Of Commas and Complaints

Yesterday in class we discussed the invalidity of using "word studies" in theology, because words can have wide semantic ranges, and a word's meaning is determined by its context(s). How one author uses a word or phrase may differ across time. There's no denying that languages change, though they once did so much more slowly than in today's age of text messaging and e-mail. Sometimes my students actually say "IDK" when trying to communicate, "I don't know." Naturally, I meet them with a blank, perplexed look. When I reprimanded another student for accosting a female student in the hallway, he replied angrily, "Man, why you gotta run up on me like that? You know I was jus' tryin' to baaanng." Translation: "Why are you concerned about what I'm doing to her? I was trying to flirtatiously hump her so that she'd be my girl and I could get a little action." Yes, the English language is in flux. But this fluidity leads to communication problems.

A few years ago I read an entertaining book about the development and misuse of punctuation marks. It made me more aware of just how much the English language has changed in its spelling and structure. But being the son of a long-time Business Grammar teacher, I've been raised as somewhat of a "grammar Nazi." (I was also a county spelling bee champ back in the day.) So I lament inexpressive, miniscule vocabularies, typos, and mechanical errors.

My latest gripe is about the seemingly overnight disappearance of the comma in a direct address. I've been noticing this everywhere recently. A direct address is when you are speaking to a person by name. The standard procedure has long been to set off his name on all sides with a comma.

"Hi, Olivia!"

"Happy Mother's Day, Susan!"

"My, Olivia, you sure look attractive in summery dresses!"

"Go to work, Aaron."

"Lord, have mercy upon us."

If you do not use commas, problems like this can result:

"My Olivia you sure look attractive in summery dresses!" -- Was the use of "my" meant as an interjection expressing my delight, or did I mean to say that Olivia belongs to me?

"Happy Mother's Day Susan!" -- What am I actually wishing? Is the holiday called "Mother's Day Susan"? (Think: Merry Christmas!)

"Go to work Aaron." -- I'm trying to command Aaron to go to his job; I am not trying to tell someone else "to work [use or exercise] Aaron." Removing the comma changes "work" from being a noun to a transitive verb.

Okay, I'm being a mite whiny, and this content doesn't really fit the rest of my blog. But speaking about God involves speaking and communicating clearly (Col. 4:4). Language matters: the Lord has given us language so that we can know him, communicate him to one another, and speak about him. So for the sake of God's glory, please take the time to use real words, add commas where they belong, and stop diluting our language.

Next up: properly using commas in series and the fallacy of "gender-neutral" language. Just kidding!

One in Flesh and Spirit

In the previous post I attempted to show that a biblical view of the human being is wholeness or unity of body and spirit (or soul). (If you haven’t read it already, this post will make little sense without first reading the prior one.) Little did I know, though, that this would influence things like developing a crush on someone.

A few years ago I began to like a girl for who she was in Christ: I loved the way she prayed and how tender and caring she was. At the same time, I began to find myself physically attracted to her as well. As I got to see the inner beauty of “a gentle and quiet spirit” (1 Pet. 3:4), her outer beauty also grew. That’s odd, I thought to myself, how come I didn’t find her all that physically attractive before? The only explanation I have is the unity of her “inner” and “outer” selves; her personality could not be divorced from her body; she was (is) a whole person. She didn’t change; I was just getting to see more of who she was. In fact, I came to believe that even though she didn’t have a “perfect” body, I wouldn’t have wanted her any other way. God made all of her (Ps. 139), and that includes who she is bodily. If somehow her body changed, she would have changed too; it just wouldn’t be her. (We intuitively know this, because we live our lives and develop our personalities in our bodies. Getting a cleft palette fixed can drastically improve a child’s self-image and confidence; in the same way, getting cut from the basketball team because of height can deeply sadden a child. Not being on the team in turn affects his social network, and his personality is shaped in a different direction than it otherwise might have been if he were taller.)

* * *

This has profound implications for marriage, where a man and a woman become “one flesh” before the Lord (Gen. 2:24). God calls us to embrace every aspect of the other as his unique, specially crafted gift of love to us—and, one day, to me. To grow tired of your spouse when she gains weight or grows old or has had a mastectomy, or when she falters in her faith or when her personality changes is what Malachi calls “dealing treacherously” or “breaking faith” (Mal. 2:13-16).

The LORD is acting as witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant. Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. (2:14-15 NIV)

If the NRSV’s rendering of verse 15 is preferrable, this shows even more fully that when we bind ourselves to a wife (or husband) in marriage, we receive all of her. “Did not one God make her [your wife]? Both flesh and spirit [that is, ‘her’] are his.” The “partner . . . of your marriage covenant” is “both flesh and spirit.” I cannot love and serve my wife “personally” without loving her “bodily,” and I cannot love her bodily without loving her personally. Anything else is the infidelity God hates (2:16). (Of course, such “love” rules out emotions that rise and fall based on our whims.)

This also means receiving all of her as a blessing from God. It is God who joins together a husband and wife (Matt. 19:4-6; cf. Gen. 2:24, where the passive voice implies God as actor). Whatever “imperfections” I see in my wife’s body—as if any of our bodies are still unspoiled by the Fall—I must realize are those belonging to the one person whom God has personally formed and graciously given to me in his love as my one life partner. If I find her lacking, it’s not she who is at fault, but rather my sin-skewed perception and desires.

Third, this intra- and interpersonal oneness of body and spirit demands giving all of myself to my wife. I cannot retain any part of myself as autonomous, independent from her. Speaking in the context of marital sex, Scripture says that “the wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife” (1 Cor. 7:4). I also like Eugene Petersons’ vivid paraphrase of 7:3-4: “The marriage bed must be a place of mutuality—the husband seeking to satisfy his wife, the wife seeking to satisfy her husband. Marriage is not a place to ‘stand up for your rights.’ Marriage is a decision to serve the other, whether in bed or out” (The Message). (I love how God commands married couples to have sex—often!—as our marital duty.)

* * *

Of course, I’m still single. But this biblical anthropology orders more than just married life; it speaks tomes to single sexuality as well. Isn’t the temptation of pornography to participate in bodily sex without the sacrificial commitment to a complete, actual person? Women become bodies to use, breasts and butts and legs as sources of uncommitted pleasure. It’s easy to lust after a woman’s body and neglect her face, because by neglecting that, we neglect who she is, her person. We cut out the relationship. Pornography also deceives us into thinking that bodies will always stay young and flawless; that we’re to be disappointed with a woman if her breasts don’t fill at least size-C bra cups; that our manhood depends on how muscular and well-endowed we are. Just as he first did in Eden, Satan will always tempt us to doubt the goodness of God’s design and to find satisfaction elsewhere. We need to always be on our guard and rejoice in the blessings our Creator and Ruler promises to those who fear and love him (Psalms 16, 37, 28).

Where Soul Meets Body [1]

In his first letter to the fledgling church at Thessalonica, the apostle Paul blesses them with this prayer: “May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. The one who calls you is faithful and he will do it” (1 Thess. 5:23-24). This made me think: What does it mean to be purified and set apart for God’s pleasure in “spirit, soul, and body”? Are these three separate entities? No! Paul prays, “May God himself . . . sanctify you . . . . [that is,] your whole spirit, soul and body.” (The fancy word is a hendiadys; one word or phrase interprets and explains the other.) The whole “you,” set apart and kept for Christ (Jude 1), is nothing less than a unity of body and soul/spirit. (It’s questionable whether “soul” and “spirit” are different entities in Scripture.) Now put that thought on hold.

Pick up biblical anthropology and the hope of the gospel: God has hand-crafted every detail of our beings, that is, our physical bodies (Ps. 139:13-16). His breath (or spirit; Heb. ruach) animates and invigorates our bodies, and we have each been made with unique bodies to house and employ our spirits (Gen. 2:7; Job 27:3; 32:8; 33:4). This has great importance for the gospel of our resurrection. We erroneously think that when we die and enjoy a greater fullness of the Lord’s presence, we have already experienced our resurrection. This is not true! The scriptural testimony is that only when our bodies are raised to newness of life will we become complete again. As believers in Christ are right now, our bodies are dead in sin, yet our spirits are alive. But our hope for which the whole universe longs is “the redemption of our bodies.” It is only when the Spirit of Christ gives glorifying life to our mortal bodies and reunites us with our reborn spirits that we will see the fullness of our hope (Rom. 8:9-11, 18-25; cf. Pss. 16:10; 49:12-15; 1 Cor. 6:12-20; 15:35-57; 2 Cor. 5:1-10; Phil. 3:20-21). We won’t be fully ourselves again until we’re glorified, Christlike spirits living in glorified, Christlike bodies—bodies that bear recognizable marks of our earthly selves. (Cf. John 20:20, 24-28, where the disciples recognize Jesus because of the scars he yet bears. Jesus’ glorified body is distinctly his body.)

Putting these two together means that you and I never exist merely “spiritually;” we are who we are also by virtue of our bodies and our circumstances in the world. There is always a body-spirit interplay at work. Physical, bodily happenings in our daily lives (success or failure in completing a task, loss of a loved one, a kiss, a caress, personal sickness, hunger) influence our emotions, wills, desires, and fears, i.e., our “spirits.” It’s a well-documented psychological phenomenon that one’s attitude affects his health and also that his health affects his attitude. What happens to our “outer selves” affects our “inner selves.” This is why fasting from food and kneeling in prayer can affect our disposition before the Lord. It also explains how faith is produced through the Word and sacraments: we hear God’s word with our ears, see it with our eyes in the water, bread, and wine, and taste it with our mouths—and we therefore believe it as the Holy Spirit fills our hearts with his joy and peace.

In like fashion, we don’t just worship God in spirit, with heavenly affections. Good as those may be, we are urged to “offer our bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual worship” (Rom. 12:1). [2] Though we have God-loving minds and hearts, yet our bodies aren’t yet renewed in the same way; thus we can speak of our “body of death” rebelling against what we know and love (Rom. 7:21-25). But we hope for the “reconciliation of all things,” when our whole being will again see, taste, feel, love, and cherish the Triune God in all his beauty and perfections—forevermore!

__________

1. “Soul Meets Body” is the title of a song by one of my favorite bands, Death Cab for Cutie. (It’s on their 2005 Barsuk release Plans.)
2. “Spiritual” is here the Greek logikos, which may also mean “rational” or “sensible” (see NIV footnote). But the point stands: we worship God by employing our bodily members in his service.

Malatya update

Thanks to Beth for posting this update on last year's killings in Malatya, Turkey.

In memoriam: 4/18/07

One year ago today my brothers in the faith Necati Aydın, Uğur Yüksel, and Tilmann Geske were bound to chairs and had their throats slit in Malatya, Turkey, by a band of young men (teenagers, really) who saw them as threats to the stability of the Turkish national identity.

Good soldiers of Jesus Christ, you have kept the faith, run the race with endurance, and fought the good fight. You did not love your lives so as to shrink from death. For that our
Shepherd has given you rest, and our King holds out for your heads a crown of love, honor, and exaltation. May we love our Master and others as you did.

Good Lord, keep the testimony of these men's lives burning brightly in Turkey. May their memory and the outcome of their lives spur others there on to cling to you and share their faith openly as you lead others to see the light of the stark reality of your resurrection and kingdom. And may their loved ones find healing in you as their forgiveness of the murderers bears witness to your mercy found only at the Cross. Amen.

Here is my post from this date last year.

No time for reading . . . and less for blogging!

To my handful of "avid" readers: I'm busy. Don't expect much productivity for a few weeks yet. In the remaining six hours a week when I'm not teaching, tutoring, planning to teach, grading, fretting about teaching, or going crazy about my students, I get to do three things, (1) talk with my lovely girlfriend over the phone, (2) search for a pastor for Franklin Street Community, or (3) read, read, read for Intro to Pastoral and Theological Studies.

What am I reading? I'm sure Ted cares, if few others. But here's what now occupies my time instead of blogging or journaling or photography or drawing or other pursuits of mine:

Peter Lillback, ed., The Practical Calvinist -- This collection of essays is a helpful and diverse introduction to various issues in the Reformed and Presbyterian heritage. I actually found this book, as a whole, to be really informative and enjoyable to read.

Dennis Johnson, Him We Proclaim -- Johnson issues a call to re-adopt the apostles' own interpretation and application of the Old Testament in preaching to congregations with both believers and nonbelievers. Johnson emphasizes a typological, but sensible, interpretation of the OT that should serve to call all people to faith, to retrain minds, and to edify believers in lives of holiness. I'm learning a lot of new things while being confirmed in what I've already been coming to see in Scripture over the past few years.

John Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God -- In this book Dr. Frame addresses the question of how we know truth about God and our relationship to him. It is basically a book about epistemology (the study of truth and knowing), with a nod toward presuppositional apologetics (i.e., Scripture's validity and authority above all other ways of knowing).

John Calvin, Commentary on the Psalms -- Bible + Holy Spirit (+ Calvin) = Christ-centered, covenantal exposition of the Psalms.

In addition to having written a ten-page reflection on The Practical Calvinist, I'll also be composing a ten-page sermon or exposition of a psalm based on Johnson, Calvin, and Frame. (Any suggestions for a psalm?) So, consider the blogosphere down one blogger for the next six weeks.

__________________
P.S. You need good, energizing music. Mute Math makes good, energizing music. Problem solved. Now if only I had an iPod . . . C'mon economic stimulus check!

Is marriage a commandment?

During our discussion of the Reformed worldview in class on Saturday, Dr. Griffith taught about affirming the goodness of creation, nature, and bodily life; and the preservation and importance of the “creation ordinances”: work, Sabbath, marriage, procreation, and possibly the state. These roles and commands given to man were not only meant to bless him and order his life before the Fall as ways for him to reflect the image and work of God himself. These structures and ordinances continue even now, for two reasons. They are reinstituted in Genesis 9 after the Flood and re-creation (though sin’s curse now corrupts everything); and both Jesus and Paul base their ethical appeals in the pre-Fall creation order itself (e.g., Matt. 19:4-6; 1 Cor. 6:16; 11:8-12, 14; Eph. 5:31). Dr. Griffith’s point was to teach about how God, in his “common grace,” upholds and preserves this order even after the Fall, allowing mankind to participate in his life and still fulfill his original role, though now imperfectly.

A wise Campus Crusade staff member named Roger Hershey once said something that has guided many of my decisions: “Instead of asking what God’s will is for your life, ask instead how your life can fit into God’s will.” In other words, base your choices around the purposes of God’s heart do everything to his glory. “Walk as children of light . . . and try to find out what is pleasing to the Lord” (Eph. 5:8, 10). As long as I’m committed to doing God-honoring things that he takes pleasure in, I’m living in God’s will for my life. So this makes me wonder: Is marriage more than just a good idea, even a commandment?

Marriage and Completing Creation

God decreed that “it is not good for man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18). This was the first time anything in creation was not “good” or “very good.” His work was yet unfinished and incomplete, so he decreed that a partner be made and given to Adam for him to rejoice in and to “know” (vv. 18-25; 4:1). In other words, God decreed that man should marry. Verse 18 makes this explicit, but it’s implied elsewhere. Verse 24 says that “a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” The emphasis on shall render an implicit command; God’s statutes are always “you shall” or “you shall not.” (The NIV’s use of “will” is weak. This isn’t just a statement about what will occur in the future.) Therefore marriage is not only “good,” but it completes God’s work of creation itself.

Marriage and the Image of the Triune God

Jesus’ use of Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 in Matthew 19:4-6 reveals something most striking about marriage. He says that a man shall be joined to his wife and become one flesh—a joining done by God himself—because from the beginning God created them “male and female.” This is a reference to Genesis 1:26-27.

And God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. . . .”
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Here we see one God with one image who speaks of himself in the plural: “Let us,” “our image.” God makes man (singular) in his own image (singular), yet man is created male and female (plural, separate persons). The two together bear the (one) image of God. This is probably why Jesus is so adamant about preserving the marital union: it most fully reflects the image of God himself, the whole purpose for which mankind was created in the first place. Man married is more fully human and more glorifying to God.

How, exactly, does this male-female marital communion reflect God’s image? These two distinct and different persons, one original and one derived yet equal, united by a bond of mutual love and delight reflect the Trinity itself. “Let us make man in our image.” Adopting a somewhat Augustinian view, Jonathan Edwards argues that God’s Spirit is the very love of God itself. Within the Godhead, “the Son is the Deity generated by God’s [self-]understanding, or having an idea of himself; the Holy Ghost is the divine essence flowing out, or breathed forth, in infinite love and delight." [1] Upon exhaustive exposition of biblical texts, Edwards says elsewhere of the Holy Spirit that he is “the deity subsisting in act, or the divine essence flowing out and breathed forth in God’s infinite love to and delight in Himself [as he knows himself in the eternally generated Son, who is the ‘Divine idea,’ God’s own consciousness of himself]." [2]

This spiritual union of mutually expressed love, joy, and affection may be alluded to in Malachi 2:15, where the prophet rails against divorce. It’s a notoriously difficult passage to translate, but the gist is similar in most versions.

Did he not make them [husband and wife] one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? (ESV; “in their union” is implied)

But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? (NKJV)

Didn’t God make you one body and spirit with her? (GNT)

If this is so, marriage mirrors the Trinity, and only within marriage does “our image” show in man.

Furthermore, it’s interesting to note the relationship of verse 24 to the preceding verses in Genesis 2. The Lord takes a rib from Man and fashions Woman from it. Notice that the woman is not created ex nihilo, “from nothing.” She is formed from the man’s own body. Therefore Adam is able to joyfully exclaim,

“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”

Notice how this parallels the relationship of the Father to his eternally begotten Son. The Son was not created; instead, all things were created through him (Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2). He was begotten, that is, he is eternally generated from the Father and shares the very same being or essence as him (homo ousios). The woman was formed from the man’s essence and substance, his flesh, equal in essence and glory yet a distinct person with a different role. This Trinitarian perspective on the male-female relationship further enhances the view that marriage reflects the image of God more perfectly and, amazingly, brings us into the life of the Triune God himself.

Marriage and Procreation

Another command—actually, a blessing—God gives to mankind is to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Gen. 1:28). This command is repeated to Noah’s family after the flood (Gen. 9:1, 7). The rest of Genesis tells the sad story of man’s determined efforts not to fill the earth (the tower at Babel, Gen. 11:1-9) and not to bear offspring (Onan and Tamar, 38:8-10). And the whole framework of the Genesis “accounts” is built not around main characters, but their children (e.g., the “account of Terah” is actually about Abraham; the “account of Jacob” is about Joseph.) And God’s covenant with Abraham is to be fulfilled through his seed, a promise to give him land and a multitude of offspring. God clearly cares about building and sustaining families.

Such fecundity, however, can only be accomplished within marriage. Sure, children can be born illegitimately, but God wants “godly offspring” conceived within marriage. “Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring” (Mal. 2:15). Children born in accordance with God’s character have to come from God-imaging marriage.

One can argue that God’s procreation mandate finds its true fulfillment the Great Commission, where Spirit-born children spring up throughout the earth (Matt. 28:19; Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8). But even though the kingdom had come in Jesus Christ, he doesn’t dissolve marriage nor neglect children. Rather, he affirms and upholds them. (See Matthew 19:13-15. Immediately after rebuking the Pharisees for their selfish dissolution of the family, Jesus invites and blesses little children.)

Marriage and Knowing God

God’s great desire revealed throughout his Word, even “eternal life,” is that we would intimately know him within a self-binding, self-giving covenantal relationship. He pledges his steadfast love (chesed) and says, “You shall be my people, and I shall be your God.” One person belongs to the other. Is this not a perfect definition of marriage? When we enter wedlock, we can more fully understand the way God relates to his people (Isa. 54:4-10; 62:4-5; Hos. 1 – 3) and how Christ the Bridegroom cherishes his Bride, the church, who is one body with him (Eph. 5:22-33). In fact, the same word used in the Old Testament for “knowing” God is used of the sexual intimacy between a husband and his wife (Gen. 4:1; Hos. 2:20; cf. Matt. 1:25). Conversely, the Bible also speaks often of sin and transgression as “adultery” against God. The gravity of infidelity takes on a lot more weight to those who are married.

Marriage and Wisdom

Wisdom (a possible allusion to the second Person of the Godhead) declares in Proverbs that "whoever finds me finds life and obtains favor from the LORD" (8:35). That sounds like everything else in Proverbs. But read carefully Proverbs 18:22: "He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the LORD." Seeking and obtaining a wife is paralleled with seeking and obtaining wisdom, the path to life in the fear of the Lord, and both please God so as to obtain his favor.

Psalm 128 says almost the same thing, albeit in different words. Sandwiched between the promise of blessing to those who fear the Lord are the creation ordinances of productive work, a fruitful wife, and a bounty of children. [3] Sin's curses are repealed, and God showers his favor. So, does walking in wisdom demand marriage? Probably not. But they are certainly not divorced from one another, either. Marriage pleases God and is even a wonderful gift from him.

Conclusion

Taking all of these together, I think a case can be made that, extenuating circumstances notwithstanding (such as certain ministerial commitments; 1 Cor. 7:32-35), God desires that his people should not stay single, but should marry. I have not taken time here to evaluate Paul’s arguments for celibacy and singleness in the ever-perplexing 1 Corinthians 7. Nor have I dealt with Jesus’ declaration in Matthew 19:12 that some people “have renounced marriage [literally ‘have made themselves eunuchs’] because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it” (NIV). Within the kingdom of God, and because of the problems of sinful abuse of marriage, some people are called to remain single. But I think that God certainly esteems marriage above singleness. It is, as Paul says, “what is pleasing to the Lord” (Eph. 5:10). This doesn’t mean that now is necessarily the best time for someone to marry, and being single today isn’t a sin. And marriage can also be entered into for purely selfish reasons, such as choosing a husband because he’s rich and you’re lazy, or choosing a wife because all you want to do is have sex. But lived in a way that considers and honors God’s revealed will, marriage is certainly a wonderful blessing from him. It pleases him, makes us more fully human in his image, and brings us into a deeper participation in and understanding of God and the created order. If you’re able to marry, walk in God’s will—get serious about marriage!
____________________

[1] Jonathan Edwards, The “Miscellanies,” a-500, 468 [405]. Quoted in John Hannah, “Love as the Foundation of Theology: The Practical Implications of Jonathan Edwards’ Doctrine of the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit.” The Practical Calvinist, ed. Peter A. Lillback (Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus, 2002), 269.

[2] Jonathan Edwards, “An Essay on the Trinity,” Treatise on Grace and Other Posthumously Published Writings, ed. Paul Helm (Cambridge: James Clarke and Co. Ltd., 1971), 118. Quoted in John Piper, The Pleasures of God (Sisters, Oreg.: Multnomah, 2000), 45.

[3] The keen eye will notice that many psalms have a chiastic structure with thematic “bookends” and a key verse or idea in the center. Here the blessing of a wife “like a fruitful vine within your house” is in the center of vv. 1-6, sandwiched between “Blessed is the man who fears the LORD.” Her fruitfulness implies an abundance of sexual intimacy in the marriage (cf. SS 7:6-12). Staying within the home is contrasted with the adulterous woman whose “water” is scattered abroad in the streets (Prov. 5:15-16) and the mistress whose "feet do not stay at home" (7:6-12).

When I became a man, I gave up childish ways

Every day I receive a new e-mail from Christianity Today magazine. Today was an article titled, "Wanted: Young Men in the Church." Its thesis is that the church is sorely lacking in young, single men because this demographic wants to, in large measure, live self-centered and irresponsible lives--that is, until the reality-checks of marriage and children sinks in.

I found this article somewhat surprising, honestly. My friend Craig and I were talking just today about how, even as young as we are (26 and 24, respectively), we want to tackle life's demands in responsible, mature wisdom, not in blissful ignorance. We were talking about how we once thought that our parents and all adults seemed to know what they were doing, had their acts together, had life figured out. I realize now that that's not true at all. Most of the time I feel clueless and overwhelmed. I wish I could drive home and have my parents take care of everything. But they can't. And I really wouldn't want that, anyway. Counsel from them is good, but I've never been one to take handouts; there's little dignity in that.

Responsibility and leadership are tough. Being a man of integrity and character is even tougher. But I don't want to be some drifter through life, never having a clue what I want to do and letting the latest whim decide my choices. If that were so, my name would be Joey, Ross, or Chandler; but as it is, it's Andrew: literally, "masculine" or "courageous, strong". At the end of a lengthy letter urging the worldly Corinthian neophyte Christians toward a life of obedient discipleship, St. Paul sums it up with this final exhortation:

Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. (16:13)

"Act like men." "Be Andrew," it might say. The fact is, the church needs men as leaders, and not just married men. Read through 1 Corinthians, and you'll find men at the root of most of the problems and disorder and sinfulness. A leading church-planting pastor in the Seattle area, Mark Driscoll, made a video in which he urged pastors: "Win the men, win the church." He too laments how young men are more concerned with playing X-Box and "banging their girlfriends" (Driscoll is known for being bluntly graphic) than with a life of missional, self-denying, cross-carrying discipleship.

But I wonder: What is causing this? Is it John Eldredge and salvation as a "sacred romance"? (Which is ironic, considering he wrote Wild at Heart not only to show that he knows more about books and movies than about the Bible, but also to urge men to be more manly.) That may be. But I think the fact comes back to the sin in our hearts. It takes sacrifice and a lot of prayer to be a discerning, bold male. We want to be lazy, so why bother? And there's no difference between men and women, right? So who does that make me? And if Mom and Dad are willing to take me under their wing, then why bother being responsible?

Of course I am over-simplifying these things--an act I myself despise. There is one place to start: with myself. Who wants to be immature and irresponsible? I, for one, do not. "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways" (1 Cor. 13:11).

The Canons of Dort and the Perseverance of the Saints

So it is not by their own merits or strength but by God’s undeserved mercy that they [those who are beloved before time; Romans 8:28-30] neither forfeit faith and grace totally nor remain in their downfalls to the end and are lost. With respect to themselves this not only could easily happen, but also undoubtedly would happen; but with respect to God it cannot possibly happen, since his plan cannot be changed, his promise cannot fail, the calling according to his purpose cannot be revoked, the merit of Christ as well as his interceding and preserving cannot be nullified, and the sealing of the Holy Spirit can neither be invalidated nor wiped out.

-- The Canons of Dort, point 5, article 8

Preserved for God's pleasure

If you read my previous post, you might mistakenly come to think that God cherishes and preserves us because of something inherently worthwhile within us. Perhaps you might think, “God longs for me so much; he needs me to be happy and whole.” There is a degree of truth to that. But the Bible will not allow us to think that salvation has to do with God’s delight in man. Rather, all of redemption happens because of God’s delight in himself. All of history unfolds from God and for God. His people were created, are being redeemed, and will be glorified for the sake of his own delight—just as others will be passed over and left in just judgment and perdition for the same reasons (though we cannot probe too deeply into such mysteries or wag a finger at God in blame).

The first description of mankind, indeed, the goal and purpose for his being, is to be the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). The human race was created for the purpose of reflecting God back to himself, like a mirror. The image is not God himself; but in the image God sees himself. [1] Sadly, that image was marred and corrupted by Adam’s willing fall into sin.

We later learn of the true Man, the perfectly obedient human who shines with beauty everywhere that fallen Adam is dull: Jesus the Son. He is spoken of as the consummate image of God in all his glory.

The God of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Cor. 4:4)

He is the image of the invisible God. (Col. 1:15)

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature. (Heb. 1:3)

How is it that Jesus bears his Father’s own image? It is because in Jesus, as the image (Greek eikon), God himself dwells and is manifested. “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him [Christ]” (Col. 1:19 NIV). God sees his own reflection and nature stamped on his Son and rejoices—for there is no one more glorious or beautiful or admirable than God himself. Therefore, God cannot fail to take great pleasure in his beloved, image-bearing Son.

But the good news is that this image doesn’t dwell in some esoteric, disembodied, Gnostic Christ; it dwells in the Word made flesh. “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col. 2:9). And in our union with Christ, we as humans are also definitively found in this bodily Eikon. “In him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him” (vv. 9-10). [2]

The great news of our sanctification and recreation is that in Christ, we come to see and know God truly. Thus we are transformed into his image from one degree of glory to another. “You . . . have put on the new self [literally “new man,” that is, Jesus], which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator” (Col. 3:10; cf. Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:24). God has reclaimed us for himself so that we will reflect his glory back to him (Rom. 8:29). And that we shall do (1 John 3:2)!

Because we’re saved to bear God’s image, our progress in holiness in time, as well as our final sinless glorification in eternity, are absolutely assured. As God’s delight is, above all things, in himself, he cannot but find the consummate of all joys in his own image and nature. The letter to the Ephesians tells that we are blessed in Christ “according to the good pleasure of his [God’s] will” (1:5, 9) and that all might result in “the praise of his glory.” The chief aim in all God’s saving works is his own pleasure and joy—and there can be none greater than pleasure in himself. Because our glorification involves our complete re-imaging of God, it is as certain as God’s gladness in his own image. We have a sure hope! “Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which as a great reward” (Heb. 10:35).

____________________

[1] For a concise but helpful explanation of this, check out chapter 7 of John Frame’s introduction to systematic theology, Salvation Belongs to the Lord (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2006).

[2] In case you needed another reason to defend the true deity and true humanity of Jesus, here surely is one.

You have need of perseverance

“You have need of perseverance,” the author of the letter to the Hebrews urges his audience (10:36). But why?

This past weekend during the first week of class, we were talking about the truth that God saves sinners. (This teaching is put forth in what has somewhat unfortunately become called the Five Points of Calvinism.) When we were talking about the doctrine of the Preservation of the Elect (a.k.a. Perseverance of the Saints), Dr. Griffith asked us, “Why is perseverance in faith necessary? Why can’t we just be justified at some point upon making a ‘decision for Christ’ and then live as we please?”

The question stumped me somewhat. But then I realized this: The very nature of faith and salvation demands it. How so? Because God’s saving work—not only in what happens to us, but also the prize we receive—is fellowship (union; Greek koinonia) with Christ. “God . . . has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 1:9). Salvation is, by its very nature, a relationship. And we exercise this relationship by a life of obedient faith in the Messiah’s sufficiency as Savior and Mediator and his supremacy as Lord and King. “Believers are called into the fellowship of Christ and fellowship means communion," explains John Murray. "The life of faith is one of living union and communion with the exalted and ever-present Redeemer” [1]. As long as we have salvation, we must have a humble, repentant faith; the presence of God’s gracious in-Christ redemption can never be divorced from trust in him. So if we are to inherit eternal life, we must have an eternal faith.

But this is glorious news, comforting news, filling me with a “joy unspeakable and full of glory." Left on our own, the demand for persevering faith would be but “dismay and Christless dread” [2]. But we forget: it is the Triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—with whom we have fellowship; it is to a Person we are united. Salvation does not exist as an abstraction or a philosophical construct; it is not a lofty idea or an mechanical process. It is a gracious covenantal bond between a Shepherd and the flock under his care, a Bridegroom and his bride, a Father and his son, a Lord and his servant. The word used throughout the Scriptures for this is chesed, a word so full of meaning that English translations fail to pin it down. Try as they might—“unfailing love” (NIV), “steadfast love” (ESV), “lovingkindness” (NASB), “loyal love” or “merciful love” (The Message)—they can but dance around it. Perhaps only the tongues of angels are fit for its expression.

So we’re not stuck to persevere on our own. We have the full backing and upholding and undying, self-binding love of the very heart of God himself. I cannot stress enough that salvation belongs a Person. His name is Everlasting Father, whose desires and commitments are never fickle and never revoked. His name is Almighty God and King of Kings, wielding omnipotent power and authority to crush all enemies and secure the future of his loved ones. His name is Compassionate Priest, who sympathizes with us, deals tenderly with us in our weaknesses, and who ever lives to make intercession for us (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25). His name is Advocate, Counselor, and Pledge, an indwelling guarantee who keeps us secure and breathes into our hearts his very own life and glory.

"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Christ Jesus our Lord, is faithful." (1 Cor. 1:8-9)

____________________

[1] John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1955) 169. Murray continues beautifully: “The life of faith is the life of love, and the life of love is the life of fellowship, or mystic communion with him who ever lives to make intercession for his people and who can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities. It is a fellowship with him who has an inexhaustible reservoir of sympathy with his people’s temptations, afflictions, and infirmities because he was tempted in all points like as they were, yet without sin. The life of faith cannot be that of cold metallic assent. It must have the passion and warmth of love and communion because communion with God is the crown and apex of true religion. ‘Truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ’ (1 John 1:3)” (Ibid., 169-70). So much for calling Calvinists cold, dour, mechanical folk!

[2] Ibid., 165.

Tom Carson: an ordinary pastor

How fitting--on the heels of my last post comes D. A. Carson's latest book, Memoirs of An Ordinary Pastor. It's a biography of his own dad's faithfulness in shepherding a small flock in once-predominantly Roman Catholic Quebec. Carson's closing words are about the life of his father Tom, but I am sure they ring true of many other men (and even some women) who trust more in the Holy Spirit to build and strengthen the church than in their own programs and appeal.

Tom Carson never rose very far in denominational structures, but hundreds of people … testify how much he loved them. He never wrote a book, but he loved the Book. He was never wealthy or powerful, but he kept growing as a Christian: yesterday’s grace was never enough. He was not a far-sighted visionary, but he looked forward to eternity. He was not a gifted administrator, but there is no text that says “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you are good administrators.” His journals have many, many entries bathed in tears of contrition, but his children and grandchildren remember his laughter. Only rarely did he break through his pattern of reserve and speak deeply and intimately with his children, but he modeled Christian virtues to them. He much preferred to avoid controversy than to stir things up, but his own commitments to historic confessionalism were unyielding, and in ethics he was a man of principle. His own ecclesiastical circles were rather small and narrow, but his reading was correspondingly large and expansive. He was not very good at putting people down, except on his prayer lists.

When he died, there were no crowds outside the hospital, no editorial comments in the papers, no announcements on the television, no mention in Parliament, no attention paid by the nation. In his hospital room there was no one by his bedside. There was only the quiet hiss of oxygen, vainly venting because he had stopped breathing and would never need it again.

But on the other side, all the trumpets sounded. Dad won entrance to the only throne-room that matters, not because he was a good man or a great man—he was, after all, a most ordinary pastor—but because he was a forgiven man. And he heard the voice of him whom he longed to hear saying, “Well done, good and faithful servant; enter into the joy of your Lord.”

If there was ever a life well lived, it sounds to me like Tom Carson was the one who lived it. It almost brought me to tears to read this about him, because it is just like the picture of the life I long to live, in all its humble beauty.

Busyness and blandness

Right now you can expect the continuation of the Baptism posts and other bloggage to be on somewhat of a hiatus. My life is busy and full of craziness and some very crucial decision making. As such I've spent more time on my knees and less time caring about this blog.

One thing taking up my mind and time is our search at Franklin Street Community for a pastor of our own. We've had some of the local PCA pastors filling in the duties of preaching and administering the Lord's Supper. And I've started filling in leading the worship services--a task I've enjoyed and that others have commented on positively. I really see a lot of importance in crafting a worship service that is unified in theme, where we are led to the throne of the Holy One's mercy, and that celebrates this great drama of the world's redemption.

I've been reading through a good number of Ministerial Data Forms, resumes, and vision statements. A lot of the applicants seem like wonderful possibilities. But their ministry experiences and their personal philosophies all seem so, well, homogeneous and common. Yes, they are all men who have a desire to reach a downtown/city context and have a priority on proclamation of the Word and church planting and evangelism. But beyond that, no one stands out with incredible experiences or a radically fresh, invigorating view of the church and his ministry.

But I think that's really the "Jesus way." As Ted has pointed out in a few recent posts ("Looking Good" and "Be Faithful Where You're At" [sic]), spiritual life and leadership aren't about flashiness and making shockwaves in your respective societal scene. Paul's "unhindered" preaching took place while locked up in a prison (Acts 28:31). It was unhindered because he couldn't try to look good for anyone--he was jailed! All he had was a message to preach. And how often do we think the Next New Thing is what is going to get the job done and push us a big step along the way in our life of discipleship? Whenever we try to jump from one fad to the next and rely on change and freshness rather than relying upon faithfulness to "what we've already attained" (Phil. 3:16), then we're set for disappointment. Flashy sermons don't bring the kingdom of God to Richmond. Faithful proclamation of Christ does. Flashy people don't bring the kingdom. Humble servants who labor in prayer do. Great leaders don't build the church; the Holy Spirit does. And so it goes on.

Maybe these normal pastors with normal experiences are just what we need, after all.

In this is love

You can't avoid it: Valentine's Day. Try as you might, red hearts and Teddy bears and shmoopy wares fill the shelves. (I've read that there was actually a Saint Valentinus, a Christian saint of old whose deeds of love and mercy while in Roman prison form the basis for this day of love.) But if we are to consider saying the words, "I love you," we need to first consider what love is: a voluntary choice to give yourself sacrificially for the good and joy of another. To say those three words means to follow the way of Jesus: "By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers" (1 John 3:16).

"God in Christ forgave you. Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God." (Ephesians 4:32 - 5:2)

"God is love. In this the love of God was manifested among us, that God sent his only Son in to the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation [wrath-appeasing sacrifice] for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another." (1 John 4:8-11)

"It is the spectacle of Gethsemane and Calvary . . . that opens to us the folds of unspeakable love. The Father did not spare his own Son. He spared nothing that the dictates of unrelenting rectitude demanded. And it is the undercurrent of the Son's acquiescence that we hear when he says, 'Nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done' (Luke 22:42). But why? It was in order that eternal and invincible love might find the full realization of its urge and purpose in redemption by price and by power. Of Calvary the spirit is eternal love and the basis eternal justice. It is the same love manifested in the mystery of Gethsemane's agony and of Calvary's accursed tree that wraps eternal security around the people of God." (John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied)

"We know that those who truly love are only happy when those whom they love are truly happy also. So it is with God in his love for us. . . . Through setting his love on human beings God has voluntarily bound up his own final happiness with theirs. . . . God was happy without humans before they were made; he would have continued happy had he simply destroyed them after they sinned; but as it is he has set his love upon particular sinners, and this means that, by his own free voluntary choice, he will not know perfect happiness again till he has brought every one of them to heaven. He has in effect resolved that henceforth for all eternity his happiness shall be conditional upon ours." (J. I. Packer, Knowing God)

Baptism in the Reformed confessions

So far I have described baptism's function as a sign and seal of the new covenant promises. Perhaps a few relevant, if redundant, quotes from various Reformed confessions and catechisms would be helpful at this point.


From the Heidelberg Catechism:

Question 66: What are sacraments?
Sacraments are holy signs and seals for us to see. They were instituted by God so that by our use of them he might make us understand more clearly the promise of the gospel, and might put his seal on that promise. And this is God's gospel promise: to forgive us our sins and give us eternal life by grace alone because of Christ's one sacrifice finished on the cross.

Question 69: How does baptism remind you and assure you that Christ's one sacrifice on the cross is for you personally?
In this way: Christ instituted this outward washing and with it gave the promise that, as surely as water washes away the dirt from the body, so certainly his blood and his Spirit wash away my soul's impurity, in other words, all my sins.

From the Belgic Confession:

Article 33: The Sacraments
We believe that our good God, mindful of our crudeness and weakness, has ordained sacraments for us to seal his promises in us, to pledge his good will and grace toward us, and also to nourish and sustain our faith.

He has added these to the Word of the gospel to represent better to our external senses both what he enables us to understand by his Word and what he does inwardly in our hearts, confirming in us the salvation he imparts to us.

For they are visible signs and seals of something internal and invisible, by means of which God works in us through the power of the Holy Spirit. So they are not empty and hollow signs to fool and deceive us, for their truth is in Jesus Christ, without whom they would be nothing.

Article 34: The Sacrament of Baptism
. . . Having abolished circumcision, which was done with blood, [Jesus Christ] established in its place the sacrament of baptism. By it we are received into God's church and set apart from all other people and alien religions, that we may be dedicated entirely to him, bearing his mark and sign. It also witnesses to us that he will be our God forever, since he is our gracious Father. . . .

In this way [that is, water baptism] he signifies to us that just as water washes away the dirt of the body when it is poured on us and also is seen on the body of the baptized when it is sprinkled on him, so too the blood of Christ does the same thing internally, in the soul, by the Holy Spirit. It washes and cleanses it from its sins and transformed us from being the children of wrath into the children of God. . . .

So ministers, as far as their work is concerned, give us the sacraments and what is visible, but our Lord gives [to those whom he has foreknown] what the sacrament signifies--namely the invisible gifts and graces; washing, purifying, and cleansing our souls of all filth and unrighteousness; renewing our hearts and filling them with all comfort; giving us true assurance of his fatherly goodness; clothing us with the "new man" and stripping off the "old," with all its works.

From the Westminster Confession of Faith:

Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ, and his benefits; and to confirm our interest in him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word. (27:1)

There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other. (27:2)

The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains . . . a promise of benefit to worthy receivers. (27:3)

Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church; but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. . . . (28:1)

Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated. (28:5)

The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time. (28:6)

Baptism V: A visible gospel "signed, sealed, and delivered" to the believer

Because these great blessings secured by Christ and offered through grace alone are signified in baptism—complete cleansing from unrighteousness, the renewal and fellowship of the Holy Spirit, access to God, and empowerment for service—we can say that baptism is a “visible gospel” illustrating the promises of God to all who believe. But this is the key point: just as OT Israel only received the promises and remained in God’s favor by faith that led to obedience, so too do only those undergo baptism receive the promises by faith. Circumcision represented a transformation of the heart that led one to love God and obey him (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Ezek. 36:24-27). Those who received circumcision in their flesh alone were considered “uncircumcised” and rejected by God (Jer. 9:25-26; cf. Rom. 2:25-29), because this circumcision in body also pointed to the need for a circumcised heart. In the same way, we need to see baptism both pointing to our need for the renewal of our hearts and love for God, and also as a promise that he will graciously give us his Holy Spirit who will give us obedient love.

Just as the gospel message can be rejected in its verbal form—and this is certainly the fullest—it, too, can be rejected in its watery form. For those who are baptized but do not believe, baptism is a watery judgment like the flood in Noah’s day (1 Pet. 3:19-21). Likewise the Israelites were "baptized into Moses" at the Red Sea, yet many grumbled in discontent and fell into apostasy and sin and never reached the Promised Land (1 Cor. 10:1-5). This may be at root in the warnings in Hebrews 6 and 10; covenant members who were baptized and participated in the spiritual life of the church nonetheless took a path of disbelief and rejection of Christ, and so stand condemned. Like the foreskin of Israelites with uncircumcised hearts, so too unbelievers die in their own blood.

This ought to show clearly that reception of the covenant sign does not automatically ensure reception of the covenant promises; faith is always required by God. Those who trusted in their national heritage as Jews and circumcised “children of Abraham” but were filled with self-love and produced no fruit were shut out from the kingdom of heaven. So too will all baptized people who trust only in the sign of baptism and not the Person given therein will hear the words, “Away from me, you evildoers. I never knew you!”

But all that is to overlook the chief function of baptism in the NT. Peter’s main point is to emphasize the grace given to us, that “baptism now saves you . . . through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (3:21). Jesus rose from the dead and secured eternal life for all who would trust in him and repent of their sins, seeking their righteousness in his fulfilled obedience alone and their forgiveness in his atoning death alone. In this way do all who “appeal to God for a good conscience” receive eternal life in his gracious favor.

Baptism thus ought to strengthen our faith by assuring us that we are in indeed washed clean from sin and made new in Christ. When the believer looks upon his baptism, he sees the gift of God in bringing him into his people as a “child of God” instead of leaving him out in the world as a “child of wrath” where Christ is not named, and he is thus assured of God’s fellowship. The believer sees that promised love and blessings came first, even when he was still a powerless infant or perhaps a new believer still weak in faith and strong in sin. Salvation is of God’s initiative and work, especially when viewed in terms of rebirth (no one gives birth to himself). And we see in baptism God’s gracious calling, to which we rightly respond with a clean conscience and full assurance of faith, having had our bodies washed with pure water (1 Pet. 3:21; Heb. 10:19-22). In baptism the believer sees and trusts the fact that the death of Christ was not withheld from him, but that he was plunged into this death, justified from sin, and consequently raised with him. The believer is assured that he has been reborn of the Holy Spirit, and that the Spirit makes him God’s son, secures his inheritance, and enables his sanctification. He is assured in baptism that he is set apart to God for priestly service—with priestly access! And, lest we forget that warnings are also blessings, we are guided by God in baptism to a knowledge both of sin we are to avoid and the faithful, rescuing Lord which we are to cling to.

* * *

Of course, I've been continually referring to this assurance given to the believer. I'll ever stand by sola fide; and I trust you'll see the evidence of that here. The believer can know that God has given him all these blessings of purification from sin, forgiveness, access to his throne of grace, and the Counselor's fellowship and empowering for a life of love-and-holiness. How so? Because all of these are truly given to the believer. Everything pledged and portrayed in baptism is made good in the life of the believer--that is to say, in the lives of God's elect. Salvation is only for those whom he has foreknown, those who are beloved before time. (Do you get it now?) Hear these words of the Westminster Confession of Faith:

The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto [i.e., the elect], according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time. (28.6, italics added)

God does demand faith for the reception of his promises. In fact, salvation (the future sense before Christ's judgment seat) is contingent upon a faith that perseveres. But the beauty of God's grace is that everything he requires of us, this he himself provides freely, even repentance and faith. As the old song goes:

Come ye sinners, come and welcome,
God's free bounty glorify:
True belief and true repentance,
Every grace that brings you nigh.

Let us praise him for his great grace and trust in it all the more!

Baptism IV: "Circumcision in the NT"

Following on the heels of last week's post III on circumcision in the OT, I'm going to keep on fleshing out my current beliefs about the Christian rite of water baptism. As you read, please consider that I am only hoping to clarify for myself and others what I believe and understand; I am not trying to develop a comprehensive theology of anything. And I hope to do this all without being like those who, according to St. Paul, "have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers . . . without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions" (1 Tim. 1:7).
__________________

In Part III I hoped to show that circumcision in the Old Testament was a sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant. Receiving circumcision also marked off those belonging to Israel and set them apart to a holy life.

The New Testament speaks much the same way about baptism and indicates that it replaces circumcision under the new covenant, which is for all peoples, Gentile and Jew alike. What did new converts do as soon as they heard the gospel of the God of Abraham and followed in his footsteps of faith? They were baptized (e.g., Acts 2:38-39; 8:12-13). What was the outward event that represented consecration to the Lord and a clean heart? Baptism. When the Ethiopian worshiper of the Lord (who read the Old Testament and considered himself among Israel by traveling to Jerusalem to observe the festivals) came to faith in Christ and realized the fulfillment of the new covenant promises, what happened? He was baptized (Acts 8:36-39)! Like foreigners in the past wishing to join themselves to God’s covenant community, who received circumcision, here and in Acts 10:45-48 Gentiles instead received the sign of baptism. Both circumcision and baptism signify God’s covenants, mark inclusion into his covenant people (the church, the body of Christ; 1 Cor. 12:13), and place persons under God’s authority and ownership (this ownership and authority is likely what is meant by being baptized “in [or into] the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”; Matt. 28:19).

Why baptism with water? Why not circumcision any more? (1) Blood-shedding was now done with, finished. Jesus’ shed blood has sufficed, and no more does blood need to be shed to point us to God’s redemption. Jesus’ death was referred to as a “circumcision” (Col. 2:11; note the link between circumcision and baptism here). (2) Water is highly illustrative of new covenant realities. Water is an agent of cleansing, showing the work of Christ to purify us from our sins. Special bathing made both priests and others ritually clean to approach God. Water was used in consecration to priesthood, and we are all now a “kingdom of priests” (cf. 1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6) who all have access to God to offer works of service. Water is linked to the “outpouring” of the Holy Spirit, who creates life and renewal (Ezek. 36:24-27; Joel 2:28 [Acts 2:]; Isa. 44:3-5; Rom 5:5).

Baptism III: Cutting a covenant, entering Israel

As my friend Ryan wisely advises, “in any attempt to hammer out a theology of ‘whatever’ from the New Testament we have to listen for the Old Testament echoes.” We can’t understand what a band of Jewish men believed to be such wonderful News if we have no idea what they believed or what hope they were looking for—“hope in the promise made by God to our fathers” (Acts 26:6-7). And it must suffice for now to say that the summary of the Bible is the story of God’s covenant promise(s) to rescue a cursed and estranged world from sin and become the God of a redeemed people. Abraham received the promise that his seed would receive an inheritance and become a great nation of blessing for all nations. Being part of Israel, where God’s blessings lived and were promised (see Rom. 9:4-5; Eph. 2:12, 19; 3:6), meant being a “son of Abraham” (e.g., Luke 3:8).

Many biblical covenants between God and men have some sort of visual “sign” and “seal” accompanying them. The Noahic covenant was given the rainbow to show that God has made a promise not to curse the world through rain ever again; it is a sign pointing to a promise, and it is a seal guaranteeing its reality. It’s like God saying, “See that rainbow? I’ve put it in the sky both to remind you of my promise (sign) and to guarantee its fulfillment, because as surely as it is real and shown to you, so too is my promise real for you (a seal).”

In Genesis 17 Abraham is told to circumcise himself and his whole household: “You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you” (17:11). In other words, forgetful and fickle Abraham could look at his circumcised body and see in it God’s promise to bless him and make from his seed a great nation. In like fashion, today we give wedding rings to illustrate (as a sign) a covenant between a husband and wife. When a woman sees the ring on her finger, she is reminded of her husband’s vows that he will love her and be faithful to her at all times. Likewise, that ring is a seal in that when it’s put on the bride, the promises are not only pledged but enacted; the man now has become her husband, and the ring assures her of this.

Because this covenant was not with Abraham alone, but with all his offspring, God demanded that his whole household, including infants (Note this!) and foreigners, be circumcised (17:12). God’s promise was to bring about blessing through Abraham’s children—a blessing that would one day be for “all the families of the earth” (12:3). Even in later years, after the Exodus from slavery in Egypt, when a foreigner joined the people of Israel, he was to receive circumcision (Exod. 12:48). Circumcision was therefore both a sign of God’s covenant and a mark of inclusion into the covenant people of Israel.

But receiving the “sign of circumcision” and entering Israel also meant being consecrated to the Lord and living under his authority. It meant separating oneself from the unclean practices of the nations, trusting in the Lord’s character as the great I AM, and obediently following his Law. Belonging to God to inherit his promises also necessitated obedience; hence the circumcised people of Israel were a “covenant community” separated from the nations and sanctified unto him. They were thus called to trust in God and love him unreservedly. Because of this, cleansing and circumcision were often used synonymously (cf. Deut. 30:6), and “uncircumcised” and “unclean” were used the same way (cf. 1 Sam. 14:6; Isa. 52:1; Ezek. 44:9). Being both circumcised in heart and flesh were required of God (see Rom. 2:25-29); the former alone would not suffice. Rather, the former pointed to the need for the latter and encouraged the Israelite to live in faith.

In Romans 4:11, we also see that circumcision is also said to be a “sign” and a “seal,” guaranteeing to Abraham the reception of the promises given to him. “He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.” Paul’s point is that it isn’t circumcision or any ritual that justifies anyone; bearing the marks alone of inclusion into Israel did nothing (again an ex opera operato presumption). Rather, it was certainly faith that caused Abraham to be reckoned righteous before God (the argument of Romans 4). But he does teach that the reception of circumcision guaranteed to Abraham the righteousness credited to him on account of his faith (4:3; cf. Gen. 15:6).

________________

In the next posts, I will attempt to explain how baptism is the New Covenant replacement of circumcision, and what that means for our lives.

Baptism II: Seeing through my lenses

While not neglecting any of the educated, gracious comments from Ted, I'm going to continue with this course I've plotted:

There is a lot of what I see as misinterpretation concerning baptismal nature and efficacy stemming from what I see as widespread Modernist mistakes—though some of these antedate the Modern/Enlightenment era. Here are some of the underlying tenets that I see necessary in a biblical view of the sacraments.

(1) Baptism is an act of God, not of man. We are misled when we ask what baptism does. Baptism doesn’t do anything. Rather, it is the triune God who acts for us in the “washing of water with the word” (where it is Christ who washes his church, Eph. 5:26). “The question therefore is not what the sacraments do to us, but what God does for us with them” (Michael Horton, God of Promise, p. 153).

(2) Grace is not a substance to be mechanically channeled, but the free favor of a loving, personal God. See my previous post on this. This is where the Roman church has completely strayed and what causes many Protestant churches to balk at talk of any sort of automatic “baptismal regeneration” or anything akin to it. Any notion of the sacraments working ex opere operato ("from the deed having been performed") is completely ruled out.

(3) God works immediately through means. Christian mysticists and evangelical revivalists have tended to favor some sort of “immediate” fellowship with God apart from means. However, the Bible tells us that Christ himself speaks to people and draws near to them through the preached Word (Rom. 10). A verbal message—whether incarnate, written words or an incarnate, spoken voice—are a means that God uses to bring us into fellowship with him. The gospel message is said to call people into fellowship with God and itself create new birth (2 Thess. 2:14; James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23-25). God’s saving work is inseparable from physical means.

We can view the sacraments in the same fashion. As Jesus was the incarnate Word (John 1), so does he say that bread and wine are his body and blood through which his reconciling death is given for men. And in the Great Commission he commands his disciples to make more disciples by two means: baptizing them and teaching them. I could go on about this forever, but it would probably be easier to read this post.

At the same time, the “means of grace” don’t create some sort of detached intermediary between us and God. “There is [only] one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ"; and he is truly present and active in his Word and Sacraments. We can truly know him and find life in him therein; we can have immediate fellowship through means. This is because the forgiveness and life and newness offered us in baptism and the Eucharist are none other than Christ himself; salvation does not exist apart from Christ and union with him.

(4) Baptism is baptism. In all the references to baptism in the NT epistles, the Christian rite of water baptism is in view—not some separate “Spirit baptism.” The baptism of normal Christian experience must be in view, because nowhere else does Paul or other writers make any sort of distinction. When Paul writes to a body of believers about their baptism (e.g., Rom. 6:3-11; Gal. 3:26-27; Col. 2:11-12), he has to be talking about something they already knew, experienced, and had undergone. Besides this, perhaps more obvious is the fact that reception of the Holy Spirit is generally linked with water baptism (e.g., Acts 2:38; 10:47; 1 Cor. 12:13; Tit. 3:5)

(4) The body of Christ is the body of Christ—that is, the church. 1 Corinthians 12:13 says that “we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body.” It is clear from the following verses that that body is the visible church, which is “the body of Christ” (v. 27). We need to understand union with Christ in baptism as entrance into the visible church. It seems that for Paul there was no distinction between entering a renewing fellowship with the Head and entering the fellowship of his Body. This is what probably involves the greatest mystery of all regarding baptism.

(5) Rites actually change who we are. Scripture does affirm the human being as consisting of a "body," a "soul," and a "spirit". However, it's a mistake to separate what happens to the “spiritual me” from the “physical me,” as nothing ever actually happened to just me. This Greek matter-spirit dualism still exists despite being denounced and trashed and decried as heresy by the apostles and the church Fathers (see all of John’s Gospel and epistles). The Hebrew, and thus biblical, worldview knew nothing of this.

A rite involving water, or a ram’s head (ancient Near Eastern covenant acts), or a wedding ring, or signing a contract actually changes who we are. George W. Bush used to be a presidential candidate; now by virtue of his inauguration rite he is the President, with all the accompanying privileges and responsibilities. A man receives a ring upon his finger from his bride and now truly has a new identity: a husband. Sure, his infidelity to his wife may mean he’s a poor, unfaithful, reckless husband who betrays the pledge he made, but he is still a husband nonetheless. In fact, the covenant he made in his wedding vows and symbolized by wedding rings only further serves to condemn him as unfaithful.