Theology for the Masses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lord willing I might be teaching my old youth group back in KC over Thanksgiving. As such I figured I would teach on Mark 5:1-20. I am wondering if anyone has the time if they could provide some constructive feedback to the sermon/message. I’ll warn you that the sermon is in manuscript form–it’s what helps me preach most effectively–so it’s a little long, 10 pages in Microsoft Word. So if you don’t have time to read all ten pages before the holiday it’s okay. continue reading…

In my quest to gain a whole-Bible understanding of justification I want to look at another psalm that utilizes righteousness/justification language, Psalm 82. I say whole-Bible because the Old Testament forms the background to and informs the New Testament’s understanding of justification. The theme of justification runs through the whole Bible and so I don’t want to isolate the New Testament from the Old Testament. There will be some differences between the two testaments but there will be commonality too. I go to Psalm 82 because it contains an appearance of the verbal form of sdq. continue reading…

In this post I wish to look at the impact of Isaiah 53:11 and Romans 5:18-19 and how they influence justification. Romans 4:25 has been shown that Paul (or someone from whom Paul adapts a traditional Christological formula) does in fact read Isaiah 53:11 into his doctrine of justification in that the resurrection of the Righteous One, Jesus Messiah, effects justification for the people of God. This follows what was seen in Acts 13:38-39 and that Jesus being the Righteous One comes from being raised by the Spirit of God, vindicated or justified in that resurrection or by that resurrection. It does seem that Isaiah 53:11 is playing a very central role in how Paul understands our justification. continue reading…

Sometimes a person can read the Scripture and completely pass over a particular text that can have massive import on shaping one’s theology and understanding of a particular doctrine. I can remember my time as an Arminian (though not a full five-pointer as I was and am Southern Baptist) skipping over John 6 and Romans 9. If I ever did read them I would just pass over them quickly and not pay attention to them. I know that Arminians can have their take on those texts but at least he or she has a theology shaped by them, mine wasn’t. The same is true for me in regards to Romans 4:25. What Paul says there is very important to shaping justification and how to understand our right standing before God and Jesus’ role in accomplishing that standing. The background for understanding this text is Isaiah 53:11 and the following is my attempt to persuade you the read to see that. continue reading…

Last time we looked at Isaiah 53:11 and saw that through the resurrection of the Suffering Servant he became the Righteous One. And through this one, who is now the Righteous One, the many are justified. Now how does this provide a background for the Pauline doctrine and formulation of justification? That is the question we turn to here in the next few posts. First is the book of Acts, specifically Paul’s statements. Up first is Acts 13:37-39. continue reading…

It didn’t work. Shalom, “peace,” did not return to I AM’s creation through the community of Israel. The laws, the sacrificial system, the priesthood, and the kings all failed to bring Israel back to shalom. Yet here is an interesting fact, some people saw that shalom was gone. Psalm 72 is a prayer either by King Solomon or for King Solomon for the king to bring back shalom. He prayed to I AM that the king would reign in righteousness and justice and fairness. The Psalmist wanted the king to liberate the oppressed and to extend forth godliness in his kingdom. This return to a place where peace will extend from sea to sea, from coast land to coast land, and the land will be at peace. This is a prayer for I AM to move the king to guide the people back to shalom, but not just the people of Israel but to extend Israel universally. This prayer concludes with the Psalmist’s faith in I AM to answer this prayer. Through his prophets, I AM does promise to raise up a king who will deliver the people from the chaos and destruction that happened when I AM cursed the created order with the removal of shalom. continue reading…

Student: ‘Professor, what happens at the Rapture?’

Liberal Professor: ‘Well, at the Rapture you walk up to your window, look outside, see people floating up into the sky, and then you should say to yourself, “Well, I’ll be damned!”‘

H/T: Euangelion

Here is a link to an excellent discussion of the whole debate on NPP and justification in Paul. Do enjoy this fascinating post.

I am curious about what the authors here might think of Dr. Ben Witherington’s comments on the New Perspective on Paul. Is this a good middle ground between the two sides?

Here is the article: The New Perspective on Paul and the Law– Reviewed

I don’t think I’ve detected any rampant Dispensationalism here at Mass Theology. However, here are some thoughts/observations on the White Horse in Revelation 6. As you can tell from my previous posts and this one – I sure do love inner-book word studies. They just seem to clear up so much bad theology.

In Revelation 6:2, when the Lamb who was slain unfastens the first of 7 seals, a white horse comes forth carrying a rider who holds a bow, but no arrows. This rider is given a crown and rides out as a conqueror to conquer. Dispensationalists often interpret this rider to be the anti-Christ – the eschatological one who will come and dupe the world into following him. He fools them by bringing peace (hence no arrows), and for 3.5 years is a peaceful chap until something snaps in him and he goes berserk in a cosmic sort of way.

Contrary to this popular interpretation, though, this figure in chapter 6 is hardly some eschatological anti-messiah. This figure really is the actual Messiah, Jesus Christ. He comes forth to conquer, but does not do so with violence – again, the lack of arrows in his bow.

This fact of the crucified, peacemaking Jesus being the figure represented as riding a white horse is supported by simple word studies in the passage. And here’s where I will spend the rest of my time.

First, the Gk. word for white (λευκὀς) only, only, only occurs in reference to Jesus, God, or the faithful followers of Jesus in John’s apocalypse. White is the color of righteous triumph, the color of those who have overcome, the color of the One who delivers the revelation of God. In fact, in 19:11, another (probably the same) white horse comes out with a rider on it who is explicitly shown to be Jesus – the One called Faithful and True. Now, John’s imagery is often difficult to interpret, but I seriously doubt he would put both Jesus and the anti-Christ on the same white horse (or even two horses that came from the same mother). This color is strictly reserved for the righteous and the Righteous One, not the world or Babylon.

Second, the crown this rider receives is the Gk. word (στέφανη) employed only, only, only in reference to the believers and Christ in Revelation. The Beast and other antagonists in Revelation sport a different crown altogether – a completely different Gk. word. The one time an antagonist does wear this righteous crown, Revelation says it is “like a στέφανη of gold” (ὥ στέφανοι χρυσοί ), not an actual στεφανόη. That is, this is a fake στέφανοη.

Third, the Gk. word for conquer (νικών) – from which we get the word “Nike” – is employed only, only, only in relation to Jesus and the saints who faithfully followed him. There are 2 exceptions to this in Revelation, but the overwhelming evidence points to the use I have mentioned here. Furthermore, in the previous chapter – the immediate context, that is – (5:5) the imagery directly pointed to Jesus being the conqueror. John expects his readers to still have that imagery in their mind when they come to this horse.

Fourth, I would look at the bow. Dispensationalists often say that the anti-Christ will conquer with peace, but unfortunately miss that Jesus has already conquered with peace. Jesus brings peace, not through a sword, not through military might, but through being the Lamb that was slain. They got the peace right – they just gave it to the wrong person.

Finally, offering an argument from silence, I would also note that the word “anti-Christ” not only never occurs in this passage, but never occurs outside the books of 2 & 3 John. And there the anti-Christ’s were among the people – they were not some eschatological figure waiting to deceive the world – the deception is occurring now!

Ok, more later, but for now, let me know what you think – especially you Dispensationalists out there in Mass Theology land. Why must this figure be the anti-Christ? In the end, I think the evidence I have provided here is overwhelming, but I’m up for someone making an attempt….(I say with a challenging wink and sly smile).