As Adam represented humanity as a covenant head, so Christ will represent a renewed humanity as the New Covenant head. This helps us understand a very important aspect of justification, that in its essence it is properly a legal declaration and not an act of changing the individual. In other words, on the cross, Jesus, who had our sin imputed to him (2 Cor. 5:21), was not transformed into a sinner. No, when Paul says that God made him to be sin who knew no sin, he means that Jesus was accounted as (legally declared) a sinner. To use a philosophical term, ontologically Jesus was not a sinner. Ever. To use a theological term, Jesus was a scapegoat. Our sins were laid upon him.

Westminster divine, Anthony Burges, contended that “of all points of Divinity, there is none that with more profit and comfort we may labour in, then in that of Justification, which is stiled by some articulus stantis & cadentis ecclesiae, the Church stands or fals[sic], as the truth of this is asserted.”[1] The Biblical doctrine of Justification is indeed a foundational pillar within Christ’s church, a doctrine which, if misunderstood, could wreak havoc and certainly cause a church to fall.[2] In an earlier post I’ve examined the ways in which this doctrine has been misunderstood.[3] Where do we find this doctrine in Scripture? Well, as with all doctrines, but especially this one, we begin with God.[4]
God, who is Good and Holy, hates sin. Indeed, if we’re to take Psalm 5:5 at face value, He also hates the sinner. This is hard news for sinners like us. And though many may quibble about the tone in which such news is communicated, that hard news is a necessary piece of information to know and believe before ever hearing the good news of the Gospel. “God is a righteous judge, and a God who feels indignation every day” (Psalm 7:11) William Plumer comments here on the immutable righteousness of God that “because the wicked are always wicked and because God is always holy, therefore his relation to them is ever one of opposition, of threatening, of anger.”[5] How could it be any different? As God Himself puts it, “I will not justify the wicked” (Exodus 23:7). The question that inevitably arises is the question which Job asked his friends, “how can a [sinful] man be in the right before God” (Job 9:2)?
As the Old Testament develops an interesting motif develops. The divine righteousness that must condemn me as a sinner is also the same divine righteousness I need for salvation. Hence, we can read in Psalm 31:1 where David asks of God, “Save me by your righteousness.” In other words, the righteousness of God is both judgmental, stemming from a heart of holy indignation (He must punish all sin and all sinners) but also salvific, stemming from a heart of mercy, grace, and love (He will yet save some of those sinners). In God’s simplicity then we see these twin truths: His righteousness is both a threat against sinners but at the same time the only hope for sinners.
This perplexing conundrum comes to a wonderful convergence in the prophetic writing of Isaiah where we read that because of Israel’s sin, God has judged his people and sent them into exile on account of His righteousness. But at the same time God can promise that “salvation and righteousness may [still] bear fruit” (Is. 45:8) and that His “righteousness draws near, [His] salvation has gone out”(Is. 51:5). Indeed, “Only in the Lord… are righteousness and strength; In the Lord all the offspring of Israel shall be justified and shall glory” (Is. 45:24-25). It’s clear that in Isaiah this justifying – which Isaiah understood as the salvific righteousness of God – is only accomplished in the coming Messiah. It is this Messiah – who is both from God and among men  – who will be pierced for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities, and “by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my Servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities” (Isaiah 53:5, 11). Isaiah is clear, what the Messiah accomplishes, he accomplished because of and on account of those he represents.[6]
It is this theology that Paul picks up in Romans, giving fuller expression to a doctrine of justification. It is worth quoting the key passage in full.
“The righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.”
Read More
Related Posts:

Women, whether you are called to work in the workplace or raise your children in the home or balance a combination of both, you are called to be faithful. And despite what our society says to women called to serve exclusively in the home, your work of raising and discipling the next generation has eternal implications. This is a sacred calling; don’t believe lies that tell a different story by demeaning your work.

Over the last several decades and especially the last few weeks, a woman’s “freedom of choice” has been a common phrase heard on Capitol Hill. However, what is usually implied by this phrase is the freedom to end the life of an innocent unborn child. Recently, two hearings took place in the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight and Reform Committee to review the legality and the morality of the Texas Heartbeat Act (S.B. 8). These hearings also provided another platform for Democrats to push their radical abortion policies.
Pro-abortion Democrats in both chambers argued that the only way for a woman to truly be free and equal in this country is to have the ability to abort her child if she so chooses. In fact, implicit in what many of the Democratic witnesses and the Democrat members of Congress have suggested is that women who choose homemaking and childrearing over a career are somehow unequal in this country. What happened to that “empowering” phrase, “freedom of choice”? Why are women who are called to be stay-at-home mothers being demeaned for making this choice?
As an engaged woman preparing for marriage, I was deeply frustrated with the comments suggesting that what I feel called to do will make me unequal to other women. My calling is always first and foremost to serve God. When I get married, it will also be my calling to serve my husband. Should the Lord bless me with children, it will also be my calling to serve them. But according to the Democrats, choosing to prioritize those things before my career will make me unequal because I will allegedly be less able to contribute to the economy, to society, and to politics.
However, Proverbs 31:10-31 shows that the contemporary disdain directed toward homemakers is vastly different from the vision presented in Scripture.
Read More

In our age of rapid, digital communication, “fake news” is as common as ever. As we’ve seen, disinformation regarding complementarianism abounds, whether those arguments are theological, historical, or moral. May we not be fooled by such claims. Rather, let us be like Bereans, testing to see if these things are so.

Donald Trump made the idea of “fake news” famous. Some reports say he used the term around 2,000 times during his tenure as president of the United States. According to Trump, news outlets proliferated lies and sowed false information to tear him down and hinder his work.
Fake news or disinformation is nothing new, however. For years, it has been used by governments to spread false ideas and promote narratives as well as by military units to mislead the enemy with false tactics. This disinformation served their purposes and aimed to help them win elections and war(s).
This spread of disinformation is not limited to government and military tactics. Sadly, it is a regular occurrence in the world of theology as well. Whether perpetuated ignorantly or purposefully and willfully, this disinformation poses great danger to the church today. Where do we see such “fake news”? Oftentimes, it comes in the form of an argument against a position that has been unfairly represented. For a recent example, see Randy Davis’s recent criticism of the Law Amendment in the Southern Baptist Convention. As Denny Burk helpfully points out, two out of Davis’s three objections are based on arguments that simply aren’t true.
What I’m concerned about here is not Donald Trump nor the Law Amendment in particular, but rather the spread of disinformation as it relates to complementarianism more broadly—the nature and roles of men and women. And this information doesn’t come merely from the outside of the camp. Instead, disinformation about complementarity is pasted on Twitter, promoted on Facebook, and spread via blog posts and magazine articles at an increasingly high rate from outside and inside the complementarian camp.
I can think of several categories of disinformation when it comes to complementarity: theological disinformation, historical disinformation, and moral disinformation. I’m sure others could add more. In this article, I will examine claims from each of these categories, demonstrating how they all fail to accurately describe the complementarian argument.
Theological Disinformation
Theologically, we have false ideas about complementarianism making their way around the internet, into books and articles, and into personal conversations. Two wrongheaded and unfounded biblical and pastoral-theological errors seem common.
First, some argue that complementarianism is built on a handful of passages. This narrative aims to convince readers that the theological position is built on shaky foundations. And, it suggests by contrast that egalitarianism is more faithful to the grand sweep of Scripture. For example, Jennifer Bradshaw writes, “Complementarians base their theology on a few passages in Genesis and select verses from some New Testament epistles.”[1] Well, to borrow from our ex-President: “fake news!”
Now, this brief article isn’t the place to outline all the passages complementarians use to build their theological house. Instead, If you want proof that the complementarity position is built with lots of biblical bricks, read the various iterations of Eikon, the theological journal from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Notice the dozens of theological arguments, exegetical insights, and massive volume of biblical-theological thinking that’s at the bottom of complementarity. Or, pick up Rediscovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by Wayne Grudem and John Piper. You don’t have to agree with them to acknowledge that the authors in that book lean into the whole Bible to make their case. Simply turn to the Scripture index. It runs over seven pages and lists dozens and dozens of passages from both the Old and New Testaments. Are there key passages in this debate? Sure. But admitting there are key passages is a far cry from relying on or basing a theological position “on a few passages.”
Second, some want to make it seem as though complementarians are simply interested in barring women from ministry in the church overall. That is, some egalitarians erroneously say complementarians believe that only men should have ministries of any type in a local congregation. Consider Jennifer Bradshaw again. When she outlines the basic components of the complementarian position, it doesn’t take long for her to go off course. Here is what she writes:
Simply defined, complementarianism argues the following points (claiming, of course, that these are the “Biblical” view):

that men and women were created in God’s image, equal in worth, but that they were created for different roles;
that men are the leaders (or heads) in the home and the church and women are helpers to men, created to raise children and tend to the home; and
that leadership roles in churches, especially the office of senior pastor, are prohibited for women—women are not gifted or meant for leadership in the Church.[2]

She starts strong. As a complementarian, I agree with point 1. Point 2 states some true things, though her agenda starts to bleed through (raise children and tend the home are reductionistic. Yet, the rhetoric is meant to score an emotional point, it seems). Point 3, however, is either disingenuous or simply ignorant. She uses the broad idea of “leadership roles in the churches” to suggest complementarians bar women from any form of church leadership. When she does this, she specifically broadens the prohibition of female leadership beyond the bounds of the “senior pastor.” According to her view, complementarians bar women from “leadership in the Church” (a broad concept) that is “especially” applied narrowly to the “senior pastor” position. So, no leadership in the church at all…including senior pastorates. Well, again, fake news.
Read More
Related Posts: