it were not for the sweetest mercy of God. I think this passage is a clear gospel narrative and explanation of the gospel. The passage is so rich with the gospel truth, starting with showing that God is worthy of praise because he caused us to be born again through the resurrection of Jesus. The text makes it clear that this causal activity was motivated by God's great mercy. When we miss the fact that it is the mercy of God the Father that initiates our being born again, we miss the gospel. John 3:16 clearly tells us that it was the love of the Father that sent the Son. Not that it was Jesus first doing something to make us more attractive and worth saving, but rather, in our worst state God had mercy and sent his Son Jesus to complete the act of redemption through his perfect life, bodily death and resurrection. Stop and think about that. Before you did anything good, and before Christ had died for a single sinner, God was moved according to his great mercy to make a way for us to be saved from our filth and certain death. Apart from the resurrection we have no hope, but apart from the great mercy of God, there would be no ministry of the cross, and therefore no eternal life to be born into through the resurrection of Christ. The gospel is something outside of us, that happens to us, that then gets inside of us and changes us! But we must never leave behind the clear biblical teaching that it all starts with God loving broken people who are desperately in need of change, desperate in need of having an encounter with the living God who can actually bring life from death.

After preaching that night a few months ago, an older gentleman came up with tears in his eyes and thanked me for the message on the gospel. He said it was the best sermon he had ever heard, and he had attended church for decades, as well as graduated from seminary. I told him to stop flattering me as I uncomfortably tried to shift the focus, but I could tell God was doing something in his heart. I held on to his weathered hand and looked him straight in the eyes as he searched mine. I told him with confidence and conviction that I believed God was doing something powerful these days. That he is awaking us from our comfort and callous towards the gospel as believers. And that he and I needed to be models of the gospel, so desperately seeing our need for God's grace, and from the sweetness of knowing what it is like to be forgiven of real failures, we then proclaim the gospel to others knowing it well first hand. He agreed by nodding and thanked me for blessing him, and he thanked God for speaking to him that night. I walked away feeling a deep sense of love for God, and a deep sense of compassion and love for this man who clearly was doing work with the Lord. It was a glimpse of the active and literal work of the Holy Spirit. The same Spirit messing me up and at the same time loving me deeply was the same Spirit I sensed was working on this sweet man. It was powerful to see. It made me aware of how real the gospel is, and how boring we make the Christian life when we have a form of godliness but deny its power. But when we are truly walking in the light,  the power of the Holy Spirit is evidenced in hearts changed...This is evangelism, the proclaiming of the love of God for broken people who actively brings sinners to saving faith according to his great mercy.

Rob

Christian Theology 101

Theology: A Quick Start Overview

What is theology? Theology proper is the study of God. The theologian's aim is to know God, his character and his will, his nature and his relationship to man. Who is God? This is the major question the theologian asks. Christian theology aims to know the God of Scripture, the God of the Old and New Testament, also revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, the redeemer, Immanuel, and in the work of the Holy Spirit explicitly demonstrated in the early Church. Theology may be broken into several sub-categories, creating an interconnected web of investigation, a system of answering the question, who is God?

A few of the major categories are as follows:

Theology Proper: 

The study of God, particularly the nature of God, his character, and communicable attributes. The Godhead, or the Trinity, is the heart of theology proper, where God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are three in persons, but one as the Godhead. All of the other sub-categories feed into theology proper to answer the question, who is God? What is this Godhead like? What role does each person of the trinity play in creation, revelation and redemption?

Christology:

As the name leads one to assume, this category is concerned with understanding who Jesus Christ is as the second person of the Trinity. The redeemer sent in obedience to the love of the Father.

Pneumatology:

This category focuses in on understanding the third person of the trinity, the Holy Spirit. What role does He play in the life of the believer? What role does He play in bringing people to faith? 

Bibliology:

The primary resource for theology is Scripture, which is God's revelation to man. Here and only here might man discover that which he did not know, nor could he ever know unless it were reveled to him, namely the attributes of God, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, and the plan of redemption where God himself would plan, communicate and carry out the act of redeeming a fallen creation. 

Soteriology:

The plan and drama of redemption is the focus of soteriology. How does God actively bring about the salvation of men and women, and what role do we play in this beautiful process through the preaching of the gospel? 

Eschatology: 

The end times, that final hour when Christ in all His glory is revealed, when the great accuser is put away and eternal states become reality for the living and the dead. 

 

A great introduction to theology is J.I. Packer's book, Concise Theology.