Holding the Phalanx of the Christian Life

22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! ~ Ro. 7:22-25a

As I was reading through my devotional for this morning (which is New Morning Mercies by Paul Tripp, and I highly recommend it), I was struck by something in Ro. 7 that I had never really thought about before. In vv. 22-23, Paul brings out how sanctification is a war in the Christian life. Yes, that is not really new, but the way I thought about it this morning was new to me. Sanctification being a war of sin, temptation, the world, my flesh, and the devil against my my union with Christ requires me to hold the phalanx of the Christian life and march forward always.

The Phalanx

The phalanx was an ancient battle formation that was really brought to its penical by the Spartans in ancient Greece. In the above photo, you get a pretty good picture of what it looked like (though, that photo is from the movie 300, which was really not representative of Spartan battle strategies in any other way than this one scene). The front line of soldiers would line up with shields in their left hand and spears in their right. The shields would overlap, so part of your shield protected you and part of it protected your comrade to your left. Then, the next line would do the same thing, putting their shields right up against the backs of the front line, and so on and so forth back--many ranks deep. Then, they would face another army, and the line would never break. The the Spartans would often just march over entire armies this way or even push entire armies off a cliff, if that was available.

Christian Life Warfare

Since sanctification is a war of sin, temptation, the world, the flesh, and the devil against my union with Christ and since that means I must hold the phalanx of the Christian life, it is then something constant and spiritually exhausting, when we do it in our own strength. Do you ever get tired of resisting temptation to the same sin over and over again? Do you ever get so tired that you give in? Me too. Holding the phalanx can be exhausting, and we often make the same tragic outcry Paul makes in v. 24, "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?"

Holding the Line

Yet, what is Paul's answer to his outcry? It is that we never actually do hold the line on our own. We are never meant to! "Thanks be to God through Christ Jesus our Lord... There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (Ro. 7:25-8:1) Our Savior--who is the only human ever to hold the line without it breaking ever in His life--delivers us and strengthens us; not just at the moment of our salvation but in every moment that follows throughout our whole life. He beckons us, "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." (Mt. 11:28) He gives us rest, even in the midst of holding the phalanx in the spiritual battles of this life. A phalanx held by me will fail, but one held by faith in Jesus will hold until the end (cf. Php. 1:6).

The Shield of Faith

So, now that you know what the phalanx is, do you see why Paul used the metaphor of a shield for faith? In his metaphor about the Christian life and the armor of God (Eph. 6:10-20), he says, "In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one." Faith in Jesus providing the strength we need is what protects us and what allows us to hold the phalanx, even in the midst of battle.

In Sparta, if you were a soldier, you could be caught without your sword or your spear during a time of war, and you might only receive a minor punishment. If you were caught without your shield, however, that was a capital crime. Why? Because being without your sword or spear would merely mean you could not go on the offensive in the phalanx, but if you did not have a shield, you were a weak point in the phalanx that might cost the whole army the battle. Your shield was absolutely essential, and you had to have it on you all the time during wartime.

For us, the shield of faith is something we cannot let drop for even a moment. We live by faith (Ro. 1:17) and walk by faith (2 Co. 5:7), for we must always acknowledge our need of Him and His gospel every moment. The war of the Christian life is not made of two or three "big" moments in life where temptation comes in a huge assault but of a million "little" ones in our daily, hourly, minutely life--the war is constant! And, we can face none of those moments on our own and hope to succeed. We must submit them all to Christ and His strength, praying that the gospel would drive us, strengthen us, and motivate us in Him to hold the line through them all. That is why Paul ends his metaphor of the armor of God by saying, "...praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication." (Eph. 6:18)

Holding the Line Together

There is one more thing I want to bring out: the phalanx was not a one-man line. That is obvious, but we need to think about the implications for us as believers. We hold the line against temptation with our shields of faith as a community of believers. I stand beside my brothers and sisters in Christ, and sometimes their shield of faith is what encourages me to keep mine up against the enemy. They might do this through their own prayers for me, through accountability, or simply through encouragement, but whatever way it is, one of the ways Jesus strengthens us to hold the line is through His body. We hold the line together.

O Lord, make this true of us today!

By His Grace,
Taylor

In Our Pain, Jesus Crosses Over

"Jesus comes in side death, inside where Mary weeps. 'If only you'd been there,' we say, grieving over our private hurts and reaching out to anyone who will listen. And just there, Jesus crosses over." ~ Thomas Gardner, John in the Company of Poets

This Sunday, I have the privilege and pleasure of preaching before my church. The passage on which I have based my sermon is John 11--Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. This is such a long, detailed, and rich story that I cannot bring out everything it could say. So, for the sake of time (and the congregation), I am going focus on one of John's major emphases in this story: love. Unfortunately, that means on Sunday I have to skip the portion of the passage where Jesus weeps with Mary and Martha, which shows us such a profound and important aspect of our Savior. But, there is nothing to stop me from writing about it here.

If you do not know the story or remember the details, go ahead and go read John 11. This story is the final, climactic sign (miracle) of John's gospel that shows Jesus to be God in the flesh--Lord over life and death. It also emphasizes Jesus' deep love for Mary, Martha, and Lazarus. In the beginning, the sisters send a message to Jesus informing Him of Lazarus' grave illness because they know how much Jesus loves him. They think that His love will compel Him to come quickly to heal Lazarus, but Jesus has something else in mind--something more loving--so He waits and allows Lazarus to die (cf. Jn. 11:5-6). (More on this to come Sunday.)

When He arrives in Bethany, the sisters express profound confusion and pain. They had waited almost a week, and Jesus had not shown up. They had put all their hopes for their brother on Jesus, and Jesus had not given them what they wanted. And, they both said to Him, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died." (Jn. 11:21, 32) Mary and Martha were both trying to make sense of a traumatic situation and Jesus' response to it. They cannot fathom why He would let Lazarus die. And, we do that too sometimes, right? "Lord, why didn't you heal my friend from cancer? Jesus, why didn't I get that job I really needed? Jesus, why am I still alone? Lord, why is my child suffering? Why didn't You come quickly?" Now, those kinds of statements do not necessarily come from a lack of faith. Oftentimes they are simply cries of confusion and pain when we really have no idea how to respond. They are much like the questions many of the psalmists ask: "Why, O LORD, do you stand far away? Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?" "O LORD, why do you cast my soul away? Why do you hide your face from me?"

So, how does Jesus respond to us? Well, we know that He raises Lazarus, but how does He respond while they wait for Him to act? He does two things: 1) He reminds them of who He is and 2) He weeps with them. In response to Martha, Jesus says, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die." (Jn. 11:25-26) He reminds her that He is Lord over life and death; that He is Ruler over everything, even our last enemy: death (cf. 1 Co. 15:26). And, Jesus does this with us too, right? He has given us His Word, and when we turn to it in times of trouble, we can see how much He loves His people and the glorious things He has done for them. When we turn to it in hardship, we can see that He is in control of our situation (cf. Eph. 1:11) and working good out of it (Ro. 8:28). He has also given us the Church. We hear the truth of who He is when the Word is preached, and we hear the truth of who He is from our brothers and sisters in Christ. We need those because in times of hardship, it is difficult to remember the truth, much less believe it. We need to read the truth of who He is in His Word and hear it from His people.

That is not all that Jesus does, however. In response to Mary, He weeps. He does not sit outside our pain in sovereign apathy. He does not simply give us propositions about His power. We look to Him with tears and say, "If only you had been there," and "just there, Jesus crosses over." He sees His Bride suffering, and He enters into the pain with her. In this story, certainly, Jesus knows He is about to raise Lazarus. That was His plan all along (cf. Jn. 11:4). Even in our suffering, He knows the good He is going to work out of it. Knowing the end, however, does not mean He sits on the sideline as an impassioned observer. He "crosses over" and weeps with us. Now, in this story, He does not weep because of His loss, for, again, He knows the end. He weeps because He sees the pain that sin and death have cause those whom He loves. So it is with us. Even though He knows the end, He "crosses over" into the pain and weeps with His Bride. Sometimes He does it through an unexplainable comfort worked in us by the Spirit. Sometimes He does it through the ministrations of a friend who sits and weeps with us. Whatever the ways, He "crosses over."

Friends, if you are in Christ, you have a Savior who is both sovereign over your problems and understands your pain. He is not just a Savior who is in control. That would make Him powerful but indifferent. He is also not just a Savior who understands our pain. That would make Him empathetic but impotent. He is sovereign and weeps with us. This is what He does for us--those whom He loves--while we wait for Him to act, and we need both of those while we grieve and wait. Here, in John 11, we see that Jesus has both, which makes Him the perfect Savior.

By His Grace,
Taylor

In the Meantime...

As I mentioned in the last post, I am pretty busy right now studying for ordination exams, preparing to move to Blacksburg, etc., which means I have not had much time to write. So, I was thinking that in the meantime I would give you some links to some good reading. So here you go:

• Michael Kruger--President of RTS Charlotte--has written an excellent series of articles on the New Testament (NT) canon. The complete series can be found here. They are a just taste of his recent work Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books, which is one of the best and most detailed books on the NT canon.
• Ken Samples--philosopher and theologian for Reasons to Believe (RTB)--just posted part one of a brief two-part series about Jonathan Edwards on his blog. I highly recommend it, and if you want more detail about Edwards, check out Piper's A God Entranced Vision of All Things: The Legacy of Jonathan Edwards.
• RTB just did a series of interviews with Vern Poythress--WTS professor--on the Christian world-view and science: parts 1, 2, 3, and 4. They are not "reading" but still really good.
• Logic is a lost discipline these days. Well, Ken (see above) has written an excellent series of articles on logic called "Logic 101." It is a twelve-part series that would be well-worth your time. Part 1 can be found here, and from there you can follow the links to the subsequent parts.
• Finally, if you have not read the Heidelberg Catechism, you need to. If you want to read about it too, here is a review of a book edited by a former professor of mine that would be a good place to start. I would also recommend Kevin DeYoung's The Good News We Almost Forgot: Rediscovering the Gospel in a 16th Century Catechism.

Okay, that is more than enough to keep you busy for a while.

By His Grace,

Taylor

The NT Canon

The question, "Why are the 27 books of the NT canonical and no more?" is an excellent one and one that deserves a good, solid answer. Dr. Michael Kruger has done just that in his book Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books, which I would highly recommend.

If you live in the Atlanta, GA area, you can meet Dr. Kruger in person, listen to him talk about the canon, and then ask him any burning questions that may be on your mind. Dr. Kruger is coming to my former seminary, Reformed Theological Seminary of Atlanta, on February 23 to lecture and take questions on the NT canon. Check out the below flyer and come if you can:

Hope to see you there!

By His Grace,
Taylor

Eternal Perspective and Elections

"²⁹This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, ³⁰and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, ³¹and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away." ~ 1 Corinthians 7:29-31

This past Sunday I preached a sermon at East Lanier Community Church, which I titled "Eternal Perspective Now." And, I am going to preach it again this coming Sunday at East Cobb Presbyterian Church (spoiler alert for my friends who attend E. Cobb). It is not as if I did not have enough time to write another sermon, but since I knew I would be preaching at two different churches the two weeks prior to the election, I felt I could not just ignore the weight of this important civic time. (For those of you who read my previous post, it should be clear that when I say that, I am not talking about making a political statement from the pulpit.) I wanted to remind believers of the bigger perspective that Scripture gives us about our dealings with this world and the things in it. After considering several passages and praying about it, I landed on the above brief passage from 1 Corinthians. If you are interested in hearing the sermon, you can listen to the recording from E. Lanier, or you can read my transcript.

I pray that if you are a child of God, this sermon would encourage you as you think about the future of this country, your life, and all that you have. I pray that it would remind you of the eternal perspective Scripture gives us about our life in this world. I pray that it would remind you that this world is not your home. And, I pray that it would heighten your awareness of the transience of this world and our need to make much of Christ before the unbelieving world.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Jesus' Wife? Really?

"Jesus was married. None. There is nothing about Jesus being married in the canonical gospels, in apocryphal gospels, in the church fathers, or anywhere else. Even if this new gospel claims that Jesus was married, it is out of step with all the other credible historical evidence we have about his life." ~ "The Far Less Sensational Truth about Jesus' 'Wife'" Michael J. Kruger, Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC

I am sure many of you have read the recent articles that have been entitled things like "Jesus said, 'My wife'" or "A Faded Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus' Wife." Somehow discoveries like this seem to get a lot of media hype. I suppose it is because the media cannot get enough alternative versions of Jesus' life and love to give them historical value equal to the NT Gospels. (I have written about this type of discovery and media reaction here.)

Below I am going to give you some resources that go into much more depth than I do, but here are a few things to remember. First, this fragment is from the fourth century AD (Update: recent studies push it back to the eighth or ninth century AD). That means it was written about 300 (Update: 700-800) years after Jesus incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension. Even if this fragment were to be authenticated, it was written way too late to take seriously. Even Karen King, the scholar who revealed the fragment, gives this caution. Furthermore, we have no way to identify the genre of literature from which this fragment came. We have no idea whether the original author was even claiming to record history. Given its date and the lack of information about its genre, giving this fragment historical weight is somewhat analogous to a historian fifteen-hundred years from now discovering fragments of "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" and publishing a paper entitled "Ancient US President Lincoln May Have Slayed More Than Just Slavery," even though all historical evidence points to the contrary. There is no reason to give credence to this fragment when the full NT Gospels (dated to the first century!) and all other earlier historical evidence all indicate the contrary.

If you want more detailed information, here are some resources:

• Quote from above: "The Far Less Sensational Truth about Jesus' 'Wife'," by Dr. Michael Kruger
• NT Manuscripts
• "Did Jesus have a wife?", RTB Kenneth Samples' Science News Flash
• "An Ancient Manuscript and Jesus’ Wife?", by Dr. Jeffery Gibbs

By His Grace,
Taylor

Offended by the Bible: Thoughts on Handling Offenses

Some of the non-Christians I meet these days complain to me that the Bible is offense to modern sensibilities. It contains things that seem to them to be offensive, primitive, and regressive, so they feel they are justified in ignoring it. One blogger, when commenting on a picture (see the image to the left) that he claims represents the Bible's view of slavery (I will get to that below), once said, "To me, it’s obvious that the bible is offensive.... If a simple graphic depicting what slavery means is offensive, then so is the concept and the book [the Bible] that condones it. Again and again and again, our morals do not come from the Bible. Thank God I'm an atheist!"

I could try to make a list of the things in the Bible that offend people today, but it is not necessary (you can just do a Google search for it and come up with lots of rants), it would be too long for my blog post, and the list changes all the time anyway. What I would like to do is suggest a few things a thinking person (believer or non) should do when they come across something in Scripture that appears to them to be offensive, primitive, regressive, unethical, etc.:

1. Please consider the possibility that the passage does not teach what you think it teaches. If you come across something in Scripture that seems to offend your modern sensibilities, could it be that you do not understand what it really teaches on the subject? Why automatically assume that your initial interpretation is exactly what the Bible teaches and therefore you know it is offense? If it were really that easy to interpret Scripture at every point, do you think there would be so many Christian denominations? So back up for a moment, calm down, and consider that it may not be teaching what you think it is teaching. Let me give you a biblical story that shows this can happen and a biblical example to illustrate.

First, read the story of the Road to Emmaus in Lk. 24:13-34. The men Jesus walked with on the road to Emmaus were some of His disciples. They had heard Him say time and time again that He came to save the world (not just Israel), that His kingdom was not of this world, and that the religious rulers had interpreted the role of the Messiah wrong. Yet, they still said, "But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel." They had read the OT through cultural blinders that held that Israel was the only chosen people of God, applied that to Jesus' work (even though He had taught them otherwise), and as a result they got it wrong. They needed to step back and consider the possibility that they the OT did not teach what they thought it taught. That is why, in v. 27, the text says, "And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." He had to show them what the OT actually taught. It can happen to anyone, so consider that maybe you are interpreting it wrong.

Second, let's consider a biblical example of this. Think about the book of Genesis and the depiction of marriage and inheritance practices described there. If we read it thinking that the descriptions are biblical prescriptions, we are going to be offended. For example, the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) practiced polygamy. Someone who does not take a moment to consider that the Bible may not be teaching what they think it is teaching, might look at this and point out how offense their marriage practices were. But, if they took some time to investigate, they would find the Bible is not at all teaching what they think it is teaching. A good place to start is Robert Alter's The Art of Biblical Narrative. Now, Alter is not a Christian (he is a Jew) and if you read my review of this book, you will see there are a lot of things I do not like about it. However, he does have some helpful things to say about interpreting OT biblical narrative. When it comes to the "offensive" practices in Genesis, he is very helpful. Alter points out that there are two institutions described in Genesis which were universal in ancient near eastern (ANE) cultures: polygamy and primogeniture (the practice of giving the eldest son as inheritance everything in the family). He notes that when we read the text of Genesis, we see first that in every generation polygamy wrecks the family and reeks social, psychological, and relational havoc on everyone. Anyone who says they have read Genesis and thinks that polygamy is portrayed as a good thing or supported by the Bible, simply has not really read Genesis. When it comes to primogeniture, Alter points out that God counters culture and always favors the younger over the older (Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, etc.). So, if you step back, calm down, consider the cultural setting of Genesis, and really pay attention to the details of the stories, you will see that Genesis is not promoting offensive marriage or inheritance practices but that it is actually subverting those ancient institutions at every point.

Please, take a moment to consider the possibility that the Bible is not teaching what you think it is teaching. Then do some research into whatever passage(s) that have offended you. Read a commentary or two. Ask someone to help you understand it. If you cannot find anyone else, ask me. I will be more than happy to attempt to answer your questions.

2. Please consider the possibility that you are misunderstanding what the Bible teaches because of your own cultural blinders. If we are honest with ourselves and others, we will admit that we are a product of our culture and that means there will be times when we will unwittingly (and wrongfully) imprint our cultural understanding of a practice, word, or philosophy back into a different culture. Let's take, for example, the subject of the quote from the atheist blogger I mentioned above. He is offended by what he thinks is the Bible condoning slavery. Why is that? It is because he is imprinting on first-century Greco-Roman culture a view of slavery that comes from our more recent new-world, pre-civil war, race-based experience of slavery. He sees Scriptures like Col. 3:22 that say, "Slaves, obey your earthly masters..." and what comes into his mind is a picture of an eighteenth-century Georgia plantation owner abusing his bought African slave. That, however, comes from not considering the possibility that his cultural blinders are affecting his view of the first-century practice of slavery. What he has not considered is that the "slavery" described in Scripture is nothing like the more recent pre-civil war, new-world, race-based slavery we think of today. His cultural blinders and assumptions are the source of his offense, not Scripture.

Murray J. Harris has written a book on the NT metaphor of what it means to be slave to Christ: Slave of Christ: A New Testament Metaphor for Total Devotion to Christ. In it, he spends several chapters examining the ancient practice of slavery and compares it to our more modern experience of slavery. He points out several things that show them to be very different:

• In first-century Greco-Roman slavery, slaves were not distinguishable by race, language, gender, clothing, or anything else. They were never segregated off from society in any way.
• In first-century Greco-Roman slavery, slaves were often more educated than their masters and many held high managerial positions in the household.
• In first-century Greco-Roman slavery, from a financial standpoint, slaves made the same wages as free laborers. They were not usually poor and often gained enough money to buy themselves out of slavery.
• In first-century Greco-Roman slavery, persons were not slaves for life. Most sold themselves into slavery to pay off a debt or gain a certain sum of money and worked their freedom after a set number of years.

This is in great contrast to our more modern experience with slavery. New-world, pre-civil war slavery was race-based and was perpetuated through the kidnapping, forced relocation, forced labor, and dehumanizing of African peoples, which is something the Bible categorically condemns (cf. Dt. 24:7; 1 Ti. 1:9-11).

Therefore, while early Christians like Paul discouraged the Greco-Roman form of slavery (cf. 1 Co. 7:21-24) and even worked on an individual basis to overcome it (cf. John Piper's article on Philemon), they did not feel they needed to lead a campaign to end it, for 1) they had no ability to do so since they did not live in a democratic society where social change was possible the "average joe" and 2) that form did not (at least most of the time) violate human rights as images of God. New-world Christians, however, who were consistent in their Scriptural beliefs and interpretation, did work to abolish the new-world, pre-civil war, race-based forms of slavery because they could not be squared with Scripture. (Yes, it is true that many people in the South did attempt to use the Bible to justify their subjugation of African slaves, but they were reading the Bible through their cultural blinders as well. It was an illegitimate twisting of Scripture. Such a twisting does not prove that Scripture is wrong, but only that the culturally blinded, sinful use by some Christians was/is wrong.) So, if you step back, calm down, and consider your cultural blinders may be obscuring the truth of Scripture, you might find it is not nearly as offensive as you first thought.

Please, be intellectually honest and consider that your cultural blinders mind be clouding your view of something in Scripture. Then do some research into whatever passage(s) that have offended you. Again, read a commentary or two. Again, ask someone to help you understand it. And again, if you cannot find anyone else, ask me. I will be more than happy to attempt to answer your questions.

3. Please consider that you may be offended by a biblical text because of an unexamined assumption of the superiority of your cultural moment. We in the modern, Western world often think that we are the apex of human achievement: scientifically, ethically, morally, etc. There is the unexamined assumption that because something offends our modern sensibilities, it is categorically wrong because our culture is obviously superior. However, consider that perhaps your cultural viewpoint is not objectively superior. Then think about how other cultures may read the same Bible passage you read and find it pleasing when you find it offensive or offensive when you find it pleasing. For example, consider what the Bible has to say about subjects of sex and forgiveness. In our modern, Western culture, what the Bible says about sex is seen as "obviously primitive," backwards, oppressive, and offensive, violating individual freedoms and "rights." Yet, modern, Western cultural loves what (they think) the Bible has to say about forgiveness. We love the idea of being able to be forgiven over and over again for the same sins. Now, transfer these two subjects into a modern, Middle-Eastern culture. The exact opposite responses will be given to each. What the Bible has to say about sex is pretty well accepted (though even it may not be strict enough), but what the Bible says about forgiving many times over or forgiving your enemies is seen as insane.

So, if you are offended by something the Bible says about a subject (and you have worked to get past the above two suggestions), I must ask: why should your cultural sensibilities trump everyone else's? Why should certain parts of the Bible (or the whole thing) be tossed because they offend your (unexamined) cultural assumptions? Think of how cultural assumptions change and you will see how improper this is. What we think of as "normal" today was considered taboo fifty years ago, and your great grandchildren will probably find absolutely embarrassing many of the things that you consider culturally acceptable today. So, again, why should your current cultural sensibilities trump all others?

Please, consider that you may be offended by a biblical text because of an unexamined assumption of the superiority of your culture, and then take some time to attempt to examine those assumptions. Perhaps you will find they are not as superior as you first assumed.

Whether you are a Christian or not, hopefully these suggestions will help you when you come across something in Scripture that seems to you to be offensive. It takes time and effort to do what I have suggested above, but it will be worth it. If you do not do it and simply toss out the Bible, you will be missing out on everything that Jesus has to offer, most importantly peace with God, forgiveness, salvation, eternal life, and freedom.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Mistakes, Second Chances, and Grace

"Perhaps one of the lessons is that we need Pauls who lead the army into battle. And, we need Barnabases who care for the wounded and shell shocked and get them back into the war." ~ The Christian Curmudgeon, "I Don't Believe in Second Chances"

In the article linked above, the Christian Curmudgeon talks about the grace of second (and third and fourth and fifth...) chances using the story of John Mark as an example. If you do not know what happened there, John Mark was a companion of Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey (Ac. 12:25). However, something happened (no one knows exactly what happened) and John Mark left prematurely (Ac. 13:48). When Paul and Barnabas were starting out their second missionary journey, Barnabas wanted to take John Mark but Paul would not allow it. Apparently John Mark's departure on the first missionary journey made Paul feel he was not suited for their work anymore. The disagreement was so sharp between the two of them that they split: Barnabas with John Mark and Paul with Silas (Ac. 15:36-40).

Now, think about that. Paul--the man who used to be Saul, persecuted Christians, and murdered who knows how many believers--would not extend grace to John Mark for his mistake (whatever it was). Paul--the man who championed absolutely free grace, wrote things like "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost" (1 Ti. 1:15), and gave us nearly half the NT--would not give John Mark a second chance. This would shock me, if I was not so much like Paul. Given Paul's background he should have been the first to give John Mark another chance. In fact, I can imagine Barnabas saying something like this to Paul: "Don't you remember that no one in the church would trust you until I took a chance on you? [Ac. 9:26-27] Don't you remember Who sought you out and stopped you on the road to Damascus when you were trying to kill us? [Ac. 9:1-19] Why won't you give John Mark another opportunity?" But, whatever Barnabas said obviously did not work... at least not at first.

When we read Paul's later letters, however, we realize that somewhere along the line he had a change of heart about John Mark. During his first imprisonment, perhaps as much as 15 years after he and Barnabas split, Paul wrote that he was sending John Mark to the Colossians and that they should welcome him (Col. 4:10), and he names John Mark as a fellow worker in his letter to Philemon (Phm. 24). Furthermore, during his second and last imprisonment in Rome, when Paul was writing his final words to his protege Timothy, he said, "Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry.... Do your best to come before winter..." (2 Ti. 4:11, 21) So many years after Barnabas tried to convince Paul that John Mark deserved another chance, Paul realized it and John Mark became a valuable companion, so valuable that when he was facing his impending martyrdom Paul wanted to see two men: Timothy and John Mark.

So what is the point of saying all this? Well, it is similar to what the Christian Curmudgeon wrote, which I quoted above. The Church needs Pauls because Pauls are willing to speak harshly when necessary in order to protect the sheep from wolves. However, the Church also desperately needs Barnabases to check the Pauls and make sure that the grace Christ gave us is given to others. I fear we have many more Pauls than Barnabases these days. I can say that because if I take an honest look at myself, I am more like Paul than Barnabas. I am too quick to say, "He is no longer useful." But, what if I acted like Barnabas? What if I remembered how much grace Jesus has given me? What if I remembered how many times I have returned to Him to repent of the same sins over and over again and that He has taken me back every single time? What if I gave second, third, fourth, fifth, and so on chances, just like Jesus has given me? Perhaps I would find someone like John Mark who would become one of the last men I would want to see before I died. Perhaps such a story of grace would be seen by the world and it would say, "Huh? What is going on there?"

Look, I know we need to protect the purity of the Church. I know we need to get the wolves out before they destroy the flock. Those of you who know me personally know how concerned I am with that. But, what would happen if someone who had the potential to be a wolf received grace from us instead of estrangement? Perhaps the Spirit would use that grace to bring them to repentance (cf. Ro. 2:4) and make them useful to us, just like John Mark became useful to Paul. The Spirit did it with me, so I am pretty sure He can do it with anyone else out there.

I pray daily for the grace and compassion of men like Barnabas. I am not there yet, but I am also thankful every day that God is not finished with me yet.

By His Grace,
Taylor

The Charge of Inconsistency

"Simply stated, the 'homosexuality and shellfish' argument falls apart when read as the Scriptures are meant to be read—with a redemptive-historical approach in view." ~ Matthew Everhard

You often hear stated today, "Christians love to quote the Bible and pick and choose whatever rules they want us to obey and what rules they want to ignore. I can quote the Bible too, and Lv. 11:9-11 says that you should not eat shellfish. You eat shrimp, so why should we believe what you say about homosexuality?" This is the "shrimp argument" and it sounds like a good one on the surface, but it actually comes from a lack of understanding of Scripture and Christianity as a whole. It is leveled by those who want to charge Christians with inconsistency if they do not agree with homosexuality. Yet, as we will see, citing a random verse from Scripture does not prove Christians inconsistent at all. It in fact opens up the door to show how Christ has changed everything.

First of all, let's be clear about what the Bible says. People who use the shrimp argument generally quote from Lv. 18:22 or Lv. 20:13 as if they are the only thing the Bible has to say about homosexuality. That is simply not the case. The New Testament (NT) is not silent on the issue but is quite clear (cf. Ro. 1:26-27; 1 Co. 6:9; 1 Ti. 1:8-11). So, if we are going to throw around the charge of "picking and choosing," let's not pick and choose what prohibitions we mention or which Testament we go to for those prohibitions. (It is often argued that Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality. Stand to Reason has a good article answering that charge.)

So, is it inconsistent for Christians to say homosexuality is sinful but eat shrimp? No, because with His life, death, and resurrection, Jesus changed the Biblical landscape, and now proper interpretation of the Old Testament (OT) law must take Christ's work into account (the redemptive-historical view mentioned in the quote by Everhard).

The OT, especially Leviticus, commits a large amount of space to what is called the "ceremonial law." This law told Israel how it could approach and worship God. Because Christ had not yet come, man could not just approach God in any state. For God's people to be in right relationship to a holy God and to worship that God rightly, there had to be sacrifices to deal with sin and rules to deal with the purity of the Israelite people. You could not approach God if you had eaten certain foods that were declared unclean (like shrimp), if you had touched an unclean object, or if you did not wear the right clothing. Through the ceremonial law, God made it clear that He is holy and people are not, therefore they could not just approach Him and worship Him in whatever fashion they pleased. They had to be pure. When Jesus came on the scene, however, He fulfilled the ceremonial law. The book of Hebrews argues this point at length, showing that with Christ's death and resurrection, approaching God has changed, and people cannot go back to the ceremonial law. Christ's is one-for-all sacrifice (He. 10:12), His righteousness is now our purity before God (Ro. 5:12-18; He. 10:19-23), and now all foods are clean (Mk. 7:19). When Jesus died on the cross the veil of the Temple was ripped and replaced with Jesus Himself (He. 10:20), which shows that the ceremonial law, with its sacrifices and cleanliness laws, has been fulfilled and can no longer be observed by Christians. Jesus makes us clean now, not what we eat, wear, touch, or what sacrifices we make.

That, however, is not the only type of law in the OT. Another type is the "judicial law" that governed the nation of Israel. In it, there are a lot of laws that seem odd to us, and there are some that seem extreme, like the stoning of blasphemers (cf. Lv. 24:16). What about those laws? How do those work? Blaspheming is obviously still a sin, but should we stone those who do it? No, because with the coming of Christ, God's people are no longer a physical nation but a spiritual one. In the OT, God's people were a physical nation, so sins had civil punishments. However, now that Christ has come, God's people are a spiritual people living in governments throughout the world. The Church is not the civil government, so the Church no longer deals with sin through civil punishments but through exhortation, censoring, and, as a last resort, exclusion from fellowship (cf. Mt. 18:15-20; 1 Co. 5; 1 Ti. 1:19-20).

But the third type of law--the moral law, which, for example, tells us about sexuality--is still in place. Why? Because it is not a consequence of how we can approach/worship God (ceremonial law) or the political organization of God's people (judicial law) but an extension of God's very character and created order, which can never change or be done away with. Even the coming of Christ does not change the requirements of the moral law (but He does secure forgiveness and eternal life for those who put their faith in Him). What the OT has to say about generosity, loving our neighbor, families, relationships, and even sex continues into the NT (cf. e.g. Mt. 5:27-30; 1 Co. 6:9-20).

So, how we look at the OT and its regulations depends not on "picking and choosing" but on Jesus Christ Himself. Now, one might reject the Christian premise that Jesus is God and that His death and resurrection changed the biblical landscape. But even if one does reject that premise, one cannot fairly say that Christians are inconsistent if they accept the moral statements of the OT and do not practice the ceremonial or judicial aspects. From the premises of Christianity, this is entirely consistent. One can say they disagree, one can reject the conclusion, one can say Christianity is wrong, and one can even say it is "hateful" (those are different arguments), but the charge of inconsistency fails when looking at the data seriously from a biblical, Christian standpoint.

By His Grace,
Taylor

What is "New" about the New Covenant?

"There is perhaps no part of divinity attended with so much intricacy, and wherein orthodox divines so much differ, as the stating the precise agreement and difference between the two dispensations of Moses and Christ." ~ Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards (vol. 1, p. 160)

Those who have spent significant time in the Reformed tradition are likely aware of covenant theology and that there are not "two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations." (WCF, VII.6)  They would probably be able to tell someone that the Church is under the new covenant, which was ushered in by Christ through His work of redemption. But, if one were to ask them what is "new" about the new covenant, one would probably get many different vague answers. Many would be able to point someone Jeremiah 31 as the Old Testament (OT) prophecy about the new covenant, yet the "newness" of it would probably still be hazy. Christians in the Reformed tradition are often taught that OT saints were redeemed on the basis of Christ’s (future) work of redemption just as present-day saints, yet this teaching often leaves the specific details of the old and new covenants under a cloud of confusion. And, as Edward's says (above), the specifics of the "newness" of the new covenant are hotly debated.

I have written a paper on this subject that, hopefully, will help clear up some of the confusion. I do not want to claim that this paper in any way settles the debate because there are many that would disagree with me. However, it gives my take on the issue, which I believe to biblical. Below is a little bit of the introduction:

The question must be asked, then, "What is 'new' about the new covenant?" A quick survey of the New Testament (NT) use of [Jeremiah 31] will show the importance of this question. At least ten NT passages quote from Jeremiah 31:31-34 directly or allude to it.  It is also the longest section of the OT quoted in the NT,  found in Hebrews 8:8-12 where the author uses it to show that Jesus is the mediator of a better covenant. Christ Himself alludes to it in His institutions of the Lord’s Supper (Mt. 26:28; Mk. 14:24; Lk. 22:20; 1 Co. 11:25). The breadth of the impact of this passage on the NT alone shows the importance of this question. It is this question that the author will attempt to answer in this paper. In this paper, the author will show that the "newness" of the new covenant is not a matter of essence but a matter of degree and form: the old expands in the new through a more substantial administration of salvation, greater fellowship with God, particularity giving way to universality, and shadow and promise giving way to substance and fulfillment. To use the Dutch Reformer Herman Bavinck’s illustration, in the old covenant the fruit was still in the husk but with the new covenant the fruit was ripe and broke through the husk.

You can read the rest of the paper here. I pray that it will not only clear up some confusion you may have on this subject, but bring your heart to praise of God's glorious revelation of Himself and His grace to men in His covenants.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Book Review: "The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?"

"There is no book which addresses the crucial issues revolving around the use of the Old Testament in the New in the manner in which this book does." ~ G. K. Beale, The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?

How do the New Testament (NT) authors use the Old Testament (OT)? Were they faithful to it when they used it? Can we reproduce their methodology? Should we reproduce their methodology? These are some of the big questions in the current hermeneutical debate over the NT use of the OT. Much has been written on the subject but nothing like Beale’s volume of essays. Beale writes, "The purpose of this book is to present various perspectives concerning the hermeneutical issue whether or not Jesus and the apostles quoted Old Testament texts with respect for their broader Old Testament context."  Beale also comments that the perspectives are presented with "no editorial evaluation of the essays. They stand on their own, and the reader has the responsibility of evaluation."  So, he wants to present the topic, the issues, and the different perspectives in an honest fashion so the reader can investigate further and make an informed, convicted choice. Beale does admit that "there is more space devoted to the articles arguing in favor of the New Testament’s contextual approach to the Old… than to the opposing perspective."   He gives three reasons but the main reason is that the majority of NT and OT scholars believe the NT uses the OT without any regard for its original meaning, so the "minority view" is given more time to speak. Below is my conclusion of my review of this book and then a link to the whole review, if you are interested:

This is an excellent work. We greatly appreciate Beale’s effort to present the multiple sides of the issue without adding editorial comments. One could perhaps argue that Beale’s closing article is such a comment but even then, he lets the articles stand on their own. Any student of Scripture would benefit from reading this book, however, many of the articles assume a certain scholastic knowledge that the average Christian does not generally have. That does not mean they could not enjoy this work and get a lot out of it but it does mean they might have to put in extra research while reading it. Whichever side of the argument one lands on, the book is very helpful because it presents both views. One can learn about the view they oppose and, if one is so moved, formulate arguments against the position. Furthermore, the handful of articles that are text-specific are excellent examples of the various views applied to the nuts and bolts of Scripture and provide a great resource for teaching or preaching through these texts. Finally, the bibliography is excellent and provides ten pages worth of resources for further study on various topics. All these things combined make this book a resource worthy of any library, especially the student, scholar, and/or pastor. 

 If you want to read the whole review, you can find it here.

By His Grace,
Taylor