Think Wink.

The comment on my last post on the Tabernacle was very interesting.  The commentor references one person attempting to discredit Christianity by saying that the cross was no big deal because Jesus was God and he knew that he won’t stay dead for very long so it was a very small price to pay.  I was asked the question how would I respond to that?  The commentor referred to Jesus’ humanity suffering on the cross.  I whole-heartedly support that answer and I would most-likely use that in the conversation.  But there is another answer that I would like to address.  Jesus in his divinity suffered as well.

John 15:9-10 says,

“As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love.  If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.”

The Father and the Son have an intimate love relationship.  Jesus perfectly experiences the Father’s love.  The Father perfectly experiences the Son’s love.  It is a perfect union.  The members of the Trinity are perfectly loving and relating to eacheach other.  This perfect union was broken on the cross.  There was a tear in the Trinity.  The Father had to pour out the wrath of God upon the Son.  The Son had to experience the severred relationship with the Father and Spirit.  To lose such a perfect love had to be unbearable.  To have to experience that aweful wrath had to be unspeakable.  Jesus in his humanity suffered because of the nails going through his hands and feet.  Jesus in his humanity suffered because of the anguish of the cross.  Jesus in his divinity suffered because that perfect relationship with the Father was severred and for the first time ever, Jesus did not have fellowship with the Father and the Spirit.  That anguish of bearing that was literally hell.  That would be my answer to the charge that Jesus really didn’t suffer.  Yes he knew what this would accomplish.  But that doesn’t mean that it did not hurt and he really did not feel pain as the second person of the Trinity.

Reflections from Hebrews 1-2

Golgotha

Aslan’s Ransom

This past week I had the distinct pleasure of listening to Dr. Kenneth Matthews, a Christian scholar of the Old Testament, particularly in Genesis and Leviticus (he is the co-author of a book on the PaleoLeviticus Scroll discovered in Qumran and is the first person to translate this text).  He painted a very interesting image using the Tabernacle.  So just picture this with me.

You are walking into the tabernacle, “the tent of meeting.”  The first thing you see is the altar.  Behind that is the Bronze lavern.  Behind that is the tent housing the holy place, where the priests minister, and the Holy of Holies, where Yahweh dwells on his throne of the Mercy Seat atop the Ark of the Covenant between the wings of the Cheribim.  When you enter the Tabernacle area, the first thing you see is that altar.  The first thing you feel is the heat of the fire under the altar.  The first thing you smell is blood and burnt flesh.  The next thing you see once you pass that altar is the lavern where priests are washing their hands and feet to enter the Tabernacle proper.

It is interesting to see this.  For a person to enter God’s presence is to first pass through the altar of sacrifice.  They must pass through the altar of death.  To enter into God’s presence, one must die because of their sins.  There is only one way to meet this requirement: Jesus Christ and the cross.  Jesus placed himself upon that altar and died in your place that you might move on, further into the Tabernacle and closer to God.  He was the propitiation of your sin on the altar of God.

After this, a person must be washed by braizen lavern.  You cannot enter into God’s presence unclean.  Your sins must be washed away.  You must be purified from your sins, they must be removed from you.  Jesus Christ took up your sins and cleansed you with his blood shed on the cross.  He removes your sin from you and gives you his righteousness.  He expiates your sin.

I am just blown away by all that Jesus did for me at the cross.  He did so much for me on that wretched piece of wood.  Yet he asks so little of me: trust him.  All he asks me to do is trust him with my life.  He gave his life for mine and now he only asks that after he defeated death through his resurrection to trust him.  He promises to take me into that Tabernacle of God and to pass behind that curtain that separates man from God.  He promises to take me into the Holy of Holies.  He promises to take before my heavenly Father who eagerly waits to have a face-to-face relationship with me and to lavish me with his eternal love.

Jesus you are truly awesome and all my praises are for you alone.  Blessed be my Great High Priest!

Did Jesus actually suffer on the Cross as God?

Science, Religion, and Dr. DeVine

Ezra’s Infinitives

On John Piper’s radio broadcast, he has been preaching through Romans 5-6 for the last few weeks, since August and September.  He is in the middle of Romans 6 and I just listened to a sermon on Romans 6:12 and defeating sin.  After laying down a five-point theological basis for engaging sin (not the Five Points of Calvinism), he then said to say no.  Only after understanding a person’s standing in Christ and before God in the Bible can he or she be able to resist God.  Without the theological understanding, a person cannot defeat sin.  That was not what hit me though.

He then moved into saying no to sin.  A person must refuse to commit sin.  When the desires kreep up into a person’s mind, that person must say no.  However, Piper correctly points out that is nearly impossible to just say no and to perminantly defeat that desire.  Why?  Because you have not taken your mind off of that desire.  So Piper gives the flipside of saying no to sin: say yes to Jesus.  Say yes Lord I will do as you say.  Why?  Because a person must realize that the battle is over desires.  A person must have the theology so that they might truly desire to say yes to God.  They must see him as truly desirable and that revelation comes only when you have gotten into the word and studied who God is as revealed in the Holy Scriptures.  But also, it takes your mind off of the sin and puts it upon God.

So I must say to you Dr. John Piper, thank you.  Thank you for preaching through Romans.  Thank you for preaching that sermon.

Dear Jesus, thank you for chosing to use John Piper.  I know that next to you, he is nothing.  I know that you did not have to use him and so I thank you that you gave him the gift of preaching and the giftedness of being a theologian.  Thank you Jesus for putting him in my life for me to learn from and to grow in your Grace and in my faith in you.  Thank you Jesus for being the treasure of my soul and the delight of my life.  I praise you for speaking to me that night through your servant, John Piper.  Thank you Jesus.

If anyone ever thinks Piper is perfect…

Piper and the Minneapolis Bridge

The Innkeeper

Consider the following verses. Matthew 22:37, “And [Jesus] said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’” Mark 12:30, “you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” Luke 10:27, “And [Jesus] answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.’” All are a quotation of Deuteronomy 6:5 in response to the question of what is the greatest commandment. All seem to say the same thing. But do they?

The answer is yes, and no. Yes they all three convey the importance of loving God, Yahweh, the Father, over everything else. Matthew and Mark say that the second command is like it, but not the same thing. They do point to God as the being the is owed our love above all other things.

However, journey with me into Matthew, Mark, and Luke’s Greek translation for a minute with me. Translators of all three verses use the word “with” as the preposition modifying the way in which a person loves. In other words we love with our hearts, with our souls, with our minds, and with our strength. However, Matthew and Mark and Luke do not use the same Greek prepositions as we might be led to think by reading the English versions. The English word “with” is the Greek word ἐν in the Greek in Matthew’s Gospel. The preposition primarily means “in” as in “inside.” So what Matthew is saying is that we love God in our hearts, in our souls etc. Mark uses the word ἐκ or more specifically ἐξ that we translate “with.” It means “out.” Take this meaning with the genitive or possessive nouns that follow, Mark is saying that we love God out of our hearts, out of our souls etc. Both are saying the same thing from different perspectives.

Now there is a strange phenomena that occurs in Luke’s Gospel. Luke says, “You shall love the Lord your God ἐξ all your heart and ἐν all your soul and en all your strength and en all your mind.” Do you see the change in prepositions? We love God out of our hearts in our minds, souls, and strength. Luke has put the heart, our affections, as the center from which we love God and that from that center we love God in our minds, our souls, and our strength. Our obedience is not our love but rather stems from our affections for God. That is a very interesting exegetical insight.

Cross Posted at Theology for the Masses.

Wednesday and Thursday

A Hard Decision for Me

Yeah, Kinda Sad

If I were to ask a Christian to define the cross and what it means to them, I would get one really common theme: it saves me from the penalty of sin.  I say to that: Amen!  That’s awesome!  I wholly and totally agree with that definition…when I look at it froma man’s perspective.  Does anyone really take the time to look at it from God’s perspective?  Do we take the time to see why God felt it necessary to have to send Christ to the cross?  That is what I am going to do in this post, see why God needed Christ to die.  I turn to Romans 3:25-26,

25 [Jesus Christ] whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

We can obviously tell that this text refers to the death of Christ because of “by his blood” in v.25.  Christ shed his blood on the cross when his hands and feet were nailed into the wood and his side was pierced by the spear that breached the heart.  That was his death.  But look at the nature of this death.  What function did this death serve?  Go back to v.25 first, “God put forward as a propitiation.”  Christ is a propitiation.  Many people who are reading this probably know what that is: a sacrifice to appease the anger of a holy diety, in this case the anger of Yahweh Elohim.  Anger at what?  Sin.  Psalm 5:5 says, “you hate all evildoers.”  Psalm 11:5 says, “The Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.”  Christ’s death appeases that anger towards man.

But why is this such a big deal?  Why do this?  Can’t God just forgive our sins?  Exodus 34:7 says that God “forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin.”  He is a forgiving God.  So why can’t he just forgive us?  Read the rest of Exodus 34:7, he “will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.”  He is a God that must deal out justice.  He must punish sinners.

But what did God do?  Look again at v.25, “he had passed over former sins.”  He did not punish all who sinned against him.  He passed over their sins.  David says in Psalm 103:10, “He does not deal with us according to our sins, nor repay us according to our iniquities.”  God does not punish sin and has thus compromised his own name, his own glory, his own righteousness.  Why is this a problem?  Look at Romans 3:22, “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.”  It is the righteousness of God that is given to us through faith in Jesus Christ.  How can we trust a righteousness that is violated by God himself?  Will that righteousness meet the standard that God has set?  Can we even trust a God who isn’t true to his own character?  That is the real question.

Look now at 3:26, “It was to show his righteousness.”  God put Jesus on the cross to demonstrate that he is righteous.  That we can trust his righteousness.  This is the second time in vv.25-26 that Paul says in the cross God’s righteousness is made manifest.  Jesus in the cross is to demonstrate that God is righteous.  That is true to his name and to his honor and to his glory.  That’s what the cross was for.

This was accomplished in two ways: 1.) God punished the sins of those whom he had passed over.  Continue in v.26, “so that he might be just.”  He punishes sin he does not leave sin left untouched.  It is punished and thus the demands on his character as Yahweh is met in Jesus dying on the cross.  No one can say that God is unjust because those who received his mercy have had their sins now punished.  God is faithful to his name, to his glory.

2.) God has now freed himself throught he cross to forgive us of our sins.  God has provided a way to punish our sins without destroying us.  We can receive his mercy.  God is free to forgive us without compromising himself.  Grace is ours.  But even more so, the righteousness we receive in place of our sin is a perfect righteousness, one the delights in love and mercy and grace and compassion.  It is also a righteousness that hates and denounces sin.  It is a perfect, godly righteousness that will stand that test of God’s law on the last day.

So I conclude that the cross was more for God’s sake than for ours.  God could not forgive us and still be righteous.  Imagine your daughter is raped and her husband is killed by a “man after God’s own heart.”  What would your reaction be if our god who is “just” forgave that man and did not punish him.  That god’s justice would be in question after he declared that he would punish such an individual.  That is the predicament we would be in if God forgave us without the cross.  God would be seen as unjust and in fact would be unjust.  Therefore he would be untrustworthy with our souls because he claims to be just.  By the actions on the cross God can have mercy upon us and still maintain his justice.  Apart from Christ, God could not forgiven anyone of his or her sins.

Golgotha

All, Some, or What?

Did Jesus actually suffer on the Cross as God?

Last week, I posted about God’s righteousness in his having mercy unconditionally upon anyone he he wills.  This giving of his mercy depends not upon man’s willing, theleo, or man’s exertion, trecho.  It depends upon God, who has mercy.  I tried to demonstrate that this dispencing of mercy, unconditionally, is the expression of his moral character.  This is how God acts, namely without regard to man and his actions and desires.  God’s moral character is the expression of his name.  God has this character because he is Yahweh.  To be Yahweh is to have this moral character.  Yahweh is a name that means one is self-existing, self-determining free from any outside influences.  That name is the honor, the glory (kabowd) of God.  If God does not act according to his name, freely and sovereignly exercising mercy and grace upon any whom he wills, then he has blasphemed himself.  Indeed, he has dishonored himself.  To show that God will not have his name dishonored and yet still justly/righteously have mercy and forgiveness upon sinners, God curcified Christ (Romans 3:25-26).  So God’s righteousness, his justice, is his unswerving allegiance to his name and to preserve the glory/honor of that name.  By unconditionally having mercy, God is displaying the honor of his name.  In Romans 9:13, Paul quotes God as saying that he loved Jacob and hated Esau.  Romans 9:15-16 defends God’s righteousness in his unconditional love/mercy.  What about his hatred/hardening?  Is God righteous to unconditionally harden whomever he wills?  Can God hate people?  Romans 9:17-18 is Paul’s defense of the righteousness of God in unconditional hardening.  Paul writes,

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”  So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

Now first I want to demonstrate that in v.18 when Paul says “he hardens whomever he wills,” the word “harden” means just what it means and that its implications are the same as the mercy, the hardening is to eternal destiny.  I have seven reasons that I want to give from the text and its context.  I have taken these from a sermon by John Piper entitled “The Hardening of Pharaoh and the Hope of the World.”

1. The natural meaning of hardening is to harden.  It is what the Greek term literally means.  The issue of the text thus far in Romans 9 has been about eternal destiny.  Therefore the natural meaning of Romans 9:18 is that God’s mercy is unto eternal life in heaven and God’s hardening is unto eternal condemnation in hell.
2. Paul parallels the mercy of God in v.18 with God’s hardening.  Paul has just defined the mercy of God as unconditional.  Therefore Paul is puting hardening in the same terms.  The Greek construction is identical in v.18 for both mercy and hardening.
3. The parallel in v.18 stands in v.15-16 when one replaces mercy with hardening.
4. The parallel still stands in light of v.13 in God loving Jacob and hating Esau, which v.11 says was this love and hate was before they–the twins–were born or had done anything good or bad so that God’s electing purpose might stand not according to works but according to him who calls.
5. The objection raised in v.19 and Paul’s response do not seem to indicate that the objector misunderstood Paul.  If the objector had misunderstood Paul to say God unconditionally hardens and thus man stands condemned, why didn’t Paul correct the misunderstanding?  Why basically accuse them of presumption and tell them to bow down and accept how God works?
6. The vessels of honored use and dishonorable use come from only one lump of clay.  Thus the lump of clay did not determing which use the vessels would receive, only the will of the potter determined what the vessels would become.  The lump of clay had only one nature and vessels of honor and dishonor came from just that one lump.  The Potter does not regard the nature of the clay but only his personal decision.
7. In Romans 11:7, “What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened,” the determining factor of obtaining righteousness is not the seeking of Israel but the election of God.  Those who were elect obtained the goal, the rest were hardened.

Where in Romans 9:17 does Paul draw out hardening if the word is not there?  Romans 9:17 is a quote from Exodus 9:16 and the story of the ten plagues in Exodus 4-14.  The question becomes why did Paul chose this verse because there are numerous verses in this large passage of Scripture in which Moses records Pharaoh hardening his heart, Pharaoh’s heart being hardened, and God hardening Pharaoh’s heart.  Why this text?  More pressingly, if Pharaoh is said to have hardened his own heart, how is it that Paul used this text to show that God hardens unconditionally those whom he has not elected to receive mercy?  Let us answer this question first and then see how Paul uses Exodus 9:16 as a defense of God’s righteousness in unconditional hardening.

In the first part of the plagues, Pharaoh hardens his own heart.  It is the latter plagues that Moses says that God is hardening Pharaoh.  This is very true and I am not denying this.  This hardening of God is the fulfillment of Exodus 7:3 in which God says that he will harden the heart of Pharaoh.  In the confrontation before Exodus 7, it appears that Pharaoh hardens his own heart after the duel of the snakes of the magicians and Moses’ staff occurs, although the phrase never appears in that passage.  Now before this confronation occured and before Moses ever left Midian where he was in hiding, God said this in Exodus 4:21, “And the Lord said to Moses, ‘When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.’”  So when Pharaoh refused to let the Israelites go and worship God in the desert, it was God who hardened Pharaoh’s heart.  Now you will note after almost every time Pharaoh’s heart is hardened, the phrase “as the LORD has said” appears.  God said that in order for Moses to perform all that he was empowered by God to do, God was going to harden Pharaoh’s heart.  Therefore every time Pharaoh hardened his heat, his heart was hardened, or the text actually says God hardened it, it was God working to bring that hardening about.  He made this decision before Moses ever left to free the people of God.  Thus the argument that God hardened Pharaoh after he first hardened himself doesn’t work because God had said that He would harden Pharaoh’s heart.  The hardening was “as the LORD had said.”  It is unconditional.  God determined to harden Pharaoh before he ever sent Moses into Egypt as a liberator.  That’s what Paul saw in the Exodus story.

Now how does Exodus 9:16, “But for this purpose I have raised you up, to show you my power, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth,” defend God’s righteousness in unconditional hardening?  Look at the last half of the verse, “so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.”  It comes down again to the honor of God’s name that is at stake here.  Unconditional hardening by God is him defending his own honor in all things in all of the earth.  As we all know, Rahab knew full well what God did to Pharaoh and to Egypt and therefore helped the Israelite spies.  God’s name was honored by hardening Pharaoh’s heart.  Thus God is righteous in unconditional hardening.

Now some may object that Pharaoh’s hardening was more of a historical role than an eternal role.  That is very much true.  But Paul isn’t arguing for that kind of an interpretation in Romans 9:1-16.  The whole chapter up until this point is about salvation and eternal destiny.  To try to contrue the hardening of Pharaoh as historical would be faithful to the Exodus account.  But we are trying to understand how Paul is using the text.  He has identified the principle of God’s hardening of the human heart to rebel against him.  The principle still stands and Paul is placing the principle is a salvific context.  Therefore we are still consistant to Paul in Romans 9 to understand him to refering to salvation, as the objection in v.19 shows; and we are faithful to Moses in Exodus 4-14 to understand him to be refering to historical role.  Thus God’s unconditional election and reprobation is consistant to God’s name.  Doing that which is consistant to his name is what makes God righteous.  Therefore I conclude with the many Reformed scholars before me that God is righteous to unconditionally elect to both salvation and to reprobation.

More thoughts on “euaggelion.”

A Theocentric Cross

Timothy and Esther’s Prayer

It has been almost a week since I last posted. I wanted to take an abrupt time off from the rigors of blogging. I am missing out on a discussion of Luther at Masstheology.com. Sad day. But while I was away, I did some good reading and listened to a great CD. The CD is Barlow Girl’s latest release of “Another Journal Entry.” I first heard these three beautiful ladies at Crossover this past summer. I will admit I came thinking that they were going to be the typical group of girls in Christian Music. But they surpassed Superchic[k] and became my favorite female act. In fact they are my favorite group right now. Their music energetic, their vocals passionate, and their lyrics smart, sassy, truthful, and moving. When I saw them in concert I was blasted by their incredible performance. I now own both the self-titled release and their sophomore album. Keep it up girls if you ever read this. God has really blessed my ministry by your music. In fact, you gave me my direction in Sunday’s sermon when I was struggling. I heartily recommend their music to all who read this post.

I felt the need to get back to my roots a little bit. So I busted out some sermons by Jonathan Edwards, who by the most anti-Christian university was labeled the greatest mind ever produced by America, which deal with the call to the ministry the job of the minister and deacon. On sermon is entitled “Ministers to Preach not their own Wisdom but the Word of God.” This sermon was preached at an ordination in February of 1740. There is one quote that really made me laugh and cheer him on because I love how he writes. He is very straight forward and doesn’t beat around the issue. Read this following quote in this sermon.

If ministers ought to proceed by such a rule in their preaching, no wonder that such confusion has followed on their proceeding by a contrary rule. Seeing that man’s own reason, blind as it is, has of late been so much set up as man’s highest rule in judging of divine things—and even a rule superior to revelation itself—no wonder that Arminianism and Arianism, deism and atheism have come in like a deluge. When once men come to that, as to set up their reason as their highest rule, ’tis no wonder that they hasten to the same state of darkness that they were in when they had no other rule, when they had no revelation and nothing else to guide ’em but their own reason, when they were in a state of heathenism.

When men come to make God’s revelation to be only the handmaid or bondmaid, and to set reason over it as its mistress, no wonder that it soon comes to that, that the mistress casts out the bondmaid and all her progeny, insisting that the mistress’ off.”

I love Edwards. That’s all I can say. He lays it all open for all to see exactly what he believes. He doesn’t color it up to not offend anyone. He says what he is convicted. I pray that I will have the boldness of Edwards in my preaching. Too many preachers want to color everything so that people will like what they say. I want to preach the Scriptures and nothing else.

Another book I began reading was a sci-fi book about Darth Bane. If you are a Star Wars fanatic like I am you probably know who he is. For those of you who have no idea of who he is, let me fill you in. In the movies, there was only Vader and the Emperor in the original trilogy. In Episode I, we learn the the Sith, the bad guys, only operate in a master-apprentice relationship. There are no Sith outside of these two so that there are only two Sith in existance at all time. Darth Bane is the Sith Lord who implemented this philosophy. This novel is the life story about Darth Bane. While I was reading the book, I was very excited to see the hero/villan (depending on how you view the Sith, I am a fan of them but its up to you) reading the old manuscripts of the Sith Lords that had passed before him to learn from his past. In the book, this study enabled him to pass beyond the power of any of his teachers and fellow students at the academy where he studied.

I immediately saw the truth in that. There is great wisdom in those great biblical scholars that are here with us today. We should listen to them and learn from them–either what to believe or not to believe and how to defend those beliefs. However, we should not forget the greats like Edwards, Luther, Calvin, Athensasius, Aquinas, Chrystosom, Eusebius, Tertulian, Justin Martyr. But more than that, we must realize that all the wisdom that these great scholars have is nothing compared to that which is found in the Scriptures. We can only have true wisdom from God’s word and that is where we must spend most of our time. Learn from all of the great teachers, both past and present. But never neglect learning from the great Teacher, the Lord Jesus Christ and his Holy Spirit.

Justice Mercy and Homework

“Son of Man” and Jesus

Jesus and AD 70

At Theology for the Masses there has been a resurgence in the debate on Original Sin.  The latest comment was on Original Sin.  There are 32 comments on my cousin’s post on Original Sin.  His refutation of the doctrine was quite clever from the philosophical approach he took.  Tomorrow, my church is holding a memorial service for the mother of one of our members.  The text that I am preaching the invitation from is 1 Corinthians 15:20-22.  Paul gives some great theology here.  But in my preparation for the service, I couldn’t help but notice something in the text that speaks to Original Sin.   Paul’s words to the Corinthians are,

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.  For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.  For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

Paul makes Adam the originator of death in this text and makes Christ the originator of life.  Through Adam came death because through Adam comes sin.  Through Christ comes life because Christ died the substitutionary death that bore our sins and gave us his righteousness.  There is no middle ground here.  You can look further down in 1 Corinthians 15 and see there are only two Adams, the first and last (15:45).

Thus when we are in Adam we have death and when we are in Christ we have life.  So in our text, whether we recieve life or death is a relational issue.  What connects the death of Adam to the all, and vice-a-versa for Christ, is the proposition “in” or en in the Greek.  Prepositions are parts of speech that give spacial information.  Thus if we are “in” Adam we die and if we are “in” Christ we live.  So how we relate spacially to Christ and Adam is whether or not we are dying or living.  We are in either one or the other.  But you see that those who are in Adam die.  That is all it says.  We can import into this text the concept of sin and it is certainly warranted.  But let us let Paul’s words stand for the time being.  Let us not make the text read “For as in Adam all die because they have sinned like Adam did.”  There are no because clauses so let us not put them there.

So let us try to identify how we are to relate Adam and Chirst.  Paul is trying to set up two contrasting humanities here in 1 Corinthians 15.  Look at v 47-49,

The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.  As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.  Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

There is the humanity that comes from the dust.  There is the humanity that comes from heaven.  Adam is from the dust and Christ is from heaven.  Paul has them as two different humanities and we bare the image of the man of the dust.  At the resurrection those who are “in” Christ will bare the image of the man of heaven.  How is it that we are of the image of the man of dust, Adam?  We are all physical sons of Adam.  We are his offspring as he was the first man to live upon the earth.  All men are descended from him.  That is how we are “in” him.  It is a birth issue.  We are born into the humanity of the dust.

Jesus said in John 3:3 that we must be born again to enter into the kingdom of heave, to have eternal life.  We must be born of above, by the Spirit (John 3:5-6); we must be born of God (John 1:13).  Here again to be in Christ it is a birth issue.  We must be born into the humanity of Christ, the heavenly humanity, the humanity that dwells in the presence of God.  It is by the Spirit of God, by the power and will of God that we are born into the humanity of Christ.  That is our relationship to Adam and Christ, our birth.  One is physical and the other is spiritual, but both have the same impact.

By being born in the humanity of Adam, one is condemned to death, “For as in Adam all die.”  By being born in Christ one is justified and made alive, “so also in Christ shall all be made alive.”  Just by our relationship of birth to each head we receive either life or death.  We are sinners and fallen or we are righteous and saved.  Thus the Scriptures say here in 1 Corinthians 15 that we are not condemned by our actions but by being in Christ.

One objection is that isn’t it by our sins we are condemned?  Yes but that is not in this text.  That has to be read into this text.  This text just says by our relationship to Adam are we condemned and by our relationship to Christ are we saved.  That is all.  I always caution adding in words to texts because it will bring out our point better if we do.

Another objection is that term “all.”  Some will try to construe it to mean that it means every single human being dies in Adam and every single human being is now alive.  That is universalism.  Some will argue for a limited universalism by saying all that Adam did is undone.  But the text says we are either in Adam and dying or we are in  Christ and we are being made alive.  We must be in Christ to have Adam’s effects of death removed.  Thus it doesn’t fit the text to argue any kind of limited universalism.  Otherwise one is forced to speak of full universalism because they must say all are in Christ and therefore all must be saved.  All who are in Christ are made alive.  But there are sinners out there who are not in Christ so this won’t work.

Therefore I conclude that the Bible teaches Original Sin.  I did not come to Romans 5:12ff because it was debated at the post The Heritage of Sin at Theology for the Masses.  Thus I wanted to use this text to shed some new light on this debate that we did not consider at the previous debate.  That is why I limited my discussion of this text, I did not feel the need to reiterate my thoughts because you can read them there at that debate.

Original Sin

Calvin and Original Sin: Part 6

Calvin and Original Sin: Part 5

Tim Keller at the DesiringGod 2006 National Confrence said in his sermon on “The Supremacy of Christ and the Gospel in a Postmodern World,” quoting a translation he does not identify and then adds on to it himself,

“‘He who through faith is righteous shall live’…He who through preaching is righteous shall die every Sunday.”

I am utterly speachless other than to say, “Lord Jesus, forgive me if I have fallen into this sin of preaching for justification and not preaching justification by faith alone.”

Cross posted on Theology for the Masses

This Thanks Giving

John 3:16 Part 5

Thank You Dr. Piper

My church has been going through Romans 9 since the beginning of September.  This past Sunday, we studied the righteousness of God in unconditional election, or Sovereign election.  God’s justice is the first thing to be questioned in unconditional election.  My cousin Brad Andrews did a good job answering the question of God’s justice at Masstheology.com but I’d like to take a textual approach to what he said.  Romans 9:14-16 really gives the answer.

What shall we say then?  Is there injustice on God’s part?  By no means!  For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”  So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

The question of God’s injustice found here is what Paul preceives to be the response to Romans 9:1-13.  In that text Paul is saying that many Jews are cursed and cutt off from Christ.  The Greek term is anathema which in Galatians 1:8-9 is a term that speaks of a curse to hell.  Paul is saying in v. 3 that if it were possible he would take that curse upon himself so that they wouldn’t.  But it isn’t possible.  A problem seems to be created by this condemnation of most of the Jewish people–not all Jews are perishing because Paul and many of the earliest disciples were Jews.  If God’s people aren’t getting it, how can Gentiles know that there is salvation for them?  Paul’s answer: there is a spiritual Israel and a physical Israel. There is Isaac and then there is Ishmael; there is Jacob and then there is Esau.  God chose Isaac and Jacob.  He did not choose them based on anything in them but because of his purpose according to his election.  God saves people not because of their response to him but because of God’s electing purpose.  He decided before we were born, before we did anything, who was to be saved and who he would pass over.

This brings us to the Romans 9:14-16.  Is God unrighteous?  The Greek term for unrighteous is adikia which is translated both injustice and unrighteousness.  Is God unjust, unrighteous for doing this?  That is Paul’s question in v. 14.  His answer is no!  Why, because of Exodus 33:19, “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy” (The LXX translates differently but the meaning changes very little).  How does Ex. 33:19 argue for God’s righteousness?

Exodus 33:18 is Moses asking to see God’s glory.  God has promised, in light of the golden calf incident, to lead the people into Canaan.  Moses is asking for some proof that God will do this.  He wants a validation of the promise.  He wants this for the comfort of the people and himself to know that God will keep his word.  So in 33:19 God says all his goodness will pass before Moses and Yahweh will be proclaimed to him.  Then he will have mercy on whom he wills and be gracious to whom he wills.  This theophany is an expression of God’s glory, his kavod.  God’s goodness and name is the expression of his glory.  God denies Moses a glance at his physical glory for it will overwhelm and destroy him.  So it is just God’s name that Moses gets.

In Exodus 34:5-7, we have the fulfillment of this.  God goes before Moses and in v. 6 God says, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness.”  Notice in v. 6 that the character that God proclaims is the expression or nature of that name.  To be Yahweh is to be gracious, merciful, patient, faithful and loving.  That’s what it means to be Yahweh.  One commentator calls this passage God exegeting his name for us.  You’ll notice that the first two terms of God’s character is “merciful” and “gracious”?  Those are the exact two terms found in 33:19 (Mercy in 33:19=Grace in 34:6; Grace in 33:19=Mercy in 34:6).  So the action of mercy and grace in 33:19 is God acting how his character.

Now notice the action of giving mercy and grace in 33:19: “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.”  This is a common expression in the Bible called by some scholars the idem per idem(SP?).  Another example is Exodus 3:14: “I AM WHO I AM.”  This particular expression does only one thing: preserve the freedom and sovereign rights of the one doing the action in doing the action.  The person who “is” is free from any outside determining factors.  So notice what God says about the exercise of his mercy and grace.  First, God says, “I will be gracious…and will show mercy.”  God will do it and it won’t be thwarted.  God will show mercy and grace.  Secondly, God says, “…to whom I will be gracious…on whom I will show mercy.”  God will decide to give mercy to whoever he chooses.  It is up to him.  He is not bound by any outside forces that say, “You must show me mercy because I have done…”  God does not work that way.  God says, “I will have mercy on you because I have so determined to do so.”  The same thing with grace.  God gives grace to who he does because he has chosen to do so.

So then, for God to give mercy because they have done anything would be out of character, no contrary to his character.  God would not be God if he did not sovereignly give mercy and give mercy to those he has determined to receive it.  This exercise of mercy is the expression of God’s glorifying his name.  But this also incorporates his punitive justice as well.  For that is the character of God.  God must give his justice and wrath to those whom he wills because that is his name, his glory.

Tying this back to Romans 9.  God would indeed be unjust in Paul’s mind to not give mercy on the basis of God’s free will, not man’s.  Hence Romans 9:16, “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.”  It depends not upon human thelo or wishing, desiring.  It depends upon God who has mercy.  It depends not upon human trecho, effort or running, but upon God, who has mercy.  It is interesting that the term trecho that Paul uses here is used in the LXX reading of Ps. 119:32, “I will run in the way of your commandments when you enlarge my heart!”  Paul would have known of this verse and had it in mind when chosing this term for exertion.  Paul in this chapter has gone completely counter to his Pharisaical upbrining in favor of a more Essene theology.  So it isn’t how religious you are either!  What matters is God having mercy, unconditionally, apart from any human effort or thinking/believing/wishing/desiring!

Thus I conclude with Paul in Romans 9:14-16 that God would be unjust if God did not give mercy unconditionally to those whom he has chosen to give mercy.  God would dishonor his name by acting out of character.  God’s glory would be diminished and that is something God cannot do nor will Paul have us think God would do that.  God must act according to his name, other wise he is not Yahweh, the only true God.

I have adapted this argument from Dr. John Piper’s book, The Justification of God: an Exegetical and Theological Survey of Romans 9:1-23.  In that book he seeks to answer this very question of God’s righteousness in unconditional election.  I highly recommend this book to anyone who is seriously wanting to study Romans 9.  I give one word of caution.  It is a meaty book that assumes you know Hebrew and Greek as he deals exstensively with the original languages of the Bible.  If you have no exposure to biblical Greek and Hebrew, it might be difficult to read in some places.

More thoughts on “euaggelion.”

A Theocentric Cross

Timothy and Esther’s Prayer