Theology for the Masses

This is the most amazing and biting sentence I have ever read.

I appreciate that for so many people in late Western modernity the idea of people “living within a controlling narrative” seems foreign (though we all do it cheerfully: every time people say “in this day and age” they are appealing to an assumed idea of modernity, or progress, or enlightenment); that for many Christians within the Protestant traditions the idea of continuing history as having importance in itself, and of expecting deliverance within history, is not on the radar screen, perhaps for implicit religious reasons; and that for many, perhaps most, contemporary Western readers of the New Testament (John Piper’s “ordinary folk” perhaps), the effort required to think into a worldview where people were thinking to themselves, When is God going to do what he’s promised? is all too much, and they shake their heads and settle back into the comfort of a non-historical soteriology the long and short of which is “my relationship with God” rather than “what God is doing to sort out the world and his people.”

Wright, Justification, p. 61

That is one sentence; Paul would be proud.  Also – where is the evidence of the Lucado personal relationship theology?

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…

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…

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Most scholars agree that the 24^th Psalm, despite its ambiguous compositional history, was employed in processional ceremonies pertaining to the return of the Ark to Jerusalem.[1] The antiphonal aspects of the Psalm, composing of two-thirds of its content, suggest a dramatic, liturgical movement between the priests within the city gates and those who bore the Ark back into the city.[2]

Traditionally, scholars thought the psalm originated in the initial relocation of the Ark from the residence of Obed-edom to Jerusalem by King David (2 Sam. 6:12). This association most likely accounts for the ascription, “A Psalm of David” (rAmðz>miñ dwI©d”l.), and while the psalm may have ancestry in that event and the early monarchy,[3] the ascription must nevertheless be questioned. The most likely explanation of authorship and composition is exilic or pre-exilic[4] monarchial priests.[5]

With that background in place, the remainder of these posts will concern themselves with working from within the text itself, beginning with a brief sketch of the structure of the psalm and concluding with a lengthier set of comments on the noteworthy features. The persistent premise throughout is that the proclamation pertaining to Yahweh’s acts in creation are the controlling thought for the entire psalm. The moral requirements and the kingship metaphor and inseparably linked to the idea of Yahweh’s defeat of the forces of chaos in creation.

STRUCTURE

The structure of the 24^th Psalm is straightforward, splitting into three distinct elements: First, verses 1-2 herald Yahweh’s sovereign ownership of all creation. Second, verses 3-6 reveal the moral requirements of those who aspire to admission into the “holy place.” Finally, verses 7-10 are a declaration of the identity of the “King of Glory” as “Yahweh Sabaoth.”

While the structure of the psalm is easy enough to examine, the thematic intention of its arrangement is the crux of the interpretive process.[6] Most scholars suggest the central subject matter of the psalm is Yahweh’s kingship, secured in the first section by His subdual of the forces of chaos, strengthened in the second section by the maintenance of His moral requirements, and finally in the overt announcement of his kingship in the third section.

The principal theme, connected of course with Yahweh’s kingship, is Yahweh as creator. This theme substantiates the kingship metaphor, not the other way around. Thus Yahweh’s creative activities have exegetical priority in that all that follows should be read though that lens. This is supported, most specifically, in the first two verses, which, as I will argue, form a general assertion which gets particularized throughout the entirety of the psalm.

---

[1] One of the key indicators suggesting the connection between this psalm and the Ark is the divine title “Yahweh Sabaoth.” This was a popular designation when referring to Yahweh’s warrior-like actions, which were often associated with the presence of Ark of the Covenant during battle.

[2] Related to this, it has been suggested that this Psalm was a hymn used during the procession whereby the two voices the antiphonal liturgy are actually two choirs of alternating singers. Mitchell Dahood, Psalms I: 1-50. The Anchor Bible: Vol. 16. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 151.

[3] Anchoring the psalm in the early monarchy helps explain the otherwise unknown title “King of Glory” in vs. 7-10. Even if the psalm is not in its final compositional stage in the early monarchy, it seems clear enough that aspects of it go back that far. The priests in the early monarchy would have easily linked the rise of the monarchy with Yahweh’s kingship.

[4] Furthermore, a pre-exilic dating is indicated by the fact that the employment of antiphonal liturgical movements in this Psalm are well attested to long before the Exile and are imitated by both the prophets Micah and Hosea. Hermann Gunkel, An Introduction to the Psalms. (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998), 318.

[5] Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament. Vol. 1, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), 196. Eichrodt also suggests the psalm is related to the royal festivals on Zion where by there was a “visitation of the people by their God.”  The purpose was not to re-enthrone Yahweh, but to reaffirm Yahweh’s election of Zion and the establishment of Israel’s king (127).

[6] Gerald H. Wilson, Psalms. Vol. 1, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 446.

What are interested when it comes to theology?  Are those the things you do well or have a passion to do well? 

Well, what about your theological disinterests?  What do they say about you?  Are they areas of growth, are they areas of sin? 

What about the communities of which you are apart?

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…

I have just finished reading a pair of books engaging in the New Perspective on Paul debate and dealing with justification. The books presented a middle ground that I am still trying to put my mind around. I like what was said in the two books but I need to read them again to make sure I have understood them, and do some more checking upon their exegeses. But here are some questions that came to mind from reading these books.

1.) What impact does 1 Kings 8:32 and Psalm 82:1-3 and each usage of sdq (LXX: dikaiow) on how we are to understand justification (cf. Luke 18:1-8 and the woman crying out for vengeance)? In each case sdq isn’t merely a declaration of a person being righteous but that I AM in 1 Kings 8 is being asked to act in accordance with his declaration, as I AM commands the “gods” to vindicate, both to declare the poor and afflicted to be in the right and to act on their behalf. How does this relate to Paul, specifically, and the NT as a whole, the the discussion of justification?

2.) What role does the resurrection of Christ play in justification? In Acts 13:32-29, Paul links justification and forgiveness of sins to the resurrection of Christ. In Romans 4:25 Paul links our justification explicitly to Jesus’ resurrection, not to mention defining the gospel in terms of Jesus resurrection (Romans 1:2-5; Romans 10:9-10). To further complicate matters, 1 Corinthians 6:11 and 1 Timothy 3:16 speaks of justification not only in terms of resurrection but also in terms of the Spirit.

3.) Nowhere in the NT is it stated that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the one who believes. We are righteous “in Christ” (e.g. Philippians 3:9; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Yet one cannot deny that the NT utilizes “imputation” language (e.g. Romans 4:4-8) in reference to justification. How does imputation and union with Christ work together?

4.) Romans 1:16 is Paul’s declaration of him being unashamed of the gospel. In Romans 1:16-18, Paul uses γὰρ three times to introduce a new phrase or idea. In Romans 1:16 it says that the gospel is the power of God for salvation. In Romans 1:17 it appears that Paul is using γὰρ to say that the gospel reveals (ἀποκαλύπτεται) God’s righteousness from faith to faith and then cites Habakkuk 2:4 in support of his claim. Then in Romans 1:18 is Paul using γὰρ in the same way as in Romans 1:16-17? The parallel between Romans 1:17 and 1:18 in the use of ἀποκαλύπτεται is striking. Does God reveal his wrath against unrighteousness in the same gospel that reveals God’s righteousness and that is God’s power to save? How does this change one’s understanding of the gospel and justification and salvation if the answer to this question is an affirmative answer? Is there any change to Protestant position if the answer is in the negative?

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…

As we draw near to Easter and celebrate the death, resurrection, and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ and all that he accomplished for us, I was reminded this morning of one important theme that is present with the coming Messiah: peace. The Messiah was to create peace between Israel and her God, I AM, as well as between Israel and the nations/Gentiles. So this week, I wanted to trace these themes from their Old Testament prophetic roots, namely the Law and the Prophets, to their fulfillment in Jesus Christ. And thus be reminded that we have peace not only with those who will call upon the name of Jesus as their Lord and Savior, but with I AM whom humanity has spurned in its rebellion against him. Easter is a celebration of peace. continue reading…

As for history and theology, I continue to maintain that we must perceive these as separate fields. Theology is not history and history is not theology. Theology is a hermeneutic which attempts to take old authoritative texts and read them doctrinally, with the big question at stake: what does this text say to me about my life as a Christian? Theology isnt “bad.” Defining it next to “history” just recognizes that “theology” has a different goal than “history”. It also has a different set of assumptions, and one is that the laws of the physical world can be suspended: as in dead people can be resurrected and virgins can give birth. The quest for truth operates in a completely different arena from the historical quest for truth, approaching more the realm of philosophy and philosophys criticism of history than anything else.

via The Forbidden Gospels Blog: Theology is not history.

Some food for thought.

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?