Loving God from the Heart: A Perpetual Truth from Moses to Jesus to Bonhoeffer

It's a beautiful thing when everything you're reading intersects, when several different subjects converge to make one point. This is nearly impossible for me during the semester, since I'm reading at least five books for five classes. The last three weeks, however, I have been enjoying a short break. I have been reading the Gospel of Matthew, the book of Deuteronomy and Eric Metaxas' biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The relationship between the the two testaments and the Confessing Church in Nazi Germany is explored in a chapel sermon given at Beeson by my Old Testament professor, Dr. Paul House: http://www.beesondivinity.com/media#!/swx/pp/media_archives/116700/episode/20758

If one starts Deuteronomy and Matthew at the same time and reads at the same pace, one will find striking similarities between the two books in chapters 5 and 6. There are also striking similarities between Israel and Jesus Christ, the true Israel. The Hebrews, after passing through the waters of liberation from slavery in Egypt, is tempted in the wilderness for forty years. Jesus, after being baptized, is tempted in the wilderness from forty days. Moses then brings the law down from the mountain from God to the people. Jesus returns from the wilderness and preaches a sermon on a mountain, aka the Sermon on the Mount. In it, he exegetes what it looks like for the people of God to follow God's law from the heart. External obedience is not enough; one must obey from a pure heart. The two are not that different. Both are in response to God's faithfulness. Both are from a heart of reverence and trust. We fear God and at the same time know that his commandment are for our good. Deuteronomy 6 reads:

When your sons asks you in time to come, 'What is the meaning of the testimonies and the statutes and the rules that the Lord our God has commanded you?' then you shall say to your son, 'We were Pharaoh's slaves in Egypt. And the Lord brought us out of Egypt. And the Lord showed signs and wonders, great and grievous, against Egypt and against Pharaoh and all his household, before our eyes. And he brought us out from there, that he might bring us to our fathers. And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, TO FEAR THE LORD OUR GOD, FOR OUR GOOD ALWAYS, that he might preserve us alive, as we are this day. And it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us.'

The commandments of the Lord do not include only the Ten Commandments, but also the "greatest commandment" to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might" (Deut. 6:5). This certainly informs the Sermon on the Mount, which shows us that pleasing God is not about keeping rules, but is a matter of the heart. That brings me to the third reading on that day from Metaxas' biography of Bonhoeffer. He wrote to his friend and fellow student Elizabeth Zinn:

I plunged into work in a very unchristian way. An...ambition that many noticed in me made my life difficult...Then something happened, something that has changed and transformed my life to the present day. For the first time I discovered the Bible...I had often preached. I had seen a great deal of the Church, and talked and preached about it--but I had not yet become a Christian...I KNOW THAT AT THAT TIME I TURNED THE DOCTRINE OF JESUS CHRIST INTO SOMETHING OF PERSONAL ADVANTAGE FOR MYSELF...I PRAY TO GOD THAT THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN. Also I had never prayed, or prayed only very little. For all my loneliness, I was quite pleased with myself. Then the Bible, and in particular THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT FREED ME FROM THAT. Since then everything has changed.

It took a lot of consideration and struggling over the first words in CAPS to come to terms with what Bonhoeffer meant. Is the gospel of Christ not of personal advantage to all Christians? But in context, he is talking about ambition. I confess that I have at times struggled with the same thing. I have made my knowledge of the gospel my ticket to impressing people, to people thinking highly of me. This is what the Pharisees and other religious leaders of Jesus' day sought to do as well, and they misunderstood what the gospel was all about because their hearts were far from God. They didn't love him with all their mind and soul and might, but they loved him externally in order to get something from him...fame, reputation, status, etc. Bonhoeffer is writing here that he had the same approach until he was freed from it by his reading of the Sermon on the Mount.

One last thing...The Sermon on the Mount has at least two purposes: to expose our unrighteousness so that we might cling to the righteousness of Christ and to challenge us to live a life of Christlike obedience from the heart. When Jesus tells his listeners that their righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees (Matt 5:20), he is making a statement that merely external righteousness (law-keeping without the heart) is no righteousness at all. When he says that "you must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt 5:48), he is leading people to himself, for only Christ can make us perfect by his blood. At the same time, his blood motivates us to strive for perfection, not outwardly by rule-keeping, but a continual renewing of the heart leading to a continual renewing expression of love for God in action. There are Christian teachings/teachers that emphasize one and forget the other. The Biblical message is that we should rest in the grace of God while always working to further his kingdom. While we bear our crosses, we may rest in the fact that he bore the cross for us.

Would you be content if...

Jonathan Edwards illustrates contentment with this illustrative question: Would you be content to shine the shoes of the servant who shines the King's shoes IF you knew that the King knows your name and has promised you all that is his?

As is true with so many other good things, the main enemy of contentment is pride. We become malcontent when we start thinking we deserve certain things. This is the premise on which the prosperity gospel is based, which is scary, but that is a subject for another day. The great men in the Bible had at least this one thing in common: out of a sense of their own unworthiness, they were content to be servants/slaves of God. My Old Testament Theology professor Paul House has pointed out several times that the highest title bestowed on any individual in the Old Testament is "servant (Hebrew: ebed) of God." This title is usually reserved for only Moses and David. In the New Testament, John the Baptist shares this humble disposition (see John 1:19-27) and Jesus said that no one born of woman is greater than John (Luke 7:28). Paul often refers to himself as a slave (Greek: doulos) of Christ. Of course, it was Paul that wrote the words of Colossians 1, which you will see at the top of the page. When one has a view of Christ like that, they can no longer see themselves as anything all that terrific.

Going back to Edwards' example, all these men believed the promises of God that found their "Yes" in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20). They were convinced that the King not only knew their names, but every hair on their heads (Matthew 10:30). They know that all the blessings that Christ won by the cross are ours through him (Luke 15:31; 2 Corinthians 5:21). As Calvin wrote, "Since Christ has been so imparted to you with all his benefits that all things are made yours, that you are made a member of him, indeed one with him, his righteousness overwhelms your sins; his salvation wipes our your condemnation; with his worthiness he intercedes that your unworthiness may not come before God's sight." (This is the theological concept of union with Christ, of which I will hopefully post about soon.)

In Christ, we find contentment to face life's challenges boldly. We know we don't deserve it, but it is a free gift of God. As the hymnist writes, "this is all my hope and peace: Nothing but the blood of Jesus." Thanks be to God!

PS - The "Why I Am a Presbyterian" series will continue, I promise. We're currently reading and discussing Calvin in my Reformation class, and I want to wait until after we've covered baptism and the Lord's Supper before writing on those matters here. I will probably write on the issue of church government last, for I am now gaining more insight into what this looks like (I have been interning there 4-5 hours a week).

The Approachable Jesus

In keeping with the heritages of the Reformed and Evangelical traditions, I am convicted to share a particular idea: the approachable Christ. So often today, we take this for granted. The Reformers certainly would not have. In my Reformation history & doctrine class, we discussed the view of Christ in Luther's time as an angry judge. This is part of the reason the Church of Luther's time found it appropriate to pray to Mary or to certain Saints. These were seen to serve as mediators between sinful man and Jesus Christ. Luther himself was terrified of Christ. Believing he would only be saved from God's wrath in hell or extended purgatory, he was meticulous about confessing sins, afraid he might forget some small sin. His confessions became so extensive that his abbot told him to come back when he had a real sin to confess. Luther wrote of his perception of God during this time:

I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God and said, "As if, indeed, it is not enough, that miserable sinners, eternally lost through original sin, are crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the Decalogue, without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the gospel threatening us with his righteousness and wrath!" Thus I raged with a fierce and troubled conscience.

What he discovered for himself upon studying Romans 1:17, and we must never forget, is that God's righteousness is not a standard we are required to live up to on our own, but something he gives to his people by his substitutionary atonement for sins. In other words, if we are required to meet God's righteous standard on our own, this could never be described as gospel (which means "good news"). In fact, this would be terrible news. The good news is that, "For our sake (God) made him to be sin who knew no sin so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21). Luther re-discovered that Jesus was not an angry judge to his people (though he will be to those who reject him), but he himself was the mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5). Far from adding "pain to pain" (above quotation), he came that we might receive "grace upon grace" (John 1:16).

The cross, then, is the basis for a personal relationship with God, for Hebrews 4:16 informs us that this mediator has achieved for us the right to go boldly before the throne of grace. If your "personal relationship" with God is through some other means than the cross, then it will not save you. Those who are not trusting Christ have great reason to be terrified of God as Martin Luther was. But hear the good news:

God is not angry with those who trust him and the forgiveness that has come by the cross. When God sees his people, he does not see their sinful failures, but the perfect righteousness of his only Son. God is not annoyed with the prayers of his people, but sees them as his children, co-heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:17). And "he who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all, how will he not with him graciously give us all things?" (Rom. 8:32). The logic there is that if God has proved his redeeming love by the blood of the cross, why would we not trust him to do what is best for us? Why would we be afraid to approach a God like this? He delights to be in fellowship with his children. He has made himself approachable at great cost to himself. The assurance of pardon from Cahaba Park Church's liturgy on Sunday best sums it up:

Hear the good news!

Who is in a position to condemn?

Only Christ. Christ died for us, Christ rose for us,

Christ reigns in power for us, Christ prays for us.

Anyone who is in Christ is a new creation. The old life has gone; a new life has begun.

Know that you are forgiven, and be at peace.

ALL: Thanks be to God.

Historic Evangelical Christianity

Again, I interrupt my "Why I Am a Presbyterian" series, this time to explain why I am an Evangelical Christian and what that means historically. I suppose the impulse leading to this post is to be clear that there are certainly some things more important the Presbyterian doctrines. I am very much a believer in sharing the gospel with others and having a personal relationship with God through Christ, both emphases of Evangelicals historically.

Christian. I am a Christian by God's grace alone. Historically, the term "Christians" were given to Christ-followers in Antioch (present-day Syria) in Acts . That is fairly well-known. But Evangelical? Linguistically, the term comes from the Latin word evangel, which is derived from the Greek euangelion. Both mean "good news" or "gospel". So, to be an evangelical means to be one who is committed learning about and sharing with others the gospel.

Historically, the Evangelical movement came out of the emphases of evangelism and having a personal relationship with God. This movement was led by John and Charles Wesley and George Whitefield, among others. A close synonym to "evangelical" during this time was enthusiasm. This is what John Newton, the great Anglican preacher and hymn-writer of the late 18th century, was often accused of. It was a term of condescension from those who practiced a more dry, ritualistic, cultural and comfortable Christianity. Newton, a former slave ship captain, understood himself a wretch, saved by grace from beginning to end; he could not help but exhibit enthusiasm for Christ. But he was, nevertheless, accused of enthusiasm, which was frowned upon. This is the reason William Wilberforce sought his counsel so secretly and the counsel he received (for Wilberforce to remain in Parliament and fight the slave trade instead of become a minister) quickened the abolition of the slave trade in Great Britain.

So many of my heroes have displayed this enthusiasm and written clearly against those who denounced enthusiasm in their time. This is basically the subject of 18th-century New England Theologian and Pastor Jonathan Edwards' Religious Affections. William Wilberforce often concerned himself in his writings with the "bulk" of society who cared little for learning or living out the gospel in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Dietrich Bonhoeffer (though some would debate him as an evangelical, he was strongly influenced by German Pietism, a parallel movement to English Evangelicalism) was constantly challenging Christians in the Third Reich to follow Christ even to death (which he did) in The Cost of Discipleship. Today, men like John Piper and David Platt still challenge nominal Christians out of their complacency by the gospel.

It is on the shoulders of these great men that I stand, firmly believing that the good news of the gospel should be shared with others and that Christ has secured for his people a personal relationship with God.

Part III: The Reformed Tradition

The Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century (Martin Luther, Philip Melancthon, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, Theodore Beza, John Knox and others) believed very differently on several issues. However, they all agreed that man was saved by sola gratia (grace alone) through sola fide (faith alone) in sola Christus (Christ alone), and that the Holy Scriptures are the primary source of authoritative truth. This means that man can do nothing to save himself, but it has all been done for him in the person and work of Jesus Christ should he trust in this. Man is required to repent and believe, but the Reformers, on the whole, taught that even these acts were gifts given by God (Acts 11:18, 2 Tim. 2:25, Eph 2:8-9). They did not develop any of these ideas for the first time, but attempted to draw their ideas from Scripture and from some of the early Church Fathers. I am a child of the Reformation because I believe these things.

What is referred to as "Reformed Theology" today is often much more specific than this. It seems that in the centuries following the Reformation that the terms "Reformed" and "Calvinist" became increasingly synonymous. John Calvin agreed with all of the above, but had additional emphases. Today, his theology is often summarized with TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement/particular redemption, irresistable grace, perseverance of the Saints). John Piper facetiously calls himself a "seven-point Calvinist." While I love Piper, I'm not exactly sure what the seven points would be. If you asked Calvin what the five or seven major points of his theology were, I think he would respond much differently than with TULIP. So I don't feel the need to expand or argue the points of TULIP here and now. The Sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper were very important to Calvin, and Piper would have a much different view on these things. Both baptism and the Lord's Supper are on the docket for blog posts (see the intro for "Why I Am a Presbyterian").

Calvin emphasized the priesthood of the believer (as did Luther), the idea that Christians may go boldly before the throne of grace in prayer without an intercessor (such as priest), for the great High Priest has gone behind the curtain and now lives to make intercession for his people (Heb. 4:14-16, 6:19). Because of his belief in sola Scriptura, Calvin also was influential in the recovery of the main Biblical languages, Greek and Hebrew.

In the middle of the sixteenth century, Calvin's theology spread from Switzerland through Europe and particularly to Scotland by means of John Knox, who had fled to Geneva because of threats on his life in Scotland. There, Knox was greatly influenced by Calvin. Knox is considered the founder of the Presbyterian Church. This is why, as a Presbyterian, I claim Calvin and Knox.

The emphases and theology of the Reformed tradition remain very present in my church, for the great deal of the liturgy come from Calvin's Switzerland, Knox's Scotland or the Westminster Confession (indisputably influenced by Calvin). The vast majority of the hymns we sing (accompanied by more modern music) come out of Reformed circles in England and Scotland in the 18th and 19th centuries.

The Reformers emphasized the three-fold office of Christ as Prophet, Priest and King. Knox seemed to have focused more than most of the other Reformers on the role of Christ as Priest, the Great High Priest who actively intercedes for his people by the merits of his finished work. This is a concept that has been passed down from Knox through Scottish Presbyterian theologians to my theological man-crush James Torrance. It is in his book, Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace, that I encountered the idea most richly within the last six months.

Now, someone out there is reading this and asking, "Why do I need to follow a specific tradition or interpretation? Can't I just read the Bible and decide for myself by the guidance of the Holy Spirit?" To ask that shows that you are a child of the Reformation. It was the Reformers who first taught that Scripture could be understood by the common man and it was the Reformers who sought to translate the Bible into the vernacular (the common languages). The answer to the second question is ultimately "yes, you can." But what is specifically 20th or 21st-century about the question is the assumption that your view is equally as valid as Biblical scholars who spend invest their entire lives studying and praying over what the Bible teaches. Wouldn't it be helpful to at least consider what they have to say?

Now, you may object that Biblical scholars in other eras and in other lands have also studied and prayed at length and come to different conclusions. This is true. But the reason I value the ideas coming out of the Reformation so much is because I believe that their presuppositions and emphases were where they were supposed to be. Referencing back to my post, "Helpful Presuppositions to Understanding the Bible", I believe that the Reformers started with (as I said earlier) the person and work of Christ and that the Bible is the authoritative, infallible word of God, a book primarily about God, not man or what man can do to earn God's love. These were the cornerstones of the theology of the Reformers. As they built, these were what they fell back on. Everyone either bases their theology on a specific historical time period or movement (most American Christians today base theirs on the widespread humanism of 21st Century America). In interpretation, one cannot escape presuppositions, so I choose to accept the presuppositions of the Reformation, that the Bible is authoritative and is primarily about Christ's work for us.

Part II: Covenant Theology

Covenant theology, very basically, is the idea that God's historical plan of redemption is consistent and coherent. Instead of seeing the Bible as a series of random, unrelated stories, covenant theology emphasizes the central Biblical narrative which centers on the cross. Central to covenant theology is the view of God as a covenant God (seems pretty obvious). This means that God makes promises to his people and with the acceptance of these promises come specific responsibilities. A portion of a post I wrote back in September, "A Brief History of God and Man," summarizes covenant theology well:

God’s covenant with man, his commitment to redeem and recreate a kingdom for himself, is the most dominant, over-arching theme of the Bible. This commitment is perhaps best summarized by the statement repeated throughout Scripture: “I will be their God, and they will be my people” (Ex 29, Jer 31, 2 Cor 6, Heb 8, Rev 21). There is but one covenant which has a number of different expressions in the course of redemptive history. Each expression was initiated by God, the superior party, but in all instances, something was required of man: obedience. This covenant was perfected in the person and work of the God-man Jesus Christ, who lived a perfectly obedient life and bore the wrath of God on the cross so that God might be reconciled to his people forever. All other expressions of the covenant foreshadow this new covenant.

This is why PCA churches have a strong commitment to the centrality of the gospel, for they believe the entire Biblical narrative centers on (either by foreshadowing or explaining the effects of) Jesus' death and resurrection for us. Understanding how the Bible fits together consistently also vastly reduces major misinterpretations that might lead to false emphases and regulations. There are some doctrines man cannot know with absolutely certainty, and others in which we should be charitable. But I am glad to be in a church that, for the most part, knows what it believes and relates it through and to the cross.

The Counter-Conditional Love of God

I interrupt the "Why I Am A Presbyterian" series to share a few thoughts inspired by a Tim Keller sermon. The interruption is fitting with the series, for Keller could be considered reason #7 of why I am a Presbyterian.

This morning, I listened to his sermon, "Does God Control Everything?" The whole sermon was brilliant, but there were a few ideas I felt a strong urge to share. When such ideas cannot fit into the size limitations of a facebook status, that's what this blog is for. Preaching on Romans 8:28 and following, Keller explains the superiority of God's infinite wisdom and decision-making over our own. Based on this, he states:

Very seldom do we even get a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a glimpse of how God is working all things together for the good of those who love God. But he is. And, therefore, you can be assured that no matter what bad stuff's happening inside you and no matter what bad stuff's happening outside you, he has not abandoned you. He loves you.

If you've heard Keller before, it is no surprise where he will take the finale of the sermon: to the cross. This is the basis for God's love for us. Many people walk around out there believing God loves them unconditionally, but this is not enough. One must rely on the basis of God's love for them, they must "personalize" God's love in Jesus. Keller says:

Don't think of love abstractly; Jesus is the love of God. In the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross, do you know what was happening? All the greatest forces in the universe were arrayed against Jesus, and he could have stopped them. He could have stopped the rejection, he could have stopped the torture, he could have stopped the death, he could have stopped the rejection of his Father, he could have stopped eternal justice coming down on his head. All he had to do was give up on us. That's all he had to do, just walk away...Jesus was up on the cross bleeding and dying, looking down at the people betraying him and forsaking him and denying him, and in the greatest act of love in the history of the universe, he stayed. Bomb after bomb after bomb was coming down on Jesus Christ trying to get him to drop us, to separate him from us, and even hell itself couldn't do it. He stayed. Nothing could separate him from us, his love from us. He held onto us; he was our Savior. He died for us! Now that's how you know nothing can separate us from the love of God. It's not an abstraction. It's not just saying, 'Oh, I just believe that God loves me unconditionally.' No, he loves you counter-conditionally; he loves you against conditions, because of Jesus.

John Newton, the author of the hymn 'Amazing Grace' and my favorite hymn writer said it like this:

Though afflicted, tempest tossed,

Comfortless awhile thou art,

Do not think thou can be lost,

Thou art graven on my heart;

All thy wastes I will repair;

Thou shalt be rebuilt anew;

And in thee it shall appear

What the God of love can do.

Part I: The Value of Liturgy

The liturgical impulse is closely related to the impulse of worshipping God in song. Both are forms of verbally expressing one's worship to God. Old men who used to "Amen" in the Baptist services I grew up in certainly have that liturgical impulse; liturgy gives them an opportunity to express themselves in a more intelligent way. Liturgical services encourage more participation from the congregation, thus allowing the congregation to feel less isolated and more unified. As well as giving one a chance to verbalize worship, it teaches deep, Biblical truths to the congregation (which are very unknown to most today).

My only experience of liturgy in my childhood was at Catholic wedding services of uncles and cousins, at which I was completely lost. When I moved to Nashville, I visited a few churches that incorporated liturgy, but ended up at a PCA Church that did very little. It was when I arrived in Birmingham that I started to see the value of liturgy. I started attending Red Mountain Church, which is very liturgical without being formal, and I instantly loved it. I visited some other churches, including Christ the King Anglican, of which my Evangelism professor Dr. Lyle Dorsett is minister. I loved the way he led the liturgy, so full of passion and and moved by the Holy Spirit. It was liturgy with heart, if you will, as opposed the dry, monotonous, repetitive liturgy in most high churches. Cahaba Park Church, now my Church, is a good mix of Red Mountain and Christ the King.

I foresee myself one day being at a church that incorporates a good deal of passionate liturgy in their worship, without being formal. I believe this would be especially relevant in areas that have a remnant of traditional, possibly dry liturgical services, places like Ireland and Scotland. But there are many people in the U.S. that prefer this style of worship and can't find it. I think one of the many errors of the seeker-sensitive movement is to assume that all seekers want services that are completely unstructured. This does allow them to blend in, as if that's a good thing, but not every seeker wants that.

I am so in love with liturgy that I compiled my own liturgy for my family's worship on Thanksgiving. Though I think there was some skepticism coming in, I can confidently say that it was a valuable time of worship for all who were there.

Below is part of the liturgy from this morning's service at Cahaba Park.

(From the Belgic Confession)

Leader: What do you believe about the work of God?

People: We believe that God - who is perfectly merciful and also very just - sent His Son to assume the nature in which the disobedience had been committed, in order to bear in it the punishment of sin by His most bitter passion and death.

Leader: And what do you believe about the work of Jesus Christ?

People: We believe that Jesus Christ presented Himself in our name before His Father, to appease His wrath with full satisfaction by offering Himself on the tree of the cross and pouring out His precious blood for the cleansing of our sins, as the prophets had predicted.

Leader: Why did he endure all this?

People: He endured all this for the forgiveness of our sins.

Leader: What comfort does this give you?

We find all comforts in His wounds and have no need to seek or invent any other means to reconcile ourselves with God than this one and only sacrifice, once made, which renders believers perfect forever.

Why I Am A Presbyterian: Introduction

I don't really make New Year's Resolutions because I hate making promises I won't/can't keep. This endeavor to write a six-part blog post series on this topic is about as close as I come. I may not complete it. It may be unrealistic for me, like Sufjan Stevens' Fifty States Project. But I will try.

The impulse for writing about this comes from my new internship at Cahaba Park Church, a member of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). I have wrestled pretty thoroughly with the decision to pursue ordination in a particular denomination. My first semester at inter-denomination Beeson Divinity School has more firmly anchored me to the Presbyterian tradition. Though a few hesitancies are still present (and maybe I will endeavor to write of them after I finish the reasons why), they have been overcome by the things I love about the Presbyterian Church. Of these things, I write from a personal perspective. I am not saying everyone should be Presbyterian; neither am I elevating denominational differences above Christian unity. I am certainly not against other denominations; I am all for inter-denominational unity. I am simply explaining my decision to be a part of the Presbyterian Church in America. Some of my doctrinal reasons are matters of interpretation and the worship practices are mostly preferential. So I write partially for myself and partially for the reader to consider a different view. I think it is important to know what one's church believes and why.

The six-part series, not in order of significance necessarily, I hope to complete is as follows:

I. The Value of Liturgy

II. Covenant Theology

III. Reformed Tradition

IV. Church Government

V. The Lord's Supper

VI. Paedobaptism

Stay tuned...

Laborers in the Vineyard: Exposition of Matthew 20:1-16

¹"For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. ²After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. ³And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, ⁴and to them he said, 'You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you.' ⁵So they went. Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same.⁶And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, 'Why do you stand here idle all day?' ⁷They said to him, 'Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, 'You go into the vineyard too.' ⁸And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.' ⁹And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius.¹⁰Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. ¹¹And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, ¹²saying, 'These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.' ¹³But he replied to one of them, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? ¹⁴Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. ¹⁵Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?' ¹⁶So the last will be first, and the first last."

Though several primary meanings of this parable are possible, we must consider its context of being surrounded by very similar language: many who are “first will be last, and the last first” (Mt. 19:30 and 20:16). [1] The parable is set in a wider circle of context (19:13-20:28) explaining that the kingdom of heaven is drastically different than any earthly kingdom, for it is founded upon God’s humbling grace. “God’s grace makes some who are last first,” and it is man’s responsibility to accept and properly use the free gifts of God with humility.[2]

It follows the structure of two thirds of Jesus’ parables by having a “master figure” and “two contrasting subordinates” (those who worked all day and those who were hired at the end of the day).[3] As Davies and Allison observe, it closely parallels the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Lk. 15:11-32); in both parables, the master figure shows “unexpected generosity” towards an undeserving subordinate, causing the other subordinate to become resentful and complain of injustice.[4] In both, the master figure responds by benevolently explaining his “extravagant generosity.”[5] In both stories, the underlying imploration is that it is far better to accept God’s mercy than to oppose it in lieu of standing on one’s own merit.[6]

In response to the charge of God’s unfairness, the master in the parable responds, “Friend, I am doing you no wrong” (v. 13). The following rhetorical questions (vv. 13b-15) show the master’s gifts are given “not because they are earned, but because he is gracious.”[7] In the kingdom of heaven, no one receives less than what they deserve; some receive far greater. Therefore, neither may charge God with injustice. Further, in God’s kingdom, he defines what is just and unjust.

The immediate application for Christians today is that we should not expect to receive certain blessings because of our own merit. This kind of thinking is rooted in a comparison of ourselves to others, and the root of that impulse is pride. This passage teaches us to be humble, having been given more than we deserve through the blood of Jesus. It is only by Christ’s merit that we are will receive our eternal reward.

---

[1] For nine possible meanings, see W.D. Davies and D.C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Gospel According to St. Matthew (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997) 67-68.

[2] D.A. Carson, “Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Regency, 1984) 428.

[3] W.W. Klein, C.L. Blomberg & R.L. Hubbard, Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Rev. Ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004) 413.

[4] Davies and Allison, Gospel According to St. Matthew, 69.

[5] Ibid.

[6] C.S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) 483.

[7] Carson, “Matthew,” 428.

Helpful Presuppositions to Understand the Bible

Everyone approaches the Bible with presuppositions. It doesn't matter who you are; you can't escape it. Your culture and life experiences will shape the way you view Scripture. This explains how so many interpretations can come from the text. It explains different theological viewpoints, heresies and cults. Man is depraved, and throughout history, has interpreted texts to his own liking and benefit. In fact, only by the illumination of the Holy Spirit can man rightly interpret God's Word. The goal should not be to eliminate presuppositions, but to read the Bible with the correct ones.

1. The Bible is the authoritative, infallible Word of God. The Bible calls its readers to have faith in this (2 Tim. 3:16-7, 2 Pet. 1:17-21). It is God's full and final revelation, all that man needs to know about God and nothing that we don't.

2. The Bible centers on the life and work of Jesus Christ. The gospel is the starting point for understanding the Bible. Christ has died! Christ has risen! Christ will come again! Jesus has fulfilled/will fulfill all the promises of the Old Testament by these three acts. (Lk. 24:13-47, 2 Cor. 1:20)

3. The Bible is a book about God, not man. It is the story of the Triune God's redemptive work in history for his own glory and our good. It is not primarily an instruction book or a road map for us, but tells us what God has done for those who believe. We are called to respond to what God has done, but that is not the primary focus. (Col. 1:15-20, Isaiah 6:1-7)

The most damaging presupposition of our time is humanism. In a culture that tells us that it's all about us, it's hard for us to imagine that the Bible is not all about us. This affects our understanding of the Bible in varying degrees, from the prosperity gospel to more subtle interpretations. But it is not specific to our time or culture. Adam's original sin in the garden was derivative of thinking he could be like God. From what the Bible reveals about the rebellion of the devil, it is from the same spirit of pride. That prideful self-centeredness which motivates us to glorify ourselves instead of God has always been present through the sinful nature of man. The beauty of the gospel, however, is that Christ became man and defeated our sinful nature by living a perfect life, dying on a cross for our rebellion and rising to intercede for his enemies made friends by his blood. Thanks be to God!

Exposition of Deuteronomy 21:18-21

For the context of this post, see first paragraph of previous post. On the surface, this is a very problematic passage. Did God really mean for his people to kill their own sons? How does this apply to us today under the New Covenant?

18"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, ¹⁹then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, ²⁰and they shall say to the elders of his city, 'This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.' ²¹Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 explicates the negative human consequences of the Fifth commandment (Deut. 5:16). As Craigie notes, those guilty of not honoring their fathers and mothers are under the wrath of God.[1] This passage pertains to a son exhibiting apathetic and unrepentant dishonor towards his parents. It is contained within a section of Deuteronomy in which the original given law is being expounded upon for the sake of clarity and application.

In the broader context of the Torah, this passage is vital to understanding the kind of covenant people that Yahweh wants to possess the Promised Land, the kind of community with which he wants to have relationship. He will not tolerate unrepentant disobedience even from those who are born into the people Yahweh declares to be his own through his redemptive work (Deut. 7:6-8). To disobey paternal authority had implications beyond the family. As McConville observes, “the family unit is an essential part of the larger political and religious fabric. Respect for parents was therefore a basic element in a right attitude to the whole society and indeed to God.”[2]

God has revealed himself as a loving Father, one who knows what it is to love and discipline his children. Hosea 11:1, 8-9 is a promise Yahweh makes to Israel, his children, that because of his love for his people he will not destroy it. It is difficult to imagine that any parent could hand over his son, though rebellious, to be executed, even for the good of the community. As McConville notes, “there is no evidence of such measures actually having been taken in the OT.”[3] However, the fulfillment of this passage and Hosea 11 is the death of the obedient son, Jesus, as a representative of a disobedient people. God the Father did the unimaginable, giving up his own son, who was “numbered with the transgressors” (counted rebellious) that the rebellious son who deserved death (God’s chosen) might be spared and renewed into right relationship with the Father.[4]

Because Jesus died for these sins, Christians should not punish them by death in state or communal practice. Also, this is incompatible with Jesus’ ethics. Christ’s fulfillment of this passage doesn’t diminish that God takes this sin very seriously. On the contrary, it shows that it was worth dying for. Therefore, Christians today should take the principle of respect for one’s parents, grandparents and elders in general very seriously.

---

[1] P.C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976) 284.

[2] J.G. McConville, “Deuteronomy,” in Apollos Old Testament Commentary, eds. D.W. Baker and G.J. Wenham (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002) 331.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Jn. 3:16; Is. 53:12