Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

On Legislating Morality

by

The moral life aims at happiness, but by happiness Aristotle doesn’t mean what the utilitarians mean—maximizing the balance of pleasure over pain. The virtuous person is someone who takes pleasure and pain in the right things. If someone takes pleasure in watching dog fights, for example, we consider this a vice to be overcome, not a true source of happiness. Moral excellence does not consist in aggregating pleasures and pains but in aligning them, so that we delight in noble things and take pain in base ones. Happiness is not a state of mind but a way of being. . . . But why is it necessary to live in a polis to live a virtuous life? Why can’t we learn sound moral principles at home, or in a philosophy class, or by reading a book on ethics—and then apply them as needed? Aristotle says we don’t become virtuous that way. ‘Moral virtue comes about as a result of habit.’ It’s the kind of thing we learn by doing. ‘The virtues we get by first exercising them, as also happens in the case of the arts as well.’ . . . If moral virtue is something we learn by doing, we have somehow to develop the right habits in the first place. For Aristotle, this is the primary purpose of law—to cultivate the habits that lead to good character. ‘Legislators make the citizens good by forming habits in them, and this is the wish of every legislator, and those who do not effect it miss their mark, and it is in this that a good constitution differs from a bad one.

Michael J. Sandel, Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? (New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 2009), 197-99. (See review)

According to Calvin, the law of God—as well as human statue law, when it is well modeled on the law of God—functions in three ways: (1) as a mirror, because by exhibiting God’s standard of righteousness, it makes fallen humans aware of their sins and imperfections,; (2) as a curb, because it restrains the unregenerate through fear of penalties; and (3) as a teacher, because it instructs the regenerate in the requirements of sanctity [drawing on Institutes, 2.7.6-12]. . . .  According to Calvin, the first use of the law—as a mirror—has two branches. In the first branch, the mirror of the law accuses sinners so that when God at last condemns them, they cannot claim ignorance of the standard by which they are judged. . . . But in the second branch, the mirror of the law prompts sinners to flee to the refuge of God’s grace. . . . If the second branch of the first use is real, then statue law that is well modeled on God’s law ought to serve the same use today . . . . The purer the laws, the more vividly citizens might conceive the ideal of justice; the more vividly they conceive it, the more sharply they might feel their sin; the more sharply they fell their sin, the more deeply they might long for the One who can do for them what government never can.

Budziszewski acknowledges however that "the vision of their sins in the mirror of the law" may lead to "enraging others so that they desire to transgress even more" (drawing on Institutes, 2.7.7).

J. Budziszewski, Evangelicals in the Public Square: Four Formative Voices on Political Thought and Action (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006),  48-49, 50, n. 37. (See review)

Some American states, not to mention Canadian courts, have legalized ‘marriage’ between homosexuals. Most Western democracies run or sanction large gambling establishments. Confessional Catholics and Protestants alike will be displeased with the former, and confessional Protestants will be displeased with the latter. Their own liberties are not curtailed by such legislation or judicial decisions, of course: they are not forced (at least, not yet!) to sanction homosexual marriage or to gamble. But many Christians will see such steps not only as contrary to the ‘norming norm’ of Scripture but also as deeply harmful to society. Whether they think the harm comes in the social categories of deteriorating families and desperate addictions and bankruptcies, or in the theological category of the threat of God’s wrath on the nation, or some combination of the two, they feel morally constrained, not only out of loyalty to God but out of concern for the nation, to influence policy in another direction. In other words, we would prefer to se laws in place that forbid certain conduct because we are convicted that such conduct is bad—bad both theologically and socially. Secularists will view this as religious meddling; we view it as the entailment of love for our neighbor and as inescapably tied to our confession that Jesus is Lord. Secularists may well view Christian political efforts along these lines as frightening examples of theocracy; Christians may well view secularist rhetoric as an attempt to stifle Christian efforts to pass laws they judge to be moral—indeed, as a sign of desperate moral decay that does not care for the well-being of the nation, let alone for the glory of God.

It is unclear how far such polarities can go without democracy itself changing its shape. Indeed, most efforts to point the way forward implicitly adopt either a Christian or a secularist stance.

D. A. Carson, Christ and Culture Revisited (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 199. (See review)

Many countries have laws that its citizens know will be broken. A recent controversial example would be that of the torture of terrorist suspects. This led some in the USA to suggest that it might be desirable to change the law. Should torture be legalized and this subject to regulation? Or should it be kept illegal, even though it is tacitly understood that the law will on occasion be broken? Both arguments have a certain power, but my own // instincts incline me to the latter position for the simple reason that laws represent in part the moral aspirations of a given society. Nobody, for example, believes that outlawing abortion will stop abortion; but many of us would wish to live in a society where the statue book represent our aspiration to be an abortion-free society. That is one reason we want it to be illegal: laws set before us a vision of the kind of society we would like to see realized.

Carl R. Trueman, The Creedal Imperative (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 177-178

This does not mean that Christians ought to push for erecting a Christian utopia or theocracy. Indeed, they ought not do so. Jesus notes that even God, as the divine Legislator, took into account the hardness of Israel’s hearts when legislating the Mosaic law (Matt. 19:8). As already noted above, the law can enrage sinners so that they press for their sin all the more. In addition, Carson notes that Paul distinguishes between the kind of holiness that may be pressed for with the church, and enforced by church discipline, and public morality. Paul’s focus is firmly placed on the former (Christ and Culture Revisited, 165). Furthermore, Aristotle’s view of the law as a habit-forming tool falls short of Christian obedience, which includes not only actions abut also affections. Nonetheless, a nation’s laws are not morally neutral. Laws will reflect a moral vision, and Christians should press, as they have ability and with prudence, laws promote the biblical vision of righteousness.

What is Lost by Converting to Rome

by

Question 1 [of the Heidelberg Catechism] shows the glorious Reformation Protestant insight into the fact that assurance is to be the normal experience of every Christian believer and not simply the preserve of a few special saints who have been given extraordinary insight into their status before God, as was the medieval Catholic position.

This is perhaps one of the greatest Protestant insights of the Reformation. We live in an age where conversion to Roman Catholicism is not uncommon among those who have been brought up as evangelicals. There are many reasons for this: some speak of being attracted by the beauty of the liturgy in comparison with what is often seen as a casual and irreverent flippancy in evangelical services; others like the idea of historical continuity, of knowing where the church has been throughout history; still others find the authority structure to be attractive in an age of flux and uncertainty. Whatever the reasons, most Protestants would concede that Rome has certain attractions. Nevertheless, the one thing that every Protestant who converts to Rome loses is assurance of faith.

. . . . . . . . . .

The insight of the Reformation on assurance was key, theologically and pastorally. And, given that it is one thing that every convert to Roman Catholicism from Protestantism must lose, it is worth nothing its priority in the Heidelberg Catechism. The answer is so beautifully phrased; and yet if one ceases to be Protestant, one must cease to claim HC 1 as one’s own. That is a very high price to pay. Speaking for myself, all of the liturgical beauty of Rome, all of the tradition, all of the clarity and authority structure (and that clarity is often, I think, more in the eye of the beholder than the Church it itself) cannot compensate for the loss of the knowledge that I know I have been purchased by the precious blood of Christ that conversion to Rome requires."

Carl R. Trueman, The Creedal Imperative (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012),124-25.

HC 1, which Trueman alludes to, reads as follows:

Question 1. What is thy only comfort in life and death?

Answer: That I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ; who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him.

Development of Doctrine

by

One question I face in class as a church historian is, ‘If doctrine develops, does this mean that what unites us to Christ changes over time too?’ This is an excellent question and, indeed, a rather obvious one when one is investigating the history of doctrine. Two things need to be borne in mind here.

First, Scripture gives no hint that that which saves changes: it is always trust in Christ that unites one to Christ. Thus, someone who was a believer in the first century is saved in the same way as someone who believes in the twenty-first.

Second, as noted above, the public criteria for what constitutes a credible profession of faith do change over time, as do the standards for office-bearing. As the church reflected upon the identity of Christ and upon Scripture over time, the limitations and inadequacies of certain formulations became more apparent. We noted above that in the third century, the view that Christ was subordinate to the Father in terms of his being was considered acceptable because the implications of that position had not been fully worked out. Once this had been done, and the unacceptable, unbiblical implications of such a position had become clear, the church put in place statements that ruled such views out of bounds. It is not that people who believed in Christ’s subordination in the second century could not therefore have been saved—we are all, after all, saved despite some of the things which we believe. It is rather that the church had come to an understanding that protect and to articulate the gospel, accurate concepts and appropriate language were necessary, and some of these had to change over time as the in adequacy and abuse of earlier forms became clear.

Carl R. Trueman, The Creedal Imperative, (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 96-97.

Another way of approaching the difficulty of doctrinal development is to note that it is one thing to embrace an error unwittingly; it is another to reject the truth to embrace that error.

Irenaeus on Eschatology

by

If anyone tries to allegorize prophecies of this kind [Isa. 11:6-9; 30:25-26], they will not be found consistent with themselves in all points . . . . The resurrection of the righteous takes place after the coming of Antichrist and the destruction of all nations under his rule. In that resurrection the righteous will reign in the earth, growing stronger in the sight of the Lord. In him they will become accustomed to partake in the glory of God the Father, and in that kingdom they will enjoy interaction and communion with the holy angels (the spiritual beings), as well as with those whom the Lord will find in the flesh awaiting him from heaven, who have suffered tribulation and escaped the hands of the wicked one. . . . . (5:35,1)."

After citations of Rev 20:12-15; Matt 25:41; Rev. 21:1-4; Isaiah 65:17-18; 1 Cor. 7:31; and Matt. 24:35), Irenaeus says,

Neither the substance nor the essence of the creation will be annihilated, for the one who established it is faithful and true, but ‘the present form of this world is passing away’ [1 Cor 7:31]—that is, all that in which transgression has occurred and humankind has aged. . . . But when this present fashion of things passes away, and humanity has been renewed and flourishes in an incorruptible state, which will preclude the possibility of becoming old, then the new heaven and the new earth will be, in which a new humanity will remain forever, always communing with God. . . . (5:36,1)

John distinctly foresaw the first ‘resurrection of the righteous’ [Luke 14:14] and the inheritance in the kingdom of the earth; what the prophets have prophesied concerning it harmonizes with his vision. The Lord also taught this when he promised that he would drink the cup new with his disciples in the kingdom [Matt 26:29]. The apostle also has confessed that the creation will be free from the bondage of corruption and will pass into the liberty of the children of God [Rom 8:21].

In all these things, and by them all, the same God the Father is manifested, who fashioned humanity and promised the inheritance of the earth to the fathers, who will bring humankind forth at the resurrection of the righteous, and who fulfills the promises about the kingdom of his Son. He will in due course bestow in a paternal manner what ‘no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the human heart conceived’ [1 Cor 2:9]. For there is one Son, who accomplished his Father’s will; and one human race in which the mysteries of God are accomplished—’things into which the angels long to look’ [1 Pet 1:12]. But they are not able to search out the wisdom of God, through which his handiwork, confirmed and incorporated with his Son, is brought to perfection—that his offspring, the first-begotten Word, should descend to the creature (that is, to what had been made) and should be contained in it; and, on the other hand, that the creature should contain the Word and ascend to him, passing beyond the angels, and be made after the image and likeness of God (5:36,3).

James R. Payton, Jr. Irenaeus on the Christian Faith: A Condensation of Against Heresies (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011), 193-94.

Human Nature and the Two Horizons

by

In discussions of theology, it has become commonplace to talk about two horizons in interpretation: the horizon of the text and the horizon of the interpreter or the interpreting community. This has led in some cases to a radical skepticism concerning the possibility of producing stable and reliable interpretations. We may share the same text, but if I am a man and you are a woman, or I am white and you are black, is there anything more than our starting point—the text itself—to connect our interpretations? And is it possible to compare your interpretation with min and decide which of us, if either, has produced a more accurate account of what the text actually says or does?

If we understand human nature as fixed, as something which is not constructed by the individual or by the community but something which is given by God in his address to us, then we are on much more secure ground in moving theological statements from one time, place, or culture to another. Human nature is something which is more basic than gender, glass, culture, location, or time. It cannot be reduced to or contained within a specific context such as to isolate it from all else. This is not to deny that context has a huge impact upon who we are and how we think; it is simply to say that all of these particulars that make individuals unique and allow us to differentiate one person from another are relativized by the universal reality of human nature that binds us all together.

Human beings remain essentially the same in terms of their basic nature as those made in God’s image and addressed by his word even as we move from place to place and from generation to generation. God remains the same; his image remains the same; his address to us remains the same. . . .

In short, a biblical understanding of human nature as a universal will temper any talk that seeks to dismiss theological statements from the past on the simplistic ground that there is nothing in common between us and the people who wrote them.

Carl R. Trueman, The Creedal Imperative (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 62-63.

February 2013 Reading Report

by

Books

Plato, The Trial and Death of Socrates. 3rd edition. Translated by G. M. A. Grube. Revised by John M. Cooper. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2000.

Includes the dialogues Apology, the Euthyphro, the Crito, and the death scene from the Phaedo. As the title to this collection indicates, all four of these works deal with the trial and death of Socrates. They seem to be a good introduction to the Socratic method.

Rutledge, Fleming. The Battle for Middle-earth: Tolkien’s Divine Design in The Lord of the Rings. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

Rutledge maintains that beneath the storylines of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings Tolkien communicated a spiritual message. Rutledge’s thesis is most convincing when she demonstrates that ways in which Tolkien’s basic worldview shaped the story. For instance, she rightly highlights the theme of providence that runs throughout these works. She is less convincing when she tries her hand at allegory. Did Tolkien really intend the rangers of Ithilien to represent the base communities of South American liberation theology? (And why did all political applications of Tolkien’s work hew to the left?) Overall Rutledge is often insightful though frequently misguided.

Van Asselt, Willem J., ed. Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism. Translated by Albert Gootjes. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011.

This book would certainly interest any student of church history interested in theology in the post-Reformation era. However, the book has relevance also to those with little interest in either Reformed theology or post-Reformation scholasticism. Neo-orthodox theologians often caricatured Reformed Scholastics as being dry, rationalistic, rigid, and propositional as opposed to being warm, exegetical, and personal. Since the scholastics, both Lutheran and Reformed, refined and established the orthodox doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy (received by Fundamentalists via Old Princeton), neo-orthodox theologians often used their caricature to attack the doctrine of inerrancy. Though inerrancy is not the focus of this volume, Van Asselt and the other contributors to this book do an admirable job of setting the Reformed Scholastics in their historical context and in demonstrating the neo-orthodox caricature to be false.

Ward, Michael. Planet Narnia: The Seven Heavens in the Imagination of C. S. Lewis. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

C. S. Lewis’s Narnia Chronicles have often been criticized for not being as carefully crafted or coherent as Tolkien’s fantastic creations. Critics have wondered why the Narnians have a Christmas or why Bacchus appears at the liberation of Narnia from Miraz. Ward argues that Lewis did have a coherent vision for these books: each book is intended to evoke one of the seven medieval planets. For instance, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was meant to evoke the spirit of Jupiter, Prince Caspian that of Mars, and so on. Ward demonstrates the plausibility of this thesis by demonstrating the importance of the medieval view of the heavens to Lewis in his scholarly writings, his poetry, and his other fiction (especially the Space Trilogy). Ward is able to demonstrate from these writings that Lewis had definite ideas about what each of the planets was intended to represent or evoke. He then seeks to connect each of the Chronicles with one of these planets. Ward is at his most convincing when he can show that his thesis can explain the presence of incongruous material in the Chronicles. The major obstacle to Ward’s thesis (which he does address) is the lack of any documentary evidence that Lewis really intended what Ward says he did. One other caution (made, I believe, by Alan Jacobs) is that Ward’s thesis should be seen as illuminating one aspect of the Chronicles rather than the key that unlocks the whole.

Howe, Daniel Walker. What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848. The Oxford History of the United States. Edited by David M. Kennedy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Howe’s book is another excellent entry in the Oxford History of the United States series. Howe does not quite measure up to the works of Wood and McPherson, which flank it, but it is nonetheless and excellent work. Positively, he gives religion significant coverage in his history, but, negatively, his summaries of American religion were not always accurate. More difficult to evaluate is Howe’s evident bias for John Quincy Adams (the book is dedicated to him) and against Andrew Jackson. Howe, I believe, is correct in his moral evaluations of these two men (as well as in his negative evaluation of Polk). Furthermore, I believe moral evaluation is appropriate in historical works. Nonetheless, I felt the need to turn to Remini and Wilentz to get a better understanding of the "other side," as it were. I’m glad I bought Howe, and I’m glad a library was available in which I could refer to the other two works.

Habel, Norman C. The Land is Mine: Six Biblical Land Ideologies. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.

Carson’s critique of Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture could easily be adapted to Habel. Habel finds competing land ideologies in different parts of Scripture. As Carson notes with regard to Niebuhr, this prompts "questions about whether they are alternatives or components of a bigger pattern—a pattern that begins to emerge when we follow the Bible’s story line in the categories of biblical theology." It can also raise questions about how accurately Habel is reading the text in some instances. I found the book to have some helpful insights on particular passages here and there, but overall Habel’s conception of the nature of Scripture distorts his approach to Scripture.

Payton, James R., Jr. Irenaeus on the Christian Faith: A Condensation of Against Heresies. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011 [Introduction, Books 4 and 5 of Against Heresies, with some supplementation from ANF]

Payton realized that much of the helpful theological material in Against Heresies remains inaccessibly buried to most Christians. The recitation of Gnostic beliefs in the first several books of Against Heresies discourage readers from pushing forward to theologically rich passages. Furthermore, until recently Against Heresies was only available in an older 19th century translation (the more recent translation in the ACW series remains incomplete).

Payton seeks to remedy these defects by updating the language and style of the older translation and by excising Irenaeus’s detailed discussions of Gnosticism and leaving behind his theologically rich teaching.

In books 4 and 5 Irenaeus covers such matters as the law and the Christian, the relation of Israel and the church, the relation of the two testaments, the incarnation, the nature of man, the resurrection, election and free will, eternal punishment, and the restoration of creation.

Irenaeus of Lyons. Proof Of The Apostolic Preaching. Ancient Christian Writers. Edited and translated by Joseph P. Smith. New York: Paulist, 1952.

In this work Irenaeus first traces out the storyline of Scripture under the headings of Creation, Fall, and Redemption. He then examines Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah and the transformation brought about the New Covenant. This is a very enjoyable read. Though not a biblical theology in the modern sense it has some affinities with the kind of biblical theology that traces out the storyline of Scripture.

Holmes, Michael W. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007.

The Apostolic Fathers preserve the writings of those who followed the apostles. The most edifying of these books are First Clement and the Letter to Diognetus. The least edifying are probably The Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas. Works like the letters of Ignatius fall in between. I’ve never found these letters particularly engaging. However, in this last time through them it occurred to me that the thesis that these letters represent the emergence of an episcopalian form of government may be incorrect. It seems to me that it is just as reasonable to understand Ignatius to be describing a form of government in which one overseer exists as primus inter pares with the other elders of an assembly. If so, then Ignatius may reflect continuity with the New Testament rather than a departure from it.

Guthrie, George H. The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.

This book provides a very helpful introduction to text-linguistics / discourse analysis combined with an proposal about the structure of Hebrews that is overall quite convincing. In brief, Guthrie posits and interweaving of expositional and exhortational sections in Hebrews. These various sections are demarked and linked with variety of devices (e.g., inclusio, hook words). The expositional sections follow this line of reasoning: "The Son Superior to the Angels (1:5-14) → The Son Became Lower than the Angels (i.e., Among Men) to Deliver Men from Sin (2:10-18) → The Son, on the Basis of His Identification with Men, is Taken from Among Men and Appointed as High Priest (5:1-7:28) → Because of His Appointment, He is Able to Offer a Superior Offering in Heaven (8:3-10:18)" (Based on Fig. 30, Guthrie, Structure of Hebrews, 127; text taken from figure verbatim; structure of figure not preserved). Central to the exhortational sections are the five passages in Hebrews that warn against apostasy from God’s Word.

The other exhortational sections come in four groups: 3:1-4:11, faithfulness; 5:11-6:3 and 6:9-12, reason for warning, reason for hope; 10:32-12:24, endurance; ch. 13 concluding exhortations. The exhortational sections are all linked closely with the warnings. 3:1-4:11 has warning passages on either side of it. The same is true of the third group, 10:32-12:24. The second group has a warning passage in its midst. The fourth group follows a warning passage. When put together, it becomes clear that the exposition focuses on the Son: his superiority, his humiliation, his priestly office, and his priestly work. The exhortations focus on warnings against turning away for the word or message that God has entrusted to them and on admonitions toward faithfulness and endurance in their faith. The teaching about the Son provides the doctrinal foundation for the exhortations.

Liederbach, Mark and Seth Bible. True North: Christ, the Gospel, and Creation Care. Nashville: B&H, 2012.

The authors decided to write this book after attending two conferences on evangelicals and the environment. They noticed the absence of Scripture in the presentations. When present the Scripture was used in a superficial way. This book is not designed to address the scientific aspects to the debate. Rather it is intended to lay a biblical and ethical foundation. The authors’ overall argument is sound, but some of their exegesis is left wanting (e.g., finding the Trinity in the plural Elohim; their interpretation of Gen. 2:15).

Articles

Locke, John. "A Letter Concerning Toleration." In Locke, Berkeley, Hume. Great Books of the Western World. Edited by Robert Maynard Hutchins. Chicago: Encylcopaedia Britannica, 1952.

Locke argues that a commonwealth should be concerned about securing the "civil interests" of a society and not religious interests. Lock says that magistrates do not have power in the area of religion because (1) God did not grant them this authority, (2) true religion is a matter of heart persuasion while a magistrate can only use force, and (3) laws cannot save souls. On the other hand he takes the church to be a "voluntary society" that gathers for "the public worshipping of God." As a voluntary society the church may only regulate the lives of those who join with it. Furthermore, he limits the interests of the to "the salvation of souls" and says "it in no way concerns the commonwealth." The church many excommunicate, but it cannot exact civil penalties, or deprive a person of his rights or property. The magistrate likewise cannot interfere with the rights of worship except as they would touch on his normal sphere of influence (e.g., he may prohibit child sacrifice because this is something the state would allow no private person to practice). But the magistrate is not responsible to punish every sin but only the sins that affect the commonwealth. His only goal is the prosperity of the commonwealth. Locke raises the question of the magistrate legislating something contrary to a person’s conscience. Locke says that this will rarely happen, but if it does the person should submit to the law or its consequences. Locke, however, does not extend toleration to the atheist, for he holds that atheism undermines all civil society.

Locke gets many things right in this letter, but he wrongly restricts the interests of the church to the salvation of souls alone. The church is also concerned about the discipleship of people in every area of life. This means that that conflicts between conscience and law are more frequent than Locke anticipated (especially as societies become more pluralistic and different moral codes strive to influence the laws).

Douglas J. Moo, “Nature in the New Creation: New Testament Eschatology and the Environment.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49, no. 3 (September 2006): 477-81.

Moo notes in the article’s introduction that Christians are often (wrongly) accused of a theology that undermines responsible environmental action. He concedes, however, that little has been done to develop a NT theology of nature (more has been done in the OT). Moo begins with Romans 8:19-22, which he understands to affirm that the natural world will be redeemed, as Isaiah predicted it would be, when God’s people are glorified. Moo concedes that Paul’s affirmation of the natural world’s redemption seems in tension with Revelation 21 and 2 Peter 3, which seem to describe the anihilation of the world. But Moo counters this reading. Language of heaven and earth fleeing or passing away need not describe the passing of the physical world. Likewise λυω words need not indicate annihilation (evangelical scholars rightly resist this conclusion when applied to humans and eternal punishment). Though Moo does not deny a fiery judgment at the end, he notes this does not mean the earth is annihilated. Here the Flood serves as a parallel. Positively, God states in Revelation 21:5, "I am making everything new." Moo notes that this favors restoration over replacement. He concludes that the resurrection body is the best analogue. Moo next turns to Colossians 1:20. He critiques the sloppy application of this verse to environmental concerns. He concludes that the verse is predicting the bringing about of universal shalom. This is "secured in principle" by Christ’s crucigixion, but it is not yet established. Moo concedes that the natural world is not at the forefront of Paul’s teaching in this passage, but he does believe it is included. Moo next turns to Gal. 6:15 and 2 Cor. 5:17. Though, again, these passages focus on human transformation, Moo believes that this is part of a broader renewal of all creation (indicated by the terminology of "new creation" as opposed to "new creature" and by the influence of language from Isa. 43:18-21 on 2 Cor. 5:17. Finally, Moo turns to the themes of Dominion, stewardship, and the image of God. Moo concludes that the dominion mandate makes human management of the creation inevitable. Moo holds that stewardship is a good description of the kind of dominion exercised. The image of God in man is understood by Moo as relational, and he includes man’s relation with creation to be part of that image. The fallen image is restored as right relationships are restored.

Moo draws the following conclusions from his survey of these key New Testament texts. First, the natural world is not at the forefront of New Testament teaching, but it is connected to important aspects of God’s redemptive work. Second, Moo rejects the idea that a futurist eschatology undermines Christian environmental stewardship. Third, holding to a renewal of the earth (rather than its annihilation and replacement) does elevate the importance of the creation. Moo concludes that Christians should be committed to a restoration of creation, while also recognizing that "ultimate success" will come only with Christ’s return. Fourth, love for God and other humans should motivate Christian environmental concerns. Fifth, Christians need wisdom in environmental matters. The dominion mandate means that Christians cannot be hostile toward technology and yet must also manage the earth’s resources well. Wisdom is needed to know when "intervention" or "conservation" is the best way to steward creation. Finally, Moo notes that inasmuch as materialism and hedonism contribute to environmental harm, that Christians should be at the forefront of those who model a new way of living.

Von Rad, Gerhard. "The Promised Land and Yahweh’s Land in the Hexateuch." In The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Translated by E. W. Trueman Dicken. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.

Sadly, von Rad spends his time chasing phantasmal sources and relating the land theme to these sources. As a result he says very little of theological value in this essay.

Natural Law and the Public Square

by

Natural law may be defined as the ethical or moral structure that God has revealed to humans in creation (including in themselves and in the providential unfolding of history) and discerned through reason and experience. Natural law is a biblical concept (Rom. 2:14-16; Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Cor. 5:1), and it seems to have two major functions. First, as with the Mosaic Law it condemns people for their sins, leaving them without excuse. Second, natural law provides an explanation for why people and nations do get moral issues right. No nation has even been wicked at every point. Natural law is an an explanation for why this is so.

Recently a natural law approach to reasoned argument in the pubic square has become popular. Among evangelicals, this is often paired with a two kingdoms theology that has its recent origins in Meredith Kline. When the natural law and two kingdoms views are combined the system that emerges typically maintains that Scripture rules over the spiritual kingdom but that natural law (and not Scripture) rules over the civil kingdom. The Christian may understand the natural law better from Scripture, but he is not to impose Scripture on the civil society.

But the natural law-two kingdoms approach suffers from some serious errors. First, the exegetical basis for the two kingdoms view is shaky. Proponents often argue that the civil kingdom is based on the Noahic Covenant and the spiritual kingdom is based on the Abrahamic Covenant. But the Noahic covenant is a redemptive covenant. It is instituted with an atoning sacrifice and it exists to ensure a stable world in which God may work out his redemptive plan (cf. Jer. 33:20-21). Second, just as theonomy makes the best sense in postmillennial context (though technically one does not need to be postmillennial to be a theonomist), so the two kingdoms approach fits best in a amillennial context (though one does not need to be an amillennialist to hold the position). This is evident in the idealistic interpretation of Revelation that undergirds some arguments for the two kingdoms view. It may also reveal itself in a seeming dismissal of the physical from God’s redemptive work and a focus on the spiritual.

Second, it is not clear that God ever intended natural revelation to function apart from special revelation. Because the world is a fallen, it is very difficult to argue from what is to what ought to be. What is is not a reliable guide. Scripture needs to serve as corrective lenses to help fallen people understand natural revelation rightly. This does not mean that natural revelation is unable to achieve the two purposes noted above, but it does indicate it will be difficult to build a civil society upon it.

Third, the natural law approach may lend aid and comfort to the secularists by conceding that religious reasoning should be kept out of the public square. This is a cost not worth paying because the non-Christians may not lend an ear to natural law arguments. Rather they will most often simply say that Christians are hypocritically attempting to hide the real religious reasoning for their position.

Fourth, attempts to reason from natural law apart from Scripture are often unconvincing. This is due in part to the fact that the unregenerate conscience is weak (1 Cor. 8:7, 12), defiled (1 Cor. 8:7; Tit. 1:15), seared (1 Tim. 4:2), and in need of purification (Heb. 9:14; 10:22). It is even further complicated by a religious pluralism in which there are real competing values at work in society. The natural law is not eradicated by the Fall, but it is distorted in such a way that competing systems are now in place.

None of this is to say that natural law argumentation has no place. It can and should be used to strike at the conscience. It can expose to some the danger that they are suppressing truth that they know.

Natural law, like the Mosaic law, is complicated topic. The following are helpful resources:

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.3-6; 2.8.1; 2.2.22; 4.20.14-16

Calvin is well known for his teaching about the sensus divinitatis and a seen of religion in each man. In book 1 he introduces these concepts and he teaches the necessity of Scripture for rightly perceiving natural revelation. In book 2 he provides more detailed discussion about the content of natural law. In chapter 4 he relates natural law to government.

Preus, Robert D. The Theology of Post Reformation Lutheranism. Saint Louis: Concordia, 1970. See especially 1:173-78.

Preus provides a helpful treatment of Lutheran thought about natural law.

Muller, Richard A. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003. See 1:270-308.

Muller provides a helpful survey of Reformed thinking about natural law.

Van Til, Cornelius. Introduction to Systematic Theology. 2nd ed. Edited by William Edgar. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2007. See pp. 119-89.

Van Til combines a strong affirmation of general revelation and natural law with a strong view of the distorting effects of sin on man’s perception and use of that law.

Lewis, C. S. The Abolition of Man. New York: HarperCollins, 1974.

Lewis’s argument for natural law is insightful, but it should be read alongside the more theological treatments noted above.

Budziszewski, J. Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law. Downers Grover: InterVarsity, 2005.

This is perhaps the best recent case for natural law. It should be read along with John Frame’s critique in the The Doctrine of the Christian Life, 239-50, 726, 783.

See also the recent post on natural law by my colleague Mark Ward.

Theonomy and the Public Square

by

Among Christians seeking for biblical guidance about how to live as Christians in the political arena, Theonomy has been an attractive option. The reason is clear: Theonomists rightly hold God’s Word to be the ultimate standard for all of life.

Nevertheless, Theonomy is in serious error at its central point: the relation of the Christian to the Mosaic Law. The New Testament teaches that Christians are no longer under the Mosaic Covenant (Rom. 7:4-6; 1 Cor. 9:21; 2 Cor. 3:3).

This does not mean that the Mosaic Law is irrelevant to the Christian. Many of God’s commands in the Law translate directly to the Christian. For instance, murder always destroys and image bearer of God and is always wrong (Gen. 9:6). Adultery always violates God’s original intent for one man to be married to one woman for life (Matt. 18:4-5). Even laws that are not directly applicable to the Christian still remain relevant. The tabernacle,  sacrificial system, and dietary laws still reveal vital truths about God, sin, and salvation. Various laws about human relationships still teach much about loving God and neighbor.

The shift from Mosaic Covenant to New Covenant, however, does mean that the Mosaic Code as a code of law is not the code that binds a Christian or even Christian nations today. Theonomists are therefore wrong when the insist that the penalties given in Israel’s law are binding on all nations today. The Mosaic law is really a concrete application of God’s creational law to a specific, special people in a specific place at a specific time. The Church finds itself in varied circumstances in time and place, and God has given it the greater responsibility of applying the law of Christ to our varied situations.

The matter of law and its relation to the Christian is complex. The following resources are helpful guides:

Casillas, Ken. The Law and the Christian: God’s Light Within God’s Limits. Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 2007.

This volume briefly surveys various approaches to the Mosaic law and then unpacks ways in which Christians are and are not under the Mosaic law. This may be the best book for orienting a newcomer to this discussion to the basic issues involved.

Moo, Douglas. “The Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses: A Modified Lutheran View.” In Five Views on Law and Gospel. Counterpoints. Edited by Stanley N. Gundry. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Moo surveys briefly what the law cannot do, what the law was intended to do, and the relation of the law to those under the New Covenant. The treatment is brief but exegetically rich.

Theilman, Frank. Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002.

Theilman works systematically through every treatment of the law in Paul’s letters to ascertain Paul’s teaching regarding the law. This is an excellent, comprehensive treatment.

Poythress, Vern S. The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1995.

Appendix B may contain the best critique of Theonomy written. It is fair and sympathetic where appropriate. It is nuanced (far more so than the sketch I gave above). And it is critical of Theonomy’s exegetical and theological shortcomings. The book is available for free at frame-poythress.org

Christians, Worldliness, and Talk Radio

by

In a recent Sunday School lesson about worldliness one of my former professors commented, “All of us without exception are disposed toward some form of worldliness. When we talk about worldliness is not talking about other people’s problems.” Conservative Christians are right to decry worldliness when it appears in violent and sensual music and movies, for instance. But worldliness may also express itself in the way Christians conduct their political discourse—even when they are right on the issues.

Consider the following Scripture:

Titus 3:1–3—1 Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, 2 to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. 3 For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another.

The way Christians engage in politics should be distinct from the way the world engages in politics. Paul exhorts Titus to remind those he leads to be submissive to their rulers. In this context he says that are to be courteous, gentle, and to avoid quarrelling. Paul has a theological basis for this admonition: Christians were once like the the sinners who rule over them and live around them. The sinners are characterized in part by hating and being hated. The Christian, however, has been show grace. Thus Christians should be gracious, and not abusive, toward others.

Romans 13:1–7—1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Paul wrote this command to submit to government, to fear doing wrong, to pay taxes, and to render honor to government leaders while Nero was emperor of the Roman empire. This obedience obviously does not extend to areas in which God has given commands to the contrary (Acts 5:29, 32). But if Christians in Paul’s day owed Nero honor, then American Christians in the present have no excuse for failing to render President Obama and other magistrates the honor they are due.

1 Peter 2:13–17—13 Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. 17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

Peter, also living under Nero’s rule also enjoins Christians to honor the emperor. Christians have always been faced with those who would slander them. By doing good in this way (and others) Christians may silence these slanders.

Acts 23:2–5—2 And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. 3 Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?” 4 Those who stood by said, “Would you revile God’s high priest?” 5 And Paul said, “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’ ”

Paul confessed to having done wrong by reviling the high priest (though he did so in ignorance). He knows from the Old Testament the wrongness of his speech, for Exodus 22:28 forbade the Israelites from speaking evil of their rulers.

These passages do not forbid forthrightness in defense of truth or taking action to defend one’s legal rights. Paul was willing to appeal to his rights as a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37-39; 22:25-29; 23:27; 25:8-12). It is worth noting, however, that Paul doesn’t act on his rights simply because they are his rights (1 Cor 9:12, 15, 18), but he uses or refrains from using his rights based on which action would best further the gospel.

If Christians stood firmly for truth in the political realm in a gentle manner, showing perfect courtesy toward all people, and avoiding quarrelling, they would show themselves a people distinct from this world.

Prayers for Governmental Leaders

by

 

2 Tim 2:1-4—Pray that office-holders will turn to Christ for salvation. Pray that believers may live peaceful, godly lives without persecution or abuse.

Acts 24:25—Pray that officials will act justly and righteously. Pray that they will be morally self-controlled. Pray that they will think about standing before God as their judge in the future.

Psalm 72—Pray that our civil leadership ensure justice in their sphere of responsibility. Pray that they would defend the unjustly treated from those who wrong them.

Rom 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17—Pray that office-holders recognize that they are servants of God with the task of promoting righteousness and punishing wickedness. Pray that they would seek to be faithful to these responsibilities.

Matt. 6:10—Pray for God’s will to be done on earth in public policy matters as it is done in heaven. Pray that Jesus will quickly come to establish his righteous rule on earth.