preaching-christ-march-april-1993

PREACHING CHRIST .. w~ ~ ~t ~wvtt4'41 tt4 e~ ~ ~ ~

\

" ~ ..­

modernREFORMAnON © is a production of CURE Publications Ltd.

Editor-in-chief

modern REFORMATION

MARCH/APRIL 1993

Michael S. Horton

Managing Editor

PREACHING CHRI T

Shane Rosenthal

Assistant Managing Editors Paul Gelorrnino Doug Hoisington

Layout Design Sarah McReynolds Shane Rosenthal

Production Supervisor Alan Maben

Staff Writers Michael S. Horton Rich Gilbert Dr. Robert Godfrey Alan Maben Kim Riddlebarger Rick Ritchie Dr. Rod Rosenbladt

Artists John Dearstyne Paul Swift

CURE Board of Directors Douglas Abendroth Howard F. Ahmanson Cheryl Biehl Robert den Dulk Dr. W. Robert Godfrey Richard Hermes Michael S. Horton

Executive Leadership Team President

ARTICLES

1

Preaching Christ Alone

by Michael S. Horton

7

What Is This "Law & Gospel" Thing?

by Rick Ritchie

Hermeneutics & Biblical Theology

12

by Dr. Steven M. Baugh

Christ in the Heidelberg Catechism

19

by Dr. Robert Godfrey

22

Corinthian Distractions

by Michael S. Horton

The Moralistic Impulse in American Evangelicalism

25

by Dr. Daryl G. Hart

Christ & The Book of Revelation

27

by Rich Gilbert

29

Temptation in the Wilderness

by Michael S. Horton

Michael S. Horton

Executive Vice President Kim Riddlebarger

DEPARTMENTS

Executive Administrator Jo Horton

Vice President of Communications Alan Maben

Vice President of Development Dan Bach

Vice President of Media & Production Shane Rosenthal

Treasurer Micki Riddlebarger CURE is a non-profit educational foundation committed to communicating the insights of the 16th century Reforma­ tion to the 20th century Church. For more information, call during business hours at: (714) 956-CURE, or write us at: Christians United for Reformation 2034 E. Lincoln Ave. #209 Anaheim, CA 92806

6 16 33

We Confess Interview: with R. C. Sproul Book Review

p------------------------.

• • • • •

SUBSCRIBE TO...

•

A Bi-Monthly Theological Magazine Published by Christians United for Reformation

• D •

• D • •

•

1 year (6 issues) $18.00

2 years (12 issues) $36.00 Copy & send to: CURE

2034 E. Lincoln #209 Anaheim, CA 92806

•

Name Address

• • •

City/StiZip Phone

,~ ~__ i

._----------------------_.

¡

Preaching Christ Alone

If our preaching does not center on Christ, from Genesis to Revelation, no

1110dernREFORMATION

wonders, "How can I make sense of it all?"

Below, I want to point out why we think there has been a decline of evangelical preaching in this important area.

matter how good or helpful, it is not aproclamation of God's word.

Moralism

By MICHAEL HORTON .

"y'

ou search the Scriptures in vain, thinking that you have eternal life in them, not realizing that it is they which testify concerning me."

With these words, our Lord confronted what has always been the temptation in our reading of holy scripture: to read it without Christ as the supreme focus of revelation.

Many people who come to embrace the specific tenets of the Protestant Reformation (grace alone, scripture alone, Christ alone, to God alone be glory, faith alone, etc.) are liberated by the good news ofGod's free grace in Christ. Pastors who used to preach a human-centered message suddenly become impassionate defenders of God's glory, and particular doctrines that often characterized the messages and shaped the teaching ministry of the congregation are exchanged for more­ biblical truths. This is all very exciting, of course, and we should be grateful to God for awakening us (this writer included) to the doctrines ofgrace. Nevertheless, there are deeper issues involved.

Not infrequently, we run into a church that is very excited about having just discovered the Reformation faith, but the preaching remains what it always was: witty, ~erhaps anecdotal (plenty ofstories and illustrations that often serve the purpose of entertainment rather than illumination of a point), and moralistic (Bible characters surveyed for their usefulness in teac~ing moral lessons for " our daily life). This is because we have not 'Yet integrated our systematic theology with our hermeneutics (i.e., way of interpreting Scripture). We say, "Christ

alone!" in our doctrine of salvation, but in actual practice our devotional life is saturated with sappy and trivial "principles" and the preaching is often directed toward motivating us through practical tips.

What we intend to do in this issue is present an urgent call to recover the lost art ofReformational preaching. This isn't just a matter of concern for preachers themselves, for the ministry of the Word is something that is committed to every believer, since we are all witnesses to God's unfolding revelation in Christ. It is not only important for those who speak for God in the pulpit, but for the layperson who reads his or her Bible and

I have already referred to this threat and it will be the target of a good deal of criticism throughout this issue. Whenever the story of David and Goliath is used to mO~lvate you to think about the "Gofiaths" in your life and the "Five Stones of Victory" used to defeat them, you have been the victim of moralistic p reaching. The same is true whenever the primary intention ofthe sermon is to give you a Bible hero to emulate or a villain to teach a lesson, like "crime doesn't pay," or, "sin doesn't really make you happy."

Reading or hearing the Bible in this way turns the Scriptures into a sort of Aesop Fables or Crimm sFairy Tales, where the stories exist for the purpose of teaching a lesson. Inhis Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis has Screwtape writing Wormwood in the

s

1\

MARCHJ APRIL 1993.

1

1nodern REFORMATION attempt to persuade Wormwood to undermine the faith by turning Jesus into a great hero and moralist: He has to be a 'great man' in the modern sense of the word-one standing at the terminus of some centrifugal and unbalanced line of thought-a crank vending a panacea. We thus distract men's minds from Who He is, and what He did. We first make Him solely a teacher, and then conceal the very substantial agreement between His teaching and those of other great moral teachers.

This is the greatest problem, from my own experience, with the preaching we hear today. There is such a demand to be practical-that is, to have clever principles for daily living. But the danger, of course, is that what one hears on SundaymorningisnotthewordofGod. To be sure, the scriptures are read (maybe) and there is a sermon (perhaps), but the message has more in common with a talk at the Lions Club, a pop­ psychology seminar, prophecy conference or political convention than with the proclamation of Christ and him crucified, the heavenly truth "from above."

Because we are already seated with Christ in the heavens (Eph.2:4) and are already participating in the new creation that dawned with Christ's resurrection, we are to be heavenly minded. This, of course, does not mean that we are irrelevant mystics who have no use for this world; rather, it means that we are oriented in our outlook tow~rd God rather than humanity (including ourselves), the eternal rather than this present age, holiness rather than happiness, glorifying God rather than demanding that God meet our "felt needs." Onlywith this kind oforientation can we be of use to this world as "salt" and "light," bearing a distinctive testimony to the transcendent in a world that is so bound to the present moment.

2

•

MARCH! APRIL 1993

Finally, moralism commits a basic hermeneutical error, from the Reformation point of view. Both Lu therans and the Reformed have insisted, in the words of the Second Helvetic Confession, "The gospel is, indeed, opposed to the law. For the law works wrath and announces a curse, whereas the gospel preaches grace and blessing." Calvin and his successor, Beza, followed the common Lutheran understanding that while both the law and the gospel were clearly taught in scripture (in both Old and New Testaments), the confusion of the two categories lay at the heart ofall wayward preaching and teaching in the church. It is not that the Old Testament believers were under the law and we are under grace or the gospel, but rather that believers in both Testaments are obligated to the moral law, to perfectly obey its precepts and conform to its purity not only in outward deed, but in the frame and fashion ofheart and soul.

And yet, in both testaments, believers are offered the gospel of Christ's righteousness placed over the naked, law-breaking sinner so that God can accept the wicked-yes, even the wicked-for the sake of Christ.

Both Lutherans and the Reformed have also affirmed that the law still has a place after conversion in the life of the believer, as the only commands for works that are now done in faith. Nevertheless, preaching must observe clearly the distinction between these two things. As John Murray wri tes, "The law can never give the believer any spiritual power to obey its commands." And yet, so much of the moralistic preaching we get these days presupposes the error that somehow principles, steps for victory, rules, and guidelines that the preacher has cleverly devised (the traditions of men?) will bring spiritual success to thoS!: who will simply put them into daily practice.

Those who are new in the faith regard this kind of preaching as useful and

practical; those who have been around it for a while eventually burn out and grow cynical about the Christian life,' because they cannot"gain victory" even though they have tried everything in the book.

It must be said that not even the commands of God himself can give us life or the power to grow as Christians.

The statutes are right and good, but I am not, Paul said in Romans 7. Even the believer cannot gain any strength from the law. The law can only tell him what is right; the gospel alone can make him right by giving him what he cannot gain by law-keeping. If the law itself is rendered powerless by human sinfulness, how on earth could we possibly believe that humanly devised schemes and principles for victory and spiritual power could achieve success? We look to the law for the standard, realizing that even as Christians we fall far short ofreaching it. Just then, the gospel steps in and tells us that someone has attained that standard, that victory, for us, in our place, and now the law can be preached again without tormenting our conscience. It cannot provoke us to fear or anxiety, since its demands are fulfilled by someone else's obedience.

Therefore, it is our duty to preach "the whole counsel of God," which includes everything in the category of law (the divine commandments and threats of punishment; the call to repentance and converSIOn, sanctification, and service to God and our neighbor) and in the category of gospel (God's promise of rest, from ' Genesis to Revelation; its fulfillment in Christ's death, burial and resurrection, ascension, intercession, second coming; the gift of faith, through which the believer is justified and entered into a vital union with Christ; the gift of persevering faith, which enables us _to­ pursue godliness in spite of suffering) .

But any type of preaching that fails to underscore the role of the law in

1110dern REFORMATION condemning the sinner and the role of the gospel in ·justifying the sinner or confuses these two is a serious violation ofthe distinction that Paul himself makes in Galatians 3: 15-25.

Much of the evangelical preaching with which I am familiar neither inspires a terror ofGod's righteousness nor praise for the depths ofGod's grace in his gift of righteousness. Rather, it is often a confusion of these two, so that the bad news isn't quite that bad and the good news isn't all that good. We actually can do something to get closer to God; we aren't so far from God that we cannot make use of the examples of the biblical characters and attain righteousness by following the "Seven Steps to the Spirit­ Filled Life." But in the biblical view, the biblical characters are not examples of their victory, but of God's! The life of David is not a testimony to David's faithfulness, surely, but to God's and for us to read any part ofthat story as though we could attain the gospel (righteousness) by the law (obedience) is the age-old error ofCain, the Pharisees, the Ga1atian Judaizers, the Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians, Armin-jans, and Higher Life proponents.

How should Genesis 4:8 be preached, for example, where Cain kills Abel and the Lord says, "What have you done?

Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground"? Would it be a sermon about murder or our responsibility for our neighbor's well­ being? Or would we think of Hebrews 12:24, where the writer declares, "Jesus [is] the mediator of a new covenant, and ... [ofj the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood ofAbel"? Is Joshua held up as a model for us to emulate, or are we reminded that there is a further rest in a better land, through the conquest ofa better warrior (Christ), and that this ultimate hope (salvation) was the point of the story: "For ifJoshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the

people of God.... " (Heb. 4:8)? I even recall very recently hearing a sermon on God's covering of Adam and Eve after they had sinned as a basis for moral decency in dress, when it is actually a shadow of the coming sacrifice of Christ that covers us in righteousness.

There are varieties ofmoralism. Some moralists are sentimental in their preaching. In other words, the goal is to be a helpful and loving nurturer who aims each Sunday to affirm his congregation with the wise sayings of a Jesus who sounds a lot like a talk-show therapist. Other moralists are harsh in

This isn't just a matter

of concern for preachers

themselves, for the

ministry of the Word is

something that is

committed to every

believer, since we are all

\vitnesses to God's

unfolding revelation

in Christ.

their preaching. Their gospel is, "Do this and you shall live. " In other words, unless you can measure a growth in holiness by any number ofindicators or barometers, you should not conclude that you are entitled to the promises. The gospel, for these preachers, is law, and the law is gospel. 0 ne can attain God's forgiveness and acceptance only through constant self-assessment. Doubt rather than assurance marks mature Christian reflection, these preachers insist, in sharp distinction to the tenderness ofthe Savior who excluded only those who thought they had jumped through all the right hoops. The sinners were welcome at Christ's table, the" righ teous" were clearly

not.

Therefore, even the Christian needs to be constantly reminded that his sanctification is so slow and imperfect in this life that not one single spiritual blessing can be pried from God's hand by obedience; it is all there in the Father's open, outstretched hand. This, ofcourse, is the death-knell to moralism of every stripe. The bad news is very bad indeed; the good news is greater than any earthly moral wisdom. That's why Paul said (paraphrased), "You Greek Christians in Corinth want moral wisdom? OK, I'll give you wisdom: Christ is made our righteousness, holiness, and redemption.

Aha! God in his foolishness is wiser than all the world's self-help gurus!" (1 Cor.

1:18-31).

Moralism might answer the "felt needs" of those who demand practical and inspirational pep talks on Sunday morning, but it cannot really be considered preaching.

Verse-By-Verse Expositions Having been raised in churches that painstakingly exegeted a particular passage verse by verse, I have profited from the insights this memodsometimes offers. Nevertheless, it too falls short of an adequate way of preaching, reading, or interpreting the sacred text.

First, an explanation of how this is done. I remember the pastor going through even rather brief books like Jude over a period ofseveral months and there we would be, pen and paper in hand as though we were in a classroom, following his outline-either printed in the bulletin oron an overhead projector.

Words would be taken apart like an auto mechanic taking apart an engine, conducting an extensive study on the root ofsome word in the Greek language.

This is inadvisable, first, because word studies often focus on etymology (i.e., what is the root of the word in the original language?) rather than on the use of the word in ancient literature, for MARCH/APRIL 1993

~

3

1110dernREFORMATION

very often the use ofa particular word in ancient literature had nothing at all to do with the root meaning of the word itself. It is dangerous to think of biblical words as magical or different somehow from the same words in the secular works of their day.

This approach is also dangerous because it "misses the forest for the trees." In other words, revelation is one long, unfolding drama of redemption and to get wrapped up in a technical analysis of bits and pieces fails to ·do justice to the larger context of the text.

What God intended as one continuous story that is proclaimed each week to remind the faithful of God's promise and our calling is often turned into an arduous and irrelevant search for words.

The same tendency is present in Bible study methods or study Bibles that outline, take apart, and put back together the pieces ofthe Bible in such a way as to get in the way of the scripture's inherent power and authority.

Another fault of this verse-by-verse method is that it often fails to appreciate the variety of genre in the biblical text and imposes a woodenly literalistic grid on passages that are meant to be preached, read, . or interpreted in a different way. The Bible is nota textbook ofgeometry that can be reductibnistically dissected for simple conclusions, but a book in which God himself speaks to us, disclosing his nature, his purpose, and his unfolding plan of redemption through history.

A final danger of this method is that it tends to remove the congregation from the text of scripture. Even though the hearers may be very involved taking notes, it only serves to reinforce in their experience that they could not simply sit down and read their English Bibles for themselves and discover the deeper meaning of the text apart from those who have the method down and know the original languages.

Carelessness Unfortunately, too much of the preaching we come across these days does not even have the merit of attempting a faithful exposition of the scriptures, as these preceding methods do. When John Calvin responded to Cardinal Sadoleto as to why Geneva was irretrievably Protestant, the Reformer included this indictment of the state of preaching before the Reformation: Nay, what one sermon was there from which old wives might not carry off more shimsies than they could devise at their own fireside in a month? For as sermons were usually then divided, the first half was devoted to those misty questions of the schools which might astonish the rude populace, while the second contained sweet stories and amusing speculations by which the hearers might be kept awake. Only a few expressions were thrown in from the Word of God, that by

th~ir majesty they might procure credit for these frivolities.

Calvin 'then contrasts this former way of preaching ,with the · Reforrri~tibn .a.pproach to scripture: First, we bid. a man to begin by examining 'hims~lf, .and this no~ · in a sup-~rfidaI 'and

perfunctory manner, but to dt~ his conscience before the tribunal of God, and when sufficiently convinced ofhis iniquity, to reflect on the strictness of the sentence pronounced on all sinners. Thus confounded and amazed at his misery, he is prostrated and humbled before God; and, casting away all self­ confidence, groans as if given up to final perdition. Then we show that the only haven ofsafety is in the mercy of God, as manifested in Christ, in whom every part of our salvation is complete. As all mankind are, in the sight of God, lost sinners, we hold that Christ is their only righteousness, since, by His obedience, He has wiped off our transgressions; by His sacrifice, appeased the divine anger.

The Genevan Reformer goes on to ask 4

MARCHI APRIL 1993

the Cardinal what problem he has with that. It is probably, says Calvin, that the Reformation way of preaching is not "practical" enough; that it doesn't give people clear directions for daily living and motivate them to a higher life.

Nevertheless, the Reformers all believed that the preacher is required to preach the text, not to decide on a topic and look for a text that can be pressed into its service. And the text, said they, was aimed not at offering heroes to emulate (even Jesus), but at proclamation of God's redemptive act in the person and work of the God-Man. Who couldn't find in Calvin's description of medieval preaching something of the contemporary situation? In many ofthe church growth contexts, once more the sermon is not given the central place liturgically and the sermon itself often reveals that the speaker is more widely read in marketing surveys, trend analyses, biographies of the rich and famous, "One Hundred & One Sermon Illustrations,» and Leadership journal than in the Greek New Testament, hermeneutical aids, and the riches ofcen turies oftheological scholarship. One can often tell when a pastor has just read a powerful book of pop-psychology, Christian personality theories, end-times speculations, moral or political calls to action, or entrepreneurial successes. He has been blown away by some ofthe insights and has scouted about for a text that can, if read very quickly, lend some divine credibility to something he did not actually get from that text, but from the Christian or secular best-seller's list. ('1' m a pastor, not a theologian," they say, in contrast to the classical evangelical notion, inherited from the Reformation, that a pastor was a scholar as well as a preacher.

Good communicators can get away with the lack of content by their witty, '---.-/ anecdotal style, but they are still unfaithful as ministers of the Word,

lnodern REFORMATION even if they help people and keep folks coming back for more.

preach the Christ of the healing ministry; we preach the Christ of the sublime example; we preach the Christ of the Social Gospel; we

The "Christ And ... " Syndrome

preach the. Christ of the Resurrection but

In Lewis's Screwtape Letters, the devil's . strategy is not to remove Christ altogether from the scene, but to propagate a "Christ And ... " re 1"IglOn:

rarely, if ever, do we preach the Christ of the Ctoss. We have evaded the very heart of the Christian message. In our preaching we tend to decry the human predicament, the turmoil of our lives, the evil in the world, and we

the church. But not only does the Bible give us the content of what we are to believe; it gives us a method for properly determining that message. 0 Michael Horton is the president and founder of CURE and the author of PuttingAmazing Back Into

Grace, Made In America, The Law ofPerfect Freedom, and is the editor of Power Religion, Christ The Lord,

and The Agony ofDeceit.

What we want, if men become Christians at

wonder if there is a way out. The Way Out is

For Further Reading:

all, is to keep them in the state of"Christianity

staring us in the face. It is the Way ofChrist,

And. "You know-Christianity and the Crisis,

the Way of the Cross (Preaching Christ

Christianity and the New Psychology, Christianity and the New Order, Christianity

Crucified· Our Guilty Silence [Dublin: The

Adler & Van Doren, How To ReadA Book (Harper & Row) Geerhardus Vas, The Teaching ofthe Book of Hebrews (P & R), Biblical Theology: Old 6­ New Testaments (Eerdmans), Redemptive History 6- Biblical Interpretation (P & R) Herman Ridderbos, Paul' An Outline ofHis Theology (Eerdmans), When the Time Had

and Faith Healing, Christianity and Psychical Research, Christianity and Vegetarianism, Christianity and Spelling Reform. Ifthey must be Christians, let them at least be Christians with a difference. Substitute for the faith itself some Fashion with a Christian colouring. Work on their horror of the Same Old Thing (Letter XXV).

Today,~ we see this in terms of Christ and America; Christ and Self-Esteem; Christ ---- and Prosperity; Christ and the Republican or Democratic Party; Christ and End­ Time Predictions; Christ and Healing; Christ and Marketing and Church Growth; Christ and Traditional Values, and on we could go, until Christ himself becomes little more than an appendage to a religion that can, after all, get on quite well without him. That is not, of course, to say that the evangelical enterprise could do this without some difficulty. After all, every movemen t needs a mascot. We say we are Christ-centered, but what was the sermon about last Sunday?

After a tragic car accident, Fr. James Feehan, a seasoned Roman Catholic priest in New Zealand, realized afresh the significance ofPaul' s command to preach Christ and him crucified:

If the pulpit is not committed to this utter centrality of the Cross, then our preaching, however, brilliant, is doomed to sterility and fail ure. We preach the Christ of the Mount; we

Mercier Press, 1991], p. 19).

In otherwords, to guard the centrality ofChrist in our preaching, it is necessary Fully Come: Studies in NT Theology to guard the centrality of Christ's (Paideia), The Coming ofthe Kingdom (P & R) ministry as prophet, priest and king.

Leon Morris, Expository Reflections on the Gospel ofjohn (Baker), New Testament Otherwise, we will even use "Christ" as Theology (Zondervan) a means of preaching something other D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Baker) than Christ. We will insist that we are preaching Christ even though we are really only using his name in vain as a buttress for some fashionable tangent we happen to be on this week.

What then is the proper meth'o d for reading, preaching, and interpreting God's word? Many resist the idea that there is a proper method at all, dismissing it as naive. The content is normative and unchanging, they say, but the method is relative and depends on what works best for each pastor. It is often treated as a matter \1 I I 15 EVANC..£LlC4LlSM ofstyle, like whether IN iHE NAf'JC of E\/ANGELICAlJsJl1 one wears robes or IHAT IS t;E'51Rdil/J6=vAf'lGELJCALlSJV1/I has the choir in the front or the back of MARCHI APRIL 1993.

5

I1l0t/ern REFORMATION

, F6rili~· i~therans: : ~, ,. ',' F}om';M~14~chthons, Ap()logy:<?f~fre'i\4g~burg, C,'~ essiQP, lj3:~;j"'~""'" .' ." '.' ." .' ...... .

•+ ,.> .., th~·, 9~ieftv~rship':9.fP:od :i$ th.<p:reachiAg~,of the; gospeL, ~eh.our.:opp(lllen~S , ~o , p(ea~4?: they t~k ~bout .: < hUiriaritf~~ltf2ns, the 'WQf~£ip of~h~ '~iflt~,': ~I1~simjJ~ftfi£le.s.··. T'~is: th~:,peop Ie .righ!Jy despi~e.~~na.. \\ralkQllt on "',;.. th~~Aft~Lther~a~Hng~f the gq~peL A few' of'the~ettet 'Q~~sare ; nowbegiIln~ng.tq;. talk:,:fiq?ut'gq04 :'Wrorks, .but :~ the.y say :~(),thing, aQoll~, tpe righte~~sness ,of f,lth O(ctl)0tl~ ~4ith~ in 9hr;ist : or:'.~P()~J ·eomf6rt;.forihecQnsdence. In / , :·their. pole~i~ th'~y" ~~~n.:;ttabk, dli~.:m'~st saIu~ary part'9fcl:ie g~~1?eLtfI ourcliUl:~h~~," on . th~9~her: hand, all .;,.sermonsQ.e~. w~th it<>picS lik~. the8e~penitenc~",,~he fear ,9fGQQ~ faith iJrC.~rist;tb,e; f!shteousilessoffaith, comfort , ;, f<?r, the' cQ1J,sSi~~c¢:tprough; fa.i~;,; th~ ~"ercis((QJ: f~lth; . pr~y~ra,ud· o~r, ~~;su!~~ceJha,t5! 'is · e£fka~~911~· and . is heard, ' ..' t~e cr0s~;respe<;tfor ~ulers , ahdf?ta.lldvi~ (}rd~~aIifes,' the,dist1nqiQu Ret\y~e~ ,th~Ri~gd~in6fCbrist {or the spiritll?J~ngdoni)andpglitichl :tffaifs,,, mar~iage,theedllC~!ioll and :inshuc,tio~?rth~ ,~hil~~eri, : ch<tSti'ty, and all tHewo.tkSoflove. " . ,,' ,',. , :, . . . ;,. . "'.,':, , " ... ' ,'" .,')", " '. "";""

;' Pfom The<Pbrmuhho,fqo.ncdrd;151Z' . . ......:

..... .' '

"We : b~fieve~tea:h,ana cC»nfess that the'. di,~t~.nctiop: betWeerlla~:andgospells,' ~nesl~,e~i~ly . ~lodo~~ light that is

ro 'bemaint(lined with great d~ligen<:~jnthedi:l!rch sothat,a~€:Qrdillg~o St.' Paurs: ~dmol1itj:9 .p.;the Word of God .' . may·beaiyid~d r,ightly.... Hen~e'~we: reject and ~eem Jtas:,false and detril11~ntat\Yh~l1nlenf~~c:~tha~the gospel, .$t~lctiy 's.pe'aking? , is~. proclah,1a~io~ofqHWicti~rl~~?r~p~??f~nd ' 1\~ie;clusively .~ . prodama6P??fgrace.

Ibe~eby thec;o~p~lis~gain cnangedintoa ' teachi~gof tpe4aw, rhe,II}er"ir ofChristan4·t~eH()ly£criptures are ohsc;ure.4i,Christians.. ~,~e robbed of thei~ true<;:0mfQrt,an:d~<. dIe aoors . ai:e.~ ag4jn~peried to. lp.e p<ap~~y. · /', . . ;, , -' " -, " " , '. /'. ,", : . '­ . '.

y

>

' "" "

•'"

.'

.',

.~

'.

",

I

• :.

• "

•

'.~

·F()(·theRefotme4: .' , "' f~or;iTheI-1daelhergC~t~~hism,1-?63; LordsDay19 . , ',' ... Q; ',How ,dp~ youcome.wJi!1{)w:trus [that] e~us Christ'is you.r01J~Y mediator}? .. . A; 'The holy gO~p'ertens I'n:e. :, God hiII?-selfbegan to reveal th~ gqspe~ already in Paradise; later, he pro.daimed it ,byt~e h~ly patriarchs .an4prophers, and portrayed it by the sacriflce.~ a!lcl, ~ther. ceremonies Qf ,t~~ law; finally, he ;'fulfillegirthrough his ()wlldea,r.:$o'n':,.,. .' . ' , . ,"" . ,',>:' fromThe ?etQnd11~1'leti~· ~onfessio?; ~566 .. '. "• ...... H . , . .. .. " .. ."·'.i, .• "': ... T~e~preaching(~f.theWQrd , 9f; GQd, i~ ;t.~e',~(')r~ ?fG?4~· Wli~r,~f?:~e, whenlhis~()rd ofGo~ . is,ho~; preac~ed ~i~n~ t~~ ,~Qurches byprea~~ers iaWfully:calk4, we,believe dt~t,< t~e ye:lY'Wprd pt God is prodaimeq):and ~ re<;e,~ved by "~ th~, faithful; and ~hatneith~r·. anypilierWQl:4 · ofGQcl: ls.tobe invented.not is.to, be·exp~~ted, fromheay~n: . ariJthat '·' .... noF·the:Word itselfwhi~his 'p~e~cned . is tohe ' t~garde4,, ·rrotthe ,rpi.rtister . thatpreac:hes;Jot~yeflif hepe~viLand a sin~er'~'pe,yerth~less; tb~ ·Wo,rdi'QfP?d .te~;ins~.stWtrue .<l~d. gOQ4,... ~ ~FotP.~1lIalsQ$~ys: "AlLo.u:r. far.h~rs ar~ the . ~amespjritua:l food, and all dra'nk:thesain~ s.piiitual.: drinlc 'For they .;d~ank frOm:,the spiritual R.dc;kwhid~' . .'f011owe~th~rn, 'and the ROCk waS 'Christ 0 Cor.JO:3f}.:.. . ~",,,: .., .. ,' ..... .... ........ ". s .': ~herefo(e;i~ · qlli te .op~n..ly professand.preachthitJesu Chrisi,is thesoI~,: ~edee~er ~n~·. Sayior · of the:.>yb·rld, .t~eKi~g and High>P,r,iest; thetruea l1d a~aitedMessja.ll;t~at holy ~~d. h,lessedpn,~~hom a.Jl ,the .tyP?spf·;tlielaw ' anapredi<:tionsof the prophetsp,refigureda~4 prQll1ised;~nd tha! G.9dapp?iiited~ bi11?- befote4a~aand sent him to, 'us; so 'th~lt,"Ye ate 'nottlovv,to16b,kfor ~ny'other., Nowtpere onlyteina,jns:f0rall" ofust~' give ~!lglorY1Q ChriSt>,pelieve i~ ' h~m;/ resi in.Q1t.I1 alone;des~ising and"[ejecting allq~h~raids :inJ~fe~For hQ~eyer' m'ql,1y':seek . ' salvati~p in any o:thert~an .iri' S?ristCllone~ha~e fallen Jr9mth~"g~~¢.e:()(Godand h~ye render~(lCh,ristfi~[Iand " " yoid for~he~selves (GaL,S:~J ..:.T~ego.spd is,·i~deed,'.opp'os~~JQ 'ili~j~o/. For.' the lll~ works ,~;~a:th arid ........ .

' annou~cesa cuts,~, wher~;ls~fie gQ$.p:dprea~hesgra<::~ana; l?!~ssiIig. ·' ,~ . '". n

"

i,..

,

6

•

,

~,

•• '

' .. '

' " .""

MARCHIAPRIL 1993

.'

'~':,

.',

•

,'-..

"

••" ,

>

'.

..

,'

'

.

I'

lnode rl1 REFORMATION

What Is This "Law

& Gospel" Thing?

By RICK RITCHIE

T

he feisty early church leader T ertullian was so impatient with error that he rejected the right of false teachers to quote the scriptures.

He esteemed classical learning so inferior to Christian teaching that he dismissed it with the question, "What hath Athens to do with Jerusalem?" Are we to expect a man like this to express any gratitude toward a heretic? Will such a firebrand ever thank an enemy of Christ for expounding a neglected Christian doctrine? Never! Yet this is exactly what T ertullian did, saying of the heretic Marcion that "Marcion' s special and principal work was the separation of the law and the gospel." I Surely Marcion's teaching even in this area would not have earned Tertullian 's approval, but Marcion constructed a thick barricade between Law and Gospel that T ertullian saw fit to leave in place, even as he looked forward to the day when Marcion's other teachings would lay in ruins.

If it hadn't been for Marcion, the scriptures themselves would still have forced the church to distinguish between law and gospel, but now we have not only a doctrine of law and a doctrine of gospel, but a doctrine of law and gospel.

We are all aware that the law and the gospel differ, but as in the case of two children who sprang from the same parent, we are best able to tell them apart when we examine them together.

Getting our Terms Straight The words "Law " and "GospeI" are surely familiar to all Christians. What

Christian doesn't know that the way of salvation is called the Gospel? The word "Law" is common enough in daily life that even the most unchurched pagan would, from the very words "God's Law," have some inkling of what those words

When Law and Gospel are confused, an element of sternness is introduced into the Gospel, making it demanding, or an element of laxity is introduced into the Law, making it more attainable. meant. While the terms "Law" and "Gospel" are familiar to all Christians, how the two terms relate to each other is often rather murky.

For some of us, we were never taught that these were categories through which to understand scripture. Perhaps we always assumed that as Christians, everything that we believed was Gospel.

The Law was for those born in another time and another place. Or maybe Law and Gospel were both pertinent to us, but only in the past, at conversion. We were ready to move on to bigger and better things. Whystudy the Gospel when

it has already done its work? Let us immerse ourselves in the study of the new life that follows the Gospel.

Sanctification or spirituality or signs and wonders are the business of the already­ saved Christian. Why return to the "milk" or the "elementary principles"?

Why indeed! If the Reformers were correct, we must study the distinction between Law and Gospel because in a real sense, scripture presents us with nothing else. Even when we speak of sanctification, we will either be talking about it in a legal sense (Law), or an evangelical sense (Gospel). We will be talking of something that God requires ofus (Law), or something that God gives to us (Gospel) . We never move beyond this.

The Reformers were so certain of the importance of this doctrine that they declared that without it no one would be able to make sense out of scripture.

Luther even declared of the person ignorant of this distinction that "you cannot be altogether sure whether he is a Christian or a Jew or a pagan, for it depends on this distinction."2 In agreement with Luther is C.F.W. Walther, known in his own day as the American Luther. Walther says: The true knowledge ofthe distinction between the Law and the Gospel is not only a glorious light, affording the correct understanding of the entire Holy Scriptures, but without this knowledge Scripture is and remains a sealed book. l

The Bible will be an impenetrable mystery as long as we are confused about its intent.

If the Reformers were correct, Scripture contains two different messages that thread their way through both the Old and New Testaments. 0 ne message, the Law, "is a divine doctrine which teaches what is right and God-pleasing and which condemns everything that is sinful and contrary to God's will."4 The MARCH!APRIL 1993

Ii!!

7

1110dernREFORMATION

other message, the Gospel, "teaches what a man who has not kept the law and is condemned by it should believe, namely, that Christ has satisfied and paid for all guilt and without man's merit has obtained and won for him forgiveness of sins, the 'righteousness that avails before God,' and eternal life: "s These two doctrines are similar in that both are the word ofGod, they both pertain to us, and both should be preached. They differ from each other in that the Law condemns while the Gospel saves. Small wonder then that confusing these two doctrines will cause problems. Ifwe present Law to people thinking that it is Gospel, they will return home from the morning's sermon feeling condemned-because they have been! It is vitally important that we learn to recognize the difference between these two doctrines. We will do this by studying various ways in which people confuse them.

Confusion #1:

The Gospel Is aNew Law

Have you ever heard preaching that left you certain that you could not get to heaven by keeping the commandments of Moses, but suggested that you would get to heaven by fulfilling the commandments of Christ? This type of preaching is the worst violation of the distinction between Law and Gospel. As Walther says: The first manner of confounding Law and Gospel is the one most easily recognized-and the grossest. It is adopted, for instance, by Papists, Socinians, and Rationalists and consists in this, that Christ is represented as a new Moses, or Lawgiver, and the Gospel turned into a doctrine of meritorious works, while at the same time those who teach that the Gospel is the message of the free grace of God in Christ are condemned and anathematized, as is done by the papists. (,

Few evangelical churches are likely to promote this depth of confusion in their 8

â&#x20AC;˘

MARCH/APRIL 1993

teaching. Nevertheless, this gives us a good starting point in understanding what the distinction between Law and Gospel is really about. The first thing to note when you make a distinction is that the two things being distinguished are two things and not one. The first point at issue in the Law/Gospel distinction is that the Gospel is not a Law. When stated outright like this, the point is so obvious that we wonder that it needs to be made at all. If we take a deeper look at the issue, however, we might find that this point needs to be made over and over again even with people who otherwise seem to understand their Bibles well.

Our Roman Catholic friends, for instance, are certainly not so ignorant as to believe that they will be saved by keeping the Ten Commandments.

Where they get tripped up is in believing that there is a Law, the fulfilling ofwhich, could get us into heaven. In an article, written in 1939, Gertrude Anscombe, a believing Roman Catholic (and reportedly the only individual ever to beat C.S. Lewis in public debate), wrote concerning the justice ofparticipating in her government's war with Germany.

For her, properly appraising the morality of the war was an issue of salvation or damnation, for salvation would be attained by following natural law/ In the canons and decrees of the Council of T rent, the church said that we are saved "on the condition of observing the commandments," and that "ChristJesus was given...as a legislator whom to obey."R In the case of both Gertrude Anscombe and the Council of Trent, there was a place for Christ's work on the cross, but it was not central.

Before we decide what Christ was doing when he delivered the Sermon on the Mount, we had better clarify what he was not doing. Christ did not come to give us a law superior to Moses' which could save, for "law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no

transgression" (Rom. 4: 15). Iflaw brings wrath, we know that Christ did not come to bring it, "for God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him" On. 3: 17). If Christ was not sent to condemn, and law condemns, Christ was not sent to bring us more law.

Yet Christ does speak of commandments and laws. In the Sermon on the Mount, he sternly warned that "anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven" (Mt. 5:19), and Paul exhorts us to "fulfill the law of Christ" (Gal. 6:2). Christ did speak of law in the sternest of language.

Christ spoke of law, but he did not give law. These are two unavoidable facts. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that Christ spoke concerning a law that had already been given. In the Sermon on the Mount, the law that had been given was the law ofMoses. Christ cleared the Law of Moses.

Why would Christ preach about the Law of Moses? In order for Christ to do his saving work, the people he intended to save needed to know that they needed him. The Jewish religious leaders had "tamed" the Law, twisting it to make it easier to fulfill. Some of Jesus' hearers thought that they had pulled it off. For the sake ofhis saving work, Jesus had to preach the Law in its full rigor so that it would "lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith" (Gal. 3:24).9 It would be bad enough if we had only to contend with the teaching that' the Gospel was a new law and Christ a new lawgiver,lo but problems do not stop there. Those who are subject to these errors go further, condemning those who teach otherwise, as we find in the Council of T rent, where it is said that: If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which

1110dernREFORMATION

remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema. II

At this point the Roman church condemned those who believed the Gospel. It is to be hoped that the Catholics that we know do not hold to this teaching, but it is important that we tecognize that those who do confuse Law and Gospel often go further and condemn those who do not.

And in the same manner, can we not find some laxity in the Law? The Reformers could not be correct in stressing the unattainable harshness of the Law in the Old Testament. There was room for weakness. What else was the sacrificial system set up for?13 When we ask questions like these, it is clear that we have missed what the distinction between Law and Gospel is about. We have fallen into the belief that the line between Law and Gospel is drawn between Matthew and Malachi, at the

Confusion #2:

Law and Gospel Are Mingled

If the first manner of confusing Law and Gospel, that of making the Gospel into a new law, is rarely found in the evangelical churches, the second manner of confusing Law and Gospel is more common. Walther describes this confusion as follows: ... the Word of God is not rightly divided when /

the Law is not preached in its full sternness and the Gospel not in its full sweetness, when, on the contrary, Gospel elements are mingled with the Law and Law elements with the Gospel. 12

When Law and Gospel are properly distinguished, the Law is stern and rigorous, the Gospel free and sweet. When the two are confused, an element of sternness is introduced into the Gospel, making it demanding, or an element of laxity is introduced into the Law, making it more attainable.

It is not atfirst as easy to see why this would be considered a confusion. Is not the New Testament Gospel demanding?

Sure, the promises are sweet, but what about the way Jesus turned away his reluctant followers (Mt. 8: 18-22)?What about Paul's example of chastening his body so that he would not become a castaway (1 Cor. 9:24)? Or the dozens of other warnings and exhortations given in the New T estamen t? The Gospel is sweet, but surely it is not pure sweetness, is it?

We have fallen into: the belief that the line between Law and Gospel is drawn between Matthew and Malachi, at the end of. the Old Testament and the beginning of the New. end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New. What we have missed is that Law and Gospel are two different ways that God speaks to us. Ifhe is speaking Law to us, his purpose is to hold us accountable, not to give us anything through that Law. As Paul says: "we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather through the Law we become conscious of sin" (Rom. 3: 19-20). We must recognize preaching to be Law whenever it is making us accountable to God. There are two things to keep in mind

here. First, we must brand all scripture that holds us accountable to God as Law. This will be especially true when the Bible speaks of the necessity of love for God or others. Jesus said that love for God and neighbor was at the heart ofthe Law (Mt. 22:37-40). As evangelicals we are good at recognizing Law ifithas to do with the Ten Commandments, but we often miss it when it has to do with love.

Love sounds so much more comforting.

How often have we heard (or told people) that "Christianityis nota religion, it is a personal relationship"? This is always said to make Christianity more attractive. Who would prefer having a list of rules to having a friend? This emphasis on love must be good news!

No, it isn't! At least not always. It is exactly in the area oflove that we do not measure up. This is what so many of us find when we have torn up the list of rules and regulations in order to just focus on loving God and neighbor. If it all turns on this, what am I to think when I am unloving? How come the good news seems like such a burden sometimes?

If the Law really has love at its heart, and the Law was given to hold us accountable to God, then we must conclude that God holds us accountable especially when he sets forth a standard of love to which we do not measure up.

We have been summoned to the divine courtroom, not for some minor infraction of a ceremonial code, but for being unfai thful and unloving in our relationships with God and man.

The breach cannot be healed by our trying to be more faithful and loving. So much bad evangelism makes it sound as if God were lonely and needed someone to love Him. Remember: Eden may have been lost by our bad conduct, but the problem now is that we have been kicked out, not that we ran away. We cannot tell people to "Come back to God" to solve their problem. The problem is that they got banished, not that they walked out.

This is a pretty grim situation if even MARCH/APRIL 1993

IIJ

9

1110dernREFORMATION

passages that speak oflove are used against us. But what else does Paul say? He says that "God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all" (Rom. 12:32). The severity of the Law leaves us all guilty, but that very guilt creates an opportunity to show forth God's mercy. We are held a,ccountable for being faithless, and God uses the situation to show how faithful he is. We are judged for being unloving, and in response, God 'pours forth his love on us. ~ The problem is that if we mix Law and Gospel, neither of God's intentions is carried out. He desires to shut people up under disobedience, holding them accountable, and then has mercy on them. To accomplish the first goal, the people have to know that they are disobedient. Not only that they have been so, but that they cannot be otherwise. Not only that they cannot be otherwise, but that they have no desire to be otherwise. 14 We need to preach the Law in such a way that nobody is left standing. We all try to squirm out of God's hand by telling ourselves that some day we might pull it off. Maybe we fall short now, but someday we will do better. Mter good Law preaching, we realize that we don't even really want to do better. We just want to go to brunch and forget the sermon so that we can feel better when the pastor starts a new sermon senes.

This is grim, but let us remember the ultimate end. We want to shut people up under a death sentence so that God can have mercy on them. Until the people are "caught," they won't feel any need for mercy. Not real mercy.

Again, the overall intention of God tells us why the Gospel cannot be made demanding. If we make demands of the potential convert, are we really presenting him or her with mercy? Mercy of a sort, perhaps, but what we have really done is to put the debtor into a debt repayment plan. IS This always implies that the debtor 10

fa

MARCH/APRIL 1993

can still repay, and never pushes the individual to the point of realizing that he or she is now really at the mercy of God. We never really want to use Law and Gospel the way God intended them to be used. God wants to condemn and to pardon. We want to chide and to bargain.

God is more stern and more generous than we are comfortable with. We want results now. We forget that God's punitive

most common among those whose preaching is otherwise very clear in distinguishing Law from Gospel. In many churches, real grace is preached to the potential convert. Christ is preached in such a way as to leave no doubt that his benefits are even for the vilest of sinners. It is the long-since-converted workaday Christian who gets ground in the gears of this kind of preaching.

Sometimes we must assume that when pastors paint the new life in Christ in glowing terms, the intent is to make the potential convert long to be part of God's eternal plan ofsalvation. At other times, however, this preaching is directed precisely to those who have already been converted, or think that they have been converted.

When this type of preaching is directed at those who merely believe that they are converted, it is understandable that the pastor would choose to preach like this. This type of preaching is law preaching. It is intended to drive the carnally secure to despair so that they might fly to the saviour.

The problem can develop, though,when a careless pastor addresses preaching like this to the saved in the congregation. Law preaching will be Law preaching no matter to whom it is justice is hell, and his generosity heaven. directed. The real problem is not that We want to combine equal portions of the pastor has directed Law preaching at each to make a kinder, gentler earth. the regenerate flock, but that the pastor When we mix Law and Gospel, we only does not follow up with Gospel. Pastors prove that we don't want a God, we want often forget to do this precisely because they believe that what they have been a moral policeman.

Law must be preached in its full rigor preaching is the Gospel! Some of this to make people guilty before God. 16 The confusion comes because we have rightly' Gospel must be preached in its full been taught that God is the source ofthe sweetness to make people righteous before new life and all of its wonderful results.

God. If we try to do anything else with The cheerful obedience, the spontaneous God's threats or promises, we are love for the brethren, the patient following our own agenda, and not God's. endurance of trials-all of these things are said to be God's gracious gifts. How could this be Law? Confusion #3:

The Gospel Becomes a "New Life"

Again we must return to the Message

definitions that we derive from scripture.

The next confusion is probably the The Gospel, by definition, is good news

The Law must be preached in its full rigor to make people guilty hefore.â&#x20AC;˘ God. The Gospel must be preached in its .full sweetness to make people righteous before God. If we try to do anything else we are following our own agenda, and not God's.

1110dern REFORMATION (the literal meaning of the Greek word).

In contrast, the Law is God's demand upon us (Mt. 5:17-20). God demands that we cheerfully obey him (2 Cor. 9:7), that we spontaneously love the brethren (Gal. 5:14; IJn.4:7-8), that we patiently endure trials (2 Tm. 2: 12). This is demand, and there is promise of reward for living up to them, and threat of punishment for falling short.

It is biblical for a pastor to issue these demands to his congregation. The pastor should issue them as serious calls to a new way oflife. It must be recognized that the congregation will continually fall short of these demands, however. When they begin to realize this (and the better the preaching the more obvious this will be), they need to hear the Gospel. It cannot be taken for granted that they already know the Gospel and have moved beyond it. As Luther said, no man can preach the Gospel to himself. Christians need to hear it preached to them again and again.

Conclusion For many of us, true Law and Gospel preaching would be a new discovery. Our pastors preached from biblical texts, but they never left us certain how God is disposed toward us. Sometimes the pastor presents the Gospel as a new Law. At other times, the pastor tones down the Law so he doesn't sound too negative, and tones down the Gospel so he won't ((give people the wrong idea" that even really bad sinners can be saved. For the lucky few, the Gospel was preached as a message of free grace when we came to church as potential converts, but the descriptions ofthe new life in Christ have been so different from anything we have experienced that we begin to doubt the genuineness of our faith.

To all of us, whatever our situation, the real Law does not serve to inspire us to greater devotion, but drives us to terror.

There really is a God out there to whom we are accountable. We do not live up to what he has called us to, either in his

creative work or his redemptive work.

To the terrorized, the Gospel then comes as a message that all has been done for us. All has been done for us even ifwe are already Christians. There is grace even for those who grew up in the church!

The banquet is set. Come and eat. The ransom has been paid. The sacrifice has been made. You are free. Go and live.

Hell has been suffered. Heaven is open to you. 0 Rick Ritch'ie is a staff writer for CURE, and is a contributing author to Christ The Lord He was educated at Christ College Irvine and Gordon­ Conwell Theological Seminary.

End Notes 1. Tertullian, Against Marcion 1.19.4 (CCSL 1:460), quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), vol. 1 of The

Christian Tradition: A History ofthe Development of Doctrine, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971), p. 72. In our own day, F.F. Bruce has credited Marcion with having a better understanding of the role of grace as an incentive to good works than Tertullian. F.F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle ofthe Heart Set Free, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), pp. 19-21. I do not want to leave the reader with the impression that I believe Marcion to be orthodox, or even Christian. I do want to give credit where credit is due, however, especially when dealing with this topic.

2. Hermann Sasse, Here We Stand: Nature and Character ofthe Lutheran Faith, trans. by Theodore G. Tappert, (New York: Harper & Bros., 1938). p.

114.

3. C.F.W. Walther, The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, (St.Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1986), p.l.

4. Formuid ofConcord, Epitome, Article V. 2.

5. Formuid ofConcord, Epitome, Article V. 4.

6. Walther, Law and Gospel, p. 1.

7. G.E.M . Anscombe, "The Justice of the Present War Examined," in Ethics, Religion and Politics, the Collected Philosophical Papers, Volume IlL, p. 73 .

8. Canons 20 and 21 , Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, in Confessions and Catechisms of the Reformation, ed. by Mark Noll (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House;1991), p. 186.

9. It has been suggested by some that in a day in which people don't relate well to the idea of a universally binding and objective moral law, we ought to preach Jesus Christ himself as the standard which we fall short of instead of the Ten Commandments. While this is possible, it might well backfire. God in his wisdom gave the law to condemn centuries before sending his Son to save.

We have little problem in distinguishing the condemning purposes of the Ten Commandments from the saving purpose of Christ. But look at what happens when the one who came to save delivers the Sermon on the Mount! We mistake his clarification of the condemning Ten Commandments to be a

saving message because Christ came to save. How much more confusing it will be if we set Christ before people as their moral example. We will think that this is not meant to condemn, but to save, since Christ came to save. Come to think of it, we have made that mistake already without any help from Jesus!

10. Pelikan, Catholic Tradition, pp 11-27 for a study of the realtionship of the early church to the Old Testament. In some cases, Christ is seen as the new legislator, but in general the early church was able to keep from the degree oflegalism found in the Council of Trent. Pelikan points out that the surrounding pagans reminded the early church that they were a community founded on grace by clarning the moral superiority of paganism over Christianity. Many of the pagan rites could only be attended by the morally rigorous while the Christian church was open to sinners.

11. Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Canons concerning Justification, Can 12., in Confessions and Catechisms ofthe Reformation, Mark A. Noll, ed., (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991), p. 185.

12. Walther, Law and Gospel, p. 1.

13. Since it will not be stated in the body of this article, the answer to this question is that the sacrifice system, although regulated by the legal code of the Old Testament, was a Gospel element.

It was a type and shadow of the perfect sacrifice that Christ would make. It required a set of regulations, however, to keep the people of Israel faithful to the maintenance of the types and shadows of the Gospel.

14. lowe this observation to Tom Oates, rector of Christ Church of Hamilton and Wenham, Massachusetts. In one of his sermons he said that in evangelism, he would present the non-Christian with a card on which was written three statements: 1. I have not obeyed God's commandments.

2. I cannot obey God's commandments.

3. I do not want to obey God's commandments.

He said that most people would agree with the first statement, a few were honest enough to agree with the second, and almost no one ever admitted the truth of the third. A true recognition of our state will involve recognizing all three of these statements to be true.

15 . For a brilliant analysis of how we continually create schemes of salvation where we do not have to admit to true bankruptcy before God, see Gerhard O . Forde's book Justification by Faith: a Matter of

Death and Life.

16. As harsh as the task of law-preaching is, people will hear bad news from us even when we try to avoid it. As Gerhard O. Forde so aptly put it, suppose we want to avoid speaking o( the wrath of God altogether, and just speak of God as love.

What then? "If the message is merely that God is love in general, then everything is turned back on us . 'If God is love, what is the matter with me? Why am I such an unloving clod?'" Gerhard 0 Forde, Theology is for Procidmation, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), p. 18. Forde gives numerous other examples, and concludes that the only way ultimately to fix the situation is to proclaim the wrath, and then deal with it by proclaiming forgiveness.

MARCH/APRIL 1993

â&#x20AC;˘

11

1110dernREFORMATION

the theory that all things were composed of atoms in constant, mindless movement, so that even if the resurrection of Christ did take place, it meant no more than that some groups ofatoms has swerved out oftheir normal path like so many quarks. This undoubtedly explains why some Epicureans objected so strongly to the resurrection (Acts 17: 16-34).

Today, hermeneutical reflection and practice often reflects not the biblical viewpoint, but the agenda of our pluralistic, special interest culture. In the scholarly literature on hermeneutics we find, for instance, structuralist hermeneutics and post-structuralist hermeneutics, feminist hermeneutics, as well as black womanist hermeneutics, Third World hermeneutics, and Marxist-liberation hermeneutics (still), and a host of others.

While we appreciate that one must take the "two horizons" of the biblical culture and our culture into account in the interpretive enterprise, one wonders just how subjective special interest hermeneutics have become. Our suspicions are confirmed in one of the newer outlooks, the so-called "reader response" hermeneutic that states, in effect, that the legitimate meaning of any text is up to the reader. Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty could very well speak for this position: "(When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, (it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less .... '" [Through the Looking-Glass].

Humpty Dumpty could very well now' say, "When I read a text. ... " Our evangelical friends are puzzling oyer hermeneutical theories as well, seen especially in the watchwords, "unity and diversity," and "unity in diversity," and so on. To some people this means searching for the essential "core" of inspired biblical teaching that is surrounded by a potentially tension­ filled periphery. Others, though,

HERMENEUTICS

&Biblical Theology

We must realize that there is one theme running throughout all of the books of the Bible, tying the subplots, characters, and sub-themes into one grand.redemptive drama.

By Dr. STEVEN M B1UGH

ermeneutics, or the theory ?f textual interpret~tio~, IS one of the hot tOpICS m New Testament studies today. Many are puzzled over the whole matter, for it is finally recognized that one's hermeneutical approach has a significant effect upon the results of one's interpretive conclusions. A generation ago, Cornelius van Til explained this repeatedly: there are no "brute facts," he said. Facts are mute and are always interpreted in conformity with one's

H

12

â&#x20AC;˘

MARCH/APRIL 1993

presuppositions, whether those presuppositions are explicitly understood, or not. The inaugural task ofa Christian theologian is to conform one's presuppositions, including one's hermeneutics, to the Bible.

As an illustration of how presuppositions affect the facts, consider the resurrection of]esus Christ. For Paul, it meant the inauguration of an era of cosmic renewal, a new creation. But to an Epicurean, the resurrection was nonsense. The Epicureans had adopted

Inode rn REFORMATION legitimately see that Matthew differs from Luke or John in theological perspective and concerns without implying contradiction; rather, it provides pleonasm-"fullness" of viewpoint.

The brilliant old Princeton theologian, Geerhardus Vos, anticipated many aspects of today's hermeneutical discussions, notably, issues regarding unity and diversity. The perspective he developed, carried forward by Herman Ridderbos, Richard Gaffin, Edmund Clowney, and others, is"called "biblical theology," or the "Redemptive Historical" approach.

A full description of biblical theology and its hermeneutic is not always easy.

Because it has suffered from caricature, it is easy to jump to hasty conclusions about it. For example, biblical theology has been equated with Christianizing allegory, such as that practiced early on by Clement, Origen, and other Alexandrian church fathers. They found a symbolic meaning to nearly everything. The" great whales" created in Genesis 1:21, Origen said, represent "impious thoughts and abominable understandings" that we too should "bring forth" before God that he may assign them their place after their own kind!

The reason that biblical theology suffers mistaken identity with allegory is probably its persistent habit of reading the Bible as a book about Jesus Christ from beginning to end. Thus, a biblical theologian reading about Adam in the Garden of Eden tends to think of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane. This does not imply that Adam was a parabolic versus a historical figure. Quite the contrary, biblical theology is staunchly opposed to taking historical figures mythically, since biblical theology is predicated on the fact that redemption was accomplished in genuine history.

Someone once put it well: "Fact without word is dumb; the word without fact is empty."

But is biblical theology warranted in

reading Christ in to Adam, and vice versa?

Apparently Paul thought so when he equates Christ with the Last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45) and Adam as a "type" of Christ (Rom. 5:14). Adam stood as covenant head of the first creation, whereas Christ is head of a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:15). Therefore, if anything else, biblical theology is a hermeneutic of the Emmaus road: "And starting with Moses and all the prophets [Christ] interpreted for them the things concerning himself in all the scriptures"

Today, hermeneutical reflection and practice often reflects not the biblical viewpoint, but the agenda of our pluralistic, special interest culture.

(Lk. 24:27; emphasis added). Biblical theology is Christocentric: "Moses ... wrote about me" an. 5:46).

So far, however, we could simply identify biblical theology with older ideas about typology and be done with it. Well, biblical theology does have typological elements. As mentioned, Adam and Christ have a type-antitype relationship as Paul makes explicit in Romans 5: 14.

Elsewhere he interprets the rock at Meribah as a type of Christ. It was, he says, a "spiritual rock" that followed Israel in the wilderness, "for the rockwas Christ" (1 Cor. 10:4).

But typology can typically present the Old Testament symbols as pictures that are meaningful in our era alone, whereas in the Old Testament era they may have

had a different value. Biblical theology would insist that the Old Testament types spoke as witnesses to the coming realities of Christ in their own day, as well as in ours. Through the types and shadows" the elders received testimony" to whatlay in their future (Heb. 11:2).

The faith of the actors in biblical revelation constituted, as we can paraphrase, "the inner core of things hoped for, as evidence of things not yet seen" (Heb. 11: 1).

So what exactly is biblical theology?

Geerhardus Vos provides the best definition: "Biblical theology ... is nothing else than the exhibition of the organic progress of supernatural revelation in its historic continuity and multiformity.", Vos offers a helpful analogy to explain "organic progress."

The revelation of Christ in · the Bible begins like an acorn that sends out its shoot and progresses toward the "fullness of time" when it grows into a full and stately oak. Even as a growing shoot, the tree is still an oak; similarly, God's revelation is always genuine, true, and unified in all its multiform expressions during its historic progression.

Revelation never loses its focus on Christ, although as a historically progressive revelation, not all elements of the revelation were completed or completely understood in its earlier phases. Peter then expresses this fact when he says that the revelation given through the prophets by "the Spirit of Christ" who testified "in them" was not fully understood by the prophets themselves, even though "they made careful search and enquiry into these matters regarding the sufferings and consequent glories ofChrist" (1 Pt.l:l0­ 12). Nevertheless, they did understand that there was a future reality awaiting fulfillmen t.

This is all fine and well, but are we truly justified in adopting this outlook for our principal hermeneutical orientation? This is an excellent question, MARCHI APRIL 1993

•

13

1110dern REFORMATION and one that deserves fuller discussion

some other time. Let it suffice to say that

most practitioners of biblical theology

employ a wide range of traditional tools

. in the process of biblical interpretation:

analysis ofthe historical-cultural setting,

studies in the original languages,

discourse analysis, attention to genre,

etc. These are all carefully employed.

But one ofthe key convictions ofVos and all who follow is that we must conform our hermeneutics to that of the bible. And if J esu's displayed a Christocentric, biblical theological hermeneutic on the road to Emmaus and elsewhere, then it is normative for us as well. Any other hermeneutic is lacking an essential ingredient. In what follows, we will explore parts of Galations three, one place where this biblical theological hermeneutic is manifest.

So, to begin, Paul introduces in Galatians 3: 17 the proposition that he will develop: "You know, then, that those who areoffaith are the sons ofAbraham."

Mter this introduction, he begins his argument in verse 8 with a provocative assertion: "Now since scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles from faith, it preached the gospel ahead of time to Abraham, saying, 'All the nations will be blessed in you.'"

In passing, we should not neglect to point out that Paul accepted the divine authority of scripture, since he says that it was the scripture that "foresaw" and "preached the gospel ahead of time."

What the scripture says is what God says; what God foreknows, the scripture foreknows. Likewise, scripture locks up all under sin, which is properly God's action (Gal. 3:22). This interchangeability of "God" and "scripture" indicates the highest view of inspiration and authority of scripture ar the start.

Secondly, in Galatians 3:8, Paul shows that God's program to bring the Gentiles into his covenental blessings was anything but a contingency plan developed ad hoc 14

II

MARCH/APRIL 1993

when Christ was rejected by his contemporaries. Rather, God's plan to justify the Gentiles by faith was the very basis of his preaching the gospel to Abraham in the form of a promise. In this pre-preached gospel, Abraham looked ahead to the day of Christ and rejoiced an. 8:56), and he perceived in this way that the land of his inheritance was not Palestine, but "the city whose architect and maker i~ God" (Heb. 11:10).

Nevertheless, the blessing we inherit is not inherently different from the blessing given to Abraham, for we receive it along with him (Gal. 3:9). Although the Old Testament saints had not fully inherited that which was promised, they did have a genuine encounter with Christ in the unfolding revelation of their day.

But it always had a future orientation, so that they might not "be perfected apart from us" (Heb. 11:39-40; 12:22-23).

What unifies all biblical promises is Christ, for there is one promise in the variegated covenants (Eph. 2: 12), because

. The revelation of

Christ in the Bible

begins like an acorn

that sends out its shoot

and progresses toward

the "fullness

of time" when it

grows into a full

and stately oak.

there is one Son ofAbraham to whom all the promises were made. Paul makes this latter point in Galatians 3: 16: "The promises were made to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say, 'And to his seeds,' as though to many, but to one, 'and to your seed,' who is Christ."

It may appear on first reading of Galatians 3: 16 that Abraham had a co足 equal share in the promise with Christ, his Seed. But even Abraham recedes into the background when we read that the promise was still unfulfilled "until that Seed should come to whom it had been promised" (Gal. 3:19). Even Abraham received that which was promised only through the coming of the Seed, who is Promisor, Promisee, and Promised One! "As many as are God's promises, they are 'Yes' in him" (2 Cor. 1:20).

Thus we see that there is unity to the Old Testament revelation; it pointed to Christ, and the saints back then, like Abraham, saw Christ dimly and from afar, but truly. Revelation had progress, but in it, the Old Testament saint experienced a genuine encounter with Christ.

Nevertheless, Paul boldly proceeds to show that the revelation in Abraham' s day-despite it being based on faith足 was still incomplete revelation. He expresses this by showing the fact that the promise to Abraham was awaiting the Seed to whom it was primarily directed (Gal. 3: 19). And this promise is now granted after the first Advent by way ofa specific" faith in Jesus Christ to those who believe" (Gal. 3:22).

This explains how Paul can say, in verse 23, "Before the faith came, we were imprisoned under the law." And in case we miss the obvious point that this specific faith was impending under Moses, he continues in verse 24, "And we were locked up until that coming faith should be revealed .... But now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a nanny [paidagogosJ." Now, Paul does not at all intend to say that no one prior to Christ had faith, nor that they were justified by law足 keeping back then, instead of by faith.

He is showing that the organically developing revelation of God was not completed until Christ should come足

1110dernREFORMATION

indeed, it still awaits consummation at his Second Coming, the one climatic event still outstanding.

The difference between the pre-Advent and post-Advent faith is so dramatic in its intensity, clarity, and fullness that Paul expresses it as ifit were future in previous eras. Remember, the gospel preached to Abraham was an anticipation of the apostolic preaching. God spoke to Abraham with us in mind (Rom. 4:22­ 24), who have tasted of the powers ofthe age to come'" (Heb. 6:5). Our faith is qualitatively new because we live in "these last days" (Heb. 1:2; cf. 1 Cor. 10: 11;Jm. 5:3; 1 Pt. 1:20; 1 In. 2: 18;Jude 18), upon which the prophets ofold and even angels had longed to gaze (1 Pt. 1: 12).

Paul wraps up his discussion in Galatians three by returning to the main issue: we are sons of Abraham by faith.

He concludes, "So, if you are Christ's [disciple], then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:29). Wait a minute! I thought there was only one seed "Who is Christ," remember? Ah yes, Paul says, but in that one seed through whom all God's promises intersect, the people who are united to Christ by faith also become sons and seed and heirs! This is union with Christ in all its glory: "So it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.

And this fleshly existence of mine now is lived by faith in the son of God" (Gal. 2:20); cf. Col. 3:3-4).

To conclude, then, we have described the hermeneutics ofbiblical theology as a Christocentric approach to the bible that we found was commended to us by Christ on the Emmaus road, and by Paul in Galatians three. And although we have not used the term until now, biblical theology is a recognition that eschatology-or the biblical teaching on the last things-is central throughout the entire course of redemptive history.

As Vos put it, "eschatology is prior to soteriology." This is nothing but another way ofexpressing the proleptic character

of the promise to Abraham, as in Galatians 3: 18. The coming promise was experienced ahead of time by Abraham; ' it was an eschatological blessing cast backward into redemptive history.

But we, who live this side of Christ's resurrection, live in the" fullness oftime" (Gal. 4:4). Although this age will not be

There is a unity to

the Old Testament

revelation: It points

to Christ, and saints

like Abraham saw

Christ, dimly

and from afar,

but truly.

consummated until the Second Coming, we live in a "semi­ eschatological" era (to use Vos's term).

Thus we have received a "downpayment" and a "firstfuits" of the promised inheritance, the Holy Spirit (Gal. 3: 14; Eph. 1: 14; 2 Cor. 1:22, 5:5; Rom. 8:23). It is this perspective, we believe, that makes the most sense ofthe whole ofscripture, for in Christ "all things hold together," both in the old creation and in the new creation (Col. 1:15-20). 0 Dr. Steven M. Baugh is assistant professor of New Testamenr at Westminster Theological Seminary in Escondido, CA, and is the assistanr editor of Kerux, a Journal of Biblical and Theological Preaching.

Notes l. G. Vos, 'The Idea of Biblical Theology As a Science and As a Theological Disciple," Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation (R. Gaffin, ed.; Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1980),15.

Aesop's

Fables:

Beloware some samples ofthe famous Aesop's Fables, named after a 6th century BC Greek slave. We offer them as an example of what we mean by "moralism." These great fables are instructive and entertaining and everyone can benefit from them. While there is a place for moral 'lessons-even in the Scriptures, where the text clearly directs us to an imperative, the purpose of preaching is to explain the gospel. As you read some ofthe following fables, ask yourself whether the foItowing morals could appear on the average church marquee for this Sunday's sermon.

A cock was once strutting up and down the farmyard among the hens when suddenly he espied something shining amid the straw. 'Ho! ho' quoth he, 'that's for me,' and soon rooted it out from beneath the straw. What did it turn out to be but a Pearl that by some chance had been lost in the yard? 'You may be a treasure,' quoth Master Cock, 'to men that prize you, but for me I would rather have a single barley-corn ' than a peck of pearls.'

The moral to this story: 'Precious things arefor those that can prize them. ' A Waggoner was once driving a heavy load along a very muddy way. At last he came to a part of the road where the wheels sank half-way into the mire, and the more the horses pulled, the deeper sank the wheels. So the Waggoner threw down his whip, and knelt down and prayed to Hercules the Strong. '0 Hercules, help me in this my hour of distress,' quoth he.

But Hercules appeared to him, and said: 'Tut, man, don't sprawl there. Get up and put your shoulder to the wheel.'

The moral to this story: The gods help them that help themselves. ' One fine day two Crabs came out from their home to take a stroll on the sand. 'Child,' said the mother, 'you are walking very ungracefully.

You should accustom yourselfto walkingstraight forward without twisting from side to side.'

'Pray, mother,' said the young one, 'do but set the example yourself and I will follow you.'

The moral to this story: 'Example is the best

MARCH!APRIL 1993

•

15

1nodern REFORMATION the most successful professions of all time is a profession that caters and panders to a «felt need." It's also been called the oldest profession.

Now I know that Madison Avenue understands that if you want to sell something, if you want to get a response, you've got to scratch people where they itch, and you've got to meet their «felt needs." And there is nothing wrong with meeting the felt needs of people when they're having trouble with their children, or with their marriage. They feel the tension and the conflict there, and the church obviously should have a ministry to that. When people are sick, they need healing, and that is a felt need. But what is happening now in terms of a technique or a strategy is that you try to speak only to those superficial levels of human experience, and never get down to the deeper questions of understanding the character of God. Yes, when my child is in trouble I feel it and I need to learn how to relate to my child. But the most important thing I can learn, in learning how to relate to my child, is understanding the character of God because that defines all of our human relationships. But people don't feel the need for their deeper needs. And it is the task of the church-not to take a Gallup poll, or give a referendum to the community and have them tell the preacher what to preach. We take our instruction from the Word of God, and from the priorities of God. MR: I would assume then, that you are not in favor of the church growth movement?

Sproul: Well, my view of general

R.C. SPROUL

MR: Dr. Sproul, do yqu think that in some ways evangelicals are carried along like the general culture with an obsession of power rather than a concern for preaching Christ crucified?

Sproul: Yes, I think it is just another dimension where the Evangelical church is playing catch-up with the world and trying desperately to address the culture with some degree of relevance, but as has been the case almost consistently in this century, we're following rather than leading.

MR: So what do you tell people who say that church is boring, and all we're trying to do is make it a little more relevant?

Sproul: When people say to me that for them church is boring, I don't cha)lenge that assessment. They are giving me, I presume, an honest expression of how they feel at church; they're bored. And I think it is true that for most people church is boring.

But I think the reason for that is that people are not sensing or having an awareness of, or experiencing in any viable way, the presence of God. I don't think there has ever been a human being in all of human history who, in the 16

•

MARCHIAPRIL 1993

midst of an acute sense of the presence of God, was bored. Some people are terrified, some are angry, some weep, some are frightened and so on, but boredom is not a human response to the presence of God. MR: What then is the problem?

Why is there so much boredom? If we're not in the presence of God, why aren't we?

Sproul: Well, Calvin said, with respect to general revelation, that the universe in which we live is like a glorious theater and that we walk through it as people with blindfolds on. How many times does the Bible say that the earth is full of the glory of God? So if the earth is full of the glory of God, and I'm bored, it must be that I'm not perceiving the glory of God. Somehow I've got blinders on; somehow I'm almost comatose when it comes to true spiritual discernment. I think that we're living in a time, in a generation where we believe that reality is only skin deep, and that we have been almost brainwashed or conditioned into living on the surface of things. We will not dig beneath the surface, and consequently, we miss the glory.

MR: How does that relate to the idea of preaching to people's «felt needs" instead of preaching Christ and the good news of justification?

Sproul: Well, I would say that one of

~

o

~i

revelation teaches me that I can learn from science and from nature things I cannot find in the Bible. And church growth methods learn significant things from secular research. I can learn things, for example, about management, about structure, and things like that, from a pagan. But if you want to have that as the whole driving factor of your c?urch, you are doomed to prostitution. There is a content and a mission to the church that the Bible gives us that is transcultural, and transhistorical. And though I can learn certain techniques of how to organize, and how to reach out to people, I must never compromise the mission and character of the church to preach the gospel, the good news of Christ's death for sinners. And I think that people who get caught up in methods do just that, they compromise the mission of the church MR: Do you think that politics has become more of an obsession for some Christians than theology?

Sproul: I'm afraid that today, both in the secular culture and in the church, that too many people are looking to the government to solve their every problem. And what we need is for the church to be the church. I do think we should have a voice, as Christians, to speak to the culture in a political arena, but I don't spend a whole lot of my time there because I don't have a whole lot of hope there.

MR: What about chances for reformation?

Sproul: Well, obviously only God

can bring a reformation, and I don't know what his plan is, providentially speaking. Everything is so stacked against it that it would be easy to succumb to despair. But on the other hand we are seeing a crisis in the evangelical church.

We've seen the failure of Liberalism, and though it's painful, we've seen the liberal church beginning to understand that people aren't going to subscribe to that for very much longer because there is no reason for them to get up on Sunday morning and go to church. The evangelical church, however, has bought into what Os Guinness calls modernity, with all of its relativism, and pluralism, and so on, that have the seeds of its destruction sown within it. And yet, it is in the renewal of the evangelical church that I see as the greatest human hope for

1110dernREFORMATION

reformation. But it's going to take a recovery of the authority of Scripture, and of the gospel of Christ, and a massive awakening to the character of God. MR: What can the average layperson do to fulfill his or her responsibilities in that regard?

Sproul: The first thing I would tell that person would be to read the Old Testament, and to get re­ acquainted with the character of God. Because every great movement in the church, and all great theologians for that matter, certainly mastered the New Testament, but they did not ignore the Old Testament because they understood that the Old Testament was the history of God's own selfdisclosure. And there is so much to be learned about the majesty of God and the sovereignty and grace of God in the Old Testament, that to spend time there will often awaken us from our dogmatic slumbers about what Christianity is all about. 0 Dr. R.C. Sproul is the chairman of Ligonier Ministries and is professor ofsystematic theology at Reformed Theological Seminary. His many books include The Holiness ofGod, Chosen by God, Reasons to Believe, and The Glory ofChrist.

MARCHI APRIL 1993

~

17

Inode rl1 REFORMATION

,

lte orse nn ==== CURE's weekly radio broadcast ====

,

s Oln Los Angeles Palmdale/Lancaster Oxnard/Ventura Riverside San Diego San Francisco Portland Seattle Colorado Springs C~icago

Columbus Pittsburgh Boston New York Washington D.C.

,

atlona KKLA 99.5 fm KAVC 105.5fm KDAR 98.3 fm KLFE 1240 am KPRZ 1210 am KFAX 1100 am KPDQ800 am KGNW820 am KGFT 100.7 fm WYLL 106.7 fm WRFD 880 am WORD 104.7 fm WEZE 1260 am WMCA570 am WAVA 105.1 fm

Sun 9pm Sun.9pm Sun.9pm Sun.9pm Sun 9pm Sun. 12pm Sun.9pm Sun 11pm Sun. 10pm Sun. 11pm Sun.4pm Sun. 12mid Sat. 8pm Sun. 11pm Sun. 12mid

Beginning e This e Summer!

18

â&#x20AC;¢

MARCH/APRIL 1993

~

'node rn REFORMATION

By Dr. W. ROBERT GODFREY

T

he Heidelberg Catechism is arguably the finest catechism produced in the 16th century.

Its warm piety and clear, biblical theology have made it a favorite summary of reformed Christianity for many through the centuries.

The catechism was completed in 1563 in Heidelberg, the capital city of the Palatinate in Germany. It was intended to aid the movement of the Palatinate from Lutheranism to Calvinism. Its doctrine is expressed largely in positive terms, but does become sharper on the Lord's Supper, where its position is contrasted explicitly with Rome's and implicitly with that of the strict Lutherans.

From the beginning, the catechism was intended for preaching as well as teaching. The Reformers ofHeidelberg were convinced that not only children needed catechizing, but all God's people needed careful, regular instruction in the basics of the faith. The catechism was divided into 52 Lord's Days with the purpose of facilitating weekly preaching from the catechism. That intention has been preserved to our day, especially in the Dutch Reformed tradition. The sermon in one service each Sunday (usually the afternoon or evening service) is based on the catechism for that Sunday.

The personal and Christ-centered character of the catechism is clear from the beginning. The first question asks, "What is your only comfort in life and

death?" The answer is as fine a summary of the gospel as can be found anywhere: "That I am not my own, but belong­ body and soul, in life and in death-to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ. He has fully paid for all my sins with his precious blood, and has set me free from the tyranny ofthe devil. He also watches over me in such a way that not a hair can fall from my head without the will of my Father in heaven: in fact, all things must work together for my salvation. Because I belong to him, Christ, by his Holy Spirit assures me ofeternal life and makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready from now on to live for him."

This first answer is long and stands in marked contrast with the rather short questions that begin other catechisms.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism asks, "What is the chief end ofman?" and answers, "To glorify God and enjoy him forever." The Anglican Catechism is even more brief (and easier). Its first question is "What is your name?" But Heidelberg takes the catechumen to the heart of the gospel right at the beginning. Christ stands at the head of the catechism and the whole catechism is an explication of what it means to belong to him.

The second question ofthe catechism presents the basic structure of the whole work. It asks, "What must you know to live and die in the comfort?" It answers, "Three things: first, how great my sin and misery are; second, how I am set free from all my sins and misery; and third, how I am to thank God for such deliverance." The catechism from this point is divided into three¡ sections.

Questions 3-11 deal with man's sin and misery. Questions 12-85 cover man's deliverance from sin. Questions 86-129 discuss the life ofgratitude to be lived for such a deliverance. These three sections have been called sin, salvation, and service, or guilt, grace, and gratitude.

This three-fold division is often said to parallel the structure of the book of Romans, where Paul moves from his

MARCWAPRIL 1993

III

19

Inode rn REFORMATION reflections on the sinful human condition to redemption in Christ, and then on to the Christian life. This division stands in contrast to the two-fold division of the Westminster catechisms into belief and duty.

The first section of the Heidelberg Catechism is quite brief, only nine questions. This brevity may surprise some who might expect Calvinists to dwell on the problem of sin at greater length. But these few questions impress the gravity ofthe human problem dearly.

The law of God-summarized by ] esus in two commandments about loving God and the neighbor-reveals sin and shows that "I have a natural tendency to hate God and my neighbor" (Question 5). This nature is inherited from Adam and Eve (Question 7), and unless we are born again (Question 8) will surely lead to judgment: "God is merciful, but he is also just. His justice demands that sin, committed against his supreme majesty, be punished with the supreme penalty­ eternal punishment of body and soul" (Question 11).

The theme of judgment in question 11 is the transition to the second section, the one on deliverance. Questions 12­ 17, very much in the spirit of Anselm's Cur Deus Homo?, speak of how justice must be satisfied and redemption accomplished by one who is a perfectly righteous man and yet is also infinite God. 0 nly ] esus meets these qualifications and is the savior of his people (Question 18). But the saving work of]esus does not redeem everyone: "Only those are saved who by true faith are grafted into Christ and accept all his blessings" (Question 20).

Question 21 is another of the remarkable points in the catechism. If man is saved only by faith in Christ, then we must ask what faith is, and that is just what question 21 does. Its definition of faith is superb. "What is true faith? True faith is not only a knowledge and conviction that everything God reveals 20

II

MARCH! APRIL 1993

in his Word is true; it is also a deep­ rooted assurance, created in me by the Holy Spirit through the gospel, that out ofsheer grace earned for us by Christ, not only others, but I too, have had my sins forgiven, and have been made forever right with God, and have been granted salvation." Faith is not only knowledge that accepts the teaching ofthe Bible, but it is trust and confidence that Christ is my savior. A confident assurance that Christ has saved me must be at the heart of my faith. The catechism develops the content of faith in a long section that explains the Apostles' Creed. Medieval catechisms had been basically structured around expositions ofthe Apostles' Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord's Prayer. The Heidelberg Catechism follows this tradition of catechismal instruction and discusses the Apostles' Creed in questions 22-58. This use of reiteration is an important dimension of good teaching.

The section on the Apostles' Creed contains many notable statements. Only a taste of it can be presented here.

Question 28 is striking: "How does the knowledge of God's creation and providence help us? We can be patient when things go against us, thankful when things go well, and for the future we can have good' confidence in our faithful God and Father that nothing will separate us from his love. All creatures are so completely in his hand that without his will they can neither move nor be moved."

Another illuminating question is number 31: "Why is he called 'Christ,' meaning 'anointed'? Because he has been ordained byGod the Father and has been anointed with the Holy Spirit to be our chief prophet and teacher who perfectly reveals to us the secret counsel and will of God for our deliverance; our only high priest who has set us free by the one sacrifice of his body, and who continually pleads our cause with the Father; and our eternal king who governs us by his Word and Spirit, and who guards us and keeps us in

the freedom he has won for us." In these two questions there is much to chew on.

No Reformation catechism would be complete without a section on justification. Heidelberghas six questions on justification, of which number 60 is the center: "How are you right with God? Only by true fai th in]esus Christ.

Even though my conscience accuses me of having grievously sinned against all God's commandments and of never having kept any of them, nevertheless, without my deserving it at all, out of sheer grace, God grants and credits to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, as if I had never sinned nor been a sinner, as ifI had been as perfectly obedient as Christ was obedient for me."

The catechism also speaks of the source of faith. Interestingly, the source of faith is not discussed in terms of the electing purpose of God as a Calvinist might suppose (although election is taught in question 54). Rather, in a teaching that is perhaps even more controversial today than predestination, question 65 says oftrue faith, "The Holy Spirit produces it in our hearts by the preaching of the holy gospel, and confirms it through our use of the holy sacraments." Do we esteem preaching as highly as the catechism does? Perhaps the church would be stronger if solid preaching of the gospel was sought and even demanded by God's people.

A large section of the catechism is devoted to the sacraments (Questions 66-82). Such length IS In part attributable to the controversial nature of the sacraments in the 16th century.

No question was more heatedly debated than the meaning of the Lord's Supper.

But such length is a help to us today because the sacraments are so important and so neglected. The catechism follows Calvin in seeing the sacraments as support that God has given us in our weakness as Christians. The theme of strengthening our assurance pervades

Inodern REFORMATION

this section. Listen to question 73: "Why then does the Holy Spirit call baptism the washing of regeneration and the washing away of sins? God has good reasons for these words. He wants to teach us that the blood and Spirit ofChrist wash away our sins just as water washes away dirt from our bodies. But more important, he wants to assure us, by this divine pledge and sign, that the washing away of our sins spiritually is as real as physical washing with water."

The catechism's second major division concludes with a discussion of preaching and church discipline as the keys of the kingdom. Church discipline is necessary so that some who deny Christ in doctrine or life do not delude themselves or others by claiming to be Christians (Question 85). Discipline contributes to deliverance by calling sinners to repentance and purifying the church.

The third major part of the catechism (Questions 86-129) is on the life of gratitude that Christians will lead for the redemption that Christ has brought to them. Christian living is not a voluntary, optional addition to faith, but an inevitable and necessary consequence of true faith: "...we do good because Christ by his Spirit is also renewing us to be like himself, so that in all our living we may show that we are thankful to God for all he has done for us, and so that he may be praised through us. And we do good so that we may be assured that by our godly living our neighbors may be won over to Christ" (Question 86).

The topic of Christian living is divided into two parts in the catechism­ repentance and prayer. In the language of reformed theologians of the 16th century, repentance is really a synonym for sanctification. Repentance is the putting to death of the old man and the bringing to life ofthe newman (Question 88). We are guided in that life-long process by the Ten Commandments, which are discussed in questions 94-113. The fine and helpful reflection on the

Commandments is concluded with this observation: "In this life even the holiest have only a small beginning of this obedience: Nevertheless, with all seriousness of purpose, they do begin to live according to all, not only some, of God's commands" (Question 114).

Prayer, especially the significance of the Lord's Prayer, is the subject of the last questions of the catechism (Questions 116-129). The Christ­ cen tered character of the catechism continues in this section and teaches us the essence of true prayer: "Why did Christ command us to call God (Our Father'? At the very beginning of our prayer Christ wants to kindle in us what is basic to our prayer: the childlike awe and trust that God (through Christ) has become our Father. Our fathers do not refuse us the things of this life; God our Father will even less refuse to give us what we ask in faith."

The Heidelberg Catechism is an anchor. It anchors us in sound knowledge as it summarizes the basic teachings of Christ's word, the Bible. It anchors us in Christ's work as it presents to us clearly and attractively God's redemption. It anchors us in Christ's church as it explains the content of faith and the support of faith given in Christ's community and Christ's sacraments. It anchors us in living for Christ by Christ's Spirit. It is no wonder that Reformed Christians have treaSured, studied, memorized, and preached this catechism for centuries.

We will surely be built up in Christ and in faith if we do the same today. 0 Dr. W. Robert Godfrey is professor ofchurch history at Westminster Theological Seminary in Esondido, CA. He has contributed to beok projects suh as The Agony ofDeceit, Theonomy:A Reformed Critique, and Christ The Lord.

Call 714-956-CURE for a free Resource Catalog

BARIHQyOIE:

Karl Barth (J 886-1968), this century's most influential theologian, wasprofessoroftheology atseveral German universities before taking his chair at the University ofBasel, Switzerland, because ofhis opposition to Hitler. While we would be critical ofBarth's redefinition ofReformed theology in key points, he nonetheless hadsome very soundthings to say about the seriousness ofpreaching in the Reformation tradition. His criticism ofthe liberals of his day could equally apply today to liberals and conservatives alike. Think ofthe similar ways in which we have trivialized God's word in our headlong pursuit ofrelevance:

"It has now become a most unusual consideration, common only in the language ofedification, to say that people go to church to hear God's Word-no, they go to hear Pastor So-and-So-or to say of the pastor that his task is to proclaim God's Word-no, it is to offer his expositions, meditations, applications, and demands!

I need hardly say that the devastating lack of tension and dynamic, the lukewarm tediousness and irrelevance of Protestant worship, is closely connected with this consideration. The lack might be concealed or reduced by good preachers, but let us not be deceived: the ship is leaking even though the best preachers might be at the pumps. There is no lack of good preachers and sermons, but a lack of sermons that are meant to be God's Word and are received as such-a lack of qualified preaching....

"If we expected to hear God's Word more, we would hear it more even in weak and perverted sermons.

The statement that there was nothing in it for me should often read that I was not ready to let anything be said to me. What is needed here is repentance by both pastors and congregations.... Certain hymns are sung, and if we're not honest enough to change them as some of the older rationalists did, these are an open protest against a preaching which does not deal with the wound which the older hymns more or less tastefully tell us about. Preaching takes place from the pulpit (a place which by its awesome but obviously intentional height differs from a podium), and on the pulpit, as a final warning to those who ascend it, there is a big Bible. Preachers also wear a robe-I am not embarrassed even to say this-and they should do so, for it is a salutary reminder that from those who wear this special garment the people expect aspecial word. Aformidable and even demonic instrument, the organ, is also active, and in order that the town and country alike should be aware of the preaching, bells are rung. And if none of these things help, will not the crosses in the churchyard which quietly look in through the windows tell you unambiguously what is relevant here and what is not?"

(The Gottingen Dogmatics [Eerdmans, 1991], pp. 31, 71).

MARCHI APRIL 1993

•

21

1nodern REFORMATION gospel was being undermined by those who sought to turn it into the speculative - mysticism of Greek philosophy.

Combining Christianity, folk religion, and esoteric wisdom, the "super-apostles" attracted the metropolitan upper-classes much as Eastern philosophy has gathered a following among professionals in our time. Silver-tongued speakers would put on seminars and promise the keys to success and happiness. Because they made at least some appeal to Christ, the super-apostles convinced some of the Corinthian believers that they were simply bringing together the best of secular literature and philosophy by secular wisdom and Christian belief. quoting pagan poets and writers by The gospel was not enough; to make memory. In fact, when in Athens, Paul Christianity relevant in a pagan addressed his audience with comparisons commercial center such as Corinth, in and contrasts between Christianity and order to really market it well, the church Greek wisdom. Against the Epicureans, had to promise answers to questions the he argued God's sovereignty (Acts 17:24­ Bible never answered and solve riddles 26); but against the fatalistic Stoics, he about which the Bible was not the least presented a personal God who took bit interested. Where the Scriptures were account of people for their actions. Paul silent, secular wisdom threw in its two quoted from the Cretan poet Epimenides, cents-worth.

The sophisticated Corinthian, from the Cilician poet Aratus, and from The Hymn to Zeus, by Cleanthes. This he confident and self-assured, had little time also does elsewhere, to the Corinthians (1 for sin and judgment, guilt and grace.

Cor. 15:33), and to Titus (I: 12). Notice Religion was supposed to supply social that Paul took the time to become familiar glue, give people a philosophy oflife and with the culture he was addressing (and a way of living a happy and meaningful quite possibly not simply for evangelistic life. In this sort ofsetting, the gospel was purposes) and yet he used that familiarity probably viewed as an answer to a as a bridge for communication, not question the people were not even asking: accommodation: How can I, a condemned prisoner ofmy own depravity, ever have a relationship "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, with a holy and just God? but now he commands all people everywhere But Paul's response is clear. Instead to repent. For he has set a day when he will of taking a marketing survey of judge the world with justice by the man he has Corinthian attitudes and developing a appointed. He has given proof of this to all by gospel that would address "felt needs," raising him from the dead" (Acts 17:30-31). he told them what their real needs were, whether they felt them or not. In fact, The result was not overwhelming, but "a said Paul, ifthey do not feel within them few men became followers of Paul and the need or are not asking the right believed," while others conceded, "We questions, it is not because the gospel is want to hear you again on this subject" irrelevant, but because "the message of (w.32-33). the cross is foolishness to those who are But in Corinth, the simplicity of the perishing" (I Cor. 1: 18). "The man

Corinthian

Distractions

Paul sadvice to the Corinthians just might be relevant for today sdistracted Church.

By MICHAEL S. HORTON

T

he commercial capital of Greece, Corinth was the quintessence of metropolitan sophistication in the region. Athens was the center of academic life, but the practical Corinthians liked to think that they were up on the latest ideas, too. Temple prostitution was big business at the shrine ofAphrodite (goddess oflove). Down the street was the shrine ofAsclepius, the god of healing. In fact, even decades later, after all of the 12 pagan temples were converted to churches in Corinth, the healing shrine continued to be frequented.

The purpose of Paul's letters to the Corinthian believers was news the apostle had received about divisions in the church (I: 11). "Super-apostles," as Paul called them, had gained access to the congregation, bringing confusion in their train, and the apostle's patience was wearing thin: "For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those 'super-apostles.' I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge" (2 Cor. 11 :4-6).

Indeed, Paul did have knowledge: Not only was he a well-educated Pharisee; he demonstrated a remarkable facility with 22

â&#x20AC;˘

MARCH/APRIL 1993

1110dern REFORMATION without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned" (2: 14). In other words, if people are not asking the question, "How can I be right with God?", it is not because the gospel is dead, but because they are "dead in' trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2: 1). Although the gospel is "foolishness to those who are perishing... to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1: fS).

Thus, Paul launches on his classic defense of the gospel: God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks lookforwisdom, butwepreach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom ofGod. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness ofGod is stronger than man's strength (vv.21-25).

The super-apostles were more powerful than Paul in terms of popular appeal.

They appeared to be more relevant, offering the recently converted pagans something familiar, and they made it sound so captivating. They could really sell the product, and Paul was being put on the back burner a bit. In fact, their success suggests that the super-apostles spoke more directly to the felt needs of the Corinthians. And what were those felt needs? Probably not much different from those about whom Paul warned Timothy: "People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive ... rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God" (2 Tim. 3:2-4)-and these are professing Christians!

This is the problem, isn't it? By preaching to "felt needs" we are often preaching to selfish and idolatrous

cravings. What will be the "felt needs" of people who love themselves, money, and pleasure? Our job is not to preach to felt needs, hut to expose such felt needs as sinful cravings that must be supplanted

by Christ. Only in this way can unbelievers see their truest, deepest need for the One whose absence these distractions have sought to soothe.

Instead of taking a

marketing survey of

Corinthian attitudes

and developing a gospel

thatwotlld address "felt

needs," Paul told the

Corinthians what their

real needs were,

whether.they felt

them or not.

In the meantime, Paul responds to the problem with the super-apostles by telling the Corinthians they are simply shallow and immature, captive to "the wisdom of this age," which did not even have the sense to recognize the most remarkable triumph of Divine wisdom in history: the satisfaction ofGod's justice and mercy in the cross of Christ.

But Paul didn't let the Corinthian Jews ' off, either. While Greek culture­ Christianity turned Christian discourse into a combination of magic, self­ reflection, and speculation, Jewish sympathies led to a different distraction: signs and wonders. Paul says both promise what God considers weak.

The cross was a stumbling block to the Jews also in that accepting its message meant coming to terms with the fact that they could not save themselves, not even with God's help. They were helpless to participate in their own redemption

and this public picture ofChrist hanging on a cross, carrying the weight of our sins, meant that all of their works had been for nothing. Salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone, was a scandalous notion to a religion that had become increasingly legalistic by the time of Christ.

Part of the problem is that, as fallen men and women, we want power not only for the advance of the church in a secular culture, but even for ourselves.

There is something exal ting about being a part of something that is respected by society. Ifwe can build larger buildings, have larger gatherings, create larger enterprises, and compete with other mass-marketed products, we will be a part ofsomething powerful, something relevant and the world will have to sit up and take notice of us for our impressive technological, and financial, sophistication.

This is what was driving the Corinthian believers, too, who had forgotten their roots. This is what Paul points out immediately after he had described the gospel as a stumbling block: Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were ofnoble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things ofthis world arid the despised things­ and the things that are not-to nullifY the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in ChristJesus, who has become for us wisdom from God-that is, our righteousness, holiness, and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: 'Let him who boasts boast in the Lord' (vv. 26-31).

The Corinthian believers did not want to win their sophisticated neighbors as much as they wanted to be like them.

In a culture that idealized wealth, MARCH/APRIL 1993

Ill!

23

1110dern REFORMATION Christianity made little sense. In the face ofall ofthis, Paul expects the Corinthians to tell their neighbors that their Savior­ God was sentenced to death by (a) his own people, (b) the Roman authorities, and (c) God the Father himself. Thus, salvation in this scheme is the result of a shameful death on a cross which, for Romans, had the equivalent criminal associations we would make with the electric chair. No wonder many cultures have found it difficult to understand this core message of Christianity!

Nevertheless, at the point Christianity is least saleable, it is the most powerful.

The resurrection was such an overwhelming concept that those gathered in Athens to "hear the latest ideas" told Paul, "We'll hear more from you again on these things."

But today, we hardly say enough to provoke the sligh test in terest. In bending over backward to be relevant, we have actually become politely irrelevant, mumbling when we get to the bit about judgment, hell, wrath, condemnation, human helplessness and our utter dependence on the grace and righteousness of someone outside of us, namely Christ. "Give us a god who shows us an example of greatness-power, virtue, wisdom; not a god who dies for us, but one who shows us how to live!"

That is what the modern Greeks demand, just as others demand miraculous signs.

But Paul continues his defense with the following: When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power. (2: 1-5)

In addition to what we have already 24

til

MARCH/APRIL 1993

seen about Paul's superior education, he himselfadds, "I am not in the least inferior to the 'super-apostles'" (2 Cor. 12: 11).

And yet, "I did not come with eloquence or superiorwisdom." There was not going to be a test to see whose gospel was the cleverest, whose gospel was the most relevant, whose gospel could attract more attention. "For \I resolved to know nothing ... except Jesus Christ and him crucified. "

Trying to be relevant, we have actually . become politely irrelevant, mumbling when we get to the bit about judgment, hell, wrath, condemnation, and our utter dependence on the grace and righteousness of someone outside of us, namely Christ.

We want to stand out, to be relevant and "in touch," but when we don't talk about Christ, or even sin, judgment, grace and redemption enough for even regular churchgoers to be able to articulate their theology, we couldn't be more irrelevant.

I wonder, judging by the most common themes in evangelical preaching and publishing, whether we are ashamed of the gospel. Perhaps it is not as up-to-date or relevant as healing ministries, 12 step programs, or Christian cruises. It presents stumbling blocks to the miracle-seekers and wisdom-seekers of the age. But the gospel is not about our seeking, but God's; not about our ascent, but his descent.

A great many Christians at the end of the 20th century appear to be interested in everything except Christ. You name it, we've got it! But the one thing we no longer believe in is the gosp'el. There's no room for irrelevant dogmas about original sin, total depravity, guilt, atonement, propitiation, substitution, justification, the sovereignty of God, regeneration, judgment, heaven and hell. Nearly every one ofthese doctrines in our day is up for grabs; one does not have to hold a narrow position on these issues to wear the evangelical label.

However, an evangelical must be absolutely certain about how to tackle issues such as abortion, pornography, socialism, affirmative action, homosexuality, the gifts of the Spirit, and the precise chronology ofend-times events. While the Bible does indeed have something to say about our behavior, spiritual gifts, and eschatology, often issues rarely discussed in the Bible have become the standard tests of orthodoxy, while the most obvious biblical motifs are largely unknown.

The evangelical church must follow the advice of the Apostle Paul and leave all of the distractions behind; it must speak less self-confidently and begin declaring its confidence in the person and work of]esus Christ. There must be a recovery ofthe riches ofmysteries that have been finally revealed in the living and written Word. Until the gospel is clearly known again in our ungodly culture, we must put every other pursuit, every other distraction, every other interest or fascination in abeyance, declaring to the sophisticated foolishness of our age, "I resolved to know nothing among you except Christ and him crucified." 0

Send afriend agift subscription to modernREFORMATION

1110dern REFORMATION

The Moralistic Impulse in

American Evangelicalism

By Dr. DARYL G. HART

E

attitude of moderation and responsibility, but by pushing for laws that would prohibit the sale and consumption ofalcohol. So too, the flap over teaching evolution in public schools that began in the 1920s has little to do in evangelical minds with the merits of different scientific explanations, but more often has resulted from fear about the corrosive effects of evolutionary teaching on the morals ofimpressionable youths.

The point of highlighting evangelicalism's habitual concern for upright conduct is not that morality is unimportant or that such matters as slavery, drunkenness, and evolution do not call for a Christian response. Rather, the question is, Why do evangelicals so often resort to moral categories when struggling with personal and public issues when .other factors (theological, economic, and political) are often just as important? What we see in the history of evangelical involvement in public life is the triumph ofwhat Joseph Haroutunian described as a move from ((piety to moralism," where the danger of sinful conduct supersedes questions about knowledge, beauty, and the nature of reality. But to describe the problem is

another battle to impede America' s moral conomic issues. may have been decline. There is even talk ofresuscitating decisive for the 1992 presidential the Moral Majority. election, but social and cultural questions were never far from voters' Leaving aside the merits of Hunter's analysis and the thorny questions minds, especially the evangelical segment ofthe electorate. In recent years, America surrounding a Christian response to politics, the book Culture Wars does has become increasingly polarized in what underline one ofthe chief characteristics sociologist James Davison Hunter calls a ((culture war." Hunter argues in Culture of American evangelicalism, namely, Wars: The Struggle to Define America moralism. Throughout the history of the United States, evangelicals have that the most contested political issues­ abortion, gay rights, education, public mobilized most often, against groups, ideas, or practices thought to be immoral, funding for art, the composition of the and therefore, a threat to the nation.

Supreme Court-are not the marginal Northern evangelicals, for instance, concerns of a few zealous lobby groups, advocated the immediate abolition of but reflect profound moral and religious slavery, irrespective of the political differences within American society. consequences, because holding slaves was On one side of this struggle are the a sin. So, too, evangelicals responded to orthodox party: conservative Catholics, Jews, and evangelicals who have the dangers ofalcohol, not by forging an normative and supernaturally rp;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;;;;~ derived views about what is right or wrong. They are pitted against the progressives: liberal Catholics, Jews, Protestants, and secularists who question whether absolute moral standards exist and promote tolerance and diversity as the basis for social harmony. Since the November election, this cultural divide between the orthodox and progressives has surfaced once again as policy proposals and appointments of President Clinton reveal his stand on abortion, gay rights, and public education. In reaction, many evangelicals are gearing up for MARCHI APRIL 1993

II

25

1110dern REFORMATION not to explain it. For an explanation of evangelical moralism some attention to the history of religious and political developments in the early United States is in order.

At the time of the nation's founding, the United States faced a profound crisis of authority. Gone were the old institutions such as the monarchy and a national state church that provided order and stability for cultural and political life. In fact, this was precisely what the revolution was about: getting rid ofthose corrupt European institutions.

Centralized power, whether in the crown or in the church, was considered coercive.

For that reason the founders advocated limited government and religious freedom. This would prevent tyranny from rearing its ugly head in the new world.

Nevertheless, America's political elite believed that virtue was crucial to the well-being of the nation. The political philosophy of the revolution, republicanism, taught that virtue was essen tial to a free and democratic society.

The church and the state could not force people to behave in certain ways, but individual citizens were still expected to behave. For deists who supported the revolution, the simple ethical teachings of Jesus, such as the Golden Rule, were sufficient for nurturing the virtue essential to national prosperity. Leaders such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, even though suspicious of religious enthusiasm, believed churches were important for maintaining social order. According to George Washington, religion and moralitywere "indispensable to political prosperity." The theological baggage that often buttressed such morality was not desirable, but the moral habits that Christianity encouraged were ' quite desirable. Similarly, Protestant clergy enthusiastically embraced Enlightenment ideas about society and the good life, and in the process turned from older Calvinistic ideas about ethics 26

•

MARCH/APRIL 1993

by severing the moral teachings of Christianity from systematic theology.

The Puritan tradition insisted that grace was necessary for genuine virtue (action that glorified God), and insisted that ethical decisions grew out of a theology of redemption. But the necessities of democracy and loss of traditional institutions forced American Protestants to defend ethics from the standpoint of the new political ideology.

Fears about the corruptions of the Old World, where the defenders of Christianity often resorted to the authority oftradition or to an established church in order to enforce moral norms, left American Protestants with little choice but to affirm the democratic axiom that all men and women, both regenerate and unregenerate, knew intuitively the difference between right and wrong. In so doing, American believers were able to defend Christian conceptions ofvirtue as necessary for the success of the new nation even though the principles upon which the nation was founded precluded any particular theology from being established.

Not only did the dynamics of American politics sever ethics from theology, but they also cemented the ties between Protestant mores and the American way of life. The United States at the time of its founding was overwhelmingly Protestant; 85% of the population could trace their cultural heritage to one ofthe branches ofBritish Protestantism.

A broad consensus existed, therefore, on the kind of behavior that was acceptable. Evidence of this consensus can be found in the public schools ofthe new nation, where religious instruction was an important component of the curriculum. Bible reading, prayer, hymn singing, and church history were included in public school curricula so that students would grow up to be virtuous citizens.

What made this practice objectionable

was not just that Protestantism had been reduced to morality, but also that Protestant mores had become politicized. As immigrants ,came to the United States (many of them Catholic and Lutheran) and resisted the coercive nature of Protestant dominance in the schools, evangelicals who thought that virtue was necessary for the heal th ofthe nation branded such resistance as "un­ American."

Ofcourse, the political developments of the early United States do not alone explain the moralism that so often plagues evangelicalism. Particular emphases within evangelical theology­ from a higher estimate ofhuman nature to the revivalist's call for individuals to make a decision for Christ-also encourage the separation ofethics from doctrine. Nevertheless, the particular socio-political forces that have influenced American evangelicalism should not be ignored. Stripped of the traditional means for restraining evil­ a strong state informed by a national church-Americans were forced to depend upon their own internal resources to withstand temptation. The American revolution and the Enlightenment philosophy that supported it made it difficult for Christians to argue for older, traditional Protestant understandings ofindividual virtue and public morality. To say that men and women could not be good apart from grace was also to admit that government was necessary for restraining evil, and thus, was to call into question the American experiment itself. For the founding fathers believed that Americans could be good without the heavy hand of the government, and they premised the well-being of the nation upon the inherent virtue of the citizenry.

Two lessons, then, can be learned from the relationship of religion and politics in the early republic. The first is to see clearly the mistake of reducing

1110dern REFORMATION

~

Christianity to ethics. No matter how much we might think Christianity produces good citizens, the ultimate aim of the gospel is not to make the world safe for democracy, but to reconcile God and sinners. Such reconciliation does not come through the good behavior of believers; rather, that good behavior, which in the lives of believers is often mixed with bad, is the result of grace.

We cannot talk' about morality apart from grace. This is another way of insisting that we cannot talk about ethics apart from theology.

The second lesson to be learned is to recover a Reformational understanding ofthe differences between the genuinely virtuous acts produced by grace that glorify God, and a mere civil righteousness that provides a standard for public life. While Calvin and Luther taught that the ordinary good works of obeying laws could not in anyway please God, they still argued that sinners were capable of following and should adhere to public standards of moral conduct.

Keeping this distinction in mind will not prevent Christians from having a voice in public debates about common standards of decency, but it should check the habit of identifying public morali ty with Christian ethics that has been so characteristic of American evangelicalism. A common understanding of public morality is indeed a proper topic for political debates, but by distinguishing between civil righteousness and Christian virtue, such debates need not degenerate into culture wars. 0 Dr: Daryl G. Hart is the director ofthe Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals at Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL.

Free Tape!

An Introduction to CURE

Call 714-956-CURE

Christ & the Book of Revelation

By RICH GILBERT

E

very time something big happens in the news (especially if it involves the Middle East) it seems a new set of books, reinterpreting the book of Revelation, is published. It is therefore no surprise when, the reader begins to get the impression that the book of Revelation is a very dark, mysterious book that is difficult, if not down right impossible, to understand; and despairing of his own ability to make sense of it, he often avoids the book altogether. This is tragic, and need not occur, for the difficulty in understanding the book of Revelation has less to do with the book itself, than with its interpreters.

There were two things, concerning the scriptures, that the Reformers were certain of. The first was that the basic message of the scriptures is clear to anyone who can read them (this is in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church, which taught that the Scriptures were a dark book, and that you needed a priest-ultimately, the Pope-to interpret them for you), This does not mean that every part of Scripture is equally clear. Some passages are, indeed, difficult to understand and it helps to have the consensus of the Church through the centuries to correctly interpret them. But the basic message of what man's condition is, who Jesus is and what he's done for us, and how I can be saved, is perfectly clear.

The second thing that they were sure of was that the scriptures were about Christ. This is no less true ofRevelation, than it is of any other book of the Bible.

Again, this is not to say that everything in Revelation is as plain as the Gospel of John, nor do I claim to understand everything in it perfectly (for that matter, that's true for all of the scriptures as well). Mter all, the book ofRevelation is part of the genre known as apocalyptic literature, that is to say, it is full of symbolism. It employs numbers and images that were very familiar to first century Jews and Christians to get its message across. To understand the book ofRevelation it is essential to have some knowledge of what these numbers and images represent. Most people are familiar with some of these already ( 3 is the number for the triune God, 4 is the number for creation, 6 is the number for man, 7 is the number for perfection, 12 represents the tribes of Israel or the apostles, 1,000 is a number for completeness-so when a number like 666 is used it means always coming short of perfection, or a number like 144,000 is 12 cubed times 1,000 meaning a great multitude, everyone who's meant to be included is, with no one left out). But Revelation, like the rest of scripture, is about Christ, and any interpretation that ends up with something else as central (either intentionally or unintentionally) has not only missed the entire message of the book, but, to put it simply, is wrong. By, "about Christ", is meant that it is about his person (he is both fully God and fully man), and his work (his life, death, and resurrection) on our behalf, and not merely about his Second Coming.

Usually, these books treat the doctrine MARCHI APRIL 1993

â&#x20AC;˘

27

1110dern REFORMATION of the return ofChrist as, at best, merely a side note to the events that are supposedly leading up to his second coming. It's easy to get the impression that these books could be written without mentioning that Christ is coming again, and not significantly change their content.) Well, it's fine to say that Revelation is "about Christ," but it remains to be shown how it is "about Christ."

It is important to note first the circumstances under which this letter was written. What was John's purpose?

This letter was written during a time when the Church was increasingly being persecuted ohn was himself exiled to the island of Patmos under this persecution). The power ofthe state was beginning to be used with great force against the Church. Christians were being tortured and killed for their faith.

They were watching their friends, and their family members die horrible deaths.

Doubts were beginning to arise about the wisdom of being a Christian. Christ had promised them that the gates ofhell would not prevail against his Church.

Now they were beginning to wonder ifit actually might.

So John writes a letter to encourage them. He shows them how all things are still in God's all-powerful hands. Christ, to whom "all power and authority has been granted" will ultimately triumph over the forces ofevil arrayed against the Church. This is so because he has, in fact, already defeated them.

John does not set forth a chart book of the end times for his readers; he sets forth Christ. Christ is "the Almighty," "the First and the Last," "the Beginning and the End," "the Alpha and the Omega" (1:8; 21:6; 22: 13). In short, he is God himself, the one "who is and who was, and who is to come" (compare 1:4 with 1:8). He is "the ruler of the kings of the earth" 0:5).

The believer can take courage, whatever happens to him (even death),

a

28

IJ

MARCH/APRIL 1993

because his eternal destiny is in Christ's hands. Christ has done it all for him.

Recognizing this, the elders around the throne lay their crowns at his feet (they realize that they can take no credit for either being there, or for receiving their crowns, and that they owe all to Christ alone). Christ is " the firstborn from the dead" (1:5). He "was dead" yet is "alive for ever and ever" (1: 18). By his death on

The primary message of Revelation is not about a tribulation. It is not about a rapture.

It is not about the European Community uniting or a one world government. It is not about Russia attacking Israel. It is about Christ and what he has done, continues to do, and will do, for us. our behalf He "has freed us from our sins" (1:5). How has He done this? By emptying the wrath ofGod onto himself, and dying in our place, the just for the unjust, he has satisfied the justice of God, and canceled the debt we owed.

Thus he disarmed Satan ofhis greatest weapon against us, his ability to accuse us ofour sins before God (cf. 12: 10). By his resurrection he "holds the keys of death and Hades" (1:18). It is Christ who, alone, is found worthy when none of us were (ch. 5). The Christian is righteous because he has washed his robe and '( made it white in the blood of the lamb," i.e., because Christ's death has covered his

sins. The fine linen that the bride (the Church) .wears, to the wedding feast, is a gift. We are told that this fine linen represents righteous deeds. Our righteousness is something' given to us.

It is not our own. It is an alien righteousness. It is Christ's righteousness given to us 09:7-8). This is meant to give courage to the Christian undergoing persecution, because, if Christ has been able to do all this, then surely, all things in this world are in His hands as well.

Ultimately, the forces ofevil, arrayed against the Church, will be defeated completely, and all their deeds will be punished. Satan will no longer be able to attack the Church. He will be cast down and bound forever in the lake offire. His access to God will be cut off. God will put all enemies under Christ's feet and he will establish, fully and forever, the reign he now already has over all things.

Then, there will be a new heaven and a new earth where there will be no more suffering, no more death, no more tears, for he shall wipe away all tears, and the Christian shall be with him forever. The great truths of the Reformation are affirmed in the book of Revelation.

Christ is central. We are saved by him, not by anything we have done to deserve it. His righteousness is imputed to us, and it's on this basis that we have any standing with the Father.

This is the message of Revelation. It is not about a tribulation. It is not about a rapture. It is not about the European Community uniting or a one world government. It is not about Russia attacking Israel. It is about Christ, and what he has done, continues to do, and will do, for us. And, just as we must not take away anything from the message, we must not add anything to it by our interpretation, or the warnings contained therein will apply to us. Amen. Come Lord Jesus. 0 Rich Gilberr is a sraffwrirer for CURE, a graduare of Chrisr College Irvine, and a Lurheran layman.

lJ1odernREFORMATION

'fcMcJ>'tf!'fIOJV

IJV

me WIf!1Jerj(JVeSS

By MICHAEL S. HORTON

T

here are three wilderness experiences ~hat are absolutely fundamen tal to the understanding of redemptive history.

The first is the wilderness experience of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden.

Most ofus are familiar with the story in Genesis 3; there is a provision in the wilderness that of all the trees in the garden "you are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." This was a wonderful provision, for the two could eat any fruit from any tree in the garden that God had made, with the exception of one. But in spite of God's generous provision, the two rebelled in the wilderness. God's word was questioned.

"Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" Satan asks. Notice how Satan adds to God's prohibition of eating from the one tree to eating from "any tree" in the garden.

Eve gives her own addition to the word of God in responding to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle ofthe garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die. '" Both Satan and Eve wind up making God a stricter God than he has revealed himself to be.

How many times have we seen this .

tendency. We sin by adding to the word of God our own doctrines, our own opinions, or our own rules that God has not commanded. And many people rebel because they have gotten themselves to believe that this God is worthy of mutiny, this God who would withhold

provisions and basic pleasures from them.

God's word is undermined in another way in this text, but this time by subtraction. "Did God really say... ?"

Satan asks. How many times do we hear this question today, "Did God really say such and such was a sin?" "Did God really say that Jesus is the only way to heaven?" Then finally there is the full­ scale rejection of God's word in Satan's words, "You surely will not die." You see, Satan cunningly started with subtle legalistic additions to the word of God, then by liberal subtraction, and now by outright rejection. Eve was deceived when she listened to the devil's advice

and looked upon the fruit of the forbidden tree. "When she saw that it was pleasing to the eye and desirable to make one wise she took the fruit and ate .... " Instant gratification! If you eat this fruit you shall be like gods, and you can have it all now! Adam and his wife would have been offered fruit from the tree oflife ifthey would have obeyed God's command during the probationary period there in the garden, but Satan says in a sense, no ... you can have it now, you can be like gods, you can have glory now instantly, without having to wait.

Sound familiar? It sounds like an ad we'd see on television today doesn't it.

"Have it your way... .Act now and make no payments untl'1 .... " So there is provision in the wilderness, rebellion in the wilderness, and now judgment in the wilderness.

"Their eyes were opened and they knew that they were naked." I ran across a poem that expressed this kind of awakening: I have taken the pill, I've hoisted my skirts to my thighs and dropped them to my ankles. I've rebelled at the university, skied at Aspen, lived with two men, married one, earned my keep, kept my identity, and frankly, I'm lost.

MARCHI APRIL 1993

â&#x20AC;˘

29

'nodern REFORMATION That is the modern spirit. There is a sense, perhaps as never before, that the more we rebel against God the more alienated we become. We know that we are naked, our eyes are opened but we are no wiser, just more ashamed. We're running from God, hiding, sewing together fig leaves ofour own making to cover up our shame and nakedness. Ever since Adam and Eve, we have been running away from God, not seeking him. "We want to ((seek God" about as much as a wanted crimin'al wants to find a policeman. But as Paul states, ((there is no one who seeks after God." Adam and Eve tried to cover their shame by leaves they had sewn for themselves. We do the same. Sometimes even church can become a way of doing that. We come to church squeaky clean with our best Sunday suit and cheerful smile, but for many of us, this is just an attempt to cover our shame. There is something else here in the wilderness, however.

There is a promise. If you remember, God tells them, (( Satan will bruise his heel, but your seed will crush his head."

And then God sets out to cover their nakedness and shame with an ani-mal he "himselfsacrifices to provide the covering, pointing forward t{) the final rest through the body and blood of Christ, sacrificed for Adam and Eve's rebellion in the wilderness.

The second wilderness experience is recorded in Psalm 78. The background for this Psalm is the remembrance of God's deliverance of Israel from the slavery in Egypt. Even in the middle of the wilderness, God gave his people manna from heaven and water from a rock. But there was rebellion in the wilderness:

30

cloud by day and with light from the fire all night. He split the rocks in the desert and gave

So he ended their days in futility and their years in terror. (Ps. 78:11-33)

them water as abundant as the seas; he brought streams out"of a rocky crag and made water

They did not remember :what God had done, the Psalmist said. They refused to trust in God's deliverance and trusted in their own strength.

They refused to live by God's word, for they put God to the test by making demands. They demanded the food they craved. Nothing has changed much, has it? The people of God are still like this today. fu long as God is Just as the people sending the manna we are happy, but the instant something goes wrong we of God lost their complain. And so we become cynical place of rest in about God's provision, ((What, is God going to spread out a table in the Eden, so too, the wilderness?" Then there is judgment people of God lost in the wilderness. While the food was still in their mouth, God struck them their place of rest dead. The Psalmist says he ended their days in futility (like the curse in Eden) in Israel. and their years in terror. Once again Paradise is lost. The Kingdom ofGod water gushed out, and streams flowed is taken from a physical location back abundantly. But can he also give us food? Can up into paradise. Just as the people of he supply meat for his people?" When the God lost their place of rest in Eden, so LORD heard them., he was very angry; his fire too, the people ofGod lost their place broke -out against Jacob, and his wrath rose . of rest in Israel.

But there is also salvation in the against Israel, f-or they did not believe in God or trust in his deliverance. Yet he gave a wilderness. Justas God promised -command to the skies above and opened the salvation to Adam and Eve after their doors of the heavens; he rained down manna rebellion, so too there -is a promise of for the people to eat, he gave them the grain of deliverance in the midst of all of this: flow down like rivers. But they continued to sin against him, rebelling in the desert against the Most High. They willfully put God to the test by demanding the food they craved. They spoke against God, saying, "Can God spread a table in the desert? When he struck the rock,

heaven. Men ate the bread of angels; he sent He sent [the ark ofj his might into captivity, his splendor into the hands of the enemy.

He gave his people over to the sword; he was very angry with his inheritance. Fire consumed their young men, and their

They forgot what God had done, the wonders he had shown them. He did miracles in the

them all the food they could eat. He let loose the east wind from the heavens and led forth the south wind by his power. He rained meat down on them like dust, flying birds like sand on the seashore. He made them come down inside their camp, all around their tents. They ate till they had more than enough, for he had given them what they craved. But before they turned from the food they craved, even while it was still in their mouths, God's anger rose

sight of their fathers in the land of Egypt, in the region of Zoan. He divided the sea and led them through; he made the water stand firm like a wall. He guided them with the

against them; he put to death the sturdiest among them, cutting down the young men of Israel. In spite of all this, they kept on sinning; in spite of his wonders, they did not believe.

them to everlasting shame. Then he rejected the tents of Joseph, he did not choose the tribe of Ephraim; but he chose the tribe of

â&#x20AC;˘

MARCHI APRIL 1993

maidens had no wedding songs; their priests were put to the sword, and their widows could not weep. Then the Lord awoke as from sleep, as a man wakes from the stupor of wine. He beat back his enemies; he put

Judah, Mount Zion, which he loved. He

1110dernREFORMATION

built his sanctuary like the heights, like the

foot against astone.'" Jesus answered, "It says:

earth that he established forever. He chose

'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

David his servant and took him from the sheep

When the devil had finished all this tempting,

pens; from tending the sheep he brought him

he left him until an opportune time.

to be the shepherd of his people Jacob, ofIsrael his inheritance. (Ps. 78:61-71)

God did not let an entire generation enter his rest. The generation in the wilderness that demanded the food they craved and would not trust his deliverance. It did not matter that they were Jews, God struck them dead and barred them from Paradise as he did Adam and Eve. And God swore in his wrath that they would never enter his rest. But to the remnant of Israel, God sent David to be a shepherd over the people.

And then finally we come to the last temptation in the wilderness, the temptation of Christ:

Instead of feasting in the wilderness, as in the fruit of the garden of Eden, or on the bread as in the desert, Jesus chose fasting instead of feasting. The food Christ craved was the word of God. In this temptation in the wilderness, Satan again appeals to that which is pleasing to the eyes, and also to instant gratification, the shortcut to glory. Satan says, "Look, if you will just bow down and worship me, look at all the kingdoms you could have. I could make you the emperor of the world! And I will give all of this to you, immediately! You can't really know whether or not God will reward you at the end of your life, you've got to take things into your own hands. Ifyou want it done right you've got to do it yourself.

Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert, where for forty days he was tempted by the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and at the end of them he was hungry. The devil said to him, "If you are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread." Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'" The devilled him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. So if you worship me, it will all be yours." Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your

God and serve him only.'" The devilled him to Jerusalem and had him stand on

is written: 'Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that comes out of the mouth of God. '" Instead of twisting scripture, he simply submits to it. Again Satan offers instant divinity, "I will give you the kingdoms of the world and all their authority and splendor." Jesus was of course divine, but he was also human, and there is no doubt that this was a real temptation of our Lord. But Jesus remembered that his mission was not to rule the kingdoms of this world, for his kingdom was not of this world. Though he sovereignly rules the world through providence right now, his kingdom is not identified with any earthly kingdom. When he returns, all of the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdom ofour God and of his Christ and once again Paradise will not only be a heavenly rule, as it is now, but will be a new heaven and a new earth. But Jesus responds with the commandment, "You must worship God alone .... " This second Adam, this second Israel, refuses to accept Satan's offer of instant gratification. No shortcut to glory for this Adam, for he will go all the way to the cross. At last an Adam that would not cave in to the lie!

How does Christ's victory over temptation help us in our own struggle? Hebrews records the following:

Jesus Christ

is the second Adam. He

lived for us. This Adam

successfully made it through

his probation in the wilderness and won for us the right

to eat from the tree of life,

which is his own flesh. By

trusting in Christ, all men are

co-heirs of the promise

together with Israel according

to the apostle Paul.

the highest point of the temple. "If you are the Son o'f God," he said, "throw yourself down from here. For it is written: "'He will command his angels concerning you to guard you carefully; they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your

Let me give you instant happiness. I can give it to you now ... why wait."

Instead of putting God to the test, Jesus responds to the devil by saying, "It

Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. (2: 18) For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are-yet was without sin. (4:15).

Now think about that. Jesus Christ really did endure real temptation.

He was tempted in every way. He was tempted sexually, he was tempted in terms of greed and power, he was MARCH/APRIL 1993

â&#x20AC;˘

31

1110dern REFORM ATION

tempted just as we are, yet without sin.

So what is our response to this. Do we see this primarily as a moral example for us to follow: "IfJesus did it, we can do it too?" No, Jesus did not fulfill obedience in this temptation as a moral example chiefly. He fulfilled it as our substitute. Don't you see, Jesus is the true Israel. Jesus Christ is the second Adam. He lived for us. This Adam successfully made it through his probation in the wilderness and won for us the right to eat ftom the tree of life, which is his own flesh. By trusting in Christ, all men are co-heirs of the promise together with Israel according to the apostle Paul. Jesus is the tree of life in the paradise of God for he said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life ... " Jesus is the bread in the wilderness for he said in John 6, "I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But I am the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever." He was the rock that broke open in the wilderness out of which water flowed for the people there.

32

•

MARCHI APRIL 1993

1Cor. 10 states, "They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ." He is the sabbath rest and the promised land. He says, "Come to me, all you who labor, and I will give you rest." Even though there is no earthly paradise, no land ofCanaan until Jesus returns, there is still an eternal rest into which we can enter. And we enter that rest by faith. Jesus is the Joshua that leads us into the promised land. He is the Davidic king. He lived for us and he died for us. He was the sacrifice whose righteousness covers our nakedness and shame, the lamb ofGod foreshadowed in the sacrifice God made to cover Adam and Eve, and in the sacrifices of Israel.

He was the final sacrifice for sin. All who trust in his atoning death are declared not guilty. Paul says he was crucified for our sins and raised for our justification.

We do not achieve justification; he did by rising from the dead. We do not submit to it, we do not let him subdue us, we do not get into the flow, we do not live the victorious Christian life.

Jesus Christ has accomplished the

highest form ofperfection and victory for all Christians, though we suffer, fail, and struggle with sin in innumerable ways. He also prays for us. At this very moment, and at moments when you are engaged in giving into temptation, you have a defense attorney at God's right hand in the heavenly courtroom pleading your case, showing the Judge his nail­ scarred wrists for you.

Paul said the gospel is a stumbling block to the Jews because they are looking for « signs and wonders." That sounds like a contemporary preoccupation. He said the gospel is foolishness to Greeks because they are looking for wisdom. But because we are in Christ, we do not set our hopes on what is pleasing to the eye, we do not look to our own strength or to our own righteousness but to God's infallible word that promises us things we do not see. We stake our confidence and place our trust in things we do not feel. Now we can endure temptation and suffering, not in order to win the prize ofsalvation, but because someone has already won it for us, and we share that prize by virtue of our union with him through faith. In view of Christ's successful probation in the wilderness experience, let the dying embers of your faith be fanned into a bright, warm, and cheering flame. Let us turn our eyes from seeking our salvation, our happiness and joy in perishable things, fixing our eyes on Christ, the author and finisher of our faith. And let us cast aside those sins that so easily set us back in our journey through the wilderness content to feed only on Christ, God's living word, the tree of life, the rock ofliving water, the bread from heaven, whose blood is the wine of heaven that washes away your failures to resist temptation in the wilderness. 0

lnodern REFORMATION

I ~'

MARCHIAPRIL 1993

â&#x20AC;¢

33

r

Miehaellorton - - -......._ - - e d i t o r - ­

W hen individuals accept Jesus as Savior, must they also accept Jesus as Lord?

Does salvation necessarily demand discipleship?

I

The

Reformation and Lordship Salvation

Michael Horton, well-known author and editor of Made in America and Power Religion, provides a comprehensive treatment of the Lordshi p / Salvation controversy, written from the Reformed perspective for the widest possible audience.

C