Equal in Creation and Redemption; Complementary in Role
Yesterday on the Gender Blog for the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary responded to a USA Today op-ed column by Mary Zeiss Stange, professor of Women’s Studies and Religion at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. The topic: of course, women’s role in church ministry. Considering her credentials, it’s easy to see that Stange is going to be an advocate of egalitarianism (look it up) between the sexes when it comes to church leadership. Dr. Mohler attempts to bring Stange’s, and the modern culture’s, basic worldview into focus, and he contrasts it with some basic comments regarding the biblical, complementarian (look it up), worldview of the roles of men and women in church life.
I realize that the world isn’t consciously fettered to the clear teaching of Scripture, and it should be no surprise that the world would attempt to budge the church from faithfulness thereto. The world does a very good job of it, across the board, when it has to try at all, and doesn’t find a church eager to join the world’s parade regardless of which direction it’s going. But I thought in the light of the present discussion on those other sites, I’d post Paul’s controversial restriction on women in church leadership from 1 Timothy 2. And I mean the whole, short chapter. As you read the chapter, notice first of all the redemptive basis of his restriction, then notice the Old Testament or creational basis of his restriction:
2:1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. 7 For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
8 I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
The redemptive basis of Paul’s restrictions on women in church leadership is found in verses five and six. Men and women share the same mediator. Elsewhere, in the context of roles in marriage, Peter instructs husbands to keep in mind that their wives are “heirs with [them] of the grace of life” (1 Peter 3:7). The same is true in this context. Christ died, not only for “kings, and all who are in high positions,” or just for Jews and men (meaning males), but he died for all kinds of people. He died for the powerful and the powerless; for the Jew and for the Gentile; and the Lord Jesus Christ is the sole mediator between God and humans of both sexes. It is instructive to note that the word “man” in verse five translates the same Greek word that is translated people in verses one and four. Christ didn’t just die for males, he died for males and females. It is first in the light of this fact, men’s and women’s equality in redemption, that Paul gives any instruction at all to anyone. For here is the source of life: the message of redemption in Christ. No other message will grant to men or women the grace to serve God according to his will. And any differentiation of roles between the sexes would certainly not last, if not for loving gratitude to the Lord for what he has done for men and women.
Secondly, notice Paul’s Old Testament, or creational, basis for his restriction on women in the church leadership role. This is found in verses thirteen and fourteen. Refer to the passage above for a refresher. Paul states two simple reasons. I might add that they are reasons that were “breathed-out,” or spoken, by God himself. Reason one: Women should not “teach” or “excercise authority over a man,” but are to “remain quiet” because of creational chronology. Adam was created first, and Eve was created second. The simple fact is that the biblical revelation of the creation of men and women included from the very beginning inherent complementarian roles. Moses clearly writes that the woman was created to be “a helper fit (or corresponding) to him” (Genesis 2:18). Paul does not elaborate on this chronology as an excuse to institute complementarian roles in the church, just states it as the reason.
The challenge of competent biblical interpretation is to avoid going beyond what Scripture teaches. Yes, this includes the implicit teaching as well as the explicit, but not all inferences drawn from the text are equally valid or necessary. One must tread with caution when it comes to that. When the interpreter is not cautious in drawing inferences, misinterpretation results, and this misinterpretation will contradict the totality of biblical revelation. So it is in this case. The reason people get offended so easily by this passage is that when they hear that men were created before women, they don’t hear a chronological list, they instinctively hear a qualitative list, for want of a better word (if you’ve got one, submit it in your comment). In other words, they hear something like, men were created first, and therefore they are better than women. This is what I call an invalid, and unnecessary inference drawn from the text. This is not what Paul is saying. It is important to not “go beyond what is written” (compare 1 Corinthians 4:6-7).
Paul’s second Old Testament basis is the fact that Eve became a transgressor by being deceived in the fall, and Paul clarifies that Adam was not deceived. Here again, it is important to reign in our instinctive inferences based on sexual rivalry. Many hear this passage as implying that women should not teach men in church, or serve in the pastoral office, because they are somehow by nature more prone to deception, and that, in order to preserve the truth of Scripture, women should be restricted from the teaching ministry of the church. This, again, is an invalid inference. If this passage does anything, it points out the greater responsibility Adam had in the fall, as compared with Eve. Put simply, the devil tricked Eve into eating the forbidden fruit; Adam ate it, as they say, “of his own free will.” So here again, Eve is subordinate in role (not in inherent worth) not only in her creation, but also in her fall from original righteousness, into original sin. Thus Paul’s second facet of the creational basis of complementarianism in roles in the church.
So Adam and Eve were created and fell with reference to superordinate and subordinate roles. So, where do we find the inherent equality in worth? Genesis 1:26 says, “Then God said, “Let us make man (generic for both sexes) in our image, after our likeness.” Both men and women reflect God in righteousness, knowledge and holiness (compare Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10). Men and women were created equally righteous, but fell from this; they were equally rational–both have the capacity for reason which distinguishes them from the animal kingdom, and so reflect God. Men and women were also created equally “holy” or set apart by God to perform God-given roles. Although these roles differ, the fact that they are set apart for specific roles is equal.
So, in creation and redemption, men and women are equal. In role, men and women complement each other. When tempted to defer to the pressure of the world to conform to its egalitarian expectations, it’s important to recall that Paul quoted Old Testament Scripture as his sole reason for having men and women serve differing roles out of loving gratitude for the mediatorial life, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. The roles were not culturally contrived, and therefore dated and obsolete. The roles were built in at creation and are expected in the light of the cross. Paul stood on God’s Word, and so should the 21st century Christian.
Puritan Theology
The progress (or perhaps, regress) of my theological views from independent Baptist
fundamentalism to confessional Reformed theology results from my desire to get to the true roots of the Baptist tradition. Sort of a “back to the basics” quest. Essential in the post-Reformation development of Reformed theology, and even the development of the original Baptist movement, is Puritan theology. As Baptist historian, Leon McBeth, writes at the Baptist History and Heritage Society website, “Our best historical evidence says that Baptists came into existence in England in the early seventeenth century. They apparently emerged out of the Puritan-Separatist movement in the Church of England.” Several notable Puritans, like the great John Owen, renounced their paedobaptistic distinctives in favor of the emerging Baptistic alternatives, which I still contend are due to Anabaptistic, rather than Reformed, influence. But I digress (for more on the ongoing debate about an Anabaptist/Baptist connection, read this article from the Baptist Standard).
One of the Reformed podcasts I follow weekly, “Christ the Center,” by the Reformed Forum, features an interview of Rev. James O’Brien, pastor of Reedy River PCA on the Christ-centered, and piety-enriching benefits of reading the Puritans (listen to the episode here). Puritan literature is available, not only from Banner of Truth Trust, and other Reformed publishers who reprint their works, but a world of Puritan literature is also available at Archive.org, and Google Books. But to get an easy start, you or some Christian you know probably has a copy of Matthew Henry’s commentary. Pull it off the shelf and peruse it. I bet you won’t regret it.
Christ-Centered Counseling
Along with a local PCA Church, Grace Community Presbyterian in Fort Worth, Texas, I am
reading through several books this year. For the months of March and April, I’m reading through How People Change by biblical counselors Dr. Timothy Lane, executive director and faculty member of the Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation (CCEF), and Dr. Paul David Tripp, president of Paul Tripp Ministries, pastor, and adjunct professor at Westminster Theological Seminary as well as adjunct faculty member of CCEF. The slogan across the top of the CCEF website (www.ccef.org) is “Restoring Christ to Counseling and Counseling to the Church.” We’re off to a good start.
As you may have guessed, I’m not the sort who naturally gravitates toward such “practical” material. But that’s my own problem. This volume, however, proves promising. I’ve only gotten through chapter one, so far, and it appears to have already gotten my number. The title of chapter one is “the gospel gap” (all titles are in lower case in this book), which the authors summarize in this way:
The good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ is a “then-now-then” gospel…First, there is the “then” of the past. When I embrace Christ by faith, my sins are completely forgiven, and I stand before God as righteous. There is also the “then” of the future, the promise of eternity with the Lord, free of sin and struggle. The church has done fairly well explaining these two “thens” of the gospel, but it has tended to understate or misunderstand the “now” benefits of the work of Christ. What difference does the gospel make in the here and now? How does it help me as a father, a husband, a worker, and a member of the body of Christ? How does it help me respond to difficulty and make decisions? How does it give me meaning, purpose and identity? How does it motivate my ministry to others?
It is in the here and now that many of us experience a gospel blindness. Our sight is dimmed by the tyranny of the urgent, by the siren call of success, by the seductive beauty of physical things, by our inability to admit our own problems, and by the casual relationships within the body of Christ that we mistakenly call fellowship. This blindness is often encouraged by preaching that fails to take the gospel to the specific challenges that people face. People need to see that the gospel belongs in their workplace, their kitchen, their school, their bedroom, their backyard and their van. They need to see the way the gospel makes a connection between what they are doing and what God is doing. They need to understand that their life stories are being lived out within God’s larger story so that they can learn to live each day with a gospel mentality (pages 3-4).
If you’ve been reading my blog for any length of time, you know I’m a big believer in the Christ-centered emphasis of Reformed theology. You may have read previous posts where I’ve recommended books like Christ Centered Preaching and Living the Cross Centered Life. This book on biblical counselling is right up the Christ-centered alley. Here’s a helpful guide for learning to live life in light of the gospel.
Two great passages of Scripture give us a picture of this so-called “then-now-then” application of the gospel to the believer. In his letter to Titus, the apostle Paul writes that the gospel is the basis for the instructions he gives in the first ten verses of chapter two.
11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works (Titus 2:11-14).
Back “then” the grace of God appeared, bringing salvation for people in every nation (v. 11). “Now,” or as Paul writes, “in the present age” (v. 12), this grace of God trains us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, embracing self-control, uprightness, and godliness, “waiting for our blessed hope” (v. 13), in other words, looking forward to “then,” when Christ returns, who, back “then,” gave himself for our redemption from lawlessness to “purify . . . a people for his own posession who are zealous for good works” (v. 14). As you can see, the authors draw directly from Scripture for their approach to counseling, with no modern psychological influences evident. This is Christ-centered counseling if I’ve ever seen it.
Likewise, Peter gives a bit more extensive treatment in his second letter. In fact, in 2 Peter 1:9, the apostle explicitly indicates a professing believer’s tendency to “forget” about what Christ did for him in the gospel. Here is Lane’s and Tripp’s “gospel gap.” Let’s take a look at the passage–2 Peter 1:3-11.
His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us (back “then“) to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises (again, past tense), so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped (detecting a pattern yet?) from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.
For this very reason, (“now“) make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins (here’s the “gospel gap”). Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. For in this way there will (“then“) be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
For these reasons, and a few others (so far), I’m inclined to believe the promotional synopsis at the Westminster Books website when it claims “This book explains the biblical pattern for change in a clear, practical way that you can apply to the challenges of daily life.”
Live Blogging 3
for more info on this conference see: http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/the-latest-post/2009/1/8/a-video-conference-on-eschatology-and-live-blogging-of-a-wes.html and follow the links.
10:41AM
Wow! New term from Voythress: protology–the study of first things, as opposed to eschatology, the study of last things. Stick that in your theological glossary.
Waldron’s now affirming that eschatology comes before soteriology in Scripture. Think Gen. 3.
Riddlebarger explained that a regenerate believer is not taken to the condition Adam was in before the fall, but that he is redeemed to the state Adam would have been in, had he been confirmed in righteousness, having succeeded in obeying the command to not eat the forbidden fruit.
Notes on Gaffin’s comments on “Get the Garden right, get Christ right.”1 Cor. 15 Resurrection hope of the church. Christ compares resurrected Christ with Adam before the fall. vs. 45, 47, Christ called the “Second Man.” The deepest perspective Paul provides on redemptive history. There’s no one between Adam, the first and Christ, the Second. Noah, Abraham, Moses, David are below the horizon of Paul’s concern in this chapter, Christ is literally the “eschatological one.” When you understand who Christ is as the esc. Adam, then everything else between Adam and Christ in redemptive history must fit into that.
Poythress: Both kinds of imagery are in Rev. 22. 22:1 shows a final garden, heightened from the original (Gen.3) and the language of the Bride of Christ. Here you have a connection of both “bridal and garden” in Gen 2.
Eph. 5:28ff . . . Was Eve typological of the Church in this passage? Riddlebarger says simply “clearly [she is]” but that he wouldn’t press it too far. Missed Waldron’s reply, but Poythress says there’s a comparison with Eve. Waldron asked if this connection somehow contributes to Mariology? I don’t get it. Anyone out there have a comment?
11:00AM
Moving on to questions about the competing attitudes about the world between dispensationalism and covenantal theology. Should we be optimistic about the success of the gospel, or pessimistic about any need to “polish the brass on a sinking ship?”
Gaffin speaks to the application of this question to suffering. We can be confident that Christ is now healing (I think he said healing) the earth with the gospel. References Mark 10:29-30. Promise of blessings with persecution to followers of Christ. References some passage in the “T books.” With many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God. Opposition to the gospel results in suffering. There is a positive role of suffering in the church–“filling up the sufferings of Christ”
A short plug for Last Things First: Unlocking Genesis with the Christ of Eschatology.”
Poythress suspects that a hundred years ago, amillers didn’t have Vos’ and Gaffin’s “already/not yet” structure. This is optimistic in a way older amillers didn’t have the benefit of. Christ’s Body is the first fruits of the new heavens and earth. If we participate in that, it’s a spiritual optimism, looking forward to that which is yet to come.
Riddlebarger: the charge that amillers are pessimistic was made by Bahnsen. That amil is escapist like premil, says Bahnsen. Post mil Bahnsen would define optimism/pessimism differently. No economic, cultural, religious transformation before the Return. Optimistic about what God does through Ministry of the Word and administration of the sacraments. Not pessimistic about the gospel, but about human institutions.
Poythress believes it all will be thoroghly transformed in the new heavens and new earth. Amils aren’t giving up on transformation of the world, but don’t expect it until after the consummation. No guarantee to be successful in worldly terms, but should try to think and act Christianly in our worldly context. A Christianized society is not the atmosphere of the New Testament.
Waldron argues for optimism about the spread of the gospel. Optimistic about what? Matt. 16, Lk 13 parable of mustard seed teaches growth of gospel. Mt. 16 shows the church thoroughly on the attack, not under attack by Satan. (?) The gates of hell won’t prevail against the spread of the gospel. Parable of weeds show that good and evil grow together until the end. Not good to emphasize that as good grows, evil shrinks, or vice versa, but that they grow concurrently until the Return of Christ.
11:16AM
Ezk. 40-48 When does a biblical theology of the millennial Temple begin, and what does it look like?
Waldron: Doesn’t teach reinstitution of Old Testament ceremonial, sacrifical system in the Millennial Age.
Riddlebarger: see Beale’s book on the Temple. Hard to unlearn the wooden literal, dispensational interpretation. But it undercuts the beauty of what God is describing.
Poythress: The Temple theme is present by implication in the Garden of Eden. God communes with Adam and Eve as he does with Israel in the Temple. Jacob at Bethel–no physical structure, but a mediation of the presence of God is the point. Ezk. Temple is symbolic of God’s communion with his people. It shouldn’t be astonishing that John 2 indicates that Jesus spoke of his own body in speaking of the Temple. A vision is not a photograph. The Temple is the medium for speaking these concepts of mediated communion with God. You can’t dictate the details of final realities by looking at the type. The reality always exceeds the type.
Barcellos: Angels ascending, descending on the Son of Man?
Poythress: Seen carefully, the Son of Man is the ladder, a mediator between heaven and earth.
Gaffin: Related to the larger question of the biblical theology of the Temple, as you look at Ez 40-48 in its visionary and prophetic character, that whole chunk focuses on what Christ said about whatever promises held out in Old Testament Scriptures, they have their Amen (fulfillment) in Christ. 1 Cor. 3:9–We’re God’s fellow-workers, you’re God’s field/building. Is this an arbitrary connection? It’s a reference to the Garden (field) and the building (New Jerusalem). The New Jerusalem is a consummated Garden of Eden.
(Wow!jdc)
11:30
Supersuccessionism/Replacement theology:
Waldron: The idea that amil says the church replaces Israel as the people of God. It’s a pejorative label.
Poythress: Not replacement, but fulfillment. Christ is the true Israel (Matt. 2). Israel the Son in a subordinate sense. Jesus the heir of the promises made to both Abraham and David. Gal. 3:16 argues that Gentiles and Jews alike participate in these promises. If Christ’s, Abraham’s offspring–heirs according to promise. Jews don’t cease to participate in the promise, but the Gentiles are included. Jewish disbelief is what gets them cut off the tree (Rom 11).
Riddlebarger: Is OT “Judeocentric”? I’m unashamedly a Christian and not a Jew. But I’m reading the OT looking for Christ. Isa 53 and related passages are clear if looking for Christ in the OT.
Gaffin: What is OT Israel typological of? Israel’s God’s chosen Son. Christ is the true Israel. Every promise given to Israel has its focus in Christ and his work. Acts 1:6 asks a Jewish oriented question about the Kingdom of God. Jesus corrects the terms of the question. It’s not is Kingdom being restored to Israel, but will Israel be restored to the Kingdom? In Rom 9-11, Paul sets terms at beginning. 9:6 who is Israel? Not all Israel are Israel, but those who believe, whether Jew or Gentile. Gaffin accepts term supersession in sense of fulfillment not replacement.
Waldron: If Christianity is not the fulfillment of the Old Testament, then what is Christianity?
Poythress: Gal. 4 Jerusalem above is free. She’s our mother. Isa 54 about the expansion of the people of God. Christ is the heir and if you’re in Christ, then you’re the heir. Gal. 3 means you can’t divide Christ into eschatological and political.
Gotta bug out early, but here’s plenty to chew on. Hope some of my notes make sense.
Rest, Renew, Rely
Living the Cross Centered Life by CJ Mahaney
I loaned my copy of C. J. Mahaney’s incredible book,
Living the Cross-Centered Life, to a co-worker who is a young believer trying to grow out of a severly sinful lifestyle. Bemoaning his lack of reading comprehension at times, he asked me what Mahaney meant when he wrote somewhere in the book (I haven’t seen the quote) something to the effect of, “even though I’m living in the flesh, I choose to live by faith.” Unclear as he was to the meaning of this statement, I told him I could only guess that the author meant that he was not going to rely on his own moral fortitude to be godly, but he was going to rely on God’s grace to empower him to obey his commands. He asked me to write something down about that, and the following is what came out of that effort. Hope you find it edifying, if not instructive in any way.
Rest in the Gospel–The Right Basis
The basis for your acceptance by God is the active and passive obedience of Christ. His active obedience is his 33 years of sinless obedience by which he earned eternal life for you; his passive obedience is his suffering and death on the cross, facing for you the consequences of your sin. Therefore, the basis for your acceptance by God is not your behavior. If the basis of your acceptance by God was your behavior, then you would be trying to earn some reward from God and you would be trying to avoid some punishment from God. The right motive for your behavior as a Christian is gratitude for Christ’s work for you.
Renew Your Gratitude–The Right Motive
Fear of punishment and hope of reward is the wrong motive for your behavior as a Christian; gratitude for Christ’s work is the right motive for your behavior as a Christian. Gratitude is what you feel when you are given a gift. When you earn what you have, you’re only thankful to yourself, and that’s not what glorifies God. Both the basis of your acceptance by God, the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection, and your response characterized by grateful behavior are given to you freely by God’s grace, not procured by your own strength.
Rely on Grace–The Right Source
Grace is not a force like electricity which makes our appliances work, it’s God’s good attitude toward you based on his satisfaction with the obedience and death of his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. When you successfully resist temptation, and successfully obey his commands, he has granted this success to you as a gift of his gracious disposition toward you because of Christ.
Does “Every Member Ministry” Contribute to “Christless Christianity”?
An “every member ministry.” The name should be self-explanatory. This is a staple of modern American Evangelical and Fundamentalist discipleship, and likely of the
Reformed, as well. We probably all can hear the echoes of pastors past and present who’ve clearly proclaimed that they are not the only “ministers” in the local church. Every member, not just the pastor, is here to exercise his gifts for the building up of the body of Christ. Might this be a “fifth rail” of American Christianity that the believer in his right mind dare not touch, lest he be accused of attempting to take us back to Roman Catholicism with its clearly defined gap between the clergy and the laity? Don’t worry, my personal intention is not to state anything to the contrary of those who believe they are gifted to perform any of a myriad of tasks in the local church. Some of us are gifted to teach, though we’re not ordained pastor/teachers; some are gifted to serve the physical needs of the least of the congregation; some are gifted to aid in the musical operation of the local church; some are gifted to do any myriad of other things that are indded vital activities that ought to take place in the context of the local church, and by the members of the congregation, not just the ordained pastors, elders and deacons. I’m not out to overturn the apple cart of an “every member ministry” as it happens to currently be manifest in American churches. But I would like to address, or rather, cite Michael Horton’s remarks regarding, one passage of Scripture that is famously associated with the idea of an every member ministry, and in fact, serves as part of the Scriptural basis for such activity.
But first, let’s look at the passage: Ephesians 4:1-16, as it is translated in the King James Version. And let us pay special attention to where the punctuation falls in verse twelve, which I’ve highlighted.
1I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, 2With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; 3Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. 7But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
8Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 9(Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: 16From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
Now let us see what Michael Horton has said about this passage in his latest book, Christless Christianity, on pages 248-249, in the final chapter, “A Call to the Resistance.”
And now, as we are reminded in Ephesians 4:8-16, the ascended King moves his gifts of this subversive revolution down to us; we do not have to climb up to him. Here the apostle Paul teaches that the same one who descended to the uttermost depths for us and ascended “far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things” (v. 10), does not keep the treasures of his conquest to himself but liberally distributes them to his liberated captives below. The original Greek emphasizes, “The gifts that he himself gave . . . .” They originate with Christ, not with individual members or the body as a whole. The gifts he gives are apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (v. 11). They are not given as a hierarchy of control, like “the rulers of the Gentiles” who “lord it over” their subjects instead of serving (Matt. 20:25; see vv. 25-28). Rather, Paul says they are given . . . (here he cites Ephesians 4:12-15, which we’ve just read above). More recent translations typically render the clasuse in verse 12, “to equip the saints for the work of ministry” (e.g., ESV, NRSV, RSV), which has been used as the chief proof-text for every member ministry. For various reasons, I am persuaded that the older translations (especially of verse 12) are more accurate and also capture better the logic of the argument.
This does not mean, of course, that the official ministry of the Word (now exercised by pastors and teachers) is the only gift or that ministers rank higher in the kingdom of Christ than everyone else. Rather, this gift of the ministry of the Word is given so that the whole body may be gifted: brought together in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God. Only then can each member receive the additional gifts that make them function together as one mature body with Christ as its living Head (Eph. 1:15-16). The gifts flow down from Christ; the Great Shepherd serves his flock through undershepherds who minister his gospel through preaching and sacrament. Of course in other places Paul expands the list of gifts that are exercised by the wider body (see Rom. 12:3-8; 1 Cor. 12). A church that is lacking in generosity, hospitality, and other gifts of mutual edification is unhealthy; a church that lacks the Word is not a church. Therefore we come to church first of all to receive these gifts, realizing more and more our communion with Christ and therefore with each other as his body. (emphasis mine)
I always wondered if there was something up with this difference in punctuation between the KJV and many, if not all, modern translations (I haven’t checked). I know just bringing up the matter will draw criticism as if I’m out to tell everyone in the church to stop doing stuff for Christ, and just sit and listen to the preacher. This is the great fear of those who zealously proclaim this passage as it is translated and punctuated in modern translations (even if they’re KJV onlyists!) Rather, the point I want to make is the same simple point I always make. For ministry to be Christ-centered, the cart must not go before the horse. The Law and Gospel preached and the sacraments properly administered is the horse, and this and only this, is what makes the cart of our fruitful service go. The Law and Gospel preached and the sacraments properly administered turns some goats into sheep, and then the same Law and Gospel preached also feeds the sheep and strengthens them to love one another, not only as a congregation, but also as sojourners and strangers among our unbelieving neighbors in the world. Profound in its simplicity; simple in its profundity!
The cart may be getting put before the horse sometimes when our focus on the “priesthood of the believer” somehow turns into the “ministryhood” of the believer, as Horton frequently says. Hear me clearly, brethren: don’t give up your Sunday School class, don’t drop out of the choir or praise band (or whatever your church calls it), don’t stop helping in all the little, unnoticed ways you do. Just don’t make your primary focus–don’t make these activities your main purpose for being there. If you do, you may be living a Christless Christianity, intending to earn God’s grace by your good works. Rather, first look to being served by Christ through the ordained ministry of Word (Law & Gospel! Not just Law and not just Gospel!) and sacrament as your source of grace and faith and strength . . .
13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. 15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. (Ephesians 4:13-16, ESV).
Pecuniary Satisfaction and Peculiar People, part 2
All I want to do today to complete this focus on the contrivance of “applications” based on the misinterpretation of an
archaic translation of a Scriptural word is to show the definition of “peculiar” as presented in Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language. The choice of this dictionary is significant in that it is this volume which is recommended to advocates of the superiority of the King James Version of the Bible to all modern translations. It often features the biblical usage of words, with numerous quotations from Scripture as well as classic English literature. You’d think such a resource would irradicate foibles like the one under consideration, but tradition dies hard!
PECU’LIAR, a. [L. peculiaris, from peculium, one’s own property, from pecus, cattle.]
- Appropriate; belonging to a person and to him only. Almost every writer has a peculiar style. Most men have manners peculiar to themselves.
- Singular; particular. The man has something peculiar in his deportment.
- Particular; special. “My fate is Juno’s most peculiar care.” Dryden.
Definition 1 is the relevant definition. Considering the given usages, when it comes to 1 Peter 2:9, God has a people that is peculiar to himself, as opposed to being the people of any other god or ruler. I repeat, the church is to be peculiar to God, not peculiar to the world. That means we are his and only his. This simply cannot legitimately “apply” to how strange believers ought to seem to the world. Granted, the immediate context of the passage does explicitly include some imperatives (that is, “applications”) that are to be performed because of the fact that we are peculiarly the Lord’s people, and I submit these are the imperatives intended by the human and divine authors of Scripture to be applied to believers.
“They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. (Notice the reference to God’s sovereign reprobation of those who never come to faith–that was for free!)
“9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation,a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
“11 Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. 12 Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.” 1 Peter 2:8b-12.
The imperatives we have are based on the indicative of believers in Christ being a people who are peculiarly God’s, as opposed to any other god or ruler. Here’s where Christ-centeredness enters the picture. No exposition of the text is genuinely made in light of the full context, if the work of Christ for sinners is passed over and given little attention. It’s the indicatives of the Gospel, what God says about what he’s done for us in the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, and about how it has affected us by his grace alone, that contains the power to call people out of darkness into his marvelous light. To focus the majority of our attention on the behavior that is to result from Scripture’s Christ-centered, Gospel cause is to miss the power to live out the behavior and actually perform the “application.”
So here are the results of God’s showing mercy to us, calling sinners from every nation, race and class out of the darkness and into the marvelous light, making us who were not a people a chosen generation and a holy nation and a people for his own possession–a people who are peculiarly his and no one else’s:
- proclaim the excellencies of him who brought us out of darkness into his marvelous light. Then Peter inserts another indicative statement that builds on and emphasizes on our being peculiarly God’s–once we weren’t a people, but now we are God’s people by virtue of his having shown us his mercy.
- Therefore, since we are citizens of God’s nation, we should view ourselves as exiles who are merely sojourning through this world (in the world, not of it), and we should abstain from fleshly passions, which wage war against our souls.
- In addition, since we are God’s people, our conduct (behavior) should be honorable (not “peculiar” or strange or goofy) as we sojourn among the “Gentiles” (unbelievers who are citizens of the world, rather than citizens of God’s kingdom), our motive being that when we are falsely accused of evil-doing, others will realize the falsity of such accusations and God will be glorified.
See? There’s plenty of application, explicitly given by the apostle. There’s no call for intentionally misinterpreting one word in the indicative portion of the passage in order to turn it into an imperative to “look goofy to the world.” Rather, proclaim the excellency of Christ as you abstain from fleshly passions and otherwise conduct yourself in an honorable manner as you continue to sojourn in this lost and dying world for the glory of God. Now that’s preaching that will strengthen the faith of believers! Thanks for spelling it out for us, Peter!
Now, going back to the Bible study at which I originally brought up this topic. You know how after you have a conversation, you think of things you should have, or could have said? Well, after I made my comments in the Q&A session after the lesson, the teacher thanked me for “showing us how much smarter I am than the rest of us.” If I’d had the presence of mind at the time, I would have, or could have, and indeed, should have, replied that it’s not about how smart I am; it’s about whether or not the minister of the Word is actually communicating what God is saying in the text.
Mega-Churches Respond to Reveal Study
This week on the White Horse Inn, the topic is the response of American
mega-churches to the survey conducted by Willow Creek’s leadership (REVEAL) which concluded that the solution to dissatisfaction among faithful church members is less dependence on the organized church’s ministries, focusing on making individual Christians self-feeders.
For the record, here and here were my responses back when the survey originally made the headlines.
Listen to The White Horse Inn: learn what you believe and why you believe it.
Live Chat with Michael Horton on “Christless Christianity”
Back on Reformation Day, aka Halloween, aka October 31st, the Washington Post hosted a Live Web Chat with Michael Horton (White Horse Inn, Modern Reformation) helping to promote the release of his new book, Christless Christianity. The title of this book was also the focus of the programs during the past year on the White Horse Inn radio show. Horton attained a bit of media attention because of his recent statements critical of Joel Osteen’s theology, who serves as a good poster boy for what Horton calls “Christless Christianity,” but his book and the topic is far more extensive than a mere attempt to pull Osteen off of his pedastal. According to Horton, we all have the natural bent toward some form of Christless Christianity. We all tend to some degree to focus on ourselves and what we do at the expense of God and what he does for us in Christ. But to paraphrase the emphasis of Horton both on the radio and in his book(s), the grace and faith and love to serve Christ comes from the same source as the grace and faith and love that moved us to receive Christ in the first place: the good news of the sinless life, sacrifical death, glorious resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Our problem is, we keep falling back on focusing on the Law of God or the various commands of Scripture, to such a degree that we forget it’s primary use is to expose our sin while its secondary use is to only guide believing obedience. It doesn’t impart the grace and faith and love to obey, it merely charts out for the believer what obedience ought to look like. The grace and faith and love to obey, again, comes from the gospel. So any exposition of Scripture that never gets around to the Person and Work of Christ, won’t convey to us the power to live the Christian life by the Spirit.
You Just Gotta Check Out The ESV Study Bible!
You just gotta see this! If you don’t own a study Bible yet, don’t bother shopping around. The ultimate study Bible is going to be released on October 15, 2008. Many of my Reformed blogging buddies are already aware of this monumental achievement, and most are undoubtedly awaiting it’s arrival as eagerly as I am, even though we’ve already got a shelf full of various study Bibles. But for those of you who are shy of solid resources that can help you understand the meaning of Scripture, the backgrounds of the places in the Bible, even instruction on Christian living, ethics and material that can clue you in on what many of the major world religions believe as compared with what the Bible teaches (and who knows what else?), your search need go no further. The ESV Study Bible will provide all of this for you, and then some, with full color maps and illustrations all over the place!
I just watched some of the promotional videos describing the project, the vision behind it and the contents of the product, and it is intended to be the equivalent of a miniature version of a multi-volume library on a broad cross-section of information vital to not only learning the Word of God, but also to personal growth in grace, and even to aid in the work of gospel ministry. The ESV Study Bible promises to be useful to layman, teacher and pastor alike.
Take a look at the following videos, hosted by PCA pastor and grandson to Billy Graham, Tullian Tchividjian , in which he will introduce the purpose of the ESV Study Bible and then take you on a guided tour of the contents. Seeing is believing . . .
If you’d like to see more of the videos, they are available at the Video Resources page of the ESV Study Bible website, which you can access by clicking on the colorful button near the top of the sidebar, just under the portrait of our blog mascot and namesake.
Even though the ESV Study Bible will come in a variety of bindings including the traditional leather, it’s so chock full of amazing resources that it may prove a bit cumbersome, were one wanting to carry it to church. In my opinion, this isn’t that kind of Bible. It’s a study resource, not a tag along Sunday-go-to-meetin’ Bible. For that reason, I’m getting the hardback edition, which comes with the additional feature of being the least expensive of all the varieties. But I must confess, that when, Lord willing, I obtain my copy, I may not be able to part with it for a few weeks, so it may in fact tag along with me to church now and then. But I’ll try to pay attention to the sermon, anyway. 😉
Calvinism, Coming to a Young Christian Near You!
Click image to purchase at WTS Books
There’s a book out chronicling the resurgence of Calvinism among the, pardon the expression (keep in mind, I’m using it correctly), emerging generation of teens, twenty-, and thirty-somethings (including myself) who are disillusioned with the shallow theology and over-emphasis on you name it, revivalism, pietism, experientialism, commercialism of the twentieth century. As you know, the list of misguided varieties could go on.
So many of us who’ve grown up as a either a fundamentalist or evangelical Christian have come to the conclusion that what is needed is for the church to get back to the basics of what it means to be a Christian. The basics of Christianity as understood in a broader way than just re-examining my Bible and reconstructing my own version of what I think is the clear teaching of Scripture regarding faith and practice (which is what most of the previous generation think it means to get back to the basics).
Such a tactic is part of the problem–it’s too self-centered and individualistic and often far too reductionistic. It’s not a matter of just throwing out current traditions and starting over with a clean slate. It’s not about reinventing the wheel–those are the kinds that never turn out round. What I’m talking about is getting on the right track–yes, the most biblical track, the most Christian track, the most Protestant track, the most truly evangelical track–a track I didn’t lay myself, but was laid by the faithful followers of Christ who genuinely changed the world in their generation as did the first century apostolic generation.
What generation am I talking about? I’m talking about the generation that laid the tracks of conservative evangelical, confessionally Reformed, Christ-centered Protestant theology. The generation identified in the history books as the Reformers.
I read once that Socrates is known for saying, “Sometimes regress is progress.” The bill of goods that we were sold in the 20th century told us that what’s happening now is better than what happened back then. The present is always preferable to the past. The new is more relevant than the old. Well, some of us have learned that sticking “new and improved” on something doesn’t mean a thing. Some of us have learned that if conservative evangelical, or fundamentalist Christianity is going to make any progress, we’re going to have to regress back to a time when things were genuinely being done right and learn from both their successes and mistakes, receiving the faith in tact as handed down by them and not as re-imagined by modern philosophical influences, be they pragmatism, modernism or post-modernism. Progress will only come through this kind of regress.
Second Timothy 2:2 puts it best: “and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” But lots of people are entrusting lots of things to lots of “faithful men.” Which version of Christianity is best? There’s a number of us in this new generation who are firmly convinced that what the apostolic churches passed on to faithful men who led the post-apostolic generation, got deformed in the medieval era and was reformed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is the “basics” to which the 21st Century generation of Christians needs to get back to. So much that has transpired since the Reformation era leaves so much to be desired that we don’t trust much of it at all. That’s why we’re turning to Calvinism, also known as Reformed theology.
Journalist Collin Hansen has written Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey with the New Calvinists. It tells our story. Martin Downes has reviewed the book over at Reformation21.org. Read all about it, then find your place in the 21st Century Reformation.
Compromising the Full Humanity of Christ, part 2: Heavenly Flesh
In part one I established that the orthodox interpretation of Scripture regarding the two natures of the Lord 
Jesus Christ is that “He is of the same reality as God as far as his deity is concerned and of the same reality as we ourselves as far as his humanness is concerned; thus like us in all respects, sin only excepted” (from the Definition of Chalcedon). I attempted to make the case that if Christ’s blood is “divine” and not the product of Mary’s reproductive system, then his humanity is not of the same reality as we ourselves. Hebrews 2:14-18 makes this clear, for those not looking to read exceptions into the text:
“Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted” (Hebrews 2:14-18 ESV).
The first sentece of this passage specifies that Christ partook of the same flesh as humans and that he partook of the same blood as humans. Adding to this it goes on in verse 17 that his partaking of human flesh and blood was the way in which he could be a merciful and faithful priest who can propitiate God for the sins of the people, specifically, “his brothers” “the offspring of Abraham” (other parts of the New Testament would call these people “the elect,” but that’s a whole ‘nuther post–on Limited Atonement!!!). This means that if his flesh and his blood aren’t entirely human–specifically, not the product of Mary’s reproductive system, then he couldn’t truly empathize with us. The writer of Hebrews even underscores this by saying that Jesus didn’t come to help angels, but humans. If his blood was divine, then it could be said that Christ may not have been made “a little lower than the angels.” At the very least, if it was divine blood and heavenly flesh, he would have been somewhere between angels and humans and not genuinely on the human level and exception could then have been taken against his attempt to propitiate God on behalf of the elect children of Abraham.
I hope you can see now how important it is that Christ be regarded by Christians as one hundred percent human–utterly human right down to the last drop of Abrahamic, Judaic, Davidic, Marian blood. The full divinity and full humanity of Christ joined in one person is a doctrine so important that it has bearing on Christ’s ability to reconcile God to sinners, and this is the reason that in the fifth century, an ecumenical council had to be convened in Chalcedon to search the Scriptures more closely as a worldwide church to settle once and for all just how divine and how human Christ is. But naturally, just because a council rules against a heresy, that doesn’t mean the errant tendency is forever universally squashed. Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history repeat its mistakes in every generation; in the post-apostolic era, the medieval era, the Reformation era, as well as the modern era. Such is the case with the divine blood error, and such is also the case with the heavenly flesh error.
The Reformation era Anabaptistic doctrine of the heavenly flesh of Christ enters the history books due to the influence of arch-Anabaptist, Melchior Hoffman. The Elwell Evangelical Dictionary gives a concise summary of Hoffman’s distinctive doctrines as well as his several historic misadventures. The Anabaptists in general, called the radical reformers, thought Zwingli, Luther and Calvin didn’t go far enough in reforming the catholic faith because they insisted on making sure the doctrine they reformed was consistent with the ecumenical catholic creeds of the first 500 years of church history. The Anabaptists opted to reinvent the wheel from scratch with their Bible and their inner light or divine spark within. That’s why a man like Melchior Hoffman could go blur the line between Christ’s two natures and help preserve such unorthodox interpretation for future generations.
I’m not aware if the Independent Baptists with which I spent the first twenty years of my spiritual life taught the modern fundamentalist concept of the heavenly flesh of Christ or not, but during the nine years I spent at CBC, the doctrine was repeated early and often. One proof text provided the spring board for propagating this doctrine: Hebrews 10:5; specifically, the phrase, “a body thou hast prepared me.” The idea went something like this: God’s “preparing a body” for Christ means that God specially created the body of Jesus in heaven and the Holy Spirit inserted it in Mary’s womb, which body she carried to term, much like a modern surrogate mother. I can’t say with certainty who it was that passed this interpretation on to the leadership of CBC, but my suspicion is that the source is someone like Peter S. Ruckman. However, there is no way for me to know now. But writers of his persuasion revel in the unhistorical assertion that Baptists aren’t Protestants, so when they find a proof text for a teaching that differs from the historic orthodox Protestant view, promoted by someone with whom they presume a link due to their doctrine of Baptist successionism, they are liable to take full advantage of it. Having this doctrine taught out of this text, I could tell they weren’t doing justice to it, but at the time I couldn’t figure out how to compete with the interpretation, so I left all criticism of it on the back burner.
But for starters, let’s think about the immediate context. The first ten verses of Hebrews 10 constitute one section, or pericope. The big idea of this pericope is the temporary nature of Old Covenant animal sacrifices and the once-for-all-time effectiveness of the sacrifice of the body of Christ. When verse five quotes Psalm 40:6, it is quoting the reading that is found in the Septuagint, as you will notice a difference in the wording of your English Old Testament, a translation of the Masoretic Text, In the KJV, the phrase is translated “mine ears hast thou opened,” and in the ESV, it reads, “but you have given me an open ear (the more literal alternate reading in the footnote is, “ears you have dug for me.”). “In the Septuagint . . . , which Hebrews follows, this psalm speaks of the readiness of the whole person (‘the body’), not just a part (the ‘ears’) of the person. Thus, the ‘body prepared for me’ refers to Jesus’ readiness to become human and to suffer death on our behalf. (2:14; 5:8). See WSC 22” (NIV Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible footnote on Hebrews 10:5). The main idea of verse 5 is Christ’s readiness to offer himself, rather than information regarding the constituent nature of Christ’s human body.
After I adopted Reformed theology, and came to the conclusion once and for all that the Baptist Successionist view is incapable of accurately handling the facts of history, and is not the true history of the Baptist tradition, I was searching the web one day for reading on Baptist history and found an interesting essay called “A Primer on Baptist History: The True Baptist Trail,” by Chris Traffanstedt. In this essay, under the heading of “Anabaptist Influence,” Traffanstedt writes, “They [the Anabaptists] also believed that Christ did not take His flesh from Mary but held to a heavenly origin for His flesh.”
This naturally reminded me of my former pastor’s frequent flawed exposition of Hebrews 10:5. This is what lead me to the conclusion that he was following this doctrine because it is not the view of the “Protestant” reformers, but of the “baptistic” ones. For example, if you were to ask an ordinary, non-Reformed Baptist nowadays, whether they thought Christians ought to give any credence to the early ecumenical catholic creeds which deal with Trinitarian or Christological issues, many will likely say no. Others, who are more on the ball, may say that they would affirm its trustworthiness as long as it squared with Scripture, but, of course, being Baptist, they would accept no obligation to recognize it as authoritative in any, not even a secondary, way. Either response exhibits a willingness to completely disregard statements such as the Definition of Chalcedon, much like the Anabaptists did.
Primitive Baptist E. A. Green, has posted a helpful article called, “Heavenly Flesh,” drawing from Harold O. J. Brown’s book, Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. The following excerpt from Green’s essay brings into focus the historical and theological issues:
The novel Heavenly Flesh concept, known also as Celestial Flesh, emerged among independent groups. In retrospect it could be argued that their apparent lack of interest in the creeds left them vulnerable to old errors. Harold O. J. Brown observes:
“Abandoning the distinctive two-natures formula of Chalcedon, the radicals were free to deal with the implications either of humanity or of deity without having to worry about the other. A smaller number reverted to an Arian or adoptionistic view of Christ, and the first stirrings of the modern heresy of Unitarianism began. A larger group emphasized the deity of Christ’s being to such an extent that the humanity seemed to disappear; in this they had much in common with the early Monophysites, although they usually lacked their theological sophistication.” [HERESIES; pg. 327]
The Heavenly Flesh concept emerged as a Reformation-era explanation to the theological problem of the sinlessness of Christ. Centuries earlier the Catholics had responded to the same problem with the doctrine of The Immaculate Conception of Mary. The radicals argued, like the Roman Catholics, that if Jesus was born of a mother tainted with sin, he could not himself have been sinless. Their argument went on to explain that while Jesus was begotten and carried “in” Mary’s womb, he was not born “of” her; he did not derive his flesh from her. Hence, the heavenly origin of Jesus’ flesh.
And hence, the source of Christ’s sinlessness. This is the concern of modern fundamentalists and evangelicals who hold to modern forms of the divine blood and heavenly flesh teachings. How unfortunate it is that they would rather go outside the bounds of orthodoxy to protect Christ’s sinlessness, than remain in it and risk being called “catholic.” That’s what I call falling out of the frying pan into the fire.
Compromising the Full Humanity of Christ, Part 1: Divine Blood
One of the benefits of broadening one’s theological horizons is that he can learn where the boundaries of orthodoxy lie and can begin to discern when the doctrine he’s being taught remains safely within, or begins to cross, the orthodox boundaries.
Case in point: Heavenly Flesh & Divine Blood.
What am I talking about? Does this have something to do with the Lord’s Supper? No, it does not. It has to do with parallels with ancient Christological heresies as well as the Radical Reformation in some corners of modern fundamentalism. Namely, the corner from which I emerged into Reformed theology.
The independent fundamental Baptist (IFB) church to which I used to belong supported a small Bible institute based in my home town. A close family friend from this church is a graduate of this school. He now pastors another church, and I have regular contact with the associate pastor. This associate once told me that his church no longer fellowships with the Bible institute in question since it merged with another more established Bible college for two reasons: one, the school’s getting taken over by so-called “Hyper-Calvinists“; and two, one of the instructors teaches that Christ got his body from Mary. Some of you may be wondering, “And the problem with this is . . .?” But others of you may know where I’m going.
Where I am going is to the teachings in vogue among some independent Baptists, among others, I suppose, regarding the source of the body of Christ, and the nature of the blood of Christ.
The Chemistry of the Blood
One popular teaching was popularized by Dr. M. R. DeHaan, founder of Radio Bible Class (now RBC Ministries), a physician turned pastor and radio preacher, who applied his medical knowledge to his doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ to promote what he called, “The Chemistry of the Blood.” Here’s an excerpt from sermon four in his book of the same title:
“THE VIRGIN BIRTH
“Passing strange, is it not, that with such a clear record anyone can deny that the BIBLE TEACHES THE VIRGIN BIRTH. We can understand how men can reject the Bible record, but how men can say that the Bible does not teach the VIRGIN BIRTH is beyond conception.
“The Bible teaches plainly that Jesus was conceived in the womb of a virgin Jewish mother by a supernatural insemination of the Holy Ghost, wholly and apart from any generation by a human father. This the Bible teaches so plainly that to the believer there is no doubt. The record cannot be mistaken by the enlightened and honest student of the Word.
“JESUS SINLESS
“The Bible teaches in addition that Jesus was a SINLESS man. While all men from Adam to this day are born with Adam’s sinful nature, and, therefore, are subject to the curse and eternal death, the Man Jesus was without sin and, therefore, DEATHLESS until He took the sin of others upon Himself and died THEIR death. Now while Jesus was of Adam’s race according to the flesh yet He did not inherit Adam’s nature. This alone will prove that sin is not transmitted through the flesh. It is transmitted through the blood and not the flesh, and even though Jesus was of the “Seed of David according to the flesh” this could not make him a sinner.
“God has made of ONE BLOOD ALL THE NATIONS of the earth. Sinful heredity is transmitted through the blood and not through the flesh. Even though Jesus, therefore, received His flesh, His body from a sinful race, He could still be sinless as long as not a drop blood of this sinful race entered His veins. God must find a way whereby Jesus could be perfectly human according to the flesh and yet not have the blood of sinful humanity. That was the problem solved by the virgin birth.
“ORIGIN OF THE BLOOD
“It is now definitely known that the blood which flows in an unborn babies arteries and veins is not derived from the mother but is produced within the body of the fetus itself only after the introduction of the male sperm. An unfertilized ovum can never develop blood since the female egg does not by itself contain the elements essential for the production of this blood. It is only after the male element has entered the ovum that blood can develop. As a very simple illustration of this, think of the egg of a hen. An unfertilized egg is just an ovum on a much larger scale than the human ovum. You may incubate this unfertilized hens egg but it will never develop. It will decay and become rotten, but no chick will result. Let that egg be fertilized by the introduction of the male sperm and incubation will bring to light the presence of LIFE IN THAT EGG. After a few hours it visibly develops. In a little while red streaks occur in the egg denoting the presence of Blood. This can never occur and does never occur until THE MALE SPERM HAS BEEN UNITED WITH THE FEMALE OVUM. The male element has added life to the egg. Life is in the blood according to scripture, for Moses says: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood. . . For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof” (Leviticus 17:11, 14).
“Since there is no life in the egg until the male sperm unites with it, and the life is in the blood, it follows that the male sperm is the source of the blood, the seed of life. Think it through.”
DeHaan’s logic can be summarized in the following syllogism:
The life of the flesh is in the blood; there is no life or blood in the unfertilized female egg until the introduction of male sperm; Mary conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit without the introduction of human male sperm; Jesus was sinless; therefore, sin is transmitted through the blood which comes from the human father.
Christian Orthodoxy and the Full Humanity of Christ
I submit that modern medical science bolstering a superficial interpretation of Scripture in the name of proclaiming the sinlessness of Christ compromises the historically orthodox doctrine of the full humanity of Christ. The orthodox interpretation of Scripture regarding the full humanity of Christ was encapsulated in 451AD at the Council of Chalcedon. This council was convened to correct two errors in vogue at the time which compromised the full humanity and the full deity of Christ. One was Nestorianism, which saw Christ’s divine and human natures as so separate that they constituted two separate persons; the other, the Monophysite heresy, taught that Christ’s two natures were so united that they were one single divine/human nature, two varieties of which are Eutychianism and Apollonarianism (for links, see below). Nestorianism and Eutychian Monophysitism both led the church in the fifth century to return to the drawing board of Scripture and look more closely at the passages relevant to the two natures of Christ, and they published their conclusion in a document called “the Definition of Chalcedon.” It’s only a two paragraph statement, so I’ll cite it in full from Phil Johnson’s Hall of Church History:
Definition of Chalcedon (451 AD)
“Following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching all men to confess the one and only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This selfsame one is perfect both in deity and in humanness; this selfsame one is also actually God and actually man, with a rational soul <meaning human soul> and a body. He is of the same reality as God as far as his deity is concerned and of the same reality as we ourselves as far as his humanness is concerned; thus like us in all respects, sin only excepted. Before time began he was begotten of the Father, in respect of his deity, and now in these “last days,” for us and behalf
of our salvation, this selfsame one was born of Mary the virgin, who is God-bearer in respect of his humanness.
“We also teach that we apprehend this one and only Christ-Son, Lord, only-begotten — in two natures; and we do this without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into two separate categories, without contrasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union. Instead, the “properties” of each nature are conserved and both natures concur in one “person” and in one reality <hypostasis>. They are not divided or cut into two persons, but are together the one and only and only-begotten Word <Logos> of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus have the prophets of old testified; thus the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us; thus the Symbol of Fathers <the Nicene Creed> has handed down to us.”
As long as Christians have interpreted Scripture within the bounds of the definition of Chalcedon, it has historically been regarded as orthodox: Christ’s humanity must be regarded as completely human. But if the Lord Jesus’ blood wasn’t the product of Mary, but was “divine blood” as DeHann heads a later subset in his sermon, then the Lord Jesus isn’t fully human, but his full humanity is compromised when his blood is put in a category distinct from that which flows through all of our veins. If his full humanity is brought into question, then so can his ability to represent us before the Father, being “man to God” as well as “God to man.” Someone posted a theological article in the NIV Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible which does a good job of presenting the importance of Christ’s full humanity.
Repeating the Mistake of Apollinarianism
The other Monophysite heresy which compromises the full humanity of Christ is called Apollinarianism. Since I’ve already written an excessively long post, I’ll just link you to some helpful reading on this heresy and how modern fundamentalist notions about the blood of Christ which compromise his full humanity parallel the spirit, if not the letter, of Apollinarianism. I recommend “Divine Blood” by E. A. Green; “Apollinaris of Laodicea” by Wikipedia; and finally, “Apollinarianism” from the Catholic Encyclopedia, featured at New Advent. To be clear, modern indpendent Baptists do not go to the extremes to which Apollinarianism and Eutychianism go in confusing Christ’s divine and human natures. But the fact remains that by their general refusal to consult the ancient ecumenical creeds which define the orthodox biblical Christology, they doom themselves to repeating the mistakes of history, having not learned from the correction of these mistakes at Chalcedon.
In part two, I’ll discuss how some Independent Baptists repeat the Anabaptist error known as the Heavenly Flesh of Christ.
Preach the Word!
- Preach the Word!
The following is a Captain Headknowledge rerun from February 12, 2006.
The Scriptures just handed me another blade with which to continue my ongoing crusade to reintroduce the Gospel to Evangelicalism. I was listening to the book of 1 Peter on CD, when I heard that Peter writes that we were born again through the living and abiding word of God, he ended the passage clarifying what the “word” is that gave us new life: “And this word is the good news that was preached to you” (1 Peter 1:25b).
“And this word is the good news that was preached to you” (1 Peter 1:25b)
I’ve been amazed in the past couple of years how deaf the ears are on which this message falls. The constant reply to my constant pleas that every sermon should always be explicitly built on the foundation of the Gospel of the sinless life of Jesus, the death of Jesus because of our sins and the resurrection of Jesus because those who come to faith are justified is that “we are to preach ‘the Word’.
“And this word is the good news that was preached to you” (1 Peter 1:25b)
What my dear brethren mean is that we should preach the “whole counsel of God.” We should preach more than just the Gospel, the Bible talks about all kinds of other things than just the Gospel, if we always preach the Gospel, we won’t have time to preach the rest of the Bible. What they miss is that I’m not talking about preaching the Gospel instead of the rest of the Bible, I’m talking about (and so did the Reformers, who recovered the Gospel out of the ash heap of Romanism, the “Founding Fathers” of “Evangelicalism”) preaching all of the Bible in context.
What is the context? The Gospel.
Everything that comes before the sinless Christ crucified and risen for sinners points to and reaches its pinnacle and therefore its ultimate point in the sinless Christ crucified and risen for sinners; likewise, everything that is revealed in Scripture after the sinless Christ crucified and risen for sinners (you know, all that “practical” and “relevant” stuff) flows out of and is built on the foundation of the sinless Christ crucified and risen for sinners.
If we talk about everything that leads up to the Gospel but leave out any explicit reference to the Gospel as the point of that material, and get off on things other than that ultimate point, then we are not preaching the Word.
“And this word is the good news that was preached to you” (1 Peter 1:25b)
If we talk about all that practical stuff that is built on the foundation of the Gospel and flows from the source of the Gospel, assuming everyone understands that the Gospel is the source, foundation and reason we do these things, then we are not preaching the Gospel, because I don’t care how long people have been involved in church, if they don’t get reminded constantly (in every sermon) that all that stuff they are to do which is taught in Scripture is founded on, has it source in, and is done because of, and by the power of the Gospel, the Power of God for Salvation to Everyone who Believes, then they’re going to wind up doing it by their own power and for their own reasons. And therefore, the Word hasn’t been preached.
“And this word is the good news that was preached to you” (1 Peter 1:25b).
How Isn’t Proverbs 8 About the Son?
I read an interesting article by Anthony Selvaggio over at Reformation21 entitled, “D oes Proverbs Speak of Jesus?” Selvaggio is the author of a book on Proverbs that has yet to be released, and in his article he summarizes the homework he did to determine in what way the book of Proverbs does legitimately reveal Christ in a way that takes the text of the book seriously. One section of his article deals with what he calls “The Ontological Jesus.” I would like to reproduce some of what he writes here and attempt to answer a question that was raised in my mind by what he wrote about it.
Selvaggio writes the following under the heading “Proverbs and the Ontological Jesus“:
A second connection between Jesus and Proverbs is that Jesus is, in a sense, wisdom itself. That is, he is, ontologically speaking, the embodiment and personification of wisdom as the second person of the Trinity. Some scholars suggest that Proverbs contains a direct allusion to this ontological reality.
Although this issue is hotly debated, some scholars contend that Proverbs 8 contains a direct allusion to Jesus because it personifies wisdom and references wisdom’s role in the work of creation, “I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,” (NIV Proverbs 8:27-28). Many scholars also see a connection between this text and the prologue of John’s Gospel (John 1:1-4, 10) and the prologue of the epistle to the Hebrews (Hebrews 1:1-2), both of which depict Jesus as being intimately involved as the architect of the original creation event.
While at first this connection between Jesus and Proverbs may seem quite compelling, we should be very cautious in making a direct link between the personified wisdom of Proverbs 8 and Jesus because the wisdom of Proverbs 8 declares the following, “The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old;” (Proverbs 8:22). This text seems to imply that wisdom being spoken of here is part of the creation and, of course, Jesus is not a created being and to believe such is to embrace the ancient heresy of Arianism. In fact, Arius and his followers used this very text to support their heretical views. Therefore, I believe it is best to avoid drawing a direct connection between the wisdom referred to in Proverbs 8 and Jesus. [2]
However, while Proverbs 8 is not a direct link to Jesus as ontological wisdom, the New Testament provides us with other legitimate grounds for establishing such a connection. The New Testament explicitly teaches that Jesus is the wisdom of God. This type of ontological connection is unequivocally made by texts like 1 Corinthians 1:30, which declares that Jesus is “wisdom from God,” and Colossians 2:3, which states that in Christ are “hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (see also Colossians 1:15-17 and Matthew 11:19). As Tremper Longman notes, the apostle Paul teaches us that Jesus is “the very incarnation of wisdom.” [3]
On the surface it seems untenable to avoid using the Proverbs 8 passage on wisdom personified simply because Arius used it to deny the eternality of the Son. If the Evangelists so clearly show Christ walking in wisdom and the Pauline epistles proclaim Christ as the very incarnation of wisdom, then it would certainly be compelling to see Solomon’s personification of wisdom to refer to Jesus Christ himself. I confess that when considering the issue in this way it seems if you are going to allow the one, you would have to allow the other, even though Solomon’s personification of wisdom testifies that he was God’s first creation.
Were such an interpretation truly intended by the text, then the burden would seem to shift to finding some distinct sense in which it could be said that Christ was God’s first creation without contradicting the biblical doctrine of the eternal pre-existence of God the Son. However, just as it is not true that, as Arius and his followers sang, “there was a time when he was not,” it also untrue that “there was a time when he was not wise.” It would be just as absurd to say that a previously unwise God first created wisdom and then created the universe by means of it, as it would be absurd to say there is a sense in which God the Son was God’s first creation without contradicting his eternal pre-existence. Thinking through this question in this way makes it clear to me that neither of these absurdities were the intention of the author, and neither was it Solomon’s intention to allude to the coming Messiah in his personification of wisdom in Proverbs 8.
The bottom line for me is the fact that when Solomon personified wisdom in Proverbs, there is no evidence that he was intending to portray the long-promised seed of Abraham and ultimate Son of David. But Jesus as “the incarnation of wisdom” can still be pointed to from the Old Testament book of Proverbs since he certainly lived in perfect accord with the proverbs, and the New Testament explicitly equates wisdom with Jesus in a manner that makes it more than a mere attribute of the divine Son of God.
The Misadventures of Captain Headknowledge 