Well, we all know that there are several ways to learn. One way is to learn about things via didactic teaching. Falls can hurt you, says a book, dogs will bite you says the teacher, diseases can infect you says the Doctor.

Another way to learn these things is to experience them for yourself…and a very painful route that is. Imagine, having to find out that falls hurt, that dogs bite, and that diseases infect because you personally have all those things happen to you. Of course, some people need to learn things this way, but we call this “learning things the hard way”.

There is a third way to learn

I recall one day my brother over at a friend’s house playing basketball in the backyard. Our friend wasn’t home but their dog was; a fairly amicable Siberian husky whenever his owner was home especially behind the confines of a very large fence. The basketball would hit the backboard and the ball would fly over the fence and this one kid (not my brother) would go into the fence and…the dog would stare. Not a twitch of the ear. Not a blink of the eye. Not a raising of the head. Not even a wag of the tail. Just staring.

The ball fell over several times and each time the kid got the ball just fine. But one time he stopped, in his stupid confidence he turned towards the dog, reached out his arms and went to pet it.

In Numbers 11-14 we have three well known stories that underscore three testimonies of unbelief culminating, finally, in a lesson for future generations.

In story one, (Numbers 11) we witness the unbelief of the people as they grumble about the menu, which is God’s provision, reflecting a tremendous flaw in their spiritual maturity. In that story God goes about providing Spirit approved leaders and a change of diet; which wound up being for the worst since the stuff rotted before they finished it.

In story two, (Numbers 12) we witness the complaining of jealous leaders, Miriam and Aaron. Wanting a position, perhaps like those spirit filled elders, Miriam starts gossiping about Moses’ dark wife and Aaron wonders why he can’t deal with God directly—after all, has God only spoken through Moses and not through them as well? God, hearing their rebellion and gossip responds saying how Moses is different from other prophets. Those prophets hear from God through visions, or in riddles—but Moses, well Moses hears from God directly ; how dare they speak against him? And with that Miriam is struck white as snow (ironic in that she was complaining about Moses’ dark wife) and Aaron is left not asking God for help, but asking Moses to intercede on their behalf before God.  They had, in their pride, seen themselves as more blessed and empowered than the apostle and high priest of their confession and dared to take on accolades that didn’t belong to them.

In story three, (Numbers 13-14) we witness the well known. Spies, chosen to check out the Promised Land, find the place to be wonderful and bountiful indeed. They witness the fruition of the promises of God. They partake of that blessing. They taste it and enjoy it then bring it back to the congregation. And when they report it to the congregation, they poison the retelling. They don’t focus on how God says the land belongs to them but rather focus on the insurmountable odds: the fortifications, the head-count, the sheer size of them; veritable giants of old! Caleb and Joshua don’t go down that route. The people wail believing mere men over the God who had rescued them and they cry out wondering why Moses brought them so far to die? Why couldn’t they just die in the wilderness instead of dying at the hands of their mythical enemies? God speaks to Moses, ready to wipe them all out and start afresh with Moses but Moses, once again, intercedes on their behalf. God, says he, the world around has heard of your activity—think of your name if you don’t bring your promises about to the people whom you promised them to!

And with that God decides to give the Israelites what they want. Their kids will get into the Promised Land but they, well, they’ll drop dead in the desert.

The story would have had a bad ending as it was. But adding insult to injury the people reject God’s words again, form a fighting party and charge Canaan aiming to wrest those promises out of the closed fist of God. And now, the thing ends pitiably: the Israelites, rescued from Egypt to enter into their Promised Land, now running—running as fast as their hary legs can carry them away from the Land, chased by enemies, as they head towards the wilderness where they would indeed drop dead.

Three lessons, all reflecting unbelief. Unbelief of the people against the provision of God. Unbelief of the Leadership against the Apostle and High Priest of their calling, assuming they had authority that they didn’t. Unbelief of the congregation as they rejected the very purpose of their calling by first refusing to enter into the Land and then trying to get in when God said “have it your way.”

The writer to the Hebrews (Heb 3), looking back at another event by citing Psalm 95 (while keeping with the theme of unbelief), says be careful Christians. Don’t reject God’s provision. Listen to your leader! Jesus is the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, and though Moses was faithful, he wasn’t ultimately the builder: that is Christ’s purview. Christ was faithful to the uttermost and he stands over his house, which we’re part of. Careful, says the writer, that you do not prove yourself to be an unbeliever—falling away from belief in the living God.

Encourage one another, says the writer, in the present so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. Notice that we are partakers of Christ when we confess him. We’re not over him. We don’t call the shots. Don’t harden your hearts against him, says the writer. The corpses of those people keeled over in the wilderness because of their unbelief—so fear, says the writer, if you have not yet entered into God’s promised rest. (Heb 4:1).

That neighbor boy of mine, as he went to pet the Siberian husky behind the tall fence felt teeth tear into his flesh, was held down on the floor, was pulled across the concrete, as he swung at the dog hitting the thing on the muzzle. The boy didn’t win, not by a stretch, but the dog decided to let him go as it sat back down and closed it’s eyes wiping some blood off its muzzle. The boy was rushed to the hospital, and he survived—he was that lucky—but he bore the marks of that attack all the days of his life.

These lessons you can’t learn by mere recorded didactic facts. These lessons you don’t want to learn by experience. These lessons are those that have occurred to others and sound a serious warning.

So now we have these things recorded for us, confessing believers. Surely this doesn’t mean us, right? We believe! We’ve confessed!

Says Paul, writing to confessing believers: “examine yourself to see if you are of the faith” (2 Cor 13:5). It sounds a very real warning that should rightly shake us. These previous people failed in the face of miracles, finally reflecting their unbelief! Test yourselves: do you trust Christ?

Heed the lesson, says the writer to the Hebrews. Heed the lesson says the writer of Numbers; and yet, without saying it.

Technorati Tags: canaan, israel, numbers, rebellion, unbelief

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I started this series underscoring the importance of words and saying how their conveyed information was to be received by the primary audience to convey real information. This was then recorded for our benefit.

Fine. Everyone thus far agrees.

But Covenant Theology takes what I’ve presented and offers a bird’s eye view of things that is exceedingly different from my own, and frankly, extra-biblical.

When I view something like the Abrahamic Covenant, Covenantal Theologians would say that I’m considering it in a vacuum. Covenantal Theologians would say that the covenants are important, not because of how they stand, but because of what they are attached to: God’s redemptive plan. (Here it may be prudent to look back at the Unifying Principle.)

Before the foundation of the world, God rightly expected perfection. And yet, he knew that Man wouldn’t be perfect and they would fail in their works—since only God is perfect. So, God covenanted with himself to redeem fallen mankind—this was his Covenant of Redemption. To Redeem, he must display his grace by making salvation available for people apart from works while still remaining both just and righteous. The Son of God decided to become a man and work perfectly, suffer and die so that those who believe on Him would be put under his headship and thus all the required to be part of God’s people would be met by God. The Lamb, slain before the foundation of the World, would not only be the means, but the object, of faith that would allow God’s grace to be lavished upon men. This was necessary because men could not save themselves as evidenced by the Covenant of Works established in the Garden: do this Adam, and live, do not do this and die. In the Garden, Adam did fail and doomed all mankind. But Christ, the second Adam makes salvation available to all.

So God reveals his Covenant of Grace after the Covenant of Works. Every covenant, although conditional by making demands, points to the necessity of faith; and yet each Covenant is a revelation of God’s grace and thus directly related to God’s redeemed people: the Church.

The Noahic Covenant makes demands; and yet it reveals a universal aspect of God’s Covenant of Grace. The Abrahamic Covenant makes demands of Abraham; and yet it reveals the particular nature of God’s Covenant of Grace. The Mosaic Covenant makes demands; and yet it reveals God’s requirements as his Covenant people. The Davidic Covenant makes demands; and yet it reveals God’s grace in establishing His Anointed. The New Covenant makes demands; and yet it is tied to Christ who did the work—so believers should therefore keep the covenants and their demands as Christ requires. So instead of circumcision (Abrahamic) the believer baptizes; instead of keeping the Sabbath (Mosaic), the believer keeps the Lord’s Day.

Some Covenant Theologians believe that all the covenants were merely part of the Covenant of Grace with no Covenant of Works attached. Most Covenant Theologians disagree. In essence: the Church has always been (Israel was just the Church in the Old Testament) and the Church will always be. Abraham is just a point in Redemptive History, the History of the Church.

But I see serious problems with this view.

First of all, I don’t find anything in the text about some Covenant of Works or a Covenant of Grace or a Covenant of Redemption. They’re just not there.

Second, they are solely theological constructs that have been generated from soteriological conclusions in the New Testament, and then transported over the Scripture. This puts the authority not on the text but on the conclusion that resides over the text and then being used to drive explanations. Now here someone might offer the counter-example of the Trinity—the same thing isn’t happening here.

Third, they decide a priori that there are no real differences instead of allowing Paul’s comments to speak for themselves.

Fourth, non-Dispensational theologians have agreed and have made other non-Dispensational systems to try to explain the error by showing that CT, in an effort to underscore the unity of Scripture, have reached an untenable conclusion. As such, some groups have proposed a model that makes a much sharper division between Works/Law and Grace even if they have also denied some key elements.

For those reasons, and others not listed because they are dealt with in future posts, I do not examine the broad picture, the birds eye view, with the mythological constructs of covenant theology but rather with what the text in Genesis underscores as important and which the rest of the Old Testament finds the roots in: the Promise to the Patriarchs and their descendants:

This promise to Abraham (and his descendants) is really a package of several promises that are intertwined and shine throughout the Old Testament with their importance. They have definite physical ramifications and definite spiritual ramifications (a blessing to the nations is obviously more than being a boon to the physical needs of the nations—which is why the book of Genesis has the nations both eating and receiving a blessing from the seed of Abraham Israel Himself).

These promises have short term fulfillment (people who curse Abraham are cursed) but there is the permanent aspect of the promise that needs to be put in place. For that to happen, the promises have to bring certain elements into place that will ensure both their fulfillment and their permanency.

So when David receives his covenant, he knows that it isn’t a covenant that comes out of the blue with no history and some nebulous near-term future. He sees that the promise speaks about things many days hence and that it is beyond the way men keep promises (and break them). He realizes that his package of promises is predicated on a historical package of promises thus bringing into being a perpetual aspect of that previous covenant.

In other words, the covenant to David winds up being a blossoming of the Covenant to Abraham, still tied to it (I will make you a nation, Kings will come from you, and you will be a blessing)…:

…yet expanding on it with its own package of promises (the nations will flock to David, He will be the Lord’s anointed, and He will build a House for God—2 Sam 7; 1 Chronicles 17:11-14; 2 Chronicles 6:16; Psalm 2; Psalm 89; Isaiah 4; Isaiah 11) and its own subsequent illumination through the Old Testament hope.

And just as David’s covenant is an expansion of the Abrahamic Covenant, while maintaining key elements to bring it into fruition, the New Covenant comes along and does the same thing. It expands to all the people, it becomes a means of blessing for everyone, it consists of the outpouring of the Spirit of God , it is tied to David and Abraham as it blossoms outward (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:26-27; Joel 2; Psalm 40:8).

Note that each of these covenants contains their own package of promises blossoming from Abraham’s Covenant. If we were to turn these covenants upside down we would see their expansive nature with the Abrahamic Covenant as the base:

And if we were to remove the labels and strip them down to their Covenantal parts (the divine package of promises), we would see the package of promises that each entails is a reflection, illumination and expansions of the covenant to Abraham.

Similarly, if we were to look at them from the top down, we would see that the Covenants keep their middle on the previous covenant, in all cases they always keep the heart of the package of promises from the Abrahamic Covenants. The Covenants expand, surely, but they never (ever) leave behind the core: who the promise was made to, consisting of what progeny, regarding which place, specifying which blessings, indicating which curses, and so forth. They’re always there.

But that’s all bird’s eye view. I’m going to have to take a look at the Mosaic Covenant, the Davidic Covenant, and then the New Covenant to establish that from their context—like the many posts we spent with Abraham.  Before I do all that I do want to examine some questions about Ishmael and Esau.

Technorati Tags: abrahamic covenant, covenant theology, progressive covenants

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Anyway, here’s the quote that’s appearing on the internet (here are a few places I’ve seen it); after the jump I’ll post the context (Bavinck, The Certainty of Faith-PDF):

‘[W]e must remind ourselves that the Catholic righteousness by good works is vastly preferable to a protestant righteousness by good doctrine. At least righteousness by good works benefits one’s neighbor, whereas righteousness by good doctrine only produces lovelessness and pride. Furthermore, we must not blind ourselves to the tremendous faith, genuine repentance, complete surrender and the fervent love for God and neighbor evident in the lives and work of many Catholic Christians. The Christian life is so rich that it develops its full glory not just in a single form or within the walls of one church.’

But now, for what Bavinck was really saying and then what he continues saying even about paganism.

On the Certainty of Catholic Faith (Sort-of-Rey’s header regarding pg 36,37):
Far be it from us to immediately denounce the latter with the protestant judgment that since such piety issues from a false principle—righteousness by works—it is therefore worthless to God. For no matter how much truth that judgment may contain, before we utter it we must remind ourselves that the Catholic righteousness by good works is vastly preferable to a protestant righteousness by good doctrine. At least righteousness by good works benefits one’s neighbor, whereas righteousness by good doctrine only produces lovelessness and pride.Furthermore, we must not blind ourselves to the tremendous faith, genuine repentance, complete surrender and the fervent love for God and neighbor evident in the lives and work of many Catholic Christians. The Christian life is so rich that it develops to its full glory not just in a single form or within the walls of one church.

Nevertheless, Catholic piety, even in its best form, is different in character from that of protestantism. It always remains unfree, unemancipated, formal, legalistic. Complete inner certainty of faith is lacking. It always leaves room for the question: Have I done enough, and what else should I do? Rome deliberately keeps the souls of believers in a restless, so-called healthy tension. Spiritual life fluctuates between false assurance and painful uncertainty. Catholicism does not understand the word of Holy Scripture that the Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are children of God and that all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

On the Certainty of Pagan Faith (Sort-of-Rey’s header regarding page 56, 57)
The study of religions has, furthermore, achieved one important benefit: it has shed clear light on the superiority of the Christian religion over all other religions. There are, it is true, a few scattered groups in Europe and America who give precedence to Buddhism or Islam and have formally switched to these religions. And much greater are the ranks of those who feel they don’t need Christianity, can lead rich lives without it, and hate it all their lives. In fact, untold numbers are turning their backs on Christianity in humanistic pride or in practical indifference and are seeking satisfaction in paganism.

Yet, none of this detracts from the fact that the religious and ethical makeup of Christianity is far superior to that of all other religions. Nowhere else are nature and history, man and world, heart and conscience conceived with such intimate truth and so true to reality as in the Christian religion. Our self-knowledge and our knowledge of the world continually verify the knowledge of God revealed in Holy Scripture. This is the light on the path that leads through creation, and which is itself clarified and confirmed by all of nature and the whole history of mankind. We have no idea what we would be missing, into what dire spiritual poverty we would sink if the Christian religion and all its influence and impact were suddenly excised from our society and culture. If the Christian religion is not the true religion, there is every reason to despair of truth in the area of religion. Practically and concretely the question regarding certainty of faith comes down to this: In what way can the truth of Christianity be demonstrated and impressed on our souls so we are convinced?

Technorati Tags: bavinck, faith, misquotes

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Death is often stated (from the Pulpit) as an individual punishment (Heb 9:27) due to Adam’s sin (Romans 5). Sometimes this point is defined by Adam being a federal head of the human race which sinned in him (cf Hebrew 7). Another way this point is defined is that Adam’s sin brought a fatal weakness by which all then sin (not all have sinned). Either way, it was the day that Adam ate of the tree that he “died” in some sense but was ultimately to die (Gen 3) and was repulsed from the Garden (for fear of the expectation that he might be able to live). Now the important death listed here is the separation from God—not so much the physical death.

Some Full Preterists further the argument by stating that we need saving from Adam’s Death—not Abel’s Death. Here, they raise the point that Abel died before Adam and if it was a physical resurrection to save from physical death then we are only addressing Abelian Death, not Adamic death. Now, ignoring the logical problem of the argument (specifically that Abel was the Son of Adam and therefore his death would be an evidential marker of what was already happening in Adam, even if it had not culminated in physical death yet^[1]) I think that Full Preterists, and some Pulpit speakers, have made a mistake in ignoring how fatal (ahem)Death—including Physical Death actually is.

A Nazarite (Num 6) would take a vow where he would commit his service to the Lord for a specific amount of time. During that time he would ensure that his hair remained unshorn—unless he touched a corpse. In that case, the Nazarite would have to cut his hair and start over again. The same restriction (about touching corpses) was laid at the feet of the Levites (Lev 22). An individual who touched a corpse was considered defiled (Num 19:11). The overnight hanging of a corpse would not only condemn the punished but would defile the land (Deut 21:23)

Now, all this sounds horrendously pagan until one notes how God does in fact purify when He punishes on his own. The violence that ran rampant within humanity (Gen 6) was enough to grieve the heart of God, but even in the midst of all that God finds it necessary to purge the land by wiping out people (Gen 7-9). Now, ignoring any debate if the flood with local or universal, the point is that God’s method of cleaning the slate was not only by ending the lives of the people—but by outright removing the corpses with water. The flood purified, as it were, the place where God would deal with people.

Likewise, the Law stipulates that the corpses are not offered to God on their own; they are cut up and laid on the altar and consumed by fire (Lev 1). Here you have individuals dealing with corpses all the time yet not falling under the same sort of restrictions regarding corpses (Lev 22) because of what they’re doing with them. The national individuals who were defiled by touching a corpse, had several days to become purified lest they get cut off from the covenantal community (Num 19:13).

It seems, then that Death is not only a defiler—it is Antithetical to the Living God (who was, and is, and is to be) known also as The God of the Living (Matt 22:32) ^[2]. Death is the epitomizing of a realm that stands over and against God—not in the dualistic sense of Two Spheres of God’s operation, but in the sense of an enemy that had no natural existence when everything was naturally attached to God. So Death is not merely Spiritual with Repercussions; it is a system that is completely antithetical with a sphere of separation at every level, epitomized in the Physical expression. God hates death at every level—it always defiles.

Therefore, even though Abel died before Adam, the fact that Abel died (and Adam was in the process of dying), was only part (a major part) of the pollution that Adam had embraced^[3]. By no longer being under the purview and operation of God, he cut himself, and his progeny off from Life and finds himself embracing death^[4] at every level. The Death that God is worried about is not only Spiritual; it is Relational, Operational and it is Physical^[5]. Man, not only dies, but he is judged on the eternal scale in comparison to God (Rom 3:23). Man not only sins unto death apart from God^[6] , he does good apart from God and that is all him screaming the his enmity (Isaiah 64:6; Col 1:21; Eph 2:5) ^[7].

In light of this, we can only then properly understand what was happening on the cross. It was not only that Christ was atoning (with whatever meaning people want to insert into that theological term) but that Christ, the Lord’s Anointed, physically died. Even though Jesus Christ was likely reminding himself of the victory in God by citing that portion of Psalm 22, there was a very real sense where God, of necessity, had to push Him away as He died.

I don’t think we’ll ever understand the scope of what occurred there.

But I think we can safely say some things about why a physical resurrection, is of the first order, necessary. For Christ to die willingly and according to the plan of God, makes God taking death into the picture to rob it of its destructive power. The Living God died; waited under Death’s grip, and then got up.

Theologically speaking, a submission to a physical death and separation must of necessity result in a physical resurrection and vindication to be a real victory. A victory that only answers the second portion (via vindication) without addressing the public and physical is only a hollow victory. Theologically speaking, Death must be addressed at every single level to be finally declared conquered (1 Cor 15:57).

This is why believers can properly rejoice even in death (or falling asleep); we know that our ultimate end is not to become Spirit, but to await a physically resurrected body (2 Cor 5:1-5). Christians can properly rejoice knowing that Christ’s victory has been secured^[8] and ours is definitely insured…not that we don’t get sick, but that ultimate death has no holds^[9].

At this point, I think that John including the story of the resurrection of Lazarus is significant to his Gospel account and to the point of John 11’s discussion with Martha specifically. Both bodies lain within a tomb. Both draped in funeral cloth. Both the cause of much sorrow. Both tomb stones rolled away; one by people, the other by unknown hands. Both clothes removed; one by people, one by unseen hands. Both stepping out of the tomb; one of his own volition, the other predicated on the voice of Christ who is the Resurrection and the Life (John 11:25). Both physical resurrections; one with a body that can be plotted against (John 12:10); one with a body that would never die again (John 20:27). And then, Paul states that it is this resurrection of Christ that is the first-fruits (1 Cor 15:20).

Therefore, Christians should understand that there is absolutely no theological reason to expect a resurrection different in operation from Christ’s own resurrection; that is, our resurrection must also address the relational, operational, spiritual and physical. Christians have a real theological expectation to be rescued from Adam’s death en-toto^[10]. Christ will tell us to Get Up, just as He told Lazarus (1 Thes 4:13-18). Death, at every level, becomes the last enemy by which Christ has already conquered^[11], allowing us presently to conquer in our spiritual lives^[12] and will most definitely be ultimately conquered physically and permanently (1 Corinthians 15:54-57).

^[2]Dallas Theological Seminary. (1988; 2002). Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 145 (145:408). Dallas Theological Seminary.

^[3]Dunn, J. D. G. (2002). Vol. 38A: Word Biblical Commentary : Romans 1-8. Word Biblical Commentary (273). “As in the broader sweep of Jewish thought also, there is no suggestion of a distinction between “spiritual” and “physical” death: human weakness (5:6), the corruptibility of the flesh (see on 1:3 and 7:5), and death are all of a piece in that they characterize the whole sweep of creaturely alienation from the Creator (cf. Kuss; against Schmidt). “Sin” and “death,” appearing here for the first time as interdependent categories, will largely dominate the discussion for the next three chapters (“sin” 42 times between 5:12 and 8:10; “death” 19 times between 5:12 and 8:6; together—5:12, 21; 6:16, 23; 7:5, 13; 8:2; see further chaps. 6–8 Introductio).”

^[4]Dunn, J. D. G. (2002). Vol. 38A: Word Biblical Commentary : Romans 1-8. Word Biblical Commentary (397).” It is equally obvious that “this death” refers back to the death brought about by the machinations of sin (Rom 7:10–13); see on 5:12 and 8:10. That physical death is included within the phrase is obvious, even if the idea of a corporate belonging to the age of Adam (Rom 5:12–21) is also very much in view. It is the final outworking and end of death’s rule over this age, and so defeat of the last enemy (1 Cor 15:26), for which Paul longs here.”

^[5]Wuest, K. S. (1997, c1984). Wuest’s word studies from the Greek New Testament : For the English reader (Ro 6:2). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.” Death means separation. Physical death is the separation of a person from his body, spiritual death, the separation of the person from God. There is a preposition prefixed to the verb (apo (ἀπο)) which means “off, away from,” and is used with the ablative case whose root meaning is separation. This teaches us that there was a cleavage consummated between the individual and his evil nature. God used His surgical knife to cut the believing sinner loose from his evil nature. This occurred potentially in the mind and purpose of God when that believing sinner, elected to salvation before the universe was created, was identified with the Lord Jesus in His death on the Cross (vv. 3–7), and actually, the moment he placed his faith in Him as Saviour. Now, while God separated the believing sinner from the evil nature, yet He did not take it out of him, but left it in his inner being. John in his first letter (1:8) is most careful to tell us that this evil nature remains in the Christian throughout his earthly life and is not eradicated until that Christian dies or is glorified. This is what he says in his Greek; “If we say that sin we are not constantly having, ourselves we are deceiving (nobody else), and the truth is not in us.” Sin here is the nature, not the act, and for two reasons; the word is without the article, and such a construction in Greek emphasizes nature, quality, and because the word is singular. The word “ourselves” is in the emphatic position, John’s thought being that any person who holds the theory that the sinful nature is eradicated at a certain point in the Christian’s experience is only deceiving himself. Others are not deceived, for they can see sin sticking out all over his life. Let us therefore hold to this, that while there is a definite cleavage between the believer and the sinful nature, yet that nature remains in him until he dies or is glorified.”

^[6]Harris III, W. H. (2003; 2003). 1, 2, 3 John – Comfort and Counsel for a Church in Crisis (230). “The meaning of the “sin resulting in death“ (μαρτία πρς θάνατον, hamartia pros thanaton) in 5:16. This concept is a notorious crux interpretum. The concept of sin resulting in death occurs occasionally in the Old Testament (Num 18:22; Deut 22:26; Isa 22:14) and the Jewish intertestamental literature (Jub. 21:22; 26:34; 33:13, 18; T. Iss. 7:1). In all these instances the concept involves physical death as a consequence of sin. Sin resulting in sickness or death is also mentioned a number of times in the New Testament (Acts 5:1–11; 1 Cor 5:5; 11:29–30; cf. also 1 Tim 1:20; Jas 5:15; Rev 2:23) although here too the reference appears to be primarily to physical sickness or death.”

^[7]Thiselton, A. C. (2000). The First Epistle to the Corinthians : A commentary on the Greek text (1228). Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. “For, as 2 Cor 5:20–21 makes explicit, Christ’s becoming one with human sin in the sense of identification entailed his death being “not … merely physical death,” but also a participation in the emptiness of the “eschatological death” which reigns from Adam onward. Moltmann wrote in his classic study Theology of Hope, “Because God and his promise are life, the real bitterness of death lies not merely in the loss of life, but also in the loss of God, as in god-forsakenness….” The proper context for hope (we might add, in contrast to notions of “spirituality” at Corinth) is the “undisguised harshness [of] the deadlines of death as compared with the promised life, received from the promise of God … a wholehearted, unrestricted … assent to life … the victory of praise and therewith of life over death … as a conquest of the deadlines of death.” This is “a new totality which annihilates the total nihil. The two experiences stand in a radical contradiction to each other … death and life, nothing and everything, godlessness and the divinity of God.”

^[8]Jewett, R., Kotansky, R. D., & Epp, E. J. (2006). Romans : A commentary. Hermeneia–a critical and historical commentary on the Bible (406). “Knowing with certainty that Christ had been raised from the dead, it follows that Christ “dies no longer” (οκέτιποθνσκει). The same adverb occurs in the next clause, “death no longer (οκέτι) has lordship over him,” which lends emphasis to the uni-directionality of resurrection life that pertains both for Christ and for his people. Since the parallel between believers and Christ is not complete, inasmuch as they must still face their own physical deaths, the wording of this verse remains concentrated on Christ’s closure with death. The power of death referred to in 5:14* and 17* has been broken by Christ, which implies that those who are “with him” are also no longer subject to that power. The implication is that the “life eternal” mentioned in 5:21* is shared by Christ and his followers, which provides a firm foundation for the inference of v. 8b* concerning faith that all believers share in continuing to “co-dwell” with him.”

^[9]Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. (1988; 2002). Trinity Journal Volume 9 (9:204). Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. “This being the case, and the effects of Christ’s death being applied to people through a process of time, it is specious to claim that the believer must have deliverance from sickness in the same way and to the same extent that he or she has deliverance from sin. The atoning death of Christ provides for the healing of all our diseases — but nothing in Matthew or in the NT implies that this healing will take place in this life. Indeed, as we have seen, the NT gives reason to think that triumph over physical disease, like triumph over physical death, will not come for most believers until the future “redemption of the body.”

^[10]Carson, D. A. (1994). New Bible commentary : 21st century edition. Rev. ed. of: The new Bible commentary. 3rd ed. / edited by D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer. 1970. (4th ed.) (Ge 3:21). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press.” 3:21–24 Judgment. Expulsion from the garden proved the hollowness of the serpent’s promise that they would not die (4). For though Adam and Eve continued some sort of life outside the garden, it was a shadow of the fulness of life inside Eden, where they had enjoyed intimate fellowship with God. Now the full cost of sin is apparent. It is not just an unquiet conscience (7–8), squabbles with one’s dearest spouse (12), pain (16) or the drudgery of daily toil (17–19) but separation from the presence of God and ultimately physical death (Rom. 6:23).”

^[11]Hughes, R. B., & Laney, J. C. (2001). Tyndale concise Bible commentary. Rev. ed. of: New Bible companion. 1990.; Includes index. The Tyndale reference library (691). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.”In 3:18 Peter reminded the believers of the suffering of Christ and what it accomplished. Christ’s death for sins constituted a substitutionary judgment on behalf of sinners. His death prepared the way for the reconciliation of sinners with God (“bring us safely home to God,” cf. 2 Cor. 5:18). But Christ’s death was not a defeat. Having “suffered physical death,” he was “raised to life in the Spirit.” The two participles (“suffered physical death” and “raised to life”) define the main verb “died.” There is a balance and correlation between the two terms “physical” and “Spirit.” Both terms emphasize quality and denote two contrasting modes of Christ’s existence—his earthly sphere of existence as a man (“physical”) and his heavenly sphere of existence as divine Spirit (“Spirit”). The point of 3:18 is that Christ’s death was not a defeat but a triumph. While Christ died to his earthly sphere of existence, by resurrection (“raised to life”) he entered into a fuller life and was liberated for greater ministry (Matt. 28:20; John 14:12).”

^[12]Schreiner, T. R. (1998). Vol. 6: Romans. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (272). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books. “Some scholars have restricted death here to physical death (Sanday and Headlam 1902: 132–33; Murray 1959: 181–82; Ziesler 1989: 145). This is a mistake, for the context clarifies that death is both spiritual and physical (cf. Beker 1980: 224).The death introduced by Adam is conjoined with “condemnation” (vv. 16, 18), and it is also contrasted with “eternal life” (v. 21). Thus it can hardly be restricted to physical death. Indeed, Paul is likely reflecting on the threat of Gen. 2:17, where Adam is warned that he will die on the very day he transgresses God’s command. When Adam sins, however, physical death does not immediately follow. We should not conclude from this that Adam continued to live after his sin. The account in Gen. 3 reveals that Adam died when he sinned, for upon sinning he was immediately separated from God. Adam’s hiding from God and his expulsion from the garden signal his spiritual separation from God. I am not suggesting that physical death and spiritual death can ultimately be separated, for the former is the culmination and outworking of the latter. Nonetheless, the account in Genesis indicates that death is fundamentally separation from God, and this alienation from God entered the world through Adam’s sin. It is also vital to understand that sin and death are twin powers that entered the world when Adam transgressed. That sin and death are powers is borne out in the subsequent context, where Paul speaks of sin and death as reigning, of unbelievers as being slaves to sin, and of the wages sin exacts from its subjects: “death reigned” (Rom. 5:14, 17); “sinned reigned in death” (Rom 5:21); believers “have died to sin” (Rom 6:2), implying that it is a power ruling over them; believers “are no longer slaves of sin” (Rom 6:6); “death no longer rules over” Christ (Rom 6:9); believers “should not let sin reign” (Rom 6:12); “sin shall not rule over you” (Rom 6:14); presenting oneself to sin as a slave results in death (Rom 6:16); “you were slaves of sin” (Rom 6:17); “you were set free from sin” (Rom 6:18); “when you were slaves to sin” (Rom 6:20); “having been set free from sin” (Rom 6:22); “for the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23).”

Technorati Tags: physical, preterists, resurrection

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

How would you go about addressing failing economy, the war, and jobs going overseas? Or how would you go about fixing the divided church, rampant error in the blogosphere and the constant temptation to become lax in your ways?

Maybe if we could implement a solid system; something really powerful to address all the weaknesses we’re dealing with. Perhaps some sort of watchers to ensure doctrinal purity in all spheres of life ; maybe remove all the garbage from the walls, error from the internet, theological mistakes, American Evangelicalism and errors with how to view God’s Word.

Something.

Look at the Church of Corinth. Messed up, right? How would you deal with them?

How does Paul deal with Corinth’s divisions? A unifying program? Going back to first century principles? A synod?

People are forming factions along various lines. People line up behind personalities stating who they enjoy the most. Others are lining up along doctrinal distinctive and looking down at their brothers and sisters. And yet there was another crowd, looking down their royal noses and saying “We are neither—we are of Christ.”

Paul stops them and asks: “what’s wrong with you?”

Crazy Corinth—dividing over personalities or doctrinal distinctives. Other churches may have these sorts of problems, following their leaders and dividing over it; but not us: we’ve got it right. Scriptural Principles. The Principles of God’s Church. We don’t follow in the names of our leaders; divide over doctrinal issues; tow the party line for whatever denomination, branch or non-denomination or movement of Christianity we belong (or once belonged) to.

We, we individually say, are of Christ.

Is Christ cut up? Did Peter die for us? Paul? Darby? Were we baptized in Paul’s Name? Luther’s Name? Rome’s Name?

Our identification is not in positions of power or theological principles (I know, labels are necessary for understanding—but that’s not the point of this post). Take this to heart: the name we were baptized in was a name that was ridiculed, scorned, rejected and killed. The message we preach is one of a bloodied man, publically humiliated and privately vindicated.

Our message is utter stupidity to those who are dying. How?

Here we are, a sovereign nation, who has been personally attacked. If you were President you would justified in launching an attack at the nation that dared raise its fist against us. Power would be enforced and their utter stupidity would be proven

In Isaiah 29, God promised to destroy the wisdom of the wise and set aside the cleverness of the clever.  God has done this very thing, states Paul (1 Cor 1). The wise man stands with his mouth stupidly hanging open. The Logician isn’t to be found. The wisdom of the world has been turned upside down and emptied. Poured out when they killed their savior.

God, in His wisdom enforced power by displaying abject weakness and a (seemingly) stupid message. Christ, the King of the Jews, the Hammer Bearer of God, the one who would destroy all principalities and powers has come and was crucified on a tree: cursed.  Trust Him. The Dead Man, who is alive now, who couldn’t save Himself will no save you. The Jews don’t have a category for a Crucified and Cursed King; the Gentiles think it’s stupid for the powerful to display weakness.

The stupidity of God, is still higher than the highest wisdom of men; the weakness of God is still stronger than the strongest of men. Let that sink in. It’s purposefully offensive (1 Cor 1:25).

A Crucified God-Man is a message to the world screaming “Not your wisdom, not your power, not your solutions. This how your world treats its salvation! ”

Look around you. Note the people who believe this message. People who have acknowledged their abject weakness, who have crumbled under the weight of realizing that they have no strength to save anyone much less themselves. People emptied of themselves clinging to their only hope.

Pitiful.

There is absolutely no reason for any of us to get proud in our power or position or presentations or planning or paraphernalia. We will not fix anything. Yes, we’re an influence of salt and light in this world—we are to expose the world of its position in all its senses. Yes, we’re to remain in the calling in which we stand; exposing the world in our situation in which we are found.

But The Ultimate Solution is not, and never has been, Our Solution.

Whereas we would use shock and awe to break a foreign power; God, sends His son to preach and die and so doing condemns the foreign nation and makes a way possible for anyone within that nation to be saved from His impending wrath. Mosquitoes don’t last beyond a fraction of a second on our royal brow; but God does whatever He pleases and He choose to suffer for us. The Gospel is altogether a message of abject weakness for the purpose of powerfully changing the entire universe.

How  do we fix things?

We pause. Realize our position and the true solution to all of this is found in God Himself. Empty our pride and note that our boast is in the Lord who proved us all foolish.

Not to Us, blessed God: but to your name be The Glory. (Psalm 115)

Technorati Tags: gospel, salvation, weakness, wisdom

Bookmark It

Hide Sites