Think Wink.

In reading Martin Luther’s commentary on 1 Peter I found his comments on 1 Peter 1:3, on pages 29-30, to be especially informative and helpful,

What kind of word is that? Even that which is preached among you concerning Jesus Christ, that he died for you sins and the sins of the whole world, and arose again on the third day that he make satisfaction by his death for sins of the whole world and by his resurrection bring us righteousness, life, and salvation…it is not through the works of the law, much less through his own righteousness, but through the suffering and resurrection of Christ, he is righteous and a saved person.

…He arose again from the dead, triumphed over all these adversaries and led them captive, not for his own person–for he never had any need of that–but for the benefit of us poor, condemned sinners. We believe on him, in order that those adversaries could not henceforth through all eternity do us any harm or condemn us, although they at times while we still live here terrify and torment us.

Here it seems that Luther is locating justification, “bring us righteousness,” in the resurrection and not the crucifixion of Jesus Messiah. Righteousness comes with life that is found in resurrection. A person must experience both the death and resurrection of Jesus by to be “righteous and a saved person.”

Furthermore, when I read this section I tend to think that may be Luther felt that the Christus Victor motif (CV) belongs more to the resurrection than to the death of Jesus. To be sure Luther says that Jesus surrendered to death and the adversaries who oppress the creation. But the victory comes not in his death to them but in his resurrection to life, thus defeating their oppression and death. As penal substitution (PS) seems to emphasize the death of Jesus and the resurrection supports the death, so it seems to me that CV should emphasize the resurrection of Jesus, with his death supporting it. In PS it is the death that achieves the desired effect and the resurrection provides the High Priest to present the offering in the heavenly Tabernacle and to intercede for his people. In CV it seems while the death allows Jesus to take on the powers and adversaries, it is the resurrection that defeats these enemies of God and creation. It is not in death that Jesus defeats Satan, but in resurrection life.

I find this to be a good middle road to allow the full weight of both motifs to give their voice to the symphony that is the work of the Messiah.

Martin Luther and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Faith: Created or Wooed

Luther on Ingratitude and Thanksgiving.

Within recent weeks, when the world of Christendom has turned its attention to Christmas and the birth of the Messiah, my mind has turned towards Easter and the great event that is celebrated on that day, namely the resurrection. It began in looking into the New Perspective(s) on Paul over the summer and has culminated with viewing a lecture series by N.T. Wright on the book of Acts and a theological symposium held in 2006 at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, MO. One theme that kept resurfacing in my reading, viewing, and listening has been the theme of the resurrection, not only Jesus’ resurrection but also the believers’ resurrection.

I read, for example, in Matthew the Son of David coming to Israel and Judah. He rarely interacts with Gentiles and even tells the Twelve, when he sends them out on mission to proclaim the gospel of the kingdom, to not go to the Gentiles and Samaritans but only to Israel. Yet at the resurrection Matthew paints a Jesus who says to not only to Israel but to all nations and make them his disciples. Just read the entire book of Acts. The message the early church proclaims is not a Messiah who was crucified for sins–though that is present–but a Messiah who was resurrected from the grave to fulfill God’s promises in the OT and now appointed as God’s judge. The early church proclaimed a resurrected Jesus to both the Jews and the Gentiles. That’s what sparked all the controversy in Acts for the church. And that is just two examples off the top of my head at 11:30 pm.

During this time of seeing how important a theme the resurrection is in the New Testament, in my corner of Christendom (Reformed Evangelical Protestant, SBC), I have noticed that the resurrection is often not discussed, if at all. When it comes up, it is in passing and no exposition is given upon the resurrection. Usually those who do often do so because of the discussion being about how the world is going to end and what happens when it does. The resurrection seems like it is just part of what happens at the last day.

On Easter, in my experience, when we are to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus I hear sermons and exposition on the even of Good Friday, namely the crucifixion. I think most notably of my pastor in KC, MO. He has got to be my favorite expositor of Scripture. The authority and compassion with which he speaks is captivating while at the same time his insight into the Scripture is both deep and complex yet also simple and clear. God has truly gifted this man with the gift of preaching. In his preaching, I have observed more and more that the resurrection has gone largely untouched while at the same time the cross of Jesus is clearly expounded and unpacked. The members of my church back in KC can clearly articulate a theology of the cross, one that is fairly balanced in the major theories of atonement (but most definitely it is a church that holds primarily to penal substitution). But, as simple observation, I’m not certain they can articulate a theology of the resurrection, both Jesus’ resurrection as well as the resurrection of humanity. Let me very fair to my pastor here. I spend Easter at home in Columbia with my family so I’m not in KC where a resurrection sermon is preached. Furthermore, my pastor spent about 18 months preaching in Hebrews where the death of Jesus is focused on, but the resurrection is not neglected only the death receives the most exposition by the letter. Now he is wrapping up a series on the prophet Malachi, a text that doesn’t display a lot of resurrection themes. I do keep this in mind.

When I listen to guys like R C Sproul, John McAurthur, and John Piper (to name a few off the top of my head), the same can be said to be true. There is a clear articulation in their preaching and teaching of a theology of the cross but not so much a theology of the resurrection. And usually when I do hear these pillars of my Christian faith speak of the resurrection, like on Easter, it is only to point back to the cross where at which point their clearly defined theology of the cross is articulated again.

So as I sit here in my bed–okay not my bed but the bed in my parents’ guest bedroom–I have a couple of questions. The first question has to be, what is a theology of the resurrection? What does the resurrection (both Jesus and the believer) mean and what are its implications on soteriology and ecclesiology and missiology and the sacraments etc.? In other words, what does Jesus’ resurrection mean in terms of the salvation of both the individual and the people of God? What impact does the resurrection have on our understanding of the sacraments (Lord’s “Dinner” and Baptism) and the church? What is the significance of the resurrection in the evangelism of the lost world? What does it do to our methodology and message? What does a theology of the resurrection look like and where does one start? What narratives are needed to articulate this theology? Evangelicalism is quick to move to the Yom Kippur, Day of Atonement, narrative in the Old Testament to articulate the meaning of the cross. What narrative is needed for the resurrection?

The other pressing matter in this observation is this, why is this theology of the resurrection missing (for a lack of a better term)? Why isn’t it being articulated clearly? Why aren’t we debating the meaning of the resurrection as much as we are debating the meaning of the atonement? I know one answer is that the cross is what is being challenged. But is that because the world accepts the resurrection that has been proclaimed, or has the world not heard the resurrection and therefore is not challenging its meaning? Again I can only speak of my own pocket of Christendom. May be someone who reads this post is in a pocket of Christendom where a theology of the resurrection is clearly articulated.

I don’t have answers to these questions and so I’m not asking to lead a discussion in a certain direction. I am honestly asking these questions and seeking honest answers to them. I would deeply appreciate feedback to them if you would like to provide some.

Peace Part 1

Who Is In This Film?

A Sermon Idea for Easter?

Joel Willitts at Euangelion just finished a seven part review of R.T. Frances Matthew commentary in the New International Commentary on the New Testament (NICNT) series. I found some of the interactions from Willitts to be very helpful and informative in how to read Matthew. I hadn’t really considered reading that gospel in such a blatantly obvious way before. Shame on me I have to say. I feel like a dunce after reading Willitts review (yes that’s right, I said dunce).

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7

Martin Luther and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Quick Links

Movie Script Review of Green Lantern

One of the things about the Christmas narratives in Matthew and Luke that has always baffled me has been the fulfillment passages where Matthew will say that event X fulfills prophecy A. But when I read prophecy A in its OT context it doesn’t make any sense. What Matthew records as the fulfillment isn’t what is being promised by the prophet. Last Christmas I covered Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 (see Part 1 and Part 2). This Christmas I want to cover Matthew’s use of Jeremiah 31:15 in Matthew 2:18. Read more

Habakkuk 2:4 Part 1

A Loving God??

sane’, Malachi, and Paul Pt 2

Having surveyed the story of God in the Bible, I began to work towards a definition of the gospel. Starting in the Old Testament and moving into the New Testament, I looked at how the Gospels and Acts looked at the gospel. Then we moved into Paul and how he looked at the gospel. Having done that and really tried to expound what I mean by the gospel, I want to conclude this series with a final post that simplifies the gospel definition and speak to the response of faith and repentance to the gospel. Hopefully this series has been helpful to those who have read it because it has been helpful to me in trying to re-articulate the gospel in light of my paradigm shift away from so much of the traditional Protestant justification = forgiveness of sin = gospel. Reading the story of Jesus by Matthew, Mark, Luke-Acts, and John has really altered the way I read the New Testament as a whole. Reading the story of Jesus against the backdrop of the story of Israel has changed how I read the Bible as a whole, God’s story of creation and redemption. Read more

Evangelical Training

One More Question

The Gospel of the Glory of Christ pt 3

In my previous post I defined the gospel in terms of how the Gospels and Acts looked at the gospel. That is to say, they viewed the gospel as God fulfilling his promises made to Israel to establish a new creation by his Spirit, ruled by his Servant-King from the house of David, ending Israel’s exile, and drawing the Gentiles out of their pagan darkness into the light of this new Israel in this new creation. God fulfilled these promises by raising up Jesus of Nazareth, who came and took dominion over the present evil age and creation, offered up his life as an atoning sacrifice for his people’s transgression, and was resurrected as the firstfruit of the new Spirit-wrought creation and the king over that new creation.

Now how does the Apostle Paul fit into this picture? When one reads his letters one does not see a lot of talk about a kingdom. He rarely speaks about Jesus earthly life and ministry, his teachings and healings that demonstrated him to be the Spirit-indwelt Servant-King from the stump of Jesse. Paul speaks minimally about the kingdom, though it is not absent from his theology. He talks about the gospel in terms of Jesus’ person, death and resurrection and their meaning. He is combating a certain form of Judaism that requires Gentiles to convert to Judaism to be accepted into the people of God. So how does his battle’s over the meaning of justification and the gospel fit into the picture seen in the gospels? Read more

One More Question

Truth, Salvation, and “euaggelion”

When I think of “euaggelion” or “gospel”…

Having examined both the Old Testament story, that serves as the background, and the story of Jesus of Nazareth, I feel it is time to begin to define the gospel, the εὐαγγέλιον. Within this framework that I established, I observed everywhere in the New Testament where εὐαγγέλιον or εὐαγγελίζω (”I bring good news”) appears. In the Gospels and Acts, the most common theme that was attached to “gospel” is that of “kingdom.” Paul attaches it to Jesus Messiah, both in Jesus’ person and work. In the Gospels and Acts, God’s fulfillment of the promises made about a Davidic Messiah as well as Jesus’ resurrection are also tied into the use of the term “gospel.” Paul most often seems to use “gospel” as a technical term more than anything, thus it is important to see this term as encompassing both Jesus’ person and work. The following is my attempt to define the gospel as the New Testament defines it. Read more

The Jesus Christ Gospel According to Mark pt 1

The Gospel: Defined

A Key Term

Four hundred years of history transpires between the last promises made by Yahweh to his people and Yahweh’s next move. Yahweh has promised to completely reverse the current world order that his people, Israel, are living in. No longer will they live on a planet that his hostile against them. No longer will the nations rule over them. No longer will they be a nation that is a point of laughter to their neighbors. No longer will they be ruled by a king who leads them astray from blessing and into curse. No longer will they disobey their covenant, and bring upon themselves the wrath of their God. God is going to recreate the world, raise up a Servant-King-Priest who will reign over Israel in this new earth. And Israel will be a light that will draw the Gentiles out of their pagan darkness and back to their Creator. Yahweh has promised and Yahweh is about to deliver. Read more

It’s Very Familar

One More Question

The Gospel: Defined

With the newly released Manhattan Declaration, from November 2009, comes a bit of controversy. The document in and of itself is controversial in what it asserts, namely the encouragement and engagement of civil disobedience to uphold certain principles. It is controversial because leaders in Protestant-Evangelicalism, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy have signed this document and encourage others to do the same. It is also controversial because to get these groups together “the gospel of Jesus Messiah, the Son of God” (Mk 1:1) has not been clearly defined, thus other leaders–especially Evangelical–have refused to sign the document and encourage others to refuse to sign it as well.

In light of this and other considerations, I have decided to take an opportunity to present my definition of the gospel of Jesus Messiah. But to do that, I want to first tell the background story to the gospel. I feel that because the Bible is the story of God–both from and about–one needs to know the story before defining any single part of it, like the gospel. Read more

It’s Very Familar

The Gospel: Towards a Definition

One More Question

This is my final post on Greg Boyd’s response to the Reformed reading of Romans 9, which sees God determining who will receive mercy and who will be hardened so that those who receive mercy from God will be part of those whom Jesus will vindicate at the eschatological judgment. In this post I will take up Boyd’s sixth argument and his concluding paragraphs. Read more

Objections to Calvinism Part 1 of 5

Objections to Calvinism Part 7 of 5

My Comfort in Romans 9