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…

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 want to move to a text that many contemporary exegetes and theologians have really disappointed me when they interpret Paul here, namely 2 Corinthians 5:21. In this post We’ll look at this text and how Isaiah 53:11 impacts the text and how we should understand Paul here in light of it.

Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 5:17-21:

17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Paul here is speaking of God’s new creation that has come into effect through the reconciling work of Jesus Christ. Paul speaks of being Christ’s ambassador, pleading with the world to be reconciled to God. He is the means by which God appeals to the fallen and sinful world to come back to God and participate in the new creation. In reconciling the world to himself, God does not count their sins against them because, employing a traditional formula, the innocent Christ has become sin for our sake so that in him we can become God’s righteousness.

Now let us note the parallel between Isaiah 53:11 and 2 Corinthians 5:21. In Isaiah 53:11, the innocent Servant was wounded and crushed for Israel’s iniquities and rebellious deeds. After the Servant suffered, he is resurrected the Righteous One and as a result the many are justified–restored to proper covenant relationship with I AM.

continue reading…

Moving along in my dabbling in the justification passages in Paul and their relationship to Isaiah 53:11. In Acts 13:38-39, the resurrection of the crucified Jesus in an unstated way effected justification for “everyone who believes.” This parallels what was seen in Isaiah 53:11 where the “Righteous One, my [Yahweh's] servant will justify the many.” Isaiah 53:11 provided the conceptual framework for Paul to articulate justification as he did in Antioch Psidia, resurrection leads to justification. First Timothy 3:16 is another text that I’d likd to look at. Isaiah’s prophecy figures very prominently in Paul’s letter to young Timothy continue reading…

Before moving on in the narrative of the Bible, I want to look at new creation, union with Christ, and how they play into Obtaining the shalom that was forfeited by Adam. Adam rebelled against the creator I AM in the garden of Eden. A curse was placed upon Adam and his posterity. I AM then set up a community, a kingdom, called Israel. But this community failed to bring back shalom. A king was promised by I AM who would come and restore peace to I AM’s creation. I AM fulfilled this promise, many centuries later, in the person of Jesus Christ. He was that king who purchased shalom by his death and resurrection here on earth. For humanity to gain back that peace we saw that humanity must submit themselves to Jesus and trust wholly in what he did to achieve peace. I AM unites that believer to Jesus so that they can take part in the new community centered around a new covenant and exist in shalom. Before we move on from this pause in the action, I want to look at new creation and the role it plays here in humanity and the created order returning to shalom. continue reading…

The King came…and died…and was raised from the grave.

Having died the most gruesome death and lying lifeless in the grave for days, Jesus rose to life and walked out of the tomb. He was indeed king, king over all life. But what had Jesus done, what was accomplished in dying and rising from the dead? What does it have to do with the need to get shalom back? The question needs to be addressed to make sense of it all. Jesus demonstrated he was the coming king who was to speak peace to the nations, whose kingdom was to extend from sea to sea. But how does he bring back shalom? continue reading…

A Davidic king was promised (by pre-exilic prophets such as Isaiah and Micah). It would seem that when I AM brought Israel back to her land that this king would come. But Judah came back to Judea and no king arose. Instead, the promise of a Davidic king was restated (by prophets like Zechariah). Yet no king came. A question does arise in the silence, will I AM keep his word? He brought back Judah from exile as promised, not to mention the millennia during which I AM promised and then fulfilled that promise. But century upon century passes without a king. Will I AM bring his king? continue reading…

I’d like to direct you all to this article from the New York Times Magazine about Mark Driscoll and the “new Calvinism.” It’s really interesting, and definitely highlights some important issues surrounding both Driscoll and the (relatively) recent Calvinism resurgence.

I find this quote, from the final page of the article, especially interesting:

Nowhere is the connection between Driscoll’s hypermasculinity and his Calvinist theology clearer than in his refusal to tolerate opposition at Mars Hill. The Reformed tradition’s resistance to compromise and emphasis on the purity of the worshipping community has always contained the seeds of authoritarianism: John Calvin had heretics burned at the stake and made a man who casually criticized him at a dinner party march through the streets of Geneva, kneeling at every intersection to beg forgiveness. Mars Hill is not 16th-century Geneva, but Driscoll has little patience for dissent. In 2007, two elders protested a plan to reorganize the church that, according to critics, consolidated power in the hands of Driscoll and his closest aides. Driscoll told the congregation that he asked advice on how to handle stubborn subordinates from a “mixed martial artist and Ultimate Fighter, good guy” who attends Mars Hill. “His answer was brilliant,” Driscoll reported. “He said, ‘I break their nose.’ ” When one of the renegade elders refused to repent, the church leadership ordered members to shun him. One member complained on an online message board and instantly found his membership privileges suspended. “They are sinning through questioning,” Driscoll preached. John Calvin couldn’t have said it better himself.

I’m personally not a very big fan of Driscoll. I think what he’s done on the cultural front is important and interesting…but this article highlights the exact reasons why his hyper-authoritarian militaristic brand of Christianity (and the Calvinist roots behind it) scares me. Any thoughts, comments, reflections?

One of the key debates that occurs nearly every Christmas is over the authenticity and necessity of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. One of the reasons that conservative Christians insist upon the virgin birth is to maintain the deity of Christ. He would merely be a man if Joseph was his biological father, not just his human father in an adoptive sense.

My question is this, given that the New Testament, especially Paul and John, insists upon the deity of Jesus while maintaining his humanity, how can one keep this “hyperstatic union” without having the virgin birth? Do we have to sacrifice the divinity of Jesus if the virgin birth is inauthentic? Or can we keep Jesus’ deity and get rid of the virgin birth?

Because of the length of this post, I decided to break it into two smaller ones rather than one long one. So please see “To Fulfill What Was Spoken By The LORD 1/2″ to catch up here. I am just going to launch right into the second part of my look at how Jesus’ flight to Egypt fulfills what was spoken by Yahweh in Hosea 11:1. continue reading…