Archive

Archive for the ‘Exposition’ Category

Richard B. Hays and the fire of texts

… Despite all the careful hedges that we plant around texts, meaning has a way of leaping over, like sparks. Texts are not inert; they burn and throw fragments of flame on their rising heat. Often we succeed in containing the energy, but sometimes the sparks escape and kindle new blazes, reprises of the original fire.

That is a way of saying that texts can generate readings that transcend both the conscious intention of the author and all the hermeneutical strictures that we promulgate. Poets and preachers know this secret; biblical critics have sought to suppress it for heuristic purposes. At times, the texts speak through us in ways that could not have been predicted, ways that can be comprehended only by others who hear the voice of the text through us—or, if by ourselves, only retrospectively.

Such phenomena occur repeatedly in all significant discourse: “The word is near you, on your lips and in your hearts.” The texts that envelope us speak through us; resonant speech discovers typologies that interpret present experience through the language of predecessors. But these typologies come to us unbidden, impose themselves upon us in ways that we understand through a glass darkly. Anyone who has ever acted in a play knows the experience of discovering that lines from the play come unexpectedly to mind in real-life situations different from the original dramatic context. The aptness of the quoted line does not depend on exact literal correspondence between the original meaning and the new application. Indeed, the wit and pleasure of such quotations lie partly in the turning of the words to a new sense. In such cases, the act of quotation becomes an act of figuration, establishing a metaphorical resonance between drama and life. Paul’s uses of Scripture often have a similar character: Scripture is for him the text of the word-play in which he performs and from which familiar lines repeatedly spring to life in new situations.

To limit our interpretation of Paul’s scriptural echoes to what he intended by them is to impose a severe and arbitrary hermeneutical restriction. In the first place, what he intended is a matter of historical speculation; in the second place, his intertextual echoes are acts of figuration. Consequently, later readers will rightly grasp meanings of the figures that may have been veiled from Paul himself. Scripture generates through Paul new figurations; The Righteousness from Faith finds in Paul a new voice.

Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, Richard B. Hays. Yale University Press: London, 1989. Print. 33.

Martin Luther on justification by faith

February 26, 2014 1 comment

This doctrine can never be discussed and taught enough. If it is lost and perishes, the whole knowledge of truth, life, and salvation is lost and perishes at the same time. But if it flourishes, everything good flourishes—religion, true worship, the glory of God, and the right knowledge of all things and of all social conditions. There is clear and present danger that the devil may take away from us the pure doctrine of faith and may substitute for it the doctrines of works and of human traditions. It is very necessary, therefore, that this doctrine of faith be continually read and heard in public.

Martin Luther, in the preface to his commentary on Galatians

Chapter 19: Of the Law of God (I)

October 21, 2013 Leave a comment

I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.(a)

(a) Genesis 1:26, 27; Genesis 2:17; Romans 2:14, 15; Romans 10:5; Romans 5:12, 19; Galatians 3:10, 12; Ecclesiastes 7:29; Job 28:28

 

Some loosely organized thoughts on baptism

July 26, 2013 1 comment

I’ve been prompted by an essay question, of sorts, for an application I’m currently (finally) finishing for a graduate program at a seminary in my area. It’s a Baptist seminary. Obviously, one of the distinguishing qualities of the Baptist denomination is its doctrine concerning baptism. Not being Baptist, I have been tasked to think deeply about a doctrine that had been previously inconsequential to my spiritual life. However, I’ve read a few articles on the subject as well as the corresponding biblical texts, and the doctrine has wormed its way to the front of my mind as an integral part of the Christian faith.

That said, these are a few of the conclusions that I’ve come to. NB: this will not be an extensively cited, academic work. It may be appropriate to term it “polemical”, although I’ve never been one to refer to someone as a polemicist. NB2: My writing is rusty, and I will choose to use my right of discretion with this post; i.e., I will not proofread it once I finish. I apologize in advance. I hope I’m sufficiently clear. I’m lazy tonight.

The doctrine of baptism is necessarily divided into two principal, interrelated qualities. These two qualities are the 1) “Spiritual” Baptism, or the “baptism of the Spirit“, and the 2) Physical Baptism. We mustn’t conflate the two qualities, as though they are or accomplish the same thing. They do not, and yet the biblical testimony is that of correlating distinction. That is, although spiritual baptism and physical baptism are distinct, they cannot be separated so wholly as to signify that the two qualities are actually two different doctrines. As an analogy, one could compare the spiritual baptism to the spark that ignites a flare from a flare gun, and the physical baptism to the flare itself. Both images correspond to the same action–shooting a flare gun–, and, fortuitously, the first leads to the second, as is the case in baptism.

Baptism corresponds to the Old Testament practice of circumcision, especially though not only in its dual qualities. In the same manner that the covenant people of God in the Old Testament were to practice circumcision in order to differentiate themselves from the non-covenant world, those in the New Testament are to practice baptism in order to differentiate them from the rest of the world. However, the spiritual quality underlying this practice is a promise made by God to “circumcise your hearts” in order that the people would love Yahweh (Deuteronomy 30:6), explained by Jesus as being the summation of the Law minus love for neighbor, and that the believer is buried and raised with Christ in baptism (Romans 6). The circumcision and baptism relationship is affirmed by classic Presbyterians.

Concerning the first of two qualities, the spiritual baptism may also be titled the baptism of the Spirit. I do not believe I am qualified to redeem that term from its abuse at the hands of many Charismatics, and so I’ll leave that to others. We can leave that discussion to this: the doctrine that the baptism of the Spirit is a post-conversion empowerment for ministry cannot be substantiated in any manner but eisegetical proof-texting. Rather, all believers do undergo spiritual baptism. It is not a normative state that ought to be pursued but a descriptive state of being that describes the state of all believers–the cover charge to get into the “Christian club”, as it were.

Spiritual baptism, rather, I believe is synonymous with being born again, or regeneration. So, where Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be born again, I hold that Paul speaks of the same occurrence when he talks about baptism. My reasoning to this correlation is that the movement in both images is similar. In both instances, we have a person who is emerging anew into the world, whether from “the womb” or from the waters of baptism. Compounding this correlation is the end given concerning the new birth by Jesus and baptism by Paul. In both instances, the reemergence of the individual either results in or is synonymous with new life. “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life,” Paul, in Romans 6:4. And, in John 3:3-5, Jesus and Nicodemus have this exchange:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Nicodemus questions, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mothers womb and be born?”

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Using baptism as the image of the new life over against “being born again” seems to have this advantage. The reemergence of the individual in baptism is explicitly preceded by the submersion into water. That is, baptism includes both submersion and reemergence, whereas the new birth touches merely upon the reemergence. If we hold to the standard biblical hermeneutic that we have a progressively more clear, though nonetheless inerrant, understanding of biblical doctrines from the patriarchs through the prophets to Jesus and finally culminating in the apostles, there is no tension in this correlation. The apostles expounded, or revealed, that which was hidden or shrouded in the Old Testament (which includes every single one of Jesus’ teachings prior to his death and resurrection, since “Testament” is more properly translated as “Covenant”, the new one of which [Jeremiah 31:31] did not begin until Jesus was raised).

Concerning the second quality of baptism, the physical baptism serves as a “sign and symbol”, to borrow Calvin’s language, of the regeneration that has occurred in the believer. The physical baptism serves as concrete imagery of several aspects of salvation. For example, baptism signifies being tied to the death of Christ in submersion and to his resurrection in emergence from the water. It also signifies the washing of regeneration through the water itself, that being impossible by the shadowed sacrament of circumcision. Physical baptism follows spirit baptism, in that it is undertaken by one who has taken hold of the promises of the gospel by grace through faith. For this reason, we are able to say that physical baptism is a normative state to be pursued by believers. That is to say, a physical baptism does not begin the Christian life but it ought to be part. Physical baptism ought also to be done through immersion in order to more clearly demonstrate what has occurred in the spirit of the individual. That is, he has gone into the grave with Christ and arisen anew. This imagery is not suited by aspersion (sprinkling) or affusion (pouring). However, I will not be dogmatic on this point; it’s far too minor, in my opinion, to quibble over.

As far as the baptism of infants and children is concerned, I do not have developed thoughts, and so I will leave that question for another post. As always, your feedback, criticisms, and questions are welcome.

Grace and peace

 

John Owen prefacing Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers

January 11, 2013 Leave a comment

I hope I may own in sincerity that my heart’s desire unto God, and the chief design of my life in the station wherein the good providence of God has placed me, are that mortification and universal holiness may be promoted in my own and in the hearts and ways of others, to the glory of God; that so the gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ may be adorned in all things: for the compassing of which end, if this little discourse (of the publishing whereof this is the sum of the account I shall give) may in anything be useful to the least of the saints, it will be looked on as a return of the weak prayers wherewith it is attended by its unworthy author.

— John Owen, Preface to Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers

Oh, that this would be my heart for those whom I teach and would be the heart of those who teach me and all the saints.

Peacemaking in the Kingdom of God

December 8, 2012 Leave a comment

I will be spending some time in the Sermon on the Mount, because it confuses me at times. The first connection I want to point out is how Jesus explains people are peacemakers. In the Beatitudes, Jesus says this:

Blessed are the peacemakers, / For they shall be called sons of God.
(Matthew 5:9)

That’s a fairly straightforward proposition. The peacemakers are blessed because the peacemakers are going to be called “sons of God.” That is an insane blessing. Of course, that proposition does become more complicated when we understand that the Beatitudes are rightly interpreted as describing a sole type of person. Nevertheless, I want to key in on how Jesus elaborates that proposition.

Later in the Sermon, Jesus makes another statement,

You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, “Love your enemies, [bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you,] and pray for those who [spitefully use you and] persecute you, that you may be sons of your father in heaven.
(Matthew 5:43-45. Textual note:  I have bracketed some parts of that quotation because, while they are present in the NKJV, they are not in some other translations, such as the HCSB; nevertheless, the sense of the passage is not affected in any way.)

Note the common phrase:  sons of your father in heaven, which is a straightforward allusion to God. According to Jesus, how is the peacemaking imperative fulfilled? Through loving your enemies and praying for those who persecute you. What better way is there to be a peacemaker but to turn the ill-sentiments and anger that is directed against you on its head by praying for and loving those who set themselves against you?

Paul will take this topic up as well, which helps provide greater clarity. He exhorts the Roman church to bless those who persecute them; to repay no one evil for evil; to live peaceably with all men insofar as they are able to; and to not avenge themselves but to leave that up to the Lord. He concludes the passage with an exhortation from the Proverbs:

Therefore, If your enemy is hungry, feed him; / If he is thirsty, give him a drink; / For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.
(Romans 12:20)

In pursuing peace with your enemies, wisdom–true, proper wisdom from God–demands that we love them; that we serve them; that we assist them. Christ has set the example for us, as Peter and Paul both point out.

Peter says, “But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow his steps … ” (1 Peter 2:20, 21), which he describes as not reviling those who reviled him but on the contrary blessing those who cursed him.

And Paul explains our state in front of Christ before “God manifested his love toward us” (1 John 4:9),

For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

(Romans 5:6-11; emphasis mine)

God in Christ manifested his love toward us in a self-sacrificial offering. May we do the same.

 

 

A potential deductive argument against using “Love God; love others” as the gospel

November 28, 2012 1 comment

P1: To love God and to love others is the summation of the Law.


P2: By the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in God’s sight.


C: You cannot be justified in God’s sight by loving him and loving others.


Cor1: If justification is possible, it must be through a means other than the Law.

Chapter 1: Of the Holy Scripture (VIII)

October 23, 2012 8 comments

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;(a) so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.(b) But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,(c) therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,(d) that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;(e) and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.(f)

(a) Matthew 5:18

(b) Isaiah 8:20; Acts 15:15; John 5:39, 46

(c) John 5:39

(d) 1 Corinthians 14:6, 9, 11, 12, 24, 27, 28

(e) Colossians 3:16

(f) Romans 15:4

 

Chapter 1: Of the Holy Scripture (VII)

October 22, 2012 8 comments

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:(a)  yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due sense of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.(b)

(a) 2 Peter 3:16

(b) Psalm 119:105, 130

 

Chapter 1: Of the Holy Scripture (III)

October 19, 2012 6 comments

III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made us of, than other human writings(a).

(a) Luke 24:27, 44; Romans 3:2; 2 Peter 1:21

 

%d bloggers like this: