Started off with the outrageous, racist rants of “His Grace, the Right Reverend Bishop Talbert Wesley Swan II” (straight from his wikipedia page) and his swinging the club of “white supremacy” at anyone or anything, logic, rationality and truth notwithstanding. Then we considered the advice of the left edge of evangelicalism’s fall into the morass of cultural confusion, this time
Audio Transcript
Welcome back! In the next two episodes, we’re talking about personal suffering. Suffering so often feels meaningless; suffering feels pointless — “feels” being the key word. But no matter how our suffering feels to us, it’s not meaningless. Not for the Christian. That’s our topic next time, on Monday.
But today, if you’re reading your Bible along with us using the Navigators Bible Reading Plan, for the second half of February we’re in the thick of it, reading through Leviticus. It’s a hard book — a notorious book that ends a lot of well-meaning Bible readers at this point in the year. But stick with it. It’s worth it. And as you stick with it, in our reading tomorrow, we read Leviticus 21:16–24, a difficult text that makes any Bible reader scratch his head and wonder, Why did God shun the disabled in the Old Testament? One such Bible reader is a listener named Gina.
“Hello, Pastor John. I’m reading through Leviticus in my Bible reading plan. One thing that has confused me is why God would not allow people with physical defects to approach the altar in Leviticus 21:16–21. The tone changes drastically in the Gospels. There Jesus, the true Temple, welcomes the blind, the lame, and the diseased right into his very presence. So, why would God in the Old Testament not allow them near the altar? It seems sad to me, and it compounds their suffering. Those people would have felt worse for it, and likely experienced heightened social alienation, too. I’m thankful for the New Testament because there are so many of us with physical defects. But why this discontinuity? To what purpose?”
Good, good, good, good question. Leviticus 21:16–24 deals with whether priests — it’s about priests, but her question is still really valid — who have physical disabilities or deformities can enter the Holy Place to do the work of a priest. I think Gina is probably right that, in reality, when priests with facial defects or crushed genitals or injured feet or a hunched back or scabby skin were forbidden from parts of the priestly service — not all of them, but some of them — probably they would have felt sad and discouraged at times, and maybe even resentful. That would be a normal human response, at least in our culture. We sure feel that. And my guess is that’s pretty basic to human nature.
“God has provided a way, by Jesus Christ, to have the very perfection that we must have to approach him.”
Gina asks, “Why does God in the Old Testament apply such external restrictions for the priesthood, and in the New Testament we don’t have that same kind of restriction? They don’t assume the same excluding effect.” Let me try to give an answer that I think honors the intention of both the Old Testament and the New Testament, because I think both are the inspired word of God, and what God did when he did it was right to do when he did it, and he had reasons for doing it, and it may not be right for us to do it today because such profound things have changed. But let’s look at the key passage. There’s a ground clause that helps us crystallize the issues.
Perfect God, Unblemished Sanctuary
Here’s Leviticus 21:16–24 with just a few verses left out. I’ll collapse it down so you can see the clause.
No man of the offspring of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to offer the Lord’s food offerings; since he has a blemish, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. . . . He shall not go through the veil or approach the altar, because [and our ears should perk up] he has a blemish, [in order] that he may not profane my sanctuaries, for I am [Yahweh] the Lord who sanctifies them.
In other words, God says, “I am the one who sets priests apart for my service; I sanctify them. I have ordained — I have decreed or instituted or decided — that a blemished priest will not blemish or profane my sanctuary.” In other words, God wants to make the perfections of the sanctuary so symbolically and visibly clear that he establishes a correlation between the deforming of the physical body and the deforming of the sanctuary. Or, to say it another way, he insists that there be a correlation between the perfections of those who approach the sanctuary and the perfection of the sanctuary itself, which is a reflection of his own perfection.
It’s entirely possible that the most godly and the most humble, deformed priests would not be offended by this divine order of things, but would gladly acknowledge that it is fitting for those who approach a perfect God to be free from outward and inward imperfections. So, I don’t think there’s anything intrinsically wrong with God’s Old Testament ordinances in this regard.
Utter Holiness, Overflowing Grace
The question is, What’s the ultimate meaning of it, especially in relation to New Testament changes? My answer goes like this.
In the Bible as a whole, there are two dimensions to God’s nature that shape the way he deals with mankind. One is unapproachable holiness. That’s one massive truth throughout the Bible. God is holy. Sinners can’t approach him. Nothing imperfect can approach him. Nothing evil can approach God without being destroyed. And so, it’s fitting that, in the presence of God, there can only be perfection — both moral and spiritual and physical — which of course means no one qualifies. It’s not like some of these priests were perfect. The other dimension of his nature is his overflowing mercy and grace.
So, those are the two: unapproachable holiness and overflowing mercy and grace, which reaches out to the physically, morally, spiritually imperfect, and finds a way in Jesus Christ to declare them to be perfect. But the resolution of these two dimensions of God’s nature is not that the first one is replaced by the second one, like holiness is kind of blunted and decreased in its importance because mercy is going to be the main thing now. That’s not what happens — as though the doctrine of justification by faith alone would be sufficient to create the new heavens and the new earth, where God is present among justified sinners without his holiness being compromised. That’s not going to happen.
No, God also undertakes, by sanctification and then by the re-creation of everything that’s broken — physical dimensions of the world and moral dimensions of the world — to make everything in his presence perfect forever. Not just justified sinners are going to be in God’s presence, but no sin is going to be in God’s presence. There won’t be any people who sin in God’s presence. There will be no defects morally, there will be no defects physically in the presence of God in the age to come.
Made Perfect Forever
So, I think God highlighted the demands for perfection in the Old Testament in an outward way so as to make really clear that no form of imperfection would ever stand in God’s presence permanently. That’s how holy he is.
He would one day not only justify the ungodly and be willing to touch lepers — reach out and actually touch lepers, God himself touching lepers in the flesh — but he would also utterly transform the ungodly into sinless, godly people, and take away every leprosy and every disease and every disability and every deformity. So, the Old Testament and the New Testament make both of these dimensions of God’s character plain (it seems to me) by putting the emphasis in different places.
“We need the Old Testament to sober us about how holy God is, and we need the New Testament lest we despair.”
The Old Testament is, as it were, standing on tiptoes, looking over the horizon of the future, waiting and wondering how God could ever create a people, all of whom could come boldly into his presence. And God had put such amazing limits in the Old Testament. So, the Old Testament rightly makes this seem extremely difficult. I think that was the point. He wanted it to look like this can never happen. You can never have anybody with an imperfection walking in here. It’s just not going to happen. God has put such amazing restrictions on it.
And then, in the New Testament, the glorious reality dawns that God has provided a way, by Jesus Christ, to have the very perfection that we must have to approach him now. And he has provided by his Spirit the sanctification and resurrection and perfection of bodily and spiritual newness in the age to come so that we can be in his presence forever.
So, my bottom-line conclusion is this: we need the Old Testament to sober us about how holy God is, and we need the New Testament lest we despair of any hope that we could survive in the presence of such a holy God, let alone enjoy him forever.
Today, some Christians seem embarrassed by the doctrine of hell. As such, they either omit discussing it, or they reinvent the doctrine and rob it of any real horror. Our Lord, however, was not afraid to talk about hell. Jesus speaks of “the hell of fire” (Matthew 5:22); the danger of the “whole body” being “thrown into hell” (Matthew 5:29); “the unquenchable fire” (Mark 9:43); the place where the impenitent are “thrown” (Mark 9:45), “where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:48).
Many Christians struggle to believe that Jesus plays an active role in the destruction of the godless. However, the Scriptures leave us in no doubt about the reality: Our Lord will, with his angels, gather all “law-breakers” and “throw them into the fiery furnace,” where there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 13:41–42). Christ calls this a place of “outer darkness” (Matthew 25:30). If people doubt that Christ spoke of the judgment to come, often using vivid language, they have not read the Gospels carefully (see, for example, Matthew 3:12; 7:22–23; 10:28; 11:23; 13:30, 41–42, 49–50; 23:16, 33; 25:10, 31–33; 26:24; Mark 8:36; 9:43–48; 16:16; Luke 9:25; 12:9–10, 46; John 5:28–29).
At the same time, the doctrine of hell is not merely a New Testament doctrine. Indeed, some of the language used for hell in the New Testament comes from the Old. For example, Isaiah warns the godless of “the consuming fire” and the “everlasting burnings” (Isaiah 33:14). In the last chapter, he speaks of God coming in fire “to render his anger in fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire. For by fire will the Lord enter into judgment, and by his sword, with all flesh; and those slain by the Lord shall be many” (Isaiah 66:15–16). Isaiah prophesies that the righteous “shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against [God]. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh” (Isaiah 66:24; see Christ’s use of these words in Mark 9:48).
Daniel, along with others, also refers to the final judgment: “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2).
Endless Punishment
There is no shortage of professing Christians who affirm a coming judgment of the wicked. Some, however, tend to think that this judgment will not be everlasting. As finite beings, we struggle to wrap our minds around the concept of eternity. But if God intended to either annihilate the wicked at death, with no future judgment, or put an end to suffering after an indefinite period of time, then he did a poor job of communicating that to us.
Scripture shows us that hell is a place of “everlasting punishment” (Matthew 25:46 KJV). Hell is an “everlasting fire” (Matthew 18:8 KJV) that can never be quenched (Mark 9:45), where their worm never dies (Mark 9:48). Sodom and Gomorrah were punished for their sins by “undergoing a punishment of eternal fire” (Jude 7). False teachers have a place reserved in hell where the “gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever” (Jude 13). We read of the suffering of the wicked, “The smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night” (Revelation 14:11; see also Revelation 19:3, Revelation 20:10, “forever and ever”). William Shedd rightly notes, “Had Christ intended to teach that future punishment is remedial and temporary, he would have compared it to a dying worm, and not to an undying worm; to a fire that is quenched, and not to an unquenchable fire.”
Shedd adds that other words and metaphors could have been used to describe a long, but not endless, punishment. Indeed, if hell is not endless, the New Testament writers “were morally bound to have avoided conveying the impression they actually have conveyed by the kind of figures they have selected” (Dogmatic Theology, 892). The word used to describe “everlasting life” is also used to describe “everlasting punishment.” For example, in Revelation 22:14–15, the existence of the righteous in heaven is coterminous with the existence of the wicked “outside” of heaven (that is, in hell).
Separation from God?
Another way people try to make the doctrine of hell more palatable is to say that hell is merely separation from God. But while hell does separate the wicked from the blessed life of God in Christ, hell is still punishment. Those who hate God in this life will continue to hate him in eternity, and they will continue to face God’s wrath.
Hell is a location, a place; it is not simply a metaphor that describes inner thought processes. Acts 1:25 tells us Judas went “to his own place.” Just as there is a place for the righteous after death, so there is a place for the wicked after death. The word Gehenna refers to the Valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem. The horrible history of this place involved, at one time, the Israelites and kings of Israel burning their children as sacrifices to the false god Molech (2 Chronicles 28:3; 33:6). Gehenna may not be a reference to a burning trash dump (as some have claimed), but it is far worse: a place where the greatest horrors take place, such as the willful sacrifice of children. Hell is a place of pure evil, destitute of all hope.
Rather than being mere “separation from God,” hell is, as the Puritan Thomas Goodwin said, a place where “God himself, by his own hands, that is, the power of his wrath, is the immediate inflicter of that punishment of men’s souls” (Works of Thomas Goodwin, 10:491). God’s power will be “exercised” as his wrath toward those who are cast away from the presence of God’s blessedness. Those in hell will receive the opposite of those in glory, but they will still be in God’s presence. Those in heaven have a mediator, but those in hell have nothing between them and an avenging God.
If the foregoing is true, we should be careful not to say (as some have) that hell is giving people what they want. In a highly limited sense, this is true. They do not want to enjoy God in this life, so they will not enjoy him in the life to come. However, given the torments of hell, no one can possibly desire to suffer at the hands of the omnipotent God, especially for all eternity. Who could possibly desire for their despair to increase as well? As the creatures in hell realize more and more that they are suffering forever, the despair of eternal judgment can only increase. Those in hell have no promises, and thus no hope, but only increasing despair.
Escape Through the Cross
Goodwin makes the solemn point that the “wretched soul in hell . . . finds that it shall not outlive that misery, nor yet can it find one space or moment of time of freedom and intermission, having forever to do with him who is the living God” (Works, 10:548). The wicked will despair because there is no end to the righteous wrath of the living God. Thus, the concept of ever-increasing despair for all eternity, whereby the creature damned to hell can do nothing else but blaspheme a living, eternal God, gives us all the reason in the world to persuade sinners to put their faith in the one who experienced hellish despair on the cross.
Our Lord shrieked with cries so that we might sing with praise; he was parched with thirst that we might drink freely from the fountain; he was abandoned in the darkness that we might have fellowship in the light; he was crushed that we might be restored; he was publicly shamed that we might be publicly exalted; he was mocked by evildoers that we might be praised by angels; he gave up his spirit that we might have our spirits saved. As real as his sufferings were, our joys will be no less real. The hellish experience of the cross is the greatest testimony to the unspeakable joys of eternal life with God.
In the 1960s, a deviant religious group called, among other things, the Children of God emerged from California. The group’s declaration was essentially this: “We are revolutionary Christian nomads, bypassing the hopeless, unresponsive older generation and churchy people and bringing new-time religion to a new-time generation.” They quickly spread their bizarre, blasphemous teachings, becoming global in their evangelism. Ironically, though, the very group which suggested that they of all people understood what it was to be a child of God didn’t bear the marks of authentic faith at all. Their claims were based in error rather than truth.
Our young men need public and private examples of godly men in generations past and present. Our pastor would tell us that his personal pursuit of holiness was for the benefit of others—because his wife needed a godly husband and his children a godly father and the church a godly leader. He modeled meekness and godliness even in his later years of immense personal suffering. He showed us how to die. The church needs more everyday heroes like him to prepare our young men to “pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness” and to “fight the good fight of the faith” until the Lord calls them home (1 Tim. 6:11-12).
A hero went Home this week.
It’s hard to put into words the measure of a man. God gives many good men to His church. As I mourn this beloved pastor, I can’t help but wonder how many of our young men are in the queue to lead the next generation. I know not every man can or will be like him – but that was not his aim, nor his desire to be a standard for comparison. His aim was to build men who follow after Christ (1 Cor. 11:1) and become more Christ-like (Rom. 8:29), from one degree to another (2 Cor. 3:18). Christ is the only imitable way, truth and life (John 14:6).
Yet, the scriptures do command us to “consider your leaders and the outcome of their faith” (Hebrews 13:7) and to follow them, as they follow Christ (1 Cor. 11:1). I’ve had ample opportunity to “consider…the outcome” of this pastor’s life as a sheep in his flock for 35 years. And, at the risk of the criticism of romanticizing a fallible man, I offer these reflections of one man’s faithful life to encourage the Church to nurture our young men, so that it will flourish in their generation.
Set Christ apart in your heart by faith.
We must encourage our sons to live wholeheartedly for Christ. There is no middle ground, no nuanced path. Indeed, the way is narrow and has only one gate. Our pastor would say to us, “Look to Christ” who is the “author and finisher of our faith” in all things (Heb. 12:2). Our world holds many glittering distractions for a young man’s heart, but we must pray that our sons’ hearts esteem Christ above all else. When men learn to find their treasure in Christ alone, many worldly distractions fall away, scattered in dull comparison. We must pray for our young men because this act of “setting apart” is a sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit alone, in His timing. The Church must exercise patience, grace and grit to equip men to grow into “mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13).
Have a vision to change the world.
We must encourage our young men to have a vision for their lives that extends beyond their personal gain, for the glory of God’s kingdom. Our pastor’s vision to change the world was not to have a world-renowned name for himself, but to lead, train and send men “into all the world” (Matt. 28:19) for Christ’s name. As we foster interests and enable talents of our sons, we need to never stop encouraging them to think big and take risks for His glory and for the good of others.
Read More
Related Posts:
Is reality outside the church a common realm that is unrelated to the kingdom of Christ? No, the moral division in this life is not between the kingdom of Christ and a common realm considered as two static domains with diverse locations. The moral division in this life is between the kingdom of Christ and Satan’s kingdom considered as two dynamic domains that can penetrate any sphere of life. Both these kingdoms are defined by moral orientation and ultimate allegiance.
I was at a Presbytery meeting listening to the examination of a candidate for ordination. When asked, “What is the kingdom?” the candidate simply answered, “The church.” I was surprised by the brevity of the accepted answer. I wondered at the time if the candidate was implying that there are no senses in which the kingdom is a broader concept than the church. I was later told that the question and answer were based on Westminster Confession of Faith 25.2:
“The visible church … consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ…”
The examination was thorough overall, and I am grateful for those who do this work. I am also grateful that this exchange motivated me to examine this subject more thoroughly.
As a general rule, the current members of the visible church and the citizens of the kingdom now alive are the same people. There is this degree of identity within this limited context. That doesn’t mean that the kingdom and the church are identical in every way and in every context. There are different nuances to being under Christ’s royal reign and being part of the gathered assembly of the saints. There are also contexts in which the kingdom is a broader concept than the church because Christ’s royal authority extends beyond the assembly of the saints.
In its commentary on the second petition of the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy kingdom come,” the Westminster Shorter Catechism refers to the kingdom of grace and the kingdom of glory. We are to pray “that the kingdom of grace may be advanced, ourselves and others brought into it, and kept in it” and “that the kingdom of glory may be hastened” (WSC 102). The kingdom of grace is here a reference to the visible church in this age, and the kingdom of glory, a reference to the invisible church in the full glory of a new creation after the second advent. The Westminster Confession of Faith mentions a related concept, the keys of the kingdom, which refer to the power to open and close access to gospel benefits and church privileges through administering the Word and through church discipline. This is a power wielded by church officers and not by civil magistrates (WCF 30.2; 23.5).
In their commentaries on the second petition of the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy kingdom come,” the Westminster catechisms mention a third kingdom: Satan’s kingdom, or the kingdom of sin and Satan (WSC 102; WLC 191). We are to pray for Satan’s kingdom to be destroyed. Jesus three times referred to Satan as the ruler of this world (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11), and the Apostle John said that “the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one” (1 John 5:19). What are we praying to be destroyed, the world as a place or the sway of Satan over the world? I believe the latter, and this implies that the domain of Satan’s kingdom is not a static domain limited to any specific place but a dynamic domain defined by its moral orientation and ultimate allegiance. This understanding is further confirmed in that we are to pray the second petition “acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan…” (WLC 191). This is a reference not to humanity’s created nature but to humanity’s “corrupted nature, conveyed to all [our fallen first parents’] posterity descending from them by ordinary generation” (WCF 6.3). “This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified…” (WCF 6.5).
The Westminster Larger Catechsim mentions one other kingdom in its commentary on the second petition, the kingdom of Christ’s power. We are to pray that Christ “would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends” (WLC 191). “These ends” include the destruction of Satan’s kingdom, the fulfillment of certain duties of the civil magistrate and the rule of Christ in Christian hearts. These are objectives that are not totally confined within the boundaries of the church. The effective range is “all the world.” The power in play here includes God’s providential control within history. The Triune God who created the world preserves and governs all His creatures and all their actions (WSC 11). The question is whether God the Son now exercises this providential power as part of the power that was entrusted to Him as the God-Man when He was seated at the right hand of God the Father.
Some answer yes to this question. This means that the kingdom of grace, the kingdom of glory and the kingdom of Christ’s power are all complementary aspects of a unified kingdom under the royal authority of the resurrected, glorified and ascended Christ seated at the right hand of God the Father. This understanding is found in Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology:
“Christ has what theologians are accustomed to call his kingdom of power. As Theanthropos and as Mediator, all power in heaven and upon earth has been committed to his hands. … This universal authority is exercised in a providential control, and for the benefit of his Church. … Under the present dispensation, therefore, Christ is the God of providence. It is in and through and by Him that the universe is governed. This dominion or kingdom is to last until its object is accomplished, i.e., until all his enemies, all forms of evil, and even death itself is subdued. Then this kingdom, this mediatorial government of the universe, is to be given up. (1 Cor. xv.24.) (2.600-601; cf. 2.635-638)
The kingdom of Christ’s power is here defined as one of the temporary elements of Christ’s mediatorial kingdom. There are other temporary elements as well. “Christ executeth the office of a king in subduing us to Himself, in ruling and defending us, and in restraining and conquering all His and our enemies” (WSC 26). The only element in this list that is not temporary and thus lasts into the kingdom of glory is Christ’s ruling His people as their King.
The positive answer to our question does not limit the power given to Jesus as the exalted God-Man to His power and authority over the church. This is consistent with the statement of the Westminster Larger Catechism that “Christ is exalted in his sitting at the right hand of God, in that as God-man he is advanced to the highest favor with God the Father, with all fulness of joy, glory, and power over all things in heaven and earth” (WLC 54). In addition, Jesus’ execution of His office as a king includes His “restraining and overcoming all [His people’s] enemies, and powerfully ordering all things for his own glory, and their good; and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and obey not the gospel” (WLC 45). The Scriptural evidence also points in this direction. Hebrews 2:8 says, “For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him.” Ephesians 1:22 says, “And He put all things under His feet…” In Matthew 28:18, Jesus said, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.” 1 Corinthians 15:27 implies that all has been put under the rule of the exalted God-Man except God Himself:
27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted.
This understanding is also consistent with the Bible’s teaching that Jesus is not only the Head of the church but also the ruler of the kings of the earth (Revelation 1:5; cf. 2:27).
This understanding does not require a Lutheran explanation of Jesus’ exaltation. Many are familiar with the Lutheran teaching that the physical body of the exalted Christ experiences some form of omnipresence. Such thinking is not necessary to explain how Jesus administers the kingdom of His power as the exalted God-Man. One can explain the ministries of the exalted God-Man “without conversion, composition, or confusion” of the two natures (WCF 8.2). No one questions that Jesus exercises His priestly ministry as the exalted God-Man. Yet His priestly ministry also has challenges that are beyond finite human capabilities. As our heavenly high priest, Jesus hears untold numbers of prayers every minute of every day. This does not mean that the human mind of the exalted God-Man now possesses some form of omniscience. Similarly the exalted God-Man exercises His kingly ministry without His human nature possessing some form of omnipotence. The Westminster Larger Catechism explains how this is possible without confusing the two natures:
Q.40. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God and man in one person ?
A. It was requisite that the Mediator, who was to reconcile God and man, should himself be both God and man, and this in one person, that the proper works of each nature might be accepted of God for us, and relied on by us, as the works of the whole person.
Returning to our question as to whether God the Son now exercises this providential power as part of the power that was entrusted to Him as the God-Man when He was seated at the right hand of God the Father, some answer in the negative. This means that the kingdom of Christ’s power is not related to Christ’s current heavenly session and thus is in a different category from the kingdom of grace and the kingdom of glory. With this understanding, God the Son exercises His providential power apart from His exalted humanity even as He did before His incarnation and exaltation.
In summary, Westminster kingdom theology includes two antithetical kingdoms, the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of Satan. Within the kingdom of Christ are three divisions: the kingdom of grace, the kingdom of glory and the kingdom of Christ’s power. Some hold that all three of these are part of the mediatorial kingdom of the exalted God-Man. Others separate the kingdom of Christ’s power as a providential rule apart from the mediatorial kingdom. In any case, the exercise of the kingdom of Christ’s power “in all the world” implies that the concept of the kingdom is broader than the concept of the church, even though there are also senses in which the kingdom and the church can be identified.
This broader understanding of the kingdom is taught by others as well.
Read More
Related Posts:
The church fought to teach that Jesus Christ “suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried;” But it wasn’t only doctrine about Christ they fought for. They also taught “the resurrection of the body.” The early church placed great importance upon the body. What we do in the body matters. What happens to our body matters. The church didn’t separate flesh from spirit as we do. And they certainly didn’t have a “throw me in a ditch” theology.
What started as a new dishwasher turned into an expensive kitchen remodel. When we pulled our broken dishwasher out of its happy spot, nestled under our cabinets, we soon discovered a rotting floor. We had mold.
We decided to keep pulling up floor, tile, cabinets, walls, whatever, until there was no more mold. We came to a stop when we got to our bay window area over the kitchen sink. The whole wall, studs and all, was covered in mold. That outside wall had to go.
When we got further into the project we discovered an even bigger problem. The issue which gave rise to all of our problems was a faulty foundation. Apparently cinder blocks holding hands does not a foundation make, especially when there is no drain to move water away from the house.
I could have rebuilt without touching the foundation. We could have kept fighting all the battles above the surface, and maybe even won a few of those. But it would only be prolonging the inevitable. Once the foundation is surrendered the whole thing will eventually give way.
The same is true with our Christian response to current issues of sexuality. I would argue that we are “losing” these battles because we surrendered the foundation long ago. We don’t have a leg to stand on. Today, I’ll explain one of these foundations.
Just Throw Me in a Ditch!
I’ve heard more than a handful of Christians joke that they don’t care what happens to their body after death. “Just throw me in a ditch,” they’ll say, “I’ll be in heaven with Jesus.” The idea is that our earthly body is just like a tent you’d take for a weekend camping trip—it’s only temporary. But it’s also kind of an icky and dilapidated tent that gives us all kinds of problems.
Undoubtedly, such language is taken from 2 Corinthians 5. Here Paul refers to the body as a “tent”. And he says that our preference would be “away from the body and at home with the Lord.” In other words, when I’m home with Jesus just throw that tattered old tent in the ditch.
But is that really what Paul is arguing?
If he is, it would go against not only his Jewish upbringing but also the early church. Jewish tradition completely rejected the idea of cremation and stressed a need for burying the dead. It was sign of dignity and showed the worth of the created body. Rather than moving away from this tradition, the early church continued in this.
Let’s briefly go to Paul again. Notice 1 Corinthians 15:3-4,
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures… (emphasis mine)
Why does Paul add “buried” in there? I mean, if he died and was resurrected, isn’t it kind of redundant? And why does John tell us all about Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea and the tomb that Jesus was placed in?
For one, it’s to show that He was truly dead and truly resurrected. But it’s also to show us that Jesus was buried as a king. What happened to His body mattered. Because the body matters—even in death.
Read More
Related Posts:
Paul in Romans 1 makes plain that the theological and worshipexchanges he describes result in unrighteous ethical conduct, particularly regarding sexuality that “breaks the bonds” of the Creator.[16] This leads to societal and cultural chaos,[17] as Jonathan Burnside explains: “[I]n biblical thought, sexual relationships can be used either to create community or to destroy community. . . . Sexual order helps to create relational order and sexual disorderleads to relational disorder.”[18]
[Cue the orchestra]: What is a man? What has he got? If not himself, then he is naught. To say the things he truly feels, and not the words of one who kneels. The record shows, I took the blows . . . and did it MY WAY!
“That song is the National Anthem . . . of Hell” as philosopher Peter Kreeft quipped (paraphrased).[2] We might call the worldview expressed therein “My Wayism.” My Wayism encapsulates the idea that the Self is the measure of all things, the determiner of all action and attitude as well as the moral compass for both. My Wayism is not confined to Las Vegas crooners, however.[3] Consider Disney’s wildly famous animated hit, Frozen. The heroine’s signature song expresses the same sentiment:
“It’s time to see what I can do,To test the limits and break through,No right, no wrong, no rules for me. I’m free – Let it go, let it go!”[4]
What’s going on here? What links these lyrics? The connection lies in what they assume about the human person – and what they assume is largely lies and half-truths stemming from the residual effects of the Truth being exchanged for the Lie. This residue produces “lies that live.” In this instance, the lie consists of radical ethical autonomy, meaning that a person’s real essence supposedly consists in being “the master of my fate, . . . the captain of my soul.”[5]
Because Christians are filled with the Spirit of Truth[6] and are called to speak the truth,[7] and not to be those “depraved in mind and deprived of truth,”[8] we are to be “sanctified in truth.”[9] And, all this means unearthing and jettisoning those lies – contra to truth – that remain embedded in our “operating systems.”
First, let’s acknowledge that My Way in fact asks the right question: “What is a man?” The problem arises because when the Truth is exchanged for the Lie, we often answer good questions badly. Put differently, sin distorts several aspects of human anthropology impacting: Man’s moral compass (My Wayism for example), Man’s composition (Gnostic dualism for example), Man’s community or social dimension (radical individualism for example), to name a few. [10] People begin to live by these lies. These lies need to be exposed, opposed, and foreclosed as much as feasible. Let’s explore some of these implications. Let’s get to the gist.
Man’s Moral Compass – The Rise of the Sexual Super Self
Long before Elsa rejoiced in having “no right, no wrong, no rules,” so that she could “test the limits and break through,” King David understood the bent of fallen mankind:
Why do the nations rage
and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth set
themselves, and the rulers take counsel together,
against the LORD and against his
Anointed, saying,
3 “Let us burst their bonds apart
and cast away their cords from us .”
Many Christians acknowledge that sin remains. Here, however, we see how remaining sin plays out: mankind takes a stand against the LORD by rebelling against His righteous design and constraints, particularly, as Paul explains in Romans, limits and design regarding sexuality.
Read More
Related Posts:
The Mosaic Law is not contrary to the gospel. In fact, the Mosaic Covenant is an exfoliation of the Covenant of Grace. However, John 9 helps us to understand the division when the Pharisees say to the now healed blind man, “You are his [Jesus] disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from.” Moses is being set over against Jesus.
Think of the story of the man born blind (John 9). It’s well known and well thought of. It’s one of those stories that take work to read because we must disabuse ourselves of contemporary concern for those with disabilities. For example, there were no Seeing Eye dogs, Braille books or reading machines. This man was a beggar whose hope of social advance, marriage, or even a job was a pipe dream. He was an unnoticed beggar. He was alone.
For example, notice the man’s neighbors after he is healed. The man is obviously making a stir and those who have lived closest to him say, “Isn’t this the man who sat and begged?” And some said yes but many of those same neighbors said, “No, he just looks like him.” And all the while the man who was blind said, “I am the man.” That’s amazing. How unnoticed he must have felt for all those years. Not only was he blind but they had been blind to him.
So, they brought the man to the Pharisees, and things got worse. But before saying more about the blind man and the Pharisees we must understand that the text. Like all of John’s Gospel, this text reaches back to his Prologue (John 1:1-18). For example, in those early verses John writes that the law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Christ. Now, the Mosaic Law is not contrary to the gospel.
Read More
Related Posts:
In a recent article Jake Meador wrings his hands anxiously because he believes that ‘evangelicalism’ is a “controversy generator machine,” and he believes that this is the source of needless strife that admits of no clear resolution. By contrast, he sees in the institutional church a suitable alternative that has prescribed processes for resolving controversy. I confess, such an opinion makes me want to lay my head in my hands and weep. Meador and I are both members and frequent observers of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)’s internal controversies, and for him to make such claims is extraordinary indeed.
Where there is the church there will be controversy. The people of Israel were divided over Christ (Jn. 7:43; 9:16; 10:19). After his resurrection the first sermon bearing witness to him arose because many of the Jews mocked the first outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:13), and soon thereafter the apostles so irritated the authorities that they were threatened and commanded to no more preach Christ’s gospel (4:1-21). When Paul and Barnabas visited Thessalonica, the Jews and pagans drew some believers before the magistrates with the bitter accusation that “these men who have turned the world upside down” were “acting against the decrees of Caesar” (17:5-9).
And as Christ and his people caused controversy in Israel and the Roman Empire, so also was there much internal controversy from an early date. From the first extension of the gospel to the gentiles there was controversy over their inclusion (11:2-3; 15:1-21), and there were subsequent internal conflicts which gave occasion for writing much of the New Testament. False teaching of various stripes (1 Cor. 15:12; Col. 2:8, 16-23; 2 Tim. 2:16-19; 1 Jn. 2:13-14, 18-26) and other internal disagreements appeared (2 Cor. 11:4-5, 13-15; Phil. 4:2; 3 Jn. 9), and Christ himself controverted the practices of some churches (Rev. 2:4-6, 14-16, 20-23; 3:2-4; 15-16). Shifting one’s survey to later church history shows that controversy was a recurrent theme. Heresy after heresy arose, and there were major schisms even where heresy does not seem to have prevailed (e.g. the Donatist split).
None of this should be surprising. Christ said:
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword (Matt. 10:34).
And Paul said “there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized” (1 Cor. 11:19). Indeed, so common was controversy that he regarded it as an essential trait of elders that they know how to avoid it where it was unprofitable (1 Tim. 3:3; 2 Tim. 2:16; Tit. 3:9), and how to handle it where it was appropriate (2 Tim. 2:25; Tit. 1:9).
In this we touch a matter of the utmost importance. Granting that controversy is inevitable, God has given us instructions on how to handle it. If someone controverts sound doctrine or stirs up division and will not repent when rebuked, he is to be avoided:
“I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.” (Rom. 16:27)
“As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him” (Tit. 3:9)
“Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.” (2 Thess. 3:6)
“If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.” (2 Thess. 3:14)
Indeed, scripture provides for much stricter discipline than we are inclined to imagine. 2 John 10 says that we are not even to greet false teachers. 1 Cor. 5:11 says to not even eat with anyone who professes faith and is guilty of certain severe moral faults. And Christ says that those who refuse to repent private offenses are to be regarded as outside the church (Matt. 18:15-17). These things being so, how much more worthy of avoidance are those that stubbornly promote false doctrine or commit scandal before the whole world!
And yet there are some in our day who seem to be discontent with such straightforward instructions, or who are perplexed that controversy is so common in our midst and receives the response mentioned above. In a recent article Jake Meador wrings his hands anxiously because he believes that ‘evangelicalism’ is a “controversy generator machine,” and he believes that this is the source of needless strife that admits of no clear resolution. By contrast, he sees in the institutional church a suitable alternative that has prescribed processes for resolving controversy. I confess, such an opinion makes me want to lay my head in my hands and weep. Meador and I are both members and frequent observers of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)’s internal controversies, and for him to make such claims is extraordinary indeed.
One, the church is not merely an institution represented in those formal ecclesiastical bodies that Meador vaunts, but is also the communion of saints, comprising “all those throughout the world that profess the true religion,” as the PCA’s official confession of faith puts it (Westminster Confession 25.2).
Read More
Related Posts:
